九峰山不同林分类型生态恢复植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.12.005

生态环境学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (12): 2309-2316.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2021.12.005

九峰山不同林分类型生态恢复植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价

王皓月¹(), 郭月峰¹^,^*(), 徐雅洁¹, 祁伟¹^,², 卜繁靖¹, 祁慧娟¹

1.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院,内蒙古呼和浩特 010010
2.内蒙古水利水电勘测设计院,内蒙古呼和浩特 010020

收稿日期:2021-06-17 出版日期:2021-12-18 发布日期:2022-01-04
通讯作者: *郭月峰（1982年生）,女,副教授,博士,主要从事水土保持与荒漠化防治研究工作。E-mail: guoyuefeng0525@126.com
作者简介:王皓月（1998年生）,男,硕士研究生,主要从事水土保持与荒漠化防治研究工作。E-mail: 1648341190@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31960329);内蒙古自治区科技攻关项目(2021GG0085);内蒙古自治区科技攻关项目(2019GG004)

Coupling Relationship between Vegetation and Soil System in Ecological Restoration of Different Stand Types in Jiufeng Mountain

WANG Haoyue¹(), GUO Yuefeng¹^,^*(), XU Yajie¹, QI Wei¹^,², BU Fanjing¹, QI Huijuan¹

1. College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010010, China
2. Inner Mongolia Water Resources and Hydropower Survey and Design Institute, Hohhot 010020, China

Received:2021-06-17 Online:2021-12-18 Published:2022-01-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了解九峰山不同人工林分植物与土壤之间的相互作用,该研究选取了侧柏、柠条、长梗扁桃、山杨、虎榛子、黄刺玫样地以及撂荒地为研究对象,通过对不同人工林的植被调查和土壤样品采样,建立了5个植被因子和7个土壤因子的2层次指标体系,采用层次分析法确定各因子权重,构建不同人工林分类型生态恢复植被-土壤耦合协调模型,为九峰山生态恢复过程中植被和土壤之间相互作用的机制提供理论依。结果表明：不同人工林分类型的植被指标层除Shannon-wiener指数外,其余指标在不同林分间均存在显著差异性（P<0.05）;土壤指标层中除土壤含水率与土壤全钾外,其余指标在不同林分间均存在显著性差异（P<0.05）;通过耦合协调关系评价发现,不同人工林分的耦合度和耦合协调度并不一一对应,植被与土壤的综合指数在不同人工林分类型中的位置也并不完全一致,虽然通过长时间的人工造林,对生态恢复起到了一定作用,但不同林分的植被土壤耦合协调状况并未达到理想状态,土壤的发展状况整体优于植被发展状况,其中柠条具有较高的植被指数0.2226、虎榛子具有较高的土壤指数0.3866;耦合协调关系评价具体表现为柠条（0.4985）为濒临失调衰退类植被土壤共损型,侧柏（0.4398）、虎榛子（0.4277）、山杨（0.4197）以及长梗扁桃（0.4171）为濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型,黄刺玫（0.3943）为轻度失调衰退类土壤损益型,撂荒地（0.2970）为中度失调衰退类土壤损益型,整体上呈现不同程度的失调衰退类。综上,柠条较其他人工林分能够较好的改善植被—土壤系统中植被恢复与土壤环境的耦合协调性,提高生态恢复效益。

关键词: 人工林, 林分, 生态恢复, 植物, 土壤, 耦合协调

Abstract:

