Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of methodological difference on fine root production, mortality and decomposition estimates differ between functional types in a planted loblolly pine forest

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

Fine roots can be functionally classified into an absorptive fine root pool (AFR) and a transport fine root pool (TFR). Different methods give significantly different fine root production, mortality and decomposition estimates. However, how methodological difference affects fine root estimates has not been assessed by functional type, impeding accurate construction of fine root C budgets.

Methods

We used dynamic-flow model, a model based on measurements of litterbags and soil cores, and balanced-hybrid model, a model based on measurements of minirhizotrons and soil cores, to quantify AFT and TFR estimates in a planted loblolly pine forest.

Results

Annual production, mortality, and decomposition were comparable between AFRs and TFRs when measured using the dynamic-flow model (P > 0.1) but significantly higher for AFRs than for TFRs when measured using the balanced-hybrid model (P < 0.05). Annual production, mortality and decomposition estimates using the balanced-hybrid model were 75%, 71% and 69% higher than those using the dynamic-flow model, respectively, for AFRs, but 12%, 6% and 5% higher than those using the dynamic-flow model, respectively, for TFRs. The balanced-hybrid model yielded more reliable AFR and TFR estimates than the dynamic-flow model by directly measuring fine root production and mortality dynamics.

Conclusion

The balanced-hybrid model has greater estimation accuracy than the dynamics-flow model. The methodological difference has greater effects on AFR than TFR estimates. The choice of method is critical for quantifying AFR and TFR contributions to fine root C budget.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz M, Stegun I (1964) Pocketbook of mathematical functions (abridged edition). National Bureau of Standards, USA

  • Addo-Danso SD, Presscott CE, Smith AR (2016) Methods for estimating root biomass and production in forest and woodland ecosystem carbon studies: A review. For Ecol Manage 359:332–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett JE, Kotrlic JW, Higgins CC (2001) Organizational research. Determining the appropriate sample size in survey research. ITLPJ 19:43–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Beidler KV, Pritchard SG (2017) Maintaining connectivity. Understanding the role of root order and mycelial networks in fine root decomposition of woody plants. Plant Soil 420:19–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner I, Bakker MR, Bjork RG, Hirano Y, Lukac M, Aranda X et al (2013) Fine-root turnover rates of European forests revisited: an analysis of data from sequential coring and ingrowth cores. Plant Soil 362:357–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ding Y, Leppälammi-Kujansuu J, Helmisaari H (2019) Fine root longevity and below- and aboveground litter production in a boreal Betula pendula forest. For Ecol Manag 431:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornbush ME, Isenhart TM, Raich JW (2002) Quantifying fine root decomposition: an alternative to buried litterbags. Ecology 83:2985–2990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan P, Guo D (2010) Slow decomposition of lower order roots: a key mechanism of root carbon and nutrient retention in the soil. Oecologia 163:509–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghimire B, Riley WJ, Koven CD, Mu M, Randerson JT (2016) Representing leaf and root physiological traits in CLM improves global carbon and nitrogen cycling predictions. J Adv Model Earth Syst 8:598–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick RL, Pregitzer KS (1993) The dynamics of fine root length, biomass, and nitrogen content in two northern hardwood ecosystems. Can J For Res 23:2507–2520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks JJ, Hendrick RL, Wilson CA, Mitchell RJ, Pecot SD, Guo DL (2006) Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. J Ecol 94:40–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel D, Leuschner C (2002) A comparison of four different fine root production estimates with ecosystem carbon balance data in a Fagus-Quercus mixed forest. Plant Soil 239:237–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koide RT, Fernandez CW, Peoples MS (2011) Can ectomycorrhizal colonization of Pinus resinosa roots affect their decomposition? New Phytol 191:508–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kou L, Jiang L, Fu X, Dai X, Wang H, Li S (2018) Nitrogen deposition increases root production and turnover but slows root decomposition in Pinus elliottii plantations. New Phytol 218:1450–1461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunkle JM, Walters MB, Kobe RK (2009) Senescence-related changes in nitrogen in fine roots: mass loss affects estimation. Tree Physiol 29:715–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li A, Fahey TJ, Pawlowska TE, Fisk MC, Burtis J (2015) Fine root decomposition, nutrient mobilization and fungal communities in a pine forest ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem 83:76–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Lange H (2015) A modified soil coring method for measuring fine root production, mortality and decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 91:192–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Minick KJ, Li T, Williamson JC, Gavazzi M, McNulty S, King JS (2020a) An improved method for measuring total fine root decomposition in plantation forests combing minirhizotrons with soil coring. Tree Physiol 40:1466–1473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Minick KJ, Luff J, Noormets A, Miao G, Mitra B, Domec J-C, Sun G, McNulty S, King JS (2020b) Effects of microtopography on absorptive and transport fine root biomass, necromass, production, mortality and decomposition in a coastal freshwater forested wetland, southeastern USA. Ecosystems 23:1294–1308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Zhu J, Lange H, Han S (2013) A modified ingrowth core method for measuring fine root production, mortality and decomposition in forests. Tree Physiol 33:18–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin C, Yang Y, Guo J, Chen G, Xie J (2011) Fine root decomposition of evergreen broadleaved and coniferous tree species in mid-subtropical China: dynamics of dry mass, nutrient and organic fractions. Plant Soil 338:311–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Litton CM, Raich JW, Ryan MG (2007) Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 13:2089–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack ML, Adams TS, Smithwick EAH, Eissenstat DM (2014) Variability in root production, phenology, and turnover rate among 12 temperate tree species. Ecology 95:2224–2235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack LM, Dickie IA, Eissenstat DM et al (2015) Redefining fine roots improves understanding of belowground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. New Phytol 207:505–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JAM, Sulman BN, Mayes MA, Patterson CM, Classen AT (2020) Plant roots stimulate the decomposition of complex, but not simple, soil carbon. Funct Ecol 34:899–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noormets A, Gavazzi MJ, McNulty SG, Domec J-C, Sun G, King JS, Chen J (2010) Response of carbon fluxes to drought in a coastal plain loblolly pine forest. Glob Chang Biol 16:272–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osawa A, Aizawa R (2012) A new approach to estimate fine root production, mortality, and decomposition using litter bag experiments and soil core techniques. Plant Soil 355:167–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pregitzer KS, DeForest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecol Monog 72:293–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santantonio D, Grace JC (1987) Estimating fine-root production and turnover from biomass and decomposition data: a compartment-flow model. Can J For Res 17(8):900–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun T, Hobbie SE, Berg B, Zhang H, Wang Q, Wang Z, Hättenschwiler S (2018) Contrasting dynamics and trait controls in first-order root compared with leaf litter decomposition. PNAS 115:10392–10397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sun JJ, Gu J, Wang Z (2012) Discrepancy in fine root turnover estimates between diameter-based and branch-order-based approaches: a case study in two temperate tree species. J For Res 23:575–581

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt KA (1991) Carbon budgets of temperate forest ecosystems. Tree Physiol 9:69–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Bloomfield J (1998) Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level. Plant Soil 200:71–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wear DN, Greis JG (2012) The southern forest futures project: Summary report; USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, Washington, DC, p 54

  • Woodward FI, Osborne CP (2000) The representation of root processes in models addressing the responses of vegetation to global change. New Phytol 147:223–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jordan Luff, Wen Lin, and Yuan Fang for their help with analyzing the minirhizotron images and processing the samples. Primary supports were provided by USDA NIFA (Multi-agency A.5 Carbon Cycle Science Program) award 2014-67003-22068, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41975150 and 31870625), Ameriflux Core Site Management Program and CBI grants of DOE in the USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 110016, Shenyang City, China

    Xuefeng Li, Xingbo Zheng & Quanlai Zhou

  2. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Xuefeng Li & John S. King

  3. Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, USDA Forest Service, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Michael Gavazzi & Steven McNulty

  4. Department of Forestry, Beihua University, 132013, Jilin City, China

    Yanlong Shan

Authors
  1. Xuefeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xingbo Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quanlai Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Gavazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yanlong Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven McNulty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John S. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuefeng Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Kenny Png.

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, X., Zheng, X., Zhou, Q. et al. Effects of methodological difference on fine root production, mortality and decomposition estimates differ between functional types in a planted loblolly pine forest. Plant Soil 483, 273–283 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05737-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05737-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation