| Literature DB >> 29666770 |
Lin Hou1, Zhenjie Dong1, Yuanyuan Yang1, Donghong Zhang1, Shengli Zhang2, Shuoxin Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Chinese Natural Forest Protection program has been conducted nationwide and has achieved resounding success. However, timber importation has increased; therefore, producing more domestic timber is critical to meet the demand for raw materials. Fertilization is one of the most effective silviculture practices used to improve tree and stand growth. However, determining the appropriate type and amount of elements is necessary for effective fertilization of big timber in different forest types and environmental conditions. Stoichiometric theory provides the criteria to assess nutrient limitation in plants and offers important insight into fertilizer requirements of forested ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: Fertilizer; Mixed pine-oak stand; N:P; Nitrogen; Phosphorus; The Qinling Mountains
Year: 2018 PMID: 29666770 PMCID: PMC5900931 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Importance value of tree species.
| Species | RH (%) | RD (%) | RF (%) | IV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30.9 | 65.2 | 9.4 | 35.2 | |
| 24.1 | 27.5 | 8.7 | 20.1 | |
| 16.3 | 5.1 | 10.2 | 10.6 | |
| 7.0 | 1.3 | 8.7 | 5.6 | |
| 2.2 | 0.1 | 8.7 | 3.6 | |
| 5.0 | 0.4 | 5.5 | 3.6 | |
| 2.0 | 0.1 | 7.9 | 3.3 | |
| 1.6 | 0.1 | 6.3 | 2.6 | |
| 1.3 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 2.3 | |
| 1.3 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 2.0 | |
| 2.2 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 1.8 | |
| 0.7 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 1.8 | |
| 0.7 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 1.6 | |
| 2.2 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 1.5 | |
| 1.1 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 1.4 | |
| 0.9 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 1.3 | |
| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | |
| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | |
| 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | |
| 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | |
| 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | |
| Sum | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Notes.
RH, RD, RF and IV in the table represent relative height, relative basal area, relative frequency and important value of tree species, respectively.
DBH distribution of dominant tree species.
Big timber rate of domiant tree species was calculated in text.
| Mid-diameter (cm) | Ratio of tree species | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 0.65 | 1.47 | 38.89 |
| 8 | 2.58 | 3.68 | 38.89 |
| 12 | 3.23 | 18.38 | 10.19 |
| 16 | 5.81 | 20.59 | 3.70 |
| 20 | 16.77 | 18.38 | 3.70 |
| 24 | 12.26 | 14.71 | 1.85 |
| 28 | 23.87 | 8.82 | 2.78 |
| 32 | 14.19 | 5.88 | |
| 36 | 10.32 | 5.15 | |
| 40 | 7.10 | 2.94 | |
| 44 | 2.58 | ||
| 48 | 0.65 | ||
| Sum | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Leaf stoichiometric traits of plants.
| Tree species | TN (mg g−1) | TP (mg g−1) | N:P | IV (%) | Plants | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN (mg g−1) | TP (mg g−1) | N:P ratio | |||||
| 11.84 ± 1.40 | 1.23 ± 0.22 | 9.62:1 | 35.2 | ||||
| 12.98 ± 1.43 | 1.20 ± 0.14 | 10.82:1 | 20.1 | 9.08 | 0.88 | 10.30:1 | |
| 21.72 ± 3.19 | 2.00 ± 0.31 | 10.87:1 | 10.6 | ||||
Notes.
TN, TP, N:P and IV in the table represent leaf concentration of total nitrogen, phosphorus and N:P ratio both in dominant tree species and plants, and importance value of tree species, respectively.
Extremely significant differences (p = 0.000) of leaf TN were between tree species.
Extremely significant differences (p = 0.000) of leaf TP were between Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata-Pinus tabuliformis and Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata-Pinus armandii.
Not significant difference (p = 0.88) of leaf TP was between Pinus tabuliformis-Pinus armandii.
Significant differences of leaf N:P were between Pinus tabuliformis-Pinus armandii (p = 0.048) and Pinus tabuliformis-Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata ( p = 0.04).
Not significant difference (p = 0.91) of leaf N:P was between Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata-Pinus armandii.
Figure 1Interaction of foliar N, P concentrations and N:P ratio of plants.
(A) Leaf concentrations of N and P in plants. (B) Leaf concentration of N and N:P in plants. (C) Leaf concentration of P and N:P in plants.
Stoichiometric traits of mineral soil and litter.
| Component | Depth (cm) | TN (mg g−1) | TP (mg g−1) | N:P ratio | Bulk density (g cm−3) | Biomass (t ha−1) | Nutrients storage (t ha−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | TP | |||||||
| Mineral soil | 0–10 | 2.40 ± 0.10 | 0.36 ± 0.03 | (6.81:1) ± 0.51 | 1.04 ± 0.02 | 4.58 ± 0.15 | 0.95 ± 0.09 | |
| 11–20 | 1.20 ± 0.04 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | (4.45:1) ± 0.39 | 1.15 ± 0.05 | ||||
| 21–30 | 0.60 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | (2.60:1) ± 0.41 | 1.22 ± 0.06 | ||||
| Mean | 1.40 | 0.29 | 4.62 | |||||
| Litter | 16.89 ± 3.59 | 1.51 ± 0.24 | (11.51:1) ± 3.20 | 18.66 ± 1.78 | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | ||
Notes.
TN, TP and N:P in the table represent leaf concentration of total nitrogen, phosphorus and N:P ratio both in soil and litter, respectively.
Figure 2Interaction of litter nutrients and mineral soil nutrients.
(A) Nitrogen concentrations of litter and miner soil within 0–10 cm. Nitrogen concentrations of litter and miner soil within 11–20 cm. Nitrogen concentrations of litter and miner soil within 21–30 cm. (B) Phosphorus concentrations of litter and miner soil within 0–10 cm. Phosphorus concentrations of litter and miner soil within 11–20 cm. Phosphorus concentrations of litter and miner soil within 21–30 cm.
Figure 3Mineral soil nutrients and foliar nutrients of plants interaction.
Nitrogen concentrations of miner soil within 0–10 cm and leaf in plants. Nitrogen concentrations of miner soil within 11–20 cm and leaf in plants. Nitrogen concentrations of miner soil within 21–30 cm and leaf in plants. Phosphorus concentrations of miner soil within 0–10 cm and leaf in plants. Phosphorus concentrations of miner soil within 11–20 cm and leaf in plants. Phosphorus concentrations of miner soil within 21–30 cm and leaf in plants.
Figure 4Relationships between storage of soil nutrients and foliar N:P ratio of plants.
(A) Relationship between nitrogen storage of mineral soil and N:P ratio of plants. (B) Relationship between phosphorus storage of mineral soil and N:P ratio of plants.