Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing the effects of mesh enclosures on invertebrates and litter breakdown in a floodplain forest of the Southeastern USA

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Ecology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The litter bag method has been used to study litter breakdown for over 50 years but remains a criticized technique. One major criticism is the effect of mesh enclosures, specifically the use of two or more mesh sizes to evaluate the role of arthropods, on litter breakdown. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a new basket-style mesh enclosure in mitigating microclimatic mesh effects while still excluding invertebrates. We evaluated five basket treatments constructed from 300-µm mesh: no basket, closed basket, closed basket with bottom slits, open basket, and open basket with bottom slits, which held invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) litter on the Oconee-River floodplain, GA, USA. After 134 days, we found that temperature and humidity did not vary among treatments but that litter breakdown rates (k) and invertebrate composition were different among treatments. Litter breakdown was faster in the no basket treatment (the most open treatment) than in closed baskets without slits (the most closed treatment). Microinvertebrates were not effectively excluded from baskets but most macroinvertebrates were excluded from baskets (open and closed) without slits, except for some small predators. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence that using litter bags of two different mesh sizes may have a secondary trophic effect on litter breakdown, further complicating how best to evaluate the impact of arthropods on litter breakdown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benfield EF (2007) Decomposition of leaf material. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 711–720

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bocock KL, Gilbert OJW (1957) The disappearance of leaf litter under different woodland conditions. Plant Soil 9:179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford MA, Tordoff GM, Eggers T, Jones TH, Newington JE (2002) Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition. Oikos 99:317–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman DC, Crossley DA Jr, Hendrix PF (2004) Chapter 9: Laboratory and field exercises in soil ecology. In: Coleman DC, Crossley DA, Hendrix PF (eds) Fundamentals of soil ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 299–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Couteaux M, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley DA, Hoglund MP (1962) A litter-bag method for the study of microarthropods inhabiting leaf litter. Ecology 43:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanula JL, Horn S, Taylor JW (2009) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) removal and its effect on native plant communities of riparian forests. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:292–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampichler C, Bruckner A (2009) The role of microarthropods in terrestrial decomposition: a meta-analysis of 40 years of litterbag studies. Biol Rev 84:375–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lobe JW (2012) Effects of the removal of the invasive shrub, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), on soil properties and earthworm communities. Thesis, University of Georgia

  • Mitchell JD, Lockaby BG, Brantley EF (2011) Influence of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) on decomposition and nutrient availability in riparian forests. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:437–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2017) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-131. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme

  • Prescott CE (2005) Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really need to know? For Ecol Manag 220:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Stoklosa AM, Ulyshen MD, Fan Z, Varner M, Seibold S, Müller J (2016) Effects of mesh bag enclosure and termites on fine woody debris decomposition in a subtropical forest. Basic Appl Ecol 17:463–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulyshen MD (2014) Interacting effects of insects and flooding on wood decomposition. PLoS ONE 9:e101867

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ulyshen MD, Müller J, Seibold S (2016) Bark coverage and insects influence wood decomposition: direct and indirect effects. Appl Soil Ecol 105:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the USDA Forest Service and the University of Georgia for the use of forest and university lands, and Scott Horn, William Bush, and Yared Aklilu for field and laboratory help. This project was funded by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Funding

This project was funded by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. No specific grant was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryana M. Bush.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bush, B.M., Ulyshen, M.D., Fair, C.G. et al. Assessing the effects of mesh enclosures on invertebrates and litter breakdown in a floodplain forest of the Southeastern USA. Wetlands Ecol Manage 27, 149–156 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9648-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9648-1

Keywords

Navigation