Study Area and Sampling Design
Guangxi, China, lies on a low latitude and spans three types of climatic zones: northern tropical, southern subtropical, and central subtropical. The study sites were selected from the Paiyangshan forest farm in the northern tropics, the Zhenlong forest farm in the southern subtropics, and the Huashan forest farm in the central subtropics of Guangxi. Huashan forest farm is located in central Huanjiang Maonan Autonomous County in northwest Guangxi, with geographical coordinates 108°06′-108°38′ E, 25°05′-25°31′ N. It is a low mountainous landscape with an altitude of 300-600 m above sea level. Furthermore, its mid-subtropical monsoon climate causes an average annual precipitation of 1402.1 mm and average annual temperature of 19. 8 ℃. Zhenlong forest farm is located in northern Hengxian County, in south-central Guangxi, with geographical coordinates of 109°08′-109°19′ E, 23°02′-23°08′ N. It is also a low mountainous terrain with an altitude of 400-700 m above sea level. Furthermore, its southern subtropical monsoon climate causes an average annual precipitation of 1477. 8 mm and an average annual temperature of 21. 5 ℃ and. Finally, Paiyangshan forest farm is located in Ningming County in southwest Guangxi, with geographical coordinates of 106°30′-107°15′ E, 21°15′-22°30′ N. It is also a low mountainous terrain with an altitude of 200-800 m. Its northern tropical monsoon climate causes an average annual precipitation of 1475 mm and an average annual temperature of 21. 8 °C. These conditions are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1.
The community survey method was used to select seven types of P. massoniana plantations in Huashan forest farm, Zhenlong forest farm, and Paiyangshan forest farm to find similar stand conditions but different geographical conditions for this study. In this method, the characteristics and structure of the investigated communities are counted by surveying small-area sections that are representative of species and structures in the sample plot. Details for the sample plots are shown in Table 1. For each type, we established three 20 m×20 m sample plots, and four 10 m×10 m subplots in each sample plot, all of which are managed by the Guangxi Forestry Research Institute of China for long-term monitoring (Fan and Yang, 2012). Woody plants ≥1 cm in diameter at breast height were surveyed in each sample plot and their height, species name, diameter at breast height were recorded. These sites were planted in the early stages of P. massoniana plantation development, and they were maintained for three consecutive years. Field community surveys and sampling were carried out in July and August each year. Unidentified plant specimen were collected and sent to Guangxi Institute of Botany to be identified. Species nomenclature was adopted from the Flora of China (http://frps.eflora.cn) and the Flora of China database (http://foc.eflora.cn/).
Table 1. Sample plots of P. massoniana plantations
Climate
|
Plot Location
|
Forest Age
|
Year Planted
|
Aspect
|
Slope position
|
Altitude (m)
|
Longitude
|
Latitude
|
Northern tropical
|
Paiyangshan forest farm
|
middle-aged
|
2005
|
SW
|
Mid
|
426
|
107°09′E
|
22°01′N
|
Northern tropical
|
Paiyangshan forest farm
|
old-growth
|
1958
|
NE
|
Mid to Upper
|
425
|
107°12′E
|
22°01′N
|
Southern subtropical
|
Zhenlong forest farm
|
young
|
2012
|
NW
|
Mid
|
313
|
109°16′E
|
23°01′N
|
Southern subtropical
|
Zhenlong forest farm
|
middle-aged
|
1999
|
SE
|
Mid to Upper
|
378
|
109°10′E
|
23°03′N
|
Southern subtropical
|
Zhenlong forest farm
|
old-growth
|
1960
|
SE
|
Upper
|
326
|
109°09′E
|
23°02′N
|
Central subtropical
|
Huashan forest farm
|
young
|
2009
|
N
|
Mid to Upper
|
314
|
108°18′E
|
25°07′N
|
Central subtropical
|
Huashan forest farm
|
Middle-aged
|
2000
|
SE
|
Mid
|
315
|
108°18′E
|
25°06′N
|
Measuring Functional Traits
To quantify the functional traits of these species, we measured leaf area (LA, cm2), leaf thickness (LT, mm), saturated fresh weight (FW, g), dry leaf weight (DW, g), specific leaf area (SLA, cm2·g-1), leaf dry matter content (LDMC, g/g), leaf tissue density (LTD, kg/m3), leaf carbon content (LCCmass, mg·g-1), leaf nitrogen content (LNCmass, mg·g-1), phosphorus content per unit mass of leaf (LPCmass, mg·g-1), potassium content per unit mass of leaf (LKCmass, mg·g-1), carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N), and nitrogen to phosphorus ratio (N/P). To collected these measurements, we removed petioles from each species we collected to separate the leaves from the branches, washed the separated leaves gently under running water to remove soil and impurities, and then dried them. The LA of the woody plants was measured using a leaf area meter. We measured the LT using digital calipers at three random measurement points, taking care to avoid the main leaf veins, and averaged these values to calculate leaf thickness. The leaves were then placed in a light-proof environment, soaked in ice water at a temperature of 5 ℃ for 24 h, removed, gently blotted with clean filter paper, flattened, and weighed on an electronic balance (accuracy: 0.0001 g) to obtain their FW. Next, leaf samples were placed in paper bags, and put in an oven at 75 ℃ to dry for at least 48 h until a constant weight was reached. After that, they were removed and quickly weighed for their DW. SLA, LDMC, and LTD were calculated using the following equations:
LDMC(g/g)=DW(g)/FW(g) (2-1)
SLA(cm2/g)=LA(cm2)/DW(g) (2-2)
LTD(kg/m3)=1/(SLA(cm2/g)×LT(mm)×104 (2-3)
For each species, three more healthy, mature plants were selected, and their complete leaves were collected from different locations on the branch, and the petioles were removed, dried to a constant weight, crushed, and sieved through 80 mesh to examine their nutrient content using an elemental analyzer. This instrument measured the LCC and LNC per unit mass of leaf. Next, plant samples were digested with H2SO4-H2O2, and the molybdenum antimony colorimetric method was used to measure the LPCmass. LKCmass was measured by atomic absorption spectrometry, and finally C/N and N/P were calculated.
Constructng the Phylogenetic Tree
We compared the species we collected from the P. massoniana plantations to those listed in Flora of China, and recorded their Latin scientific names. After verifying our findings, we listed the collected specimen in a comma-separated (csv) format with three columns: species (e.g. Acacia_berlandieri), genus (e.g. Acacia), and family (e.g. Fabaceae). We found the phylogenetic relationships of the woody plants based on the global plant phylogenetic tree established by Jin and Qian (2019). Finally, a phylogenetic tree was used to perform correlation operations (Fig. 1).
Examining the phylogenetic signals
We used Blomberg' K to examine the phylogenetic signal for functional traits (Blomberg et al., 2003). Blomberg' K is a continuous value extending from 0 to infinity. If K = 1, species functional traits evolved in a stochastic fashion along Brownian motion. If K < 1, there is less similarity between related species than would be expected by chance. If K > 1, there is more similarity between related species than would be expected by chance. As such, these values can be used to determine the likelihood that these species developed functional traits as a community. We compared the observed K values with random K values that we generated by rearranging species at the end of the phylogenetic tree 999 times. If the observed K value is greater than the value generated by the random model more than 950 times (P<0.05), this indicates there is a significant phylogenetic signal for functional traits (O'Brien, 2014).
Calculating the kinship index
The Net relatedness index (NRI) and the Nearest taxon index (NTI) were used as indicators to quantify how closely species were phylogenetically related (Webb et al, 2002). The phylogenetic diversity indices NTI and NRI are calculated using the mean phylogenetic distance (MPD) and mean nearest taxon distance (MNTD), respectively, of all species in the sample. Both metrics are based on the null model approach. NTI and NRI are calculated as:
where MPDrand and MNTDrand represent the MPD and MNTD of a random community (n=999), MPDobs and MNTDobs are calculated from the actual community, mean(MPDrand) and mean(MNTDrand) are the means; and sd(MPDrand) and sd(MNTDrand) are the standard deviations. In contrast to NRI, NTI is calculated using the same formula, except that MPD is replaced by MNTD.
Functional trait structure was calculated using mean pairwise trait distance (trait(MPD)) and nearest trait distance (trait(MNTD)). After comparing trait(MPD) and trait(MNTD) to the pattern generated by the null model, these values were expressed in terms of standardized community mean pairwise trait distances (trait SES(MPD)) and nearest trait distances (trait SES(MNTD)). The index is calculated similarly to the community phylogenetic structure, using the following equations:
where MPDrand and MNTDrand represent the expected MPD and MNTD of a random community (n=999), MPDobs and MNTDobs are the values calculated from the actual community, mean(MPDrand) and mean(MNTDrand) are their means, and sd(MPDrand) and sd(MNTDrand) are standard deviations. Compared to trait SES(MPD), trait SES(MNTD) is calculated using the same formula, except that MPD is replaced by MNTD.
When both NRI and NTI or trait SES(MPD) and trait SES(MNTD) are positive, they indicate that species aggregated within a community to develop their phylogenetic or functional trait together; if both are negative, the species diverged from a communities to develop their phylogenetic or functional trait structure; if both are zero, the phylogenetic or functional trait structure of the species is in a random state (Lili et al., 2017). When the NRI and NTI or trait SES (MPD) and trait SES (MNTD) are greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96, then aggregation and divergence, respectively, are significant (Zhao et al., 2020).
Data Analysis
Phylogenetic trees were constructed using the V. PhyloMaker package. Blomberg' K values, NRI indices, NTI indices, trait SES(MPD) and trait SES(MNTD) were calculated using the Picante package. Data were collated using Excel 2022 software, statistical analyses were completed via R(4.1.2) software, and plots were generated using Origin 2019.