Effects of clear-cutting and harvest residue of Phyllostachys edulis forests on soil quality
-
摘要:
目的 毛竹Phyllostachys edulis林生态修复是当前中国亚热带地区面临的一个难题。了解毛竹林皆伐和剩余物保留后迹地土壤的自然恢复状况可为毛竹林生态修复提供指导。 方法 在毛竹林皆伐迹地设置了保留采伐剩余物(UR)、清理采伐剩余物(CR)和未采伐毛竹林地作为对照(ck)等3个处理。5 a后，通过土壤调查与测定，分析比较不同处理土壤指标变化，运用模糊判别和主成分分析，定量评价毛竹林皆伐后土壤自然恢复效果。 结果 ①CR、UR处理土壤容重分别比ck降低31%和14%(P＜0.05)，土壤总孔隙度、毛管持水量、田间持水量和饱和持水量均高于ck；UR处理土壤的持水力整体优于CR处理。②CR、UR处理土壤有机碳、全氮、全磷、碱解氮和速效钾质量分数均高于ck，各指标增加幅度为117%~123%；有效磷则表现为CR处理极显著(P＜0.01)低于UR和ck；由于保留了毛竹林皆伐后采伐剩余物，UR处理土壤有机碳、全氮、全磷、碱解氮、有效磷显著高于CR处理33%~99%(P＜0.05)；③CR、UR处理土壤脲酶、β-葡萄糖苷酶和过氧化物酶活性高于ck；UR处理土壤3种胞外酶活性均高于CR处理46%~98%。④综合评价结果表明：土壤质量得到较好恢复，毛竹林皆伐后恢复迹地土壤综合得分从高到低依次为采伐剩余物保留样区、采伐剩余物清理样区、毛竹林样区。 结论 毛竹林皆伐后的土壤经过5 a自然恢复，与毛竹林林地土壤相比得到较快修复，毛竹林皆伐后保留采伐剩余物更有利于土壤修复。图1表4参23 Abstract:Objective Ecological restoration of Phyllostachys edulis forest is a challenge in subtropical regions of China. This study aims to understand the natural restoration status of the soil after clear-cutting and residue retention of Ph. edulis forest, so as to provide guidance for ecological restoration of forest. Method In the clear-cutting sites, 3 treatments were set up, i.e. cutting residue reserved (UR), cutting residue removed (CR), and uncut Ph. edulis forest as the control (ck). The changes of soil indexes under different treatments were analyzed and compared through soil survey and measurement 5 years later, and fuzzy mathematical discrimination and principal component analysis were used to quantitatively evaluate the natural restoration effect of Ph. edulis forest after clear-cutting. Result (1) The soil bulk density of CR and UR decreased by 31% and 14% respectively compared with ck (P＜0.05). Soil total porosity, capillary water holding capacity, field water holding capacity and saturated water holding capacity were higher than those of ck. The water holding capacity of UR soil was better than that of CR. (2) The contents of soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen and available potassium in CR and UR were higher than those in ck, and each index increased by 17%−123%. Available phosphorus showed that CR was significantly lower than UR and ck (P＜0.01). Due to the retention of cutting residues of Ph. edulis forest after clear-cutting, the soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen and available phosphorus in UR were significantly higher than those in CR treatment by 33%−99% (P＜0.05). (3)The activities of urease, β-glucosidase and peroxidase in CR, UR soil were higher than those in ck. The activities of 3 extracellular enzymes in UR soil were 46%−98% higher than those in CR treatment. (4) The comprehensive evaluation results showed that the soil quality had been well restored, and the comprehensive scores ranging from high to low in the restored site soil of Ph. edulis forest after clear-cutting was sample area with cutting residue reserved, sample area with cutting residue removed, Ph. edulis forest sample area. Conclusion After 5 years of natural recovery, the soil of Ph. edulis forest after clear-cutting can be restored faster than that in Ph. edulis forest land, and the retention of the cutting residues after clear-cutting of Ph. edulis forest is more conducive to soil restoration. [Ch, 1 fig. 4 tab. 23 ref.] -
表 1 不同处理的土壤物理性质
Table 1. Soil physical properties of different treatments
土层/cm 处理 容重/(g·cm−3) 总孔隙度/% 毛管持水量/(g·kg−1) 田间持水量/(g·kg−1) 饱和持水量/(g·kg−1) 0~10 CR 0.67±0.02 b 58.1±2.3 a 470±17 a 434±18 a 654±24 a UR 0.77±0.06 b 52.2±1.9 a 519±40 a 464±35 a 670±51 a ck 0.88±0.04 a 52.2±1.3 a 443±20 a 406±18 a 605±29 a 10~20 CR 0.67±0.02 b 61.4±1.7 a 487±15 b 447±14 b 682±24 b UR 0.68±0.05 b 58.3±1.8 a 596±47 a 527±39 a 767±59 a ck 0.93±0.03 a 54.0±1.3 a 439±22 b 394±19 b 610±28 b 说明：数据为平均值±标准误。不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05) 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同处理的土壤化学性质
Table 2. Soil chemical properties of different treatments
土层/cm 处理 pH 有机碳/
(g·kg−1)全氮/
(g·kg−1)全磷/
(g·kg−1)全钾/
(g·kg−1)碱解氮/
(mg·kg−1)有效磷/
(mg·kg−1)速效钾/
(mg·kg−1)0~10 CR 5.09±0.06 a 36.86±2.62 b 3.27±0.24 b 0.37±0.02 b 25.29±1.61 a 101±7 b 1.4±0.1 b 189±13 a UR 4.73±0.06 b 73.25±7.25 a 6.30±0.54 a 0.58±0.04 a 16.58±0.43 b 96±11 a 1.9±0.1 a 195±15 a ck 5.03±0.09 a 33.73±2.78 b 2.82±0.23 b 0.31±0.01 b 22.67±1.10 a 95±5 b 2.1±0.1 a 105±13 b 10~20 CR 5.26±0.08 a 31.11±2.43 b 2.71±0.21 b 0.34±0.02 b 26.31±1.78 a 95±9 b 1.1±0.1 b 169±11 a UR 4.98±0.09 a 53.68±6.03 a 4.62±0.47 a 0.55±0.05 a 17.00±0.43 b 159±9 a 1.6±0.2 a 162±12 a ck 5.03±0.10 a 29.07±1.59 b 2.38±0.14 b 0.29±0.02 b 22.21±0.99 a 82±4 b 1.7±0.1 a 97±12 b 说明：数据为平均值±标准误。不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同处理的土壤胞外酶活性
Table 3. Soil extracellar enzyme activity of different treatments
土层/cm 处理 脲酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)酸性磷酸酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)β-葡萄糖苷酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)过氧化物酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)土层/cm 处理 脲酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)酸性磷酸酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)β-葡萄糖苷酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)过氧化物酶/
(μmol·g−1·h−1)0~10 CR 424±40 b 476±52 b 41.1±4.9 b 768±75 a 10~20 CR 338±44 b 508±59 b 37.7±4.3 b 766±132 a UR 836±101 a 944±90 a 77.0±11.6 a 1 123±152 a UR 542±75 a 884±87 a 71.9±8.0 a 1 039±184 a ck 290±71 b 701±76 b 44.0±8.0 b 770±147 a ck 243±40 b 569±66 b 37.3±7.1 b 723±104 a 说明：数据为平均值±标准误。不同小写字母表示同一土层不同处理间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 综合评价指标及其权重
Table 4. Comprehensive evaluation indices and weights
指标 xTNⅠ xPⅡ xAKⅠ xAPⅠ xPERⅡ xBGⅡ xACPⅡ 指标权重 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.18 公因子方差 0.951 0.772 0.880 0.830 0.598 0.857 0.888
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] NAGATI M, ROY M, MANZI S, et al. Impact of local forest composition on soil fungal communities in a mixed boreal forest [J]. Plant Soil, 2018, 432(1/2): 345 − 357. [2] CRAWFORD K M, BAUER J T, COMITA S, et al. When and where plant-soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta-analysis [J]. Ecol Lett, 2019, 22(8): 1274 − 1284. doi: 10.1111/ele.13278 [3] QIAO Leilei, LI Yuanze, SONG Yahui, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on the distribution of nutrients, glomalin-related soil protein, and enzyme activity in soil aggregates on the loess plateau, China[J/OL]. Forests, 2019, 10(9): 796[2021-12-10]. doi: 10.3390/10090796 [4] 蓝斌, 何东进. 闽北毛竹林生态系统能量分配规律的研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2000, 11(2): 193 − 195. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2000.02.009 LAN Bin, HE Dongjin. Energy distribution of Phyllostachys pubescens ecosytem in north Fujian [J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2000, 11(2): 193 − 195. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2000.02.009 [5] OKUTOMI K, SHINODA S, FUKUDA H. Causal analysis of the invasion of broad-leaved forest by bamboo in Japan [J]. J Veg Sci, 1996, 7(5): 723 − 728. doi: 10.2307/3236383 [6] ISAGI Y, TORII A. Range Expansion and its mechanisms in a naturalized bamboo species, Phyllostachys pubescens, in Japan [J]. J Sustainable For, 1997, 6(1/2): 127 − 141. [7] 丁丽霞, 王祖良, 周国模, 等. 天目山国家级自然保护区毛竹林扩张遥感监测[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2006, 23(3): 297 − 300. DING Lixia, WANG Zuliang, ZHOU Guomo, et al. Monitoring Phyllostachys pubescens stands expansion in National Nature Reserve of Mount Tianmu by remote sensing [J]. J Zhejiang For Coll, 2006, 23(3): 297 − 300. [8] OSEI R, ANSONG M, ZERBE S. Comparison of socio-economic and ecological benefits of bamboo and trees: the perspectives of local communities in south-western Ghana [J]. Southern For J For Sci, 2019, 81(3): 255 − 260. doi: 10.2989/20702620.2019.1581499 [9] 白尚斌, 周国模, 王懿祥, 等. 天目山国家级自然保护区毛竹扩散过程的林分结构变化研究[J]. 西部林业科学, 2012, 41(1): 77 − 82. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8246.2012.01.011 BAI Shangbin, ZHOU Guomo, WANG Yixiang, et al. Stand structure change of Phyllostachys pubescens forest expansion in Tianmushan National Nature Reserve [J]. J West China For Sci, 2012, 41(1): 77 − 82. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8246.2012.01.011 [10] 王铮屹, 戴其林, 柏宬, 等. 天目山皆伐毛竹林自然更新群落类型与多样性分析[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2020, 37(4): 710 − 719. WANG Zhengyi, DAI Qilin, BAI Cheng, et al. Types and diversity of natural regeneration community after clear cutting of Phyllostachys edulis forests in Mount Tianmu, China [J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2020, 37(4): 710 − 719. [11] 陈旭, 刘宗悦, 徐钧杰, 等. 天目山毛竹林皆伐后群落的恢复特征[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2022, 39(4): 705 − 716. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20210595 CHEN Xu, LIU Zongyue, XU Junjie, et al. Restoration characteristics of Phyllostachys edulis community after clear-cutting in Mount Tianmu [J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2022, 39(4): 705 − 716. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20210595 [12] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000. LU Rukun. The Analysis Method of Soil Agricultural Chemistry[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000. [13] GERMAN D P, WEINTRAUB M N, GRANDY A S, et al. Optimization of hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme methods for ecosystem studies [J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2011, 43(7): 1387 − 97. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.017 [14] FUJII K, SHIBATA M, KITAJIMA K, et al. Plant-soil interactions maintain biodiversity and functions of tropical forest ecosystems [J]. Curr Top Ecol, 2018, 33(1): 149 − 160. [15] 池鑫晨, 宋超, 朱向涛, 等. 毛竹入侵常绿阔叶林对土壤活性有机碳氮的动态影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(7): 2263 − 2272. CHI Xinchen, SONG Chao, ZHU Xiangtao, et al. Effects of moso bamboo invasion on soil active organic carbon and nitrogen in a evergreen broad-leaved forest in subtropical China [J]. Chin J Ecol, 2020, 39(7): 2263 − 2272. [16] 白尚斌, 周国模, 王懿祥, 等. 天目山保护区森林群落植物多样性对毛竹入侵的响应及动态变化[J]. 生物多样性, 2013, 21(3): 288 − 295. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2013.08258 BAI Shangbin, ZHOU Guomo, WANG Yixiang, et al. Plant species diversity and dynamics in forests invaded by moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) in Tianmu Mountain Nature Reserve [J]. Biodiversity Sci, 2013, 21(3): 288 − 295. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2013.08258 [17] EISENBIES M H, VANCE E D, AUST W M, et al. Intensive utilization of harvest residues in southern pine plantations: quantities available and implications for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity [J]. BioEnergy Res, 2009, 2(3): 90 − 98. doi: 10.1007/s12155-009-9036-z [18] 吴传敬, 郭剑芬, 许恩兰, 等. 采伐残余物不同处理方式对杉木幼林土壤有机碳组分和相关酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(6): 1504 − 1513. doi: 10.11766/trxb201812110500 WU Chuanjin, GUO Jianfeng, XU Enlan, et al. Effects of logging residue on composition of soil carbon and activity of related enzymes in soil of a young Chinese fir plantation as affected by residue handling mode [J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2019, 56(6): 1504 − 1513. doi: 10.11766/trxb201812110500 [19] 黄启堂, 陈爱玲, 贺军. 不同毛竹林林地土壤理化性质特征比较[J]. 福建林学院报, 2006, 26(4): 299 − 302. HUANG Qitang, CHEN Ailing, HE Jun. Comparison of soil physical and chemical properties among various Phyllostachys pubescens plantation [J]. J Fujian Coll For, 2006, 26(4): 299 − 302. [20] ZHAO Yingzhi, LIANG Chenfei, SHAO Shuai, et al. Linkages of litter and soil C∶N∶P stoichiometry with soil microbial resource limitation and community structure in a subtropical broadleaf forest invaded by moso bamboo [J]. Plant Soil, 2021, 465(1/2): 473 − 490. [21] 吴家森, 姜培坤, 王祖良. 天目山国家级自然保护区毛竹扩张对林地土壤肥力的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2008, 30(4): 689 − 692. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2286.2008.04.024 WU Jiasen, JIANG Peikun, WANG Zuliang. The effects of Phyllostachys pubescens expansionon onsoil fertility in National Nature Reserve of Mount Tianmu [J]. Acta Agric Univ Jiangxi, 2008, 30(4): 689 − 692. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2286.2008.04.024 [22] GRANDY A S, STRICKLAND M S, LAUBER C L, et al. The influence of microbial communities, management, and soil texture on soil organic matter chemistry [J]. Geoderma, 2009, 150(3/4): 278 − 286. [23] CHODAK M, NIKLIŃSKA M. The effect of different tree species on the chemical and microbial properties of reclaimed mine soils [J]. Biol Fert Soil, 2010, 46(6): 555 − 566. doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0462-z -
-
链接本文:
https://zlxb.zafu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20220122
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 38
- 被引次数: 0
