4.7 Article

Experimental Study on Potential Influence of the Invasive Hedychium coronarium J. Konig on the Evapotranspiration of Riparian Plant Community

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants12091746

关键词

dominance; exotic species; herbaceous invader; tropical forest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to experimentally determine the daily evapotranspiration (ET) of the invasive species H. coronarium and compare it with a group of four native species. Three different treatments were carried out in a greenhouse, indicating that different species use water differently. The maximum accumulated daily ET occurred in the mixture treatment, while the treatment with the invasive plant had the lowest value. H. coronarium can reduce evapotranspiration in invaded areas and increase it when immersed in the riparian forest.
The balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration (ET) has direct effect on vegetation, and any change in its structure and composition can influence it. The aim of this study is to determine experimentally the daily evapotranspiration (ET) of the invasive species, Hedychium coronarium, and to compare with a group of four native species of the riparian forest. The experiment was carried out in a greenhouse with three different treatments: (1) only the invasive species; (2) only native species; and (3) a mixture of invasive and native species. In each lysimeter, pressure transducers recorded the water level at every 15 min along 14 months. Daily ET was calculated by the method of Gribovszki et al. (2008) and varied according to the treatment, indicating that different species (invasive or native) use the water differently. The maximum accumulated daily ET occurred for mixture treatment (2540.16 mm), while the treatment with the invasive plant presented the lowest value (2172.53 mm). H. coronarium, in monodominant stands, can reduce evapotranspiration on invaded areas and increase it when immersed in the riparian forest.

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