Nutrient resorption and its influencing factors of typical desert plants in different habitats on the northern margin of the Tarim Basin, China
ZHOU Chongpeng1,2, GONG Lu1,2,*(), WU Xue1,2, LUO Yan1,2
1College of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China 2Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Ministry of Education, Urumqi 830017, China
The resorption of nutrients from senescent leaves allows plants to conserve and recycle nutrients. To explore the adaptation strategies of desert plants to nutrient-limited environments, we selected four typical desert plants (Populus euphratica Oliv., Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb., Glycyrrhiza inflata Batal., and Alhagi camelorum Fisch.) growing in the desert area of the northern margin of the Tarim Basin, China. The contents of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and Ferrum (Fe) in the leaves of these four typical desert plants and their resorption characteristics were analyzed. The relationship of nutrient resorption efficiency with leaf functional traits and soil physical-chemical properties in two different habitats (saline-alkali land and sandy land) was discussed. The results showed that the four plants resorbed most of the elements. Ca was enriched in the leaves of P. euphratica, G. inflate, and A. camelorum; Mg was enriched in the leaves of G. inflata; and Fe was enriched in the leaves of the four plants. The results of the redundancy analysis showed that leaf thickness, soil electrical conductivity, and soil P content were the major factors affecting the nutrient resorption efficiency of the four plants. Leaf thickness was negatively correlated with N resorption efficiency (NRE), P resorption efficiency, and Fe resorption efficiency; soil electrical conductivity was positively correlated with the resorption efficiency of most elements; and soil P content was negatively correlated with the resorption efficiency of most elements in the plant leaves. The results showed that soil physical-chemical properties and soil nutrient contents had an important impact on the nutrient resorption of plant leaves. The same species growing in different habitats also differed in their resorption of different elements. The soil environment of plants and the biological characteristics of plant leaves affected the resorption of nutrient elements in different plants. The purpose of this study is to provide small-scale data support for the protection of ecosystems in nutrient-deficient areas by studying leaf functional strategies and nutrient conservation mechanisms of several typical desert plants.
ZHOU Chongpeng, GONG Lu, WU Xue, LUO Yan. Nutrient resorption and its influencing factors of typical desert plants in different habitats on the northern margin of the Tarim Basin, China. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(7): 858-870.
Fig. 1Nutrient content characteristics of mature and senescent leaves of different plants in different habitats. (a and b), leaf nitrogen (N) content (LNC); (c and d), leaf phosphorus (P) content (LPC); (e and f), leaf potassium (K) content (LKC); (g and h), leaf calcium (Ca) content (LCaC); (i and j), leaf magnesium (Mg) content (LMgC); (k and l), leaf ferrum (Fe) content (LFeC). HY, Populus euphratica Oliv.; CL, Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb.; GC, Glycyrrhiza inflata Batal.; LTC, Alhagi camelorum Fisch.. Habitat I and Habitat II denote saline-alkali land and sandy land, respectively. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences among different plants in the same habitat (P<0.05), and different uppercase letters represent significant differences between different habitats for the same plant (P<0.05). Bars mean standard errors.
Fig. 2Nutrient resorption efficiency of different plant leaves in different habitats. (a), N resorption efficiency (NRE); (b), P resorption efficiency (PRE); (c), K resorption efficiency (KRE); (d), Ca resorption efficiency (CaRE); (e), Mg resorption efficiency (MgRE); (f), Fe resorption efficiency (FeRE). Different lowercase letters represent significant differences among different plants in the same habitat (P<0.05); and different uppercase letters represent significant differences between different habitats for the same plant (P<0.05). Bars mean standard errors.
Fig. 3Functional traits of plant leaves in different habitats. (a), leaf thickness; (b), leaf dry matter content; (c), specific leaf area; (d), relative chlorophyll content. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences among different plants in the same habitat (P<0.05), and different uppercase letters represent significant difference between different habitats for the same plant (P<0.05). Bars mean standard errors.
Soil physical- chemical property
Habitat I
Habitat II
HY
CL
GC
LTC
HY
CL
GC
LTC
SWC (%)
4.49±2.61Aa
4.53±2.51Aa
3.03±0.72Aa
2.97±0.34Aa
1.94±0.17Aa
2.18±1.11Aa
1.65±0.81Aa
1.62±1.33Aa
Soil pH
9.78±0.24Aa
8.27±0.03Ab
8.05±0.07Ab
8.11±0.13Ab
8.72±0.30Ba
8.06±0.13Ab
8.04±0.15Ab
8.19±0.05Ab
EC (mS/cm)
3.70±0.36Aa
4.03±0.23Aa
1.70±0.10Ab
1.83±0.75Ab
1.33±0.31Ba
1.90±0.75Ba
1.33±0.50Aa
0.83±0.42Aa
Soil N (mg/g)
0.23±0.02Aa
0.17±0.02Ab
0.10±0.01Ac
0.08±0.01Ac
0.09±0.02Ba
0.08±0.01Bab
0.06±0.01Bc
0.06±0.01Bc
Soil P (mg/g)
0.68±0.00Bc
0.77±0.03Aa
0.71±0.03Ab
0.71±0.04Aab
0.81±0.02Aa
0.82±0.18Aa
0.83±0.08Aa
0.80±0.03Aa
Soil K (mg/g)
17.01±0.48Aa
16.67±0.24Aa
17.03±0.16Aa
17.18±0.09Aa
16.61±0.35Aab
17.20±0.29Aa
16.05±0.67Ab
15.71±0.50Bb
Soil Ca (mg/g)
52.66±3.09Aa
53.77±6.24Aa
52.49±2.32Aa
46.72±3.18Aa
51.34±2.71Aa
52.18±4.03Aa
55.89±4.84Aa
52.65±1.91Aa
Soil Mg (mg/g)
11.44±0.35Aa
11.30±0.63Aa
10.16±0.14Ab
10.07±0.30Ab
10.31±0.44Ba
10.41±0.37Aa
10.32±1.41Aa
10.34±0.17Aa
Soil Fe (mg/g)
24.83±2.18Aa
24.10±1.03Aa
23.56±0.82Aa
24.41±0.30Aa
22.88±0.14Aa
23.18±0.51Aa
25.35±2.29Aa
25.21±1.33Aa
Table 1 Soil physical-chemical properties under plant canopy in different habitats
Table 2 Results of the Monte Carlo test for soil physical-chemical properties and leaf functional traits
[1]
Abdi E, Saleh H R, Majnonian B, et al. 2019. Soil fixation and erosion control by Haloxylon persicum roots in arid lands, Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 11(1): 86-96.
[2]
Aerts R. 1996. Nutrient resorption from senescing leaves of perennials: Are there general patterns? Journal of Ecology, 84(4): 597-608.
[3]
Aerts R, Chapin III F S. 2000. The Mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: A re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Advances in Ecological Research, 30: 1-67.
[4]
An S Q, Gong L, Zhu M L, et al. 2017. Root stoichiometric characteristics of desert plants and their correlation with soil physicochemical factors in the northern Tarim Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(16): 5444-5450. (in Chinese)
[5]
An Z. 2011. Effects of N addition on C, N, P stoichiometry and photosynthetic characteristics of Stipa bungeana and Leymus secalinus in the grassland on Loess Plateau. Msc Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
[6]
Arco J M D, Escudero A, Garrido M V. 1991. Effects of site characteristics on nitrogen retranslocation from senescing leaves. Ecology, 72(2): 701-708.
doi: 10.2307/2937209
[7]
Bao S D. 2000. Soil and Agricultural, Chemistry Analysis. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1-495. (in Chinese)
[8]
Chen J S, Wei F S, Zheng C J. 1991. Background concentrations of elements in soils of China. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 57-58(1): 699-712.
doi: 10.1007/BF00282934
[9]
Dong M. 1997. Survey, Observation and Analysis of Terrestrial Biocommunities. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 1-290. (in Chinese)
Han W X, Tang L Y, Chen Y H. 2013. Relationship between the relative limitation and resorption efficiency of nitrogen vs phosphorus in woody plants. PLoS ONE, 8(12): e83366, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083366.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083366
[12]
Kobe R K, Lepczyk C A, Iyer M. 2005. Resorption efficiency decreases with increasing green leaf nutrients in a global data set. Ecology, 86(10): 2780-2792.
[13]
Li S X, Zhang Y X, Guo J P. 2021. Effects of nitrogen addition on leaf stoichiometry and nutrients reabsorption efficiency of Larix principis-rupprechtii. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(5): 249-254, 263. (in Chinese)
[14]
Li Y L, Jing C, Mao W, et al. 2014. N and P resorption in a pioneer shrub (Artemisia halodendron) inhabiting severely desertified lands of Northern China. Journal of Arid Land, 6(2): 174-185.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-013-0222-7
[15]
Liu H W, Liu W D, Wang W, et al. 2015. Leaf traits and nutrient resorption of major woody species in the karst limestone area of Chongqing. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(12): 4071-4080. (in Chinese)
[16]
Liu S S, Xu G Q, Li Y, et al. 2021. Difference and consistency of responses of five sandy shrubs to changes in groundwater level in the Hailiutu River Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(2): 615-625. (in Chinese)
[17]
Liu Y L, Li L, Li X Y, et al. 2021. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on leaf nutrient concentrations and nutrient resorption efficiency of two dominant alpine grass species. Journal of Arid Land, 13(10): 1041-1053.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-021-0080-7
[18]
Luo Y, Gong L, Zhu M L, et al. 2017. Stoichiometry characteristics of leaves and soil of four shrubs in the upper reaches of the Tarim River Desert. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(24): 8326-8335. (in Chinese)
[19]
Luo Y, Chen Y, Peng Q W, et al. 2021. Nitrogen and phosphorus resorption of desert plants with various degree of propensity to salt in response to drought and saline stress. Ecological Indicators, 125: 107488, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107488.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107488
[20]
Osnas J L D, Lichstein J W, Reich P B, et al. 2013. Global leaf trait relationships: mass, area, and the leaf economics spectrum. Science, 340(6133): 741-744.
doi: 10.1126/science.1231574
pmid: 23539179
[21]
Pescador D S, de Bello F, Valladares F, et al. 2015. Plant trait variation along an altitudinal gradient in Mediterranean high mountain grasslands: Controlling the species turnover effect. PLoS ONE, 10(3): e0118876, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118876.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118876
[22]
Prieto I, Querejeta J I. 2020. Simulated climate change decreases nutrient resorption from senescing leaves. Global Change Biology, 26(1): 1795-1807.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.v26.3
[23]
Rea A M, Mason C M, Donovan L A. 2018. Evolution of nutrient resorption across the herbaceous genus Helianthus. Plant Ecology, 219(8): 887-899.
doi: 10.1007/s11258-018-0841-3
[24]
Sardans J, Grau O, Chen H Y H, et al. 2017. Changes in nutrient concentrations of leaves and roots in response to global change factors. Global Change Biology, 23(9): 3849-3856.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.13721
pmid: 28407324
[25]
Teresa N, Hatem A S, Ali E, et al. 2021. Delayed seed dispersal species and related traits in the desert of the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Arid Land, 13(9): 962-976.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-021-0018-0
[26]
van Heerwaarden L M, Toet S, Aerts R. 2003. Current measures of nutrient resorption efficiency lead to a substantial underestimation of real resorption efficiency: Facts and solutions. Oikos, 101(3): 664-669.
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12351.x
[27]
Vergutz L, Manzoni S, Porporato A, et al. 2012. Global resorption efficiencies and concentrations of carbon and nutrients in leaves of terrestrial plants. Ecological Monographs, 82(2): 205-220.
doi: 10.1890/11-0416.1
[28]
Wang C, Lu J, Yao H F, et al. 2022. Leaf functional traits and environmental responses of Abies georgei var. smithii. Journal of Forest and Environment, 42(2): 123-130. (in Chinese)
[29]
Wei L, Kao S J, Liu C X. 2020. Mangrove species maintains constant nutrient resorption efficiency under eutrophic conditions. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 36(1): 36-38.
doi: 10.1017/S0266467419000336
[30]
Wei Y H, Liang W Z, Han L, et al. 2021. Leaf functional traits of Populus euphratica and its response to groundwater depths in Tarim extremely arid area. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(13): 5368-5376. (in Chinese)
[31]
Wright I J, Westoby M. 2002. Leaves at low versus high rainfall: coordination of structure, lifespan and physiology. New Phytologist, 155(3): 403-416.
doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00479.x
pmid: 33873314
[32]
Zeng D H, Chen G S, Chen F S, et al. 2005. Foliar nutrients and their resorption efficiencies in four Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantations of different ages on sandy soil. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 41(5): 21-27. (in Chinese)
[33]
Zhang J L, Zhang S B, Chen Y J, et al. 2015. Nutrient resorption is associated with leaf vein density and growth performance of dipterocarp tree species. Journal of Ecology, 103(3): 541-549.
doi: 10.1111/jec.2015.103.issue-3
[34]
Zhang M X. 2018. Resorption patterns of 10 nutrient elements in leaves of woody plants in northern China. PhD Dissertation. Beijing: China Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[35]
Zhang X, Wang Z N, Lu J Y, et al. 2016. Responses of leaf traits to drought at different growth stages of alfalfa. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(9): 2669-2676. (in Chinese)
[36]
Zheng B T. 2013. Technical Guidelines for Soil Analysis. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1-67. (in Chinese)
[37]
Zhou L L, Addo-Danso S D, Wu P F, et al. 2016. Leaf resorption efficiency in relation to foliar and soil nutrient concentrations and stoichiometry of Cunninghamia lanceolata with stand development in southern China. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16(5): 1448-1459.
doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-1352-2
[38]
Zhou L L, Zheng Y Y, Li S B, et al. 2022. Leaf nutrient resorption characteristics among mangrove tree species. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 37(3): 51-56. (in Chinese)
[39]
Zhu D H, Peng S H, Wang J Y, et al. 2022. Responses of nutrient resorption to human disturbances in Phoebe bournei forests. Forests, 13(6): 905-917.
doi: 10.3390/f13060905
