Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:19:10.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - How plant communities influence decomposer communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

By
David A. Wardle
Edited by
Richard Bardgett ,
Michael Usher  and
David Hopkins
David A. Wardle
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and Landcare Research, New Zealand
Richard Bardgett
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Michael Usher
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
David Hopkins
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Get access

Summary

SUMMARY

  1. The issue of how plant community composition affects decomposer community composition and function is considered, by reviewing recent literature and through the use of two examples.

  2. It is apparent from the available literature that plant species identity exerts important effects on soil food webs, and that specific attributes such as the body size distribution of soil animals, and the relative importance of bacterial-based vs. fungal-based energy channels, respond to plant species identity. This has important implications for ecosystem functioning.

  3. The first example involves below-ground effects of changes in plant community composition, such as might occur during C4 grass invasion resulting from global warming, in a perennial pasture in New Zealand. The second involves below-ground consequences of changes in vegetation community structure caused by introduced browsing mammals in New Zealand rainforest. Both examples point to above-ground, human-induced changes affecting the composition of the soil food web across several trophic levels, and key ecosystem functions carried out by the soil biota.

  4. The issues of how above-ground biodiversity affects below-ground biodiversity, and the nature of reciprocal feedbacks between the above-ground and below-ground biota, are discussed. It is concluded that understanding the nature of above-ground–below-ground feedbacks may offer opportunities for better understanding how ecosystems function and the ecological consequences of global change phenomena.

Introduction

All functional ecosystems consist of explicit producer and decomposer subsystems. Producers fix atmospheric carbon, which is utilised by the decomposer organisms, and the decomposers in turn break down organic matter, which regulates the availability and supply of nutrients required for plant growth.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biological Diversity and Function in Soils , pp. 119 - 138
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. M. (1978). Inter- and intra-habitat relationships between woodland Cryptostigmata species diversity and the diversity of soil and litter microhabitats. Oecologia, 32, 341–348CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, I. A. E. & Greenwood, R. M. (1989). Relationships between moas and plants. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 12 (suppl), 67–96Google Scholar
Bardgett, R. D., Wardle, D. A. & Yeates, G. W. (1998). Linking above-ground and below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30, 1867–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berendse, F. (1998). Effects of dominant plant species on soils during succession in nutrient poor ecosystems. Biogeochemistry, 42, 73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, B. (2000). The impact of the New Zealand flatworm on earthworms and moles in agricultural land in western Scotland. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 79–84Google Scholar
Boettscher, S. E. & Kalisz, P. J. (1991). Single-tree influence on earthworms in forest soils in eastern Kentucky. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55, 862–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, E. O. (1981). Macroclimate and Plant Form. The Hague: JunkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, E. O. (1996). Plant functional types and climate at the global scale. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7, 309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B. D., Mitchell, N. D. & Field, T. R. O. (1999). Climate profiles of temperate C3 and subtropical C4 species in New Zealand Pastures. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 42, 223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. C., Reid, C. P. P. & Cole, C. V. (1983). Biological strategies of nutrient cycling in soil systems. Advances in Ecological Research, 13, 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coûteaux, M.-M., Mousseau, M., Celerier, M. L. & Bottner, P. (1991). Increased atmospheric CO2 and litter quality: decomposition of sweet chestnut leaf litter with animal food webs of different complexities. Oikos, 61, 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiter, P. C., Neutel, A. M. & Moore, J. C. (1995). Energetics, patterns of interaction strength and stability in real ecosystems. Science, 269, 1257–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S. & Cadibo, M. (1997). Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8, 463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Chapin, F. S. III, Symstad, A., Wardle, D. A. & Huennecke, L. (2003). Functional diversity revealed through removal experiments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettema, C. H., Lowrance, R. & Coleman, D. C. (1999). Riparian soil response to surface nitrogen input: temporal changes in denitrification, labile and microbial C and N pools, and bacterial and fungal respiration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 31, 1609–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, D. M., Coomes, D. A., Nugent, G. & Hall, G. M. J. (2002). The diet and diet preferences of introduced ungulates (order: Artiodactyla) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 29, 323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, B. S., Welschen, R., Arendonk, J. J. C. M. & Lambers, H. (1992). The effect of nitrate-nitrogen on bacteria and bacterial-feeding fauna in the rhizosphere of different grass species. Oecologia, 91, 253–259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grime, J. P. (2001). Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes and Ecosystem Properties. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Thompson, K. & Hodgson, J. G. (1996). Evidence of a causal connection between anti-herbivore defence and the decomposition rate of leaves. Oikos, 77, 489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Thompson, K., Hunt, R., et al. (1997). Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialization in plants. Oikos, 79, 259–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. & Slobodlin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control and competition. American Naturalist, 94, 421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, W. R. C. (1954). Mull and Mor in Relation to Forest Soils. London: Her Majesty's Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
Hansen, R. A. (1999). Red oak litter promotes a microarthropod functional group that accelerates its decomposition. Plant and Soil, 209, 37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, R. A. & Coleman, D. C. (1998). Litter complexity and composition are determinants of the diversity and species composition of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) in litterbags. Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harte, J. & Shaw, R. (1995). Shifting dominance within a montane vegetation community: results of a climate-warming experiment. Science, 267, 876–880CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendrix, P. F., Parmelee, R. W., Crossley, D. A., et al. (1986). Detritus food webs in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. BioScience, 36, 374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbie, S. E. (1992). Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 336–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, D. U., Bignell, D. E., Brown, V. K., et al. (2000). Interactions between above- and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms and feedbacks. BioScience, 50, 1049–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, H. W., Ingham, E. R., Coleman, D. C., Elliott, E. T. & Reid, C. P. P. (1988). Nitrogen limitation of production and decomposition in prairie, mountain meadow and pine forest. Ecology, 69, 1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, M. A. (1994). Biological Diversity. The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Huston, M. A. (1997). Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia, 110, 449–460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huston, M. A. & Angelis, D. L. (1994). Competition and coexistence: the effects of resource transport and supply rates. American Naturalist, 144, 854–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, E. R., Coleman, D. C. & Moore, J. C. (1989). An analysis of food web structure and function in a shortgrass prairie, a mountain meadow and a lodgepole pine forest. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 8, 29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S. W. & Seastedt, T. R. (1986). Nitrogen mineralization by native and introduced earthworms: effects on big bluestem growth. Ecology, 67, 1094–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, N. & Salamanca, E. (1999). Mixed leaf litter effects on decomposition rates and soil arthropod communities in an oak–pine forest stand in Japan. Ecological Research, 14, 131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klironomos, J. N. (2002). Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature, 417, 67–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavelle, P., Lattaud, C., Trigo, D. & Barois, I. (1995). Mutualism and biodiversity in soils. Plant and Soil, 170, 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. (1994). What do species do in ecosystems?Oikos, 71, 367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, M. & Clarkson, B. D. (1993). Ghost stories: moa, plant defenses and evolution in New Zealand. Tuatara, 32, 1–18Google Scholar
McIntosh, P. D. & Allen, R. B. (1998). Effect of exclosures on soils, biomass, plant nutrients and vegetation, on unfertilized steeplands, upper Waitaki district, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 22, 209–217Google Scholar
Menge, B. A. & Sutherland, J. P. (1976). Species diversity gradients: synthesis of the roles of predation, competition and spatial heterogeneity. American Naturalist, 110, 351–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. C. & Hunt, H. W. (1988). Resource compartmentation and the stability of real ecosystems. Nature, 333, 261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, P. E. (1884). Studier over skovjord, som bidrag til skovdyrkningens theori: II. Om muld og mor i egeskove og paa heder. Tidsskrift for Skovbrug, 7, 1–232Google Scholar
Ohtonen, R., Fritze, H., Pennanen, T., Jumpponen, A. & Trappe, J. (1999). Ecosystem properties and microbial community changes in primary succession on a glacier forefront. Oecologia, 119, 239–246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S., Arruda, J. & Niemelä, P. (1981). Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. American Naturalist, 118, 240–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, A. & Clay, K. (2000). Soil pathogens and spatial patterns of seedling mortality in a temperate tree. Nature, 404, 278–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmelee, R. W., Beare, M. H. & Blair, J. M. (1989). Decomposition and nitrogen dynamics of surface weed residues in no-tillage agroecosystems under drought conditions: influence of resource quality on the decomposer community. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 21, 97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, J., Naiman, R. J., Dewey, B. & McInnes, P. (1988). Moose, microbes and the boreal forest. BioScience, 38, 770–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saetre, P. (1998). Decomposition, microbial community structure and earthworm effects along a birch–spruce soil gradient. Ecology, 79, 834–846Google Scholar
Schaefer, M. & Schauermann, J. (1990). The fauna of beech forests: comparison between a mull and moder soil. Pedobiologia, 34, 299–304Google Scholar
Schmid, B., Joshi, J. & Schläpfer, F. (2002). Empirical evidence for biodiversity: ecosystem functioning relationships. The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Empirical Progress and Theoretical Extensions (Ed. by , A. P. Kinzig, , S. W. Pacala & , D. Tilman), pp. 120–150. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Scott, N. A., Saggar, S. & McIntosh, P. (2001). Biogeochemical impact of Hieracium invasion in New Zealand's grazed tussock grasslands: sustainability implications. Ecological Applications, 11, 1311–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, H. & Huhta, V. (1991). Soil fauna increase Betula pendula growth: laboratory experiments with coniferous forest floor. Ecology, 72, 665–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohlenius, B. (1996). Structure and composition of the nematode fauna in pine forests under the influence of clear-cutting: effects of slash removal and field layer vegetation. European Journal of Soil Biology, 32, 1–14Google Scholar
Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W. & Anderson, J. M. (1979). Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Putten, W. H. & Peters, B. A. M. (1997). How soil-borne pathogens may affect plant competition. Ecology, 78, 1785–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedder, B., Kampichler, C., Bachmann, G., Bruckner, A. & Kandeler, E. (1996). Impact of faunal complexity on microbial biomass and N turnover in field mesocosms from a spruce forest soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 22, 22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Walker, L. R., Whiteaker, D., Mueller-Dombois, D. & Matson, P. A. (1987). Biological invasion by Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science, 238, 802–804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardle, D. A. (1995). Impact of disturbance on detritus food-webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices. Advances in Ecological Research, 26, 105–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. (2002). Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Components. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Barker, G. M., Yeates, G. W., Bonner, K. I. & Ghani, A. (2001). Introduced browsing mammals in natural New Zealand forests: aboveground and belowground consequences. Ecological Monographs, 71, 587–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I. & Barker, G. M. (2002). Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter quality and vegetation responses to herbivores. Functional Ecology, 16, 585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., Barker, G. M., et al. (1999). Plant removals in perennial grassland: vegetation dynamics, decomposers, soil biodiversity and ecosystem properties. Ecological Monographs, 69, 535–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Nilsson, M. C., Zackrisson, O. & Callet, C. (2003). Determinants of litter mixing effects in a Swedish boreal forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 35, 827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. & van der Putten, W. (2002). Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and aboveground-belowground linkages. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (Ed. by , M. Loreau, , S. Naeem and , P. Inchausti), pp. 155–168. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. & Yeates, G. W. (1993). The dual importance of competition and predation as regulatory forces in terrestrial ecosystems: evidence from decomposer food-webs. Oecologia, 93, 303–306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardle, D. A., Zackrisson, O., Hörnberg, G. & Gallet, C. (1997). Influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science, 277, 1296–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (1998). Effects of disturbance on species diversity: a multitrophic perspective. American Naturalist, 152, 803–825CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×