The cover uncovered: Bark control over wood decomposition

Dossa, Gbadamassi G.O.; Schaefer, Douglas; Zhang, Jiao Lin; Tao, Jianping; Cao, Kun; Corlett, Richard T.; Cunningham, Anthony B.; Xu, Jianchu; Cornelissen, Johannes H. C.; Harrison, Rhett D.

doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12976

Cited by 65 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 96 publications

(139 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our results, many previous studies have found that bark decomposes faster than wood (Maser & Trappe, 1984; McColl & Powers, 2003; Shorohova et al, 2008a; Zhang & Zak, 1998). However, other studies have shown the opposite (Dossa et al, 2018; Ganjegunte et al, 2004; Tarasov & Birdsey, 2001). The effect of bark presence on underlying wood decomposition is also mixed, with either slower (Dossa et al, 2018) or faster (Ulyshen et al, 2016) wood decomposition, or no effect of bark removal (Oberle et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The effect of bark presence on underlying wood decomposition is also mixed, with either slower (Dossa et al, 2018) or faster (Ulyshen et al, 2016) wood decomposition, or no effect of bark removal (Oberle et al, 2017). Differences in bark and wood decomposition rates, and the impact of bark on wood decomposition are likely influenced by species identity (Dossa et al, 2016), wood diameter and bark attachment (Dossa et al, 2018), moisture (Ulyshen et al, 2016), plant defence compounds in bark (Ganjegunte et al, 2004), nutrient availability, access to the environment and susceptibility to fragmentation. Below we discuss how N, access to the environment and susceptibility to fragmentation influence bark and wood decomposition dynamics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When trees are either alive or dead, many invertebrates and fungi cannot penetrate bark to access the wood underneath (Dossa et al, 2018; Käärik, 1974; Pearce, 1996; Zuo et al, 2016). Our finding that bark slows the decomposition of underlying wood is consistent with a role for bark as a physical barrier protecting the wood from environmental exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In decomposition studies, wood and bark are often treated as one substrate (Dossa et al, 2018; Harmon et al, 1986; Weedon et al, 2009), though there are a growing number of studies that consider bark and wood decomposition separately (Dossa, Paudel, Cao, Schaefer, & Harrison, 2016; Dossa et al, 2018; Shorohova & Kapitsa, 2014; Ulyshen, Müller, & Seibold, 2016). Because bark and wood differ in the characteristics that influence decomposition, separating bark and wood decomposition is an easy and potentially revealing way to reduce unexplained variation in wood decomposition and to understand the effect of substrate composition on microbial communities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bark can also impact the decomposition of underlying wood. The higher nutrient concentration in bark could increase decomposition rate by providing nutrients for the production of wood decay enzymes by decomposers (Dossa et al, 2018; Sinsabaugh et al, 1993). However, the importance of bark nutrients to wood decomposition may be habitat dependent because nutrient limitation is likely stronger in streams than on land.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Habitat‐specific effects of bark on wood decomposition: Influences of fragmentation, nitrogen concentration and microbial community composition

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Identifying the drivers of decomposition is critical for understanding carbon cycling dynamics in forest ecosystems. Woody biomass is an important pool of carbon, composed of bark and underlying wood which vary in structure, nutrient concentrations and exposure to the environment. We hypothesized that higher nutrient concentrations in bark would speed the decomposition of underlying wood, and that this effect would be greater in streams, where nutrients are less available to decomposers than on land.2. Replicate branches of three tree species, with and without bark, were placed in streams and on land in a lowland tropical forest in Panama. After 3 and 11 months of decomposition, we measured mass loss and nitrogen (N) concentrations and sequenced the fungal and bacterial communities of both wood and bark tissues.3. While bark decomposed faster than the underlying wood and had higher N concentrations, bark presence slowed wood mass loss. Nitrogen concentration could account for interspecific variation in wood mass loss, but not bark mass loss. In contrast, bark mass loss, but not wood mass loss, was faster in streams than on land, suggesting fragmentation is more important for bark mass loss in streams.Differences in fungal and bacterial community composition between bark and wood substrates were significant but small. 4.Our results indicate that bark can slow wood decomposition instead of promoting it, and that at least for branch wood, the primary drivers of decomposition differ between bark and wood. Differences in the factors driving decomposition rate between bark and wood suggest that the contribution of bark to the decomposition of woody biomass may depend on habitat. K E Y W O R D Saquatic, bacterial communities, decay, freshwater streams, fungal communities, tropical forest | INTRODUC TI ONA key goal of ecosystem ecology was to understand how carbon and nutrients cycle through ecosystems, and in turn influence ecosystem stability, productivity and diversity. Wood decomposition, which includes biotic decay processes, leaching and fragmentation

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Habitat‐specific effects of bark on wood decomposition: Influences of fragmentation, nitrogen concentration and microbial community composition

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Influences of the bark economics spectrum and positive termite feedback on bark and xylem decomposition

Tuo

Yan

Guo

et al. 2021

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The plant economics spectrum integrates trade‐offs and covariation in resource economic traits of different plant organs and their consequences for pivotal ecosystem processes, such as decomposition. However, in this concept stems are often considered as one unit ignoring the important functional differences between wood (xylem) and bark. These differences may not only affect the performance of woody plants during their lifetime, but may also have important “afterlife effects.” Specifically, bark quality may strongly affect deadwood decomposition of different woody species. We hypothesized that (1) bark quality strongly influences bark decomposability to microbial decomposers, and possibly amplifies the interspecific variation in decomposition by invertebrate consumption, especially termites; and (2) bark decomposition has secondary effects on xylem mass loss by providing access to decomposers including invertebrates such as termites. We tested these hypotheses across 34 subtropical woody species representing five common plant functional types, by conducting an in situ deadwood decomposition experiment over 12‐month in two sites in subtropical evergreen broad‐leaved forest in China. We employed visual examination and surface density measurement to quantify termite consumption to both bark and the underlying xylem, respectively. Using principal component analysis, we synthesized seven bark traits to provide the first empirical evidence for a bark economics spectrum (BES), with high BES values (i.e., bark thickness, nitrogen, phosphorus, and cellulose contents) indicating a resource acquisitive strategy and low BES values (i.e., carbon, lignin, and dry matter contents) indicating a resource conservative strategy. The BES affected interspecific variation in bark mass loss and this relationship was strongly amplified by termites. The BES also explained nearly half of the interspecific variation in termite consumption to xylem, making it an important contributor to deadwood decomposition overall. Moreover, the above across‐species relationships manifested also within plant functional types, highlighting the value of using continuous variation in bark traits rather than categorical plant functional types in carbon cycle modeling. Our findings demonstrate the potent role of the BES in influencing deadwood decomposition including positive invertebrate feedback thereon in warm‐climate forests, with implications for the role of bark quality in carbon cycling in other woody biomes.

show abstract