4.5 Article

N:P Ratio and the Nature of Nutrient Limitation in Calluna-Dominated Heathlands

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 317-327

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-010-9320-y

关键词

Calluna vulgaris; fertilization experiment; nitrogen deposition; nitrogen saturation; plant growth; phosphorus limitation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing evidence from different sources that prolonged high N deposition causes a shift from nitrogen (N) limitation to nitrogen and phosphorus (P) co-limitation or even P limitation in many terrestrial ecosystems. However, the number of ecosystems where the type of limitation has been directly tested by longer-term full-factorial field experiments is very limited. We conducted a 5-year fertilization experiment with N and P in the Luneburger Heide (NW Germany) to test the hypothesis that, following decades of elevated atmospheric N inputs, plant growth in dry lowland heaths may have shifted from N to N-P co-limitation or P limitation. We also tested whether the plant tissue N:P ratio reflects the type of nutrient limitation in a continental lowland heathland. Experimental plots dominated by Calluna vulgaris received regular additions of N (50 kg N ha(-1) y(-1)), P (20 kg P ha(-1) y(-1)), a combination of both, or water only (control) from 2004 to 2008. Over the whole study period, a highly significant positive N effect on shoot length was found, thus indicating N limitation. We conclude that a clear shift from N limitation to N-P co-limitation or P limitation has not yet occurred. Tissue N:P ratios showed a high temporal variability and no relationship between tissue N:P ratio and the shoot length response of Calluna to nutrient addition was found. The N:P tool is thus of limited use at the local scale and within the range of N:P ratio observed in this study, and should only be used as a rough indicator for the prediction of the type of nutrient limitation in lowland heathland on a larger geographical scale with a broader interval of N:P ratio.

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

4.5
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