Does species richness affect fine root biomass and production in young forest plantations?
Tree species diversity has been reported to increase forest ecosystem above-ground biomass and productivity, but little is known about below-ground biomass and production in diverse mixed forests compared to single-species forests. For testing whether species richness increases below-ground biomass and production and thus complementarity between forest tree species in young stands, we determined fine root biomass and production of trees and ground vegetation in two experimental plantations representing gradients in tree species richness. Additionally, we measured tree fine root length and determined species composition from fine root biomass samples with the near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy method. We did not observe higher biomass or production in mixed stands compared to monocultures. Neither did we observe any differences in tree root length or fine root turnover. One reason for this could be that these stands were still young, and canopy closure had not always taken place, i.e. a situation where above- or below-ground competition did not yet exist. Another reason could be that the rooting traits of the tree species did not differ sufficiently to support niche differentiation. Our results suggested that functional group identity (i.e. conifers vs. broadleaved species) can be more important for below-ground biomass and production than the species richness itself, as conifers seemed to be more competitive in colonising the soil volume, compared to broadleaved species.
KeywordsBiodiversity Competition Complementarity Soil Tree diversity
We would like to sincerely thank Ms. Sigrid Berger, Ms. María Martínez Otero, Mr. Raino Lievonen, Mr. Arto Saari and Mr. Ilkka Jussila for field assistance, as well as Ms. Eija Koljonen, Ms. Seija Repo, Ms. Anita Pussinen, Ms. Niina-Maria Erola, Ms. Sanna Kykkänen, Ms. Tiina Turunen, Ms. Heini Savola, Ms. Helena Tanskanen, Mr. Janne Hakkarainen, Mr. Miika Nokelainen, Mr. Tuomas Silvonen and Mr. Tapio Laakso for help in the laboratory. The research leading to these results has been conducted as part of the FunDivEUROPE project, which received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 265171.
- Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28: 545–570. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952504
- Esbensen KH (2001) Multivariate data analysis—in practice. An introduction to multivariate data analysis and experimental design, 5th edn. Camo Process, OsloGoogle Scholar
- Finér L, Helmisaari H-S, Lõhmus K, Majdi H, Brunner I, Børja I, Eldhuset T, Godbold D, Grebenc T, Konopka B, Kraigher H, Möttönen M, Ohashi M, Oleksyn J, Ostonen I, Uri V, Vanguelova E (2007) Variation in fine root biomass of three European tree species: beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Plant Biosyst 141:394–405. doi: 10.1080/11263500701625897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Fröberg M, Stendahl J, Philipson CD, Mikusiński G, Andersson E, Westerlund B, Andrén H, Moberg F, Moen J, Bengtsson J (2013) Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forest with more tree species. Nat Commun 4:1340. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35. doi: 10.1890/04-0922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–202. doi: 10.1038/nature10282 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kalela EK (1950) Männiköiden ja kuusikoiden juurisuhteista. Summary: on the horizontal roots in pine and spruce stand. Acta For Fenn 57:69–79Google Scholar
- Kalela EK (1955) Über Veränderungen in den Wurzelverhältnissen der Kiefernbestände im Laufe der Vegetationsperiode. Acta For Fenn 65:1–42Google Scholar
- Kalliokoski T, Nygren P, Sievänen R (2008) Coarse root architecture of three boreal tree species growing in mixed stands. Silva Fenn 233: 195–204. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ELE-1401065
- Laitakari E (1935) Koivun juuristo. Summary: the root system of birch (Betula verrucosa and odorata). Acta For Fenn 41:168Google Scholar
- Oliveira MRG, Van Noordwijk M, Gaze SR, Brouwer G, Bona S, Mosca G, Hairiah K (2000) Auger sampling, ingrowth cores and pinboard methods. In: Smit AL, Bengough AG, Engels C, Van Noordwijk M, Pellerin S, Van de Geijn SC (eds) Root methods: a handbook. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–210. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-04188-8_6
- Roumet C, Picon-Cochard C, Dawson LA, Joffre R, Mayes R, Blanchard A, Brewer MJ (2006) Quantifying species composition in root mixtures using two methods: near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and plant wax markers. New Phytol 170:631–638. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01698.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 36:111–147Google Scholar
- Vávřová P, Stenberg B, Karsisto M, Kitunen V, Tapania T, Laiho R (2008) Near infrared reflectance spectroscopy for characterization of plant litter quality: towards a simpler way of predicting carbon turnover in Peatlands? In: Vymazal J (ed) Wastewater treatment, plant dynamics and management in constructed and natural wetlands. Springer, New York, pp 65–87. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8235-1_7 Google Scholar
- Viro PJ (1952) Kivisyyden määrittämisestä. Summary: On the determination of stoniness. Commun Inst For Fenn 40(3): 23 pGoogle Scholar
- Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Moore EE, Fataga BA, Redlin MR, Edmonds RL (1987) Conifer and angiosperm fine-root biomass in relation to stand age and site productivity in Douglas-fir forests. J Ecol 75:857–870. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2260210