Biomass allocation of three sandhills
grasses with spatially different nutrient regimes
Teresa L. Hock and Beverly Collins
Results
| Root biomass allocation | |
| • |
With species combined, biomass did not differ (p<0.05) between quads in the C4 and C8 treatments (Fig. 2).
|
| • |
With species combined root mass was higher in E4 than E8 (p<0.03) and in C8 than E8 (p<0.07; Fig. 2).
|
| • |
No species differed in biomass allocation between quads within each treatment.
|
| • |
Aristida had higher root mass in E4 than E8 (p<0.0015) and in C8 than E8 (p<0.0007; Fig. 3).
|
| • |
Sorghastrum had higher root mass in the E4 than C4 treatments (p<0.07; Fig 3).
|
| • |
Andropogon grew well over all treatments.
|
| Shoot biomass allocation | |
| • |
With species combined, shoot mass was higher in C8 than C4 (p<0.07; Fig. 4).
|
| • |
Sorghastrum shoot mass was greater in E4 than E8 (p<0.02) and E8 than C8 (p<0.05; Fig. 4).
|
| • |
Aristida and Andropogon shoot mass did not differ between nutrient levels or between heterogeneous and homogenous nutrients.
|
| Root:Shoot ratio | |
| • | There was no treatment effect on the root:shoot ratio for all individuals or for individual species (Fig. 5). |
Abstract | Introduction | Background | Objectives | Methods | Results | Conclusions | Literature Cited
