4.7 Article

Soil nutrient patchiness and plant genotypes interact on the production potential and decomposition of root and shoot litter: evidence from short-term laboratory experiments with Triticum aestivum

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 353, 期 1-2, 页码 145-154

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-011-1018-1

关键词

Genotypes; Litter decomposition; Litter quality; Nutrient cycling; Plant biomass; Soil nutrient patchiness; Triticum aestivum

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30870395, 31170507]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that soil nutrient patchiness can differentially benefit the decomposition of root and shoot litters and that this facilitation depends on plant genotypes. Methods We grew 15 cultivars (i.e. genotypes) of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under uniform and patchy soil nutrients, and contrasted their biomass and the subsequent mass, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) dynamics of their root and shoot litters. Results Under equal amounts of nutrients, patchy distribution increased root biomass and had no effects on shoot biomass and C: N ratios of roots and shoots. Roots and shoots decomposed more rapidly in patchy nutrients than in uniform nutrients, and reductions in root and shoot C: N ratios with decomposition were greater in patchy nutrients than uniform nutrients. Soil nutrient patchiness facilitated shoot decomposition more than root decomposition. The changes in C:N ratios with decomposition were correlated with initial C: N ratios of litter, regardless of roots or shoots. Litter potential yield, quality and decomposition were also affected by T. aestivum cultivars and their interactions with nutrient patchiness. Conclusions Soil nutrient patchiness can enhance C and N cycling and this effect depends strongly on genotypes of T. aestivum. Soil nutrient heterogeneity in plant communities also can enhance diversity in litter decomposition and associated biochemical and biological dynamics in the soil.

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