ArticleAnnals of botany2019
Cluster root-bearing Proteaceae species show a competitive advantage over non-cluster root-bearing species.
Article in Annals of botany, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do aluminum (Al)-hyperaccumulator and phosphorus (P)-solubilising species assist neighbouring plants sensitive to Al toxicity and P deficiency?Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Apoplastic histochemical features of plant root walls that may facilitate ion uptake and retention.Open life sciences · 2021Article
- Root traits benefitting crop production in environments with limited water and nutrient availability.Annals of botany · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCluster roots (CRs) constitute a special root adaptation that enables plants to take up nutrients, especially phosphorus (P), from soils with low nutrient availability, including recent volcanic deposits. It is unclear, however, how CR species interact with non-cluster root-bearing (NCR) species, and how substrates' fertility modulates potential interactions.
methodsWe experimentally assessed the net interaction between CR and NCR species using two substrates of contrasting fertility: nutrient-rich nursery mix and tephra (low P availability). We planted seedlings of two southern South American (SSA) Proteaceae, CR species and two NCR Nothofagus species in pairs (conspecifics and heterospecifics) and as singles. We analysed the effect of seedling neighbours on survival, growth performance (e.g. total biomass and leaf area) and leaf and substrate nutrient concentrations (including manganese, a proxy for P-acquisition efficiency through CR activity) using the relative interaction index. KEY
resultsAfter three growing seasons, we found that (1) Proteaceae species had fewer CRs and lower CR biomass and grew less in the tephra than in the nursery substrate; (2) Nothofagus species did not improve their survival and growth in the presence of Proteaceae species in any substrate; (3) contrary to Nothofagus, Proteaceae species improved their growth more when planted with any neighbour (including conspecifics) than when planted alone, which was accompanied by a significant accretion of leaf P; and (4) the presence of a neighbour increased the final nitrogen and P concentrations in the nursery substrate, regardless of species identity.
conclusionsCRs provide Proteaceae a competitive advantage over NCR species at the seedling stage, which may have important consequences for species coexistence and community structuring. The investigated SSA Proteaceae, which have not evolved in nutrient-impoverished soils, as have their relatives in south-western Australia and South Africa, improve their growth when cultivated in pairs, especially in nutrient-rich substrates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.