Variation in biomass allocation of Nitraria tangutorum during different phenological phases

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2019.0162

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims The pattern of plant biomass allocation represents the plant response to the environment and is accompanied by every stage of plant life history. So it is closely related to the growth and development of plants. There have been reports on the size dependence of plant biomass allocation, but few studies have reported on its responses to different phenological phase.
Methods In this study, Nitraria tangutorum in Ulan Buh Desert was used as the research object. The biomass of different organs (root, layering, newborn stem, older stem, leaf and reproductive organ) in the flowering, fruiting and vegetative growth stages in two consecutive years of 2016 and 2017 were measured. The significant differences of slope and intercept of the fitted equation with Standardized-major-axis were respectively used to discuss the varied size dependence and the biomass allocation in different phenological phase or ages, especially between the aboveground and belowground biomass and between the support and assimilation organs.
Important findings The results showed that the effect of reproductive allocation on biomass allocation pattern of N. tangutorum is mainly reflected in the scale of relative biomass allocation (36.00%) rather than the extent of size dependence (16.67%). The reproductive growth has a greater impact on the biomass allocation pattern of newborn stems, which changes the size dependence extent among different phenological phases, but the trend is inconsistent. The reproductive growth increases the scale of relative biomass allocation to leaves and reduces that to older stems, but did not change their extent of size dependence. The biomass allocation rate in the belowground part of N. tangutorum increased with the accumulation of its biomass, but the reproductive allocation slightly decreased this rate. Nitraria tangutorum exhibited a higher rate of biomass allocation to supporting organs as plant biomass increases. Over time it is more likely for biomass to be allocated to assimilating organs.

Key words: allometric growth, size dependence, phenological phase, biomass allocation, Nitraria tangutorum

XING Lei, DUAN Na, LI Qing-He, LIU Cheng-Gong, LI Hui-Qing, SUN Gao-Jie. Variation in biomass allocation of Nitraria tangutorum during different phenological phases[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2020, 44(7): 763-771.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2019.0162

