| Literature DB >> 31616585 |
Tiejun Bao1,2,3, Yunnuan Zheng1,2,3, Ze Zhang1,2,3, Heyang Sun1,2,3, Ran Chao1,2,3, Liqing Zhao1,2,3, Hua Qing1,2,3, Jie Yang1,2,3, Frank Yonghong Li1,2,3.
Abstract
Understanding of the dynamic patterns of plant water use in a changing environment is one of foci in plant ecology, and can provide basis for the development of best practice in restoration and protection of ecosystem. We studied the water use sources of three coexisting dominant plant species Leymus chinensis, Stipa grandis and Cleistogenes squarrosa growing in both enclosed and mowing grassland in a typical steppe. The oxygen stable isotope ratios (δ18O) of soil water and stem water of these three species were determined, along with soil moisture, before and after precipitation events. The results showed that (1) mowing had no significant effect on the soil moisture and its δ18O, whereas precipitation significantly changed the soil moisture though no significant effect detected on its δ18O. (2) C. squarrosa took up water majorly from top soil layer due to its shaollow root system; L. chinensis took up relative more water from deep soil layer, and S. grandis took up water from the middle to deep soil layers. (3) L. chinensis and S. grandis in mowing grassland tended to take up more water from the upper soil layers following precipitation events, but showed no sensitive change in water source from soil profile following the precipitation in the enclosed grassland, indicating a more sensitive change of soil water sources for the two species in mowing than enclosed grassland. The differences in root morphology and precipitation distribution may partly explain the differences in their water uptake from different soil layers. Our results have important theoretical values for understanding the water competition among plants in fluctuating environment and under different land use in the typical steppe.Entities:
Keywords: Dominant plants; Mowing; Oxygen stable isotopes; Steppe; Water sources
Year: 2019 PMID: 31616585 PMCID: PMC6790225 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7737
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
ANOVA result for mowing (C), sampling time (ST) and soil depth (SD) on the soil water content.
| Source | Type III sum of squares | d | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 0.000 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.99 | 0.323 |
| ST | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 8.756 | 0.000 |
| SD | 0.028 | 6 | 0.005 | 46.242 | 0.000 |
| C * ST | 0.000 | 2 | 5.46E-05 | 0.534 | 0.588 |
| C * SD | 0.001 | 6 | 0.000 | 1.320 | 0.257 |
| ST * SD | 0.001 | 12 | 8.68E-05 | 0.849 | 0.601 |
| C * ST * SD | 0.001 | 12 | 8.23E-05 | 0.805 | 0.645 |
| Error | 0.009 | 84 | 0.000 | ||
| Total | 0.684 | 126 | |||
| Corrected total | 0.042 | 125 |
Figure 1Characteristics of soil water content before and after precipitation under mowing (A) and enclosure (B) treatments.
ANOVA result for mowing (C), sampling time (ST) and soil depth (SD) on soil water δ18O.
| Source | Type III sum of squares | d | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 1.237 | 1 | 1.237 | 0.647 | 0.423 |
| ST | 2.371 | 2 | 1.185 | 0.620 | 0.540 |
| SD | 907.113 | 6 | 151.185 | 79.100 | 0.000 |
| C * ST | 15.850 | 2 | 7.925 | 4.146 | 0.018 |
| C * SD | 7.928 | 6 | 1.321 | 0.691 | 0.657 |
| ST * SD | 36.972 | 12 | 3.081 | 1.612 | 0.098 |
| C * ST * SD | 16.185 | 12 | 1.349 | 0.706 | 0.743 |
| Error | 214.067 | 112 | 1.911 | ||
| Total | 9,667.259 | 154 | |||
| Corrected total | 1,227.797 | 153 |
Figure 2δ18O characteristics of soil water before and after precipitation under mowing (A) and enclosure (B) treatments.
Figure 3Characteristics of the water δ18O in three plants before and after precipitation under mowing and enclosure treatments.
(A) Cleistogenes squarrosa, (B) Leymus chinensis, (C) Stipa grandis. bpt, before the precipitation; 1datp, the first day after precipitation; 5datp, the fifth day after precipitation.
Soil water utilization ratio of three plants in different soil layer under mowing and enclosure treatments before and after precipitation.
| Sample date | Sample plot type | Plant species | The average contribution rate of each potential water source to plants (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 cm | 5–10 cm | 10–40 cm | 40–100 cm | |||
| Before precipitation | Mowing | ~ | ~ | ~ | ### | |
| 14 (0–20) | 25.5 (0–56) | 32 (0–66) | 28.5 (0–70) | |||
| ### | ~ | ~ | ~ | |||
| Enclosure | 14.2 (0–28) | 29.6 (2–58) | 22 (0–48) | 34.2 (20–48) | ||
| 36.5 (12–56) | 39 (0–88) | 20.9 (0–44) | 3.6 (0–8) | |||
| ### | ~ | ~ | ~ | |||
| The first day after precipitation | Mowing | 50.8 (34–62) | 23.6 (0–60) | 14.4 (0–38) | 11.1 (0–30) | |
| 39.9 (16–54) | 29.9 (0–82) | 15.5 (0–44) | 14.6 (0–46) | |||
| ### | ~ | ~ | ~ | |||
| Enclosure | 13.2 (0–28) | 21.7 (0–48) | 33.7 (0–78) | 31.4 (0–68) | ||
| 27.1 (0–48) | 35.9 (0–84) | 19.2 (0–50) | 17.8 (0–48) | |||
| ### | ~ | ~ | ~ | |||
| The fifth day after precipitation | Mowing | 18.7 (10–24) | 30.2 (0–90) | 25.5 (0–70) | 25.6 (0–70) | |
| 40.7 (36–44) | 21.4 (0–54) | 18.4 (0–48) | 19.4 (0–54) | |||
| 80.9 (80–82) | 7.1 (0–14) | 7.7 (0–16) | 4.3 (0–10) | |||
| Enclosure | 9 (0–20) | 25.8 (0–58) | 33.2 (0–82) | 32 (0–76) | ||
| 22.6 (4–34) | 32.8 (0–92) | 23 (0–64) | 21.5 (0–60) | |||
| 81.6 (78–84) | 8.4 (0–20) | 5.1 (0–12) | 4.9 (0–12) | |||
Notes:
The symbol “###” refers to the soil layer where major water source is from for the examined species, as the δ18O value of plant stem water is higher than the soil water in top soil layer or lower than bottom soil layer.
The symbol “~” refers to the soil layer where no water source is from for the examined species.
Figure 4Soil water source of three plants under mowing (A) and enclosure (B) treatments before and after precipitation.
bpt, before the precipitation; 1datp, the first day after precipitation; 5datp, the fifth day after precipitation.