Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:10:51.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus resorption efficiencies in trees and lianas from a tropical montane rain forest in Xishuangbanna, south-west China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2007

Zhi-quan Cai
Affiliation:
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla 666303, China Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Centre for Ecosystem Studies, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
Frans Bongers
Affiliation:
Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Centre for Ecosystem Studies, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract

Tropical montane rain forest is widely considered to be a highly threatened hotspot of global diversity (Brummitt & Nic Lughadha 2003), and one of the least understood humid tropical forest ecosystems in terms of nutrient cycling (Bruijnzeel & Proctor 1995). There is, therefore, an urgent need to improve our understanding of nutrient cycling processes in this ecosystem, including the absorption of nutrients (mainly N and P) from senescing leaves, which may be a key component of adaptive mechanisms that conserve limiting nutrients (Killingbeck 1996). Nutrients which are not resorbed, however, will be circulated through litterfall in the longer term (Aerts 1996). The degree of nutrient resorption affects litter quality, which consequently affects decomposition rates and soil nutrient availability (Aerts & Chapin 2000). The importance of resorption in nutrient conservation has led to general hypotheses that species adapted to nutrient-poor environments have high resorption efficiencies (Richardson et al. 2005), and that low leaf nutrient concentrations are associated with high resorption efficiencies within species (Aerts 1996, Kobe et al. 2005). Nutrient resorption has also been shown not to differ greatly between growth forms (e.g. shrubs, grasses, forbs and trees) (Aerts 1996). However, its relative importance among plant functional groups is still highly controversial (Richardson et al. 2005).

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
2007 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.)