4.7 Article

Further evidence for slow decomposition of very fine roots using two methods: litterbags and intact cores

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 366, Issue 1-2, Pages 633-646

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-012-1457-3

Keywords

Fine root decomposition; Intact-core technique; Litterbag technique; Betula costata; Pinus koraiensis

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program (973 Program) [2010CB951301]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31070350]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DL11BA10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root decomposition studies have rarely considered the heterogeneity within a fine-root system. Here, we investigated fine root (< 0.5 and 0.5-2 mm in diameter) decomposition and accompanying nutrient dynamics of two temperate tree species-Betula costata Trautv and Pinus koraiensis Sieb. et Zucc. Both litterbag and intact-core techniques were used to examine decomposition dynamic and nutrient release of the two size class roots over a 498-day period. Moreover, we examined differences between the two approaches. The very fine roots (< 0.5 mm) with an initially lower C:N ratio, decomposed more slowly than 0.5-2 mm roots of both tree species. The differences in mass loss between size classes were smaller when using the intact-core technique compared with litterbag technique. In contrast to root biomass loss, net N release was much higher in the fine roots (< 0.5 mm). All fine roots initially released N (0-75 days), but immobilized N to varying extent in the following days (75-498 days) during decomposition. Our results suggest that the slow decomposition rate of very fine roots (< 0.5 mm) may be determined by their high concentration of acid-unhydrolyzable structural components. Additionally, the heterogeneity within a bulk fine-root system could lead to differences in their contribution to soil in terms of carbon and nitrogen dynamics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available