4.6 Article

Seven years of carbon dioxide enrichment, nitrogen fertilization and plant diversity influence arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a grassland ecosystem

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 192, 期 1, 页码 200-214

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03776.x

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhiza; CO2 enrichment; community composition; grassland; niche partitioning hypothesis; nitrogen fertilization; plant richness; structural equation model

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0322057, DEB-0080382, DEB-0218039, DEB-0219104, DEB-0217631, DEB-0316136, 0842327]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-96ER62291]
  3. PEO
  4. ARCS Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested the prediction that the abundance and diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are influenced by resource availability and plant community composition by examining the joint effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) enrichment, nitrogen (N) fertilization and plant diversity on AM fungi. We quantified AM fungal spores and extramatrical hyphae in 176 plots after 7 yr of treatment with all combinations of ambient or elevated CO2 (368 or 560 ppm), with or without N fertilization (0 or 4 g N m(-2)), and one (monoculture) or 16 host plant species (polyculture) in the BioCON field experiment at Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve, Minnesota, USA. Extramatrical hyphal lengths were increased by CO2 enrichment, whereas AM spore abundance decreased with N fertilization. Spore abundance, morphotype richness and extramatrical hyphal lengths were all greater in monoculture plots. A structural equation model showed AM fungal biovolume was most influenced by CO2 enrichment, plant community composition and plant richness, whereas spore richness was most influenced by fungal biovolume, plant community composition and plant richness. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi responded to differences in host community and resource availability, suggesting that mycorrhizal functions, such as carbon sequestration and soil stability, will be affected by global change.

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