| Literature DB >> 27242864 |
Furong Niu1, Dongping Duan1, Ji Chen1, Peifeng Xiong1, He Zhang1, Zhi Wang2, Bingcheng Xu2.
Abstract
Altered precipitation regimes significantly affect ecosystem structure and function in arid and semi-arid regions. In order to investigate effects of precipitation changes on natural grassland community in the semi-arid Loess Plateau, the current research examined eco-physiological characteristics of two co-dominant species (i.e., Bothriochloa ischaemum and Lespedeza davurica) and community composition following two watering instances (i.e., precipitation pulses, July and August, 2011, respectively) in a natural grassland community. Results showed that the photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 concentration rapidly increased on the first to third day following watering in both species, and both months. Under watering treatments, the maximum net photosynthetic rates appeared on the second to third day after watering, which increased 30-80% in B. ischaemum and 40-50% in L. davurica compared with non-watering treatments, respectively. Leaf water use efficiency kept stable or initially decreased in both species under watering treatments. Watering in July produced more promoting effects on grass photosynthesis than in August, particularly in B. ischaemum. Community above-ground biomass at the end of the growing season increased after watering, although no significant changes in species diversity were observed. Our results indicated that timing and magnitude of watering could significantly affect plant eco-physiological processes, and there were species-specific responses in B. ischaemum and L. davurica. Pulsed watering increased community productivity, while did not significantly alter community composition after one growing season. The outcomes of this study highlight eco-physiological traits in dominant species may playing important roles in reshaping community composition under altered precipitation regimes.Entities:
Keywords: Bothriochloa ischaemum; Lespedeza davurica; community biomass; photosynthetic parameters; precipitation regime
Year: 2016 PMID: 27242864 PMCID: PMC4870232 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00663
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Water addition and corresponding precipitation amounts under each treatment.
| M1W1 | 9 July, 2011 | 0.1 × θ | 7.8 | 9.4 |
| M1W2 | 0.2 × θ | 18.8 | ||
| M2W1 | 7 August, 2011 | 0.1 × θ | 7.6 | 9.1 |
| M2W2 | 0.2 × θ | 18.2 | ||
| M3W1 | Both dates | 0.1 × θ | 7.8 and 7.6 | 18.5 |
| M3W2 | 0.2 × θ | 37.0 | ||
| CK | – | – | – | – |
θ means average soil water content of 0–100 cm soil depth in the grassland before watering; “M1” means watering on 9 July, 2011; “M2” means watering on 7 August, 2011; “M3” means watering on both 9 July and 7 August, 2011; “W1” means watering quantities were 0.1 × θ; “W2” means watering quantities were 0.2 × θ; “M” and “W” combinations stand for different watering treatments, “CK” stands for control treatment with no water addition.
Figure 1Precipitation data recorded at the meteorological station close to the experimental area (ca. 250 m) in 2011. Blue arrows indicate dates for watering.
Figure 2The photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air temperature (. “0” stands for the day-before-watering, and the numbers “1” to “5” stand for the first to fifth day after watering.
Figure 3The net photosynthetic rate (. “0” stands for the day-before-watering, and the numbers “1” to “7” stand for the first to seventh day after watering.
Figure 4The net photosynthetic rate (. “0” stands for the day-before-watering, and the numbers “1” to “5” stand for the first to fifth day after watering.
Figure 5The net photosynthetic rates (. Data derived from 5 days after watering, and squares in boxes indicate averages of 5 days. The lowercase letters above boxes indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05).
Importance value index (IVI) of each species in the community under each watering treatment at the end of the growing season (2 November, 2011).
| Asteraceae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.30 | 0 | 0 | |
| Asteraceae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Asteraceae | 20.27 | 16.14 | 18.42 | 21.17 | 10.60 | 0 | 20.07 | |
| Fabaceae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.91 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fabaceae | 22.86 | 0 | 17.57 | 13.89 | 14.38 | 13.18 | 13.16 | |
| Poaceae | 64.89bc | 72.40ab | 65.24abc | 66.38abc | 76.02a | 74.80a | 60.76c | |
| Asteraceae | 40.99 | 0 | 13.96 | 19.38 | 8.48 | 12.69 | 0 | |
| Asteraceae | 34.92 | 18.99 | 23.32 | 18.38 | 33.75 | 24.32 | 25.66 | |
| Poaceae | 0 | 0 | 20.88 | 0 | 22.02 | 14.95 | 17.38 | |
| Poaceae | 29.53 | 17.79 | 17.11 | 20.88 | 21.40 | 10.28 | 8.54 | |
| Poaceae | 23.85 | 17.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.26 | |
| Ranunculaceae | 0 | 20.72 | 15.39 | 0 | 13.00 | 12.26 | 13.86 | |
| Fabaceae | 14.07 | 14.74 | 0 | 17.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Asteraceae | 25.28 | 0 | 29.96 | 17.90 | 12.48 | 18.21 | 7.11 | |
| Fabaceae | 68.69 | 54.95 | 62.48 | 59.57 | 53.28 | 65.82 | 56.62 | |
| Poaceae | 24.40 | 29.46 | 31.75 | 0 | 24.93 | 25.70 | 36.29 | |
| Fabaceae | 0 | 11.90 | 17.82 | 0 | 7.28 | 8.10 | 0 | |
| Polygalaceae | 12.13 | 10.90 | 21.45 | 31.02 | 17.25 | 0 | 17.61 | |
| Rosaceae | 0 | 7.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.42 | 0 | |
| Chenopodiaceae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.34 | 12.59 | |
| Asteraceae | 16.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.15 | |
| Asteraceae | 0 | 10.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.50 | 0 | |
| Poaceae | 28.43 | 37.59 | 42.12 | 51.10 | 35.10 | 40.27 | 35.53 | |
| Asteraceae | 0 | 0 | 14.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fabaceae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.45 | 33.82 | |
| Violaceae | 0 | 7.35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.25 | 13.57 | |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05).
Species richness (.
| June | 8.33 ± 1.45 | 8.33 ± 0.33 | 8.67 ± 1.20 | 7.67 ± 0.33 | 8.00 ± 1.00 | 7.67 ± 0.67 | 7.33 ± 0.33 | |
| November | 8.00 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 0.58 | 9.33 ± 0.33 | 9.00 ± 0.58 | 11.00 ± 1.00 | 10.33 ± 0.88 | 10.67 ± 0.67 | |
| June | 1.90 ± 0.15 | 1.90 ± 0.07 | 1.93 ± 0.11 | 1.89 ± 0.02 | 1.93 ± 0.12 | 1.81 ± 0.11 | 1.87 ± 0.06 | |
| November | 1.91 ± 0.02 | 2.16 ± 0.03 | 2.08 ± 0.04 | 2.03 ± 0.06 | 2.15 ± 0.06 | 2.07 ± 0.09 | 2.18 ± 0.03 | |
| June | 0.83 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.01 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.84 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.02 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | |
| November | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.87 ± 0.01 | |
| June | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | |
| November | 0.92 ± 0.03 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 0.93 ± 0.03 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.03 |
Figure 6Community above-ground biomass under each treatment in June and November (mean ± SE, . Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in each month (P = 0.471 and 0.005 in June and December, respectively).