Trends of litter decomposition and soil organic matter stocks across forested swamp environments of the southeastern US


Autoři: Beth A. Middleton aff001
Působiště autorů: U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA, United States of America aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226998

Souhrn

A common idea in the discussion of soil carbon processes is that litter decomposition rates and soil carbon stocks are inversely related. To test this overall hypothesis, simultaneous studies were conducted of the relationship of environmental gradients to leaf and wood decomposition, buried cloth decomposition and percent soil organic matter in Taxodium distichum swamps across the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (MRAV) and northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) of the US. Decomposition of leaf tissue was 6.2 to 10.9 times faster than wood tissue. Both precipitation and flooding gradients were negatively related to leaf and wood litter decomposition rates based on models developed using Stepwise General Model Selection (MRAV vs. GOM, respectively). Cotton cloth should not be used as a proxy for plant litter without prior testing because cloth responded differently than plant litter to regional environmental gradients in T. distichum swamps. The overall hypothesis was supported in the MRAV because environments with higher precipitation (climate normal) had lower rates of decomposition and higher percent soil organic matter. In the MRAV, higher levels of percent soil organic matter were related to increased 30-year climate normals (30 year averages of precipitation and air temperature comprising southward increasing PrinComp1). Soil organic carbon % in inland vs. coastal T. distichum forests of the MRAV were comparable (range = 1.5% to 26.9% vs. 9.8 to 31.5%, respectively). GOM swamps had lower rates of litter decomposition in more flooded environments. Woody T. distichum detritus had a half-life of up to 300 years in the MRAV, which points to its likely role in the maintenance of inland “teal” soil organic carbon. This unique study can contribute to the discussion of approaches to maintain environments conducive to soil carbon stock maximization.

Klíčová slova:

Flooding – Latitude – Leaves – Salinity – Soil carbon – Swamps – Wetlands – Wood


Zdroje

1. Davidson EA, Janssens IA. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature. 2006; 440: 165–173. doi: 10.1038/nature04514 16525463

2. Stockman U., MA Adams, JW. Crawford, Field DJ, Henakaarchchi N, Jenkins M, et al. The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012; 164: 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.001.

3. Moomaw W, Davies G, Middleton BA, Chmura G, Sutton-Grier A, Finlayson M, et al. The role of wetlands in climate change: consequences and solutions. Wetlands. 2018; 38: 138−205. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8.

4. Howard J, Sutton-Grier A, Herr D, Kleypas J, Landis E, McLeod E, et al. Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Front Ecol Environ. 2017;15: 42−50. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1451.

5. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. Atlas for the biosphere. Madison, Wisconsin: Center for Sustainability and Global Environment; 2017. https://nelson.wisc.edu/sage/data-and-models/atlas/maps/soilcarbon/atl_soilcarbon_nam.jpg.

6. Craft C, Washburn C, Parker A. Latitudinal trends in organic carbon accumulation in temperate freshwater peatlands. Wastewater treatment, plant dynamics and management in constructed and natural wetlands (ed. by Vymazal J), pp 23–31. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Springer; 2008. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8235-1_3.

7. Hansen VD, Nestlerode JA. Carbon sequestration in wetland soils of the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal region. Wetlands Ecol Manag, 2014;22: 289–303. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11273-013-9330-6.

8. Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DS, Lynch JC. Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochem Cy. 2003; 17: 22.1–22.12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001917.

9. Brinson MM, Lugo AE, Brown S. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1981; 12: 123–161. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.12.110181.001011.

10. Nahlik AM, Fennessey MS. Carbon storage in US wetlands. Nat Commun. 2015; 7: 13835. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13835.

11. Craft CB, Casey WB. Sediment and nutrient accumulation in floodplain and depressional freshwater wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands. 2000; 20: 323–332. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0323:SANAIF]2.0.CO;2.

12. Olsen MW, Frye RJ, Glenn EP. Effect of salinity and plant species on CO2 flux and leaching of dissolved organic carbon during decomposition of plant residue. Plant Soil. 1996;179: 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00009327.

13. Markewich, H.W., Buell, G.R., Britsch, L.D., McGeehin, J.P., Robbins JA, Wrenn JH, et al. Organic-carbon sequestration in soil/sediment of the Mississippi River deltaic plain—Data; landscape distribution, storage, and inventory; accumulation rates; and recent loss, including a post-Katrina preliminary analysis. Chapter B. Soil carbon storage and inventory for the Continental United States (ed. by Markewich, HW). U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1686-B, Reston VA; 2007. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/2007/1686b/l.

14. Morrissey EM, Gillespie J, Morina J, Franklin R. Salinity affects microbial activity and soil organic matter content in tidal wetlands. Global Change Biology. 2013; 20: doi: 10.1111/gcb.12431

15. Craft CB. Freshwater input structures soil properties, vertical accretion, and nutrient accumulation of Georgia and U.S. tidal marshes. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007; 52: 1220–1230.

16. Middleton BA, McKee KL. Degradation of mangrove tissues and implications for peat formation in Belizean island forests. J Ecol. 2001; 89: 818–828 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00602.x.

17. Akanil N, Middleton BA. Leaf litter decomposition along the Porsuk River, Eskisehir, Turkey. Can J Botany. 1997; 75: 1394–1397. https://doi.org/10.1139/b97-853.

18. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, et al. Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett. 2008; 11: 1065–1071 doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x 18627410

19. Makkonen MM, Berg MP, Handa IT, Hättenschwiler S, van Ruijven J, van Bodegom PM, et al. Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. Ecol Lett. 2012; 15: 1033–1041. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01826.x 22732002

20. Hernes PJ, Hedges JI. Tannin signatures of barks, needles, leaves, cones and wood at the molecular level. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta. 2004; 68: 1293–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2003.09.015.

21. Moore TR, Trofymow A, Prescott CE, Titus BD, Cidet Working Group (2017) Can short-term litter-bag measurement predict long-term decomposition in northern forests? Plant Soil. 2017; 416: 419–426.

22. Tiegs SC, Clapcott JE, Griffiths NA, Boulton AJ. A standardized cotton-strip assay for measuring organic-matter decomposition in streams. Ecol Indic. 2013; 32: 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.013.

23. Middleton BA, McKee KL. Use of a latitudinal gradient in bald cypress production to examine physiological controls on biotic boundaries and potential responses to environmental change. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2004; 13: 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00088.x.

24. Turner RE. Geographic variations in salt marsh macrophyte production: a review. Contrib Mar Sci. 1976; 20: 47–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41686027?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

25. Twilley RR, Chen RH, Hargis T. Carbon sinks in mangroves and their implications to carbon budget of tropical costal ecosystems. Water Air Soil Poll. 1992; 64: 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00477106.

26. Kirwan ML, Guntenspergen GR, Morris JT. Latitudinal trends in Spartina alterniflora productivity and the response of coastal marshes to global change. Glob Change Biol. 2009; 15: 1982–1989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01834.x.

27. Day JW, Kemp GP, Reed DJ, Cahoon DR, Boumans RM, Suhayda JM, et al. Vegetation death and rapid loss of surface elevation in two contrasting Mississippi delta salt marshes: the role of sedimentation, autocompaction and sea-level rise. Ecol Eng. 2011; 37: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.021.

28. Alongi DM. Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2014; 6: 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010213-135020.

29. Aerts R. Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos. 1997; 79: 439–449. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3546886?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

30. Osland MJ, Gabler CA, Grace JB. Climate and plant controls on soil organic matter in coastal wetlands. Glob Change Biol. 2018; 00:1–19. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14376

31. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) (2018) Climate data; 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 1]. Database: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/.

32. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Official soil series descriptions and series classification. National Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.; 2019. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov.

33. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Soil survey. Washington D.C.: Natural Resources Conservation Service; 2019. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

34. Middleton BA. Regeneration potential of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps and climate change. Plant Ecol. 2009; 202: 257−274. http://DOI 10.1007/sl 1258-008-9480-4.

35. Middleton BA, Johnson D, Roberts B. Hydrologic remediation for the Deepwater Horizon Incident drove ancillary primary production increase in coastal swamps. Ecohydrology. 2015; 8: 838−850. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1625.

36. Mendelssohn IA, Sorrel BK, Brix H, Schierup HH, Lorenzen B, Maltby E. Controls on soil cellulose decomposition along a salinity gradient in a Phragmites australis wetland in Denmark. Aquat Bot. 1999; 64: 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00065-0.

37. Slocum MG, Roberts J, Mendelssohn IA. Artist canvas as a new standard for the cotton-strip assay. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009; 172: 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800179.

38. Soil and Plant Analysis Council. Handbook on reference methods for soil analysis. Georgia University Station, GA: Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis; 1992. ISBN: 0962760617, 9780962760617.

39. Google Earth. Google Earth Pro 6.3.2.5776. Mountain View, CA: Google LLC; 2019.

40. JMP SAS. Statistical Analysis System, v. 13.2.1. Cary, North Carolina: SAS; 2017.

41. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). Climate normals; 2018 [cited 2018 Mar 30]. Database: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals.

42. Leopold LB, Wolman MG, Miller JP. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York, USA; 1992.

43. Allen Y. Landscape scale assessment of floodplain inundation frequency using Landsat imagery. River Research and Applications. 2016; 32: 1609–1620. doi: 10.1002/rra.2987

44. Osland M., Griffith K., Larriviere J., Feher L. Cahoon, D., Enwright, N., et al. Assessing coastal wetland vulnerability to sea-level rise: gaps and opportunities for a regional sampling network. PLOS One. 2017; 12: e0183431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183431 28902904

45. Olson JS. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology. 1963; 44: 322–331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932179

46. Chen H, Harmon ME, Sexton J, Fasth B. Fine-root decomposition and N dynamics in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Can J Forest Res. 2002;32: 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-145.

47. Bärlocher F. Leaf mass loss estimated by litter bag technique. Methods to study litter decomposition: a practical guide. (ed. by Graça MAS, Bärlocher F., and Gessner M.), pp. 37–42. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; 2005

48. SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.3. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System; 2002–2012.

49. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry. 4th ed. W.H. Freeman, New York; 1998.

50. Wang H, Piazza SC, Sharp LA, Stagg CL, Couvillion BR, Steyer GD, et al. Determining the spatial variability of wetland soil bulk density, organic matter, and the conversion factor between organic matter and organic carbon across coastal Louisiana, U.S.A. J Coastal Res. 2017; 33: 507–517. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00014.1

51. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics. 1978; 6: 461–464.

52. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH. Applied linear regression models. 2nd ed. Richard D. Irwin, Burr Ridge, Illinois; 1989.

53. Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Townsend AR. Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wetland tropical forests. Ecology. 2009;90: 3333–3341. doi: 10.1890/08-2294.1 20120803

54. Dale SE, Turner BL, Bardgett RD. Isolating the effects of precipitation, soil conditions, and litter quality on leaf litter decomposition in lowland tropical forests. Plant Soil. 2015; 394: 225–238. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2511-8

55. Middleton BA, van der Valk AG, Davis CB, Mason DH, Williams RL. Litter decomposition in an Indian monsoonal wetland overgrown with Paspalum distichum. Wetlands. 1992; 12: 1237–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160542.

56. Battle JM, Golladay SW. Hydroperiod influence on breakdown of leaf litter in cypress-gum wetlands. Am Midl Nat. 2001;1 46: 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2001)146[0128:HIOBOL]2.0.CO;2.

57. Wang C., Xie Y, Ren Q, Li C. Leaf decomposition and nutrient release of three tree species in the hydro-fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Dam Reservoir, China. Environ Sci Pollut R; 2018; doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2357-8

58. Salinas N, Malhi Y, Meir P, Silman M, Cuesta RR, Huaman J, et al. The sensitivity of tropical leaf litter decomposition to temperature: results from a large-scale leaf translocation experiment along an elevation gradient in Peruvian forests. New Phytol. 2011; 189: 967−977. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03521.x 21077887

59. Coûteaux MM, Bottner P, Anderson JM, Berg B, Bolger T, Casals P, et al. Decomposition of 13C-labelled standard plant material in a latitudinal transect of European coniferous forests: differential impact of climate on the decomposition of soil organic matter compartments. Biogeochemistry. 2001; 54: 147–170. https://doi.org/S0038-0717(99)00182-010.

60. Coûteaux MM, Sarmiento L, Bottner P, Acevedo D, Thiéry JM. Decomposition of standard plant material along an altitudinal transect (65–3968 m) in the tropical Andes. Soil Biol Biochem. 2002; 34: 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00155-9

61. Mackey AP, Smail G. The decomposition of mangrove litter in a subtropical mangrove forests. Hydrobiologia. 1996; 332: 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00016688. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00016688.pdf.

62. Ricker MC, Lockaby BG, Blosser GD, Conner WH. Rapid wood decay and nutrient mineralization in an old-growth bottomland hardwood forest. Biogeochemistry. 2016; 127: 323–338. doi: 10.1007/s10533-016-0183-y

63. Russell MB, Woodall CW, Fraver S, D’Amato AW, Domke GM, Skog E. Residence times and decay rates of downed woody debris biomass/carbon in eastern US forests. Ecosystems. 2014; 17: 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-014-9757-5.

64. Fritz KM, Fulton S, Johnson BR, Barton CD, Jack JD, Word DA, et al. An assessment of cellulose filters as a standardized material for measuring litter breakdown in headwater streams. Ecohydrology. 2011; 4: 469–476. doi: 10.1002/eco.128

65. Giese LA, Aust WM, Trettin CC, Kolka RK. Spatial and temporal patterns of carbon storage and species richness in three South Carolina coastal plain riparian forests. Ecol Eng. 2000;15: S157–S170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00081-6

66. Allen SE. Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Malden, MA: Blackwell Sci; 1974. ISBN: 0632003219

67. Kirschbaum MUF. Will changes in soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on global warming? Biogeochemistry. 2000; 48: 21−51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006238902976.

68. Chadwick OA, Gavenda RT, Kelly EF, Ziegler K, Olson CG, Elliott WC, et al.The impact of climate on the biogeochemical functioning of volcanic soils. Chem Geol. 2003; 202: 195–223. https://doi.org/j.chemgeo.2002.09.001.

69. Scott RM. Exchangeable bases of mature, well-drained soils in relation to rainfall in East Africa. J Soil Sci. 1962; 13: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1962.tb00674.x.

70. Stahle DW, Burnette DJ, Villanueva J, Cerano J, Fye FK, Griffin RD, et al.Tree-ring analysis of ancient baldcypress trees and subfossil wood. Quaternary Sci Rev. 2012; 34: 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.11.005

71. Little EL Jr. Atlas of United States trees, vol 1. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1146 USDA Forest Service. USGPO, Washington, DC; 1971.


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1

Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle

Tejto téme sa ďalej venujú…


Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Význam nutraceutik u kardiovaskulárních onemocnění
nový kurz
Autori:

Faktory ovlivňující léčbu levotyroxinem

Kurz originály vs. generika

Autori: MUDr. Petr Výborný, CSc., FEBO

Autori: MUDr. Jiří Horažďovský, Ph.D

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa