Plant Ecology

, Volume 193, Issue 2, pp 185–194 | Cite as

Exposure to solar UV-B radiation accelerates mass and lignin loss of Larrea tridentata litter in the Sonoran Desert

  • Thomas A. Day
  • Elisa T. Zhang
  • Christopher T. Ruhland
Original Paper

Abstract

We assessed whether exposure to solar ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) affects the mass loss of Larrea tridentata (creosotebush) litter in the Sonoran Desert of central Arizona. We placed three types of litter (leaves, twigs, or a natural mixture of leaves, twigs, and seeds) in bags constructed of UV-B-transmitting or UV-B-absorbing filter material that allowed either 85% (near-ambient UV-B treatment) or 15% (reduced UV-B treatment) of the biologically effective solar UV-B to reach litter inside the bags. Bags were placed outdoors for 4–5 months during the winter at two sites: a balcony or on the soil surface of the desert. Mass loss of leaf litter was greater under near-ambient UV-B than reduced UV-B at both sites: 21 (near-ambient) vs. 18% (reduced) on the balcony, and 18 vs. 14% at the desert site. Mass loss of twig litter was also greater under near-ambient UV-B at the desert site. Mass loss of the natural mixture of litter was also greater when exposed to near-ambient UV-B on the balcony, and tended to be greater at the desert site. We estimate that about 14–22% of the total mass loss of leaf litter during our 4–5 month experiments was attributable to solar UV-B exposure. Leaf litter exposed to near-ambient UV-B had lower concentrations of lignin, and fats and lipids, and slightly higher concentrations of holocellulose. The greater mass loss of litter under near-ambient UV-B appeared mainly attributable to loss of lignin, although losses of fats and lipids were also appreciable. A primary reason for greater mass loss of litter under solar UV-B appeared to be photodegradation, particularly of lignin.

Keywords

Creosotebush Decomposition Desert Photodegradation UV 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Christopher Buyarski for assistance in sample preparation and chemical analyses, and Brock McMillan for assistance and use of the flash combustion analyzer. Gregory Johnson and Robert Coleman provided advice on approaches. We also thank the staff of the Desert Botanical Gardens, Phoenix, AZ for permission to conduct our experiment in their Larrea conservation area. Some of the research was conducted while Elisa T. Zhang was a high school intern in the laboratory of the senior author. Partial support for this research was provided by NSF OPP-0230579.

References

  1. Allen SE (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological materials, 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell MM (1971) Solar ultraviolet irradiation and the growth and development of higher plants. In: Giese AC (ed) Photophysiology, vol. 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 131–177Google Scholar
  3. Cervany RS (1996) Climate of Phoenix, Arizona: an abridged on-line version of NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS WR-177. Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. http://geography.asu.edu/cerveny/phxwx.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. Convey P, Pugh PJA, Jackson C, Murray AW, Ruhland CT, Xiong FS, Day TA (2002) Response of Antarctic terrestrial microarthropods to long-term climate manipulations. Ecology 83:3130–3140Google Scholar
  5. Day TA, Gober P, Xiong FS, Wentz EA (2002) Temporal patterns of near-surface CO2 concentrations over contrasting vegetation types in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Agric Forest Meteorol 110:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gehrke C, Johanson U, Callaghan TV, Chadwick D, Robinson CH (1995) The impact of enhanced ultraviolet-B radiation on litter quality and decomposition processes in Vaccinium leaves from the Subarctic. Oikos 72:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heitner C, Scaiano JC (1993) Photochemistry of lignocellulosic materials. ACS symposium series 531. American Chemical Society, Washigton, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Hughes KA, Lawley B, Newsham KK (2003) Solar UV-B radiation inhibits the growth of Antarctic terrestrial fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1488–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyder PW, Fredrickson EL, Estell RE, Lucero ME, Remmenga MD (2005) Loss of phenolic compounds from leaf litter of creosotebush (Larrea tridentata (Sess. & Moc. Ex DC.) Cov.) and tarbush (Flourensia cernua DC.). J Arid Environ 61:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson D (2003) Response of terrestrial microorganisms to ultraviolet-B radiation in ecosystems. Res Microbiol 154:315–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krizek DT, Mericki RM (2004) Evidence for phytotoxic effects of cellulose acetate in UV exclusion studies. Environm Exp Bot 51:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacKay WP, Silva S, Lightfoot DC, Pagani MI, Whitford WG (1986) Effect of increased soil moisture and reduced soil temperature on a desert soil arthropod community. Am Midland Nat 116:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mellilo JM, Aber JB, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moody SA, Newsham KK, Ayres PG, Paul ND (1999) Variation in the responses of litter and phylloplane fungi to UV-B radiation (290–315 nm). Mycol Res 103:1469–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moody SA, Paul NG, Björn LO, Callaghan TV, Lee JA, Manetas Y, Rozema J, Gwynn-Jones D, Johanson U, Kyparissis A, Oudejans AMC (2001) The direct effects of UV-B radiation on Betula pubescens litter decomposing at four European field sites. Plant Ecol 154:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moorhead DL, Reynolds JF (1989) Mechanisms of surface litter mass-loss in the northern Chihuahuan Desert—a reinterpretation. J Arid Environ 16:157–163Google Scholar
  17. Moorhead DL, Callaghan T (1994) Effects of increasing ultraviolet-B radiation on decomposition and soil organic matter dynamics: a synthesis and modeling study. Biol Fertil Soils 18:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newsham KK, McLeod AR, Roberts JD, Greenslade PD, Emmett BA (1997) Direct effects of elevated UV-B radiation on the decomposition of Quercus robur leaf litter. Oikos 79:592–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pancotto VA, Sala OE, Cabello M, Lopez NI, Robson M, Ballaré CL, Caldwell MM, Scopel AL (2003) Solar UV-B decreases decomposition in herbaceous plant litter in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina: potential role of an altered decomposer community. Global Change Biol 9:1465–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pancotto VA, Sala OE, Robson M, Caldwell MM, Scopel AL (2005) Direct and indirect effects of solar UV-B radiation on long-term decomposition. Global Change Biol 11:1982–1989Google Scholar
  21. Pauli F (1964) Soil fertility problem in arid and semi-arid lands. Nature 204:1286–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rozema J, Tosserams M, Nelissen HJM, van Heerwaarden L, Broekman RA, Flierman N (1997) Stratospheric ozone reduction and ecosystem processes: enhanced UV-B radiation affects chemical quality and decomposition of leaves of the dune grassland species Calamagrostis epigeios. Plant Ecol 128:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos PF, Elkins NZ, Steinberger Y, Whitford WG (1984) A comparison of surface and buried Larrea tridentata leaf litter decomposition in North American hot deserts. Ecology 65:278–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaefer D, Steinberger Y, Whitford WG (1985) The failure of nitrogen and lignin control of decomposition in a North American desert. Oecologia 65:382–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verhoef HA, Verspagen MH, Zoomer JHR (2000) Direct and indirect effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on soil biota, decomposition and nutrient fluxes in dune grassland soil systems. Biol Fertil Soils 31:366–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weatherly HE, Zitzer SF, Coleman JS, Arnone JA III (2003) In situ litter decomposition and litter quality in a Mohave Desert ecosystem: effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and interannual climate variability. Global Change Biol 9:1223–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whitford WG (2002) Ecology of desert systems. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Whitford WG, Meentemeyer V, Seastedt TR, Cromack K, Corssley DA, Santos PF, Todd RL, Waide JB (1981) Exceptions to the AET model: deserts and clear-cut forests. Ecology 62:275–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Day
    • 1
  • Elisa T. Zhang
    • 1
  • Christopher T. Ruhland
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.TS-242 Trafton Sciences Center, Department of Biological SciencesMinnesota State UniversityMankatoUSA

Personalised recommendations