Fine-Root Biomass Distribution and Production Along a Barrier Island Chronosequence

Stevenson, Mark; Day, Frank P.

doi:10.2307/2426703

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increases in root nutrient concentration following fertilization have been reported in other studies (Jones et al . 1994; Stevenson & Day 1996; Persson et al . 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine root biomass, production and turnover in a fertilized Larix leptolepis plantation in central Korea

Son¹,

Hwang

2003

Ecological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of fertilization [control (C), 200 kg N ha−1 + 25 kg P ha−1 (LNP) and 400 kg N ha−1 + 50 kg P ha−1 (HNP)] on fine root dynamics were examined in a 40‐year‐old Larix leptolepis plantation in central Korea. The average fine root biomass during the growing season for C, LNP and HNP was 957, 934 and 814 kg ha−1, respectively, whereas the fine root production for C, LNP and HNP was 2103, 2131 and 2066 kg ha−1, respectively. Nitrogen and P inputs into the soil via fine root turnover for C, LNP and HNP were 23.0 and 1.2, 23.3 and 1.2 and 22.6 and 1.2 kg ha−1, respectively. There were no significant differences in fine root biomass, production and N and P inputs through fine root turnover between the fertilization treatments during the first growing season after fertilization.

show abstract

“…Increases in root nutrient concentration following fertilization have been reported in other studies (Jones et al . 1994; Stevenson & Day 1996; Persson et al . 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine root biomass, production and turnover in a fertilized Larix leptolepis plantation in central Korea

Son¹,

Hwang

2003

Ecological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, nutrient‐enhanced root biomass accumulation in unexploited ingrowth soil has also been consistently found in a number of other habitat types including mangroves (McKee, Cahoon & Feller ; Castañeda‐Moya et al . ), coastal dunes (Stevenson & Day ), tallgrass prairie (Owensby, Auen & Coyne ) and a wide variety of terrestrial forests (Cuevas & Medina ; Raich, Riley & Vitousek ; Helmisaari & Hallbäcken ; Davis, Allen & Clinton ; Gress et al . ; Gleeson & Good ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting effects of nutrient enrichment on below‐ground biomass in coastal wetlands

Graham

Mendelssohn

2015

Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Anthropogenically enhanced nutrient availability is often cited among the most important drivers of altered ecosystem function and loss of services world‐wide. Although the above‐ground consequences of nutrient enrichment on plant growth patterns are numerous and well documented, below‐ground impacts are less clear but nonetheless critical from a global change perspective. In coastal wetlands, for example, plant–soil–nutrient dynamics directly affect the capacity to sequester carbon as soil organic matter, keep pace with sea level rise and resist storm‐induced erosion. Here, we investigate the effects of excess nutrient loading on below‐ground plant growth in an oligohaline marsh fertilized for 7 years with a factorial combination of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). We used two common assessment procedures, the ingrowth and standing crop methods, to simultaneously quantify distinct aspects of below‐ground plant growth, which are (i) below‐ground biomass accumulation into unexploited open resource space and (ii) in situ, or maintenance, below‐ground biomass of plants in equilibrium with their environment, respectively. Our objective was to determine if plant growth responses to nutrient enrichment differed depending on process and/or biomass component measured. We show that excess N concurrently increased live root biomass accumulation in ingrowth cores and reduced in situ live root standing crop. Similar, albeit non‐significant, response trajectories were apparent for other below‐ground biomass pools using both methods, excepting dead biomass and total standing crop. A review of previously published research supports our results and suggests that nutrient enrichment consistently has contrasting effects on below‐ground plant growth depending on whether biomass accumulation or standing crop is measured, and that living biomass components are most responsive to enhanced nutrient availability. Synthesis. We conclude that eutrophic conditions can be both beneficial and detrimental to ecosystem function by either stimulating below‐ground biomass accumulation in unexploited soil or reducing the below‐ground standing crop required to sustain the nutritional needs of established plants in mature communities. Thus, nutrient enrichment may, in the short‐term, contribute to soil organic matter (i.e. carbon) accumulation by increasing below‐ground growth as plants exploit new resource space. Over the long‐term, however, nutrient enrichment has the potential to negatively impact soil organic matter content as plants equilibrate to excess nutrient availability by down‐regulating below‐ground standing crop.

show abstract

“…Finally, Morris and others (2013a, b) found that 8 years of fertilization in a Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) salt marsh in North Inlet, South Carolina, caused higher aboveground biomass, which resulted in more friction that in turn caused mineral sediment to fall out of the water column and resulted in increased elevations compared to the control marsh. A review of the literature indicates that a greater number of studies show positive impacts of added nutrients on marshes (Haines and Dunn, 1976;Valiela and others, 1976;Buresh and others, 1980;Haines, 1979;Stevenson and Day, 1996;Shipley and Meziane, 2002;others, 2004, 2006;Ravit and others, 2007;Hunter and others, 2009a, b;Carrell, 2009;Shaffer and others, 2009a;Hillmann, 2011;Priest, 2011;Zhang and others, 2013;Morris and others, 2013a) than negative impacts (Morris and Bradley, 1999;Darby and Turner, 2008a, b, c;Swarzenski and others, 2008;Wigand and others, 2009;Deegan and others, 2012), but nutrient loading from a river reintroduction to a coastal swamp forest remains untested.…”

Section: Pm5: Facilitating Nutrient Uptake and Retentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance measures for a Mississippi River reintroduction into the forested wetlands of Maurepas Swamp

Krauss¹,

Shaffer²,

Keim³

et al. 2017

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.Suggested citation: Krauss, K.W., Shaffer, G.P., Keim, R.F., Chambers, J.L., Wood, W.B., and Hartley, S.B., 2017, Performance measures for a Mississippi River reintroduction into the forested wetlands of Maurepas Swamp: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5036, 56 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175036. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii AcknowledgmentsThe development of these performance measures was supported by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana. Specifically, we thank Carol Parsons Richards, Honora Buras, Brad Miller, and Richard Raynie, all with CPRA, for tasking this effort and providing much needed feedback along the way. Along with these partners, additional reviews of this document were provided by Danielle Richardi (CPRA), Christopher M. Swarzenski (U. S AbstractThe use of freshwater diversions (river reintroductions) from the Mississippi River as a restoration tool to rehabilitate Louisiana coastal wetlands has been promoted widely since the first such diversion at Caernarvon became operational in the early 1990s. To date, aside from the Bonnet Carré Spillway (which is designed and operated for flood control), there are only four operational Mississippi River freshwater diversions (two gated structures and two siphons) in coastal Louisiana, and they all target salinity intrusion, shellfish management, and (or) the enhancement of the integrity of marsh habitat. River reintroductions carry small sediment loads for various design reasons, but they can be effective in delivering freshwater to combat saltwater intrusion and increase the delivery of nutrients and suspended fine-grained sediments to receiving wetlands. River reintroductions may be an ideal restoration tool for targeting coastal swamp forest habitat; much of the area of swamp forest habitat in coastal Louisiana is undergoing saltwater intrusion, high rates of submergence, and lack of riverine flow leading to reduced concentrations of important nutrients and suspended sediments, which sustain growth and regeneration, help to aerate swamp soils, and remove toxic compounds from the rhizosphere.The State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) has made it a priority to establish a small freshwater river diversion into a coastal swamp forest located between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana, to reintrodu...

show abstract

Fine-Root Biomass Distribution and Production Along a Barrier Island Chronosequence

Cited by 25 publications

References 41 publications

Fine root biomass, production and turnover in a fertilized Larix leptolepis plantation in central Korea

Fine root biomass, production and turnover in a fertilized Larix leptolepis plantation in central Korea

Contrasting effects of nutrient enrichment on below‐ground biomass in coastal wetlands

Performance measures for a Mississippi River reintroduction into the forested wetlands of Maurepas Swamp

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About