Forest and Grassland Resources Research >
Litter and Soil Hydrological Effects of Different Types of Shelterbelts in Northern Yanshan
Received date: 2022-07-20
Revised date: 2022-11-03
Online published: 2023-04-21
The litter and soil hydrological effects of five types of shelterbelts were studied,including Larix principis-rupprechtii forest,Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest,Larix principis-rupprechtii and Betula platyphylla forest,Pinus tabuliformis and Larix principis-rupprechtii forest,Betula platyphylla forest.Research methods were soaking method and the ring knife method.The results showed that:1) The litter accumulation ranged from 11.26 to 17.75 t/hm2,with that of the Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest being the highest,followed by the Pinus tabuliformis and Larix principis-rupprechtii forest,and that of the Betula platyphylla forest being the lowest.The accumulation of undecomposed layer in the Larix principis-rupprechtii forest and the Pinus tabuliformis and Larix principis-rupprechtii forest were greater than that of the semi-decomposition layer,and the law of the Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest,the Betula platyphylla forest,and the Larix principis-rupprechtii and Betula platyphylla forest were opposite.2) The maximum water-holding capacity of the litter was 31.27~51.75 t/hm2,and the effective storage capacity was 23.69~27.70 t/hm2,both of them were the highest in the Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest,the lowest in the Larix principis-rupprechtii forest.The water-holding capacity(rate) and retention capacity(rate) of semi-decomposed layer were greater than those of undecomposed layer.The water-holding capacity and water-holding rate of litter were logarithmic and exponential functions with soaking time,respectively.3) The soil bulk density ranged from 1.18 to 1.23 g/cm3,and the total porosity ranged from 43.75% to 58.47%.The soil effective water-holding capacity ranged from 64.71 to 131.09 t/hm2,with that of the Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest being the highest,followed by the Betula platyphylla forest,and that of the Larix principis-rupprechtii forest being the lowest.The soil infiltration rate and infiltration time showed a power function relationship.4) By sequence,water conservation capacity order of the five forests was Populus davidiana and Betula platyphylla forest>Larix principis-rupprechtii and Betula platyphylla forest>Betula platyphylla forest>Pinus tabuliformis and Larix principis-rupprechtii forest>Larix principis-rupprechtii forest.Broad-leaved mixed forest and coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest had better water conservation capacity.
Yanru LI , Peng ZHAO , Haishan LI , Zhe CHEN , Dapeng DONG , Jiancai GU , Guiqiao LU . Litter and Soil Hydrological Effects of Different Types of Shelterbelts in Northern Yanshan[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2022 , 0(zk1) : 91 -101 . DOI: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.S0.014
| [1] | 刘斌, 鲁绍伟, 李少宁, 等. 北京西山6种天然纯林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(4):73-78. |
| [2] | 周巧稚. 晋西黄土区不同密度刺槐林水土保持功能评价[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2019. |
| [3] | 邹奕巧, 孙欧文, 刘海英, 等. 浙江省天台县不同森林类型枯落物及土壤水文特性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2020, 40(3):170-174. |
| [4] | 鲁绍伟, 陈波, 潘青华, 等. 北京山地7种人工纯林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 34(5):53-59. |
| [5] | 陈晓云, 邓智文, 黄丽婷, 等. 沿海沙地米筛竹林的水文效应[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2019, 39(6):568-574. |
| [6] | 杨建伟, 杨建英, 何会宾, 等. 冀北山区滦平县4种新造林地水源涵养能力研究[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(18):6731-6737. |
| [7] | Riikka R, Anders M, Sven J. Effects of litter addition and warming on soil carbon,nutrient pools and microbial communities in a subarctic heath ecosystem[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2008, 39(3):271-281. |
| [8] | 杨秀清, 史婵, 王旭刚, 等. 关帝山寒温性云杉次生林样地树种组成、结构和空间分布[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(5):1421-1430. |
| [9] | 彭玉华, 黄小荣, 申文辉, 等. 林型差异对土壤理化性状及其持水能力的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(8):1-5. |
| [10] | 侯春兰, 杨瑞, 王勇, 等. 草海流域6种林分枯落物水源涵养功能研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2020(1):108-115. |
| [11] | 温亚飞, 杨新兵, 钟良子. 冀北山地不同树种组成桦木林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J]. 河北林果研究, 2016, 31(4):337-344. |
| [12] | 闫志坤. 依托承德北沟林场森林公园森林自然度评价研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2014. |
| [13] | 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. |
| [14] | 塔莉, 张丽茹. 冀北山地天然次生林枯落物层水文生态功能对不同林分密度的响应[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(6):46-51. |
| [15] | 赵鹏. 冀北山地典型林分特征及水文效应研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2021. |
| [16] | 袁秀锦, 肖文发, 潘磊, 等. 马尾松林分结构对枯落物层和土壤层水文效应的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 2020, 33(4):26-34. |
| [17] | 朱万泽, 盛哲良, 舒树淼. 川西亚高山次生林恢复过程中土壤物理性质及水源涵养效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(6):205-212. |
| [18] | 赵阳, 余新晓, 吴海龙, 等. 华北土石山区典型森林枯落物层和土壤层水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(6):148-152. |
| [19] | 杨丽丽. 六盘山四种典型森林植被的水文过程与主要元素通量[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2014. |
| [20] | 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. |
| [21] | 刘敏, 吴得荣, 张向峰. 三种水保树种枯落物保水功能[J]. 水土保持研究, 2014, 21(1):81-84. |
| [22] | 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. |
| [23] | 陈继东, 周长亮, 李惠丽. 接坝地区9种典型林分类型枯落物层和土壤层水文效应[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(6):216-221. |
| [24] | 杨静, 张耀艺, 谭思懿, 等. 亚热带不同树种土壤水源涵养功能[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(13):4594-4604. |
| [25] | 匡媛媛. 滇东海峰喀斯特盆地不同恢复模式云南松林土壤水文功能对比[D]. 昆明: 云南师范大学, 2020. |
| [26] | 宫殷婷. 百花山5种典型林分枯落物蓄积量及持水特征[J]. 林业资源管理, 2019(3):113-117. |
| [27] | 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. |
| [28] | Burrows C R, Appold M S. Hydrology of the Forest City basin,Mid-Continent,USA:implications for CO2 sequestration in the St.Peter Sandstone.[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2015, 73(4):1409-1425. |
| [29] | 侯宁宁, 苏晓琳, 杨钙仁, 等. 桉树造林的土壤物理性质及其水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(3):101-107. |
| [30] | 魏强, 张广忠, 凌雷, 等. 甘肃兴隆山主要森林类型凋落物及土壤层的蓄水功能[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2013, 37(2):78-84. |
| [31] | 冯楷斌, 张暘暘, 郭敬丽, 等. 冀北山地不同类型白桦林枯落物及土壤持水性能研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2016(2):74-80. |
| [32] | 张国庆. 鲁中砂石山退化山地不同混交造林模式蓄水保土效益研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014. |
| [33] | 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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
