昆嵛山不同林分类型土壤质量状况及评价
|
摘要
目的]探究昆嵛山国家级自然保护区内4种不同林分类型(日本落叶松林、蒙古栎-日本落叶松混交林、赤松林、杉木林下土壤质量状况。[方法]采用野外调查结合室内分析的方法,对不同林分下土壤剖面各层次土壤理化及生物学性质进行测定分析,运用土壤质量综合指数法结合主成分分析对不同林分土壤质量进行综合分析与评价。[结果]随土层深度的加深,不同林分土壤密度随之增加,总孔隙度随之显著降低(P<0.05);日本落叶松林、赤松林土壤毛管孔隙度均随土层深度增加而显著减小,蒙古栎-日本落叶松混交林、杉木林反之;不同林分土壤p H值均介于4.135.07之间,为酸性土壤;有机质、全氮、碱解氮、全磷、速效钾含量总体上均呈随土层深度增加而降低的趋势,呈现出土壤养分的表聚性特征;4种林分各土层全钾含量总体上无显著差异(P<0.05),日本落叶松林2040 cm、4060 cm层土壤全钾含量(2.22 g·kg~(-1)和2.34 g·kg~(-1))显著高于其他林分;除杉木林外,其他林分各土层有效磷含量均随土层深度增加而增加;除土壤蔗糖酶外,其余3种土壤酶活性在不同林分中均随土层深度的增加而减小;4种林分土壤质量综合指数大小排序为:日本落叶松林(0.792)>蒙古栎-日本落叶松混交林(0.639)>杉木林(0.353)>赤松林(0.267)。[结论]不同林分对土壤剖面各层次理化性质影响显著,不同林分类型土壤质量状况各异,其中日本落叶松林土壤质量最好,赤松林土壤质量最次。
[Objective] To explore the soil quality under the four forest types(Larix kaempferi,Quercus mongolica+Larix kaempferi,Pinus densiflora,and Cunninghamia lanceolata)in Kunyushan National Nature Reserve.[Method]Using the method of soil sampling combined with laboratory analysis,the physical and chemical properties and enzyme activities in different soil profiles under these forests were analyzed.The comprehensive analysis and evaluation of soil quality under different forest types were conducted by integrated soil quality index and principal component analysis.[Result]The soil density of different forests increased with the increase of soil depth,and the total porosity decreased significantly(P<0.05).The capillary porosity of L.kaempferi and P.densiflora were significantly reduced with the increase of soil depth,while the Q.mongolica+L.kaempferi and C.lanceolata were the opposite.The soil pH ranged from 4.13 to 5.07.The contents of soil organic matter,total nitrogen,total phosphorus,available nitrogen,and available potassium generally decreased with the increasing of soil depth,reflecting the surface aggregation characteristic of soil nutrient.On the whole,the soil total potassium content had no significant differences in different soil layers under four forest types(P<0.05),the soil total potassium content in 20-40 cm and 4060 cm layers of L.kaempferi were significantly higher than that of other forests.In addition to C.lanceolata,the soil available phosphorus content increased as soil depth increased.Except for soil invertase,the activity of other three soil enzyme decreased with the increase of soil depth.The soil quality index of these forests showed an order of L.kaempferi(0.792)>Q.mongolica+L.kaempferi(0.639)>C.lanceolata(0.353)>P.densiflora(0.267).[Conclusion]Forest type has a significant impact on the physical and chemical properties at different levels of the soil layers.The soil quality status of different forest types is different,among them,the soil quality of L.kaempferi forest is the best,and the soil quality of P.densiflora forest is the worst.
[Objective] To explore the soil quality under the four forest types(Larix kaempferi,Quercus mongolica+Larix kaempferi,Pinus densiflora,and Cunninghamia lanceolata)in Kunyushan National Nature Reserve.[Method]Using the method of soil sampling combined with laboratory analysis,the physical and chemical properties and enzyme activities in different soil profiles under these forests were analyzed.The comprehensive analysis and evaluation of soil quality under different forest types were conducted by integrated soil quality index and principal component analysis.[Result]The soil density of different forests increased with the increase of soil depth,and the total porosity decreased significantly(P<0.05).The capillary porosity of L.kaempferi and P.densiflora were significantly reduced with the increase of soil depth,while the Q.mongolica+L.kaempferi and C.lanceolata were the opposite.The soil pH ranged from 4.13 to 5.07.The contents of soil organic matter,total nitrogen,total phosphorus,available nitrogen,and available potassium generally decreased with the increasing of soil depth,reflecting the surface aggregation characteristic of soil nutrient.On the whole,the soil total potassium content had no significant differences in different soil layers under four forest types(P<0.05),the soil total potassium content in 20-40 cm and 4060 cm layers of L.kaempferi were significantly higher than that of other forests.In addition to C.lanceolata,the soil available phosphorus content increased as soil depth increased.Except for soil invertase,the activity of other three soil enzyme decreased with the increase of soil depth.The soil quality index of these forests showed an order of L.kaempferi(0.792)>Q.mongolica+L.kaempferi(0.639)>C.lanceolata(0.353)>P.densiflora(0.267).[Conclusion]Forest type has a significant impact on the physical and chemical properties at different levels of the soil layers.The soil quality status of different forest types is different,among them,the soil quality of L.kaempferi forest is the best,and the soil quality of P.densiflora forest is the worst.
引文
[1]赵其国,孙波,张桃林.土壤质量与持续环境:I.土壤质量的定义及评价方法[J].土壤,1997,29(3):113-120.
[2]Badiane N N Y,Chotte J L,Pate E,et al. Use of soil enzymes to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semi-arid tropical regions[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,2001,18(3):229-238.
[3]张贞,魏朝富,高明,等.土壤质量评价方法进展[J].土壤通报,2006,37(5):999-1006.
[4]Ding M M,Yi W M,Liao L Y,et al. Effect of afforestation on microbial biomass and activity in soils of tropical China[J]. Soil Biology&Biochemistry,1992,24(24):865-872.
[5]王芳,黄玫,孙希华,等.大小兴安岭林区不同林型土壤养分综合评价[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(1):182-187.
[6]霍小鹏,张兴华,李贤伟,等.川西米亚罗林区不同林分类型土壤养分性质研究[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(3):58-62,66.
[7]王纪伟,孙光,罗遵兰,等.汉江上游森林生态系统土壤保持服务功能研究[J].环境科学与技术,2015(12):291-297.
[8]方伟东,亢新刚,赵浩彦,等.长白山地区不同林型土壤特性及水源涵养功能[J].北京林业大学学报,2011,33(4):40-47.
[9]Zhang C X,Zhang L M,Li S M,et al. Soil Conservation of National Key Ecological Function Areas[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology,2015,6(6):397-404.
[10]Liu Z J,Zhou W,Shen J B,et al. Soil Quality Assessment of Acid Sulfate Paddy Soils with Different Productivities in Guangdong Province,China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,2014,162(13):177-186.
[11]范少辉,赵建诚,苏文会,等.不同密度毛竹林土壤质量综合评价[J].林业科学,2015,51(10):1-9.
[12]王启兰,王溪,曹广民,等.青海省海北州典型高寒草甸土壤质量评[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(6):1416-1422.
[13]黄宇,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.不同人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(12):2199-2205.
[14]Boluda R,Roca-Pérez L,Iranzo M,et al. Determination of enzymatic activities using a miniaturized system as a rapid method to assess soil quality[J]. European Journal of Soil Science,2014,65(2):286-294.
[15]张学雷,肖光平.昆嵛山山麓土壤的发生与特性[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版),1993,8(4):14-18.
[16]朱彦鹏,梁军,孙志强,等.昆嵛山森林群落数量分类、排序及多样性垂直格局[J].林业科学,2013,49(4):54-61.
[17]中华人民共和国林业局.森林土壤分析方法(中华人民共和国林业行业标准)[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1999:21-23.
[18]关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1986.
[19]Nakajima T,Lal R,Jiang S. Soil quality index of a crosby silt loam in central Ohio[J]. Soil&Tillage Research,2014,146:323-328.
[20]陈吉,赵炳梓,张佳宝,等.主成分分析方法在长期施肥土壤质量评价中的应用[J].土壤,2010,42(3):415-420.
[21]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.
[22]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.
[23]Doran J W,Parkin T B. Defining and assessing soil quality[M].Soil Science Society of American, Inc, M adison, Wisconsin,USA,1994:3221.
[24]张凯旋,商侃侃,达良俊.上海环城林带不同植物群落土壤质量综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2015,39(3):71-77.
[25]邱莉萍,刘军,王益权,等.土壤酶活性与土壤肥力的关系研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2004,10(3):277-280.
[26]孙向阳.土壤学[M].北京:中国林业出版社. 2005.
[27]王美莲,王飞,姚晓娟,等.不同林龄兴安日本落叶松枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):925-931.
[28]姜林,耿增超,张雯,等.宁夏贺兰山、六盘山典型森林类型土壤主要肥力特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(6):1982-1993.
[29]赵小婵,高楠,李紫恬,等.不同林分密度对林地土壤物理性质的影响——以华北土石山区油松人工林为例[J].安徽农业科学,2015,43(34):211-214.
[30]杜阿朋,于澎涛,王彦辉,等.六盘山北侧叠叠沟小流域土壤物理性质空间变异的研究[J].林业科学研究,2006,19(5):547-554.
[31]杨晓娟,王海燕,刘玲,等.吉林省东部低山丘陵区4种林分类型林地的土壤肥力分析[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(4):142-148.
[32]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.
[33]张连金,赖光辉,孙长忠,等.北京九龙山不同林分土壤肥力诊断与综合评[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(1):1-6.
[34]魏新,郑小锋,张硕新.秦岭火地塘不同海拔梯度森林土壤理化性质研究[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(4):9-14.
[35]杨万勤,张健,胡庭兴,等.森林土壤生态学[M].成都:四川科学技术出版社,2006:128-130..
[36]何介南,谢寄托.莽山林区不同森林土壤氮、磷含量的研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(10):83-88.
[37]杨瑞,刘帅,王紫泉,等.秦岭山脉典型林分土壤酶活性与土壤养分关系的探讨[J].土壤学报,2016,53(4):1037-1046.
[38]Brussaard L. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil[J]. Bioscience,1997,26(8):563-570.
[39]Verónica Acosta-Martínez,Leo Crusz,David Sotomayor-Rrmírez,et al. Enzyme activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,2007,35(1):35-45.
[40]刘成刚,薛建辉.喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(10):1050-1060.
[41]刘畅,邢兆凯,刘红民,等.辽西低山丘陵区不同农林复合模式土壤质量评价[J].土壤通报,2014,45(5):1049-1053.
[42]黄勇,杨忠芳.土壤质量评价国外研究进展[J].地质通报,2009,39(1):130-136.
[43]彭佳红,王华,邹冬生,等.亚热带区域几种典型人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价[J].土壤通报,2010,41(1):93-99.
[44]张继平,张林波,王风玉,等.井冈山国家级自然保护区森林土壤养分含量的空间变化[J].土壤,2014,46(2):262-268.
[2]Badiane N N Y,Chotte J L,Pate E,et al. Use of soil enzymes to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semi-arid tropical regions[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,2001,18(3):229-238.
[3]张贞,魏朝富,高明,等.土壤质量评价方法进展[J].土壤通报,2006,37(5):999-1006.
[4]Ding M M,Yi W M,Liao L Y,et al. Effect of afforestation on microbial biomass and activity in soils of tropical China[J]. Soil Biology&Biochemistry,1992,24(24):865-872.
[5]王芳,黄玫,孙希华,等.大小兴安岭林区不同林型土壤养分综合评价[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(1):182-187.
[6]霍小鹏,张兴华,李贤伟,等.川西米亚罗林区不同林分类型土壤养分性质研究[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(3):58-62,66.
[7]王纪伟,孙光,罗遵兰,等.汉江上游森林生态系统土壤保持服务功能研究[J].环境科学与技术,2015(12):291-297.
[8]方伟东,亢新刚,赵浩彦,等.长白山地区不同林型土壤特性及水源涵养功能[J].北京林业大学学报,2011,33(4):40-47.
[9]Zhang C X,Zhang L M,Li S M,et al. Soil Conservation of National Key Ecological Function Areas[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology,2015,6(6):397-404.
[10]Liu Z J,Zhou W,Shen J B,et al. Soil Quality Assessment of Acid Sulfate Paddy Soils with Different Productivities in Guangdong Province,China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,2014,162(13):177-186.
[11]范少辉,赵建诚,苏文会,等.不同密度毛竹林土壤质量综合评价[J].林业科学,2015,51(10):1-9.
[12]王启兰,王溪,曹广民,等.青海省海北州典型高寒草甸土壤质量评[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(6):1416-1422.
[13]黄宇,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.不同人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(12):2199-2205.
[14]Boluda R,Roca-Pérez L,Iranzo M,et al. Determination of enzymatic activities using a miniaturized system as a rapid method to assess soil quality[J]. European Journal of Soil Science,2014,65(2):286-294.
[15]张学雷,肖光平.昆嵛山山麓土壤的发生与特性[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版),1993,8(4):14-18.
[16]朱彦鹏,梁军,孙志强,等.昆嵛山森林群落数量分类、排序及多样性垂直格局[J].林业科学,2013,49(4):54-61.
[17]中华人民共和国林业局.森林土壤分析方法(中华人民共和国林业行业标准)[S].北京:中国标准出版社,1999:21-23.
[18]关松荫.土壤酶及其研究法[M].北京:农业出版社,1986.
[19]Nakajima T,Lal R,Jiang S. Soil quality index of a crosby silt loam in central Ohio[J]. Soil&Tillage Research,2014,146:323-328.
[20]陈吉,赵炳梓,张佳宝,等.主成分分析方法在长期施肥土壤质量评价中的应用[J].土壤,2010,42(3):415-420.
[21]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.
[22]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.
[23]Doran J W,Parkin T B. Defining and assessing soil quality[M].Soil Science Society of American, Inc, M adison, Wisconsin,USA,1994:3221.
[24]张凯旋,商侃侃,达良俊.上海环城林带不同植物群落土壤质量综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2015,39(3):71-77.
[25]邱莉萍,刘军,王益权,等.土壤酶活性与土壤肥力的关系研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2004,10(3):277-280.
[26]孙向阳.土壤学[M].北京:中国林业出版社. 2005.
[27]王美莲,王飞,姚晓娟,等.不同林龄兴安日本落叶松枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):925-931.
[28]姜林,耿增超,张雯,等.宁夏贺兰山、六盘山典型森林类型土壤主要肥力特征[J].生态学报,2013,33(6):1982-1993.
[29]赵小婵,高楠,李紫恬,等.不同林分密度对林地土壤物理性质的影响——以华北土石山区油松人工林为例[J].安徽农业科学,2015,43(34):211-214.
[30]杜阿朋,于澎涛,王彦辉,等.六盘山北侧叠叠沟小流域土壤物理性质空间变异的研究[J].林业科学研究,2006,19(5):547-554.
[31]杨晓娟,王海燕,刘玲,等.吉林省东部低山丘陵区4种林分类型林地的土壤肥力分析[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(4):142-148.
[32]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.
[33]张连金,赖光辉,孙长忠,等.北京九龙山不同林分土壤肥力诊断与综合评[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2017,37(1):1-6.
[34]魏新,郑小锋,张硕新.秦岭火地塘不同海拔梯度森林土壤理化性质研究[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(4):9-14.
[35]杨万勤,张健,胡庭兴,等.森林土壤生态学[M].成都:四川科学技术出版社,2006:128-130..
[36]何介南,谢寄托.莽山林区不同森林土壤氮、磷含量的研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(10):83-88.
[37]杨瑞,刘帅,王紫泉,等.秦岭山脉典型林分土壤酶活性与土壤养分关系的探讨[J].土壤学报,2016,53(4):1037-1046.
[38]Brussaard L. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil[J]. Bioscience,1997,26(8):563-570.
[39]Verónica Acosta-Martínez,Leo Crusz,David Sotomayor-Rrmírez,et al. Enzyme activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,2007,35(1):35-45.
[40]刘成刚,薛建辉.喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(10):1050-1060.
[41]刘畅,邢兆凯,刘红民,等.辽西低山丘陵区不同农林复合模式土壤质量评价[J].土壤通报,2014,45(5):1049-1053.
[42]黄勇,杨忠芳.土壤质量评价国外研究进展[J].地质通报,2009,39(1):130-136.
[43]彭佳红,王华,邹冬生,等.亚热带区域几种典型人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价[J].土壤通报,2010,41(1):93-99.
[44]张继平,张林波,王风玉,等.井冈山国家级自然保护区森林土壤养分含量的空间变化[J].土壤,2014,46(2):262-268.