Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:37:28.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Leaf and root attributes as growth and phosphorus uptake determinants in two grass species from South America’s natural grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2021

Anderson Cesar Ramos Marques*
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Fernando Luiz Ferreira de Quadros
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Gustavo Brunetto
Affiliation:
Soil Sciences Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Leticia Frizzo Ferigolo
Affiliation:
Plant Physiology Department, Luiz de Queiroz Agriculture School (ESALQ), Piracicaba City, São Paulo, Brazil
Raissa Schwalbert
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Bianca Knebel Del Frari
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Gíllian Santos Fernandes
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Fernando Teixeira Nicoloso
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence:*Anderson Cesar Ramos Marques, Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Phosphorus uptake by grass species from natural South American grasslands can change depending on root and leaf attributes capable of determining higher, or lower, relative growth rate. The aim of the current study is to investigate whether leaf and root attributes capable of determining leaf and root area production in native C4 grass species Axonopus affinis and Andropogon lateralis are related to higher relative growth rate (RGR), P uptake capacity (maximum P influx; Imax) and concentration. Species grown in 2-litre pots with added nutrition solution were subjected to two treatments, namely 5 μM P l−1 and 30 μM P l−1. Solution aliquots (10 ml) were collected for 30 hours at the end of the study to determine P concentrations. RGR was 3.6 and 2.8 times higher in A. affinis than in A. lateralis in treatments with 5 μM P and 30 μM P. Axonopus affinis recorded the highest P concentration in leaf tissue. This outcome was associated with Imax 85% higher in A. affinis. High RGR was associated with larger leaf and root surface area per dry mass unit, as well as with high P influx capacity and with higher affinity transporters. These species often prevail in areas accounting for greater natural fertility and are more responsive to phosphate fertilization.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandinelli, DG, Gatiboni, LC, Trindade, JPP, Quadros, FLF de, Kaminski, J, Flores, JPC, Brunetto, G and Saggin, A (2005) Composição floristica de pastagem natural afetada por fontes de fosforo, calagem e introdução de espécies forrageiras de estação fria. Ciência Rural 35, 8491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassirirad, H (2000) Kinetics of nutrient uptake by roots: responses to global change. New Phytologist 147, 155169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, SFI (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 11, 233260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, N and Barber, SA (1974) A method for characterizing the relation between nutrient concentration and flux into roots of intact plants. Plant Physiology 54, 564568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Confortin, ACC, Quadros, FLF, Santos, AB, Seibert, L, Severo, PO and Ribeiro, BSR (2016) Leaf tissue fluxes of Pampa biome native grasses submitted to two grazing intervals. Grass and Forage Science 71, 19.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, JHC, Lavorel, S, Garnier, E, Díaz, S, Buchmann, N, Gurvich, DE, Reich, PB, Steege, H ter, Morgan, HD, Heijden, MGA Van Der, Pausas, JG and Poorter, H (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany 51, 335380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elanchezhian, R, Krishnapriya, V, Pandey, R, Rao, AS and Abrol, YP (2015) Physiological and molecular approaches for improving phosphorus uptake efficiency of crops. Current Science 108.Google Scholar
Fort, F, Cruz, P, Lecloux, E, Bittencourt de Oliveira, L, Stroia, C, Theau, JP, Jouany, C and Pugnaire, F (2016) Grassland root functional parameters vary according to a community-level resource acquisition–conservation trade-off. Journal of Vegetation Science 27, 749758.Google Scholar
Fort, F, Jouany, C and Cruz, P (2013) Root and leaf functional trait relations in Poaceae species: implications of differing resource-acquisition strategies. Journal of Plant Ecology 6, 211219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnier, E (1995) Nitrogen productivity depends on photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency and on nitrogen allocation within the plant. Annals of Botany 76, 667672.Google Scholar
Grassein, F, Lemauviel-Lavenant, S, Lavorel, S, Bahn, M, Bardgett, RD, Desclos-Theveniau, M and Laîné, P (2015) Relationships between functional traits and inorganic nitrogen acquisition among eight contrasting european grass species. Annals of Botany 115, 107115.Google ScholarPubMed
Grimoldi, AA, Kavanová, M, Lattanzi, FA and Schnyder, H (2005) Phosphorus nutrition mediated effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza on leaf morphology and carbon allocation in perennial ryegrass. New Phytologist 168, 435444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoagland, DR and Arnon, DI (1950) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station 347, 132.Google Scholar
Maire, V, Gross, N, Da Silveira Pontes, L, Picon-Cochard, C and Soussana, JF (2009) Trade-off between root nitrogen acquisition and shoot nitrogen utilization across 13 co-occurring pasture grass species. Functional Ecology 23, 668679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, ACR, Piccin, R, Tiecher, T, Oliveira, LB, Kaminski, J, Bellinaso, RJS, Krug, AV, Gatiboni, LC, Quadros, FLF, Carranca, C and Brunetto, G (2019) Phosphorus fractionation in grasses with different resource-acquisition characteristics in natural grasslands of South America. Journal of Tropical Ecology 35, 203212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, ACR, Oliveira, LB, Brunetto, G, Tavares, MS, Quadros, FLF and Nicoloso, FT (2020) Interaction between growth strategies and phosphorus use efficiency in grasses from South America natural grasslands. Revista Ceres 67, 6269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J and Riley, JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta 27, 3136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, LB, Marques, ACR, de Quadros, FLF, Farias, JG, Piccin, R, Brunetto, G and Nicoloso, FT (2018) Phosphorus allocation and phosphatase activity in grasses with different growth rates. Oecologia 186, 633643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osone, Y, Ishida, A and Tateno, M (2008) Correlation between relative growth rate and specific leaf area requires associations of specific leaf area with nitrogen absorption rate of roots. New Phytologist 179, 417427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallarés, OR, Berretta, EJ and Maraschin, GE (2005) The South American Campos ecosystem. In Suttie, JM, Reynolds, SG and Batello, C (eds) Grasslands of the World. Rome: FAO, pp. 171219.Google Scholar
Pillar, VD (2001) Multivariate Exploratory Analysis, Randomization Testing and Bootstrap Resampling. User’s Guide. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.Google Scholar
Ruiz, HA (1985) Cinética: Software para estimar as constantes Vmax, Km da equação de Michaelis-Menten. Revista Ceres 32, 7984.Google Scholar
Santos, AB dos, Quadros, FLF de, Confortin, ACC, Seibert, L, Ribeiro, BSMR, Severo, P de O, Casanova, PT and Machado, GKG (2014) Morfogênese de gramíneas nativas do Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil) submetidas a pastoreio rotativo durante primavera e verão. Ciência Rural 44, 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedesco, MJ, Gianello, C, Bissani, CA, Bohnen, H and Volkweiss, SJ (1995) Análise de Solo, Plantas e outros Materiais. 2nd edition. Porto Alegre: Departamento de Solos da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.Google Scholar
Tiecher, T, Oliveira, LB, Rheinheimer, DS, Quadros, FLF, Gatiboni, LC, Brunetto, G and Kaminski, J (2014) Phosphorus application and liming effects on forage production, floristic composition and soil chemical properties in the Campos biome, southern Brazil. Grass and Forage Science 69, 567579.Google Scholar
Trindade, JPP, Quadros, FLF and Pillar, VD (2008) Grassland vegetation of sandy patches of Rio Grande do Sul under grazing and exclosure. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 43, 771779.Google Scholar
White, PJ (2012) Ion Uptake Mechanisms of Individual Cells and Roots: Short-distance Transport. 3rd edition. Adelaide: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, IJ and Westoby, M (2003) Nutrient concentration, resorption and lifespan: leaf traits of Australian sclerophyll species. Functional Ecology 17, 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, IJ, Reich, PB, Westoby, M, Ackerly, DD, Baruch, Z, Bongers, F, Cavender-Bares, J, Chapin, T, Cornelissen, JHC, Diemer, M, Flexas, J, Garnier, E, Groom, PK, Gulias, J, Hikosaka, K, Lamont, BB, Lee, T, Lee, W, Lusk, C, Midgley, JJ, Navas, M-L, Niinemets, Ü, Oleksyn, J, Osada, N, Poorter, H, Poot, P, Prior, L, Pyankov, VI, Roumet, C, Thomas, SC, Tjoelker, MG, Veneklaas, EJ and Villar, R (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z, Culvenor, RA, Haling, RE, Stefanski, A, Ryan, MH, Sandral, GA, Kidd, DR, Lambers, H and Simpson, RJ (2015) Variation in root traits associated with nutrient foraging among temperate pasture legumes and grasses. Grass and Forage Science 72, 111.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Marques et al. supplementary material

Marques et al. supplementary material

Download Marques et al. supplementary material(File)
File 69.6 KB