Advertisement

Eurasian Soil Science

, 44:547 | Cite as

Effect of trees on the decomposition rate of cellulose in soils under industrial pollution

  • E. L. VorobeichikEmail author
  • P. G. Pishchulin
Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils

Abstract

The effect of spruce and birch on the spatial distribution of the decomposition rate of pure cellulose in the region of the Middle Urals copper smelter near the town of Revda in Sverdlovsk oblast (southern taiga) was studied. The contamination of the soil by heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Cd, and Zn) decreased the decomposition rate by 2.7 (spruce-fir forests) to 5.4 (birch forests) times and increased its spatial variation (the coefficient of variation reached 80–226%). The trees in the forests could not be considered as the main determinants of the horizontal structure of the soil microbocenosis, because the position of a test point with respect to the tree stem explains less than 10% of the total spatial variance of the cellulolytic activity. The decomposition rate of the cellulose in the spruce-fir forests was higher than in the birch forests; it was higher in the undercrown areas than in the forest canopy gaps. It was supposed that this was related to the buffering role of the litter, which smoothed the fluctuations of the water content. Under the pollution conditions, the differences between the coniferous and deciduous biotopes increased, and those between the undercrown areas and canopy gaps decreased.

Keywords

Decomposition Rate EURASIAN Soil Science Birch Forest Impact Zone Pure Cellulose 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    E. V. Blagodatskaya, T. V. Pampura, I. N. Bogomolova, et al., “Effect of Emissions from a Copper-Nickel Smelter on Soil Microbial Communities in Forest Biogeocenoses of the Kola Peninsula,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Biol., No. 2, 232–242 (2008) [Biol. Bull. 35 (2), 202–210 (2008)].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, “Changes in the Spatial Structure of the Decomposition Process under Conditions of Atmospheric Pollution of Forest Ecosystems,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Biol., No. 2, 368–379 (2002) [Biol. Bull. 29 (3), 300–310 (2002)].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, “Response of Forest Litter and Its Relation to Soil Biota under Toxic Contamination,” Lesovedenie, No. 2, 32–42 (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, “Seasonal Changes in the Spatial Distribution of Cellulolytic Activity of Soil Microflora under Conditions of Atmospheric Pollution,” Ekologiya, No. 6, 427–437 (2007) [Russ. J. Ecol. 38 (6), 398–407 (2007)].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, “Ecology of Impact Regions: Outlooks for Basic Research,” in Materials of the VI All-Russian Population Seminars (Nizhnii Tagil, 2004), pp. 36–45 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. L. Vorobeichik and P. G. Pishchulin, “Effect of Individual Trees on the pH and the Content of Heavy Metals in Forest Litters upon Industrial Contamination,” Pochvovedenie, No. 8, 925–937 (2009) [Eur. Soil Sci. 42 (8), 861–873 (2009)].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, O. F. Sadykov, and M. G. Farafontov, Ecological Standardization of the Technogenic Contamination of Terrestrial Ecosystems (at the Local Level) (Nauka, Yekaterinburg, 1994) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. B. Gongal’skii, Zh. V. Filimonova, and A. S. Zaitsev, “Relationship between Soil Invertebrate Abundance and Soil Heavy Metal Contents in the Soil in the Environs of the Kosogorskii Metallurgical Plant, Tula Oblast,” Ekologiya, No. 1, 70–73 (2010) [Russ. J. Ecol. 41 (1), 67–70 (2010)].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. A. Dmitriev, I. V. Rekubratskii, Yu. V. Gorelova, and V. G. Vityazev, “Organization of Soil Cover Properties under Spruce Trees,” in Structural-Functional Role of Soil in the Biosphere (Moscow, 1999), pp. 59–70 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. V. Dulya, “Phytogenic Field of a Tree under Chemical Contamination,” in Ecology in the Changing World (Yekaterinburg, 2006), pp. 53–62 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. G. Zvyagintsev, I. P. Bab’eva, and G. M. Zenova, Soil Biology (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. S. Ipatov and L. A. Kirikova, “Characterization of the Phytogenic Field of Risea abies (Rinaseae) in Green-Moss Pine Forests,” Bot. Zh. 86(5), 94–103 (2001).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Yu. Kaigorodova and E. L. Vorobeichik, “Changes in Certain Properties of Gray Forest Soil Polluted with Emission from a Copper-Smelter Plant,” Ekologiya, No. 3, 187–193 (1996) [Russ. J. Ecol. 27 (3), 177–183 (1996)].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. O. Karpachevskii, Forest and Forest Soils (Lesnaya Prom-st’, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. M. Kryshen’, “Phytogenic Field: Theory and Manifestations in the Nature,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Biol., No. 4, 437–443 (2000).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. A. Kuznetsova, “Soil-dwelling Collembola in Coniferous Forests along the Gradient of Pollution with Emissions from the Middle Ural Copper Smelter,” Ekologiya, No. 6, 439–448 (2009) [Russ. J. Ecol. 40 (6), 415–423 (2009)].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. E. Marfenina, Anthropogenic Ecology of Soil Fungi (Meditsina dlya Vsekh, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. V. Nikonov and N. V. Lukina, “Influence of Spruce and Pine on the Acidity and Composition of Atmospheric Fallout in North Taiga Forests of an Industrially Developed Region,” Ekologiya, No. 2, 97–105 (2000).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. V. Nikonov, N. V. Lukina, L. M. Polyanskaya, and A. N. Panikova, “Distribution Pattern of Microorganisms in the Al-Fe-Humus Podzols of Northern-Taiga Spruce Forests: Natural and Technogenic Aspects,” Mikrobiologiya 70(3), 374–383 (2001) [Russ. J. Ecol. 31 (2), 82–89 (2000)].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. M. Nosova and N. V. Dylis, “Determination of the Comparable Decomposition rates of Organic Substances in Forest Biocenoses,” Lesovedenie, No. 4, 23–29 (1972).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. D. Pokarzhevskii, K. B. Gongal’skii, A. S. Zaitsev, and F. A. Savin, Spatial Ecology of Soil Animals (KMK, Moscow, 2007) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. V. Stepanova, “Degradation of Organic Matter,” in Structure of Mountain Phytocenotic Subarctic Systems (St. Petersburg, 1995), pp. 61–65 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. A. Fomicheva, L. M. Polyanskaya, V. V. Nikonov, et al., “Population and Biomass of Soil Microorganisms in Old-Growth Primary Spruce Forests in the Northern Taiga,” Pochvovedenie, No. 12, 1469–1478 (2006) [Eur. Soil Sci. 39 (12), 1323–1331 (2006)].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Armas, R. Ordiales, and F. I. Pugnaire, “Measuring Plant Interactions: A New Comparative Index,” Ecology 85(10), 2682–2686 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Bååth, “Effects of Heavy Metals in Soil on Microbial Processes and Populations (a Review),” Water Air Soil Pollut. 47(3–4), 335–379 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Bauhus, T. Vor, N. Bartsch, and A. Cowling, “The Effects of Gaps and Liming on Forest Floor Decomposition and Soil C and N Dynamics in a Fagus sylvatica Forest,” Can. J. For. Res. 34(3), 509–518 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Berg, G. Ekbohm, B. Soderstrom, and H. Staaf, “Reduction of Decomposition Rates of Scots Pine Needle Litter due to Heavy-Metal Pollution,” Water Air Soil Pollut. 59(1–2), 165–177 (1991).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Bienkowski, “Cellulose Decomposition as Bioenergetic Indicator of Soil Degradation,” Pol. Ecol. Stud. 16(3–4), 235–244 (1990).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Bienkowski, “The Rate of Cellulose Decomposition in Soils of Spitsbergen Tundra,” Pol. Polar Res. 11(1–2), 39–45 (1990).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biology of Plant Litter Decomposition, Eds. by C. H. Dickinson and G. J. F. Pugh (London, 1974).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Cortez, “Field Decomposition of Leaf Litters: Relationships between Decomposition Rates and Soil Moisture, Soil Temperature, and Earthworm Activity,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 30(6), 783–793 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cotton Strip Assay: an Index of Decomposition in Soils, Ed. by A. F. Harrison, P. M. Latter, and D. W. H. Walton (ITE, Grange-over-Sands, 1988).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. J. Coughtrey, C. H. Jones, M. H. Martin, and S. W. Shales, “Litter Accumulation in Woodlands Contaminated by Pb, Zn, Cd, and Cu,” Oecologia 39(1), 51–60 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Deschaseaux and J.-F. Ponge, “Changes in the Composition of Humus Profiles Near the Trunk Base of an Oak Tree (Quercus petraea (Mattus.) Liebl.),” Eur. J. Soil Biol. 37(1), 9–16 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. K. Donnelly, J. A. Entry, D. L. Crawford, and Jr. K. Cromack, “Cellulose and Lignin Degradation in Forest Soils: Response to Moisture, Temperature, and Acidity,” Microb. Ecol. 20(3), 289–295 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Drewnik, “The Effect of Environmental Conditions on the Decomposition Rate of Cellulose in Mountain Soils,” Geoderma 132(1–2), 116–130 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    C. H. Ettema and D. A. Wardle, “Spatial Soil Ecology,” Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(4), 177–183 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Z. Fischer, M. Niewinna, and I. Yasulbutaeva, “Intensity of Organic Matter Decomposition in Various Landscapes of Caucasus (Daghestan),” Pol. J. Ecol. 54(1), 105–116 (2006).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    B. Freedman and T. C. Hutchinson, “Effects of Smelter Pollutants on Forest Leaf Litter Decomposition Near a Nickel-Copper Smelter at Sudbury, Ontario,” Can. J. Bot. 58(15), 1722–1736 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    H. Fritze, S. Niini, K. Mikkola, and A. Mäkinen, “Soil Microbial Effects of a Cu-Ni Smelter in Southwestern Finland,” Biol. Fertility Soils 8(1), 87–94 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. M. Gadd, “Interactions of Fungi with Toxic Metals,” New Phytol. 124(1), 25–60 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    K. E. Giller, E. Witter, and S. P. Mcgrath, “Toxicity of Heavy Metals to Microorganisms and Microbial Processes in Agricultural Soils: A Review,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 30(10–11), 1389–1414 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    K. Hansen, C. Beier, P. Gundersen, and L. Rasmussen, “Experimental Manipulations of Water and Nutrient Input to a Norway Spruce Plantation at Klosterhede, Denmark: III. Effects on Throughfall, Soil Water Chemistry, and Decomposition,” Plant Soil 168–169(1), 623–632 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    S. Hättenschwiler and P. M. Vitousek, “The Role of Polyphenols in Terrestrial Ecosystem Nutrient Cycling,” Trends Ecol. Evol. 15(6), 238–243 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    H. Herlitzius, “Biological Decomposition Efficiency in Different Woodland Soils,” Oecologia 57(1–2), 78–97 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    G. R. Iason, J. J. Lennon, R. J. Pakeman, et al., “Does Chemical Composition of Individual Scots Pine Trees Determine the Biodiversity of Their Associated Ground Vegetation?,” Ecol. Lett. 8(4), 364–369 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. L. Innes, Forest Health: Its Assessment and Status (CAB International, Wallingford, 1993).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    S. E. James, M. Partel, S. D. Wilson, and D. A. Peltzer, “Temporal Heterogeneity of Soil Moisture in Grassland and Forest,” J. Ecol. 91(2), 234–239 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    C. G. Jones, J. H. Lawton, and M. Shachak, “Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers,” Oikos 69(3), 373–386 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    N. Kaneko and R. Kofuji, “Effects of Soil pH Gradient Caused by Stemflow Acidification on Soil Microarthropod Community Structure in a Japanese Red Cedar Plantation: An Evaluation of Ecological Risk on Decomposition,” J. Forest Res. 5(3), 157–162 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    R. T. Koide and T. Wu, “Ectomycorrhizas and Retarded Decomposition in a Pinus resinosa Plantation,” New Phytol. 158(2), 401–407 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    H. Kopeszki, “Abundanz und Abbauleistung der Mesofauna (Collembolen) als Kriterien für die Bodenzustandsdiagnose im Wiener Buchenwald,” Zool. Anz. 227(3–4), 136–159 (1991).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. V. Kozlov and E. L. Zvereva, “Industrial Barrens: Extreme Habitats Created by Non-Ferrous Metallurgy,” Rev. Env. Sci. Biotechnol. 6(1–3), 231–259 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    M. V. Kozlov, E. L. Zvereva, and V. E. Zverev, Impacts of Point Polluters on Terrestrial Biota: Comparative Analysis of 18 Contaminated Areas (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jr. D. F. Levia and E. E. Frost, “A Review and Evaluation of Stemflow Literature in the Hydrologic and Biogeochemical Cycles of Forested and Agricultural Ecosystems,” J. Hydrol. 274(1–4), 1–29 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jr. D. F. Levia and E. E. Frost, “Variability of Through-fall Volume and Solute Inputs in Wooded Ecosystems,” Progr. Phys. Geogr. 30(5), 605–632 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    J. D. Lousier and D. Parkinson, “Litter Decomposition in Cool Temperature Deciduous Forest,” Can. J. Bot. 54, 419–436 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    N. A. McEnroe and H.-S. Helmisaari, “Decomposition of Coniferous Forest Litter along a Heavy Metal Pollution Gradient, Southwest Finland,” Environ. Pollut. 113(1), 11–18 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    M. A. McLean and V. Huhta, “Temporal and Spatial Fluctuations in Moisture Affect Humus Microfungal Community Structure in Microcosms,” Biol. Fertil. Soils 32(2), 114–119 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    R. J. Mitchell, C. D. Campbell, S. J. Chapman, et al., “The Cascading Effects of Birch on Heather Moorland: A Test for the Top-Down Control of an Ecosystem Engineer,” J. Ecol. 95(3), 540–554 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    S. J. Morris and W. J. Dress, “The Interrelationship between the Spatial Distribution of Microorganisms and Vegetation in Forest Soils,” in The Spatial Distribution of Microbes in the Environment (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007), pp. 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    R. Ohtonen, P. Lahdesmaki, and A. M. Markkola, “Cellulase Activity in Forest Humus along an Industrial Pollution Gradient in Oulu, Northern Finland,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 26(1), 97–101 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    O. Priha and A. Smolander, “Microbial Biomass and Activity in Soil and Litter Under Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, and Betula pendula at Originally Similar Field Afforestation Sites,” Biol. Fertil. Soils 24(1), 45–51 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    C. C. Rhoades, “Single-Tree Influences on Soil Properties in Agroforestry: Lessons from Natural Forest and Savanna Ecosystems,” Agroforestry Systems 35(1), 71–94 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    E. Ritter, “Litter Decomposition and Nitrogen Mineralization in Newly Formed Gaps in a Danish Beech (Fagus sylvatica) Forest,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 37(7), 1237–1247 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    K. Ritz, “Spatial Organization of Soil Fungi,” in The Spatial Distribution of Microbes in the Environment (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007), pp. 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    S. Scheu and G. Poser, “The Soil Macrofauna (Diplopoda, Isopoda, Lumbricidae, and Chilopoda) Near Tree Trunks in a Beechwood on Limestone: Indications for Stemflow Induced Changes in Community Structure,” Appl. Soil. Ecol. 3(2), 115–125 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    T. V. St. John, “Influence of Litterbags on Growth of Fungal Vegetative Structures,” Oecologia 46(1) 130–132 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    H. Stöckli, “Influence of Stemflow upon the Decomposing System in 2 Beech Stands,” Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol. 28(3), 265–286 (1991).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    C. L. Strojan, “Forest Leaf Litter Decomposition in the Vicinity of a Zinc Smelter,” Oecologia 32(2), 203–212 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    M. J. Swift, O. W. Heal, and J. M. Anderson, Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystem, Blackwell Scientific Publication (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    A. V. Uvarov, “Effects of Constant and Fluctuating Temperature Conditions on Litter Decomposition in Laboratory Microcosms,” Acta Zool. Fenn. 196, 94–96 (1995).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    A. V. Uvarov, A. V. Tiunov, and S. Scheu, “Long-Term Effects of Seasonal and Diurnal Temperature Fluctuations on Carbon Dioxide Efflux from a Forest Soil,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 38(12), 3387–3397 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    J. Walker, P. J. H. Sharpe, L. K. Penridge, and H. Wu, “Ecological Field Theory: the Concept and Field Tests,” Vegetatio 83(1–2), 81–95 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    R. Wittig, “Acidification Phenomena in Beech (Fagus sylvatica) Forests of Europe,” Water Air Soil Pollut. 31(1–2), 317–323 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Q. H. Zhang and J. C. Zak, “Effects of Gap Size on Litter Decomposition and Microbial Activity in a Subtropical Forest,” Ecology 76(7), 2196–2204 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    P. J. Zinke, “The Pattern of Influence of Individual Forest Trees on Soil Properties,” Ecology 43(1), 130–133 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    E. L. Zvereva and M. V. Kozlov, “Facilitative Effects of Top-Canopy Plants on Four Dwarf Shrub Species in Habitats Severely Disturbed by Pollution,” J. Ecol. 92(2), 288–296 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    E. L. Zvereva and M. V. Kozlov, “Facilitation of Bilberry by Mountain Birch in Habitat Severely Disturbed by Pollution: Importance of Sheltering,” Environ. Exp. Bot. 60(2), 170–176 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    J. Zwolin-ski, “Rates of Organic Matter Decomposition in Forests Polluted with Heavy Metals,” Ecol. Eng. 3(1), 17–26 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural DivisionRussian Academy of SciencesYekaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations