4.4 Article

Below-ground nitrogen cycling in relation to net canopy production in mangrove forests of southern Thailand

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 140, 期 4, 页码 855-864

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-001-0757-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rates of accumulation, transformation and availability of sediment nitrogen in four mangrove forests of different age and type in southern Thailand were examined in relation to forest net canopy production. Net ammonification (range: 0.3-2.3 mmol N m(-2) day(-1)), nitrification (range: 0-0.7 mmol N m(-2) day(-1)) and nitrogen fixation (range: 0-0.6 mmol N m(-2) day(-1)) in surface sediments equated to < 10% of canopy nitrogen demand (range: 7.5-32 mmol N m(-2) day(-1)). By mass balance, we estimated that most of the nitrogen required for tree growth must be derived from root-associated nitrogen fixation and/or mineralisation processes occurring possibly to the maximum depth of live root penetration (75 100 cm). Denitrification, nitrification, rainfall and tidal exchange were comparatively small components of sediment nitrogen flow. Denitrification (range: 0 3.8 mmol N m(-2) day(-1)) removed 3-6% of total nitrogen input at three Rhizophora forests, but removed 23% of total nitrogen input in a high-intertidal Ceriops forest. Nitrogen burial ranged from 4% to 12% of total nitrogen input, with the greatest burial rates in two forests receiving the least tidal inundation. Inputs of nitrogen to the forests were rapid (range: 11-37 mmol N m(-2) day), likely originating from upstream sources such as agricultural and industrial lands, sewage and shrimp ponds. Our results indicate that similar to70% to 90% of the nitrogen supplied to the forest floor is shunted via the ammonium pool to trees to sustain the rapid rates of net canopy production measured in these forests. Differences in plant-sediment nitrogen relations between the forests appeared to be a function of the interaction between intertidal position and stand age.

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