高级检索

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

马尾松林冠下套种阔叶树20年间土壤肥力变化

詹学齐

詹学齐. 马尾松林冠下套种阔叶树20年间土壤肥力变化[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018, 40(6): 55-62. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20170463
引用本文: 詹学齐. 马尾松林冠下套种阔叶树20年间土壤肥力变化[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018, 40(6): 55-62. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20170463
Zhan Xueqi. Changes in soil fertility after interplanting pure Pinus massioniana plantations with broadleaved forest under the canopy during 20 years[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2018, 40(6): 55-62. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20170463
Citation: Zhan Xueqi. Changes in soil fertility after interplanting pure Pinus massioniana plantations with broadleaved forest under the canopy during 20 years[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2018, 40(6): 55-62. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20170463

马尾松林冠下套种阔叶树20年间土壤肥力变化

doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20170463
基金项目: 

福建省高校产学合作重大项目“适应区位生态功能的生态公益林优化经营关键技术研究与示范” 2015N5010

矿山生态修复研究中心开放基金项目 MECERC20161138

详细信息
    作者简介:

    詹学齐,高级工程师。主要研究方向:森林经营及林业经济管理。Email: 362769841@qq.com 地址:365004 福建省三明市荆东路25号三明学院

  • 中图分类号: S750; S714.8

Changes in soil fertility after interplanting pure Pinus massioniana plantations with broadleaved forest under the canopy during 20 years

  • 摘要: 目的探讨马尾松公益林林相改造后土壤肥力的变化,以便为马尾松公益林经营提供依据。方法在马尾松公益林中采用间伐后套种细柄阿丁枫、木荷、闽楠的林相改造试验,把马尾松纯林改造培育为异龄复层的针阔混交林,并在改造当年、改造后5年、改造后10年、改造后20年对4种林分的土壤理化性质进行测定。结果4种林分土壤的水稳性团聚体组成、土壤孔隙、土壤的有机质及养分含量均随着时间的推移呈增加的趋势,并且这种趋势随时间的进展而加大,增加的量表现为马尾松细柄阿丁枫混交林>马尾松木荷混交林>马尾松闽楠混交林>马尾松纯林,前3种林分相差较小,但前3种林分与马尾松纯林间的差异显著。马尾松纯林套种阔叶树林相改造后20年(2016年)与套种当年(1996年)相比,马尾松细柄阿丁枫混交林、马尾松木荷混交林、马尾松闽楠混交林、马尾松纯林林地土壤0~20cm层土壤,干土>0.25mm水稳性团聚体分别增加了5.21%、4.67%、3.78%、1.24%,土壤总孔隙度分别增加了3.82%、3.78%、3.01%、0.49%,土壤有机质分别增加了9.67、8.39、7.26、2.84g/kg,土壤全N含量分别增加了0.22、0.13、0.14、0.05g/kg,土壤全P分别增加了0.10、0.06、0.05、0.04g/kg。结论马尾松公益林套种阔叶树林相改造后形成的混交林具有较好的培肥土壤功能,有利于公益林的地力维持和持续经营。

     

  • 表  1  马尾松公益林培育改造后20年林分状况(2016年)

    Table  1.   Stand status of Pinus massoniana ecological public welfare forest 20 years after cultivation and transformation (in 2016)

    标准地
    Standard plot
    树种
    Species
    生长量Growth 生物量/Biomass
    树高
    Height/
    m
    胸径
    DBH/
    cm
    单株材积
    Individual
    volume/m3
    林分密度/
    (株· hm-2)
    Stand density/
    (tree· ha-1)
    林分蓄积/
    (m3· hm-2)
    Stand volume/
    (m3· ha-1)
    单株
    Single tree/kg
    林分/
    (t· hm-2)
    Stand/
    (t· ha-1)
    A1 马尾松Pinus massoniana 20.2 27.0 0.500 3 550 275.17 432.4 237.82
    细柄阿丁枫Altingla gracilipes 13.6 15.2 0.123 3 1 375 169.54 156.5 215.19
    B1 马尾松Pinus massoniana 18.8 26.3 0.444 8 525 233.52 352.4 185.01
    木荷Schima superba 12.4 14.0 0.096 2 1 425 137.09 122.5 174.56
    C1 马尾松Pinus massoniana 19.5 26.3 0.460 7 575 264.90 378.6 217.70
    闽楠Phoebe bournei 8.5 7.6 0.020 8 1 425 29.64 23.1 32.92
    D1 马尾松Pinus massoniana 20.5 26.4 0.486 7 575 279.85 421.6 242.42
    A2 马尾松Pinus massoniana 21.8 27.5 0.556 8 450 250.56 458.3 206.24
    细柄阿丁枫Altingla gracilipes 14.2 16.4 0.148 5 1 400 207.90 170.3 238.42
    B2 马尾松Pinus massoniana 20.8 26.9 0.511 0 425 217.18 436.5 185.51
    木荷Schima superba 13.0 14.7 0.110 6 1 425 157.61 132.6 188.96
    C2 马尾松Pinus massoniana 22.3 28.5 0.608 0 435 264.48 532.8 231.77
    闽楠Phoebe bournei 7.4 6.8 0.014 7 1425 20.95 18.9 26.93
    D2 马尾松Pinus massoniana 22.4 27.1 0.556 1 425 236.34 485.2 206.21
    A3 马尾松Pinus massoniana 24.1 27.9 0.629 5 300 188.85 634.9 190.47
    细柄阿丁枫Altingla gracilipes 14.6 16.5 0.154 5 1 400 216.30 158.6 222.04
    B3 马尾松Pinus massoniana 25.3 29.6 0.735 9 275 202.37 748.2 205.76
    木荷Schima superba 13.7 16.0 0.136 8 1 375 188.10 154.3 212.16
    C3 马尾松Pinus massoniana 24.5 28.8 0.678 3 325 220.45 675.8 219.64
    闽楠Phoebe bournei 7.6 7.2 0.016 8 1 425 23.94 21.6 30.78
    D3 马尾松Pinus massoniana 24.8 28.9 0.690 6 275 189.92 687.3 189.01
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  马尾松林相改造后不同时期土壤的水稳性团聚体 > 0.25mm组成

    Table  2.   Composition of water stable aggregates of soil in different periods after transformation of Pinus massoniana

    %
    林分Stand 土壤类型Soil type 1996 2001 2006 2016
    A 湿Wet 73.68 ±0.76a 75.850±0.32a 76.50±0.58a 79.32±0.78a
    干Dry 82.35±0.99a 84.21±0.39a 85.63±0.37a 87.56±0.49a
    B 湿Wet 74.12±0.57a 76.06±0.19a 76.85±0.69a 78.77±0.56b
    干Dry 82.78±0.38a 84.43±0.34a 85.79±0.21a 87.45±0.32a
    C 湿Wet 74.48±0.43a 75.64±0.26b 76.37±0.68a 77.55±0.08c
    干Dry 83.34±0.26a 84.57±0.27a 85.21±0.44b 87.12±0.51b
    D 湿Wet 73.85±0.55a 74.22±0.34c 74.46±0.34b 74.98±0.60d
    干Dry 82.65±0.34a 82.88±0.27b 83.18±0.41c 83.89±0.27c
    注:A表示马尾松细柄阿丁枫混交林,B表示马尾松木荷混交林,C表示马尾松闽楠混交林,D表示马尾松纯林。下同。同列不同小写字母表示林分之间差异显著(P < 0.05)。Notes: A represents Pinus massoniana and Altingla gracilipes forest, B represents Pinus massoniana and Schima superba forest, C represents Pinus massoniana and Phoebe bournei forest, D represents Pinus massoniana pure forest. The same below. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate the significant differences among different forests (P < 0.05).
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  马尾松林相改造后不同时期土壤的孔隙组成

    Table  3.   Pore composition of soil in different periods after transformation of Pinus massoniana

    空隙指标
    Pore index
    年份
    Year
    A B C D
    0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm
    土壤密度
    Soil density/(g·cm-3)
    1996 1.23±0.02Ac 1.31±0.01Ac 1.22±0.01Ac 1.30±0.03Ac 1.23±0.02Ac 1.31±0.02Ac 1.23±0.02Ab 1.30±0.02Aa
    2001 1.21±0.01Ac 1.29±0.03Ac 1.20±0.02Ab 1.29±0.03Ab 1.21±0.02Ac 1.30±0.02Ac 1.22±0.03Ab 1.30±0.03Aa
    2006 1.16±0.02Ab 1.23±0.03Ab 1.17±0.02Ab 1.24±0.02Ab 1.18±0.02Bb 1.26±0.01Bb 1.20±0.02Cb 1.29±0.02Ca
    2016 1.08±0.03Aa 1.16±0.02Aa 1.12±0.03Ba 1.18±0.02Ba 1.14±0.01Ca 1.19±0.03Ba 1.17±0.03Da 1.27±0.02Ca
    毛管孔隙
    Capillary pore/%
    1996 44.45±0.33Ad 38.56±0.31Ad 44.59±0.34Ad 38.72±0.30Ad 44.68±0.50Ac 38.83±0.29Ab 44.53±0.41Aa 38.64±0.21Aa
    2001 44.58±0.35Bc 39.34±0.32Ac 44.75±0.25Bc 39.33±0.32Ac 44.97±0.31Ab 39.14±0.22Ab 44.18±0.11Ca 38.80±0.15Ba
    2006 44.83±0.22Ab 40.23±0.21Ab 44.90±0.25Ab 39.86±0.32Ab 44.14±0.21Bb 39.58±0.21Ba 43.84±0.21Ca 38.87±0.31Ca
    2016 44.88±0.21Aa 41.15±0.13Aa 45.08±0.22Aa 40.67±0.21Ba 44.25±0.23Ba 39.76±0.23Ba 43.95±0.31Ca 38.92±0.32Ca
    非毛管孔隙
    Non-capillary pore/%
    1996 9.29±0.13Ad 7.34±0.14Ac 9.38±0.22Ad 7.41±0.24Ab 9.39±0.24Ad 7.50±0.23Ab 9.34±0.22Ac 7.53±0.13Aa
    2001 9.96±0.32Bc 7.75±0.21Bb 9.94±0.25Bc 7.80±0.21Ab 10.01±0.22Ac 7.62±0.23Cb 9.90±0.18Cb 7.62±0.16Ca
    2006 11.39±0.22Ab 8.04±0.14Ab 11.30±0.15Ab 8.25±0.14Aa 11.21±0.17Bb 7.87±0.21Bb 10.25±0.11Ca 7.71±0.14Ca
    2016 12.68±0.31Aa 8.56±0.23Aa 12.67±0.21Aa 8.43±0.23Aa 12.83±0.22Aa 8.12±0.20Ba 10.47±0.22Ba 7.85±0.14Ca
    总孔隙
    Total pore/%
    1996 53.74±0.20Ad 45.90±0.17Ad 53.97±0.12Ad 46.13±0.54Ad 54.04±0.53Ac 46.33±0.06Ab 53.87±0.19Aa 46.17±0.34Aa
    2001 54.54±0.03Bc 47.09±0.11Ac 54.69±0.03Bc 47.13±0.54Ac 54.98±0.53Ab 46.76±0.01Bb 54.08±0.36Ca 46.42±0.31Ca
    2006 56.22±0.44Ab 48.27±0.35Ab 56.20±0.40Ab 48.11±0.46Ab 55.35±0.38Bb 47.45±0.42Ba 54.09±0.32Ca 46.58±0.45Ca
    2016 57.56±0.52Aa 49.71±0.36Aa 57.75±0.43Aa 49.10±0.44Aa 57.08±0.45Ba 47.88±0.43Ba 54.42±0.53Ca 46.77±0.46Ca
    注:同行不同大写字母表示林分之间差异显著(P < 0.05),同列不同小写字母表示同一林分不同时期之间差异显著(P < 0.05)。下同。Notes: difference capital letters in the same line mean the significant differences among different forests (P < 0.05), difference lowercase letters in the same column indicate the significant difference among different periods.The same below.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  马尾松林相改造后不同时期土壤的养分含量

    Table  4.   Soil nutrient content in different periods after transformation of Pinus massoniana

    养分含量
    Nutrient content
    年份
    Year
    A B C D
    0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm 0~20cm 20~40cm
    有机质
    Organic matter/(g·kg-1)
    1996 20.58±0.49Ac 15.32±0.31Ad 21.12±0.32Ad 15.21±0.19Ad 20.73±0.37Ad 15.83±0.31Ac 21.10±0.33Ad 15.77±0.22Ab
    2001 22.11±0.43Bc 16.21±0.19Ac 23.04±0.24Ac 15.98±0.32Ac 22.80±0.35Ac 16.02±0.32Ab 21.73±0.22Cc 15.68±0.21Bb
    2006 25.90±0.33Ab 17.55±0.31Ab 25.74±0.22Ab 16.85±0.41Bb 24.62±0.31Bb 16.45±0.32Cb 22.68±0.31Cb 16.64±0.23Ca
    2016 30.28±0.38Aa 18.76±0.22Aa 29.51±0.31Aa 17.66±0.31Ba 27.96±0.33Ba 17.48±0.31Ba 23.94±0.41Ca 16.89±0.32Ca
    全N
    Total N/(g·kg-1)
    1996 1.63±0.02Ac 1.17±0.02Ab 1.65±0.03Ab 1.15±0.01Ab 1.61±0.02Ac 1.18±0.03Aa 1.64±0.03Aa 1.17±0.02Aa
    2001 1.65±0.03Ac 1.19±0.02Bb 1.67±0.03Ab 1.18±0.03Bb 1.63±0.02Ac 1.21±0.03Aa 1.65±0.03Aa 1.17±0.03Ba
    2006 1.71±0.03Ab 1.23±0.03Aa 1.70±0.02Ab 1.24±0.03Aa 1.68±0.03Ab 1.23±0.02Aa 1.67±0.03Aa 1.18±0.02Ba
    2016 1.85±0.03Aa 1.26±0.03Aa 1.78±0.03Ba 1.28±0.04Aa 1.75±0.02Ba 1.25±0.03Aa 1.69±0.02Ca 1.20±0.02Ba
    全P
    Total P/(g·kg-1)
    1996 0.38±0.02Ab 0.28±0.02Ab 0.40±0.02Aa 0.29±0.03Aa 0.38±0.01Ab 0.27±0.02Ab 0.39±0.02Aa 0.28±0.02Aa
    2001 0.40±0.02Ab 0.30±0.02Ab 0.41±0.03Aa 0.32±0.03Aa 0.39±0.01Ab 0.29±0.03Ab 0.38±0.01Aa 0.29±0.02Aa
    2006 0.42±0.03Ab 0.34±0.03Aa 0.43±0.04Aa 0.34±0.02Aa 0.41±0.02Aa 0.32±0.03Aa 0.39±0.02Aa 0.29±0.03Aa
    2016 0.48±0.04Aa 0.37±0.03Aa 0.46±0.03Aa 0.36±0.03Aa 0.43±0.03Aa 0.35±0.02Aa 0.41±0.02Aa 0.31±0.03Aa
    水解性
    N HydrolyticN/(mg·kg-1)
    1996 74.32±1.12Ac 50.34±1.11Ad 73.78±1.13Ac 50.21±0.81Ad 74.01±0.97Ac 50.73±1.13Ac 73.35±1.07Aa 50.29±1.04Aa
    2001 76.58±1.31Ac 53.46±1.13Ac 75.81±1.14Ac 52.89±1.02Ac 75.56±1.12Ac 51.98±1.13Ac 73.76±0.92Aa 50.65±1.11Aa
    2006 79.76±1.12Ab 57.29±1.15Ab 78.03±1.32Bb 55.76±1.22Bb 76.87±1.12Cb 53.24±1.23Cb 74.23±1.13Da 51.17±1.11Da
    2016 85.46±1.32Aa 63.56±1.32Aa 82.39±1.22Ba 59.70±1.17Ba 79.44±1.14Ca 55.62±1.31Ca 75.48±1.24Da 52.35±1.06Da
    速效磷P
    Available P/(mg·kg-1)
    1996 2.18±0.08Aa 1.78±0.11Aa 2.10±0.12Aa 1.70±0.12Aa 2.23±0.22Aa 1.82±0.06Aa 2.13±0.11Aa 1.75±0.11Aa
    2001 2.27±0.14Aa 1.85±0.14Aa 2.19±0.14Aa 1.77±0.1Aa 2.28±0.27Aa 1.85±0.13Aa 2.17±0.12Aa 1.79±0.12Aa
    2006 2.35±0.21Aa 1.89±0.14Aa 2.25±0.19Aa 1.85±0.12Aa 2.30±0.24Aa 1.89±0.12Aa 2.21±0.14Aa 1.80±0.13Aa
    2016 2.56±0.23Aa 2.13±0.12Aa 2.48±0.26Aa 2.09±0.22Aa 2.38±0.22Aa 2.03±0.18Aa 2.26±0.15Aa 1.84±0.12Aa
    速效K
    Available K/(mg·kg-1)
    1996 77.85±1.21Ac 62.34±1.21Ad 76.59±1.24Ac 61.90±1.32Ac 78.53±1.31Ac 62.56±1.23Ad 77.72±1.13Ab 62.87±1.22Ab
    2001 79.67±1.21Ac 65.42±1.35Ac 78.75±1.21Ac 63.47±1.31Ab 80.21±1.18Ac 64.88±1.24Ac 78.86±1.11Ab 63.90±1.25Ab
    2006 82.56±1.32Ab 68.55±1.31Ab 81.90±1.22Ab 66.01±1.44Bb 82.77±1.22Ab 67.32±1.24Ab 79.02±1.11Bb 64.21±1.18Ca
    2016 95.81±1.51Aa 78.63±1.32Aa 90.35±1.51Ba 74.87±1.42Ba 87.75±1.24Ca 71.78±1.21Ca 82.41±1.34Da 66.36±1.22Da
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 马祥庆, 范少辉, 陈绍栓, 等.杉木人工林连作生物生产力的研究[J].林业科学, 2003, 39(2):78-83. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2003.02.013

    Ma X Q, Fan S H, Chen S S, et al. Study on biomass productivity of Chinese fir plantations after successive planting[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2003, 39(2):78-83. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2003.02.013
    [2] 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. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4241.2005.01.004

    Zhang C S, Li K. Advance in research on soil degradation and soil improvement of timber plantations[J]. World Forestry Research, 2005, 18(1):17-21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4241.2005.01.004
    [3] 范少辉, 盛炜彤, 马祥庆, 等.多代连栽对不同发育阶段杉木人工林生产力的影响[J].林业科学研究, 2003, 16(5):560-567. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2003.05.007

    Fan S H, Sheng W T, Ma X Q, et al. Effect of successive planting on productivity of Chinese fir of different age plantations[J]. Forest Research, 2003, 16(5):560-567. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2003.05.007
    [4] 马祥庆.杉木人工林连栽生产力下降研究进展[J].福建林学院学报, 2001, 21(4):380-384. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2001.04.024

    Ma X Q. A review for research of productivity decline in Chinese fir plantation after successive plantings[J]. Journal of Fujian College of Forestry, 2001, 21(4):380-384. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2001.04.024
    [5] 张华, 叶章发, 李宝福.杉木、马尾松轮作对林地土壤肥力和林木生长的影响[J].林业科学, 2001, 37(5):10-15. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2001.05.003

    Zhang H, Ye Z F, Li B F. The effects of rotating plantation on the soil fertility of forest land and the growth of stand[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2001, 37(5):10-15. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2001.05.003
    [6] 杨承栋, 孙启武, 焦如珍, 等.大青山一二代马尾松土壤性质变化与地力衰退关系的研究[J].土壤学报, 2003, 40(2):267-273. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2003.02.016

    Yang C D, Sun Q W, Jiao R Z, et al. Studies on the relationship between soil property changes and soil degradation under 1st and 2nd rotation masson pine plantation at Daqingshan[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2003, 40(2):267-273. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2003.02.016
    [7] 崔宁洁, 张丹桔, 刘洋, 等.不同林龄马尾松人工林林下植物多样性与土壤理化性质[J].生态学杂志, 2014, 33(10):2610-2617. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxzz201410005

    Cui N J, Zhang D J, Liu Y, et al. Plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties under different aged Pinus massoniana plantations[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2014, 33(10):2610-2617. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxzz201410005
    [8] 洪宜聪.马尾松闽粤栲异龄复层混交林的林分特征及涵养水源能力[J].东北林业大学学报, 2017, 45(4):53-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2017.04.011

    Hong Y C. Stand characteristics and water conservation capacity of Pinus massoniana and Castanopsis fissa mixed plantation[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2017, 45(4):53-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2017.04.011
    [9] 丁敏, 倪荣新, 毛轩平.马尾松林下套种阔叶树生长状况初报[J].浙江农林大学学报, 2012, 29(3):463-466. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.03.023

    Ding M, Ni R X, Mao X P. Growth of Pinus massoniana and broad-leaved tree mixed forest[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A & F University, 2012, 29(3):463-466. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.03.023
    [10] 樊后保, 刘文飞, 苏兵强.马尾松林下栽植闽粤栲对生态系统养分循环的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报, 2008, 28(5):610-615. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2008.05.004

    Fan H B, Liu W F, Su B Q. Impact of underplanting Castanopsis fissa on nutrient cycling in Pinus massoniana stand[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2008, 28(5):610-615. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2008.05.004
    [11] 林德喜, 樊后保, 苏兵强, 等.马尾松林下套种阔叶树土壤理化性质的研究[J].土壤学报, 2004, 41(4):655-659. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.04.027

    Lin D X, Fan H B, Su B Q, et al.Effect of interplantation of broad-leaved trees in Pinus massoniana forest on physical and chemical properties of the soil[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2004, 41(4):655-659. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.04.027
    [12] 张明锦, 陈良华, 张健, 等.马尾松人工林林窗内凋落叶微生物生物量碳和氮的动态变化[J].应用生态学报, 2016, 27(3):672-680. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201603002

    Zhang M J, Chen L H, Zhang J, et al. Dynamics of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen during foliar litter decomposition underartificial forest gap in Pinus massoniana plantation[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(3):672-680. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201603002
    [13] 陈绍栓.杉木细柄阿丁枫混交林涵养水源功能和土壤肥力的研究[J].生态学报, 2002, 22(6): 957-961. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2002.06.024

    Chen S S. The water holding capacity and soil fertility in the mixed forest of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Altingia gracilides[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2002, 22(6):957-961. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2002.06.024
    [14] 陈绍栓, 陈淑容.杉木木荷混交林涵养水源功能和土壤肥力[J].土壤学报, 2002, 39(4):599-603. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2002.04.021

    Chen S S, Chen S R. Functions of the mixed forest of Cunninghamia lanceolate and Schima superba in water conservation and soil fertility bulldup[J].Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(4):599-603. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2002.04.021
    [15] 陈绍栓, 许建伟, 吴载璋, 等.不同强度疏伐对马尾松林分水源涵养功能时空格局的影响[J].生态学报, 2017, 37(20): 6753-6760. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=stxb201720011

    Chen S S, Xu J W, Wu Z Z, et al. Effects of different thinning intensities on temporal and spatial patterns of water conservation of Pinus massoniana[J].Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(20):6753-6760. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=stxb201720011
    [16] 中国科学院南京土壤研究所.土壤理化分析[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社, 1978.

    Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Soil physical and chemical property analysis[M].Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, 1978.
    [17] 林大仪.土壤学[M].北京:中国林业出版社, 2002:98.

    Lin D Y.Edaphology[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2002:98.
    [18] Wu P W, Ma X M, Tigabu M T, et al. Root morphological plasticity and biomass production of two Chinese fir clones with highphosphorus efficiency under low phosphorussterss[J].Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2011, 41(2): 228-234. doi: 10.1139/X10-198
    [19] 易秀, 谷晓静, 侯燕卿, 等.陕西省泾惠渠灌区土壤肥力质量综合评价[J].干旱区资源与环境, 2011, 25(2):132-137. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ghqzyyhj201102025

    Yi X, Gu X J, Hou Y Q, et al. Comprehensive assessment on soil fertility qualiy in Jinghuiqu irrigation district of Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2011, 25(2):132-137. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/ghqzyyhj201102025
    [20] Rhoades C C, Miller S P, Shea M M. Soilproperties and soil nitrogen dynamics of prairie-like forest openings and surrounding forests in Kentucky's Knobs Region[J]. American Midland Naturalist, 2004, 152(1):1-11. doi: 10.1674/0003-0031(2004)152[0001:SPASND]2.0.CO;2
    [21] Fu B, Chen L, Ma K, et al. The relationships between land use and soil conditions in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi, China[J]. Catena, 2000, 39(1):69-78. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00084-3
    [22] 杨晓娟, 王海燕, 刘玲, 等.东北过伐林区不同林分类型土壤肥力质量评价研究[J].生态环境学报, 2012, 21(9): 1553-1560. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2012.09.008

    Yang X J, Wang H Y, Liu L, et al. Evaluation of soil fertility quality under different forest stands in over-logged forest region, northeast China[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 21(9):1553-1560. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2012.09.008
    [23] 李惠通, 张芸, 魏志超, 等.不同发育阶段杉木人工林土壤肥力分析[J].林业科学研究, 2017, 30(2):322-328. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=lykxyj201702019

    Li H T, Zhang Y, Wei Z C, et al. Evaluation on soil fertility of Chinese fir plantations in different development stages[J]. Forest Research, 2017, 30(2):322-328. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=lykxyj201702019
    [24] 曹成有, 朱丽辉, 蒋德明, 等.科尔沁沙地不同人工植物群落对土壤养分和生物活性的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2007, 21(1):168-171. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2007.01.041

    Cao C Y, Zhu L H, Jiang D M, et al. Effects of artificial sand-fixation communities on soil nutrients and biological properties in horqin sandy land[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2007, 21(1):168-171. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2007.01.041
    [25] 樊后保, 李燕燕, 苏兵强, 等.马尾松-阔叶树混交异龄林生物量与生产力分配格局[J].生态学报, 2006, 26(8):4162-4172. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb200608007

    Fan H B, Li Y Y, Su B Q, et al. Allocation pattern of biomass and productivity in the mixed uneven-aged stands of Masson's pine and hardwood species[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26(8):4162-4172. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb200608007
  • 加载中
表(4)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  662
  • HTML全文浏览量:  253
  • PDF下载量:  11
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2017-12-25
  • 修回日期:  2018-03-01
  • 刊出日期:  2018-06-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回