Continental-scale study finds wood decomposition rates rise with temperature and fall with human density, indicating complex ecological dynamics.
Plant litter decomposition in rivers is shaped by multiple environmental conditions, which are modified by riparian zone characteristics and human activities, thereby impacting in situ plant litter decomposition rates. However, disentangling the relative importance of these conditions for plant litter decomposition rates is challenging without large‐scale studies encompassing wide environmental and anthropogenic gradients. We carried out a continental‐scale study on plant litter decomposition in 72 river locations across 7 catchments in Europe (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden), representing wide gradients in climatic conditions, riparian zone characteristics, land‐use intensity, and human population density. We used remote sensing data and field surveys to quantify catchment, riparian, and river habitat characteristics. To assess decomposition rates, we used standardized wood sticks as a model substrate, representing a globally important source of organic matter in river systems. Wood decomposition rate (percent mass loss per day) increased by 4.3% per 1°C rise in mean annual air temperature but decreased by 3.4% per 10 people increase in population density (per 3.14 km 2 ), 2.3% per 100 mm increase in mean annual precipitation, and 0.5% per 1 m increase in channel width. Land‐use intensity and riparian zone characteristics showed no significant effects on wood decomposition rates across the studied gradients. Our results show that wood decomposition rates in the studied rivers are likely to increase linearly with ongoing global warming, reducing the longevity of wood substrates and their reliability as carbon sinks. However, this warming effect might be offset in rivers experiencing concurrent increases in precipitation and human population density. Consequently, the net effect of global change on wood decomposition rates in rivers may be difficult to predict.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonsson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: