Productivity responses of different functional groups to litter addition in typical grassland of Inner Mongolia

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.08.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Much research has been done on litter in forest ecosystems, but little has been done in grassland ecosystems, although litter plays an important role in grasslands. Our objectives were to determine how litter affects aboveground biomass and productivity of different functional groups and whether litter addition has a positive or negative effect in typical grassland.

Methods We added litter to typical grassland after frost in October 2002. Then we sampled peak standing crop in August from 2003 to 2007. We determined productivity by species by clipping the vegetation in two 20 cm × 50 cm quadrates. SAS 9.0 was used to analyze the data.

Important findings Litter addition significantly increased aboveground biomass, especially in the first year after treatment; however, no significant differences (p > 0.05) in productivity among litter addition treatments were found in the following years. Biomass was significantly different among years (p < 0.001). Effects of litter addition on each functional group were not significant (p > 0.05). PCA analysis of each functional group in different years showed that productivity depended on the competition and compensation effect between perennial bunch grasses and perennial forbs. With greater amounts of litter, the competition effect and the correlation of these two functional groups decreased.

Key words: compensation, competition, functional groups, litter, productivity

WANG Jing, ZHAO Meng-Li, Walter WILLMS, WANG Zhong-Wu, HAN Guo-Dong. Productivity responses of different functional groups to litter addition in typical grassland of Inner Mongolia[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2010, 34(8): 907-914.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.08.003

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2010/V34/I8/907

Figures/Tables 7

Fig. 1 Aboveground biomass under different litter addition treatments from 2003 to 2007. C, control; M, medium treatment; H, heavy treatment. Different letters in the figure indicate the significant difference at p < 0.05 level.

Table 1 Results (F values) of one-way ANOVA test on the effects of litter addition intensity, year and their interactions on aboveground biomass of total plant community and different functional groups

作用因素 Factor	地上生物量 Aboveground biomass	灌木和小半灌木 SS	多年生丛生型禾草 PB	多年生杂类草 PF	多年生根茎型禾草 PR	一二年生草本 AB
年 Year^①	32.69***	1.60^NS	17.39***	7.45***	17.85***	33.20***
处理 Treatment^②	8.16**	2.34^NS	2.34^NS	1.35^NS	0.40^NS	2.35^NS
年×处理 Year × treatment^③	3.22**	1.88^NS	0.80^NS	1.36^NS	0.84^NS	3.57***

Table 2 One-way ANOVA results (F values) of effects on relative biomass of different functional groups in the same year and the same treatment from 2003 to 2007

功能群 Functional groups	2003			2004			2005			2006			2007
功能群 Functional groups	C	M	H	C	M	H	C	M	H	C	M	H	C	M	H
AB	15.67^b	29.37^b	21.10^b	9.18^bc	2.84^b	6.90^b	0.00^b	0.00^c	0.00^c	3.01^c	7.52^b	13.25^b	0.00^c	8.55^bc	2.46^c
PB	65.34^a	50.26^a	48.23^a	28.32^ab	37.85^a	34.24^a	82.08^a	78.86^a	74.06^a	34.72^b	39.07^a	49.47^a	66.47^a	53.46^a	71.25^a
PF	18.99^b	20.37^b	10.22^bc	45.16^a	33.89^a	19.41^ab	8.91^b	13.13^b	20.39^b	57.78^a	39.24^a	34.92^a	25.24^b	27.29^ab	20.06^b
PR	0.00^c	0.00^c	0.00^c	16.79^abc	21.42^ab	31.66^a	10.30^b	6.66^bc	5.55^c	4.01^c	4.50^b	2.36^b	8.30^bc	10.70^abc	6.22^c
SS	0.00^c	0.00^c	20.45^bc	0.55^c	4.00^b	7.79^b	0.00^b	1.35^bc	0.00^c	0.48^c	9.67^b	0.00^b	0.00^c	0.00^c	0.00^c

Fig. 4 Principal component analysis (PCA) of relative biomass of different functional groups in different treatments. C, M and H are the same as in Fig. 1. AB, PB, PF, PR and SS are the same as in Table 1.

Fig. 2 Annual mean temperature (A) and monthly mean temperature (B) from 2003 to 2007.

Fig. 3 Annual precipitation (A) and monthly mean precipitation (B) from 2003 to 2007.

Fig. 5 Correlation analysis between perennial bunch grass and perennial forbs in different litter addition treatments. C, M and H are the same as in Fig. 1.

References 22

[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. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Carson WP, Peterson CJ (1990). The role of litter in an old-field community: impact of litter quantity in different seasons on plant species richness and abundance. Oecologia, 85, 8-13. URL PMID
[3]	Chen CD (陈昌笃) (1984). The protection of withered grass and litter—an ecologic problem worth to be attached great importance. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 6, 31-32. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	Chepliek GP, Quinn JA (1987). The role of seed depth, litter, and fire in the seedling establishment of amphicarpic peanutgrass (Amphicarpum purshii). Oecologia, 73, 459-463. DOI URL PMID
[5]	Christensen NL (1985). Shrubland fire regimes and their evolutionary consequences. In: Pickett STA, White PS eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbances and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, USA
[6]	Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991). Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Botanical Review, 57, 1-32.
[7]	Fowler NL (1986). Microsite requirements for germination and establishment of three grass species. American Midland Naturalist, 115, 131-145.
[8]	Gross KL, Werner PA (1982). Colonizing abilities of biennial plant species in relation to ground cover. Implications for their distributions in a successional sere. Ecology, 63, 921-931.
[9]	Grubb PJ (1977). The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of regeneration niche. Biological Reviews, 52, 107-145.
[10]	Guo JX (郭继勋), Zhu TC (祝廷成) (1994). Study on the litter accumulation in a Leymus chinensis grassland: the litter accumulation under natural conditions and the effects of grazing and cutting on litter accumulation. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 14, 255-261. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	Hammer Ø, Harper DAT (2009). PAST: Paleontological Statistics, version 1.28. http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past. Cited April 2009.
[12]	Kang S, Kim S, Oh S, Lee D (2000). Predicting spatial and temporal patterns of soil temperature based on topography, surface cover and air temperature. Forest Ecology Management, 136, 173-184.
[13]	Knapp AK, Seastedt TR (1986). Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience, 36, 662-668.
[14]	Li B (李博) (1997). The rangeland degradation in North China and its preventive strategy. Scientia Agricutura Sinica (中国农业科学), 30(6), 1-9. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	Liu GQ (刘广全), Wang H (王浩), Qin DY (秦大庸), Ni WJ (倪文进) (2002). Hydrological and ecological functions of litter layers for main forest-types in Qinling Mts. of Yellow River. Journal of Natural Resouces (自然资源学报), 17, 55-62. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	Monk CD, Gabrielson FC (1985). Effect of shade, litter and root competition on old field vegetation in South Carolina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 112, 383-392.
[17]	Peng SL (彭少麟), Liu Q (刘强) (2002). The dynamics of forest litter and its responses to global warming. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 22, 1534-1544. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	Pierson FB, Spaeth KE, Weltz MA, Carson DH (2002). Hydrolic response of diverse western rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 55, 558-570.
[19]	Sydes C, Grime JP (1981). Effect of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in the deciduous woodlands. I. Field investigations. Journal of Ecology, 69, 237-248.
[20]	Willms WD (1988). Response of rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) to light, water, temperature, and litter removal, under controlled conditions. Canadian Journal of Botany, 66, 429-434.
[21]	Willms WD, McGinn SM, Dormaar JF (1993). Influence of litter on herbage production in the mixed prairie. Journal of Range Manage, 46, 320-324.
[22]	Zhu JZ (朱金兆), Liu JJ (刘建军), Wu QK (吴清科) (2002). Hydro-ecological functions of forest litter layers. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (北京林业大学学报), 24(5), 30-34. (in Chinese with English abstract)