4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The response of tree growth to nitrogen and phosphorus additions in a tropical montane rainforest

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 618, Issue -, Pages 1064-1070

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.099

Keywords

Nitrogen deposition; Tree growth; Phosphorus; Limitation; Tropical forest

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31621091, 31330012]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China on Global Change [2014CB954001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rapid increase of global nitrogen (N) deposition has greatly altered carbon cycles and functioning of forest ecosystems. Previous studies have focused on changes in carbon dynamics of temperate and subtropical forests through N enrichment experiments; however, the effects of N deposition on tree growth remain inconsistent, especially in tropical forests. Here, we conducted a five-year N addition experiment (0 and 50 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)) in a tropical montane rain forest in Hainan Island, China, to explore the effects of enhanced N deposition on growth of trees. We also set phosphorus (P) treatment (50 kg P ha(-1) yr(-1)) and N + P treatment (50 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) + 50 kg P ha(-1) yr(-1)) to examine potential P limitation driven by N deposition. Our results showed that N addition has not significantly influenced tree growth, while P addition significantly increased the relative growth rate of small (diameter at breast height, DBH <= 10 cm) and medium(10 < DBH <= 20 cm) trees. The combined N and P addition accelerated the growth of small trees, but did not affect the growth of medium and large (20 cm < DBH) trees. These contrasting effects of N and P addition on tree growth indicate that the tropical montane forest is mainly limited by P, which suggests the importance of P in regulating growth of trees in tropical forests. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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