Search

Highlights: [•] Woody margins had the largest soil carbon stocks while herbaceous margins had the smallest ones. [•] Woody margins increased soil carbon stocks of neighbouring crops. [•] Differences in litter quality and decomposition among margins accounted for variation in soil carbon stocks. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Large herbivores may alter carbon and nutrient cycling in soil by changing above- and below-ground litter decomposition dynamics. Grazing effects may reflect changes in plant allocation patterns, and thus litter quality, or the site conditions for decomposition, but the relative roles of these broad mechanisms have rarely been tested. We examined plant and soil mediated effects of grazing history on litter mass loss and nutrient release in two grazing-tolerant grasses, Lolium multiflorum and Paspalum dilatatum, in a humid pampa grassland, Argentina. Shoot and root litters produced in a common garden by conspecific plants collected from grazed and ungrazed sites were incubated under both grazing conditions. We found that grazing history effects on litter decomposition were stronger for shoot than for root material. Root mass loss was neither affected by litter origin nor incubation site, although roots from the grazed origin immobilised more nutrients. Plants from the grazed site produced shoots with higher cell soluble contents and lower lignin:N ratios. Grazing effects mediated by shoot litter origin depended on the species, and were less apparent than incubation site effects. Lolium shoots from the grazed site decomposed and released nutrients faster, whereas Paspalum shoots from the grazed site retained more nutrient than their respective counterparts from the ungrazed site. Such divergent, species-specific dynamics did not translate into consistent differences in soil mineral N beneath decomposing litters. Indeed, shoot mass loss and nutrient release were generally faster in the grazed grassland, where soil N availability was higher. Our results show that grazing influenced nutrient cycling by modifying litter breakdown within species as well as the soil environment for decomposition. They also indicate that grazing effects on decomposition are likely to involve aerial litter pools rather than the more recalcitrant root compartment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes in plant community composition induced by vertebrate grazers have been found to either accelerate or slow C and nutrient cycling in soil. This variation may reflect the differential effects of grazing-promoted (G+) plant species on overall litter quality and decomposition processes. Further, site conditions associated with prior grazing history are expected to influence litter decay and nutrient turnover. We studied how grazing-induced changes in plant life forms and species identity modified the quality of litter inputs to soil, decomposition rate and nutrient release in a flooding Pampa grassland, Argentina. Litter from G+ forbs and grasses (two species each) and grazing-reduced (G−) grasses (two species) was incubated in long-term grazed and ungrazed sites. G+ species, overall, showed higher rates of decomposition and N and P release from litter. However, this pattern was primarily driven by the low-growing, high litter-quality forbs included among G+ species. Forbs decomposed and released nutrients faster than either G+ or G− grasses. While no consistent differences between G+ and G− grasses were observed, patterns of grass litter decay and nutrient release corresponded with interspecific differences in phenology and photosynthetic pathway. Litter decomposition, N release and soil N availability were higher in the grazed site, irrespective of species litter type. Our results contradict the notion that grazing, by reducing more palatable species and promoting less palatable ones, should decrease nutrient cycling from litter. Plant tissue quality and palatability may not unequivocally link patterns of grazing resistance and litter decomposability within a community, especially where grazing causes major shifts in life form composition. Thus, plant functional groups defined by species’ “responses” to grazing may only partially overlap with functional groups based on species “effects” on C and nutrient cycling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]