| Literature DB >> 30485328 |
Zunji Jian1, Fanqiang Ma1, Quanshui Guo1, Aili Qin1, Wenfa Xiao1.
Abstract
The water level fluctuation zone (WLFZ) has experienced a novel hydrological regime due to the anti-seasonal operation of China's Three Gorges Reservoir. Overall, hydrological change can significantly influence the riparian environment and shift the riparian vegetation. Although numerous studies have investigated the short-term responses of riparian plants to water level fluctuation in this zone, few have addressed long-term effects. In this study, four permanent plots in the WLFZ of the canyon landform area were chosen to evaluate the long-term responses of riparian plants to water level fluctuation from 2008 to 2015 and to screen candidate plants for ecological restoration. We recorded 146 species in 2008, 110 species in 2009, 68 species in 2012 and 69 species in 2015, indicating a conspicuous loss in riparian plants. Most of the remnant plants were annual and perennial herbs. Of the native species present in 2008, 82, 22 and 8 had disappeared in 2009, 2012 and 2015, respectively. Simultaneously, 45, 15 and 11 non-native species were first found, respectively. Additionally, over half of the native and the non-native species were not found after being subjected to a water level fluctuation. From 2008 to 2015, only 27 native species always presented; however, not all of them were chosen as candidates for ecological restoration because of their decreased importance values. In contrast, the importance value of Cynodon dactylon increased over time, suggesting its high tolerance to long-term winter flooding. We concluded that riparian plants' composition of the canyon landform area dramatically declined after long-term water level fluctuation and their presence was determined by the novel hydrological condition. Our results also suggested that Cynodon dactylon or its combination with other species (i.e. Digitaria chrysoblephara, Setaria glauca, Setaria viridis) is a better candidate for ecological restoration in the WLFZ.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30485328 PMCID: PMC6261589 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Locations of the study region and sampling plots in the water level fluctuation zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir.
This map was created in ArcGIS 10.2 (http://www.esri.com).
General characteristics of the four permanent plots in the water-level fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir.
| Plot | Coordinates | Slope | Soil thickness | Soil type | Pre-dam land use | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30°52.94'N, 110°54.35'E | 28° | 35cm | Yellow loan | Orchard | Confluence of the Yangtze River and Shamu Stream in Zigui County |
| 2 | 30°53.05'N, 110°53.19'E | 36° | 40cm | Yellow loan | Forest land | Confluence of the Yangtze River and Lanling Stream in Zigui County |
| 3 | 31°04.94'N, 109°54.13'E | 32° | 40cm | Yellow lime soil | Shrub land | Confluence of the Yangtze River and Daning River in Wushan County |
| 4 | 31°03.56'N, 109°54.65'E | 41° | 35cm | Yellow lime soil | Shrub land | Main river of the Wushan section in of Yangtze River |
Fig 2The water level fluctuation of the Three Gorges Reservoir during from 2006 to 2015.
The data originated from the daily records of the Three Gorges Dam hydrology station (http://www.ctg.com.cn/). The dashed lines indicate water levels of 156 m and 172 m, respectively. The boxes indicate the periods of the field survey in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2015.
Fig 3Variations in the number of total species (a), native species (b) and non-native species (c) in different years from 2008 to 2015 in the water level fluctuation zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir.
Variation in riparian plant families in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2015 in the water level fluctuation zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir.
| Survey period | Families with the following number of species | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 species | 2–5 species | 6–9 species | ≥10 species | ||
| 2008 | 36 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 56 |
| 2009 | 27 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 42 |
| 2012 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 27 |
| 2015 | 17 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 27 |
Importance values of plants ranked within the top 10 in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the water level fluctuation zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir.
| Species | 2008 | 2009 | 2012 | 2015 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.10 | 6.21 | - | - | native | |
| - | 10.65 | 12.96 | 5.63 | native | |
| - | 2.88 | - | - | non-native | |
| - | 5.82 | - | - | native | |
| - | - | 11.43 | 30.55 | non-native | |
| - | - | 11.08 | 2.64 | native | |
| - | 5.66 | - | 3.09 | non-native | |
| - | - | 17.60 | 8.51 | native | |
| - | 5.16 | - | - | native | |
| - | - | - | 5.97 | native | |
| - | 3.10 | - | 3.22 | native | |
| - | - | 3.00 | - | non-native | |
| 1.82 | - | - | - | native | |
| - | - | 2.07 | - | native | |
| 2.15 | - | - | - | native | |
| 2.41 | - | - | - | native | |
| 4.22 | - | - | - | native | |
| 3.77 | - | - | - | native | |
| - | - | 2.23 | - | non-native | |
| 4.29 | - | - | - | native | |
| 3.57 | - | - | - | native | |
| 3.31 | - | - | - | native | |
| - | - | - | 7.80 | native | |
| - | 3.82 | - | - | native | |
| - | 10.78 | 14.40 | 10.98 | native | |
| - | 5.19 | 2.71 | - | native | |
| 2.62 | - | - | - | native | |
| - | - | 4.87 | 9.42 | non-native |
“-” indicates that the importance value was not available for a survey year.
Importance values of riparian plants that always appeared in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2015 in the water level fluctuation zone of China’s Three Gorges Reservoir.
| Species | 2008 | 2009 | 2012 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.47 | 0.90 | 0.63 | 0.95 | |
| 2.10 | 6.21 | 0.80 | 0.13 | |
| 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.05 | |
| 0.63 | 10.65 | 12.96 | 5.63 | |
| 0.76 | 0.50 | 0.18 | 0.05 | |
| 1.43 | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.05 | |
| 0.57 | 0.37 | 11.08 | 2.65 | |
| 0.85 | 1.61 | 0.60 | 0.07 | |
| 0.21 | 1.92 | 17.60 | 8.51 | |
| 0.12 | 1.03 | 0.66 | 5.97 | |
| 0.30 | 3.11 | 1.28 | 3.22 | |
| 0.53 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.05 | |
| 0.90 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.15 | |
| 0.50 | 0.13 | 2.07 | + | |
| 1.24 | 0.86 | 0.16 | 0.06 | |
| 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.07 | |
| 0.94 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.05 | |
| 2.15 | 0.22 | 0.25 | + | |
| 1.01 | 1.11 | 1.70 | 0.37 | |
| 1.09 | 0.74 | 0.16 | 0.20 | |
| 0.11 | + | 0.09 | + | |
| 3.57 | 1.60 | 0.28 | 0.05 | |
| 1.57 | 1.72 | 0.32 | 0.05 | |
| 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.80 | 7.80 | |
| 1.22 | 10.79 | 14.40 | 10.94 | |
| 0.23 | 5.20 | 2.71 | 0.65 | |
| 2.62 | 2.01 | 0.34 | + |
“+” indicates that the species was not found in the 1-m2 plot but was found in the subplot.