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2020/V44/I7/763

Figures/Tables 7

References 39

[1]	Aarssen LW (2008). Death without sex—The ‘problem of the small’ and selection for reproductive economy in flowering plants. Evolutionary Ecology, 22, 279-298. DOI URL
[2]	Barnes AD (2002). Effects of phenology, water availability and seed source on loblolly pine biomass partitioning and transpiration. Tree Physiology, 22, 733-740.
[3]	Bond BJ (2000). Age-related changes in photosynthesis of woody plants. Trends in Plant Science, 5, 349-353. URL PMID
[4]	Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (2009). Interpreting reproductive allometry: individual strategies of allocation explain size- dependent reproduction in plant populations. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 11, 31-40.
[5]	Canham CD, Berkowitz AR, Kelly VR, Lovett GM, Ollinger SV, Schnurr J (1996). Biomass allocation and multiple resource limitation in tree seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26, 1521-1530.
[6]	Chen RF, Ran JZ, Huang H, Dong LW, Sun Y, Ji MF, Hu WG, Yao SR, Lu JL, Gong HY, Xie SB, Du QJ, Hou QQ, Niklas KJ, Deng JM (2019). Life history strategies drive size-dependent biomass allocation patterns of dryland ephemerals and shrubs. Ecosphere, 10, e02709. DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2709.
[7]	Cheplick GP (2005). Biomass partitioning and reproductive allocation in the invasive, cleistogamous grass Microstegium vimineum: influence of the light environment. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 132, 214-224.
[8]	Cheverud JM (1982). Relationships among ontogenetic, static, and evolutionary allometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 59, 139-149. URL PMID
[9]	Coleman MD, Friend AL, Kern CC (2004). Carbon allocation and nitrogen acquisition in a developing Populus deltoides plantation. Tree Physiology, 24, 1347-1357. URL PMID
[10]	Deng JM, Wang GX, Morris EC, Wei XP, Li DX, Chen BM, Zhao CM, Liu J, Wang Y (2006). Plant mass-density relationship along a moisture gradient in north-west China. Journal of Ecology, 94, 953-958.
[11]	Eziz A, Yan ZB, Tian D, Han WX, Tang ZY, Fang JY (2017). Drought effect on plant biomass allocation: a meta- analysis. Ecology and Evolution, 7, 11002-11010.
[12]	Fan GH, Huang YX, Zhao XY, Shen XJ (2017). Effect of population density on the allometric growth of Agriophyllum squarrosum. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 26, 53-64.
	[ 范高华, 黄迎新, 赵学勇, 神祥金 (2017). 种群密度对沙米异速生长的影响. 草业学报, 26, 53-64.]
[13]	Fraterrigo JM, Turner MG, Pearson SM (2006). Previous land use alters plant allocation and growth in forest herbs. Journal of Ecology, 94, 548-557.
[14]	Fu YH, Zhao HF, Piao SL, Peaucelle M, Peng SS, Zhou GZ, Ciais P, Huang MT, Menzel A, Peñuelas J, Song Y, Vitasse Y, Zeng ZZ, Janssens IA (2015). Declining global warming effects on the phenology of spring leaf unfolding. Nature, 526, 104-107. URL PMID
[15]	Gedroc JJ, McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1996). Plasticity in root/shoot partitioning: optimal, ontogenetic, or both? Functional Ecology, 10, 44-50.
[16]	Guo LZ, Huang D, Zhang C, Li JH, Zhao H, Wang K (2019). Analysis of biomass allocation and allometric growth of Stellera chamaejasme in degraded typical steppe. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 41, 53-59.
	[ 郭丽珠, 黄顶, 张丛, 李佳欢, 赵欢, 王堃 (2019). 退化典型草原狼毒生物量分配及异速生长分析. 中国草地学报, 41, 53-59.]
[17]	Husáková I, Weiner J, Münzbergová Z (2018). Species traits and shoot-root biomass allocation in 20 dry-grassland species. Journal of Plant Ecology, 11, 273-285.
[18]	Klinkhamer PGL, Meelis E, de Jong TJ, Weiner J (1992). On the analysis of size-dependent reproductive output in plants. Functional Ecology, 6, 308-316.
[19]	Komiyama A, Ong JE, Poungparn S (2008). Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquatic Botany, 89, 128-137.
[20]	Li QH, Xin ZM, Gao TT, Wang SX, Xu J, Sun F (2012). Reproductive allocation in four desert species of the genus Nitraria L. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32, 5054-5061.
	[ 李清河, 辛智鸣, 高婷婷, 王赛宵, 徐军, 孙非 (2012). 荒漠植物白刺属4个物种的生殖分配比较. 生态学报, 32, 5054-5061.]
[21]	Menzel A, Sparks TH, Estrella N, Koch E, Aasa A, Ahas R, Alm-Kübler K, Bissolli P, Braslavská O, Briede A, Chmielewski FM, Crepinsek Z, Curnel Y, Dahl Å, Defila C, Donnelly A, Filella Y, Jatczak K, Måge F, Mestre A, Nordli Ø, Peñuelas J, Pirinen P, Remišová V, Scheifinger H, Striz M, Susnik A, van Vliet AJH, Wielgolaski FE, Zach S, Zust A (2006). European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change Biology, 12, 1969-1976. DOI URL
[22]	McCarthy MC, Enquist BJ (2007). Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation. Functional Ecology, 21, 713-720.
[23]	McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1999). Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology, 80, 2581-2593.
[24]	Müller I, Schmid B, Weiner J (2000). The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 3, 115-127.
[25]	Niinemets U (2004). Adaptive adjustments to light in foliage and whole-plant characteristics depend on relative age in the perennial herb Leontodon hispidus. New Phytologist, 162, 683-696.
[26]	Niklas KJ (2005). Modelling below- and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Annals of Botany, 95, 315-321. URL PMID
[27]	Niklas KJ (2006). A phyletic perspective on the allometry of plant biomass-partitioning patterns and functionally equivalent organ-categories. New Phytologist, 171, 27-40. URL PMID
[28]	Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ (2002). On the vegetative biomass partitioning of seed plant leaves, stems, and roots. The American Naturalist, 159, 482-497. URL PMID
[29]	Peng YF, Yang YH (2016). Allometric biomass partitioning under nitrogen enrichment: evidence from manipulative experiments around the world. Scientific Reports, 6, 28918. DOI: 10.1038/srep28918. URL PMID
[30]	Poorter H, Nagel O (2000). The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO₂, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27, 595-607.
[31]	Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012). Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist, 193, 30-50. DOI URL PMID
[32]	Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA (2011). Reproductive Allocation in Plants. Academic Press, New York. 1-49.
[33]	Reich PB, Luo YJ, Bradford JB, Poorter H, Perry CH, Oleksyn J (2014). Temperature drives global patterns in forest biomass distribution in leaves, stems, and roots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13721-13726. DOI URL PMID
[34]	Shipley B, Meziane D (2002). The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Functional Ecology, 16, 326-331.
[35]	Tian DS, Pan QM, Simmons M, Chaolu HD, Du BH, Bai YF, Wang H, Han XG (2012). Hierarchical reproductive allocation and allometry within a perennial bunchgrass after 11 years of nutrient addition. PLOS ONE, 7, e42833. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042833. URL PMID
[36]	Weiner J, Campbell LG, Pino J, Echarte L (2009). The allometry of reproduction within plant populations. Journal of Ecology, 97, 1220-1233.
[37]	Wolkovich EM, Cook BI, Allen JM, Crimmins TM, Betancourt JL, Travers SE, Pau S, Regetz J, Davies TJ, Kraft NJB, Ault TR, Bolmgren K, Mazer SJ, McCabe GJ, McGill BJ, Parmesan C, Salamin N, Schwartz MD, Cleland EE (2012). Warming experiments underpredict plant phenollogical responses to climate change. Nature, 485, 494-497. URL PMID
[38]	Xie JB, Tang LS, Wang ZY, Xu GQ, Li Y (2012). Distinguishing the biomass allocation variance resulting from ontogenetic drift or acclimation to soil texture. PLOS ONE, 7, e41502. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041502. URL PMID
[39]	Xu H, Li Y, Xu GQ, Zou T (2007). Ecophysiological response and morphological adjustment of two Central Asian desert shrubs towards variation in summer precipitation. Plant, Cell & Environment, 30, 399-409. URL PMID

时期 Time		样本数 N	R		Le		S		B		La		F		T
时期 Time		样本数 N	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
2016	5月 May	45	3.726	3.026	4.138	3.256	0.686	0.574	8.847	6.28	6.274	4.691	0.575	0.948	24.248	15.255
	7月 July	213	4.351	4.232	6.182	6.549	2.498	3.18	12.506	9.714	10.284	9.866	1.593	2.018	37.415	26.952
	9月 Sept.	47	2.217	1.746	8.877	9.514	8.618	10.456	17.173	16.67	8.670	6.188	-	-	50.640	44.827
2017	5月 May	112	7.417	5.936	7.738	8.726	2.309	3.237	22.260	27.997	25.045	26.766	1.048	1.370	65.817	65.777
	7月 July	100	10.334	9.637	12.198	10.636	7.098	6.978	23.631	20.556	37.957	24.793	3.078	6.407	94.296	70.004
	9月 Sept.	95	10.008	6.787	7.316	9.089	9.963	14.905	35.305	26.269	33.716	22.517	-	-	96.308	80.532

时期 Time		样本数 N	R		Le		S		B		La		F		T
时期 Time		样本数 N	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
2016	5月 May	45	3.726	3.026	4.138	3.256	0.686	0.574	8.847	6.28	6.274	4.691	0.575	0.948	24.248	15.255
	7月 July	213	4.351	4.232	6.182	6.549	2.498	3.18	12.506	9.714	10.284	9.866	1.593	2.018	37.415	26.952
	9月 Sept.	47	2.217	1.746	8.877	9.514	8.618	10.456	17.173	16.67	8.670	6.188	-	-	50.640	44.827
2017	5月 May	112	7.417	5.936	7.738	8.726	2.309	3.237	22.260	27.997	25.045	26.766	1.048	1.370	65.817	65.777
	7月 July	100	10.334	9.637	12.198	10.636	7.098	6.978	23.631	20.556	37.957	24.793	3.078	6.407	94.296	70.004
	9月 Sept.	95	10.008	6.787	7.316	9.089	9.963	14.905	35.305	26.269	33.716	22.517	-	-	96.308	80.532

器官 Organ	时期 Time	2016								2017
器官 Organ	时期 Time	截距及置信区间 Intercept (95% CI)			斜率及置信区间 Slope (95% CI)			r²	p	截距及置信区间 Intercept (95% CI)			斜率及置信区间 Slope (95% CI)			r²	p
R/T	5月 May	-1.226 5	-1.476 6	-0.976 3	1.280 0	1.106 9	1.480 2	0.775 2	0.000 0	-0.601 6	-0.791 4	-0.411 8	0.823 8	0.719 7	0.942 8	0.486 4	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.576 5	-1.770 5	-1.382 4	1.379 3	1.256 6	1.513 8	0.528 1	0.000 0	-1.080 8	-1.350 7	-0.810 8	1.052 9	0.919 6	1.205 5	0.541 4	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.213 2	-1.461 2	-0.965 3	1.200 2	1.055 7	1.364 5	0.816 5	0.000 0	-0.719 0	-0.953 0	-0.485 1	0.875 3	0.760 3	1.007 7	0.529 0	0.000 0
Le/T	5月 May	-1.313 1	-1.613 4	-1.012 7	1.373 4	1.167 5	1.615 6	0.718 7	0.000 0	-1.520 7	-1.699 2	-1.342 3	1.303 6	1.202 6	1.413 1	0.817 5	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.359 6	-1.514 9	-1.204 2	1.335 1	1.236 0	1.442 2	0.676 4	0.000 0	-1.624 6	-1.826 1	-1.423 1	1.354 2	1.251 6	1.465 3	0.845 0	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.171 0	-1.394 9	-0.947 1	1.222 4	1.090 8	1.369 7	0.855 6	0.000 0	-1.684 3	-1.969 7	-1.398 9	1.253 3	1.111 3	1.413 3	0.657 7	0.000 0
S/T	5月 May	-2.529 4	-3.053 9	-2.005 0	1.680 9	1.335 3	2.116 1	0.429 8	0.000 0	-2.762 3	-3.048 4	-2.476 2	1.655 0	1.495 0	1.832 2	0.709 5	0.000 0
	7月 July	-2.424 0	-2.666 1	-2.181 8	1.720 7	1.567 7	1.888 6	0.527 9	0.000 0	-2.016 4	-2.279 6	-1.753 1	1.421 7	1.289 0	1.568 1	0.760 1	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.406 8	-1.737 6	-1.076 1	1.336 0	1.145 9	1.557 5	0.736 7	0.000 0	-2.929 8	-3.352 1	-2.507 6	1.902 3	1.692 0	2.138 8	0.674 7	0.000 0
B/T	5月 May	-0.829 4	-1.114 9	-0.543 8	1.272 9	1.077 6	1.503 6	0.704 0	0.000 0	-0.970 3	-1.157 9	-0.782 7	1.254 0	1.148 3	1.369 5	0.782 2	0.000 0
	7月 July	-0.841 9	-1.017 0	-0.666 7	1.228 4	1.118 3	1.349 4	0.531 1	0.000 0	-0.934 7	-1.176 9	-0.692 4	1.157 7	1.036 4	1.293 2	0.693 9	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-0.820 6	-1.060 8	-0.580 5	1.198 1	1.057 9	1.356 9	0.827 2	0.000 0	-0.797 0	-1.006 5	-0.587 5	1.167 1	1.061 4	1.283 3	0.787 0	0.000 0
La/T	5月 May	-0.949 8	-1.355 6	-0.544 0	1.251 7	0.985 7	1.589 5	0.385 0	0.000 0	-0.681 4	-0.817 8	-0.545 0	1.137 8	1.060 2	1.221 1	0.859 9	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.071 1	-1.260 4	-0.881 8	1.305 1	1.185 7	1.436 5	0.498 7	0.000 0	-0.522 1	-0.688 6	-0.355 6	1.061 3	0.976 6	1.153 3	0.827 7	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-0.602 8	-0.955 4	-0.250 2	0.915 6	0.722 7	1.160 0	0.367 4	0.000 0	-0.614 8	-0.811 5	-0.418 1	1.081 9	0.982 7	1.191 0	0.781 5	0.000 0
F/T	5月 May	-4.740 7	-5.773 3	-3.708 0	2.994 2	2.323 4	3.858 7	0.305 1	0.000 1	-2.925 5	-3.413 8	-2.437 2	1.608 8	1.354 5	1.910 8	0.333 8	0.000 0
	7月 July	-2.630 6	-2.949 3	-2.311 8	1.749 9	1.558 1	1.965 3	0.381 2	0.000 0	-4.587 9	-5.612 5	-3.563 2	2.455 7	2.008 1	3.003 1	0.470 1	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

器官 Organ	时期 Time	2016								2017
器官 Organ	时期 Time	截距及置信区间 Intercept (95% CI)			斜率及置信区间 Slope (95% CI)			r²	p	截距及置信区间 Intercept (95% CI)			斜率及置信区间 Slope (95% CI)			r²	p
R/T	5月 May	-1.226 5	-1.476 6	-0.976 3	1.280 0	1.106 9	1.480 2	0.775 2	0.000 0	-0.601 6	-0.791 4	-0.411 8	0.823 8	0.719 7	0.942 8	0.486 4	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.576 5	-1.770 5	-1.382 4	1.379 3	1.256 6	1.513 8	0.528 1	0.000 0	-1.080 8	-1.350 7	-0.810 8	1.052 9	0.919 6	1.205 5	0.541 4	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.213 2	-1.461 2	-0.965 3	1.200 2	1.055 7	1.364 5	0.816 5	0.000 0	-0.719 0	-0.953 0	-0.485 1	0.875 3	0.760 3	1.007 7	0.529 0	0.000 0
Le/T	5月 May	-1.313 1	-1.613 4	-1.012 7	1.373 4	1.167 5	1.615 6	0.718 7	0.000 0	-1.520 7	-1.699 2	-1.342 3	1.303 6	1.202 6	1.413 1	0.817 5	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.359 6	-1.514 9	-1.204 2	1.335 1	1.236 0	1.442 2	0.676 4	0.000 0	-1.624 6	-1.826 1	-1.423 1	1.354 2	1.251 6	1.465 3	0.845 0	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.171 0	-1.394 9	-0.947 1	1.222 4	1.090 8	1.369 7	0.855 6	0.000 0	-1.684 3	-1.969 7	-1.398 9	1.253 3	1.111 3	1.413 3	0.657 7	0.000 0
S/T	5月 May	-2.529 4	-3.053 9	-2.005 0	1.680 9	1.335 3	2.116 1	0.429 8	0.000 0	-2.762 3	-3.048 4	-2.476 2	1.655 0	1.495 0	1.832 2	0.709 5	0.000 0
	7月 July	-2.424 0	-2.666 1	-2.181 8	1.720 7	1.567 7	1.888 6	0.527 9	0.000 0	-2.016 4	-2.279 6	-1.753 1	1.421 7	1.289 0	1.568 1	0.760 1	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-1.406 8	-1.737 6	-1.076 1	1.336 0	1.145 9	1.557 5	0.736 7	0.000 0	-2.929 8	-3.352 1	-2.507 6	1.902 3	1.692 0	2.138 8	0.674 7	0.000 0
B/T	5月 May	-0.829 4	-1.114 9	-0.543 8	1.272 9	1.077 6	1.503 6	0.704 0	0.000 0	-0.970 3	-1.157 9	-0.782 7	1.254 0	1.148 3	1.369 5	0.782 2	0.000 0
	7月 July	-0.841 9	-1.017 0	-0.666 7	1.228 4	1.118 3	1.349 4	0.531 1	0.000 0	-0.934 7	-1.176 9	-0.692 4	1.157 7	1.036 4	1.293 2	0.693 9	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-0.820 6	-1.060 8	-0.580 5	1.198 1	1.057 9	1.356 9	0.827 2	0.000 0	-0.797 0	-1.006 5	-0.587 5	1.167 1	1.061 4	1.283 3	0.787 0	0.000 0
La/T	5月 May	-0.949 8	-1.355 6	-0.544 0	1.251 7	0.985 7	1.589 5	0.385 0	0.000 0	-0.681 4	-0.817 8	-0.545 0	1.137 8	1.060 2	1.221 1	0.859 9	0.000 0
	7月 July	-1.071 1	-1.260 4	-0.881 8	1.305 1	1.185 7	1.436 5	0.498 7	0.000 0	-0.522 1	-0.688 6	-0.355 6	1.061 3	0.976 6	1.153 3	0.827 7	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-0.602 8	-0.955 4	-0.250 2	0.915 6	0.722 7	1.160 0	0.367 4	0.000 0	-0.614 8	-0.811 5	-0.418 1	1.081 9	0.982 7	1.191 0	0.781 5	0.000 0
F/T	5月 May	-4.740 7	-5.773 3	-3.708 0	2.994 2	2.323 4	3.858 7	0.305 1	0.000 1	-2.925 5	-3.413 8	-2.437 2	1.608 8	1.354 5	1.910 8	0.333 8	0.000 0
	7月 July	-2.630 6	-2.949 3	-2.311 8	1.749 9	1.558 1	1.965 3	0.381 2	0.000 0	-4.587 9	-5.612 5	-3.563 2	2.455 7	2.008 1	3.003 1	0.470 1	0.000 0
	9月 Sept.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

器官 Organ	2016			2017
器官 Organ	df	LR	p	df	LR	p
R/T	2	3.104	0.211 8	2	6.844	0.032 7
S/T	2	7.665	0.021 7	2	14.02	0.000 9
B/T	2	0.339 6	0.843 8	2	1.716	0.424 1
Le/T	2	2.026	0.363 1	2	1.211	0.545 8
La/T	2	7.311	0.025 8	2	1.73	0.421 0
F/T	1	13.7	0.000 2	1	9.737	0.001 8