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

江西省生态公益林典型林分土壤肥力状况研究

樊星火 葛红艳 张参参 邓文平 陈伏生 卜文圣

樊星火, 葛红艳, 张参参, 邓文平, 陈伏生, 卜文圣. 江西省生态公益林典型林分土壤肥力状况研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018, 40(11): 84-92. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20180084
引用本文: 樊星火, 葛红艳, 张参参, 邓文平, 陈伏生, 卜文圣. 江西省生态公益林典型林分土壤肥力状况研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018, 40(11): 84-92. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20180084
Fan Xinghuo, Ge Hongyan, Zhang Cancan, Deng Wenping, Chen Fusheng, Bu Wensheng. Variations in soil fertility of typical non-commercial forest types in Jiangxi Province of eastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2018, 40(11): 84-92. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20180084
Citation: Fan Xinghuo, Ge Hongyan, Zhang Cancan, Deng Wenping, Chen Fusheng, Bu Wensheng. Variations in soil fertility of typical non-commercial forest types in Jiangxi Province of eastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2018, 40(11): 84-92. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20180084

江西省生态公益林典型林分土壤肥力状况研究

doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20180084
基金项目: 

江西省教育厅科技计划项目 GJJ150384

江西省自然科学基金项目 20171BAB214032

国家自然科学基金项目 31760134

江西省林业厅生态公益林项目 9131206077

详细信息
    作者简介:

    樊星火,工程师。主要研究方向:森林资源监测与评价。Email: fanxinghuo@163.com 地址: 330046江西省南昌市北京西路省政府大院南一路1号江西省林业调查规划研究院

    责任作者:

    卜文圣,博士,助理研究员。主要研究方向:群落结构与动态。Email:bws2007@163.com 地址: 330045江西省南昌市经济技术开发区志敏大道1101号

  • 中图分类号: S714.2

Variations in soil fertility of typical non-commercial forest types in Jiangxi Province of eastern China

  • 摘要: 目的生态公益林是以发挥生态效益和社会效益为主要目标的森林类型,土壤肥力状况是土壤的基本属性和本质特征,探讨生态公益林不同林分类型的土壤肥力状况,旨在为森林土壤资源的科学管理与评价及生态公益林管理提供理论参考。方法本文从江西省生态公益林监测样地中选取6种处于发育中期阶段的典型林分类型(常绿阔叶林、马尾松林、毛竹林、杉木林、湿地松和针阔混交林)33块样地,测定其土壤化学性质,并用方差分析(ANOVA)探索林分类型和土壤层次对土壤肥力的影响,同时比较同一林分类型内不同土壤层次和同一土壤层次不同森林类型的土壤化学性质差异,利用主成分分析(PCA)对土壤指标进行降维,计算各林分类型的PCA综合得分进而排序土壤肥力状况。结果研究结果表明:随着土壤深度的增加,土壤有机碳、全钾、速效氮、有效磷和速效钾含量均逐渐降低,而pH值、全氮和全磷均无显著变化。同样,除常绿阔叶林A层的有效磷和针阔混交林A层的速效钾分别显著地高于杉木林和马尾松林外,其余同一土壤层次不同林分类型间土壤养分含量无显著性差异。主成分分析显示,第1主轴(35.9%)主要代表速效养分含量和有机碳含量的变化,其中速效氮、速效钾和有机碳的因子载荷值较大;第2主轴(15.4%)主要代表全量养分和pH值的变化;土壤肥力状况排序为:毛竹林>常绿阔叶林>针阔混交林>马尾松林>杉木林>湿地松林。结论从保育土壤的角度来看,不同林分类型的肥力状况将为生态公益林差异化补偿提供数据支持和理论参考;此外,相对于人工针叶纯林,常绿阔叶林和针阔混交林有利于土壤养分的积累,因而建议针对人工针叶林进行补植改造,朝向针阔混交林和常绿阔叶林方向转变,从而提升生态公益林的生态和社会效益。

     

  • 图  1  不同林分类型土壤不同层次的pH值和有机碳含量差异

    不同字母代表同一林分类型在不同土壤层次差异显著(P < 0.05)。下同。

    Figure  1.  Differences of pH and organic carbon content among different soil layers in varied stand types

    Different letters represent a significant difference among different soil layers in same stand type (P < 0.05). Same as below.

