Root nutrient concentration and biomass allocation are more plastic than morphological traits in response to nutrient limitation
- 878 Downloads
Background and aims
Understanding the magnitude of phenotypic plasticity within a species is important, particularly when comparing species from diverse habitats or when using traits from global databases. Our objective was to quantify the magnitude of intraspecific variability of fine root, stem, and leaf traits in response to nutrient availability.
We measured growth rates and traits from fine roots, stems, and leaves on replicate seedlings of four species grown in two treatments: low and high soil nutrient availability. We used ANOVA to test for effects of fertilizer, species, and their interaction on trait expression, and ranked intraspecific trait variation using the coefficient of variation.
Root nutrient concentration, relative growth rate, and biomass allocation exhibited the most plastic responses to nutrient availability. Specific root length, specific leaf area, root diameter, and wood density were the least variable traits within species. Nutrient limitation only induced greater root branching in the non-mycorrhizal Proteaceae species that produced more cluster roots.
Woody plants respond to nutrient limitation by increasing root mass fraction, rather than by adjusting root morphology or structure. We urge caution when using root tissue chemistry traits obtained from global databases in local studies, as this is one of the most plastic traits in response to nutrient availability.
KeywordsPlant traits Specific root length Specific leaf area Biomass allocation Soil fertility Phenotypic plasticity Nutrient availability Intraspecific trait variation
Relative growth rate
Specific leaf area
Specific root length
This research was supported by a grant (UOW1201) from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund, and a University of Waikato Research Scholarship. We thank Toni Cornes, Lynne Baxter, Adam Purcell, and Angela Simpson for their assistance in this study.
- Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155Google Scholar
- Cromer R, Jarvis P (1990) Growth and biomass partitioning in Eucalyptus grandis seedlings in response to nitrogen supply. Funct Plant Biol 17:503–515Google Scholar
- Drew M, Saker L, Ashley T (1973) Nutrient supply and the growth of the seminal root system in barley I. The effect of nitrate concentration on the growth of axes and laterals Journal of Experimental Botany 24:1189–1202Google Scholar
- Epstein E, Bloom AJ (2005) Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Meziane D, Shipley B (2001) Direct and indirect relationships between specific leaf area, leaf nitrogen and leaf gas exchange. Effects of irradiance and nutrient supply Annals of Botany 88:915–927Google Scholar
- Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, Bret-Harte MS, Cornwell WK, Craine JM, Gurvich DE, Urcelay C, Veneklaas EJ, Reich PB, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Ray P, Enrico L, Pausas JG, de Vos AC, Buchmann N, Funes G, Quétier F, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Morgan HD, ter Steege H, van der Heijden MGA, Sack L, Blonder B, Poschlod P, Vaieretti MV, Conti G, Staver AC, Aquino S, Cornelissen JHC (2013) New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 61:167–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poorter H, Fiorani F, Pieruschka R, Wojciechowski T, van der Putten WH, Kleyer M, Schurr U, Postma J (2016) Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field. New Phytol. 212:838–855. doi: 10.1111/nph.14243 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Porter JR, Lawlor DW (1991) Plant growth: interactions with nutrition and environment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Valladares F, Wright SJ, Lasso E, Kitajima K, Pearcy RW (2000b) Plastic phenotypic response to light of 16 congeneric shrubs from a Panamanian rainforest. Ecotoxicology 81:1925–1936Google Scholar