European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 135, Issue 5, pp 849–856 | Cite as

Ungulates decelerate litter decomposition by altering litter quality above and below ground

  • Michiru Kasahara
  • Saori Fujii
  • Toko Tanikawa
  • Akira S. Mori
Original Paper

Abstract

Ungulates can greatly affect forest ecosystems’ functional characteristics. However, limited information is available about their influence on litter decomposition, a major ecosystem process, despite disturbance of ungulates on vegetation through selective browsing and trampling. This study focused on effects of the presence/absence of deer herbivory on decomposition of leaves and roots of three major tree species in a Hokkaido, Japan forest. Our litterbag experiment showed that litter decomposition was significantly faster for both leaves and roots in a deer exclosure than in a control site with deer herbivory. Possible factors for this slowed decomposition because of deer presence include their physical disturbance on soil through trampling. In both sites, the remaining mass of litter was positively correlated with the C:N ratio and lignin content. When analyzed for leaf litter, species with lower C:N ratio and lignin content showed lower litter mass remaining in both sites. Deer generally prefer species with a low leaf C:N ratio and lignin content; the results suggest that leaves of palatable species were less resistant to decomposition. A similar interspecific difference in decomposition was not observed for roots, most likely resulting from the small difference in root litter quality among species. In this forest, tree species with unpalatable leaves, which are becoming predominant, likely decreases leaf litter decomposition, as leaves of palatable plants decompose more rapidly. Roots, however, are not exposed to browsing, regardless of aboveground palatability, and remain within soil as a recalcitrant slowly decomposing litter substrate. These synergetic influences could allow deer herbivory to reduce overall plant decomposition rates aboveground and belowground via changes in plant species composition.

Keywords

Cervus nippon yesoensis Decomposition Ezo deer Herbivory Leaf and root litter Nutrient cycling 

Supplementary material

10342_2016_978_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Fig. S1 Changes in the dissimilarity of the plant species composition between the exclosure and control sites from 2003 to 2013. β-diversity was measured as the Bray–Curtis index (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Aber JD, Melillo JM, McClaugherty CA (1990) Predicting long-term patterns of mass loss, nitrogen dynamics and soil organic matter formation from initial fine litter chemistry in temperate forest ecosystems. Can J Bot 68:2201–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardgett RD (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardgett RD, Wardle DA (2003) Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities. Ecology 84:2258–2268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardgett RD, Wardle DA, Yeates GW (1998) Linking above-ground and below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1867–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2003) Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair JM (1988) Nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing deciduous leaf litter in the southern appalachians. Soil Biol Biochem 20:693–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carney KM, Hungate BA, Drake BG, Megonigal JP (2007) Altered soil microbial community at elevated CO2 leads to loss of soil carbon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4990–4995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen H, Harmon ME, Sexton J, Fasth B (2002) Fine-root decomposition and N dynamics in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Can J For Res 32:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connor HE, Bailey RW (1972) Leaf strength in four species of Chionochloa (Arundineae). N Z J Bot 10:515–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke AS (1997) Effects of grazing by muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) on bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and a technique for assessing feeding activity. J Zool 242:365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelissen JHC, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz 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
  12. Craine JM, Lee WG, Bond WJ, Williams RJ, Johnson LC (2005) Environmental constraints on a global relationship among leaf and root traits of grasses. Ecology 86:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahey TJ, Hughes JW, Mou Pu, Arthur MA (1988) Root decomposition and nutrient flux following whole-tree harvest of northern hardwood forest. For Sci 34:744–768Google Scholar
  15. Fontaine S, Bardoux G, Abbadie L, Mariotti A (2004) Carbon input to soil may decrease soil carbon content. Ecol Lett 7:314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freschet GT, Cornwell WK, Wardle DA, Elumeeva TG, Liu W, Jackson BG, Onipchenko VG, Soudzilovskaia NA, Tao J, Cornelissen JHC (2013) Linking litter decomposition of above- and below-ground organs to plant-soil feedbacks worldwide. J Ecol 101:943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujii S, Takeda H (2010) Dominant effects of litter substrate quality on the difference between leaf and root decomposition process above- and belowground. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2224–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujii S, Takeda H (2012) Succession of collembolan communities during decomposition of leaf and root litter: effects of litter type and position. Soil Biol Biochem 54:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujii S, Makita N, Mori AS, Takeda H (2016) A stronger coordination of litter decomposability between leaves and fine roots for woody species in a warmer region. Trees 30:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gill RMA (1992) A review of damage by mammals in north temperate forests: 1. Deer. Forestry 65:145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grime JP, Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K, Hodgson JG (1996) Evidence of a causal connection between anti-herbivore defence and the decomposition rate of leaves. Oikos 77:489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gulis V, Suberkropp K (2003) Leaf litter decomposition and microbial activity in nutrient-enriched and unaltered reaches of a headwater stream. Freshw Biol 48:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbie SE, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Ogdahl M, Zytkowiak R, Hale C, Karolewski P (2006) Tree species effects on decomposition and forest floor dynamics in a common garden. Ecology 87:2288–2297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbie SE, Oleksyn J, Eissenstat DM, Reich PB (2010) Fine root decomposition rates do not mirror those of leaf litter among temperate tree species. Oecologia 162:505–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hokkaido Forest Administration Bureau, Forestry Agency (2013) Action of the forest conservation activity that cooperated with the present conditions and an area of the Ezo deer bark feeding damage in Shiretoko. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/hokkaido/policy/business/pr/siritoko_wh/pdf/h25houkokusyo.pdf (in Japanese)
  27. Ichikawa T, Fukazawa F, Takahashi T, Asano Y (2002) Effects of the conversion of the forest management type from natural deciduous broad-leaved forests to artificial Japanese cypress and Japanese cedar forests on soil fertility. Bull Jpn Soc For Environ 44:23–29Google Scholar
  28. Kemp PR, Reynolds JF, Virginia RA, Whitford WG (2003) Decomposition of leaf and root litter of Chihuahuan desert shrubs: effects of 3 years of summer drought. J Arid Environ 53:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King HGC, Heath GW (1967) The chemical analysis of small samples leaf material and the relationship between the disappearance and composition of leaves. Pedobiologia 7:192–197Google Scholar
  30. Kumbasli M, Makineci E, Cakir M (2010) Long term effects of red deer (Cervus elaphus) grazing on soil in a breeding area. J Environ Biol 31:185–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kurokawa H, Peltzer DA, Wardle DA (2010) Plant traits, leaf palatability and litter decomposability for co-occurring woody species differing in invasion status and nitrogen fixation ability. Funct Ecol 24:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuzyakov Y, Friedel JK, Stahr K (2000) Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1485–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ma C, Xiong Y, Li L, Guo D (2016) Root and leaf decomposition become decoupled over time: Implications for below—and above-ground relationships. Funct Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mohr D, Cohnstaedt LW, Topp W (2005) Wild boar and red deer affect soil nutrients and soil biota in steep oak stands of the Eifel. Soil Biol Biochem 37:693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olofsson J, Oksanen L (2002) Role of litter decomposition for the increased primary production in areas heavily grazed by reindeer: a litterbag experiment. Oikos 96:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osono T, Hagiwara Y, Masuya H (2011) Effects of temperature and litter type on fungal growth and decomposition of leaf litter. Mycoscience 52:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pastor J, Dewey B, Naiman RJ, Mcinnes PF, Cohen Y (1993) Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle Royale National Park. Ecology 74:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Persson I-L, Danell K, Bergström R (2000) Disturbance by large herbivores in boreal forests with special reference to moose. Ann Zool Fenn 37:251–263Google Scholar
  41. Peterson CA, Enstone DE, Taylor JH (1999) Pine root structure and its potential significance for root function. Plant Soil 217:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ritchie ME, Tilman D, Knops JMH (1998) Herbivore effects on plant and nitrogen dynamics in oak savanna. Ecology 79:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayer EJ (2005) Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems. Biol Rev 80:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shiretoko Data Center, Ministry of the Environment (2014) Meeting Document 1–4 Results of monitoring business related to the amount of deer. http://dc.shiretoko-whc.com/data/meeting/ezoshika_wg/h26/shikawg_H2601_shiryo1-4.pdf (in Japanese)
  45. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stewart AJA (2001) The impact of deer on lowland woodland invertebrates: a review of the evidence and priorities for future research. Forestry 74:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor BR, Parkinson D, Parsons WFJ (1989) Nitrogen and lignin content as predictors of litter decay rates: a microcosm test. Ecology 70:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tian G, Kang BT, Brussaard L (1992) Biological effects of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical conditions: decomposition and nutrient release. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1051–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Väre H, Ohtonen R, Mikkola K (1996) The effect and extent of heavy grazing by reindeer in oligotrophic pine heaths in northeastern Fennoscandia. Ecography 19:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Barker GM (2002) Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter quality, and vegetation responses to herbivores. Funct Ecol 16:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yasui Y, Orihashi K, Kojima Y, Terazawa M, Kamoda S, Kasahara H, Takahashi Y (2002) Bark selection of free ranging sika deer (Cervus nippon yesoensis Heude): cafeteria tests during snow season. Trans Meet Hokkaido Branch Jpn For Soc 50:79–81Google Scholar
  52. Yoshida M, Miyachi N, Kikuchi S, Yajima T (2003) Effects of selection cutting on forest dynamics in the Shiretoko National Forest: stand structure and regeneration pattern 15 years after cutting. Res Bull Hokkaido Univ For 60:79–90Google Scholar
  53. Zhao Y, Peth S, Krümmelbein J, Horn R, Wang Z, Steffens M, Hoffmann C, Peng X (2007) Spatial variability of soil properties affected by grazing intensity in Inner Mongolia grassland. Ecol Model 205:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Environment and Information SciencesYokohama National UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Kansai Research CenterForestry and Forest Products Research InstituteKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations