| Literature DB >> 29930566 |
Line Nybakken1, Marit H Lie1, Riitta Julkunen-Tiitto2, Johan Asplund1, Mikael Ohlson1.
Abstract
Nitrogen availability limits growth in most boreal forests. However, parts of the boreal zone receive significant levels of nitrogen deposition. At the same time, forests are fertilized to increase volume growth and carbon sequestration. No matter the source, increasing nitrogen in the boreal forest ecosystem will influence the resource situation for its primary producers, the plants, with possible implications for their defensive chemistry. In general, fertilization reduces phenolic compound concentrations in trees, but existing evidence mainly comes from studies on young plants. Given the role of the phenolic compounds in protection against herbivores and other forest pests, it is important to know if phenolics are reduced with fertilization also in mature trees. The evergreen Norway spruce is long-lived, and it is reasonable that defensive strategies could change from the juvenile to the reproductive and mature phases. In addition, as the needles are kept for several years, defense could also change with needle age. We sampled current and previous year needles from an N fertilization experiment in a Norway spruce forest landscape in south-central Norway to which N had been added annually for 13 years. We analyzed total nitrogen (N) and carbon (C), as well as low-molecular phenolics and condensed tannins. Needles from fertilized trees had higher N than those from controls plots, and fertilization decreased concentrations of many flavonoids, as well as condensed tannins in current year needles. In previous year needles, some stilbenes and condensed tannins were higher in fertilized trees. In control trees, the total phenolic concentration was almost five times as high in previous year needles compared with those from the current year, and there were great compositional differences. Previous year needles contained highest concentrations of acetophenone and stilbenes, while in the current year needles the flavonoids, and especially coumaroyl-astragalins dominated. Condensed tannins did not differ between current and previous year needles from control trees. In conclusion, the phenolic defense of current year needles of mature P.abies trees was strongly changed upon fertilization. This may imply that nitrogen deposition and forest fertilization leave forests less robust in a time when pests may take advantages of a changing climate.Entities:
Keywords: Picea abies; chemical defense; conifers; fertilization; nitrogen; phenolics; spruce
Year: 2018 PMID: 29930566 PMCID: PMC6000156 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Concentration (%) of nitrogen (N) and C:N in current (black bars) and previous year needles (gray bars) from controls and fertilized plots. Split plot ANOVAs on nitrogen concentration and C:N of needles. The effect of treatment is the main plot factor and year (age) is the sub-plot factor. The data was sqrt-transformed.
Concentrations (mg g−1 DW) (mean values ±1 SE) of and Split plot ANOVAs on phenolic compounds.
| (1) Piceatannol glucoside | 0.52 ± 0.06 | 0.36 ± 0.11 | 14.95 ± 0.98 | 13.88 ± 1.35 | |||
| (2) Piceatannol aglycon | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 4.76 ± 0.46 | 5.60 ± 0.64 | 0.67 (0.424) | ||
| (3) Resveratrol glucoside | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 8.78 ± 1.00 | 13.44 ± 1.67 | 2.53 (0.129) | ||
| (4) Resveratrol aglycon | – | – | 1.00 ± 0.12 | 1.85 ± 0.20 | – | – | |
| (5) Methylpiceatannol glucoside | – | – | 1.05 ± 0.13 | 1.55 ± 0.22 | – | – | |
| (6) Methylpiceatannol aglycon | – | – | 0.77 ± 0.12 | 0.95 ± 0.17 | – | 0.33 (0.571) | – |
| (7) Quercetin 3-galactoside | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | – | – | – | – | |
| (8) Quercetin 3-glucuronide | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.62 ± 0.11 | 0.84 ± 0.16 | 0.37 (0.550) | 3.25 (0.077) | |
| (9) Quercetin 3-glucoside | 0.77 ± 0.06 | 0.55 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.52 (0.473) | ||
| (10) Myricetin 3-galactoside | 0.06 ± 0.03 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.03 | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 0.00 (0.980) | 1.46 (0.232) | |
| (11) Kaempferol 3-glucoside | 0.99 ± 0.13 | 0.68 ± 0.1 | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.28 (0.601) | ||
| (12) Kaempferol 3-rhamnoside | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 0.58 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 2.40 (0.082) | 0.03 (0.855) | |
| (13) Isorhamnetin glucoside | 0.61 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.03 | 0.58 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 1.04 (0.313) | ||
| (14) Monocoumaroylastragalin | 0.50 ± 0.07 | 0.58 ± 0.07 | 0.48 ± 0.05 | 0.35 ± 0.04 | 0.33 (0.572) | ||
| (15) 3,6dicoumaroylastragalin der | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.66 (0.420) | 0.22 (0.647) | |
| (16) 3,6 dicoumaroylastragalin | 11.47 ± 0.73 | 11.08 ± 0.48 | 3.70 ± 0.11 | 3.22 ± 0.14 | 0.61 (0.444) | 0.01 (0.916) | |
| (17) Luteolin aglycon | 0.06 ± 0.03 | – | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | – | 0.01 (0.929) | – |
| (18) Unknown flavonoid | 0.43 ± 0.05 | 0.57 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 3.91 (0.064) | 0.02 (0.880) | |
| (19) Apigenin 7-glucoside | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.06 | – | – | – | – | |
| (20) Apigenin aglycon | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 3.25 (0.077) | ||
| (21) (+)-catechin | 2.16 ± 0.15 | 0.97 ± 0.14 | 4.79 ± 0.23 | 4.30 ± 0.25 | 3.89 (0.054) | ||
| (22) Gallocatechin | 1.96 ± 0.43 | 1.88 ± 0.27 | 10.84 ± 2.16 | 9.78 ± 2.14 | 0.01 (0.916) | 0.54 (0.464) | |
| (23) B3 | 2.74 ± 0.53 | 2.48 ± 0.54 | – | – | – | 0.01 (0.928) | – |
| (24) Procyanidin 1 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 0.41 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.16 | 1.67 ± 0.16 | 0.00 (0.954) | ||
| (25) Procyanidin 2 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | |||
| (26) Procyanidin 3 | 0.59 ± 0.13 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 1.06 ± 0.10 | 1.03 ± 0.12 | 0.087 (0.772) | 0.015 (0.904) | |
| (27) Picein | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | – | – | – | 0.00 (0.958) | – |
| (28) 4-hydroxy acetophenone | 0.95 ± 0.12 | 0.78 ± 0.19 | 32.03 ± 1.16 | 29.37 ± 1.76 | 1.65 (0.215) | 1.44 (0.235) | |
| (29) Lignan 1 | – | – | 3.38 ± 0.62 | 2.92 ± 0.53 | – | 1.57 (0.226) | – |
| (30) Lignan 2 | 0.81 ± 0.13 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | – | – | – | 25.45 (<0.001) | – |
| MeOH soluble | 10.89 ± 1.77 | 4.08 ± 1.55 | 14.63 ± 1.45 | 25.49 ± 1.57 | 0.78 (0.400) | ||
| MeOH insoluble | 41.87 ± 2.85 | 39.76 ± 3.11 | 33.51 ± 1.44 | 43.48 ± 1.53 | 1.65 (0.205) | 2.51 (0.131) | |
The effect of treatment is the main plot factor and age is the sub-plot factor. Numbering of compounds is corresponding to numbering in the PCA (Figure .
log-transformed,
sqrt-transformed. Numbers in bold indicate statistical significant results. Lines in italics indicate sums of chemical groups.
Figure 2Ordination plot of the first and second principal component scores of individual phenolic compounds, numbered according to Table 1, in current and previous year's spruce needles. The ellipses are 95% confidence intervals of the fertilized plots (solid line) and control plots (dotted lines), respectively.