Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 18, pp 18304–18315 | Cite as

Influence of fungi and bag mesh size on litter decomposition and water quality

  • Jiexiu Zhai
  • Ling Cong
  • Guoxin Yan
  • Yanan Wu
  • Jiakai Liu
  • Yu Wang
  • Zhenming ZhangEmail author
  • Mingxiang ZhangEmail author
Research Article


Litter decomposition is a complex process that is influenced by many different physical, chemical, and biological processes. Environmental variables and leaf litter quality (e.g., nutrient content) are important factors that play a significant role in regulating litter decomposition. In this study, the effects of adding fungi and using different mesh size litter bags on litter (Populus tomentosa Carr. and Salix matsudana Koidz.) decomposition rates and water quality were investigated, and investigate the combination of these factors influences leaf litter decomposition. Dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total phosphorus (TP), and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) were measured during the 112-day experiment. The salix leaf litter (k = 0.045) displayed faster decomposition rates than those of populous leaf litter (k = 0.026). Litter decomposition was initially slow and then accelerated; and by the end of the experiment, the decomposition rate was significantly higher (p = 0.012, p < 0.05) when fungi were added to the treatment process compared to the blank, and litter bags with different mesh sizes did not influence the decomposition rate. The variations in the decomposition rates and nutrient content were influenced by litter quality and a number of environmental factors. The decomposition rate was most influenced by internal factors related to litter quality, including the N/P and C/P ratios of the litter. By quantifying the interact effect of environment and litter nutrient dynamic, to figure out the revetment plant litter decomposition process in a wetland system in biological physical and chemical aspects, which can help us in making the variables that determine decomposition rates important for assessing wetland function.


Decomposition Leaf litter Water quality Fungi Mesh size 



The authors acknowledge the constructive comments provided by both the reviewers and editors.

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC0505903).


  1. Aber DJ, Melillo MJ (1980) Litter decomposition: measuring relative contributions of organic matter and nitrogen to forest soils. Can J BotGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, de Caluwe H (1997) Nutritional and plant-mediated controls on leaf litter decomposition of Carex species. Ecology 78:244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ágoston-Szabó E, Schöll K, Kiss A, Dinka M (2016) Mesh size and site effects on leaf litter decomposition in a side arm of the river Danube on the Gemenc floodplain (Danube-Dráva National Park, Hungary). Hydrobiologia 774:53–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Álvarez JA, Bécares E (2006) Seasonal decomposition of Typha latifolia in a free-water surface constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 28:99–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antoine Lecerf, Geta Risnoveanu, Cristina Popescu, Mark O. Gessner, Eric Chauvet, (2007) Decomposition of Diverse Litter Mixtures in Streams. Ecology 88 (1):219-227Google Scholar
  6. Battle JM, Mihuc TB (2000) Decomposition dynamics of aquatic macrophytes in the lower Atchafalaya, a large floodplain river. Hydrobiologia 418:123–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batty LC, Younger PL (2007) The effect of pH on plant litter decomposition and metal cycling in wetland mesocosms supplied with mine drainage. Chemosphere 66(1):158–164Google Scholar
  8. Bokhorst S, Wardle DA (2013) Microclimate within litter bags of different mesh size: implications for the ‘arthropod effect’ on litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 58:147–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinson MM, Lugo AE, Brown S (1981) Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:123–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brock TCM (1984) Aspects of the decomposition of Nymphoides peltata (Gmel.)O.Kuntze (menyanthaceae). Aquat BotGoogle Scholar
  11. Chimney MJ, Pietro KC (2006) Decomposition of macrophyte litter in a subtropical constructed wetland in south Florida (USA). Ecological Engineering 27 (4):301–321Google Scholar
  12. Coûteaux M, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and liter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elder JF, Mattraw HC (1984) Accumulation of trace elements, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls in sediments and the clamCorbicula manilensis of the Apalachicola River, Florida. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 13:453–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Findlay SEG, Dye S, Kuehn KA (2002) Microbial growth and nitrogen retention in litter of phragmites australis compared to typha angustifolia. Wetlands 22:616–625.[0616:MGANRI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  15. Gamage NPD, Asaeda T (2005) Decomposition and mineralization of Eichhornia crassipes litter under aerobic conditions with and without bacteria. Hydrobiologia 541:13–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gessner MO, Chauvet E (1994) Importance of stream microfungi in controlling breakdown rates of leaf litter. Ecology 75:1807–1817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gessner MO, Swan CM, Dang CK, McKie BG, Bardgett RD, Wall DH, Hättenschwiler S (2010) Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol Evol 25:372–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gingerich RT, Merovich G, Anderson JT (2014) Influence of environmental parameters on litter decomposition in wetlands in West Virginia, USA. J Freshw Ecol 4:535–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gingerich RT, Panaccione DG, Anderson JT (2015) The role of fungi and invertebrates in litter decomposition in mitigated and reference wetlands. Limnologica - Ecology and Management of Inland Waters 54:23–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulis V, Ferreira V, Graca MAS (2006) Stimulation of leaf litter decomposition and associated fungi and invertebrates by moderate eutrophication: implications for stream assessment. Freshw Biol 51:1655–1669. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Güsewell S, Gessner MO (2009) N : P ratios influence litter decomposition and colonization by fungi and bacteria in microcosms. Funct Ecol 23:211–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Handa IT, Aerts R, Berendse F, Berg MP, Bruder A, Butenschoen O, Chauvet E, Gessner MO, Jabiol J, Makkonen M, McKie BG, Malmqvist B, Peeters ETHM, Scheu S, Schmid B, van Ruijven J, Vos VCA, Hättenschwiler S (2014) Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across biomes. NATURE 509:218–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hättenschwiler S, Tiunov AV, Scheu S (2005) Biodiversity and Litter Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36 (1):191–218Google Scholar
  24. Jackson CR, Vallaire SC (2007) Microbial activity and decomposition of fine particulate organic matter in a Louisiana cypress swamp. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:743–753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonsson M, Wardle DA (2008) Context dependency of litter-mixing effects on decomposition and nutrient release across a long-term chronosequence[J]. Oikos 117(11):1674–1682Google Scholar
  26. Kang H, Xin Z, Berg B, Burgess PJ, Liu Q, Liu Z, Li Z, Liu C (2010) Global pattern of leaf litter nitrogen and phosphorus in woody plants. Ann For Sci 67:811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keuskamp JA, Hefting MM, Dingemans BJJ, Verhoeven JTA, Feller IC (2015) Effects of nutrient enrichment on mangrove leaf litter decomposition. Sci Total Environ 508:402–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koerselman W, Meuleman AFM (1996) The Vegetation N:P Ratio: a New Tool to Detect the Nature of Nutrient Limitation. J Appl Ecol 33:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuehn KA, Lemke MJ, Suberkropp K, Wetzel RG (2000) Microbial biomass and production associated with decaying leaf litter of the emergent macrophyte Juncus effusus. Microbial biomass and productionGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuehn KA, Ohsowski BM, Francoeur SN, Neely RK (2011) Contributions of fungi to carbon flow and nutrient cycling from standing deadTypha angustifolia leaf litter in a temperate freshwater marsh. Limnol Oceanogr 56:529–539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee A.A, Bukaveckas PA (2002) Surface water nutrient concentrations and litter decomposition rates in wetlands impacted by agriculture and mining activities. Aquatic Botany 74 (4):273-285Google Scholar
  32. Li C, Wong Y, Tam NF (2010) Anaerobic biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with amendment of iron(III) in mangrove sediment slurry. Bioresour Technol 101:8083–8092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liao CZ, Luo YQ, Fang CM, Chen JK, Li B (2008) Litter pool sizes, decomposition, and nitrogen dynamics in Spartina alterniflora-invaded and native coastal marshlands of the Yangtze estuary. Oecologia 156:589–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin-hai Z, Cong-sheng Z, Wen-juan Z, Tian-e W, Chuan T (2012) Litter decomposition and its main affecting factors in tidal marshes of Minjiang Riverestuary, East China. J Appl Ecol:2404–2410Google Scholar
  35. Moretto AS, Distel RA, Didoné NG (2001) Decomposition and nutrient dynamic of leaf litter and roots from palatable and unpalatable grasses in a semi-arid grassland. Applied Soil Ecology 18 (1):31-37Google Scholar
  36. Olson JS (1963) Energy Storage and the Balance of Producers and Decomposers in Ecological Systems Author(s): Jerry S. Olson Source: Ecology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 322–331 Published by: Ecological Society of America Stable URL: Accessed 27 Aug 2008 14:09
  37. Ozalp M, Conner WH, Lockaby BG (2007) Above-ground productivity and litter decomposition in a tidal freshwater forested wetland on Bull Island, SC, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 245 (1-3):31-43Google Scholar
  38. Poret-Peterson A T , Ji B , Engelhaupt E , et al. Soil microbial biomass along a hydrologic gradient in a subsiding coastal bottomland forest: Implications for future subsidence and sea-level rise[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2007, 39(2):641-645.Google Scholar
  39. Rejmánková E, Sirová D (2007) Wetland macrophyte decomposition under different nutrient conditions: relationships between decomposition rate, enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 39:526–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rouifed S, Handa IT, David J-F, Hättenschwiler S (2010) The importance of biotic factors in predicting global change effects on decomposition of temperate forest leaf litter. Oecologia 163 (1):247–256Google Scholar
  41. Schimel J (2003) The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biol Biochem 35:549–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlickeisen E, Tietjen TE, Arsuffi TL, Groeger AW (2003) Detritus processing and microbial dynamics of an aquatic Macrophyte and terrestrial leaf in a thermally constant, spring-fed stream. Microb Ecol 45:411–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems[J]. Studies in Ecology 5(14):2772–2774Google Scholar
  44. Taylor BR, Parkinson D, Parsons WFJ (1989) Nitrogen and Lignin Content as Predictors of Litter Decay Rates: A Microcosm Test. Ecology 70(1):97–104Google Scholar
  45. Tessier TJ, Raynal JD (2003) Use of nitrogen to phosphorus ratios in plant tissue as an indicator of nutrient limitation and nitrogen saturation. J Appl Ecol 40:523–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tristan Gingerich R, Anderson JT (2011) Litter decomposition in created and reference wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 19:449–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang S, Ruan H, Han Y (2010) Effects of microclimate, litter type, and mesh size on leaf litter decomposition along an elevation gradient in the Wuyi Mountains, China. Ecol Res 25:1113–1120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu H, Lu X, Yang Q (2006) Factors affecting litter decomposition of wetland herbaceous macrophytes. Chin J Ecol:1405–1411Google Scholar
  50. Wu S, He S, Huang J, Gu J, Zhou W, Gao L (2017) Decomposition of emergent aquatic plant (cattail) litter under different conditions and the influence on water quality. Water Air Soil Pollut 228:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiexiu Zhai
    • 1
  • Ling Cong
    • 1
  • Guoxin Yan
    • 1
  • Yanan Wu
    • 1
  • Jiakai Liu
    • 1
  • Yu Wang
    • 1
  • Zhenming Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mingxiang Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Nature ConservationBeijing Forestry UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations