the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 06 Dec 2023
Vegetation control on nutrient availability and supply in high-elevation tropical Andean ecosystems
Abstract. Plants absorb nutrients and water through their roots, and modulate soil biogeochemical cycles. The mechanisms of water and nutrient uptake by plants depend on climatic and edaphic conditions, as well as the plant root system. Soil solution is the medium in which abiotic and biotic processes exchange nutrients, and nutrient concentrations vary with the abundance of reactive minerals and fluid residence times. High-altitude ecosystems of the tropical Andes are particularly interesting to study the association between vegetation patterns, soil hydrology and soil nutrient availability. The páramo landscape forms a vegetation mosaic of bunch-grasses, cushion-forming plants and forests. In the nutrient-depleted nonallophanic Andosols, the plant rooting depth varies with drainage and soil moisture conditions. Vegetation composition is a relevant indicator of rock-derived nutrient availability in soil solutions. The soil solute chemistry revealed patterns in plant available nutrients that were not mimicking the distribution of total rock-derived nutrients nor the exchangeable nutrient pool, but clearly resulted from strong biocycling of cations and removal of nutrients from the soil by plant uptake or deep leaching. Our findings have important implications for future management of Andean páramo ecosystems where vegetation type distributions are dynamically changing as a result of warming temperatures and anthropogenic disturbances. Such alterations may not only lead to changes in soil hydrology and solute geochemistry but also to complex changes in weathering rates and solute export downstream with effects on nutrient availability in Andean rivers and high-mountain lakes.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1023 KB)
-
Supplement
(444 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1023 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(444 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2750', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jan 2024
The paper deals with the effect of vegetation on nutrient avaiability in high-elevation ecosystems of the Andes. The subject is interesting and the paper is well written. However a few concerns arise and have been listed below:
Line 22: Why are particularly interesting?
Line 32: change into ….with effects on nutrient cconcentrations in rivers and high-mountain lakes.
Line 39: change into….. that releases nutrients into the biological environment (Chadwick et al., 1999; Hedin et al., 2003; Dixon et al., 2016).
Line 48: do you exclude the input through the wet depositions? I think that rainfall not only influence the vegetative growth cycles but represents also an input of nutrients to the soil, expecially relevant at high elevation.
Line 64: change into…. the role of vegetation communities and soil hydrology in influencing the soil nutrient availability
Line 68: change into…..because persistently at cool temperatures, ranging between 2 and 10 °C…..Do these values represent the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures? Moreover, do the mean annual precipitation include also the snow water equivalent?
Lines 71-72: Do you have data on soil carbon stock in the area?
Lines 73-75: Do you assume that the dissolved organic carbon is leached from the soil particularly rich in organic carbon?
Line 92: change into asl
Line 97: this value of precipitation is significantly different from what reported in line 68
Figure 1 Caption: Since the forest is present only in poorly accessible sites (by humans?) means that the other land covers (cushion-forming plants, tussock grasses) have been shaped by human activity? Moreover in the figure maybe better soil profiles than soil samples.
Line 131: please add the standard deviation to the average soil depths.
Lines 132-133: How did you calculate the depletions in base cations?
Line 177: Please specify what kind of genetic horizons are the upper horizons
Line 222: model
Line 228: was
Line 266: Caption Figure 1. Maybe better Depth-distribution
Line 268: Caption Table 1: explain the meaning of Y and N. Yes? No?
Line 274: Table 2. Did you test if the mean concentrations were different between the vegetation types?
Line 299: Does this impermeble layer origin from pedogenetic processes?
Figure 7: I think that the sentence “the high values recorded at the beginning of the measurement period
(October 2022) are likely due to the incomplete stabilization of the lysimeters before the first sampling” should be moved in the text and better explained. For example it seems that this phenomenon is particularly relevant in the forest, for Mg, Ca and K. Why?
Line 385: Is this a native forest?
Line 434: Do you exclude for P a potential contribution of soil microbial immobilization?
Line 457: Here and previously in the Introduction, please specify better what kind of anthropogenic disturbances could be expected in the area
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2750-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2750', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jan 2024
Very nice work on the effects of vegetation types on nutrient availability and supply in the paramo.
I have only one general concern which relates to the ´Discussion´ section. I feel it may be reduced to some extent. As I read this section, it seemed I was reading a ´Results and Discussion´ section as many of the results were again described. Additionally, I am not used to finding so many figure and table referenced in a Discussion section.
I have also added some comments, suggestions and corrections on the manuscript itself, which the authors need to consider before publication.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
We highly appreciate the constructive review, and the detailed comments on the manuscript. The ‘discussion section’ will be reduced to avoid repetition with the ‘results section’, and we will revise the references to figures and tables in the discussion and only keep the essential references. Detailed comments are addressed in the attached document
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2750', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jan 2024
The paper deals with the effect of vegetation on nutrient avaiability in high-elevation ecosystems of the Andes. The subject is interesting and the paper is well written. However a few concerns arise and have been listed below:
Line 22: Why are particularly interesting?
Line 32: change into ….with effects on nutrient cconcentrations in rivers and high-mountain lakes.
Line 39: change into….. that releases nutrients into the biological environment (Chadwick et al., 1999; Hedin et al., 2003; Dixon et al., 2016).
Line 48: do you exclude the input through the wet depositions? I think that rainfall not only influence the vegetative growth cycles but represents also an input of nutrients to the soil, expecially relevant at high elevation.
Line 64: change into…. the role of vegetation communities and soil hydrology in influencing the soil nutrient availability
Line 68: change into…..because persistently at cool temperatures, ranging between 2 and 10 °C…..Do these values represent the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures? Moreover, do the mean annual precipitation include also the snow water equivalent?
Lines 71-72: Do you have data on soil carbon stock in the area?
Lines 73-75: Do you assume that the dissolved organic carbon is leached from the soil particularly rich in organic carbon?
Line 92: change into asl
Line 97: this value of precipitation is significantly different from what reported in line 68
Figure 1 Caption: Since the forest is present only in poorly accessible sites (by humans?) means that the other land covers (cushion-forming plants, tussock grasses) have been shaped by human activity? Moreover in the figure maybe better soil profiles than soil samples.
Line 131: please add the standard deviation to the average soil depths.
Lines 132-133: How did you calculate the depletions in base cations?
Line 177: Please specify what kind of genetic horizons are the upper horizons
Line 222: model
Line 228: was
Line 266: Caption Figure 1. Maybe better Depth-distribution
Line 268: Caption Table 1: explain the meaning of Y and N. Yes? No?
Line 274: Table 2. Did you test if the mean concentrations were different between the vegetation types?
Line 299: Does this impermeble layer origin from pedogenetic processes?
Figure 7: I think that the sentence “the high values recorded at the beginning of the measurement period
(October 2022) are likely due to the incomplete stabilization of the lysimeters before the first sampling” should be moved in the text and better explained. For example it seems that this phenomenon is particularly relevant in the forest, for Mg, Ca and K. Why?
Line 385: Is this a native forest?
Line 434: Do you exclude for P a potential contribution of soil microbial immobilization?
Line 457: Here and previously in the Introduction, please specify better what kind of anthropogenic disturbances could be expected in the area
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2750-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2750', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jan 2024
Very nice work on the effects of vegetation types on nutrient availability and supply in the paramo.
I have only one general concern which relates to the ´Discussion´ section. I feel it may be reduced to some extent. As I read this section, it seemed I was reading a ´Results and Discussion´ section as many of the results were again described. Additionally, I am not used to finding so many figure and table referenced in a Discussion section.
I have also added some comments, suggestions and corrections on the manuscript itself, which the authors need to consider before publication.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
We highly appreciate the constructive review, and the detailed comments on the manuscript. The ‘discussion section’ will be reduced to avoid repetition with the ‘results section’, and we will revise the references to figures and tables in the discussion and only keep the essential references. Detailed comments are addressed in the attached document
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Armando Molina, 02 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 294 | 100 | 28 | 422 | 49 | 20 | 24 |
- HTML: 294
- PDF: 100
- XML: 28
- Total: 422
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Armando Molina
Veerle Vanacker
Oliver Chadwick
Santiago Zhiminaicela
Marife Corre
Edzo Veldkamp
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1023 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(444 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper