Limits...
Effects of Residue Management on Decomposition in Irrigated Rice Fields Are Not Related to Changes in the Decomposer Community.

Schmidt A, John K, Arida G, Auge H, Brandl R, Horgan FG, Hotes S, Marquez L, Radermacher N, Settele J, Wolters V, Schädler M - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Initially, the contribution of invertebrates to decomposition was significantly smaller in plots with rice straw scattered on the soil surface; however, this effect disappeared later in the season.We found no significant responses in microbial decomposition rates to management practices.However, we found no correlation between litter mass loss and abundances of various lineages of invertebrates.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Halle/Saale, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Decomposers provide an essential ecosystem service that contributes to sustainable production in rice ecosystems by driving the release of nutrients from organic crop residues. During a single rice crop cycle we examined the effects of four different crop residue management practices (rice straw or ash of burned straw scattered on the soil surface or incorporated into the soil) on rice straw decomposition and on the abundance of aquatic and soil-dwelling invertebrates. Mass loss of rice straw in litterbags of two different mesh sizes that either prevented or allowed access of meso- and macro-invertebrates was used as a proxy for decomposition rates. Invertebrates significantly increased total loss of litter mass by up to 30%. Initially, the contribution of invertebrates to decomposition was significantly smaller in plots with rice straw scattered on the soil surface; however, this effect disappeared later in the season. We found no significant responses in microbial decomposition rates to management practices. The abundance of aquatic fauna was higher in fields with rice straw amendment, whereas the abundance of soil fauna fluctuated considerably. There was a clear separation between the overall invertebrate community structure in response to the ash and straw treatments. However, we found no correlation between litter mass loss and abundances of various lineages of invertebrates. Our results indicate that invertebrates can contribute to soil fertility in irrigated paddy fields by decomposing rice straw, and that their abundance as well as efficiency in decomposition may be promoted by crop residue management practices.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

RDA plot including all lineages.Euclidean distance biplot based on a redundancy analysis (RDA); fauna groups of aquatic and soil samples are represented by their 4-letter-abbreviations (see below); arrows refer to the five levels of the environmental variable ‘treatment’; and site scores are shown with different shapes and colors depending on their treatment affiliation. Axis 1 explains proportionally 11% (P ≤ 0.01) of the variation in the dataset; Axis 2 accounts for 5% (n.s.) of the variation. Abbreviations of animal lineages:aquatic fauna: ACol—Coleoptera Imagos, Anis—Anisoptera Larvae, Anne—Annelida, Brac—Brachycera Larvae, Cera—Ceratopogonidae Larvae, Chir—Chironomidae Larvae, Clad—Cladocera, Cole—Coleoptera Larvae, Cope—Copepoda, Cori—Corixidae, Culi—Culicidae Larvae, divN—Nematocera Larvae (except for Chironomidae and Culicidae), Ephe—Ephemeroptera Larvae, Moll—Mollusca, Nauc—Naucoridae, Nema—Nematoda, Noto—Notonectidae, Ostr—Ostracoda, Plec—Plecoptera Larvae, Zygo—Zygoptera Larvae; soil mesofauna: Acar—Acari, Ench—Enchytraeidae, Rest—remaining (not specified) invertebrates from soil samples; soil nematodes: Acro—Acrobeles spp., Ceph—Cephalobus spp., Pana—Panagrolaimus spp., Plet—Plectus spp. (all bacterial-feeding), Aphe—Aphelenchoides spp. (hyphal-feeding), Dity—Ditylenchus spp. (plant-associated), Heli—Helicotylenchus spp., Hirs—Hirshamanniella spp., Long—Longidorus spp., Prat—Pratylenchus spp. (all plant-feeding), Dory—Dorylaimus spp., Eudo—Eudorylaimus spp., Prod—Prodorylaimus spp. (all omnivorous), Mono—Monochus spp. (predator).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4520592&req=5

pone.0134402.g005: RDA plot including all lineages.Euclidean distance biplot based on a redundancy analysis (RDA); fauna groups of aquatic and soil samples are represented by their 4-letter-abbreviations (see below); arrows refer to the five levels of the environmental variable ‘treatment’; and site scores are shown with different shapes and colors depending on their treatment affiliation. Axis 1 explains proportionally 11% (P ≤ 0.01) of the variation in the dataset; Axis 2 accounts for 5% (n.s.) of the variation. Abbreviations of animal lineages:aquatic fauna: ACol—Coleoptera Imagos, Anis—Anisoptera Larvae, Anne—Annelida, Brac—Brachycera Larvae, Cera—Ceratopogonidae Larvae, Chir—Chironomidae Larvae, Clad—Cladocera, Cole—Coleoptera Larvae, Cope—Copepoda, Cori—Corixidae, Culi—Culicidae Larvae, divN—Nematocera Larvae (except for Chironomidae and Culicidae), Ephe—Ephemeroptera Larvae, Moll—Mollusca, Nauc—Naucoridae, Nema—Nematoda, Noto—Notonectidae, Ostr—Ostracoda, Plec—Plecoptera Larvae, Zygo—Zygoptera Larvae; soil mesofauna: Acar—Acari, Ench—Enchytraeidae, Rest—remaining (not specified) invertebrates from soil samples; soil nematodes: Acro—Acrobeles spp., Ceph—Cephalobus spp., Pana—Panagrolaimus spp., Plet—Plectus spp. (all bacterial-feeding), Aphe—Aphelenchoides spp. (hyphal-feeding), Dity—Ditylenchus spp. (plant-associated), Heli—Helicotylenchus spp., Hirs—Hirshamanniella spp., Long—Longidorus spp., Prat—Pratylenchus spp. (all plant-feeding), Dory—Dorylaimus spp., Eudo—Eudorylaimus spp., Prod—Prodorylaimus spp. (all omnivorous), Mono—Monochus spp. (predator).

Mentions: For the RDA the variable ‘treatment’ (categorical, 5 levels) was included. Based on the total variance in the dataset, the first RDA axis explained 11% (Table D in S1 File Table; P = 0.005) and represented mostly the ‘straw scattered’ treatment (Fig 5; see also Table E in S1 File—highest absolute value at RDA 1). The second axis accounted for 5% (Table D in S1 File; P = 0.15) of the total variance and was related with the ‘straw mixed in’ treatment (Fig 5; see also Table E in S1 File—highest absolute value at RDA 2). In total, 21% of the variance in the dataset was explained by the four constrained RDA axes. Of this variance 52% was explained by RDA 1 and 24% by RDA 2 (Table D in S1 File). The factor treatment itself had a significant influence on the abundances of aquatic and soil invertebrates (P = 0.02; all results of ANOVA permutation tests are given in Table F in S1 File). Finally, we found no significant relationships between litter mass losses and fauna groups as analyses of co-variance and structural equation models did not reveal direct or indirect interaction effects.


Effects of Residue Management on Decomposition in Irrigated Rice Fields Are Not Related to Changes in the Decomposer Community.

Schmidt A, John K, Arida G, Auge H, Brandl R, Horgan FG, Hotes S, Marquez L, Radermacher N, Settele J, Wolters V, Schädler M - PLoS ONE (2015)

RDA plot including all lineages.Euclidean distance biplot based on a redundancy analysis (RDA); fauna groups of aquatic and soil samples are represented by their 4-letter-abbreviations (see below); arrows refer to the five levels of the environmental variable ‘treatment’; and site scores are shown with different shapes and colors depending on their treatment affiliation. Axis 1 explains proportionally 11% (P ≤ 0.01) of the variation in the dataset; Axis 2 accounts for 5% (n.s.) of the variation. Abbreviations of animal lineages:aquatic fauna: ACol—Coleoptera Imagos, Anis—Anisoptera Larvae, Anne—Annelida, Brac—Brachycera Larvae, Cera—Ceratopogonidae Larvae, Chir—Chironomidae Larvae, Clad—Cladocera, Cole—Coleoptera Larvae, Cope—Copepoda, Cori—Corixidae, Culi—Culicidae Larvae, divN—Nematocera Larvae (except for Chironomidae and Culicidae), Ephe—Ephemeroptera Larvae, Moll—Mollusca, Nauc—Naucoridae, Nema—Nematoda, Noto—Notonectidae, Ostr—Ostracoda, Plec—Plecoptera Larvae, Zygo—Zygoptera Larvae; soil mesofauna: Acar—Acari, Ench—Enchytraeidae, Rest—remaining (not specified) invertebrates from soil samples; soil nematodes: Acro—Acrobeles spp., Ceph—Cephalobus spp., Pana—Panagrolaimus spp., Plet—Plectus spp. (all bacterial-feeding), Aphe—Aphelenchoides spp. (hyphal-feeding), Dity—Ditylenchus spp. (plant-associated), Heli—Helicotylenchus spp., Hirs—Hirshamanniella spp., Long—Longidorus spp., Prat—Pratylenchus spp. (all plant-feeding), Dory—Dorylaimus spp., Eudo—Eudorylaimus spp., Prod—Prodorylaimus spp. (all omnivorous), Mono—Monochus spp. (predator).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4520592&req=5

pone.0134402.g005: RDA plot including all lineages.Euclidean distance biplot based on a redundancy analysis (RDA); fauna groups of aquatic and soil samples are represented by their 4-letter-abbreviations (see below); arrows refer to the five levels of the environmental variable ‘treatment’; and site scores are shown with different shapes and colors depending on their treatment affiliation. Axis 1 explains proportionally 11% (P ≤ 0.01) of the variation in the dataset; Axis 2 accounts for 5% (n.s.) of the variation. Abbreviations of animal lineages:aquatic fauna: ACol—Coleoptera Imagos, Anis—Anisoptera Larvae, Anne—Annelida, Brac—Brachycera Larvae, Cera—Ceratopogonidae Larvae, Chir—Chironomidae Larvae, Clad—Cladocera, Cole—Coleoptera Larvae, Cope—Copepoda, Cori—Corixidae, Culi—Culicidae Larvae, divN—Nematocera Larvae (except for Chironomidae and Culicidae), Ephe—Ephemeroptera Larvae, Moll—Mollusca, Nauc—Naucoridae, Nema—Nematoda, Noto—Notonectidae, Ostr—Ostracoda, Plec—Plecoptera Larvae, Zygo—Zygoptera Larvae; soil mesofauna: Acar—Acari, Ench—Enchytraeidae, Rest—remaining (not specified) invertebrates from soil samples; soil nematodes: Acro—Acrobeles spp., Ceph—Cephalobus spp., Pana—Panagrolaimus spp., Plet—Plectus spp. (all bacterial-feeding), Aphe—Aphelenchoides spp. (hyphal-feeding), Dity—Ditylenchus spp. (plant-associated), Heli—Helicotylenchus spp., Hirs—Hirshamanniella spp., Long—Longidorus spp., Prat—Pratylenchus spp. (all plant-feeding), Dory—Dorylaimus spp., Eudo—Eudorylaimus spp., Prod—Prodorylaimus spp. (all omnivorous), Mono—Monochus spp. (predator).
Mentions: For the RDA the variable ‘treatment’ (categorical, 5 levels) was included. Based on the total variance in the dataset, the first RDA axis explained 11% (Table D in S1 File Table; P = 0.005) and represented mostly the ‘straw scattered’ treatment (Fig 5; see also Table E in S1 File—highest absolute value at RDA 1). The second axis accounted for 5% (Table D in S1 File; P = 0.15) of the total variance and was related with the ‘straw mixed in’ treatment (Fig 5; see also Table E in S1 File—highest absolute value at RDA 2). In total, 21% of the variance in the dataset was explained by the four constrained RDA axes. Of this variance 52% was explained by RDA 1 and 24% by RDA 2 (Table D in S1 File). The factor treatment itself had a significant influence on the abundances of aquatic and soil invertebrates (P = 0.02; all results of ANOVA permutation tests are given in Table F in S1 File). Finally, we found no significant relationships between litter mass losses and fauna groups as analyses of co-variance and structural equation models did not reveal direct or indirect interaction effects.

Bottom Line: Initially, the contribution of invertebrates to decomposition was significantly smaller in plots with rice straw scattered on the soil surface; however, this effect disappeared later in the season.We found no significant responses in microbial decomposition rates to management practices.However, we found no correlation between litter mass loss and abundances of various lineages of invertebrates.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Halle/Saale, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Decomposers provide an essential ecosystem service that contributes to sustainable production in rice ecosystems by driving the release of nutrients from organic crop residues. During a single rice crop cycle we examined the effects of four different crop residue management practices (rice straw or ash of burned straw scattered on the soil surface or incorporated into the soil) on rice straw decomposition and on the abundance of aquatic and soil-dwelling invertebrates. Mass loss of rice straw in litterbags of two different mesh sizes that either prevented or allowed access of meso- and macro-invertebrates was used as a proxy for decomposition rates. Invertebrates significantly increased total loss of litter mass by up to 30%. Initially, the contribution of invertebrates to decomposition was significantly smaller in plots with rice straw scattered on the soil surface; however, this effect disappeared later in the season. We found no significant responses in microbial decomposition rates to management practices. The abundance of aquatic fauna was higher in fields with rice straw amendment, whereas the abundance of soil fauna fluctuated considerably. There was a clear separation between the overall invertebrate community structure in response to the ash and straw treatments. However, we found no correlation between litter mass loss and abundances of various lineages of invertebrates. Our results indicate that invertebrates can contribute to soil fertility in irrigated paddy fields by decomposing rice straw, and that their abundance as well as efficiency in decomposition may be promoted by crop residue management practices.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus