4.6 Article

Fine roots are the dominant source of recalcitrant plant litter in sugar maple-dominated northern hardwood forests

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 208, 期 3, 页码 715-726

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13494

关键词

acid-insoluble fraction; chemical recalcitrance; fine roots; leaf litter; lignin; litter input; litter quality; nitrogen (N) deposition

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Department of Energy's Division of Environmental Biology
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [1004624]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1251529, 1251441] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most studies of forest litter dynamics examine the biochemical characteristics and decomposition of leaf litter, but fine roots are also a large source of litter in forests. We quantified the concentrations of eight biochemical fractions and nitrogen (N) in leaf litter and fine roots at four sugar maple (Acer saccharum)-dominated hardwood forests in the north-central United States. We combined these results with litter production data to estimate ecosystem biochemical fluxes to soil. We also compared how leaf litter and fine root biochemistry responded to long-term simulated N deposition. Compared with leaf litter, fine roots contained 2.9-fold higher acid-insoluble fraction (AIF) and 2.3-fold more condensed tannins; both are relatively difficult to decompose. Comparatively, leaf litter had greater quantities of more labile components: nonstructural carbohydrates, cellulose and soluble phenolics. At an ecosystem scale, fine roots contributed over two-thirds of the fluxes of AIF and condensed tannins to soil. Fine root biochemistry was also less responsive than leaf litter to long-term simulated N deposition. Fine roots were the dominant source of difficult-to-decompose plant carbon fractions entering the soil at our four study sites. Based on our synthesis of the literature, this pattern appears to be widespread in boreal and temperate forests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据