Plant and Soil

, Volume 345, Issue 1–2, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Plant species richness in a natural Argentinian matorral shrub-land correlates negatively with levels of plant phosphorus

  • Ylva-Li Blanck
  • Juan Gowda
  • Linda-Maria Mårtensson
  • Jakob Sandberg
  • Ann-Mari Fransson
Regular Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to ascertain whether there is a relationship between plant species richness and plant-available N, P and water in an environment subject to little anthropogenic disturbance. To accomplish this we studied the vegetation in matorral shrub-lands in northern Patagonia, Argentina. Due to the variation in slope, precipitation and aspect between the sites water status was determined using the 12C/13C fraction, δ13C, to investigate whether this was a confounding factor. The numbers of herb, shrub, liana and tree species were determined at 20 sites along an estimated precipitation gradient. Leaf P and N content and the δ13C of Berberis buxifolia were determined, as well as the soil P and N content at the different sites. A negative correlation was found between species richness and Berberis buxifolia foliar P concentration (52% of the species richness variation was accounted for), and a positive correlation was found between plant species richness and Berberis buxifolia foliar N: P ratios (54% of the species richness variation was accounted for). The relationship between species richness and foliar P was seen when all layers of vegetation were included (trees, lianas, shrubs and herbs). Foliar N showed no correlation with species richness, while soil extractable NH4 showed a weak positive correlation with the number of shrub layer species (lianas, shrubs and trees). The species richness of the shrub layer increased with decreasing values of δ13C. Low soil P availability thus affects local species richness in the matorral shrub-lands of Patagonia in Argentina although the growth of vegetation in the area has been shown to be limited by N. We suggest that low P levels increase plant species richness because low soil P concentration is associated with a high P partitioning and high potential for niche separation.

Keywords

Available P Available N Species richness 13C/12Water availability Multiple resources Andean mountains 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Priscilla Edwards and Cecilia Ezcurra at CRUB for their assistance during Ylva-Li Blank’s field work in Argentina and Maria Julia Mazzarino at CRUB for supplying relevant articles. We also thank Germund Tyler for useful comments on the content of the manuscript. This research was funded by The Linnaeus-Palme Foundation, SIDA.

References

  1. Al-Mufti MM, Sydes CL, Furness SB, Grime JP, Band SR (1977) A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J Ecol 65:759–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin AT, Vitousek PM (1998) Nutrient dynamics on a precipitation gradient in Hawaii. Oecologia (Berlin) 113:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros V, Cordon V, Forquera J, Moyano C, Mendez R, Pizzio O (1983) Cartas de precipitation de la zona Oeste de las provincias de Rio Negro y Neuquén. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Cinco SaltosGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertiller MB, Sain CL, Carrera AL, Vargas DN (2005) Patterns of nitrogen and phosphorus conservation in dominant perennial grasses and shrubs across an aridity gradient in Patagonia, Argentina. J Arid Environ 62:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray H, Kurtz L (1945) Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature (Lond) 405:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Critchley CNR, Chambers BJ, Fowbert JA, Bhogal A, Rose SC, Sanderson RA (2002) Plant species richness, functional type and soil properties of grasslands and allied vegetation in English environmentally sensitive areas. Grass Forage Sci 57:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson TE, Mambelli S, Plamboeck AH, Templer PH, Tu KP (2002) Stable isotopes in plant ecology. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 33:507–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diehl P, Mazzarino MJ, Funes F, Fontenla S, Gobbi M, Ferrari J (2003) Nutrient conservation strategies in native Andean-Patagonian forests. J Veg Sci 14:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diehl P, Mazzarino MJ, Fontenla S (2008) Plant limiting nutrients in Andean-Patagonian woody species: effects of interannual rainfall variation, soil fertility and mycorrhizal infection. For Ecol Manage 255:2973–2980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Facelli E, Facelli JM (2002) Soil phosphorus heterogeneity and mycorrhizal symbiosis regulate plant intra-specific competition and size distribution. Oecologia (Berlin) 133:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert J, Gowing D, Wallace H (2009) Available soil phosphorus in semi-natural grasslands: assessment methods and community tolerances. Biol Conserv 142:1074–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gusewell S (2004) N: P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harpole WS, Tilman D (2007) Grassland species loss resulting from reduced niche dimension. Nature (Lond) 446:791–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssens F, Peeters A, Tallowin J, Bakker J, Bekker R, Fillat F, Oomes M (1998) Relationship between soil chemical factors and grassland diversity. Plant Soil 202:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobbagy EG, Paruelo JM, Leon RJC (1995) Estimating the precipitation regime from the distance to the Andes in Northwest Patagonia. Ecol Austral 5:47–53Google Scholar
  18. John MK (1970) Colorimetric determination of phosphorus in soil and plant materials with ascorbic acid. Soil Sci 109:214–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambers H, Raven JA, Shaver GR, Smith S (2008) Plant nutrient-acquisition strategies change with soil age. Trends Ecol Evol 23:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu T, Ma KM, Zhang WH, Fu BJ (2006) Differential responses of shrubs and herbs present at the Upper Minjiang River basin (Tibetan Plateau) to several soil variables. J Arid Environ 67:373–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCrea AR, Trueman IC, Fullen MA, Atkinson MD, Besenyei L (2001) Relationships between soil characteristics and species richness in two botanically heterogeneous created meadows in the urban English West Midlands. Biol Conserv 97:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCrea AR, Trueman IC, Fullen MA (2004) Factors relating to soil fertility and species diversity in both semi-natural and created meadows in the West Midlands of England. Eur J Soil Sci 55:335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKane RB, Johnson LC, Shaver GR, Nadelhoffer KJ, Rastetter EB, Fry B, Giblin AE, Kielland K, Kwiatkowski BL, Laundre JA, Murray G (2002) Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature (Lond) 415:68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNulty SG, Swank WT (1995) Wood delta-13C as a measure of annual basal area growth and soil water stress in a Pinus strobus forest. Ecology (Washington D C) 76:1581–1586Google Scholar
  25. Olde Venterink H, Pieterse NM, Belgers JDM, Wassen MJ, Ruiter PCD (2002) N, P, and K budgets along nutrient availability and productivity gradients in wetlands. Ecol Appl 12:1010–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olde Venterink H, Wassen MJ, Verkroost AWM, de Ruiter PC (2003) Species richness-productivity patterns differ between N-, P-, and K-limited wetlands. Ecology 84:2191–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oleary MH (1981) Carbon isotope fractionation in plants. Phytochemistry 20:553–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paruelo JM, Beltràn A, Jobbàgy E, Sala OE, Golluscio RA (1998) The climate of Patagonia: general patterns and controls on biotic processes. Ecol Austral 8:85–101Google Scholar
  29. Ruzicka J, Hansen E H (1981) Flow injection analysis. Chem Anal 62Google Scholar
  30. Satti P, Mazzarino MJ, Roselli L, Crego P (2007) Factors affecting soil P dynamics in temperate volcanic soils of southern Argentina. Geoderma 139:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevens MHH, Shirk R, Steiner CE (2006) Water and fertilizer have opposite effects on plant species richness in a mesic early successional habitat. Plant Ecology 183:27–34Google Scholar
  33. Sydes CL, Grime J (1984) A comparative study of root development using a simulated rock crevice. J Ecol 72:937–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tilman D (1987) Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecol Monogr 57:189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veblen TT, Lorenz DC (1987) Post-fire stand development of Austrocedrus—Nothofagus forests in Patagonia. Vegetatio 71:113–126Google Scholar
  36. Wassen MJ, Olde Venterink H, Lapshina ED, Tanneberger F (2005) Endangered plants persist under phosphorus limitation. Nature (Lond) 437:547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R (2001) Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J Biogeogr 28:453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Willis B (1914) Northern Patagonia: character and resources. Vol. I. Ministry of Public Works. Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ylva-Li Blanck
    • 1
  • Juan Gowda
    • 2
  • Linda-Maria Mårtensson
    • 1
  • Jakob Sandberg
    • 1
  • Ann-Mari Fransson
    • 3
  1. 1.Plant Ecology and Systematics, Department of EcologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Laboratorio EcotonoCONICET-INIBIOMA-CRUBBarilocheArgentina
  3. 3.Landscape Management, Design and ConstructionSwedish University of AgricultureUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations