4.7 Article

A comparative kinetic analysis of nitrate and ammonium influx in two early-successional tree species of temperate and boreal forest ecosystems

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 321-328

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00546.x

Keywords

ammonium fluxes; kinetics of nitrate and ammonium uptake; lodgepole pine; nitrate fluxes; nitrogen nutrition; trembling aspen

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root NO3- and NH4+ influx systems of two early-successional species of temperate (trembling aspen: Populus tremuloides Michx.) and boreal (lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) forest ecosystems were characterized. NO3- and NH4+ influxes were biphasic, consisting of saturable high-affinity (HATS) and constitutive non-saturable low-affinity transport systems (LATS) that were evident at low and relatively high N concentrations, respectively. NO3- influx via HATS was inducible (IHATS); nitrate pre-treatment resulted in 8-10-fold increases in the V-max for influx in both species. By contrast, HATS for NH4+ were entirely constitutive. In both species, V-max values for NH4+ influx were higher than those for NO3- uptake; the differences were larger in pine (6-fold) than aspen (1.8-fold). In aspen, the K-m for NH4+ influx by HATS was approximately 3-fold higher than for IHATS NO3- influx, while in pine the K-m for IHATS NO3- influx was approximately 3-fold higher than for NH4+ influx. The aspen IHATS for NO3- influx appeared to be more efficient than that of pine (V-max values for aspen being approximately 10-fold higher and K-m values being approximately 13-fold lower than for pine). By contrast, only small differences in values for the NH4+ HATS were evident between the two species. The kinetic parameters observed here probably result from adaptations to the N availabilities in their respective natural habitats; these may contribute to the distribution and niche separation of these species.

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