N-transfer through aspen litter and feather moss layers after fertilization with ammonium nitrate and urea

When fertilizer is broadcast in boreal forest stands, the applied nutrients must pass through a thick layer of either feather moss or leaf litter which covers the forest floor. In a growth chamber experiment we tested the transfer of N through living feather moss or aspen litter when fertilized with urea ((NH2)2CO) or NH4NO3 at a rate of 100 kg ha−1 and under different watering regimes. When these organic substrates were frequently watered to excess they allowed the highest transfer of nutrients through, although 72% of the applied fertilizer was captured in the substrates. In a field experiment we also fertilized moss and aspen litter with urea ((NH2)2CO) or NH4NO3 at a more operationally relevant rate of 330 kg ha−1. We captured the NO3− or NH4+ by ion exchange resin at the substrate–mineral soil interface. In contrast to the growth chamber experiment, this fertilizer rate killed the moss and there was no detectable increase in nutrient levels in the aspen litter or feather moss layers. Instead, the urea was more likely transferred into the mineral soil; mineral soil of the urea treatment had 1.6 times as much extractable N compared to the NH4NO3 treatment. This difference between the growth chamber and field studies was attributed to observed fertilizer- damage to the living moss and possibly damage to the litter microflora due to the higher rate of fertilization in the field. In addition, the early and substantial rainfall after fertilization in the field experiment produced conditions for rapid leaching of N through the organic layers into the mineral soil. In the field, only 8% of the urea-N that was applied was captured by the ion exchange resin, while 34% was captured in for the NH4NO3 fertilization. Thus, the conditions for rapid leaching in the field moved much of the N in the form of urea through the organic layers and into the mineral soil before it was hydrolyzed

The handbook for standardized field and laboratory measurements in terrestrial climate change experiments and observational studies (ClimEx)

1. Climate change is a world‐wide threat to biodiversity and ecosystem structure, functioning and services. To understand the underlying drivers and mechanisms, and to predict the consequences for nature and people, we urgently need better understanding of the direction and magnitude of climate change impacts across the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. An increasing number of climate change studies are creating new opportunities for meaningful and high‐quality generalizations and improved process understanding. However, significant challenges exist related to data availability and/or compatibility across studies, compromising opportunities for data re‐use, synthesis and upscaling. Many of these challenges relate to a lack of an established ‘best practice’ for measuring key impacts and responses. This restrains our current understanding of complex processes and mechanisms in terrestrial ecosystems related to climate change. 2. To overcome these challenges, we collected best‐practice methods emerging from major ecological research networks and experiments, as synthesized by 115 experts from across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Our handbook contains guidance on the selection of response variables for different purposes, protocols for standardized measurements of 66 such response variables and advice on data management. Specifically, we recommend a minimum subset of variables that should be collected in all climate change studies to allow data re‐use and synthesis, and give guidance on additional variables critical for different types of synthesis and upscaling. The goal of this community effort is to facilitate awareness of the importance and broader application of standardized methods to promote data re‐use, availability, compatibility and transparency. We envision improved research practices that will increase returns on investments in individual research projects, facilitate second‐order research outputs and create opportunities for collaboration across scientific communities. Ultimately, this should significantly improve the quality and impact of the science, which is required to fulfil society's needs in a changing world

Does the Relationship Between Tree Vigor and Defense Respond to Fertilization and Thinning?

Waring and Pitman suggested that high growth efficiency (GE) (i.e. basal area increment/sapwood area - considered a measure of tree vigor) is related to the ability of lodgepole pine to defend against mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) (MPB). In this study we explore the relationship between GE, and other measures of vigor such as tree size, live crown ratio, growth increment, stem, foliage nutrients and root carbohydrate reserves. We then compare these measures of vigor with characteristics of tree defense such as density of resin ducts, monoterpenes and size of phloem lesions after inoculation with Grossmania clavigera (a blue stain fungus associated with MPB). In a field experiment we tested the suggested relationship between vigor and defense by thinning and fertilization in ten pure lodgepole pine stands in central Alberta. In the third summer after the fertilization and thinning treatment we inoculated trees with the blue stain fungus. The combination of fertilization and thinning increased GE and resin duct density but negatively impacted starch reserves. Lesion size increased with tree size in control plots, however, this relationship was lost when trees were fertilized and thinned. This suggests that treatments to increase growth rate also increased constitutive defenses in larger trees