首页 > 分享 > 杉木和柳杉人工林的土壤理化性质对比

杉木和柳杉人工林的土壤理化性质对比

花匠小妙招
2025-02-03 20:11

摘要: 以四川龙门山地区杉木和柳杉人工林为研究对象，对比分析两种人工林林下0~10cm土层的土壤理化性质，并采用主成分分析法对土壤肥力进行综合评价。两种林型的土壤均呈弱酸性，样地间土壤有机质、全氮、全磷、全钾、碱解氮、速效钾含量差异显著（p<0.05）。基于全国第二次土壤普查养分分级标准，两种林型的全氮和碱解氮含量均呈极富水平。柳杉林样地土壤全氮和碱解氮含量分别为杉木林样地的2.3倍和2.4倍。两个样地的土壤有机质含量处于中等以上水平，柳杉林样地的土壤有机质含量为杉木林样地的2.3倍。两种林分的全钾、速效钾、全磷含量处于中等偏低水平，速效磷含量为缺乏状态。杉木和柳杉人工林土壤肥力质量综合得分分别为-0.434和0.866，表明柳杉人工林的土壤肥力优于杉木人工林的土壤肥力。

Abstract: The Cunninghamia lanceolata and Cryptomeria fortunei plantations were chosen as the research object in the Longmen Moutains.The physical and chemical properties of two plantations were analyzed and compared and principal component analysis (PCA) methods topsoil (0~10 cm) were used to evaluate the soil fertility.The results showed that the soil samples were acidic.The contents of soil organic matter,total nitrogen,total phosphorus,total potassium,available nitrogen and available potassium were all significantly different betwee the two types of plantations (p<0.05).The total nitrogen and available nitrogen were high in the two plantations,according to the Second National Soil Nutrient Classification Standard in China.Total nitrogen and available nitrogen in the Cr.fortunei plantations were respectively 2.3 and 2.4 times higher than those in the Cu.lanceolata plantations.The content of soil organic matter in the two forests showed moderate level,while soil organic matter in the Cr.fortunei plantations were 2.3 times higher than that in Cu.lanceolata plantations.Available potassium,total potassium and total phosphorus in the two forests were at low level.The soil quality index of Cu.lanceolata plantations and Cr.fortunei plantations was -0.434 and 0.866,respectively,which suggested that soil fertility of Cr.fortunei plantations was higher than that of Cu.lanceolataplantations.

[1]

Yu Y,Yang J,Zeng S,et al.Soil pH,organic matter,and nutrient content change with the continuous cropping of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations in South China[J].J Soils Sediments 2017,17(9):2230~2238.

[2] 吴永铃.杉木人工林不同发育阶段土壤肥力综合评价研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报,2011,39(1):70~75. [3]

Hu Y,Wang S,Zeng D.Effects of single Chinese fir and mixed leaf litters on soil chemical,microbial properties and soil enzyme activities[J].Plant & Soil,2006,282(1/2):379~386.

[4]

Cheng X,Yu M,Wang G G.Effects of Thinning on Soil Organic Carbon Fractions and Soil Properties in Cunninghamia lanceolata Stands in Eastern China[J].Forests,2017,8(6):198.

[5] 唐健,覃祚玉,王会利,等.广西杉木主产区连栽杉木林地土壤肥力综合评价[J].环境与科学学报,2016,36(1):30~35. [6] 李惠通,张芸,魏志超,等.不同发育阶段杉木人工林土壤肥力分析[J].林业科学研究,2017,30(2):322~328. [7] 石薇,王景燕,魏有波,等.水热条件对华西雨屏区柳杉人工林土壤氮矿化的影响[J].土壤通报,2014,45(06):1430~1436. [8] 李鑫,陈先刚,白明锐,等.宣威市退耕还林柳杉林地土壤有机碳含量及活性组分的林龄变化[J].林业科学,2017,53(01):11~19. [9] 王丹,马元丹,郭慧媛,等.模拟酸雨胁迫与柳杉凋落物对土壤养分及微生物的影响[J].浙江农林大学学报,2015,32(02):195~203. [10] 龚杨平.四川龙门山地区柳杉人工林生长模拟与可视化研究[D].四川农业大学,2011. [11] 鲍士旦.土壤农化分析(第三版)[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2007:25~109. [12] 全国土壤普查办公室.中国土壤普查技术[M].北京:农业出版社,1992. [13] 钱登峰.华北土石山区典型植物群落土壤健康评价[D].西南大学,2007. [14] 张子龙,王文全,缪作清,等.主成分分析在三七连作土壤质量综合评价中的应用[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(6):1636~1644. [15] 靳正忠,雷加强,徐新文,等.塔里木沙漠公路防护林地土壤肥力质量变化与评价[J].科学通报,2008,53(S2):112~122. [16] 游秀花,蒋尔可.不同森林类型土壤化学性质的比较研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2005,27(3):357~360. [17] 何晓群.多元统计分析[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009:153~169. [18] 陈恩凤.土壤肥力物质基础及其调控[M].北京:科学出版社,1990. [19] 杨玉盛,李振问,俞新妥,等.杉木油桐仙人草复合经营的土壤结构特性与水分性质的研究[J].南京林业大学学报,1993,17(3):75~79. [20]

Hardtle W,von Oheimb G,Friedei A,et al.Relationship between pH-values and nutrient availability in forest soils:The consequences for the use of ecograms in forest ecology[J].Flora:M.,D.,F.,E.of Plant,2004,199(2):134~142.

[21] 周秀英.闽北山地杉木纯林和杉阔混交林的土壤肥力[J].福建林学院学报,2010,30(2):150~153. [22] 杨晓娟.吉林省东部低山丘陵区4种林分类型林地的土壤肥力分析[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(4):143~148. [23] 张昌顺,李昆.人工林地力的衰退与维护研究综述[J].世界林业研究,2005,01:17~21. [24] 马祥庆,黄宝龙.人工林地力衰退研究综述[J].南京林业大学学报,1997,02:79~84. [25] 段文霞,朱波,等.人工柳杉林碳蓄积量及土壤性质的动态变化[J].应用与环境生物学报,2007(06):777~781.