| Literature DB >> 32194612 |
Xinyu Wei1,2, Yulian Yang2,3, Ya Shen2, Zihao Chen2, Yuliang Dong2, Fuzhong Wu1,2, Li Zhang2.
Abstract
Plant litter is one of the main sources of soil humus, but which can also promote primary humus degradation by increasing microbial activity due to the higher availability of energy released, resulting in a confusing relationship between litterfall and soil humus. Therefore, an in situ incubation experiment was carried out in three subalpine forests (coniferous, mixed and broadleaved forests) on the eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. We set up two treatments. One that allowed litterfall to enter the soil normally and the other prevented litterfall to enter the soil. Soils were sampled in October (the end of the growing season), January (the onset of the freezing season), March (the end of the freezing season), and May (the start of the growing season) from May 2017 to May 2018. By assessing the litterfall production, the content of total extracted humus, humic acid (HA) and fulvic acid (FA) in the topsoil (0-20 cm) in each incubation period, we determined the impact of litterfall on the content of humus extracted from the soil during the freezing and the growing season. Over 1-year incubation, soil total extracted humus and HA showed considerable decreases in the treatment of retained litterfall in the mixed forest but not in the coniferous or broadleaved forests. Moreover, litterfall significantly reduced the contents of soil total extracted humus and HA during the growing season in all three forests, while only reduced soil HA content in the broadleaved forest in the freezing season. The relationship between litterfall and soil extracted humic substances was greatly regulated by the seasonal dynamics of litter types and litter production in all forest types. The larger the amount of litterfall was, the more litterfall could promote the reduction of soil extracted humic substances. Compared with a single type of broadleaf or needle litter, mixed litterfall could promote a higher degradation of soil humic substances. However, broadleaf litter might lead to much greater decreases in soil humic substance than needle litter because it is more decomposable. These results indicate that the effect of litterfall on soil humic substances are mainly regulated by litter types and litter production. Moreover, the effects of litterfall on soil humic substances are more significant during the growing season than winter. This suggests that the longer growing season and a shorter winter caused by ongoing global warming may alter the relationships between litterfall and extracted humic substances, further disrupting the carbon balance of forest ecosystems in the subalpine forests.Entities:
Keywords: fulvic acid; humic acid; humic substances; litterfall; soil organic matter; subalpine forest
Year: 2020 PMID: 32194612 PMCID: PMC7066323 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Altitude, slope, dominant arboreal species and representative shrubs of the coniferous forest, mixed forest and broadleaved forest in the study site.
| Forest type | Altitude(m) | Slope(°) | Dominant species | Major understory vegetation |
| Coniferous forest | 2600 | 25 | ||
| Mixed forest | 2580 | 30 | ||
| Broadleaved forest | 2540 | 22 | ||
FIGURE 1Daily mean temperature of the soil and air and the monthly mean relative humidity of the air in a subalpine forest on the eastern Tibetan Plateau from May 11, 2017 to May 30, 2018.
FIGURE 2Average production of different litter components in the three forests in the different sampling periods on the eastern Tibetan Plateau: (A) coniferous forest, (B) mixed forest, and (C) broadleaved forest.
Repeated measures ANOVA results for the effects of incubation period, forest type, litter, and their interactions on soil total extracted humus, humic acid, and fulvic acid.
| Factors | df | Total extracted humus | HA | FA | |||
| F | sig. | F | sig. | F | sig. | ||
| Period | 3 | 68.36 | 0.00** | 37.80 | 0.00** | 16.02 | 0.00** |
| Type | 2 | 5.82 | 0.02* | 11.79 | 0.00** | 2.24 | 0.15 |
| Litter | 1 | 27.35 | 0.00** | 25.25 | 0.00** | 11.36 | 0.01* |
| Period × Litter | 2 | 19.04 | 0.00** | 12.41 | 0.00** | 8.52 | 0.00** |
| Period × Type | 6 | 3.00 | 0.04* | 6.54 | 0.00** | 3.27 | 0.03* |
| Type × Litter | 3 | 0.48 | 0.63 | 1.60 | 0.24 | 1.12 | 0.36 |
| Period × Type × Litter | 6 | 8.99 | 0.00** | 12.60 | 0.00** | 5.65 | 0.00** |
FIGURE 3Content of soil total extracted humus was affected by litter removal and average litterfall production at different periods in the (A) coniferous forest, (B) mixed forest, and (C) broadleaved forest. The histograms show the averaged values over 1 year. The lines show the averaged litterfall production in each forest. The presented content values are the means of 3 observations; the error bars represent standard errors. Lowercase letters represent significant differences in the contents of total extracted humus between the different litterfall treatments.
FIGURE 4Content of soil humic acid as affected by litter removal at different periods in the (A) coniferous forest, (B) mixed forest, and (C) broadleaved forest. The histograms show the averaged values over 1 year. The presented content values are the means of 3 observations; the error bars represent standard errors. Lowercase letters represent significant differences in the contents of total extracted humus between the different litterfall treatments.
FIGURE 5Content of soil fulvic acid as affected by litter removal at different periods in the (A) coniferous forest, (B) mixed forest, and (C) broadleaved forest. The histograms show the averaged values over 1 year. The presented content values are the means of 3 observations; the error bars represent standard errors. Lowercase letters represent significant differences in the contents of total extracted humus between the different litterfall treatments.
FIGURE 6The HA/FA ratios as affected by litter removal at different periods in the (A) coniferous forest, (B) mixed forest, and (C) broadleaved forest. The histograms show the averaged values over 1 year. The presented content values are the means of 3 observations; the error bars represent standard errors. Lowercase letters represent significant differences in the contents of total extracted humus between the different litterfall treatments.
Correlation analyses between the total extracted humus, HA, FA, HA/FA ratios and environmental factors with different litterfall treatments.
| Soil retained litter | Soil removed litter | |||||||
| Total extracted humus | HA | FA | HA/FA | Total extracted humus | HA | FA | HA/FA | |
| Relative humidity | 0.033 | 0.108 | –0.041 | 0.129 | 0.537** | 0.431** | 0.468** | 0.021 |
| Daily mean temperature | –0.067 | 0.199 | –0.212 | 0.297 | 0.523** | 0.405* | 0.470** | 0.018 |
| Positive accumulated temperature | 0.188 | 0.217 | 0.047 | 0.137 | 0.715** | 0.624** | 0.577** | 0.112 |
| Negative accumulated temperature | –0.178 | 0.184 | –0.32 | 0.356* | 0.392* | 0.272 | 0.380* | –0.022 |
| Number of freeze-thaw cycles | 0.058 | –0.216 | 0.214 | –0.308 | −0.531** | −0.416* | −0.472** | –0.028 |