辽西地区樟子松人工林生产力和水分利用效率对气候变化的响应及预测

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230296

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: This study aims to predict the changes in gross primary productivity (GPP) and inherent water use efficiency (iWUE) of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantations in Heishui forest station in western Liaoning Province under future different climatic conditions. Method: A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the parameters affecting GPP and evapotranspiration (ET) in the BIOME-BGC model. Parameter estimation (PEST) combined with eddy covariance data of GPP was used to adjust the model parameters, to obtain the simulated gross primary productivity (GPP_m) and simulated inherent water use efficiency (iWUE_m). The result of stable isotope measurement was compared with remote sensing data. The responses of GPP_m and iWUE_m of P. sylvestris var. mongolica in the Heishui forest station to climate change and increasing CO₂ concentration by the end of this century were also predicted. Result: The carbon allocation ratio between fine roots and leaves was a highly sensitive parameter affecting both GPP and ET in the BIOME-BGC model, while the turnover rates of leaves and fine roots were moderately sensitive parameters. After calibration of the sensitive parameters, the simulated values of GPP were closer to the observed values. The simulated iWUE_m was significantly correlated with the inherent water use efficiency (iWUE_y) obtained by remote sensing and the individual inherent water use efficiency (iWUE_d) with isotopic measurement (P<0.05). Under warming, GPP_m increased, but under reduced precipitation and increased CO₂, GPP_m did not change significantly. The iWUE_m showed similar trends in different scenarios, but with larger variations. Under the RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios, GPP_m of P. sylvestris var. mongolica significantly increased compared to the baseline, with significant differences among scenarios. However, iWUE_m did not differ significantly from the baseline under RCP2.6 and RCP4.5, but increased significantly under RCP8.5 (P<0.01). Conclusion: The BIOME-BGC model, after calibration, can accurately simulate GPP_m and iWUE_m of P. sylvestris var. mongolica in the Heishui forest station. The differences in the future trends of GPP_m and iWUE_m suggest that the response mechanism of iWUE to climate change is more complex than that of GPP, and iWUE is not only influenced by climate change, but also by local site conditions.

Key words: BIOME-BGC model, gross primary productivity (GPP), inherent water use efficiency (iWUE), climate response, scene mode

CLC Number:

S718.45

Chongfan Guan,Xiang Gao,Zhipeng Li,Xiaochuang Hu,Meijun Hu,Jinsong Zhang,Ping Meng,Jinfeng Cai,Shoujia Sun. Response and Prediction of Productivity and Water Use Efficiency of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Plantations in Western Liaoning Province to Climate Change[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2024, 60(7): 28-39.

Figures/Tables 11

Table 1

Comparison of BIOME-BGC model parameter optimization"

参数 Parameters	初始值 Initial value	优化值 Optimization values	优化 Optimization
叶片和细根年周转率 Annual leaf and fine root turnover fraction (LFRT)	0.25	0.039	是Yes
细根与叶片碳分配比 New fine root C∶new leaf C (FRC∶LC)	1.0	0.434	是Yes
茎与叶片碳分配比 New stem C∶new leaf C (SC∶LC)	2.2	0.01	是Yes
叶片碳氮比C∶N of leaves (C_leaf∶N_leaf)	42.0	100.0	是Yes
细根碳氮比 C∶N of fine roots (C_fr∶N_fr)	42.0	93.67	是Yes
冠层截留系数 Canopy water interception coefficient (w_int)	0.041	0.500	是Yes
冠层消光系数 Canopy light extinction coefficient (k)	0.5	3.7	是Yes
冠层比叶面积 Canopy average specific leaf area ( projected area basis) (SLA)	12.0	0.01	是Yes
阴生叶和阳生叶的比叶面积比例 Ratio of shaded SLA∶sunlit SLA (SLA_shd:sun)	2.0	2.0	是Yes
酮糖二磷酸羧化酶中氮含量与叶氮含量 Fraction of leaf N in Rubisco (FLNR)	0.04	0.0011	是Yes
转换生长占生长季比例 Transfer growth period as fraction of growing season (TFG)	0.3		否No
落叶时段占生长季比例 Litterfall as fraction of growing season (LFG)	0.3		否No
活立木年周转率 Annual live wood turnover fraction (LWT)	0.70		否No
整株植物死亡率 Annual whole-plant mortality fraction (WPM)	0.005		否No
植物火烧死亡率 Annual fire mortality fraction (FM)	0.000		否No
活木与木质组织碳分配比 New live wood C∶new total wood C (LWC∶TWC)	0.1		否No
粗根与茎分配比 New croot C∶new stem C (CRC∶SC)	0.3		否No
当前生长比例 Current growth proportion (CGP)	0.5		否No
凋落物碳氮比 C∶N of leaf litter, after retranslocation (C∶N_lit)	93.0		否No
活木质组织碳氮比 C∶N of live wood (C_lw∶N_lw)	50.0		否No
死木质组织碳氮比C∶N of dead wood (C_dw∶N_dw)	729.0		否No
叶面积与投影叶面积指数比 All-sided to projected leaf arera ratio (LAI_all:proj)	2.6		否No
最大气孔导度 Maximum stomatal conductance ( projected area basis) (g_smax)	0.003		否No
表皮层导度 Cuticular conductance ( projected area basis) (g_cut)	0.00001		否No
边界层导度Boundary layer conductance ( projected area basis) (g_bl)	0.08		否No
气孔开始缩小时的叶片水势 Leaf water potential:start of conductance reduction (LWP_i)	?0.6		否No
气孔完全闭合时的叶片水势 Leaf water potential:complete conductance reduction (LWP_f)	?2.3		否No
气孔开始缩小时的饱和水汽压差 Vapor pressure deficit:start of conductance reduction (VPD_i)	930.0		否No
气孔完全闭合时的饱和水汽压差 Vapor pressure deficit:complete conductance reduction (VPD_f)	4100.0		否No

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Table 4

References 0

	樊华烨, 李　英, 张廷龙, 等. 陆地植被水碳通量模型模拟与数据同化研究进展. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31 (6): 2098- 2108.
	Fan H Y, Li Y, Zhang T L, et al. Research advances in model simulation and data assimilation of water and carbon fluxes in land surface vegetation. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31 (6): 2098- 2108.
	贾　畅, 王丽娜, 唐亚坤. 利用BIOME-BGC模型模拟黄土区沙棘人工林碳通量时的生理生态参数敏感性. 林业科学, 2022, 58 (11): 49- 60. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20221105
	Jia C, Wang L N, Tang Y K. Sensitivity analysis of ecophysiological parameters for the simulated carbon flux using the BIOME-BGC model in a Hippophae rhamnoides plantation in the Loess region. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58 (11): 49- 60. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20221105
	康满春, 朱丽平, 许　行, 等. 基于BIOME-BGC模型的北方杨树人工林碳水通量对气候变化的响应研究. 生态学报, 2019, 39 (7): 2378- 2390.
	Kang M C, Zhu L P, Xu H, et al. Modelling the responses of carbon and water fluxes with climate change for a poplar plantation in northern China based on the BIOME-BGC model. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39 (7): 2378- 2390.
	李耀琪, 王志恒. 植物功能生物地理学的研究进展与展望. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47 (2): 145- 169. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2022.0245
	Li Y Q, Wang Z H. Functional biogeography of plants: research progresses and challenges. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2023, 47 (2): 145- 169. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2022.0245
	李旭华, 孙建新. BIOME-BGC模型模拟阔叶红松林碳水通量的参数敏感性检验和不确定性分析. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42 (12): 1131- 1144. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2018.0231
	Li X H, Sun J X. Testing parameter sensitivities and uncertainty analysis of BIOME-BGC model in simulating carbon and water fluxes in broadleaved-Korean pine forests. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018, 42 (12): 1131- 1144. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2018.0231
	刘晓东, 朱春全, 雷静品, 等. 2020. 杨树人工林冠层光合辐射分布的研究. 林业科学, 36(3): 2−7.
	Liu X D, Zhu C Q, Lei J P, et al. 2000. The distribution of photosynthetic radiation in the canopy of poplar plantation. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 36(3): 2−7. ［in Chinese］
	陆佩玲, 于　强, 贺庆棠. 植物物候对气候变化的响应. 生态学报, 2006, 26 (3): 923- 929. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2006.03.038
	Lu P L, Yu Q, He Q T. Responses of plant phenology to climatic change. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26 (3): 923- 929. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2006.03.038
	米　娜, 温学发, 蔡　福, 等. 2014. 季节性干旱对千烟洲人工林水分利用效率的影响. 林业科学, 50(12): 24−31.
	Mi N, Wen X F, Cai F, et al. 2014. Effects of seasonal drought on the water use efficiency of Qianyanzhou plantation. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 50(12): 24−31. ［in Chinese］
	涂志华, 周凌峰, 黄艳萍, 等. 海南岛黎母山国家自然保护区热带云雾林土壤酶活性的根际效应. 水土保持通报, 2021, 41 (3): 1- 7.
	Tu Z H, Zhou L F, Huang Y P, et al. Rhizosphere effects of soil enzyme activities in tropical cloud forests in Limushan national nature reserve on Hainan island. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 41 (3): 1- 7.
	郑　磊, 宋世凯, 袁秀亮, 等. 基于BIOME-BGC模型和集合卡尔曼滤波方法的阔叶红松林生态系统水碳通量模拟. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36 (6): 1752- 1760.
	Zheng L, Song S K, Yuan X L, et al. Simulation of water and carbon fluxes in a broad-leaved Korean pine forest in Changbai Mountains based on Biome-BGC model and ensemble Kalman filter method. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36 (6): 1752- 1760.
	Adams H D, Zeppel M J, Anderegg W R, et al. A multi-species synthesis of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2017, 1 (9): 1285- 1291.
	Battipaglia G, de Micco V, Brand W A, et al. Drought impact on water use efficiency and intra-annual density fluctuations in Erica arborea on Elba (Italy). Plant, Cell & Environment, 2014, 37 (2): 382- 391.
	Cao G M, Xu X L, Long R J, et al. Methane emissions by alpine plant communities in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Biology Letters, 2008, 4 (6): 681- 684. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0373
	Collalti A, Thornton P E, Cescatti A, et al. The sensitivity of the forest carbon budget shifts across processes along with stand development and climate change. Ecological Applications, 2019, 29 (2): e01837. doi: 10.1002/eap.1837
	Depardieu C, Girardin M P, Nadeau S, et al. Adaptive genetic variation to drought in a widely distributed conifer suggests a potential for increasing forest resilience in a drying climate. New Phytologist, 2020, 227 (2): 427- 439. doi: 10.1111/nph.16551
	Dong G, Guo J X, Chen J Q, et al. Effects of spring drought on carbon sequestration, evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in the Songnen meadow steppe in northeast China. Ecohydrology, 2011, 4 (2): 211- 224. doi: 10.1002/eco.200
	Farquhar G D, O’Leary M H, Berry J A. On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Functional Plant Biology, 1982, 9 (2): 121- 137. doi: 10.1071/PP9820121
	Foken T, Göockede M, Mauder M, et al. 2004. Post-field data quality control. Handbook of micrometeorology: a guide for surface flux measurement and analysis. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 181−208.
	Galván J D, Camarero J J, Gutiérrez E. Seeing the trees for the forest: drivers of individual growth responses to climate in Pinus uncinata mountain forests. Journal of Ecology, 2014, 102 (5): 1244- 1257. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12268
	Gea-Izquierdo G, Guibal F, Joffre R, et al. Modelling the climatic drivers determining photosynthesis and carbon allocation in evergreen Mediterranean forests using multiproxy long time series. Biogeosciences, 2015, 12 (12): 3695- 3712. doi: 10.5194/bg-12-3695-2015
	Gessler A, Cailleret M, Joseph J, et al. Drought induced tree mortality–a tree-ring isotope based conceptual model to assess mechanisms and predispositions. New Phytologist, 2018, 219 (2): 485- 490. doi: 10.1111/nph.15154
	Guerrieri R, Lepine L, Asbjornsen H, et al. Evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in relation to climate and canopy nitrogen in US forests. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 2016, 121 (10): 2610- 2629. doi: 10.1002/2016JG003415
	Hatfield J L, Dold, C. Water-use efficiency: advances and challenges in a changing climate. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2019, 10, 103. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00103
	Helcoski R, Tepley A J, Pederson N, et al. Growing season moisture drives interannual variation in woody productivity of a temperate deciduous forest. New Phytologist, 2019, 223 (3): 1204- 1216. doi: 10.1111/nph.15906
	Huang B B, Yang Y Z, Li R N, et al. Integrating remotely sensed leaf area index with BIOME-BGC to quantify the impact of land use/land cover change on water retention in Beijing. Remote Sensing, 2022, 14 (3): 743. doi: 10.3390/rs14030743
	Huang M T, Piao S L, Sun Y, et al. Change in terrestrial ecosystem water-use efficiency over the last three decades. Global Change Biology, 2015, 21 (6): 2366- 2378. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12873
	Hwang T, Kang S, Kim J, et al. Evaluating drought effect on MODIS gross primary production (GPP) with an eco-hydrological model in the mountainous forest, East Asia. Global Change Biology, 2008, 14 (5): 1037- 1056. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01556.x
	Jia H S, Zhou Y, Zhang J S, et al. Early–latewood carbon isotope enhances the understanding of the relationship between tree biomass growth and forest-level carbon fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2022, 315, 108818. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108818
	Klesse S, DeRose R J, Guiterman C H, et al. Sampling bias overestimates climate change impacts on forest growth in the southwestern United States. Nature communications, 2018, 9 (1): 5336. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07800-y
	Kolář T, Čermák P, Trnka M, et al. Temporal changes in the climate sensitivity of Norway spruce and European beech along an elevation gradient in Central Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2017, 239, 24- 33. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.02.028
	Kumar M, Raghubanshi A. 2012. Sensitivity analysis of BIOME-BGC model for dry tropical forests of Vindhyan highlands, India. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 38: 129-133.
	Lavergne A, Graven H, de Kauwe M G, et al. Observed and modelled historical trends in the water use efficiency of plants and ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 2019, 25 (7): 2242- 2257. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14634
	Li H L, Wei M H, Dong L W, et al. Leaf and ecosystem water use efficiencies differ in their global-scale patterns and drivers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2022, 319, 108919. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108919
	Liu Q Y, Zhang T L, Du M X, et al. A better carbon-water flux simulation in multiple vegetation types by data assimilation. Forest Ecosystems, 2022, 9, 100013. doi: 10.1016/j.fecs.2022.100013
	Lu X L, Zhuang Q L. Evaluating evapotranspiration and water-use efficiency of terrestrial ecosystems in the conterminous United States using MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2010, 114 (9): 1924- 1939. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.001
	Ma H Q, Ma C F, Li X, et al. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of flux-based ecosystem model towards improvement of forest GPP simulation. Sustainability, 2020, 12 (7): 2584. doi: 10.3390/su12072584
	Ma W T, Tcherkez G, Wang X M, et al. Accounting for mesophyll conductance substantially improves ¹³C-based estimates of intrinsic water-use efficiency. New Phytologist, 2021, 229 (3): 1326- 1338. doi: 10.1111/nph.16958
	Mao F J, Li P H, Zhou G M, et al. Development of the BIOME-BGC model for the simulation of managed Moso bamboo forest ecosystems. Journal of environmental management, 2016, 172, 29- 39.
	McCarroll D, Loader N J. Stable isotopes in tree rings. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2004, 23 (7/8): 771- 801.
	Medlyn B E, de Kauwe M G, Lin Y S, et al. 2017. How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water-use efficiency compare? New Phytologist, 216(3): 758-770.
	Mu Q Z, Zhao M S, Heinsch F A, et al. 2007. Evaluating water stress controls on primary production in biogeochemical and remote sensing based models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 112: G01012.
	Oerter E J, Siebert G, Bowling D R, et al. Soil water vapour isotopes identify missing water source for streamside trees. Ecohydrology, 2019, 12 (4): e2083. doi: 10.1002/eco.2083
	Peng H J, Guo Q, Ding H W, et al. Multi-scale temporal variation in methane emission from an alpine peatland on the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and associated environmental controls. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019, 276/277, 107616. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107616
	Raj R, Hamm N A, van der Tol C, et al. Variance-based sensitivity analysis of BIOME-BGC for gross and net primary production. Ecological Modelling, 2014, 292, 26- 36. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.012
	Raj R, van der Tol C, Hamm N A S, et al. Bayesian integration of flux tower data into a process-based simulator for quantifying uncertainty in simulated output. Geoscientific Model Development, 2018, 11 (1): 83- 101. doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-83-2018
	Restrepo-Coupe N, Levine N M, Christoffersen B O, et al. Do dynamic global vegetation models capture the seasonality of carbon fluxes in the Amazon basin? a data-model intercomparison. Global Change Biology, 2017, 23 (1): 191- 208. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13442
	Rowlings D, Grace P, Kiese R, et al. Environmental factors controlling temporal and spatial variability in the soil-atmosphere exchange of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O from an Australian subtropical rainforest. Global Change Biology, 2012, 18 (2): 726- 738. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02563.x
	Schmiege S C, Griffin K L, Boelman N T, et al. 2023. Vertical gradients in photosynthetic physiology diverge at the latitudinal range extremes of white spruce. Plant, Cell & Environment, 46(1): 45−63.
	Sims D A, Rahman A F, Cordova V D, et al. A new model of gross primary productivity for North American ecosystems based solely on the enhanced vegetation index and land surface temperature from MODIS. Remote sensing of Environment, 2008, 112 (4): 1633- 1646. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2007.08.004
	Srinet R, Nandy S, Patel N, et al. Simulation of forest carbon fluxes by integrating remote sensing data into BIOME-BGC model. Ecological Modelling, 2023, 475, 110185. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110185
	Stocker T. 2014. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Thurm E A, Uhl E, Pretzsch H. Mixture reduces climate sensitivity of Douglas-fir stem growth. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016, 376, 205- 220. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.06.020
	Tian H Q, Chen G S, Liu M L, et al. Model estimates of net primary productivity, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency in the terrestrial ecosystems of the southern United States during 1895—2007. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010, 259 (7): 1311- 1327. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.009
	Wang S Y, Liu W Y, Zhao S Y, et al. Denitrification is the main microbial N loss pathway on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau above an elevation of 5000 m. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 696, 133852. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133852
	Webb E K, Pearman G I, Leuning R. Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1980, 106 (447): 85- 100. doi: 10.1002/qj.49710644707
	White M A, Thornton P E, Running S W, et al. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interactions, 2000, 4 (3): 1- 85. doi: 10.1175/1087-3562(2000)004<0003:PASAOT>2.0.CO;2
	Wilczak J M, Oncley S P, Stage S A. Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2001, 99, 127- 150. doi: 10.1023/A:1018966204465
	Yi K, Maxwell J T, Wenzel M K, et al. Linking variation in intrinsic water-use efficiency to isohydricity: a comparison at multiple spatiotemporal scales. New Phytologist, 2019, 221 (1): 195- 208. doi: 10.1111/nph.15384
	Yu R, Zhai P M. More frequent and widespread persistent compound drought and heat event observed in China. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10 (1): 1- 7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56847-4
	Yvon-Durocher G, Allen A P, Bastviken D, et al. Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales. Nature, 2014, 507 (7493): 488- 491. doi: 10.1038/nature13164
	Zhang X D, Shu C J, Fujii M, et al. Numerical and experimental study on water-heat-salt transport patterns in shallow bare soil with varying salt contents under evaporative conditions: a comparative investigation. Journal of Hydrology, 2023, 621, 129564. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129564
	Zhu Q A, Jiang H, Peng C H, et al. Evaluating the effects of future climate change and elevated CO₂ on the water use efficiency in terrestrial ecosystems of China. Ecological Modelling, 2011, 222 (14): 2414- 2429. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.035

情景模式 Scenarios	温度变化 Temperature change/℃	降水变化 Precipitation change (%)	CO₂浓度变化 CO₂ concentration change
D	0	0	不加倍Not doubling
T	4	0	不加倍Not doubling
P	0	20	不加倍Not doubling
C	0	0	加倍Doubling
TP	4	20	不加倍Not doubling
PC	0	20	加倍Doubling
TC	4	0	加倍Doubling
TPC	4	20	加倍Doubling

情景模式 Scenarios	年份 Years	温度变化 Temperature change/℃	降水变化 Precipitation change (%)	CO₂浓度 CO₂ concentration/ (μmol·mol^-1)
RCP2.6	2011—2040	0.8~1.0	0~4	540
	2040—2070	1.2~1.4	4~6	510
	2071—2100	1.2~1.4	4~8	490
RCP4.5	2011—2040	0.8~1.0	0~2	560
	2040—2070	1.8~2.0	4~8	650
	2071—2100	2.0~2.4	4~8	660
RCP8.5	2011—2040	1.0~1.2	0~4	640
	2040—2070	2.4~2.8	6~10	960
	2071—2100	4.5~5.0	15~20	1370

差异Difference	RCP_s	近未来均值 Mean near future	远未来均值 Mean far future	总未来均值 Mean total future
ΔGPP_m (%)	RCP2.6	2.96±1.48a	3.44±0.24A	3.22±1.71A
	RCP4.5	5.71±2.84b	7.03±0.66 B	6.37±3.50B
	RCP8.5	6.83±3.40c	13.07±3.11C	9.95±6.51C
ΔiWUE_m (%)	RCP2.6	2.73±11.89a	3.32±2.55 A	3.03±14.45A
	RCP4.5	4.70±20.49a	4.49±0.93 A	4.60±19.55A
	RCP8.5	6.18±26.92a	16.44±44.70 B	11.31 ±71.62B

[1]	Chang Jia,Lina Wang,Yakun Tang. Sensitivity Analysis of Ecophysiological Parameters for the Simulated Carbon Flux Using the Biome-BGC Model in a Hippophae rhamnoides Plantation in the Loess Region [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58(11): 49-60.
[2]	Jian Yu,Jiajia Chen,Guang Zhou,Guohua Liu,Yongping Wang,Junqing Li,Qijing Liu. Response of Radial Growth of Abies forrestii and Picea likiangensis to Climate Factors in the Central Hengduan Mountains, Southwest China [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(12): 28-38.
[3]	Jin Xiang, Xu Qing, Liu Shirong, Jiang Chunqian. Relationships of Stable Carbon Isotope of Abies faxoniana Tree-Rings to Climate in the Sub-Alpine Forest in Western Sichuan [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(7): 10-15.
[4]	Zhu Zhengming;Jiang Ming;Ma Xiaoming. An Image Mosaicing System Based on Feature Points Matching [J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2004, 40(4): 117-123.

Response and Prediction of Productivity and Water Use Efficiency of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Plantations in Western Liaoning Province to Climate Change

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 0

Related Articles 4

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments