Effects of Burning-Over and Raking-Off Litter on Certain Soil Animals in the Duke Forest

Pearse, A. S.

doi:10.2307/2420802

Cited by 44 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from this study agree with other fire research in detecting a modest and short-term effect on ants (Abbott et al 2003;Jackson and Fox 1996) and spiders (Abbott et al 2003;Pearse 1943). Total ant abundance, and in particular, the seed-harvester group showed significant declines in the two immediate post-burn collections.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Response of ants and spiders to prescribed fire in oak woodlands of California

Underwood

Quinn

2010

J Insect Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation managers of oak woodlands have been reintroducing fire both as an ecological process per se and to assist in restoring native plant communities. To increase our understanding of the impacts of reintroduced fire on ground-dwelling invertebrates we examined the response of ants and spiders to a late season (autumn) prescribed fire conducted in a blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland ecosystem in northern California. Twelve 100 m 9 100 m plots were established, six plots received a burn treatment and the remaining six plots were unburned controls. Ants and spiders were sampled using pitfall traps left open continuously and collected approximately every 32 days. Sampling was conducted over a year, consisting of four pre-burn and nine post-burn collections. Abundance was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which showed seed-harvester ants decreased significantly in the two months following the fire. Total spider abundance also showed a significant decrease in two months, although this did not occur immediately after the burn. One spider hunting guild, the 'diurnal ambush' group (Thomisidae) remained suppressed for up to nine months. Correspondence analysis measures of ant species abundance with environmental and vegetation variables (percent rock, bare ground, plant species richness and height of herbaceous vegetation) were higher than expected by chance, which assists in explaining some of the responses. Findings from this study revealed that the reintroduction of autumn burns has modest and short-term effect on the invertebrates sampled, suggesting that late season fires are compatible with other conservation goals for oak woodland ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Response of ants and spiders to prescribed fire in oak woodlands of California

Underwood

Quinn

2010

J Insect Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The litter layer acts as an interface between the soil surface and the atmosphere, and provides a degree of protection to the soil surface by intercepting rain (Benkobi et al, 1993) and solar radiation (Pearse, 1943;Wilke, Bogenrieder & Wilmanns, 1993 ;Ogee & Brunet, 2002), and buffering the soil surface against fluctuations in temperature (Ramann, 1883 ;MacKinney, 1929;Pearse, 1943;Judas, 1990 ;Poser, 1990 ;Ponge et al, 1993) and water content (Ginter et al, 1979). Litter is also a major source of soil organic matter, which strongly influences the structure of the soil and increases its stability (Marshall, Holmes & Rose, 1996).…”

Section: The Forest Floor Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Litter buffers fluctuations in soil temperature by reducing evaporation from the soil surface and by intercepting radiation (Pearse, 1943;Wilke et al, 1993 ;Ogee & Brunet, 2002), thus delaying freezing in temperate sites in winter (MacKinney, 1929 ;Walsh & Voigt, 1977); and increasing the length of the growth period (Krutzsch, 1863). Litter removal caused greater fluctuations in soil temperature (Ramann, 1883 ;MacKinney, 1929 ;Pearse, 1943 ;Judas, 1990;Poser, 1990 ;Ponge et al, 1993) and higher soil temperatures during warm periods (Ramann, 1883;Ganter, 1927;Gill, 1969 ;Uetz, 1979;Judas, 1990), whereas soil temperatures in plots with litter cover, whether litter addition treatments or controls, are less variable throughout the year (Pearse, 1943 ;Gill, 1969 ;Judas, 1990 ;Poser, 1990;Ponge et al, 1993 ;Facelli et al, 1999).…”

Section: The Forest Floor Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Litter removal caused greater fluctuations in soil temperature (Ramann, 1883 ;MacKinney, 1929 ;Pearse, 1943 ;Judas, 1990;Poser, 1990 ;Ponge et al, 1993) and higher soil temperatures during warm periods (Ramann, 1883;Ganter, 1927;Gill, 1969 ;Uetz, 1979;Judas, 1990), whereas soil temperatures in plots with litter cover, whether litter addition treatments or controls, are less variable throughout the year (Pearse, 1943 ;Gill, 1969 ;Judas, 1990 ;Poser, 1990;Ponge et al, 1993 ;Facelli et al, 1999).…”

Section: The Forest Floor Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems

Sayer¹

2005

Biol. Rev.

643

494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread use of forest litter as animal bedding in central Europe for many centuries gave rise to the first litter manipulation studies, and their results demonstrated that litter and its decomposition are a vital part of ecosystem function. Litter plays two major roles in forest ecosystems: firstly, litterfall is an inherent part of nutrient and carbon cycling, and secondly, litter forms a protective layer on the soil surface that also regulates microclimatic conditions. By reviewing 152 years of litter manipulation experiments, I show that the effects of manipulating litter stem from changes in one, or both, of these two functions, and interactions between the variables influenced by the accumulation of litter can result in feedback mechanisms that may intensify treatment effects or mask responses, making the interpretation of results difficult.Long-term litter removal increased soil bulk density, overland flow, erosion, and temperature fluctuations and upset the soil water balance, causing lower soil water content during dry periods. Soil pH increased or decreased in response to manipulation treatments depending on forest type and initial soil pH, but it is unclear why there was no uniform response. Long-term litter harvesting severely depleted the forests of nutrients. Decreases in the concentrations of available P, Ca, Mg, and K in the soil occurred after only three to five years. The decline in soil N occurred over longer periods of time, and the relative loss was greater in soils with high initial nitrogen concentration. Tree growth declined with long-term litter removal, probably due to lower nutrient availability. Litter manipulation also added or removed large amounts of carbon thereby affecting microbial communities and altering soil respiration rates.Litter manipulation experiments have shown that litter cover acts as a physical barrier to the shoot emergence of small-seeded species ; further, the microclimate maintained by the litter layer may be favourable to herbivores and pathogens and is important in determining later seedling survival and performance. Litter manipulation altered the competitive outcomes between tree seedlings and forbs, thereby influencing species composition and diversity ; changes in the species composition of understorey vegetation following treatments occurred fairly rapidly. By decreasing substrate availability and altering the microclimate, litter removal changed fungal species composition and diversity and led to a decline in populations of soil fauna. However, litter addition did not provoke a corresponding increase in the abundance or diversity of fungi or soil fauna.Large-scale long-term studies are still needed in order to investigate the interactions between the many variables affected by litter, especially in tropical and boreal forests, which have received little attention. Litter manipulation treatments present an opportunity to assess the effects of increasing primary production in forest ecosystems; specific research aims include assessing the eff...

show abstract

“…Litter manipulation experiments are an excellent way to investigate the influence of changes in litterfall on soil-dwelling organisms and previous work has shown litter quantity to be an important factor in determining arthropod abundances (Wardle, 2002). Removal of litter generally leads to a decline in the abundance of soil-dwelling arthropods (Pearse, 1943;Gill, 1969;David et al, 1991;Ober and DeGroote, 2011), whereas the addition of litter leads to a slight increase in soil arthropod abundance (Poser, 1990;David et al, 1991;Arpin et al, 1995), although this is not nearly as pronounced as the effect of litter removal. Litter manipulation can also change the community composition and population dynamics of soil-dwelling arthropods (Ponge et al, 1993;Osler et al, 2006), and shifts in soil fauna have been attributed to the importance of the physical presence of litter (Pearse, 1943;Gill, 1969;Uetz, 1979;Judas, 1990) such as the role of litter as a microclimatic buffer (David et al, 1991) or as a protective barrier from terrestrial predators (Pearse, 1943).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%