荒漠草原不同放牧强度下土壤酶化学计量特征的研究

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.09.002

草地学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (9): 2239-2248.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.09.002

荒漠草原不同放牧强度下土壤酶化学计量特征的研究

李雅男^1,2, 李邵宇^1,2, 史世斌², 王占海³, 张彬^1,2, 陈恒⁴, 赵萌莉^1,2

1. 内蒙古农业大学草原与资源环境学院/草地资源教育部重点实验室, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010019;
2. 内蒙古自治区水利科学研究院, 内蒙古呼和浩特 010051;
3. 呼伦贝尔市农牧技术推广中心, 内蒙古呼伦贝尔 021008;
4. 内蒙古赤峰市克什克腾旗农牧局, 内蒙古赤峰 025350

收稿日期:2022-04-19 修回日期:2022-06-09 出版日期:2022-09-15 发布日期:2022-09-30
通讯作者: 赵萌莉,E-mail:nmgmlzh@126.com
作者简介:李雅男(1997-),女,内蒙古赤峰市,硕士研究生,主要从事草地生态学方向研究,E-mail:1446848320@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（31861143001）；内蒙古自治区自然科学基金（2020ZD03）；内蒙古自治区科技计划项目（2019ZD008）

Study on Soil Enzyme Stoichiometric Characteristics of Different Grazing Intensities in Desert Steppe

LI Ya-nan^1,2, LI Shao-yu^1,2, SHI Shi-bin², WANG Zhan-hai³, ZHANG Bin^1,2, CHEN Heng⁴, ZHAO Meng-li^1,2

1. College of Grassland, Resource and Environment, Key Laboratory of grassland resources(IMAU), Ministry of Education, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, 010019, China;
2. Inner Mongolia Water Conservancy Research Institute, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, 010019, China;
3. Hulunbuir Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Technology Extension Centre, Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, 021008, China;
4. Keshiketeng Banner Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Bureau, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, 025350, China

Received:2022-04-19 Revised:2022-06-09 Online:2022-09-15 Published:2022-09-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探讨不同放牧强度对土壤酶活性及其化学计量比的影响，本研究依托于内蒙古农牧科学研究院长期放牧平台（2004年开始放牧），每个区组内设置4个不同放牧强度：重度（Heavy grazing，HG）、中度（Moderate grazing，MG）、轻度放牧区（Light grazing，LG）和对照区（Contral，CK），各小区放牧羊的数量分别为12，8，4，0只，于2021年5月利用土钻法进行野外取样，室内分析土壤理化性质、土壤微生物生物量、土壤酶活性及其化学计量特征。结果表明：随放牧强度增加，土壤理化性质，养分含量及其化学计量特征发生显著变化（P<0.05）。土壤微生物养分含量及与C （αG、βG）、N （NAG、LAP）、P （ALP）相关的5种酶活性均随放牧强度增加而降低。随放牧轻度增加，向量长度（Vectoe Lengh）和向量夹角（Vectoe Angle）均显著增加，与C、N、P循环相关的5种土壤酶活性及其化学计量比显著降低（P<0.05）。荒漠草原受C、N限制，且放牧强度越大限制越严重。

关键词: 荒漠草原, 放牧强度, 土壤酶活性, 养分限制

Abstract: To explore the effects of different grazing intensities on soil enzyme activities and their stoichiometric ratios, and to provide a theoretical basis for the rational utilization of desert grasslands and ecosystem restoration. The study was based on the long-term grazing platform of the Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences (grazing began in 2004), and four different grazing intensities were set up in each district group:heavy grazing, HG, moderate grazing, MG, light grazing area (LG) and control area (Contral, CK), the number of grazing sheep in each community was 12, 8, 4 and 0 respectively, in May 2021, the soil drilling method was used for field sampling, indoor analysis of soil physical and chemical properties, soil microbial biomass, soil enzyme activity and its stoichiometric characteristics.The results showed that soil physicochemical properties, nutrient content and their stoichiometric characteristics changed significantly with the increase of grazing intensity (P < 0.05). Soil microbial nutrient content and the activities of five enzymes related to C (αG, βG), N (NAG, LAP) and P (ALP) were all decreased with the increase of grazing intensity. The vector length (Vectoe Lengh) and vector angle (Vectoe Angle) both increased significantly with the increase of grazing lightness, and the activity of the five soil enzymes was associated with C, N and P cycling and their stoichiometric ratios were decreased significantly (P<0.05). Desert grasslands are C and N limited, and the greater the grazing intensity the more severe the limitation.

Key words: Desert grassland, Grazing intensity, Soil enzyme activity, Nutrient limitation

中图分类号:

S812.2

李雅男, 李邵宇, 史世斌, 王占海, 张彬, 陈恒, 赵萌莉. 荒漠草原不同放牧强度下土壤酶化学计量特征的研究[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2239-2248.

LI Ya-nan, LI Shao-yu, SHI Shi-bin, WANG Zhan-hai, ZHANG Bin, CHEN Heng, ZHAO Meng-li. Study on Soil Enzyme Stoichiometric Characteristics of Different Grazing Intensities in Desert Steppe[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(9): 2239-2248.

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.1007-0435.2022.09.002

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2022/V30/I9/2239

参考文献

[1] EKENLER M, TABATABAI M.β-Glucosaminidase activity of soils:effect of cropping systems and its relationship to nitrogen mineralization[J].Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2002, 36:367-376
[2] 鲁萍.东北羊草草原主要植物群落土壤酶活性的研究[D].长春:东北师范大学, 2002:23-26
[3] HE Y S, ZHANG X L, XU X Y.Effects of different cultivation time of garden plants on soil chemical properties and soil enzyme activities[J].Agricultural Biotechnology, 2018(7):146-148
[4] SINSABAUGH R L, HILL B H, SHAH J J F.Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial organic nutrient acquisition in soil and sediment[J].Nature, 2009, 462:795-798
[5] TURNER B L, HOPKINS D W, HAYGRTH P M, et al. β-Glucosidase activity in pasture soils[J].Applied Soil Ecology.2002(20):157-162
[6] 秦燕, 牛得草, 康健, 等.贺兰山西坡不同类型草地土壤酶活性特征[J].干旱区研究, 2012, 29(5):870-877
[7] SMOLANDER A, KURKA A, KITRNER V, MALKONEN E.Microbial biomass C and N, and respiratory activity in soil of repeatedly limed and N-and-P-tertilized Norway spruce stands[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1994(26):957-96
[8] 秦燕, 何峰, 仝宗永, 等.刈割对羊草草原土壤酶活性和养分含量的影响[J].草业学报, 2016, 25(4):55-62
[9] 斯贵才, 袁艳丽, 王建, 等.围封对当雄县高寒草原土壤微生物和酶活性的影响[J].草业科学, 2015, 32(1):1-10
[10] 闫本帅, 孙利鹏, 李晶晶, 等.辽东栎林次生演替过程中土壤酶化学计量特征变化[J].生态学杂志, 2022, 1:1-9
[11] SINSABAUGH R, LAUBER C, WEINTRAUB M, et al.Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale[J].Ecology Letters, 2008, 11:1252-1264
[12] MOORHEAD D L, RINKES Z L, SINSABAUGH R L.Dynamicre-latitionship between microbial biomass, respiration, inorganic nutrients and enzymeactivities:informing enzyme-based de-composition models[J].Front microbiology, 2013, 4:223
[13] 徐振锋, 胡庭兴, 张远彬, 等.川西亚高山林线交错带糙皮桦和岷江冷杉幼苗物候与生长对模拟增温的响应[J].植物生态学报, 2008, 32(5):1061-1071
[14] HEIMANN M, REICHSTEIN M.Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks[J].Nature, 2008, 452:289-292
[15] CASTOR H F, CLASSEN A T, AUSTIN E E.Soil microbial community responses to multiple experimental climate change drivers[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010, 76:999-1007
[16] 谢高地, 张钇锂, 鲁春霞, 等.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报, 2001, 16(1):47-53
[17] 泽让东科, 文勇立, 艾驚, 等.放牧对青藏高原高寒草地土壤和生物量的影响[J].草业科学, 2016, 33(10):1975-1980
[18] 柴锦隆, 徐长林, 杨海為, 等.糢拟践踏和降水对高寒萆句土壤物理特性和微生物数量的影响[J].草业学报, 2017, 26(2):30-42
[19] 杨阳.不同载畜率下荒漠草原无芒隐子草(Cleistogenes songoria)根际土壤养分与微生物的研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2020:34-37
[20] 张峰, 孙嘉伟, 孙宇, 等.不同载畜率对短花针茅荒漠草原优势物种间关系及其空间分布特征的影响[J].草业学报, 2021, 30(8):1-11
[21] MOORHEAD D L, SINSABAUGH R L, HILL B H.Vector analysis of ecoenzyme activities reveal constraints on coupled C, N and P dynamics[J].Soil Biology&Biochemistry, 2016, 93:1-7
[22] 孙大帅.不同放牧强度对青藏高原东部高寒草甸植被和土壤影响的研究[D].兰州:兰州大学, 2012:34-35
[23] 王理德, 王方琳, 郭春秀等.土壤酶学硏究进展[J].土壤, 2016, 48(1):12-21
[24] MARTENS D A,JOHANSON J B, FRANKENBERGER W T.Production and persist ence of soil enzymes with repeat ed additions of organic residues[J].Soil Sci,1992, 153:53-61
[25] 安慧, 李国旗.放牧对荒漠草原植物生物量及土壤养分的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2013, 19(3):705-712
[26] 秦燕.贺兰山西坡不同草地类型土壤酶活性特征[D].兰州:兰州大学, 2007:35-37
[27] CLEVELAND C C, LIPTZIN D.C:N:P stoichiometry in soil:is there a "Redfield ratio" for the microbial biomass[J].Biogeochemistry, 2007, 85:235-252
[28] 王强, 耿增超, 许晨阳, 等.施用生物炭对塿土土壤微生物代谢养分限制和碳利用效率的影响[J].环境科学, 2020, 41(5):2425-2433
[29] 侯扶江, 南志标, 肖金玉, 等.重牧退化草地的植被、土壤及其耦合特征[J].应用生态学报, 2002(8):915-922
[30] STARKS, MINNA K, MNNIST S, et al. TIIROLA, et al.Grazing intensity in subarctic tundra affects the temperature adaptation of soil microbial communities[J].Soil Biology ang Biochemistry, 2015, 84:146-157
[31] GAO Z Y, GIESE M, LIN S. Belowground net primary productivity and biomass allocation of a grassland in Inner Mongolia is affected by grazing intensity[J].Plant and Soil, 2008, 307:41-50
[32] 何斌, 李青, 冯图.黔西北不同林龄马尾松人工林针叶-凋落物-土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J] 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(11):2149-2157
[33] COLLINS S L, KNAPP A K, JMB R. Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie[J].Science, 1998(280):745-747
[34] 杨丽丽, 龚吉蕊, 王忆慧, 等.内蒙古温带草原不同放牧强度和围栏封育对凋落物分解的影响[J].植物生态学报, 2016, 40(8):748-759
[35] CUI Y X, BING H J, FANG L C. Extracellular enzyme stoichiometry reveals the carbonand phosphorus limitations of microbial metabolismsin the rhizosphere and bulk soils in alpine ecosystems[J].Plant and Soil.2021, 458:7-20
[36] WEINTRAUB M N, SCOTT- DENTON L E, MONSON SRK. The effects of tree rhizodeposition on soil exoenzyme activity, dissolved organic carbon, and nutrient availability in a subalpine forest ecosystem[J].Oecologia, 2007, 154:327-338
[37] TRESEDER K K, VITOUSEKK P M.Effects of Soil Nutrient Availability onInvestment in Acquisition of N and P in Hawaiian Rain forests[J].Ecology, 2001, 82:946-54
[38] CHAPIN F S, MATSON P A, MOONEY H A. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology[J].Springer-Verlag, New York, 2011:176-178.
[39] 吴秀芝, 阎欣, 王波, 等.荒漠草地沙漠化对土壤-微生物-胞外酶化学计量特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(10):1022-1032
[40] 通乐嘎, 赵斌, 吴玲敏.放牧对内蒙古荒漠草原土壤理化性质和有机碳组分的影响[J].生态环境学报, 2018, 27(9):1602-1609

荒漠草原不同放牧强度下土壤酶化学计量特征的研究

Study on Soil Enzyme Stoichiometric Characteristics of Different Grazing Intensities in Desert Steppe

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]	许婷婷, 董智, 郭建英, 李红丽, 王树梅, 陈新闯. 放牧对内蒙古典型草原植物群落特征与土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2273-2279.
[2]	李雅男, 李邵宇, 孙宇, 胡雪峰, 贺启珅, 张彬, 赵萌莉. 荒漠草原土壤酶活性及化学计量特征对不同载畜率的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2019-2026.
[3]	张琦, 郭琛文, 姚蒙蒙, 董宽虎, 王常慧, 任国华. 放牧强度对半干旱草地优势植物赖草功能性状的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2108-2117.
[4]	高昌宇, 齐志远, 郑慧, 陈玺洋, 秦加敏, 郝杰, 张乃莉, 王常慧, 董宽虎. 土壤有效养分和微生物特征对短期不同放牧强度的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1641-1650.
[5]	黄瑞灵, 王西文, 马国虎, 朱锦福, 周华坤. 模拟氮沉降对高寒湿地土壤理化性质和酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(6): 1343-1349.
[6]	马宁, 赵允格, 马昕昕, 李雯, 乔羽, 孙会, 许明祥. 黄土丘陵区退耕草地土壤碳库管理指数对放牧的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(5): 1043-1053.
[7]	陆刚, 黄海霞, 周晓雷, 曹雪萍, 赵安. 迭部林区云冷杉林火烧迹地土壤有机碳及酶活性变化特征[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(4): 943-949.
[8]	尉剑飞, 王誉陶, 张翼, 张昊, 李建平. 黄土高原典型草原植被及土壤化学计量对降水变化的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 532-543.
[9]	于志慧, 吕广一, 王新雅, 徐学宝, 贾东璇, 王成杰. 放牧强度对内蒙古荒漠草原土壤碳氮及其稳定同位素的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(3): 544-552.
[10]	王淼, 张宇, 张楚, 陈思思, 王旭, 陈金强, 李瑞强, 曹娟, 辛晓平, 周忠义, 闫瑞瑞. 放牧强度对草甸草原植物群落主要功能群碳氮磷贮量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(1): 125-133.
[11]	焦越佳, 张佳雨, 黄馨慧, 刘风山, 孙振元, 钱永强. 内蒙古荒漠草原东部植被指标动态变化及其与气候变化的关系[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(1): 153-160.
[12]	姚喜喜, 王立亚, 严振英, 张文娟, 孙海群, 周睿. 放牧对温性荒漠草原植物群落特征与牧草营养品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(S1): 165-172.
[13]	郭文章, 井长青, 王公鑫, 侯志雄, 赵苇康. 天山北坡荒漠草原土壤呼吸和生态系统呼吸对降水的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2031-2039.
[14]	吴雪梅, 杨雪岩, 林媛媛, 代亦, 曹乐乐, 董文萱, 刘增文. 刺槐和油松枯落叶腐殖质化对气候温湿变化的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1738-1747.
[15]	高志香, 李希来, 张静, 金立群, 周伟. 不同施肥处理对高寒矿区渣山改良土酶活性和理化性质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1748-1756.