4.5 Article

Preference for different inorganic nitrogen forms among plant functional types and species of the Patagonian steppe

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 173, 期 3, 页码 1075-1081

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-013-2687-7

关键词

N economy; Ammonium-nitrate uptake; Niche partitioning; Arid ecosystems; Grass-shrub competition

类别

资金

  1. Arizona State University
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB 0917668]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have explored species-specific preferences for nitrate (NO3 (-)) and ammonium (NH4 (+)) as an alternative niche separation in ecosystems where nitrogen (N) is present mostly in inorganic forms. The Patagonian steppe is dominated by shrubs and grasses. Shrubs absorb water and nutrients from deep soil layers, which are poor in N, while grasses have the opposite pattern, absorbing most of their water and nutrients from the upper layers of the soil. We hypothesized that the preferences of shrub and grass for inorganic N forms are different and that the rate of potential N uptake is greater in shrubs than in grasses. To test this hypothesis, we grew individuals of six dominant species in solutions of different NH4 (+):NO3 (-) concentration ratios. Nitrate uptake was found to be higher in shrubs, while ammonium uptake was similar between plant functional types. The NH4 (+):NO3 (-) uptake ratio was significantly lower for shrubs than grasses. Shrubs, which under field conditions have deeper rooting systems than grasses, showed a higher N absorption capacity than grasses and a preference for the more mobile N form, nitrate. Grasses, which had lower N uptake rates than shrubs, preferred ammonium over nitrate. These complementary patterns between grasses and shrubs suggest a more thorough exploitation of resources by diverse ecosystems than those dominated by just one functional type. The loss of one plant functional group or a significant change in its abundance would therefore represent a reduction in resource use efficiency and ecosystem functioning.

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