Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2022, Vol. 14 Issue (12): 1456-1469    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-022-0039-3     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-022-0039-3
Research article     
Morphological and physiological differences in heteromorphic leaves of male and female Populus euphratica Oliv.
LI Xiu1,2, ZHAI Juntuan1,2, LI Zhijun1,2,*()
1College of Life Sciences and Technology, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
2Key Laboratory of Protection and Utilization of Biological Resources in Tarim Basin of Xinjiang Production & Construction Corps, Alar 843300, China
Download: HTML     PDF(1765KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Leaf traits can directly reflect the adaptation strategies of plants to the environment. However, there is limited knowledge on the adaptation strategies of heteromorphic leaves of male and female Populus euphratica Oliv. in response to individual developmental stages (i.e., diameter class) and canopy height changes. In this study, morphological and physiological properties of heteromorphic leaves of male and female P. euphratica were investigated. Results showed that both male and female P. euphratica exhibited increased leaf area (LA), leaf dry weight (LDW), leaf thickness (LT), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), stomatal conductance (gs), proline (Pro), and malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, decreased leaf shape index (LI) and specific leaf area (SLA) with increasing diameter and canopy height. Leaf water potential (LWP) increased with increasing diameter, LWP decreased significantly with increasing canopy height in both sexes, and carbon isotope fraction (δ13C) increased significantly with canopy height in both sexes, all of which showed obvious resistance characteristics. However, males showed greater LA, LT, Pn, Tr, and Pro than females at the same canopy height, and males showed significantly higher LA, SLA, LT, Pn, Tr, gs, and MDA, but lower LWP and δ13C than females at the same canopy height, suggesting that male P. euphratica have stronger photosynthetic and osmoregulatory abilities, and are sensitive to water deficiency. Moreover, difference between male and female P. euphratica is closely related to the increase in individual diameter class and canopy height. In summary, male plants showed higher stress tolerance than female plants, and differences in Pn, gs, Tr, Pro, MDA, δ13C, and LWP between females and males were related to changes in leaf morphology, diameter class, and canopy height. The results of this study provide a theory for the differences in growth adaptation strategies during individual development of P. euphratica.

Key words： arid area      canopy height      dioecious plants      morphology      physiological characteristics     
Received: 15 August 2022      Published: 31 December 2022
Corresponding Authors: *LI Zhijun (E-mail: lizhijun0202@126.com)
About author: First author contact:The first and second authors contributed equally to this work.
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
LI Xiu
ZHAI Juntuan
LI Zhijun
Cite this article:

LI Xiu, ZHAI Juntuan, LI Zhijun. Morphological and physiological differences in heteromorphic leaves of male and female Populus euphratica Oliv.. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(12): 1456-1469.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-022-0039-3     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2022/V14/I12/1456

Fig. S1 Female and male inflorescences of P. euphratica. (a), male inflorescence; (b), female inflorescence.
Sex Diameter class (cm) Average diameter at breast height (cm) Average tree height (m) Average tree age (a)
Female 8 8.33e 7.53e 8.10e
12 14.30d 9.47d 9.30d
16 17.67c 11.27b 10.37b
20 23.23ab 12.87a 11.17a
Male 8 9.33e 7.97e 8.37e
12 14.37d 10.00cd 9.70cd
16 17.33c 10.93be 10.13bc
20 24.83a 12.70a 11.10a
Table S1 Basic information of male and female P. euphratica
Sex DC LI LA (cm2) SLA (cm2/g) LT (mm) LDW (g)
Female 8 2.45±0.77a 10.52±2.03de 107.31±6.37a 0.35±0.01bc 0.14±0.04c
12 2.63±0.67a 13.99±2.96d 96.79±10.00ab 0.35±0.02bc 0.15±0.03bc
16 2.37±0.89ab 12.22±4.36e 96.91±15.51ab 0.38±0.03b 0.15±0.04bc
20 1.84±0.19abc 22.41±2.32bc 83.83±9.77b 0.38±0.03b 0.25±0.03a
Male 8 1.73±0.68bc 14.58±2.71e 113.31±11.69a 0.38±0.02b 0.14±0.06c
12 2.02±0.34a 15.28±2.75cde 108.09±9.34a 0.39±0.02ab 0.18±0.03b
16 1.85±0.31abc 18.75±5.07cd 106.31±16.13a 0.41±0.04a 0.18±0.05b
20 1.68±0.17c 30.04±2.57a 89.61±8.96b 0.41±0.04a 0.27±0.05a
PS * ** ns ** ns
PDC ns *** * ns **
PS×PDC ns ns ns ns ns
Table 1 Comparison of morphological characteristics of heteromorphic leaves of male and female P. euphratica at different developmental stages
Fig. 1 Comparison of morphological characteristics of heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica at different canopy heights and diameter classes. Different lowercase letters within the same class are significant differences among different heights at P<0.05 level. 8 F-20 F, females of 8-20 cm diameter classes; 8 M-20 M, males of 8-20 cm diameter classes. S, sex, CH, canopy height; DC, diameter class; S×DC, interaction of sex and diameter class; DC×CH, interaction of diameter class and canopy height; S×CH, interaction of sex and canopy height; S×DC×CH, interaction among sex, diameter class, and canopy height. *, P<0.05 level; **, P<0.01 level; ***, P<0.001 level. The abbreviations are the same as in the following figures.
Fig. 2 Comparison of photosynthetic characteristics of heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica at different developmental stages. Pn, net photosynthetic rate (a); Tr, transpiration rate (b); gs, stomatal conductance (c); Ci, intercellular CO2 concentration (d); WUE, water use efficiency (e). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different diameter classes at P<0.05 level. The abbreviations are the same as in the following figures.
Fig. 3 Comparison of photosynthetic characteristics of heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica at different canopy heights and diameter classes. Pn, net photosynthetic rate (a); gs, stomatal conductance (b); Ci, intercellular CO2 concentration (c); Tr, transpiration rate (d); WUE, water use efficiency (e).
Fig. 4 Comparison of water physiological characteristics of heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica at different canopy heights and diameter classes. (a and b), leaf water potential; (c and d), δ13C.
Fig. 5 Comparison of proline (Pro, a and b) and malondialdehyde (MDA, c and d) concentrations in heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica at different canopy heights and diameter classes
Sex Index LI LA LDW SLA LT Pn gs Ci Tr WUE Pro MDA δ13C LWP
Female DC -0.23 0.63** 0.71** -0.60** 0.31 0.52* 0.54* -0.20 0.36 0.78** 0.24 0.43 -0.29 -0.86**
Female CH -0.63** 0.75** 0.70** -0.89** 0.87** 0.94** 0.83** -0.94** 0.96** 0.28 0.86** 0.81** 0.68** 0.00
Male DC -0.17 0.65** 0.68** -0.61** -0.01 0.27 0.51* 0.00 0.28 0.24 0.03 0.55* 0.32 0.91**
Male CH -0.72** 0.85** 0.81** -0.86** 0.74** 0.92** 0.83** -0.88** 0.92** 0.34 0.85** 0.86** 0.80** 0.02
Table 2 Correlation among functional trait of heteromorphic leaves between male and female P. euphratica, developmental stage, and canopy height
Index LI LA LDW SLA LT Pn gs Ci Tr WUE Pro MDA δ13C LWP
LI 1.00 -0.72** -0.67** 0.72** -0.87** -0.70** -0.52* 0.62** -0.70** -0.39 -0.53* -0.74** -0.76** 0.10
LA -0.65** 1.00 0.94** -0.97** 0.59** 0.78** 0.73** -0.63** 0.73** 0.52* 0.57* 0.88** 0.87** 0.40
LDW -0.66** 0.96** 1.00 -0.92** 0.50* 0.69** 0.68** -0.58** 0.62** 0.44 0.57* 0.87** 0.82** 0.48*
LSA 0.68** -0.93** -0.87** 1.00 -0.60** -0.76** -0.66** 0.68** -0.73** -0.42 -0.58** -0.85** -0.92** -0.37
LT -0.59** 0.59** 0.60** -0.71** 1.00 0.70** 0.62** -0.67** 0.75** 0.30 0.61** 0.73** 0.61** -0.29
Pn -0.72** 0.78** 0.77** -0.90** 0.90** 1.00 0.85** -0.81** 0.93** 0.51* 0.83** 0.74** 0.72** -0.10
gs -0.42 0.57* 0.58** -0.74** 0.77** 0.89** 1.00 -0.57* 0.85** 0.42 0.67** 0.78** 0.47* 0.17
Ci 0.54* -0.68** -0.59** 0.81** -0.75** -0.82** -0.70** 1.00 -0.82** -0.13 -0.90** -0.61** -0.77** 0.32
Tr -0.73** 0.69** 0.68** -0.84** 0.90** 0.97** 0.85** -0.85** 1.00 0.22 0.82** 0.74** 0.66** -0.11
WUE -0.24 0.62** 0.55* -0.56* 0.09 0.33 0.31 -0.25 0.15 1.00 0.14 0.45 0.38 0.16
Pro -0.55* 0.52* 0.52* -0.67** 0.76** 0.86** 0.89** -0.82** 0.87** 0.13 1.00 0.52* 0.65** -0.30
MDA -0.41 0.81** 0.77** -0.81** 0.58** 0.67** 0.52* -0.78** 0.65** 0.37 0.57* 1.00 0.72** 0.30
δ13C -0.51* 0.36 0.22 -0.49* 0.57* 0.54* 0.36 -0.80** 0.65** 0.00 0.58** 0.41 1.00 0.10
LWP -0.07 0.48* 0.60** -0.30 0.04 0.18 0.17 0.15 -0.02 0.57* -0.10 0.23 -0.59** 1.00
Table 3 Correlation between functional traits of heteromorphic leaves of male and female P. euphratica
Fig. 6 Principal component analysis (PCA) of functional traits of heteromorphic leaves between male and female plants at different developmental stages (a) and canopy heights (b). Open symbols, male plants; filled symbols, female plants. PC, principal component; LI, leaf index; LA, leaf area; LT, leaf thickness; SLA, specific leaf area; LDW, leaf dry weight; Pn, net photosynthetic rate; gs, stomatal conductance; Ci, intercellular CO2 concentration; Tr, transpiration rate; WUE, water use efficiency; Pro, proline; MDA, malondialdehyde content; LWP, leaf water potential.
[1]   Alvarez-Cansino L, Zunzunegui M, Díaz B M C, et al. 2010. Gender-specific costs of reproduction on vegetative growth and physiological performance in the dioecious shrub Corema album. Annals of Botany, 106(6): 989-998.
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcq197 pmid: 20884627
[2]   Apel K, Hirt H. 2004. Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 55: 373-399.
pmid: 15377225
[3]   Bai S N. 2003. Plant Development Biology. Beijing: Peking University Press,72-73. (in Chinese)
[4]   Barrett S C, Hough J. 2013. Sexual dimorphism in flowering plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64(1): 67-82.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers308 pmid: 23183260
[5]   Correia O C, Díaz B M C. 2004. Ecophysiological differences between male and female plants of Pistacia lentiscus L. Plant Ecology, 149: 131-142.
doi: 10.1023/A:1026588326204
[6]   Dawson T E, Bliss L C. 1989. Patterns of water use and the tissue water relations in the dioecious shrub, Salix arctica: the physiological basis for habitat partitioning between the sexes. Oecologia, 79(3): 332-343.
doi: 10.1007/BF00384312 pmid: 23921398
[7]   Espírito-Santo M M, Madeira B G, Neves F S, et al. 2003. Sexual differences in reproductive phenology and their consequences for the demography of Baccharis dracunculifolia (Asteraceae), a dioecious tropical shrub. Annals of Botany, 91(1): 13-19.
pmid: 12495915
[8]   Funk J L, Cornwell W K. 2013. Leaf traits within communities: Context may affect the mapping of traits to function. Ecology, 94(9): 1893-1897.
pmid: 24279259
[9]   Grossiord C, Sevanto S, Borrego I, et al. 2017. Tree water dynamics in a drying and warming world. Plant, Cell and Environment, 40(9): 1861-1873.
doi: 10.1111/pce.12991
[10]   Gu Y Y, Zhang S Q, Li X Y, et al. 2013. Relationship between diameter at breast height and age of endangered species Populus euphratica Oliv. Journal of Tarim University, 25(2): 66-69. (in Chinese)
[11]   He C X, Li J Y, Zhou P, et al. 2008. Changes of leaf morphological, anatomical structure and carbon isotope ratio with the height of the Wangtian tree (Parashorea chinensis) in Xishuangbanna, China. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 50(2): 168-173.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00620.x
[12]   Huang W J, Li Z J, Yang Z P, et al. 2010. Heteromorphic leaf structural characteristics and their correlations with diameter at breast height of Populus euphratica. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 29(12): 2347-2352. (in Chinese)
[13]   Hutline K R, Grady K C, Wood T E, et al. 2016. Climate change perils for dioecious plant species. Nature Plants, 2: 16109, doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.109.
doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.109 pmid: 28221374
[14]   Juvany M, Munné-Bosch S. 2015. Sex-related differences in stress tolerance in dioecious plants: A critical appraisal in a physiological context. Journal of Experimental Botany, 66(20): 6083-6092.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv343 pmid: 26163697
[15]   Kenzo T, Inoue Y, Yoshimura M, et al. 2015. Height-related changes in leaf photosynthetic traits in diverse Bornean tropical rain forest trees. Oecologia, 177(1): 191-202.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-014-3126-0 pmid: 25362582
[16]   Keyimu M, Halik Ü, Betz F, et al. 2018. Vitality variation and population structure of a riparian forest in the lower reaches of the Tarim River, NW China. Journal of Forestry, 29: 749-760.
[17]   Kishor P, Sangam S, Amrutha R. 2005. Regulation of proline biosynthesis, degradation, uptake and transport in higher plants: Its implications in plant growth and abiotic stress tolerance. Current Science, 88: 424-438.
[18]   Koch G W, Sillett S C, Jennings G M, et al. 2004. The limits to tree height. Nature, 428(6985): 851-854.
doi: 10.1038/nature02417
[19]   Kuwabara A, Nagata T. 2002. Views on developmental plasticity of plants through heterophylly. Recent Research Developments in Plant Physiology, 3: 45-59.
[20]   Lei Y, Jiang Y, Chen K, et al. 2017. Reproductive investments driven by sex and altitude in sympatric Populus and Salix trees. Tree Physiology, 37(11): 1503-1514.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpx075
[21]   Li C Y, Xu G, Zang R, et al. 2007. Sex-related differences in leaf morphological and physiological responses in Hippophae rhamnoides along an altitudinal gradient. Tree Physiology, 27(3): 399-406.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/27.3.399
[22]   Li L, Barrett S, Song Z, et al. 2019. Sex-specific plasticity of reproductive allocation in response to water depth in a clonal, dioecious macrophyte. American Journal of Botany, 106(1): 42-50.
doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1218 pmid: 30629301
[23]   Li Y L, Zhang X, Feng M, et al. 2017. Characteristics of endohormones in leaf blade of Populus euphratica heteromorphic leaves. Journal of Tarim University, 29(3): 7-13. (in Chinese)
[24]   Liu J, Zhang R, Xu X, et al. 2020. Effect of summer warming on growth, photosynthesis and water status in female and male Populus cathayana: Implications for sex-specific drought and heat tolerances. Tree Physiology, 40(9): 1178-1191.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpaa069
[25]   Liu Y, Li X, Chen G, et al. 2015. Epidermal micromorphology and mesophyll structure of Populus euphratica heteromorphic leaves at different development stages. PloS ONE, 10(9): e0137701, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137701.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137701
[26]   Melnikova N V, Borkhert E V, Snezhkina A V, et al. 2017. Sex-specific response to stress in Populus. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8: 1827, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01827.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01827
[27]   Mommer L, Visser E J W. 2005. Underwater photosynthesis in flooded terrestrial plants: A matter of leaf plasticity. Annals of Botany, 96(4): 581-589.
doi: 10.1093/aob/mci212 pmid: 16024559
[28]   Ne'eman G, Goubitz S, Werger M J, et al. 2011. Relationships between tree size, crown shape, gender segregation and sex allocation in Pinus halepensis, a Mediterranean pine tree. Annals of Botany, 108(1): 197-206.
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcr104 pmid: 21586528
[29]   Obeso J R. 2002. The costs of reproduction in plants. New Phytologist, 155(3): 321-348.
doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x pmid: 33873312
[30]   Peavey M, Goodwin I, Mcclymont L. 2020. The effects of canopy height and bud light exposure on the early stages of flower development in Prunus persica (L.) batsch. Plants, 9(9): 1073, doi: 10.3390/plants9091073.
doi: 10.3390/plants9091073
[31]   Ratzmann G, Zakharova L, Tietjen B. 2019. Optimal leaf water status regulation of plants in drylands. Scientific Reports, 9(1): 3768, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40448-2.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40448-2 pmid: 30842586
[32]   Retuerto R, Lema B, Roiloa S R, et al. 2000. Gender, light and water effects in carbon isotope discrimination, and growth rates in the dioecious tree Ilex aquifolium. Functional Ecology, 14: 529-537.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2000.t01-1-00454.x
[33]   Roderick M L, Berry S L, Noble I R, et al. 1999. A theoretical approach to linking the composition and morphology with the function of leaves. Functional Ecology, 13: 683-695.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00368.x
[34]   Russo S E, Kitajima K. 2016. The Ecophysiology of Leaf Lifespan in Tropical Forests: Adaptive and Plastic Responses to Environmental Heterogeneity. Cham: Springer International Publishing,357-383.
[35]   Sánchez-Vilas J, Retuerto R. 2009. Sex-specific physiological, allocation and growth responses to water availability in the subdioecious plant Honckenya peploides. Plant Biology, 11(2): 243-254.
doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00105.x pmid: 19228331
[36]   Sies H, Jones D P. 2020. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) as pleiotropic physiological signalling agents. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 21(7): 363-383.
doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-0230-3 pmid: 32231263
[37]   Teitel Z, Pickup M, Field D L, et al. 2016. The dynamics of resource allocation and costs of reproduction in a sexually dimorphic, wind-pollinated dioecious plant. Plant Biology, 18(1): 98-103.
doi: 10.1111/plb.12336 pmid: 25865555
[38]   Tsukaya H. 2002. The leaf index: heteroblasty, natural variation, and the genetic control of polar processes of leaf expansion. Plant and Cell Physiology, 43(4): 372-378.
pmid: 11978864
[39]   Wang H Z, Han L, Xu Y L, et al. 2011. Response of chlorophyl fluorescence characteristics of Populus euphratica heteromorphic leaves to high temperature. Acta Ecology Sinica, 31(9): 2444-2453. (in Chinese)
[40]   Wei Q J. 1990. Populus Euphratica Oliv. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House,1-99. (in Chinese)
[41]   Wu J M, Shi Z M, Liu S, et al. 2021. Photosynthetic capacity of male and female Hippophae rhamnoides plants along an elevation gradient in eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Tree Physiology, 41(1): 76-88.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpaa105
[42]   Xu X, Peng G, Wu C, et al. 2008a. Drought inhibits photosynthetic capacity more in females than in males of Populus cathayana. Tree Physiology, 28(1): 1751-1759.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/28.11.1751
[43]   Xu X, Yang F, Xiao X, et al. 2008b. Sex-specific responses of Populus cathayana to drought and elevated temperatures. Plant, Cell and Environment, 31(6): 850-860.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01799.x
[44]   Zhai J T, Li Y L, Han Z J, et al. 2020. Morphological, structural and physiological differences in heteromorphic leaves of Euphrates poplar during development stages and at crown scales. Plant Biology, 22(3): 366-375.
doi: 10.1111/plb.13078 pmid: 31793152
[45]   Zhang Y J, Meinzer F C, Hao G Y, et al. 2009. Size-dependent mortality in a neotropical savanna tree: the role of height-related adjustments in hydraulic architecture and carbon allocation. Plant, Cell and Environment, 32(10): 1456-1466.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02012.x
[1] YANG Jianhua, LI Yaqian, ZHOU Lei, ZHANG Zhenqing, ZHOU Hongkui, WU Jianjun. Effects of temperature and precipitation on drought trends in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1098-1117.
[2] LU Haitian, ZHAO Ruifeng, ZHAO Liu, LIU Jiaxin, LYU Binyang, YANG Xinyue. Impact of climate change and human activities on the spatiotemporal dynamics of surface water area in Gansu Province, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 798-815.
[3] WU Yuechen, ZHU Haili, ZHANG Yu, ZHANG Hailong, LIU Guosong, LIU Yabin, LI Guorong, HU Xiasong. Characterization of alpine meadow surface crack and its correlation with root-soil properties[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 834-851.
[4] TANG Xiaoyan, FENG Yongjiu, LEI Zhenkun, CHEN Shurui, WANG Jiafeng, WANG Rong, TANG Panli, WANG Mian, JIN Yanmin, TONG Xiaohua. Urban growth scenario projection using heuristic cellular automata in arid areas considering the drought impact[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(4): 580-601.
[5] DUN Yaoquan, QU Jianjun, KANG Wenyan, LI Minlan, LIU Bin, WANG Tao, SHAO Mei. Formation and ecological response of sand patches in the protection system of Shapotou section of the Baotou-Lanzhou railway, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(2): 298-313.
[6] LI Wenye, ZHANG Jianfeng, SONG Shuangshuang, LIANG Yao, SUN Baoping, WU Yi, MAO Xiao, LIN Yachao. Combination of artificial zeolite and microbial fertilizer to improve mining soils in an arid area of Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(9): 1067-1083.
[7] WU Wangyang, ZHANG Dengshan, TIAN Lihui, SHEN Tingting, GAO Bin, YANG Dehui. Morphological change and migration of revegetated dunes in the Ketu Sandy Land of the Qinghai Lake, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(7): 827-841.
[8] WANG Yuxia, ZHANG Jing, YU Xiaojun. Effects of mulch and planting methods on Medicago ruthenica seed yield and soil physical-chemical properties[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(8): 894-909.
[9] YAO Kaixuan, Abudureheman HALIKE, CHEN Limei, WEI Qianqian. Spatiotemporal changes of eco-environmental quality based on remote sensing-based ecological index in the Hotan Oasis, Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(3): 262-283.
[10] LI Feng, LI Yaoming, ZHOU Xuewen, YIN Zun, LIU Tie, XIN Qinchuan. Modeling and analyzing supply-demand relationships of water resources in Xinjiang from a perspective of ecosystem services[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(2): 115-138.
[11] WEI Yajuan, DANG Xiaohong, WANG Ji, GAO Junliang, GAO Yan. Response of C:N:P in the plant-soil system and stoichiometric homeostasis of Nitraria tangutorum leaves in the oasis-desert ecotone, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(9): 934-946.
[12] Benjamin DAVIDSON, Elli GRONER. An arthropod community beyond the dry limit of plant life[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(6): 629-638.
[13] Abdulrahim M AL-ISMAILI, Moustafa A FADEL, Hemantha JAYASURIYA, L H Janitha JEEWANTHA, Adel AL-MAHDOURI, Talal AL-SHUKEILI. Potential reduction in water consumption of greenhouse evaporative coolers in arid areas via earth-tube heat exchangers[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(4): 388-396.
[14] ZHANG Yongkun, HUANG Mingbin. Spatial variability and temporal stability of actual evapotranspiration on a hillslope of the Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(2): 189-204.
[15] MU Le, LU Yixiao, LIU Minguo, YANG Huimin, FENG Qisheng. Characterizing the spatiotemporal variations of evapotranspiration and aridity index in mid-western China from 2001 to 2016[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(12): 1230-1243.