植物生态学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (11): 1168-1176.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2017.0220
王甜1,2, 徐姗3, 赵梦颖1,2, 李贺1,2, 寇丹1,2, 方精云1, 胡会峰1,*()
收稿日期:
2017-08-16
接受日期:
2017-11-14
出版日期:
2017-11-10
发布日期:
2017-11-10
通讯作者:
胡会峰
基金资助:
Tian WANG1,2, Shan XU3, Meng-Ying ZHAO1,2, He LI1,2, Dan KOU1,2, Jing-Yun FANG1, Hui-Feng HU1,*()
Received:
2017-08-16
Accepted:
2017-11-14
Online:
2017-11-10
Published:
2017-11-10
Contact:
Hui-Feng HU
摘要:
土壤团聚体是土壤结构的重要组成部分, 是土壤保护其有机碳的一种重要物理与生物机制, 但迄今为止对其空间格局分布的研究较少。该文研究了我国内蒙古3种草原类型(草甸草原、典型草原、荒漠草原)不同土层深度的土壤团聚体质量百分比及其稳定性的分布规律。结果显示: 土壤团聚体的质量百分比在3种草原类型各个土层深度的分布均呈现草甸草原>典型草原=荒漠草原的趋势, 而沿土层深度3种草原类型的土壤团聚体的质量百分比含量并未呈现显著规律。各层的土壤团聚体质量百分比均与年降水量呈显著正相关关系; 除70-100 cm土层外, 其与年平均气温均呈负相关关系。对土壤团聚体稳定性而言, 在0-10 cm和10-20 cm两个土层深度, 草甸草原土壤团聚体的平均质量直径与几何平均直径显著大于典型草原和荒漠草原, 而在其他土层, 3种草原类型间无显著差异。随着土层深度的增加, 草甸草原和典型草原土壤团聚体的平均质量直径与几何平均直径均呈现逐渐降低的趋势。该文对于理解内蒙古不同类型草原土壤有机碳的稳定性和保护机制具有重要意义。
王甜, 徐姗, 赵梦颖, 李贺, 寇丹, 方精云, 胡会峰. 内蒙古不同类型草原土壤团聚体含量的分配及其稳定性. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(11): 1168-1176. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2017.0220
Tian WANG, Shan XU, Meng-Ying ZHAO, He LI, Dan KOU, Jing-Yun FANG, Hui-Feng HU. Allocation of mass and stability of soil aggregate in different types of Nei Mongol grasslands. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2017, 41(11): 1168-1176. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2017.0220
草原类型 Grassland type | GSP平均值(范围)1) Mean of GSP (range) 1) (mm) | GST平均值(范围) 1) Mean of GST a(range) 1) (℃) | 氮:磷平均值(范围) 2) Mean of N:P (range) 2) | pH平均值(范围) 3) Mean of pH (range) 3) | 优势种4) Dominant species4) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
草甸草原 Meadow steppe | 306 (277-327) | 12.50 (11.20-13.60) | 3.83 (3.25-4.37) | 7.10 (7.60-8.00) | 贝加尔针茅 Stipa baicalensis, 羊草 Leymus chinensis |
典型草原 Typical steppe | 242 (174-295) | 14.00 (12.60-18.20) | 3.02 (2.93-3.11) | 7.50 (7.26-7.73) | 大针茅 Stipa grandis, 克氏针茅 Stipa kryovii |
荒漠草原 Desert steppe | 163 (110-219) | 16.50 (14.70-17.60) | 2.48 (2.41-2.54) | 7.80 (6.65-7.56) | 小针茅 Stipa klemenzii, 短花针茅 Stipa breviflora |
表1 三种草原的基本信息
Table 1 The basic information of the three types of grassland
草原类型 Grassland type | GSP平均值(范围)1) Mean of GSP (range) 1) (mm) | GST平均值(范围) 1) Mean of GST a(range) 1) (℃) | 氮:磷平均值(范围) 2) Mean of N:P (range) 2) | pH平均值(范围) 3) Mean of pH (range) 3) | 优势种4) Dominant species4) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
草甸草原 Meadow steppe | 306 (277-327) | 12.50 (11.20-13.60) | 3.83 (3.25-4.37) | 7.10 (7.60-8.00) | 贝加尔针茅 Stipa baicalensis, 羊草 Leymus chinensis |
典型草原 Typical steppe | 242 (174-295) | 14.00 (12.60-18.20) | 3.02 (2.93-3.11) | 7.50 (7.26-7.73) | 大针茅 Stipa grandis, 克氏针茅 Stipa kryovii |
荒漠草原 Desert steppe | 163 (110-219) | 16.50 (14.70-17.60) | 2.48 (2.41-2.54) | 7.80 (6.65-7.56) | 小针茅 Stipa klemenzii, 短花针茅 Stipa breviflora |
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe (%) | 典型草原 Typical steppe (%) | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0-10 | A1 | 14.15 ± 1.98a | 13.58 ± 1.20a | 14.8 ± 1.49a |
A2 | 9.33 ± 0.93a | 8.32 ± 0.44a | 5.90 ± 0.45a | |
A3 | 15.90 ± 2.96a | 10.33 ± 1.24ab | 6.76 ± 0.71b | |
A4 | 14.15 ± 4.48a | 5.93 ± 0.99b | - | |
10-20 | A1 | 18.82 ± 3.41a | 12.89 ± 1.02ab | 12.67 ± 1.30b |
A2 | 10.37 ± 1.30a | 8.30 ± 0.59a | 6.84 ± 1.09a | |
A3 | 15.43 ± 3.08a | 9.30 ± 0.93ab | 7.32 ± 0.90b | |
20-30 | A4 | 10.22 ± 2.87a | 4.51 ± 0.96b | - |
A1 | 22.86 ± 3.23a | 13.70 ± 1.39ab | 10.14 ± 1.16b | |
A2 | 12.93 ± 1.34a | 7.65 ± 0.52ab | 6.64 ± 0.65b | |
A3 | 12.39 ± 2.54a | 9.24 ± 0.95a | 7.74 ± 1.35a | |
A4 | 6.95 ± 1.35a | 3.72 ± 1.03a | - | |
30-50 | A1 | 18.97 ± 2.43a | 13.55 ± 1.16ab | 10.30 ± 1.20b |
A2 | 14.70 ± 2.61a | 8.74 ± 0.82ab | 6.93 ± 1.53b | |
A3 | 13.39 ± 2.83a | 8.02 ± 0.75ab | 6.75 ± 0.66b | |
A4 | 4.76 ± 0.79a | 3.70 ± 1.17a | - | |
50-70 | A1 | 23.89 ± 8.50a | 17.02 ± 3.26b | 9.43 ± 1.50c |
A2 | 12.34 ± 3.64a | 7.18 ± 1.09ab | 5.32 ± 0.68b | |
A3 | 17.35 ± 5.94a | 6.84 ± 1.28b | 6.29 ± 0.83b | |
A4 | - | - | - | |
70-100 | A1 | 29.72 ± 9.86a | 14.71 ± 3.01b | 10.09 ± 1.22b |
A2 | 10.79 ± 2.97a | 6.87 ± 1.08a | 5.15 ± 1.150a | |
A3 | 14.68 ± 5.49a | 6.65 ± 1.46b | 7.86 ± 2.23b | |
A4 | - | - | - |
附录I 各个土层各级团聚体的质量百分比(平均值±标准误差)
Appendix I The mass percentage (%) of each aggregate fraction in different soil layers (mean ± SE)
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe (%) | 典型草原 Typical steppe (%) | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
0-10 | A1 | 14.15 ± 1.98a | 13.58 ± 1.20a | 14.8 ± 1.49a |
A2 | 9.33 ± 0.93a | 8.32 ± 0.44a | 5.90 ± 0.45a | |
A3 | 15.90 ± 2.96a | 10.33 ± 1.24ab | 6.76 ± 0.71b | |
A4 | 14.15 ± 4.48a | 5.93 ± 0.99b | - | |
10-20 | A1 | 18.82 ± 3.41a | 12.89 ± 1.02ab | 12.67 ± 1.30b |
A2 | 10.37 ± 1.30a | 8.30 ± 0.59a | 6.84 ± 1.09a | |
A3 | 15.43 ± 3.08a | 9.30 ± 0.93ab | 7.32 ± 0.90b | |
20-30 | A4 | 10.22 ± 2.87a | 4.51 ± 0.96b | - |
A1 | 22.86 ± 3.23a | 13.70 ± 1.39ab | 10.14 ± 1.16b | |
A2 | 12.93 ± 1.34a | 7.65 ± 0.52ab | 6.64 ± 0.65b | |
A3 | 12.39 ± 2.54a | 9.24 ± 0.95a | 7.74 ± 1.35a | |
A4 | 6.95 ± 1.35a | 3.72 ± 1.03a | - | |
30-50 | A1 | 18.97 ± 2.43a | 13.55 ± 1.16ab | 10.30 ± 1.20b |
A2 | 14.70 ± 2.61a | 8.74 ± 0.82ab | 6.93 ± 1.53b | |
A3 | 13.39 ± 2.83a | 8.02 ± 0.75ab | 6.75 ± 0.66b | |
A4 | 4.76 ± 0.79a | 3.70 ± 1.17a | - | |
50-70 | A1 | 23.89 ± 8.50a | 17.02 ± 3.26b | 9.43 ± 1.50c |
A2 | 12.34 ± 3.64a | 7.18 ± 1.09ab | 5.32 ± 0.68b | |
A3 | 17.35 ± 5.94a | 6.84 ± 1.28b | 6.29 ± 0.83b | |
A4 | - | - | - | |
70-100 | A1 | 29.72 ± 9.86a | 14.71 ± 3.01b | 10.09 ± 1.22b |
A2 | 10.79 ± 2.97a | 6.87 ± 1.08a | 5.15 ± 1.150a | |
A3 | 14.68 ± 5.49a | 6.65 ± 1.46b | 7.86 ± 2.23b | |
A4 | - | - | - |
因素 Factor | 团聚体质量百分数 Mass percentage of aggregate |
---|---|
土层深度 Soil depth | 0.12 |
草原类型 Grassland type | < 0.01 |
土层深度×草原类型 Soil depth × Grassland type | 0.41 |
附录II 土层深度和草原类型对团聚体质量百分数的双因素方差分析
Appendix II The two-way ANOVA results of soil depth and grassland type on the mass percentage of aggregate
因素 Factor | 团聚体质量百分数 Mass percentage of aggregate |
---|---|
土层深度 Soil depth | 0.12 |
草原类型 Grassland type | < 0.01 |
土层深度×草原类型 Soil depth × Grassland type | 0.41 |
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe (%) | 典型草原 Typical steppe (%) | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0-10 | 49.66 ± 1.12a | 35.07 ± 2.20b | 27.25 ± 1.87b |
10-20 | 48.63 ± 2.08a | 32.30 ± 2.19b | 26.84 ± 2.76b |
20-30 | 52.15 ± 5.70a | 31.80 ± 2.32b | 24.52 ± 2.68b |
30-50 | 48.20 ± 1.79a | 31.53 ± 2.28b | 24.45 ± 3.26b |
50-70 | 49.14 ± 14.21a | 31.21 ± 0.82b | 21.04 ± 2.49b |
70-100 | 48.40 ± 15.21a | 28.82 ± 1.5b | 23.10 ± 3.73b |
0-100 | 49.52 ± 2.76a | 32.32 ± 1.08b | 25.22 ± 1.17b |
表2 三种草原各层土壤团聚体的质量百分比(平均值±标准误差)
Table 2 The mass percentage (%) of total soil aggregate in different soil layers (mean ± SE)
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe (%) | 典型草原 Typical steppe (%) | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0-10 | 49.66 ± 1.12a | 35.07 ± 2.20b | 27.25 ± 1.87b |
10-20 | 48.63 ± 2.08a | 32.30 ± 2.19b | 26.84 ± 2.76b |
20-30 | 52.15 ± 5.70a | 31.80 ± 2.32b | 24.52 ± 2.68b |
30-50 | 48.20 ± 1.79a | 31.53 ± 2.28b | 24.45 ± 3.26b |
50-70 | 49.14 ± 14.21a | 31.21 ± 0.82b | 21.04 ± 2.49b |
70-100 | 48.40 ± 15.21a | 28.82 ± 1.5b | 23.10 ± 3.73b |
0-100 | 49.52 ± 2.76a | 32.32 ± 1.08b | 25.22 ± 1.17b |
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (MAP) (mm) | 年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (MAT) (℃) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | R2 | p | a | b | R2 | p | |
0-10 | 0.13 | -2.10 | 0.26 | < 0.01 | -2.78 | 41.06 | 0.20 | < 0.01 |
10-20 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.18 | < 0.01 | -2.59 | 39.65 | 0.14 | < 0.01 |
20-30 | 0.13 | -4.05 | 0.20 | < 0.01 | -3.21 | 10.24 | 0.20 | < 0.01 |
30-50 | 0.12 | -1.64 | 0.16 | < 0.01 | -3.21 | 39.26 | 0.21 | < 0.01 |
50-70 | 0.13 | -7.19 | 0.11 | 0.06 | -3.32 | 38.21 | 0.15 | 0.03 |
70-100 | 0.14 | -11.35 | 0.11 | 0.06 | -2.73 | 36.29 | 0.07 | 0.11 |
表3 各层土壤团聚体总质量百分数与气候因子的一元线性关系
Table 3 The linear relationships between total aggregate mass percentage of different soil layers and climate factors
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 年降水量 Mean annual precipitation (MAP) (mm) | 年平均气温 Mean annual air temperature (MAT) (℃) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | R2 | p | a | b | R2 | p | |
0-10 | 0.13 | -2.10 | 0.26 | < 0.01 | -2.78 | 41.06 | 0.20 | < 0.01 |
10-20 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.18 | < 0.01 | -2.59 | 39.65 | 0.14 | < 0.01 |
20-30 | 0.13 | -4.05 | 0.20 | < 0.01 | -3.21 | 10.24 | 0.20 | < 0.01 |
30-50 | 0.12 | -1.64 | 0.16 | < 0.01 | -3.21 | 39.26 | 0.21 | < 0.01 |
50-70 | 0.13 | -7.19 | 0.11 | 0.06 | -3.32 | 38.21 | 0.15 | 0.03 |
70-100 | 0.14 | -11.35 | 0.11 | 0.06 | -2.73 | 36.29 | 0.07 | 0.11 |
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe | 典型草原 Typical steppe | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMD | GMD | MMD | GMD | MMD | GMD | |
0-10 | 0.76 ± 0.11 | 0.38 ± 0.10 | 0.49 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
10-20 | 0.65 ± 0.09 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.03 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
20-30 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 |
30-50 | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
50-70 | 0.43 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
70-100 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.03 |
附录III 各个土层团聚体的平均质量直径与几何平均直径(平均值±标准误差)
Appendix III The mean mass diameter and geometric mean diameter of soil aggregates in different soil layers (mean ± SE)
土层 Soil layer (cm) | 草甸草原 Meadow steppe | 典型草原 Typical steppe | 荒漠草原 Desert steppe | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMD | GMD | MMD | GMD | MMD | GMD | |
0-10 | 0.76 ± 0.11 | 0.38 ± 0.10 | 0.49 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
10-20 | 0.65 ± 0.09 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.03 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
20-30 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 |
30-50 | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
50-70 | 0.43 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
70-100 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.03 |
图2 三种草原类型在不同土壤深度上的平均质量直径(A)和几何平均直径(B) (平均值±标准误差)。小写字母表示在同一土层中3种草原类型在5%水平上的差异; 大写字母表示同一种草原类型不同土壤深度在5%水平上的差异。
Fig. 2 Mean mass diameter (MMD) (A) and geometric mean diameter (GMD) (B) of soil aggregates at different soil depths in three types of grassland (mean ± SE). Lowercase letters represent the differences of MMD and GMD in the same soil layer among three types of grassland at the level of 5%. Uppercase letters represent the differences of MMD and GMD among different soil layers in one type of grassland at the level of 5%.
[1] |
Abiven S, Menasseri S, Chenu C (2009). The effects of organic inputs over time on soil aggregate stability—A literature analysis.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 41, 1-12.
DOI URL PMID |
[2] | Abrishamkesh S, Gorji M, Asadi H (2011). Long-term effects of land use on soil aggregate stability.International Agrophysics, 25, 103-108. |
[3] |
Allison V, Yermakov Z, Miller R, Jastrow J, Matamala R (2007). Using landscape and depth gradients to decouple the impact of correlated environmental variables on soil microbial community composition.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39, 505-516.
DOI URL |
[4] |
Amezketa E (1999). Soil aggregate stability: A review.Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 14, 83-151.
DOI URL |
[5] |
Austin MP, van Niel KP (2011). Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: Variable selection and scale.Journal of Biogeography, 38, 1-8.
DOI URL |
[6] |
Bai YF, Wu JG, Xing Q, Pan QM, Huang JH, Yang DL, Han XG (2008). Primary production and rain use efficiency across a precipitation gradient on the Mongolia Plateau.Ecology, 89, 2140-2153.
DOI URL PMID |
[7] |
Bird SB, Herrick JE, Wander M, Wright S (2002). Spatial heterogeneity of aggregate stability and soil carbon in semi- arid rangeland.Environmental Pollution, 116, 445-455.
DOI URL PMID |
[8] |
Bird SB, Herrick JE, Wander MM, Murray L (2007). Multi-scale variability in soil aggregate stability: Implications for understanding and predicting semi-arid grassland degradation.Geoderma, 140, 106-118.
DOI URL |
[9] |
Blume E, Bischoff M, Reichert J, Moorman T, Konopka A, Turco R (2002). Surface and subsurface microbial biomass, community structure and metabolic activity as a function of soil depth and season.Applied Soil Ecology, 20, 171-181.
DOI URL |
[10] |
Cavagnaro T, Jackson L, Six J, Ferris H, Goyal S, Asami D, Scow K (2006). Arbuscular mycorrhizas, microbial communities, nutrient availability, and soil aggregates in organic tomato production.Plant and Soil, 282, 209-225.
DOI URL |
[11] |
Chen S, Sun T (2017). Research of soil aggregate stability in different degradation stages of Songnen grassland.Pratacultural Science, 34, 217-223. (in Chinese with English abstract)[陈帅, 孙涛 (2017). 松嫩草地不同退化阶段的土壤团聚体稳定性. 草业科学, 34, 217-223.]
DOI URL |
[12] |
Chenu C, Le Bissonnais Y, Arrouays D (2000). Organic matter influence on clay wettability and soil aggregate stability.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 1479-1486.
DOI URL |
[13] |
Denef K, Zotarelli L, Boddey RM, Six J (2007). Microaggregate-associated carbon as a diagnostic fraction for management-induced changes in soil organic carbon in two oxisols.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39, 1165-1172.
DOI URL |
[14] |
Jastrow JD (1996). Soil aggregate formation and the accrual of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter.Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 28, 665-676.
DOI URL |
[15] | Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation.Ecological Applications, 10, 423-436. |
[16] | Kemper W, Chepil W (1965). Size distribution of aggregates. In: Black CA ed. Physical and Mineralogical Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison. 499-510. |
[17] |
Lal R (2000). Physical management of soils of the tropics: Priorities for the 21st Century.Soil Science, 165, 191-207.
DOI URL |
[18] |
Lehrsch G, Sojka R, Carter D, Jolley P (1991). Freezing effects on aggregate stability affected by texture, mineralogy, and organic matter.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55, 1401-1406.
DOI URL |
[19] | Li B (1979). The general characteristics of grassland vegetation in China. Journal of Chinese Grassland, 1, 2-12. [李博 (1979). 中国草原植被的一般特征. 中国草地学报, 1, 2-12.] |
[20] |
Li JL, Jiang CS, Hao QJ (2015). Distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon and its physical fractions under the different land uses in Jinyun Mountain.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35, 3733-3742. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李鉴霖, 江长胜, 郝庆菊 (2015). 缙云山不同土地利用方式土壤有机碳组分特征. 生态学报, 35, 3733-3742.]
DOI URL |
[21] |
Li XZ, Chen ZZ (2004). Soil microbial biomass C and N along a climatic transect in the Mongolian steppe.Biology and Fertility of Soils, 39, 344-351.
DOI URL |
[22] | Liu EK, Zhao BQ, Mei XR, Li XY, Li J (2010). Distribution of water-stable aggregates and organic carbon of arable soils affected by different fertilizer application.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30, 1035-1041. (in Chinese with English abstract)[刘恩科, 赵秉强, 梅旭荣, 李秀英, 李娟 (2010). 不同施肥处理对土壤水稳定性团聚体及有机碳分布的影响. 生态学报, 30, 1035-1041.] |
[23] |
Luo YQ, Gerten D, Le Maire G, Parton WJ, Weng ES, Zhou XH, Keough C, Beier C, Ciais P, Cramer W (2008). Modeled interactive effects of precipitation, temperature, and [CO2] on ecosystem carbon and water dynamics in different climatic zones.Global Change Biology, 14, 1986-1999.
DOI URL |
[24] | Ma WH (2006). Carbon Storage in Temperate Grassland of Inner Mongolia. PhD dissertation. Peking University, Beijing. 18-19. (in Chinese with English abstract)[马文红 (2006). 内蒙古温带草地的碳储量. 博士学位论文. 北京大学, 北京. 18-19.] |
[25] |
Ma WH, He JS, Yang YH, Wang XP, Liang CZ, Anwar M, Zeng H, Fang JY, Schmid B (2010). Environmental factors covary with plant diversity-productivity relationships among Chinese grassland sites.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 233-243.
DOI URL |
[26] |
Ma WH, Yang YH, He JS, Zeng H, Fang JY (2008). Above- and belowground biomass in relation to environmental factors in temperate grasslands, Inner Mongolia.Science China Series C: Life Sciences, 51, 263-270.
DOI URL PMID |
[27] |
Marquez CO, Garcia VJ, Cambardella CA, Schultz RC, Isenhart TM (2004). Aggregate-size stability distribution and soil stability.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68, 725-735.
DOI URL |
[28] | Nimmo JR, Perkins KS (2002). Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Dane JH, Topp GC eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison. 317-328. |
[29] |
Pinheiro E, Pereira M, Anjos L (2004). Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a red latosol from brazil.Soil and Tillage Research, 77, 79-84.
DOI URL |
[30] |
Sanderman J, Amundson R (2008). A comparative study of dissolved organic carbon transport and stabilization in california forest and grassland soils.Biogeochemistry, 89, 309-327.
DOI URL |
[31] |
Scurlock J, Hall D (1998). The global carbon sink: A grassland perspective.Global Change Biology, 4, 229-233.
DOI URL |
[32] |
Six J, Conant R, Paul EA, Paustian K (2002a). Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils.Plant and Soil, 241, 155-176.
DOI URL |
[33] |
Six J, Elliott E, Paustian K, Doran JW (1998). Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in cultivated and native grassland soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 62, 1367-1377.
DOI URL |
[34] |
Six J, Feller C, Denef K, Ogle SM, de Moraes Sa JC, Albrecht A (2002b). Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils-effects of no-tillage.Agronomie, 22, 755-775.
DOI URL |
[35] | Tian SZ, Wang Y, Li N, Ning TY, Wang BW, Zhao HX, Li ZJ (2013). Effects of different tillage and straw systems on soil water-stable aggregate distribution and stability in the North China Plain.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33, 7116-7124. (in Chinese with English abstract)[田慎重, 王瑜, 李娜, 宁堂原, 王丙文, 赵红香, 李增嘉 (2013). 耕作方式和秸秆还田对华北地区农田土壤水稳性团聚体分布及稳定性的影响. 生态学报, 33, 7116-7124.] |
[36] |
Wang C, Wang XB, Liu DW, Wu HH, Lü XT, Fang YT, Cheng WX, Luo WT, Jiang P, Shi J (2014). Aridity threshold in controlling ecosystem nitrogen cycling in arid and semi-arid grasslands.Nature Communications, 5, 4799.
DOI URL PMID |
[37] |
Wu ZT, Dijkstra P, Koch GW, Penuelas J, Hungate BA (2011). Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: A meta-analysis of experimental manipulation.Global Change Biology, 17, 927-942.
DOI URL |
[38] |
Yang YH, Fang JY, Ji CJ, Datta A, Li P, Ma WH, Mohammat A, Shen HH, Hu HF, Knapp BO, Smith P (2014). Stoichiometric shifts in surface soils over broad geographical scales: Evidence from China’s grasslands.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23, 947-955.
DOI URL |
[39] |
Yang YH, Fang JY, Ma WH, Guo D, Mohammat A (2010a). Large-scale pattern of biomass partitioning across China’s grasslands.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 268-277.
DOI URL |
[40] |
Yang YH, Fang JY, Ma WH, Smith P, Mohammat A, Wang SP, Wang W (2010b). Soil carbon stock and its changes in northern China’s grasslands from 1980s to 2000s.Global Change Biology, 16, 3036-3047.
DOI URL |
[41] |
Yang YH, Ji CJ, Ma WH, Wang SF, Wang SP, Han WX, Mohammat A, Robinson D, Smith P (2012). Significant soil acidification across northern china's grasslands during 1980s-2000s.Global Change Biology, 18, 2292-2300.
DOI URL |
[42] |
Zhang ZH, Li XY, Jiang ZY, Peng HY, Li L, Zhao GQ (2013). Changes in some soil properties induced by re-conversion of cropland into grassland in the semiarid steppe zone of Inner Mongolia, China.Plant and Soil, 373, 89-106.
DOI URL |
[43] | Zhao SW, Su J, Wu JS, Yang YH, Liu NN (2006). Changes of soil aggregate organic carbon during process of vegetation restoration in Ziwuling.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 20, 114-117. (in Chinese with English abstract)[赵世伟, 苏静, 吴金水, 杨永辉, 刘娜娜 (2006). 子午岭植被恢复过程中土壤团聚体有机碳含量的变化. 水土保持学报, 20, 114-117.] |
[1] | 李娜, 唐士明, 郭建英, 田茹, 王姗, 胡冰, 罗永红, 徐柱文. 放牧对内蒙古草地植物群落特征影响的meta分析[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(9): 1256-1269. |
[2] | 冯珊珊, 黄春晖, 唐梦云, 蒋维昕, 白天道. 细叶云南松针叶形态和显微性状地理变异及其环境解释[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(8): 1116-1130. |
[3] | 牟文博, 徐当会, 王谢军, 敬文茂, 张瑞英, 顾玉玲, 姚广前, 祁世华, 张龙, 苟亚飞. 排露沟流域不同海拔灌丛土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(11): 1422-1431. |
[4] | 刘宁, 彭守璋, 陈云明. 气候因子对青藏高原植被生长的时间效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(1): 18-26. |
[5] | 张央, 安明态, 武建勇, 刘锋, 汪伟. 中国兜兰属宽瓣亚属植物地理分布格局及其主导气候因子[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(1): 40-50. |
[6] | 吴建波, 王小丹. 高寒草原优势种紫花针茅叶片解剖结构对青藏高原高寒干旱环境适应性分析[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(3): 265-273. |
[7] | 徐光来, 李爱娟, 徐晓华, 杨先成, 杨强强. 中国生态功能保护区归一化植被指数动态及气候因子驱动[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(3): 213-223. |
[8] | 王兆鹏, 张同文, 袁玉江, 张瑞波, 喻树龙, 刘蕊, 石仁娜•加汗, 郭冬, 王勇辉. 罗霄山南部4个针叶树种生长特征及其气候响应对比分析[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(12): 1303-1313. |
[9] | 艾则孜提约麦尔·麦麦提, 玉素甫江·如素力, 何辉, 拜合提尼沙·阿不都克日木. 2000-2017年新疆天山植被水分利用效率时空特征及其与气候因子关系分析[J]. 植物生态学报, 2019, 43(6): 490-500. |
[10] | 杨继鸿, 李亚楠, 卜海燕, 张世挺, 齐威. 青藏高原东缘常见阔叶木本植物叶片性状对环境因子的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2019, 43(10): 863-876. |
[11] | 孙元丰, 万宏伟, 赵玉金, 陈世苹, 白永飞. 中国草地生态系统根系周转的空间格局和驱动因子[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(3): 337-348. |
[12] | 朱弘, 朱淑霞, 李涌福, 伊贤贵, 段一凡, 王贤荣. 尾叶樱桃天然种群叶表型性状变异研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(12): 1168-1178. |
[13] | 闫敏, 李增元, 田昕, 陈尔学, 谷成燕. 黑河上游植被总初级生产力遥感估算及其对气候变化的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(1): 1-12. |
[14] | 杨浩, 罗亚晨. 糙隐子草功能性状对氮添加和干旱的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(1): 32-42. |
[15] | 李东胜, 史作民, 冯秋红, 刘峰. 中国东部南北样带暖温带区栎属树种叶片形态性状对气候条件的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(9): 793-802. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《植物生态学报》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编: 100093
Tel.: 010-62836134, 62836138; Fax: 010-82599431; E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn
备案号: 京ICP备16067583号-19