, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 927–941 | Cite as

Habitat Complexity Enhances Comminution and Decomposition Processes in Urban Ecosystems

  • Alessandro Ossola
  • Amy K. Hahs
  • Michael A. Nash
  • Stephen J. Livesley


Decomposition of organic matter is an essential process regulating fluxes of energy and matter within ecosystems. Although soil microbes drive decomposition, this is often facilitated by detritivores through comminution. The contribution of detritivores and microbes to comminution and decomposition processes is likely to be affected by the habitat complexity. In urban ecosystems, human activities and management of vegetation and litter and soil components determine habitat complexities unobserved in natural ecosystems. Therefore, we investigated the effect of habitat complexity of low- and high-complexity urban parks and high-complexity woodland remnants on microbial decomposition and detritivore comminution using litter bags of differing mesh size. Detritivores were sampled using pitfall traps and their assemblage structure related to rates of comminution. Habitats of lower complexity had significantly lower decomposition and comminution rates. In more complex habitats, site history did not affect decomposition and comminution processes. Vegetation complexity and the indirect effect on microclimate explained most of the variation in decomposition and comminution processes. The abundance of macrofauna detritivores and their species richness were both positively related to higher comminution rates. The volume of understory vegetation was the best predictor for both macrofauna detritivore assemblage structure and comminution and decomposition processes. The study demonstrated that relatively modest changes in habitat complexity associated with different management practices can exert significant effects on the decomposition and comminution processes. The structure of detritivores assemblages was also subjected to modifications of the habitat complexity with significant effects on comminution processes. Simple management practices aimed to increase the complexity of habitats, particularly in the understory vegetation and litter layers, could restore and enhance soil biodiversity and functioning in urban ecosystems.


arthropods ecosystem function habitat simplification leaf litter management microclimate restoration soil understory vegetation 



This project was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC LP 110100686), the Australian Golf Course Superintendent Association (AGCSA), the Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology (ARCUE), and the Frank Keenan Fund Trust. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. AO is supported by MIFRS and MIRS scholarships. AKH is supported by the Baker Foundation. Dr. Caragh Threlfall and Lee Wilson provided valuable assistance during field work and Dr. Robert Mesibov (Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania) confirmed our macrofauna detritivore identifications. Comments by Prof. Heikki Setälä, Dr. Fiona Christie, and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript. We are also grateful to the AGSCA Members and the Municipalities of Kingston, Frankston, and Greater Dandenong for their collaboration.

Supplementary material

10021_2016_9976_MOESM1_ESM.docx (176 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 174 kb)


  1. Adair EC, Hobbie SE, Hobbie RK. 2010. Single-pool exponential decomposition models: potential pitfalls in their use in ecological studies. Ecology 91:1225–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashford OS, Foster WA, Turner BL, Sayer EJ, Sutcliffe L, Tanner EVJ. 2013. Litter manipulation and the soil arthropod community in a lowland tropical rainforest. Soil Biol Biochem 62:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2014. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Accessed 1 March 2015.
  4. Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR. 1991. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bílá K, Moretti M, Bello F, Dias ATC, Pezzatti GB, Van Oosten AR, Berg MP. 2014. Disentangling community functional components in a litter-macrodetritivore model system reveals the predominance of the mass ratio hypothesis. Ecol Evol 4(4):408–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan KEC, Christie FJ, York A. 2009. Global climate change and litter decomposition: more frequent fire slows decomposition and increases the functional importance of invertebrates. Glob Change Biol 15:2958–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brudvig LA, Grman E, Habeck CW, Orrock JL, Ledvina JA. 2013. Strong legacy of agricultural land use on soils and understory plant communities in longleaf pine woodlands. For Ecol Manag 310:944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckingham S, Murphy N, Gibb H. 2015. The effects of fire severity on macroinvertebrate detritivores and leaf litter decomposition. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0124556.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne LB. 2007. Habitat structure: a fundamental concept and framework for urban soil ecology. Urban Ecosyst 10:255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne LB, Bruns MA, Kim KC. 2008. Ecosystem properties of urban land covers at the aboveground-belowground interface. Ecosystems 11:1065–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carreiro MM, Howe K, Parkhurst DF, Pouyat RV. 1999. Variation in quality and decomposability of red oak leaf litter along an urban-rural gradient. Biol Fertil Soils 30:258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chace JF, Walsh JJ. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen H, Gurmesa GA, Liu L, Zhang T, Fu S, Liu Z, Dong S, Ma C, Mo J. 2014. Effects of litter manipulation on litter decomposition in a successional gradients of tropical forests in southern China. PLoS ONE 9:e99018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Collison EJ, Riutta T, Slade EM. 2013. Macrofauna assemblage composition and soil moisture interact to affect soil ecosystem functions. Acta Oecol 47:30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coulis M, Hättenschwiler S, Fromin N, David JF. 2013. Macroarthropod-microorganism interactions during the decomposition of Mediterranean shrub litter at different moisture levels. Soil Biol Biochem 64:114–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. David JF, Ponge JF, Arpin P, Vannier G. 1991. Reactions of the macrofauna of a forest mull to experimental perturbations of litter supply. Oikos 61:316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. David JF. 2014. The role of litter-feeding macroarthropods in decomposition processes: a reappraisal of common views. Soil Biol Biochem 76:109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. da Silva AR, de Lima RP. 2015. Soilphysics—Soil physical analysis, R Package.
  20. De Rosario-Martinez H. 2013. Phia: post hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.1-3.Google Scholar
  21. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JRG, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T, McClean C, Osborne PE, Reineking B, Schröder B, Skidmore AK, Zurell D, Lautenbach S. 2013. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ebeling A, Meyer ST, Abbas M, Eisenhauer N, Hillebrand H, Lange M, Scherber C, Vogel A, Weigelt A, Weisser WW. 2014. Plant diversity impacts decomposition and herbivory via changes in aboveground arthropods. PLoS ONE 9:e106529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenhauer N, Yee K, Johnson EA, Maraun M, Parkinson D, Straube D, Scheu S. 2011. Positive relationship between herbaceous layer diversity and the performance of soil biota in a temperate forest. Soil Biol Biochem 43:462–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Facelli JM, Pickett STA. 1991. Plant Litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garden JG, Mcalpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN. 2007. Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition for local-level management of native terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:669–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geiger R, Aron RH, Todhunter P. 2003. The climate near the ground. 6th edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Gough C, Elliott HL. 2012. Lawn soil carbon storage in abandoned residential properties: an examination of ecosystem structure and function following partial human-natural decoupling. J Environ Manag 98:155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenslade P. 2007. The potential of Collembola to act as indicators of landscape stress in Australia. Aust J Exp Agric 47(4):424–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Haynes RJ, Dominy CS, Graham MH. 2003. Effect of agricultural land use on soil organic matter status and the composition of earthworm communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95(2–3):453–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen RA. 1999. Red oak litter promotes a microarthropod functional group that accelerates its decomposition. Plant Soil 209:37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen RA. 2000. Effects of habitat complexity and composition on a diverse litter microarthropod assemblage. Ecology 81:1120–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hättenschwiler S, Tiunov AV, Scheu S. 2005. Biodiversity and litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 36:191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heemsbergen DA, Berg MP, Loreau M, Van Hal JR, Faber JH, Verhoef HA. 2004. Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 306:1019–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Holm S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70.Google Scholar
  36. Joosse ENG, Verhoef HA. 1987. Developments in ecophysiological research on soil invertebrates. In: MacFadyen A, Ford ED, Eds. Advances in ecological research. London: Academic Press. p 175–249.Google Scholar
  37. Kallenbach CM, Grandy Stuart A. 2014. Land-use legacies regulate decomposition dynamics following bioenergy crop conversion. GCB Bioenergy . doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12218.Google Scholar
  38. Koehler HH. 2000. Natural regeneration and succession—results from a 13 years study with reference to mesofauna and vegetation, and implications for management. Landsc Urban Plan 51:123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langellotto GA, Denno RF. 2004. Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia 139:1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence KL, Wise DH. 2000. Spider predation on forest-floor Collembola and evidence for indirect effects on decomposition. Pedobiologia 44:33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis DB, Kaye JP, Kinzig AP. 2014. Legacies of agriculture and urbanization in labile and stable organic carbon and nitrogen in Sonoran Desert soils. Ecosphere 5(5):59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindsay EA, Cunningham SA. 2009. Livestock grazing exclusion and microhabitat variation affect invertebrates and decomposition rates in woodland remnants. For Ecol Manag 258:178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazerolle MJ. 2015. AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.0-3.
  44. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKinney ML. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nilsson MC, Wardle DA. 2005. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Front Ecol Environ 3:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. NSW Government. 2001. Soil survey standard test methods—particle size analysis. In: PSA-P7, method type B, version n.3. Department of Sustainable Natural Resources, New South Wales.Google Scholar
  48. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H. 2014. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.2-0.Google Scholar
  49. Oldfield EE, Warren RJ, Felson AJ, Bradford MA. 2013. FORUM: challenges and future directions in urban afforestation. J Appl Ecol 50:1169–77.Google Scholar
  50. Ossola A, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ. 2015a. Habitat complexity influences fine scale hydrological processes and the incidence of stormwater runoff in managed urban ecosystems. J Environ Manag 159:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ossola A, Nash MA, Christie F, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ. 2015b. Urban habitat complexity affects species richness but not environmental filtering of morphologically-diverse ants. Peer J 3:e1356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Paoletti MG. 1999. The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74(1–3):137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paoletti MG, Osler GHR, Kinnear A, Black DG, Thomson LJ, Tsitsilas A, Sharley D, Judd S, Neville P, D’Inca A. 2007. Detritivores as indicators of landscape stress and soil degradation. Aust J Exp Agric 47:412–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pavao-Zuckerman MA, Coleman DC. 2005. Decomposition of chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) leaves and nitrogen mineralization in an urban environment. Biol Fertil Soils 41:343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peichl M, Arain AM, Moore TR, Brodeur JJ, Khomik M, Ullah S, Restrepo-Coupé N, McLaren J, Pejam MR. 2014. Carbon and greenhouse gas balances in an age sequence of temperate pine plantations. Biogeosciences 11(19):5399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R. 1997. A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML. 2009. Altered resources, disturbance, and heterogeneity: a framework for comparing urban and non-urban soils. Urban Ecosyst 12:23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. 2015. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-120, Accessed 1 March 2015.
  59. Ponsard S, Arditi R, Jost C. 2000. Assessing top-down and bottom-up control in a litter-based soil macroinvertebrate food chain. Oikos 89:524–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pouyat RV, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1997. Litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in oak stands along an urban-rural land use gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prach K, Pyšek P. 2001. Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: experience from Central Europe. Ecol Eng 17:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. R Core Team. 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  63. Riutta T, Slade EM, Bebber DP, Taylor ME, Malhi Y, Riordan P, Macdonald DW, Morecroft MD. 2012. Experimental evidence for the interacting effects of forest edge, moisture and soil macrofauna on leaf litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 49:124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Savva Y, Szlavecz K, Pouyat RV, Groffman PM, Heisler G. 2010. Effects of land use and vegetation cover on soil temperature in an urban ecosystem. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:469–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sayer EJ, Sutcliffe LME, Ross RIC, Tanner EVJ. 2010. Arthropod abundance and diversity in a lowland tropical forest floor in Panama: the role of habitat space vs. nutrient concentrations. Biotropica 42:194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sayer EJ, Tanner EVJ, Lacey AL. 2006. Effects of litter manipulation on early-stage decomposition and meso-arthropod abundance in a tropical moist forest. For Ecol Manag 229:285–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmidt P, Dickow K, Alinéia Rocha A, Marques R, Scheuermann L, Römbke J, Förster B, Höfer H. 2008. Soil macrofauna and decomposition rates in southern Brazilian Atlantic rainforest. Ecotropica 14:89–100.Google Scholar
  68. Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH. 2004. Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol Appl 14:268–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Six J, Callewaert P, Lenders S, De Gryze S, Morris SJ, Gregorich EG, Paul EA, Paustian K. 2002. Measuring and understanding carbon storage in afforested soils by physical fractionation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1981–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Slade EM, Riutta T. 2012. Interacting effects of leaf litter species and macrofauna on decomposition in different litter environments. Basic Appl Ecol 13:423–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF. 2005. Influence of habitat, litter type, and soil invertebrates on leaf-litter decomposition in a fragmented Amazonian landscape. Oecologia 144:456–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. VEAC. 2009. Biodiversity of Metropolitan Melbourne. Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. Melbourne, VIC.Google Scholar
  73. Villegas JC, Breshears DD, Zou CB, Law DJ. 2010. Ecohydrological controls of soil evaporation in deciduous drylands: how the hierarchical effects of litter, patch and vegetation mosaic cover interact with phenology and season. J Arid Environ 74:595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wall DH, Bradford MA, St. John MG, Trofymow JA, Behan-Pelletier V, Bignell DE, Dangerfield JM, Parton WJ, Rusek J, Voigt W, Wolters V, Gardel HZ, Ayuke FO, Bashford R, Beljakova OI, Bohlen PJ, Brauman A, Flemming S, Henschel JR, Johnson DL, Jones TH, Kovarova M, Kranabetter JM, Kutny LES, Lin KC, Maryati M, Masse D, Pokarzhevskii A, Rahman H, Sabará MG, Salamon JA, Swift MJ, Varela A, Vasconcelos HL, White DON, Zou X. 2008. Global decomposition experiment shows soil animal impacts on decomposition are climate-dependent. Glob Change Biol 14:2661–77.Google Scholar
  75. Wilke BM. 2005. Determination of chemical and physical soil properties. In: Margesin R, Schinner F, Eds. Manual of soil analysis. Monitoring and assessing soil bioremediation. Heidelberg: Springer. p 47–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhao J, Wang X, Shao Y, Xu G, Fu S. 2011. Effects of vegetation removal on soil properties and decomposer organisms. Soil Biol Biochem 43:954–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zipperer WC. 2002. Species composition and structure of regenerated and remnant forest patches within an urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 6:271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveiliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Ossola
    • 1
  • Amy K. Hahs
    • 2
  • Michael A. Nash
    • 3
  • Stephen J. Livesley
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesThe University of MelbourneRichmondAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, c/o School of BioSciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.South Australian Research and Development InstituteUrrbraeAustralia

Personalised recommendations