不同植被重建管理方式对沙质草地土壤及植被性质的影响

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.01.008

草地学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (1): 47-54.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2015.01.008

不同植被重建管理方式对沙质草地土壤及植被性质的影响

付标¹, 齐雁冰^1,2, 常庆瑞^1,2

1. 西北农林科技大学资源环境学院, 陕西杨凌 712100;
2. 农业部西北植物营养与农业环境重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100

收稿日期:2014-05-14 修回日期:2014-07-16 出版日期:2015-02-15 发布日期:2015-01-31
通讯作者: 常庆瑞
作者简介:付标(1979-),男,河南郑州人,博士研究生,主要从事植被重建的土壤质量评价工作,E-mail:743223926@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31100516);中央高校基本科研业务费(QN2011075);国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)(2013AA102401-2)资助

Effect of Different Revegetation Management Methods on the Soil and Vegetation Characteristics of Degraded Sandy Grassland

FU Biao¹, QI Yan-bing^1,2, CHANG Qing-rui^1,2

1. College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and the Agri-environment in Northwest China, Ministry of Agriculture, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China

Received:2014-05-14 Revised:2014-07-16 Online:2015-02-15 Published:2015-01-31

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以陕北横山县雷龙湾乡恢复15年的退化沙质草地为研究对象,对未封育自然恢复、封育自然恢复、未封育人工恢复和封育人工恢复4种管理方式对植被和土壤性质的影响及二者的相关性进行了研究,以期为退化沙质草地筛选科学的植被恢复模式选择提供科学依据.结果表明:与流动沙地对照组相比较,经过15年的植被恢复4种管理方式均可不同程度的改善退化草地土壤及植被性质,地表植被高度、盖度和生物量分别提高0.12~1.03 m,12.70%~53.18%和7.27~29.08 g·m^-2,土壤容重降低0.12~0.27 g·cm^-3,土壤总孔隙度提高6.80%~17.01%,有机质、阳离子交换量、全氮及速效养分含量也显著提高.封育管理方式下植被与土壤的恢复效果优于未封育方式,人工植被恢复优于自然植被恢复,采取封育与人工植被恢复相结合的管理方式,严重退化沙质草地在植被恢复过程中植被与土壤特征形成了相互作用、相互影响的协调关系.为了促进农牧交错带退化沙质草地生态恢复,研究区应该采取封育与人工恢复相结合的植被恢复管理方式.

关键词: 植被恢复, 封育, 退化沙质草地, 管理方式, 土壤性质, 植被性质

Abstract:

Desertification has been widely treated as one of the major environmental hazards in the world by scientific communities and the public. Fortunately, local governments have recognized the harm of desertification and paid more attention to controlling desertification in degraded sandy grassland area. Artificial planting and fencing are usually the effective approaches used for desertification prevention, which will elevate vegetation coverage and prevent vegetation degradation. In this paper, soil and vegetation characteristics and their relationship were evaluated under 4 revegetation management modes (unenclosed natural management, enclosed natural management, unenclosed artificial management and enclosed artificial management), which have restoration about 15 years in the southern edge of Mu Us desert degraded sandy land area in Leilongwan Town, Hengshan County, Shaanxi province. The results indicated that the vegetation and soil characteristics of all tested management modes were improved after revegetation for 15 years compared with the mobile dune. Vegetation height, coverage and biomass significantly increased by 0.12~1.03 m, 12.70%~53.18% and 7.27~29.08 g·m^-2, respectively, soil bulk density decreased 0.12~0.27 g·cm^-3 and soil total property increased 6.80%~17.01%, meanwhile soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity (CEC), total N, and available N, P and K improved significantly. The better qualities of vegetation and soil characteristics were observed in enclosed management mode compared to unenclosed mode, meanwhile the better ones were also found in artificial management mode compared to natural mode. Therefore, enclosed artificial revegetation is the optimal mode to obtain the best vegetation and soil effects. By the enclosed and artificial revegetation measures, the plant and soil gradually have formed an interaction system, in which plant height, coverage and biomass have significantly correlation with the soil organic, CEC and soil nutrients of the degraded sandy grassland. In order to improve vegetation restoration and accumulate soil nutrients, enclosure combined with artificial vegetation restoration is an appropriate revegatation management mode of degraded sandy grassland in the agro-pastoral transitional zone.

Key words: Vegetation restoration, Enclosure, Degraded sandy grassland, Management mode, Soil characteristics, Plant characteristics

中图分类号:

S153.6

付标, 齐雁冰, 常庆瑞. 不同植被重建管理方式对沙质草地土壤及植被性质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(1): 47-54.

FU Biao, QI Yan-bing, CHANG Qing-rui. Effect of Different Revegetation Management Methods on the Soil and Vegetation Characteristics of Degraded Sandy Grassland[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(1): 47-54.

参考文献

[1] 单贵莲,徐柱,宁发,等. 围封年限对典型草原植被与土壤特征的影响[J]. 草业学报,2009,18(2):3-10
[2] 王蕙,王辉,黄蓉. 不同封育管理对沙质草地土壤与植被特征的影响[J]. 草业学报,2012,21(6):15-22
[3] 陈四清,崔骁勇,周广胜,等. 内蒙古锡林河流域大针茅草原土壤呼吸和凋落物分解的CO₂排放速率研究[J]. 植物学报,1999,41(6):645-650
[4] 王娓,郭继勋. 东北松嫩平原羊草群落的土壤呼吸与枯枝落叶分解释放CO₂贡献量[J]. 生态学报,2002,22(5):655-660
[5] 苏永中,赵哈林,文海燕. 退化沙质草地开垦和封育对土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 水土保持学报,2002,16(4):5-8
[6] 曹子龙,郑翠玲,赵廷宁,等. 围封草地"种子岛"效应对周围沙化草地土壤种子库的影响[J]. 水土保持学报,2006,20(3):197-200
[7] 苏永中,赵哈林. 持续放牧和围封对科尔沁退化沙地草地碳截存的影响[J]. 环境科学,2003,24(4):23-28
[8] 常庆瑞,安韶山,刘京,等. 陕北农牧交错带土地荒漠化本质特性研究[J]. 土壤学报,2003,40(4):518-523
[9] 李新荣,张志山,王新平,等. 干旱区土壤-植被系统恢复的生态水文学研究进展[J]. 中国沙漠,2009,29(5):845-852
[10] Li X R, Kong D S, Tan H J, et al. Changes in soil and vegetation following stabilization of dune in southeastern fringe of the Tengger desert, China [J]. Plant and Soil,2007,300(1):221-231
[11] 齐雁冰,常庆瑞,惠泱河. 荒漠化土壤人工植被恢复的土壤分形特征变化[J]. 土壤学报,2007,44(3):566-570
[12] 齐雁冰,常庆瑞,刘梦云,等. 荒漠化土壤对人工植被恢复工程的响应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究,2011,29(3):180-185,198
[13] 曹成有,邵建飞,蒋德明,等. 围栏封育对重度退化草地土壤养分和生物活性的影响[J]. 东北大学学报:自然科学版,2011,32(3):427-430
[14] 刘凤婵,李红丽,董智,等. 封育对退化草原植被恢复及土壤理化性质影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水土保持科学,2012,10(5):116-122
[15] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京:中国农业科技出版社,2000,214
[16] 刘忠宽,汪诗平,陈佐忠,等. 不同放牧强度草原休牧后土壤养分和植物群落变化特征[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(6):2048-2056
[17] 文海燕,赵哈林,傅华. 开垦和封育年限对退化沙质草地土壤性状的影响[J]. 草业学报,2005,14(1):31-37
[18] Schwenke G D, Ayre L, Mulligan D R, et al. Soil stripping and replace for the rehabilitation of bauxite-mined land at Weipa II. Soil organic matter dynamics in mine soil chronosequences [J]. Australia Journal of Soil Research,2000,38(2):371-394
[19] Lindstrom M J, Schumacher T E, Blecha M L. Management consideration for returning CRP lands to crop production [J]. Journal of Soil Water Conservation,1994,49(5):420-425
[20] Wang Z H, Daun C Q, Yuan L, et al. Assessment of the restoration of a degraded semi-humid evergreen broadleaf forest ecosystem by combined single-indicator and comprehensive model method [J]. Ecological Engineering,2010,36(6):757-767
[21] Wu J, Brookes P C. The proportional mineralisation of microbial biomass and organic matter caused by air-drying and rewetting of a grassland soil [J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2005,37(3):507-515
[22] Loch R J. Effects of vegetation cover on runoff and erosion under simulated rain and overland flow on a rehabilitated site on the Meandu Mine, Tarong, Queensland [J]. Australia Journal of Soil Research,2000,38(2):299-312
[23] 杨丽霞,陈少峰,安娟娟,等. 陕北黄土丘陵区不同植被类型群落多样性与土壤有机质、全氮关系研究[J]. 草地学报,2014,22(2):291-298
[24] 范燕敏,武红旗,孙宗玖,等. 围封对天山北坡荒漠草地土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 草地学报,2014,22(1):65-69
[25] Yang Y, Hasi E, Sun B P, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration in different types on soil nutrients in southern edge of Mu Us sandy land [J]. Agricultural Science & Technology,2012,13(8):1708-1712,1783
[26] Jiao F, Wen Z M, An S S. Changes in soil properties across a chronosequence of vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China [J]. Catena,2011,86:110-116
[27] 孙栋元,王辉,马仲武,等. 干旱荒漠区封育沙地土壤水分变化研究[J]. 西北林学院学报,2007,22(2):49-53
[28] 郝文芳,杜峰,陈小燕,等. 黄土丘陵区天然群落的植物组成植物多样性及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 草地学报,2012,20(4):610-615

不同植被重建管理方式对沙质草地土壤及植被性质的影响

Effect of Different Revegetation Management Methods on the Soil and Vegetation Characteristics of Degraded Sandy Grassland

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]	佘延娣, 杨晓渊, 马丽, 张中华, 王党军, 黄小涛, 马真, 姚步青, 周华坤. 退化高寒草甸植物群落和土壤特征及其相互关系研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 62-71.
[2]	姚喜喜, 才华, 李长慧. 封育和放牧对高寒草甸植被群落特征和土壤特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 128-136.
[3]	常明. 火烧后亚高山草甸恢复过程中物种组成和群落特征变化规律的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1286-1293.
[4]	孙华方, 李希来, 李成一, 张静, 林春英, 金立群, 杨鑫光. 黄河源区建植19年人工草地生物结皮CO₂通量与叶绿素荧光参数的变化[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 894-903.
[5]	卞莹莹, 张志敏, 付镇, 刘文娟. 荒漠草原区不同植被恢复模式土壤微生物菌落分布特征及其与土壤理化性质的相关性[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 655-663.
[6]	姚蒙蒙, 郭琛文, 赫凤彩, 张琦, 任国华. 晋北盐碱草地土壤化学计量特征及其与植物多样性的关系[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2800-2807.
[7]	米琦, 王毅, 秦小静, 孙建, 叶冲冲. 青藏高原高寒草甸不同围栏年限土壤酶化学计量特征[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 33-41.
[8]	杨满元, 杨宁, 欧阳美娟, 姜琳, 刘浩, 吴磊, 万丽. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地5种生态恢复模式的效果比较[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 177-183.
[9]	王锐, 李希来, 张静, 周华坤. 高寒矿区人工种草对露天排土场渣山表层基质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 938-948.
[10]	贾志锋, 马祥, 雷生春, 徐成体, 魏小星, 刘文辉. 施肥对贵南县轻度退化草甸植被特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 987-996.
[11]	吴婷, 宋乃平, 陈晓莹, 李敏岚, 陈娟. 围栏封育和放牧对盐池荒漠草原植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(3): 651-660.
[12]	李晓娜, 张微微, 赵春桥, 宋进库, 史瑞双, 薛瑞彬, 王超. 延庆区荒滩地土壤理化性质及其对植物多样性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(3): 695-701.
[13]	杨满元, 杨宁, 欧阳美娟, 万丽, 刘浩, 姜琳, 吴磊. 紫色土丘陵坡地土壤水溶性有机碳对植被恢复的响应及其与土壤因子的关系[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(3): 784-788.
[14]	张乾, 李金升, 赵天赐, 杨晓蒙, 王堃, 刘克思. 生物炭对土壤的影响及在草地生态系统中应用的研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 279-284.
[15]	杨宁, 杨满元, 姜琳, 万丽, 吴磊, 邹冬生. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地植被恢复过程中土壤可矿化碳库特征[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 320-325.