Response of key plant populations dynamics to precipitation changes in Horqin Sandy Grassland

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00073

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 43-56.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00073

Previous Articles Next Articles

Response of key plant populations dynamics to precipitation changes in Horqin Sandy Grassland

Xinping Liu¹^,²(), Hongjiao Hu¹^,²^,⁴, Yuhui He¹^,³, Yuanzhi Xu¹^,²^,⁴, Jiaqi Jing¹^,²^,⁴, Yao Zhang¹^,²^,⁴

^1.State Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^2.Naiman Desertification Research Station, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^3.Lanzhou Ecological Agriculture Experimental Research Station, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^4.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences，Beijing 100049，China

Received:2025-04-25 Revised:2025-06-03 Online:2025-07-20 Published:2025-08-18

Abstract

Abstract:

In arid and semi-arid terrestrial ecosystems， the dynamics of key plant populations constitute a central driver of vegetation structural reorganization， and serve as the ecological foundation for vegetation responses to precipitation changes. This study focuses on the Horqin Sandy Grassland vegetation of northern China's semi-arid area. Through controlled experiments manipulating precipitation regimes， we investigated the response pathways of diverse key populations to precipitation changes and their characteristics of ecological functional differentiation， thereby identifying the population-level configuration patterns of vegetation structure. Results demonstrated that： precipitation reduction drove the replacement of perennial dominant species （e.g.， Cleistogenes squarrosa， with its importance value and ecological niche breadth declining from 0.21 and 5.06 to near zero， respectively） by annual plants， while precipitation increase only moderately adjusted the dominance hierarchy among species. Indicator species exhibited distinct functional differentiation under precipitation changes： perennials （e.g.， Cleistogenes squarrosa with an indicator value of 0.25） dominated under increased precipitation， semi-shrubs （e.g.， Lespedeza davurica with an indicator value of 0.23） prevailed under decreased precipitation， and annuals （e.g.， Salsola collina with an indicator value of 0.39） proliferated under seasonal droughts. Generalist species showed heightened sensitivity to seasonal droughts， whereas specialists responded markedly to extreme precipitation fluctuations. Niche contraction in both groups triggered an species percentage increase in neutral taxa to fill ecological vacancies. Key populations characterized by high-importance values， strong indicator properties， broad ecological niches， or specialized niches can significantly contributed to inter-treatment differences. Notably， these key populations showed higher sensitivity to extreme precipitation changes， negative precipitation anomalies， and spring-season precipitation changes. This work underscores the feasibility of optimizing vegetation configurations by integrating precipitation regimes with their corresponding buffering species， providing theoretical foundations for adaptive management of sandy grassland ecosystems in semi-arid regions.

Key words: precipitation regime, plant population, dominant species, indicator species, ecological niche

CLC Number:

Q948.1

Xinping Liu, Hongjiao Hu, Yuhui He, Yuanzhi Xu, Jiaqi Jing, Yao Zhang. Response of key plant populations dynamics to precipitation changes in Horqin Sandy Grassland[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(4): 43-56.

Figures/Tables 8

References 43

[1]	Knapp A K， Hoover D L， Wilcox K R，et al.Characterizing differences in precipitation regimes of extreme wet and dry years：implications for climate change experiments［J］.Global Change Biology，2015，21（7）：2624-2633.
[2]	张宏史，郑秋红.半干旱地区天然草地灌丛化与土壤异质性关系研究进展［J］.植物生态学报，2001，25（3）：366-370.
[3]	Susanne S， Osvaldo E S.Hierarchy of responses to resource pulses in arid and semi-arid ecosystems［J］.Oecologia，2004，141（2）：211-220.
[4]	王明明，刘新平，何玉惠，等.科尔沁沙质草地生物量积累过程对降水变化的响应模拟［J］.生态学报，2020，40（11）：3656-3665.
[5]	Luo Y Q， Zhao X Y， Zuo X A，et al.Plant responses to warming and increased precipitation in three categories of dune stabilization in northeastern China［J］.Ecological Research，2017，32（6）：887-898.
[6]	张腊梅，刘新平，赵学勇，等.科尔沁固定沙地植被特征对降雨变化的响应［J］.生态学报，2014，34（10）：2737-2745.
[7]	Song J， Liang Z H， Li X G，et al.Precipitation changes alter plant dominant species and functional groups by changing soil salinity in a coastal salt marsh［J］.Journal of Environmental Management，2024，368：122235.
[8]	Kirk R W， Zheng S， Gherardi G L，et al.Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to precipitation extremes：a synthesis of grassland precipitation manipulation experiments［J］.Global Change Biology，2017，23（10）：4376-4385.
[9]	Pan S Y， Zhang W L， Li Y，et al.Unveiling novel perspectives on niche differentiation and plasticity in rhizosphere phosphorus forms of submerged macrophytes with different stoichiometric homeostasis［J］.Water Research，2023，246：120679.
[10]	Yue X F， Zhang T H， Li Y Q.Effects of rainfall regime during the growing season on the annual plant communities in semiarid sandy land，Northeast China［J］.Global Ecology and Conservation，2023，43：e02456.
[11]	苗百岭，梁存柱，史亚博，等.降水变化对内蒙古典型草原地上生物量的影响［J］.植物生态学报，2019，43（7）：557-565.
[12]	Hautier Y， Tilman D， Isbell F，et al.Anthropogenic environmental changes affect ecosystem stability via biodiversity［J］.Science，2015，348（6232）：336-340.
[13]	何玉惠，刘新平，胡鸿姣，等.降水和放牧对沙质草地优势植物出苗和存活的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2025，45（1）：103-111.
[14]	Liu X P， He Y H， Sun S S，et al.Restoration of sand-stabilizing vegetation reduces deep percolation of precipitation in semi-arid sandy lands，Northern China［J］.Catena，2022，208：105728.
[15]	Liu X P， Luo Y Q， Cheng L，et al.Effect of root and mycelia on fine root decomposition and release of carbon and nitrogen under artemisia halodendron in a semi-arid sandy grassland in China［J］.Frontiers in Plant Science，2021，12：698054.
[16]	刘新平，赵学勇，何玉惠，等.一种野外增减雨试验装置：201220126834.3［P］.2012-11-21.
[17]	郭倩.草地群落植物种等级划分及重要值方法改进［D］.兰州：兰州大学，2017.
[18]	Pei L， Wu Z， Qian Y Q，et al.Plant community stability，indicator species and their driving factors at a gradient of grazing intensity in an alpine meadow ［J］.Ecological Indicators，2024，162：112012.
[19]	Sun R B， Chen Y， Han W X，et al.Different contribution of species sorting and exogenous species immigration from manure to soil fungal diversity and community assemblage under long-term fertilization［J］.Soil Biology & Biochemistry，2020，151：108049.
[20]	Zhang J， Zhang B G， Liu Y Q，et al.Distinct large-scale biogeographic patterns of fungal communities in bulk soil and soybean rhizosphere in China［J］.Science of the Total Environment，2018，644：791-800.
[21]	万凌凡，刘国华，樊辉，等.青藏高原东南部森林群落生态位特征与物种多样性的影响因素［J］.生态学报，2024，44（13）：5658-5668.
[22]	Huxman T E， Snyder K A， Tissue D，et al.Precipitation pulses and carbon fluxes in semiarid and arid ecosystems［J］.Oecologia，2004，141（2）：211-220.
[23]	甄博，郭相平，陆红飞，等.分蘖期旱涝交替胁迫对水稻生理指标的影响［J］.灌溉排水学报，2017，36（5）：36-40.
[24]	Cai F， Zhang Y S， Mi N，et al.Maize （Zea mays L.） physiological responses to drought and rewatering，and the associations with water stress degree［J］.Agricultural Water Management，2020，241：106379.
[25]	龚金玉，马致远，胡琛，等.综合生态系统管理的生态阈值理论研究进展［J］.生态学报，2024，44（22）：10499-10511.
[26]	洪光宇，王晓江，苏庆溥，等.毛乌素沙地流动沙丘土壤水分模拟及渗漏特征［J］.中国沙漠，2023，43（2）：288-298.
[27]	Zuo X A， Zhao S L， Cheng H，et al.Functional diversity response to geographic and experimental precipitation gradients varies with plant community type［J］.Functional Ecology，2021，35（9）：2119-2132.
[28]	Huot C， Zhou Y， Philp J N M，et al.Root depth development in tropical perennial forage grasses is related to root angle，root diameter and leaf area［J］.Plant and Soil，2020，456（1/2）：145-158.
[29]	Shan C， Dongdong D， Yubo L，et al.Genome-wide association study presents insights into the genetic architecture of drought tolerance in maize seedlings under field water-deficit conditions［J］.Frontiers in Plant Science，2023，14：1165582.
[30]	游旭，杨浩.糙隐子草生态学研究进展［J］.草地学报，2016，24（4）：726-730.
[31]	孙启忠，韩桂荣，李志勇，等.科尔沁沙地达乌里胡枝子生物量研究［J］.中国草地，2001，23（4）：22-27.
[32]	郭文婷，王国华，缑倩倩，等.河西走廊荒漠绿洲过渡带3种典型一年生藜科植物构件生长及生物量分配特征［J］.草业学报，2022，31（2）：25-38.
[33]	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［J］.生态学杂志，2019，38（9）：2595-2602.
[34]	王晓悦，许艺馨，李春环，等.长期降水量变化下荒漠草原植物生物量、多样性的变化及其影响因素［J］.植物生态学报，2023，47（4）：479-490.
[35]	Sun J X， Zhou H B， Cheng H N，et al.Distinct strategies of the habitat generalists and specialists in the Arctic sediments： assembly processes，co-occurrence patterns，and environmental implications［J］.Marine Pollution Bulletin，2024，205：116603.
[36]	Yu Y， Penuelas J， Sardans J，et al.Water addition but not reduction alters plant biomass-diversity relationship［J］.Global Change Biology，2024，30（7）：e17430.
[37]	李周园，叶小洲，王少鹏.生态系统稳定性及其与生物多样性的关系［J］.植物生态学报，2021，45（10）：1127-1139.
[38]	党承林.植物群落的冗余结构：对生态系统稳定性的一种解释［J］.生态学报，1998，18（6）：103-110.
[39]	丁潇然.狗尾草叶水力系统与光合生理沿降水梯度带的调整与协同［D］.杭州：浙江农林大学，2022.
[40]	王坤芳，彭爽，纪明山.入侵植物少花蒺藜草及其伴生植物的光合特性研究［J］.河北农业大学学报，2016，39（1）：43-48.
[41]	秦洁，鲍雅静，李政海，等.退化草原糙隐子草根系特征及地上高度对水分梯度的响应［J］.中国草地学报，2015，37（3）：80-86.
[42]	杨浩，罗亚晨.糙隐子草功能性状对氮添加和干旱的响应［J］.植物生态学报，2015，39（1）：32-42.
[43]	Yu S Y， Wang W S， Liang H X，et al.Characterizing the nonlinear dynamics of hydrological systems based on global recurrence analysis［J］.Journal of Hydrology，2025，654：132817.

分类	物种名	拉丁学名	相对重要值
分类	物种名	拉丁学名	CK	D5	D7	-30%P	-60%P	+30%P	+60%P
一年生	大果虫实	Corispermum hyssopifolium	0.05	0.07	0.1	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01
	地锦	Euphorbia humifusa	0.06	0.05	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.03	—
	狗尾草	Setaria viridis	0.21	0.07	0.16	0.29	0.43	0.08	0.22
	虎尾草	Chloris virgata	0.01	—	—	0.01	—	0.01	—
	画眉草	Eragrostis pilosa	0.09	0.23	—	—	—	0.1	0.15
	蒺藜	Cenchrus echinatus	0.20	0.17	0.42	0.16	0.33	0.23	0.12
	尖头叶藜	Chenopodium acuminatum	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.001
	砂蓝刺头	Echinops gmelini	0.01	—	—	—	—	—	—
	雾冰藜	Grubovia dasyphylla	—	0.01	—	0.01	—	0.02	—
	猪毛菜	Salsola collina	0.03	0.15	0.02	—	0.08	0.05	0.05
一二年生	大籽蒿	Artemisia sieversiana	0.03	0.02	—	0.07	0.03	—	0.06
多年生	糙隐子草	Cleistogenes squarrosa	0.21	0.08	0.19	0.15	—	0.23	0.29
	芦苇	Phragmites australis	—	—	—	0.04	—	0.02	—
	砂引草	Tournefortia sibirica	—	—	—	0.02	0.05	—	—
	野艾蒿	Artemisia lavandulaefolia	0.01	0.02	—	0.08	—	0.05	—
	硬阿魏	Ferula bungeana	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.01
	针茅	Stipa capillata	0.03	0.05	—	—	—	0.04	0.02
	猪毛蒿	Artemisia scoparia	0.05	0.06	0.05	0.04	—	0.08	0.04
	地梢瓜	Cynanchum thesioides	0.01	—	0.02	0.03	0.03	—	0.02
	兴安胡枝子	Lespedeza bicolor	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.06	—	0.02	0.01

分类	物种名	拉丁学名	相对重要值
分类	物种名	拉丁学名	CK	D5	D7	-30%P	-60%P	+30%P	+60%P
一年生	大果虫实	Corispermum hyssopifolium	0.05	0.07	0.1	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01
	地锦	Euphorbia humifusa	0.06	0.05	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.03	—
	狗尾草	Setaria viridis	0.21	0.07	0.16	0.29	0.43	0.08	0.22
	虎尾草	Chloris virgata	0.01	—	—	0.01	—	0.01	—
	画眉草	Eragrostis pilosa	0.09	0.23	—	—	—	0.1	0.15
	蒺藜	Cenchrus echinatus	0.20	0.17	0.42	0.16	0.33	0.23	0.12
	尖头叶藜	Chenopodium acuminatum	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.001
	砂蓝刺头	Echinops gmelini	0.01	—	—	—	—	—	—
	雾冰藜	Grubovia dasyphylla	—	0.01	—	0.01	—	0.02	—
	猪毛菜	Salsola collina	0.03	0.15	0.02	—	0.08	0.05	0.05
一二年生	大籽蒿	Artemisia sieversiana	0.03	0.02	—	0.07	0.03	—	0.06
多年生	糙隐子草	Cleistogenes squarrosa	0.21	0.08	0.19	0.15	—	0.23	0.29
	芦苇	Phragmites australis	—	—	—	0.04	—	0.02	—
	砂引草	Tournefortia sibirica	—	—	—	0.02	0.05	—	—
	野艾蒿	Artemisia lavandulaefolia	0.01	0.02	—	0.08	—	0.05	—
	硬阿魏	Ferula bungeana	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.01
	针茅	Stipa capillata	0.03	0.05	—	—	—	0.04	0.02
	猪毛蒿	Artemisia scoparia	0.05	0.06	0.05	0.04	—	0.08	0.04
	地梢瓜	Cynanchum thesioides	0.01	—	0.02	0.03	0.03	—	0.02
	兴安胡枝子	Lespedeza bicolor	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.06	—	0.02	0.01

物种名	生态位宽度
物种名	CK	D5	D7	-30%P	-60%P	+30%P	+60%P
糙隐子草	5.06	2.20	2.94	2.59	—	2.97	3.41
大果虫实	2.52	1.90	2.23	1.35	1.45	1.41	1.3
大籽蒿	2.36	1.27	—	1.49	1.22	—	1.67
地锦草	3.70	2.28	2.43	1.49	1.59	1.79	—
地梢瓜	1.73	—	1.65	1.43	1.25	—	1.62
狗尾草	6.58	2.52	2.8	3.91	3.32	2.19	3.4
兴安胡枝子	2.51	1.53	1.83	1.95	—	1.48	1.6
虎尾草	2.42	1.27	—	1.31	—	1.26	—
画眉草	4.54	3.94	—	—	—	2.74	3.77
蒺藜	6.56	3.35	4.86	2.97	3.78	3.25	2.61
尖头叶藜	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.28
芦苇	—	—	—	1.91	—	1.41	—
砂蓝刺头	1.45	—	—	—	—	—	—
砂引草	—	—	—	1.35	1.46	—	—
雾冰藜	—	1.28	—	1.2	—	1.15	—
野艾蒿	2.03	1.61	—	2.66	—	2.57	—
硬阿魏	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.27
针茅	2.15	2.50	—	—	—	1.92	1.77
猪毛菜	2.13	2.53	1.67	—	1.56	1.35	1.78
猪毛蒿	2.86	2.06	1.99	1.98	—	1.54	1.78

物种名	生态位宽度
物种名	CK	D5	D7	-30%P	-60%P	+30%P	+60%P
糙隐子草	5.06	2.20	2.94	2.59	—	2.97	3.41
大果虫实	2.52	1.90	2.23	1.35	1.45	1.41	1.3
大籽蒿	2.36	1.27	—	1.49	1.22	—	1.67
地锦草	3.70	2.28	2.43	1.49	1.59	1.79	—
地梢瓜	1.73	—	1.65	1.43	1.25	—	1.62
狗尾草	6.58	2.52	2.8	3.91	3.32	2.19	3.4
兴安胡枝子	2.51	1.53	1.83	1.95	—	1.48	1.6
虎尾草	2.42	1.27	—	1.31	—	1.26	—
画眉草	4.54	3.94	—	—	—	2.74	3.77
蒺藜	6.56	3.35	4.86	2.97	3.78	3.25	2.61
尖头叶藜	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.28
芦苇	—	—	—	1.91	—	1.41	—
砂蓝刺头	1.45	—	—	—	—	—	—
砂引草	—	—	—	1.35	1.46	—	—
雾冰藜	—	1.28	—	1.2	—	1.15	—
野艾蒿	2.03	1.61	—	2.66	—	2.57	—
硬阿魏	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.27
针茅	2.15	2.50	—	—	—	1.92	1.77
猪毛菜	2.13	2.53	1.67	—	1.56	1.35	1.78
猪毛蒿	2.86	2.06	1.99	1.98	—	1.54	1.78

物种名	降水处理组	贡献度/%	P值	物种名	降水处理组	贡献度/%	P值
糙隐子草	CK VS -60%P	10.48	0.006	蒺藜	D7 VS D5	14.89	0.014
糙隐子草	D5 VS +60%P	10.86	0.010	蒺藜	-30%P VS D7	14.73	0.010
糙隐子草	D7 VS -60%P	9.74	0.044	蒺藜	+60%P VS D7	16.00	0.002
糙隐子草	-60%P VS +30%P	11.73	0.003	尖头叶藜	CK VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	-60%P VS +60%P	14.68	0.001	尖头叶藜	CK VS D5	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	-60%P VS CK	10.48	0.006	尖头叶藜	D5 VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	-60%P VS D7	9.74	0.044	尖头叶藜	D5 VS CK	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	+30%P VS -60%P	11.73	0.003	尖头叶藜	D7 VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	+60%P VS -60%P	14.68	0.001	尖头叶藜	-30%P VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
糙隐子草	+60%P VS D5	10.86	0.010	尖头叶藜	-60%P VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
大果虫实	CK VS D7	5.48	0.049	尖头叶藜	+30%P VS +60%P	0.08	0.001
大果虫实	D7 VS CK	5.48	0.049	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS +30%P	0.08	0.001
大籽蒿	CK VS -30%P	4.20	0.047	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS -30%P	0.08	0.001
大籽蒿	-30%P VS CK	4.20	0.047	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS -60%P	0.08	0.001
狗尾草	CK VS -60%P	12.67	0.018	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS CK	0.08	0.001
狗尾草	D5 VS -60%P	17.82	0.001	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS D5	0.08	0.001
狗尾草	D7 VS -60%P	14.44	0.006	尖头叶藜	+60%P VS D7	0.08	0.001
狗尾草	-60%P VS +30%P	17.49	0.001	芦苇	CK VS -30%P	2.23	0.027
狗尾草	-60%P VS CK	12.67	0.018	芦苇	-30%P VS +30%P	2.72	0.006
狗尾草	-60%P VS D5	17.82	0.001	芦苇	-30%P VS CK	2.23	0.027
狗尾草	-60%P VS D7	14.44	0.006	芦苇	+30%P VS -30%P	2.72	0.006
狗尾草	+30%P VS -60%P	17.49	0.001	砂引草	CK VS -60%P	2.31	0.048
画眉草	D5 VS +30%P	10.90	0.016	砂引草	-30%P VS -60%P	2.91	0.017
画眉草	D5 VS +60%P	11.00	0.020	砂引草	-60%P VS -30%P	2.91	0.017
画眉草	D5 VS -30%P	11.46	0.007	砂引草	-60%P VS CK	2.31	0.048
画眉草	D5 VS -60%P	11.46	0.026	雾冰藜	-30%P VS +30%P	1.38	0.034
画眉草	D5 VS D7	11.46	0.013	雾冰藜	+30%P VS -30%P	1.38	0.034
画眉草	D7 VS D5	11.46	0.013	兴安胡枝子	CK VS -30%P	3.10	0.014
画眉草	-30%P VS D5	11.46	0.007	兴安胡枝子	D5 VS -30%P	3.16	0.024
画眉草	-60%P VS D5	11.46	0.026	兴安胡枝子	D7 VS -30%P	3.16	0.026
画眉草	+30%P VS D5	10.90	0.016	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS +30%P	3.16	0.030
画眉草	+60%P VS D5	11.00	0.020	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS +60%P	3.09	0.038
蒺藜	CK VS D7	14.50	0.004	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS -60%P	3.09	0.037
蒺藜	D5 VS D7	14.89	0.014	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS CK	3.10	0.014
蒺藜	D7 VS +60%P	16.00	0.002	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS D5	3.16	0.024
蒺藜	D7 VS -30%P	14.73	0.010	兴安胡枝子	-30%P VS D7	3.16	0.026
蒺藜	D7 VS CK	14.50	0.004	兴安胡枝子	-60%P VS -30%P	3.09	0.037
兴安胡枝子	+30%P VS -30%P	3.16	0.030	硬阿魏	+60%P VS -30%P	0.46	0.001
兴安胡枝子	+60%P VS -30%P	3.09	0.038	硬阿魏	+60%P VS -60%P	0.46	0.001
野艾蒿	-30%P VS +30%P	5.44	0.025	硬阿魏	+60%P VS CK	0.46	0.001
野艾蒿	+30%P VS -30%P	5.44	0.025	硬阿魏	+60%P VS D5	0.46	0.001
硬阿魏	CK VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	硬阿魏	+60%P VS D7	0.46	0.001
硬阿魏	CK VS D5	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	D5 VS +30%P	5.99	0.016
硬阿魏	D5 VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	D5 VS -30%P	7.34	0.003
硬阿魏	D5 VS CK	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	D5 VS -60%P	6.69	0.010
硬阿魏	D7 VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	D5 VS D7	6.36	0.017
硬阿魏	-30%P VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	D7 VS D5	6.36	0.017
硬阿魏	-60%P VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	-30%P VS D5	7.34	0.003
硬阿魏	+30%P VS +60%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	-60%P VS D5	6.69	0.010
硬阿魏	+60%P VS +30%P	0.46	0.001	猪毛菜	+30%P VS D5	5.99	0.016

Response of key plant populations dynamics to precipitation changes in Horqin Sandy Grassland

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 43

Related Articles 10

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Jing Zhang, Xiaoan Zuo, Peng Lv. Effects of changes in growing season precipitation regimes on plant community structure， function and aboveground biomass in typical habitats in the Horqin Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 1-13.
[2]	Yan Lu, Wanping Wu, Yong Zeng. Niche characteristics and interspecific connection of dominant plants in the oasis desert transition zone at the northern foot of Tianshan Mountains [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(2): 254-263.
[3]	Xue Dong, Yonghua Li, Zhengguo Zhang, Siyao Li, Yanfeng Bao, Yuguang Hao, Bin Yao. Niche of dominant shrub species in desert gobi in Jiuquan， Gansu, China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(4): 138-145.
[4]	Chang Hong, Liu Tong, Wang Dawei, Ji Xiaoru. Haloxylon ammodendron's Potential Distribution under Climate Change in Arid Areas of Northwest China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 110-118.
[5]	Zhang Jing, Zuo Xiaoan, Lv Peng, Zhou Xin, Lian Jie, Liu Liangxu, Yue Xiyuan. Response of Grassland Vegetation in Horqin Sandy Land to Exclosure and Grazing [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2017, 37(3): 446-452.
[6]	Wang Xiyi, Xu Hailiang, Pan Cunde, Ling Hongbo, Zhang Pei. Relation of Dominant Herbaceous Plant Species to Groundwater Depth in the Lower Reaches of Tarim River [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2016, 36(1): 216-224.
[7]	Urantsetseg;;ZHANG A MunkhDalai;WU Xiao-dong;YAN Rui-rui;HUANG Xue-wen. Analysis on Plant Communities in a Depression in Hulunbuir Sandy Meadow Grassland, Inner Mongolia, China [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2008, 28(6): 1125-1129.
[8]	SHEN Wei shou. DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF THREE MAIN AIR-SEEDING PLANT POPULATIONS IN THE MU US SANDY LAND [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 1998, 18(4): 372-378.
[9]	xu Bin. THE TWINSPAN QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR SAND DUNE PLANT COMMUNITY IN HORQIN SANDY LAND [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 1995, 15(3): 233-236.
[10]	Chen Guoxion. APPLICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL NICHE THEORY IN THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF SANDY LAND [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 1995, 15(3): 278-282.