% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Temperton:21191,
      author       = {Temperton, V.M. and Märtin, L.L.A. and Röder, D. and
                      Lücke, A. and Kiehl, K.},
      title        = {{E}ffects of four different restoration treatments on the
                      natural abundance of 15{N} stable isotopes in plants},
      journal      = {Frontiers in plant science: FPLS},
      volume       = {3},
      issn         = {1664-462X},
      address      = {Lausanne},
      publisher    = {Frontiers Media},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-21191},
      pages        = {70},
      year         = {2012},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
      abstract     = {δ(15)N signals in plant and soil material integrate over a
                      number of biogeochemical processes related to nitrogen (N)
                      and therefore provide information on net effects of multiple
                      processes on N dynamics. In general little is known in many
                      grassland restoration projects on soil-plant N dynamics in
                      relation to the restoration treatments. In particular,
                      δ(15)N signals may be a useful tool to assess whether
                      abiotic restoration treatments have produced the desired
                      result. In this study we used the range of abiotic and
                      biotic conditions provided by a restoration experiment to
                      assess to whether the restoration treatments and/or plant
                      functional identity and legume neighborhood affected plant
                      δ(15)N signals. The restoration treatments consisted of hay
                      transfer and topsoil removal, thus representing increasing
                      restoration effort, from no restoration measures, through
                      biotic manipulation to major abiotic manipulation. We
                      measured δ(15)N and $\%N$ in six different plant species
                      (two non-legumes and four legumes) across the restoration
                      treatments. We found that restoration treatments were
                      clearly reflected in δ(15)N of the non-legume species, with
                      very depleted δ(15)N associated with low soil N, and our
                      results suggest this may be linked to uptake of ammonium
                      (rather than nitrate). The two non-legume species differed
                      considerably in their δ(15)N signals, which may be related
                      to the two species forming different kinds of mycorrhizal
                      symbioses. Plant δ(15)N signals could clearly separate
                      legumes from non-legumes, but our results did not allow for
                      an assessment of legume neighborhood effects on non-legume
                      δ(15)N signals. We discuss our results in the light of what
                      the δ(15)N signals may be telling us about plant-soil N
                      dynamics and their potential value as an indicator for N
                      dynamics in restoration.},
      cin          = {IBG-3 / IBG-2},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118 / I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
      pnm          = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:22645597},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC3355755},
      UT           = {WOS:000208837900071},
      doi          = {10.3389/fpls.2012.00070},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/21191},
}