Plant and Soil

, Volume 297, Issue 1–2, pp 119–125 | Cite as

Do oaks have different strategies for uptake of N, K and P depending on soil depth?

  • Hans Göransson
  • Ann-Mari Fransson
  • Ulrika Jönsson-Belyazid
Regular Article

Abstract

The uptake of nutrients from deep soil layers has been shown to be important for the long-term nutrient sustainability of forest soils. When modelling nutrient uptake in forest ecosystems, the nutrient uptake capacity of trees is usually defined by the root distribution. However, this leads to the assumption that roots at different soil depths have the same capacity to take up nutrients. To investigate if roots located at different soil depths differ in their nutrient uptake capacity, here defined as the nutrient uptake rate under standardized conditions, a bioassay was performed on excised roots (<1 mm) of eight oak trees (Quercus robur L.). The results showed that the root uptake rate of 86Rb+ (used as an analogue for K+) declined with increasing soil depth, and the same trend was found for \( {\text{NH}}^{ + }_{4} \). The root uptake rate of \( {\text{H}}_{2} {\text{PO}}^{ - }_{4} \), on the other hand, did not decrease with soil depth. These different physiological responses in relation to soil depth indicate differences in the oak roots, and suggest that fine roots in shallow soil layers may be specialized in taking up nutrients such as K+ and \( {\text{NH}}^{ + }_{4} \) which have a high availability in these layers, while oak roots in deep soil layers are specialized in taking up other resources, such as P, which may have a high availability in deep soil layers. Regardless of the cause of the difference in uptake trends for the various nutrients, these differences have consequences for the modelling of the soil nutrient pool beneath oak trees and raise the question of whether roots can be treated uniformly, as has previously been done in forest ecosystem models.

Keywords

Quercus robur Soil depth Nutrient uptake Root bioassay 1586Rb 32

References

  1. Akselsson C (2005) Regional nutrient budgets in forest soils in a policy perspective. Thesis Dep. of Chemical Engineering. Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  2. Akselsson C, Westling O (2005) Regionalized nitrogen budgets in forest soils for different deposition and forestry scenarios in Sweden. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvidsson J (1999) Nutrient uptake and growth as effected by soil compaction. Plant Soil 208:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belyazid S, Westling O, Sverdrup H (2006) Modelling changes in forest soil chemistry at 16 Swedish coniferous forest sites following deposition reduction. Environ Pollut 144:596–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergkvist B (1986) Metal fluxes in spruce and beech forest ecosystems of south Sweden. Thesis. Plant Ecology, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady NC, Weil RR (1999) The nature and properties of soils. Simon and Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandtberg P-O, Bengtsson J, Lundkvist H (2004) Distribution of the capacity to take up nutrients by Betula spp. and Picea abies in mixed stands. For Ecol Manag 198:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Escamilla JA, Comerford NB (2000) Phosphorus and potassium uptake by woody roots of twelve-year-old slash pine trees. For Ecol Manag 129:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fransson A-M, Bergkvist B (1999) Phosphorus fertilisation causes durable enhancement of phosphorus concentrations in forest soil. For Ecol Manag 130:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. George E, Marschner H (1996) Nutrient and water uptake by roots of forest trees. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 159:11–21Google Scholar
  11. Godbold DL, Fritz H-W, 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
  12. Göransson H (2006) The vertical distribution of roots, mycorrhizal mycelia and nutrient acquisition in mature forest trees. Thesis Plant ecology and systematics. Lund university, Lund, p 95Google Scholar
  13. Göransson H, Wallander H, Ingerslev M, Rosengen U (2006) Estimating the relative nutrient uptake from different soil depth of Quercus robur, Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies (L.) Karst. Plant Soil 286:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagerberg D, Thelin G, Wallander H (2003) The production if ectomycorrhizal mycelium in forests: Relation to forest status and local mineral sources. Plant Soil 252:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison AF, Helliwell DR (1979) A bioassay for comparing phosphorus availability in soils. J Appl Ecol 16:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmqvist J, Thelin G, Rosengen U, Stjernquist I, Wallman P, Sverdrup H (2002) Assessment of sustainability in the Asa Forest park. In Sverdrup H, Stjernquist I (eds) Developing principles and models for sustainable forestry in Sweden. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 381–426Google Scholar
  17. Jensén P, Pettersson S (1980) Nutrient uptake in roots of Scots pine. Ecological bulletins 32:229–237Google Scholar
  18. Jones H, Harrisson A-F, Dighton J (1987) A 86Rb bioassay to determine the potassium status of trees. New Phytol 107:695–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones H, Quarmby C and Harrison A F 1991 A root bioassay test for nitrogen deficiency in forest trees. For Ecol Manag 42:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones HE, Högberg P, Ohlsson H (1994) Nutritional assessment of a forest fertilisation experiment in northern Sweden by root bioassays. For Ecol Manag 64:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jönsson-Belyazid U, Rosengen U (2006) Can Phytophthora quercina have a negative impact on mature penduculate oaks under field conditions. Ann For Sci 63:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keith H (1998) Calibration of the 32P bioassay for eucalypt roots in the field. Soil Biol Biochem 30:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lambers H, Chapin III FS, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambers H, Shane MW, Cramer MD, Pearse SJ, Veneklaas EJ (2006) Root structure and functioning for efficient acquisition of phosphorus: matching morphological and physiological traits. Ann Bot (London) 98:693–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marschner H (1986) Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Mccully RL, Jobbágy EG, Pockman WT, Jackson RB (2004) Nutrient uptake as a contributing explanation for deep rooting in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Oecologia (Berlin) 141:620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pregitzer KS (2002) Fine roots of trees – a new perspective. New Phytol 154:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pregitzer KS, Laskowski MJ, Burton AJ, Lessard VC, Zak DR (1998) Variation in Sugar maple root respiration with root diameter and soil depth. Tree Physiol 18:665–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson D (1994) Tansley Review No. 73 The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 127:635–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosengren U, Göransson H, Jönsson U, Stjernquist I, Thelin G, Wallander H (2005) Functional biodiversity aspects on the nutrient sustainability in forests – importance of root distribution. J Sustain For 21:75–98Google Scholar
  31. Rosengren U, Sleep D, Jones H, Thelin G (2003) Increasing the sensitivity of the 15N root bioassay technique: suggested procedures. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 34:2363–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smart CJ (1996) The molecular basis of potassium nutrition in plants. Plant Soil 178:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SMHI (1991–2002) Väder och vatten. NorköpingGoogle Scholar
  34. von Leibundgut H, Dafis S, Richard F (1963) Untersuchungen über das Wurzelwachstum verschiedener Baumarten. Schweizerische Z Forstwes J forestier suisse 114:621–646Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Göransson
    • 1
  • Ann-Mari Fransson
    • 1
  • Ulrika Jönsson-Belyazid
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Ecology and Systematics, Department of EcologyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations