Vegetation characteristics and biomass dynamics in desert grasslands-effects of controlled precipitation variation


Abstract

Climate change-induced alterations to the hydrological cycle affect the structure and functionality of grassland ecosystems. However, a significant gap in our understanding of the trade-offs associated with how shifts in precipitation influence the biomass of plant communities in desert grasslands remains. We conducted a precipitation manipulation experiment, which featured five precipitation levels set at 33%, 66%, 100%, 133%, and 166% of the average natural precipitation (designated P33, P66, PCK, P133, and P166, respectively), with each level maintaining the same precipitation duration and frequency throughout the experiment. The study aimed to assess the responses of vegetation characteristics, including aboveground biomass (AGB) and belowground biomass (BGB), to various precipitation levels. Our findings indicate significant interannual variations in the height, richness, and density of the vegetation community from 2019 to 2021, mirroring the patterns observed in annual precipitation. However, no significant differences were observed in the community coverage. Although the diversity indices showed no significant differences in the first year of treatment, they exhibited notable changes in the second and third years. Furthermore, the AGB and BGB demonstrated a positive non-linear relationship with the precipitation gradient. Among the different functional groups, the biomass of grasses and forbs increased with changes in precipitation, whereas that of legumes decreased. Grasses were more sensitive to precipitation changes than legumes or forbs across the years studied. These results highlight that functional group classification is crucial for understanding biomass distribution and ecological responses to climate change, and long-term experiments are needed.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].