Effects of Thinning on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Soil and Water Conservation of Cunninghamia lanceolata Plantation in Different Age Forests

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.04.009

Abstract

Abstract:

In this study,the middle aged plantation of 8-year-old Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation in Jing’an,Jiangxi Province and 12a C.lanceolata plantation in Huarong,Hunan Province were selected as the research objects.The physical and chemical properties and soil and water conservation of soil layer (0~15 cm,15~30 cm,thinned stand and unthinned stand)were analyzed and compared by the method of test and quantitative statistics.The result shows that thinning can reduce the soil bulk density,increase the porosity and total porosity of the soil.The increase of the porosity of the topsoil is bigger than that of the subsoil layer and the increase of the porosity of young forest is bigger than that of middle age forest.Thinning had no obvious effect on the pH value of C.lanceolata woodland,which was between 4.0 to 5.0.Thinning promoted the decomposition of organic matter in C.lanceolata woodland and the highest value was 16.83 g/kg in young group.The contribution in topsoil is higher than that in subsoil layer and the contribution in in the young forest is greater than that in middle age forest.The content of organic was higher than that of control plot and the difference was significant.The effect of thinning on soil nutrient elements is generally smaller,such as potassium and phosphorus.In the first year after thinning,the runoff of C.lanceolata woodland increased,but later,the runoff of C.lanceolata woodland showed a tendency to be lower than that of the same land.The effect of the middle age group was better than that of the young group.The effect of thinning on water purification rate,net mud rate and runoff coefficient is similar to that of surface runoff.The experimental results are beneficial to providing scientific basis for scientific and rational management of C.lanceolata plantations and have great guiding significance for production.

Key words: thinning, stand of different ages, Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation, physical and chemical properties of soil, soil retention and water retention

CLC Number:

S750
S714

ZHOU Quan, WANG Ruihui, ZHONG Cheng, ZHOU Yangchao, FU Weinan. Effects of Thinning on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Soil and Water Conservation of Cunninghamia lanceolata Plantation in Different Age Forests[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(4): 47-54.

Figures/Tables 7

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 24

[1]	国家林业局. 第七次全国森林资源清查取得重大进展[EB/OL]. [2018- 06- 02]. http://www.forestry.gov.cn.
[2]	俞新妥, 张其水. 杉木连栽林地土壤生化特性及土壤肥力的研究[J]. 福建林学院学报, 1989,9(3):263-271.
[3]	方奇. 加强土壤和地被物管理对杉木林生态系统生物量能量利用与养分循环的影响[J]. 林业科学, 1990,26(3):245-252.
[4]	何光训. 杉木连栽林地土壤酚类物质降解受阻的内外因[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 1995,12(4):434-439.
[5]	盛炜彤. 关于提高杉木生产力的几个问题[J]. 浙江林业科技, 1986,6(1):9-15.
[6]	吴蔚东, 张桃林, 孙波, 等. 人上杉木林地有机物和养分库的退化与调控[J]. 土壤学报, 2000,37(1):41-47.
[7]	钟羡芳. 连栽杉木人工林地力衰退原因及对策[C]// 福建省水土保持学会.2006年学术年会论文集.福建泰宁:福建省水土保持学会, 2006.
[8]	郭琦, 王新杰, 衣晓丹. 不同林龄杉木纯林林下生物量与土壤理化性质的相关性[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014,43(3):85-88.
[9]	张鼎华, 叶章发, 范必有, 等. 抚育间伐对人上林土壤肥力的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2001,12(5):672-676.
[10]	赵朝辉, 方晰, 田大伦, 等. 间伐对杉木林林下地被物生物量及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2012,32(5):102-107.
[11]	华容县人民政府. 华容县人民政府网[EB/OL]. [2018- 06- 01]. http://www.huarong.gov.cn
[12]	靖安县人民政府. 地理气候[EB/OL]. [2018- 06- 01]. http://www.jxjaxzf.gov.cn/Item/1626.aspx
[13]	郭琦, 王新杰, 衣晓丹. 不同林龄杉木纯林林下生物量与土壤理化性质的相关性[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014,42(3):85-88.
[14]	张鼎华, 叶章发, 范必有, 等. 抚育间伐对人工林土壤肥力的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2001(5):672-676.
[15]	丁晓东, 马香丽, 高敏, 等. 间伐对华北落叶松人工林凋落物和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 河北林果研究, 2014,29(4):251-255.
[16]	王利东. 不同间伐抚育强度对华北落叶松人工林土壤物理性质变化影响的研究[J]. 河北林果研究, 2012,27(1):6-9.
[17]	贾芳, 贾忠李, 马履一, 等. 抚育间伐对北京山区油松幼龄人工林水源涵养功能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2009,23(6):235-239.
[18]	盛炜彤, 杨承栋, 范少辉. 杉木人工林的土壤性质变化[J]. 林业科学究, 2003,16(4):377-385.
[19]	储双双, 刘颂颂, 韩博, 等. 华南不同林地地表径流量及氮、磷流失特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013,27(5):99-104.
[20]	Ray K D, Bryan M D, Pijanowski C J. The impact of future land use scenarios on runoff volumes in the Muskegon River watershed[J]. Environmental Management, 2010,46:351-366. doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9533-z
[21]	Zhang W G, An S Q, Xu Z, et al. The impact of vegetation and soil on runoff regulation in headwater streams on the east Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,China[J]. Catena, 2011,87:182-189. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.05.020
[22]	Liu Y, Tao Y, Wan K Y, et al. Runoff and nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2012,110:34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.011
[23]	Zhang W G, An S Q, Xu Z, et al. The impact of vegetation and soil on runoff regulation in headwater streams on the east Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,China[J]. Catena, 2011,87:182-189. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.05.020
[24]	Liu Y, Tao Y, Wan K Y, et al. Runoff and nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2012,110:34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.011

龄组	样地区域
幼龄组	江西靖安	抚育	3	8	北坡	中坡	343.3	7.0	9.5	0.5
幼龄组	江西靖安	对照	3	8	北坡	中坡	334.0	6.6	10.2	0.7
中龄组	湖南华容	抚育	3	12	东偏北	中坡	318.5	10.2	15.1	0.6
中龄组	湖南华容	对照	3	12	东偏北	中坡	322.6	9.6	14.4	0.65

龄组	样地处理	土壤容重/(g/cm³)		土壤毛管孔隙度/%		总孔隙度/%
龄组	样地处理	0~15 cm	15~30 cm	0~15 cm	15~30 cm	0~15 cm	15~30 cm
幼龄组	抚育	1.23±0.09b	1.32±0.05b	4.44±0.60ab	3.50±0.56a	53.48±3.25a	51.01±1.67a
幼龄组	对照	1.47±0.10a	1.79±0.06a	3.76±0.28b	3.12±0.66a	44.39±3.79b	32.61±2.49b
中龄组	抚育	1.23±0.08b	1.37±0.06b	5.74±0.67a	3.92±0.51a	53.74±2.96a	48.52±2.15a
中龄组	对照	1.28±0.01b	1.42±0.10b	4.94±0.94ab	3.47±0.62a	48.52±2.15ab	46.43±3.87a

样地区域	年均降雨量/mm
样地区域	2015年	2016年	2017年
江西靖安	1736.1	1516.7	1814.6
湖南华容	1499.8	1298.8	1360.0

龄组	样地区域	样地处理	地表径流量/(L/hm²)		地表径流量(抚育-对照)/(L/hm²)		连年地表径流量差值 /(L/hm²)
龄组	样地区域	样地处理	2016年	2017年	2016年	2017年	连年地表径流量差值 /(L/hm²)
幼龄组	江西靖安	抚育	355.7582	308.1427	50.6410	-64.7852	-47.6155
幼龄组	江西靖安	对照	305.1172	372.9280	50.6410	-64.7852	67.8107
中龄组	湖南华容	抚育	262.5835	225.7020	40.3361	-90.1943	-36.8815
中龄组	湖南华容	对照	222.2474	315.8963	40.3361	-90.1943	93.6489

年份	龄组	样地处理	净水率 /(kg/L)	径流系数 /%	净泥率 /(kg/L)
2016年	幼龄组	抚育	0.77	0.23	0.23
		对照	0.80	0.20	0.20
		抚育	0.80	0.20	0.20
		对照	0.83	0.17	0.17
2017年	中龄组	抚育	0.83	0.20	0.17
		对照	0.80	0.24	0.20
		抚育	0.84	0.17	0.16
		对照	0.77	0.24	0.23