Belowground competition for nutrients in shrub-encroached Mediterranean dehesas

  • David Rivest
  • Víctor Rolo
  • M. Lourdes López-Díaz
  • Gerardo Moreno
Article

Abstract

Managing multilayered silvopastoral systems such as Mediterranean dehesas requires the study of nutrient resource partitioning among coexisting species and determination to what extent soil nutrients are limiting plant growth. We determined the effects of NPK fertilisation maintained over two consecutive years on dry matter production and nutritional status of pasture (herbaceous) species, two shrub species and Quercus ilex L. in two silvopastoral sites with different shrub-layer species. We selected two prominent Mediterranean shrub species that vary in their specific ecological strategies: a N2-fixing and sparse deep-rooting shrub (Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss, Retama site), and a dense shallow-rooting shrub (Cistus ladanifer L., Cistus site). Fertilisation significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased pasture dry mass by 460% and 1,090% in the Retama and Cistus sites, respectively. Nitrogen uptake by pasture species was most stimulated in both sites, and was the major limiting nutrient for this group. At the Cistus site, fertilisation significantly increased leaf dry mass of Q. ilex by 53%, but no significant effect was found at the Retama site. There were no significant effects of fertilisation treatments on dry mass and nutrient status of Retama cladodes and Cistus leaves. Vector analysis revealed that the magnitude of relative changes in nutrient uptake and dry matter production of pasture in response to fertilisation was markedly higher than that of Q. ilex, R. sphaerocarpa and C. ladanifer, suggesting high competitive ability of pasture species for soil nutrients. Results suggest that patterns of soil nutrient partitioning are site-specific and, thus, likely depend on the dominant species in the shrub layer.

Keywords

Cistus ladanifer Dry matter production Native pasture Nutrient uptake Quercus ilex Retama sphaerocarpa Silvopastoral systems 

References

  1. Aerts R (1995) The advantages of being evergreen. Trends Ecol Evol 10:402–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, Boot RGA, van der Aart PJM (1991) The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS III, Vitousek PM, Van Cleve K (1986) The nature of nutrient limitation in plant communities. Am Nat 127:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Castillo-Monroy AP, Maestre FT, Gallardo A (2010) Plants and biological soil crusts modulate the dominance of N forms in a semi-arid grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 42:376–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eichhorn MP, Paris P, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Liagre F, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Moreno G, Papanastasis VP, Pilbeam DJ, Pisanelli A, Dupraz C (2006) Silvoarable systems in Europe -past, present and future prospects. Agrofor Syst 67:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, von Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 9:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernández-Moya J, San Miguel-Ayanz A, Cañellas I, Gea-Izquierdo G (2010) Variability in Mediterranean annual grassland diversity driven by small-scale changes in fertility and radiation. Plant Ecol. doi:10.1007/s11258-010-9869-8
  10. García-Barrios L, Ong CK (2004) Ecological interactions, management lessons and design tools in tropical agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB, Fisher J, Manning AD, Weinberg A, Seddon J, Ryan P, Barrett G (2008) The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol 22:1309–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gómez-Gutierrez JM, Pérez-Fernández M (1996) The dehesas, silvopastoral systems in semiarid Mediterranean regions with poor soils, seasonal climate and extensive utilisation. In: Étienne M (ed) Western European silvopastoral systems. INRA Editions, Paris, pp 55–70Google Scholar
  13. Haase DL, Rose R (1995) Vector analysis and its use for interpreting plant nutrient shifts in response to silvicultural treatments. For Sci 41:54–66Google Scholar
  14. Haase P, Pugnaire FI, Fernández EM, Puigdefábregas J, Clark SC, Incoll LD (1996) An investigation of rooting depth of the semiarid shrub Retama sphaerocarpa (L.) Boiss. by labelling of ground water with a chemical tracer. J Hydrol 177:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Högberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Körner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’Donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze E-D, Siamantziouras A-SD, Spehn EM, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isaac ME, Kimaro AA (2010) Diagnosis of nutrient imbalances with vector analysis in agroforestry systems. J Environ Qual. doi:10.2134/jeq2010.0144
  17. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006, 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahmen A, Renker C, Unsicker S, Buchmann N (2006) Niche complementarity for nitrogen: an explanation for the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relationship? Ecology 87:1244–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehmann J, Schroth G (2003) Nutrient leaching. In: Schroth G, Sinclair FL (eds) Trees, crops and soil fertility: concepts and research methods. CABI publishing, Wallingford, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  20. Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, de Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno G, Obrador JJ (2007) Effects of trees and understorey management on soil fertility and nutritional status of holm oaks in Spanish dehesas. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 78:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreno G, Obrador J, Cubera E, Dupraz C (2005) Fine root distribution in dehesas of Central-Western Spain. Plant Soil 277:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moreno G, Obrador JJ, García A (2007) Impact of evergreen oaks on soil fertility and crop production in intercropped dehesas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pulido F, García E, Obrador J, Moreno G (2010) Multiple pathways for tree regeneration in anthropogenic savannas: incorporating biotic and abiotic drivers into management schemes. J Appl Ecol 47:1272–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rivest D, Rolo V, López-Díaz L, Moreno G (2011). Shrub encroachment in Mediterranean silvopastoral systems: Retama sphaerocarpa and Cistus ladanifer induce contrasting effects on pasture and Quercus ilex production. Agric Ecosyst Environ (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Rodríguez-Echeverría S, Pérez-Fernández MA (2003) Soil fertility and herb facilitation mediated by Retama sphaerocarpa. J Veg Sci 14:807–814Google Scholar
  27. Rolo V, Moreno G (2011) Shrub species affect distinctively the functioning of scattered Quercus ilex trees in Mediterranean open woodlands. For Ecol Manag 261:1750–1759Google Scholar
  28. Schroth G (1998) A review of belowground interactions in agroforestry, focusing on mechanisms and management options. Agrofor Syst 43:5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Silva JS, Rego FC (2004) Root to shoot relationships in Mediterranean woody plants from Central Portugal. Biologia 59:109–115Google Scholar
  30. Stephan K, Fürst A, Hacker R, Bartels U (1997) Forest foliar conditions in Europe—results of large-scale foliar chemistry surveys, 1995. EC, UN/ECE, Brussels/GeneveGoogle Scholar
  31. Valladares F, Martinez-Ferri E, Balaguer L, Perez-Corona E, Manrique E (2000) Low leaf-level response to light and nutrients in Mediterranean evergreen oaks: a conservative resource-use strategy? New Phytol 148:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Rivest
    • 1
    • 2
  • Víctor Rolo
    • 1
  • M. Lourdes López-Díaz
    • 1
  • Gerardo Moreno
    • 1
  1. 1.Forestry SchoolUniversidad de ExtremaduraPlasenciaSpain
  2. 2.Département des sciences du bois et de la forêtUniversité LavalSainte-FoyCanada

Personalised recommendations