不同林分类型对土壤理化性质特征的影响
|
摘要
[目的]为了研究不同林分类型对其土壤养分的影响,为后期人工林的培育及管理提供指导。[方法]通过野外随机取样,室内指标测定,然后进行单因素方差分析和Pearson分析,研究9种不同林分类型土壤理化性质特征。[结果]9种林分类型中,侧柏土壤有机质含量最大(30.93 g·kg~(-1))、枣树土壤有机质含量最小(15.76 g·kg~(-1));侧柏土壤全氮含量最大(2.35 g·kg~(-1)),枣树土壤全氮含量最小(1.25 g·kg~(-1));侧柏土壤全磷含量(13.55 g·kg~(-1))大于枣树土壤全磷含量(7.37 g·kg~(-1))。土壤有机质、全氮含量随土层深度增加而减小,各土层之间差异显著;土壤紧实度与土壤含水量呈现显著负相关,与土壤含水量呈现极显著正相关,土壤含水量与土壤硬度呈现显著正相关;土壤有机质含量与全氮呈显著正相关,与全磷呈极显著正相关,全氮与全磷呈现显著相关性。[结论]各林地土壤理化性质差异较大,整个样地土壤肥力保存量不高,建议应采用人工恢复与植被重建,改善该地区土壤地力,实现人工林可持续经营与发展。
[Objective] The study was conductedin order to investigate effects of different forest types on soil nutrients, and to provide guidance for the cultivation and management of plantations at the later stage. [Methods] The physical and chemical soil properties of nine different vegetation types were studied. Field soil samples were collected by random sampling method, and indoor indicators were measured. One-way ANOVA and Pearson analysis were performed. [Results] The soil organic matter content of Platycladusorientalis was the highest(30.93 g·kg~(-1)), while the lowest level was found in ZiziphusjujubaMillsamples(15.76 g·kg~(-1)). The highest soil total nitrogen content was detected inPlatycladusorientalis samples(2.35 g·kg~(-1)), and the lowest in ZiziphusjujubaMillsamples(1.25 g·kg~(-1)). The soil total phosphorus content of Platycladusorientalis(13.55 g·kg~(-1)) was higher than that of ZiziphusjujubaMill(7.37 g·kg~(-1)).With the increase of soil depth, the contents of soil organic matter and total nitrogen were decreased, and there was a significant difference among different soil layers. Soil compactness was negatively correlated with soil water content, while positively correlated with soil water content which was positively correlated with soil hardness. There was a significant positive correlation between soil organic matter and total phosphorus and a significant correlation between total nitrogen and total phosphorus. [Conclusion] The soil physical and chemical properties of each forest land were fairly different, and the soil fertility of the whole testing plot was not high. It was suggested that artificial restoration and vegetation reconstruction should be adopted to improve soil fertility and maintain sustainable management to develop plantations.
[Objective] The study was conductedin order to investigate effects of different forest types on soil nutrients, and to provide guidance for the cultivation and management of plantations at the later stage. [Methods] The physical and chemical soil properties of nine different vegetation types were studied. Field soil samples were collected by random sampling method, and indoor indicators were measured. One-way ANOVA and Pearson analysis were performed. [Results] The soil organic matter content of Platycladusorientalis was the highest(30.93 g·kg~(-1)), while the lowest level was found in ZiziphusjujubaMillsamples(15.76 g·kg~(-1)). The highest soil total nitrogen content was detected inPlatycladusorientalis samples(2.35 g·kg~(-1)), and the lowest in ZiziphusjujubaMillsamples(1.25 g·kg~(-1)). The soil total phosphorus content of Platycladusorientalis(13.55 g·kg~(-1)) was higher than that of ZiziphusjujubaMill(7.37 g·kg~(-1)).With the increase of soil depth, the contents of soil organic matter and total nitrogen were decreased, and there was a significant difference among different soil layers. Soil compactness was negatively correlated with soil water content, while positively correlated with soil water content which was positively correlated with soil hardness. There was a significant positive correlation between soil organic matter and total phosphorus and a significant correlation between total nitrogen and total phosphorus. [Conclusion] The soil physical and chemical properties of each forest land were fairly different, and the soil fertility of the whole testing plot was not high. It was suggested that artificial restoration and vegetation reconstruction should be adopted to improve soil fertility and maintain sustainable management to develop plantations.
引文
[1]汪泰,王慧姣,包立,等.通海县菜地土壤养分状况分析与评价[J]. 中国农学通报,2016, 32(24):162-167.
[2]童永全. 通海烟区植烟土壤主要养分状况及土壤改良策略研究[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2012.
[3]马云波,许中旗,张岩,等.冀北山区华北落叶松人工林对土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(4):165-170.
[4]王清奎,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.杉木人工林土壤有机质研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004, 15(10):1947-1952.
[5]Haynes R J,Swift R S,Stephen R C. Influence of mixed cropping rotation(Pasture-arable)on organic matter content, water stable aggregation and clod porosity in a group of soils[J].Soil Tillage Research, 1991, 19(1):77-87.
[6]Trujillo W, Amezquita E, Fisher M J, et al. Soil organic carbon dynamics and land use in the Colombian savannas. I. Aggregate size distribution.[C]//Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle,1998:267-280.
[7]Karlen D L, Rosek M J, Gardner J C, et al. Conservation reserve program effects on soil quality indicators[J].Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1999, 54(1):439-444.
[8]Jefrey E H, Michelle M W. Relationships between soil organic carbon and soil quality cropped and rangeland soils: the importance of distribution,composition,and soil biological activity[M]. Florida:CRC Press, 1997:405-425.
[9]杨承栋.森林土壤学科研究进展与展望[J].土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):881-891.
[10]Nsabimana D, Klemedtson L, Kaplin B A, et al. Soil carbon and nutrient accumulation under forest plantations in southern Rwanda[J].African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2008, 2(6):142-149.
[11]刘茂,王雪梅,陈波浪,等.库尔勒市香梨园土壤肥力评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2015, 33(3):93-98.
[12]张昌顺,李昆.人工林地力的衰退与维护研究综述[J]. 世界林业研究, 2005, 18(1):17-21.
[13]张冬明,谢良商,张文,等.海南主要油茶林土壤肥力调查与评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2015, 33(1):79-85.
[14]孙嘉,王海燕,丁国栋,等.不同密度华北落叶松人工林土壤理化性质研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2011(1):62-66.
[15]付志芳,叶松涛.人工林地力衰退原因及其对策分析[J]. 湖北林业科技, 2013, 42(4):30-33.
[16]陈立新,肖洋.大兴安岭林区落叶松林地不同发育阶段土壤肥力演变与评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2006, 4(5):50-55.
[17]车越,纪福利,王利东,等.塞罕坝不同立地华北落叶松人工林空间结构比较[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014, 34(4):60-63.
[18]景丽,朱志红,王孝安,等.秦岭油松人工林与次生林群落特征比较[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2008, 56(6):711-717.
[19]侯庸,王桂青,张良.华北落叶松群落与土壤肥力的关系[J]. 河北大学学报(自然科学版), 2001, 21(3):310-315.
[20]王宏星,孙晓梅,陈东升,等.甘肃小陇山日本华北落叶松人工林不同发育阶段土壤理化性质的变化[J]. 林业科学研究, 2012, 25(3):294-301.
[21]魏国良.坡地枣树根系分布及其与土壤水分养分的关系研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2011.
[22]康冰,刘世荣,蔡道雄,等.马尾松人工林林分密度对林下植被及土壤性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(10):2323-2331.
[23]纪文婧,程小琴,韩海荣,等.山西太岳山好地方典型植被类型土壤理化性质特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(1):141-148.
[24]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.
[25]赵伟红,康峰峰,韩海荣,等.冀北辽河源地区不同林龄油松天然次生林土壤理化特征的研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2014, 29(3):1-8.
[26]李嘉,潘兴瑶,牛勇,等.北方典型林地系统土壤水分动态和水量平衡随机模拟研究[J]. 陕西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(2):80-87.
[27]祝飞华,王益权,胡卫光,等.关中农田土壤剖面的主要物理性状研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(4):145-150.
[28]程瑞梅,肖文发,王晓荣,等.三峡库区植被不同演替阶段的土壤养分特征[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(9):1-6.
[29]王勋曜,孙宏彦,于辉,等.天坛公园油松、侧柏大树根系分布特征[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2018, 33(1):89-98.
[30]耿玉清,余新晓,岳永杰,等.北京山地森林的土壤养分状况[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(5):169-175.
[31]石利军,王小云,胡振华.土地利用方式对土壤基本性质及肥力的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(6):106-108.
[32]刘兴诏,周国逸,张德强,等.南亚热带森林不同演替阶段植物与土壤中N、P的化学计量特征[J].植物生态学报, 2010, 34(1):64-71.
[33]冯天骄,卫伟,陈利顶,等.陇中黄土坡面整地和植被类型对土壤化学性状的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(11):3216-3225.
[34]曲国辉,郭继勋.松嫩平原不同演替阶段植物群落和土壤特性的关系[J]. 草业学报, 2003, 12(1):18-22.
[2]童永全. 通海烟区植烟土壤主要养分状况及土壤改良策略研究[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2012.
[3]马云波,许中旗,张岩,等.冀北山区华北落叶松人工林对土壤化学性质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(4):165-170.
[4]王清奎,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.杉木人工林土壤有机质研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004, 15(10):1947-1952.
[5]Haynes R J,Swift R S,Stephen R C. Influence of mixed cropping rotation(Pasture-arable)on organic matter content, water stable aggregation and clod porosity in a group of soils[J].Soil Tillage Research, 1991, 19(1):77-87.
[6]Trujillo W, Amezquita E, Fisher M J, et al. Soil organic carbon dynamics and land use in the Colombian savannas. I. Aggregate size distribution.[C]//Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle,1998:267-280.
[7]Karlen D L, Rosek M J, Gardner J C, et al. Conservation reserve program effects on soil quality indicators[J].Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1999, 54(1):439-444.
[8]Jefrey E H, Michelle M W. Relationships between soil organic carbon and soil quality cropped and rangeland soils: the importance of distribution,composition,and soil biological activity[M]. Florida:CRC Press, 1997:405-425.
[9]杨承栋.森林土壤学科研究进展与展望[J].土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):881-891.
[10]Nsabimana D, Klemedtson L, Kaplin B A, et al. Soil carbon and nutrient accumulation under forest plantations in southern Rwanda[J].African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2008, 2(6):142-149.
[11]刘茂,王雪梅,陈波浪,等.库尔勒市香梨园土壤肥力评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2015, 33(3):93-98.
[12]张昌顺,李昆.人工林地力的衰退与维护研究综述[J]. 世界林业研究, 2005, 18(1):17-21.
[13]张冬明,谢良商,张文,等.海南主要油茶林土壤肥力调查与评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2015, 33(1):79-85.
[14]孙嘉,王海燕,丁国栋,等.不同密度华北落叶松人工林土壤理化性质研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2011(1):62-66.
[15]付志芳,叶松涛.人工林地力衰退原因及其对策分析[J]. 湖北林业科技, 2013, 42(4):30-33.
[16]陈立新,肖洋.大兴安岭林区落叶松林地不同发育阶段土壤肥力演变与评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2006, 4(5):50-55.
[17]车越,纪福利,王利东,等.塞罕坝不同立地华北落叶松人工林空间结构比较[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014, 34(4):60-63.
[18]景丽,朱志红,王孝安,等.秦岭油松人工林与次生林群落特征比较[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2008, 56(6):711-717.
[19]侯庸,王桂青,张良.华北落叶松群落与土壤肥力的关系[J]. 河北大学学报(自然科学版), 2001, 21(3):310-315.
[20]王宏星,孙晓梅,陈东升,等.甘肃小陇山日本华北落叶松人工林不同发育阶段土壤理化性质的变化[J]. 林业科学研究, 2012, 25(3):294-301.
[21]魏国良.坡地枣树根系分布及其与土壤水分养分的关系研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2011.
[22]康冰,刘世荣,蔡道雄,等.马尾松人工林林分密度对林下植被及土壤性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(10):2323-2331.
[23]纪文婧,程小琴,韩海荣,等.山西太岳山好地方典型植被类型土壤理化性质特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(1):141-148.
[24]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.
[25]赵伟红,康峰峰,韩海荣,等.冀北辽河源地区不同林龄油松天然次生林土壤理化特征的研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2014, 29(3):1-8.
[26]李嘉,潘兴瑶,牛勇,等.北方典型林地系统土壤水分动态和水量平衡随机模拟研究[J]. 陕西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(2):80-87.
[27]祝飞华,王益权,胡卫光,等.关中农田土壤剖面的主要物理性状研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2014, 32(4):145-150.
[28]程瑞梅,肖文发,王晓荣,等.三峡库区植被不同演替阶段的土壤养分特征[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(9):1-6.
[29]王勋曜,孙宏彦,于辉,等.天坛公园油松、侧柏大树根系分布特征[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2018, 33(1):89-98.
[30]耿玉清,余新晓,岳永杰,等.北京山地森林的土壤养分状况[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(5):169-175.
[31]石利军,王小云,胡振华.土地利用方式对土壤基本性质及肥力的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(6):106-108.
[32]刘兴诏,周国逸,张德强,等.南亚热带森林不同演替阶段植物与土壤中N、P的化学计量特征[J].植物生态学报, 2010, 34(1):64-71.
[33]冯天骄,卫伟,陈利顶,等.陇中黄土坡面整地和植被类型对土壤化学性状的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(11):3216-3225.
[34]曲国辉,郭继勋.松嫩平原不同演替阶段植物群落和土壤特性的关系[J]. 草业学报, 2003, 12(1):18-22.