.five six .0 6 .five 7 .0 7 .five eight .0 8 .five 9 .0 9 .5 1 0 .M A T L a titu d e ()n sN 😛
.five six .0 6 .five 7 .0 7 .five eight .0 8 .five 9 .0 9 .five 1 0 .M A T L a titu d e ()n sN 😛 ra tio2 two 2 1 two 0 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 six 1n sN 😛 ra tio2 2 2 1 2 0 1 9 1 eight 1 7 1 six 1(I)n sN 😛 ra tio2 0 1 9 1 eight 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 four three six .0 3 six .five 3 7 .0 three 7 .five 3 eight .0 3 8 .13 0 0 3 5 0 four 0 0 four five 0 5 0 0 five five 0 6 0 0 6 5 0 7 0 0 M A P (m m )15 .five 6 .0 six .five 7 .0 7 .5 eight .0 eight .5 9 .0 9 .five 1 0 .M A T L a titu d e ()Figure 3. Linear regression relationships of Leaf N, P and also the leaf N/P ratio with MAT, MAP and absolute latitude. Note: (A ), Leaf N: leaf nitrogen content; (D ), Leaf P: Leaf phosphorus content material; (G ), N:P ratio: Leaf N/P ratio. The red lines indicate the fits of the linear model of Leaf N, P plus the leaf N/P ratio and environmental gradient (latitude, MAT and MAP). All climate information (MAT and MAP) was obtained from China Meteorological Data Sharing Service Program (http://data.cma.cn/ (accessed on ten May 2021)).Plants 2021, ten, x6 ofPlants 2021, 10,six of(MAT and MAP) was obtained from China Meteorological Information Sharing Service Method (http://data.cma.cn/, Accessed on ten May 2021).3.2. Differences in Herb Biomass and Leaf N, P Stoichiometry amongst Vegetation Types three.2. Differences in Herb Biomass and Leaf N, P Stoichiometry amongst Vegetation Forms To reveal the differences in herb biomass amongst distinct vegetation varieties in the To reveal the variations in herb biomass among diverse vegetation types within the Loess Plateau, the outcomes of LMM showed that AGB, BGB and R/S with the steppe-desert Loess Plateau, the outcomes of LMM showed that AGB, BGB and R/S from the steppe-desert zone had been considerably reduce than those inside the other three vegetation zones (Figure 4A zone were drastically lower than those in the other three vegetation zones (Figure 4Aand Table S4) (p(p 0.05).The biomass order in the herb communities (AGB, BGB) was FS from the herb communities (AGB, BGB) was C and Table S4) 0.05). The FSSZ SZ FZ SD, when root hoot ratioratio (R/S) ranked FZ FZ SD. TheSD. The FZ SD, while the the root hoot (R/S) ranked as FS as FS SZ SZ biomass biomass allocation ofand SZ and SZ was predominantly concentratedbelowground aspect (two allocation of FZ, FS FZ, FS was predominantly concentrated in the in the belowground portion (2 to 4 occasions), except for SD. Moreover, we compared the differences within the leaf N to four instances), except for SD. Furthermore, we compared the variations inside the leaf N and P and P contents and N/P ratio the distinct vegetation zones and located that the plant the contents and N/P ratio among amongst the various vegetation zones and identified that leaf plant leaf N and P contents in the steppe esert had been considerably higherthose these within the N and P contents inside the steppe esert had been substantially larger than than inside the other other 3 vegetation zones (Figure 4D,E and Table S4), (-)-Irofulven In Vivo andthe BMS-986094 HCV lowest leaf N/P ratio was three vegetation zones (Figure 4D,E and Table S4), as well as the lowest leaf N/P ratio was identified inside the forest zone (p 0.05) (Figure 4F and Table S4). located within the forest zone (p 0.05) (Figure 4F and Table S4).Figure 4. Boxplots of leaf N, P stoichiometry and plant biomass in eacheach of vegetation zones Figure four. Boxplots of leaf N, P stoichiometry and plant biomass in of vegetation zones along latitudinal gradients. Note: Note: (A), AGB: above-ground biomass; (B), BGB: below-ground along latitudinal gradients. (A), AGB: above-ground biomass; (B), BGB: below-ground biomass; (C), R/S: root-to-shoot ratio; (C,F), FZ: forest zone; FS: forest teppe.