Soil enzyme activity and carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics under different types of biocrusts and subsoil in Mu Us Sandland

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00041

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 109-120.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00041

Soil enzyme activity and carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics under different types of biocrusts and subsoil in Mu Us Sandland

Jin Fan^a(), Shiyao Li^a, Hailong Yu^a(), Juying Huang^b

^a.Institute of Geographical Sciences and Planning /, Ningxia University，Yinchuan 750021，China
^b.Institute of Ecology and Environment, Ningxia University，Yinchuan 750021，China

Received:2021-01-16 Revised:2021-03-26 Online:2021-07-27 Published:2021-07-27
Contact: Hailong Yu

Abstract

Abstract:

Biocrusts play an important role in soil nutrient accumulation and cycling. Soil enzyme activities could be used as significant biological indexes of extent of soil restoration and important biological indices in evaluating ecological restoration and health in desert region. In this study， by using the method of space-time interchange，biocrusts of different succession stages（algal crusts， mixed crusts， moss crusts， respectively）in Mu Us sandland， China， was investigated and chosen as study objects， biocrust and subsoil physicochemical properties and enzymatic activities were measured， and how biocrusts affect soil enzyme activities and stoichiometry characteristics were discussed. The results showed that the positive succession of biocrusts could increase the activities of urease， sucrase， alkaline phosphatase and catalase （P<0.05）. Of the three biocrusts types， soil enzymatic activities under the cover of moss crusts， were the highest （P<0.05）. There were remarkable differences in C， N， P contents and stoichiometric ratios among three types of biocrusts. The contents and stoichiometric ratios of C， N， P in the biocrustal layer were significantly higher than those of soils below biocrusts. Redundancy analysis result indicated that the effect of environmental factors on biocrust and subsoil enzymatic activity variation was ranked as follows： total nitrogen > available potassium > soil water content > total phosphorus> C/P > organic carbon > available nitrogen > pH > bulk density > available phosphorus， which meant total nitrogen （TN）， total phosphorus （TP）， available potassium （AK） were the dominant factors that influenced the enzymatic activities. And soil organic carbon （SOC）， total nitrogen （TN）， available nitrogen （AN）， C/P， N/P ratios were positively correlated with enzymatic activities of alkaline phosphatase and catalase； available potassium， total phosphorus and available phosphorus were positively correlated with enzyme activities of urease and sucrase. But the activities of all the four kinds of enzymes were negatively correlated with pH value， bulk density and porosity. The progressive succession of biocrusts could enhance the improvements of physical and chemical and activities of enzymes of biocrustal layer and soils below biocrusts， but the improvements of biocrustal layers were significantly higher than that of soils below biocrusts.

Key words: biocrusts, enzymatic activity, stoichiometry characteristics, progressive succession, Mu Us Sandland

CLC Number:

Q948.1

Jin Fan, Shiyao Li, Hailong Yu, Juying Huang. Soil enzyme activity and carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics under different types of biocrusts and subsoil in Mu Us Sandland[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(4): 109-120.

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

1	郑娇莉，李双双，彭成荣，等.干燥对人工生物土壤结皮固氮酶活性恢复过程的影响［J］.中国科学·生命科学，2017，47（7）：759-769.
2	刘玉冰，王增如，高天鹏.温带荒漠生物土壤结皮微生物群落结构与功能演替研究综述［J］.微生物学通报，2020，47（9）：2974-2983.
3	Zhang J H，Zhao N，Liu C C，et al.C∶N∶P stoichiometry in China's forests：from organs to ecosystems［J］.Functional Ecology，2018，32：50-60.
4	Sardans J，Rivas-Ubach A，Peulas J.The elemental stoichiometry of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and its relationships with organismic lifestyle and ecosystem structure and function：a review and perspectives［J］.Biogeochemistry，2012，111：1-39.
5	高丽倩，赵允格，许明祥，等.生物土壤结皮演替对土壤生态化学计量特征的影响［J］.生态学报，2018，38（2）：678-688.
6	Delgado-Baquerizo M，Oliverio A M，Brewer T E，et al.A global atlas of the dominant bacteria found in soil［J］.Science，2018，359：320-325.
7	勒佳佳，苏原，彭庆文，等.氮添加对天山高寒草原土壤酶活性和酶化学计量特征的影响［J］.干旱区研究，2020，37（2）：382-389.
8	孙永琦，冯薇，张宇清，等.毛乌素沙地生物土壤结皮对油蒿群落土壤酶活性的影响［J］.北京林业大学学报，2020，42（11）：82-90.
9	Xu Z W，Yu G R，Zhang X Y，et al.Soil enzyme activity and stoichiometry in forest ecosystems along the North-South Transect in eastern China （NSTEC）［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2017，104：152-163.
10	Badiane N N Y，Chotte J L，Pate E.Use of soil enzyme activities to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semiarid tropical regions［J］.Applied Soil Ecology，2001，18（3）：229-238.
11	Waring B G，Weintraub S R，Sinsabaugh R L.Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry of microbial nutrient acquisition in tropical soils［J］.Biogeochemistry，2014，117（1）：101-113.
12	吴旭东，俞鸿千，蒋齐，等.降雨对荒漠草原生物土壤结皮化学计量的影响［J］.农业工程学报，2020，36（16）：118-124.
13	吴丽芳，王紫泉，王妍，等.喀斯特高原不同石漠化程度土壤C，N，P化学计量特征和酶活性的关系［J］.生态环境学报，2019，28（12）：2332-2340.
14	Elbert W，Weber B，Burrows S，et al.Contribution of cryptogamic covers to the global cycles of carbon and nitrogen［J］.Nature Geoscience，2012，5（7）：459-462.
15	杨巧云，赵允格，包天莉，等.黄土丘陵区不同类型生物结皮的土壤生态化学计量学特征［J］.应用生态学报，2019，30（8）：2699-2706.
16	马永强，石云，郝姗姗，等.宁东能源化工基地土地变化及其对生境质量的影响［J］.兰州大学学报（自然科学版），2020，56（1）：118-124.
17	鲍士旦.土壤农化分析［M］.北京：中国农业出版社，2000：56-135.
18	王晓岚，卡丽毕努尔，杨文念.土壤碱解氮测定方法比较［J］.北京师范大学学报（自然科学版），2010，46（1）：76-78.
19	范文波，李小娟.涂膜法测定黄土结皮容重［J］.山西水土保持科技，2001（3）：9-10.
20	关松荫.土壤酶及其研究方法［M］.北京：中国农业科技出版社，1986：101-122.
21	杨航宇，刘艳梅，王廷璞.荒漠区生物土壤结皮对土壤酶活性的影响［J］.土壤学报，2015，52（3）：654-663.
22	Ren C，Zhao F，Shi Z，et al.Differential responses of soil microbial biomass and carbon-degrading enzyme activities to altered precipitation［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2017，115：1-10.
23	王彦峰，肖波，王兵，等.黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错区藓结皮对土壤酶活性的影响［J］.应用生态学报，2017，28（11）：3553-3561.
24	马任甜，安韶山，黄懿梅.黄土高原不同林龄刺槐林碳、氮、磷化学计量特征［J］.应用生态学报，2017，28（9）：2787-2793.
25	Dümig A，Veste M，Hagedorn F， et al.Organic matter from biological soil crusts induces the initial formation of sandy temperature soils［J］.Catena，2014，122：196-208.
26	Liu Y B，Zhao L N，Wang Z R，et al.Changes in functional gene structure and metabolic potential of the microbial community in biological soil crusts along a revegetation chronosequence in the Tengger Desert［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2018，126：40-48.
27	于贵瑞，李轩然，赵宁，等.生态化学计量学在陆地生态系统碳-氮-水耦合循环理论体系中作用初探［J］.第四纪研究，2014，34（4）：881-890.
28	Li X R，Zhang P，Su Y G，et al.Carbon fixation by biological soil crusts following revegetation of sand dunes in arid desert regions of China：a four-year field study［J］.Catena，2012，97：119-126.
29	Miralles I，Domingo F，Garca-Campos E，et al.Biological and microbial activity in biological soil crusts from the Tabernas desert，a sub-arid zone in SE Spain［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2012，55（55）：113-121.
30	高亮，高永，王静，等.土壤覆盖类型对科尔沁沙地南缘土壤有机碳储量的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2016，36（5）：1357-1364.
31	Hu R，Wang X P，Pan Y X，et al.The response mechanisms of soil N mineralization under biological soil crusts to temperature and moisture in temperate desert regions［J］.European Journal of Soil Biology，2014，62（5）：66-73.
32	Gusewell S.N∶P ratios in terrestrial plants：variation and functional significance［J］.New Phytologist，2004，164（2）：243-266.
33	Tian H Q，Chen G S，Zhang C，et al.Pattern and variation of C∶N∶P ratios in China’s soils：a synthesis of observational data［J］.Biogeochemistry，2010，98（1/3）：139-151.
34	Cory C C，Daniel L.C∶N∶P stoichiometry in soil：is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass？［J］.Biogeochemistry，2007，85（3）：235-252.
35	Zhang W，Gao D，Chen Z X，et al.Substrate quality and soil environmental conditions predict litter decomposition and drive soil nutrient dynamics following afforestation on the Loess Plateau of China［J］.Geoderma，2018，325：152-161.
36	陶冶，吴甘霖，刘耀斌，等.古尔班通古特沙漠典型灌木群落土壤化学计量特征及其影响因素［J］.中国沙漠，2017，37（2）：305-314.
37	丁凡，廉培勇，曾德慧.松嫩平原草甸三种植物叶片N、P化学计量特征及其与土壤N、P浓度的关系［J］.生态学杂志，2011，30（1）：77-81.
38	Ren C J，Chen J，Deng J，et al.Response of microbial diversity to C：N：P stoichiometry in fine root and microbial biomass following afforestation［J］.Biology and Fertility of Soils，2017，53（4）：457-468.
39	高海宁，张勇，秦嘉海，等.祁连山黑河上游不同退化草地有机碳和酶活性分布特征［J］.草地学报，2014，22（2）：283-290.
40	任书杰，于贵瑞，陶波，等.中国东部南北样带654种植物叶片氮和磷的化学计量学特征研究［J］.环境科学，2007（12）：2665-2673.
41	Allison V J，Condronl M，Peltzer D A，et al.Changes in enzyme activities and soil microbial community composition along carbon and nutrient gradients at the Franz Josef chronosequence，New Zealand［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2007，39（7）：1770-1781.
42	Kourtev P S，Ehrenfeld J G，Häggblom M.Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil［J］.Ecology，2002，83（11）：3152-3166.
43	叶协锋，杨超，李正，等.绿肥对植烟土壤酶活性及土壤肥力的影响［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2012，19（2）：445-454.
44	张元明，杨维康，王雪芹，等.生物结皮影响下的土壤有机质分异特征［J］.生态学报，2005，25（12）：3420-3425.
45	Cenini V L，Fornara D A，Mc Mullan G，et al.Linkages between extra-cellular enzyme activities and the carbon and nitrogen content of grassland soils［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2016，96：198-206.
46	安韶山.黄土丘陵区土壤肥力质量对植被恢复的响应及其演变［D］.陕西杨凌：西北农林科技大学，2004.
47	杨媛媛，黎建强，陈奇伯，等.滇中高原常绿阔叶林土壤生物学特性对土壤理化性质的影响［J］.生态环境学报，2016，25（3）：393-401.

层次 /cm	结皮类型	容重BD /(g·cm^-3)	含水率 SWC/%	孔隙度 Por/%	pH值	碱解氮AN /(mg·kg^-1)	速效磷AP /(mg·kg^-1)	速效钾AK /(mg·kg^-1)
结皮层	藻结皮	1.12±0.03^Aa	5.20±0.48^Aa	54.79±1.07^Aa	8.07±0.01^Aa	668.74±51.75^Aa	14.74±1.89^Aa	117.76±2.76^Aa
	混生结皮	1.11±0.09^Aa	4.20±0.66^Aa	58.16±3.32^Aa	8.21±0.15^Aa	809.89±50.90^Aa	15.29±2.97^Aa	137.18±3.14^Aa
	藓结皮	1.04±0.07^Aa	4.47±0.27^Aa	60.82±2.70^Aa	7.84±0.07^Ab	1096.98±63.74^Ab	26.14±2.61^Ab	202.32±18.5^Ab
0—5	藻结皮	1.31±0.01^Bab	7.54±0.75^Aa	50.62±0.36^Ba	8.47±0.02^Ba	196.08±4.53^Ba	6.52±0.61^Ba	94.82±3.26^Ba
	混生结皮	1.37±0.03^Ba	5.31±0.27^Ab	48.36±1.27^Ba	8.51±0.02^Bab	272.52±5.41^Bb	7.83±0.96^Ba	110.16±2.33^Ba
	藓结皮	1.23±0.05^Bb	5.52±0.27^Ab	53.71±2.03^Bb	8.60±0.04^Bb	316.11±20.02^Bc	10.41±0.69^Bb	135.02±8.72^Bb
5—10	藻结皮	1.39±0.05^Ba	7.14±0.91^Aa	47.44±1.95^Ba	8.50±0.02^Ba	117.80±15.31^Ba	5.09±1.00^BCa	70.15±5.72^Ca
	混生结皮	1.32±0.04^Ba	3.97±0.29^Bb	50.16±1.57^Ba	8.43±0.09^Ba	215.34±4.01^Cb	5.72±0.43^BCa	80.26±7.35^Ca
	藓结皮	1.31±0.04^BCa	4.28±0.29^Bb	50.44±1.42^BCa	8.80±0.07^Bb	245.38±23.25^Bb	6.65±0.26^BCa	124.34±3.57^Bb
10—20	藻结皮	1.39±0.02^Ba	6.52±1.31^Aa	47.55±0.70^Ba	8.47±0.05^Ba	110.13±15.02^Ba	2.75±0.24^Ca	47.58±9.08^Da
	混生结皮	1.43±0.04^Ba	4.71±0.36A^Ba	46.09±1.40^Ba	8.51±0.13^Ba	212.8±25.20^Cb	2.03±0.09^Ca	52.00±4.42^Da
	藓结皮	1.39±0.01^Ca	4.34±0.23^Ba	47.45±0.31^Ca	8.89±0.10^Cb	178.27±5.20^Cb	2.55±0.38^Ca	75.74±2.12^Cb

层次 /cm	结皮类型	容重BD /(g·cm^-3)	含水率 SWC/%	孔隙度 Por/%	pH值	碱解氮AN /(mg·kg^-1)	速效磷AP /(mg·kg^-1)	速效钾AK /(mg·kg^-1)
结皮层	藻结皮	1.12±0.03^Aa	5.20±0.48^Aa	54.79±1.07^Aa	8.07±0.01^Aa	668.74±51.75^Aa	14.74±1.89^Aa	117.76±2.76^Aa
	混生结皮	1.11±0.09^Aa	4.20±0.66^Aa	58.16±3.32^Aa	8.21±0.15^Aa	809.89±50.90^Aa	15.29±2.97^Aa	137.18±3.14^Aa
	藓结皮	1.04±0.07^Aa	4.47±0.27^Aa	60.82±2.70^Aa	7.84±0.07^Ab	1096.98±63.74^Ab	26.14±2.61^Ab	202.32±18.5^Ab
0—5	藻结皮	1.31±0.01^Bab	7.54±0.75^Aa	50.62±0.36^Ba	8.47±0.02^Ba	196.08±4.53^Ba	6.52±0.61^Ba	94.82±3.26^Ba
	混生结皮	1.37±0.03^Ba	5.31±0.27^Ab	48.36±1.27^Ba	8.51±0.02^Bab	272.52±5.41^Bb	7.83±0.96^Ba	110.16±2.33^Ba
	藓结皮	1.23±0.05^Bb	5.52±0.27^Ab	53.71±2.03^Bb	8.60±0.04^Bb	316.11±20.02^Bc	10.41±0.69^Bb	135.02±8.72^Bb
5—10	藻结皮	1.39±0.05^Ba	7.14±0.91^Aa	47.44±1.95^Ba	8.50±0.02^Ba	117.80±15.31^Ba	5.09±1.00^BCa	70.15±5.72^Ca
	混生结皮	1.32±0.04^Ba	3.97±0.29^Bb	50.16±1.57^Ba	8.43±0.09^Ba	215.34±4.01^Cb	5.72±0.43^BCa	80.26±7.35^Ca
	藓结皮	1.31±0.04^BCa	4.28±0.29^Bb	50.44±1.42^BCa	8.80±0.07^Bb	245.38±23.25^Bb	6.65±0.26^BCa	124.34±3.57^Bb
10—20	藻结皮	1.39±0.02^Ba	6.52±1.31^Aa	47.55±0.70^Ba	8.47±0.05^Ba	110.13±15.02^Ba	2.75±0.24^Ca	47.58±9.08^Da
	混生结皮	1.43±0.04^Ba	4.71±0.36A^Ba	46.09±1.40^Ba	8.51±0.13^Ba	212.8±25.20^Cb	2.03±0.09^Ca	52.00±4.42^Da
	藓结皮	1.39±0.01^Ca	4.34±0.23^Ba	47.45±0.31^Ca	8.89±0.10^Cb	178.27±5.20^Cb	2.55±0.38^Ca	75.74±2.12^Cb

指标	结皮类型		土壤深度		结皮类型×土壤深度
指标	F	P	F	P	F	P
过氧化氢酶Cat	227.942	<0.01	2538.858	<0.01	117.118	<0.01
蔗糖酶Suc	81.692	<0.01	4499.391	<0.01	23.655	<0.01
碱性磷酸酶Alp	17.992	<0.01	569.821	<0.01	3.668	<0.05
脲酶Ure	82.408	<0.01	291.958	<0.01	22.095	<0.01
有机碳SOC	12.788	<0.01	172.720	<0.01	10.721	<0.01
全氮TN	27.893	<0.01	499.220	<0.01	12.241	<0.01
全磷TP	31.087	<0.01	91.853	<0.01	2.013	>0.05
C/N	1.017	>0.05	42.7	<0.01	2.109	>0.05
C/P	4.904	>0.05	161.733	<0.01	6.066	<0.01
N/P	1.557	>0.05	187.064	<0.01	1.968	>0.05

指标	结皮类型		土壤深度		结皮类型×土壤深度
指标	F	P	F	P	F	P
过氧化氢酶Cat	227.942	<0.01	2538.858	<0.01	117.118	<0.01
蔗糖酶Suc	81.692	<0.01	4499.391	<0.01	23.655	<0.01
碱性磷酸酶Alp	17.992	<0.01	569.821	<0.01	3.668	<0.05
脲酶Ure	82.408	<0.01	291.958	<0.01	22.095	<0.01
有机碳SOC	12.788	<0.01	172.720	<0.01	10.721	<0.01
全氮TN	27.893	<0.01	499.220	<0.01	12.241	<0.01
全磷TP	31.087	<0.01	91.853	<0.01	2.013	>0.05
C/N	1.017	>0.05	42.7	<0.01	2.109	>0.05
C/P	4.904	>0.05	161.733	<0.01	6.066	<0.01
N/P	1.557	>0.05	187.064	<0.01	1.968	>0.05

指标	Cat	Suc	Alp	Ure	SOC	TN	TP	C/N	C/P	N/P
过氧化氢酶Cat	1	0.929^**	0.878^**	0.938^**	0.713^**	0.885^**	0.913^**	0.413^*	0.447^**	0.600^**
蔗糖酶Suc		1	0.821^**	0.949^**	0.738^**	0.873^**	0.881^**	0.465^**	0.498^**	0.588^**
碱性磷酸酶Alp			1	0.854^**	0.703^**	0.791^**	0.842^**	0.480^**	0.511^**	0.587^**
脲酶Ure				1	0.739^**	0.853^**	0.898^**	0.517^**	0.492^**	0.551^**
有机碳SOC					1	0.829^**	0.690^**	0.728^**	0.846^**	0.743^**
全氮TN						1	0.811^**	0.387^*	0.603^**	0.814^**
全磷TP							1	0.498^**	0.365^*	0.441^**
C/N								1	0.789^**	0.422^*
C/P									1	0.820^**
N/P										1

Soil enzyme activity and carbon， nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics under different types of biocrusts and subsoil in Mu Us Sandland

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

Related Articles 9

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

参数	条件影响	多元相关比率/%	F	P
全氮TN	0.921	93.6	293	0.002^**
速效钾AK	0.026	2.6	11.9	0.002^**
含水量SWC	0.009	0.9	4.9	0.030^*
全磷TP	0.007	0.7	5.9	0.004^**
C/P	0.006	0.6	4.4	0.026^*
有机碳SOC	0.005	0.5	2.9	0.056
碱解氮AN	0.004	0.4	2.6	0.082
pH	0.002	0.2	1.6	0.224
容重BD	0.001	0.1	0.8	0.438
速效磷AP	0.001	0.1	1.1	0.378
孔隙度Por	0.001	0.1	1.2	0.324
N/P	0.001	0.1	0.2	0.876

[1]	Liu Yanmei, Yang Hangyu, Jia Rongliang, Li Yixuan. Effects of Human Trampling Biocrusts on Soil Enzyme Activities [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(4): 54-63.
[2]	Yang Hangyu, Liu Changzhong, Liu Yanmei, Yang Haotian. Effects of Trampling Biocrusts on Soil Microbial Biomass in Desert Areas [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(2): 35-44.
[3]	Bao Tianli, Zhao Yunge, Gao Liqian, Shi Yafang. Dynamic of Culturable Microorganisms in Biological Soil Crusts under Trampling Disturbance [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 119-126.
[4]	LI Hong-bo;BAI Ai-ning;ZHANG Guo-sheng;WANG Lin-he;YANG Xin-lin;ZHANG Yu. Analysis on Soil Condensation Water Source in Mu Us Sandland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2010, 30(2): 241-246.
[5]	FANG Shi-bo;XU Duan-yang;ZHANG Xin-shi. Desertification Process and Its Driving Meteorological Factors in Mu Us Sandland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2009, 29(5): 796-801.
[6]	WANG Ji-he;MA Quan-lin;LIU Hu-jun;YANG Zi-hui;ZHANG De-kui. Effect of Wind-breaking and Sand-fixing of Vegetation in Progressive Succession on Desertification Land in Arid Area [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2006, 26(6): 908-909.
[7]	ZHOU Ya-li, LU Hua-yu, ZHANG Jia-fu, ZHOU Li-ping, Miao Xiao-dong, MASOO J A. Active and Inactive Phases of Sand-dune in Mu Us and Otindag Sandlands during Late Quaternary Suggested by OSL Dating [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2005, 25(3): 342-350.
[8]	HAO Cheng-yuan, WU Shao-hong, YANG Qin-ye. Research on Relationship between Sandy Desertification and Land-use in Mu Us Region [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2005, 25(1): 33-39.
[9]	ZHANG Hong. Biomass Dynamics and Energy Efficiency of Rhizotaxy of the Grass+Forbs Steppe in Mu Us Sandland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 1999, 19(2): 151-155.