Aluminum Toxicity in Forest Tree Seedlings

  • T. Eldhuset
  • A. Göransson
  • T. Ingestad
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 16)


The response of forest tree seedlings to aluminum concentrations was investigated. A growth technique was used in which nutrients were present in low concentrations in a circulating solution. Plant nutrition and relative growth rate were maintained in steady-state by adding the nutrients in Optimum proportions at a constant relative addition rate. After a period of steady-state growth, aluminum was added to the nutrient solution in different concentrations.

Permanent decrease in growth rate occurred if aluminum concentration exceeded 0.5 to 1−3 (Norway spruce). 1 to 3−3 (European birch), and 3 to 5−3 (Scots pine). Lethal concentrations were 6 to 10−3 (Norway spruce), 10 to 12−3 (European birch) and 25 to 30−3 (Scots pine). The response was the same for birch whether grown under Optimum or nutrient-stress conditions and for Scots pine grown with or without the mycorrhiza Suillus bovinus.

Thus, Norway spruce appears to be the species most sensitive to aluminum and Scots pine the most tolerant of the studied species. However, the results indicate that aluminum is probably not a serious hazard for Norway spruce, European birch or Scots pine since reported aluminum concentrations in soil solution are seldom higher than 0.5−3.


Relative Growth Rate Aluminum Concentration Physiol Plant Growth Technique Aluminum Toxicity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ågren GI (1985) Theory for growth of plants derived from the nitrogen productivity concept. Physiol Plant 64: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer LE, Hutnik RJ (1969) Acid and aluminum toxicity as related to strip-mine spoil banks in Western Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ Res Briefs 3: 69–72.Google Scholar
  3. Driscoll CT (1984) A procedure for the fractionation of aqueous aluminum in dilute acidic waters. Int J Environ Anal Chem 16: 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eldhuset T (in press) Effects of aluminium on nutrition and growth of coniferous seedlings. Physiol Plant.Google Scholar
  5. Göransson A, Elduset T (in press) Effects of aluminium on nutrition and growth of Betula pendula (Roth) seedlings. Physiol Plant.Google Scholar
  6. Foy CD (1974) Effects of aluminum on plant growth. In: Carson EW (ed) The plant root and its environment. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. p 601.Google Scholar
  7. Hoyle MC (1971) Effects of the chemical environment on yellow-birch root development and top growth. Plant Soil 35: 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ingestad T (1979) Mineral nutrient requirements of Pinus silvestris and Picea abies seedlings. Physiol Plant 45: 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ingestad T (1981) Nutrition and growth of birch and grey alder seedlings in low conductivity Solutions and at varied relative rates of nutrient addition. Physiol Plant 52: 454–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ingestad T (1982) Relative addition rate and external concentration; Driving variables used in plant nutrition research. Plant Cell Environ 5: 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingestad T, Kahr M (1985) Nutrition and growth of coniferous seedlings at varied relative nitrogen addition rate. Physiol Plant 65: 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingestad T, Lund AB (1979) Nitrogen stress in birch seedlings. I. Growth technique and growth. Physiol Plant 45: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jia H, Ingestad T (1984) Nutrient requirements and stress response of Populus simonii and Paulownia tomentosa. Physiol Plant 62: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanazawa Y (1985) Theoretical consideration of the concepts proposed by Ingestad in his nutrition experiments. J Jap For Soc 67: 105–107.Google Scholar
  15. Matzner E, Ulrich B (1981) Bilanzierung jährlicher Elementflüsse in Waldökosystemen im Solling. Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenkunde 144: 660–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCormick LH, Steiner KC (1978) Variation in aluminum tolerance among six genera of trees. For Sci 24: 565–568.Google Scholar
  17. Nilsson SI, Bergkvist B (1983) Aluminium chemistry and acidification processes in a shallow podzol on the Swedish westcoast. Water Air Soil Pollut 20: 311–329.Google Scholar
  18. Pavan MA, Bingham FT (1982) Toxicity of aluminum to coffee seedlings grown in nutrient solution. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46: 993–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Praag HT van, Weissen F, Sougnez-Remy S, Carletti G (1985) Aluminium effects on spruce and beech seedlings. II. Statistical analysis of sancj eulture experiments. Plant Soil 83:339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pratt PF (1973) Aluminum. In: Chapman HD (ed) Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils, 2nd edn. Abilene, Texas, p 3.Google Scholar
  21. Rost-Siebert K (1983) Aluminium-Toxizität und-Toleranz an Keimpflanzen von Fichte (Picea abies Karst.) und Buche (Fagus silvatica L.) Allg Forstz 38: 686–689.Google Scholar
  22. Schier GA (1985) Response of red spruce and baisam fir seedlings to aluminium toxicity in nutrient Solutions. Can J For Res 15: 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steiner KC, McCormick LH, Canavera DS (1980) Differential response of paper birch provenances to aluminum in solution culture. Can J For Res 10: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steiner KC, Barbour JR, McCormick LH (1984) Response of Populus hybrids to aluminum toxicity. For Sci 30: 404–410.Google Scholar
  25. Ulrich B (1980) Die Wälder in Mitteleuropa: Messergebnisse ihrer Umweltbelastung, Theorie ihrer Gefährdung, Prognose ihrer Entwicklung. Allg Forstz 35: 1198–1202.Google Scholar
  26. Ulrich B (1981) Eine Ökosystemare Hypothese über die Ursachen des Tannensterbens (Abies alba Mill.) Forstwiss Centralbl 100: 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Eldhuset
    • 1
  • A. Göransson
    • 1
  • T. Ingestad
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Forest EcophysiologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations