4.5 Article

Flood pattern and weather determine Populus leaf litter breakdown and nitrogen dynamics on a cold desert floodplain

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 626-650

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.022

关键词

biogeochemistry; decomposition; flood pulse; macroinvertebrates; nitrogen dynamics; riparian

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patterns and processes involved in litter breakdown on desert river floodplains are not well understood. We used leafpacks containing Fremont cottonwood (Populus deltoides subsp. wislizenii) leaf litter to investigate the roles of weather and microclimate, flooding (immersion), and macro invertebrates on litter organic matter (OM) and nitrogen (N) loss on a floodplain in a cool-temperate semi-arid environment (Yampa River, northwestern Colorado, USA). Total mass of N in fresh autumn litter fell by similar to 20% over winter and spring, but in most cases there was no further N loss prior to termination of the study after 653 days exposure, including up to 20 days immersion during the spring flood pulse. Final OM mass was 10-40% of initial values. The pattern of OM and N losses suggested most N would be released outside the flood season, when retention within the floodplain would be likely. The exclusion of macroinvertebrates modestly reduced the rate of OM loss (by about 10%) but had no effect on N dynamics over nine months. Immersion in floodwater accelerated OM loss, but modest variation in litter quality did not affect the breakdown rate. These results are consistent with the concept that decomposition on desert floodplains progresses much as does litter processing in desert uplands, but with periodic bouts of processing typical of aquatic environments when litter is inundated by floodwaters. The strong dependence of litter breakdown rate on weather and floods means that climate change or river flow management can easily disrupt floodplain nutrient dynamics. (c) 2005 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

4.5
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