the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reviews and syntheses: Ecological Stoichiometry of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus in Shrubs and Shrublands
Abstract. Ecological stoichiometry examines the balance and ratios of multiple elements in ecological processes. In shrubs, characterized by their adaptability to extreme environments such as alpine and arid, stoichiometric traits likely differ from those in trees and grasses, reflecting unique ecological adaptations of shrubs. However, this hypothesis remains underexplored. Here we review the state of the art of stoichiometry in shrubs and then identify research hotspots of shrub stoichiometry. Then, we summarize the effects of climate, soil properties, phylogeny, ontogenetic differences, and human activities on stoichiometry of shrub leaves. In addition, we compared the stoichiometry of shrublands with that of forests and grasslands. The development process of shrubland stoichiometry research can be roughly divided into three main periods: the initial development stage (before 2010), the fast development stage (2011–2018), and the high-quality development stage (from 2019 to the present), with the two turning points occurring in 2011 and 2019 possibly related to the launch of major projects associated with shrublands in China. Current studies predominantly focus on shrub leaves, with limited attention to stems, roots, and seeds. Mean values of C, N, P, C:N, and N:P in shrub leaves globally were 454.66 mg g⁻¹, 18.93 mg g⁻¹, 1.20 mg g⁻¹, 23.4, and 15.8, respectively. Shrub leaf N and P content were higher than those of trees and lower than herbs, while C content and C:N ratio showed opposite trends. N and P content correlated positively with soil nutrients and precipitation and negatively with temperature. Functional types also influenced stoichiometry, with deciduous and leguminous shrub species showing higher N and P content than evergreen and non-leguminous shrubs. Overall, shrubs showed C and N content intermediate between trees and grasses, while P content was similar across life forms. Higher N:P ratios in shrublands and grasslands suggest stronger P limitation than in forests. Future studies should integrate above- and below-ground stoichiometry, consider phylogenetic influences, and investigate evolutionary processes to better understand shrubland adaptation and formation mechanisms under global change.
- Preprint
(2662 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-848', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2025
This manuscript presents a timely, comprehensive, and well-organized synthesis of the current knowledge on ecological stoichiometry in shrub-dominated ecosystems. The review fills a noticeable gap in our understanding of how shrubs and shrublands—which are increasingly important under global change scenarios—allocate and regulate C, N, and P across environmental gradients and plant traits.
1.The abstract could be refined to highlight more clearly the quantitative outcomes of the synthesis (e.g., mean global leaf C, N, P values and N:P ratios across life forms).
2.The section discussing phylogenetic influences is quite dense; a table summarizing key findings from major studies could improve accessibility.
3.Consider expanding on methodological challenges (e.g., variation in sampling organs, geographic biases, or digitization uncertainty) that might affect comparability across studies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-848-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lin Zhang, 29 Jun 2025
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by you. My co-authors and I carefully reviewed all the feedback and found it highly constructive for improving the manuscript. Therefore, we have made comprehensive revisions to the manuscript to the best of our ability. The major revisions include the addition of Table 1, as well as modifications and supplements to the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion and Future Prospects sections. The PDF document uploaded as a Supplement contains our detailed, point-by-point responses to the comments. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thanks again for your interests.
Sincerely,
Lin Zhang
Corresponding author of Paper egusphere-2025-848
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lin Zhang, 29 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-848', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jul 2025
General comments:
Understanding the stoichiometric characteristics of shrubs is crucial for comprehenving the nutrient utilization strategies of shrubs and predicting the responses of shrub ecosystems to environmental changes. This study provides an overview of the research history and current status of shrub ecological chemometrics both at home and abroad, and conducts a comprehensive analysis of the hot issues in this field. It also reviews the responses of shrub leaf chemometrics to factors such as soil, climate, and phylogeny, as well as the differences in chemometrics between shrub leaves and forests and grasslands. This paper systematically reviews the research on ecological chemometrics of shrubs, with a relatively clear logic. It clarifies the cutting-edge trends in this field and has certain reference value for subsequent research. However, the paper has deficiencies in terms of its structure, content organization, and depth of discussion. It is recommended to make a revision before publication.
Specific comments:
- Abstract: The outlook for the future research directions of shrub chemometrics in the abstract section is relatively simple. This part should be further refined in combination with the conclusion section to make it more specific.
- “2.1 Literature and Data Collection”: It is suggested that the retrieval flowchart of the review literature database be supplemented in this section to visually clarify the steps of literature retrieval and screening. This can further confirm the accuracy and validity of the literature retrieval results.
- “3 The Historical Development and Research Hotspots of Chemical Stoichiometry in Shrubs”: This part is a bit complicated. It is suggested to add a subtitle (3.1,3.2...) to organize and elaborate on the content of this section. The elaboration on the research hotspots merely conducts a statistical classification of the review literature and lists some references, lacking in-depth analysis and summary of the research hotspots. It is suggested that this part be further improved.
- “3 The Historical Development and Research Hotspots of Chemical Stoichiometry in Shrubs”: The content of the research progress section should avoid simply listing literature. It is necessary to further sort out the development context of the research and enhance the logic of the evolution of this research field. In addition, this section lacks an overview of the research methods and is recommended to be supplemented.
- “4.2 Climate Factors” and “4.3 Phylogenetic Relationships, Functional Types, and Age Effects”: It is suggested to add three-level headings(4.2.1…,4.3.1…)to elaborate on the content point by point, making the article structure clearer.
- “6 Conclusion and Future Prospects”: This section does not summarize and elaborate on the important conclusions of this study, such as how the stoichiometric characteristics of shrubs differ from those of forests and grasslands? The current research conclusion merely elaborates on the research results. It is suggested that the research results be further refined and summarized to draw important conclusions of this study.
- “Future Prospects”: The current research outlook mainly elaborates on the existing issues and deficiencies of the current research. It is necessary to further deepen the content of the research outlook and put forward innovative viewpoints to avoid vague expressions. It is suggested to adopt a three-part structure of "issue - method - value" for elaboration, and ultimately form an operational research path.
Technical corrections:
- Line162-165: The number of decimal places retained in the text is inconsistent. Please unify them. It is recommended to check the full text and make revisions.
- Line272: Why is there no linear regression analysis formula in Figure 4?
- Line408:Pay attention to the capitalization rules for word spelling in the title of the picture. For example, "Shrubland ecosystem" should be changed to "shrubland ecosystem".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-848-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lin Zhang, 15 Aug 2025
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully reviewed all feedback and found it highly constructive for improving the manuscript. Accordingly, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision. The principal changes are as follows: (i) addition of Figure 2; (ii) introduction of subheadings in Sections 3 and 4 to enhance structure and clarity; and (iii) substantial reorganization and elaboration of Section 6 (“Conclusion and Future Prospects”). A PDF uploaded as Supplementary Material contains our detailed, point-by-point responses to all comments. Please let us know if any further clarification is needed.
Thank you again for your interest in our work.
Sincerely,
Lin Zhang
Corresponding author, manuscript egusphere-2025-848
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
869 | 82 | 16 | 967 | 33 | 39 |
- HTML: 869
- PDF: 82
- XML: 16
- Total: 967
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1