4.7 Article

Leaf-level nitrogen-use efficiency of canopy and understorey species in a beech forest

期刊

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 826-834

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00691.x

关键词

light; mean residence time of nitrogen; nitrogen productivity; nitrogen-use efficiency; wind

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. In a forest stand, canopy and understorey species grow at completely different irradiances and consequently with different carbon and nitrogen availability ratios. We studied how the difference in growth irradiance influenced plant N use in a mature beech forest. 2. We defined leaf-level nitrogen-use efficiency (NUEL) as the amount of the leaf dry mass produced per unit N taken up by leaves. NUEL was similar between the canopy species (Fagus crenata ) and the understorey species (Lindera umbellata and Magnolia salicifolia ). 3. NUEL was analysed further as the product of two components: leaf-level N productivity (NPL) and mean residence time of leaf N (MRTL). The canopy species had significantly larger NPL and significantly shorter MRTL than the understorey species. 4. As the photosynthetic capacity was similar among the species, different NPL between the species was attributable largely to the difference in light conditions to which their leaves were exposed. 5. The difference in MRTL was not attributable to potential efficiency of N resorption (R-EFF) determined at leaf senescence, but to actual R-EFF , which depended on the amount of green leaf lost before full senescence. The canopy species had significantly smaller actual R-EFF because of strong wind actions in the canopy. 6. Although the canopy species realized higher NPL by virtue of high irradiance, it had shorter MRTL due to wind damage to pre-senescent leaves. On the other hand, the canopy species had shorter NPL under shady conditions, but had longer MRTL with little wind damage. Interplay of local environmental factors such as light and wind strongly influenced N use by plants in the beech forest.

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