Advertisement

Effects of Tree Species Diversity on Litter Quality and Decomposition

  • S. Hättenschwiler
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 176)

8.4 Conclusions

Inter- and intraspecific variation in leaf litter quality is substantial and substrate quality is of overriding importance for rates of litter decay and mineralization within a forest site. Although this has long been recognized, the functional significance of litter mixtures for decomposition processes and ecosystem functioning has surprisingly been little explored. The currently available literature summarized here shows that studies specifically addressing litter diversity effects on decomposition rarely included more than two species and were carried out predominantly in temperate forests with other forest ecosystems outside the temperate zone (most importantly tropical forests) critically underrepresented.

Nevertheless, non-additive litter mixture effects on mass loss and/or nutrient mineralization have been observed in about half of all studies, suggesting that litter species richness and/or composition can have important implications for decomposition processes and ecosystem functioning. The relationship between litter species richness and process rate, however, does not yet appear to be predictable, and the currently available data suggest that the identity of species within a mixture is more important than the number of species. A comprehensive mechanistic approach in the analysis of diversity effects would substantially improve our understanding of the functional significance of litter diversity for decomposition and should be of high priority for future research. To get there, I think we first need to abandon the idea of a single, true correlation between diversity and process rate. The few studies separating diversity effects on decomposition of individual component species strongly suggest that we have to focus beyond such simple correlations based on litter mixtures as a whole. Unraveling interactions across trophic levels, identifying specific compounds such as polyphenols acting as inhibitors or stimulators in the process of decomposition, and the investigation of nutrient transfer among litter species are three promising areas of future, mechanistically oriented research.

Keywords

Leaf Litter Litter Decomposition Litter Quality Litter Type Oribatid Mite 
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. 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 68:2201–2208Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JM (1988) Spatiotemporal effects of invertebrates on soil processes. Biol Fertil Soils 6:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg B (2000) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manage 133:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg B, Berg MP, Bottner P et al (1993) Litter mass loss rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States: some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry 20:127–159Google Scholar
  5. Blair JM, Parmelee RW, Beare MH (1990) Decay rates, nitrogen fluxes, and decomposer communities of single-and mixed-species foliar litter. Ecology 71:1976–1985Google Scholar
  6. Briones MJI, Ineson P (1996) Decomposition of eucalyptus leaves in litter mixtures. Soil Biol Biochem 28:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadish G, Giller KE (1997) Driven by nature: plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Càrcamo HA, Abe TA, Prescott CE, Holl FB, Chanway CP (2000) Influence of millipedes on litter decomposition, N mineralization, and microbial communities in a coastal forest in British Columbia, Canada. Can J For Res 30:817–826Google Scholar
  9. Chapin FS III., Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman K, Whittaker JB, Heal OW (1988) Metabolic and faunal activity in litters of tree mixtures compared with pure stands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 24:33–40Google Scholar
  11. Conn C, Dighton J (2000) Litter quality influences on decomposition, ectomycorrhizal community structure and mycorrhizal root surface acid phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 32:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornelissen JHC (1996) An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. J Ecol 84:573–582Google Scholar
  13. Coûteaux M-M, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66Google Scholar
  14. Ellenberg H (1986) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen in ökologischer Sicht. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  15. Finzi AC, Canham CD (1998) Non-additive effects of litter mixtures on net N mineralization in a southern New England forest. For Ecol Manage 105:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fyles JW, Fyles IH (1993) Interaction of Douglas-fir with red alder and salal foliage litter during decomposition. Can J For Res 23:358–361Google Scholar
  17. Gholz HL, Wedin DA, Smitherman SM, Harmon ME, Parton WJ (2000) Long-term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Global Change Biol 6:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson FG (1943) Decomposition of the leaves of some forest trees under field conditions. Plant Physiol 18:704–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen RA, Coleman DC (1998) Litter complexity and composition are determinants of the diversity and species composition of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatidae) in litterbags. Appl Soil Ecol 9:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hassall M, Turner JG, Rands MRW (1987) Effects of terrestrial isopods on the decomposition of different woodland leaf litter. Oecologia 72:597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hättenschwiler S, Bretscher D (2001) Isopod effects on decomposition of litter produced under elevated CO2, N deposition and different soil types. Global Change Biol 7:565–579Google Scholar
  23. Hättenschwiler S, Hagerman AE, Vitousek PM (2003) Polyphenols in litter from tropical montane forests across a wide range in soil fertility. Biogeochemistry 64:129–148Google Scholar
  24. Hector A, Beale AJ, Minns A, Otway SJ, Lawton JH (2000) Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: effects through litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos 90:357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston DR (1953) A laboratory study of the decomposition of vegetable debris in relation to the formation of raw humus. Plant Soil 4:345–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaneko N, Salamanca EF (1999) Mixed leaf litter effects on decomposition rates and soil microarthropod communities in an oak-pine stand in Japan. Ecol Res 14:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klemmedson JO (1992) Decomposition and nutrient release from mixtures of Gambel oak and ponderosa pine leaf litter. For Ecol Manage 47:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madritch MD, Hunter MD (2002) Phenotypic diversity influences ecosystem functioning in an oak sandhills community. Ecology 83:2084–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClaugherty C, Berg B (1987) Cellulose, lignin and nitrogen levels as rate regulating factors in late stages of forest litter decomposition. Pedobiologia 30:101–112Google Scholar
  31. McTiernan KB, Ineson P, Coward PA (1997) Respiration and nutrient release from tree leaf litter mixtures. Oikos 78:527–538Google Scholar
  32. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626Google Scholar
  33. Nilsson M-C, Wardle DA, Dahlberg A (1999) Effects of plant litter species composition and diversity on the boreal forest plant-soil system. Oikos 86:16–26Google Scholar
  34. Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Cornelissen JHC, Venramini 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 218:21–30Google Scholar
  35. Prescott CE (2002) The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiol 22:1193–1200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Staley CL, Kabzerns R (2000) Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures. Can J For Res 30:1742–1750Google Scholar
  37. Ricklefs RE, Matthew KK (1982) Chemical characteristics of the foliage of some deciduous trees in southeastern Ontario. Can J Bot 60:2037–2045Google Scholar
  38. Rustad LE, Cronan CS (1988) Element loss and retention during litter decay in a red spruce stand in Maine. Can J For Res 18:947–953Google Scholar
  39. Salamanca EF, Kaneko N, Katagiri S (1998) Effects of leaf litter mixtures on the decomposition of Quercus serrata and Pinus densiflora using field and laboratory microcosm methods. Ecol Eng 10:53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seastedt TR (1984) The role of arthropods in decomposition and mineralization processes. Annu Rev Entomol 29:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheu S (1987) Microbial activity and nutrient dynamics in earthworm casts (Lumbricidae). Biol Fert Soils 5:230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schimel JP, Cates RG, Ruess R (1998) The role of balsam poplar secondary chemicals in controlling soil nutrient dynamics through succession in the Alaskan taiga. Biogeochemistry 42:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Univ California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor BR, Parkinson D, Parsons WFJ (1989a) Nitrogen and lignin content as predictors of litter decay rates: a microcosm test. Ecology 70:97–104Google Scholar
  45. Taylor BR, Parsons WFJ, Parkinson D (1989b) Decomposition of Populus tremuloides leaf litter accelerated by addition of Alnus crispa litter. Can J For Res 19:674–679Google Scholar
  46. Thomas WA (1968) Decomposition of loblolly pine needles with and without addition of dogwood leaves. Ecology 49:568–571Google Scholar
  47. Vitousek PM, Turner DR, Parton WJ, Sanford RL (1994) Litter decomposition on the Mauna Loa environmental matrix, Hawai’i: patterns, mechanisms, and models. Ecology 75:418–429Google Scholar
  48. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Nicholson KS (1997) Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79:247–258Google Scholar
  49. Zimmer M (2002) Is decomposition of leaf litter influenced by its species richness? Soil Biol Biochem 34:277–284Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Hättenschwiler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations