4.7 Article

Water sources of dominant species in three alpine ecosystems on the Tibetan Plateau, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 257-264

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00633.x

关键词

delta D; delta(18)O; precipitation; river water; soil water; Tibetan Plateau

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant water sources were estimated by two or three compartment linear mixing models using hydrogen and oxygen isotope (delta D and delta(18)O) values of different components such as plant xylem water, precipitation and river water as well as soil water on the Tibetan Plateau in the summer of 2005. Four dominant species (Quercus aquifolioides, Pinus tabulaeformis, Salix rehderiana and Nitraria tangutorum) in three typical ecosystems (forest, shrub and desert) were investigated in this study. Stable isotope ratios of the summer precipitations and the soil water presented variations in spatial and temporal scales. delta(18)O values of N. tangutorum xylem water were constant in the whole growth season and very similar to those of deep soil water. Water sources for all of the plants came from both precipitations and soil water. Plants switched rapidly among different water sources when environmental water conditions changed. Rainwater had different contributions to the plants, which was influenced by amounts of precipitation. The percentage of plant xylem water derived from rainwater rose with an increase in precipitation. Water sources for broad-leaved and coniferous species were different although they grew in the same environmental conditions. For example, the broad-leaved species Q. aquifolioides used mainly the water from deep soil, while 92.5% of xylem water of the coniferous species P. tabulaeformis was derived from rainwater during the growth season. The study will be helpful for us to fully understand responses of species on the Tibetan Plateau to changes in precipitation patterns, and to assess accurately changes of vegetation distribution in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据