| Literature DB >> 35893647 |
Lizhu Guo1,2, Li Liu3, Huizhen Meng4, Li Zhang4, Valdson José Silva5, Huan Zhao6, Kun Wang1, Wei He4, Ding Huang1.
Abstract
Plant leaf stoichiometry reflects its adaptation to the environment. Leaf stoichiometry variations across different environments have been extensively studied in grassland plants, but little is known about intraspecific leaf stoichiometry, especially for widely distributed species, such as Stellera chamaejasme L. We present the first study on the leaf stoichiometry of S. chamaejasme and evaluate its relationships with environmental variables. S. chamaejasme leaf and soil samples from 29 invaded sites in the two plateaus of distinct environments [the Inner Mongolian Plateau (IM) and Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QT)] in Northern China were collected. Leaf C, N, P, and K and their stoichiometric ratios, and soil physicochemical properties were determined and compared with climate information from each sampling site. The results showed that mean leaf C, N, P, and K concentrations were 498.60, 19.95, 2.15, and 6.57 g kg-1; the average C:N, C:P, N:P, N:K and K:P ratios were 25.20, 245.57, 9.81, 3.13, and 3.21, respectively. The N:P:K-ratios in S. chamaejasme leaf might imply that its growth is restricted by K- or K+N. Moreover, the soil physicochemical properties in the S. chamaejasme-infested areas varied remarkably, and few significant correlations between S. chamaejasme leaf ecological stoichiometry and soil physicochemical properties were observed. These indicate the nutrient concentrations and stoichiometry of S. chamaejasme tend to be insensitive to variations in the soil nutrient availability, resulting in their broad distributions in China's grasslands. Besides, different homeostasis strength of the C, N, K, and their ratios in S. chamaejasme leaves across all sites were observed, which means S. chamaejasme could be more conservative in their use of nutrients improving their adaptation to diverse conditions. Moreover, the leaf C and N contents of S. chamaejasm were unaffected by any climate factors. However, the correlation between leaf P content and climate factors was significant only in IM, while the leaf K happened to be significant in QT. Besides, MAP or MAT contribution was stronger in the leaf elements than soil by using mixed effects models, which illustrated once more the relatively weak effect of the soil physicochemical properties on the leaf elements. Finally, partial least squares path modeling suggested that leaf P or K contents were affected by different mechanisms in QT and IM regions, suggesting that S. chamaejasme can adapt to changing environments by adjusting its relationships with the climate or soil factors to improve its survival opportunities in degraded grasslands.Entities:
Keywords: Stellera chamaejasme L.; biogeographic patterns; climatic variables; leaf stoichiometry; soil physicochemical properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893647 PMCID: PMC9370359 DOI: 10.3390/plants11151943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Regional S. chamaejasme leaf ecological stoichiometry. SD is the standard deviation and CV is the coefficient of variation. Differences between QT and IM were tested using independent t-test; significant differences at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters.
| All ( | QT ( | IM ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | CV (%) | Mean ± SD | CV (%) | Mean ± SD | CV (%) | |
| Carbon (g kg−1) | 498.60 ± 22.07 | 4.43 | 498.97 ± 21.14 | 4.24 | 497.89 ± 24.91 | 5.00 |
| Nitrogen (g kg−1) | 19.95 ± 2.09 | 10.47 | 19.94 ± 2.02 | 10.15 | 19.97 ± 2.32 | 11.63 |
| Phosphorus (g kg−1) | 2.15 ± 0.52 | 24.33 | 2.21 ± 0.53 | 24.15 | 2.05 ± 0.52 | 25.20 |
| Potassium (g kg−1) | 6.57 ± 1.18 | 17.94 | 7.13 ± 0.99 a | 13.94 | 5.51 ± 0.66 b | 12.02 |
| C:N | 25.20 ± 2.27 | 8.99 | 25.21 ± 2.18 | 8.65 | 25.18 ± 2.543 | 10.09 |
| C:P | 245.57 ± 61.64 | 25.10 | 239.45 ± 61.85 | 25.83 | 257.20 ± 62.77 | 24.41 |
| N:P | 9.81 ± 2.60 | 26.54 | 9.63 ± 2.89 | 30.05 | 10.15 ± 2.04 | 20.05 |
| N:K | 3.13 ± 0.63 | 20.10 | 2.84 ± 0.45 b | 15.70 | 3.67 ± 0.58 a | 15.83 |
| K:P | 3.21 ± 0.93 | 28.89 | 3.42 ± 1.02 a | 29.76 | 2.81 ± 0.57 b | 20.44 |
Regional S. chamaejasme soil physicochemical properties. SD is the standard deviation and CV is the coefficient of variation. Differences between QT and IM were tested using independent t-test; significant differences at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters.
| All ( | QT ( | IM ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | CV (%) | Mean ± SD | CV (%) | Mean ± SD | CV (%) | |
| Carbon (g kg−1) | 46.11 ± 21.63 | 46.90 | 48.65 ± 18.31 | 37.63 | 41.29 ± 27.30 | 66.11 |
| Nitrogen (g kg−1) | 3.75 ± 1.70 | 45.24 | 3.93 ± 1.68 | 42.70 | 3.41 ± 1.77 | 51.85 |
| Phosphorus (g kg−1) | 0.57 ± 0.17 | 29.24 | 0.61 ± 0.13 a | 22.04 | 0.49 ± 0.20 b | 40.88 |
| Potassium (g kg−1) | 20.80 ± 5.86 | 28.17 | 22.23 ± 5.00 a | 22.49 | 18.09 ± 6.66 b | 36.82 |
| C:N | 13.54 ± 6.72 | 49.62 | 14.80 ± 7.89 | 53.30 | 11.16 ± 2.54 | 22.91 |
| C:P | 77.72 ± 26.00 | 33.46 | 79.31 ± 25.53 | 32.19 | 74.69 ± 28.01 | 36.06 |
| N:P | 6.34 ± 2.16 | 34.13 | 6.25 ± 2.44 | 39.10 | 6.52 ± 1.61 | 25.58 |
| N:P | 0.20 ± 0.14 | 68.81 | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 42.44 | 0.25 ± 0.21 | 85.03 |
| K:P | 38.73 ± 15.12 | 39.04 | 38.68 ± 13.27 | 34.31 | 38.83 ± 18.95 | 48.81 |
| Available phosphorus (mg kg−1) | 5.29 ± 1.96 | 37.07 | 5.84 ± 1.90 a | 32.57 | 4.25 ± 1.70 b | 40.09 |
| Available potassium (mg kg−1) | 175.91 ± 96.39 | 54.79 | 176.69 ± 106.27 | 60.14 | 174.43 ± 79.47 | 45.56 |
| Ammonium nitrogen (mg kg−1) | 19.17 ± 7.89 | 41.14 | 19.05 ± 7.64 | 40.12 | 19.39 ± 8.75 | 45.11 |
| Nitrate nitrogen (mg kg−1) | 14.12 ± 14.20 | 100.59 | 12.95 ± 4.46 | 34.42 | 16.35 ± 24.07 | 147.25 |
| Water content | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 44.51 | 0.21 ± 0.08 a | 36.46 | 0.14 ± 0.07 b | 53.50 |
| pH | 7.90 ± 0.51 | 6.41 | 8.05 ± 0.39 a | 4.90 | 7.63 ± 0.60 b | 7.89 |
| Electrical conductivity (μs cm−1) | 247.21 ± 221.21 | 89.48 | 193.96 ± 74.42 b | 38.37 | 348.38 ± 351.86 a | 101.00 |
Standardized major axis regression analysis and stoichiometric homeostasis coefficients (H) for leaf C, N, P, and K contents and leaf C:N:P:K ratio in S. chamaejasme (n = 29). All data have been log10-transformed before analysis. If the regression was non-significant (p > 0.1), 1/H was set to zero, and the organism was considered to be ‘strictly homeostatic’. Species with 1/H = 1 were considered not homeostatic. All datasets with significant regressions and 0 < H < 1 were categorized as: 0 < 1/H < 0.25: ‘homeostatic’; 0.25 < 1/H < 0.5: ‘weakly homeostatic’; 0.5 < 1/H < 0.75: ‘weakly plastic’; 1/H > 0.75 ‘plastic’. For 1/H > 1, 1/H close to 1 indicates weak or no stoichiometric homeostasis, and 1/H much larger than 1 indicates ‘homeostatic’.
| Y | X | 1/H (slope) |
| r2 | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf C | Soil C | 0 | 0.351 | 0.0323 | strictly homeostatic |
| Leaf N | Soil N | 0 | 0.829 | 0.0017 | strictly homeostatic |
| Soil ammonium N | −0.273 | 0.089 | 0.1033 | weakly homeostatic | |
| Soil nitrate N | 0 | 0.291 | 0.0412 | strictly homeostatic | |
| Leaf P | Soil P | 0.660 | 0.042 | 0.1437 | weakly plastic |
| Soil available P | 0.622 | 0.002 | 0.2968 | weakly plastic | |
| Leaf K | Soil K | 0 | 0.112 | 0.0910 | strictly homeostatic |
| Soil available K | 0 | 0.154 | 0.0738 | strictly homeostatic | |
| Leaf C:N | Soil C:N | 0 | 0.789 | 0.0028 | strictly homeostatic |
| Leaf C:P | Soil C:P | −0.622 | 0.018 | 0.1915 | weakly plastic |
| Leaf N:P | Soil N:P | −0.474 | 0.085 | 0.1061 | weakly homeostatic |
| Leaf N:K | Soil N:K | 0 | 0.956 | 0.0001 | strictly homeostatic |
| Leaf K:P | Soil K:P | 0 | 0.774 | 0.0031 | strictly homeostatic |
Figure 1Relationships between the leaf C, N, P, and K content of S. chamaejasme with MAT & MAP in the Qinghai−Tibet Plateau (green circles, n = 19) and Inner Mongolia Plateau (red triangles, n = 10). Linear regression model analyses were utilized. Colored dotted lines represented significant relationships (p < 0.05) in different region (red, IM; green, QT; grey, all sampling sites). (a) MAT vs. leaf C; (b) MAT vs. leaf N; (c) MAT vs. leaf P; (d) MAT vs. leaf K; (e) MAP vs. leaf C; (f) MAP vs. leaf N; (g) MAP vs. leaf P; (h) MAP vs. leaf K.
Figure 2Effects of different soil and climatic variables on the leaf P and K of S. chamaejasme in the Qinghai−Tibet Plateau (QT) and Inner Mongolia Plateau (IM) based on partial least squares path modeling. The blue arrows represent positive pathways, the red arrows indicate negative pathways, both are direct effects. The grey arrows show the indirect effects. The standard path coefficients are shown on the arrow. A significant effect is indicated by an * (p < 0.05). GOF, goodness of fit of the statistical model. (a,b) PLS−PM describing the relationships in QT; (c,d) PLS−PM describing the relationships in IM.
Figure 3Location of the study and sampling sites. (a) Sampling sites on the Inner Mongolia Plateau; (b) S. chamaejasme coverage in Taipusi Banner in Inner Mongolia Plateau; (c) Sampling sites on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; and (d) S. chamaejasme coverage in Qilian County in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.