Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes?

Duncan N.L. Menge, Sarah A. Batterman, Lars O. Hedin, Wenying Liao, Stephen Wilson Pacala, Benton N. Taylor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation provides a dominant source of new N to the terrestrial biosphere, yet in many cases the abundance of N-fixing trees appears paradoxical. N-fixing trees, which should be favored when N is limiting, are rare in higher latitude forests where N limitation is common, but are abundant in many lower latitude forests where N limitation is rare. Here, we develop a graphical and mathematical model to resolve the paradox. We use the model to demonstrate that N fixation is not necessarily cost effective under all degrees of N limitation, as intuition suggests. Rather, N fixation is only cost effective when N limitation is sufficiently severe. This general finding, specific versions of which have also emerged from other models, would explain sustained moderate N limitation because N-fixing trees would either turn N fixation off or be outcompeted under moderate N limitation. From this finding, four general hypothesis classes emerge to resolve the apparent paradox of N limitation and N-fixing tree abundance across latitude. The first hypothesis is that N limitation is less common at higher latitudes. This hypothesis contradicts prevailing evidence, so is unlikely, but the following three hypotheses all seem likely. The second hypothesis, which is new, is that even if N limitation is more common at higher latitudes, more severe N limitation might be more common at lower latitudes because of the capacity for higher N demand. Third, N fixation might be cost effective under milder N limitation at lower latitudes but only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. This third hypothesis class generalizes previous hypotheses and suggests new specific hypotheses. For example, greater trade-offs between N fixation and N use efficiency, soil N uptake, or plant turnover at higher compared to lower latitudes would make N fixation cost effective only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. Fourth, N-fixing trees might adjust N fixation more at lower than at higher latitudes. This framework provides new hypotheses to explain the latitudinal abundance distribution of N-fixing trees, and also provides a new way to visualize them. Therefore, it can help explain the seemingly paradoxical persistence of N limitation in many higher latitude forests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3127-3140
Number of pages14
JournalEcology
Volume98
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

nitrogen-fixing trees
fixation
nitrogen
cost
biosphere

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Keywords

  • ecosystem
  • facultative N fixers
  • latitude
  • legume
  • limitation
  • nitrogen fixation
  • obligate N fixers
  • theory
  • tree

Cite this

Menge, Duncan N.L. ; Batterman, Sarah A. ; Hedin, Lars O. ; Liao, Wenying ; Pacala, Stephen Wilson ; Taylor, Benton N. / Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes?. In: Ecology. 2017 ; Vol. 98, No. 12. pp. 3127-3140.
@article{6767b7a71645409abc756704ac007183,
title = "Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes?",
abstract = "Symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation provides a dominant source of new N to the terrestrial biosphere, yet in many cases the abundance of N-fixing trees appears paradoxical. N-fixing trees, which should be favored when N is limiting, are rare in higher latitude forests where N limitation is common, but are abundant in many lower latitude forests where N limitation is rare. Here, we develop a graphical and mathematical model to resolve the paradox. We use the model to demonstrate that N fixation is not necessarily cost effective under all degrees of N limitation, as intuition suggests. Rather, N fixation is only cost effective when N limitation is sufficiently severe. This general finding, specific versions of which have also emerged from other models, would explain sustained moderate N limitation because N-fixing trees would either turn N fixation off or be outcompeted under moderate N limitation. From this finding, four general hypothesis classes emerge to resolve the apparent paradox of N limitation and N-fixing tree abundance across latitude. The first hypothesis is that N limitation is less common at higher latitudes. This hypothesis contradicts prevailing evidence, so is unlikely, but the following three hypotheses all seem likely. The second hypothesis, which is new, is that even if N limitation is more common at higher latitudes, more severe N limitation might be more common at lower latitudes because of the capacity for higher N demand. Third, N fixation might be cost effective under milder N limitation at lower latitudes but only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. This third hypothesis class generalizes previous hypotheses and suggests new specific hypotheses. For example, greater trade-offs between N fixation and N use efficiency, soil N uptake, or plant turnover at higher compared to lower latitudes would make N fixation cost effective only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. Fourth, N-fixing trees might adjust N fixation more at lower than at higher latitudes. This framework provides new hypotheses to explain the latitudinal abundance distribution of N-fixing trees, and also provides a new way to visualize them. Therefore, it can help explain the seemingly paradoxical persistence of N limitation in many higher latitude forests.",
keywords = "ecosystem, facultative N fixers, latitude, legume, limitation, nitrogen fixation, obligate N fixers, theory, tree",
author = "Menge, {Duncan N.L.} and Batterman, {Sarah A.} and Hedin, {Lars O.} and Wenying Liao and Pacala, {Stephen Wilson} and Taylor, {Benton N.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ecy.2034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "98",
pages = "3127--3140",
journal = "Ecology",
issn = "0012-9658",
publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
number = "12",

}

Menge, DNL, Batterman, SA, Hedin, LO, Liao, W, Pacala, SW & Taylor, BN 2017, 'Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes?', Ecology, vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 3127-3140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2034

Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes? / Menge, Duncan N.L.; Batterman, Sarah A.; Hedin, Lars O.; Liao, Wenying; Pacala, Stephen Wilson; Taylor, Benton N.

In: Ecology, Vol. 98, No. 12, 01.12.2017, p. 3127-3140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why are nitrogen-fixing trees rare at higher compared to lower latitudes?

AU - Menge, Duncan N.L.

AU - Batterman, Sarah A.

AU - Hedin, Lars O.

AU - Liao, Wenying

AU - Pacala, Stephen Wilson

AU - Taylor, Benton N.

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation provides a dominant source of new N to the terrestrial biosphere, yet in many cases the abundance of N-fixing trees appears paradoxical. N-fixing trees, which should be favored when N is limiting, are rare in higher latitude forests where N limitation is common, but are abundant in many lower latitude forests where N limitation is rare. Here, we develop a graphical and mathematical model to resolve the paradox. We use the model to demonstrate that N fixation is not necessarily cost effective under all degrees of N limitation, as intuition suggests. Rather, N fixation is only cost effective when N limitation is sufficiently severe. This general finding, specific versions of which have also emerged from other models, would explain sustained moderate N limitation because N-fixing trees would either turn N fixation off or be outcompeted under moderate N limitation. From this finding, four general hypothesis classes emerge to resolve the apparent paradox of N limitation and N-fixing tree abundance across latitude. The first hypothesis is that N limitation is less common at higher latitudes. This hypothesis contradicts prevailing evidence, so is unlikely, but the following three hypotheses all seem likely. The second hypothesis, which is new, is that even if N limitation is more common at higher latitudes, more severe N limitation might be more common at lower latitudes because of the capacity for higher N demand. Third, N fixation might be cost effective under milder N limitation at lower latitudes but only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. This third hypothesis class generalizes previous hypotheses and suggests new specific hypotheses. For example, greater trade-offs between N fixation and N use efficiency, soil N uptake, or plant turnover at higher compared to lower latitudes would make N fixation cost effective only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. Fourth, N-fixing trees might adjust N fixation more at lower than at higher latitudes. This framework provides new hypotheses to explain the latitudinal abundance distribution of N-fixing trees, and also provides a new way to visualize them. Therefore, it can help explain the seemingly paradoxical persistence of N limitation in many higher latitude forests.

AB - Symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation provides a dominant source of new N to the terrestrial biosphere, yet in many cases the abundance of N-fixing trees appears paradoxical. N-fixing trees, which should be favored when N is limiting, are rare in higher latitude forests where N limitation is common, but are abundant in many lower latitude forests where N limitation is rare. Here, we develop a graphical and mathematical model to resolve the paradox. We use the model to demonstrate that N fixation is not necessarily cost effective under all degrees of N limitation, as intuition suggests. Rather, N fixation is only cost effective when N limitation is sufficiently severe. This general finding, specific versions of which have also emerged from other models, would explain sustained moderate N limitation because N-fixing trees would either turn N fixation off or be outcompeted under moderate N limitation. From this finding, four general hypothesis classes emerge to resolve the apparent paradox of N limitation and N-fixing tree abundance across latitude. The first hypothesis is that N limitation is less common at higher latitudes. This hypothesis contradicts prevailing evidence, so is unlikely, but the following three hypotheses all seem likely. The second hypothesis, which is new, is that even if N limitation is more common at higher latitudes, more severe N limitation might be more common at lower latitudes because of the capacity for higher N demand. Third, N fixation might be cost effective under milder N limitation at lower latitudes but only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. This third hypothesis class generalizes previous hypotheses and suggests new specific hypotheses. For example, greater trade-offs between N fixation and N use efficiency, soil N uptake, or plant turnover at higher compared to lower latitudes would make N fixation cost effective only under more severe N limitation at higher latitudes. Fourth, N-fixing trees might adjust N fixation more at lower than at higher latitudes. This framework provides new hypotheses to explain the latitudinal abundance distribution of N-fixing trees, and also provides a new way to visualize them. Therefore, it can help explain the seemingly paradoxical persistence of N limitation in many higher latitude forests.

KW - ecosystem

KW - facultative N fixers

KW - latitude

KW - legume

KW - limitation

KW - nitrogen fixation

KW - obligate N fixers

KW - theory

KW - tree

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034068567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034068567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ecy.2034

DO - 10.1002/ecy.2034

M3 - Article

C2 - 28976548

AN - SCOPUS:85034068567

VL - 98

SP - 3127

EP - 3140

JO - Ecology

JF - Ecology

SN - 0012-9658

IS - 12

ER -