, Volume 182, Issue 1, pp 287–297 | Cite as

Forest composition modifies litter dynamics and decomposition in regenerating tropical dry forest

  • Erik M. Schilling
  • Bonnie G. Waring
  • Jonathan S. Schilling
  • Jennifer S. PowersEmail author
Ecosystem ecology – original research


We investigated how forest composition, litter quality, and rainfall interact to affect leaf litter decomposition across three successional tropical dry forests in Costa Rica. We monitored litter stocks and bulk litter turnover in 18 plots that exhibit substantial variation in soil characteristics, tree community structure, fungal communities (including forests dominated by ecto- or arbuscular mycorrhizal host trees), and forest age. Simultaneously, we decomposed three standard litter substrates over a 6-month period spanning an unusually intense drought. Decay rates of standard substrates depended on the interaction between litter identity and forest type. Decomposition rates were correlated with tree and soil fungal community composition as well as soil fertility, but these relationships differed among litter types. In low fertility soils dominated by ectomycorrhizal oak trees, bulk litter turnover rates were low, regardless of soil moisture. By contrast, in higher fertility soils that supported mostly arbuscular mycorrhizal trees, bulk litter decay rates were strongly dependent on seasonal water availability. Both measures of decomposition increased with forest age, as did the frequency of termite-mediated wood decay. Taken together, our results demonstrate that soils and forest age exert strong control over decomposition dynamics in these tropical dry forests, either directly through effects on microclimate and nutrients, or indirectly by affecting tree and microbial community composition and traits, such as litter quality.


Costa Rica Drought Edaphic gradients Soil fungi Succession 



We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the United States National Science Foundation (Career grant DEB 1053237 to J.S.P), excellent help in the field from Daniel Peréz, and logistical support from Roger Blanco and Maria Marta Chavarría and the Área de Conservación Guanacaste.

Author contribution statement

JSP and BGW conceived and designed the study. EMS and BGW performed the field research, and JSS performed lab analysis. BGW and JSP analyzed the data and wrote the paper with input from EMS and JSS.

Supplementary material

442_2016_3662_MOESM1_ESM.docx (346 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 346 kb)


  1. Anaya CA, Garcia-Oliva F, Jaramillo VJ (2007) Rainfall and labile carbon availability control litter nitrogen dynamics in a tropical dry forest. Oecologia 150:602–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anaya CA, Jaramillo VJ, Martinez-Yrizar A, Garcia-Oliva F (2012) Large rainfall pulses control litter decomposition in a tropical dry forest: evidence from an 8-year study. Ecosystems 15:652–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Averill C, Turner BL, Finzi AC (2014) Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505:543–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Berg S, Wall DH (2009) Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. J Ecol 97:901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becknell JM, Powers JS (2014) Stand age and soils as drivers of plant functional traits and aboveground biomass in secondary tropical dry forest. Can J For Res 44:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke IC, Kaye JP, Bird SP, Hall SA, McCulley RL, Sommerville GL (2003) Evaluating and testing models of terrestrial biogeochemistry: the role of temperature in controlling decomposition. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 225–253Google Scholar
  7. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaa E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA, Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, vanBodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Dıaz S, Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM, Denef K, Paul E (2013) The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob Change Biol 19:988–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coûteaux MM, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewel JJ (1976) Litter fall and leaf decomposition in a tropical forest succession in Eastern Guatemala. J Ecol 64:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez CW, Kennedy PG (2015) Revisiting the ‘Gadgil effect’: do inter-guild fungal interactions drive carbon cycling in forest soils? New Phytol. doi: 10.1111/nph.13648 Google Scholar
  12. Freschet GT, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2012) A plant economics spectrum of litter decomposability. Funct Ecol 26:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gadgil R, Gadgil PD (1971) Mycorrhiza and litter decomposition. Nature 233:133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutiérrez-Leitón M (2013) Déficit hídrico en cifras. Estación Experimental Forestal Horizontes, Liberia, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  15. Hatfield R, Fukushima RS (2005) Can lignin be accurately measured? Crop Sci 45:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hattenschwiler S, Jorgensen HB (2010) Carbon quality rather than stoichiometry controls litter decomposition in a tropical rain forest. J Ecol 98:754–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiménez-Rodríguez CD, Calvo-Alvarado J (2014) An evaluation of rainfall interception in secondary tropical dry forests. In: Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Powers JS (eds) Tropical dry forests in the americas: ecology, conservation, and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 249–265Google Scholar
  18. Kaffenberger JT, Schilling JS (2015) Comparing lignocellulose physiochemistry after decomposition by brown rot fungi with distinct evolutionary origins. Environ Microbiol. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12615 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keiser AD, Knoepp JD, Bradford MA (2013) Microbial communities may modify how litter quality affects potential decomposition rates as tree species migrate. Plant Soil 372:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kissing LB, Powers JS (2010) Coarse woody debris stocks as a function of forest type and stand age in Costa Rican tropical dry forest: long-lasting legacies of previous land use. J Trop Ecol 26:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koide RT, Wu T (2003) Ectomycorrhizas and retarded decomposition in a Pinus resinosa plantation. New Phytol 158:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebrija-Trejos E, Perez-Garcia EA, Meave JA, Poorter L, Bongers F (2011) Environmental changes during secondary succession in a tropical dry forest in Mexico. J Trop Ecol 27:477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindahl BD, Tunlid A (2015) Ectomycorrhizal fungi—potential organic matter decomposers, yet not saprotrophs. New Phytol 205:1443–1447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohbeck M, Poorter L, Martinez-Ramos M, Bongers F (2015) Biomass is the main driver of changes in ecosystem process rates during tropical forest succession. Ecology 96:1242–1252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Makkonen M, Berg MP, Handa IT, Hattenschwiler S, van Ruijven J, van Bodegom PM, Aerts R (2012) Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. Ecol Lett 15:1033–1041CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard DS, Crowther TW, King JR, Warren RJ, Bradford MA (2015) Temperate forest termites: ecology, biogeography, and ecosystem impacts. Ecological Entomology 40(3):199–210. doi: 10.1111/een.12185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGuire KL, Treseder KK (2010) Microbial communities and their relevance for ecosystem models: decomposition as a case study. Soil Biol Biochem 42:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGuire KL, Zak DR, Edwards IP, Blackwood CB, Upchurch R (2010) Slowed decomposition is biotically mediated in an ectomycorrhizal, tropical rain forest. Oecologia 164:785–795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Meentemeyer V (1978) Macroclimate and lignin control of litter decomposition rates. Ecology 59:465–472CrossRefGoogle 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. Midgley MG, Brzostek E, Phillips RP (2015) Decay rates of leaf litters from arbuscular mycorrhizal trees are more sensitive to soil effects than litters from ectomycorrhizal trees. J Ecol 103:1454–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostertag R, Marin-Spiotta E, Silver WL, Schulten J (2008) Litterfall and decomposition in relation to soil carbon pools along a secondary forest chronosequence in Puerto Rico. Ecosystems 11:701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips RP, Brzostek E, Midgley MG (2013) The mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economy, a new framework for predicting carbon-nutrient couplings in temperate forests. New Phytol 199:41–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Powers JS, Perez-Aviles D (2013) Edaphic factors are a more important control on surface fine roots than stand age in secondary tropical dry forests. Biotropica 45:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Powers JS, Montgomery RA, Adair EC, Brearley FQ, DeWalt SJ, Castanho CT, Chave J, Deinert E, Ganzhorn JU, Gilbert ME, Antonio-Gonzalez J, Bunyavejchewin S, Grau HR, Harms KE, Hiremath A, Iriarte-Vivar S, Manzane E, Oliveira AAd, Poorter L, Ramanamanjato J-B, Salk C, Varela A, Weiblen GD, Lerdau MT (2009a) Decomposition in tropical forests: a pan-tropical study of the effects of litter type, litter placement and mesofaunal exclusion. J Ecol 97:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powers JS, Becknell JM, Irving J, Perez-Aviles D (2009b) Diversity and structure of regenerating tropical dry forests in Costa Rica, geographic patterns and environmental drivers. For Ecol Manage 258:959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  39. Schilling JS, Ayres A, Kaffenberger JT, Powers JS (2015) Initial white rot type dominance of wood decomposition and its functional consequences in a regenerating tropical dry forest. Soil Biol Biochem 88:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sluiter J, Sluiter A (2010) Summative mass closure (NREL/TP-510-48087). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  41. Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker D (2008) Determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass (NREL.TP-510-42618). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  42. Soto M (2014) Fuerte sequía en Guanacaste adelantaría incendios forestales. La Nación, 13 September 2014Google Scholar
  43. Strickland MS, Lauber C, Fierer N, Bradford MA (2009) Testing the functional significance of microbial community composition. Ecology 90:441–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Strickland MS, Keiser AD, Bradford MA (2015) Climate history shapes contemporary leaf litter decomposition. Biogeochemistry 122:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Talbot JM, Treseder KK (2012) Interactions among lignin, cellulose, and nitrogen drive litter chemistry-decay relationships. Ecology 93:345–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Talbot JM, Allion SD, Treseder KK (2008) Decomposers in disguise: mycorrhizal fungi as regulators of soil C dynamics in ecosystems under global change. Funct Ecol 22:955–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ulate GV (2001) Fitogeografía de ecosistemas secos el la meseta de ignimbritas de Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 49:227–238Google Scholar
  48. Veen GF, Freschet GT, Ordonez A, Wardle DA (2015) Litter quality and environmental controls of home-field advantage effects on leaf litter decomposition. Oikos 124:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waring BG (2012) A meta-analysis of climatic and chemical controls on leaf litter decay rates in tropical forests. Ecosystems 15:999–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waring BG, Becknell JM, Powers JS (2015) Nitrogen, phosphorus, and cation use efficiency in stands of regenerating tropical dry forest. Oecologia 178:887–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Waring BG, Adams R, Branco S, Powers JS (2016) Scale-dependent variation in nitrogen cycling and soil fungal communities along gradients of forest composition and age in regenerating tropical dry forests. New Phytol 209:845–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wieder RK, Wright SJ (1995) Tropical forest litter dynamics and dry season irrigation on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecology 76:1971–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Townsend AR (2009) Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecology 90:3333–3341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik M. Schilling
    • 1
  • Bonnie G. Waring
    • 1
  • Jonathan S. Schilling
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jennifer S. Powers
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  3. 3.Institute on the EnvironmentUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations