| Literature DB >> 29942459 |
John Patykowski1, Matt Dell2, Tricia Wevill1, Maria Gibson1.
Abstract
Nutrient cycling is greatly influenced by dominant plants that contribute high amounts of leaf litter to soils; however, less-dominant and rare species can play keystone roles in nutrient cycling if they have unique nutrient acquisition traits and provide high-quality litter. In many parts of the world, wildfire is likely to become more frequent and intense under a changing climate. The effect this will have on plant rarity and on species with unique nutrient acquisition traits, and thus nutrient cycling, remains poorly understood. Working within an Australian box-ironbark forest, we determined if a relationship existed between species rarity and the uniqueness of their leaf nutrient profiles, and if this relationship changed after prescribed burning. We created an index of species rarity from a data set of woody perennial species abundance in areas before and after autumn or spring burns, or left unburnt. We created indices of uniqueness for the leaf nutrient profiles of 42 woody perennial species ocEntities:
Keywords: Disturbance; functional rarity and uniqueness; hemiparasite; hyper-accumulator; mistletoe; nutrient cycling and resorption
Year: 2018 PMID: 29942459 PMCID: PMC6007787 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/ply032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Figure 1.Location of study plots within the Heathcote-Graytown-Rushworth forest, southeastern Australia.
Figure 2.Relationship between species pre-fire frequency and uniqueness of their senesced leaf nutrient profile. Letters represent species identified as important contributors of sampled nutrients (outlier species) in PCA. A = Amyema miquelii; B = Brunonia australis; C = Bursaria spinosa; D = Cassinia arcuata; E = Exocarpos cupressiformis; F = Ozothamnus obcordatus; G = Prostanthera denticulata. Symbols represent species’ nutrient acquisition strategy (filled square = carnivorous; filled triangle = proteaceous roots; open circle = mycorrhizal; + = N-fixing rhizobium bacteria; black asterisk = hemiparasitic).
Figure 3.Uniqueness of leaf nutrient profile and percent change in species frequency score in the landscape following disturbance. Dashed line represents zero change in frequency score before and after prescribed burning as a disturbance. Symbols represent species’ nutrient acquisition strategy (filled square = carnivorous; filled triangle = proteaceous roots; open circle = mycorrhizal; + = N-fixing rhizobium bacteria; black asterisk = hemiparasitic).
Figure 4.PCA ordination of 42 box-ironbark species by similarity of senesced leaf nutrient content for six macro- and four micronutrients. PC1 and PC2 (panel A) and PC3 and PC4 (panel B) are displayed (explaining 53.1 and 23 % of variation in the data, respectively), showing important contributors of sampled nutrients (outlier species). Length of line indicates relative strength of the influence of the nutrient. Symbols represent species’ nutrient acquisition strategy (filled square = carnivorous; filled triangle = proteaceous roots; open circle = mycorrhizal; + = N-fixing rhizobium bacteria; black asterisk = hemiparasitic). Important contributors of sampled nutrients (outlier species): a = Amyema miquelii; b = Brunonia australis; c = Bursaria spinosa; d = Cassinia arcuata; e = Exocarpos cupressiformis; f = Ozothamnus obcordatus; g = Prostanthera denticulata.
Leaf nutrient concentrations (mg kg−1) for box-ironbark species identified as important contributors of sampled nutrients through PCA (Fig. 3) for senesced leaf nutrient concentration. Nutrient concentration and proportional resorption of nutrients for all 42 species sampled are provided in . Figures in bold indicate values that are greater than double the community mean, which is derived from all 42 species sampled in this study. Nutrient acquisition strategy (NAS): H = hemiparasitic; M = mycorrhizal.
| Species | NAS | N | K | Ca | Mg | P | S | B | Mn | Zn | Cu |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| H | 5940 |
| 6940 | 3250 |
| 1510 | 94 | 380 | 24.6 |
|
|
| M | 3620 |
| 6860 |
| 210 | 606 | 56 | 408 |
| 7.4 |
|
| M | 7420 | 4800 | 9360 | 3860 | 226 | 1260 | 91 |
|
| 4.3 |
|
| M | 7500 | 6030 | 5880 | 2690 | 406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| H | 10200 |
| 6020 | 3140 |
| 1500 | 36 | 429 | 19.2 |
|
|
| M | 7060 | 5340 | 11800 | 2100 | 271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| M | 10700 | 2840 | 4820 | 1500 | 342 | 1370 | 87 |
|
| 8.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5.PCA ordination of 42 box-ironbark species by similarity of resorption of six macro- and four micronutrients prior to leaf drop. PC1 and PC2 (panel A) and PC2 and PC3 (panel B) are displayed (explaining 78.3 and 32.5 % of variation in the data, respectively). Length of line indicates relative strength of the influence of the nutrient. Symbols represent species’ nutrient acquisition strategy (filled square = carnivorous; filled triangle = proteaceous roots; ○open circle = mycorrhizal; + = N-fixing rhizobium bacteria; black asterisk = hemiparasitic). Important contributors of sampled nutrients (outlier species): a = Amyema miquelii; b = Exocarpos cupressiformis.
Difference in concentration of nutrients between soil depths (0–20 cm, 50–70 cm), among burn treatments (unburnt control, autumn burn, spring burn) and their interaction, in a box-ironbark forest. Soil samples were collected 3 years after landscape-scale prescribed burn treatments. Significant results from ANOVA are highlighted in bold.
| Nutrient |
| df |
| Nutrient |
| df |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boron | Nitrogen (total) | ||||||
| Depth | 0.19 | 1,1 | 0.66 | Depth |
|
|
|
| Season |
|
|
| Season | 0.52 | 1,2 | 0.59 |
| Depth * season | 0.04 | 1,2 | 0.96 | Depth * season | 1.68 | 1,2 | 0.19 |
| Calcium | Phosphorus | ||||||
| Depth |
|
|
| Depth |
|
|
|
| Season | 0.16 | 1,2 | 0.19 | Season | 1.67 | 1,2 | 0.19 |
| Depth * season | 0.04 | 1,2 | 0.63 | Depth * season | 0.09 | 1,2 | 0.91 |
| Copper | Potassium | ||||||
| Depth |
|
|
| Depth |
|
|
|
| Season | 0.10 | 1,2 | 0.90 | Season | 0.70 | 1,2 | 0.50 |
| Depth * season | 0.32 | 1,2 | 0.73 | Depth * season | 0.793 | 1,2 | 0.46 |
| Magnesium | Sulphur | ||||||
| Depth |
|
|
| Depth | 1.22 | 1,1 | 0.27 |
| Season | 0.47 | 1,2 | 0.64 | Season | 0.85 | 1,2 | 0.43 |
| Depth * season | 0.41 | 1,2 | 0.67 | Depth * season | 0.06 | 1,2 | 0.94 |
| Manganese | Zinc | ||||||
| Depth | 2.57 | 1,1 | 0.11 | Depth |
|
|
|
| Season | 0.11 | 1,2 | 0.90 | Season | 0.80 | 1,2 | 0.45 |
| Depth * season | 0.59 | 1,2 | 0.56 | Depth * season | 0.10 | 1,2 | 0.90 |
Figure 6.Concentration (log mg kg−1 ± SE) of key macro- and micronutrients in upper (0–20 cm; open symbols) and lower (50–70 cm; closed symbols) soil horizons in a box-ironbark forest in southeastern Australia. Samples were collected 3 years after landscape-scale prescribed burn treatments. Circles = unburnt reference landscapes; triangles = autumn burn landscapes; squares = spring burn landscapes.