Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 906–914 | Cite as

Effect of Manipulated Rainfall on Root Production and Plant Belowground Dry Mass of Different Grassland Ecosystems

  • Karel Fiala
  • Ivan Tůma
  • Petr Holub
Article

Abstract

A field experiment was established to quantify the effects of different amounts of rainfall on root growth and dry mass of belowground plant parts in three types of grassland ecosystems. Mountain (Nardus grassland), highland (wet Cirsium grassland), and lowland grassland (dry Festuca grassland) ecosystems were studied in 2006 and 2007. Roofs constructed above the canopy of grass stands and gravity irrigation systems simulated three climate scenarios: (1) rainfall reduced by 50%, (2) rainfall enhanced by 50%, and (3) the full natural rainfall of the current growing season. Experimentally reduced amounts of precipitation significantly affected both yearly root increments and total root dry mass in the highland grassland. Dry conditions in 2007 resulted in considerable reduction of total belowground dry mass in highland and mountain grasslands. Although not all differences in root biomass of studied grasslands were statistically significantly, some also showed a decrease in root increment and in the amount of belowground dry mass in dry conditions.

Keywords

Beskydy Mts. drought rainfall simulation roots belowground dry mass root increments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (Project No. 526/06/0556), and by projects No. AVOZ 60050516 and AVOZ 60870520. We are indebted to Prof. J.M. Bernard for his review of the text.

References

  1. Andrzejewska L. 1991. Root production of some grass communities on peat soil in river valleys of Biebrza and Narew. Pol Ecol Stud 17:63–72Google Scholar
  2. Arriaga L, Maya Y. 2007. Spatial variability in decomposition rates in a desert scrub of Northwestern Mexico. Plant Ecol 189:213–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker MR, Augusto L, Achat DL. 2006. Fine root distribution of trees and understory in mature stands of marine pine (Pinus pinaster) on dry and humid sites. Plant Soil 286:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beier C, Rasmussen L. 1994. Organic-matter decomposition in an acidic forest soil in Denmark as measured by the cotton strip assay. Scand J. For Res 9:106–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borken W, Savage K, Davidson EA, Trumbore SE. 2006. Effect of experimental drought on soil respiration and radiocarbon efflux from a temperate forest soil. Global Change Biol 12:177–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eissenstat DM, Yanai RD. 1997. The ecology of root lifespan. Adv Ecol Res 27:2–60Google Scholar
  7. Fay PA, Carlisle JD, Knapp AK, Blair JM, Collins SL. 2000. Altering rainfall timing and quantity in a mesic grassland ecosystems: Design and performance of rainfall manipulation shelters. Ecosystems 3:308–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fay PA, Kaufman DM, Nippert JB, Carlisle JD, Harper CW. 2008. Changes in grassland ecosystem function due to extreme rainfall events: implications for responses to climate change. Global Change Biol 14:1600–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiala K. 1993. Underground biomass in meadow stands. Rychnovská M, editor. Functioning of meadow ecosystems. Praha: Academia. p 133–53Google Scholar
  10. Fischer Z, Niewinna M, Yasulbutaeva I. 2006. Intensity of organic matter decomposition in various landscapes of Caucasus (Daghestan). Pol J Ecol 54:105–16Google Scholar
  11. Fitter AH, Graves JD, Self GK, Brown TK. 1998. Root production, turnover and respiration under two grassland types along an altitudinal gradient: influence of temperature and solar radiation. Oecologia 114:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes DC, Seastedt TR. 1987. Root dynamics of tallgrass prairie in wet and dry years. Can J Bot 65:787–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holub P. 2002. The expansion of Calamagrostis epigejos into alluvial meadows: comparison of aboveground biomass in relation to water regimes. Ekológia 21:27–37Google Scholar
  14. Hui D, Jackson RB. 2005. Geographical and interannual variability in biomass partitioning in grassland ecosystems: a synthesis of field data. New Phytol 169:58–93Google Scholar
  15. Ibrahim L, Proe MF, Cameron AD. 1997. Main effects of nitrogen supply and drought stress upon whole-plant carbon allocation in poplar. Can J For Res 27:413–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakrlová J. 1971. Flooded meadow communities. An analysis of productivity in a dry year. Folia Geobot Phytotax 6:1–27Google Scholar
  17. Kochy M, Wilson SD. 2004. Semiarid grassland responses to short-term variation in water availability. Plant Ecol 174:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuchenbuch RO, Ingram KT, Buczko U. 2006. Effect of decreasing soil water content on seminal and lateral roots of young maize plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169:841–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lane RD, Coffin DP, Lauenroth WK. 2000. Changes in grassland canopy structure across a precipitation gradient. J Veg Sci 11:359–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawlor DW. 1998: Plant responses to global change: temperature and drought stress. In: De Kok LJ, Stulen I, Eds. Responses of plant metabolism to air pollution and global change. Leiden: The Netherlands. pp 193–207Google Scholar
  21. Oomes MJM, Mooi H. 1981. The effect of cutting and fertilization on floristiuc composition and production of an Arrhenatherion elatioris grassland. Vegetatio 47:233–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pandey CB, Singh JS. 1992. Rainfall and grazing effects on net primary productivity in a tropical savanna, India. Ecology 73:2007–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peek MS, Leffler AJ, Hipps L, Ivans S, Ryel RJ, Caldwell MM. 2006. Root turnover and relocation in the soil profile in response to seasonal soil water variation in a natural stand of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). Tree Physiol 26:1469–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pielota MN, Smucker JM. 1995. Fine root dynamics of alfa after multiple cuttings and during a late invasion by weeds. Agron J 87:1161–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qaderi MM, Kurepin LV, Reid DM. 2006. Growth and physiological responses of canola (Brasica napus) to three components of global climate changes: Temperature, carbon dioxide and drought. Physiol Plantarum 128:710–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rychnovská M. 1983. Grasslands: A multifunctional link between natural and man-made ecosystems. Ekológia (ČSSR) 2:337–45Google Scholar
  27. Silvertown J, Dodd M, McConway K, Potts J, Crawley M. 1994. Rainfall, biomass variation, and community composition in the park grass experiment. Ecology 75:2430–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Speidel B. 1976. Primary production and root activity of a Golden Oat meadow with different fertilizer treatments. Pol Ecol Stud 2:77–89Google Scholar
  29. Stampfli A. 1992, Year-to-year changes in unfertilized meadows of great species richness detected by point quadrate analysis. Vegetatio 103:125–32Google Scholar
  30. Stanton NL. 1988. The underground in grasslands. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19:573–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tao FL, Yokozawa M, Hayashi Y, Lin E. 2003. Terrestrial water cycle and the impact of climate change. Ambio 32:295–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Teklay T. 2007. Decomposition and nutrient release from pruning residues of two indigenous agroforestry species during the wet and dry seasons. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 77:115–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Titlyanova AA, Romanova IP, Kosykh NP, Mironycheva-Tokareva NP. 1999. Pattern and process in above-ground and below-ground components of grassland ecosystems. J Veg Sci 10:307–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tůma I. 2002. Release of nutrients from decomposing litter on deforested areas affected by air pollution in the Beskydy Mts. Ekológia 21:201–20Google Scholar
  35. Valdés M, Asbjornsen H, Gómez-Cárdenas M, Juárez M, Vogt KA. 2006. Drought effects on fine-root and ectomycorrhizal-root biomass in managed Pinus oaxacana Mirov stands in Oaxaca, Mexico. Mycorrhiza 16:117–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Oorschot M, van Gaalen N, Maltby E, Mockler N, Spink A, Verhoeven J.T.A. 2000. Experimental manipulation of water levels in two French reiverine grassland soils. Acta Oecologica – Inter J Ecol 21:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker MD, Webber PJ, Arnold EH, Ebertmay D. 1994. Effects of interannual climate variation on aboveground phytomass in alpine vegetation. Ecology 75:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yahdjian L, Sala OE. 2002. A rainout shelter design for intercepting different amounts of rainfall. Oecologia 133:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yahdjian L, Sala OE. 2006. Vegetation structure constrains primary production response to water availability in the Patagonian steppe. Ecology 87:952–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yahdjian L, Sala ES, Austin AT. 2006. Different controls of water input on litter decomposition and nitrogen dynamics in the Patagonian steppe. Ecosystems 9:128–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang X, Wang MX, Huang Y, Wang YS. 2002. A one-compartment model to study soil carbon decomposition rate at equilibrium situation. Ecol Model 151:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vegetation Ecology, Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoThe Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of AgronomyMendel University of Agriculture and ForestryBrnoThe Czech Republic
  3. 3.Laboratory of Plants Ecological Physiology, Institute of Systems Biology and EcologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoThe Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations