, Volume 188, Issue 4, pp 1183–1193 | Cite as

Aboveground overyielding in a mixed temperate forest is not explained by belowground processes

  • Alexandre Fruleux
  • Marie-Béatrice Bogeat-Triboulot
  • Catherine Collet
  • Aurélie Deveau
  • Laurent Saint-André
  • Philippe Santenoise
  • Damien Bonal
Ecosystem ecology – original research


The relationship between forest productivity and tree species diversity has been described in detail, but the underlying processes have yet to be identified. One important issue is to understand which processes are at the origin of observed aboveground overyielding in some mixed forests. We used a beech–maple plantation exhibiting aboveground overyielding to test whether belowground processes could explain this pattern. Soil cores were collected to determine fine root (FR) biomass and vertical distribution. Correlograms were used to detect spatial arrangement. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy was used to identify the tree species proportion in the FR samples and spatial root segregation. An isotopic approach was used to identify water acquisition patterns. The structure and the composition of the ectomycorrhizal fungal community were determined by high-throughput sequencing of DNA in the soil samples. We found no spatial pattern for FR biomass or for its vertical distribution along the gradients. No vertical root segregation was found, as FR density for both species decreased with depth in a similar way. The two species displayed similar vertical water acquisition profiles as well, mainly absorbing water from shallow soil layers; hence, niche differentiation for water acquisition was not highlighted here. Significant alterations in the fungal community compositions were detected in function of the percentage of maple in the vicinity of beech. Our findings do not support the commonly suggested drivers of aboveground overyielding in species-diverse forests and suggest that competition reduction or between-species facilitation of belowground resource acquisition may not explain the observed aboveground overyielding.


Mycorrhiza NIRS Root segregation Stable isotope Water uptake 



This study was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investissements d’Avenir” program (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01, Laboratory of Excellence ARBRE). We thank Maud Antoine, Zélie Auvinet, Mathilde Colombat, Bastien Djimbi, Gladys Mernier, Manon Watzky for their work on root sorting, and Pascal Courtois, Erwin Dallé, Bruno Garnier, Jean-Baptiste Lily, Nicolas Marron and Florian Vast for their help with field work, Christine Gehin for performing the infrared spectroscopy analysis, Jonathan Lenoir and Bernard Amiaud for their advice on spatial analysis and Matthieu Barret for the Illumina Miseq sequencing. The authors would also like to thank the certified facility in Functional Ecology (PTEF OC 081) at the INRA Nancy-Grand Est research center for the deuterium isotope analyses and the Office National des Forêts (ONF) for installing and providing access to the experimental site. Climate data were provided by the INRA CLIMATIK platform.

Author contribution statement

All authors participated in the conception of ideas and methodology design; AF, AD, CC, DB and MBBT participated in data collection; AF, AD, CC and PS analyzed the data; AF, AD, DB and MBBT wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4278_MOESM1_ESM.docx (530 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 530 kb)


  1. Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Pretzsch H (2017) Mixed-species forests: the development of a forest management paradigm. In: Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Pretzsch H (eds) Mixed-species forests. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolte A, Villanueva I (2006) Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Eur J Forest Res 125(1):15–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brassard BW, Chen HY, Bergeron Y, Paré D (2011) Differences in fine root productivity between mixed-and single-species stands. Funct Ecol 25(1):238–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brassard BW, Chen HY, Cavard X, Laganiere J, Reich PB, Bergeron Y, Paré D, Yuan Z (2013) Tree species diversity increases fine root productivity through increased soil volume filling. J Ecol 101(1):210–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buée M, Maurice JP, Zeller B, Andrianarisoa S, Ranger J, Courtecuisse R, Marçais B, Le Tacon F (2011) Influence of tree species on richness and diversity of epigeous fungal communities in a French temperate forest stand. Fungal Ecol 4(1):22–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Coince A, Cordier T, Lengellé J, Defossez E, Vacher C, Robin C, Buée M, Marçais B (2014) Leaf and root-associated fungal assemblages do not follow similar elevational diversity patterns. PLoS One 9(6):e100668. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Collet C, Ningre F, Barbeito I, Arnaud A, Piboule A (2014) Response of tree growth and species coexistence to density and species evenness in a young forest plantation with two competing species. Ann Bot 113(4):711–719. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Domisch T, Finér L, Dawud SM, Vesterdal L, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2015) Does species richness affect fine root biomass and production in young forest plantations? Oecologia 177(2):581–594. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehleringer JR, Dawson TE (1992) Water uptake by plants: perspectives from stable isotope composition. Plant Cell Environ 15(9):1073–1082. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester DI (2017) Ecological and physiological processes in mixed versus monospecific stands. In: Bauhus J, Forrester DI, Pretzsch H (eds) Mixed-species forests. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gale MR, Grigal DF (1987) Vertical root distributions of northern tree species in relation to successional status. Can J For Res 17(8):829–834. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossiord C, Gessler A, Granier A, Berger S, Bréchet C, Hentschel R, Hommel R, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bonal D (2014) Impact of interspecific interactions on the soil water uptake depth in a young temperate mixed species plantation. J Hydrol 519:3511–3519. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harley JL, Harley EL (1987) A check-list of mycorrhiza in the British flora. New Phytol 105(s1):1–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem M, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75(1):3–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacob A, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2014) Diversity and species identity effects on fine root productivity and turnover in a species-rich temperate broad-leaved forest. Funct Plant Biol 41(7):678–689. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jactel H, Bauhus J, Boberg J, Bonal D, Castagneyrol B, Gardiner B, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Koricheva J, Meurisse N, Brockerhoff EG (2017) Tree diversity drives forest stand resistance to natural disturbances. Curr For Rep 3(3):223–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson NC, Gehring C, Jansa J (2016) Mycorrhizal mediation of soil: fertility, structure, and carbon storage. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Jucker T, Bouriaud O, Coomes DA (2015) Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests. Funct Ecol 29(8):1078–1086. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lang C, Seven J, Polle A (2011) Host preferences and differential contributions of deciduous tree species shape mycorrhizal species richness in a mixed Central European forest. Mycorrhiza 21(4):297–308. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology. In: Developments in environmental modeling, 3rd edn, vol 24. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehto T, Zwiazek JJ (2011) Ectomycorrhizas and water relations of trees: a review. Mycorrhiza 21(2):71–90. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze ED, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, de-Miguel S, Paquette A, Hérault B, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Barrett CB, Glick HB, Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs GJ, Pfautsch S, Viana H, Vibrans AC, Ammer C, Schall P, Verbyla D, Tchebakova N, Fischer M, Watson JV, Chen HYH, Lei X, Schelhaas MJ, Lu H, Gianelle D, Parfenova EI, Salas C, Lee E, Boknam L, Kim HS, Brueldheide H, Coomes DA, Piotto D, Sunderland T, Schmid B, Gourlet-Fleury S, Sonké B, Tavani R, Reich PB (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354(6309):1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindahl BD, Ihrmark K, Boberg J, Trumbore SE, Högberg P, Stenlid J, Finlay RD (2007) Spatial separation of litter decomposition and mycorrhizal nitrogen uptake in a boreal forest. New Phytol 173(3):611–620. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Locher F, Heuwinkel H, Gutser R, Schmidhalter U (2005) Development of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy calibrations to estimate legume content of multispecies legume–grass mixtures. Agron J 97(1):11–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma Z, Chen HY (2017) Effects of species diversity on fine root productivity increase with stand development and associated mechanisms in a boreal forest. J Ecol 105(1):237–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meinen C, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2009a) Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity: is there evidence of below-ground overyielding? Oecologia 161(1):99–111. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Meinen C, Leuschner C, Ryan NT, Hertel D (2009b) No evidence of spatial root system segregation and elevated fine root biomass in multi-species temperate broad-leaved forests. Trees 23(5):941–950. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nickmans H, Collet C, Bonal D, Verheyen K, Ponette Q (2017) Tree size and local neighbourhood affect foliar nutrient content in a mixed plantation of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and maple (Acer pseudoplatanus). For Ecol Manag 400:159–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peay KG, Kennedy PG, Bruns TD (2011) Rethinking ectomycorrhizal succession: are root density and hyphal exploration types drivers of spatial and temporal zonation? Fungal Ecol 4(3):233–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pena R, Polle A (2014) Attributing functions to ectomycorrhizal fungal identities in assemblages for nitrogen acquisition under stress. ISME J 8(2):321. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pérez-Izquierdo L, Zabal-Aguirre M, Flores-Rentería D, González-Martínez SC, Buée M, Rincón A (2017) Functional outcomes of fungal community shifts driven by tree genotype and spatial-temporal factors in Mediterranean pine forests. Environ Microbiol 19(4):1639–1652. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Peter M, Kohler A, Ohm RA, Kuo A, Krützmann J, Morin E, Arend M, Barry KW, Binder M, Choi C, Clum A, Copeland A, Grisel N, Haridas S, Kipfer T, LaButti K, Lindquist E, Lipzen A, Maire R, Meier B, Mihaltcheva S, Molinier V, Murat C, Poggeler S, Quandt CA, Sperisen C, Tritt A, Tisserant E, Crous PW, Henrissat B, Nehls U, Egli S, Spatafora JW, Grigoriev IV, Martin F (2016) Ectomycorrhizal ecology is imprinted in the genome of the dominant symbiotic fungus Cenococcum geophilum. Nat Commun 7:12662. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Richards AE, Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2010) The influence of mixed tree plantations on the nutrition of individual species: a review. Tree Physiol 30(9):1192–1208. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stahl C, Hérault B, Rossi V, Burban B, Bréchet C, Bonal D (2013) Depth of soil water uptake by tropical rainforest trees during dry periods: does tree dimension matter? Oecologia 173(4):1191–1201. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Suz LM, Kallow S, Reed K, Bidartondo MI, Barsoum N (2017) Pine mycorrhizal communities in pure and mixed pine-oak forests: abiotic environment trumps neighboring oak host effects. For Ecol Manag 406:370–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S, Kõljalg U, Yorou NS, Wijesundera R, Ruiz LV, Vasco-Palacios AM, Thu PQ, Suija A, Smith ME, Sharp C, Saluveer E, Saitta A, Rosas M, Riit T, Ratkowsky D, Pritsch K, Põldmaa K, Piepenbring M, Phosri C, Peterson M, Parts K, Pärtel K, Otsing E, Nouhra E, Njouonkou AL, Nilsson RH, Morgado LN, Mayor J, May TW, Majuakim L, Lodge DJ, Lee SS, Larsson KH, Kohout P, Hosaka K, Hiiesalu I, Henkel TW, Harend H, Guo LD, Greslebin A, Grelet G, Geml J, Gates G, Abarenkov K (2014) Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346(6213):1256688. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Vanclay JK (2006) Experiment designs to evaluate inter- and intra-specific inter-actions in mixed plantings of forest trees. For Ecol Manag 233:366–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagg C, Jansa J, Schmid B, van der Heijden MG (2011) Belowground biodiversity effects of plant symbionts support aboveground productivity. Ecol Lett 14(10):1001–1009. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang Y, Chen HY, Reich PB (2012) Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. J Ecol 100(3):742–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRA, UMR SilvaNancyFrance
  2. 2.Université de Lorraine, INRA, UMR IAMChampenouxFrance
  3. 3.INRA, UR BEFChampenouxFrance

Personalised recommendations