Advertisement

Biology Bulletin Reviews

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

A field study of tundra plant litter decomposition rate via mass loss and carbon dioxide emission: The role of biotic and abiotic controls, biotope, season of year, and spatial-temporal scale

  • A. V. Pochikalov
  • D. V. Karelin
Article

Abstract

Although many recently published original papers and reviews deal with plant matter decomposition rates and their controls, we are still very limited in our understanding of these processes in boreal and high latitude plant communities, especially in the permafrost areas of our planet. First and foremost, this is holds true for winter periods. Here, we present the results of two years of field observations in the southern taiga and southern shrub tundra ecosystems in European Russia. We pioneered the simultaneous application of two independent methods: classic mass loss estimation by the litter-bag technique and direct measurement of CO2 emission (respiration) of the same litter bags with different types of dead plant matter. Such an approach allows us to reconstruct the intraseasonal dynamics of the decomposition rates of the main tundra litter fractions with high temporal resolution, to estimate the partial role of different seasons and fragmentation in the process of plant matter decomposition, and to determine its factors under a different temporal scale.

Keywords

Decomposition Rate Litter Decomposition Plant Litter Biology Bulletin Review Southern Taiga 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts, R., The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes, J. Ecol., 2006, vol. 94, pp. 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, S.A., Gartner, T.B., Mack, M.C., et al., Nitrogen alters carbon dynamics during early succession in boreal forest, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2010, vol. 42, pp. 1157–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arft, A.M., Walker, M.D., Gurevitch, J., et al., Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment, Ecol. Monogr., 1999, vol. 64, pp. 491–511.Google Scholar
  4. Baptist, F. and Yoccoz, N.G., Direct and indirect control by snow cover over decomposition in alpine tundra along a snowmelt gradient, Plant Soil, 2010, vol. 328, pp. 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayley, S.E., Thormann, M.N., and Szumigalski, A.R., Nitrogen mineralization and decomposition in western boreal bog and fen peat, Ecoscience, 2005, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, B., de Calvo Anta, R., Escudero, A., et al., The chemical composition of newly shed needle litter of Scots pine, and some other pine species in a climatic transect. X. Long term decomposition in Scots pine forest, Can. J. Bot., 1995, vol. 73, pp. 1423–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bokhorst, S., Huiskes, A., Convey, P., and Aerts, R., Climate change effects on organic matter decomposition rates in ecosystems from the Maritime Antarctic and Falkland Islands, Global Change Biol., 2007, vol. 13, pp. 2642–2653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bokhorst, S., Bjerke, J.W., Melillo, J., Callaghan, T.V., and Phoenix, G.K., Impacts of extreme winter warming events on litter decomposition in a sub-Arctic heath community, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2010, vol. 42, pp. 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bragazza, L., Lacumin, P., Siffi, Ch., and Gerdol, R., Seasonal variation in nitrogen isotopic composition of bog plant litter during 3 years of field decomposition, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 2010, vol. 46, pp. 877–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradford, M.A., Tordoff, G.M., Eggers, T., et al., Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition, Oikos, 2002, vol. 99, pp. 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckeridge, K.M., Zufelt, E., Chu, H., and Grogan, P., Soil nitrogen cycling rates in low arctic shrub tundra are enhanced by litter feedbacks, Plant Soil, 2010, vol. 330, pp. 407–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin, F.S. III, Bret-Harte, M.S., Hobbie, S.E., and Zhong, H., Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change, J. Veg. Sci., 1996, vol. 7, pp. 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornwell, W.K., Cornellisen, J.H.C., Amatangelo, K., et al., Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide, Ecol. Lett., 2008, vol. 10, pp. 1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornelissen, J.H.C., van Bodegom, P., Aerts, R., et al., Global negative vegetation feedback to climate warming responses of leaf litter decomposition rates in cold bioms, Ecol. Lett., 2007, vol. 10, pp. 619–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dormann, C.F. and Woodin, S.J., Climate change in the Arctic: using plant functional types in a meta-analysis of field experiments, Funct. Ecol., 2002, vol. 16, pp. 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dorrepaal, E., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Aerts, R., Wallen, B., and van Logtestijn, R.S.P., Are growth forms consistent predictors of leaf litter quality and decomposability across peatlands along a latitudinal gradient? J. Ecol., 2005, vol. 93, pp. 817–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, A.C., Scalenghe, R., and Freppaz, M., Changes in the seasonal snow cover of alpine regions and its effect on soil processes: a review, Quat. Int., 2007, vol. 172, pp. 162–163.Google Scholar
  18. Gartner, T.B. and Cardon, Z.G., Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter, Oikos, 2004, vol. 104, pp. 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heal, O.W., Latter, P.M., and Howson, J., A study of the rates of decomposition of organic matter, in Production Ecology of British Moors and Mountain Grassland, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilli, S., Stark, S., and Derome, J., Litter decomposition rates in relation to litter stocks in boreal coniferous forests along climatic and soil fertility gradients, Appl. Soil Ecol., 2010, vol. 46, pp. 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbie, S.E. and Chapin, F.S., Winter regulation of tundra litter carbon and nitrogen dynamics, Biogeochemistry, 1996, vol. 35, pp. 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbie, S.E. and Gough, L., Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidic tundra with different glacial histories, Oecologia, 2004, vol. 140, pp. 113–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollister, R.D., Webber, P.J., and Tweedie, C.E., The response of Alaskan tundra to experimental warming: differences between short- and long-term responses, Global Change Biol., 2005, vol. 11, pp. 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jónsdóttir, I.S., Magnússon, B., Gudmundsson, J., Elmarsdottir, A., and Hjartarson, H., Variable sensitivity of plant communities in Iceland to experimental warming, Global Change Biol., 2005, vol. 11, pp. 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kampichler, C. and Bruckner, A., The role of microarthropods in terrestrial decomposition: a metaanalysis of 40 years of litterbag studies, Biol. Rev., 2009, vol. 84, pp. 375–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karelin, D.V. and Zamolodchikov, D.G., Uglerodnyi obmen v kriogennykh ekosistemakh (Carbon Exchange in Cryogenic Ecosystems), Moscow: Nauka, 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Karelin, D.V., Zamolodchikov, D.G., Zukert, N.V., Chestnykh, O.V., Pochikalov, A.V., and Krayev, G.N., Interannual changes in PAR and soil moisture during the warm season may be more important for directing of annual carbon balance in tundra than temperature fluctuations, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 2013, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 3–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Koenig, R.T. and Cochran, V.L., Decomposition and nitrogen mineralization from legume and non-legume crop residues in a subarctic agricultural soil, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 1994, vol. 17, pp. 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koptsik, G.N., Smirnova, I.E., Livantsova, S.Yu., Koptsik, S.V., Zakharova, A.I., and Vostretsova, E.V., A role of the plant litter and bed in biological cycle of the elements in forest ecosystems of Zvenigorodskaya biological station, Tr. Zvenigorod. Biol. Stn., 2011, vol. 5, pp. 18–32.Google Scholar
  30. Kurz-Besson, C., Coûteaux, M.-M., Thiéry, J.M., et al., A comparison of litterbag and direct observation methods of Scots pine needle decomposition measurement, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2005, vol. 37, pp. 2315–2318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lang, S.I., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Klahn, Th., et al., An experimental comparison of chemical traits and litter decomposition rates in a diverse range of subarctic bryophyte, lichen and vascular plant species, J. Ecol., 2009, vol. 97, pp. 886–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore, T.R., Trofymow, J.A., Siltanen, M., Prescott, C., et al., Patterns of decomposition and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics of litter in upland forest and peatland sites in central Canada, Can. J. Res., 2005, vol. 35, pp. 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy, K.L., Klopatek, J.M., and Klopatek, C.C., The effects of litter quality and climate on decomposition along an elevational gradient, Ecol. Appl., 1998, vol. 8, pp. 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osterkamp, T.E. and Romanovsky, V.E., Freezing of the active layer on the coastal plain of the Alaskan Arctic, Permafrost Periglacial Processes, 1997, vol. 8, pp. 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parker, L.W., Santos, P.F., Phillips, J., and Whitford, W.G., Carbon and nitrogen dynamics during the decomposition of litter and roots of a Chihuahuan desert annual, Lepidium lasiocarpum, Ecol. Monogr., 1984, vol. 54, pp. 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parton, W., Silver, W.L., Burke, I.C., Grassens, L., Harmon, M.E., Currie, W.S., et al., Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition, Science, 2007, vol. 315, pp. 361–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palviainen, M., Finér, L., Kurka, A.-M., et al., Decomposition and nutrient release from logging residues after clear-cutting of mixed boreal forest, Plant Soil, 2004, vol. 263, pp. 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prescott, C.E., Does nitrogen availability control rates of litter decomposition in forests? Plant Soil, 1995, vol. 168-169, pp. 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quested, H.M., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Press, M.C., et al., Litter decomposition of sub-arctic plant species with differing nitrogen economies: a potential functional role for hemiparasites, Ecology, 2003, vol. 84, pp. 3209–3221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson, C.H., Controls on decomposition and soil nitrogen availability at high latitudes, Plant Soil, 2002, vol. 242, pp. 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, C.H., Wookey, P.A., Parsons, A.N., et al., Responses of plant litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization to simulated environmental change in a high arctic polar semi-desert and a subarctic dwarf shrub heath, Oikos, 1995, vol. 74, pp. 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steltzer, H. and Bowman, W.D., Litter N retention over winter for a low and a high phenolic species in the alpine tundra, Plant Soil, 2005, vol. 275, pp. 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thormann, M.N., Bayley, S.E., and Currah, R.S., Comparison of decomposition of belowground and aboveground plant litters in peatlands of boreal Alberta, Canada, Can. J. Bot., 2001, vol. 79, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
  44. Trofymow, J.A., Moore, T.R., Titus, B., et al., Rates of litter decomposition over 6 years in Canadian forests: influence of litter quality and climate, Can. J. For. Res., 2002, vol. 32, pp. 789–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Cleve, K., Organic matter quality in relation to decomposition, in Soil Organisms and Decomposition in Tundra, Holding, A.J., Heal, O.W., MacLean, S.F., Jr., and Flanagan, P.W., Eds., Stockholm: Tundra Biome Steering Committee, 1974, pp. 311–324.Google Scholar
  46. Verhoeven, J.T.A. and Toth, E., Decomposition of Carex and Sphagnum litter in fens: effect of litter quality and inhibition by living tissue homogenates, Soil Biol. Biochem., 1995, vol. 27, pp. 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wall, D.H., Bradford, M.A., John, M.G. St., et al., Global decomposition experiment shows soil animal impacts on decomposition are climate-dependent, Global Change Biol., 2008, vol. 14, pp. 2661–2677.Google Scholar
  48. Wardle, D.A., Bonner, K.I., and Nicholson, K.S., Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function, Oikos, 1997, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.-Ch., Zackrisson, O., and Gallet, Ch., Determinants of litter mixing effects in a Swedish boreal forest, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2003, vol. 35, pp. 827–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zamolodchikov, D.G., Lopes de Gerenu, V.O., Karelin, D.V., Ivashchenko, A.I., and Chestnykh, O.V., Carbon emission by the southern tundra during cold seasons, Dokl. Biol. Sci., 2000, vol. 372, nos. 1–6, pp. 312–314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang, D., Hui, D., Luo, Y., and Zhou, G., Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors, J. Plant Ecol., 2008, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center on Problems of Ecology and Productivity of ForestsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Faculty of Biology, Department of General EcologyMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations