干热河谷冲沟沟岸葛藤不同覆被状况及土壤性质差异分析
Analysis of soil properties in gully banks under different coverage of Kudzu in a dry-hot valley region
查看参考文献35篇
校亮
1,2,3
熊东红
1,2
*
张宝军
1,2,3
张素
1,2,3
吴汉
1,2,3
杨丹
1,2,3
|
文摘
|
沟岸是干热河谷冲沟系统中土壤生态环境最为恶劣的地带,其水热矛盾突出、土层浅薄、土壤贫瘠。探讨葛藤覆被对沟岸土壤性质的影响,可为沟岸土壤改良与植被恢复奠定基础。以元谋干热河谷区葛藤覆被的冲沟沟岸为研究对象,选取裸露地块作为对照(CK),根据藤本生物量设置4个处理(T1 :309.70 g/m~2鲜被物,T2、T3、T4:594.34、1103.43、1693.27 g/m~2枯落物),对比研究了葛藤不同覆被状况对沟岸土壤性质的影响。结果表明:沟岸土壤性质受葛藤覆被类型(鲜/枯)及生物量共同影响。①较裸露沟岸(11.05%),枯藤覆被有益于保持其下土壤水分(13.30%—18.90%),鲜藤覆被下土壤水分则明显降低(7.36%);较裸露沟岸,鲜、枯藤覆被均有助于增加其下土壤毛管孔隙度。②较裸露沟岸,鲜藤覆被下沟岸土壤有机质、铵态氮、硝态氮、有效磷、速效钾含量大都呈现出不同程度的降低,枯藤覆被沟岸上述土壤养分含量则整体增加,且大都呈现出随枯藤覆被量增加而增加的规律。③较裸露沟岸(3.24 nmol/g),鲜、枯藤覆被沟岸土壤总PLFA(总磷脂脂肪酸量Phospholipids fatty acid)量明显提升,T1—T4处理土壤的总PLFA量分别为裸露沟岸的10.5、2.6、2.6倍和6.5倍。研究成果对于干热河谷冲沟系统退化土壤的改良及植被恢复具有重要的指导意义。 |
|
其他语种文摘
|
Gully banks are the most severely affected parts of dry-hot valley gully ecosystems, which are characterized by contradictions between heat, shallow water, and barren soil. To evaluate the effects of Kudzu cover on soil properties and lay a foundation for soil improvement and vegetation restoration on gully banks. We choose gully banks covered by Kudzu as the research object and designated five treatments, including a control group ( CK: 0 g/m~2) , fresh vegetation cover ( T1 : 309.70 g/m~2),and withered vegetation cover (T2: 594.34 g/m~2, T3: 1103.43 g/m~2, and T4: 1693.27 g/m~2) to analyze the effects of different Kudzu cover on soil properties. In comparison with CK,the results showed that ① the soil covered by withered Kudzu retained soil moisture, whereas those covered by fresh Kudzu had significantly less soil moisture. ② The soil covered by fresh Kudzu was lower in soil organic matter, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium,whereas the soil covered by withered Kudzu had high soil nutrient content that increased with increase in vegetation biomass.③ The soil covered by Kudzu increased in total phospholipid fatty acids (Total PLFAs) , and the Total PLFAs from T1,T2, T3, and T4 were, respectively, 10.5, 2.6,2.6,and 6.5 times that of CK. This study provides important information to significantly guide soil improvement and vegetation restoration in dry-hot valley gully ecosystems. |
|
来源
|
生态学报
,2018,38(14):5047-5055 【核心库】
|
|
DOI
|
10.5846/stxb201705130883
|
|
关键词
|
葛藤覆被
;
冲沟沟岸
;
土壤性质
;
干热河谷
|
|
地址
|
1.
中国科学院山地灾害与地表过程重点实验室, 中国科学院山地灾害与地表过程重点实验室, 成都, 610041
2.
中国科学院水利部成都山地灾害与环境研究所, 成都, 610041
3.
中国科学院大学资源与环境学院, 北京, 100049
|
|
语种
|
中文 |
|
文献类型
|
研究性论文 |
|
ISSN
|
1000-0933 |
|
学科
|
植物学 |
|
基金
|
国家重点研发计划课题
;
国家973计划
;
国家自然科学基金项目
;
中国科学院西部之光人才培养计划
|
|
文献收藏号
|
CSCD:6291469
|
参考文献 共
35
共2页
|
|
1.
邱莉萍. 子午岭不同土地利用方式对土壤性质的影响.
自然资源学报,2006,21(6):965-972
|
被引
51
次
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Sardans J. Plant-soil interactions in Mediterranean forest and shrublands: impacts of climatic change.
Plant and Soil,2013,365(1/2):1-33
|
被引
22
次
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Zhang Y. Soil nutrient and microbiological property recoveries via native shrub and semi-shrub plantations on moving sand dunes in Northeast China.
Ecological Engineering,2013,53:1-5
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Li S X. Effect of plastic sheet mulch, wheat straw mulch, and maize growth on water loss by evaporation in dryland areas of China.
Agricultural Water Management,2013,116:39-49
|
被引
49
次
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Sayer E J. Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems.
Biological Reviews,2006,81(1):1-31
|
被引
90
次
|
|
|
|
|
6.
李强. 地上枯落物的累积、分解及其在陆地生态系统中的作用.
生态学报,2014,34(14):3807-3819
|
被引
87
次
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Cui P. Sediment transported by debris flow to the lower Jinsha River.
International Journal of Sediment Research,1999,14(4):67-71
|
被引
20
次
|
|
|
|
|
8.
张信宝. 云南元谋干热河谷区不同岩土类型荒山植被恢复研究.
应用与环境生物学报,1997,3(1):13-18
|
被引
13
次
|
|
|
|
|
9.
郎南军.
云南干热河谷退化生态系统植被恢复影响因子研究,2005:3-5
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
10.
李昆.
金沙江干热河谷适宜树种选择与植被恢复研究,2007:1-4
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
11.
Zhang J. Requirements for success of reforestation projects in a semiarid low-mountain region of the Jinsha River Basin, southwestern China.
Land Degradation & Development,2002,13(5):395-401
|
被引
5
次
|
|
|
|
|
12.
杨振寅. 干热河谷植被恢复研究进展与展望.
林业科学研究,2007,20(4):563-568
|
被引
16
次
|
|
|
|
|
13.
Tang G Y. Tree species controls on soil carbon sequestration and carbon stability following 20 years of afforestation in a valley-type savanna.
Forest Ecology and Management,2013,291:13-19
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
|
14.
Forrester D I. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees : a review.
Forest Ecology and Management,2006,233(2/3):211-230
|
被引
32
次
|
|
|
|
|
15.
唐国勇. 植被恢复对干热河谷退化土壤改良的影响.
生态学报,2015,35(15):5157-5167
|
被引
20
次
|
|
|
|
|
16.
罗君. 元谋干热河谷冲沟区植被对微地形的响应.
山地学报,2012,30(5):535-542
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
|
17.
何毓蓉. 金沙江干热河谷元谋强侵蚀区土壤裂隙形成与侵蚀机制.
水土保持学报,2008,22(1):33-36
|
被引
11
次
|
|
|
|
|
18.
何毓蓉. 金沙江干热河谷元谋强侵蚀区土壤裂隙形成与侵蚀机制.
水土保持学报,2008,22(1):42-42
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
|
19.
张宝军. 干热河谷冲沟侵蚀劣地不同坡位草被生长和土壤水分关系研究.
草业科学,2015,32(5):686-693
|
被引
14
次
|
|
|
|
|
20.
何毓蓉. 云南省元谋干热河谷的土壤退化及旱地农业研究.
土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(1):56-60
|
被引
18
次
|
|
|
|
|
了解气象卫星更多信息，请访问