Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp 117–128 | Cite as

Nutrient contents and efficiencies of beech and spruce saplings as influenced by competition and O3/CO2 regime

  • Hermann Rodenkirchen
  • Axel Göttlein
  • Alessandra R. Kozovits
  • Rainer Matyssek
  • Thorsten E. E. Grams
Original Paper

Abstract

Saplings of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies were grown under conditions of intra and interspecific competition in a 2-year phytotron study under combinations of ambient and elevated ozone (+O3 which is 2 × O3, but <150 nl l−1) as well as carbon dioxide concentrations (+CO2 which is amb. CO2 + 300 μl CO2 l−1) in a full factorial design. Saplings were analysed for various mineral nutrients in different plant organs as well as biomass production and crown development. The study was based on the assumption that nutritional parameters important for growth and competitiveness are affected by stress defence under limiting nutrient supply. The hypotheses tested were (1) that nutrient uptake-related parameters (a) as well as efficiencies in nutrient use for above-ground competition (b) of beech rather than spruce are impaired by the exposure to elevated O3 concentrations, (2) that the efficiency in nutrient uptake of spruce is enhanced by elevated CO2 concentrations in mixed culture, and (3) that the ability to occupy above-ground space at low nutrient cost is co-determinant for the competitive success in mixed culture. Clear nitrogen deficiencies were indicated for both species during the 2-year phytotron study, although foliar nitrogen-biomass relationships were not so close for spruce than for beech. O3 stress did not impair nutrient uptake-related parameters of beech; thus hypothesis (1a). was not supported. A negative effect of elevated O3 (under amb. CO2) on the N and P based efficiencies in above-ground space occupation (i.e. lower crown volume per unit of N or P invested in stems, limbs and foliage) of beech supported hypothesis (1b). It appeared that ozone stress triggered a nutrient demand for stress defence and tolerance at the expense of above-ground competition (trade-off). Crown volume of beech under O3 stress was stabilized in monoculture by increased nutrient uptake. In general, the +CO2-treatment was able to counteract the impacts of 2 × O3. Elevated CO2 caused lower N and S concentrations in current-year foliage of both tree species, slightly higher macronutrient amounts in the root biomass of spruce, but did not increase the efficiencies in nutrient uptake of spruce in mixed culture. Therefore hypothesis (2) was not supported. At the end of the experiment spruce turned out to be the stronger competitor in mixed culture as displayed by its higher total shoot biomass and crown volume. The amounts of macronutrients in the above-ground biomass of spruce individuals in mixed culture distinctly exceeded those of beech, which had been strongly reduced by interspecific competition. The superior competitiveness of spruce was related to higher N and P-based efficiencies in above-ground space occupation as suggested in hypothesis (3).

Key words

Competition Elevated CO2 and O3 Nutritional status Nutrient contents Nutrient efficiencies European beech (Fagus sylvaticaNorway spruce (Picea abies

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Drs. H.-D. Payer and H. Seidlitz (GSF—National Research Center for Environment and Health) and their technical staff for excellent support during the experiment. We thank D. Glaser and R. Heibl for careful nutrient analysis of plant samples. The investigation was funded within the “Sonderforschungsbereich 607: Growth and Parasite Defence—Competition for Resources in Economic Plants from Agronomy and Forestry, Projects B 10 and B5” by the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG).

References

  1. Aerts R (1990) Nutrient use efficiency in evergreen and deciduous species from heathlands. Oecologia 84:391–397Google Scholar
  2. Agren GI, Ingestad T (1987) Root:shoot ratio as a balance between nitrogen productivity and photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ 10:579–586Google Scholar
  3. Andersen CP (2003) Source-sink balance and carbon allocation below ground in plants exposed to ozone. New Phytol 157:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzaz FA (1997) Allocation of resources in plants: state of the science and critical questions. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J (eds) Plant resource allocation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  6. Bonneau M (1995) Fertilisation des forêts dans les pays tempérés. Engref, NancyGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin FS (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole DW, Rapp M (1981) Elemental cycling in forest ecosystems. In: Reichle DE (ed) Dynamic properties of forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 431–409Google Scholar
  9. Ericsson T (1995) Growth and shoot:root ratio of seedlings in relation to nutrient availability. Plant and Soil 168–169:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gayler S, Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Winkler JB, Luedemann G, Priesack E (2006) Analysis of competition effects in mono- and mixed cultures of juvenile beech and spruce by means of the plant growth simulation model PLATHO. Plant Biol 8:503–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grams TEE, Anegg S, Häberle K-H, Langebartels C, Matyssek R (1999) Interactions of chronic exposure to elevated CO2 and O3 levels in the photosynthetic light and dark reactions of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica). New Phytol 144:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Reiter IM, Winkler B, Sommerkorn M, Blaschke H, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R (2002) Quantifying competitiveness in woody plants. Plant biol 4:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R, Dawson TE (2007) Combining δ13C and δ18O analyses to unravel competition, CO2 and O3 effects on the physiological performance of different-aged trees. Plant Cell Environ 30:1023–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurevitch J, Scheiner SM, Fox GA (2006) The ecology of plants, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, p 89Google Scholar
  15. Hagedorn F, Bucher JB, Tarjan D, Rusert P, Bucher-Wallin I (2000) Responses of N fluxes and pools to elevated atmospheric CO2 in model forest ecosystems with acidic and calcareous soils. Plant Soil 224:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagedorn F, Landolt W, Tarjan D, Egli P, Bucher J (2002) Elevated CO2 influences nutrient availability in young beech-spruce communities on two soil types. Oecologia 132:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinze M (1973) The effect of N nutrition and water relations on the Ca content in the needles of pine seedlings. Flora 162:426–436Google Scholar
  18. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1950) The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experimental Station, Circular No. 374Google Scholar
  19. Hüttl RF (1992) Die Blattanalyse als Diagnose- und Monitoringinstrument in Waldökosystemen. Freiburger Bodenkundl. Abhandlungen 30:31–59Google Scholar
  20. Johnson DW, Thomas RB, Griffin KL, Tissue DT, Ball T, Strain BR, Walker RF (1998) Effects of CO2 and nitrogen on growth and nitrogen uptake in ponderosa and loblolly pine. J Environ Qual 27:414–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb TE, Matyssek R (2001) Limitations and perspectives about scaling ozone impacts in trees. Environ Poll 115:373–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kozovits AR (2003) Competitiveness of young beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) trees under ambient and elevated CO2 and O3 regimes, Doctoral thesis. Technische Universität München, p 108Google Scholar
  23. Kozovits AR, Matyssek R, Blaschke H, Göttlein A, Grams TEE (2005a) Competition increasingly dominates the responsiveness of juvenile beech and spruce to elevated CO2 and/or O3 concentrations throughout two subsequent growing seasons. Glob Chang Biol 11(9):1387–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozovits AR, Matyssek R, Winkler JB, Göttlein A, Blaschke H, Grams TEE (2005b) Above-ground space sequestration determines competitive success in juvenile beech and spruce trees. New Phytol 167(1):181–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Küppers M (1985) Carbon relations and competition between woody species in a Central European hedgerow. IV. Growth form and partitioning. Oecologia 66:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krause GHM, Prinz B (1989) Experimentelle Untersuchungen der LIS zur Aufklärung möglicher Ursachen der neuartigen Waldschäden, LIS-Berichte 80. p 221Google Scholar
  27. Kreutzer K, Weiss T (1998) The Höglwald field experiments—aims, concept and basic data. Plant Soil 199:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leuschner C, Rode MW (1999) The role of plant resources in forest succession: changes in radiation, water and nutrient fluxes, and plant productivity over a 300-yr-long chronosequence in NW-Germany. Perspectives Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2(1):103–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu X, Kozovits AR, Grams TEE, Blaschke H, Rennenberg H, Matyssek R (2004) Competition modifies effects of enhanced ozone/carbon dioxide concentrations on the carbohydrate and biomass accumulation in juvenile Norway spruce and European beech. Tree Physiol 24:1045–1055PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu X, Grams TEE, Matyssek R, Rennenberg H (2005) Effects of elevated pCO2 and/or pO3 on C-, N-, and S-metabolites in the leaves of juvenile beech and spruce differ between trees grown in monoculture and mixed culture. Plant Physiol Biochem 43:147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luedemann G, Matyssek R, Fleischmann F, Grams TEE (2005) Acclimation to ozone affects host/pathogen interaction and competitiveness for nitrogen in juvenile Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies trees infected with Phytophthora citricola. Plant Biol 7:640–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Mooney HA, Winner WE (1991) Partitioning response of plants to stress. In: Mooney HA, Winner WE, Pell EJ (eds) Response of plants to multiple stresses. Academic Press, San Diego, USA, pp 129–141Google Scholar
  34. Payer HD, Blodow P, Köfferlein M, Lippert M, Schmolke W, Seckmeyer G, Seidlitz HK, Strube D, Thiel S (1993) Controlled environment chambers for experimental studies on plant responses to CO2, and interactions with pollutants. In: Schulze ED, Mooney HA (eds) Ecosystems research report Nr. 6: design and execution of experiments on CO2 enrichment. Commission European Communities, Brussels, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  35. Roberntz P, Linder S (1999) Effects of long-term CO2 enrichment and nutrient availability in Norway spruce. II. Foliar chemistry. Trees 14:17–27Google Scholar
  36. Samuelson LJ, Kelly JM, Mays PA, Edwards GS (1996) Growth and nutrition of Quercus rubra L. seedlings and mature trees after three seasons of ozone exposure. Environ Pollut 91:317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaver GR, Melillo JM (1984) Nutrient budgets of marsh plants: efficiency concepts and relation to availability. Ecology 65:1491–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spinnler D, Egli P, Körner C (2003) Provenance effects and allometry in beech and spruce under elevated CO2 and nitrogen on two different forest soils. Basic Appl Ecol 4:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Utriainen J, Janhunen S, Helmisaari H-S, Holopainen T (2000) Biomass allocation, needle structural characteristics and nutrient composition in Scots pine seedlings exposed to elevated CO2 and O3 concentrations. Trees 14:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van den Burg J (1985) Foliar analysis for determination of tree nutrient status—a compilation of literature data. Rijksinstituut voor onderzoek in de bos- en landschapsbouw “de Dorschkamp”, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  41. Van den Burg J (1990) Foliar analysis for determination of tree nutrient status—a compilation of literature data; 2. Literature 1985–1989. “de Dorschkamp” Institute for Forestry and Urban Ecology, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  42. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  43. Vitousek P (1982) Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. Am Nat 119:553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Z, Göttlein A, Bartonek G (2001) Effects of growing roots of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) on rhizosphere soil solution chemistry. Plant Nutr Soil Sci 164:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Z, Göttlein A, Rodenkirchen H (2003) Soil exploration, nutrient partitioning and nutrient efficiency of beech and spruce seedlings in a rhizotrone experiment. Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166:390–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright L, Lockaby BG, Meldahl R, Thornton F, Chappelka AH (1990) The influence of acid precipitation and ozone on nitrogen nutrition of young loblolly pine. Water Air Soil Pollut 54:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann Rodenkirchen
    • 1
  • Axel Göttlein
    • 1
  • Alessandra R. Kozovits
    • 2
  • Rainer Matyssek
    • 3
  • Thorsten E. E. Grams
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest Nutrition and Water Resources, Department of EcologyTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade de BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil
  3. 3.Ecophysiology of Plants, Department of EcologyTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations