{"title":"放牧增加了豆科植物的正反馈,同时减少了草的负反馈","authors":"Jiechao Chang, Jiayao Xie, Ariuntsetseg Lkhagva, Honghui Wu, Haiyan Ren","doi":"10.1002/ldr.5120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Herbivore grazing affects plant growth and community structure in grasslands. This effect could be directly through foraging and dung/urine return or indirectly through plant–soil feedbacks (PSFs). Addressing the grazing effect on the feedback of plants can explicate the causes of community changes in the grazing system. However, how grazing and PSF interact to affect plant growth remains unclear. Here, we conducted a classic PSF experiment. In the conditioning stage, two native plant species (a grass <i>Bromus inermis</i> and a legume <i>Medicago sativa</i>) were planted in the field with four simulated grazing treatments (ambient, mowing, dung/urine addition, and mowing + dung/urine addition) in a meadow grassland of northern China. In the feedback stage, <i>B. inermis</i> and <i>M. sativa</i> were planted in the soils (both unsterilized and sterilized) from each treatment in the field experiment. Plant biomass of <i>M. sativa</i> showed positive feedback while <i>B. inermis</i> showed negative feedback across all the simulated grazing treatments. Simulated grazing (mowing and dung/urine addition) increased the positive feedback of <i>M. sativa</i>, while decreasing the negative feedback of <i>B. inermis</i>. The addition of dung/urine to the soil was found to have a significantly stronger impact on plant growth feedback compared to the effect of mowing. Dung/urine addition enriches the soil with higher levels of available nitrogen and phosphorus. Our results suggested that legume plants should have positive PSFs while grass should have negative feedback, which might be amplified by grazing because of the dung/urine fertilization effect. Our study improves the understanding of PSF effects on plant growth and community change in grazed grassland.</p>","PeriodicalId":203,"journal":{"name":"Land Degradation & Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grazing increases the positive feedback of legumes while decreasing the negative feedback of grass\",\"authors\":\"Jiechao Chang, Jiayao Xie, Ariuntsetseg Lkhagva, Honghui Wu, Haiyan Ren\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ldr.5120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Herbivore grazing affects plant growth and community structure in grasslands. This effect could be directly through foraging and dung/urine return or indirectly through plant–soil feedbacks (PSFs). Addressing the grazing effect on the feedback of plants can explicate the causes of community changes in the grazing system. However, how grazing and PSF interact to affect plant growth remains unclear. Here, we conducted a classic PSF experiment. In the conditioning stage, two native plant species (a grass <i>Bromus inermis</i> and a legume <i>Medicago sativa</i>) were planted in the field with four simulated grazing treatments (ambient, mowing, dung/urine addition, and mowing + dung/urine addition) in a meadow grassland of northern China. In the feedback stage, <i>B. inermis</i> and <i>M. sativa</i> were planted in the soils (both unsterilized and sterilized) from each treatment in the field experiment. Plant biomass of <i>M. sativa</i> showed positive feedback while <i>B. inermis</i> showed negative feedback across all the simulated grazing treatments. Simulated grazing (mowing and dung/urine addition) increased the positive feedback of <i>M. sativa</i>, while decreasing the negative feedback of <i>B. inermis</i>. The addition of dung/urine to the soil was found to have a significantly stronger impact on plant growth feedback compared to the effect of mowing. Dung/urine addition enriches the soil with higher levels of available nitrogen and phosphorus. Our results suggested that legume plants should have positive PSFs while grass should have negative feedback, which might be amplified by grazing because of the dung/urine fertilization effect. Our study improves the understanding of PSF effects on plant growth and community change in grazed grassland.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Land Degradation & Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Land Degradation & Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.5120\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Degradation & Development","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.5120","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
食草动物放牧会影响草地的植物生长和群落结构。这种影响可能是直接通过觅食和粪便/尿液返回产生的,也可能是间接通过植物-土壤反馈(PSFs)产生的。解决放牧对植物反馈的影响可以解释放牧系统中群落变化的原因。然而,放牧和PSF如何相互作用影响植物生长仍不清楚。在这里,我们进行了一个经典的 PSF 实验。在调节阶段,我们在中国北方的一片草甸草原上种植了两种本地植物(禾本科植物Bromus inermis和豆科植物Medicago sativa),并进行了四种模拟放牧处理(常温、刈割、粪尿添加和刈割+粪尿添加)。在反馈阶段,将 B. inermis 和 M. sativa 种植在田间试验各处理的土壤(包括未灭菌和已灭菌土壤)中。在所有模拟放牧处理中,M. sativa 的植物生物量均呈现正反馈,而 B. inermis 则呈现负反馈。模拟放牧(刈割和添加粪便/尿素)增加了荠菜的正反馈,而减少了茵芋的负反馈。与割草的效果相比,在土壤中添加粪肥/尿素对植物生长反馈的影响明显更大。添加粪肥/尿素能使土壤富含更多的可用氮和磷。我们的研究结果表明,豆科植物应具有正的 PSFs,而禾本科植物应具有负反馈,由于粪肥/尿肥的作用,放牧可能会放大这种负反馈。我们的研究加深了人们对PSF对放牧草地植物生长和群落变化的影响的理解。
Grazing increases the positive feedback of legumes while decreasing the negative feedback of grass
Herbivore grazing affects plant growth and community structure in grasslands. This effect could be directly through foraging and dung/urine return or indirectly through plant–soil feedbacks (PSFs). Addressing the grazing effect on the feedback of plants can explicate the causes of community changes in the grazing system. However, how grazing and PSF interact to affect plant growth remains unclear. Here, we conducted a classic PSF experiment. In the conditioning stage, two native plant species (a grass Bromus inermis and a legume Medicago sativa) were planted in the field with four simulated grazing treatments (ambient, mowing, dung/urine addition, and mowing + dung/urine addition) in a meadow grassland of northern China. In the feedback stage, B. inermis and M. sativa were planted in the soils (both unsterilized and sterilized) from each treatment in the field experiment. Plant biomass of M. sativa showed positive feedback while B. inermis showed negative feedback across all the simulated grazing treatments. Simulated grazing (mowing and dung/urine addition) increased the positive feedback of M. sativa, while decreasing the negative feedback of B. inermis. The addition of dung/urine to the soil was found to have a significantly stronger impact on plant growth feedback compared to the effect of mowing. Dung/urine addition enriches the soil with higher levels of available nitrogen and phosphorus. Our results suggested that legume plants should have positive PSFs while grass should have negative feedback, which might be amplified by grazing because of the dung/urine fertilization effect. Our study improves the understanding of PSF effects on plant growth and community change in grazed grassland.
期刊介绍:
Land Degradation & Development is an international journal which seeks to promote rational study of the recognition, monitoring, control and rehabilitation of degradation in terrestrial environments. The journal focuses on:
- what land degradation is;
- what causes land degradation;
- the impacts of land degradation
- the scale of land degradation;
- the history, current status or future trends of land degradation;
- avoidance, mitigation and control of land degradation;
- remedial actions to rehabilitate or restore degraded land;
- sustainable land management.