浙江天童木本植物Corner法则的检验: 个体密度的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

植物生态学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (7): 655-664.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

• 研究论文 • 下一篇

浙江天童木本植物Corner法则的检验: 个体密度的影响

章建红¹, 史青茹²^,³, 许洺山²^,³, 赵延涛²^,³, 仲强²^,³, 张富杰⁴, 阎恩荣²^,³^,^*()

¹浙江省宁波市农业科学研究院, 浙江宁波 315040
²华东师范大学环境科学系, 上海 200241
³浙江天童森林生态系统国家野外科学观测研究站, 浙江宁波 315114
⁴宁波市鄞州区林业技术管理服务站, 浙江宁波 315100

收稿日期:2014-01-15 接受日期:2014-05-09 出版日期:2014-01-15 发布日期:2014-07-10
通讯作者: 阎恩荣
作者简介:* E-mail: eryan@des.ecnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(31270475);国家自然科学基金(31070383);宁波市重大科技攻关项目(2012C1-0027)

Testing of Corner’s rules across woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province: effects of individual density

ZHANG Jian-Hong¹, SHI Qing-Ru²^,³, XU Ming-Shan²^,³, ZHAO Yan-Tao²^,³, ZHONG Qiang²^,³, ZHANG Fu-Jie⁴, YAN En-Rong²^,³^,^*()

¹Ningbo Academy of Agricultural Science, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040, China
²Department of Environment Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
³Tiantong National Forest Ecosystem Observation and Research Station, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315114, China
⁴Forestry Technical Management Service Station, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315100, China

Received:2014-01-15 Accepted:2014-05-09 Online:2014-01-15 Published:2014-07-10
Contact: YAN En-Rong

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

Corner法则反映了植物枝叶大小和数量配置的构型策略, 但是, 对于个体密度如何影响枝叶关系的理解仍不够深入。该研究选择浙江天童的25个植物群落, 通过比较枝大小(横截面积)-叶大小(总叶面积)关系和枝大小(横截面积)-枝数量(分梢密度)关系, 分析个体竞争对植物Corner法则的影响。结果显示: 1)在不同密度区间, 枝横截面积和总叶面积均显著异速正相关。2)个体水平上, 枝大小-叶大小回归方程的截距在低密度区间显著小于高密度区间, 表明在枝大小一定的条件下, 高密度群落的植物当年生枝条会支撑更大的总叶面积; 而物种水平上, 枝大小-叶大小回归方程的截距在不同密度区间没有显著性差异。3)枝横截面积与分梢密度显著负相关, 且各密度区间也存在显著小于-1的共斜率。4)个体水平和物种水平的分析结果都显示, 枝横截面积与分梢密度回归方程的截距在不同密度区间无显著差异, 表明高密度植物并没有比低密度植物在单位大小枝条上配置更多的分枝。总之, 植物枝大小-叶大小关系和枝大小-枝数量关系各自在不同的密度区间具有共同的变化斜率, 反映了天童地区植物Corner法则不随个体密度变化而改变。但是, 枝叶关系回归方程截距的改变表明, 个体竞争的加大会使得植物在枝叶大小的配置策略上进行调整, 从而可能通过生态位分化促进物种共存。

关键词: 异速生长, 群落密度, Corner法则, 个体竞争, 枝叶关系

Abstract:

Aims Corner’s rules reflect the architectural strategies of plants with respect to deployment of twig size and leaf size, as well as of the number of twigs and leaves. The objective of this study was to examine how Corner’s rules would vary among plants with different individual densities.
Methods The study site is located in the Tiantong National Forest Park (29.87° N, 121.65° E), Zhejiang Province. We measured twig cross-sectional area (twig size), total leaf area (leaf size per twig), and the number of twigs at a given twig size (branching intensity) in woody plants across 25 plots differing in stem density to examine the effects of individual competition on Corner’s rules. The standardized major axis (SMA) analysis was conducted to determine the quantitative relationships of twig size with leaf size and branching intensity.
Important findings Significant, positive allometric relationships between cross-sectional area and total leaf area were found in individual plants across all communities. There was no significant difference among communities of different density intervals in the slope of the linear regression between cross-sectional area and total leaf area of individual plants, and the common slope of the regressions was significantly greater than 1 (p < 0.001). The intercept was significantly greater for plants in communities with higher density than in those with lower density (p < 0.001), indicating that plants in a high density community support greater total leaf area than in a low density community for a given twig size. In contrast, a significant, negative allometric scaling relationship was found between branching intensity and cross-sectional area in individual plants across different communities. Also, no significant difference was found among plants in communities of different density intervals in the slope of the regression between branching intensity and cross-sectional area, and the common slope of the regressions was significantly less than -1 (p < 0.001). The intercept for the regression relationship between twig area and branching intensity was the same among plants in communities of different density intervals (p > 0.05), suggesting that plants in a high density community do not deploy more twigs per twig size than in a low density community. In summary, this study demonstrated that plants responded to changes in individual density by maintaining an invariant regression slope for the twig size-leaf size relationship and the twig size-branching intensity relationship, and that the Corner’s rules were not affected by individual density of the communities in the Tiantong region. However, changes in the intercept of the regression between twig size and leaf size indicate that deployment strategies between twig and leaf sizes could be adjusted with increasing individual plant competition, thus structuring species coexistence through niche differentiation.

Key words: allometric growth, community density, Corner’s rules, individual competition, twig-leaf relationship

章建红, 史青茹, 许洺山, 赵延涛, 仲强, 张富杰, 阎恩荣. 浙江天童木本植物Corner法则的检验: 个体密度的影响. 植物生态学报, 2014, 38(7): 655-664. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

ZHANG Jian-Hong, SHI Qing-Ru, XU Ming-Shan, ZHAO Yan-Tao, ZHONG Qiang, ZHANG Fu-Jie, YAN En-Rong. Testing of Corner’s rules across woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province: effects of individual density. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2014, 38(7): 655-664. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2014/V38/I7/655

图/表 4

参考文献 40

[1]	Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ (1998). Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner’s rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples ( Acer). The American Naturalist, 152, 767-791. URL PMID
[2]	Brouat C, Gibernau M, Amsellem L, McKey D (1998). Corner’s rules revisited: ontogenetic and interspecific patterns in leaf-stem allometry. New Phytologist, 139, 459-470.
[3]	Corner E (1949). The durian theory or the origin of the modern tree. Annals of Botany, 13, 367-414.
[4]	Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature, 410, 655-660. URL PMID
[5]	Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 295, 1517-1520. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Enquist BJ, West GB, Charnov EL, Brown JH (1999). Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature, 401, 907-911.
[7]	Falster DS, Warton DI, Wright IJ (2006). User’s guide to SMATR: Standardised Major Axis Tests & Routines Version 2. 0. http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/. (7 April 2011, date last accessed). Cited 2014-01-13.
[8]	Givnish TJ (1987). Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytologist, 106(Suppl.), 131-160.
[9]	Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
[10]	Keddy P, Twolan-Strutt L, Shipley B (1997). Experimental evidence that interspecific competitive asymmetry increases with soil productivity. Oikos, 80, 253-256.
[11]	Kleiman D, Aarssen LW (2007). The leaf size/number trade-off in trees. Journal of Ecology, 95, 376– 382.
[12]	Liao JX, Chen J, Jiang MX, Huang HD (2012). Leaf traits and persistence of relict and endangered tree species in a rare plant community. Functional Plant Biology, 39, 512-518. URL PMID
[13]	Liu ZG, Cai YL, Li K (2008). Studies on the leaf size-twig size spectrum of subtropical evergreen board-leaved woody species. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 32, 363-369. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[刘志国, 蔡永立, 李恺 (2008). 亚热带常绿阔叶林植物叶-小枝的异速生长. 植物生态学报, 32, 363-369.]
[14]	Meziane D, Shipley B (1999a). Interacting determinants of specific leaf area in 22 herbaceous species: effects of irradiance and nutrient availability. Plant, Cell & Environment, 22, 447-459.
[15]	Meziane D, Shipley B (1999b). Interacting components of interspecific relative growth rate: constancy and change under differing conditions of light and nutrient supply. Functional Ecology, 13, 611-622.
[16]	Niklas KJ (1992). Plant Biomechanics: an Engineering Approach to Plant form and Function. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[17]	Niklas KJ (1994). Plant Allometry: the Scaling of Form and Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[18]	Normand F, Bissery C, Damour G, Lauri PÉ (2008). Hydraulic and mechanical stem properties affect leaf-stem allometry in mango cultivars. New Phytologist, 178, 590-602.
[19]	Olson ME, Aguirre-Hernández R, Rosell JA (2009). Universal foliage-stem scaling across environments and species in dicot trees: plasticity, biomechanics and Corner’s rules. Ecology Letters, 12, 210-219.
[20]	Pickup M, Westoby M, Basden A (2005). Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size. Functional Ecology, 19, 88-97.
[21]	Pitman EJG (1939). A note on normal correlation. Biometrika, 31, 9-12.
[22]	Preston KA, Ackerly DD (2003). Hydraulic architecture and the evolution of shoot allometry in contrasting climates. American Journal of Botany, 90, 1502-1512.
[23]	Reich PB, Oleksyn J (2004). Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 11001-11006.
[24]	Reich PB, Uhl C, Walter MB, Ellsworth DS (1991). Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 Amazonian tree species. Oecologia, 86, 16-24. URL PMID
[25]	Reich PB, Walter MB, Ellsworth DS (1992). Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62, 365-392.
[26]	Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964). A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory. I. Basic analysis. Japanese Journal of Ecology, 14, 97-105.
[27]	Song YC, Wang XR (1995). Vegetation and Flora of Tiantong National Forest Park Zhejiang Province. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Document Publishing House, Shanghai. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[宋永昌, 王祥荣 (1995). 浙江天童国家森林公园的植被和区系. 上海科学技术文献出版社, 上海.]
[28]	Sun SC, Jin DM, Shi PL (2006). The leaf size-twig size spectrum of temperate woody species along an altitudinal gradient: an invariant allometric scaling relationship. Annals of Botany, 97, 97-107.
[29]	Takenaka A (2000). Shoot growth responses to light microenvironment and correlative inhibition in tree seedlings under a forest canopy. Tree Physiology, 20, 987-991. URL PMID
[30]	Warton DI, Weber NC (2002). Common slope tests for bivariate errors-in-variables models. Biometrical Journal, 44, 161-174.
[31]	Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006). Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews, 81, 259-291.
[32]	West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276, 122-126.
[33]	Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002). Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 125-159.
[34]	Westoby M, Wright IJ (2003). The leaf size-twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia, 135, 621-628.
[35]	Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M (2001). Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and high- and low-nutrient habitats. Functional Ecology, 15, 423-434.
[36]	Xu Y, Yang XD, Xie YM, Xu YL, Chang SX, Yan ER (2012). Twig size-number trade-off among woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province of China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36, 1268-1276. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[许月, 杨晓东, 谢一鸣, 徐艺露, Chang SX, 阎恩荣 (2012). 浙江天童木本植物小枝的“大小-数量”权衡. 植物生态学报, 36, 1268-1276.]
[37]	Yan ER, Wang XH, Chang SX, He FL (2013). Scaling relationships among twig size, leaf size and leafing intensity in a successional series of subtropical forests. Tree Physiology, 33, 609-617. DOI URL PMID
[38]	Yang DM, Li GY, Sun SC (2008). The generality of leaf size versus number trade-off in temperate woody species. Annals of Botany, 102, 623-629. URL PMID
[39]	Yang DM, Li GY, Sun SC (2009). The effects of leaf size, leaf habit, and leaf form on leaf/stem relationships in plant twigs of temperate woody species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 359-366.
[40]	Zimmermann MH (1983). Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap. Springer-Verlag, Berlin .

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体数 Individual number	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CI)	截距 Intercept
枝横截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	1.24 (1.20-1.28)^a*	1.47^b
		M (114-156)	1 414	1.20 (1.17-1.23)^a*	1.53^a
		H (156-198)	709	1.18 (1.13-1.23)^b*	1.51^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	1.13 (1.04-1.23)^a*	1.48^b
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	1.08 (0.99-1.17)^b	1.54^a
枝横截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area- branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	-1.45 (-1.48- -1.42)^a*	0.03^a
		M (114-156)	1 414	-1.46 (-1.49- -1.44)^b*	0.03^a
		H (156-198)	709	-1.46 (-1.50- -1.43)^a*	0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	-1.42 (-1.50- -1.36)^a*	0.90^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	-1.46 (-1.53- -1.40)^b*	0.91^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体数 Individual number	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CI)	截距 Intercept
枝横截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	1.24 (1.20-1.28)^a*	1.47^b
		M (114-156)	1 414	1.20 (1.17-1.23)^a*	1.53^a
		H (156-198)	709	1.18 (1.13-1.23)^b*	1.51^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	1.13 (1.04-1.23)^a*	1.48^b
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	1.08 (0.99-1.17)^b	1.54^a
枝横截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area- branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	-1.45 (-1.48- -1.42)^a*	0.03^a
		M (114-156)	1 414	-1.46 (-1.49- -1.44)^b*	0.03^a
		H (156-198)	709	-1.46 (-1.50- -1.43)^a*	0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	-1.42 (-1.50- -1.36)^a*	0.90^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	-1.46 (-1.53- -1.40)^b*	0.91^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体水平 Individual level	物种水平 Species level
总叶面积 Total leaf area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	84.79 ± 5.15^a (L-M, 0.82)	136.53 ± 39.62^a (L-M, 0.63)
		M (114-156)	88.29 ± 3.72^a(M-H, 0.00)	185.43 ± 43.01^a (M-H, 0.65)
		H (156-198)	68.20 ± 3.60^b (L-H, 0.04)	131.01 ± 28.60^a(L-H, 1.00)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	222.94 ± 23.32^a (L-H, 0.28)	243.55 ± 115.72^a (L-H, 0.85)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	185.86 ± 25.36^a	220.05 ± 66.08^a
枝截面积 Twig cross-sectional area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	2.21 ± 0.09^a (L-M, 0.57)	3.02 ± 0.39^a (L-M, 0.59)
		M (114-156)	2.10 ± 0.07^a(M-H, 0.03)	3.93 ± 0.93^a (M-H, 0.75)
		H (156-198)	1.79 ± 0.08^b (L-H, 0.00)	3.17 ± 0.56^a (L-H, 0.99)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	5.51 ± 0.36^a (L-H, 0.07)	4.23 ± 0.89^a (L-H, 0.67)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	4.39 ± 0.50^a	5.03 ± 1.49^a
分梢密度 Branching intensity (No.·mm^-3)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	0.88 ± 0.08^a (L-M, 0.11)	0.77 ± 0.14^a (L-M, 1.00)
		M (114-156)	0.74 ± 0.03^a (M-H, 0.91)	0.76 ± 0.14^a (M-H, 0.87)
		H (156-198)	0.78 ± 0.04^a (L-H, 0.39)	0.65 ± 0.14^a (L-H, 0.83)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	0.32 ± 0.06^a (L-H, 0.24)	0.75 ± 0.27^a (L-H, 0.39)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	0.41 ± 0.05^a	0.52 ± 0.10^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体水平 Individual level	物种水平 Species level
总叶面积 Total leaf area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	84.79 ± 5.15^a (L-M, 0.82)	136.53 ± 39.62^a (L-M, 0.63)
		M (114-156)	88.29 ± 3.72^a(M-H, 0.00)	185.43 ± 43.01^a (M-H, 0.65)
		H (156-198)	68.20 ± 3.60^b (L-H, 0.04)	131.01 ± 28.60^a(L-H, 1.00)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	222.94 ± 23.32^a (L-H, 0.28)	243.55 ± 115.72^a (L-H, 0.85)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	185.86 ± 25.36^a	220.05 ± 66.08^a
枝截面积 Twig cross-sectional area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	2.21 ± 0.09^a (L-M, 0.57)	3.02 ± 0.39^a (L-M, 0.59)
		M (114-156)	2.10 ± 0.07^a(M-H, 0.03)	3.93 ± 0.93^a (M-H, 0.75)
		H (156-198)	1.79 ± 0.08^b (L-H, 0.00)	3.17 ± 0.56^a (L-H, 0.99)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	5.51 ± 0.36^a (L-H, 0.07)	4.23 ± 0.89^a (L-H, 0.67)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	4.39 ± 0.50^a	5.03 ± 1.49^a
分梢密度 Branching intensity (No.·mm^-3)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	0.88 ± 0.08^a (L-M, 0.11)	0.77 ± 0.14^a (L-M, 1.00)
		M (114-156)	0.74 ± 0.03^a (M-H, 0.91)	0.76 ± 0.14^a (M-H, 0.87)
		H (156-198)	0.78 ± 0.04^a (L-H, 0.39)	0.65 ± 0.14^a (L-H, 0.83)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	0.32 ± 0.06^a (L-H, 0.24)	0.75 ± 0.27^a (L-H, 0.39)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	0.41 ± 0.05^a	0.52 ± 0.10^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	物种数 Species number	回归系数R² Regression coefficient	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CIs)	共斜率(置信区间) Common slope (CIs)	截距 Intercept
枝截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	59	0.65^***	1.10 (0.94-1.28)^a	1.01 (0.98-1.15)	1.53^a
		M (114-156)	59	0.82^***	1.05 (0.94-1.18)^a		1.61^a
		H (156-198)	37	0.76^***	1.06 (0.90-1.26)^a		1.56^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	28	0.77^***	1.13 (0.94-1.38)^a	1.07 (0.96-1.20)	1.54^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	35	0.86^***	1.04 (0.92-1.19) ^a		1.57^a
枝截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area-branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	59	0.72^***	-1.78 (-2.04- -1.54)^a*	-1.60 (-1.47- -1.73)^§	0.12^a
		M (114-156)	59	0.78^***	-1.57 (-1.78- -1.38)^a*		0.04^a
		H (156-198)	37	0.80^***	-1.46 (-1.70- -1.26)^a*		0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	28	0.96^***	-1.28 (-1.39- -1.19)^a*	-1.33 (-1.25- -1.4)^§	0.16^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	35	0.92^***	-1.42 (-1.58- -1.28)^a*		0.12^a

浙江天童木本植物Corner法则的检验: 个体密度的影响

Testing of Corner’s rules across woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province: effects of individual density

全文

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 40

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	刘艳杰, 刘玉龙, 王传宽, 王兴昌. 东北温带森林5个羽状复叶树种叶成本-效益关系比较[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(11): 1540-1550.
[2]	王广亚, 陈柄华, 黄雨晨, 金光泽, 刘志理. 着生位置对水曲柳小叶性状变异及性状间相关性的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(6): 712-721.
[3]	李露, 金光泽, 刘志理. 阔叶红松林3种阔叶树种柄叶性状变异与相关性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(6): 687-699.
[4]	熊映杰, 于果, 魏凯璐, 彭娟, 耿鸿儒, 杨冬梅, 彭国全. 天童山阔叶木本植物叶片大小与叶脉密度及单位叶脉长度细胞壁干质量的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(2): 136-147.
[5]	董楠, 唐明明, 崔文倩, 岳梦瑶, 刘洁, 黄玉杰. 不同根系分隔方式对栗和茶幼苗生长的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(1): 62-73.
[6]	尹晓雷, 刘旭阳, 金强, 李先德, 林少颖, 阳祥, 王维奇, 张永勋. 不同管理模式对茶树碳氮磷含量及其生态化学计量比的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(7): 749-759.
[7]	杨克彤, 常海龙, 陈国鹏, 俞筱押, 鲜骏仁. 兰州市主要绿化植物气孔性状特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(2): 187-196.
[8]	邢磊, 段娜, 李清河, 刘成功, 李慧卿, 孙高洁. 白刺不同物候期的生物量分配规律[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(7): 763-771.
[9]	熊星烁, 蔡宏宇, 李耀琪, 马文红, 牛克昌, 陈迪马, 刘娜娜, 苏香燕, 景鹤影, 冯晓娟, 曾辉, 王志恒. 内蒙古典型草原植物叶片碳氮磷化学计量特征的季节动态[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(11): 1138-1153.
[10]	陈国鹏, 杨克彤, 王立, 王飞, 曹秀文, 陈林生. 甘肃南部7种高寒杜鹃生物量分配的异速生长关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(10): 1040-1049.
[11]	莫丹, 王振孟, 左有璐, 向双. 亚热带常绿阔叶林木本植物幼树阶段抽枝展叶的权衡关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(10): 995-1006.
[12]	周天阳, NARAYAN Prasad Gaire, 廖礼彬, 郑莉莉, 王金牛, 孙建, 魏彦强, 谢雨, 吴彦. 青藏高原东缘两处高山树线交错带时空动态及其建群种的生态学特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(11): 1082-1093.
[13]	韩玲, 赵成章, 徐婷, 冯威, 段贝贝. 不同土壤水分条件下洪泛平原湿地芨芨草叶片厚度与叶脉性状的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(5): 529-538.
[14]	王杨, 徐文婷, 熊高明, 李家湘, 赵常明, 卢志军, 李跃林, 谢宗强. 檵木生物量分配特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(1): 105-114.
[15]	李晓红, 徐健程, 肖宜安, 胡文海, 曹裕松. 武功山亚高山草甸群落优势植物野古草和芒异速生长对气候变暖的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(9): 871-882.