4.5 Article

Patterns of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing foliar litter in Canadian forests

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 46-62

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-004-0026-x

关键词

litter; forests; decomposition; carbon; nitrogen; phosphorus; lignin

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the patterns of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) gain, retention or loss in ten foliar tissues in a litterbag experiment over 6 years at 18 upland forest sites in Canada, ranging from subarctic to cool temperate. N was usually retained in the decomposing litter until about 50% of the original C remained. The peak N content in the litter was observed at between 72 and 99% of the original C remaining, with C:N mass quotients between 37 and 71 (mean 55). The rate of N release from the litters was not related to the original N concentration, which may be associated with the generally narrow range (0.59-1.28% N) in the litters. P was immediately lost from all litters, except beech leaves, with critical litter C:P mass quotients for P release being in the range 700-900. The rate of P loss was inversely correlated with the original litter P concentration, which ranged from 0.02 to 0.13%. The soil underlying the litterbags influenced the pattern of N and P dynamics in the litters; there were weak correlations between the N and P remaining at 60% C remaining in the litters and the C:N and C:P quotients of the surface layer of the soil. There was a trend for higher N and P retention in the litter at sites with lower soil C:N and N:P quotients, respectively. Although there was a large variation in C:N, C:P and N:P quotients in the original litters (29-83, 369-2122 and 5-26, respectively), and some variation in the retention or loss of N and P in the early stages of decomposition, litters converged on C:N, C:P and N:P quotients of 30, 450 and 16, when the C remaining fell below 30%. These quotients are similar to that found in the surface organic matter of these ecosystems.

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