Jiaojiao Huang’s research while affiliated with Inner Mongolia Agricultural University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (2)


Precipitation and temperature in the study area for years of monitoring 2021–2023.
Point‐whisker plots of the effects of exclosure year and year of monitoring and their interaction terms on α, β, and γ diversities (point estimates of regression coefficients are shown as points, and confidence intervals as whiskers). Exclosure.year:Monitoring.year denotes the interaction term; R‐squared and p‐value are the overall goodness‐of‐fit and p‐value of each regression model, respectively; β̂$$ \hat{\beta} $$ denotes the coefficient estimate of the respective variable, t denotes the t value of the respective variable with degrees of freedom, and p denotes the p‐value of the respective variable; AIC and BIC stand for the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion.
Results of α, β, and γ diversity simulations based on regression equations. The color changes from purple to red to indicate the gradual increase in the diversity of α (β, γ).
Results obtained by projecting backward the plane where the y–z axis is located in Figure 3. The figure reveals different levels of fluctuation in α, β, and γ diversities around 2005. Before and after 2005, diversity levels change with varying years of monitoring, but around the exclosure year 2005, species diversity remains at a stable level. This indicates that the exclosure year 2005 is optimal for maintaining species diversity and ecosystem health.
The Impact of Exclosure Duration on Plant Species Diversity in a Desert Grassland and the Relative Contribution of Plant Groups
  • Article
  • Full-text available

December 2024

·

10 Reads

·

1 Citation

Jiaojiao Huang

·

Shijie Lv

·

Hongmei Liu

·

Shengyun Ma

Plant species diversity has long been a focal point in ecological studies. In order to study the changes in species diversity at different spatial scales (α, β, and γ diversities) in the restoration process of grassland vegetation in fragile desert steps, this study took desert steppe of Inner Mongolia as the research object and employed a two‐factor experimental design that combined exclosure years (the years when an area was isolated to prevent grazing and other disturbances) with years of monitoring (the years when data were collected). It analyzed the plant groups (dominant species, common species, and rare species) and species diversity, and obtained the preliminary conclusions as follows: The optimal exclosure duration for promoting species diversity balance in desert steppe management is between 16 and 18 years. Short‐term exclosure enhances species diversity by promoting recovery in overgrazed systems, while long‐term exclosure may reduce diversity due to dominant species proliferation and inhibited regeneration. Increasing the duration of exclosure (the period from the initial exclosure year to the year of monitoring) can improve plant species diversity. Exclosure years and years of monitoring exhibited a significantly positive influence on α, β, and γ diversities, with a negative interaction effect between exclosure years and years of monitoring. In addition, plant groups played a significant role in diversity at different spatial scales. Contribution to α diversity ranked as follows: rare species > common species > dominant species; contribution to β diversity ranked as rare species > dominant species > common species; contribution to γ diversity ranked as common species > dominant species > rare species. Rare species played a crucial role in maintaining diversity stability within the community and diminishing gradient differences, and common species were instrumental in upholding landscape features.

Download

Effects of grassland type and grazing intensity on α diversity (mean values ± SE of A, B and C α diversity). Different letters in A and B indicated significant difference under different grazing intensity (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters in C indicated significant difference under different grassland types with the same grazing intensity (P < 0.05), and different capital letters indicate significant difference under different grazing intensity of the same grassland type (P < 0.0 5). D is the difference ratio diagram in α diversity between the three grassland types and the CK treatment area. CK, control area; LG, light grazing; MG, moderate grazing; HG, heavy grazing
Effects of grassland type and grazing intensity on β diversity (mean values ± SE of A, B and C β diversity). Different letters in A and B indicated significant difference under different grazing intensity (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters in C indicated significant difference under different grassland types with the same grazing intensity (P < 0.05), and different capital letters indicate significant difference under different grazing intensity of the same grassland type (P < 0.05). D is the difference ratio diagram in β diversity between the three grassland types and the CK treatment area. CK, control area; LG, light grazing; MG, moderate grazing; HG, heavy grazing
Effects of grassland type and grazing intensity on γ diversity (mean values ± SE of A, B and C γ diversity). Different letters in A and B indicated significant difference under different grazing intensity (P < 0.05); different lowercase letters in C indicated significant difference under different grassland types with the same grazing intensity (P < 0.05), and different capital letters indicate significant difference under different grazing intensity of the same grassland type (P < 0.05). D is the difference ratio diagram in γ diversity between the three grassland types and the CK treatment area. CK, control area; LG, light grazing; MG, moderate grazing; HG, heavy grazing
Changes of α, β and γ diversity under different grazing intensity and grassland type. A, α diversity, B, β diversity, C, γ diversity. CK, control area; LG, light grazing; MG, moderate grazing; HG, heavy grazing
Contribution of dominant, common and rare species to α, β and γ diversity in three grassland types. A, meadow steppes; B, typical steppes; C, desert steppes. dominant, dominant species; common, common species; rare, rare species
Grazing effects on species diversity across different scales are related to grassland types

November 2024

·

69 Reads

·

1 Citation

BMC Plant Biology

Background Community species in different grassland types exhibit unique ecological traits and adaptation strategies, influencing the impact of grazing on species diversity at various scales. This study aimed to elucidate the response characteristics and rules of species diversity in different grassland types to grazing intensity by analyzing plant groups and species diversity. Results Grazing intensity, grassland type, and their interaction significantly affected α, β, and γ diversity. In meadow steppes, α and γ diversity conformed to the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, exhibiting a unimodal trend with increasing grazing intensity—initially increasing and then decreasing. In typical steppes, α, β and γ diversity showed no clear pattern in response to changes in grazing intensity. In desert steppes, α, β and γ diversity consistently declined with increasing grazing intensity. In meadow steppes, dominant and common species were crucial for sustaining community (α diversity) and landscape (γ diversity) diversity, whereas rare species primarily contributed to increased gradient differences (β diversity). In typical steppes, rare species were pivotal for community (α diversity) and landscape (γ diversity) diversity, while dominant and common species were important in reducing gradient differences (β diversity). In desert steppes, rare species were vital for maintaining community diversity (α diversity), dominant species played a key role in reducing gradient differences (β diversity), and common species were important for maintaining landscape-level diversity (γ diversity). Conclusions The characteristics and patterns of grazing intensity on species diversity at different scales, as well as the dominant plant group influencing plant species diversity at different scales, are controlled by grassland types. These findings highlight the need for tailored management strategies to conserve species diversity in various grassland ecosystems under different grazing pressures.