Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1071–1081 | Cite as

Contrasting decomposition rates and nutrient release patterns in mixed vs singular species litter in agroforestry systems

  • Yikun Wang
  • Scott X. Chang
  • Shengzuo Fang
  • Ye Tian
SOILS, SEC 2 • GLOBAL CHANGE, ENVIRON RISK ASSESS, SUSTAINABLE LAND USE • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

The rate of litter decomposition can be affected by a suite of factors, including the diversity of litter type in the environment. The effect of mixing different litter types on decomposition rates is increasingly being studied but is still poorly understood. We investigated the effect of mixing either litter material with high nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations or those with low N and P concentrations on litter decomposition and nutrient release in the context of agroforestry systems.

Materials and methods

Poplar leaf litter, wheat straw, peanut leaf, peanut straw, and mixtures of poplar leaf litter-wheat straw, poplar leaf litter-peanut leaf, and poplar leaf litter-peanut straw litter samples were placed in litter bags, and their rates of decomposition and changes in nutrient concentrations were studied for 12 months in poplar-based agroforestry systems at two sites with contrasting soil textures (clay loam vs silt loam).

Results and discussion

Mixing of different litter types increased the decomposition rate of litter, more so for the site with a clay loam soil texture, representing site differences, and in mixtures that included litter with high N and P concentrations (i.e., peanut leaf). The decomposition rate was highest in the peanut leaf that had the highest N and P concentrations among the tested litter materials. Initial N and P immobilization may have occurred in litter of high carbon (C) to N or C to P ratios, with net mineralization occurring in the later stage of the decomposition process. For litter materials with a low C to N or P ratios, net mineralization and nutrient release may occur quickly over the course of the litter decomposition.

Conclusions

Non-additive effects were clearly demonstrated for decomposition rates and nutrient release when different types of litter were mixed, and such effects were moderated by site differences. The implications from this study are that it may be possible to manage plant species composition to affect litter decomposition and nutrient biogeochemistry; mixed species agroforestry systems can be used to enhance nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and site productivity in land-use systems.

Keywords

Agroforestry Litter decomposition Mixing Non-additive effect Nutrient release 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2012CB416904), the National Forestry Public Welfare Research Project of China (No. 201004004), and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD). We would like to acknowledge Dr. Luozhong Tang, Professor Xizeng Xu, and Mr. Xiaoliang Lu for their able assistance in establishing the experimental plantation and in data collection. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved the quality of an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg B (1986) Nutrient release from litter and humus in coniferous forest soils—a mini review. Scand J For Res 1:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg B (2000) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manage 133:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bray SR, Kitajima K, Mack MC (2012) Temporal dynamics of microbial communities on decomposing leaf litter of 10 plant species in relation to decomposition rate. Soil Biol Biochem 49:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cortez J (1998) Field decomposition of leaf litters: relationships between decomposition rates and soil moisture, soil temperature and earthworm activity. Soil Biol Biochem 30:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coulis M, Hättenschwiler S, Fromin N, David JF (2013) Macroarthropod-microorganism interactions during the decomposition of Mediterranean shrub litter at different moisture levels. Soil Biol Biochem 64:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coûteaux MM, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cubbage F, Glenn V, Mueller JP, Robison D, Myers R, Luginbuhl JM, Myers R (2012) Early tree growth, crop yields and estimated returns for an agroforestry trial in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Agroforest Syst 86:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Marco A, Meola A, Maisto G, Giordano M, De Santo AV (2011) Non-additive effects of litter mixtures on decomposition of leaf litters in a Mediterranean maquis. Plant Soil 344:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duboc O, Zehetner F, Djukic I, Tatzber M, Berger TW, Gerzabek MH (2012) Decomposition of European beech and Black pine foliar litter along an Alpine elevation gradient: mass loss and molecular characteristics. Geoderma 189:522–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmonds RL (1987) Decomposition rates and nutrient dynamics in small-diameter woody litter in 4 forest ecosystems in Washington, USA. Can J For Res 17:499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmonds RL, Tuttle KM (2010) Red alder leaf decomposition and nutrient release in alder and conifer riparian patches in western Washington, USA. For Ecol Manage 259:2375–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang SZ, Li HL, Sun QX, Chen LB (2010) Biomass production and carbon stocks in poplar-crop intercropping systems: a case study in northwestern Jiangsu, China. Agroforest Syst 79:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogel R, Cromack K Jr (1977) Effect of habitat and substrate quality on Douglas fir litter decomposition in western Oregon. Can J Bot 55:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hassink J (1995) Density fractions of soil macroorganic matter and microbial biomass as predictors of C and N mineralization. Soil Biol Biochem 27:1099–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hector A, Beale AJ, Minns A, Otway SJ, Lawton JH (2000) Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: effects through litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos 90:357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiang Y, Yin X, Wang F (2013) The influence of litter mixing on decomposition and soil fauna assemblages in a Pinus koraiensis mixed broad-leaved forest of the Changbai Mountains, China. Eur J Soil Biol 55:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasurinen A, Riikonen J, Oksanen E, Vapaavuori E, Holopainen T (2006) Chemical composition and decomposition of silver birch leaf litter produced under elevated CO2 and O3. Plant Soil 282:261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kooijman AM, van Mourik JM, Schilder MLM (2009) The relationship between N mineralization or microbial biomass N with micromorphological properties in beech forest soils with different texture and pH. Biol Fert Soils 45:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladd JN, Amato M, Oades JM (1985) Decomposition of plant material in Australian soils. III. Residual organic and microbial biomass C and N from isotope-labelled legume material and soil organic matter decomposing under field conditions. Aust J Soil Res 23:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lecerf A, Marie G, Kominoski JS, LeRoy CJ, Bernadet C, Swan CM (2011) Incubation time, functional litter diversity, and habitat characteristics predict litter-mixing effects on decomposition. Ecology 92:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li HT, Yu GR, Li JY, Chen YR, Liang T (2007) Decomposition dynamics and nutrient release of litters for four artificial forests in the red soil and hilly region of subtropical China. Acta Ecol Sin 27:898–908Google Scholar
  23. Lin KM, Zhang ZQ, Cao GQ, He ZM, Ma XQ (2006) Decomposition characteristics and its nutrient dynamics of leaf litter mixtures of both Chinese fir and Phoeba bournei. Acta Ecol Sin 8:2732–2738Google Scholar
  24. Loecke TD, Robertson GP (2009) Soil resource heterogeneity in terms of litter aggregation promotes nitrous oxide fluxes and slows decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 41:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mcclaugherty CA, Pastor J, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Forest litter decomposition in relation to soil nitrogen dynamics and litter quality. Ecology 66:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montané F, Romanyà J, Rovira P, Casals P (2013) Mixtures with grass litter may hasten shrub litter decomposition after shrub encroachment into mountain grasslands. Plant Soil 368:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moretto AS, Distel RA, Didoné NG (2001) Decomposition and nutrient dynamic of leaf litter and roots from palatable and unpalatable grasses in a semi-arid grassland. Appl Soil Ecol 18:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pérez-Suárez M, Arredondo-Moreno JT, Huber-Sannwald E (2012) Early stage of single and mixed leaf-litter decomposition in semiarid forest pine-oak: the role of rainfall and microsite. Biogeochemistry 108:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polyakova O, Billor N (2007) Impact of deciduous tree species on litterfall quality, decomposition rates and nutrient circulation in pine stands. For Ecol Manage 253:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prescott CE, Vesterdal L, Preston CM, Simard SW (2004) Influence of initial chemistry on decomposition of foliar litter in contrasting forest types in British Columbia. Can J For Res 34:1714–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rubino M, Lubritto C, D’Onofrio A, Terrasi F, Gleixner G, Cotrufo MF (2007) An isotopic method for testing the influence of leaf litter quality on carbon fluxes during decomposition. Oecologia 154:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanborn PT, Brockley RP (2009) Decomposition of pure and mixed foliage litter in a young lodgepole pine—Sitka alder stand in the central interior of British Columbia. Can J For Res 39:2257–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Song XZ, Jiang H, Yu SQ, Ma YD, Zhou GM, Dou RP, Guo PP (2009) Litter decomposition of dominant plant species in successional stages in mid-subtropical zone. Chinese J Appl Ecol 20:537–542Google Scholar
  36. Swift MJ, Russellsmith A, Perfect TJ (1981) Decomposition and mineral-nutrient dynamics of plant litter in a regenerating bush-fallow in sub-humid tropical Nigeria. J Ecol 69:981–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tan Y, Chen J, Yan L, Huang J, Wang L, Chen S (2013) Mass loss and nutrient dynamics during litter decomposition under three mixing treatments in a typical steppe in Inner Mongolia. Plant Soil 366:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang L, Zhang H, Zhu Q, Jiang Y, Yan K, Wang F (2010) Characteristics of soil nitrogen mineralization in different aged stands and the successive rotation stands of poplar plantation. J Henan Agr Univ 44:28–33Google Scholar
  39. Ward SE, Ostle NJ, McNamara NP, Bardgett RD (2010) Litter evenness influences short-term peatland decomposition processes. Oecologia 164:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watanabe T, Fukuzawa K, Shibata H (2013) Temporal changes in litterfall, litter decomposition and their chemical composition in Sasa dwarf bamboo in a natural forest ecosystem of northern Japan. J For Res 18:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeng DH, Mao R, Chang SX, Li LJ, Yang D (2010) Carbon mineralization of tree leaf litter and crop residues from poplar-based agroforestry systems in Northeast China: a laboratory study. Appl Soil Ecol 44:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008a) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang P, Tian X, He X, Song F, Ren L, Jiang P (2008b) Effect of litter quality on its decomposition in broadleaf and coniferous forest. Eur J Soil Biol 44:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang J, Kong Y, Wang Y, Yang C, Hu D (2010) Components separation of soil respiration in two typical shelter forestlands in silting coastal area, Northern Jiangsu Province. Acta Ecol Sin 30:3144–3154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Forest Resources and EnvironmentNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations