Microbial Ecology

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 127–135 | Cite as

Microbial Colonization of Beech and Spruce Litter—Influence of Decomposition Site and Plant Litter Species on the Diversity of Microbial Community

  • Manish Kumar Aneja
  • Shilpi SharmaEmail author
  • Frank Fleischmann
  • Susanne Stich
  • Werner Heller
  • Günther Bahnweg
  • Jean Charles Munch
  • Michael Schloter


The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of decomposition site and plant litter species on the colonizing microbial communities. For this, litter bag technique using beech and spruce litter was combined with RNA-based fingerprinting and cloning. Litter bags were incubated for 2 and 8 weeks in the Ah horizon of beech and beech–spruce mixed forest sites. Although sugars and starch were rapidly lost, lignin content increased by more than 40% for beech and more than doubled for spruce litter at both soil sites at the end of the experiment. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of 16S and 18S rRNA RT–PCR products was used for screening of differences between bacterial and fungal communities colonizing the two litter types. Development of the microbial community over time was observed to be specific for each litter type and decomposition site. RT–PCR products from both litter types incubated in beech–spruce mixed forest site were also cloned to identify the bacterial and fungal colonizers. The 16S rRNA clone libraries of beech litter were dominated by γ-proteobacterial members, whereas spruce libraries were mainly composed of α-, β-, and γ-proteobacterial members. Ascomycota members dominated the 18S rRNA clone libraries. Clones similar to Zygomycota were absent from spruce, whereas those similar to Basidiomycota and Glomeromycota were absent from beech libraries. Selective effects of litter quality were observed after 8 weeks. The study provides an insight into the bacterial and fungal communities colonizing beech and spruce litter, and the importance of litter quality and decomposition site as key factors in their development and succession.


Lignin Bacterial Community Fungal Community Litter Quality Litter Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The study was supported by a research grant from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Bonn, Germany (SFB 607).


