| Literature DB >> 25265326 |
Fan Yang1, Yong Wang1, Zhulong Chan1.
Abstract
The establishment of riparian protection forests in the Three Gorges Reservoir (TGR) is an ideal measure to cope with the eco-environmental problems of theEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25265326 PMCID: PMC4181873 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 2Comparable analyses of pigment contents in S. variegata during the recovery stage after winter floods.
Values are means ± SE (n = 6). The values followed by different letters significantly differed at P<0.05 according to Duncan's test. ns, no significant differences.
The coordinate data of 22 sampling sites of the water-level-fluctuation zone in the Three Gorges Reservoir in 2009.
| No. sampling site | Sampling site | Longitude (E) | Latitude (N) | Lower elevation (m) | No. of sampling sites | Sampling site | Longitude (E) | Latitude (N) | Lower elevation (m) |
|
| Longxi River in Changshou | 107°05′12.2″ | 29°48′43.6″ | 162 |
| Yangtze River in the old location of Yunyang | 108°54′09.0″ | 30°57′24.2″ | 158 |
|
| Changming Port in Changshou | 107°01′11.7″ | 29°47′17.3″ | 160 |
| Yangxi River in the old location of Yunynag | 108°54′07.4″ | 30°57′45.8″ | 160 |
|
| Wu River in Fuling | 107°23′33.4″ | 29°40′38.6″ | 165 |
| Meixi River in Fengjie | 109°31′25.8″ | 31°03′04.5″ | 160 |
|
| Yangtze River in Fuling | 107°24′47.2″ | 29°44′39.9″ | 162 |
| Yangtze River in Fengjie | 109°28′03.9″ | 31°00′21.7″ | 158 |
|
| Yangtze River in Fengdu | 107°40′51.0″ | 29°51′48.3″ | 164 |
| Yangtze River in Wushan | 109°53′29.0″ | 31°04′19.8″ | 160 |
|
| Long River in Fengdu | 107°44′43.7″ | 29°52′28.1″ | 162 |
| Yangtze River in the Badong | 110°23′42.0″ | 31°02′30.4″ | 160 |
|
| Yangtze River in Zhong Xian | 108°03′11.2″ | 29°18′08.9″ | 156 |
| Padang Port in Badong | 110°19′30.6″ | 31°02′31.3″ | 160 |
|
| Xintian Town in Wanzhou | 108°23′28.4″ | 30°41′41.7″ | 155 |
| Shennong River in Badong | 110°49′27.7″ | 31°03′40.2″ | 160 |
|
| Wanzhou Port in Wanzhou | 108°23′46.7″ | 30°41′15.1″ | 160 |
| Xiangxi River in Zigui | 110°40′48.1″ | 31°03′50.9″ | 160 |
|
| Pengxi River in Yunyang | 108°41′16.1″ | 30°56′54.2″ | 160 |
| Lanling River vegetation recovery test base in Zigui | 110°55′11.7″ | 30°51′55.3″ | 160 |
|
| Yangtze River in Yunyang | 108°42′48.0″ | 30°55′06.2″ | 162 |
| Vegetation recovery test base in Three Gorges Dam in Zigui | 110°59′08.9″ | 30°51′18.3″ | 160 |
Woody plant species distribution in the TGR WLFZ in 2009.
| Species | Elevation (>m) | Plant height (cm) | Life form (Growth age) | Species | Elevation (>m) | Plant height (cm) | Life form (Growth age) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 173 | 60–80 | Annual shrub |
| 172 | 20–70 | Perennial climbing shrub |
|
| 170 | 100–150 | Annual shrub |
| 174 | 30–50 | Annual shrub |
|
| 172 | 60–780 | Annual woody vines |
| |||
|
| 168 | 50–100 | Annual tree seedlings |
| 165 | 50–140 | Annual tree seedlings |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 165 | 30–90 | Annual tree seedlings |
| 168 | 150–350 | Perennial tree |
|
| 171 | 100–180 | Annual shrub |
| 164 | 40–130 | Perennial shrub |
|
| 169 | 90–450 | Perennial arbor |
| 165 | 150–500 | Perennial tree |
|
| 172 | 150–250 | Perennial arbor |
| |||
|
|
| 167 | 20–80 | Annual tree seedlings | |||
|
| 168 | 30–140 | Annual shrub |
| |||
|
| 168 | 30–120 | Annual shrub |
| 170 | 40–200 | Annual shrub |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 172 | 80–130 | Annual subshrub |
| 173 | 20–30 | Annual shrub |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 173 | 25 | Annual shrub |
| 170 | 20–70 | Annual tree seedlings |
|
|
| 172 | 25–45 | Annual shrub | |||
|
| 170 | 30–90 | Perennial Shrub |
| |||
|
| 172 | 40–70 | Annual subshrub |
| 170 | 20–30 | Annual shrub |
|
| 173 | 40–90 | Annual shrub |
| |||
|
|
| 172 | 60–110 | Perennial shrub | |||
|
| 166 | 30–70 | Perennial shrub |
| |||
|
|
| 165 | 20–90 | Annual tree seedlings | |||
|
| 172 | 100–450 | Perennial tree |
| |||
|
|
| 174 | 100–140 | Annual tree seedlings | |||
|
| 173 | 40–70 | Annual shrub |
| 171 | 30–60 | Annual shrub |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 172 | 50–150 | Annual tree seedlings |
| 172 | 30–50 | Annual shrub |
|
|
| 173 | 76 | Annual tree seedlings | |||
|
| 173 | 35 | Annual tree seedlings |
| |||
|
| 171 | 20 | Annual shrub |
, family name;
, the number of genera within each family;
, the number of species within each family.
Survival rate analyses of 11 woody plant species under controlled flooding conditions.
| Plant species | Submergence treatment | ||||||||||||
| Submergence depth (m) | 1 | 5 | 15 | 25 | |||||||||
| Submergence duration (days) | 90 | 150 | 210 | 90 | 150 | 210 | 90 | 150 | 210 | 90 | 150 | 210 | |
|
| Number of the test plants | 50 | 50 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Number of survival plants | 45 | 37 | 32 | 26 | 18 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 30 | 30 | 28 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 26 |
| Number of survival plants | 28 | 24 | 15 | 25 | 17 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 18 |
| Number of survival plants | 8 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 90 | 90 | 90 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 26 |
| Number of survival plants | 75 | 55 | 26 | 25 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Number of survival plants | 9 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Number of survival plants | 9 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 20 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Number of survival plants | 16 | 11 | 2 | 18 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Number of survival plants | 26 | 17 | 4 | 22 | 12 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Number of survival plants | 8 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Number of survival plants | 9 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Number of the test plants | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Number of survival plants | 22 | 12 | 2 | 18 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Survival rate analyses of M. alba in 2012 planted in the Xiaohe village WLFZ.
| Elevatation(m) | ||||||
| 175-174 | 174-173 | 173-172 | 172-171 | 171-170 | ||
| Total Area (m2) | 600 | 600 | 400 | 400 | 300 | |
| Number of the investigated plants | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | |
| Submerged Days | ≤83 | ≤95 | ≤107 | ≤118 | ≤127 | |
| Average survival rate (%) | 75.7 | 70.9 | 42.1 | 30.3 | 23.4 | |
| Survival rate (%) | Sloping field | 82.7 | 71.9 | ND | 53.5 | ND |
| Paddy field | 70.8 | 52.9 | 42.1 | 28.3 | 23.4 | |
| Survival rate (%) | With old branches | ND | 85.9 | 47.8 | ND | ND |
| Without old branches | 75.7 | 61.9 | 32.1 | 36.3 | 23.4 | |
ND, not determined.
Survival rate analyses of five woody plants in 2012 planted in the Langling Creek WLFZ.
| The test plant species | Elevatation (m) | |||||||||||||||
| 173 | 171 | 169 | 167 | |||||||||||||
| Number of test plants | Sub. C. | Inv. W. | Suv. R. | Number of test plants | Sub. C. | Inv. W. | Suv. R. | Number of test plants | Sub. C. | Inv. W. | Suv. R. | Number of test plants | Sub. C. | Inv. W. | Suv. R. | |
|
| 25 | Partial | × | 100% | 19 | Partial | × | 100% | 20 | Partial | × | 70% | 20 | Full | × | 30% |
|
| 10 | Full | √ | 100% | 10 | Full | √ | 90% | 9 | Full | √ | 78% | 5 | Full | √ | 60% |
|
| 25 | Partial | × | 100% | 14 | Partial | × | 100% | ND | 15 | Full | × | 60% | |||
|
| 8 | Partial | × | 100% | 6 | Partial | × | 100% | ND | 6 | Full | × | 50% | |||
|
| 20 | Full | √ | 75% | 20 | Full | √ | 55% | ND | 20 | Full | √ | 15% | |||
Sub. C., submersion conditions (Full submersion, partial submersion); Inv. W., whether invaded by dominant plant communities or not; Sur. R., survival rate; ND, not determined.
Physiological responses of P.×canadensis planted in the TGR WLFZ during the recovery stage after winter flooding.
| Ch | Ch | Carotenoids (mg/g Fw) |
|
|
|
| Fv/Fm | Yield | Y(NPQ) | Y(NO) | qN | |
| Control | 1.09±0.035 | 0.37±0.008 | 0.23±0.007 | 12.87±0.381 | 1.63±0.680 | 355±12 | 1.90±0.458 | 0.71±0.004 | 0.66±0.017 | 0.07±0.019 | 0.27±0.004 | 0.26±0.059 |
| Flooding-recovery | 1.18±0.010 | 0.38±0.003 | 0.27±0.003 | 14.17±0.387 | 2.64±0.182 | 348±5 | 2.78±0.152 | 0.75±0.004 | 0.66±0.002 | 0.04±0.008 | 0.31±0.006 | 0.16±0.032 |
|
| 0.083 | 0.372 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.227 | 0.619 | 0.142 | 0.03 | 0.854 | 0.233 | 0.512 | 0.187 |
Ch a, chlorophyll a; Ch b, chlorophyll b; A, net photosynthetic rate; g, stomatal conductance; C, intercellular CO2 concentration; E, transpiration rate. Values are means ± SE (n = 6). The values followed by different letters significantly differed at P<0.05 according to Duncan's test. P>Ff indicate comparisons between treatments; Ff, effect of flooding stress.
Figure 1Comparable analyses of pigment contents in L. chinense during the recovery stage after winter flooding.
Values are means ± SE (n = 6). The values followed by different letters significantly differed at P<0.05 according to Duncan's test.
Physiological responses of M. alba planted in the TGR WLFZ during the recovery stage after winter flooding.
| Ch | Ch | Carotenoids (mg/g Fw) |
|
|
|
| Fv/Fm | Yield | Y(NPQ) | Y(NO) | qN | |
| Control | 2.08±0.058 | 0.63±0.021 | 0.49±0.015 | 11.90±1.021 | 0.67±0.082 | 357±15 | 2.81±0.530 | 0.70±0.010 | 0.68±0.005 | 0.02±0.007 | 0.30±0.011 | 0.09±0.032 |
| Flooding-recovery | 2.41±0.015 | 0.81±0.003 | 0.55±0.002 | 14.80±2.401 | 1.50±0.162 | 355±8 | 5.38±0.280 | 0.71±0.014 | 0.67±0.008 | 0.02±0.007 | 0.31±0.014 | 0.09±0.030 |
|
| 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.017 | 0.029 | 0.010 | 0.881 | 0.013 | 0.488 | 0.406 | 0.925 | 0.673 | 0.954 |
Ch a, chlorophyll a; Ch b, chlorophyll b; A, net photosynthetic rate; g, stomatal conductance; C, intercellular CO2 concentration; E, transpiration rate. Values are means ± SE (n = 6). The values followed by different letters significantly differed at P<0.05 according to Duncan's test. P>Ff indicate comparisons between treatments; Ff, effect of flooding stress.