高寒草甸退化过程中土壤种子库的变化及其在植物群落更新中的潜在作用

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2024.0095

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

青藏高原东部高寒草甸局部地区因长期过度放牧而发生退化。土壤种子库是退化生态系统恢复的潜在重要资源, 其在高寒草甸退化过程中的动态及其在退化草地恢复中的作用仍有待探究。该研究在青藏高原东部选择了4个不同退化水平的高寒草甸, 构建了一个退化序列。在这一序列上对植物群落和土壤种子库进行调查, 探究了植物群落及种子库组成和特征在退化序列上的变化规律, 并分析了种子库在植物群落更新和退化高寒草甸恢复中的潜在作用。研究发现: (1)植物群落的物种丰富度和相对多度随高寒草甸的退化而显著降低, 而土壤种子库的物种丰富度呈现先升高后降低的变化规律, 种子密度则显著降低; (2)植物群落与土壤种子库物种组成相似性随退化水平增加而逐渐增加, 即种子库在植物群落更新中的潜在作用随退化水平的增加而增加; (3)相比于植物群落, 种子库对退化的响应有明显的滞后性, 可以在一定程度上缓冲退化对地上植物群落的影响。以上结果说明, 高寒草甸植物群落和土壤种子库对退化的响应不一致, 土壤种子库是退化高寒草甸恢复的重要潜在资源。然而, 土壤种子库对退化的恢复潜力是有限的, 在重度退化水平下, 由于种子库资源的过度损耗, 种子库在修复中的作用下降。以上研究结果可为青藏高原退化高寒草甸的保护、恢复和管理提供科学依据。

关键词: 高寒草甸, 退化, 恢复, 土壤种子库, 青藏高原, 植物群落

Abstract:

Aims The alpine meadows on the eastern Qingzang Plateau have degraded in some areas due to long-term overgrazing. As a crucial resource for degraded ecosystem restoration, the dynamics of soil seed banks and their role in degraded alpine meadow restoration remain unclear.

Methods We chose four different degradation levels of alpine meadows to construct a degradation gradient on the eastern Qingzang Plateau. We investigated the plant community and soil seed bank along the degraded gradient, explored the changes of plant community and seed bank along the degradation gradient, and analyzed the potential role of seed banks in alpine meadow regeneration and degraded alpine meadow restoration.

Important findings The results showed that: 1) the species richness and relative abundance of the plant community decreased significantly along the degradation gradient, but the species richness of the seed bank increased first and then decreased, and the seed density decreased significantly along the degraded gradient. 2) The similarity of species composition between the plant community and soil seed bank gradually increased with the degradation gradient, which suggests that the role of soil seed bank in plant community regeneration increased along the degraded gradient. 3) Compared with the plant community, there is a hysteresis response of the soil seed bank to alpine meadow degradation, which can buffer the influence of alpine meadow degradation on the plant community to a certain extent. Our findings indicated that the different responses of plant community and soil seed bank to degradation, and soil seed bank is crucial for the degraded alpine meadow restoration on the Qingzang Plateau. However, the potential role of the seed bank in the degraded alpine meadows restoration will be limited because of the depletion of seed bank resources at the seriously degraded level. These results can provide a scientific basis for the protection, restoration, and management of degraded alpine meadows on the Qingzang Plateau.

Key words: alpine meadow, degradation, restoration, soil seed bank, Qingzang Plateau, plant community

张辉, 赵赟鹏, 刘晓琛, 郭增鹏, 胡国瑞, 冯彦皓, 马妙君. 高寒草甸退化过程中土壤种子库的变化及其在植物群落更新中的潜在作用. 植物生态学报, 2025, 49(1): 74-82. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2024.0095

ZHANG Hui, ZHAO Yun-Peng, LIU Xiao-Chen, GUO Zeng-Peng, HU Guo-Rui, FENG Yan-Hao, MA Miao-Jun. Dynamics of soil seed bank and its role in plant community regeneration during alpine meadow degradation. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2025, 49(1): 74-82. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2024.0095

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.17521/cjpe.2024.0095

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2025/V49/I1/74

图/表 6

参考文献 35

[1]	An H, Baskin CC, Ma M (2022). Nonlinear response of the soil seed bank and its role in plant community regeneration with increased grazing disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59, 2593-2603.
[2]	An H, Zhao YP, Ma MJ (2020). Precipitation controls seed bank size and its role in alpine meadow community regeneration with increasing altitude. Global Change Biology, 26, 5767-5777. DOI PMID
[3]	Bhattachan A, D’Odorico P, Dintwe K, Okin GS, Collins SL (2014). Resilience and recovery potential of duneland vegetation in the southern Kalahari. Ecosphere, 5, 1-14. DOI: 10.1890/es13-00268.1.
[4]	Bossuyt B, Honnay O (2008). Can the seed bank be used for ecological restoration? An overview of seed bank characteristics in European communities. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 875-884.
[5]	Brock MA (2011). Persistence of seed banks in Australian temporary wetlands. Freshwater Biology, 56, 1312-1327.
[6]	Chu H, Zhang C, Dong Q, Shang Z, Degen AA, Yang X, Yu Y, Yang Z, Zhang Y (2019). The effect of grazing intensity and season on the soil seed bank and its relation with above-ground vegetation on the alpine steppe. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 285, 106622. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106622.
[7]	Cooper EJ (2006). Reindeer grazing reduces seed and propagule banks in the high Arctic. Canadian Journal of Botany, 84, 1740-1752.
[8]	Eskelinen A, Elwood E, Harrison S, Beyen E, Gremer JR (2021). Vulnerability of grassland seed banks to resource-enhancing global changes. Ecology, 102, e03512. DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3512.
[9]	Eskelinen A, Jessen MT, Bahamonde HA, Bakker JD, Borer ET, Caldeira MC, Harpole WS, Jia M, Lannes LS, Nogueira C, Olde Venterink H, Peri PL, Porath-Krause AJ, Seabloom EW, Schroeder K, et al. (2023). Herbivory and nutrients shape grassland soil seed banks. Nature Communications, 14, 3949. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-39677-x.
[10]	Fenner M, Thompson K (2005). The Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[11]	Guo Z, Zhao Y, Zhang P, Zhang H, Baskin CC, Zhang T, Chen Y, Hu G, Yang X, Mao H, Zhang Z, Ma M (2024). Rodents mediate the relationship between seed rain, seed bank and plant community with increased grazing disturbance. Ecological Applications, 34, e2984. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2984.
[12]	He JS, Liu ZP, Yao T, Sun SC, Lü Z, Hu XW, Cao GM, Wu XW, Li L, Bu HY, Zhu JX (2020). Analysis of the main constraints and restoration techniques of degraded grassland on the Tibetan Plateau. Science and Technology Review, 38(17), 66-80.
	[贺金生, 刘志鹏, 姚拓, 孙书存, 吕植, 胡小文, 曹广民, 吴新卫, 李黎, 卜海燕, 朱剑霄 (2020). 青藏高原退化草地恢复的制约因子及修复技术. 科技导报, 38(17), 66-80.] DOI
[13]	He M, Xin C, Baskin CC, Li J, Zhao Y, An H, Sheng X, Zhao L, Zhao Y, Ma M (2021). Different response of transient and persistent seed bank of alpine wetland to grazing disturbance on the Tibetan Plateau. Plant and Soil, 459, 93-107.
[14]	Hopfensperger KN (2007). A review of similarity between seed bank and standing vegetation across ecosystems. Oikos, 116, 1438-1448.
[15]	Kapás RE, Plue J, Kimberley A, Cousins SAO (2020). Grazing livestock increases both vegetation and seed bank diversity in remnant and restored grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science, 31, 1053-1065.
[16]	Klaus VH, Schäfer D, Prati D, Busch V, Hamer U, Hoever CJ, Kleinebecker T, Mertens D, Fischer M, Hölzel N (2018). Effects of mowing, grazing and fertilization on soil seed banks in temperate grasslands in Central Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 256, 211-217.
[17]	Li J, Okin GS, Alvarez L, Epstein H (2007). Quantitative effects of vegetation cover on wind erosion and soil nutrient loss in a desert grassland of southern New Mexico, USA. Biogeochemistry, 85, 317-332.
[18]	Liu M, Zhang Z, Sun J, Wang Y, Wang J, Tsunekawa A, Yibeltal M, Xu M, Chen Y (2020). One-year grazing exclusion remarkably restores degraded alpine meadow at Zoige, eastern Tibetan Plateau. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00951. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00951.
[19]	Loydi A (2019). Effects of grazing exclusion on vegetation and seed bank composition in a mesic mountain grassland in Argentina. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 12, 127-138.
[20]	Ma M, Baskin CC, Li WJ, Zhao YP, Zhao Y, Zhao L, Chen N, Du GZ (2019). Seed banks trigger ecological resilience in subalpine meadows abandoned after arable farming on the Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Applications, 29, e01959. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1959.
[21]	Ma M, Baskin CC, Yu K, Ma Z, Du G (2017). Wetland drying indirectly influences plant community and seed bank diversity through soil pH. Ecological Indicators, 80, 186-195.
[22]	Ma M, Baskin CC, Zhao YP, An H (2023). Light controls alpine meadow community assembly during succession by affecting species recruitment from the seed bank. Ecological Applications, 33, e2782. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2782.
[23]	Ma M, Collins SL, Du G (2020). Direct and indirect effects of temperature and precipitation on alpine seed banks in the Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Applications, 30, e02096. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2096.
[24]	Ma M, Collins SL, Ratajczak Z, Du G (2021). Soil seed banks, alternative stable state theory, and ecosystem resilience. BioScience, 71, 697-707.
[25]	Ma M, Walck JL, Ma Z, Wang L, Du G (2018). Grazing disturbance increases transient but decreases persistent soil seed bank. Ecological Applications, 28, 1020-1031. DOI PMID
[26]	Ma MJ, Zhou XH, Du GZ (2010a). Role of soil seed bank along a disturbance gradient in an alpine meadow on the Tibet Plateau. Flora, 205, 128-134.
[27]	Ma MJ, Zhou XH, Wang G, Ma Z, Du GZ (2013). Seasonal dynamics in alpine meadow seed banks along an altitudinal gradient on the Tibetan Plateau. Plant and Soil, 336, 291-302.
[28]	Ma MJ, Zhou XH, Wang G, Ma Z, Du GZ (2010b). Seasonal dynamics in alpine meadow seed banks along an altitudinal gradient on the Tibetan Plateau. Plant and Soil, 336, 291-302.
[29]	Matus G, Papp M, Tóthmérész B (2005). Impact of management on vegetation dynamics and seed bank formation of inland dune grassland in Hungary. Flora, 200, 296-306.
[30]	Noble A, Palmer SM, Glaves DJ, Crowle A, Brown LE, Holden J (2018). Prescribed burning, atmospheric pollution and grazing effects on peatland vegetation composition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 559-569.
[31]	Plue J, van Calster H, Auestad I, Basto S, Bekker RM, Bruun HH, Chevalier R, Decocq G, Grandin U, Hermy M, Jacquemyn H, Jakobsson A, Jankowska-Błaszczuk M, Kalamees R, Koch MA, et al. (2021). Buffering effects of soil seed banks on plant community composition in response to land use and climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30, 128-139.
[32]	Sun J, Ma BB, Lu XY (2018). Grazing enhances soil nutrient effects: trade-offs between aboveground and belowground biomass in alpine grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau. Land Degradation & Development, 29, 337-348.
[33]	Wang X, Ge W, Zhang M, Fernández-Pascual E, Moles A, Saatkamp A, Rosbakh S, Bu H, Panahi P, Ma M (2024). Large and non-spherical seeds are less likely to form a persistent soil seed bank. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 291, 20232764. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2764.
[34]	Zhang C, Willis CG, Burghardt LT, Qi W, Liu K, de Moura Souza-Filho PR, Ma Z, Du G (2014). The community-level effect of light on germination timing in relation to seed mass: a source of regeneration niche differentiation. New Phytologist, 204, 496-506. DOI PMID
[35]	Zhao YP, Liao JC, Bao XK, Ma MJ (2021). Soil seed bank dynamics are regulated by bird diversity and soil moisture during alpine wetland degradation. Biological Conservation, 263, 109360. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109360.

退化水平 Degradation level	优势物种 Dominate species	生境描述 Habitat description
对照 Control (I)	禾叶嵩草、线叶嵩草、垂穗披碱草、草玉梅 Carex hughii, Carex capillifolia, Elymus nutans, and Anemone rivularis	生长季适度放牧(5-10月), 放牧家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 该样地是青藏高原东部地区典型的高寒草甸。植物群落的盖度为100%。 Moderate grazing in the growing season (from May to October), the grazing animals are yaks (Bos mutus) and Tibetan sheep (Ovis aries). This sample is a typical alpine meadow in the eastern Qingzang Plateau. The plant community coverage was 100%.
轻度退化草甸 Light degraded meadow (II)	禾叶嵩草、垂穗披碱草、草玉梅、鹅绒委陵菜 Carex hughii, Elymus nutans, Anemone rivularis, and Argentina anserina	生长季放牧强度过高(5-10月), 放牧强度高于对照, 但低于重度退化草甸样地, 放牧的家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 植物群落出现轻度退化, 群落的优势功能群(莎草科和禾本科)的比例减少, 双子叶杂类草数量更多, 局部地区出现小面积斑块。植物群落的盖度为70%-80%。 Overgrazing in the growing season (from May to October). The grazing intensity was higher than that of the control, and the grazing intensity was lower than that of the moderately degraded meadow. The grazing livestock were yaks and Tibetan sheep, the plant community was slightly degraded, the proportion of dominant functional groups (Cyperaceae and Poaceae) of the alpine meadow community decreased, the number of dicotyledonous weeds increased, and a small gap appeared in local areas. The plant community coverage is 70%-80%.
中度退化草甸 Moderate degraded meadow (III)	鹅绒委陵菜、草玉梅、密花香薷、细叶亚菊 Argentina anserina, Nemone rivularis, Elsholtzia densa, and Ajania tenuifolia	生长季过度放牧(5-10月), 放牧强度高于对照和轻度退化草甸, 但低于重度退化草甸样地, 放牧的家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 植物群落出现大面积退化, 群落的优势功能群从莎草科和禾本科转变为双子叶杂类草, 局部地区出现大面积斑块。植物群落的盖度为40%-50%。 Overgrazing in the growing season (from May to October), the grazing intensity was higher than that in the control meadow and light degraded meadows, but lower than that in the seriously degraded meadow plots. The grazing livestock were yaks and Tibetan sheep, and the plant community deteriorated in a large area. The dominant functional group of the community changed from sedge and grass to dicotyledonous weeds, and large gaps appeared in local areas. The plant community coverage is 40%-50%.
重度退化草甸 Seriously degraded meadow (IV)	密花香薷、鹅绒委陵菜、草玉梅 Elsholtzia densa, Argentina anserina, and Anemone rivularis	全面过度放牧(0-12月), 全年长期受到牲畜(如牦牛和藏羊)的过度放牧和践踏, 植物群落物种多样性丧失, 几乎没有禾本科和莎草科植物, 群落被双子叶的杂类草占绝对优势。植物群落的盖度为20%-30%。 Overall overgrazing throughout the year (0-12 months), long-term overgrazing and trampling by livestock (yaks and Tibetan sheep), loss of plant community species diversity, almost no grasses and sedges, the community is dominated by dicotyledonous weeds. The plant community coverage is only 20%-30%.

退化水平 Degradation level	优势物种 Dominate species	生境描述 Habitat description
对照 Control (I)	禾叶嵩草、线叶嵩草、垂穗披碱草、草玉梅 Carex hughii, Carex capillifolia, Elymus nutans, and Anemone rivularis	生长季适度放牧(5-10月), 放牧家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 该样地是青藏高原东部地区典型的高寒草甸。植物群落的盖度为100%。 Moderate grazing in the growing season (from May to October), the grazing animals are yaks (Bos mutus) and Tibetan sheep (Ovis aries). This sample is a typical alpine meadow in the eastern Qingzang Plateau. The plant community coverage was 100%.
轻度退化草甸 Light degraded meadow (II)	禾叶嵩草、垂穗披碱草、草玉梅、鹅绒委陵菜 Carex hughii, Elymus nutans, Anemone rivularis, and Argentina anserina	生长季放牧强度过高(5-10月), 放牧强度高于对照, 但低于重度退化草甸样地, 放牧的家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 植物群落出现轻度退化, 群落的优势功能群(莎草科和禾本科)的比例减少, 双子叶杂类草数量更多, 局部地区出现小面积斑块。植物群落的盖度为70%-80%。 Overgrazing in the growing season (from May to October). The grazing intensity was higher than that of the control, and the grazing intensity was lower than that of the moderately degraded meadow. The grazing livestock were yaks and Tibetan sheep, the plant community was slightly degraded, the proportion of dominant functional groups (Cyperaceae and Poaceae) of the alpine meadow community decreased, the number of dicotyledonous weeds increased, and a small gap appeared in local areas. The plant community coverage is 70%-80%.
中度退化草甸 Moderate degraded meadow (III)	鹅绒委陵菜、草玉梅、密花香薷、细叶亚菊 Argentina anserina, Nemone rivularis, Elsholtzia densa, and Ajania tenuifolia	生长季过度放牧(5-10月), 放牧强度高于对照和轻度退化草甸, 但低于重度退化草甸样地, 放牧的家畜为牦牛和藏羊, 植物群落出现大面积退化, 群落的优势功能群从莎草科和禾本科转变为双子叶杂类草, 局部地区出现大面积斑块。植物群落的盖度为40%-50%。 Overgrazing in the growing season (from May to October), the grazing intensity was higher than that in the control meadow and light degraded meadows, but lower than that in the seriously degraded meadow plots. The grazing livestock were yaks and Tibetan sheep, and the plant community deteriorated in a large area. The dominant functional group of the community changed from sedge and grass to dicotyledonous weeds, and large gaps appeared in local areas. The plant community coverage is 40%-50%.
重度退化草甸 Seriously degraded meadow (IV)	密花香薷、鹅绒委陵菜、草玉梅 Elsholtzia densa, Argentina anserina, and Anemone rivularis	全面过度放牧(0-12月), 全年长期受到牲畜(如牦牛和藏羊)的过度放牧和践踏, 植物群落物种多样性丧失, 几乎没有禾本科和莎草科植物, 群落被双子叶的杂类草占绝对优势。植物群落的盖度为20%-30%。 Overall overgrazing throughout the year (0-12 months), long-term overgrazing and trampling by livestock (yaks and Tibetan sheep), loss of plant community species diversity, almost no grasses and sedges, the community is dominated by dicotyledonous weeds. The plant community coverage is only 20%-30%.

群落类型 Community type	退化水平 Degradation level	R²	p
植物群落 Plant community	I vs II	0.21	0.096
	I vs III	0.25	0.046^*
	I vs IV	0.57	0.015^*
	II vs III	0.12	0.380
	II vs IV	0.42	0.015^*
	III vs IV	0.38	0.015^*
土壤种子库 Soil seed bank	I vs II	0.55	0.015^*
	I vs III	0.62	0.015^*
	I vs IV	0.57	0.015^*
	II vs III	0.18	0.096
	II vs IV	0.44	0.015^*
	III vs IV	0.50	0.015^*
植物群落与土壤种子库 Plant community-soil seed bank	I vs I	0.75	0.016^*
	II vs II	0.46	0.016^*
	III vs III	0.44	0.015^*
	IV vs IV	0.49	0.015^*

群落类型 Community type	退化水平 Degradation level	R²	p
植物群落 Plant community	I vs II	0.21	0.096
	I vs III	0.25	0.046^*
	I vs IV	0.57	0.015^*
	II vs III	0.12	0.380
	II vs IV	0.42	0.015^*
	III vs IV	0.38	0.015^*
土壤种子库 Soil seed bank	I vs II	0.55	0.015^*
	I vs III	0.62	0.015^*
	I vs IV	0.57	0.015^*
	II vs III	0.18	0.096
	II vs IV	0.44	0.015^*
	III vs IV	0.50	0.015^*
植物群落与土壤种子库 Plant community-soil seed bank	I vs I	0.75	0.016^*
	II vs II	0.46	0.016^*
	III vs III	0.44	0.015^*
	IV vs IV	0.49	0.015^*