Chin J Plant Ecol ›› 2010, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (12): 1386-1393.DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.12.004
• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
LIU Ying1, WANG Guo-Liang1,2,3, LIU Guo-Bin1,2,*(), QU Qiu-Ling1, YUAN Zi-Cheng1
Received:
2010-06-21
Accepted:
2010-08-23
Online:
2010-06-21
Published:
2010-12-28
Contact:
LIU Guo-Bin
LIU Ying, WANG Guo-Liang, LIU Guo-Bin, QU Qiu-Ling, YUAN Zi-Cheng. Difference and inherent linkage of root characteristics in different root classification of Pinus tabulaeformis seedlings[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2010, 34(12): 1386-1393.
根序 Root order | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均直径 Mean diameter (mm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | 0.225 (0.005)e | 72.928 (12.838)a | 0.371 (0.001)f | 0.026 (0.006)e | 10.526 (1.722)bc | 0.000 2 (0.000)e | 14.244 (1.731)b | 0.021 (0.002)c |
II | 0.935 (0.023)d | 91.106 (8.473)a | 0.553 (0.003)e | 0.176 (0.005)e | 17.712 (1.554)b | 0.003 0 (0.000)e | 19.800 (0.551)a | 0.039 (0.002)a |
III | 3.478 (0.134)c | 90.628 (12.227)a | 0.931 (0.008)d | 1.048 (0.043)d | 27.672 (3.693)a | 0.026 0 (0.001)d | 8.850 (0.401)c | 0.026 (0.001)b |
IV | 4.302 (0.260)b | 47.105 (5.604)b | 1.204 (0.018)c | 1.605 (0.100)c | 17.842 (2.126)b | 0.049 0 (0.003)c | 4.558 (0.474)d | 0.016 (0.002)d |
V | 4.777 (0.434)b | 13.244 (1.706)c | 1.446 (0.039)b | 2.183 (0.206)b | 7.525 (0.934)c | 0.083 0 (0.009)b | 1.314 (0.169)e | 0.007 (0.001)e |
VI | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 3.108 (0.134)a | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)c | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)e | 0.003 (0.000)e |
Table 1 Differences of morphology indices among different orders of Pinus tabulaeformis seedling roots (mean (SE))
根序 Root order | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均直径 Mean diameter (mm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | 0.225 (0.005)e | 72.928 (12.838)a | 0.371 (0.001)f | 0.026 (0.006)e | 10.526 (1.722)bc | 0.000 2 (0.000)e | 14.244 (1.731)b | 0.021 (0.002)c |
II | 0.935 (0.023)d | 91.106 (8.473)a | 0.553 (0.003)e | 0.176 (0.005)e | 17.712 (1.554)b | 0.003 0 (0.000)e | 19.800 (0.551)a | 0.039 (0.002)a |
III | 3.478 (0.134)c | 90.628 (12.227)a | 0.931 (0.008)d | 1.048 (0.043)d | 27.672 (3.693)a | 0.026 0 (0.001)d | 8.850 (0.401)c | 0.026 (0.001)b |
IV | 4.302 (0.260)b | 47.105 (5.604)b | 1.204 (0.018)c | 1.605 (0.100)c | 17.842 (2.126)b | 0.049 0 (0.003)c | 4.558 (0.474)d | 0.016 (0.002)d |
V | 4.777 (0.434)b | 13.244 (1.706)c | 1.446 (0.039)b | 2.183 (0.206)b | 7.525 (0.934)c | 0.083 0 (0.009)b | 1.314 (0.169)e | 0.007 (0.001)e |
VI | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 3.108 (0.134)a | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)c | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)e | 0.003 (0.000)e |
径级 Diameter class (mm) | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 ≤ 0.5 | 0.466 (0.016)e | 86.885 (13.355)b | 0.030 (0.001)d | 12.852 (1.793)b | 0.000 3 (0.000)d | 12.645 (0.097)a | 0.019 (0.002)b |
0.5 < D2 ≤ 1.0 | 1.242 (0.043)d | 132.269 (13.088)a | 0.290 (0.011)d | 31.609 (3.073)a | 0.005 0 (0.000)d | 13.198 (0.514)a | 0.032 (0.001)a |
1.0 < D3 ≤ 1.5 | 2.522 (0.166)c | 83.940 (8.336)b | 0.868 (0.045)c | 30.715 (3.136)a | 0.024 0 (0.001)c | 5.069 (0.493)b | 0.018 (0.002)b |
1.5 < D4 ≤ 2.0 | 3.842 (0.339)b | 11.917 (1.424)c | 1.758 (0.151)b | 6.101 (0.774)c | 0.066 0 (0.006)b | 1.564 (0.328)c | 0.009 (0.002)c |
D5 > 2.0 | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)bc | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)c | 0.003 (0.000)d |
Table 2 Differences of morphology indices among different diameter classes of Pinus tabulaeformis seedling roots (mean (SE))
径级 Diameter class (mm) | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 ≤ 0.5 | 0.466 (0.016)e | 86.885 (13.355)b | 0.030 (0.001)d | 12.852 (1.793)b | 0.000 3 (0.000)d | 12.645 (0.097)a | 0.019 (0.002)b |
0.5 < D2 ≤ 1.0 | 1.242 (0.043)d | 132.269 (13.088)a | 0.290 (0.011)d | 31.609 (3.073)a | 0.005 0 (0.000)d | 13.198 (0.514)a | 0.032 (0.001)a |
1.0 < D3 ≤ 1.5 | 2.522 (0.166)c | 83.940 (8.336)b | 0.868 (0.045)c | 30.715 (3.136)a | 0.024 0 (0.001)c | 5.069 (0.493)b | 0.018 (0.002)b |
1.5 < D4 ≤ 2.0 | 3.842 (0.339)b | 11.917 (1.424)c | 1.758 (0.151)b | 6.101 (0.774)c | 0.066 0 (0.006)b | 1.564 (0.328)c | 0.009 (0.002)c |
D5 > 2.0 | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)bc | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)c | 0.003 (0.000)d |
百分比例 Percentage | 根序 Root order | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | |
100% | 0.17-0.59 | 0.20-1.35 | 0.42-1.43 | 0.67-1.92 | 0.99-1.84 | ≥2.00 |
95% | 0.33-0.44 | 0.33-0.92 | 0.59-1.29 | 0.82-1.70 | 1.00-1.80 | ≥2.00 |
90% | 0.33-0.41 | 0.34-0.83 | 0.65-1.19 | 0.90-1.66 | 1.06-1.79 | ≥2.00 |
85% | 0.34-0.41 | 0.37-0.76 | 0.68-1.16 | 0.95-1.59 | 1.07-1.74 | ≥2.00 |
80% | 0.34-0.40 | 0.41-0.73 | 0.71-1.14 | 0.98-1.52 | 1.19-1.73 | ≥2.00 |
Table 3 Diameter class ranges of the percentage of root tips among different root orders of Pinus tabulaeformis seedling
百分比例 Percentage | 根序 Root order | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | |
100% | 0.17-0.59 | 0.20-1.35 | 0.42-1.43 | 0.67-1.92 | 0.99-1.84 | ≥2.00 |
95% | 0.33-0.44 | 0.33-0.92 | 0.59-1.29 | 0.82-1.70 | 1.00-1.80 | ≥2.00 |
90% | 0.33-0.41 | 0.34-0.83 | 0.65-1.19 | 0.90-1.66 | 1.06-1.79 | ≥2.00 |
85% | 0.34-0.41 | 0.37-0.76 | 0.68-1.16 | 0.95-1.59 | 1.07-1.74 | ≥2.00 |
80% | 0.34-0.40 | 0.41-0.73 | 0.71-1.14 | 0.98-1.52 | 1.19-1.73 | ≥2.00 |
径级 Diameter class | 根尖数 Root tip | 根长 Root length | 根表面积 Root surface area | 根体积 Root volume | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
传统划分径级 Diameter of traditional classification (mm) | D1 ≤ 0.5 | I (97.70), II (22.95), III (0.48) | I (96.71), II (22.31), III (0.06) | I (95.00), II (16.05), III (0.03) | I (93.16), II (11.03), III (0.01) |
0.5 < D2 ≤ 1.0 | I (6.78), II (66.43), III (63.70), IV (12.75), V (3.33) | I (3.29), II (75.85), III (60.48), IV (12.63), V (0.94) | I (5.01), II (80.53), III (54.42), IV (9.87), V (0.64) | I (6.84), II (82.90), III (48.42), IV (7.59), V (0.42) | |
1.0 < D3 ≤ 1.5 | II (0.94), III (35.82), IV (77.18), V (60.00) | II (1.84), III (39.46), IV (82.50), V (60.82) | I (3.42), III (45.55), IV (83.22), V (54.87) | II (6.07), III (51.57), IV (82.76), V (47.94) | |
1.5 < D4 ≤ 2.0 | IV (10.07), V (36.67) | IV (4.87), V (34.19) | IV (6.91), V (39.45) | IV (9.65), V (44.27) | |
D5 > 2.0 | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | |
重新划分径级 Diameter of new classification (mm) | D1′ ≤ 0.4 | I (93.22), II (9.66) | I (89.34), II (5.09) | I (85.73), II (3.02) | I (83.68), II (1.70) |
0.4 < D2′ ≤ 0.8 | I (6.78), II (86.37), III (21.87), IV (2.01) | I (10.66), II (86.18), III (14.61), IV (0.38) | I (14.27), II (83.44), III (11.09), IV (0.22) | I (17.32), II (78.21), III (8.30), IV (0.13) | |
0.8 < D3′ ≤ 1.3 | II (5.84), III (75.96), IV (70.47), V (23.33) | II (8.47), III (83.35), IV (76.66), V (25.12) | II (12.96), III (86.01), IV (72.38), V (20.66) | II (18.87), III (87.73), IV (77.46), V (16.51) | |
1.3 < D4′ ≤ 2.0 | II (0.12), III (2.16), IV (27.52), V (76.67) | II (0.26), III (2.04), IV (22.96), V (70.83) | II (0.59), III (2.90), IV (27.39), V (74.30) | II (1.23), III (3.97), IV (22.42), V (76.12) | |
D5′ > 2.0 | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) |
Table 4 Comparison of root orders and their percentages in diameter classes between two different root classify systems
径级 Diameter class | 根尖数 Root tip | 根长 Root length | 根表面积 Root surface area | 根体积 Root volume | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
传统划分径级 Diameter of traditional classification (mm) | D1 ≤ 0.5 | I (97.70), II (22.95), III (0.48) | I (96.71), II (22.31), III (0.06) | I (95.00), II (16.05), III (0.03) | I (93.16), II (11.03), III (0.01) |
0.5 < D2 ≤ 1.0 | I (6.78), II (66.43), III (63.70), IV (12.75), V (3.33) | I (3.29), II (75.85), III (60.48), IV (12.63), V (0.94) | I (5.01), II (80.53), III (54.42), IV (9.87), V (0.64) | I (6.84), II (82.90), III (48.42), IV (7.59), V (0.42) | |
1.0 < D3 ≤ 1.5 | II (0.94), III (35.82), IV (77.18), V (60.00) | II (1.84), III (39.46), IV (82.50), V (60.82) | I (3.42), III (45.55), IV (83.22), V (54.87) | II (6.07), III (51.57), IV (82.76), V (47.94) | |
1.5 < D4 ≤ 2.0 | IV (10.07), V (36.67) | IV (4.87), V (34.19) | IV (6.91), V (39.45) | IV (9.65), V (44.27) | |
D5 > 2.0 | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | |
重新划分径级 Diameter of new classification (mm) | D1′ ≤ 0.4 | I (93.22), II (9.66) | I (89.34), II (5.09) | I (85.73), II (3.02) | I (83.68), II (1.70) |
0.4 < D2′ ≤ 0.8 | I (6.78), II (86.37), III (21.87), IV (2.01) | I (10.66), II (86.18), III (14.61), IV (0.38) | I (14.27), II (83.44), III (11.09), IV (0.22) | I (17.32), II (78.21), III (8.30), IV (0.13) | |
0.8 < D3′ ≤ 1.3 | II (5.84), III (75.96), IV (70.47), V (23.33) | II (8.47), III (83.35), IV (76.66), V (25.12) | II (12.96), III (86.01), IV (72.38), V (20.66) | II (18.87), III (87.73), IV (77.46), V (16.51) | |
1.3 < D4′ ≤ 2.0 | II (0.12), III (2.16), IV (27.52), V (76.67) | II (0.26), III (2.04), IV (22.96), V (70.83) | II (0.59), III (2.90), IV (27.39), V (74.30) | II (1.23), III (3.97), IV (22.42), V (76.12) | |
D5′ > 2.0 | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) | VI (100) |
径级 Diameter class (mm) | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1′ ≤ 0.4 | 0.267 (0.008)d | 65.770 (1.503)b | 0.030 (0.001)d | 9.559 (1.504)c | 0.000 3 (0.000)d | 11.745 (0.038)a | 0.018 (0.001)bc |
0.4 < D2′ ≤ 0.8 | 1.014 (0.027)c | 99.704 (9.472)a | 0.190 (0.006)d | 19.388 (1.734)b | 0.003 0 (0.000)d | 12.884 (0.881)a | 0.025 (0.002)a |
0.8 < D3′ ≤ 1.3 | 3.543 (0.124)b | 120.104 (10.432)a | 1.139 (0.042)c | 38.711 (3.363)a | 0.030 0 (0.001)c | 7.127 (0.358)b | 0.023 (0.001)ab |
1.3 < D4′ ≤ 2.0 | 3.842 (0.339)b | 29.433 (3.286)c | 1.758 (0.151)b | 13.619 (1.400)c | 0.066 0 (0.006)b | 3.117 (0.778)c | 0.014 (0.004)c |
D5′ > 2.0 | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)c | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)c | 0.003 (0.000)d |
Table 5 The differences of morphology indices among different diameter classes of Pinus tabulaeformis seedling roots (after revised ) (mean (SE))
径级 Diameter class (mm) | 平均根长 Mean root length (cm) | 总根长 Total root length (cm) | 平均表面积 Mean surface area (cm2) | 总表面积 Total surface area (cm2) | 平均体积 Mean volume (cm3) | 比根长 Specific root length (m·g-1) | 比根面积 Specific root area (m2·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1′ ≤ 0.4 | 0.267 (0.008)d | 65.770 (1.503)b | 0.030 (0.001)d | 9.559 (1.504)c | 0.000 3 (0.000)d | 11.745 (0.038)a | 0.018 (0.001)bc |
0.4 < D2′ ≤ 0.8 | 1.014 (0.027)c | 99.704 (9.472)a | 0.190 (0.006)d | 19.388 (1.734)b | 0.003 0 (0.000)d | 12.884 (0.881)a | 0.025 (0.002)a |
0.8 < D3′ ≤ 1.3 | 3.543 (0.124)b | 120.104 (10.432)a | 1.139 (0.042)c | 38.711 (3.363)a | 0.030 0 (0.001)c | 7.127 (0.358)b | 0.023 (0.001)ab |
1.3 < D4′ ≤ 2.0 | 3.842 (0.339)b | 29.433 (3.286)c | 1.758 (0.151)b | 13.619 (1.400)c | 0.066 0 (0.006)b | 3.117 (0.778)c | 0.014 (0.004)c |
D5′ > 2.0 | 7.355 (0.536)a | 8.260 (0.834)c | 7.116 (0.525)a | 7.836 (0.658)c | 0.578 0 (0.051)a | 0.330 (0.026)c | 0.003 (0.000)d |
[1] |
Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Hendrick RL (2000). Relationships between fine root dynamics and nitrogen availability in Michigan northern hardwood forests. Oecologia, 125, 389-399.
DOI URL PMID |
[2] | Chang WJ (常文静), Guo DL (郭大立) (2008). Variation in root diameter among 45 common tree species in temperate, subtropical and tropical forests in China. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version) (植物生态学报), 32, 1248-1257. ( in Chinese with English abstract) |
[3] | Cheng YH (程云环), Han YZ (韩有志), Wang QC (王庆成), Wang ZQ (王政权) (2005). Seasonal dynamics of fine root biomass, root length density, specific root length and soil resource availability in a Larix gmelini plantation. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 29, 403-410. ( in Chinese with English abstract) |
[4] |
Eissenstat DM (1991). On the relationship between specific root length and the rate of root proliferation: a field study using citrus rootstocks. New Phytologist, 118, 63-68.
DOI URL |
[5] | Eissenstat DM, Yanni RD (2002). Root lifespan, efficiency and turnover. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U eds. Plant Roots: the Hidden Half 3rd edn. Dekker, New York. 221-238. |
[6] | Fitter AH (1996). Characteristics and functions of root systems. In: Waisel Y, Eshel E, Kafkafi U eds. Plant Roots: the Hidden Half 2nd edn. Dekker, New York. 1-20. |
[7] | Gill RA, Jackson RB (2002). Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytologist, 147, 13-31. |
[8] | Guo DL, Li H, Mitchell RJ, Han WX, Hendricks JJ, Fahey TJ, Hendrick RL (2008). Heterogeneity by root branch order: exploring the discrepancy in root longevity and turnover estimates between minirhizotron and C isotope methods. New Phytologist, 177, 443-456. |
[9] |
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.
DOI URL PMID |
[10] |
Mei L (梅莉), Wang ZQ (王政权), Han YZ (韩有志), Gu JC (谷加存), Wang XR (王向荣), Cheng YH (程云环), Zhang XJ (张秀娟) (2006). Distribution patterns of Fraxinus mandshurica root biomass, specific root length and root length density. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 17, 1-4. (in Chinese with English abstract)
URL PMID |
[11] | Mei L (梅莉), Wang ZQ (王政权), Zhang XJ (张秀娟), Yu LZ (于立忠), Du Y (杜英) (2008). Effects of nitrogen fertilization on fine root biomass production and turnover of Fraxinus mandshurica plantation. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 27, 1663-1668. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[12] | Pregitzer KS, Deforest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002). Fine root architecture of nine north American trees. Ecologcial Monographs, 72, 293-309. |
[13] |
Pregitzer KS, Kubiske ME, Yu CK, Hendrick RL (1997). Relationships among root branch order, carbon, and nitrogen in four temperate species. Oecologia, 111, 302-308.
DOI URL PMID |
[14] |
Thomas SM, Whitehead D, Adams JA (1996). Seasonal root distribution and soil surface carbon fluxes for one year old Pinus radiate trees growing at ambient and elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Tree Physiology, 16, 1015-1021.
DOI URL PMID |
[15] | Wang GL (王国梁), Zhou D (周东) (2009). Fine root characteristic changes of pioneer community with plant succession in abandoned croplands in the Loess Gully Region, China. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 29, 0356-0364. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[16] | Wang XR (王向荣), Wang ZQ (王政权), Han YZ (韩有志), Gu JC (谷加存), Guo DL (郭大立), Mei L (梅莉) (2005). Variations of fine root diameter with root order in Manchurian ash and Dahurian larch plantations. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 29, 871-877. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[17] | Wells CE, Glenn DM, Eissenstat DM (2002). Changes in the risk of fine-root mortality with age: a case study in peach, Prunus persica(Rosaceae). American Journal of Botany, 89, 79-87. |
[18] | Wen DZ (温达志), Wei P (魏平), Kong GH (孔国辉), Ye WH (叶万辉) (1999). Production and turnover rate of fine roots in two lower subtropical forest sites at Dinghushan. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 23, 361-369. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[19] |
Yu LZ (于立忠), Ding GQ (丁国泉), Shi JW (史建伟), Yu SQ (于水强), Zhu JJ (朱教君), Zhao LF (赵连富) (2007). Effects of fertilization on fine root diameter, root length and specific root length in Larix kaempferi plantation. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 18, 957-962. (in Chinese with English abstract)
URL PMID |
[1] | SHU Wei-Wei, YANG Kun, MA Jun-Xu, MIN Hui-Lin, CHEN Lin, LIU Shi-Ling, HUANG Ri-Yi, MING An-Gang, MING Cai-Dao, TIAN Zu-Wei. Effects of nitrogen addition on the morphological and chemical traits of fine roots with different orders of Castanopsis hystrix [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2024, 48(1): 103-112. |
[2] | XIE Huan, ZHANG Qiu-Fang, CHEN Ting-Ting, ZENG Quan-Xin, ZHOU Jia-Cong, WU Yue, LIN Hui-Ying, LIU Yuan-Yuan, YIN Yun-Feng, CHEN Yue-Min. Interaction of soil arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant roots acts on maintaining soil phosphorus availability under nitrogen addition [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(7): 811-822. |
[3] | GU Wei-Ping, LIU Rui-Peng, LI Xing-Huan, SUN Tao, ZHANG Zi-Jia, ZAN Peng, WEN Lu-Ning, MA Peng-Yu, MAO Zi-Jun. Decomposition of different root branch orders and its dominant controlling factors in four temperate tree species [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2018, 42(9): 955-962. |
[4] | Jia-Cun GU, Dong-Nan WANG, Xiu-Xue XIA, Shao-Zhong WANG. Applications of functional classification methods for tree fine root biomass estimation: Advancements and synthesis [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2016, 40(12): 1344-1351. |
[5] | ZHU Wan-Rui,WANG Qi-Tong,LIU Meng-Ling,WANG Hua-Tian,WANG Yan-Ping,ZHANG Guang-Can,LI Chuan-Rong. Interactive effects of phenolic acid and nitrogen on morphological traits of poplar (Populus × euramericana ‘Neva’) fine roots [J]. Chin J Plan Ecolo, 2015, 39(12): 1198-1208. |
[6] | XU Yang, GU Jia-Cun, DONG Xue-Yun, LIU Ying, WANG Zheng-Quan. Fine root morphology, anatomy and tissue nitrogen and carbon contents of the first five orders in four tropical hardwood species in Hainan Island, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(9): 955-964. |
[7] | LI Shan-Jia, ZHANG You-Fu, CHEN Tuo. Relationships between foliar stable carbon isotope composition and environmental factors and leaf element contents of Pinus tabulaeformis in northwestern China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(6): 596-604. |
[8] | GUO Hong, LEI Xiang-Dong, Veronique LETORT, LU Yuan-Chang. A functional-structural model for adults of Pinus tabulaeformis based on GreenLab [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(4): 422-430. |
[9] | GAO Li-Xia, BI Run-Cheng, YAN Ming. Species abundance distribution patterns of Pinus tabulaeformis forest in Huoshan Mountain of Shanxi Province, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(12): 1256-1270. |
[10] | YIN Sen-Lu, KONG De-Liang, GUO Da-Li. Seasonal variation of fine root tissue N concentration of nine common tree species in Dinghushan, Guangdong, China [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(11): 1106-1116. |
[11] | GUO Hong, LEI Xiang-Dong, Veronique Letort, LU Yuan-Chang, Philippe de Reffye. A FUNCTIONAL-STRUCTURAL MODEL GREENLAB FOR PINUS TABULAEFORMIS [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2009, 33(5): 950-957. |
[12] | ZHANG Dong-Mei, SUN Pei-Guang, SHEN Xi-Huan, RU Guang-Xin. PATERNITY ANALYSIS OF OPEN- AND CONTROL-POLLINATED SEEDS COLLECTED FROM A SEED ORCHARD OF PINUS TABULAEFORMIS [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2009, 33(2): 302-310. |
[13] | WEI Xing, LIU Ying, CHEN Hai-Bo. ANATOMICAL AND FUNCTIONAL HETEROGENEITY AMONG DIFFERENT ROOT ORDERS OF PHELLODENDRON AMURENSE [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2008, 32(6): 1238-1247. |
[14] | FEI Shi-Min, HE Ya-Ping, CHEN Xiu-Ming, JIANG Jun-Ming, GUO Zhi-Hua. QUANTITATIVE FEATURES OF POPULATIONS OF PINUS TABULAEFORMIS AND P. ARMANDII REGENERATED FOLLOWING WATER DAMAGE AT QINLING MOUNTAIN, CHINA [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2008, 32(1): 95-105. |
[15] | HUANG Yi, PENG Bo, LI Ting, LIANG Zhen-Chun. GROWTH AND ELEMENT ACCUMULATION OF PINUS TABULAEFORMIS SEEDLINGS INFLUENCED BY INOCULATION OF ECTOMYCORRHIZAL FUNGI IN Cu AND Cd CONTAMINATED SOIL [J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2007, 31(5): 923-929. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology
Tel: 010-62836134, 62836138, E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn