| Literature DB >> 28878268 |
Shan Xu1, Guoyi Zhou2, Xuli Tang1, Wantong Wang3, Genxu Wang4, Keping Ma5, Shijie Han6, Sheng Du7, Shenggong Li8, Junhua Yan1, Youxin Ma9.
Abstract
Nutrient resorption is an important internal-strategy for plant to retain nutrients. However, the spatial patterns ofEntities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28878268 PMCID: PMC5587577 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11163-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The distributions of sampling sites in China’s forests (Map created using ARCGIS 10.1 software by fourth author, URL: http://www.esri.com). EBF: evergreen broadleaf forest, DBF: deciduous broadleaf forest, ENF: evergreen needle-leaf forest, DNF: deciduous needle-leaf forest, MF: broadleaf and needle-leaf mixed forest, BB: bamboo forest.
Figure 2Mean NRE and PRE according to different classified standards. (a) Mean NRE across China’s forests, different climatic zones, different forest types, plantation and natural forests; (b) Mean PRE across China’s forests, different forest types, plantation and natural forests, and different stand stages. NRE: N resorption efficiency, PRE: P resorption efficiency, Young: forest in young stage, Mid-age: forest in mid-age stage, Mature: forest in mature stage. Abbreviations of forest types are the same as Fig. 1. The error bars represent the standard error. The main effects were significant when P < 0.05.
Figure 3The interactions of climatic zone × land use on nutrient resorption efficiency: (a) NRE, and (b) PRE. Abbreviations are the same as Fig. 2. The error bars represent the standard error.
Stepwise multiple regressions between NRE and PRE and mean annual temperature (MAT, °C), mean annual precipitation (MAP, mm), and latitude (LAT).
| Variable | Forest type | Equation | R2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRE | All | y = −0.002MAP + 38.151 | 0.005 |
|
| EBF | y = 1.851MAT−0.011MAP + 16.634 | 0.113 |
| |
| DBF | y = −0.825MAT − 0.010MAP + 53.388 | 0.086 |
| |
| ENF | y = 0.304MAT + 28.243 | 0.012 | 0.083 | |
| DNF | y = −0.056MAP + 90.410 | 0.369 |
| |
| MF | — | — | — | |
| BB | — | — | — | |
| PRE | All | y = −0.441MAT + 0.004MAP − 0.245LAT + 52.125 | 0.007 |
|
| EBF | — | — | — | |
| DBF | y = 0.007MAP + 38.744 | 0.009 |
| |
| ENF | y = −0.553MAT + 0.012MAP + 37.999 | 0.024 |
| |
| DNF | y = −1.283MAT + 51.529 | 0.08 |
| |
| MF | y = −0.281LAT + 47.908 | 0.019 |
| |
| BB | y = −14.150MAT − 9.215LAT + 532.443 | 0.576 |
|
NRE: nitrogen resorption efficiency, PRE: phosphorus resorption efficiency, EBF: evergreen broadleaf forest, DBF: deciduous broadleaf forest, ENF: evergreen needle-leaf forest, DNF: deciduous needle-leaf forest, MF: broadleaf and needle-leaf mixed forest, BB: bamboo forest. Linear models were significant when P < 0.05.
Figure 4Correlations of NRE and PRE with leaf and soil nutrient status: linear relationships between (a) NRE vs. leaf N concentrations, (b) NRE vs. litter N concentrations, (c) NRE vs. soil N concentrations, (d) NRE vs. soil P concentrations, (e) PRE vs. leaf P concentrations, (f) PRE and litter P concentrations, (g) PRE vs. soil N concentrations, (h) PRE vs. soil P concentrations. N: nitrogen; P: phosphorus. Abbreviations of PRE and NRE are the same as Fig. 2.
Figure 5NRE and PRE across different leaf N/P ratios: (a) Mean NRE in leaf with three levels of leaf N/P ratio: <14, 14–16, and >16, the correlation of NRE and soil N concentrations when (b) leaf N/P < 14, (c) leaf 14 < N/P < 16, (d) leaf N/P > 16; (e) Mean PRE in leaf with three levels of leaf N/P ratio: <14, 14–16, and >16, the correlation of PRE and soil P concentrations when (f) leaf N/P < 14, (g) leaf 14 < N/P < 16, (h) leaf N/P > 16. Abbreviations are the same as Fig. 2.