| 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 the water-level fluctuation zone (WLFZ). Thus, the inpan>formation for screenpan>inpan>g winpan>ter-flood-toleranpan>t woody planpan>t species is useful for the recovery anpan>d re-establishmenpan>t of the riparianpan> protection forests inpan> the TGR WLFZ. Therefore, we discussed the possibilities of constructinpan>g anpan>d popularizinpan>g riparianpan> protection forests inpan> the TGR WLFZ from several aspects, inpan>cludinpan>g the woody planpan>t species distribution inpan> the WLFZ, the survival rate anpan>alyses of suitable canpan>didate woody species under controlled floodinpan>g conditions, the survival rate inpan>vestigation of some woody planpan>t species planpan>ted inpan> the TGR WLFZ, anpan>d the physiological responses of some woody planpan>t species durinpan>g the recovery stage after winpan>ter floods. The results of woody species inpan>vestigation showed that most woody planpan>t species that existed as anpan>nual seedlinpan>gs inpan> the TGR WLFZ are not suitable canpan>didates for the riparianpan> protection forests. However, arbor species (e.g., pan> class="Species">Salix matsudana, Populus×canadensis, Morus alba, Pterocarya stenoptera, Taxodium ascendens, and Metasequoia glyptostroboides) and shrub species (e.g., Salix variegata, Distylium chinensis, Lycium chinense, Myricaria laxiflora, and Rosa multiflora) might be considered suitable candidates for the riparian protection forests in the TGR WLFZ by survival rate analyses under controlled winter flooding conditions, and survival rate investigations of woody plant species planted in the TGR WLFZ, respectively. Physiological analyses showed that P.×canadensis, M. alba, L. chinense, and S. variegata could develop specific self-repairing mechanisms to stimulate biomass accumulation and carbohydrate synthesis via the increases in chlorophyll pigments and photosynthesis during recovery after winter floods. Our results suggested these woody plant species could endure the winter flooding stress and recover well, and be used as candidate for the construction of riparian protection forests in the TGR WLFZ.Entities:
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.