4.7 Article

Nitrogen turnover in the leaf litter and fine roots of sugar maple

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 12, Pages 3456-3462

Publisher

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/10-0633.1

Keywords

Acer saccharum; experimental NO(3)(-) deposition; fine roots; leaf litter; long-term tracer experiments; nitrogen cycling; nitrogen sinks; northern hardwood; sugar maple

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [9221003, 9629842, 735116, 816618]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology [0814623, 9629842, 9221003] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1059720, 0814864] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to better understand the nitrogen (N) cycle, a pulse of (15)NO(3)(-) was applied in 1998 to a sugar maple (Acer saccharum) dominated northern hardwood forest receiving long-term (1994-2008) simulated atmospheric N deposition. Sugar maple leaf litter and live fine-root (15)N were quantified for four years prior to labeling and for 11 subsequent years. Continuous sampling of (15)N following addition of the tracer enabled calculation of leaf litter and fine-root N pool turnover utilizing an exponential decay function. Fine-root (15)N recovery peaked at 3.7% +/- 1.7% the year the tracer was applied, while leaf litter (15)N recovery peaked in the two years following tracer application at similar to 8%. These results suggest shoots are primarily constructed from N taken up in previous years, while fine roots are constructed from new N. The residence time of N was 6.5 years in leaf litter and 3.1 years in fine roots. The longer residence time and higher recovery rate are evidence that leaves were a stronger sink for labeled N than fine roots, but the relatively short residence time of tracer N in both pools suggests that there is not tight intra-ecosystem cycling of N in this mature forest.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available