4.7 Article

Nitrogen stable isotopes indicate differences in nitrogen cycling between two contrasting Jamaican montane forests

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 367, 期 1-2, 页码 465-476

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-012-1469-z

关键词

Jamaica; Tropical montane forest; Nitrogen cycling; Nitrogen isotopes; Soils

资金

  1. British Ecological Society
  2. Dalton Research Institute (Manchester Metropolitan University)
  3. Percy Sladen Memorial Fund
  4. Trinity College Dublin Association and Trust
  5. WesternAg Innovations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to enhance our knowledge of nitrogen (N) cycling and N acquisition in tropical montane forests through analysis of stable N isotopes (delta N-15). Leaves from eight common tree species, leaf litter, soils from three depths and roots were sampled from two contrasting montane forest types in Jamaica (mull ridge and mor ridge) and were analysed for delta N-15. All foliar delta N-15 values were negative and varied among the tree species but were significantly more negative in the mor ridge forest (by about 2 aEuro degrees). delta N-15 of soils and roots were also more negative in mor ridge forests by about 3 aEuro degrees. Foliar delta N-15 values were closer to that of soil ammonium than soil nitrate suggesting that trees in these forests may have a preference for ammonium; this may explain the high losses of nitrate from similar tropical montane forests. There was no correlation between the rankings of foliar delta N-15 in the two forest types suggesting a changing uptake ratio of different N forms between forest types. These results indicate that N is found at low concentrations in this ecosystem and that there is a tighter N cycle in the mor ridge forest, confirmed by reduced nitrogen availability and lower rates of nitrification. Overall, soil or root delta N-15 values are more useful in assessing ecosystem N cycling patterns as different tree species showed differences in foliar delta N-15 between the two forest types.

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