Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 374, Issue 1–2, pp 73–88 | Cite as

Fine root turnover and litter production of Norway spruce in a long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation experiment

  • Jaana Leppälammi-KujansuuEmail author
  • Maija Salemaa
  • Dan Berggren Kleja
  • Sune Linder
  • Heljä-Sisko Helmisaari
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Increased soil temperature and nutrient availability enhance soil biological activity. We studied how these affect fine root growth and survival, i.e. below-ground litter production, in relation to above-ground foliage litter production of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.).

Methods

The treatments, irrigation (I), soil warming + irrigation (WI), fertilization + irrigation (FI) and soil warming + fertilization + irrigation (WFI) were started in 1987 (F, I) and in 1995 (W). The annual production of fine root litter was estimated from minirhizotrons (survival) and soil-cores (biomass) and the annual above-ground litter production from litter traps.

Results and conclusions

The number and elongation of fine roots tended to be higher in WI and I compared to the other treatments, which may indicate nutrient shortage. Fine roots in the WFI treatment had the lowest median longevity and from three to fourfold higher below-ground litter production compared to WI, FI or I - higher soil temperature increased the litter input particularly into the mineral soil. Only fertilization increased the above-ground litter production. As warmer and more nutrient-rich soil significantly shortened the fine root lifespan and increased the litter input, the storage of carbon in boreal forest soil may increase in the future.

Keywords

Long-term soil warming Long-term fertilization Fine root longevity Minirhizotron Litter production Picea abies Survival analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas, the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation and the Academy of Finland. The authors are grateful to all involved in the establishment and maintenance of the Flakaliden research site over many years. The minirhizotron tubes used in this study were originally set by prof. Hooshang Majdi, deceased in 2007. At the Finnish Forest Research Institute we thank Juha Heikkinen for statistical assistance and Tauno Suomilammi, Jarmo Mäkinen and Juha Kemppainen for technical assistance. The language of the manuscript was revised by Michael Bailey.

References

  1. Aber JD, Melillo JM, Nadelhoffer KJ, McClaugherty CA, Pastor J (1985) Fine root turnover in forest ecosystems in relation to quantity and form of nitrogen availability: a comparison of two methods. Oecologia 66:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson P, Berggren D, Nilsson I (2002) Indices for nitrogen status and nitrate leaching from Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 157:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelsson E, Axelsson B (1986) Changes in carbon allocation patterns in spruce and pine trees following irrigation and fertilization. Tree Physiol 2:189–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley JA, Watson CA (2005) Influences of root diameter, tree age, soil depth and season on fine root survivorship in Prunus avium. Plant Soil 276:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berggren D, Bergkvist B, Johansson M-B, Langvall O, Majdi H, Melkerud P-A, Nilsson Å, Weslien P et al (2004) A description of LUSTRA’s common field sites. Reports in forest ecology and forest soils. Report 87. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergh J, Linder S (1999) Effects of soil warming during spring on photosynthetic recovery in boreal Norway spruce stands. Glob Change Biol 5:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergh J, Linder S, Lundmark T, Elfving B (1999) The effect of water and nutrient availability on the productivity of Norway spruce in northern and southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 119:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bille-Hansen J, Hansen K (2001) Relation between defoliation and litterfall in some Danish Picea abies and Fagus sylvatica stands. Scand J For Res 16:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brassard BW, Chen HYH, Bergeron Y (2009) Influence of environmental variability on root dynamics in northern forests. Crit Rev Plant Sci 28:179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL, Allen MF (2002) Root respiration in North American forests: effects of nitrogen concentration and temperature across biomes. Oecologia 131:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen HYH, Brassard BW (2013) Intrinsic and extrinsic controls of fine root life span. Crit Rev Plant Sci 32:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemensson-Lindell A, Persson H (1995) Fine-root vitality in a Norway spruce stand subjected to various nutrient supplies. Plant Soil 168–169:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derome J, Saarsalmi A, Kukkola M (2009) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur “stress” treatment on soil acidity and growth response of a Scots pine stand. Boreal Environ Res 14:861–874Google Scholar
  14. Eissenstat DM (1992) Costs and benefits of constructing roots of small diameter. J Plant Nutr 15:763–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eissenstat DM, Yanai RD (1997) The ecology of root lifespan. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 27. Academic, London, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  16. Eissenstat DM, Yanai RD (2002) Root life span, efficiency, and turnover. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U (eds) Plant roots—the hidden half. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 221–238Google Scholar
  17. Eissenstat DM, Wells CE, Yanai RD, Whitbeck JL (2000) Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity. New Phytol 147:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finér L, Laine J (1998) Root dynamics at drained peatland sites of different fertility in southern Finland. Plant Soil 201:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finér L, Ohashi M, Noguchi K, Hirano Y (2011) Fine root production and turnover in forest ecosystems in relation to stand and environmental characteristics. For Ecol Manag 262:2008–2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fröberg M, Grip H, Tippings E, Svensson M, Strömgren M, Kleja DB (2013) Long-term effects of experimental fertilization and soil warming on dissolved organic matter leaching from a spruce forest in Northern Sweden. Geoderma 200–201:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gandahl R (1957) Bestämning av tjälgräns i mark med enkel typ av tjälgränsmätare. Grundförbättring 10:7–19 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  22. Gaul D, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2009) Estimating fine root longevity in a temperate Norway spruce forest using three independent methods. Funct Plant Biol 36:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Lukac M et al (2006) Mycorrhizal hyphal turnover as a dominant process for carbon input into soil organic matter. Plant Soil 281:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gower ST, Vogt KA, Grier CC (1992) Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir: influence of water and nutrient availability. Ecol Monogr 62:43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo DL, Mitchell RJ, Withington JM, Fan P-P, Hendricks JJ (2008) Endogenous and exogenous controls of root life span, mortality and nitrogen flux in a longleaf pine forest: root branch order predominates. J Ecol 96:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hägglund B, Lundmark J-E (1977) Site index estimation by means of site properties of Scots pine and Norway spruce in Sweden. Stud For Suec 138:1–33Google Scholar
  27. Hansson K, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Johansson U, Kleja DB (2011) Differences in soil properties in adjacent stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manag 262:522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansson K, Helmisaari H-S, Sah SP, Lange H (2013a) Fine root production and turnover of tree and understorey vegetation in Scots pine, silver birch and Norway spruce stands in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manag, In pressGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansson K, Fröberg M, Helmisaari H-S, Kleja DB, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Persson T (2013b) Carbon and nitrogen pools and fluxes above and below ground in spruce, pine and birch stands in southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag, In pressGoogle Scholar
  30. Helmisaari H-S, Makkonen K, Kellomäki S, Valtonen E, Mälkönen E (2002) Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. For Ecol Manag 165:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helmisaari H-S, Derome J, Nöjd P, Kukkola M (2007) Fine root biomass in relation to site and stand characteristics in Norway spruce and Scots pine stands. Tree Physiol 27:1493–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hendrick RL, Pregitzer KS (1993) Patterns of fine root mortality in two sugar maple forests. Nature 361:59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hobbie EA (2006) Carbon allocation to ectomycorrhizal fungi correlates with below-ground allocation in culture studies. Ecology 87:563–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Högberg P, Nordgren A, Ågren GI (2002) Carbon allocation between tree root growth and root respiration in boreal pine forest. Oecologia 132:579–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hyvönen R, Ågren GI, Linder S et al (2007) The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol 173:463–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Idol TW, Pope PE, Ponder F Jr (2000) Fine root dynamics across a chronosequence of upland temperate deciduous forests. For Ecol Manag 127:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iivonen S, Kaakinen S, Jolkkonen A, Vapaavuori E, Linder S (2006) Influence of long-term nutrient optimization on biomass, carbon, and nitrogen acquisition and allocation in Norway spruce. Can J For Res 36:1563–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. IPCC (2007) The physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Jarvis P, Linder S (2000) Constraints to growth of boreal forests. Nature 405:904–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Joslin JD, Wolfe MH (1999) Disturbances during minirhizotron installation can affect root observation data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keyes MR, Grier CC (1981) Above- and below-ground net production in 40-year-old Douglas-fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can J For Res 11:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. King JS, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Buford M, Strain BR, Dougherty P (2002) Below-ground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine. New Phytol 154:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kleja DB, Svensson M, Majdi H et al (2008) Pools and fluxes of carbon in three Norway spruce ecosystems along a climatic gradient in Sweden. Biogeochemistry 89:7–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kukkola M, Saramäki J (1983) Growth response in repeatedly fertilized pine and spruce stands on mineral soils. Commun Inst For Fenn 144:1–55Google Scholar
  45. Lal R (2005) Forest soils and carbon sequestration. For Ecol Manag 220:242–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leppälammi-Kujansuu J, Ostonen I, Strömgren M, Nilsson LO, Kleja DB, Sah SP, Helmisaari H-S (2013) Effects of long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation on Norway spruce fine roots and mycelia production. Plant Soil 366:287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Linder S (1987) Responses to water and nutrients in coniferous ecosystems. In: Schulze E, Zwölfer H (eds) Ecological studies, vol 61. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 180–202Google Scholar
  48. Linder S (1995) Foliar analysis for detecting and correcting nutrient imbalances in Norway spruce. Ecol Bull (Copenhagen) 44:178–190Google Scholar
  49. Linder S, Flower-Ellis JGK (1992) Environmental and physiological constraints to forest yield. In: Teller A, Mathy P, Jeffers JNR (eds) Responses of forest ecosystems to environmental changes. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Litton CM, Raich JW, Ryan MG (2007) Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob Change Biol 13:2089–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. López B, Sabaté S, Gracia CA (2001) Fine-root longevity of Quercus ilex. New Phytol 151:437–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lukac M, Calfapietra C, Godbold DL (2003) Production, turnover and mycorrhizal colonization of root systems of three Populus species grown under elevated CO2 (POPFACE). Glob Change Biol 9:838–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Majdi H (2001) Changes in fine root production and longevity in relation to water and nutrient availability in a Norway spruce stand in northern Sweden. Tree Physiol 21:1057–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Majdi H, Andersson P (2005) Fine root production and turnover in a Norway spruce stand in Northern Sweden: effects of nitrogen and water manipulation. Ecosystems 8:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Majdi H, Nylund J-E (1996) Does liquid fertilization affect fine root dynamics and lifespan of mycorrhizal short roots? Plant Soil 185:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Majdi H, Öhrvik J (2004) Interactive effects of soil warming and fertilization on root production, mortality, and longevity in a Norway spruce stand in Northern Sweden. Glob Change Biol 10:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mäkelä A, Valentine HT, Helmisaari H-S (2008) Optimal co-allocation of carbon and nitrogen in a forest stand at steady state. New Phytol 180:114–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marshall JD, Waring RH (1985) Predicting fine root production and turnover by monitoring root starch and soil temperature. Can J For Res 15:791–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCormack LM, Adams TS, Smithwick EAH, Eissenstat DM (2012) Predicting fine root lifespan from plant functional traits in temperate trees. New Phytol 195:823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Menzel A, Fabian P (1999) Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397:659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nadelhoffer KJ, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Fine roots, net primary production, and soil nitrogen availability: a new hypothesis. Ecology 66:1377–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostonen I, Helmisaari H-S, Borken W et al (2011) Fine root foraging strategies in Norway spruce forests across a European climate gradient. Glob Change Biol 17:3620–3632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peterjohn WT, Melillo JM, Steudler PA, Newkirk KM, Bowles FP, Aber JD (1994) Responses of trace gas fluxes and N availability to experimentally elevated soil temperatures. Ecol Appl 4:617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pregitzer KS, Zak DR, Curtis PS, Kubiske ME, Teeri JA, Vogel CS (1995) Atmospheric CO2, soil nitrogen and turnover of fine roots. New Phytol 129:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pregitzer KS, DeForest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecol Monogr 72:293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Röderstein M, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2005) Above- and below-ground litter production in three tropical montane forests in southern Ecuador. J Trop Ecol 21:483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruess RW, Cleve KV, Yarie J, Viereck LA (1996) Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior. Can J For Res 26:1326–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ruess RW, Hendrick RL, Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Sveinbjornssön B, Allen MF, Maurer GE (2003) Coupling root dynamics with ecosystem carbon cycling in black spruce forests of interior Alaska. Ecol Monogr 73:643–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rustad LE, Campbell JL, Marion GM et al (2001) A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and above-ground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126:543–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rydén BE, Kostov L (1980) Thawing and freezing in tundra soils. Ecol Bull (Stockholm) 30:251–280Google Scholar
  71. Saarsalmi A, Starr M, Hokkanen T, Ukonmaanaho L, Kukkola M, Nöjd P, Sievänen R (2007) Predicting annual canopy litterfall production for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands. For Ecol Manag 242:578–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schindlbacher A, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Jandl R (2009) Carbon losses due to soil warming: do autotrophic and heterotrophic soil respiration respond equally? Glob Change Biol 15:901–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schoettle AW, Fahey TJ (1994) Foliage and fine root longevity of pines. Ecol Bull (Stockholm) 43:136–153Google Scholar
  74. Sjörs H (1999) The background: geology, climate and zonation. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 84:5–14Google Scholar
  75. Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA, Washington CDGoogle Scholar
  76. Starr M, Saarsalmi A, Hokkanen T, Merilä P, Helmisaari H-S (2005) Models of litterfall production for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in Finland using stand, site and climate factors. For Ecol Manag 205:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Strand AE, Pritchard SG, McCormack ML, Davis MA, Oren R (2008) Irreconcilable differences: fine-root life spans and soil carbon persistence. Science 319:456–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Strömgren M (2001) Soil-surface CO2 flux and growth in a boreal Norway spruce stand—effects of soil warming and nutrition. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Silvestria 220, Doctoral thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  79. Strömgren M, Linder S (2002) Effects of nutrition and soil warming on stemwood production in a boreal Norway spruce stand. Glob Change Biol 8:1194–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tamm CO (1968) An attempt to assess the optimum nitrogen level in Norway spruce under field conditions. Stud For Suec 61:1–67Google Scholar
  81. Ukonmaanaho L, Merilä P, Nöjd P, Nieminen TM (2008) Litterfall production and nutrient return to the forest floor in Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Finland. Boreal Environ Res 13:67–91Google Scholar
  82. Valentine HT, Mäkelä A (2012) Modeling forest stand dynamics from optimal balances of carbon and nitrogen. New Phytol 194:961–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van Praag HJ, Sougnez-Remy S, Weissen F, Carletti G (1988) Root turnover in a beech and a spruce stand of the Belgian Ardennes. Plant Soil 105:87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vanninen P, Mäkelä A (1999) Fine root biomass of Scots pine stands differing in age and soil fertility in southern Finland. Tree Physiol 19:823–830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievänen R, Mäkelä A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees - Struct Funct 10:231–238Google Scholar
  86. Vogel JG, Bond-Lamberty BP, Schuur EAG, Gower ST, Mack MC, O'Connell KEB, Valentine DW, Ruess RW (2008) Carbon allocation in boreal black spruce forests across regions varying in soil temperature and precipitation. Glob Change Biol 14:1503–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vogt KA, Grier CC, Vogt DJ (1986) Production, turnover, and nutrient dynamics of above- and below-ground detritus of world forests. Adv Ecol Res 15:303–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wallander H, Göransson H, Rosengren U (2004) Production, standing biomass and natural abundance of 15N and 13C in ectomycorrhizal mycelia collected at different soil depths in two forest types. Oecologia 139:89–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wells CE, Eissenstat DM (2001) Marked differences in survivorship among apple roots of different diameters. Ecology 82:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Withington JM, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Eissenstat DM (2006) Comparisons of structure and life span in roots and leaves among temperate trees. Ecol Monogr 76:381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaana Leppälammi-Kujansuu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maija Salemaa
    • 2
  • Dan Berggren Kleja
    • 3
  • Sune Linder
    • 4
  • Heljä-Sisko Helmisaari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Forest Research InstituteVantaaFinland
  3. 3.Department of Soil and EnvironmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations