Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T11:55:09.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant litter decomposition and nutrient cycling in north Queensland tropical rain-forest communities of differing successional status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

Scott A. Parsons  and
Robert A. Congdon
Scott A. Parsons*
Affiliation:
Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, 4811, Australia
Robert A. Congdon
Affiliation:
School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, 4811, Australia
*
1Corresponding author. Email: scott.parsons@jcu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Soil processes are essential in enabling forest regeneration in disturbed landscapes. Little is known about whether litterfall from dominating pioneer species in secondary rain forest is functionally equivalent to that of mixed rain-forest litter in terms of contribution to soil processes. This study used the litterbag technique to quantify the decomposition and nutrient dynamics of leaf litter characteristic of three wet tropical forest communities in the Paluma Range National Park, Queensland, Australia over 511 d. These were: undisturbed primary rain forest (mixed rain-forest species), selectively logged secondary rain forest (pioneer Alphitonia petriei) and tall open eucalypt forest (Eucalyptus grandis). Mass loss, total N, total P, K, Ca and Mg dynamics of the decaying leaves were determined, and different mathematical models were used to explain the mass loss data. Rainfall and temperature data were also collected from each site. The leaves of A. petriei and E. grandis both decomposed significantly slower in situ than the mixed rain-forest species (39%, 38% and 29% ash-free dry mass remaining respectively). Nitrogen and phosphorus were immobilized, with 182% N and 134% P remaining in E. grandis, 127% N and 132% P remaining in A. petriei and 168% N and 121% P remaining in the mixed rain-forest species. The initial lignin:P ratio and initial lignin:N ratio exerted significant controls on decomposition rates. The exceptionally slow decomposition of the pioneer species is likely to limit soil processes at disturbed tropical rain-forest sites in Australia.

Keywords

decompositionleaf litternutrient cyclingrain forestsuccession
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , May 2008 , pp. 317 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ABER, J. D. & MELILLO, J. M. 1982. Nitrogen immobilisation in decaying hardwood leaf litter as a function of initial nitrogen and lignin content. Canadian Journal of Botany 60:2263–2269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ADAMS, M. A. & ATTIWILL, P. M. 1986. Nutrient cycling and nitrogen mineralization in eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia. Plant and Soil 92:319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ANDERSON, J. M. & FLANAGAN, P. W. 1989. Biological processes regulating organic matter dynamics in tropical soils. Pp. 97–123 in Coleman, D. C., Oades, J. M. & Uehara, G. (eds.). Dynamics of soil organic matter in tropical ecosystems. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.Google Scholar
ANDERSON, J. M. & INGRAM, J. S. I. 1989. Tropical soil biology and fertility. C.A.B International, Wallingford. 171 pp.Google Scholar
ANDERSON, J. M. & SWIFT, M. J. 1983. Decomposition in tropical forests. Pp. 547–569 in Sutton, S. L., Whitmore, T. C. & Chadwick, A. C. (eds.). Tropical rainforest: ecology and management. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
BAETHGEN, W. & ALLEY, M. 1989. A manual colorimetric procedure for measuring ammonium nitrogen in soil and plant Kjeldahl digest. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 20:961–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARLOW, J., GARDNER, T. A., FERREIRA, L. V. & PERES, C. A. 2007. Litter fall and decomposition in primary, secondary and plantation forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 247:91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOCOCK, K. L. & GILBERT, C. K. 1957. The disappearance of litter under different woodland conditions. Plant Soil 9:179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOWMAN, D. M. J. 2000. Australian rainforests: islands of green in a sea of fire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 357 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRIONES, M. J. I. & INESON, P. 1996. Decomposition of Eucalyptus leaves in litter mixtures. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28:1381–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLEY, P. D. 1987. Interspecific variation in plant anti-herbivore properties: the role of habitat quality and rate of disturbance. New Phytologist 106:251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLEY, P. D., BRYANT, J. P. & CHAPIN, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant anti-herbivore defence. Science 230:895–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONGDON, R. A. & HERBOHN, J. L. 1993. Ecosystem dynamics of disturbed and undisturbed sites in north Queensland wet tropical rain forest. I. Floristic composition, climate and soil chemistry. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9:349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CUEVAS, E. & MEDINA, E. 1988. Nutrient dynamics within Amazonian forests II. Fine root growth nutrient availability and leaf litter decomposition. Oecologia 76:222–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EIJSACKERS, H. & ZEHNDER, A. J. B. 1990. Litter decomposition: a Russian matriochka doll. Biogeochemistry 11:153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EKBOHM, G. & RYDIN, B. 1990. On estimating the species-area relationship. Oikos 57:145–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EWEL, J. J. 1976. Litterfall and leaf decomposition in a tropical forest succession in eastern Guatemala. Journal of Ecology 64:251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EZCURRA, E. & BECERRA, J. 1987. Experimental decomposition of litter from the Tamaulipan Cloud Forest: a comparison of four different models. Biotropica 19:290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARTNER, T. B. & CARDON, Z. G. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOSZ, J. R., LIKENS, G. & BORMANN, F. 1973. Nutrient release from decomposing leaf and branch litter in the Hubbard Brook forest, New Hampshire. Ecological Monographs 43:173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GUO, L. & SIMS, R. E. H. 2001. Effects of light, temperature, water and meatworks effluent irrigation on eucalypt leaf litter decomposition under controlled environmental conditions. Applied Soil Ecology 17:229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEAL, O. W., ANDERSON, J. M. & SWIFT, M. J. 1997. Plant litter quality and decomposition: an historical overview. Pp. 3–30 in Cadisch, G. & Giller, K. E. (eds.). Driven by nature: plant litter quality and decomposition. C.A.B. International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
HERBOHN, J. L. 1993. The role of litterfall in nutrient cycling at disturbed and undisturbed sites in tropical rainforest in North Queensland. Ph.D. Thesis. James Cook University.Google Scholar
HERBOHN, J. L. & CONGDON, R. A. 1993. Ecosystem dynamics at disturbed and undisturbed sites in north Queensland wet tropical rain forest: II. Litterfall. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9:365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HERBOHN, J. L. & CONGDON, R. A. 1998. Ecosystem dynamics at disturbed and undisturbed sites in North Queensland wet tropical rain forest. III. Nutrient returns to the forest floor through litterfall. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14:217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HERRERA, R., JORDAN, C. F. & KLINGE, H. 1978. Amazon ecosystems. Their structure and functioning with particular emphasis on nutrients. Interciencia 3:223–232.Google Scholar
HOPKINS, M. S. 1990. Disturbance – the forest transformer. Pp. 40–51 in Webb, L. & Kikkawa, J. (eds.). Australian tropical rainforests: science-value-meaning. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
HOPKINS, M. S., ASH, J., GRAHAM, A. W., HEAD, J. & HEWETT, R. K. 1993. Charcoal evidence of the spatial extent of the Eucalyptus woodland expansions and rainforest contractions in North Queensland during the late Pleistocene. Journal of Biogeography 20:357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HYLAND, B. & WHIFFEN, T. 1993. Australian tropical rainforest trees: an interactive identification system. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 564 pp.Google Scholar
ISBELL, R. F. 1996. The Australian soil classification. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 156 pp.Google Scholar
LAVELLE, P., BLANCHART, E., MARTIN, A. & MARTIN, S. 1993. A hierarchical model for decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: application to soils of the humid tropics. Biotropica 25:130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAHESWARAN, J. & GUNATILLEKE, I. A. U. N. 1988. Litter decomposition in a lowland rain forest and a deforested area in Sri Lanka. Biotropica 20:90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAYCOCK, C. R. 1997. Plant-soil nutrient relationships in north Queensland wet tropical rainforests. Ph.D. Thesis. James Cook University.Google Scholar
MAYCOCK, C. R. & CONGDON, R. A. 2000. Fine root biomass and soil N and P in north Queensland rain forests. Biotropica 32:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MESQUITA, R. D. C. G., WORKMAN, S. W. & NEELY, C. L. 1998. Slow litter decomposition in a Cecropia-dominated secondary forest of central Amazonia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MURPHY, J. & RILEY, J. P. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta 27:31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NORTHCOTE, K. H. 1971. A factual key to the recognition of Australian soils. Rellim, Adelaide. 123 pp.Google Scholar
PALM, C. A. & ROWLAND, A. P. 1997. Minimum dataset for the characterisation of plant quality for decomposition. Pp. 379–392 in Cadisch, G. & Giller, K. E. (eds.). Driven by nature: plant litter quality and decomposition. C.A.B. International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
ROWLAND, A. P. & ROBERTS, J. D. 1994. Lignin and cellulose fractionation in decomposition studies using acid-detergent fibre methods. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 25:269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RUSSELL, A. E. & VITOUSEK, P. M. 1997. Decomposition and potential nitrogen fixation in Dicranopteris linearis litter on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAKER, M. L., CONGDON, R. A. & MAYCOCK, C. R. 1999. The relationship between phosphorus fractions, phosphatase activity and fertility in three tropical rain forest soils. Tropical Ecology 40:261–267.Google Scholar
SALAMANCA, E. F., KANEKO, N. & KATAGIRI, S. 2003. Rainfall manipulation effects on litter decomposition and the microbial biomass of the forest floor. Applied Soil Ecology 22:271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHROTH, G., ELIAS, M. E. A., UGUEN, K., SEIXAS, R. & ZECH, W. 2001. Nutrient fluxes in rainfall, throughfall and stemflow in tree-based land use systems and spontaneous tree vegetation of central Amazonia. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 87:37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SOKAL, R. & ROHLF, J. 1995. Biometry. (Third edition). W.H Freeman and Company, New York. 776 pp.Google Scholar
SONGWE, N. C., OKALI, D. U. U. & FASEHUN, F. E. 1995. Litter decomposition and nutrient release in a tropical rainforest, Southern Bakundu Forest Reserve, Cameroon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 11:333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPAIN, A. V. & LE FEUVRE, R. P. 1987. Breakdown of four litters of contrasting quality in a tropical Australian rainforest. Journal of Applied Ecology 24:279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPECHT, R. 1970. Vegetation. Pp. 44–67 in Leeper, G. (ed.). The Australian environment. CSIRO and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
STOCKER, G. C. & MOTT, J. J. 1981. Fire in the tropical forests and woodlands of northern Australia. Pp. 425–439 in Gill, A. M., Groves, R. H. & Noble, I. R. (eds.). Fire and the Australian biota. Australian Academic Science, Canberra.Google Scholar
SWIFT, M. J. & ANDERSON, J. M. 1989. Decomposition. Pp. 547–569 in Lieth, H. & Werger, M. J. A. (eds.). Tropical rainforest ecosystems: biogeographical and ecological studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
SWIFT, M. J., HEAL, O. W. & ANDERSON, J. M. 1979. Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Melbourne. 372 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TALLEY, S., SETZER, W. & JACKES, B. 1996. Host associations of two adventitous-root-climbing vines in a north Queensland tropical rainforest. Biotropica 28:356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TRACEY, J. 1982. The vegetation of the humid tropical region of North Queensland. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
VAN SOEST, P. J. 1963. Use of detergent in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Agricultural Chemistry 46:829–835.Google Scholar
VANCLAY, J. K. 1990. Effects of selective logging on rainforest productivity. Australian Forestry 53:200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VASCONCELOS, H. L. & LAURANCE, W. F. 2005. Influence of habitat, litter type, and soil invertebrates on leaf-litter decomposition in a fragmented Amazonian landscape. Oecologia 144:456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WARDLE, D. A., YEATES, G. W., BARKER, G. M. & BONNER, K. I. 2006. The influence of plant diversity on decomposer abundance and diversity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38:1052–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEERAKKODY, J. & PARKINSON, D. 2006. Leaf litter decomposition in an upper montane rainforest in Sri Lanka. Pedobiologia 50:387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WIEDER, R. K. & LANG, G. E. 1982. A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63:1636–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOOD, T. 1974. Field investigations on the decomposition of leaves of Eucalyptus delegatensis in relation to environmental factors. Pedobiologia 14:343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
XULUC-TOLOSA, F. J., VESTER, H. F. M., RAMIREZ-MARCIAL, N., CASTELLANOS-ALBORES, J. & LAWRENCE, D. 2003. Leaf litter decomposition of tree species in three successional phases of tropical dry secondary forest in Campeche, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 174:401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar