| Literature DB >> 31539377 |
Jiufu Luo1,2, Dongzhou Deng3, Li Zhang4, Xinwei Zhu4, Dechao Chen3, Jinxing Zhou1,2.
Abstract
Alpine sand dunes restoration is extremely difficult but important in the ecosystem restoration. Sand dunes are known as harsh soil and poor seed bank which freed from advantages on plants growth naturally. Effective restoration measures are required to guide the sand dune restoration. Here, indigenous grass (Elymus nutans) was sown in sand dune on the Zoige Plateau and treated with no sand barrier (CK) and environmental friendly materials including wicker sand barrier (wicker) and sandbag sand barrier (sandbag). The soil conditions were assessed by measuring the soil moisture and nutrients of the topsoil, and interspecific relationship and population niche were utilized to analyze the plant community structure variances among different restoration measures. Results showed that the soil and vegetation in the sand barriers measures were better than that in the CK. The soil moisture in the sandbag measure was 16.67% higher than that in the wicker measure. The nutrients content and microbial biomass were also the best in the sandbag measures. The ratio of strong association was the highest in the sandbag measure and the lowest in the CK, whereas the plants had the highest none association ratio in the CK. In addition, the average population niche overlap ranked by sandbag (0.39)>wicker (0.32)>CK (0.26). Thus, incorporation of sand barriers and indigenous grass seeding in alpine sand dunes could promote the sand dune restoration. And the sandbag measure showed a stronger improvement effect on the sand dune soil and vegetation conditions than the wicker measure.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31539377 PMCID: PMC6754152 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Demonstration area of different restoration measure.
Basic information of plots in the three measures in August of 2016.
| Number of individuals (m-2) | Vegetation coverage (%) | Average height of individuals (cm) | Community height (cm) | Main plants | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56.83±1.46c | 19.08±0.77c | 12.65±1.05a | 39.97±0.47a | ||
| 32.19±1.18b | 11.58±0.70b | 10.35±0.65a | 28.58±0.47b | ||
| 21.25±1.25a | 4.42±0.16a | 8.52±0.49b | 17.36±0.58c |
The different lowercase letters means significant difference at each metrics (P<0.05). Average height of individuals means the average height of all plants individuals in the quadrats. Community height means the height of the tallest plants in the quadrats.
Illustration of the 2×2 contingency tables.
| Quadrats number of | Quadrats number of | |
|---|---|---|
| a | b | |
| c | - |
Plant composition, importance values (IV) and niche breadth (Bi) in different restoration measures in August of 2016.
| sandbag | wicker | CK | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Species | Species | ||||||
| 52.89 | 1.55 | 32.03 | 1.54 | 39.57 | 1.55 | |||
| 17.04 | 1.54 | 19.43 | 1.48 | 19.64 | 1.42 | |||
| 10.86 | 1.50 | 12.21 | 1.50 | 17.77 | 1.46 | |||
| 8.19 | 1.41 | 10.98 | 1.40 | 7.48 | 1.17 | |||
| 7.78 | 1.39 | 7.61 | 1.40 | 4.38 | 0.91 | |||
| 1.43 | 0.69 | 7.48 | 1.11 | 4.20 | 1.07 | |||
| 1.27 | 0.82 | 5.52 | 1.24 | 2.28 | 0.76 | |||
| 0.31 | 0.48 | 1.27 | 0.58 | 2.03 | 0.48 | |||
| 0.23 | 0.30 | 1.24 | 0.38 | 1.82 | 0.69 | |||
| 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.48 | |||||
| 0.84 | 0.48 | |||||||
| 0.54 | 0.48 | |||||||
En., Elymus nutans; Cm., Carex moorcroftii; Kr., Kobresia robusta; Ls., Ligusticum scapiforme; Pb., Potentilla bifurca; Hb., Heteropappus bowerii; Hl., Hypecoum leptocarpum; Of., Oxytropis falcate; Dh., Dracocephalum heterophyllum; Ms., Microula sikkimensis; Am., Artemisia macrocephala; Ps., Polygonum sibiricum; Sc., Salsola collina; Ap., Axyris prostrata; Fo., Festuca ovina; Od., Oxytropis densa.
The concentrations of soil moisture and nutrients in different restoration measures in August of 2016 (P<0.05).
| Moisture/ % | TN / | TP/ | AN/ | NN/ | AP/ | SOC/ | MBC/ | MBN/ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.11± | 0.19± | 0.30± | 24.93± | 7.68± 0.24a | 84.05± | 2.19± | 65.83± | 6.23± | |
| 3.60± | 0.10± | 0.33± | 22.19± | 5.78± | 73.37± | 1.66± | 52.37± | 3.53± | |
| 2.81± | 0.06± | 0.22± | 13.39± | 3.07± | 43.80± | 0.95± | 15.27± | 0.67± |
The different lowercase letters means the significant difference at the 0.05 level at each soil metrics (P<0.05).
Fig 2The atomic ratios of SOC, TN, TP, MBC and MBN in different restoration measures in August of 2016.
The different lowercase letters means the significant difference at each nutrient pair-wise (P<0.05).
Fig 3The Jaccard interspecific association (JI) ratios in different restoration measures in August of 2016.
Spearman rank correlations of species pairs in the sandbag measure in August of 2016.
| 0.096 | ||||||||
| -0.217 | -0.149 | |||||||
| -0.466 | -0.050 | -0.266 | ||||||
| -0.006 | -0.489 | -0.318 | -0.189 | |||||
| -0.055 | 0.113 | -0.528 | 0.148 | -0.081 | ||||
| -0.339 | -0.363 | 0.629 | -0.071 | -0.246 | -0.195 | |||
| -0.470 | -0.254 | -0.442 | 0.393 | 0.395 | 0.508 | -0.147 | ||
| -0.108 | 0.203 | -0.265 | 0.190 | -0.084 | -0.097 | -0.118 | -0.073 |
*, Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05)
**, Correlation is extremely significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01).
Spearman rank correlation of species pairs in the CK in August of 2016.
| -0.465 | |||||||||
| 0.102 | -0.614 | ||||||||
| -0.314 | -0.277 | 0.068 | |||||||
| -0.019 | -0.181 | 0.405 | -0.241 | ||||||
| -0.085 | 0.405 | -0.487 | -0.380 | -0.392 | |||||
| 0.118 | 0.101 | -0.455 | -0.359 | -0.253 | 0.701 | ||||
| 0.278 | 0.312 | -0.436 | -0.243 | -0.172 | -0.207 | -0.134 | |||
| -0.207 | -0.326 | 0.246 | 0.596 | -0.228 | -0.275 | -0.178 | -0.121 | ||
| -0.376 | 0.082 | 0.027 | 0.224 | -0.172 | -0.207 | -0.134 | -0.091 | -0.121 |
*, Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05)
**, Correlation is extremely significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01).
Fig 4Niche overlap of all plant pairs in different restoration measures in August of 2016.
Spearman rank correlation of species pairs in the wicker measure in August of 2016.
| -0.128 | |||||||||||
| -0.336 | -0.345 | ||||||||||
| -0.150 | 0.225 | -0.237 | |||||||||
| -0.269 | -0.196 | 0.005 | -0.275 | ||||||||
| -0.179 | -0.689 | 0.526 | -0.214 | 0.053 | |||||||
| 0.337 | 0.395 | -0.488 | -0.162 | -0.047 | -0.747 | ||||||
| -0.416 | -0.145 | 0.195 | -0.151 | 0.304 | -0.054 | -0.147 | |||||
| -0.359 | -0.344 | 0.180 | -0.075 | 0.242 | 0.175 | -0.279 | 0.585 | ||||
| -0.511 | 0.022 | 0.143 | 0.218 | 0.153 | 0.099 | -0.119 | -0.157 | -0.134 | |||
| 0.202 | -0.478 | 0.339 | -0.394 | -0.394 | 0.533 | -0.279 | -0.106 | -0.091 | -0.134 | ||
| 0.363 | -0.172 | -0.479 | 0.196 | 0.060 | -0.243 | 0.348 | -0.106 | -0.091 | -0.134 | -0.091 |
*, Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (P<0.05)
**, Correlation is extremely significant at the 0.01 level (P<0.01).