• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Seedling survival after simulating grazing and drought for two species from the Pamirs, northwestern China

    2022-12-20 06:48:28FionWorthyStefnieGoldbergSileshRnjitkrJinChuXu
    植物多樣性 2022年6期

    Fion R. Worthy , Stefnie D. Goldberg ,b, Silesh Rnjitkr , Jin-Chu Xu ,b,c,*

    a CAS Key Laboratory for Plant Diversity and Biogeography of East Asia, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201,Yunnan, China

    b CIFOR-ICRAF China Program, World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China

    c Honghe Center for Mountain Futures (CMF), Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Honghe County 654400, Yunnan, China

    d Faculty of Agroforestry, Lumbini Buddhist University, Lumbini, Nepal

    Keywords:Medicinal plant Pastoralist Plantago lessingii Saussurea glacialis Soil moisture Water deficit

    A B S T R A C T For plant populations to persist, seedling recruitment is essential, requiring seed germination, seedling survival and growth. Drought and grazing potentially reduce seedling recruitment via increased mortality and reduced growth. We studied these seed-related processes for two species indigenous to the Pamir Mountains of Xinjiang in northwestern China: Saussurea glacialis and Plantago lessingii. Seeds collected from Taxkorgan,Xinjiang,had a viability rate of 15.8%for S.glacialis but 100% for P.lessingii.Of the viable seeds, the highest germination rates were 62.9% for S. glacialis and 45.6% for P. lessingii. In a greenhouse experiment, we imposed a series of stressful conditions, involving a combination of simulated grazing and drought events. These had the most severe impact on younger seedlings. Modelling showed that 89% of S. glacialis mortality was due to early simulated grazing, whereas 80% of P. lessingii mortality was due to early simulated drought.Physiological differences could contribute to their differing resilience.S.glacialis may rely on water storage in leaves to survive drought events,but showed no shifts in biomass allocation that would improve grazing tolerance. P. lessingii appears more reliant on its root system to survive grazing,but the root reserves of younger plants could be insufficient to grow deeper in response to drought. After applying all mortality factors, 17.7 seedlings/parent of P. lessingii survived,while only<0.1 seedlings/parent of S.glacialis survived,raising concerns for its capacity to persist in the Pamirs. Inherent genetic differences may underlie the two species’ contrasting grazing and drought responses. Thus, differing conservation strategies are required for their utilization and protection.

    1. Introduction

    For plant populations to persist, seedlings must be recruited to the next generation. This requires seeds to germinate, survive and grow. The age of a plant at the onset of adverse events is a critical determinant of its survival(Grime et al.,1997;Moles and Westoby,2004a).The most vulnerable stage during the life history of a plant is the seedling stage(Gim′enez-Benavides et al.,2008;Orians et al.,2011). During this stage, two of the most conspicuous factors that lead to mortality are grazing and drought (Moles and Westoby,2004b). The youngest seedlings are usually the most sensitive to both grazing and drought(Warner and Cushman,2002;Moles and Westoby, 2004b; Elger et al., 2009), lack available energy reserves for recovery(Warner and Cushman,2002)and are most likely to be completely consumed by herbivores (Hanley and Fegan, 2007;Hanley et al., 2013).

    Plant strategies to survive grazing can be divided into defence,escape and tolerance. Defences can present in chemical or structural forms, such as spines (Hanley and Fegan, 2007). Escape includes physiological traits, such as prostrate growth forms and external traits like growth within refuges (e.g., between rocks or beneath spiny bushes and poisonous plants) (Milchunas and Noy-Meir, 2002; Cheng et al., 2014). Grazing tolerance can be mediated by shifts in plant physiology and biomass allocation (Long,2003; Sun et al., 2014). These include reduced allocation of resources to shoots (Ferraro and Oesterheld, 2002) coupled with increased allocation to roots (Orians et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2014;Cranston et al.,2016)as well as reallocation of resources from roots to shoots to facilitate compensatory shoot growth (Barton, 2008).Grazing-intolerant species suffer reduced shoot and root biomass(Koerner and Collins,2014;Zhu et al.,2015),potentially resulting in increased plant mortality.The frequency of grazing events can be as influential as grazing intensity (Deleglise et al., 2015; Davis et al.,2014). The impacts can differ not only between plant functional groups, but also vary due to factors such as elevation and soil moisture conditions (Davis et al., 2014).

    Plant strategies to survive drought comprise either escape,avoidance or tolerance (Salehi-Lisar and Bakhshayeshan-Agdam,2016). Plants can escape drought by germinating only when conditions are favourable (Li et al., 2013) and following an annual or ephemeral life history strategy (Qian et al., 2007). Drought avoidance relies on preserving high tissue water potential via reduced stomatal water loss,deep root systems,hairy leaves,succulence or small size(Salehi-Lisar and Bakhshayeshan-Agdam,2016).Drought tolerance can utilize the above physiological features, which are characterized by plasticity in drought response. At the onset of drought, plant responses include stomatal closure, changed metabolism and reduced shoot growth as well as increased investment in root growth (Orians et al., 2011; Comas et al., 2013; Salehi-Lisar and Bakhshayeshan-Agdam, 2016). Severe drought can trigger above-ground senescence that may be survivable by species with high meristematic tissue tolerance to drought (Del′eglise et al.,2015).

    Complex interactions can exist between the stressors of grazing and drought (Zavaleta et al., 2003; Shibel and Heard, 2016). In general, grazing is expected to be more damaging in drought periods(Yu et al.,2004;Del′eglise et al.,2015).The impacts of grazing and drought on plant survival, recruitment and productivity are especially relevant for plant populations on grazed land in arid regions.

    Our study is based on plants from the arid region of the Pamir Mountains of northwestern China. The remoteness of the Pamirs has hindered much research regarding the flora of this region.For plant species from the Pamirs, their ability to escape, avoid or tolerate grazing and drought will be increasingly critical to their future survival. Excessive livestock grazing is currently degrading many Pamiri pastures (Joshi et al., 2013), and droughts are projected to increase in frequency and intensify(Su et al.,2018).Rising temperatures will reduce water availability due to changing precipitation patterns and glacial retreat (Kassam, 2009; Zhang et al.,2016). In the western Pamirs, herders are already beginning to migrate earlier to summer pastures (Joshi et al., 2013) and using progressively higher pastures (Kassam, 2009). Similar changes could be expected in the timing and extent of grazing in the eastern Pamirs.

    We examined the perennial forb Saussurea glacialis Herder.(Asteraceae) and the annual forb Plantago lessingii Fisch. & C.A.Mey. (Plantaginaceae).The former grows at the snowline and the latter several hundred meters below it.We selected these species based on their medical, economic and agricultural importance to local Pamiri people. Plantago species are nutritious plants that provide fodder for livestock(Rahim and Maselli,2012).Saussurea species are used in local medicinal treatments and can also be sold. Their population is vulnerable due to potential overharvesting,high habitat specificity,small populations and limited ranges (Shurupova and Zverev, 2017). For both S. glacialis and P. lessingii, understanding the stress responses of their seedlings to simulated grazing and drought can inform conservation efforts.

    The overall goal of this study was to establish how grazing and drought could impact seedling survivability and productivity for two forb species of Pamiri mountain plants.We tested the following three hypotheses regarding the impact of two potential stressors,simulated grazing and drought:

    1. Younger seedlings were expected to have higher mortality rates after grazing or drought events.

    2. Seedlings that survive grazing or drought were expected to experience either a reduction in biomass or reallocation of biomass between roots and shoots.

    3. Interactions between repeated grazing or drought events were expected to have an additive effect on reducing seedling survival and growth.

    We produced a mathematical model that integrates the results of our study to determine the relative impact of grazing and drought,the importance of seedling age at the onset of these events and implications for the sustainability of Saussurea glacialis and Plantago lessingii populations under potential future soil moisture conditions and grazing regimes. Seed production, viability and germination rates provided starting parameters for this model.

    2. Materials and methods

    2.1. Study sites

    We selected study sites on three ridges in the Pamir mountains within the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve, Taxkorgan County, Xinjiang Province,China.The ridges include one to the west and two to the east of the major pass through the Pamirs(Appendix A,Fig.A1).At each site we selected two elevations, both within high summer pastures subject to seasonal grazing by the livestock of transhumant pastoralists. We surveyed these sites to provide the background for our study and to help us establish realistic conditions for our greenhouse experiment.The 1st and 3rd transects were within 1 km of the nearest pastoralist family and all vegetation was heavily grazed with extensive bare patches of soil. The top of the 2nd transect was over 5 km from the nearest pastoralist family and had not been recently grazed.

    We analysed past meteorological data to detect variation in regional water availability and predict at what point in the growing season our species may potentially face water deficit conditions.This analysis revealed clear water deficit conditions in the region prior to the growing season of our focal plants(Appendix B,Figs.B1& B2). Our microclimate station data from 2018 confirmed this trend.

    2.2. Plant survey

    We conducted a plant survey in July 2017 in order to select appropriate species for our greenhouse experiment. Local people contributed traditional ecological knowledge regarding plant use.First,we selected Saussurea glacialis,a medicinal plant locally used as a painkiller.Its range was just below the snowline,at elevations of 4530-4580 m. On the 1st and 3rd transect, S. glacialis was present on dry ground at the top of a ridge, whereas on the 2nd transect,it was at the foot of a glacier.Second,we selected Plantago lessingii, which was found at elevations of 4150-4260 m, on dry ground at the top(2nd transect)or side(1st and 3rd transect)of a ridge. Elsewhere, Plantago species provide nutritious fodder for livestock (Rahim and Maselli, 2012). Both species grow in patches under 100 m wide, among sparse, grazed vegetation on rocky ground. We observed no grazing damage on S. glacialis, possibly indicating that it is not a preferred forage plant for livestock.

    2.3. Microclimate stations and soil samples

    We used six HOBO microclimate stations to record microclimatic factors alongside patches of S.glacialis and P.lessingii at each study site. We placed an additional two HOBO microclimate stations at 3585 m and 3107 m elevation, to compare microclimatic factors down an elevation gradient (Appendix A). Each of these stations had loggers (HOBO U30 NRC), sensors for soil water content (S-SMC-M005) and soil temperature (S-TMB-M002), air temperature (S-THB-M002) and rainfall (S-RGD-M002). In September 2017, we built an additional four stations on the other two transects, which had loggers (HOBO U30) with sensors for soil water content (S-SMC-M005) and soil temperature (S-TMB-M002). All sensors for soil temperature and soil moisture content were placed at depths of 5 cm,10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm. At each location, soil samples were taken to calibrate the HOBO soil moisture sensors and determine the soil conditions in which our study plants had been found (Appendix C, Table C1, Fig. C1).

    2.4. Seed collection, storage and X-ray screening of seed viability

    In September 2017, we collected seeds from three sites per species. We removed all seeds from ten Saussurea glacialis and Plantago lessingii individuals per site,leading to a total sample of 30 plants per species.Due to small population size,we avoided taking an unnecessarily large sample. All seeds were air-dried and transported back to the Kunming Institute of Botany's Germplasm Bank of Wild Species. All seeds were stored overwinter at 15°C in dry conditions, reducing the relative humidity of the seeds to 15%. In February 2018, all seeds were screened, using X-ray facilities to determine the seed viability rate. These X-ray images showed whether seeds were filled by an embryo (solid white image) or empty(grey or translucent image).Filled seeds were deemed to be potentially viable,whereas empty seeds were non-viable.Low seed viability limited the seeds available for our experiment to 6 seeds per pot for S. glacialis and 12 seeds per pot for P. lessingii.

    2.5. Greenhouse experiment

    On the 13th March 2018, seeds were sown under greenhouse conditions at the Kunming Institute of Botany,Yunnan,China.This initial time of first sowing is hereafter referred to as Tsow 1. Seeds sown 21 days later are hereafter referred to as Tsow 2.Viable seeds were planted in transparent Perspex cuboid pots(10 cm×20 cm×15 cm depth)that enabled ongoing observation of soil moisture and root development.The potting medium was a 1:1 mix of fine peat and coir fibre. Soil parameters, including soil nutrients, are shown in Appendix C, Table C2. We sparsely handwatered on alternating days. The sequence of treatments and harvests is shown in Fig. 1. No water was given during simulated drought treatments (D). The simulated grazing treatment (G)involved mechanical defoliation. Plants were either cut with scissors to a height of 2 cm(level with the top of the pot)or left uncut.During recovery periods,plants were watered with 50 ml daily and not defoliated.Greenhouse temperatures and relative humidity are shown in Appendix C, Fig. C2.

    By the fifth day of the first drought treatment, a high proportion of Plantago lessingii seedlings had died, forcing us to terminate the drought treatment and exclude these P.lessingii pots from the experiment. Consequently, there were two age categories for Saussurea glacialis(40 pots for Tsow 1-and 38 pots for Tsow 2)but only one age category for P. lessingii (80 pots for Tsow 2). A low proportion of S.glacialis seedlings survived the simulated grazing treatment, which limited the number of possible future treatments. All pots with surviving plants were reassigned to four blocks. They were subjected to a factorial combination of sequential treatments: control ‘_’ (no grazing, 50 ml water per day),drought‘D’(no water)and grazing‘G’(seedlings cut to 2 cm high) treatments, with each drought treatment lasting 8 days ‘D’or 16 days‘DD’.Treatment sequences are referred to by the order of events,e.g.,drought followed by grazing then control is written as ‘DG_’.

    The treatments for Saussurea glacialis were __, D__, DD_ and DG_. The treatments for Plantago lessingii were __, D__, DD_, D_D,G__,DG_,D_G,DDG and DGG.After a 21-day recovery period,all of the S. glacialis and half of the P. lessingii pots were harvested(Harvest 3). The remaining P. lessingii pots were subjected to a second set of the same drought and grazing treatments.After a 21-day recovery period,all remaining pots were harvested(Harvest 4).

    At each harvest, each plant was removed from the pot and all loose soil shaken off.Remaining soil was rinsed off and plants were dried at 60°C for 24 h. Shoot and root length were both recorded separately for each plant,but we have not included shoot length in the analysis, as shoots were directly cut in the defoliation treatment. Because the mass of individual plants was low, we weighed plants from the same pot together.

    2.6. Data analysis

    The difference in shoot and root mass between harvests was used to calculate the Relative Growth Rate,following Hunt(1978).

    Where W1= weight at time 1; W2= weight at time 2;time = number of days between harvest events:

    Analyses were conducted separately for each species. Mean values are quoted in the text as mean ± SD (standard deviation).Survival was calculated as the proportion of plants surviving out of number of plants per pot. Plant survival data were analysed using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) with binomial errors. The number of leaves per plant was a count variable that was analysed using GLMs with poisson errors. Length of root, shoot mass, root mass and Shoot Mass Fraction were continuous variables. When necessary,log transformations were applied to obtain normal error distributions, allowing analysis using ANOVA. The small data sets for Relative Growth Rate required analysis with the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.

    Fig.1. Timeline of study for Saussurea glacialis(top)and Plantago lessingii(bottom).At the first time point Tsow 1 seeds were sown.A second set of seeds were sown at time point Tsow 2.A subset of plants was harvested and measured at four time points within the study period:Harvest 1,2,3 and 4.‘Drought’represents no water addition,‘Grazing’represents seedlings trimmed to 2 cm high. During ‘recovery’ or control periods, 50 ml water was supplied per day. The first drought period was terminated after 5 days. Thereafter, during‘Drought Grazing’ periods, a sequential set of treatments were applied. For S. glacialis either: control, 8 days drought,16 days drought, or 8 days drought followed by grazing. For P. lessingii either: control, 8 days drought,16 days drought, grazing only,16 days drought followed by grazing or 8 days drought followed by two grazing events.

    In all GLM and ANOVA analyses,a model simplification approach was taken, following Crawley (2005). ANOVA was used to test for a significant increase in deviance with each reduction in the model.Terms were only retained if their removal caused a significant reduction in the explanatory power of the model.If no other model was significantly better than the null model in accounting for the variance in the data,we treat this as exerting no significant effect on any model terms,and values are not quoted in the results section.All analyses were conducted in R v.3.4.1(R Core Team,2017).

    2.7. Mathematical model of age-dependent seedling mortality

    We modelled the results of our experiments in order to determine the relative importance of simulated grazing and drought on seedling mortality. The impact of each mortality factor is proportional to the number of plants to which it is applied.Thus,an earlier high death rate, when more plants are still alive, numerically reduces a population more than the same rate applied later to remaining survivors of a cohort. The classic way to approach the relative importance of multiple mortality factors applied to a population over time is through key-factor analysis (Varley and Gradwell,1960). However, in this case, we wished to contrast the importance of two mortality factors at multiple time points across two different plant species. Therefore, we mathematically modelled plant survival for a cohort of plants, beginning at their germination and terminating at the end of the first growing season,using the seeds of a single parent plant. All parameters were estimated based on those measured in field, lab and greenhouse studies. The equations were solved numerically to estimate the proportional contribution of both early and late grazing and drought on the number of plants surviving from this cohort at the end of the first growing season.

    For the purposes of the model,the time period ran for the length of our experiment, namely from March T1to end September T7-although the growing season in the field may be shorter.The ability of a plant population to persist was determined by its replacement rate. On average, each individual must have at least one surviving offspring over its lifetime for the population to persist, so we considered whether the number of descendants per parent plant exceeds one.The number of viable seeds per plant was fixed as the initial cohort size and treated as a constant,calculated from a likely upper limit of cohort size.We made the assumption that the actual number of seeds produced per plant will not exceed the maximum number of seeds observed per plant in the field,and that the actual viability rate will never exceed the maximum viability rate determined by X-ray observations.Thus:

    As seedling emergence in the field can be far below that obtained under laboratory conditions (Gim′enez-Benavides et al.,2008), this is most likely an overestimation for initial cohort size.In the greenhouse,the first seedlings germinated after one week of sowing,but more continued to germinate over the following three weeks.However,for the purposes of our calculations,we pooled all seeds into two germination categories;early(those sown in March)or late(those sown in April),with their age being the time between sowing and onset of a drought or grazing event. All seeds entered the model at T1, allowing the impact of each mortality event to be calculated at two age intervals. This meant that only one germination rate could be applied; therefore, we selected the higher mean germination rate obtained in April as the more likely representation of the cumulative number of seeds that would eventually germinate as conditions became progressively more favourable.

    We included two mortality factors: drought D and grazing G.Each operated at a fixed set of monthly time intervals with values determined by the experimental data.The time intervals were T1to T7,with harvest at T7. At time Tx,the applicable mortality rates are Dxand Gx, with the number of surviving plants remaining in the cohort as Nx.To avoid negative values for N,we first applied Dxand then Gx.

    At T1:

    The proportional contributions to mortality were determined in rank order, with the highest rank being the most important determinant of plant survival.

    3. Results

    3.1. Water deficit conditions

    Our mountain sites receive both precipitation and spring snowmelt, making them generally moister than northwestern China's lower elevation deserts.However,there were water deficit conditions in the summer months. The lower the elevation, the greater and more prolonged were the conditions of water deficit(Appendix B,Fig.B3A).In 2017/2018,soil water content was low at all depths between November and May(Appendix B,Figs.B3&B4).Thus, there were water deficit conditions in the early growing season. Precipitation levels at lower elevation sites were much lower than at higher elevation sites. The number of days with rainfall increased with elevation(Appendix B,Fig.B3C).The highest soil moisture was in late summer and early autumn (Appendix B,Figs.B3D&B4),likely because the most rainfall is usually received from May until September (Appendix B, Fig. B2). Soil bulk density was greatest at the low elevation site,and soils with higher soil bulk density contained lower soil moisture content (Appendix C,Fig. C1).

    3.2. Estimating the initial cohort of seedlings to enter our model

    X-ray images showed that 15.8±17.7%(mean±SD)of Saussurea glacialis seeds (seeds: N = 1543) were full and potentially viable.Plantago lessingii had a surprisingly high viability rate, with all whole seeds (seeds: N = 1265) being full and potentially viable(Fig. 2A). However, not all full seeds germinated. At Tsow 1,germination rates were 52.3 ± 24.9% (mean ± SD) for S. glacialis(pots: N = 57, seeds: N = 342) and 21.2 ± 11.9% (mean ± SD) for P. lessingii (pots: N = 57, seeds: N = 684). Germination rates were higher at Tsow 2, when temperatures were warmer and humidity was lower,with germination rates of 62.9±28.4%(mean±SD)for S. glacialis (pots: N = 38, seeds: N = 228) and 45.6 ± 23.2%(mean±SD)for P.lessingii(pots:N=80,seeds:N=960)(Fig.2B).We used the above figures to fix the starting parameters for our model.

    3.3. Hypothesis testing

    3.3.1. Younger seedlings have higher mortality rates

    Overall, the youngest seedlings had the highest mortality rates.However, age-dependent mortality differed between the two species. When the 1st simulated drought treatment was imposed, all Saussurea glacialis seedlings survived,but there was high mortality among P. lessingii seedlings, with only 29.2 ± 38.8% surviving(Fig.2C).After the 1st simulated grazing event,very few S.glacialis seedlings from Tsow 1 survived(10.9±19.7%survived(mean±SD)),significantly fewer than in the control condition. Survival rates appeared lower for the younger seedlings from Tsow 2(6.25±13.4%survived(mean±SD)),but this effect was not statistically significant(Treatment: z = 3.42, p < 0.001; Tsow: z = -0.928, p = 0.353).P. lessingii seedlings from Tsow 2 were best at surviving simulated grazing,with 57.1±20.4%(mean±SD)surviving(Fig.2D),but this was still significantly less than in the not-grazed control(Treatment:z = -391, p < 0.0001). Survival rates for the remaining seedlings were significantly higher than this, after subsequent simulated grazing and drought treatments.No further differences between the treatment conditions made any significant difference to seedling survival. Mean values for all mortality rates are given in Table 1.

    3.3.2. Mathematical model of age-dependent seedling mortality

    Fig.2. For Saussurea glacialis(solid black bars)and Plantago lessingii(striped grey bars):A)%seeds viable,B)%of viable seeds that germinated,C)%seedlings that survived the first simulated drought condition, D) % seedlings that survived the first simulated grazing event.

    Table 1 Model parameters, where D represents seedling mortality due to simulated drought events, G represents seedling mortality due to simulated grazing events, and N is the number of surviving individuals in a cohort of seedlings arising from a single parent plant.

    For S. glacialis, the maximum number of seeds observed per plant in the field was 438, and the maximum viability rate was 0.593, so the initial cohort size was fixed at 260. The germination rate was fixed at 0.629,giving an initial number of plants N1of 164.For P.lessingii,the maximum number of seeds observed per plant in the field was 343, and the maximum viability rate was 1, so the initial cohort size was fixed at 343.The germination rate was fixed at 0.456, giving an initial number of plants N1of 156.

    The two mortality factors, drought D and grazing G, were estimated separately for each time interval. These are displayed in Table 1.The highest levels of D were D4for Saussurea glacialis and D1for Plantago lessingii. The highest mortality rate due to any factor was G3for S.glacialis.However,the greatest total reduction in N in a single time interval was from N2to N3for S.glacialis and from N1to N2for P. lessingii.

    When the proportion of total mortality due to each mortality factor was calculated (Table 2), it was apparent that for P. lessingii,the drought mortality factor D1operating on N1was indeed the most important cause of mortality. However, the model revealed that for S.glacialis,the most important cause of mortality was not in fact G3.Due to the reduction in N over T,the grazing mortality factor G2acting on the earlier cohort of N2,accounted for both the highest proportion of mortality overall and for S.glacialis alone.Thus,early grazing was the most important mortality factor for S. glacialis,whereas early drought caused the highest proportion of mortality for P. lessingii.

    3.3.3. Reduction or reallocation of biomass between roots and shoots

    For S. glacialis, between the 1st and 2nd harvest (Fig. 3A), the control plants (not grazed) developed significantly lower shoot mass but greater root mass. Simulated grazing had no additional effect on log shoot mass(Harvest:F1 =10.8,p<0.01),but caused shorter log root length (Harvest: F1 =25.5, p < 0.001; Treatment:F1 =6.19, p < 0.05) and lighter log root mass (Harvest: F1 =7.75,p < 0.05; Treatment: F1 =30.7, p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in number of leaves per plant or Relative Growth Rate between any conditions. By the 2nd harvest, Shoot Mass Fraction was significantly lower,but with higher values for grazed plants than for the control (Harvest: F1 = 27.2, p < 0.01; Tsow:F1 =62.2, p < 0.001; Treatment: F1 =415, p < 0.001). By the 3rd harvest(Fig.4A),there were no further significant effects of any of the treatment conditions on these larger, better-established plants.

    Table 2 Proportion of mortality due to each mortality factor, in rank order, where D represents seedling mortality due to simulated drought events and G represents seedling mortality due to simulated grazing events.

    In contrast, for Plantago lessingii, there was no significant difference in the parameters measured in the control plants (not grazed) between the 1st and 2nd harvest (Fig. 3B), with the exception of an increase in the number of leaves(Harvest:z=2.74,p < 0.01). However, grazing significantly affected the seedlings,resulting in reduced log root length (Harvest: F1 =89, p < 0.001;Treatment: F1 = 5.08, p < 0.05). Root mass and shoot mass appeared to also decline, but this difference was not statistically significant.

    The 3rd and 4th harvests for Plantago lessingii each came after simulated drought and grazing treatments that had been followed by a recovery period. The block, harvest date and treatments affected multiple plant parameters (Fig. 4B). Both shoot and root mass declined between the 3rd and 4th harvest. They were greatest at the 3rd harvest for the control plants, those under severe drought and those that had been subjected to grazing but not drought (log shoot mass; Block: F3 = 5.26, p < 0.05; Block/Harvest: F4 = 30.6, p < 0.001; Block/Harvest/Treatment: F5 = 6.91,p < 0.01; log root mass: Harvest: F1 =28.3, p < 0.001; Treatment:F8 = 2.22, p < 0.05). There was a marginally significant effect of harvest date and treatment on root length,with the longest roots after the first harvest with severe drought (Harvest: F1 = 3.17,p=0.08;Treatment:F8=1.85,p<0.07).The number of leaves per plant did not change significantly between harvests. The fewest leaves were on plants given the drought treatment only(D__:z=-2.26, p < 0.05).3.3.4. No additive effects on survival and growth

    For survival data we found no support for our third hypothesis.The age-dependent mortality effect described above was so strong that no significant additional additive effects were found.Neither were there any significant additive effects on biomass allocation.However, the low number of surviving S. glacialis seedlings reduced the strength of the analysis. For P. lessingii, for the seedlings in every treatment condition, both shoot and root mass declined between the 3rd and 4th harvests (see analysis above).However, biomass reduction was no more severe for plants that had been subjected to multiple drought or grazing events than for those that had only been subjected to a single drought or grazing event (Fig. 4B).

    4. Discussion

    4.1. Younger seedlings have higher mortality rates

    Age-dependent impacts of simulated grazing and drought differed between the two species.Five days without water addition caused no mortality to Saussurea glacialis but resulted in the death of over 70% of Plantago lessingii seedlings. In contrast, over half of young P. lessingii seedlings were able to survive severe simulated grazing, whereas for S. glacialis, this resulted in the death of the majority of seedlings.

    Fig. 3. The impact of the 1st simulated grazing event on dry mass of A) Saussurea glacialis and B) Plantago lessingii with harvest 1 being prior to and harvest 2 after simulated grazing.Values for shoots are displayed ascending from the intercept of the y axis.Values for roots are displayed descending from the intercept of the y axis.Different letters denote values that are significantly different.

    Fig.4. The impact of the factorial combination of simulated drought(D)and simulated grazing(G)and no drought or grazing(_)events on the dry mass of A)Saussurea glacialis and B)Plantago lessingii.Harvest 3(black bars)was after the first set of events and harvest 4(grey bars)after the second set of events.The order of‘D’,’G’and‘_’represents the sequence in which the treatments were applied.Values for shoots are displayed ascending from the intercept of the y axis.Values for roots are displayed descending from the intercept of the y axis. Different letters denote values that are significantly different.

    4.2. Mathematical model of age-dependent seedling mortality

    Our model of seedling mortality and survival allowed us to address our 1st hypothesis in more detail. The highest rate of mortality was due to simulated grazing for Saussurea glacialis. But mortality rates due to simulated drought were high for both species. After all mortality factors had been applied, the surviving number of S. glacialis seedlings per cohort was below the replacement rate-potentially causing extinction.Fortunately,S.glacialis is a perennial species capable of reproducing over many years. Thus,over the course of its lifetime,one plant may be able to replace itself in the population.It is common for entire cohorts of seedlings to die due to grazing for several consecutive years, yet the overall plant population continues to persist(Crawley 1997).As an annual plant,P. lessingii has only one chance to exceed the replacement rate.Although our model showed an average 17.7 surviving offspring per parent P. lessingii plant, it should be remembered that under field conditions, plants would be exposed to additional stressors.

    For both species,survival may be higher than we have calculated,simply because not all seedlings will be equally exposed to grazing.Specific microhabitats (e.g., emerging from a rocky outcrop(Milchunas and Noy-Meir,2002)or beside a poisonous plant(Cheng et al., 2014)) may allow escape from grazing at the critical early stages of seedling development.Our field observations indicate that Saussurea glacialis may not be a favoured forage plant for livestock,and accordingly,its seedlings might experience fewer grazing events.

    Surprisingly,P. lessingii,which has been recorded in arid desert steppes (Pei et al., 2008), showed high mortality following early water deficit.However,some Xinjiang desert plants that are highly drought-resistant as mature plants are unable to tolerate extended droughts as young seedlings. They must germinate and establish during a short period of snow melt and precipitation that provides favourable soil moisture conditions in early spring (Li et al., 2013).Seasonal microclimate patterns could help P.lessingii survive at our study sites. Although in winter and early spring, general soil moisture deficit is present,in P.lessingii's mid-elevation sites,soil is moister at 5 cm than at greater depths (Appendix B).

    In contrast,S. glacialis seedlings are expected to experience the driest conditions when seedlings are youngest. Thus, its seedlings need to be water stress-tolerant from their first emergence onwards. While not succulents, they do have swollen leaves that would allow some water storage-a classic feature of adaptation to an arid environment (Grime, 1977). This water-stress tolerance makes future persistence of S. glacialis more likely. Despite its position on the snowline,it may be less affected than expected by the reductions in soil moisture content that are likely to result from retreating snowlines.

    Likewise, it is a positive outcome that P. lessingii seedlings can survive early simulated grazing.Due to their lower position on the mountains, they are likely to be grazed earlier than S. glacialis. If herders noted a decline in S. glacialis populations, one adaptation may be to move their livestock only up to mid-level pastures in the early spring,delaying their migration to higher pastures.This could potentially increase the survival of S. glacialis seedlings.

    4.3. Reduction or reallocation of biomass between roots and shoots

    4.3.1. Response to grazing

    Initially, Plantago lessingii invested more in roots than did Saussurea glacialis.However,its roots were shorter after initial simulated grazing. Some resources may have been shifted away from roots to allow shoot recovery.By the third and fourth harvests,these betterestablished seedlings had shorter shoots after recovery from simulated grazing but showed no response in roots.This is intriguing,as we cut leaves at a fixed height, so as shoots grew longer, larger seedlings actually lost a progressively greater proportion of tissue.

    For Saussurea glacialis, Shoot Mass Fraction values showed that the youngest seedlings reallocated biomass to shoots after simulated grazing. However, for larger, better-established plants, there was no significant treatment effect. It may be presumed that S. glacialis seedlings have low tolerance to grazing and that their resources were already too over-depleted by defoliation to have sufficient remaining resources to invest more biomass into roots(Bloom et al.,1985).

    The small biomass of our final harvested specimens precluded testing whether plants might have invested more in chemical defence in response to simulated grazing to deter further herbivory(Herms and Mattson,1992). It would be worthwhile to repeat our study with quadruple the sample size, so that even after plants suffered from high mortality rates, sufficient seedlings would survive to measure both growth and chemical parameters(e.g.,silicon,cyanogenic and phenolic content (Richards and Fletcher, 2002;Huitu et al., 2014)).

    4.3.2. Response to drought

    For Saussurea glacialis,simulated drought had no significant effect on any measured growth parameter. The swollen leaves of our seedlings probably retained higher moisture content than did their roots.Thus,maintaining shoot growth may be effective in retaining moisture.For established,mature S.glacialis,investment in broad tap roots may be more important. Functional plant attributes can differ between regenerative and established phases(Grime et al.,1997).To our knowledge,ours is the first study to examine the effects of water deficit on biomass allocation in Saussurea.Repeating this study with other species of Saussurea could determine if this genus uses water storage in leaves to achieve drought-tolerance.

    For P. lessingii in general, simulated drought treatments (with no defoliation) produced plants with the fewest leaves, and the most severe drought condition led to shorter shoots. This appeared to be a mostly negative effect on growth (Casper,1996),rather than reallocation of resources. By the end of the experiment, shoot and root mass had declined for all plants, possibly as reduction in daylight hours had begun to trigger senescence(Lang et al., 2019). The exception to this trend was that after the third harvest of P. lessingii under the most severe drought condition,P. lessingii seedlings had the longest roots of any plants in the study. Possibly only these largest plants had stored sufficient resources to permit downward growth to reach water in response to water deficit. Size-dependent drought tolerance could be of increasing importance for survival,as warming climate conditions can lead to disproportionally greater soil moisture at lower depths, giving an additional advantage to longer roots (Xu et al.,2015).

    4.4. No additive effects on survival and growth

    We found no evidence of additive negative effects of grazing and drought on survival or growth for either species. Plants were consistently more likely to survive simulated grazing or drought when they were older,despite having survived previous drought or grazing events. This makes persistence of our two focal species more likely. If reduced soil moisture conditions do not lead to progressively worse grazing impacts, there will be no need for radical changes in pasture use by pastoralists to avoid the use of pastures at times when soil moisture is lowest. Grazing should continue to be spread across all current pastures(Joshi et al.,2013;Ning et al.,2013)to avoid increasing grazing intensity in any given area.

    However, all such applications should be treated with caution,as the study was conducted under greenhouse conditions outside the study region.Further in situ studies of these species are needed in order to determine the extent to which our experimental results can be applied to field conditions.

    5. Conclusions

    The contrasting resilience to simulated grazing and drought of our study species has important implications for their survival.Even the youngest Saussurea glacialis seedlings are comparatively robust under dry conditions.If livestock do not select S.glacialis as a preferred forage plant, it may experience low rates of herbivory.However, the low seed viability and limited range of S. glacialis means that any other threat could easily wipe out local populations.In contrast, Plantago lessingii seedlings should survive the early grazing to which they are exposed in spring pastures. However, if spring soil moisture declines,there could be a high seedling death rate, threatening its persistence in its current range.

    Author contributions

    FW and SG designed the study. JX selected study sites in Taxkorgan and obtained access to the region. FW conducted the fieldwork and experiments.FW and SR analysed the data.FW wrote the manuscript with SG,SR and JX.All authors approved the final article.

    Declaration of competing interest

    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

    Acknowledgements

    We thank the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve for permission to work in the region and for field assistance from their staff. From the Kunming Institute of Botany's Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies; Wang Zheng Hong and Mu Zhi Lin assisted in seed collection and installing microclimate stations.Yang Tian Suo gave greenhouse assistance.Hu Xiao Jian assisted with seed storage and X-ray screening at the Kunming Institute of Botany's Germplasm Bank of Wild Species. Austin G. Smith commented on the final version of the manuscript. This work was supported by a Yunnan Provincial Human Resources and Social Security Bureau Post-Doctoral Grant, Chinese Academy of Sciences President's International Fellowship Initiative grant[grant number 2020FYC0003],the National Sciences Foundation China [grant number 41661144001]and the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences [grant number QYZDY-SSW-SMC014].

    Appendix A. Supplementary data

    Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2021.07.003.

    久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 一区二区三区激情视频| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2 | 欧美性长视频在线观看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 一本久久中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 久久香蕉精品热| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 日韩免费av在线播放| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 超碰成人久久| 亚洲伊人色综图| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 怎么达到女性高潮| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 国产成人精品无人区| 国产色视频综合| 久久影院123| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 午夜精品在线福利| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 久久中文看片网| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 黄色视频不卡| 久9热在线精品视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 久久草成人影院| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 久久久久国内视频| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 黄频高清免费视频| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 咕卡用的链子| 嫩草影视91久久| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 午夜福利高清视频| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 中文字幕色久视频| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 美女午夜性视频免费| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 69精品国产乱码久久久| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产精品免费视频内射| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆 | 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 日本 av在线| 久热这里只有精品99| 香蕉丝袜av| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产av又大| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产精品免费视频内射| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产成人精品在线电影| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 国产成人精品在线电影| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产在线观看jvid| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 国产单亲对白刺激| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 热99re8久久精品国产| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产免费男女视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 久9热在线精品视频| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 久久中文字幕一级| 成人三级做爰电影| 国产99白浆流出| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产单亲对白刺激| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产激情久久老熟女| 窝窝影院91人妻| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产精品野战在线观看| 热re99久久国产66热| 一级毛片精品| 久久久久久久久中文| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| netflix在线观看网站| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 国产成人精品无人区| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 国产精品二区激情视频| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 亚洲九九香蕉| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| cao死你这个sao货| 制服诱惑二区| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 看片在线看免费视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 在线观看日韩欧美| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 一区在线观看完整版| 精品高清国产在线一区| 好男人电影高清在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| av天堂久久9| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三 | 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 午夜精品在线福利| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 久久香蕉国产精品| 国产单亲对白刺激| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产熟女xx| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 午夜福利,免费看| 国产麻豆69| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 午夜福利欧美成人| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 老司机福利观看| 国产成人欧美| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 国产精品永久免费网站| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 日本a在线网址| 国产高清videossex| 嫩草影视91久久| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 天堂动漫精品| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 黄片播放在线免费| 亚洲国产看品久久| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 免费观看人在逋| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 午夜福利欧美成人| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 亚洲精品在线美女| 91成年电影在线观看| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 99久久国产精品久久久| 亚洲成人久久性| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产高清激情床上av| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三 | 大码成人一级视频| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| aaaaa片日本免费| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 亚洲av熟女| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美午夜高清在线| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 日本欧美视频一区| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 在线观看日韩欧美| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 怎么达到女性高潮| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| av片东京热男人的天堂| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 1024视频免费在线观看| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 天堂√8在线中文| 成人三级做爰电影| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 看免费av毛片| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久久中文看片网| 精品国产一区二区久久| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 国产成人精品无人区| 窝窝影院91人妻| 在线天堂中文资源库| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 在线视频色国产色| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 午夜a级毛片| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 午夜视频精品福利| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久中文字幕一级| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 久久中文字幕一级| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 校园春色视频在线观看| 一区福利在线观看| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 久久这里只有精品19| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国产免费男女视频| 天天添夜夜摸| 无限看片的www在线观看| 国产三级黄色录像| 久久影院123| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 国产av在哪里看| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜视频精品福利| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2 | 国产色视频综合| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲av熟女| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 免费观看人在逋| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 午夜免费观看网址| 国产激情久久老熟女| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 成人手机av| 日韩免费av在线播放| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| av免费在线观看网站| 久久性视频一级片| 久热爱精品视频在线9| a在线观看视频网站| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 1024香蕉在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 欧美大码av| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 午夜福利欧美成人| 成人三级做爰电影| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 国产高清videossex| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 一区福利在线观看| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 1024香蕉在线观看| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 99re在线观看精品视频| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 国产三级在线视频| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲第一av免费看| 级片在线观看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 脱女人内裤的视频| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 一本综合久久免费| 久久久久久大精品| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 91在线观看av| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 精品高清国产在线一区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 看片在线看免费视频| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 久久中文字幕一级| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国产成人影院久久av| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 男人操女人黄网站| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 久久性视频一级片| 成年版毛片免费区| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 色播亚洲综合网| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2 | 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 亚洲全国av大片| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 成人国产综合亚洲| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 午夜a级毛片| 丁香六月欧美| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 欧美午夜高清在线| 看片在线看免费视频| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 最好的美女福利视频网| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 色播亚洲综合网| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 香蕉国产在线看| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清 | 丝袜美足系列| 国产av精品麻豆| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 一区二区三区精品91| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 女警被强在线播放| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| av福利片在线| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 禁无遮挡网站| 日韩免费av在线播放| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 日韩欧美三级三区| 久久热在线av| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 看免费av毛片| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| or卡值多少钱| 精品高清国产在线一区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 极品人妻少妇av视频| av中文乱码字幕在线| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 亚洲中文av在线| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲第一电影网av| 丰满的人妻完整版| 香蕉久久夜色| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 长腿黑丝高跟| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 一区二区三区精品91| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 88av欧美| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 电影成人av| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区 | 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 黄片大片在线免费观看| av在线播放免费不卡| 黄片播放在线免费| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 99riav亚洲国产免费|