Advertisement

Plant uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus among grassland species affected by drought along a soil available phosphorus gradient

  • Pierre MariotteEmail author
  • Tom Cresswell
  • Mathew P. Johansen
  • Jennifer J. Harrison
  • Claudia Keitel
  • Feike A. Dijkstra
Regular Article

Abstract

Aims

Here we assessed N and P uptake of four grassland species grown together in response to a short-term drought event along a soil P gradient.

Methods

We used 15N and 32P tracers to examine uptake of N and P by the grasses Bothriochloa macra, Themeda triandra, Lolium perenne and Microlaena stipoides grown together in pots with initial available P levels of 3, 8, 12, 20 mg P kg−1 soil. Soil moisture in half the pots was reduced from 60 to 30% water holding capacity during a 7-day period to simulate drought.

Results

Plant P uptake was strongly reduced by drought in all species across all P levels, much more so than N uptake, indicating decoupling in N and P uptake. Soil available P (Bray method) was not affected by drought, suggesting that the reduced P uptake with drought was due to reduced soil P mobility. Plant competition for N and P changed with drought and soil P levels, where relatively more N and P was taken up with drought by M. stipoides at the lowest soil P level.

Conclusions

We showed that greater reductions in P than in N uptake and shifts in N and P uptake among species caused by a short-term drought have strong consequences for plant growth.

Keywords

Grassland species Nutrient homeostasis Nutrient limitation Nutrient stoichiometry Plant nutrient uptake Stable isotope labelling Water stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by an Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering Research Award (ALNGRA15209) awarded to FAD in 2015. PM was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (n°P300P3_154648).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4407_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (485 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 484 kb)

References

  1. Alam SM (1999) Nutrient uptake by plants under stress conditions. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen L, Michelsen A, Jonasson S, Schmidt I, Mikkelsen T, Ambus P, Beier C (2010) Plant nutrient mobilization in temperate heathland responds to elevated CO2, temperature and drought. Plant Soil 328:381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belnap J (2011) Biological phosphorus cycling in dryland regions. In: Bünemann EK, Oberson A, Frossard E (eds) Phosphorus in action. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–406Google Scholar
  4. Campbell BD, Stafford Smith DM (2000) A synthesis of recent global change research on pasture and rangeland production: reduced uncertainties and their management implications. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III, Fetcher N, Kielland K, Everett KR, Linkins AE (1988) Productivity and nutrient cycling of Alaskan tundra: enhancement by flowing soil water. Ecology 69:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Ogee J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Buchmann N, Bernhofer C, Carrara A, Chevallier F, De Noblet N, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Grunwald T, Heinesch B, Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Papale D, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkstra FA, Pendall E, Morgan JA, Blumenthal DM, Carrillo Y, LeCain DR, Follett RF, Williams DG (2012) Climate change alters stoichiometry of phosphorus and nitrogen in a semiarid grassland. New Phytol 196:807–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra FA, He M, Johansen MP, Harrison JJ, Keitel C (2015) Plant and microbial uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus affected by drought using 15N and 32P tracers. Soil Biol Biochem 82:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE, Gruner DS, Harpole WS, Hillebrand H, Ngai JT, Seabloom EW, Shurin JB, Smith JE (2007) Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–1142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Güsewell S (2004) N : P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gustafsson JP, Mwamila LB, Kergoat K (2012) The pH dependence of phospate sorption and desoprtion in Swedish agriscultural soils. Geoderma 189-190:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harpole WS, Ngai JT, Cleland EE, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Bracken MES, Elser JJ, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H, Shurin JB, Smith JE (2011) Nutrient co-limitation of primary producer communities. Ecol Lett 14:852–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. He M, Dijkstra FA (2014) Drought effect on plant nitrogen and phosphorus: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 204:924–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heisler-White JL, Blair JM, Kelly EF, Harmoney K, Knapp AK (2009) Contingent productivity responses to more extreme rainfall regimes across a grassland biome. Glob Change Biol 15:2894–2904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill JO, Simpson RJ, Moore AD, Chapman DF (2006) Morphology and response of roots of pasture species to phosphorus and nitrogen nutrition. Plant Soil 286:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinojosa MB, Parra A, Ramírez DA, Carreira JA, García-Ruiz R, Moreno JM (2012) Effects of drought on soil phosphorus availability and fluxes in a burned Mediterranean shrubland. Geoderma 191:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Homyak PM, Allison SD, Huxman TE, Goulden ML, Treseder KK (2017) Effects of drought manipulation on soil nitrogen cycling: a meta-analysis. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 122:3260–3272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isbell RF (2002) The Australian soil classification. CSIRO Pub, Collingwood, Vic, AusCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson ML (1958) Soil chemical analsysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiao F, Shi XR, Han FP, Yuan ZY (2016) Increasing aridity, temperature and soil pH induce soil C-N-P imbalance in grasslands. Sci Rep 6:19601PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jung V, Albert CH, Violle C, Kunstler G, Loucougaray G, Spiegelberger T (2014) Intraspecific trait variability mediates the response of subalpine grassland communities to extreme drought events. J Ecol 102:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lambers H, Chapin FS III, Pons TL (2008) Plant physiological ecology. Springer Science, New York, NY, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. L'Annuziata FM (2012) Handbook of radioactivity analysis. Academic Press, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Li Y, Niu S, Yu G (2016) Aggravated phosphorus limitation on biomass production under increasing nitrogen loading: a meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol 22:934–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo W, Elser JJ, Lü XT, Wang Z, Bai E, Yan C, Wang C, Li MH, Zimmermann NE, Han X, Xu Z, Li H, Wu Y, Jiang Y (2015) Plant nutrients do not covary with soil nutrients under changing climatic conditions. Glob Biogeochem Cycl 29:1298–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luo W, Xu C, Ma W, Yue X, Liang X, Zuo X, Knapp AK, Smith MD, Sardans J, Dijkstra FA, Peñuelas J, Bai Y, Wang Z, Yu Q, Han X (2018) Effects of extreme drought on plant nutrient uptake and resorption in rhizomatous vs bunchgrass-dominated grasslands. Oecologia 188:633–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luo W, Zuo X, Griffin-Nolan RJ, Xu C, Ma W, Song L, Helsen K, Lin Y, Cai J, Yu Q, Wang Z, Smith MD, Han X, Knapp AK (2019) Long term experimental drought alters community plant trait variation, not trait means, across three semiarid grasslands. Plant Soil 442:343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mariotte P, Canarini A, Dijkstra FA (2017) Stoichiometric N:P flexibility and mycorrhizal symbiosis favour plant resistance against drought. J Ecol 105:958–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minoletti ML, Boerner REJ (1994) Drought and site fertility effects on foliar nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics and nutrient resorption by the forest understory shrub Viburnum acerifolium L. Am Midl Nat 131:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Öhlinger R (2012) Methods in soil physics. In: Schinner F, Öhlinger R, Kandeler E, Margesin R (eds) Methods in soil biology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Pace AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 2 chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., MadisonGoogle Scholar
  32. Peuke AD, Rennenberg H (2004) Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and Sulphur concentration and partitioning in beech ecotypes (Fagus sylvatica L.): phosphorus most affected by drought. Trees 18:639–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryalls JMW, Moore BD, Johnson SN, Connor M, Hiltpold I (2018) Root responses to domestication, precipitation and silicification: weeping meadow grass simplifies and alters toughness. Plant Soil 427:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sardans J, Peñuelas J (2004) Increasing drought decreases phosphorus availability in an evergreen Mediterranean forest. Plant Soil 267:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solaiman Z, Marschner P, Wang D, Rengel Z (2007) Growth, P uptake and rhizosphere properties of wheat and canola genotypes in an alkaline soil with low P availability. Biol Fert Soils 44:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stafford J (1996) Weeping rice-grass (Microlaena stipoides), species information sheet. Native Grass Resources Group Inc. September 1996. Mount lofty ranges catchment Centre, Mount Barker South Australia 5251Google Scholar
  37. Stark JM, Hart SC (1996) Diffusion technique for preparing salt solutions, Kjeldahl digests, and persulfate digests for nitrogen-15 analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:1846–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry. The biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Suriyagoda LDB, Ryan MH, Renton M, Lambers H (2014) Plant responses to limited moisture and phosphorus availability: a meta-analysis. Adv Agron 124:143–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tezara W, Mitchell VJ, Driscoll SD, Lawlor DW (1999) Water stress inhibits plant photosynthesis by decreasing coupling factor and ATP. Nature 401:914–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vitra A, Deléglise C, Meisser M, Risch AC, Signarbieux C, Lamacque L, Delzon S, Buttler A, Mariotte P (2019) Responses of plant leaf economic and hydraulic traits mediate the effects of early- and late-season drought on grassland productivity. AoB PLANTS 11:plz023PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu Q, Chen Q, Elser JJ, He N, Wu H, Zhang G, Wu J, Bai Y, Han X (2010) Linking stoichiometric homoeostasis with ecosystem structure, functioning and stability. Ecol Lett 13:1390–1399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yu Q, Wilcox K, Pierre KL, Knapp AK, Han X, Smith MD (2015) Stoichiometric homeostasis predicts plant species dominance, temporal stability, and responses to global change. Ecology 96:2328–2335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Institute of Agriculture, School of Life and Environmental SciencesThe University of SydneyCamdenAustralia
  2. 2.Agroscope, Grazing Systems GroupNyonSwitzerland
  3. 3.Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology OrganisationLucas HeightsAustralia

Personalised recommendations