Cited by 43Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis

Rytter, R.-M.·2013·Tree Physiology

Abstract

The effect of limited nitrogen (N) or water availability on fine root growth and turnover was examined in two deciduous species, Alnus incana L. and Salix viminalis L., grown under three different regimes: (i) supply of N and water in amounts which would not hamper growth, (ii) limited N supply and (iii) limited water supply. Plants were grown outdoors during three seasons in covered and buried lysimeters placed in a stand structure and filled with quartz sand. Computer-controlled irrigation and fertilization were supplied through drip tubes. Production and turnover of fine roots were estimated by combining minirhizotron observations and core sampling, or by sequential core sampling. Annual turnover rates of fine roots <1 mm (5-6 year(-1)) and 1-2 mm (0.9-2.8 year(-1)) were not affected by changes in N or water availability. Fine root production (<1 mm) differed between Alnus and Salix, and between treatments in Salix; i.e., absolute length and biomass production increased in the order: water limited < unlimited < N limited. Few treatment effects were detected for fine roots 1-2 mm. Proportionally more C was allocated to fine roots (≤2 mm) in N or water-limited Salix; 2.7 and 2.3 times the allocation to fine roots in the unlimited regime, respectively. Estimated input to soil organic carbon increased by ca. 20% at N limitation in Salix. However, future studies on fine root decomposition under various environmental conditions are required. Fine root growth responses to N or water limitation were less pronounced in Alnus, thus indicating species differences caused by N-fixing capacity and slower initial growth in Alnus, or higher fine root plasticity in Salix. A similar seasonal growth pattern across species and treatments suggested the influence of outer stimuli, such as temperature and light.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/treephys/tpt060

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Values for fine roots from willow and poplar grown as short-rotation forestry are lower than for short-rotation coppice.

    “Several authors investigated fine roots from willow and poplar grown as SRC [5, 30, 81, 82, 88, 89] and SRF [72, 90–93], values for the latter being lower (Table 1).”
  • Data for carbon inputs from belowground biomass are difficult to interpret, especially for roots, because they are based on many single observations rather than time series.

    “Data for C inputs from BGB are difficult to interpret, especially for roots because they are based on many single observations [45, 61, 62, 64, 80] rather than time series [26, 32, 81–83].”
  • About 20% of short-rotation coppice poplar biomass was allocated to structural roots, which may contribute significantly to biomass carbon, while fine roots contribute to soil organic carbon due to faster turnover.

    “It was suggested that about 20 % of SRC poplar biomass was allocated to structural roots [95] which may contribute significantly to biomass C, whilst fine roots contribute to SOC due to their faster turnover compared to structural components [26, 82].”
  • A small number of studies using isotopes, model systems and field sampling allow scaling of mean residence times to in situ rates.

    “However, a small number of studies using isotopes [109], model systems [110, 111] and field sampling [32, 81, 82] allow their scaling to in situ rates.”
  • Coarse roots represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40%), but much smaller values emerged recently.

    “Coarse roots (CR) represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40 %; [58, 99]), but much smaller values emerged recently [82].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rytter, R.-M.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Rytter, R.-M.
Venue
Tree Physiology
Published
2013-08-20
Volume
33
Issue
9
Pages
924-939
ISSN
  • 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-4469
OpenAlex
W2120822694
Cited by
43
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Tree Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Energimyndigheten
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
fine roots, fine root turnover, carbon allocation, nitrogen limitation, water limitation, Alnus incana, Salix viminalis, deciduous trees, fine root production, root plasticity, nitrogen fixation, seasonal variation
MeSH terms
Carbon, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Nitrogen, Seasons, Soil, Sweden, Water, Plant Roots, Biomass, Plant Stems, Alnus, Salix, Root Nodules, Plant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review