Table S2 Effect of elevated UV radiation on between group heterogeneity (Qb) for
each response variable.
Response variable
Mass remaining
Lignin remaining
Nitrogen remaining
Categorical
variable
Litter type
Ecosystem
Condition
Method
Litter type
Ecosystem
Condition
Method
Litter type
Ecosystem
Condition
Method
Abiotic
Qb
5.07
2.20
16.72
17.87
0.39
3.60
0.01
0.51
2.63
-
P-value
0.31
0.46
0.01
0.01
0.66
0.30
0.94
0.70
0.27
-
Abiotic + Biotic
Qb
14.70
26.15
1.04
1.75
40.32
11.71
0.05
0.96
0.57
0.29
1.77
P-value
0.12
0.02
0.47
0.38
0.00
0.04
0.85
0.81
0.88
0.76
0.37
Table S3 Effect of UV radiation on microbial community. Con: experimental
condition; method: UV treatment method; types: types of UV; Trt: treatments (+:
increased the level of UV radiation; -: reduced the level of UV radiation)
Citation
Ecosystem
Avery et al.,
2003
Antarctic
grassland
Field
Filter
UVB
-
The phenotypic profile of the
rhizosphere microbial community was
altered.
Bao et al.,
2004
Agriculture
ecosystem
Field
Lamp
UVB
+
The community structure and
functional diversity of soil nematodes
were altered.
Duguay &
Klironomos,
2000
Agriculture
ecosystem
Lab
Lamp
UVB
+
UVB radiation altered fungal growth
and fungal community.
Johnson et al.,
2002
Subarctic
shrubland
Field
Lamp
UVB
+
UVB radiation significantly affected
soil microbial community structure
Pancotto et al.,
2003
Sub-Antarctic
shrubland
Field
Filter
UVB
-
UV radiation significantly affected
fungal colonization and species
composition
Rinnan et al.,
2005
Arctic
shrubland
Field
Filter
UV
-
UV radiation changed microbial
community.
Robson et al.,
2005
Peatland
Field
Filter
UVB
-
UVB radiation altered microbial
community.
Searles et al.,
2001
Peatland
Field
Filter
UVB
-
UVB changed the number of testate
amoebae.
Grassland
Field
Lamp
UV
+
UV radiation significantly reduced the
total number of individuals and the
number of species of Collembola.
Verhoef et al.,
2000
Con
Method
Type
Trt
Response
Figure S1 Effects of elevated UV radiation on litter mass remaining under conditions
where microbial decomposition was inhibited (a) and not inhibited (b). The dot with
error bars shows the overall mean response ratio at the 95% CI.
(a) Abiotic
(b) Abiotic + Biotic
Overall
Mean (21)
Overall
Mean (60)
Litter type
Grass (8)
Shrub (3)
Broadleave (9)
Conifer (0)
Litter type
Grass (4)
Shrub (27)
Broadleave (19)
Conifer (10)
Ecosystem
Grassland (7)
Shrubland (2)
Desert (0)
Forest (0)
Agriculture (0)
Ecosystem
Grassland (20)
Shrubland (3)
Desert (6)
Forest (17)
Agriculture (2)
Condition
Field (9)
Lab (12)
Condition
Field (48)
Lab (12)
Method
Filter (6)
Lamp (3)
Method
Filter (31)
Lamp (29)
.9
1.0
1.2
Response ratio
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
Response ratio
1.2
Figure S2 Effects of elevated UV radiation on lignin remaining under the conditions
where microbial decomposition was inhibited (a) and not inhibited (b). The dot with
error bars shows the overall mean response ratio at the 95% CI.
(a) Abiotic
(b) Abiotic + Biotic
Overall
Mean (5)
Litter type
Grass (2)
Shrub (0)
Broadleave (2)
Conifer (0)
Ecosystem
Grassland (2)
Shrubland (0)
Desert (0)
Forest (0)
Agriculture (0)
Condition
Field (3)
Lab (2)
Method
Filter (0)
Lamp (4)
.6
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Response ratio
Overall
Mean (16)
Litter type
Grass (6)
Shrub (2)
Broadleave (6)
Conifer (2)
Ecosystem
Grassland (6)
Shrubland (2)
Desert (0)
Forest (8)
Agriculture (0)
Condition
Field (16)
Lab (0)
Method
Filter (8)
Lamp (8)
.4
.6
.8
1.0
1.2
Response ratio
1.4
Figure S3 Effects of elevated UV radiation on nitrogen remaining under the
conditions where microbial decomposition was inhibited (a) and not inhibited (b). The
dot with error bars shows the overall mean response ratio at the 95% CI.
(b) Abiotic + Biotic
(a) Abiotic
Overall
Mean (11)
Litter type
Grass (2)
Shrub (0)
Broadleave (9)
Conifer (0)
Ecosystem
Grassland (2)
Shrubland (2)
Desert (0)
Forest (0)
Agriculture (0)
Condition
Field (4)
Lab (7)
Method
Filter (0)
Lamp (10)
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
Response ratio
1.2
Overall
Mean (33)
Litter type
Grass (12)
Shrub (2)
Broadleave (17)
Conifer (2)
Ecosystem
Grassland (9)
Shrubland (2)
Desert (0)
Forest (13)
Agriculture (2)
Condition
Field (26)
Lab (7)
Method
Filter (16)
Lamp (17)
.4
.6
.8
1.0
1.2
Response ratio
1.4
RR of mass
Figure S4 Relationships between the response ratios of mass remaining, lignin remaining, and nitrogen remaining vs. UV exposure duration
((a), (b), and (c), respectively), UV level ((d), (e), and (f)), surface area/mass ratio ((g), (h), and (i)), and latitude ((j), (k), and (l)).
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
3
(a)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(d)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(g)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(j)
P<0.05
P<0.05
2
1
RR of lignin
0
3
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(b)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(e)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(h)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(k)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(c)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(f)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(i)
Abiotic
Abiotic + Biotic
(l)
2
1
RR of nitrogen
0
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
0
UV exposure duration (months)
2
4
6
8
10 12 14 0
UV (KJ/m2/d)
50
100
150
200
Surface area / mass (cm2/g)
0
20
40
60
80 100 120
Latitude