4.7 Article

Foliar nitrogen and phosphorus accumulation responses after fertilization: an example from nutrient-limited Hawaiian forests

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 334, 期 1-2, 页码 85-98

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-010-0281-x

关键词

Leaf nutrients; Luxury consumption; N-to-P ratios; Nutrient cycling; Soil chronosequence; Stoichiometry

资金

  1. NSF [0546868, 0237065, 0554657]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0546868] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. EPSCoR
  5. Office Of The Director [0554657] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. EPSCoR
  7. Office Of The Director [0237065, 0903833] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How plants respond to long-term nutrient enrichment can provide insights into physiological and evolutionary constraints in various ecosystems. The present study examined foliar concentrations after fertilization-to determine if nutrient accumulation responses of the most abundant species in a plant community reflect differences in N and P uptake and storage. Using a chronosequence in the Hawaiian Islands that differs in N and P availability, it was shown that after fertilization, plants increase foliar P to a much greater degree than foliar N, as indicated by response ratios. In addition, foliar P responses after fertilization were more variable and largely driving the observed changes in N:P values. Across species, both inorganic and organic P increased but neither form of N increased significantly. This pattern of P accumulation was consistent across 13 species of varying life forms and occurred at both the N-limited and P-limited site, although its magnitude was larger at the P-limited site. Foliar P accumulation after nutrient enrichment may indicate nutrient storage and may have evolved to be a general strategy to deal with uncertainties in P availability. Storage of P complicates interpretations of N:P values and the determination of nutrient limitation.

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