, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 1455–1468 | Cite as

Biogeochemical Hotspots in Forested Landscapes: The Role of Vernal Pools in Denitrification and Organic Matter Processing

  • Krista A. CappsEmail author
  • Regina Rancatti
  • Nathan Tomczyk
  • Thomas B. Parr
  • Aram J. K. Calhoun
  • Malcolm HunterJr.


Quantifying spatial and temporal heterogeneity in ecosystem processes presents a challenge for conserving ecosystem function across landscapes. In particular, many ecosystems contain small features that play larger roles in ecosystem processes than their size would indicate; thus, they may represent “hotspots” of activity relative to their surroundings. Biogeochemical hotspots are characterized as small features within a landscape that show comparatively high chemical reaction rates. In northeastern forests in North America, vernal pools are abundant, small features that typically fill in spring with snow melt and precipitation and dry by the end of summer. Ephemeral flooding alters soil moisture and the depth of the soil’s oxic/anoxic boundary, which may affect biogeochemical processes. We studied the effects of vernal pools on leaf-litter decomposition rates, soil enzyme activity, and denitrification in vernal pools to assess whether they function as biogeochemical hotspots. Our results indicate that seasonal inundation enhanced leaf-litter decomposition, denitrification, and enzyme activity in vernal pools relative to adjacent forest sites. Leaves in seasonally flooded areas decomposed faster than leaves in terra firme forest sites. Flooding also influenced the C, N, and P stoichiometry of decomposing leaf litter and explained the variance in microbial extracellular enzyme activity for phosphatase, β-d-glucosidase, and β-N-acetylglucosaminidase. Additionally, denitrification rates were enhanced by seasonal flooding across all of the study pools. Collectively, these data suggest that vernal pool ecosystems may function as hotspots of leaf-litter decomposition and denitrification and play a significant role in decomposition and nutrient dynamics relative to their size.


ephemeral wetland biogeochemical hotspot leaf-litter decomposition denitrification soil enzymes 



We would like to thank Dennis Anderson for help in the lab and Randi Jackson for help in the field. This work was funded by Maine’s Sustainability Solutions Initiative (National Science Foundation Award Number: 0904155). We would also like to thank the subject editor and the anonymous reviewers who provided comments that enhanced the quality of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10021_2014_9807_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (42 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1 Enzyme activity in soils in each of the three locations in each pool. Dashed lines are the 1:1 ratio. (A) relationship between carbon and nitrogen acquiring activities, (B) relationship between carbon and phosphorus acquiring activities (JPEG 41 kb)


  1. Abenspergtraun M. 1993. A comparison of 2 methods for sampling assemblages of subterranean, wood-eating termites (Isoptera). Aust J Ecol 18:317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JM. 1991. The effects of climate change on decomposition processes in grassland and coniferous forests. Ecol Appl 1:326–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. Association APH editor. Washington, DC: American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation. p 1268.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin DS, Rees GN, Mitchell AM, Watson G. 2005. Spatial and temporal variability of nitrogen dynamics in an upland stream before and after a drought. Mar Freshw Res 56:457–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron JS, Hall EK, Nolan BT, Finlay JC, Bernhardt ES, Harrison JA, Chan F, Boyer EW. 2013. The interactive effects of excess reactive nitrogen and climate change on aquatic ecosystems and water resources of the United States. Biogeochemistry 114:71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battle JM, Golladay SW. 2007. How hydrology, habitat type, and litter quality affect leaf breakdown in wetlands on the gulf coastal plain of Georgia. Wetlands 27:251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batzer DP, Palik BJ. 2007. Variable response by aquatic invertebrates to experimental manipulations of leaf litter input into seasonal woodland ponds. Fundam Appl Limnol 168:155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell CW, Fricks BE, Rocca JD, Steinweg JM, McMahon SK, Wallenstein MD. 2013. High-throughput fluorometric measurement of potential soil extracellular enzyme activities. J Vis Exp.
  9. Benke AC, Hall CAS, Hawkins CP, Lowemcconnell RH, Stanford JA, Suberkropp K, Ward JV. 1988. Bioenergetic considerations in the analysis of stream ecosystems. J N Am Benthol Soc 7:480–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bettez ND, Groffman PM. 2012. Denitrification potential in stormwater control structures and natural riparian zones in an urban landscape. Environ Sci Technol 46:10909–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bischof MM, Hanson MA, Fulton MR, Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Butler MG. 2013. Invertebrate community patterns in seasonal ponds in minnesota, USA: response to hydrologic and environmental variability. Wetlands 33:245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blackwell MSA, Pilgrim ES. 2011. Ecosystem services delivered by small-scale wetlands. Hydrol Sci J 56:1467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer EW, Alexander RB, Parton WJ, Li CS, Butterbach-Bahl K, Donner SD, Skaggs RW, Del Gross SJ. 2006. Modeling denitrification in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at regional scales. Ecol Appl 16:2123–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brady NC, Weil RR. 2007. The nature and properties of soils. Lebanon: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Brooks RT. 2009. Potential impacts of global climate change on the hydrology and ecology of ephemeral freshwater systems of the forests of the northeastern United States. Clim Change 95:469–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt TP, Pinay G. 2005. Linking hydrology and biogeochemistry in complex landscapes. Prog Phys Geogr 29:297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calhoun A, deMaynadier PG. 2008. Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. Calhoun AJK, Walls TE, Stockwell SS, McCollough M. 2003. Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: a maine case study. Wetlands 23:70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capps KA, Graca MAS, Encalada AC, Flecker AS. 2011. Leaf-litter decomposition across three flooding regimes in a seasonally flooded Amazonian watershed. J Trop Ecol 27:205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Swan CM, Brooks S, Poff NL. 2002. The influence of substrate heterogeneity on biofilm metabolism in a stream ecosystem. Ecology 83:412–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christensen S, Tiedje JM. 1990. Brief and vigorous N2O production by soil at spring thaw. J Soil Sci 41:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chrost RJ, Ed. 1991. Microbial enzymes in aquatic environments. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Cisneros-Dozal LM, Trumbore SE, Hanson PJ. 2007. Effect of moisture on leaf litter decomposition and its contribution to soil respiration in a temperate forest. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 112:10.Google Scholar
  24. Cornejo FH, Varela A, Wright SJ. 1994. Tropical forest litter decompositon under seasonal drought—nutrient release, fungi and bacteria. Oikos 70:183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cross WF, Benstead JP, Frost PC, Thomas SA. 2005. Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshw Biol 50:1895–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crous CJ, Samways MJ, Pryke JS. 2013. Exploring the mesofilter as a novel operational scale in conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 50:205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. David MB, Wall LG, Royer TV, Tank JL. 2006. Denitrification and the nitrogen budget of a reservoir in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Appl 16:2177–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Day FP. 1982. Litter decomposition rates in the seasonally flooded great dismal swamp. Ecology 63:670–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Earl JE, Semlitsch RD. 2012. Reciprocal subsidies in ponds: does leaf input increase frog biomass export? Oecologia 170:1077–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Earl JE, Semlitsch RD. 2013. Spatial subsidies, trophic state, and community structure: examining the effects of leaf litter input on ponds. Ecosystems 16:639–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fenner N, Williams R, Toberman H, Hughes S, Reynolds B, Freeman C. 2011. Decomposition ‘hotspots’ in a rewetted peatland: implications for water quality and carbon cycling. Hydrobiologia 674:51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fernandez IJ. 2008. Carbon and nutrients in Maine forest soils. Station MAaFE editor. Technical Bulletin. Orono: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  33. Fisher SG, Likens GE. 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire-integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. German DP, Chacon S, Allison SD. 2011. Substrate concentration and enzyme allocation can affect rates of microbial decomposition. Ecology 92:1471–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glazebrook HS, Robertson AI. 1999. The effect of flooding and flood timing on leaf litter breakdown rates and nutrient dynamics in a river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forest. Aust J Ecol 24:625–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Graca MAS, Ferreira RCF, Coimbra CN. 2001. Litter processing along a stream gradient: the role of invertebrates and decomposers. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:408–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grimm NB, Gergel SE, McDowell WH, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Groffman P, Hart SC, Harvey J, Johnston C, Mayorga E, McClain ME, Pinay G. 2003. Merging aquatic and terrestrial perspectives of nutrient biogeochemistry. Oecologia 137:485–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Groffman PM, Hanson GC. 1997. Wetland denitrification: influence of site quality and relationships with wetland delineation protocols. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Groffman PM, Hanson GC, Kiviat E, Stevens G. 1996. Variation in microbial biomass and activity in four different wetland types. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:622–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Groffman P, Holland EA, Myrold DD, Robertson GP, Zou X. 1999. Denitrification. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P, Eds. Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Groffman PM, Altabet MA, Bohlke JK, Butterbach-Bahl K, David MB, Firestone MK, Giblin AE, Kana TM, Nielsen LP, Voytek MA. 2006. Methods for measuring denitrification: diverse approaches to a difficult problem. Ecol Appl 16:2091–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Groffman PM, Butterbach-Bahl K, Fulweiler RW, Gold AJ, Morse JL, Stander EK, Tague C, Tonitto C, Vidon P. 2009. Challenges to incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models. Biogeochemistry 93:49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harbott EL, Grace MR. 2005. Extracellular enzyme response to bioavailability of dissolved organic C in streams of varying catchment urbanization. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:588–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harner MJ, Crenshaw CL, Abelho M, Stursova M, Shah JJF, Sinsabaugh RL. 2009. Decomposition of leaf litter from a native tree and an actinorhizal invasive across riparian habitats. Ecol Appl 19:1135–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hill BH, Elonen CM, Jicha TM, Cotter AM, Trebitz AS, Danz NP. 2006. Sediment microbial enzyme activity as an indicator of nutrient limitation in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Freshw Biol 51:1670–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hill BH, Elonen CM, Seifert LR, May AA, Tarquinio E. 2012. Microbial enzyme stoichiometry and nutrient limitation in US streams and rivers. Ecol Ind 18:540–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hunter ML Jr. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. Washington, DC): Island Press. pp 266–81.Google Scholar
  48. Hunter ML. 2005. A mesofilter conservation strategy to complement fine and coarse filters. Conserv Biol 19:1025–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Inwood SE, Tank JL, Bernot MJ. 2007. Factors controlling sediment denitrification in midwestern streams of varying land use. Microb Ecol 53:247–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jackson CR, Foreman CM, Sinsabaugh RL. 1995. Microbial enzyme activities as indicators of organic matter processing rates in a Lake Erie coastal wetland. Freshw Biol 34:329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaspar HF. 1982. Denitrification in marine sediment—measurement of capacity and estimate of in situ rate. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:522–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelley RH, Jack JD. 2002. Leaf litter decomposition in an ephemeral karst lake (Chaney Lake, Kentucky, USA). Hydrobiologia 482:41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirchman DL, Dittel AI, Findlay SEG, Fischer D. 2004. Changes in bacterial activity and community structure in response to dissolved organic matter in the Hudson River, New York. Aquat Microb Ecol 35:243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Langhans SD, Tiegs SD, Uehlinger U, Tockner K. 2006. Environmental heterogeneity controls organic-matter dynamics in river-floodplain ecosystems. Pol J Ecol 54:675–80.Google Scholar
  55. Langhans SD, Tiegs SD, Gessner MO, Tockner K. 2008. Leaf-decomposition heterogeneity across a riverine floodplain mosaic. Aquat Sci 70:337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindquist ED, Foster DK, Wilcock SP, Erikson JS. 2013. Rapid assessment tools for conserving woodland vernal pools in the northern Blue Ridge Mountains. Northeastern Nat 20:397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lovett GM, Jones C, Turner MG, Weathers KC, Eds. 2005. Ecosystem function in heterogenous landscapes. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. McClain ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, Hart SC, Harvey JW, Johnston CA, Mayorga E, McDowell WH, Pinay G. 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6:301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mulholland PJ, Hall RO, Sobota DJ, Dodds WK, Findlay SEG, Grimm NB, Hamilton SK, McDowell WH, O’Brien JM, Tank JL, Ashkenas LR, Cooper LW, Dahm CN, Gregory SV, Johnson SL, Meyer JL, Peterson BJ, Poole GC, Valett HM, Webster JR, Arango CP, Beaulieu JJ, Bernot MJ, Burgin AJ, Crenshaw CL, Helton AM, Johnson LT, Niederlehner BR, Potter JD, Sheibley RW, Thomas SM. 2009. Nitrate removal in stream ecosystems measured by N-15 addition experiments: denitrification. Limnol Oceanogr 54:666–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oscarson DB, Calhoun AJK. 2007. Developing vernal pool conservation plans at the local level using citizen-scientists. Wetlands 27:80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ostojic A, Rosado J, Milisa M, Morais M, Tockner K. 2013. Release of nutrients and organic matter from river floodplain habitats: simulating seasonal inundation dynamics. Wetlands 33:847–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Palik B, Batzer D, Kern C. 2006. Upland forest linkages to seasonal wetlands: litter flux, processing, and food quality. Ecosystems 9:142–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Palmer MA, Febria CM. 2012. The heartbeat of ecosystems. Sci China C 336:1393–4.Google Scholar
  64. Parkin TB. 1987. Soil microsites as a source of dentrification variability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paul MJ, Meyer JL, Couch CA. 2006. Leaf breakdown in streams differing in catchment land use. Freshw Biol 51:1684–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Petersen RC, Cummins KW. 1974. Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshw Biol 4:343–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pribyl DW. 2010. A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 156:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reddy KR, Patrick WH. 1984. Nitrogen transformations and loss in flooded soils and sediments. CRC Crit Rev Environ Control 13:273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reddy KR, Kadlec RH, Flaig E, Gale PM. 1999. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 29:83–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seitzinger S, Harrison JA, Bohlke JK, Bouwman AF, Lowrance R, Peterson B, Tobias C, Van Drecht G. 2006. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 16:2064–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sinsabaugh RL, Findlay S. 1995. Microbial production, enzyme activity, and carbon turnover in surface sediments of the Hudson River estuary. Microb Ecol 30:127–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sinsabaugh RL, Hill BH, Follstad Shah JJ. 2009. Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment. Nature 462:795–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Snodgrass JW, Komoroski MJ, Bryan AL, Burger J. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conserv Biol 14:414–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Townsend AR. 2009. Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecology 90:3333–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yule CM, Gomez LN. 2009. Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Wetlands Ecol Manage 17:231–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krista A. Capps
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Regina Rancatti
    • 3
  • Nathan Tomczyk
    • 3
  • Thomas B. Parr
    • 1
    • 3
  • Aram J. K. Calhoun
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Malcolm HunterJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Sustainability Solutions InitiativeUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Ecology and Environmental Science ProgramUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations