Advertisement

Annals of Forest Science

, 76:106 | Cite as

Litter chemical quality strongly affects forest floor microbial groups and ecoenzymatic stoichiometry in the subalpine forest

  • Yang LiuEmail author
  • Xian Shen
  • Yamei Chen
  • Lifeng Wang
  • Qianmei Chen
  • Jian Zhang
  • Zhenfeng Xu
  • Bo Tan
  • Li Zhang
  • Jiujin Xiao
  • Peng Zhu
  • Lianghua Chen
Research Paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Key message

Litter chemical quality regulates the distinct composition of the main microbial groups and ecoenzymatic stoichiometry. Microbes in spruce ( Picea asperata Mast.) and fir ( Abies faxoniana Rehd.) rather than birch ( Betula platyphylla Suk.) and rhododendron ( Rhododendron lapponicum (L.) Wahl.) can more easily adjust their physiological metabolism to acclimate to low N resources.

Context

Litter decomposition is the main pathway of nutrient cycling that bridges aboveground and underground material circulation and energy flow. Microorganisms are essential for the regulation of organic carbon decomposition and nutrient cycling.

Aims

We sought to reveal whether litter chemical quality predominates forest floor microbial structure and function in different species and how their characteristics vary with litter decomposition stages.

Methods

We measured litter substrate quality, microbial community structure, microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN), extracellular enzyme activities and stoichiometric homeostasis of fresh litter (L), and fermentative (F) and humus (H) layers for these tree species.

Results

Overall, the enzyme activities and microbial biomass of birch and rhododendron were greater than those of spruce and fir. The microbial abundances of birch and rhododendron decreased with decomposition. Forest floor microbial nutrient limitation is generally restricted by N in subalpine forests, and ecoenzymatic stoichiometry is affected mainly by dissolved C/N/P stoichiometry. Stronger microbial C:N homeostasis (H′) was observed for spruce (5.56) and fir (4.17) than that for birch (1.82) and rhododendron (1.33).

Conclusion

We conclude that litter chemical quality led to the disparity in forest floor microbial groups and ecoenzymatic stoichiometry for different tree species.

Keywords

Tree species Forest floor layers Litter chemical quality Microbial biomass Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Shuai Yang, Jing Deng, Jiaqi Shi, Shiyu Tang, and other graduate students at the Institute of Ecology and Forestry, Sichuan Agricultural University, for assistance with field sampling and laboratory analyses.

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31570605), the National key Research Program of China (2017YFC0505003), the key project of Sichuan education department (18ZA0393), and Key Research Program of Sichuan Province (18ZDYF0307).

Compliance with ethical standards

Statement on ethical approval

Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Miyaluo Nature Reserve to the commencement of this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aanderud ZT, Shuldman MI, Drenovsky RE et al (2008) Shrub-interspace dynamics alter relationships between microbial community composition and belowground ecosystem characteristics [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 40(9):2206–2216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamczyk B, Kilpeläinen P, Kitunen V et al (2014) Potential activities of enzymes involved in N, C, P and S cycling in boreal forest soil under different tree species [J]. Pedobiologia 57(2):97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship [J]. Oikos 79(79):439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison S (2008). Colorimetric enzyme assays. Allison Lab Protocol.Google Scholar
  5. Andresen LC, Dungait JA, Bol R et al (2014) Bacteria and fungi respond differently to multifactorial climate change in a temperate heathland, traced with 13C-glycine and FACE CO2 [J]. PLoS One 9(1):e85070PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashagrie Y, Zech W, Guggenberger G (2005) Transformation of a Podocarpus falcatus, dominated natural forest into a monoculture Eucalyptus globulus, plantation at Munesa, Ethiopia: soil organic C, N and S dynamics in primary particle and aggregate-size fractions [J]. Agric Ecosyst Environ 106(1):89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attiwill PM, Adams MA (1993) Nutrient cycling in forests [J]. New Phytol 124(4):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayres E, Dromph KM, Bardgett RD (2006) Do plant species encourage soil biota that specialise in the rapid decomposition of their litter? [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 38(1):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbhuiya AR, Arunachalam A, Pandey HN et al (2004) Dynamics of soil microbial biomass C, N and P in disturbed and undisturbed stands of a tropical wet-evergreen forest [J]. Eur J Soil Biol 40(3–4):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg B, Mcclaugherty C (2013). Plant Litter. Decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration [M]. Berlin:Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bossio DA, Scow KM (1998) Impacts of carbon and flooding on soil microbial communities: phospholipid fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns [J]. Microb Ecol 35(3-4):265–278PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Cao Y, Li Y, Li C et al (2016) Relationship between presence of the desert shrub Haloxylon ammodendron, and microbial communities in two soils with contrasting textures [J]. Appl Soil Ecol 103:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin FS, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2011) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chavez-Vergara B, Merino A, Vázquez-Marrufo G et al (2014) Organic matter dynamics and microbial activity during decomposition of forest floor under two native neotropical oak species in a temperate deciduous forest in Mexico[J]. Geoderma 2014(235-236):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen YM, Liu Y, Zhang J et al (2018) Microclimate exerts greater control over litter decomposition and enzyme activity than litter quality in an alpine forest-tundra ecotone [J]. Sci Rep 8(1)Google Scholar
  16. Chigineva N, Aleksandrova A, Tiunov A (2009) The addition of labile carbon alters litter fungal communities and decreases litter decomposition rates [J]. Appl Soil Ecol 42:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cleveland CC, Liptzin D (2007) C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? [J]. Biogeochemistry 85(3):235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K et al (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide [J]. Ecol Lett 11(10):1065–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Criquet S, Ferre E, Farnet AM et al (2004) Annual dynamics of phosphatase activities in an evergreen oak litter: influence of biotic and abiotic factors [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 36(7):1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cui Y, Fang L, Guo X et al (2018) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry and microbial nutrient limitation in rhizosphere soil in the arid area of the northern Loess Plateau, China [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 116:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dai L, Xu Z, Zhang Y et al (2001) Study on decomposition rate and fall of Pinus koraiensis needle [J]. Acta Ecol Sin 21(8):1296–1300Google Scholar
  22. Dan B, Valentine D (1991) Fifty-year biogeochemical effects of green ash, white pine, and Norway spruce in a replicated experiment [J]. Forest Ecol Manag 40(1-2):13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deng CC, Jiang XM, Liu Y et al (2015) Litter decomposition of Rhododendron lapponicum in alpine timberline ecotone [J]. Acta Ecol Sin 35(6):1769–1778Google Scholar
  24. Fanin N, Fromin N, Buatois B, Hättenschwiler S (2013) An experimental test of the hypothesis of non-homeostatic consumer stoichiometry in a plant litter-microbe system[J]. Ecol Lett 16(6):764–772PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Federle TW, Livingston RJ, Wolfe LE et al (2011) A quantitative comparison of microbial structure of estuarine sediments form microcosms and the field [J]. Can J Microbiol 32(4):319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fioretto A, Nardo CD, Papa S et al (2005) Lignin and cellulose degradation and nitrogen dynamics during decomposition of three leaf litter species in a Mediterranean ecosystem [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 37(6):1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frostegård A, Tunlid A, Bååth E (1993a) Phospholipid fatty acid composition, biomass, and activity of microbial communities from two soil types experimentally exposed to different heavy metals [J]. Appl Environ Microbiol 59(11):3605–3617PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Frostegård A, Bååth E, Tunlio A (1993b) Shifts in the structure of soil microbial communities in limed forests as revealed by phospholipid fatty acid analysis [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 25(6):723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Genung MA, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA (2013) The afterlife of interspecific indirect genetic effects: genotype interactions alter litter quality with consequences for decomposition and nutrient dynamics [J]. PLoS One 8Google Scholar
  30. Grayston SJ, Prescott CE (2005) Microbial communities in forest floors under four tree species in coastal British Columbia [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 37(6):1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hackl E, Bachmann G, Zechmeisterboltenstern S (2004) Microbial nitrogen turnover in soils under different types of natural forest [J]. Forest Ecology & Management 188(1–3):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling [J]. Trends Ecol Evol 7(10):336–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanerva S, Smolander A (2007) Microbial activities in forest floor layers under silver birch, Norway spruce and Scots pine [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 39(7):1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larsen KS, Jonasson S, Michelsen A (2002) Repeated freeze-thaw cycles and their effects on biological processes in two arctic ecosystem types [J]. Appl Soil Ecol 21(3):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavelle P (2000) Ecological challenges for Soil science[J]. Soil Sci 165(1):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li S, Wang Z, Yang J (2016a) Changes in soil microbial communities during litter decomposition [J]. Biodivers Sci 24(2):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li Y, Li Q, Guo D et al (2016b) Ecological stoichiometry homeostasis of Leymus chinensis in degraded grassland in western Jilin Province, NE China[J]. Ecol Eng 90:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Li Y, Li Y, Chang SX et al (2017) Linking soil fungal community structure and function to soil organic carbon chemical composition in intensively managed subtropical bamboo forests [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 107:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu Y, Chen Y, Zhang J et al (2016) Changes in foliar litter decomposition of woody plants with elevation across an alpine forest–tundra ecotone in eastern Tibet Plateau [J]. Plant Ecol 217(5):495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu Y, Zhang J, Yang W et al (2018) Canopy gaps accelerate soil organic carbon retention by soil microbial biomass in the organic horizon in a subalpine fir forest [J]. Appl Soil Ecol 125:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ma WJ, Zhao YT, Zhang QQ et al (2014) C: N: P stoichiometry in forest floor litter of evergreen broad-leaved forests at different successional stages in Tiantong, Zhejiang, eastern China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol 38(8):833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maisto G, De MA, Meola A et al (2011) Nutrient dynamics in litter mixtures of four Mediterranean maquis species decomposing in situ [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 43(3):520–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McDaniel, M.D., Kaye, J.P. and Kaye, M.W. 2013 Increased temperature and precipitation had limited effects on soil extracellular enzyme activities in a post-harvest forest. Soil Biol Biochem 56:90-98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Preston CM, Nault JR, Trofymow JA et al (2009) Chemical changes during 6 years of decomposition of 11 litters in some canadian forest sites. Part 1. Elemental Composition, Tannins, Phenolics, and Proximate Fractions [J]. Ecosystems 12(7):1053–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Priha O, Smolander A (1997) Microbial biomass and activity in soil and litter under Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula at originally similar field afforestation sites [J]. Biol Fertil Soils 24(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Priha O, Grayston SJ, Hiukka R et al (2001) Microbial community structure and characteristics of the organic matter in soils under Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula pendula at two forest sites.[J]. Biol Fertil Soils 33(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ran H, Liu QB (2009) Effects of seasonal freezing-thawing on microbial count and biomass in Abies faxoniana and Betula platyphylla Litters [J]. J Sichuan Agric Univ 27(4):450–454Google Scholar
  48. Romanowicz KJ, Freedman ZB, Upchurch RA et al (2016) Active microorganisms in forest soils differ from the total community yet are shaped by the same environmental factors: the influence of pH and soil moisture [J]. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 92(10)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saetre P, Bååth E (2000) Spatial variation and patterns of soil microbial community structure in a mixed spruce-birch stand.[J]. Soil Biol Biochem 32(7):909–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simoes DDCM, Mcneill D, Kristiansen B et al (1997) Purification and partial characterisation of a 1.57 kDa thermostable esterase from Bacillus stearothermophilus [J]. FEMS Microbiol Lett 147(1):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sinsabaugh RL, Follstad Shah JJ (2012) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry and ecological theory[J]. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 43(1):313–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sinsabaugh RL, Carreiro MM, Repert DA (2002) Allocation of extracellular enzymatic activity in relation to litter composition, n deposition, and mass loss [J]. Biogeochemistry 60(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sinsabaugh RL, Lauber CL, Weintraub MN et al (2008) Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale.[J]. Ecol Lett 11(11):1252PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Sinsabaugh RL, Hill BH, Shah JJF (2009) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment [J]. Nature 462(7274):795–798PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinsabaugh RL, Shah JJF, Findlay SG et al (2015) Scaling microbial biomass, metabolism and resource supply [J]. Biogeochemistry 122(2-3):175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smolander A, Kitunen V (2002) Soil microbial activities and characteristics of dissolved organic C and N in relation to tree species [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 34(5):651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smolander A, Kanerva S, Adamczyk B et al (2012) Nitrogen transformations in boreal forest soils—does composition of plant secondary compounds give any explanations?[J]. Plant Soil 350(1-2):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Šnajdr J, Valášková V, Merhautová V et al (2008) Spatial variability of enzyme activities and microbial biomass in the upper layers of Quercus petraea forest soil [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 40(9):2068–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spohn M (2016) Element cycling as driven by stoichiometric homeostasis of soil microorganisms [J]. Basic Appl Ecol S1439179116300391Google Scholar
  60. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002). Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere [M]// Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere 225-226.Google Scholar
  61. Tan B, Wu FZ, Qin JL, Wu QG, Yang WQ (2014) Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity in the subalpine/alpine forests of western Sichuan [J]. Ecol Environ Sc 23(8):1265–1271Google Scholar
  62. Tapia-Torres Y, Elser JJ, Souza V et al (2015) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry at the extremes: how microbes cope in an ultra-oligotrophic desert soil [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 87:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor JP, Wilson B, Mills MS, Burns RG (2002) Comparison of microbial numbers and enzymatic activities in surfacesoils and subsoils using various techniques [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 34(3):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Team R D C. R Reference Manual - Volume 4 - Methods and Tools - for R version 2.13[M]. 2011Google Scholar
  65. Uselman SM, Qualls RG, Lilienfein J (2012) Quality of soluble organic C, N, and P produced by different types and species of litter: root litter versus leaf litter [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 54(6):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ushio M, Wagai R, Balser TC et al (2008) Variations in the soil microbial community composition of a tropical montane forest ecosystem: does tree species matter? [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 40(10):2699–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ushio M, Kitayama K, Balser TC (2010) Tree species effects on soil enzyme activities through effects on soil physicochemical and microbial properties in a tropical montane forest on Mt. Kinabalu, Borneo [J]. Pedobiologia 53(4):227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C [J]. Soil Biol Biochem 19(6):703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang H, Liu S, Chang SX et al (2015) Soil microbial community composition rather than litter quality is linked with soil organic carbon chemical composition in plantations in subtropical China [J]. J Soils Sediments 15(5):1094–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waring BG (2013) Exploring relationships between enzyme activities and leaf litter decomposition in a wet tropical forest[J]. Soil Biol Biochem 64(9):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waring BG, Weintraub SR, Sinsabaugh RL (2014) Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial nutrient acquisition in tropical soils. Biogeochemistry 117(1):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Xiao HY, Liu B, Yu ZP, Wan XH, Sang CP, Zhou FW, Huang ZQ (2016) Effects of forest types on soil dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in surface and deep layers in subtropical region, China.[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol 27(4):1031–1038Google Scholar
  73. Zhang WR, Yang GY, Tu XN, et al (1999). Determination of organic matter in forest soil and calculation carbon-nitrogen ratio[S]. Forestry industry standard of the People's Republic of China 106-108.Google Scholar
  74. Zhang P, Tian XJ, He XB et al (2007) Enzyme activities in litter, fragmentation and humus layers of subtropical forests[J]. Ecol Environ 16(3):1024–1029Google Scholar
  75. Zheng HF, Liu Y, Zhang J et al (2017) Factors influencing soil enzyme activity in China’s forest ecosystems[J]. Plant Ecol 219(1):1–14Google Scholar
  76. Zheng HF, Chen YM, Yang L et al (2018) Litter quality drives the differentiation of microbial communities in the litter horizon across an alpine treeline ecotone in the eastern Tibetan Plateau[J]. Sci Rep 8(1):10029PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhong WH, Cai ZC (2004) Methods for studying soil microbial diversity. Chin J Appl Ecol 15(5):899–904Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Long-term Research Station of Alpine Ecosystems, Key laboratory of Ecological Forestry Engineering of Sichuan Province, Institute of Ecology & ForestsSichuan Agricultural UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations