It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Nitrogen (N)-fixing symbiosis is critical to terrestrial ecosystems, yet possession of this trait is known for few plant species. Broader presence of the symbiosis is often indirectly determined by phylogenetic relatedness to taxa investigated via manipulative experiments. This data gap may ultimately underestimate phylogenetic, spatial, and temporal variation in N-fixing symbiosis. Still needed are simpler field or collections-based approaches for inferring symbiotic status. N-fixing plants differ from non-N-fixing plants in elemental and isotopic composition, but previous investigations have not tested predictive accuracy using such proxies. Here we develop a regional field study and demonstrate a simple classification model for fixer status using nitrogen and carbon content measurements, and stable isotope ratios (δ15N and δ13C), from field-collected leaves. We used mixed models and classification approaches to demonstrate that N-fixing phenotypes can be used to predict symbiotic status; the best model required all predictors and was 80–94% accurate. Predictions were robust to environmental context variation, but we identified significant variation due to native vs. non-native (exotic) status and phylogenetic affinity. Surprisingly, N content—not δ15N—was the strongest predictor, suggesting that future efforts combine elemental and isotopic information. These results are valuable for understudied taxa and ecosystems, potentially allowing higher-throughput field-based N-fixer assessments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091); University of Florida, Department of Biology, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091)
2 Mississippi State University, General Libraries, Mississippi State, USA (GRID:grid.260120.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0816 8287)
3 University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091); University of Florida, Thompson Earth Systems Institute, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091)
4 University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091)
5 University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091); University of Florida, Department of Biology, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091); University of Florida, Biodiversity Institute, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.15276.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8091)
6 Mississippi State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State, USA (GRID:grid.260120.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0816 8287)