4.7 Article

Differential effects of lichens and mosses on soil enzyme activity and litter decomposition

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 177-189

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-006-0077-6

关键词

lichens; mosses; decomposition; soil enzymes; soil-plant interactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the New Jersey Pinelands, canopy gaps in the pine-dominated forest support patches of lichens, mosses, and caespitose grasses. We tested the hypotheses that nonvascular plants and lichens can affect nutrient cycling processes and that mosses and lichens would differ from each other. We predicted that (1) lichen tissues would decompose more slowly than pine or moss tissues, (2) all plant materials would decompose more slowly beneath lichens than beneath mosses, and (3) soil enzyme activities would be higher under lichens than under mosses or grasses, reflecting greater nutrient limitation. We compared rates of decomposition of the litter of Pinus rigida and moss and lichen tissues, and measured soil enzyme activities responsible for nutrient mineralization from litter (acid and alkaline phosphatases, chitinase, beta-glucosidase, aminopeptidase, and phenol oxidase) under three types of groundcover (lichens, mosses, and grasses) and unvegetated soil at two sites. While groundcover affected enzyme activities, the patterns of enzyme activities differed markedly between the two sites. In general, the enzyme activities were uniformly low. Decomposition rates were more strongly affected by the groundcover than by litter materials. While all litters tended to decompose more slowly under lichens than under mosses, supporting one of our initial hypotheses, the rates of decomposition were markedly different between the two sites. These results suggest that while mosses and lichens create patches of different soil function in both sites, the differences between the sites in unknown factors cause the enzyme activities and decomposition rates to differ.

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