4.6 Article

Nitrogen and phosphorus transformations in the rhizospheres of three tree species in a nutrient-poor sandy soil

Journal

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 341-346

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.10.007

Keywords

Nitrogen mineralization; Phosphorus transformation; Rhizosphere effect; Tree species

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30800887, 30872011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined acid phosphatase activity (APA), N mineralization and nitrification rates, available N and P. and microbial biomass C, N and P in rhizosphere and bulk soils of 18-year-old Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Simon poplar (Populus simonii) and Mongolian pine (Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica) plantations on a nutrient-poor sandy soil in Northeast China. The main objective was to compare the rhizosphere effects of different tree species on N and P cycling under nutrient-deficient conditions. All tree species had the similar pattern but considerably different magnitude of rhizosphere effects. The APA, potential net N mineralization and nitrification rates increased significantly (by 27-60%, 110-188% and 106-142% respectively across the three species) in rhizosphere soil compared to bulk soil. This led to significantly higher Olsen-P and NH4+-N concentrations in rhizosphere soil, whereas NO3--N concentration was significantly lower in rhizosphere soil owing to increased microbial immobilization and root uptake. Microbial biomass C and N generally increased while microbial biomass P remained constant in rhizosphere soil relative to bulk soil, indicating the N-limited rather than P-limited microbial growth. Rhizosphere effects on P transformation were most pronounced for Siberian elm, while rhizosphere effects on N transformation were most pronounced for Mongolian pine, implying the different capacities of these species to acquire nutrients. (C) 2010 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available