4.6 Article

Reciprocal N (15NH4+ or 15NO3-) transfer between nonN2-fixing Eucalyptus maculata and N2-fixing Casuarina cunninghamiana linked by the ectomycorrhizal fungus Pisolithus sp.

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 629-640

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01137.x

关键词

Eucalyptus maculata; Casuarina cunninghamiana; (NH4+)-N-15; (NO3-)-N-15; Frankia; Pisolithus sp.; common ectomycorrhizal networks (CMNs); two-way N transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two-way N transfers mediated by Pisolithus sp. were examined by excluding root contact and supplying (NH4+)-N-15 or (NO3-)-N-15 to 6-month-old Eucalyptus maculata or Casuarina cunninghamiana grown in two-chambered-pots separated by 37 m screens. Mycorrhizal colonization was 35% in Eucalyptus and 66% in Casuarina (c. 29% N-2-fixation). Using an environmental scanning electron microscope, living hyphae were observed to interconnect Eucalyptus and Casuarina. Biomass and N accumulation was greatest in nodulated mycorrhizal Casuarina/mycorrhizal Eucalyptus pairs, less in nonnodulated mycorrhizal Casuarina/mycorrhizal Eucalyptus pairs, and least in nonnodulated nonmycorrhizal Casuarina/nonmycorrhizal Eucalyptus pairs. In nonnodulated mycorrhizal pairs, N transfers to Eucalyptus or to Casuarina were similar (2.4-4.1 mg per plant in either direction) and were 2.6-4.0 times greater than in nonnodulated nonmycorrhizal pairs. In nodulated mycorrhizal pairs, N transfers were greater to Eucalyptus (5-7 times) and to Casuarina (12-18 times) than in nonnodulated mycorrhizal pairs. Net transfer to Eucalyptus or to Casuarina was low in both nonnodulated nonmycorrhizal (< 0.7 mg per plant) and nonnodulated mycorrhizal pairs (< 1.1 mg per plant). In nodulated mycorrhizal pairs, net transfer to Casuarina was 26.0 mg per plant. The amount and direction of two-way mycorrhiza-mediated N transfer was increased by the presence of Pisolithus sp. and Frankia, resulting in a net N transfer from low-N-demanding Eucalyptus to high-N-demanding Casuarina.

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

4.6
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