Plant Ecology

, Volume 165, Issue 1, pp 117–144 | Cite as

Growth rate, root development and nutrient uptake of 55 plant species from the Great Plains Grasslands, USA

  • Nichole Levang-Brilz
  • Mario E. Biondini


Empirical and theoretical studies have highlighted that plantcompetition and species diversity are substantially affected by interactionsamong plant growth and nutrient uptake rates, root lateral spread, rootplasticity, and small scale soil nutrient heterogeneity. This study wasdesignedto (a) experimentally estimate parameters regarding rootscaling patterns, root biomass allocation, growth rates, nutrient productivity,and root nutrient influx rates of 55 plant species common to Great Plainsgrasslands; and (b) determine if grasses and forbs can beclassified into statistically distinct groups based on these characteristics.Wefound that: (1) In all species root lateral spread, rootlength, and root surface area had significant allometric scaling relationshipswith root biomass, but that the relationships were unaffected by Navailability.(2) Reductions in the supply of N increased the root:shootratio in 62% of the species. (3) The frequency distributionandmean values of maximum relative growth rates were very similar for grasses andforbs/shrubs, but mid successional grasses had a higher relative growth ratethan late successional ones. (4) In 78% of the species tested,N productivity was increased by reductions in the N supply.(5)When subjected to a high N supply, the N and P productivity of grasses was, onaverage, higher than that of forbs/shrubs, and the N and P productivity ofC4 grasses was, on average, higher than that of C3grasses. No differences were found under a low N supply. (6)Nodifferences on the average maximum N and P influx rates per unit of rootsurfacearea were found between grasses and forbs or between C3 andC4 grasses, but both were correlated with maximum relative growthrate. (7) The set of parameters we measured were able toseparate grasses and forbs/shrubs into statistically distinct groups that tendto follow in broad terms the “coarse” vs. “fine” scaleforaging strategies hypothesis.

Root lateral spread Root length 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aerts R., Boot R.G.A. and van der Aart P.J.M. 1991. The relation between above-and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87: 351–359.Google Scholar
  2. Barber S.A. 1984. Soil Nutrient Bioavailabilty: A Mechanistic Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bassirirad H., Caldwell M.M. and Bilbrough C. 1993. Effects of soil temperature and nitrogen status on kinetics of 15NO3-uptake by roots of field-grown Agropyron desertorum (Fisch. ex Link) Schult. New Phytologist 123: 485–489.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzaz F.A. and Sultan S.E. 1987. Ecological variation and the maintenance of plant diversity. In: Urbanska K.M. (ed.), Differentiation in Higher Plants. Academic Press, London, pp. 69–93.Google Scholar
  5. Bilbrough C.J. and Caldwell M.M. 1995. The effects of shading and N status on root proliferation in nutrient patches by the perennial grass Agropyron desertorum in the field. Oecologia 103: 10–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bingham I.J. and Stevenson E.A. 1993. Control of root growth: effects of carbohydrates on the extension, branching and rate of respiration of different fractions of wheat roots. Physiologia Plantarum 88: 148–158.Google Scholar
  7. Biondini M.E. and Grygiel C.E. 1994. Landscape distribution of organisms and the scaling of soil resources. The American Naturalist 143: 1026–1054.Google Scholar
  8. Biondini M.E., Mielke P.W. and Redente E.F. 1991. Permutation techniques based on Euclidian analysis spaces: a new and powerful statistical method for ecological research. In: Feoli E. and Orloci L. (eds), Computer Assisted Vegetation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 221–240.Google Scholar
  9. Boot R.G.A. and Mensink M. 1990. Size and morphology of root systems of perennial grasses form contrasting habitats as affected by nitrogen supply. Plant and Soil 129: 291–299.Google Scholar
  10. Brown R.H. 1978. A difference in N use efficiency in C3 and C4 plants and its implications in adaptation and evolution. Crop Science 18: 93–98.Google Scholar
  11. Buysee J., Smolders E. and Merchx R. 1996. Modelling the uptake of nitrate by a growing plant with an adjustable root nitrate capacity. Plant and Soil 181: 19–23.Google Scholar
  12. Caldwell M.M., Manwaring J.H. and Durham S.L. 1996. Species interactions at the level of fine roots in the field: influence of soil nutrient heterogeneity and plant size. Oecologia 106: 440–447.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell B.D., Grime J.P. and Mackey J.M.L. 1991. A trade-off between scale and precison in resource foraging. Oecologia 87: 532–538.Google Scholar
  14. Canadell J., Jackson R.B., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A., Sala O.E. and Schulze E.D. 1996. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 108: 583–595.Google Scholar
  15. Casper B.B. and Jackson R.B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 28: 545–570.Google Scholar
  16. Drew M.C. and Saker L.R. 1975. Nutrient supply and the growth of the seminal root system in barley. II. Localized, compensatory increases in lateral root growth and rates of nitrate uptake when nitrate supply is restricted to only a part of the root system. Journal of Experimental Botany 26: 79–90.Google Scholar
  17. Einsmann J.C., Jones R.H., Pu M. and Mitchell R.J. 1999. Nutrient foraging traits of 10 co-occuring plant species of contrasting life forms. Journal of Ecology 87: 609–619.Google Scholar
  18. Fransen B., de Kroon H. and Berendse F. 1998. Root morphological plasticity and nutrient acquisition of perennial grass species from habitats of different nutrient availability. Oecologia 115: 351–358.Google Scholar
  19. Gleeson S.K. and Fry J.E. 1997. Root proliferation and marginal patch value. Oikos 79: 387–393.Google Scholar
  20. Grant R.F. 1998. Simulation in ecosys of root growth responses to contrasting soil water and nitrogen. Ecological Modelling 107: 237–264.Google Scholar
  21. Great Plains Flora Association 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Grime J.P., Hodgson J.G. and Hunt R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  23. Grime J.P. and Hunt R. 1975. Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. Journal of Ecology 63: 393–422.Google Scholar
  24. Hodge A.J., Stewart J., Robinson D., Griffiths B.S. and Fitter A.H. 2000. Spatial and physical heterogeneity of N supply from soil does not influence N capture by two grass species. Functional Ecology 14: 645–653.Google Scholar
  25. Hooper D.U. 1998. The role of complementary and competition in ecosystem responses to variation in plant diversity. Ecology 2: 704–719.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt R. and Cornelissen J.H.C. 1997. Component of relative growth rate and their interrelations in 59 temperate plant species. New Phytologyst 135: 395–417.Google Scholar
  27. Jackson R.B., Canadell J., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A., Sala O.E. and Schulze E.D. 1996. A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108: 389–411.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson R.B. and Caldwell M.M. 1996. Integrating resource heterogeneity and plant plasticity: modeling nitrate and phosphate uptake in a patchy soil environment. Journal of Ecology 84: 891–903.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson R.B. and Caldwell M.M. 1993. The scale of nutrient heterogeneity around individual plants and its quantification with geostatistics. Ecology 74: 612–624.Google Scholar
  30. Kuchler A.W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Leadley P.W., Reynolds J.F. and Chapin F.S. III 1997. A model of nitrogen uptake by Eriophorum vaginatum roots in the field: ecological implications. Ecological Monographs67: 1–22.Google Scholar
  32. Ludwig J.A. and Reynolds J.F. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Mahmoudjafari M., Kluitenberg G.J., Havlin J.L., Sisson J.B. and Schwab A.P. 1997. Spatial variability of nitrogen mineralization at the field scale. Soil Science Society of American Journal 61: 1214–1221.Google Scholar
  34. McConnaughay K.D.M. and Coleman J.S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? a test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80: 2581–2593.Google Scholar
  35. Mordelet P., Barot S. and Abbadie L. 1996. Root foraging strategies and soil patchiness in a humid savanna. Plant and Soil 182: 171–176.Google Scholar
  36. Nelson D.W. and Sommers L.E. 1980. Total nitrogen analysis of soil and plant tissues. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 63: 770–778.Google Scholar
  37. Palmer M.W. and Dixon P.M. 1990. Small-scale environmental heterogeneity and the analysis of species distributions along gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science 1: 57–65.Google Scholar
  38. Poorter H. and Remkes C. 1990. Leaf area ratio and net assimilation rate of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Oecologia 83: 553–559.Google Scholar
  39. Poorter H., Remkes C. and Lambers H. 1990. Carbon and nitrogen economy of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Physiology 94: 621–627.Google Scholar
  40. Rengel Z. 1993. Mechanistic simulation models of nutrient uptake: a review. Plant and Soil 152: 161–173.Google Scholar
  41. Reynolds H.L. and D'Antonio C. 1996. The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant and Soils 185: 75–97.Google Scholar
  42. Robertson G.P., Klingensmith K.M., Klug M.J., Paul E.A., Crum J.R. and Ellis B.G. 1997. Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across and agricultural ecosystem. Ecological Applications 7: 158–170.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson D. 1994. Tansley Review No. 73. The response of plants to non uniform supply of nutrients. New Phytologist 127: 635–674.Google Scholar
  44. Ryser P. and Lambers H. 1995. Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast-and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant and Soil 170: 251–65.Google Scholar
  45. Schulze E.D., Mooney H.A., Sala O.E., Jobbagy E., Buchmann N., Bauer G. et al. 1996. Rooting depth, water availability, and vegetation cover along an aridity gradient in Patagonia. Oecologia 108: 503–511.Google Scholar
  46. Shipley B. and Peters R.H. 1990. A test of Tilman model of plant strategies: relative growth rate and biomass partition. The American Naturalist 136: 139–153.Google Scholar
  47. Smethurst P.J. and Comeford N.B. 1993. Simulating nutrient uptake by single or competing and contrasting root systems. Soil Society of America Journal 57: 1361–1367.Google Scholar
  48. Somma F., Hopmans J.W. and Clausnitzer V. 1998. Transient threedimensional modeling of soil water and solute transport with simultaneous root growth, root water and nutrient uptake. Plant and Soil 202: 281–293.Google Scholar
  49. Sun G., Coffin D.P. and Lauenroth W.K. 1997. Comparison of root distributions of species in North American grasslands using GIS. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 587–596.Google Scholar
  50. Tilman D. 1990. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58: 3–15.Google Scholar
  51. Tilman D. 1991. The schism between theory and ardent empiricism: a reply to Shipley and Peters. The American Naturalist 138: 1283–1286.Google Scholar
  52. Turner C.L. and Knapp A.K. 1996. Responses of a C4 grass and three C3 forbs to variation in nitrogen and light in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 77: 1738–1749.Google Scholar
  53. van Vuuren M.M.I., Robinson D. and Griffiths D. 1996. Nutrient inflow and root proliferation during the exploitation of a temporally and spatially discrete source of nitrogen in soil. Plant and Soil 178: 185–192.Google Scholar
  54. Vazquez de Aldana B.R. and Berendse F. 1997. Nitrogen-use efficiency in six perennial grasses from contrasting habitats. Functional Ecology 11: 619–626.Google Scholar
  55. Weaver J.E. 1968. Prairie Plants and Their Environment. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Windham W.R. 1997. Phosphorus in animal feed and pet food. Of-ficial Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 3rd Revision. AOAC International.Google Scholar
  57. Zar J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nichole Levang-Brilz
    • 1
  • Mario E. Biondini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Range SciencesNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations