高寒草甸对刈割、施肥和浇水发生响应的最优植物性状集和功能型

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00040

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于植物性状和功能型的特征变化对于研究植被动态和生态系统功能变化具有重要意义。通过在高寒矮嵩草(Kobresia humilis)草甸为期5年(2007-2011年)的刈割(不刈割、留茬3 cm、留茬1 cm)、施肥(施肥、不施肥)和浇水(浇水、不浇水)控制实验, 采用递归算法(recursive algorithm)和多元回归分析筛选对模拟放牧发生响应的最优植物性状集和响应功能型, 以及影响群落生产力变化的作用功能型。研究结果显示: (1)在不施肥不浇水、仅施肥、仅浇水和既施肥又浇水4种条件下的最优植物性状集不同, 它们分别是叶缘形状-株高-叶干质量-比叶面积、生活周期-株高-叶干质量-比叶面积、生活周期-叶片叶绿素含量-叶表面结构-株高-叶干质量-比叶面积和繁殖结构-叶缘-株高。其中, 株高、叶干质量和比叶面积是对刈割和土壤资源变化更为敏感的植物性状。(2)在这4种处理条件下, 共获得14个最优响应功能型和4个作用功能型。作用功能型对群落生产力变异的解释能力在50.3%-86.4%之间。(3)最优响应功能型和作用功能型分别占功能型总数的70%和20%。作用功能型占最优响应功能型的28.5%, 两者间仅存在部分重叠。上述结果说明, 植物功能性状和功能型变化能够准确地反映植被的放牧响应和生态系统功能变化, 但是不同资源条件下群落的最优响应性状集和功能型不同。作用功能型是同时反映植被放牧响应和生态系统功能变化的最优功能型。

关键词: 刈割, 施肥, 作用功能型, 响应功能型, 植物功能性状, 浇水

Abstract:

Aims Our objective was to study vegetation dynamics and changes in ecosystem functions based on plant traits and characteristics of plant functional types (PFTs).
Methods A field manipulation experiment with a split-plot design was conducted in alpine meadow at the Haibei Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences from 2007 to 2011. Three clipping levels (stubbled 1 cm, 3 cm and unclipped) were used on the whole plot and subplots were treated with or without fertilizer and watering. The recursive algorithm and multivariate analysis were implemented to search for optimal trait subsets and plant response types (PRTs), which could response to experimental treatments, and to identify plant effect types (PETs) impacting the aboveground net primary productivity of community.
Important findings Under each of four resource conditions, i.e., unfertilized and unwatered (NFNW), fertilized only (F), watered only (W) and fertilized and watered (FW), the optimal response trait subsets were different, i.e., leaf margin-plant height-leaf weight-specific leaf area, life cycle-plant height-leaf weight-specific leaf area, life cycle-chlorophyll content-leaf surface-plant height-leaf weight-specific leaf area, and propagative organ-leaf margin-plant height, respectively. Of these responses, plant height, leaf weight and specific leaf area were more sensitive to treatments than others. Under the resource conditions, we found 14 optimal PRTs and four PETs in all of the PFTs. These PETs can explain 50.3%-86.4% of variation in productivity. The optimal PRTs and the optimal PETs account for 70% and 20% of all PFTs. PETs account for 28.5% of PRTs, therefore, there was partial overlap between PETs and PRTs. These results indicate that both vegetation response to grazing disturbance and ecosystem functioning changes could be accurately reflected by easily measurable plant functional traits. However, the optimal trait subsets and PFTs could be different depending on when the heterogeneity of resources is taken into account. PETs are the optimal PFTs reflecting vegetation response to grazing disturbance, but also changes in ecosystem functioning.

Key words: clipping, fertilizing, functional effect type, functional response type, plant functional trait, watering

李燕,朱志红. 高寒草甸对刈割、施肥和浇水发生响应的最优植物性状集和功能型. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(5): 384-396. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00040

LI Yan,ZHU Zhi-Hong. Optimal plant traits and plant functional types responsible to clipping, fertilizing and watering in alpine meadow. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013, 37(5): 384-396. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00040

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00040

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2013/V37/I5/384

图/表 7

参考文献 35

[1]	Cadotte MW, Cavender-Bares J, Tilman D, Oakley TH ( 2009). Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS ONE, 4, e5695. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L ( 2007). Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[3]	Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Díaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, Reich PB, ter Steege H, Morgan HD, van der Heijden MGA, Pausas JG, Poorter H ( 2003). A handbook of protocols for standardized and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany, 51, 335-380.
[4]	Connell JH ( 1980). Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos, 35, 131-138.
[5]	Díaz S, Cabido M ( 1997). Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8, 463-474.
[6]	Díaz S, Cabido M ( 2001). Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 646-655.
[7]	Díaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Cabido M, Cornelissen JHC, Jalili A, Montserrat-Martí G, Grime JP, Zarrinkamar F, Asri Y, Band SR, Basconcelo S, Castro-Díez P, Funes G, Hamzehee B, Khoshnevi M, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Pérez-Rontomé MC, Shirvany FA, Vendramini F, Yazdani S, Abbas-Azimi R, Bogaard A, Boustani S, Charles M, Dehghan M, de Torres-Espuny L, Falczuk V, Guerrero- Campo J, Hynd A, Jones G, Kowsary E, Kazemi-Saeed F, Maestro-Martínez M, Romo-Díez A, Shaw S, Siavash B, Villar-Salvador P, Zak MR ( 2004). The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science, 15, 295-304.
[8]	Díaz S, Noy-Meir I, Cabido M ( 2001). Can grazing response of herbaceous plants be predicted from simple vegetative traits? Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 497-508.
[9]	Diamond, JM (1975). Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. 342-444.
[10]	Garnier E, Cortez J, Billès G, Navas ML, Roumet C, Debussche M, Laurent G, Blanchard A, Aubry D, Bellmann A, Neill C, Toussaint JP ( 2004). Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology, 85, 2630-2637.
[11]	Gao Y, Wang DL, Ba L, Bai YG, Liu B ( 2008). Interactions between herbivory and resource availability on grazing tolerance of Leymus chinensis. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 63, 113-122.
[12]	Grime JP ( 2006). Trait convergence and trait divergence in herbaceous plant communities: mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science, 17, 255-260.
[13]	Grime JP, Thompson K, Hunt R, Hodgson JG, Cornelissen JHC, Rorison IH, Hendry GAF, Ashenden TW, Askew AP, Band SR, Booth RE, Bossard CC, Campbell BD, Cooper JEL, Davison AW, Gupta PL, Hall W, Hand DW, Hannah MA, Hillier SH, Hodkinson DJ, Jalili A, Liu Z, Mackey JML, Matthews N, Mowforth MA, Neal AM, Reader RJ, Reiling K, Ross-Fraser W, Spencer RE, Sutton F, Tasker DE, Thorpe PC, Whitehouse J ( 1997). Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialisation in plants. Oikos, 79, 259-281.
[14]	Hillebrand H, Matthiessen B ( 2009). Biodiversity in a complex world: consolidation and progress in functional biodiversity research. Ecology Letters, 12, 1405-1419. URL PMID
[15]	Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA ( 2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, 3-35.
[16]	Li XG, Zhu ZH, Zhou XS, Yuan FR, Fan RJ, Xu ML ( 2011). Effects of clipping, fertilizing and watering on the relationship between species diversity, functional diversity and primary productivity in alpine meadow of China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 35, 1136-1147. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 李晓刚, 朱志红, 周晓松, 袁芙蓉, 樊瑞俭, 许曼丽 ( 2011). 刈割、施肥和浇水对高寒草甸物种多样性、功能多样性与初级生产力关系的影响. 植物生态学报, 35, 1136-1147.]
[17]	Li YN, Wang QX, Gu S, Fu YL, Du MY, Zhao L, Zhao XQ, Yu GR ( 2004). Integrated monitoring of alpine vegetation types and its primary production. Acta Geographica Sinica, 59, 40-48. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 李英年, 王勤学, 古松, 伏玉玲, 杜明远, 赵亮, 赵新全, 于贵瑞 ( 2004). 高寒植被类型及其植物生产力的监测. 地理学报, 59, 40-48.]
[18]	Louault F, Pillar VD, Aufrére J, Garnier E, Soussana JF ( 2005). Plant traits and functional types in response to reduced disturbance in a semi-natural grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science, 16, 151-160.
[19]	Mokany K, Ash J, Roxburgh S ( 2008). Functional identity is more important than diversity in influencing ecosystem processes in a temperate native grassland. Journal of Ecology, 96, 884-893.
[20]	Pacala SW, Tilman D ( 1994). Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. The American Naturalist, 143, 222-257.
[21]	Parsons RF ( 1968). The significance of growth-rate comparisons for plant ecology. The American Naturalist, 102, 595-597.
[22]	Pausas JG, Lavorel S ( 2003). A hierarchical deductive approach for functional types in disturbed ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 409-416.
[23]	Pillar VD ( 1999). On the identification of optimal plant functional types. Journal of Vegetation Science, 10, 631-640.
[24]	Pillar VD, Duarte LS, Sosinski EE, Joner F ( 2009). Discriminating trait-convergence and trait-divergence assembly patterns in ecological community gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 334-348.
[25]	Pillar VD, Orlóci L ( 1993). Taxonomy and perception in vegetation analysis. Coenoses, 8, 53-66.
[26]	Pillar VD, Sosinski Jr EE ( 2003). An improved method for searching plant functional types by numerical analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 323-332.
[27]	Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin III FS, Cornelissen JHC, Díaz S, Garnier E, Goldberg D, Hooper DU, Jackson ST, Navas ML ( 2008). Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect frame- work for plants. Global Change Biology, 14, 1125-1140.
[28]	Wacker L, Baudois O, Eichenberger-Glinz S, Schmid B ( 2009). Diversity effects in early- and mid-successional species pools along a nitrogen gradient. Ecology, 90, 637-648.
[29]	Weiher E, Keddy PA ( 1995). Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: new questions from old patterns. Oikos, 74, 159-164.
[30]	Wilson JB ( 2007). Trait-divergence assembly rules have been demonstrated: limiting similarity lives! A reply to grime. Journal of Vegetation Science, 18, 451-452.
[31]	Wright JP, Jones CG ( 2004). Predicting effects of ecosystem engineers on patch-scale species richness from primary productivity. Ecology, 85, 2071-2081.
[32]	Zang YM, Zhu ZH, Li YN, Wang WJ, Xi B ( 2009). Effects of species diversity and functional diversity on primary productivity of alpine meadow. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 28, 999-1005. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 臧岳铭, 朱志红, 李英年, 王文娟, 席博 ( 2009). 高寒矮嵩草草甸物种多样性与功能多样性对初级生产力的影响. 生态学杂志, 28, 999-1005.]
[33]	Zhao XQ (2009). Global Change and Ecological System in Alpine Meadow. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) 78.
	[ 赵新全 (2009). 高寒草甸生态系统与全球变化. 科学出版社, 北京. 78.]
[34]	Zhou XS, Zhu ZH, Li YN, Yuan FR, Fan RJ ( 2011). Community compensatory mechanism under clipping, fertilizing and watering treatment in alpine meadow. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), 47, 50-57. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 周晓松, 朱志红, 李英年, 袁芙蓉, 樊瑞俭 ( 2011). 刈割、施肥和浇水处理下高寒矮嵩草草甸补偿机制. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 47, 50-57.]
[35]	Zhu ZH, Wang XA, Li YN, Wang G, Guo H ( 2012). Predicting plant traits and functional types response to grazing in an alpine shrub meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Sciences China-Earth Sciences, 55, 837-851.

性状 Trait	性状符号 Trait label	性状类型 Trait type	赋值分类状态 Evaluated classification state
生长型 Growth form	gf	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 直立疏丛生; 2, 莲座; 3, 密丛生; 4, 匍匐状; 5, 垫状; 6, 单株 1, erect caespitose; 2, rosette; 3, close caespitose; 4, stoloniferous; 5, mat forming; 6, solitary
生活周期 Life cycle	lc	定性性状 Qualitative trait	0, 非多年生; 1, 多年生 0, not perennial; 1, perennial
营养繁殖器官 Organ of vegetative propagation	ovp	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 根茎; 2, 无; 3, 匍匐茎; 4, 块茎; 5, 直立茎 1, rhizome; 2, absent; 3, creeping stem; 4, tuber; 5, straight stem
经济类群 Economic group	eg	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 禾草; 2, 莎草; 3, 豆科植物; 4, 杂类草 1, Gramineae; 2, Cyperaceae; 3, Leguminosae; 4, forbs
叶表面特征 Leaf surface characteristic	lsc	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 光滑; 2, 具毛; 3, 具刺 1, glabrous; 2, hairy; 3, needle
叶缘 Leaf margin	lm	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 全缘; 2, 锯齿; 3, 深裂; 4, 全裂 1, entire margin; 2, sawtooth; 3, deep lobed; 4, entire lobed
叶形 Leaf shape	ls	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 线形; 2, 卵形; 3, 长椭圆形; 4, 披针形; 5, 倒披针形; 6, 倒卵形; 7, 剑形; 8, 阔椭圆形 1, linear; 2, ovate; 3, oblong; 4, lanceolate; 5, oblanceolate; 6, obovate; 7, swordlike; 8, broad oblong
株高 Plant height (cm)	ph	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <7.5; 2, ≥7.5-<16; 3, ≥16-<24; 4, ≥24-<32; 5, ≥32-<40; 6, ≥40
叶片叶绿素含量 Leaf chlorophyll content (%)	lch	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <15; 2, ≥15-<20; 3, ≥20-<30; 4, ≥30-<40; 5, ≥40-<50; 6, ≥50
单株叶面积 Leaf area per plant (cm²)	la	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <15; 2, ≥15-<30; 3, ≥30-<45; 4, ≥45-<60; 5, ≥60-<75; 6, ≥75
单株叶干质量 Leaf dry weight per plant (mg)	lw	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <50; 2, ≥50-<100; 3, ≥100-<200; 4, ≥200-<400; 5, ≥400-<600; 6, ≥600
比叶面积 Specific leaf area (m²·kg^-1)	sla	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <0.2; 2, ≥0.2-<0.4; 3, ≥0.4-<0.6; 4, ≥0.6-<0.8; 5, ≥0.8

性状 Trait	性状符号 Trait label	性状类型 Trait type	赋值分类状态 Evaluated classification state
生长型 Growth form	gf	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 直立疏丛生; 2, 莲座; 3, 密丛生; 4, 匍匐状; 5, 垫状; 6, 单株 1, erect caespitose; 2, rosette; 3, close caespitose; 4, stoloniferous; 5, mat forming; 6, solitary
生活周期 Life cycle	lc	定性性状 Qualitative trait	0, 非多年生; 1, 多年生 0, not perennial; 1, perennial
营养繁殖器官 Organ of vegetative propagation	ovp	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 根茎; 2, 无; 3, 匍匐茎; 4, 块茎; 5, 直立茎 1, rhizome; 2, absent; 3, creeping stem; 4, tuber; 5, straight stem
经济类群 Economic group	eg	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 禾草; 2, 莎草; 3, 豆科植物; 4, 杂类草 1, Gramineae; 2, Cyperaceae; 3, Leguminosae; 4, forbs
叶表面特征 Leaf surface characteristic	lsc	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 光滑; 2, 具毛; 3, 具刺 1, glabrous; 2, hairy; 3, needle
叶缘 Leaf margin	lm	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 全缘; 2, 锯齿; 3, 深裂; 4, 全裂 1, entire margin; 2, sawtooth; 3, deep lobed; 4, entire lobed
叶形 Leaf shape	ls	定性性状 Qualitative trait	1, 线形; 2, 卵形; 3, 长椭圆形; 4, 披针形; 5, 倒披针形; 6, 倒卵形; 7, 剑形; 8, 阔椭圆形 1, linear; 2, ovate; 3, oblong; 4, lanceolate; 5, oblanceolate; 6, obovate; 7, swordlike; 8, broad oblong
株高 Plant height (cm)	ph	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <7.5; 2, ≥7.5-<16; 3, ≥16-<24; 4, ≥24-<32; 5, ≥32-<40; 6, ≥40
叶片叶绿素含量 Leaf chlorophyll content (%)	lch	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <15; 2, ≥15-<20; 3, ≥20-<30; 4, ≥30-<40; 5, ≥40-<50; 6, ≥50
单株叶面积 Leaf area per plant (cm²)	la	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <15; 2, ≥15-<30; 3, ≥30-<45; 4, ≥45-<60; 5, ≥60-<75; 6, ≥75
单株叶干质量 Leaf dry weight per plant (mg)	lw	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <50; 2, ≥50-<100; 3, ≥100-<200; 4, ≥200-<400; 5, ≥400-<600; 6, ≥600
比叶面积 Specific leaf area (m²·kg^-1)	sla	定量性状Quantitative trait	1, <0.2; 2, ≥0.2-<0.4; 3, ≥0.4-<0.6; 4, ≥0.6-<0.8; 5, ≥0.8

处理	性状集编号	叠合性MD;A)	性状符号与性状集
Treatment	No. of trait subset	Congruence /?(D;A)	Trait label and trait subset
NFNW	1	0.537	sla
	2	0.572	lw	sla
	3	0.579	lm	ph	sla
	4	0.585	lm	ph	lw	sla
	5	0.583	lc	lm	lch	Ph	sla
	6	0.576	lc	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	7	0.561	lc	lsc	lm	lch	ph	lw	sla
	8	0.544	lc	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	sla
	9	0.518	lc	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	10	0.479	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	11	0.427	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.35	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
F	1	0.566	Ph
	2	0.66	lw	sla
	3	0.713	ph	lw	sla
	4	0.715	lc	ph	lw	sla
	5	0.712	lc	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	6	0.71	lc	ovp	lch	ph	lw	sla
	7	0.691	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	8	0.673	lc	ovp	eg	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	9	0.652	lc	ovp	eg	Is	lm	lch	ph	lw	sla
	10	0.629	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	11	0.596	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	12	0.516	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
W	1	0.557	ph
	2	0.672	lsc	Ph
	3	0.751	lsc	ph	lw
	4	0.769	lsc	lch	Ph	lw
	5	0.797	lsc	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	6	0.8	lc	lsc	lch	ph	lw	sla
	7	0.778	lc	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	8	0.75	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	9	0.691	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	10	0.64	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	11	0.573	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.514	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
FW	1	0.602	lm
	2	0.698	ovp	ph
	3	0.744	ovp	lm	ph
	4	0.738	lc	ovp	lm	ph
	5	0.717	lc	ovp	lch	ph	sla
	6	0.72	lc	ovp	lch	ph	la	sla
	7	0.72	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	la	sla
	8	0.711	lc	ovp	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	sla
	9	0.688	gf	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	10	0.667	gf	lc	ovp	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	11	0.644	gf	lc	ovp	eg	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.592	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla

处理	性状集编号	叠合性MD;A)	性状符号与性状集
Treatment	No. of trait subset	Congruence /?(D;A)	Trait label and trait subset
NFNW	1	0.537	sla
	2	0.572	lw	sla
	3	0.579	lm	ph	sla
	4	0.585	lm	ph	lw	sla
	5	0.583	lc	lm	lch	Ph	sla
	6	0.576	lc	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	7	0.561	lc	lsc	lm	lch	ph	lw	sla
	8	0.544	lc	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	sla
	9	0.518	lc	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	10	0.479	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	11	0.427	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.35	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
F	1	0.566	Ph
	2	0.66	lw	sla
	3	0.713	ph	lw	sla
	4	0.715	lc	ph	lw	sla
	5	0.712	lc	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	6	0.71	lc	ovp	lch	ph	lw	sla
	7	0.691	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	8	0.673	lc	ovp	eg	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	9	0.652	lc	ovp	eg	Is	lm	lch	ph	lw	sla
	10	0.629	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	11	0.596	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	12	0.516	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
W	1	0.557	ph
	2	0.672	lsc	Ph
	3	0.751	lsc	ph	lw
	4	0.769	lsc	lch	Ph	lw
	5	0.797	lsc	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	6	0.8	lc	lsc	lch	ph	lw	sla
	7	0.778	lc	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	8	0.75	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	9	0.691	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	10	0.64	gf	lc	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	lw	sla
	11	0.573	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.514	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
FW	1	0.602	lm
	2	0.698	ovp	ph
	3	0.744	ovp	lm	ph
	4	0.738	lc	ovp	lm	ph
	5	0.717	lc	ovp	lch	ph	sla
	6	0.72	lc	ovp	lch	ph	la	sla
	7	0.72	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	la	sla
	8	0.711	lc	ovp	Is	lm	lch	Ph	la	sla
	9	0.688	gf	lc	ovp	lm	lch	Ph	la	lw	sla
	10	0.667	gf	lc	ovp	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	11	0.644	gf	lc	ovp	eg	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla
	12	0.592	gf	lc	ovp	eg	lsc	Is	lm	lch	ph	la	lw	sla

处理 Treatment	最优性状集 Optimal traits subset	TCAP ρ(TE)	TCAP and TDAP ρ(XE)	TDAP ρ(XE.T)	所有性状 All traits ρ(D;?)	性状冗余 Trait redundancy ρ(XE)-ρ(D;?)
NFNW	lm-ph-lw-sla	0.587 (p = 0.002)	0.585 (p = 0.001)	0.131 (p = 0.192)	0.350	0.235
F	lc-ph-lw-sla	0.721 (p = 0.001)	0.715 (p = 0.001)	0.125 (p = 0.169)	0.516	0.199
W	lc-lsc-lch-ph-lw-sla	0.663 (p = 0.001)	0.800 (p = 0.001)	0.601 (p = 0.001)	0.514	0.286
FW	ovp-lm-ph	0.642 (p = 0.001)	0.744 (p = 0.001)	0.528 (p = 0.005)	0.592	0.152