How do leaf carbon and nitrogen contents of oak hosts affect the heterotrophic level of Loranthus europaeus? Insights from stable isotope ecophysiology assays

Mostaghimi, Fatemeh; Seyedi, Nasrin; Shafiei, Abbas Banj; Correia, Otília

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107583

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on our regional data, mistletoes had more negative δ 13 C than corresponding hosts across all sites, suggesting that they maintain a higher stomatal conductance than their hosts, which is in line with previous local, regional, and global studies (Ehleringer et al ., 1985; Givnish, 1986; Scalon & Wright, 2015; Mostaghimi et al ., 2021; Richards et al ., 2021). These results from the present study, temperate Australia, and a global study suggest a remarkable convergence in different studies in terms of lower δ 13 C and water use efficiency of mistletoes, supporting the ‘transpirational cost hypothesis’ across diverse sites and taxa (Givnish, 1986; Scalon & Wright, 2015; Richards et al ., 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mistletoe LDMC influenced nine out of 11 mistletoe nutrient concentrations, while mistletoe SLA influenced only two. Mistletoes had much lower SLA and LDMC than their hosts in this study, suggesting a succulent leaf structure, which is in consistent with other studies (Scalon & Wright, 2017; Mostaghimi et al ., 2021; Richards et al ., 2021). We postulate that succulent leaves and higher water content might be a strategy involved in balancing nutrient concentrations in mistletoes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We, therefore, supported this previous postulation using robust regression models and large data sets. Mistletoe δ 15 N showed a significant correlation with host δ 15 N, which explained most of the variation, in support of the results of numerous studies in which mistletoe N is entirely derived from their hosts (Bannister & Strong, 2001; Tennakoon et al ., 2011; Mostaghimi et al ., 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

You are what you eat: nutrient and water relations between mistletoes and hosts

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mistletoes play important roles in biogeochemical cycles. Although many studies have compared nutrient concentrations between mistletoes and their hosts, no general patterns have been found and the nutrient uptake mechanisms in mistletoes have not been fully resolved.To address the water and nutrient relations in mistletoes compared with their hosts, we measured 11 nutrient elements, two isotope ratios and two leaf morphological traits for 11 mistletoe and 104 host species from four sites across a large environmental gradient in southwest China.Mistletoes had significantly higher phosphorus, potassium, and boron concentrations, nitrogen isotope ratio, and lower carbon isotope ratio (δ 13 C) indicative of lower water-use efficiency than hosts, but other elements were similar to those in hosts. Sites explained most of the variation in the multidimensional trait space. With increasing host nitrogen concentration, both mistletoe δ 13 C and the difference between mistletoe and host δ 13 C increased, providing evidence to support the 'nitrogen parasitism hypothesis'. Host nutrient concentrations were the best predictors for that of the mistletoe nutrient elements in most cases.Our results highlight the important roles of environmental conditions and host nutrient status in determining mistletoe nutrient pools, which together explain their trophic interactions with hosts in subtropical and tropical ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

You are what you eat: nutrient and water relations between mistletoes and hosts

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Heterotrophic carbon transfer from host to mistletoe tissues has been discussed for a long time ( Schulze et al., 1984 ; Těšitel et al., 2010 ). In several previous studies stable carbon isotope ratios were used to estimate the carbon uptake of mistletoe from host tissues, and findings indicated that the heterotrophic carbon uptake varied among mistletoe species ( Wang et al., 2008 ; Mostaghimi et al., 2021 ). Moreover, Giesemann and Gebauer (2022) performed a simulation study using δ 13 C, δ 18 O and δ 2 H of different mistletoe and host species to calculate the amount of heterotrophic carbon uptake.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water status and macronutrient concentrations, but not carbon status, of Viscum album ssp. album are determined by its hosts: a study across nine mistletoe–host pairs in central Switzerland

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEuropean mistletoe, Viscum album L., is a hemiparasite that can infect various tree species, yet our understanding of its physiological interactions with host species is limited.MethodsNine mistletoe–host pairs (i.e. V. album ssp. album growing on nine different broadleaf tree species) under different growth conditions in central Switzerland were selected to examine the carbon, water and nutrient relationships between mistletoe and its hosts. We measured leaf morphological traits, isotopic compositions (δ13C and δ15N), concentrations of non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) and specific compounds (i.e. mobile sugars and starch), and macronutrients (i.e. N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S) in leaf and xylem tissues of both mistletoe and its hosts.Results and DiscussionThere were only non-significant relationships between NSC concentrations in mistletoe and in its host species across the nine mistletoe–host pairs, suggesting the carbon condition of V. album ssp. album is determined by both the heterotrophic carbon transfer and self-photosynthetic capacity among different mistletoe-host pairs. However, mistletoe leaf morphological traits (single leaf area and mass, and leaf mass per unit leaf area) did not change across the nine mistletoe–host pairs, and mistletoe leaf δ13C, water content and macronutrient concentrations were linearly correlated with those in the host leaves. Macronutrients showed accumulations in mistletoe across the nine pairs. Further, tissue N concentrations were significantly higher in mistletoe grown on N-fixing hosts than on non-N-fixing hosts. Finally, leaf N:P in mistletoe was significantly correlated with the ratio in the host across the nine mistletoe–host pairs. Overall, our results indicate strong relationships between mistletoe and its hosts for water- and nutrient-related traits, but not for carbon-related traits, which demonstrates that V. album ssp. album can adjust its physiology to survive on different deciduous tree species hosts and under different site conditions.

show abstract