Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests

Ayres, Edward; Steltzer, Heidi; Simmons, Breana L.; Simpson, Robert G.; Steinweg, J. Megan; Wallenstein, Matthew D.; Mellor, Nate; Parton, William J.; Moore, John C.; Wall, Diana H.

doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.022

Cited by 450 publications

(448 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

378

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of a functional redundancy of microbial communities, where under the right environmental circumstances the same functions and processes can be performed regardless of the microbial community present in the soil, has recently been challenged (Allison and Martiny, 2008;Strickland et al, 2009), and changes to microbial community structure have been linked to a wide range of ecosystem processes (Wardle et al, 2004;Balser and Firestone, 2005;Lau and Lennon, 2012;. For example, distinct microbial communities can impact the resulting chemistry and mass loss of litter (Wickings et al, 2012;Allison et al, 2013), particularly if the litter is of similar composition to that which is frequently experienced by the microbes (Ayres et al, 2009;Freschet et al, 2012). However, whether changes in litter decomposition will ultimately impact downstream soil-C dynamics is uncertain (Kemmitt et al, 2008;Schimel and Schaeffer, 2012;Cleveland et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial community structure mediates response of soil C decomposition to litter addition and warming

Creamer

Menezes

Krull

et al. 2015

Soil Biology and Biochemistry

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial community structure mediates response of soil C decomposition to litter addition and warming

Creamer

Menezes

Krull

et al. 2015

Soil Biology and Biochemistry

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Soil microbial communities strongly influence soil GHG fluxes (Conrad 1996;Schimel and Gulledge 1998), and are typically adapted to the type of plant litter in a certain environment (Ayres et al 2009;Madritch and Lindroth 2011). Although plant litter contributes the largest input of C and nutrients to forest soils (FAO 2010), there is a lack of knowledge on the explicit impact of the litter layer on forest soil GHG fluxes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of litter layer to soil greenhouse gas emissions in a temperate beech forest

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims The litter layer is a major source of CO 2 , and it also influences soil-atmosphere exchange of N 2 O and CH 4 . So far, it is not clear how much of soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emission derives from the litter layer itself or is litter-induced. The present study investigates how the litter layer controls soil GHG fluxes and microbial decomposer communities in a temperate beech forest. Methods We removed the litter layer in an Austrian beech forest and studied responses of soil CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O fluxes and the microbial community via phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA). Soil GHG fluxes were determined with static chambers on 22 occasions from July 2012 to February 2013, and soil samples collected at 8 sampling events.Results Litter removal reduced CO 2 emissions by 30 % and increased temperature sensitivity (Q 10 ) of CO 2 fluxes. Diffusion of CH 4 into soil was facilitated by litter removal and CH 4 uptake increased by 16 %. This effect was strongest in autumn and winter when soil moisture was high. Soils without litter turned from net N 2 O sources to slight N 2 O sinks because N 2 O emissions peaked after rain events in summer and autumn, which was not the case in litter-removal plots. Microbial composition was only transiently affected by litter removal but strongly influenced by seasonality. Conclusions Litter layers must be considered in calculating forest GHG budgets, and their influence on temperature sensitivity of soil GHG fluxes taken into account for future climate scenarios.

show abstract

“…Many studies have been performed on leaf litter production (Bonilla et al 2008), decomposition rates (Álvarez- Sánchez & Harmon 2003, Castro-Díez et al 2008, Ayres et al 2009b, nutrient release (Ayres et al 2009a, Castellanos-Barliza & León 2011) and on litter organism diversity and its impact on decomposition rates (Fournier & Herrera de Fournier 1978, Barrientos 2000, PalaciosVargas et al 2007, Ayres et al 2009a. Despite the large number of species that inhabit the leaf litter, few studies have been done on its structural properties, dynamics and relation with organisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A high diversity of angiosperms is characteristic of tropical forests and allows the establishment of a structurally complex and diverse leaf litter layer, even if there is an accumulation of leaves belonging to the nearest plant, a phenomenon known as "home field" (Gholz et al 2000, Ayres et al 2009a, Ayres et al 2009b. To my knowledge, no leaf litter structural complexity hypotheses or indexes have been built.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of leaf litter humidity, depth and quantity: two restoration strategies failed to mimic ground microhabitat conditions of a low montane and premontane forest in Costa Rica.

Barrientos

2012

RBT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Little is known about how restoration strategies affect aspects like leaf litter's quantity, depth and humidity. I analyzed leaf litter's quantity, depth and humidity yearly patterns in a primary tropical lower montane wet forest and two restored areas: a 15 year old secondary forest (unassisted restoration) and a 40 year old Cupressus lusitanica plantation (natural understory). The three habitats are located in the Río Macho Forest Reserve, Costa Rica. Twenty litter samples were taken every three months (April 2009-April 2010 in each habitat; humidity was measured in 439g samples (average), depth and quantity were measured in five points inside 50x50cm plots. None of the restoration strategies reproduced the primary forest leaf litter humidity, depth and quantity yearly patterns. Primary forest leaf litter humidity was higher and more stable ( =73.2), followed by secondary forest ( =63.3) and cypress plantation ( =52.9) (Kruskall-Wallis=77.93, n=232, p=0.00). In the primary (Kruskal-Wallis=31.63, n=78, p<0.001) and secondary (Kruskal-Wallis=11.79, n=75, p=0.008) forest litter accumulation was higher during April due to strong winds. In the primary forest (Kruskal-wallis=21.83, n=78, p<0.001) and the cypress plantation (Kruskal-wallis=39.99, n=80, p<0.001) leaf litter depth was shallow in October because heavy rains compacted it. Depth patterns were different from quantity patterns and described the leaf litter's structure in different ecosystems though the year. Rev. Biol. Trop. 60 (3):

show abstract

Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests

Cited by 450 publications

References 38 publications

Microbial community structure mediates response of soil C decomposition to litter addition and warming

Microbial community structure mediates response of soil C decomposition to litter addition and warming

Contribution of litter layer to soil greenhouse gas emissions in a temperate beech forest

Dynamics of leaf litter humidity, depth and quantity: two restoration strategies failed to mimic ground microhabitat conditions of a low montane and premontane forest in Costa Rica.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About