J. For. Sci., 2012, 58(4):170-180 | DOI: 10.17221/58/2011-JFS

Soil macrofauna in relation to soil and leaf litter properties in tree plantations

E. Sayad1, S.M. Hosseini2, V. Hosseini3, M.-H. Salehe-Shooshtari4
1 Forestry Department, Natural Resources Faculty, Behbahan University of Technology, Behbahan, Iran
2 Natural Resources Faculty, Tarbait Modares University, Noor, Iran
3 Agricultural and Natural Resources Faculty, Kurdistan University, Sannandaj, Iran
4 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Institute of Khuzestan, Ahvaz, Iran

Soil communities exert strong influences on the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Plantations of trees, especially of nitrogen fixing ones, may affect the soil macrofauna through litter quality and quantity. This study was conducted in a randomized block design with three blocks consisting of Populus euphratica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Eucalyptus microtheca, Acacia farnesiana, Acacia salicina, Acacia saligna, Acacia stenophylla and Dalbergia sissoo monoculture plantations that were established in 1992. Soils and soil macrofauna were sampled in November 2006. Leaf litterfall was collected from November 2006 to November 2007 at bi-weekly intervals. Macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass were consistently higher in A. salicina plantations than in the others, whereas they were lowest in E. camaldulensis. Tree species and nitrogen fixing trees significantly influenced the soil macrofauna richness. The results suggest that the earthworm distribution is regulated by leaf litter quality (Ca, C and N) whereas the macrofauna richness is regulated by leaf litter mass, soil organic carbon and leaf litter Mg. Totally, it was revealed that the tree species clearly affected macrofauna whereas nitrogen fixation did not.

Keywords: plantation; tree influence on soil; soil macrofauna; leaf litter properties; nitrogen-fixing tree

Published: April 30, 2012  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sayad E, Hosseini SM, Hosseini V, Salehe-Shooshtari M-H. Soil macrofauna in relation to soil and leaf litter properties in tree plantations. J. For. Sci. 2012;58(4):170-180. doi: 10.17221/58/2011-JFS.
Download citation

References

  1. Anderson J.M., Leonard M.A., Ineson P., Huish S. (1985): Faunal biomass: a key component of a general model of nitrogen mineralization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 17: 735-737. Go to original source...
  2. Antunes S.C., Pereira R., Sousa J.P., Santos M.C., Goncalves F. (2008): Spatial and temporal distribution of litter arthropods in different vegetation covers of Porto Santo Island (Madeira Archipelago, Portugal). European Journal of Soil Biology, 44: 45-56. Go to original source...
  3. Aubert M., Hedde M., Decaens T., Bureau F., Margerie P., Alard D. (2003): Effect of tree canopy composition on earthworms and other macro-invertebrates in beech forests of Upper Normandy (France). Pedobiologia, 47: 904-912. Go to original source...
  4. Barajas-Guzman G., Avarez-Sanchez J. (2003): The relationships between litter fauna and rates of litter decomposition in a tropical rain forest. Applied Soil Ecology, 24: 91-100. Go to original source...
  5. Barrios E. (2007): Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics, 64: 269-285. Go to original source...
  6. Binkley D. (1996): The influence of tree species on forest soils: processes and patterns. In: Mead D.J., Cornforth I.S. (eds): Proceedings of the Trees and Soils Workshop. Lincoln, 28. February-2. March 1994. Canterbury, Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication No. 10, Lincoln University Press: 1-34.
  7. Binkley D., Giardina C. (1998): Why do trees species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry, 42: 89-106. Go to original source...
  8. Bird S.B., Coulson R.N., Fisher R.F. (2004): Change in soil and litter arthropod abundance following tree harvesting and site preparation in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeta L.) plantation. Forest Ecology and Management, 202: 195-208. Go to original source...
  9. Burt R. (2004): Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42. Version 4.0. Lincoln, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service: 735.
  10. Dechaine J., Ruan H., Leon Y.S., Zou X. (2005): Correlation between earthworms and plant litter decomposition in a tropical wet forest of Puerto Rico. Pedobiologia, 49: 601-607. Go to original source...
  11. Garcia-Montel D.C., BinkleyD. 1998: Effect of Eucalyptus saligna and Albizia falcataria on soil process and nitrogen supply in hawaii. Oecology, 113, 547-556. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Mathieu J., Rossi J., Grimaldi M., Mora Ph., Lavelle P., Rouland C., Rouland A. (2004): Multi-scale study of soil macrofauna biodiversity in Amazonian pastures. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 40: 300-305. Go to original source...
  13. Mboukou-Kimbatsa I., Bernhard-Reversat F., Loumeto J., Ngao J., Lavelle P. (2007): Understory vegetation, soil structure and soil invertebrates in Congolese eucalypt plantations, with special reference to the invasive plant Chromolaena odorata and earthworm populations. European Journal of Soil Biology, 43: 48-56. Go to original source...
  14. Negrete-Yankelevich S., Fragoso C., Newton A.C., Russell G., Heal O.W. (2008): Species-specific characteristics of trees can determine the litter macroinvertebrate community and decomposition process below their canopies. Plant and Soil, 307: 83-97. Go to original source...
  15. Pellen R., Garay I. (1999): Edaphic macroarthropod momunities in fast-growing plantations of Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maid (Myrtaceae) and Acacia mangium Wild (Leguminosae) in Brazil. European Journal of Soil Biology, 35: 77-89. Go to original source...
  16. Pospiech N., Skalski T. (2006): Factors influencing earthworm communities in post-industrial area of Krakow Soda Works. European Journal of soil Biology, 42: S278-S283. Go to original source...
  17. Reich P.B., Oleksyn J., Modrzynski J., Mrozinski P., Hobbie S.E., Eissenstat D.M., Chorover J., Chadwick O.A., Hale C.M., Tjoelker M.G. (2005): Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecology Lettters, 8: 811-818. Go to original source...
  18. Ribeiro C., Madeira M., Araujo M.C. (2002): Decomposition and nutrient release from leaf litter of Eucalyptus globulus grown under different water and nutrient regimes. Forest Ecology and Management, 171: 31-41. Go to original source...
  19. Sinha B., Bhadauria T., Ramakrishnan P.S., Saxena K.G., Maikhuri R.K. (2003): Impact of landscape modification on earthworm diversity and abundance in the Hariyali sacred landscape, Garhwal Himalaya. Pedobiologia, 47: 357-370. Go to original source...
  20. Soil Survey Staff (2006): Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 10th Ed. USA, United State Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service: 332.
  21. Tondoh J.E., Monin L.M., Tiho S., Csuzdi C. (2007): Can earthworm be used as bio-indicators of land-use perturbations in semi-deciduous forest? Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43: 585-592. Go to original source...
  22. Tsukamoto J., Sabang J. (2005): Soil macro-fauna in an Acacia mangium plantation in comparison to that in a primary mixed dipterocarp forest in the lowlands of Sarawak, Malaysia. Pedobiologia, 49: 69-80. Go to original source...
  23. Wardle D.A., Lavelle P. (1997): Linkages between soil biota, plant litter quality and decomposition. In: Cadisch G., Giller K.E. (eds): Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. Wallingford, CAB International: 107-124.
  24. Warren M.W., Zou X. (2002): Soil macrofauna and litter nutrients in three tropical tree plantations on a disturbed site in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management, 170: 161-171. Go to original source...
  25. Zou X. (1993): Species effects on earthworm density in tropical tree plantations in Hawaii. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 15: 35-38. Go to original source...
  26. Zou X., Bashkin M. (1998): Soil carbon accretion and earthworm recovery following revegetation in abandoned sugarcane fields. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30: 825-830. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.