  1. 1.
    Abrams, ES, Stanton, VP (1992) Use of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis to study conformational transitions in nucleic acids. Methods Enzymol 212: 71–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aneja, MK, Sharma, S, Munch, JC, Schloter, M (2004) RNA fingerprinting—a new method to screen for differences in plant litter degrading microbial communities. J Microbiol Methods 59: 223–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aro, N, Pakula, T, Penttilä, M (2005) Transcriptional regulation of plant cell wall degradation by filamentous fungi. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29: 719–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg, B, Staff, H (1980) Decomposition rate and chemical changes of Scots pine needle litter. II. Influence of chemical composition. In: Persson, T (Ed.) Structure and Function of Northern Coniferous Forests—An Ecosystem Study, Vol. 32. Ecological Bulletins, Stockholm, pp 373–390Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjørnlund, L, Christensen, S (2005) How does litter quality and site heterogeneity interact on decomposer food webs of a semi-natural forest? Soil Biol Biochem 37: 203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruce, RJ, West, CA (1989) Elicitation of lignin biosynthesis and isoperoxidase activity by pectic fragments in suspension cultures of castor bean. Plant Physiol 91: 889–897PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buchan, A, Newell, SY, Butler, M, Biers, EJ, Hollibaugh, JT, Moran, MA (2003) Dynamics of bacterial and fungal communities on decaying salt marsh grass. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 6676–6687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchan, A, Newell, SY, Moreta, JI, Moran, MA (2002) Molecular characterization of bacterial and fungal decomposer communities in a southeastern U.S. saltmarsh. Microb Ecol 43: 329–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chadwick, DR, Ineson, P, Woods, C, Piearce, TG (1998) Decomposition of Pinus sylvestris litter in litter bags: influence of underlying native litter layer. Soil Biol Biochem 30: 47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox, P, Fischer, PJ, Anderson, JM (1997) Experiments in fungal survival of two common pine litter colonisers. Mycologist 11: 55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deacon, JW (1997) Modern Mycology. Blackwell, Boston, p 303Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dilly, O, Munch, JC (2001) Shifts in physiological capabilities of the microbiota during the decomposition of leaf litter in black alder (Alnus glutinosa (Gaertn.) L.) forest. Soil Biol Biochem 33: 921–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dilly, O, Bloem, J, Vos, A, Munch, JC (2004) Bacterial diversity in agricultural soils during litter decomposition. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 468–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dix, NJ, Webster, J (1995) Fungal Ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, p 549Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Findlay, S, Tank, J, Dye, S, Valett, HM, Mulholland, PJ, McDowell, WH, Johnson, SL, Hamilton, SK, Edmonds, J, Dodds, WK, Bowden, WB (2000) A cross-system comparison of bacterial and fungal biomass in detritus pools of headwater streams. Microb Ecol 43: 55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frankland, JC (1992) Mechanisms in fungal succession. In: Carroll GC, Wicklow GC (Eds.) The Fungal Community: Its Organisation and Role in the Ecosystem. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 383–402Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gulis, V, Suberkropp, K (2003) Effect of inorganic nutrients on relative contributions of fungi and bacteria to carbon flow from submerged decomposing leaf litter. Microb Ecol 45: 11–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hammel, KE (1997) Fungal degradation of lignin. In: Cadish G, Giller KE (Eds.) Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heal, OW, Anderson, JM, Swift, MJ (1997) Plant litter quality and decomposition: and historic overview. In: Cadish G, Giller KE (Eds.) Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heuer, H, Smalla, K (1997) Application of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) for studying soil microbial communities. In: van Elsas JD, Wellington EMH, Trevors JT (Eds.) Modern Soil Microbiology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 353–373Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heukeshoven, J, Dernick, R (1986) Neue Ergebnisse zum Mechanismus der Silberfaerbung. In: Radola, BJ (Ed.) Electrophorese Forum '86. Technical University of Munich, Munich, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lemons, A, Clay, K, Rudgers, JA (2005) Connecting plant-microbial interactions above- and belowground: a fungal endophyte affects decomposition. Oecologia 145: 595–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liski, J, Perrouchaud, D, Karjalainen, T (2002) Increasing carbon stocks in the forest soils of western Europe. For Ecol Manage 169: 159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin, A, Marinissen, JCY (1993) Biological and physico-chemical processes in excrements of soil animals. Geoderma 56: 331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, HG (1984) Dynamics of nutrient cycling in plantation ecosystems. In: Boven GD, Nambiar EKS (Eds.) Nutrition of Plantation Forest. Academic Press, London, pp 53–78Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newell, SY (2001) Multiyear patterns of fungal biomass dynamics and productivity within naturally decaying smooth cordgrass shoots. Limnol Oceanogr 46: 573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paustian, K, Agren, GI, Bosatta, E (1997) Modelling litter quality effects on decomposition and soil organic matter dynamics. In: Cadish G, Giller KE (Eds.) Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 313–335Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prescott, CE, Blevins, LL, Staley, CL (2000) Effects of clear-cutting on decomposition rates of litter and forest floor in forest of British Colombia. Can J For Res 30: 1751–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rutigiano, FA, De Santo, AV, Berg, B, Alfani, A, Fioretto, A (1996) Lignin decomposition in decaying leaves of Fagus sylvatica L. and needles of Abies alba. Mill Soil Biol Biochem 28: 101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scholle, G, Wolters, V, Joergensen, RG (1992) Effects of mesofauna exclusion on the microbial biomass in two modern profiles. Biol Fertil Soils 12: 253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Updegraff, DM (1969) Semimicro determination of cellulose in biological materials. Anal Biochem 32: 420–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wahbeh, MI, Mahasneh, AM (1985) Some aspects of decomposition of leaf litter of the seagrass Halophila stipulacea from the gulf of Aqaba (Jordan). Aquat Bot 21: 237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wedderburn, ME, Carter, J (1999) Litter decomposition by four functional tree types for use in silvopastoral systems. Soil Biol Biochem 31: 455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    White, TJ, Bruns, T, Lee, S, Taylor, JW (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (Eds.) PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications. Academic Press, New York, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wieder, RK, Lang, GE (1982) A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63: 1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wright, MS, Covich, AP (2005) Relative importance of bacteria and fungi in a tropical headwater stream: leaf decomposition and invertebrate feeding preference. Microb Ecol 49: 536–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manish Kumar Aneja
    • 1
  • Shilpi Sharma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frank Fleischmann
    • 2
  • Susanne Stich
    • 3
  • Werner Heller
    • 3
  • Günther Bahnweg
    • 3
  • Jean Charles Munch
    • 1
  • Michael Schloter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Soil EcologyGSF—National Research Center for Environment and HealthNeuherbergGermany
  2. 2.éDepartment of Ecology, Life Science Center, WeihenstephanTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Biochemical Plant PathologyGSF—National Research Center for Environment and HealthNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations