|
|
|
| Comparison on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Enzyme Activities between Two Kinds of Shrub Lands in the Horqin Sandy Land |
| Wang Yongfu1, Zhao Xueyong2, Wang Shaokun2, Bao Hasen-Gaowa1 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Received: 20 November 2014
Published: 20 July 2015
|
|
|
| [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. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
2015, Vol. 35 
