4.5 Article

Nutrient resorption of two evergreen shrubs in response to long-term fertilization in a bog

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 174, 期 2, 页码 365-377

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-013-2784-7

关键词

Ombrotrophic; Peatland; Stoichiometry; Chamaedaphne calyculata; Rhododendron groenlandicum

类别

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant
  2. Chinese Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant resorption of multiple nutrients during leaf senescence has been established but stoichiometric changes among N, P and K during resorption and after fertilization are poorly understood. We anticipated that increased N supply would lead to further P limitation or co-limitation with N or K [i.e. P-(co)limitation], decrease N resorption and increase P and K resorption, while P and K addition would decrease P and K resorption and increase N resorption. Furthermore, Ca would accumulate while Mg would be resorbed during leaf senescence, irrespective of fertilization. We investigated the effect of N, P and K addition on resorption in two evergreen shrubs (Chamaedaphne calyculata and Rhododendron groenlandicum) in a long-term fertilization experiment at Mer Bleue bog, Ontario, Canada. In general, N addition caused further P-(co)limitation, increased P and K resorption efficiency but did not affect N resorption. P and K addition did not shift the system to N limitation and affect K resorption, but reduced P resorption proficiency. C. calyculata resorbed both Ca and Mg while R. groenlandicum resorbed neither. C. calyculata showed a higher resorption than R. groenlandicum, suggesting it is better adapted to nutrient deficiency than R. groenlandicum. Resorption during leaf senescence decreased N:P, N:K and K:P ratios. The limited response of N and K and the response of P resorption to fertilization reflect the stoichiometric coupling of nutrient cycling, which varies among the two shrub species; changes in species composition may affect nutrient cycling in bogs.

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

4.5
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