ESTIMATION OF ABOVE- AND BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS OF DOMINANT DESERT PLANT SPECIES IN AN OASIS-DESERT ECOTONE OF MINQIN, CHINA

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

Abstract

Abstract:

Most desert soil management decisions are based on quantitative measurements of the biomass of the dominant plant species. The biomass of the dominant plant species in a typical oasis-desert ecotone (ODE) of Minqin was measured in 82 plots (10 m×10 m). The results showed that the distribution and total cover was approximately 16.12%. Above- and below-ground biomass of five dominant desert species (Nitraria tangutorum, Calligonuum mongolicum, Haloxylon ammodendron, Agriophyllum squarrosum and Halogeton arachnoideu) was measured by excavation. Linear regressions were used to analyze the relationships among all the biomass components for each plant (fresh and dry weight of above- and below-ground biomass) and the basal diameter, total height and canopy cover. Best fit models were constructed for each species using 80% of the data. Our results showed that basal diameter (excluding N. tangutorum) and canopy cover were the best predictors of biomass for all five desert plant species. A validation test using the other 20% of the data not used for estimating the regression equations indicated that these equations made accurate predictions of desert plant species biomass.

Key words: Plant, Biomass, Desert, Ecotone, Oasis

WEI Xiao-Ping, ZHAO Chang-Ming, WANG Gen-Xuan, CHEN Bao-Ming, CHENG Dong-Liang. ESTIMATION OF ABOVE- AND BELOW-GROUND BIOMASS OF DOMINANT DESERT PLANT SPECIES IN AN OASIS-DESERT ECOTONE OF MINQIN, CHINA[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2005, 29(6): 878-883.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2005.0116

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2005/V29/I6/878

Figures/Tables 4

References 21

[1]	Assaeed AM (1997). Estimation of biomass and utilization of three perennial range grasses in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments, 36,103-111.
[2]	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
[3]	Clutter JL, Forston JC, Pienaar LV, Brister GH, Bailey RL (1983). Timber Management: a Quantitative Approach. Wiley Press, New York, 333.
[4]	Guevara JC, Gonnet JM, Estevez OR (2002). Biomass estimation for native perennial grasses in the plain of Mendoza, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 50,613-619.
[5]	Hatton TJ, West NE, Johnson PS (1986). Relationships of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover. Journal of Range Management, 39,91-92.
[6]	Bi H, Turner J, Lambert MJ (2004). Additive biomass equations for native eucalypt forest trees of temperate Australia. Trees, 18,467-479.
[7]	Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR (1996). A global analysis of root distribution for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108,389-411. URL PMID
[8]	Jia BQ (贾宝全), Cai TJ (蔡体久), Gao ZH (高志海), Ding F (丁峰), Zhang GZ (张国忠) (2002). Biomass forcast equations of Nitraria tangutorum shrub in sand dune. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment (干旱区资源与环境), 16 (1),96-99. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	Ma XW, Li BG, Wu CR, Peng HJ, Guo YZ (2003). Predicting of temporal-spatial change of groundwater table resulted from current land-use in Minqin oasis. Advance Water Science, 14,85-90.
[10]	Návar J, Méndez E, Nájera A, Graciano J, Dale V, Parresol B (2004). Biomass equations for shrub species of Tamaulipan thornscrub of North-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 59,657-674.
[11]	Návar J, Nájera J, Jurado E (2001). Preliminary estimates of biomass growth in the Tamaulipan thornscrub in North-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 47,281-290.
[12]	Návar J, Nájera J, Jurado E (2002). Biomass estimation equations in the Tamaulipan thornscrub of north-eastern Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 52,167-179.
[13]	Padrón E, Navarro RM (2004). Estimation of above-ground biomass in naturally occurring populations of Prosopis pallida. Journal of Arid Environments, 56,283-292.
[14]	Parresol B (1999). Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. Forest Science, 45,573-593.
[15]	Riegelhaupt E, da Silva IB, Campello FB, Pareyn F (1990). Volume, weight and product tables for Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC at Rio Grande do Norte.In: Habit MA, Saavedra JC eds. The Current State of Knowledge on Prosopis juliflore. FAO, Rome, Italy,69-91.
[16]	Schimel D, Mellillo J, Tian H, McGuire AD, Kicklighter D, Kittel T, Rosenbloom N, Running S, Thornton P, Ojima D, Parton W, Kelly R, Sykes M, Neilson R, Rizzo B (2000). Contribution of increasing CO ₂ and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science, 287,2004-2006. URL PMID
[17]	Snee RD (1977). Validation of regression equations: methods and examples. Technometrics, 19,415-428.
[18]	von Hardenberg J, Meron E, Shachak M, Zarmi Y (2001). Diversity of vegetation patterns and desertification. Physical Review Letters, 87,198101-4.
[19]	Wang B (王兵), Cui XH (崔向慧) (2004). Researches on laws of water balance at ecotone between oasis and desert in Minqin. Acta Ecology Sinica (生态学报), 24,235-240. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	Wang QS (王庆琐), Li B (李博) (1994). Preliminary study on biomass of Artemisia ordosica community in Ordos plateau sandland of China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 18,347-353. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Zhao CY (赵成义), Song YD (宋郁东), Wang YC (王玉潮), Jiang PA (蒋平安) (2004). Estimation of aboveground biomass of desert plants. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15,49-52. (in Chinese with English abstract)

Plant species	Species number per sample (Mean±SD)	Frequency (%)	Coverage (%)	Importance value
Agriophyllum squarrosum	7.71±7.60	30.3	0.956	70.841
Nitraria tangutorum	1.45±2.17	7.06	9.049	69.703
Calligonum mongolicum	5.43±8.06	26.4	2.501	66.307
Haloxylon ammodendron	1.34±2.44	7.21	2.642	29.630
Halogeton arachnoideus	2.67±3.63	10.20	0.212	23.503
Phragmites communis	1.11±2.45	5.40	0.008	10.437
Sophora alopecuroides	0.65±2.96	3.14	0.056	6.395
Limonium aureum	8.40±5.08	2.49	0.012	4.864
Artemisia arenaria	0.44±1.70	2.14	0.017	4.220
Thermopsis schischkinii	0.51±2.32	2.08	0.010	4.058
Elaeagnus angustifolia	0.06±0.36	0.30	0.488	3.599
Suaeda glauca	0.30±1.95	1.48	0.012	2.926
Hedysarum scoparium	0.12±0.46	0.59	0.122	1.897
Bassia dasyphylla	0.06±0.29	0.30	0.001	0.583
Caragana microphylla	0.04±0.19	0.18	0.037	0.571
Cirsium setosum	0.05±0.27	0.24	0.001	0.466

Plant species	Species number per sample (Mean±SD)	Frequency (%)	Coverage (%)	Importance value
Agriophyllum squarrosum	7.71±7.60	30.3	0.956	70.841
Nitraria tangutorum	1.45±2.17	7.06	9.049	69.703
Calligonum mongolicum	5.43±8.06	26.4	2.501	66.307
Haloxylon ammodendron	1.34±2.44	7.21	2.642	29.630
Halogeton arachnoideus	2.67±3.63	10.20	0.212	23.503
Phragmites communis	1.11±2.45	5.40	0.008	10.437
Sophora alopecuroides	0.65±2.96	3.14	0.056	6.395
Limonium aureum	8.40±5.08	2.49	0.012	4.864
Artemisia arenaria	0.44±1.70	2.14	0.017	4.220
Thermopsis schischkinii	0.51±2.32	2.08	0.010	4.058
Elaeagnus angustifolia	0.06±0.36	0.30	0.488	3.599
Suaeda glauca	0.30±1.95	1.48	0.012	2.926
Hedysarum scoparium	0.12±0.46	0.59	0.122	1.897
Bassia dasyphylla	0.06±0.29	0.30	0.001	0.583
Caragana microphylla	0.04±0.19	0.18	0.037	0.571
Cirsium setosum	0.05±0.27	0.24	0.001	0.466

Species	Weight (g·plant^-1)	Height of sand mounds (cm·plant^-1)	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Species	Above-ground	Below-ground	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Nitraria tangutorum Calligonum mongolicum Haloxylon ammodendron Agriophyllum squarrosum Halogeton arachnoideus	288.91±320.66 34.69±17.37 1 876.36±836.31 4.69±2.29 6.24±4.26	721.55±779.67 32.51±17.08 - 0.59±0.35 0.70±0.49	27.72±21.29 - - - -	- 0.99±0.47 2.93±1.04 0.32±0.08 0.35±0.17	28.32±6.75 45.10±16.41 221.59±75.26 18.78±6.81 11.72±3.75	3.71±4.69 0.24±0.13 0.35±0.21 0.11±0.06 0.09±0.06

Species	Weight (g·plant^-1)	Height of sand mounds (cm·plant^-1)	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Species	Above-ground	Below-ground	Basal diameter (cm·plant^-1)	Total height (cm·plant^-1)	Canopy cover (m²·plant^-1)
Nitraria tangutorum Calligonum mongolicum Haloxylon ammodendron Agriophyllum squarrosum Halogeton arachnoideus	288.91±320.66 34.69±17.37 1 876.36±836.31 4.69±2.29 6.24±4.26	721.55±779.67 32.51±17.08 - 0.59±0.35 0.70±0.49	27.72±21.29 - - - -	- 0.99±0.47 2.93±1.04 0.32±0.08 0.35±0.17	28.32±6.75 45.10±16.41 221.59±75.26 18.78±6.81 11.72±3.75	3.71±4.69 0.24±0.13 0.35±0.21 0.11±0.06 0.09±0.06

Species biomass	Correlation coefficients
Species biomass	Sand mounds at height (cm)	Basal diameter (cm)	Total height (cm)	Canopy cover (cm²)
Nitraria tangutorum Above-ground dry biomass, ADB (g) Below-ground fresh biomass, BFB (g) Total fresh biomass, TFB (g) Total dry biomass, TDB (g)	0.711^a 0.810^a 0.780^a 0.786^a	- - - -	-0.002 -0.099 -0.065 -0.071	0.868^a 0.918^a 0.907^a 0.909^a
Calligonuum mongolicum Above-ground dry biomass(g) Below-ground fresh biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - - -	0.492^c 0.488^c 0.437^c 0.507^c	0.033 0.131 0.078 0.051	0.949^a 0.910^a 0.967^a 0.922^a
Haloxylon ammodendron
Above-ground dry biomass(g)	-	0.790^a	0.405	0.878^a
Agriophyllum squarrosum Above-ground dry biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - -	0.851^a 0.849^a 0.853^a	0.377^c 0.291 0.368^c	0.704^a 0.639^a 0.694^a
Halogeton arachnoideus Above-ground dry biomass(g) Total fresh biomass(g) Total dry biomass(g)	- - -	0.791^a 0.807^b 0.809^a	0.336^c 0.339^c 0.315	0.883^a 0.785^a 0.888^a