Effects of sand burial on typical desert plants

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2022.00016

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 63-72.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2022.00016

Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of sand burial on typical desert plants

Chunyan Zhao¹(), Jie Qin¹, Xiaohui He¹^,², Dongmeng Zhou¹

^1.Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin，Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^2.Baotou Teachers College，Baotou 014030，Inner Mongolia，China

Received:2021-12-30 Revised:2022-03-02 Online:2022-09-20 Published:2022-09-22

Abstract

Abstract:

Desert ecosystem is the major components in the arid area of Northwest China， which is one of the most typical fragile ecosystems. Sand burial has an important impact on the survival and colonization of plant， distribution and composition of vegetation in this area， as well as the function and structure of desert ecosystem. This study compared the physiological and growth differences of the typical desert plants， Haloxylon ammodendron， Tamarix chinensis， Nitraria tangutorum and Calligonum mongolicum under light sand burial and no sand burial， and explored the reasons for the differences from the aspects of soil salinity， soil moisture and soil temperature. The results showed that the photosynthetic rate of H. ammodendron， T. chinensis， N. tangutorum and C. mongolicum under sand burial were generally higher than that of no sand burial， and the transpiration rate was significantly lower than that of no sand burial， and the water use efficiency was also higher than that under no sand burial. The plant height of H. ammodendron， T. chinensis，C. mongolicum and N. tangutorum under sand burial was significantly lower than that of no sand burial， but the ground diameter， crown width and leaf area index were generally higher than those of no sand burial. The main reason was that soil clay content and soil moisture under sand burial were higher than those under no sand burial. Whereas soil temperature and soil salt under sand burial was lower than that under no sand burial. The research can provide a theoretical basis for vegetation reconstruction and restoration in desert.

Key words: sand burial, photosynthesis, soil moisture, soil salinity, desert plant

CLC Number:

S429

Chunyan Zhao, Jie Qin, Xiaohui He, Dongmeng Zhou. Effects of sand burial on typical desert plants[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(5): 63-72.

Figures/Tables 9

References 38

1	陈亚宁，陈亚鹏，朱成刚，等.西北干旱荒漠区生态系统可持续管理理念与模式［J］.生态学报，2019，39（20）：7410-7417.
2	王涛，宋翔，颜长珍，等.近35 a来中国北方土地沙漠化趋势的遥感分析［J］.中国沙漠，2011，31（6）：1351-1356.
3	Benvenuti S， Macchia M， S.Light Miele，temperature and burial depth effects on Rumex obtussifolius seed germination and emergence［J］.Weed Research，2001，41：177-186.
4	Zhao W Z， Zhang Z， Li Q.Growth and reproduction of Sophora moorcroftiana responding to altitude and sand burial in the middle Tibet［J］.Environmental Geology，2007，53（1）：11-17.
5	Maun M A.Adaptations enhancing survival and establishment of seedlings on coastal dune systems［J］.Vegetatio，1994，111（1）：59-70.
6	宋冰，王国华，缑倩倩，等.沙埋对河西走廊荒漠绿洲过渡带一年生草本植物的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2021，41（3）：185-194.
7	赵哈林，何玉惠，岳广阳，等.风吹、沙埋对沙地植物幼苗生长和光合蒸腾特性的影响［J］.生态学杂志，2010，29（3）：413-4196.
8	米志英，周丹丹，吴亚东.风蚀沙埋对沙柳形态特征的影响［J］.内蒙古林业科技，2005（1）：10-13.
9	Zhang C Y， Yu F H， Dong M.Effects of sand burial on the survival，growth，and biomass allocation in semi shrub Hedysarum laeve seedlings［J］.Acta Botanica Sinica，2002，44（3）：337-343.
10	王国华，赵文智.不同沙埋深度对当年生柠条锦鸡儿种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响［J］.干旱区地理，2016，39（1）：95-103.
11	Maun M A.Adaptations of plants to burial in coastal sand dunes［J］.Canadian Journal of Botany，1998，76（5）：713-738.
12	Harris D， Davy A J.Seedling growth in Elymus farctus after episodes of burial with sand［J］.Annals of Botany，1987，60：587-593.
13	朱雅娟，董鸣，黄振英.沙埋和种子大小对固沙禾草沙鞭的种子萌发与幼苗出土的影响［J］.植物生态学报，2005，29（5）：730-739.
14	贺宇，丁国栋，汪晓峰，等.水分和沙埋对4种沙生植物种子萌发和出苗的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2013，33（6）：1711-1716.
15	王文娟，贺达汉，唐小琴，等.不同温度和沙埋深度对砂生槐种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2011，31（6）：1437-1442.
16	Vlesshouwers L M.Modeling the effects of temperature，soil penetration resistance，burial depth and seed weight on pre-emergence growth of weeds［J］.Annals of Botany，1997，79：553-563.
17	吕朝燕，张希明，高智席，等.梭梭幼苗出土及生长对沙埋深度的响应［J］.北方园艺，2016，3：55-60.
18	刘艳丽，高润宏，杨永华，等.梭梭和驼绒藜种子萌发及出苗对沙埋的响应［J］.内蒙古农业大学学报（自然科学版），2009，30（2）：260-265.
19	王锐，孙权，王青凤，等.不同控制条件对沙生植物发芽率的影响［J］.林业实用技术，2009（8）：10-11.
20	陈文，王桔红，朱慧，等.沙埋对河西走廊4种旱生植物种子萌发和幼苗生长的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2015，35（6）：1532-1537.
21	贾晓红，李新荣，李元寿，等.腾格里沙漠东南缘白刺种群性状对沙埋的响应［J］.生态学杂志，2011，30（9）：1851-1857.
22	司建华，常宗强，苏永红，等.胡杨叶片气孔导度特征及其对环境因子的响应［J］.西北植物学报，2008，28（1）：125-130.
23	鱼腾飞，冯起，司建华，等.极端干旱区多枝柽柳叶片气孔导度的环境响应模拟［J］.植物生态学报，2012，36（6）：483-490.
24	中国科学院南京土壤研究所.土壤理化分析［M］.上海：上海科学技术出版社，1978.
25	Andersen K M， Turner B L， Dalling J W.Seedling performance trade-offs influencing habitat filtering along a soil nutrient gradient in a tropical forest［J］.Ecology，2014，95：3399-3413.
26	Shi L， Zhang Z J， Zhang C Y，et al.Effects of sand burial on survival，growth，gas exchange and biomass allocation of Ulmus pumila seedlings in the Hunshandak Sandland，China［J］.Annals of Botany，2004，94（4）：553-560.
27	Liu B， Liu Z M， Guan D X.Seedling growth variation in response to sand burial in four Artemisia species from different habitats in the semi-arid dune field［J］.Trees，2008，22：41-47.
28	赵哈林，赵学勇，张铜会，等.沙漠化过程中植物的适应对策及植被的稳定性［M］.北京：海洋出版社，2004.
29	李秋艳，赵文智.五种荒漠植物幼苗出土及生长对沙埋深度的响应［J］.生态学报，2006，26（6）：1802-1809.
30	Zhang J H， Maun M A.Effects of sand burial on seed germination，seedling emergence，survival，and growth of Agropyron psammophilum ［J］.Canadian Journal of Botany，1990，68：304-310.
31	苗纯萍，李雪华，蒋德明.半干旱风沙区黄柳幼苗生长发育对沙埋的响应［J］.干旱区研究，2012，29（2）：208-212.
32	Perumal V J， Maun M A.Ecophysiological response of dune species to experimental burial under field and controlled conditions［J］.Plant Ecology，2006，184：89-104.
33	Dech J P， Maun M A.Adventitious root production and plastic resource allocation to biomass determine burial tolerance in woody plants from central Canadian coastal dunes ［J］.Annals of Botany，2006，98（5）：1095-1105.
34	Zhao W Z， Li Q Y， Fang H Y.Effects of sand burial disturbance on seedling growth of Nitraria sphaerocarpa ［J］.Plant and Soil，2007，295：95-102.
35	李秋艳，方海燕.沙埋对红砂幼苗出土和生长的影响［J］.水土保持通报，2008，28（1）：30-33.
36	李雪华，李晓兰，蒋德明，等.科尔沁沙地70种草本植物个体和构建生物量比较研究［J］.干旱区研究，2009，26（2）：200-205.
37	赵哈林，赵学勇，张铜会，等.沙漠化的生物过程及植被恢复机理［M］.北京：科学出版社，2007.
38	刘凤红，叶学华，于飞海，等.毛乌素沙地游击型克隆半灌木羊柴对局部沙埋的反应［J］.植物生态学报，2006，30（2）：278-285.

物种	生长环境	株高/m	地径/cm	平均冠幅/cm	叶面积指数	根冠比
梭梭	沙埋	1.68±0.48^a	7.55±1.23^a	188.90±21.11^a	0.72±0.05^a	0.43±0.04^a
梭梭	非沙埋	1.77±0.23^b	5.32±1.10^b	149.46±31.05^b	0.66±0.02^b	0.56±0.01^b
柽柳	沙埋	1.53±0.33^a	4.08±1.09^a	157.51±17.32^a	1.29±0.09^a	0.75±0.08^a
柽柳	非沙埋	1.71±0.25^b	3.57±1.32^b	132.70±12.36^b	1.14±0.01^b	0.81±0.07^b
沙拐枣	沙埋	1.15±0.27^a	3.19±0.51^a	102.20±9.44^a	0.97±0.10^a	0.49±0.02^a
沙拐枣	非沙埋	1.34±0.31^b	2.34±0.44^b	94.62±10.97^a	0.65±0.02^a	0.55±0.05^b
白刺	沙埋	0.75±0.16^a	2.46±0.37^a	167.55±32.33^a	0.89±0.05^a	0.48±0.03^a
白刺	非沙埋	0.89±0.23^b	2.15±0.29^b	134.38±21.05^b	0.71±0.09^a	0.73±0.02^b

物种	生长环境	株高/m	地径/cm	平均冠幅/cm	叶面积指数	根冠比
梭梭	沙埋	1.68±0.48^a	7.55±1.23^a	188.90±21.11^a	0.72±0.05^a	0.43±0.04^a
梭梭	非沙埋	1.77±0.23^b	5.32±1.10^b	149.46±31.05^b	0.66±0.02^b	0.56±0.01^b
柽柳	沙埋	1.53±0.33^a	4.08±1.09^a	157.51±17.32^a	1.29±0.09^a	0.75±0.08^a
柽柳	非沙埋	1.71±0.25^b	3.57±1.32^b	132.70±12.36^b	1.14±0.01^b	0.81±0.07^b
沙拐枣	沙埋	1.15±0.27^a	3.19±0.51^a	102.20±9.44^a	0.97±0.10^a	0.49±0.02^a
沙拐枣	非沙埋	1.34±0.31^b	2.34±0.44^b	94.62±10.97^a	0.65±0.02^a	0.55±0.05^b
白刺	沙埋	0.75±0.16^a	2.46±0.37^a	167.55±32.33^a	0.89±0.05^a	0.48±0.03^a
白刺	非沙埋	0.89±0.23^b	2.15±0.29^b	134.38±21.05^b	0.71±0.09^a	0.73±0.02^b

时间	梭梭		柽柳		沙拐枣		白刺
时间	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋
08:00	15.06±1.14^a	15.80±1.43^b	12.45±1.32^a	12.56±1.11^b	15.21±1.25^a	15.02±1.62^b	13.34±2.05^a	13.81±1.54^b
10:00	20.11±1.02^a	19.33±1.30^b	13.07±1.83^a	14.35±1.73^b	22.61±1.07^a	22.05±0.98^b	19.15±1.64^a	23.59±0.99^b
12:00	23.26±1.21^a	27.20±1.17^b	24.39±1.27^a	27.57±1.43^b	22.97±2.01^a	25.32±1.11^b	30.22±1.32^a	34.20±1.46^b
14:00	32.49±1.05^a	36.30±1.62^b	26.92±1.09^a	30.77±1.08^b	26.26±1.16^a	32.51±1.08^b	36.56±1.04^a	39.17±1.66^b
16:00	34.95±1.11^a	38.49±1.80^b	27.59±1.14^a	36.48±0.85^b	37.63±0.78^a	40.17±1.67^b	38.11±1.54^a	40.45±1.15^b
18:00	31.33±1.62^a	35.46±0.97^b	33.30±1.63^a	35.63±1.19^b	34.37±1.41^a	37.19±1.22^b	34.15±1.33^a	38.73±0.94^b

时间	梭梭		柽柳		沙拐枣		白刺
时间	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋	沙埋	非沙埋
08:00	15.06±1.14^a	15.80±1.43^b	12.45±1.32^a	12.56±1.11^b	15.21±1.25^a	15.02±1.62^b	13.34±2.05^a	13.81±1.54^b
10:00	20.11±1.02^a	19.33±1.30^b	13.07±1.83^a	14.35±1.73^b	22.61±1.07^a	22.05±0.98^b	19.15±1.64^a	23.59±0.99^b
12:00	23.26±1.21^a	27.20±1.17^b	24.39±1.27^a	27.57±1.43^b	22.97±2.01^a	25.32±1.11^b	30.22±1.32^a	34.20±1.46^b
14:00	32.49±1.05^a	36.30±1.62^b	26.92±1.09^a	30.77±1.08^b	26.26±1.16^a	32.51±1.08^b	36.56±1.04^a	39.17±1.66^b
16:00	34.95±1.11^a	38.49±1.80^b	27.59±1.14^a	36.48±0.85^b	37.63±0.78^a	40.17±1.67^b	38.11±1.54^a	40.45±1.15^b
18:00	31.33±1.62^a	35.46±0.97^b	33.30±1.63^a	35.63±1.19^b	34.37±1.41^a	37.19±1.22^b	34.15±1.33^a	38.73±0.94^b

物种	环境	HCO₄^- /（g·kg^-1）	Cl^- /（g·kg^-1）	SO₄^2- /（g·kg^-1）	Ca²⁺ /（g·kg^-1）	Mg²⁺ /（g·kg^-1）	K⁺ /（g·kg^-1）	Na⁺ /（g·kg^-1）	全盐 /（g·kg^-1）
梭梭	沙埋	0.25±0.012^a	0.18±0.019^a	0.33±0.043^a	0.08±0.002^a	0.01±0.001^a	0.02±0.004^a	0.22±0.018^a	1.09±0.014^a
梭梭	非沙埋	0.21±0.037^b	0.82±0.041^b	0.25±0.082^b	0.21±0.004^b	0.02±0.012^b	0.07±0.002^b	0.94±0.047^b	2.52±0.03^b
柽柳	沙埋	0.28±0.072^a	0.17±0.012^a	0.47±0.007^a	0.14±0.001^a	0.04±0.007^a	0.02±0.002^a	0.23±0.082^a	1.35±0.026^a
柽柳	非沙埋	0.38±0.051^b	0.46±0.023^b	0.76±0.071^b	0.17±0.043^b	0.02±0.003^b	0.36±0.017^b	1.08±0.003^b	3.23±0.03^b
沙拐枣	沙埋	0.10±0.045^a	0.01±0.081^a	0.09±0.014^a	0.04±0.001^a	0.01±0.001^a	0.01±0.001^a	0.02±0.001^a	0.28±0.02^a
沙拐枣	非沙埋	0.24±0.019^b	0.03±0.090^b	0.03±0.007^b	0.03±0.019^b	0.01±0.002^b	0.01±0.002^b	0.06±0.003^b	0.41±0.038^b
白刺	沙埋	0.41±0.044^a	0.04±0.012^a	0.04±0.001^a	0.02±0.001^a	0.01±0.003^a	0.04±0.002^a	0.11±0.002^a	0.67±0.009^a
白刺	非沙埋	0.24±0.021^b	0.59±0.055^b	0.18±0.005^b	0.06±0.004^b	0.03±0.003^b	0.01±0.001^b	0.93±0.041^b	2.04±0.018^b

Effects of sand burial on typical desert plants

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 38

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

物种	生长环境	全氮 /（g·kg^-1）	全磷P₂O₅ /（g·kg^-1）	全钾K₂O /（g·kg^-1）	有机质 /（g·kg^-1）	碱解氮 /（mg·kg^-1）	速效磷P₂O₅ /（mg·kg^-1）	速效钾K₂O /（mg·kg^-1）
梭梭	沙埋	0.14±0.011^a	0.34±0.061^a	9.02±1.23^a	2.94±0.18^a	4.70±1.02^a	5.27±1.32^a	8.33±1.33^a
梭梭	非沙埋	0.09±0.002^b	0.31±0.002^b	8.05±1.08^b	1.19±0.03^b	10.30±1.23^b	4.96±0.29^b	7.05±0.97^b
柽柳	沙埋	0.19±0.023^a	0.86±0.068^a	11.94±2.33^a	3.23±0.96^a	14.00±2.97^a	6.19±1.77^a	9.94±2.83^a
柽柳	非沙埋	0.13±0.018^b	0.63±0.037^b	10.21±1.84^b	1.62±0.09^b	3.30±0.85^b	4.93±0.98^b	8.91±1.31^b
沙拐枣	沙埋	0.10±0.003^a	0.51±0.019^a	5.83±1.72^a	0.95±0.087^a	9.50±1.43^a	3.09±0.53^a	6.43±1.06^a
沙拐枣	非沙埋	0.06±0.001^b	0.33±0.048^b	4.32±1.33^b	0.65±0.042^b	4.50±1.11^b	2.78±0.07^b	4.02±0.99^b
白刺	沙埋	0.15±0.07^a	0.94±0.015^a	10.73±2.41^a	1.17±0.091^a	16.90±3.92^a	6.61±1.43^a	10.12±2.04^a
白刺	非沙埋	0.06±0.002^b	0.39±0.041^b	7.01±1.91^b	0.70±0.014^b	1.90±0.18^b	5.98±1.91^b	8.77±1.55^b

[1]	Guangyu Hong, Xiaojiang Wang, Tieshan Liu, Hailong, Zhenting Wu, Huercha, Xiaowei Gao, Haifeng Yang, Zhuofan Li, Zihao Li, Siqin, Lejun Wang. Applicability of Hydrus-*1D Model in simulating the soil moisture in Hedysarum leave* in Mu Us Sandy Land， China** [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(6): 233-242.
[2]	Lin Li, Hu Liu, Chengpeng Sun, Wenzhi Zhao. Groundwater evapotranspiration estimation based on soil moisture and water table measurements [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(6): 277-287.
[3]	Shiyang Chen, Rong Yang, Yongzhong Su, Zeyu Du. Characteristics of soil respiration in farmland of Hexi oasis and its response to long-term fertilization [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(3): 178-186.
[4]	Wenzhi Zhao, Xuelian Bai, Chan Liu. Research on vegetation sand control around the south edge of Badain Jaran Sand Sea， China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(1): 5-11.
[5]	Feiyao Liu, Quangang You, Siyuan Wu, Cuihua Huang, Jing Pan, Shaoxiu Ma, Xiaojie Chen, Xian Xue. Effects of abandonment and recultivation of farmland on soil hydraulic properties in a typical oasis of arid regions [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(6): 169-178.
[6]	Rui Si, Bing Liu, Wenzhi Zhao, Zhaocen Zhu, Ying Zhao. Species diversity and stability patterns of plant communities in the tail area of the Heihe River [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(3): 174-184.
[7]	Bing Song, Guohua Wang, Qianqian Gou, Lulu Xi. Effects of sand-buried on annual herbaceous plants in desert-oasis ecotone of Hexi Corridor Gansu， China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(3): 185-194.
[8]	Xueshang Chang, Guoqiao Chang. Advances in research and prospect on soil moisture in arid and semi-arid areas [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(1): 156-163.
[9]	Qian Lu, Yi Li, Xiande Liu, Weijun Zhao. Soil moisture variation characteristics of Picea crassifolia forestry in Pailugou Watershed of Qilian Mountains [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(5): 142-148.
[10]	Wei Gong, Guanglu Hu, Pengcheng Fu, Haoran Li, Chuan Zhou, Liyuan Deng. Soil moisture infiltration characteristics of different sand-fixing plants in the desert-oasis transition zone in arid region of China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(5): 200-208.
[11]	Baoyang Sun, Rui Zhou, Zhe Wang, Junbo Xiao, Jianye Ma, Chaodong Li, Bo Ma. The simulation study of wind erosion characteristics of different soils in Inner Mongolia reach of Yellow River [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(4): 120-127.
[12]	Shi Guiying, Sun Hongqiang, Yu Yanlin, Zhang Lina, Jia Xixia, Zhang Lipeng, Li Mouqiang. Effect of long-term consecutive cropping on leaf PSⅡ photochemical effecience and antioxidant enzyme activity of lanzhou lily [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 206-213.
[13]	Yang Lizhen, Feng Li, Yang Guisen, Huang Lei. Water absorption potential and influencing factors of leaf in Caragana korshinskii, Artemisia ordosica, Hedysarum scoparium in a revegetated area of the Tengger Desert, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 214-221.
[14]	Wang Guohua, Ren Yijun, Gou Qianqian. The changes of soil physical and chemical property during the enclosure process in a typical desert oasis ecotone of the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 222-231.
[15]	Zhang Rui, Zhou Xiaobing, Zhang Yuanming. Affects of Biological Soil Crusts on Litter Decomposition in the Gurbantunggut Desert [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(6): 151-158.