Natural regeneration of Picea abies (Pinaceae) in mid-boreal bilberry-type spruce forest: growth, root system development and nutrient uptake in different microsites

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The study investigated the effects of the microsites (intact forest floor, logs, tree-fall holes with ruined forest floor) on growth, root system development, and nutrient uptake in naturally regenerating Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst) plants in a mid-boreal bilberry-type spruce stand. We detected no significant effect of the microsites on the plants’ relative height increment. Relative trunk diameter increment rates were the highest in plants developing on logs and the lowest in tree-fall holes. There are functional and morphological distinctions in the organization of root systems in microsites of different types. In log microsites (nutrient-rich substrate, no root competition from the keystone species), root systems are able to utilize the substrate’s resources through the extensive (increase in specific length of conducting roots) as well as the intensive (increase in the average absorbing root length and surface area of ectomycorrhiza (EM) and ectendomycorrhiza (EEM)) pathways. The plants “invest” more efficiently in the growth of conducting roots – spending less organic matter to form longer conducting roots. The removal of the forest floor (top organic layer of soil) in tree-fall holes causes a reduction in nutrient content in the substrate. In this situation, root systems are modified to augment the uptake of soil resources (increase in the specific area of fine roots and surface area of EM), providing the plants with sufficient amount of nutrients to maintain a growth rate comparable to that of the plants in undisturbed-soil microsites.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. V. Kireeva

Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: avkikeeva@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

E. V. Novichonok

Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: avkikeeva@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

I. N. Sofronova

Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: avkikeeva@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

N. V. Genikova

Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: avkikeeva@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

N. V. Afoshin

Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: avkikeeva@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Petrozavodsk

References

  1. Voronov A. G. 1973. [Geobotanika]. Moscow. 384 p. (In Russian)
  2. McCarthy J. 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: A review with particular attention to boreal forests. — Environ. Rev. 9(1): 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-9-1-1
  3. von Oheimb G., Friedel A., Bertsch A., Härdtle W. 2007. The effects of windthrow on plant species richness in a Central European beech forest. — Plant Ecol. 191(1): 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-006-9213-5
  4. Smirnova O. V., Alejnikov A. A., Semikolenny`x A. A., Bovkunov A. D., Zaprudina M. V., Smirnov N. S. 2013. [Typological and structural diversity of the middle taiga Ural forests]. — In: [Diversity and dynamics of the forest ecosystems]. Moscow. Vol. 2. P. 42–66. (In Russian)
  5. Harmon M. E., Franklin J. F., Swanson F. J., Sollins P., Gregory S. V., Lattin J. D., Anderson N. H., Cline S. P., Aumen N. G., Sedell J. R., Lienkaemper G. W., Cromack K. Jr., Cummins K. W. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. — Adv. Ecol. Res. 15: 133–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60121-X
  6. Kuuluvainen T. 2002. Natural variability of forests as a reference for restoring and managing biological diversity in boreal Fennoscandia. — Silva Fenn. 36(1): 552. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.552
  7. Kuuluvainen T., Laiho R. 2004. Long-term forest utilization can decrease forest floor microhabitat diversity: evidence from boreal Fennoscandia. — Can. J. For. Res. 34(2): 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-159
  8. Kupferschmid A. D., Bugmann H. 2005. Effect of microsites, logs and ungulate browsing on Picea abies regeneration in a mountain forest. — Forest Ecol. Manag. 205(1–3): 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.008
  9. Kreutz A., Aakala T., Grenfell R., Kuuluvainen T. 2015. Spatial tree community structure in three stands across a forest succession gradient in northern boreal Fennoscandia. — Silva Fenn. 49(2): 1279. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1279
  10. Ulanova N. G. 2000. The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: a review. — Forest Ecol. Manag. 135(1–3): 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00307-8
  11. Fraver S., Milo A. M., Bradford J. B., D’Amato A. W., Kenefic L., Palik B. J., Woodall C. W., Brissette J. 2013. Woody debris volume depletion through decay: implications for biomass and carbon accounting. — Ecosyst. 16(7): 1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9682-z
  12. Bobkova K. S., Bessonov I. M. 2009. Natural regeneration in southern taiga spruce forests of the European North-East. — Rus. J. For. Sci. 5: 10–16. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13500448 (In Russian)
  13. Storozhenko V. G. 2022. Features of the horizontal structure of the forests of spruce formations in the European taiga of Russia. — Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal). 2(386): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.37482/0536-1036-2022-2-39-49 (In Russian)
  14. Szewczyk J., Szwagrzyk J. 1996. Tree regeneration on rotten wood and on soil in old-growth stand. — Vegetatio. 122(1): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00052814
  15. Hörnberg G., Ohlson M., Zackrisson O. 1997. Influence of bryophytes and microrelief conditions on Picea abies seed regeneration patterns in boreal old-growth swamp forests. — Can. J. For. Res. 27(7): 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1139/x97-045
  16. Kuuluvainen T., Kalmari R. 2004. Regeneration microsites of Picea abies seedlings in a windthrow area of a boreal old-growth forest in southern Finland. — Ann. Bot. Fenn. 40(6): 401–413. https://www.sekj.org/PDF/anbf40/anbf40-401.pdf
  17. Lilja S., Wallenius T., Kuuluvainen T. 2006. Structure and development of old Picea abies forests in northern boreal Fennoscandia. — Écoscience. 13(2): 181–192. https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-13-2-181.1
  18. Voronova V. S. 1959. [Natural regeneration under spruce forest canopy]. — Trudy Karelskogo filiala AN SSSR. XVI: 30–37. (In Russian)
  19. Kuuluvainen T. 1994. Gap disturbance, ground microtopography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in Finland: a review. — Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31(1): 35–51.
  20. Nilsson U., Gemmel P., Hallgren J.E. 1996. Competing vegetation effects on initial growth of planted Picea abies. New Zealand. —J. For. Sci. 26(1–2): 84–98.
  21. Ilisson T., Köster K., Vodde F., Jõgiste K. 2007. Regeneration development 4–5 years after a storm in Norway spruce dominated forests, Estonia. — Forest Ecology and Management. 250(1–2): 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.022
  22. Holeksa J., Żywiec M., Bogdziewicz M., Kurek P., Milne-Rostkowska F., Piechnik Ł., Seget B. 2021. Microsite-specific 25-year mortality of Norway spruce saplings. — Forest Ecol. Manag. 498: 119572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119572
  23. Vitousek P. M., Howarth R. W. 1991. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: How can it occur? — Biogeochemistry. 13(2): 87–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00002772
  24. Fedorecz N. G., Morozova R. M., Sin’kevich S. M., Zagural’skaya L. M. 2000. [Evaluation of the forest soils productivity in Karelia]. Petrozavodsk. 193 p. (In Russian)
  25. Giesler R., Petersson T., Högberg P. 2002. Phosphorus limitation in boreal forests: effects of aluminum and iron accumulation in the humus layer. — Ecosyst. 5(3): 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0073-5
  26. Marschner H., Dell B. 1994. Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. — Plant Soil. 159(1): 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000098
  27. Brunner I., Brodbeck S. 2001. Response of mycorrhizal Norway spruce seedlings to various nitrogen loads and sources. — Environ. Pollut. 114(2): 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00219-0
  28. Bogeat-Triboulot M.-B., Bartoli F., Garbaye J., Marmeisse R., Tagu D. 2004. Fungal ectomycorrhizal community and drought affect root hydraulic properties and soil adherence to roots of Pinus pinaster seedlings. — Plant Soil. 267(1–2): 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-5349-7
  29. Shubin V. I. 1973. [Micotrophy of woody species]. Leningrad. 264 p. (In Russian)
  30. Kalliokoski T., Nygren P., Sievänen R. 2008. Coarse root architecture of three boreal tree species growing in mixed stands. — Silva Fenn. 42(2): 252. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.252
  31. Børja I., De Wit H. A., Steffenrem A., Majdi H. 2008. Stand age and fine root biomass, distribution and morphology in a Norway spruce chronosequence in southeast Norway. — Tree Physiol. 28(5): 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/28.5.773
  32. Ellenberg H. 1988. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. 753 p.
  33. Niinemets Ü., Valladares F. 2006. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs. — Ecol. Monogr. 76(4): 521–547. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076[0521:TTSDAW]2.0.CO;2
  34. Adams T. S., McCormack M. L., Eissenstat D. M. 2013. Foraging strategies in trees of different root morphology: the role of root lifespan. — Tree Physiol. 33(9): 940–948. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt067
  35. Helmisaari H. S., Ostonen I., Lõhmus K., Derome J., Lindroos A. J., Merilä P., Nöjd P. 2009. Ectomycorrhizal root tips in relation to site and stand characteristics in Norway spruce and Scots pine stands in boreal forests. — Tree Physiol. 29(3): 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpn042
  36. Ostonen I., Helmisaari H., Borken W., Tedersoo L., Kukumägi M., Bahram M., Lindroos A., Nöjd P., Uri V., Merilä P., Asi E., Lõhmus K. 2011. Fine root foraging strategies in Norway spruce forests across a European climate gradient. — Glob. Change Biol. 17(12): 3620–3632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02501.x
  37. Ostonen I., Rosenvald K., Helmisaari H.-S., Godbold D., Parts K., Uri V., Lõhmus K. 2013. Morphological plasticity of ectomycorrhizal short roots in Betula sp. and Picea abies forests across climate and forest succession gradients: its role in changing environments. — Front. Plant Sci. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00335
  38. Eissenstat D. M., Kucharski J. M., Zadworny M., Adams T. S., Koide R. T. 2015. Linking root traits to nutrient foraging in arbuscular mycorrhizal trees in a temperate forest. — New Phytol. 208(1): 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13451
  39. Baier R., Ettl R., Hahn C., Göttlein A. 2006. Early development and nutrition of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings on different seedbeds in the Bavarian limestone Alps – a bioassay. — Ann. For. Sci. 63(4): 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2006014
  40. McCormack M. L., Dickie I. A., Eissenstat D. M., Fahey T. J., Fernandez C. W., Guo D., Helmisaari H., Hobbie E. A., Iversen C. M., Jackson R. B., Leppälammi-Kujansuu J., Norby R. J., Phillips R. P., Pregitzer K. S., Pritchard S. G., Rewald B., Zadworny M. 2015. Redefining fine roots improves understanding of below-ground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. — New Phytol. 207(3): 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13363
  41. Pregitzer K. S. 2002. Fine roots of trees – a new perspective. — New Phytol. 154(2): 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00413_1.x
  42. Ford E. D., Deans J. D. 1977. Growth of a Sitka spruce plantation: Spatial distribution and seasonal fluctuations of lengths, weights and carbohydrate concentrations of fine roots. — Plant Soil. 47(2): 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00011504
  43. Clemensson-Lindell A. 1994. Triphenyltetrazolium chloride as an indicator of fine-root vitality and environmental stress in coniferous forest stands: Applications and limitations. — Plant Soil. 159(2): 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00009293
  44. Lõhmus K., Oja T., Lasn R. 1989. Specific root area: A soil characteristic. — Plant Soil. 119(2): 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02370415
  45. Niinemets U., Kull O. 1995. Effects of light availability and tree size on the architecture of assimilative surface in the canopy of Picea abies: variation in needle morphology. — Tree Physiol. 15(5): 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/15.5.307
  46. Johansson K., Langvall O., Bergh J. 2012. Optimization of environmental factors affecting initial growth of Norway spruce seedlings. — Silva Fenn. 46(1): 64. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.64
  47. Macek M., Wild J., Kopecký M., Červenka J., Svoboda M., Zenáhlíková J., Brůna J., Mosandl R., Fischer A. 2017. Life and death of Picea abies after bark-beetle outbreak: ecological processes driving seedling recruitment. — Ecol. Appl. 27(1): 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1429
  48. Thorsen Å. A., Mattsson S., Weslien J. 2001. Influence of stem diameter on the survival and growth of containerized Norway spruce seedlings attacked by pine weevils (Hylobius spp.). — Scand. J. For. Res. 16(1): 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/028275801300004415
  49. Romashkin I., Shorohova E., Kapitsa E., Galibina N., Nikerova K. 2021. Substrate quality regulates density loss, cellulose degradation and nitrogen dynamics in downed woody debris in a boreal forest. — For. Ecol. Manag. 491: 119143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119143
  50. Boddy L., Watkinson S. C. 1995. Wood decomposition, higher fungi, and their role in nutrient redistribution. — Can. J. Bot. 73(S1): 1377–1383. https://doi.org/10.1139/b95-400
  51. Vodde F., Jõgiste K., Gruson L., Ilisson T., Köster K., Stanturf J.A. 2010. Regeneration in windthrow areas in hemiboreal forests: the influence of microsite on the height growths of different tree species. — J. For. Res. 15(1): 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-009-0156-2
  52. Kathke S., Bruelheide H. 2010. Interaction of gap age and microsite type for the regeneration of Picea abies. — For. Ecol. Manag. 259(8): 1597–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.036
  53. Guo D., Xia M., Wei X., Chang W., Liu Y., Wang Z. 2008. Anatomical traits associated with absorption and mycorrhizal colonization are linked to root branch order in twenty‐three Chinese temperate tree species. — New Phytol. 180(3): 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02573.x
  54. Celma S., Blate K., Lazdiņa D., Dūmiņš K., Neimane S., Štāls T. A., Štikāne K. 2019. Effect of soil preparation method on root development of P. sylvestris and P. abies saplings in commercial forest stands. — New Forest. 50(2): 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9654-4
  55. Novichonok E. V., Galibina N. A., Kharitonov V. A., Kikeeva A. V., Nikerova K. M., Sofronova I. N., Rumyantsev A. S. 2020. Effect of site preparation under shelterwood on Norway spruce seedlings. — Scand. J. For. Res. 35(8): 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1825789
  56. Lõhmus K., Truu M., Truu J., Ostonen I., Kaar E., Vares A., Uri V., Alama S., Kanal A. 2006. Functional diversity of culturable bacterial communities in the rhizosphere in relation to fine-root and soil parameters in alder stands on forest, abandoned agricultural, and oil-shale mining areas. — Plant Soil. 283(1–2): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-2509-8
  57. Ostonen I., Püttsepp Ü., Biel C., Alberton O., Bakker M. R., Lõhmus K., Majdi H., Metcalfe D., Olsthoorn A. F. M., Pronk A., Vanguelova E., Weih M., Brunner I. 2007. Specific root length as an indicator of environmental change. — Plant Biosyst. 141(3): 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500701626069
  58. Ryser P. 2006. The mysterious root length. — Plant Soil. 286(1–2): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9096-1
  59. White P. J., George T. S., Gregory P. J., Bengough A. G., Hallett P. D., McKenzie B. M. 2013. Matching roots to their environment. — Ann. Bot. 112(2): 207–222.https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct123
  60. Wen Z., White P. J., Shen J., Lambers H. 2022. Linking root exudation to belowground economic traits for resource acquisition. — New Phytol. 233(4): 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17854
  61. Hanssen K. H. 2003. Natural regeneration of Picea abies on small clear-cuts in SE Norway. — For. Ecol. Manag. 180(1–3): 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00610-2
  62. Craine J. M. 2006. Competition for nutrients and optimal root allocation. — Plant Soil. 285(1–2): 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-9002-x
  63. Craine J. M., Dybzinski R. 2013. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. – Funct. Ecol. 27(4): 833–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12081
  64. Madsen C., Potvin C., Hall J., Sinacore K., Turner B. L., Schnabel F. 2020. Coarse root architecture: Neighbourhood and abiotic environmental effects on five tropical tree species growing in mixtures and monocultures. — For. Ecol. Manag. 460: 117851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117851
  65. Ostonen I., Lõhmus K., Lasn R. 1999. The role of soil conditions in fine root ecomorphology in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). — Plant Soil. 208(2): 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004552907597
  66. Eissenstat D. M. 1991. On the relationship between specific root length and the rate of root proliferation: a field study using citrus rootstocks. — New Phytol. 118(1): 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1991.tb00565.x
  67. Fitter A. 1991. Characteristics and functions of root systems. — In: Plant roots: the hidden half. New York. P. 3–24.
  68. Pennanen T., Heiskanen J., Korkama T. 2005. Dynamics of ectomycorrhizal fungi and growth of Norway spruce seedlings after planting on a mounded forest clearcut. — For. Ecol. Manag. 213(1–3): 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.044
  69. Ingestad T. 1979. Mineral nutrient requirements of Pinus silvestris and Picea abies seedlings. — Physiol. Plant. 45(4): 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1979.tb02599.x
  70. Cape J. N., Freer-Smith P. H., Paterson I. S., Parkinson J. A., Wolfenden J. 1990. The nutritional status of Picea abies (L.) Karst. across Europe, and implications for ?forest decline? — Trees. 4(4): 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00225318
  71. Ingestad T. 1959. Studies on the nutrition of forest tree seedlings. II Mineral nutrition of spruce. — Physiol. Plant. 12(3): 568–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1959.tb07979.x
  72. Comerford N. B., Fisher R. F. 1984. Using foliar analysis to classify nitrogen-deficient sites. — Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48(4): 910–913. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800040042x
  73. Peng Y., Niklas K. J., Sun S. 2011. The relationship between relative growth rate and whole-plant C : N : P stoichiometry in plant seedlings grown under nutrient-enriched conditions. — J. Pl. Ecol. 4(3): 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtq026

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Annual relative height increment (А) and relative diameter increment (Б) in naturally regenerating Norway spruce in different microsites (1 – intact forest floor, 2 – log, 3 – tree-fall hole). Letter indexes represent statistically significant differences between variants of the microsites (in each specific year). Lines and black squares show the median and the arithmetic mean (respectively), rectangles – the interquartile range, whiskers – values within 1.5 of interquartile range. X-axis – microsite type and year; y-axis – relative increment, dimension – mm.

Download (146KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences