Plant and Soil

, Volume 292, Issue 1–2, pp 79–93

Biomass, morphology and nutrient contents of fine roots in four Norway spruce stands

Original Paper

Abstract

Fine root systems may respond to soil chemical conditions, but contrasting results have been obtained from field studies in non-manipulated forests with distinct soil chemical properties. We investigated biomass, necromass, live/dead ratios, morphology and nutrient concentrations of fine roots (<2 mm) in four mature Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) stands of south-east Germany, encompassing variations in soil chemical properties and climate. All stands were established on acidic soils (pH (CaCl2) range 2.8–3.8 in the humus layer), two of the four stands had molar ratios in soil solution below 1 and one of the four stands had received a liming treatment 22 years before the study. Soil cores down to 40 cm mineral soil depth were taken in autumn and separated into four fractions: humus layer, 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. We found no indications of negative effects of N availability on fine root properties despite large variations in inorganic N seepage fluxes (4–34 kg N ha−1 yr−1), suggesting that the variation in N deposition between 17 and 26 kg N ha−1 yr−1 does not affect the fine root system of Norway spruce. Fine root biomass was largest in the humus layer and increased with the amount of organic matter stored in the humus layer, indicating that the vertical pattern of fine roots is largely affected by the thickness of this horizon. Only two stands showed significant differences in fine root biomass of the mineral soil which can be explained by differences in soil chemical conditions. The stand with the lowest total biomass had the lowest Ca/Al ratio of 0.1 in seepage, however, Al, Ca, Mg and K concentrations of fine roots were not different among the stands. The Ca/Al ratio in seepage might be a less reliable stress parameter because another stand also had Ca/Al ratios in seepage far below the critical value of 1.0 without any signs of fine root damages. Large differences in the live/dead ratio were positively correlated with the Mn concentration of live fine roots from the mineral soil. This relationship was attributed to faster decay of dead fine roots because Mn is known as an essential element of lignin degrading enzymes. It is questionable if the live/dead ratio can be used as a vitality parameter of fine roots since both longevity of fine roots and decay of root litter may affect this parameter. Morphological properties were different in the humus layer of one stand that was limed in 1983, indicating that a single lime dose of 3–4 Mg ha−1 has a long-lasting effect on fine root architecture of Norway spruce. Almost no differences were found in morphological properties in the mineral soil among the stands, but vertical patterns were apparently different. Two stands with high base saturation in the subsoil showed a vertical decrease in specific root length and specific root tip density whereas the other two stands showed an opposite pattern or no effect. Our results suggest that proliferation of fine roots increased with decreasing base saturation in the subsoil of Norway spruce stands.

Keywords

Ca/Al ratio Fine roots Fine root biomass Fine root morphology Liming Mn concentration Nitrogen deposition Norway spruce 

References

  1. Berg B, Ekbohm G, Johansson MB, McClaugherty C, Rutigliano F, Virzo De Santo A (1996) Some foliar litter types have a maximum limit for decomposition—a synthesis of data from forest systems. Can J Bot 74:659–672Google Scholar
  2. Boxman AW, van der Ven PJM, Roelefs JGM (1998) Ecosystem recovery after a decrease in nitrogen input to a Scots pine stand at Ysselsteyn, the Netherlands. For Ecol Manage 101:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun S, Cantaluppi L, Flückiger W (2005) Fine roots in stands of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies along a gradient of soil acidification. Environ Pollut 137:574–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemensson-Lindell A, Asp H (1995) Fine-root morphology and uptake of 32P and 35S in a Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand subjected to various nutrient and water supplies. Plant Soil 173:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clemensson-Lindell A, Persson H (1995) Fine-root vitality in a Norway spruce stand subjected to various nutrient supplies. Plant Soil 168–169:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronan CS, Grigal DF (1995) Use of calcium aluminium ratios as indicators of stress in forest ecosystems. J Environ Qual 24:209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Wit HE, Mulder J, Nygaard PH, Aamild D (2001) Testing the aluminium toxicity hypothesis: a filed manipulation experiment in mature spruce forest in Norway. Water Air Soil Pollut 130:995–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eissenstat DM (1991) On the relationship between specific root length and the rate of root proliferation—a field study using citrus rootstocks. New Phytol 118:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Genenger M, Zimmermann S, Hallenbarter D, Landolt W, Frossard E, Brunner I (2003) Fine root growth and element concentrations of Norway spruce as affected by wood ash and liquid fertilisation. Plant Soil 255:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godbold DL, Fritz HW, Jentschke G, Meesenburg H, Rademacher P (2003) Root turnover and root necromass accumulation of Norway spruce (Picea abies) are affected by soil acidity. Tree Physiol 23:915–921PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendricks JJ, Aber JD, Nadelhoffer KJ, Hallett RD (2000) Nitrogen controls on fine root substrate quality in temperate forest ecosystems. Ecosystems 3:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Högberg P, Högbom L, Schinkel H (1998) Nitrogen-related root variables of trees along an N-deposition gradient in Europe. Tree Physiol 18:823–828PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. IUSS Working Group WRB 2006 World reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Report No. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. Janssens IA, Sampson DA, Curiel-Yuste J, Carrara A, Ceulemans R (2002) The carbon cost of fine root turnover in a Scots pine forest. For Ecol Manage.168:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jentschke G, Drexhage M, Fritz HW, Fritz E, Schella B, Lee DH, Gruber F, Heimann J, Kuhr M, Schmidt J, Schmidt S, Zimmermann R, Godbold DL (2001) Does soil acidity reduce subsoil rooting in Norway spruce (Picea abies)? Plant Soil 237:91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joslin JD, Kelly JM, Wolfe MH (1988) Elemental patterns in roots and foliage of mature spruce across a gradient of soil aluminium. Water Air Soil Pollut 40:375–390Google Scholar
  17. Kreutzer K, Weiss T (1998) The Höglwald field experiments—aims, concept and basic data. Plant Soil 199:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamersdorf NP, Borken W (2004) Clean rain promotes fine root growth and soil respiration in a Norway spruce forest. Global Change Biol 10:1351–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leuschner C, Hertel D, Schmid I, Koch O, Muhs A, Hölscher D (2004) Stand fine root biomass and fine root morphology in old-growth beech forests as a function of precipitation and soil fertility. Plant Soil 258:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magill AH, Aber JD, Currie WS, Nadelhoffer KJ, Martin ME, McDowell WH, Melillo JM, Steudler P (2004) Ecosystem response to 15 years of chronic nitrogen additions at the Harvard Forest LTER, Massachusetts, USA. For Ecol Manage 196:7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Majdi H, Rosengren-Brinck U (1994) Effects of ammonium sulphate application on the rhizosphere, fine root and needle chemistry in a Picea abies (L.) Karst. stand. Plant Soil 162:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Majdi H, Andersson P (2005) Fine root production and turnover in a Norway spruce stand in northern Sweden: Effects of nitrogen and water manipulation. Ecosystems 8:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Majdi K, Pregitzer KS, Moren AS, Nylund JE, Agren GI (2005) Measuring fine root turnover in forest ecosystems. Plant Soil 276:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matzner E, Murach D (1995) Soil changes induced by air pollutant deposition and their implication for forests in Central Europe. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miltner A, Zech W (1998) Carbohydrate decomposition in beech litter as influenced by aluminium, iron and manganese oxides. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murach D, Schünemann E (1985) Reaktion der Feinwurzeln von Fichten auf Kalkungsmaßnahmen. AFZ 40:1151–1154Google Scholar
  27. Ostonen I, Lõhmus K, Lasn R (1999) The role of soil conditions in fine root ecomorphology in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Plant Soil 208:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parker D, Sposito G, Tebo B (2004) Manganese (III) binding to a pyoverdine siderophore produced by a manganese (II)-oxidizing bacterium. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 68:4809–4820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Persson H, Von Fircks Y, Majdi H, Nilsson LO (1995) Root distribution on a Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand subjected to drought and ammonium-sulphate application. Plant Soil 168–169:1995Google Scholar
  30. Puhe J (2003) Growth and development of the root system of Norway spruce (Picea abies) in forest stands - a review. For Ecol Manage 175:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Püttsepp U, Lõhmus K, Persson HA, Ahlstrom K (2006) Fine-root distribution and morphology in an acidic Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand in SW Sweden in relation to granulated wood ash application. For Ecol Manage 221:291–298Google Scholar
  32. Regent Instruments Inc (2003) WinRhizo 2003b, Basic, Reg & Pro For Washed Root MeasurementGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothe A (1997) Einfluß des Baumartenanteils auf Durchwurzelung, Wasserhaushalt, Stoffhaushalt und Zuwachsleistung eines Fichte-Buchen-Mischbestandes am Standort Höglwald. Forstl. Forschungsberichte München 163Google Scholar
  34. Spiecker H (1999) Overview of recent growth trends in European forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 116:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trumbore SE, Gaudinski JB (2003) The secret lives of roots. Science 302:1344–1345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. UBA (2006) Berichterstattung 2006 unter dem Übereinkommen über weiträumige grenzüberschreitende Luftverschmutzung (UN ECE-CLRTAP), http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/ emissionen/publikationen.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil Ecology, BayCEERUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations