, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 251–261 | Cite as

Changing leaf litter feedbacks on plant production across contrasting sub-arctic peatland species and growth forms

  • Ellen DorrepaalEmail author
  • Johannes H. C. Cornelissen
  • Rien Aerts
Ecosystem Ecology


Plant species and growth forms differ widely in litter chemistry, which affects decay and may have important consequences for plant growth via e.g. the release of nutrients and growth-inhibitory compounds. We investigated the overall short-term (9.5 months) and medium-term (21.5 months) feedback effects of leaf litter quality and quantity on plant production, and tested whether growth forms can be used to generalise differences among litter species. Leaf litter effects of 21 sub-arctic vascular peatland species on Poa alpina test plants changed clearly with time. Across all growth forms, litter initially reduced plant biomass compared with untreated plants, particularly litters with a high decomposition rate or low initial lignin/P ratio. In the second year, however, litter effects were neutral or positive, and related to initial litter N concentration (positive), C/N, polyphenol/N and polyphenol/P ratios (all negative), but not to decomposability. Differences in effect size among several litter species were large, while differences in response to increasing litter quantities were not significant or of similar magnitude to differences in response to three contrasting litter species. Growth forms did not differ in initial litter effects, but second-year plant production showed a trend (P < 0.10) for differences in response to litters of different growth forms: evergreen shrubs < graminoids or deciduous shrubs < forbs. While long-persisting negative litter effects were predominant across all growth forms, our data indicate that even within nutrient-constrained ecosystems such as northern peatlands, vascular plant species, and possibly growth forms, differ in litter feedbacks to plant growth. Differences in the composition of undisturbed plant communities or species shifts induced by external disturbance, such as climate change, may therefore feedback strongly to plant biomass production and probably nutrient cycling rates in northern peatlands.


High latitude Litter chemistry Litter decomposition Phytometer Plant functional type 



This study would not have been possible without the generous help of Miranda de Beus, Dorien van Biezen, Ivanka Bijlemeer, Majlis Kardefelt, Merijn van Leeuwen, Richard van Logtestijn and numerous field assistants during litter collecting, plant harvesting and other field and laboratory work. We wish to thank them all. We also thank Helen Quested for practical advice and helpful discussions, one anonymous reviewer for useful suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript, and the Abisko Scientific Research Station for its hospitality. This study was financially supported by USF grant 98/24 to R.A. and by grants of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to E. D. The experiments described in this article comply with the current laws of the countries in which they were performed.

Supplementary material


  1. Aerts R (1995) The advantages of being evergreen. Trends Ecol Evol 10:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant–soil feedbacks. J Exp Bot 50:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aerts R, De Caluwe H (1997) Nutritional and plant-mediated controls on leaf litter decomposition of Carex species. Ecology 78:244–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts R, Verhoeven JTA, Whigham DF (1999) Plant-mediated controls on nutrient cycling in temperate fens and bogs. Ecology 80:2170–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlgren CE, Ahlgren IF (1981) Some effects of different forest litters on seed germination and growth. Can J Bot 11:710–714Google Scholar
  7. Arft AM et al (1999) Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecol Monogr 69:491–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berendse F (1994) Litter decomposability—a neglected component of plant fitness. J Ecol 82:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg B, Staaf H (1981) Leaching, accumulation and release of nitrogen in decomposing forest litter. Ecol Bull 33:163–178Google Scholar
  10. Chapin FS (1995) New cog in the nitrogen cycle. Nature 377:199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapin FS, Shaver GR, Giblin AE, Nadelhoffer KJ, Laundre JA (1995) Responses of arctic tundra to experimental and observed changes in climate. Ecology 76:694–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FS, Bret-Harte MS, Hobbie SE, Zhong HL (1996) Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change. J Veg Sci 7:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornelissen JHC (1996) An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. J Ecol 84:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornelissen JHC, Aerts A, Cerabolini B, Werger MJA, Van der Heijden MGA (2001) Carbon cycling traits of plant species are linked with mycorrhizal strategy. Oecologia 129:611–619Google Scholar
  15. Coulson JC, Butterfield J (1978) An investigation of the biotic factors determining the rates of plant decomposition on blanket bog. J Ecol 66:631–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies RI, Lewis DA, Coulson CB (1964) Polyphenols in plant, humus, and soil. IV. Factors leading to increase in biosynthesis of polyphenol in leaves and their relationship to mull and mor formation. J Soil Sci 15:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Jong TJ, Klinkhamer GL (1985) The negative effects of litter of parent plants of Cirsium vulgare on their offspring: autotoxicity or immobilization? Oecologia 65:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dormann CF, Woodin SJ (2002) Climate change in the arctic: using plant functional types in a meta-analysis of field experiments. Funct Ecol 16:4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorrepaal E, Cornelissen JHC, Aerts R, Wallén B, Van Logtestijn RSP (2005) Are growth forms consistent predictors of leaf litter quality and decomposability across peatlands along a latitudinal gradient? J Ecol 93:817–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster BL, Gross KL (1997) Partitioning the effects of plant biomass and litter on Andropogon gerardi in old-field vegetation. Ecology 78:2091–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graglia E, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Shaver GR, Schmidt IK, Jonasson S, Michelsen A (2001) Environmental control and intersite variations of phenolics in Betula nana in tundra ecosystems. New Phytol 151:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heady HF (1956) Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37:798–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbie SE, Gough L (2004) Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidic tundra with different glacial histories. Oecologia 140:113–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horner JD, Gosz JR, Cates RG (1988) The role of carbon-based plant secondary metabolites in decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Am Nat 132:869–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuiters AT (1990) Role of phenolic substances from decomposing forest litter in plant–soil interactions. Acta Bot Neerl 39:329–348Google Scholar
  29. McKey D, Waterman PG, Mbi CN, Gartlan JS, Struhsaker TT (1978) Phenolic content of vegetation in two African rain forests: ecological implications. Science 202:61–64Google Scholar
  30. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michelsen A, Schmidt IK, Jonasson S, Dighton J, Jones HE, Callaghan TV (1995) Inhibition of growth, and effects on nutrient uptake of arctic graminoids by leaf extracts—allelopathy or resource competition between plants and microbes? Oecologia 103:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michelsen A, Graglia E, Schmidt IK, Jonasson S, Sleep D, Quarmby C (1999) Differential responses of grass and a dwarf shrub to long-term changes in soil microbial biomass C, N and P following factorial addition of NPK fertilizer, fungicide and labile carbon to a heath. New Phytol 143:523–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mossberg B, Stenberg L, Ericsson S (1992) Den Nordiska floran. Wahlström & Widstrand, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Northup RR, Yu ZS, Dahlgren RA, Vogt KA (1995) Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature 377:227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palm CA, Rowland AP (1997) A minimum dataset for characterization of plant quality for decomposition. In: Cadisch G, Giller KE (eds) Driven by nature: plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 379–392Google Scholar
  37. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Cornelissen JHC, Vendramini F, Cabido M, Castellanos A (2000) Chemistry and toughness predict leaf litter decomposition rates over a wide spectrum of functional types and taxa in central Argentina. Plant Soil 218:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poorter H, Villar R (1997) The fate of acquired carbon in plants: chemical composition and construction costs. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J (eds) Plant resource allocation. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., pp 39–72Google Scholar
  39. Press MC, Potter JA, Burke MJW, Callaghan TV, Lee JA (1998) Responses of a subarctic dwarf shrub heath community to simulated environmental change. J Ecol 86:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Preston CM, Trofymow JA, Sayer BG, Niu J (1997) 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with cross-polarization and magic-angle spinning investigation of the proximate-analysis fractions used to assess litter quality in decomposition studies. Can J Bot 75:1601–1613Google Scholar
  41. Quested HM, et al. (2003a) Decomposition of sub-arctic plants with differing nitrogen economies: a functional role for hemiparasites. Ecology 84:3209–3221Google Scholar
  42. Quested HM, Press MC, Callaghan TV (2003b) Litter of the hemiparasite Bartsia alpina enhances plant growth: evidence for a functional role in nutrient cycling. Oecologia 135:606–614Google Scholar
  43. Quested HM, Press MC, Callaghan TV, Cornelissen JHC (2002) The hemiparasitic angiosperm Bartsia alpina has the potential to accelerate decomposition in sub-arctic communities. Oecologia 130:88–95Google Scholar
  44. Read DJ (1991) Mycorrhizas in ecosystems. Experientia 47:376–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schlatterer EF, Tisdale EW (1969) Effects of litter of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus and Tortula on germination and growth of three perennial grasses. Ecology 50:869–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaw MR, Harte J (2001) Control of litter decomposition in a subalpine meadow-sagebrush steppe ecotone under climate change. Ecol Appl 11:1206–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Sydes C, Grime JP (1981) Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland. II. An experimental investigation. J Ecol 69:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Vuuren MMI (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling in heathlands. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  50. Wardle DA, Nilsson MC, Gallet C, Zackrisson O (1998) An ecosystem-level perspective of allelopathy. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 73:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waterman PG, Mole S (1994) Analysis of phenolic plant metabolites. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Wedin DA, Tilman D (1990) Species effects on nitrogen cycling: a test with perennial grasses. Oecologia 84:433–441Google Scholar
  53. Xiong SJ, Nilsson C (1999) The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 87:984–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen Dorrepaal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johannes H. C. Cornelissen
    • 1
  • Rien Aerts
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Ecological Science, Department of Systems EcologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations