Allocation patterns of above- and belowground biomass in desert grassland in the middle reaches of Heihe River, Gansu Province, China

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00021

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims The allocation of above- and belowground biomass is highly meaningful in research of carbon storage and cycling in ecosystems. Our objective is to characterize biomass allocation patterns of desert grassland in the middle reaches of Heihe River, Gansu Province, China by providing a detailed study of allocation of above- and belowground biomass.

Methods We used the quadrat survey method to study above- and belowground biomass of desert grassland in July-August, 2011. The allometric relationship between above- and belowground biomass was fitted by the method of reduced major axis (RMA) regression. The vertical distribution pattern of belowground biomass was simulated by the root vertical distribution model developed by Gale and Grigal in 1987.

Important findings Above- and belowground biomass at the community level ranged from 3.2 to 559.2 g·m^-2and 3.3 to 188.2 g·m^-2, respectively. Above- and belowground biomass of individuals varied from 6.1 to 489.0 g and 2.4 to 244.2 g, respectively. The ratios of root to shoot (R/S) at community and individual levels were 0.10 to 2.49 and 0.07 to 1.55, respectively. Therefore, the aboveground biomass was greater than belowground biomass at both levels, and the R/S ratio was higher at the community level. The slopes of the fitted equations at the community and individual levels were 1.1001 and 0.9913, respectively. Neither was significantly different from 1, which means the allocation patterns between above- and belowground biomass were similar at both levels and indicates an isometric allocation relationship between above- and belowground biomass. Belowground biomass was concentrated mainly in the 0-20 and 0-30 cm soil layers. Root biomass in the 0-20 cm soil depth accounted for 89.81% and 81.42% of the total root biomass at the community and individual levels, respectively. Parallel values for the 0-30 cm soil depth were 96.95% and 93.62%.

null

Key words: biomass, desert grassland, isometric relationship, ratio of root to shoot, vertical distribution of belowground biomass

WANG Min, SU Yong-Zhong, YANG Rong, YANG Xiao. Allocation patterns of above- and belowground biomass in desert grassland in the middle reaches of Heihe River, Gansu Province, China[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2013, 37(3): 209-219.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2013.00021

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2013/V37/I3/209

Figures/Tables 10

References 38

[1]	Bai YF, Han XG, Wu JG, Chen ZZ, Li LH (2004). Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature, 431, 181-184. URL PMID
[2]	Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985). Resource limitation in plants--an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 363-392.
[3]	Brown SL, Schroeder P, Kern JS (1999). Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 123, 81-90.
[4]	Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997). Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia, 111, 1-11. DOI URL PMID
[5]	Chapin FS, Bloom AJ, Field CB, Waring RH (1987). Plant responses to multiple environmental factors. BioScience, 37, 49-57.
[6]	Cheng DL (2007). Plant Allometric Study of Biomass Allocation Pattern and Biomass Production Rates. PhD dissertation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 程栋梁 (2007). 植物生物量分配模式与生长速率的相关规律研究. 博士学位论文, 兰州大学, 兰州.]
[7]	Cheng DL, Niklas KJ (2007). Above- and below-ground biomass relationships across 1534 forested communities. Annals of Botany, 99, 95-102. URL PMID
[8]	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 Northwest China. Journal of Ecology, 94, 953-958.
[9]	Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 295, 1517-1520. URL PMID
[10]	Fan JW, Wang K, Harris W, Zhong HP, Hu ZM, Han B, Zhang WY, Wang JB (2009). Allocation of vegetation biomass across a climate-related gradient in the grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments, 73, 521-528.
[11]	Fang JY, Liu GH, Xu SL, Wang GC, Wen YP (2007). Carbon Library in Terrestrial Ecosystem in China, China Environmental Science Press. Beijing. 109-128. (in Chinese)
	[ 方精云, 刘国华, 徐嵩龄, 王庚辰, 温玉璞 (2007). 中国陆地生态系统的碳库. 中国环境科学出版社, 北京. 109-128.]
[12]	Gale MR, Grigal DF (1987). Vertical root distributions of northern tree species in relation to successional status. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 17, 829-834.
[13]	Houghton RA (2005). Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology, 11, 945-958.
[14]	Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996). A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108, 389-411. URL PMID
[15]	Jin Z, Dong YS, Qi YC, An ZS (2010). Soil respiration and net primary productivity in perennial grass and desert shrub ecosystems at the Ordos Plateau of Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 74, 1248-1256.
[16]	Kuzyakov Y, Domanski G (2000). Carbon input by plants into the soil. Review. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 163, 421-431.
[17]	Litton CM, Raich JW, Ryan MG (2007). Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 13, 2089-2109.
[18]	Li B (2000). Ecology. Higher Education Press. Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[ 李博 (2000). 生态学高等教育出版社, 北京.]
[19]	Ma WH (2006). Carbon Storage in the Temperate Grassland of Inner Mongolia. PhD dissertation, Peking University, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 马文红 (2006). 内蒙古温带草地的碳储量. 博士学位论文, 北京大学, 北京.]
[20]	Ma WH, Fang JY (2006). R:S ratios of temperate steppe and the environmental controls in Inner Mongolia. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 42, 774-778. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 马文红, 方精云 (2006). 内蒙古温带草原的根冠比及其影响因素. 北京大学学报(自然科学版), 42, 774-778.]
[21]	Mokany K, Raison R, Prokushkin AS (2006). Critical analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biology, 12, 84-96.
[22]	Ni J (2002). Carbon storage in grasslands of China. Journal of Arid Environments, 50, 205-218.
[23]	Ni J (2004). Estimating net primary productivity of grasslands from field biomass measurements in temperate northern China. Plant Ecology, 174, 217-234.
[24]	Niklas KJ (2005). Modelling below- and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Annals of Botany, 95, 315-321. URL PMID
[25]	Niklas KJ (2006). A phyletic perspective on the allometry of plant biomass-partitioning patterns and functionally equivalent organ-categories. New Phytologist, 171, 27-40.
[26]	Piao SL, Fang JY, Ciais P, Peylin P, Huang Y, Sitch S, Wang T (2009). The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Nature, 458, 1009-1013. URL PMID
[27]	Qi YC, Dong YS, Geng YB, Yang XH, Geng HL (2003). The progress in the carbon cycle researches in grassland ecosystem in China. Progress in Geography, 22, 342-352. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 齐玉春, 董云社, 耿元波, 杨小红, 耿会立 (2003). 我国草地生态系统碳循环研究进展. 地理科学进展, 22, 342-352.]
[28]	Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995). Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. WH Freeman and Company, New York. URL PMID
[29]	Southgate RI, Masters P, Seely MK (1996). Precipitation and biomass changes in the Namib Desert dune ecosystem. Journal of Arid Environments, 33, 267-280. DOI URL
[30]	Wang L, Niu KC, Yang YH, Zhou P (2010). Patterns of above- and belowground biomass allocation in China’s grasslands: evidence from individual-level observations. Science China Life Sciences, 53, 851-857. DOI URL PMID
[31]	Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006). Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews, 81, 259-291. DOI URL PMID
[32]	Weiner J (2004). Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 6, 207-215.
[33]	Wilson JB (1988). A review of evidence on the control of shoot: root ratio, in relation to models. Annals of Botany, 61, 433-449.
[34]	Xia Y, Moore DI, Collins SL, Muldavin EH (2010). Aboveground production and species richness of annuals in Chihuahuan Desert grassland and shrubland plant communities. Journal of Arid Environments, 74, 378-385.
[35]	Yang YH (2008). Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Alpine Grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau. PhD dissertation, Peking University, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[ 杨元合 (2008). 青藏高原高寒草地生态系统碳氮储量. 博士学位论文, 北京大学, 北京.]
[36]	Yang YH, Fang JY, Ji CJ, Han WX (2009a). Above- and belowground biomass allocation in Tibetan grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 177-184.
[37]	Yang YH, Fang JY, Ma WH, Guo DL, Mohammat A (2010). Large-scale pattern of biomass partitioning across China’s grasslands. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 268-277.
[38]	Yang YH, Fang JY, Pan YD, Ji CJ (2009b). Aboveground biomass in Tibetan grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments, 73, 91-95.

生物量 Biomass	群落水平 Community level (g·m^-2)					个体水平 Individual level (g·株^-1)
生物量 Biomass	样本量 Sample size	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Mean	中值 Median	样本量 Sample size	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Mean	中值 Median
地上生物量 Aboveground biomass	215	559.20	3.20	153.60	135.46	99	489.03	6.13	112.85	82.89
地下生物量 Belowground biomass	83	188.20	3.28	58.01	62.01	99	244.23	2.40	41.53	30.03
总生物量 Total biomass	83	530.67	10.87	197.52	184.19	99	660.76	8.53	154.38	119.15
R/S	83	2.49	0.10	0.54	0.44	99	1.55	0.07	0.44	0.35

生物量 Biomass	群落水平 Community level (g·m^-2)					个体水平 Individual level (g·株^-1)
生物量 Biomass	样本量 Sample size	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Mean	中值 Median	样本量 Sample size	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	平均值 Mean	中值 Median
地上生物量 Aboveground biomass	215	559.20	3.20	153.60	135.46	99	489.03	6.13	112.85	82.89
地下生物量 Belowground biomass	83	188.20	3.28	58.01	62.01	99	244.23	2.40	41.53	30.03
总生物量 Total biomass	83	530.67	10.87	197.52	184.19	99	660.76	8.53	154.38	119.15
R/S	83	2.49	0.10	0.54	0.44	99	1.55	0.07	0.44	0.35

水平 Level	样本量 Sample size	R²	p	斜率(95%置信区间) Slope (95% confidence interval)	截距 Intercept	p (H₀:斜率=1) p (H₀:slope=1)
群落水平 Community level	83	0.714	<0.001	1.100 1 (0.977 7-1.237 9)	0.202 9	0.112
珍珠猪毛菜 Salsola passerina	28	0.213	<0.05	1.091 2 (0.768 6-1.549 2)	0.259 0	0.620
合头草 Sympegma regelii	10	0.400	<0.05	1.659 8 (0.915 0-3.010 8)	-1.147 1	0.090
红砂 Reaumuria songarica	13	0.521	<0.01	1.137 3 (0.729 1-1.774 0)	0.305 3	0.549
紫菀木 Asterothamnus alyssoides	12	0.651	<0.01	0.693 3 (0.462 4-1.039 3)	0.896 3	0.073
个体水平 Individual level	99	0.631	<0.001	0.991 3 (0.877 3-1.120 1)	0.448 2	0.887
珍珠猪毛菜 Salsola passerina	19	0.468	<0.01	0.793 3 (0.550 6-1.143 1)	0.762 2	0.204
合头草 Sympegma regelii	16	0.881	<0.001	0.910 4 (0.747 8-1.108 5)	0.296 2	0.326
红砂 Reaumuria songarica	29	0.656	<0.001	1.032 7 (0.820 9-1.299 2)	0.456 6	0.778
紫菀木 Asterothamnus alyssoides	35	0.731	<0.001	1.022 3 (0.851 6-1.227 3)	0.469 7	0.808

水平 Level	样本量 Sample size	R²	p	斜率(95%置信区间) Slope (95% confidence interval)	截距 Intercept	p (H₀:斜率=1) p (H₀:slope=1)
群落水平 Community level	83	0.714	<0.001	1.100 1 (0.977 7-1.237 9)	0.202 9	0.112
珍珠猪毛菜 Salsola passerina	28	0.213	<0.05	1.091 2 (0.768 6-1.549 2)	0.259 0	0.620
合头草 Sympegma regelii	10	0.400	<0.05	1.659 8 (0.915 0-3.010 8)	-1.147 1	0.090
红砂 Reaumuria songarica	13	0.521	<0.01	1.137 3 (0.729 1-1.774 0)	0.305 3	0.549
紫菀木 Asterothamnus alyssoides	12	0.651	<0.01	0.693 3 (0.462 4-1.039 3)	0.896 3	0.073
个体水平 Individual level	99	0.631	<0.001	0.991 3 (0.877 3-1.120 1)	0.448 2	0.887
珍珠猪毛菜 Salsola passerina	19	0.468	<0.01	0.793 3 (0.550 6-1.143 1)	0.762 2	0.204
合头草 Sympegma regelii	16	0.881	<0.001	0.910 4 (0.747 8-1.108 5)	0.296 2	0.326
红砂 Reaumuria songarica	29	0.656	<0.001	1.032 7 (0.820 9-1.299 2)	0.456 6	0.778
紫菀木 Asterothamnus alyssoides	35	0.731	<0.001	1.022 3 (0.851 6-1.227 3)	0.469 7	0.808

水平 Level	土层深度 Soil depth (cm)	样本数 Sample size	根系生物量累积百分率 Cumulative percentage of root biomass
水平 Level	土层深度 Soil depth (cm)	样本数 Sample size	最小值 Min	最大值 Max	中值 Mean
群落水平 Community level	0-20	20	48.78%	100%	89.81%
群落水平 Community level	0-30	20	61.88%	100%	96.95%
个体水平 Individual level	0-20	99	44.20%	100%	81.42%
个体水平 Individual level	0-30	99	61.02%	100%	93.62%