| Literature DB >> 24065874 |
Zhaoqing Luan1, Zhongxin Wang, Dandan Yan, Guihua Liu, Yingying Xu.
Abstract
The response of Carex lasiocarpa in riparian wetlands in Sanjiang Plain to the environmental gradient of water depth was analyzed by using the Gaussian Model based on the biomass and average height data, and the ecological water-depth amplitude of Carex lasiocarpa was derived. The results indicated that the optimum ecological water-depth amplitude of Carex lasiocarpa based on biomass was [13.45 cm, 29.78 cm], while the optimum ecological water-depth amplitude of Carex lasiocarpa based on average height was [2.31 cm, 40.11 cm]. The intersection of the ecological water-depth amplitudes based on biomass and height confirmed that the optimum ecological water-depth amplitude of Carex lasiocarpa was [13.45 cm, 29.78 cm] and the optimist growing water-depth of Carex lasiocarpa was 21.4 cm. The TWINSPAN, a polythetic and divisive classification tool, was used to classify the wetland ecological series into 6 associations. Result of TWINSPAN matrix classification reflected an obvious environmental gradient in these associations: water-depth gradient. The relation of biodiversity of Carex lasiocarpa community and water depth was determined by calculating the diversity index of each association.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24065874 PMCID: PMC3770044 DOI: 10.1155/2013/402067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Location of the study area.
Figure 2Location of sampling spots.
The statistical description of Carex lasiocarpa community in different sampling points.
| Sampling points | Water depth (cm) | Population height (cm) | Population biomass (g/m2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 22.70 | 53.25 | 33.54 |
| 4 | 12.80 | 64.00 | 24.96 |
| 5 | 8.20 | 52.50 | 26.86 |
| 6 | 5.70 | 38.00 | 1.30 |
| 7 | 3.10 | 43.00 | 2.63 |
| 8 | 26.80 | 73.25 | 28.10 |
| 9 | 27.90 | 69.50 | 47.68 |
| 10 | 20.10 | 69.00 | 36.90 |
| 12 | 18.80 | 68.75 | 35.92 |
| 13 | 13.50 | 60.75 | 29.94 |
| 17 | 31.50 | 54.50 | 10.92 |
| 19 | 37.50 | 48.75 | 9.15 |
| 21 | 22.20 | 66.67 | 23.58 |
| 23 | 9.60 | 69.25 | 28.41 |
| 25 | 15.00 | 66.00 | 39.00 |
| 26 | 14.20 | 71.25 | 46.05 |
| 28 | 2.50 | 45.50 | 6.36 |
| Mean | 17.18 | 59.64 | 25.37 |
| Max | 37.50 | 73.25 | 47.68 |
| Min | 2.50 | 38.00 | 1.30 |
Figure 3The secondary nonlinear regression based on Gaussian Model of Carex lasiocarpa population biomass and water depth.
Figure 4The secondary nonlinear regression based on Gaussian Mode of Carex lasiocarpa populations height and water depth.
Figure 5TWINSPAN analyses. Note: 1-Carex lasiocarpa, 2-Glyceria spiculosa, 3-Carex pseudo-curaica, 4-Calamagrostis angustifolia, 5-Galium manshuricum Kitag., 6-Galium dahuricum Turcz, 7-Comarum palustre L., 8-Equisetum fluviatile, 9-Carex humida, 10-Phragmites australis, 11-Anemone dichotoma, L. 12-Menyanthes trifoliate, 13-Achillea acuminate, 14-Lathyrus quinquenervius., 15-Carex dispalata, 16-Salix rosmarinifolia, L. 17-Caltha palustris var, sibirica.
Figure 6Carex lasiocarpa community biodiversity index.