SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Gadgil effect;
  • decomposition;
  • ectomycorrhiza density;
  • water content;
  • C : N ratio;
  • community structure

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  • • 
    Ectomycorrhizas may interact with saprotrophic microorganisms to influence decomposition. These interactions are poorly understood.
  • • 
    We buried mesh envelopes filled with either litter or F-layer material in the forest floor of a Pinus resinosa plantation. After 16 months we characterized decomposition, C : N ratio, water content, and the density of four ectomycorrhiza morphotypes.
  • • 
    For both substrates there were negative correlations between ectomycorrhiza density and decomposition, and between ectomycorrhiza density and water content. The relative proportion of morphotypes was significantly different in litter and F-layer material buried at the same depth in the forest floor.
  • • 
    We conclude that the negative effect of ectomycorrhizas on decomposition could be mediated by extraction of water, particularly in relatively dry years. The ‘Gadgil effect’ may be explained by this phenomenon. In wetter years, water extraction may be less consequential. Also, variation in substrate quality may influence the structure of ectomycorrhizal fungal communities.

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

The decomposition of biological residues is an essential process in all ecosystems. Decomposition counterbalances primary production as it returns the carbon in organic detritus (litter) to the atmosphere whence it came. Decomposition also results in the transformation of organic forms of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, which are found in litter, into mineral forms that are readily absorbed by plants (Swift et al., 1979; Attiwill & Adams, 1993). Several kinds of organisms participate in the decomposition process. The most important of these may be the saprotrophic bacteria and fungi because they produce the enzymes that hydrolyze the major litter components including cellulose, lignin and chitin. Temperature, moisture and litter chemistry are repeatedly shown to influence the activity of the saprotrophic microorganisms, and thus the rate of decomposition of litter (Swift et al., 1979; Gosz, 1984; Fog, 1988; Hunt et al., 1988; Vestgarden, 2001; Zimmer, 2002).

Other soil-dwelling organisms may interact with the saprotrophic microorganisms to influence decomposition. These include soil animals (Swift et al., 1979; Gosz, 1984), plants (Fisher & Gosz, 1986b; Dighton et al., 1987) and mycorrhizal fungi. Ectomycorrhizal fungi are among the most ubiquitous fungi in the forest floor (Smith & Read, 1997), and they colonize the same forest floor substrates as saprotrophic microorganisms (Giltrap & Lewis, 1982; Dighton et al., 1987; Shaw et al., 1995; Koide & Kabir, 2001). There is therefore ample opportunity for ectomycorrhizal fungi to interact with saprotrophic microorganisms.

The activities of saprotrophic microorganisms may be supplemented by some species of ectomycorrhizal fungi because they possess enzymatic capacity sufficient to decompose some forms of litter (Dighton et al., 1987; Bending & Read, 1996; Colpaert & van Laere, 1996; Vaario et al., 2002). Indeed, some research suggests that ectomycorrhizal fungi or ectomycorrhizal roots promote decomposition or mineralization (Dighton et al., 1987; Entry et al., 1991; Zhu & Ehrenfeld, 1996). Generally, however, litter decomposition is only weakly developed among the ectomycorrhizal fungi compared with the purely saprotrophic fungi (Bending & Read, 1996, 1997; Colpaert & van Laere, 1996; Colpaert & van Tichelen, 1996).

Gadgil & Gadgil (1971, 1975) suggested that ectomycorrhizal fungi might actually retard decomposition by competing with saprotrophic microorganisms for nutrients. Abuzinadah et al. (1986) more specifically suggested that ectomycorrhizal fungi could compete with saprotrophic microorganisms for organic nitrogen. Saprotrophic microorganisms certainly may decrease nutrient uptake by mycorrhizal fungi and their host plants (Koide & Kabir, 2001; Lindahl et al., 2001). If two-sided competition between ectomycorrhizal fungi and saprotrophic microorganisms occurs, which is at least theoretically possible, then ectomycorrhizal fungi may retard decomposition by limiting the activities of the saprotrophs.

Competition may occur for resources other than nutrients. Water may be such a resource. Therefore, another hypothesis to explain the negative effect of ectomycorrhizal roots on decomposition is that the removal of water from forest floor substrates by mycorrhizal fungi and colonized roots limits the activity of saprotrophic microorganisms. Moisture, of course, is one factor that is well known to influence decomposition (Swift et al., 1979). Moreover, some species of ectomycorrhizal fungi can absorb significant quantities of water from the surrounding medium (Brownlee et al., 1983). We therefore examine this hypothesis in the forest floor of a red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantation in central Pennsylvania, USA.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

This research was conducted in an c. 65-yr-old-red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait) plantation located in State College, Centre County, PA, USA. The plantation has a well-developed organic horizon comprising litter, fermentation (F) and humified (H) layers overlying a thin, sandy, eluviated A-horizon and a thicker, B-horizon (Morrison sandy loam, Ultic Hapludalfs). There is little understory vegetation, which consists of small patches of Vaccinium spp., Acer rubrum and Pinus resinosa saplings, and individual saplings of Quercus alba. These were avoided in the current study.

Forty-eight envelopes, c. 13 × 10 cm, were fabricated from fiberglass window screening (1 mm mesh) and were filled with pine needle litter. This was collected from the forest floor at several locations in the plantation, pooled, mixed, dried at room temperature, and cut into 1–2 cm pieces. Litter is defined in this study as organic material on the forest floor (typically 90% needles) that has undergone only preliminary stages of decomposition. Needles in the litter, for example, are whole or nearly whole. Each of the litter envelopes contained untreated (not sterilized, not heated) litter equivalent to 14.0 g after 70°C oven-drying. Another 48 envelopes were filled with F-layer material, also collected from the forest floor at several locations in the plantation, pooled, mixed, sieved (4.0 cm) to remove most roots and dried at room temperature. Each F-layer envelope contained untreated F-layer material equivalent to 17.8 g after 70°C oven drying. F-layer material in this study is defined as partially decomposed organic material below the litter layer, brown in color, the components of which are still clearly recognizable. On 17 July 2000 one litter and one F-layer envelope were buried adjacent to each other at 48 random locations (but at least 1 m from any tree) in the pine plantation at the interface between the organic horizon (comprising the litter, F and H layers) and the uppermost mineral horizon. The organic horizon was, on average, 5.1 cm thick.

On 16 August, 15 September, 13 November 2000 and on 15 January 2001, six envelopes of each substrate were collected from the forest floor. We measured the moist weight of the remaining material in each envelope. Moist subsamples from each envelope were also weighed, oven-dried (70°C) and weighed again to determine the ratio of moist to d. wt. The d. wt of the total remaining material in each envelope was then calculated.

On 27 November 2001, c. 16 months after initiation, all remaining envelopes were harvested (a total of 24 litter and 24 F-layer envelopes). Pine roots that had grown into each envelope were removed carefully and placed in Petri dishes containing wet filter paper. The substrates from each envelope were weighed as before to calculate d. wts and water contents. Carbon and nitrogen concentrations of subsamples from each envelope were determined on an elemental analyzer (Fisons Instruments, model 1108, Beverly, MA, USA). For each envelope, the numbers of individual root tips of four ectomycorrhizal morphotypes were counted. The morphotypes were distinguished by visual means under a dissecting microscope using reflected light. These four morphotypes included Cenococcum, Tylopilus felleus, and two other morphotypes we refer to as E (arbitrary designation), and mixed yellow/brown (Fig. 1). The Cenococcum, E and the Tylopilus felleus morphotypes are distinctive and rather easy to distinguish visually. The yellow/brown morphotype, however, is rather variable and probably comprises multiple species. For Cenococcum, only nonbifurcated tips were found. For the E morphotype, each was considered as a single root tip. For the Tylopilus felleus and mixed yellow/brown morphotypes each bifurcated root was considered as two tips. The density of the mycorrhizas (tips cm−3) was calculated from the number of root tips and the volume of the material within each envelope, which was calculated from its oven d. wt and its bulk density. The bulk density was calculated from the weight and volume (graduated cylinder method) of subsamples.

image

Figure 1. Representative ectomycorrhiza morphotypes collected from litter and F-layer material mesh envelopes. (a) E morphotype. (b) Cenococcum morphotype. (c) Tylopilus felleus morphotype. (d) Yellow/brown morphotype.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Comparisons between litter and F-layer mesh envelopes were performed using the one-way analysis of variance module of the Statgraphics Programs (STSC, 1991). The correlations between decomposition and mycorrhiza density, water content or C : N were determined using the linear regression analysis module of the same programs to obtain the best-fit equations.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

Both litter and F-layer material exhibited significant decomposition during the first 4 months of residence in the forest floor. During that period there were no significant differences between litter and F-layer material in the proportion of substrate remaining (Fig. 2). After 4 months decomposition of the litter continued, but no further decomposition of F-layer material occurred. For the samples harvested at the end of the experiment (27 November 2001) litter had decomposed significantly (P < 0.0001) more than F-layer material. The d. wt loss was 33.8%, s.e.m. 1.4 and 15.6%, s.e.m. 1.3, for litter and F-layer material, respectively. Litter also contained significantly (P = 0.0007) more moisture than F-layer material at the final harvest (149.9%, s.e.m. 10.6 vs 101.9%, s.e.m. 7.3, respectively), and the litter C : N was significantly (P < 0.0001) lower than for F-layer material (20.2, s.e.m. 0.4 vs 35.1, s.e.m. 0.3, respectively).

image

Figure 2. Percent substrate remaining for litter and F-layer material over the 16 months of residence in the forest floor. The asterisks (*) indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between litter and F-layer. ns indicates no significant difference. For each substrate, n = 6 at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months, and n = 24 at 16 months.

Download figure to PowerPoint

For the samples harvested at the end of the experiment (27 November 2001), decomposition of both litter and F-layer material was negatively related to the total density of ectomycorrhizal roots (Fig. 3). Thirty-six percent of the variation in litter decomposition was associated with variation in ectomycorrhiza density (P = 0.003). For the F-layer material, 34% of the variation in decomposition was associated with variation in ectomycorrhiza density (P = 0.004). No significant relationships were found between decomposition and the density of individual morphotypes for either litter or F-layer material.

image

Figure 3. Relationship between substrate loss and ectomycorrhiza (ECM) density in litter and F-layer material for substrates collected after 16 months. Litter: loss = 39.9–1.33 (ECM density), r2 = 0.355, P = 0.0027, n = 23. F-layer: loss = 20.7–2.86 (ECM density), r2 = 0.340, P = 0.0035, n = 23.

Download figure to PowerPoint

When considering both substrate types together (litter needles and F-layer material) there was an obvious overall negative correlation between C : N and decomposition (Fig. 4). However, there were no significant relationships between C : N and decomposition for either litter or F-layer material when considered separately (P = 0.17 and 0.74, respectively). Litter and F-layer material C concentrations were not significantly affected by the 16 months incubation in the forest floor (Table 1). However, for both litter and F-layer material there were significant increases in the N concentration over time. Thus, the C : N ratios decreased with time for both substrates.

image

Figure 4. Relationship between substrate loss and substrate C : N ratio for substrates collected after 16 months.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1.  Means (s.e.m) of substrate C and N concentrations and C : N ratios at the beginning of the experiment and after 16 months in the forest floor. n = 3 for initial values and n = 24 for 16 month values. Within a substrate type a different letter indicates means are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) according to the analysis of variance
 C (%)N (%)C : N ratio
Litter
Initial49.3 (0.10)1.22 (0.05) b40.7 (1.69) a
After 16 months51.5 (0.70)2.56 (0.04) a20.2 (0.40) b
F-layer
Initial42.9 (0.68)0.98 (0.02) y43.6 (1.16) x
After 16 months43.8 (0.57)1.25 (0.01) x35.1 (0.29) y

There were significant positive correlations between decomposition and water content for both litter and F-layer material (Fig. 5). For litter, 23% of the variation in decomposition was associated with variation in water content (P = 0.021). For F-layer material, 31% of the variation in decomposition was associated with variation in water content (P = 0.006).

image

Figure 5. Relationship between substrate loss and water content in litter and F-layer material for substrates collected after 16 months. Litter: loss = 24.6 + 0.061 (H2O%), r2 = 0.228, P = 0.0212, n = 23. F-layer: loss = 7.29 + 0.087 (H2O%), r2 = 0.305, P = 0.0063, n = 23.

Download figure to PowerPoint

There were significant negative relationships between substrate water content and ectomycorrhiza density for both litter and F-layer material (Fig. 6). For litter, 21% of the variation in water content (P = 0.028), and for F-layer material, 40% of the variation in water content (P = 0.001), were associated with variation in ectomycorrhiza density.

image

Figure 6. Relationship between substrate water content and ectomycorrhiza density in litter and F-layer material for substrates collected after 16 months. Litter: density = 8.53–0.0261 (H2O%), r2 = 0.209, P = 0.028, n = 23. F-layer: density = 3.66–0.0204 (H2O%), r2 = 0.398, P = 0.001, n = 23.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The total density of ectomycorrhizas was significantly higher in litter (4.4 tips cm−3, s.e.m. 0.6) than in F-layer (1.6 tips cm−3, s.e.m. 0.2). Litter and F-layer material possessed significantly different ectomycorrhiza morphotype compositions (Table 2). There was a significantly higher density for each of the morphotypes in the litter than in the F-layer. Proportionally, there was not a significant effect of substrate on the Cenococcum morphotype. However, the Tylopilus felleus morphotype and the E morphotype were both proportionally more abundant in litter than in F-layer material, while the yellow-brown morphotype was proportionally less abundant.

Table 2.  The total number of root tips of each morphotype [mean (s.e.m)] and the proportion of root tips [mean (s.e.m)] of each morphotype found within litter and F-layer material after 16 months. A single asterisk indicates that the mean for the litter differs significantly (P ≤ 0.05) from the mean for the F-layer
MorphotypeDensity (tips cm−3)Proportional composition
LitterF-layerLitterF-layer
  • **

    P= 0.06.

Mixed yellow/brown3.58 (0.65)1.46 (0.21)*0.746 (0.060)0.937 (0.012)*
Tylopilus felleus0.44 (0.20)0.05 (0.03)*0.139 (0.059)0.020 (0.009)**
E0.24 (0.08)0.01 (0.01)*0.077 (0.025)0.007 (0.003)*
Cenococcum0.14 (0.05)0.05 (0.01)*0.038 (0.010)0.036 (0.010)

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

In this study we found a significant negative correlation between ectomycorrhiza density and decomposition for both litter and F-layer material, consistent with the results of Gadgil & Gadgil (1971, 1975). Gadgil & Gadgil (1975) suggested that the retardation of litter decomposition by ectomycorrhizas was caused by competition for nutrients. Abuzinadah et al. (1986) found that ectomycorrhizal fungi could directly obtain N from organic sources under laboratory conditions, which could theoretically result in reduced activity by saprotrophic microorganisms if they were limited by N. However, some research indicates that ectomycorrhizal fungi generally have a poor ability to obtain N from naturally occurring organic sources in the forest floor (Bending & Read, 1996; Colpaert & van Tichelen, 1996), primarily because the major forms of organic N there are complexed by polyphenolic compounds (Qualls et al., 1991; Northup et al., 1995), and many ectomycorrhizal fungi have little capacity to hydrolyze polyphenolics (Bending & Read, 1996). Therefore, ectomycorrhizal fungi may not compete directly against saprotrophic microorganisms for organic N. Instead, ectomycorrhizal fungi may actually depend on the saprotrophic fungi to mobilize N from the recalcitrant organic forms (Colpaert & van Laere, 1996). Therefore, competition for organic N may not always be the sole reason for the ‘Gadgil effect’.

In the current research, increased density of ectomycorrhizas was associated with decreased substrate water content, which is to be expected. Others have previously shown that trenching of the soil to cut off roots increases soil moisture (Fisher & Gosz, 1986a; Staaf, 1988), and that naturally occurring lower densities of roots are associated with higher soil water contents (Parmelee et al., 1993). Roots alone can certainly withdraw water from the forest floor, but this could be compounded by ectomycorrhization because some rhizomorph-forming ectomycorrhizal fungi are themselves capable of absorbing water and transporting it to their hosts (Brownlee et al., 1983). If, as a consequence of this water withdrawal, the substrate water content fell below some critical level, saprotroph activity could be depressed (Swift et al., 1979). Forest litter decomposition in other ecosystems can be strongly affected by water availability within the range of water contents described in this study (Fioretto et al., 1998; Reichstein et al., 2002). Therefore, our observations suggest another possible explanation for the ‘Gadgil effect’, a simple withdrawal of water from the forest floor by ectomycorrhizal roots.

The effect of water removal on litter decomposition should depend on the weather. In drier weather water removal by roots may have a significant negative effect on decomposition. For the period July 2000 to November 2001 (this study), the central mountains division of Pennsylvania received 118 cm of precipitation, approximately 27 cm less than the average between 1961 and 1990 (Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics, 2000–01; Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics, 2001–02). In generally wet weather water removal by ectomycorrhizas may have little effect on forest floor water content. In fact, it is possible for decomposition to be limited by too much moisture (Progar et al., 2000). Expression of the ‘Gadgil effect’, if caused by water withdrawal, may thus depend on weather. This may explain some of the discrepancies in the literature.

While Gadgil & Gadgil (1971, 1975) and we have shown that ectomycorrhiza density is negatively related to decomposition, others have shown that ectomycorrhizas or ectomycorrhizal fungi may stimulate decomposition (Dighton et al., 1987; Entry et al., 1991; Zhu & Ehrenfeld, 1996). One possible reason for this may be that rhizosphere carbon deposition by the fungi (Rygiewicz & Andersen, 1994; Sun et al., 1999) stimulates the activity of carbon-limited saprotrophic microorganisms (Clarholm, 1985; Liljeroth et al., 1994). Another explanation may simply be that some ectomycorrhizal fungi themselves possess limited saprotrophic activity (Dighton et al., 1987; Bending & Read, 1996; Colpaert & van Laere, 1996; Vaario et al., 2002). In any case, such positive effects of ectomycorrhizas on decomposition could be expressed in wet years when the negative effects of water extraction are of little or no consequence.

There is often a negative relationship between C : N ratio of forest floor substrates and decomposition rates (Swift et al., 1979). Indeed, there was such a relationship for litter and F-layer material examined together. However, for a given substrate (litter or F-layer material separately), no such relationship existed. Thus, variation in C : N ratio did not seem to be a large factor in determining variation in the rate of decomposition of a given substrate in this study.

The ectomycorrhizal fungal community was affected by substrate type (litter vs F-layer material), even though the two substrate types were buried at the same depth in the forest floor. This may have been caused by differences in substrate physical or chemical properties. We have previously shown that different ectomycorrhizal fungi exhibit unique responses to pine needle litter extracts (Koide et al., 1998). In conjunction with spatial variability in substrate quality that surely exists in the forest floor, differential preferences and tolerances to the physical and chemical properties of various substrates exhibited by the fungi could result in spatial partitioning, which has been observed (Malajczuk & Hingston, 1981; Sagara, 1995; Griffiths et al., 1996; Goodman & Trofymow, 1998; Conn & Dighton, 2000; Dickie et al., 2002). This kind of partitioning may be important in the maintenance of species diversity.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the A. W. Mellon Foundation.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  • Abuzinadah RA, Finlay RD, Read DJ. 1986. The role of proteins in the nitrogen nutrition of ectomycorrhizal plants. II. Utilization of peptides and proteins by ectomycorrhizal plants of Pinus contorta. New Phytologist 103: 495506.
  • Attiwill PM, Adams MA. 1993. Nutrient cycling in forests. New Phytologist 124: 561582.
  • Bending GD, Read DJ. 1996. Nitrogen mobilization from protein- polyphenol complex by ericoid and ectomycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28: 16031612.
  • Bending GD, Read DJ. 1997. Lignin and soluble phenolic degradation by ectomycorrhizal and ericoid mycorrhizal fungi. Mycological Research 101: 13481354.
  • Brownlee C, Duddridge JA, Malibari A, Read DJ. 1983. The structure and function of mycelial systems of ectomycorrhizal roots with special reference to their role in assimilate and water transport. Plant and Soil 71: 433443.
  • Clarholm M. 1985. Interactions of bacteria, protozoa and plants leading to mineralization of soil nitrogen. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 17: 181187.
  • Colpaert JV, Van Laere A. 1996. A comparison of the extracellular enzyme activities of two ectomycorrhizal and a leaf-saprotrophic basidiomycete colonizing beech leaf litter. New Phytologist 133: 133141.
  • Colpaert JV, Van Tichelen KK. 1996. Decomposition, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization from beech leaf litter colonized by ectomycorrhizal or litter-decomposing basidiomycetes. New Phytologist 134: 123132.
  • Conn C, Dighton J. 2000. Litter quality influences on decomposition, ectomycorrhizal community structure and mycorrhizal root surface acid phosphatase activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32: 489496.
  • Dickie IA, Xu B, Koide RT. 2002. Vertical niche differentiation of ectomycorrhizal hyphae in soil as shown by T-RFLP analysis. New Phytologist 156: 527535.
  • Dighton J, Thomas ED, Latter PM. 1987. Interaction between tree roots, mycorrhizas, a saprotroph and the decomposition of organic substrates in a microcosm. Biology and Fertility of Soils 4: 145150.
  • Entry JA, Rose CL, Cromack K Jr. 1991. Litter decomposition and nutrient release in ectomycorrhizal mat soils of a Douglas-fir ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23: 285290.
  • Fioretto A, Musacchio A, Andolfi G, De Santo AV. 1998. Decomposition dynamics of litters of various pine species in a Corsican pine forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23: 721727.
  • Fisher FM, Gosz JR. 1986a. Effects of trenching on soil processes and properties in a New Mexico mixed-conifer forest. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2: 3542.
  • Fisher FM, Gosz JR. 1986b. Effects of plants on net mineralization of nitrogen in forest soil microcosms. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2: 4350.
  • Fog K. 1988. The effect of added nitrogen on the rate of decomposition of organic matter. Biological Review 63: 433462.
  • Gadgil RL, Gadgil PD. 1971. Mycorrhiza and litter decomposition. Nature 233: 133.
  • Gadgil RL, Gadgil PD. 1975. Suppression of litter decomposition by mycorrhizal roots of Pinus radiata. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science 5: 3341.
  • Giltrap NJ, Lewis DH. 1982. Catabolic repression of the synthesis of pectin degrading enzymes by Suillus luteus (L. ex Fr.) S. F. Gray and Hebeloma oculatum Bruchet. New Phytologist 90: 485493.
  • Goodman DM, Trofymow JA. 1998. Distribution of ectomycorrhizas in microhabitats in mature and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir on southeastern Vancouver Island. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 21272138.
  • Gosz JR. 1984. Biological factors influencing nutrient supply in forest soils. In: BowenGD, NambiarIKS, eds. Nutrition of plantation forests. London, UK: Academic Press, 119146.
  • Griffiths RP, Bradshaw GA, Marks B, Lienkaemper GW. 1996. Spatial distribution of ectomycorrhizal mats in coniferous forest of Pacific Northwest, USA. Plant and Soil 180: 147158.
  • Hunt HW, Ingham ER, Coleman DC, Elliott ET, Reid CPP. 1988. Nitrogen limitation of production and decomposition in prairie, mountain meadow, and pine forest. Ecology 69: 10091016.
  • Koide RT, Kabir Z. 2001. Nutrient economy of red pine is affected by interactions between Pisolithus tinctorius and other forest-floor microbes. New Phytologist 150: 179188.
  • Koide RT, Suomi L, Stevens CM, McCormick L. 1998. Interactions between needles of Pinus resinosa and ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist. 140: 539547.
  • Liljeroth E, Kuikman P, Van Veen JA. 1994. Carbon translocation to the rhizosphere of maize and wheat and influence on the turnover of native soil organic matter at different soil nitrogen levels. Plant and Soil 161: 233240.
  • Lindahl B, Stenlid J, Finlay R. 2001. Effects of resource availability on mycelial interactions and 32P transfer between a saprotrophic and an ectomycorrhizal fungus in soil microcosms. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 38: 4352.
  • Malajczuk N, Hingston FJ. 1981. Ectomycorrhizae associated with Jarrah. Australian Journal of Botany 29: 453462.
  • Northup RRYuZ, Dahlgren RA, Vogt K. 1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature 377: 227229.
  • Parmelee RW, Ehrenfeld JG, Han X, Zhu W. 1993. Effect of pine roots on microorganisms, soil fauna and nitrogen availability in two soil horizons of a coniferous forest spodosol. Biology and Fertility of Soils 15: 113119.
  • Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics. 200001. http://www.nass.usda.gov/pa/annsum01/weamth.pdf.
  • Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics. 200102. http://www.nass.usda.gov/pa/annsum02/weamonth.pdf.
  • Progar RA, Schowalter TD, Freitag CM, Morrell JJ. 2000. Respiration from coarse woody debris as affected by moisture and saprotroph functional diversity in western Oregon. Oecologia 124: 426431.
  • Qualls RG, Haines BL, Swank WT. 1991. Fluxes of dissolved organic nutrients and humic substances in a deciduous forest. Ecology 72: 254266.
  • Reichstein M, Tenhunen JD, Roupsard O, Ourcival J-M, Rambal S, Dore S, Valentini R. 2002. Ecosystem respiration in two Mediterranean evergreen Holm Oak forests: drought effects and decomposition dynamics. Functional Ecology 16: 2739.
  • Rygiewicz PT, Andersen CP. 1994. Mycorrhizae alter quality and quantity of carbon allocated below ground. Nature 369: 5860.
  • Sagara N. 1995. Association of ectomycorrhizal fungi with decomposed |animal wastes in forest habitats: a cleaning symbiosis? Canadian Journal of Botany 73: S1423S1433.
  • Shaw TM, Dighton J, Sanders FE. 1995. Interactions between ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi on agar and in association with seedlings of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Mycological Research 99: 159165.
  • Smith SE, Read DJ. 1997. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
  • Staaf H. 1988. Litter decomposition in beech forests – effects of excluding tree roots. Biology and Fertility of Soils 6: 302305.
  • STSC. 1991. Statgraphics Statistical Analysis Systems , Version 5.1. Rockville, USA: STSC, Inc.
  • Sun Y-P, Unestam T, Lucas SD, Johanson KJ, Kenne L, Finlay R. 1999. Exudation-reabsorption in a mycorrhizal fungus, the dynamic interface for interaction with soil and soil microorganisms. Mycorrhiza 9: 137144.
  • Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM. 1979. Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.
  • Vaario L-M, Guerin-Laguette A, Matsushita N, Suzuki K, Lapeyrie F. 2002. Saprobic potential of Tricholoma matsutake: growth over pine bark treated with surfactants. Mycorrhiza 12: 15.
  • Vestgarden LS. 2001. Carbon and nitrogen turnover in the early stage of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) needle litter decomposition: effects of internal and external nitrogen. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33: 465474.
  • Zhu W, Ehrenfeld JG. 1996. The effects of mycorrhizal roots on litter decomposition, soil biota, and nutrients in a spodosolic soil. Plant and Soil 179: 109118.
  • Zimmer M. 2002. Is decomposition of woodland leaf litter influenced by its species richness? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 277284.