欢迎访问林草资源研究

Forest and Grassland Resources Research >

2018 , Vol. 0 >Issue 2: 91 - 97

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.02.015

Scientific Research

Soil Degradation Characteristics and Evolution of Rubber Plantation in the Tropical Area

  • Yanhong SONG ,
  • Zhengtao SHI ,
  • Lianxiao WANG ,
  • Dongdong XIAO ,
  • Zebo FENG
Expand
  • 1. School of Tourism and Geographical Science,Yunnan Normal University,Kunming 650500,China
    2. Yunnan Provincial Bureau of Hydrology and Water Resources,Kunming 650106,China

Received date: 2018-01-09

  Revised date: 2018-04-13

  Online published: 2020-09-22

Fold

Abstract

In Mengla County of Xishuangbanna,a study was conducted on the soil physical and chemical properties of tea forest,10a rubber woodland,20a rubber woodland,30a rubber woodland and secondary forest land in detail,and the soil properties of secondary forest were the background value.Soil degradation index method and soil comprehensive quality index method were used to quantitatively evaluate the soil quality of different stands.The results showed that:(1) The soil organic matter,alkali solution nitrogen,total phosphorus,total nitrogen and available potassium content of the forest were different in the tea forest.The lowest value of soil organic matter,alkali solution nitrogen and total phosphorus content is 30a rubber woodland,the lowest value of total nitrogen,total potassium and available K content is 10a rubber woodland,tea woodland and 20a rubber woodland respectively.(2) There are significant differences in soil quality between different stands,and the order of soil quality from high to low is tea forest,secondary forest,20a rubber woodland,10a rubber woodland and 30a rubber woodland.After the cutting of the tropical rainforest in Xishuangbanna,the soil quality of the tea plantation was improved,while the soil quality of the rubber woodland in different planting years decreased at different degrees.

Key words： rubber forest; soil comprehensive quality index; soil degradation index; quantitative evaluation; Mengla County

Cite this article

Yanhong SONG , Zhengtao SHI , Lianxiao WANG , Dongdong XIAO , Zebo FENG . Soil Degradation Characteristics and Evolution of Rubber Plantation in the Tropical Area[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2018 , 0(2) : 91 -97 . DOI: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.02.015

References

[1] 张桃林, 王兴祥. 土壤退化研究的进展与趋向[J]. 自然资源学报, 2000,15(3):280-284.
[2] 罗明, 龙花楼. 土地退化研究综述[J].生态环境, 2005(2):287-293.
[3] Lal R. Soil Erosion Impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality[J]. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 1998,17(4):319-464.
[4] 潘根兴, 程琨, 陆海飞, 等. 可持续土壤管理:土壤学服务社会发展的挑战[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(23):4607-4620.
[5] Toohey R C, Boll J, Brooks E S, et al. Effects of land use on soil properties and hydrological processes at the point,plot,and catchment scale in volcanic soils near Turrialba,Costa Rica[J]. Geoderma, 2018,315:138-148.
[6] Filho R N D A, Wilcox B P, West J B, et al. Recovery of carbon stocks in deforested caatinga dry forest soils requires at least 60 years[J].Forest Ecology & Management,DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.002.
[7] 谭小爱. 北热带典型亚高山土壤空间异质性研究[D]. 昆明:云南师范大学, 2017.
[8] 李增加, 马友鑫, 李红梅, 等. 西双版纳土地利用/覆盖变化与地形的关系[J].植物生态学报, 2008(5):1091-1103.
[9] 李红梅, 马友鑫, 郭宗峰, 等. 基于RS和GIS的西双版纳土地覆被动态变化[J].山地学报, 2007(3):280-289.
[10] 云南省统计局, 国家统计局云南调查总队编. 云南统计年鉴 2011[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2011.
[11] 刁俊科, 李菊, 刘新有. 云南橡胶种植的经济社会贡献与生态损失估算[J]. 生态经济, 2016,32(4):203-207.
[12] 胡晓聪, 黄乾亮, 金亮. 西双版纳热带山地雨林枯落物及其土壤水文功能[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017,28(1):55-63.
[13] 方丽娜, 杨效东, 杜杰. 土地利用方式对西双版纳热带森林土壤微生物生物量碳的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(4):837-844.
[14] 徐武美, 宋彩云, 李巧明. 西双版纳热带季节雨林土壤养分空间异质性对乔木树种多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(23):7756-7762.
[15] 张萍, 刘宏茂, 陈爱国, 等. 西双版纳热带山地利用过程中的土壤退化[J].山地学报, 2001(1):9-13.
[16] 杨丽萍, 李春丽, 黎小清, 等. 西双版纳东风农场近20年橡胶园养分变化观察[J]. 热带农业科技, 2015,38(1):1-4.
[17] 卢洪健, 刘文杰, 罗亲普. 西双版纳山地橡胶林凋落物的生态水文效应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011,30(10):2129-2136.
[18] 朱华, 王洪, 李保贵, 等. 滇南热带雨林物种多样性的取样面积探讨[J].生物多样性, 1998(4):1-7.
[19] 王连晓, 史正涛, 刘新有, 等. 西双版纳不同植被类型土壤物理性质差异分析[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2016,32(8):960-964.
[20] 朱春景, 刘文杰, 吴骏恩. 西双版纳地区橡胶复合林雨滴动能及降雨侵蚀力[J]. 土壤通报, 2014,45(5):1218-1224.
[21] 刘光崧. 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1996.
[22] 李强, 许明祥, 赵允格, 等. 黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012,27(6):1001-1012.
[23] 刘世梁, 傅伯杰, 陈利顶, 等. 两种土壤质量变化的定量评价方法比较[J].长江流域资源与环境, 2003(5):422-426.
[24] Adejuwon J O, Ekanade O. A comparison of soil properties under different landuse types in a part of the Nigerian cocoa belt[J]. Catena, 1988,15(3):319-331.
[25] 刘世梁, 傅伯杰, 陈利顶, 等. 卧龙自然保护区土地利用变化对土壤性质的影响[J].地理研究, 2002(6):682-688.
[26] Lowery B. Physical properties of selected soils by erosion class[J]. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation, 1995,50(3):306-311.
[27] 张先婉. 土壤肥力研究进展——中国土壤学会第三届土壤肥力学会讨论会文集[C].中国科学技术出版社, 1991.
[28] 赵丽, 王青, 李富程, 等. 基于SQI的岷江上游干旱河谷肥力空间分异特征[J]. 西南科技大学学报, 2016,31(3):48-54.
[29] 周玮, 周运超. 花江峡谷喀斯特区土壤质量两种定量评价方法研究[J]. 中国岩溶, 2009,28(3):313-318.
[30] 龙健, 黄昌勇, 李娟. 喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响[J].水土保持学报, 2002(1):76-79.
[31] 谢瑾, 李朝丽, 李永梅, 等. 纳板河流域不同土地利用类型土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(12):3169-3176.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