| Literature DB >> 31805066 |
Zhiyong Pei1, Shaorong Hao1, Guohui Pang1, Kai Wang1, Tiejun Liu2.
Abstract
The changes in sap flow of Salix psammophila growing on a gentle slope (lower slope, P1), a middle slope (P2), and an upper slope (P3), and the response of sap flow to meteorological factors at the different slope positions were studied using the continuous and synchronized observations, the instrument were wrapped stem flowmeter EMS 62 sap-flow heat-balance-based system and the LSI-LASTEM automatic weather station. The results revealed that the soil moisture content was the highest and the growth conditions of Salix psammophila were the best at P1, followed by P2. At P3, however, although good apical dominance was observed, the proportion of dead branches was the highest. Furthermore, the daily variation patterns of sap flow on the three slopes presented as multi-peak bell-shaped curves. The daily accumulation changes in sap flow showed a trend of P1 > P3 > P2, and within the same diameter range, the sap flow at P1 was significantly different from that at P2 and P3, whereas the sap flow at P2 and P3 did not vary significantly. All the three slopes showed a significant and positive correlation with photosynthetically active radiation, atmospheric temperature, and vapor pressure difference, and a significant and negative correlation with relative humidity; however, the degrees of correlation varied slightly. The stepwise regression analysis showed that, at different slopes, different variables were selected for different branch diameters, but photosynthetically active radiation and atmospheric temperature played dominant roles on all slopes. This study reveals the sap flow pattern of Salix psammophila on different slopes and its response mechanism to meteorological factors, which was essential for understanding the restoration ability, physiological adaptability, and ecosystem stability of Salix psammophila communities.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31805066 PMCID: PMC6894830 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225653
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic diagram of plot terrain.
Growth status of Salix psammophila on different slopes.
| Slope position | Elevation /m | Canopy | Porosity /% | Average crown /cm | Average height /cm | Number of branches | Withered rate /% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 1088 | 0.81 | 24.58 | 340 × 330 | 337 | 125 | 13 | 3.22 |
| P2 | 1115 | 0.72 | 27.88 | 342 × 301 | 350 | 118 | 17 | 2.19 |
| P3 | 1275 | 0.78 | 29.32 | 322×275 | 356 | 109 | 20 | 1.87 |
Fig 2Soil water content at different slope positions.
Fig 3Distribution of Salix psammophila diameters on different slopes.
Fig 4Changes in sap flow of Salix psammophila.
Fig 5Diurnal daily accumulation changes of Salix psammophila’s branch.
Paired T test for the same diameter range of Salix psammophila’s sap flow.
| Plot | Branch | P1 | P2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | D2 | D3 | D1 | D2 | D3 | ||
| P2 | D1 | 0.066 | - | - | - | - | - |
| D2 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | |
| D3 | - | - | 0 | - | - | - | |
| P3 | D1 | 0 | - | - | 0.596 | - | - |
| D2 | - | 0 | - | - | 0.124 | - | |
| D3 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0.318 | |
Correlation Analysis between sap flow rate and environmental factors on different slopes.
| Plot | Branch | PAR | T | RH | VPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | D1 | 0.807 | 0.720 | -0.490 | 0.670 |
| D2 | 0.820 | 0.742 | -0.509 | 0.693 | |
| D3 | 0.810 | 0.742 | -0.510 | 0.687 | |
| P2 | D1 | 0.464 | 0.357 | -0.246 | 0.370 |
| D2 | 0.822 | 0.711 | -0.583 | 0.682 | |
| D3 | 0.726 | 0.735 | -0.574 | 0.721 | |
| P3 | D1 | 0.727 | 0.726 | -0.552 | 0.720 |
| D2 | 0.848 | 0.695 | -0.457 | 0.660 | |
| D3 | 0.818 | 0.808 | -0.621 | 0.780 |
Note
“**”indicates that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Stepwise Regression analysis of sap flow rate and environmental factors of Salix psammophila on different slopes.
| Plot | Branch | Selected variable | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAR | T | RH | VPD | Intercept | |||||||
| P1 | D1 | 0.681 | 0.719 | - | -0.530 | 0.010 | 0.711 | 56.668 | 0.000 | 0.002 | -217.42 |
| D2 | 0.671 | 0.723 | - | -0.504 | 0.09 | 0.738 | 64.628 | 0.000 | 0.005 | -195.43 | |
| D3 | 0.717 | 1.131 | -1.258 | -0.371 | 0.028 | 0.745 | 49.708 | 0.000 | 0.008 | -182.15 | |
| P2 | D1 | 0.464 | - | - | - | -0.010 | 0.215 | 19.457 | 0.000 | 0.044 | -147.24 |
| D2 | 0.849 | 1.341 | -0.850 | -1.981 | 0.028 | 0.797 | 66.755 | 0.000 | 0.001 | -232.06 | |
| D3 | 0.402 | 0.437 | - | - | 0.011 | 0.614 | 55.583 | 0.000 | 0.003 | -209.69 | |
| P3 | D1 | 0.420 | 0.416 | - | - | 0.008 | 0.607 | 54.094 | 0.000 | 0.002 | -219.42 |
| D2 | 0.848 | - | - | - | 0.019 | 0.719 | 181.418 | 0.000 | 0.002 | -221.42 | |
| D3 | 0.486 | 0.449 | - | - | 0.006 | 0.760 | 110.585 | 0.000 | 0.003 | -209.69 | |
Note: R2 indicates Determination coefficient or goodness of fit, it is used to measure the degree to which the estimated model fits the observed value; F value is the result of Analysis of variance, which is an overall test of the whole regression equation. It means whether the whole regression equation has any use value. If the P value corresponding to F value is less than 0.05, the regression equation can be considered useful.