Biogeochemistry

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 175–187 | Cite as

Controls over leaf and litter calcium concentrations among temperate trees

  • Jenny M. Dauer
  • Jon Chorover
  • Oliver A. Chadwick
  • Jacek Oleksyn
  • Mark G. Tjoelker
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
  • Peter B. Reich
  • David M. Eissenstat
Original Paper

Abstract

Four-fold variation in leaf-litter Ca concentration among 14 tree species growing in a common garden in central Poland was linked to variation in soil pH, exchangeable Ca, soil base saturation, forest floor turnover rates, and earthworm abundance. Given the potential importance of tissue Ca to biogeochemical processes, in this study we investigated potential controls on leaf Ca concentrations using studies of both laboratory seedlings and 30-year-old trees in the field. We first assessed whether species differences in Ca concentration of green leaves and leaf litter were due to differences in Ca uptake, plant growth, or Ca translocation to different organs, by measuring seedlings of 6 of the 14 species grown under controlled conditions of varying Ca supply. We also investigated whether trees species with high Ca concentrations in green leaves and leaf litter access soil Ca to a greater extent than low-Ca species by growing more fine roots in high-Ca soil horizons. Root distribution in the field was determined in all 14 tree species by profile wall mapping and soil sampling of excavated pits. There was no correlation between horizon root count density (number of roots m−2) and exchangeable soil Ca, nor was there a correlation of stand-level leaf litter Ca with density of roots 45–100 cm deep in the soil, suggesting that a deeper root distribution does not result in greater Ca acquisition among these species. Variation among species in leaf Ca concentration of greenhouse seedlings was positively correlated with leaf Ca concentrations of mature trees, indicating that the same ranking in leaf Ca among species existed under controlled Ca supply. Species also differed in seedling growth response to Ca supply. Tilia, the species with the highest leaf Ca in the field, generated only 10% as much biomass and height at low relative to high Ca supply, whereas the other species exhibited no significant differences. Species exhibited differences in (i) partitioning of whole plant Ca and biomass to leaf, stem and root organs and (ii) the pattern of such partitioning between high and low Ca treatments. Our data support the hypothesis that although soil Ca supply can contribute to variation among trees in leaf and litter Ca concentration, innate physiological differences among species also can be a major cause for species variation.

Keywords

Calcium Partitioning Physiology Root distribution Seedling Tree species 

References

  1. Alban DH (1982) Effects of nutrient accumulation by aspen, spruce and pine on soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amacher MC, Henderson RE, Breithaupt MD et al (1990) Unbuffered and buffered salt methods for exchangeable cations and effective cation exchange capacity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 54:1036–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S, Nilsson SI, Saetre P (2000) Leaching of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in mor humus as affected by temperature and pH. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigelow SW, Canham CD (2007) Nutrient limitation of juvenile trees in a northern hardwood forest: calcium and nitrate are preeminent. For Ecol Manage 243:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binkley D, Giardina C (1998) Why do tree species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interactions. Biogeochemistry 42:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bockheim JG (1997) Soils in a hemlock-hardwood ecosystem mosaic in the Southern Lake Superior Uplands. Can J For Res 27:1147–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boettcher SE, Kalisz PJ (1990) Single-tree influence on soil properties in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky. Ecology 1990:1365–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Böhm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 188Google Scholar
  9. Broadley MR, Bowen HC, Cotterill HL et al (2003) Variation in the shoot calcium content of angiosperms. J Exp Bot 54:1431–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell MM, Virginia RA (1989) Roots systems. In: Pearcy RW et al (ed) Plant physiological ecology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan KY, Heenan DP (1999) Lime-induced loss of soil organic carbon and effect on aggregate stability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1841–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FS, Walker BH, Hobbs RJ et al (1997) Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuevas E, Medina E (1988) Nutrient dynamics within amazonian forests: II. Fine root growth, nutrient availability and leaf litter decomposition. Oecologia 76:222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dijkstra FA, Smits MM (2002) Tree species effects on calcium cycling: the role of calcium uptake in deep soils. Ecosystems 5:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong SF, Neilsen D, Neilsen GH et al (2003) A scanner-based root image acquisition technique for measuring roots on a rhizotron window. Hortscience 38:1385–1388Google Scholar
  16. Eriksson HM, Rosen K (1994) Nutrient distribution in a Swedish tree species experiment. Plant Soil 164:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eviner VT, Chapin FS, Vaughn CE (2006) Seasonal variations in plant species effects on soil N and P dynamics. Ecology 87:974–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finzi AC, Canham CD, Breeman N (1998) Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on pH and cations. Ecol Appl 8:447–454Google Scholar
  19. Hedin LO, Granat L, Liken GE et al (1994) Steep declines in atmospheric base cations in regions of Europe and North America. Nature 367:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbie SE, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Ogdahl M, Zytkowiak R, Hale C, Karolewski P (2006) Tree species effects on decomposition and forest floor dynamics in a common garden. Ecology 87:2288–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jandl R, Alewell C, Prietzel J (2004) Calcium loss in Central European forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:588–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jobbágy E, Jackson RB (2004) The uplift of soil nutrients by plants: biogeochemical consequences across scales. Ecology 85:2380–2389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson DW, Todd DE (1990) Nutrient cycling in forests of Walker Branch Watershed, Tennessee: roles of uptake and leaching in causing soil changes. J Environ Qual 19:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killingbeck KT (1986) Litterfall dynamics and element use efficiency in a Kansas gallery forests. Am Midl Nat 116:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamont BB, Groom PK (2002) Green cotyledons of two Hakea species control seedling mass and morphology by supplying mineral nutrients rather than organic compounds. New Phytol 152:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehmann J (2003) Subsoil root activity in tree-based cropping systems. Plant Soil 255:319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Likens GE, Driscoll CT, Buso DC, Siccama TG, Johnson CE, Lovett GM, Fahey TJ, Reiners WA, Ryan DF, Martin CW, Bailey SW (1998) The biogeochemistry of calcium at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 41:89–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. McLaughlin SB, Wimmer R (1999) Tansley review no. 104: calcium physiology and terrestrial ecosystem processes. New Phytol 142:373–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meerts P (2002) Mineral nutrient concentrations in sapwood and heartwood: a literature review. Ann For Sci 59:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muneer M, Oades JM (1989) The role of Ca-organic interactions in soil aggregate stability. I. Laboratory studies with 14C-glucose, CaCO3 and CaSO4-2H2O. Aust J Soil Res 27:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muys B, Lust N (1992) Inventory of the earthworm communities and the state of litter decomposition in the forests of Flanders, Belgium, and its implications for forest management. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1677–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oades JM (1988) The retention of organic matter in soils. Biogeochemistry 5:37–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oleksyn J, Zytkowiak R, Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Karolewski P (2000) Ontogenetic patterns of leaf CO2 exchange, morphology and chemistry in Betula pendula trees. Trees 14:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oleksyn J, Reich PB, Zytkowiak R, Karolewski P, Tjoelker MG (2002) Needle nutrients in geographically diverse Pinus sylvestris L. populations. Ann For Sci 59:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oste LA, Temminghoff EJM, Van Riemsdijk WH (2002) Solid-solution partitioning of organic matter in soils as influenced by an increase in pH or Ca concentration. Environ Sci Technol 38:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oyonarte C, Perez-Pujalte A, Delgado G, Delgado R, Almendros G (1994) Factors affecting soil organic matter turnover in a Mediterranean ecosystem from Sierra de Gador (Spain): an analytical approach. Commun Soil Sci Anal 25:1929–1945Google Scholar
  40. Persson T, Lundkvist H, Wirén A, Hyvönen R, Wessén B (1989) Effects of acidification and liming on carbon and nitrogen mineralization and soil organisms in mor humus. Water Air Soil Pollut 45:77–96Google Scholar
  41. Pop VV, Postolache T, Vasu A, Craciun C (1992) Calcophilous earthworm activity in soil; an experimental approach. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1483–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raich JW, Riley RH, Vitousek PM (1994) Use of root-ingrowth cores to assess nutrient limitations in forest ecosystems. Can J For Res 24:2135–2138Google Scholar
  43. Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J, Mrozinski P, Hobbie SE, Eissenstat DM, Chorover J, Chadwick OA, Hale CM, Tjoelker MG (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms, and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 temperate tree species. Ecol Lett 8:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhoades JD (1996) Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved salts. In: Sparks DL et al (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. SSSA Book series No 5. ASA and SSA, Madison, pp 417–436Google Scholar
  45. Simmons JA, Yavitt JB, Fahey TJ (1996) Watershed liming effects on the forest floor N cycle. Biogeochemistry 32:221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szymanski S (1982) Growth of some forest tree species in the first 10 years on fairly poor mixed conifer sites. Sylwan 126:11–29 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  47. Taiz L, Zeiger E (2002) Plant physiology, 3rd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson K, Parkinson JA, Band SR, Spencer RE (1997) A comparative study of leaf nutrient concentrations in a regional herbaceous flora. New Phytol 136:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Troeh FR, Thompson LM (2005) Soils and soil fertility, 6th edn. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  50. Washburn CSM, Arthur MA (2003) Spatial variability in soil nutrient availability in an oak-pine forest: potential effects of tree species. Can J For Res 33:2321–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Withington JM, Elkin AD, Bulaj B, Olesinski J, Tracy KN, Bouma TJ, Oleksyn J, Anderson LJ, Modrzynski J, Reich PB, Eissenstat DM (2003) The impact of material used for minirhizotron tubes for root research. New Phytol 160:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Withington JM, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Eissenstat DM (2006) Comparisons of structure and life span in roots and leaves among temperate trees. Ecol Monogr 76:381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny M. Dauer
    • 1
  • Jon Chorover
    • 2
  • Oliver A. Chadwick
    • 3
  • Jacek Oleksyn
    • 4
    • 5
  • Mark G. Tjoelker
    • 6
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
    • 7
  • Peter B. Reich
    • 4
  • David M. Eissenstat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Horticulture and the Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in EcologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Soil, Water & Environmental ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  5. 5.Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of DendrologyKornikPoland
  6. 6.Deptartment of Ecosystem Science and ManagementTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  7. 7.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations