4.4 Article

Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 1742-1750

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-30-11-1742

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We measured rates of decomposition at three sites representing the major mixedwood forest types of British Columbia: (i) boreal forests of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.); (ii) coastal forests of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.); and (iii) a wet interior forest of Douglas-fir, paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Doug. ex Loud.). Mass loss of litter of each species (both pure and in combination with the other species) was measured for 2-5 years in forests of each species to determine (i) if broadleaf litter decomposed faster than needle litter, (ii) if litter decomposed faster in broadleaf or mixedwood forests than in coniferous forests, and (iii) if mixing with broadleaf hastened decomposition of needle litter. The broadleaf litters decomposed faster than needles during the first year but, thereafter, decomposed more slowly, so differences were small after 3 years. Litter tended to decompose faster in the broadleaf forests than in the coniferous forests. There was either no effect or a slight suppression of decomposition when litters were mixed; thus, there was no evidence that addition of broadleaf litter hastened decomposition of needle litter. The results clearly indicate that the mixing of needle litter with broadleaf litter is unlikely to hasten decomposition in mixedwood forests of British Columbia. The main influence of broadleaves was more rapid decomposition in broadleaf or mixedwood forest floors, which does not appear to be simply an effect of litter quality or litter mixing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available