不同衰老程度顶坛花椒土壤养分质量的评价
|
摘要
【目的】为喀斯特石漠化地区花椒林地土壤肥力改良及植被恢复提供科学依据。【方法】以花江峡谷地区6种不同衰老程度顶坛花椒林地土壤为研究对象,通过测定其有机碳(SOC)、全氮(TN)、碱解氮(AN)和全磷(TP)等29项土壤养分及矿质元素化学指标,并运用主成分分析法以及构建土壤质量评价的最小数据集,对顶坛花椒土壤的养分质量进行评价。【结果】1)不同衰老程度顶坛花椒的土壤养分含量存在差异,总体表现出衰老退化较轻花椒林地土壤养分含量高于衰老退化严重的花椒林地。2)研究区土壤养分质量评价的最小数据集有二氧化硅(SiO2)、硼(B)、全钾(TK)、钼(Mo)、速效磷(AP)和速效钾(AK) 6个指标。3)全体数据集土壤质量评价分值依次为低挂果植株(315. 410)>幼树衰老植株(233. 972)>黄叶+低挂果植株(80. 844)>全死亡植株(-35. 366)> 4/5死亡植株(-268. 017)> 1/2死亡植株(-326. 845)。【结论】衰老退化较轻的顶坛花椒林地的土壤质量较好,但6种(Ⅰ～Ⅵ)不同衰老程度顶坛花椒林地均需要对应增施不同肥料改良土壤质量。
【Objective】29 soil nutrients and mineral elements of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with different aging level in Huajiang valley area were determined and the soil nutrient quality of Zanthoxylum planispinum forest was evaluated by using the principal component analysis and established minimum data set to provide the scientific basis for soil fertility improvement and vegetation recovery of Zanthoxylum planispinum forest in karst stony desertification area. 【Result】There is a difference in content of soil nutrients among different kinds of Zanthoxylum planispinum forests and the soil nutrient content of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with mild aging level is higher than Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with high aging level generally. The minimum data set of soil nutrient quality evaluation in the research area includes six indexes of SiO2,B,TK,Mo,AP and AK. The soil quality evaluation score of total data sets is low fruiting tree( 315. 410) > young senescent tree( 233. 972) > yellow leaves + low fruiting tree( 80. 844) > complete death tree(-35. 366) > 4/5 death tree(-268. 017) > 1/2 death tree(-326. 845). 【Conclusion】In conclusion,the soil quality of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with low aging level is better but six Zanthoxylum planispinum forests with different aging levels( Ⅰ-Ⅵ) should be applied with different fertilizers to improve soil quality.
【Objective】29 soil nutrients and mineral elements of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with different aging level in Huajiang valley area were determined and the soil nutrient quality of Zanthoxylum planispinum forest was evaluated by using the principal component analysis and established minimum data set to provide the scientific basis for soil fertility improvement and vegetation recovery of Zanthoxylum planispinum forest in karst stony desertification area. 【Result】There is a difference in content of soil nutrients among different kinds of Zanthoxylum planispinum forests and the soil nutrient content of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with mild aging level is higher than Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with high aging level generally. The minimum data set of soil nutrient quality evaluation in the research area includes six indexes of SiO2,B,TK,Mo,AP and AK. The soil quality evaluation score of total data sets is low fruiting tree( 315. 410) > young senescent tree( 233. 972) > yellow leaves + low fruiting tree( 80. 844) > complete death tree(-35. 366) > 4/5 death tree(-268. 017) > 1/2 death tree(-326. 845). 【Conclusion】In conclusion,the soil quality of Zanthoxylum planispinum trees with low aging level is better but six Zanthoxylum planispinum forests with different aging levels( Ⅰ-Ⅵ) should be applied with different fertilizers to improve soil quality.
引文
[1]贡璐,张海峰,吕光辉,等.塔里木河上游典型绿洲不同连作年限棉田土壤质量评价[J].生态学报,2011,31(14):4136-4143.
[2]赵娜,孟平,张劲松,等.华北低丘山地不同退耕年限刺槐人工林土壤质量评价[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(2):351-358.
[3]刘占锋,傅伯杰,刘国华,等.土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J].生态学报,2006,26(3):901-913.
[4]YAO R J,YANG J S,GAO P,et al. Determining minimum data setfor soil quality assessment of typical salt-affected farmland in thecoastal reclamation area[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2013,128:137-148.
[5]ASKARI M S,HOLDEN N M. Indices for quantitative evaluation ofsoil quality under grassland management[J]. Geoderma,2014,230:131-142.
[6]ZHANG G L,BAI J H,XI M,et al. Soil quality assessment of coast-al wetlands in the Yellow River Delta of China based on the minimumdata set[J]. Ecological Indicators,2016,66:458-466.
[7]周玮,周运超,田春.花江喀斯特地区花椒人工林的土壤酶演变[J].中国岩溶,2008,27(3):240-245.
[8]罗广元,李鸿杰,杨斌.西北山地花椒-农作物复合种植的生态经济效益研究[J].中国水土保持,2017(4):31-34.
[9]毛庆功,鲁显楷,陈浩,等.陆地生态系统植物多样性对矿质元素输入的响应[J].生态学报,2015,35(17):5884-5897.
[10]田大伦,黄智勇,付晓萍.模拟酸雨对盆栽樟树(Cinnamomumcamphora)幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].生态学报,2007,27(3):1099-1105.
[11]刘伟玮,刘某承,李文华,等.辽东山区林参复合经营土壤质量评价[J].生态学报,2017,37(8):2631-2641.
[12]何腾兵,刘元生,李天智,等.贵州喀斯特峡谷水保经济植物花椒土壤特性研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):55-59.
[13]王忠林,李会科,贺秀贤.渭北旱塬花椒地埂林土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(1):33-37.
[14]罗友进,魏朝富,李渝,等.土地利用对石漠化地区土壤团聚体有机碳分布及保护的影响[J].生态学报,2011,31(1):257-266.
[15]廖洪凯,龙健,李娟,等.花椒(Zanthoxylum bungeamun)种植对喀斯特山区土壤水稳性团聚体分布及有机碳周转的影响[J].生态学杂志,2015,34(1):106-113.
[16]彭建,杨明德.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失状态分析[J].山地学报,2001,19(6):511-515.
[17]邓绍欢,曾令涛,关强,等.基于最小数据集的南方地区冷浸田土壤质量评价[J].土壤学报,2016,53(5):1326-1333.
[18]张子龙,王文全,缪作清,等.主成分分析在三七连作土壤质量综合评价中的应用[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(6):1636-1644.
[19]王飞,李清华,林诚,等.福建冷浸田土壤质量评价因子的最小数据集[J].应用生态学报,2015,26(5):1461-1468.
[20]胡忠良,潘根兴,李恋卿,等.贵州喀斯特山区不同植被下土壤C、N、P含量和空间异质性[J].生态学报,2009,29(8):4187-4195.
[21]庞圣江,张培,贾宏炎,等.桂西北不同森林类型土壤生态化学计量特征[J].中国农学通报,2015,31(1):17-23.
[22]张平究,潘根兴.不同恢复方式下退化岩溶山区土壤微生物特性[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(2):189-194.
[23]郭剑芬,杨玉盛,陈光水,等.森林凋落物分解研究进展[J].林业科学,2006,42(4):93-100.
[24]王强,温晓刚,卢从明,等.超高产杂交稻‘华安3号’冠层不同衰老程度叶片的光合功能[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(1):39-46.
[25]杨凤娟,刘世琦,王秀峰.土壤硼水平对大蒜生理生化及产量和品质的影响[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(5):1011-1016.
[26]邢雪荣,张蕾.植物的硅素营养研究综述[J].植物学通报,1998,15(2):33-40.
[27]张国芹,徐坤,王兴翠,等.硅对生姜叶片水、二氧化碳交换特性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(8):1702-1707.
[28]李迎春,陈双林,岳永德,等.持续淹水对河竹器官养分元素分配格局的影响[J].生态学报,2017,37(10):3482-3493.
[2]赵娜,孟平,张劲松,等.华北低丘山地不同退耕年限刺槐人工林土壤质量评价[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(2):351-358.
[3]刘占锋,傅伯杰,刘国华,等.土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J].生态学报,2006,26(3):901-913.
[4]YAO R J,YANG J S,GAO P,et al. Determining minimum data setfor soil quality assessment of typical salt-affected farmland in thecoastal reclamation area[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2013,128:137-148.
[5]ASKARI M S,HOLDEN N M. Indices for quantitative evaluation ofsoil quality under grassland management[J]. Geoderma,2014,230:131-142.
[6]ZHANG G L,BAI J H,XI M,et al. Soil quality assessment of coast-al wetlands in the Yellow River Delta of China based on the minimumdata set[J]. Ecological Indicators,2016,66:458-466.
[7]周玮,周运超,田春.花江喀斯特地区花椒人工林的土壤酶演变[J].中国岩溶,2008,27(3):240-245.
[8]罗广元,李鸿杰,杨斌.西北山地花椒-农作物复合种植的生态经济效益研究[J].中国水土保持,2017(4):31-34.
[9]毛庆功,鲁显楷,陈浩,等.陆地生态系统植物多样性对矿质元素输入的响应[J].生态学报,2015,35(17):5884-5897.
[10]田大伦,黄智勇,付晓萍.模拟酸雨对盆栽樟树(Cinnamomumcamphora)幼苗叶矿质元素含量的影响[J].生态学报,2007,27(3):1099-1105.
[11]刘伟玮,刘某承,李文华,等.辽东山区林参复合经营土壤质量评价[J].生态学报,2017,37(8):2631-2641.
[12]何腾兵,刘元生,李天智,等.贵州喀斯特峡谷水保经济植物花椒土壤特性研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):55-59.
[13]王忠林,李会科,贺秀贤.渭北旱塬花椒地埂林土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(1):33-37.
[14]罗友进,魏朝富,李渝,等.土地利用对石漠化地区土壤团聚体有机碳分布及保护的影响[J].生态学报,2011,31(1):257-266.
[15]廖洪凯,龙健,李娟,等.花椒(Zanthoxylum bungeamun)种植对喀斯特山区土壤水稳性团聚体分布及有机碳周转的影响[J].生态学杂志,2015,34(1):106-113.
[16]彭建,杨明德.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失状态分析[J].山地学报,2001,19(6):511-515.
[17]邓绍欢,曾令涛,关强,等.基于最小数据集的南方地区冷浸田土壤质量评价[J].土壤学报,2016,53(5):1326-1333.
[18]张子龙,王文全,缪作清,等.主成分分析在三七连作土壤质量综合评价中的应用[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(6):1636-1644.
[19]王飞,李清华,林诚,等.福建冷浸田土壤质量评价因子的最小数据集[J].应用生态学报,2015,26(5):1461-1468.
[20]胡忠良,潘根兴,李恋卿,等.贵州喀斯特山区不同植被下土壤C、N、P含量和空间异质性[J].生态学报,2009,29(8):4187-4195.
[21]庞圣江,张培,贾宏炎,等.桂西北不同森林类型土壤生态化学计量特征[J].中国农学通报,2015,31(1):17-23.
[22]张平究,潘根兴.不同恢复方式下退化岩溶山区土壤微生物特性[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(2):189-194.
[23]郭剑芬,杨玉盛,陈光水,等.森林凋落物分解研究进展[J].林业科学,2006,42(4):93-100.
[24]王强,温晓刚,卢从明,等.超高产杂交稻‘华安3号’冠层不同衰老程度叶片的光合功能[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(1):39-46.
[25]杨凤娟,刘世琦,王秀峰.土壤硼水平对大蒜生理生化及产量和品质的影响[J].中国农业科学,2005,38(5):1011-1016.
[26]邢雪荣,张蕾.植物的硅素营养研究综述[J].植物学通报,1998,15(2):33-40.
[27]张国芹,徐坤,王兴翠,等.硅对生姜叶片水、二氧化碳交换特性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(8):1702-1707.
[28]李迎春,陈双林,岳永德,等.持续淹水对河竹器官养分元素分配格局的影响[J].生态学报,2017,37(10):3482-3493.