4.7 Article

Interaction of position, litter type, and water pulses on decomposition of grasses from the semiarid Patagonian steppe

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 90, 期 9, 页码 2642-2647

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/08-1804.1

关键词

aboveground and belowground processes; Argentina; carbon cycle; deserts; leaf and root litter; litter decomposition; Patagonia; photodegradation; semiarid ecosystems; shrub-grass steppe; South America; water pulses

类别

资金

  1. Fundacinon Antorchas
  2. University of Buenos Aires [G812]
  3. ANPCyT [PICT 21247, PICT 31970]
  4. CONICET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Litter lignin and nutrient content, annual rainfall, and biotic activity are not good predictors of litter decomposition in arid and semiarid ecosystems, suggesting that other factors may be important in controlling carbon turnover. We explored the relative importance of litter position (above-vs. belowground), litter type (leaf vs. root), and pulsed water events (large vs. small) on mass loss with grass species of the semiarid Patagonian steppe. In a factorial experiment of mesocosms, we incubated leaf and root litter simultaneously above-and belowground and manipulated water availability with large and small pulses. Significant interactions between position and litter type and position and pulse sizes demonstrated interactive controls on organic mass loss. Aboveground decomposition showed no response to pulse size or litter type, as roots and leaves decomposed equally rapidly under all circumstances. In contrast, belowground decomposition was significantly altered by litter type and water pulses, with roots decomposing significantly slower and small water pulses reducing belowground decomposition. The results of this mesocosm experiment support the idea that controls other than water availability may dominate aboveground mass loss, while a combination of recalcitrant litter and water penetration in the soil pro. le are critical factors determining belowground decomposition, which is ultimately mediated by biotic degradation.

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