Hydrological Effects of Litter Layer in Four Typical Shrubs in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.01.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Litter layer in shrub communities plays an important role in soil and water conservation.In order to explore the differences in hydrological effects of different shrubs,litters were sampled from community under storey of four typical shrubs distributed in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in cluding Alchornea trewioides,Vitex negundo,Maesa japonica and Bauhinia purpurea communities. The water and soil conservation effect of the litter layer and its mechanism were revealed by measuring parameters such as litter volume,water holding rate and water in terception volume.The total litter accumulation ranged from 3.80 t/hm ² to 4.84 t/hm² in the four shrubs.The largest accumulation appeared in the A.trewioides community. There were significant differences among the four shrubs in the natural moisture content and the maximum water holding rate of the litter layer,which of B. purpurea community were significantly higher than the other three shrubs. The total effective in terception of litter in the four shrubs ranged from 5.3 t/hm ² to 7.28 t/hm².The order of the total effective interception of each community type was as follows:A. trewioides>V.negundo>B. purpurea> M.japonica. The total effective interception of the A. trewioides community was 11.15%,35.06% and 36.84% higher than that of V. negundo,B. purpurea and M. japonica community,respectively.The litter layer of A. trewioides and B. purpurea community had better hydrological effects in the four typical shrubs.

Key words: litter, water holding capacity, water interception, shrub, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region

CLC Number:

S715

DAI Fenglin, CHEN Fangqing, LV Kun, LIU Yangyun. Hydrological Effects of Litter Layer in Four Typical Shrubs in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(1): 166-173.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.1

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 39

[1]	Valtera M, Schaetzl R J. Pit-mound microrelief in forest soils:Review of implications for water retention and hydrologic modelling[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2017,393:40-51. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.048
[2]	Bulcock H H, Jewitt G P W. Field data collection and analysis of canopy and litter interception in commercial forest plantations in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands,South Africa[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2012,16(10):3717-3728. doi: 10.5194/hess-16-3717-2012
[3]	彭玉华, 郑威, 谭长强, 等. 广西壮族自治区的台湾桤木混交造林水源涵养功能评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019,39(5):98-105.
[4]	Zhua Honglin, Wang Guoqiang, Aa Yinglan, et al. Ecohydrological effects of litter cover on the hillslope-scale infiltration-runoff patterns for layered soil in forest ecosystem[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2020,155:105930. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105930
[5]	梁文俊, 魏曦, 赵伟文, 等. 关帝山不同林分结构华北落叶松林枯落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(2):324-329.
[6]	高迪, 郭建斌, 王彦辉, 等. 宁夏六盘山不同林龄华北落叶松人工林枯落物水文效应[J]. 林业科学研究, 2019,32(4):26-32.
[7]	Seitz S, Goebes P, Zumstein P, et al. The influence of leaf litter diversity and soil fauna on initial soil erosion in subtropical forests[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2015,40(11):1439-1447. doi: 10.1002/esp.v40.11
[8]	冯宇, 彭培好, 刘贤安, 等. 官司河流域不同林分枯落物水源涵养与土壤磁化率[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2018,36(5):68-74.
[9]	郭梦娇, 朱江, 程小琴, 等. 辽河源不同林龄油松林水源涵养能力研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016,30(3):279-284.
[10]	张昌桂. 坡向、坡位对杉木马尾松混交林水源涵养功能的影响[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2014,10(4):240-246.
[11]	Zagyvai-Kiss K A, Kalicz P, Szlágyi J, et al. On the specific water holding capacity of litter for three forest ecosystems in the eastern foothills of the Alps[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019,278:107656. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107656
[12]	Götmark F, Götmark E, Jensen A M. Why be a shrub? A basic model and hypotheses for the adaptive values of a common growth form[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2016,7:1095. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01095 pmid: 27507981
[13]	崔海鸥, 刘珉. 我国第九次森林资源清查中的资源动态研究[J]. 西部林业科学, 2020,49(5):90-95.
[14]	Cao Xin, Liu Yu, Cui Xihong, et al. Mechanisms,monitoring and modeling of shrub encroachment into grassland:a review[J]. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2018,12(6):1-17. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1559481
[15]	Koyama A, Sasaki T, Jamsran U, et al. Shrub cover regulates population dynamics of herbaceous plants at individual shrub scale on the Mongolian steppe[J]. Journal of vegetation science, 2015,26(3):441-451. doi: 10.1111/jvs.12253
[16]	Alonzo M, Dial R J, Schulz B K, et al. Mapping tall shrub biomass in Alaska at landscape scale using structure-from-motion photogrammetry and lidar[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020,245:111841. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111841
[17]	Xu Hao, Wang Zhanjun, Li Ying, et al. Dynamic growth models for Caragana korshinskii shrub biomass in China[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2020,269:110675. doi: S0301-4797(20)30607-1 pmid: 32560977
[18]	刘梦, 陈芳清, 王玉兵, 等. 广西中部7种典型灌丛群落的物种多样性特征[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2018,26(2):157-163.
[19]	温远光, 李治基, 李信贤, 等. 广西植被类型及其分类系统[J]. 广西科学, 2014,21(5):484-513.
[20]	巨文珍, 张伟, 方颖琨, 等. 广西石山灌木生物量估算模型的建立[J]. 林业调查规划, 2012,37(5):1-4.
[21]	王金悦, 邓羽松, 林立文, 等. 南亚热带5种典型人工林凋落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(5):169-175.
[22]	吕宸, 龚伟, 车明轩, 等. 海拔和坡向对高寒灌丛草甸凋落物水源涵养功能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(6):219-225.
[23]	Zhu Xiai, Zou Xin, Lu Enfu, et al. Litter fall biomass and nutrient cycling in karst and nearby non-karst forests in tropical China:A 10-year comparison[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2021,758:143619. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143619
[24]	鲁绍伟, 陈波, 潘青华, 等. 北京山地不同海拔人工油松林枯落物及其土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持研究, 2013,20(6):54-58.
[25]	Bai Yunxing, Zhou Yunchao, Du Jiaojiao, et al. Effects of a broadleaf-oriented transformation of coniferous plantations on the hydrological characteristics of litter layers in subtropical China[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021,25:e01400. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01400
[26]	邱丽霞, 李淑芬, 温哲华. 不同植被类型枯落物水源涵养功能的研究[J]. 河北林业科技, 2020(2):1-4.
[27]	马晓至, 毕华兴, 王珊珊, 等. 晋西黄土区典型林分枯落物层水文生态特性研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(6):77-83.
[28]	郝弯弯, 赵鹏, 李思维, 等. 御道口牧场不同类型防护林的枯落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019,33(6):197-204.
[29]	Li Kaifeng, Zhao Longshan, Hou Rui, et al. Effect of leaf distribution pattern on the interception storage capacity of leaf litter under simulated rainfall conditions[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2021,35(2):e14022.
[30]	赵鹏, 马佳明, 李艳茹, 等. 太行山典型区域不同林分类型枯落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(5):176-185.
[31]	李晶晶, 白岗栓, 张蕊. 陕北丘陵沟壑区常见树种叶片的吸水性能[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2013,11(1):99-102.
[32]	李曼曼, 黄正, 霍会霞, 等. 牡荆叶化学成分研究[J]. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2015,17(3):578-582.
[33]	黄永林, 李典鹏, 杨子明. 红背山麻杆叶的化学成分研究(Ⅳ)——多酚类化合物[J]. 广西植物, 2015,35(4):564-568.
[34]	汪斌, 崔承彬, 蔡兵, 等. 杜茎山属植物三萜皂苷的研究进展[J]. 中国药物化学杂志, 2005,15(5):307-312.
[35]	尚小雅, 刘威, 赵聪伟. 羊蹄甲属植物化学成分和药理活性的研究进展[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2008,33(6):709-717.
[36]	李会平, 杨易楠, 唐洁芳, 等. 平原地区铁路绿化带植被近地表层生态水文效应分析[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2018,52(1):122-127.
[37]	田菊, 李国婧, 刘洋. 和林格尔县4种人工林枯落物水文效应研究[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2020,36(6):1-8.
[38]	李阳, 万福绪. 黄浦江中游5种典型林分枯落物和土壤水源涵养能力研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019,33(2):264-271.
[39]	曹云生, 赵艳玲. 不同灌木林分枯落物层与土壤层水源涵养能力研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019,26(6):179-183.

灌丛类型	海拔 /m	地理位置	坡度 /(°)	干扰程度	群落盖度 /%	平均高度 /cm	凋落物厚度 /cm	草本层优势物种
牡荆	142	宜州区刘三姐乡刘三姐村 24°32'43.43″N,108°40'31.63″E	40	轻微	58.89	205.56	2.76	白茅 Imperata cylindrica
红背山麻杆	91	象州区马坪镇龙门村 23°55'38.60″N,109°34'54.18″E	45	轻微	86.67	273.33	3.24	荩草 Arthraxon hispidus
羊蹄甲	544	南丹县大厂镇堂汉村 24°56'15.53″N,107°36'14.46″E	40	轻微	85.00	391.67	2.60	破坏草 Eupatorium coelestinum
杜茎山	526	金城江区三旺乡弄优村 24°39'12.02″N,107°34'23.20″E	35	轻微	71.67	210.00	2.33	荩草Arthraxon hispidus

灌丛类型	未分解层		半分解层		总蓄积量/(t/hm²)
灌丛类型	蓄积量/(t/hm²)	比例/%	蓄积量/(t/hm²)	比例/%	总蓄积量/(t/hm²)
杜茎山	1.93±0.38a	46.42	2.22±0.76a	53.58	4.15±1.14a
红背山麻杆	2.24±0.10a	46.30	2.60±0.43a	53.70	4.84±0.49a
牡荆	2.17±0.21a	48.93	2.27±0.33a	51.07	4.44±0.54a
羊蹄甲	1.87±0.24a	49.29	1.93±0.16a	50.71	3.80±0.26a

凋落物层次	灌丛类型		持水量				吸水速率
凋落物层次	灌丛类型		拟合方程		相关系数R²		拟合方程		相关系数R²
未分解层	杜茎山	y=0.2644ln(t)+2.4192		R²=0.9433		v=2.3862t^-0^.⁸⁹⁵		R²=0.9985
	红背山麻杆	y=0.3947ln(t)+3.0986		R²=0.9514		v=2.9875t^-0^.⁸⁸⁶		R²=0.9987
	牡荆	y=0.3551ln(t)+3.1055		R²=0.9309		v=3.0564t^-0^.⁸⁹⁰		R²=0.9979
	羊蹄甲	y=0.3659ln(t)+3.0325		R²=0.9646		v=2.9875t^-0^.⁸⁸⁶		R²=0.9987
半分解层	杜茎山	y=0.3711ln(t)+3.1578		R²=0.9561		v=3.1106t^-0^.⁸⁸⁸		R²=0.9985
	红背山麻杆	y=0.4139ln(t)+3.9891		R²=0.9332		v=3.9393t^-0^.⁹⁰⁰		R²=0.9985
	牡荆	y=0.4423ln(t)+3.3552		R²=0.9578		v=3.2929t^-0^.⁸⁷⁵		R²=0.9980
	羊蹄甲	y=0.4449ln(t)+3.2691		R²=0.9556		v=3.2029t^-0^.⁸⁷¹		R²=0.9979

灌丛类型	自然含水率			最大持水率
灌丛类型	未分解层	半分解层	凋落物层	未分解层	半分解层	凋落物层
杜茎山	20.27±7.91b	26.51±7.30b	23.39±7.50b	167.02±13.85b	189.72±11.00b	178.37±11.36b
红背山麻杆	14.45±2.27b	16.04±4.26b	15.24±3.26b	189.58± 1.61b	200.55±10.40b	195.07± 5.95b
牡荆	19.64±6.70b	21.12±7.25b	20.38±6.97b	191.33± 9.86b	206.03±14.67b	198.68±12.18b
羊蹄甲	42.03±1.24a	61.35±7.21a	51.69±4.16a	221.35±22.12a	235.33±14.54a	228.34±18.21a

灌木类型	最大拦蓄量			有效拦蓄量
灌木类型	未分解层	半分解层	凋落物层	未分解层	半分解层	凋落物层
杜茎山	2.80±0.34c	3.64±1.27a	6.43±1.61a	2.32±0.28c	3.00±1.06a	5.32±1.34b
红背山麻杆	3.92±0.11a	4.77±0.57a	8.69±0.64a	3.28±0.09a	3.99±0.48a	7.28±0.53a
牡荆	3.71±0.11ab	4.16±0.23a	7.87±0.33a	3.09±0.10a	3.46±0.19a	6.55±0.27ab
羊蹄甲	3.33±0.24b	3.36±0.44a	6.69±0.66a	2.71±0.20b	2.68±0.35a	5.39±0.53b