4.4 Article

Possible Mechanism for Spontaneous Establishment of Calluna vulgaris in a Recently Abandoned Agricultural Field

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 308-313

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00349.x

关键词

ericoid mycorrhizal fungi; ex-arable land; heathland; nitrogen cycling; soil restoration; time of colonization

类别

资金

  1. TRIAS-SKB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Western Europe, arable lands have been abandoned to increase the area of nature, such as Calluna vulgaris-dominated heathlands. However, the growth conditions, e.g., nutrient availability and lack of a phenolics-rich organic layer, on ex-arable sandy soils differ markedly from those of heathland and will favor fast-growing plant species. Succession toward Calluna-dominated heathland is expected to take decades unless intensive restoration management is applied. Here, we report a possible mechanism to explain the occurrence of Calluna patches (0.7-2.0 m diameter) in a 10-year abandoned agricultural field within a dominant vegetation of grasses and forbs. All roots sampled from the Calluna patches were colonized by ericoid mycorrhizal (ERM) and other endomycorrhizal fungi. Both nitrogen mineralization of soil organic N and potential nitrogen mineralization (arginine ammonification) were much lower in soil under Calluna patches than in the rest of the ex-arable soil, although other soil characteristics did not differ. The nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in Calluna shoots was much greater than that in shoots of grasses and forbs, indicating that the latter were more N limited. The results indicate that the association with ERM fungi is probably providing the host competitive superiority for nitrogen even in a soil with low organic matter content. Our results suggest that the conversion from arable land into heathland may be accomplished by the immediate establishment of Calluna seedlings and ERM inoculum when agricultural activities are stopped. This needs to be tested in controlled experiments.

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

4.4
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