Plant Ecology

, Volume 202, Issue 2, pp 211–220 | Cite as

Root plasticity of native and invasive Great Basin species in response to soil nitrogen heterogeneity

  • J. J. JamesEmail author
  • J. M. Mangold
  • R. L. Sheley
  • T. Svejcar


Soil nutrients are heterogeneously distributed in natural systems. While many species respond to this heterogeneity through root system plasticity, little is known about how the magnitude of these responses may vary between native and invasive species. We quantified root morphological and physiological plasticity of co-occurring native and invasive Great Basin species in response to soil nitrogen heterogeneity and determined if trade-offs exist between these foraging responses and species relative growth rate or root system biomass. The nine study species included three perennial bunchgrasses, three perennial forbs, and three invasive perennial forbs. The plants were grown in large pots outdoors. Once a week for 4 weeks equal amounts of 15NH4 15NO3 were distributed in the soil either evenly through the soil profile, in four patches, or in two patches. All species acquired more N in patches compared to when N was applied evenly through the soil profile. None of the species increased root length density in enriched patches compared to control patches but all species increased root N uptake rate in enriched patches. There was a positive relationship between N uptake rate, relative growth rate, and root system biomass. Path analysis indicated that these positive interrelationships among traits could provide one explanation of how invasive forbs were able to capture 2 and 15-fold more N from enriched patches compared to the native grasses and forbs, respectively. Results from this pot study suggest that plant traits related to nutrient capture in heterogeneous soil environments may be positively correlated which could potentially promote size-asymmetric competition belowground and facilitate the spread of invasive species. However, field experiments with plants in different neighbor environments ultimately are needed to determine if these positive relationships among traits influence competitive ability and invader success.


Bunchgrasses Forbs Nutrients Rangeland Root foraging Weeds 


  1. Barber SA (1995) Soil nutrient bioavailability: a mechanistic approach. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber SA, Silberbush M (1984) Plant root morphology and nutrient uptake. In: Barber SA, Bouldin DR (eds) Roots, nutrient and water influx, and plant growth. ASA Special Publication 49, Madison, pp 65–68Google Scholar
  3. Black RA, Richards JH, Manwaring JH (1994) Nutrient uptake from enriched soil microsites by three Great Basin perennials. Ecology 75:110–122. doi: 10.2307/1939387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom AJ, Caldwell RM (1988) Root excision decreases nutrient absorption and gas fluxes. Plant Physiol 87:794–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouma TJ, Nielsen KL, Koustaal B (2000) Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerized analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 218:185–196. doi: 10.1023/A:1014905104017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown DP, Pratum TK, Bledsoe CS, Forde ED, Cothern JS, Perry D (1991) Noninvasive studies of conifer roots: nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of douglas-fir seedlings. Can J For Res 21:1559–1566. doi: 10.1139/x91-217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cahill JF, Casper BB (1999) Growth consequences of soil nutrient heterogeneity for two old-field herbs, Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Phytolacca americana, grown individually and in combination. Ann Bot (Lond) 83:471–478. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1999.0841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell BD, Grime JP (1989) A comparative study of plant responsiveness to the duration of episodes of mineral nutrient enrichment. New Phytol 112:261–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1989.tb02382.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell BD, Grime JP, Mackey JML (1991) A trade-off between scale and precision in resource foraging. Oecologia 87:532–538. doi: 10.1007/BF00320417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui MY, Caldwell MM (1997) A large ephemeral release of nitrogen upon wetting of dry soil and corresponding root responses in the field. Plant Soil 191:291–299. doi: 10.1023/A:1004290705961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drew MC, Saker LR (1975) Nutrient supply and the growth of seminal root systems in barely II. Localized compensatory increases in lateral root growth and rates of nitrate uptake when nitrate supply is restricted to only one part of the root system. J Exp Bot 26:79–90. doi: 10.1093/jxb/26.1.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Einsmann JC, Jones RH, Pu M, Mitchell RJ (1999) Nutrient foraging traits in 10 co-occurring plant species of contrasting life forms. J Ecol 87:609–619. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00376.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eissenstat DM, Caldwell MM (1988) Seasonal timing of root growth in favorable microsites. Ecology 69:870–873. doi: 10.2307/1941037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein E (1972) Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Farley RA, Fitter AH (1999a) Temporal and spatial variation in soil resources in a deciduous woodland. J Ecol 87:688–694. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00390.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farley RA, Fitter AH (1999b) The response of seven co-occurring woodland herbaceous perennials to localized nutrient-rich patches. J Ecol 87:849–859. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00396.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fransen B, Blijjenberg J, De Kroon H (1999) Root morphological and physiological plasticity of perennial grass species and the exploitation of spatial and temporal heterogeneous nutrient patches. Plant Soil 211:179–189. doi: 10.1023/A:1004684701993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fransen B, de Kroon H, Berendse F (2001) Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology 82:2534–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross KL, Pregitzer KS, Burton AJ (1995) Spatial variation in nitrogen availability in three successional plant communities. J Ecol 83:357–367. doi: 10.2307/2261590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatcher L (1994) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156Google Scholar
  23. Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01015.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ivans CY, Leffler AJ, Spaulding U, Stark JM, Ryel RJ, Caldwell MM (2003) Root responses and nitrogen acquisition by Artemisia tridentata and Agropyron desertorum following small summer rainfall events. Oecologia 134:317–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson RB, Caldwell MM (1989) The timing and degree of root proliferation in fertile-soil microsites for 3 cold-desert perennials. Oecologia 81:149–153Google Scholar
  26. Jackson RB, Caldwell MM (1993) The scale of nutrient heterogeneity around individual plants and its quantification with geostatistics. Ecology 74:612–614. doi: 10.2307/1939320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson RB, Manwaring JH, Caldwell MM (1990) Rapid physiological adjustment of roots to localized soil enrichment. Nature 344:58–60. doi: 10.1038/344058a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. James JJ, Richards JH (2006) Plant nitrogen capture in pulse-driven systems: interactions between root responses and soil processes. J Ecol 94:765–777. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01137.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koide RT, Elliot G (1989) Cost, benefit and efficiency of the vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol 114:59–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00373.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamb EG, Haag JJ, Cahill JF (2004) Patch-background contrast and patch density have limited effects on root proliferation and plant performance in Abutilon theophrasti. Funct Ecol 18:836–843. doi: 10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00893.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larigauderie A, Richards JH (1994) Root proliferation characteristics of seven perennial arid land grasses in nutrient enriched microsite. Oecologia 99:102–111. doi: 10.1007/BF00317089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lentz DR, Simonson GH (1986) A detailed soils inventory and associated vegetation of the Squaw Butte Range Experiment Station. Special report 760. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattsson M, Lundborg T, Larsson M, Larsson CM (1992) Nitrogen-utilization in N-limited barley during vegetative and generative growth. III Postanthesis kinetics of net nitrate uptake and the role of the relative root size in determining the capacity for nitrate acquisition. J Exp Bot 43:25–30. doi: 10.1093/jxb/43.1.25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nadelhoffer KJ, Fry B (1994) Nitrogen isotope studies in forest ecosystems. In: Lajtha K, Michener R (eds) Stable isotopes in ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 22–44Google Scholar
  35. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear statistical models: regression, analysis of variance and experimental design. Irwin, HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  36. Padilla FM, de Dios Miranda J, Pugnaire FI (2007) Early root growth plasticity in seedlings of three Mediterranean woody species. Plant Soil 296:103–113. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9294-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peek MS, Forseth IN (2003) Microhabitat dependent responses to resource pulses in the aridland perennial, Cryptantha flava. J Ecol 91:457–466. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00778.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rajaniemi TK, Reynolds HL (2004) Root foraging for patchy resources in eight herbaceous species. Oecologia 141:519–525. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1666-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225. doi: 10.2307/2409177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson D (1994) The responses of plants to nonuniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 127:635–674. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb02969.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson D, Van Vuuren MMI (1998) Responses of wild plants to nutrient patches in relation to growth rate and life-form. In: Lambers H, Poorter H, Van Vuuren MMI (eds) Inherent variation in plant growth. Physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 237–257Google Scholar
  42. Robinson D, Hodge A, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Plant root proliferation in nitrogen-rich patches confers competitive advantage. P R Soc Lond B Bio 266:431–435. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryel RJ, Caldwell MM, Manwaring JH (1996) Temporal dynamics of soil spatial heterogeneity in sagebrush-wheatgrass steppe during a growing season. Plant Soil 184:299–309. doi: 10.1007/BF00010459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SAS (2001) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8, vol 1–3. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  45. Schenk MK (1996) Regulation of nitrogen uptake on the whole plant level. Plant Soil 181:131–137. doi: 10.1007/BF00011299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwinning S, Weiner J (1998) Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecologia 113:447–455. doi: 10.1007/s004420050397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM, Ruth TJ, Rufty TWJ (1990) Studies of the uptake of nitrate in barley. I. Kinetics of 13NO3 influx. Plant Physiol 93:1426–1432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stark JM (1994) Causes of soil nutrient heterogeneity at different scales. In: Pearcy RW, Caldwell MM (eds) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants. Academic Press, New York, pp 225–284Google Scholar
  50. Stevens GN, Jones RH (2006) Influence of root herbivory on plant communities in heterogeneous nutrient environments. New Phytol 171:127–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01731.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright JP, Naeem S, Hector A, Lehman C, Reich PB, Schmid B et al (2006) Conventional functional classification schemes underestimate the relationship with ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 9:111–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00850.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. James
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. M. Mangold
    • 1
  • R. L. Sheley
    • 1
  • T. Svejcar
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA-Agricultural Research ServiceEastern Oregon Agricultural Research CenterBurnsUSA

Personalised recommendations