Next Article in Journal
Integrated Management of Water, Nitrogen, and Genotype Selection for Enhanced Wheat Productivity in Moroccan Arid and Semi-Arid Regions
Next Article in Special Issue
Tap Maize Yield Productivity in China: A Meta-Analysis of Agronomic Measures and Planting Density Optimization
Previous Article in Journal
Competitive Effects of Dwarf Bean Cultivars (Phaseoulus vulgaris L.) on Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercrop Productivity Influenced by Spatial Arrangements
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chemical Topping and Planting Density Interactively Affect Cotton Growth and Partitioning Index
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy15030615
agronomy-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

Ecosystem Responses of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Alpine Desert Environments in Northeastern Qinghai, Tibet Plateau, China

by
Qiaoyu Wang
1,2,
Lihui Tian
1,*,
Hongwei Zhang
3,
Dengshan Zhang
1,
Haijiao Wang
1 and
Lihui Wang
1
1
State Key Laboratory of Plateau Ecology and Agriculture, Qinghai University, Xi’ning 810016, China
2
The Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Ping’an District, Haidong 810600, China
3
Academy of Forestry Inventory and Planning, National Forestry and Grassland Administration of China, Beijing 100000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(3), 615; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030615
Submission received: 17 February 2025 / Revised: 25 February 2025 / Accepted: 26 February 2025 / Published: 28 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integration of Agronomic Practices for Sustainable Crop Production—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Desertification is acknowledged as a significant global ecological challenge. In the current context of advancing ecological governance and sustainable development, it is imperative to explore optimal solutions that reconcile economic and ecological interests. This study examined the economically viable crop Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) by selecting four varieties (Qingyu Nos. 1 to 4) for cultivation in the semi-arid sandy region of the Qinghai Plateau. This research analyzes and discusses the growth and development as well as the ecological adaptability of the various varieties, evaluating their feasibility for ecological restoration in high-altitude, semi-arid, sandy environments. The findings suggest that, under high-altitude and semi-arid conditions, these varieties demonstrate a spectrum of physiological and ecological adaptations, including alterations in organ allocation, limited vegetative growth, and modifications in root distribution. Notably, Qingyu Nos. 1 and 2 are more adept at thriving under cold and dry conditions, whereas Qingyu Nos. 3 and 4 are more suitable for cultivation in warmer and humid environments. This study offers valuable insights into crop cultivation in high-altitude, semi-arid, desert regions and proposes innovative strategies for the advancement of the local sand industry. The ecological restoration approach that employs these crops for sand stabilization enhances the transformation of ecological benefits.

1. Introduction

Desertification, recognized as a global ecological catastrophe, exerts significant impacts on ecosystem security and sustainable economic advancement [1]. China is one of the countries affected by various types of desertification. In the past 60 years, China’s research into combating desertification has been advancing continuously, accumulating and summarizing many models combating desertification for different climate zones [2]. However, the majority of existing governance strategies depend on high-cost ecological restoration techniques that lack sustainable economic benefits [3]. To address this issue, Qian Xuesen (1984) advocated for the moderate advancement of agriculture to stimulate economic growth in desert regions, which fostered the emergence of the Desert Industry Theory [4]. People in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region tried to forest Haloxylon ammodendron Bunge, inoculating Cistanche deserticola MA to develop the sand industry, which opened a new way of “greening green” for ecological restoration in arid desert areas [5,6]. The sand industry has transformed the passive combating of desertification into an active method of utilizing desert resources, which not only controls the spread of desertification but also explores new methods for the sustainable development of humans and nature; it also promotes the combating of desertification that is motivated by the pursuit of pure ecological benefits, with the goal of giving equal attention to ecological and economic benefits.
Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.), also known as sunchoke or topinambur, is an annual herb belonging to the Compositae and is a member of the sunflower genus. H. tuberosus is a good candidate for planting in marginal land with low productivity and limited potential for economic return or severe constraints on agricultural cultivation, such as abandoned land and waste land [7,8]. The primary harvestable components of this plant include its aboveground parts and tubers [9]. The aboveground parts of the plant are nutritious and can be used for silage production or as a source of coarse feed; they, can also be used to produce biogas by anaerobic digestion [10,11]. H. tuberosus’s tuber is traditionally used to prepare pickles in China and is rich in inulin, an oligofructose consisting of D-fructose units linked by β (2-1) linkages with a terminal glucose residue [12,13]. Research on H. tuberosus has predominantly concentrated on germplasm evaluation, the functional characteristics of inulin, applications in biomass energy production, high-yield cultivation, stress resistance, and its utilization in feed and food [8,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Because of its strong stress resistance, it can be cultivated in dry and saline alkaline environments and it has also been utilized in the ecological treatment of desert soil, seashore saline soil, and heavy metal-contaminated soil [20,21]. Recent studies have demonstrated that H. tuberosus can effectively reduce wind speed, when cultivated in desert regions [22]. Furthermore, the polysaccharide content of H. tuberosus grown in sandy soils is significantly higher than that found in agricultural lands [23]. Despite these findings, systematic investigations into the ecological performance of H. tuberosus in the unique environment of high-cold, semi-arid, sandy areas remain relatively limited.
Situated on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau in China, Qinghai Province was one of the earliest regions in the country to undertake the large-scale cultivation and processing of H. tuberosus; this is attributable to its unique natural advantages, including substantial temperature fluctuations between day and night and extended sunshine hours [18]. Nevertheless, the abundant desert resources were impeded by various factors [24], such as climate, transportation, economic conditions, and cultural influences, resulting in relatively limited resource development and utilization. Consequently, building upon traditional desertification governance models, we endeavor to utilize H. tuberosus as a non-irrigated biological control species for cultivation research in high-altitude, sandy areas, investigating its potential for economic returns. The Qinghai Lake east shore sandy land and Shazhuyu sandy land in Gonghe Basin are two typical representative areas of alpine sandy land in China. After a series of engineering and biological combating measures were adopted in these two areas in 1957 and 1980, a large area of mobile dunes was reduced, and fixed land has increased significantly. This study aims to compare the growth characteristics of H. tuberosus across different habitats, exploring its application potential in the ecological restoration of high-cold, semi-arid, sandy areas. This provides innovative biological control technology ideas for desertification governance and offers theoretical support for the evaluation and promotion of economic plants and the development of the high-altitude desert industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

The study was conducted at the Ketu Wind Prevention and Sand-fixation Experimental Range (hereafter, WPSER, as shown in Table 1; 36°46.9′ N, 100°46.8′ E, 3224 m elevation (above sea level) a.s.l.) and the Qinghai Desert Ecosystem Research Station in Shazhuyu, Gonghe County (hereafter, QDERS; 36°19′ N, 100°16′ E, 2871 m elevation (above sea level) a.s.l.) [25,26]. WPSER is situated in an alpine, semi-arid climatic zone characterized by relatively wet summers and cold winters. The mean annual temperature is 0.93 °C. The average annual precipitation is 408.31 mm, with approximately 80% occurring between June and September. The mean annual pan evaporation is 1439.85 mm. The annual solar radiation is 158.4 kcal·cm−2, with 2772.2 annual sunshine hours. The period of highest sandstorm activity spans from late autumn to early spring and is predominantly influenced by SW-W-NW wind directions, with a mean wind speed of 5.5 m·s−1 [25]. The QDERS experiences a pronounced alpine, semi-arid climate. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 321.28 mm, with over 75% occurring during the growing season, and the mean annual air temperature is 5.26 °C. The mean annual potential transpiration is 1716.10 mm. The annual radiation is 156.4 kcal/cm−2, with 2995.3 annual sunshine hours. The mean annual number of windy days is 50.6 days, and the predominant wind direction is north-northwest. The mean annual wind speed is 2.7 m·s−1 [26]. As shown in Figure 1, the seasonal variation in precipitation and temperature in the WPSER and QDERS in 2019.
In May 2019, we set up four plots to plant the following four different breeds of H. tuberosus: Qingyu Nos. 1 to 4. Each experimental plot measured 1200 × 1200 cm2, with each plot planted with one specific variety, and individual plants were spaced 50 cm apart, as shown in Figure 2. The total experimental areas at the two sites measured 1152 m2, with 324 plants in each plot. To stabilize the dune prior to planting in the WPSER, we employed a wheat checkerboard sand barrier measuring 200 × 200 cm2, while in the QDERS, a high-vertical nylon determinant sand barrier with a 600 cm interval was utilized. Additionally, there was no irrigation at the study site, and no other plants were growing on the surface.

2.2. Materials

The experimental material was H. tuberosus, a perennial herbaceous plant belonging to the genus Helianthus in the Compositae family. It possesses extensive underground stems and fibrous roots. The flowering period extends from August to September. The growth of H. tuberosus can be roughly divided into six stages: seedling period (1–6 wk after sowing), plant growth period (8–9 wk), tuber formation period (10–11 wk), flowering period (12–15 wk), tuber expansion period (16–18 wk), and mature period (19–20 wk). The H. tuberosus used in this experiment was procured from the Qinghai Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, which is the origin of these varieties. Based on the evaluation of H. tuberosus germplasm resources and the selection of strains, we selected Qingyu No. 1 (DB63/184), Qingyu No. 2 (DB63/191), Qingyu No. 3 (DB63/2009001), and Qingyu No. 4 (DB63/2015001) for planting in the four plots shown in Figure 2. For more specific information on H. tuberosus seeds, see Li et al. [27].

2.3. Methods

In May, soil sampling was conducted using a soil auger (AMS, Inc., American Falls, ID, USA) with stratified sampling at depths of 0–10 and 10–20 cm. The samples were thoroughly mixed and then brought back to the laboratory for the determination of soil physicochemical properties. Soil particle size was measured using the Mastersizer 3000 laser particle size analyzer (Malvern Instruments Ltd., Malvern, Worcestershire, UK), while soil nutrients (including soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), phosphorus pentoxide (TP2O5), total potassium (TK2O), ammonium nitrogen (AHN), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK)), pH, and electrical conductivity (EC)) were determined using methods including the heavy cadmium–nickel method and potassium dichromate method (with standards including GB7848-87, GB7852-87, NY/T1121.6-2006, GB7849-87, GB12247-90, NY/T889-2004, NY/T1377-2007, GB7858-87, and GB7859-87). During the growing season of Jerusalem artichoke (H. tuberosus) from June to October, the soil volumetric water content (SWC, %) was measured monthly at two soil depths (0–10 and 10–20 cm) beneath the labeled plants, using time domain reflectometry (TDR).
H. tuberosus was planted at the two study sites in May 2019 following a soaking rain. Twenty plants of each variety were marked in the study plots. The height of the marked individuals was recorded from June to October. Additionally, the number of seedlings of each H. tuberosus variety was counted in June, with each variety having 60 replicates to determine the germination rate (GR, %). At the end of the growing season in October, the number of plants of each variety was counted again for 60 replicates to calculate the survival rate (SR, %). At the beginning of the vigorous growth season in August, whole plants, including the roots of each variety, were excavated, and photographs were taken to observe the root system distribution of H. tuberosus.
During the flowering period of H. tuberosus in September, the plant height (H), number of branches (B), base diameter (D), and other indicators of the 20 marked individuals of each variety were measured. The base diameter (cm) refers to the maximum diameter of the stem at its thickest part. Simultaneously, the length and width of the leaves were measured to calculate the leaf area (LA, cm2), with each measurement repeated three times for each individual plant.
LA = 0.78 × LL × LW
where LL denotes the distance from the leaf pillow to the tip and LW represents the width of the widest part of the leaf. The unit is centimeters.
From mid-August to mid-October, five unmarked individuals were randomly excavated from each plot and promptly stored in a car refrigerator at 4 °C. All samples were transported to the laboratory and separated into above- and underground parts. The tuber was carefully washed and then weighed to determine fresh weight (FW, g). All parts were subsequently placed in envelopes and weighed after oven drying at 65 °C for 48 h to determine the aboveground biomass (AB, g) and underground biomass (UB, g). Simultaneously, the root–shoot ratio (R) was calculated as follows.
R = AB⁄UB

2.4. Data Analysis

The germination and survival rates of different varieties of H. tuberosus, as well as the differences in biomass and root–shoot ratio (R) of different varieties of H. tuberosus in the same month, were analyzed in SPSS17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by LSD for pairwise comparison, after conducting normality and homogeneity of variance tests. The Pearson correlation method was used to analyze the relationship between soil properties and vegetation growth, as well as the relationship with vegetation height.

3. Results

As illustrated in Figure 3, the SWC exhibited seasonal fluctuations, peaking in July and reaching its lowest point in August. The SWC at the QDERS was significantly higher than that in the WPSER (p < 0.05). The SWC of the 10 cm soil layer in the WPSER was relatively low, at slightly above 2%, whereas at the QDERS, it was approximately 4%. Furthermore, the SWC of the 10–20 cm depth was higher at both sites, with values of 7% in the WPSER and above 11% at the QDERS. The seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture at the 0–10 cm depth in the WPSER were more pronounced than those at the 10–20 cm depth, while at the QDERS, the SWC at the 0–20 cm depth clearly decreased to around 7% in August.
Table 2 illustrates the composition of soil particles, electrical conductivity, and the levels of soil nutrients and pH within the 0–20 cm soil stratum. In the WPSER region, the soil particle composition predominantly comprises medium and fine sand, whereas in the QDERS region, it is primarily constituted of silt and very fine sand. Notwithstanding the presence of coarser particles in the upper 10 cm of WPSER, the existence of checkerboard-like obstacles and vegetation submerged by mobile sand dunes facilitates a higher SOM content in the 10–20 cm stratum. At the QDERS, the particle size in the 0–10 cm layer is finer in comparison to the 10–20 cm layer, leading to an elevated SOM content in the topsoil. The electrical conductivity is low in both locations, so it does not have a significant impact on the soil environment and plant growth. Concerning soil nutrients, at a depth of 0–10 cm, QDERS demonstrates superior performance in total P2O5 (TP2O5), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), and alkaline hydrolyzed nitrogen (AHN), while WPSER exhibits a relative advantage in total nitrogen (TN). At a depth of 10–20 cm, QDERS shows enhanced performance in TN, TP2O5, and AHN, whereas WPSER excels in AP and AK. In summary, QDERS reveals superior nutrient content in most parameters, while WPSER displays elevated levels of AP and AK at specific depths. The potential of hydrogen (pH) values at the QDERS at both depths (8.95 and 8.98) surpass those in the WPSER (8.83 and 8.82), indicating that the soil at the QDERS is marginally alkaline. The high permeability of coarse sand in the WPSER impedes nutrient accumulation in the surface layer, and there is also a deficiency in surface runoff in the study area.

3.1. Growth Characteristics of Different Varieties of H. tuberosus

As illustrated in Table 3, the germination rate (GR) of H. tuberosus was higher at the QDERS compared to WPSER, with no significant difference between the two sites (p > 0.05), except for variety No. 2 (p < 0.05). In the WPSER, plant variety No. 4 exhibited the highest GR, but there was no significant difference between Nos. 1 and 3 (p > 0.05). The GR of No. 2 was only 39%, which was significantly lower than that of the other varieties (p < 0.05). The GR of the four varieties planted at the QDERS did not show significant differences (p > 0.05), with the GR of No. 3 being the lowest at 68%.
Regarding the survival rate (SR) of H. tuberosus, all varieties at the QDERS exhibited a higher SR than those in the WPSER (Figure 4). The survival rate of No. 2 in the WPSER was the highest, at 86%, with no significant difference between Nos. 1 and 3 (p > 0.05). Conversely, the SR of No. 4 was only 56%, which is significantly lower than those of the other three varieties (p < 0.05). The SR of the four varieties planted at the QDERS exceeded 80% by the end of the growing season, with no significant differences between the varieties (p > 0.05). The SR of plant varieties Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the study sites did not differ significantly (p > 0.05), while that of No. 4 in the WPSER was significantly lower than at the QDERS (p < 0.05).
From the changes in plant height (H) during the growth season of H. tuberosus (Figure 4), it was evident that the growth of all varieties at the QDERS was generally superior to that in the WPSER. The plant height exhibited a single peak curve, with the peak value occurring in August or September, which corresponded to the period of tuber formation and flowering. In the WPSER, the growth of No. 1 was the greatest, with no significant difference between Nos. 2 and 3 (p > 0.05), and all varieties reached their highest H in August. During the same period, plant varieties Nos. 3 and 4 were significantly taller than Nos. 1 and 2 at the QDERS (p < 0.05), with the highest H recorded in September for the former two varieties. Based on the variation in plant height during the growing season, it can be concluded that Nos. 3 and 4 performed well at the QDERS, while in the WPSER, No. 1 showed the most significant increase in plant height among all varieties.
The flowering period in September was the most vigorous period of H. tuberosus plant growth. The plant traits of all varieties of H. tuberosus at the QDERS were more stable than those in the WPSER (Table 4). All varieties of H. tuberosus planted at the QDERS were better than those in the WPSER in terms of H, D, and LA, while the number of B in the WPSER was higher than at the QDERS. Nos. 3 and 4 showed the best performance in both study sites compared to No. 2. In the WPSER, plant varieties Nos. 1 and 3 exhibited the most favorable growth, whereas at the QDERS, No. 4 demonstrated optimal performance.
The root system of H. tuberosus initiated growth during the first stage (germination period) post sowing. In the third stage (tuber formation period), varieties from the two experimental areas were excavated for examination (Figure 5). The examination revealed that, compared to the root system of WPSER, the plants cultivated at the QDERS exhibited a denser root system. All varieties in this area absorbed tubers at the root as the plants matured, but no new tubers formed at the roots, nor did any stolons develop aboveground. The root system of QDERS had more branching roots, a higher proportion of fine roots, and was primarily distributed in the shallow soil layer, extending horizontally. Conversely, the root system of WPSER was distributed more deeply and generally grew vertically downward. Observations from numerous collected samples indicated that the underground root system of No. 2 was denser among all varieties.

3.2. Biomass of Different Varieties of H. tuberosus

The biomass of aboveground (AB) and underground (UB) parts of H. tuberosus at the QDERS was higher than that in the WPSER (Figure 6A1,A2,B1,B2). In the WPSER, variety No. 2 exhibited the highest AB and No. 3 exhibited the highest UB, although no significant differences were found compared to other varieties (p > 0.05). No. 1 had the highest biomass in August and the lowest biomass in October. By contrast, at the QDERS, there was no significant difference in AB in October (p > 0.05); however, No. 3 had the highest mean UB value of 105.62 ± 26.23 g in stage 5 (p < 0.05) and consistently demonstrated the highest biomass from August to October.
Upon analyzing the seasonal variation in the root-to-crown ratio (R, Figure 6A3,B3), it was observed that the ratio for WPSER varieties was marginally higher than that for QDERS varieties. Within the WPSER, the R for No. 3 peaked in September, whereas the other varieties attained their peak values by October during the growth cycle. At this point, No. 4 exhibited the highest R, while No. 3 maintained the highest R value among all varieties throughout the growth period. In the case of QDERS, there was no significant difference between August and September (p > 0.05), with all varieties demonstrating a month-by-month increase, culminating in the highest values in October. Notably, No. 3’s R value was significantly higher than that of other varieties in October (p < 0.05).
The fresh weight (FW) of H. tuberosus tubers served as a critical indicator of the plant’s yield. Figure 6A4,B4 demonstrated that No. 1 exhibited the lowest FW among all varieties across both study areas. In the WPSER, the FW of all other varieties, with the exception of No. 1, progressively increased over time. During the tuber maturation period in October, No. 2 displayed the highest FW at 87.71 ± 18.12 g, with no significant differences noted when compared to Nos. 3 and 4 (p > 0.05). Conversely, at the QDERS, only the FW of No. 3 exhibited a significant increase with the changing season, peaking in October at 213.18 ± 49.75 g, followed by No. 4 (102.29 ± 60.18 g), No. 2 (68.87 ± 22.26 g), and No. 1 (54.78 ± 49.75 g).

4. Discussion

4.1. Growth and Development of H. tuberosus and Its Influencing Factors

The seed germination rate (GR) and plant survival rate (SR) are critical metrics for evaluating the success of afforestation [28]. In this study, the GR of variety No. 2 exhibited a lower rate in the WPSER but a higher rate at the QDERS (Table 3). This observation indicates that seed germination was inhibited due to the local low temperatures and soil conditions at the QDERS [29]. Suitable temperature and humidity significantly influenced seed germination [30,31]. Previous studies have shown that low-temperature stress impacts sugar beet seed germination and growth, with a gradual improvement observed as temperatures rise [32]. Despite this, the SR of No. 2 was higher in both regions. It is speculated that No. 2 seeds are more sensitive to water stress, allowing them to quickly detect drought and adjust their germination, thereby enhancing their seedling survival rate [33]. By contrast, No. 4 seeds exhibited a high germination rate (GR) but a low survival rate (SR) at both locations, indicating that, while No. 4 seeds are of superior quality, their adaptability is limited. Additionally, objective factors such as sporadic seasonal rainfall leading to the “ephemeral seedlings” phenomenon, as well as the fact that the planting site for No. 4 is located at the western boundary of WPSER and initially affected by wind erosion, influence this situation.
There exists a negative correlation between the height of herbaceous plants and altitude [34], a pattern also observed in this study. In the WPSER, which is located at a higher altitude, H. tuberosus exhibited dwarfing characteristics, characterized by increased branching and an extended growth period. This was previously considered an effective alteration that enhanced plant survival and adaptation to the environment [35]. Temperature, photoperiod, and various environmental factors exert a substantial impact on the growth cycle of plants [36]. Plants tend to extend their phenological stages under cooler conditions, a phenomenon that aligns with findings from previous research [37]. Although variety No. 2 did not demonstrate a significant numerical advantage in plant height, field observations revealed that it was less susceptible to wilting in its aboveground parts and exhibited a longer growth period. From a broader perspective, No. 2 exhibited a more adaptable growth pattern and greater resilience to diverse environmental conditions. Plant varieties Nos. 3 and 4 displayed normal flowering during the flowering season, whereas none of the varieties in the WPSER flowered throughout the growth season. This suggests that Nos. 3 and 4 possess greater growth potential in regions characterized by higher temperatures and improved soil nutrient conditions, while also highlighting their sensitivity to low temperatures and suboptimal soil conditions, which is consistent with prior research findings [38].
The influence of environmental factors on the growth and development of H. tuberosus was predominantly observed from August to October, especially during the active growth phase in August and the tuber swelling phase in October. During the vigorous growth season, the AB of H. tuberosus first increased and then decreased in the WPSER, reaching a maximum in September. In the QDERS, the AB of No. 1 gradually increased, while that of the other three varieties gradually decreased with the growth cycle. The aboveground part of No. 2 dried up and fell earlier, and the stems of Nos. 3 and 4 exhibited “hollowing” during the same period. Meanwhile, UB increased significantly, indicating that the vigorous period of the aboveground parts of all varieties at the QDERS occurred in August, after which it gradually shifted to the underground tuber expansion phase. Notably, for No. 3, the root system (R) reached 4.71 in October. The increase in R could have enhanced the underground root system and improved water absorption efficiency. This drought adaptation mechanism, which reduces the distribution of dry matter aboveground by increasing the root system, is a common drought adaptation strategy for plants in arid regions [39,40].

4.2. Relationship Between Soil Properties and Growth of H. tuberosus

In semi-arid regions, water influences plant phenotypic traits and the growth of roots, stems, and biomass [41]. Root morphological changes are one of the most important approaches for plants to resist drought in water-limited environments [39]. When soil moisture increases with depth, plants primarily use taproots to access deeper soil water or groundwater [42]. The roots of H. tuberosus differed due to the varying SWC and soil nutrient conditions in different habitats. In the WPSER, the soil particle size composition is primarily medium and fine sand, whose high permeability facilitates nutrient leaching during water infiltration, prompting plant roots to grow vertically downwards. By contrast, the roots were distributed horizontally, along with fine soil particles and sufficient nutrients, at the QDERS, mainly because the Shazhuyu River runs through the site and the soil moisture at a depth of 10–20 cm was relatively high, providing sufficient soil water for plant growth. The significant influence of soil on the growth of H. tuberosus in alpine desert is consistent with the findings of previous studies [43,44]. It should be noted that both the QDERS and WPSER established sand barriers of comparable height but distinct types in the same year the research was conducted, namely a straw checkerboard sand barrier (W) and a high vertical mesh cage sand barrier (Q). The physicochemical characteristics of the soil had not yet been substantially influenced in the short term. Additionally, mechanical sand barriers primarily function to mitigate wind erosion during the spring and autumn seasons, whereas H. tuberosus is more influenced by localized climatic conditions during the growing season.
In water-limited environments, plants allocate more biomass to the root system to acquire water and nutrient resources [45]. The biomass of each organ of H. tuberosus gradually increased with rising soil water content, indicating that water remains a limiting factor for the growth of H. tuberosus [22,46]. When external factors like temperature, precipitation, and solar energy became limiting, plants adjust their resource allocation to increase reproductive investment, ensuring sufficient seed production for survival and reproduction [47,48]. All varieties of H. tuberosus at the QDERS were superior to those in the WPSER in terms of growth potential and individual size performance. Nos. 3 and 4 had the highest H, but R was lower than that in the WPSER. The high R of H. tuberosus in the WPSER further illustrates the impact of water and low-temperature stresses, resulting in differences in dry matter allocation in the plants. Observations of root morphology in August revealed that the root tubers of QDERS had fully assimilated nutrients, while those in the WPSER had not yet completely assimilated. A study on Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. reported that total biomass decreased with decreasing soil water content, but R increased accordingly [49]. This drought mechanism, which reduces the biomass of the aerial part by increasing the root system, is a common adaptation strategy for plants in arid and semi-arid areas [50,51]. From the growth and UB of No. 2, we arrived at a conclusion that aligns with prior research concerning the cold resistance of this variety [38].

4.3. Influence of Various Environmental Factors on the Growth Response of H. tuberosus

As shown in Table 5, TA exhibited a highly significant positive correlation with the 8H and SOM (p < 0.01), a significant negative correlation with the SC (p < 0.05), and a significant positive correlation with the MSC (p < 0.05); 9AB demonstrated a significant positive correlation with the AT (p < 0.05) and a highly significant positive correlation with the TA (p < 0.01); 9UB exhibited a highly significant positive correlation with the TA (p < 0.01); 10AB showed a significant positive correlation with the AT and SOM (p < 0.05), a significant negative correlation with the SC (p < 0.05), a significant positive correlation with the MSC (p < 0.05), and a highly significant positive correlation with the TA (p < 0.01); and 10UB exhibited a significant positive correlation with the TA (p < 0.05). It is evident that the AT, SOM, soil particle size, and TA were the primary environmental factors influencing the growth of H. tuberosus. Among these, the TA influences the overall growth of the plants during the growth season. Plant growth and development are influenced by temperature, which is one of the major environmental variables [52]. Research indicates that, with rising temperatures, the rate of growth and development in plants exhibits a linear increase. [53]. Furthermore, elevated temperatures enhance the synchronization of physiological processes and growth development, leading to accelerated growth, progression, and increased yields [54]. Temperature emerged as the primary factor influencing critical phenological phases and growth patterns; however, various factors contribute differently at distinct stages of the growth period. Specifically, the soil temperature is significant during the early and late stages, whereas the average temperature or maximum temperature is more relevant during the middle stage [55].
Soil particle size is frequently regarded as a significant determinant of soil nutrient retention and water-holding capacity [56]. It is generally believed that, compared to coarser soil particles, a higher content of clay and silt in the soil signifies a higher nutrient and organic matter content, as well as a better moisture retention capacity [56,57]. As shown in Table 5, the correlations between the growth of H. tuberosus and the SC (soil conductivity) and MSC (moisture content) suggest that the Jerusalem artichoke was optimally cultivated in well-drained sandy soil. Furthermore, the SOM (soil organic matter) exerted a more favorable influence on the nutritional growth of the plant’s aboveground portion during the initial growth phase. Research has demonstrated that the optimal temperature and elevated concentrations of soil organic matter were essential for the accelerated growth of plants [58]. In this study, the soil organic matter (SOM) exhibited a notably significant positive influence on the accelerated increase in plant height during the initial growth phase of H. tuberosus. However, paradoxically, well-drained sandy soil presents a scenario in which soil nutrients are diminished due to leaching by water, which adversely affects the early growth of plants [59]. Furthermore, there exists a substantial positive correlation, or a highly significant positive correlation, between AB and UB during the later growth stages, thereby demonstrating that the growth of both the aboveground and underground components of H. tuberosus does not represent a scenario of “one thriving while the other declines” but rather signifies an “interaction” between the two. Research has showed that the tuber yield of artichoke was significantly positively correlated with plant height, stem diameter, leaf area, and the number of leaves before flowering [16]. It can be suggested that the nutritional development of Jerusalem artichoke during its initial growth stages significantly influences the yield of subterranean tubers in subsequent phases. Consequently, in regions where Jerusalem artichoke is cultivated, it is imperative to implement artificial interventions to effectively mitigate challenges such as soil degradation and organic matter depletion in sandy soils, thereby optimizing the potential yield of tubers.

5. Conclusions

In very cold, semi-arid environments, various types of H. tuberosus exhibit a series of ecologically adaptive changes, which are primarily driven by atmospheric temperature and the physicochemical properties of the soil. In different sandy habitats, the H. tuberosus varieties planted in the QDERS enhance their survival rates by increasing the number of branches and developing robust basal diameters, while those in the relatively favorable conditions of the WPSER demonstrate healthier growth and more resilient root systems. These findings underscore the significance of selecting varieties that are adapted to local planting conditions in optimizing management strategies for H. tuberosus. Based on this, it is recommended to prioritize varieties with strong adaptability and cold drought resistance, such as Qingyu Nos. 1 and 2, in regions that experience intense cold and drought stress. Qingyu Nos. 3 and 4, particularly Qingyu No. 3, can serve as excellent candidates for crop cultivation in warm, semi-arid, sandy regions. Furthermore, appropriate artificial interventions and management measures, especially with respect to water supply and temperature regulation, can significantly enhance the growth of H. tuberosus and increase its yield, thereby establishing a solid foundation for its industrialization in ecological sand control.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.T., D.Z. and Q.W.; methodology, H.Z.; Software, L.W. and Q.W.; validation, L.T. and D.Z.; formal Analysis, Q.W. and L.W.; investigation, Q.W. and H.W.; resources, L.T. and D.Z.; data curation, Q.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.W.; writing—review and editing, L.T. and H.Z.; visualization, Q.W.; supervision, D.Z.; project administration, L.T.; funding acquisition, L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science and Technology Program of Qinghai Province grant number 2023-ZJ-755; the Forestry Technology Promotion Program of Qinghai Province grant number 2025TG03; the 2024 Hainan Prefecture Provincial Special Fund for the Construction of Science and Technology Platforms; and the Open Project of the State Key Laboratory of Plateau Ecology and Agriculture, Qinghai University grant number 2022-KF-07.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the Forestry and Grassland Bureau of Haiyan County and the Qinghai Desertification Experiment Station for providing the venue for our research. We also appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions from the reviewers and the editor, which greatly improved the quality of this 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. D’Odorico, P.; Ridolfi, L.; Laio, F. Precursors of State Transitions in Stochastic Systems with Delay. Theor. Ecol. 2013, 6, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bao, Y.; Cheng, L.; Bao, Y.; Yang, L.; Jiang, L.; Long, C.; Kong, Z.; Peng, P.; Xiao, J.; Lu, Q. Desertification: China Provides a Solution to a Global Challenge. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2017, 4, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lu, X.; Sheng, M.; Luo, M. Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Karst Rocky Desertification Vegetation Restoration in Southwest China: A Study Based on Web of Science Literature. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, Z.; Hasi, E. Research on the Development of Deserticulture and Desertification Land Use Benefits Evaluation in Ordos City. Land 2023, 12, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gao, X.; Liu, L.; Shang, Y.; Qi, F. Desert Ecological Control and Ecological Industrial Construction: Practice and Inspiration from China. Cjina Geol. 2024, 7, 596–600. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shao, M.; Wang, L.; Li, B.; Li, S.; Fan, J.; Li, C. Maxent Modeling for Identifying the Nature Reserve of Cistanche deserticola Ma under Effects of the Host (Haloxylon bunge) Forest and Climate Changes in Xinjiang, China. Forests 2022, 13, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, X.; Zhang, L.; Shao, H.; Xu, G.; Zhang, F.; Ni, F.; Brestic, M. Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), a Medicinal Salt-Resistant Plant Has High Adaptability and Multiple-Use Values. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 1272–1279. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rossini, F.; Provenzano, M.E.; Kuzmanović, L.; Ruggeri, R. Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): A Versatile and Sustainable Crop for Renewable Energy Production in Europe. Agronomy 2019, 9, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jankowski, K.J.; Dubis, B.; Kozak, M. Sewage Sludge and the Energy Balance of Jerusalem Artichoke Production—A Case Study in North-Eastern Poland. Energy 2021, 236, 121545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ciccoli, R.; Sperandei, M.; Petrazzuolo, F.; Broglia, M.; Chiarini, L.; Correnti, A.; Farneti, A.; Pignatelli, V.; Tabacchioni, S. Anaerobic Digestion of the above Ground Biomass of Jerusalem Artichoke in a Pilot Plant: Impact of the Preservation Method on the Biogas Yield and Microbial Community. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 108, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Terzić, S.; Atlagić, J.; Maksimović, I.; Zeremski, T.; Zorić, M.; Miklič, V.; Balalić, I. Genetic Variability for Concentrations of Essential Elements in Tubers and Leaves of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Sci. Hortic. 2012, 136, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Díaz, A.; García, M.A.; Dini, C. Jerusalem Artichoke Flour as Food Ingredient and as Source of Fructooligosaccharides and Inulin. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 114, 104863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. López-Molina, D.; Navarro-Martínez, M.D.; Rojas-Melgarejo, F.; Hiner, A.N.P.; Chazarra, S.; Rodríguez-López, J.N. Molecular Properties and Prebiotic Effect of Inulin Obtained from Artichoke (Cynara Scolymus L.). Phytochemistry 2005, 66, 1476–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Francavilla, M.; Marone, M.; Marasco, P.; Contillo, F.; Monteleone, M. Artichoke Biorefinery: From Food to Advanced Technological Applications. Foods 2021, 10, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Liu, Z. Genetic Variation and Yield Performance of Jerusalem Artichoke Germplasm Collected in China. Agric. Sci. China 2011, 10, 668–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lv, S.; Wang, R.; Xiao, Y.; Li, F.; Mu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Gao, W.; Yang, B.; Kou, Y.; Zeng, J.; et al. Growth, Yield Formation, and Inulin Performance of a Non-Food Energy Crop, Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.), in a Semi-Arid Area of China. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 134, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Puangbut, D.; Jogloy, S.; Vorasoot, N.; Patanothai, A. Responses of Growth, Physiological Traits and Tuber Yield in Helianthus tuberosus to Seasonal Variations under Tropical Area. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 195, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, S.; Sun, X.; Jiang, X.; Wang, L.; Tian, J.; Li, L.; Zhao, M.; Zhong, Q. Characterization of the Tibet Plateau Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Transcriptome by de Novo Assembly to Discover Genes Associated with Fructan Synthesis and SSR Analysis. Hereditas 2019, 156, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zorić, M.; Terzić, S.; Sikora, V.; Brdar-Jokanović, M.; Vassilev, D. Effect of Environmental Variables on Performance of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Cultivars in a Long Term Trial: A Statistical Approach. Euphytica 2017, 213, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gatta, G.; Gagliardi, A.; Disciglio, G.; Lonigro, A.; Francavilla, M.; Tarantino, E.; Giuliani, M. Irrigation with Treated Municipal Wastewater on Artichoke Crop: Assessment of Soil and Yield Heavy Metal Content and Human Risk. Water 2018, 10, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Long, X.; Huang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Kang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Z. Response of Two Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) Cultivars Differing in Tolerance to Salt Treatment. Pedosphere 2010, 20, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kong, K.; Nandintsetseg, B.; Shinoda, M.; Ishizuka, M.; Kurosaki, Y.; Bat-Oyun, T.; Gantsetseg, B. Seasonal variations in threshold wind speed for saltation depending on soil temperature and vegetation: A case study in the Gobi Desert. Aeolian. Res 2021, 52, 100716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dima, M.; Croitoru, M.; Drăghici, R.; Drăghici, I.; Ciuciuc, E.; Băjenaru, M.F. Researahs on the Behavior of Jerusalem Artichoke Varieties Grown on Sandy Soils in Terms of Nutritional Quality of Tubers. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2021, 21, 309–316. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ping, X.; Jiang, Z.; Li, C. Status and future perspectives of energy consumption and its ecological impacts in the Qinghai–Tibet region. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, W.; Zhang, D.; Tian, L.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, X. Morphologic Features and Forming Causes of Plant Sandpiles in Alpine Sand Land. Arid Zone Res. 2018, 35, 713–721. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yu, Y.; Jia, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Liu, H.; Li, Q.; Wei, D. Root Distribution of Salix cheilophila along a Chronosequence in High-Cold Sandland. J. Desert Res. 2014, 34, 67–74. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, L. Research on Jerusalem Artichoke; Qinghai People’s Publishing House: Qinghai, China, 2012. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  28. Gebre, T.; Chinthapalli, B.; Anjulo, M.M.; Robinson, D. The Impacts of Post Plantation Management Practices on Growth and Survival Rate of Selected Tree Species in Mirab Abaya District, Southern Ethiopia: An Experimental Approach. J. Hortic. For. 2022, 14, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pnueli, L.; Hallak-Herr, E.; Rozenberg, M.; Cohen, M.; Goloubinoff, P.; Kaplan, A.; Mittler, R. Molecular and Biochemical Mechanisms Associated with Dormancy and Drought Tolerance in the Desert Legume Retama Raetam. Plant J. 2002, 31, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Strelec, I.; Popović, R.; Ivanišić, I.; Jurković, V.; Jurković, Z.; Ugarčić-Hardi, Ž.; Sabo, M. Influence of Temperature and Relative Humidity on Grain Moisture, Germination and Vigour of Three Wheat Cultivars during One Year Storage. Poljoprivreda 2010, 16, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kauth, P.J.; Biber, P.D. Moisture Content, Temperature, and Relative Humidity Influence Seed Storage and Subsequent Survival and Germination of Vallisneria Americana Seeds. Aquat. Bot. 2015, 120, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kaya, M.D.; Kulan, E.G. Effective Seed Priming Methods Improving Germination and Emergence of Sugar Beet Under Low-Temperature Stress. Sugar Tech. 2020, 22, 1086–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhang, X.; Shen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, B.; Niu, J. Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Typical Sand-Fixing Plants in Response to Soil Moisture. Arid Zone Res. 2024, 41, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mao, L.; Chen, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, G. Altitudinal Patterns of Maximum Plant Height on the Tibetan Plateau. J. Plant Ecol. 2016, 11, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Leduc, N.; Roman, H.; Barbier, F.; Péron, T.; Huché-Thélier, L.; Lothier, J.; Demotes-Mainard, S.; Sakr, S. Light Signaling in Bud Outgrowth and Branching in Plants. Plants 2014, 3, 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, H.; Liu, S.; Regnier, P.; Yuan, W. New Insights on Plant Phenological Response to Temperature Revealed from Long-Term Widespread Observations in China. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 2066–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Ge, Q.; Dai, J. The Interactive Effects of Chilling, Photoperiod, and Forcing Temperature on Flowering Phenology of Temperate Woody Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhao, M.; Guo, Y.; Sun, S.; Ren, Y. Evaluation of Cold Resistance of Four Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) under Low Temperature Stress. Plant Physiol. J. 2020, 56, 1419–1431. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, C.; Zeng, F.; Zhang, B.; Liu, B.; Guo, Z.; Gao, H.; Tiyip, T. Optimal Root System Strategies for Desert Phreatophytic Seedlings in the Search for Groundwater. J. Arid Land 2015, 7, 462–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gao, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, F.; Jiang, B. Dynamics of root-shoot ratio and environmental effective factors of recovering Leymus chinensis steppe vegetation in Inner Mongolia, China. Acta Ecol Sin. 2008, 28, 4629–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lázaro-Nogal, A.; Matesanz, S.; Godoy, A.; Pérez-Trautman, F.; Gianoli, E.; Valladares, F. Environmental Heterogeneity Leads to Higher Plasticity in Dry-Edge Populations of a Semi-Arid Chilean Shrub: Insights into Climate Change Responses. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 338–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iijima, M.; Kato, J. Combined Soil Physical Stress of Soil Drying, Anaerobiosis and Mechanical Impedance to Seedling Root Growth of Four Crop Species. Plant Prod. Sci 2007, 10, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Toillon, J.; Fichot, R.; Dallé, E.; Berthelot, A.; Brignolas, F.; Marron, N. Planting density affects growth and water-use efficiency depending on site in Populus deltoides × P. nigra. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2013, 304, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, H.; Tian, L.; Hasi, E.; Zhang, D.; Wu, W. Vegetation–Soil Dynamics in an Alpine Desert Ecosystem of the Qinghai Lake Watershed, Northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1119605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Müller, I.; Schmid, B.; Weiner, J. The Effect of Nutrient Availability on Biomass Allocation Patterns in 27 Species of Herbaceous Plants. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2000, 3, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ruttanaprasert, R.; Jogloy, S.; Vorasoot, N.; Kesmala, T.; Kanwar, R.S.; Holbrook, C.C.; Patanothai, A. Effects of Water Stress on Total Biomass, Tuber Yield, Harvest Index and Water Use Efficiency in Jerusalem Artichoke. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 166, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hutchings, M.J.; John, E.A. The Effects of Environmental Heterogeneity on Root Growth and Root/Shoot Partitioning. Ann. Bot. 2004, 94, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Doust, J.L. Plant Reproductive Strategies and Resource Allocation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1989, 4, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peng, X.; Yang, Y.; Yan, X.; Li, H. The Effects of Water Control on the Survival and Growth of Alternanthera philoxeroides in the Vegetative Reproduction and Seedling Stages. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Eziz, A.; Yan, Z.; Tian, D.; Han, W.; Tang, Z.; Fang, J. Drought Effect on Plant Biomass Allocation: A Meta-Analysis. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 11002–11010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Zhou, G.; Zhou, X.; Nie, Y.; Bai, S.H.; Zhou, L.; Shao, J.; Cheng, W.; Wang, J.; Hu, F.; Fu, Y. Drought-Induced Changes in Root Biomass Largely Result from Altered Root Morphological Traits: Evidence from a Synthesis of Global Field Trials. Plant Cell Environ. 2018, 41, 2589–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Islam, S.; Reza, M.N.; Chowdhury, M.; Chung, S.O.; Choi, I.S. A review on effect of ambient environment factors and monitoring technology for plant factory. Precis. Agric. 2021, 3, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kubota, C. Growth, development, transpiration and translocation as affected by abiotic environmental factors. In Plant Factory; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maibam, A.; Nisar, S.; Zargar, S.M.; Mahajan, R. High-temperature response and tolerance in agronomic crops. In Agronomic Crops: Volume 3: Stress Responses and Tolerance; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 173–190. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, S.; Dong, S.; Fu, Y.; Zhou, B.; Liu, S.; Shen, H.; Xu, Y.; Gao, X.; Xiao, J.; Wu, S.; et al. Air or soil temperature matters the responses of alpine plants in biomass accumulation to climate warming. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 844, 157141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Jiao, S.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, Y. Variation of soil nutrients and particle size under different vegetation types in the Yellow River Delta. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2014, 34, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, X.; Duan, Z.; Tan, M. Restoration affect soil organic carbon and nutrients in different particle-size fractions. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tian, H.; Liu, K.; Zhou, J.; Lu, L.; Hao, J.; Qiu, P.; Gao, J.; Zhu, C.; Wang, K.; Hua, S. Atmospheric Emission Inventory of Hazardous Trace Elements from China’s Coal-Fired Power Plants-Temporal Trends and Spatial Variation Characteristics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3575–3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Li, L.; Zhang, Y.J.; Novak, A.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J. Role of Biochar in Improving Sandy Soil Water Retention and Resilience to Drought. Water 2021, 13, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00615 g001
Figure 1. Seasonal variation in precipitation and temperature in WPSER and QDERS in 2019.
Figure 1. Seasonal variation in precipitation and temperature in WPSER and QDERS in 2019.
Agronomy 15 00615 g001
Agronomy 15 00615 g002
Figure 2. Layout of H. tuberosus planting in two sites ((A) is the planting design in the two sites; (B) is the overall view of the research area before planting; (C) is a photograph of WPSER, and (D) is ae photograph of QDERS after planting H. tuberosus).
Figure 2. Layout of H. tuberosus planting in two sites ((A) is the planting design in the two sites; (B) is the overall view of the research area before planting; (C) is a photograph of WPSER, and (D) is ae photograph of QDERS after planting H. tuberosus).
Agronomy 15 00615 g002
Agronomy 15 00615 g003
Figure 3. Seasonal variation in soil volumetric water content (SWC) in WPSER (A) and QDERS (B). The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Figure 3. Seasonal variation in soil volumetric water content (SWC) in WPSER (A) and QDERS (B). The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Agronomy 15 00615 g003
Agronomy 15 00615 g004
Figure 4. Seasonal variation of height (H) in WPSER (A) and QDERS (B). The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Figure 4. Seasonal variation of height (H) in WPSER (A) and QDERS (B). The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Agronomy 15 00615 g004
Agronomy 15 00615 g005
Figure 5. Root distribution of H. tuberosus in WPSER and QDERS in August.
Figure 5. Root distribution of H. tuberosus in WPSER and QDERS in August.
Agronomy 15 00615 g005
Agronomy 15 00615 g006
Figure 6. Aboveground biomass (A1,B1), underground biomass (A2,B2), root-to-crown ratio (A3,B3), and fresh weight of tuber (A4,B4) of H. tuberosus in WPSER and QDERS. The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Figure 6. Aboveground biomass (A1,B1), underground biomass (A2,B2), root-to-crown ratio (A3,B3), and fresh weight of tuber (A4,B4) of H. tuberosus in WPSER and QDERS. The error bars in the figure represent the standard error (SE).
Agronomy 15 00615 g006
Table 1. List of abbreviations used in this manuscript.
Table 1. List of abbreviations used in this manuscript.
Full NameAbbreviationFull NameAbbreviation
Ketu Wind Prevention and Sand-fixation Experimental RangeWPSERQinghai Desert Ecosystem Research Station in Shazhuyu, Gonghe CountyQDERS
Qingyu No. 1No. 1Qingyu No. 3No. 3
Qingyu No. 2No. 2Qingyu No. 4No. 4
Soil volumetric water contentSWCSoil organic matterSOM
Total nitrogenTNTotal phosphorus pentoxideTP2Q5
Total potassium oxideTK2OAmmonium nitrogenAHN
Available phosphorusAPAvailable potassiumAK
Electrical conductivityECSurvival rateSR
Germination rateGRNumber of branchesB
Plant heightHLeaf areaLA
Base diameterDAbove-ground biomassAB
UndergroundbiomassUBRoot–shoot ratioR
Fresh weightFW
Table 2. Soil particle size (%) within 0–20 cm depth, electrical conductivity (mS·cm−1), soil nutrient conditions (g·kg−1; mg·kg−1), and pH.
Table 2. Soil particle size (%) within 0–20 cm depth, electrical conductivity (mS·cm−1), soil nutrient conditions (g·kg−1; mg·kg−1), and pH.
Soil Depth/cmClaySiltVery Fine SandFine SandMedium SandCoarse SandSOM
WPSER0~100.64 ± 0.285.97 ± 1.657.57 ± 2.3729.58 ± 6.0645.95 ± 2.5210.29 ± 3.281.16 ± 0.28
10~200.98 ± 0.127.48 ± 0.909.80 ± 2.4033.55 ± 12.6240.89 ± 8.317.31 ± 5.930.57 ± 0.12
QDERS0~106.75 ± 0.1147.83 ± 4.7220.35 ± 3.4419.50 ± 4.105.38 ± 3.940.20 ± 0.021.70 ± 0.22
10~203.24 ± 1.0339.63 ± 6.7033.06 ± 3.9221.23 ± 6.023.98 ± 2.170.16 ± 0.021.13 ± 0.15
Soil depth/cmTNTP2O5TK2OAHNAPAKpHEC
WPSER0~100.36 ± 0.110.71 ± 0.1318.15 ± 2.327 ± 1.452.1 ± 0.8819 ± 3.178.83 ± 0.630.00 ± 0.004
10~200.30 ± 0.050.67 ± 0.0616.18 ± 2.5510 ± 1.983.2 ± 1.5625 ± 3.398.82 ± 1.70.02 ± 0.007
QDERS0~100.30 ± 0.071.06 ± 0.1319.12 ± 3.1910 ± 1.023.1 ± 1.1248 ± 3.028.95 ± 1.250.10 ± 0.02
10~200.44 ± 0.140.90 ± 0.1217.21 ± 2.9717 ± 2.842.0 ± 1.4314 ± 2.858.98 ± 1.370.09 ± 0.05
Clay: <0.005 mm, silt: 0.005–0.05 mm, very fine sand: 0.05–0.1 mm, fine sand: 0.1–0.25 mm, medium sand: 0.25–0.5 mm, and coarse sand: 0.5–1 mm. SOM: soil organic matter. The data are presented in the format of value ± standard error.
Table 3. Seasonal variation of germination rate (GR) and survival rate (SR) in WPSER and QDERS.
Table 3. Seasonal variation of germination rate (GR) and survival rate (SR) in WPSER and QDERS.
LocationIndicatorNO.1NO.2NO.3NO.4
WPSERGR (%)74 ± 20 a36 ± 17 b76 ± 13 a79 ± 17 a
SR (%)76 ± 23 a83 ± 8 a78 ± 18 a54 ± 30 b
QDERSGR (%)83 ± 19 a88 ± 15 a68 ± 23 a83 ± 13 a
SR (%)88 ± 10 a88 ± 10 a88 ± 10 a83 ± 18 a
Note: Same letter indicates no significant difference among different varieties at the same site (p > 0.05); different letter indicates a significant difference among different varieties at the same site (p < 0.05). The data are presented in the format of value ± standard error.
Table 4. Growth characteristics of H. tuberosus in September.
Table 4. Growth characteristics of H. tuberosus in September.
LocationVarietiesHeight (H)/cmBranches (B) /cmBase Diameter (D)/cmLeaf Area (LA)/cm2
WPSERNo.133.40 ± 11.52 a3.40 ± 1.08 a0.80 ± 0.18 a21.89 ± 0.41 a
No.224.50 ± 9.86 a2.50 ± 1.64 a0.74 ± 0.19 a17.85 ± 0.26 a
No.327.90 ± 4.79 a3.30 ± 1.25 a0.88 ± 0.23 a25.29 ± 0.23 a
No.420.10 ± 12.07 b2.30 ± 1.92 a0.77 ± 0.24 a23.87 ± 0.40 a
QDERSNo.146.70 ± 27.03 a1.50 ± 0.53 a0.85 ± 0.40 a29.71 ± 4.30 a
No.239.70 ± 14.64 a2.40 ± 1.07 a0.86 ± 0.13 a34.49 ± 1.95 a
No.376.50 ± 28.87 b2.38 ± 1.19 a0.85 ± 0.40 a48.04 ± 2.68 b
No.479.75 ± 23.47 b2.00 ± 1.12 a1.06 ± 0.39 a51.46 ± 0.79 b
Note: Same letter indicates no significant difference among different varieties at the same site (p > 0.05); different letter indicates a significant difference among different varieties at the same site (p < 0.05). The data are presented in the format of value ± standard error.
Table 5. Correlation coefficients among growth indicators of H. tuberosus and environmental factors in the study area.
Table 5. Correlation coefficients among growth indicators of H. tuberosus and environmental factors in the study area.
ATSTSWCSOMSCMSCRH-STA8H9AB9UB10AB10UB
AT--
ST0.275--
SWC0.5330.139--
SOM0.4320.0360.517--
SC−0.840 **−0.431−0.751 *−0.712 *--
MSC0.6480.3640.809 *0.846 **−0.942 **--
RH-S−0.0360.801 *0.108−0.411−0.0690.011--
TA0.698−0.2250.4450.829 *−0.6910.676−0.644--
8H0.668−0.1070.4420.875 **−0.721 *0.726 *−0.5990.978 **--
9AB0.752 *−0.2120.4780.665−0.6760.595−0.5670.939 **0.915 **--
9UB0.674−0.2950.2390.615−0.4920.446−0.6640.874 **0.821 *0.753 *--
10AB0.784 *−0.0850.5550.721 *−0.794 *0.713 *−0.4430.926 **0.905 **0.970 **0.688--
10UB0.596−0.3290.2000.396−0.4020.267−0.5520.768 *0.7040.900 **0.5750.848 **--
Note: * denotes a significant correlation (p < 0.05); ** denotes a highly significant correlation (p < 0.01). Abbreviation notes: AT—average temperature(°C); ST—soil temperature (°C); SWC—soil water content (%); SOM—soil organic matter (%); SC—silt content (%); MSC—medium sand content (%); RH-S—relative humidity (%); TA—atmospheric temperature (°C); 8H—plant height in August (cm); 9AB—aboveground biomass in September (g); 9UB—underground biomass in September (g); 10AB—aboveground biomass in October (g); 10UB—underground biomass in October (g); Pn—net photosynthetic rate (μmol·m−2·s−1); Tr—transpiration rate (mmol·m−2·s−1); G—stomatal conductance (mmol·m−2·s−1); WUE—water use efficiency (mmol·mol−1).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Q.; Tian, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, D.; Wang, H.; Wang, L. Ecosystem Responses of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Alpine Desert Environments in Northeastern Qinghai, Tibet Plateau, China. Agronomy 2025, 15, 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030615

AMA Style

Wang Q, Tian L, Zhang H, Zhang D, Wang H, Wang L. Ecosystem Responses of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Alpine Desert Environments in Northeastern Qinghai, Tibet Plateau, China. Agronomy. 2025; 15(3):615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Qiaoyu, Lihui Tian, Hongwei Zhang, Dengshan Zhang, Haijiao Wang, and Lihui Wang. 2025. "Ecosystem Responses of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Alpine Desert Environments in Northeastern Qinghai, Tibet Plateau, China" Agronomy 15, no. 3: 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030615

APA Style

Wang, Q., Tian, L., Zhang, H., Zhang, D., Wang, H., & Wang, L. (2025). Ecosystem Responses of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Alpine Desert Environments in Northeastern Qinghai, Tibet Plateau, China. Agronomy, 15(3), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030615

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