Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:42:18.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CARBON AND NUTRIENT CYCLING THROUGH FINE ROOTS IN RUBBER (HEVEA BRASILIENSIS) PLANTATIONS IN INDIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2013

M. D. JESSY ,
P. PRASANNAKUMARI  and
JOSHUA ABRAHAM
M. D. JESSY*
Affiliation:
Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Kerala, India
P. PRASANNAKUMARI
Affiliation:
Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Kerala, India
JOSHUA ABRAHAM
Affiliation:
Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Kerala, India
*
†Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Understanding the growth dynamics of fine roots and their contribution to soil organic carbon and nutrient pools is crucial for estimating ecosystem carbon and nutrient cycling and how these are influenced by climate change. Rubber is cultivated in more than 10 million hectare globally and the area under rubber cultivation is fast expanding due to socio-economic reasons, apart from the importance given to this species for eco-restoration of degraded lands. An experiment was conducted to quantify fine root production, fine root turnover and carbon and nutrient cycling through fine roots in rubber plantations with different soil nutrient status and rainfall pattern. Fine root production was estimated by sequential coring and ingrowth core methods. Fine root decomposition was determined by the litter bag technique. Carbon and nutrient contents in fine roots were determined and their turnover was computed. Fine root biomass in the top 0–7.5-cm soil layer showed significant seasonal fluctuation and the fluctuations were particularly wide during the transition period from the dry season to the rainy season. Fine root production estimated by the different methods was significantly higher at the lower fertility site and during the higher soil moisture stress year. Fine root turnover ranged from 1.04 to 2.29 year−1. Root carbon and nutrient status showed seasonal variation and lower status was observed during the rainy season. The annual recycling of C, N, P, K, Ca and Mg through fine roots ranged from 590 to 1758, 30 to 85, 3 to 12, 13 to 31, 11 to 35 and 6 to 13 kg ha−1, respectively. Substantial quantities of carbon and nutrients were recycled annually in rubber plantations through fine roots. When soil moisture and nutrient stress were more severe, fine root production, turnover and carbon and nutrient recycling through fine roots were higher.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 556 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

REFERENCES

Agren, G., Axelsson, B., Flower-Ellis, J. G. K., Linder, T., Person, H., Staaf, H. and Troeng, E. (1980). Annual carbon budget for a young Scots pine. Ecological Bulletin 32:307–313.Google Scholar
Bouillet, J. P., Laclau, J. P. and Arnaud, M. (2002). Changes with age in the spatial distribution of roots of Eucalyptus clone in Congo: impact on water and nutrient uptake. Forest Ecology and Management 171:43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braekke, F. H. (1995). Responses of under storey vegetation and Scots pine root systems to fertilization at multiple deficiency stress. Plant and Soil 168–169:179–185.Google Scholar
Bray, R. H. and Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59:39–45.Google Scholar
Cheng, X. and Bledsoe, C. S. (2002). Contrasting seasonal patterns of fine root production for blue oaks Quercus douglassi and annual grasses in California oak woodland. Plant and Soil 240:263–274.Google Scholar
Edwards, N. T. and Harris, W. F. (1977). Carbon cycling in a mixed deciduous forest floor. Ecology 58:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, T. J. and Hughes, J. W. (1994). Fine root dynamics in a northern hard wood forest ecosystem. Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Journal of Ecology 82:533–548.Google Scholar
Fahey, T. J., Hughes, J. W., Pu, M. and Arthur, M. A. (1988). Root decomposition in nutrient flux following whole tree harvest of northern hard wood forest. Forest Science 34:744–768.Google Scholar
Fairley, R. I. and Alexander, I. J. (1985). Methods of calculation fine root production in forests In Ecological Interactions in Soil, Plants, Microbes and Animals, 37–42 (Eds Fitter, A. H., Alkinson, D. and Read, D. J.). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Forde, B. and Lorenzo, H. (2001). The nutritional control of root development. Plant and Soil 232:51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, E., Seith, B., Schaeffer, C. and Marschner, H. (1997). Responses of Picea, Pinus and Pseudotsuga roots to heterogeneous nutrient distribution in soil. Tree Physiology 17:39–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, S., Suresh, P. R., Wahid, P. A., Nair, R. B. and Punnoose, K. I. (2009). Active root distribution pattern of Hevea brasiliensis determined by radioassay of latex serum. Agroforestry Systems 76:275–281.Google Scholar
Green, J. J., Dawson, L. A., Proctor, J., Duff, E. I. and Elston, D. A. (2005). Fine root dynamics in a tropical rain forest is influenced by rainfall. Plant and Soil 276:23–32.Google Scholar
Hertel, D. and Leuschner, C. (2002). A comparison of four different fine root production estimates with ecosystem carbon balance data in a Fagus–Quercus mixed forest. Plant and Soil 239:237–251.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis, 498 pp. New York: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. B., Mooney, H. A. and Schulze, E. D. (1997). A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area and nutrient contents. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA 94:7362–7366.Google Scholar
Jessy, M. D. (2004). Phosphorus Nutrioperiodism in Rubber. PhD thesis, Kerala Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Jessy, M. D., Meera Bai, M., Nair, A. N. S. and Meti, S. (2007). Adaptability to low soil phosphorus in rubber trees: role of roots and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Journal of Plantation Crops 35:133–138.Google Scholar
Jessy, M. D., Meera Bai, M., Rajendran, P., Geethakumari, L., Nair, A. N. S. and Philip, S. (2008). Adaptability of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) trees to low soil phosphorus. Some mechanisms involved. Journal of Plantation Crops 30:12–18.Google Scholar
Jessy, M. D., Prasannakumari, P., Nair, R. B., Vijayakumar, K. R. and Nair, N. U. (2010). Influence of soil moisture and nutrient status on fine root dynamics of rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis). Journal of Plantation Crops 38:92–96.Google Scholar
Jessy, M. D., Thomas, V. and Vijayakumar, K. R. (2005). Fine root production of rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) in relation to precipitation. Preprints of papers, International Natural Rubber Conference, India, 156–163.Google Scholar
Jha, P. and Mohapatra, K. P. (2010). Leaf litterfall, fine root production and turnover in four major tree species of the semi-arid region of India. Plant and Soil 326:481–491.Google Scholar
Jourdan, C., Silva, E. V., Goncalves, J. L. M., Ranger, J., Moreira, R. M. and Laclau, J. P. (2008). Fine root production and turnover in Brazilean Eucalyptus plantations under contrasting nitrogen fertilizer regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 256:396–404.Google Scholar
Joslin, J. D. and Wolfe, M. H. (1998) Impacts of water input manipulations on fine root production and mortality in a mature hardwood forest. Plant and Soil 204:165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, M. R. and Grier, C. C. (1981). Above and below ground production in 40 year old Douglas fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11:599–605.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, A. K., Gupta, C., Sinha, R. R., Sethuraj, M. R., Potty, S. N., Eappen, T. and Das, K. (1991). Ecological impact of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations in North East India: 2. Soil properties and biomass recycling. Indian Journal of Rubber Research 4 (2):134–141.Google Scholar
Leuschner, C. and Hertel, D. (2002). Fine root biomass of temperate forests in relation to soil acidity and fertility, climate, age and species. Progress in Botany 64:405–438.Google Scholar
Leuschner, C., Hertel, D., Schmid, I., Koch, O., Muhs, A. and Holscher, D. (2004). Stand fine root morphology in old-growth beech forests as a function of precipitation and soil fertility. Plant and Soil 258:43–56.Google Scholar
Levillain, J., M'Bou, A. T., Deleporte, P., Saint-Andre, D. and Jourdan, C. (2011). Is the simple auger coring method reliable for below-ground standing biomass estimation in Eucalyptus forest plantations? Annals of Botany 108:221–230.Google Scholar
Lopez, B., Sabate, S. and Garcia, C. A. (2001). Annual and seasonal changes in the fine root biomass of a Quercus ilex L forest. Plant and Soil 230:125–134.Google Scholar
Majdi, H., Pregitzer, K., Morien, A., Nylund, J. and Agren, G. J. (2005). Measuring fine root turn over in forest ecosystems. Plant and Soil 276:1–8.Google Scholar
McClaugherty, C., Aber, J. D. and Melillo, J. M. (1982). The role of fine roots in the organic matter and nitrogen budgets of two forested ecosystems. Ecology 63:1481.Google Scholar
McGroddy, M. and Silver, W. L. (2000). Variations in belowground carbon storage and soil CO2 flux rates along a wet tropical climate gradient. Biotropica 32:614–622Google Scholar
Morgan, M. F. (1941). Chemical Diagnosis by the Universal Soil Testing System, 450. Bulletin of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Persson, H. A. and Stadenberg, I. (2010). Fine root dynamics in a Norway spruce forest (Picea abies (L.) Karst) in eastern Sweden. Plant and Soil 330:329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, W. M., Emmanuel, W. R., Zinke, P. J. and Stangenberger, A. G. (1982). Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298:156–159.Google Scholar
Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C. and Dignac, M. F. (2005). Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilization. Plant and Soil 269:341–356.Google Scholar
Soong, N. K. (1976). Feeder root development of Hevea brasiliensis in relation to clones and environment. Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia 24:283–298.Google Scholar
Steingrobe, B., Scmid, H. and Classen, N. (2001). Root production and root mortality of winter barley and its implication with regard to phosphate acquisition. Plant and Soil 237:239–248.Google Scholar
Valverde-Barrantes, O. J., Raich, J. W. and Russell, A. E. (2007). Fine root mass, growth and nitrogen content for six tropical tree species. Plant and Soil 290:257–370.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M. and Sanford, R. L. Jr (1986). Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forests. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17:137–167.Google Scholar
Vogel, A. I. (1969). A Text Book of the Qualitative Inorganic Analysis including Elementary Instrumental Analysis, 744–745. London: The English Language Book Society and Longman.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. A. and Presson, H. (1991). Root methods. In Techniques and Approaches in Forest Tree Ecophysiology, 477–502 (Eds Lassoie, J. P. and Hinkley, C.). Boca Raton, FL: RC Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. A., Vogt, D. J. and Bloomfield, J. (1998). Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level. Plant and Soil 200:71–89.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. A., Vogt, D. J., Palmiotto, P. A., Boon, P., O'Hara, J. and Asbjornsen, H. (1996). Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species. Plant and Soil 187:159–219.Google Scholar