Soil Amelioration Effect of Low-efficient Shelterbelts Transformation in Huajialing, Gansu, China
Received date: 2012-11-23
Revised date: 2013-01-05
Online published: 2013-01-05
In order to discuss the effect of low-efficient shelterbelts transformation on soil amelioration in Huajialing. The soil physicochemical properties were studied by choosing low-efficient Populus pure forest which grew badly and Picea asperata pure forest, Picea asperata Populus, Picea asperata Pinus tabulaeformis and Picea asperata Larix prncipis-rupprechtii which were transformation forest in the district of Huajialing. The results showed that: (1) Differences of soil mean bulk density, capillary porosity, total porosity and venting quality were significant between Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests and Populus pure forest. Compared with Populus pure forest, after low-efficient transformation, the soil bulk density of Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests were decreased to some extent, porosity and vent ability were improved. (2) The contents of soil available N, available K, total N, total P, total K and organic matter in forest types all decreased gradually with the increasing of soil depth except the available P. And the organic matter,available N, P, K and total N, P, K of Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests were higher than Populus pure forest. PH of Populus pure forest was higher than Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests. (3) The correlations between soil organic matter, total N and soil bulk density, total porosity of Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests were better than Populus pure forest. Amelioration effects of Picea asperata pure forest and its mixed forests on soil physicochemical properties were superior to Populus pure forest.
Key words： Huajialing; shelterbelt; mixed forest; soil physicochemical property; amelioration
HUANG Rong1 , WANG Hui1 , WANG Hui1 , NAN Yao-ming2 , ZHAO He-ran1 , DUAN Ya-nan1 . Soil Amelioration Effect of Low-efficient Shelterbelts Transformation in Huajialing, Gansu, China[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 0 : 1782 -1788 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2013.00265
[1]冉雄林.华家岭林带人工低产林改造试验[J].甘肃林业科技,2003,23(3):57-60.
[2]宁应之,王红军,禹娟红,等.甘肃定西华家岭土壤纤毛虫群落对生态恢复的响应[J].动物学研究,2011,32(2):223-231.
[3]王学霞,董世魁,李媛媛,等.三江源区草地退化与人工恢复对土壤理化性状的影响[J].水土保持学报,2012, 26(4):113-117.
[4]夏江宝,许景伟,陆兆华,等.黄河三角洲滩地不同植被类型改良土壤效应研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(2):148-152.
[5]丁绍兰,杨宁贵,赵串串,等.青海省东部黄土丘陵区主要林型土壤理化性质[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(6):1-6.
[6]刘文杰,苏永中,陈生云,等.临泽绿洲农田土壤肥力质量时空变化特征[J].中国沙漠,2012,32(1):132-139.
[7]国家林业局.森林土壤分析方法（中华人民共和国林业行业标准）[S].北京:中国标准出版社, 2000:75-115.
[8]刘福德,孔令刚,安树青,等.连作杨树人工林不同生长阶段林地内土壤微生态环境特征[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):121-125.
[9]巍强,张秋良,代海燕,等.大青山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):111-115.
[10]牛瑞雪,赵学勇,刘继亮.黑河中游不同土地覆被土壤水文环境及植被特征[J].中国沙漠,2012,32(6):1590-1596.
[11]张欣,赵雨森,辛颖,等.大果沙棘人工林土壤改良效益时空变异研究[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(1):162-166.
[12]高鹏,李增嘉,杨慧玲,等.渗灌与漫灌条件下果园土壤物理性质异质性及其分形特征[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):155-158.
[13]杨玉海,陈亚宁,李卫红,等.干旱区新垦绿洲人工防护林土壤物理特性及其生态意义[J].中国沙漠,2010,20(5):1121-1127.
[14]王元峰,王辉,马维伟,等.尕海4种湿地类型土壤水分特性研究[J].干旱区研究,2012,29(4):598-603.
[15]葛乐,虞木奎,成向荣.杉木林下套种不同树种对土壤改良效应初探[J].土壤通报,2011,42(2):948-952.
[16]蒋文伟,周国模,余树全,等.安吉山地主要森林类型土壤养分状况的研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(4):73-76.
[17]侯本栋,马风云.不同树种的刺槐混交林对土壤化学性质及土壤酶活性影响的研究[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2007,38(1):53-57.
[18]王元峰,王辉,马维伟,等.尕海湿地泥炭土土壤理化性质[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(3):118-122.
[19]乌云娜,雒文涛,霍光伟,等.微生境尺度上放牧退化草原群落特征与土壤有机质的空间分异性[J].中国沙漠,2012,32(4):972-979.
[20]Jobbagy E G,Jackson R B.The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation[J].Ecological Applications,2000,10(2):423-436.
[21]张瑞,张景波,曹良图.干旱区土地利用和土壤改良及植被恢复方式对沙地养分的恢复效应[J].水土保持学报,2010,17(4):153-157.
[22]范亚宁.云雾山草地小尺度植物多样性及土壤-植物养分空间变异性研究平[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2006.
[23]刘新华,徐海量,凌红波,等.塔里木河下游典型绿洲滴灌防护林地土壤水盐时空动态[J].中国沙漠,2012,32(6):1604-1610.
[24]赵新风,王炜,张涛,等.塔里木河下游地区滴灌沙枣防护林地土壤盐分分布特征[J].中国沙漠,2012,32(3):763-770.
[25]王晶,吕昭智,钱 翌,等.新疆准噶尔盆地典型荒漠区不同景观植被对土壤养分的影响[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(6):1367-1373.
[26]蒋明德,曹成有,押田敏雄,等.科尔沁沙地小叶锦鸡儿人工林防风固沙及改良土壤效应研究[J].干旱区研究,2008,25(5):653-658.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |