| Literature DB >> 24391895 |
Hao Chen1, Shaofeng Dong2, Lei Liu3, Chuan Ma2, Tao Zhang4, Xiaomin Zhu1, Jiangming Mo2.
Abstract
The responses of litter decomposition to nitrogen (N) andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24391895 PMCID: PMC3877223 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Initial properties of litter.
| Litter types | TOC | TN | TP | C/N | C/P | N/P |
| (mg g−1) | (mg g−1) | (mg g−1) | ||||
| S.S | 445 (8) a | 15.2 (0.3) a | 0.56 (0.01) a | 29.2 (0.9) a | 802 (20) a | 27.1 (8.5) a |
| C.C | 434 (7) a | 13.2 (1.0) b | 0.79 (0.01) b | 32.9 (0.3) b | 551 (10) b | 16.7 (2.7) b |
S.S.: Schima superba Chardn. & Champ.; C.C.: Castanopsis chinensis Hance. Significant differences (p<0.05) among treatments are indicated by different letters. Error bars show SE (n = 6).
Figure 1Mass loss of two decomposing leaf litters (S.S. and C.C.) in various nutrient addition treatments.
The level of difference for the effect of N, P, and N and P interaction over the whole study period are indicated as ns : P>0.05; *: P<0.05; **: P<0.01; ***: P<0.001.
Mean decomposition rates (k) for S.S. and C.C. decomposed in the different nutrient addition treatments.
| Treatments | S.S. | C.C. | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Control | 2.16 (0.25) a | 0.63 (0.11) | 3.38 (0.37) a | 0.72 (0.25) |
| N | 1.58 (0.38) b | 0.88 (0.10) | 1.65 (0.23) b | 0.77 (0.23) |
| P | 2.09 (0.14) a | 0.79 (0.09) | 2.37 (0.11) c | 0.76 (0.10) |
| NP | 2.23 (0.25) a | 0.79 (0.01) | 2.15 (0.29) bc | 0.79 (0.22) |
Decomposition rate (k) and coefficients of determination (R) are based on a single negative exponential model.
Significant differences (p<0.05) among treatments are indicated by different letters. Error bars show SE (n = 5).
Figure 2Comparison of remaining nutrient contents (fraction of initial nutrient content) among nutrient addition treatments in the late stage of decomposition.
(a) and (b): S.S. leaf litter; (c) and (d): C.C. leaf litter. Significant differences (P<0.05) among treatments are indicated by different letters. Error bars show SE (n = 5).
Figure 3Comparisons of soil microbial PLFAs among nutrient addition treatments.
Bac PLFAs: Bacterial PLFAs; Fun PLFAs: Fungal PLFAs; F:B: the ratio of fungal to bacterial PLFAs. Significant differences (P<0.05) among treatments are indicated by different letters. Error bars show SE (n = 5).
Figure 4The relative abundances of the individual PLFAs (mol %) in soil samples.
G+: the proportion of gram-positive bacterial PLFAs; G−: the proportion of gram-negative bacterial PLFAs; Fungi: the proportion of fungal PLFAs; AM: the proportion of AM fungal PLFAs; Actino.: the proportion of actinomycetes PLFAs. Significant differences (P<0.05) among treatments are indicated by different letters. Error bars show SE (n = 5).