Litter input manipulations differentially regulated CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O emissions from subalpine coniferous and broad-leaf forest soils

Abstract

Soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute profoundly to global warming; however, how plant detritus input alters GHG emissions is poorly understood. Here, we used detritus input and removal treatments (i.e., DIRT: control, CK; double litter, DL; no roots with double litter, NRDL; no litter, NL; no roots, NR; no roots and no litter, NRNL) to assess the effects of litter and root inputs on soil CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O fluxes in soils in a coniferous (Pinus yunnanensis) and a broad-leaf forest (Quercus pannosa) in a subalpine region in southwestern China. Litter addition increased CO₂ emissions on average 22.22%, but did not significantly alter CH₄ uptake and N₂O emission compared to the CK. Litter removal (NL and NRNL) significantly reduced CO₂ emissions on average 30.22% and N₂O emissions on average 31.16% from both forest soils, but did not significantly affect soil CH₄ uptake. Root removal (NR and NRNL) generally decreased these three soil GHG fluxes. Changes in β-1,4-glucosidase (BG) involved in C and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFAs) biomass were projected to influence CO₂ emissions, while soil microclimates (temperature and moisture) combined with BG activity mainly regulated CH₄ uptake. Alterations in dissolved organic nitrogen, microbial biomass nitrogen and BG were mainly responsible for changes in N₂O emissions. Interestingly, coniferous forest soil seemed to promote CH₄ uptake more than the broad-leaf forest soil, but CO₂ and N₂O fluxes were not significantly affected by the forest types. As expected, litter addition significantly increased the warming potential, while litter removal relatively lowered it. These findings revealed the divergent roles of plant detritus input and forest type in shaping soil GHG fluxes, thereby providing insights into forest management and predicting contributions of subalpine forests to global warming.

The online version is available at https://link.springer.com/.

Corresponding editor: Tao Xu.

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-025-01925-9.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Keywords

Detritus input and removal treatment / Edaphic properties / Microbial activities / Soil greenhouse gas / Subalpine forests

References

[1] AiL, WuFZ, FanXB, YangY, ZhangY, ZhengXP, ZhuJJ, NiXY. Different effects of litter and root inputs on soil enzyme activities in terrestrial ecosystems. Appl Soil Ecol, 2023, 183104764.

[2] AminiyanMM, HosseiniH, HeydariyanA. Microbial communities and their characteristics in a soil amended by nanozeolite and some plant residues: short time in situ incubation. Eurasian J Soil Sci Ejss, 2018, 7(1): 9-19.

[3] Arenas-CalleL, SherpaS, RossiterD, NayakH, UrfelsA, KriteeK, PooniaS, SinghDK, ChoudharyA, DubeyR, KumarV, NayakAK, McDonaldA. Hydrologic variability governs GHG emissions in rice-based cropping systems of Eastern India. Agric Water Manag, 2024, 301108931.

[4] BarbaJ, PoyatosR, CapoociM, VargasR. Spatiotemporal variability and origin of CO₂ and CH₄ tree stem fluxes in an upland forest. Glob Chang Biol, 2021, 27(19): 4879-4893.

[5] BelovaSE, DanilovaOV, IvanovaAA, MerkelAY, DedyshSN. Methane-oxidizing communities in lichen-dominated forested tundra are composed exclusively of high-affinity USCα methanotrophs. Microorganisms, 2020, 8122047.

[6] ChenJ, LuoYQ, García-PalaciosP, CaoJJ, DacalM, ZhouXH, LiJW, XiaJY, NiuSL, YangHY, SheltonS, GuoW, van GroenigenKJ. Differential responses of carbon-degrading enzyme activities to warming: Implications for soil respiration. Glob Chang Biol, 2018, 24(10): 4816-4826.

[7] ChenY, HanMG, QinWK, HouYH, ZhangZH, ZhuB. Effects of whole-soil warming on CH₄ and N₂O fluxes in an alpine grassland. Glob Chang Biol, 2024, 301e17033.

[8] ChenY, QinWK, ZhangQF, WangXD, FengJG, HanMG, HouYH, ZhaoHY, ZhangZH, HeJS, TornMS, ZhuB. Whole-soil warming leads to substantial soil carbon emission in an alpine grassland. Nat Commun, 2024, 1514489.

[9] DavidsonEA. Carbon dioxide loss from tropical soils increases on warming. Nature, 2020, 584(7820): 198-199.

[10] DijkstraFA, PriorSA, RunionGB, TorbertHA, TianHQ, LuCQ, VentereaRT. Effects of elevated carbon dioxide and increased temperature on methane and nitrous oxide fluxes: evidence from field experiments. Front Ecol Environ, 2012, 10(10): 520-527.

[11] FangHF, GaoY, ZhangQ, MaLL, WangBH, ShadN, DengWP, LiuXJ, LiuYQ, ZhangL. Moso bamboo and Japanese cedar seedlings differently affected soil N₂O emissions. J Plant Ecol, 2022, 15(2): 277-285.

[12] FenderAC, GansertD, JungkunstHF, FiedlerS, BeyerF, SchützenmeisterK, ThieleB, ValtanenK, PolleA, LeuschnerC. Root-induced tree species effects on the source/sink strength for greenhouse gases (CH₄, N₂O and CO₂) of a temperate deciduous forest soil. Soil Biol Biochem, 2013, 57: 587-597.

[13] FengJG, HeKY, ZhangQF, HanMG, ZhuB. Changes in plant inputs alter soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol, 2022, 28(10): 3426-3440.

[14] FengHL, GuoJH, PengCH, MaXH, KneeshawD, ChenH, LiuQY, LiuMY, HuC, WangWF. Global estimates of forest soil methane flux identify a temperate and tropical forest methane sink. Geoderma, 2023, 429116239.

[15] GaticaG, FernándezME, JuliarenaMP, GyengeJ. Environmental and anthropogenic drivers of soil methane fluxes in forests: global patterns and among-biomes differences. Glob Chang Biol, 2020, 26(11): 6604-6615.

[16] GongC, SongCC, ZhangD, ZhangJS. Litter manipulation strongly affects CO₂ emissions and temperature sensitivity in a temperate freshwater marsh of northeastern China. Ecol Indic, 2019, 97: 410-418.

[17] GorkaS, DietrichM, MayerhoferW, GabrielR, WiesenbauerJ, MartinV, ZhengQ, ImaiB, PrommerJ, WeidingerM, SchweigerP, EichorstSA, WagnerM, RichterA, SchintlmeisterA, WoebkenD, KaiserC. Rapid transfer of plant photosynthates to soil bacteria via ectomycorrhizal hyphae and its interaction with nitrogen availability. Front Microbiol, 2019, 10168.

[18] Grau-AndrésR, WardleDA, GundaleMJ, FosterCN, KardolP. Effects of plant functional group removal on CO₂ fluxes and belowground C stocks across contrasting ecosystems. Ecology, 2020, 10112e03170.

[19] GritschC, EggerF, ZehetnerF, Zechmeister-BoltensternS. The effect of temperature and moisture on trace gas emissions from deciduous and coniferous leaf litter. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2016, 121(5): 1339-1351.

[20] GusevaK, DarcyS, SimonE, AlteioLV, Montesinos-NavarroA, KaiserC. From diversity to complexity: Microbial networks in soils. Soil Biol Biochem, 2022, 169108604.

[21] HalmeenmäkiE, HeinonsaloJ, PutkinenA, SantalahtiM, FritzeH, PihlatieM. Above- and belowground fluxes of methane from boreal dwarf shrubs and Pinus sylvestris seedlings. Plant Soil, 2017, 420(1): 361-373.

[22] HénaultC, GrosselA, MaryB, RousselM, LéonardJ. Nitrous oxide emission by agricultural soils: a review of spatial and temporal variability for mitigation. Pedosphere, 2012, 22(4): 426-433.

[23] Juncher JørgensenC, Lund JohansenKM, Westergaard-NielsenA, ElberlingB. Net regional methane sink in High Arctic soils of northeast Greenland. Nat Geosci, 2015, 8(1): 20-23.

[24] KroegerME, Rae DeVanM, ThompsonJ, JohansenR, Gallegos-GravesLV, LopezD, RundeA, YoshidaT, MunskyB, SevantoS, AlbrightMBN, DunbarJ. Microbial community composition controls carbon flux across litter types in early phase of litter decomposition. Environ Microbiol, 2021, 23(11): 6676-6693.

[25] KuypersMMM, MarchantHK, KartalB. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2018, 16(5): 263-276.

[26] LaiJS, ZouY, ZhangJL, Peres-NetoPR. Generalizing hierarchical and variation partitioning in multiple regression and canonical analyses using the rdacca.hp R package. Meth Ecol Evol, 2022, 13(4): 782-788.

[27] LeeJ, OhY, LeeST, SeoYO, YunJ, YangYR, KimJ, ZhuangQL, KangH. Soil organic carbon is a key determinant of CH₄ sink in global forest soils. Nat Commun, 2023, 1413110.

[28] LeitnerS, Sae-TunO, KranzingerL, Zechmeister-BoltensternS, ZimmermannM. Contribution of litter layer to soil greenhouse gas emissions in a temperate beech forest. Plant Soil, 2016, 403(1): 455-469.

[29] LeroyF, GogoS, GuimbaudC, Bernard-JanninL, HuZ, Laggoun-DéfargeF. Vegetation composition controls temperature sensitivity of CO₂ and CH₄ emissions and DOC concentration in peatlands. Soil Biol Biochem, 2017, 107: 164-167.

[30] LiYY, DongSK, LiuSL, ZhouHK, GaoQZ, CaoGM, WangXX, SuXK, ZhangY, TangL, ZhaoHD, WuXY. Seasonal changes of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O fluxes in different types of alpine grassland in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Soil Biol Biochem, 2015, 80: 306-314.

[31] LiaoC, MenXX, WangC, ChenR, ChengXL. Nitrogen availability and mineral particles contributed fungal necromass to the newly formed stable carbon pool in the alpine areas of Southwest China. Soil Biol Biochem, 2022, 173108788.

[32] LiuSW, ZhengYJ, MaRY, YuK, HanZQ, XiaoSQ, LiZF, WuS, LiSQ, WangJY, LuoYQ, ZouJW. Increased soil release of greenhouse gases shrinks terrestrial carbon uptake enhancement under warming. Glob Chang Biol, 2020, 26(8): 4601-4613.

[33] LuoYH, CadotteMW, BurgessKS, LiuJ, TanSL, ZouJY, XuK, LiDZ, GaoLM. Greater than the sum of the parts: how the species composition in different forest strata influence ecosystem function. Ecol Lett, 2019, 22(9): 1449-1461.

[34] MaierM, PaulusS, NicolaiC, StutzKP, NauerPA. Drivers of plot-scale variability of CH₄ consumption in a well-aerated pine forest soil. Forests, 2017, 86193.

[35] MäkipääR, AbramoffR, AdamczykB, BaldyV, BiryolC, BoselaM, CasalsP, Curiel YusteJ, DondiniM, FilipekS, Garcia-PausasJ, GrosR, GömöryováE, HashimotoS, HassegawaM, ImmonenP, LaihoR, LiHH, LiQ, LuyssaertS, MenivalC, MoriT, NaudtsK, SantonjaM, SmolanderA, ToriyamaJ, TupekB, UbedaX, Johannes VerkerkP, LehtonenA. How does management affect soil C sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes in boreal and temperate forests? A review. For Ecol Manag, 2023, 529120637.

[36] ManzoniS, SchaefferSM, KatulG, PorporatoA, SchimelJP. A theoretical analysis of microbial eco-physiological and diffusion limitations to carbon cycling in drying soils. Soil Biol Biochem, 2014, 73: 69-83.

[37] MenXX, BaoY, WuMH, LiaoC, ChengXL. Soil enzyme activities responded differently to short-term litter input manipulation under coniferous and broad-leaved forests in the subalpine area of Southwest China. For Ecol Manag, 2023, 546121360.

[38] MenXX, BaoY, ZhaiDP, LiaoC, WangYY, WangC, ChengXL. Different regulatory mechanisms on carbon-degrading enzyme activities under short-term litter input manipulations in subalpine coniferous and broad-leaved forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem, 2024, 196109512.

[39] MoriT. Effects of tropical forest conversion into oil palm plantations on nitrous oxide emissions: a meta-analysis. J Forestry Res, 2023, 34(3): 865-869.

[40] NanbaK, KingGM. Response of atmospheric methane consumption by Maine forest soils to exogenous aluminum salts. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2000, 66(9): 3674-3679.

[41] OllivierQR, MaherDT, PitfieldC, MacreadiePI. Punching above their weight: large release of greenhouse gases from small agricultural dams. Glob Chang Biol, 2019, 25(2): 721-732.

[42] OyedejiS, AgboolaOO, AnimasaunDA, OgunkunleCO, FatobaPO. Organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment potentials from litter fall in selected greenbelt species during a seasonal transition in Nigeria’s savanna. Trop Ecol, 2021, 62(4): 580-588.

[43] PajaresS, BohannanBJM. Ecology of nitrogen fixing, nitrifying, and denitrifying microorganisms in tropical forest soils. Front Microbiol, 2016, 71045.

[44] PedersenEP, ElberlingB, MichelsenA. Seasonal variations in methane fluxes in response to summer warming and leaf litter addition in a subarctic heath ecosystem. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2017, 122(8): 2137-2153.

[45] RanFW, WangSL, NieXD, XiaoT, YangCR, LiuYJ, LiZW. Driver–response relationships in a large shallow lake since the Anthropocene: short-term abrupt perturbations versus long-term sustainable pressures. Glob Change Biol, 2024, 304e17267.

[46] ShenYW, FengJG, ZhouDY, HeKY, ZhuB. Impacts of aboveground litter and belowground roots on soil greenhouse gas emissions: evidence from a DIRT experiment in a pine plantation. Agric for Meteorol, 2023, 343109792.

[47] ShvalevaA, Costa e SilvaF, CostaJM, CorreiaA, AndersonM, Lobo-do-ValeR, FangueiroD, BichoC, Santos PereiraJ, ChavesMM, SkibaU, CruzC. Comparison of methane, nitrous oxide fluxes and CO₂ respiration rates from a Mediterranean cork oak ecosystem and improved pasture. Plant Soil, 2014, 374(1): 883-898.

[48] SierraCA, MalghaniS, LoescherHW. Interactions among temperature, moisture, and oxygen concentrations in controlling decomposition rates in a boreal forest soil. Biogeosciences, 2017, 14(3): 703-710.

[49] StefanowiczAM, KapustaP, StanekM, RożekK, RolaK, ZubekS. Herbaceous plant species and their combinations positively affect soil microorganisms and processes and modify soil physicochemical properties in a mesocosm experiment. For Ecol Manag, 2023, 532120826.

[50] SubkeJA, MoodyCS, HillTC, VokeN, ToetS, InesonP, TehYA. Rhizosphere activity and atmospheric methane concentrations drive variations of methane fluxes in a temperate forest soil. Soil Biol Biochem, 2018, 116: 323-332.

[51] VarnerRK, KellerM, RobertsonJR, DiasJD, SilvaH, CrillPM, McGroddyM, SilverWL. Experimentally induced root mortality increased nitrous oxide emission from tropical forest soils. Geophys Res Lett, 2003, 3031144.

[52] VoigtC, LamprechtRE, MarushchakME, LindSE, NovakovskiyA, AurelaM, MartikainenPJ, BiasiC. Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of all three important greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Glob Chang Biol, 2017, 23(8): 3121-3138.

[53] WangQK, YuYZ, HeTX, WangYP. Aboveground and belowground litter have equal contributions to soil CO₂ emission: an evidence from a 4-year measurement in a subtropical forest. Plant Soil, 2017, 421(1): 7-17.

[54] WangC, LiX, MinQW, WangWQ, SardansJ, ZengCS, TongC, PeñuelasJ. Responses of greenhouse-gas emissions to land-use change from rice to jasmine production in subtropical China. Atmos Environ, 2019, 201: 391-401.

[55] WangJS, LuoYQ, QuanQ, MaFF, TianDS, ChenWN, WangS, YangL, MengC, NiuSL. Effects of warming and clipping on CH₄ and N₂O fluxes in an alpine meadow. Agric for Meteorol, 2021, 297108278.

[56] WardSE, OrwinKH, OstleNJ, BrionesJI, ThomsonBC, GriffithsRI, OakleyS, QuirkH, BardgetRD. Vegetation exerts a greater control on litter decomposition than climate warming in peatlands. Ecology, 2015, 96(1): 113-123.

[57] Wei TY, Simko V, Levy M, Xie YH, Jin Y, Zemla J, Freidank M, Cai J, Protivinsky T (2024) R package 'corrplot': visualization of a correlation matrix. (Version 0.95)

[58] WelchB, GauciV, SayerEJ. Tree stem bases are sources of CH₄ and N₂ o in a tropical forest on upland soil during the dry to wet season transition. Glob Chang Biol, 2019, 25(1): 361-372.

[59] WolfK, FlessaH, VeldkampE. Atmospheric methane uptake by tropical montane forest soils and the contribution of organic layers. Biogeochemistry, 2012, 111(1): 469-483.

[60] XiaoRH, ManXL, DuanBX, CaiTJ. Short-term litter manipulations have strong impact on soil nitrogen dynamics in Larix gmelinii forest of Northeast China. Forests, 2020, 11111205.

[61] XiongJ, WangGX, SunXY, HuZY, LiY, SunJY, ZhangW, SunSQ. Effects of litter and root inputs on soil CH₄ uptake rates and associated microbial abundances in natural temperature subalpine forests. Sci Total Environ, 2024, 912168730.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Northeast Forestry University