The effect of litter type and macrofauna community on litter decomposition and organic matter accumulation in post-mining sites

Abstract

Field microcosms consisting of mineral soil (spoil substrate) and two types of litter taken either from an unreclaimed site with spontaneously developed vegetation (mostly Salix caprea) or from an alder plantation (a mixture of Alnus glutinosa and A. incana) were exposed in spontaneously developed or reclaimed sites at a post-mining heap near Sokolov (Czech Republic) for one year. The litter types differed remarkably in C:N ratio which was 29 for spontaneous litter and 14 for alder litter. The two microcosm types were either accessible or not accessible to soil macrofauna. The effect of macrofauna exclusion on soil mixing was complex and depended on litter quality and the site that determined soil fauna composition. In reclaimed sites where macrofauna was dominated by saprophags, mainly earthworms, the macrofauna access increased soil mixing. In sites where predators dominated, the macrofauna exclusion probably suppressed fragmentation and mixing activity of the mesofauna.

Advantages of mixed tree stands in restoration of upper soil layers on postmining sites: A five‐year leaf litter decomposition experiment

“…Because of the specific habitat conditions in mixed stands, the process of litter decomposition progresses differently than in species-specific home stands (Ayres et al, 2009). This could be affected by many factors, including light availability on the forest floor (Hobbie et al, 2006;Knight, Oleksyn, Jagodzinski, Reich, & Kasprowicz, 2008), soil temperature and humidity (Cortez, 1998), and microbial community development (Frouz, 2008;Helingerová et al, 2010). Because of these factors, leaves with specific structure and functional traits (Zukswert & Prescott, 2017), admittedly identical on the forest floor in various stands, could 'behave' dependently on stand type.…”

“…Nevertheless, there are only a few studies of decomposition that have been conducted on afforested postindustrial sites (Dutta & Agrawal, 2001;Horodecki & Jagodziński, 2017;Lawrey, 1977;Singh, Singh, & Tripathi, 1999). A few studies were also concerned with postmining sites left for natural succession (Esperschütz et al, 2013;Frouz, 2008;Urbanová et al, 2014). Surely, decomposition studies on disturbed sites should be developed soon.…”

Food Offer Inside Agroecosystem Soils as an Ecological Factor for Settling Microhabitats by Soil Saprophagous Mites

“…As true of such localities as reclamation areas (Dunger et al, 2001;Frouz, 2008), agricultural tracts, and especially cultivated fi elds, constitute very extreme localities. Their specifi c characteristics result from recurring early succession stages due to repetitive agricultural treatment (ploughing, harvesting, in some plots manuring or fertilization, etc.).…”

Sustaining soil carbon in bioenergy cropping systems of northern temperate regions.

“…Soil microbial biomass (mg/kg) different combinations/treatments, with and without the millipede species Glomeris marginata, Rouifed et al [53] reported that mass loss of litter in the presence of G. marginata was 70-370 g/kg higher than the litter without the presence of Glomeris (significant for five out of eleven litter type combinations). In a microcosm study with alder litter mixed with clay spoil, exposed in a forest field of cold-temperate climate for 1 year, Frouz [54] reported four times greater CO 2 production from microcosms that were accessible to macrofauna than the control (microcosms not accessible to macrofauna).…”