van der Werf Adrie, van Nuenen Marc, Visser Andries J, Lambers Hans
Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Utrecht, Sorbonnelaan 16, 3584 CA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Oecologia. 1993 Jun;94(3):434-440. doi: 10.1007/BF00317120.
Why do inherently fast-growing species from productive habitats generally have a higher rate of biomass production in short-term low-nitrogen experiments than slow-growing species from unproductive habitats, whereas the opposite is found in long-term experiments? Is this mainly due to inherent differences in biomass allocation, leaf characteristics or the plants' physiology? To analyse these questions we grew five monocotyledonous species from productive and unproductive habitats in a climate chamber at both high and low nitrogen supply. Nitrate was supplied exponentially, enabling us to compare inherent differences in morphological and physiological traits between the species, without any interference due to differences in the species' ability to take up nutrients. At high nitrogen supply, we found major inherent differences in specific leaf area and nitrogen productivity, i.e. daily biomass increment per unit plant nitrogen, where-as there were only small differences in net assimilation rate, i.e. daily biomass increment per unit leaf area, and biomass partitioning. We propose that the higher specific leaf area and nitrogen productivity of inherently fast-growing species are the key factors explaining their high abundance in productive habitats compared with inherently slow-growing ones. At low nitrogen supply, the net assimilation rate was decreased to a similar extent for all species, compared with that at high nitrogen supply. The nitrogen productivity of the inherentlyfast-growing species decreased with decreasing nitrogen supply, whereas that of the inherently slow-growing species remained constant. There were no inherent differences in nitrogen productivity in this treatment. At this low nitrogen supply, the inherently fast-growing species invested relatively more biomass in their roots that the slow-growing ones did. The inherently fast-growing species still had a higher specific leaf area at low nitrogen supply, but the difference between species was less than that at high nitrogen supply. Based on the present results and our optimization model for carbon and nitrogen allocation (Van der Werf et al. 1993a), we propose that the relatively large investment in root biomass of fast-growing species is the key factor explaining their higher biomass production in short-term experiments. We also propose that in the long run the competitive ability of the slow-growing species will increase due to a lower turnover rate of biomass. It is concluded that the plant's physiology (net assimilation rate and nitrogen productivity), only plays a minor role in the species' competitive ability in low-nitrogen environments.
为什么来自高产栖息地的固有快速生长物种在短期低氮实验中通常比来自低产栖息地的缓慢生长物种具有更高的生物量生产速率,而在长期实验中却发现情况相反?这主要是由于生物量分配、叶片特征或植物生理方面的固有差异吗?为了分析这些问题,我们在气候室中,在高氮和低氮供应条件下,种植了来自高产和低产栖息地的五种单子叶植物物种。硝酸盐以指数形式供应,这使我们能够比较物种之间形态和生理特征的固有差异,而不受物种吸收养分能力差异的任何干扰。在高氮供应下,我们发现比叶面积和氮生产力存在主要的固有差异,即单位植物氮的每日生物量增量,而净同化率,即单位叶面积的每日生物量增量,以及生物量分配方面只有微小差异。我们提出,与固有缓慢生长的物种相比,固有快速生长物种较高的比叶面积和氮生产力是解释它们在高产栖息地中高丰度的关键因素。在低氮供应下,与高氮供应时相比,所有物种的净同化率都下降到了相似的程度。固有快速生长物种的氮生产力随着氮供应的减少而降低,而固有缓慢生长物种的氮生产力保持不变。在这种处理中,氮生产力没有固有差异。在这种低氮供应下,固有快速生长物种在根部投入的生物量比缓慢生长物种相对更多。固有快速生长物种在低氮供应下仍具有较高的比叶面积,但物种之间的差异小于高氮供应时。基于目前的结果和我们的碳氮分配优化模型(范德韦尔夫等人,1993a),我们提出快速生长物种对根生物量的相对大量投入是解释它们在短期实验中较高生物量生产的关键因素。我们还提出,从长远来看,缓慢生长物种的竞争能力将因较低的生物量周转率而增强。得出的结论是,植物生理(净同化率和氮生产力)在低氮环境中物种的竞争能力方面只起次要作用。