Impact mechanisms of groundwater dynamics on root water uptake of Salix matsudana in Mu Us Sandy Land, China

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2025.10.21

Abstract

Abstract:

Salix matsudana is widely distributed in the Mu Us Sandy Land. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the water sources for willow growth, research on the response mechanisms of single-plant root water uptake to groundwater level dynamics remains limited at the site scale. This knowledge gap impedes a comprehensive understanding of vegetation-groundwater feedback mechanisms. To address this, our study combined root excavation, in-situ monitoring, and controlled irrigation experiments. By monitoring meteorological factors, plant physiological parameters, soil moisture at different depths, and groundwater levels—complemented by an analysis of root vertical distribution—we investigated changes in vadose zone moisture and root water uptake strategies during groundwater fluctuations. Key findings reveal: (1) The root system of Salix matsudana exhibits three distinct water-absorption zones: A shallow fibrous root zone (0.2-0.8 m depth) concentrated in the upper vadose zone, primarily absorbing moisture from precipitation infiltration; A fine and lateral root zone (2.0-3.8 m depth) that absorbs deep vadose moisture and capillary water; and A deep vertical root zone (4.3-4.8 m depth) that penetrates to the water table, primarily extracting groundwater. (2) When utilizing deep vadose moisture derived from groundwater, the intensity of root water uptake tripled. (3) The critical pressure head threshold for water uptake from deep vadose moisture derived from groundwater was identified at -10.7 m. Based on these findings and a synthesis of relevant studies, we elucidate the ecohydrological mechanisms underlying the influence of groundwater dynamics on these distinct root absorption zones and discuss their adaptive significance. Finally, we propose recommendations for implementing a “multi-layered water absorption / dynamic partitioning” strategy in Salix matsudana plantations to enhance resilience to extreme drought events. These findings advance the understanding of groundwater dynamics and willow water uptake mechanisms, contributing to eco-hydrological theory in arid regions. They also provide scientific support for global desertification control efforts.

Key words: groundwater level dynamics, root water uptake, sap flow, in-situ experiments, Salix matsudana

CLC Number:

P641

QIAO Gang, YIN Lihe, XU Yong, ZHANG Jun, SHI Changchun, YU Kun. Impact mechanisms of groundwater dynamics on root water uptake of Salix matsudana in Mu Us Sandy Land, China[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2026, 33(1): 39-49.

Figures/Tables 13

References 53

[1]	HAN X Y, YANG G, QIN F C, et al. Spatial and temporal dynamic patterns of sandy land in Mu Us in the last 30 years[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(5): 144-150, 157.
[2]	程东会, 王文科, 侯光才, 等. 毛乌素沙地植被与地下水关系[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2012, 42(1):184-189.
[3]	拉本, 胡娟, 张旭萍. 干旱胁迫对植物生理的影响以及分子机制的响应研究进展[J]. 青海草业, 2022, 31(4):31-35.
[4]	尹立河, 王平, 王田野, 等. 西北地区地下水依赖型植被生态水文过程研究进展与展望[J]. 西北地质, 2025, 58(2):16-30.
[5]	陈亚宁, 李忠勤, 徐建华, 等. 中国西北干旱区水资源与生态环境变化及保护建议[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2023, 38(3): 385-393.
[6]	刘秀花, 周子怡, 贺屹, 等. 毛乌素典型固沙植物的水分利用特性与吸水机制[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(4): 897-908. DOI
[7]	CHEN Y P, CHEN Y N, XU C C, et al. The effects of groundwater depth on water uptake of populus euphratica and tamarix ramosissima in the hyperarid region of northwestern China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2016, 23(17): 17404-17412. DOI PMID
[8]	翟巧婷, 张铁钢, 许丽, 等. 基于稳定氧同位素的毛乌素沙地旱柳和小叶杨水分来源[J]. 地球科学与环境学报, 2024, 46(6): 804-815.
[9]	PENNA D, HOPP L, SCANDELLARI F, et al. Ideas and perspectives: tracing terrestrial ecosystem water fluxes using hydrogen and oxygen stable isotopes: challenges and opportunities from an interdisciplinary perspective[J]. Biogeo sciences, 2018, 15(21): 6399-6415.
[10]	王欣, 贾国栋, 邓文平, 等. 季节性干旱地区典型树种长期水分利用特征与模式[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(6): 1943-1950. DOI
[11]	GU H L, CHEN G P, REN H, et al. Seasonal dyna-mics of water-use strategies and response to precipitation in different habitats of notaria L.[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2025, 648:132388. DOI URL
[12]	尹立河, 黄金廷, 王晓勇, 等. 毛乌素沙地4种植物叶水势变化及其影响因素分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2016, 25(1): 17-23.
[13]	HARRISON J L, REIMANN A B, MALONEY A S, et al. Transpiration of dominant tree species varies in response to projected changes in climate: implications for composition and water balance of temperate forest ecosystems[J]. Ecosystems, 2022, 25(7): 1598-1613.
[14]	裴艳武, 黄来明, 李荣磊, 等. 毛乌素沙地东南缘人工林樟子松根系吸水来源与影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(5):1336-1348.
[15]	戴军杰, 章新平, 罗紫东, 等. 长沙地区樟树林土壤水稳定同位素的变化及影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(6):1514-1525.
[16]	SANDERS-DEMOTT R, SORENSEN P O, REIMANN A B, et al. Growing season warming and winter freeze-thaw cycles reduce root nitrogen uptake capacity and increase soil solution nitrogen in a northern forest ecosystem[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2018, 137(3): 337-349. DOI
[17]	JUICE S M, TEMPLAR P H, PHILLIPS N G, et al. Ecosystem warming increases sap flow rates of northern red oak trees[J]. Ecosphere, 2016, 7(9): 1221.
[18]	HUANG L M, PEI Y W, SHAO M A, et al. Multi-species plantation intensifies soil water competition and groundwater depletion in a water-limited desert region[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2023, 537: 120953. DOI URL
[19]	刘树宝, 陈亚宁, 陈亚鹏, 等. 基于稳定同位素技术的黑河下游不同林龄胡杨的吸水深度研究[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(3):72-739.
[20]	ROTHFUSS Y, JAVAUX M. Reviews and syntheses: isotopic approaches to quantify root water uptake : a review and comparison of methods [ J ]. Biogen-sciences, 2017, 14(8): 2199-2224.
[21]	CHEN Y F, HE J Q, HE Y, et al. Seasonal hydrological traits in salix psammophila and its responses to soil moisture and meteorological factors in desert areas[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2022, 136: 108626. DOI URL
[22]	陈永金, 艾克热木·阿布拉, 张天举, 等. 塔里木河下游生态输水对地下水埋深变化的影响[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(3): 651-658. DOI
[23]	苏鹏燕, 张明军, 王圣杰, 等. 基于氢氧稳定同位素的黄河兰州段河岸植物水分来源[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(6): 1835-1843.
[24]	DAI Y, WANG H W, SHI Q D, et al. Contrasting plant water-use responses to groundwater depth from seedlings to mature trees in the gurbantunggut desert[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2022, 610: 127986. DOI URL
[25]	张江, 李桂芳, 贺亚玲, 等. 基于稳定同位素技术的塔里木河下游不同林龄胡杨的水分利用来源[J]. 生物多样性, 2018, 26(6):564-571. DOI
[26]	陈喜, 董建志, 王礼春, 等. 全球变化下生态水文学发展与展望[J]. 地学前缘, 2025, 32(3): 52-61. DOI:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2025.3.13.
[27]	胡新宇, 申媛媛, 褚婷雯, 等. 生态补水下的永定河流域地下水水位变化规律[J]. 现代地质, 2023, 37(4): 986-993. DOI:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2021.155.
[28]	桑丽源, 郭威, 张静文, 等. 城市地球关键带水文过程与水环境和水资源研究:现状、挑战与未来[J]. 地学前缘, 2025, 32(3): 445-461. DOI:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2025.3.28.
[29]	温国胜, 王林和, 吉川贤. 毛乌素沙地臭柏群落地下水位的变化[J]. 自然资源学报, 2005, 20(2): 111-116.
[30]	CHANG E H, LI P, LI Z B, et al. Using water isotopes to analyze water uptake during vegetation succession on abandoned cropland on the loess plateau, China[J]. Catena, 2019, 181: 104095. DOI URL
[31]	李荣磊, 黄来明, 裴艳武, 等. 毛乌素沙地圪丑沟小流域沙柳水分利用来源研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2):122-130.
[32]	YANG Y M, WANG X K, HE Y L, et al. Study on the water absorption depth of artemisia ordosica roots at the eastern edge of Mu Us Sandy Land, using isotope labeling[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14: 15149. DOI URL
[33]	PEI Y W. HUANG L M, SHAO M A, et al. Patterns and drivers of seasonal water sources for artificial sand - fixing plants in the northeastern Mu Us Sandy Land, northwest China[J]. Pedosphere, 2024, 34(1): 63-77. DOI URL
[34]	徐庆, 任冉冉, 张蓓蓓, 等. 碳氢氧稳定同位素在陆地生态系统植物水分利用研究中的应用[J]. 陆地生态系统与保护学报, 2022, 2(1):73-81.
[35]	王阿晴, 朱雅娟, 马媛, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠两个沙冬青群落的水分来源差异[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(7): 1762-1770. DOI
[36]	杨峰, 刘立, 王文科, 等. 毛乌素沙地不同地貌下沙柳根系分布特征研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(25): 15582-15583, 15607.
[37]	ZHAO Y L, WANG Y Q, HE M N, et al. Transference of robinia pseudoacacia water-use patterns from deep to shallow soil layers -limited region[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2020, 457:117727. DOI URL
[38]	杜勤勤. 基于氢氧稳定同位素的兰州市南北两山植物水分来源研究[D]. 兰州: 西北师范大学, 2020.
[39]	刘泽琛, 张明军, 张宇, 等. 基于氢氧稳定同位素示踪的侧柏与白榆水源对比[J]. 生态学杂志, 2024, 43(3): 694-700.
[40]	BALBETYA A, BORER R, MARTIN-GOMEZ P, et al. Evidence for different isotopic compositions of sap and tissue water in tree stems: implications for plant water source identification[J]. New Phytologist, 2022, 233: 1121 - 1132. DOI URL
[41]	赵鹏, 徐先英, 姜生秀, 等. 石羊河下游不同衰退程度多枝柽柳灌丛水分利用格局研究[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(17): 7187-7197.
[42]	李涛, 罗光明, 董克鹏, 等. 克里雅河尾闾河岸不同生长阶段胡杨的水分利用[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(4): 989-997.
[43]	李新乐, 鲍芳, 吴波, 等. 荒漠植物白刺新固定碳在植物-土壤系统中的分配[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2): 33-40. DOI
[44]	宋兆斌, 辛智鸣, 朱雅娟. 内蒙古荒漠-草原过渡带灌木群落特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2022, 42(2): 104-112. DOI
[45]	WANG H J, TIAN L H, ZHANG H W, et al. Water absorption of artemisia ordosica roots at different topographic positions in alpine desert dunes in the northeastern qinghai-tibet plateau[J]. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2022, 10: 686441. DOI URL
[46]	SONG L N, ZHU J J, LI M C, et al. Sources of water used by pinus sylvestris var. mongolica trees based on stable isotope measurements in a semiarid sandy region of north east China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2016, 164: 281-290. DOI URL
[47]	万彦博, 师庆东, 戴岳, 等. 沙漠腹地天然绿洲不同林龄胡杨水分利用来源[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(2): 353-359. DOI
[48]	杨国敏, 王爱, 王力. 六道沟流域2种典型灌木不同季节水分来源及利用效率[J]. 西北植物学报, 2018, 38(1): 140-149.
[49]	WANG J, FU B J, LU N, et al. Seasonal variation in water uptake patterns of three plant species based on stable isotopes in the semi-arid Loess Plateau[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 609: 27-37. DOI URL
[50]	Wu H W, Li X Y, Jiang Z Y, et al. Contrasting water use patterns of introduced and native plants in an alpine desert ecosystem, northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 542: 182-191. DOI URL
[51]	苏文旭, 贾德彬, 冯蕴, 等. 浑善达克沙地杨树水分利用特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(2): 357-363.
[52]	曾祥明, 徐宪立, 钟飞霞, 等. MixSIAR和IsoSource模型解析植物水分来源的比较研究[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(16): 5611-5619.
[53]	YING Z, LI W. Insights into the isotopic mismatch between bulk soil water and salix matsudana koidz trunk water from root water stable isotope measurements[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2021, 25(7): 3975-3989. DOI URL

监测要素	监测详情	监测仪器型号	监测频率/h	传感器距地表距离/m	样本数/个	单位	最大值	最小值	均值	方差
气象要素	大气降水	HOBO30	1	1.5	744	mm∙day^-1	3.20	0.00	0.10	0.57
	太阳辐射			2.5	744	W∙m^-2	7.52	2.09	5.92	1.63
	气温			2.0	744	℃	27.37	9.70	17.52	4.58
	湿度			2.0	744	%	76.43	23.62	39.99	13.62
旱柳生长生理参数	液流强度	TDP-30	1(注水期间12/h)	1.5m	1536	g∙cm^-2∙day^-1	24.68	5.92	15.48	5.54
旱柳生长生理参数	叶水势	PSY1	1(注水期间12/h)	2.5	1536	MPa	-0.02	-0.17	-0.10	0.04
包气带不同埋深压力水头	—	MPS-6	1(注水期间12/h)	-0.05	1536	m	-6.30	-22.70	-12.67	4.76
				-0.15	1536	m	-4.23	-18.00	-8.66	4.35
				-0.3	1536	m	-15.40	-58.50	-34.09	14.80
				-0.5	1536	m	-5.72	-53.50	-27.70	16.59
				-1.0	1536	m	-6.06	-14.13	-8.13	2.44
				-1.5	1536	m	-19.20	-23.59	-20.62	1.59
				-2.0	1536	m	-14.60	-17.70	-16.25	1.05
				-2.5	1536	m	-8.54	-12.87	-10.47	1.58
				-3.0	1536	m	-4.89	-11.52	-8.45	2.08
				-4.0	1536	m	-1.05	-4.42	-3.19	0.99
				-4.5	1536	m	-1.95	-12.21	-8.49	2.94
				-5.0	1536	m	-1.08	-10.21	-5.57	2.89
地下水位埋深	—	Solinst Level Vent 5	1(注水期间12/h)	-8	1536	m	-3.78	-7.15	-6.51	0.88

监测要素	监测详情	监测仪器型号	监测频率/h	传感器距地表距离/m	样本数/个	单位	最大值	最小值	均值	方差
气象要素	大气降水	HOBO30	1	1.5	744	mm∙day^-1	3.20	0.00	0.10	0.57
	太阳辐射			2.5	744	W∙m^-2	7.52	2.09	5.92	1.63
	气温			2.0	744	℃	27.37	9.70	17.52	4.58
	湿度			2.0	744	%	76.43	23.62	39.99	13.62
旱柳生长生理参数	液流强度	TDP-30	1(注水期间12/h)	1.5m	1536	g∙cm^-2∙day^-1	24.68	5.92	15.48	5.54
旱柳生长生理参数	叶水势	PSY1	1(注水期间12/h)	2.5	1536	MPa	-0.02	-0.17	-0.10	0.04
包气带不同埋深压力水头	—	MPS-6	1(注水期间12/h)	-0.05	1536	m	-6.30	-22.70	-12.67	4.76
				-0.15	1536	m	-4.23	-18.00	-8.66	4.35
				-0.3	1536	m	-15.40	-58.50	-34.09	14.80
				-0.5	1536	m	-5.72	-53.50	-27.70	16.59
				-1.0	1536	m	-6.06	-14.13	-8.13	2.44
				-1.5	1536	m	-19.20	-23.59	-20.62	1.59
				-2.0	1536	m	-14.60	-17.70	-16.25	1.05
				-2.5	1536	m	-8.54	-12.87	-10.47	1.58
				-3.0	1536	m	-4.89	-11.52	-8.45	2.08
				-4.0	1536	m	-1.05	-4.42	-3.19	0.99
				-4.5	1536	m	-1.95	-12.21	-8.49	2.94
				-5.0	1536	m	-1.08	-10.21	-5.57	2.89
地下水位埋深	—	Solinst Level Vent 5	1(注水期间12/h)	-8	1536	m	-3.78	-7.15	-6.51	0.88

试验阶段	树干液流强度/(g∙cm^-2∙day^-1)				叶水势/MPa
试验阶段	最大值	最小值	均值	方差	最大值	最小值	均值	方差
第一阶段1~5日注水前	8.21	5.92	7.02	0.825	-0.15	-0.17	-0.16	0.006
第二阶段6~8日注水中	11.32	10.92	11.12	0.285	-0.13	-0.16	-0.14	0.025
第三阶段9~15日结束后	24.68	12.59	16.72	4.153	-0.02	-0.13	-0.07	0.041
第四阶段16~21日结束后	23.91	13.46	21.38	3.629	-0.03	-0.1	-0.07	0.023
第五阶段22~31日结束后	17.59	14.93	16.53	0.766	-0.09	-0.1	-0.09	0.005

试验阶段	树干液流强度/(g∙cm^-2∙day^-1)				叶水势/MPa
试验阶段	最大值	最小值	均值	方差	最大值	最小值	均值	方差
第一阶段1~5日注水前	8.21	5.92	7.02	0.825	-0.15	-0.17	-0.16	0.006
第二阶段6~8日注水中	11.32	10.92	11.12	0.285	-0.13	-0.16	-0.14	0.025
第三阶段9~15日结束后	24.68	12.59	16.72	4.153	-0.02	-0.13	-0.07	0.041
第四阶段16~21日结束后	23.91	13.46	21.38	3.629	-0.03	-0.1	-0.07	0.023
第五阶段22~31日结束后	17.59	14.93	16.53	0.766	-0.09	-0.1	-0.09	0.005

试验阶段	地下水位动态/m	根区不同埋深响应压力水头值/m					树干液流强度响应规律/ (g∙cm^-2·day^-1)	气象特征		根系吸水来源
试验阶段	地下水位动态/m	2	2.5	3	4.5	响应特征	树干液流强度响应规律/ (g∙cm^-2·day^-1)	降水量/mm	太阳辐射	根系吸水来源
第一阶段 1~5日注水前	波动不变背景值 6.5	-17.7	-12.9	-11.2	-9.9	背景值 -12.9	低值不变低值 7.02	0	缓慢波动上升	包气带储存的水分
第二阶段 6~8日注水中	水位升高最大值 3.8	-17.7	-12.9	-11.2	0	压力水头增加 -10.5	缓慢上升上升值 11.12	0	波动不变	地下水转化的包气带水分
第三阶段 9~15日结束后	水位下降最小值 7.1	-14.6	-8.5	-4.9	-7.2	最大值 -8.8	波动升高最大值 24.68	0	波动不变
第四阶段 16~21日结束后	波动不变低值 7	-15.2	-9.7	-8.2	-9.5	阈值 -10.7	高值不变高值 21.4	0	波动不变
第五阶段 22~31日结束后	波动不变低值 6.9	-16.7	-10.9	-9.9	-12.2	压力水头减小 -12.4	先降,后波动不变下降值 16.53	3.2	波动不变	包气带储存的水分