Blog List

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Nutrient retranslocation from the fine roots of Fraxinus mandshurica and Larix olgensis in northeastern China

Published Date
Volume 27, Issue 6pp 1305–1312

Original Paper
DOI: 10.1007/s11676-016-0258-6

Cite this article as: 
Huang, S., Sun, X., Zhang, Y. et al. J. For. Res. (2016) 27: 1305. doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0258-6

    • Shizhu Huang
    • Xiaoxin Sun
    • Yandong Zhang
    • Hailong Sun
    • Zhengquan Wang

Nutrient retranslocation in trees is important in nutrient budgets and energy flows in forest ecosystems. We investigated nutrient retranslocation in the fine roots of a Manchurian Ash (Fraxinus mandshurica) and a Larch (Larix olgensis) plantation in northeastern China. Nutrient retranslocation in the fine roots was investigated using three methods, specifically, nutrient concentration, the ratio of Ca to other elements (Ca/other elements ratio) and nutrient content. The method based on nutrient content proved most suitable when investigating nutrient retranslocation from fine roots of the two species. The nutrient-content-based method showed that there were retranslocations of N, P, K and Mg from the fine roots of Manchurian Ash, with retranslocation efficiencies of 13, 25, 65, and 38 %, respectively, whereas there were no Ca retranslocations. There were retranslocations of N, P, K, Ca and Mg from the fine roots of Larch, with retranslocation efficiencies of 31, 40, 52, 23 and 25 %, respectively.
  1. Aerts R (1990) Nutrient use efficiency in evergreen and deciduous species from heathlands. Oecologia 84:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley JA, Watson CA (2005) Influences of root diameter, tree age, soil depth and season on fine root survivorship in Prunus avium. Plant Soil 276:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black KE, Harbron CG, Franklin M, Atkinson D, Hooker JE (1998) Differences in root longevity of some tree species. Tree Physiol 18:259–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen S, Chen SL, Guo ZW (2015) Effects of mulching management on the internal cycling of nutrients in the rhizomatous roots of Phyllostachys violascens. Acta. Ecol. Sinica 35(17):5788–5796Google Scholar
  7. Drenovsky RE, Richards JH (2006) Low leaf N and P resorption contributes to nutrient limitation in two desert shrubs. Plant Ecol 183:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erley GSA, Dewi ER, Nikus O, Horst WJ (2010) Genotypic differences in nitrogen efficiency of white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.). Plant Soil 328:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freschet GT, Cornelissen JHC, van Logtestijn RSP, Aerts R (2010) Substantial nutrient resorption from leaves, stems and roots in a subarctic flora: what is the link with other resource economics traits? New Phytol 186:879–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon WS, Jackson RB (2000) Nutrient concentrations in fine roots. Ecology 81:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guo D, Mitchell RJ, Withington JM, Fan PP, Hendricks JJ (2008) Endogenous and exogenous controls of root life span, mortality and nitrogen flux in a longleaf pine forest: root branch order predominates. J Ecol 96:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kunkle JM, Walters MB, Kobe RK (2009) Senescence-related changes in nitrogen in fine roots: mass loss affects estimation. Tree Physiol 29:715–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Liao LP, Gao H, Yu XJ, Han SJ (2000) Nutrient retranslocation in fine roots of Cunninghamia lanceolataAlnus cremastogyne and Kalopanax septemlobum in the mixed plantations—a pilot study. Chin J Appl Ecol 11:161–164 (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. Lü X, Freschet GT, Flynn DFB, Han XG (2012) Plasticity in leaf and stem nutrient resorption proficiency potentially reinforces plant-soil feedbacks and microscale heterogeneity in a semi-arid grassland. J Ecol 100:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mao R, Zeng DH, Zhang XH, Song CC (2015) Responses of plant nutrient resorption to phosphorus addition in freshwater marsh of Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 5:8097. doi:10.1038/srep08097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. McClaugherty CA, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1982) The role of fine roots in the organic matter and nitrogen budgets of two forested ecosystems. Ecology 63:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nadelhoffer KJ, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Fine roots, net primary production, and soil nitrogen availability: a new hypothesis. Ecology 66(4):1377–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nambiar EKS (1987) Do nutrients retranslocate from fine roots? Can J For Res 17:913–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nambiar EKS, Fife DN (1991) Nutrient retranslocation in temperate conifers. Tree Physiol 9:185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norris MD, Reich PB (2009) Modest enhancement of nitrogen conservation via retranslocation in response to gradients in N supply and leaf N status. Plant Soil 316:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruess RW, Van Cleve K, Yarie J, Viereck LA (1996) Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior. Can J For Res 26:1326–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salifu KF, Timmer VR (2001) Nutrient retranslocation response of Picea mariana seedlings to nitrogen supply. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:905–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Son Y, Gower ST (1991) Aboveground nitrogen and phosphorus use by five plantation-grown trees with different leaf longevities. Biogeochemistry 14:167–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tierney GL, Fahey TJ (2002) Fine root turnover in a northern hardwood forest: a direct comparison of the radiocarbon and minirhizotron methods. Can J For Res 32:1692–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tully KL, Wood TE, Schwantes AM, Lawrence D (2013) Soil nutrient availability and reproductive effort drive patterns in nutrient resorption in Pentaclethra macroloba. Ecology 94(4):930–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Heerwaarden LM, Toet S, Aerts R (2003a) Current measures of nutrient resorption efficiency lead to a substantial underestimation of real resorption efficiency: facts and solutions. Oikos 101:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Heerwaarden LM, Toet S, Aerts R (2003b) Nitrogen and phosphorus resorption efficiency and proficiency in six sub-arctic bog species after 4 years of nitrogen fertilization. J Ecol 91:1060–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Asbjomsen H, Dahlgren RA (1995) Roots, nutrients and their relationship to spatial patterns. Plant Soil 168–169:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang Z (2000) Plant physiology. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, pp 85–106 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Wang WQ, You SY, Wang YB, Huang L, Wang M (2011) Influence of frost on nutrient resorption during leaf senescence in a mangrove at its latitudinal limit of distribution. Plant Soil 342:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang ZN, Lu JY, Yang HM, Zhang X, Luo CL, Zhao YX (2014) Resorption of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from leaves of lucerne stands of different ages. Plant Soil 383:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wells CE, Eissenstat DM (2001) Marked differences in survivorship among apple roots of different diameters. Ecology 82:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu Y, Li XW, Rong L, Liu YX, Luo YL (2010) Nutrient internal cycling in Cryptameria fortunei fine root with senescence. Sci Silvae Sin 46(2):1–5 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  34. Xu FY, Wang LH, Li PZ, Xu SM, Zhang SY (1997) Internal and external nutrient transfers in foliage of some north deciduous trees I. Changes of nutrient concentrations and contents. Chin J Appl Ecol 8(1):1–6 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  35. Zeng DH, Chen GS, Chen FS, Zhao Q, Ji XY (2005) Foliar nutrients and their resorption efficiencies in four Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantations of different ages on sandy soil. Sci Silvea Sin 41(5):21–27 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

For further details log on website :

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mangrove Forest Management & Restoration

The Sabah Forestry Department has conserved most if not all Mangrove Forests under Class V for marine life conservation and as a natural me...