4.5 Article

Effects of mesh bag enclosure and termites on fine woody debris decomposition in a subtropical forest

期刊

BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 463-470

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2016.03.001

关键词

Ecosystems services; Invertebrates; Isoptera; Litter bag; Reticulitermes; Saproxylic

类别

资金

  1. Mississippi Forest and Wildlife Research Center
  2. USDA Forest Service (Southern Research Station)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of insects in terrestrial decomposition remains poorly resolved, particularly for infrequently studied substrates like small diameter woody debris. Uncertainty about how mesh bags used to exclude arthropods may affect decomposition rates continues to impede progress in this area. We sought to (1) measure how insects affect the decomposition of small diameter (<2.5 cm) Triadica sebifera L. twigs and (2) test for unintended effects of mesh bags on wood decomposition using machined wooden dowels of similar size and specific gravity. In subtropical forests, three twig diameter classes plus dowels were enclosed in two mesh sizes (0.3 or 1 mm openings) or left unenclosed over a 20-month study period. Unenclosed twigs lost significantly more mass than those within tine mesh bags. Because this effect was consistent throughout the study (reaching nearly 80% mass loss), our findings suggest the invertebrate influence does not disappear or attenuate over time. Our dowel data (limited to dowels with no evidence of insect activity) show that fine and coarse mesh bags accelerate the decomposition of enclosed woody material, suggesting insects contributed even more to the decomposition of tallow twigs than our measure of 9 - 10%. Termites exhibited a strong preference for larger diameter twigs, resulting in temporary differences in decomposition rates among diameter classes. Our findings confirm the importance of insects to wood decomposition and highlight the need to incorporate these organisms in models of carbon and nutrient cycling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据