2010
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-010-0388-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inter-comparison of methods for quantifying above-ground leaf litter decomposition rates

Abstract: Above ground litter decomposition is the result of three interlinked processes: leaching, fragmentation and catabolism. Litter decomposition estimates are most commonly based on measurements of mass loss from litter residues, confined in mesh bags. This method provides a rough estimate of leaching and catabolism, while preventing fragmentation from occurring. Alternatively, litter decomposition is studied in the laboratory as microbial respiration of litter residue. In this case, generally only catabolism is m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
20
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A decline in leaf level C-uptake in the dry treatment has been previously reported (Ripullone et al, 2009). Additionally, at our study site, throughfall displacement significantly slowed down above-ground litter decomposition, as compared to the control (Cotrufo et al, 2010). Litter decomposition is a process that depends on the moisture level of the litter layer (Anderson, 1991) which, contrary to the moisture level of the soil profile, was significantly affected by the 20 % throughfall exclusion (data not shown).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A decline in leaf level C-uptake in the dry treatment has been previously reported (Ripullone et al, 2009). Additionally, at our study site, throughfall displacement significantly slowed down above-ground litter decomposition, as compared to the control (Cotrufo et al, 2010). Litter decomposition is a process that depends on the moisture level of the litter layer (Anderson, 1991) which, contrary to the moisture level of the soil profile, was significantly affected by the 20 % throughfall exclusion (data not shown).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…This finding would suggest that most of the increase in soil respiration observed at the site in wet plots as compared to control was driven by an enhanced belowground C allocation and root turnover, with a minor contribution from the enhancement of the native soil organic matter decay rate. However, in a parallel study we measured from a 7 % up to a 30 % increase, depending on the method of study, in leaf litter turnover time in the wet plots as compared to the control (Cotrufo et al, 2010). Given the much larger actual soil C efflux with respect to the soil C input at our study site, and the relatively high contribution of heterotrophic respiration to total soil CO 2 efflux in Mediterranean deciduous forests (Subke et al, 2006), C may be circulating faster in the soil of wet plots as compared to control, with little net effect on the total soil C stocks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mesh on the upper side of the bag was 0.8 mm polyester (Nylon Net, Memphis, TN) and allows access to soil organisms and the bottom mesh was 0.2 mm polypropylene mesh (Synthetic Industries, Atlanta, GA) to prevent loss. Though mesh bags can alter field litter decomposition rates [44], we are most interested in relative differences between the litter treatments and thus used this common technique. The initial mass of individual species’ litter placed in mixed species litterbags was equal to 2 g (air-dried) divided by the number of species (i.e., there was an equal total mass of litter in each bag).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While most decomposition studies have used litter bags, where decomposition rates may not mimic natural decomposition processes (see Silver and Miya, 2001;Cotrufo et al, 2010), we calculated decomposition rates based on the decrease in '^C content of fine roots over 17 mo of incubation in the field (Table 2). Annual grass fine roots showed rapid decomposition (23.3% mo"') compared to total soil organic '^C (4.0% mo"'), particularly between the first summer and autumn after plant senescence, when the decomposition rate was 43% mo"' (Fig.…”
Section: Dynamics Of Soil Carbon Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%