Overyielding of fine root biomass as increasing plant species richness in subtropical forests in central southern China

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.00539

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims The objectives were to compare the fine root biomass, necromass and their distributions in the soil profile and examine the effects of plant species diversity on the morphological properties of live ﬁne roots at different soil depths among four forests along a gradient of increasing plant species richness in subtropical southern China.

Methods The fine root samples were collected in March 2010 in four forests: coniferous monoculture (Cunninghamia lanceolata), coniferous pioneer species (Pinus massoniana-Lithocarpus glaber), deciduous (Choerospondias axillaris) and evergreen broadleaved (Cyclobalanopsis glauca-Lithocarpus glaber). In each forest, three soil cores containing fine roots were taken at each of three soil depth (0-10, 10-20 and 20-30 cm) at each of upper, middle and lower slope positions. Living and dead roots were manually separated and then oven dried at 75 °C to constant mass to determine weight. Living roots were scanned with a Win-RHIZO 2005C to measure morphological parameters, including total root length, total root volume, number of root tips and forks.

Important findings Fine root biomass tended to increase along the gradient from the plantation to evergreen broadleaved forest. Total fine root biomass within the 0-30 cm soil depth differed significantly among the forests, but there were no significant differences in living root biomass. Fine root biomass density decreased exponentially with soil depth at similar rates among the forests. With exception of the plantation, fine root biomass showed clear differences in their distribution in the soil layers, indicating significant belowground spatial niche segregation of the vertical root distribution patterns in the more species-rich stands. Differences in root biomass did not lead to significant differences in fine root morphology on a stand area basis.

Key words: biomass, fine root, morphology, overyielding, plant diversity, subtropical area in China

LIU Cong, XIANG Wen-Hua, TIAN Da-Lun, FANG Xi, PENG Chang-Hui. Overyielding of fine root biomass as increasing plant species richness in subtropical forests in central southern China[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(5): 539-550.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.00539

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2011/V35/I5/539

Figures/Tables 5

References 51

[1]	Bakker MR, George E, Turpault MP, Zhang JL, Zeller B (2004). Impact of Douglas-fir and Scots pine seedlings on plagioclase weathering under acidic conditions. Plant and Soil, 266, 247-259. DOI URL
[2]	Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Menden N (2000). Aboveground and belowground interactions in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30, 1886-1894. DOI URL
[3]	Bayala J, Teklehaimanot Z, Ouedrango SJ (2004). Fine root distribution of pruned trees and associated crops in a parkland system in Burkina Faso. Agroforestry Systems, 60, 13-26. DOI URL
[4]	Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (1994). Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants: Ecophysiological Processes Above- and Belowground. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
[5]	Chen W (陈伟), Xue L (薛立) (2004). Root interactions: competition and facilitation. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 24, 1243-1251. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	Craine JM (2006). Competition for nutrients and optimal root allocation. Plant and Soil, 285, 171-185. DOI URL
[7]	Cronan CS (2003). Belowground biomass, production, and carbon cycling in mature Norway spruce, Maine, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 339-350. DOI URL
[8]	Cuevas E, Brown S, Lugo AE (1991). Above- and below ground organic matter storage and production in a tropical pine plantation and a paired broadleaf secondary forest. Plant and Soil, 135, 257-268. DOI URL
[9]	Curt T, Prévosto B (2003). Rooting strategy of naturally regenerated beech in Silver birch and Scots pine woodlands. Plant and Soil, 255, 265-279. DOI URL
[10]	Erskine PD, Lamb D, Bristow M (2006). Tree species diversity and ecosystem function: Can tropical multi-species plantations generate greater productivity? Forest Ecology and Management, 233, 205-210. DOI URL
[11]	Ewel JJ, Mazzarino MJ (2008). Competition from below for light and nutrients shifts productivity among tropical species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 18836-18841. DOI URL PMID
[12]	Fransen B, de Kroon H, Berendse F (1998). Root morphological plasticity and nutrient acquisition of perennial grass species from habitats of different nutrient availability. Oecologia, 115, 351-358. URL PMID
[13]	Gamfeldt L, Hillebrand H, Jonsson PR (2008). Multiple functions increase the importance of biodiversity for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology, 89, 1223-1231. DOI URL PMID
[14]	Grier CC, Vogt KA, Keyes MR, Edmonds RL (1981). Biomass distribution and above- and below-ground production in young and mature Abies amabilis zone ecosystems of the Washington Cascades. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 11, 155-167. DOI URL
[15]	Guo DL, Mitchell RJ, Hendricks JJ (2004). Fine root branch orders respond differentially to carbon source-sink manipulations in a longleaf pine forest. Oecologia, 140, 450-457. DOI URL PMID
[16]	Hector A (2001). Biodiversity and functioning of grassland ecosystems: multi-site comparison. In: Kinzig AP, Tilman D, Pacala SW eds. The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Empirical Progress and Theoretical Extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 71-95.
[17]	Hector A (2006). Overyielding and stable species coexistence. New Phytologist, 172, 1-3. DOI URL PMID
[18]	Hendrick RL, Pregitzer KS (1996). Temporal and depth-related patterns of fine root dynamics in northern hardwood forests. Ecology, 84, 167-176.
[19]	Hendriks CMA, Bianchi FJJA (1995). Root density and root biomass in pure and mixed forest stands of Douglas-fir and beech. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 43, 321-331. DOI URL
[20]	Hodge A (2004). The plastic plant: root responses to heterog- eneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytologist, 162, 9-24. DOI URL
[21]	Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, 3-35. DOI URL
[22]	Hooper DU, Dukes JS (2004). Overyielding among plant functional groups in a long-term experiment. Ecology Letters, 7, 95-105. DOI URL
[23]	Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996). A global analysis of root distribution for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108, 389-411. URL PMID
[24]	Jose S, Williams R, Zamora D (2006). Belowground ecological interactions in mixed-species forest plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 233, 231-239. DOI URL
[25]	Légaré S, Bergeron Y, Paré D (2005). Effect of aspen (Populus tremuloides) as a companion species on the growth of black spruce (Picea mariana) in the southwestern boreal forest of Quebec. Forest Ecology and Management, 208, 211-222. DOI URL
[26]	Lehmann J (2003). Subsoil root activity in tree-based cropping systems. Plant and Soil, 255, 319-331. DOI URL
[27]	Lehmann J, Zech W (1998). Fine root turnover of irrigated hedgerow intercropping in Northern Kenya. Plant and Soil, 198, 19-31. DOI URL
[28]	Leuschner C, Hertel D (2002). Fine root biomass of temperate forests in relation to soil acidity and fertility, climate, age and species. Progress in Botany, 64, 405-438.
[29]	Leuschner C, Hertel D, Coners H, Büttner V (2001). Root competition between beech and oak: a hypothesis. Oecologia, 126, 276-284. DOI URL PMID
[30]	Leuschner C, Hertel D, Schmid I, Koch O, Muhs A, Hölscher D (2004). Stand fine root biomass and fine root morphology in old-growth beech forests as a function of precipitation and soil fertility. Plant and Soil, 258, 43-56. DOI URL
[31]	Leuschner C, Jungkunst HF, Fleck S (2009). Functional role of forest diversity: pros and cons of synthetic stands and across-site comparisons in established forests. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 1-9. DOI URL
[32]	Liao LP (廖利平), Chen CY (陈楚莹), Zhang JW (张家武), Gao H (高洪) (1995). Turnover of fine roots in pure and mixed Cunninghamia lanceolata and Michelia macclurei forests. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 6, 7-10. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	Liu J (刘佳), Xiang WH (项文化), Xu X (徐晓), Chen R (陈瑞), Tian DL (田大伦), Peng CH (彭长辉), Fang X (方晰) (2010). Analysis of architecture and functions of fine roots of five subtropical tree species in Huitong. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (植物生态学报), 34, 938-945. (in Chinese with English abstract )
[34]	Loreau M (1998). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 5632-5636. URL PMID
[35]	Mei L (梅莉), Wang ZQ (王政权), Han YZ (韩有志), Gu JC (谷加存), Wang XR (王向荣), Cheng YH (程云环), Zhang XJ (张秀娟) (2006). Distribution patterns of Fraxinus mandshurica root biomass, specific root length and root length density. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 17, 1-4. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[36]	Meinen C, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2009). Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity is there evidence of below-ground overyielding? Oecologia, 161, 99-111. URL PMID
[37]	Morgan JL, Campbell JM, Malcolm DC (1992). Nitrogen relations of mixed-species stands on oligotrophic soils. In: Cannell MGR, Malcolm DC, Robertson PA eds. The Ecology of Mixed-species Stands of Trees. Blackwell, London. 65-85.
[38]	Ostonen I, Lõhmus K, Helmisaari HS, Truu J, Meel S (2007). Fine root morphological adaptations in Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch along a latitudinal gradient in boreal forests. Tree Physiology, 27, 1627-1634. URL PMID
[39]	Pate JS, Bell TL (1999). Application of the ecosystem mimic concept to the species-rich Banksia Woodlands of Western Australia. Agroforestry Systems, 45, 303-341. DOI URL
[40]	Persson H, Ahlström K (2002). Fine root response to nitrogen supply in nitrogen manipulated Norway spruce catchment areas. Forest Ecology and Management, 168, 29-41. DOI URL
[41]	Persson H, von Fircks Y, Majdi H, Nilsson LO (1995). Root distribution in a Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand subjected to drought and ammonium-sulfate application. Plant and Soil, 168-169, 161-165. DOI URL
[42]	Pregitzer KS (2002). Fine roots of trees―a new perspective. New Phytologist, 154, 267-270. DOI URL
[43]	Pregitzer KS, Laskowski MJ, Burton AJ, Lessard VC, Zak DR (1998). Variation in sugar maple root respiration with root diameter and soil depth. Tree Physiology, 18, 665-670. URL PMID
[44]	Roscher C, Temperton VM, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmitz M, Schumacher J, Schmid B, Buchmann N, Weisser WW, Schulze ED (2005). Overyielding in experimental grassland communities: irrespective of species pool or spatial scale. Ecology Letters, 8, 419-429. DOI URL
[45]	Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze ED, Don A, Schumacher J, Weller E (2007). Exploring the functional signiﬁcance of forest diversity: a new long-term experiment with temperate tree species (BIOTREE). Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 9, 53-70. DOI URL
[46]	Schmid B, Joshi J, Schläpfer F (2001). Empirical evidence for biodiversity ecosystem functioning relationships. In: Kinzig AP, Pacala SW, Tilman D eds. The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Empirical Progress and Theoretical Extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 120-150.
[47]	Schmid I, Kazda M (2002). Root distribution of Norway spruce in monospecific and mixed stands on different soils. Forest Ecology and Management, 159, 37-47. DOI URL
[48]	Wang ST (王树堂), Han SJ (韩士杰), Zhang JH (张军辉), Wang CG (王存国), Xu Y (徐媛), Li XF (李雪峰), Wang SQ (王树起) (2010). Woody plant fine root biomass and its spatial distribution in top soil of broad-leaved Korean pine forest in Changbai Mountain. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 21, 583-589. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[49]	Wen DZ (温达志), Wei P (魏平), Kong GH (孔国辉), Ye WH (叶万辉) (1999). Production and turnover rate of fine roots in two lower subtropical forest sites at Dinghushan. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 23, 361-369. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[50]	Yang YS (杨玉盛), Chen GS (陈光水), Lin P (林鹏), Huang RZ (黄荣珍), Chen YX (陈银秀), He ZM (何宗明) (2003). Fine root distribution, seasonal pattern and production in a native forest and monoculture plantations in subtropical China. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 29, 229-232. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[51]	Zhou Y (周毅), Deng XJ (邓学建), Mi XQ (米小其), Niu YD (牛艳东) (2007). Investigation of avifauna community construction and diversity of Dashanchong of Changsha in Hunan Province. Hunan Forestry Science & Technology (湖南林业科技), 34(2), 35-37. (in Chinese with English abstract)

森林类型 Forest type	优势树种 Dominant species	林分密度 Stand density (stem·hm^-2)	林龄 Stand age (a)	平均胸径Average DBH (cm)	平均树高Average tree height (m)	海拔Elevation (m)	坡向Slope aspect	坡度 Slope
CL	杉木 Cunninghamia lanceolata	625	51	23.54 (5-35)	19.51 (4.5-27)	223-258	SE	24°
PM	马尾松 Pinus massoniana 石栎 Lithocarpus glaber	1 975	47	9.33 (5-26)	8.37 (4-15.4)	220-262	SW	15°
CA	南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris 豹皮樟 Litsea coreana var. sinensis 四川山矾 Symplocos setchuensis 台湾冬青 Ilex formosana 千年桐 Aleurites montana	1 075	58	12.68 (5-53.7)	6.6 (2.5-12.5)	245-321	W	35°
CG	青冈 Cyclobalanopsis glauca 石栎 Lithocarpus glaber 马尾松 Pinus massomiana 南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris	1 474	58	11.91 (5-42)	9.30 (1-26.1)	225-254	NW	22°

森林类型 Forest type	优势树种 Dominant species	林分密度 Stand density (stem·hm^-2)	林龄 Stand age (a)	平均胸径Average DBH (cm)	平均树高Average tree height (m)	海拔Elevation (m)	坡向Slope aspect	坡度 Slope
CL	杉木 Cunninghamia lanceolata	625	51	23.54 (5-35)	19.51 (4.5-27)	223-258	SE	24°
PM	马尾松 Pinus massoniana 石栎 Lithocarpus glaber	1 975	47	9.33 (5-26)	8.37 (4-15.4)	220-262	SW	15°
CA	南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris 豹皮樟 Litsea coreana var. sinensis 四川山矾 Symplocos setchuensis 台湾冬青 Ilex formosana 千年桐 Aleurites montana	1 075	58	12.68 (5-53.7)	6.6 (2.5-12.5)	245-321	W	35°
CG	青冈 Cyclobalanopsis glauca 石栎 Lithocarpus glaber 马尾松 Pinus massomiana 南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris	1 474	58	11.91 (5-42)	9.30 (1-26.1)	225-254	NW	22°

参数 Parameter	变异来源 Source of variation
参数 Parameter	森林类型 Forest type	土壤层次 Soil layer	森林类型×土壤层次 Forest type × Soil layer
活生物量 Live biomass (g·m^-2)	0.075 6	0.002 2^**	0.662 6
死生物量 Necromass (g·m^-2)	0.034 2^*	0.021 0^*	0.092 1
总生物量 Total biomass (g·m^-2)	0.043 9^*	0.000 7^**	0.672 1
活根死根比 Live biomass/necromass	0.031 1^*	0.608 1	0.666 2
根长密度 Root length density (RLD) (m·m^-3)	0.073 7	<0.000 1^**	0.022 9^*
比根长 Specific root length (SRL) (m·g^-1)	0.000 8^**	0.875 2	0.791 1
比表面积 Specific root area (SRA) (cm²·g^-1)	0.000 1^**	0.331 2	0.650 5
比根尖密度 Specific root tips density (SRT) (no·g^-1)	0.004 0^**	0.927 2	0.732 6
比分叉密度 Specific root forks density (SRF) (no·g^-1)	0.031 4^*	0.244 5	0.656 8
根面积指数 Root ares index (RAI) (m²·m^-2)	0.214 7	<0.000 1^**	0.011 6^*

参数 Parameter	变异来源 Source of variation
参数 Parameter	森林类型 Forest type	土壤层次 Soil layer	森林类型×土壤层次 Forest type × Soil layer
活生物量 Live biomass (g·m^-2)	0.075 6	0.002 2^**	0.662 6
死生物量 Necromass (g·m^-2)	0.034 2^*	0.021 0^*	0.092 1
总生物量 Total biomass (g·m^-2)	0.043 9^*	0.000 7^**	0.672 1
活根死根比 Live biomass/necromass	0.031 1^*	0.608 1	0.666 2
根长密度 Root length density (RLD) (m·m^-3)	0.073 7	<0.000 1^**	0.022 9^*
比根长 Specific root length (SRL) (m·g^-1)	0.000 8^**	0.875 2	0.791 1
比表面积 Specific root area (SRA) (cm²·g^-1)	0.000 1^**	0.331 2	0.650 5
比根尖密度 Specific root tips density (SRT) (no·g^-1)	0.004 0^**	0.927 2	0.732 6
比分叉密度 Specific root forks density (SRF) (no·g^-1)	0.031 4^*	0.244 5	0.656 8
根面积指数 Root ares index (RAI) (m²·m^-2)	0.214 7	<0.000 1^**	0.011 6^*

森林类型 Forest type	土层 Soil layer (cm)	活生物量 Live biomass (g·m^-2)	死生物量 Necromass (g·m^-2)	总生物量 Total biomass (g·m^-2)	活根死根比 Live biomass/necromass
CL	0-10	106.14 (17.68)^{a NS}	14.10 (1.70)^{a NS}	120.24 (18.59)^{a NS}	7.92 (0.99)^{a NS}
	10-20	81.11 (23.54)^a	13.47 (2.87)^a	94.58 (24.12)^a	8.77 (2.70)^a
	20-30	81.50 (10.34)^a	8.89 (1.81)^a	90.39 (10.21)^a	14.20 (4.80)^a
PM	0-10	179.75 (32.60)^{a §**}	43.03 (8.73)^{b §**}	222.78 (40.11)^{ab §**}	4.50 (0.54)^{a NS}
	10-20	65.30 (6.15)^a	16.29 (2.69)^ab	81.59 (7.12)^a	4.77 (0.84)^a
	20-30	54.11 (10.10)^a	15.77 (2.76)^a	69.87 (12.16)^a	3.94 (0.74)^a
CA	0-10	246.23 (55.84)^{a §}	23.75 (5.88)^{ab NS}	269.98 (54.28)^{b §}	16.60 (5.63)^{a NS}
	10-20	112.41 (58.94)^a	34.88 (9.43)^b	147.29 (63.03)^a	5.90 (2.83)^a
	20-30	98.67 (59.72)^a	21.48 (6.57)^a	120.16 (57.86)^a	13.02 (9.94)^a
CG	0-10	229.70 (45.22)^{a §}	35.95 (9.57)^{ab §}	265.65 (48.32)^{b §}	11.21 (3.79)^{a NS}
	10-20	186.76 (86.11)^a	15.66 (4.30)^ab	202.41 (85.45)^a	20.11 (7.51)^a
	20-30	92.01 (38.69)^a	19.26 (11.85)^a	111.27 (39.29)^a	22.01 (10.52)^a