Mull humus

Last updated
Mull humus profile in an oak forest Mull humus.jpg
Mull humus profile in an oak forest

Mull humus is distinguishable from the other terrestrial humus types moder, mor, amphi and tangel in characteristics, formation, nutrient cycling, productivity, etc. It is characterized by the granular structure of its A horizon and the absence of an OH horizon. [1] [2]

Contents

Characteristics

Mull is the product of the mixing activity of burrowing soil animals such as earthworms, ants, termites, moles or pocket gophers which create nests and burrows within the soil biomantle. [3] Mull displays a more rapid and complete litter decomposition. Due to the presence of various soil organisms, from microbes to mammals, and high biological activity in mull, the disappearance of plant litter is fast, and there are no distinct layers because thick organic horizons do not accumulate. [1] Conversely, the A horizon is well developed, resulting from the assemblage of humified organic matter with mineral particles. [4] Broadleaf tree species, the significant components in the deciduous forest ecosystems aligned with mull, appear to be effective in raising soil organic matter levels. [5] Also, plants under mull humus produce litters that are easier decomposable with a low C:N ratio, allowing nutrient release, preventing immobilization, and encouraging high bioturbation. [5] Moreover, a relatively complete decomposition relates to more completely oxidized organic acids, promoting a higher value of pH and base saturation in the soil. [6]

Formation

The formation of mull humus form results from various factors, including regional climate, parent rock, vegetation, and soil organisms. [7] Mull is present in deciduous forests, and its development is often associated with a mild climate in terms of warm temperature and moderate precipitation, also with rich soil parent materials. [8] Soil organisms, including invertebrates and microbes, are the agents for the intimate mixing of soil organic matter into the mineral soil rather than organic matter accumulation on the surface, leading to mull. [2]

Lumbricus terrestris, a mull-forming earthworm species Lumbricus terrestris 01 by-dpc.jpg
Lumbricus terrestris, a mull-forming earthworm species

Earthworms are the most widespread invertebrate group in the formation of mull. [8] They comminute microbially decomposed plant remains into small pieces and bury those residues into the soil, having significant roles in their decomposition [9] and in the formation of stable mineral-organic assemblages in the macro-structured A horizon. [10] The feeding and burrowing functions of the earthworms have a decisive influence on the control of soil organic matter levels. [10] Other agents may also contribute to incorporating soil organic matter into the mineral soil, such as white-rot fungi and bacteria belonging to the microbial group. [7] They act as essential decomposers, facilitating the breakdown process of organic residues and increasing their palatability to earthworms by decreasing their recalcitrant (lignin) and toxic (tannin) content. [11] However, even if mull formation by earthworms is well known from Charles Darwin's seminal work, [12] many other soil invertebrate and vertebrate animal groups can be involved in the formation of mull, depending on climate and past history of land colonization. Millipedes, in particular Polydesmida, have been described as mull-formers in old-growth forests of the Appalachians, [13] still not invaded by burrowing European earthworms. [14] In arid and semi-arid environments darkling beetles have conspicuous fossorial habits, creating mull-like biogenic granular structures. [15] Fossorial mammals (e.g. voles, prairie dogs, pocket gophers), contribute to the formation of mull through their excavating, feeding and defecating activities. [16]

The intensive bioturbation processes that create mull humus occur primarily within the soil biomantle, the upper organic-rich zone where biological mixing dominates soil formation. [17] The resulting intimate association of organic matter with mineral particles creates the characteristic granular structure and high soil fertility associated with mull. [18] [2]

Biodiversity and fertility

Mull is the cause and result of plant-soil relationships. Litter quality, soil nutrient availability, and organism activity are related. [7] Mull harbours a high biomass and species richness of soil fauna, ranging from megafauna to microfauna. [19] Those soil organisms have high nutrient requirements because they have high energy costs for capturing space and nutrients under high competition, explaining the fast use of nutrients. [20] Also, the variety of organisms reflects nutrient availability, which is necessary for the build-up of mull humus. Consequently, high nutrient availability and fast use of nutrients allow rapid cycling of nutrients. [8] Mull humus profiles are the seat of numerous disturbances linked to the burrowing, feeding and defecating activities of engineering species, [21] contributing to increase soil heterogeneity [22] and consequently soil biodiversity. [23]

A rapid nutrient cycling can further contribute to soil fertility and enrich aboveground and belowground biodiversity, indicating a high level of biodiversity and productivity. [8] Optimal plant growth depends on the degree of litter decomposition because litter provides most nutrients required by plants. [24] Associating with soil organisms, a positive feedback loop will be formed: the higher the litter quality, the faster organic matter decomposition, the faster nutrient cycling, and the faster vegetation growth. [7] In forests more vascular plants and less mosses cohabit in mull, compared with moder and mor. [25] However, too much nutrient availability may negatively impact plant biodiversity, because of either toxicity when in excess of plant nutrient requirements, [26] or exploitative competition [27] and allelopathy [28] from actively growing plant species with high nutrient requirements. However, the moderate level of nutrient availability provided by mull in the absence of external inputs (e.g. mineral fertilizers, manure) [29] optimizes plant biodiversity. [30]

Classification

In the British Columbian classification of humus forms, Mull is subdivided in Rhizomull and Vermimull for well-aerated (terrestrial) humus forms in forests and grasslands, Hydromull and Saprimull for poorly aerated (semi-terrestrial) humus forms in bogs and fens. [2]

In the German classification of humus forms, Mull is subdivided in L-mull and F-mull, each of them subdivided in numerous subtypes. [31]

In the French classification of humus forms, Mull is subdivided in Eumull, Mesomull, Oligomull, Dysmull and Amphimull. [1]

In HUMUSICA, a worldwide classification of humus forms, Mull is considered as a humus system (abbreviation of humus interaction system) and subdivided in Eumull, Mesomull, Oligomull and Dysmull as humus forms, while Amphimull is considered as a separate humus system. [32] They exhibit the following morphological characteristics:

The gradient of increasing contribution of organic layers to the humus profile, from Eumull to Dysmull, has been included in a numerical scale covering all lowland terrestrial humus forms, called Humus Index. The Humus Index is an ordinal scale which can be rank correlated with other parameters measured on soil or vegetation, and thus can be used as an indicator of soil health or forest stand development. It has been shown to covary with soil fertility, [33] forest management type and tree age, [34] pollution level, [35] and plant species richness. [25]

References

  1. 1 2 3 Brêthes, Alain; Brun, Jean-Jacques; Jabiol, Bernard; Ponge, Jean-François; Toutain, François (1995). "Classification of forest humus forms: a French proposal". Annales des Sciences Forestières. 52 (6): 535–46. doi: 10.1051/forest:19950602 .
  2. 1 2 3 4 Klinka, Karel; Green, R. N.; Trowbridge, R. L.; Lowe, L.E (1981). Taxonomic classification of humus forms in ecosystems of British Columbia: first approximation (PDF). Vancouver, British Columbia: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbia. Retrieved 13 October 2025.
  3. Thorp, James (March 1949). "Effects of certain animals that live in soils". The Scientific Monthly . 68 (3): 180–91. Bibcode:1949SciMo..68..180T . Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  4. Osman, Khan Towhid (2013). "Organic matter of forest soils". In Osman, Khan Towhid (ed.). Forest soils: properties and management. Berlin, Germany: Springer. pp. 63–76. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02541-4_4. ISBN   978-3-319-02541-4 . Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  5. 1 2 Prescott, Cindy E.; Frouz, Jan; Grayston, Sue J.; Quideau, Sylvie A.; Straker, Justin (2019). "Rehabilitating forest soils after disturbance". In Busse, Matt; Giardina, Christian P.; Morris, Dave M.; Page-Dumroese, Debbie S. (eds.). Global change and forest soils. Developments in Soil Science. Vol. 36. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. pp. 309–43. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63998-1.00013-6. ISBN   9780444639981. ISSN   0166-2481. S2CID   214319901 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  6. Briggs, Russell D. (2004). "The forest floor". In Burley, Jeffery; Evans, Julian; Youngquist, John A. (eds.). Encyclopedia of forest sciences. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. pp. 1223–27. doi:10.1016/B0-12-145160-7/00241-6. ISBN   9780121451608 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Ponge, Jean-François (February 2013). "Plant-soil feedbacks mediated by humus forms: a review". Soil Biology and Biochemistry . 57: 1048–60. Bibcode:2013SBiBi..57.1048P. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.019. S2CID   84606515 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Ponge, Jean-François (July 2003). "Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity". Soil Biology and Biochemistry . 35 (7): 935–45. Bibcode:2003SBiBi..35..935P. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00149-4. S2CID   44160220 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  9. McInerney, Michael; Bolger, Thomas (December 2000). "Decomposition of Quercus petraea litter: influence of burial, comminution and earthworms". Soil Biology and Biochemistry . 32 (14): 1989–2000. Bibcode:2000SBiBi..32.1989M. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00097-3 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  10. 1 2 Wolters, Volkmar (April 2000). "Invertebrate control of soil organic matter stability". Biology and Fertility of Soils. 31 (1): 1–19. Bibcode:2000BioFS..31....1W. doi:10.1007/s003740050618. S2CID   12522132 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  11. Schönholzer, Frank; Kohli, Lukas; Hahn, Dittmar; Daniel, Otto; Goez, Christiane; Zeyer, Josef (November 1998). "Effects of decomposition of leaves on bacterial biomass and on palatability to Lumbricus terrestris L." Soil Biology and Biochemistry . 30 (13): 1805–13. Bibcode:1998SBiBi..30.1805S. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00049-2 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  12. Darwin, Charles (1881). The formation of vegetable mould through the activity of earthworms, with observations on their habits (PDF). London, United Kingdom: John Murray. Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  13. Eaton, Theodore H. Jr (May 1943). "Biology of a mull-Forming millipede, Apheloria coriacea (Koch)". The American Midland Naturalist . 29 (3): 713–23. doi:10.2307/2421158. JSTOR   2421158 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  14. Kalisz, Paul J.; Powell, J. E. (1 October 2000). "Invertebrate macrofauna in soils under old growth and minimally disturbed second growth forests of the Appalachian Mountains of Kentucky". The American Midland Naturalist . 144 (2): 297–307. doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2000)144[0297:IMISUO]2.0.CO;2 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  15. Thacker, Hayden A.; Helbree, Daniel I. (1 July 2021). "Neoichnological study of two species of burrowing darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from larval to adult stages". Ichnos. 28 (4): 290–308. Bibcode:2021Ichno..28..290T. doi:10.1080/10420940.2021.1941001 . Retrieved 16 October 2025.
  16. Platt, Brian F.; Kolb, Dakota J.; Kunhardt, Christian G.; Milo, Scott P.; New, Lee G. (March–April 2016). "Burrowing through the literature: the impact of soil-disturbing vertebrates on physical and chemical properties of soil". Soil Science. 181 (3–4): 175–91. doi:10.1097/SS.0000000000000150 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  17. Zanella, Augusto; Ponge, Jean-François; Jabiol, Bernard; Sartori, Giacomo; Kolb, Eckart; Gobat, Jean-Michel; Le Bayon, Renée-Claire; Aubert, Michaël; De Waal, Rein; Van Delft, Bas; Vacca, Andrea; Serra, Gianluca; Chersich, Silvia; Andreetta, Anna; Cools, Nathalie; Englisch, Michael; Hager, Herbert; Katzensteiner, Klaus; Brêthes, Alain; De Nicola, Cristina; Testi, Anna; Bernier, Nicolas; Graefe, Ulfert; Juilleret, Jérôme; Banas, Damien; Garlato, Adriano; Obber, Silvia; Galvan, Paola; Zampedri, Roberto; Frizzera, Lorenzo; Tomasi, Mauro; Menardi, Roberto; Fontanella, Fausto; Filoso, Carmen; Dibona, Raffaella; Bolzonella, Cristian; Pizzeghello, Diego; Carletti, Paolo; Langohr, Roger; Cattaneo, Dina; Nardi, Serenella; Nicolini, Gianni; Viola, Franco (January 2018). "Terrestrial humus systems and forms: specific terms and diagnostic horizons". Applied Soil Ecology. 122 (Part 1): 56–74. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.07.005 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  18. Ponge, Jean-François (February 2013). "Plant-soil feedbacks mediated by humus forms: a review". Soil Biology and Biochemistry . 57: 1048–60. Bibcode:2013SBiBi..57.1048P. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.019 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  19. Petersen, Henning; Luxton, Malcolm (December 1982). "A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes". Oikos . 39 (2): 288–388. Bibcode:1982Oikos..39..288P. doi:10.2307/3544689. JSTOR   3544689 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  20. Vitousek, Peter (April 1982). "Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency". The American Naturalist . 119 (4): 553–72. Bibcode:1982ANat..119..553V. doi:10.1086/283931. S2CID   85128084 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  21. Bottinelli, Nicolas; Jouquet, Pascal; Capowiez, Yvan; Podwojewski, Pascal; Grimaldi, Michel; Peng, Xinhua (March 2015). "Why is the influence of soil macrofauna on soil structure only considered by soil ecologists?". Soil and Tillage Research. 146 (Part A): 118–24. Bibcode:2015STilR.146..118B. doi:10.1016/j.still.2014.01.007 . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  22. Mallen-Cooper, Max; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Eldridge, David J. (May 2019). "Global meta-analysis of soil-disturbing vertebrates reveals strong effects on ecosystem patterns and processes". Global Ecology and Biogeography . 28 (5): 661–79. Bibcode:2019GloEB..28..661M. doi:10.1111/geb.12877 . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  23. Thakur, Madhav P.; Phillips, Helen R. P.; Brose, Ulrich; De Vries, Franciska T.; Lavelle, Patrick; Loreau, Michel; Mathieu, Jérôme; Mulder, Christian; Van der Putten, Wim H.; Rillig, Matthias C.; Wardle, David A.; Bach, Elizabeth M.; Bartz, Marie L. C.; Bennett, Joanne M.; Briones, Maria J. I.; Brown, George; Decaëns, Thibaud; Eisenhauer, Nico; Ferlian, Olga; Guerra, Carlos António; König-Ries, Birgitta; Orgiazzi, Alberto; Ramirez, Kelly S.; Russell, David J.; Rutgers, Michiel; Wall, Diana H.; Cameron, Erin K. (April 2020). "Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity". Biological Reviews . 95 (2): 350–364. doi: 10.1111/brv.12567 . PMC   7078968 . PMID   31729831.
  24. Vinton, Mary Ann; Goergen, Erin M. (30 September 2006). "Plant-soil feedbacks contribute to the persistence of Bromus inermis in tallgrass prairie". Ecosystems. 9 (6): 967–76. Bibcode:2006Ecosy...9..967V. doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0107-5. S2CID   36245519 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  25. 1 2 Lalanne, Arnault; Bardat, Jacques; Lalanne-Amara, Fouzia; Gautrot, Thierry; Ponge, Jean-François (October 2008). "Opposite responses of vascular plant and moss communities to changes in humus form, as expressed by the Humus Index". Journal of Vegetation Science. 19 (5): 645–52. Bibcode:2008JVegS..19..645L. doi:10.3170/2007-8-18431 . Retrieved 17 October 2025.
  26. Eckard, Richard J. (29 October 2010). "The relationship between the nitrogen and nitrate content and nitrate toxicity potential of Lolium multiflorum". Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa . 7 (3): 174–178. doi:10.1080/02566702.1990.9648227 . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  27. Herbert, Darrell A.; Rastetter, Edward B.; Gough, Laura; Shaver, Gaius R. (2 April 2004). "Species diversity across nutrient gradients: an analysis of resource competition in model ecosystems". Ecosystems. 7 (3): 296–310. Bibcode:2004Ecosy...7..296H. doi:10.1007/s10021-003-0233-x . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  28. Wardle, David A.; Nilsson, Marie-Charlotte; Gallet, Christiane; Zackrisson, Olle (August 1998). "An ecosystem-level perspective of allelopathy". Biological Reviews . 73 (3): 305–19. doi:10.1017/S0006323198005192 (inactive 29 October 2025). Retrieved 17 October 2025.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of October 2025 (link)
  29. Klinka, Karel; Wang, Qingli; Carter, Reid E. (September 1990). "Relationships among humus forms, forest floor nutrient properties, and understory vegetation". Forest Science . 36 (3): 564–81. doi:10.1093/forestscience/36.3.564 . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  30. Lamont, Byron B. (November 2024). "The species richness-resource availability relationship is hump-shaped". Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 65 125824. Bibcode:2024PPEES..6525824L. doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2024.125824 . Retrieved 20 October 2025.
  31. Wachendorf, Christine; Frank, Tina; Broll, Gabriele; Beylich, Anneke; Milbert, Gerhard (28 July 2023). "A concept for a consolidated humus form description: an updated version of German humus form systematics". International Journal of Plant Biology . 14 (3): 658–86. doi: 10.3390/ijpb14030050 .
  32. Zanella, Augusto; Ponge, Jean-François; Jabiol, Bernard; Sartori, Giacomo; Kolb, Eckart; Le Bayon, Renée-Claire; Gobat, Jean-Michel; Aubert, Michaël; De Waal, Rein; Van Delft, Bas; Vacca, Andrea; Serra, Gianluca; Chersich, Silvia; Andreetta, Anna; Kõlli, Raimo; Brun, Jean-Jacques; Cools, Nathalie; Englisch, Michael; Hager, Herbert; Katzensteiner, Klaus; Brêthes, Alain; De Nicola, Cristina; Testi, Anna; Bernier, Nicolas; Graefe, Ulfert; Wolf, Ugo; Juilleret, Jérôme; Garlato, Andrea; Obber, Silvia; Galvan, Paola; Zampedri, Roberto; Frizzera, Lorenzo; Tomasi, Mauro; Banas, Damien; Bureau, Fabrice; Tatti, Dylan; Salmon, Sandrine; Menardi, Roberto; Fontanella, Fausto; Carraro, Vinicio; Pizzeghello, Diego; Concheri, Giuseppe; Squartini, Andrea; Cattaneo, Dina; Scattolin, Linda; Nardi, Serenella; Nicolini, Gianni; Viola, Franco (January 2018). "Terrestrial humus systems and forms: keys of classification of humus systems and forms". Applied Soil Ecology. 122 (Part 1): 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.012 . Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  33. Ponge, Jean-François; Chevalier, Richard; Loussot, Phiippe (November 2002). "Humus Index: an integrated tool for the assessment of forest floor and topsoil properties". Soil Science Society of America Journal . 66 (6): 1996–2001. doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.1996 . Retrieved 22 October 2025.
  34. Ponge, Jean-François; Chevalier, Richard (1 September 2006). "Humus Index as an indicator of forest stand and soil properties". Forest Ecology and Management . 233 (1): 165–75. Bibcode:2006ForEM.233..165P. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.022 . Retrieved 22 October 2025.
  35. Korkina, Irina N.; Vorobeichik, Evguenii L. (February 2018). "Humus Index as an indicator of the topsoil response to the impacts of industrial pollution". Applied Soil Ecology. 123: 455–63. Bibcode:2018AppSE.123..455K. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.025 . Retrieved 22 October 2025.