SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • extracellular enzyme;
  • meta-analysis;
  • nitrogen;
  • nitrogen deposition;
  • nutrient availability;
  • nutrient limitation;
  • phosphatase;
  • phosphorus

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • Biologically essential elements – especially nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) – constrain plant growth and microbial functioning; however, human activities are drastically altering the magnitude and pattern of such nutrient limitations on land. Here we examine interactions between N and P cycles of P mineralizing enzyme activities (phosphatase enzymes) across a wide variety of terrestrial biomes.
  • We synthesized results from 34 separate studies and used meta-analysis to evaluate phosphatase activity with N, P, or N×P fertilization.
  • Our results show that N fertilization enhances phosphatase activity, from the tropics to the extra-tropics, both on plant roots and in bulk soils. By contrast, P fertilization strongly suppresses rates of phosphatase activity.
  • These results imply that phosphatase enzymes are strongly responsive to changes in local nutrient cycle conditions. We also show that plant phosphatases respond more strongly to fertilization than soil phosphatases. The tight coupling between N and P provides a mechanism for recent observations of N and P co-limitation on land. Moreover, our results suggest that terrestrial plants and microbes can allocate excess N to phosphatase enzymes, thus delaying the onset of single P limitation to plant productivity as can occur via human modifications to the global N cycle.

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Chemical elements – most commonly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) – constrain plant productivity and microbial functioning in the vast majority of terrestrial ecosystems (Vitousek & Howarth, 1991; Elser et al., 2007). Human activities have substantially modified N and P cycles, however, thereby altering the pattern, magnitude, and extent of nutrient limitation on land (Falkowski et al., 2000; Schlesinger, 2009). Of particular importance has been the massive rise in anthropogenic N fixation, roughly doubling natural levels of N inputs to the terrestrial biosphere, resulting in widespread eutrophication of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Vitousek et al., 1997). Further, this perturbation can result in divergent outcomes for the terrestrial biosphere: whereas excess N appears to enhance carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake in some cases, it decreases plant biomass and diversity in others (Aber et al., 1989; Clark & Tilman, 2008; Thomas et al., 2010). While mechanisms underlying these differences are complex, they hinge broadly on organisms’ responses to the excess N – particularly whether N leads to enhanced P conservation across terrestrial ecosystems (Vitousek et al., 2010). Here we argue for widespread couplings between N and P cycles, leading to accelerated rates of P cycling in responses to elevated N across many areas of the terrestrial biosphere.

Liebig’s law of the minimum posits that the single scarcest resource in relation to plant demands is most limiting; hence, according to this law, only one resource can limit plant productivity at a time (Liebig, 1842). From an ecophysiological perspective, however, plants (and microbes) are expected to allocate their resource reserves toward strategies that increase the acquisition of the most limiting ones – thus moving toward a point in which all resources simultaneously limit productivity and growth (Bloom et al., 1985; Chapin et al., 2002). This economic analogy would seem to contrast with the idea of single nutrient limitation, as evidenced by N and P co-limitation in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Elser et al., 2007; Harpole et al., 2011). Mechanistically, the preponderance of N and P co-limitation suggests strong couplings between these two nutrients in cells, arising via interactions that link N and P in biomolecules. For instance, mRNA, a relatively P-rich compound, transcribes proteins, which are rich in N and serve important functions such as CO2 uptake (i.e. the enzyme RuBisCO). Consequently, P fuels investment of N at local scales, which then allows for uptake of more carbon (C) at larger ones. However, while these cellular level mechanisms are important, additional large-scale constraints that extend beyond those of individual cells are necessary for understanding long-term controls on N and P cycles, nutrient limitation, and organism-element cycle feedbacks in ecosystems.

An example of larger-scale feedback between N and P involves plant and microbial investments in phosphatase enzymes (McGill & Cole, 1981; Duff et al., 1994). These enzymes are rich in N and appear to be necessary for all forms of life (Duff et al., 1994), allowing recycling and acquisition of P by organisms (Colvan et al., 2001). Extracellular varieties of phosphatase are particularly relevant to nutrient cycling; once exuded into the soil by organisms, these enzymes act to mobilize P from ester-bonded forms, generating phosphate ions that are available for uptake and assimilation. In this way, phosphatases can reduce organisms’ short-term P deficits, and can be used as a proxy for decomposition and nutrient demand (Sinsabaugh et al., 2008).

However, phosphatase enzymes are rich in N, meaning that organisms must sacrifice N to get P via this path (Olander & Vitousek, 2000; Treseder & Vitousek, 2001; Allison, 2005; Houlton et al., 2008). As a result of this coupling between N and P cycles, phosphatase activity is probably highly responsive to changes in both N and P, representing an important strategy by which organisms might be able to adjust to human alternations of global biogeochemical cycles (Gusewell & Freeman, 2005; Wang et al., 2007; Vitousek et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, previous work has not sufficiently demonstrated relationships among N, P and phosphatase across biomes, despite strong theoretical predictions suggesting their existence (Spiers & McGill, 1979; McGill & Cole, 1981; Chen et al., 2002). This is partly attributable to the diversity of phosphatase enzymes (Richardson et al., 2005; Turner, 2008), as measurements of phosphatase activity may only measure a certain type of phosphatase or substrate (Richardson et al., 2005). Additionally, some ecosystem models are beginning to incorporate nutrient dynamics and even phosphatase activity, which has been shown to be important for understanding and predicting climate change at ecosystem to global scales (Wang et al., 2007; Houlton et al., 2008; Wang & Houlton, 2009; Wang et al., 2010b). Thus, understanding and testing hypotheses related to C, N, P and phosphatase are not simply an academic exercise; they have implications that extend well beyond the interactions themselves.

Here we examine the generality of phosphatase-mediated interactions between N and P cycles, using meta-analysis to explore responses of phosphatase to fertilizations with N, P and N×P across different terrestrial ecosystems (Fig. 1). In particular, we tested the following hypotheses.

image

Figure 1. Map of sites of phosphatase activity. Gray triangles indicate sites with only nitrogen (N) fertilizations; black triangles include sites with N and phosphorus (P) fertilization separately; gray circles indicate sites with N and P fertilizations, separately and together; and black circles indicate sites with only P fertilizations.

Download figure to PowerPoint

N fertilization stimulates phosphatase activity  This follows from the logic that phosphatase requires substantial N investment (Olander & Vitousek, 2000), and so adding N to ecosystems increases phosphatase.

P fertilization depresses phosphatase activity  This is consistent with the idea that phosphatase increases available P pools when P is limiting, and adding P to ecosystems is an alternative way to increase available P pools, thus decreasing the severity of P limitation.

N×P fertilization combined stimulates phosphatase activity  This occurs if N fertilization is a stronger control on phosphatase activity than P fertilization; N dictates phosphatase production as phosphatase cannot be produced without adequate N supplies.

N×P fertilization combined depresses phosphatase activity  This occurs if the effect of P fertilization is greater than the effect of N; it is not energetically favorable to obtain P through phosphatase production when inorganic P is abundant.

Finally, in addition to examining the generality of nutrient cycling concepts (i.e. McGill & Cole, 1981), phosphatase enzymes could also be affected by other variables, notably pH, temperature and moisture. Thus, we additionally used our meta-analysis to evaluate interactions among nutrients, phosphatase and other controls.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

To select appropriate studies for our meta-analysis, we searched Web of Science, entering combinations of the keywords nitrogen, phosphorus, fertilization, deposition, phosphatase, extracellular enzyme*, and enzyme-activity. We restricted our results to studies performed in natural terrestrial ecosystems. All studies measured phosphatase activity in experimental treatments with either N or P fertilization and in control treatments without fertilization; a few studies were also factorial in N and P. Finally, we selected only those studies that included the quantity of N and P fertilizer used for each treatment, as well as the mean, standard error of the mean, and number of replicates for each treatment. For studies that included phosphatase activity for multiple sites or fertilization levels, multiple data points were collected. For studies where phosphatase activity was measured at multiple time-points, only the final value was used to maintain consistency between studies. Where data were not presented in tables, DataThief (Tummers, 2006) was used to acquire numbers from figures.

We used meta-analysis to examine the core hypotheses (stated in the Introduction) (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hedges et al., 1999). Each data point in the meta-analysis includes two measures of phosphatase activity: the experimental treatment with fertilization vs the control treatment without fertilization. Each data point is summarized by a response ratio (RR), the log of the response ratio (LRR), and the sampling variance (V). RR was calculated as the experimental mean divided by the control mean, representing an index of response magnitudes; LRR was calculated as the log10 of RR. Positive values of LRR represent an increase in fertilized relative to control conditions, whereas negative values indicate suppressed phosphatase activity. The use of LRR is favorable because it equally weighs the negative and positive responses and facilitates statistical analysis. V was calculated using the experimental mean, the standard error of the experimental mean, the number of experimental replicates, the control mean, the standard error of the control mean, and the number of control replicates (Hedges et al., 1999).

We divided the database into three fertilization classes: N, P, and N×P. Each class was summarized by the weighted mean of LRR (LRR*), the standard error of LRR* (SE(LRR*)), and the Q statistic (Q) (Hedges et al., 1999). LRR* is calculated by giving greater weight to data points with a lower standard deviation and higher precision. The use of LRR* increases the precision of the central tendency statistic, and LRR* was used in place of the unweighted mean, because V differed between individual data points (Hedges et al., 1999). We calculated SE(LRR*) to determine the standard error of the weighted mean (Hedges et al., 1999). The Q statistic was calculated and tested at the 95% confidence interval to account for differences in standard error of the individual studies (Hedges et al., 1999). Between-experiment variation is statistically significant when the Q statistic exceeds the critical value of the χ2 distribution. These summary statistics were calculated for each type of fertilization: N, P, and N×P (Table 1). In addition, we performed a single sample t-test to determine if the mean of LRR for each fertilization class is significantly different from zero (Table 2).

Table 1.   Summary statistics
FertilizationPhosphatasenRLRR*± CIQ
  1. n, the number of data points in each set; R, the response ratio; LRR*, the weighted mean; CI, 95% confidence interval; Q, Q-statistic. *, < the critical value of the χ2 distribution when α = 0.05, indicating that between-experiment variance = 0.

NAll1321.460.11 ± 0.03771.08
Plant471.850.22 ± 0.05227.42
Soil851.250.05 ± 0.03409.75
PAll420.71− 0.20 ± 0.06425.29
Plant210.56− 0.27 ± 0.08191.10
Soil210.86− 0.12 ± 0.0790.47
NPAll210.61− 0.21 ± 0.0689.25
Plant150.64− 0.19 ± 0.0748.30
Soil60.56− 0.46 ± 0.383.61*
Table 2.   Results of single sample t-test to determine if the means of each group are significantly different from 0
PhosphataseFertilizationtdfP valueMean
  1. t, test statistic; df, degrees of freedom; ***, < 0.001; **, < 0.01; *, < 0.05.

AllN6.8219131< 0.0001***0.119
P− 6.642341< 0.0001***− 0.188
NP− 8.879820< 0.0001***− 0.227
PlantN9.780346< 0.0001***0.237
P− 8.847320< 0.0001***− 0.274
NP− 6.464714< 0.0001***− 0.212
SoilN2.6429840.0098**0.054
P− 2.5604200.0187*− 0.102
NP− 7.543150.0006***− 0.262

The data set was unbalanced; and so we used a linear mixed effects model. The fixed effects were the fertilization treatments and the random effects were the different studies. We performed a Tukey test in the statistical package R using ‘multcomp’ to factorially compare the different fertilization treatments (R Development Core Team, 2007). The Tukey test determined the estimates, standard error, z-values, and P-values for each comparison (Table 3).

Table 3.   Results of the Tukey test
PhosphataseFertilizationEstimateSEz-valueP-value
  1. *Significantly different contrasts.

AllN vs NP− 0.366870.04248− 8.636< 0.0001*
N vs P− 0.404230.03439− 11.756< 0.0001*
P vs NP− 0.037370.04492− 0.8320.681
PlantN vs NP− 0.432900.04750− 9.114< 0.0001*
N vs P− 0.509940.04069− 12.532< 0.0001*
P vs NP− 0.077030.05270− 1.4620.306
SoilN vs NP− 0.256210.07740− 3.310.00249*
N vs P− 0.215200.05433− 3.961< 0.001*
P vs NP− 0.041010.07833− 0.5240.85765
Plant vs soilN− 0.142340.05653− 2.5180.0118*
P0.183880.074862.4560.0140*
NP− 0.058340.13514− 0.4320.666

We also subdivided each group into extracellular phosphatases measured on the root and in the bulk soil. Phosphatase activity measured on roots is assumed to reflect the plant and its symbionts, while phosphatase activity measured in the soil is assumed to account for both plant and microbe sources. We performed our analysis on roots, soils, and roots + soils across treatments (Table 1), and used the Tukey test to quantify differences between root and soil responses (Table 3).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

The data set spans eight major biomes, including grassland, shrubland, temperate coniferous forest, temperate deciduous forest, tropical dry forest, tropical rainforest (including subtropical and lower montane), tundra, and wetland (Supporting Information Table S1). Observations with N or P fertilization span all such biomes, while observations with N and P added together covered grassland, tropical rainforest, and wetland biomes. In all, we collated 195 observations from 34 separate studies. Of these observations, 83 measured phosphatase activity on plant roots; the remaining 112 measured phosphatase in the bulk soil. Twenty-two studies added N alone, four studies added P alone, four studies added N and P separately, and four studies added N and P in factorial combinations (Fig. 1).

Root and soil phosphatase activity increased substantially with added N and decreased with added P and N×P in combination (Fig. 2, Table 2). Under N fertilization, added N stimulated phosphatase activity by 46% relative to controls. However, Q was 771.08, indicating substantial experimental variation. Under P fertilization, added P depressed phosphatase activity by 29% relative to controls. Q was 425.29, showing that between-experiment variation was significant, although less than for added N. When N and P were added together, phosphatase was depressed by 39% compared with controls, similar to the case of P alone. Q was 89.25, showing less between-experiment variation than for added N or P. These trends were apparent in both plant and soil phosphatase measures (Fig. 3, Table 1), and across biomes (Fig. S2).

image

Figure 2. Phosphatase response to fertilization with nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and both. In this modified boxplot, the median value is the band near the middle of the box, the first and third quartiles are the top and bottom of the box, respectively, and the maximum and minimum values excluding outliers are the whiskers. Circles indicate outliers. A positive response ratio indicates that the fertilization stimulates phosphatase activity, whereas a negative response ratio indicates that the fertilization depresses phosphatase activity.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 3. (a) Plant and (b) soil phosphatase response to nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), or N and P fertilization. Phosphatase activity measured on plant roots is assumed to reflect plants only, while phosphatase activity measured in the soil accounts for both plant and microbe sources. A positive response ratio indicates that the fertilization stimulates phosphatase activity, whereas a negative response ratio indicates that the fertilization depresses phosphatase activity.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Positive responses to soil and root phosphatase were observed at relatively low N fertilization (Fig. 4a). N additions ranged between 1.525 and 20 g N m−2 yr−1, with positive responses apparent throughout the entire range beyond the lowest N input site (i.e. 1.525 g N m−2 yr−1). Negative responses of phosphatase were also observed, although in many fewer cases than for positive responses (Fig. 4a). Plant phosphatase responded significantly more positively to N fertilization than did soil phosphatase (Fig. 3, Table 3). Overall, phosphatase activity in response to N fertilization was significantly different when compared with P and N×P fertilization (P-value < 0.0001).

image

Figure 4. Phosphatase response to (a) nitrogen (N), (b) phosphorus (P), and (c) N×P fertilization. For (a) and (b), the x-axis is the amount of N or P fertilization; for (c), the x-axis is the ratio of N fertilization to P fertilization. For (a–c), the y-axis is the log response ratio of phosphatase activity. Positive log response ratios indicate positive responses to the treatment; that is, phosphatase activity was higher in the fertilized plots than in the unfertilized control plots. Negative response ratios indicate negative responses to the treatment; that is, phosphatase activity was lower in the fertilization plots than in the unfertilized control plots. Each point represents the mean log of the response ratio (LRR) of a given site and fertilization level. Open circles indicate phosphatase activity measured on plant roots, which is assumed to reflect plants only; closed circles indicate phosphatase activity measured in the soil, accounting for both plant and microbe sources. The weighted mean LRR of the N-fertilized treatments was 0.16 (= 74). The weighted mean LRR of the P-fertilized treatments was −0.27 (= 29). The weighted mean of LRR of the N and P-fertilized plots was −0.22 (= 21).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Rates of P fertilization ranged between 2.7 and 40 g P m−2 yr−1. With the exception of the highest level of fertilization, depression of phosphatase activity in response to P inputs was apparent over the entire range (Fig. 4). Plant and soil phosphatase both responded negatively to P fertilization (Fig. 3). Similarly, negative responses of phosphatase activity to N×P fertilization were observed for all data points (Fig. 4).

We plotted LRR of phosphatase activity over the ratio of N added to P added in each study to visualize combined effects; the N : P ratio was 1 : 1, 2 : 1, or 4 : 1 in our synthesis (Fig. 4c). Plant and soil phosphatase both responded negatively to N×P fertilization (Fig. 4). Phosphatase activity under added P alone was not significantly different from that of N×P combined (P-value = 0.681).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

This meta-analysis demonstrates that extracellular phosphatase enzyme activities are highly responsive to changes in N and P supplies, among plant roots and bulk soils, and across a wide array of terrestrial ecosystems. Our findings support the first two hypotheses: added N stimulated while added P decreased phosphatase substantially. Such widespread regulation of phosphatase activity by N and P is consistent with conceptual (McGill & Cole, 1981; Olander & Vitousek, 2000) and numerical models (Wang et al., 2007; Houlton et al., 2008). Our results also support our fourth hypothesis: N×P led to decreased phosphatase activities in plants and soils, similar to effects of added P alone. We therefore conclude that increased N stimulates the activity of P mineralizing enzymes, that added P suppresses this activity, and that the effect of P appears to be stronger than the N effect, on average – with qualitatively consistent patterns for plants and soils, tropical to polar latitudes, and across many biomes (Fig. S1). The significant response ratio and large between-sample variance (> 0) show that phosphatase response to fertilization is consistent despite species, environmental, and methodological variation. Moreover, these couplings between nutrients and phosphatase are consistent with systemic regulation of the stoichiometry of N and P cycles, offering a mechanism to help explain N and P co-limitations on land (Elser et al., 2007; Harpole et al., 2011).

Although enzymes are thought to be affected by factors other than nutrients, our meta-analysis did not reveal strong effects of soil pH, mean annual temperature, or mean annual precipitation on the response of root and soil phosphatase to N and P fertilization (Fig. S2). Nor did our results depend on measurement technique, or type of phosphatase (i.e. acid or alkali; mono- or di-ester phosphates). For example, most studies only measure mono-phosphates, whereas both mono- and di-ester phosphates are cleaved by phosphatase. Additionally, most studies only measured acid or alkaline phosphatases, but in soils with heterogeneous pH conditions, both may exist. One concern is that phosphatase is generally measured in the laboratory at standardized pH; however, optimal pH varies between enzymes and soils (Turner, 2010; German et al., 2011). Nevertheless, despite a variety of environmental and experimental conditions, our results are qualitatively consistent with a model of enzyme production that assumes a set C and N costs of enzyme production under varying N and P levels (Allison & Vitousek, 2005).

Our results also point to some fundamental differences between plant and microbial responses to changes in N and P. Phosphatase activity measured on plant roots and in the soil showed similar trends, but root effects were stronger than bulk soil effects for single N or P addition (Table 3). These results suggest that plant phosphatases can respond more strongly to changes in resource availability than microbial phosphatases, and are consistent with those of previous studies of phosphatase activity (Colvan et al., 2001). This notion fits with our present understanding of stoichiometry: whereas terrestrial plants show relatively diverse C, N and P ratios and modes of interaction (Vitousek, 1984; McGroddy et al., 2004; Townsend et al., 2007), the stoichiometries of microbial biomass (Cleveland & Liptzin, 2007) and microbial extracellular enzyme activities (Sinsabaugh et al., 2008, 2009) are relatively conserved. Interpretation of soil phosphatase activity is complicated by the presence of inactive extracellular enzymes, and may be inhibited by inorganic phosphate (Nannipieri et al., 2011); enzyme turnover or enzyme affinity at low concentrations could help in quantitatively understanding measures of phosphatase activity.

Although this analysis revealed strong trends, we also noted deviations in phosphatase responses to N and P additions. In the case of N fertilization, only two of 47 data points indicate a suppression of plant phosphatase, or LRR < 0. These two data points were for laboratory bioassay seedlings of Agrostis capillaries that were transplanted into experimental grassland sites (Johnson et al., 1999, 2005). For soil phosphatase with added N, 26 of 85 data points have LRR < 0. These exceptions span temperate deciduous forest, grassland, tropical rainforest, tundra, and wetland biomes. Soil phosphatase activity showed a stronger negative response to added N than did plant phosphatase, pointing to either steeper sensitivities of the rhizosphere to nutrient fertilization or fundamental differences among free-living microbial and root/rhizosphere community responses, or both.

It is not clear why some observations deviate from the average responses of phosphatase to N and P enrichment, although neither soil pH nor climate appears responsible (Fig. S2). Environmental factors that affect nutrient availability, including duration of fertilization, soil depth, soil organic matter content, C : N : P ratio, microbial community composition, distance to rhizosphere, and the form of N added, are likely to affect phosphatase activity and may explain negative responses to N fertilization (Tarafdar & Jungk, 1987; Johnson et al., 1998; Olander & Vitousek, 2000; Sinsabaugh et al., 2005; Keeler et al., 2009; Naples & Fisk, 2010; Weand et al., 2010). Particularly important may be soil acidification resulting from N addition, which could change nutrient availability, microbial communities, and optimal phosphatase activity. Deviations in phosphatase response to added P were less than for added N, although soil phosphatase levels in soils beneath stands of N2-fixing red alder (Alnus rubra) did not decrease with added P (Compton & Cole, 2001). Here, phosphatase activity was positively correlated with labile and organic bicarbonate P, rather than P fertilization, and the constancy of high levels of phosphatase supports the idea that N fixers invest substantially in phosphatase (Giardina et al., 1995; Zou et al., 1995; Houlton et al., 2008; Venterink, 2011).

Allison & Vitousek (2005) suggested that phosphatase responds more strongly to complex forms of P than phosphate additions – despite potential phosphatase inhibition by inorganic phosphate (Nannipieri et al., 2011). Additionally, phosphatase is active even in P-rich environments, and may be important for other processes, such as C acquisition (Heath, 2005). This might explain why other studies that measured phosphatase activity in soils without P fertilization did not find a negative relationship between P availability and phosphatase activity (Speir & Ross, 1978; Spiers & McGill, 1979; Speir & Cowling, 1991; Adams, 1992; Allison & Vitousek, 2005; Naples & Fisk, 2010). The contradictory results have been attributed to differences in study sites that affect background N and P availability (Spiers & McGill, 1979; Olander & Vitousek, 2000; Allison et al., 2007a; Sinsabaugh et al., 2008) or differences in species that affect nutrient assimilation and allocation (Gusewell & Freeman, 2005; Naples & Fisk, 2010). Allison & Vitousek (2005) fertilized soil in the lab and did not see a significant decrease in microbial phosphatase activity, possibly because microbes continually produce at least low levels of phosphatase.

The smaller sample size of 21 data points from four studies and the range of N : P ratios of fertilization somewhat limit our analysis of N×P interactions. The fertilization N : P ratios were 1 : 1, 2 : 1, or 4 : 1, much lower than that of plants (28 : 1; McGroddy et al., 2004), litter (45 : 1; McGroddy et al., 2004), soil (13 : 1; Cleveland & Liptzin, 2007), and soil microbes (7 : 1; Cleveland & Liptzin, 2007). A portion of the added P becomes unavailable through soil complexation, so the actual ratio of bioavailable added N : P is unknown and warrants further research (Havlin et al., 2005). Fertilizer with a high proportion of available P may conceal the threshold at which N and P co-limitation ceases.

The results of this study are consistent with those of correlative studies of phosphatase activity in the absence of nutrient fertilization. Our results show that as N increases or P decreases, phosphatase activity increases. Therefore, we predict that ecosystems subject to atmospheric N deposition will increase phosphatase activity, all else remaining equal. Several studies have shown increasing phosphatase activity across sites with increasing N availability or increasing N deposition (Turner et al., 2002; Bragazza et al., 2006; Gress et al., 2007; Chung et al., 2007), even in sites that are limited by P, or N and P together (Olander & Vitousek, 2000; Treseder & Vitousek, 2001; Hedin et al., 2003). Other studies have looked at phosphatase activity across gradients of P availability, and generally show a trend of increasing phosphatase activity with decreasing P availability (Wright & Reddy, 2001; Allison et al., 2007b; Wang et al., 2010a; Turner, 2010).

While these results strongly support theoretical understanding and show the importance of phosphatases, our analysis is bounded by two key issues. First, P uptake by organisms and phosphatase production cannot be directly inferred by measuring maximum potential phosphatase activity. Especially important is the fact that phosphatase is measured in plants and soils in the laboratory. Although phosphatases are clearly advantageous, the actual return per unit of phosphatase investment is largely unknown (but see Treseder & Vitousek, 2001; Wang et al., 2007). Future work with isotope labeling could help to address this question. Second, data are scarce in the tropics, despite evidence showing that this ecosystem has broad significance for global change (Townsend et al., 2011), with outcomes affected by the kinds of N×P×phosphatase interactions examined here (Houlton et al., 2008). Experiments in tropical sites, and across a range of soils and plant communities, are particularly warranted.

Nevertheless, our meta-analysis unequivocally shows that increasing N availability tends to increase P cycling rates, offering a path by which plants and ecosystems can adjust to changes in N and P supplies. These results have several implications for ecosystem responses to global environmental change, especially N deposition and elevated atmospheric CO2. Increased atmospheric CO2 may have a fertilization effect on net primary productivity, stimulating growth of plants (Norby et al., 2005). The extent to which plant growth increases in response to CO2 concentrations depends largely on available nutrients, especially N and P (Shaw et al., 2002; Reich et al., 2006). N deposition is increasing globally, which may induce P limitation (Gress et al., 2007; Vitousek et al., 2010); however, the up-regulation of phosphatase activity suggested by this meta-analysis may delay the onset of P limitation (by years to decades), and could help to explain why P limitation is not immediately observed in response to N fertilization (Finzi, 2009). Finally, these interactions between N and P could help to explain the existence of nutrient co-limitations (see Elser et al., 2007); our results support the notion that added N enhances P conservation, thereby promoting nutrient equilibrations in a way that complements those between P and N fixation (e.g. Vitousek et al. 2010). These nutrient interactions suggest the complicated nature of coupled resource limitation: changes in the cycling of one nutrient can alter the availability of another.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

This work was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, University of California, Davis Block Grant Fellowship, and the Henry A. Jastro Research Fellowship. We are grateful to Scott L. Morford for assistance with map development; Jonathan Maynard and Andrew Latimer for statistics discussions; and Cory C. Cleveland for comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • Aber J, Nadelhoffer K, Steudler P, Melillo J. 1989. Nitrogen saturation in northern forest ecosystems. BioScience 39: 378386.
  • Adams M. 1992. Phosphatase activity and phosphorus fractions in Karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor F. Muell.) forest soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils 14: 200204.
  • Allison S. 2005. Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients constrain decomposition by microbial enzymes in spatially structured environments. Ecology Letters 8: 626635.
  • Allison S, Gartner T, Holland K, Weintraub M, Sinsabaugh R. 2007a. Soil enzymes: linking proteomics and ecological processes. In: Hurst C, Crawford R, Garland J, Lipson D, Mills A, Stenzenbach L, eds. Manual of environmental microbiology. Washington, DC, USA: ASM Press, 703711.
  • Allison S, Vitousek P. 2005. Responses of extracellular enzymes to simple and complex nutrient inputs. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 937944.
  • Allison VJ, Condron LM, Peltzer DA, Richardson SJ, Turner BL. 2007b. Changes in enzyme activities and soil microbial community composition along carbon and nutrient gradients at the Franz Josef chronosequence, New Zealand. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39: 17701781.
  • Bloom A, Chapin F III, Mooney H. 1985. Resource limitation in plants – an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 363392.
  • Bragazza L, Freeman C, Jones T, Rydin H, Limpens J, Fenner N, Ellis T, Gerdol R, Hájek M, Hájek T et al. 2006. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition promotes carbon loss from peat bogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103: 1938619389.
  • Chapin FS III, Mooney H, Chapin M, Matson P. 2002. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
  • Chen C, Condron L, Davis M. 2002. Phosphorus dynamics in the rhizosphere of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don.). Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 487499.
  • Chung H, Zak DR, Reich PB, Ellsworth DS. 2007. Plant species richness, elevated CO2, and atmospheric nitrogen deposition alter soil microbial community composition and function. Global Change Biology 13: 980989.
  • Clark CM, Tilman D. 2008. Loss of plant species after chronic low-level nitrogen deposition to prairie grasslands. Nature 451: 712715.
  • Cleveland CC, Liptzin D. 2007. C : N : P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85: 235252.
  • Colvan S, Syers J, O’Donnell A. 2001. Effect of long-term fertiliser use on acid and alkaline phosphomonoesterase and phosphodiesterase activities in managed grassland. Biology and Fertility of Soils 34: 258263.
  • Compton J, Cole D. 2001. Fate and effects of phosphorus additions in soils under N2-fixing red alder. Biogeochemistry 53: 225247.
  • Duff S, Sarath G, Plaxton W. 1994. The role of acid-phosphatases in plant phosphorus metabolism. Physiologia Plantarum 90: 791800.
  • Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE, Gruner DS, Harpole WS, Hillebrand H, Ngai JT, Seabloom EW, Shurin JB, Smith JE. 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 11351142.
  • Falkowski P, Scholes R, Boyle E, Canadell J, Canfield D, Elser J, Gruber N, Hibbard K, Hogberg P, Linder S. 2000. The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as a system. Science 290: 291296.
  • Finzi A. 2009. Decades of atmospheric deposition have not resulted in widespread phosphorus limitation or saturation of tree demand for nitrogen in southern New England. Biogeochemistry 92: 217229.
  • German DP, Weintraub MN, Grandy AS, Lauber CL, Rinkes ZL, Allison S. 2011. Optimization of hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme methods for ecosystem studies. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43: 13871397.
  • Giardina C, Huffman S, Binkley D, Caldwell BA. 1995. Alders increase soil phosphorus availability in a Douglas-fir plantation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 16521657.
  • Gress S, Nichols T, Northcraft C, Peterjohn W. 2007. Nutrient limitation in soils exhibiting differing nitrogen availabilities: what lies beyond nitrogen saturation? Ecology 88: 119130.
  • Gusewell S, Freeman C. 2005. Nutrient limitation and enzyme activities during litter decomposition of nine wetland species in relation to litter N: P ratios. Functional Ecology 19: 582593.
  • Harpole WS, Ngai JT, Cleland EE, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Bracken MES, Elser JJ, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H, Shurin JB et al. 2011. Nutrient co-limitation of primary producer communities. Ecology Letters 14: 852862.
  • Havlin J, Tisdale S, Nelson W, Beaton J. 2005. Soil fertility and fertilizers: an introduction to nutrient management. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
  • Heath R. 2005. Microbial turnover of organic phosphorus in aquatic systems. In: Turner BL, Frossard E, Baldwin D, eds. Organic phosphorus in the environment. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 185203.
  • Hedges L, Gurevitch J, Curtis P. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80: 11501156.
  • Hedges L, Olkin I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
  • Hedin L, Vitousek P, Matson P. 2003. Nutrient losses over four million years of tropical forest development. Ecology 84: 22312255.
  • Houlton BZ, Wang YP, Vitousek P, Field C. 2008. A unifying framework for dinitrogen fixation in the terrestrial biosphere. Nature 454: 327330.
  • Johnson D, Leake J, Lee J. 1999. The effects of quantity and duration of simulated pollutant nitrogen deposition on root-surface phosphatase activities in calcareous and acid grasslands: a bioassay approach. New Phytologist 141: 433442.
  • Johnson D, Leake J, Lee J, Campbell C. 1998. Changes in soil microbial biomass and microbial activities in response to 7 years simulated pollutant nitrogen deposition on a heathland and two grasslands. Environmental Pollution 103: 239250.
  • Johnson D, Leake J, Read D. 2005. Liming and nitrogen fertilization affects phosphatase activities, microbial biomass and mycorrhizal colonisation in upland grassland. Plant and Soil 271: 157164.
  • Keeler BL, Hobbie SE, Kellogg LE. 2009. Effects of long-term nitrogen addition on microbial enzyme activity in eight forested and grassland sites: implications for litter and soil organic matter decomposition. Ecosystems 12: 115.
  • Liebig J. 1842. Animal chemistry, or organic chemistry in its application to physiology and pathology. New York, NY, USA: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
  • McGill W, Cole C. 1981. Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S and P through soil organic matter. Geoderma 26: 267286.
  • McGroddy M, Daufresne T, Hedin L. 2004. Scaling of C : N : P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: implications of terrestrial redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85: 23902401.
  • Nannipieri P, Giagnoni L, Landi L. 2011. Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. In: Bunemann E, Oberson A, Frossard E, eds. Soil Biology 100: 215243.
  • Naples BK, Fisk MC. 2010. Belowground insights into nutrient limitation in northern hardwood forests. Biogeochemistry 97: 109121.
  • Norby R, DeLucia E, Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Giardina C, King J, Ledford J, McCarthy H, Moore D, Ceulemans R et al. 2005. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102: 1805218056.
  • Olander L, Vitousek P. 2000. Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry 49: 175191.
  • R Development Core Team. 2007. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Reich PB, Hungate BA, Luo Y. 2006. Carbon-nitrogen interactions in terrestrial ecosystems in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 37: 611636.
  • Richardson A, George T, Hens M. 2005. Utilization of soil organic phosphorus by higher plants. In: Turner BL, Frossard E, Baldwin D, eds. Organic phosphorus in the environment. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 165184.
  • Schlesinger WH. 2009. On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106: 203208.
  • Shaw M, Zavaleta E, Chiariello N, Cleland E, Mooney H, Field C. 2002. Grassland responses to global environmental changes suppressed by elevated CO2. Science 298: 19871990.
  • Sinsabaugh R, Gallo M, Lauber C, Waldrop M, Zak D. 2005. Extracellular enzyme activities and soil organic matter dynamics for northern hardwood forests receiving simulated nitrogen deposition. Biogeochemistry 75: 201215.
  • Sinsabaugh R, Hill BH, Shah JJF. 2009. Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment. Nature 462: 795798.
  • Sinsabaugh R, Lauber CL, Weintraub MN, Ahmed B, Allison S, Crenshaw C, Contosta AR, Cusack D, Frey S, Gallo ME et al. 2008. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecology Letters 11: 12521264.
  • Speir T, Cowling J. 1991. Phosphatase activities of pasture plants and soils: relationship with plant productivity and soil P fertility indices. Biology and Fertility of Soils 12: 189194.
  • Speir T, Ross D. 1978. Studies on a climosequence of soils in tussock grasslands. 18. Litter decomposition – urease, phosphatase, and sulfatase activities. New Zealand Journal of Science 21: 297306.
  • Spiers G, McGill W. 1979. Effects of phosphorus addition and energy supply on acid phosphatase production and activity in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11: 38.
  • Tarafdar J, Jungk A. 1987. Phosphatase activity in the rhizosphere and its relation to the depletion of soil organic phosphorus. Biology and Fertility of Soils 3: 199204.
  • Thomas RQ, Canham CD, Weathers KC, Goodale CL. 2010. Increased tree carbon storage in response to nitrogen deposition in the US. Nature Geoscience 3: 1317.
  • Townsend AR, Cleveland CC, Asner GP, Bustamante MMC. 2007. Controls over foliar N : P ratios in tropical rain forests. Ecology 88: 107118.
  • Townsend AR, Cleveland CC, Houlton BZ, Alden CB, White JW. 2011. Multi-element regulation of the tropical forest carbon cycle. Frontiers In Ecology and the Environment 9: 917.
  • Treseder K, Vitousek P. 2001. Effects of soil nutrient availability on investment in acquisition of N and P in Hawaiian rain forests. Ecology 82: 946954.
  • Tummers B. 2006. DataThief III. URL http://datathief.org/.
  • Turner BL. 2008. Resource partitioning for soil phosphorus: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 96: 698702.
  • Turner BL. 2010. Variation in pH optima of hydrolytic enzyme activities in tropical rain forest soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76: 64856493.
  • Turner BL, Baxter R, Whitton B. 2002. Seasonal phosphatase activity in three characteristic soils of the English uplands polluted by long-term atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Environmental Pollution 120: 313317.
  • Venterink H. 2011. Legumes have a higher root phosphatase activity than other forbs, particularly under low inorganic P and N supply. Plant and Soil 347: 137146.
  • Vitousek P. 1984. Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65: 285298.
  • Vitousek P, Aber J, Howarth R, Likens G, Matson P, Schindler D, Schlesinger W, Tilman G. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7: 737750.
  • Vitousek P, Howarth R. 1991. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea – how can it occur. Biogeochemistry 13: 87115.
  • Vitousek P, Porder S, Houlton BZ, Chadwick OA. 2010. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen-phosphorus interactions. Ecological Applications 20: 515.
  • Wang L, Yin C, Wang W, Shan B. 2010a. Phosphatase activity along soil C and P gradients in a reed-dominated wetland of north China. Wetlands 30: 649655.
  • Wang YP, Houlton BZ. 2009. Nitrogen constraints on terrestrial carbon uptake: Implications for the global carbon-climate feedback. Geophysical Research Letters 36: article L24403. doi:10.1029/2009GL041009.
  • Wang YP, Houlton BZ, Field CB. 2007. A model of biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus including symbiotic nitrogen fixation and phosphatase production. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21: article GB1018. doi:10.1029/2006GB002797.
  • Wang YP, Law RM, Pak B. 2010b. A global model of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles for the terrestrial biosphere. Biogeosciences 7: 22612282.
  • Weand MP, Arthur MA, Lovett GM, Sikora F, Weathers KC. 2010. The phosphorus status of northern hardwoods differs by species but is unaffected by nitrogen fertilization. Biogeochemistry 97: 159181.
  • Wright A, Reddy K. 2001. Phosphorus loading effects on extracellular enzyme activity in everglades wetland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 588595.
  • Zou X, Binkley D, Caldwell B. 1995. Effects of dinitrogen-fixing trees on phosphorus biogeochemical cycling in contrasting forests. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59: 14521458.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Fig. S1 Phosphatase activity across biomes.

Fig. S2 Phosphatase activity across a range of pH, temperature, and precipitation.

Table S1 Studies involved in the meta-analysis

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
NPH_3967_sm_TableS1-FigS1-S2.doc708KSupporting info item