| Literature DB >> 33976783 |
Guiling Wu1,2, Xilai Li1,2, Jay Gao3.
Abstract
The hummock-depression micro-topography characteristics of the alpine marshy wetland in Sanjiangyuan are indicative of wetland degradation and the process by which healthy wetlands are transformed into flat grasslands. The aim of the present study was to examine changes in plant community structure and soil characteristics in a hummock-depression micro-topography along a degradation gradient. We observed that: (a) the height and cover of dominant hydrophytes decreased gradually with an increase in degradation severity, leading to replacement by xerophytes; (b) with the transition from healthy to degraded wetlands, hummocks became sparser, shorter, and broader and became merged with nearby depressions; water reserves in the depressions shifted from perennial to seasonal, until they dried out completely; and (c) soil moisture content, porosity, hardness, and organic matter gradually decreased by 30.61%, 19.06%, 37.04%, and 73.27%, respectively, in hummocks and by 33.25%, 8.19%, 47.72%, and 76.79%, respectively, in depressions. Soil bulk density, soil electrical conductivity, and soil dry weight increased by 31%, 83.33%, and 105.44%, respectively, in hummocks, but by only 11.93%, 7.14%, and 97.72%, respectively, in depressions. The results show that hummock soils in healthy wetlands have strong water absorption properties, through which plant roots can penetrate easily. Wetland degradation reduces the water absorption capacity of hummock soil and soil saturation capacity of depressions, thus enhancing soil erosion potential and susceptibility to external factors. Soil moisture is a key environmental factor influencing wetland degradation, and grazing accelerates the process. Based on the changes observed in hummock morphology, vegetation, and soil properties along a degradation gradient, a conceptual model is proposed to illustrate the process of gradual degradation of marshy wetlands from healthy to transitional wetlands and finally to a degenerated state. Thus, our research provides insights into the degradation process of the alpine marshy wetland ecosystem in Sanjiangyuan.Entities:
Keywords: alpine marsh wetlands; degradation; hummock–depression; micro‐topography; plant communities; soil properties
Year: 2021 PMID: 33976783 PMCID: PMC8093720 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
FIGURE 1Map of the study site and sampling site distribution
Characteristics of sampling sites in the three degradation zones
| Degradation gradient | Total cover (%) | Species richness (mean ± | Dominant species | Major features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | 95–100 | 13 ± 3 |
Hummocks:
Depressions:
| The area has numerous elliptical hummocks and butterfly‐shaped depressions dominated by |
| Transitional | 93–98 | 17 ± 3 |
Hummocks:
Depressions:
| Most of the area is still dominated by |
| Degenerated | 91–95 | 20 ± 2 |
Hummocks:
Depressions:
| Dominated by |
FIGURE 2Hummock–depression indicative plant height and cover under different degradation states. Note: Capital letters indicate plant height or plant coverage. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p < .05). Similar letters indicate no significant difference, among which A > B > C > D
Variability in soil physical and chemical properties
| Level | Healthy wetland | Transitional wetland | Degenerated wetland | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HU (± | DE (± | |ΔCV| | HU (± | DE (± | |ΔCV| | HU (± | DE (± | |ΔCV| | |
| SMC (%) | 67.43 (±1.04) | 68.76 (±0.50) | 0.81 | 64.85 (±1.16) | 62.81 (±2.81) | 2.68 | 46.79 (±2.89) | 45.90 (±3.11) | 0.60 |
| SP (%) | 62.42 (±0.89) | 58.71 (±1.74) | 3.7 | 68.76 (±7.50) | 59.13 (±0.75) | 9.64 | 50.52 (±1.99) | 53.90 (±1.71) | 0.77 |
| SBD (g/cm3) | 1.00 (±0.02) | 1.09 (±0.05) | 2.59 | 0.83 (±0.20) | 1.08 (±0.02) | 22.24 | 1.31 (±0.05) | 1.22 (±0.05) | 0.27 |
| SH (kg/cm2) | 1,031.68 (±131.63) | 1,227.20 (±74.51) | 6.69 | 926.44 (±76.05) | 1,124.24 (±48.90) | 3.86 | 649.56 (±15.64) | 641.52 (±13.07) | 0.37 |
| SEC (ms/cm) | 0.24 (±0.04) | 0.42 (±0.05) | 4.90 | 0.14 (±0.05) | 0.43 (±0.07) | 19.89 | 0.44 (±0.04) | 0.45 (±0.04) | 0.20 |
| SDW(g) | 32.74 (±0.29) | 34.24 (±2.84) | 7.42 | 28.94 (±5.96) | 40.54 (±2.78) | 13.72 | 67.26 (±13.39) | 67.70 (±12.91) | 0.83 |
| pH | 6.83 (±0.31) | 7.09 (±0.37) | 0.60 | 6.75 (±0.55) | 6.66 (±0.29) | 3.86 | 6.99 (±0.55) | 7.00 (±0.53) | 0.21 |
| SOM (g/kg) | 410.85 (±23.86) | 446.54 (±35.52) | 2.15 | 362.91 (±22.66) | 383.27 (±27.48) | 2.45 | 109.80 (±22.57) | 103.63 (±21.01) | 0.28 |
HU represents hummocks; DE represents depressions. |ΔCV| represents the absolute value of the difference between the coefficients of variation of HU and DE, which illustrates the spatial heterogeneity of micro‐topography under different degrees of degradation. SD represents standard deviation. (SMC, soil moisture content; SP, soil porosity; SBD, soil bulk density; SH, soil hardness; SEC, soil electrical conductivity; SDW, soil dry weight; pH, soil pH; SOM; soil organic matter, n = 240).
Hummock–depression properties under three degradation zones
| Level | Healthy wetland | Transitional wetland | Degenerated wetland | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean |
| Max | Min | Mean |
| Max | Min | Mean |
| Max | Min | |
| Density (piers/25 m2) | 60 a | 3 | 64 | 56 | 31 b | 2 | 34 | 29 | 13 c | 1 | 14 | 11 |
| Diameter (cm) | 24.2 c | 3.8 | 30.0 | 19.0 | 49.7 b | 4.3 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 66.6 a | 8.6 | 91.4 | 55.2 |
| Height (cm) | 14.3 a | 1.4 | 16.4 | 13.0 | 8.9 b | 1.8 | 11.2 | 6.2 | 3.8 c | 0.6 | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| Nearest Neighbor Distance (cm) | 63.37 c | 14.90 | 110 | 40 | 91.60 b | 34.21 | 180 | 47 | 143.94 a | 40.54 | 275 | 76 |
| Water depth (cm) | −16.3 c | −2.9 | −20.0 | −11.5 | −5.2 b | −0.6 | −6.2 | −4.6 | 0 a | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The letters a, b, and c represent differences between healthy, transitional, and degenerated wetlands (p < .01), where a > b > c. Density refers to the number of hummocks in 25 m2 area; Diameter refers to the diameter at the top of the hummock; Height refers to the distance from the top of the hummock to the bottom depression; Water depth refers to the height of the water in the depression; Nearest Neighbor Distance refers to the distance between two adjacent hummocks; n = 280.
Pearson correlation between hummock density, and diameter, height, and nearest neighbor distance and Kobresia tibetica cover, height, and aboveground biomass
| Density | Diameter | Height | Distance | COV | HE | AGB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COV | 0.754** | −0.603* | 0.793** | −0.871** | 1.000 | 0.925** | 0.686** |
| HE | 0.676** | −0.698** | 0.725** | −0.856** | 0.925** | 1.000 | 0.667** |
| AGB | 0.821** | −0.844** | 0.832** | −0.743** | 0.686** | 0.667** | 1.000 |
Density represents to the number of hummocks in a 25 m2 area; Diameter represents the diameter of the top of the hummock; Height represents the distance from the top of the hummock to the bottom of the depression; Nearest Neighbor Distance (Nearest Neighbor Distance) represents the distance between two adjacent hummocks; COV refers to Kobresia tibetica cover; HE represents Kobresia tibetica height; AGB represents aboveground biomass of Kobresia tibetica (**p < .01, *p < .05); n = 90.
FIGURE 4Alpine marshy wetland degradation and change in hummock–depression micro‐topography and structure
Relationship between hummocks and Kobresia tibetica population attributes
| Project ( | HU ( | Relational model |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COV | Density |
| 0.819 | 40.619 | .000 | 15 |
| Diameter |
| 0.854 | 52.496 | .000 | 15 | |
| Height |
| 0.769 | 29.748 | .000 | 15 | |
| Distance |
| 0.759 | 40.956 | .000 | 15 | |
| HE | Density |
| 0.705 | 21.533 | .001 | 15 |
| Diameter |
| 0.605 | 13.773 | .005 | 15 | |
| Height |
| 0.510 | 9.374 | .014 | 15 | |
| Distance |
| 0.733 | 35.678 | .000 | 15 | |
| AGB | Density |
| 0.649 | 26.833 | .000 | 15 |
| Diameter |
| 0.712 | 32.157 | .000 | 15 | |
| Height |
| 0.692 | 29.171 | .000 | 15 | |
| Distance |
| 0.552 | 16.008 | .002 | 15 |
y represents the cover (COV), height (HE), and aboveground biomass (AGB) of Kobresia tibetica; x represents the density, diameter, and height of hummocks. Density refers to the number of hummocks in a 25 m2 area; Diameter refers to the diameter of the top of the hummock; Height refers to the distance from the top of the hummock to the depression; Distance refers to the distance between adjacent hummocks; COV represents Kobresia tibetica plant cover; HE represents height of Kobresia tibetica; AGB represents aboveground biomass of Kobresia tibetica.
FIGURE 3Regression relationships between hummock characteristics and soil properties. Note: Density represents number of hummocks in a 25‐m2 area; Diameter represents the diameter at the top of the hummock; Height represents the distance from the top of the hummock to the depression
FIGURE 5Conceptual model of alpine marshy wetland degradation