4.7 Article

Preferences or plasticity in nitrogen acquisition by understorey palms in a tropical montane forest

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY
卷 101, 期 3, 页码 819-825

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12070

关键词

ammonium; Arecaece; community assembly; ecophysiology; glycine; habitat filtering; niche partitioning; nitrate; Panama; plantsoil (below-ground) interactions

资金

  1. University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana Programme in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology Summer Research Award
  2. Govindjee and Rajni Govindjee Award
  3. STRI Postdoctoral Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil nitrogen (N) occurs in a range of chemical forms from simple inorganic compounds, such as nitrate (NO3 ) and ammonium (NH4 +), to organic compounds, such as amino acids. Plants differ in their capacity to use these various forms, which might influence the distribution of species across environmental nutrient gradients. We tested the hypothesis that the distribution of understorey palm species along a soil N gradient in a tropical montane forest in Panama is related to preferences for different chemical forms of N. We conducted a field experiment using 15N-labelled ammonium, nitrate and glycine to examine whether tropical plants show preferences for, or are flexible in, their use of chemical forms of soil N. All species used N from inorganic and organic sources and showed no preference for chemical forms of N. However, across all species, the overall N acquisition pattern was glycinenitrateammonium. Species from low-nutrient sites dominated by ammonium and organic N forms had inherently slow N uptake rates. Synthesis. Patterns in the distribution of understorey palms were related to nitrogen (N) uptake rates rather than preferences for N chemical forms. Down-regulation of N uptake rates may be an important adaptation for plant species associated with low-N soils, with plasticity in N acquisition patterns from various N sources important in alleviating competition for soil N.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据