图1. 亚热带同质园11个代表性树种新鲜叶和凋落叶的非结构性碳水化合物、可溶性糖、淀粉含量(A, C, E)及其在不同功能类型叶片之间的差异(B, D, F)(平均值±标准误, n = 3)。星号表示新鲜叶与凋落叶之间差异显著(*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001)。不同大写字母表示新鲜叶非结构性碳水化合物(可溶性糖、淀粉)含量在不同树种/不同功能类型叶片间差异显著(p < 0.05), 不同小写字母表示凋落叶非结构性碳水化合物(可溶性糖、淀粉)含量在不同树种/不同功能类型叶片间差异显著(p < 0.05)。CC, 米槠; CC1, 香樟; CL, 杉木; ED, 杜英; LC, 鹅掌楸; LC1, 香叶; LF, 枫香; MM, 火力楠; PM, 马尾松; SM, 无患子; SS, 木荷。Db, 落叶阔叶树种(n = 9); Eb, 常绿阔叶树种(n = 18); Ec, 常绿针叶树种(n = 6)。

Fig. 1. Contents of non-structural carbohydrates, soluble sugars and starch in fresh and senescent leaves of 11 trees in the subtropical common-garden (A, C, E), and difference in them among different plant functional types (B, D, F)(mean ± SE, n = 3). Asterisks denote significant differences between fresh and senescent leaves for the same tree species (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001). Different uppercase letters denote significant differences in non-structural carbohydrates (soluble sugars, starch) content in fresh leaves among tree species/plant functional traits (p < 0.05), and different lowercase letters denote significant differences in non-structural carbohydrates (soluble sugars, starch) content in senescent leaves among tree species/plant functional traits (p < 0.05). CC, Castanopsis carlesii; CC1, Cinnamomum camphora; CL, Cunninghamia lanceolata; ED, Elaeocarpus decipiens; LC, Liriodendron chinense; LC1, Lindera communis; LF, Liquidambar formosana; MM, Michelia macclurei; PM, Pinus massoniana; SM, Sapindus mukorossi; SS, Schima superba. Db, deciduous broadleaved species (n = 9); Eb, evergreen broadleaved species (n = 18); Ec, evergreen coniferous species (n = 6).