Effect of Litter Quality on Needle Decomposition for Four Pine Species in Korea

Abstract

Litter decomposition involves multiple complex processes, including interactions between the physicochemical characteristics of litter species and various environmental factors. We selected four representative pine species in South Korea (Pinus densiflora Siebold & Zucc., Pinus thunbergii Parl., Pinus koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., and Pinus rigida Miller) to investigate the decay rate and effects of the physicochemical properties on decomposition. Needle litters were incubated in microcosms at 23 °C for 280 days and retrieved four times in about 70-day intervals. The mass loss showed significant differences among the species and was higher in the order of P. densiflora (30.5%), P. koraiensis (27.8%), P. rigida (26.5%), and P. thunbergii (23.6%). The needle litter decomposition showed a negative relationship with the initial surface area, volume, density, cellulose content, and lignin/nitrogen of the litter, and a positive relationship with the initial specific leaf area (SLA), surface-area-to-volume ratio (SA/V), and water- and ethanol-soluble substances. The decomposition rate was highly affected by the physical properties of litter when compared with the initial chemical litter quality, and it was strongly influenced by SLA and SA/V. Accordingly, the physical properties of pine needle litter, especially SLA and SA/V, may be the key factors, and they could be used as predictive indices for the decomposition rate of pine tree litters.

The relative importance of litter nutrients, C-related, and physical traits in controlling litter decomposition vary substantially between deciduous and evergreen species

“…2f), suggesting that litter physical traits play important roles in controlling litter decomposition. Our ndings con rm some previous observations (Chae et al 2019;Cornelissen et al 1999;Makkonen et al 2012). Furthermore, we found that water saturation capacity was the best physical predictor and contributed 9.7% relative importance for litter decomposition ( Table 2).…”

“…Besides litter chemical traits, litter physical traits could also directly or indirectly in uence the decomposition process (Chae et al 2019;Kurokawa and Nakashizuka 2008). Several studies have focused on the role of physical traits in controlling litter decomposition, especially at the rst stage of decomposition (Pakeman et al 2011;Quested et al 2007;Makkonen et al 2012).…”

“…Several studies have focused on the role of physical traits in controlling litter decomposition, especially at the rst stage of decomposition (Pakeman et al 2011;Quested et al 2007;Makkonen et al 2012). They found physical traits such as speci c leaf area (SLA) and water saturation were good predictors of litter decomposition, and even exerted more important roles in regulating litter decomposition than N, lignin and C/N ratio (Chae et al 2019;Makkonen et al 2012). However, most of these previous studies were based on a relatively small number of species (usually less than 10 species), such that they could not quantitatively depict the relationships of litter decomposition rates with physical traits (Canessa et al 2020;Gartner and Cardon 2004).…”

Impact of Litter Quality and Earthworm Populations on Seruk Spring Forest’s Soil Characteristic

“…However, based on the research in Korea during the ten-weeks decomposition of leaves, pine needles reduced mass was only 23.6%-30.4% (Chae et al, 2019). It shows that the pine litter needs a long time to decompose.…”

Can cocoa agroforestry restore degraded soil structure following conversion from forest to agricultural use?

“…These unfavourable conditions combined with changes in litter quality and quantity allow the rapid disappearance of any new surface litter. Litter with high quality (low C/N or lignin/N) has faster decomposition rates compared to low litter quality (high C/N or lignin/N) (Chae et al 2019). Faster litter decomposition combined with a lower root density and turnover could reduce the organic matter (Hairiah et al 2006), and lead to anthropogenic soil degradation (Lal 2015).…”