Next Article in Journal
Reality-Virtuality Technologies in the Field of Materials Science and Engineering
Previous Article in Journal
CageView: A Smart Food Control and Monitoring System for Phenotypical Research In Vivo
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/app12104967
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Resistance and Resilience of Nine Plant Species to Drought in Inner Mongolia Temperate Grasslands of Northern China

by
Yuan Miao
1,†,
Zhenxing Zhou
1,2,†,
Meiguang Jiang
1,
Huanhuan Song
1,
Xinyu Yan
1,
Panpan Liu
1,
Minglu Ji
1,
Shijie Han
1,
Anqun Chen
1,* and
Dong Wang
1,*
1
International Joint Research Laboratory for Global Change Ecology, School of Life Sciences, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
2
School of Biological and Food Engineering, Anyang Institute of Technology, Anyang 455000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this paper.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(10), 4967; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12104967
Submission received: 13 April 2022 / Revised: 12 May 2022 / Accepted: 12 May 2022 / Published: 14 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Frontier in Grassland Ecosystem and Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drought has been approved to affect the process of terrestrial ecosystems from different organizational levels, including individual, community, and ecosystem levels; however, which traits play the dominant role in the resistance of plant to drought is still unclear. The experiment was conducted in semi-arid temperate grassland and included six paired control and drought experimental plots. The drought treatment was completely removed from precipitation treatments from 20 June to 30 August 2013. At the end of the growing season in 2013, we removed the rain cover for ecosystem recovery in 2014. The results demonstrated that drought treatment increased the coverage of and abundance Heteropappus altaicus, Potentilla bifurca, and Artemisia scoparia by 126.2–170.0% and 63.4–98.9%, but decreased that of Artemisia frigida, Dontostemon dentatus, and Melissilus ruthenicu by 46.2–60.2% and 49.6–60.1%. No differences in coverage and abundance of Agropyron cristatum, Stipa kiylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa were found between control and drought treatment. The coverage and abundance of Stipa kiylovii have exceeded the original level before the drought stress, but Heteropappus altaicus still had not recovered in the first year after the disturbance. Our findings indicate that plant functional traits are important for the understanding of the resistance and resilience of plants to drought stress, which can provide data support for grassland management.

1. Introduction

As the consequences of intensified global hydrological cycles [1,2], not only the frequency and amount but also the intensity of precipitation will change [3,4]. Climate models predict that annual precipitation inputs are likely to decrease, leading to more frequent, prolonged, and extreme regional drought [5]. Over the past few decades, changes in the Earth’s water cycles caused by global warming led to semi-arid areas facing increasing water deficits [6]. The increase in water scarcity has caused frequent droughts in semi-arid areas, and more severe droughts will occur in the future [7]. Drought has been recognized to affect the process of terrestrial ecosystems from different organizational levels, including individual, community, and ecosystem levels [8,9,10]. A better understanding of the responses of the grassland community to drought is critical to accurately predicting climate changes.
Previous studies have gathered significant evidence on the effect of drought on the growth of plants [11,12]. Most studies about the effects of drought on plant communities have been negative. Studies on drought impacts in grasslands have found an increase in grass mortality and/or declines in cover associated with rainfall deficits at seasonal, annual, and multi-year scales [13,14]. For instance, drought could inhibit the growth of plants, especially in arid and semi-arid areas [15,16,17]. A previous study showed a strong positive correlation of growth between plant growth and moisture status [18]. Plants have developed various strategies to live under drought stress. Some studies have shown that the responses of plants to drought were species-specific. For example, under moderate drought, dehydration avoidance ensures the maintenance of plant tissue hydration and osmotic potential by maximizing water uptake and minimizing water losses [19,20]. Under serious drought conditions, once complete leaf senescence is reached, dehydration tolerance ensures plant survival by maintaining cell integrity in meristematic tissues through cell membrane stabilization and accumulation of water-soluble carbohydrates and dehydrins [21]. In addition, under progressive soil drying, higher biomass allocation to roots and an extensive roots system have been commonly observed in drought-resistant species [22] since deep roots can take up water from moister soil layers. Under severe soil drought conditions, root mortality increases due to tissue dehydration [23,24]. The physiological tolerance hypothesis suggests that the drought period can act as a filter, excluding drought-sensitive species from drier sites [25]; however, responses of plant growth to drought stress were often species-specific. Which type of plant is more drought-resistant is still not very clear. Some studies have documented that plant functional traits were tightly correlated with the survival of the plants. Species with a high maximum growth rate had higher mortality under restricted resources [26]; however, drought resistance may be correlated with many kinds of plant traits, including biomass allocation, root length, and leaf traits. Which traits play the dominant role in the resistance of the plant to drought is still unclear.
The response of ecological units (including ecosystems, communities, populations, and even individuals) to drought is a process of resisting and recovering during and after disturbance [27]. In addition to the resistance of plants to drought, the recovery of plants to drought has also been a concern. Resilience can reduce the negative effects of drought on the ecosystem [28]. The different recovery rates of the co-existence species could alter the plant community after drought disturbance [29]. Maintaining live roots under drought conditions played an important role in the plant recovery process [30]. Leaf traits were also tightly correlated with the resilience of plants to drought [30]. Evaluation of the direct role of species differential drought resilience is crucial for evaluating their distributions in grasslands, which is necessary for projecting the consequence of changes in drought regime; however, species with what kind of functional trait recover more rapidly after a period of drought is still unclear.
Considering grasslands occupy 40% of global land area and their dominant role in the variability of land carbon sink, the semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia, Northern China, has a high biodiversity with important ecological functions and is an integral part of the Eurasian steppe [31,32,33,34]. Exploring the effects of drought on grasslands is thus critical for better understanding terrestrial biosphere response to climate change. In this study, a field experiment was conducted to better understand the responses of dominant plant coverage and abundance to extreme experimental drought in a semi-arid steppe on the Mongolian Plateau. Two precipitation levels were set in the experiment, including the ambient precipitation as a control and the 100% removal of precipitation as a treatment. We tested the two scientific questions: (i) how do community coverage and abundance respond to precipitation changes? (ii) which biotic and abiotic factors determine these response patterns?

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study Site

This study was conducted in a semi-arid temperate steppe (42°02′ N, 116°17′ E, 1324 m a.s.l.) in central Inner Mongolia, China. Mean annual precipitation (1951–2010) was 379 mm, with about 78% of the total precipitation falling from June to September. Mean annual temperature was 2.2 °C. The sandy soil in this area is classified as Haplic Calcisols with a soil bulk density of 1.31 g cm−3. The vegetation type is a semi-arid temperate steppe, which is composed of the dominant perennial species of Artemisia frigida, Stipa krylovii, Potentilla acaulis, Agropyron cristatumm, and Cleistogenes squarrosa. The study site has been fenced to exclude grazing disturbance since 2001. More details of the experimental site can be found in the publications in this area [31,32].

2.2. Experimental Design

This experiment of precipitation treatment used a paired design, which included control (C) and completely removed precipitation treatments to simulate drought: (D) in each pair of plots, and six replicates for each treatment, with 12 plots totally. All treatments were conducted from 20 June to 30 August in 2013. The plot size was 4 × 4 m2 with a 2-m distance between any two adjacent plots; a core area with 2 × 2 m2 within each plot was used for measurements. The abundance and coverage data of each target species in the same pair of plots are basically the same to make sure the change of the variables was induced by drought. The 5 × 5 m2 rainout shelters were made of transparent plexiglass in the precipitation exclusion treatment plots to exclude incoming rainfall. During the treatment period, 174.80 mm of precipitation was excluded under the drought treatment. At the end of the growing season in 2013, we removed the rain cover for ecosystem recovery on 31 August in 2013, and measured the data on 15 August 2014 after one-year of recovery.

2.3. Soil Temperature and Moisture

Soil moisture at a depth of 0–10 cm was measured six times per month using a portable soil moisture profile rapid measuring instrument (Diviner-2000, Sentek Pty Ltd., Balmain, Australia). We buried a section of PVC pipe with 20 cm length and a 5 cm inner diameter in each sample plot to a depth of 15 cm, and plugged the bottom of the PVC pipe with a rubber stopper to prevent water in the soil from entering the pipe. The aboveground section of the PVC pipe was covered to prevent rainwater from entering. We removed the cover during each measurement and slowly penetrated the probe of the instrument for 10 cm depth along the PVC pipe to measure the soil moisture [15]. Soil temperature (10 cm depth) was measured three times per month with a thermocouple connected to Li-8100 Soil CO2 Fluxes System (Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). During each treatment, we inserted the thermocouple into the soil with a depth of 10 cm, and measured soil temperature for 2 min. We took the average value detected by the thermocouple as the soil temperature.

2.4. Variables of Plant Community

Since the experiment was designed as a manipulative experiment in a limited area, all data collection processes for the variables of the plant community were performed non-destructively. Four measurements were explored on 12 July, 21 July, 2 August and 8 August in 2013, and on 15 August in 2014, respectively. There were 9 dominant species chosen to investigate the plant abundance and cover in this study, including Heteropappus altaicus, Potentilla bifurca Linn, Artemisia scoparia Waldst, Artemisia frigida Willd, Dontostemon dentatus (Bunge) Ledeb, Melissilus ruthenicus (L.) Peschkova, Agropyron cristatum Linn., Stipa krylovii Roshev, and Cleistogenes squarrosa Trin. A visually estimated method was used to measure the changes in the community coverage. One permanent quadrat (1 × 1 m2) was established in each subplot in June 2013. During the measurement, a 1 × 1 m2 frame with 100 equally distributed grids (10 × 10 cm2) was placed above the canopy of the plant community in each quadrat. The coverage of each species was visually estimated in all the grids and summed as the species coverage in the quadrat. The species’ abundance was recorded as the number of plant species in the quadrat [35]. The canopy height of each species within a quadrat was calculated as the average of at least three random measurements of the species’ natural height.

2.5. Plant Functional Trait

Six plant functional traits, including height, specific leaf area, root length, leaf biomass ratio, root shoot ratio, and root biomass ratio, were measured in the experiment to determine which functional trait regulates the response of cover and abundance to drought. Ten individuals of similar size as the plants in the control plots of each plant species were selected in the natural steppe outside the plots. The canopy height of each individual was measured with a ruler. Specific leaf area was calculated as the fresh leaf area divided by leaf dry mass. Mature and fully developed leaves in the middle part of each plant were collected and immediately scanned to calculate fresh leaf area, subsequently oven-dried for 48 h at 65 °C, and weighed as leaf dry mass with an electronic balance with a minimum range of 0.1 mg. All selected plants were dug out while maintaining root integrity. Lengths of the main root for a dicotyledonous plant and longest root of a monocotyledonous plant were measured as the root length. The whole plant is divided into four parts: root, stem, leaf, and reproductive organ, which are, respectively, put into different envelopes and dried at 65 °C for 48 h to constant weight and weighted as the biomass of each organ. The biomass of the whole plant was calculated as the sum of the biomass of four organs. Leaf biomass ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass of all leaves to the biomass of the whole plant. The root shoot ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass for the belowground parts to the aboveground parts of the whole plant. Root biomass ratio was calculated as the ratio of the biomass of all roots to the biomass of the whole plant.

2.6. Data Analysis

Repeated measurement ANOVAs were used to examine drought effects on plant coverage and abundance, soil temperature, and soil moisture. Paired t-tests were used to examine the statistical differences in plant coverage/abundance and other biotic and abiotic parameters between the control and drought treatment. A response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and the response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were calculated with the following equations:
RRAD = (AbundanceD1 − AbundanceC1)/AbundanceC1
RRCD = (CoverD1 − CoverC1)/CoverC1
where AbundanceD1 and AbundanceC1, represented the abundance of the selected plants under the drought and control treatment; CoverD1 and CoverC1 represented the cover of the selected plants under the drought and control treatment during the drought treating period in 2013, respectively. The response ratio of abundance to drought in the recovery stage (RRAR) and the response ratio of coverage to drought in the recovery stage (RRCR) were calculated with the following equations:
RRAR = (AbundanceD2 − AbundanceC2)/AbundanceC2
RRCR = (CoverD2 − CoverC2)/CoverC2
where AbundanceD2 and AbundanceC2, represented the abundance of the selected plants under the drought and control treatment; CoverD2 and CoverC2 represented the cover of the selected plants under the drought and control treatment during the recovery period in 2014, respectively. The relative differences between the control and drought treatment with the data measured in 2014. Pearson correlations and simple linear regressions were performed to determine the relationships among the RRAD, RRCD, RRAR, RRCR, soil temperature, soil moisture, soil total carbon, and nitrogen. All statistical analyses were conducted with SAS v. 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Temperature and Moisture Induced by Drought Treatment

Soil temperature showed strong temporal variation (p < 0.001, Figure 1a), with the highest value (24.6 °C) and the lowest value (22.5 °C) appearing on 2 August and 8 August and in the control plot, respectively. No effects of drought treatment on soil temperature were found in this study (p > 0.05, Figure 1a). In addition, soil moisture in the control and drought treatment plots was 11.7 and 5.7%, respectively. Soil moisture showed strong temporal variations (p < 0.001, Figure 1b) across the 2013. The highest value (15.8%) and lowest value (4.3%) of soil moisture in the control plot appeared on 2 August and 8 August of 2013 in the control plot, respectively. Drought treatment significantly decreased soil moisture by 5.99% (absolute changes) in 2013 compared to control (p < 0.001; Figure 1b).

3.2. Effects of Drought on Coverage and Abundance of 9 Dominated Plant Species

In the semi-arid temperate grassland of Inner Mongolia, neither the abundance nor coverage of any species varied with measurements dated during the drought treatment stage (all p > 0.05, Figure 2 and Figure 3); however, the effects of drought treatment on the coverage and abundance of dominant species were different. Drought treatment significantly increased the coverage of Heteropappus altaicus, Potentilla bifurca Linn, and Artemisia scoparia waldst by 126.2, 137.5, and 170.0% (all p < 0.001; Figure 2a–c) compared to that in the control plots; however, drought treatment significantly reduced the coverage of Artemisia frigida, Dontostemon dentatus, and Melissilus ruthenicus by 60.2, 52.8, and 46.2% (all p < 0.01; Figure 2d–f) compared to that in the control plots. In addition, there were no effects of drought treatment on the coverage and abundance of Agropyron cristatum, Stipa kiylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa (all p > 0.05, Figure 2i). Moreover, the effects of drought on coverage for all species did not vary with the date (all p > 0.05, Figure 2).
The abundance of Heteropappus altaicus and Potentilla bifurca under the drought treatment plots were 9.7 and 7.5 individuals, respectively, which accounts for a change of 63.4 and 98.9% (both p < 0.001; Figure 3a,b) relative to that of control. No differences in the abundance of Artemisia scoparia were found between control and drought treatment (p > 0.05; Figure 3c). The abundance of Artemisia frigida, and Dontostemon dentatus under the drought treatment plots were 1.3 and 11.7 individuals, respectively, which accounts for a change of −60.11 and −49.60% (both p < 0.01; Figure 3d,e) relative to that of control, but no difference in the abundance of Melissilus ruthenicus was found between control and drought treatment (p > 0.05; Figure 3f). There were no effects of drought treatment on the abundance of Agropyron cristatum, Stipa kiylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa (all p > 0.05, Figure 3g–i). In addition, the effects of drought on coverage for all species did not vary by date (all p > 0.05, Figure 2).

3.3. Recovery of Coverage and Abundance Precipitation on Nine Plant Species after Drought Stress

In the recovery period, the coverage of Stipa kiylovii under the drought treatment plots was 7.60% higher (absolute changes, p < 0.05, Table 1) than that of control. The abundance of Stipa kiylovii under the drought treatment was marginally higher than that under the control treatment (p < 0.10, Table 1). The abundance of Heteropappus altaicus was significantly lower under the drought treatment than that under the control treatment (p < 0.05, Table 1). No difference in coverage and abundance of other species was found between control and drought treatment (p > 0.05, Table 1).

3.4. Relationships between Plant Abundance and Cover with Functional Trait

The response ratio of coverage to drought under the stress (RRCD) and the response of abundance to drought under the stress (RRAD) were significantly positively correlated with leaf biomass ratio (LBR, Figure 4). The response ratio of abundance to drought in the recovery stage (RRAR) was significantly positively correlated with root length (RL, Figure 4), root shoot ratio (RC, Figure 4), and root biomass ratio (RBR, Figure 4). The LBR was significantly negatively correlated with height (Figure 4). The RBR was significantly positively correlated with RL and RC (Figure 4). RL was significantly positively correlated with RC (Figure 4). RRAD was significantly positively correlated with RRAD (Figure 4). RRCD (R2 = 0.57, p < 0.05; Figure 5a) and RRAD (R2 = 0.45, p < 0.05; Figure 5b) in the experimental plots increased linearly with leaf biomass ratio during the drought treatment. In addition, the RRAR also enhanced linearly with root biomass ratio (R2 = 0.47, p < 0.05, Figure 5c) during the recovery stage.

4. Discussion

4.1. Different Drought Resistance of the Plant Species

In this study, drought significantly increased the coverage of Heteropappus altaicus, Potentilla bifurca, and Artemisia scoparia, but did not affect the coverage and abundance of Agropyron cristatum, Stipa kiylovii, and Cleistogenes squarrosa. The various types of coverage and abundance responses to drought stress indicate that the resistances of the plant species are species-specific. Reductions in coverage and abundance induced by drought for some species are not surprising. Most of the previous studies have shown that plant cover and density decreased under a low water availability environment [36,37,38], especially in the arid and semi-arid areas [39]. This result is easy to understand. Water is an important resource for plant growth and the primary limitation of plant growth in the semi-arid grassland [11,35]. Plants wilt or even die when the external environment lacks water. Too many previous studies have reported that drought-induced changes in community cover and abundance are closely associated with the variation of soil moisture [16]. The neutral response of cover and abundance is also easily explained. Some drought tolerance species are not sensitive to short time drought stress [8,40]. Our drought treatment was only conducted for two months, and the last survey was only 56 days from the beginning of drought treatment. Unchanged coverage and abundance for the nine species indicated that the nine target species had a certain size of individuals and drought resistance at the beginning of the experiment. Some species can resist this short-term drought, although this period of precipitation accounts for a large proportion of the annual precipitation [15]. The results indicated that a long-term study must be conducted to confirm the effect of drought on plant performance; however, increased abundance and coverage of some species under drought treatment in our study have been rarely reported in previous studies. Only a few experiments have reported increasing dominance of drought-tolerant species with available water reduction [35]. The elevating coverage and abundance of the three species under drought can be ascribed to two possible reasons. First, these three species (Heteropappus altaicus, Potentilla bifurca, and Artemisia scoparia) have a relatively large leaf biomass ratio. The leaf biomass ratio explained 57% and 45% variations of the cover and abundance under drought, which have demonstrated that species with larger leaf biomass ratios are more tolerant to drought (Figure 4 and Figure 5). In addition, these three species have relative deep root depth [41], which can help to explain their greater drought resistance potential. Moreover, the responses of different species to drought stress are also related to their own morphological characteristics. In this study, the legume plant species Artemisia scoparia is relatively high among the nine species [41], which could inhibit the growth of lower plants through the shading effect [42]. These results show that the interaction between plant functional groups regulates the response of the plant community to the change of precipitation [36,42], which can also explain the different responses of dominated species to drought. The increase in the coverage and abundance of these species under drought treatment may also be due to the decrease in the overall density and coverage of plant communities under drought stress, which reduces the overall demand of nutrients for plant communities, and reduces the restriction of nutrients and other resources on plant communities. The species with strong resistance to water stress may become more advantageous when resource limitation is reduced. The observations suggest that resistance of semi-arid grasslands to drought could be regulated by species with having different life story strategies.

4.2. Recovery of Coverage and Abundance of Nine Species after Drought Stress

Our results showed that most of the species recovered rapidly after drought disturbance; however, the recovery rates also varied among different species. For example, coverage and abundance of Stipa kiylovii have exceeded the original level before the drought stress; species with longer root length and biomass have higher recovery ability—that may be because species with deep roots can more easily use water in deep soil [43]. The difference in plant coverage and abundance caused by the change of plant root depth in the soil layer will affect the competition of nutrients and water availability among species, which adjusts the responses of plant community structure and composition to drought [30]. The other results in this study are changes of abundance also enhanced linearly with root biomass ratio (Figure 5c) during the recovery treatments, which suggests species with high root biomass increased abundance during the recovery period; however, Heteropappus altaicus in the plots that have experienced drought had a lower abundance and cover than it under control treatment in the first year after the disturbance, although the coverage and abundance of Heteropappus altaicus were higher under drought treatment than that of the control during the treatment period. The reason may be because that the precipitation in 2014 was lower than that of 2013, especially in May and early June [31,44]. The low precipitation at the beginning of the growing season may inhibit the germination of Heteropappus altaicus. In addition, although the abundance and cover of Heteropappus altaicus were higher under drought treatment, drought may decrease the seed production of this species because its fruits ripened at the end of September. The seed germination and seedling recruitment may be reduced in the drought-treated plots because of the variations in seed production. The species with relatively large root biomass ratio values are Potentilla bifurca (0.42) and Melissilus ruthenicus (0.44) in the nine species (with an average value of 0.26) [41], which suggests that these two species are more resistant to drought stress and can grow more roots to sustain growth. Other species in the recovery period in drought treatment plots were not significantly different from that of the control, which indicates that short-term drought had little impact on species and the ecosystem could quickly recover to the normal level.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the response pattern of nine dominant species cover and abundance to drought in Inner Mongolia temperate grasslands. Our results suggest that responses of nine dominated species to persistent drought and recovery in Inner Mongolia temperate grasslands are different. These results imply that the ratio of leaf and root biomass regulates the variation of species coverage and abundance. Our findings indicate that plant functional traits are important for the understanding of the resistance and resilience of plants to drought stress. These results would further advance our understanding of drought-stress-affected species in semi-arid regions; however, we admit that only nine species and a few functional traits were selected in this study and only a short-term experiment was carried out; therefore, more species and traits need to be selected and more long-term research needs to be conducted in the future to further explore the relationship between functional traits and plant drought resistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.M., A.C. and D.W.; methodology, Z.Z.; software, M.J. (Meiguang Jiang); validation, H.S. and X.Y.; formal analysis, P.L.; investigation, M.J. (Minglu Ji); writing—original draft preparation, Y.M.; writing—review and editing, S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42107225; 31770522).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Fan Yang and Tong Zhang for their help in the field experiment. All authors provided intellectual input and assistance for this study and in preparing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Christensen, J.H.; Kanikicharla, K.; Aldrian, E. Climate phenomena and their relevance for future regional climate change supplementary material. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 10–55. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu, C.G.; McDowell, N.G.; Fisher, R.A.; Wei, L.; Sevanto, S.; Christoffersen, B.O.; Weng, E.; Middleton, R.S. Increasing impacts of extreme droughts on vegetation productivity under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 948–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Routson, C.C.; McKay, N.P.; Kaufman, D.S.; Erb, M.P.; Goosse, H.; Shuman, B.N.; Rodysill, J.R.; Ault, T. Mid-latitude net precipitation decreased with Arctic warming during the Holocene. Nature 2019, 568, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schoof, J.T.; Pryor, S.C.; Supernant, J. Development of daily precipitation projections for the United States based on probabilistic downscaling. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2010, 115, D13106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Huang, J.P.; Ji, M.X.; Xie, Y.K.; Wang, S.S.; He, Y.L.; Ran, J.J. Global semi-arid climate change over last 60 years. EGU Gen. Assem. Conf. Abstr. 2016, 46, 1131–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Dai, A.G. Drought under global warming: A review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Craine, J.M.; Ocheltree, T.W.; Nippert, J.B.; Towne, E.G.; Skibbe, A.M.; Kembel, S.W.; Fargione, J.E. Global diversity of drought tolerance and grassland climate-change resilience. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 3, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kamara, M.M.; Rehan, M.; Mohamed, A.M.; El Mantawy, R.F.; Kheir, A.M.S.; Abd El-Moneim, D.; Safhi, F.A.; ALshamrani, S.M.; Hafez, E.M.; Behiry, S.I.; et al. Genetic Potential and Inheritance Patterns of Physiological, Agronomic and Quality Traits in Bread Wheat under Normal and Water Deficit Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Van Loon, A.F.; Van Lanen, H.A.J. Making the distinction between water scarcity and drought using an observation-modeling framework. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 1483–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahmed, M.; Kheir, A.M.S.; Mehmood, M.Z.; Ahmad, S.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Changes in Germination and Seedling Traits of Sesame under Simulated Drought. Phyton 2022, 91, 4. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kheir, A.M.S.; Alrajhi, A.A.; Ghoneim, A.M.; Ali, E.F.; Magrashi, A.; Zoghdan, M.G.; Elnashar, A. Modeling deficit irrigation-based evapotranspiration optimizes wheat yield and water productivity in arid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 256, 107122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Briske, D.D.; Smeins, F.E. Herbaceous vegetation change in variable rangeland environments: The relative contribution of grazing and climatic variability. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2001, 4, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gremer, J.R.; Bradford, J.B.; Munson, S.M.; Duniway, M.C. Desert grassland responses to climate and soil moisture suggest divergent vulnerabilities across the southwestern United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 4049–4062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Miao, Y.; Han, H.Y.; Du, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, L.; Hui, D.F.; Wang, S.Q. Nonlinear responses of soil respiration to precipitation changes in a semiarid temperate steppe. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Zhong, M.X.; Song, J.; Zhou, Z.X.; Ru, J.Y. Asymmetric responses of plant community structure and composition to precipitation variabilities in a semi-arid steppe. Oecologia 2019, 191, 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Han, J.J.; Chen, J.Q.; Miao, Y.; Wang, S.Q. Multiple Resource Use Efficiency (mRUE): A New Concept for Ecosystem Production. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Reader, R.J.; Jalili, A.; Grime, J.P.; Spencer, R.E.; Matthews, N. A comparative study of plasticity in seedling rooting depth in drying soil. J. Ecol. 1993, 81, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ludlow, M.M. Strategies of response to water stress. In Structural and Functional Responses to Environmental Stresses; Kreeb, K., Richter, H., Hinckley, T., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1989; pp. 269–281. [Google Scholar]
  20. Volaire, F.; Norton, M.R.; Lelièvre, F. Summer drought survival strategies and sustainability of perennial temperate forage grasses in Mediterranean areas. Crop Sci. 2009, 49, 2386–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Verslues, P.E.; Agarwal, M.; Katiyar-Agarwal, S.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, J.K. Methods and concepts in quantifying resistance to drought, salt and freezing, abiotic stresses that affect plant water status. Plant J. 2006, 45, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Comas, L.H.; Becker, S.R.; Cruz, V.M.V.; Byrne, P.F.; Dierig, D.A. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Eissenstat, D.M.; Yanai, R. The ecology of root lifespan. Adv. Ecol. Res. 1997, 27, 1–60. [Google Scholar]
  24. Facette, M.R.; McCully, M.E.; Canny, M.J. Responses of maize roots to drying-limits of viability. Plant Cell Environ. 1999, 22, 1559–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Currie, D.J.; Mittelbach, G.G.; Cornell, H.V.; Field, R.; Guégan, J.F.; Hawkins, B.A.; Kaufman, D.M.; Kerr, J.T.; Oberdorff, T.; O’Brien, E.; et al. Predictions and tests of climate-based hypotheses of broad-scale variation in taxonomic richness. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 1121–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wright, S.J.; Kitajima, K.; Kraft, N.J.B.; Reich, P.B.; Wright, I.J.; Bunker, D.E.; Condit, R.; Dalling, J.W.; Davies, S.J.; Diaz, S.; et al. Functional traits and the growth-mortality trade-off in tropical trees. Ecology 2010, 91, 3664–3674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nimmo, D.G.; Mac, N.R.; Cunningham, S.C.; Haslem, A.; Bennett, A.F. Vive la resistance: Reviving resistance for 21st century conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lake, P.S. Resistance, resilience and restoration. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2013, 14, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rondeau, R.J.; Pearson, K.T.; Kelso, S. Vegetation Response in a Colorado Grassland-shrub Community to Extreme Drought: 1999–2010. Am. Midl. Nat. 2013, 170, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marine, Z.; Catherine, P.C.; Annette, M.B.; Marie, P.P.; Florence, V. What functional strategies drive drought survival and recovery of perennial species from upland grassland? Ann. Bot. 2015, 6, 1001–1015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Guo, J.; Zhang, L.; You, C. Short-term phosphorus addition augments the effects of nitrogen addition on soil respiration in a typical steppe. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miao, Y.; Liu, M.Z.; Xuan, J.; Xu, W. Effects of warming on soil respiration during the non-growing seasons in a semiarid temperate steppe. J. Plant Ecol. 2020, 13, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, D.; Huang, X.D.; Qiao, N.; Geng, Q.L.; Liu, Y.Z.; Song, H.Q.; Yang, Z.L.; Liu, C.; Wang, G. Effects of mowing and fertilization on soil quality in a semiarid grassland of North China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 32, 1656–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zheng, J.; Cui, M.; Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, S.L.; Sun, Z.J.; Ren, F.R.; Wan, S.Q.; Han, S.J. Elevated CO2, warming, N addition, and increased precipitation affect different aspects of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Guo, J.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, L.; Han, Y.; Cao, R.; Liu, Y.; Sun, S. Water table decline alters arthropod community structure by shifting plant communities and leaf nutrients in a Tibetan peatland. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 814, 151944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Morecroft, M.D.; Masters, G.J.; Brown, V.K.; Clarke, I.P.; Taylor, M.E.; Whitehouse, A.T. Changing precipitation patterns alter plant community dynamics and succession in an ex-arable grassland. Funct. Ecol. 2010, 18, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dostálek, J.; Frantík, T. Response of dry grassland vegetation to fluctuations in weather conditions: A 9-year case study in Prague (Czech Republic). Biologia 2011, 66, 837–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, L.H.; Wang, J.F.; Zhao, R.F.; Guo, Y.F.; Hao, L.Y. Aboveground net primary productivity and soil respiration display different responses to precipitation changes in desert grassland. J. Plant Ecol. 2022, 15, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mackie, K.A.; Zeiter, M.; Bloor, J.M.G.; Stampfli, A. Plant functional groups mediate drought resistance and recovery in a multisite grassland experiment. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 937–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Májeková, M.; Martínková, J.; Hájek, T. Grassland plants show no relationship between leaf drought tolerance and soil moisture affinity, but rapidly adjust to changes in soil moisture. Funct. Ecol. 2019, 33, 774–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Song, H.H. Correlations among Plant Functional Traits in a Temperate Typical Steppe of Northern China. Master’s Thesis, Henan University, Kaifeng, China, 2018. (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  42. Yang, H.J.; Li, Y.; Wu, M.Y.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Li, L.H.; Wan, S.Q. Plant community responses to nitrogen addition and increased precipitation: The importance of water availability and species traits. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2936–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, J.M.; Song, H.Y.; Chen, J.Y.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.H.; Tao, J.P.; Liu, J.C. Response strategies of Lolium perenne L. to karst heterogeneous habitats under drought stress. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 4566–4572. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhou, Z.X.; Zhang, L.W.; Liu, Y.Z.; Zhang, K.P.; Wang, W.R.; Zhu, J.K.; Chai, S.J.; Zhang, H.Y.; Miao, Y. Contrasting effects of nitrogen addition on vegetative phenology in dry and wet years in a temperate steppe on the Mongolian Plateau. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 10–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 12 04967 g001 550
Figure 1. Dynamic variations of soil temperature (Soil T) on the 8 to 12 July to August in 2013, respectively. (a,b) are annual mean values (±SE). *, significant difference between the two treatments at the level p < 0.05. C: ambient precipitation; D: precipitation treatment; n = 6.
Figure 1. Dynamic variations of soil temperature (Soil T) on the 8 to 12 July to August in 2013, respectively. (a,b) are annual mean values (±SE). *, significant difference between the two treatments at the level p < 0.05. C: ambient precipitation; D: precipitation treatment; n = 6.
Applsci 12 04967 g001
Applsci 12 04967 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of drought on coverage of Heteropappus altaicus (a), Potentilla bifurca (b), Artemisia scoparia (c), Artemisia frigida (d), Dontostemon dentatus (e), Melissilus ruthenicus (f), Agropyron cristatum (g), Stipa kiylovii (h), and Cleistogenes squarrosa (i). C: ambient precipitation; D: precipitation treatment; n = 6.
Figure 2. Effects of drought on coverage of Heteropappus altaicus (a), Potentilla bifurca (b), Artemisia scoparia (c), Artemisia frigida (d), Dontostemon dentatus (e), Melissilus ruthenicus (f), Agropyron cristatum (g), Stipa kiylovii (h), and Cleistogenes squarrosa (i). C: ambient precipitation; D: precipitation treatment; n = 6.
Applsci 12 04967 g002
Applsci 12 04967 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of drought on abundance of Heteropappus altaicus (a), Potentilla bifurca (b), Artemisia scoparia (c), Artemisia frigida (d), Dontostemon dentatus (e), Melissilus ruthenicus (f), Agropyron cristatum (g), Stipa kiylovii (h), and Cleistogenes squarrosa (i). The column with grid and slash represents the control and drought treatment, respectively. See Figure 2 for abbreviations and graph information.
Figure 3. Effects of drought on abundance of Heteropappus altaicus (a), Potentilla bifurca (b), Artemisia scoparia (c), Artemisia frigida (d), Dontostemon dentatus (e), Melissilus ruthenicus (f), Agropyron cristatum (g), Stipa kiylovii (h), and Cleistogenes squarrosa (i). The column with grid and slash represents the control and drought treatment, respectively. See Figure 2 for abbreviations and graph information.
Applsci 12 04967 g003
Applsci 12 04967 g004 550
Figure 4. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between soil microbial PLFAs and soil physicochemical properties at 0–10 cm soil LBR (leaf biomass ratio), RL (root length/root depth), RC (root shoot ratio), RBR (root biomass ratio), RRCD (response ratio of coverage to drought), RRAD (response ratio of abundance to drought), RRCR (response ratio of coverage during the recovery stage), RRAR (response ratio of abundance during the recovery stage). *, significant correlations between the two variables at the level p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between soil microbial PLFAs and soil physicochemical properties at 0–10 cm soil LBR (leaf biomass ratio), RL (root length/root depth), RC (root shoot ratio), RBR (root biomass ratio), RRCD (response ratio of coverage to drought), RRAD (response ratio of abundance to drought), RRCR (response ratio of coverage during the recovery stage), RRAR (response ratio of abundance during the recovery stage). *, significant correlations between the two variables at the level p < 0.05.
Applsci 12 04967 g004
Applsci 12 04967 g005 550
Figure 5. Relationships of changes of cover with leaf biomass ratio (a); changes of abundance with leaf biomass ratio (b) under the drought; and changes of abundance with root biomass ratio (c). Abbreviations as Figure 4.
Figure 5. Relationships of changes of cover with leaf biomass ratio (a); changes of abundance with leaf biomass ratio (b) under the drought; and changes of abundance with root biomass ratio (c). Abbreviations as Figure 4.
Applsci 12 04967 g005
Table
Table 1. The coverage and abundance of dominant plant species in control and drought treatment in the recovery stage.
Table 1. The coverage and abundance of dominant plant species in control and drought treatment in the recovery stage.
CoverageAbundance
CDCD
Heteropappus altaicus0.96 ± 0.30 a0.43 ± 0.20 a12.83 ± 2.40 a4.00 ± 2.40 b
Potentilla bifurca2.82 ± 0.70 a2.24 ± 0.50 a11.20 ± 2.19 a13.00 ± 4.23 a
Artemisia scoparia0.56 ± 0.40 a0.56 ± 0.20 a9.75 ± 5.50 a13.80 ± 4.90 a
Artemisia frigida7.50 ± 1.00 a8.33 ± 2.00 a10.00 ± 1.70 a7.50 ± 1.60 a
Dontostemon dentatus0.01 *0.09 *1.00 ± 0.00 b2.00 ± 0.00 a
Melissilus ruthenicus1.18 ± 0.40 a0.78 ± 0.30 a2.33 ± 0.90 a2.60 ± 0.60 a
Agropyron cristatum2.97 ± 1.30 a1.00 ± 0.50 a125.67 ± 50.00 a39.00 ± 15.60 a
Stipa kiylovii4.58 ± 0.20 a12.18 ± 2.60 b9.20 ± 2.60 a16.50 ± 2.60 a
Cleistogenes squarrosa2.38 ± 0.70 a1.92 ± 0.40 a18.33 ± 3.40 a16.83 ± 2.80 a
Note: Values are the means ± standard error (n = 6). Different lower letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between control and drought treatment. *, Standard error on the abundance and coverage of Dontostemon dentatus Ledeb cannot be calculated because this species was detected in less than 3 plots in each treatment.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Miao, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Jiang, M.; Song, H.; Yan, X.; Liu, P.; Ji, M.; Han, S.; Chen, A.; Wang, D. Resistance and Resilience of Nine Plant Species to Drought in Inner Mongolia Temperate Grasslands of Northern China. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12104967

AMA Style

Miao Y, Zhou Z, Jiang M, Song H, Yan X, Liu P, Ji M, Han S, Chen A, Wang D. Resistance and Resilience of Nine Plant Species to Drought in Inner Mongolia Temperate Grasslands of Northern China. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(10):4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12104967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Miao, Yuan, Zhenxing Zhou, Meiguang Jiang, Huanhuan Song, Xinyu Yan, Panpan Liu, Minglu Ji, Shijie Han, Anqun Chen, and Dong Wang. 2022. "Resistance and Resilience of Nine Plant Species to Drought in Inner Mongolia Temperate Grasslands of Northern China" Applied Sciences 12, no. 10: 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12104967

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop