我国西南山地喀斯特植被的根系生物量初探

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.05.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在贵州茂兰喀斯特森林国家自然保护区内, 选取2种立地条件上(岩石和土壤分别占优势)的5个植被恢复阶段(草本群落、灌草群落、灌木群落、次顶极常绿落叶阔叶林和顶极常绿落叶阔叶林)共10个样地, 利用平均标准木机械布点法对根系进行采集, 分析了其生物量总量、不同根系径级的分配格局和地下空间的分布规律。结果表明: 1)喀斯特植物群落的正向植被恢复进程极显著地增加了地下生物量(p < 0.001), 从草本群落的2.63 Mg·hm^-2增加到顶极森林群落的58.15 Mg·hm^-2; 同一恢复阶段的石生和土壤立地上根系生物量的差异不显著(p > 0.05), 在顶极和次顶极常绿落叶阔叶林阶段, 石生立地的根系生物量高于土壤立地, 而灌木、灌草和草本群落阶段则相反。2)同一恢复阶段的石生立地的粗根生物量均高于土壤立地, 但差异不显著(p > 0.05), 而细根和小根生物量则从石生到土壤立地显著增加(p < 0.05); 随着喀斯特植被的恢复, 石生和土壤立地上粗根占总根系生物量的比例均逐渐增加。3)石生立地根系的分布以水平扩散和穿梭为主, 无垂直层次分布; 而土壤立地各恢复阶段的根系生物量主要集中在地面到地下10 cm的垂直空间内; 在不同的土层深度, 粗根占所有根径级生物量的80%, 且随土层加深, 其比例降低。该研究不仅填补了喀斯特植被根系生物量观测的空白, 为估算我国西南喀斯特地区植被的总生物量和生产力提供了本底数据, 也为进一步研究喀斯特森林稳定性维持机制和喀斯特石漠化防治与植被适应性修复奠定了基础。

关键词: 喀斯特植被, 茂兰国家自然保护区, 根系生物量, 石生立地, 土壤立地, 植被恢复

Abstract:

Aims The karst vegetation in southwestern China, growing in a harsh environment, is a specific ecosystem that can lead to land degradation and rocky desertification under human disturbances. The root biomass (RB) of the karst vegetation is very difficult to measure due to the karst geomorphology and rigorous habitat and is therefore rarely reported. However, RB is a key factor in understanding ecosystem stability in this region and is an indicator of vegetation restoration in different rocky desertification stages. Our objective was to estimate the RB of karst plant communities in each restoration stage in Maolan National Natural Reserve of Guizhou Province, southwestern China.

Methods We investigated 40 plots. The karst vegetation was divided into five restoration stages according to its community physiognomy, dominant species, habitat types, mean tree diameter at breast height (DBH), mean tree height and tree density, as well as disturbances of rocky desertification: herb community, herb-scrub community, scrub-shrub community, sub-climax community and climax community of evergreen-deciduous broadleaved mixed forests. We divided the karst plant communities into rock-dominated and soil-dominated stands. We measured root biomass in different soil layers and in various root diameter classes and estimated it in 10 representative plots using the Specific Sampling Method of Averaged Standard Tree.

Important findings Forward restoration of karst vegetation significantly increases its RB from 2.63 Mg·hm^-2 in rock-stand herb community to 58.15 Mg·hm^-2 in rock-stand climax evergreen-deciduous broadleaved mixed forest (p < 0.001). In the same restoration stage, RB of rock-stands and RB of soil-stands are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Total RB in rock-stand climax and sub-climax communities are higher than that in soil-stand ones, but it is reversed in the other three restoration stages. In the same restoration stage, coarse RB in the rock-stand community is not significantly different from soil-stand community (p > 0.05). The fine and small RB in the soil-stand community is significantly higher than in the rock-stand community (p < 0.05). The biomass ratio of coarse versus total roots in rock-stand and soil-stand communities increases gradually with forward restoration. The RB of rock-stand communities is mainly distributed on the rock surface or in the rock gaps, and has no obvious vertical pattern of distribution. The distribution of RB in soil-stand communities, however, is concentrated in the top 10 cm of the soil. In different soil layers the ratio of coarse to total RB is ca. 80%; it decreases with increasing soil depth.

Key words: karst vegetation, Maolan National Natural Reserve, root biomass, rock stand, soil stand, vegetation restoration

罗东辉, 夏婧, 袁婧薇, 张忠华, 祝介东, 倪健. 我国西南山地喀斯特植被的根系生物量初探. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(5): 611-618. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.05.015

LUO Dong-Hui, XIA Jing, YUAN Jing-Wei, ZHANG Zhong-Hua, ZHU Jie-Dong, NI Jian. Root biomass of karst vegetation in a mountainous area of southwestern China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2010, 34(5): 611-618. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.05.015

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.05.015

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2010/V34/I5/611

图/表 5

参考文献 25

[1]	Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997). Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia, 111, 1-11. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Deng KM (邓坤枚), Luo TX (罗天祥), Zhang L (张林), Wang XY (王学云), Li CH (李长会) (2005). Root biomass of different stand-age Pinus yunnanensis forest and its distribution pattern in different soil depths. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 16, 21-24. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science, 263, 185-190. DOI URL PMID
[4]	Du XJ (杜晓军), Liu CF (刘常富), Jin G (金罡), Shi XN (石小宁) (1998). Root biomass of main forest ecosystems in Changbai Mountains. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University (沈阳农业大学学报), 29, 229-232. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	Espeleta JF, Clark DA (2007). Multi-scale variation in fine-root biomass in a tropical rain forest: a seven-year study. Ecological Monographs, 77, 377-404. DOI URL
[6]	Fang JY, Chen AP, Peng CH, Zhao SQ, Ci LJ (2001). Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in China between 1949 and 1998. Science, 292, 2320-2322. DOI URL PMID
[7]	Feng ZW (冯宗炜), Wang XK (王效科), Wu G (吴刚) (1999). Biomass and Primary Productivity of Forest Ecosystems in China (中国森林生态系统的生物量和生产力). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[8]	Gill RA, Kelly RH, Parton WJ, Day KA, Jackson RB, Morgan JA, Scurlock JMO, Tieszen LL, Castle JV, Ojima DS, Zhang XS (2002). Using simple environmental variables to estimate below-ground productivity in grasslands. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11, 79-86. DOI URL
[9]	Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996). A global analysis of root distribution for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108, 389-411. DOI URL PMID
[10]	Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Schulze ED (1997). A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America, 94, 7362-7366.
[11]	Lee EH, Tingey DT, Beedlow PA, Johnson MG, Burdick CA (2007). Relating fine root biomass to soil and climate conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 242, 195-208. DOI URL
[12]	Luo TX, Brown S, Pan YD, Shi PL, Ouyang H, Yu ZL, Zhu HZ (2005). Root biomass along subtropical to alpine gradients: global implications from Tibetan transect studies. Forest Ecology and Management, 206, 349-363. DOI URL
[13]	Matamala R, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Jastrow JD, Norby RJ, Schlesinger WH (2003). Impacts of fine root turnover on forest NPP and soil C sequestration potential. Science, 302, 1385-1387. DOI URL PMID
[14]	Schenk HJ, Jackson RB (2002). Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal of Ecology, 90, 480-494. DOI URL
[15]	Scurlock JMO, Cramer W, Olson RJ, Parton WJ, Prince SD (1999). Terrestrial NPP: towards a consistent data set for global model evaluation. Ecological Applications, 9, 913-919.
[16]	Tu YL (屠玉麟), Yang J (杨军) (1995). Study on biomass of the karst scrub communities in central region of Guizhou Province. Carsologica Sinica (中国岩溶), 14, 199-207. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	Xiao CW, Sang WG, Wang RZ (2008). Fine root dynamics and turnover rate in an Asia white birch forest of Donglingshan Mountain, China. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 765-773. DOI URL
[18]	Yang HK (杨汉奎), Cheng SZ (程仕泽) (1991). Study on biomass of the karst forest community in Maolan, Guizhou Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 11, 307-312. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	Yang LW (杨丽韫), Luo TX (罗天祥), Wu ST (吴松涛) (2005). Root biomass and belowground C and N storage of primitive Korean pine and broad-leaved climax forest in Changbai Mountains at its different succession stages. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 16, 1195-1199. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	Yu LF (喻理飞), Zhu SQ (朱守谦), Ye JZ (叶镜中), Wei LM (魏鲁明), Chen ZR (陈正仁) (2002a). Dynamics of a degraded karst forest in the process of natural restoration. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 38, 1-7. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Yu LF (喻理飞), Zhu SQ (朱守谦), Ye JZ (叶镜中), Wei LM (魏鲁明), Chen ZR (陈正仁) (2002b). Evaluation on degradation of karst forest community and human disturbance. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 13(5), 54-61. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	Zhang L (张林), Luo TX (罗天祥), Deng KM (邓坤枚), Dai Q (戴强), Huang Y (黄永), Jiang ZF (蒋正富), Tao MY (陶明友), Zeng KY (曾开益) (2004). Biomass and net primary productivity of secondary evergreen broadleaved forest in Huangmian Forest Farm, Guangxi. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 15, 2029-2033. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	Zhou ZX (周政贤) (1987). Scientific Investigation of Karst Forest in Maolan (茂兰喀斯特森林科学考察集). Guizhou People Press, Guiyang. 1-73. (in Chinese)
[24]	Zhu SQ (朱守谦) (1993). The Ecological Research on Karst Forest I (喀斯特森林生态研究I). Guizhou Science Press, Guiyang. 1-50. (in Chinese)
[25]	Zhu SQ (朱守谦), Wei LM (魏鲁明), Chen ZR (陈正仁), Zhang CG (张从贵) (1995). A preliminary study on biomass components of karst forest in Maolan of Guizhou Province, China. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica (植物生态学报), 19, 358-367. (in Chinese with English abstract)

恢复阶段 Restoration stage	经度 Longitude (E)	纬度 Latitude (N)	海拔 Altitude (m)	群落名称 Community name	平均胸径 Mean diameter at breast height (DBH, cm)	平均树高 Mean tree height (m)	密度 Density (No.·hm^-2)	年龄 Stand age (a)
R-HS	107°56.662′	25°20.251′	925	密毛蕨Pteridium revolutum+羊耳菊Inula cappa		0.3		10
S-HS	107°58.826′	25°20.001′	768	密毛蕨+金丝草Pogonatherum crinitum		0.3		10
R-HSS	107°55.559′	25°19.480′	907	香叶树Lindera communis+青篱柴Tirpitzia sinensis	1.6*	1.4	2 020	8-12
S-HSS	107°58.018′	25°18.180′	743	枫香Liquidambar formosana+长叶冻绿Rhamnus crenata	1.5*	1.0	1 800	8-12
R-SSS	107°55.815′	25°18.598′	842	香叶树+圆果化香Platycarya longipes	3.8	4.0	5 600	12-18
S-SSS	107°55.800′	25°18.610′	863	香叶树+全缘火棘Pyracantha atalantioides	3.9	4.1	4 875	13-18
R-SCS	107°57.263′	25°18.592′	851	华南梾木Swida austrosinensis+齿叶黄皮Clausena dunniana	7.8	6.8	2 775	60-133
S-SCS	107°57.263′	25°18.211′	711	小花梾木Swida parviflora+香叶树	8.6	6.9	1 956	25-54
R-CS	107°57.483′	25°18.653′	860	齿叶黄皮+圆果化香	8.7	7.6	2 122	80-236
S-CS	107°57.350′	25°18.117′	925	榕叶冬青Ilex ficoidea+西南米槠Castanopsis carlesii var. spinulosa	9.6	8.2	2 833	60-135

恢复阶段 Restoration stage	经度 Longitude (E)	纬度 Latitude (N)	海拔 Altitude (m)	群落名称 Community name	平均胸径 Mean diameter at breast height (DBH, cm)	平均树高 Mean tree height (m)	密度 Density (No.·hm^-2)	年龄 Stand age (a)
R-HS	107°56.662′	25°20.251′	925	密毛蕨Pteridium revolutum+羊耳菊Inula cappa		0.3		10
S-HS	107°58.826′	25°20.001′	768	密毛蕨+金丝草Pogonatherum crinitum		0.3		10
R-HSS	107°55.559′	25°19.480′	907	香叶树Lindera communis+青篱柴Tirpitzia sinensis	1.6*	1.4	2 020	8-12
S-HSS	107°58.018′	25°18.180′	743	枫香Liquidambar formosana+长叶冻绿Rhamnus crenata	1.5*	1.0	1 800	8-12
R-SSS	107°55.815′	25°18.598′	842	香叶树+圆果化香Platycarya longipes	3.8	4.0	5 600	12-18
S-SSS	107°55.800′	25°18.610′	863	香叶树+全缘火棘Pyracantha atalantioides	3.9	4.1	4 875	13-18
R-SCS	107°57.263′	25°18.592′	851	华南梾木Swida austrosinensis+齿叶黄皮Clausena dunniana	7.8	6.8	2 775	60-133
S-SCS	107°57.263′	25°18.211′	711	小花梾木Swida parviflora+香叶树	8.6	6.9	1 956	25-54
R-CS	107°57.483′	25°18.653′	860	齿叶黄皮+圆果化香	8.7	7.6	2 122	80-236
S-CS	107°57.350′	25°18.117′	925	榕叶冬青Ilex ficoidea+西南米槠Castanopsis carlesii var. spinulosa	9.6	8.2	2 833	60-135

土壤深度 Soil depth (cm)	S-HS	S-HSS	S-SSS	S-SCS	S-CS
< 5	2.03	4.07	6.59	4.27	51.82
5-10	0.04	1.48	3.87	6.22	4.44
10-15		0.09	1.68	4.71	1.23
15-20			2.02	4.17
> 20			2.02	2.74
合计 Total	2.07	5.64	14.16	22.11	57.49

土壤深度 Soil depth (cm)	S-HS	S-HSS	S-SSS	S-SCS	S-CS
< 5	2.03	4.07	6.59	4.27	51.82
5-10	0.04	1.48	3.87	6.22	4.44
10-15		0.09	1.68	4.71	1.23
15-20			2.02	4.17
> 20			2.02	2.74
合计 Total	2.07	5.64	14.16	22.11	57.49

土壤深度 Soil depth (cm)	细根和小根 Fine and small roots	中根 Medium roots	粗根 Coarse roots	不同土层根系生物量 RB in different soil layers	粗根比例 Ratio of coarse roots (%)
< 5	4.81	4.04	42.98	51.86	82.9
5-10	0.94	1.13	2.36	4.43	53.3
10-60	0.40	0.19	0.64	1.23	52.0
总根系生物量 Total RB	6.15	5.36	45.98	57.52	79.9
< 10 cm根系生物量比例Ratio of RB < 10 cm (%)	93.50	96.50	98.60	97.90