Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T03:09:37.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Elevated litterfall phosphorus reduces litter and soil organic matter pools in exotic-dominated novel forests in Singapore

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2024

Aloysius Teo
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Theodore A. Evans
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia
Ryan A. Chisholm*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
*
Corresponding author: Ryan A. Chisholm; Email: chisholm@nus.edu.sg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The estimation of leaf litter turnover is often limited to early-stage decomposition using unrepresentative models and litter types. In tropical secondary forests, particularly exotic-dominated novel forests, the characterisation of litter turnover remains poor. This study estimated the annual turnover of in-situ leaf litter across four forest successional types in Singapore using a Weibull residence time model. Litter turnover and nutrient dynamics diverged between young secondary and old-growth forests. In particular, within novel forests, annual phosphorus return via leaf litterfall was three times that of primary forests, while the mass loss of in-situ leaf litter was highest among all forest successional types, estimated at 92.8% annually with a mean residence time of 176 days, resulting in a litter pool size a third that of primary forests. Our findings suggest that tree species composition and species-specific effects shaped the observed variations in litter turnover and nutrient dynamics across forest successional types and forest stands, whereas tree species richness, canopy structure, soil nutrient levels, and microclimate were found to be non-predictors. Taken together, our study provides an insight into litter turnover in human-modified tropical landscapes increasingly characterised by novel forests, potentially leading to a reduction in surface litter and soil organic carbon pools.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The widespread abandonment of cultivated land and plantations in the tropics (Aide and Grau Reference Aide and Grau2004; Cramer et al. Reference Cramer, Hobbs and Standish2008) is leading to a growing prevalence of tropical secondary forests (Gardner et al. Reference Gardner, Barlow, Sodhi and Peres2010). Tree species composition in tropical secondary forests is altered and distinct from primary forests (Barlow et al. Reference Barlow, Gardner, Araujo, Ávila-Pires, Bonaldo, Costa, Esposito, Ferreira, Hawes and Hernandez2007a; Chazdon Reference Chazdon2003; DeWalt et al. Reference DeWalt, Maliakal and Denslow2003). In some regenerating forests, the dominance of exotic tree species leads to novel species compositions (Cramer et al. Reference Cramer, Hobbs and Standish2008; Hobbs et al. Reference Hobbs, Arico, Aronson, Baron, Bridgewater, Cramer, Epstein, Ewel, Klink and Lugo2006), creating ‘novel forests’ (Lugo Reference Lugo2009; Lugo and Helmer Reference Lugo and Helmer2004). Understanding the functional implications of modified biodiversity in tropical secondary forests is crucial (Erickson et al. Reference Erickson, Helmer, Brandeis and Lugo2014; Guariguata and Ostertag Reference Guariguata and Ostertag2001), particularly for key ecosystem processes such as litterfall production and decomposition (Naeem and Wright Reference Naeem and Wright2003).

The production and decomposition of plant litter is a major driver of carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems (Meentemeyer et al. Reference Meentemeyer, Box and Thompson1982; Vitousek Reference Vitousek1984) and is especially important in nutrient-depleted tropical forests (Jordan and Herrera Reference Jordan and Herrera1981; Tiessen et al. Reference Tiessen, Cuevas and Chacon1994). The quantity and quality (i.e. nutrient concentrations) of litterfall controls the return of nutrients to the forest floor (Vitousek Reference Vitousek1984), and litterfall characteristics are shaped by the identity and composition of tree species within a forest stand (Vitousek et al. Reference Vitousek, Matson and Van Cleve1989; Ehrenfeld, Reference Ehrenfeld2003). Litter quality, which is typically represented by C:N and C:P ratios, in turn regulates decomposition rates (Aerts Reference Aerts1997; Swift et al. Reference Swift, Heal and Anderson1979). Nutrient concentrations in leaf litterfall also provide an indication of nutrient-use efficiency (Vitousek Reference Vitousek1982) – a forest stand that produces more litterfall per unit of nutrient absorbed has higher nutrient-use efficiency (Birk and Vitousek Reference Birk and Vitousek1986). Additionally, the stoichiometry of nutrients in leaf litterfall can reflect the relative availability of soil nutrients (Reich and Oleksyn Reference Reich and Oleksyn2004; Silver Reference Silver1994) – particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, which are considered to be the most limiting nutrients in terrestrial ecosystems (Vitousek Reference Vitousek1984).

However, despite the ubiquity of tropical secondary forests, most ecological studies remain focused on their structural and compositional attributes, while empirical data on their processes and functional characteristics, such as nutrient cycling (Guariguata and Ostertag Reference Guariguata and Ostertag2001), are comparatively lacking (Bihn et al. Reference Bihn, Gebauer and Brandl2010). This could be attributed to the bias towards understanding litterfall and decomposition in intact forests, while regenerating tropical forests are less-studied (Barlow et al. Reference Barlow, Gardner, Ferreira and Peres2007b), especially those older than 10 years (Chazdon et al. Reference Chazdon, Peres, Dent, Sheil, Lugo, Lamb, Stork and Miller2009). Similarly, ecosystem processes in exotic-dominated tropical novel forests are usually poorly studied (Silva Reference Silva2015), with studies largely limited to examples from Puerto Rico (Erickson et al. Reference Erickson, Helmer, Brandeis and Lugo2014; Silva Reference Silva2015) and Hawaii (Hughes and Denslow Reference Hughes and Denslow2005; Hughes and Uowolo Reference Hughes and Uowolo2006). This possibly reflects the Neotropical bias in ecological studies on the functioning of tropical secondary forests (Guariguata and Ostertag Reference Guariguata and Ostertag2001), with similar research being poorly replicated in tropical Southeast Asia, despite its expanding area of secondary forests (Miettinen et al. Reference Miettinen, Shi and Liew2011).

Most decomposition studies focus narrowly on estimating early-stage decomposition rates, instead of estimating the total input of litterfall and the maximum extent of litter decomposed annually to derive litter turnover, which gives deeper insights into ecosystem functioning and carbon turnover (Prescott Reference Prescott2005). Litter turnover modulates the size of the surface leaf litter pool (Kaspari and Yanoviak Reference Kaspari and Yanoviak2008) – an important parameter to estimate in decomposition studies (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014). The leaf litter pool also stores carbon, buffers against soil erosion and nutrient leaching, and provides habitats for the brown food web (Kaspari and Yanoviak Reference Kaspari and Yanoviak2008). However, it is often difficult to quantify litter turnover, given that decomposition studies frequently employ non-native common litter or single-species litterbags, which are not representative of actual decomposition patterns of diverse in-situ leaf litter assemblages in tropical forests (Hättenschwiler et al. Reference Hättenschwiler, Coq, Barantal and Handa2011).

The accurate estimation of litter turnover is also compromised by the prevalent use of single-litter pool negative exponential decomposition models, which tend to overestimate litter mass loss and unjustifiably assume leaf litter to be of a single chemically homogenous pool (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014). Instead, decomposition models that incorporate chemical heterogeneities by modelling a continuous distribution of litter quality should be adopted more widely, as they improve the balance between accuracy and parsimony (Manzoni et al. Reference Manzoni, Piñeiro, Jackson, Jobbágy, Kim and Porporato2012). An example of a continuous litter quality model is the Weibull residence time model (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014). Although used infrequently in decomposition studies, the Weibull residence model provided robust fits to a wide array of decomposition data and permitted decomposition rates to increase or decrease over time to account for the relative proportions of labile and recalcitrant material in litter (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014; Olson Reference Olson1963).

This study was conducted in Singapore, which offers a ‘natural experiment’ due to widespread historical forest clearance for agriculture and the chronologically staggered abandonments subsequently (Corlett Reference Corlett1992). The forest cover is dominated by secondary forests across a gradient of successional ages exceeding 100 years (Corlett Reference Corlett1997; Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and BinIbrahim1996), and of varying land-use histories, habitat properties, and tree species compositions, offering a spatial mosaic of forest successional types as ‘treatments’ for comparison (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016; Yee et al. Reference Yee, Corlett, Liew and Tan2011). Some of the young secondary forests form canopies that are dominated by exotic species (Corlett Reference Corlett, Ng, Corlett and Tan2011; Kee Reference Kee2012; Tan et al. Reference Tan, Chou, Yeo and Ng2010) and so can be viewed as novel forests (Hobbs et al. Reference Hobbs, Arico, Aronson, Baron, Bridgewater, Cramer, Epstein, Ewel, Klink and Lugo2006). In contrast, the remnant fragments of primary and old secondary forests are generally resistant to species invasion (Teo et al. Reference Teo, Tan, Corlett, Wong and Lum2003).

Although the compositional shifts and decline of tree diversity in Singapore’s secondary forests are well characterised (Corlett Reference Corlett1997; Kee Reference Kee2012; Neo Reference Neo2012; Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and Ibrahim1997), there remains a paucity of research on their ecosystem functioning, particularly in key processes such as litterfall and decomposition. This mosaic of forest fragments in Singapore also provides an excellent opportunity to predict the fate of ecosystem processes in similar human-modified landscapes, which increasingly defines the tropics (Gardner et al. Reference Gardner, Barlow, Chazdon, Ewers, Harvey, Peres and Sodhi2009). Moreover, the presence of 100-year-old secondary forests provides a rare opportunity to investigate the long-term recovery of litter and nutrient cycling processes, as similar studies are typically limited to young secondary forests (Chazdon et al. Reference Chazdon, Peres, Dent, Sheil, Lugo, Lamb, Stork and Miller2009). Furthermore, the high floristic richness and complex stand structure across the forest types used in this study permit a more robust inference of the linkage between species richness and litterfall production – this linkage has more often been assessed in species-poor and structurally simple monoculture plantations or controlled experimental plots (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Ma, Zhao, Niklaus, Schmid and He2017; Scherer-Lorenzen et al. Reference Scherer-Lorenzen, Bonilla and Potvin2007).

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the following across the primary and secondary forests of Singapore: (1) quantify annual litterfall production; (2) determine leaf litter quality and quantify the annual return of nitrogen and phosphorus via the leaf litterfall fraction (and hence infer nutrient-use efficiencies and relative nutrient limitations); (3) estimate the annual turnover of in-situ leaf litter from the soil surface and its contribution to the accumulation of soil organic matter by fitting a Weibull residence time model; and (4) evaluate the roles of forest successional type, soil nutrient concentrations, and leaf litter quality in shaping the observed patterns of leaf litter production and turnover. We hypothesise that litterfall and litter turnover is positively associated with forest successional age, i.e. primary forest stands producing the most litterfall and with the fastest turnover.

Materials and methods

Study sites and forest types

This study was conducted in Singapore, a highly urbanised island-state located in Southeast Asia. The climate is equatorial and aseasonal, with an average mean daily temperature of 27.0°C and an annual rainfall of 2331 mm, with no months receiving less than 100 mm of rain on average (National Environment Agency 2016).

Eighteen study sites, classified into four forest successional types, were selected (Figure S1). The classification of forest types followed Corlett (Reference Corlett, Ng, Corlett and Tan2011) and Yee et al. (Reference Yee, Corlett, Liew and Tan2011). Primary forests refer to lowland dipterocarp forests, which was historically the dominant dryland vegetation of Singapore (Corlett Reference Corlett, Chia, Rahman and Tay1991b). Today, only 0.25% of Singapore’s land area or approximately 192 ha is covered by primary lowland dipterocarp forests (Corlett Reference Corlett1997), forming remnant primary forest fragments surrounded by larger tracts of old secondary forests (Turner and Corlett Reference Turner and Corlett1996). Old secondary forests in Singapore are tall secondary forests of approximately 100 years of age or more (Corlett Reference Corlett1997; Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and BinIbrahim1996), having regenerated on abandoned plantations, mainly of gambier (Uncaria gambir) and pepper (Piper nigrum) crops (Corlett Reference Corlett1992). Old secondary forests are dominated by late-successional native plant species (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016) and harbour about 60% of the tree species found in primary forests (Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and Ibrahim1997). Today, the total area of old secondary forest fragments is approximately 1000 ha – less than 1.4% of Singapore’s land area (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Corlett, Liew and Tan2011). Primary and old-secondary forests are collectively referred to as old-growth forests in this study.

Two categories of young secondary forests – abandoned rubber plantations and waste woodlands – were selected for this study. At its peak, Pará rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations occupied up to 40% of Singapore’s land area (Corlett Reference Corlett, Chia, Rahman and Tay1991b). Subsequently, rubber plantations were abandoned between the 1940s and late 1950s (Shepherd and Shepherd Reference Shepherd and Shepherd1968). Although the canopy in abandoned rubber plantations remains dominated by rubber trees, the mid- and understorey layers harbour mostly native species (Neo Reference Neo2012; Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016). Approximately three-quarters of the overall vascular flora recorded from abandoned rubber plantations are native species (Neo Reference Neo2012).

Waste woodlands represent the youngest secondary forests in this study with a successional age well under 50 years, having regenerated from abandoned villages and farmland cleared after the 1960s (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016). Land clearance involved bulldozers (Corlett Reference Corlett, Ng, Corlett and Tan2011), resulting in the removal or perturbation of topsoil (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016). The degraded land in the absence of a canopy cover (Corlett Reference Corlett1991a) enabled a spontaneous regeneration dominated by easily dispersed exotic tree species (Kee Reference Kee2012), many of which are invasive (Corlett Reference Corlett, Ng, Corlett and Tan2011; Tan et al. Reference Tan, Chou, Yeo and Ng2010) – notably Albizia (Falcataria falcata) and Earleaf Acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Waste woodlands in Singapore are hence also viewed as novel forest ecosystems (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016). Overall, across the forest successional types evaluated in this study, the relative dominance of exotic plants generally increases as forest successional age decreases, while species richness decreases, hence providing a ‘natural experiment’ to assess the influence of species composition and species richness on litter turnover dynamics.

Study design

Above-ground fine litterfall was estimated following a tropical forest protocol by Muller-Landau and Wright (Reference Muller-Landau and Wright2010). In each study site, six above-ground litterfall traps were installed in a rectangular grid layout spaced 30 m apart. In total, 108 litterfall traps were installed. Litterfall traps had openings of 70.7 cm by 70.7 cm, representing a sampling area of 0.5 m2 each, and were placed at a standardised height of 90 cm above the forest floor.

Fine litterfall was collected monthly between February 2014 and January 2015 and dried at 60°C until it reached constant mass. It was subsequently separated into its constituent fractions – leaves, fine wood, reproductive litter, and debris. Fine wood included woody material such as bark and branches ≤20 mm in diameter. Reproductive litter was defined as flowers, fruits, and seeds, as well as their accessory structures. Debris referred to fine litter fragments and dust that passed through a 2 mm sieve. Non-plant material, e.g. invertebrates and feathers, were omitted. The dry mass of each litterfall fraction was recorded to the nearest 0.01 g. Using each litterfall trap as a replicate, mean annual litterfall production (Mg/ha/yr) was estimated for each study site and forest type.

The returns of carbon and nutrients to the forest floor via leaf litterfall were estimated by quantifying the concentrations of carbon and nutrients within leaf litterfall bulked and homogenised per study site per month. Carbon concentration was sampled using leaf litterfall collected in February 2014, while the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus were sampled and averaged using leaf litterfall collected in August 2014 and January 2015. Total carbon was determined with an elemental analyser (Vario EL, Elementar, Germany), while total nitrogen was determined with the Kjeldahl method (Kjeldahl Reference Kjeldahl1883), and total phosphorus was determined by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectroscopic method following dry ashing and acid digestion. Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient-use efficiencies (NUE and PUE, respectively) were calculated as the ratio of leaf litterfall produced to the amount of nutrient returned through leaf litterfall, following Vitousek (Reference Vitousek1982). Leaf litterfall C:N, C:P, and N:P ratios were also calculated.

In-situ leaf litter mass loss was estimated using nylon litterbags with a coarse mesh aperture of 2 mm, which permitted the entry of all microfauna and mesofauna, as well as most macrofauna (Swift et al. Reference Swift, Heal and Anderson1979). Leaf litterfall collected over 2 months (February and March 2014) was bulked and homogenised per study site, from which a subsample of 15–20 g (dry mass) was placed into individual litterbags. The litterbag contents thus form a stand-level sample of the in-situ leaf litter assemblage produced within each study site.

Nine litterbags were deployed per study site. Litterbags were secured to stakes and placed in direct contact with the forest topsoil by temporarily shifting the litter layer aside and returning it thereafter to maintain a representative decomposition microenvironment. All 162 litterbags were deployed in April 2014 and subsequently retrieved following a destructive sampling approach. Litterbags were retrieved after deployment lengths of ca. 60 and 210 days at all sites, and after ca. 330 days in abandoned rubber plantations and waste woodlands, or after ca. 390 days in primary and old secondary forests; the longer periods were used to account for the slower mass loss and to improve model fitting. Retrieved litterbags were dried until they reached constant mass at 60°C. The litter mass remaining was weighed after removing foreign material such as soil particles, roots, and invertebrates.

Characterisation of habitat properties

Air temperature and relative humidity in each study site were recorded using data loggers (iButton Hygrochron DS1923, Dallas Semiconductor, TX, USA). Soil volumetric water content was recorded using sensor probes buried 10 cm deep and connected to a HOBO Micro Station data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, MA, USA). Canopy openness directly above each litterfall trap was measured indirectly using canopy hemispherical photography; canopy photographs were analysed using the CIMES software package (Gonsamo et al. Reference Gonsamo, Walter and Pellikka2011) (Table S1).

To determine soil organic matter and nutrient content (Table S1), 15-cm deep soil cores were obtained. A pair of soil cores was obtained from opposite sides of each litterfall trap. The topsoil samples were pooled and homogenised for each study site for analysis. Total soil nitrogen was determined by the Kjeldahl method (Bremner Reference Bremner1960; Kjeldahl Reference Kjeldahl1883). Soil phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium were extracted using Mehlich-3 extract (Mehlich Reference Mehlich1984) and quantified using ICP spectroscopy. Soil organic matter was determined by the loss on ignition method (Ball Reference Ball1964). Soil organic matter was not determined for two study sites (IK and PU) as they were cleared for developments prior to soil sampling.

Data analysis and modelling

Annual litterfall production

Annual total and leaf litterfall production were fitted using multivariate linear mixed-effects models; the fine wood, reproductive, and debris litterfall fractions were not modelled given their minor contributions. Forest type, soil nitrogen content, and soil phosphorus content were included in the models as fixed effect predictors, while study site was included as a random effect. To investigate if litterfall production is influenced by canopy structure and density, the canopy openness (%) directly above each litterfall trap, as estimated by hemispherical photography, was also included as a fixed-effect predictor in the linear mixed-effects models. The models were fitted by maximising the restricted log-likelihood using the ‘nlme’ package (lme function) (Pinheiro et al. Reference Pinheiro, Bates, DebRoy, Sarkar, Heisterkamp, Van Willigen and Maintainer2017) in R (R Core Team 2016). Model residuals were visually checked against assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality. For pairwise comparisons of litterfall production between forest types, a Tukey’s post-hoc test at a significance level of 0.05 was performed using the R package ‘multcomp’ (glht function) (Hothorn et al. Reference Hothorn, Bretz and Westfall2008).

Leaf litter mass loss and annual turnover

The mass loss of leaf litter was modelled using the Weibull residence time model, following Cornwell and Weedon (Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014):

(1) $${W\left( t \right) = {{\rm{e}}^{ - {{\left( {{t}\over{\beta }} \right)}^\alpha }}}}$$

where W(t) is the relative weight of litter remaining, t is the deployment period (days), and α and β are the shape and scale parameters of the mass loss trajectory, respectively. The temporal trajectory of litter mass loss was fitted to equation (1) using a non-linear least square approach (Gauss–Newton algorithm). Models were fitted separately for each forest type and for each study site. The model-predicted proportion of leaf litter loss annually was then used to estimate the dry mass of leaf litterfall that is loss and accumulated annually on a stand-level for each study site. Additionally, leaf litter half-life and mean residence time were calculated, following Cornwell and Weedon (Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014) (see Supplementary Material Note 1).

Evaluating predictors of leaf litter production, nutrient dynamics, and mass loss

Annual leaf litter mass loss, soil nutrient and organic matter content, NUE, and PUE (as derived from leaf litter nutrient concentrations) were modelled using multivariate linear regression models (candidate models are shown in Table S5) due to the absence of a random effect (study site), as leaf litter turnover, leaf litter nutrient, and soil nutrient data were pooled at the site level. To fulfil linear modelling assumptions where the dependent variable is a proportion (annual leaf litter mass loss) or percentage (soil organic matter content), the dependent variable was transformed using a logit transformation, following Warton and Hui (Reference Warton and Hui2011) (see Supplementary Material Note 2 for the interpretation of model coefficients with logit-transformed dependent variables).

All multivariate linear mixed-effects and regression models were checked for multicollinearity by using the R package ‘car’ (function variance inflation factor (VIF)) (Fox and Weisberg Reference Fox and Weisberg2011) and following Zuur et al. (Reference Zuur, Ieno and Elphick2010), where explanatory variables with a VIF greater than three had to be omitted – the predictors of soil potassium, magnesium, and calcium content exhibited evidence of multicollinearity and were omitted from the linear mixed-effects models of total and leaf litterfall production. Subsequently, candidate models were assembled using the remaining explanatory variables in all combinations (see Table S3 and Table S5), and the best (most parsimonious) model was selected using Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc) with the R package ‘AICcmodavg’ (Mazerolle Reference Mazerolle2016). The model with the lowest AICc was taken to have the strongest support, since it represents the best balance between accuracy and parsimony (Burnham and Anderson Reference Burnham and Anderson2002). For the most parsimonious models with multiple explanatory variables, the relative importance of each explanatory variable was calculated using the R package ‘relaimpo’ (Gromping Reference Gromping2006), and adopting the LMG method described by Lindeman et al. (Reference Lindeman, Merenda and Gold1980), which decomposes overall R 2 by calculating the contribution of each predictor (the squared semi-partial) at all possible points of entry into the model and taking the average.

Results

Annual litterfall production

Annual litterfall production generally declined with decreasing forest successional age, with waste woodlands being an exception. Despite being the youngest forest successional type, waste woodlands produced the most total litterfall annually (Figure 1), averaging 12.78 ± 0.96 Mg ha–1 yr–1, which was 16% higher than the mean of 10.98 ± 0.65 Mg ha–1 yr–1 recorded in primary forests. Leaf litter formed the dominant fraction (≥70%) of total litterfall, hence the pattern of leaf litterfall production across forest types closely mirrored that of total litterfall production (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Notched boxplots of annual litterfall production and its constituent fractions across different forest successional types. The notch approximates the 95% confidence interval of the median. For each litterfall fraction, forest successional types that do not share the same letter code exhibited statistically significant differences (Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear mixed-effects model, p ≤ 0.05).

However, the large heterogeneity in litterfall production between study sites meant that the increase in total and leaf litterfall production in waste woodlands compared to primary forests was not statistically significant (Figure 1; Table 1, site-specific details in Table S2). The large variance in litterfall production between study sites was also reflected by the >50% improvement in model fits (as interpreted by the coefficients of determination) when study site was accounted for as a random effect in linear mixed-effects models (Table 1). Other litterfall fractions – fine wood, reproductives, and debris – showed no statistically significant differences in annual production between forest types, with the sole exception being the significantly higher production of debris litterfall recorded in waste woodlands (Figure 1).

Table 1. Summary of the most parsimonious linear mixed-effects models to evaluate controls on annual total litterfall and annual leaf litterfall (a list of all candidate models evaluated are shown in Table S3). Study site was modelled as a random effect. The marginal R2 considers only the variance of the fixed effects, while the conditional R2 takes both the fixed and random effects into account

Forest type was a predictor of total and leaf litterfall production in the most parsimonious linear mixed-effects models, while soil nitrogen content was also a predictor for total litterfall production (Table 1). Soil phosphorus content and canopy openness above each litterfall trap were excluded as model predictors during the AIC-based model selection process (Table S3). Overall, forest successional type was the predictor that exhibited the largest effect size and thus explained most of the variation in litterfall production.

Leaf litterfall quality and annual nitrogen and phosphorus return

Leaf litterfall quality as measured by C:N and C:P ratios reduced with increasing forest successional age – leaf litterfall C:N and C:P ratios were higher in younger secondary forests compared to old-growth forests (Figure 2a). The variations of leaf litterfall C:N and C:P ratios largely reflected the variations in leaf litterfall nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, given that leaf litterfall carbon content was relatively uniform across study sites, at approximately 50% (Table S2). Across forest types, leaf litterfall C:P ratios exhibited a larger divergence relative to C:N ratios, while N:P ratios increased with increasing forest successional age (Figure 2a, site-specific details in Table S2). Taken together, leaf litterfall nutrient stoichiometry showed that phosphorus was the primary contributor to elevated leaf litterfall quality in young secondary forest types.

Figure 2. (A) Leaf litterfall chemical quality across forest successional types as represented by C:P and C:N ratios. The relationship between C:P and C:N provides N:P, which is indicative of the relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorus; dotted lines indicate constant N:P. (B & C) Nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) and phosphorus-use efficiency (PUE) across forest types as represented by the relationship between annual leaf litterfall production and the annual return of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, through leaf litterfall; dotted lines indicate constant NUE or PUE values. Annual nutrient returns and nutrient-use efficiencies per study site are detailed in Table S2. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Letters to the top-right of symbols represent the results from a Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear model; forest types that do not share the same letter exhibited statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in N:P, NUE, or PUE. P: primary forest; S: old secondary forest; R: abandoned rubber plantation; W: waste woodland.

Consequently, waste woodlands returned the largest amounts of nutrients to the forest floor via leaf litterfall, particularly for phosphorus, given the combined effects of increased leaf litterfall quality and increased annual leaf litterfall production. Waste woodlands returned 4.57 kg ha–1 yr–1 of phosphorous to the forest floor, almost thrice the amount recorded in old-growth forests (Figure 2c). Furthermore, the amount of phosphorus return via leaf litterfall was found to be a significant determinant of soil phosphorus levels (Table 2), serving as a better predictor compared to forest type (Table S5). While nitrogen return was also higher in waste woodlands, the magnitude of increase was smaller – waste woodlands returned 175 kg ha–1 yr–1 of nitrogen via leaf litterfall compared to 111 kg ha–1 yr–1 in primary forests (Figure 2b). Therefore, the amount of nitrogen returned via leaf litterfall was not found to be a predictor of soil nitrogen levels (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of the most parsimonious linear regression models to evaluate controls on nutrient-use efficiencies, the estimated proportion of annual leaf litterfall mass loss annually, and soil phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic matter content (a list of all candidate models evaluated is shown in Table S5). For multivariate models, the relative importance (proportion of model R 2 explained) of each predictor variable is shown

Overall, soil nitrogen and soil phosphorus levels were not predictors of NUE and PUE, respectively, when analysed using linear regression models. Instead, PUE was predicted by forest type, which explained most of its variation (Table 2). Conversely, forest type was not a significant predictor of NUE, given the large overlaps in NUE across forest types (Table S2).

Annual turnover of leaf litterfall and its contribution to soil organic matter

Old-growth forest and young secondary forest successional types exhibited divergent patterns of in-situ leaf litter mass loss, with the latter supporting higher mass losses from litterbags (Figure 3). Using a Weibull residence model, it was estimated that the in-situ leaf litter mass loss in waste woodlands was 92.8% annually, compared to 71.2% and 67.4% in primary forests and old secondary forests, respectively (Figures 3 and 5). However, stand-level analysis using linear regression models revealed that leaf litter C:N and C:P ratios explained more variation in annual leaf litter mass loss (R 2 = 0.809; Table 2) compared to forest type (Table S5) and were inversely associated with annual leaf litter mass loss (Table 2). Analysis of the relative importance of leaf litter C:N and C:P ratios in regulating mass loss revealed that approximately 60% of the explained variance in annual leaf litter mass loss was attributable to leaf litter C:N ratio, while the remaining 40% was attributable to leaf litter C:P ratio (Table 2). Soil moisture content was not found to be a predictor of annual leaf litter mass loss (Table S5).

Figure 3. Estimated mass loss of in-situ leaf litter per forest successional type fitted with the Weibull residence model. Data points represent observations for each litterbag. Shaded region represents the 95% confidence interval of the model-predicted mean derived from bootstrapping (n =1000).

Figure 4. Mean residence time and mean half-life of in-situ leaf litter per forest successional type calculated using the Weibull residence model-estimated parameters of α and β, following Cornwell and Weedon (Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014) (equations in Supplementary Material Note 1). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Numerical values indicate the ratio (mean residence time): (mean half-life) – an estimator of the relative proportions of recalcitrant and labile material in leaf litter (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014).

Figure 5. Amount of annual leaf litterfall loss and accumulated per forest successional type as estimated by the Weibull residence model. Error bars represent standard error of the mean for annual leaf litterfall production. Values within bars indicate the Weibull model-estimated percentages of leaf litter mass loss annually and the standard deviations per forest type. Letters within bars represent the results from a Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear model; forest successional types that do not share the same letter exhibited statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in the estimated amount of leaf litterfall accumulated annually.

The Weibull residence model predicted the mean residence time of leaf litter to be shorter than a year across all forest types, and that leaf litter in waste woodlands exhibited the shortest mean residence time, at 176 days, compared to 317 days in old secondary forests (Figure 4). Consequently, it was estimated that waste woodlands accumulated the smallest leaf litter pool annually, despite supporting the highest annual leaf litterfall production. By contrast, old-growth forests accumulated three times more annual leaf litterfall into the litter pool – approximately 2.3 Mg ha–1 yr–1 (Figure 5). The estimated size of leaf litter pool accumulated annually was found to be a significant (p = 0.0034) and positive predictor of soil organic matter content (Figure 6), when analysed on a stand-level using a linear regression model (Table 2), while forest type was excluded from the most parsimonious model (Table S5), reflecting the heterogeneity in soil organic matter content across forest types (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Soil organic matter content predicted by the estimated amount of leaf litterfall accumulated annually using a linear regression model. Model estimates are shown in Table 2. Shaded region represents the 95% CI of the model-predicted mean. Y-axis is displayed on a logit scale – percentage data of soil organic matter was converted to proportional data and logit transformed to fulfil linear modelling assumptions.

Discussion

Litterfall production

Contrary to the positive correlations between litterfall production and forest successional age observed in other tropical forests (Cole et al. Reference Cole, Selmants, Khan and Chazdon2020; Huang et al. Reference Huang, Ma, Zhao, Niklaus, Schmid and He2017), our finding of the highest litterfall production in the youngest and most depauperate forest successional type – waste woodlands – was unexpected and contrary to our hypothesis. The increased leaf litterfall in waste woodlands could be attributed to its dominance of exotic species, which typically exhibit increased growth rates, lower leaf construction costs, and reduced leaf strength (Baruch and Goldstein Reference Baruch and Goldstein1999; Daehler Reference Daehler2003; Reich et al. Reference Reich, Walters and Ellsworth1997). Reduced leaf strength was indeed evident in waste woodlands species here, as inferred by the increased debris fraction of litterfall recorded, presumably due to increased fragmentation of weaker leaf litter. The observed association of litterfall production with exotic species dominance in this study is consistent with observations from other tropical novel forests dominated by similar invasive trees such as Acacia auriculiformis, Falcataria falcata, and Spathodea campanulata (Abelleira Martinez Reference Abelleira Martinez2011; Hughes and Denslow Reference Hughes and Denslow2005; Milton Reference Milton1981; Witkowski Reference Witkowski1991).

Nonetheless, a key difference is that the increased litterfall observed in the aforementioned studies was also associated with a net increase in floristic richness driven by exotic species introductions, whereas the increased litterfall recorded in waste woodlands here occurred despite the introduction of exotic species resulting in depauperate floristic richness, while old-growth forests remain highly species-rich. This strongly suggests that the stand-level composition of coexisting tree species is a stronger determinant of litterfall production than stand-level species richness (Kotowska et al. Reference Kotowska, Leuschner, Triadiati and Hertel2016; Tang et al. Reference Tang, Cao, Zhang and Li2010). The absence of strong correlations between litterfall and overhead canopy openness in this study, as exemplified by waste woodlands producing the most litterfall despite supporting the lowest canopy cover, further reinforces the importance of canopy species identity and composition in influencing litterfall compared to forest structural attributes such as stand density and biomass, mirroring Tang et al. (Reference Tang, Cao, Zhang and Li2010) and Kotowska et al. (Reference Kotowska, Leuschner, Triadiati and Hertel2016). However, this study did not explicitly investigate the influence of stand-level tree species composition on litterfall production. Further studies should quantify species-specific contribution of tree species (Scherer-Lorenzen et al. Reference Scherer-Lorenzen, Bonilla and Potvin2007) that represent the major contributors of stand-level litterfall.

This study is among a few that have examined litterfall production in tropical secondary forests with more than a century of relatively undisturbed regeneration. Our results revealed that despite only harbouring approximately 60% of the tree species richness in primary forests (Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and Ibrahim1997), old secondary forests almost matched the litterfall production in primary forests. The slight reduction in litterfall in old secondary forests is potentially explained by its compositional dissimilarity with primary forests here (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Ramage, Ngo, Potts and Lum2013) – e.g. primary forest sites likely support a higher proportion of tree species with larger investments into herbivory defence (Eichenberg et al. Reference Eichenberg, Trogisch, Huang, He and Bruelheide2014), hence resulting in reduced herbivory and higher net litterfall.

Nutrient return though leaf litterfall, with insights on nutrient-use efficiencies and nutrient limitations

The clear divergence in litter quality between waste woodlands and primary forests here provides evidence that a novel assemblage dominated by a small number of functionally distinct invasive tree species, compared to a speciose assemblage of primary forest species, can fundamentally alter stand-level litterfall nutrient dynamics. Exotic species are typically characterised by elevated leaf litter quality compared to co-occurring native species (Erickson et al. Reference Erickson, Helmer, Brandeis and Lugo2014; Mascaro et al. Reference Mascaro, Hughes and Schnitzer2012), given their differences in functional and physiological traits, e.g. increased photosynthesis and growth rates that are associated with increased foliar nutrient content and litter quality (Baruch and Goldstein Reference Baruch and Goldstein1999; Ehrenfeld Reference Ehrenfeld2003; Reich et al. Reference Reich, Walters and Ellsworth1997). In novel forests in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, invasion by Falcataria falcata, a nitrogen-fixing tree also widespread in waste woodlands in Singapore (Tan et al. Reference Tan, Chou, Yeo and Ng2010; Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016), has also led to increases in litterfall nitrogen and phosphorus content (Erickson et al. Reference Erickson, Helmer, Brandeis and Lugo2014; Hughes and Denslow Reference Hughes and Denslow2005; Hughes and Uowolo Reference Hughes and Uowolo2006). However, our study revealed high stand-level variability in the elevated leaf litter quality within waste woodlands, implying a strong species-specific influence (Hector et al. Reference Hector, Beale, Minns, Otway and Lawton2000; Tang et al. Reference Tang, Cao, Zhang and Li2010; Wardle et al. Reference Wardle, Yeates, Barker and Bonner2006), e.g. litterfall nitrogen content was higher in waste woodlands stands dominated by Falcataria falcata compared to stands dominated by Acacia auriculiformis (Table S2), despite both species being facultative nitrogen-fixers (Kirby Reference Kirby2020; Zheng et al. Reference Zheng, Chen, Li, Zhu, Zhang, Fu and Mo2016). Nonetheless, the role of species composition in shaping litter quality was not explicitly investigated in this study. Specifically, species-specific contributions to stand-level litterfall quality and nutrient return warrant elucidation in future studies.

The change in litterfall nutrient dynamics within waste woodlands was most pronounced for phosphorus, concurring with findings that elevated nutrient return through litterfall in tropical secondary forests was contributed predominantly by phosphorus, not nitrogen (Brown and Lugo Reference Brown and Lugo1990). Our finding is aligned with ecological theory that tropical primary forests are highly phosphorus-limited ecosystems (Brookshire et al. Reference Brookshire, Gerber, Menge and Hedin2012; Vitousek Reference Vitousek1984), while nitrogen is less limiting given its efficient biological fixation and accumulation (Hedin et al. Reference Hedin, Brookshire, Menge and Barron2009). This was likely demonstrated by the marginal differences in leaf litterfall nitrogen content between primary forests and waste woodlands here, despite the latter being dominated by nitrogen-fixing invasive trees such as Acacia auriculiformis and Falcataria falcata, which would have generated larger increases in leaf litter nitrogen concentrations in nitrogen-limited novel ecosystems (Hughes and Denslow Reference Hughes and Denslow2005; Witkowski Reference Witkowski1991). The novel composition of invasive species in waste woodlands appeared to have lessened the degree of phosphorus limitation, as evidenced by the threefold increase in annual phosphorus return compared to primary forests, leading to elevated soil phosphorus levels. Notably, the degree of phosphorus limitation in the primary forests here appears to be in the higher range globally (Vitousek and Sanford Jr Reference Vitousek and Sanford1986), as inferred by the high leaf litter N:P ratio of 74.8, which surpasses the pantropical mean leaf litterfall N:P of 27.3 (Yuan and Chen Reference Yuan and Chen2009) and the N:P of 44.0 recorded in dipterocarp primary forests in Sumatra (Kotowska et al. Reference Kotowska, Leuschner, Triadiati and Hertel2016). This is concurred by Grubb et al. (Reference Grubb, Turner and Burslem1994), who found that the concentrations of phosphorus in the soil and leaf litter of primary forests in Bukit Timah (where two of our study sites were located) were distinctly low and potentially represent an extreme example among non-peat swamp dipterocarp forests – mean leaf litter N:P recorded in that study was 62.2.

In-situ leaf litter mass loss

Our results suggest that the markedly elevated mass loss of in-situ leaf litter from the soil surface in young secondary forests, particularly waste woodlands, was largely driven by the elevated litter phosphorus content – in highly phosphorus-limited tropical ecosystems, litter decomposition rates have been shown to be strongly governed by litter phosphorus content (Wieder et al. Reference Wieder, Cleveland and Townsend2009; Xuluc-Tolosa et al. Reference Xuluc-Tolosa, Vester, Ramırez-Marcial, Castellanos-Albores and Lawrence2003). Moreover, our study showed that soil phosphorus concentrations in young secondary forests were raised in response to elevated litter phosphorus content and return, which in turn further enhances leaf litter decomposition (Kaspari et al. Reference Kaspari, Garcia, Harms, Santana, Wright and Yavitt2008). Leaf litter rich in inorganic nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, supports increased decomposition as the activity and biomass of microbial decomposers are maximised (Bardgett Reference Bardgett2005; Manzoni et al. Reference Manzoni, Trofymow, Jackson and Porporato2010). The dominance of invasive tree species in waste woodlands here likely resulted in the production of nutrient-rich litter and hence increased decomposition, mirroring observations from other tropical novel forests (Erickson et al. Reference Erickson, Helmer, Brandeis and Lugo2014; Hughes and Denslow Reference Hughes and Denslow2005; Hughes and Uowolo Reference Hughes and Uowolo2006; Mascaro et al. Reference Mascaro, Hughes and Schnitzer2012). Moreover, invasive plants often exhibit altered functional traits, which include increased growth rates, lowered leaf construction costs, and increased specific leaf area, resulting in thinner and softer leaves that are more accessible to the decomposer community (Baruch and Goldstein Reference Baruch and Goldstein1999; Ehrenfeld Reference Ehrenfeld2003; Reich et al. Reference Reich, Walters and Ellsworth1997).

In contrast, the slower litter mass loss in old-growth forests here was likely associated with the poorer in-situ leaf litter quality – carbon-rich but nutrient-poor leaf litter is less accessible by microbial decomposers, resulting in energy starvation and reduced decomposition rates (Hättenschwiler et al. Reference Hättenschwiler, Coq, Barantal and Handa2011; Wieder et al. Reference Wieder, Cleveland and Townsend2009). Moreover, plants growing on nutrient-poor soils in old-growth tropical forests tend to produce tough high-density leaves with chemical defences to minimise herbivory (Coley and Barone Reference Coley and Barone1996; Coley et al. Reference Coley, Bryant and Chapin1985), which increase the recalcitrance of leaf litter and retard decomposition (Bakker et al. Reference Bakker, Carreño-Rocabado and Poorter2011; Hättenschwiler et al. Reference Hättenschwiler, Coq, Barantal and Handa2011; Kaspari et al. Reference Kaspari, Garcia, Harms, Santana, Wright and Yavitt2008). The increase in in-situ leaf litter recalcitrance within old-growth forests was indeed inferred from the higher ratio of estimated litter mean residence time to half-life from our results, indicating an increased proportion of recalcitrant compounds relative to labile compounds (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014). Notably, litter recalcitrance was highest in old secondary forest – the only forest type with litterbags containing more than 50% of the initial litter mass even after a year-long incubation. This is potentially attributed to the abundance of tree species in Singapore’s old secondary forests, such as Campnosperma auriculatum, which is a pioneer tree species that produces recalcitrant litter (Goldsmith et al. Reference Goldsmith, Comita and Chua2011; Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and Ibrahim1997). Nonetheless, our estimates of decomposition in old-growth forests here remain consistent with other decomposition studies in tropical forests, where native leaf litter lost an average mass of 67% after a 312 day period (Hättenschwiler et al. Reference Hättenschwiler, Coq, Barantal and Handa2011) and exhibited mean residence times shorter than a year (Olson Reference Olson1963).

In contrast to the strong influence of litter quality on litter mass loss, the uniform microclimatic conditions across the study sites here meant that environmental factors such as soil moisture content were poor predictors of decomposition, mirroring findings from Waring (Reference Waring2012) and Xuluc-Tolosa et al. (Reference Xuluc-Tolosa, Vester, Ramırez-Marcial, Castellanos-Albores and Lawrence2003). Nonetheless, to properly distinguish the relative roles of litter quality, microclimatic, and environmental factors in regulating decomposition, concurrent incubation of a common litter with native leaf litter (Xuluc-Tolosa et al. Reference Xuluc-Tolosa, Vester, Ramırez-Marcial, Castellanos-Albores and Lawrence2003) is required in further studies. Furthermore, a common and native litter study approach coupled with suitable soil fauna exclusion techniques (Teo et al. Reference Teo, Kristensen, Keuskamp, Evans, Foo and Chisholm2020) can help uncover the substantial contribution of soil fauna in driving litter mass loss and soil organic matter turnover relative to microbial decomposers (Frouz Reference Frouz2018) and achieve a more holistic understanding of decomposition determinants in tropical forest environments (Hättenschwiler et al. Reference Hättenschwiler, Coq, Barantal and Handa2011).

Our results also revealed that the broad relationship between forest type, litter quality, and mass loss showed some overlap when assessed on a stand-level, e.g. in-situ leaf litter in some young secondary forest stands exhibited a larger mass loss extent than those in old-growth forest stands despite having lower litter quality. This implies that decomposition rates were not entirely governed by litter quality as represented by C:N and C:P ratios (Heal et al. Reference Heal, Anderson and Swift1997) but potentially also moderated by other indicators of litter quality, such as calcium content (Waring Reference Waring2012) and lignin:P ratios (Wieder et al. Reference Wieder, Cleveland and Townsend2009). Indeed, the ten-fold increase in soil calcium levels recorded in waste woodlands (Table S1) and its potential linkage with litter calcium content, soil invertebrates, microbes (Kaspari and Yanoviak Reference Kaspari and Yanoviak2009), and decomposition warrant further investigation but were not studied here. This distinct increase in soil calcium level in waste woodlands is potentially attributed to anthropogenic enrichment given its agricultural land-use legacy and/or historical perturbation of soil and bedrock – calcium is a rock-derived nutrient typically depleted in weathered tropical soils (Wardle et al. Reference Wardle, Walker and Bardgett2004). Additionally, the unexplained variation in litter mass loss here could also be shaped by the stand-level assemblage of tree species (Hector et al. Reference Hector, Beale, Minns, Otway and Lawton2000; Tang et al. Reference Tang, Cao, Zhang and Li2010; Wardle et al. Reference Wardle, Yeates, Barker and Bonner2006) – a limitation of this study that should be addressed by further studies incorporating stand-level tree species data.

This study also validated the application of the Weibull residence time model (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014) for decomposition studies in tropical forests, where it is rarely used – the model generally fitted well to the litter mass loss data, with goodness-of-fit measure (R2) exceeding 0.9 for most study sites (Table S4). Notably, the estimated model parameter α, which controls the shape of the decomposition curve, i.e. early-stage decomposition trajectory (Cornwell and Weedon Reference Cornwell and Weedon2014), showed no noticeable pattern across forest types (Table S4). This reiterates the caveat of drawing inferences on long-term decomposition extent using decomposition rates estimated from the early stages of decomposition (Prescott Reference Prescott2005). Validation of the Weibull residence time model in more decomposition studies is recommended to gain additional insights into litter residence time and turnover dynamics.

Accumulation of litter pool and soil organic matter and implications on carbon balance

The marked decrease in accumulated litter pool in young secondary forests here has potential ramifications for carbon balance, given that the litter pool serves as an important carbon sink in tropical forests and contributes to its soil carbon storage capacity (Kaspari and Yanoviak Reference Kaspari and Yanoviak2008). This was also supported by our finding that the size of the accumulated litter pool determines the amount of soil organic matter – a major carbon store in terrestrial ecosystems (Silver et al. Reference Silver, Ostertag and Lugo2000; Trumbore Reference Trumbore2000). As inferred from our results, the reduced recalcitrance of leaf litter in young secondary forests and the shortened litter residence time will likely limit the build-up and stabilisation of soil organic carbon stocks (Dungait et al. Reference Dungait, Hopkins, Gregory and Whitmore2012; Trumbore Reference Trumbore1997).

Conversely, the slower litter mass loss in old-growth forests was predicted to result in an accumulated litter pool thrice that of young secondary forests. Notably, it was estimated that the accumulation of the litter pool in old secondary forests slightly exceeds that of primary forests, consistent with observations from an old secondary forest fragment in Singapore, where the increase in leaf litter depth relative to adjacent primary forests has been linked to the slow decomposition of poor quality litter (Chua and Potts Reference Chua and Potts2018) produced by dominant tree species such as Campnosperma auriculatum (Goldsmith et al. Reference Goldsmith, Comita and Chua2011), thus reiterating the importance of species identity in shaping litter turnover.

Taken together, our study suggests that the conversion of tropical primary forests to secondary forests, particularly exotic-dominated novel forests, potentially accelerates decomposition and reduces the soil organic carbon pool (Chapin et al. Reference Chapin, Chapin, Matson and Vitousek2011; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Fang, Dawson, Moncrieff and Sparks2008). Nonetheless, the estimate of litter pool accumulation in this study is limited by its short study duration – litterfall, unlike decomposition, can exhibit significant inter-annual variability (Parsons et al. Reference Parsons, Congdon, Shoo, Valdez-Ramirez and Williams2014). Long-term monitoring of litterfall inputs should be conducted to obtain more robust estimates of litter pool accumulation.

Implications of forest successional trajectory on litter turnover and nutrient dynamics

Considering litterfall production, nutrient return, and litter turnover dynamics among the secondary forest types here, old secondary forests appeared to converge towards primary forests, strengthening the evidence that ecosystem functioning in secondary forests can recover long before floristic richness (Guariguata and Ostertag Reference Guariguata and Ostertag2001). Indeed, the apparent recovery of ecosystem functioning in old secondary forests here occurred despite a 40% reduction in tree species richness compared to primary forests (Turner et al. Reference Turner, Wong, Chew and Ibrahim1997) and the associated floristic and structural distinctions (Chua et al. Reference Chua, Ramage, Ngo, Potts and Lum2013). This apparent convergence in ecosystem functioning will likely strengthen further over time given the dispersal of native late-successional species into old secondary forests of Singapore from contiguous primary forest fragments (Yee et al. Reference Yee, Chong, Neo, Tan, Davison, Ascher and Todd2016).

In contrast, waste woodlands may persist in a state of arrested succession, given their isolation from native seed sources and the low diversity of seed dispersers (Shono et al. Reference Shono, Davies and Kheng2006). Furthermore, even if propagules arrive, the regeneration of primary forest species in waste woodlands in Singapore is hampered by the poor microclimatic and soil conditions (Shono et al. Reference Shono, Davies and Kheng2006). It is likely the exotic-dominated species assemblage in waste woodlands will persist and perpetuate the state of increased litter turnover, nutrient return, and soil nutrient levels, particularly for phosphorus. This creates a positive feedback loop, as the nutrient-rich soils in waste woodlands will continue to favour establishment of invasive plants over native species (Allison and Vitousek Reference Allison and Vitousek2004; Ostertag and Verville Reference Ostertag and Verville2002). Findings from waste woodlands in this study therefore provide predictions of litter turnover dynamics in future novel forests in the region, given that the dominant non-native trees here, e.g. Falcataria falcata and Acacia auriculiformis, are also cultivated widely in plantations or land restoration projects in the region (Otsamo Reference Otsamo2002; Turnbull et al. Reference Turnbull, Midgley, Cossalter, Turnbull, Crompton and Pinyopusarerk1998).

Conclusion

The youngest forest successional type in this study – waste woodlands – exhibited the highest litterfall production and fastest litter turnover, despite supporting the lowest tree species richness, which was contrary to our hypothesis. Compositional differences in tree species and species-specific effects, instead of species richness and environmental factors, likely shaped the observed variations in litter turnover and nutrient dynamics. The dominance of invasive tree species in waste woodlands caused shifts in functional traits and elevated litter nutrient content, particularly phosphorus, resulting in the fastest turnover of leaf litter from the forest floor. Consequently, the accumulated leaf litter pool in waste woodlands was only a third that of old-growth forests and was found to be associated with reduced soil organic matter content. Taken together, our study suggests that the prevalent conversion of tropical primary forests to exotic-dominated novel forests potentially accelerates decomposition and reduces the soil organic carbon pool.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467424000026

Acknowledgements

We thank Maria Lee, Hui Ying Chu, Kelly Tan, Sarah Sidek, Judy Pu, Kenneth Chua, Qian Tang, and Manping Zhang for their help in fieldwork, and Tak Fung and Felix Lim for their constructive comments on the manuscript. We also express our gratitude to the National Parks Board of Singapore for permitting and facilitating access to the study sites (permit number RP13-035-1b).

Financial support

This study was supported by the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (grant number C-154-000-041-532).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Ethical statement

None.

References

Abelleira Martinez, OJ (2011) Flooding and profuse flowering result in high litterfall in novel Spathodea campanulata forests in northern Puerto Rico. Ecosphere 2, 125.Google Scholar
Aerts, R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79, 439449. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546886.Google Scholar
Aide, TM and Grau, HR (2004) Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science 305, 19151916. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103179.Google Scholar
Allison, SD and Vitousek, PM (2004) Rapid nutrient cycling in leaf litter from invasive plants in Hawai’i. Oecologia 141, 612619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1679-z.Google Scholar
Bakker, MA, Carreño-Rocabado, G and Poorter, L (2011) Leaf economics traits predict litter decomposition of tropical plants and differ among land use types. Functional ecology 25, 473483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01802.x.Google Scholar
Ball, DF (1964) Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. Journal of Soil Science 15, 8492.Google Scholar
Bardgett, RD (2005) The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, J, Gardner, TA, Araujo, IS, Ávila-Pires, TC, Bonaldo, AB, Costa, JE, Esposito, MC, Ferreira, LV, Hawes, J and Hernandez, MI (2007a) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 1855518560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, J, Gardner, TA, Ferreira, LV and Peres, CA (2007b) Litter fall and decomposition in primary, secondary and plantation forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 247, 9197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.017.Google Scholar
Baruch, Z and Goldstein, G (1999) Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121, 183192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050920.Google Scholar
Bihn, JH, Gebauer, G and Brandl, R (2010) Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology 91, 782792.Google Scholar
Birk, EM and Vitousek, PM (1986) Nitrogen availability and nitrogen use efficiency in loblolly pine stands. Ecology 67, 6979. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938504.Google Scholar
Bremner, JM (1960) Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. The Journal of Agricultural Science 55, 1133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600021572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, ENJ, Gerber, S, Menge, DNL and Hedin, LO (2012) Large losses of inorganic nitrogen from tropical rainforests suggest a lack of nitrogen limitation. Ecology Letters 15, 916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01701.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S and Lugo, AE (1990) Tropical secondary forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6, 132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400003989.Google Scholar
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2 Edn. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Chapin, FS, Chapin, MC, Matson, PA and Vitousek, P (2011) Decomposition and ecosystem carbon budget. In Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer New York.Google Scholar
Chazdon, RL (2003) Tropical forest recovery: legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 6, 5171. https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-8319-00042.Google Scholar
Chazdon, RL, Peres, CA, Dent, D, Sheil, D, Lugo, AE, Lamb, D, Stork, NE and Miller, SE (2009) The potential for species conservation in tropical secondary forests. Conservation Biology 23, 14061417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chua, SC and Potts, MD (2018) The role of plant functional traits in understanding forest recovery in wet tropical secondary forests. Science of The Total Environment 642, 12521262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chua, SC, Ramage, BS, Ngo, KM, Potts, MD and Lum, SKY (2013) Slow recovery of a secondary tropical forest in Southeast Asia. Forest Ecology and Management 308, 153160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.053.Google Scholar
Cole, RJ, Selmants, P, Khan, S and Chazdon, R (2020) Litter dynamics recover faster than arthropod biodiversity during tropical forest succession. Biotropica 52, 2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12740.Google Scholar
Coley, PD and Barone, JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27, 305335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.305.Google Scholar
Coley, PD, Bryant, JP and Chapin, FS (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230, 895899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.230.4728.895.Google Scholar
Corlett, RT (1991a) Plant succession on degraded land in Singapore. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 4, 151161.Google Scholar
Corlett, RT (1991b) Vegetation. In Chia, LS, Rahman, A and Tay, DBH (eds), The Biophysical Environment of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press, pp. 134154.Google Scholar
Corlett, RT (1992) The ecological transformation of Singapore, 1819–1990. Journal of Biogeography 19, 411420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845569.Google Scholar
Corlett, RT (1997) The vegetation in the nature reserves of Singapore. Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore 49, 147159.Google Scholar
Corlett, RT (2011) Terrestrial ecosystems. In Ng, PKL, Corlett, RT and Tan, HTW (eds), Singapore Biodiversity: An Encyclopedia of the Natural Environment and Sustainable Development. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, pp. 4451.Google Scholar
Cornwell, WK and Weedon, JT (2014) Decomposition trajectories of diverse litter types: a model selection analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, 173182. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12138.Google Scholar
Cramer, VA, Hobbs, RJ and Standish, RJ (2008) What’s new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 104112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.005.Google Scholar
Daehler, CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34, 183211. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132403.Google Scholar
DeWalt, SJ, Maliakal, SK and Denslow, JS (2003) Changes in vegetation structure and composition along a tropical forest chronosequence: implications for wildlife. Forest Ecology and Management 182, 139151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00029-x.Google Scholar
Dungait, JAJ, Hopkins, DW, Gregory, AS and Whitmore, AP (2012) Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Global Change Biology 18, 17811796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02665.x.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6, 503523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-002-0151-3.Google Scholar
Eichenberg, D, Trogisch, S, Huang, Y, He, J-S and Bruelheide, H (2014) Shifts in community leaf functional traits are related to litter decomposition along a secondary forest succession series in subtropical China. Journal of Plant Ecology 8, 401410. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtu021.Google Scholar
Erickson, HE, Helmer, EH, Brandeis, TJ and Lugo, AE (2014) Controls on fallen leaf chemistry and forest floor element masses in native and novel forests across a tropical island. Ecosphere 5. https://doi.org/10.1890/es13-00263.1.Google Scholar
Fox, J and Weisberg, S (2011) An {R} Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frouz, J (2018) Effects of soil macro- and mesofauna on litter decomposition and soil organic matter stabilization. Geoderma 332, 161172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.039.Google Scholar
Gardner, TA, Barlow, J, Chazdon, R, Ewers, RM, Harvey, CA, Peres, CA and Sodhi, NS (2009) Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecology Letters 12, 561582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01294.x.Google Scholar
Gardner, TA, Barlow, J, Sodhi, NS and Peres, CA (2010) A multi-region assessment of tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Biological Conservation 143, 22932300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, GR, Comita, LS and Chua, SC (2011) Evidence for arrested succession within a tropical forest fragment in Singapore. Journal of Tropical Ecology 27, 323326. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467411000010.Google Scholar
Gonsamo, A, Walter, JMN and Pellikka, P (2011) CIMES: A package of programs for determining canopy geometry and solar radiation regimes through hemispherical photographs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 79, 207215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.10.001.Google Scholar
Gromping, U (2006) Relative importance for linear regression in R: The package relaimpo. Journal of Statistical Software 17, 127.Google Scholar
Grubb, PJ, Turner, IM and Burslem, DFRP (1994) Mineral nutrient status of coastal hill Dipterocarp Forest and Adinandra Belukar in Singapore: Analysis of soil, leaves and litter. Journal of Tropical Ecology 10, 559577.Google Scholar
Guariguata, MR and Ostertag, R (2001) Neotropical secondary forest succession: changes in structural and functional characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management 148, 185206.Google Scholar
Hättenschwiler, S, Coq, S, Barantal, S and Handa, IT (2011) Leaf traits and decomposition in tropical rainforests: revisiting some commonly held views and towards a new hypothesis. New Phytologist 189, 950965. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03483.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heal, O, Anderson, J and Swift, M (1997) Plant litter quality and decomposition: an historical overview. In: Cadisch G and Giller KE Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition (pp. 3–30). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Hector, A, Beale, AJ, Minns, A, Otway, SJ and Lawton, JH (2000) Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: effects through litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos 90, 357371. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900217.x.Google Scholar
Hedin, LO, Brookshire, ENJ, Menge, DNL and Barron, AR (2009) The nitrogen paradox in tropical forest ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 40, 613635.Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Arico, S, Aronson, J, Baron, JS, Bridgewater, P, Cramer, VA, Epstein, PR, Ewel, JJ, Klink, CA and Lugo, AE (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15, 17.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F and Westfall, P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50, 346363.Google Scholar
Huang, Y, Ma, Y, Zhao, K, Niklaus, PA, Schmid, B and He, J-S (2017) Positive effects of tree species diversity on litterfall quantity and quality along a secondary successional chronosequence in a subtropical forest. Journal of Plant Ecology 10, 2835. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtw115.Google Scholar
Hughes, RF and Denslow, JS (2005) Invasion by a N2-fixing tree alters function and structure in wet lowland forests of Hawaii. Ecological Applications 15, 16151628.Google Scholar
Hughes, RF and Uowolo, A (2006) Impacts of Falcataria moluccana invasion on decomposition in Hawaiian lowland wet forests: the importance of stand-level controls. Ecosystems 9, 977991.Google Scholar
Jordan, CF and Herrera, R (1981) Tropical rain forests: are nutrients really critical? American Naturalist 117, 167180.Google Scholar
Kaspari, M, Garcia, MN, Harms, KE, Santana, M, Wright, SJ and Yavitt, JB (2008) Multiple nutrients limit litterfall and decomposition in a tropical forest. Ecology Letters 11, 3543.Google Scholar
Kaspari, M and Yanoviak, SP (2008) Biogeography of litter depth in tropical forests: evaluating the phosphorus growth rate hypothesis. Functional ecology 22, 919923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01447.x.Google Scholar
Kaspari, M and Yanoviak, SP (2009) Biogeochemistry and the structure of tropical brown food webs. Ecology 90, 33423351. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1795.1.Google Scholar
Kee, CYX (2012) Factors Affecting Plant Species Richness and Composition in Singapore’s Waste Woodlands. Bachelor of Science (Honours), Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Kirby, A (2020) Are Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation Strategies Tied to Invasiveness for Non-native Woody Legumes in Hawaiʻi? M.Sc., Tropical Conservation Biology & Environmental Science, University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo.Google Scholar
Kjeldahl, J (1883) A new method for the determination of nitrogen in organic matter. Journal of Analytical Chemistry 22, 366382.Google Scholar
Kotowska, MM, Leuschner, C, Triadiati, T and Hertel, D (2016) Conversion of tropical lowland forest reduces nutrient return through litterfall, and alters nutrient use efficiency and seasonality of net primary production. Oecologia 180, 601618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3481-5.Google Scholar
Lindeman, RH, Merenda, PF and Gold, RZ (1980) Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
Lugo, AE (2009) The emerging era of novel tropical forests. Biotropica 41, 589591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00550.x.Google Scholar
Lugo, AE and Helmer, E (2004) Emerging forests on abandoned land: Puerto Rico’s new forests. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 145161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.09.012.Google Scholar
Manzoni, S, Piñeiro, G, Jackson, RB, Jobbágy, EG, Kim, JH and Porporato, A (2012) Analytical models of soil and litter decomposition: solutions for mass loss and time-dependent decay rates. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 50, 6676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.029.Google Scholar
Manzoni, S, Trofymow, JA, Jackson, RB and Porporato, A (2010) Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing litter. Ecological monographs 80, 89106. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0179.1.Google Scholar
Mascaro, J, Hughes, RF and Schnitzer, SA (2012) Novel forests maintain ecosystem processes after the decline of native tree species. Ecological monographs 82, 221238. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1014.1.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c).Google Scholar
Meentemeyer, V, Box, EO and Thompson, R (1982) World patterns and amounts of terrestrial plant litter production. BioScience 32, 125128.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A (1984) Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 15, 14091416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628409367568.Google Scholar
Miettinen, J, Shi, C and Liew, SC (2011) Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology 17, 22612270.Google Scholar
Milton, SJ (1981) Litterfall of the exotic acacias in the south western Cape. Journal of South African Botany 47, 147155.Google Scholar
Muller-Landau, HC and Wright, SJ (2010) Litterfall Monitoring Protocol. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Available at https://forestgeo.si.edu/sites/default/files/litterfall_protocol_2010.pdf (accessed July 2017).Google Scholar
Naeem, S and Wright, JP (2003) Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem. Ecology Letters 6, 567579.Google Scholar
National Environment Agency (2016) Weather Statistics. Available at http://www.nea.gov.sg/weather-climate/climate/weather-statistics (accessed August 2016).Google Scholar
Neo, L (2012) Plant Diversity of Abandoned Rubber Plantations in Singapore: A Novel Ecosystem. Bachelor of Science (Honours), Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Olson, JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44, 322331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932179.Google Scholar
Ostertag, R and Verville, JH (2002) Fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus increases abundance of non-native species in Hawaiian montane forests. Plant Ecology 162, 7790. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020332824836.Google Scholar
Otsamo, A (2002) Early effects of four fast-growing tree species and their planting density on ground vegetation in Imperata grasslands. New Forests 23, 117. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015655923484.Google Scholar
Parsons, SA, Congdon, RA, Shoo, LP, Valdez-Ramirez, V and Williams, SE (2014) Spatial variability in litterfall, litter standing crop and litter quality in a tropical rain forest region. Biotropica, n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12113.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S, Sarkar, D, Heisterkamp, S, Van Willigen, B and Maintainer, R (2017) Package ‘nlme’. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, version 3, 1339.Google Scholar
Prescott, CE (2005) Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really need to know? Forest Ecology and Management 220, 6674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing ver 3.3.2. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reich, PB and Oleksyn, J (2004) Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 1100111006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403588101.Google Scholar
Reich, PB, Walters, MB and Ellsworth, DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 1373013734. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.25.13730.Google Scholar
Scherer-Lorenzen, M, Bonilla, JL and Potvin, C (2007) Tree species richness affects litter production and decomposition rates in a tropical biodiversity experiment. Oikos 116, 21082124.Google Scholar
Shepherd, EE and Shepherd, SR (1968) Bukit Sembawang: A rubber estate. Melbourne: Cheshire Publishing Pte Ltd.Google Scholar
Shono, K, Davies, SJ and Kheng, CY (2006) Regeneration of native plant species in restored forests on degraded lands in Singapore. Forest Ecology and Management 237, 574582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.10.003.Google Scholar
Silva, JFd (2015) Dynamics of novel forests of Castilla elastica in Puerto Rico: from species to ecosystems. Ecology and Evolution 5, 32993311. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1578.Google Scholar
Silver, WL (1994) Is nutrient availability related to plant nutrient use in humid tropical forests? Oecologia 98, 336343.Google Scholar
Silver, WL, Ostertag, R and Lugo, AE (2000) The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restoration Ecology 8, 394407. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80054.x.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Fang, CM, Dawson, JJC and Moncrieff, JB (2008) Impact of global warming on soil organic carbon. In Sparks, DL (ed), Advances in Agronomy, Vol 97. pp. 143.Google Scholar
Swift, MJ, Heal, OW and Anderson, JM (1979) Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tan, HTW, Chou, LM, Yeo, DCJ and Ng, PK (2010) Secondary vegetation. In The Natural Heritage of Singapore. 3rd Edn. Singapore: Prentice Hall-Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd, 5176.Google Scholar
Tang, J-W, Cao, M, Zhang, J-H and Li, M-H (2010) Litterfall production, decomposition and nutrient use efficiency varies with tropical forest types in Xishuangbanna, SW China: a 10-year study. Plant and Soil 335, 271288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0414-2.Google Scholar
Teo, A, Kristensen, NP, Keuskamp, JA, Evans, TA, Foo, M and Chisholm, RA (2020) Validation and extension of the Tea Bag Index to collect decomposition data from termite-rich ecosystems. Pedobiologia 80, 150639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2020.150639.Google Scholar
Teo, DHL, Tan, HTW, Corlett, RT, Wong, CM and Lum, SKY (2003) Continental rain forest fragments in Singapore resist invasion by exotic plants. Journal of biogeography 30, 305310. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00813.x.Google Scholar
Tiessen, H, Cuevas, E and Chacon, P (1994) The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility. Nature 371, 783785. https://doi.org/10.1038/371783a0.Google Scholar
Trumbore, S (2000) Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: radiocarbon constraints on belowground C dynamics. Ecological Applications 10, 399411. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641102.Google Scholar
Trumbore, SE (1997) Potential responses of soil organic carbon to global environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 82848291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8284.Google Scholar
Turnbull, JW, Midgley, SJ and Cossalter, C (1998) Tropical acacias planted in Asia: An overview. In: Turnbull, JW, Crompton, HR and Pinyopusarerk, K (eds) Recent Developments in Acacia Planting: Proceedings of an International Workshop held in, Hanoi, Vietnam, 27–30 October 1997. pp. 14–28.Google Scholar
Turner, IM and Corlett, RT (1996) The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11, 330333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10046-x.Google Scholar
Turner, IM, Wong, YK, Chew, PT and BinIbrahim, A (1996) Rapid assessment of tropical rain forest successional status using aerial photographs. Biological Conservation 77, 177183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(95)00145-x.Google Scholar
Turner, IM, Wong, YK, Chew, PT and Ibrahim, ALIb (1997) Tree species richness in primary and old secondary tropical forest in Singapore. Biodiversity and Conservation 6, 537543. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018381111842.Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM (1982) Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. American Naturalist 119, 553572. https://doi.org/10.1086/283931.Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM (1984) Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65, 285298.Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM, Matson, PA and Van Cleve, K (1989) Nitrogen availability and nitrification during succession: Primary, secondary, and old-field seres. Plant and Soil 115, 229239. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02202591.Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM and Sanford, RL Jr (1986) Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17, 137167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.001033.Google Scholar
Wardle, DA, Walker, LR and Bardgett, RD (2004) Ecosystem properties and forest decline in contrasting long-term chronosequences. Science 305, 509513. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098778.Google Scholar
Wardle, DA, Yeates, GW, Barker, GM and Bonner, KI (2006) The influence of plant litter diversity on decomposer abundance and diversity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38, 10521062.Google Scholar
Waring, BG (2012) A meta-analysis of climatic and chemical controls on leaf litter decay rates in tropical forests. Ecosystems 15, 9991009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9561-z.Google Scholar
Warton, DI and Hui, FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92, 310. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0340.1.Google Scholar
Wieder, WR, Cleveland, CC and Townsend, AR (2009) Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecology 90, 33333341. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2294.1.Google Scholar
Witkowski, ETF (1991) Effects of invasive alien acacias on nutrient cycling in the coastal lowlands of the Cape Fynbos. Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 115. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404109.Google Scholar
Xuluc-Tolosa, F, Vester, H, Ramırez-Marcial, N, Castellanos-Albores, J and 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, 401412.Google Scholar
Yee, ATK, Chong, KY, Neo, L and Tan, HTW (2016) Updating the classification system for the secondary forests of Singapore. In: Davison, G, Ascher, J and Todd, P (eds) Proceedings of the Biodiversity Research Symposium 2014. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology ed. National University of Singapore, The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology.Google Scholar
Yee, ATK, Corlett, RT, Liew, SC and Tan, HTW (2011) The vegetation of Singapore-an updated map. Gardens’ Bulletin (Singapore) 63, 205212.Google Scholar
Yuan, ZYY and Chen, HYH (2009) Global trends in senesced-leaf nitrogen and phosphorus. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18, 532542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00474.x.Google Scholar
Zheng, M, Chen, H, Li, D, Zhu, X, Zhang, W, Fu, S and Mo, J (2016) Biological nitrogen fixation and its response to nitrogen input in two mature tropical plantations with and without legume trees. Biology and Fertility of Soils 52, 665674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-016-1109-5.Google Scholar
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN and Elphick, CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Notched boxplots of annual litterfall production and its constituent fractions across different forest successional types. The notch approximates the 95% confidence interval of the median. For each litterfall fraction, forest successional types that do not share the same letter code exhibited statistically significant differences (Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear mixed-effects model, p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of the most parsimonious linear mixed-effects models to evaluate controls on annual total litterfall and annual leaf litterfall (a list of all candidate models evaluated are shown in Table S3). Study site was modelled as a random effect. The marginal R2 considers only the variance of the fixed effects, while the conditional R2 takes both the fixed and random effects into account

Figure 2

Figure 2. (A) Leaf litterfall chemical quality across forest successional types as represented by C:P and C:N ratios. The relationship between C:P and C:N provides N:P, which is indicative of the relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorus; dotted lines indicate constant N:P. (B & C) Nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) and phosphorus-use efficiency (PUE) across forest types as represented by the relationship between annual leaf litterfall production and the annual return of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, through leaf litterfall; dotted lines indicate constant NUE or PUE values. Annual nutrient returns and nutrient-use efficiencies per study site are detailed in Table S2. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Letters to the top-right of symbols represent the results from a Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear model; forest types that do not share the same letter exhibited statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in N:P, NUE, or PUE. P: primary forest; S: old secondary forest; R: abandoned rubber plantation; W: waste woodland.

Figure 3

Table 2. Summary of the most parsimonious linear regression models to evaluate controls on nutrient-use efficiencies, the estimated proportion of annual leaf litterfall mass loss annually, and soil phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic matter content (a list of all candidate models evaluated is shown in Table S5). For multivariate models, the relative importance (proportion of model R2 explained) of each predictor variable is shown

Figure 4

Figure 3. Estimated mass loss of in-situ leaf litter per forest successional type fitted with the Weibull residence model. Data points represent observations for each litterbag. Shaded region represents the 95% confidence interval of the model-predicted mean derived from bootstrapping (n =1000).

Figure 5

Figure 4. Mean residence time and mean half-life of in-situ leaf litter per forest successional type calculated using the Weibull residence model-estimated parameters of α and β, following Cornwell and Weedon (2014) (equations in Supplementary Material Note 1). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. Numerical values indicate the ratio (mean residence time): (mean half-life) – an estimator of the relative proportions of recalcitrant and labile material in leaf litter (Cornwell and Weedon 2014).

Figure 6

Figure 5. Amount of annual leaf litterfall loss and accumulated per forest successional type as estimated by the Weibull residence model. Error bars represent standard error of the mean for annual leaf litterfall production. Values within bars indicate the Weibull model-estimated percentages of leaf litter mass loss annually and the standard deviations per forest type. Letters within bars represent the results from a Tukey’s post-hoc test following a linear model; forest successional types that do not share the same letter exhibited statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in the estimated amount of leaf litterfall accumulated annually.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Soil organic matter content predicted by the estimated amount of leaf litterfall accumulated annually using a linear regression model. Model estimates are shown in Table 2. Shaded region represents the 95% CI of the model-predicted mean. Y-axis is displayed on a logit scale – percentage data of soil organic matter was converted to proportional data and logit transformed to fulfil linear modelling assumptions.

Supplementary material: File

Teo et al. supplementary material

Teo et al. supplementary material
Download Teo et al. supplementary material(File)
File 943.2 KB