Chin J Plant Ecol ›› 2009, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 81-88.DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2009.01.009
• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
MA Xue-Hong, ZHOU Zhi-Chun*(), JIN Guo-Qing, ZHANG Yi
Received:
2008-04-15
Accepted:
2008-08-22
Online:
2009-04-15
Published:
2009-01-30
Contact:
ZHOU Zhi-Chun
MA Xue-Hong, ZHOU Zhi-Chun, JIN Guo-Qing, ZHANG Yi. EFFECTS OF COMPETITION ON FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF PINUS MASSONIANA AND SCHIMA SUPERBA IN A HETEROGENEOUS NUTRIENT ENVIRONMENT[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2009, 33(1): 81-88.
养分环境 Nutrient environment | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松 Pinus massoniana | 木荷 Schima superba | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
苗高 Seedling height (cm) | 干物质积累量 Dry matter accumulation (g) | 根冠比 Root-shoot ratio | 苗高 Seedling height (cm) | 干物质积累量 Dry matter accumulation (g) | 根冠比 Root-shoot ratio | ||||
异质 Heterogeneity | A | 19.3±3.6a | 1.820 9±0.708a | 0.389 9±0.234a | 18.2±4.9a | 5.038 8±2.951a | 0.534 1±0.134a | ||
B | 20.9±2.0a | 2.014 9±0.612a | 0.338 8±0.077a | 24.7±5.6b | 9.591 6±2.703Ab | 0.689 4±0.205a | |||
C | 17.3±4.9a | 4.002 6±2.553b | 0.300 4±0.132a | 23.8±8.8Ab | 10.682 3±6.241b | 0.682 5±0.102a | |||
同质 Homogeneity | A | 12.1±3.8a | 0.777 5±0.380a | 0.553 6±0.251a | — | — | — | ||
B | 10.0±2.3a | 0.614 4±0.165a | 0.675 5±0.159a | 23.6±6.9a | 7.069 8±1.458a | 0.507 2±0.119a | |||
C | 13.0±6.7a | 1.185 0±1.278a | 0.599 6±0.175a | 16.7±5.2b | 4.243 4±1.564b | 0.777 3±0.540a | |||
p | <0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | 0.260 6 | 0.026 5 | 0.727 0 |
Table 1 Growth differences of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba in heterogeneous and homogeneous nutrient environments under different planting patterns (mean ± SD)
养分环境 Nutrient environment | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松 Pinus massoniana | 木荷 Schima superba | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
苗高 Seedling height (cm) | 干物质积累量 Dry matter accumulation (g) | 根冠比 Root-shoot ratio | 苗高 Seedling height (cm) | 干物质积累量 Dry matter accumulation (g) | 根冠比 Root-shoot ratio | ||||
异质 Heterogeneity | A | 19.3±3.6a | 1.820 9±0.708a | 0.389 9±0.234a | 18.2±4.9a | 5.038 8±2.951a | 0.534 1±0.134a | ||
B | 20.9±2.0a | 2.014 9±0.612a | 0.338 8±0.077a | 24.7±5.6b | 9.591 6±2.703Ab | 0.689 4±0.205a | |||
C | 17.3±4.9a | 4.002 6±2.553b | 0.300 4±0.132a | 23.8±8.8Ab | 10.682 3±6.241b | 0.682 5±0.102a | |||
同质 Homogeneity | A | 12.1±3.8a | 0.777 5±0.380a | 0.553 6±0.251a | — | — | — | ||
B | 10.0±2.3a | 0.614 4±0.165a | 0.675 5±0.159a | 23.6±6.9a | 7.069 8±1.458a | 0.507 2±0.119a | |||
C | 13.0±6.7a | 1.185 0±1.278a | 0.599 6±0.175a | 16.7±5.2b | 4.243 4±1.564b | 0.777 3±0.540a | |||
p | <0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | <0.000 1 | 0.260 6 | 0.026 5 | 0.727 0 |
养分环境 Nutrient environment | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松 Pinus massoniana | 木荷 Schima superba | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | 总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | ||||
异质 Heterogeneity | A | 677.38 ±311.4a | 109.956 1 ±56.041a | 0.942 6 ±0.214a | 1.440 9 ±0.842a | 3 864.79 ±2 209.7a | 473.388 6 ±285.712a | 0.998 6 ±0.410a | 4.676 0 ±3.021a | ||
B | 858.15 ±317.7ab | 142.710 7 ±54.809ab | 0.999 4 ±0.170ab | 1.905 4 ±0.778ab | 7 405.54 ±2 007.6b | 1 082.548 8 ±330.710b | 2.003 2 ±0.723b | 12.750 3 ±4.493b | |||
C | 987.32 ±602.5b | 167.104 5 ±102.854b | 1.187 4 ±0.389b | 2.271 1 ±1.440b | 7 780.97 ±5 648.1b | 1 024.766 9 ±715.828b | 1.750 8 ±0.930b | 10.825 9 ±7.542b | |||
同质 Homogeneity | A | 518.07 ±242.4a | 84.178 5 ±40.179a | 0.958 4 ±0.203a | 1.094 8 ±0.546a | - | - | - | - | ||
B | 686.45 ±260.9a | 103.647 0 ±37.331a | 0.962 8 ±0.094a | 1.256 7 ±0.444a | 5 886.63 ±1 644.8a | 775.254 2 ±166.937a | 1.336 8 ±0.305a | 8.274 9 ±1.923a | |||
C | 847.96 ±407.7a | 141.382 1 ±71.819a | 1.051 6 ±0.066a | 1.882 4 ±1.009a | 5 301.41 ±2 577.1a | 718.543 8 ±358.061a | 1.568 2 ±0.518a | 7.846 9 ±4.113a | |||
p | 0.032 4 | 0.021 0 | 0.079 2 | 0.015 7 | 0.409 0 | 0.364 8 | 0.584 9 | 0.339 8 |
Table 2 Root parameter differences of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba in heterogeneous and homogeneous nutrient environments under different planting patterns (mean ± SD)
养分环境 Nutrient environment | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松 Pinus massoniana | 木荷 Schima superba | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | 总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | ||||
异质 Heterogeneity | A | 677.38 ±311.4a | 109.956 1 ±56.041a | 0.942 6 ±0.214a | 1.440 9 ±0.842a | 3 864.79 ±2 209.7a | 473.388 6 ±285.712a | 0.998 6 ±0.410a | 4.676 0 ±3.021a | ||
B | 858.15 ±317.7ab | 142.710 7 ±54.809ab | 0.999 4 ±0.170ab | 1.905 4 ±0.778ab | 7 405.54 ±2 007.6b | 1 082.548 8 ±330.710b | 2.003 2 ±0.723b | 12.750 3 ±4.493b | |||
C | 987.32 ±602.5b | 167.104 5 ±102.854b | 1.187 4 ±0.389b | 2.271 1 ±1.440b | 7 780.97 ±5 648.1b | 1 024.766 9 ±715.828b | 1.750 8 ±0.930b | 10.825 9 ±7.542b | |||
同质 Homogeneity | A | 518.07 ±242.4a | 84.178 5 ±40.179a | 0.958 4 ±0.203a | 1.094 8 ±0.546a | - | - | - | - | ||
B | 686.45 ±260.9a | 103.647 0 ±37.331a | 0.962 8 ±0.094a | 1.256 7 ±0.444a | 5 886.63 ±1 644.8a | 775.254 2 ±166.937a | 1.336 8 ±0.305a | 8.274 9 ±1.923a | |||
C | 847.96 ±407.7a | 141.382 1 ±71.819a | 1.051 6 ±0.066a | 1.882 4 ±1.009a | 5 301.41 ±2 577.1a | 718.543 8 ±358.061a | 1.568 2 ±0.518a | 7.846 9 ±4.113a | |||
p | 0.032 4 | 0.021 0 | 0.079 2 | 0.015 7 | 0.409 0 | 0.364 8 | 0.584 9 | 0.339 8 |
养分斑块 Nutrient patch | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松Pinus massoniana | 木荷Schima superba | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | 总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | |||
富养 Rich | A | 460.87 ±223.2a | 74.962 2 ±39.917 a | 0.510 7 ±0.062a | 0.985 7 ±0.598a | 2 044.12 ±1 042.1a | 261.708 0 ±143.108a | 0.512 3 ±0.241a | 2.706 4 ±1.626a | |
B | 619.87 ±258.9a | 102.235 9 ±44.158ab | 0.522 1 ±0.036a | 1.345 7 ±0.603ab | 4 568.88 ±1 941.3b | 669.857 2 ±281.542b | 1.221 9 ±0.535b | 7.917 2 ±3.486b | ||
C | 710.27 ±509.1 a | 118.715 5 ±82.382b | 0.693 2 ±0.283b | 1.593 0 ±1.095b | 4 848.76 ±3 500.6b | 641.528 5 ±453.018b | 1.053 0 ±0.577b | 6.861 5 ±4.745b | ||
贫养 Poor | A | 258.85 ±110.3 a | 41.620 3 ±17.680a | 0.506 2 ±0.051a | 0.538 6 ±0.294a | 1 929.48 ±1 630.3a | 224.857 9 ±201.900a | 0.518 1 ±0.240a | 2.098 8 ±1.999a | |
B | 300.27 ±208.5 a | 50.698 4 ±34.235a | 0.529 5 ±0.085a | 0.694 3 ±0.483ab | 2 836.66 ±1 380.6a | 412.691 6 ±202.825a | 0.781 4 ±0.278a | 4.833 1 ±2.479b | ||
C | 307.83 ±96.8 a | 53.765 7 ±19.607a | 0.548 9 ±0.048a | 0.753 4 ±0.323b | 2 962.21 ±2 246.8a | 383.238 5 ±297.158a | 0.697 9 ±0.408a | 3.964 4 ±3.160ab | ||
p | <0.000 1 | 0.000 1 | 0.193 5 | 0.000 3 | 0.018 4 | 0.008 8 | 0.008 8 | 0.004 7 |
Table 3 Root parameter differences of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba in between rich- and poor-nutrient patch of heterogeneous nutrient environments under different planting patterns (mean±SD)
养分斑块 Nutrient patch | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松Pinus massoniana | 木荷Schima superba | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | 总根长 Total root length (mm) | 总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm2) | 根体积 Root volume (cm3) | 根系干物质量 Root dry matter accumulation (g) | |||
富养 Rich | A | 460.87 ±223.2a | 74.962 2 ±39.917 a | 0.510 7 ±0.062a | 0.985 7 ±0.598a | 2 044.12 ±1 042.1a | 261.708 0 ±143.108a | 0.512 3 ±0.241a | 2.706 4 ±1.626a | |
B | 619.87 ±258.9a | 102.235 9 ±44.158ab | 0.522 1 ±0.036a | 1.345 7 ±0.603ab | 4 568.88 ±1 941.3b | 669.857 2 ±281.542b | 1.221 9 ±0.535b | 7.917 2 ±3.486b | ||
C | 710.27 ±509.1 a | 118.715 5 ±82.382b | 0.693 2 ±0.283b | 1.593 0 ±1.095b | 4 848.76 ±3 500.6b | 641.528 5 ±453.018b | 1.053 0 ±0.577b | 6.861 5 ±4.745b | ||
贫养 Poor | A | 258.85 ±110.3 a | 41.620 3 ±17.680a | 0.506 2 ±0.051a | 0.538 6 ±0.294a | 1 929.48 ±1 630.3a | 224.857 9 ±201.900a | 0.518 1 ±0.240a | 2.098 8 ±1.999a | |
B | 300.27 ±208.5 a | 50.698 4 ±34.235a | 0.529 5 ±0.085a | 0.694 3 ±0.483ab | 2 836.66 ±1 380.6a | 412.691 6 ±202.825a | 0.781 4 ±0.278a | 4.833 1 ±2.479b | ||
C | 307.83 ±96.8 a | 53.765 7 ±19.607a | 0.548 9 ±0.048a | 0.753 4 ±0.323b | 2 962.21 ±2 246.8a | 383.238 5 ±297.158a | 0.697 9 ±0.408a | 3.964 4 ±3.160ab | ||
p | <0.000 1 | 0.000 1 | 0.193 5 | 0.000 3 | 0.018 4 | 0.008 8 | 0.008 8 | 0.004 7 |
树种 Species | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 觅养精确性 Foraging precision | 反应敏感度 Sensitivity |
---|---|---|---|
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 0.348 1 | 2.341 8 |
B | 0.353 4 | 3.286 9 | |
C | 0.348 6 | 3.377 8 | |
木荷 Schima superba | A | 0.244 7 | — |
B | 0.221 1 | 1.356 7 | |
C | 0.261 0 | 2.517 4 |
Table 4 Sensitivity to heterogeneous nutrient environment and foraging precision of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba under different planting patterns
树种 Species | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | 觅养精确性 Foraging precision | 反应敏感度 Sensitivity |
---|---|---|---|
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 0.348 1 | 2.341 8 |
B | 0.353 4 | 3.286 9 | |
C | 0.348 6 | 3.377 8 | |
木荷 Schima superba | A | 0.244 7 | — |
B | 0.221 1 | 1.356 7 | |
C | 0.261 0 | 2.517 4 |
栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松Pinus massoniana | 木荷Schima superba | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P | N | P | |||
A | 10.458 7±0.003ab | 0.744 8±0.348a | 12.303 1±1.787a | 1.068 8±0.246a | ||
B | 8.373 6±2.389a | 0.843 4±0.504a | 9.749 1±1.488b | 0.918 5±0.090a | ||
C | 12.456 6±2.642b | 1.208 7±0.618a | 15.254 2±1.943a | 0.978 7±0.291a |
Table 5 N and P absorption efficiency of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba leaves in the heterogeneous nutrient environments under different planting patterns (mean±SD, mg·plant-1)
栽植方式 Planting pattern | 马尾松Pinus massoniana | 木荷Schima superba | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P | N | P | |||
A | 10.458 7±0.003ab | 0.744 8±0.348a | 12.303 1±1.787a | 1.068 8±0.246a | ||
B | 8.373 6±2.389a | 0.843 4±0.504a | 9.749 1±1.488b | 0.918 5±0.090a | ||
C | 12.456 6±2.642b | 1.208 7±0.618a | 15.254 2±1.943a | 0.978 7±0.291a |
树种 Species | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | N | P | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
富养 Rich patch | 贫养 Poor patch | 比值 Ratio | 富养 Rich patch | 贫养 Poor patch | 比值 Ratio | |||||
养分含量 Nutrient content (mg·g-1) | ||||||||||
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 2.177 8±2.633a | 0.845 0±0.598a | 2.58 | 0.175 4±0.164a | 0.070 2±0.033a | 2.50 | |||
B | 2.429 8±1.208a | 1.680 4±1.430b | 1.45 | 0.242 3±0.127b | 0.136 2±0.164b | 1.78 | ||||
C | 4.477 1±3.216b | 0.977 4±0.489a | 4.58 | 0.247 6±0.179b | 0.106 0±0.079b | 2.34 | ||||
木荷 Schima superba | A | 4.943 5±3.691a | 2.950 4±3.223a | 1.68 | 0.778 1±0.660a | 0.515 1±0.655a | 1.51 | |||
B | 14.599 6±5.462b | 3.364 9±1.940a | 4.34 | 2.071 2±1.459a | 0.681 4±0.675a | 3.04 | ||||
C | 9.710 1±6.516a | 2.426 3±2.589a | 4.00 | 1.203 1±1.199a | 0.510 0±0.488a | 2.41 | ||||
吸收效率 Nutrient absorption efficiency (mg·plant-1) | ||||||||||
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 8.917 3±2.738a | 8.639 1±3.446a | 1.03 | 0.741 5±0.312a | 0.749 0±0.272a | 0.99 | |||
B | 8.311 6±1.494b | 11.861 2±2.770b | 0.70 | 0.848 4±0.309a | 0.972 4±0.576b | 0.87 | ||||
C | 13.631 9±1.173c | 6.999 8±2.096a | 1.95 | 0.754 4±0.442a | 0.688 1±0.275a | 1.10 | ||||
木荷 Schima superba | A | 9.621 9±3.747a | 7.879 0±4.383a | 1.22 | 1.414 3±0.587a | 1.875 7±2.754a | 0.75 | |||
B | 11.183 1±2.457a | 4.575 8±1.026b | 2.44 | 0.809 0±0.527b | 1.616 3±0.889a | 0.50 | ||||
C | 9.920 5±2.251a | 3.435 8±1.245b | 2.89 | 1.172 6±0.559a | 0.861 3±0.433b | 1.36 |
Table 6 N and P contents and absorption efficiency of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba roots in rich- and poor-nutrient patch of heterogeneous nutrient environment under different planting patterns (mean±SD)
树种 Species | 栽植方式 Planting pattern | N | P | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
富养 Rich patch | 贫养 Poor patch | 比值 Ratio | 富养 Rich patch | 贫养 Poor patch | 比值 Ratio | |||||
养分含量 Nutrient content (mg·g-1) | ||||||||||
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 2.177 8±2.633a | 0.845 0±0.598a | 2.58 | 0.175 4±0.164a | 0.070 2±0.033a | 2.50 | |||
B | 2.429 8±1.208a | 1.680 4±1.430b | 1.45 | 0.242 3±0.127b | 0.136 2±0.164b | 1.78 | ||||
C | 4.477 1±3.216b | 0.977 4±0.489a | 4.58 | 0.247 6±0.179b | 0.106 0±0.079b | 2.34 | ||||
木荷 Schima superba | A | 4.943 5±3.691a | 2.950 4±3.223a | 1.68 | 0.778 1±0.660a | 0.515 1±0.655a | 1.51 | |||
B | 14.599 6±5.462b | 3.364 9±1.940a | 4.34 | 2.071 2±1.459a | 0.681 4±0.675a | 3.04 | ||||
C | 9.710 1±6.516a | 2.426 3±2.589a | 4.00 | 1.203 1±1.199a | 0.510 0±0.488a | 2.41 | ||||
吸收效率 Nutrient absorption efficiency (mg·plant-1) | ||||||||||
马尾松 Pinus massoniana | A | 8.917 3±2.738a | 8.639 1±3.446a | 1.03 | 0.741 5±0.312a | 0.749 0±0.272a | 0.99 | |||
B | 8.311 6±1.494b | 11.861 2±2.770b | 0.70 | 0.848 4±0.309a | 0.972 4±0.576b | 0.87 | ||||
C | 13.631 9±1.173c | 6.999 8±2.096a | 1.95 | 0.754 4±0.442a | 0.688 1±0.275a | 1.10 | ||||
木荷 Schima superba | A | 9.621 9±3.747a | 7.879 0±4.383a | 1.22 | 1.414 3±0.587a | 1.875 7±2.754a | 0.75 | |||
B | 11.183 1±2.457a | 4.575 8±1.026b | 2.44 | 0.809 0±0.527b | 1.616 3±0.889a | 0.50 | ||||
C | 9.920 5±2.251a | 3.435 8±1.245b | 2.89 | 1.172 6±0.559a | 0.861 3±0.433b | 1.36 |
[1] |
Bliss KM, Jones RH, Mitchell RJ (2002). Are competitive interactions influenced by spatial nutrient heterogeneity and root foraging behavior? New Phytologist, 154, 409-417.
DOI URL |
[2] | Caldwell MM (1994). Exploiting nutrients in fertile soil microsites. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW eds. Exploitation of Environmental Heterogeneity by Plants Ecophysiological Process Above- and Below-ground. Academic Press, San Diego, 325-347. |
[3] | Chemistry Committee of Chinese Soil Society (中国土壤学会农业化学专业委员会) (1984). Conventional Analysis Methods of Soil and Agricultural Chemistry (土壤农业化学常规分析方法). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[4] |
Fransen B, de Kroon H (2001). Soil nutrient heterogeneity alters competition between two perennial grass species. Ecology, 82, 2534-2546.
DOI URL |
[5] |
Hodge A (2004). The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytologist, 162, 9-24.
DOI URL |
[6] | Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths BS (1999). Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant, Cell and Environment, 22, 811-820. |
[7] |
Huante P, Rincón E, Chapin FS Ⅲ (1998). Foraging for nutrients, responses to changes in light, and competition in tropical deciduous tree seedlings. Oecologia, 117, 209-216.
DOI URL PMID |
[8] | Ma XH (马雪红), Zhou ZC (周志春), Zhang Y (张一), Jin GQ (金国庆) (2008). Foraging behavior of different tree species in heterogeneous nutrient environment related to light condition. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 19, 961-968. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[9] | Robinson D, Hodge A, Griffiths BS (1999). Plant root proliferation in nitrogen-rich patches confers competitive advantage. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Science, 266, 431-435. |
[10] | State Forestry Administration (国家林业局) (1999). Forest Soil Analysis Methods (森林土壤分析方法). China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[11] | Wang J (王剑), Zhou ZC (周志春), Jin GQ (金国庆) (2007). Differences of foraging behavior between provenances of Pinus massoniana in heterogeneous nutrient environment. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 27, 1350-1358. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[12] | Wang QC (王庆成), Cheng YH (程云环)(2004). Response of fine roots to soil nutrient spatial heterogeneity. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15, 1063-1068. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[13] | Wang ZQ (王政权), Zhang YD (张彦东)(2000). Study on the root interactions between Fraxinus mandshurica and Larix gmelinii. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 24, 346-350. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[14] | Wilson JB (1988). Shoot competition and root competition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 279-296. |
[1] | LUO Si-Sheng, LUO Bi-Zhen, WEI Shu-Jing, HU Hai-Qing, LI Xiao-Chuan, WU Ze-Peng, WANG Zhen-Shi, ZHOU Yu-Fei, ZHONG Ying-Xia. Effects of moderate forest fires on soil organic carbon density in secondary forests of Pinus massoniana [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2020, 44(10): 1073-1086. |
[2] | Ping SONG, Rui ZHANG, Zhi-Chun ZHOU, Jian-She TONG, Hui WANG. Effects of localized nitrogen supply treatments on growth and root parameters in Pinus massoniana families under phosphorus deficiency [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2017, 41(6): 622-631. |
[3] | Qin WANG, Wan-Qin YANG, Fu-Zhong WU, Jian ZHANG, Bo TAN, Xi-Tao ZHANG. Characteristics of stump stock and decomposition in Pinus massoniana plantation [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2016, 40(5): 458-468. |
[4] | Ping SONG, Rui ZHANG, Yi ZHANG, Zhi-Chun ZHOU, Zhong-Ping FENG. Effects of simulated nitrogen deposition on fine root morphology, nitrogen and phosphorus efficiency of Pinus massoniana clone under phosphorus deficiency [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2016, 40(11): 1136-1144. |
[5] | CHEN Yun-Yu,XIONG De-Cheng,HUANG Jin-Xue,WANG Wei-Wei,HU Shuang-Cheng,DENG Fei,XU Chen-Sen,FENG Jian-Xin,SHI Shun-Zeng,ZHONG Bo-Yuan,CHEN Guang-Shui. Fine root production of Pinus massoniana plantation and Castanopsis carlesii plantation at different successional stages in subtropical China [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2015, 39(11): 1071-1081. |
[6] | CUI Ning-Jie,ZHANG Dan-Ju,LIU Yang,ZHANG Jian,YANG Wan-Qin,OU Jiang,ZHANG Jie,SONG Xiao-Yan,YIN Rui. Plant diversity and seasonal dynamics in forest gaps of varying sizes in Pinus massoniana plantations [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2014, 38(5): 477-490. |
[7] | PANG Li, ZHANG Yi, ZHOU Zhi-Chun, FENG Zhong-Ping, CHU De-Yu. Effects of simulated nitrogen deposition on root exudates and phosphorus efficiency in Pinus massoniana families under low phosphorus stress [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2014, 38(1): 27-35. |
[8] | YANG Qing, ZHANG Yi, ZHOU Zhi-Chun, MA Xue-Hong, LIU Wei-Hong, FENG Zhong-Ping. Genetic variation in root architecture and phosphorus efficiency in response to heterogeneous phosphorus deficiency in Pinus massoniana families [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(12): 1226-1235. |
[9] | ZHANG Lei, LIU Shi-Rong, SUN Peng-Sen, WANG Tong-Li. Comparative evaluation of multiple models of the effects of climate change on the potential distribution of Pinus massoniana [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(11): 1091-1105. |
[10] | LI Zhi-Yong, WANG Yan-Hui, YU Peng-Tao, ZHANG Zhi-Jun, DU Shi-Cai, HE Ping, WANG Xiang, DUAN Jian, LI Zhen-Hua. Soil chemical properties and growth characteristics of mixed plantation of Pinus massoniana and Cinnamomum camphora in the acid rain region of Chongqing, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2010, 34(4): 387-395. |
[11] | LI Zhi-Yong, CHEN Jian-Jun, WANG Yan-Hui, YU Peng-Tao, DU Shi-Cai, HE Ping, DUAN Jian. EFFECTS OF SCHIMA SUPERBA PLANTATIONS ON SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN THE ACID RAIN REGION OF CHONGQING, SOUTHWESTERN CHINA [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2008, 32(3): 632-638. |
[12] | KUANG Yuan-Wen, WEN Da-Zhi, ZHOU Guo-Yi, ZHANG De-Qiang. DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTS ALONG THE LENGTH OF DIFFERENT-AGED NEEDLES OF PINUS MASSONIANA AT DINGHUSHAN [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2006, 30(1): 33-39. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 2544
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 5127
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2022 Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology
Tel: 010-62836134, 62836138, E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn