4.5 Article

Response of plants to ectomycorrhizae in N-limited conditions:: which factors determine its variation?

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 413-427

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-008-0195-0

关键词

ammonium; chlorophyll a fluorescence; colonization density; cost-benefit; demand-supply; ectomycorrhizae; mycorrhizal response; nitrogen; O-J-I-P test

资金

  1. PRAXIS XXI fellowship [3119/2000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present work, the following hypotheses were tested: (1) the negative effects of mycorrhization over host plant productivity in N-limited conditions are due to N retention by the fungal partner and not due to excessive C drainage; (2) If mycorrhization results in decreased N uptake, the host plant decreases its C investment in fungal growth. The effects of mycorrhization over a wide range of combinations between N availability, N concentration in plant tissues, and degree of mycorrhizal colonization were studied in Pinus pinaster L. mycorrhizal with Pisolithus tinctorius. Several plant productivity parameters, the seedlings' N status, chl a fluorescence (JIP test), and mycorrhizal colonization were measured. N was always limiting. A gradient of mycorrhizal effects over the host plant's growth and vitality was successfully obtained. The mycorrhizal effects on plant growth and N uptake were very strongly and positively correlated, and no evidence was found of a C limitation to growth, confirming hypothesis 1. Indications were found that the plants continued to provide C to the fungus although the N supplied by it was increasingly lower, denying hypothesis 2. A new index, the mycorrhizal N demand-supply balance, was found to efficiently explain, and to have a curvilinear relation with, the variation in response to mycorrhization. The mycorrhizal effect on host plant growth was not related to a negative effect on its photosynthetic performance and, therefore, reflected changes in resource allocation between host plant and mycorrhizal fungus, not in plant vitality.

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