Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1037–1045 | Cite as

A comparison of decomposition dynamics among green tree leaves, partially decomposed tree leaf litter and their mixture in a warm temperate forest ecosystem

  • Juan Wang
  • Yeming You
  • Zuoxin Tang
  • Xiaolu Sun
  • Osbert Jianxin SunEmail author
Original Paper


Decomposition dynamics were compared among green tree leaves, partially decomposed tree leaf litter (i.e., decayed tree leaf litter on forest floor) and a mixture of the two in a warm temperate forest ecosystem in central China to test the influence of litter chemical quality on the degree of decomposition. The study was conducted in situ at two contrasting forest sites, an oak forest dominated by Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata Maxim., and a mixed pine and oak forest dominated by Pinus armandii Franch. and Q. aliena var. acuteserrata. We found marked differences in the rate of decomposition among litter types at both forest sites; the litter decomposition constant, k, was about 39 % greater at the oak forest site and more than 70 % greater at the pine-oak forest site, for green leaves than for partially decomposed leaf litter. The decomposition dynamics and temporal changes in litter chemistry of the three litter types also greatly differed between the two forest sites. At both forest sites, the higher rate of decomposition for the green leaves was associated with a higher nitrogen (N) content and lower carbon to N ratio (C/N) and acid-unhydrolyzable residue to N ratio (AUR/N). We did not find any non-additive effects when mixing green leaves and partially decomposed leaf litter. Our findings support the contention that litter chemical quality is one of the most important determinants of litter decomposition in forest ecosystems at the local or regional scale, but the effect of litter chemical quality on decomposition differs between the contrasting forest types and may vary with the stage of decomposition.


Carbon cycling Litter chemistry Litter decay Litter quality Recalcitrance 



This study was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2011CB403205). We gratefully acknowledge the Baotianman Long-Term Forest Ecosystem Research Station and Baotianman Bureau of the National Nature Reserve for logistic support and site access permission. Rongcheng Li and Qiongda Pu assisted in field sampling and laboratory analyses. We thank an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments and suggestions for revision of an earlier version of the manuscript.


  1. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449. doi: 10.2307/3546886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg B (2000) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manag 133:13–22. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00294-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman SK, Koch GW (2007) What type of diversity yields synergy during mixed litter decomposition in a natural forest ecosystem? Plant Soil 299:153–162. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9372-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fonte SJ, Schowalter TD (2004) Decomposition of greenfall vs. senescent foliage in a tropical forest ecosystem in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 36:474–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2004.tb00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freschet GT, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Multiple mechanisms for trait effects on litter decomposition: moving beyond home-field advantage with a new hypothesis. J Ecol 100:619–630. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01943.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallaher RN, Weldon CO, Boswell FC (1976) A semiautomated procedure for total nitrogen in plant and soil samples. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:887–889. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000060026x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giese M, Gao Y, Zhao Y, Pan Q, Lin S, Peth S, Brueck H (2009) Effects of grazing and rainfall variability on root and shoot decomposition in a semi-arid grassland. Appl Soil Ecol 41:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 90:357–371. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900217.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herbert DA, Fownes JH, Vitousek PM (1999) Hurricane damage to a Hawaiian forest: nutrient supply rate affects resistance and resilience. Ecology 80:908–920. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0908:HDTAHF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoorens B, Aerts R, Stroetenga M (2003) Does initial litter chemistry explain litter mixture effects on decomposition? Oecologia 137:578–586. doi: 10.1007/s00442-003-1365-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. IUSS Working Group WRB (2014) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. Loranger G, Ponge JF, Imbert D, Lavelle P (2002) Leaf decomposition in two semi-evergreen tropical forest: influence of litter quality. Biol Fertil Soils 35:247–252. doi: 10.1007/s00374-002-0467-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meentemeyer V (1978) Macroclimate and lignin control of litter decomposition rates. Ecology 59:465–472. doi: 10.2307/1936576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626. doi: 10.2307/1936780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC, de Ruiter PC, Dong Q, Hastings A, Johnson NC, McCann KS, Melville K, Morin PJ, Nadelhoffer K, Rosemond AD, Post DM, Sabo JL, Scow KM, Vanni MJ, Wall DH (2004) Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7:584–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of American, Madison, pp 101–129Google Scholar
  17. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331. doi: 10.2307/1932179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ostrofsky ML (2007) A comment on the use of exponential decay models to test nonadditive processing hypotheses in multispecies mixtures of litter. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:23–27. doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[23:ACOTUO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pandey RR, Sharma G, Tripathi SK, Singh AK (2007) Litterfall, litter decomposition and nutrient dynamics in a subtropical natural oak forest and managed plantation in northeastern India. For Ecol Manag 240:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parton W, Silver WL, Burke IC, Grassens L, Harmon ME, Currie WS, King JY, Adair EC, Brandt LA, Fasth B (2007) Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science 315:361–364. doi: 10.1126/science.1134853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 108:245–258. doi: 10.1007/s10533-011-9594-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polyakova O, Billor N (2007) Impact of deciduous tree species on litterfall quality, decomposition rates and nutrient circulation in pine stands. For Ecol Manag 253:11–18. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149. doi: 10.1007/s10533-010-9439-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Staley CL, Kabzems R (2000) Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, and litter mixtures. Can J For Res 30:1742–1750. doi: 10.1139/x00-097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Purahong W, Schloter M, Pecyna MJ, Kapturska D, Däumlich V, Mital S, Buscot F, Hofrichter M, Gutknecht JLM, Krüger D (2014) Uncoupling of microbial community structure and function in decomposing litter across beech forest ecosystems in Central Europe. Sci Rep 4:7014. doi: 10.1038/srep07014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith VC, Bradford MA (2003) Do non-additive effects on decomposition in litter-mix experiments result from differences in resource quality between litters? Oikos 102:235–243. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12503.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun OJ, Campbell J, Law BE, Wolf V (2004) Dynamics of carbon stocks in soils and detritus across chronosequences of different forest types in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Glob Change Biol 10:1470–1481. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00829.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Talbot JM, Yelle DJ, Nowick J, Treseder KK (2012) Litter decay rates are determined by lignin chemistry. Biogeochemistry 108:279–295. doi: 10.1007/s10533-011-9599-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tripathi SK, Sumida A, Shibata H, Ono K, Uemura S, Kodama Y, Hara T (2006) Leaf litterfall and decomposition of different above- and belowground parts of birch (Betula ermanii) trees and dwarf bamboo (Sasa kurilensis) shrubs in a young secondary forest in Northern Japan. Biol Fertil Soils 43:237–246. doi: 10.1007/s00374-006-0100-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vivanco L, Austin AT (2011) Nitrogen addition stimulates forest litter decomposition and disrupts species interactions in Patagonia, Argentina. Glob Change Biol 17:1963–1974. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02344.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang Q, Wang S, Huang Y (2009) Leaf litter decomposition in the pure and mixed plantations of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Michelia macclurei in subtropical China. Biol Fertil Soils 45:371–377. doi: 10.007/s00374-008-0338-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang J, You Y, Tang Z, Liu S, Sun OJ (2015) Variations in leaf litter decomposition across contrasting forest stands and controlling factors at local scale. J Plant Ecol 8:261–272. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtu019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. You Y, Wang J, Huang X, Tang Z, Liu S, Sun OJ (2014) Relating microbial community structure to functioning in forest soil organic carbon transformation and turnover. Ecol Evol 4:633–647. doi: 10.1002/ece.969 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:1–9. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtn002 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yeming You
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zuoxin Tang
    • 1
  • Xiaolu Sun
    • 1
  • Osbert Jianxin Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Forest ScienceBeijing Forestry UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Biological Science and TechnologyBaotou Teachers’ CollegeBaotouChina
  3. 3.College of ForestryGuangxi UniversityNanningChina

Personalised recommendations