| Literature DB >> 34140965 |
Tian Li1, Jingkuan Sun1, Zhanyong Fu2.
Abstract
The Yellow River Delta is class="Chemical">water,Entities:
Keywords: Yellow River Delta; halophyte; stable isotope; stoichiometry characteristics; water use
Year: 2021 PMID: 34140965 PMCID: PMC8204056 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.675921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Water content of different soil layers of Shell Dike Island in the Yellow River Delta. Different letters mean a significant difference of 0.05.
FIGURE 2Characteristics of δ18O and δ2 H stable isotope of soil water in Shell Dike Island of the Yellow River Delta. Different letters mean a significant difference of 0.05.
FIGURE 3δ18O of xylem water and leaf δ13C values of different halophytes. Different letters mean a significant difference of 0.05.
FIGURE 4Contribution of different water sources to different halophytes.
FIGURE 5Salt content in different soil layers. Different letters mean a significant difference of 0.05.
FIGURE 6Comparison of Na+ contents in roots, stems, leaves (A) and aboveground, underground parts (B) of three different halophytes. Significant differences between the same plant are marked with lowercase letters, and significant differences among different plant species are marked with capital letters.
FIGURE 7Stoichiometric analysis of different soil layers. Different letters mean a significant difference of 0.05.
FIGURE 8Stoichiometry of different tissues of different halophytes. Significant differences between the same plant are marked with lowercase letters, and significant differences among different plant species are marked with capital letters.
Correlations between the leaf stoichiometry characteristics, Na+ content, and δ13C indexes of three different species of halophytes.
| C | –0.466 | 0.731* | 0.682* | 0.480 | 0.685* | –0.055 | 0.662 | 0.314 | 0.091 | –0.039 | –0.364 | 0.695* | 0.742* | –0.508 | –0.650 | –0.027 | 0.226 | –0.212 |
| N | 0.674* | −0.967** | −0.786* | –0.490 | –0.135 | 0.509 | −0.826** | 0.220 | 0.535 | 0.645 | 0.477 | 1 | 0.338 | −0.945** | –0.343 | 0.596 | 0.789* | –0.108 |
| P | 1 | –0.666 | −0.918** | −0.939** | –0.598 | 0.084 | 0.198 | −0.836** | −0.845** | –0.492 | –0.340 | 1 | –0.187 | −0.971** | –0.553 | 0.084 | –0.322 | |
| C:N | 1 | 0.830** | 0.517 | 0.271 | –0.360 | 1 | –0.057 | –0.401 | –0.540 | –0.545 | 1 | 0.208 | −0.683* | −0.841** | –0.083 | |||
| C:P | 1 | 0.900** | 0.576 | –0.131 | 1 | 0.925** | 0.472 | 0.181 | 1 | 0.528 | –0.170 | 0.321 | ||||||
| N:P | 1 | 0.698* | 0.055 | 1 | 0.619 | 0.423 | 1 | 0.642 | 0.188 | |||||||||
| Na | 1 | 0.294 | 1 | 0.084 | 1 | 0.046 | ||||||||||||
| δ13C | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
FIGURE 9RDA analysis of the relationships between three halophytes and environmental factors in different soil layers. TC, Plant total carbon; TN, Plant total nitrogen; TP, Plant total phosphorus; C:N, Plant C/N ratio; C:P, Plant C/P ratio; N:P, Plant N/P ratio; Na+, Sodium ion of plant; C13, Carbon isotope of plant; STC, Soil total carbon; STN, Soil total nitrogen; STP, Soil total phosphorus; S(C:N), Soil C/N ratio; S(C:P), Soil C/P ratio; S(N:P), Soil N/P ratio; S(SC), Salt content of soil; S(MC), Moisture content of soil.