Advertisement

Differential responses of litter decomposition to climate between wetland and upland ecosystems in China

  • Yajun Xie
  • Yonghong XieEmail author
  • Huayun XiaoEmail author
Regular Article
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

Background and aims

In upland ecosystems, climate and initial litter quality are the two major factors influencing decomposition rates regionally and globally. Litters are exposed to a different decomposition environment in wetlands than in upland ecosystems, but the driving factors of litter decomposition in wetlands at a large scale are still unclear.

Methods

We established a comprehensive database of litter decomposition in China, including 249 datasets and 27 pairs of sites, to examine the controlling factors of decomposition in both wetland and upland ecosystems at the regional scale.

Results

Both ecosystems showed similar climatic conditions, but the average litter decomposition potential was higher in wetlands than in upland ecosystems, as indicated by a higher initial K content and lower initial carbon content. The average decomposition rate in wetlands was almost 3 times higher than that in upland ecosystems. In both ecosystems, the decomposition rate increased with the mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and initial N content. However, linear regressions of these variables with the decomposition rate indicated steeper slopes in wetlands than in upland ecosystems.

Conclusions

The litter decomposition rate responded to climate and initial N content in both ecosystem types, but these responses were more rapid in wetlands than upland ecosystems. Wetland ecosystems should be given more attention when studying the responses of litter dynamics to future climate changes.

Keywords

Litter decomposition rate Wetlands Mean annual temperature Mean annual precipitation Initial litter quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the National Key Technology R & D Program (2014BAC09B03), Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of East China University of Technology (DHBK2016108), and Scientific Research Foundation of East China University of Technology for Science and Technology Innovation Team (DHKT2015101).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4022_MOESM1_ESM.xls (118 kb)
ESM 1 (XLS 118 kb)

References

  1. Adair EC, Parton WJ, Del Grosso SJ, Silver WL, Harmon ME, Hall SA, Burke IC, Hart SC (2008) Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Glob Chang Biol 14:2636–2660Google Scholar
  2. Aerts R (2006) The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol 94:713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez-Clare S, Mack M (2011) Influence of precipitation on soil and foliar nutrients across nine Costa Rican forests. Biotropica 43:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Simmons BL, Simpson RT, Steinweg JM, Wallenstein MD, Mellor N, Parton WJ, Moore JC, Wall DH (2009) Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 41:606–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, Berg MP, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Calvo de Anta R, Couteaux M, Escudero A, Gallardo A, Kratz W (1993) Litter mass loss rates in pine forests of Europe and eastern United States: some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry 20:127–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beth MC, Erika BK, Jackson RW (2012) Immobilization and mineralization of N and P by heterotrophic microbes during leaf decomposition. Freshw Sci 31:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bontti EE, Decant JP, Munson SM, Gathany MA, Przeszlowska A, Haddix ML, Owens S, Burke IC, Parton WJ, Harmon ME (2009) Litter decomposition in grasslands of Central North America (US Great Plains). Glob Chang Biol 15:1356–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosatta E, Ågren GI (1999) Soil organic matter quality interpreted thermodynamically. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1889–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MA, Berg B, Maynard DS, Wieder WR, Wood SA (2016) Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition. J Ecol 104:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bray SR, Kitajima K, Mack MC (2012) Temporal dynamics of microbial communities on decomposing leaf litter of 10 plant species in relation to decomposition rate. Soil Biol Biochem 49:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng XL, Luo YQ, Su B, Zhou XH, Niu SL, Sherry R, Weng ES, Zhang QF (2010) Experimental warming and clipping altered litter carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a tall grass prairie. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cusack DF, Chou WW, Yang WH, Harmon ME, Silver WL, The LIDET team (2009) Controls on long-term root and leaf litter decomposition in neotropical forests. Glob Chang Biol 15:1339–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Datry T, Corti R, Claret C, Philippe M (2011) Flow intermittence controls leaf litter breakdown in a French temporary alluvial river: the “drying memory”. Aquat Sci 73:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson NC, Max FC (2018) Extent, regional distribution and changes in area of different classes of wetland. Mar Freshw Res 69:1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Santo AV, Berg B, Rutigliano FA, Alfani A, Floretto A (1993) Factors regulating early-stage decomposition of needle litters in five different coniferous forests. Soil Biol Biochem 25:1423–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duan H, Wang L, Zhang YN, Fu XH, Tsang YF, Wu JH, Le YQ (2018) Variable decomposition of two plant litters and their effects on the carbon sequestration ability of wetland soil in the Yangtze River estuary. Geoderma 319:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fierer N, Craine JM, McLauchlan K, Schimel JP (2005) Litter quality and the temperature sensitivity of decomposition. Ecology 86:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fonseca AL, Bianchini I, Pimenta CM, Soares CB, Mangiavacchi N (2013) The flow velocity as driving force for decomposition of leaves and twigs. Hydrobiologia 703:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freschet GT, Weedon JT, Aerts R, van Hal JR, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Interspecific differences in wood decay rates: insights from a new short-term method to study long-term wood decomposition. J Ecol 100:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gholz HL, Wedin DA, Smitherman SM, Harmon ME, Parton WJ (2010) Long-term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Glob Chang Biol 6:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu WF, Zhang WL, Zhang LH, Chen XY, Lin W, Zeng CS, Tong C (2014) Stoichiometric characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus in major wetland vegetation of China. Chin J Plant Ecol 38:1041–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kang HZ, Xin ZJ, Berg B, Burgess PJ, Liu QL, Liu ZC, Li ZH, Liu CJ (2010) Global pattern of leaf litter nitrogen and phosphorus in woody plants. Ann Forest Sci 67:811–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurz-Besson C, Coûteaux MM, Thiéry JM, Berg B, Remacle J (2005) A comparison of litterbag and direct observation methods of scots pine needle decomposition measurement. Soil Biol Biochem 37:2315–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larmola T, Alm J, Juutinen S, Koppisch D, Augustin J, Martikainen PJ, Silvola J (2006) Spatial patterns of litter decomposition in the littoral zone of boreal lakes. Freshw Biol 51:2252–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liski J, Nissinen A, Erhard M, Taskinen O (2003) Climatic effects on litter decomposition from arctic tundra to tropical rainforest. Glob Chang Biol 9:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manzoni S, Trofymow JA, Jackson RB, Porporato A (2010) Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing litter. Ecol Monogr 80:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meentemeyer V (1978) Macroclimate and lignin control of litter decomposition rates. Ecology 59:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osono T, Ono Y, Takeda H (2003) Fungal ingrowth on forest floor and decomposing needle litter of Chamaecyparis obtusa in relation to resource availability and moisture condition. Soil Biol Biochem 35:1423–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rejmánková E, Sirová D (2006) Wetland plant decomposition under different nutrient conditions: what is more important, litter quality or site quality? Biogeochemistry 80:245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiels AB (2006) Leaf litter decomposition and substrate chemistry of early successional species on landslides in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 38:348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Straková P, Niemi RM, Freeman C, Peltoniemi K, Toberman H, Heiskanen I, Fritze H, Laiho R (2011) Litter type affects the activity of aerobic decomposers in a boreal peatland more than site nutrient and water table regimes. Biogeosciences 8:2741–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Torremorell A, Gantes P (2010) Decomposition and nitrogen dynamics of Rhynchospora asperula in floating soils of Esteros del Iberá, Argentina. Wetl Ecol Manag 18:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trinder CJ, Johnson D, Artz RR (2008) Interactions among fungal community structure, litter decomposition and depth of water table in a cutover peatland. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 64:433–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vitousek PM (2004) Nutrient cycling and limitation: Hawai’I as a model system. In: Princeton University press. Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallis E, Raulings E (2011) Relationship between water regime and hummock-building by Melaleuca ericifolia and Phragmites australis in a brackish wetland. Aquat Bot 95:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waring BG (2012) A meta-analysis of climatic and chemical controls on leaf litter decay rates in tropical forests. Ecosystems 15:999–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xie YJ, Xie YH, Chen XS, Li F, Hou ZY, Li X (2016a) Non-additive effects of water availability and litter quality on decomposition of litter mixtures. J Freshw Ecol 31:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie YJ, Xie YH, Hu C, Chen XS, Li F (2016b) Interaction between litter quality and simulated water depths on decomposition of two emergent macrophytes. J Limnol 75:36–43Google Scholar
  42. Yahdjian L, Sala OE (2008) Do litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization show the same trend in the response to dry and wet years in the Patagonian steppe? J Arid Environ 72:687–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang XY, Wang W (2015) Control of climate and litter quality on leaf litter decomposition in different climatic zones. J Plant Res 128:791–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang DQ, Hui DF, Luo YQ, Zhou GY (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou GY, Guan LL, Wei XH, Tang XL, Liu SG, Liu JX, Zhang DQ, Yan JH (2008) Factors influencing leaf litter decomposition: an intersite decomposition experiment across China. Plant Soil 311:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of the causes and control of Atmospheric pollution, School of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and EnvironmentEast China University of TechnologyJiangxi ProvincePeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Dongting Lake Station for Wetland Ecosystem Research, Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Regions, Institute of Subtropical AgricultureThe Chinese Academy of SciencesHunan ProvincePeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations