News Reader.info

ABSTRACT The dynamics of net primary productivity (NPP) and its partitioning to the aboveground versus belowground are of fundamental importance to understand carbon cycling and its feedback

to climate change. However, the responses of NPP and its partitioning to precipitation gradient are poorly understood. We conducted a manipulative field experiment with six precipitation

treatments (1/12 P, 1/4 P, 1/2 P, 3/4 P, P, and 5/4 P, P is annual precipitation) in an alpine meadow to examine aboveground and belowground NPP (ANPP and BNPP) in response to precipitation

gradient in 2015 and 2016. We found that changes in precipitation had no significant impact on ANPP or belowground biomass in 2015. Compared with control, only the extremely drought

treatment (1/12 P) significantly reduced ANPP by 37.68% and increased BNPP at the depth of 20–40 cm by 80.59% in 2016. Across the gradient, ANPP showed a nonlinear response to precipitation

amount in 2016. Neither BNPP nor NPP had significant relationship with precipitation changes. The variance in ANPP were mostly due to forbs production, which was ultimately caused by

altering soil water content and soil inorganic nitrogen concentration. The nonlinear precipitation-ANPP relationship indicates that future precipitation changes especially extreme drought

will dramatically decrease ANPP and push this ecosystem beyond threshold. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS PLANT NITROGEN RETENTION IN ALPINE GRASSLANDS OF THE TIBETAN PLATEAU UNDER

MULTI-LEVEL NITROGEN ADDITION Article Open access 17 January 2023 NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM LIMIT FINE ROOT GROWTH IN A HUMID AFROTROPICAL FOREST Article Open access 07 June 2024 THE STABILITY

OF ABOVEGROUND PRODUCTIVITY IN A SEMIARID STEPPE IN CHINA IS INFLUENCED BY THE PLANT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE Article Open access 19 September 2024 INTRODUCTION The terrestrial ecosystem has

experienced frequent and extreme precipitation events during the last five decades1,2,3,4,5, which is projected to become even more frequent and severe during the remainder of the 21st

century6,7. Because precipitation is a primary determinant of plant growth, its variation has profound impacts on net primary productivity (NPP) of the terrestrial ecosystems8,9. Thus, a

robust understanding of the relationship between precipitation and NPP is critical but a big challenge for better prediction of carbon cycle in response and feedback to climate change10. The

precipitation-NPP relationship has been studied by spatial approach, temporal approach, and manipulative experiments. Spatial approach basically uses precipitation transect to relate

aboveground NPP (ANPP) with precipitation changes along a precipitation gradient. The spatial models mostly show that ANPP increases linearly with mean annual precipitation in meadow

steppes11, temperate grasslands12 and alpine grasslands13. The temporal studies relate time series of ANPP and annual precipitation in a single site and also find linear relationship between

them but with lower slopes and regression coefficients than spatial models14,15. Because the constraint of plant communities and soil biogeochemistry, temporal models in a single site are

more preferred over spatial models to forecasts precipitation effects on ANPP14. Recently, Knapp, _et al_.16 proposed a double asymmetry hypothesis, which used a nonlinear model to fit

precipitation-ANPP relationship. Specifically, when spanning large gradients in precipitation or in extreme precipitation years, the relationship of ANPP and precipitation will display a

positive or negative asymmetry. However, few studies are conducted to test or support this nonlinear relationship17,18. Although some manipulative experiments have been set up to examine the

relationship between precipitation and ANPP, the relationship is restricted by the limited range of rainfall that mostly have two or three levels of precipitation treatments19. To gain

empirical evidence of ANPP responses to large variations in precipitation, it is imperative to conduct field precipitation gradient experiments, with multiple levels of precipitation,

especially the extreme precipitation condition. Compared with ANPP, belowground production is even less understood, largely owing to the methodological difficulties of observation and

measurement of root biomass20. In grasslands, belowground production contributes more than half of total primary production and is the major input of organic matter into soil21,22.

Therefore, understanding the relationship of belowground production and precipitation is crucial to improve our knowledge of NPP variability in response to future global precipitation

regimes. There are a few studies on the responses of belowground biomass (BGB) to precipitation change, but generate large debates. For example, a transect study in the Inner Mongolia

grassland showed a linear relationship of BGB with precipitation gradient of 170 mm to 370 mm23. Nevertheless, a transect study along a precipitation gradient from 430 mm to 1200 mm in the

Great Plains found that BGB were largely constant12. Only a few manipulative experiments were conducted to examine belowground NPP (BNPP) response to precipitation changes24,25,26, but none

of them studied the response to a precipitation gradient. The partitioning of BNPP associated with ANPP, commonly defined as _f_ BNPP, is a critical variable reflecting plant growth strategy

under changing environmental conditions27,28. _f_ BNPP is also a crucial parameter of terrestrial ecosystem carbon modeling, providing important constraints on the calibration and testing

of dynamic carbon-cycling models29,30. Based on ‘functional equilibrium’ of biomass allocation, plants are assumed to allocate more biomass towards roots under limited water condition31.

However, due to the limited studies on BNPP, how _f_ BNPP would respond to precipitation gradient is highly uncertain. Responses of ANPP and BNPP to precipitation changes can be attributable

to changes in abiotic factors of soil water content, soil temperature, and soil available nitrogen32,33,34 and the biotic changes in species composition or carbon allocations. Soil has

complicated physical and biological characteristics, which will determine the water holding capacity and thus influence water availability that not necessarily reflects precipitation

changes35. Meanwhile, precipitation changes will influence soil temperature through changing soil evaporation and plant transpiration36. Water addition usually decreases soil temperature due

to soil moisture increase37. In addition, rate of nitrogen mineralization is higher in wet than dry condition, leading to changes in soil nitrogen availability38,39. Moreover, different

plant functional types have various sensitivities to precipitation changes32, thus species composition influences NPP response as well. However, how these processes or mechanisms play roles

along precipitation gradient are not well quantified or understood yet in specific studies. The Tibetan Plateau is one of the most sensitive areas in response to global climate change40,41.

Precipitation strongly determines NPP variations in this area because precipitation gradient characterizes not only vegetation distribution but also soil nitrogen conditions42. In a transect

study in the Tibetan grasslands, both aboveground biomass and belowground biomass were positively correlated with soil moisture43. A temporal study in southeast of Tibetan Plateau also

showed ANPP was linearly correlated with annual precipitation across years44. However, few studies have been done to examine responses of NPP and its partitioning along a precipitation

gradient in Tibetan Plateau. In this study, by using a precipitation gradient experiment, we studied responses of ANPP, BNPP and _f_ BNPP to precipitation changes. Specifically, we addressed

the following questions: (1) How does ANPP, BNPP and _f_ BNPP respond to changes in precipitation gradient in an alpine meadow? (2) What are the key factors controlling the responses of NPP

and its partitioning to precipitation changes? RESULTS PRECIPITATION AND SOIL WATER CONTENT Ambient precipitation over the entire growing season (from May to September) in our study site

changed from 132.74 ± 0.69 mm in 1/12 P treatment to 679.54 ± 28.49 mm in 5/4 P treatment in 2015, and from 15.45 ± 1.36 mm in 1/12 P treatment to 581.22 ± 26.61 mm in 5/4 P treatment in

2016 (Fig. 1a,c). Rainfall manipulation caused significant changes in soil water content (SWC) until August 2015. The average SWC over the growing season in 2015 ranged from 23.81 ± 0.49% in

1/12 P treatment to 29.62 ± 0.79% in 5/4 P treatment (_P_ < 0.0001, Fig. 1b). In 2016, treatments had significant effect on SWC, throughout the whole growing season (_P_ < 0.0001,

Fig. 1d). The average SWC in 2016 ranged from 18.95 ± 0.78% under 1/12 P treatment to 32.32 ± 0.66% under 5/4 P treatment. Soil temperature was not significantly changed by the treatments,

but the soil inorganic nitrogen (SIN) changed from 12.98 ± 1.31 mg L−1 under 1/12 P treatment to 19.56 ± 3.00 mg L−1 under 5/4 P treatment. PRECIPITATION EFFECTS ON ANPP, BGB, BNPP AND _F_

BNPP In 2015, ANPP didn’t vary significantly among treatments (Fig. 2a). However, it significantly varied from 240.80 ± 37.94 g m−2 y−1 under 1/12 P treatment to 423.08 ± 50.77 g m−2 y−1

under 5/4 P treatment in 2016 (_P_ < 0.05, Fig. 2d). ANPP was reduced by 37.68% (_P_ = 0.01) under 1/12 P treatment in 2016. When separating aboveground biomass into different plant

functional types, differential responses between grasses and forbs were observed along the precipitation gradient. The precipitation treatments marginally impacted biomass of forbs (_P_ = 

0.06), but not on grasses (_P_ = 0.84) in 2016 (Fig. 2f). The lowest forbs biomass was 134.13 ± 17.59 g m−2 y−1 under 1/12 P treatment, and the highest one was 300.61 ± 40.88 g m−2 y−1 under

5/4 P treatment. Neither grasses nor forbs biomass was significantly impacted by precipitation gradient in 2015 (Fig. 2b,c). No significant effect of precipitation on BGB was observed in

2015 (_P_ = 0.69, Fig. 3a). In 2016, the 1/12 P plots tended to have the highest BNPP and _f_ BNPP among precipitation treatments (Fig. 3b,c). The treatments significantly changed BNPP at

the depth of 20–40 cm in 2016 (_P_ = 0.01; Fig. 3b). Specifically, BNPP at 20–40 cm was increased by 80.59% under 1/12 P treatment, 58.75% under 1/4 P treatment and 74.43% under 5/4 P

treatment, respectively. However, roots at 20–40 cm only accounted for 7.25% and 11.54% of the total BGB and BNPP, respectively. Thus, total BGB or BNPP at 0–40 cm was not significantly

changed by precipitation treatments. RELATIONSHIPS OF PRODUCTIVITY WITH PRECIPITATION AMOUNT There was no significant relationship between precipitation and ANPP across plots in 2015 (Fig. 

4a). However, ANPP increased nonlinearly with increasing precipitation in 2016 (_P_ = 0.02, _r_ 2 = 0.26; Fig. 4c). There was no significant relationship of BGB or BNPP with precipitation in

either year (Fig. 4b,d). FACTORS CONTROLLING ANPP CHANGES The variations of ANPP in 2016 showed positively linear correlation with SWC (_P_ = 0.002; Fig. 5a) and SIN (_P_ = 0.004; Fig. 5b)

across plots, whereas no significant relationship was found between ANPP and ST (Fig. 5c). Linear regression analyses demonstrated that SWC and SIN explained 29.97% and 26.37% of the

variation in ANPP, respectively. The two factors together could explain 37.00% of changes in ANPP based on the multiple regression analysis (_P_ < 0.01). Unlike grasses, productivity of

forbs was sensitive to SWC and SIN, which increased linearly with increasing of SWC and SIN (Fig. 5a,b). SWC and SIN contributed to 22.26% and 20.74% of the variation in forbs biomass,

respectively. DISCUSSION This study shows how much precipitation is extreme enough to cause a threshold response of ecosystem productivity. The threshold of precipitation for productivity

was proposed in previous studies, but it lacks of empirical evidence45,46,47. In this study, we found a significant decrease in ANPP (_P_ = 0.014, Fig. 2d) under 1/12 P treatment in 2016,

which quantified the precipitation threshold of ANPP under extreme dry conditions. The nonlinear response of ANPP to precipitation gradient suggests that ANPP will decline strongly in

extreme dry conditions, which presents as a negative asymmetric response at extreme low precipitation. The nonlinear relationship was inconsistent with the linear ones commonly reported in

previous studies11,12,13. For example, in another manipulative experiment that includes three levels of rainfall reduction (30%, 55%, and 80%) in the Patagonian steppe, the authors found

significant linear relationship of ANPP with precipitation amount15. This may be due to that their treatments only cover the linear response stage and may not reach the threshold of the

ecosystem. So far, more than 85 precipitation experiments have been conducted in the world48. Due to a narrow range of precipitation, these experiments rarely find the threshold or nonlinear

relationship between ANPP and precipitation. This study, to our knowledge, is among the first shows the nonlinear response of ANPP to precipitation gradient by using a manipulative

experiment17. It partly supports the double asymmetric hypothesis proposed recently by Knapp, _et al_.16, and enriches the current understanding on the precipitation-ANPP relationship. Other

treatments hardly affect ANPP, which can be explained as follows. First, plant may reduce stomatal conductance and contents or activities of photosynthetic enzymes to adapt to moderate

drought, resulting in mild reduction of ANPP instead of abrupt collapse of ecosystem49. Second, deep soil moisture storage from groundwater, snow accumulation and ablation in the high Zoige

Basin may partly compensate the depletion of surface water for plant growth50,51. Our findings also provide the time series of the dynamic responses of ANPP to precipitation changes. Unlike

the significant reduction in 2016, ANPP showed no significant differences among treatments even under 1/12 P treatment in 2015. This was probably because the lagged effect of precipitation

from 2014 or even before. A previous study demonstrated that current-year production is determined by previous-year precipitation52. The findings indicate that both drought intensity and

duration substantially affect ANPP responses to precipitation change. A significant increase was found in BNPP at the depth of 20–40 cm under 1/12 P and 1/4 P treatments (Fig. 3b),

suggesting that plants could allocate more biomass to deep soil to capture the limited resources in order to maximize their growth rate53. Since SWC at the depth of 10 cm decreased

dramatically under 1/12 P and 1/4 P treatment, more biomass was allocated to deeper roots to absorb deep soil water. Although BNPP at the depth of 20–40 cm increased, there was no

significant difference of BNPP at 0–40 cm between treatments because BNPP at 20–40 cm only accounted for 11.54% of total BNPP on average and BNPP at 0–20 cm didn’t change with precipitation

treatments. Previous studies reported contradictory results on the responses of belowground biomass to precipitation change, with an increase or a decline of root biomass under drought

condition54,55, which may be due to the various drought intensity and duration among studies. For example, moderate water stress with 51-day treatment can enhance root productivity by a

surplus of assimilates that are exported to the roots due to allocation changes55. Whereas a ten-year drought treatment significantly diminishes BNPP54. Moreover, different edaphic and

climate conditions between sites also contribute to the differential BNPP response to drought56. In line with our findings, the lack of response of root productivity and biomass to

precipitation gradient was reported in temperate grasslands as well12. Root productivity and biomass are determined by the dynamics of root growth and root death. Root growth of a plant is

determined by carbon allocation to BNPP vs. ANPP (i.e., BNPP: ANPP ratio) while root death is related to root turnover times. The lack of response of root productivity or biomass to drought

was probably due to an increase in the proportion of carbon allocation to roots and a decrease in turnover of roots with decreasing precipitation57,58. The rising trend in root/shoot ratio

under drought may facilitate greater water capture and thus optimize root growth under a dry environment (see the detailed discussion next paragraph). It is proved also by the increasing

BNPP at 20–40 cm under extreme drought treatment (Fig. 3b). Some studies also confirmed that many new roots are long and slender under drought conditions59. Root turnover rate was not

monitored in this study, but previous studies demonstrated a reduction of root turnover with decreasing precipitation60. In all, compared with ANPP, BNPP has more uncertainty under

precipitation changes. Additional studies on the mechanism underlying the effect of precipitation on dynamics of root growth and mortality are needed for better understanding of BNPP

changes. In spite of no significant differences of _f_ BNPP among treatments, the 1/12 P plots tended to have higher _f_ BNPP than other treatments (Fig. 3c). This was probably a consequence

of plant adaptation to extreme dry condition by regulating proportion of the biomass allocation toward belowground. Some previous studies confirmed that plants increase _f_ BNPP to optimize

growth under drought conditions, likely resulted from changes in the relative importance of limiting resources (such as water, light, nutrients)12,34. However, some other studies stated _f_

BNPP is not influenced by water supplementation61. Although the mechanisms behind the allocation shift under drought are unclear, the decline tendency of _f_ BNPP with increasing

precipitation (Fig. 3c) supports the optimal partitioning theory and provides important constraints for the calibration and testing of dynamic carbon cycle models. SWC has been proposed to

be an important index in forecasting ecosystems’ responses to climate change62,63. The positive linear correlation between ANPP and SWC in 2016 suggests that SWC can better predict the

variation in ANPP than precipitation amount. Comparing with precipitation amount, SWC are more responsible to ANPP changes, which can be attributed to the following two reasons. First,

although growing season precipitation amount was recognized as a predictor of ANPP in grassland, soil moisture directly links to root activity, plant water status, and photosynthesis in

physiology32,64. Other soil resource availability is also chronically altered through soil water dynamics65. Second, SWC was mediated by the water-storage capacity of the soil, which is

better than precipitation to express water availability for plant growth66. We also found that SIN explained 26.37% of the variation in ANPP across plots under different precipitation

treatments (Fig. 5a). Because rainfall is the primary source of new nitrogen inputs to the system by net deposition and soil moisture also impacts soil nitrogen mineralization by changing

the structure and function of soil microbial communities67, precipitation changes largely alter SIN dynamics. The reduced N availability under dry condition would constrain plant N uptake

and growth, leading to lower productivity68,69. In addition, previous studies also indicated that total inorganic nitrogen is linearly related to natural annual precipitation70. Therefore,

in the study site of alpine meadow where SIN limits plant production71, precipitation effects on ANPP are partly attributable to changes in SIN. The direct effects of soil water availability

and the indirect effect through SIN in combination largely explained the ANPP variation across treatments. Our findings highlight SIN changes should be taken into consideration in

understanding and modeling ANPP response to altered precipitation. Beside the abiotic effects, biotic impacts of species composition also influence ANPP responses to precipitation change. As

a major proportion of community (>67%), forbs biomass reduced significantly under extreme drought in this study, which led to an abrupt drop in ANPP (Fig. 2f). It was more sensitive to

precipitation changes and more inhibited by extreme drought, because the growth of forbs usually requires more water than grasses72. Consequently, we predict that shifting species

composition toward less sensitive species may dampen the response of ANPP to precipitation change. METHODS STUDY SITE The study was conducted in an alpine meadow located in Hongyuan county

(32°48′N, 102°33′E, 3500 m a.s.l.), which is in the eastern of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The mean annual temperature is 1.5 °C in the study site over the past 50 years. The average

temperature of the hottest month (July) is 11.1 °C, and the mean of the coldest months (January) is −9.7 °C. The mean annual precipitation is 747 mm. The meadow community at our experimental

site is dominated by grasses of _Deschampsia caespitosa_, _Elymus nutans_, and _Agrostis hugoniana_ and forbs of _Anemone rivularis, Potentilla anserina_, and _Polygonum viviparum_. The

soil of the study is classified as Mat Grygelic Cambisol according to Chinese Soil Taxonomy Research Group73, with mean bulk density is 0.89 g cm−3 . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The precipitation

treatments have been conducted from May, 2015. It used a randomized complete block design with six levels of precipitation (1/12 P, 1/4 P, 1/2 P, 3/4 P, P and 5/4 P, P is the annual

precipitation). Each treatment was replicated five times, and each replicate plot was 2 m × 1.5 m. The experiment consisted of thirty plots in six rows, with 2 m between the rows and between

plots within a row (Fig. 6). We achieved the varying levels of precipitation using combinations of water catchments and rainout shelters. The rain-shelter was used to reduce precipitation

as described by Yahdjian and Sala74, which is a fixed-location shelter with a roof consisting of curved bands of transparent acrylic that block different amounts of rainfall while minimally

affecting other environment variables. Each shelter has a fixed metal structure (4 m in length, 3 m in width, 1.0–1.5 m in height). To minimize disturbance, we mechanically pushed fiberglass

plats down to a depth of 40 cm in the soil surrounding the plots as in the Jasper Ridge Global Change Experiment75 to cut off lateral movement of soil water. The devices help achieve the

goal of a free-air controlled experiment with minimal site disturbance. The 5/4 P treatment was made by adding water taken from the 3/4 P treatment. Under 3/4 P treatment, 1/4 P rainfall was

accepted and removed from the plot. This gave us six precipitation levels without modifying the precipitation frequency and timing in our design. MEASURING VARIABLES RAINFALL, SOIL WATER

CONTENT, TEMPERATURE, AND INORGANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATION The exact rainfall received by each plot was measured by rain gauge settled in the middle of each plot at the height of 20 cm. The

precipitation amount was computed right after each rainfall event. Soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in the top 10 cm were measured using a portable Time Domain Reflectometry

equipment (TDR 100, Spectrum Technologies Inc., Chicago, USA) and sensors of LI-6400–09 (LI-COR Inc., Nebraska, USA), respectively, once a week over the growing season in both 2015 and 2016.

Soil samples were collected at the end of the growing season, sieved through a 2 mm mesh. A subsample of 10 g of soil samples was extracted for measurement of inorganic nitrogen (NH4 + and

NO3 −) in 50 mL 2 mol/L KCl on a rotary shaker for 1 h within 24 h. The filtrate made using filter paper was analyzed using the AA3 Continuous Flow Analyzer (AA3, SEAL Analytical GmbH,

Germany). ANPP, BGB, BNPP MEASUREMENT AND _F_ BNPP ESTIMATION ANPP was directly measured by clipping the sample strip (0.12 × 1.00 m) in each plot at peak biomass stage in each year (usually

in the early of August). We separated the samples into different species, oven-dried at 65 °C for 48 h, and weighed. BNPP was measured by ingrowth core method34,76,77. Soil cores (diameter

9 cm) were taken from the same spot in each plot, with two soil layers (0–20 cm, 20–40 cm) at the peak biomass of vegetation in 2015. The holes were immediately filled with sieved root-free

soil originating from the same depth outside of the plots that contained similar soil profile properties as the sampled ones. After one year, the soil cores of the same holes were taken with

a soil auger of 7.5 cm diameter at the two layers. Different depths of soil cores were transferred into plastic bags and washed by filter (0.25 mm) under smoothly flowing water to obtain

the root samples, oven-dried at 65 °C for 48 h, and weighed to the nearest 0.01 g. Belowground biomass (BGB) was measured using the roots of 2015, BNPP was estimated by the samples of

201630. $${f}_{{\rm{BNPP}}}{\rm{wascalculatedas}}{f}_{{\rm{BNPP}}}=\mathrm{BNPP}/({\rm{ANPP}}+{\rm{BNPP}}).$$ STATISTICAL ANALYSIS One-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the differences of

ANPP, BGB, BNPP and _f_ BNPP among the treatments in each year. Stepwise multiple linear analyses and nonlinear regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationships of ANPP, BGB and

BNPP with PPT, SWC, SIN and ST. All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). REFERENCES * Ciais, P. _et al_. Europe-wide reduction in

primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. _Nature_ 437, 529–533 (2005). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Hirabayashi, Y. _et al_. Global flood risk

underclimate change. _Nature Clim. Change_ 3, 816–821 (2013). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Woodhouse, C. A., Meko, D. M., MacDonald, G. M., Stahle, D. W. & Cook, E. R. A 1,200-year

perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 107, 21283–21288 (2010). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Xiao, J.

_et al_. Twentieth-Century Droughts and Their Impacts on Terrestrial Carbon Cycling in China. _Earth Interactions_ 13, 1–31 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Young, D. J. N. _et al_.

Long-term climate and competition explain forest mortality patterns under extreme drought. _Ecology Letters_ 20, 78–86 (2017). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * IPCC. _Managing the risks of

extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change_ (Cambridge University Press, 2012). * Dai, A. Increasing

drought under global warming in observations and models. _Nature Clim. Change_ 3, 52–58 (2013). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Knapp, A. K. & Smith, M. D. Variation Among Biomes in

Temporal Dynamics of Aboveground Primary Production. _Science_ 291, 481 (2001). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fay, P. A., Kaufman, D. M., Nippert, J. B., Carlisle, J. D. &

Harper, C. W. Changes in grassland ecosystem function due to extreme rainfall events: implications for responses to climate change. _Glob Change Biol_ 14, 1600–1608 (2008). Article  ADS 

Google Scholar  * Knapp, A. K. _et al_. Rainfall Variability, Carbon Cycling, and Plant Species Diversity in a Mesic Grassland. _Science_ 298, 2202–2205 (2002). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed 

Google Scholar  * Guo, Q. _et al_. Spatial variations in aboveground net primary productivity along a climate gradient in Eurasian temperate grassland: effects of mean annual precipitation

and its seasonal distribution. _Glob Change Biol_ 18, 3624–3631 (2012). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Zhou, X., Talley, M. & Luo, Y. Biomass, Litter, and Soil Respiration Along a

Precipitation Gradient in Southern Great Plains, USA. _Ecosystems_ 12, 1369–1380 (2009). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Yang, Y., Fang, J., Pan, Y. & Ji, C. Aboveground biomass in

Tibetan grasslands. _Journal of Arid Environments_ 73, 91–95 (2009). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Estiarte, M. _et al_. Few multiyear precipitation-reduction experiments find ashift in

the productivity-precipitation relationship. _Glob Change Biol_ 22, 2570–2581 (2016). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Yahdjian, L. & Sala, O. E. Vegetation structure constrains primary

production response to water avalibility in the Patagonian steppe. _Ecology_ 87, 952–962 (2006). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Knapp, A. K., Ciais, P. & Smith, M. D. Reconciling

inconsistencies in precipitation–productivity relationships: implications for climate change. _New Phytol_ 214, 41–47 (2017). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Deng, Q. _et al_. _Effects of

precipitation changes on abov_eground net primary production and soil respiration in a switchgrass field. _Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment_ 248, 29–37 (2017). Article  Google

Scholar  * Wilcox, K. R. _et al_. Asymmetric responses of primary productivity to precipitation extremes: A synthesis of grassland precipitation manipulation experiments. _Glob Change Biol_

23, 4376–4385 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Luo, Y., Jiang, L., Niu, S. & Zhou, X. Nonlinear responses of land ecosystems to variation in precipitation. _New Phytol_ 214, 5–7

(2017). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Milchunas, D. G. & Lauenroth, W. K. Belowground Primary Production by Carbon Isotope Decay and Long-term Root Biomass Dynamics. _Ecosystems_ 4,

139–150 (2001). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Luo, Y., Sherry, R., Zhou, X. & Wan, S. Terrestrial carbon-cycle feedback to climate warming: experimental evidence on plant regulation

and impacts of biofuel feedstock harvest. _GCB Bioenergy_ 1, 62–74 (2009). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Scurlock, J. M. O., Johnson, K. & Olson, R. J. Estimating net primary

productivity from grassland biomass dynamics measurements. _Global Change Biology_ 8, 736–753 (2002). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Bai, Y. _et al_. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning

and C:N:P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. _Journal of Applied Ecology_ 49, 1204–1215 (2012). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Zhou, X., Fei, S., Sherry,

R. & Luo, Y. Root Biomass Dynamics Under Experimental Warming and Doubled Precipitation in a Tallgrass Prairie. _Ecosystems_ 15, 542–554 (2012). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Bai, W.

_et al_. Increased temperature and precipitation interact to affect root production, mortality, and turnover in a temperate steppe: implications for ecosystem C cycling. _Glob Change Biol_

16, 1306–1316 (2010). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Gao, Y. Z., Chen, Q., Lin, S., Giese, M. & Brueck, H. Resource manipulation effects on net primary production, biomass allocation

and rain-use efficiency of two semiarid grassland sites in Inner Mongolia, China. _Oecologia_ 165, 855–864 (2011). Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Shipley, B. & Meziane, D. The

balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. _Functional Ecology_ 16, 326–331 (2002). Article  Google Scholar  * Titlyanova, A. A., Romanova, I. P.,

Kosykh, N. P. & Mironycheva-Tokareva, N. P. Pattern and process in above-ground and below-ground components of grassland ecosystems. _Journal of Vegetation Science_ 10, 307–320 (1999).

Article  Google Scholar  * Mokany, K., Raison, R. J. & Prokushkin, A. S. Critical analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. _Glob Change Biol_ 12, 84–96 (2006). Article  ADS

  Google Scholar  * Hui, D. & Jackson, R. B. Geographical and interannual variability in biomass partitioning in grassland ecosystems: a synthesis of field data. _New Phytol_ 169, 85–93

(2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Poorter, H. _et al_. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. _New

Phytol_ 193, 30–50 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fay, P. A., Carlisle, J. D., Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M. & Collins, S. L. Productivity responses to altered rainfall

patterns in a C4-dominated grassland. _Oecologia_ 137, 245–251 (2003). Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Niu, S., Sherry, R. A., Zhou, X., Wan, S. & Luo, Y. Nitrogen regulation of

the climate–carbon feedback: evidence from a long-term global change experiment. _Ecology_ 91, 3261–3273 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Xu, X. _et al_. Interannual variability in

responses of belowground net primary productivity (NPP) and NPP partitioning to long-term warming and clipping in a tallgrass prairie. _Glob Change Biol_ 18, 1648–1656 (2012). Article  ADS

  Google Scholar  * Gu, C. & Riley, W. J. Combined effects of short term rainfall patterns and soil texture on soil nitrogen cycling — A modeling analysis. _Journal of Contaminant

Hydrology_ 112, 141–154 (2010). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Aanderud, Z. T., Schoolmaster, D. R. & Lennon, J. T. Plants Mediate the Sensitivity of Soil Respiration to

Rainfall Variability. _Ecosystems_ 14, 156–167 (2011). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Zhang, X. _et al_. The impacts of precipitation increase and nitrogen addition on soil respiration in a

semiarid temperate steppe. _Ecosphere_ 8, e01655 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Burke, I. C., Lauenroth, W. K. & Parton, W. J. Regional and temporal variation in ner primary

production and nitrogen mineralization in grasslands. _Ecology_ 78, 1330–1340 (1997). Article  Google Scholar  * Mazzarino, M. J., Bertiller, M. B., Sain, C., Satti, P. & Coronato, F.

Soil nitrogen dynamics in northeastern Patagonia steppe under different precipitation regimes. _Plant and Soil_ 202, 125–131 (1998). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Kang, S. _et al_. Review

of climate and cryospheric change in the Tibetan Plateau. _Environmental Research Letters_ 5, 015101 (2010). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * You, Q., Kang, S., Aguilar, E. & Yan, Y.

Changes in daily climate extremes in the eastern and central Tibetan Plateau during 1961–2005. _Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres_ 113, D07101 (2008). Article  ADS  Google

Scholar  * Luo, T. _et al_. Leaf area index and net primary productivity along subtropical to alpine gradients in the Tibetan Plateau. _Global Ecology and Biogeography_ 13, 345–358 (2004).

Article  Google Scholar  * Yang, Y., Fang, J., Ji, C. & Han, W. Above- and belowground biomass allocation in Tibetan grasslands. _Journal of Vegetation Science_ 20, 177–184 (2009).

Article  Google Scholar  * Zhang, B. _et al_. Effects of rainfall amount and frequency on vegetation growth in a Tibetan alpine meadow. _Climatic Change_ 118, 197–212 (2013). Article  Google

Scholar  * Breshears, D. D. _et al_. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. _P Natl Acad Sci USA_ 102, 15144–15148 (2005). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Craine, J. M. _et al_. Timing of climate variability and grassland productivity. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 109, 3401–3405 (2012). Article  ADS  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Hoover, D. L., Knapp, A. K. & Smith, M. D. Resistance and resilience of a grassland ecosystem to climate extremes. _Ecology_ 95, 2646–2656 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  *

Liu, L. _et al_. A cross-biome synthesis of soil respiration and its determinants under simulated precipitation changes. _Glob Change Biol_ 22, 1394–1405 (2016). Article  ADS  Google Scholar

  * Reddy, A. R., Chaitanya, K. V. & Vivekanandan, M. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. _Journal of Plant Physiology_ 161,

1189–1202 (2004). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tian, L., Masson-Delmotte, V., Stievenard, M., Yao, T. & Jouzel, J. Tibetan Plateau summer monsoon northward extent revealed by

measurements of water stable isotopes. _Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres_ 106, 28081–28088 (2001). Article  Google Scholar  * Huo, L. _et al_. Effect of Zoige alpine wetland

degradation on the density and fractions of soil organic carbon. _Ecological Engineering_ 51, 287–295 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Sala, O. E., Gherardi, L. A., Reichmann, L., Jobbágy,

E. & Peters, D. Legacies of precipitation fluctuations on primary production: theory and data synthesis. _Philos T R Soc B_ 367, 3135 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Enquist, B. J.

& Niklas, K. J. Global Allocation Rules for Patterns of Biomass Partitioning in Seed Plants. _Science_ 295, 1517–1520 (2002). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Evans, S. E.

& Burke, I. C. Carbon and Nitrogen Decoupling Under an 11-Year Drought in the Shortgrass Steppe. _Ecosystems_ 16, 20–33 (2013). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Kahmen, A., Perner, J.

& Buchmann, N. Diversity-dependent productivity in semi-natural grasslands following climate perturbations. _Functional Ecology_ 19, 594–601 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Fiala, K.,

Tůma, I. & Holub, P. Effect of Manipulated Rainfall on Root Production and Plant Belowground Dry Mass of Different Grassland Ecosystems. _Ecosystems_ 12, 906–914 (2009). Article  Google

Scholar  * Comeau, P. G. & Kimmins, J. P. Above-and below-ground biomass and production of lodgepole pine on sites with differing soil moisture regimes. _Canadian Journal of Forest

Research_ 19, 447–454 (1989). Article  Google Scholar  * Pietikäinen, J., Vaijärvi, E., Ilvesniemi, H., Fritze, H. & Westman, C. Carbon storage of microbes and roots and the flux of CO2

across a moisture gradient. _Canadian Journal of Forest Research_ 29, 1197–1203 (1999). Article  Google Scholar  * Hayes, D. C. & Seastedt, T. R. Root dynamics of tallgrass prairie in

wet and dry years. _Canadian Journal of Botany_ 65, 787–791 (1987). Article  Google Scholar  * Yuan, Z. Y. & Chen, H. Y. H. Fine Root Biomass, Production, Turnover Rates, and Nutrient

Contents in Boreal Forest Ecosystems in Relation to Species, Climate, Fertility, and Stand Age: Literature Review and Meta-Analyses. _Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences_ 29, 204–221 (2010).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Gong, X. Y., Fanselow, N., Dittert, K., Taube, F. & Lin, S. Response of primary production and biomass allocation to nitrogen and water supplementation

along a grazing intensity gradient in semiarid grassland. _European Journal of Agronomy_ 63, 27–35 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Berdanier, A. B. & Klein, J. A. Growing Season

Length and Soil Moisture Interactively Constrain High Elevation Aboveground Net Primary Production. _Ecosystems_ 14, 963–974 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Sherry, R. A. _et al_. Lagged

effects of experimental warming and doubled precipitation on annual and seasonal aboveground biomass production in a tallgrass prairie. _Glob Change Biol_ 14, 2923–2936 (2008). Article  ADS

  Google Scholar  * Nippert, J. B., Knapp, A. K. & Briggs, J. M. Intra-annual rainfall variability and grassland productivity: can the past predict the future? _Plant Ecology_ 184, 65–74

(2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Knapp, A. K. _et al_. Consequences of More Extreme Precipitation Regimes for Terrestrial Ecosystems. _BioScience_ 58, 811–821 (2008). Article  Google

Scholar  * Eltahir, E. A. B. A Soil Moisture–Rainfall Feedback Mechanism: 1. Theory and observations. _Water Resour Res_ 34, 765–776 (1998). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Fay, P. A.,

Carlisle, J. D., Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M. & Collins, S. L. Altering Rainfall Timing and Quantity in a Mesic Grassland Ecosystem: Design and Performance of Rainfall Manipulation

Shelters. _Ecosystems_ 3, 308–319 (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * Landesman, W. J. & Dighton, J. Response of soil microbial communities and the production of plant-available nitrogen

to a two-year rainfall manipulation in the New Jersey Pinelands. _Soil Biology and Biochemistry_ 42, 1751–1758 (2010). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wan, S., Hui, D., Wallace, L. &

Luo, Y. Direct and indirect effects of experimental warming on ecosystem carbon processes in a tallgrass prairie. _Global Biogeochemical Cycles_ 19, GB2014 (2005). Article  ADS  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Austin, A. T. & Sala, O. E. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics across a natural precipitation gradient in Patagonia, Argentina. _Journal of Vegetation Science_ 13, 351–360 (2002).

Article  Google Scholar  * Liu, Y. _et al_. Plant and soil responses of an alpine steppe on the Tibetan Plateau to multi-level nitrogen addition. _Plant and Soil_ 373, 515–529 (2013).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Knapp, A. K., Briggs, J. M. & Koelliker, J. K. Frequency and Extent of Water Limitation to Primary Production in a Mesic Temperate Grassland. _Ecosystems_

4, 19–28 (2001). Article  Google Scholar  * Group, C. S. T. R. Chinese soil taxonomy. _Science, Beijing_, 58–147 (1995). * Yahdjian, L. & Sala, O. E. A rainout shelter design for

intercepting different amounts of rainfall. _Oecologia_ 133, 95–101 (2002). Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Zavaleta, E. S. _et al_. Grassland responses to three years of elevated

temperature, CO2, precipitation, and N deposition. _Ecological Monographs_ 73, 585–604 (2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Derner, J. D. & Briske, D. D. Does a tradeoff exist between

morphological and physiological root plasticity? A comparison of grass growth forms. _Acta Oecologica_ 20, 519–526 (1999). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Gao, Y. Z. _et al_. Belowground net

primary productivity and biomass allocation of a grassland in Inner Mongolia is affected by grazing intensity. _Plant and Soil_ 307, 41–50 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  Download

references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the staff of Institute of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in Southwest University for Nationalities. This work was financially supported by the National Science

Foundation of China (31470528, 31625006), the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016YFC0501803), and the “Thousand Youth Talents Plan” program. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND

AFFILIATIONS * Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing, 100101, China Fangyue Zhang, Quan

Quan, Jian Sun & Shuli Niu * University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19 A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China Fangyue Zhang, Quan Quan & Shuli Niu * State Key Laboratory of

Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, CAS, Beijing, 100093, China Bing Song * Institute of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu,

610041, China Youjun Chen & Qingping Zhou Authors * Fangyue Zhang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Quan Quan View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Bing Song View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Jian Sun View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Youjun Chen View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Qingping

Zhou View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Shuli Niu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

CONTRIBUTIONS S.N. and J.S. conceived and designed the experiments. F.Z., Q.Q. and B.S. performed the experiments. F.Z. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Y.C. and Q.Z. revised the

manuscript and conducted the measurements. All authors reviewed the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Shuli Niu. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare

that they have no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution

and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if

changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the

material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to

obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS

ARTICLE Zhang, F., Quan, Q., Song, B. _et al._ Net primary productivity and its partitioning in response to precipitation gradient in an alpine meadow. _Sci Rep_ 7, 15193 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15580-6 Download citation * Received: 11 May 2017 * Accepted: 30 October 2017 * Published: 09 November 2017 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15580-6 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative