4.7 Article

What nurse shrubs can do for barren soils: rapid productivity shifts associated with a 40 years ontogenetic gradient

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 388, 期 1-2, 页码 197-209

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-014-2323-2

关键词

Facilitation; Mediterranean gypsum soil; Microbial activity; Soil fertility; Soil nitrogen; Total organic carbon

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CGL2011-29585-C02-01]
  2. British Ecological Society [4742-5780]
  3. EU [FP7-PEOPLE-2009-RG-248155]
  4. JAE-Doc Programme
  5. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
  6. European Social Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We postulated that soil productivity shifts associated with the development of facilitation-driven plant patches in abiotically stressful ecosystems can be faster than currently assumed. This might be due to the effect of the nurse plant by promoting resource accumulation both directly and indirectly through facilitating a plant community underneath its canopy. We analysed a 40 year-ontogenetic gradient of Ononis tridentata, a colonizer shrub of barren gypsum soils in drylands. Soil fertility (chemical variables) and microbial productivity (microbial biomass, respiration and enzymatic activities) were measured along the gradient. The contribution of the nurse plant and the facilitated community to the soil fertility and microbial productivity shifts were separated and quantified by regression commonality analysis. Soil chemical fertility and microbial productivity rapidly increased during the first 20 years, with total organic carbon and microbial parameters rising six-fold along the Ononis ontogenetic gradient. This fast development of soil fertility was mostly explained by the unique effect of Ononis age (37.5 %) with an important contribution of the abundance of facilitated species (15.6 %). Facilitative interactions counterbalance the negative effect of harsh abiotic stress on the time rate and intensity at which plant and soil development occur in drylands.

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