Dominant species and ecosystem gas exchange in temperate grassland under different land use patterns

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00075

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Ecosystem carbon uptake or release is influenced by land uses. However, few quantitative studies have been made to give accurate explanations. Based on field measurements of gas exchange and water relations at the leaf scale and the ecosystem scale in temperate grasslands locating in northern China, we aim to 1) clarify the difference in carbon exchange between the leaf scale and the ecosystem scale in different land uses; 2) understand how human activities influence the carbon pools at the ecosystem scale by analyzing changes in gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (R_eco); and 3) explore whether water condition in semi-arid steppe restricts CO₂ absorption at the ecosystem level.
Methods We selected three dominant spcies, Stipa grandis, Artemisia frigida and Leymus chinensis, based on quadrat surveys. Some ecophysiological indexes were measured using a modified LI-6400 in the sample plots of three land use patterns: enclosed plots, mowed plots and grazed plots. We calculated net ecosystem CO₂ exchange (NEE), GPP, R_eco and water use efficiency (WUE) with the measured results. All data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and t-test of SPSS.
Important findings By comparing the carbon exchange of dominant species at the ecosystem scale, we found that carbon exchange varies with change of land use. NEE and GPP of the ecosystem in the grazed plots are different from those in the enclosed plots and the mowed plots, and GPP is more dependent on R_eco. In grazed plots, the diurnal change of NEE shows C uptake, but in the other two plot types it appears to release C. The phenomenon that negative net photosynthetic rate (P_n) returns to positive values from midday to dusk should be a special reaction of plants living in grasslands to protect themselves under high light and temperature conditions. There is no difference in WUE at the ecosystem scale, but the tendency of evapotranspiration (ET) is not the same; nevertheless, the degree of fluctuation of WUE for the same species at the leaf scale is largest in the grazed plots and smallest in the enclosed plots.

Key words: dominant species, gas exchange, grassland use pattern, temperate grassland, water use efficiency

ZHANG Zi-Yu,Gong Ji-Rui,LIU Min,HUANG Yong-Mei,YAN Xin,QI Yu,WANG Yi-Hui. Dominant species and ecosystem gas exchange in temperate grassland under different land use patterns[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2013, 37(8): 718-727.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00075

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2013/V37/I8/718

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1 Importance value of dominant species in three different types of plots (mean ± SE, n = 5)

优势种 Dominant species	围封样地 Enclosed plot	割草样地 Mowed plot	放牧样地 Grazed plot
冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	0.11 ± 0.08	0.16 ± 0.07	0.06 ± 0.01
羊草 Leymus chinensis	0.08 ± 0.12	0.14 ± 0.04	0.22 ± 0.05
大针茅 Stipa grandis	0.07 ± 0.08	0.10 ± 0.02	0.15 ± 0.08

Fig. 1 Diurnal changes of CO2 exchange of dominant plants and ecosystem (mean ± SD). A, Enclosed plot. B, Mowed plot. C, Grazed plot. a, Stipa grandis. b, Artemisia frigida. c, Leymus chinensis.

Fig. 2 Diurnal changes of gross primary productivity (GPP) and respiration (Reco) of ecosystem (mean ± SD). A, Enclosed plot. B, Mowed plot. C, Grazed plot.

Fig. 3 Diurnal changes of water use efficiency (A) and evapotranspiration (B) in ecosystem (mean ± SD). a, Enclosed plot. b, Mowed plot. c, Grazed plot.

Fig. 4 Diurnal change of water use efficiency per leaf of dominant plant species (mean ± SD). A, Enclosed plot. B, Mowed plot. C, Grazed plot. a, Stipa grandis. b, Artemisia frigida. c, Leymus chinensis.

Table 2 Difference of CO2 and H2O of dominant species at minimum water use efficiency of ecosystem

样地类型 Plot type	植物 Plant	叶片CO₂贡献值 Contribution of CO₂ in leaves	叶片H₂O贡献值 Contribution of H₂O in leaves
围封 Enclosed plot	大针茅 Stipa grandis	0.27	2.31
	冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	1.14	0.73
	羊草 Leymus chinensis	0.40	2.15
割草 Mowed plot	大针茅 Stipa grandis	0.94	1.09
	冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	1.57	0.17
	羊草 Leymus chinensis	0.28	2.19
放牧 Grazed plot	大针茅 Stipa grandis	1.18	0.58
	冷蒿 Artemisia frigida	1.20	0.28
	羊草 Leymus chinensis	1.22	0.21

References 41

[1]	Akiyama T, Kawamura K (2007). Grassland degradation in China: methods of monitoring, management and restoration. Grassland Science, 53, 1-17. DOI URL
[2]	Allahverdiyeva Y, Aro EM (2012). Photosynthetic responses of plants to excess light: mechanisms and conditions for photoinhibition, excess energy dissipation and repair. Photosynthesis, 34, 275-297.
[3]	Anderson TM, Dong Y, McNaughton SJ (2006). Nutrient acquisition and physiological responses of dominant Serengeti grasses to variation in soil texture and grazing. Journal of Ecology, 94, 1164-1175. DOI URL
[4]	Bao JJ, Liu F (2005). Research on the water-consuming values of evapotranspiration of plant communities. Inner Mongolia Environmental Protection, 17(1), 58-60. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 包俊江, 刘芳 (2005). 植物群落蒸散耗水量研究进展. 内蒙古环境保护, 17(1), 58-60.]
[5]	Battle M, Bender ML, Tans JWC, White JT, Ellis T, Conway RJ, Francey RJ (2000). Global carbon sinks and their variability inferred from atmospheric O₂ and C₁₃. Science, 287, 2467-2470. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Chen SP, Bai YF, Lin GH, Liang Y, Han XG (2005). Effects of grazing on photosynthetic characteristics of major steppe species in the Xinlin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. Photosynthetica, 43, 559-565 DOI URL
[7]	Chen ZF, Jia PY, Yang Y, Zhang J, Xi JL, Zhu SS, Zhao ML, Han GD, Wang CJ (2012). Effects of grazing intensity on ecosystem gas exchange of different grassland types in Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 20, 464-470. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 陈志芳, 贾平洋, 杨阳, 张健, 希吉勒, 朱树声, 赵萌莉, 韩国栋, 王成杰 (2012). 放牧强度对不同草地类型生态系统气体交换影响的研究. 草地学报, 20, 464-470.]
[8]	Chen ZZ, Wang SP, Wang YF (2000). Typical Grassland Ecosystem of China. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 陈佐忠, 汪诗平, 王艳芬 (2000). 中国典型草原生态系统. 科学出版社, 北京.]
[9]	Chimner RA, Welker JM (2011). Influence of grazing and precipitation on ecosystem carbon cycling in a mixed-grass prairie. Pastoralism, 1, 20. DOI URL
[10]	Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Ogée J, Allard V, Buchmann N, Aubinet M, Bernhofer C, Carrara A, Chevallier F, de Noblet N, Friend A, Friedlingstein P, Grünwald T, Heinesch B, Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005). Europe- wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature, 437, 529-533. DOI URL PMID
[11]	Dhital D, Muraoka H, Yashiro Y, Shizu Y, Koizumi H (2010). Measurement of net ecosystem production and ecosystem respiration in a Zoysia japonica grassland, central Japan, by the chamber method. Ecological Research, 25, 483-493. DOI URL
[12]	Eronen JT, Polly PD, Fred M, Damuth J, Frank DC, Mosbrugger V, Scheidegger C, Stenseth NC, Frotelius M (2010). Ecometrics: the traits that bind the past and present together. Integrative Zoology, 5, 88-101. DOI URL PMID
[13]	Fan GY, Zhang JN, Zhang YS, Li G, Wang Q, Yang DL (2010). Effects of grazing on plant root distribution and soil physicochemical properties in Stipa baicalensis grassland. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 29, 1715-1721. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 范国艳, 张静妮, 张永生, 李刚, 王琦, 杨殿林 (2010). 放牧对贝加尔针茅草原植被根系分布和土壤理化特征的影响. 生态学杂志, 29, 1715-1721.]
[14]	Flerchinger GN, Sauerb TJ, Aikenc RA (2004). Effects of crop residue cover and architecture on heat and water transfer at the soil surface. Geoderma, 116, 217-223. DOI URL
[15]	Grünzweig JM, Sparrow SD, Yakir D, Chapin FS III (2004). Impact of agricultural land-use change on carbon storage in Boreal Alaska. Global Change Biology, 10, 452-472. DOI URL
[16]	Huang XZ, Hao YB, Wang YF, Zhou XQ, Han X, He JJ (2006). Impact of extreme drought on net ecosystem exchange from Leymus chinensis steppe in Xilin River Basin, China. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 30, 894-900. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 黄祥忠, 郝彦宾, 王艳芬, 周小奇, 韩喜, 贺俊杰 (2006). 极端干旱条件下锡林河流域羊草草原净生态系统碳交换特征. 植物生态学报, 30, 894-900.]
[17]	Jiang GM, Zhu GJ (2001). Different patterns of gas exchange and photochemical efficiency in three desert shrub species under two natural temperatures and irradiances in Mu Us Sandy Area of China. Photosynthetic, 39, 257-262.
[18]	Knapp AK, Conrad SL, Blair JM (1998). Determinants of soil CO₂ flux from a sub-humid grassland: effect of fire and fire history. Ecological Applications, 8, 760-770.
[19]	Li B, Zhao B, Peng RH (2005). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. China Higher Education Press, Beijing. 125. (in Chinese)
	[ 李博, 赵斌, 彭容豪 (2005). 陆地生态系统生态学原理. 高等教育出版社, 北京. 125.]
[20]	Li CL, Hao XY, Zhao ML, Han GD, Willms WD (2008). Influence of historic sheep grazing on vegetation and soil properties of a desert steppe in Inner Mongolia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128, 109-116.
[21]	Li XB, Yang YS, Zeng HD, Xie JS, Zhang J, Zhu N (2008). Comparison of CO₂ net exchange rate by different methods in subtropical Manila grass lawn ecosystem. Journal of Subtropical Resources and Environment, 3, 16-22. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 李熙波, 杨玉盛, 曾宏达, 谢锦升, 张静, 朱宁 (2008). 亚热带马尼拉草坪生态系统CO₂净交换量测定方法比较. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 3, 16-22.]
[22]	Makhnev AK, Makhneva NE (2010). Landscape-ecological and population aspects of the strategy of restoration of disturbed lands. Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 3, 318-322.
[23]	Nagy Z, Pintéra K, Czóbela S, Baloghc J, Horváthd L, Fótia S, Barczab Z, Weidingerb T, Csintalana Z, Dinhe NQ, Groszf B, Tubaa Z (2010). The carbon budget of semi-arid grassland in a wet and a dry year in Hungary. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment, 121, 21-29.
[24]	Neff JC, Reynolds RL, Belnap J, Lamothe P (2005). Multi-decadal impacts of grazing on soil physical and biogeochemical properties in Southeast Utah. Ecological Applications, 15, 87-95.
[25]	Niu SL, Wan SQ (2008). Warming changes plant competitive hierarchy in a temperate steppe in northern China. Journal of Plant Ecology, 1, 103-110.
[26]	Pacala SW, Hurtt GC, Baker D, Peylin P, Houghton RA, Birdsey RA, Heath L, Sundquist ET, Stallard RF, Ciais P, Moorcroft P, Caspersen JP, Shevliakova E, Moore B, Kohlmaier G, Holland E, Gloor M, Harmon ME, Fan SM, Sarmiento JL, Goodale CL, Schimel D, Field CB (2001). Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science, 292, 2316-2320. URL PMID
[27]	Piao SL, Fang JY, He JS, Xiao Y (2004). Spatial distribution of grassland biomass in China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 28, 491-498. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 朴世龙, 方精云, 贺金生, 肖玉 (2004). 中国草地植被生物量及其空间分布格局. 植物生态学报, 28, 491-498.]
[28]	Soussana JF, Lüscher A (2007). Temperate grasslands and global atmospheric change: a review. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 127-134.
[29]	Sun LN, Yan JX, Zeng ZX, Li HJ (2012). Response of diurnal variation of CO₂ and H₂O fluxes to different soil moisture treatments on alfalfa grassland ecosystems. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 40(3), 201-206. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 孙丽娜, 严俊霞, 曾朝旭, 李洪建 (2012). 紫花苜蓿碳水通量日变化对土壤水分处理的响应. 山西农业科学, 40(3), 201-206.]
[30]	Tong WY, Chen YJ, Li SL, Li LM (2000). Effect of vegetation destruction by pasturing on soil moisture of typical grassland. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 14(4), 55-60. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 佟乌云, 陈有君, 李绍良, 李立民 (2000). 放牧破坏地表植被对典型草原地区土壤湿度的影响. 干旱区资源与环境, 14(4), 55-60.]
[31]	Wang CT, Wang QL, Jing ZC, Feng BF, Du YG, Long RJ, Cao GM (2008). Vegetation roots and soil physical and chemical characteristic changes in Kobresia pygmaca meadow under different grazing gradients. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 17(5), 9-15. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[ 王长庭, 王启兰, 景增春, 冯秉福, 杜岩功, 龙瑞军, 曹广民 (2008). 不同放牧梯度下高寒小嵩草草甸植被根系和土壤理化特征的变化. 草业学报, 17(5), 9-15.] DOI URL
[32]	White R, Murray S, Rohweder M (2000). Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Grassland Ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
[33]	Wu DT, Song JP, Sun JW, Li YJ, Qin CL (2009). Regional Economics 2nd edn. Science Press, Beijing. 10. (in Chinese)
	[ 吴殿廷, 宋金平, 孙久文, 李玉江, 覃成林 (2009). 区域经济学. 第二版. 科学出版社, 北京. 10.]
[34]	Yepez EA, Scott RL, Cable WL, Williams DG (2007). Intrapersonal variation in water and carbon dioxide ﬂux components in a semiarid riparian woodland. Ecosystems, 10, 1100-1115.
[35]	Yu GR, Wang QF, Liu YC, Liu YH (2011). Conceptual framework of carbon sequestration rate and potential increment of carbon sink of regional terrestrial ecosystem and scientific basis for quantitative carbon authentification. Progress in Geography, 30, 771-787. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 于贵瑞, 王秋凤, 刘迎春, 刘颖慧 (2011). 区域尺度陆地生态系统固碳速率和增汇潜力概念框架及其定量认证科学基础. 地理科学进展, 30, 771-787.]
[36]	Zhang WL, Chen SP, Miao HX, Lin GH (2008). Effects on carbon flux of conversion of grassland steppe to cropland in China. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 32, 1301-1311. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 张文丽, 陈世苹, 苗海霞, 林光辉 (2008). 开垦对克氏针茅草地生态系统碳通量的影响. 植物生态学报, 32, 1301-1311.]
[37]	Zhao L, Li YN, Xu SX, Zhou HK, Gu S, Yu GR, Zhao XQ (2006). Diurnal, seasonal and annual variation in net eco- system CO₂ exchange of an alpine shrubland on Qinghai- Tibetan Plateau, Global Change Biology, 12, 1940-1953.
[38]	Zhao L, Li YN, Zhao XQ, Xu SX, Tang YH, Yu GR, Gu S, Du MY, Wang QX (2005). Variation in net ecosystem CO₂ exchange of 3 plants on Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin, 50, 926-932. (in Chinese)
	[ 赵亮, 李英年, 赵新全, 徐世晓, 唐艳鸿, 于贵瑞, 古松, 杜明远, 王勤学 (2005). 青藏高原3种植被类型净生态系统CO₂交换量的比较. 科学通报, 50, 926-932.]
[39]	Zhao MS, Running SW (2010). Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science, 329, 940-943. DOI URL PMID
[40]	Zhao W, Chen SP, Han XG, Lin GH (2009). Effects of long-term grazing on the morphological and functional traits of Leymus chinensis in the semiarid grassland of Inner Mongolia, China. Ecological Research, 24, 99-108.
[41]	Zhou XH, Wan SQ, Luo YQ (2007). Source components and interannual variability of soil CO₂ efflux under experimental warming and clipping in a grassland ecosystem. Global Change Biology, 13, 761-775.