Advertisement

Effects of tree species composition on soil properties and invertebrates in a deciduous forest

  • Samaneh Tajik
  • Shamsollah AyoubiEmail author
  • Jahangir Khajehali
  • Shaban Shataee
Original Paper
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

A comprehensive understanding of factors that influence soil properties and soil biota, such as tree composition, is essential for the management and conservation of biodiversity. This study was conducted to explore the effects of tree composition on a number of properties and invertebrates of soil in the forest ecosystem of northern Iran. Eleven plots were selected differing in the composition of the following tree species: Persian ironwood (Parrotia persica V.), maple (Acer velutinium B.), and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.). In each plot, we measured pH, particle size distribution, electrical conductivity (EC), calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE), organic carbon (OC), total nitrogen (TN), and soil microbial respiration rate (Resp), at depths of 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm. In addition, abundance, Shannon index, richness, and evenness of the soil invertebrates, at both depths, were determined. Accordingly, a total number of 636 and 312 invertebrates were recorded from the topsoil and subsoil, respectively. EC, pH, CCE, C/N, silt, sand, abundance, and richness of the soil invertebrates had a significant correlation with the tree abundance. The soil properties significantly differed among the plots having different tree species composition (P ≤ 0.05). The depths of the soil also had significant effects on the soil properties. The study revealed that the plot including single tree species (maple) had the highest invertebrate abundance (24.67), while the highest OC (6.06%), the greatest TN (0.40%), and the uppermost soil resp. (434 mg CO2 kg−1 day−1) were observed in the Persian ironwood-maple, which has two tree species. In addition, hornbeam-maple-Persian ironwood plot had the highest Shannon index (1.48) and the greatest richness of invertebrates (6.17), while the Persian ironwood-hornbeam-maple plot had the highest invertebrate evenness. However, the hornbeam plot had the lowest abundance, Shannon index, and richness of invertebrates (0.93). Overall, the results revealed that soil properties and soil invertebrate communities were affected by the dominant tree species, and their effects could be lowered or intensified by varying the proportion of different tree species.

Keywords

Abundance Diversity Iran Soil invertebrates Tree species 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Jahangir Mohammadi from Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, for his help in forest work.

References

  1. Ajami M, Heidari A, Khormali F, Gorji M, Ayoubi S (2016) Environmental factors controlling soil organic carbon storage in loess soils of a subhumid region, northern Iran. Geoderma 281:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiri M, Rahmani R, Sagheb-talebi K, Habashi H (2013) Dynamics and structural characteristics of a natural unlogged oriental beech ( Fagus orientalis Lipsky ) stand during a 5-year period in Shast Kalate Forest , northern Iran. Int J Environ Resour Res 1:107–129Google Scholar
  3. Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1989) Tropical soil biology and fertility: a handbook of methods of analysis, 2nd edn. CAB, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubert M, Margerie P, Ernoult A, Decaëns T, Bureau F (2006) Variability and heterogeneity of humus forms at stand level: comparison between pure beech and mixed beech-hornbeam forest. Ann For Sci 63:177–188.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2005110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Augusto L, Ranger J, Binkley D, Rothe A (2002) Impact of several common tree species of European temperate forests on soil fertility. Ann For Sci 59:233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayoubi S, Khoramli F, Sahrawat KL, Claudia Rodrigues de Lima A (2011) Assessment of soil quality indicators related to land use change in a loessial soil using factor analysis in Golestan province, northern Iran. J Agric Sci Technol 13:727–742Google Scholar
  7. Bardgett RD, van der Putten WH (2014) Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515:505–511.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berrier DJ, Rawls MS, Mccallister SL, Franklin RB (2014) Influence of substrate quality and moisture availability on microbial communities and litter decomposition. Open J Ecol 4:421–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bezkorovaynaya IN (2005) The formation of soil invertebrate communities in the Siberian afforestation experiment. In: Tree species effects on soils: implications for global change. Springer, Berlin, pp 307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brady NC, Weil RR (2008) Soil colloids: seat of soil chemical and physical acidity. In: The nature and properties of soils. 14th edition. Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen—total. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruggemann N, Rosenkranz P, Papen H et al (2005) Pure stands of temperate forest tree species modify soil respiration and N turnover 67. Biogeosci Discuss 2:303–331.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-2-303-2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrillo Y, Ball BA, Bradford MA, Jordan CF, Molina M (2011) Soil fauna alter the effects of litter composition on nitrogen cycling in a mineral soil. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1440–1449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Deyn GB, Van Der Putten WH (2005) Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends Ecol Evol 20:625–633.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhauer N, Reich PB (2012) Above- and below-ground plant inputs both fuel soil food webs. Soil Biol Biochem 45:156–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eissfeller V, Langenbruch C, Jacob A, Maraun M, Scheu S (2013) Tree identity surpasses tree diversity in affecting the community structure of oribatid mites (Oribatida) of deciduous temperate forests. Soil Biol Biochem 63:154–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eslamdoust J, Sohrabi H (2017) Carbon storage in biomass, litter, and soil of different native and introduced fast-growing tree plantations in the South Caspian Sea. J For Res 1(9):449–457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-017-0469-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frouz J, Prach K, Pižl V, Háněl L, Starý J, Tajovský K, Materna J, Balík V, Kalčík J, Řehounková K (2008) Interactions between soil development, vegetation and soil fauna during spontaneous succession in post mining sites. Eur J Soil Biol 44:109–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frouz J, Livečková M, Albrechtová J, Chroňáková A, Cajthaml T, Pižl V, Háněl L, Starý J, Baldrian P, Lhotáková Z, Šimáčková H, Cepáková Š (2013) Is the effect of trees on soil properties mediated by soil fauna? A case study from post-mining sites. For Ecol Manag 309:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fu-sheng C, De-hui Z, Xiao-fei H et al (2007) Soil animals and nitrogen mineralization under sand-fixation plantations in Zhanggutai region, China. J For Res 18:73–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-007-0014-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1979) Particle size analysis by hydrometer: a simplified method for routine textural analysis and a sensitivity test of measurement parameters1. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:1004–1007.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300050038x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2010) Estimating species richness. Biol Divers Front Meas assessment. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  23. Guckland A, Jacob M, Flessa H, Thomas FM, Leuschner C (2009) Acidity, nutrient stocks, and organic-matter content in soils of a temperate deciduous forest with different abundance of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:500–511.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hättenschwiler S (2005) Effects of tree species diversity on litter quality and decomposition. For Divers Funct 176:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hättenschwiler S, Gasser P (2005) Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:1519–1524.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404977102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hesse PR, Hesse PR (1971) A text book of soil chemistry analysis. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbie SE, Oleksyn J, Eissenstat DM, Reich PB (2010) Fine root decomposition rates do not mirror those of leaf litter among temperate tree species. Oecologia 162:505–513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1479-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Izadi M, Habashi H, Waez-Mousavi SM (2017) Variation in soil macro-fauna diversity in seven humus orders of a Parrotio-Carpinetum forest association on chromic Cambisols of Shast-klateh area in Iran. Eurasian Soil Sci 50:341–349.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S106422931703005X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacob M, Viedenz K, Polle A, Thomas FM (2010) Leaf litter decomposition in temperate deciduous forest stands with a decreasing fraction of beech (Fagus sylvatica). Oecologia 164:1083–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1699-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jenkinson DS, Powlson DS (1976) The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil—V: a method for measuring soil biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 8:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kamau S, Barrios E, Karanja NK, Ayuke FO, Lehmann J (2017) Spatial variation of soil macrofauna and nutrients in tropical agricultural systems influenced by historical charcoal production in south Nandi, Kenya. Appl Soil Ecol 119:286–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khormali F, Ajamai M, Ayoubi S, Srinivasarao C, Wani SP (2009) Role of deforestation and hillslope position on soil quality attributes of loess-derived soils in Golestan province, Iran.Agric Ecosyst Environ 134(3–4):178–189.Google Scholar
  33. Komonen A, Övermark E, Hytönen J, Halme P (2015) Tree species influences diversity of ground-dwelling insects in afforested fields. For Ecol Manag 349:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kooijman AM, Cammeraat LH (2009) Soil organic matter dynamics under beech and hornbeam as affected by soil biological activity. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts, p 13769Google Scholar
  35. Kooijman AM, Cammeraat E (2010) Biological control of beech and hornbeam affects species richness via changes in the organic layer, pH and soil moisture characteristics. Funct Ecol 24:469–477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01640.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Korboulewsky N, Perez G, Chauvat M (2016) How tree diversity affects soil fauna diversity: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 94:94–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krebs CJ (2014) Species diversity measures. In: Ecological methodology. Vancouver, University of British Columbia, pp 532–593Google Scholar
  38. Loranger-Merciris G, Imbert D, Bernhard-Reversat F, Ponge JF, Lavelle P (2007) Soil fauna abundance and diversity in a secondary semi-evergreen forest in Guadeloupe (Lesser Antilles): influence of soil type and dominant tree species. Biol Fertil Soils 44:269–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-007-0199-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menta C (2012) Soil Fauna diversity – function, soil degradation, biological indices, soil restoration. In: Biodiversity conservation and utilization in a diverse world. InTech, London, pp 59–94Google Scholar
  40. Mohammadi J, Shataee S, Namiranian M, Næsset E (2017) Modeling biophysical properties of broad-leaved stands in the hyrcanian forests of Iran using fused airborne laser scanner data and ultraCam-D images. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 61:32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mueller KE, Eissenstat DM, Hobbie SE, Oleksyn J, Jagodzinski AM, Reich PB, Chadwick OA, Chorover J (2012) Tree species effects on coupled cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and acidity in mineral soils at a common garden experiment. Biogeochemistry 111:601–614.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9695-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mueller KE, Eisenhauer N, Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Chadwick OA, Chorover J, Dobies T, Hale CM, Jagodziński AM, Kałucka I, Kasprowicz M, Kieliszewska-Rokicka B, Modrzyński J, Rożen A, Skorupski M, Sobczyk Ł, Stasińska M, Trocha LK, Weiner J, Wierzbicka A, Oleksyn J (2016) Light, earthworms, and soil resources as predictors of diversity of 10 soil invertebrate groups across monocultures of 14 tree species. Soil Biol Biochem 92:184–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson RE (1982) Carbonate and gypsum. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  44. Prescott CE, Grayston SJ (2013) Tree species influence on microbial communities in litter and soil: current knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manag 309:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  46. Russell AE, Raich JW, Valverde-Barrantes OJ, Fisher RF (2007) Tree species effects on soil properties in experimental plantations in tropical moist Forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1389–1397.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheu S (2005) Linkages between tree diversity, soil fauna and ecosystem processes. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-D (eds) Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwarz B, Dietrich C, Cesarz S, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Auge H, Schulz E, Eisenhauer N (2015) Non-significant tree diversity but significant identity effects on earthworm communities in three tree diversity experiments. Eur J Soil Biol 67:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sisay M, Ketema H (2015) Variation in abundance and diversity of soil invertebrate macro-fauna and some soil quality indicators under agroforestry based conservation tillage and maize based conventional tillage in southern Ethiopia. Int J Multidiscip Res Dev 2:100–107Google Scholar
  50. Sylvain ZA, Wall DH (2011) Linking soil biodiversity and vegetation: implications for a changing planet. Am J Bot 98:517–527.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilman D (2000) Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208–211.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35012217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valaee M, Ayoubi S, Khormali F, Lu SG, Karimzadeh HR (2016) Using magnetic susceptibility to discriminate between soil moisture regimes in selected loess and loess-like soils in northern Iran. J Appl Geophys 127:23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wardle DA (2002) Communities and ecosystems: linking the aboveground and belowground components. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  54. Wardle DA, Yeates GW, Barker GM, Bonner KI (2006) The influence of plant litter diversity on decomposer abundance and diversity. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1052–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 208:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang W, Yuan S, Hu N, Lou Y, Wang S (2015) Predicting soil fauna effect on plant litter decomposition by using boosted regression trees. Soil Biol Biochem 82:81–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zieger SL, Holczinger A, Sommer J, Rath M, Kuzyakov Y, Polle A, Maraun M, Scheu S (2017) Beech trees fuel soil animal food webs via root-derived nitrogen. Basic Appl Ecol 22:28–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samaneh Tajik
    • 1
  • Shamsollah Ayoubi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jahangir Khajehali
    • 2
  • Shaban Shataee
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, College of AgricultureIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection, College of AgricultureIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Department of ForestryGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran

Personalised recommendations