Next Article in Journal
Data Assimilation in Forest Inventory: First Empirical Results
Previous Article in Journal
Wall-to-Wall Forest Mapping Based on Digital Surface Models from Image-Based Point Clouds and a NFI Forest Definition
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 6
Issue 12
10.3390/f6124385
forests-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Habitat Effect on Allometry of a Xeric Shrub (Artemisia ordosica Krasch) in the Mu Us Desert of Northern China

by
Weiwei She
1,
Yuqing Zhang
1,2,*,
Shugao Qin
1,2,
Bin Wu
1,2,
Zhen Liu
1,
Jun Liu
1 and
Wenjin Zhang
1
1
Yanchi Research Station, School of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Desertification Combating of the Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2015, 6(12), 4529-4539; https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124385
Submission received: 13 September 2015 / Revised: 20 November 2015 / Accepted: 30 November 2015 / Published: 11 December 2015
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Allometric models are useful for assessment of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) and aboveground biomass (AGB) of forests and shrubs, and are widely implemented in forest inventory and management. Multiple forms of allometric models have been used to estimate vegetation carbon storage for desert shrubland, but their validity for biomass estimation has not been tested at a region scale with different habitats. To verify the validity of habitat-specific models, general models (combining data from all habitats/sites), and previously developed models for biomass prediction, we developed both general models and habitat-specific models for aboveground biomass and ANPP of Artemisia ordosica Krasch, a dominant shrub of the Mu Us Desert. Our results showed that models based on crown area or canopy volume consistently explained large parts of the variations in aboveground biomass and ANPP. Model fitting highlighted that general allometric models were inadequate across different habitats, and habitat-specific models were useful for that specific habitat. Previous models might be inappropriate for other sites because of site quality differences. There was a strong habitat effect on the allometric relationships of A. ordosica. Although our study is a case in point, the results indicate that allometric models for desert shrubs should be used with caution and require robust validation if adopted from other studies or applied to different sites/habitats.

1. Introduction

Allometric models are useful for assessment of aboveground-biomass (AGB) and net primary productivity (ANPP) of forests [1,2,3] and shrubs [4,5,6]. They are widely utilized for forest inventory and management because they offer a non-destructive, relatively accurate, and labor-efficient method [7,8]. The aboveground biomass and ANPP of plants are important components of the global carbon cycle. Aboveground biomass can be used in quantifying carbon stores in plants, by using plant carbon density; and ANPP can help to understand potential future carbon storage. Thus, the prediction of aboveground biomass and ANPP of plants will help to evaluate terrestrial carbon sequestration, which is important for mitigation of global climate change [9,10].
Shrubland is one of the major types of terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in drylands, which hold large stores of vegetation carbon [11]. Shrubs accounted for approximate 30% of the forest carbon sink in the 1980s in China [12], and approximately one-third of the carbon sink in the United States [13]. Drylands occupy about 41% of the Earth’s land surface, in which desert shrubland is widely distributed [14,15]. In recent years, scientists and policy-makers have expressed increasing concern regarding carbon sequestration in such areas [16,17,18]. Allometric models have been widely applied to regional carbon storage estimations for these areas, but their validity for biomass estimation has not yet been tested at a region scale with different habitats [17,19,20]. Specifically, the plausible application of these models took four forms: (i) models developed at a specific site were applied to multiple sites; (ii) models developed in multi-sites were applied to multi-sites; (iii) previously developed models were applied to present conditions; (iv) hybrid forms of the above three schemes. These models are suitable for small areas or study sites, but their validity at large scales might be questioned. In addition, most of these biomass models do not provide raw data and lack proper descriptions of the study site or sampling design. This missing information is a major obstacle for sustainable forestry practices. De-Miguel et al. [21] developed a new approach (generalized mixed-effects meta-models) for large-scale biomass prediction, which combined information from published biomass equations and took into account the unknown differences between different locations. This approach may contribute to accurate large-scale biomass predictions, although the application of this method has not been yet widely used in biomass prediction. It is well documented that site/habitat quality has a remarkable influence on intra-specific differences in forest allometric relationships [22,23,24]. However, it is unclear whether habitat quality has a significant impact on shrub allometric relationships in drylands, which are highly heterogeneous environments with distinct habitats.
The Mu Us Desert is a semi-arid area of 39,800 km2, consisting of highly distinctive habitat types (semi-fixed dunes, fixed dunes, and fixed dunes covered with biological soil crusts) [25,26]. Artemisia ordosica Krasch is an endemic species that overwhelmingly dominates a wide range of habitats [25]. Although several allometric models for A. ordosica have been established previously, most do not evaluate the influence of habitat on allometric equations [27,28,29,30]. Natural conditions and previous research conducted in the Mu Us Desert provide an ideal foundation for testing the validity of allometric models for shrubs across differing habitats.
We developed general models and habitat-specific models for aboveground biomass and ANPP of A. ordosica in the Mu Us Desert, and also established biomass models for plant components (dead material and woody parts). Our main goals were to (i) test whether habitat-specific models were adequate for different habitats; (ii) evaluate whether general models were adequate for different habitats; and (iii) to assess whether previously developed models were adequate for present conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Species

A. ordosica is a xeric deciduous multi-stem shrub between 50 and 100 cm in height [25]. Its tap roots can reach 3 m below ground, and lateral roots mainly occur at depths of 0–30 cm [31]. The shoots consist of current-year shoots (purple) and previous-year shoots (brown) with plumose, linearly lobate leaves. The current-year shoots consist of vegetative shoots and reproductive shoots. Vegetative shoots overwinter and bear new vegetative or reproductive shoots the following year, whereas reproductive shoots die during winter [31].

2.2. Research Site

This investigation was conducted at the Yanchi Research Station (37°04′–38°10′ N, 106°30′–107°41′ E, 1550 m above sea level) situated on the southwestern margin of the Mu Us Desert, Ningxia, China. The climate is mid-temperate, semiarid continental, and monsoonal, with a long-term mean annual temperature of 8.1 °C and an average annual rainfall of 284 mm (1954–2014). The landscape of the area comprises typical inland dune ecosystems associated with mobile, semi-fixed, and fixed dunes. The soil type is quartisamment, based on U.S. Soil Taxonomy. The vegetation type is a desert shrubland, dominated by A. ordosica, with sparse Hedysarum mongolicum, Salix psammophila, Caragana korshinskii, and Agropyron cristatum. In well-fixed dunes, the ground surface is largely covered by biological soil crusts. The sampling field is part of an enclosed area, within which vegetation has recovered from grazing prohibition for ten years [32] and this study site is a mature shrubland community.

2.3. Experimental Design and Data Collection

At the end of the growing season (late August, 2014), three plots (15 × 15 m, 15 × 15 m, and 20 × 20 m) were selected in fixed dunes covered with biological soil crusts (FC), fixed dunes (FD), and semi-fixed dunes (SF), respectively, (Figure 1) according to their vegetation coverage [33]. These habitats were located 2–4 km from each other. In all plots, we measured shrub height (H) and crown dimensions (maximum crown width (C1), and minimum crown width (C2)). With these variables, shrub crown area (CA) and canopy volume (V) were calculated as CA = π × C1/2 × C2/2 and V = CA × H, respectively. Shrub size distribution was estimated from canopy area. 31 individual plants were selected from each plot for the harvest procedure via stratified systematic sampling based on the shrub size (three strata with CA < 0.5 m2, 0.5 < CA <1.0 m2, CA > 1.0 m2). Subsequently, individuals were harvested and then separated in the laboratory into current-year shoots, woody parts, and dead material. All plant samples were oven-dried at 70 °C for 48 h and weighed.
In this study, we took the biomass of current-year shoots as an estimate of shrub annual ANPP, which could be easily identified by direct observation of color and structure [34]. ANPP might be slightly underestimated due to not taking the growth of older branches into consideration, but this estimation method was successfully applied to shrub ANPP evaluation in the Patagonian steppe [34] and Mediterranean rangeland [35].
Forests 06 04385 g001 1024
Figure 1. Map of the study site, and pictures of three distinct habitats: FC (fixed dunes covered with biological soil crusts), FD (fixed dunes), and SF (semi-fixed dunes).
Figure 1. Map of the study site, and pictures of three distinct habitats: FC (fixed dunes covered with biological soil crusts), FD (fixed dunes), and SF (semi-fixed dunes).
Forests 06 04385 g001
Soil samples were collected from 0 cm to 20 cm depth in early September, 2014. Three soil cores were taken from each plot using a 3.8 cm diameter soil auger. All soil samples were air-dried and sieved through 2 mm screens for soil bulk density, pH measurement, and then ground to pass through a 0.15 mm mesh for analysis of soil total nutrients. Soil bulk density was determined by a volumetric soil sampler (100 cm3). Soil pH was measured in a soil/water (1:2.5) suspension using a pH meter (PHS-3C, Zhiguang Instruments, Shanghai). Soil organic carbon (SOC) was analyzed by the potassium dichromate oxidation method, soil total nitrogen (TN) by the micro-Kjeldahl method, and soil total phosphorus (TP) by the Mo-Sb Anti spectrophotometer method. The vegetation and soil characteristics of each habitat are displayed in Table S1. Table S2 provides a statistical summary of the sample plants (n), independent variables (CA and V), and dependent variables (Biomass and ANPP) by habitat and CA-classes.

2.4. Model Development, Selection, and Evaluation

We focused on establishing general allometric models combining data from all three habitats and habitat-specific models for the prediction of aboveground biomass and ANPP of A. ordosica. Biomass models for dead material and woody parts were also tested. All models were developed with CA and V as independent variables.
We tested three equations for the estimation of shrub biomass and ANPP, which have been commonly applied to shrub species [36,37,38].
Linear: Y = β0 + β1X
Quadratic: Y = β0 + β1X + β2X2
Power: Y = β0Xβ1
where X is an independent variable, Y is a dependent variable, and β0, β1, β2 are model parameters.
For the evaluation of models, several parameters (R2, RMSE, %bias, and %ae) were established, where: R2 is the coefficient of determination, RMSE is the Root Mean Square Error (g), relative mean prediction error (%bias) is used to access model accuracy, absolute mean prediction error (%ae) is used to evaluate the precision of the model, and relative error (RE) is the percent difference between observed and predicted biomass. These parameters were defined as:
R M S E = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2
% b i a s = 1 n × M B ∑ i = 1 n e i × 100
% a e = 1 n × M B ∑ i = 1 n | e i | × 100
R E ( % ) = ( B i o m a s s o b s e r v e d − B i o m a s s p r e d i c t e d ) / B i o m a s s o b s e r v e d × 100
where ei is the residuals (difference between observed and predicted biomass) and MB is the mean observed value.
The most appropriate prediction model was selected based on the highest value of R2 and the lowest values of RMSE and %bias. General models were evaluated across habitats based on the dataset of the specific habitat according to the values of %bias and %ae. The empirical acceptable value of %bias was between −10% and 10% [39]. Some previously developed models were tested on the dataset used in this study in order to assess their potential application, using the following procedures and assumptions:
(i)
For Jin et al. [27] (39°29′ N, 110°11′ E, northeastern Mu Us Desert), we evaluated aboveground biomass (kg) (Biomass = 0.010 × (D × H)1.234) and ANPP (kg) (ANPP = 0.053 × (D × H)0.886) with (D × H) as independent variables. D represents crown diameter, and is the mean value of C1 and C2.
(ii)
For Liu et al. [28] (37°30′–39°20′ N, 107°20′–111°30′ E, eastern Mu Us Desert), we evaluated aboveground biomass (kg) (Biomass = 0.028 + 1.693V and Biomass = 1.154 × CA1.257) with V and CA as independent variables. The models of Liu et al. [28] were general models combining data from three habitats (fixed dune, semi-fixed dune and shifting dune).
We also presented uncertainty levels (UL) (the standard deviation of %bias between the study habitats, see Alvarez et al. [39]) of all previous models and selected general models for assessing the uncertainty of these models when applied to different habitats.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess whether the allometric relationship differed significantly (p < 0.05) between habitats. All data were tested to confirm normality and homogeneity of variances. Student t-tests were performed for all habitats to determine whether the %bias or %ae values were significantly different from zero. All analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software (version 20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

Allometric relationships for the prediction of aboveground biomass and ANPP with CA as independent variable are presented in Table S3. For aboveground biomass, the power model presented the lowest RMSE values and highest R2 values for the general model and the habitat-specific model for SF. The quadratic and linear models showed the best performances for FC and FD, respectively. All parameter estimates of these models were significant, thus these models were selected (bold in Table S3). The R2 for the selected habitat-specific models ranged from 0.86 to 0.93, while that for the general model was 0.70. For ANPP, the quadratic, power, power, and linear models provided the best fit for FC, FD, SF and the general condition, respectively, based on their RMSE and R2 values. Moreover, these selected models had significant parameter estimates. The R2 for the selected habitat-specific models ranged between 0.76 and 0.83, while that for the general model was 0.63.
Allometric equations of aboveground biomass and ANPP with V as an independent variable are listed in Table S4. For both aboveground biomass and ANPP, only the power model had significant parameter estimates, therefore it was selected. The R2 values for the habitat-specific models of aboveground biomass and ANPP were within the ranges 0.81–0.91 and 0.64–0.79, respectively. The R2 values for the general models of aboveground biomass and ANPP were 0.68 and 0.65, respectively.
The best-fit models for the biomass of dead material and woody parts in different habitats were derived similarly to that described for aboveground biomass (see Table S5). The R2 values for the general models of dead material and woody parts were 0.42 and 0.68, respectively, with CA as an independent variable; and 0.33 and 0.70, respectively, with V as an independent variable.
The parameters %bias and %ae are useful for assessing the accuracy and precision of allometric models. As can be seen in Table 1, the values of %bias and %ae generally differ greatly between the general level and the habitat level (i.e., lower precision and accuracy) when applying the general models to evaluate aboveground biomass and ANPP across habitats. For FD, the values of %bias were quite low for the aboveground biomass models compared with the other two habitats. For the ANPP models, the %bias values for SF were lower than the other two habitats. Figure S1 also shows considerable differences in the relative error (RE) between the general level and the habitat level. The UL levels of the general models varied from 21.4% to 42.6%. High levels of UL indicated that the general models were quite unstable at the habitat scale.
Table
Table 1. Evaluation of selected general models with CA (m2) and V (m3) as independent variables across habitats.
Table 1. Evaluation of selected general models with CA (m2) and V (m3) as independent variables across habitats.
Dependent VariableModelHabitatObserved Mean (g)%Bias%Ae
Aboveground biomass (CA)
UL = 39.0%		PowerFC (n = 31)469.233.6 S43.1
FD (n = 31)318.4−10.927.2
SF (n = 31)348.6−44.1 S52.2
All (n = 93)378.7−2.741.4
ANPP (CA)
UL = 23.4%		LinearFC (n = 31)83.023.9 S40.1
FD (n = 31)66.0−22.5 S42.1
SF (n = 31)108.9−4.549.7
All (n = 93)86.00.044.7
Aboveground biomass (V)
UL = 42.6%		PowerFC (n = 31)469.242.2 S44.5
FD (n = 31)318.4−3.828.3
SF (n = 31)348.6−43.1 S49.4
All (n = 93)378.73.141.5
ANPP (V)
UL = 21.4%		PowerFC (n = 31)83.025.2 S30.9
FD (n = 31)66.0−16.943.5
SF (n = 31)108.9−2.449.6
All (n = 93)86.02.842.0
S %bias was significantly different from zero (p < 0.05); all %ae values were significantly different from zero (p < 0.05).
The same dataset was also used to calculate the %bias and %ae values for some previously developed models (Table 2). For aboveground biomass, the %bias values varied from −270.7 to −58.9% (overestimation) for the models developed by Liu et al. [28], and from 97.7 to 99.0% (underestimation) for the models of Jin et al. [27]. For ANPP, the %bias values obtained from the model developed by Jin et al. [27] ranged between 47.3% and 64.7% (underestimation). All of the previously developed models had high %ae values. Figure S2 also shows that the previous models had large bias with respect to biomass prediction at the habitat scale. The UL for the models of Liu et al. [28] varied from 101.3% to 106.7%, while the models of Jin et al. [27] varied from 0.7% to 8.9%.
Allometric relationships between aboveground biomass and CA or V, and between ANPP and CA or V were positive, and varied in strength according to habitat (Figure 2). For aboveground biomass, ANCOVA showed significant interactive effects between habitat and CA (p < 0.01, R2 = 0.82) (Figure 2A), and between habitat and V (p < 0.01, R2 = 0.87) (Figure 2B). Analysis of habitat effect on ANPP showed significant interactive effects between habitat and CA (p < 0.01, R2 = 0.69) (Figure 2C), and between habitat and V (p = 0.01, R2 = 0.70) (Figure 2D).
Table
Table 2. Evaluation of previously developed models across study habitats.
Table 2. Evaluation of previously developed models across study habitats.
ModelDependent VariableIndependent VariableHabitatnObserved Mean (g)%Bias%Ae
Liu et al. [28]
UL = 101.3%		Aboveground biomassCAFC31469.2−70.070.4
FD31318.4−194.1194.1
SF31348.6−270.7270.7
All93378.7−166.3166.5
UL = 106.7% VFC31469.2−58.966.3
FD31318.4−190.1190.1
SF31348.6−270.3270.3
All93378.7−160.5163.6
Jin et al. [27]
UL = 0.7%		Aboveground biomassD*HFC31469.299.099.0
FD31318.498.198.1
SF31348.697.797.7
All93378.798.398.3
UL = 8.9%ANPP FC3183.064.767.0
FD3166.047.351.7
SF31108.959.565.8
All9385.9558.062.6
All %bias and %ae values were significantly different from zero (p < 0.05).
Forests 06 04385 g002 1024
Figure 2. ANCOVA of aboveground biomass versus CA (A) and V (B) by habitat, and for ANPP versus CA (C) and V (D) by habitat.
Figure 2. ANCOVA of aboveground biomass versus CA (A) and V (B) by habitat, and for ANPP versus CA (C) and V (D) by habitat.
Forests 06 04385 g002

4. Discussion

Our study established general models and habitat-specific models for the estimation of aboveground biomass and ANPP of A. ordosica based on CA or V, and tested the influence of habitat quality on plant allometric relationships. The best-fit models are shown in bold in Table S3 and S4. There is a strong habitat effect on plant allometric relationships, such that the general models do not fit well across different habitats. Furthermore, the previous models produce large biases when applied to this study.
Allometric equations with CA or V consistently provide good fits for biomass estimates (Table S3 and S4). CA and V can be easily obtained and are commonly applied to biomass prediction for multi-stem shrubs [38], and can be used in different scenarios. CA is appropriate for sand burial conditions, under which H is difficult to measure.
In our study, the high levels of UL and %bias indicate that the general models are inadequate when applied to different habitats (Table 1; Figure S1). Moreover, ANCOVA indicates that the allometric relationships differ significantly between the three habitats (Figure 2). Since the climate is almost the same for the three habitats, the differing allometric relationships are most probably driven by differences in habitat quality (Table S1). Numerous studies have reported that soil water and nutrient availability differ significantly between dune habitats [30,40]. Soil water and nutrient availability, as key drivers of plant growth, could change the allocation of biomass, thus altering allometric relationships [41,42]. Our results highlight that biomass estimation for desert shrubland is reasonably accurate when based on habitat-specific models. However, our study did not fit a generalized model, which took into account the habitat-specific random effects, because this would have yielded similar results [43].
The previous models developed by Liu et al. [28] and Jin et al. [27] do not fit our data well (Table 2; Figure S2). Those of Liu et al. [28] significantly overestimated aboveground biomass, whereas those of Jin et al. [27] significantly underestimated aboveground biomass and ANPP. The plant size range in this study (CA 0.05–3.58 m2, V 0.01–2.40 m3) is almost a subset of the data range (CA 0.16–3.30 m2, V 0.06–3.63 m3) reported by Liu et al. [28], while Jin et al. [27] did not provide model data ranges. The missing information related to the model data ranges for the models of Jin et al. [27] may contribute to the uncertainty of the model assessment. The high levels of UL for the models of Liu et al. [28] indicated that these models were quite unstable at the habitat scale (Table 2). The UL for the models of Jin et al. [27] were quite low, which suggested that these models had systematic errors at the habitat scale (Table 2). These results may relate to qualitative differences between sites. The results are as expected, given the differences in allometric relationships between habitats at the same site. Our results suggest that A. ordosica is a highly plastic and adaptive species, which alters its ecological adaptive strategies by adjusting biomass allocation in response to differences in site quality. Thus, it is important to note that models developed at a specific site have a limited domain of application. However, it is a common problem that many published models lack basic descriptions of the study location, sampling design, or the statistics associated with the equation [44,45]. This missing information limits the use of allometric models in a transparent and comparable way [45]. Thus, it is important to follow standard guidelines for publishing allometric models [45].
The main aim of developing allometric models is for application to future scenarios. However, allometric relationships for a given species may vary with habitat quality and climate condition [23,24]. Therefore, these relationships may be invalid when environmental conditions appear to change. Global environmental change is a comparatively slow process and will thus have limited effects on drylands within the next few years, whereas interannual climatic variability (e.g., precipitation) could be the key factors linked to plant growth [14]. Since shrub biomass accumulates over the course of several years, it shows a weak response to conditions of the present year (i.e., dry, normal, or wet) [23,46]. However, both a long-term (14 years) observational study [47] and a short-term (three years) rainfall manipulative experiment [48] also indicated that shrub ANPP showed low interannual variation and was only weakly dependent on annual precipitation. Poor response of shrub growth to precipitation could occur largely because the deep roots of these plants are able to utilize water from deep soil layers [49,50]. In addition, the soil water content (SWC) at depth shows a weak response to the pattern of rainfall in the study area [51]. Thus, to the best of our knowledge, our allometric models are more likely to be valid for A. ordosica biomass and ANPP prediction in our study area in the next few years. In practice, forest management strategies also recommend that allometric models for particular species should be renewed periodically (20 years for trees) [52]. Moreover, studies on the impacts of habitat-related factors (e.g., topography, soil texture) and climate change-related factors (e.g., temperature increases, changing precipitation patterns) on plant allometric relationships would be one possible direction for further research.
Shrubland is an important ecosystem type in China and accounts for large stores of vegetation carbon [11,12]. However, forest inventories only present the area of shrubland [53], thereby hindering the estimation of carbon sequestration. Our models will help to provide a foundation for the precise assessment of vegetation carbon storage in desert shrubland. Although our models for the prediction of biomass are likely to be highly habitat- and species-specific, our approach could assist scientists and forest managers in developing models in desert shrubland that have distinct habitats. Furthermore, the finding that habitat quality differences strongly influence plant allometric relationships indicates that habitat factors should be considered when evaluating ecosystem biomass or productivity in desert shrubland.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be accessed at: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/6/12/4385/s1.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31470711) (NFSC), the National Science and Technology Support Program of the 12th Five-Year Plan (No. 2012BAD16B02), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. BJFU-TD2011-04). We are grateful to Huishu Shi, Xuewu Yang, Shijun Liu, and the staff of the research station for their assistance with field and laboratory work. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped improve this paper.

Author Contributions

W.S. and Y.Z. designed the experiment; W.S., Z.L., J.L., W.Z. carried out the field investigation and data collection; W.S. analyzed the data; W.S. and Y.Z. wrote the paper; B.W., Y.Z. and S.Q. revised the draft manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mosseler, A.; Major, J.E.; Labrecque, M.; Larocque, G.R. Allometric relationships in coppice biomass production for two North American willows (Salix spp.) across three different sites. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 320, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mugasha, W.A.; Eid, T.; Bollandsas, O.M.; Malimbwi, R.E.; Chamshama, S.A.O.; Zahabu, E.; Katani, J.Z. Allometric models for prediction of above- and belowground biomass of trees in the miombo woodlands of tanzania. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 310, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Paul, K.I.; Roxburgh, S.H.; Ritson, P.; Brooksbank, K.; England, J.R.; Larmour, J.S.; Raison, R.J.; Peck, A.; Wildy, D.T.; Sudmeyer, R.A.; et al. Testing allometric equations for prediction of above-ground biomass of mallee eucalypts in southern australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 310, 1005–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Beets, P.; Kimberley, M.; Oliver, G.; Pearce, S. The application of stem analysis methods to estimate carbon sequestration in arboreal shrubs from a single measurement of field plots. Forests 2014, 5, 919–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Conti, G.; Enrico, L.; Casanoves, F.; Diaz, S. Shrub biomass estimation in the semiarid chaco forest: A contribution to the quantification of an underrated carbon stock. Ann. For. Sci. 2013, 70, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mason, N.; Beets, P.; Payton, I.; Burrows, L.; Holdaway, R.; Carswell, F. Individual-based allometric equations accurately measure carbon storage and sequestration in shrublands. Forests 2014, 5, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Flombaum, P.; Sala, O.E. A non-destructive and rapid method to estimate biomass and aboveground net primary production in arid environments. J. Arid Environ. 2007, 69, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ngomanda, A.; Engone Obiang, N.L.; Lebamba, J.; Moundounga Mavouroulou, Q.; Gomat, H.; Mankou, G.S.; Loumeto, J.; Midoko Iponga, D.; Kossi Ditsouga, F.; Zinga Koumba, R.; et al. Site-specific versus pantropical allometric equations: Which option to estimate the biomass of a moist central African forest? For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 312, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Folster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 2005, 145, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chave, J.; Rejou-Mechain, M.; Burquez, A.; Chidumayo, E.; Colgan, M.S.; Delitti, W.B.; Duque, A.; Eid, T.; Fearnside, P.M.; Goodman, R.C.; et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 3177–3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Hu, H.F.; Wang, Z.H.; Liu, G.H.; Fu, B.J. Vegetation carbon storage of major shrublands in China. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2006, 30, 539–544. [Google Scholar]
  12. Piao, S.L.; Fang, J.Y.; Ciais, P.; Peylin, P.; Huang, Y.; Sitch, S.; Wang, T. The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Nature 2009, 458, 1009–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pacala, S.W.; Hurtt, G.C.; Baker, D.; Peylin, P.; Houghton, R.A.; Birdsey, R.A.; Heath, L.; Sundquist, E.T.; Stallard, R.F.; Ciais, P.; et al. Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. Carbon sink estimates. Science 2001, 292, 2316–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Maestre, F.T.; Salguero-Gomez, R.; Quero, J.L. It is getting hotter in here: Determining and projecting the impacts of global environmental change on drylands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2012, 367, 3062–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Reynolds, J.F.; Smith, D.M.; Lambin, E.F.; Turner, B.L., II; Mortimore, M.; Batterbury, S.P.; Downing, T.E.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Fernandez, R.J.; Herrick, J.E.; et al. Global desertification: Building a science for dryland development. Science 2007, 316, 847–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, W.H.; Zhu, J.J.; Jia, Q.Q.; Zheng, X.; Li, J.S.; Lou, X.D.; Hu, L. Carbon sequestration effects of shrublands in three-north shelterbelt forest region, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2014, 24, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, Y.Q.; Liu, J.B.; Jia, X.; Qin, S.G. Soil organic carbon accumulation in arid and semiarid areas after afforestation: A meta-analysis. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 611–620. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lufafa, A.; Bolte, J.; Wright, D.; Khouma, M.; Diedhiou, I.; Dick, R.P.; Kizito, F.; Dossa, E.; Noller, J.S. Regional carbon stocks and dynamics in native woody shrub communities of senegal’s peanut basin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tao, Y.; Zhang, Y.M. Evaluation of vegetation biomass carbon storage in deserts of Central Asian. Arid Land Geogr. 2013, 36, 615–622. [Google Scholar]
  21. De-Miguel, S.; Mehtatalo, L.; Durkaya, A. Developing generalized, calibratable, mixed-effects meta-models for large-scale biomass prediction. Can. J. For. Res. 2014, 44, 648–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De-Miguel, S.; Pukkala, T.; Assaf, N.; Shater, Z. Intra-specific differences in allometric equations for aboveground biomass of eastern mediterranean pinus brutia. Ann. For. Sci. 2014, 71, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. López-Serrano, F.R.; García-Morote, A.; Andrés-Abellán, M.; Tendero, A.; del Cerro, A. Site and weather effects in allometries: A simple approach to climate change effect on pines. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 215, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, X.P.; Fang, J.Y.; Tang, Z.Y.; Zhu, B. Climatic control of primary forest structure and DBH–height allometry in northeast China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 234, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kobayashi, T.; Liao, R.T.; Li, S.Q. Ecophysiological behavior of Artemisia ordosica on the process of sand dune fixation. Ecol. Res. 1995, 10, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, S.L.; Yu, F.H.; Werger, M.J.A.; Dong, M.; Zuidema, P.A. Habitat-specific demography across dune fixation stages in a semi-arid sandland: Understanding the expansion, stabilization and decline of a dominant shrub. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 610–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jin, Z.; Qi, Y.C.; Dong, Y.S. Storage of biomass and net primary productivity in desert shrubland of Artemisia ordosica on ordos plateau of Inner Mongolia, China. J. For. Res. 2007, 18, 298–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, Z.; Huang, Q.; Zhou, Y.L.; Li, Z.H.; Sun, Z.; Liu, L.X.; Mi, H.Y.; Fan, Y.J. Study on the models for estimating the biomass of Artemisia ordosica in Mu Us sandland. Chin. J. Grassl. 2014, 36, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, Q.S.; Li, B. Preliminary study on biomass of Artemisia ordosica community in ordos plateau sandland of China. Acta Phytoecol. Sin. 1994, 18, 347–353. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, C.P.; Xiao, C.W. Above- and belowground biomass of Artemisia ordosica communities in three contrasting habitats of the Mu Us Desert, Northern China. J. Arid Environ. 2007, 70, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, S.L.; Zuidema, P.A.; Yu, F.H.; Werger, M.J.A.; Dong, M. Effects of denudation and burial on growth and reproduction of Artemisia ordosica in mu us sandland. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, B.; Zha, T.S.; Jia, X.; Wu, B.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Qin, S.G. Soil moisture modifies the response of soil respiration to temperature in a desert shrub ecosystem. Biogeosciences 2013, 10, 9213–9242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. CCICCD (Chinese Committee for Implementing UN Convention to Combat Desertification). China Country Paper to Combat Desertification; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jobbágy, E.G.; Sala, O.E. Controls of grass and shrub aboveground production in the Patagonian steppe. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Castro, H.; Freitas, H. Above-ground biomass and productivity in the montado: From herbaceous to shrub dominated communities. J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 506–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Foroughbakhch, R.; Reyes, G.; Alvarado-Vazquez, M.A.; Hernandez-Pinero, J.; Rocha-Estrada, A. Use of quantitative methods to determine leaf biomass on 15 woody shrub species in northeastern Mexico. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 216, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lufafa, A.; Diedhiou, I.; Ndiaye, N.A.S.; Sene, M.; Kizito, F.; Dick, R.P.; Noller, J.S. Allometric relationships and peak-season community biomass stocks of native shrubs in senegal’s peanut basin. J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zeng, H.Q.; Liu, Q.J.; Feng, Z.W.; Ma, Z.Q. Biomass equations for four shrub species in subtropical China. J. For. Res. 2010, 15, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alvarez, E.; Duque, A.; Saldarriaga, J.; Cabrera, K.; de las Salas, G.; del Valle, I.; Lema, A.; Moreno, F.; Orrego, S.; Rodríguez, L. Tree above-ground biomass allometries for carbon stocks estimation in the natural forests of Colombia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 267, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, X.R.; Zhang, Z.S.; Huang, L.; Wang, X.P. Review of the ecohydrological processes and feedback mechanisms controlling sand-binding vegetation systems in sandy desert regions of China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 1483–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sui, Y.; Cui, Q.Q.; Dong, M.; He, W.M. Contrasting responses of legume versus non-legume shrubs to soil water and nutrient shortages in the Mu Us sandland. J. Plant Ecol. 2011, 4, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tian, D.S.; Pan, Q.M.; Simmons, M.; Chaolu, H.; Du, B.H.; Bai, Y.F.; Wang, H.; Han, X.G. Hierarchical reproductive allocation and allometry within a perennial bunchgrass after 11 years of nutrient addition. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zou, W.T.; Zeng, W.S.; Zhang, L.J.; Zeng, M. Modeling crown biomass for four pine species in China. Forests 2015, 6, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Henry, M.; Bombelli, A.; Trotta, C.; Alessandrini, A.; Birigazzi, L.; Sola, G.; Vieilledent, G.; Santenoise, P.; Longuetaud, F.; Valentini, R.; et al. Globallometree: International platform for tree allometric equations to support volume, biomass and carbon assessment. iFor. Biogeosci. For. 2013, 6, 326–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Cifuentes Jara, M.; Henry, M.; Réjou-Méchain, M.; Wayson, C.; Zapata-Cuartas, M.; Piotto, D.; Alice Guier, F.; Castañeda Lombis, H.; Castellanos López, E.; Cuenca Lara, R.; et al. Guidelines for documenting and reporting tree allometric equations. Ann. For. Sci. 2014, 72, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oñatibia, G.R.; Aguiar, M.R.; Cipriotti, P.A.; Troiano, F. Individual plant and population biomass of dominant shrubs in Patagonian grazed fields. Ecol. Austral 2010, 20, 269–279. [Google Scholar]
  47. Peters, D.P.C.; Yao, J.; Sala, O.E.; Anderson, J.P. Directional climate change and potential reversal of desertification in arid and semiarid ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reichmann, L.G.; Sala, O.E.; Peters, D.P.C. Precipitation legacies in desert grassland primary production occur through previous-year tiller density. Ecology 2013, 94, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Golluscio, R.A.; Sala, O.E.; Lauenroth, W.K. Differential use of large summer rainfall events by shrubs and grasses: A manipulative experiment in the Patagonian steppe. Oecologia 1998, 115, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sala, O.E.; Golluscio, R.A.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Soriano, A. Resource partitioning between shrubs and grasses in the Patagonian steppe. Oecologia 1989, 81, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jia, X.; Zha, T.S.; Wu, B.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Gong, J.N.; Qin, S.G.; Chen, G.P.; Qian, D.; Kellomäki, S.; Peltola, H. Biophysical controls on net ecosystem CO2 exchange over a semiarid shrubland in northwest China. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 4679–4693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. CCERN (Committee of Chinese Ecosystem Research Network). Protocols for Standard Biological Observation and Measurement in Terrestrial Ecosystem; China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007; p. 59. [Google Scholar]
  53. Guo, Z.D.; Hu, H.F.; Pan, Y.D.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.Y. Increasing biomass carbon stocks in trees outside forests in China over the last three decades. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 4115–4122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

She, W.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, S.; Wu, B.; Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; Zhang, W. Habitat Effect on Allometry of a Xeric Shrub (Artemisia ordosica Krasch) in the Mu Us Desert of Northern China. Forests 2015, 6, 4529-4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124385

AMA Style

She W, Zhang Y, Qin S, Wu B, Liu Z, Liu J, Zhang W. Habitat Effect on Allometry of a Xeric Shrub (Artemisia ordosica Krasch) in the Mu Us Desert of Northern China. Forests. 2015; 6(12):4529-4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124385

Chicago/Turabian Style

She, Weiwei, Yuqing Zhang, Shugao Qin, Bin Wu, Zhen Liu, Jun Liu, and Wenjin Zhang. 2015. "Habitat Effect on Allometry of a Xeric Shrub (Artemisia ordosica Krasch) in the Mu Us Desert of Northern China" Forests 6, no. 12: 4529-4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124385

APA Style

She, W., Zhang, Y., Qin, S., Wu, B., Liu, Z., Liu, J., & Zhang, W. (2015). Habitat Effect on Allometry of a Xeric Shrub (Artemisia ordosica Krasch) in the Mu Us Desert of Northern China. Forests, 6(12), 4529-4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124385

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop