科尔沁沙地两种固沙灌木林地土壤理化性质和酶活性比较

王永福; 赵学勇; 王少昆; 包哈森高娃

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00193

中国沙漠 >

2015 , Vol. 35 >Issue 4: 937 - 941

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00193

生物与土壤

科尔沁沙地两种固沙灌木林地土壤理化性质和酶活性比较

王永福 ,
赵学勇 ,
王少昆 ,
包哈森高娃

展开

1. 通辽市林业科学研究院, 内蒙古通辽 028000;
2. 中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所奈曼沙漠化研究站, 甘肃兰州 730000

王永福(1963-),男,内蒙古通辽人,高级工程师,主要从事林业生态学方面的研究。Email: tlyfw@163.com

收稿日期: 2014-11-20

修回日期: 2014-12-31

网络出版日期: 2015-07-20

基金资助

国家科技支撑计划项目(2011BAC07B02);国家自然科学基金项目(41401620);中国科学院沙漠与沙漠化重点实验室开放基金项目(KLDD-2014-010)

收起

Comparison on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Enzyme Activities between Two Kinds of Shrub Lands in the Horqin Sandy Land

Wang Yongfu ,
Zhao Xueyong ,
Wang Shaokun ,
Bao Hasen-Gaowa

Expand

1. Tongliao Academy of Forestry of Inner Mongolia, Tongliao 028000, Inner Mongolia, China;
2. Naiman Desertification Research Station, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China

Received date: 2014-11-20

Revised date: 2014-12-31

Online published: 2015-07-20

Fold

摘要

小叶锦鸡儿(Caragana microphylla)和差不嘎蒿(Artemisia halodendron)是科尔沁沙地典型的固沙灌木,它们在退化沙地的恢复过程中起着重要的作用。本研究对这两种灌木林地表层土壤理化性质和酶活性进行了比较。结果表明:小叶锦鸡儿比差不嘎蒿对沙丘土壤理化性质和酶活性的改善作用较大。其中,小叶锦鸡儿林地土壤黏粉粒含量比差不嘎蒿高3倍左右,土壤含水量是差不嘎蒿的1.31倍,土壤有机碳和全氮分别是差不嘎蒿的1.35和1.36倍,土壤过氧化物酶和脲酶活性分别是差不嘎蒿林地土壤的2和3倍。科尔沁沙地流动沙丘中种植小叶锦鸡儿和差不嘎蒿后,两种灌木均能改善沙丘土壤理化性质和酶活性,但是其改善能力存在一定差异,总体来说,在退化沙地土壤肥力和生物活性的恢复方面,小叶锦鸡儿的优势高于差不嘎蒿。

关键词： 小叶锦鸡儿(Caragana microphylla); 差不嘎蒿(Artemisia halodendron); 土壤理化性质; 土壤酶活性; 科尔沁沙地

本文引用格式

王永福 , 赵学勇 , 王少昆 , 包哈森高娃 . 科尔沁沙地两种固沙灌木林地土壤理化性质和酶活性比较[J]. 中国沙漠, 2015 , 35(4) : 937 -941 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00193

Abstract

Caragana microphylla and Artemisia halodendron are two typical shrubs for stabilization of sand dunes, and play an important role in combating desertification in the Horqin Sandy Land. We studied the differences of soil physicochemical properties and enzyme activities between C. microphylla and A. halodendron dominating shrub lands. The result showed that C. microphylla is better to improve soil physicochemical properties and enzyme activities in sand dunes than A. halodendron. Clay and silt content is 3 times higher in C. microphylla shrub land than that in A. halodendron shrub land; soil water content is 1.31 times more in C. microphylla than that in A. halodendron; soil organic carbon and total nitrogen is 1.35 and 1.36 time in C. microphylla of that in A. halodendron, respectively; soil enzyme (peroxidase and urease) activity is significantly higher (twice and triple) in C. microphylla than that in A. halodendron. After years of planting C. microphylla and A. halodendron in mobile dunes, both of the shrub species could improve soil fertility and enzyme activity, and better in C. microphylla shrub land than that in A. halodendron shrub land.

Key words： Caragana microphylla; Artemisia halodendron; soil physicochemical property; soil enzyme activity; Horqin Sandy Land

参考文献

[1] 赵哈林,赵学勇,张铜会.科尔沁沙地沙漠化过程及其恢复机理[M].北京:海洋出版社,2003.
[2] Zhao X Y,Wang S K,Luo Y Y,et al.Toward sustainable desertification reversion:a case study in Horqin Sandy Land of northern China[J].Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions,2015,7:23-28.
[3] 王少昆,赵学勇,左小安,等.科尔沁沙地小叶锦鸡儿灌丛下土壤水分对降雨响应的空间变异性[J].干旱区研究,2008,25(3):389-393.
[4] 赵玮,张铜会,刘新平,等.差巴嘎蒿灌丛土壤和根系含水量对降雨的响应[J].生态学杂志,2008,27(2):151-156.
[5] 贺山峰,蒋德明,阿拉木萨,等.科尔沁沙地小叶锦鸡儿灌木林固沙效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(1):84-87.
[6] 岳广阳,赵哈林,张铜会,等.不同天气条件下小叶锦鸡儿茎流及耗水特性[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(10):2173-2178.
[7] 李雪华,蒋德明,阿拉木萨,等.科尔沁沙地4种植物抗旱性的比较研究[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(11):1385-1388.
[8] 张继义,付丹,魏珍珍,等.科尔沁沙地几种乔灌木树种耐受极端土壤水分条件与生存能力野外实地测定[J].生态学报,2006,26(2):467-474.
[9] 李凯锋,罗于洋,张海龙,等.科尔沁差巴嘎蒿根系分布规律与土壤水分关系的研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2012,26(8):167-171.
[10] 赵爱芬.差巴嘎蒿和小叶锦鸡儿根系分布及生长动态的初步研究[J].中国草地,1994,16(3):15-19.
[11] 赵哈林,曲浩,周瑞莲,等.沙埋对两种灌木生长影响及其生理响应差异[J].草业学报,2014,23(1):185-191.
[12] 史小红,李畅游,刘廷玺,等.科尔沁沙地不同植被类型区土壤水分特性分析[J].云南农业大学学报,2006,21(3):355-359.
[13] 鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[14] 关孙荫.土壤酶及其研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1986.
[15] 赵哈林,周瑞莲,苏永中,等.科尔沁沙地沙漠化过程中土壤有机碳和全氮含量变化[J].生态学报,2008,28(3):976-982.
[16] 周海燕.科尔沁沙地主要植物种的生理生态学特性[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(4):587-590.
[17] 王少昆,赵学勇,张铜会,等.造林对沙地土壤微生物的数量、生物量碳及酶活性的影响[J].中国沙漠,2013,33(2):529-535.
[18] 尚雯,李玉强,王少昆,等.科尔沁沙地流动沙丘造林后表层土壤有机碳和轻组有机碳的变化[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(8):2069-2074.
[19] Pajares S,Gallardo J F,Masciandaro G,et al.Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil quality changes in degraded cultivated Acrisols in the Mexican Trans-volcanic Belt[J].Land Degradation & Development,2010,22(3):373-381.
[20] 周晓兵,张元明,陶冶,等.古尔班通古特沙漠土壤酶活性和微生物量氮对模拟氮沉降的响应[J].生态学报,2011,31(12):3340-3349.
[21] Sinsabaugh R L,Lauber C L,Weintraub M N,et al.Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale[J].Ecology Letters,2008,11:1252-1264.
[22] 聂素梅,高丽,闫志坚,等.不同沙地植被对土壤酶活性的影响[J].草业学报,2010,19(2):253-256.
[23] Burns R G.Soil Enzymes[M].New York,USA:Academic Press,1978.

Options

文章导航

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献