4.5 Article

Uptake of soil mineral nitrogen by Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus urophylla x grandis: No difference in N form preference

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
Volume 179, Issue 6, Pages 726-732

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.201600284

Keywords

acacia; eucalypt; ferralic arenosols; N-15 labeling; N preferences; N uptake

Funding

  1. Intensfix Project [ANR-2010-STRA-004-03]
  2. Labex ARBRE [ANR-12-LABXARBRE-01]
  3. CIRAD [AI1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The introduction of N-2-fixing tree species in fast growing tree plantations is a sustainable management option aiming to reduce the risk of nitrogen (N) deficiency due to a large and frequent exportation of nutrients at harvest. Differences in soil mineral N preferences between Eucalyptus urophylla x grandis and Acacia mangium may, in addition to facilitation related to atmospheric N-2 fixation, contribute to the success of mixed-species plantations of the two species on nutrient-poor soils of the coastal Congolese plains. We tested whether these two species differ in their preference for nitrate or ammonium by supplying either ammonium or nitrate enriched in N-15 to six-month-old potted trees growing in an open-air nursery. Although the uptake of nitrate tended to be higher than that of ammonium by both species, the difference was not significant and there was no significant difference between the species regarding their preferred form of soil mineral N. Despite much lower N contents in foliage, stems, and roots of eucalypt compared to acacia, the specific rates of N uptake were up to three times higher for eucalypt than acacia, which suggests that atmospheric N-2 was the major source of N in the six-month-old acacias. We conclude that N-2 fixation rather than complementarity for soil mineral nitrogen alleviates the competition between species in successful mixed eucalypt and acacia plantations.

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