4.2 Article

Plant nitrogen dynamics in fertilized and natural New England salt marshes: a paired N-15 tracer study

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 354, 期 -, 页码 35-46

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps07170

关键词

Spartina alterniflora; Spartina patens; plant ecophysiology; eutrophication; nitrogen isotopes; nitrogen cycling; marsh ecosystem

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the effects of increased nutrient availability on nitrogen (N) dynamics in dominant New England salt marsh plants (tall and stunted Spartina alterniflora and S. patens) using paired large-scale nutrient and (NO3-)-N-15 tracer additions. This study is one component of a long-term, large-scale, salt marsh nutrient and trophic manipulation study (the Trophic Cascades and Interacting Control Processes in a Detritus-based Aquatic Ecosystem [TIDE] Project). We compared physiological variables of plants in fertilized (similar to 17x ambient N and P in incoming tidal water) and reference marsh systems to quantify NO3- uptake and uptake efficiency, allocation of N to tissues, end-of-season N resorption, leaf litter quality and other potential responses to increased nutrient availability. Reference system plants sequestered similar to 24.5 g NO3-N ha(-1) d(-1) in aboveground pools during midsummer, while fertilized plants sequestered similar to 140 g NO3-N ha(-1) d(-1). However, NO3- uptake efficiency (% of total incoming NO3-N sequestered aboveground) was higher in the reference system (16.8%) than in the fertilized system (2.6%), suggesting that our fertilization rate (similar to 70 mu M NO3- in incoming water) approaches or exceeds the uptake saturation point for this vegetation community. Leaf litter quality was clearly affected by N availability; N resorption efficiency was lower in all plants of the fertilized system; senesced leaves from the fertilized creek contained similar to 43% (tall S. alterniflora), 23 % (stunted S. alterniflora) and 15% (S. patens) more N per unit biomass than reference creek leaves.

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

4.2
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