Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long term decomposition: the influence of litter type and soil horizon on retention of plant carbon and nitrogen in soils

  • Biogeochemistry Letters
  • Published:
Biogeochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How plant inputs from above- versus below-ground affect long term carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) retention and stabilization in soils is not well known. We present results of a decade-long field study that traced the decomposition of 13C- and 15N-labeled Pinus ponderosa needle and fine root litter placed in O or A soil horizons of a sandy Alfisol under a coniferous forest. We measured the retention of litter-derived C and N in particulate (>2 mm) and bulk soil (<2 mm) fractions, as well as in density-separated free light and three mineral-associated fractions. After 10 years, the influence of slower initial mineralization of root litter compared to needle litter was still evident: almost twice as much root litter (44% of C) was retained than needle litter (22–28% of C). After 10 years, the O horizon retained more litter in coarse particulate matter implying the crucial comminution step was slower than in the A horizon, while the A horizon retained more litter in the finer bulk soil, where it was recovered in organo-mineral associations. Retention in these A horizon mineral-associated fractions was similar for roots and needles. Nearly 5% of the applied litter C (and almost 15% of the applied N) was in organo-mineral associations, which had centennial residence times and potential for long-term stabilization. Vertical movement of litter-derived C was minimal after a decade, but N was significantly more mobile. Overall, the legacy of initial litter quality influences total SOM retention; however, the potential for and mechanisms of long-term SOM stabilization are influenced not by litter type but by soil horizon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449. doi:10.2307/3546886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts R (2006) The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol 94:713–724. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01142.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baisden WT, Amundson R, Brenner DL et al (2002) A multiisotope C and N modeling analysis of soil organic matter turnover and transport as a function of soil depth in a California annual grassland soil chronosequence. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16:1135. doi:10.1029/2001GB001823

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyaert R, Voroney R (2011) Estimation of decay constants for crop residues measured over 15 years in conventional and reduced tillage systems in a coarse-textured soil in southern Ontario. Can J Soil Sci 91:985–995. doi:10.1139/CJSS2010-055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird JA, Torn MS (2006) Fine roots versus needles: a comparison of 13C and 15N dynamics in a ponderosa pine forest soil. Biogeochemistry 79:361–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird JA, Kleber M, Torn MS (2008) 13C and 15N stabilization dynamics in soil organic matter fractions during needle and fine root decomposition. Org Geochem 39:465–477. doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2007.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield J, Vogt KA, Vogt DJ (1993) Decay rate and substrate quality of fine roots and foliage of two tropical tree species in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Plant Soil 150:233–245. doi:10.1007/BF00013020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker B (2012) Maximum likelihood estimation and analysis with the bbmle package. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellano MJ, Mueller KE, Olk DC, Sawyer JE, Six J (2015) Integrating plant litter quality, soil organic matter stabilization, and the carbon saturation concept. Glob Chang Biol 21(9):3200–3209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM et al (2013) The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob Change Biol 19:988–995. doi:10.1111/gcb.12113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotrufo MF, Soong JL, Horton AJ et al (2015) Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nature Geosci 8:776–779. doi:10.1038/ngeo2520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorrepaal E, Cornelissen JH, Aerts R et al (2005) Are growth forms consistent predictors of leaf litter quality and decomposability across peatlands along a latitudinal gradient? J Ecol 93:817–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dungait JAJ, Hopkins DW, Gregory AS, Whitmore AP (2012) Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob Change Biol 18:1781–1796. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02665.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freschet GT, Cornwell WK, Wardle DA et al (2013) Linking litter decomposition of above- and below-ground organs to plant–soil feedbacks worldwide. J Ecol 101:943–952. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujii S, Takeda H (2010) Dominant effects of litter substrate quality on the difference between leaf and root decomposition process above- and belowground. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2224–2230. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudinski JB, Torn MS, Riley WJ et al (2010) Measuring and modeling the spectrum of fine-root turnover times in three forests using isotopes, minirhizotrons, and the Radix model. Global Biogeochem Cycles. doi:10.1029/2009GB003649

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleixner G (2013) Soil organic matter dynamics: a biological perspective derived from the use of compound-specific isotopes studies. Ecol Res 28:683–695. doi:10.1007/s11284-012-1022-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddix ML, Paul EA, Cotrufo MF (2016) Dual, differential isotope labeling shows the preferential movement of labile plant constituents into mineral-bonded soil organic matter. Glob Change Biol 22:2301–2312. doi:10.1111/gcb.13237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson K, Kleja DB, Kalbitz K, Larsson H (2010) Amounts of carbon mineralised and leached as DOC during decomposition of Norway spruce needles and fine roots. Soil Biol Biochem 42:178–185. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatton P-J, Kleber M, Zeller B et al (2012) Transfer of litter-derived N to soil mineral–organic associations: evidence from decadal 15N tracer experiments. Org Geochem 42:1489–1501. doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatton P-J, Bodé S, Angeli N et al (2014) Assimilation and accumulation of C by fungi and bacteria attached to soil density fractions. Soil Biol Biochem 79:132–139. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatton P-J, Castanha C, Torn MS, Bird JA (2015) Litter type control on soil C and N stabilization dynamics in a temperate forest. Glob Change Biol 21:1358–1367. doi:10.1111/gcb.12786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hose E, Clarkson DT, Steudle E et al (2001) The exodermis: a variable apoplastic barrier. J Exp Bot 52:2245–2264. doi:10.1093/jexbot/52.365.2245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60–68. doi:10.1038/nature16069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mambelli S, Bird JA, Gleixner G et al (2011) Relative contribution of foliar and fine root pine litter to the molecular composition of soil organic matter after in situ degradation. Org Geochem 42:1099–1108. doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.06.008

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A et al (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenk 171:91–110. doi:10.1002/jpln.200700049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JA, Hatté C, Balesdent J, Parent É (2015) Deep soil carbon dynamics are driven more by soil type than by climate: a worldwide meta-analysis of radiocarbon profiles. Glob Change Biol 21:4278–4292. doi:10.1111/gcb.13012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626. doi:10.2307/1936780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melillo JM, Aber JD, Linkins AE et al (1989) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics along the decay continuum: plant litter to soil organic matter. In: Clarholm M, Bergström L (eds) Ecology of Arable Land—perspectives and challenges. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 53–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miltner A, Bombach P, Schmidt-Brücken B, Kästner M (2012) SOM genesis: microbial biomass as a significant source. Biogeochemistry 111:41–55. doi:10.1007/s10533-011-9658-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen H, Luxton M (1982) A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes. Oikos 39:288–388. doi:10.2307/3544689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasse DP, Rumpel C, Dignac M-F (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269:341–356. doi:10.1007/s11104-004-0907-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I (2011) Deep soil organic matter—a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338:143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanaullah M, Chabbi A, Leifeld J et al (2011) Decomposition and stabilization of root litter in top-and subsoil horizons: what is the difference? Plant Soil 338:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt MW, Torn MS, Abiven S et al (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419. doi:10.1007/s004420100740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sollins P, Swanston C, Kleber M et al (2006) Organic C and N stabilization in a forest soil: evidence from sequential density fractionation. Soil Biol Biochem 38:3313–3324. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sollins P, Kramer MG, Swanston C et al (2009) Sequential density fractionation across soils of contrasting mineralogy: evidence for both microbial- and mineral-controlled soil organic matter stabilization. Biogeochemistry 96:209–231. doi:10.1007/s10533-009-9359-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solly EF, Schöning I, Herold N et al (2015) No depth-dependence of fine root litter decomposition in temperate beech forest soils. Plant Soil 393:273–282. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2492-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren TJ (1988) Litter dynamics in two Sierran mixed conifer forests. I. Litterfall and decomposition rates. Can J For Res 18:1127–1135. doi:10.1139/x88-174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torn MS, Trumbore SE, Chadwick OA et al (1997) Mineral control of soil organic carbon storage and turnover. Nature 389:170–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voroney RP, Paul EA, Anderson DW (1989) Decomposition of wheat straw and stabilization of microbial products. Can J Soil Sci 69:63–77. doi:10.4141/cjss89-007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Townsend AR (2009) Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecology 90:3333–3341. doi:10.1890/08-2294.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Program by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We gratefully acknowledge Rachel Porras and Heather Dang for assistance with lab analyses and the UC Berkeley Center for Forestry Blodgett Forest Research Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Caitlin E. Hicks Pries, Cristina Castanha & Margaret S. Torn

  2. School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Queens College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Jeffrey A. Bird & Pierre-Joseph Hatton

  3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Pierre-Joseph Hatton

Authors
  1. Caitlin E. Hicks Pries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey A. Bird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristina Castanha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre-Joseph Hatton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margaret S. Torn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitlin E. Hicks Pries.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Stuart Grandy.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 193 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hicks Pries, C.E., Bird, J.A., Castanha, C. et al. Long term decomposition: the influence of litter type and soil horizon on retention of plant carbon and nitrogen in soils. Biogeochemistry 134, 5–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0345-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0345-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation