民勤荒漠绿洲过渡带优势植物地上和地下生物量的估测模型

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

荒漠优势物种生物量的定量测量是荒漠土壤管理的重要依据。为精确估计民勤典型绿洲-荒漠过渡带中优势物种生物量,我们用随机选取的82个10 m×10 m的样方进行优势物种调查。结果显示试验地物种结构简单,而且总盖度仅为16.12%。选取5种荒漠优势物种(白刺(Nitraria tangutorum)、沙拐枣(Calligonum mongolicum)、梭梭(Haloxylon ammodendron)、沙蓬(Agriophyllum squarrosum)和盐生草(Halogeton arachnoideus)),利用全挖法测定其地上和地下生物量。用测定生物量80%的数据分析每一种植物地上和地下干、鲜生物量与其自身的形态参数地径、高度和冠幅之间的相关关系,再利用线性回归分析方法,以相关性显著的形态参数为自变量确定了预测试验地每一优势物种最适宜的地上及地下干、鲜生物量的回归模型。研究结果证实包括地茎(除白刺)和盖度为自变量的回归方程和5种优势荒漠植物的生物量拟合度很好,用测定生物量20%的数据对所有模型进行检验,证实所有生物量的估测模型能够精确预测优势荒漠物种生物量。

关键词: 植物, 生物量, 荒漠, 过渡带, 绿洲

Abstract:

Most desert soil management decisions are based on quantitative measurements of the biomass of the dominant plant species. The biomass of the dominant plant species in a typical oasis-desert ecotone (ODE) of Minqin was measured in 82 plots (10 m×10 m). The results showed that the distribution and total cover was approximately 16.12%. Above- and below-ground biomass of five dominant desert species (Nitraria tangutorum, Calligonuum mongolicum, Haloxylon ammodendron, Agriophyllum squarrosum and Halogeton arachnoideu) was measured by excavation. Linear regressions were used to analyze the relationships among all the biomass components for each plant (fresh and dry weight of above- and below-ground biomass) and the basal diameter, total height and canopy cover. Best fit models were constructed for each species using 80% of the data. Our results showed that basal diameter (excluding N. tangutorum) and canopy cover were the best predictors of biomass for all five desert plant species. A validation test using the other 20% of the data not used for estimating the regression equations indicated that these equations made accurate predictions of desert plant species biomass.

Key words: Plant, Biomass, Desert, Ecotone, Oasis

魏小平, 赵长明, 王根轩, 陈宝明, 程栋梁. 民勤荒漠绿洲过渡带优势植物地上和地下生物量的估测模型. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(6): 878-883. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

WEI Xiao-Ping, ZHAO Chang-Ming, WANG Gen-Xuan, CHEN Bao-Ming, CHENG Dong-Liang. ESTIMATION OF ABOVE- AND BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS OF DOMINANT DESERT PLANT SPECIES IN AN OASIS-DESERT ECOTONE OF MINQIN, CHINA. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2005, 29(6): 878-883. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2005/V29/I6/878

图/表 4

参考文献 21

[1]	Assaeed AM (1997). Estimation of biomass and utilization of three perennial range grasses in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments, 36,103-111.
[2]	Bai YF, Han XG, Wu JG, Chen ZZ, Li LH (2004). Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature, 431,181-184. URL PMID
[3]	Clutter JL, Forston JC, Pienaar LV, Brister GH, Bailey RL (1983). Timber Management: a Quantitative Approach. Wiley Press, New York, 333.
[4]	Guevara JC, Gonnet JM, Estevez OR (2002). Biomass estimation for native perennial grasses in the plain of Mendoza, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 50,613-619.
[5]	Hatton TJ, West NE, Johnson PS (1986). Relationships of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover. Journal of Range Management, 39,91-92.
[6]	Bi H, Turner J, Lambert MJ (2004). Additive biomass equations for native eucalypt forest trees of temperate Australia. Trees, 18,467-479.
[7]	Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR (1996). A global analysis of root distribution for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108,389-411. URL PMID
[8]	Jia BQ (贾宝全), Cai TJ (蔡体久), Gao ZH (高志海), Ding F (丁峰), Zhang GZ (张国忠) (2002). Biomass forcast equations of Nitraria tangutorum shrub in sand dune. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment (干旱区资源与环境), 16 (1),96-99. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	Ma XW, Li BG, Wu CR, Peng HJ, Guo YZ (2003). Predicting of temporal-spatial change of groundwater table resulted from current land-use in Minqin oasis. Advance Water Science, 14,85-90.
[10]	Návar J, Méndez E, Nájera A, Graciano J, Dale V, Parresol B (2004). Biomass equations for shrub species of Tamaulipan thornscrub of North-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 59,657-674.
[11]	Návar J, Nájera J, Jurado E (2001). Preliminary estimates of biomass growth in the Tamaulipan thornscrub in North-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 47,281-290.
[12]	Návar J, Nájera J, Jurado E (2002). Biomass estimation equations in the Tamaulipan thornscrub of north-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 52,167-179.
[13]	Padrón E, Navarro RM (2004). Estimation of above-ground biomass in naturally occurring populations of Prosopis pallida. Journal of Arid Environments, 56,283-292.
[14]	Parresol B (1999). Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. Forest Science, 45,573-593.
[15]	Riegelhaupt E, da Silva IB, Campello FB, Pareyn F (1990). Volume, weight and product tables for Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC at Rio Grande do Norte.In: Habit MA, Saavedra JC eds. The Current State of Knowledge on Prosopis juliflore. FAO, Rome, Italy,69-91.
[16]	Schimel D, Mellillo J, Tian H, McGuire AD, Kicklighter D, Kittel T, Rosenbloom N, Running S, Thornton P, Ojima D, Parton W, Kelly R, Sykes M, Neilson R, Rizzo B (2000). Contribution of increasing CO ₂ and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science, 287,2004-2006. URL PMID
[17]	Snee RD (1977). Validation of regression equations: methods and examples. Technometrics, 19,415-428.
[18]	von Hardenberg J, Meron E, Shachak M, Zarmi Y (2001). Diversity of vegetation patterns and desertification. Physical Review Letters, 87,198101-4.
[19]	Wang B (王兵), Cui XH (崔向慧) (2004). Researches on laws of water balance at ecotone between oasis and desert in Minqin. Acta Ecology Sinica (生态学报), 24,235-240. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	Wang QS (王庆琐), Li B (李博) (1994). Preliminary study on biomass of Artemisia ordosica community in Ordos plateau sandland of China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 18,347-353. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Zhao CY (赵成义), Song YD (宋郁东), Wang YC (王玉潮), Jiang PA (蒋平安) (2004). Estimation of aboveground biomass of desert plants. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15,49-52. (in Chinese with English abstract)

Plant species	Species number per sample (Mean±SD)	Frequency (%)	Coverage (%)	Importance value
Agriophyllum squarrosum	7.71±7.60	30.3	0.956	70.841
Nitraria tangutorum	1.45±2.17	7.06	9.049	69.703
Calligonum mongolicum	5.43±8.06	26.4	2.501	66.307
Haloxylon ammodendron	1.34±2.44	7.21	2.642	29.630
Halogeton arachnoideus	2.67±3.63	10.20	0.212	23.503
Phragmites communis	1.11±2.45	5.40	0.008	10.437
Sophora alopecuroides	0.65±2.96	3.14	0.056	6.395
Limonium aureum	8.40±5.08	2.49	0.012	4.864
Artemisia arenaria	0.44±1.70	2.14	0.017	4.220
Thermopsis schischkinii	0.51±2.32	2.08	0.010	4.058
Elaeagnus angustifolia	0.06±0.36	0.30	0.488	3.599
Suaeda glauca	0.30±1.95	1.48	0.012	2.926
Hedysarum scoparium	0.12±0.46	0.59	0.122	1.897
Bassia dasyphylla	0.06±0.29	0.30	0.001	0.583
Caragana microphylla	0.04±0.19	0.18	0.037	0.571
Cirsium setosum	0.05±0.27	0.24	0.001	0.466

Plant species	Species number per sample (Mean±SD)	Frequency (%)	Coverage (%)	Importance value
Agriophyllum squarrosum	7.71±7.60	30.3	0.956	70.841
Nitraria tangutorum	1.45±2.17	7.06	9.049	69.703
Calligonum mongolicum	5.43±8.06	26.4	2.501	66.307
Haloxylon ammodendron	1.34±2.44	7.21	2.642	29.630
Halogeton arachnoideus	2.67±3.63	10.20	0.212	23.503
Phragmites communis	1.11±2.45	5.40	0.008	10.437
Sophora alopecuroides	0.65±2.96	3.14	0.056	6.395
Limonium aureum	8.40±5.08	2.49	0.012	4.864
Artemisia arenaria	0.44±1.70	2.14	0.017	4.220
Thermopsis schischkinii	0.51±2.32	2.08	0.010	4.058
Elaeagnus angustifolia	0.06±0.36	0.30	0.488	3.599
Suaeda glauca	0.30±1.95	1.48	0.012	2.926
Hedysarum scoparium	0.12±0.46	0.59	0.122	1.897
Bassia dasyphylla	0.06±0.29	0.30	0.001	0.583
Caragana microphylla	0.04±0.19	0.18	0.037	0.571
Cirsium setosum	0.05±0.27	0.24	0.001	0.466

Species	Weight (g·plant^-1)	Height of sand mounds (cm·plant^-1)	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Species	Above-ground	Below-ground	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Nitraria tangutorum Calligonum mongolicum Haloxylon ammodendron Agriophyllum squarrosum Halogeton arachnoideus	288.91±320.66 34.69±17.37 1 876.36±836.31 4.69±2.29 6.24±4.26	721.55±779.67 32.51±17.08 - 0.59±0.35 0.70±0.49	27.72±21.29 - - - -	- 0.99±0.47 2.93±1.04 0.32±0.08 0.35±0.17	28.32±6.75 45.10±16.41 221.59±75.26 18.78±6.81 11.72±3.75	3.71±4.69 0.24±0.13 0.35±0.21 0.11±0.06 0.09±0.06

Species	Weight (g·plant^-1)	Height of sand mounds (cm·plant^-1)	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Species	Above-ground	Below-ground	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Nitraria tangutorum Calligonum mongolicum Haloxylon ammodendron Agriophyllum squarrosum Halogeton arachnoideus	288.91±320.66 34.69±17.37 1 876.36±836.31 4.69±2.29 6.24±4.26	721.55±779.67 32.51±17.08 - 0.59±0.35 0.70±0.49	27.72±21.29 - - - -	- 0.99±0.47 2.93±1.04 0.32±0.08 0.35±0.17	28.32±6.75 45.10±16.41 221.59±75.26 18.78±6.81 11.72±3.75	3.71±4.69 0.24±0.13 0.35±0.21 0.11±0.06 0.09±0.06

Species biomass	Correlation coefficients
Species biomass	Sand mounds at height (cm)	Basal diameter (cm)	Total height (cm)	Canopy cover (cm²)
Nitraria tangutorum Above-ground dry biomass, ADB (g) Below-ground fresh biomass, BFB (g) Total fresh biomass, TFB (g) Total dry biomass, TDB (g)	0.711^a 0.810^a 0.780^a 0.786^a	- - - -	-0.002 -0.099 -0.065 -0.071	0.868^a 0.918^a 0.907^a 0.909^a
Calligonuum mongolicum Above-ground dry biomass(g) Below-ground fresh biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - - -	0.492^c 0.488^c 0.437^c 0.507^c	0.033 0.131 0.078 0.051	0.949^a 0.910^a 0.967^a 0.922^a
Haloxylon ammodendron
Above-ground dry biomass(g)	-	0.790^a	0.405	0.878^a
Agriophyllum squarrosum Above-ground dry biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - -	0.851^a 0.849^a 0.853^a	0.377^c 0.291 0.368^c	0.704^a 0.639^a 0.694^a
Halogeton arachnoideus Above-ground dry biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - -	0.791^a 0.807^b 0.809^a	0.336^c 0.339^c 0.315	0.883^a 0.785^a 0.888^a