    图  2  不同林分类型土壤不同层次的全量养分含量差异

    Figure  2.  Differences of total nutrient content among different soil layers in varied stand types

    图  3  不同林分类型土壤不同层次的速效养分含量差异

    Figure  3.  Differences of available nutrient content among different soil layers in varied stand types

    图  4  土壤化学性质主成分分析

    Figure  4.  PCA analysis of soil chemical properties

    图  5  不同林分类型土壤肥力的综合得分

    Figure  5.  Comprehensive scores of soil fertility for different stand types

    表  1  6种林分基本结构特征

    Table  1.   Basic structure characteristics of six stand types

    林分类型
    Stand type
    密度/(株·hm-2)
    Stand density/(tree·ha-1)
    胸径
    DBH/cm
    胸高断面积/(m2·hm-2)
    Basal area/(m2·ha-1)
    主要树种
    Main tree species
    常绿阔叶林
    Evergreen broadleaved forest (EBF)
    1 539±417 12.2±2.67 1.64±0.52 壳斗科、山茶科、樟科、木兰科等
    Fagaceae, Theaceae, Lauraceae, Magnoliaceae, etc
    马尾松林Pinus massoniana forest (PMF) 1 505±587 11.1±1.32 1.19±0.51 马尾松Pinus massoniana
    毛竹林Bamboo forest (BF) 1 658±270 8.6±3.20 0.9±0.34 毛竹Phyllostachys heterocycla
    杉木林
    Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation (CLP)
    1 794±560 12.1±1.47 1.46±1.78 杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata
    湿地松林
    Pinus elliottii plantation (PEP)
    1 608±401 12.9±1.46 1.70±0.78 湿地松
    Pinus elliottii
    针阔混交林
    Conifierous and broadleaved mixed forest (CBF)
    1 960±195 12.7±1.41 2.42±0.51 马尾松、杉木、枫香、木荷、檫木等Pinus massoniana, Cunninghamia lanceolata, Liquidambar formosana, Schima superba, Sassafras tzumu, etc
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  各土壤指标的双因素方差分析表

    Table  2.   Results of two-way ANOVA for different soil properties

    土壤指标
    Soil index
    因素
    Factor
    自由度
    Freedom
    F
    F value
    P
    P value
    林分类型Stand type 5 3.537 0.006 2
    pH 土壤层次Soil layer 2 1.679 0.193 3
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 2.390 0.015 7
    林分类型Stand type 5 3.761 0.004 2
    有机碳Organic carbon 土壤层次Soil layer 2 15.774 < 0.000 1
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.733 0.691 6
    林分类型Stand type 5 1.132 0.351 0
    全氮Total nitrogen 土壤层次Soil layer 2 0.879 0.419 0
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.906 0.532 0
    林分类型Stand type 5 1.771 0.129 0
    全磷Total phosphorus 土壤层次Soil layer 2 2.024 0.139 0
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.516 0.874 0
    林分类型Stand type 5 5.175 < 0.000 1
    全钾Total potassium 土壤层次Soil layer 2 12.065 < 0.000 1
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.224 0.993 3
    林分类型Stand type 5 2.221 0.060 5
    速效氮Available nitrogen 土壤层次Soil layer 2 23.501 < 0.000 1
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.298 0.979 7
    林分类型Stand type 5 2.068 0.048 3
    有效磷Available phosphorus 土壤层次Soil layer 2 14.510 < 0.000 1
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 1.658 0.105 9
    林分类型Stand type 5 2.615 0.030 7
    速效钾Available potassium 土壤层次Soil layer 2 22.080 < 0.000 1
    林分类型:土壤层次Stand type: soil layer 10 0.815 0.614 6
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 雷加富, 刘红, 王恩玲.生态公益林建设导则[M].北京:中国标准出版社, 2001.

    Lei J F, Liu H, Wang E L. Guidelines for construction of non-commercial forest[M]. Beijing: Chinese Standard Press, 2001.
    [2] 王雅敬, 谢炳庚, 李晓青, 等.公益林保护区生态补偿标准与补偿方式[J].应用生态学报, 2016, 27(6): 1893-1900. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/nyyjs201803038

    Wang Y J, Xie B G, Li X Q, et al. Ecological compensation standards and compensation methods of public welfare forest protected area[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(6):1893-1900. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/nyyjs201803038
    [3] 朱祖祥.土壤学[J].上册.北京: 农业出版社, 1983.

    Zhu Z X. Pedology[J]. Volume 1. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1983.
    [4] Doran J W, Coleman D C, Bezdicek B F, et al. Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment (SSSA Special Publication 35)[M]. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 1994.
    [5] 沈仁芳, 孙波, 施卫明, 等.地上-地下生物协同调控与养分高效利用[J].中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(6): 566-574.

    Shen R F, Sun B, Shi W M, et al. Interactions between above-and below-ground organisms for nutrient-efficient utilization[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2017, 32(6): 566-574.
    [6] Maisto G, De M A, Meola A, et al. Nutrient dynamics in litter mixtures of four Mediterranean maquis species decomposing in situ[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2011, 43(3):520-530. doi: 10.1016-j.soilbio.2010.11.017/
    [7] 黄志宏, 田大伦, 周光益, 等.广东南岭不同林分类型土壤养分状况比较分析[J].东北林业大学学报, 2009, 37(9):63-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2009.09.023

    Huang Z H, Tian D L, Zhou G Y, et al.Soil nutrient status of different forest types in Nanling Mountains, Northern Guangdong Province[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2009, 37(9):63-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2009.09.023
    [8] 李登秋, 张春华, 居为民, 等.江西省森林净初级生产力动态变化特征及其驱动因子分析[J].植物生态学报, 2016, 40(7): 643-657. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwstxb201607001

    Li D Q, Zhang C H, Ju W M, et al. Forest net primary productivity dynamics and driving forces in Jiangxi Province, China[J].Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2016, 40(7): 643-657. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwstxb201607001
    [9] 王玲玲, 徐福利, 王渭玲, 等.不同林龄华北落叶松人工林地土壤肥力评价[J].西南林业大学学报, 2016, 36(2): 17-24. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xnlxyxb201602003

    Wang L L, Xu F L, Wang W L, et al. Assessment of soil fertility in different aged Larix principis-rupprechtii plantation[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 2016, 36(2): 17-24. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xnlxyxb201602003
    [10] Gora E M, Sayer E J, Turner B L, et al. Decomposition of coarse woody debris in a long-term litter manipulation experiment: a focus on nutrient availability[J]. Functional Ecology, 2018, 32:1128-1138. doi: 10.1111/fec.2018.32.issue-4
    [11] 国家林业局.森林土壤分析方法: 中华人民共和国林业行业标准LY/T 1210-1275—1999[S].北京: 中国标准出版社, 1999.

    The State Forestry Bureau.The analysis methods of forest soil: the forestry industry standard of the People Republic of China LY/T 1210-1275—1999[S].Beijing: China Standard Press, 1999.
    [12] Team R C. R: a language and environment for statistical computing[Z]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016.
    [13] Hines J, Pabst S, Mueller K E, et al. Soil-mediated effects of global change on plant communities depend on plant growth form[J/OL]. Ecosphere, 2017, 8(11): e01996[2018-03-22]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1996.
    [14] 姬钢, 徐明岗, 文石林, 等.不同植被类型下红壤pH和交换性酸的剖面特征[J].应用生态学报, 2015, 26(9): 2639-2645. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201509007

    Ji G, Xu M G, Wen S L, et al. Characteristics of soil pH and exchangeable acidity in red soil profile under different vegetation types[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 26(9): 2639-2645. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201509007
    [15] 杨红, 曹舰艇, 徐唱唱, 等.藏东南色季拉山不同森林类型土壤CO2排放[J].浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(10): 1733-1741. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2017.10.20

    Yang H, Cao J T, Xu C C, et al. Soil CO2 emission of different forest types in Sejila Mountains, southeast of Tibet[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2017, 29(10): 1733-1741. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2017.10.20
    [16] 黎宏祥, 王彬, 王玉杰, 等.不同林分类型对土壤团聚体稳定性及有机碳特征的影响[J].北京林业大学学报, 2016, 38(5): 84-91. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20150427

    Li H X, Wang B, Wang Y J, et al. Impact of different forest types on stability and organic carbon of soil aggregates[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2016, 38(5): 84-91. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20150427
    [17] 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. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jiangxyy201706008

    He L P, Li G X, Meng G T, et al. Study on soil fertility of different forest types in Gaoligong Mountains[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 22(6): 116-121. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jiangxyy201706008
    [18] 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. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwstxb201110007

    Liu C G, Xue J H. Basic soil properties and comprehensive evaluation in different plantations in rocky desertification sites of the karst region of Guizhou Province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2011, 35(10):1050-1060. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwstxb201110007
    [19] 吕瑞恒, 刘勇, 于海群, 等.北京山区不同林分类型土壤肥力的研究[J].北京林业大学学报, 2009, 31(6): 159-163. Lü R H, http://j.bjfu.edu.cn/article/id/8364

    Liu Y, Yu H Q, et al. Soil fertility of different forest types in the mountainous area of Beijing[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2009, 31(6): 159-163. http://j.bjfu.edu.cn/article/id/8364
    [20] 赵明松, 张甘霖, 李德成, 等.江苏省土壤有机质变异及其主要影响因素[J].生态学报, 2013, 33(16): 5058-5066. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb201316025

    Zhao M S, Zhang G L, Li D C, et al. Variability of soil organic matter and its main factors in Jiangsu Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(16):5058-5066. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stxb201316025
    [21] Ganuza A, Almendros G. Organic carbon storage in soils of the Basque Country (Spain): the effect of climate, vegetation type and edaphic variables[J]. Biology & Fertility of Soils, 2003, 37:154-162. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/OAPaper/oai_doaj-articles_7925bd88437ea4f0e85f22ff9969eae6
    [22] Mueller P, Jensen K, Megonigal J P. Plants mediate soil organic matter decomposition in response to sea level rise[J]. Global Change Biology, 2016, 22:404-414. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13082
    [23] 欧芷阳, 苏志尧, 朱剑云.东莞主要森林群落的土壤基本性质和综合评价[J].中南林业科技大学学报, 2013, 33(8):96-102. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/znlxyxb201308019

    Ou Z Y, Su Z Y, Zhu J Y. Basic soil properties and comprehensive evaluation in forest communities in Dongguan, South China[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2013, 33(8): 96-102. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/znlxyxb201308019
    [24] Vitousek P M, Matson P A, Cleve K V. Nitrogen availability and nitrification during succession: primary, secondary, and old-field seres[J]. Plant & Soil, 1989, 115:229-239.
    [25] Mendoza R, Bailleres M, García I, et al. Phosphorus fertilization of a grass-legume mixture: effect on plant growth, nutrients acquisition and symbiotic associations with soil microorganisms[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2016, 39: 691-701. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2015.1087032
    [26] 李菊梅, 王朝辉, 李生秀.有机质、全氮和可矿化氮在反映土壤供氮能力方面的意义[J].土壤学报, 2003, 40(2): 232-238. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2003.02.011

    Li J M, Wang C H, Li S X. Significance of soil organic matter, total N and mineralizable nitrogen in reflecting soil N supplying capacity[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2003, 40(2):232-238. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2003.02.011
    [27] 陈钦程, 徐福利, 王渭玲, 等.秦岭北麓不同林龄华北落叶松土壤速效钾变化规律[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(5):1243-1249. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201405021

    Chen Q C, Xu F L, Wang W L, et al. Seasonal dynamics of available K in soil for different ages of Larix principis-rupprechtii in the northern foot of the Qinling[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2014, 20(5): 1243-1249. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwyyyflxb201405021
    [28] 黄笑, 李际平, 赵春燕.不同林分类型闽楠人工林土壤养分对比分析[J].中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(7):36-42. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/znlxyxb201707005

    Huang X, Li J P, Zhao C Y. Contrastive analysis of soil nutrients of Phoebe bournei plantation with different forest types[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2017, 37(7): 36-42. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/znlxyxb201707005
    [29] 康冰, 刘世荣, 蔡道雄, 等.南亚热带不同植被恢复模式下土壤理化性质[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(10): 2479-2486. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201010005

    Kang B, Liu S R, Cai D X, et al. Soil physical and chemical characteristics under different vegetation restoration patterns in China south subtropical area[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(10): 2479-2486. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yystxb201010005
    [30] 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. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2004.12.001

    Huang Y, Wang S L, Feng Z W, et al. Soil quality assessment of forest stand in different plantation esosystems[J].Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2004, 15(12): 2199-2205. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2004.12.001
    [31] 王家彬, 徐明锋, 蒋谦才, 等.不同林分类型及土层对土壤养分的影响[J].湖北林业科技, 2017, 46(1): 20-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3020.2017.01.005

    Wang J B, Xu M F, Jiang Q C, et al. Effects of different forest types and soil layers on soil nutrients[J]. Hubei Forestry Science and Technology, 2017, 46(1): 20-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3020.2017.01.005
    [32] 王慧元, 荣誉, 杨新兵.河北雾灵山5种人工纯林土壤养分综合评价[J].水土保持研究, 2014, 21(4): 35-38. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stbcyj201404008

    Wang H Y, Rong Y, Yang X B. Comprehensive evaluation of soil nutrient of five artificial pure forests of Wuling Mountains in Hebei Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 21(4): 35-38. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/stbcyj201404008
  • 加载中
图(5) / 表(2)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  466
  • HTML全文浏览量:  161
  • PDF下载量:  17
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2018-03-15
  • 修回日期:  2018-04-30
  • 刊出日期:  2018-11-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回