| Literature DB >> 22761539 |
Sonja Leitner1, Wolfgang Wanek, Birgit Wild, Ieda Haemmerle, Lukas Kohl, Katharina M Keiblinger, Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Andreas Richter.
Abstract
class="Chemical">Glucans likeEntities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22761539 PMCID: PMC3365243 DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soil Biol Biochem ISSN: 0038-0717 Impact factor: 7.609
Significance of effects of litter type and harvest and their interactions on C:N, C:P and N:P ratios of the litter, concentrations of free glucose, starch, cellulose and AUR (acid unhydrolyzable residue), mean residence time (MRT) of free glucose, gross rates of glucan depolymerization and glucose consumption, and cellulase, peroxidase and phenoloxidase activities assessed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data given are F-ratios and p-values (95% confidence level) and include values from three harvests (2 weeks, 3 and 6 months) and four litter types (Achenkirch, Klausenleopoldsdorf, Ossiach and Schottenwald). Units for rates are μg C g−1 d.w. d−1; units for glucose concentrations are μg Glc-C g−1 d.w., units for MRT glucose are d; units for starch, cellulose and lignin concentrations are % d.w. and for enzyme activities nmol g−1 d.w. min−1.
| Harvest | Litter type | Harvest × litter type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C:Nlit | < | 1.58 | 0.1749 | |||
| C:Plit | 1.25 | 0.2958 | < | |||
| N:Plit | < | 1.82 | 0.1152 | |||
| Glucose concentration | < | < | < | |||
| MRT Glucose | < | < | < | |||
| Starch concentration | < | < | < | |||
| Cellulose concentration | < | < | ||||
| AUR concentration | < | < | ||||
| Gross glucan depolymerization | < | |||||
| Gross glucose consumption | < | < | < | |||
| Cellulase activity | < | < | < | |||
| Peroxidase activity | < | 1.51 | 0.1962 | |||
| Phenoloxidase activity | < | < | ||||
Bold values indicate significant effects of litter type or harvest or of their interactions (p < 0.05).
Fig. 1Litter concentrations of starch, cellulose and acid unhydrolyzable residue (AUR) in the initial litter and after 3 and 6 months of decomposition, respectively (A, Achenkirch; K, Klausenleopoldsdorf; O, Ossiach; S, Schottenwald). Given are means of 5 mesocosms ± SE with exception for the initial litter (n = 4). Lower case letters indicate significant differences between litter types, upper case letters indicate significant differences between harvests (two-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé test, p = 0.05).
Litter element contents, elemental stoichiometry, pH and concentrations of ammonium, nitrate and phosphate and macro- and micronutrients in four beech litter types (A, Achenkirch, K, Klausenleopoldsdorf, O, Ossiach, S, Schottenwald) measured after 2 weeks of decomposition. Given are means (±SE) (n = 5).
| A | K | O | S | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 6.5 (±0.0) | 6.5 (±0.0) | 6.4 (±0.1) | 6.4 (±0.1) |
| Clit (mg g−1 d.w.) | 508 (±4) | 494 (±5) | 481 (±4) | 489 (±3) |
| Nlit (mg g−1 d.w.) | 8.79 (±0.12) | 9.40 (±0.13) | 8.03 (±0.13) | 11.71 (±0.16) |
| Plit (mg g−1 d.w.) | 0.40 (±0.01) | 0.32 (±0.01) | 0.53 (±0.01) | 0.70 (±0.01) |
| C:Nlit (mass ratio) | 57.9 (±0.6) | 52.6 (±0.5) | 60.0 (±0.7) | 41.8 (±0.8) |
| C:Plit (mass ratio) | 1282 (±21) | 1548 (±25) | 905 (±15) | 699 (±9) |
| N:Plit (mass ratio) | 22.2 (±0.5) | 29.5 (±0.6) | 15.1 (±0.3) | 16.8 (±0.4) |
| NH4+ (μg NH4+–N g−1 d.w.) | 2.54 (±0.20) | 10.39 (±0.68) | 6.70 (±0.51) | 13.18 (±1.21) |
| NO3− (μg NO3−–N g−1 d.w.) | 2.24 (±0.07) | 2.33 (±0.07) | 2.09 (±0.09) | 3.12 (±0.16) |
| PO43− (μg PO43+–P g−1 d.w.) | 16.9 (±2.3) | 17.1 (±3.8) | 37.5 (±4.6) | 77.9 (±26.3) |
| K+ (mg g−1 d.w.) | 2.58 (±0.02) | 5.36 (±0.04) | 2.08 (±0.01) | 5.48 (±0.04) |
| Ca2+ (mg g−1 d.w.) | 13.3 (±0.1) | 12.6 (±0.2) | 16.3 (±0.1) | 12.3 (±0.2) |
| Mg2+ (mg g−1 d.w.) | 2.72 (±0.02) | 1.40 (±0.01) | 1.96 (±0.01) | 1.50 (±0.01) |
| Fe (μg g−1 d.w.) | 209 (±2) | 208 (±4) | 453 (±12) | 192 (±4) |
| Mn (μg g−1 d.w.) | 172 (±3) | 1429 (±10) | 776 (±9) | 2137 (±51) |
| Zn2+ (μg g−1 d.w.) | 30.6 (±0.4) | 33.0 (±0.3) | 35.8 (±1.0) | 42.2 (±0.6) |
Fig. 2Gross rates of glucan depolymerization and glucose immobilization and concentrations and mean residence times (MRT) of free glucose at the three sampling time points (after 2 weeks and 3 and 6 months of decomposition, respectively) of the litter decomposition experiment (A, Achenkirch; K, Klausenleopoldsdorf; O, Ossiach; S, Schottenwald). Given are means of 5 mesocosms ± SE. Lower case letters indicate significant differences between litter types, upper case letters indicate significant differences between harvests (two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher's LSD, p = 0.05).
Fig. 3Linear regression of gross glucan depolymerization and potential cellulase activity. Shown are combined data of four litter types (●, Achenkirch; ▴, Klausenleopoldsdorf; ▪, Ossiach; and ♦, Schottenwald) and two time points (black, 3 months and white, 6 months of litter decomposition) (n = 40). Letters indicate correlation coefficients (r) and p-values.
Fig. 4Potential activities of cellulases, peroxidases and phenoloxidases after 2 weeks and 3 and 6 months of litter decomposition (A, Achenkirch; K, Klausenleopoldsdorf; O, Ossiach; S, Schottenwald). Activities are given in nmol converted substrate (MUF-β-d-cellobioside for cellulase and l-3,4-dihydroxphenylalanin ‘DOPA’ for peroxidase and phenoloxidase determination) per gram leaf dry weight per minute. Given are means of 5 mesocosms ± SE. Lower case letters indicate significant differences between litter types, upper case letters indicate significant differences between harvests (two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher's LSD, p = 0.05).
Fig. 5Influence of litter C:N ratio (C:Nlit) on rates of glucan depolymerization and glucose consumption. Shown are combined data of four litter types (●, Achenkirch; ▴, Klausenleopoldsdorf; ▪, Ossiach; and ♦, Schottenwald) and two time points (black, 3 months and white, 6 months of litter decomposition) (n = 40). Letters indicate correlation coefficients (r) and p-values.
Fig. 6Linear regression of glucan depolymerization and glucose consumption with free glucose concentration in beech litter. Shown are combined data of four litter types (●, Achenkirch; ▴, Klausenleopoldsdorf; ▪, Ossiach; and ♦, Schottenwald) and two time points (black, 3 months and white, 6 months of litter decomposition) (n = 40). Letters indicate correlation coefficients (r) and p-values.
Fig. 7Linear regressions of glucose consumption and glucan depolymerization after 2 weeks (n = 20) and after 3 and 6 months (combined data, n = 40). Shown are data of four litter types (●, Achenkirch; ▴, Klausenleopoldsdorf; ▪, Ossiach; and ♦, Schottenwald) and two time points (black, 3 months and white, 6 months of litter decomposition). Letters indicate correlation coefficients (r) and p-values.
Fig. 8Conceptual diagram of sources and controls of glucan depolymerization in decomposing beech litter. At the beginning of decomposition (a), starch is the primary source of glucan depolymerization. At this stage, labile N-rich compounds (e.g., amino acids), which derive from the litter material, serve as easily accessible N-source for the microbial community. After depletion of the starch pool after a few weeks of litter decomposition (b), cellulases are produced and the more recalcitrant cellulose pool in the plant cell walls is decomposed. At this stage of decomposition, labile N-sources are mostly depleted and microbial decomposers have to degrade protein to obtain N. The ratio of lignocellulose (contains most of litter C) to protein (contains most of litter N) corresponds roughly to the total C:N of the litter. Cellulose depolymerization is facilitated by the activity of oxidative lignolytic enzymes like peroxidases and phenoloxidases, which attack the lignocellulose complex in plant cell walls and thus provide access to cellulose fibers for cellulases. In general, production of glucan-degrading enzymes is controlled by the microbial C demand. The C demand, in turn, is related to N supply of the microbial community because microorganisms can only use C for growth and enzyme production if they have N. The C and N supply to microbial decomposers ultimately depends on the amount and availability of C and N present in plant litter. Squares represent substrate and product pools, ellipses represent enzyme pools, arrows represent fluxes, valves represent controls of fluxes. Size of pools is not represented in quantitative relationships.