Response of primary production and biomass allocation to nitrogen and water supplementation along a grazing intensity gradient in semiarid grassland

Gong, Xiao Ying; Fanselow, Nicole; Dittert, Klaus; Taube, F.; Lin, Shan

doi:10.1016/j.eja.2014.11.004

Cited by 42 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, a clear response in tillering to N addition was observed. Similarly, a field study showed that both tiller weight and tiller density responded to N and water supply in this grassland ecosystem (Gong et al 2015). These results emphasize the importance of understanding tillering kinetics in modelling the whole shoot morphological development of C. squarrosa .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of nitrogen and vapour pressure deficit on phytomer growth and development in a C4 grass

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The morphology of almost all grasses can be conceptualized as a hierarchical arrangement of subunits, termed phytomers. Therefore, knowledge of phytomer growth and development serves as a basis to elucidate the rhythm of grass growth. This study provides systematic analyses on the process of phytomer development of C. squarrosa, a perennial C4 grass. The invariant coordination of elongation within and between phytomers was a stable developmental feature across treatments, thus the quantitative coordination rules are applicable for predicting morphological development of C. squarrosa under contrasting levels of nitrogen nutrition or vapour pressure deficit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of nitrogen and vapour pressure deficit on phytomer growth and development in a C4 grass

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some previous studies confirmed that plants increase f BNPP to optimize growth under drought conditions, likely resulted from changes in the relative importance of limiting resources (such as water, light, nutrients) 12 , 34 . However, some other studies stated f BNPP is not influenced by water supplementation 61 . Although the mechanisms behind the allocation shift under drought are unclear, the decline tendency of f BNPP with increasing precipitation (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Net primary productivity and its partitioning in response to precipitation gradient in an alpine meadow

Zhang

Quan

Song

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamics of net primary productivity (NPP) and its partitioning to the aboveground versus belowground are of fundamental importance to understand carbon cycling and its feedback to climate change. However, the responses of NPP and its partitioning to precipitation gradient are poorly understood. We conducted a manipulative field experiment with six precipitation treatments (1/12 P, 1/4 P, 1/2 P, 3/4 P, P, and 5/4 P, P is annual precipitation) in an alpine meadow to examine aboveground and belowground NPP (ANPP and BNPP) in response to precipitation gradient in 2015 and 2016. We found that changes in precipitation had no significant impact on ANPP or belowground biomass in 2015. Compared with control, only the extremely drought treatment (1/12 P) significantly reduced ANPP by 37.68% and increased BNPP at the depth of 20–40 cm by 80.59% in 2016. Across the gradient, ANPP showed a nonlinear response to precipitation amount in 2016. Neither BNPP nor NPP had significant relationship with precipitation changes. The variance in ANPP were mostly due to forbs production, which was ultimately caused by altering soil water content and soil inorganic nitrogen concentration. The nonlinear precipitation-ANPP relationship indicates that future precipitation changes especially extreme drought will dramatically decrease ANPP and push this ecosystem beyond threshold.

show abstract

“…Soil biogeochemical and physical responses to livestock grazing are regulated by complex and often interacting factors: grazing practices (Reeder et al, 2004;Derner and Schuman, 2007;Stavi et al, 2008;Steffens et al, 2008), climate (McSherry and Ritchie, 2013;Andrés et al, 2017), soil texture (Spaeth et al, 1996;Fox et al, 2015;Andrés et al, 2017), time (duration of management regime implementation; Jing et al, 2014), and plant community structure (McSherry and Ritchie, 2013;Jing et al, 2014;Qu et al, 2016). Grazing mechanisms such as plant defoliation can affect plant photosynthetic rates, root/shoot ratios, C allocation, fine root mass, and plant root exudates, all of which play principle roles in grassland biogeochemical cycles (Johnson and Matchett, 2001;Gao et al, 2008;Giese et al, 2009;Chen et al, 2015;Gong et al, 2015). For example, light to moderate grazing may increase ecosystem C through increased plant productivity by replacing aging or dead plant tissues with active photosynthetic tissues (Holland et al, 1992;Zhang et al, 2015b) and through prolonged light exposure on younger plant tissues, extending C acquisition during daylight hours (Shao et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grazing lands support the livelihoods of millions of people across nearly one-half of the globe. Soils are the backbone of stability and resilience in these systems. To determine livestock grazing impacts on soil health, we conducted a global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon (SOC), total N, C/N ratio, and bulk density responses to grazing strategies (continuous, rotational, and no grazing) and intensities (heavy, moderate, and light grazing) from 64 studies around the world. Across all studies and grazing intensities, continuous grazing significantly reduced SOC, C/N, and total N compared with no grazing. Soil compaction (i.e., increased bulk density) was greater under both continuous and rotational grazing compared with no grazing; however, rotational grazing had lower bulk density than continuous grazing. Rotational grazing had greater SOC than continuous grazing and was not different from no grazing. The positive responses of SOC to rotational grazing could create climate change mitigation opportunities. Grazing strategy comparisons were minimally conditioned by aridity class (i.e., arid, subhumid, and humid); however, complete observations were notably limited or missing for many rotational grazing comparisons. For continuous and no grazing strategy comparisons, we found that grazing management can significantly influence soil function and health outcomes; however, site-specific environmental factors play important moderating roles. Greater coordination across regional, national, and global efforts, as well as consistent guidelines for soil health evaluation, would help overcome these knowledge gaps and vastly improve our collective understanding of grazing impacts on soil health, providing greater management and policy impacts.

show abstract

Response of primary production and biomass allocation to nitrogen and water supplementation along a grazing intensity gradient in semiarid grassland

Cited by 42 publications

References 51 publications

Effects of nitrogen and vapour pressure deficit on phytomer growth and development in a C4 grass

Effects of nitrogen and vapour pressure deficit on phytomer growth and development in a C4 grass

Net primary productivity and its partitioning in response to precipitation gradient in an alpine meadow

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About