Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 375, Issue 1–2, pp 113–126 | Cite as

Grassland species show similar strategies for sulphur and nitrogen acquisition

  • Nicolas Legay
  • Emmanuelle Personeni
  • Sophie Slezack-Deschaumes
  • Séverine Piutti
  • Jean-Bernard Cliquet
Regular Article

Abstract

Backgrounds and aims

Plant nutrition strategies play a crucial role in community structure and ecosystem functioning. However, these strategies have been established only for nitrogen (N) acquisition, and it is not known whether similar strategies hold for other macronutrients such as sulphur (S). The aim of our study was to determine whether strategies for S acquisition of some grassland species were similar to those observed for N acquisition, and to analyse the relationships between these plant strategies and the soil microbial activity involved in soil organic S mineralisation.

Methods

We used three exploitative and three conservative grass species grown with and without S fertilisation. We measured a set of plant traits, namely root and shoot biomass, leaf area, root length, N and S content, leaf nutrient use efficiency, and sulphate uptake rates in plants, and one microbial trait linked to S mineralisation, namely soil arylsulphatase activity.

Results

The set of plant traits differentiated exploitative from conservative species. Close relationships were found between traits associated with strategies for N acquisition, namely total N content and Leaf N Use Efficiency (LNUE), and traits associated with strategies for S acquisition, namely total S content and Leaf S Use Efficiency (LSUE). Exploitative species exhibited similar or lower sulphate uptake capacities per unit of biomass than conservative species, but acquired more S through their larger root systems. Greater arylsulphatase activity was observed in the rhizosphere of the most exploitative species.

Conclusion

Overall, our results show that nutrient strategies defined in grassland species for N acquisition can be extended to S.

Keywords

Plant N strategies Sulphur acquisition Sulphate uptake capacity Arylsulphatase 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank AF Ameline and MP Bataillé for technical assistance, and B. Amiaud and S. Lemauviel-Lavenant for helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Bardgett RD, Mawdsley JL, Edwards S, Hobbs PJ, Rodwell JS, Davies WJ (1999) Plant species and nitrogen effects on soil biological properties of temperate upland grasslands. Funct Ecol 13:650–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonanomi G, Caporaso S, Allegrezza M (2006) Short-term effects of nitrogen enrichment, litter removal and cutting on a Mediterranean grassland. Acta Oecol-Int J Ecol 30:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiy PC, Phillips CJC (1999) Sodium fertilizer application to pasture. 8. Turnover and defoliation of leaf tissue. Grass Forage Sci 54:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chowdhury MAH, Kouno K, Ando T (2000) Critical sulphur concentrations and sulphur requirement of microbial biomass in a glucose and cellulose-amended regosol. Biol Fert Soils 32:310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craine JM, Tilman D, Wedin D, Reich P, Tjoelker M, Knops J (2002) Functional traits, productivity and effects on nitrogen cycling of 33 grassland species. Funct Ecol 16:563–574Google Scholar
  6. Craine JM, Lee WG, Bond WJ, Williams RJ, Johnson LC (2005) Environmental constraints on a global relationship among leaf and root traits of grasses. Ecology 86(1):12–19Google Scholar
  7. Cregut M, Piutti S, Slezack-Deschaumes S, Benizri E (2013) Compartmentalization and regulation of arylsulfatase activities in Streptomyces sp., Microbacterium sp. and Rhodococcus sp. soil isolates in response to inorganic sulphate limitation. Microbiol Res 168:12–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cregut M, Piutti S, Vong PC, Slezack-Deschaumes S, Crovisier I, Benizri E (2009) Density, structure, and diversity of the cultivable arylsulfatase-producing bacterial community in the rhizosphere of field-grown rape and barley. Soil Biol Biochem 41:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crush JR, Waller JE, Care DA (2005) Root distribution and nitrate interception in eleven temperate forage grasses. Grass Forage Sci 60:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daufresne T, Hedin LO (2005) Plant coexistence depends on ecosystem nutrient cycles: extension of the resource-ratio theory. PNAS 102(26):9212–9217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijkstra FA, Cheng WX, Johnson DW (2006) Plant biomass influences rhizosphere priming effects on soil organic matter decomposition in two differently managed soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2519–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Deyn GB, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD (2008) Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol Lett 11:516–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dedourge O, Vong PC, Lasserre-Joulin F, Benizri E, Guckert A (2004) Effects of glucose and rhizodeposits (with or without cysteine-S) on immobilized-S-35, microbial biomass-S-35 and arylsulphatase activity in a calcareous and an acid brown soil. Eur J Soil Sci 55:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dedourge O, Vong PC, Lasserre-Joulin F, Benizri E, Guckert A (2003) Immobilization of sulphur-35, microbial biomass and arylsulphatase activity in soils from field-grown rape, barley and fallow. Biol Fert Soils 38:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald D, Chapman SJ, Edwards AC, Atkinson D (1999) Soil S availability in upland pastures of NE Scotland: relationship of extractable soil S and soil respiration to soil and site characteristics. Soil Use Manag 15:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elberse WT, Berendse F (1993) A comparative-study of the growth and morphology of 8 grass species from habitats with different nutrient availabilities. Funct Ecol 7:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eriksen J (1997) Sulphur cycling in Danish agricultural soils: turnover in organic S fractions. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1371–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Ebblewhite N, Dobson G (1999) Soil microbial community structure: effects of substrate loading rates. Soil Biol Biochem 31:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP, Mackey JML, Hillier SH, Read DJ (1987) Floristic diversity in a model system using experimental microcosms. Nature 328:420–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross N, Suding KN, Lavorel S, Roumet C (2007) Complementarity as a mechanism of coexistence between functional groups of grasses. J Ecol 95:1296–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison KA, Bol R, Bardgett RD (2008) Do plant species with different growth strategies vary in their ability to compete with soil microbes for chemical forms of nitrogen? Soil Biol Biochem 40:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hermans C, Hammond JP, White PJ, Verbruggen N (2006) How do plants respond to nutrient shortage by biomass allocation? Trends Plant Sci 11:610–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Innes L, Hobbs PJ, Bardgett RD (2004) The impacts of individual plant species on rhizosphere microbial communities in soils of different fertility. Biol Fert Soils 40:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahmen A, Renker C, Unsicker SB, Buchmann N (2006) Niche complementarity for nitrogen: an explanation for the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relationship? Ecology 87:1244–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kertesz MA, Mirleau P (2004) The role of soil microbes in plant nutrition. J Exp Bot 55:1939–1945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kowalenko CG (1993) Extraction of available sulfur. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publishers, London, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  27. Kuzyakov Y (2006) Sources of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biol Biochem 38:425–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu JX, Chen FJ, Olokhnuud C, Glass ADM, Tong YP, Zhang FS, Mi GH (2009) Root size and nitrogen-uptake activity in two maize (Zea mays) inbred lines differing in nitrogen-use efficiency. J Plant Nut Soil Sci 172:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maire V, Gross N, Pontes LDS, Picon-Cochard C, Soussana JF (2009) Trade-off between root nitrogen acquisition and shoot nitrogen utilization across 13 co-occurring pasture grass species. Funct Ecol 23:668–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathot M, Mertens J, Verlinden G, Lambert R (2008) Positive effects of sulphur fertilization on grasslands yields and quality in Belgium. Eur J Agron 28:655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maynard DG, Stewart WB, Bettany JR (1985) The effect of plants on soil sulphur transformations. Soil Biol Biochem 17:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGill WB, Cole CV (1981) Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S and P through soil organic matter. Geoderma 26:267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orwin KH, Buckland SM, Johnson D, Turner BL, Smart S, Oakley S, Bardgett RD (2010) Linkages of plant traits to soil properties and the functioning of temperate grassland. J Ecol 98:1074–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paterson E, Gebbing T, Abel C, Sim A, Telfer G (2006) Rhizodeposition shapes rhizosphere microbial community structure in organic soil. New Phytol 173:600–610Google Scholar
  35. Personeni E, Nguyen C, Marchal P, Pages L (2007) Experimental evaluation of an efflux-influx model of C exudation by individual apical root segments. J Exp Bot 58:2091–2099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robson TM, Baptist F, Clement JC, Lavorel S (2010) Land use in subalpine grasslands affects nitrogen cycling via changes in plant community and soil microbial uptake dynamics. J Ecol 98:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryser P (2006) The mysterious root length. Plant Soil 286:1–6Google Scholar
  38. Ryser P, Lambers H (1995) Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast- and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saito K (2004) Sulphur assimilatory metabolism. The long and smelling road. Plant Physiol 136:2443–2450PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scherer HW (2009) Sulphur in soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci-Z Pflanzenernahr Bodenkd 172:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schimel JP, Bennett J (2004) Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology 85(3):591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slezack-Deschaumes S, Piutti S, Vong PC, Benizri E (2012) Dynamics of cultivable arylsulfatase-producing bacterial and fungal communities along the phenology of field-grown rape. Eur J Soil Biol 48:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soussana JF, Teyssonneyre F, Picon-Cochard C, Dawson L (2005) A trade-off between nitrogen uptake and use increases responsiveness to elevated CO2 in infrequently cut mixed C-3 grasses. New Phytol 166:217–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJ (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stocklin J, Schweizer K, Korner C (1998) Effects of elevated CO2 and phosphorus addition on productivity and community composition of intact monoliths from calcareous grassland. Oecologia 116:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1970) Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 34:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tallec T, Diquelou S, Fauveau C, Bataille MP, Ourry A (2008) Effects of nitrogen and sulphur gradients on plant competition, N and S use efficiencies and species abundance in a grassland plant mixture. Plant Soil 313:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilman D (1980) Resources - A graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116:362–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tilman D (1990) Constraints and tradeoffs - Toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vale M, Nguyen C, Dambrine E, Dupouey JL (2005) Microbial activity in the rhizosphere soil of six herbaceous species cultivated in a greenhouse is correlated with shoot biomass and root C concentrations. Soil Biol Biochem 37:2329–2333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van der Krift TAJ, Berendse F (2001) The effects of plant species on soil nitrogen mineralization. J Ecol 89:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van der Krift TAJ, Kuikman PJ, Moller F, Berendse F (2001) Plant species and nutritional-mediated control over rhizodeposition and root decomposition. Plant Soil 228(2):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Ruijven J, Berendse F (2005) Diversity-productivity : initial effects, long-term patterns, and underlying mechanisms. PNAS 102:695–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varin S, Cliquet JB, Personeni E, Avice JC, Lemauviel-Lavenant S (2010) How does sulphur availability modify N acquisition of White Clover (Trifolium repens L.)? J Exp Bot 61:225–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW, Schlesinger WH, Tilman D (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl 7:737–750Google Scholar
  56. Vong PC, Dedourge O, Guckert A (2004) Immobilization and mobilization of labeled sulphur in relation to soil arylsulphatase activity in rhizosphere soil of field-grown rape, barley and fallow. Plant Soil 258:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vong PC, Piutti S, Benizri E, Slezack-Deschaumes S, Robin C, Guckert A (2007) Water-soluble carbon in roots of rape and barley: impacts on labile soil organic carbon, arylsulphatase activity and sulphur mineralization. Plant Soil 294:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Legay
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emmanuelle Personeni
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Sophie Slezack-Deschaumes
    • 4
    • 5
  • Séverine Piutti
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jean-Bernard Cliquet
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Caen Basse-Normandie, UMR Ecophysiologie Végétale Agronomie et Nutrition N, C, SCaen cedexFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR950 Ecophysiologie Végétale Agronomie et Nutrition N, C, SCaen cedexFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR CNRS 5553Université Joseph-FourierGrenoble cedex 9France
  4. 4.Université de Lorraine, Laboratoire Agronomie et Environnement, UMR 1121Vandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance
  5. 5.INRA, Laboratoire Agronomie et Environnement, UMR 1121Vandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance
  6. 6.UMR 950 Ecophysiologie Végétale Agronomie et Nutrition NCSINRA/Université de CaenCaenFrance

Personalised recommendations