4.7 Article

Large-scale pattern of biomass partitioning across China's grasslands

期刊

GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 268-277

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00502.x

关键词

Above-ground biomass; alpine grasslands; below-ground biomass; China; isometric theory; root : shoot ratio; temperate grasslands

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [90711002, 30721140306, 40638039, 30700090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To investigate large-scale patterns of above-ground and below-ground biomass partitioning in grassland ecosystems and to test the isometric theory at the community level. Location Northern China, in diverse grassland types spanning temperate grasslands in arid and semi-arid regions to alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau. Methods We investigated above-ground and below-ground biomass in China's grasslands by conducting five consecutive sampling campaigns across the northern part of the country during 2001-05. We then documented the root : shoot ratio (R/S) and its relationship with climatic factors for China's grasslands. We further explored relationships between above-ground and below-ground biomass across different grassland types. Results Our results indicated that the overall R/S of China's grasslands was larger than the global average (6.3 vs. 3.7). The R/S for China's grasslands did not show any significant trend with either mean annual temperature or mean annual precipitation. Above-ground biomass was nearly proportional to below-ground biomass with a scaling exponent (the slope of log-log linear relationship between above-ground and below-ground biomass) of 1.02 across various grassland types. The slope did not differ significantly between temperate and alpine grasslands or between steppe and meadow. Main conclusions Our findings support the isometric theory of above-ground and below-ground biomass partitioning, and suggest that above-ground biomass scales isometrically with below-ground biomass at the community level.

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