To understand the interaction between vegetation and soil among different forest plantation stands located at Jiufeng Mountain, the study selected the sample land and abandoned land with Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco, Caragana korshinskii Kom., Amygdalus pedunculata Pall, Populus davidiana Dode, Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne,Rosa xanthina Lindl as the research objects, and established the two-level index system of five vegetation factors and seven soil factors through the investigation of vegetation and soil samples of different forest plantations. The weight of each factor was determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and the vegetation-soil coupling coordination model for ecological restoration of different genres of forest plantation stands was constructed, which provided a theoretical basis for the interaction mechanism between vegetation and soil during the ecological restoration of Jiufeng Mountain. The results showed that there were significant differences in vegetation index layer among different stand types (P<0.05), except for the Shannon-Wiener index; and there were significant differences in soil index layer among different stands (P<0.05), except soil moisture content and soil total potassium. The coupling coordination evaluation demonstrated that the coupling and coupling coordination degree of different forest plantation stands did not correspond directly to each other; the composite indexes of vegetation and soil in different forest stand types were not completely consistent. Although the forest plantation for a long period of time contributed to ecological recovery to a certain degree, the coupling coordination of vegetation and soil in different forest plantation stands did not reach the ideal state. The development of soil was better than that of vegetation. Caragana korshinskii Kom. showed a higher vegetation index 0.2226, and Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne presented a higher soil index 0.3866. The evaluation of coupling coordination relationship demonstrated different degrees of disorder and recession overall. Specifically, Caragana korshinskii Kom. (0.4985) showed disorder and recession with both vegetation and soil loss; Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco (0.4398), Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne (0.4277), Populus davidiana Dode (0.4197) and Amygdalus pedunculata Pall (0.4171) showed disorder and recession with soil loss; Rosa xanthina Lindl. (0.3943) presented mild disorder and recession with soil loss, and abandoned land (0.2970) presented moderate disorder and recession with soil loss. In conclusion, Caragana korshinskii Kom. can better improve the coupling coordination between vegetation restoration and soil environment in the vegetation-soil system than other forest plantation stands and enhance the benefits of ecological restoration.

Key words: plantation, forest stand, ecological restoration, vegetation, soil, coupling coordination

中图分类号:

王皓月, 郭月峰, 徐雅洁, 祁伟, 卜繁靖, 祁慧娟. 九峰山不同林分类型生态恢复植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(12): 2309-2316.

WANG Haoyue, GUO Yuefeng, XU Yajie, QI Wei, BU Fanjing, QI Huijuan. Coupling Relationship between Vegetation and Soil System in Ecological Restoration of Different Stand Types in Jiufeng Mountain[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2021, 30(12): 2309-2316.

图/表 6

表1 样地信息

Table 1 Basic information of sampling plots

林分类型 Stand type	林龄 Age/ a	海拔 Elevation/m	坡向 Aspect	坡位 Position	平均树高 Average of height/m	平均胸径/地径 Average of DBH/Ground diameter/cm	主要地植被物 Ground cover
侧柏 Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco	6	1046	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	3.35	1.52	猪毛蒿、山韭、草木樨 Artemisia scoparia Waldst. et Kit., Allium senescens L. Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall.
柠条 Caragana korshinskii Kom.	7	1162	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	1.21	2.15	羊草、砂蓝刺头、蒙古蒿 Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel., Echinops gmelina Turcz., Artemisia mongolica (Fisch. ex Bess.) Nakai
长梗扁桃 Amygdalus pedunculata Pall	7	1094	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	1.24	2.36	香青兰、羊草、远志、蒙古蒿 Dracocephalum moldavica L., Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel., Polygala tenuifolia Willd., Artemisia mongolica (Fisch. ex Bess.) Nakai
山杨 Populus davidiana Dode	8	1033	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	5.92	12.85	胡枝子、牻牛儿苗、百里香 Lespedeza bicolor Turcz., Erodium stephanianum Willd., Thymus mongolicus Ronn.
虎榛子 Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne	7	1129	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	1.18	3.27	蒙古莸、羊草、山韭 Caryopteris mongholica Bunge, Leymus chinensis (Trin.) Tzvel., Allium senescens L.
黄刺玫 Rosa xanthina Lindl.	5	1051	阳坡 Sunny slope	坡中 In the slope	1.12	2.51	红柴胡、山韭、蓝刺头 Bupleurum scorzonerifolium Willd., Allium senescens L., Echinops sphaerocephalus L.

表2 土壤-植被系统耦合协调度指标及权重

Table 2 The index and weight of coupling coordination degree of soil-vegetation system

目标层 Objective level	子目标层 Subgoal layer	指标层 Index level	权重 Weight
土壤-植被综合系统 Soil-plant integrated system	土壤系统 Soil system	土壤含水量 SMC	0.1318
		土壤容重 BD	0.0786
		土壤孔隙度	0.0819
		土壤全氮 TN	0.1504
		土壤全磷 TP	0.062
		土壤全钾 TK	0.053
		土壤有机碳 SOC	0.1328
	植被系统 Plant system	Shannon-Wiener指数	0.1308
		Margalef指数	0.0291
		Pielou指数	0.0273
		Simpson指数	0.0277
		植物生物量 Plant biomass	0.0946

表3 土壤-植被系统耦合类型划分

Table 3 Classification of coupling types of soil-vegetation systems

D	水平类型类 Horizontal type	P(y)与S(x)对比关系 P(y) versus S(x)	植被土壤耦合协调类型 Vegetation and soil coupling coordination type
0<D≤0.1	极度失调衰退型 Extremely maladjusted recession	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	极度失调衰退类植被损益型 Extremely maladjusted recession vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	极度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Extremely maladjusted declining vegetation soil co-loss type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	极度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Extremely maladjusted recession type soil profit and loss type
0.1<D≤0.2	严重失调衰退型 Serious disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	严重失调衰退类植被损益型 Severe disorder and decline of vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	严重失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of seriously disordered and declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	严重失调衰退类土壤损益型 Serious disorder decline type of soil profit and loss type
0.2<D≤0.3	中度失调衰退型 Moderate disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	中度失调衰退类植被损益型 Moderately disordered declining vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	中度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of moderately disordered declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	中度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Soil profit and loss type of moderate disorder decline
0.3<D≤0.4	轻度失调衰退型 Mild disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	轻度失调衰退类植被损益型 Gain and loss type of mildly maladjusted declining vegetation
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	轻度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of mildly disordered and declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	轻度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Slight disorder and decline of soil profit and loss type
0.4<D≤0.5	濒临失调衰退型 Mild disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	濒临失调衰退类植被损益型 On the verge of disorderly decline vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	濒临失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of vegetation on the verge of disorderly decline
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
0.5<D≤0.6	勉强协调发展型 Reluctantly coordinated development	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	勉强协调发展类土壤滞后型 Barely coordinated development of the type of soil lag
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	勉强协调发展类植被土壤同步型 The barely coordinated development of vegetation-soil synchrony type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	勉强协调发展类植被滞后型 Reluctantly coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.6<D≤0.7	初级协调发展型 Primary coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	初级协调发展类土壤滞后型 Primary coordinated development type of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	初级协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Primary coordinated development type vegetation soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	初级协调发展类植被滞后型 Primary coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.7<D≤0.8	中级协调发展型 Intermediate coordinated development type	P(y)S(x) $>$ 1.2	中级协调发展类土壤滞后型 Intermediate coordinated development type soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	中级协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Intermediate coordinated development type vegetation soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	中级协调发展类植被滞后型 Intermediate coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.8<D≤0.9	良好协调发展型 Intermediate coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	良好协调发展类土壤滞后型 Good coordinated development of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	良好协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Good coordinated development of vegetation-soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	良好协调发展类植被滞后型 Well-coordinated development of vegetation lag type
0.9<D≤1	优质协调发展型 High quality coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	优质协调发展类土壤滞后型 Quality coordinated development type of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	优质协调发展类植被土壤同步型 High-quality coordinated development of vegetation and soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x)<0.8	优质协调发展类植被滞后型 Quality and coordinated development type vegetation lag type

表3 土壤-植被系统耦合类型划分

Table 3 Classification of coupling types of soil-vegetation systems

D	水平类型类 Horizontal type	P(y)与S(x)对比关系 P(y) versus S(x)	植被土壤耦合协调类型 Vegetation and soil coupling coordination type
0<D≤0.1	极度失调衰退型 Extremely maladjusted recession	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	极度失调衰退类植被损益型 Extremely maladjusted recession vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	极度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Extremely maladjusted declining vegetation soil co-loss type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	极度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Extremely maladjusted recession type soil profit and loss type
0.1<D≤0.2	严重失调衰退型 Serious disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	严重失调衰退类植被损益型 Severe disorder and decline of vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	严重失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of seriously disordered and declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	严重失调衰退类土壤损益型 Serious disorder decline type of soil profit and loss type
0.2<D≤0.3	中度失调衰退型 Moderate disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	中度失调衰退类植被损益型 Moderately disordered declining vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	中度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of moderately disordered declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	中度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Soil profit and loss type of moderate disorder decline
0.3<D≤0.4	轻度失调衰退型 Mild disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	轻度失调衰退类植被损益型 Gain and loss type of mildly maladjusted declining vegetation
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	轻度失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of mildly disordered and declining vegetation
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	轻度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Slight disorder and decline of soil profit and loss type
0.4<D≤0.5	濒临失调衰退型 Mild disorder recession type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	濒临失调衰退类植被损益型 On the verge of disorderly decline vegetation loss type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	濒临失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of vegetation on the verge of disorderly decline
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
0.5<D≤0.6	勉强协调发展型 Reluctantly coordinated development	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	勉强协调发展类土壤滞后型 Barely coordinated development of the type of soil lag
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	勉强协调发展类植被土壤同步型 The barely coordinated development of vegetation-soil synchrony type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	勉强协调发展类植被滞后型 Reluctantly coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.6<D≤0.7	初级协调发展型 Primary coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	初级协调发展类土壤滞后型 Primary coordinated development type of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	初级协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Primary coordinated development type vegetation soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	初级协调发展类植被滞后型 Primary coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.7<D≤0.8	中级协调发展型 Intermediate coordinated development type	P(y)S(x) $>$ 1.2	中级协调发展类土壤滞后型 Intermediate coordinated development type soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	中级协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Intermediate coordinated development type vegetation soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	中级协调发展类植被滞后型 Intermediate coordinated development type vegetation lag type
0.8<D≤0.9	良好协调发展型 Intermediate coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	良好协调发展类土壤滞后型 Good coordinated development of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	良好协调发展类植被土壤同步型 Good coordinated development of vegetation-soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x) $<$ 0.8	良好协调发展类植被滞后型 Well-coordinated development of vegetation lag type
0.9<D≤1	优质协调发展型 High quality coordinated development type	P(y)/S(x) $>$ 1.2	优质协调发展类土壤滞后型 Quality coordinated development type of soil lag type
		0.8≤P(y)/S(x)≤1.2	优质协调发展类植被土壤同步型 High-quality coordinated development of vegetation and soil synchronous type
		P(y)/S(x)<0.8	优质协调发展类植被滞后型 Quality and coordinated development type vegetation lag type

表4 不同人工林分类型土壤指标层的差异性

Table 4 The different of soil index layer in different artifical stand types

林分类型 Stand type	容重 Bulk density/ (g∙cm^-3)	孔隙度Porosity/%	含水率 Moisture conten/ %	w_{(全氮Total nitrogen)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	w_{(全钾Total potassium)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	w_{(全磷Total phosphorus)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	w_{(有机碳Organic carbon)}/ (g∙kg^-1)
侧柏 Platycladus orientalis (L.)Franco	1.45±0.04ab	47.03±2.30a	7.64±1.12a	0.95±0.53ab	14.43±8.16a	0.54±0.22ab	3.54±0.64a
柠条 Caragana korshinskii Kom.	1.39±0.05b	47.9±2.14a	10.32±1.17a	0.49±0.05b	9.47±0.55a	0.36±0.06b	2.66±0.07ab
长梗扁桃 Amygdalus pedunculata Pall	1.42±0.22ab	46.5±8.11a	12.37±4.13a	0.66±0.06ab	15.44±1.88a	0.43±0.08b	2.69±0.16ab
山杨 Populus davidiana Dode	1.56±0.08ab	41.09±3.30ab	11.56±6.49a	1.31±0.30a	18.84±4.530a	0.66±0.09ab	3.07±0.84ab
虎榛子 Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne	1.44±0.22ab	45.6±8.38a	11.35±3.15a	0.81±0.44ab	15.87±8.58a	0.54±0.29ab	2.42±0.09ab
黄刺玫 Rosa xanthina Lindl.	1.48±0.09ab	41.9±4.04ab	8.77±4.29a	1.02±0.09ab	19.11±0.45a	0.66±0.04ab	2.65±0.09ab
撂荒地 Abandoned field	1.63±0.09a	31.12±2.59b	7.59±1.08a	0.35±0.04b	7.33±2.64a	0.89±0.07a	2.27±0.14b

表5 不同人工林分类型植被指标层差异性

Table 5 The different vegetation index layer among different artificial stand types

林分类型 Stand type	Margalef 指数 Margalef index	Simpson 指数 Simpson index	Shannon-wiener 指数 Shannon-wiener index	Pielou 指数 Pielou index	生物量 Biomass/(t∙hm^-2)
侧柏 Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco	1.16±0.06ab	0.81±0.03a	1.84±0.23a	0.90±0.07a	5.66±2.09a
柠条 Caragana korshinskii Kom.	1.5±0.31ab	0.88±0.08a	2.28±0.15a	0.88±0.06a	0.06±0.01b
长梗扁桃 Amygdalus pedunculata Pall	1.2±0.15ab	0.80±0.05a	1.75±0.33a	0.82±0.12ab	0.23±0.06b
山杨 Populus davidiana Dode	1.25±0.19ab	0.79±0.03a	1.84±0.11a	0.78±0.03ab	5.18±1.21a
虎榛子 Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne	1.78±0.58a	0.84±0.07a	2.23±0.61a	0.87±0.07a	0.04±0.03b
黄刺玫 Rosa xanthina Lindl.	1.23±0.11ab	0.82±0.02a	2.06±0.08a	0.87±0.06a	0.03±0.02b
撂荒地 Abandoned field	0.93±0.06b	0.60±0.05b	1.64±0.04a	0.62±0.04b	0.02±0.002b

表6 不同人工林分生态恢复土壤-植被系统耦合协调关系评价

Table 6 Evaluation of coupling coordination relationship between soil and vegetation systems in different artificial stands for ecological restoration

林分类型 Stand type	P(y)	S(x)	P(y)/S(x)	C	D	土壤-植被耦合模式 Soil-vegetation coupling model
侧柏 Platycladus orientalis (L.)Franco	0.1639	0.3336	0.4913	0.7808	0.4398	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
柠条 Caragana korshinskii Kom.	0.2226	0.2775	0.8022	0.9939	0.4985	濒临失调衰退类植被土壤共损型 Soil co-loss type of vegetation on the verge of disorderly decline
长梗扁桃 Amygdalus pedunculata Pall	0.1477	0.3410	0.4331	0.7120	0.4171	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
山杨 Populus davidiana Dode	0.1488	0.3130	0.4754	0.7630	0.4197	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
虎榛子 Ostryopsis davidiana Decaisne	0.1519	0.3866	0.3929	0.6792	0.4277	濒临失调衰退类土壤损益型 On the verge of disordered decline type of soil profit and loss type
黄刺玫 Rosa xanthina Lindl.	0.1313	0.2776	0.4730	0.7604	0.3943	轻度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Slight disorder and decline of soil profit and loss type
撂荒地 Abandoned field	0.0594	0.1605	0.3303	0.8880	0.2970	中度失调衰退类土壤损益型 Soil profit and loss type of moderate disorder decline

参考文献 26

[1]	YANG Z P, ZHANG Q, WANG Y L, et al., 2011. Spatial and temporal variability of soil properties under Caragana microphylla shrubs in the northwestern Shanxi Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(6): 538-544. DOI URL
[2]	MAZZACAVALLO M G, ANDREW K, MATTHEW C, et al., 2017. Modelling water uptake provides a new perspective on grass and tree coexistence[J]. Land Degradation and Development, 28(1): 309. DOI URL
[3]	李利平, 1993. 九峰山地区的生物资源及其保护[J]. 资源开发与保护, 9(4): 275-277.
	LI L P, 1993. Resources of Living-Things and Its Protection in Jiufengshan area[J]. Resources Development and Conservation, 9(4):275-277.
[4]	费玲, 钟全林, 程栋梁, 等, 2016. 天然阔叶林与杉木人工林灌木层地上地下生物量的分配关系[J]. 林业科学, 52(3): 97-104.
	FEI L, ZHONG Q L, CHENG D L, et al., 2016. Biomass Allocation Between Aboveground-and Underground of shrub Layer Vegetation in Natural Evergreen Broad-Leaved Forest and Chinese Fir Plantation[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 52(3): 97-104.
[5]	温晶, 张秋良, 李嘉悦, 等, 2019. 间伐强度对兴安落叶松林林下植被多样性及生物量的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 39(5): 95-100.
	WEN J, ZHANG Q L, LI J Y, et al., 2019. Effects of thinning intensity on diversity of undergrowth vegetation and biomass in Larix gmelini forest[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 39(5): 95-100.
[6]	马国飞, 满苏尔·沙比提, 靳万贵, 2017. 天山南坡台兰河上游草地土壤理化性质与海拔的关系研究[J]. 土壤通报, 48(3): 597-603.
	MA G F, MAN S E, JIN W G, 2017. Physical and chemical properties of grassland soils in the upper reaches of Tailan River on the southern slope of Tianshan Mountain A study of the relationship between altitudes[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 48(3): 597-603.
[7]	刘俊廷, 2020. 晋西黄土区恢复年限对林下植被多样性及土壤理化性质的影响[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学.
	LIU J T, 2020. The effect vegetation recovery on the diversity of undergrowth vegetation and the physical and chemical properties of soil in the Loess Plateau of Western Shanxi Province.[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University.
[8]	李霖, 2019. 山西尖山铁尾矿库坝复垦地植被-土壤耦合关系研究[D]. 太原: 山西大学.
	LI L, 2019. Vegetation-Soil Coupling Relationship on a Reclaimed Tailings Dam of Jianshan Iron Mine in Shanxi[D]. Taiyuan: Shanxi University.
[9]	汤佳, 2016. 九峰山森林公园核心景区森林景观资源评价与开发利用对策[J]. 园艺与种苗 (10): 60-63.
	TANG J, 2016. Forest Landscape Resource Evaluation of the Main Scenic Spots in Nine Peaks Forest Park and Development and Utilization of Countermeasures[J]. Horticulture & Seed (10): 60-63.
[10]	彭晚霞, 宋同清, 曾馥平, 等, 2011. 喀斯特峰丛洼地退耕还林还草工程的植被土壤耦合协调度模型[J]. 农业工程学报, 27(9): 305-310.
	PENG W X, SONG G Q, ZENG F P, et al., 2011. The coupling coordination degree model of vegetation and soil in the project of converting farmland to forest and grassland in karst peak-cluster depression[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 27(9): 305-310.
[11]	李豪, 卢纪元, 魏天信, 等, 2019. 陕北黄土高原不同微地形下植被-土壤系统耦合特征研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 37(2): 53-59, 75.
	LI H, LU J Y, WEI T X, et al., 2019. Evaluation on Coupling Characteristics of Vegetation and Soil Systems under Different Microrelief in Loess Plateau of Northern Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 37(2): 53-59, 75.
[12]	唐李斌, 吴基文, 毕尧山, 等, 2020. 基于AHP–熵权法耦合的含水层富水性评价研究[J]. 中国矿业, 29(12): 147-152.
	TRANG S B, WU J W, BI Y S, et al., 2020. Evaluation of aquifer water abundance based on AHP-entropy weight method[J]. China Mining Magazine, 29(12): 147-152.
[13]	焦菊英, 马祥华, 白文娟, 等, 2005. 黄土丘陵沟壑区退耕地植物群落与土壤环境因子的对应分析[J]. 土壤学报, 42(5): 744-752.
	JIAO J Y, MA X H, BAI W J, et al., 2005. Corresponding Analysis of Plant Colony and Soil Environment Factors in Retreated Farmland of Loess Soil in Hilly and Gully Area[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 42(5): 744-752.
[14]	陈萍, 陈晓玲, 2011. 鄱阳湖生态经济区农业系统的干旱脆弱性评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 27(8): 8-13.
	CHEN P, CHEN X L, 2011. Drought Vulnerability Assessment of Agricultural System in Poyang Lake Ecological Economic Zone[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 27(8): 8-13.
[15]	王明全, 王金达, 刘景双, 等, 2009. 吉林省西部生态支撑能力与社会经济发展的动态耦合[J]. 应用生态学报, 20(1): 170-176.
	WANG M Q, WANG J D, LIU J S, et al., 2009. Dynamic coupling between ecological supporting capacity and social and economic development in western Jilin Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 20(1): 170-176.
[16]	徐明, 张健, 刘国彬, 等, 2016. 不同植被恢复模式沟谷地植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 31(12): 2137-2146.
	XU M, ZHANG J, LIU G B, et al., 2016. Different vegetation restoration models in gully vegetation-soil system Evaluation of coupling relationship[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 31(12): 2137-2146.
[17]	南国卫, 赵满兴, 王月月, 等, 2021. 不同退耕类型土壤-植被系统耦合度协调关系评价[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 32(5): 157-162.
	NAN G W, ZHAO M X, WANG Y Y, et al., 2021. Evaluation of coupling degree coordination between soil and vegetation systems under different types of farmland conversion[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 32(5): 157-162.
[18]	张艳, 赵廷宁, 史长青, 等, 2013. 坡面植被恢复过程中植被与土壤特征评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 29(3): 124-131.
	ZHANG Y, ZHAO T N, SHI C Q, et al., 2013. Evaluation of vegetation and soil characteristics during slope vegetation recovery procedure[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 29(3): 124-131.
[19]	王淑佳, 孔维, 任亮, 等, 2021. 国内耦合协调度模型的误区及修正[J]. 自然资源学报, 36(3): 793-810.
	WANG S J, KONG L, REN L, et al., 2021. Research on misuses and modification of coupling coordination degree model in China[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 36(3): 793-810. DOI URL
[20]	余轩, 王兴, 吴婷, 等, 2021. 荒漠草原植物多样性恢复与土壤生境的关系[J]. 生态学报, 41(21): 1-9.
	YU X, WANG X, WU T, et al., 2021. Relationship between restoration of plant diversity and soil habitat in desert steppe[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(21): 1-9. DOI URL
[21]	王云强, 邵明安, 刘志鹏, 等, 2012. 黄土高原区域尺度土壤水分空间变异性[J]. 水科学进展, 23(3): 310-316.
	WANG Y Q, SHAO M A, LIU Z P, et al., 2021. Spatial variability of soil moisture at a regional scale in the Loess Plateau[J]. Advances in Water Science, 23(3): 310-316.
[22]	张建华, 马成仓, 刘志宏, 等, 2011. 干旱荒漠区狭叶锦鸡儿灌丛扩展对策[J]. 生态学报, 31(8): 2132-2138.
	ZHANG J H, MA C C, LIU Z H, et al., 2011. Expansion strategies of Caragana stenophylla in the arid desert region[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(8): 2132-2138.
[23]	刘佳楠, 常海涛, 赵娟, 等, 2019. 宁夏荒漠草原柠条锦鸡儿枯落物分解特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 39(11): 4039-4048.
	LIU J N, CHANG H T, ZHAO J, et al., 2019. Litter decomposition rate of the Caragana korshinskii shrub: influencing factors in the desertified grassland ecosystems of Ningxia[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(11): 4039-4048.
[24]	闫海龙, 张希明, 许浩, 等, 2010. 塔里木沙漠公路防护林3种植物光合特性对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 生态学报, 30(10): 2519-2528.
	YAN H L, ZHANG X M, XU H, et al., 2010. Photosynthetic characteristics responses of three plants to drought stress in Tarim Desert Highway shelter- belt[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(10): 2519-2528.
[25]	王树森, 孟凡旭, 赵波, 等, 2020. 大青山阳坡五种灌木叶片解剖结构及其抗旱性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 22(1): 38-44.
	WANG S S, MENG F B, ZHAO B, et al., 2020. Leaf Anatomic Structure of Five Shrubs and Its Effects on Drought Tolerance in Sunny Slope of Daqing Mountain[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Technology, 22(1): 38-44.
[26]	王芳, 高甲荣, 朱继鹏, 等, 2006. 晋西黄土高原三种灌木的根构型研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 24(5): 146-150.
	WANG F, GAO J R, ZHU J P, et al., 2006. Root architecture characteristics of three species of shrubbery in the Loess Plateau of western Shanxi[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 24(5): 146-150.

