Am. J. Bot. Visit Plant Cell Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubio, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lynch, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rubio, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lynch, J. P.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Rubio, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lynch, J. P.
(American Journal of Botany. 2003;90:143-152.)
© 2003 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Ecology

A critical test of the two prevailing theories of plant response to nutrient availability1

Gerardo Rubio2, Jinming Zhu and Jonathan P. Lynch3

The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Horticulture, 102 Tyson Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 USA

Whereas the "law of the minimum" (LM) states that plant growth is limited by a single resource at any one time, the "multiple limitation hypothesis" (MLH) proposes that optimum plant behavior results from balancing resource costs and benefits so that all resources limit plant growth simultaneously. We tested the hypothesis that neither the LM nor the MLH account for plant responses to all mineral nutrients. Fronds of the aquatic plant Lemna minor were grown in nutrient solutions with increasing levels of four nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium. Neither LM or MLH adequately predicted plant responses to all of these nutrients: 23 of the 60 responses analyzed were classified as belonging to the LM; 20 cases were classified as undefined; and 17 cases as MLH. The type of response strongly depended on the specific pair of nutrients considered. The validity of the MLH model would depend on the accompanying resource limiting plant growth and on the severity of the stress. We propose that a "nutrient-specific" analysis, considering the biology of each mineral nutrient rather than grouping plant resources as a whole, is more appropriate than general models in understanding plant responses to nutrient availability.

Key Words: law of the minimum • Lemna minor • magnesium • multiple limitation hypothesis • nitrogen • phosphorus • plant resources • potassium






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.