Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 5;11(13):9079-9091.
doi: 10.1002/ece3.7751. eCollection 2021 Jul.

Effects of habitat types on the dynamic changes in allocation in carbon and nitrogen storage of vegetation-soil system in sandy grasslands: How habitat types affect C and N allocation?

Peng Lv  1   2   3 , Shanshan Sun  1   3 , Eduardo Medina-Roldánd  4 , Shenglong Zhao  2   3 , Ya Hu  2   3 , Aixia Guo  2   3 , Xiaoan Zuo  1   2
Affiliations

Effects of habitat types on the dynamic changes in allocation in carbon and nitrogen storage of vegetation-soil system in sandy grasslands: How habitat types affect C and N allocation?

Peng Lv et al. Ecol Evol. .

Abstract

The progressively restoration of degraded vegetation in semiarid and arid desertified areas undoubtedly formed different habitat types. The most plants regulate their growth by fixing carbon with their energy deriving from photosynthesis; carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) play the crucial role in regulating plant growth, community structure, and function in the vegetation restoration progress. However, it is still unclear how habitat types affect the dynamic changes in allocation in C and N storage of vegetation-soil system in sandy grasslands. Here, we investigated plant community characteristics and soil properties across three successional stages of habitat types: semi-fixed dunes (SFD), fixed dunes (FD), and grasslands (G) in 2011, 2013, and 2015. We also examined the C and N concentrations of vegetation-soil system and estimated their C and N storage. The C and N storage of vegetation system, soil, and vegetation-soil system remarkably increased from SFD to G. The litter C and N storage in SFD, N storage of vegetation system in SFD, and N storage of soil and vegetation-soil system in FD increased from 2011 to 2015, while aboveground plant C and N storage of FD were higher in 2011 than in 2013 and 2015. Most of C and N were sequestered in soil in the vegetation restoration progress. These results suggest that the dynamic changes in allocation in C and N storage in vegetation-soil systems varied with habitat types. Our study highlights that SFD has higher N sequestration rate in vegetation, while FD has the considerably N sequestration rate in the soil.

Keywords: C and N storage; habitat types; sandy grassland; vegetation restoration; vegetation–soil system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The allocation of C and N storage in vegetation–soil system among three habitat types. Different lowercase letters indicate the significant difference in same year among different habitat types. The significant differences in same habitat type among different years are indicated by asterisk, **p < .01, ***p < .001. SFD, semi‐fixed dunes; FD, fixed dunes; G, grasslands
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Changes in C and N storage in vegetation system and vegetation–soil system among three habitat types. Different lowercase letters indicate the significant difference in same year among different habitat types. The significant differences in same habitat type among different years are indicated by asterisk, *p < .05, **p < .01. SFD, semi‐fixed dunes; FD, fixed dunes; G, grasslands
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
The annual increase rates of C and N storage in vegetation–soil system from 2011 to 2015 among three habitat types. Different lowercase letters indicate the significant difference in same variable among different habitat types. Vs, vegetation system; S, soil; V‐Ss, vegetation–soil system. SFD, semi‐fixed dunes; FD, fixed dunes; G, grasslands
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abdalla, M. , Hastings, A. , Chadwick, D. R. , Jones, D. L. , Evans, C. D. , Jones, M. B. , Rees, R. M. , & Smith, P. (2018). Critical review of the impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon storage and other soil quality indicators in extensively managed grasslands. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 253, 62–81. 10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aynekulu, E. , Mekuria, W. , Tsegaye, D. , Feyissa, K. , Angassa, A. , de Leeuw, J. , & Shepherd, K. (2017). Long‐term livestock exclosure did not affect soil carbon in southern Ethiopian rangelands. Geoderma, 307, 1–7. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.030 - DOI
    1. Bach, E. M. , Baer, S. G. , & Six, J. (2012). Plant and soil responses to high and low diversity grassland restoration practices. Environmental Management, 49, 412–424. 10.1007/s00267-011-9787-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bai, Y. F. , Wu, J. G. , Clark, C. M. , Pan, Q. M. , Zhang, L. X. , Chen, S. P. , Wang, Q. B. , & Han, X. G. (2012). Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C:N: P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1204–1215. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02205.x - DOI
    1. Bi, X. , Li, B. , Fu, Q. , Fan, Y. , Ma, L. X. , Yang, Z. H. , Nan, B. , Dai, X. H. , & Zhang, X. S. (2018). Effects of grazing exclusion on the grassland ecosystems of mountain meadows and temperate typical steppe in a mountain‐basin system in Central Asia's arid regions, China. Science of the Total Environment, 630, 254–263. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.055 - DOI - PubMed