Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Seasonal Variations in Litter Layers’ Characteristics Control Microbial Respiration and Microbial Carbon Utilization Under Mature Pine, Cedar, and Beech Forest Stands in the Eastern Mediterranean Karstic Ecosystems

  • Plant Microbe Interactions
  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The forest floor is hotspot of several functions integral to the stability of forest ecosystems. However, seasonal variations in litter decomposition rate contribute to biochemical and structural heterogeneity in the forest floor carbon (C) and nutrient cycling. We investigated the influence of seasonal variations in litter layers’ micro-climate (temperature and moisture content) and chemical characteristics such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total organic C (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and C/N ratio on microbial respiration, biomass, and C use efficiency under mature (> 80 years stage age) pine, beech, and cedar forests in eastern Mediterranean Karstic ecosystems. In contrast to significantly higher microbial respiration in fall, winter, and spring under pine, beech, and cedar forests, the significantly lowest microbial biomass C (MBC) and microbial biomass N (MBN) were observed in winter under each forest. Microbial C use efficiency, measured as the metabolic quotient (qCO2 = CO2/MBC), varied strongly between forest stands and seasons but was generally higher in winter. The significant positive correlations between litter layer and microbial biomass C/N ratios, under beech and cedar forests, suggested strong CN stoichiometric coupling and microbial adaptation to substrate resource stoichiometry. qCO2 correlated significantly negatively with litter layers’ temperature, positively with moisture content and EC. However, qCO2 had significant negative relationships with pH in pine and beech forests but significant positive under cedar forest. qCO2 showed significant positive relationships with C/N ratios under all forests but much stronger in beech and cedar forests suggesting higher C respired per unit MBC with an increase in C/N ratio. Despite variations between forest species, the highest MBC/TOC and MBN/TN ratios in fall indicated greater C and N incorporation into microbial biomass. Changes in MBC/MBN ratios under pine (9.62–10.6), beech (8.63–15.6), and cedar (7.32–16.2) forests indicated the shift in microbial communities as fungi have a higher C/N ratio than bacteria. Stepwise regression analysis further revealed that microbial respiration and biomass were controlled differently by litter layer characteristics in each forest. This study suggested that qCO2 independently or with other microbial indices can show litter layers’ controls on organic matter turnover in Karst ecosystems and, taking into account the strong seasonal variations, can enhance the predictive potential of decomposition models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data and materials will be made available on demand.

References

  1. Alef K (1995) Soil respiration. In: Alef K, Nannipieri P (eds) Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic Press San Diego, CA, USA, pp 214–219

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alvarez E, Torrado VM, Fernandez Marcos ML, Diaz-Ravia M (2009) Microbial biomass and activity in a forest soil under different tree species. Elec J Env Agricult Food Chem 8(9):878–887

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, J.M., Ingram, J.S.I., 1996. Tropical soil biology and fertility a Handbook of Methods. 2nd edn. Cab International, Wallingford, p 221

  4. Anderson JPE, Domsch KH (1989) Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biol Biochem 21:471–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson TH (2003) Microbial eco-physiological indicators to assess soil quality. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson TH, Domsch KH (1990) Application of eco-physiological quotients (qCO2, and qD) on microbial biomasses from soils of different cropping histories. Soil Biol Biochem 22:251–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson TH, Domsch KH (1993) The metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 25:393–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson T-H, Domsch KH (2010) Soil microbial biomass: the eco-physiological approach. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2039–2043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Atalay I (1999) Land use in karstic lands in the Mediterranean region. Int J Speleol 28B(1/4):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Babur E (2019) Effects of parent material on soil microbial biomass carbon and basal respiration within young afforested areas. Scan J Forest Res 34:94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Babur, E., Dindaroglu, T., 2020. seasonal changes of soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon in different forest ecosystems. Environmental Factors Affecting Human Health, Ivan Uher, IntechOpen

  12. Babur E, Kara O, Fathi RA, Susam YE, Riaz M, Arif M, Akhtar K (2021) Wattle fencing improved soil aggregate stability, organic carbon stocks and biochemical quality by restoring highly eroded mountain region soil. J. Environ. Manage. 288:112489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Basiliko N, Moore TR, Lafleur PM, Roulet NT (2005) Seasonal and inter-annual decomposition, microbial biomass, and nitrogen dynamics in a Canadian bog. Soil Sci 170:902–912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Babur E, Dindaroglu T, Solaiman ZM, Battaglia ML (2021) Microbial respiration, microbial biomass and activity are highly sensitive to forest tree species and seasonal patterns in the Eastern Mediterranean Karst Ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 775:145868

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bauhus J, Khanna PK (1999) The significance of microbial biomass in forest soils. In: Rastin N, Bauhus J (eds) Going Underground-Ecological Studies in Forest Soils. Trivandrum, India, pp 77–110

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bauhus J, Pare D, Cote L (1998) Effects of tree species, stand age and soil type on soil microbial biomass and its activity in a southern boreal forest. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1077–1089

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Berger TW, Berger P (2012) Greater accumulation of litter in spruce (Picea abies) compared to beech (Fagus sylvatica) stands is not a consequence of the inherent recalcitrance of needles. Plant Soil 358:349–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bolat, I., 2011. Seasonal changes in microbial biomass carbon (Cmic), nitrogen (Nmic), phosphorus (Pmic), and microbial respiration of forest floor and topsoil under beech, fir and mixed fir-beech forest stands [thesis]. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Forestry Engineering, Bartın University, Turkey (in Turkish)

  19. Bolat İ, Kara Ö, Tunay M (2015) Effects of seasonal changes on microbial bıomass and respiration of forest floor and topsoil under bornmullerian fir stand. Eurasian J Forest Sci 3(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Boydak M (2003) Regeneration of Lebanon cedar (Cedrus libani A. Rich.) on karstic lands in Turkey. Forest Ecol Manag 178:231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brookes PC, Landman A, Pruden G, Jenkinson DS (1985) Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 17:837–842

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen CR, Xu ZH, Blumfield TJ, Hughes JM (2003) Soil microbial biomass during the early establishment of hoop pine plantation: seasonal variation and impacts of site preparation. Forest Ecol Manag 186:213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen TH, Chiu CY, Tian GL (2005) Seasonal dynamics of soil microbial biomass in coastal sand dune forest. Pedobiologia 49:645–653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Deng Q, Cheng XL, Hui DF, Zhang Q, Li M, Zhang QF (2016) Soil microbial community and its interaction with soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics following a orestation in central China. Sci Total Environ 541:230–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Devi NB, Yadava PS (2006) Seasonal dynamics in soil microbial biomass C, N and P in a mixed-oak forest ecosystem of Manipur. Northeast India Appl Soil Ecol 31:220–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Diaz-Ravina M, Acea MJ, Carballas T (1995) Seasonal changes in microbial biomass and nutrient flush in forest soils. Biol Fert Soils 19:220–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dilly O, Munch JC (1998) Ratios between estimates of microbial biomass content and microbial activity in soils. Biol Fert Soils 27:374–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Eroskay O (1982) Engineering properties of carbonate rocks and karst regions in Turkey Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering Geological Problems of Construction on Soluble Rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 25:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Foudyl-Bey S, Brais S, Drouin P (2016) Litter heterogeneity modulates fungal activity, C mineralization and N retention in the boreal forest floor. Soil Biol Biochem 100:264–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Frey SD, Lee J, Melillo JM, Six J (2013) The temperature response of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate. Nat Clim Change 3:395–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gallardo JF, Martin A, Moreno G, Santa Regina I (1998) Nutrient cycling in deciduous forest ecosystems of the Sierra de Gata mountains: nutrient supplies to the soil through both litter and throughfall. Annal For Sci 55:771–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gao J, Han H, Kang F (2019) Factors controlling decomposition rates of needle litter across a chronosequence of Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis Carr.) forests. Pol J Environ Stud 28:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Garcia C, Hernandez T, Roldan A, Martin A (2002) Effect of plant cover decline on chemical and microbiological parameters under Mediterranean climate. Soil Biol Biochem 34:635–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Garcia-Palacios P, Shaw EA, Wall DH, Hättenschwiler S (2016) Temporal dynamics of biotic and abiotic drivers of litter decomposition. Ecol Lett 19:554–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ge X, Deng S, Zhu L, Li Y, Jia Z, Tian Y, Tang L (2018) Response of nitrogen mineralization dynamics and biochemical properties to litter amendments to soils of a poplar plantation. J For Res 29(4):915–924

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Grosso F, Iovieno P, Alfani A, Nicola FD (2018) Structure and activity of soil microbial communities in three Mediterranean forests. Appl Soil Ecol 130:280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gülçur, F., 1974. Soil physical and chemical analysis methods (In Turkish). İstanbul University Publication No. 1970, Forest Faculty Publication No. 201, İstanbul, Turkey: Kutulmuş Printing, p 225

  38. Haghverdi K, Kooch Y (2019) Effects of diversity of tree species on nutrient cycling and soil-related processes. CATENA 178:335–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hartman WH, Richardson CJ (2013) Differential nutrient limitation of soil microbial biomass and metabolic quotients (qCO2): Is there a biological stoichiometry of soil microbes? PLoS ONE 8:e57127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. He H, Liu Y, Hu Y, Zhang M, Wang G, Shen W (2020) Soil microbial community and ıts ınteraction with soil carbon dynamics following a wetland drying process in Mu Us sandy land. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:4199

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Hessen DO, Agren GI, Anderson TR, Elser JJ, de Ruiter PC (2004) Carbon sequestration in ecosystems: the role of stoichiometry. Ecology 85:1179–1192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hu N, Li H, Tang Z, Li Z, Li G, Jiang Y, Hu X, Lou Y (2016) Community size, activity and C: N stoichiometry of soil microorganisms following reforestation in a Karst region. Eur J Soil Biol 73:77–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hu YL, Zeng DH, Liu YX, Zhang YL, Chen ZH, Wang ZQ (2010) Responses of soil chemical and biological properties to nitrogen addition in a Dahurian larch plantation in Northeast China. Plant Soil 333:81–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Insam H, Haselwandter K (1989) Metabolic quotient of the soil microflora in relation to plant succession. Oecologia 79:174–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Insam H, Hutchinson TC, Reber HH (1996) Effects of heavy metal stress on the metabolic quotient of soil microflora. Soil Biol Biochem 28:691–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Joergensen RG (1996) The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: Calibration of the kEC value. Soil Biol Biochem 28:25–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kanerva S, Smolander A (2007) Microbial activities in forest floor layers under silver birch, Norway spruce and Scots pine. Soil Biol Biochem 39:1459–1467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kara Ö, Babur E, Altun L, Seyis M (2016) Effects of afforestation on microbial biomass C and respiration in eroded soils of Turkey. J Sustain For 35(6):385–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kara Ö, Bolat I (2008) The effect of different land uses on soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in Bartin province. Turk J Agric For 32:281–288

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Karaöz MÖ (1992) Leaf and litter analysis methods (In Turkish). J Fac For Istanbul U Series B 42:57–71

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kavgaci A, Arslan M, Bingöl Ü, Erdoğan N, Carni A (2012) Classification and phytogeographical differentiation of oriental beech forests in Turkey and Bulgaria. Biologia 67(3):461–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kennedy AC, Papendick RI (1995) Microbial characteristics of soil quality. J Soil Water Conserv 50:243–248

    Google Scholar 

  53. Khan KS, Joergensen RG (2006) Microbial C, N and P relationships in moisture stressed soils of Potohar, Pakistan. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 169:494–500

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ladd JN, Amato M (1989) Relationship between microbial biomass carbon in soil and absorbance of extracts of fumigated soils. Soil Biol Biochem 21:457–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Laudicina VA, Dennis PG, Palazzolo E, Badalucco L (2012) Key biochemical attributes to assess soil ecosystem sustainability. In: Malik A, Grohmann E (eds) Environmental Protection Strategies for Sustainable Development. Springer Nature, Switzerland, pp 193–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Lepcha NT, Devi NB (2020) Effect of land use, season, and soil depth on soil microbial biomass carbon of Eastern Himalayas. Ecol Process 9:65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Li QC, Allen HL, Wollum AG (2004) Microbial biomass and bacterial functional diversity in forest soils: effects of organic matter removal, compaction, and vegetation control. Soil Biol Biochem 36:571–579

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Li X, Chen Z (2004) Soil microbial biomass C and N along a climatic transect in the Mongolian steppe. Biol Fertil Soils 39:344–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Liu Y, Zhang J, Yang W, Wu F, Xu Z, Tan B, Zhang L, He X, Guo L (2018) Canopy gaps accelerate soil organic carbon retention by soil microbial biomass in the organic horizon in a subalpine fir forest. Appl Soil Ecol 125:169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Liu ZF, Fu BJ, Zheng XX, Liu GH (2010) Plant biomass, soil water content and soil N: P ratio regulating soil microbial functional diversity in a temperate steppe: a regional scale study. Soil Biol Biochem 42(3):445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Mahia J, Perez Ventura L, Cabaneiro A, Diaz-Ravina M (2006) Soil microbial biomass under pine forest in the northwestern Spain: influence of stand age, site index and parent material. Forest Syst 15:152–159

    Google Scholar 

  62. Manzoni S, Taylor P, Richter A, Porporato A, Ågren GI (2012) Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon-use efficiency in soils. New Phytol 196:79–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Maraun M, Scheu S (1996) Changes in microbial biomass, respiration and nutrient status of beech (Fagus sylvatica) leaf litter processed by millipedes (Glomeris marginata). Oecologia 107:131–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mendham DS, Sankaran KV, O’Connell AM, Grove TS (2002) Eucalyptus globulus harvest residue management effects on soil carbon and microbial biomass at 1 and 5 years after plantation establishment. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1903–1912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Murrieta VMS, Govaerts B, Dendooven L (2007) Microbial biomass C measurements in soil of the central highlands of Mexico. Appl Soil Ecol 35:432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Myrold DD (2005) Transformations of nitrogen. In: Sylvia DM, Fuhrmann JJ, Hartel PG, Zuberer DA (eds) Principles and applications of soil microbiology, 2nd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey, pp 333–372

    Google Scholar 

  67. Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR (1997) Biological indicators of soil health: Synthesis. In: Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR (eds) Biological Indicators of Soil Health. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 419–435

    Google Scholar 

  68. Parsapour MK, Kooch Y, Hosseini SM, Alavi SJ (2018) Litter and topsoil in Alnus subcordata plantation on former degraded natural forest land: a synthesis of age-sequence. Soil Tillage Res 179:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Pei Z, Leppert KN, Eichenberg D, Bruelheide H, Niklaus PA, Buscot F, Gutknecht JLM (2017) Leaf litter diversity alters microbial activity, microbial abundances, and nutrient cycling in a subtropical forest ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 134:163–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Pietikäinen J, Pettersson M, Bååth E (2005) Comparison of temperature effects on soil respiration and bacterial and fungal growth rates. FEMS Microb Ecol 52:49–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Pöhhacker R, Zech W (1995) Influence of temperature on CO2 evolution, microbial biomass C and metabolic quotient during the decomposition of two humic forest horizons. Biol Fertil Soils 19:239–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ponge J-F (2003) Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem 35:935–945

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Rietz DN, Haynes RJ (2003) Effects of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 35(6):845–854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Baath E (2010) Investigating the mechanisms for the opposing pH relationships of fungal and bacterial growth in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 42:926–934

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Rowell, D.L., 1994. Soil science: methods and applications. 1st edn. Longman Group Ltd. London, UK: Prentice Hall, p 350

  76. Sato K, Ataka M, Dannoura M, Kominami Y (2019) Seasonal variations in leaf litter substrate-induced respiration and metabolic quotient in a warm temperate broad-leaved forest. J For Res 24:212–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Scheu S, Parkinson D (1995) Successional changes in microbial biomass, respiration and nutrient status during litter decomposition in an aspen and pine forest. Biol Fertil Soils 19:327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schimel J, Balser TC, Wallenstein M (2007) Microbila stress-response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function. Ecology 88:1386–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Sinsabaugh RL, Manzoni S, Moorhead DL, Richter A (2013) Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecol Lett 16:930–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Six J, Frey SD, Thiet RK, Batten KM (2006) Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:555–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Sparling, G.P., 1997. Soil microbial biomass, activity and nutrient cycling as indicators of soil health. In: C.E. Pankhurst, B.M Doube, V.V.S.R. Gupta (eds). Biological Indicators of Soil Health, Wallingford, UK: CAB International 97–119

  82. Spohn M (2015) Microbial respiration per unit microbial biomass depends on litter layer carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. Biogeosciences 12:817–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Spohn M, Chodak M (2015) Microbial respiration per unit biomass increases with carbon-to-nutrient ratios in forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 81:128–133

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Spohn M, Klaus K, Wanek W, Richter A (2016) Microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover times depending on soil depth e Implications for carbon cycling. Soil Biol Biochem 96:74–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Strickland MS, Rousk J (2010) Considering fungal:bacterial dominance in soilsemethods, controls, and ecosystem implications, Soil Biol. Biochem 42:1385–1395

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Tosi M, Correa OS, Soria MA, Vogrig JA, Sydorenko O, Montecchia MS (2016) Land-use change affects the functionality of soil microbial communities: a chronosequence approach in the Argentinian Yungas. Appl Soil Ecol 108:118–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 19:703–707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) Microbial biomass measurements in forest soil: the use of the chloroform fumigation-incubation method in strongly acid soils. Soil Biol Biochem 19:697–702

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Waring BG, Averill C, Hawkes CV (2013) Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon and nitrogen cycling: Insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol Lett 16:887–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Winding A, Hund-Rinke K, Rutgers M (2005) The use of microorganisms in ecological soil classification and assessment concepts. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 62:230–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Xiang SR, Doyle A, Holden PA, Schimel JP (2008) Drying and rewetting effects on C and N mineralization and microbial activity in surface and subsurface California grassland soils. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2281–2289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Xıao WF, Ge XG, Zeng LX, Huang ZL, Lei JP, Zhou BZ, Li MH (2014) Rates of litter decomposition and soil respiration in relation to soil temperature and water in different-aged Pinus massoniana forests in the three Gorges reservoir area, China. PLoS ONE 9:e101890

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Xu XF, Schimel JP, Janssens IA, Song X, Song C, Yu G, Sinsabaugh RL, Tang D, Zhang X, Thornton PE (2017) Global pattern and controls of soil microbial metabolic quotient. Ecol Monogr 87:429–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Zaia FC, Gama-Rodrigues AC, Gama-Rodrigues EF, Moco MKS, Fontes AG, Machado RCR, Baligar VC (2012) Carbon, nitrogen, organic phosphorus, microbial biomass and N mineralization in soils under cacao agroforestry systems in Bahia. Brazil Agroforest Syst 86:197–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Keiblinger KM, Mooshammer M, Peñuelas J, Richter A, Sardans J, Wanek W (2015) The application of ecological stoichiometry to plant–microbial–soil organic matter transformations. Ecol Monogr 85:133–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Zhou Z, Wang C, Luo Y (2018) Effects of forest degradation on microbial communities and soil carbon cycling: a global meta-analysis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27:110–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Zhu J, Yang W, He X (2013) Temporal dynamics of abiotic and biotic factors on leaf litter of three plant species in relation to decomposition rate along a subalpine elevation gradient. PLoS ONE 8:e62073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The first author thanks Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Scientific Research Projects Commission, for financial support (KSU-2017/5-12D).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soil and Ecology Department, Faculty of Forestry, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey

    Emre Babur & Turgay Dindaroğlu

  2. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

    Muhammad Riaz

  3. Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey

    Omer Suha Uslu

Authors
  1. Emre Babur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Turgay Dindaroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Riaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer Suha Uslu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Emre Babur, Turgay Dindaroğluand, and Omer Suha Uslu performed field experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, and collected data. Emre Babur and Muhammad Riaz analyzed the data and wrote the paper. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Riaz.

Ethics declarations

Consent to Participate

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Consent to Publish

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, and not being considered for publication elsewhere.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOCX 15.9 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babur, E., Dindaroğlu, T., Riaz, M. et al. Seasonal Variations in Litter Layers’ Characteristics Control Microbial Respiration and Microbial Carbon Utilization Under Mature Pine, Cedar, and Beech Forest Stands in the Eastern Mediterranean Karstic Ecosystems. Microb Ecol 84, 153–167 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-021-01842-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-021-01842-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation