Flood pattern and weather determine Populus leaf litter breakdown and nitrogen dynamics on a cold desert floodplain

Andersen, Douglas C.; Nelson, S. Mark

doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.022

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The percentage of N released from Populus leaf litter (17%) was similar to the results of Andersen & Nelson (2006), who found that poplar leaves lost 20% of their N content through leaching and have an important role in the floodplain N dynamics.…”

Section: Mass and Nutrient Losssupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Mass and Nutrient Losssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Studying the factors influencing decomposition assists in the understanding and evaluation of the effects of naturally and anthropogenically originating changes in the ecosystem's structure and functioning (Andersen & Nelson, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Terrestrial invertebrates did colonize the litterbags, but had little effect on litter breakdown. While terrestrial invertebrates may be abundant on dry riverbeds (Uetz et al 1979;Maamri et al 1997;Wishart 2000;Paetzold et al 2005;Steward et al 2011), many are predators and leaf litter does not appear to be an important food source (Andersen and Nelson 2006). Of the 15 terrestrial taxa that occurred in our litterbags, only three (Acarina, Collembola, and Coleoptera larvae) were potential shredders, and they represented \30% of the terrestrial invertebrate density.…”

Section: Leaf Litter Breakdownmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, location is likely to affect litter breakdown indirectly, because immersionemersion cycles vary down the lengths of river channels (Rupp et al 2008, Larned et al 2010b, and laterally across the river-floodplain-upland gradient (Benke et al 2000, Ward et al 2002. Results of field studies indicate that litter breakdown patterns on floodplains correspond to lateral variation in immersion and emersion (Andersen and Nelson 2006;Langhans et al 2008). The longitudinal model of litter breakdown referred to above (including the roles of ''reserves'') also applies to floodplains, but in the lateral dimension.…”

Section: Leaf Litter Breakdownmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural variation in immersion and emersion affects breakdown and invertebrate colonization of leaf litter in a temporary river

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flow pulses that alternately immerse and expose benthic habitats are widely recognized as key determinants of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in rivers. Terrestrial leaf litter input, colonization, and breakdown are also key processes in river ecosystems, but little is known about the effects of alternating immersion and emersion on these processes. We used litterbags to examine breakdown, microbial activity, and colonization of Populus sp. leaves by invertebrates along a natural gradient in immersion and emersion (i.e., submergence and exposure to air) in a temporary river. Rates of leaf litter mass loss, microbial activity and colonization by invertebrates differed among litterbags that were permanently immersed, intermittently immersed and permanently emersed, and breakdown rate coefficients (k) decreased with increasing cumulative emersed duration (the total number of day of emersion during the experiment). In contrast, the frequency of emersed periods had no detectable effects on these variables. k was positively correlated with the density of invertebrate shredders in immersed litterbags, with microbial activity and shredder density in intermittent litterbags, and with microbial activity in emersed litterbags. These correlations suggest that the relative importance of microbial activity on k increases with emersed duration, due to the periodic elimination of aquatic shredders and the scarcity of terrestrial detritivores. The fact that leaf litter breakdown was detectable under permanently emersed conditions indicates that mechanisms other than shredding by invertebrates, such as leaching and photodegradation, are dominant in dry river habitats.

show abstract

“…others (Chauvet 1987, Pomeroy et al 2000, Mene´ndez et al 2003, Andersen and Nelson 2006, LeRoy et al 2007, Langhans et al 2008). These differences likely are attributable to variation across systems in temperature and availability of nutrients in the water column, as well as colonization by invertebrates.…”

Section: Decomposition Of Russian Olive and Cottonwood Littermentioning

confidence: 97%

Decomposition of leaf litter from a native tree and an actinorhizal invasive across riparian habitats

Harner

Crenshaw

Abelho

et al. 2009

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamics of nutrient exchange between floodplains and rivers have been altered by changes in flow management and proliferation of nonnative plants. We tested the hypothesis that the nonnative, actinorhizal tree, Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), alters dynamics of leaf litter decomposition compared to native cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizeni) along the Rio Grande, a river with a modified flow regime, in central New Mexico (U.S.A.). Leaf litter was placed in the river channel and the surface and subsurface horizons of forest soil at seven riparian sites that differed in their hydrologic connection to the river. All sites had a cottonwood canopy with a Russian olive-dominated understory. Mass loss rates, nutrient content, fungal biomass, extracellular enzyme activities (EEA), and macroinvertebrate colonization were followed for three months in the river and one year in forests. Initial nitrogen (N) content of Russian olive litter (2.2%) was more than four times that of cottonwood (0.5%). Mass loss rates (k; in units of d(-1)) were greatest in the river (Russian olive, k = 0.0249; cottonwood, k = 0.0226), intermediate in subsurface soil (Russian olive, k = 0.0072; cottonwood, k = 0.0031), and slowest on the soil surface (Russian olive, k = 0.0034; cottonwood, k = 0.0012) in a ratio of about 10:2:1. Rates of mass loss in the river were indistinguishable between species and proportional to macroinvertebrate colonization. In the riparian forest, Russian olive decayed significantly faster than cottonwood in both soil horizons. Terrestrial decomposition rates were related positively to EEA, fungal biomass, and litter N, whereas differences among floodplain sites were related to hydrologic connectivity with the river. Because nutrient exchanges between riparian forests and the river have been constrained by flow management, Russian olive litter represents a significant annual input of N to riparian forests, which now retain a large portion of slowly decomposing cottonwood litter with a high potential for N immobilization. As a result, retention and mineralization of litter N within these forests is controlled by hydrologic connectivity to the river, which affects litter export and in situ decomposition.

show abstract

Flood pattern and weather determine Populus leaf litter breakdown and nitrogen dynamics on a cold desert floodplain

Cited by 26 publications

References 57 publications

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)

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)

Natural variation in immersion and emersion affects breakdown and invertebrate colonization of leaf litter in a temporary river

Decomposition of leaf litter from a native tree and an actinorhizal invasive across riparian habitats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About