, Volume 175, Issue 1, pp 429–437 | Cite as

Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas

  • Timothy A. Mousseau
  • Gennadi Milinevsky
  • Jane Kenney-Hunt
  • Anders Pape MøllerEmail author
Global change ecology - Original research


The effects of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl on decomposition of plant material still remain unknown. We predicted that decomposition rate would be reduced in the most contaminated sites due to an absence or reduced densities of soil invertebrates. If microorganisms were the main agents responsible for decomposition, exclusion of large soil invertebrates should not affect decomposition. In September 2007 we deposited 572 bags with uncontaminated dry leaf litter from four species of trees in the leaf litter layer at 20 forest sites around Chernobyl that varied in background radiation by more than a factor 2,600. Approximately one quarter of these bags were made of a fine mesh that prevented access to litter by soil invertebrates. These bags were retrieved in June 2008, dried and weighed to estimate litter mass loss. Litter mass loss was 40 % lower in the most contaminated sites relative to sites with a normal background radiation level for Ukraine. Similar reductions in litter mass loss were estimated for individual litter bags, litter bags at different sites, and differences between litter bags at pairs of neighboring sites differing in level of radioactive contamination. Litter mass loss was slightly greater in the presence of large soil invertebrates than in their absence. The thickness of the forest floor increased with the level of radiation and decreased with proportional loss of mass from all litter bags. These findings suggest that radioactive contamination has reduced the rate of litter mass loss, increased accumulation of litter, and affected growth conditions for plants.


Background radiation Chernobyl Decomposition Invertebrates Microorganisms 



We are grateful for logistic help during our visits to Ukraine from O. Bondarenko, I. Chizhevsky, A. Erhardt and A. Litvinchuk. We received funding from the University of South Carolina School of the Environment, Bill Murray and the Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust, NATO and the Fulbright Program to conduct our research.

Supplementary material

442_2014_2908_MOESM1_ESM.doc (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 85 kb)


