植物生态学报 ›› 2006, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 791-801.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0101
收稿日期:
2005-05-17
接受日期:
2005-12-30
出版日期:
2006-05-17
发布日期:
2006-09-30
基金资助:
YANG Xiao-Dong(), ZOU Xiao-Ming
Received:
2005-05-17
Accepted:
2005-12-30
Online:
2006-05-17
Published:
2006-09-30
About author:
First author contact:E-mail: yangxd@xtbg.ac.cn
摘要:
以西双版纳热带湿性季节沟谷雨林混合凋落叶作为分解基质,在不同位置季节雨林样地,采用不同网孔(2和0.15 mm)分解袋,开展大中型土壤动物对雨林凋落叶分解影响的实验,测定了不同网孔分解袋土壤动物多样性、凋落叶分解速率和主要养分元素释放状况。结果显示:2 mm网孔分解袋土壤动物类群相对密度年均值为2.67~2.83目·g-1凋落物干重,个体相对密度年均值为22.3~21.77个·g-1凋落物干重,显著高于0.15 mm网孔分解袋的类群相对密度0.27~0.28目·g-1凋落物干重和个体相对密度2.88~2.77个·g-1凋落物干重(p<0.01),并且0.15 mm网孔分解袋中极少量的动物个体主要为小型类群弹尾目和蜱螨目(原生动物、湿生土壤动物线虫不计),由此我们视2 mm网孔分解袋凋落叶分解由绝大多数土壤动物和其它土壤生物共同作用,而0.15 mm网孔分解袋基本排除了大中型土壤动物对袋内凋落叶分解的影响。2 mm网孔分解袋凋落叶物质失重率(71%左右)、分解率指数(1.88~2.44)和主要养分元素释放率明显高于0.15 mm分解袋(34%~35%,0.48~0.58)。通过比较两种不同网孔分解袋凋落叶失重率和元素释放率的差异,显示出季节雨林大中型土壤动物群落对凋落叶物质损失的贡献率为年均值46%左右,并使凋落叶C/N和C/P明显降低,而对不同元素释放率的影响不同,其中对N、S和Ca元素释放率的影响较大,而对K素释放的影响作用最小。相关分析显示,2 mm网孔分解袋内土壤动物群落类群和个体的相对密度与凋落叶物质残留率有较好的负相关关系,而群落香农多样性指数与凋落叶分解率指数表现出一定的正相关关系。
杨效东, 邹晓明. 西双版纳热带季节雨林凋落叶分解与土壤动物群落:两种网孔分解袋的分解实验比较. 植物生态学报, 2006, 30(5): 791-801. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0101
YANG Xiao-Dong, ZOU Xiao-Ming. SOIL FAUNA AND LEAF LITTER DECOMPOSITION IN TROPICAL RAIN FOREST IN XISHUANGBANNA, SW CHINA: EFFECTS OF MESH SIZE OF LITTERBAGS. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2006, 30(5): 791-801. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0101
样地 Plots | 位置 Sites | 海拔 Altitude (m) | 盖度 Cover (%) | 样地环境 Environment of plot | 有机质 Organic matter (%) | 全氮 Total N (%) | pH | C/N | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 | 位于勐昆公路55 km,属勐仑自然保护区,是CERN在西双版纳热带雨林定位研究样地 The SRF1 is located in a distance of 15 km to Tropical Botanical Garden, where belong to Xishuangbanna Nature Reserves. It is also field site for CERN study | 750 | 90~95 | 林地面积较大,周围主要是常绿阔叶林,样地包括坡度较大的坡地和平缓的冲积地,人为干扰较小 Forest area is large. Evergreen broad-leaved forest is surrounding vegetation. Landform of plot include riparian and upland. Human disturbance in the plot is light | 2.713 | 0.140 | 5.53 | 11.33 | ||||||||||||||||||||
SRF2 | 位于曼掌寨附近,属于勐仑自然保护区 The SRF2 is located in a distance of 12 km to Tropical Botanical Garden, where belongs to Xishuangbanna Nature Reserves | 650 | 90~95 | 林地面积较大,周围三面为雨林,一面是农田,样地由坡地构成,周围的雨林下有当地居民种植的砂仁,样地中人为干扰小 Forest area is large, Surrounding vegetation is evergreen broad-leaved forest (three sides) and farmland (one side). Landform of plot is only upland. Although Amomum plants were planted in plot surrounding forest by located people, there is not many human disturbance in the plot | 2.295 | 0.115 | 4.43 | 11.58 |
表1 2块热带季节沟谷雨林样地的主要生境条件和土壤特征
Table 1 Habitat and soil characteristics of two tropical seasonal rain forest plots in Xishuangbanna
样地 Plots | 位置 Sites | 海拔 Altitude (m) | 盖度 Cover (%) | 样地环境 Environment of plot | 有机质 Organic matter (%) | 全氮 Total N (%) | pH | C/N | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 | 位于勐昆公路55 km,属勐仑自然保护区,是CERN在西双版纳热带雨林定位研究样地 The SRF1 is located in a distance of 15 km to Tropical Botanical Garden, where belong to Xishuangbanna Nature Reserves. It is also field site for CERN study | 750 | 90~95 | 林地面积较大,周围主要是常绿阔叶林,样地包括坡度较大的坡地和平缓的冲积地,人为干扰较小 Forest area is large. Evergreen broad-leaved forest is surrounding vegetation. Landform of plot include riparian and upland. Human disturbance in the plot is light | 2.713 | 0.140 | 5.53 | 11.33 | ||||||||||||||||||||
SRF2 | 位于曼掌寨附近,属于勐仑自然保护区 The SRF2 is located in a distance of 12 km to Tropical Botanical Garden, where belongs to Xishuangbanna Nature Reserves | 650 | 90~95 | 林地面积较大,周围三面为雨林,一面是农田,样地由坡地构成,周围的雨林下有当地居民种植的砂仁,样地中人为干扰小 Forest area is large, Surrounding vegetation is evergreen broad-leaved forest (three sides) and farmland (one side). Landform of plot is only upland. Although Amomum plants were planted in plot surrounding forest by located people, there is not many human disturbance in the plot | 2.295 | 0.115 | 4.43 | 11.58 |
图1 热带季节雨林凋落叶在两种不同网孔分解袋中物质残留率比较 “*”表示分解过程中,不同网孔分解袋间的差异性显著
Fig.1 Dry weight remaining as a percentage of initial mass in decomposing leaf litter in the litterbags with two different mesh size in two tropical rain forest plots Asterisks indicate a significance within mesh size during decomposition day (p<0.05,n=5)
样地 Plots | 网孔 Mesh size (mm) | 分解率指数 k (Mean±SD) | R2 | 年失重率 Mass loss (% a-1) | 3/k (a) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 | 2 | 1.884±0.213A | 0.723 | 71.226A | 1.592 |
0.15 | 0.478±0.346B | 0.667 | 34.797B | 6.276 | |
SRF2 | 2 | 2.437±0.364C | 0.911 | 71.020A | 1.231 |
0.15 | 0.582±0.179B | 0.834 | 35.698B | 5.155 |
表2 两种不同网孔分解袋凋落叶分解特征值比较
Table 2 Comparison of decomposition characteristics of leaf litter in the litterbags with two different mesh size in two tropical rain forest plots
样地 Plots | 网孔 Mesh size (mm) | 分解率指数 k (Mean±SD) | R2 | 年失重率 Mass loss (% a-1) | 3/k (a) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 | 2 | 1.884±0.213A | 0.723 | 71.226A | 1.592 |
0.15 | 0.478±0.346B | 0.667 | 34.797B | 6.276 | |
SRF2 | 2 | 2.437±0.364C | 0.911 | 71.020A | 1.231 |
0.15 | 0.582±0.179B | 0.834 | 35.698B | 5.155 |
时间 Day (d) | 样地 Plot | 网孔(mm) Mesh size | C (%) | N (%) | P (mg·g-1) | S (mg·g-1) | K (mg·g-1) | Ca (mg·g-1) | Mg (mg·g-1) | C/N | C/P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | SRF1 | 2 | 52.887 | 1.287 | 0.777 | 1.777 | 4.660 | 15.907 | 2.697 | 41.112 | 681.442 |
0.15 | 52.887 | 1.287 | 0.777 | 1.777 | 4.660 | 15.907 | 2.697 | 41.112 | 681.442 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 50.095 | 0.990 | 0.710 | 1.410 | 3.230 | 23.320 | 3.330 | 50.872 | 706.715 | |
0.15 | 50.095 | 0.990 | 0.710 | 1.410 | 3.230 | 23.320 | 3.330 | 50.872 | 706.715 | ||
60 | SRF1 | 2 | 51.464 | 1.338 | 0.684 | 1.668 | 1.124 | 21.620 | 2.200 | 38.518 | 764.278 |
0.15 | 52.074 | 1.398 | 0.586 | 1.656 | 1.310 | 22.072 | 2.520 | 37.364 | 890.132 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 49.316 | 1.484 | 0.782 | 1.482 | 1.016 | 25.380 | 2.880 | 33.600 | 636.054 | |
0.15 | 51.678 | 1.452 | 0.700 | 1.554 | 1.632 | 23.706 | 2.786 | 35.593 | 738.546 | ||
120 | SRF1 | 2 | 42.874 | 1.498 | 0.858 | 1.602 | 1.234 | 19.376 | 1.820 | 28.769 | 505.641 |
0.15 | 50.404 | 1.544 | 0.648 | 1.794 | 0.684 | 22.322 | 2.242 | 32.723 | 794.131 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 42.030 | 1.426 | 0.836 | 1.366 | 0.990 | 24.358 | 2.372 | 29.832 | 505.181 | |
0.15 | 49.758 | 1.556 | 0.792 | 1.648 | 0.874 | 24.684 | 2.560 | 31.765 | 635.371 | ||
180 | SRF1 | 2 | 41.280 | 1.622 | 1.022 | 1.688 | 1.760 | 21.330 | 1.978 | 25.482 | 405.523 |
0.15 | 46.342 | 1.636 | 0.722 | 1.852 | 1.588 | 22.074 | 2.640 | 28.463 | 648.485 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 38.438 | 1.718 | 1.080 | 1.530 | 1.184 | 22.052 | 2.658 | 22.688 | 356.291 | |
0.15 | 46.708 | 1.822 | 1.052 | 1.944 | 0.856 | 29.404 | 3.546 | 26.247 | 449.102 | ||
240 | SRF1 | 2 | 35.306 | 1.526 | 0.836 | 1.562 | 1.830 | 18.520 | 1.830 | 23.184 | 430.773 |
0.15 | 48.160 | 1.690 | 0.700 | 1.905 | 1.248 | 24.275 | 2.795 | 28.986 | 712.654 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 38.488 | 1.644 | 0.876 | 1.300 | 1.032 | 21.034 | 2.346 | 23.511 | 458.517 | |
0.15 | 47.582 | 1.778 | 0.926 | 1.884 | 0.984 | 28.514 | 3.150 | 28.020 | 519.262 | ||
300 | SRF1 | 2 | 32.554 | 1.412 | 0.768 | 1.462 | 2.186 | 16.444 | 1.916 | 22.813 | 432.406 |
0.15 | 46.444 | 1.592 | 0.722 | 1.844 | 1.458 | 23.744 | 2.414 | 29.237 | 648.585 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 36.122 | 1.788 | 0.807 | 1.518 | 1.478 | 22.116 | 2.394 | 20.460 | 964.581 | |
0.15 | 45.884 | 1.754 | 0.922 | 1.800 | 1.010 | 26.852 | 2.850 | 26.166 | 499.937 | ||
360 | SRF1 | 2 | 38.238 | 1.770 | 0.914 | 1.682 | 2.086 | 19.216 | 1.908 | 21.744 | 425.401 |
0.15 | 43.292 | 1.654 | 0.724 | 1.868 | 2.032 | 22.700 | 2.614 | 26.157 | 599.982 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 37.678 | 1.846 | 0.972 | 1.630 | 1.324 | 22.384 | 2.222 | 19.867 | 389.353 | |
0.15 | 44.890 | 1.882 | 0.962 | 1.974 | 1.110 | 25.830 | 3.050 | 24.624 | 489.471 |
表3 两种不同网孔分解袋凋落叶主要元素含量变化(5个重复的平均值)
Table 3 Change in nutrient concentrations in decomposing leaf litter in the litterbags with two different mesh size in two tropical rain forest plots (mean of replication, n=5)
时间 Day (d) | 样地 Plot | 网孔(mm) Mesh size | C (%) | N (%) | P (mg·g-1) | S (mg·g-1) | K (mg·g-1) | Ca (mg·g-1) | Mg (mg·g-1) | C/N | C/P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | SRF1 | 2 | 52.887 | 1.287 | 0.777 | 1.777 | 4.660 | 15.907 | 2.697 | 41.112 | 681.442 |
0.15 | 52.887 | 1.287 | 0.777 | 1.777 | 4.660 | 15.907 | 2.697 | 41.112 | 681.442 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 50.095 | 0.990 | 0.710 | 1.410 | 3.230 | 23.320 | 3.330 | 50.872 | 706.715 | |
0.15 | 50.095 | 0.990 | 0.710 | 1.410 | 3.230 | 23.320 | 3.330 | 50.872 | 706.715 | ||
60 | SRF1 | 2 | 51.464 | 1.338 | 0.684 | 1.668 | 1.124 | 21.620 | 2.200 | 38.518 | 764.278 |
0.15 | 52.074 | 1.398 | 0.586 | 1.656 | 1.310 | 22.072 | 2.520 | 37.364 | 890.132 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 49.316 | 1.484 | 0.782 | 1.482 | 1.016 | 25.380 | 2.880 | 33.600 | 636.054 | |
0.15 | 51.678 | 1.452 | 0.700 | 1.554 | 1.632 | 23.706 | 2.786 | 35.593 | 738.546 | ||
120 | SRF1 | 2 | 42.874 | 1.498 | 0.858 | 1.602 | 1.234 | 19.376 | 1.820 | 28.769 | 505.641 |
0.15 | 50.404 | 1.544 | 0.648 | 1.794 | 0.684 | 22.322 | 2.242 | 32.723 | 794.131 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 42.030 | 1.426 | 0.836 | 1.366 | 0.990 | 24.358 | 2.372 | 29.832 | 505.181 | |
0.15 | 49.758 | 1.556 | 0.792 | 1.648 | 0.874 | 24.684 | 2.560 | 31.765 | 635.371 | ||
180 | SRF1 | 2 | 41.280 | 1.622 | 1.022 | 1.688 | 1.760 | 21.330 | 1.978 | 25.482 | 405.523 |
0.15 | 46.342 | 1.636 | 0.722 | 1.852 | 1.588 | 22.074 | 2.640 | 28.463 | 648.485 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 38.438 | 1.718 | 1.080 | 1.530 | 1.184 | 22.052 | 2.658 | 22.688 | 356.291 | |
0.15 | 46.708 | 1.822 | 1.052 | 1.944 | 0.856 | 29.404 | 3.546 | 26.247 | 449.102 | ||
240 | SRF1 | 2 | 35.306 | 1.526 | 0.836 | 1.562 | 1.830 | 18.520 | 1.830 | 23.184 | 430.773 |
0.15 | 48.160 | 1.690 | 0.700 | 1.905 | 1.248 | 24.275 | 2.795 | 28.986 | 712.654 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 38.488 | 1.644 | 0.876 | 1.300 | 1.032 | 21.034 | 2.346 | 23.511 | 458.517 | |
0.15 | 47.582 | 1.778 | 0.926 | 1.884 | 0.984 | 28.514 | 3.150 | 28.020 | 519.262 | ||
300 | SRF1 | 2 | 32.554 | 1.412 | 0.768 | 1.462 | 2.186 | 16.444 | 1.916 | 22.813 | 432.406 |
0.15 | 46.444 | 1.592 | 0.722 | 1.844 | 1.458 | 23.744 | 2.414 | 29.237 | 648.585 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 36.122 | 1.788 | 0.807 | 1.518 | 1.478 | 22.116 | 2.394 | 20.460 | 964.581 | |
0.15 | 45.884 | 1.754 | 0.922 | 1.800 | 1.010 | 26.852 | 2.850 | 26.166 | 499.937 | ||
360 | SRF1 | 2 | 38.238 | 1.770 | 0.914 | 1.682 | 2.086 | 19.216 | 1.908 | 21.744 | 425.401 |
0.15 | 43.292 | 1.654 | 0.724 | 1.868 | 2.032 | 22.700 | 2.614 | 26.157 | 599.982 | ||
SRF2 | 2 | 37.678 | 1.846 | 0.972 | 1.630 | 1.324 | 22.384 | 2.222 | 19.867 | 389.353 | |
0.15 | 44.890 | 1.882 | 0.962 | 1.974 | 1.110 | 25.830 | 3.050 | 24.624 | 489.471 |
图2 两种不同网孔分解袋凋落叶主要元素残留率变化(5个重复平均值) 图例同图
Fig.2 Change in absolute amount of nutrient in decomposing 1eaf litter in the litter-bags with two different mesh size in two tropical rain forest plots (mean of replic ation, n=5) 1 Legends see Fig. 1
贡献率 Contribution (%) | df | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 年均值±标准差Mean±SD | SRF2 年均值±标准差Mean±SD | ||||
凋落叶Leaf litter | 46.088±6.715A | 45.604±5.435A | 5 | 0.016 | 0.299>0.05 |
C | 44.242±6.592A | 49.460±8.176B | 5 | 1.234 | 0.003<0.05 |
N | 65.091±10.363A | 111.673±23.116B | 5 | 16.906 | 0.000 09<0.05 |
P | 34.133±7.237A | 64.639±6.078B | 5 | 52.095 | 0.002<0.05 |
S | 50.653±8.012A | 70.061±5.721A | 5 | 19.433 | 0.377>0.05 |
K | 12.633±5.237A | 15.407±4.082A | 5 | 0.873 | 0.064>0.05 |
Ca | 117.914±67.275A | 52.111±12.647A | 5 | 4.620 | 0.273>0.05 |
Mg | 49.387±9.456A | 10.692±72.879A | 5 | 1.386 | 0.903>0.05 |
表4 两样地大中型土壤动物对凋落叶物质损失率及养分元素释放率的贡献率年均值比较
Table 4 The average of the mass loss and element loss contributed by the soil maro-mesofauna in two tropical rain forest plots
贡献率 Contribution (%) | df | F | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SRF1 年均值±标准差Mean±SD | SRF2 年均值±标准差Mean±SD | ||||
凋落叶Leaf litter | 46.088±6.715A | 45.604±5.435A | 5 | 0.016 | 0.299>0.05 |
C | 44.242±6.592A | 49.460±8.176B | 5 | 1.234 | 0.003<0.05 |
N | 65.091±10.363A | 111.673±23.116B | 5 | 16.906 | 0.000 09<0.05 |
P | 34.133±7.237A | 64.639±6.078B | 5 | 52.095 | 0.002<0.05 |
S | 50.653±8.012A | 70.061±5.721A | 5 | 19.433 | 0.377>0.05 |
K | 12.633±5.237A | 15.407±4.082A | 5 | 0.873 | 0.064>0.05 |
Ca | 117.914±67.275A | 52.111±12.647A | 5 | 4.620 | 0.273>0.05 |
Mg | 49.387±9.456A | 10.692±72.879A | 5 | 1.386 | 0.903>0.05 |
图3 两种不同网孔分解袋中土壤动物类群数和个体数相对密度比较(年均值±标准差) 不同大写字母表示同一林地、不同网孔的差异显著;不同小写字母表示相同网孔、不同林地间差异显著(p=0.05,n=5)
Fig.3 Comparison of relative density of orders and individuals of soil fauna in the litterbags with two different mesh size in two tropical rain forest plots (mean±SD) Different capital letters for a same forest type indicate significant difference among the different mesh size, and different small letters within the same mesh size indicate significant difference between the forest type at p=0.05, n=5
图4 土壤动物群落多样性与凋落物分解残留率、分解率指数的相关关系(n=10)
Fig.4 Correlation of soil fauna diversity versus mass remaining and decomposition rate of leaf litter in tropical rain forest
[1] | Anderson JM (1988). Invertebrate-mediated transport process in soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 24,5-19. |
[2] | Benckiser G (1997). Fauna in Soil Ecosystems: Recycling, Nutrient Fluxes,and Agricultural Production. Basel and Hong Kong Press, New York. |
[3] | Coleman DC, Crossley DA Jr (1996). Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. Academic Press, New York. |
[4] |
Enriquez S, Duarte CM, Sand-Jensen K (1993). Patterns in decomposition rates among photosynthetic organisms: the importance of detritus C∶N∶P content. Oecologia, 94,457-471.
DOI URL PMID |
[5] | González G, Seastedt TR (2001). Soil fauna and plant litter decomposition in tropical and subalpine forests. Ecology, 82,955-964. |
[6] |
González G, Ley RE, Schmidt SK, Zou X, Seastedt TR (2001). Soil ecological interactions: comparisons between tropical and subalpine forests. Oecologia, 128,549-556.
URL PMID |
[7] |
Hanlon RDG, Anderson JM (1979). The effects of Collembola grazing on microbial activity in decomposing leaf litter. Oecologia, 38,93-99.
DOI URL PMID |
[8] | Heneghan L, Coleman DC, Zou X, Crossley DA Jr, Haines BL (1999). Soil microarthropod contributions to decomposition dynamics: tropical-temperate comparisons of a single substrate. Ecology, 80,1873-1882. |
[9] | Huang JH(黄建辉), Chen LZ(陈灵芝), Han XG(韩兴国) (1998). Advance in litter decomposition in forest ecosystems. In: Li CS(李承森) ed. Advances in Plant Sciences(植物科学进展). Higher Education Press, Beijing,218-236. (in Chinese) |
[10] | Hunter MD, Sina A, Catherine MP, Coleman DC (2003). Relative effects of macroinvertebrates and habitat on the chemistry of litter during decomposition. Pedobiologia, 47,101-115. |
[11] | Irmler U (2000). Changes in the fauna and its contribution to mass loss and N release during leaf litter decomposition in two deciduous forests. Pedobiologia, 44,105-118. |
[12] | Liao CH(廖崇惠), Chen MQ(陈茂乾), Chen JH(陈锦华) (1992). Population ecology of two species of terrestrial isopods and their role in litter decomposition. Acta Zoologica Sinica (动物学报), 38,23-30. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[13] | Liao CH(廖崇惠), Lin SM(林少明), Li JX(李健雄), Chen JH(陈锦华), Huang HT(黄海涛) (1995). A comparative study of soil animals on litter decomposition in varied types of artificial forests. Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 15(Suppl.),198-203. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[14] | Liu ZG, Zou XM (2002). Exotic earthworms accelerate plant litter decomposition in a Puerto Rican pasture and a wet forest. Ecological Applications 12,1406-1417. |
[15] | Luxton M (1982). General ecological influence of the soil fauna on decomposition and nutrient circulation. Oikos, 39,355-357. |
[16] | Martin KD, Scott W (1997). Litter decomposition and nitrogen dynamics in aspen forest and mixed-grass prairie. Ecology, 78,732-739. |
[17] | Magurran AE (1988). Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton. |
[18] |
Matthew WW, Zou X (2002). Soil macrofauna and litter nutrients in three tropical tree plantation on a disturbed site in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management, 170,161-171.
DOI URL |
[19] | State Forestry Administration of China(国家林业局)(1999). Forest Soil Analysis Methods, P. R. China—Forest Vocation Standard LY/T 1210-1275-1999(中华人民共和国林业行业标准——森林土壤分析方法). China Standard Publisher, Beijing,. (in Chinese) |
[20] | Olson JS (1963). Energy storage and the balance of producer and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology, 44,322-331. |
[21] | Reddy MV, Venkataiah B (1989). Influence of microarthropod abundance and climatic factors on weight loss and mineral nutrients of Eucalyptus leaf litter during decomposition . Biology Fertilizer Soils, 8,319-324. |
[22] | Reddy MV (1992). Effect of microarthropod abundance and abiotic variables on mass loss and concentration of nutrients during decomposition of Azadirachta indica leaf litter . Tropical Ecology, 33,89-96. |
[23] | Ren YH(任泳红), Cao M(曹敏), Tang JW(唐建维), Tang Y(唐勇), Zhang JH(张建侯) (1999). A comparative study on litterfall dynamics in a seasonal rain forest and a rubber plantation in Xishuangbanna, SW, China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica(植物生态学报), 23,418-425. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[24] | Schlesinger WH (1997). Biogeochemistry: an Analysis of Global Change 2nd edn. Academic Press, California. |
[25] | Seastedt TR (1984). The role of microarthropods in decomposition and mineralisation process. Annual Review of Entomology, 29,25-46. |
[26] | Seastedt TR, Crossley DA Jr (1980). Effects of microarthropods on the seasonal dynamics of nutrients in forest litter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 12,337-342. |
[27] | Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979). Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London. |
[28] | Tian G, Brussaard L, Kang BT (1993). Biological effects of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical condition: effects on soil fauna. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 25,731-737. |
[29] | Tian G, Brussaard L, Kang BT (1995). Plant residues decomposition in the humid tropics—influence of chemical composition and soil fauna. In: Reddy MV ed. Soil Organisms and Litter Decomposition in the Tropics. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi,204-224. |
[30] | Walker LR, Zimmerman JK, Lodge DJ, Guzman-Grajales S (1996). An altitudinal comparison of growth and species composition in hurricane-damaged forests in Puerto Rico. Journal of Ecology, 84,877-889. |
[31] | Yang MX(杨明宪), Ma SC(马树才), Zhang RZ(张容祖) (2000). Mathematical model and community series of effects of soil animals on litter decomposition. In:Yin WY(尹文英)ed. Soil Animals of China(中国土壤动物). Science Press, Beijing,108-115. (in Chinese) |
[32] | Yang XD(杨效东) (2004). Dynamics and community structure of soil meso-microarthropods during leaf litter decomposition in tropical seasonal rain forests of Xishuangbanna, Yunnan. Biodiversity Science (生物多样性), 12,252-261. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[33] | Yin WY(尹文英) (1992). Subtropical Soil Animals of China (中国亚热带土壤动物). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[34] | Yin WY(尹文英) (1998). Pictorical Keys to Soil Animals of China(中国土壤动物检索图鉴). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[35] | Zhang XP(张雪萍), Li CY(李春艳), Zhang SC(张思冲) (2001). Study of the function of millipedes in substance decomposition. Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 21,75-79. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[36] | Zheng Z, Shanmughavel P, Sha LQ, Cao M, Warren M (2006). Litter decomposition and nutrient release in a tropical seasonal rain forest of Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Biotropica, 38,342-347. |
[37] | Zhong WY(钟伟彦), Yin XQ(殷秀琴), Chen P(陈鹏) (1999). Relationship of litter decomposition and consumption with soil animals in Maoer Mountain forest. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 10,511-512. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[38] | Zhu H (1994). The floristic characteristics of the tropical rain forest in Xishuangbanna. Chinese Geographical Science, 4,174-185. |
[39] | Zou XM, Zucca CP, Waide RB, McDowell WH (1995). Long-term influence of decomposition on tree species composition and litter dynamics of a tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management, 78,147-157. |
[1] | 仲琦, 李曾燕, 马炜, 况雨潇, 邱岭军, 黎蕴洁, 涂利华. 氮添加和凋落物处理对华西雨屏区常绿阔叶林凋落叶分解的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(5): 629-643. |
[2] | 陈思路, 蔡劲松, 林成芳, 宋豪威, 杨玉盛. 亚热带不同树种凋落叶分解对氮添加的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(3): 214-227. |
[3] | 李伟晶, 陈世苹, 张兵伟, 谭星儒, 王珊珊, 游翠海. 半干旱草原土壤呼吸组分区分与菌根呼吸的贡献[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(8): 850-862. |
[4] | 陈文静, 贡璐, 刘雨桐. 季节性雪被对天山雪岭云杉凋落叶分解和碳氮磷释放的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(4): 487-497. |
[5] | 何伟, 吴福忠, 杨万勤, 武启骞, 何敏, 赵野逸. 雪被斑块对高山森林两种灌木凋落叶质量损失的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(4): 306-316. |
[6] | 刘瑞龙, 杨万勤, 谭波, 王文君, 倪祥银, 吴福忠. 土壤动物对川西亚高山和高山森林凋落叶第一年不同分解时期N和P元素动态的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(12): 1080-1090. |
[7] | 涂利华, 胡红玲, 胡庭兴, 张健, 雒守华, 戴洪忠. 华西雨屏区亮叶桦凋落叶分解对模拟氮沉降的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2012, 36(2): 99-108. |
[8] | 夏磊, 吴福忠, 杨万勤. 季节性冻融期间土壤动物对岷江冷杉凋落叶质量损失的贡献[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(11): 1127-1135. |
[9] | 田兴军, 立石贵浩. 亚高山针叶林土壤动物和土壤微生物对针叶分解的作用(英文)[J]. 植物生态学报, 2002, 26(3): 257-263. |
[10] | 何冬梅, 由文辉, 李喜和, 王建国, 宋兴安, 刘永江. 锡林河中游草原生态系统中小型土壤动物与土壤有机质的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 1989, 13(4): 350-358. |
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