Plant and Soil

, Volume 234, Issue 2, pp 171–179

Nutrient limitation along a productivity gradient in wet meadows

  • H. Olde Venterink
  • R.E. van der Vliet
  • M.J. Wassen


Conservation management in meadows often focuses on reducing soil fertility and consequently community productivity as to promote and sustain species-rich vegetations. The productivity level to which nutrients are limiting growth is, however, unclear, as well as the relationship between productivity and the type of nutrient limitation. We carried out a fertilization experiment with N, P and K in six annually mown meadows along an aerial phytomass gradient (200–650 g m−2). All meadows were found to be growth-limited by nutrients. Low-productive meadows were N-limited, or N+P co-limited, whereas our higher productive meadows were co-limited by a combination of N, P and/or K. The results from our experiments were compared with the results from 45 other fertilization experiments with N, P and K in grasslands and wetlands (aerial phytomass range 50–1500 g m−2). Our results were consistent in nitrogen being the most frequent (co)-limiting nutrient, and regarding the equal frequence of occurrence of P (co)-limitation and K (co)-limitation (both in ca. 25–30% of all sites). Co-limitation occurred more often in our sites than in the other experiments. There was no clear relationship between aerial phytomass and type of nutrient limitation, except that K (co)-limitation only occurred at sites with phytomass above 200 g m−2, and P (co)-limitation below 600 g m−2. A comparison of productivity and nutrient concentrations in aerial phytomass among two years indicated that the type of nutrient limitation is not a static site characteristic but may vary with dynamic environmental conditions such as soil wetness; drought seems to enhance N-availability which may induce P- and K-limitation.

fertilization experiments meadows N:P:K nutrient limitation productivity gradient wetlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aerts R and Chapin F S III 2000 The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv. Ecol. Res. 30, 1–67.Google Scholar
  2. Allen S E (ed) 1989 Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials, 2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publishers, Oxford, UK. 386 p.Google Scholar
  3. Bedford B L, Walbridge M R and Aldous A 1999 Patterns of nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80, 2151–2169.Google Scholar
  4. Berendse F, Oomes M J M, Altena H J and De Visser W 1994 A comparative study of nitrogen flows in two similar meadows affected by different groundwater levels. J. Appl. Ecol. 31, 40–48.Google Scholar
  5. Bobbink R 1991 Effects of nutrient enrichment in Dutch chalk grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 28–41.Google Scholar
  6. Bobbink R 1998 Impacts of tropospheric ozone and airborne nitrogenous pollutants on natural and semi-natural ecosystems: a commentary. New Phytol. 139, 161–168.Google Scholar
  7. Boeye D, Verhagen B, Van Haesebroeck V and Verheyen R F 1997 Nutrient limitation in species-rich lowland fens. J. Veg. Sci. 8, 415–424.Google Scholar
  8. Bridgham S D, Pastor J, Janssens J A, Chapin C and Malterer T J 1996 Multiple limiting gradients in peatlands: a call for a new paradigm. Wetlands 16, 45–65.Google Scholar
  9. De Mars H, Wassen M J and Peeters W H M 1996 The effect of drainage and management on peat chemistry and nutrient deficiency in the former Jegrzina floodplain (N.E. Poland). Vegetatio 126, 59–72.Google Scholar
  10. Dunnett N P, Willis A J, Hunt R and Grime J P 1998 A 38-year study of relations between weather and vegetation dynamics in road verges near Bilbury, Gloucestershire. J. Ecol. 86, 610–623.Google Scholar
  11. Ellenberg H, Weber H E, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W and Paulissen D 1991 Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobot. 18, 1–248.Google Scholar
  12. Grootjans A P, Schipper P C and Van der Windt H J 1985 Influence of drainage on N-mineralization and vegetation response in wet meadows: I Calthion palustris stands. Acta Oecol. 6, 403–417.Google Scholar
  13. Grootjans A P, Schipper P C and Van der Windt H J 1986 Influence of drainage on N-mineralization and vegetation response in wet meadows: II Cirsio-Molinietum stands. Acta Oecol. 7, 3–14.Google Scholar
  14. Kajak A and Okruszko H 1990 Grasslands on drained peats in Poland. In Ecosystems of the World 17A; Managed Grasslands. pp 213–253. Ed. A I Breymeyer. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Koerselman W and Meuleman A F M 1994 Groeibeperkende Voedingsstoffen in Verschillende Duinvalleitypen. Rapport SWE 94.020. Kiwa, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. Koerselman W and Meuleman A F M 1996 The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 1441–1450.Google Scholar
  17. Koerselman W, Bakker S A and Blom M 1990 Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium mass balances for two small fens surrounded by pastures. J. Ecol. 78, 413–427.Google Scholar
  18. Kooijman A M 1993 Changes in the Bryophyte Layer of Rich Fens as controlled by Acidification and Eutrophication. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 159 p.Google Scholar
  19. Kruijne A A, De Vries D M and Mooi H 1967 Bijdrage tot de oecologie van de Nederlandse graslandplanten. Verslagen Landbouwkundig Onderzoek 696, Med. 338 IBS. Pudoc, Wageningen. 65 p.Google Scholar
  20. Lammerts E J, Pegtel D M, Grootjans A P and Van der Veen A 1999 Nutrient limitation and vegetation changes in a coastal dune slack. J. Veg. Sci. 10, 111–122.Google Scholar
  21. Marschner H 1995 Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press, London. 889 p.Google Scholar
  22. Neumann G, Massonnea A, Martinoia E and Römheld V 1999 Physiological adaptations to phosphorus deficiency during proteoid root development in white lupin. Planta 208: 373–382.Google Scholar
  23. Olila O G, Reddy, K R and Stites D L 1997 Influence of draining on soil phosphorus forms and distribution in a constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 9, 157–169.Google Scholar
  24. Olde Venterink H 2000 Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Flows Controlling Plant Productivity and Species Richness; Eutrophication and Nature Management in Fens and Meadows. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 151 p.Google Scholar
  25. Olff H 1992 On the Mechanisms of Vegetation Succession. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 212 p.Google Scholar
  26. Olff H and Pegtel D M 1994 Characterisation of the type and extent of nutrient limitation in grassland vegetation using a bioassay with intact sods. Plant Soil 163: 217–224.Google Scholar
  27. Oomes M J M 1995 Restoration of wet grasslands, case study. InEcological Engineering for Ecosystem Restoration. pp. 59–63. Ed. J T A Verhoeven. Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Patrick W H and Khalid R A 1974 Phosphate release and sorption by soils and sediments: effect of aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Science 186, 53–55.Google Scholar
  29. Pegtel D M, Bakker J P, Verweij, G L and Fresco L F M 1996 N, K and P deficiency in chronosequential cut summer-dry grasslands on gley podzol after the cessation of fertilizer application. Plant Soil 178, 121–131.Google Scholar
  30. Rich T C G and Woodruff E R 1995 Changes in the vascular plant floras of England and Scotland between 1930-1960 and 1987-1988: the BSBI monitoring scheme. Biol. Conserv. 75, 217–229.Google Scholar
  31. Richardson C J and Marshall P E 1986 Processes controlling movement, storage, and export of phosphorus in a fen peatland. Ecol. Monogr. 56, 279–302.Google Scholar
  32. Silvertown J, Dodd ME, McConway K, Potts J and Crawley M 1994 Rainfall, biomass variation, and community composition in the Park Grass Experiment. Ecology 75, 2430–2437.Google Scholar
  33. Stanners D and Bourdeau P (eds) 1995 Europe's Environment, the DobÍí+ Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. 682 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Tamm C O 1954 Some observations on the nutrient turn-over in a bog community dominated by Eriophorum vaginatum L. Oikos 5, 189–194.Google Scholar
  35. Tilman D 1987 On the meaning of competition and the mechanisms of competitive superiority. Funct. Ecol. 1, 304–315.Google Scholar
  36. Van der Maarel E 1979 Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39, 97–114.Google Scholar
  37. Van Duren I C and Pegtel D M 2000 Nutrient limitations in wet, drained and rewetted fen meadows: evaluation of methods and results. Plant Soil 220, 35–47.Google Scholar
  38. Van Duren I C, Boeye D and Grootjans A P 1997a Nutrient limitations in an extant and drained poor fen: implications for restoration. Plant Ecol. 133, 91–100.Google Scholar
  39. Van Duren I C, Pegtel D M, Aerts B A and Inberg J A 1997b Nutrient supply in undrained and drained Calthion meadows. J. Veg. Sci. 8, 829–838.Google Scholar
  40. Verhoeven J T A and Schmitz M B 1991 Control of plant growth by nitrogen and phosphorus in mesotrophic fens. Biogeochemistry 12, 135–148.Google Scholar
  41. Verhoeven J T A, Koerselman W and Meuleman A F M 1996 Nitrogen-or phosphorus-limited growth in herbaceous, wet vegetation: relations with atmospheric inputs and management regimes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 494–497.Google Scholar
  42. Vermeer J G 1986 The effect of nutrients on shoot biomass and species composition of wetland and hayfield communities. Acta Oecol. 7, 31–41.Google Scholar
  43. Vitousek P M and Howarth 1991 Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13, 87–115.Google Scholar
  44. Wassen M J, Van der Vliet R E and Verhoeven J T A 1998 Nutrient limitation in the Biebrza fens and floodplain (Poland). Acta Bot. Neerl. 47, 241–253.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson S D and Tilman D 1991 Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72, 1050–1065.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Olde Venterink
    • 1
  • R.E. van der Vliet
    • 1
  • M.J. Wassen
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Wetland EcosystemsIHEDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations