Oecologia

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Stoichiometric homeostasis of vascular plants in the Inner Mongolia grassland

  • Qiang Yu
  • James J. Elser
  • Nianpeng He
  • Honghui Wu
  • Quansheng Chen
  • Guangming Zhang
  • Xingguo Han
Physiological ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Stoichiometric homeostasis, the degree to which an organism maintains its C:N:P ratios around a given species- or stage-specific value despite variation in the relative availabilities of elements in its resource supplies, is a key parameter in ecological stoichiometry. However, its regulation and role in affecting organismal and ecosystem processes is still poorly understood in vascular plants. We performed a sand culture experiment and a field nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) addition experiment to evaluate the strength of N, P and N:P homeostasis in higher plants in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Our results showed that homeostatic regulation coefficients (H) of vascular plants ranged from 1.93 to 14.5. H varied according to plant species, aboveground and belowground compartments, plant developmental stage, and overall plant nutrient content and N:P ratio. H for belowground and for foliage were inversely related, while H increased with plant developmental stage. H for N (HN) was consistently greater than H for P (HP) while H for N:P (HN:P) was consistently greater than HN and HP. Furthermore, species with greater N and P contents and lower N:P were less homeostatic, suggesting that more homeostatic plants are more conservative nutrient users. The results demonstrate that H of plants encompasses a considerable range but is stronger than that of algae and fungi and weaker than that of animals. This is the first comprehensive evaluation of factors influencing stoichiometric homeostasis in vascular plants.

Keywords

Ecological stoichiometry N:P ratio Developmental stages Steppe Plant functional groups 

References

  1. Andersen T, Hessen DO (1991) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus content of freshwater zooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 36:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai Y, Han X, Wu J, Chen Z, Li L (2004) Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the inner Mongolia grassland. Nature 431:181–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bremner JM (1996) Nitrogen: total. In: Sparks DL et al (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1085–1123Google Scholar
  4. Chapin FS (1980) Nutrient allocation and responses to defoliation in tundra plants. Arct Alp Res 12:553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chrzanowski TH, Kyle M (1996) Ratios of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in Pseudomonas fluorescens as a model for bacterial element ratios and nutrient regeneration. Aquat Microb Ecol 10:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demars BOL, Edwards AC (2007) Tissue nutrient concentrations in freshwater aquatic macrophytes: high inter-taxon differences and low phenotypic response to nutrient supply. Freshw Biol 52:2073–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeMott WR, Pape BJ (2005) Stoichiometry in an ecological context: testing for links between Daphnia P-content, growth rate and habitat preference. Oecologia 142:20–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elrifi IR, Turpin DH (1985) Steady-state luxury consumption and the concept of optimum nutrient ratios: a study with phosphate and nitrate limited Selenastrum minutum (Chlorophyta). J Phycol 21:592–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elser JJ, Hamilton A (2007) Stoichiometry and the new biology—the future is now. Plos Biol 5:1403–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser JJ et al (2000a) Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature 408:578–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elser JJ et al (2000b) Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol Lett 3:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Kerkhoff AJ, Swenson NG, Enquist BJ (2010) Biological stoichiometry of plant production: metabolism, scaling and ecological response to global change. New Phytol 186:593–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frost PC, Evans-White MA, Finkel ZV, Jensen TC, Matzek V (2005) Are you what you eat? Physiological constraints on organismal stoichiometry in an elementally imbalanced world. Oikos 109:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldman JC, Caron DA, Dennett MR (1987) Regulation of gross growth efficiency and ammonium regeneration in bacteria by substrate C:N ratio. Limnol Oceanogr 32:1239–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Güsewell S (2004) N:P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Güsewell S (2005) Responses of wetland graminoids to the relative supply of nitrogen and phosphorus. Plant Ecol 176:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Güsewell S, Bollens U (2003) Composition of plant species mixtures grown at various N:P ratios and levels of nutrient supply. Basic Appl Ecol 4:453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hessen DO, Ågren GI, Anderson TR, Elser JJ, de Ruiter PC (2004) Carbon sequestration in ecosystems: the role of stoichiometry. Ecology 85:1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoagland R, Arnon DI (1950) The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Circular 347, California Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Jensen MH, Collins WL (1985) Hydroponic vegetable production. Hortic Rev 7:483–558Google Scholar
  21. Jeyasingh PD, Weider LJ, Sterner RW (2009) Genetically-based trade-offs in response to stoichiometric food quality influence competition in a keystone aquatic herbivore. Ecol Lett 12:1229–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karimi R, Folt CL (2006) Beyond macronutrients: element variability and multielement stoichiometry in freshwater invertebrates. Ecol Lett 9:1273–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kooijman S (1995) The stoichiometry of animal energetics. J Theor Biol 177:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuo S (1996) Phosphorus. In: Sparks DL et al (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 869–920Google Scholar
  25. Levi MP, Cowling EB (1969) Role of nitrogen in wood deterioration VII. Physiological adaptation of wood-destroying and other fungi to substrates deficient in nitrogen. Phytopathology 59:460–468Google Scholar
  26. Limpens J, Berendse F (2003) Growth reduction of Sphagnum magellanicum subjected to high nitrogen deposition: the role of amino acid nitrogen concentration. Oecologia 135:339–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Makino W, Cotner JB, Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2003) Are bacteria more like plants or animals? Growth rate and resource dependence of bacterial C:N:P stoichiometry. Funct Ecol 17:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakano S (1994) Carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratios and nutrient regeneration of a heterotrophic flagellate fed on bacteria with different elemental ratios. Arch Hydrobiol 129:257–271Google Scholar
  29. Persson J, Fink P, Goto A, Hood JM, Jonas J, Kato S (2010) To be or not to be what you eat: regulation of stoichiometric homeostasis among autotrophs and heterotrophs. Oikos doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18545.x
  30. Reiners WA (1986) Complementary models for ecosystems. Am Nat 127:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rhee GY (1978) Effects of N:P atomic ratios and nitrate limitation on algal growth, cell composition and nitrate uptake. Limnol Oceanogr 23:10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryser P, Lambers H (1995) Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast- and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoenau JJ, Huang WZ (1991) Anion-exchange membrane, water, and sodium bicarbonate extractions as soil tests for phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plan 22:465–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafik HM, Herodek S, Presing M, Voros L, Balogh KV (1997) Growth of Cyclotella meneghiniana Kutz. II. Growth and cell composition under different growth rates with different limiting nutrient. Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 33:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaver GR, Melillo JM (1984) Nutrient budgets of marsh plants: efficiency concepts and relation to availability. Ecology 65:1491–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Tezuka Y (1990) Bacterial regeneration of ammonium and phosphate as affected by the carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio of organic substrates. Microb Ecol 19:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vanni MJ (2002) Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 33:341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogel S (1998) Academically correct biological science. Am Sci 86:504–506Google Scholar
  40. Wang C, Wan S, Xing X, Zhang L, Han X (2006) Temperature and soil moisture interactively affected soil net N mineralization in temperate grassland in Northern China. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1101–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yu Q et al (2010) Linking stoichiometric homeostasis with ecosystem structure, functioning, and stability. Ecol Lett 13:1390–1399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qiang Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  • James J. Elser
    • 3
  • Nianpeng He
    • 1
  • Honghui Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Quansheng Chen
    • 1
  • Guangming Zhang
    • 1
  • Xingguo Han
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of BotanyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Ecology Chinese Academy of SciencesShenyangChina
  3. 3.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations