晋西北黄土丘陵区不同植被恢复下的土壤碳氮累积特征

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.09.002

生态环境学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (9): 1787-1796.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.09.002

晋西北黄土丘陵区不同植被恢复下的土壤碳氮累积特征

史利江¹^,^*(), 高杉¹, 姚晓军², 张晓龙¹, 李文刚³, 高峰¹

1.山西财经大学资源环境学院,山西太原 030006
2.西北师范大学地理与环境科学学院,甘肃兰州 730070
3.山西农业大学农业经济管理学院,山西太原 030006

收稿日期:2021-06-22 出版日期:2021-09-18 发布日期:2021-12-08
通讯作者: ^*
作者简介:史利江（1978年生）,男,副教授,博士,硕士研究生导师,主要研究方向为土地利用与土壤固碳研究。E-mail: slj19972@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(42071089);山西省软科学研究计划项目(2019041003-1);山西省自然科学基金面上项目(201601D011085);山西省社科联重点研究项目(SSKLZDKT2020045)

Characteristics of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation under Different Vegetation Restoration in the Loess Hilly Region of Northwest Shanxi Province

SHI Lijiang¹^,^*(), GAO Shan¹, YAO Xiaojun², ZHANG Xiaolong¹, LI Wengang³, GAO Feng¹

1. College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006, China
2. College of Geography and Environmental Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
3. College of Agricultural Economics & Management, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Taiyuan 030006, China

Received:2021-06-22 Online:2021-09-18 Published:2021-12-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探讨黄土丘陵区土壤碳氮特征及其蓄积速率对植被恢复的响应规律,不仅对于精确评估黄土高原生态恢复工程的土壤碳氮效应具有重要意义,同时也是国家积极推进碳中和战略和生态文明建设的科学基础。以晋西北黄土丘陵区—右玉县典型生态恢复区为研究对象,以相邻农田为对照,分析了不同植被类型在不同恢复年限下的土壤碳氮特征和固碳（氮）效应。结果表明：以20 a和50 a为界,植被恢复的土壤固碳（氮）效应可分为短期、中期和长期3个阶段。从短期（<20 a）来看,退耕还林（草）的土壤固碳（氮）效应不明显,甚至导致了土壤表层（0—20 cm）SOC和STN含量和储量的降低,而退耕还灌的土壤碳氮增汇效应较为显著;从中期（21—50 a）来看,随着恢复年限的增加,3种植被的土壤碳氮增汇效应显著,其中草地在恢复21—35 a后,土壤固碳（氮）达到最高值,之后其SOC、STN含量和储量开始降低,而林地和灌木地的土壤碳（氮）汇效应表现显著;从长期来看（>50 a）,林地表层土壤碳（氮）增汇效应仍持续增强,而灌木地和草地SOC、STN含量和储量,均低于对照农田。总体来看,退耕还林在中期和长期的土壤碳氮蓄积效应相当可观,退耕还灌在短期和中期的土壤碳氮蓄积效应表现显著;对于草地,仅在退耕中期（21—35 a）表现出一定的土壤碳氮增汇效应。从表层土壤的碳氮平均蓄积速率来看,林地在退耕中期和长期,均表现出较高的平均碳氮蓄积速率,而灌木地在退耕早期（<20 a）,其表层土壤平均碳氮蓄积速率最快,之后,随恢复年限的增加,逐步降低,最终转变为负值（>50 a）;而草地仅在退耕21—35 a,土壤碳氮蓄积速率表现为正值,其余阶段均为负值。退耕还林（草）后的表层SOC含量与STN含量、C/N和土壤含水量呈明显的正相关,与土壤容重之间呈显著的负相关。土壤C/N受SOC的影响较大;土壤水分条件的改善可促进SOC和STN的积累,其对表层STN的影响程度甚至高于SOC。随着表层SOC含量的增加,会改变土壤颗粒的胶结状况,从而导致土壤容重的降低。

关键词: 土壤有机碳, 土壤全氮, 植被恢复, 晋西北, 黄土丘陵区

Abstract:

To explore the response of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen sequestration to vegetation restoration in loess hilly region is not only of great significance for accurately evaluating the soil carbon sequestration effect of ecological restoration project on the Loess Plateau, but also the scientific basis for the country to actively promote the carbon neutral strategy and the construction of ecological civilization. Taking the typical ecological restoration area of Youyu County in the loess hilly region of northwest Shanxi Province as the research object, with adjacent farmland as a control, the characteristics of soil carbon and nitrogen and the effect of soil carbon (nitrogen) sequestration of different vegetation types under different restoration years were analyzed. The results showed that the SOC and STN sequestration effect of vegetation restoration could be divided into three stages: short-term, medium-term and long-term. In the short term (<20 a), the soil carbon (nitrogen) sequestration effect of returning farmland to woodland (grassland) is not obvious, and even leads to a decrease in the content and reserves of soil organic carbon and total soil nitrogen in the surface layer (0-20 cm),while the effect of returning farmland to shrubland on soil carbon and nitrogen sink is more significant. In the medium term (21-50 a), with the increase of restoration years, the sink effect of soil carbon and nitrogen of the three vegetation types were significant. After 21-35 years of restoration, the SOC and STN sequestration effect of grassland reached the highest value, and then the SOC(STN) content and storage began to decrease, while the carbon and nitrogen sink effect of woodland and shrubland was still significant. In the long term (>50 a), the soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration effect of woodland was still increasing, while the SOC and STN content and reserve of shrubland and grassland were lower than that of the control farmland. The medium and long-term effects of woodland on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration were remarkable, while the short-term and medium-term effects of soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration in shrubland were significant, while for grassland, only in the mid-term (21-35 a) the soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration effect was shown. From the change of average rate of soil carbon and nitrogen of topsoil of three vegetation types, woodland showed a higher average soil carbon (nitrogen) sequestration rate in the middle and long-term, while the average soil carbon (nitrogen) sequestration rate of shrubland was the highest in the early stage (<20 a), and then gradually decreased with the increase of restoration years, and finally changed to negative value(>50 a); while that of grassland was only in 21-35a,the rate of soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration was positive and negative in other stages. After returning farmland to woodland (shrubland and grassland), the surface SOC content has a significant positive correlation with STN content, C/N and soil moisture content, and a significant negative correlation with soil bulk density. Soil C/N was more affected by SOC than STN. The improvement of soil moisture conditions could promote the accumulation of SOC and STN, and its influence on surface STN was even higher than SOC. As the SOC content of the surface layer increased, the cementation status of the soil particles would be changed, resulting in a decrease in soil bulk density.

Key words: soil organic carbon, soil total nitrogen, vegetation restoration, Northwest Shanxi Province, Loess Hilly Region

中图分类号:

史利江, 高杉, 姚晓军, 张晓龙, 李文刚, 高峰. 晋西北黄土丘陵区不同植被恢复下的土壤碳氮累积特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(9): 1787-1796.

SHI Lijiang, GAO Shan, YAO Xiaojun, ZHANG Xiaolong, LI Wengang, GAO Feng. Characteristics of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation under Different Vegetation Restoration in the Loess Hilly Region of Northwest Shanxi Province[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(9): 1787-1796.

图/表 4

表1 研究区样地基本情况表

Table 1 Characteristics of studied sites

土地利用类型 Land use	恢复年限 Restoration ages/a	样地数 Sample Number	海拔 Altitude/m	坡度 Slope/(°)	坡向 Aspect	优势种 Dominant species
农田 Farmland	0	19	1266—1394	3—21	SH5, SSH4, SU7, SSU3	玉米 Zea mays; 马铃薯 Solanum tuberosum
林地 Woodland	10, 18, 25, 32, 35, 40, 43, 50, 52, 63	25	1272—1487	2—21	SH6, SSH9, SU4, SSU6	小叶杨 Populus simonii; 油松 Pinus tabuliformis和华北落叶松 Larix principis-rupprechtii
灌木林地 Shrubland	12, 18, 22, 35, 42, 50, 55, 63	18	1272—1475	3—17	SH2, SSH6, SU4, SSU6	沙棘 Hippophae rhamnoides
草地 Grassland	8, 14, 21, 25, 33, 35, 42, 50, 53	22	1269—1461	2—17	SH5, SSH9, SU3, SSU5	白莲蒿 Artemisia sacrorum; 蒙古蒿 Artemisia mongolica; 达乌里秦艽 Gentiana dahurica 等

图1 不同植被类型及不同恢复年限下的表层（0—20 cm）土壤有机碳的变化特征大写字母表示不同植被同一恢复年限间SOC的显著性差异,小写字母代表同一植被不同恢复年限间SOC的显著性差异（P<0.05,LSD）

Fig. 1 Variation characteristics of soil organic carbon in surface layer (0—20 cm) under different vegetation types and different restoration years Different letters represent the significant differences in the SOC of the same vegetation type in different restoration periods and different vegetation types in the same restoration period (P<0.05, LSD)

图2 不同植被类型及不同恢复年限下的表层（0—20 cm）土壤全氮的变化特征大写字母表示不同植被类型在同一恢复年限间STN的显著性差异,小写字母代表同一植被类型在不同恢复年限间STN的显著性差异（P<0.05,LSD）

Fig. 2 Variation characteristics of soil total nitrogen in the surface layer (0-20 cm) under different vegetation types and different restoration years Different letters represent the significant difference in STN of the same vegetation type in different restoration periods and different vegetation types in the same restoration period (P<0.05, LSD)

表2 土壤有机碳与总氮、碳氮比、土壤含水量以及土壤容重的相关分析表

Table 2 Correlation analysis between SOC content and STN content, C/N, soil moisture and soil bulk density

指标 Index	SOC	STN	C/N	Soil moisture	Soil bulk density
SOC	1	0.787^**	0.772^**	0.526^**	-0.514^**
STN		1	0.255	0.688^**	-0.322^*
C/N			1	0.128	-0.489^**
Soil moisture				1	-0.035
Soil bulk density					1

参考文献 43

[1]	ANTOINE S, WESEMAEL B V, 2008. Soil organic carbon stock in the Belgian Ardennes as affected by afforestation and deforestation from 1868 to 2005 [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(8): 1527-1539. DOI URL
[2]	BEHESHTI A, RAIESI F, GOLCHIN A, 2012. Soil properties, C fractions and their dynamics in land use conversion from native forests to croplands in northern Iran[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 148: 121-133. DOI URL
[3]	BOWMAN R A, ANDERSON R L, 2002. Conservation reserve program: effects of soil organic carbon and preservation when converting back to cropland in northeastern Colorado[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57(2): 121-126.
[4]	CHANG R Y, FU B J, LIU G H, et al., 2012. The effects of afforestation on soil organic and inorganic carbon: A case study of the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Catena, 95: 145-152. DOI URL
[5]	CHEN L D, GONG J, FU B J, et al., 2007. Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in the loess hilly area, Loess Plateau of China[J]. Ecological Research, 22(4): 641-648. DOI URL
[6]	CHRISTOPHER P, AXEL D, 2013. Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land-use changes across Europe[J]. Geoderma, 192: 189-201. DOI URL
[7]	DENG L, WANG G L, LIU G B, et al., 2016. Effects of age and land-use changes on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestrations following cropland abandonment on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Ecological Engineering, 90: 105-112. DOI URL
[8]	DENG L, WANG K B, ZHU G Y, et al., 2018. Changes of soil carbon in five land use stages following 10 years of vegetation succession on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Catena, 171: 185-192. DOI URL
[9]	HONG S B, YIN G D, PIAO S L, et al., 2020. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation[J]. Nature Sustainability, 3(9): 694-700. DOI URL
[10]	HOUGHTON R A,1995. Changes in the storage of terrestrial carbon since 1850 [M]//Soil and Global Change. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press: 45-65.
[11]	HUNTINGTON T G, 1995. Carbon sequestration in an aggrading forest ecosystem in the Southeastern USA[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 59(5): 1459-1467. DOI URL
[12]	JIN Z, DONG Y S, WANG Y Q, et al., 2014. Natural vegetation restoration is more beneficial to soil surface organic and inorganic carbon sequestration than tree plantation on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 485-486: 615-623.
[13]	KARHU K, WALL A, VANHALA P, et al., 2011. Effects of afforestation and deforestation on boreal soil carbon stocks-Comparison of measured C stocks with Yasso07 model results[J]. Geoderma, 164(1-2): 33-45. DOI URL
[14]	PAU K I, POLGLASE P J, NYAKUENGAMA J G, et al., 2002. Change in soil carbon following afforestation[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 168(1-3): 241-257. DOI URL
[15]	SELMA Y K, 2014. Effects of afforestation on soil organic carbon and other soil properties[J]. Catena, 123: 62-69. DOI URL
[16]	TAN Z X, RATTAN L, 2005. Carbon sequestration potential estimates with changes in land use and tillage practice in Ohio, USA[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 111(1-4): 140-152. DOI URL
[17]	TANG G Y, LI K, 2013. Tree species controls on soil carbon sequestration and carbon stability following 20 years of afforestation in a valley-type savanna[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 291: 13-19. DOI URL
[18]	VESTERDAL L, RITTER E, GUNDERSEN P, 2002. Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former arable land[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 169(1-2): 137-147. DOI URL
[19]	WANG C, WANG S, FU B J, et al., 2017. Precipitation gradient determines the tradeoff between soil moisture and soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and species richness in the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 575: 1538-1545. DOI URL
[20]	WANG Y F, FU B J, LV Y H, et al., 2011. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon sequestration at multiple scales in semi-arid Loess Plateau, China[J]. Catena, 85(1): 58-66. DOI URL
[21]	WANG Z, LIU G B, XU M X, et al., 2012. Temporal and spatial variations in soil organic carbon sequestration following revegetation in the hilly Loess Plateau, China[J]. Catena, 99: 26-33. DOI URL
[22]	XIN Z B, QIN Y B, YU X X, 2016. Spatial variability in soil organic carbon and its influencing factors in a hilly watershed of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Catena, 137: 660-669. DOI URL
[23]	ZHANG K, DANG H, TAN S, et al., 2010. Change in soil organic carbon following the ‘Grain-for-Green' programme in China[J]. Land Degradation and Development, 21(1): 16-28.
[24]	ZHAO B H, LI Z B, LI P, et al., 2017. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and its influencing factors under the condition of ecological construction in a hilly-gully watershed of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Geoderma, 296: 10-17. DOI URL
[25]	柴华, 何念鹏, 2016. 中国土壤容重特征及其对区域碳贮量估算的意义[J]. 生态学报, 36(13): 3903-3910.
	CHAI H, HE N P, 2016. Evaluation of soil bulk density in Chinese terrestrial ecosystems for determination of soil carbon storage on a regional scale[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(13): 3903-3910.
[26]	党珍珍, 周正朝, 王凯博, 等, 2015. 黄土丘陵区不同恢复年限对天然草地土壤碳库动态的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 35(5): 49-54.
	DANG Z Z, ZHOU Z C, WANG K B, et al., 2015. Effects of vegetation restoration ages on soil carbon pool of natural grassland in Loess Hilly Region[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(5): 49-54.
[27]	邓蕾, 2014. 黄土高原生态系统碳固持对植被恢复的响应机制[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学.
	DENG L, 2014. Responsing mechanism of ecosystem carbon sequestration benefits to vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China[D]. Yangling: Northwest A & F University.
[28]	董云中, 王永亮, 张建杰, 等, 2014. 晋西北黄土高原丘陵区不同土地利用方式下土壤碳氮储量[J]. 应用生态学报, 25(4): 955-960.
	DONG Y Z, WANG Y L, ZHANG J J, et al., 2014. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage of different land use types in northwestern Shanxi Loess Plateau[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 25(4): 955-960.
[29]	范表, 2011. 右玉县耕地地力评价与应用[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社.
	FAN B, 2011. Evaluation and Application of Cultivated Land Fertility in Youyu County[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press.
[30]	冯棋, 杨磊, 王晶, 等, 2019. 黄土丘陵区植被恢复的土壤碳水效应[J]. 生态学报, 39(18): 6598-6609.
	FENG Q, YANG L, WANG J, et al., 2019. Response of soil moisture and soil organic carbon to vegetation restoration in deep soil profiles in Loess Hilly Region[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(18): 6598-6609.
[31]	贺少轩, 韩蕊莲, 梁宗锁, 2015. 黄土高原丘陵沟壑区草地恢复对土壤碳氮库的影响[J]. 科学通报, 60(20): 1932-1940.
	HE S X, HAN R L, LIANG Z S, 2015. Effect of grass restoration on soil carbon and nitrogen in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 60(20): 1932-1940.
[32]	刘玉林, 朱广宇, 邓蕾, 等, 2018. 黄土高原植被自然恢复和人工造林对土壤碳氮储量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 29(7): 2163-2172.
	LIU Y L, ZHU G Y, DENG L, et al., 2018. Effects of natural vegetation restoration and afforestation on soil carbon and nitrogen storage in the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 29(7): 2163-2172.
[33]	李裕元, 邵明安, 郑纪勇, 等, 2007. 黄土高原北部草地的恢复与重建对土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 生态学报, 27(6): 2279-2287.
	LI Y Y, SHAO M A, ZHENG J Y, et al., 2007. Impact of grassland recovery and reconstruction on soil organic carbon in the northern Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(6): 2279-2287.
[34]	刘迎春, 王秋凤, 于贵瑞, 等, 2011. 黄土丘陵区两种主要退耕还林树种生态系统碳储量和固碳潜力[J]. 生态学报, 31(15): 4277-4286.
	LIU Y C, WANG Q F, YU G R, et al., 2011. Ecosystems carbon storage and carbon sequestration potential of two main tree species for the Grain for Green Project on China's hilly Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(15): 4277-4286.
[35]	鲁如坤, 1999. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社.
	LU R K, 1999. Methods for agrochemical analysis of soil[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press.
[36]	山西省右玉县志编纂委员会, 2007. 右玉县志[M]. 太原: 山西人民出版社.
	Compilation Committee of Youyu County chronicles of Shanxi Province, 2007. Youyu County Chronicle[M]. Taiyuan: Shanxi People's Publishing House.
[37]	佟小刚, 韩新辉, 吴发启, 等, 2012. 黄土丘陵区三种典型退耕还林地土壤固碳效应差异[J]. 生态学报, 32(20): 6396-6403.
	TONG X G, HAN X H, WU F Q, et al., 2012. Variance analysis of soil carbon sequestration under three typical forest lands converted from farmland in a Loess Hilly Area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(20): 6396-6403. DOI URL
[38]	王志齐, 杜兰兰, 赵慢, 等, 2016. 黄土区不同退耕方式下土壤碳氮的差异及其影响因素[J]. 应用生态学报, 27(3): 716-722.
	WANG Z Q, DU L L, ZHAO M, et al., 2016. Differences in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen and their impact factors under different restoration patterns in the Loess Plateau[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 27(3): 716-722.
[39]	武亚楠, 喻理飞, 张丽敏, 等, 2020. 喀斯特高原区植被恢复过程中土壤碳特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 29(10): 1935-1942.
	WU Y N, YU L F, ZHANG L M, et al., 2020. Characteristics and influencing factors of soil carbon pool during vegetation restoration in Karst Plateau[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 29(10): 1935-1942.
[40]	肖烨, 商丽娜, 黄志刚, 等, 2014. 吉林东部山地沼泽湿地土壤碳、氮、磷含量及其生态化学计量学特征[J]. 地理科学, 34(8): 994-1001. DOI
	XIAO Y, SHANG L N, HUANG Z G, et al., 2014. Ecological Stoichiometry Characteristics of Soil Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Mountain Swamps of Eastern Jilin Province[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 34(8): 994-1001. DOI
[41]	许明祥, 王征, 张金, 等, 2012. 黄土丘陵区土壤有机碳固存对退耕还林草的时空响应[J]. 生态学报, 32(17): 5405-5415.
	XU M X, WANG Z, ZHANG J, et al., 2012. Response of soil organic carbon sequestration to the “Grain for Green Project” in the hilly Loess Plateau region[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(17): 5405-5415. DOI URL
[42]	于贵瑞, 何念鹏, 王秋凤, 等, 2013. 中国生态系统碳收支及碳汇功能:理论基础与综合评估[M]. 北京: 科学出版社.
	YU G R, HE N P, WANG Q F, et al., 2013. Carbon budget and carbon sink of ecosystems in China: Theoretical basis and comprehensive assessment[M]. Beijing: China Science Publishing & Media Ltd.
[43]	朱震达, 刘恕, 1981. 中国北方地区的沙漠化过程及其治理区划[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	ZHU Z D, LIU S, 1981. Desertification process and its control division in Northern China[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Press.

晋西北黄土丘陵区不同植被恢复下的土壤碳氮累积特征

Characteristics of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation under Different Vegetation Restoration in the Loess Hilly Region of Northwest Shanxi Province

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 43

相关文章 11

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张林, 齐实, 周飘, 伍冰晨, 张岱, 张岩. 北京山区针阔混交林地土壤有机碳含量的影响因素研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 450-458.
[2]	肖国举, 李秀静, 郭占强, 胡延斌, 王静. 贺兰山东麓土壤有机碳对玉米生长发育及水分利用的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1754-1764.
[3]	刘祥宏, 尹勤瑞, 辛建宝, 刘伟, 许秀泉, 黄占斌, 安如意. 生态植被自然修复及其人工促进技术研究进展与展望[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(7): 1476-1488.
[4]	马辉英, 李昕竹, 马鑫钰, 贡璐. 新疆天山北麓中段不同植被类型下土壤有机碳组分特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6): 1124-1131.
[5]	龚玲玄, 王丽丽, 赵建宁, 刘红梅, 杨殿林, 张贵龙. 不同覆盖作物模式对茶园土壤理化性质及有机碳矿化的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6): 1141-1150.
[6]	杜雪, 王海燕, 邹佳何, 孟海, 赵晗, 崔雪, 董齐琪. 长白山北坡云冷杉阔叶混交林土壤有机碳分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 663-669.
[7]	胡靓达, 周海菊, 黄永珍, 姚贤宇, 叶绍明, 喻素芳. 不同杉木林分类型植物多样性及其土壤碳氮关系的研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(3): 451-459.
[8]	杨媛媛, 佘志鹏, 宋进喜, 朱大为. 2000年以来浐灞河流域不同地貌区植被变化特征及影响因素研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 224-230.
[9]	王浩, 陈永金, 刘加珍, 万波, 张丽. 黄河三角洲新生湿地3种柽柳灌丛对土壤有机碳空间分布的影响研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(1): 9-16.
[10]	胡瑞, 房焕英, 肖胜生, 段剑, 张杰, 刘洪光, 汤崇军. 南方红壤典型花岗岩侵蚀区主要治理模式的土壤碳汇效应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(8): 1617-1626.
[11]	汪益敏, 陶玥琛, 程致远, 李博文. 高速公路路堑边坡客土喷播的长期防护效果[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(8): 1724-1731.