呼伦贝尔沙地不同植被恢复措施对土壤物理性质的影响

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.03.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了解呼伦贝尔沙地不同植被恢复措施治理效果,掌握不同植被治理区土壤物理性质差异,为沙地治理实用技术提供合理建议,以呼伦贝尔沙地的羊柴(UH)、拧条锦鸡儿(UC)、樟子松(UP)、羊柴+披碱草+冰草(HEA)、樟子松+羊柴(HP)5种植被恢复措施为研究对象,以未做任何治理措施的流动沙地为对照(CK),测定各区域0~100 cm土层中土壤的含水量、容重、孔隙度等指标,并对比研究不同区域土壤物理性质差异特征。结果表明:1)UH、UC、HEA措施下的土壤含水量相对较高,分别较CK增加了121.90%、47.87%、44.96%,UH、UC、UP、HEA、HP 措施下的土壤饱和持水量均较CK有显著提高(P<0.05),分别增加了27.48%、3.57%、5.44%、7.37%、3.46%,且随土壤深度增加呈波动式变化;2)除了HP措施外,UH、UC、UP、HEA措施下的土壤容重与CK存在显著差异(P<0.05),分别降低了5.42%、3.01%、2.41%、1.81%,且随土层深度呈先减后增的趋势;3)UH、UC措施下的土壤孔隙度分别较CK增加了3.48%、2.47%,其他措施下的土壤孔隙度与CK无显著差异;4)通过隶属函数综合分析发现,单一灌木措施(UH、UC)、灌草结合措施(HEA)对治理区的整体恢复效果较好。

关键词: 土壤含水量, 土壤容重, 土壤孔隙度, 土壤饱和持水量, 治理模式, 呼伦贝尔沙地

Abstract:

In order to find out the effect of different plant restoration measures in Hulun Buir Sandy Land,grasp the difference of soil physical properties in different plant management areas,and provide reasonable suggestions for practical technology of sand management,five plant restoration measures of Corethrodendron fruticosum(UH),Caragana korshinskii(UC),Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Litv.(UP),Corethrodendron fruticosum+Elymus dahuricus+Agropyron cristatum(HEA),Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica Litv+Corethrodendron fruticosum(HP)in Hulun Buir Sandy Land were taken as the research objects,and the mobile sandy land without any control measures was taken as the control(CK).The soil water content,bulk density and porosity in 0-100 cm soil layer of each region were measured,and the differences of soil physical properties in different regions were compared.The results showed that:1)The soil water content under UH,UC and HEA was relatively high,which increased by 121.90%,47.87% and 44.96%,respectively,compared with CK.The soil saturated water-holding capacity under UH、UC、UP、HEA、HP was significantly higher than that of CK(P<0.05),which increased by 27.48%,3.57%,5.44%,7.37% and 3.46%,respectively,and fluctuated with the increase of soil depth.2)Except for HP measure,the soil bulk density under the other four measures(UH,UC,UP,HEA)was significantly different from that of CK(P<0.05),which decreased by 5.42%,3.01%,2.41% and 1.81%,respectively,and decreased first and then increased with soil depth.3)The soil porosity under UH and UC measures increased by 3.48% and 2.47%,respectively,compared with CK,and there was no significant difference between other measures and CK.4)Through the comprehensive analysis of membership function,it was found that single shrub measures(UH,UC)and shrub-grass combination measures(HEA)had better overall recovery effect on the control area.

Key words: soil water content, soil bulk density, soil porosity, soil saturated water holding capacity, governance model, Hulun Buir Sandy Land

中图分类号:

S157
S718.5

朱磊, 袁立敏, 蒙仲举. 呼伦贝尔沙地不同植被恢复措施对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 林草资源研究, 2025,(3): 45-53.

ZHU Lei, YUAN Limin, MENG Zhongju. Effects of different vegetation restoration measures on soil physical properties in Hulun Buir Sandy Land[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2025,(3): 45-53.

图/表 11

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

表2

参考文献 22

[1]	王海梅, 刘昊, 桑婧, 等. 呼伦贝尔植被覆盖时空变化特征及其与气候的相关性分析[J]. 内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 51(5):539-547.
[2]	ZHAI Yongguang, WANG Yasong, HAO Lei, et al. Medium- and long-term independent co-ntributions of climate change,management measures and land conversion to vegetation dynamics and inspiration for ecological restoration in Inner Mongolia,China[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2025, 212:107504.
[3]	FENG Tianjiao, QI Yulin, ZHANG Yufei, et al. Long-term effects of vegetation restoration and forest management on carbon pools and nutrient storages in northeastern Loess Plateau,China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2024, 354:120296.
[4]	王贵霞, 夏江宝, 孙宁宁, 等. 黄河三角洲引黄灌区不同植被类型的蓄水保土功能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(2):111-116.
[5]	WANH Ziqiang, ZHANG Ying, WANG Yang, et al. Effects of revegetation on soil nitrogen-fixation and carbon-fixation microbial communities in the Horqin Sandy Land,China.[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2024, 35(1):31-40.
[6]	姜丽娜, 马洁, 刘建康, 等. 毛乌素沙地不同植被恢复措施下土壤理化性质空间分布特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(5):1-6.
[7]	何群, 席欢, 万婷. 不同植被恢复模式对红原沙化草地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 四川环境, 2016, 36(1):35-40.
[8]	禹娟红, 包振国, 王秉忠, 等. 不同植被恢复模式对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 人民黄河, 2015, 36(2):94-98.
[9]	李刚, 修伟明, 王杰, 等. 不同植被恢复模式下呼伦贝尔沙地土壤反硝化细菌nirK基因组成结构和多样性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(1):115-123. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20150115
[10]	王浩飞, 王黎, 朱习爱, 等. 橡胶-益智复合林土壤饱和导水率空间分布格局及其影响因子[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(9):2115.
[11]	刘春阳, 孙全文, 赵月平, 等. 利用灰色关联度和隶属函数法评价5个“张杂谷”饲草谷子品种的营养价值[J]. 草地学报, 2024, 32(5):1523-1524.
[12]	HU Likai, ZHOU Qiuwen, PENG Dawei, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on the temporal variability of soil moisture in the humid karst region of southwest China[J]. Journal of Hydrology:Regional Studies, 2024, 53:101852.
[13]	王永杰. 山西沿黄河流域植被恢复模式对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 温带林业研究, 2020, 3(4):46-51.
[14]	肖鹏, 吕刚, 王洪禄, 等. 不同植被恢复模式对露天煤矿排土场土壤抗冲性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(6):18-24.
[15]	赵恩辉, 吴磊, 赵生华. 黄河三角洲不同植被类型土壤水源涵养功能综合评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2023, 30(6):255-263.
[16]	程汉亭, 李勤奋, 王晓敏, 等. 不同植被恢复策略对贵州喀斯特生态系统土壤渗透特性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(6):110-116.
[17]	魏光普, 于晓燕, 闫伟, 等. 轻稀土尾矿库不同植被恢复模式对其土壤肥力的影响[J]. 西部林业科学, 2019, 48(6):1-8.
[18]	白永会, 查轩, 吴伟成, 等. 不同植被恢复模式对退化花岗岩红壤渗透性和持水量的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023, 43(2):9-15.
[19]	刘旻霞, 马建祖. 甘南高寒草甸植物功能性状和土壤因子对坡向的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(12):3295-3300.
[20]	白爱芹, 傅伯杰, 曲来叶, 等. 重度火烧迹地微地形对土壤微生物特性的影响:以坡度和坡向为例[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(17):5201-5209.
[21]	LÜ Du, LIU Qiuman, XIE Tao, et al. Impacts of different types of vegetation restoration on the physicochemical properties of sandy soil[J]. Forests, 2023, 14(9):1740. doi: 10.3390/f14091740
[22]	王东丽, 于百和, 赵晓亮, 等. 风沙黄土区排土场不同植被类型下土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2024, 31(1):61-69.

样地模式	组成要素	海拔/ m	坡向	坡度/ (°)	密度/ (株/hm²)	总盖度/ %	样地面积/ hm²	治理时间/ a
UH	羊柴(Corethrodendron fruticosum)	611	阴坡	20	2 275	45	2 000	4
UC	拧条锦鸡儿(Caragana korshinskii)	602	阳坡	15	3 800	75	2 500	4
UP	樟子松(Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica Litv)	622	阳坡	24	650	75	3 500	5
HEA	羊柴(Corethrodendron fruticosum)	631	阴坡	10	1 200	75	3 000	4
	披碱草(Elymus dahuricus)				1 350
	冰草(Agropyron cristatum)				1 450
HP	樟子松(Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica Litv)	616	阳坡	28	450	60	2 500	5
HP	羊柴(Hedysarum fruticosum)	616	阳坡	28	3 545	60	2 500	5
CK	沙土	611	阳坡	15	0	0	1 500

样地模式	土壤含水量/ %	土壤容重/ (g/cm³)	土壤孔隙度/ %	土壤饱和持水量/ %	均值隶属函数
UH	0.51	0.65	0.47	0.49	0.53
UC	0.48	0.46	0.63	0.51	0.52
UP	0.58	0.33	0.50	0.43	0.46
HEA	0.29	0.47	0.64	0.48	0.47
HP	0.35	0.52	0.55	0.47	0.47
CK	0.36	0.50	0.58	0.39	0.46