九峰山不同林分类型生态恢复植被-土壤系统耦合关系评价

Coupling Relationship between Vegetation and Soil System in Ecological Restoration of Different Stand Types in Jiufeng Mountain

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张兴旺, 谢艳萍, 吴晓敏, 李垚, 肖书平. 福建省明溪县极小种群野生植物喜树种群结构与动态特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1037-1044.
[2]	杜丹丹, 高瑞忠, 房丽晶, 谢龙梅. 旱区盐湖盆地土壤重金属空间变异及对土壤理化因子的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1123-1132.
[3]	李传福, 朱桃川, 明玉飞, 杨宇轩, 高舒, 董智, 李永强, 焦树英. 有机肥与脱硫石膏对黄河三角洲盐碱地土壤团聚体及其有机碳组分的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 878-888.
[4]	陈俊芳, 吴宪, 刘啸林, 刘娟, 杨佳绒, 刘宇. 不同土壤水分下元素化学计量对微生物多样性的塑造特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 898-909.
[5]	董智今, 张呈春, 展秀丽, 张维福. 宁夏河东沙地生物土壤结皮及其下伏土壤养分的空间分布特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(5): 910-919.
[6]	李阳, 侯志勇, 陈薇, 于晓英, 谢永宏, 黄鑫, 谭佩阳, 李继承, 黎尚林, 杨辉. 大围山高山湿地植物多样性与区系组成研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 643-650.
[7]	周沁苑, 董全民, 王芳草, 刘玉祯, 冯斌, 杨晓霞, 俞旸, 张春平, 曹铨, 刘文亭. 放牧方式对高寒草地瑞香狼毒根际土壤团聚体及有机碳特征的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 660-667.
[8]	潘昱伶, 璩向宁, 李琴, 王磊, 王筱平, 谭鹏, 崔庚, 安雨, 佟守正. 黄河宁夏段典型滩涂湿地土壤理化因子空间分布特征及其对微地形的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 668-677.
[9]	赵维彬, 唐丽, 王松, 刘玲玲, 王树凤, 肖江, 陈光才. 两种生物炭对滨海盐碱土的改良效果[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 678-686.
[10]	胡芳, 刘聚涛, 温春云, 韩柳, 文慧. 抚河流域浮游植物群落结构特征及其水生态状况评价[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 744-755.
[11]	赵良侠, 高坤, 黄婷婷, 高也, 琚唐丹, 蒋秋阳, 金珩, 熊蕾, 汤在琳, 高灿红. 玉米籽粒高/低镉积累自交系不同生育期的镉累积特性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 766-775.
[12]	冯树娜, 吕家珑, 何海龙. KI淋洗对黄绵土汞污染的去除效果及土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 776-783.
[13]	陈敏毅, 朱航海, 佘伟铎, 尹光彩, 黄祖照, 杨巧玲. 珠三角某遗留造船厂场地土壤重金属人体健康风险评估及源解析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 794-804.
[14]	李善家, 王兴敏, 刘海锋, 孙梦格, 雷雨昕. 河西走廊荒漠植物多样性及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 429-438.
[15]	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.