不同植被恢复类型对高速公路边坡土壤质量的影响
|
摘要
为探讨种植杠柳(Periploca sepium)与鸡矢藤(Paederia scandens)对高速公路边坡土壤质量恢复效果,对其下0~10 cm、10~20 cm、20~30 cm土层的土壤理化性质及生物活性进行研究,与传统护坡植被紫穗槐(Amorpha fruticosa)进行比较,通过主成分分析,对3种植被恢复下土壤质量进行综合评价。结果表明:土壤养分及酶活性基本表现为鸡矢藤植被下最高,微生物数量为紫穗槐植被下最高;土壤含水量、土壤养分、微生物数量及酶活性均表现出随着土层加深不断递减,土壤容重和pH则相反;土壤微生物数量和土壤酶活性均呈现季节变化;土壤质量综合评价结果表明,鸡矢藤(0.33)>紫穗槐(-0.11)>杠柳(-0.21),鸡矢藤对土壤质量恢复效果最好,优于传统护坡植被紫穗槐,杠柳对土壤的恢复能力与紫穗槐相差不大,因此鸡矢藤与杠柳均可作为优良的高速公路护坡植被进行推广应用。
To explore the effect of planting Periploca sepium and Paederia scandens on soil quality restoration of highway slope,the season dynamic of soil physical and chemical properties,microbial quantity and soil enzyme activity were studied at soil depth of 0-10 cm,10-20 cm and 20-30 cm under two kinds of vegetation compared with the traditional slope protected vegetation Amorpha fruticosa,and the comprehensive evaluation of soil quality under the three plants was analyzed by principal component analysis.Results showed that:(1) Various nutrient indices and soil enzyme activity were higher under Paederia scandens,and the soil microorganism quantity was the highest under Amorpha fruticos;(2) The contents of soil moisture and soil nutrient,microorganism quantity and enzyme activity declined with soil layer while the soil bulk density and p H appeared an opposite trend;(3) Microorganism quantity and soil enzyme activities presented seasonal change;(4) Comprehensive evaluation results of soil quality showed Paederia scandens(0.33) > Amorpha fruticosa(-0.11) >Periploca sepium(-0.21).Paederia scandends was the best to soil quality restoration,and the restoration effect of soil quality was nearly similar between Amorpha fruticosa and Periploca sepium.Paederia scandens and Periploca sepium both could be used as excellent vegetable types for highway slope protection.
To explore the effect of planting Periploca sepium and Paederia scandens on soil quality restoration of highway slope,the season dynamic of soil physical and chemical properties,microbial quantity and soil enzyme activity were studied at soil depth of 0-10 cm,10-20 cm and 20-30 cm under two kinds of vegetation compared with the traditional slope protected vegetation Amorpha fruticosa,and the comprehensive evaluation of soil quality under the three plants was analyzed by principal component analysis.Results showed that:(1) Various nutrient indices and soil enzyme activity were higher under Paederia scandens,and the soil microorganism quantity was the highest under Amorpha fruticos;(2) The contents of soil moisture and soil nutrient,microorganism quantity and enzyme activity declined with soil layer while the soil bulk density and p H appeared an opposite trend;(3) Microorganism quantity and soil enzyme activities presented seasonal change;(4) Comprehensive evaluation results of soil quality showed Paederia scandens(0.33) > Amorpha fruticosa(-0.11) >Periploca sepium(-0.21).Paederia scandends was the best to soil quality restoration,and the restoration effect of soil quality was nearly similar between Amorpha fruticosa and Periploca sepium.Paederia scandens and Periploca sepium both could be used as excellent vegetable types for highway slope protection.
引文
[1]刘春霞,韩烈保.高速公路边坡植被恢复研究进展[J].土壤学报,2007,27(5):2090-2098.
[2]李妮,陈其兵,谭昌明.高速公路边坡乡土灌木建植模式水土保持效益[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(1):67-71.
[3]CARY R H,SOTIR R B.Biotechnical stabilization of highway cut slope[J].Journal of Geotechnical Engineer,1992,118(19):1395-1409.
[4]URSINO N,CONTARINI S.Stability of banded vegetation patterns under seasonal rainfall and limited soil moisture storage capacity[J].Advances in Water Resources,2006,10(29):1556-1564.
[5]潘声旺,何茂萍,杨丽娟,等.先锋植物丰富度对公路边坡植物群落生长发育及护坡效益的影响[J].林业科学,2013,49(11):24-31.
[6]薛鸥,魏天兴,刘飞,等.公路边坡植物群落多样性与土壤因子耦合关系[J].北京林业大学学报,2016,38(1):91-100.
[7]陈金成,张显国.杠柳在高速公路绿化中的应用研究[J].公路交通科技,2010,(12):65-66.
[8]张显国,王学丽.鸡矢藤在河北高速公路绿化上的应用前景[J].河北林业科技,2008,(4):123-124.
[9]章家恩,廖宗文.试论土壤的生态肥力及其培育[J].土壤与环境,2000,9(3):253-256.
[10]Abbott L K,Murphy D v.Soil Biological Fertility[M].Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003.
[11]段青青,樊文华,吴艳军,等.旅游踩踏对五台山北台山地草甸土酶活性的影响[J].土壤通报,2015,46(6):1441-1446.
[12]付美云,杨宁,杨满元,等.衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同恢复阶段土壤微生物与养分的耦合关系[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(1):41-48.
[13]鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[14]林先贵.土壤微生物研究原理与方法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2010.
[15]关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1986.
[16]和丽萍,李贵祥,孟广涛,等.高黎贡山不同森林类型土壤肥力状况研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(6):116-121.
[17]于洋,王海燕,丁国栋,等.华北落叶松人工林土壤微生物数量特征及其与土壤性质的关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(3):76-80.
[18]张德楠,徐广平,张中锋,等.十万大山地区典型次生阔叶林土壤微生物数量及酶活性的季节动态[J].广西植物,2016,36(2):200-207.
[19]黄利东,汪丽军,王月.植被类型对滨海湿地土壤酶活性的影响研究[J].土壤通报,2015,46(6):1447-1452.
[20]邱权,李吉跃,王军辉,等.西宁南山4种灌木根际和非根际土壤微生物、酶活性和养分特征[J].生态学报,2014,34(24):7411-7429.
[21]冯岩松.SPSS22.0统计分析应用教程[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2015.
[22]刘子壮,赵晶,高照良.高速公路边坡不同恢复年限土壤性质及生态防护模式研究[J].科学技术与工程,2014,14(12):100-106.
[23]吕桂芬,吴永胜,李浩,等.荒漠草原不同退化阶段土壤微生物、土壤养分及酶活性的研究[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(1):104-109.
[24]张燕燕,曲来叶,陈利顶,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区不同植被类型土壤微生物特性[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(1):165-173.
[25]王从彦,曹震,王磊,等.豆科植物对根际土壤微生物种群及代谢的影响[J].生态环境学报,2013,22(1):85-89.
[26]贾举杰,李金花,王刚,等.添加豆科植物对弃耕地土壤养分和微生物量的影响[J].兰州大学学报,2007,43(5):33-37.
[27]王理德,姚拓,王方琳,等.石羊河下游退耕地土壤微生物变化及土壤酶活性[J].生态学报,2016,36(15):4769-4779.
[28]方晰,田大伦,武丽花,等.植被修复对锰矿渣废弃地土壤微生物数量与酶活性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,24(4):221-226.
[29]BADIANE N N Y,CHOTTW J L,PATE E,et al.Use of soil enzyme activities to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semiarid tropical regions[J].Applied Soil Ecology,2011,18(3):229-238.
[30]徐少君,类淑桐,曾波,等.三峡库区4种库岸边坡的植被根系固土效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(2):119-123,131.
[31]曹容,张金池,司登宇,等.浙江凤阳山不同林地类型土壤微生物季节动态[J].林业科技开发,2014,28(6):41-45.
[32]南丽丽,郭全恩,向华,等.甘肃省盐碱草地主要植物群落土壤酶活性研究[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(4):311-315.
[33]SARDANS J,PENUELAS J.Drought decreases soil enzyme activity in a mediterranean Quercus ilex L.forest[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2005,37(3):455-46.
[34]李清雪,贾志清.高寒沙地不同植被恢复类型土壤肥力质量差异及评价[J].土壤通报,2015,46(5):1145-1154.
[35]孙朋,巩杰,王玉川,等.民勤绿洲荒漠交错带不同土地覆被下土壤养分分布特征[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(3):53-57,164.
[2]李妮,陈其兵,谭昌明.高速公路边坡乡土灌木建植模式水土保持效益[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(1):67-71.
[3]CARY R H,SOTIR R B.Biotechnical stabilization of highway cut slope[J].Journal of Geotechnical Engineer,1992,118(19):1395-1409.
[4]URSINO N,CONTARINI S.Stability of banded vegetation patterns under seasonal rainfall and limited soil moisture storage capacity[J].Advances in Water Resources,2006,10(29):1556-1564.
[5]潘声旺,何茂萍,杨丽娟,等.先锋植物丰富度对公路边坡植物群落生长发育及护坡效益的影响[J].林业科学,2013,49(11):24-31.
[6]薛鸥,魏天兴,刘飞,等.公路边坡植物群落多样性与土壤因子耦合关系[J].北京林业大学学报,2016,38(1):91-100.
[7]陈金成,张显国.杠柳在高速公路绿化中的应用研究[J].公路交通科技,2010,(12):65-66.
[8]张显国,王学丽.鸡矢藤在河北高速公路绿化上的应用前景[J].河北林业科技,2008,(4):123-124.
[9]章家恩,廖宗文.试论土壤的生态肥力及其培育[J].土壤与环境,2000,9(3):253-256.
[10]Abbott L K,Murphy D v.Soil Biological Fertility[M].Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003.
[11]段青青,樊文华,吴艳军,等.旅游踩踏对五台山北台山地草甸土酶活性的影响[J].土壤通报,2015,46(6):1441-1446.
[12]付美云,杨宁,杨满元,等.衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同恢复阶段土壤微生物与养分的耦合关系[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(1):41-48.
[13]鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[14]林先贵.土壤微生物研究原理与方法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2010.
[15]关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1986.
[16]和丽萍,李贵祥,孟广涛,等.高黎贡山不同森林类型土壤肥力状况研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(6):116-121.
[17]于洋,王海燕,丁国栋,等.华北落叶松人工林土壤微生物数量特征及其与土壤性质的关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(3):76-80.
[18]张德楠,徐广平,张中锋,等.十万大山地区典型次生阔叶林土壤微生物数量及酶活性的季节动态[J].广西植物,2016,36(2):200-207.
[19]黄利东,汪丽军,王月.植被类型对滨海湿地土壤酶活性的影响研究[J].土壤通报,2015,46(6):1447-1452.
[20]邱权,李吉跃,王军辉,等.西宁南山4种灌木根际和非根际土壤微生物、酶活性和养分特征[J].生态学报,2014,34(24):7411-7429.
[21]冯岩松.SPSS22.0统计分析应用教程[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2015.
[22]刘子壮,赵晶,高照良.高速公路边坡不同恢复年限土壤性质及生态防护模式研究[J].科学技术与工程,2014,14(12):100-106.
[23]吕桂芬,吴永胜,李浩,等.荒漠草原不同退化阶段土壤微生物、土壤养分及酶活性的研究[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(1):104-109.
[24]张燕燕,曲来叶,陈利顶,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区不同植被类型土壤微生物特性[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(1):165-173.
[25]王从彦,曹震,王磊,等.豆科植物对根际土壤微生物种群及代谢的影响[J].生态环境学报,2013,22(1):85-89.
[26]贾举杰,李金花,王刚,等.添加豆科植物对弃耕地土壤养分和微生物量的影响[J].兰州大学学报,2007,43(5):33-37.
[27]王理德,姚拓,王方琳,等.石羊河下游退耕地土壤微生物变化及土壤酶活性[J].生态学报,2016,36(15):4769-4779.
[28]方晰,田大伦,武丽花,等.植被修复对锰矿渣废弃地土壤微生物数量与酶活性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,24(4):221-226.
[29]BADIANE N N Y,CHOTTW J L,PATE E,et al.Use of soil enzyme activities to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semiarid tropical regions[J].Applied Soil Ecology,2011,18(3):229-238.
[30]徐少君,类淑桐,曾波,等.三峡库区4种库岸边坡的植被根系固土效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(2):119-123,131.
[31]曹容,张金池,司登宇,等.浙江凤阳山不同林地类型土壤微生物季节动态[J].林业科技开发,2014,28(6):41-45.
[32]南丽丽,郭全恩,向华,等.甘肃省盐碱草地主要植物群落土壤酶活性研究[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(4):311-315.
[33]SARDANS J,PENUELAS J.Drought decreases soil enzyme activity in a mediterranean Quercus ilex L.forest[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2005,37(3):455-46.
[34]李清雪,贾志清.高寒沙地不同植被恢复类型土壤肥力质量差异及评价[J].土壤通报,2015,46(5):1145-1154.
[35]孙朋,巩杰,王玉川,等.民勤绿洲荒漠交错带不同土地覆被下土壤养分分布特征[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(3):53-57,164.