C:N:P Stoichiometry and Leaf Traits of Halophytes in an Arid Saline Environment, Northwest China

Lilong Wang; Guanxiang Zhao; Meng Li; Mingting Zhang; Lifang Zhang; Xinfang Zhang; Lizhe An; Shijian Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119935

Abstract

Salinization is an important and increasingly prevalent issue which has broad and profound effects on plant survival and distribution pattern. To understand the patterns and potential drivers of leaf traits in saline environments, we determined the soil properties, leaf morphological traits (specific leaf area, SLA, and leaf dry matter content, LDMC), leaf chemical traits (leaf carbon, C, nitrogen, N, and phosphorus, P, stoichiometry) based on 142 observations collected from 23 sites in an arid saline environment, which is a vulnerable ecosystem in northwest China. We also explored the relationships among leaf traits, the responses of leaf traits, and plant functional groups (herb, woody, and succulent woody) to various saline environments. The arid desert halophytes were characterized by lower leaf C and SLA levels, higher N, but stable P and N:P. The leaf morphological traits were correlated significantly with the C, N, and P contents across all observations, but they differed within each functional group. Succulent woody plants had the lowest leaf C and highest leaf N levels among the three functional groups. The growth of halophytes might be more limited by N rather than P in the study area. GLM analysis demonstrated that the soil available nutrients and plant functional groups, but not salinity, were potential drivers of leaf C:N:P stoichiometry in halophytes, whereas species differences accounted for the largest contributions to leaf morphological variations. Our study provides baseline information to facilitate the management and restoration of arid saline desert ecosystem.

Citation: Wang L, Zhao G, Li M, Zhang M, Zhang L, Zhang X, et al. (2015) C:N:P Stoichiometry and Leaf Traits of Halophytes in an Arid Saline Environment, Northwest China. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935

Academic Editor: Riikka Rinnan, University of Copenhagen, DENMARK

Received: June 28, 2014; Accepted: January 29, 2015; Published: March 23, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded jointly by grants from the State Key Basic Research and Development Plan (2013CB429904), National Natural Science Foundation of China (31170371, 40871041), and Gansu Province Science and Technology Support Plan (2009GS03292). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Salinization is a major environmental and agricultural problem throughout the world, which reduces soil productivity and leads to desertification, especially in arid and semiarid regions [1]. According to a report published by the FAO in 2000, the total global area affected by salinity was 831 million hectares, which encompassed over 100 countries in Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas [2]. The excess accumulation of salt in soil imposes physiological constraints on plants, including osmotic stress, ionic imbalance, oxidative stress, and disturbance of photosynthesis, thereby affects plant growth [3–5]. This situation has been exacerbated because of the effects of land over-exploitation by humans, and the original scarcity of water at desert—oasis ecotones in arid and semiarid regions [6, 7]. Therefore, it is important to understand the physiological and structural mechanisms [8, 9], nutrient uptake and distribution patterns [10, 11] of desert halophytes in saline environments.

The specific leaf area (SLA, i.e., the ratio of the leaf area relative to the leaf dry mass) and leaf dry matter content (LDMC, i.e., the ratio of the leaf dry mass relative to the saturated fresh mass) [12] have been analyzed as key leaf traits in numerous studies [13, 14] because they can provide general information about plant growth and the broad spectrum of leaf investment strategies. The SLA reflects the capacity for resource acquisition and it has been shown to be strongly correlated with the relative growth rate, net photosynthetic rate, and leaf life span [15, 16]. Studies have shown that species with a low SLA are more adapted to resource-poor and arid environments [12]. The LDMC has been shown to be the best single variable for locating non-succulent species on a resource use axis, whereas the SLA is more suitable for succulents [12, 17].

Chemical elements are the fundamental components of molecules, cells, individuals, communities, and even the biosphere, and they are the basic principles of ecology and stoichiometry [18]. Ecological stoichiometry is an integrative approach, which yields new insights into the trophic dynamics, biogeochemical cycling, and biodiversity within or among individual species, populations, communities, and ecosystems [19–21]. Compared with phytoplankton, terrestrial plants grow in a wider range of nutrient conditions, and they exhibit a higher degree of “stoichiometric homeostasis” in terms of the major nutrients: C, N, and P [20]. The C:N:P stoichiometry of terrestrial plants can reflect how well a plant is adjusted to the local growth conditions [22], thus many studies have focused on the stoichiometry of elements in plants in relation to broad-scale variations in geographical and climatic factors [23–25]. However, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have focused on the effects of salinity on the C:N:P stoichiometry of halophytes, especially the relationship between leaf morphological traits and nutrient stoichiometry in field environments in arid saline regions. Thus in this study, we determined the leaf traits, leaf C:N:P stoichiometry of halophytes, as well as the soil properties along natural salinity gradients in an arid environment in northwest China. In particular, the following issues were addressed: (1) the patterns of leaf traits, C:N:P stoichiometry, and their relationships in desert halophytes; (2) the response of the leaf traits and C:N:P stoichiometry of halophytes to various salinity levels; and (3) the roles of soil properties and plant functional groups in structuring the leaf C, N, and P contents of desert halophytes in the study area.

Materials and Methods

Ethics statement

This study was authorized and assisted by the Water Resources Administration of Shule River and the Anxi Extremely-Arid Desert National Nature Reserve. We confirmed that the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species, and declare that the work reported here complies with the current laws of China.

Site description

The present study was conducted in an arid environment in northwest China (39°57′26"–40°27′19"N, 96°48′46"–97° 3′54"E), which has a mean annual temperature of 6.8–9°C, mean annual precipitation of 46–62 mm, and a mean annual evaporation capacity of 1500–2500 mm, with a typical temperate continental climate. The high evaporation-precipitation ratio in this area has generated severe salinity [26], thereby leading to low species diversity, which mainly comprises desert halophytes. Given the uniform mean annual precipitation and temperature in the study area, salinity is the major factor that affects the distribution and growth of plants. Thus, this area provides a unique opportunity to explore the patterns and drivers of the leaf traits and C:N:P stoichiometry of desert halophytes in a saline field environment.

Sampling and methods

The study area has been protected by the Water Resources Administration of Shule River and the Anxi Extremely-Arid Desert National Nature Reserve for nearly 20 years. We selected sites with relatively stable salinity in previous years based on our own investigation and published data [26, 27]. Finally, 23 sites were selected with different levels of salinization, as well as minimal grazing and anthropogenic disturbances (S1 Table). Samples were collected and measurements were performed during the growing season in July 2013. Based on a 20 × 20 m plot, topsoil samples (0–20 cm) and the leaves were selected for measurement at each site. In total, 142 observations of 18 desert halophyte species were obtained in our dataset (S2 Table). The plant samples were divided into three functional groups according to the descriptions in Halophytes in China [28], i.e., herb (herb species with non-succulent leaves), woody (woody species with non-succulent leaves), and succulent woody (woody species with succulent leaves), and all of the species were deciduous and perennial.

Sun-exposed and fully expanded mature leaves (or leafy shoots) were collected from five individuals of each species (total fresh mass >100 g for each species) at each site, which were mixed uniformly and placed in paper envelopes (a bag for one species) for subsequent analyses. The fresh leaves were rehydrated in the dark for 12 h, oven dried at 60°C, and the dry weight was divided by the saturated weight to calculate the LDMC as g g^–1 [29]. The SLA was measured using the photographic method. Fresh leaves were placed on a white background with a ruler and photographed using a camera (D5100, Nikon Corporation, Japan) mounted on a tripod, with illumination from two lamps on different sides [29]. After taking the photographs, the leaves were oven dried at 60°C and the photographs were analyzed using Image J 1.45s (National Institutes of Health, USA, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij). The SLA (as m2 kg^–1) was obtained by calculating the leaf area:dry weight ratio. Triplicate soil samples (0–20 cm) were obtained using a soil auger at each site, where each replicate (not less than 200 g) comprised a mixture of at least three cores. Fresh soil was placed in an aluminum box and weighed in situ using an electronic balance, and then dried at 105°C for 24 h in the laboratory to determine the soil water contents. Next, the air-dried soil samples were passed through a 0.25 mm sieve to remove gravel and plant remnants, before grinding into a fine powder using a ball mill (MM200, Retsch, Haan, Germany), where the ball mill was cleaned completely after each sample. The total C and N concentrations in the leaves and soils were measured using an elemental analyzer (FLASHEA 1112 Series CNS Analyzer, Thermo, USA). The total P concentrations were measured using the ammonium molybdate method after persulfate oxidation [30]. The mass-based leaf N and P contents were expressed as N or leaf N, and P or leaf P. N_area and P_area denote the area-based N and P contents, respectively. Soil extractable nitrogen (SEN) was determined photometrically at one site KCl (2 mol L^-1) extractions using a flow analysis system (FIAstar 5000, FOSS, DK). To determine the soil extractable phosphorus (SEP), soil samples were extracted with 0.5 mol L^-1 NaHCO₃, filtered, and analyzed to detect orthophosphate by reacting with acid molybdate and reducting with ascorbic acid [31]. The soil pH was measured using a soil:water ratio of 1:2.5 (weigh/weight) with a pH electrode (IQ 150, Spectrum, USA).

The soil electrical conductivity (EC) can be used to obtain accurate estimates of the soil salinity [32]. In this study, we used a soil:water ratio of 1:5 (weight/weight), which is known to be a simple and time-saving method for analyzing saline soils [33]. Thus, soil (air dried, 10 g, 2-mm sieved) and 50 mL deionized water were mixed on a mechanical shaker for 15 min (180 rpm), allowed to settle for at least 1 h, agitated again for 5 min, filtered through a 0.45 μm filter paper, and measured with an EC meter (2220, Spectrum, USA).

Data analysis

All of the variables were log-transformed to normalize the distribution of the data. The transformed data were analyzed at two levels: (1) all of the data (treating all observations together); and (2) averaging by species within each functional group (treating the three functional groups of herb, woody and succulent woody separately). One-way ANOVA was used to explore the differences in the SLA, LDMC, and C:N:P stoichiometry between functional groups. An independent-samples t-test was employed to compare the C:N:P stoichiometry patterns with previous studies. We analyzed the relationships between leaf traits and C:N:P stoichiometry, and the trends in the leaf traits and C:N:P stoichiometry along the salinity gradients using ordinary least squares regression (OLS, model I regression). Based on a cluster analysis, 23 sites were classified according to four salinity levels. General linear models (GLMs) was used to quantify the effects of soil nutrients, soil salinity, and plant functional groups on leaf C, N, and P contents, SLA, and LDMC. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 18.0 (SPSS Inc. USA) and figures were obtained with Origin 8.0 (OriginLab Corporation, USA).

Results

Leaf C:N:P stoichiometry patterns and leaf traits

For all species, the mean leaf C, N, and P contents, C:N, C:P, and N:P ratios were 369.72 mg g^–1, 28.12 mg g^–1, 1.85 mg g^–1, 15.69, 229.44, and 15.37 respectively, and the mean SLA and LDMC were 8.60 m2 kg^–1 and 0.28 g g^–1 respectively (Table 1). The mean leaf C of the halophytes was significantly lower than that of the grassland biomes of China and of global terrestrial plants [20, 34] (Table 2). The mean leaf P was similar to that of the grassland biomes of China and global averages, as well as that in typical desert and desertified regions of north China [35], but significantly higher than the Chinese flora [23] (Table 2). The mean leaf N of desert halophytes was significantly higher than that of the desert steppe plants of China’s grasslands (25.7 mg g^-1) [36], global means [25], and other datasets (Table 2). Across all observations and within each functional group, the leaf N and P were highly positively correlated (R² = 0.433, P < 0.0001), and the leaf N:P was highly positively correlated with leaf N, but not with leaf P (Fig. 1). The lowest leaf C content and highest N content were found in the succulent woody group (Table 1), but there were no significant differences in C, N, C:N, and C:P between the herb and woody groups. Leaf P and N:P were significantly higher in the succulent woody plants than herbs (P < 0.05), and the N:P ratios of the herb and woody groups were stable (P > 0.05) (Table 1). The mean SLA value of woody plants (7.79 m2 kg^–1) was similar (P > 0.05) to that of succulent woody plants (6.94 m2 kg^–1), but both were lower than that of herbs (10.41 m2 kg^–1, P < 0.05). The LDMC values of herb (0.33 g g^–1) and woody plants (0.31g g^–1) were similar (P > 0.05), but they were significantly higher than those of succulent woody plant (0.17 g g^–1, P < 0.05, Table 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Relationship between leaf N, P and N:P.

H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation. The N and P content are mass-based (mg g^–1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.g001

Download:

Table 1. Leaf traits and leaf C, N, P stoichiometry for all observation and within functional groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.t001

Download:

Table 2. Comparison between the Leaf C, N, and P and C:N, C:P, and N:P in this study and other datasets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.t002

Relationships among SLA, LDMC, and leaf nutrients

SLA and LDMC were not correlated across all observations (R² = 0.004, P = 0.468, Fig. 2a), whereas they were highly negatively correlated within each of the three functional groups (P < 0.0001, Fig. 2). Leaf C was correlated positively with LDMC and SLA across all observations (P < 0.0001, Fig. 3a, 3g), but there were no significant correlations between leaf C and LDMC within each group (P > 0.05, Fig. 3a). There were significant correlations between leaf N and leaf morphological traits (Fig. 3b, 3h), except in the succulent woody group (Fig. 3b). Across all observations and within each group, LDMC and SLA were significantly correlated with leaf P (Fig. 3c, 3i), but they were not correlated with leaf N:P (Fig. 3f, 3l). There were more significant negative correlations between SLA and leaf C_(area), N_(area), and P_(area) compared with those between SLA and the mass-based leaf C, N, and P (Fig. 4).

Download:

Fig 2. Relationships between the SLA and the LDMC in three functional groups.

H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.g002

Download:

Fig 3. Relationships between the leaf morphological traits and leaf nutrient stoichiometry.

H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation. The C, N, and P contents are mass-based (mg g^–1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Relationships between SLA and leaf area-based leaf C, N, and P contents.

H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples. The C, N, P contents are area-based (m² kg^–1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.g004

Variations in the leaf C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf traits with the salinity gradients

There were no significant trends in many leaf variables within the three functional groups along the salinity gradients based on the regression analysis (Table 3). However, the leaf C decreased slightly in the woody group and the leaf N:P increased slightly in both the woody and succulent woody plants (Table 3). For individual species with widespread distributions in the study area, such as Phragmites australis (herb), Tamarix leptostachya (woody plant with non-succulent leaves) and Lycium ruthenicum (woody plant with succulent leaves), there were no significant trends in many of the leaf variables along the salinity gradients, although the leaf C and C:N decreased slightly in Lycium ruthenicum (Table 4).

Download:

Table 3. Summary of regression analyses for the three functional groups along salinity gradients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.t003

Download:

Table 4. Summary of regression analyses for three widely distributed species along salinity gradients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.t004

Roles of plant functional groups and soil variables in terms of the leaf C, N, and P contents, SLA, and LDMC

Salinity made minor contributions to the variations in leaf nutrient traits (Table 5) and leaf morphological traits (Fig. 5). Soil total C accounted for 8.89% of the variation in leaf C, but plant functional groups explained 43.89% of this variation (Table 5). The soil extractable N, but not the total soil N was a significant factor that explained the variation in the leaf N (26.18% for soil extractable N and P > 0.05 for total soil N) (Table 5). The total soil P and soil extractable P were both significant factors that explained the variation in the leaf P. However, more of the variation in leaf P was explained by soil extractable P than the total soil P (Table 5). Species explained most of the variation in leaf SLA and LDMC (78.23% for LDMC and 67.01% for SLA).

Download:

Fig 5. GLM analysis for the partitioning of the total variance of leaf morphological traits (SLA and LDMC) to the species and soil salinity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.g005

Download:

Table 5. Effects of soil nutrient, functional groups, and salinity on the variations in leaf C, N, and P.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.t005

Discussion

In this study, we determined the leaf traits and C:N:P stoichiometry of desert halophytes in an arid saline habitat, which is a vulnerable ecosystem in northwest China. We demonstrated that the desert halophytes were characterized by low leaf C and SLA levels, high N, but stable P and N:P. The leaf morphological traits were correlated significantly with the C, N, and P contents across all observations, but there were different correlations within each functional group. Succulent woody plants had the lowest leaf C and highest leaf N levels compared with herb and woody plants. The GLM analysis showed that the leaf morphological trait and leaf C:N:P stoichiometry in the arid saline region were influenced by the plant functional group, soil available nutrients, while soil salinity had minor effects. The above results suggest that functional group and soil available nutrient levels, rather than individual species, should be considered more in the vegetation restoration and land management in saline systems.

C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf trait patterns of halophytes

The low leaf C levels detected in this study may be attributable to the decreased plant productivity caused by salinization [37]. Salt stress usually inhibits photosynthesis by reducing stomatal conductance [38] and the water potential [4, 39], thereby decreasing C fixation. Moreover, plants need to consume additional energy to cope with salt stress [40, 41], which leads to increased metabolic costs [42]. Therefore, the lower C concentrations in halophyte leaves may be a trend associated with arid saline conditions.

The increased amount of N input caused by human activity is a major issue related to ecological sustainability that affects the N:P balance in ecological systems, especially in fragile ecosystems such as deserts [43, 44]. In natural conditions, the leaf N concentration has a positive linear relationship with soil N [45]. Even in a nutrient-rich environment, i.e., a field experiment where N was added to a semi-arid grassland, Lü et al. found increased levels of soil inorganic N resulted in a major increase in leaf N [46]. However, in the present study, irrespective of the low soil N content (S3 Table), higher leaf N levels were detected in halophytes, which is not consistent with previous studies [23, 35, 47]. Our findings may be explained partly by the Stability of Limiting Elements Hypothesis, which suggests that nutrients required at a high concentration by plants, and which are most frequently considered to be limiting in environments, should be less sensitive to environmental factors [18]. This may imply that leaf N has greater stoichiometric homeostasis even in an N-poor environment. The low soil N level may be explained by the low vegetation coverage and the slow rate of decomposition in arid and saline regions [48, 49], while the higher leaf N concentrations in drought- and salt- tolerant species may be attribute to the higher accumulation of non-protein nitrogen in halophytes in salt-stressed conditions [50, 51]. These non-protein forms of nitrogen, including amino acids, imino acids, proteins, quarternary ammonium compounds, and polyamines, normally account for about 50% of the plant nitrogen content [50, 52], and they play vital roles in osmoprotection and osmotic adjustment [52]. Thus, the higher leaf N level of halophytes appears to indicate an overall trade-off to facilitate saline tolerance, where inefficient N use is exchanged for efficient water use and tolerance of toxic soil salinity levels [53]. Therefore, a higher leaf N content should be a common strategy in desert halophytes.

The halophyte leaf N:P had a significant positive correlation with N (R² = 0.405, P < 0.0001), but not with P, which suggests that N may be more limiting for plant growth compared with P in studied habitat. This is consistent with many previous studies in desert ecosystems [49, 54], but different from some others in grassland and woody species [47, 55, 56], which showed that P plays more important roles in plant N:P patterns. In general, limited nutrient availability, plant metabolic rates, and plant functional groups jointly affect the leaf stoichiometry patterns, and thus the relationships between leaf C:N:P stoichiometry and environment differ among various regions [57]. The much higher soil P content compared with coastal saline soils (mean = 1 mg g^-1) [58] may be attributable to the distinct climates, i.e., more leaching occurs in coastal soil [48]. Thus, the relatively deficiency in soil N content status and the sufficient level of soil P possibly explain why the soil N content is the key limiting factor for the plant N:P ratio in saline desert ecosystems [48, 49].

The significantly lower SLA we found in desert halophytes compared with salt marsh species (P < 0.05, S1 Fig.) [53] may support the following hypothesis. Species with higher SLA levels adapt better to resource-rich environments and they have relatively high growth rates [59], whereas the SLA of desert halophytes tends to be lower, but more dry matter is invested per leaf because of the nutrient-poor status of saline desert areas [15, 16]. The LDMC reflects the investment in the persistent leaf structures of plants [60], and thus plants tend to invest more dry matter per leaf in a nutrient-poor environment [15, 16]. Therefore, it is reasonable that a high LDMC and low SLA should be a common strategy for plants living in the low-nutrient and high-salt conditions found in arid saline environments [53].

Plant functional groups, C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf traits with increasing salinity

We grouped the halophytes according to their salt resistance into succulent woody plants, woody plants, and herbs [28], and found that the herbs were more frequent in low salinity regions, whereas the succulent woody plants were distributed mainly in moderate and severe salinity regions (S1 Table). As a kind of common species in semiarid and arid regions, we had found the succulent woody plants had the lowest leaf C, SLA but highest leaf N. Also they differ greatly from the other two groups in terms of morphology and physiology [5, 61]. For example, in contrast to herb and woody plants, the thick water storage tissues found in the photosynthetic organs of succulent plants may help them to avoid desiccation in drying soil [17]. Moreover, leaf succulence may also improve the energy returns from leaf investment by replacing expensive C structures with water [62], as well as allowing increased C investment in mechanisms that facilitate saline tolerance [53]. This variation of dominant plant group might reflect the response of the saline ecosystem to environmental change with salinization.

In contrast to the dominant species patterns, there were no significant changes in the leaf morphological traits and C:N:P stoichiometry of desert halophytes with different salinity levels. The distribution of salt in different soil layers might explain these results. In desert saline environments, the salt is mainly concentrated in the upper soil layer due to the high rate of evaporation (S2 Fig.) [7]. Thus, we speculate that deep-rooted plants, i.e., most of the plants we investigated, could survive by extending their roots to a low salinity underground region [63], thereby avoiding severe saline stress in the upper soil layers.

Soil extractable N and P, which are the available nutrients that can be absorbed directly by plants, explained larger contributions to the total variance in the leaf N and P, respectively, than the soil salinity levels. This is also supported by the speculation that plants actively avoid the high salinity levels in the upper soil layer [64]. Plant functional groups explained more of the total variation in leaf C than the total soil C and soil salinity, which is expected possibly because the C in plants is derived mainly from the atmosphere via photosynthesis rather than being absorbed from the soil [5, 34]. Similarly, salinity also contributed little to the variation in SLA and LDMC, whereas species explained most of the variation in leaf morphological traits. This agrees with a previous study of Chinese grassland plants [65], which showed that the patterns of leaf traits are influenced jointly by both taxonomic identity and environmental factors, such as climate and soil, whereas leaf traits varied little within species, despite strong variation in the climate and soil conditions [65]. Our study suggests a relative stability in leaf traits and leaf C:N:P stoichiometry of desert halophytes in various saline habitats, although the dominant plant species changed with soil salinity levels. A larger scale investigation with more wide saline gradient in arid and semi-arid saline environment and artificial controlled experiment might provide more details.

Conclusions

In this study, we found that the general patterns of leaf traits and leaf C:N:P stoichiometry in arid desert halophytes in saline environments agreed to some extent with the trends identified based on analyses of Chinese and global flora, as well as regional investigations of grassland and mountain vegetation. However, some unique patterns were also identified in desert halophytes, as follows. (1) The desert halophytes were characterized by low leaf C and SLA levels, high N levels, but stable P and N:P. The analysis of the correlations between leaf N and P, and N:P indicated the greater degree of N limitation for arid desert halophytes. (2) The variable relationships between leaf morphological traits and the leaf C, N, and P contents at different levels among all observations and each functional group demonstrated that plant functional groups may play more important roles in nutrient fluxes and the response of vegetation to environmental change. (3) Soil available nutrients, but not salinity, were potential drivers of halophyte leaf C:N:P stoichiometry, whereas species made the highest contributions to leaf morphological variation. Giving the complex relationships between salt and vegetation, large-scale investigations of arid and semiarid saline environments, as well as artificially controlled experiments, should be conducted to elucidate the responses of functional groups to soil salinity and the drivers of vegetation variation in increasingly saline environments.

Supporting Information

S1 Table. Description of the 23 sites where samples were collected to assess the leaf traits of plant and to make C, N, P concentration measurements.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.s001

(DOC)

S2 Table. Species included in this study (18 halophytes in total) and average values (arithmetic) of the C:N:P (mass ratio), mass-based leaf carbon (C_mass), nitrogen (N_mass), phosphorus (P_mass) concentrations, SLA, and LDMC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.s002

(DOC)

S3 Table. Values of soil traits in the study area.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.s003

(DOC)

S1 Fig. Comparison of leaf SLA between desert halophytes and salt marsh plants.

The data for salt marsh plants were derived from Eallonardo (2013). The SLA values were averaged by species. The SLA of salt marsh species were significant higher than the desert halophytes in this study (P < 0.05)

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.s004

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Soil EC values at different depths.

The EC values of soil samples decreased with soil depth. There were greater differences in the salinity level of the top soil (0–20 cm) and the other layers. However, the soil EC was almost the same in deeper layers (60–80 cm). Differences of the soil EC values with increased depth within each saline level were tested using one-way ANOVA, significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by different letters.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119935.s005

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Yalin Li and Liang Wang for field sampling, Xiaozhu Tian, Lijun Yue, and Caixia Wu for the laboratory analyses. We thank Dr Xiangwen Fang for helpful suggestions regarding data analysis, the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and Dr Duncan E. Jackson for language editing.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SJX LZA. Performed the experiments: LLW GXZ MTZ ML LFZ. Analyzed the data: LLW XFZ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LLW GXZ MTZ ML LFZ. Wrote the paper: LLW SJX.

References

1. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002; 418: 671–677. pmid:12167873
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Martinez-Beltran J, Manzur CL. Overview of salinity problems in the world and FAO strategies to address the problem. Proceedings of the international salinity forum, Riverside, California, April 2005, 311–313.
3. Shabala S, Munns R. Salinity stress: physiological constraints and adaptive mechanisms. In Shabala S, ed, Plant Stress Physiology CAB International, Oxford; 2012.
4. Flowers TJ, Colmer TD. Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytologist. 2008; 179: 945–963. pmid:18565144
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2008; 59: 651–681. pmid:18444910
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Wang Y, Li Y. Land exploitation resulting in soil salinization in a desert—oasis ecotone. Catena. 2013; 100: 50–56.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Wang Y, Xiao D, Li Y, Li X. Soil salinity evolution and its relationship with dynamics of groundwater in the oasis of inland river basins: case study from the Fubei region of Xinjiang Province, China. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2008; 140: 291–302. pmid:17690990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Yang Y, Yang F, Li X, Shi R, Lu J. Signal regulation of proline metabolism in callus of the halophyte Nitraria tangutorum Bobr. grown under salinity stress. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2013; 112: 33–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Naz N, Hameed M, Nawaz T, Batool R, Ashraf M, Ahmad F, et al. Structural adaptations in the desert halophyte Aeluropus lagopoides (Linn.) Trin. ex Thw. under high salinity. Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki. 2013; 19: 150–164.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Drenovsky R, Richards J. Critical N:P values: predicting nutrient deficiencies in desert shrublands. Plant and Soil. 2004; 259: 59–69.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Simões MP, Calado MdL, Madeira M, Gazarini LC. Decomposition and nutrient release in halophytes of a Mediterranean salt marsh. Aquatic Botany. 2011; 94: 119–126.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytologist. 1999; 143: 155–162.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Osnas JL, Lichstein JW, Reich PB, Pacala SW. Global leaf trait relationships: mass, area, and the leaf economics spectrum. Science. 2013; 340: 741–744. pmid:23539179
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature. 2004; 428: 821–827. pmid:15103368
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Shipley B, Vile D, Garnier E, Wright I, Poorter H. Functional linkages between leaf traits and net photosynthetic rate: reconciling empirical and mechanistic models. Functional ecology. 2005; 19: 602–615.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Wright I, Westoby M. Cross-species relationships between seedling relative growth rate, nitrogen productivity and root vs leaf function in 28 Australian woody species. Functional Ecology. 2000; 14: 97–107.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Vendramini F, Díaz S, Gurvich DE, Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG. Leaf traits as indicators of resource-use strategy in floras with succulent species. New Phytologist. 2002; 154: 147–157.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Sterner RW, Elser JJ. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press; 2002.
19. Abbas M, Ebeling A, Oelmann Y, Ptacnik R, Roscher C, Weigelt A, et al. Biodiversity effects on plant stoichiometry. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e58179. pmid:23483990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Denno RF, Dobberfuhl DR, Folarin A, Huberty A, et al. Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature. 2000; 408: 578–580. pmid:11117743
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Gorokhova E, Fagan WF, Markow TA, Cotner JB, et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecology Letters. 2000; 3: 540–550.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Kerkhoff AJ, Swenson NG, Enquist BJ. Biological stoichiometry of plant production: metabolism, scaling and ecological response to global change. New Phytologist. 2010; 186: 593–608. pmid:20298486
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Han W, Fang J, Guo D, Zhang Y. Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across 753 terrestrial plant species in China. New Phytologist. 2005; 168: 377–385. pmid:16219077
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Yuan Z, Chen HYH, Reich PB. Global-scale latitudinal patterns of plant fine-root nitrogen and phosphorus. Nature Communications. 2011; 2: 344. pmid:21673665
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Reich PB, Oleksyn J. Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004; 101: 11001–11006. pmid:15213326
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Yin M, Jin H, Liu S, Wen J, Zhang S, LI ZH, et al. Soil Salinization and Prevention and Cure in Oasis in the Shulehe Drainage Basin. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology 2007; 5: 72–76. pmid:25366060
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Ding H, Zhao C, Huang X. Ecological environment and desertification in Shulehe River basin. Arid Zone Research. 2001; 18: 6–10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Zhao KF, Li FZ. The halophytes in China. Chinese Bulletin of Botany. 1999; 16: 201–207.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany. 2013; 61: 167–234.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: DL Sparks et al, Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison. 1996; pp: 869–919.
31. Murphy J, Riley J. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica chimica acta. 1962; 27: 31–36.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Rhoades J, Chanduvi F, Lesch S. Soil salinity assessment: Methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy; 1999.
33. He Y, DeSutter T, Prunty L, Hopkins D, Jia X, Wysocki DA. Evaluation of 1:5 soil to water extract electrical conductivity methods. Geoderma. 2012; 185: 12–17.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. He JS, Fang J, Wang Z, Guo D, Flynn DFB, Geng Z. Stoichiometry and large-scale patterns of leaf carbon and nitrogen in the grassland biomes of China. Oecologia. 2006; 149: 115–122. pmid:16639565
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Li YL, Mao W, Zhao XY, Zhang TH. Leaf Nitrogen and Phosphorus Stoichiometry in Typical Desert and Desertified Regions, North China. Environmental Science. 2010; 31: 1716–1725. pmid:21090284
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Song Z, Liu H, Zhao F, Xu C. Ecological stoichiometry of N:P:Si in China’s grasslands. Plant and Soil. 2014; 380: 165–179.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Setia R, Gottschalk P, Smith P, Marschner P, Baldock J, Setia D, et al. Soil salinity decreases global soil organic carbon stocks. Science of The Total Environment. 2013; 465: 267–272. pmid:22959898
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Rahnama A, James RA, Poustini K, Munns R. Stomatal conductance as a screen for osmotic stress tolerance in durum wheat growing in saline soil. Functional Plant Biology. 2010; 37: 255–263.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Dodd GL, Donovan LA. Water potential and ionic effects on germination and seedling growth of two cold desert shrubs. American Journal of Botany. 1999; 86: 1146–1153. pmid:10449394
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Chaves M, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of botany. 2009; 103: 551–560. pmid:18662937
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Yang C, Wang P, Li C, Shi D, Wang D. Comparison of effects of salt and alkali stresses on the growth and photosynthesis of wheat. Photosynthetica. 2008; 46: 107–114.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. McCree K. Whole-plant carbon balance during osmotic adjustment to drought and salinity stress. Functional Plant Biology. 1986; 13: 33–43.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Peñuelas J, Sardans J, Rivas-ubach A, Janssens IA. The human-induced imbalance between C, N and P in Earth's life system. Global Change Biology. 2012; 18: 3–6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual review of ecology and systematics. 2002; 33: 125–159.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Xiaoyun Z, Guirui Y, Nianpeng H. Effects of Plant Functional Types, Climate and Soil Nitrogen on Leaf Nitrogen along the North-South Transect of Eastern China. Journal of Resources and Ecology. 2013; 4: 125–131.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Lü XT, Kong DL, Pan QM, Simmons ME, Han XG. Nitrogen and water availability interact to affect leaf stoichiometry in a semi-arid grassland. Oecologia. 2011; 168: 301–310. pmid:21826456
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. He JS, Wang L, Flynn DFB, Wang X, Ma W, Fang J. Leaf nitrogen: phosphorus stoichiometry across Chinese grassland biomes. Oecologia. 2008; 155: 301–310. pmid:18278518
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Vitousek PM, Porder S, Houlton BZ, Chadwick OA. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen-phosphorus interactions. Ecological Applications. 2012; 20: 5–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Vitousek PM, Howarth RW. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry. 1991; 13: 87–115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Glenn EP, Brown JJ, Blumwald E. Salt tolerance and crop potential of halophytes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 1999; 18: 227–255.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Pessarakli M, Harivandi M, Kopec DM, Ray DT. Growth responses and nitrogen uptake by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata L.), a halophytic plant species, under salt stress, using the 15N technique. International Journal of Agronomy. 2012; 2012: 9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Mansour M. Nitrogen containing compounds and adaptation of plants to salinity stress. Biologia Plantarum. 2000; 43: 491–500.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Eallonardo AS, Leopold DJ, Fridley JD, Stella JC. Salinity tolerance and the decoupling of resource axis plant traits. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2013; 24: 365–374.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Whitford WG, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL. How desertification affects nitrogen limitation of primary production on Chihuahuan Desert watersheds. In Moir W., and Aldon E. A., eds. Proceedings of the Symposium on Strategies for Classification and Management of Natural Vegetation for Food Production in Arid Zones. U.S. Forest Service, Denver, CO; 1987.
55. Wu TG, Yu MK, Geoff Wang G, Dong Y, Cheng XR. Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across forty-two woody species in Southeast China. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2012; 44: 255–263.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Kang H, Zhuang H, Wu L, Liu Q, Shen G, Berg B, et al. Variation in leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry in Picea abies across Europe: An analysis based on local observations. Forest Ecology and Management. 2011; 261: 195–202.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Zhao N, He N, Wang Q, Zhang X, Wang R, Xu Z, et al. The Altitudinal Patterns of Leaf C:N:P Stoichiometry Are Regulated by Plant Growth Form, Climate and Soil on Changbai Mountain, China. PloS one. 2014; 9: e95196. pmid:24743878
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Song Z, Shan S, Song Z. Bioavailability and Interaction of Si and P in a Coastal Saline Soil Amended with Pig Slurry. CLEAN—Soil, Air, Water. 2011; 39: 212–218.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Poorter H, De Jong R. A comparison of specific leaf area, chemical composition and leaf construction costs of field plants from 15 habitats differing in productivity. New Phytologist. 1999; 143: 163–176.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Suter M, Edwards PJ. Convergent succession of plant communities is linked to species’ functional traits. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2013; 15: 217–225.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Willert DJ. Life strategies of succulents in deserts: with special reference to the Namib Desert. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1992.
62. Shipley B. Structured interspecific determinants of specific leaf area in 34 species of herbaceous angiosperms. Functional Ecology. 1995; 9: 312–319.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Canadell J, Jackson R, Ehleringer J, Mooney H, Sala O, Schulze ED. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia. 1996; 108: 583–595.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Bazihizina N, Barrett-Lennard EG, Colmer TD. Plant growth and physiology under heterogeneous salinity. Plant and soil. 2012; 354: 1–19.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. He JS, Wang X, Schmid B, Flynn DF, Li X, Reich PB, et al. Taxonomic identity, phylogeny, climate and soil fertility as drivers of leaf traits across Chinese grassland biomes. Journal of plant research. 2010; 123: 551–561. pmid:20066555
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002; 418: 671–677. pmid:12167873
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Martinez-Beltran J, Manzur CL. Overview of salinity problems in the world and FAO strategies to address the problem. Proceedings of the international salinity forum, Riverside, California, April 2005, 311–313.

[ref3] 3. Shabala S, Munns R. Salinity stress: physiological constraints and adaptive mechanisms. In Shabala S, ed, Plant Stress Physiology CAB International, Oxford; 2012.

[ref4] 4. Flowers TJ, Colmer TD. Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytologist. 2008; 179: 945–963. pmid:18565144
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] PubMed/NCBI

[10] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2008; 59: 651–681. pmid:18444910
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] PubMed/NCBI

[14] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Wang Y, Li Y. Land exploitation resulting in soil salinization in a desert—oasis ecotone. Catena. 2013; 100: 50–56.
View Article
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Wang Y, Xiao D, Li Y, Li X. Soil salinity evolution and its relationship with dynamics of groundwater in the oasis of inland river basins: case study from the Fubei region of Xinjiang Province, China. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2008; 140: 291–302. pmid:17690990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Yang Y, Yang F, Li X, Shi R, Lu J. Signal regulation of proline metabolism in callus of the halophyte Nitraria tangutorum Bobr. grown under salinity stress. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2013; 112: 33–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Naz N, Hameed M, Nawaz T, Batool R, Ashraf M, Ahmad F, et al. Structural adaptations in the desert halophyte Aeluropus lagopoides (Linn.) Trin. ex Thw. under high salinity. Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki. 2013; 19: 150–164.
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Drenovsky R, Richards J. Critical N:P values: predicting nutrient deficiencies in desert shrublands. Plant and Soil. 2004; 259: 59–69.
View Article
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Simões MP, Calado MdL, Madeira M, Gazarini LC. Decomposition and nutrient release in halophytes of a Mediterranean salt marsh. Aquatic Botany. 2011; 94: 119–126.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytologist. 1999; 143: 155–162.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Osnas JL, Lichstein JW, Reich PB, Pacala SW. Global leaf trait relationships: mass, area, and the leaf economics spectrum. Science. 2013; 340: 741–744. pmid:23539179
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature. 2004; 428: 821–827. pmid:15103368
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Shipley B, Vile D, Garnier E, Wright I, Poorter H. Functional linkages between leaf traits and net photosynthetic rate: reconciling empirical and mechanistic models. Functional ecology. 2005; 19: 602–615.
View Article
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Wright I, Westoby M. Cross-species relationships between seedling relative growth rate, nitrogen productivity and root vs leaf function in 28 Australian woody species. Functional Ecology. 2000; 14: 97–107.
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Vendramini F, Díaz S, Gurvich DE, Wilson PJ, Thompson K, Hodgson JG. Leaf traits as indicators of resource-use strategy in floras with succulent species. New Phytologist. 2002; 154: 147–157.
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Sterner RW, Elser JJ. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press; 2002.

[ref19] 19. Abbas M, Ebeling A, Oelmann Y, Ptacnik R, Roscher C, Weigelt A, et al. Biodiversity effects on plant stoichiometry. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e58179. pmid:23483990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] PubMed/NCBI

[58] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Denno RF, Dobberfuhl DR, Folarin A, Huberty A, et al. Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature. 2000; 408: 578–580. pmid:11117743
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Gorokhova E, Fagan WF, Markow TA, Cotner JB, et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecology Letters. 2000; 3: 540–550.
View Article
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Kerkhoff AJ, Swenson NG, Enquist BJ. Biological stoichiometry of plant production: metabolism, scaling and ecological response to global change. New Phytologist. 2010; 186: 593–608. pmid:20298486
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Han W, Fang J, Guo D, Zhang Y. Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across 753 terrestrial plant species in China. New Phytologist. 2005; 168: 377–385. pmid:16219077
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Yuan Z, Chen HYH, Reich PB. Global-scale latitudinal patterns of plant fine-root nitrogen and phosphorus. Nature Communications. 2011; 2: 344. pmid:21673665
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] PubMed/NCBI

[77] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Reich PB, Oleksyn J. Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004; 101: 11001–11006. pmid:15213326
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] PubMed/NCBI

[81] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Yin M, Jin H, Liu S, Wen J, Zhang S, LI ZH, et al. Soil Salinization and Prevention and Cure in Oasis in the Shulehe Drainage Basin. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology 2007; 5: 72–76. pmid:25366060
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Ding H, Zhao C, Huang X. Ecological environment and desertification in Shulehe River basin. Arid Zone Research. 2001; 18: 6–10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Zhao KF, Li FZ. The halophytes in China. Chinese Bulletin of Botany. 1999; 16: 201–207.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany. 2013; 61: 167–234.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: DL Sparks et al, Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison. 1996; pp: 869–919.

[ref31] 31. Murphy J, Riley J. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica chimica acta. 1962; 27: 31–36.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Rhoades J, Chanduvi F, Lesch S. Soil salinity assessment: Methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy; 1999.

[ref33] 33. He Y, DeSutter T, Prunty L, Hopkins D, Jia X, Wysocki DA. Evaluation of 1:5 soil to water extract electrical conductivity methods. Geoderma. 2012; 185: 12–17.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. He JS, Fang J, Wang Z, Guo D, Flynn DFB, Geng Z. Stoichiometry and large-scale patterns of leaf carbon and nitrogen in the grassland biomes of China. Oecologia. 2006; 149: 115–122. pmid:16639565
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Li YL, Mao W, Zhao XY, Zhang TH. Leaf Nitrogen and Phosphorus Stoichiometry in Typical Desert and Desertified Regions, North China. Environmental Science. 2010; 31: 1716–1725. pmid:21090284
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Song Z, Liu H, Zhao F, Xu C. Ecological stoichiometry of N:P:Si in China’s grasslands. Plant and Soil. 2014; 380: 165–179.
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Setia R, Gottschalk P, Smith P, Marschner P, Baldock J, Setia D, et al. Soil salinity decreases global soil organic carbon stocks. Science of The Total Environment. 2013; 465: 267–272. pmid:22959898
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Rahnama A, James RA, Poustini K, Munns R. Stomatal conductance as a screen for osmotic stress tolerance in durum wheat growing in saline soil. Functional Plant Biology. 2010; 37: 255–263.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Dodd GL, Donovan LA. Water potential and ionic effects on germination and seedling growth of two cold desert shrubs. American Journal of Botany. 1999; 86: 1146–1153. pmid:10449394
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Chaves M, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of botany. 2009; 103: 551–560. pmid:18662937
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Yang C, Wang P, Li C, Shi D, Wang D. Comparison of effects of salt and alkali stresses on the growth and photosynthesis of wheat. Photosynthetica. 2008; 46: 107–114.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. McCree K. Whole-plant carbon balance during osmotic adjustment to drought and salinity stress. Functional Plant Biology. 1986; 13: 33–43.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Peñuelas J, Sardans J, Rivas-ubach A, Janssens IA. The human-induced imbalance between C, N and P in Earth's life system. Global Change Biology. 2012; 18: 3–6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual review of ecology and systematics. 2002; 33: 125–159.
View Article
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Xiaoyun Z, Guirui Y, Nianpeng H. Effects of Plant Functional Types, Climate and Soil Nitrogen on Leaf Nitrogen along the North-South Transect of Eastern China. Journal of Resources and Ecology. 2013; 4: 125–131.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Lü XT, Kong DL, Pan QM, Simmons ME, Han XG. Nitrogen and water availability interact to affect leaf stoichiometry in a semi-arid grassland. Oecologia. 2011; 168: 301–310. pmid:21826456
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. He JS, Wang L, Flynn DFB, Wang X, Ma W, Fang J. Leaf nitrogen: phosphorus stoichiometry across Chinese grassland biomes. Oecologia. 2008; 155: 301–310. pmid:18278518
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Vitousek PM, Porder S, Houlton BZ, Chadwick OA. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen-phosphorus interactions. Ecological Applications. 2012; 20: 5–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Vitousek PM, Howarth RW. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: how can it occur? Biogeochemistry. 1991; 13: 87–115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Glenn EP, Brown JJ, Blumwald E. Salt tolerance and crop potential of halophytes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 1999; 18: 227–255.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Pessarakli M, Harivandi M, Kopec DM, Ray DT. Growth responses and nitrogen uptake by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata L.), a halophytic plant species, under salt stress, using the 15N technique. International Journal of Agronomy. 2012; 2012: 9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Mansour M. Nitrogen containing compounds and adaptation of plants to salinity stress. Biologia Plantarum. 2000; 43: 491–500.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Eallonardo AS, Leopold DJ, Fridley JD, Stella JC. Salinity tolerance and the decoupling of resource axis plant traits. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2013; 24: 365–374.
View Article
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Whitford WG, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL. How desertification affects nitrogen limitation of primary production on Chihuahuan Desert watersheds. In Moir W., and Aldon E. A., eds. Proceedings of the Symposium on Strategies for Classification and Management of Natural Vegetation for Food Production in Arid Zones. U.S. Forest Service, Denver, CO; 1987.

[ref55] 55. Wu TG, Yu MK, Geoff Wang G, Dong Y, Cheng XR. Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across forty-two woody species in Southeast China. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2012; 44: 255–263.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Kang H, Zhuang H, Wu L, Liu Q, Shen G, Berg B, et al. Variation in leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry in Picea abies across Europe: An analysis based on local observations. Forest Ecology and Management. 2011; 261: 195–202.
View Article
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Zhao N, He N, Wang Q, Zhang X, Wang R, Xu Z, et al. The Altitudinal Patterns of Leaf C:N:P Stoichiometry Are Regulated by Plant Growth Form, Climate and Soil on Changbai Mountain, China. PloS one. 2014; 9: e95196. pmid:24743878
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Song Z, Shan S, Song Z. Bioavailability and Interaction of Si and P in a Coastal Saline Soil Amended with Pig Slurry. CLEAN—Soil, Air, Water. 2011; 39: 212–218.
View Article
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Poorter H, De Jong R. A comparison of specific leaf area, chemical composition and leaf construction costs of field plants from 15 habitats differing in productivity. New Phytologist. 1999; 143: 163–176.
View Article
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Suter M, Edwards PJ. Convergent succession of plant communities is linked to species’ functional traits. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2013; 15: 217–225.
View Article
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Willert DJ. Life strategies of succulents in deserts: with special reference to the Namib Desert. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1992.

[ref62] 62. Shipley B. Structured interspecific determinants of specific leaf area in 34 species of herbaceous angiosperms. Functional Ecology. 1995; 9: 312–319.
View Article
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Canadell J, Jackson R, Ehleringer J, Mooney H, Sala O, Schulze ED. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia. 1996; 108: 583–595.
View Article
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Bazihizina N, Barrett-Lennard EG, Colmer TD. Plant growth and physiology under heterogeneous salinity. Plant and soil. 2012; 354: 1–19.
View Article
Google Scholar

[198] View Article

[199] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. He JS, Wang X, Schmid B, Flynn DF, Li X, Reich PB, et al. Taxonomic identity, phylogeny, climate and soil fertility as drivers of leaf traits across Chinese grassland biomes. Journal of plant research. 2010; 123: 551–561. pmid:20066555
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Ethics statement

Site description

Sampling and methods

Data analysis

Results

Leaf C:N:P stoichiometry patterns and leaf traits

Relationships among SLA, LDMC, and leaf nutrients

Variations in the leaf C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf traits with the salinity gradients

Roles of plant functional groups and soil variables in terms of the leaf C, N, and P contents, SLA, and LDMC

Discussion

C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf trait patterns of halophytes

Plant functional groups, C:N:P stoichiometry and leaf traits with increasing salinity

Conclusions

Supporting Information

S1 Table. Description of the 23 sites where samples were collected to assess the leaf traits of plant and to make C, N, P concentration measurements.

S2 Table. Species included in this study (18 halophytes in total) and average values (arithmetic) of the C:N:P (mass ratio), mass-based leaf carbon (Cmass), nitrogen (Nmass), phosphorus (Pmass) concentrations, SLA, and LDMC.

S3 Table. Values of soil traits in the study area.

S1 Fig. Comparison of leaf SLA between desert halophytes and salt marsh plants.

S2 Fig. Soil EC values at different depths.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References

S2 Table. Species included in this study (18 halophytes in total) and average values (arithmetic) of the C:N:P (mass ratio), mass-based leaf carbon (C_mass), nitrogen (N_mass), phosphorus (P_mass) concentrations, SLA, and LDMC.