| Literature DB >> 32601320 |
Mei Yang1, Jiaoyun Lu1, Minguo Liu1, Yixiao Lu1, Huimin Yang2.
Abstract
Leaf nutrient resorption is an important mechanism in adapting to adverse environments. However, few studies examine how nutrient resorption responds to phosphorus (P) andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32601320 PMCID: PMC7324584 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65484-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effects of P and K fertilization on (a) N, (b) P, and (c) K resorption efficiencies of lucerne under three water supply levels. CK, no P or K fertilization; LW, low water supply (300 mm year−1); NW, normal water supply (450 mm year−1); HW, high water supply (600 mm year−1). Water was supplied in flood irrigation. Different capital letters denote significant differences among water supply levels under the same fertilization treatment (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters denote significant differences among fertilization treatments under the same water supply level (p < 0.05). There are no significant differences among water supply levels and fertilization treatments, the letters are not shown (p > 0.05). The data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 36). From three-way ANOVA, effects of water supply (W), P fertilization (P), K fertilization (K) and their interactive effects are shown on the right side. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001; ns, not significant.
Total and available soil nutrients contents under P and K fertilization under three water supply levels and the effects of water supply (W), P fertilization (P), K fertilization (K) and their interaction on soil total and available nutrients contents based on three-way ANOVA.
| Water availability | Fertilization | Total N (kg m−2) | Nitrate N (g m−2) | Ammonium N (g m−2) | Total P (kg m−2) | Available P (g m−2) | Total K (kg m−2) | Available K (kg m−2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LW | CK | 0.59a | 2.63Cb | 0.73 | 0.48B | 20.1b | 8.17Cb | 125 |
| P | 0.59Ba | 4.19Ba | 0.77C | 0.59 | 19.0b | 7.93Bb | 133 | |
| K | 0.67ab | 4.25Ba | 0.63C | 0.49B | 16.9Bb | 7.94Cb | 150 | |
| P + K | 0.71b | 4.69Ba | 0.69B | 0.68 | 27.8Aa | 8.82a | 165A | |
| NW | CK | 0.70 | 4.79B | 1.10b | 0.45B | 15.5ab | 8.67Ba | 151b |
| P | 0.68AB | 3.53B | 1.50Aa | 0.60 | 21.9a | 8.71Aa | 154b | |
| K | 0.72 | 5.37B | 1.71Aa | 0.63A | 20.4ABa | 8.71Ba | 202a | |
| P + K | 0.63 | 4.15B | 0.81Bc | 0.57 | 13.5Cb | 8.21b | 116Bc | |
| HW | CK | 0.63b | 10.32Ab | 0.98 | 0.60A | 18.7b | 9.46Aa | 166 |
| P | 0.72Aab | 18.18Aa | 1.18B | 0.68 | 18.9b | 9.08Aa | 156 | |
| K | 0.81a | 11.10Aab | 1.14B | 0.76A | 26.2Aa | 9.27Aa | 195 | |
| P + K | 0.71ab | 16.20Aab | 0.97A | 0.66 | 20.5Bab | 8.37b | 148AB | |
| P | NS | * | NS | NS | NS | * | * | |
| K | * | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| W | NS | *** | *** | ** | * | *** | NS | |
| W × P | NS | ** | * | NS | * | *** | * | |
| W × K | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | *** | NS | |
| P × K | NS | NS | *** | NS | NS | NS | * | |
| W × P × K | NS | NS | *** | NS | *** | *** | NS | |
Soil nutrient content represented the entire 0–60 cm profile. LW, low water supply (300 mm year−1); NW, normal water supply (450 mm year−1); HW, high water supply (600 mm year−1); CK, no P or K fertilization. Different capital letters denote significant differences among water supply levels under the same fertilization treatment (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters denote significant differences among fertilization treatments at the same water supply level (p < 0.05). There are no significant differences among water supply levels and fertilization treatments, the letters are not shown (p > 0.05). The data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 36). ***, p < 0.001; **, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05 and NS, no significance.
Figure 2Ternary diagrams showing N, P, and K stoichiometric relationships in green (delta up and subscript g) and senesced (delta down and subscript s) leaves of lucerne in response to P and K fertilization under three water supply levels: LW (top, low water, 300 mm year−1), NW (middle, normal water, 450 mm year−1), HW (bottom, high water, 600 mm year−1). Water was supplied in flood irrigation. Dashed lines indicate the critical ratios of N:P (14.5), N:K (2.1), and K:P (3.4), dividing the plots into four parts, of which three indicate N limitation (N:P < 14.5 and N:K < 2.1), P limitation or P + N co-limitation (N:P > 14.5 and K:P > 3.4), and K limitation or K + N co-limitation (N:K > 2.1 and K:P < 3.4). In the central triangle section, the stoichiometric ratio cannot be used to determine the type of nutrient limitation or there is no NPK limitation[55]. For visual reasons, the P concentration was multiplied by 10. LW + P fertilization, LWP; LW + K fertilization, LWK; LW + P and K co-fertilization, LWPK; NW + P fertilization, NWP; NW + K fertilization, NWK; NW + P and K co-fertilization, NWPK; HW + P fertilization, HWP; HW + K fertilization, HWK; HW + P and K co-fertilization, HWPK.
Specific N, P, and K stoichiometric ratios in green and senesced leaves of lucerne and effects of water supply (W), P fertilization (P), K fertilization (K) and their interaction on the ratios based on three-way ANOVA.
| Water availability | Fertilization | Green leaf | Senesced leaf | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LW | CK | 45.23 | 32.23a | 22.54b | 37.67b | 34.22Aab | 28.11a |
| P | 45.21 | 32.29a | 22.50ABb | 39.12Aab | 36.16a | 24.72Bc | |
| K | 44.49 | 30.75Bb | 24.76Aa | 38.75Aab | 35.02Bab | 26.23Bbc | |
| P+K | 45.93 | 30.12b | 23.95Bab | 40.34Aa | 32.34Bb | 27.32Bab | |
| NW | CK | 45.73 | 30.97 | 23.30a | 39.04a | 32.10Bc | 28.86a |
| P | 45.27 | 32.89 | 21.84Bb | 38.62ABa | 35.19b | 26.19Bb | |
| K | 45.78 | 33.30A | 20.92Bc | 36.76ABb | 38.69Aa | 24.54Cc | |
| P+K | 45.51 | 31.55 | 22.94Ba | 36.05Bb | 37.36Aab | 26.59Bb | |
| HW | CK | 44.83 | 32.67a | 22.50ab | 38.67a | 33.26AB | 28.07b |
| P | 44.59 | 32.05a | 23.35Ab | 36.74Bab | 34.10 | 29.16Aab | |
| K | 44.30 | 34.10Aa | 21.60Bc | 35.58Bb | 34.18B | 30.24Aa | |
| P+K | 44.96 | 29.49b | 25.54Aa | 36.45Bab | 33.99AB | 29.56Aab | |
| P | NS | * | ** | NS | NS | NS | |
| K | NS | NS | * | * | * | NS | |
| W | NS | NS | ** | *** | ** | *** | |
| W × P | NS | ** | *** | * | NS | NS | |
| W × K | NS | * | ** | ** | *** | *** | |
| P × K | NS | *** | *** | NS | ** | *** | |
| W × P × K | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | *** | |
LW, low water supply (300 mm year−1); NW, normal water supply (450 mm year−1); HW, high water supply (600 mm year−1); CK, no P or K fertilization. Different capital letters denote significant differences among water supply levels under the same fertilization treatment (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters denote significant differences among fertilization treatments at the same water supply level (p < 0.05). There are no significant differences among water supply levels and fertilization treatments, the letters are not shown (p > 0.05). The data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 36). ***, p < 0.001; **, p < 0.01; *, p < 0.05 and NS, no significance. For visual reasons, the P concentration was multiplied by 10.
Figure 3Linear relations (y = ax + b) between (a–c) P and (d–f) K resorption efficiencies and soil nutrient contents. All data are used for identifying the correlations using Spearman’s rank correlation analysis. Only significant cases are shown in the figures (p < 0.05; n = 36).
Figure 4Quadratic relations (y = ax2 + bx + c) between the (a) N, (b) P, and (c) K nutrient resorption efficiencies of lucerne and green leaf stoichiometry: (a) N:K, (b) N:P, and (c) K:P. All data are used for identifying the correlations using Spearman’s rank correlation analysis. Only significant cases are shown in the figures (P < 0.05; n = 36). gr, green leaf. Dashed lines indicate the critical ratios of (a) N:K (2.1) and (b) N:P (14.5), showing N limitation (N:K < 2.1 and N:P < 14.5), P limitation or P + N co-limitation (N:P > 14.5 and K:P > 3.4), and K limitation or K + N co-limitation (N:K > 2.1 and K:P < 3.4)[55]. In this study, the values of K:P were much higher than 3.4, for the sake of graphics, the dashed line indicating the critical K:P ratio were not added.