Stocking rate effects on stoichiometric characteristics of the steppe grassland pioneer species Stipabreviflora and its underlying soil

doi:10.11686/cyxb2020116

Abstract

Abstract:

We investigated the effect of stocking rate （Control， CK； Lightly grazed， LG； Moderately grazed， MG and Heavily grazed， HG） on carbon （C）， nitrogen （N）， phosphorus （P） and their stoichiometry for the pioneer species Stipa breviflora （Sb） and its underlying soil for the 0-20 and 20-40 cm depths in desert steppe grassland. Stocking rate had no significant effect on N， P content and no effect on C∶N∶P stoichiometry in Sb foliage， but C content in Sb foliage significantly increased with increase in stocking rate （P<0.05）. Soil N， P and C∶N∶P values for the two soil layers were significantly （P<0.05） affected by stocking rate， except for soil C∶N from 0-20 cm. Those differences between C∶N∶P ratios were mainly caused by the changing of soil N and P content， and these effects for the two soil layers were somewhat random with no consistent pattern across stocking rates. The stoichiometry of Sb foliage was not affected by changes in soil stoichiometry. Grazing decreased the Sb P and soil C content， but this effect was decreased by increased stocking rate. Compared with CK， HG markedly changed the characteristics of soil N， P and C∶N and of Sb foliage C and C∶N. The increasing of soil depth showed greater impact on soil P， N∶P and C∶P under MG.

Key words: desert steppe, stocking rate, Stipa breviflora, soil, stoichiometry

Mei XIONG, Ji-rong QIAO, Yang YANG, Feng ZHANG, Jia-hua ZHENG, Jian-xin WU, Meng-li ZHAO. Stocking rate effects on stoichiometric characteristics of the steppe grassland pioneer species Stipabreviflora and its underlying soil[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 212-219.

Figures/Tables 6

References 32

1	Elser J J， Sterner R W， Gorokhova E， et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecology Letters， 2000， 3（6）： 540-550.
2	Cheng B， Zhao Y J， Zhang W G， et al. The research advances and prospect of ecological stoichiometry. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2010， 30（6）： 1628-1637.
	程滨，赵永军，张文广，等. 生态化学计量学研究进展. 生态学报， 2010， 30（6）： 1628-1637.
3	Martínez‐Vilalta J， Sala A， Asensio D， et al. Dynamics of non‐structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants： A global synthesis. Ecological Monographs， 2016， 86（4）： 495-516.
4	Elser J J， Bracken M E S， Cleland E E， et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater， marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters， 2007， 10（12）： 1135-1142.
5	Yang H M， Wang D M. Advances in the study on ecological stoichiometry in grass-environment system and its response to environmental factors. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2011， 20（2）： 244-252.
	杨慧敏，王冬梅. 草——环境系统植物碳氮磷生态化学计量学及其对环境因子的响应. 草业学报， 2011， 20（2）： 244-252.
6	Yu H L， Fan J W， Li Y Z. Foliar carbon， nitrogen， and phosphorus stoichiometry in a grassland ecosystem along the Chinese Grassland Transect. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2017， 37（3）： 133-139.
7	Koerselman W， Meuleman A F M. The vegetation N∶P ratio： A new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. Journal of Applied Ecology， 1996， 33（6）： 1441-1450.
8	Zeng D H， Chen G S. Ecological Stoichiometry： A science to explore the complexity of living systems. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology， 2005， 29（6）： 1007-1019.
	曾德慧，陈广生. 生态化学计量学：复杂生命系统奥秘的探索. 植物生态学报， 2005， 29（6）： 1007-1019.
9	Zeng Q， Li X， Dong Y， et al. Soil and plant components ecological stoichiometry in four steppe communities in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena， 2016， 147： 481-488.
10	Tian H Q， Chen G S， Zhang C， et al. Pattern and variation of C∶N∶P ratios in China’s soils： A synthesis of observational data. Biogeochemistry， 2010， 98： 139-151.
11	Wang Y T. Effect of stocking rate on carbon isotope in the main species of Stipa breviflora steppe. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Agricultural University， 2018.
	王亚婷. 载畜率对短花针茅草原主要植物稳定性碳同位素的影响. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学， 2018.
12	Han M Q， Wang Z W， Jin Y X， et al. Response of species diversity and productivity to long-term grazing in the Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica， 2017， 37（11）： 2273-2281.
	韩梦琪，王忠武，靳宇曦，等. 短花针茅荒漠草原物种多样性及生产力对长期不同放牧强度的响应. 西北植物学报， 2017， 37（11）： 2273-2281.
13	Sun S X， Yun X J， Wu X H， et al. Seasonal variations of ecological stoichiometry characteristics of major plant populations in desert steppe. Ecology and Environmental Sciences， 2018， 27（1）： 47-54.
	孙世贤，运向军，吴新宏，等. 荒漠草原主要植物种群生态化学计量学特征季节变化. 生态环境学报， 2018， 27（1）： 47-54.
14	Bai Y， Wu J， Clark C M， et al. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C∶N∶P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology， 2012， 49（6）： 1204-1215.
15	An Y， An H， Li S B. Effects of grazing on ecological stoichiometry of soil and dominant plants in desert grassland. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2018， 27（12）： 94-102.
	安钰，安慧，李生兵. 放牧对荒漠草原土壤和优势植物生态化学计量特征的影响. 草业学报， 2018， 27（12）： 94-102.
16	Bao S D. Soil agrochemical analysis. Beijing： China Agriculture Press， 2000.
	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000.
17	Sterner R W， Elser J J. Ecological stoichiometry： The biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton： Princeton University Press， 2002.
18	Taylor D R， Aarssen L W， Loehle C. On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity： A new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. Oikos， 1990， 58： 239-250.
19	Coley P D， Bryant J P， Chapin F S. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science， 1985， 230（4728）： 895-899.
20	Niu K， He J， Zhang S， et al. Tradeoffs between forage quality and soil fertility： Lessons from Himalayan rangelands. Agriculture， Ecosystems & Environment， 2016， 234： 31-39.
21	Gu C， Zhao T Q， Wang Y T， et al. The response of growth and reproduction for Stipa breviflora to different stocking rates. Ecology and Environmental Sciences， 2017， 26（1）： 36-42.
	古琛，赵天启，王亚婷，等. 短花针茅生长和繁殖策略对载畜率的响应. 生态环境学报， 2017， 26（1）： 36-42.
22	Liu J H， Wang Z W， Han G D. Effects of heavy grazing on the interspecific relationship of main plant species and community stability in a desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Ecology， 2019， 38（9）： 2595-2602.
	刘菊红，王忠武，韩国栋. 重度放牧对荒漠草原主要植物种间关系及群落稳定性的影响. 生态学杂志， 2019， 38（9）： 2595-2602.
23	Wang K B， Shangguan Z P. Seasonal variations in leaf C， N， and P stoichiometry of typical plants in the Yangou watershed in the loess hilly gully region. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2011， 31（17）： 4985-4991.
	王凯博，上官周平. 黄土丘陵区燕沟流域典型植物叶片C、N、P化学计量特征季节变化. 生态学报， 2011， 31（17）： 4985-4991.
24	He J， Wang L， Flynn D F B， et al. Leaf nitrogen： Phosphorus stoichiometry across Chinese grassland biomes. Oecologia， 2008， 155（2）： 301-310.
25	Hamilton Iii E W， Frank D A. Can plants stimulate soil microbes and their own nutrient supply？ Evidence from a grazing tolerant grass. Ecology， 2001， 82（9）： 2397-2402.
26	Li X Z， Chen Z Z. Influences of stocking rates on C， N and P contents in plant-soil system. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 1998， 6（2）： 90-98.
27	Ding H J， Han G D， Wang Z W， et al. Effect of stocking rate on Stipa breviflora desert steppe soil. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture， 2016， 24（4）： 524-531.
	丁海君，韩国栋，王忠武，等. 短花针茅荒漠草原不同载畜率对土壤的影响. 中国生态农业学报， 2016， 24（4）： 524-531.
28	Rong Y P， Han J G， Wang P， et al. The effects of grazing intensity on soil physics and chemical properties. Grassland of China， 2001， 23（4）： 42-48.
	戎郁萍，韩建国，王培，等. 放牧强度对草地土壤理化性质的影响. 中国草地， 2001， 23（4）： 42-48.
29	Throop H L， Lerdau M T. Effects of nitrogen deposition on insect herbivory： Implications for community and ecosystem processes. Ecosystems， 2004， 7（2）： 109-133.
30	Li M T， Qin Y Y， Cao J J， et al. Effects of grassland management patterns on soil stoichiometry on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Journal of Ecology， 2018， 37（8）： 2262-2268.
	李梦天，秦燕燕，曹建军，等. 青藏高原草地管理方式对土壤化学计量特征的影响. 生态学杂志， 2018， 37（8）： 2262-2268.
31	Wang A Q. Natural conditions and soil formation of brown calcium land in desert steppe in eurasia. Acta Geographica Sinica， 1962， 28（2）： 95-110.
	汪安球. 欧亚大陆荒漠草原棕钙土地带的自然条件与土壤形成. 地理学报， 1962， 28（2）： 95-110.
32	Xue R， Zheng S X， Bai Y F. Impacts of grazing intensity and management regimes on aboveground primary productivity and compensatory growth of grassland ecosystems in Inner Mongolia. Biodiversity Science， 2010， 18（3）： 300-311.
	薛睿，郑淑霞，白永飞. 不同利用方式和载畜率对内蒙古典型草原群落初级生产力和植物补偿性生长的影响. 生物多样性， 2010， 18（3）： 300-311.

载畜率Stocking rate	C (mg·g^-1)	N (mg·g^-1)	P (mg·g^-1)	C∶N	C∶P	N∶P
对照CK	445.04±3.62c	18.30±1.58a	1.53±0.06a	24.64±1.82a	292.55±13.41a	12.09±1.46a
轻度放牧LG	445.08±2.76c	19.00±0.63a	1.28±0.04a	23.47±0.79a	349.58±14.08a	14.91±0.59a
中度放牧MG	454.69±6.87b	19.15±1.07a	1.48±0.13a	23.87±1.25a	312.62±29.13a	13.28±1.90a
重度放牧HG	464.50±1.82a	16.68±0.27a	1.46±0.50a	27.85±0.34a	318.97±11.84a	11.46±0.54a

载畜率Stocking rate	C (mg·g^-1)	N (mg·g^-1)	P (mg·g^-1)	C∶N	C∶P	N∶P
对照CK	445.04±3.62c	18.30±1.58a	1.53±0.06a	24.64±1.82a	292.55±13.41a	12.09±1.46a
轻度放牧LG	445.08±2.76c	19.00±0.63a	1.28±0.04a	23.47±0.79a	349.58±14.08a	14.91±0.59a
中度放牧MG	454.69±6.87b	19.15±1.07a	1.48±0.13a	23.87±1.25a	312.62±29.13a	13.28±1.90a
重度放牧HG	464.50±1.82a	16.68±0.27a	1.46±0.50a	27.85±0.34a	318.97±11.84a	11.46±0.54a

土层Depth	载畜率Stocking rate	C (mg·g^-1)	N (mg·g^-1)	P (mg·g^-1)	C∶N	C∶P	N∶P
0~20 cm	对照CK	13.14±0.72a	1.19±0.03b	0.55±0.03ab	10.30±0.61a	24.35±2.17ab	2.23±0.18b
	轻度放牧LG	12.56±0.44a	1.20±0.03b	0.45±0.07bc	10.58±0.53a	34.41±9.46ab	3.12±0.61ab
	中度放牧MG	12.73±0.99a	1.31±0.04ab	0.60±0.01a	9.71±0.51a	21.37±2.15b	2.20±0.12b
	重度放牧HG	12.63±0.81a	1.37±0.09a	0.35±0.04c	9.25±0.02a	43.10±6.79a	4.67±0.73a
20~40 cm	对照CK	17.70±0.44a	1.01±0.05ab	0.45±0.03a	17.69±0.56ab	33.68±8.46b	1.94±0.50b
	轻度放牧LG	16.17±0.89a	0.86±0.03c	0.51±0.08a	19.01±1.36a	34.53±8.13b	1.80±0.37b
	中度放牧MG	14.84±1.15a	0.94±0.05bc	0.24±0.00b	15.89±0.17b	60.87±5.61a	3.84±0.29a
	重度放牧HG	14.70±1.96a	1.12±0.09a	0.45±0.01a	13.01±0.75c	38.19±7.57ab	2.97±0.50ab

土层Depth	载畜率Stocking rate	C (mg·g^-1)	N (mg·g^-1)	P (mg·g^-1)	C∶N	C∶P	N∶P
0~20 cm	对照CK	13.14±0.72a	1.19±0.03b	0.55±0.03ab	10.30±0.61a	24.35±2.17ab	2.23±0.18b
	轻度放牧LG	12.56±0.44a	1.20±0.03b	0.45±0.07bc	10.58±0.53a	34.41±9.46ab	3.12±0.61ab
	中度放牧MG	12.73±0.99a	1.31±0.04ab	0.60±0.01a	9.71±0.51a	21.37±2.15b	2.20±0.12b
	重度放牧HG	12.63±0.81a	1.37±0.09a	0.35±0.04c	9.25±0.02a	43.10±6.79a	4.67±0.73a
20~40 cm	对照CK	17.70±0.44a	1.01±0.05ab	0.45±0.03a	17.69±0.56ab	33.68±8.46b	1.94±0.50b
	轻度放牧LG	16.17±0.89a	0.86±0.03c	0.51±0.08a	19.01±1.36a	34.53±8.13b	1.80±0.37b
	中度放牧MG	14.84±1.15a	0.94±0.05bc	0.24±0.00b	15.89±0.17b	60.87±5.61a	3.84±0.29a
	重度放牧HG	14.70±1.96a	1.12±0.09a	0.45±0.01a	13.01±0.75c	38.19±7.57ab	2.97±0.50ab

项目 Item	0~20 cm			20~40 cm
项目 Item	土壤C Soil C	土壤N Soil N	土壤P Soil P	土壤C Soil C	土壤N Soil N	土壤P Soil P
植物C Plant C	-0.338	-0.310	0.483	-0.466	0.004	0.359
植物N Plant N	0.411	-0.480	0.424	0.277	-0.523	0.486
植物P Plant P	-0.242	0.445	0.023	-0.189	-0.173	-0.332