Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 8, pp 878–890 | Cite as

Long-Term Monitoring of Scots Pine Litter Decomposition Rates Throughout Sweden Indicates Formation of a More Recalcitrant Litter in the South

  • Ewa Bringmark
  • Lage Bringmark
  • Lars Sonesten
  • Kristina Mjöfors
  • Maj-Britt Johansson
Article

Abstract

Decomposition studies were carried out at sites throughout Sweden, including the four Integrated Monitoring sites. Scots pine needle litterbag weight loss measurements over 3 or 5 years were determined at 26 sites and repeated up to 27 times, depending on the site. Humus layer respiration rates were determined for 20 sites in 1987–1989 and repeated in 2007–2008. Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression was used to elucidate the relative importance of climatic and soil factors. Annual needle weight losses decreased only slowly (20–10%) over 3–5 years for all northern (>60°N) sites but decreased sharply from 30 to 10% in the third year in southern (<60°N) sites. Respiration rates of southern sites were less (40% on average) than those of northern sites. Humus layer N was positively correlated to needle weight loss during the first and the second years, but negatively correlated in the third year and to respiration rates. The results indicated that litter formed in southern Sweden became more recalcitrant in later stages of decomposition compared to litter produced in northern Sweden.

Keywords

Integrated monitoring Scots pine litter Annual decomposition rates Standard respiration Recalcitrant Humus quality Soil nitrogen Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The monitoring program governing this study has been financed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

References

  1. Aber, J.D., and J.M. Melillo. 1980. Litter decomposition: Measuring relative contributions of organic matter and nitrogen to forest soils. Canadian Journal of Botany 58: 416–421.Google Scholar
  2. Åkerblom, S., L. Bringmark, and M.B. Nilsson. 2010. Organic matter control of mercury and lead toxicity in mor layers. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 75: 924–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.P.E. 1982. Soil respiration. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2. Chemical and Microbial Properties. Agronomy Monograph, vol. 9. Madison, 831–870.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, B., M.P. Berg, P. Bottner, E. Box, A. Breymeyer, R.C. Deanta, M. Couteaux, A. Escudero, A. Gallardo, et al. 1993. Litter mass-loss rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United-States—some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry 20: 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, B., M.P. Davey, A. De Marco, B. Emmett, M. Faituri, S.E. Hobbie, M.-B. Johansson, C. Liu, C. McClaugherty, L. Norell, F.A. Rutigliano, L. Vesterdal, and A. Virzo De Santo. 2010. Factors influencing limit values for pine needle litter decomposition: a synthesis for boreal and temperate pine forest systems. Biogeochemistry 100: 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, B., and E. Matzner. 1997. Effect of N deposition on decomposition of plant litter and soil organic matter in forest systems. Environmental Reviews 5: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, B., and C. McClaugherty. 2008. Plant litter. Decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, B., C. McClaugherty, A.V. Desanto, M.B. Johansson, and G. Ekbohm. 1995. Decomposition of litter and soil organic-matter—can we distinguish mechanism for soil organic-matter build-up. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 10: 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg, B., and V. Meentemeyer. 2002. Litter quality in a north European transect versus carbon storage potential. Plant and Soil 242: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg, B., and H. Staaf. 1980. Decomposition rate and chemical changes in needle litter from nitrogen-fertilized Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stands. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2: 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bringmark, E., and L. Bringmark. 1991. Large-scale pattern of mor layer degradability in Sweden measured as standardized respiration. In Humic substances in aquatic and terrestrial environment, eds. B. Allard, H. Boren, and A. Grimvall, 255–259. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bringmark, E., and L. Bringmark. 1993. Standard respiration, a method to test the influence of pollution and environmental factors on a large number of samples. In Soil biological variables in environmental hazard assessment, guidelines, ed. L. Torstensson, 34–39. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 4262.Google Scholar
  13. Bringmark, L., and E. Bringmark. 1998. Soil respiration in relation to small-scale patterns of lead and mercury in mor layers of southern Swedish forest sites. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 1: 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrascal, L.M., I. Galván, and O. Gordo. 2009. Partial least square regression as an alternative to current regression methods used in ecology. Oikos 118: 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalias, P., J.M. Anderson, P. Bottner, and M.-M. Couteaux. 2001. Long-term effect of temperature on mineralisation processes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33: 1049–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dörr, N., K. Kaiser, R. Mikutta, and G. Guggenberger. 2010. Slow response of soil organic matter to the reduction of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in a Norway spruce forest. Global Change Biology 16: 2290–3003.Google Scholar
  17. Edmonds, R.L. 1979. Decomposition and nutrient release in Douglas-fir needle litter in relation to stand development. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9: 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fröberg, M., E. Tipping, J. Stendahl, N. Clarke, and C. Bryant. 2011. Mean residence time of O horizon along a climatic gradient in Scandinavia estimated by 14C measurements of archived soils. Biogeochemistry 104: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyvönen, R., G.I. Ågren, S. Linder, T. Persson, M. Cotrufo, A. Ekblad, M. Freeman, A. Grelle, et al. 2007. The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytologist 173(3): 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson, M.B. 1986. Chemical composition and decomposition pattern of leaf litters from forest trees in Sweden with special reference to methodological aspects and site properties. In Reports in forest ecology and forest soils, 56. Uppsala: Department of Forest Soils, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Johansson, M.B. 1994. Decomposition rates of Scots pine needle litter related to site properties, litter quality, and climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 1771–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson, M.B., B. Berg, and V. Meentemeyer. 1995. Litter mass-loss rates in late stages of decomposition in a climatic transect of pine forests—long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1509–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kang, H.Z., B. Berg, C.J. Liu, and C.J. Westman. 2009. Variation in mass-loss rate of foliar litter in relation to climate and litter quality in Eurasian forests: Differences among functional groups of litter. Silva Fennica 43: 549–575.Google Scholar
  24. Lundmark, J.-E. 1986. Ecology of forest land, part 1—basics, 158. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  25. Melillo, J.M., J. Aber, and J. Muratore. 1982. Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 6: 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Atlas of Sweden. 1992. Agriculture. Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  27. National Atlas of Sweden. 1996. The forests. Sweden: National Board of Forestry.Google Scholar
  28. Parton, W.J., D.S. Schimel Ojima, and C.B. Cole. 1994. A general model for soil organic matter dynamics. In Sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management, eds. R.B. Bryant, and R.W. Arnold, 137–167. Soil Science Society of America. Spec. Publ. vol. 38.Google Scholar
  29. Prescott, C.E. 2005. Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really want to know? Forest Ecology and Management 220: 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prescott, C.E. 2010. Litter decomposition: What controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101: 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Staaf, H., and B. Berg. 1977. Mobilization of plant nutrients in a Scot pine forest moor in central Sweden. Silva Fennica 11: 210–216.Google Scholar
  32. Staaf, H., and B. Berg. 1982. Accumulation and release of plant nutrients in decomposing Scots pine needle litter—a long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest 2. Canadian Journal of Botany 60: 1561–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, B.R., C.E. Prescott, W.F.J. Parsons, and D. Parkinson. 1991. Substrate control of litter decomposition in four Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 2242–2250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Torstensson, N.T.L., L.N. Lundgren, and J. Stenström. 1989. Influence of climatic and edaphic factors on persistence of glyphosphate and 2,4-D in forest soils. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 18: 230–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zar, J.H. 2009. Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Bringmark
    • 1
  • Lage Bringmark
    • 1
  • Lars Sonesten
    • 1
  • Kristina Mjöfors
    • 2
  • Maj-Britt Johansson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Sciences and AssessmentSLUUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Soil and EnvironmentSLUUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.University of GävleGävleSweden

Personalised recommendations