Different regrowth patterns after repeated clipping in two Mongolian pasture species

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2703183/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Different regrowth patterns after repeated clipping in two Mongolian pasture species

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2703183/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 25 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Plant Ecology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

We investigated changes in the regrowth patterns of two grass species on the Mongolian steppe, Agropyron cristatum and Stipa krylovii, in response to repeated clipping and used a growth analysis to identify the factors responsible for differences in their regrowth patterns. Plants grown in pots were clipped every 3 weeks, and leaf area, dry mass, and N and crude fiber contents were measured. Aboveground biomass recovered to the same level as that before clipping in both species even after 3 clipping–regrowth cycles, but the mechanisms behind their regrowth abilities differed. In A. cristatum, a decrease in biomass allocation to aboveground parts with repeated clipping was fully compensated by the positive effect derived from the increase in growth rate due to increased leaf area expansion associated with an increase in specific leaf area (SLA). In S. krylovii, a decrease in SLA reduced leaf area but at the same time increased N content per unit leaf area and consequently photosynthetic ability, leaving the growth rate unchanged. The values of growth parameters involved in regrowth after clipping changed with repeated clipping, and those changes differed between species. In particular, the difference in the response of SLA to repeated clipping contributed greatly to the difference in regrowth patterns. These results imply that changes in leaf morphology as plant strategies against grazing can contribute to plants’ regrowth patterns.

Clipping

Grazing

Growth analysis

Nutritive value

SLA

Pastoralism is a key industry in Mongolia, where 75% of the land area is used for livestock grazing (FAO 2020). Pastoralism in Mongolia is mainly nomadic and livestock feed mostly pastures naturally growing on grasslands. The number of livestock in Mongolia has increased during the past three decades, resulting in grassland deterioration such as a decrease in grassland productivity and spread of unpreferable plants for livestock feeding. Plants in grasslands used for grazing experience repeated cycles of herbivory and regrowth during the growing season (Oesterheld and McNaughton 1988, 1991). Therefore, to maintain grassland productivity for sustainable livestock production, it is essential to understand the regrowth characteristics of major pasture species.

Clipping aboveground plant parts is commonly used to mimic grazing in investigations of the regrowth of pasture species. Modifying the frequency of clipping allows the grazing tolerance of plants to be tested. For example, in mixed-grass prairie in South Dakota, USA, aboveground net primary production was not decreased by clipping once a month but was decreased by clipping once every 2 or 1 weeks (Green and Detling 2000); similar results were obtained in an experiment in West Africa (Leriche et al. 2003). Clipping of five rhizomatous grassland species every 4 weeks decreased aboveground biomass production in Carex divisa, Juncus articulatus, and Elytrigia repens, but did not affect Eleocharis palustris or J. gerardii, indicating species differences in grazing tolerance (Esmaeili et al. 2009). In a repeated clipping experiment with two Mongolian grassland species, Stipa krylovii and Leymus chinensis, regrowth capacities differed mainly as a result of the difference in net assimilation rate (NAR), which represents photosynthetic ability (van Staalduinen and Anten 2005). Such experiments with repeated clipping have contributed greatly to the elucidation of the regrowth of pasture species after grazing.

Most previous studies analyzed regrowth patterns such as relative contributions of photosynthates and belowground reserves to aboveground regrowth through growth variables averaged or integrated over the experimental period (Anten and Ackerly 2001; van Staalduinen and Anten 2005; van Staalduinen et al. 2010). However, regrowth patterns may change with clipping–regrowth repetitions. As aboveground regrowth depends on belowground reserves and on photosynthetic products of newly growing leaves (Chapin et al. 1990; Fulkerson and Donaghy 2001), clipping repetitions may gradually deplete belowground reserves (Wang et al. 2012, 2013), thus increasing regrowth dependency on leaf photosynthesis. Moreover, changes in regrowth patterns due to clipping repetitions may differ among species because the dependency of regrowth on belowground reserves differs among species (Thornton et al. 1993). To date, no studies have investigated changes in regrowth pattern with clipping repetitions or interspecific differences in such changes. Elucidating the changes in regrowth patterns by clipping repetitions can improve our understanding of how to use grazing land sustainably.

Here, we investigated changes in the regrowth patterns of two grass species, Agropyron cristatum and S. krylovii, in response to repeated clipping. These two species are widely distributed in the semi-arid grasslands of Inner Mongolia and Mongolia (Cheng et al. 2008; Yoshihara et al. 2009), and are highly palatable to livestock (Undarmaa et al. 2018). They have different growth forms—A. cristatum is rhizomatous and S. krylovii is caespitose—and thus are expected to respond differently to clipping. In semi-arid grasslands, as grazing pressure increased, caespitose species were replaced by rhizomatous species (Fernandez-Gimenez and Allen-Diaz 2001), and rhizomatous L. chinensis had a greater regrowth ability than caespitose S. krylovii because of its higher photosynthetic ability (Van Staalduinen and Anten 2005). Thus, we expected that A. cristatum would maintain better regrowth ability than S. krylovii with repeated clipping. Plants grown in pots were clipped repeatedly and the changes in regrowth patterns were analyzed. N and crude fiber contents of aboveground parts were investigated to test changes in the nutritive value of the grasses due to altered leaf traits associated with regrowth. N content relates positively to the amount of crude protein and fiber content negatively to the digestibility of pasture (Schönbach et al. 2009; van Soest 1994). We posed the following questions: (1) How do the regrowth patterns of the two species change with repeated clipping? (2) Do differences in those changes depend on growth form? (3) How do changes in leaf traits with regrowth affect the nutritive value of the aboveground parts?

Plant materials

Agropyron cristatum and Stipa krylovii are widely distributed in dry grasslands of Eurasia and are highly palatable to livestock (Undarmaa et al. 2018). Seeds were collected in 2014 from the semi-arid grasslands of Bayan-Unjuul (47°02.77′N, 105°57.08′E), Mongolia, and stored at 5°C in a refrigerator until the experiment.

On 07 July 2020, 150 seeds of each species were prepared: the seed coats were removed, and the seeds were sterilized in ethanol (10 s) and rinsed in tap water. They were then sown on dampened filter papers in Petri dishes and held at 20°C under red light (660 nm) in an incubator. More than 80% of seeds had germinated by 10 July. Each germinated seed was then transplanted into a 1.5-L plastic pot filled with washed dune sand, and the pots were placed in a greenhouse at Tottori University (35°30′N, 134°10′E). The monthly mean temperature in the greenhouse during the experiment was 24.8°C in July, 30.6°C in August, 24.9°C in September, 18.1°C in October, and 13.8°C in November. All plants emerged by 18 July. From 27 July, plants received 50 mL of 1/100-strength commercial nutrient solution (Hyponex, NPK 6-10-5; Hyponex, Osaka, Japan) every week. Plants were watered with tap water every evening.

Clipping experiment

On 25 July, 90 plants of each species were selected and divided into 6 groups of 15 plants each. On 31 August, 1 plant from each group (total of 6 plants) was harvested in each species (first harvest, H₁). Harvested plants were divided into aboveground and belowground parts. We defined leaf blades as leaves and the remaining aboveground parts as stems, and measured the leaf area by leaf area meter (Li-3100; Li-Cor, Lincoln, NE, USA). After oven-drying at 70°C for 2 days, the dry mass was determined. Immediately after H₁, the aboveground parts of the remaining plants were clipped with scissors at ground level, collected, dried, and weighed. Three weeks later, following the first regrowth period (R₁), H₂ followed by the second clipping was carried out on 21 September. Three weeks later, following R₂, H₃ followed by the third clipping was carried out on 12 October. Three weeks later, following R₃, H₄ followed by the third clipping was carried out on 2 November.

Nitrogen and fiber contents of aboveground parts

The contents of N and crude fiber in the aboveground parts were measured. To ensure enough material for measurement, we combined the aboveground parts from the harvested plants and the clipped plants within each group. The samples were ground in a mill. The N content was measured with an NC analyzer (JM1000CN; J-Science Lab, Kyoto, Japan). Crude fiber was extracted by a FibreBag System (FBS6; Gerhardt, Königswinter, Germany). Grinded samples were washed with acetone, and then boiled first with 1.25% sulfuric acid and then with 1.25% sodium hydroxide sequentially. Extracts were dried and weighed and then ashed in a muffle furnace (NHK-120BS-1; Nitto Kagaku, Aichi, Japan) at 600°C for 1 h. Crude fiber content was calculated by subtracting the dry mass of ash from that of the extracts.

Leaf N content was calculated as leaf dry mass × N content per unit dry mass of aboveground parts, as leaves accounted for > 85% of the aboveground biomass.

Growth analysis

Traditional growth analysis (Hunt 1990) with some modification was used to analyze the regrowth patterns of the two species. As aboveground parts were entirely removed by clipping treatment, we defined aboveground biomass at harvest 3 weeks after clipping as the amount of regrowth. The rate of aboveground regrowth (S, daily increase in aboveground biomass) in each 3-week regrowth period i (R₁–R₃) was calculated as:

$$S\left({\text{R}}_{i}\right)=\frac{SW\left({\text{H}}_{i+1}\right)}{21}$$

where SW(H_i) is aboveground dry mass at the i-th harvest. S was analyzed as plant growth rate in R_i (G, daily increase in plant biomass) × the fraction of G that was allocated to the aboveground parts (U, no dimension):

$$S\left({\text{R}}_{i}\right)=G\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)\times U\left({\text{R}}_{i}\right)$$

where G(R_i) and U(R_i) are G and U of R_i. G(R_i) was calculated as:

$$G\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)-\left[W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)-SW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)\right]}{21}$$

where W(H_i) is whole plant dry mass at H_i. U(R_i) was calculated as S(R_i) ÷ G(R_i).

G was analyzed as mean leaf area (MLA) × net assimilation rate (NAR, daily increase in plant biomass per unit leaf area) in R_i:

$$G\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\text{M}\text{L}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)\times \text{N}\text{A}\text{R}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)$$

where MLA(R_i) and NAR(R_i) are MLA and NAR in R_i, calculated as:

$$\text{M}\text{L}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{LA\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}{2}$$

$$\text{N}\text{A}\text{R}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)-\left[W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)-SW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)\right]}{21}\times \frac{2}{LA\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}$$

where LA(H_i) is plant leaf area at H_i.

MLA was analyzed as mean leaf weight (MLW) × mean specific leaf area (SLA, leaf area per leaf mass) in R_i:

$$\text{M}\text{L}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\text{M}\text{L}\text{W}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)\times \text{S}\text{L}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)$$

where MLW(R_i) and SLA(R_i) are MLW and SLA in R_i, calculated as:

$$\text{M}\text{L}\text{W}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{LW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}{2}$$

$$\text{S}\text{L}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{LA\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}{LW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}$$

where LW(H_i) is plant leaf dry mass at H_i.

NAR was analyzed as leaf N productivity (LNP, daily increase in plant biomass per unit leaf N) × mean leaf N per unit leaf area (N_A) in R_i:

$$\text{N}\text{A}\text{R}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\text{L}\text{N}\text{P}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)\times {\text{N}}_{\text{A}}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)$$

where LNP(R_i) and N_A(R_i) are LNP and N_A in R_i, calculated as:

$$\text{L}\text{N}\text{P}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)-\left[W\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)-SW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}}\right)\right]}{21}\times \frac{2}{LN\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}$$

$${\text{N}}_{\text{A}}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{LN\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}{LA\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}$$

where LN(H_i) is plant leaf N content at H_i.

N_A was analyzed as mean leaf N per unit leaf mass (N_M) × leaf mass per area (LMA, = 1/SLA) in R_i:

$${\text{N}}_{\text{A}}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)={\text{N}}_{\text{M}}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right) \times \text{L}\text{M}\text{A}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)$$

where N_M(R_i) and LMA(R_i) are N_M and LMA in R_i; N_A(R_i) was calculated as:

$${\text{N}}_{\text{M}}\left({\text{R}}_{\text{i}}\right)=\frac{LN\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}{LW\left({\text{H}}_{\text{i}\text{+1}}\right)}$$

All growth variables were calculated for each of the 6 groups in each species.

Statistical analysis

Differences in dry mass, N content, and fiber content among harvests and in growth variables among regrowth periods were tested by Tukey’s multiple comparison test (P < 0.05) in GraphPad Prism 9 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Biomass production

Aboveground biomass just before first clipping (H₁) was 0.102 g in A. cristatum and 0.125 g in S. krylovii (Fig. 1). That at H₂, H₃, and H₄ was not significantly different from that at H₁ in either species. On the other hand, belowground biomass increased with periodic clipping in both species.

Growth analysis

S in each 3-week recovery period did not change significantly with the number of clipping repetitions in either species (Fig. 2a). In A. cristatum, G increased and U decreased with clipping repetitions, though the changes from R₂ to R₃ were small (Fig. 2b, c). In S. krylovii, there was no clear tendency in the effect of increasing clipping repetitions, with G increased only in R₂ and U unchanged.

In A. cristatum, MLA increased with clipping repetitions, but NAR did not change (Fig. 3a, b). In S. krylovii, NAR increased with the number of clipping repetitions, while MLA decreased from R₂ to R₃, offsetting the increase in NAR.

In A. cristatum, MLW tended to increase (Fig. 4a), and SLA increased significantly with clipping repetitions (Fig. 4b). In S. krylovii, MLW did not change with clipping repetitions and SLA decreased significantly from R₂ to R₃.

In A. cristatum, neither LNP nor N_A changed significantly (Fig. 5a, b), but N_M increased significantly with clipping repetitions (Fig. 5c). In S. krylovii, LNP temporarily increased only in R₂, but N_A increased with clipping repetitions, significantly from R₂ to R₃. N_M increased significantly with clipping repetitions.

Nitrogen and crude fiber contents

Aboveground N content per unit mass at H₁ was 3.21% in A. cristatum and 3.03% in S. krylovii, and increased with clipping repetitions in both species (Table 1). The crude fiber content of aboveground parts was 28.7% in A. cristatum and 23.2% in S. krylovii at H₁, and decreased with clipping repetitions in both species.

Table 1

Nitrogen and crude fiber contents of aboveground parts of *A. cristatum* and *S. krylovii* before clipping and after 3-week regrowth. H1, harvest just before first clipping; H2, harvest 3 weeks after H1 and just before second clipping; H3, harvest 3 weeks after H2 and just before third clipping; H4, harvest 3 weeks after H3. Values with the same letter are not significantly different among harvests within each species (P < 0.05, Tukey’s multiple comparison test)
	A. cristatum				S. krylovii
	H₁	H₂	H₃	H₄	H₁	H₂	H₃	H₄
Nitrogen (%)	3.21^a	3.98^b	4.51^c	5.04^d	3.03^a	3.91^b	4.48^c	5.01^d
Crude fiber (%)	28.7^d	26.3^c	24.4^b	21.3^a	23.2^c	19.7^b	18.8^b	16.3^a

S during the 3-week recovery period did not change with repeated clipping in either species (Fig. 2a), but the underlying mechanisms differed between them. In A. cristatum, the increase in G with clipping repetitions was canceled by the decrease in U, whereas in S. krylovii, there was no clear trend in G or U (Fig. 2b, c). These results indicate that changes in the regrowth pattern in response to clipping repetitions vary among species. It was unclear why the increase in G was accompanied by the decrease in U in A. cristatum, but it may relate to the limitation of the number of tillers produced: successive tiller production by the development of axillary buds allows persistent biomass production of perennial grasses (Flemmer et al. 2002; Jewiss 1972), and therefore, tiller number commonly correlates positively with aboveground biomass (Boe 2007; Boe and Beck 2008; Boe and Casler 2005; Zarrough et al. 1983). In perennial grasses, the number of buds and tillers remains almost constant even after repeated clipping (Busso et al. 1989, 2011), which is likely to be the case in our two species. Thus, in A. cristatum, the regrowth of aboveground biomass may be limited by the number of tillers, and consequently U may have decreased with the increase in G. The decrease in U would thus contribute to the growth of belowground parts, including rhizomes (Bai et al. 2010; Wan et al. 2011).

We attribute the difference in the response of G to clipping repetitions between species to the responses in MLA and NAR: MLA increased but NAR did not change with clipping repetitions in A. cristatum, but MLA decreased and NAR increased in S. krylovii (Fig. 3). This contrasting MLA response between the two species was due to the increase in SLA in A. cristatum but the decrease in S. krylovii with repeated clipping (Fig. 4b). SLA is recognized as an indicator of leaf morphology and toughness, and changes in SLA in response to defoliation are associated with strategies of grass species against grazing (Cingolani et al. 2005; Cunningham et al. 1999). Leaves with lower SLA are tougher (avoiding damage by grazing), while leaves with higher SLA have larger photosynthetic area (allowing rapid compensatory growth for grazing tolerance) (Cingolani et al. 2005; Díaz et al. 2001; Jardine et al. 2020). Moreover, leaves with higher SLA generally have shorter expansion times (Moles & Westoby 2000), which also can contribute to grazing tolerance. Thus, in our study, A. cristatum reinforced its strategy to tolerate grazing, while S. krylovii strengthened its strategy to avoid grazing.

NAR increased with repeated clipping only in S. krylovii (Fig. 3a), and the increase was due mainly to the increase in N_A (Fig. 5b). A similar increase in N_A in response to clipping has been reported in other grass species (Anten and Ackerly 2001; An and Li 2014; Zheng et al. 2011). In contrast, N_M increased with clipping repetitions in both species (Fig. 5c). These results indicate that the difference in the response of N_A to repeated clipping between the species was due to the contrasting response of SLA between them (Fig. 4b). The decrease in SLA in S. krylovii corresponds to increased leaf thickness or tissue density with repeated clipping, which may have increased the amount of chloroplasts per unit leaf area and consequently improved the photosynthetic ability (NAR, Fig. 3b). Photosynthetic capacity correlates positively with leaf thickness (Jurik 1986), and thicker leaves have larger spaces along cell walls where chloroplasts can be accommodated to achieve higher photosynthetic capacity (Oguchi et al. 2003). Thus, our results indicate that a decrease in SLA with defoliation can contribute positively to the regrowth potential through improvement of photosynthetic ability.

Contrary to our expectation, rhizomatous A. cristatum did not show higher regrowth ability than caespitose S. krylovii (Figs. 1, 2a), possibly because of the suppression of regrowth of A. cristatum by certain factors. Water availability has been suggested as a factor limiting the compensatory growth of rhizomatous species. For example, van Staalduinen and Anten (2005) showed that rhizomatous L. chinensis exhibited high compensatory growth after clipping under wet conditions but less under drought stress, while caespitose S. krylovii exhibited low compensatory growth irrespective of water availability. Similar results were found in another study of two rhizomatous and two caespitose species (Zhang et al. 2018). In our study, plants were watered every day, but the pot was relatively small (1.5 L vs. 5 L in van Staalduinen and Anten 2005); therefore, plants might have been susceptible to water deficit, and consequently the regrowth of rhizomatous A. cristatum was not enhanced. This speculation should be carefully considered, because very few studies have compared regrowth between rhizomatous and caespitose grasses, and one study showed conversely that the tiller growth rate after defoliation was higher in caespitose Hesperostipa comata than in rhizomatous Pascopyrum smithii (Broadbent et al. 2017). Clearly, more studies are needed to understand the difference in regrowth ability between rhizomatous and caespitose species.

In both species, the N content of the aboveground parts increased and the crude fiber content decreased with clipping repetitions (Table 1). Aboveground N content is positively related to the amount of crude protein, and fiber content is negatively related to digestibility (Schönbach et al. 2009; van Soest 1994). Thus, our results indicate that the two grass species improved their nutritive value with increasing clipping repetitions. Such improvement after grazing is commonly observed (Green and Detling 2000; McCarthy et al. 2013; Miao et al. 2015; Sasaki et al. 2012; Schönbach et al. 2012). The increase in the nutritive value observed here may be partly related to the change in the ratio of leaves to stems in the aboveground parts leaves generally have a higher protein content and a lower fiber content than stems (Chaves et al. 2006), and as grazing intensity increases, the proportion of stems in aboveground parts decreases and consequently the nutritive value improves (Chapman et al. 2014). In our study, the ratio of stem to aboveground biomass was decreased with repeated clipping (from 8.2% at H₁ to 5.1% at H₄ in A. cristatum, and from 14.5% at H₁ to 3.6% at H₄ in S. krylovii, Fig. 1), which may have contributed to the improvement of the nutritive value of the aboveground parts.

Both A. cristatum and S. krylovii maintained their aboveground biomass even after repeated clipping, but the mechanisms underlying the consistent recovery performance differed between the species. In A. cristatum, a decrease in biomass allocation to aboveground parts with increasing clipping repetitions canceled the increase in growth rate due to increased leaf area expansion derived from the increase in SLA. In S. krylovii, a decrease in SLA reduced leaf area but at the same time increased N content per unit leaf area, which increased photosynthetic ability, so growth rate remained unchanged. The N content of aboveground parts increased and the fiber content decreased with repeated clipping in both species. These results imply that both species can maintain the amount of grass even after repeated clipping and improve nutritional value. In addition, we clarified that the values of growth parameters involved in the regrowth after clipping change with repeated grazing–regrowth, and that those changes differed between species. Differences in the response of SLA to repeated clipping contributed greatly to the interspecific differences in regrowth pattern. We conclude that plant strategies against grazing through leaf morphological changes may strongly contribute to the plants’ regrowth patterns.

Author contributions

RH and TK designed and performed the experiments. RH analyzed the data, RH and TK wrote the manuscript. BG helped with the collect of plant seeds in 2014. YY provided editorial advice.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Numata and Y. Sakai, of our laboratory, for their help in the experiments. Comments by Prof. N. Yamanaka, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, and by Associate Prof. M. Kubo, Shimane University, helped to improve this paper.

Funding

There was no funding directly involved with this paper.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests.

An H, Li G (2014) Differential effects of grazing on plant functional traits in the desert grassland. Pol J Ecol 62:239–251

Anten NPR, Ackerly DD (2001) Canopy-level photosynthetic compensation after defoliation in a tropical understorey palm. Funct Ecol 15:252–262

Bai Y, Wu J, Clark CM, Naeem S, Pan Q, Huang J, Zhang L, Guohan X (2010) Tradeoffs and thresholds in the effects of nitrogen addition on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: evidence from inner Mongolia Grasslands. Glob Change Biol 16:358–372

Boe A (2007) Variation between two switchgrass cultivars for components of vegetative and seed biomass. Crop Sci 47:636–640

Boe A, Beck DL (2008) Yield components of biomass in switchgrass. Crop Sci 48:1306–1311

Boe A, Casler MD (2005) Hierarchical analysis of switchgrass morphology. Crop Sci 45:2465–2472

Broadbent TS, Bork EW, Willms WD (2017) Divergent effects of defoliation intensity and frequency on tiller growth and production dynamics of Pascopyrum smithii and Hesperostipa comata. Grass Forage Sci 73:532– 543

Busso CA, Mueller R, Richards J (1989) Effects of drought and defoliation on bud viability in two caespitose grasses. Ann Bot 63:477–485

Busso CA, Gittins C, Becker G, Ghermandi L (2011) Tiller hierarchy and defoliation frequency determine bud viability in the grass Poa ligularis. Ecol Res 26:985–997

Chapin FS, Schulze E, Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21:423–447

Chapman D, Lee J, Waghorn G (2014) Interaction between plant physiology and pasture feeding value: a review. Crop Pasture Sci 65:721–734

Chaves AV, Burke JL, Waghorn GC, Brookes IM (2006) Digestion kinetics of leaf, stem and inflorescence from five species of mature grasses. J Sci Food Agric 86:816–825

Cheng Y, Tsendeekhuu T, Narantuya N, Nakamura T (2008) Phytosociological study of steppe vegetation in Mongolia. Grassl Sci 54:107–116

Cingolani AM, Posse G, Collantes MB (2005) Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. J Appl Ecol 42:50–59

Cunningham SA, Summerhayes B, Westoby M (1999) Evolutionary divergences in leaf structure and chemistry, comparing rainfall and soil nutrient gradients. Ecol Monogr 69:569–588

Díaz S, Noy-Meir I, Cabido M (2001) Can grazing response of herbaceous plants be predicted from simple vegetative traits?. J Appl Ecol 38:497–508

Esmaeili MM, Bonis A, Bouzillé JB, Mony C, Benot ML (2009) Consequence of ramet defoliation on plant clonal propagation and biomass allocation: example of five rhizomatous grassland species. Flora 204:25–33

FAO (2020) Gender and Land Rights Database Country Profiles. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Mongolia

Fernandez-Gimenez M, Allen-Diaz B (2001) Vegetation change along gradients from water sources in three grazed Mongolian ecosystems. Plant Ecol 157:101–118

Flemmer AC, Busso CA, Fernandez OA (2002) Bud viability in perennial grasses: water stress and defoliation effects. J Range Manage 55:150–163

Fulkerson W, Donaghy D (2001) Plant-soluble carbohydrate reserves and senescence-key criteria for developing an effective grazing management system for ryegrass-based pastures: a review. Aust J Exp Agric 41:261–275

Green RA, Detling JK (2000) Defoliation-induced enhancement of total aboveground nitrogen yield of grasses. Oikos 91:280–284

Hunt R (1990) Basic growth analysis. Unwin Hyman, London

Jardine EC, Thomas GH, Forrestel EJ et al (2020) The global distribution of grass functional traits within grassy biomes. J Biogeogr 47:553–565

Jewiss OR (1972) Tillering in grasses—its significance and control. Grass Forage Sci 27:65–82

Jurik TW (1986) Temporal and spatial patterns of specific leaf weight in successional northern hardwood tree species. Am J Bot 73:1083–1092

Leriche H, Le Roux X, Desnoyers F, Benest D, Simioni G, Abbadie L (2003) Grass response to clipping in an African savanna: testing the grazing optimization hypothesis. Ecol Appl 13:1346–1354

McCarthy B, Pierce K, Delaby L, Brennan A, Fleming C, Horan B (2013) The effect of stocking rate and calving date on grass production, utilization and nutritive value of the sward during the grazing season. Grass Forage Sci 68:364–377

Miao F, Guo Z, Xue R, Wang X, Shen Y (2015) Effects of grazing and precipitation on herbage biomass, herbage nutritive value, and Yak performance in an alpine meadow on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. PLoS ONE 10: e0127275

Moles AT, Westoby M (2000) Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage?. Oikos 90:517–524

Oesterheld M, McNaughton S (1988) Intraspecific variation in the response of Themeda triandra to defoliation: the effect of time of recovery and growth rates on compensatory growth. Oecologia 77:181–186

Oesterheld M, McNaughton S (1991) Effect of stress and time for recovery on the amount of compensatory growth after grazing. Oecologia 85:305–313

Oguchi R, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2003) Does the photosynthetic light-acclimation need change in leaf anatomy?. Plant Cell Environ 26:505–512

Sasaki T, Ohkuro T, Jamsran U, Takeuchi K (2012) Changes in the herbage nutritive value and yield associated with threshold responses of vegetation to grazing in Mongolian rangelands. Grass Forage Sci 67:446–455

Schönbach P et al. (2009) Short-term management and stocking rate effects of grazing sheep on herbage quality and productivity of Inner Mongolia steppe. Crop Pasture Sci 60:963–974

Schönbach P et al. (2012) Effects of grazing and precipitation on herbage production, herbage nutritive value and performance of sheep in continental steppe. Grass Forage Sci 67:535–545

Thornton B, Millard P, Duff E, Buckland S (1993) The relative contribution of remobilization and root uptake in supplying nitrogen after defoliation for regrowth of laminae in four grass species. New Phytol 124:689–694

Undarmaa J, Tamura K, Natsagdorj L, Yamanaka N (2018) Rangeland Ecosystems of Mongolia. Munkhiin useg, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press

van Staalduinen MA, Anten NPR (2005) Differences in the compensatory growth of two co-occurring grass species in relation to water availability. Oecologia 146:190–199

van Staalduinen MA, Dobarro I, Peco B (2010) Interactive effects of clipping and nutrient availability on the compensatory growth of a grass species. Plant Ecol 208:55–64

Wan H, Bai Y, Schönbach P, Gierus M, Taube F (2011) Effects of grazing management system on plant community structure and functioning in a semiarid steppe: scaling from species to community. Plant Soil 340:215–226

Wang XL, Liu D, Li ZQ (2012) Effects of the coordination mechanism between roots and leaves induced by root-breaking and exogenous cytokinin spraying on the grazing tolerance of ryegrass. J Plant Res 125:407–416

Wang XL, Wang J, Li ZQ (2013) Correlation of continuous ryegrass regrowth with cytokinin induced by root nitrate absorption. J Plant Res 126:685–697

Yoshihara Y, Chimeddorj B, Buuveibaatar B (2009) Heavy grazing constraints on foraging behavior of Mongolian livestock. Grassl Sci 55:29–35

Zarrough KM, Nelson C, Coutts J (1983) Relationship between tillering and forage yield of tall fescue. I. Yield. Crop Sci 23:333–337

Zhang R, Schellenberg MP, Han G, Wang H, Li J (2018) Drought weakens the positive effects of defoliation on native rhizomatous grasses but enhances the drought‐tolerance traits of native caespitose grasses. Ecol. Evol 8:12126–12139

Zheng SX et al. (2011) Differential responses of plant functional trait to grazing between two contrasting dominant C₃ and C₄ species in a typical steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Plant Soil 340:141–155

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 25 Jul, 2023

Read the published version in Plant Ecology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
06 Apr, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
20 Mar, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
17 Mar, 2023
First submitted to journal
17 Mar, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Different regrowth patterns after repeated clipping in two Mongolian pasture species

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Plant materials

Clipping experiment

Nitrogen and fiber contents of aboveground parts

Growth analysis

Statistical analysis

Results

Biomass production

Growth analysis

Nitrogen and crude fiber contents

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

Author contributions

Acknowledgements

Funding

Competing interests

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1