4.3 Article

Does leaf-level nutrient-use efficiency explain Nothofagus-dominance of some tropical rain forests in New Caledonia?

Journal

PLANT ECOLOGY
Volume 201, Issue 1, Pages 51-66

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-008-9477-z

Keywords

Decomposition; Litter; Monodominance; Resorption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tropical rain forests generally have a complex structure and a high diversity of species in their canopy, but in some rain forests the upper canopy is dominated by a single species. The factors controlling this dominance are uncertain. In New Caledonia, Nothofagus species dominate the upper canopy of some rain forests on ultramafic soils. Here we investigate whether leaf-level nutrient-use efficiency (NUE) could explain dominance by Nothofagus. We found no evidence of a competitive advantage in Nothofagus in terms of leaf-level NUE: Nothofagus species did not have lower leaf macronutrient concentrations, nor did they resorb more nutrients than co-occurring species on average. They did, however, have lower foliar Ni concentrations on average. Leaf decay rate across all species in a glasshouse-based trial correlated positively with foliar P and negatively with cell wall content, lignin:P, C:P, lignin:N, leaf toughness and tannin activity. Multivariate analysis suggested that total cell wall concentration exerted the strongest independent effect on variation among species in decomposition rate. Slow decomposition of Nothofagus leaf litter may facilitate continued dominance of the upper canopy by suppressing establishment and growth of co-occurring species or by promoting disturbance through fire, since disturbance has been suggested as necessary for regeneration and maintenance of dominance by Nothofagus species. However, the biological mechanisms allowing Nothofagus to achieve initial dominance of these post-disturbance forests are uncertain, and may still include plant-level NUE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available