| Literature DB >> 25247059 |
Niles J Hasselquist1, Peter Högberg1.
Abstract
Although it is well known that nitrogen (Entities:
Keywords: Forest soils; Scots pine; mycorrhiza; nitrogen limitation; nitrogen retention; nitrogen stable isotope; sporocarp production; symbiosis
Year: 2014 PMID: 25247059 PMCID: PMC4161175 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
The cumulative amount of N added, percent N (%), δ15N (‰) and C:N ratio of the organic mor-layer, and foliar N (%) and δ15N in different N addition treatments in two Pinus sylvestris boreal forests in northern Sweden. At Rosinedalsheden, N addition treatments started in 2006 and consisted of two treatments: a low (20 kg·N·ha−1·yr−1) and high N additions (100 kg·N·ha−1·yr−1), and an unfertilized control. At Norrliden, N addition treatments began in 1971 and consistent of three annual addition rates of NH4NO3: 35 (N1), 70 (N2T), and 110 kg·N·ha−1·yr−1 (N3T), respectively, and a control (N0). Significant differences (P < 0.05) among N treatments are indicated by different letters.
| Site | Nitrogen treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosinedalsheden | Control | Low | High | |
| Cumulative N added (kg·N·ha−1) | 120 | 600 | ||
| Nitrogen (%) in the mor-layer | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 1.17 ± 0.05 | 1.20 ± 0.02 | |
| −0.99 ± 0.34 | −1.06 ± 0.34 | −0.95 ± 0.40 | ||
| C:N ratio in the mor-layer | 44.83 ± 2.20 | 39.10 ± 0.54 | 38.38 ± 0.45 | |
| Foliar N (%) | 1.13 ± 0.03 | 1.23 ± 0.07 | 2.20 ± 0.24 | |
| Foliar | −5.16 ± 0.90 | −4.73 ± 0.46 | −1.94 ± 0.22 | |
| Norrliden | N0 | N1 | N2T | N3T |
| Cumulative N added (kg·N·ha−1) | 1320 | 2460 | 2070 | |
| Nitrogen (%) in the mor-layer | 0.96 ± 0.03a | 1.45 ± 0.09b | 1.58 ± 0.07b | 1.41 ± 0.11b |
| −0.01 ± 0.25 | −0.83 ± 0.17 | −0.16 ± 0.13 | −0.07 ± 0.17 | |
| C:N ratio in the mor-layer | 45.31 ± 1.33a | 33.54 ± 2.42b | 28.64 ± 0.51b | 30.61 ± 0.22b |
| Foliar N (%) | 1.21 ± 0.01a | 1.42 ± 0.03b | 1.54 ± 0.02c | 1.38 ± 0.03b |
| Foliar | −3.13 ± 0.13a | −0.85 ± 0.25b | 0.44 ± 0.14c | −2.06 ± 0.40a |
Control treatments at both sites received only ambient deposition of N (∼2 kg·N·ha−1·yr−1).
Figure 1Correlation between treatment means of foliar N and cumulative EM sporocarp biomass (A) and EM sporocarp richness (B) at Norrliden (filled symbols) and Rosinedalsheden (open symbols). Data points represent the mean ±SE (n = 3).
Comparison of EM sporocarp taxon richness (S), cumulative EM sporocarp abundance, biomass and amount of N retained in EM sporocarps, EM community C:N ratio and δ15N, and the 15N enrichment between EM sporocarps and tree foliage (Δ) among the different N treatments at Norrliden and Rosinedalsheden. Values shown are average ± SE (n = 3). Significant differences (P < 0.05) among N treatments are indicated by different letters.
| Site | Nitrogen treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosinedalsheden | Control | Low | High | |
| Taxon richness (S) | 13.67 ± 0.33 | 12.00 ± 2.52 | 0.33 ± 0.33 | |
| Cumulative abundance (ind per 100 m2) | 162.00 ± 38.97 | 193.33 ± 50.83 | 4.00 ± 4.00 | |
| Cumulative biomass (g per 100 m2) | 78.34 ± 16.06 | 90.40 ± 12.6 | 0.57 ± 0.57 | |
| Cumulative EM sporocarp N (g N per 100 m2) | 2.85 ± 0.59 | 3.38 ± 0.48 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | |
| EM community C:N ratio | 12.55 ± 0.12 | 12.45 ± 0.10 | 7.22 | |
| EM community | 5.60 ± 0.19 | 5.30 ± 0.29 | 0.46 | |
| Δ (15Nsporocarps − 15Nfoliage) | 10.78 ± 0.27 | 10.03 ± 0.74 | 2.49 | |
| Norrliden | N0 | N1 | N2T | N3T |
| Taxon richness (S) | 7.33 ± 0.88a | 2.67 ± 0.67b | 5.00 ± 1.16a,b | 7.00 ± 1.53a,b |
| Cumulative abundance (ind per 100 m2) | 58.67 ± 17.15 | 13.33 ± 3.18 | 33.33 ± 14.75 | 87.67 ± 39.31 |
| Cumulative biomass (g per 100 m2) | 52.56 ± 11.04 | 25.93 ± 7.35 | 29.19 ± 15.68 | 54.07 ± 12.16 |
| Cumulative EM sporocarp N (g N per 100 m2) | 1.90 ± 0.40 | 1.40 ± 0.47 | 1.37 ± 0.72 | 2.20 ± 0.46 |
| EM community C:N ratio | 12.91 ± 0.30a | 9.15 ± 0.97b | 10.09 ± 0.12b | 11.39 ± 0.17a,b |
| EM community | 7.30 ± 0.17a | 3.98 ± 0.70b | 3.23 ± 1.02b | 4.78 ± 1.23a,b |
| Δ (15Nsporocarps − 15Nfoliage) | 10.43 ± 0.28a | 4.83 ± 0.60b | 2.79 ± 1.13c | 6.84 ± 1.63a |
Figure 2Mean (±SE) relative abundance of EM sporocarp taxa at Rosinedalsheden (A) and Norrliden (B). Relative abundance was calculated for each plot as the number of each EM sporocarp taxa from the total number of EM sporocarps collected (n = 3 per N treatment).
Figure 3Correlation between treatment means of foliar N and EM community δ15N (A), cumulative EM sporocarp biomass and EM community δ15N (B), and EM community δ15N and the cumulative amount of N retained in EM sporocarps (C) at Norrliden (filled symbols) and Rosinedalsheden (open symbols). Data points represent the mean ±SE (n = 3).
Figure 4Mean (±SE) δ15N values of EM genera found within the different N addition treatments at Rosinedalsheden (A) and Norrliden (B). Different capital letters at the top of each graph represent significant (P < 0.05) differences among EM taxa. For each EM taxa at Norrliden, F and P values (with df) are from a one-way ANOVA testing for the effect of N addition with significant differences indicated by different lower-case letters.