DOI: 10.5061/dryad.35p39r6
title: Data from: Recovery of decomposition rates and decomposer invertebrates during rainforest restoration on disused pasture

description: Converting forest to pasture can alter the roles of biota in ecosystem
 functioning, while vegetation restoration should arguably assist
 functional recovery. Since tests of this are scarce, this study quantifies
 both litter decomposition rates and their association with decomposer
 invertebrates, across 25 sites representing different phases of
 deforestation and subsequent reforestation of rainforest. Open and closed
 (to exclude macro-invertebrates) mesh bags containing forest leaves were
 exposed in the field for up to eight months, and invertebrates were
 extracted from separate collections of ground surface litter. Sites
 spanned five vegetation categories (five sites in each): reference states
 of both old-growth forest and grazed-pasture; unassisted woody regrowth
 aged 20-50 years on former pasture; and assisted regeneration aged 1-3 and
 5-10 years after interventions were applied to similar regrowth.
 Decomposition rates in open-bags were about 50 % slower in pasture than
 old-growth forest, and abundances of macro- and meso-decomposer
 invertebrates were 95 % and 77 % lower respectively. However, in all
 restoration site-types, decomposition rates had recovered to 83 % of
 old-growth values, and abundances of invertebrate decomposers were similar
 in old-growth forest. Decomposer community composition at a broad
 taxonomic level differed strongly between pasture and all other vegetation
 types. Exclusion of macro-invertebrates decreased decomposition rates by
 only about 3.1 %, but decomposition rates in open-bags were significantly
 correlated (across sites) with abundances of both macro- and
 meso-decomposers, most strongly so for meso-decomposers. Drawing useful
 generalisations across studies is impeded by differing methodologies and
 because few include both agricultural and forest reference sites.
description: Stone.etal.2019.LitterMassLossMacro-invertebrate leaf litter mass loss data from 157 individual 25 x 25 cm, nylon mesh litter bags (mesh size 1 mm). 200 bags were deployed across 25 sites in pasture, mature rainforest and regrowth in sub-tropical Australia for five and eight months. However, some bags developed holes or went missing in the field and were excluded from analyses. Each bag contained leaves of five local tree species common in the study area, but collected from trees outside it in a mature, undamaged condition, one month prior to the experiment. The selected species represented a mix of soft and firm leaves and the pioneer, mid and late successional stages of regeneration: Toona ciliata, Ficus macrophylla, Macaranga tanarius, Castanospermum austral, and Acacia disparrima. Leaves of all species except A. disparrima were cut into 2 x 3 cm pieces to standardise leaf weight and size, and then oven-dried at 50 °C until constant weight, thereby obtaining dry weights of about 0.02 g per leaf-piece. About 4 g of each species was then placed into each bag, totalling about 20 g per bag. We also perforated half of the bags (100 of 200) by making 12, 1-2 cm cuts, six into each side. For each site, this gave four open bags (which allowed access by all sizes of invertebrate) and four closed bags (which excluded macro-invertebrates due to the 1 mm mesh size).Stone.etal.2019.DecomposerCompositionMacro- and meso-decomposer litter invertebrate composition data- Ambient litter invertebrates were sampled around the mesh leaf litter bags (see litter mass loss data), where we hand-collected a single 1 L litter sample from across the ground surface at each site (25 sites), five months after litter bag deployment. These were transferred to the laboratory within a few hours of collection, and invertebrates were extracted over 72 hours using Tullgren funnels and collected in ethanol-filled jars. Using a light microscope, we first grouped all invertebrates into two body size categories: macro (&gt;1 mm long and wide) and meso (&lt;1 mm long or wide) corresponding to the bag mesh size threshold. We also identified all to a level sufficiently fine to enable a dominant feeding guild (Stork 1987) to be assigned (for example, to Family for most beetles, to Infraorder for termites, to Class for centipedes); these guilds were decomposers (detritivores), predators, herbivores and fungivores. In some cases we chose the feeding guild known to be most common for a broader taxon. These data were then expressed as counts of individuals per site in each body size-feeding guild combination, at the Class or Order level.