Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:49:57.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calcite deposition in karst waters is promoted by leaf litter breakdown and vice versa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2010

Marko Miliša ,
Anita Belančić ,
Renata Matoničkin Kepčija ,
Mirela Sertić-Perić ,
Ana Ostojić  and
Ivan Habdija
Marko Miliša*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Division of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Anita Belančić
Affiliation:
Plitvice Lakes National Park, Scientific Research Center “Ivo Pevalek”, 53231 Plitvice Lakes, Croatia
Renata Matoničkin Kepčija
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Division of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Mirela Sertić-Perić
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Division of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Ana Ostojić
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Division of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Ivan Habdija
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Division of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Plant litter breakdown, an important process for energy and matter flows in freshwater ecosystems, has been extensively studied except in the karst (and calcite depositing) habitats. The aim of this paper was to answer three questions regarding the breakdown of leaf litter in calcite depositing environment: (i) Does leaf decomposition hinder calcite deposition and vice versa?; (ii) What role do other environmental factors play?; and (iii) How long does leaf litter persist in these habitats? Leaves of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and butterbur (Petasites hybridus) were exposed for 8 weeks in 8 microhabitats: 2 calcite deposition rates × 2 flow velocities × 2 seasons. A linear model was better at predicting leaf litter persistence but only for the period after the extreme loss of leaf mass occurring during the initial leaching of highly hydrosoluble compounds in the first week (11.6% of beech and 54.2% of butterbur regardless of the studied environmental factors). Higher flow velocity and calcite deposition rates stimulated the breakdown of both leaf species. During summer, breakdown was accelerated for butterbur leaves only. Since breakdown rates of both litter types were faster at high calcite depositing sites, it can be concluded that the breakdown process is not hindered by calcite deposition in general. The amount of deposited calcite per gram of leaf litter increased linearly over time (after the first week of exposure) on both leaf species. More calcite was deposited on the fast-decomposing butterbur leaves than on beech leaves.

Keywords

TufatravertinebeechbutterburCroatia
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , 2010 , pp. 225 - 232
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2010

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

Abelho, M., 2001. From litterfall to breakdown in streams: a review. Sci. World , 1, 656–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedford, A., 2004. A modified litter bag design for use in lentic habitats. Hydrobiologia , 529, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canhoto, C. and Graça, M.A.S., 1999. Leaf barriers to fungal colonization and shredders (Tipula lateralis) consumption of decomposing Eucalyptus globulus . Microb. Ecol. , 37, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, C.D. and Marks, J.C., 2007. Influences of travertine dam formation on leaf litter decomposition and algal accrual. Hydrobiologia , 575, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carthew, K.D., Drysdale, R.N. and Taylor, M.P., 2003. Tufa deposits and biological activity, Riversleigh, northwestern Queensland. In: Roach, I.C. (ed.), Advances in regolith: Proceedings of the CRC LEME regional regolith symposia, CRC LEME, Bentley, Australia, 55–59.Google Scholar
Casas, J.J. and Gessner, M.O., 1999. Leaf litter breakdown in a Mediterranean stream characterised by travertine precipitation. Freshwat. Biol. , 41, 781–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafetz, H.S. and Folk, R.L., 1984. Travertines: depositional morphology and bacterially constructed constituent. J. Sediment. Petrol. , 54, 289–316.Google Scholar
Colpaert, J.V. and van Tichelen, K.K., 1996. Decomposition, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization from beech leaf litter colonized by ectomycorrhizal or litter-decomposing basidiomycetes. New Phytol. , 134, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compson, Z.G., Mier, M.Z. and Marks, J.C., 2009. Effects of travertine and flow on leaf retention in Fossil Creek, Arizona. Hydrobiologia , 630, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drysdale, R., Lucas, S. and Carthew, K., 2003. The influence of diurnal temperatures on the hydrochemistry of a tufa-depositing stream. Hydrol. Process. , 17, 3421–3441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freytet, P. and Verrecchia, E.P., 1998. Freshwater organisms that build stromatolites: a synopsis of biocrystallization by prokaryotic and eukaryotic algae. Sedimentology , 45, 535–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golubic, S. and Schneider, J., 1979. Carbonate dissolution. In: Trudinger, P.A. and Swaine, D.J. (eds.), Biogeochemical cycling of mineral-forming elements, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, J.F. Jr., Graça, M.A.S. and Callisto, M., 2007. Litter decomposition in a Cerrado savannah stream is retarded by leaf toughness, low dissolved nutrients and a low density of shredders. Freshwat. Biol. , 52, 1440–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulis, V., Ferreira, V. and Graça, M.A.S., 2006. Stimulation of leaf litter decomposition and associated fungi and invertebrates by moderate eutrophication: implications for stream assessment. Freshwat. Biol. , 51, 1655–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, A., Swennen, R., Podoor, N. and Keppens, E., 1999. Biological and diagenetic influence in Recent and fossil tufa deposits from Belgium. Sediment. Geol. , 126, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kock, C., Meyer, A., Spänhoff, B. and Meyer, E.I., 2006. Tufa deposition in karst streams can enhance the food supply of the grazing caddisfly Melampophylax mucoreus (Limnephilidae). Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. , 91, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matoničkin Kepčija, R., Habdija, I., Primc-Habdija, B. and Miliša, M., 2006. Simuliid silk pads enhance tufa deposition. Arch. Hydrobiol. , 166, 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClain, M.E., Boyer, E.W., Dent, C.L., Gergel, S.E., Grimm, N.B., Groffman, P.M., Hart, S.C., Harvey, J.W., Johnston, C.A., Mayorga, E., McDowell, W.H. and Pinay, G., 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems , 6, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miliša, M., Matoničkin Kepčija, R., Radanović, I., Ostojić, A. and Habdija, I., 2006. The impact of aquatic macrophyte (Salix sp. and Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl.) removal on habitat conditions and macroinvertebrates of tufa barriers (Plitvice Lakes, Croatia). Hydrobiologia , 573, 183–197.Google Scholar
Osono, T. and Takeda, H., 2004. Accumulation and release of nitrogen and phosphorus in relation to lignin decomposition in leaf litter of 14 tree species in a cool temperate forest. Ecol. Res. , 19, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, L.J. and House, W.A., 2002. Precipitation of calcite in the presence of inorganic phosphate. Colloids. Surf. A , 203, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Previšić, A., Kerovec, M. and Kučinić, M., 2007. Emergence and composition of trichoptera from karst habitats, Plitvice Lakes region, Croatia. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. , 92, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riding, R., 1991. Classification of microbial carbonates. In: Riding, R. (ed.), Calcareous algae and stromatolites, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srdoč, D., Horvatinčić, N., Obelić, B., Krajcar, I. and Sliepčević, A., 1985. Calcite deposition processes in karst waters with special emphasis on the Plitvice Lakes, Yugoslavia (in Croatian). Carsus Iugoslaviae , 11, 101–204.Google Scholar
Špoljar, M., Primc-Habdija, B. and Habdija, I., 2007. Transport of seston in the karstic hydrosystem of the Plitvice Lakes (Croatia). Hydrobiologia , 579, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J.R. and Benfield, E.F., 1986. Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater system. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. , 17, 567–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, S.L., House, W.A., Callow, M.E. and Leadbeater, B.S.C., 1999. The effects of a developing biofilm on chemical changes across the sediment-water interface in a freshwater environment. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. , 84, 509–532.Google Scholar
Zhang, D.D., Zhang, Y., Zhu, A. and Chen, X., 2001. Physical mechanisms of the waterfall tufa (travertine) formation. J. Sediment. Res. , 71, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar