4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Patterns in δ15N in roots, stems, and leaves of sugar maple and American beech seedlings, saplings, and mature trees

期刊

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
卷 112, 期 1-3, 页码 275-291

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-012-9724-1

关键词

Stable isotopes; Isotopic fractionation; Nitrogen; Species patterns; Northern hardwood forest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable isotopes of nitrogen (N) in plants are increasingly used to evaluate ecosystem N cycling patterns. A basic assumption in this research is that plant delta N-15 reflects the delta N-15 of the N source. Recent evidence suggests that plants may fractionate on uptake, transport, or transformation of N. If the dominant source of plant N is via roots, a difference in delta N-15 by tissue type would suggest fractionation on transport and assimilation of N. In order to evaluate differences between species and plant parts, we measured delta N-15 in root, stem, and leaf tissues of individual sugar maple (Acer saccharum; SM) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia; BE) plants ranging in age from germinants to mature trees at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire (USA). For SM, root delta N-15 > stem delta N-15 > leaf delta N-15; for BE seedlings, root delta N-15 > stem delta N-15 and root delta N-15 > leaf delta N-15. These differences suggest that fractionation occurs during plant transport and assimilation of N. Beech delta N-15 (root, stem, and leaf) was consistently higher than SM delta N-15 for 1-7 year-old seedlings. At one site, we found no differences with age in foliar delta N-15 (range: 4.1-4.8 aEuro degrees) for seedlings, saplings, and trees which suggests that it may be possible to compare foliar delta N-15 of plants of different ages at some sites. However, at another site, foliar and root delta N-15 were higher for trees than 1-2 year-old seedlings. This study suggests that physiological differences in N assimilation and transport processes that differ by species likely control plant delta N-15.

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