4.5 Article

Nitrogen deposition potentially contributes to oak regeneration failure in the Midwestern temperate forests of the USA

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 177, Issue 1, Pages 53-63

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-3119-z

Keywords

Red oak; Sugar maple; Seedlings; Species composition; Demography

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a 7-year field study at two oak-dominated forest sites which differ in their atmospheric N deposition to test the hypothesis that red oak regeneration failure in the upper Midwestern US forests, at least in part, results from increased N load. The sites are located in Swallow Cliffs (SC) in Cook County, Illinois, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL) in Porter County, Indiana. Annual wet NO3 (-) deposition for the 22 years immediately prior to the experiments was significantly higher in IDNL than in the SC site. Results from common garden experiments showed that oak seedling biomass was 60 % lower at IDNL compared with SC, but there was little site effect on growth of maple seedlings. Experimental N addition also resulted in a 45 % decrease in the total biomass of the oak seedlings at SC, but had no significant effect on the biomass at IDNL. Maple seedlings responded little to experimental fertilization. The growth rate of mature oak trees was also lower at IDNL but to a much smaller extent than that of seedlings. Maple trees did not significantly differ between sites. We conclude that: (1) chronic N load adversely affects seedling performance of red oak, but not sugar maple, in these temperate forests; and (2) the seedling establishment phase rather than the adult tree is the likely target stage for this adverse effect of N loading. The exact mechanisms for the differential effects of N on these co-occurring species are not clear, but different plasticity in fractional biomass and N allocation to the leaves might be involved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available