Advertisement

Microsite conditions influence leaf litter decomposition in sugar maple bioclimatic domain of Quebec

  • Nicolas BélangerEmail author
  • Alexandre Collin
  • Jacinthe Ricard-Piché
  • Steven W. Kembel
  • David Rivest
Article

Abstract

Litter decomposition in forests is affected by tree species composition which produces litters with specific characteristics and alters soil surface conditions and nutrient availability. The impact of such changes in soil microsite conditions on litter decomposition is however poorly elucidated. We studied the decomposition of sugar maple leaves in 22 plots varying from pure hardwoods to mixedwoods to conifer-dominated stands across four sites in the sugar maple bioclimatic domain in Quebec. Mass loss and nutrient release were assessed over a 2-year experiment. Proxies of moisture availability measured under the canopy were more valuable for explaining the variability in leaf litter decomposition rates than soil temperature, litter quality and general site measurements (e.g. air temperature, rainwater). Throughfall amounts and soil volumetric water content (VWC) explained 56% of the variability in mass loss constants. Sugar maple leaf litter under hardwoods also decomposed more rapidly than under conifer-dominated stands. Slower litter decomposition under conifer-dominated stands was again more largely controlled by the lower soil VWC than the more acidic forest floor created by the needles. This study highlights that proxies of moisture availability measured at the microsite level can be key variables to predict litter dynamics in forests.

Keywords

Leaf litter decomposition Mass loss Nutrient release Tree species composition Microsite conditions Litter type 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support was provided through NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Discovery Grants (RGPIN 2015-03699) to N. Bélanger, and a FODAR (Fonds de développement académique du réseau) Actions stratégiques grant to N. Bélanger, D. Rivest and S. Kembel. We thank Xavier Fournier Tréhout, Ralitsa Mincheva, Olivia Bélanger, Daniel Lesieur and Justin Bélanger for their help in the field and laboratory. We are also grateful to Hélène Lalande and Dominic Bélanger for laboratory analysis and Mélanie Desrochers for preparing Fig. 1. Finally, we thank Domtar Forest Products, the Station de biologie des Laurentides of Université de Montréal, the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (Quebec Government) and Virginie-Arielle Angers for providing access to the research sites in Windsor, St. Hippolyte, LaBlanche and Ste Agathe, respectively.

Supplementary material

10533_2019_594_MOESM1_ESM.docx (298 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 297 kb)

References

  1. Aerts R (2006) The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol 94:713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attiwil PM (1968) The loss of elements from decomposing litter. Ecology 49:142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bååth E, Anderson T-H (2003) Comparison of soil fungal/bacterial ratios in a pH gradient using physiological and PLFA-based techniques. Soil Biol Biochem 35:955–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier S, Balandier P, Gosselin F (2009) Influence of several tree traits on rainfall partitioning in temperate and boreal forests: a review. Ann For Sci 66:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, McClaugherty CA (2008) Plant litter, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Fisher R (2012) Ecology and management of forest soils. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Binkley D, Giardina C (1998) Why do tree species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry 42:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair JM (1988a) Nutrient release from decomposing foliar litter of three tree species with special reference to calcium, magnesium and potassium dynamics. Plant Soil 110:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair JM (1988b) Nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing deciduous leaf litter in the southern Appalachians. Soil Biol Biochem 20:693–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradford MA, Ii RJW, Baldrian P, Crowther TW, Maynard DS, Oldfield EE, King JR (2014) Climate fails to predict wood decomposition at regional scales. Nat Clim Change 4:625–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradford MA, Berg B, Maynard DS, Wieder WR, Wood SA (2016) Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition. J Ecol 104:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradford MA, Veen GF, Bonis A, Bradford EM, Classen AT, Cornelissen JHC, Crowther TW, De Long JR, Freschet GR, Kardol P, Manrubia-Freixa M, Maynard DS, Newman GS, Logtestijn RSP, Viketoft M, Wardle DA, Wieder WR, Wood SA, van der Putten WH (2017) A test of the hierarchical model of litter. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1836–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buczko U, Bens O, Hüttl RF (2006) Water infiltration and hydrophobicity in forest soils of a pine-beech transformation chronosequence. J Hydrol 331:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang M (2012) Forest Hydrology. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Collin A, Messier C, Bélanger N (2017) Conifer presence may negatively affect sugar maple’s ability to migrate into the boreal forest through reduced foliar nutritional status. Ecosystems 20:701–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collin A, Messier C, Kembel SW, Bélanger N (2018) Can sugar maple establish into the boreal forest? Insights from seedlings under various canopies in southern Quebec. Ecosphere 9:e02022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Didion M, Repo A, Liski J, Forsius M, Bierbaumer M, Djukic I (2016) Towards harmonizing leaf litter decomposition studies using standard tea bags-a field study and model application. Forests 7:167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Djukic I, Kepfer-Rojas S, Kappel Schimdt I, Steenberg Larsen K, Beier C, Berg B, Verheyen K (2018) Early stage litter decomposition across biomes. Sci Total Environ 628–629:1369–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dray S, Bivand R, Legendre P, Oksanen J, Blanchet F, Solymos P (2013) Packfor: Forward selection with permutation (Canoco p. 46) v. 0.8Google Scholar
  20. Fioretto A, Di Nardo C, Papa S, Fuggi A (2005) Lignin and cellulose degradation and nitrogen dynamics during decomposition of three leaf litter species in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García Palacios P, Shaw EA, Wall DH, Hättenschwiler S (2016) Temporal dynamics of biotic and abiotic drivers of litter decomposition. Ecol Lett 19:554–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gosz JR, Likens GE, Bormann FH (1973) Nutrient release from decomposing leaf and branch litter in the Hubbard Brook Forest, New Hampshire. Ecol Monogr 43(2):173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger R (2008) Multcomp: simultaneous inference for general linear hypotheses. R Package Version 1.0–3Google Scholar
  24. Ise T, Moorcroft PR (2006) The global-scale temperature and moisture dependencies of soil organic carbon decomposition: an analysis using a mechanistic decomposition model. Biogeochemistry 80:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joly F-X, Milcu A, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Jean L-K, Bussotti F, Dawud SM, Müller S, Pollastrini M, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Vesterdal L, Hättenschwiler S (2017) Tree species diversity affects decomposition through modified micro-environmental conditions across European forests. New Phytol 214:1281–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keiser AD, Knoepp JD, Bradford MA (2016) Disturbance decouples biogeochemical cycles across forests of the southeastern US. Ecosystems 19:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin SE (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liechty HO, Holmes MJ, Reed DD, Mroz GD (1992) Changes in microclimate after stand conversion in two northern hardwood stands. For Ecol Manag 50:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovett GM, Nolan SS, Driscoll CT, Fahey TJ (1996) Factors influencing throughfall flux in a New Hampshire forested landscape. Can J For Res 26:2134–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazerolle M (2015) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q) AIC (C). R package version 2.0-3Google Scholar
  31. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaft litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara R, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens M, Wagner H (2013) Community Ecology Package ‘vegan’. R package version 2.0-10Google Scholar
  33. Parker GG (1983) Throughfall and stemflow in the forest nutrient cycle. Adv Ecol Res 13:57–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2014) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–117Google Scholar
  35. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how we can alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  37. Régnière J, Bolstad P (1994) Statistical simulation of daily air temperature patterns eastern North America to forecast seasonal events in insect pest management. Environ Entomol 23:1368–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Régnière J, St-Amant R (2007) Stochastic simulation of daily air temperature and precipitation from monthly normals in North America north of Mexico. Int J Biometeorol 51:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roe S, Lawrence D, Wood TE, Reed S, Cavaleri MA, Alonso-Rodriguez AM, Gonzalez G (2018) Warming effects on litter decomposition and carbon cycling in a tropical forest. American Geophysical Union Fall MeetingGoogle Scholar
  40. Saucier JP, Grondin P, Robitaille A, Gosselin J, Morneau C, Richard PJH, Brisson J, Sirois L, Leduc A, Morin H, Thiffault E, Gauthier S, Lavoie C, Payette S (2009) Écologie forestière In: Manuel de foresterie, 2ième édition, Ouvrage collectif. Éditions MultiMondes et Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec, pp 165–315Google Scholar
  41. Scherer-Lorenzen M (2008) Functional diversity affects decomposition processes in experimental grasslands. Funct Ecol 22:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schimel JP, Gulledge JM, Clein-Curley JS, Lindstrom JE, Braddock JF (1999) Moisture effects on microbial activity and community structure in decomposing birch litter in the Alaskan taiga. Soil Biol Biochem 31:831–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian system of soil classification, Third edition. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication no. 1646. NRC Research PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol Methods 14:323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Studies in Ecology, Vol. 5. Blackwell ScientificGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor BR, Prescott CE, Parsons WFJ, Parkinson D (1991) Substrate control of litter decomposition in four Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Can J Bot 69:2242–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Todd-Brown KEO, Randerson JT, Hopkins F, Arora V, Hajima T, Jones C, Shevliakova E, Tjiputra J, Volodin E, Wu T, Zhang Q, Allison SD (2014) Changes in soil organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century. Biogeosciences 11:2341–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Breemen N, Buurman P (2002) Soil formation, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Walker LR, Bonner KI (2009) Among- and within-species variation in litter decomposition in contrasting long-term chronosequences. Funct Ecol 23:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waring B, Adams R, Branco S, Powers JS (2016) Scale-dependent variation in nitrogen cycling and soil fungal communities along gradients of forest composition and age in regenerating tropical dry forests. New Phytol 209:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yuan ZY, Chen HY (2010) Fine root biomass, production, turnover rates, and nutrient contents in boreal forest ecosystems in relation to species, climate, fertility, and stand age: literature review and meta-analyses. Crit Rev Plant Sci 29:204–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ziadi N, Sen Tran T (2007) Mehlich 3-extractable elements. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  55. Zukswert JM, Prescott CE (2107) Relationships among leaf functional traits, litter traits, and mass loss during early phases of leaf liter decomposition in 12 woody plant species. Oecologia 185:305–316Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’étude de la forêtUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Département Science et TechnologieUniversité du Québec TéluqMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Département des Sciences BiologiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Institut des Sciences de la Forêt TempéréeUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisRiponCanada

Personalised recommendations