4.5 Article

Nutrient and Carbon Limitation on Decomposition in an Amazonian Moist Forest

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 1039-1052

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-012-9564-9

关键词

litter quality; phosphorus; nitrogen; labile carbon; priming effect; soil fauna; energy limitation; tropical forest

类别

资金

  1. CNRS PIR Amazonie II'' grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical forests determine global biogeochemical cycles to a large extent, but control factors for key ecosystem processes such as decomposition remain poorly understood. With a full-factorial C (cellulose), N (urea), and P (phosphate) fertilization experiment, we tested the relative importance of C and nutrient limitation on litter decomposition in a mature lowland moist forest of French Guiana. Despite the previously demonstrated litter C quality control over decomposition and the very low soil P content (0.1 mg g(-1) of soil) at our study site, fertilization with C or P alone did not increase the decomposition of a wide range of litter types (N:P ratios between 20 and 80). Nitrogen fertilization alone also had no effect on decomposition. However, the combined fertilization with N and P resulted in up to 33.5% more initial litter mass lost, with an increasing effect with wider litter N:P ratios. Soil fauna strongly stimulated litter mass loss and enhanced nutrient fertilization effects. Moreover, nutrient effects on decomposition increased with additional C fertilization in the presence of fauna. Our results suggest that increased N availability is required for a positive P effect on decomposition in the studied P-poor tropical forest. Further stimulation of decomposition by C amendment through priming indicates energy limitation of decomposers that is co-determined by nutrient availability. The demonstrated intricate control of the key resources C, N, and P on decomposition calls for an intensified research effort on multiple resource limitation on key processes in tropical forests and how they change under multiple human impacts.

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