4.4 Article

Belowground mutualists and the invasive ability of Acacia longifolia in coastal dunes of Portugal

期刊

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 651-661

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-008-9280-8

关键词

AMF; Broom; Gorse; Nitrogen; Rhizobia

资金

  1. ROBIN [POCI/BIA-BDE/56941/2004]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
  3. European Union [POCI 2010]
  4. [(SFRH/BPD/21066/2004]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/21066/2004] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to form symbiotic associations with soil microorganisms and the consequences for plant growth were studied for three woody legumes grown in five different soils of a Portuguese coastal dune system. Seedlings of the invasive Acacia longifolia and the natives Ulex europaeus and Cytisus grandiflorus were planted in the five soil types in which at least one of these species appear in the studied coastal dune system. We found significant differences between the three woody legumes in the number of nodules produced, final plant biomass and shoot N-15 content. The number of nodules produced by A. longifolia was more than five times higher than the number of nodules produced by the native legumes. The obtained N-15 values suggest that both A. longifolia and U. europaeus incorporated more biologically-fixed nitrogen than C. grandiflorus which is also the species with the smallest distribution. Finally, differences were also found between the three species in the allocation of biomass in the different studied soils. Acacia longifolia displayed a lower phenotypic plasticity than the two native legumes which resulted in a greater allocation to aboveground biomass in the soils with lower nutrient content. We conclude that the invasive success of A. longifolia in the studied coastal sand dune system is correlated to its capacity to nodulate profusely and to use the biologically-fixed nitrogen to enhance aboveground growth in soils with low N content.

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