Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across biomes

Nature volume 509, pages 218–221 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The decomposition of dead organic matter is a major determinant of carbon and nutrient cycling in ecosystems, and of carbon fluxes between the biosphere and the atmosphere1,2,3. Decomposition is driven by a vast diversity of organisms that are structured in complex food webs2,4. Identifying the mechanisms underlying the effects of biodiversity on decomposition is critical4,5,6 given the rapid loss of species worldwide and the effects of this loss on human well-being7,8,9. Yet despite comprehensive syntheses of studies on how biodiversity affects litter decomposition4,5,6,10, key questions remain, including when, where and how biodiversity has a role and whether general patterns and mechanisms occur across ecosystems and different functional types of organism4,9,10,11,12. Here, in field experiments across five terrestrial and aquatic locations, ranging from the subarctic to the tropics, we show that reducing the functional diversity of decomposer organisms and plant litter types slowed the cycling of litter carbon and nitrogen. Moreover, we found evidence of nitrogen transfer from the litter of nitrogen-fixing plants to that of rapidly decomposing plants, but not between other plant functional types, highlighting that specific interactions in litter mixtures control carbon and nitrogen cycling during decomposition. The emergence of this general mechanism and the coherence of patterns across contrasting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems suggest that biodiversity loss has consistent consequences for litter decomposition and the cycling of major elements on broad spatial scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Net diversity, complementarity and selection effects of plant litter mixtures on C loss.
Figure 2: Effect of decomposer community completeness on litter C and N loss.
Figure 3: Relative change in the total amount of litter N.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wardle, D. A. Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Components (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bardgett, R. D. The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecoystem Approach (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Parton, W. et al. Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science 315, 361–364 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gessner, M. O. et al. Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 372–380 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hättenschwiler, S., Tiunov, A. V. & Scheu, S. Biodiversity and litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 191–218 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cardinale, B. J. et al. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am. J. Bot. 98, 572–592 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. May, R. M. Why should we be concerned about loss of biodiversity. C. R. Biol. 334, 346–350 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Naeem, S., Duffy, J. E. & Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 336, 1401–1406 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Balvanera, P. et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1146–1156 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Loreau, M. Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 49–60 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reiss, J., Bridle, J. R., Montoya, J. M. & Woodward, G. Emerging horizons in biodiversity research and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 505–514 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I. & Nicholson, K. S. Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79, 247–258 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gartner, T. B. & Cardon, Z. G. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104, 230–246 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lecerf, A. et al. Incubation time, functional litter diversity, and habitat characteristics predict litter-mixing effects on decomposition. Ecology 92, 160–169 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Duffy, J. E. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecol. Lett. 6, 680–687 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Woodward, G. et al. Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 402–409 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cornwell, W. K. et al. Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1065–1071 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Frainer, A., McKie, B. G. & Malmqvist, B. When does diversity matter? Species functional diversity and ecosystem functioning across habitats and seasons in a field experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 460–469 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Woodward, G. et al. Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on stream ecosystem functioning. Science 336, 1438–1440 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wall, D. H. et al. Global decomposition experiment shows soil animal impacts on decomposition are climate-dependent. Glob. Chang. Biol. 14, 2661–2677 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. García-Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J. & Wall, D. H. Climate and litter quality differently modulate the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition across biomes. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1045–1053 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vos, V. C. A., van Ruijven, J., Berg, M. P., Peeters, E. T. H. M. & Berendse, F. Macro-detritivore identity drives leaf litter diversity effects. Oikos 120, 1092–1098 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Swan, C. M. & Palmer, M. A. Preferential feeding by an aquatic detritivore mediates non-additive decomposition of speciose leaf litter. Oecologia 149, 107–114 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Garnier, E. et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85, 2630–2637 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1079–1087 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schimel, J. P. & Hättenschwiler, S. Nitrogen transfer between decomposing leaves of different N status. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1428–1436 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Finzi, A. C. & Canham, C. D. Non-additive effects of litter mixtures on net N mineralization in a southern New England forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 105, 129–136 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Makkonen, M. et al. Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1033–1041 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vitousek, P. M. & Hobbie, S. Heterotrophic nitrogen fixation in decomposing litter: patterns and regulation. Ecology 81, 2366–2376 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lummer, D., Scheu, S. & Butenschoen, O. Connecting litter quality, microbial community and nitrogen transfer mechanisms in decomposing litter mixtures. Oikos 121, 1649–1655 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lepori, F. & Malmqvist, B. Deterministic control on community assembly peaks at intermediate levels of disturbance. Oikos 118, 471–479 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nijboer, R. De Springendalse Beek. Macrofaunagemeeenschappen in de Periode 1970–1995 IBN-rapport 455 (Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Lecerf and P. García-Palacios for comments on the manuscript. We are grateful to numerous technicians in Montpellier (France) for building field microcosms, in Dübendorf (Switzerland) for water chemical analyses, and in Dübendorf and Göttingen (Germany) for grinding litter samples. We also thank M. Schindler for assistance, B. Buatois, R. Leclerc, P. Schevin and L. Sonié for analyses performed at the Plate-Forme d’Analyses Chimiques en Ecologie, LabEx CeMEB (France), G. Larocque for help with R code and our many colleagues at the field sites and research institutes for their support in various ways. This study is part of the BioCycle research project funded by the European Science Foundation (ESF) as part of its EUROCORES programme EuroDIVERSITY. BioCycle has been endorsed by DIVERSITAS as contributing towards their scientific research priorities in biodiversity science.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Björn Malmqvist: Deceased

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), CNRS, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier, France ,

    I. Tanya Handa & Stephan Hättenschwiler

  2. Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada,

    I. Tanya Handa

  3. Department of Ecological Science, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

    Rien Aerts, Matty P. Berg & Marika Makkonen

  4. Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands ,

    Frank Berendse, Jasper van Ruijven & Veronique C. A. Vos

  5. Department of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland,

    Andreas Bruder & Mark O. Gessner

  6. Institute of Integrative Biology (IBZ), ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland ,

    Andreas Bruder & Mark O. Gessner

  7. Georg August University Göttingen, J.F. Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Göttingen, Germany ,

    Olaf Butenschoen & Stefan Scheu

  8. Université de Toulouse, INP, UPS, EcoLab (Laboratoire Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement), 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France ,

    Eric Chauvet & Jérémy Jabiol

  9. CNRS, EcoLab, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France ,

    Eric Chauvet & Jérémy Jabiol

  10. Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Alte Fischerhütte 2, 16775 Stechlin, Germany ,

    Mark O. Gessner

  11. Department of Ecology, Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin), Ernst-Reuter-Platz 1, 10587 Berlin, Germany,

    Mark O. Gessner

  12. Climate Change Programme, Finnish Environment Institute, PO Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland ,

    Marika Makkonen

  13. Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden,

    Brendan G. McKie

  14. Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7050, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden,

    Brendan G. McKie

  15. Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands ,

    Edwin T. H. M. Peeters

  16. Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies & Zürich-Basel Plant Science Center, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland ,

    Bernhard Schmid

Authors
  1. I. Tanya Handa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rien Aerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Berendse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matty P. Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Bruder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Olaf Butenschoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric Chauvet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark O. Gessner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jérémy Jabiol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marika Makkonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Brendan G. McKie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Björn Malmqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Edwin T. H. M. Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Stefan Scheu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Bernhard Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Jasper van Ruijven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Veronique C. A. Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Stephan Hättenschwiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the experimental design, data acquisition and revision of the final manuscript. Statistical analyses were performed by I.T.H., B.S., J.V.R. and B.G.M., and the manuscript was written by I.T.H., S.H. and M.O.G.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Hättenschwiler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Net diversity, complementarity and selection effects of plant litter mixtures on N loss.

The net diversity effect is the deviation from the expected mean based on N loss measured from litter consisting of single species. The blue and brown circles show the mean effects (±s.e.m.) on N loss from litter mixtures in forest streams and on forest floors, respectively, in subarctic (SUB), boreal (BOR), temperate (TEM), Mediterranean (MED) and tropical (TRO) locations. Each circle to the right of the dashed lines shows the mean effect per ecosystem type (that is, aquatic versus terrestrial), as calculated across the three types of decomposer communities (n = 165 litter mixtures per location and ecosystem type; see Extended Data Table 3 for statistical analyses). The circles to the left of the dashed lines show the overall mean across all locations (n = 825 litter mixtures per ecosystem type).

Extended Data Table 1 Characteristics of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at five widely dispersed locations
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Plant functional types, species identity and litter quality traits
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Results of analyses of variance testing for the net diversity effect (NE), complementarity effect (CE) and selection effect (SE) on C loss (top) and N loss (bottom) from decomposing leaf litter*
Full size table
Extended Data Table 4 Characteristics of stream macroinvertebrate communities at the five tested locations*
Full size table
Extended Data Table 5 Full model output of the relative contributions of variance associated with diversity and sites to explain C and N loss
Full size table
Extended Data Table 6 Characteristics of soil fauna communities at the five tested locations*
Full size table
Extended Data Table 7 Analysis of variance testing for effects on total litter C loss (top) and N loss (bottom)
Full size table
Extended Data Table 8 Analysis of variance testing for the proportional change in total litter N content
Full size table
Extended Data Table 9 Experimental duration and richness of naturally occurring local litter species in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at each of five widely dispersed locations
Full size table

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Handa, I., Aerts, R., Berendse, F. et al. Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across biomes. Nature 509, 218–221 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13247

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13247

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing