Soil organic carbon distribution and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different forest types of Shanghai City

ZHANG Qingqing; ZHANG Guilian; WU Haibing; ZHONG Qicheng; HE Xiaoli; CHEN Ping; ZHU Qing; XU Bing; LIANG Jing

doi:10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.005

Volume 36 Issue 6

Oct. 2019

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Zhejiang A&F University > 2019 > 36(6): 1087-1095

ZHANG Qingqing, ZHANG Guilian, WU Haibing, ZHONG Qicheng, HE Xiaoli, CHEN Ping, ZHU Qing, XU Bing, LIANG Jing. Soil organic carbon distribution and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different forest types of Shanghai City[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(6): 1087-1095. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.005

Citation:

ZHANG Qingqing, ZHANG Guilian, WU Haibing, ZHONG Qicheng, HE Xiaoli, CHEN Ping, ZHU Qing, XU Bing, LIANG Jing. Soil organic carbon distribution and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different forest types of Shanghai City[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(6): 1087-1095. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.005

Soil organic carbon distribution and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different forest types of Shanghai City

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.005

ZHANG Qingqing^{1,2
,},
ZHANG Guilian^1,2,
WU Haibing^1,2,
ZHONG Qicheng^1,2,
HE Xiaoli^1,2,
CHEN Ping^1,2,
ZHU Qing^1,2,
XU Bing^1,2,
LIANG Jing^{1,2
,
,}

1.
Shanghai Academy of Landscape Architecture Science and Planning, Shanghai 200232, China
2.
Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Landscaping on Challenging Urban Sites, Shanghai 200232, China

Received Date: 2018-12-13
Rev Recd Date: 2019-02-07
Publish Date: 2019-12-20

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (SOC) affects the balance of the global climate ecosystem and is of great importance in guiding global climate change. To understand the effect of urban forest types on soil carbon content and density on the urban ecosystem, samples of soil profiles under seven types of forestry were collected from Shanghai City. The distribution of organic carbon content and density in different forests and different soil layers (0-10, 10-30, and 30-100 cm) were analyzed, and the relationships between SOC content and soil physicochemical properties by the Pearson Correlation analysis and stepwise elimination regression method was discussed. Results showed that:The average SOC content of 1 m-depth soil in Shanghai forests showed that other soft broadleaf forest > Cinnamomum camphora forest > economic forest > broadleaf mixed forest > Metasequoia glyptostroboides forest > coniferous and broadleaf mixed forest>other hard broadleaf forest, while the organic carbon density of 1 m-depth soil in Shanghai forests showed Cinnamomum camphora forest > other soft broadleaf forest > economic forest > broadleaf mixed forest > coniferous and broadleaf mixed forest > Metasequoia glyptostroboides forest>other hard broadleaf forest. SOC content in the 0-10 cm layer was significantly different from the 10-30 cm layer depending on vegetation types (P < 0.05). The average SOC content and density per 10 cm layer thickness gradually decreased in the profile, except for the economic forest. The main controlling factor for the change of SOC content in the camphor forest, other soft broadleaf forest, other hard broadleaf forest, and coniferous broadleaf mixed forest was hydrolyzed nitrogen. The main influencing factor of SOC content in the broadleaf mixed forest, and Metasequoia glyptostroboides forest was total nitrogen.
- forest soil science,
- urban forest,
- organic carbon content,
- organic carbon density,
- bulk density,
- total nitrogen

Relative Article

[1]	ZHU Danmiao, CHEN Junhui, JIANG Peikun. Research progress on soil organic carbon and microbial characteristics of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation and their influencing factors . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2021, 38(5): 973-984. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200598
[2]	LI Hua, CAI Jianjun, WU Cuihua, ZHANG Lili, YUAN An, KANG Yongxiang. Distribution characteristics and influencing factors of soil carbon and nitrogen under different vegetation types in Zibaishan National Nature Reserve . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2021, 38(3): 485-493. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200509
[3]	LI Zhichao, ZHANG Yongqiang, HOU Lingyu, SONG Liguo, SUN Qiwu. Response of soil microorganism to stand density in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(1): 76-84. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.01.010
[4]	ZHU Rongwei, GE Zhiwei, RUAN Honghua, XU Jin, PENG Sili. Fractal dimension of soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon with nitrogen additions . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(4): 656-663. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.04.004
[5]	HE Shan, LIU Juan, JIANG Peikun, ZHOU Guomo, WANG Huilai, LI Yongfu, WU Jiasen. Effects of forest management on soil organic carbon pool: a review . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(4): 818-827. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.04.023
[6]	ZHANG Jiayang, LIN Fang, ZHAN Naicai, REN Min. Morphological structure, composition, and organic carbon characteristics of soil agglomerations for alfalfa and ryegrass planting patterns . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2019, 36(6): 1077-1086. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.004
[7]	DAI Aona, LIU Xiaoxiao, WANG Bing, DAI Wei. Annual spatial and temporal variations of soil organic carbon and its components in Castanopsis fargesii forest . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2018, 35(3): 405-411. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2018.03.003
[8]	GU Zhongchun, LI Guangrong, LI Junzhang, DU Yeyun, WANG Xiao. Organic matter in forest soils determined with spectrophotometry and optimized by orthogonal testing . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(2): 239-243. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.02.006
[9]	SHI Hongjing, MA Shanshan, ZHAO Keli, YE Liqian, LI Hao, SHEN Ying, ZHAO Weiming, YE Zhengqian. Effect of organic materials on improvement of Carya cathayensis forest acidic soil . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(4): 670-678. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.04.013
[10]	SUN Pengyue, XU Fuli, WANG Weiling, WANG Lingling, NIU Ruilong, GAO Xing, BAI Xiaofang. Seasonal dynamics of soil nutrients and soil enzyme activities in Larix principis-rupprechtii plantations . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2016, 33(6): 944-952. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.06.004
[11]	ZHU Renhuan, LI Wei, ZHENG Zicheng, LI Tingxuan, HONG Yue, HE Qiujia, TIAN Zongqu. Ecological stoichiometry of soil C, N, and P for returning farmland to tea plantations . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2016, 33(4): 612-619. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.04.009
[12]	XU Li, ZHOU Wei, YU Yuanchun, WANG Mei, HOU Wenjun, XU Changbai, DAI Cheng. Soil properties and poplar growth with pig manure biogas slurry . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2015, 32(2): 204-207. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.02.006
[13]	SHENG Weixing, WU Jiasen, XU Jianchun, ZHANG Shaowei, CAI Jianrong. Years of cultivation along with light and high fractions of soil organic carbon in a Carya cathayensis forest . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2015, 32(5): 803-808. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.05.022
[14]	SHAO Xinghua, WANG Aibin. Organic carbon and black carbon with fertilization in paddy and upland soils . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2014, 31(4): 554-559. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2014.04.010
[15]	SONG Zheyue, SONG Zhaoliang, SHAN Shengdao. Distribution of organic carbon with pig manure amendments in a paddy soil . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2013, 30(2): 157-164. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2013.02.001
[16]	YE Ling-yan, FU Wei-jun, JIANG Pei-kun, LI Yong-fu, ZHANG Guo-jiang, DU Qun. Spatial variation of basic chemical properties and organic carbon storage for forest top-soil in Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2012, 29(6): 803-810. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.06.001
[17]	SONG Zhe-yue, SONG Zhao-liang, SHAN Sheng-dao. Particle fractionation and organic carbon content in coastal saline soils with natural fallow and pig slurry amendments . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2011, 28(2): 214-218. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2011.02.007
[18]	CHEN Shi-quan, HUANG Jian-qin, HUANG Xing-zhao, LOU Zhong3, LV Jian-quan, XIA Guo-hua, WU Jia-sen. Nutrient elements in soil and Carya cathayensis leaves from four parent rock materials . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2010, 27(4): 572-578. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2010.04.016
[19]	XU Gui-lin, FANG Xi, TIAN Da-lun, TANG Zhi-juan, ZHANG Zhu-san. Soil organic carbon：distribution and storage with five regeneration patterns in Cunninghamia lanceolata forests . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(3): 333-340.
[20]	LI Zheng-cai, FUMao-yi, YANG Xiao-sheng. Review on effects of management disturbance on forest soil organic carbon . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2005, 22(4): 469-474.

References

[1]	DAVIDSON E A, TRUMBORE S E, AMUNDSON R. Biogeochemistry:soil warming and organic carbon content[J].Nature, 2000, 408(6814):789-790.
[2]	LETTENS S, van ORSHOVEN J, van WESEMAEL B, et al. Stocks and fluxes of soil organic carbon for landscape units in Belgium derived from heterogeneous data sets for 1990 and 2000[J]. Geoderma, 2005, 127(1):11-23.
[3]	WEI Yawei, YU Dapao, WANG Qingjun, et al. Soil organic carbon density and its influencing factors of major forest types in the forest region of Northeast China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2013, 24(12):3333-3340.
[4]	LIU Wei, CHENG Jimin, CHEN Furong, et al. Characteristic of organic carbon density and organic carbon storage in the natural grassland of Center Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Agrestia Sin, 2011, 19(3):425-431.
[5]	AJAMI M, HEIDARI A, KHORMALI F, et al. Environmental factors controlling soil organic carbon storage in loess soils of a subhumid region, northern Iran[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 281:1-10.
[6]	PAGELLA T F. Soil organic carbon density in Hebei Province, China:estimates and uncertainty[J]. Pedosphere, 2005, 15(3):293-300.
[7]	XIE Xianli, SUN Bo, ZHOU Huizhen, et al. Organic carbon density and storage in soils of China and spatial analysis[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2004, 41(1):35-43.
[8]	CHENG Xianfu, XIE Yong. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon density in Anhui Province based on GIS[J]. Geogr Sci, 2009, 29(4):540-544.
[9]	HAO Ruijun, FANG Hailan, SHEN Lieying. Distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in greenbelt soil in Shanghai center city[J]. J Nanjing For Univ Nat Sci Ed, 2011, 35(6):49-52.

[11]	ZHOU Li, LI Baoguo, ZHOU Guangsheng. Advances in controlling factors of soil organic carbon[J]. Adv Earth Sci, 2005, 20(1):99-105.
[12]	PREGITZER K S, EUSKIRCHEN ES. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests:biome patterns related to forest age[J]. Global Change Biol, 2004, 10(12):2052-2077.
[13]	JOBBÁGY E G, JACKSON R B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and it's relation to climate and vegetation[J]. Ecol Appl, 2000, 10(2):423-436.
[14]	XIONG Yong, XU Guangqin, WU Lan. Progress on non-additive effects of mixed litter decomposition[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2012, 35(9):56-60, 120.
[15]	PAN Wei. The Forest Health and the Technique of Limestone Improvement on Acid Soil in Tieshanping, Chongqing[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2008.
[16]	DONG Caixia, JIANG Haibo, ZHAO Jingwen, et al. Current fertilization in pear orchards in China[J]. Soils, 2012, 44(5):754-761.
[17]	ZHOU Yanxiang, LÜ Maokui, XIE Jinsheng, et al. Sources, characteristics and stability of organic carbon in deep soil[J]. J Subtrop Resour Environ, 2013, 8(1):48-55.
[18]	SHI Lijiang, ZHENG Libo, ZHANG Weiguo, et al. Reserves and spatial distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon in Shanghai City[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2010, 19(12):1442-1447.
[19]	XIE Xianli, SUN Bo, ZHOU Huizhen, et al. Soil carbon stocks and their influencing factors under native vegetations in China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2004, 41(5):687-699.
[20]	SHEN Guangrong, GE Xiaoye, HUANG Xiumei. Spatial distribution of topsoil organic carbon density and assessment of its reserves in Chongming Island, Shanghai[J]. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ Agric Sci, 2011, 29(6):61-66.
[21]	SUN Yanli, MA Jianhua, LI Can. Variations of the content and density of urban soil organic carbon in Kaifeng City[J]. J Henan Univ Nat Sci, 2008, 38(5):491-496.
[22]	FAN Xiaohui, WANG Decai, SUN Xiaolin, et al. Relationships between soil organic carbon density of Eucalyptus plantations and terrain factors in Nanning[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016, 36(13):4074-4080.
[23]	ZHAO Min, HU Jing, TANG Qinghe. Evaluation of soil carbon sinks in Shanghai[J]. Administration Tech Environ Monit, 2012, 24(5):17-22.
[24]	HUANG Zhongqiu, FU Weijun, ZHOU Guomo, et al. Characteristics of spatial variation of organic carbon density in forest soil and their affecting factors in Zhejiang Province[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2014, 51(4):906-913.
[25]	CHENG Xiaoqin. Responses of Soil Carbon Character to Tree Density in Pinus tabulaeformis Plantations in Mt. Taiyue, Shanxi, China[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2014.
[26]	DU Youxin, WU Congjian, ZHOU Saixia, et al. Forest soil organic carbon density and its distribution characteristics along an altitudinal gradient in Lushan Mountains of China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2011, 22(7):1675-1681.
[27]	FANG Yunting, MO Jangming, BROWN S, et al. Storage and distribution of soil organic carbon in Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2004, 24(1):135-142.
[28]	ZHU Wankuan, CHEN Shaoxiong, ARNOLD R, et al. Temporal and spatial dynamics of soil respiration and influencing factors in Eucalyptus plantations[J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2018, 35(3):412-421.
[29]	DAI Wanhong, HUANG Yao, WU Li, et al. Relationships between soil organic matter content (SOM) and pH in topsoil of zonal soils in China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2009, 46(5):851-860.
[30]	GUO Zhihua, ZHANG Li, GUO Yanru, et al. Soil carbon sequestration and its relationship with soil pH in Qinglangang Mangrove Wetlands in Hainan Island[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2014, 50(10):8-15.
[31]	LI Dan, LIU Tienan, WANG Wenfan, et al. Distribution of soil organic carbon and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in Fenglin Nature Reserve[J]. For Sci Technol, 2012, 37(5):25-26.
[32]	Xiuhua. Study on the Relationship Between Soil Microorganisms and Soil Physicochemical Properties in Different Habitats of Leymus chinensis Grassland in Northeast China[D]. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2003.
[33]	HOU Hao, ZHANG Songzhi, GUAN Jinhong, et al. Accumulation of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata forests at different age stages in the Xiaolongshan Mountains, Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016, 36(24):8025-8033.
[34]	ZHANG Huidong, YOU Wenzhong, WEI Wenjun, et al. Soil physical and chemical properties and correlation with organic carbon in original Korean pine forest in Eastern Liaoning mountainous area[J]. J Northwest Univ A & F Sci Technol Nat Sci Ed, 2017, 45(1):82-88.

Proportional views

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

Tables(5)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article views(3523) PDF downloads(67) Cited by()

Proportional views

HTML

土壤有机碳作为土壤的重要组成部分，其含量约占陆地生物圈碳库的2/3，是大气碳库的3倍。土壤碳库的微小变化都会影响全球有机碳库的收支平衡^[1]，因此，土壤碳库在全球碳循环中具有重要地位^[2]。林地作为陆地生态建设的核心，具有较强的固碳作用和碳汇能力，在全球碳循环中发挥着不可替代的作用，其固碳能力在林地建设管理中扮演着至关重要的角色。已有研究发现^[3]：中国东北林区不同森林类型的土壤有机碳含量和有机碳密度均以表层土壤最高，且随土壤深度的增加逐渐减少，但随森林类型和林龄的变化并不显著。刘伟等^[4]发现黄土高原中部4种类型草地的土壤有机碳密度从大到小依次为高寒草甸草原、典型草原、森林草原、荒漠草原，各草地类型土壤有机碳含量和土壤碳密度也均随深度增加呈减少趋势。AJAMI等^[5]分析了伊朗北部的托山流域的森林、农田、果园和撂荒地的土壤有机碳密度，发现表层30 cm土壤有机碳密度占100 cm土壤有机碳密度的54.8%。但目前土壤有机碳含量与密度的研究主要集中于森林、农田、草地等自然土壤^[6-8]，缺乏对人为干扰性较大的城市土壤有机碳的研究，即便有少量关于城市土壤有机碳的研究，也以城市绿地土壤有机碳分布特征为主^[9]，而对城市林地土壤有机碳特征关注较少。因此，本研究以中国特大城市上海为研究对象，选取樟树Cinnamomum camphora林、阔叶混交林、其他硬阔林、针阔混交林、水杉Metasequoia glyptostroboioles林、经济林等林地，分析不同林地土壤有机碳质量分数及密度的分布特征，并将土壤主要理化性质与土壤有机碳质量分数进行相关分析，探讨影响上海林地土壤碳库的因素，为科学合理利用土壤资源，制定增强土壤碳库的林地管理措施提供指导。

1. 材料与方法

1.1. 研究区概况

上海市（30°40′~31°53′N，120°52′~122°12′E）位于太平洋西岸，亚洲大陆东沿，是长江三角洲冲积平原的一部分，平均海拔高度4 m左右。气候温和湿润，属亚热带季风性气候，四季分明，日照充分，雨量充沛。2017年，上海市年平均气温为17.7 ℃，年均降水量约1 600.0 mm，各区气候差异不大。本研究中林地均为人工林，不存在地形营造。土壤以粉砂质黏壤土为主。

1.2. 样品采集

根据上海林地的分布情况，于2017年7月进行样品采集，涉及的林地类型有樟树林、阔叶混交林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林、针阔混交林、水杉林和经济林，共计66块样地。每个样地设置3个土壤剖面，每个剖面分3层（0~10，10~30，30~100 cm）进行样品采集，且每层土壤样品均由3个土壤剖面同一层次混合而成，样地数详见表 1。将采集的土壤样品自然风干，并剔除石砾、根系等杂物后粉碎分别过2.000和0.149 mm筛备用。同时，每个土层均采集5个环刀样用于土壤容重测定，容重为5个环刀样的平均值。

林地类型	优势种	样地数
樟树林	樟树 Cinnamomum camphora	7
阔叶混交林	樟树，女贞 Ligustrum lucidum，无患子 Sapindus mukorossi，柳树 Salix	15
其他软阔林	鹅掌楸 Liriodendron chinense，杜英 Elaeocarpus decipiens	6
其他硬阔林	栾树 Koelreuteria paniculata，女贞，广玉兰 Magnolia grandiflora	14
针阔混交林	构树 Broussonetia papyrifera，樱花 Cerasus sp.，樟树，白玉兰 Michelia alba，水杉 Metasequoia glyptostroboides，国槐 Sophora japonica	10
水杉林	水杉	10
经济林	梨树 Pyrus	4
合计		66

Table 1. Basic information of forests in Shanghai

1.3. 分析方法

土壤容重采用环刀法测定；pH值采用电极法测定（水土比2.5:1.0）；电导率采用电导率仪测定（水土比5:1）；土壤全氮采用凯氏定氮法测定（KDN-812定氮仪）；土壤碱解氮采用碱解-扩散法测定；土壤全磷采用碱熔-钼锑抗比色法测定；土壤速效磷采用碳酸氢钠浸提法测定；土壤有机碳采用重铬酸钾-外加热法测定^[10]。

1.4. 数据处理与分析

土壤剖面第i层的有机碳密度计算公式为D_SODi=w_SODi×B_Di×H_i×（i-α）/10。土壤剖面有机碳密度计算公式为${D_{{\rm{SOD}}}} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{D_{{\rm{SOD}}i}}} $。其中：w_SODi为第i层的土壤有机碳质量分数（g·kg^-1），B_Di为第i层的土壤容重（g·cm^-3），H_i为第i层的土层厚度（cm），α为土壤中＞2 mm的粗颗粒的体积百分含量，n为土层数（n=3）。

应用SAS 9.0软件中Duncan多重检验法检验不同林地类型之间、土层之间的土壤有机碳质量分数、密度的差异显著性（P＜0.05），Pearson相关性分析方法、逐步剔除回归法进行数据统计分析与处理。

2. 结果与分析

2.1. 不同林地类型土壤有机碳质量分数分布特征

从表 2可以发现：其他软阔林的表层（0~10 cm）土壤有机碳质量分数最高（15.04 g·kg^-1），针阔混交林的表层有机碳最少（9.58 g·kg^-1）。就0~100 cm整个土壤剖面而言，7种林地土壤有机碳平均质量分数从大到小依次为其他软阔林、樟树林、经济林、阔叶混交林、水杉林、针阔混交林、其他硬阔林。在垂向上，除经济林外，其他林地的土壤有机碳质量分数均随着土层深度的增加而呈不同程度的降低。

林地类型	不同土层土壤有机碳/（g·kg^-1）
林地类型	0~10	10~30	30~100 cm	平均值
樟树林	12.09 ± 5.52 Aab	9.33 ± 2.98 ABab	6.76 ± 3.70 Ba	7.81 ± 3.07 a
阔叶混交林	11.72 ± 3.96 Aab	7.95 ± 3.26 Bb	6.37 ± 3.67 Ba	7.22 ± 2.86 a
其他软阔林	15.04 ± 2.77 Aa	9.04 ± 1.98 Bab	6.44 ± 1.04 Ca	7.82 ± 0.72 a
其他硬阔林	13.23 ± 4.91 Aab	7.68 ± 4.15 Bb	5.00 ± 2.01 Ba	6.36 ± 2.04 a
针阔混交林	9.58 ± 4.66 Ab	6.95 ± 3.12 Ab	6.16 ± 3.80 Aa	6.66 ± 3.41 a
水杉林	12.85 ± 5.83 Aab	8.66 ± 4.67 Bab	5.71 ± 2.58 Ba	7.01 ± 3.15 a
经济林	10.82 ± 1.96 ABab	12.29 ± 5.41 Aa	5.41 ± 3.34 Ba	7.33 ± 2.45 a
说明：小写字母表示不同林地同一土层差异显著（P＜0.05），大写字母表示同一林地不同土层差异显著（P＜0.05）

Table 2. Soil organic carbon content in different soil layers and different forests

不同林地类型不同土层的土壤有机碳质量分数差异性不同。就0~10 cm土层而言，其他软阔林土壤有机碳质量分数明显高于针阔混交林（P＜0.05），但这两者均与其他林地0~10 cm土壤有机碳差异不显著。在10~30 cm土层，经济林与阔叶混交林、其他硬阔林、针阔混交林的土壤有机碳质量分数差异显著（P＜0.05），与其他林地差异不显著。在30~100 cm土层，各林地土壤有机碳质量分数差异均不显著。

就同一林地而言，樟树林0~10 cm土壤有机碳质量分数与30~100 cm差异显著（P＜0.05），但与10~30 cm有机碳质量分数差异不显著；阔叶混交林、其他硬阔林、水杉林0~10 cm土壤有机碳质量分数与10~30和30~100 cm差异显著（P＜0.05），而10~30和30~100 cm土壤有机碳差异不显著。其他软阔林在不同土层土壤有机碳质量分数差异显著（P＜0.05）；针阔混交林不同土层有机碳差异不显著。经济林则表现为10~30 cm土壤有机碳质量分数与30~100 cm差异显著（P＜0.05），与0~10 cm的有机碳差异不显著。

2.2. 不同林地类型土壤有机碳密度分布特征

从表 3可知：同土壤有机碳相似，其他软阔林表层（0~10 cm）土壤有机碳密度最高（18.95 t·hm^-2），针阔混交林表层土壤有机碳密度最低（13.16 t·hm^-2）。7种林地0~100 cm土壤有机碳密度变化范围为92.20~113.76 t·hm^-2，平均值为100.09 t·hm^-2，土壤有机碳密度从大到小依次为樟树林、其他软阔林、经济林、阔叶混交林、针阔混交林、水杉林、其他硬阔林。

林地类型	不同土层土壤有机碳密度/（t·hm^-2）
林地类型	0~10	10~30	30~100 cm	合计
樟树林	16.21 ± 7.00 Ba	27.58 ± 8.99 Bb	69.96 ± 33.87 Aa	113.76 ± 39.49 a
阔叶混交林	16.31 ± 5.32 Ba	24.17 ± 10.79 Bab	63.86 ± 32.71 Aa	104.34 ± 36.75 a
其他软阔林	18.95 ± 4.08 Ba	25.63 ± 7.30 Bab	62.28 ± 10.77 Aa	106.86 ± 11.70 a
其他硬阔林	17.76 ± 6.09 Ba	22.29 ± 10.44 Bb	52.16 ± 22.49 Aa	92.20 ± 29.43 a
针阔混交林	13.16 ± 6.36 Ba	20.35 ± 9.67 Bb	62.18 ± 36.56 Aa	95.69 ± 46.91 a
水杉林	16.23 ± 5.91 Ba	23.51 ± 10.10 Bb	53.23 ± 20.79 Aa	92.97 ± 33.88 a
经济林	15.76 ± 2.71 Ba	35.78 ± 15.17 ABa	55.00 ± 33.48 Aa	106.54 ± 34.58 a
说明：小写字母表示不同林地同一土层差异显著（P＜0.05），大写字母表示同一林地不同土层差异显著（P＜0.05）

Table 3. Soil organic carbon density in different soil layers and different forests

不同林地类型不同土层的土壤有机碳密度差异性不同。就同一土层而言，不同林地类型在0~10和30~100 cm土层的土壤有机碳密度差异不显著。但在10~30 cm土层，经济林与樟树林、其他硬阔林、针阔混交林、水杉林土壤有机碳密度差异显著（P＜0.05），与阔叶混交林、其他软阔林的土壤有机碳密度差异不显著。就同一林地而言，经济林30~100 cm土壤有机碳密度显著高于0~10 cm土壤有机碳密度（P＜0.05），但与10~30 cm土壤有机碳密度差异不显著；其余林地30~100 cm土壤有机碳密度均显著高于0~10和10~30 cm土壤有机碳密度（P＜0.05），但0~10和10~30 cm土壤有机碳密度差异不显著。

不同土层对100 cm土壤剖面有机碳密度贡献率有所不同。其中，0~10 cm土壤有机碳密度贡献率从大到小依次为其他硬阔林（19.26%）、其他软阔林（17.74%）、水杉林（17.46%）、阔叶混交林（15.63%）、经济林（14.79%）、樟树林（14.25%）、针阔混交林（13.75%）。0~30 cm土壤有机碳密度贡献率从大到小依次为经济林（48.37%）、其他硬阔林（43.43%）、水杉林（42.74%）、其他软阔林（41.72%）、阔叶混交林（38.80%）、樟树林（38.50%）、针阔混交林（35.02%）。

2.3. 土壤有机碳质量分数与理化性质的相互关系

从表 4可以发现：樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林、水杉林的土壤有机碳质量分数与容重显著负相关（P＜0.05），其余林地土壤有机碳与容重相关性不显著。阔叶混交林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林土壤有机碳质量分数与pH值呈负相关（P＜0.05），其余林地土壤有机碳与pH值相关性不显著。除经济林外，其他林地土壤有机碳质量分数与全氮、碱解氮呈极显著正相关（P＜0.01）。樟树林、水杉林土壤有机碳质量分数与速效磷显著正相关（P＜0.05）。但所有林地土壤有机碳质量分数与电导率、全磷相关性均不显著。经济林的土壤有机碳质量分数与容重、pH值、电导率、全氮、全磷、碱解氮、速效磷的相关性均不显著。

林地类型	容重	pH值	电导率	全氮	全磷	碱解氮	速效磷
樟树林	-0.523^*	-0.364	-0.014	0.657^**	0.253	0.767^**	0.482^*
阔叶混交林	-0.329	-0.558^*	-0.409	0.868^**	0.107	0.904^**	-0.076
其他软阔林	-0.581^**	-0.449^**	-0.068	0.753^**	0.157	0.827^**	-0.021
其他硬阔林	-0.376^*	-0.443^**	0.215	0.748^**	0.057	0.738^**	0.084
针阔混交林	-0.324	-0.131	-0.211	0.528^**	0.274	0.697^**	0.086
水杉林	-0.632^**	-0.34	-0.028	0.913^**	0.096	0.781^**	0.711^**
经济林	-0.357	0.139	-0.185	0.126	0.347	-0.105	-0.063
说明：^表示P＜0.05, ^*表示P＜0.01

Table 4. Correlation between organic carbon content and soil physicochemical properties

在进行土壤有机碳质量分数与土壤理化性质进行相关性分析的基础上，以土壤有机碳质量分数（y）为因变量，以土壤容重（x₁）、pH值（x₂）、电导率（x₃）、全氮（x₄）、全磷（x₅）、碱解氮（x₆）、速效磷（x₇）为自变量，采用逐步剔除法进行多元回归分析，建立了土壤有机碳与其他理化性质的的回归方程，并通过标准化回归系数确定影响不同林型土壤有机碳质量分数的主要影响因子（表 5）。经分析，不同林型的土壤有机碳质量分数影响因子不同。其中：碱解氮是樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林和针阔混交林的土壤有机碳质量分数变化的主要影响因子；而阔叶混交林、水杉林的土壤有机碳质量分数主要影响因子为全氮。

林地类型	回归方程	标准化回归系数	相关系数
樟树林	y=3.00+0.10x6	x₆=0.767	0.589
阔叶混交林	y=12.11-6.35x₁+3.72x₄+0.04x₆	x₁=-0.177, x₄=0.420, x₆=0.362	0.649
其他软阔林	y=13.92-5.95x₁+3.72x₄-3.24x₅+0.05x₆	x₁=-0.183, x₄=0.458, x₅=-0.187, x₆=0.552	0.937
其他硬阔林	y=13.46-7.93x₁-0.02x₃+2.81x₄+0.08x₆	x₁=-0.174, x₃=-0.195, x₄=-0.252, x₆=0.620	0.816
针阔混交林	y=3.58-0.02x₃+0.08x₆	x₃=-0.283, x₆=0.725	0.564
水杉林	y=11.44-6.91x₁+8.78x₄	x₁=-0.183, x₄=0.812	0.858

Table 5. Regression analysis of soil organic carbon content and other physicochemical properties

3. 讨论

3.1. 土壤有机碳质量分数

研究表明：土壤有机碳质量分数与气候、植被类型、母质、地形以及微生物的活动强度等密切相关^[11-12]。鉴于本研究区域气候、母质、地形等条件较相似，说明植被类型、微生物活动等可能是影响土壤有机碳的主要因素。植被类型不同，进入土壤的枯枝落叶等凋落物不同，植物根系发育及分布格局不同，均会导致土壤中有机碳的含量不同^[13]。本研究中，0~10和10~30 cm土层，针阔混交林的土壤有机碳质量分数均为最低（9.58和6.95 g·kg^-1），这可能是由于针叶和阔叶凋落物混合提高了微生物群落丰富度，致使凋落物分解速度较快^[14]，不利于土壤有机碳的积累。

在垂向上，同一林地在不同土层的土壤有机碳质量分数存在差异主要与植被的凋落物、根系分布格局、淋溶作用、微生物活性等密切相关。本研究中，樟树林和经济林的土壤有机碳在0~10和10~30 cm无明显差异，这是由于樟树林根系主要分布在0~30 cm^[15]，经济林有机肥主要施用于10~30 cm土层^[16]，故两者0~10和10~30 cm土壤有机碳质量分数较高，差异不显著。在0~100 cm土层，针阔混交林在不同土层的有机碳差异不显著，而其余林地不同土层的有机碳差异显著。这是由于针阔混交林的微生物较丰富，且凋落物分解较快，加之根系深广，故0~100 cm不同土层有机碳差异较小。而其余林地凋落物较单一，且随着土层的加深，植被根系密度减小^[17]，因此，土壤有机碳的积累量也降低，差异显著。

本研究中，除经济林外，其余林地的土壤有机碳质量分数随剖面深度的加深而降低。分析其原因，可能有2个方面：一是林地凋落物主要聚集在土壤表层，这些凋落物通过微生物的分解转化作用，促进了土壤有机碳的积累；另一方面，根系通过分泌大量的碳水化合物、有机酸类等来提高土壤有机碳质量分数^[13]。但随着土层的加深，植被根系密度减小，有机碳的积累量降低。而经济林土壤有机碳质量分数则随剖面深度的加深呈先增加后降低的趋势，这是由于为促使其产量增加，农户会翻耕松土并将有机肥施用在10~30 cm土层^[16]，最终导致10~30 cm土层土壤有机碳质量分数较高。

3.2. 土壤有机碳密度

与0~100 cm土壤有机碳平均质量分数不同，不同林地0~100 cm土壤有机碳密度从大到小依次为樟树林、其他软阔林、经济林、阔叶混交林、针阔混交林、水杉林、其他硬阔林，这表明作为评价和衡量有机碳储量的一个重要指标，土壤有机碳密度除了受土壤有机碳的影响，还受土壤容重和土层划分厚度的影响。同一林地不同土层的有机碳密度差异显著，这与土层划分厚度密切相关。而不同林地同一土层（10~30 cm）的土壤有机碳密度存在显著差异，这仍与土壤有机碳含量和容重密切相关。这些均表明，若想探讨土壤有机碳密度的影响因素，需从土壤有机碳质量分数着手。

本研究表明：7种林地0~100 cm土壤有机碳密度平均为100.09 t·hm^-2。这与史利江等^[18]测定的上海市土壤有机碳碳密度平均值相当（105.5 t·hm^-2），但低于全国森林土壤有机碳密度115.9 t·hm^-2^[19]。7种林地的土壤表层（0~10 cm）有机碳密度为13.16~18.95 t·hm^-2，这低于申广荣等^[20]对上海市崇明岛全岛大部分地区表层（0~20 cm）土壤有机碳密度（28.8 t·hm^-2）的研究结果。总之，相较于全国其他城市^[21-22]，上海市林地0~10和0~100 cm土壤有机碳密度较低，碳储存能力较弱。这一方面可能是植被类型不同，土壤有机碳储存能力强弱不同；另一方面可能是上海作为大都市，人口较为密集，相较自然林地，人造林地受到的干扰相对较大，不利于土壤有机碳的储存^[23]。

本研究中，0~30 cm土层的土壤有机碳密度对100 cm剖面总有机碳贡献率为35.02%~48.37%，平均为40.62%。这一结果低于浙江省森林土壤0~30 cm土层有机碳密度对0~100 cm剖面总有机碳贡献率（65.34%）^[24]，低于山西油松Pinus tabuliformis人工林0~30 cm土壤有机碳密度对0~100 cm剖面的贡献率（54.97%~58.03%）^[25]，低于庐山不同海拔森林土壤0~20 cm土层有机碳密度占0~100 cm土层的50.6%^[26]。总之，相比其他研究，上海7种林地的0~30 cm土壤有机碳密度对总剖面的贡献率低。出现这种情况的原因，一方面是由于植被类型的不同，另一方面可能与土壤理化性质有关。

3.3. 土壤有机碳质量分数与理化性质的相关性

土壤容重影响着土壤的通气性、微生物活性以及植物根系生长。在本研究中，樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林、水杉林土壤有机碳质量分数与土壤容重负相关（表 4），与方运霆等^[27]对鼎湖山自然保护区土壤有机碳含量与容重相关性结果相一致。这是由于当土壤容重越大时，土壤通气性变差，植被根系的生长缓慢，且不利于微生物的活动，故有机碳积累量较少。其他软阔林和水杉林的土壤有机碳质量分数与容重极显著负相关，这可能在于高容重土壤条件下，土壤碳的矿化被抑制^[28]。

目前，pH值对有机碳质量分数的影响机理仍在探讨中。多数研究表明：有机碳质量分数与pH值呈负相关^[29-30]，少量研究表明：有机碳质量分数与pH值呈显著正相关^[31]。在本研究中，阔叶混交林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林的土壤有机碳质量分数与pH值呈负相关。这是由于土壤中pH值对土壤微生物的活动强度影响不同。一般而言，土壤中pH值呈弱碱性时，土壤微生物活性减弱^[32]，有机质的分解速率降低，不利于土壤有机碳的积累。而阔叶混交林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林的pH值偏弱碱性，故土壤有机碳质量分数较低。

在本研究中，除经济林外，其余林地的土壤有机碳质量分数与全氮、碱解氮呈显著正相关，与侯浩等^[33]对小陇山不同林龄锐齿栎Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata林的土壤有机碳和全氮相关性的研究结果相一致。同样，本研究结果表明：樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林和针阔混交林的土壤有机碳变化的主控因子为碱解氮，而阔叶混交林、水杉林的土壤有机碳的主要影响因子为全氮。这些均是由于氮作为陆地生态系统中的重要营养元素，其含量与气候、土壤质地、植被类型等密切相关，适宜的碳氮比有利于土壤有机质分解过程中养分释放以及土壤碱解氮的增加^[34]，而经济林由于人工施入肥料的缘故，土壤有机碳质量分数与全氮、碱解氮相关性不显著。

综合分析，虽然较其他城市，上海市林地土壤碳储存能力弱，但就整个城市而言，上海市林地土壤仍是一个潜在而巨大的碳库，且表层的土壤有机碳储存能力高于深层。因此，应制定合理的林地管理措施，重视对森林的保护和改良建设，减少表层土壤的破坏，改善土壤容重，有针对性地调整不同林地的pH值，适当的输入氮肥，从而增强上海市林地的碳储量。

4. 结论

本研究通过分析上海市7种林地的土壤有机碳质量分数和密度分布特征，得出了以下结论：（1）在0~100 cm土层，其他软阔林土壤有机碳平均质量分数最高，樟树林、经济林、阔叶混交林、水杉林、针阔混交林其次，其他硬阔林土壤有机碳平均质量分数最低。土壤有机碳质量分数在垂直方向分布差异较大，表聚现象明显。上海市林地0~30 cm土层土壤有机碳受植被类型影响显著。（2）上海市林地0~100 cm土壤有机碳密度从大到小依次为樟树林、其他软阔林、经济林、阔叶混交林、针阔混交林、水杉林、其他硬阔林。0~30 cm的土壤有机碳密度占0~100 cm土壤剖面的贡献率较低。（3）上海市7种林地土壤有机碳质量分数与全氮和碱解氮呈极显著正相关，与电导率、全磷的相关性不显著。樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林、水杉林土壤有机碳质量分数与容重显著负相关。阔叶混交林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林土壤有机碳质量分数与pH值呈负相关；樟树林、水杉林土壤有机碳质量分数与速效磷显著正相关。樟树林、其他软阔林、其他硬阔林和针阔混交林的土壤有机碳质量分数变化的主控因子为碱解氮，而阔叶混交林、水杉林的土壤有机碳质量分数的主要影响因子为全氮。

Reference (34)

[1]	DAVIDSON E A, TRUMBORE S E, AMUNDSON R. Biogeochemistry:soil warming and organic carbon content[J]. Nature, 2000, 408(6814): 789-790. doi: 10.1038/35048672
[2]	LETTENS S, van ORSHOVEN J, van WESEMAEL B. Stocks and fluxes of soil organic carbon for landscape units in Belgium derived from heterogeneous data sets for 1990 and 2000[J]. Geoderma, 2005, 127(1): 11-23.
[3]	魏亚伟, 于大炮, 王清君. 东北林区主要森林类型土壤有机碳密度及其影响因素[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(12): 3333-3340.	WEI Yawei, YU Dapao, WANG Qingjun. Soil organic carbon density and its influencing factors of major forest types in the forest region of Northeast China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2013, 24(12): 3333-3340.
[4]	刘伟, 程积民, 陈芙蓉. 黄土高原中部草地土壤有机碳密度特征及碳储量[J]. 草地学报, 2011, 19(3): 425-431.	LIU Wei, CHENG Jimin, CHEN Furong. Characteristic of organic carbon density and organic carbon storage in the natural grassland of Center Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Agrestia Sin, 2011, 19(3): 425-431.
[5]	AJAMI M, HEIDARI A, KHORMALI F. Environmental factors controlling soil organic carbon storage in loess soils of a subhumid region, northern Iran[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 281(): 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.017
[6]	PAGELLA T F. Soil organic carbon density in Hebei Province, China:estimates and uncertainty[J]. Pedosphere, 2005, 15(3): 293-300.
[7]	解宪丽, 孙波, 周慧珍. 中国土壤有机碳密度和储量的估算与空间分布分析[J]. 土壤学报, 2004, 41(1): 35-43. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.01.006	XIE Xianli, SUN Bo, ZHOU Huizhen. Organic carbon density and storage in soils of China and spatial analysis[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2004, 41(1): 35-43. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.01.006
[8]	程先富, 谢勇. 基于GIS的安徽省土壤有机碳密度的空间分布特征[J]. 地理科学, 2009, 29(4): 540-544. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2009.04.012	CHENG Xianfu, XIE Yong. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon density in Anhui Province based on GIS[J]. Geogr Sci, 2009, 29(4): 540-544. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2009.04.012
[9]	郝瑞军, 方海兰, 沈烈英. 上海城市绿地土壤有机碳、全氮分布特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 35(6): 49-52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2011.06.010	HAO Ruijun, FANG Hailan, SHEN Lieying. Distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in greenbelt soil in Shanghai center city[J]. J Nanjing For Univ Nat Sci Ed, 2011, 35(6): 49-52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2011.06.010
[10]	鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社, 2000.
[11]	周莉, 李保国, 周广胜. 土壤有机碳的主导影响因子及其研究进展[J]. 地球科学进展, 2005, 20(1): 99-105. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2005.01.016	ZHOU Li, LI Baoguo, ZHOU Guangsheng. Advances in controlling factors of soil organic carbon[J]. Adv Earth Sci, 2005, 20(1): 99-105. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2005.01.016
[12]	PREGITZER K S, EUSKIRCHEN ES. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests:biome patterns related to forest age[J]. Global Change Biol, 2004, 10(12): 2052-2077. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00866.x
[13]	JOBBÁGY E G, JACKSON R B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and it's relation to climate and vegetation[J]. Ecol Appl, 2000, 10(2): 423-436. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2
[14]	熊勇, 许光勤, 吴兰. 混合凋落物分解非加和性效应研究进展[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2012, 35(9): 56-60, 120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6504.2012.09.012	XIONG Yong, XU Guangqin, WU Lan. Progress on non-additive effects of mixed litter decomposition[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2012, 35(9): 56-60, 120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6504.2012.09.012
[15]	潘伟.重庆铁山坪的森林健康及石灰改良作用[D].重庆: 西南大学, 2008.	PAN Wei. The Forest Health and the Technique of Limestone Improvement on Acid Soil in Tieshanping, Chongqing[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2008.
[16]	董彩霞, 姜海波, 赵静文. 我国主要梨园施肥现状分析[J]. 土壤, 2012, 44(5): 754-761. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9829.2012.05.008	DONG Caixia, JIANG Haibo, ZHAO Jingwen. Current fertilization in pear orchards in China[J]. Soils, 2012, 44(5): 754-761. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9829.2012.05.008
[17]	周艳翔, 吕茂奎, 谢锦升. 深层土壤有机碳的来源、特征与稳定性[J]. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 2013, 8(1): 48-55. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-7105.2013.01.009	ZHOU Yanxiang, LÜ Maokui, XIE Jinsheng. Sources, characteristics and stability of organic carbon in deep soil[J]. J Subtrop Resour Environ, 2013, 8(1): 48-55. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-7105.2013.01.009
[18]	史利江, 郑丽波, 张卫国. 上海土壤有机碳储量及其空间分布特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(12): 1442-1447.	SHI Lijiang, ZHENG Libo, ZHANG Weiguo. Reserves and spatial distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon in Shanghai City[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2010, 19(12): 1442-1447.
[19]	解宪丽, 孙波, 周慧珍. 不同植被下中国土壤有机碳的储量与影响因子[J]. 土壤学报, 2004, 41(5): 687-699. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.05.005	XIE Xianli, SUN Bo, ZHOU Huizhen. Soil carbon stocks and their influencing factors under native vegetations in China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2004, 41(5): 687-699. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.05.005
[20]	申广荣, 葛晓烨, 黄秀梅. 上海崇明岛表层土壤有机碳密度的空间分布特征及碳储量估算[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2011, 29(6): 61-66. doi: 10.3969/J.ISSN.1671-9964.2011.06.012	SHEN Guangrong, GE Xiaoye, HUANG Xiumei. Spatial distribution of topsoil organic carbon density and assessment of its reserves in Chongming Island, Shanghai[J]. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ Agric Sci, 2011, 29(6): 61-66. doi: 10.3969/J.ISSN.1671-9964.2011.06.012
[21]	孙艳丽, 马建华, 李灿. 开封市城市土壤有机碳含量和密度的变化分析[J]. 河南大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 38(5): 491-496. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4978.2008.05.013	SUN Yanli, MA Jianhua, LI Can. Variations of the content and density of urban soil organic carbon in Kaifeng City[J]. J Henan Univ Nat Sci, 2008, 38(5): 491-496. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4978.2008.05.013
[22]	范晓晖, 王德彩, 孙孝林. 南宁市桉树人工林土壤有机碳密度与地形因子的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(13): 4074-4080.	FAN Xiaohui, WANG Decai, SUN Xiaolin. Relationships between soil organic carbon density of Eucalyptus plantations and terrain factors in Nanning[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016, 36(13): 4074-4080.
[23]	赵敏, 胡静, 汤庆合. 上海地区土壤碳汇功能评估[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2012, 24(5): 17-22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2009.2012.05.005	ZHAO Min, HU Jing, TANG Qinghe. Evaluation of soil carbon sinks in Shanghai[J]. Administration Tech Environ Monit, 2012, 24(5): 17-22. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2009.2012.05.005
[24]	黄中秋, 傅伟军, 周国模. 浙江省森林土壤有机碳密度空间变异特征及其影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2014, 51(4): 906-913.	HUANG Zhongqiu, FU Weijun, ZHOU Guomo. Characteristics of spatial variation of organic carbon density in forest soil and their affecting factors in Zhejiang Province[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2014, 51(4): 906-913.
[25]	程小琴.山西太岳山油松人工林土壤碳特征对林分密度调控响应的研究[D].北京: 北京林业大学, 2014.	CHENG Xiaoqin. Responses of Soil Carbon Character to Tree Density in Pinus tabulaeformis Plantations in Mt. Taiyue, Shanxi, China[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2014.
[26]	杜有新, 吴从建, 周赛霞. 庐山不同海拔森林土壤有机碳密度及分布特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(7): 1675-1681.	DU Youxin, WU Congjian, ZHOU Saixia. Forest soil organic carbon density and its distribution characteristics along an altitudinal gradient in Lushan Mountains of China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2011, 22(7): 1675-1681.
[27]	方运霆, 莫江明, BROWNS. 鼎湖山自然保护区土壤有机碳贮量和分配特征[J]. 生态学报, 2004, 24(1): 135-142. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2004.01.020	FANG Yunting, MO Jangming, BROWN S. Storage and distribution of soil organic carbon in Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2004, 24(1): 135-142. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2004.01.020
[28]	竹万宽, 陈少雄, ARNOLDR. 不同种桉树人工林土壤呼吸速率时空动态及其影响要素[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2018, 35(3): 412-421.	ZHU Wankuan, CHEN Shaoxiong, ARNOLD R. Temporal and spatial dynamics of soil respiration and influencing factors in Eucalyptus plantations[J]. J Zhejiang A&F Univ, 2018, 35(3): 412-421.
[29]	戴万宏, 黄耀, 武丽. 中国地带性土壤有机质含量与酸碱度的关系[J]. 土壤学报, 2009, 46(5): 851-860. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2009.05.013	DAI Wanhong, HUANG Yao, WU Li. Relationships between soil organic matter content (SOM) and pH in topsoil of zonal soils in China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2009, 46(5): 851-860. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2009.05.013
[30]	郭志华, 张莉, 郭彦茹. 海南清澜港红树林湿地土壤有机碳分布及其与pH的关系[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(10): 8-15.	GUO Zhihua, ZHANG Li, GUO Yanru. Soil carbon sequestration and its relationship with soil pH in Qinglangang Mangrove Wetlands in Hainan Island[J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2014, 50(10): 8-15.
[31]	李丹, 刘铁男, 王文帆. 丰林自然保护区土壤有机碳含量与土壤理化性质相关性分析[J]. 林业科技, 2012, 37(5): 25-26.	LI Dan, LIU Tienan, WANG Wenfan. Distribution of soil organic carbon and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in Fenglin Nature Reserve[J]. For Sci Technol, 2012, 37(5): 25-26.
[32]	吕秀华.东北羊草草原不同生境土壤微生物与土壤理化性质关系研究[D].长春: 东北师范大学, 2003. LÜ	Xiuhua. Study on the Relationship Between Soil Microorganisms and Soil Physicochemical Properties in Different Habitats of Leymus chinensis Grassland in Northeast China[D]. Changchun: Northeast Normal University, 2003.
[33]	侯浩, 张宋智, 关晋宏. 小陇山不同林龄锐齿栎林土壤有机碳和全氮积累特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(24): 8025-8033.	HOU Hao, ZHANG Songzhi, GUAN Jinhong. Accumulation of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata forests at different age stages in the Xiaolongshan Mountains, Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016, 36(24): 8025-8033.
[34]	张慧东, 尤文忠, 魏文俊. 辽东山区原始红松林土壤理化性质及其与土壤有机碳的相关性分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(1): 82-88.	ZHANG Huidong, YOU Wenzhong, WEI Wenjun. Soil physical and chemical properties and correlation with organic carbon in original Korean pine forest in Eastern Liaoning mountainous area[J]. J Northwest Univ A & F Sci Technol Nat Sci Ed, 2017, 45(1): 82-88.

Soil organic carbon distribution and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different forest types of Shanghai City

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2019.06.005