Fine root turnover and litter production of Norway spruce in a long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation experiment
- 1.3k Downloads
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.).
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.
KeywordsLong-term soil warming Long-term fertilization Fine root longevity Minirhizotron Litter production Picea abies Survival analysis
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Gandahl R (1957) Bestämning av tjälgräns i mark med enkel typ av tjälgränsmätare. Grundförbättring 10:7–19 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Linder S (1995) Foliar analysis for detecting and correcting nutrient imbalances in Norway spruce. Ecol Bull (Copenhagen) 44:178–190Google Scholar
- Rydén BE, Kostov L (1980) Thawing and freezing in tundra soils. Ecol Bull (Stockholm) 30:251–280Google Scholar
- Schoettle AW, Fahey TJ (1994) Foliage and fine root longevity of pines. Ecol Bull (Stockholm) 43:136–153Google Scholar
- Sjörs H (1999) The background: geology, climate and zonation. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 84:5–14Google Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA, Washington CDGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Tamm CO (1968) An attempt to assess the optimum nitrogen level in Norway spruce under field conditions. Stud For Suec 61:1–67Google Scholar
- 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
- 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