植物生态学报 ›› 2011, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 1050-1060.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01050
收稿日期:
2011-02-21
接受日期:
2011-04-16
出版日期:
2011-02-21
发布日期:
2011-11-07
通讯作者:
薛建辉
作者简介:
* (E-mail: jhxue@njfu.com.cn)
LIU Cheng-Gang, XUE Jian-Hui*()
Received:
2011-02-21
Accepted:
2011-04-16
Online:
2011-02-21
Published:
2011-11-07
Contact:
XUE Jian-Hui
摘要:
以贵州喀斯特石漠化山地退耕还林工程区的刺槐(Robinia pseudoacacia)人工林(RP)、千香柏(Cupressus duclouxiana)人工林(CD)、刺槐千香柏混交林(RD)及未造林地(CK)为研究对象, 探讨了土壤物理、化学性质和土壤酶活性的动态变化, 并对不同恢复类型的土壤质量进行了综合评价。结果显示: 1)各类型人工林的土壤物理特性明显优于未造林地。2)在RP、CD、RD及CK下, 土壤养分和pH值存在显著差异, 且速效养分在不同月份差异明显(p < 0.01)。3) RP、CD、RD及CK下的土壤脲酶的最大活性出现在9月, 最小活性出现于1月; 不同类型的人工林及CK下土壤蔗糖酶的活性存在显著差异(p < 0.01); 土壤过氧化氢酶的活性在一年的测定期内的变化趋势一致, 呈单峰型分布, 而碱性磷酸酶的活性却出现了两次峰值和一次谷值; 土壤多酚氧化酶的最小活性均出现在1月, RP在整个研究期间多酚氧化酶的活性最小。RP、CD、RD及CK下, 土壤脲酶、蔗糖酶、过氧化氢酶、碱性磷酸酶和多酚氧化酶5种酶的活性在整个研究期间的平均值排序不同。4)土壤质量综合评价的结果表明, 土壤质量综合评价指数值(SQI)的大小排序为: RP (0.748) > RD (0.590) > CD (0.406) > CK (0.315)。结果表明, 退耕还林后土壤质量得到较明显的改善, 其中刺槐纯林和混交林的效果较好。
刘成刚, 薛建辉. 喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(10): 1050-1060. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01050
LIU Cheng-Gang, XUE Jian-Hui. Basic soil properties and comprehensive evaluation in different plantations in rocky desertification sites of the karst region of Guizhou Province, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2011, 35(10): 1050-1060. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01050
项目 Item | RP | CD | RD | CK |
---|---|---|---|---|
经度 Longitude | 105°50′ E | 105°48′ E | 105°51′ E | 105°51′ E |
纬度 Latitude | 26°16′ N | 26°15′ N | 26°17′ N | 26°16′ N |
海拔 Altitude (m) | 1 470 | 1 410 | 1 480 | 1 470 |
坡向 Slope aspect | SE | SE | SE | SE |
坡度 Slope (°) | 10 | 18 | 12 | 13 |
平均树高 Average tree height (m) | 3.5 | 2.1 | 6.2x/4.8y | - |
平均地径 Average ground diameter (cm) | 4.8 | 2.7 | 8.0 x/6.4y | - |
林分密度 Stand density (stems·hm-2) | 1 822 | 2 088 | 2 000 | - |
林下植被 Floor vegetation | PP, CH, DA, AH, VP, AC, PA | PP, CH, DA, AH, VP | CA, CH, DA, UM, AH, VP, AT, CJ, PA | PP, DA, UM, AH, VP, LS |
表1 样地基本概况
Table 1 Basic situation of sampling plots
项目 Item | RP | CD | RD | CK |
---|---|---|---|---|
经度 Longitude | 105°50′ E | 105°48′ E | 105°51′ E | 105°51′ E |
纬度 Latitude | 26°16′ N | 26°15′ N | 26°17′ N | 26°16′ N |
海拔 Altitude (m) | 1 470 | 1 410 | 1 480 | 1 470 |
坡向 Slope aspect | SE | SE | SE | SE |
坡度 Slope (°) | 10 | 18 | 12 | 13 |
平均树高 Average tree height (m) | 3.5 | 2.1 | 6.2x/4.8y | - |
平均地径 Average ground diameter (cm) | 4.8 | 2.7 | 8.0 x/6.4y | - |
林分密度 Stand density (stems·hm-2) | 1 822 | 2 088 | 2 000 | - |
林下植被 Floor vegetation | PP, CH, DA, AH, VP, AC, PA | PP, CH, DA, AH, VP | CA, CH, DA, UM, AH, VP, AT, CJ, PA | PP, DA, UM, AH, VP, LS |
时间 Time | 样地 Plot | 容重 Bulk density (g·cm-3) | 总孔隙度 Total porosity (%) | 毛管孔隙度Capillary porosity (CP) (%) | 非毛管孔隙度Non-capillary porosity (NCP) (%) | NCP/CP | 田间持水量 Field moisture capacity (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009年9月 Sept. 2009 | RP | 0.74 | 64.84 | 35.27 | 29.57 | 0.84 | 47.66 |
CD | 1.00 | 57.79 | 26.53 | 31.25 | 1.18 | 26.50 | |
RD | 1.13 | 53.08 | 31.38 | 21.70 | 0.69 | 27.86 | |
CK | 1.15 | 45.65 | 30.90 | 14.75 | 0.48 | 26.90 | |
2010年9月 Sept. 2010 | RP | 0.69 | 65.50 | 35.88 | 29.62 | 0.83 | 51.50 |
CD | 0.95 | 59.97 | 27.53 | 32.44 | 1.18 | 29.10 | |
RD | 0.89 | 63.11 | 27.45 | 35.66 | 1.30 | 30.82 | |
CK | 1.09 | 48.43 | 33.79 | 14.64 | 0.43 | 31.11 |
表2 不同类型人工林的土壤物理性质
Table 2 Soil physical properties of different types of plantations
时间 Time | 样地 Plot | 容重 Bulk density (g·cm-3) | 总孔隙度 Total porosity (%) | 毛管孔隙度Capillary porosity (CP) (%) | 非毛管孔隙度Non-capillary porosity (NCP) (%) | NCP/CP | 田间持水量 Field moisture capacity (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009年9月 Sept. 2009 | RP | 0.74 | 64.84 | 35.27 | 29.57 | 0.84 | 47.66 |
CD | 1.00 | 57.79 | 26.53 | 31.25 | 1.18 | 26.50 | |
RD | 1.13 | 53.08 | 31.38 | 21.70 | 0.69 | 27.86 | |
CK | 1.15 | 45.65 | 30.90 | 14.75 | 0.48 | 26.90 | |
2010年9月 Sept. 2010 | RP | 0.69 | 65.50 | 35.88 | 29.62 | 0.83 | 51.50 |
CD | 0.95 | 59.97 | 27.53 | 32.44 | 1.18 | 29.10 | |
RD | 0.89 | 63.11 | 27.45 | 35.66 | 1.30 | 30.82 | |
CK | 1.09 | 48.43 | 33.79 | 14.64 | 0.43 | 31.11 |
图1 不同类型人工林土壤全量养分及pH值的变化(平均值±标准误差, n = 3)。CD, 千香柏人工林; CK, 未造林地; RD, 刺槐千香柏混交林; RP, 刺槐人工林。
Fig. 1 Changes of soil total nutrient contents and pH value in different types of plantations (mean ± SE, n = 3). CD, Cupressus duclouxiana plantation; CK, non-plantation area; RD, Robinia pseudoacacia-C. duclouxiana mixed plantation; RP, R. pseudoacacia plantation. TK, total potassium; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus.
项目 Item | 样地Plot | 2009年9月 Sept. 2009 | 2009年11月 Nov. 2009 | 2010年1月 Jan. 2010 | 2010年3月 Mar. 2010 | 2010年5月 May 2010 | 2010年7月 July 2010 | 2010年9月 Sept. 2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
有机质 Organic mater (g·kg-1) | RP | 90.5b | 90.0b | 84.9b | 89.4b | 88.0b | 84.2b | 89.1b |
CD | 82.7c | 89.0b | 78.2c | 73.2d | 93.6a | 93.5a | 88.4b | |
RD | 101.2a | 97.8a | 91.2a | 98.1a | 91.5a | 93.3a | 97.4a | |
CK | 72.2d | 71.2c | 82.7b | 82.5c | 84.2c | 82.9b | 80.3c | |
碱解氮 Available nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | RP | 566a | 306b | 205b | 218c | 174c | 281b | 359a |
CD | 247c | 293b | 150c | 193d | 321a | 218c | 209b | |
RD | 449b | 349a | 85d | 321a | 139d | 427a | 206b | |
CK | 228c | 195c | 242a | 244b | 289b | 269b | 207b | |
有效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | RP | 9a | 3a | 6b | 8a | 6c | 6c | 9ab |
CD | 5b | 2b | 2c | 1c | 7b | 10b | 10a | |
RD | 10a | 2b | 7a | 4b | 7b | 10b | 7c | |
CK | 2c | 1c | 6b | 4b | 8a | 13a | 8b | |
速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | RP | 218b | 87d | 96c | 77c | 88c | 110b | 177a |
CD | 132d | 110c | 96c | 64d | 80d | 119a | 138c | |
RD | 198c | 151a | 112b | 96b | 105a | 120a | 164b | |
CK | 260a | 132b | 125a | 112a | 93b | 120a | 140c |
表3 不同类型人工林土壤养分的动态变化
Table 3 Dynamics of soil nutrient of different types of plantations
项目 Item | 样地Plot | 2009年9月 Sept. 2009 | 2009年11月 Nov. 2009 | 2010年1月 Jan. 2010 | 2010年3月 Mar. 2010 | 2010年5月 May 2010 | 2010年7月 July 2010 | 2010年9月 Sept. 2010 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
有机质 Organic mater (g·kg-1) | RP | 90.5b | 90.0b | 84.9b | 89.4b | 88.0b | 84.2b | 89.1b |
CD | 82.7c | 89.0b | 78.2c | 73.2d | 93.6a | 93.5a | 88.4b | |
RD | 101.2a | 97.8a | 91.2a | 98.1a | 91.5a | 93.3a | 97.4a | |
CK | 72.2d | 71.2c | 82.7b | 82.5c | 84.2c | 82.9b | 80.3c | |
碱解氮 Available nitrogen (mg·kg-1) | RP | 566a | 306b | 205b | 218c | 174c | 281b | 359a |
CD | 247c | 293b | 150c | 193d | 321a | 218c | 209b | |
RD | 449b | 349a | 85d | 321a | 139d | 427a | 206b | |
CK | 228c | 195c | 242a | 244b | 289b | 269b | 207b | |
有效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg-1) | RP | 9a | 3a | 6b | 8a | 6c | 6c | 9ab |
CD | 5b | 2b | 2c | 1c | 7b | 10b | 10a | |
RD | 10a | 2b | 7a | 4b | 7b | 10b | 7c | |
CK | 2c | 1c | 6b | 4b | 8a | 13a | 8b | |
速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg-1) | RP | 218b | 87d | 96c | 77c | 88c | 110b | 177a |
CD | 132d | 110c | 96c | 64d | 80d | 119a | 138c | |
RD | 198c | 151a | 112b | 96b | 105a | 120a | 164b | |
CK | 260a | 132b | 125a | 112a | 93b | 120a | 140c |
图2 不同类型人工林的土壤酶活性变化(平均值±标准误差, n = 3)。 A, 脲酶活性。B, 蔗糖酶活性。C, 过氧化氢酶活性。D, 多酚氧化酶活性。E, 碱性磷酸酶活性。CD, 千香柏人工林; CK, 未造林地; RD, 刺槐千香柏混交林; RP, 刺槐人工林。
Fig. 2 Variations of soil enzyme activities in different types of plantations (mean ± SE, n = 3). A, Urease activity. B, Invertase activity. C, Catalase activity. D, Polyphenoloxidase activity. E, Alkaline phosphatase activity. CD, Cupressus duclouxiana plantation; CK, non-plantation area; RD, Robinia pseudoacacia-C. duclouxiana mixed plantation; RP, R. pseudoacacia plantation.
主成分 Principal component | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | …… | 19 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
贡献率 Percentage of variance (%) | 45.48 | 31.73 | 22.79 | 0.00 | 0.00 | …… | 0.00 |
累计贡献率 Cumulative percentage (%) | 45.48 | 77.21 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | …… | 100.00 |
表4 土壤质量指标的主成分分析
Table 4 Principal component analysis on soil quality indexes
主成分 Principal component | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | …… | 19 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
贡献率 Percentage of variance (%) | 45.48 | 31.73 | 22.79 | 0.00 | 0.00 | …… | 0.00 |
累计贡献率 Cumulative percentage (%) | 45.48 | 77.21 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | …… | 100.00 |
土壤指标 Soil index | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
因子负荷量 Factor capacity | A1 | 0.152 | 0.064 | 0.302 | 0.082 | 0.185 | 0.235 | 0.340 | 0.067 | 0.303 | |
A2 | 0.270 | 0.373 | 0.064 | 0.391 | 0.341 | 0.145 | 0.008 | 0.330 | 0.092 | ||
权重 Weight | B1 | 0.038 | 0.016 | 0.075 | 0.020 | 0.046 | 0.058 | 0.084 | 0.017 | 0.075 | |
B2 | 0.074 | 0.102 | 0.017 | 0.107 | 0.093 | 0.040 | 0.002 | 0.090 | 0.025 | ||
土壤指标 Soil index | x10 | x11 | x12 | x13 | x14 | x15 | x16 | x17 | x18 | x19 | |
因子负荷量 Factor capacity | A1 | 0.206 | 0.095 | 0.276 | 0.312 | 0.215 | 0.207 | 0.189 | 0.331 | 0.229 | 0.249 |
A2 | 0.019 | 0.372 | 0.238 | 0.114 | 0.217 | 0.250 | 0.147 | 0.092 | 0.041 | 0.162 | |
权重 Weight | B1 | 0.051 | 0.024 | 0.068 | 0.077 | 0.053 | 0.051 | 0.047 | 0.082 | 0.057 | 0.062 |
B2 | 0.005 | 0.101 | 0.065 | 0.031 | 0.059 | 0.068 | 0.040 | 0.025 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
表5 土壤质量指标的负荷量和权重
Table 5 Values of component capacity and weights of soil quality indexes
土壤指标 Soil index | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
因子负荷量 Factor capacity | A1 | 0.152 | 0.064 | 0.302 | 0.082 | 0.185 | 0.235 | 0.340 | 0.067 | 0.303 | |
A2 | 0.270 | 0.373 | 0.064 | 0.391 | 0.341 | 0.145 | 0.008 | 0.330 | 0.092 | ||
权重 Weight | B1 | 0.038 | 0.016 | 0.075 | 0.020 | 0.046 | 0.058 | 0.084 | 0.017 | 0.075 | |
B2 | 0.074 | 0.102 | 0.017 | 0.107 | 0.093 | 0.040 | 0.002 | 0.090 | 0.025 | ||
土壤指标 Soil index | x10 | x11 | x12 | x13 | x14 | x15 | x16 | x17 | x18 | x19 | |
因子负荷量 Factor capacity | A1 | 0.206 | 0.095 | 0.276 | 0.312 | 0.215 | 0.207 | 0.189 | 0.331 | 0.229 | 0.249 |
A2 | 0.019 | 0.372 | 0.238 | 0.114 | 0.217 | 0.250 | 0.147 | 0.092 | 0.041 | 0.162 | |
权重 Weight | B1 | 0.051 | 0.024 | 0.068 | 0.077 | 0.053 | 0.051 | 0.047 | 0.082 | 0.057 | 0.062 |
B2 | 0.005 | 0.101 | 0.065 | 0.031 | 0.059 | 0.068 | 0.040 | 0.025 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
土壤指标 Soil index | RP | CD | RD | CK | 差值 D-value | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | ||||||
x1 | 0.72 | 1.000 | 0.98 | 0.356 | 1.01 | 0.281 | 1.12 | 0.000 | 0.40 | ||||
x2 | 65.17 | 1.000 | 58.88 | 0.653 | 58.10 | 0.610 | 47.04 | 0.000 | 18.13 | ||||
x3 | 35.58 | 1.000 | 27.03 | 0.000 | 29.42 | 0.279 | 32.35 | 0.622 | 8.54 | ||||
x4 | 29.60 | 0.869 | 31.85 | 1.000 | 28.68 | 0.815 | 14.70 | 0.000 | 17.15 | ||||
x5 | 0.83 | 0.521 | 1.18 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.747 | 0.46 | 0.000 | 0.72 | ||||
x6 | 0.50 | 1.000 | 0.28 | 0.000 | 0.29 | 0.076 | 0.29 | 0.076 | 0.22 | ||||
x7 | 7.59 | 0.000 | 8.41 | 1.000 | 7.83 | 0.293 | 7.86 | 0.329 | 0.82 | ||||
x8 | 87.90 | 0.516 | 85.50 | 0.371 | 95.80 | 1.000 | 79.40 | 0.000 | 16.40 | ||||
x9 | 2.84 | 0.000 | 4.48 | 1.000 | 3.98 | 0.696 | 3.34 | 0.306 | 1.64 | ||||
x10 | 7.05 | 0.582 | 7.97 | 1.000 | 5.77 | 0.000 | 6.84 | 0.486 | 2.20 | ||||
x11 | 1.46 | 0.863 | 1.59 | 1.000 | 1.27 | 0.663 | 0.64 | 0.000 | 0.95 | ||||
x12 | 301.00 | 1.000 | 233.00 | 0.000 | 282.00 | 0.720 | 239.00 | 0.092 | 68.00 | ||||
x13 | 7.00 | 1.000 | 5.00 | 0.000 | 7.00 | 1.000 | 6.00 | 0.500 | 2.00 | ||||
x14 | 122.00 | 0.486 | 105.00 | 0.000 | 135.00 | 0.868 | 140.00 | 1.000 | 35.00 | ||||
x15 | 1.00 | 0.872 | 0.71 | 0.015 | 0.70 | 0.000 | 1.04 | 1.000 | 0.34 | ||||
x16 | 39.81 | 1.000 | 30.95 | 0.240 | 28.15 | 0.000 | 37.07 | 0.765 | 11.66 | ||||
x17 | 0.53 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.000 | 0.66 | 0.723 | 0.78 | 0.461 | 0.47 | ||||
x18 | 0.18 | 0.500 | 0.17 | 0.000 | 0.19 | 1.000 | 0.18 | 0.500 | 0.02 | ||||
x19 | 192.33 | 0.664 | 159.24 | 0.000 | 209.06 | 1.000 | 174.04 | 0.297 | 49.82 |
表6 土壤质量指标平均值(A)及其隶属度值(B)
Table 6 Means and values of membership degree of soil quality indexes
土壤指标 Soil index | RP | CD | RD | CK | 差值 D-value | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | ||||||
x1 | 0.72 | 1.000 | 0.98 | 0.356 | 1.01 | 0.281 | 1.12 | 0.000 | 0.40 | ||||
x2 | 65.17 | 1.000 | 58.88 | 0.653 | 58.10 | 0.610 | 47.04 | 0.000 | 18.13 | ||||
x3 | 35.58 | 1.000 | 27.03 | 0.000 | 29.42 | 0.279 | 32.35 | 0.622 | 8.54 | ||||
x4 | 29.60 | 0.869 | 31.85 | 1.000 | 28.68 | 0.815 | 14.70 | 0.000 | 17.15 | ||||
x5 | 0.83 | 0.521 | 1.18 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.747 | 0.46 | 0.000 | 0.72 | ||||
x6 | 0.50 | 1.000 | 0.28 | 0.000 | 0.29 | 0.076 | 0.29 | 0.076 | 0.22 | ||||
x7 | 7.59 | 0.000 | 8.41 | 1.000 | 7.83 | 0.293 | 7.86 | 0.329 | 0.82 | ||||
x8 | 87.90 | 0.516 | 85.50 | 0.371 | 95.80 | 1.000 | 79.40 | 0.000 | 16.40 | ||||
x9 | 2.84 | 0.000 | 4.48 | 1.000 | 3.98 | 0.696 | 3.34 | 0.306 | 1.64 | ||||
x10 | 7.05 | 0.582 | 7.97 | 1.000 | 5.77 | 0.000 | 6.84 | 0.486 | 2.20 | ||||
x11 | 1.46 | 0.863 | 1.59 | 1.000 | 1.27 | 0.663 | 0.64 | 0.000 | 0.95 | ||||
x12 | 301.00 | 1.000 | 233.00 | 0.000 | 282.00 | 0.720 | 239.00 | 0.092 | 68.00 | ||||
x13 | 7.00 | 1.000 | 5.00 | 0.000 | 7.00 | 1.000 | 6.00 | 0.500 | 2.00 | ||||
x14 | 122.00 | 0.486 | 105.00 | 0.000 | 135.00 | 0.868 | 140.00 | 1.000 | 35.00 | ||||
x15 | 1.00 | 0.872 | 0.71 | 0.015 | 0.70 | 0.000 | 1.04 | 1.000 | 0.34 | ||||
x16 | 39.81 | 1.000 | 30.95 | 0.240 | 28.15 | 0.000 | 37.07 | 0.765 | 11.66 | ||||
x17 | 0.53 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.000 | 0.66 | 0.723 | 0.78 | 0.461 | 0.47 | ||||
x18 | 0.18 | 0.500 | 0.17 | 0.000 | 0.19 | 1.000 | 0.18 | 0.500 | 0.02 | ||||
x19 | 192.33 | 0.664 | 159.24 | 0.000 | 209.06 | 1.000 | 174.04 | 0.297 | 49.82 |
图3 不同类型人工林的土壤质量综合评价指数值。CD, 千香柏人工林; CK, 未造林地; RD, 刺槐千香柏混交林; RP, 刺槐人工林。
Fig. 3 Soil integrated quality index (SQI) of different types of plantations. CD, Cupressus duclouxiana plantation; CK, non-plantation area; RD, Robinia pseudoacacia-C. duclouxiana mixed plantation; RP, R. pseudoacacia plantation.
[1] | Allison SD, Vitousek PM (2004). Extracellular enzyme activities and carbon chemistry as drivers of tropical plant litter decomposition. Biotropica, 36, 285-296. |
[2] | Bo HF (勃海锋), Liu GB (刘国彬), Wang GL (王国梁) (2007). Changes of infiltration characteristics of abandoned cropland with plant restoration in Loess hilly region. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持通报), 27(3), 1-5, 31. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[3] |
Burger JA, Kelting DL (1999). Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand management. Forest Ecology and Management, 122, 155-166.
DOI URL |
[4] |
Cao CY, Jiang DM, Teng XH, Jiang Y, Liang WJ, Cui ZB (2008). Soil chemical and microbiological properties along a chronosequence of Caragana microphylla Lam. plantations in the Horqin Sandy Land of Northeast China. Applied Soil Ecology, 40, 78-85.
DOI URL |
[5] | Chen ZY (陈祖拥), Liu F (刘方), Pu TD (蒲通达), Li Z (李准), Ning J (宁婧) (2009). Change of soil enzyme activity during the process of Karst forest degradation in central region of Guizhou. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences (贵州农业科学), 37(2), 47-50. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[6] |
Criquet S, Farnet AM, Tagger S (2000). Annual variations of phenoloxidase activities in an evergreen oak litter influence of certain biotic and abiotic factors. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32, 1505-1513.
DOI URL |
[7] | Dai LM (代力民), Xu ZB (徐振邦), Zhang YJ (张扬建), Chen H (陈华) (2001). Study on decomposition rate and fall of Pinus koraiensis needle. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 21, 1296-1300. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[8] | Dong LL (董莉丽), Zheng FL (郑粉莉) (2008). Characteristics of soil enzyme activities and nutrients under various landuse in the loessial hilly-gully region. Ecology and Environment (生态环境), 17, 2050-2058. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[9] | Fan AN (范阿南), Yang K (杨凯), Liu CH (刘春华), Dong Q (董茜) (2009). Seasonal variations of soil enzyme activi- ties in secondary forest communities in montane region of eastern Liaoning Province. Journal of Northeast Forestry University (东北林业大学学报), 37, 52-54, 71. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[10] |
Fu BJ, Liu SL, Chen LD, Lü YH, Qiu J (2004). Soil quality regime in relation to land cover and slope position across a highly modified slope landscape. Ecology Restoration, 19, 111-118.
DOI URL |
[11] | Gao XF (高雪峰), Han GD (韩国栋), Zhang G (张功), Zhao ML (赵萌莉), Lu P (卢萍) (2007). Study on dynamics of soil enzyme activity and nutrient of desert steppe under different grazing intensities. Pratacultural Science (草业科学), 24(2), 10-13. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[12] | Gong J (巩杰), Chen LD (陈利顶), Fu BJ (傅伯杰), LI YM (李延梅), Huang ZL (黄志霖), Huang YL (黄奕龙), Peng HJ (彭鸿嘉) (2004). Effects of land use and vegetation restoration on soil quality in a small catchment of the Loss Plateau. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15, 2292-2296. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[13] | Guan SY (关松荫) (1986). NSoil Enzyme and Study Method (土壤酶及其研究方法). China Agricultural Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[14] | He B (何斌), Liu YH (刘运华), Lu ZK (陆志科), Dai J (戴军) (2004). Seasonal changes of soil available nutrients and enzyme activity of Cinamomum cassia plantation. Nonwood Forest Research (经济林研究), 22(3), 1-4. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[15] | He YJ (何跃军), Zhong ZC (钟章成), Liu JM (刘济明), Liu JC (刘锦春), Jin J (金静), Li QY (李青雨) (2005). Soil enzyme activities of limestone degraded ecosystem at its different restoration phases. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 16, 1077-1081. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[16] | Hou BD (侯本栋), Ma FY (马风云) (2007). Effect of the mixed stands of black locust with other tree species on soil chemical property and soil enzyme activity. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Natural Science) (山东农业大学学报(自然科学版)), 38, 53-57. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[17] | Hu YJ (胡延杰), Zhai MP (翟明普), Wu JW (武觐文), Jia LM (贾黎明) (2001). Dynamics of enzyme activity in the soil of pure and mixed stands of poplar and black locust. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (北京林业大学学报), 23(5), 23-26. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Huang Y (黄宇), Wang SL (汪思龙), Feng ZW (冯宗炜), GAO H (高洪), Wang QK (王清奎), Hu YL (胡亚林), Yan SK (颜绍馗) (2004). Soil quality assessment of forest stand in different plantation ecosystems. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15, 2199-2205. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[19] | Jiao Y (焦燕), Zhao JH (赵江红), Xu Z (徐柱) (2009). Effects of a conversion from grassland to cropland on soil physical-chemical properties in the agro-pastoral ecotone of Inner Mongolia: analysis of a 50-year chronosequence. Ecology and Environmental Sciences (生态环境学报), 18, 1965-1970. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[20] | Lan X (兰雪), Dai QH (戴全厚), Yu LF (喻理飞), Yang Z (杨智) (2009). Soil enzyme activity of different restoration stages in karst degenerative forest. Research of Agricul- ture Modernization (农业现代化研究), 30, 620-624. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[21] | Li D (李丹), He TB (何腾兵), Liu CQ (刘丛强), Tu CL (涂成龙), Li GZ (李广枝) (2008). Review and prospect on soil enzyme activity in karst mountain area. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences (贵州农业科学), 36(2), 87-90. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[22] | Li ZG (李振高), Luo YM (骆永明), Teng Y (滕应) (2008). Research Methods of Soil Environmental Microorganism (土壤与环境微生物研究法). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[23] | Long J (龙健), Deng QQ (邓启琼), Jiang XR (江新荣), Liu F (刘方) (2005). Effects of different de-farming and reafforestation patterns on changes of soil fertility quality in karst region of southwestern China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 16, 1279-1284. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[24] | Long J (龙健), Li J (李娟), Jiang XR (江新荣), Deng QQ (邓启琼), Li YB (李阳兵) (2006). Effects of different recover and restoration measures on soil quality in karst rocky desertification region. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 17, 615-619. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[25] | Lu RK (鲁如坤) (2000). Analysis Methods of Soil Agricultural Chemistry (土壤农业化学分析方法). Chinese Agricul- tural Science and Technology Press, Beijing. (in Chinese) |
[26] |
Luo DH (罗东辉), Xia J (夏婧), Yuan JW (袁婧薇), Zhang ZH (张忠华), Zhu JD (祝介东), Ni J (倪健) (2010). Root biomass of karst vegetation in a mountainous area of southwestern China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology (植物生态学报), 34, 611-618. (in Chinese with English abstract)
DOI URL |
[27] | Luo HB (罗海波), Song GY (宋光煜), He TB (何腾兵), Liu CQ (刘丛强), Liu F (刘方), Liu YS (刘元生), Qian XG (钱晓刚) (2004). Effect of soil properties during controlling karst rocky desertification process in Guizhou Province. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 18(6), 112-115. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[28] | Meng TY (孟天友), Wang XM (王兴明), Li Q (李琼) (2005). Study on eco-economics construction of rocky desertifica- tion regions. Soil and Water Conservation in China (中国水土保持), ( 9), 10-12. (in Chinese) |
[29] | Rong L (容丽), Xiong KN (熊康宁) (2007). Drought-resistance characters of karst plant of adaptability in Huajiang karst gorge I: root system of Zanthoxylum planispinum var. dintanensis and its soil environment. Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Natural Science) (贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版)), 25(4), 1-7, 34. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[30] | Wang J (王健), Liu ZX (刘作新) (2004). Study on the biological properties of soil under the mixed forests of Pinus tabulaeformis Carr. and Robinia pseudoaeaeia L. Arid Zone Research (干旱区研究), 21, 348-352. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[31] | Wu HY (吴海勇), Peng WX (彭晚霞), Song TQ (宋同清), Zeng FP (曾馥平), Li XH (黎星辉), Song XJ (宋希娟), Ouyang ZW (欧阳资文) (2008). Changes of soil nutrients in process of natural vegetation restoration in karst disturbed area in northwest Guangxi. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 22(4), 143-147. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[32] |
Yang WQ (杨万勤), Wang KY (王开运) (2004). Advances in forest soil enzymology. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 40(2), 152-159. (in Chinese with English abstract)
DOI URL |
[33] | Yue ZH (岳中辉), Wang BW (王博文), Wang HF (王洪峰), Yan XF (阎秀峰) (2008). Seasonal dynamics of soil enzy- matic activities in west Songnen alkali degraded grass- land. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 22(6), 162-165. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[34] | Zeng FP (曾馥平), Peng WX (彭晚霞), Song TQ (宋同清), Wang KL (王克林), Wu HY (吴海勇), Song XJ (宋希娟), Zeng ZX (曾昭霞) (2007). Changes in vegetation after 22 years’ natural restoration in the karst disturbed area in Northwest Guangxi. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 27, 5110-5119. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[35] | Zhang M (张猛), Zhang J (张健) (2003). Advance in research on microbe and enzyme activity in forest soil. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University (四川农业大学学报), 21, 347-351. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[36] | Zhang QF (张庆费), Song YC (宋永昌), You WH (由文辉) (1999). Relationship between plant community secondary succession and soil fertility in Tiantong, Zhejiang Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 19, 174-178. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[37] | Zhang YL (张银龙), Lin P (林鹏) (1999). The seasonal and spatial dynamics of soil enzyme activities under Kandelia candel mangrove forest. Journal of Xiamen University (Natural Science) (厦门大学学报(自然科学版)), 38, 129-136. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[38] | Zhao GF (赵谷风), Cai YB (蔡延马奔), Luo YY (罗媛媛), Li MH (李铭红), Yu MJ (于明坚) (2006). Nutrient dynamics in litter decomposition in an evergreen broad-leaved forest in East China. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 26, 3286-3295. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[39] | Zhao XM (赵雪梅), Sun XY (孙向阳), Wang HY (王海燕), Tian Y (田赟), Kang XY (康向阳) (2010). Dynamics of soil nutritional factors and pH value of triploid Populus tomentosa plantation. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 30, 3414-3423. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[40] | Zhou W (周玮), Zhou YC (周运超) (2010). Soil enzyme activities under different vegetation types in Beipan River karst gorge district. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 46(1), 136-141. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[41] | Zou J (邹军), Yu LF (喻理飞), Li YY (李媛媛) (2010). Study on soil enzyme activity characteristics during succession of degraded karst vegetation. Ecology and Environmental Sciences (生态环境学报), 19, 894-898. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 刘瑶 钟全林 徐朝斌 程栋梁 郑跃芳 邹宇星 张雪 郑新杰 周云若. 不同大小刨花楠细根功能性状与根际微环境关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(预发表): 0-0. |
[2] | 杨尚锦, 范云翔, 章毓文, 韩巧玲, 赵玥, 段劼, 邸楠, 席本野. 树木夜间液流组分划分方法对比——以毛白杨为例[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(4): 496-507. |
[3] | 吴君梅, 曾泉鑫, 梅孔灿, 林惠瑛, 谢欢, 刘苑苑, 徐建国, 陈岳民. 土壤磷有效性调控亚热带森林土壤酶活性和酶化学计量对凋落叶输入的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2024, 48(2): 242-253. |
[4] | 吴帆, 吴晨, 张宇辉, 余恒, 魏智华, 郑蔚, 刘小飞, 陈仕东, 杨智杰, 熊德成. 增温对成熟杉木人工林不同季节细根生长、形态及生理代谢特征的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(6): 856-866. |
[5] | 刘婧, 缑倩倩, 王国华, 赵峰侠. 晋西北丘陵风沙区柠条锦鸡儿叶片与土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(4): 546-558. |
[6] | 范云翔, 邸楠, 刘洋, 章毓文, 段劼, 李新, 王海红, 席本野. 毛白杨茎干夜间液流时空动态及其环境影响因子[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(2): 262-274. |
[7] | 万春燕, 余俊瑞, 朱师丹. 喀斯特与非喀斯特森林乔木叶性状及其相关性网络的差异[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(10): 1386-1397. |
[8] | 党宏忠, 张学利, 韩辉, 石长春, 葛玉祥, 马全林, 陈帅, 刘春颖. 樟子松固沙林林水关系研究进展及对营林实践的指导[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(9): 971-983. |
[9] | 刘沛荣, 同小娟, 孟平, 张劲松, 张静茹, 于裴洋, 周宇. 散射辐射对中国东部典型人工林总初级生产力的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(8): 904-918. |
[10] | 孙彩丽, 仇模升, 黄朝相, 王艺伟. 黔西南石漠化过程中土壤胞外酶活性及其化学计量变化特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(7): 834-845. |
[11] | 黄冬柳, 项伟, 李忠国, 朱师丹. 南亚热带10种造林树种的水力结构和水力安全[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(5): 602-612. |
[12] | 王俐爽, 同小娟, 孟平, 张劲松, 刘沛荣, 李俊, 张静茹, 周宇. 辽西半干旱地区两种典型人工林生态系统能量通量及蒸散特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(12): 1508-1522. |
[13] | 孟庆静, 樊卫国. 刺梨的适钙类型及对高钙生境的适应性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(12): 1562-1572. |
[14] | 黄侩侩, 胡刚, 庞庆玲, 张贝, 何业涌, 胡聪, 徐超昊, 张忠华. 放牧对中国亚热带喀斯特山地灌草丛物种组成与群落结构的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(11): 1350-1363. |
[15] | 贺忠权, 刘长成, 蔡先立, 郭柯. 黔中高原喀斯特常绿与落叶阔叶混交林类型及群落特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2021, 45(6): 670-680. |
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