4.7 Article

Ancient CO2 levels favor nitrogen fixing plants over a broader range of soil N compared to present

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82701-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Manitoba Entrance Scholarship, University of Manitoba
  2. Natural Sciences, Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Graduate Education Teaching stipend

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study showed that nitrogen fixing plants had a greater advantage under ancient CO2 levels compared to present levels, but non-nitrogen fixing plants grew more vigorously at high nitrogen levels.
Small inreases in CO2 stimulate nitrogen fixation and plant growth. Increasing soil N can inhibit nitrogen fixation. However, no studies to date have tested how nitrogen fixing plants perform under ancient CO2 levels (100 MYA), when nitrogen fixing plants evolved, with different levels of N additions. The aim of this study was to assess if ancient CO2, compared to present, favors nitrogen fixers over a range of soil nitrogen concentrations. Nitrogen fixers (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa, Alnus viridis ssp. crispa, and Alnus rubra) and their close non-nitrogen fixing relatives (Betula pumila, Betula papyrifera, Betula glandulosa) were grown at ancient (1600 ppm) or present (400 ppm) CO2 over a range of soil N levels, equivalent to 0, 10, 50, and 200 kg N ha(-1) year(-1). The growth of non-N fixing plants increased more than N fixing plants in response to the increasing N levels. When grown at an ancient CO2 level, the N level at which non-nitrogen fixing plant biomass exceeded nitrogen fixing plant biomass was twice as high (61 kg N ha(-1) year(-1)) as the N level when plants were grown at the ambient CO2 level. Specific nodule activity was also reduced with an increasing level of soil N. Our results show there was a greater advantage in being a nitrogen fixer under ancient levels of CO2 compared with the present CO2 level.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available