Nutrient value of wild fodder species and the implications for improving the diet of mithun (Bos frontalis) in Dulongjiang area, Yunnan Province, China

doi:10.1016/j.pld.2020.09.007

Plant Diversity ›› 2020, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (06): 455-463.DOI: 10.1016/j.pld.2020.09.007

• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles

Nutrient value of wild fodder species and the implications for improving the diet of mithun (Bos frontalis) in Dulongjiang area, Yunnan Province, China

Yanfei Geng^a,b,c, Sailesh Ranjitkar^c,d,e, Qiaoshun Yan^b, Zhijun He^f, Baqi Su^f, Shengtao Gao^g, Junli Niu^g,h, Dengpan Bu^c,g,i, Jianchu Xu^b,c,g,j

a College of Tea Science, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China;
b Key Laboratory of Economic Plants and Biotechnology, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China;
c CAAS-ICRAF Joint Lab on Agroforestry and Sustainable Animal Husbandry, World Agroforestry, East and Central Asia, Beijing 100193, China;
d NGene, Solutions of Natural Innovation, Kathmandu, GPO 44614, Nepal;
e Mid-Western University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Naya Bato, Lalitpur 44600, Nepal;
f Agriculture Bureau of Gongshan Derung and Nu Autonomous County, Nujiang 673500, China;
g State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China;
h College of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832003, China;
i Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety, CICAPS, Changsha 410128, China;
j World Agroforestry, East and Central Asia, Kunming 650201, China

Received:2020-04-30 Revised:2020-09-08 Online:2020-12-25 Published:2021-03-03
Contact: Jianchu Xu
Supported by:
We are thankful to Jian Wang, Xin Zhang, Lu Ma and Lingling Sun from Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences for being helpful in lab work. Special gratitude is expressed to Dr. Fiona R. Worthy from ‘Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies’ at the Kunming Institute of Botany for English editing. This research was funded by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (CAASXTCX2016011-01; ASTIP-IAS07), Talent Project of Guizhou University[(2018)06] and National Natural Science Foundation of China (31900275). We also acknowledge supports from CGIAR research programs on ‘Forests, Trees and Agroforestry’ (CRP6.2) and Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA20050204, XDA19050303).

Abstract

Abstract: Wild fodder plants are valuable because they provide an important livestock feed resource globally, especially for smallholder farmers, and have important roles in natural resource management. In-depth knowledge of wild forage plants can motivate local people for feed resource and habitat conservation of threatened herbivores such as Mithun (Bos frontalis). Mithun occur in small patches in the mountains of Dulongjiang, nearby villagers domesticated this animal but left animal to freely graze in the mountains. Many fodder plants occur in these mountains, however, little is known about their nutritional value. We conducted an ethnobotanical survey to document important wild fodder plants consumed by mithun in the Dulongjiang Township. The nutritional content of 21 highly mentioned wild fodder plants in an ethnobotanical survey was examined. Laboratory analysis showed that Fagopyrum dibotrys were the fodder species with the highest crude protein (CP) content (26.89%), followed by Polygonum molle (21.88%) and Hydrangea longipes (21.12%). Synthesis of relative feed value index and grey relational grade, P. molle, H. longipes and Tetrastigma obtectum were ranked the top three nutritional fodders. There was a significant difference between 21 species on their in vitro digestibility and the most highly digestible fodder species was Elatostema hookerianum. Linear model analysis on relationship between frequency of citation of 21 wild forage plants by local farmers and their nutrient composition showed that the frequency was significantly positively correlated with the nutritional value of the feed (R²=0.28, P<0.05). We concluded that these species have high nutritional values to improve mithun production in integrated crop-livestock systems. Fodder species or mixtures of species with useful nutritional characters could be cultivated to improve livestock productivity, habitat conservation including that of mithun and wild forage resource management.

Key words: Wild fodder species, Nutritional value, Mithun, Nature conservation

Yanfei Geng, Sailesh Ranjitkar, Qiaoshun Yan, Zhijun He, Baqi Su, Shengtao Gao, Junli Niu, Dengpan Bu, Jianchu Xu. Nutrient value of wild fodder species and the implications for improving the diet of mithun (Bos frontalis) in Dulongjiang area, Yunnan Province, China[J]. Plant Diversity, 2020, 42(06): 455-463.

Figures/Tables 16

References 50

[1]	Aebi H ( 1984). Catalase in vitro. Methods in Enzymology, 105, 121-126. DOI URL
[2]	Blackman CJ, Brodribb TJ, Jordan GJ ( 2010). Leaf hydraulics and drought stress: Response, recovery and survivorship in four woody temperate plant species. Plant, Cell & Environment, 32, 1584-1595.
[3]	Breshears DD, Cobb NS, Rich PM, Price KP, Allen CD, Balice RG, Romme WH, Kastens JH, Floyd ML, Belnap J, Anderson JJ, Myers OB, Meyer CW ( 2005). Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 15144-15148. DOI URL PMID
[4]	Caprioli M, Krabbe KA, Melone G, Ramløv H, Ricci C, Santo N ( 2004). Trehalose in desiccated rotifers: A comparison between a bdelloid and a monogonont species. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology-Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 139, 527-532. DOI URL PMID
[5]	Chen LS, Liu XH ( 2001). Effects of water stress on cell wall H +-ATPase activity in leaves of Litchi chinensis Stone. with different drought-resistance. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany, 9(2), 149-153.
	[ 陈立松, 刘星辉 ( 2001). 水分胁迫对抗旱性不同的荔枝叶片细胞壁H +-ATPase活性的影响 . 热带亚热带植物学报, 9(2), 149-153.]
[6]	Chen SY ( 1991). Injury of membrane lipid peroxidation to plant cell. Plant Physiology Communication, 27(2), 84-90.
	[ 陈少裕 ( 1991). 膜脂过氧化对植物细胞的伤害. 植物生理学通讯, 27(2), 84-90.]
[7]	Dai YC, Xu KY, Ma K, Zhang Y, Xia GH ( 2015). Physiological responses of the rare and endangered Ardisia violaceaMyrsinaceae) seedlings to progressive drought stress. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35, 2954-2959. DOI URL
	[ 代英超, 徐奎源, 马凯, 张云, 夏国华 ( 2015). 珍稀濒危植物堇叶紫金牛对持续干旱的生理响应. 生态学报, 35, 2954-2959.] DOI URL
[8]	Dashek WV, Erickson SS ( 1981). Isolation, assay, biosynthesis, metabolism, uptake and cranslocation and function of proline in plant cells and tissues. Botanical Review, 47, 349-385. DOI URL
[9]	Delhaize E, Ryan PR ( 1995). Aluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants. Plant Physiology, 107, 315-321. DOI URL PMID
[10]	Fang WP ( 1981). Flora of Sichuan. Sichuan People’s Publishing House, Chengdu.
	[ 方文培 ( 1981). 四川植物志. 四川人民出版社, 成都.]
[11]	Fridorich I ( 1975). Superoxide dismutase. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 44, 147-159. DOI URL
[12]	Gao JF ( 2006). Experimental Guidance for Plant Physiology. Higher Education Press,Beijing. 211.
	[ 高俊凤 ( 2006). 植物生理学实验指导. 高等教育出版社, 北京. 211.]
[13]	Giannopolitis CN, Ries SK ( 1977). Superoxide dismutases: I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiology, 59, 309-314. DOI URL PMID
[14]	Hanson AD, Nelsen CE, Pedersen AR, Everson EH ( 1979). Capacity for proline accumulation during water stress in barley and its implications for breeding for drought resistance. Crop Science, 19, 489-493. DOI URL
[15]	Hasio TC ( 1973). Water and Plant Life. Academic Press, New York. 281-303.
[16]	Hason AD ( 1980). Interpreting the metabolic response of plants to water stress. Hortscience, 15, 623-629.
[17]	Heikkala JJ, Papp JTE, Schultz GA, Bewley JD ( 1984). Induction of heat shock protein messenger RNA in maize mesocotyls by water stress, abscisci acid and wounding. Plant Physiology, 76, 270-274. DOI URL PMID
[18]	Hisao TC ( 1973). Plants response to water stress. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 24, 519-570. DOI URL
[19]	Hulbert C, Funkhouder EA, Soltes EJ, Newton RJ ( 1988). Inhibition of protein synthesis in loblolly pine hypocotyls by mannitol-induced water stress. Tree Physiology, 4, 19-26. DOI URL PMID
[20]	Kocheva KV, Georgiev GI, Kochev VK ( 2014). An improvement of the diffusion model for assessment of drought stress in plant tissues. Physiologia Plantarum, 150, 88-94. DOI URL PMID
[21]	Kuhns MR, Gjerstad DH ( 1988). Photosynthate allocation in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings as affected by moisture stress. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 18, 285-291.
[22]	Lawlor DW, Cornic G ( 2002). Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25, 275-294. DOI URL PMID
[23]	Li HS ( 2012). Modern Plant Physiology. Higher Education Press,Beijing.
	[ 李合生 ( 2012). 现代植物生理学. 高等教育出版社, 北京.]
[24]	Li HS, Shun Q, Zhao SJ, Zhang WH ( 2000). Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Experiments. Higher Education Press,Beijing. 164- 165, 258-260.
	[ 李合生, 孙群, 赵世杰, 章文华 ( 2000). 植物生理生化实验原理和技术. 高等教育出版社, 北京. 164-165, 258-260.]
[25]	Li J ( 2015). Effects of drought stress on soluble proteins of Hordeum vulgare Linn. seedlings. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 43(12), 124-126. DOI URL
	[ 李洁 ( 2015). 干旱胁迫对青稞幼苗可溶性蛋白的影响. 江苏农业科学, 43(12), 124-126.] DOI URL
[26]	Li J, Huang LH, Chen X ( 2015). Physiological response of two Rhododendron simsii seedlings to drought stress and drought resistance evaluation. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 28, 1067-1073. DOI URL
	[ 李娟, 黄丽华, 陈训 ( 2015). 2种杜鹃对干旱胁迫的生理响应及抗旱性评价. 西南农业学报, 28, 1067-1073.] DOI URL
[27]	Li N ( 2014). Physiological and Ecological Response of Larix gmelinii Seedlings under Soil Drought Stress and Different Nitrogen Levels. Master degree dissertation, Northeast Forestry University,Harbin.
	[ 李娜 ( 2014). 落叶松幼苗对干旱胁迫及氮添加的生理生态响应. 硕士学位论文, 东北林业大学, 哈尔滨.]
[28]	Li Q ( 2013). Physiological Responds and Adaptation of Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus sinensis to Drought Stress. PhD dissertation, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin. 45.
	[ 李强 ( 2013). 荻和芒对干旱胁迫的生理响应和适应性. 博士学位论文, 东北林业大学, 哈尔滨. 45.]
[29]	Li YJ, Li J, Xu P, He HW ( 2014). Physiological responses of Lycium ruthenicum Murr. seedlings to drought stress. Arid Zone Research, 31, 756-762.
	[ 李永洁, 李进, 徐萍, 何宏伟 ( 2014). 黑果枸杞幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应. 干旱区研究, 31, 756-762.]
[30]	Liu J, Lü B, Xu LL ( 2000). An improved method for the determination of hydrogen peroxide in leaves. Progress in Biophysics, 27, 548-551. DOI URL
	[ 刘俊, 吕波, 徐朗莱 ( 2000). 植物叶片中过氧化氢含量测定方法的改进. 生物化学与生物物理进展, 27, 548-551.] DOI URL
[31]	Liu S, He Q, Li JY, Su Y, Wu JW ( 2016). Physiological responses of the limestone endemic plant Triadica rotundifolia seedlings to drought stress. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 37(2), 96-100.
	[ 刘珊, 何茜, 李吉跃, 苏艳, 吴俊文 ( 2016). 石漠化树种圆叶乌桕对干旱胁迫的生理响应. 华南农业大学学报, 37(2), 96-100.]
[32]	Liu ZQ, Zhang SC ( 1994). Plant Resistance Physiology. China Agriculture Press, . Beijing 84-123.
	[ 刘祖琪, 张石诚 ( 1994). 植物抗性生理学. 中国农业出版社, 北京. 84-123.]
[33]	Lü EE, Zhou XR, Zhou ZY, Zhao GQ ( 2016). Physiological responses of the desert shrub Hedysarum mongolicum to drought stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 25(6), 42-50. DOI URL
	[ 吕娥娥, 周向睿, 周志宇, 赵桂琴 ( 2016). 荒漠灌木蒙古岩黄芪对干旱胁迫的生理响应. 草业学报, 25(6), 42-50.] DOI URL
[34]	Misra A, Tyler G ( 1999). Influence of soil moisture on soil solution chemistry and concentrations of minerals in the calcicoles Phleum phleoides and Veronica spicata grown on a limestone soil. Annals of Botany, 84, 401-410.
[35]	Pan RZ ( 2012). Plant Physiology. Higher Education Press, Beijing.
	[ 潘瑞炽 ( 2012). 植物生理学. 高等教育出版社, 北京.]
[36]	Patakas A, Nikolaou N, Zioziou E, Radoglou K, Noitsakis B ( 2002). The role of organic solute and ion accumulation in osmotic adjustment in drought-stressed grapevines. Plant Science, 163, 361-367. DOI URL
[37]	Sun M, An Y, Wang Q, Pan L ( 2010). Effect of water stress and nitrogen application on morphological and physiological character of Zoysia japonica cv. Shanghai. Pratacultural Science, 27(9), 57-63.
	[ 孙明, 安渊, 王齐, 潘磊 ( 2010). 干旱胁迫和施氮对结缕草种群特征和生理特性的影响. 草业科学, 27(9), 57-63.]
[38]	Taiz L, Zeiger E ( 2010). Plant Physiology. Sinauer Associates, North Miami Beach, USA.
[39]	Taylor CB ( 1996). Proline and water deficit: Ups, downs, ins and outs. Plant Cell, 8, 1221-1224. DOI URL
[40]	Tyree MT, Zimmermann MH ( 2002). Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap. Springer, Berlin.
[41]	Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, & Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas ML, Niinemets Ü, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R ( 2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature, 428, 821-827. DOI URL
[42]	Wu XH, Zheng GP ( 1995). Effect of the moisture content coercive on morphological and physiological process of crops. Journal of Qiqihar Teachers’ College (Natural Science), 15(3), 37-40.
	[ 吴旭红, 郑桂萍 ( 1995). 水分胁迫对作物形态和生理过程的影响. 齐齐哈尔师范学院学报(自然科学版), 15(3), 37-40.]
[43]	Xiong QE ( 2003). Experimental Course in Plant Physiology. Sichuan Science and Technology Publishing House, Chengdu.72-73, 85-86, 126-127.
	[ 熊庆娥 ( 2003). 植物生理学实验教程. 四川科学技术出版社, 成都. 72-73, 85-86, 126-127.]
[44]	Yan H, Jia LH, Wang GX ( 2002). Research progress of plant water stress inducible proteins. Chemistry of Life, 22, 165-168. DOI URL
	(in Chinese with English abstract) [ 颜华, 贾良辉, 王根轩 ( 2002). 植物水分胁迫诱导蛋白的研究进展 . 生命的化学, 22, 165-168.] DOI URL
[45]	Yang CB, Yao JX, Li SW, Ni HQ, Liu YQ, Zhang YH, Li JH ( 2016). Growth and physiological responses to drought stress and comprehensive evaluation on drought tolerance in Leuce clones at nursery stage. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 38(5), 58-66.
	[ 杨传宝, 姚俊修, 李善文, 倪惠菁, 刘元铅, 张有慧, 李际红 ( 2016). 白杨派无性系苗期对干旱胁迫的生长生理响应及抗旱性综合评价. 北京林业大学学报, 38(5), 58-66.]
[46]	Yang DG, Liu YX, Zhang Q, Jiang ZZ, Song BG ( 2015). Progress on crops osmotic adjustment and genetic engineering of osmotic stress resistance. Crops, ( 1), 6-13.
	[ 杨德光, 刘永玺, 张倩, 姜籽竹, 宋北光 ( 2015). 作物渗透调节及抗渗透胁迫基因工程研究进展. 作物杂志, ( 1), 6-13.]
[47]	Zhang JX, Kirkham MB ( 1994). Drought-stress-induced changes in activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase in wheat species. Plant Cell Physiology, 35, 785-791. DOI URL
[48]	Zhang SQ ( 2011). Tutorial of Experimental Techniques in Plant Physiology. Science Press, Beijing. 203.
	[ 张蜀秋 ( 2011). 植物生理学实验技术教程. 科学出版社, 北京. 203.]
[49]	Zhou YL, Liu QR ( 2016). Plant Biology. Higher Education Press, Beijing.
	[ 周云龙, 刘全儒 ( 2016). 植物生物学. 高等教育出版社, 北京.]
[50]	Zuo YM, Yang WZ, Yang TM, Yang MQ, Xu ZL, Yang SB, Zhang JY ( 2016). Comparison of resistant physiological index among four species in the Genus Panax under water stress. Crops, ( 3), 84-88.
	[ 左应梅, 杨维泽, 杨天梅, 杨美权, 许宗亮, 杨绍兵, 张金渝 ( 2016). 干旱胁迫下4种人参属植物抗性生理指标的比较. 作物杂志, ( 3), 84-88.]

土壤含水量(处理水平) Soil water content % FC (The level of drought)	体积含水量 Soil volumetric water content (%)	盆栽总质量(平均值±标准偏差) Pot’s mass (mean ± SD) (g)
80% FC (水分充足 Sufficient water)	28.8	13β696 ± 97
50% FC (轻度干旱 Mild drought)	18.0	12β979 ± 112
30% FC (中度干旱 Moderate drought)	10.8	12β357 ± 106
15%FC (重度干旱 Severe drought)	5.4	12β070 ± 84

土壤含水量(处理水平) Soil water content % FC (The level of drought)	体积含水量 Soil volumetric water content (%)	盆栽总质量(平均值±标准偏差) Pot’s mass (mean ± SD) (g)
80% FC (水分充足 Sufficient water)	28.8	13β696 ± 97
50% FC (轻度干旱 Mild drought)	18.0	12β979 ± 112
30% FC (中度干旱 Moderate drought)	10.8	12β357 ± 106
15%FC (重度干旱 Severe drought)	5.4	12β070 ± 84

试验代号 Test code	土壤水分含量 Soil moisture content (% FC)	氮水平 N level (g·pot^-1)
15N0	15	0
15MN	15	1.35
15HN	15	2.70
30N0	30	0
30MN	30	1.35
30HN	30	2.70
50N0	50	0
50MN	50	1.35
50HN	50	2.70
80N0	80	0
80MN	80	1.35
80HN	80	2.70

试验代号 Test code	土壤水分含量 Soil moisture content (% FC)	氮水平 N level (g·pot^-1)
15N0	15	0
15MN	15	1.35
15HN	15	2.70
30N0	30	0
30MN	30	1.35
30HN	30	2.70
50N0	50	0
50MN	50	1.35
50HN	50	2.70
80N0	80	0
80MN	80	1.35
80HN	80	2.70

处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content
处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean
氮水平 N level	N0	3.35 ± 0.11^Cb	2.23 ± 0.25^Cc	2.60 ± 0.03^Cbc	8.33 ± 0.27^Ca	4.13 ± 2.57^C
	MN	5.77 ± 0.55^Bc	5.97 ± 0.16^Bc	12.93 ± 0.33^Bb	18.48 ± 0.18^Ba	10.79 ± 5.54^B
	HN	10.88 ± 0.09^Ac	7.43 ± 0.20^Ad	26.90 ± 1.85^Ab	37.74 ± 0.17^Aa	20.74 ± 12.83^A
平均值 Average value		6.67 ± 3.34^c	5.21 ± 2.33^d	14.14 ± 10.60^b	21.52 ± 12.94^a
F(SW×SN)		332.84^**
F(SW)		11β481.98^**
F(SN)		2β442.89^**

Nutrient value of wild fodder species and the implications for improving the diet of mithun (Bos frontalis) in Dulongjiang area, Yunnan Province, China

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 16

References 50

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

指标 Index	处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content				平均值 Mean	F
指标 Index	处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean	F
SOD活性 SOD activity (U·g^-1·min^-1)	氮水平 N level	N0	1β251.53 ± 2.25^Ab	1β337.66 ± 24.89^Aa	1β041.02 ± 53.00^Cc	897.28 ± 42.24^Bd	1β131.87 ± 183.48^B	F(SW×SN) = 36.74^ F(SW) = 161.34^ F(SN) = 58.74^**
		MN	1β284.91 ± 1.15^Aa	1β306.73 ± 6.73^ABa	1β143.10 ± 33.87^Bb	1β136.76 ± 16.73^Ab	1β217.87 ± 83.47^C
		HN	1β258.43 ± 4.21^Ab	1β278.82 ± 18.54^Bb	1β336.30 ± 37.39^Aa	1β113.63 ± 17.59^Ac	1β246.80 ± 87.83^A
	平均值 Mean		1β264.96 ± 15.46^b	1β307.74 ± 30.03^a	1β173.47 ± 134.93^c	1β049.22 ± 116.96^d
POD活性 POD activity (U·g^-1·min^-1)	氮水平 N level	N0	2β153.65 ± 1.49^Bab	2β043.13 ± 27.43^Ab	2β200.82 ± 39.94^Ba	2β073.00 ± 61.27^Bb	2β117.65 ± 73.54^B	F(SW×SN) = 36.19^ F(SW) = 24.11^ F(SN) = 123.95^**
		MN	1β888.18 ± 39.09^Ca	1β960.08 ± 30.45^Aa	1β749.85 ± 141.03^Cb	1β673.58 ± 17.14^Cb	1β817.92 ± 133.86^C
		HN	2β347.99 ± 134.53^Ab	1β720.76 ± 73.13^Bc	2β545.87 ± 62.54^Aa	2β412.04 ± 48.07^Ab	2β256.67 ± 339.69^A
	平均值 Mean		2β129.94 ± 211.82^a	1β907.99 ± 150.89^c	2β165.51 ± 354.77^a	2β052.87 ± 322.59^b
CAT活性 CAT activity (U·g^-1·s^-1)	氮水平 N level	N0	2.90 ± 0.06^Ab	3.15 ± 0.05^Aa	3.10 ± 0.05^ABa	2.60 ± 0.04^Bc	2.93 ± 0.23^A	F(SW×SN) = 8.39^ F(SW) = 28.39^ F(SN) = 21.69^**
		MN	2.52 ± 0.15^Bc	2.74 ± 0.09^Cb	3.02 ± 0.02^Ba	2.75 ± 0.09^Bb	2.75 ± 0.20^B
		HN	2.74 ± 0.11^Ad	2.94 ± 0.10^Bcd	3.26 ± 0.09^Aa	3.04 ± 0.10^Abc	3.01 ± 0.21^A
	平均值 Mean		2.74 ± 0.21^c	2.94 ± 0.19^b	3.12 ± 0.12a	2.79 ± 0.21^c

处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content
处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean
氮水平 N level	N0	0.516 ± 0.007^Bb	0.536 ± 0.009^Bb	0.605 ± 0.008^Aa	0.612 ± 0.010^ABa	0.568 ± 0.045^A
	MN	0.548 ± 0.005^Ab	0.564 ± 0.011^Ab	0.569 ± 0.009^Bb	0.595 ± 0.013^Ba	0.569 ± 0.020^A
	HN	0.523 ± 0.009^ABc	0.548 ±0.010 ^ABc	0.574 ± 0.008^Bb	0.633 ± 0.036^Aa	0.569 ± 0.046^A
平均值 Mean		0.529 ± 0.015^d	0.549 ± 0.015^c	0.583 ± 0.018^b	0.614 ± 0.026^a
F(SW×SN)		6.560^**
F(SW)		67.479^**
F(SN)		0.062

处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content
处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean
氮水平 N level	N0	0.516 ± 0.007^Bb	0.536 ± 0.009^Bb	0.605 ± 0.008^Aa	0.612 ± 0.010^ABa	0.568 ± 0.045^A
	MN	0.548 ± 0.005^Ab	0.564 ± 0.011^Ab	0.569 ± 0.009^Bb	0.595 ± 0.013^Ba	0.569 ± 0.020^A
	HN	0.523 ± 0.009^ABc	0.548 ±0.010 ^ABc	0.574 ± 0.008^Bb	0.633 ± 0.036^Aa	0.569 ± 0.046^A
平均值 Mean		0.529 ± 0.015^d	0.549 ± 0.015^c	0.583 ± 0.018^b	0.614 ± 0.026^a
F(SW×SN)		6.560^**
F(SW)		67.479^**
F(SN)		0.062

处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content
处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean
氮水平 N level	N0	7.57 ± 0.06^Aa	6.86 ± 0.13^Ab	4.61 ± 0.16^Cd	5.53 ± 0.10^Cc	6.14 ± 1.20^B
	MN	6.65 ± 0.05^Bb	5.84 ± 0.13^Bc	5.34 ± 0.48^Bd	7.16 ± 0.06^Aa	6.25 ± 0.77^B
	HN	5.79 ± 0.03^Cc	6.16 ± 0.38^Bb	7.72 ± 0.14^Aa	6.37 ± 0.21^Bb	6.51 ± 0.79^A
平均值 Mean		6.67 ± 0.77^a	6.28 ± 0.50^b	5.89 ± 1.43^b	6.35 ± 0.71^c
F(SW×SN)		99.28^**
F(SW)		21.61^**
F(SN)		10.15^**

处理 Treatment		土壤含水量 Soil moisture content
处理 Treatment		80% FC	50% FC	30% FC	15% FC	平均值 Mean
氮水平 N level	N0	7.57 ± 0.06^Aa	6.86 ± 0.13^Ab	4.61 ± 0.16^Cd	5.53 ± 0.10^Cc	6.14 ± 1.20^B
	MN	6.65 ± 0.05^Bb	5.84 ± 0.13^Bc	5.34 ± 0.48^Bd	7.16 ± 0.06^Aa	6.25 ± 0.77^B
	HN	5.79 ± 0.03^Cc	6.16 ± 0.38^Bb	7.72 ± 0.14^Aa	6.37 ± 0.21^Bb	6.51 ± 0.79^A
平均值 Mean		6.67 ± 0.77^a	6.28 ± 0.50^b	5.89 ± 1.43^b	6.35 ± 0.71^c
F(SW×SN)		99.28^**
F(SW)		21.61^**
F(SN)		10.15^**