Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 138, Issue 2, pp 353–361 | Cite as

Vertical distribution of soil carbon in boreal forest under European beech and Norway spruce

  • Yngvild RansedokkenEmail author
  • Johan Asplund
  • Mikael Ohlson
  • Line Nybakken
Original Paper

Abstract

Past forest management decisions have resulted in European beech being replaced with Norway spruce across Europe. Previous studies have revealed variances in soil carbon (C) under different dominating tree species. Yet, there is a scarcity of knowledge about how beech and spruce differ in impact on forest soil C in boreal regions, where beech has its northern distribution limit. We have therefore compared soil C in a natural beech forest (Be) with that of two spruce forests: one planted on former beech forest (SpBe) and the other on former spruce forest (Sp), in South-East Norway. Analyses of biochemical parameters and fungal biomass were performed along fine-scaled soil profiles, covering both the organic and mineral layers. We found no significant difference between the forests when comparing estimates of total C stocks per area. However, throughout the soil profile, the distribution of soil C in Be varied significantly from SpBe, while Sp was intermediate. The distribution of fungal biomass along the soil profile in Be varied significantly from the two other forests. Hence, fungal biomass may drive the observed differences. Soil C, nitrogen (N), and C/N ratios were forest type and soil depth dependent, whereas forest type had an effect on the vertical distribution of condensed tannins and fungal biomass. Our results suggest that the presence of beech or spruce as the dominant tree species in the studied area has an effect on the vertical distribution of soil properties, while there is no major difference when comparing the whole soil profile.

Keywords

Boreal forest Soil carbon Fagus sylvatica Picea abies Fungal biomass Condensed tannins 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Eivind Thomassen for help in the field, to Annie Aasen for laboratory assistance, and for technical support from The Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO). Permit to conduct research in Brånakollane Nature Reserve was issued by the County Governor of Vestfold (2013/3878). We thank Kjell Lie, on behalf of the forest owner, for kind help with access to the forest area. The Research Council of Norway funded this study (Grant No. 225018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adamczyk B, Adamczyk S, Smolander A, Kitunen V, Simon J (2018) Plant secondary metabolites—missing pieces in the soil organic matter puzzle of boreal forests. Soil Syst 2:2.  https://doi.org/10.3390/soils2010002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed IU, Smith AR, Jones DL, Godbold DL (2016) Tree species identity influences the vertical distribution of labile and recalcitrant carbon in a temperate deciduous forest soil. For Ecol Manag 359:352–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albers D, Migge S, Schaefer M, Scheu S (2004) Decomposition of beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies) in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biol Biochem 36:155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2003.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asplund J, Kauserud H, Bokhorst S, Lie MH, Ohlson M, Nybakken L (2018) Fungal communities influence decomposition rates of plant litter from two dominant tree species. Fungal Ecol 32:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2017.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asplund J, Kauserud H, Ohlson M, Nybakken L (2019) Spruce and beech as local determinants of forest fungal community structure in litter, humus and mineral soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy232 Google Scholar
  6. Baritz R, Seufert G, Montanarella L, Van Ranst E (2010) Carbon concentrations and stocks in forest soils of Europe. For Ecol Manag 260:262–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger TW, Berger P (2012) Greater accumulation of litter in spruce (Picea abies) compared to beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands is not a consequence of the inherent recalcitrance of needles. Plant Soil 358:349–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1165-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger TW, Neubauer C, Glatzel G (2002) Factors controlling soil carbon and nitrogen stores in pure stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and mixed species stands in Austria. For Ecol Manag 159:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00705-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bödeker ITM, Lindahl BD, Olson Å, Clemmensen KE (2016) Mycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungal guilds compete for the same organic substrates but affect decomposition differently. Funct Ecol 30:1967–1978.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12677 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomel M, Guittonny-Larcheveque M, Fernandez C, Gallet C, DesRochers A, Pare D, Jackson BG, Baldy V (2016) Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling. J Ecol 104:1527–1541.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemmensen KE, Bahr A, Ovaskainen O, Dahlberg A, Ekblad A, Wallander H, Stenlid J, Finlay RD, Wardle DA, Lindahl BD (2013) Roots and associated fungi drive long-term carbon sequestration in boreal forest. Science 339:1615–1618.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cremer M, Kern NV, Prietzel J (2016) Soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks under pure and mixed stands of European beech, Douglas fir and Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 367:30–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davey ML, Nybakken L, Kauserud H, Ohlson M (2009) Fungal biomass associated with the phyllosphere of bryophytes and vascular plants. Mycol Res 113:1254–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2009.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez CW, Kennedy PG (2016) Revisiting the ‘Gadgil effect’: do interguild fungal interactions control carbon cycling in forest soils? New Phytol 209:1382–1394.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freschet GT, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Multiple mechanisms for trait effects on litter decomposition: moving beyond home-field advantage with a new hypothesis. J Ecol 100:619–630.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01943.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagenbo A, Clemmensen KE, Finlay RD, Kyaschenko J, Lindahl BD, Fransson P, Ekblad A (2017) Changes in turnover rather than production regulate biomass of ectomycorrhizal fungal mycelium across a Pinus sylvestris chronosequence. New Phytol 214:424–431.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagerman AE (2002) Tannin handbook. Miami University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J, Zimmermann NE (2013) Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat Clim Change 3:203–207.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson K, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Johansson U, Kleja DB (2011) Differences in soil properties in adjacent stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manag 262:522–530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA (2007) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanerva S, Kitunen V, Loponen J, Smolander A (2008) Phenolic compounds and terpenes in soil organic horizon layers under silver birch, Norway spruce and Scots pine. Biol Fertil Soils 44:547–556.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-007-0234-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraus TEC, Dahlgren RA, Zasoski RJ (2003) Tannins in nutrient dynamics of forest ecosystems—a review. Plant Soil 256:41–66.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026206511084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyaschenko J, Clemmensen KE, Hagenbo A, Karltun E, Lindahl BD (2017) Shift in fungal communities and associated enzyme activities along an age gradient of managed Pinus sylvestris stands. ISME J 11:863–874.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohlson M, Ellingsen VM, del Olmo MV, Lie MH, Nybakken L, Asplund J (2017) Late-Holocene fire history as revealed by size, age and composition of the soil charcoal pool in neighbouring beech and spruce forest landscapes in SE Norway. Holocene 27:397–403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683616660174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Scharlemann JPW, Tanner EVJ, Hiederer R, Kapos V (2014) Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag 5:81–91.  https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmid I, Kazda M (2001) Vertical distribution and radial growth of coarse roots in pure and mixed stands of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies. Can J For Res 31:539–548.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smolander A, Kanerva S, Adamczyk B, Kitunen V (2012) Nitrogen transformations in boreal forest soils—does composition of plant secondary compounds give any explanations? Plant Soil 350:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0895-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sterkenburg E, Bahr A, Durling MB, Clemmensen KE, Lindahl BD (2015) Changes in fungal communities along a boreal soil fertility gradient. New Phytol 207:1145–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Treseder KK, Holden SR (2013) Fungal carbon sequestration. Science 339:1528–1529.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vesterdal L, Schmidt IK, Callesen I, Nilsson LO, Gundersen P (2008) Carbon and nitrogen in forest floor and mineral soil under six common European tree species. For Ecol Manag 255:35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vesterdal L, Clarke N, Sigurdsson BD, Gundersen P (2013) Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests? For Ecol Manag 309:4–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations