Quantitative relationships between fine roots and stand characteristics

  • Guang Zhou
  • Shengwang Meng
  • Jian Yu
  • Hua Zhou
  • Qijing Liu
Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Fine roots absorb nutrients and water for photosynthesizing leaves, which in return provide them with hydrocarbon products. Knowledge of the fine root biomass (FRB) at the individual tree level and its relationships with other components related to tree growth, especially leaves aboveground, is scarce. Therefore, we reviewed the FRB of major forest-forming species using a database of 518 forest stands compiled from the literature, including 21 tree species and 16 shrub species, in order to confirm the relationships between environmental or forest stand variables and FRB at the stand and tree levels, and we further determine the relationships between fine roots belowground and leaves aboveground. Correlations between FRB and site characteristics (latitude, elevation, age, density, and basal area) appeared to be species-specific. There were hardly any significant correlations between stand FRB and latitude, elevation, stand age and stand density. Tree FRB was better correlated with tree basal area than stand FRB with stand basal area. There was a significant linear relationship between tree FRB and tree basal area. In addition, individual FRB was significantly linearly related to leaf biomass for all analyzed species. When these species were grouped into coniferous and deciduous, or all species together, there were still significant linear relationships between tree FRB and tree basal area and leaf biomass. The ratios of FRB to leaf biomass varied between and among species and even among regions for the same species. For both Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris, the ratio of FRB to leaf biomass was negatively related to the ratio of annual actual evapotranspiration to annual potential evapotranspiration, which was an indicator of water availability.

Keywords

Functional equilibrium Fine root biomass Foliage Basal area 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all colleagues who assisted with data collection. We are most grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this manuscript. This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31670436).

Supplementary material

10342_2018_1112_MOESM1_ESM.docx (105 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 105 kb)
10342_2018_1112_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Ammer C, Wagner S (2005) An approach for modelling the mean fine-root biomass of Norway spruce stands. Trees 19:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-004-0373-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauhus J, Messier C (1999) Soil exploitation strategies of fine roots in different tree species of the southern boreal forest of eastern Canada. Can J For Res 29:260–273.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x98-206 Google Scholar
  3. Bolte A, Villanueva I (2006) Interspecific competition impacts on the morphology and distribution of fine roots in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Eur J For Res 125:15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-005-0075-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkhuu B, Peckham SD, Ewers BE, Norton U, Pendall E (2015) Does soil respiration decline following bark beetle induced forest mortality? Evidence from a lodgepole pine forest. Agric For Meteorol 214–215:201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremond L, Alexandre A, Peyron O, Guiot J (2005) Grass water stress estimated from phytoliths in West Africa. J Biogeogr 32:311–327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01162.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer R (1963) Some aspects of the equilibrium between overground and underground plant parts. Jaarboek van het Instituut voor Biologisch en Scheikundig onderzoek aan Landbouwgewassen 1963:31–39Google Scholar
  7. Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050201 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannell MGR, Dewar RC (1994) Carbon allocation in trees: a review of concepts for modelling. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 25. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 59–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60213-5 Google Scholar
  9. Chen W, Zhang Q, Cihlar J, Bauhus J, Price DT (2004) Estimating fine-root biomass and production of boreal and cool temperate forests using aboveground measurements: a new approach. Plant Soil 265:31–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-8503-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claus A, George E (2005) Effect of stand age on fine-root biomass and biomass distribution in three European forest chronosequences. Can J For Res 35:1617–1625.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dong L, Zhang L, Li F (2014) A compatible system of biomass equations for three conifer species in Northeast, China. For Ecol Manag 329:306–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finér L et al (2007) Variation in fine root biomass of three European tree species: beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Plant Biosyst Int J Deal Asp Plant Biol 141:394–405.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500701625897 Google Scholar
  13. Finér L, Ohashi M, Noguchi K, Hirano Y (2011) Factors causing variation in fine root biomass in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 261:265–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gale MR, Grigal DF (1987) Vertical root distributions of northern tree species in relation to successional status. Can J For Res 17:829–834.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x87-131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez-Garcia E, Crecente-Campo F, Dieguez-Aranda U (2013) Above-ground biomass equations for birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.) and pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) in north western Spain. Madera Y Bosques 19:71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grier CC, Vogt KA, Keyes MR, Edmonds RL (1981) Biomass distribution and above- and below-ground production in young and mature Abiesamabilis zone ecosystems of the Washington Cascades. Can J For Res 11:155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x81-021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helmisaari H-S, Makkonen K, Kellomäki S, Valtonen E, Mälkönen E (2002) Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. For Ecol Manag 165:317–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00648-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helmisaari H-S, Derome J, Nojd P, Kukkola M (2007) Fine root biomass in relation to site and stand characteristics in Norway spruce and Scots pine stands. Tree Physiol 27:1493–1504.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/27.10.1493 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hertel D, Strecker T, Müller-Haubold H, Leuschner C (2013) Fine root biomass and dynamics in beech forests across a precipitation gradient—is optimal resource partitioning theory applicable to water-limited mature trees? J Ecol 101:1183–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Issaharou-Matchi I, Barboni D, Meunier JD, Saadou M, Dussouillez P, Contoux C, Zirihi-Guede N (2016) Intraspecific biogenic silica variations in the grass species Pennisetum pedicellatum along an evapotranspiration gradient in South Niger. Flora 220:84–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2016.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00333714 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997) A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7362–7366.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.14.7362 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Jia Q, Liu Q, Li J (2015) Individual-based fine root biomass and its functional relationship with leaf for Pinus tabuliformis in northern China. Eur J Forest Res 134:705–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0884-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joslin JD, Henderson GS (1987) Organic matter and nutrients associated with fine root turnover in a White Oak Stand. For Sci 33:330–346.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/33.2.330 Google Scholar
  25. Jung K, Duan M, House J, Chang SX (2014) Textural interfaces affected the distribution of roots, water, and nutrients in some reconstructed forest soils in the Athabasca oil sands region. Ecol Eng 64:240–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalliokoski T, Pennanen T, Nygren P, Sievänen R, Helmisaari H-S (2010) Belowground interspecific competition in mixed boreal forests: fine root and ectomycorrhiza characteristics along stand developmental stage and soil fertility gradients. Plant Soil 330:73–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0177-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karizumi N (1974) The mechanism and function of tree root in the process of forest production. I. Method of investigation and estimation of the root biomass. Bull Govt For Exp Stn Tokyo 259:1–99Google Scholar
  28. Keyes MR, Grier CC (1981) Above- and below-ground net production in 40-year-old Douglas-fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can J For Res 11:599–605.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x81-082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurz WA, Beukema SJ, Apps MJ (1996) Estimation of root biomass and dynamics for the carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector. Can J For Res 26:1973–1979.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehtonen A et al (2016) Modelling fine root biomass of boreal tree stands using site and stand variables. For Ecol Manag 359:361–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leuschner C, Hertel D (2003) Fine root biomass of temperate forests in relation to soil acidity and fertility, climate, age and species. In: Esser K, Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Hellwig F (eds) Progress in botany: genetics physiology systematics ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp 405–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55819-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li X, Guo Q, Wang X, Zheng H (2010) Allometry of understory tree species in a natural secondary forest in Northeast China. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 8:22–32Google Scholar
  33. Liu C, Sun G, McNulty SG, Noormets A, Fang Y (2017) Environmental controls on seasonal ecosystem evapotranspiration/potential evapotranspiration ratio as determined by the global eddy flux measurements. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21:311–322.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-311-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magnani F, Mencuccini M, Grace J (2000) Age-related decline in stand productivity: the role of structural acclimation under hydraulic constraints Plant. Cell Environ 23:251–263.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00537.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mäkelä AA, Sievänen RP (1987) Comparison of two shoot—root partitioning models with respect to substrate utilization and functional balance. Ann Bot 59:129–140.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Makkonen K, Helmisaari H-S (1998) Seasonal and yearly variations of fine-root biomass and necromass in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stand. For Ecol Manag 102:283–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00169-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marklund LG (1987) Biomass functions for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in Sweden. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. Rapporter-Skog 43:1–127Google Scholar
  38. Medhurst JL, Battaglia M, Cherry ML, Hunt MA, White DA, Beadle CL (1999) Allometric relationships for Eucalyptus nitens (Deane and Maiden) Maiden plantations. Trees 14:91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00009756 Google Scholar
  39. Mencuccini M, Grace J (1996) Developmental patterns of above-ground hydraulic conductance in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) age sequence Plant. Cell Environ 19:939–948.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1996.tb00458.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meng S, Jia Q, Zhou G, Zhou H, Liu Q, Yu J (2018) Fine root biomass and its relationship with aboveground traits of Larix gmelinii trees in Northeastern China. Forests 9:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mu Q, Zhao M, Kimball JS, McDowell NG, Running SW (2013) A remotely sensed global terrestrial drought severity index. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:83–98.  https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00213.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murty D, McMurtrie RE, Ryan MG (1996) Declining forest productivity in aging forest stands: a modeling analysis of alternative hypotheses. Tree Physiol 16:187–200.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/16.1-2.187 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Muukkonen P, Makipaa R, Laiho R, Minkkinen K, Vasander H, Finer L (2006) Relationship between biomass and percentage cover in understorey vegetation of boreal coniferous forests. Silva Fennica 40:231–245.  https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.340 Google Scholar
  44. O’Grady AP, Worledge D, Battaglia M (2006) Above- and below-ground relationships, with particular reference to fine roots, in a young Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) stand in southern Tasmania. Trees 20:531–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-006-0055-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oren R, Werk KS, Schulze E-D (1986) Relationships between foliage and conducting xylem in Picea abies (L.) Karst. Trees 1:61–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00197026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Persson HÅ (1983) The distribution and productivity of fine roots in boreal forests. In: Atkinson D, Bhat KKS, Coutts MP, Mason PA, Read DJ (eds) Tree root systems and their mycorrhizas. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 87–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6833-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Repola J, Ojansuu R, Kukkola M (2007) Biomass functions for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch in Finland. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 53Google Scholar
  48. Ryan MG, Waring RH (1992) Maintenance respiration and stand development in a subalpine lodgepole pine forest. Ecology 73:2100–2108.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1941458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saiz G, Byrne KA, Butterbach-Bahl K, Kiese R, Blujdeas V, Farrell EP (2006) Stand age-related effects on soil respiration in a first rotation Sitka spruce chronosequence in central Ireland. Glob Change Biol 12:1007–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01145.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Santantonio D (1989) Dry-matter partitioning and fine-root production in forests—new approaches to a difficult problem. In: Pereira JS, Landsberg JJ (eds) Biomass production by fast-growing trees. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 57–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2348-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964a) A quantitative analysis of plant form-the pipe model theory: I. Basic analyses. Jpn J Ecol 14:97–105.  https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.14.3_97 Google Scholar
  52. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964b) A quantitative analysis of plant form-the pipe model theory: II. Further evidence of the theory and its application in forest ecology. Jpn J Ecol 14:133–139.  https://doi.org/10.18960/seitai.14.4_133 Google Scholar
  53. Singh JS, Lauenroth WK, Hunt HW, Swift DM (1984) Bias and random errors in estimators of net root production: a simulation approach. Ecology 65:1760–1764.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1937771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sun T, Dong L, Mao Z, Li Y (2015) Fine root dynamics of trees and understorey vegetation in a chronosequence of Betula platyphylla stands. For Ecol Manag 346:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vadeboncoeur MA, Hamburg SP, Yanai RD (2007) Validation and refinement of allometric equations for roots of northern hardwoods. Can J For Res 37:1777–1783.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vanninen P, Mäkelä A (1999) Fine root biomass of Scots pine stands differing in age and soil fertility in southern Finland. Tree Physiol 19:823–830.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/19.12.823 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievänen R, Mäkelä A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees 10:231–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02185674 Google Scholar
  58. Vogt K (1991) Carbon budgets of temperate forest ecosystems. Tree Physiol 9:69–86.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/9.1-2.69 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Vogt KA, Grier CC, Meier CE, Keyes MR (1983) Organic matter and nutrient dynamics in forest floors of young and mature abies amabilis stands in western Washington, as affected by fine-root input. Ecol Monogr 53:139–157.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Moore EE, Littke W, Grier CC, Leney L (1985) Estimating Douglas-fir fine root biomass and production from living bark and starch. Can J For Res 15:177–179.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x85-030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vogt KA, Grier CC, Vogt DJ (1986) Production, turnover, and nutrient dynamics of above- and belowground detritus of world forests. In: MacFadyen A, Ford ED (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 15. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 303–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60122-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Moore EE, Fatuga BA, Redlin MR, Edmonds RL (1987) Conifer and angiosperm fine-root biomass in relation to stand age and site productivity in Douglas-fir forests. J Ecol 75:857–870.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2260210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Palmiotto PA, Boon P, O’Hara J, Asbjornsen H (1995) Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species. Plant Soil 187:159–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00017088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang C (2006) Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 222:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang XL, Klinka K, Chen HYH, Montigny LD (2002) Root structure of western hemlock and western redcedar in single- and mixed-species stands. Can J For Res 32:997–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Waring RH, Schroeder PE, Oren R (1982) Application of the pipe model theory to predict canopy leaf area. Can J For Res 12:556–560.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x82-086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Widén B, Majdi H (2001) Soil CO2 efflux and root respiration at three sites in a mixed pine and spruce forest: seasonal and diurnal variation. Can J For Res 31:786–796.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yuan ZY, Chen HYH (2010) Fine root biomass, production, turnover rates, and nutrient contents in boreal forest ecosystems in relation to species, climate, fertility, and stand age: literature review and meta-analyses. Crit Rev Plant Sci 29:204–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2010.483579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M (2005) Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monographs 4:63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ForestryBeijing Forestry UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations