Volume 36 Issue 2
Mar.  2019
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

XU Rui, JIANG Chunqian, BAI Yanfeng, LIU Xiuhong, WANG Silong. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(2): 307-317. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012
Citation: XU Rui, JIANG Chunqian, BAI Yanfeng, LIU Xiuhong, WANG Silong. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(2): 307-317. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012

Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012
  • Received Date: 2018-05-21
  • Rev Recd Date: 2018-08-10
  • Publish Date: 2019-04-20
  • To investigate the differences in soil CO2 and N2O fluxes as well as CO2 and N2O flux factors from Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) stands (CL) and mixed stands of Chinese fir and Cinnamomum camphora (CL-CC), Castanopsis fargesii (CL-CF), and Alnus cremastogyne (CL-AC), CO2 and N2O fluxes were quantified with a static chamber-gas chromatography method with 5 replications. Results of one-way ANOVA showed that CO2 fluxes in CL (490.48 mg·m-2·h-1) were significantly higher(P < 0.05) than in CL-CF (254.27 mg·m-2·h-1) and CL-AC stands (331.51 mg·m-2·h-1), and N2O fluxes in CL (32.29 μg·m-2·h-1) and CL-AC (32.24 μg·m-2·h-1) were higher(P < 0.05) than in CL-CF (2.66 μg·m-2·h-1). In CL-CF, CL-AC, and CL, a linear relationship was observed between CO2 and soil temperature. Also nitrate-N and water filled pore space (WFPS) were significantly correlated with soil N2O flux. In CL-CF, CL-AC, and CL, an exponential relationship was observed between N2O fluxes and WFPS. A linear relationship was also observed between N2O and nitrate-N. Forest species composition, usually considered an important factor influencing CO2 and N2O fluxes, decreased net CO2 emissions with conversion from a pure Chinese fir stand to a mixed Chinese fir stand with differences in soil N2O flux among the stands possibly being attributed to differences in soil NO3-N content.
  • [1] YU Yadi, ZHANG Xi, WANG Hao, BAI Jian, LAI Xiaoqin, LUO Laicong, WANG Shuli, ZHANG Ling.  Response of soil CO2 and N2O emissions to Phyllostachys edulis expansion and its mechanism . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2024, 41(3): 1-10. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230501
    [2] LAN Ziyu, DING Sihui, FANG Shengzuo.  Impacts of poplar harvesting residue additions on soil nutrients and CO2 emission . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2021, 38(5): 1012-1022. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20210186
    [3] WANG Xia, HU Haibo, CHENG Can, ZHANG Shuai, CHEN Jianyu, LU Honglin.  Soil PhytOC sequestration in Quercus acutissima forest in northern subtropics . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2021, 38(1): 1-9. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200283
    [4] GONG Yuan, JI Xiaofang, HUA Yuting, ZHANG Yinlong, LI Nan.  Research progress of CO2 flux in forest ecosystem based on eddy covariance technique: a review . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(3): 593-604. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20190412
    [5] WANG Yanfang, LIU Ling, YUE Feixue, LI Dong, SHANGGUAN Zhouping.  Forest aboveground carbon storage with the Grain for Green Program in Henan Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(3): 507-514. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.03.011
    [6] ZHANG Yong, HU Haibo, WANG Zeng, HUANG Yujie, LÜ Aihua, ZHANG Jinchi, LIU Shenglong.  Varieties of active soil organic carbon of four forest types with varying incubation temperatures in Fengyang Mountain . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(2): 243-251. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.02.007
    [7] WANG Ying, LU Rongjie, WU Jiasen, JIANG Peikun, TONG Zhipeng.  Nitrogen and phosphorus loss in runoff and sediment for a closed zone of a Carya cathayensis stand . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(5): 802-809. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.05.003
    [8] NIU Xiaodong, JIANG Hong, FANG Chengyuan, CHEN Xiaofeng, SUN Heng.  Water vapor flux features of an evergreen and deciduous broadleaf mixed forest in Mount Tianmu area . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2016, 33(2): 216-224. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.02.005
    [9] YU Xin, XU Chonghua, ZHU Yongyi, XU Xiaoniu.  Litterfall production and its relation to stand structural factors in a subtropical evergreen broadleaf forest . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2016, 33(6): 991-999. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.06.010
    [10] GONG Hede, YAN Teng, PENG Yihang, ZHENG Li, MA Yuewei.  Seedling growth of Symplocos ramosissima with manually controlled experimental conditions in the Ailaoshan Mountains, Yunnan Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2015, 32(2): 237-243. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.02.010
    [11] WEI Shujing, SUN Long, WEI Shuwei, HU Haiqing.  Coarse woody debris in forest ecosystems: a review . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2013, 30(4): 585-598. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2013.04.019
    [12] CHEN Xiaorong, CHEN Yuanyuan, LUO Zhengrong, DING Bingyang.  A 5-year mid-mountain subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest study in Baishanzu,east China . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2013, 30(6): 821-829. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2013.06.004
    [13] XIN Zan-hong, JIANG Hong, JIE Cheng-yue, WEI Xiao-hua, BLANCO Juan, ZHOU Gou-mo.  Simulated nitrogen dynamics for a Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation with selected rotation ages . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2011, 28(6): 855-862.
    [14] LI Hai-fang, DUAN Wen-jun.  Soil CO2 and N2O fluxes from four typical plantations in southern China . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2011, 28(1): 26-32. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2011.01.005
    [15] 杨廉雁, 张树斌, 郑征.  Research progress on the hollow-bearing trees in forest ecosystems . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2010, 27(6): 928-934. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2010.06.021
    [16] AI Jian-guo, WENG Guo-hang, DONG Wei.  Interspecific association of primary plant populations in an evergreen broadleaf forest at Shiyang Forest Park of Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2008, 25(3): 324-330.
    [17] HE Ying,  WEI Xin-liang,  CAI Xia,  LI Ke-zhui,  WANG Zhen.  Quantitative analysis of community structure in ecological landscape forests . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2007, 24(6): 711-718.
    [18] YANG Tong-hui, DA Liang-jun, LI Xiu-peng.  Biomass of evergreen broad-leaved forest in Tiantong National Forest Park, Zhejiang Province (II) Aboveground biomass and its allocation pattern . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2007, 24(4): 389-395.
    [19] CAO Yong-hui, XIAO Jiang-hua, CHEN Shuang-lin, WU Bo-lin, WU Ming, ZHANG De-ming.  Effect of everygreen brood-leaved trees on Phyllostachys pubescens growth and their competition in the mixed forest . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2006, 23(1): 35-40.
    [20] YANG Tong-hui, DA Liang-jun, SONG Yong-chang, YANG Yong-chuan, WANG Liang-yan.  Biomass of evergreen broad-leaved forest in Tiantong National Forest Park , Zhejiang Province (Ⅰ)Community structure and fresh weight biomass of main tree species . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2005, 22(4): 363-369.
  • [1]
    IPCC. Climate Change 2013:The Physical Science Basis. Working Group Ⅰ Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[M]. Cambridge U K:Cambridge University Press, 2013:3-38.
    [2]
    NIEDER R, BENBI D K. Carbon and Nitrogen in the Terrestrial Environment[M]. Dordrecht:Springer, 2008:87-108.
    [3]
    BATJES N H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world[J]. Eur J Soil Sci, 1996, 47:151-163.
    [4]
    OERTEL C, MATSCHULLAT J, ZURBA K, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils:a review[J]. Chem der Erde-Geochem, 2016, 76(3):327-352.
    [5]
    SCHLESINGER W H, BERNHARDT E S. Biogeochemistry:An Analysis of Global Change[M]. 3 rd. San Diego:Academic Press, 2013:419-428.
    [6]
    KIM D G, KIRSCHBAUM M U F. The effect of land-use change on the net exchange rates of greenhouse gases:a compilation of estimates[J]. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 2015, 208(1):114-126.
    [7]
    Divison of Forest Resources Management, State Forestry Administration. The result of 8 th National Forest Inventory[J]. For Resour Manage, 2014(1):1-2.
    [8]
    LI Juan, BAI Yanfeng, PENG Yang, et al. Carbon accounting of Chinese fir plantation in Huitong, Hu'nan Province[J]. For Res, 2017, 30(3):436-443.
    [9]
    WANG Feng, SHEN Yueqin, ZHU Zhen, et al. Economic analysis of Chinese fir forest carbon sequestration:based on Zhejiang's survey[J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2012, 29(5):762-767.
    [10]
    SHI Zhijuan, BAI Yanfeng, SUN Rui, et al. A comparative study on carbon storage in Chinese fir plantations with two restoration approaches[J]. For Res, 2017, 30(2):214-221.
    [11]
    SUN Qiwu, YANG Chengdong, JIAO Ruzhen. PCA on the soil degradation of the successive Chinese fir plantation[J]. For Res, 2003, 16(6):689-693.
    [12]
    YANG Yusheng, HE Zhongming, CHEN Guangshui, et al. PCA of soil fertility under different gaps of continuously planting Chinese fir[J]. Soil Environ Sci, 2001, 10(1):33-38.
    [13]
    FAN Shaohui, SHENG Weitong, MA Xiangqing, et al. Effect of successive planting on productivity of Chinese fir of different age plantations[J]. For Res, 2003, 16(5):560-567.
    [14]
    LUO Yunjian, ZHANG Xiaoquan. The assessment of soil degradation in successive rotations of Chinese fir plantation and the soil ameliotation of mixed plantation of Chinese fir and broad-leaved[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2007, 27(2):715-724.
    [15]
    HUANG Yu, FENG Zhongwei, WANG Silong, et al. Effects of Chinese-fir mixing with N-fixing and non-N fixing tree species on forestland quality and forest-floor solution chemistry[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2004, 24(10):2192-2199.
    [16]
    HUANG Yu, FENG Zhongwei, WANG Silong, et al. C and N stocks under three plantation forest ecosystems of Chinese-fir, Michelia macclurei and their mixture[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2005, 25(12):3146-3154.
    [17]
    WANG Qingkui, WANG Silong, FENG Zhongwei, et al. An overview on studies of organic matter in Chinese fir plantation[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2004, 15(10):1743-1749.
    [18]
    JONARD M, ANDRÉ F, JONARD F, et al. Soil carbon dioxide efflux in pure and mixed stands of oak and beech[J]. Ann For Sci, 2007, 64(2):141-150.
    [19]
    WANG Hui, LIU Shirong, WANG Jingxin, et al. Effects of tree species mixture on soil organic carbon stocks and greenhouse gas fluxes in subtropical stands in China[J]. For Ecol Manage, 2013, 300(4):4-13.
    [20]
    BORKEN W, BEESE F. Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes of soils in pure and mixed stands of European beech and Norway spruce[J]. Eur J Soil Sci, 2006, 57(5):617-625.
    [21]
    TANG Xuli, LIU Shuguang, ZHOU Guoyi, et al. Soil-atmospheric exchange of CO2, CH4, and N2O in three subtropical forest ecosystems in southern China[J]. Global Change Biol, 2006, 12(3):546-560.
    [22]
    ULLAH S, FRASIER R, KING L, et al. Potential fluxes of N2O and CH4 from soils of three forest types in Eastern Canada[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 2008, 40(4):986-994.
    [23]
    FENG Jianxin, GAO Weimin, DENG Fei, et al. Effects of the conversion of natural evergreen broadleaved forest into Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantation on soil microbial properties in subtropical China[J]. J Subtrop Resour Environ[J]. 2015, 10(2):16-24.
    [24]
    ZHANG Lei. Response of Greenhouse Gas Fluxes to The Addition of Nitrogen and Phosphorous in Subtropical Fir Forest[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2013.
    [25]
    LU Jianfang. Fungal and Bacterial Relative Contributions to Soil N2O Production Processesas Affected by Soil Water Contents and Organic Carbon Sources for A Plantation of Cunninghamia lanceolata in Mid-Subtropical China[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Normal University, 2014.
    [26]
    WANG Liang, LI Zijun, WANG Jianlei. Influence of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on soil N2O emissions in Chinese fir plantation ecosystem[J]. J Anhui Agric Sci, 2015, 43(4):69-72.
    [27]
    PU Xiaoting, LIN Weisheng, YANG Yusheng, et al. Vertical profile of soil CO2 flux in a young Chinese fir plantation in response to soil warming[J]. Acta Sci Circumstant, 2017, 37(1):288-297.
    [28]
    FANG Xi, TIAN Dalun, XIANG Wenhua, et al. Soil CO2 release rate and its effect factors in Chinese fir plantation[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2005, 41(2):1-7.
    [29]
    WANG Q K, WANG S L. Soil microbial properties and nutrients in pure and mixed Chinese fir plantations[J]. J For Res, 2008, 19(2):131-135.
    [30]
    VANCE E D, BROOKS P C, JENKINSON D S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass[J]. Soil Biol Biochem, 1987, 19(19):703-707.
    [32]
    LUO Yiqi, ZHOU Xuhui. Soil Respiration and the Environment[M]. Amsterdam:Academic Press, 2006:257-305.
    [33]
    DÍAZ-PINÉS E, SCHINDLBACHER A, GODINO M, et al. Effects of tree species composition on the CO2, and N2O efflux of a Mediterranean mountain forest soil[J]. Plant Soil, 2014, 384(1/2):243-257.
    [34]
    LI Haifang, DUAN Wenjun. Soil CO2 and N2O fluxes from four typical plantations in southern China[J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2011, 28(1):26-32.
    [35]
    CHEN Ling, FAN Hui, JIANG Jingyan. Soil biochemical characteristics in different ecological systems and their relationships with soil respiration and N2O emission[J]. Environ Sci, 2014, 35(8):3102-3109.
    [36]
    CHEN Shidong, MA Hongliang, GAO Ren, et al. Generation of N2O and NO in mid-subtropical forest soil as affected by high N and NO2- contents[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2013, 50(1):120-129.
    [37]
    BOLLMANN A, CONRAD R. Influence of O2 availability on NO and N2O release by nitrification and denitrification in soils[J]. Global Change Biol, 1998, 4(4):387-396.
    [38]
    BAI Zhenzhi. N2O, CH4 Emissions from Soil of A Tropical Mountain Rainforest and Responds to Nutrients Additions in Hainan Island, China[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2014.
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Figures(7)  / Tables(4)

Article views(2520) PDF downloads(113) Cited by()

Related
Proportional views

Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012

Abstract: To investigate the differences in soil CO2 and N2O fluxes as well as CO2 and N2O flux factors from Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) stands (CL) and mixed stands of Chinese fir and Cinnamomum camphora (CL-CC), Castanopsis fargesii (CL-CF), and Alnus cremastogyne (CL-AC), CO2 and N2O fluxes were quantified with a static chamber-gas chromatography method with 5 replications. Results of one-way ANOVA showed that CO2 fluxes in CL (490.48 mg·m-2·h-1) were significantly higher(P < 0.05) than in CL-CF (254.27 mg·m-2·h-1) and CL-AC stands (331.51 mg·m-2·h-1), and N2O fluxes in CL (32.29 μg·m-2·h-1) and CL-AC (32.24 μg·m-2·h-1) were higher(P < 0.05) than in CL-CF (2.66 μg·m-2·h-1). In CL-CF, CL-AC, and CL, a linear relationship was observed between CO2 and soil temperature. Also nitrate-N and water filled pore space (WFPS) were significantly correlated with soil N2O flux. In CL-CF, CL-AC, and CL, an exponential relationship was observed between N2O fluxes and WFPS. A linear relationship was also observed between N2O and nitrate-N. Forest species composition, usually considered an important factor influencing CO2 and N2O fluxes, decreased net CO2 emissions with conversion from a pure Chinese fir stand to a mixed Chinese fir stand with differences in soil N2O flux among the stands possibly being attributed to differences in soil NO3-N content.

XU Rui, JIANG Chunqian, BAI Yanfeng, LIU Xiuhong, WANG Silong. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(2): 307-317. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012
Citation: XU Rui, JIANG Chunqian, BAI Yanfeng, LIU Xiuhong, WANG Silong. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes in pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(2): 307-317. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.02.012
  • 土壤是大气温室气体的主要来源之一[1],是重要的碳库和氮库。全球土壤固定碳量为1 500 Pg[2],土壤(包含施肥的农田)氮总量为133~140 Pg[3]。土壤的变化会引起大气温室气体浓度的变化。土壤每年温室气体净排放达350 Pg二氧化碳当量[4],是人类活动造成的二氧化碳排放的6~7倍[5]。森林约占全球陆地面积的33%,多数森林土壤为二氧化碳(CO2)和氧化亚氮(N2O)的排放源[4, 6]。研究森林土壤是减少温室气体排放的重要基础。杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata是中国南方主要用材树种,杉木人工林约占中国人工林面积的13%[7]。杉木有速生、材质好等优点,不仅具有经济效益,还能固定二氧化碳,发挥着生态效益[8-10]。但杉木纯林存在地力衰退问题[11-13],杉木与阔叶树种混交可以改善土壤理化性质[14-17]。针叶纯林和针-阔混交林土壤温室气体排放通量有显著差异[18-19],不同树种比例下土壤温室气体通量有显著差异[20],针叶纯林与针-阔混交林的林分组成差异对土壤温室气体通量的影响程度和原因还未得到一致的结论。土壤容重、土壤全碳、全氮、硝态氮等是土壤温室气体通量的影响因素[19, 21-22],由于树种组成、土壤和气候的差异,不同森林土壤温室气体通量的主要影响因素不同。大量研究[23-28]显示:杉木纯林土壤温室气体通量受土壤温度、土壤湿度及土壤理化性质的影响。有研究[23]显示:杉木纯林土壤二氧化碳和氧化亚氮排放通量主要受土壤氮的影响。添加氮肥后,杉木林土壤二氧化碳排放通量降低,而氧化亚氮排放通量升高[24, 26]。土壤水分[25]、土壤温度[26]与杉木纯林土壤的氧化亚氮排放通量呈显著相关。土壤温度[27-28]和土壤水分[28]是杉木林土壤二氧化碳排放通量的主要影响因素。杉-阔混交林与杉木纯林相比土壤环境和土壤理化性质有差异,杉木纯林转换为杉木-阔叶树混交林,其温室气体通量的变化及主要影响因素还需要进一步研究。人工林土壤温室气体的排放研究是推算土壤温室气体排放的基础。在估算森林温室气体排放量时,也应考虑树种组成的影响,考虑混交林和纯林土壤温室气体排放通量的差异。本研究以湖南会同森林生态系统国家野外科学观测研究站杉木纯林与3种杉木-阔叶树混交林土壤为研究对象,比较了杉木纯林和杉木-阔叶树混交林的土壤二氧化碳和氧化亚氮排放通量差异及主要影响因素,从而为估算土壤温室气体排放量提供数据支持,为杉木-阔叶树混交林的阔叶树树种的选择提供依据。

  • 本研究在湖南省会同县广坪镇么哨村李家大山(26°50′59″N,109°36′20″E)进行。地貌类型为山地中丘陵,坡度为15~20°,海拔为423~515 m。属于亚热带湿润气候,年均气温为16.5 ℃,年均降水量约1 200 mm。土壤类型为黄壤。

    本研究以杉木纯林(CL)和杉木-樟树Cinnamomum camphora混交林(CL-CC),杉木-栲树Castanopsis fargesii混交林(CL-CF)和杉木-桤木Alnus cremastogyne混交林(CL-AC)为研究对象,4个林分均处于同一山坡的中坡位置,坡向为西北向,坡度约20°(表 1)。樟树、栲树、桤木都是南方常见的绿化树种,其中桤木为固氮树种。4个林分的杉木人工林造林前为一代杉木林,1990年皆伐,于1991年春季采取实生苗造林,株行距为1.67 m × 1.67 m。其中杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林、杉木-樟树混交林中杉木阔叶树木混交比例为8:2。4个林分造林后管理措施一致。

    林分类型 林龄/a 平均树高/m 平均胸径/cm 郁闭度 海拔/m
    杉木-樟树混交林(CL-CC) 27 17.03 25.71 0.70 469~515
    杉木-栲树混交林(CL-CF) 27 15.51 21.96 0.72 429~494
    杉木-桤木混交林(CL-AC) 27 16.56 22.48 0.60 444~499
    杉木纯林(CL) 27 15.80 22.52 0.75 423~468

    Table 1.  General situation of experimental plots

  • 在4个林分中分别设置5个温室气体通量观测点。5个样点呈梅花状分布,上部设置2个,中部1个,下部2个。同一林分内,观测点之间的间隔至少为20 m。混交林中的观测点选择在杉木和阔叶树之间,且观测点与邻近杉木和阔叶树树木的距离相等;杉木纯林中的观测点选择在杉木之间,观测点与邻近2株杉木的距离相等。

  • 2017年7-12月,每月中旬选择非降水且天气稳定的3 d,在每个观测点采用静态箱-气相色谱法确定土壤温室气体排放通量。静态箱由不透光的PVC管制作而成,分为底箱和顶箱2个部分。底箱在测定土壤温室气体通量1个月前,固定在选定的观测点土壤中。底箱插入土壤约7 cm,上沿露出土壤2 cm,尽量避开树木的根。在整个测量期间保持底箱位置不变,用于定期测量土壤温室气体排放速率。顶箱内安装直径12 cm风扇,用于混匀箱内气体;箱侧壁装置电子温度传感器,测定静态箱箱内温度。在测定前1 d,在尽量避免扰动底箱内部土壤的情况下,剪除底箱内的植物。

    土壤温室气体排放通量数据采集时间为每天的9:00-12:00。取样时,将静态箱顶箱置于底座上,密封。扣箱0,10,20和30 min后从箱体中抽取100 mL气体,注入气体样品袋。气体样品在1周内使用气相色谱仪(Agilent 7890B, Agilent Co., )完成测定(表 2)。得到气体样品的二氧化碳和氧化亚氮气体浓度,计算出二氧化碳和氧化亚氮气体通量,公式如下:

    气体 检测器 T测定器/℃ T柱温/℃ 载气 载气流速/ (mL·min-1) t/min
    二氧化碳 氢火焰离子化检测器(FID) 250 60 氮气 25 5.4
    氧化亚氮 微量池电子捕获检测器(uECD) 350 60 氩甲烷 5 6.8

    Table 2.  Operating parameter of gas chromatograph

    式(1)中:F为土壤气体净交换通量(二氧化碳单位mg·m-2·h-1,氧化亚氮单位μg·m-2·h-1);ρ为标准状态下被测气体的气体密度(kg·m-3);VA分别为静态箱的有效体积(m3)和静态箱观测的土壤面积(m2);P为采样点大气压(kPa);P0为标准状态下的大气压(101.325 kPa);T为静态箱内气体温度(K);T0为标准状态下被测气体的温度(273.15 K);$\frac{{{\rm{d}}{C_t}}}{{{\rm{d}}t}}$为静态箱内被测气体随时间变化的直线斜率。

    采集气体样品的同时,用温度传感器测量取样点大气温度和土壤10 cm处温度。采集地表 10 cm处土壤,采用烘干法测定土壤10 cm处含水率,并将结果转换为土壤孔隙含水量(water filled pore space, WFPS)。

  • 2017年7-12月,每月采集土壤样品,采集静态箱30 cm范围内的0~20 cm层扰动土。土壤样品采用多点取样,清除静态箱周围30 cm范围内土壤表面凋落物,使用直径5 cm的土钻在每个观测点随机取3个土壤,3个土壤均匀混合作为1个待测土壤样品。土样带回室内后去除肉眼可见的根系和石块等,并过2.00 mm筛。土壤样品分为2份:1份在室温下阴干以测定土壤全碳、全氮和土壤pH;另一份新鲜土样用于测定铵态氮等。取过0.25 mm筛的风干土0.1 g,用元素分析仪测定土壤全碳、全氮,并计算碳氮比[29]。风干土壤样品采用电位法[m(水):m(土)=2.5:10.0]测定土壤pH值。取过2.00 mm筛的新鲜土壤样品分别测定土壤铵态氮、硝态氮(氯化钾浸提-比色法)[19]和土壤微生物量碳、微生物量氮(氯仿熏蒸-硫酸钾浸提-TOC仪测定)[30]。土壤容重、土壤最大持水量的测定参考《森林土壤水分-物理性质的测定》[31]的环刀法。

  • 采用单因素方差分析、Duncan多重比较、非参数检验方法检验不同林分间温室气体通量差异的显著性。采用Pearson相关和回归分析确定土壤理化性质与土壤温室气体排放量的关系。采用SPSS 19.0进行统计分析,用Excel和Origin进行图表制作。

  • 杉木纯林的土壤二氧化碳通量(490.48 mg·m-2·h-1)最高,显著高于杉木-栲树混交林(254.27 mg·m-2·h-1)和杉木-桤木混交林(331.51 mg·m-2·h-1),分别高出92.90%和47.95%;与杉木-樟树混交林(487.92 mg·m-2·h-1)相比差异不显著(P>0.05,图 1A)。

    Figure 1.  Mean CO2 (A) and N2O (B) fluxes of soil in pure and mixed Chinese fir stands

    杉木人工林的土壤氧化亚氮排放通量从高到低依次为杉木-桤木混交林(32.29 μg·m-2·h-1),杉木纯林(32.24 μg·m-2·h-1),杉木-樟树混交林(26.08 μg·m-2·h-1),杉木-栲树混交林(2.66 μg·m-2·h-1)。土壤氧化亚氮排放通量呈指数分布而非正态分布,故采用非参数检验。结果显示:杉木-桤木混交林和杉木纯林土壤氧化亚氮的排放通量显著高于杉木-栲树混交林(P<0.05,图 1B)。

  • 表 3可以看出:杉木纯林、杉木-樟树混交林、杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林的土壤容重差异不显著。杉木-桤木混交林土壤pH值显著低于其他林分。不同林分间土壤全碳和全氮质量分数差异显著,土壤全碳质量分数从大到小依次为杉木-桤木混交林,杉木-樟树混交林,杉木-栲树混交林,杉木纯林;土壤全氮质量分数从大到小依次为杉木-桤木混交林,杉木-栲树混交林,杉木纯林,杉木-樟树混交林。但不同林分间土壤二氧化碳和氧化亚氮排放通量与土壤容重、土壤pH值、土壤全碳和全氮质量分数无显著差异(P>0.05)。

    林分 T土壤/℃ WFPS/% ρ土壤/(g·cm-3) pH w全碳/ (g·kg-1) w全氮/ (g·kg-1) w铵态氮/ (g·kg-1) w硝态氮/ (g·kg-1) w微生物量碳/ (g·kg-1) w微生物量氮/ (g·kg-1)
    CL-CC 18.44±6.70a 73.57±5.94c 1.25±0.01 a 4.55±0.03 a 13.20±0.21b 1.28±0.01 c 5.80±0.44a 1.30±0.26b 371.75±62.68a 156.40±45.33 a
    CL-CF 18.51±6.93a 78.29±5.71 b 1.30±0.03a 4.52±0.03 a 12.78±0.08 c 1.34±0.01 b 5.11±0.38a 0.33±0.11 b 421.86±58.58a 195.87±49.34a
    CL-AC 19.12±6.78a 74.17±8.60c 1.26±0.04a 3.93±0.03 c 14.71±0.12a 1.51±0.03a 4.85±0.40a 3.00±0.55 a 359.51±119.85a 166.05±41.73a
    CL 19.39±6.94a 76.99±7.80a 1.28±0.01 a 4.43±0.02b 11.91±0.09d 1.39±0.01 b 5.23±0.42a 1.09±0.23b 423.14±126.80a 201.07±50.60a
    说明:数据为平均值±标准误。同列不同小写字母表示不同林分间差异显著(P < 0.05)

    Table 3.  Soil physical and chemical properties of pure and mixed stands of Chinese fir (0-20 cm)

    表 4可见:不同林分间土壤10 cm处温度差异不显著;而杉木纯林土壤WFPS显著高于3种杉木-阔叶树混交林,其中杉木-栲树混交林显著高于杉木-樟树混交林和杉木-桤木混交林。不同林分间,土壤铵态氮、微生物量碳、微生物量氮之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。而Pearson相关分析显示:杉木人工林土壤二氧化碳排放通量与铵态氮呈极显著正相关关系(P<0.01),与微生物氮呈显著正相关(P<0.05),与土壤微生物量碳无显著相关关系(P>0.05);土壤氧化亚氮通量与土壤铵态氮、微生物碳、微生物氮相关不显著(P>0.05)。土壤氧化亚氮通量与硝态氮呈极显著正相关关系(P<0.01)。

    气体 土壤温度 WFPS 铵态氮 硝态氮 微生物量碳 微生物量氮
    二氧化碳 0.423** 0.155 0.380** 0.219* -0.213 0.224*
    氧化亚氮 0.267** 0.532** 0.177 0.541** 0.044 -0.207
    说明:*表示P < 0.05,**表示P < 0.01

    Table 4.  Relationships between soil greenhouse gases fluxes and soil properties of Chinese fir plantations (n=120)

    部分影响因素与土壤温室气体通量结合进行回归分析,结果显示:杉木-樟树混交林中土壤10 cm处温度与土壤二氧化碳通量之间没有显著性相关关系(P>0.05),而在杉木-栲树混交林(R2=0.25,P<0.05)、杉木-桤木混交林(R2=0.29,P<0.05)、杉木纯林(R2=0.25,P<0.05)中,土壤10 cm处温度与土壤二氧化碳通量呈显著线性相关(图 2)。在杉木-桤木混交林中,土壤二氧化碳通量与10 cm处WFPS之间存在显著线性关系(R2=0.21,P<0.05),而在杉木-樟树混交林、杉木-栲树混交林、杉木纯林中,土壤二氧化碳通量与土壤10 cm处WFPS无显著相关(P>0.05,图 3)。

    Figure 2.  Relationships between soil CO2 fluxes and temperature at the depth of 10 cm

    Figure 3.  Relationships between soil CO2 fluxes and WFPS at the depth of 10 cm

    杉木-栲树混交林土壤氧化亚氮通量与土壤10 cm处温度显著相关(R2=0.13,P<0.05),而在其他3个林分中未发现这种关系(P>0.05);杉木-樟树混交林(R2=0.14,P<0.05)土壤氧化亚氮通量与土壤10 cm处WFPS呈显著线性关系(图 4),杉木-栲树混交林(R2=0.61,P<0.05),杉木-桤木混交林(R2=0.96,P<0.05),杉木纯林(R2=0.71,P<0.05)的土壤10 cm处WFPS与土壤氧化亚氮通量呈显著的指数关系(图 5)。土壤氧化亚氮通量随土壤10 cm处WFPS上升而增加,在杉木-栲树混交林和杉木-桤木混交林中,当WFPS升高至80%时,土壤氧化亚氮通量急剧升高,杉木纯林则在土壤WFPS升高至90%时急剧升高。

    Figure 4.  Relationships between soil N2O fluxes and temperature at the depth of 10 cm

    Figure 5.  Relationships between soil N2O fluxes and WFPS at the depth of 10 cm

    4种林分中,土壤氧化亚氮通量都与土壤硝态氮呈显著正相关(P<0.05,图 6)。仅在杉木-栲树混交林和杉木纯林中,土壤二氧化碳通量与土壤铵态氮呈显著正相关(P<0.05,图 7)。

    Figure 6.  Relationships between soil N2O fluxes and NO3-

    Figure 7.  Relationships between soil CO2 fluxes and NH4+

  • 本研究中,杉木纯林土壤二氧化碳通量显著高于杉木-栲树混交林和杉木-桤木混交林,与杉木-樟树混交林差异不显著。森林土壤二氧化碳通量主要来源于根系的自养呼吸和土壤微生物及土壤动物的异养呼吸[32]。不同研究的森林土壤温室气体通量影响因素不同。DÍAZ-PINÉS等[33]研究显示:针叶纯林的土壤二氧化碳排放通量比针阔混交林高,针叶纯林较高的土壤有机碳解释了这一结果。也有研究结果与之相反,WANG等[19]的实验显示:马尾松Pinus massoniana纯林土壤的二氧化碳通量低于马尾松-红椎Castanopsis hystrix针阔混交林,差异来源于细根生物量、叶凋落物量、土壤氮和土壤碳氮比。其影响因素较多,机理复杂。针叶纯林与针阔混交林土壤二氧化碳通量差异可能来源于针叶纯林和针阔混交林的细根生物量、凋落物量、土壤有机碳、土壤全氮、土壤碳氮比的差异,也可能是由于树种组成不同导致的森林内部微气候改变,如土壤温度、土壤湿度[19, 30]。本研究中,土壤二氧化碳通量与土壤10 cm处温度呈极显著正相关,与大量研究结果一致[19-20, 30],温度会影响土壤微生物的活性,进而影响土壤二氧化碳通量。本研究中,土壤二氧化碳通量与土壤铵态氮显著正相关,但不同林分间土壤铵态氮差异不显著,且不同林分的土壤铵态氮与土壤二氧化碳通量的关系较差,土壤铵态氮质量分数的差异可能并不是造成不同林分二氧化碳通量差异的主要原因。

  • 树种组成对土壤氧化亚氮通量有影响。BORKEN等[20]发现欧洲云杉Picea abies-欧洲山毛榉Fagus sylvatica混交林土壤氧化亚氮通量高于欧洲云杉纯林土壤。本研究中,杉木纯林和杉木-桤木混交林的土壤氧化亚氮通量显著高于杉木-栲树混交林,杉木纯林和杉木-阔叶树混交林土壤氧化亚氮通量受树种影响。土壤氧化亚氮通量与硝态氮呈极显著正相关。这与许多亚热带土壤温室气体排放的研究结果基本一致[25, 34],而与陈玲等[35]的研究结果不一致。可能是陈玲等[35]的研究以南方农田、竹林等不同生态系统土壤为研究对象,其土壤氧化亚氮主要来源于硝化反应,而杉木人工林土壤氧化亚氮主要来源于反硝化作用[25],释放的氧化亚氮多来源于硝态氮库[36]。由此推断:杉木-栲树混交林土壤硝态氮显著低于其他3种林分,可能是杉木-栲树混交林的氧化亚氮通量较低的主要原因。

    土壤湿度影响参与硝化和反硝化作用的微生物活性[4],还会影响土壤透气性、土壤氧含量[37]。土壤湿度较大情况下,土壤处于厌氧环境,促进了反硝化作用。本研究中,杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林、杉木纯林土壤的氧化亚氮通量随土壤WFPS增加而呈指数型增加,在较低湿度条件下(低于80%~90%WFPS),土壤氧化亚氮通量维持在一个较低的水平,这与白贞智[38]的研究结果一致。本研究中各林分的土壤氧化亚氮通量对土壤10 cm处WFPS的响应略有差异,这可能是土壤中硝态氮质量分数不同造成的。杉木-栲树混交林土壤硝态氮质量分数显著低于其他林分,其土壤氧化亚氮排放通量总体水平较低,且在不同WFPS条件下的差异较小。杉木-桤木混交林土壤硝态氮质量分数较高,土壤氧化亚氮排放通量显著高于杉木-栲树混交林,高于杉木纯林和杉木-樟树混交林但差异不显著;且不同WFPS条件间土壤氧化亚氮排放通量差异较大,土壤氧化亚氮通量与土壤10 cm处WFPS的回归拟合效果最佳(R2=0.96,P<0.05)。在土壤硝态氮质量分数较高,氮源充足的情况下,土壤WFPS是土壤氧化亚氮通量的主要影响因素。

  • 杉木纯林、杉木-樟树混交林、杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林土壤均表现为二氧化碳和氧化亚氮的源。不同林分的树种组成不同,土壤温室气体排放有差异。不同林分之间土壤二氧化碳通量有差异,杉木纯林土壤二氧化碳通量显著高于杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林,与杉木-樟树混交林差异不显著。杉木-栲树混交林土壤氧化亚氮通量显著低于其他林分。

    温度是土壤二氧化碳通量的主要影响因素。土壤硝态氮质量分数和土壤WFPS是土壤氧化亚氮排放通量的主要影响因素,是造成杉木纯林、杉木-樟树混交林、杉木-栲树混交林、杉木-桤木混交林土壤氧化亚氮通量差异的主要原因。

Reference (38)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return