Advertisement

Root order and initial moisture status influenced root decomposition in a subtropical tree species Liquidambar formosana

  • Peng WangEmail author
  • Xiaoxue Liu
  • Pu MouEmail author
  • Jin Guo
  • Shuo Li
Regular Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

Root decomposition plays an important role in biogeochemical cycles in terrestrial ecosystems. However, there is still controversy on whether low-order (finer) or high-order (coarser) roots decay faster. Previous studies on root decomposition often used dried root samples, and the dehydrating process may influence the results. In this study, we aimed to examine the decomposability of low- and high-order roots and whether initial moisture status would influence their decomposition.

Methods

We carried out a one-year litterbag experiment for roots of a subtropical tree species Liquidambar formosana. Roots for the decomposition were divided into low- (1st and 2nd orders) and high-order (3rd and 4th orders) classes, and were dried or kept fresh before being buried into the soil.

Results

We found that low-order roots were decomposed slower (half the rate of high-order roots in terms of mass loss), and the content of soluble carbohydrates was the main influencing factor. We also found that drying prior to decomposition facilitated the decomposition of high-order roots during the early stage by 10%.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that litter carbon quality, particularly soluble carbohydrate content, is the major driver for root decomposition, and that previous studies using dried root samples might have overestimated short-term root decomposition.

Keywords

Root decomposition Fine root Coarse root Fresh litter Dry litter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Shangbin Bai and Juan Chen for their assistance in the field experiment. PW acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31700453), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (KJQN201819) and Jiangsu Postdoctoral Research Funds (1701113C). PM acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30830024).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4248_MOESM1_ESM.docx (201 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 200 kb)

References

  1. Beidler KV, Pritchard SG (2017) Maintaining connectivity: understanding the role of root order and mycelial networks in fine root decomposition of woody plants. Plant Soil 420:19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3393-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2014) Plant litter. Decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  3. Bridson JN (1985) Lipid fraction in forest litter: early stages of decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 17:285–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(85)90062-8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carreiro MM, Sinsabaugh RL, Repert DA, Parkhurst DF (2000) Microbial enzyme shifts explain litter decay responses to simulated nitrogen deposition. Ecology 81:2359–2365.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2359:MESELD]2.0.CO;2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA, Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, Van Bodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Díaz S, Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Marco A, Spaccini R, Vittozzi P, Esposito F, Berg B, Virzo De Santo A (2012) Decomposition of black locust and black pine leaf litter in two coeval forest stands on Mount Vesuvius and dynamics of organic components assessed through proximate analysis and NMR spectroscopy. Soil Biol Biochem 51:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demoling F, Figueroa D, Bååth E (2007) Comparison of factors limiting bacterial growth in different soils. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2485–2495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dornbush ME, Isenhart TM, Raich JW (2002) Quantifying fine-root decomposition: an alternative to buried litterbags. Ecology 83:2985–2990.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2985:Qfrdaa]2.0.Co;2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahey TJ, Hughes JW, Pu M, Arthur MA (1988) Root decomposition and nutrient flux following whole-tree harvest of northern hardwood Forest. For Sci 34:744–768.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/34.3.744 Google Scholar
  10. Fan P, Guo D (2010) Slow decomposition of lower order roots: a key mechanism of root carbon and nutrient retention in the soil. Oecologia 163:509–515.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1541-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fanin N, Barantal S, Fromin N, Schimann H, Schevin P, Hättenschwiler S (2012) Distinct microbial limitations in litter and underlying soil revealed by carbon and nutrient fertilization in a tropical rainforest. PLoS One 7:e49990.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisk MC, Fahey TJ, Sobieraj JH, Staniec AC, Crist TO (2011) Rhizosphere disturbance influences fungal colonization and community development on dead fine roots. Plant Soil 341:279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0643-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freschet GT, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2012) A plant economics spectrum of litter decomposability. Funct Ecol 26:56–65.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01913.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 101:943–952.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He L-X, Jia Z-Q, Li Q-X, Feng L-L, Yang K-Y (2019) Fine-root decomposition characteristics of four typical shrubs in sandy areas of an arid and semiarid alpine region in western China. Ecol Evol online published 9:5407–5419.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece1003.5133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirobe M, Sabang J, Bhatta BK, Takeda H (2004) Leaf-litter decomposition of 15 tree species in a lowland tropical rain forest in Sarawak: dynamics of carbon, nutrients, and organic constituents. J Forest Res-Jpn 9:347–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-004-0088-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbie SE (2005) Contrasting effects of substrate and fertilizer nitrogen on the early stages of litter decomposition. Ecosystems 8:644–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-003-0110-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997) A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:7362–7366.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.14.7362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin G, Zeng D-H (2017) Heterogeneity in decomposition rates and annual litter inputs within fine-root architecture of tree species: implications for forest soil carbon accumulation. For Ecol Manag 389:386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ludovici KH, Kress LW (2006) Decomposition and nutrient release from fresh and dried pine roots under two fertilizer regimes. Can J For Res 36:105–111.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCormack ML, Dickie IA, Eissenstat DM, Fahey TJ, Fernandez CW, Guo D, Helmisaari HS, Hobbie EA, Iversen CM, Jackson RB (2015) Redefining fine roots improves understanding of belowground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. New Phytol 207:505–518.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Minerovic AJ, Valverde-Barrantes OJ, Blackwood CB (2018) Physical and microbial mechanisms of decomposition vary in importance among root orders and tree species with differing chemical and morphological traits. Soil Biol Biochem 124:142–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore TR, Trofymow JA, Prescott CE, Fyles JW, Titus BD (2006) Patterns of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing foliar litter in Canadian forests. Ecosystems 9:46–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moorhead DL, Sinsabaugh RL (2006) A theoretical model of litter decay and microbial interaction. Ecol Monogr 76:151–174.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076[0151:Atmold]2.0.Co;2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osono T, Hobara S, Hishinuma T, Azuma J-i (2011) Selective lignin decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in forest litter colonized by Clitocybe sp. Eur J Soil Biol 47:114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2010.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pregitzer KS, DeForest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecol Monogr 72:293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. See CR, Luke McCormack M, Hobbie SE, Flores-Moreno H, Silver WL, Kennedy PG (2019) Global patterns in fine root decomposition: climate, chemistry, mycorrhizal association and woodiness. Ecol Lett 22:946–953.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sun T, Dong LL, Zhang LL, Wu ZJ, Wang QK, Li YY, Zhang HG, Wang ZW (2016) Early stage fine-root decomposition and its relationship with root order and soil depth in a Larix gmelinii plantation. Forests 7:234.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f7100234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sun T, Hobbie SE, Berg B, Zhang HG, Wang QK, Wang ZW, Hattenschwiler S (2018) Contrasting dynamics and trait controls in first-order root compared with leaf litter decomposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:10392–10397.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716595115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sun T, Mao Z, Dong L, Hou L, Song Y, Wang X (2013) Further evidence for slow decomposition of very fine roots using two methods: litterbags and intact cores. Plant Soil 366:633–646.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1457-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang P, van Ruijven J, Heijmans MMPD, Berendse F, Maksimov A, Maximov T, Mommer L (2017) Short-term root and leaf decomposition of two dominant plant species in a Siberian tundra. Pedobiologia 65:68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2017.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang X, Sun B, Mao J, Sui Y, Cao X (2012) Structural convergence of maize and wheat straw during two-year decomposition under different climate conditions. Environ Sci Technol 46:7159–7165.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es300522x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xia M, Talhelm AF, Pregitzer KS (2015) Fine roots are the dominant source of recalcitrant plant litter in sugar maple-dominated northern hardwood forests. New Phytol 208:715–726.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang XY, Wang W (2015) The decomposition of fine and coarse roots: their global patterns and controlling factors. Sci Rep-Uk 5: 9940. ARTN 09940  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09940.
  36. Zhuang LY, Yang WQ, Wu FZ, Tan B, Zhang L, Yang KJ, He RY, Li ZJ, Xu ZF (2018) Diameter-related variations in root decomposition of three common subalpine tree species in southwestern China. Geoderma 311:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Resources and Environmental SciencesNanjing Agricultural UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.College of Life SciencesBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Capital Normal University High SchoolBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations