4.7 Article

Divergent responses to water and nitrogen addition of three perennial bunchgrass species from variously degraded typical steppe in Inner Mongolia

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 647, 期 -, 页码 1344-1350

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.025

关键词

Biomass allocation; Degradation gradient; Grazing; Nitrogen use efficiency; Water use efficiency

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB150801]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41571055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water and nitrogen (N) availability to plants are spatially and temporally variable in arid and semi-arid grasslands. We aimed to investigate the eco-physiological responses of three bunchgrass species to water and N addition along a gradient of habitat degradation in the Inner Mongolian typical grasslands. The effects of water and N addition on aboveground and belowground growth and biomass allocation and water- and nitrogen-use efficiency (WUE and NUE) of Stipa grandis, Agropyron cristatum and Cleistogenes squarrosa from non-degraded, moderately-degraded and heavily-degraded grasslands, respectively, were compared. Stipa grandis had higher specific root length and WUE than C. squarrosa, while C. squarrosa had higher NUE than S. grandis in waterand N-limited conditions. Responses of A. cristatum were intermediate between those of S. grandis and C. squarrosa. Water and N addition did not have a significant effect on growth and biomass allocation of S. grandis, but it increased growth and leaf biomass allocation of A. cristatum and growth and stem biomass allocation of C. squarrosa. The three species differ in WUE, NUE, biomass allocation and responses to water and N addition, and these differences are adaptive to their respective habitats. The degraded grasslands can be restored by an increase in water and N availability such as is expected to occur via climatic change, but S. grandis will not benefit from the increases. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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