  1. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albers D, Migge S, Schaefer M, Scheu S (2004) Decomposition of beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies) in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biol Biochem 36:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkhipov NP, Kuchma ND, Askbrant S, Pasternak PS, Musica VV (1994) Acute and long-term effects of irradiation on pine (Pinus silvestris) stands post-Chernobyl. Sci Total Environ 157:383–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attiwill PM, Adams MA (1993) Nutrient cycling in forests. New Phytol 124:561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, Ekbohm G (1991) Litter mass-loss rates and decomposition patterns in some needle and leaf litter types: long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest. Can J Bot 69:1449–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg B, Berg MP, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Calvo de Anta R, Coueaux M, Escudero A, Gallardo A, Kratz W, Madeira M, Mälkönen E, McClaugherty C, Meentemeyer V, Muñoz F, Piussi P, Remacle J, Virzo de Santo A (1993) Litter mass loss rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States: some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry 20:127–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown GG (1995) How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal community diversity? Plant Soil 170:209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelissen JHC, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Grime JP, Marzano B, Cabido M, Vendramini F, Cerabolini B (1999) Leaf structure and defence control litter decomposition rate across species and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytol 143:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillon D, Joffre R, Ibrahima A (1994) Initial litter properties and decay rate: a microcosm experiment on Mediterranean species. Can J Bot 72:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez G, Seastedt TR (2001) Soil fauna and plant litter decomposition in tropical and subtropical forests. Ecology 82:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howard PJA, Howard DM (1974) Microbial decomposition of three and shrub leaf litter. Oikos 25:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard PJA, Howard DM (1980) Effect of species, source of litter, type of soil, and climate on litter decomposition: microbial decomposition of three and shrub leaf litter. Oikos 34:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. JMP (2012) JMP version 10.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalbitz K, Solinger S, Park JH, Michalzik B, Matzner E (2000) Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: a review. Soil Sci 165:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kashparov VA, Lundina SM, Kadygriba AM, Protsaka VP, Levtchuka SE, Yoschenkoa VI, Kashpurb VA, Talerko NM (2000) Forest fires in the territory contaminated as a result of the Chernobyl accident: radioactive aerosol resuspension and exposure of fire-fighters. J Environ Radioact 51:281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krivolutski DA (2000) Problems of sustainable development and ecological indication in radioactively contaminated areas. Russ J Ecol 31:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krivolutski DA, Pokarzhevsky AD (1992) Effect of radioactive fallout on soil animal populations in the 30 km zone of the Chernobyl NPP. Sci Total Environ 112:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krivolutski D, Martushov V, Ryabtsev I (1999) Influence of radioactive contamination on fauna in the area of the Chernobyl NPP during first years after the accident (1986–1988). Bioindicators of radioactive contamination. Nauka, Moscow, pp 106–122Google Scholar
  20. Lousier JD, Parkinson D (1976) Litter decomposition in a cool temperate deciduous forest. Can J Bot 54:419–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maksimova S (2005) Radiation effects on the populations of soil invertebrates. In: Brechignac F, Desmet G (eds) Equidosimetry. Springer, Berlin, pp 155–161Google Scholar
  22. Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2006) Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years after the disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 21:200–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2007) Species richness and abundance of birds in relation to radiation at Chernobyl. Biol Lett 3:483–486PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mousseau TA, Welch SM, Chizhevsky I, Bondarenko O, Milinevsky G, Tedeschi DJ, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Møller AP (2013) Tree rings reveal extent of exposure to ionizing radiation in Scots pine Pinus sylvestris. Trees 27:1443–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niedree B, Vereecken H, Burauel P (2012) Effects of low-level radioactive soil contamination and sterilization on the degradation of radiolabeled wheat straw. J Environ Radioact 109:29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osono T (2007) Ecology of ligninolytic fungi associated with leaf litter decomposition. Ecol Res 22:955–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pigeon RF, Odum HT (eds)(1970) A tropical rain forest; a study of irradiation and ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information Service Google Scholar
  28. Pouyat RV, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM (1994) Environmental effects of forest soil invertebrates and fungal densities in oak stands along an urban-rural land-use gradient. Pedobiologia 38:385–399Google Scholar
  29. Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Kabzems R (2000) Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests in British Columbia: influence of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures. Can J For Res 30:1742–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rafferty B, Dawson D, Kliashtorin A (1997) Decomposition in two pine forests: the mobilisation of 137Cs and K from forest litter. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1673–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ragon M, Restoux G, Moreira D, Møller AP, López-García P (2011) Sunlight-exposed biofilm microbial communities are naturally resistant to Chernobyl ionizing-radiation levels. PLoS One 6(7):e21764PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson CH (2002) Controls on decomposition and soil nitrogen availability at high latitudes. Plant Soil 242:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romanovskaya VA, Sokolov IG, Rokitko PV, Chernaya NA (1998) Ecological consequences of radioactive contamination for soil bacteria in the 10 km Chernobyl zone. Microbiol 67:274–280Google Scholar
  34. Shestopalov VM (1996) Atlas of Chernobyl exclusion zone. Ukrainian Academy of Science, KievGoogle Scholar
  35. Staaf H (1980) Influence of chemical composition, addition of raspberry leaves, and nitrogen supply on decomposition rate and dynamics of nitrogen and phosphorus in beech leaf litter. Oikos 35:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor BR, Parkinson D (1988) Aspen and pine leaf litter decomposition in laboratory microcosms: interactions of temperature and moisture level. Can J Bot 66:1966–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM (2008) The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Victorov AG (1993) Radio-sensitivity and radio-pathology of earthworms and their use as bio-indication of radioactive territories. Bioindication and radioactive contamination. Nauka, Moscow, pp 213–217Google Scholar
  39. Yoschenko VI, Kashparov VA, Levchuk SE, Glukhovskiy AS, Khomutinin YV, Protsak VP, Lundin SM, Tschiersch J (2006a) Resuspension and redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Part II. Modeling the transport process. J Environ Radioact 87:260–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoschenko VI, Kashparov VA, Protsak VP, Lundin SM, Levchuk SE, Kadygib AM, Zvarich SI, Khomutinin YV, Maloshtan IM, Lanshin VP, Kovtun MV, Tschiersch J (2006b) Resuspension and redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Part I. Fire experiments. J Environ Radioact 86:143–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zymenko TG, Chernetsova IB, Mokhova SV (1995) Microbiologic complex in radioactively contaminated sod-potboil soils. Her Nat Belarus Acad Sci (Biol) 4:69–72Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy A. Mousseau
    • 1
  • Gennadi Milinevsky
    • 2
  • Jane Kenney-Hunt
    • 3
  • Anders Pape Møller
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Space Physics LaboratoryTaras Shevchenko National University of KyivKyivUkraine
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Environmental ScienceWestminster CollegeFultonUSA
  4. 4.Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079Université Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations