4.6 Article

Recovery of ectomycorrhiza after 'nitrogen saturation' of a conifer forest

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 189, 期 2, 页码 515-525

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03485.x

关键词

15N natural abundance; boreal forest; ecosystem nitrogen retention; ectomycorrhizal fungi; nitrogen deposition; soil microbial community

资金

  1. Royal College of Forestry
  2. Faculty of Forest Science at SLU
  3. Foundation for Plant Nutrition Research
  4. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  5. Swedish Science Council
  6. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
  7. foundation MISTRA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Trees reduce their carbon (C) allocation to roots and mycorrhizal fungi in response to high nitrogen (N) additions, which should reduce the N retention capacity of forests. The time needed for recovery of mycorrhizas after termination of N loading remains unknown. Here, we report the long-term impact of N loading and the recovery of ectomycorrhiza after high N loading on a Pinus sylvestris forest. We analysed the N% and abundance of the stable isotope 15N in tree needles and soil, soil microbial fatty acid biomarkers and fungal DNA. Needles in N-loaded plots became enriched in 15N, reflecting decreased N retention by mycorrhizal fungi and isotopic discrimination against 15N during loss of N. Meanwhile, needles in N-limited (control) plots became depleted in 15N, reflecting high retention of 15N by mycorrhizal fungi. N loading was terminated after 20 yr. The delta 15N and N% of the needles decreased 6 yr after N loading had been terminated, and approached values in control plots after 15 yr. This decrease, and the larger contributions compared with N-loaded plots of a fungal fatty acid biomarker and ectomycorrhizal sequences, suggest recovery of ectomycorrhiza. High N loading rapidly decreased the functional role of ectomycorrhiza in the forest N cycle, but significant recovery occurred within 6-15 yr after termination of N loading.

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

4.6
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