4.6 Article

Mycorrhizal associations of dominant trees influence nitrate leaching responses to N deposition

期刊

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
卷 117, 期 2-3, 页码 241-253

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-013-9931-4

关键词

Nitrate leaching; Nitrogen deposition; Meta-analysis; Soil C:N; Temperate forest; Mycorrhizal associations

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (DEB, Ecosystem Studies) [1153401]
  2. Indiana University's Center for Research in Environmental Sciences (CRES)
  3. Indiana Academy of Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1153401] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temperate forests receive some of the highest rates of nitrogen (N) deposition in the world. While numerous studies have investigated the effects of N enrichment on forests, there is little consensus on why some forests become N saturated while others do not. To investigate this, we used a multi-factor meta-analysis to simultaneously estimate the relative importance of several environmental, experimental, and anthropogenic variables on nitrate (NO3 (-)) leaching in response to experimental N addition. Given that overstory tree species composition and soil C:N ratio influence forest responses to N, we hypothesized that forests dominated by arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) trees would respond differently than forests dominated by ectomycorrhizal (ECM) trees in the context of forest susceptibility to NO3 (-) leaching. We found that mycorrhizal association is an important predictor of NO3 (-) leaching, and AM-dominated forests leach more NO3 (-) in response to N deposition than ECM forests. Additionally, we found that the amount of total N added, ambient N deposition rates, and the form of N added influenced the magnitude of the NO3 (-) leaching response. Given that the mycorrhizal associations of most temperate trees are known, our results suggest that this functional grouping may be useful in identifying forests that are most susceptible to NO3 (-) leaching.

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