4.7 Article

Acid and calcareous soils affect nitrogen nutrition and organic nitrogen uptake by beech seedlings (Fagus sylvatica L.) under drought, and their ectomycorrhizal community structure

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 409, 期 1-2, 页码 143-157

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-016-2956-4

关键词

Ectomycorrhizal fungi; Organic nitrogen; Glutamine uptake; Drought; N concentration; Beech; Fagus sylvatica; Calcareous soil; Acid soil

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Po362/19-1]
  2. DFG Priority Program Infrastructure-Biodiversity-Exploratories [1374, Po362/18-3]
  3. Chinese Science Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of different soil types for beech productivity and drought sensitivity is unknown. The aim of this experimental study was to compare mycorrhizal diversity between acid sandy and calcareous soils and to investigate how this diversity affects tree performance, nitrogen uptake and use efficiency (NUE). Beech trees were germinated and grown in five different soil types (pH 3.8 to 6.7). One-and-a-half-year-old plants were exposed for 6 weeks to sufficient or low soil humidity. Tree biomass, root tip mycorrhizal colonization and community structure, root tip mortality, leaf area, photosynthesis, nitrogen concentrations, NUE and short-term N-15 uptake from glutamine were determined. Soil type did not affect photosynthesis or biomass formation, with one exception in calcareous soil, where root mortality was higher than in the other soil types. Beech in acid soils showed lower mycorrhizal colonization, higher nitrogen tissue concentrations, and lower NUE than those in calcareous soils. Drought had no effect on nitrogen concentrations or NUE but caused reductions in mycorrhizal colonization. Mycorrhizal species richness correlated with nitrogen uptake and NUE. Nitrogen uptake was more sensitive to drought in calcareous soils than in acid soils. Beech may be more drought-susceptible on calcareous sites because of stronger decrease of organic nitrogen uptake than on acid soils.

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

4.7
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