4.7 Article

Increased litter input increases litter decomposition and soil respiration but has minor effects on soil organic carbon in subtropical forests

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 392, 期 1-2, 页码 139-153

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-015-2450-4

关键词

Increased litter input; Litter quality; Litter decomposition; Soil respiration; Soil organic C; Subtropical forests

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370530, 31070439]
  2. Science and Technology Innovation Project of Guangdong Province Forestry [2012KJCX019-02]
  3. South China Botanical Garden-Shanghai Institute of Plant Physiology & Ecology Joint Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of changes in litter quantity and quality on litter decomposition, soil respiration, and soil organic carbon (SOC) in subtropical forests. The experiment had a nested factorial design with three factors: (1) successional stage with three levels (early, mid and mature), (2) litter type with two levels (Schima superba Gardn. et Champ. and Ormosia pinnata (Lour.) Merr.), and (3) litter addition with five levels (0, 218, 436, 654 and 873 g center dot m(-2)center dot yr(-1), respectively). In all forests, an increase in litter input increased litter decomposition, litter carbon (C) loss and soil respiration but did not alter SOC content after 2.5 years. The increases in litter decomposition, litter C loss, and soil respiration in response to increased litter input were greater with the lower quality Schima superba litter than with the higher quality Ormosia pinnata litter. Litter quality did not affect SOC content at any of the three forest sites. The responses of litter decomposition and soil respiration to increasing litter input differed depending on forest successional stage. In subtropical forests, increases in litter production under climate change may accelerate C cycling. Net soil C storage in subtropical forests, however, may not change over short time scales in response to increased litter input.

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

4.7
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