不同林龄华山松人工林土壤养分及其生态化学计量特征

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.01.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了阐明林龄对华山松人工林土壤养分以及碳(C)、氮(N)、磷(P)生态化学计量特征的影响,在贵州省毕节市境内的乌蒙山选取4个林龄(10,16,22,47a)的华山松人工林为研究对象,在每个林分内选择具有代表性的地段分别设置3块20 m×20 m样地,每块样地内按“S”形设置5个采样点,测定0~20 cm土层土壤的pH、总碳(TC)、全氮(TN)、全磷(TP)、全钾(TP)、全钙(TC_a)、有机碳(SOC)、速效氮(AN)、速效磷(AP)、速效钾(AK),并计算土壤C:N:P化学计量比,分析它们随林龄的变化及其与C:N:P化学计量比之间的关系。结果表明:1)不同林龄华山松人工林土壤SOC含量23.624~65.093g/kg,TN含量1.533~5.157g/kg,远高于全国土壤的平均水平;TP含量0.327~1.097g/kg,与全国土壤平均水平相当,说明研究区内土壤C,N含量较高;2)林龄对华山松人工林土壤养分和C:N:P生态化学计量比均有显著影响;随着林龄增长,华山松人工林土壤TC,SOC含量,C:N和C:P先降低后增加,TN,TP,AN,AP和AK含量逐渐增加,土壤pH,TK和TC_a含量先增加后降低,N:P呈波浪形变化趋势;3)土壤C:N,C:P与TK,TC_a的相关性大于与TN,TP的相关性,说明华山松人工林土壤C:N和C:P主要受钾和钙的影响。因此,在华山松人工林经营管理过程中,如何科学调控土壤中钾(K)和钙(C_a)含量显得尤为重要。研究结果可以为华山松人工林的可持续经营和科学管理提供理论依据。

关键词: 华山松人工林, 林龄, 土壤养分, 生态化学计量学

Abstract:

In order to elucidate the effects of stand age on soil nutrients and C:N:P stoichiometry characteristics in Pinus armandii plantations,an age sequence of Pinus armandii stands (10 years old,16 years old,22 years old and 47 years old) were selected in Wumeng Mountain,Bijie City,Guizhou Province.Three representative 20 m×20 m plots were set in each forest stand.The soil pH,total carbon (TC),total nitrogen (TN),total phosphorus (TP),total potassium (TP),total calcium (TCa),soil organic carbon (SOC),available nitrogen (AN),available phosphorus (AP),and available potassium (AK) at soil depth of 0-20 cm were measured,and the stoichiometric ratio of soil C:N:P was calculated.Their changes with stand age and their relationship between the C:N:P stoichiometric ratio and the factors were explored.The results showed that the concentrations of SOC and TN among different ages ranged 23.624~65.093 g/kg and 1.533~5.157 g/kg,respectively,which were much higher than the national average level.The concentrations of TP ranged 0.327~1.097 g/kg,which was comparable to the national average soil level.These indicated that the concentrations of SOC and TN were high in the study area.The stand age had significant effects on soil nutrients and C:N:P stoichiometric ratio.With the increase of stand age,the soil TC,SOC,C:N and C:P showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing,whereas soil pH,TK and TCa showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing.The TN,TP,AN,AP and AK increased gradually with the increasing of stand age,whereas the soil N:P showed a wavy trend.Pearson correlation analysis showed that the correlations of soil C:N and C:P with TK and TCa were greater than those with TN and TP,indicating that the soil C:N ratio and C:P ratio of Pinus armandii plantations were mainly affected by the contents of potassium and calcium.Therefore,it is particularly important to scientifically regulate the contents of potassium and calcium in the soil during the management of Pinus armandii plantations.Results from this study can provide theoretical basis for sustainable and scientific management of Pinus armandii plantations.

Key words: Pinus armandii plantations, stand age, soil nutrient, ecological stoichiometry

中图分类号:

S714

何斌, 李青, 李望军, 邹顺, 白晓龙, 冯图. 不同林龄华山松人工林土壤养分及其生态化学计量特征[J]. 林业资源管理, 2023, 0(1): 71-79.

HE Bin, LI Qing, LI Wangjun, ZOU Shun, BAI Xiaolong, FENG Tu. Soil Nutrient and C:N:P Stoichiometry of Different Aged Pinus armandii Plantations[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(1): 71-79.

图/表 4

表1

图1

图2

表2

参考文献 39

[1]	喻林华, 方晰, 项文化, 等. 亚热带4种林分类型枯落物层和土壤层的碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(10):10-21.
[2]	王霖娇, 汪攀, 盛茂银. 西南喀斯特典型石漠化生态系统土壤养分生态化学计量特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(18):6580-6593.
[3]	Hessen D O. Stoichiometry in food webs—Latka revistted[J]. Oikos, 1997(79):195-200.
[4]	贺金生, 韩兴国. 生态化学计量学:探索从个体到生态系统的统一化理论[J]. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(1):2-6. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.01.002
[5]	董廷发. 不同海拔云南松林土壤养分及其生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(3):672-679.
[6]	Zhao Fazhu, Ren Chengjie, Han X H, et al. Changes of soil microbial and enzyme activities are linked to soil C,N and P stoichiometry in afforested ecosystems[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2018, 427:289-295. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.06.011
[7]	Lucas-Borja M E, Hedo J, Cerdá A, et al. Unravelling the importance of forest age stand and forest structure driving microbiological soil properties,enzymatic activities and soil nutrients content in Mediterranean Spanish black pine forest[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 562:145-154. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.160
[8]	曹娟, 闫文德, 项文化, 等. 湖南会同 3 个林龄杉木人工林土壤碳、氮、磷化学计量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(7):1-8.
[9]	郭其强, 盘金文, 李慧娥, 等. 贵州高原山地马尾松人工林土壤碳、氮、磷生态化学计量特性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(4):293-298.
[10]	崔宁洁, 刘小兵, 张丹桔, 等. 不同林龄马尾松(Pinus massoniana)人工林碳氮磷分配格局及化学计量特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(2):188-195.
[11]	曾凡鹏, 迟光宇, 陈欣, 等. 辽东山区不同林龄落叶松人工林土壤-根系C:N:P 生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(7):1819-1825.
[12]	Wang Zhiqiang, Lv Shiqi, Song Hui, et al. Plant type dominates fine-root C:N:P stoichiometry across China:A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Biogeography, 2020, 47(5):1019-1029. doi: 10.1111/jbi.v47.5
[13]	朱玉荷, 肖虹, 王冰, 等. 蒙古高原草地不同深度土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征对气候因子的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022,(3):340-349. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0266
[14]	王晓光, 乌云娜, 宋彦涛, 等. 土壤与植物生态化学计量学研究进展[J]. 大连民族大学学报, 2016, 18(5):437-442.
[15]	蔡雅梅, 冯民权, 肖瑜. 人类活动对河岸带植被氮磷生态化学计量特征的影响——以汾河临汾段为例[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(1):17-25.
[16]	姚慧芳, 卢杰, 王超, 等. 波密岗乡自然保护区华山松种群结构与数量动态特征[J]. 林业资源管理, 2020(5):108-115.
[17]	张清友. 华山松造林技术及抚育管理初探[J]. 南方农业, 2018, 12(5):46-47.
[18]	袁丽萍. 云南云龙天池自然保护区华山松天然林生物量研究[J]. 防护林科技, 2018(8):13-15.
[19]	张宁, 刘江华. 昆明市华山松人工林生态系统健康评价[J]. 林业调查规划, 2011, 36(2):106-119.
[20]	白雪娟, 曾全超, 安韶山, 等. 黄土高原不同人工林叶片-凋落叶-土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(12):3823-3830.
[21]	Tian Hanqin, Chen Guangsheng, Zhang Chi, et al. Pattern and variation of C:N:P ratios in China's soils:A synthesis of observational data[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2010(98):139-151.
[22]	张芸, 李惠通, 张辉, 等. 不同林龄杉木人工林土壤C:N:P化学计量特征及其与土壤理化性质的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(7):2520-2531.
[23]	董宁宁, 李哲, 侯琳, 等. 秦岭山地华山松和锐齿栎典型林分化学计量特征分析[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2017, 37(3):81-87.
[24]	雷丽群, 卢立华, 农友, 等. 不同林龄马尾松人工林土壤碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 林业科学研究, 2017, 30(6):954-960.
[25]	李慧, 许亚东, 王涛, 等. 不同林龄刺槐人工林植物与土壤C、N、P化学计量特征演变[J]. 西北农业学报, 2018, 27(11):1651-1659.
[26]	任悦, 高广磊, 丁国栋, 等. 沙地樟子松人工林叶片-枯落物-土壤氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(3):743-750. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201903.040
[27]	何斌, 李青, 冯图, 等. 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. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.11.002
[28]	Freschet G T, Cornwell W K, Wardle D A, et al. Linking litter decomposition of above-and below-ground organs to plant-soil feedbacks worldwide[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2013, 101(4):943-952. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12092
[29]	Zhou Guoyi, Liu Shuguang, Li Zhian, et al. Old-growth forests can accumulate carbon in soils[J]. Science, 2007, 314(5804):1417. doi: 10.1126/science.1130168
[30]	Luyssaert S, Schulze E D, Brner A, et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks[J]. Nature, 2008, 455(7210):213-215. doi: 10.1038/nature07276
[31]	陈安娜, 王光军, 陈婵, 等. 亚热带不同林龄杉木林叶-根-土氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(11):4027-4036.
[32]	张继辉, 蔡道雄, 卢立华, 等. 不同林龄柚木人工林土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(16):5718-5728.
[33]	牛沙沙, 周永斌, 刘丽颖, 等. 不同林龄樟子松人工林土壤理化性质[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015, 43(2):47-50.
[34]	陶慧敏, 孙宁骁, 温家豪, 等. 滇南喀斯特地区灌木群落和人工林土壤元素化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(24):9119-9130.
[35]	张广帅, 邓浩俊, 杜锟, 等. 泥石流频发区山地不同海拔土壤化学计量特征——以云南省小江流域为例[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(3):675-687.
[36]	Sardans J, Peñuelas J. Potassium:A neglected nutrient in global change[J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2015(24):261-275.
[37]	牛瑞龙, 高星, 徐福利, 等. 秦岭中幼林龄华北落叶松针叶与土壤的碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(22):7384-7392.
[38]	Bengtsson G, Bengtson P, Mansson K F. Gross nitrogen mineralization,immobilization,and nitrification rates as a function of soil C/N ratio and microbial activity[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2003, 35(1):143. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00248-1
[39]	贾宇, 徐炳成, 李凤民, 等. 半干旱黄土丘陵区苜蓿人工草地土壤磷素有效性及对生产力的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(1):42-27.

样地号	林分类型	林龄/a	海拔/m	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/m	密度/(株/hm²)
1	成熟林	47	1818	34.17	22.28	760
2	成熟林	47	1818	34.90	23.57	657
3	成熟林	47	1818	35.65	22.65	582
4	近熟林	22	2433	15.28	12.93	2297
5	近熟林	22	2433	16.21	13.38	2125
6	近熟林	22	2433	15.64	11.71	2267
7	中龄林	16	2329	12.54	9.02	2423
8	中龄林	16	2329	11.89	9.5	2534
9	中龄林	16	2329	11.57	9.35	2657
10	幼龄林	10	2447	10.40	7.12	3575
11	幼龄林	10	2447	10.17	7.38	3123
12	幼龄林	10	2447	10.08	7.55	3743

	TC	TN	TP	TK	TC_a	SOC	AN	AP	AK	C:N	C:P	N:P
pH	-0.660^*	-0.297	0.008	0.167	0.615^*	-0.612^*	-0.414	0.023	0.071	-0.470	-0.481	-0.712^**
TC		0.753^**	0.396	-0.162	-0.125	0.987^**	0.684^**	-0.047	0.267	0.221	0.338	0.520^*
TN			0.810^**	0.421	0.241	0.718^**	0.918^**	0.059	0.683^**	-0.574^*	-0.325	0.024
TP				0.669^**	0.296	0.383	0.660^**	0.414	0.847^**	-0.615^*	-0.633^*	-0.492
TK					0.209	0.248	0.404	0.323	0.589^*	-0.845^**	-0.833^**	-0.619^*
TC_a						-0.312	0.189	-0.163	0.277	-0.771^**	-0.797^**	-0.407
SOC							0.632^*	-0.026	0.268	0.267	0.373	0.598^*
AN								-0.057	0.527^*	-0.595^*	-0.448	0.307
AP									0.323	-0.464	-0.532^*	-0.468
AK										-0.699^**	-0.686^**	-0.414
C:N											0.916^**	0.582^*
C:P												0.833^**