Characterizing fine-root traits by species phylogeny and microbial symbiosis in 11 co-existing woody species

20Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Understanding the differences in fine-root traits among different species is essential to gain a detailed understanding of resource conservation and acquisition strategies of plants. We aimed to explore whether certain root traits are consistent among subsets of species and characterize species together into meaningful community groups. We selected 11 woody species from different microbial symbiotic groups (ectomycorrhiza, arbuscular mycorrhiza, and rhizobia) and phylogenetic groups (broad-leaved angiosperms and coniferous gymnosperms) from the cool temperate forests of Nagano, Japan. We measured root architectural (branching intensity), morphological (root tissue density and specific root length), chemical (N and K concentrations), and anatomical (total stele and total cortex) traits. Significant differences were observed in all root traits, although many species did not differ from one another. Branching intensity was found to be the greatest variation in the measured root traits across the 11 woody species. The results of a principal component analysis of root traits showed a distinct separation between angiosperms and gymnosperms. We identified clusters of species based on their multidimensional root traits that were consistent with the different phylogenetic microbial association groups. Gymnosperm roots may be more resource conservative, while angiosperm roots may be more acquisitive for water and nutrients. We consider that the advances in root traits combination will make a breakthrough in our ability to differentiate the community groups rather than individual root trait.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yahara, H., Tanikawa, N., Okamoto, M., & Makita, N. (2019). Characterizing fine-root traits by species phylogeny and microbial symbiosis in 11 co-existing woody species. Oecologia, 191(4), 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04546-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free