Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Nutrients after Mixed Transformation of Pinus Sylvestris var.Mngolica Plantation

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.01.017

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the influence mechanism of different mixed models on soil nutrients,a 38-year-old Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica plantation is selected as the research object.After zonal thinning,Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica,Populus alba and Acer mono are planted in the thinning zone to form a mixed forest.Canonical correspondence and principal component analysis are used to compare the differences and corresponding relationships of soil chemical properties and enzyme activities in mixed forest.The results showed that the soil chemical properties after mixed transformation are higher than those of the control,and the contents of organic matter and available nitrogen in the plots of P.sylvestris var.mongolica×Acer mono(PAM2) and P.sylvestris var.mongolica×Populus alba(PPM2) were the highest,which were 14.74 g/kg and 49.63 mg/kg,respectively,but the content of available phosphorus is lower than that of P.sylvestris var.mongolica×P.sylvestris var.mongolica plots.Compared with the control,the soil enzyme activities of all plots are increased to varying degrees,and the soil enzyme activities of P.sylvestris var.mongolica×Populus alba are the best.In general,the comprehensive score of soil nutrient factors in the mixed sample plot is higher than that of the control,and that of the coniferous broad-leaved mixed forest is generally higher than that of the uneven aged Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica.Therefore,the construction of mixed forest is an effective way to improve soil ecology of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica plantation in Horqin sandy land and prolong the life cycle of protective forest.

Key words: Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica, mixed transformation, soil chemical properties, soil enzyme activities, Horqin sandy land

CLC Number:

S714.8

SHI Liang, ZHANG Risheng. Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Nutrients after Mixed Transformation of Pinus Sylvestris var.Mngolica Plantation[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2021, 0(1): 132-139.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

References 32

[1]	常学礼, 鲁春霞, 高玉葆. 人类经济活动对科尔沁沙地风沙环境的影响[J]. 资源科学, 2003,25(5):78-83.
[2]	朝伦巴根, 李荣禧, 刘廷玺, 等. 科尔沁沙地腹部生态环境建设模式与展望[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2004,15(2):25-28.
[3]	任鸿昌, 吕永龙, 杨萍, 等. 科尔沁沙地土地沙漠化的历史与现状[J]. 中国沙漠, 2004,24(5):544-547.
[4]	朱教君, 郑晓, 闫巧玲. 三北防护林工程生态环境效应遥感监测与评估研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社. 2016.
[5]	Gadow K, Hui G Y. Characterizing forest spatial structure and diversity [C].Proceedlings of the SUFOR International Workshop:Sustainable Forestry in Temperate Regions.Sweden, 2002: 7-9.
[6]	Wang Hongxiang, Zhang Gongqiao, Hui Gangying, et al. The influence of sampling unit size and spatial arrangement patterns on neighborhood-based spatial structure analyses of forest stands[J]. Forest Systems, 2016,25(1):1-9.
[7]	Graz Friedrich Patrick. Spatial diversity of dry savanna woodlands[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2006,15(4):1143-1157.
[8]	Graz F. Patrick.The behaviour of the measure of surround in relation to the diameter and spatial structure of a forest stand[J]. European journal of forest research, 2008,127(2):165-171.
[9]	José Javier Corral-Rivas, Christian Wehenkel, Hermes Alejandro Castellanos-Bocaz, et al. A permutation test of spatial randomness:application to nearest neighbour indices in forest stands[J]. Journal of Forest Research, 2010,15(4):218-225.
[10]	高培军, 郑郁善, 王妍, 等. 杉木拟赤杨混交林土壤肥力性状研究[J]. 江西农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2003,25(4):599-603.
[11]	杨菁, 周国英, 田媛媛, 等. 降香黄檀不同混交林土壤细菌多样性差异分析[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(24):8117-8127.
[12]	王健, 刘作新. 油松刺槐混交林土壤生物学特性研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2004,21(4):348-352.
[13]	侯本栋, 马风云. 不同树种的刺槐混交林对土壤化学性质及土壤酶活性影响的研究[J]. 山东农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2007,38(1):53-57.
[14]	杨涛, 徐慧, 李慧, 等. 樟子松人工林土壤养分、微生物及酶活性的研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005,19(3):50-53.
[15]	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.
[16]	石亮, 王凯, 张日升, 等. 樟子松人工林间伐宽度对土壤养分的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020,39(10):3203-3210.
[17]	黎燕琼, 龚固堂, 郑绍伟, 等. 低效柏木纯林不同改造措施对水土保持功能的影响[J]. 生态学报. 2013(3):934-943.
[18]	毛波, 董希斌, 唐国华. 诱导改造对大兴安岭低质山杨林土壤肥力的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015(8):50-53.
[19]	李丽红. 马尾松大叶相思混交林生长及土壤肥力研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2007,13(6):109-110.
[20]	宋娅丽, 康峰峰, 韩海荣, 等. 自然因子对中国森林土壤碳储量的影响分析[J]. 世界林业研究, 2015,28(3):6-12.
[21]	雷静品, 李璐, 王鹏程, 等. 带状改造对柏木林土壤性质的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2015,30(3):21-27.
[22]	毛波, 董希斌, 宋启亮, 等. 大兴安岭白桦低质林改造后土壤肥力的综合评价[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014,42(2):72-76.
[23]	苏永中, 赵哈林. 科尔沁沙地不同土地利用和管理方式对土壤质量性状的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003,14(10):1681-1686.
[24]	张超, 刘国彬, 薛蓬, 等. 黄土丘陵区不同林龄人工刺槐林土壤酶演变特征[J]. 林业科学, 2010,46(12):23-29.
[25]	任凤伟, 张日升, 王敏. 章古台地区沙地樟子松人工林土壤中磷素研究进展[J]. 防护林科技, 2016(2):78-79.
[26]	赵琼, 曾德慧, 陈伏生, 等. 沙地樟子松人工林土壤磷库及其有效性初步研究[J]. 生态学杂志, 2004,23(5):224-227.
[27]	高敏, 马香丽, 杨晋宇, 等. 冀北山地华北落叶松人工林与白桦混交改造模式对土壤动物群落的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2017,53(1):70-81.
[28]	曹小玉, 李际平, 闫文德. 杉木林改造前后的土壤肥力对比分析及综合评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2016,47(5):1231-1237.
[29]	葛乐, 虞木奎, 成向荣, 等. 杉木林下套种不同树种对土壤改良效应初探[J]. 土壤通报, 2011,42(4):948-952.
[30]	温远光, 李海燕, 周晓果, 等. 马尾松×红锥异龄混交林对土壤微生物群落结构和功能的影响[J]. 广西科学, 2019,26(2):188-198.
[31]	Deng Meifeng, Liu Lingli, Sun Zhenzhong, et al. Increased phosphate uptake but not resorption alleviates phosphorus deficiency induced by nitrogen deposition in temperate Larix principisrupprechtii plantations[J]. New Phytologist, 2016,212:1019-1029.
[32]	Wang Yingping, Houlton BZ, Field CB. A model of biogeochemical cycles of carbon,nitrogen,and phosphorus including symbiotic nitrogen fixation and phosphatase production[J].Global Biogeochemical Cycles,2007,21:GB101.

样地	间伐宽度 /m	树种组成	保留樟子松			间种树种
样地	间伐宽度 /m	树种组成	林龄/a	平均树高/m	平均胸径/cm	林龄/a	平均树高/m	平均胸径/cm
PP1	9	樟×樟	38	10.80±0.32	19.02±0.80	8	1.54±0.05	4.09±0.20
PPM1	9	樟×杨	38	9.05±0.50	18.00±1.10	6	6.52±0.22	5.12±0.40
PAM1	9	樟×槭	38	10.85±0.70	18.33±0.90	7	3.0±0.10	3.25±0.33
PP2	13	樟×樟	38	10.50±0.50	18.67±1.10	8	1.61±0.12	4.01±0.25
PPM2	13	樟×杨	38	10.56±0.51	18.20±1.37	6	7.08±0.15	5.82±0.49
PAM2	13	樟×槭	38	9.50±0.33	17.56±0.20	7	2.8±0.35	3.30±0.10
CK	—	樟	38	10.00±0.70	18.20±0.90	—	—	—

样地	主成分得分			综合得分	排名
样地	F₁	F₂	F₃	综合得分	排名
PP1	-0.02	1.71	0.32	0.27	4
PPM1	0.46	0.92	-0.46	0.41	2
PAM1	-0.19	-0.66	-1.50	-0.42	6
PP2	-0.06	0.14	0.93	0.09	5
PPM2	1.17	-1.14	1.23	0.84	1
PAM2	0.63	-0.42	-0.95	0.29	3
CK	-2.00	-0.55	0.43	-1.49	7