Does plant biomass partitioning reflect energetic investments in carbon and nutrient foraging?

Abstract

Studies of plant resource‐use strategies along environmental gradients often assume that dry matter partitioning represents an individual's energy investment in foraging for above‐ versus below‐ground resources. However, ecosystem‐level studies of total below‐ground carbon allocation (TBCA) in forests do not support the equivalency of energy (carbon) and dry matter partitioning, in part because allocation of carbon to below‐ground pools and fluxes that are not accounted for by root biomass (e.g., mycorrhizal hyphae, rhizodeposition; root and soil respiration) can be substantial. Here, we apply this reasoning to individual plants in controlled environments and ask whether dry matter partitioning below‐ground (root mass fraction, RMF) accurately reflects TBCA in studies of optimal partitioning theory. We quantified the relationship between RMF and TBCA in individual plants, using 311 observations from 51 studies that simultaneously measured both allocation variables. Our analysis included tests of whether the RMF‐TBCA relationship depended on mutualist soil microbes, plant growth form, age and study methodology including isotopic pulse–chase duration. We found that RMF was a poor proxy for below‐ground energy investment. This disconnect of RMF and TBCA was driven in part by plants of low RMF (<0.4) exhibiting significantly higher rates of root and soil respiration per unit root mass than plants of high RMF. Root colonization by mutualist microbes, including arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen‐fixing bacteria, increased TBCA by 5%–7%, and TBCA was lower in grasses than other species by 9%–16%. These patterns were evident for relationships assessed both within and between species. We conclude that optimal partitioning studies of plants along environmental gradients are likely to underestimate plant energy allocation below‐ground if the C costs of root and soil respiration are ignored, especially under conditions favouring low RMF. Because energy rather than biomass better reflects how assimilated C supports fitness, this omission of respired C suggests existing studies misrepresent the significance of below‐ground processes to plant function. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Soil N enrichment mediates carbon allocation through respiration in a dominant grass during drought

“…allometric analyses) are valuable for understanding carbon allocation strategy in plants (Gedroc et al., 1996; Gleeson & Good, 2003; Noyce et al., 2019), biomass can be a poor proxy for plant C or energy partitioning (Litton et al., 2007). Biomass allocation can underestimate total C partitioning to below‐ground processes, especially in plants with relatively low root:shoot ratios, because these plants tend to allocate more C to respiration or rhizodeposition (Kong & Fridley, 2019; Wang, Bicharanloo, et al., 2021). Indeed, up to 80% of fixed C can be lost via respiration (Carbone & Trumbore, 2007; Janssens et al., 2001), but the role that respiratory metabolic loss plays in C allocation remains unclear to date.…”

Functional phenomics and genetics of the root economics space in winter wheat using high‐throughput phenotyping of respiration and architecture

“…The fraction of newly fixed carbon from photosynthesis allocated to roots can exceed 50%, and this proportion significantly increases under edaphic stress (Lambers et al., 1996; Rachmilevitch et al., 2015). Root system carbon costs can be classified as structural costs (the physical structure of the roots and growth respiration) and maintenance costs (upkeep respiration and exudation) (Mooney, 1972; Kong & Fridley, 2019; Sun et al., 2021). For example, in wheat seedlings, 30% of net photosynthesis was associated with root structural and maintenance costs (Sawada, 1970).…”

A framework to assess the carbon supply–consumption balance in plant roots

“…vessels in the xylem and sieve tubes in the phloem (van Bel & Hafke, 2005;Jensen et al, 2016). Water and nutrients taken up by the roots are transported upward via vessels, and photosynthates are transported from leaves downward to absorptive roots via sieve tubes to maintain the growth and respiration costs of roots and associated mycorrhizal fungi (H€ ogberg et al, 2001;Mullendore et al, 2010;Kong & Fridley, 2019). Despite the paucity of data on sieve tube size for absorptive roots, one would expect that the diameters of sieve tubes and vessels are linearly correlated because (1) sieve tubes and vessels are ontogenetically related and both are derived from the procambium in the root stele (Evert, 2006); and (2) sieve tubes and vessels are physiologically integrated.…”