Plant Water Use Efficiency of Different Intercropping Patterns in the Karst Area of the Lijiang River Watershed

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2024.02.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Water is an essential factor limiting plant growth in Karst regions,so understanding the water relationships among different interspecific plants combinations in various intercropping patterns is important.To explore the plausibility of selecting of major non-woord tree species and medicinal plants,this study measured the stable carbon isotope composition of plant leaves in Prunus salicina-based on intercropping patterns and analyzed plant water use efficiency(WUE)to investigate the stability and plausibility of intercropping patterns.The results showed that the δ¹³C values and WUE of the six plantsleaves range from -31.6‰ to -28.7‰ and 20.56 to 37.94 μmol/mol,respectively.The rankings of δ¹³C and WUE were as follows:Illicium difengpi>P.salicina>Semiliquidambar cathayensis>Rubus chingii>Hypericum monogynum>Polygala fallax.It can be seen that I.difengpi,P.salicina,and S.cathayensis were more suitable for planting in Karst arid habitats,followed by R.chingii and H.monogynum,but P.fallax was not suitable for planting in such conditions.The WUE of P.salicina was significantly higher than that of the medicinal understory plants in the P.salicina+H.monogynum,P.salicina+P.fallax,and P.salicina+R.chingii,which exhibited significant differences in species fitness,indicated lower intercropping patterns stability.The P.salicina+S.cathayensis+I.difengpi had the highest WUE,and no significant differences in WUE were observed among the three tree species.This indicates their comparable fitness and stable coexistence.As a result,this intercropping patterns is considered an ideal model for agroforestry integration in the Karst region of the Lijiang River Watershed.

Key words: karst, intercropping planting, stable carbon isotope, water use efficiency

CLC Number:

S718.43

TAO Wanglan, HUANG Fuzhao, LI Jianxing, WANG Zhiying, LUO Ting, LU Fang, LI Xiankun. Plant Water Use Efficiency of Different Intercropping Patterns in the Karst Area of the Lijiang River Watershed[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2024, (2): 34-42.

Figures/Tables 8

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.2

Tab.5

Fig.3

References 39

[1]	江凡. 桂林漓江流域生态环境现状分析及修复治理研究[J]. 资源信息与工程, 2021, 36(5):115-117.
[2]	朱柏露, 杨奇勇, 谢运球, 等. 漓江流域土地石漠化空间分布及驱动因子分析[J]. 广西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 39(3):139-150.
[3]	黄甫昭, 李健星, 李冬兴, 等. 岩溶木本植物对干旱的生理生态适应[J]. 广西植物, 2021, 41(10):1644-1653.
[4]	陈洪松, 王克林. 西南喀斯特山区土壤水分研究[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2008, 29(6):734-738.
[5]	李迪云. 几种经济林果品催熟及生理生化变化研究[J]. 广西林业科学, 1997, 26(1):9-12.
[6]	庞家平, 陈明勇, 唐建维, 等. 橡胶—大叶千斤拔复合生态系统中的植物生长与土壤水分养分动态[J]. 山地学报, 2009, 27(4):433-441.
[7]	吴骏恩, 刘文杰. 西双版纳地区不同胶农(林)复合系统的植物水分利用效率比较[J]. 广西植物, 2016, 36(7):859-867.
[8]	李先琨, 吕仕洪, 蒋忠诚. 喀斯特峰丛区复合农林系统优化与植被恢复实验[J]. 自然资源学报, 2005, 20(1):92-98.
[9]	何春霞, 孟平, 张劲松, 等. 基于稳定碳同位素技术的华北石质山区2种果农复合模式水分利用研究[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(5):1-7.
[10]	CHESSON P. Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2018,106:1773-1794.
[11]	储诚进, 王酉石, 刘宇, 等. 物种共存理论研究进展[J]. 生物多样性, 2017, 25(4):345-354. doi: 10.17520/biods.2017034
[12]	黄甫昭, 吕仕洪, 唐建维, 等. 星油藤在桂西南石漠化地区的生长适应性[J]. 南方农业学报, 2017, 48(10):1769-1775.
[13]	MARTINB, TAUER C G, LIN R K. Carbon isotope discrimination as a tool to improve water-use efficiency in tomato[J]. Crop Science, 1999,39:1775-1783.
[14]	RAY I M, TOWNSEND M S, MUNCY C M. Herit abilities and interrelationships of water-use efficiency and agronomic traits in irrigated alfalfa[J]. Crop Science, 1999,39:1088-1092.
[15]	严昌荣, 韩兴国, 陈灵芝. 六种木本植物水分利用效率和其小生境关系研究[J]. 生态学报, 2001, 21(11):1952-1956.
[16]	黄甫昭, 李冬兴, 王斌, 等. 喀斯特季节性雨林植物叶片碳同位素组成及水分利用效率[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(6):1833-1839. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201906.008
[17]	FAN Dayong, JIE Shenglin, LIU Changcheng, et al. The trade-off between safety and efficiency in hydraulic architecture in 31 woody species in a karst area[J]. Tree Physiology, 2011, 31(8):865-877. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpr076 pmid: 21865304
[18]	容丽, 王世杰, 杜雪莲. 贵州花江峡谷常见乔灌木植物叶片δ¹³C值对喀斯特石漠化程度的响应[J]. 林业科学, 2007, 43(6):38-44.
[19]	杨成, 刘从强, 宋照亮, 等. 喀斯特山区植物碳同位素组成特征及其对水分利用效率的指示:以贵州花溪杨中小流域为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2007, 26(2):105-110.
[20]	张桂玲, 李艳琴, 罗绪强, 等. 季节性干旱下喀斯特次生林不同树种水分利用效率变化[J]. 地球与环境, 2021, 49(1):25-31.
[21]	容丽, 王世杰, 俞国松, 等. 荔波喀斯特森林4种木本植物水分来源的稳定同位素分析[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(7):14-22.
[22]	谭巍, 陈洪松, 王克林, 等. 桂西北喀斯特坡地典型生境不同植物叶片的碳同位素差异[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010, 29(9):1709-1714.
[23]	符裕红, 黄宗胜, 喻理飞. 岩溶区不同根系地下生境类型白栎叶片δ¹³C值的变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(11):2961-2967.
[24]	杜雪莲, 王世杰, 容丽. 喀斯特石漠化区不同小生境常见灌木种叶片δ¹³C值特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(12):3094-3100.
[25]	DING Yali, NIE Yunpeng, CHEN Hongsong, et al. Water uptake depth is coordinated with leaf water potential,water use efficiency and drought vulnerability in Karst Vegetation[J]. New Phytologist, 2021, 229(3):1339-1353.
[26]	姚月锋, 何文, 曾丹娟. 漓江流域洪涝灾害风险评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018, 38(2):122-126.
[27]	向悟生, 李先琨, 吕仕洪, 等. 漓江上游红壤侵蚀区不同植被群落环境因子差异[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2005, 3(4):81-86.
[28]	FARQUHAR G D, RICHARDS R A. Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 1984, 11(6):539-552.
[29]	FENG Xiahong. Long-term C_i/C_a responses of trees in western North America to atmospheric CO₂ concentration derived from carbon isotope chronologies[J]. Oecologia, 1998, 117(1/2):19-25.
[30]	MATHIAS J M, HUDIBURG T W. IsocalcR:An R package to streamline and standardize stable isotope calculations in ecological research[J]. Global Change Biology, 2022, 28(24):7428-7436.
[31]	史芮林, 张庆芬, 李铭, 等. 植物碳同位素分馏在水分利用效率研究中的应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(23):15-20. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0719
[32]	CAO Min, WU Chao, LIU Jiuchan, et al. Increasing leaf δ¹³C values of woody plants in response to water stress induced by tunnel excavation in a karst trough valley:Implication for improving water-use efficiency[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2020,586:1-7.
[33]	唐辉, 史艳财, 孔德鑫, 等. 岩溶特有植物地枫皮的种质资源调查及地理分布[J]. 广东农业科学, 2011, 38(12):113-117.
[34]	叶晓霞, 赵仕花, 方振名, 等. 不同分布区地枫皮叶解剖结构及其生态适应性[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(12):33-37.
[35]	WANG Lixin, GOOD S P, CAYLOR K K. Global synthesis of vegetation control on evapotranspiration partitioning[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2014,41:6753-6757.
[36]	何春霞, 李吉跃, 孟平, 等. 4种高大树木的叶片性状及WUE随树高的变化[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(18):5644-5654.
[37]	李明财, 罗天祥, 孔高强, 等. 色季拉山林线不同生活型植物稳定碳同位素组成特征[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(7):3160-3167.
[38]	郝俊霄, 靳文戈, 李良波, 等. 四种药用植物在喀斯特生境下的生理特征及适生性[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2020, 59(9):77-82.
[39]	曹坤芳, 付培立, 陈亚军, 等. 热带岩溶植物生理生态适应性对于南方石漠化土地生态重建的启示[J]. 中国科学:生命科学, 2014, 44(3):238-247.

物种	δ¹³C
地枫皮(Illicium difengpi)	-28.7±0.3 a
李树(Prunus salicina)	-29.0±0.6 a
半枫荷(Semiliquidambar cathayensis)	-29.1±0.7 a
广西甜茶(Rubus chingii)	-30.7±0.6 b
金丝桃(Hypericum monogynum)	-30.9±0.3 b
黄花倒水莲(Polygala fallax)	-31.6±0.4 c

因子	df	δ¹³C		WUE
因子	df	F	P	F	P
物种	5	22.54	<0.001	22.57	<0.001
复合种植模式	4	24.28	<0.001	24.29	<0.001

复合种植模式	物种名	δ¹³C/‰	WUE/(μmol/mol)
LB(李树+半枫荷+地枫皮)	李树	-28.8±0.3a	37.36±1.84a
	半枫荷	-29.1±0.7a	35.65±3.88a
	地枫皮	-28.7±0.3a	37.94±1.76a
LG(李树+广西甜茶)	李树	-29.6±1.0a	32.18±5.90a
LG(李树+广西甜茶)	广西甜茶	-30.7±0.6b	25.74±3.56b
LH(李树+黄花倒水莲)	李树	-29.0±0.3a	36.07±1.87a
LH(李树+黄花倒水莲)	黄花倒水莲	-31.6±0.4a	20.56±2.22b
LJ(李树+金丝桃)	李树	-29.4±0.6a	35.73±3.53a
LJ(李树+金丝桃)	金丝桃	-30.9±0.3b	24.91±1.90b

复合种植模式	δ¹³C
LG(李树+广西甜茶)	-29.6±1.0a
LH(李树+黄花倒水莲)	-29.0±0.3ab
LJ(李树+金丝桃)	-29.0±0.6ab
LB(李树+半枫荷+地枫皮)	-28.8±0.3b
LL(李树纯林)	-28.8±0.3b

复合种植模式	δ¹³C
LG(李树+广西甜茶)	-30.2±0.8a
LH(李树+黄花倒水莲)	-30.3±1.8a
LJ(李树+金丝桃)	-29.9±1.3a
LB(李树+半枫荷+地枫皮)	-28.8±0.2b
LL(李树纯林)	-28.8±0.3b