2019
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5058
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Increased snowfall weakens complementarity of summer water use by different plant functional groups

Abstract: Winter snowfall is an important water source for plants during summer in semiarid regions. Snow, rain, soil water, and plant water were sampled for hydrogen and oxygen stable isotopes analyses under control and increased snowfall conditions in the temperate steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Our study showed that the snowfall contribution to plant water uptake continued throughout the growing season and was detectable even in the late growing season. Snowfall versus rainfall accounted for 30% and 70%, respective… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Soil and plant water samples were well described by linear regressions, resulting of laying at an angle to the LMWL, this is consistent with previous studies (Goldsmith et al, 2012;Evaristo et al, 2015;Che, et al, 2019). The slopes and intercepts of these water lines were determined by the relative evaporation rates of the different water isotopes (Crawford et al, 2014;Benettin et al, 2018;Bowen et al, 2018;Chi et al, 2019), indicating the different magnitudes of evaporative enrichment of isotopes in soil water and plant water. The slope and intercept of soil water at the grassland site (5.46 and -8.66, respectively) were slightly lower than those at the shrub site (5.83 and -4.83, respectively), suggesting soil evaporation was slightly greater at the grassland site than at the shrub site.…”
Section: Comparisons Between P Fruticosa Shrub and Alpine Grasslandsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Soil and plant water samples were well described by linear regressions, resulting of laying at an angle to the LMWL, this is consistent with previous studies (Goldsmith et al, 2012;Evaristo et al, 2015;Che, et al, 2019). The slopes and intercepts of these water lines were determined by the relative evaporation rates of the different water isotopes (Crawford et al, 2014;Benettin et al, 2018;Bowen et al, 2018;Chi et al, 2019), indicating the different magnitudes of evaporative enrichment of isotopes in soil water and plant water. The slope and intercept of soil water at the grassland site (5.46 and -8.66, respectively) were slightly lower than those at the shrub site (5.83 and -4.83, respectively), suggesting soil evaporation was slightly greater at the grassland site than at the shrub site.…”
Section: Comparisons Between P Fruticosa Shrub and Alpine Grasslandsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Plant nutrition and nutrient conservation strategies differ between plant species and thus would show different responses to changes in soil resources along the restoration gradient [ 19 ]. For example, shallow roots plant production as that mainly rely on fibrous branched roots to acquire surface soil water and nutrients [ 20 ]. Therefore, a better understanding of the responses of C/N ratio to grazing and mowing is vital to maintaining grassland functionality and sustainability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Plants can access shallow and deep soil water, as well as groundwater with a tendency to prioritize the use of stable and continuous water sources (Zhao & Wang, ), at least in regions where some sources are continuously available. Several studies based on an isotope approach and focusing on the identification of different water sources accessed by plants have been conducted at individual sites in many regions of the world and on different plant species (e.g., to name a few recent studies, Allen, Kirchner, Braun, Siegwolf, & Goldsmith, ; Chi, Zhou, Yang, Li, & Zheng, ; Dubbert, Caldeira, Dubbert, & Werner, ; Evaristo et al, ; Nie et al, ; Oerter, Siebert, Bowling, & Bowen, ; Qiu et al, ). Recent meta‐analyses assessed plant water sources across different biomes and plant species (Barbeta & Peñuelas, ; Evaristo, Jasechko, & McDonnell, ; Evaristo & McDonnell, , ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%