Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 436, Issue 1–2, pp 311–324 | Cite as

Non-additive effects of leaf and twig mixtures from different tree species on experimental litter-bed flammability

  • Weiwei ZhaoEmail author
  • Richard S. P. van Logtestijn
  • Jurgen R. van Hal
  • Ming DongEmail author
  • Johannes H. C. Cornelissen
Regular Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

Tree species can affect litter flammability through leaf size and shape. Larger, simpler-shaped leaf litters form better-ventilated, more flammable litter-beds. However, leaves are generally mixed with twigs in the forest litter layer and together they likely contribute most to surface fire behavior. Here we ask: “Do leaf-twig mixtures have non-additive effects on litter-bed flammability?”

Methods

Using laboratory fires, we tested the direction and magnitude of non-additivity of inter- and intra-specific leaf-twig mixtures on litter-bed flammability for four tree species contrasted in leaf size and shape and widespread in fire-prone temperate-boreal forests.

Results

Across species, small needles reduced mixture fuel-bed ignitibility through filling the space between twigs and inhibiting ventilation. Within the small broad-leaved species, the thin, frequently branched and open spaced twigs were too loosely packed to be flammable, while in mixtures the small broad leaves connected these twigs to produce flammable fuel-beds. Once ignited, across species flame spread rate in mixtures was driven by leaves, while fire sustainability was predicted by fuel mass. Fuel-bed flammability was driven more by leaves at larger leaf-to-twig ratio.

Conclusions

For the first time, we demonstrated the existence and mechanisms of non-additive effects of leaf-twig mixtures on experimental litter-bed flammability.

Keywords

Flammability Leaf Litter mixing Non-additivity Plant traits Surface fire behavior Twig 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Chinese Scholarship Council for funding WWZ through a 4-year fellowship to study at VU University Amsterdam. The setup of the FLARE laboratory greatly benefitted from grant 047.018.003 by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to JHCC. This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (grant: 2016YFC0503100) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants: 31670429). JHCC and WWZ benefitted from Grant CEP-12CDP007 by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11104_2019_3931_MOESM1_ESM.docx (8.3 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 8537 kb)

References

  1. Alessio GA, Penuelas J, De Lillis M, Llusia J (2008) Implications of foliar terpene content and hydration on leaf flammability of Quercus ilex and Pinus halepensis. Plant Biol 10:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson H (1970) Forest fuel ignitibility. Fire Technol 6:312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banwell EM, Varner JM (2014) Structure and composition of forest floor fuels in long-unburned Jeffrey pine–white fir forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Int J Wildland Fire 23:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blauw LG, Wensink N, Bakker L, van Logtestijn RSP, Aerts R, Soudzilovskaia NA, Cornelissen JHC (2015) Fuel moisture content enhances nonadditive effects of plant mixtures on flammability and fire behavior. Ecol Evol 5:3830–3841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blauw LG, Logtestijn RSP, Broekman R, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2017) Tree species identity in high-latitude forests determines fire spread through fuel ladders from branches to soil and vice versa. For Eco and Manag 400:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond WJ, Keeley JE (2005) Fire as a global 'herbivore': the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 20:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond W, Van Wilgen B (1996) Fire and plants. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradstock RA, Gill AM, Williams RJ (2012) Flammable Australia: fire regimes, biodiversity and ecosystems in a changing world. CSIRO Publishing, ClaytonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JK (1981) Bulk densities of nonuniform surface fuels and their application to fire modeling. For Sci 27:667–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrows ND (2001) Flame residence times and rates of weight loss of eucalypt forest fuel particles. Int J Wildland Fire 10:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelissen JHC, Grootemaat S, Verheijen LM, Cornwell WK, van Bodegom PM, van der Wal R, Aerts R (2017) Are litter decomposition and fire linked through plant species traits? New Phytol 216:653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corner EJH (1949) The durian theory or the origin of the modern tree. Ann Bot 13:367–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornwell WK, Elvira A, van Kempen L, van Logtestijn RSP, Aptroot A, Cornelissen JHC (2015) Flammability across the gymnosperm phylogeny: the importance of litter particle size. New Phytol 206:672–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curt T, Schaffhauser A, Borgniet L, Dumas C, Estève R, Ganteaume A, Jappiot M, Martin W, N’Diaye A, Poilvet B (2011) Litter flammability in oak woodlands and shrublands of southeastern France. For Ecol and Manag 261:2214–2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Magalhães RMQ, Schwilk DW (2012) Leaf traits and litter flammability: evidence for non-additive mixture effects in a temperate forest. J Ecol 100:1153–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dias ATC, Cornelissen JHC, Berg MP (2017) Litter for life: assessing the multifunctional legacy of plant traits. J Ecol 105:1163–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engber EA, Varner JM (2012) Patterns of flammability of the California oaks: the role of leaf traits. Can J For Res 42:1965–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engber EA, Varner JM, Arguello LA, Sugihara NG (2011) The effects of conifer encroachment and Overstory structure on fuels and fire in an oak woodland landscape. Fire Ecology 7:32–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freschet GT, Cornwell WK, Wardle DA, Elumeeva TG, Liu W, Jackson BG, Onipchenko VG, Soudzilovskaia NA, Tao J, Cornelissen JHC (2013) Linking litter decomposition of above- and below-ground organs to plant–soil feedbacks worldwide. J Ecol 101:943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ganteaume A, Jappiot M, Lampin-Maillet C, Curt T, Borgniet L (2011) Effects of vegetation type and fire regime on flammability of undisturbed litter in Southeastern France. For Ecol and Manag 261:2223–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill AM, Zylstra P (2005) Flammability of Australian forests. Aust For 68:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grootemaat S, Wright IJ, van Bodegom PM, Cornelissen JHC (2017) Scaling up flammability from individual leaves to fuel beds. Oikos 126:1428–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harguindeguy NP, Blundo CM, Gurvich DE, Diaz S, Cuevas E (2008) More than the sum of its parts? Assessing litter heterogeneity effects on the decomposition of litter mixtures through leaf chemistry. Plant Soil 303:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoorens B, Aerts R, Stroetenga M (2003) Does initial litter chemistry explain litter mixture effects on decomposition? Oecologia 137:578–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyde JC, Alistair MSS, Roger DO, Ernesto CA, Penelope M (2011) The combustion of sound and rotten coarse woody debris: a review. Int J Wildland Fire 20:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonsson M, Wardle DA (2008) Context dependency of litter-mixing effects on decomposition and nutrient release across a long-term chronosequence. Oikos 117:1674–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kane JM, Varner JM, Hiers JK (2008) The burning characteristics of southeastern oaks: discriminating fire facilitators from fire impeders. For Ecol and Manag 256:2039–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin RE, Gordon DA, Gutierrez M, Lee D, Molina DM, Schroeder RA … Stephens S L. (1994) Assessing the flammability of domestic and wildland vegetation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Fire and Forest Meteorology Conference (pp. 130–137). Jekyll Island, GAGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller C, Urban DL (2000) Connectivity of forest fuels and surface fire regimes. Landsc Ecol 15:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ormeno E, Cespedes B, Sanchez IA, Velasco-Garcia A, Moreno JM, Fernandez C, Baldy V (2009) The relationship between terpenes and flammability of leaf litter. For Ecol and Manag 257:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Papio C, Trabaud L (1990) Structural characteristics of fuel components of 5 Mediterranean shrubs. For Ecol and Manag 35:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plucinski MP, Anderson WR (2008) Laboratory determination of factors influencing successful point ignition in the litter layer of shrubland vegetation. Int J Wildland Fire 17:628–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plucinski M, Catchpole W (2001) Predicting ignition thresholds in litter layers. In: Ghassemi F, Post DA, Sivapalan M, Vertessy R (eds) MODSIM 2001 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, December 2001, Canberra, Australia, vol 1. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, pp 967–971Google Scholar
  34. Quested HM, Callaghan TV, Cornelissen JHC, Press MC (2005) The impact of hemiparasitic plant litter on decomposition: direct, seasonal and litter mixing effects. J Ecol 93:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Resco de Dios V, Fellows AW, Nolan RH, Boer MM, Bradstock RA, Domingo F, Goulden ML (2015) A semi-mechanistic model for predicting the moisture content of fine litter. Agric For Meteorol 203:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothermel RC (1972) A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Research Paper INT-115. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  38. Scarff FR, Westoby M (2006) Leaf litter flammability in some semi-arid Australian woodlands. Funct Ecol 20:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwilk DW (2015) Dimensions of plant flammability. New Phytol 206:486–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott JH, Burgan RE (2005) Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153, 72 pp.Google Scholar
  41. van Altena C, van Logtestijn RSP, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Species composition and fire: non-additive mixture effects on ground fuel flammability. Front Plant Sci 3:63Google Scholar
  42. Varner JM, Kane JM, Kreye JK, Engber E (2015) The flammability of forest and woodland litter: a synthesis. Curr Forestry Rep 1:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westoby M, Wright IJ (2003) The leaf size–twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia 135:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williamson GB, Wiemann MC (2010) Measuring wood specific gravity ... Correctly. Am J Bot 97:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao W, Cornwell WK, Pomeren M, Logtestijn RSP, Cornelissen JHC (2016) Species mixture effects on flammability across plant phylogeny: the importance of litter particle size and the special role for non-Pinus Pinaceae. Ecol Evol 6:8223–8234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Hangzhou City for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, College of Life and Environmental SciencesHangzhou Normal UniversityHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Systems Ecology, Department of Ecological Science, Faculty of ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations