No home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the tropical peat forests of Brunei Darussalam

No home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the tropical peat forests of Brunei Darussalam | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article No home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the tropical peat forests of Brunei Darussalam Colton Collins, Alexander R. Cobb, Rahayu S. Sukri, Jangarun Eri, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Aims Tropical peatlands have a globally important role as carbon sinks. How their waterlogged conditions and low nutrient status impact plant litter decomposition is not well-understood, despite decomposition processes underpinning carbon sequestration. Our study explored leaf litter decomposition between adjacent paired patches of intact tropical peat forests and kerangas (free-draining heath) forests in Brunei Darussalam and tested the ‘home-field advantage’ effect, which predicts that litter decomposes fastest in the environment it was sourced from due to pre-adaption of the decomposer community. Methods A litter reciprocal transplantation decomposition experiment was conducted across paired peat and kerangas plots using litter from five tree families (Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Dipterocarpaceae, and Myrtaceae), common to both forest types. Results Contrary to expectations, we found no significant difference in rates of mass or nutrient loss from decomposing litter between peat and kerangas forests irrespective of the litter’s origin, despite differences in environmental conditions between the two environments. We also found no evidence for home-field advantage in either forest. Litter nutrient concentration operated as a key predictor of decomposition, but this effect was independent of forest type. Conclusions The study suggests that differences in surface leaf litter decomposition are unlikely to greatly contribute to the high organic matter accumulation observed in peat forests relative to kerangas forests, indicating that other factors, such as woody debris, branches and tree trunks are more likely to be contributing to their belowground carbon sequestration. This emphasizes the need for further research to explore factors driving organic matter accumulation in tropical peatlands. carbon sequestration home-field advantage leaf litter decomposition litter nutrient concentration reciprocal transplant experiment tropical peatlands Figures Figure 1 Introduction Tropical peat forests are among the world’s most carbon (C) rich ecosystems, vastly surpassing most other forest types in C density per area (Page and Baird 2016). These ecosystems differ from temperate peatlands, as their peat is mainly formed by material from woody plants rather than from Sphagnum moss or from non-woody plants. Owing to perennial waterlogging, which retards the decomposition of wood, leaves, and roots, these environments have gradually amassed substantial organic deposits over millennia, which can result in the formation of peat layers of up to 20 meters thick (Anderson 1983). Globally tropical peat forests contain an estimated 105 Gt of C, about 30% of the C stock of tropical rainforests globally—despite occupying only about 0.25% of the earth’s land surface (Page et al. 2011). As crucial C repositories, these peatlands significantly influence the global C balance (Ribeiro et al. 2021). However, Southeast Asia, which contains approximately half of these tropical peatlands, has experienced dramatic peatland forest reduction due to deforestation, drainage, and burning over recent decades. Presently, less than 30% of the region’s peat forest cover remains (Murdiyarso et al. 2010; Hooijer et al. 2012; Miettinen et al. 2016; Mishra et al. 2021), transforming these ecosystems from C sinks to sources of greenhouse gases. Although tropical peat accumulation plays a critical role in global C sequestration (Harenda et al. 2018), the mechanisms driving this accumulation, specifically the influence of their waterlogged conditions and low nutrient status on the decomposition of plant litter, remain poorly understood. Both waterlogged and nutrient-poor conditions impede litter decomposition -- anoxia in saturated soils restricts the activity and diversity of aerobic decomposers, while nutrient limitation inhibits microbial and detritivore efficacy in breaking down organic matter (Swift et al. 1979; Laiho 2006; Baldrian 2017). This impairment of decomposition has the potential to lead to the formation of deep peat layers in the tropical peat swamp environment (Mishra et al. 2021). The ‘home-field advantage’ (HFA) hypothesis is relevant to understanding decomposition processes in the peat forest environment. It predicts that leaf litter decomposes more rapidly in the environment it originates from (‘home’) compared to other environments (‘away’), because soil microbial communities become specialized in the decomposition of leaf litter from the plants in their own environment (Hunt et al. 1988; Gholz et al. 2000; Austin et al. 2014). Several studies have tested for HFA using field-based reciprocal litter transplant experiments. Although there is much variation among these studies (St John et al. 2011; Veen et al. 2015a; Fanin et al. 2021), a review of data from studies conducted in temperate and tropical forests in North America, South America, Europe, and Hawaii show that HFA is common in forests and that litter decomposes, on average, 8% faster at home than away (Ayres et al. 2009). Home-field advantage in waterlogged forests, such as tropical peat swamp and freshwater swamp forests, is not well-explored or understood. However, in a peat swamp in Malaysia, a sclerophyllous species, Macaranga pruinosa (Euphorbiaceae) was found to decompose at similar rates in waterlogged areas and dry areas of the same habitat (Yule and Gomez 2009). Meanwhile, in a natural (non-peat) freshwater swamp forest in Singapore, leaf litter decomposition was found to be driven by physical traits which varied by species (Rahman et al. 2023), was impaired by waterlogged conditions, but was largely unimpacted by HFA (Lam et al. 2021). No direct comparisons of decomposition or HFA in tropical peat swamp forests with that in adjacent ecosystems have been performed to date, but such studies are necessary to enhance our mechanistic understanding of peat accumulation processes in tropical peat forests. Forests cover 72% of the total land area of Brunei, with 16% being peat forest that remains relatively undisturbed compared to other peat forests in Southeast Asia (Omar et al. 2022; Kalinaki et al. 2023). In the Belait District of Brunei, peat swamp forests typically form a mosaic with adjacent kerangas forests, whereas those in the Temburong region do not. The term ‘kerangas’, which originates from the local Iban language, describes the sandy-soiled heath forests of Borneo that are unsuitable for rice farming due to their infertility (Brunig 1974). Peat forests in Brunei grow on water-saturated organic deposits, often measuring between 8 m to 15 m in thickness (Kobayashi 2016). Conversely, kerangas forests thrive on well-draining, nutrient poor, white sands topped with a humus layer of up to 0.7 meters (Brunig 1974; Katagiri et al. 1991; MacKinnon and Hatta 2013; Din et al. 2015). The soils of both peat and kerangas forests are generally nutrient depleted (Din et al. 2015; Kobayashi 2016; Ikbal et al. 2023). However, our previous work in this study system (Collins et al. 2025) has shown that peat forest soils have higher concentrations of total C, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) than do kerangas forest soils, but lower amounts of labile forms of these elements such as ammonium (NH4+), total dissolved N (TN) and total dissolved organic C (TOC), (Table S1). Our earlier work in this system (Collins et al. 2025) has also shown that there are relatively few differences between the two forest types in forest structural attributes while there are significant differences between them in the relative abundance of Dipterocarpaceae and the stand basal area of Myrtaceae, other common plant families, such as Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Sapotaceae, do not differ significantly in either abundance or stand basal area (Table S2). This study system offers a valuable opportunity to investigate decomposition and HFA in a tropical context, where climate conditions and vegetation structure are relatively constant, but hydrological conditions and soil nutrients vary greatly. In this study, we set up a reciprocal leaf litter transplantation decomposition experiment between adjacent paired plots of peat and kerangas forest. This involved reciprocal transplantation of leaf litter from plants of each of five families that occur in all plots. The main aim of our research was to compare plant litter decomposition rates in peat and kerangas environments, and assess how it was affected by litter quality, home-field advantage, and soil nutrient status. We tested two hypotheses to accomplish this aim: (H1) Decomposition and nutrient release will overall be faster for litter placed in kerangas than in the peat because soil biological activity will be less impaired by waterlogging and nutrient limitation. Further, litter from kerangas vegetation will decompose and release nutrients faster regardless of where it is placed due to its expected higher litter quality. (H2) Home field advantage will mean that litter from both peat and kerangas vegetation will decompose more rapidly than expected in the environment from which it was collected (i.e., in peat and kerangas environments respectively). However, this advantage will be stronger in peat and for plant taxa that produce poorer quality litter because the microbes in the peat are better adapted for decomposing more recalcitrant litter. To further understand the factors that may drive HFA, we also used data on litter traits for each litter type we used, and previously collected soil nutrient data for each plot that the litter was sourced from and transplanted to (presented in Collins et al. 2025), to assess the ability of these variables to predict the magnitude of litter decomposition and home-field effects. In performing our study our ultimate goal was to contribute to a better understanding of how plant litter decomposition contributes to peat accumulating in tropical forest soils. Materials and methods Experimental design The plots that we used were the same as those used by Collins et al. (2025), and were established in the Badas and Labi Hills Forest Reserves, Belait District, Brunei Darussalam, Northwest Borneo. These forest reserves provide an ideal system for direct comparison of two forest types (peat and kerangas) as they consist of a mosaic of both ecosystem types. While there are areas of the Badas Forest Reserve that have been severely disturbed by anthropogenic drainage and fire, our study is limited to areas that have been subjected to minimal human disturbance. Briefly, we established nine pairs of plots, each pair consisting of a plot in kerangas forest and one in peat forest, for a total of 18 plots. Within a pair, the typical distance between peat and kerangas plots was 100 m, while the distance between each pair and the next nearest pair was always at least 300 m. A total of 12 plots (i.e., six pairs) were established in the Badas Forest Reserve while six plots (i.e., three pairs) were established in the Labi Forest Reserve (Fig. S1). Further details about the plots, and vegetation measurements performed within them, are given in Collins et al. (2025). Litterbags We collected litter for use in litterbags from each plot in December 2021 to better understand decomposition and nutrient release of plant families across the two tropical forest types. As described in Collins et al. (2025) we identified litter to the family level, as species-level characterization was not feasible due to the very high species diversity that characterizes these forests. This family-level approach provided a practical unit for comparing differences in home field advantage between the two forest types, given that most species or genera were present in only a small subset of the plots. Notably we did not observe any tree species or genera that were found in all peat and kerangas plots, or that were exclusively present in all peat plots and absent from all kerangas plots, or vice versa, which is consistent with what has been found in overviews of floral diversity of Southeast Asian peat forests (Giesen et al. 2018). In our previous study (Collins et al. 2025), a list was compiled for each plot to identify taxa that occur in all peat and kerangas plots, and in doing this we found six tree families (Dipterocarpaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae and Rubiaceae) that occurred in all peat and kerangas plots. From this, five tree families (excluding Rubiaceae) were selected based on their abundance across all peat and kerangas plots to ensure a sufficient sample size of leaf material for collection. Litter from plants of each of the five families was collected in December 2021 from all 18 plots. The collection of tree litter was facilitated by gently shaking tree stems to prompt abscission. From each plot, two grams of oven-dried litter from each family were placed individually into heat-sealed polypropylene (PPE) mesh bags (15 x 15 cm, 1-mm mesh). Four litterbags were prepared for each of the five families in each of the 18 plots for a total of 360 bags. Two bags for each family in each plot were placed in its “home” plot while two bags for each family in each plot were placed in its paired “away” plot. Litterbags were strung along a steel cable and pegged to the surface of each plot directly on top of the litter layer. To standardize micro-topographic conditions among plots, litterbags were always placed in transitional areas between hummocks (drier, higher ground) and hollows (waterlogged depressions). While the litterbags were not submerged at the time of placement, they experienced anoxic conditions sporadically during the year due to fluctuations in the water table influenced by seasonal rainfall patterns. In November 2022, after 11 months of decomposition, all litter bags were collected, cleaned, oven-dried at 60 o C for 72 hours, and then weighed. Percent mass loss was calculated as: % Mass Loss = 100 × ((Initial Dry Weight - Final Dry Weight) / Initial Dry Weight)) For each family in each plot, the total P, total N, and total C concentrations of both the litter prior to setting up the decomposition experiment and litter after decomposition were measured using an oven-dried subsample of each soil composite. Total P was determined using the molybdenum blue method with ascorbic acid (Murphy and Riley, 1962). This involved sample ignition (550°C for 1 h) and extraction in 1 M H 2 SO 4 (1:50 soil/solution ratio, 16 h), with PO 4 detection by automated molybdate colorimetry using a Tecan Spark Multimode Microplate Reader (Tecan Group, Switzerland). Total N and total C concentrations were measured using the Dumas method determined by CHNS elemental analyzer (Elementar, Germany, model Vario El Cube). Litter C to N, C to P, and N to P ratios were determined from these values. Percent release for N and P due to litter decomposition was calculated as: % Release = 100 X ((CB* Initial Dry Weight) - (CA* Final Dry Weight))/ (CB* Initial Dry Weight)) where CB is the concentration of N or P in litter prior to setting up the decomposition experiment and CA is the concentration of N of P in litter after decomposition. Data analysis Family tree abundance and stand basal area were analysed using paired t-tests with each plot pair as a replicate block to test for differences between peat and kerangas forest. To test how habitat type and family affected litter nutrient content prior to setting up the decomposition experiment, we used linear mixed models (LMM), in the same manner as used in Collins et al. (2025), with habitat type, family, and their interaction as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks to control for non-independence of the five observations within each plot, as well as the non-independence of observations within each block of paired plots. When significant differences were found at P = 0.05, Tukey’s post hoc test was conducted to compare differences between means. To test the influence of plot from which the litter as sourced (‘litter source’), plot where the litter was placed (‘litter placed’), family, and their interactions on litter percent mass loss, N release, and P release, we used LMMs with source litter, litter placed, family, and their interactions as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test to compare mean differences. To investigate the drivers of HFA, we employed a similar approach to that described by Veen et al.(2015b). We assessed the strength and direction of home-field effects on litter mass loss, N release, and P release using the concept of additional decomposition at home (ADH), adapted from Ayres et al. (2009). Additional decomposition at home was calculated based on the following set of four equations, ADH i = HDD i – ADD i – H, HDD i = (D iI -D jI ), ADD i = (D iJ -D jJ ), H = HDD i /( n -1) Here, ADH i represents the additional mass loss, N release, or P release experienced by litter type i when decomposing in its home environment (I) compared to when it decomposes in an away environment (J). It measures how much more efficient decomposition is in the home environment, which indicates whether there is a home-field advantage (HFA) for that litter type. A positive value of ADHi indicates a home-field advantage, while a negative or zero value indicates no advantage or a disadvantage. HDD i corresponds to the difference between the mass loss, N release, or P release (D) of litter type i in its home environment (I) and that of foreign litter, type j, from environment J, decomposing in the same home environment (I). ADD i represents the difference between the mass loss, N release, or P release (D) of litter i in environment J and the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type j in environment J. D iI denotes the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type i in environment I, D jI refers to the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type j in environment I, D iJ represents the mass loss of litter type i in environment J, and D jJ corresponds to the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type J in environment J. H represents the sum of all HDD i values across all litter types, divided by n-1 (where n represents the total number of litter types). This provides an overall measure of home-field advantage across the study. To test the influence of habitat, family, and their interaction on the ADH percent litter mass loss, ADH percent N release, and ADH percent P release, we used LMM with habitat, family, and their interaction as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks to control for non-independence of the five observations within each plot, as well as the non-independence of observations within each block of paired plots. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test to compare mean differences. To further understand the factors that may drive litter decomposition HFA, we used Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r; N = 18) to examine the relationships of percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release, and of ADH for percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release, with initial litter nutrient variables, as well as with plot level soil nutrient levels using data from the same plots presented in Collins et al. (2025). Statistical analyses were performed in R (R Core Team 2021) using the lme4 package for mixed models (Bates et al. 2015) and emmeans package for mean comparison (Lenth 2021). Results Senescent litterfall Overall, there were no differences in litter nutrient properties between peat and kerangas for any of the five families, and there were no interactive effects between forest type and family (Table 1). However, there were often differences among families. Specifically, litter N and P concentration differed significantly among the 5 plant families in both peat and kerangas habitats while C:N differed among families only in kerangas, while C concentration, C:P and N:P were invariant among families (Tables 2, 3). Overall, the lowest litter N and P concentration occurred for Myrtaceae. In peat, Myrtaceae has at least 25% lower N and 20% lower P concentrations than the other families, while in kerangas, Myrtaceae has at least 27% lower N, 20% lower P concentrations, and 16.8% higher C:N than all the other families. In peat the highest litter N and P was found for Fabaceae and Euphorbiaceae respectively. Meanwhile in kerangas the highest senescent litter N concentration occurred for Fabaceae and Lauraceae, while the highest P concentration occurred for Euphorbiaceae. Table 1: The influence of peat versus kerangas (‘habitat’), family, and their interaction on senescent litterfall tested in linear mixed models while accounting for random variations within the Block and Plot levels. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P < 0.05. Response Variables Habitat Family Habitat * Family F d.f. P F d.f. P F d.f. P %N 1.8 1 0.213 6.5 4 <0.001 1.5 4 0.220 %P 1.1 1 0.315 9.9 4 <0.001 0.1 4 0.972 % C 4.2 1 0.075 0.6 4 0.640 0.5 4 0.759 C:N 3.7 1 0.089 2.3 4 0.072 0.8 4 0.547 C:P 2.5 1 0.152 7.5 4 <0.001 0.6 4 0.648 N:P 2.6 1 0.143 1.7 4 0.155 1.1 4 0.378 For habitat, family and their interaction, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8, 64, and 64 respectively (Kenward-Roger method). Table 2: Senescent litterfall nutrient content for each family. Values are means averaged across all plots ± SE (N = 18). Different letters among families and values in boldface indicate statistically significantly different means at P < 0.05 (Tukey’s post hoc test). Response Variable Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Lauraceae Dipterocarpaceae Myrtaceae Peat % N Initial 1.00 ± 0.07 ab 1.25 ± 0.08 a 1.13 ± 0.1 ab 1.21 ± 0.17 ab 0.80 ± 0.04 b % P Initial 0.084 ± 0.008 a 0.080 ± 0.003 a 0.075 ± 0.003 ab 0.072 ± 0.003 ab 0.060 ± 0.003 b % C Initial 45.3 ± 2.7 47.7 ± 3.2 51.5 ± 0.9 49.7 ± 2.6 44.6 ± 4.1 C:N 46.7 ± 3.6 39.2 ± 3.5 51.5 ± 9.0 45.8 ± 4.6 57.7 ± 6.8 C:P 557.6 ± 42.2 599.0 ± 39.0 696.4 ± 44.3 690.3 ± 40.0 736.4 ± 54.8 N:P 12.3 ± 1.1 15.7 ± 0.8 15.3 ± 1.4 16.9 ± 2.5 13.7 ± 1.2 Kerangas % N Initial 1.10 ± 0.13 a 1.11 ± 0.12 a 1.11 ± 0.04 a 0.89 ± 0.06 ab 0.70 ± 0.09 b % P Initial 0.087 ± 0.005 a 0.086 ± 0.006 a 0.079 ± 0.006 ab 0.073 ± 0.004 ab 0.062 ± 0.002 b % C Initial 53.9 ± 3.1 53.1 ± 4.6 54.5 ± 3.7 52.7 ± 4.7 53.0 ± 2.3 C:N 68.7 ± 23.4 55.0 ± 10.3 50.1 ± 4.3 62.2 ± 7.1 87.8 ± 12.7 C:P 639.6 ± 55.4 ab 628.9 ± 63.0 b 711.9 ± 57.4 ab 719.0 ± 53.0 ab 864.1 ± 41.1 a N:P 12.7 ± 1.6 12.9 ± 1.2 14.6 ± 1.0 12.6 ± 1.2 11.4 ± 1.4 For habitat and family, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8 and 64, respectively (Kenward-Roger method). Table 3: The influence of source litter, where litter is placed, family, and their interactions on litter percent mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release in linear mixed models. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P < 0.05. % Mass Loss % N Release % P Release F P F P F P d.f. Source Litter 1.6 0.238 3.2 0.112 0.1 0.768 1 Litter Placed 2.2 0.144 0.8 0.368 0.2 0.634 1 Family 13.1 <0.001 6.5 <0.001 14.6 <0.001 4 Source Litter * Litter Placed 0.9 0.349 0.2 0.648 0.0 0.947 1 Source Litter * Family 0.7 0.605 1.6 0.181 1.0 0.403 4 Litter Placed * Family 2.3 0.057 1.2 0.332 2.5 0.047 4 Source Litter * Litter Placed * Family 0.7 0.609 0.1 0.988 0.6 0.680 4 For litter placed and family, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 144 while for source litter the degrees of the denominator degrees of freedoms are eight. Decomposition and home-field advantage Litter mass loss was significantly affected by where litter was sourced and plant family (Table 3). Generally, mass loss was higher for litter sourced from kerangas plots than that from peat plots and the highest litter mass loss occurred for Euphorbiaceae while the lowest mass loss was for Myrtaceae (Fig. 1a). For the five plant families examined, no significant differences between peat and kerangas were observed for N release (N%) and P release (%P) (Table 3, Fig. 1b-c). However, N release and P release were significantly affected by plant family. Overall, the highest litter N release occurred for Euphorbiaceae while the lowest N release was for Myrtaceae. Similarly, the highest litter P release occurred for Euphorbiaceae and Fabaceae while the lowest P release was for Myrtaceae. There were no significant interactions between source litter and litter placed, indicating that there were no interactions between the origin of the litter and the away environment and therefore no HFA effects (Table 3). Additional decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release was not affected by habitat, plant family, and their interaction (Table 4) and was not significantly different from zero as follows: for mass loss (t = 1.7, d.f. = 89, P = 0.088), for N release (t = 1.2, d.f. = 89, P = 0.247), and for P release (t = -1.0, d.f. = 89, P = 0.335). Table 4: The influence of peat versus kerangas (‘habitat’), family, and their interaction on the additional decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release test in linear mixed models. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P < 0.05. F d.f. P % Mass loss Habitat 0.7 1 0.436 Family 2.4 4 0.059 Habitat* Family 0.1 4 0.983 % Nitrogen Release Habitat 0.9 1 0.364 Family 0.5 4 0.740 Habitat * Family 1.7 4 0.172 % Phosphorus Release Habitat 1.2 1 0.307 Family 0.4 4 0.797 Habitat * Family 0.7 4 0.591 Notes: F = F -value, d.f. = degrees of freedom, P = value. For habitat, family and their interaction, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8, 64, and 64 respectively (Kenward-Roger method). Relationship with litter and soil nutrients Litter mass loss increased with increasing litter P, soil N:P, and soil NH 4 + while it decreased with increasing litter C:P, soil C, and soil C:P (Table 5). In contrast, ADH for mass loss was negatively related to litter P but was unrelated to any other litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Litter N release increased with increasing litter N, P, C:P, and N:P and decreased with litter C:N, but was unrelated to any soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Meanwhile ADH for N release increased with increasing litter C:N and decreased with increasing litter N, but was unrelated to any other litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Litter P release increased with increasing litter N, P, C, and soil N, while it decreased with increasing litter C:P and N:P ratios (Table 6). In contrast, ADH for P release increased with increasing soil C:N and decreased with increasing soil N but was otherwise unrelated to any litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Discussion We found no difference in decomposition rates and nutrient release between litter placed in kerangas forest and that placed in peat forest. We also found that litter sourced from kerangas vegetation did not decompose or release nutrients faster than that from peat vegetation regardless of where it is placed. Furthermore, we found no home field advantage in either forest type. Despite this, we did find that litter nutrient concentrations were strong predictors of litter mass loss and nutrient release across litter types. These findings are now discussed to enhance our understanding of how plant litter decomposition may contribute to peat accumulation in tropical forest soils. Decomposition in peat and kerangas forests Contrary to our first hypothesis, we found that mass loss and nutrient release rates were comparable for litter placed in kerangas forest and in peat forest. This occurred despite the litterbags placed in the peat experiencing periods of waterlogged and anoxia which those in the kerangas did not, suggesting that the peat environment supports microbes that are adapted to efficiently break down the leaf litter in those conditions (Andersen et al. 2013). Our findings are consistent with Moore and Basiliko (2006) which showed that decomposition rates are not always faster in well-drained habitats than in waterlogged habitats that experience a similar climate. In contrast to our hypothesis, we also found that litter sourced from kerangas vegetation did not decompose and release nutrients faster than that from peat vegetation in either forest type. In a global data analysis, Veen (2015a) found dissimilarity in litter quality between ‘home’ and ‘away’ sites as a key factor influencing the differing decomposition rates across habitats, whereas conversely our lack of differences in decomposition between kerangas and peat litter is indicative of a lack of difference in litter quality between the two habitats. Conversely, decomposition varied significantly across plant families in both habitat types, with Euphorbiaceae decomposing fastest and Myrtaceae decomposing slowest, in line with their high and low litter N and P contents, respectively (Fig. 1a and Table 3). This means that most of the variability in litter decomposition in our study system is driven by variation in traits among taxa within forest types (Cornwell et al. 2008, Richardson et al. 2008) rather than by variation among habitats. Table 5: Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r; N = 18) of percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release versus initial litter nutrient and soil nutrient variables: nitrogen content (N) , phosphorus content (P), carbon content (C), carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), carbon to phosphorus ratio (C:P), and nitrogen to phosphorus ratio (N:P). Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P < 0.05. % Mass Loss % N Release % P Release r ( P ) r ( P ) r ( P ) Litter N 0.078 (0.296) 0.629 (<0.001) 0.151 (0.043) P 0.294 (<0.001) 0.276 (<0.001) 0.475 (<0.001) C 0.007 (0.922) 0.035 (0.641) 0.267 (<0.001) C:N 0.105 (0.3230 -0.538 (<0.001) 0.056 (0.453) C:P -0.178 (0.093) 0.191 (0.010) -0.156 (0.036) N:P -0.138 (0.194) 0.487 (<0.001) -0.151 (0.043) Soil N 0.047 (0.536) -0.045 (0.548) 0.157 (0.035) P -0.083 (0.270) -0.089 (0.233) 0.095 (0.204) C -0.156 (0.037) 0.083 (0.271) 0.058 (0.440) C:N -0.179 (0.016) 0.108 (0.150) -0.044 (0.558) C:P -0.019 (0.797) 0.146 (0.051) -0.109 (0.144) N:P 0.156 (0.037) -0.100 (0.179) 0.046 (0.542) - NO3 -0.107 (0.153) 0.024 (0.748) 0.033 (0.664) + NH4 0.153 (0.040) -0.087 (0.248) 0.009 (0.904) Notes: r = correlation coefficient, P = P -value. Home-field advantage (HFA) in litter decomposition Contrary to our second hypothesis, we observed no evidence for HFA in either peat or kerangas forest, and therefore no evidence to support our hypothesis that HFA will be stronger in peat or for plant taxa that produce poorer quality litter. This is likely due to high tree diversity in both environments which could prevent decomposer communities from specializing on particular litter types, thus limiting HFA (Lam et al.2021). Our findings are in line with studies that found no consistent HFA effects in freshwater swamp forests in Singapore (Lam et al. 2021), and a neotropical heath forest in northern Brazil (de Alencar et al. 2022), both of which are species rich systems. Our findings contrast, however, with an analogous study in a forest with lower tree diversity which found individual tree species to create a home-field advantage for their own litter through their effects on soil properties (Vivanco and Austin 2008), and one that observed a positive HFA effect in a tropical peat forest dominated by a single species of palm in Panama (Hoyos-Santillan et al. 2018). This suggests that HFA may only occur in forests (including peat forests) that have a lower number of (co)dominant species than are present in our study area. Despite the challenging anoxic conditions in peat, which may slow or halt decomposition below the water table, microbes would appear to be as effective in maintaining decomposition as are microbes in kerangas forests. The presence of these microbes in peat forests is further supported by the work of Lupascu et al. (2020) which measured an average soil respiration rate of 359 mg CO 2 m -2 hr -1 on the same peat dome as used in our study. Although this rate does not differentiate between plant (root) and microbial respiration (Hanson et al. 2000; Kuzyakov, 2006), it suggests that significant microbial activity is nevertheless occurring. Table 6: Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r; N = 18) of additional decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release versus initial litter nutrient content and soil nutrient variables: nitrogen content (N) , phosphorus content (P), carbon content (C), carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), carbon to phosphorus ratio (C:P), and nitrogen to phosphorus ratio (N:P). Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P <0.05. ADH % Mass Loss ADH % N Release ADH % P Release r ( P ) r ( P ) r ( P ) Litter N -0.153 (0.150) -0.214 (0.043) -0.051 (0.636) P -0.217 (0.040) -0.090 (0.401) -0.094 (0.380) C -0.083 (0.435) 0.101 (0.342) 0.065 (0.543) C:N 0.079 (0.460) 0.316 (0.002) -0.012 (0.911) C:P 0.102 (0.339) 0.142 (0.182) 0.100 (0.347) N:P -0.005 (0.964) -0.169 (0.112) 0.021 (0.847) Soil N -0.105 (0.327) -0.032 (0.768) -0.173 (0.103) P 0.079 (0.461) 0.108 (0.310) 0.031 (0.769) C 0.080 (0.455) -0.080 (0.455) 0.193 (0.068) C:N 0.131 (0.220) -0.071 (0.508) 0.269 (0.010) C:P -0.051 (0.634) -0.192 (0.069) 0.025 (0.814) N:P -0.173 (0.102) 0.014 (0.892) -0.314 (0.003) NO3- -0.131 (0.217) -0.191 (0.071) 0.011 (0.919) NH4+ -0.147 (0.166) 0.043 (0.686) -0.165 (0.119) Notes: r = correlation coefficient, P = P -value. Role of litter traits and soil nutrient status in driving HFA We found that litter nutrients (and to a lesser extent soil nutrients) served as predictors of litter mass loss, N release, and P release, in part because those families that decomposed fastest had higher litter N and P than those that decomposed slowest. Despite this, litter and soil nutrient properties were generally unable to predict HFA. This limited predictive power is likely due to the low level of dissimilarity in plant community composition at least at the family level (Table S3) and in soil properties (Table S1) between ‘home’ and ‘away’ sites, given that dissimilarity in these types of attributes across sites are the most important drivers of home field-effects (Veen et al. 2015a; Oliva et al. 2023). Our results therefore contrast with one recent study suggesting that HFA effects vary across some ecosystems as a result of changes in soil litter quality and the efficiency of decomposers within soil communities (Wang et al. 2020) but agree with another showing that home-field effects can be generally independent of variation in climate conditions and soil properties (Veen et al. 2015b). The finding that family-level influences on leaf traits are stronger than site-specific effects suggests that these traits are deeply phylogenetically conserved. Traits like LMA, LDMC, and P resorption appear to be genetically controlled, showing limited plasticity and making them less adaptable to variations in environmental conditions (Wright et al. 2004; Donovan et al. 2011). These low-plasticity traits may have evolved within plant families to be well-suited to a narrow range of aboveground environmental conditions, which would lead to consistency in trait expression across sites, and thereby ecological processes that are impacted by these traits such as plant litter decomposability. Further, both forest types are comparable in characteristics such as tree abundance, stand basal area, ground cover, and diversity, despite significant differences in soil conditions between the waterlogged peat and well-draining kerangas sites. This similarity aboveground likely reduces the selective pressure for leaf trait adjustments between sites, thereby further supporting the consistency of family-level traits. These findings highlight how evolutionary history has shaped functional traits within lineages to remain stable across varying conditions (Ackerly 2003), suggesting that aboveground habitat uniformity can reinforce trait conservation even amid differing soils. Carbon accumulation in peat forests Our study explored the decomposition processes that could potentially underpin peat accumulation in tropical forests, by highlighting that rates of plant litter decomposition and nutrient release are similar in both waterlogged peat and well-drained kerangas forest, and that peat accumulation is therefore unlikely to be driven by differences in the rates of decomposition of freshly fallen leaf litter between the two environments. Additionally, the lack of HFA in both peat and kerangas forests suggests that peat accumulation is not affected by differences in HFA and therefore the pre-adaption of the decomposer communities between the two environments. Overall, our findings show that initial leaf litter decomposition processes, and the traits that underpin these processes, do not contribute to organic matter accumulation in peat forests, despite a widespread view that these are important determinants of soil C sequestration (Berg and Meenteneyer 2002; Wardle et al. 2004). What causes organic matter to accumulate in peat forests but not in kerangas forests, given their similar leaf litter decomposition rates and leaf litter qualities, and the absence of HFA? One possibility is that the activity of larger soil fauna such as termites, which are important drivers of decomposition in tropical forests (Seibold et al. 2001; Zanne et al. 2022) could be impeded by anoxic conditions and waterlogging in peat forests (Coyle et al. 2017; Mishra et al. 2021). The effects of these fauna were excluded in this experiment due to the use of 1 mm mesh litterbags (Bradford et al. 2002). A second possibility is that while this study focused on leaf litter, a substantive proportion of litter in these ecosystems consists of wood and roots (Andriesse 1988; Ong et al. 2015), whose quantity and quality could potentially vary between peat and kerangas forests. Recent studies suggest that the more recalcitrant nature of wood and roots, particularly in waterlogged peat soils, leads to slower decomposition rates, contributing to long-term soil organic matter (SOM) accumulation (Chimner and Ewel 2004; Chimner and Ewel 2005; Lavallee et al. 2020). A third possibility is that the litter initially accumulates on the ground surface (which is where our litter bags were placed) and in peat forest this surface is less consistently waterlogged than deeper in the soil profile. It could be that litter material that remains undecomposed after the first year or two subsequently integrates into the deeper soil layers where it encounters more consistently waterlogged and anoxic conditions which impedes further breakdown (Frolking et al. 2010). This is supported by findings that SOM accumulation in tropical peatlands is less a function of fresh litter decomposition and more dependent on the long-term preservation of organic materials in anaerobic conditions (Hoyt et al. 2019). Conclusions Our results highlight that despite waterlogged and anoxic conditions in peat forest, there is little difference between peat and kerangas environments in leaf litter quality or the decomposition processes that we studied, and no pre-adaption of the decomposer community in either forest type to promote decomposition of litter sourced it. Despite their similarities, peat forests, which are rich in biodiversity and dense in C, are severely threatened ecosystems. This necessitates the maintenance and restoration of their hydrology to preserve their ecosystem functions and C storage potential, particularly in the face of land use changes that lower groundwater levels and thereby lead to large losses of C through aeration and accelerated breakdown of the peat (Holden et al. 2004; Li et al. 2007). Ultimately these forests are critical C sinks, but contrary to studies pointing to leaf litter quality and initial decomposition of leaf litter driving C storage in many ecosystems (García-Palacios et al. 2013; Wieder et al. 2009), we find little evidence that this contributes to the enormous accumulation of organic matter in peatlands in the absence of human disturbances. As such, there is a need to explore other drivers to better understand processes that lead to this accumulation. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors thank the Brunei Forestry Department for permission to conduct research. They thank Jeffery Muli anak Incham and Ramasamy anak Zulkiflee. They also thank Sylvia Tan of Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University for assistance in the field. They thank Salwana Jaafar, Kenny Png Guochen, Chung Wing, and Lu Chuansen Leon for assistance with processing lab samples. Author Contributions Colton Collinscarried out the study, contributed to statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. David A. Wardle and Alexander R. Cobb designed the study, assisted with statistical analysis, and contributed to the manuscript draft. Jangarun Eri led plot selection and identified all plant specimens in the study. Rahayu S. Sukri led project administration. All authors read and approved the submitted version. Funding This research was supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore through the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology’s Center for Environmental Sensing and Modeling interdisciplinary research program and through grant no. NRF2019-ITC001-001. Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Ackerly, D. D. (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int J Plant Sci 164: S165-S184. https://doi.org/10.1086/368401 Andersen, R., Chapman, S. J., Artz, R. R. E. (2013) Microbial communities in natural and disturbed peatlands: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 57: 979- 994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.003 Anderson, J.A.R., 1983. The tropical peat swamps of western Malesia. In: Gore, A.J.P. (Ed.), Ecosystems of the World: Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. 4B, Regional Studies. Elsevier, New York, pp. 181-199. Andriesse, J. P. (1988). Nature and management of tropical peat soils (No. 59). Food & Agriculture Org. Austin, A. T., Vivanco, L., González‐Arzac, A., & Pérez, L. I. (2014). There's no place like home? An exploration of the mechanisms behind plant litter–decomposer affinity in terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 204: 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12959 Ayres, E., Steltzer, H., Simmons, B. L., Simpson, R. T., Steinweg, J. M., Wallenstein, M. D., ... & Wall, D. H. (2009). Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 41: 606-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.022 Baldrian, P. (2017). Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41: 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuw040 Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. J. Stat Softw 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Berg, B., & Meentemeyer, V. (2002). Litter quality in a north European transect versus carbon storage potential. Plant Soil 242: 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019637807021 Bradford, M. A., Tordoff, G. M., Eggers, T., Jones, T. H., & Newington, J. E. (2002). Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition. Oikos 99: 317-323. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990212.x Brunig, E. F. (1974). Ecological studies in the kerangas forests of Sarawak and Brunei, Borneo Literature Bureau for the Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching, Malaysia. Chimner, R. A., & Ewel, K. C. (2004). Differences in carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated Micronesian tropical peatlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 12: 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-004-0255-y Chimner, R. A., & Ewel, K. C. (2005). A Tropical Freshwater Wetland: II. Production, Decomposition, and Peat Formation. Wetl Ecol Manag 13: 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-005-0965-9 Collins, C., Cobb, A. R., Sukri, R. S., Eri, J., & Wardle, D. A. (2025). Floristic and soil properties of co-occurring peat and kerangas forests in Brunei Darussalam. J Trop Ecol 41: e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467425000112 Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H., Amatangelo, K., Dorrepaal, E., Eviner, V. T., Godoy, O., ... & Westoby, M. (2008). Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11: 1065-1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x Coyle, D. R., Nagendra, U. J., Taylor, M. K., Campbell, J. H., Cunard, C. E., Joslin, A. H., ... & Callaham Jr, M. A. (2017). Soil fauna responses to natural disturbances, invasive species, and global climate change: Current state of the science and a call to action. Soil Biol Biochem 110: 116-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.03.008 de Alencar, M. I., Belo, A. Y., Silva, J. L., Asato, A. E., Gomes, E. F., de Oliveira, V. S., ... & Caliman, A. (2022). Hard to predict! No clear effects of home-field advantage on leaf litter decomposition in tropical heath vegetation. J Trop Ecol 38: 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467422000384 Din, H., Metali, F., & Sukri, R. S. (2015). Tree diversity and community composition of the Tutong white sands, Brunei Darussalam: a rare tropical heath forest ecosystem. Int. J Ecol 2015: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/807876 Donovan, L. A., Maherali, H., Caruso, C. M., Huber, H., & de Kroon, H. (2011). The evolution of the worldwide leaf economics spectrum. New Phytol 191: 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.11.011 Fanin, N., Lin, D., Freschet, G. T., Keiser, A. D., Augusto, L., Wardle, D. A., & Veen, G. F. (2021). Home‐field advantage of litter decomposition: from the phyllosphere to the soil. New Phytol 231: 1353-1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17475 Frolking, S., Roulet, N. T., Tuittila, E., Bubier, J. L., Quillet, A., Talbot, J., & Richard, P. J. H. (2010). A new model of Holocene peatland net primary production, decomposition, water balance, and peat accumulation. Earth Syst Dyn 1: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-1-1-2010 García‐Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J., & Wall, D. H. (2013). Climate and litter quality differently modulate the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition across biomes. Ecol Lett 16: 1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12137 Giesen, W., Wijedasa, L. S., & Page, S. E. (2018). Unique Southeast Asian peat swamp forest habitats have relatively few distinctive plant species. Mire Peat 22: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2017 Gholz, H. L., Wedin, D. A., Smitherman, S. M., Harmon, M. E., & Parton, W. J. (2000). Long‐term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Glob. Chang. Biol 6: 751-765. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00349.x Hanson, P. J., Edwards, N. T., Garten, C. T., & Andrews, J. A. (2000). Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry 48: 115-146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006244819642 Harenda, K. M., Lamentowicz, M., Samson, M., & Chojnicki, B. H. (2018). The role of peatlands and their carbon storage function in the context of climate change. Interdisciplinary approaches for sustainable development goals: Economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection , 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71788-3_12 Holden, J., Chapman, P. J., & Labadz, J. C. (2004). Artificial drainage of peatlands: hydrological and hydrochemical process and wetland restoration. Prog Phys Geogr 28: 95-123. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133304pp403ra Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Lu, X. X., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012). Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9: 1053-1071. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1053-2012 Hoyos‐Santillan, J., Lomax, B. H., Turner, B. L., & Sjögersten, S. (2018). Nutrient limitation or home field advantage: does microbial community adaptation overcome nutrient limitation of litter decomposition in a tropical peatland? J Ecol 106: 1558-1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12923 Hoyt, A. M., Gandois, L., Eri, J., Kai, F. M., Harvey, C. F., & Cobb, A. R. (2019). CO2 emissions from an undrained tropical peatland: Interacting influences of temperature, shading and water table depth. Glob Chang Biol 25: 2885-2899. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14702 Hunt, H. W., Ingham, E. R., Coleman, D. C., Elliott, E. T., & Reid, C. P. P. (1988). Nitrogen limitation of production and decomposition in prairie, mountain meadow, and pine forest. Ecol 69: 1009-1016. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941256 Ikbal, I. M., Din, H. H., Tuah, W. H., Jaafar, S. M., Ahmad, N., & Sukri, R. S. (2023). Diversity, structure, and community composition of Bornean heath forest with a focus on Brunei Darussalam. Biodiversitas 24:2814-2829. https://10.13057/biodiv/d240535 Kalinaki, K., Malik, O. A., Lai, D. T. C., Sukri, R. S., & Wahab, R. B. H. A. (2023). Spatial-temporal mapping of forest vegetation cover changes along highways in Brunei using deep learning techniques and Sentinel-2 images. Ecol. Info. 77: 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102193 Katagiri, S., Yamakura, T., & Lee, S. H. (1991). Properties of soils in kerangas forest on sandstone at Bako National Park, Sarawak, East Malaysia. Jpn J Southeast Asian Stud 29: 35-48. https://doi.org/10.20495/tak.29.1_35 Kobayashi, S. (2016). Peatland and Peatland Forest in Brunei Darussalam. In: Osaki, M., Tsuji, N. (eds) Tropical Peatland Ecosystems. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55681-7 Kuzyakov, Y. (2006). Sources of CO 2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.020 Laiho, R. (2006). Decomposition in peatlands: Reconciling seemingly contrasting results on the impacts of lowered water levels. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 2011-2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.02.017 Lam, W. N., Lian, J. J., Chan, P. J., Ting, Y. Y., Chong, R., Rahman, N. E., ... & Chong, K. Y. (2021). Leaf litter decomposition in tropical freshwater swamp forests is slower in swamp than non‐swamp conditions. Biotropica 53: 920-929. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12913 Lavallee, J. M., Soong, J. L., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2020). Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Glob Chang Biol 26: 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14859 Lenth, R.V. (2021). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.5.5-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Li, W., Dickinson, R. E., Fu, R., Niu, G. Y., Yang, Z. L., & Canadell, J. G. (2007). Future precipitation changes and their implications for tropical peatlands. Geophys Res Lett 34: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028364 Lupascu, M., Akhtar, H., Smith, T. E., & Sukri, R. S. (2020). Post‐fire carbon dynamics in the tropical peat swamp forests of Brunei reveal long‐term elevated CH 4 flux. Glob Chang Biol 26: 5125-5145. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15195 MacKinnon, K., & Hatta, G. (2013). Ecology of Kalimantan: Indonesian Borneo. Tuttle Publishing. Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2016). Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Glob Ecol Conserv 6: 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.004 Mishra, S., Page, S. E., Cobb, A. R., Lee, J. S. H., Jovani‐Sancho, A. J., Sjögersten, S., ... & Wardle, D. A. (2021). Degradation of Southeast Asian tropical peatlands and integrated strategies for their better management and restoration. J Appl Ecol 58: 1370-1387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13905 Moore, T., & Basiliko, N. (2006). Decomposition in boreal peatlands. In Boreal peatland ecosystems (pp. 125-143). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31913-9_7 Murdiyarso, D., Hergoualc’h, K., & Verchot, L. V. (2010). Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS 107: 19655-19660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911966107 Øien, A., & Selmer-Olsen, A. R. (1980). A laboratory method for evaluation of available nitrogen in soil. Acta Agric Scand 30: 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015128009435259 Oliva, R. L., Veen, G. F., & Tanaka, M. O. (2023). Soil nutrient dissimilarity and litter nutrient limitation as major drivers of home field advantage in riparian tropical forests. Biotropica 55: 628-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13214 Omar, M. S., Ifandi, E., Sukri, R. S., Kalaitzidis, S., Christanis, K., Lai, D. T. C., ... & Tsikouras, B. (2022). Peatlands in Southeast Asia: A comprehensive geological review. ESR 232: 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104149 Ong, C. S., Juan, J. C., & Yule, C. M. (2015). Litterfall production and chemistry of Koompassia malaccensis and Shorea uliginosa in a tropical peat swamp forest: plant nutrient regulation and climate relationships. Trees 29: 527-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1130-y Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., & Banks, C. J. (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob Chang Biol 17: 798-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02279.x Page, S. E., & Baird, A. J. (2016). Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41: 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085520 Ribeiro, K., Pacheco, F. S., Ferreira, J. W., de Sousa‐Neto, E. R., Hastie, A., Krieger Filho, G. C., ... & Ometto, J. P. (2021). Tropical peatlands and their contribution to the global carbon cycle and climate change. Glob Chang Biol 27: 489-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15408 Rahman, N. E., Smith, S. W., Lam, W. N., Chong, K. Y., Chua, M. S., Teo, P. Y., ... & Wardle, D. A. (2023). Leaf decomposition and flammability are largely decoupled across species in a tropical swamp forest despite sharing some predictive leaf functional traits. New Phytol 238: 598-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18742 R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Richardson, S. J., Allen, R. B., & Doherty, J. E. (2008). Shifts in leaf N: P ratio during resorption reflect soil P in temperate rainforest. Funct Ecol 22: 738-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01426.x Seibold, S., Rammer, W., Hothorn, T., Seidl, R., Ulyshen, M. D., Lorz, J., ... & Müller, J. (2021). The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition. Nature 597: 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03740-8 St John, M., Orwin, K. H., & Dickie, I. A. (2011). No ‘home’ versus ‘away’ effects of decomposition found in a grassland–forest reciprocal litter transplant study. Soil Biol Biochem 43: 1482-1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.022 Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W., Anderson, J. M., & Anderson, J. M. (1979). Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems (Vol. 5). Univ of California Press. Veen, G. F., Freschet, G. T., Ordonez, A., & Wardle, D. A. (2015a). Litter quality and environmental controls of home‐field advantage effects on litter decomposition. Oikos 124: 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01374 Veen, G. F., Sundqvist, M. K., & Wardle, D. A. (2015b). Environmental factors and traits that drive plant litter decomposition do not determine home‐field advantage effects. Funct Ecol 29: 981-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12421 Vivanco, L., & Austin, A. T. (2008). Tree species identity alters forest litter decomposition through long‐term plant and soil interactions in Patagonia, Argentina. J Ecol 96: 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01393.x Wang, X., Gossart, M., Guinet, Y., Fau, H., Lavignasse-Scaglia, C. D., Chaieb, G., & Michalet, R. (2020). The consistency of home-field advantage effects with varying climate conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 149: 107934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107934 Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Klironomos, J. N., Setala, H., Van Der Putten, W. H., & Wall, D. H. (2004). Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304: 1629-1633. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094875 Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., & Townsend, A. R. (2009). Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecol 90: 3333-3341. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2294.1 Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., ... & Villar, R. (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428: 821- 827. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403 Yule, C. M., & Gomez, L. N. (2009). Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Wetl Ecol Manag 17: 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9103-9 Zanne, A. E., Flores-Moreno, H., Powell, J. R., Cornwell, W. K., Dalling, J. W., Austin, A. T., ... & Zalamea, P. C. (2022). Termite sensitivity to temperature affects global wood decay rates. Science 377: 1440-1444. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo3856 Supplementary Files SupplementaryInformationPlantSoilFNCollins.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Major revisions 08 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 12 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 09 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 09 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8416081","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":573348560,"identity":"9bd0afac-431c-41da-a656-10c9656387bf","order_by":0,"name":"Colton Collins","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4286-2472","institution":"Nanyang Technological University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Colton","middleName":"","lastName":"Collins","suffix":""},{"id":573348561,"identity":"3f1fd935-eea4-4c2e-bcd3-88dbf065d28c","order_by":1,"name":"Alexander R. Cobb","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alexander","middleName":"R.","lastName":"Cobb","suffix":""},{"id":573348562,"identity":"d208236b-5768-4841-80a1-220f8e94e897","order_by":2,"name":"Rahayu S. Sukri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rahayu","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Sukri","suffix":""},{"id":573348563,"identity":"a0a553c2-3307-44d0-be42-e54d65ebb9b5","order_by":3,"name":"Jangarun Eri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jangarun","middleName":"","lastName":"Eri","suffix":""},{"id":573348564,"identity":"e9a93680-809f-4aa0-b42d-36b6171bfa19","order_by":4,"name":"David A. Wardle","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Wardle","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-21 08:51:47","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100213176,"identity":"b982761f-b9cb-4032-b897-29c0fec8c8c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-14 08:06:26","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"plsoPLSOD2504994.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/5e02f1ebb70e6cf04621fdd5.xml"},{"id":100213173,"identity":"4e9c629b-1bbe-4ebb-b1e5-b47ccddfc0b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-14 08:06:26","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1070,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PLSOD250499468515.go.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/ce2c8a33bf10b5d4dfdb6abd.xml"},{"id":100371178,"identity":"d5e635b0-6f5b-4928-8c1b-d9829e7901e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 08:09:34","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":870,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PLSOD2504994Import.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/2580fa368abc32bb7eb0aba7.xml"},{"id":100213172,"identity":"b3038fe9-53bd-47f8-9332-c8bc4bb2734b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-14 08:06:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":91176,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean litter \u003cstrong\u003e(A) \u003c/strong\u003emass loss (%), \u003cstrong\u003e(B) \u003c/strong\u003enitrogen release (%), and (C) phosphorus release (%) ± SE from litter for each of five families sourced and placed in either peat or kerangas plots after 11 months of decomposition (N=18). PP is litter sourced from peat and placed in peat. PK is litter sourced from peat and placed in kerangas. KK is litter sourced from kerangas and placed in kerangas. KP is litter sourced from kerangas and placed in peat. Bars topped by the same letter are not significantly different at \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05 (Tukey’s post hoc\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003etest).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/94867e85e94f85651111daa2.jpg"},{"id":100383552,"identity":"ebc88ba9-0088-4ae5-b2f7-adab2d9e5db3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:47:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1260036,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/18851212-247e-44c1-99ff-26150e1fb9c9.pdf"},{"id":100370533,"identity":"9888cf6b-a64f-43c0-af79-659cad0d53b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 08:06:21","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1419567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryInformationPlantSoilFNCollins.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8416081/v1/660fa261b2f6e79b9ba0f238.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"No home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the tropical peat forests of Brunei Darussalam","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTropical peat forests are among the world\u0026rsquo;s most carbon (C) rich ecosystems, vastly surpassing most other forest types in C density per area (Page and Baird 2016). These ecosystems differ from temperate peatlands, as their peat is mainly formed by material from woody plants rather than from \u003cem\u003eSphagnum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003emoss or from non-woody plants. Owing to perennial waterlogging, which retards the decomposition of wood, leaves, and roots, these environments have gradually amassed substantial organic deposits over millennia, which can result in the formation of peat layers of up to 20 meters thick (Anderson 1983). Globally tropical peat forests contain an estimated 105 Gt of C, about 30% of the C stock of tropical rainforests globally\u0026mdash;despite occupying only about 0.25% of the earth\u0026rsquo;s land surface (Page et al. 2011). As crucial C repositories, these peatlands significantly influence the global C balance (Ribeiro et al. 2021). However, Southeast Asia, which contains approximately half of these tropical peatlands, has experienced dramatic peatland forest reduction due to deforestation, drainage, and burning over recent decades. Presently, less than 30% of the region\u0026rsquo;s peat forest cover remains (Murdiyarso et al. 2010; Hooijer et al. 2012; Miettinen et al. 2016; Mishra et al. 2021), transforming these ecosystems from C sinks to sources of greenhouse gases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough tropical peat accumulation plays a critical role in global C sequestration (Harenda et al. 2018), the mechanisms driving this accumulation, specifically the influence of their waterlogged conditions and low nutrient status on the decomposition of plant litter, remain poorly understood. Both waterlogged and nutrient-poor conditions impede litter decomposition -- anoxia in saturated soils restricts the activity and diversity of aerobic decomposers, while nutrient limitation inhibits microbial and detritivore efficacy in breaking down organic matter (Swift et al. 1979; Laiho 2006; Baldrian 2017). This impairment of decomposition has the potential to lead to the formation of deep peat layers in the tropical peat swamp environment (Mishra et al. 2021). The \u0026lsquo;home-field advantage\u0026rsquo; (HFA) hypothesis is relevant to understanding decomposition processes in the peat forest environment. It predicts that leaf litter decomposes more rapidly in the environment it originates from (\u0026lsquo;home\u0026rsquo;) compared to other environments (\u0026lsquo;away\u0026rsquo;), because soil microbial communities become specialized in the decomposition of leaf litter from the plants in their own environment (Hunt et al. 1988; Gholz et al.\u0026nbsp;2000; Austin et al. 2014). Several studies have tested for HFA using field-based reciprocal litter transplant experiments. Although there is much variation among these studies (St John et al. 2011; Veen et al. 2015a; Fanin et al. 2021), a review of data from studies conducted in temperate and tropical forests in North America, South America, Europe, and Hawaii show that HFA is common in forests and that litter decomposes, on average, 8% faster at home than away (Ayres et al. 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHome-field advantage in waterlogged forests, such as tropical peat swamp and freshwater swamp forests, is not well-explored or understood. However, in a peat swamp in Malaysia, a sclerophyllous species, \u003cem\u003eMacaranga pruinosa\u003c/em\u003e (Euphorbiaceae) was found to decompose at similar rates in waterlogged areas and dry areas of the same habitat (Yule and Gomez 2009). Meanwhile, in a natural (non-peat) freshwater swamp forest in Singapore, leaf litter decomposition was found to be driven by physical traits which varied by species (Rahman et al. 2023), was impaired by waterlogged conditions, but was largely unimpacted by HFA (Lam et al.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2021). No direct comparisons of decomposition or HFA in tropical peat swamp forests with that in adjacent ecosystems have been performed to date, but such studies are necessary to enhance our mechanistic understanding of peat accumulation processes in tropical peat forests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForests cover 72% of the total land area of Brunei, with 16% being peat forest that remains relatively undisturbed compared to other peat forests in Southeast Asia (Omar et al. 2022; Kalinaki et al. 2023). In the Belait District of Brunei, peat swamp forests typically form a mosaic with adjacent kerangas forests, whereas those in the Temburong region do not. The term \u0026lsquo;kerangas\u0026rsquo;, which originates from the local Iban language, describes the sandy-soiled heath forests of Borneo that are unsuitable for rice farming due to their infertility (Brunig 1974). Peat forests in Brunei grow on water-saturated organic deposits, often measuring between 8 m to 15 m in thickness (Kobayashi 2016). Conversely, kerangas forests thrive on well-draining, nutrient poor, white sands topped with a humus layer of up to 0.7 meters (Brunig 1974; Katagiri et al. 1991; MacKinnon and Hatta 2013; Din et al. 2015). The soils of both peat and kerangas forests are generally nutrient depleted (Din et al. 2015; Kobayashi 2016; Ikbal et al. 2023). However, our previous work in this study system (Collins et al. 2025) has shown that peat forest soils have higher concentrations of total C, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) than do kerangas forest soils, but lower amounts of labile forms of these elements such as ammonium (NH4+), total dissolved N (TN) and total dissolved organic C (TOC), (Table S1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur earlier work in this system (Collins et al. 2025) has also shown that there are relatively few differences between the two forest types in forest structural attributes while there are significant differences between them in the relative abundance of Dipterocarpaceae and the stand basal area of Myrtaceae, other common plant families, such as Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Sapotaceae, do not differ significantly in either abundance or stand basal area (Table S2). This study system offers a valuable opportunity to investigate decomposition and HFA in a tropical context, where climate conditions and vegetation structure are relatively constant, but hydrological conditions and soil nutrients vary greatly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we set up a reciprocal leaf litter transplantation decomposition experiment between adjacent paired plots of peat and kerangas forest. This involved reciprocal transplantation of leaf litter from plants of each of five families that occur in all plots. The main aim of our research was to compare plant litter decomposition rates in peat and kerangas environments, and assess how it was affected by litter quality, home-field advantage, and soil nutrient status. We tested two hypotheses to accomplish this aim:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(H1) Decomposition and nutrient release will overall be faster for litter placed in kerangas than in the peat because soil biological activity will be less impaired by waterlogging and nutrient limitation. Further, litter from kerangas vegetation will decompose and release nutrients faster regardless of where it is placed due to its expected higher litter quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(H2) Home field advantage will mean that litter from both peat and kerangas vegetation will decompose more rapidly than expected in the environment from which it was collected (i.e., in peat and kerangas environments respectively). However, this advantage will be stronger in peat and for plant taxa that produce poorer quality litter because the microbes in the peat are better adapted for decomposing more recalcitrant litter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo further understand the factors that may drive HFA, we also used data on litter traits for each litter type we used, and previously collected soil nutrient data for each plot that the litter was sourced from and transplanted to (presented in Collins et al. 2025), to assess the ability of \u0026nbsp;these variables to predict the magnitude of litter decomposition and home-field effects. In performing our study our ultimate goal was to contribute to a better understanding of how plant litter decomposition contributes to peat accumulating in tropical forest soils.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperimental design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe plots that we used were the same as those used by Collins et al. (2025), and were established in the Badas and Labi Hills Forest Reserves, Belait District, Brunei Darussalam, Northwest Borneo. These forest reserves provide an ideal system for direct comparison of two forest types (peat and kerangas) as they consist of a mosaic of both ecosystem types. While there are areas of the Badas Forest Reserve that have been severely disturbed by anthropogenic drainage and fire, our study is limited to areas that have been subjected to minimal human disturbance. Briefly, we established nine\u0026nbsp;pairs of plots, each pair consisting of a plot in kerangas forest and one in peat forest, for a total of 18 plots. Within a pair, the typical distance between peat and kerangas plots was 100 m, while the distance between each pair and the next nearest pair was always at least 300 m. A total of 12 plots (i.e., six pairs) were established in the Badas Forest Reserve while six plots (i.e., three pairs) were established in the Labi Forest Reserve (Fig. S1). Further details about the plots, and vegetation measurements performed within them, are given in Collins et al. (2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitterbags\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe collected litter for use in litterbags from each plot in December 2021 to better understand decomposition and nutrient release of plant families across the two tropical forest types. As described in Collins et al. (2025) we identified litter to the family level, as species-level characterization was not feasible due to the very high species diversity that characterizes these forests. This family-level approach provided a practical unit for comparing differences in home field advantage between the two forest types, given that most species or genera were present in only a small subset of the plots. Notably we did not observe any tree species or genera that were found in all peat and kerangas plots, or that were exclusively present in all peat plots and absent from all kerangas plots, or vice versa, which is consistent with what has been found in overviews of floral diversity of Southeast Asian peat forests (Giesen et al. 2018). In our previous study (Collins et al. 2025), a list was compiled for each plot to identify taxa that occur in all peat and kerangas plots, and in doing this we found six tree families (Dipterocarpaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae and Rubiaceae) that occurred in all peat and kerangas plots. From this, five tree families (excluding Rubiaceae) were selected based on their abundance across all peat and kerangas plots to ensure a sufficient sample size of leaf material for collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLitter from plants of each of the five families was collected in December 2021 from all 18 plots. The collection of tree litter was facilitated by gently shaking tree stems to prompt abscission. From each plot, two grams of oven-dried litter from each family were placed individually into heat-sealed polypropylene (PPE) mesh bags (15 x 15 cm, 1-mm mesh). Four litterbags were prepared for each of the five families in each of the 18 plots for a total of 360 bags. Two bags for each family in each plot were placed in its “home” plot while two bags for each family in each plot were placed in its paired “away” plot. Litterbags were strung along a steel cable and pegged to the surface of each plot directly on top of the litter layer. To standardize micro-topographic conditions among plots, litterbags were always placed in transitional areas between hummocks (drier, higher ground) and hollows (waterlogged depressions). While the litterbags were not submerged at the time of placement, they experienced anoxic conditions sporadically during the year due to fluctuations in the water table influenced by seasonal rainfall patterns. In November 2022, after 11 months of decomposition, all litter bags were collected, cleaned, oven-dried at 60\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 72 hours, and then weighed. Percent mass loss was calculated as:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Mass\u0026nbsp;Loss\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;100\u0026nbsp;×\u0026nbsp;((Initial\u0026nbsp;Dry\u0026nbsp;Weight\u0026nbsp;-\u0026nbsp;Final\u0026nbsp;Dry\u0026nbsp;Weight)\u0026nbsp;/\u0026nbsp;Initial\u0026nbsp;Dry Weight))\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each family in each plot, the total P, total N, and total C concentrations of both the litter prior to setting up the decomposition experiment and litter after decomposition were measured using an oven-dried subsample of each soil composite. Total P was determined using the molybdenum blue method with ascorbic acid (Murphy and Riley, 1962). This involved sample ignition (550°C for 1 h) and extraction in 1 \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e (1:50 soil/solution ratio, 16 h), with PO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e detection by automated molybdate colorimetry using a Tecan Spark Multimode Microplate Reader (Tecan Group, Switzerland). Total N and total C concentrations were measured using the Dumas method determined by CHNS elemental analyzer (Elementar, Germany, model Vario El Cube). Litter C to N, C to P, and N to P ratios were determined from these values. Percent release for N and P due to litter decomposition was calculated as:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Release\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;100\u0026nbsp;X\u0026nbsp;((CB*\u0026nbsp;Initial\u0026nbsp;Dry\u0026nbsp;Weight)\u0026nbsp;-\u0026nbsp;(CA*\u0026nbsp;Final\u0026nbsp;Dry\u0026nbsp;Weight))/\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(CB*\u0026nbsp;Initial Dry Weight))\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewhere\u0026nbsp;CB\u0026nbsp;is\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;concentration\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;N\u0026nbsp;or\u0026nbsp;P\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;litter\u0026nbsp;prior\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;setting\u0026nbsp;up\u0026nbsp;the decomposition\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eexperiment and CA is the concentration of N of P in litter after decomposition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFamily tree abundance and stand basal area were analysed using paired t-tests with each plot pair as a replicate block to test for differences between peat and kerangas forest. To test how habitat type and family affected litter nutrient content prior to setting up the decomposition experiment, we used linear mixed models (LMM), in the same manner as used in Collins et al. (2025), with habitat type, family, and their interaction as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks to control for non-independence of the five observations within each plot, as well as the non-independence of observations within each block of paired plots. When significant differences were found at \u003cem\u003eP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.05, Tukey’s post hoc test was conducted to compare differences between means. To test the influence of plot from which the litter as sourced (‘litter source’), plot where the litter was placed (‘litter placed’), family, and their interactions on litter percent mass loss, N release, and P release, we used LMMs with source litter, litter placed, family, and their interactions as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test to compare mean differences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo investigate the drivers of HFA, we employed a similar approach to that described by Veen et al.(2015b). We assessed the strength and direction of home-field effects on litter mass loss, N release, and P release using the concept of additional decomposition at home (ADH), adapted from Ayres et al. (2009). Additional decomposition at home was calculated based on the following set of four equations,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eADH\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;HDD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e –\u0026nbsp;ADD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e –\u0026nbsp;H,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHDD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;(D\u003csub\u003eiI\u003c/sub\u003e-D\u003csub\u003ejI\u003c/sub\u003e),\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eADD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;(D\u003csub\u003eiJ\u003c/sub\u003e-D\u003csub\u003ejJ\u003c/sub\u003e),\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e=\u0026nbsp;HDD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e/(\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e-1)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, ADH\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e represents the additional mass loss, N release, or P release experienced by litter type i when decomposing in its home environment (I) compared to when it decomposes in an away environment (J). It measures how much more efficient decomposition is in the home environment, which indicates whether there is a home-field advantage (HFA) for that litter type. A positive value of ADHi indicates a home-field advantage, while a negative or zero value indicates no advantage or a disadvantage. HDD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e corresponds to the difference between the mass loss, N release, or P release (D) of litter type i in its home environment (I) and that of foreign litter, type j, from environment J, decomposing in the same home environment (I). ADD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e represents the difference between the mass loss, N release, or P release (D) of litter i in environment J and the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type j in environment J. D\u003csub\u003eiI\u003c/sub\u003e denotes the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type i in environment I, D\u003csub\u003ejI\u003c/sub\u003e refers to the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type j in environment I, D\u003csub\u003eiJ\u003c/sub\u003e represents the mass loss of litter type i in environment J, and D\u003csub\u003ejJ\u003c/sub\u003e corresponds to the mass loss, N release, or P release of litter type J in environment J. \u003cem\u003eH\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erepresents the sum of all HDD\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e values across all litter types, divided by n-1 (where n represents the total number of litter types). This provides an overall measure of home-field advantage across the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the influence of habitat, family, and their interaction on the ADH percent litter mass loss, ADH percent N release, and ADH percent P release, we used LMM with habitat, family, and their interaction as fixed factors. Plot nested within block was included as a random factor, with N= 18 plots and N= 9 blocks to control for non-independence of the five observations within each plot, as well as the non-independence of observations within each block of paired plots. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test to compare mean differences. To further understand the factors that may drive litter decomposition HFA, we used Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r; N = 18) to examine the relationships of percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release, and of ADH for percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release, with initial litter nutrient variables, as well as with plot level soil nutrient levels using data from the same plots presented in Collins et al. (2025). Statistical analyses were performed in R (R Core Team 2021) using the lme4 package for mixed models (Bates et al. 2015) and emmeans package for mean comparison (Lenth 2021).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSenescent litterfall\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, there were no differences in litter nutrient properties between peat and kerangas for any of the five families, and there were no interactive effects between forest type and family (Table 1). However, there were often differences among families. Specifically, litter N and P concentration differed significantly among the 5 plant families in both peat and kerangas habitats while C:N differed among families only in kerangas, while C concentration, C:P and N:P were invariant among families (Tables 2, 3). Overall, the lowest litter N and P concentration occurred for Myrtaceae. In peat, Myrtaceae has at least 25% lower N and 20% lower P concentrations than the other families, while in kerangas, Myrtaceae has at least 27% lower N, 20% lower P concentrations, and 16.8% higher C:N than all the other families. In peat the highest litter N and P was found for Fabaceae and Euphorbiaceae respectively. Meanwhile in kerangas the highest senescent litter N concentration occurred for Fabaceae and Lauraceae, while the highest P concentration occurred for Euphorbiaceae.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe influence of peat versus kerangas (\u0026lsquo;habitat\u0026rsquo;), family, and their interaction on senescent litterfall tested in linear mixed models while accounting for random variations within the Block and Plot levels. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with \u003cem\u003eP \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"556\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResponse\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Variables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHabitat\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHabitat\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed.f.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed.f.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed.f.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.315\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.972\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.640\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.547\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.152\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.378\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 2px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor habitat, family and their interaction, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8, 64,\u0026nbsp;and 64 respectively (Kenward-Roger\u0026nbsp;method).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSenescent litterfall nutrient content for each family. Values are means averaged across all plots \u0026plusmn; SE (N = 18). Different letters among families and values in boldface indicate statistically significantly different means at \u003cem\u003eP \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.05 (Tukey\u0026rsquo;s post hoc test).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponse\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEuphorbiaceae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFabaceae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLauraceae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDipterocarpaceae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMyrtaceae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003ePeat\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;N Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.07\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.25\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.08\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.13\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.1\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.21\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.17\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.80\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.04\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;P\u0026nbsp;Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.084\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.008\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.080\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.003\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.075\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.003\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.072\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.003\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.060 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.003\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;C\u0026nbsp;Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;2.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;9.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;6.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e557.6 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;42.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e599.0 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;39.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e696.4 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;44.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e690.3 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;40.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e736.4 \u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;54.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.3\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eKerangas\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;N Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.10\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.13\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.12\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.11\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.04\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.89\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.06\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.70\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.09\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;P\u0026nbsp;Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.087\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.005\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.086\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.006\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.079\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.006\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.073\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.004\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.062\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;0.002\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;C\u0026nbsp;Initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.5\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;3.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;4.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.0\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;23.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.0\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;10.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.2\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;7.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.8\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;12.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e639.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;55.4\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e628.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;63.0\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e711.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;57.4\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e719.0\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;53.0\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e864.1\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;41.1\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.7\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.9\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.6\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.4\u0026nbsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026nbsp;1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor habitat and family, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8 and 64, respectively\u0026nbsp;(Kenward-Roger\u0026nbsp;method).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe influence of source litter, where litter is placed, family, and their interactions on litter percent mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release in linear mixed models. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with \u003cem\u003eP \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"553\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e% Mass Loss\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e% N Release\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e% P Release\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ed.f.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u0026nbsp;Litter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.238\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLitter\u0026nbsp;Placed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.144\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e13.1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e14.6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u0026nbsp;Litter\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Litter\u0026nbsp;Placed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.349\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.947\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u0026nbsp;Litter\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.605\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.181\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.403\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLitter\u0026nbsp;Placed\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.332\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.047\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u0026nbsp;Litter\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Litter\u0026nbsp;Placed\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.680\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor litter placed and family, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 144 while for source litter the degrees of the denominator degrees of freedoms are eight.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecomposition and home-field advantage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLitter mass loss was significantly affected by where litter was sourced and plant family (Table 3). Generally, mass loss was higher for litter sourced from kerangas plots than that from peat plots and the highest litter mass loss occurred for Euphorbiaceae while the lowest mass loss was for Myrtaceae (Fig. 1a). For the five plant families examined, no significant differences between peat and kerangas were observed for N release (N%) and P release (%P) (Table 3, Fig. 1b-c). However, N release and P release were significantly affected by plant family. Overall, the highest litter N release occurred for Euphorbiaceae while the lowest N release was for Myrtaceae. Similarly, the highest litter P release occurred for Euphorbiaceae and Fabaceae while the lowest P release was for Myrtaceae.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were no significant interactions between source litter and litter placed, indicating that there were no interactions between the origin of the litter and the away environment and therefore no HFA effects (Table 3). Additional decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, N release, and P release was not affected by habitat, plant family, and their interaction (Table 4) and was not significantly different from zero as follows: for mass loss (t = 1.7, d.f. = 89, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.088), for N release (t = 1.2, d.f. = 89, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.247), and for P release (t = -1.0, d.f. = 89, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.335).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe influence of peat versus kerangas (\u0026lsquo;habitat\u0026rsquo;), family, and their interaction on the additional decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release test in linear mixed models. Values in boldface indicate significant effects with P \u0026lt; 0.05.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ed.f.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Mass loss\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabitat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.436\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabitat*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.983\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Nitrogen\u0026nbsp;Release\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabitat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.364\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.740\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabitat\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;Family\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Phosphorus\u0026nbsp;Release\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabitat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.797\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 172px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Habitat * Family \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.591\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes: F\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e-value, d.f. = degrees of freedom, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= value. For habitat, family and their interaction, the denominator degrees of freedoms are 8, 64, and 64 respectively (Kenward-Roger method).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationship with litter and soil nutrients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLitter mass loss increased with increasing litter P, soil N:P, and soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e+ while it decreased with increasing litter C:P, soil C, and soil C:P (Table 5). In contrast, ADH for mass loss was negatively related to litter P but was unrelated to any other litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Litter N release increased with increasing litter N, P, C:P, and N:P and decreased with litter C:N, but was unrelated to any soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Meanwhile ADH for N release increased with increasing litter C:N and decreased with increasing litter N, but was unrelated to any other litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6). Litter P release increased with increasing litter N, P, C, and soil N, while it decreased with increasing litter C:P and N:P ratios (Table 6). In contrast, ADH for P release increased with increasing soil C:N and decreased with increasing soil N but was otherwise unrelated to any litter or soil nutrient variables (Table 6).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe found no difference in decomposition rates and nutrient release between litter placed in kerangas forest and that placed in peat forest. We also found that litter sourced from kerangas vegetation did not decompose or release nutrients faster than that from peat vegetation regardless of where it is placed. Furthermore, we found no home field advantage in either forest type. Despite this, we did find that litter nutrient concentrations were strong predictors of litter mass loss and nutrient release across litter types. These findings are now discussed to enhance our understanding of how plant litter decomposition may contribute to peat accumulation in tropical forest soils.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecomposition in peat and kerangas forests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContrary to our first hypothesis, we found that mass loss and nutrient release rates were comparable for litter placed in kerangas forest and in peat forest. This occurred despite the litterbags placed in the peat experiencing periods of waterlogged and anoxia which those in the kerangas did not, suggesting that the peat environment supports microbes that are adapted to efficiently break down the leaf litter in those conditions (Andersen et al. 2013). Our findings are consistent with Moore and Basiliko (2006) which showed that decomposition rates are not always faster in well-drained habitats than in waterlogged habitats that experience a similar climate. In contrast to our hypothesis, we also found that litter sourced from kerangas vegetation did not decompose and release nutrients faster than that from peat vegetation in either forest type. In a global data analysis, Veen (2015a) found dissimilarity in litter quality between \u0026lsquo;home\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;away\u0026rsquo; sites as a key factor influencing the differing decomposition rates across habitats, whereas conversely our lack of differences in decomposition between kerangas and peat litter is indicative of a lack of difference in litter quality between the two habitats. Conversely, decomposition varied significantly across plant families in both habitat types, with Euphorbiaceae decomposing fastest and Myrtaceae decomposing slowest, in line with their high and low litter N and P contents, respectively (Fig. 1a and Table 3). This means that most of the variability in litter decomposition in our study system is driven by variation in traits among taxa within forest types (Cornwell et al. 2008, Richardson et al. 2008) rather than by variation among habitats.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation coefficient (r; N = 18) of percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release, and phosphorus release versus initial litter nutrient and soil nutrient variables: nitrogen content (N) , phosphorus content (P), carbon content (C), carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), carbon to phosphorus ratio (C:P), and nitrogen to phosphorus ratio (N:P). Values in boldface indicate significant effects with\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eP \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;Mass Loss\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;N\u0026nbsp;Release\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u0026nbsp;P\u0026nbsp;Release\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; r (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eLitter\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.078 (0.296)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.629\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.151 (0.043)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.294\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.276\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.475\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007 (0.922)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035 (0.641)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.267\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.105 (0.3230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.538\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056 (0.453)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.178\u0026nbsp;(0.093)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.191 (0.010)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.156\u0026nbsp;(0.036)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.138\u0026nbsp;(0.194)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.487\u0026nbsp;(\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.151\u0026nbsp;(0.043)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eSoil\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.047 (0.536)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.045\u0026nbsp;(0.548)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.157 (0.035)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.083\u0026nbsp;(0.270)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.089\u0026nbsp;(0.233)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095 (0.204)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.156\u0026nbsp;(0.037)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083 (0.271)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058 (0.440)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.179\u0026nbsp;(0.016)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.108 (0.150)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.044\u0026nbsp;(0.558)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.019\u0026nbsp;(0.797)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.146 (0.051)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.109\u0026nbsp;(0.144)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.156 (0.037)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.100\u0026nbsp;(0.179)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046 (0.542)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNO3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.107\u0026nbsp;(0.153)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.024 (0.748)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033 (0.664)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNH4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.153 (0.040)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.087\u0026nbsp;(0.248)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009 (0.904)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003er = correlation coefficient, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e-value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHome-field advantage (HFA) in litter decomposition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContrary to our second hypothesis, we observed no evidence for HFA in either peat or kerangas forest, and therefore no evidence to support our hypothesis that HFA will be stronger in peat or for plant taxa that produce poorer quality litter. This is likely due to high tree diversity in both environments which could prevent decomposer communities from specializing on particular litter types, thus limiting HFA (Lam et al.2021). Our findings are in line with studies that found no consistent HFA effects in freshwater swamp forests in Singapore (Lam et al. 2021), and a neotropical heath forest in northern Brazil (de Alencar et al. 2022), both of which are\u0026nbsp;species rich systems. Our findings contrast, however, with an analogous study in a forest with lower tree diversity which found individual tree species to create a home-field advantage for their own litter through their effects on soil properties (Vivanco and Austin 2008), and one that observed a positive HFA effect in a tropical peat forest dominated by a single species of palm in Panama (Hoyos-Santillan et al. 2018). This suggests that HFA may only occur in forests (including peat forests) that have a lower number of (co)dominant species than are present in our study area. Despite the challenging anoxic conditions in peat, which may slow or halt decomposition below the water table, microbes would appear to be as effective in maintaining decomposition as are microbes in kerangas forests. The presence of these microbes in peat forests is further supported by the work of Lupascu et al. (2020) which measured an average soil respiration rate of 359 mg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e hr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e on the same peat dome as used in our study. Although this rate does not differentiate between plant (root) and microbial respiration (Hanson et al. 2000; Kuzyakov, 2006), it suggests that significant microbial activity is nevertheless occurring.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;6:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;correlation\u0026nbsp;coefficient\u0026nbsp;(r;\u0026nbsp;N\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;18)\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;additional\u0026nbsp;decomposition at home (ADH) for percent litter mass loss, nitrogen release,\u0026nbsp;and phosphorus release versus initial litter nutrient content and soil nutrient\u0026nbsp;variables: nitrogen content (N) , phosphorus content (P), carbon content (C),\u0026nbsp;carbon\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;nitrogen\u0026nbsp;ratio\u0026nbsp;(C:N),\u0026nbsp;carbon\u0026nbsp;to phosphorus\u0026nbsp;ratio\u0026nbsp;(C:P),\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;nitrogen\u0026nbsp;to phosphorus ratio (N:P). Values in boldface indicate significant effects with \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eADH\u0026nbsp;%\u0026nbsp;Mass\u0026nbsp;Loss\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eADH\u0026nbsp;%\u0026nbsp;N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eADH\u0026nbsp;%\u0026nbsp;P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eLitter\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.153\u0026nbsp;(0.150)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.214\u0026nbsp;(0.043)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.051\u0026nbsp;(0.636)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.217\u0026nbsp;(0.040)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.090\u0026nbsp;(0.401)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.094\u0026nbsp;(0.380)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.083\u0026nbsp;(0.435)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u0026nbsp;(0.342)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.065\u0026nbsp;(0.543)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.079\u0026nbsp;(0.460)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.316\u0026nbsp;(0.002)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.012\u0026nbsp;(0.911)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.102\u0026nbsp;(0.339)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.142\u0026nbsp;(0.182)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u0026nbsp;(0.347)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.005\u0026nbsp;(0.964)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.169\u0026nbsp;(0.112)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u0026nbsp;(0.847)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eSoil\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.105\u0026nbsp;(0.327)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.032\u0026nbsp;(0.768)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.173\u0026nbsp;(0.103)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.079\u0026nbsp;(0.461)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.108\u0026nbsp;(0.310)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u0026nbsp;(0.769)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.080\u0026nbsp;(0.455)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.080\u0026nbsp;(0.455)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.193\u0026nbsp;(0.068)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.131\u0026nbsp;(0.220)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.071\u0026nbsp;(0.508)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.269\u0026nbsp;(0.010)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.051\u0026nbsp;(0.634)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.192\u0026nbsp;(0.069)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u0026nbsp;(0.814)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN:P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.173\u0026nbsp;(0.102)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u0026nbsp;(0.892)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.314\u0026nbsp;(0.003)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNO3-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.131\u0026nbsp;(0.217)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.191\u0026nbsp;(0.071)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u0026nbsp;(0.919)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNH4+\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.147\u0026nbsp;(0.166)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.043\u0026nbsp;(0.686)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.165\u0026nbsp;(0.119)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes:\u003c/em\u003er = correlation coefficient, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e-value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRole of litter traits and soil nutrient status in driving HFA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe found that litter nutrients (and to a lesser extent soil nutrients) served as predictors of litter mass loss, N release, and P release, in part because those families that decomposed fastest had higher litter N and P than those that decomposed slowest. Despite this, litter and soil nutrient properties were generally unable to predict HFA. This limited predictive power is likely due to the low level of dissimilarity in plant community composition at least at the family level (Table S3) and in soil properties (Table S1) between \u0026lsquo;home\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;away\u0026rsquo; sites, given that dissimilarity in these types of attributes across sites are the most important drivers of home field-effects (Veen et al. 2015a; Oliva et al. 2023). Our results therefore contrast with one recent study suggesting that HFA effects vary across some ecosystems as a result of changes in soil litter quality and the efficiency of decomposers within soil communities (Wang et al. 2020) but agree with another showing that home-field effects can be generally independent of variation in climate conditions and soil properties (Veen et al. 2015b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that family-level influences on leaf traits are stronger than site-specific effects suggests that these traits are deeply phylogenetically conserved. Traits like LMA, LDMC, and P resorption appear to be genetically controlled, showing limited plasticity and making them less adaptable to variations in environmental conditions (Wright et al. 2004; Donovan et al. 2011). These low-plasticity traits may have evolved within plant families to be well-suited to a narrow range of aboveground environmental conditions, which would lead to consistency in trait expression across sites, and thereby ecological processes that are impacted by these traits such as plant litter decomposability. Further, both forest types are comparable in characteristics such as tree abundance, stand basal area, ground cover, and diversity, despite significant differences in soil conditions between the waterlogged peat and well-draining kerangas sites. This similarity aboveground likely reduces the selective pressure for leaf trait adjustments between sites, thereby further supporting the consistency of family-level traits. These findings highlight how evolutionary history has shaped functional traits within lineages to remain stable across varying conditions (Ackerly 2003), suggesting that aboveground habitat uniformity can reinforce trait conservation even amid differing soils.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCarbon accumulation in peat forests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study explored the decomposition processes that could potentially underpin peat accumulation in tropical forests, by highlighting that rates of plant litter decomposition and nutrient release are similar in both waterlogged peat and well-drained kerangas forest, and that peat accumulation is therefore unlikely to be driven by differences in the rates of decomposition of freshly fallen leaf litter between the two environments. Additionally, the lack of HFA in both peat and kerangas forests suggests that peat accumulation is not affected by differences in HFA and therefore the pre-adaption of the decomposer communities between the two environments. Overall, our findings show that initial leaf litter decomposition processes, and the traits that underpin these processes, do not contribute to organic matter accumulation in peat forests, despite a widespread view that these are important determinants of soil C sequestration (Berg and Meenteneyer 2002; Wardle et al. 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat causes organic matter to accumulate in peat forests but not in kerangas forests, given their similar leaf litter decomposition rates and leaf litter qualities, and the absence of HFA? One possibility is that the activity of larger soil fauna such as termites, which are important drivers of decomposition in tropical forests (Seibold et al. 2001; Zanne et al. 2022) could be impeded by anoxic conditions and waterlogging in peat forests (Coyle et al. 2017; Mishra et al. 2021). The effects of these fauna were excluded in this experiment due to the use of 1 mm mesh litterbags (Bradford et al. 2002). A second possibility is that while this study focused on leaf litter, a substantive proportion of litter in these ecosystems consists of wood and roots (Andriesse 1988; Ong et al. 2015), whose quantity and quality could potentially vary between peat and kerangas forests. Recent studies suggest that the more recalcitrant nature of wood and roots, particularly in waterlogged peat soils, leads to slower decomposition rates, contributing to long-term soil organic matter (SOM) accumulation (Chimner and Ewel 2004; Chimner and Ewel 2005; Lavallee et al. 2020). A third possibility is that the litter initially accumulates on the ground surface (which is where our litter bags were placed) and in peat forest this surface is less consistently waterlogged than deeper in the soil profile. It could be that litter material that remains undecomposed after the first year or two subsequently integrates into the deeper soil layers where it encounters more consistently waterlogged and anoxic conditions which impedes further breakdown (Frolking et al. 2010). This is supported by findings that SOM accumulation in tropical peatlands is less a function of fresh litter decomposition and more dependent on the long-term preservation of organic materials in anaerobic conditions (Hoyt et al. 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results highlight that despite waterlogged and anoxic conditions in peat forest, there is little difference between peat and kerangas environments in leaf litter quality or the decomposition processes that we studied, and no pre-adaption of the decomposer community in either forest type to promote decomposition of litter sourced it. Despite their similarities, peat forests, which are rich in biodiversity and dense in C, are severely threatened ecosystems. This necessitates the maintenance and restoration of their hydrology to preserve their ecosystem functions and C storage potential, particularly in the face of land use changes that lower groundwater levels and thereby lead to large losses of C through aeration and accelerated breakdown of the peat (Holden et al. 2004; Li et al. 2007). Ultimately these forests are critical C sinks, but contrary to studies pointing to leaf litter quality and initial decomposition of leaf litter driving C storage in many ecosystems (Garc\u0026iacute;a-Palacios et al. 2013; Wieder et al. 2009), we find little evidence that this contributes to the enormous accumulation of organic matter in peatlands in the absence of human disturbances. As such, there is a need to explore other drivers to better understand processes that lead to this accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank the Brunei Forestry Department for permission to conduct research. They thank Jeffery Muli anak Incham and Ramasamy anak Zulkiflee. They also thank Sylvia Tan of Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University for assistance in the field. They thank Salwana Jaafar, Kenny Png Guochen, Chung Wing, and Lu Chuansen Leon for assistance with processing lab samples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColton Collinscarried out the study, contributed to statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;David A. Wardle\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Alexander R. Cobb\u0026nbsp;designed the study, assisted with statistical analysis, and contributed to the manuscript draft.\u0026nbsp;Jangarun Eri\u0026nbsp;led plot selection and identified all plant specimens in the study.\u0026nbsp;Rahayu S. Sukri led project administration.\u0026nbsp;All authors read and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore through the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology’s Center for Environmental Sensing and Modeling interdisciplinary research program and through grant no. NRF2019-ITC001-001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAckerly, D. D. (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int J Plant Sci 164: S165-S184. https://doi.org/10.1086/368401\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndersen, R., Chapman, S. J., Artz, R. R. E. (2013) Microbial communities in natural and disturbed peatlands: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 57: 979- 994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnderson, J.A.R., 1983. The tropical peat swamps of western Malesia. In: Gore, A.J.P. (Ed.), Ecosystems of the World: Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. 4B, Regional Studies. Elsevier, New York, pp. 181-199. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndriesse, J. P. (1988). Nature and management of tropical peat soils (No. 59). Food \u0026amp; Agriculture Org.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAustin, A. T., Vivanco, L., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez‐Arzac, A., \u0026amp; P\u0026eacute;rez, L. I. (2014). There\u0026apos;s no place like home? An exploration of the mechanisms behind plant litter\u0026ndash;decomposer affinity in terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 204: 307\u0026ndash;314. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12959\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAyres, E., Steltzer, H., Simmons, B. L., Simpson, R. T., Steinweg, J. M., Wallenstein, M. D., ... \u0026amp; Wall, D. H. (2009). Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 41: 606-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBaldrian, P. (2017). Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41: 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuw040\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBates D, M\u0026auml;chler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. J. Stat Softw 67: 1\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBerg, B., \u0026amp; Meentemeyer, V. (2002). Litter quality in a north European transect versus carbon storage potential. Plant Soil 242: 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019637807021\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBradford, M. A., Tordoff, G. M., Eggers, T., Jones, T. H., \u0026amp; Newington, J. E. (2002). Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition. Oikos 99: 317-323. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990212.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrunig, E. F. (1974). Ecological studies in the kerangas forests of Sarawak and Brunei, Borneo Literature Bureau for the Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching, Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChimner, R. A., \u0026amp; Ewel, K. C. (2004). Differences in carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated Micronesian tropical peatlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 12: 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-004-0255-y\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChimner, R. A., \u0026amp; Ewel, K. C. (2005). A Tropical Freshwater Wetland: II. Production, Decomposition, and Peat Formation. Wetl Ecol Manag 13: 671\u0026ndash;684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-005-0965-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollins, C., Cobb, A. R., Sukri, R. S., Eri, J., \u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2025). Floristic and soil properties of co-occurring peat and kerangas forests in Brunei Darussalam. J Trop Ecol 41: e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467425000112\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H., Amatangelo, K., Dorrepaal, E., Eviner, V. T., Godoy, O., ... \u0026amp; Westoby, M. (2008). Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11: 1065-1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoyle, D. R., Nagendra, U. J., Taylor, M. K., Campbell, J. H., Cunard, C. E., Joslin, A. H., ... \u0026amp; Callaham Jr, M. A. (2017). Soil fauna responses to natural disturbances, invasive species, and global climate change: Current state of the science and a call to action. Soil Biol Biochem 110: 116-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.03.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ede Alencar, M. I., Belo, A. Y., Silva, J. L., Asato, A. E., Gomes, E. F., de Oliveira, V. S., ... \u0026amp; Caliman, A. (2022). Hard to predict! No clear effects of home-field advantage on leaf litter decomposition in tropical heath vegetation. J Trop Ecol 38: 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467422000384\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDin, H., Metali, F., \u0026amp; Sukri, R. S. (2015). Tree diversity and community composition of the Tutong white sands, Brunei Darussalam: a rare tropical heath forest ecosystem. Int. J Ecol 2015: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/807876\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDonovan, L. A., Maherali, H., Caruso, C. M., Huber, H., \u0026amp; de Kroon, H. (2011). The evolution of the worldwide leaf economics spectrum. New Phytol 191: 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.11.011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFanin, N., Lin, D., Freschet, G. T., Keiser, A. D., Augusto, L., Wardle, D. A., \u0026amp; Veen, G. F. (2021). Home‐field advantage of litter decomposition: from the phyllosphere to the soil. New Phytol 231: 1353-1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17475\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrolking, S., Roulet, N. T., Tuittila, E., Bubier, J. L., Quillet, A., Talbot, J., \u0026amp; Richard, P. J. H. (2010). A new model of Holocene peatland net primary production, decomposition, water balance, and peat accumulation. Earth Syst Dyn 1: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-1-1-2010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a‐Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J., \u0026amp; Wall, D. H. (2013). Climate and litter quality differently modulate the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition across biomes. Ecol Lett 16: 1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12137\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiesen, W., Wijedasa, L. S., \u0026amp; Page, S. E. (2018). Unique Southeast Asian peat swamp forest habitats have relatively few distinctive plant species. Mire Peat 22: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGholz, H. L., Wedin, D. A., Smitherman, S. M., Harmon, M. E., \u0026amp; Parton, W. J. (2000). Long‐term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Glob. Chang. Biol 6: 751-765. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00349.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHanson, P. J., Edwards, N. T., Garten, C. T., \u0026amp; Andrews, J. A. (2000). Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry 48: 115-146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006244819642\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarenda, K. M., Lamentowicz, M., Samson, M., \u0026amp; Chojnicki, B. H. (2018). The role of peatlands and their carbon storage function in the context of climate change. \u003cem\u003eInterdisciplinary approaches for sustainable development goals: Economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection\u003c/em\u003e, 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71788-3_12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHolden, J., Chapman, P. J., \u0026amp; Labadz, J. C. (2004). Artificial drainage of peatlands: hydrological and hydrochemical process and wetland restoration. Prog Phys Geogr 28: 95-123. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133304pp403ra\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Lu, X. X., Idris, A., \u0026amp; Anshari, G. (2012). Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9: 1053-1071. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1053-2012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHoyos‐Santillan, J., Lomax, B. H., Turner, B. L., \u0026amp; Sj\u0026ouml;gersten, S. (2018). Nutrient limitation or home field advantage: does microbial community adaptation overcome nutrient limitation of litter decomposition in a tropical peatland? J Ecol 106: 1558-1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12923\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHoyt, A. M., Gandois, L., Eri, J., Kai, F. M., Harvey, C. F., \u0026amp; Cobb, A. R. (2019). CO2 emissions from an undrained tropical peatland: Interacting influences of temperature, shading and water table depth. Glob Chang Biol 25: 2885-2899. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14702\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunt, H. W., Ingham, E. R., Coleman, D. C., Elliott, E. T., \u0026amp; Reid, C. P. P. (1988). Nitrogen limitation of production and decomposition in prairie, mountain meadow, and pine forest. Ecol 69: 1009-1016. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941256\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIkbal, I. M., Din, H. H., Tuah, W. H., Jaafar, S. M., Ahmad, N., \u0026amp; Sukri, R. S. (2023). Diversity, structure, and community composition of Bornean heath forest with a focus on Brunei Darussalam. Biodiversitas 24:2814-2829. https://10.13057/biodiv/d240535\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKalinaki, K., Malik, O. A., Lai, D. T. C., Sukri, R. S., \u0026amp; Wahab, R. B. H. A. (2023). Spatial-temporal mapping of forest vegetation cover changes along highways in Brunei using deep learning techniques and Sentinel-2 images. Ecol. Info. 77: 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102193\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatagiri, S., Yamakura, T., \u0026amp; Lee, S. H. (1991). Properties of soils in kerangas forest on sandstone at Bako National Park, Sarawak, East Malaysia. Jpn J Southeast Asian Stud 29: 35-48. https://doi.org/10.20495/tak.29.1_35\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKobayashi, S. (2016). Peatland and Peatland Forest in Brunei Darussalam. In: Osaki, M., Tsuji, N. (eds) Tropical Peatland Ecosystems. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55681-7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKuzyakov, Y. (2006). Sources of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLaiho, R. (2006). Decomposition in peatlands: Reconciling seemingly contrasting results on the impacts of lowered water levels. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 2011-2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.02.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLam, W. N., Lian, J. J., Chan, P. J., Ting, Y. Y., Chong, R., Rahman, N. E., ... \u0026amp; Chong, K. Y. (2021). Leaf litter decomposition in tropical freshwater swamp forests is slower in swamp than non‐swamp conditions. Biotropica 53: 920-929. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12913\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLavallee, J. M., Soong, J. L., \u0026amp; Cotrufo, M. F. (2020). Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Glob Chang Biol 26: 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14859\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLenth, R.V. (2021). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.5.5-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLi, W., Dickinson, R. E., Fu, R., Niu, G. Y., Yang, Z. L., \u0026amp; Canadell, J. G. (2007). Future precipitation changes and their implications for tropical peatlands. Geophys Res Lett 34: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028364\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLupascu, M., Akhtar, H., Smith, T. E., \u0026amp; Sukri, R. S. (2020). Post‐fire carbon dynamics in the tropical peat swamp forests of Brunei reveal long‐term elevated CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e flux. Glob Chang Biol 26: 5125-5145. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15195\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMacKinnon, K., \u0026amp; Hatta, G. (2013). Ecology of Kalimantan: Indonesian Borneo. Tuttle Publishing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMiettinen, J., Shi, C., \u0026amp; Liew, S. C. (2016). Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Glob Ecol Conserv 6: 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.004\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMishra, S., Page, S. E., Cobb, A. R., Lee, J. S. H., Jovani‐Sancho, A. J., Sj\u0026ouml;gersten, S., ... \u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2021). Degradation of Southeast Asian tropical peatlands and integrated strategies for their better management and restoration. J Appl Ecol 58: 1370-1387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13905\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoore, T., \u0026amp; Basiliko, N. (2006). Decomposition in boreal peatlands. In Boreal peatland ecosystems (pp. 125-143). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31913-9_7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMurdiyarso, D., Hergoualc\u0026rsquo;h, K., \u0026amp; Verchot, L. V. (2010). Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS 107: 19655-19660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911966107\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026Oslash;ien, A., \u0026amp; Selmer-Olsen, A. R. (1980). A laboratory method for evaluation of available nitrogen in soil. Acta Agric Scand 30: 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015128009435259\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOliva, R. L., Veen, G. F., \u0026amp; Tanaka, M. O. (2023). Soil nutrient dissimilarity and litter nutrient limitation as major drivers of home field advantage in riparian tropical forests. Biotropica 55: 628-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13214\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOmar, M. S., Ifandi, E., Sukri, R. S., Kalaitzidis, S., Christanis, K., Lai, D. T. C., ... \u0026amp; Tsikouras, B. (2022). Peatlands in Southeast Asia: A comprehensive geological review. ESR 232: 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104149\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOng, C. S., Juan, J. C., \u0026amp; Yule, C. M. (2015). Litterfall production and chemistry of Koompassia malaccensis and Shorea uliginosa in a tropical peat swamp forest: plant nutrient regulation and climate relationships. Trees 29: 527-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1130-y\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePage, S. E., Rieley, J. O., \u0026amp; Banks, C. J. (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob Chang Biol 17: 798-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02279.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePage, S. E., \u0026amp; Baird, A. J. (2016). Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41: 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085520\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRibeiro, K., Pacheco, F. S., Ferreira, J. W., de Sousa‐Neto, E. R., Hastie, A., Krieger Filho, G. C., ... \u0026amp; Ometto, J. P. (2021). Tropical peatlands and their contribution to the global carbon cycle and climate change. Glob Chang Biol 27: 489-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15408\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRahman, N. E., Smith, S. W., Lam, W. N., Chong, K. Y., Chua, M. S., Teo, P. Y., ... \u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2023). Leaf decomposition and flammability are largely decoupled across species in a tropical swamp forest despite sharing some predictive leaf functional traits. New Phytol 238: 598-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18742\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichardson, S. J., Allen, R. B., \u0026amp; Doherty, J. E. (2008). Shifts in leaf N: P ratio during resorption reflect soil P in temperate rainforest. Funct Ecol 22: 738-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01426.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeibold, S., Rammer, W., Hothorn, T., Seidl, R., Ulyshen, M. D., Lorz, J., ... \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, J. (2021). The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition. Nature 597: 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03740-8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSt John, M., Orwin, K. H., \u0026amp; Dickie, I. A. (2011). No \u0026lsquo;home\u0026rsquo; versus \u0026lsquo;away\u0026rsquo; effects of decomposition found in a grassland\u0026ndash;forest reciprocal litter transplant study. Soil Biol Biochem 43: 1482-1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSwift, M. J., Heal, O. W., Anderson, J. M., \u0026amp; Anderson, J. M. (1979). Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems (Vol. 5). Univ of California Press.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeen, G. F., Freschet, G. T., Ordonez, A., \u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2015a). Litter quality and environmental controls of home‐field advantage effects on litter decomposition. Oikos 124: 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01374\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeen, G. F., Sundqvist, M. K., \u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2015b). Environmental factors and traits that drive plant litter decomposition do not determine home‐field advantage effects. Funct Ecol 29: 981-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12421\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVivanco, L., \u0026amp; Austin, A. T. (2008). Tree species identity alters forest litter decomposition through long‐term plant and soil interactions in Patagonia, Argentina. J Ecol 96: 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01393.x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWang, X., Gossart, M., Guinet, Y., Fau, H., Lavignasse-Scaglia, C. D., Chaieb, G., \u0026amp; Michalet, R. (2020). The consistency of home-field advantage effects with varying climate conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 149: 107934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107934\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Klironomos, J. N., Setala, H., Van Der Putten, W. H., \u0026amp; Wall, D. H. (2004). Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304: 1629-1633. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094875\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., \u0026amp; Townsend, A. R. (2009). Controls over leaf litter decomposition in wet tropical forests. Ecol 90: 3333-3341. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2294.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., ... \u0026amp; Villar, R. (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428: 821- 827. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYule, C. M., \u0026amp; Gomez, L. N. (2009). Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Wetl Ecol Manag 17: 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9103-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZanne, A. E., Flores-Moreno, H., Powell, J. R., Cornwell, W. K., Dalling, J. W., Austin, A. T., ... \u0026amp; Zalamea, P. C. (2022). Termite sensitivity to temperature affects global wood decay rates. Science 377: 1440-1444. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo3856\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-and-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant and Soil](https://www.springer.com/journal/11104)","snPcode":"11104","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11104/3","title":"Plant and Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"carbon sequestration, home-field advantage, leaf litter decomposition, litter nutrient concentration, reciprocal transplant experiment, tropical peatlands","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAims\u003c/em\u003e Tropical peatlands have a globally important role as carbon sinks. How their waterlogged conditions and low nutrient status impact plant litter decomposition is not well-understood, despite decomposition processes underpinning carbon sequestration. Our study explored leaf litter decomposition between adjacent paired patches of intact tropical peat forests and kerangas (free-draining heath) forests in Brunei Darussalam and tested the ‘home-field advantage’ effect, which predicts that litter decomposes fastest in the environment it was sourced from due to pre-adaption of the decomposer community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethods\u003c/em\u003e A litter reciprocal transplantation decomposition experiment was conducted across paired peat and kerangas plots using litter from five tree families (Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Lauraceae, Dipterocarpaceae, and Myrtaceae), common to both forest types.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e Contrary to expectations, we found no significant difference in rates of mass or nutrient loss from decomposing litter between peat and kerangas forests irrespective of the litter’s origin, despite differences in environmental conditions between the two environments. We also found no evidence for home-field advantage in either forest. Litter nutrient concentration operated as a key predictor of decomposition, but this effect was independent of forest type.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConclusions\u003c/em\u003e The study suggests that differences in surface leaf litter decomposition are unlikely to greatly contribute to the high organic matter accumulation observed in peat forests relative to kerangas forests, indicating that other factors, such as woody debris, branches and tree trunks are more likely to be contributing to their belowground carbon sequestration. This emphasizes the need for further research to explore factors driving organic matter accumulation in tropical peatlands.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"No home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the tropical peat forests of Brunei Darussalam","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-14 08:06:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8416081/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revisions","date":"2026-03-08T19:25:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2026-01-13T11:57:34+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-12T14:46:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Plant and Soil","date":"2026-01-10T02:02:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-09T11:04:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Plant and Soil","date":"2025-12-30T11:05:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-and-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant and Soil](https://www.springer.com/journal/11104)","snPcode":"11104","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11104/3","title":"Plant and Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1b1dc32e-8bf2-45ae-9d6a-6ef73534b4ba","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 14th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-08T00:12:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-14 08:06:21","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8416081","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8416081","identity":"rs-8416081","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}