Of the whole plant root resource status from the localized nutrient supply in the FV treatment (i.e., fertilizer only in vegetated half) to the overall nutrient supply in the F treatment (i.e., fertilizer in both halves). These results clearly Title Loaded From File showed that RTRS was regulated by the local responses and the systemic controlled mechanisms. For the first time, our findings provided new evidence based on root architecture for De Kroon’s concept, which directly reflect the root foraging ability of woody plants. Cahill et al. hypothesized that plants integrate information from both 10457188 resource and neighbor-based cues in the environment in anon-additive manner [8]. However, they measured the horizontal spread of the roots, which was unsuitable for precisely exploring the root foraging ability, as compared with the root biomass or architecture. In our study, the 0?.5 mm fine roots SRLP of both the vegetated and non-vegetated halves decreased with the increasing nutrient concentrations, based on the results of the NF and F treatments. Therefore, the target plant adopted strategies to ease the competition within the same plant root system as the nutrient status increased. The RTRS of the vegetated half and the ROLP of the first-order roots in the nonvegetated half were higher in the FV treatment than in other treatments. In addition, these indicators were significantly different between the vegetated and non-vegetated halves in the FNV treatment. Collectively, we were able to show that plants used novel root foraging behaviors under different combinations of environmental conditions, such as 1315463 neighboring plants and localized fertilization. We took full advantage of the root architecture indicators to effectively measure foraging behaviors and provide pronounced evidence that woody plant root foraging behavior was a non-additive response to multiple forms of environmental information. When grown in heterogeneous conditions, plants preferentially produce roots in nutrient-rich substrate patches, and enhance the uptake efficiency of these roots, as compared with other roots of the same plant outside the patch zone [38,46]. The differences between the NF and FV treatments indicated that the target plants increased their nutrient uptake in nutrient-rich patches by altering the root architecture (RTRS) under the conditions of constant absorbing root biomass. Despite the intense competition in the same patches, root competition did not affect the Title Loaded From File attempts of plants to absorb resources in nutrient-rich patches. In addition, the RTRS ratio in the FNV treatment was less than 1, which reflected the attempt of the target plants to strengthen the nutrient intake in nutrient-rich patches. Mommer et al. suggested that the root response to nutrient distribution in a competitive environment depended on the competitive strength of the neighboring species; in their study, competition with a superior competitor led the inferior Agrostis stolonifera to increase relative root investment in the nutrient-poor patch instead of the nutrient-rich patch [10]. Under similar competitive strength conditions by neighboring species (i.e., intraspecific competition), the target plants in the present study still had enhanced nutrient uptake in the nutrient-rich patches, which showed that plants seemed to prefer nutrient intake in nutrientrich patches than in the nutrient-poor counterparts unless forced by enormous environmental stress, such as competition with more superior competitor (.Of the whole plant root resource status from the localized nutrient supply in the FV treatment (i.e., fertilizer only in vegetated half) to the overall nutrient supply in the F treatment (i.e., fertilizer in both halves). These results clearly showed that RTRS was regulated by the local responses and the systemic controlled mechanisms. For the first time, our findings provided new evidence based on root architecture for De Kroon’s concept, which directly reflect the root foraging ability of woody plants. Cahill et al. hypothesized that plants integrate information from both 10457188 resource and neighbor-based cues in the environment in anon-additive manner [8]. However, they measured the horizontal spread of the roots, which was unsuitable for precisely exploring the root foraging ability, as compared with the root biomass or architecture. In our study, the 0?.5 mm fine roots SRLP of both the vegetated and non-vegetated halves decreased with the increasing nutrient concentrations, based on the results of the NF and F treatments. Therefore, the target plant adopted strategies to ease the competition within the same plant root system as the nutrient status increased. The RTRS of the vegetated half and the ROLP of the first-order roots in the nonvegetated half were higher in the FV treatment than in other treatments. In addition, these indicators were significantly different between the vegetated and non-vegetated halves in the FNV treatment. Collectively, we were able to show that plants used novel root foraging behaviors under different combinations of environmental conditions, such as 1315463 neighboring plants and localized fertilization. We took full advantage of the root architecture indicators to effectively measure foraging behaviors and provide pronounced evidence that woody plant root foraging behavior was a non-additive response to multiple forms of environmental information. When grown in heterogeneous conditions, plants preferentially produce roots in nutrient-rich substrate patches, and enhance the uptake efficiency of these roots, as compared with other roots of the same plant outside the patch zone [38,46]. The differences between the NF and FV treatments indicated that the target plants increased their nutrient uptake in nutrient-rich patches by altering the root architecture (RTRS) under the conditions of constant absorbing root biomass. Despite the intense competition in the same patches, root competition did not affect the attempts of plants to absorb resources in nutrient-rich patches. In addition, the RTRS ratio in the FNV treatment was less than 1, which reflected the attempt of the target plants to strengthen the nutrient intake in nutrient-rich patches. Mommer et al. suggested that the root response to nutrient distribution in a competitive environment depended on the competitive strength of the neighboring species; in their study, competition with a superior competitor led the inferior Agrostis stolonifera to increase relative root investment in the nutrient-poor patch instead of the nutrient-rich patch [10]. Under similar competitive strength conditions by neighboring species (i.e., intraspecific competition), the target plants in the present study still had enhanced nutrient uptake in the nutrient-rich patches, which showed that plants seemed to prefer nutrient intake in nutrientrich patches than in the nutrient-poor counterparts unless forced by enormous environmental stress, such as competition with more superior competitor (.
