4.7 Review

Plant mineral nutrition in ancient landscapes: high plant species diversity on infertile soils is linked to functional diversity for nutritional strategies

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 334, 期 1-2, 页码 11-31

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-010-0444-9

关键词

Ancient landscapes; Biodiversity; Cluster roots; LMA; Mycorrhiza; Nitrogen; OCBIL; Phosphorus; Sclerophyllous; YODFEL

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. Lotterywest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ancient landscapes, which have not been glaciated in recent times or disturbed by other major catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions, are dominated by nutrient-impoverished soils. If these parts of the world have had a relatively stable climate, due to buffering by oceans, their floras tend to be very biodiverse. This review compares the functional ecophysiological plant traits that dominate in old, climatically buffered, infertile landscapes (OCBILS) with those commonly found in young, frequently disturbed, fertile landscapes (YODFELs). We show that, within the OCBILs of Western Australia, non-mycorrhizal species with specialised root clusters predominantly occur on the most phosphate-impoverished soils, where they co-occur with mycorrhizal species without such specialised root clusters. In global comparisons, we show that plants in OCBILs, especially in Western Australia, are characterised by very low leaf phosphorus (P) concentrations, very high N:P ratios, and very high LMA values (LMA = leaf mass per unit leaf area). In addition, we show that species in OCBILs are far more likely to show P-toxicity symptoms when exposed to slightly elevated soil P levels when compared with plants in YODFELs. In addition, some species in OCBILs exhibit a remarkable P-resorption proficiency, with some plants in Western Australia achieving leaf P concentrations in recently shed leaves that are lower than ever reported before. We discuss how this knowledge on functional traits can guide us towards sustainable management of ancient landscapes.

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