3.8 Article

Defoliation, waterlogging and dung influences allocation patterns of Deschampsia caespitosa

期刊

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 634-639

出版社

SOC RANGE MANAGEMENT
DOI: 10.2307/4003939

关键词

flooding; tufted hairgrass; herbivory; nitrogen dynamics; wet meadows

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wet meadows are some of the most productive communities in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA but are also among the most sensitive to grazing by native ungulates and domestic livestock. These meadows typically are inundated with floodwater in spring and early summer but are relatively dry in summer. To determine the interactive effects of clipping and flooding on plant recovery after clipping, we subjected plants,of tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) Beauv) to 6-week and 10-week waterlogging treatments in combination with 1 and 2 clipping events, with and without dung amendment in a greenhouse experiment. The experiment was designed to mimic early and late growing-season patterns of herbivory by native and domestic herbivores on a dominant species of wet meadows of this region. Waterlogged plants produced a higher percentage of roots at the surface, elongated stems to the first axial leaf, increased the proportion of tillers that flowered, but increased aboveground yield and tiller height only with the addition of dung. Root biomass declined with waterlogging when dung was not added, and a second defoliation exacerbated the negative effects of waterlogging on roots. Defoliation with short-duration waterlogging increased shoot nitrogen (N) concentration and N yield/root biomass, while continuous waterlogging reduced shoot N concentration of aboveground biomass. Dung amendment did not reverse this effect. Although extended flooding in combination with moderate rates of defoliation did not reduce aboveground biomass of Deschampsia caespitosa, it aggravated total root loss, caused shifts to a shallower root distribution, and altered N concentration of aboveground biomass for herbivores.

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

3.8
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