4.7 Article

Patterns and drivers of the belowground bud bank in alpine grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1095864

关键词

alpine grasslands; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau; bud bank; vegetation reproduction; ecological restoration; clonal plants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the key driving factors of the underground bud bank size in the alpine grassland, such as soil enzyme, plant diversity, and precipitation. It also highlights the importance of the bud bank in the restoration of grassland ecosystems.
IntroductionIn grassland ecosystems dominated by asexual plants, the maintenance, renewal, and resistance of plant populations to disturbance are more dependent on the belowground bud bank (BBB). However, the response of the BBB to environmental factors in the alpine grassland of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP) is still unknown. MethodsTherefore, a transect survey was conducted to measure the size and scale of BBB and 21 factors in the alpine grassland of the QTP. In addition, the critical driving factors of BBB were screened by boost regression tree analysis, and a structural equation model (SEM) was employed to express the path coefficients of the key factors on the BBB size. ResultsThe results showed that BBB size had no significant geographical pattern in the QTP, and the BBB size was mainly accounted for by soil leucine aminopeptidase (LAP, 17.32%), followed by Margalef and Shannon -Wiener indices of plants (12.63% and 9.24%, respectively), and precipitation (9.23%). SEM further indicated significant positive effects of plant diversity (scored at 0.296) and precipitation (scored at 0.180) on BBB size, and a significant negative effect of LAP (scored at 0.280) on BBB size. DiscussionGenerally, the findings allow for better understanding of the regulated mechanisms of BBB size and the importance of the role of bud bank in the restoration of the grassland ecosystem.

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