Linkages of functional traits among plant organs in the dominant species of the Inner Mongolia grassland, China

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.01.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims The temperate grasslands in Inner Mongolia, representing a great diversity in vegetation types (desert steppe, typical steppe and meadow steppe) and function groups (grass/herb, legume/non-legume), are ideal places to test the hypothesized functional trait relationships among plant organs. Our main objective in this study was to test whether plant functional traits vary in a coordinated fashion both within and across organs.

Methods Based on the field observation during July and August in both 2006 and 2007, we measured suites of ecophysiological traits of 42 grassland species from 19 sites in Inner Mongolia. The longitude of the study region ranges from 112.82° to 120.12° (E), and the latitude ranges from 41.76° to 49.89° (N). N and P concentrations, N:P ratios of leaves, stems, reproductive structures, fine roots (diameter < 1 mm) and coarse roots (diameter > 1 mm) as well as tissue density of leaf and fine root and specific leaf area/specific root length were determined.

Important findings At both population and interspecific level, N and P concentrations were positively correlated within each organ. Specific leaf area was negatively correlated with leaf N and P concentrations and tissue density at the population level but not at the interspecific level. Specific root length was negatively related to fine root tissue density at population level. Plants with low leaf or fine root tissue density had leaves or fine roots with high N concentrations and large specific leaf area or specific root length. N and P concentrations as well as N: P ratios were also consistently correlated across all organs, but no correlation between specific leaf area and specific root length was observed. At the population level there existed a weak negative correlation between leaf and fine root tissue density while at interspecific level this relationship disappeared. Grasses had lower N and P concentrations than herbs in leaves, reproductive structures and roots, but not in stems. Legumes had higher N concentrations than non-legumes in all organs, but they showed no significant differences in P concentrations.

Key words: ecological stoichiometry, plant organ, specific leaf area, specific root length, temperate grassland, tissue density

ZHOU Peng, GENG Yan, MA Wen-Hong, HE Jin-Sheng. Linkages of functional traits among plant organs in the dominant species of the Inner Mongolia grassland, China[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2010, 34(1): 7-16.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.01.003

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2010/V34/I1/7

Figures/Tables 7

References 40

[1]	Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ (1998). Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner’s rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples ( Acer). American Naturalist, 152, 767-791. DOI URL
[2]	Aerts R, Chapin FS III (2000). The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a reevaluation of processes and patterns. Advances in Ecological Research, 30, 1-67.
[3]	Broadley MR, Bowen HC, Cotterill HL, Hammond JP, Meacham MC, Mead A, White PJ (2004). Phylogenetic variation in the shoot mineral concentration of angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55, 321-336. DOI URL PMID
[4]	Chapin FS III (1980). The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 233-260. DOI URL
[5]	Chapin FS III, Schulze ED, Mooney HA (1990). The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21, 423-447. DOI URL
[6]	Craine JM, Froehle J, Tilman DG, Wedin DA, Chapin FS III (2001). The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradients. Oikos, 93, 274-285. DOI URL
[7]	Craine JM, Lee WG (2003). Covariation in leaf and root traits for native and non-native grasses along an altitudinal gradient in New Zealand. Oecologia, 134, 471-478. DOI URL PMID
[8]	Craine JM, Lee WG, Bond WJ, Williams RJ, Johnson LC (2005). Environmental constraints on a global relationship among leaf and root traits of grasses. Ecology, 86, 12-19. DOI URL
[9]	Eissenstat DM, Wells CE, Yanai RD, Whitbeck JL (2000). Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity. New Phytologist, 147, 33-42. DOI URL
[10]	Eviner VT, Chapin FS III (2003). Functional matrix: a conceptual framework for predicting multiple plant effects on ecosystem processes. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 34, 455-485.
[11]	Gordon WS, Jackson RB (2000). Nutrient concentrations in fine roots. Ecology, 81, 275-280. DOI URL
[12]	Guo DL, Mitchell RJ, Hendricks JJ (2004). Fine root branch orders respond differentially to carbon source sink manipulations in a longleaf pine forest. Oecologia, 140, 450-457. URL PMID
[13]	Güsewell S, Koerselman W (2002). Variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of wetland plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 5, 37-61. DOI URL
[14]	Güsewell S (2004). N:P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytologist, 164, 243-266. DOI URL
[15]	Han WY, Fang JY, Guo DL, Zhang Y (2005). Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across 753 terrestrial plant species in China. New Phytologist, 168, 377-385. DOI URL
[16]	He JS, Wang ZH, Wang XP, Schmid B, Zuo WY, Zhou M, Zheng CY, Wang MF, Fang JY (2006a). A test of the generality of leaf trait relationships on the Tibetan Plateau. New Phytologist, 170, 835-848. DOI URL
[17]	He JS, Fang JY, Wang ZH, Guo DL, Flynn DFB, Geng Z (2006b). Stoichiometry and large-scale patterns of leaf carbon and nitrogen in the grasslands of China. Oecologia, 149, 115-122. DOI URL PMID
[18]	He JS, Wang L, Flynn DFB, Wang XP, Ma WH, Fang JY (2008). Leaf nitrogen : phosphorus stoichiometry across Chinese grassland Biomes. Oecologia, 155, 301-310. DOI URL PMID
[19]	Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997). A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area and nutrient contents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 94, 7362-7366. DOI URL
[20]	Kay AD, Ashton IW, Gorokhova E, Kerkhoff AJ, Liess A, Litchman E (2005). Toward a stoichiometric framework for evolutionary biology. Oikos, 109, 6-17. DOI URL
[21]	Kerkhoff AJ, Fagan WF, Elser JJ, Enquist BJ (2006). Phylogenetic and growth form variation in the scaling of nitrogen and phosphorus in the seed plants. American Naturalist, 168, E103-E122. DOI URL
[22]	Kuo S (1996). Phosphorus. In: Bigham JM ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis. 869-919.
[23]	Norby RJ, Jackson RB (2000). Root dynamics and global change: seeking an ecosystem perspective. New Phytologist, 147, 3-12. DOI URL
[24]	Pregitzer KS, Laskowski MJ, Burton AJ, Lessard VC, Zak DR (1998). Variation in sugar maple root respiration with root diameter and soil depth. Tree Physiology, 18, 665-670. DOI URL PMID
[25]	Pregitzer KS, DeForest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002). Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecological Monographs, 72, 293-309. DOI URL
[26]	Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997). From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94, 13730-13734. DOI URL PMID
[27]	Reich PB, Walters MB, Tjoelker MG, Vanderklein D, Buschena C (1998). Photosynthesis and respiration rates depend on leaf and root morphology and nitrogen concentration in nine boreal tree species differing in relative growth rate. Functional Ecology, 12, 395-405. DOI URL
[28]	Reich PB, Tilman D, Craine J, Ellsworth D, Tjoelker MG, Knops J, Wedin D, Naeem S, Bahauddin D, Goth J, Bengston W, Lee TD (2001). Do species and functional groups differ in acquisition and use of C, N and water under varying atmospheric CO₂ and N availability regimes? A field test with 16 grassland species. New Phytologist, 150, 435-448. DOI URL
[29]	Reich PB, Oleksyn J (2004). Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 11001-11006. URL PMID
[30]	Ryan MG (1991). Effects of climate change on plant respiration. Ecological Applications, 1, 157-167. URL PMID
[31]	Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
[32]	Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D (1997). The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277, 1300-1302. DOI URL
[33]	Tjoelker MG, Craine JM, Wedin D, Reich PB, Tilman D (2005). Linking leaf and root trait syndromes among 39 grassland and savannah species. New Phytologist, 167, 493-508. DOI URL
[34]	Thompson K, Parkinson JA, Band SR, Spencer RE (1997). A comparative study of leaf nutrient concentrations in a regional herbaceous flora. New Phytologist, 136, 679-689. DOI URL
[35]	Wahl S, Ryser P (2000). Root tissue structure is linked to ecological strategies of grasses. New Phytologist, 148, 459-471. DOI URL
[36]	Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002). Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 125-159. DOI URL
[37]	Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee WJ, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas ML, Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature, 428, 821-827. DOI URL PMID
[38]	Wright IJ, Westoby M (2004). The economics of leaves: plants build leaves as investments that vary in cost, revenue and lifespan. Australasian Science, 25, 34-37.
[39]	Zhang L (张林), Luo TX (罗天祥) (2004). Advances in ecological studies on leaf lifespan and associated leaf traits. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese version) (植物生态学报), 28, 844-852. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[40]	Zeng DH (曾德慧), Chen GS (陈广生) (2005). Ecological stoichiometry: a science to explore the complexity of living systems. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese version) (植物生态学报), 29, 1007-1019. (in Chinese with English abstract)

地点 Site	经度 Longitude (° E)	纬度 Latitude (° N)	海拔 Altitude (m)	草地类型 Grassland type
1	120.20	49.35	669	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
2	119.99	49.89	730	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
3	119.56	46.58	1 213	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
4	118.66	46.53	997	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
5	118.66	45.75	879	典型草原 Typical steppe
6	118.18	46.15	970	典型草原 Typical steppe
7	118.11	44.36	1 136	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
8	117.36	44.51	1 062	典型草原 Typical steppe
9	117.13	45.32	865	典型草原 Typical steppe
10	116.82	43.51	1 433	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
11	116.74	43.60	1 213	典型草原 Typical steppe
12	116.74	43.60	1 217	典型草原 Typical steppe
13	116.28	44.07	1 075	典型草原 Typical steppe
14	113.40	43.81	1 003	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
15	112.73	42.95	1 037	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
16	112.59	42.84	1 087	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
17	112.23	43.31	1 018	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
18	111.99	43.61	943	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
19	111.82	41.76	1 435	荒漠草原 Desert steppe

地点 Site	经度 Longitude (° E)	纬度 Latitude (° N)	海拔 Altitude (m)	草地类型 Grassland type
1	120.20	49.35	669	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
2	119.99	49.89	730	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
3	119.56	46.58	1 213	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
4	118.66	46.53	997	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
5	118.66	45.75	879	典型草原 Typical steppe
6	118.18	46.15	970	典型草原 Typical steppe
7	118.11	44.36	1 136	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
8	117.36	44.51	1 062	典型草原 Typical steppe
9	117.13	45.32	865	典型草原 Typical steppe
10	116.82	43.51	1 433	草甸草原 Meadow steppe
11	116.74	43.60	1 213	典型草原 Typical steppe
12	116.74	43.60	1 217	典型草原 Typical steppe
13	116.28	44.07	1 075	典型草原 Typical steppe
14	113.40	43.81	1 003	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
15	112.73	42.95	1 037	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
16	112.59	42.84	1 087	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
17	112.23	43.31	1 018	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
18	111.99	43.61	943	荒漠草原 Desert steppe
19	111.82	41.76	1 435	荒漠草原 Desert steppe

	种群水平 Population level					物种水平 Interspecific level
		N	P	N: P	SLA/SRL		N	P	N: P	SLA/SRL
叶片	P	0.79				P	0.81
Leaf	N : P	0.19	- 0.46			N: P	0.31	- 0.30
	SLA	- 0.21	- 0.30	0.19		SLA	- 0.22	- 0.26	0.07
	TD	- 0.21	- 0.24	0.08	- 0.37	TD	- 0.08	- 0.23	0.26	- 0.35
茎	P	0.73				P	0.77
Stem	N : P	0.50	- 0.23			N: P	0.59	- 0.06
生殖器官	P	0.87				P	0.83
Reproductive structure	N: P	0.24	- 0.27			N: P	0.43	- 0.15
细根	P	0.69				P	0.69
Fine root	N: P	0.60	- 0.14			N: P	0.65	- 0.01
	SRL	- 0.03	- 0.07	- 0.04		SRL	- 0.14	- 0.04	- 0.20
	TD	- 0.35	- 0.13	- 0.41	- 0.29	TD	- 0.41	- 0.18	- 0.42	- 0.14
粗根	P	0.46				P	0.49
Coarse root	N: P	0.58	- 0.43			N: P	0.64	- 0.35

	种群水平 Population level					物种水平 Interspecific level
		N	P	N: P	SLA/SRL		N	P	N: P	SLA/SRL
叶片	P	0.79				P	0.81
Leaf	N : P	0.19	- 0.46			N: P	0.31	- 0.30
	SLA	- 0.21	- 0.30	0.19		SLA	- 0.22	- 0.26	0.07
	TD	- 0.21	- 0.24	0.08	- 0.37	TD	- 0.08	- 0.23	0.26	- 0.35
茎	P	0.73				P	0.77
Stem	N : P	0.50	- 0.23			N: P	0.59	- 0.06
生殖器官	P	0.87				P	0.83
Reproductive structure	N: P	0.24	- 0.27			N: P	0.43	- 0.15
细根	P	0.69				P	0.69
Fine root	N: P	0.60	- 0.14			N: P	0.65	- 0.01
	SRL	- 0.03	- 0.07	- 0.04		SRL	- 0.14	- 0.04	- 0.20
	TD	- 0.35	- 0.13	- 0.41	- 0.29	TD	- 0.41	- 0.18	- 0.42	- 0.14
粗根	P	0.46				P	0.49
Coarse root	N: P	0.58	- 0.43			N: P	0.64	- 0.35

	种群水平 Population level					物种水平 Interspecific level
	叶片 Leaf	茎 Stem		生殖器官 Re	细根 Fine root	叶片 Leaf	茎 Stem	生殖器官 Re	细根 Fine root
N
茎 Stem	0.75					0.82
生殖器官 Re	0.80	0.62				0.81	0.62
细根 Fine root	0.65	0.41		0.53		0.72	0.49	0.55
粗根 Coarse root	0.58	0.54		0.38	0.70	0.58	0.51	0.35	0.72
P
茎 Stem	0.67					0.73
生殖器官 Re	0.80	0.57				0.66	0.40
细根 Fine root	0.58	0.32	0.47			0.50	0.24	0.36
粗根 Coarse root	0.58	0.45	0.55		0.75	0.51	0.31	0.36	0.69
N: P
茎 Stem	0.69					0.74
生殖器官 Re	0.75	0.73				0.82	0.70
细根 Fine root	0.42	0.55	0.53			0.48	0.54	0.60
粗根 Coarse root	0.46	0.71	0.54		0.64	0.54	0.70	0.52	0.74