4.4 Article

Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 125, 期 1, 页码 15-26

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10342-005-0075-5

关键词

belowground competition; soil cores; live fine roots; vertical fine root distribution; fine root biomass; fine root length; root area index; specific root length; specific surface area

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Morphology and vertical distribution patterns of spruce and beech live fine roots (diameter <= 2 mm) were studied using a soil core method in three comparable mature stands in the Solling: (1) pure beech, (2) pure spruce and (3) mixed spruce-beech. This study was aimed at determining the effects of interspecific competition on fine root structure and spatial fine root distribution of both species. A vertical stratification of beech and spruce fine root systems was found in the mixed stand due to a shift in beech fine roots from upper to lower soil layers. Moreover, compared to pure beech, a significantly higher specific root length (SRL, P < 0.05) and specific surface area (SSA, P < 0.05) were found for beech admixed with spruce (pure beech/mixed beech SRL 16.1-23.4 m g(-1), SSA 286-367 cm(-1)). Both indicate a flexible 'foraging' strategy of beech tending to increase soil exploitation and space sequestration efficiency in soil layers less occupied by competitors. Spruce, in contrast, followed a more conservative strategy keeping the shallow vertical rooting and the root morphology quite constant in both pure and mixed stands (pure spruce/mixed spruce SRL 9.6/7.7 m g(-1), P > 0.10; SSA 225/212 cm(2) g(-1), P > 0.10). Symmetric competition belowground between mixed beech and spruce was observed since live fine roots of both species were under-represented compared to pure stand. However, the higher space sequestration efficiency suggests a higher competitive ability of beech belowground.

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