| Literature DB >> 30708940 |
Linlin Mei1, Xue Yang2, Hongbing Cao3, Tao Zhang4, Jixun Guo5.
Abstract
Ecological stoichiometry has been widely used to determiEntities:
Keywords: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; global change; grassland ecosystem; phosphorus limitation; stoichiometry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30708940 PMCID: PMC6388220 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The colonization status (%) of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) treatment under warming (W) and N input (N). CK, control; N, N input; W, warming; W × N, combination of warming and N input.
| Treatment |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 83.33 ± 10.00 b | 68.34 ± 1.67 b | 33.34 ± 3.34 a |
| W | 88.33 ± 5.00 b | 83.33 ± 5.00 b | 16.67 ± 3.34 a |
| N | 65.00 ± 8.33 b | 77.26 ± 0.59 b | 38.33 ± 5.00 a |
| W × N | 50.00 ± 6.67 a | 53.50 ± 16.83 a | 45.61 ± 10.00 a |
Note: The colonization status with different superscripts (a or b) differ significantly at p = 0.05 among different plant species in the same treatment.
Results of three-way factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) of the effects of warming, N input and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on plant C, N, and P contents and ratios of C:N, C:P, and N:P.
| Plant | Variable | W | N | W × N | AMF | AMF × W | AMF × N | AMF × W × N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| C | 15.38 ** | 2.583 | 15.32 ** | 20.79 *** | 2.19 | 4.65 * | 3.41 |
|
| 12.25 ** | 2.43 | 1.29 | 15.55 ** | 10.18 ** | 2.69 | 2.67 | |
|
| 0.50 | 11.43 ** | 4.15 | 1.92 | 0.34 | 2.11 | 2.33 | |
|
| N | 9.76 ** | 22.99 *** | 18.47 *** | 0.207 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.01 |
|
| 19.47 *** | 0.68 | 0.49 | 13.36 ** | 14.50 ** | 0.02 | 0.20 | |
|
| 8.01 ** | 26.41 *** | 0.19 | 10.91 ** | 1.54 | 7.95 ** | 0.15 | |
|
| P | 8.74 ** | 0.81 | 15.80 ** | 16.94 *** | 0.99 | 1.21 | 2.47 |
|
| 10.89 ** | 0.23 | 0.02 | 11.77 ** | 7.85 ** | 0.96 | 1.40 | |
|
| 0.80 | 10.76 ** | 3.97 | 2.93 | 0.02 | 2.28 | 3.34 ** | |
|
| C:N | 13.78 ** | 88.52 *** | 3.713 | 77.74 *** | 0.29 | 0.7 | 0.01 |
|
| 212.46 *** | 38.73 *** | 183.63 *** | 3.97 | 33.64 *** | 77.07 *** | 1.41 | |
|
| 33.57 *** | 64.74 *** | 1.41 | 9.31** | 2.34 | 2.43 | 0.01 | |
|
| C:P | 2.32 | 1.755 | 13.28 ** | 0.501 | 0.08 | 13.69 ** | 0.69 |
|
| 5.48 * | 22.07 *** | 26.50 *** | 1.01 | 0.03 | 4.55 * | 2.29 | |
|
| 2.18 | 0.04 | 0.34 | 3.04 | 6.45* | 0.35 | 6.59 * | |
|
| N:P | 6.77 * | 91.98 *** | 1.49 | 88.19 *** | 0.89 | 12.03 ** | 0.05 |
|
| 51.63 *** | 29.90 *** | 25.06 *** | 1.85 | 21.72 *** | 38.42 *** | 6.92 * | |
|
| 70.84 *** | 134.85 *** | 19.23 *** | 40.67 *** | 16.85 *** | 28.08 *** | 20.59 *** |
* represents a significant difference at p < 0.05; ** represents a significant difference at p < 0.01; *** represents a significant difference at p < 0.001.
Figure 1Effects of AMF on the C, N, and P contents of S. viridis (A,D,G), L. chinensis (B,E,H), and S. corniculata (C,F,I) under warming and N input. Different lowercase and capital letters above bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among different warming and N input treatments within the same AMF treatment. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between AMF treatments within the same warming and/or N input condition. CK, control; N, N input; W, warming; and WN, combination of warming and N input.
Figure 2Effects of AMF on the C:N, C:P, and N:P ratios of S. viridis (A,D,G, L. chinensis (B,E,H) and S. corniculata (C,F,I) under warming and N input. Different lowercase and capital letters above bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among different warming and N input treatments within the same AMF treatment. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between AMF treatments within the same warming and/or N input condition. CK, control; N, N input; W, warming; and WN, combination of warming and N input.
Results of three-way factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) of the effects of warming, N input and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on soil total C, N, and P contents and ratios of C:N, C:P, and N:P.
| Variable | W | N | W × N | AMF | AMF × W | AMF × N | AMF × W × N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil C | 0.01 | 0.20 | 2.13 | 2.37 | 0.07 | 1.55 | 0.15 |
| Soil N | 33.17 *** | 8.50 ** | 0.22 | 1.99 | 10.80 ** | 0.32 | 4.04 |
| Soil P | 7.88 ** | 11.05 ** | 4.04 | 1.21 | 11.20 ** | 8.37 ** | 2.29 |
| Soil C:N | 23.62 *** | 6.99 * | 2.39 | 0.66 | 7.20 * | 0.02 | 2.72 |
| Soil C:P | 3.57 | 6.16 * | 5.88* | 2.60 | 10.81 ** | 8.32 ** | 1.17 |
| Soil N:P | 3.05 | 17.92 *** | 1.58 | 2.05 | 20.15 *** | 4.95 * | 7.35 * |
* represents a significant difference at p < 0.05; ** represents a significant difference at p < 0.01; *** represents a significant difference at p < 0.001.
Figure 3Effects of AMF on soil C (A), N (B), and P (C) contents and C:N (D), C:P (E), and N:P (F) ratios under warming and N input. Different lowercase and capital letters above bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among different warming and N input treatments within the same AMF treatment. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between AMF treatments within the same warming and/or N input condition. CK, control; N, N input; and W, warming; WN, combination of warming and N input.