衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复过程中土壤质量评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.01.019

草地学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (1): 160-167.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.01.019

衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复过程中土壤质量评价

陈璟, 杨宁

湖南环境生物职业技术学院园林学院, 湖南衡阳 421005

收稿日期:2017-03-09 修回日期:2017-08-06 出版日期:2018-02-15 发布日期:2018-05-25
通讯作者: 杨宁
作者简介:陈璟(1966-),男,副教授,主要从事园林植物、园林生态方面研究,E-mail:heshecheng2@sina.com
基金资助:
湖南省科技厅项目（S2006N332）；湖南省教育厅科学研究项目（13C247）；湖南省林业科技创新计划项目（XLK201341）；湖南省衡阳市农业科技支撑计划项目（2014KN27）资助

Soil Quality Assessment Along Re-vegetation on Sloping-Land with Purple Soils in Hengyang of Hunan Province, South-central China

CHEN Jing, YANG Ning

College of Landscape Architecture, Hunan Environmental-Biological Polytechnic College, Hengyang, Hunan provience 421005, China

Received:2017-03-09 Revised:2017-08-06 Online:2018-02-15 Published:2018-05-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文以典型的衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同恢复阶段为研究对象，采用空间序列代替时间序列方法，选用立地条件基本相似草坡（grassplot， GT）群落、灌草（frutex and grassplot， FG）群落、灌丛（frutex， FX）群落和乔灌（arbor and frutex， AF）群落为研究对象，采用土壤质量综合指数的研究方法探讨植被恢复对土壤质量的影响。结果表明：随着植被恢复进行，土壤质量得到明显改善（P<0.05）；随着土层深度的增加，土壤的改良效果明显降低（P<0.05）；不同植被恢复阶段的土壤质量的综合指数为乔灌群落（0.528） > 灌丛群落（0.522） > 灌草群落（0.485） > 草坡群落（0.482）。研究表明：植被恢复改善了衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地的土壤质量。

关键词: 土壤质量, 评价, 紫色土, 衡阳

Abstract:

By using the spatial series to replace time series, four typical sampling plots [grassplot(GT), frutex and grassplot(FG), frutex(FX) and arbor-frutex(AF) community] were selected to study the effects of re-vegetation on soil quality with the method of integrated soil quality index. The four communities on sloping-land with purple soils were similar and typical, and denoted four different successive stages in Hengyang of Hunan Province, South-central China. Results indicated: Soil quality was obviously improved in the process of re-vegetation(P<0.05); With increasing soil depth, effects of soil improving decreased(P<0.05); Integrated soil quality index in different re-vegetation stages followed the order as AF community(0.528) > FX community(0.522) > FG community(0.485) > GT community(0.482). All the results indicated soil quality was improved in the process of re-vegetation on sloping-land of purple soils in Hengyang of Hunan Province, South-central China.

Key words: Soil quality, Assessment, Purple soils, Hengyang

中图分类号:

S151.9

陈璟, 杨宁. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复过程中土壤质量评价[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(1): 160-167.

CHEN Jing, YANG Ning. Soil Quality Assessment Along Re-vegetation on Sloping-Land with Purple Soils in Hengyang of Hunan Province, South-central China[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(1): 160-167.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.01.019

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2018/V26/I1/160

参考文献

[1] Doran J W, Parkin T B. Defining and assessing soil quality[C]//Doran J W,Coleman D C,Bezdicek D F,et al. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Madison:SSSA Special Publication, American Soil Agronomy, 1994:3-21
[2] 刘伟玮,刘某承,李文华,等. 辽东山区林参复合经营土壤质量评价[J]. 生态学报,2017,37(8):2631-2641
[3] 赵娜,孟平,张劲松,等. 华北低丘山地不同退耕年限刺槐人工林土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报,2014,25(2):351-358
[4] 杨宁,邹冬生,杨满元,等. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同恢复阶段植被特征与土壤性质的关系[J]. 应用生态学报,2013,24(1):90-96
[5] Le Bissonnais Y. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crust ability and erodibility(Ⅰ):Theory and methodology[J]. European Journal of Soil Science,1996,47(4):425-437
[6] Carter M R,Gregorich E G,Anderson D W,et al. Concepts of soil quality and their significance[C]//Gregorich E G,Carter M R,et al. Soil Quality for Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Volume 25. Development in Soil Science. Amsterdam:Elsevier,1997:1-20
[7] 蒋智林,刘万学,万方浩,等. 紫茎泽兰与非洲狗尾草, 混种群落土壤酶活性和土壤养分的比较[J]. 植物生态学报,2008,32(4):891-899
[8] 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
[9] 杨宁,邹冬生,付美云,等. 紫色土丘陵坡地恢复中土壤团聚体特征及其与土壤性质的关系[J]. 生态学杂志,2016,35(9):2361-2368
[10] 杨宁,邹冬生,杨满元,等. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复阶段土壤特性的演变[J]. 生态学报,2014,34(10):2693-2701
[11] 吴建平,韩新辉,许亚东,等. 黄土丘陵区不同植被类型下土壤与微生物C, N, P化学计量特征研究[J]. 草地学报,2016,24(4):783-792
[12] Brejda J J,Karlen D L,Smith J L,et al. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators Ⅱ. Northern mississippi loess hills and palouse prairie[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,2000,64(6):2125-2129
[13] Karel P,Petr P. How do species dominating in succession different from others?[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science,1999,10(3):283-292
[14] 张继义,赵哈林,张铜会,等. 科尔沁沙地植被恢复系列上群落演替与物种多样性的恢复动态[J]. 植物生态学报,2004,28(1):86-92
[15] 陶宝先,张金池,林杰,等. 苏南丘陵不同林分类型土壤质量评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版):2009,33(6):74-78
[16] 王维奇,仝川,贾瑞霞,等. 不同淹水频率下湿地土壤碳氮磷生态化学计量学特征[J]. 水土保持学报,2010,24(3):238-242
[17] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2000
[18] Vance E D,Brookes P C,Jenkinson D C. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,1987,19(6):703-707
[19] Sparling G P,Gupta V V S R,Zhu G Y. Release of ninhydrinreactive compounds during fumigation of soil to estimate microbial C and N[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,1993,25(12):1803-1805
[20] 王华,黄宇,汪思龙,等. 中亚热带区域几种典型生态系统土壤质量评价:Ⅱ.不同生态系统对土壤质量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报,2009,18(3):1107-1111
[21] 张庆费,宋永昌,由文辉. 浙江天童植物群落次生演替与土壤肥力的关系[J]. 生态学报,1999,19(2):174-178
[22] Yang H S,Yuan Y,Zhang Q,et al. Changes in soil organic carbon,total nitrogen,and abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi along a large-scale aridity gradient[J]. Catena,2011,87(1):70-77
[23] 王启兰,王溪,曹广民,等. 青海海北州典型高寒草甸土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(6):1416-1422
[24] Stern R,Van Der Merwe A J,Laker M C,et al. Effect of soil surface treatments on runoff and wheat yields under irrigation[J]. Agronomy Journal,1992,84(1):114-119
[25] Pinkhurst C E. Biodiversity of soil organisms as an indicator of soil health[C]//Pinkhurst C E,eds. Biological Indicators of Soil Health. Wallingford,UK:CAB International,1997:297-324
[26] Yu S,He Z L,Huang C Y. Advances in the research of soil microorganisms and their mediated processes under heavy metal stress,Chinese[J]. Applied Ecology,2003,14(4):618-622
[27] Wardle D A. Controls of temporal variability of the soil microbial biomass:a global-scale synthesis[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,1998,30(13):1627-1637
[28] 杨宁,杨满元,邹冬生,等. 紫色土丘陵坡地恢复过程中土壤微生物生物量碳与水溶性有机碳变化特征[J]. 草地学报,2016,24(4):812-818
[29] 邵玉琴,敖晓兰,宋国宝,等. 皇甫川流域退化草地和恢复草地土壤微生物生物量的研究[J]. 生态学杂志,2005,24(5):578-580
[30] 文东新,杨宁,杨满元. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同植被恢复模式对土壤微生物量及酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2016,24(6):1241-1247
[31] 张亚玉,孙海,宋晓霞. 农田栽参根区土壤酶活性与土壤养分的关系[J]. 吉林农业大学学报,2010,32(6):661-665,683-683
[32] 王光军,田大伦,闫文德,等. 改变凋落物输入对杉木人工林土壤呼吸的短期效应[J]. 植物生态学报,2009,33(4):739-747
[33] 徐丽丽,王秋兵,张心昱,等.不同肥料对稻田红壤碳、氮、磷循环相关酶活性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(4):909-914
[34] 刘占锋,傅伯杰,刘国华,等. 土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(3):3901-913
[35] Wander M M,Boilero G A. Soil quality assessment of tillage impacts in Illinois[J]. Soil Science Society America Journal,1999,63(4):961-971
[36] Fox G A,Melta R. Soil property analysis using principal components analysis,soil line,and regression medels[J]. Soil Science Society America Journal,2005,69(6):1782-1788
[37] 纪浩,董希斌. 大兴安岭低质林改造后土壤肥力综合评价[J]. 林业科学,2012,48(11):117-123
[38] Zhang B,Deng H,Wang H L,et al. Does microbial habitat or community structure drive the functional stability of microbes to stresses following re-vegetation of a severely degraded soil?[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry,2010,42(2):850-859
[39] 杨宁,邹冬生,杨满元,等. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同植被恢复阶段土壤微生物群落多样性的变化[J]. 林业科学,2016,52(8):146-156
[40] Kmada K,Sato O,Ohsumi Y,et al. Humus composition of mauntain soil in central Japan with special reference to the distribution of P type humic acid[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition,1967,13(5):151-158
[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

衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复过程中土壤质量评价

Soil Quality Assessment Along Re-vegetation on Sloping-Land with Purple Soils in Hengyang of Hunan Province, South-central China

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	晏和飘, 李文龙, 梁天刚, 周华坤, 曹亚鹏, 廖元成. 青藏高原退化高寒草地恢复对不同措施响应的Meta分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 190-198.
[2]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[3]	李满有, 马忠仁, 王斌, 杨雨琦, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区2个苜蓿品种不同行比混播模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[4]	尹玉林, 马文馨, 李亚娟, 田新会, 杜文华. 甘肃省中部地区猫尾草新品系的抗寒性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 625-630.
[5]	刘亚兰, 赵月, 徐梦琦, 柴旭田, 曾凡江, 李向义, 李磊, 黄彩变. 极端干旱区种植行距对油莎豆生长及土壤特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(11): 2486-2493.
[6]	朱鸣鸣, 徐镀涵, 陈光燕, 李平, 成启明, 陈超. 基于最小数据集的喀斯特不同利用方式下土壤质量评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10): 2323-2331.
[7]	谢楠, 刘振宇, 冯伟, 智健飞, 李梦, 杜姿璇, 刘忠宽. 饲用谷子在环渤海盐碱旱地的生产性能及饲用品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 60-71.
[8]	南铭, 景芳, 边芳, 任生兰, 刘彦明. 6个裸燕麦品种在甘肃中部引洮灌区的生产性能及饲用价值比较[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1635-1642.
[9]	李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃. 基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.
[10]	贾祥, 多吉格桑, 赵爱民, 张文才, 曲尼加措, 拉巴卓玛, 普布次仁, 苗彦军. 4种禾本科牧草苗期抗寒性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1372-1378.
[11]	武瑞鑫, 李源, 游永亮, 刘贵波, 赵海明. 紫花苜蓿全生育期抗旱性鉴定评价方法探讨[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1444-1453.
[12]	邓素芳, 黄水珍, 郑向丽, 应朝阳. 满江红属植物的有机肥品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 932-939.
[13]	刘小慧, 王重丽, 王梦茹, 郇恒福, 刘一明, 刘国道. 圭亚那柱花草苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱种质鉴定[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 956-967.
[14]	周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 益西央宗. 拉萨地区16个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 389-396.
[15]	杨丹, 张舒芸, 田新会, 杜文华. 不同黑麦品种(品系)对持续干旱胁迫的形态适应性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 122-129.