John A Raven1,2, Hans Lambers3, Sally E Smith4, Mark Westoby5. 1. Division of Plant Sciences, University of Dundee at JHI, James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK. 2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. 3. School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. 4. Soils Group, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. 5. Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Abstract
Content Summary 1420 I. Introduction 1421 II. Root adaptations that influence P acquisition 1422 III. Costs of P acquisition: general 1423 IV. Costs of P acquisition that are independent of soil P concentrations 1423 V. Costs of P acquisition that increase as soil P concentrations decline 1424 VI. Discussion and conclusions 1424 Acknowledgements 1425 References 1425 SUMMARY: We compare carbon (and hence energy) costs of the different modes of phosphorus (P) acquisition by vascular land plants. Phosphorus-acquisition modes are considered to be mechanisms of plants together with their root symbionts and structures such as cluster roots involved in mobilising or absorbing P. Phosphorus sources considered are soluble and insoluble inorganic and organic pools. Costs include operating the P-acquisition mechanisms, and resource requirements to construct and maintain them. For most modes, costs increase as the relevant soil P concentration declines. Costs can thus be divided into a component incurred irrespective of soil P concentration, and a component describing how quickly costs increase as the soil P concentration declines. Differences in sensitivity of costs to soil P concentration arise mainly from how economically mycorrhizal fungal hyphae or roots that explore the soil volume are constructed, and from costs of exudates that hydrolyse or mobilise insoluble P forms. In general, modes of acquisition requiring least carbon at high soil P concentrations experience a steeper increase in costs as soil P concentrations decline. The relationships between costs and concentrations suggest some reasons why different modes coexist, and why the mixture of acquisition modes differs between sites.
Content Summary 1420 I. Introduction 1421 II. Root adaptations that influence P acquisition 1422 III. Costs of P acquisition: general 1423 IV. Costs of P acquisition that are independent of soil P concentrations 1423 V. Costs of P acquisition that increase as soil P concentrations decline 1424 VI. Discussion and conclusions 1424 Acknowledgements 1425 References 1425 SUMMARY: We compare carbon (and hence energy) costs of the different modes of phosphorus (P) acquisition by vascular land plants. Phosphorus-acquisition modes are considered to be mechanisms of plants together with their root symbionts and structures such as cluster roots involved in mobilising or absorbing P. Phosphorus sources considered are soluble and insoluble inorganic and organic pools. Costs include operating the P-acquisition mechanisms, and resource requirements to construct and maintain them. For most modes, costs increase as the relevant soil P concentration declines. Costs can thus be divided into a component incurred irrespective of soil P concentration, and a component describing how quickly costs increase as the soil P concentration declines. Differences in sensitivity of costs to soil P concentration arise mainly from how economically mycorrhizal fungal hyphae or roots that explore the soil volume are constructed, and from costs of exudates that hydrolyse or mobilise insoluble P forms. In general, modes of acquisition requiring least carbon at high soil P concentrations experience a steeper increase in costs as soil P concentrations decline. The relationships between costs and concentrations suggest some reasons why different modes coexist, and why the mixture of acquisition modes differs between sites.
Authors: Paula Pongrac; Hiram Castillo-Michel; Juan Reyes-Herrera; Robert D Hancock; Sina Fischer; Mitja Kelemen; Jacqueline A Thompson; Gladys Wright; Matevž Likar; Martin R Broadley; Primož Vavpetič; Primož Pelicon; Philip J White Journal: BMC Plant Biol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.215
Authors: José Ortíz; Carolina Sanhueza; Antònia Romero-Munar; Javier Hidalgo-Castellanos; Catalina Castro; Luisa Bascuñán-Godoy; Teodoro Coba de la Peña; Miguel López-Gómez; Igor Florez-Sarasa; Néstor Fernández Del-Saz Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 5.923