4.7 Article

Nutrient release from decomposing leaf litter of temperate deciduous forest trees along a gradient of increasing tree species diversity

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 2122-2130

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.07.024

关键词

Decomposition rate; Litter decay; Soil fauna; Nutrient release; Tree species diversity; Litterbag; C/N ratio

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [1086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the litter of six deciduous tree species (Fagus sylvatica, Tilia spp., Fraxinus excelsior, Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus and Acer platanoides) and in stand-specific litter mixtures, we compared mass loss and nutrient release across diversity levels along a gradient of decreasing proportion of Fagus in stands with similar environmental and physical soil conditions. The litterbag studies ran over 22 months. The decomposition rate constants (k) of the temperate forest species ranged from k = 0.5 for Fagus to k = 1.5-2 for all other tree species. In Fagus, k was closely negatively correlated with the thickness of the litter layer and positively correlated with soil pH and isopod abundance. k was significantly higher in the mixed species stands (except for Carpinus and Fraxinus) and was positively correlated with earthworm abundance. Over the whole incubation time, nutrient amount and release rates of N, P, K, Ca and Mg as well as C-related ratios showed significant differences between tree species but no consistent differences among the diversity levels. Initial C-related nutrient ratios of the leaf litter and abundance of mesofauna and macrofauna were correlated with the length of time lag before nutrient release. We conclude that the mere number of tree species is not the main driver of nutrient release and decomposition processes, but that key groups of the decomposer fauna as well as the characteristic traits of the individual tree species are decisive. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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