Plant and Soil

, Volume 368, Issue 1–2, pp 519–534 | Cite as

Preferential use of root litter compared to leaf litter by beech seedlings and soil microorganisms

  • Chanjuan Guo
  • Michael Dannenmann
  • Rainer Gasche
  • Bernd Zeller
  • Hans Papen
  • Andrea Polle
  • Heinz Rennenberg
  • Judy Simon
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Litter decomposition is regulated by e.g. substrate quality and environmental factors, particularly water availability. The partitioning of nutrients released from litter between vegetation and soil microorganisms may, therefore, be affected by changing climate. This study aimed to elucidate the impact of litter type and drought on the fate of litter-derived N in beech seedlings and soil microbes.

Methods

We quantified 15N recovery rates in plant and soil N pools by adding 15N-labelled leaf and/or root litter under controlled conditions.

Results

Root litter was favoured over leaf litter for N acquisition by beech seedlings and soil microorganisms. Drought reduced 15N recovery from litter in seedlings thereby affecting root N nutrition. 15N accumulated in seedlings in different sinks depending on litter type.

Conclusions

Root turnover appears to influence (a) N availability in the soil for plants and soil microbes and (b) N acquisition and retention despite a presumably extremely dynamic turnover of microbial biomass. Compared to soil microorganisms, beech seedlings represent a very minor short-term N sink, despite a potentially high N residence time. Furthermore, soil microbes constitute a significant N pool that can be released in the long term and, thus, may become available for N nutrition of plants.

Keywords

Litter types Root litter Leaf litter Decomposition Microbial biomass Plant N metabolism Soil N pools 15N recovery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the German Research Foundation / Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the framework of the Beech Research Group under contract numbers FOR 788/1, RE 515/27-1, PO 362/17-1, and DA 1217/2-1. C.G. was financially supported by a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council (no. 2007U27036). Judy Simon was financially supported by the European Social Fund and by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts Baden-Württemberg. Furthermore, we thank Merle Fastenrath, Regina Wiegel and Elisabeth Zumbusch for expert assistance during the experiment.

References

  1. Backes K, Leuschner C (2000) Leaf water relations of competitive Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea trees during 4 years differing in soil drought. Can J For Res 30:335–346Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin IT, Olson RK, Reiners WA (1983) Protein binding phenolics and the inhibition of nitrification in subalpine balsam fir soils. Soil Biol Biochem 15:419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borken W, Matzner E (2009) Reappraisal of drying and wetting effects on C and N mineralization and fluxes in soils. Glob Chang Biol 15:808–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks PD, Stark JM, McInteer BB, Preston T (1989) Diffusion method to prepare soil extracts for automated nitrogen-15 analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:1707–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchmann N, Gebauer G, Schulze ED (1996) Partitioning of 15N-labeled ammonium and nitrate among soil, litter, below- and above-ground biomass of trees and understory in a 15-year old Picea abies plantation. Biogeochemistry 33:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman SK, Langley JA, Hart SC, Koch GW (2006) Plant actively control nitrogen cycling: uncorking the micronial bottleneck. New Phytol 169:27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dannenmann M, Simon J, Gasche R, Holst J, Naumann PS, Kögel-Knabner I, Knicker H, Mayer H, Schloter M, Pena R, Polle A, Rennenberg H, Papen H (2009) Tree girdling provides insight on the role of labile carbon in nitrogen partitioning between soil microorganisms and adult European beech. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1622–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyckmans J, Flessa H, Brinkmann K, Mai C, Polle A (2002) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in acid detergent fibre lignins of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) during the growth phase. Plant Cell Environ 25:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellenberg H (1996) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen, 5th edn. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  10. Ericsson T (1994) Nutrient dynamics and requirements of forest crops. N Z J For Sci 24:133–168Google Scholar
  11. Farquhar GD, Richards RA (1984) Isotope composition of plant carbon: correlations with water-use efficiency of wheat cultivars. Aust J Plant Physiol 11:539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field JA, Lettina G (1992) Toxicity of tannic compounds to microorganisms. In: Hemingway RW, Laks PE (eds) Plant polyphenols. Synthesis, properties, significance. Plenum Press, New York, pp 673–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fotelli MN, Nahm M, Heidenfelder A, Papen H, Rennenberg H, Gessler A (2002) Soluble nonprotein nitrogen compounds indicate changes in the nitrogen status of beech seedlings due to climate and thinning. New Phytol 154:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fotelli MN, Rennenberg H, Holst T, Mayer H, Gessler A (2003) Carbon isotope composition of various tissues of beech (Fagus sylvatica) regeneration is indicative of recent environmental conditions within the forest understorey. New Phytol 159:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fotelli MN, Rienks M, Rennenberg H, Gessler A (2004) Climate and forest management affect 15N uptake, N balance and biomass of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings. Trees 18:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallet C, Lebreton P (1995) Evolution of phenolic patterns in plants and associated litters and humus of a mountain forest ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 27:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gessler A, Keitel C, Kreuzwieser J, Matyssek R, Seiler W, Rennenberg H (2007) Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changing climate. Trees 21:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagerman AE, Riedl KM, Jones GA, Sovik KN, Ritchard NT, Hartzfeld PW, Riechel TL (1998) High molecular weight plant polyphenolics (tannins) as biological antioxidants. J Agric Food Chem 46:1887–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinsinger P, Bengough G, Vetterlein D, Young IM (2009) Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant Soil 321:117–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodge A, Robinson D, Fitter A (2000) Are microorganisms more effective than plants at competing for nitrogen? Trends Plant Sci 5:304–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horner JD, Gosz JR, Cates RG (1988) The role of carbon-based plant secondary metabolites in decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Am Nat 132:869–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu Y, Schmidhalter U (2005) Drought and salinity: a comparison of their effects on mineral nutrition of plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 168:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaye JP, Hart SC (1997) Competition for nitrogen between plants and soil microorganisms. Trends Ecol Evol 12:139–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleinebecker T, Schmidt SR, Fritz C, Smolders AJP, Hölzel N (2009) Prediction of d13C and d15N in plant tissues with near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. New Phytol 184:732–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraus TEC, Dahlgren RA, Zasoski RJ (2003) Tannins in nutrient dynamics of forest ecosystems—a review. Plant Soil 256:41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kreuzwieser J, Gessler A (2010) Global climate change and tree nutrition: influence of water availability. Tree Physiol 30:1221–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamontagne S, Schiff SL, Elgood RJ (2000) Recovery of 15N-labeled nitrate applied to a small upland boreal forest catchment. Can J For Res 30:1165–1177Google Scholar
  30. Li C (2000) Carbon isotope composition, water-use efficiency and biomass productivity of Eucalyptus microtheca populations under different water supplies. Plant Soil 214:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Nadelhoffer KJ, Colman BP, Currie WS, Magill A, Aber JD (2004) Decadal-scale fates of 15N tracers added to oak and pine stand under ambient and elevated N inputs at the Harvard Forest (USA). Forest Ecol Manag 196:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nahm M, Holst T, Matzarakis A, Mayer H, Rennenberg H, Gessler A (2006) Soluble N compound profiles and concentrations in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) are influenced by local climate and thinning. Eur J Forest Res 125:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Näsholm T, Ekblad A, Nordin A, Giesler R, Högberg M, Högberg P (1998) Boreal forest plants take up organic nitrogen. Nature 392:914–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Näsholm T, Kielland K, Ganeteg U (2009) Uptake of organic nitrogen by plants. New Phytol 182:31–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions in northern California’s pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neill EG, Johnson DW, Ledford J, Todd DE (2003) Drought does not permanently alter mass loss and nitrogen dynamics during decomposition of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) litter. Glob Chang Biol 9:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson RK, Reiners WA (1983) Nitrification in subalpine balsam fir soils: tests for inhibitory factors. Soil Biol Biochem 15:413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parton W, Silver WL, Burke I, Grassens L, Harmon ME, Currie WS, King JY, Adair EC, Brandt LA, Hart SC, Fasth B (2007) Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science 315(5810):361–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul A (2007) Soil microbiology, ecology, and biochemistry, 3rd edn. Academic, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Peuke AD, Schraml C, Hartung W, Rennenberg H (2002) Identification of drought-sensitive beech ecotypes by physiological parameters. New Phytol 154:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Providoli I, Bugmann H, Siegwolf R, Buchmann N, Schleppi P (2006) Pathways and dynamics of 15NO3 and 15NH4 + applied in a mountain Picea abies forest and in a nearby meadow in central Switzerland. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1645–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rennenberg H, Loreto F, Polle A, Brilli F, Fares S, Beniwal RS, Gessler A (2006) Physiological responses of forest trees to heat and drought. Plant Biol 8:556–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rennenberg H, Dannenmann M, Gessler A, Kreuzwieser J, Simon J, Papen H (2009) Nitrogen balance in forests: nutritional limitation of plants under climate change stresses. Plant Biol 11:S4–S23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Satti P, Mazzarino MJ, Gobbi M, Funes F, Roselli L, Fernandez H (2003) Soil N dynamics in relation to leaf litter quality and soil fertility in north-western Patagonian forests. J Ecol 91:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scalbert A (1991) Antimicrobial properties of tannins. Phytochemistry 30:3875–3883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schimel JP, Cates RG, Ruess R (1998) The role of balsam poplar secondary chemicals in controlling soil nutrient dynamics through succession in the Alaskan taiga. Biogeochemistry 42:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shvaleva AL, Costa F, Silva E, Breia E, Jouve L, Hausman JF, Almeida MH, Maroco JP, Rodrigues ML, Pereira JS, Chaves MM (2005) Metabolic responses to water deficit in two Eucalyptus globulus clones with contrasting drought sensitivity. Tree Physiol 26:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality. Oecologia 129:407–419Google Scholar
  50. Simon J, Waldhecker P, Brüggemann N, Rennenberg H (2010) Competition for nitrogen resources between beech and sycamore maple seedlings. Plant Biol 12:453–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sivapalan K (1981) Phenolics and the exchange capacity of humic materials. Soil Biol Biochem 13:331–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoelken G, Pritsch K, Simon J, Müller C, Grams T, Esperschütz J, Gayler S, Buegger F, Brüggemann N, Meier R, Zeller B, Winkler JB, Rennenberg H (2010) Enhanced ozone exposure of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) stimulates nitrogen mobilisation from leaf litter and nitrogen accumulation in the soil. Plant Biosyst 144:537–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van den Driessche R (1984) Nutrient storage, retranslocation and relationship of stress to nutrition. In: Bowen GD, Nambiar EKS (eds) Nutrition of plantation forests. Academic, Orlando, pp 181–209Google Scholar
  54. Winkler JB, Dannenmann M, Sternad W, Pena R, Clemenz C, Naumann PS, Kögel-Knabner I, Simon J, Rennenberg H, Polle A (2010) Carbon and nitrogen balance in beech roots under different competitive pressure of soil-born microorganisms induced by girdling, drought and glucose application. Funct Plant Biol 37:879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winter H, Lohaus G, Heldt W (1992) Phloem transport of amino acids in relation to their cytosolic levels in barley leaves. Plant Physiol 99:996–1004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu H, Dannenmann M, Fanselow N, Wolf B, Yao Z, Wu X, Brüggemann N, Zheng X, Han X, Dittert K, Butterbach-Bahl K (2011) Feedback of grazing on gross rates of N mineralization and inorganic N partitioning in steppe soils of Inner Mongolia. Plant Soil 340:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeller B, Colin-Belgrand M, Dambrine E, Martin F (1998) 15N partitioning and production of 15N-labelled litter in beech trees following [15N]urea spray. Ann For Sci 55:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeller B, Colin-Belgrand M, Dambrine E, Martin F, Bottner P (2000) Decomposition of 15N-labelled leaf litter and fate of nitrogen derived from litter in a beech forest. Oecologia 125:550–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zeller B, Colin-Belgrand M, Dambrine E, Martin F (2001) Fate of nitrogen released from 15N-labelled litter in European beech forests. Tree Physiol 21:153–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chanjuan Guo
    • 1
  • Michael Dannenmann
    • 2
  • Rainer Gasche
    • 2
  • Bernd Zeller
    • 3
  • Hans Papen
    • 2
  • Andrea Polle
    • 4
  • Heinz Rennenberg
    • 1
    • 5
  • Judy Simon
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Forest Botany and Tree Physiology, Chair of Tree PhysiologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU)Garmisch-PartenkirchenGermany
  3. 3.UR 1138, Biogéochimie des Ecosystèmes Forestiers, Biogeochemistry in Forest EcosystemsINRAChampenouxFrance
  4. 4.Büsgen-Institut, Forstbotanik und BaumphysiologieGeorg August Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  5. 5.King Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations