尾巨桉与红锥混交对林下植被和土壤性质的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.07.006

生态环境学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (7): 1340-1349.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.07.006

尾巨桉与红锥混交对林下植被和土壤性质的影响

王磊¹(), 温远光¹^,²^,³, 周晓果²^,^*(), 朱宏光¹^,³, 孙冬婧²

1.广西大学林学院/广西森林生态与保育重点实验室,广西南宁 530004
2.广西科学院生态环境研究所,广西南宁 530007
3.广西友谊关森林生态系统定位观测研究站,广西凭祥 532600

收稿日期:2021-09-06 出版日期:2022-07-18 发布日期:2022-08-31
通讯作者: ^*周晓果（1980年生）,女,副教授,博士,主要从事森林生态研究。E-mail: xgzhou2014@126.com
^*周晓果（1980年生）,女,副教授,博士,主要从事森林生态研究。E-mail: xgzhou2014@126.com
作者简介:王磊（1985年生）,男,工程师,博士研究生,主要研究方向为森林生态。E-mail: 395457176@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31860171);国家自然科学基金项目(32160358);广西重点研发计划项目(2018AB40007);中国博士后科学基金项目(2019M663409);广西高等学校重大科研项目(201201ZD001);广西森林生态与保育重点实验室开放课题(QZKFKT2019-01);广西林业厅(桂林科字[2009]第八号)

Effects of Mixing Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis with Castanopsis hystrix on Understory Vegetation and Soil Properties

WANG Lei¹(), WEN Yuanguang¹^,²^,³, ZHOU Xiaoguo²^,^*(), ZHU Hongguang¹^,³, SUN Dongjing²

1. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Conservation/College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, P. R. China
2. Institute of Eco-Environmental Research, Guangxi Academy of Sciences, Nanning 530007, P. R. China
3. Guangxi Youyiguan Forest Ecosystem Research Station, Pingxiang 532600, P. R. China

Received:2021-09-06 Online:2022-07-18 Published:2022-08-31

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以尾巨桉（Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis）纯林（PEU）、红锥（Castanopsis hystrix）纯林（PCH）和尾巨桉-红锥混交林（MEC）为研究对象,探究在生态营林方式下尾巨桉与红锥混交对林下物种多样性、生物量、土壤理化性质的影响及其关联性。结果表明,（1）MEC林下植被群落的物种丰富度显著高于两种纯林,MEC和PEU灌木层的物种丰富度显著高于PCH,而MEC和PCH草本层的物种丰富度显著高于PEU;MEC显著提高灌木层的Shannon-Wiener指数和Simpson指数。（2）PEU显著提高灌木层的地上生物量,显著降低草本层生物量;PCH降低灌木层生物量,增加草本层生物量;而MEC则能在较高水平上维持灌草生物量和地上地下生物量的相对平衡。（3）MEC 0—20、20—40、40—60、60—80、80—100 cm土层的pH均显著高于两种纯林;PEU 5个土层的土壤容重均高于MEC和PCH,且0—20 cm土层达到显著差异;MEC和PCH各层次的土壤有机碳均显著高于PEU;除个别土层（60—80 cm）外,MEC和PEU各土层的全氮、全钾均显著高于PCH,3种林分各土层土壤全磷差异不显著。（4）影响林下植物群落物种多样性的主控因子为灌木层地下生物量（SBB）、草本层地上生物量（HAB）、乔木层地上生物量（TAB）、土壤全氮（TN）、土壤碳氮比（C:N）、土壤氮磷比（N:P）和pH;其中,TAB、SBB、TN、pH、N:P与PEU和MEC林下植物群落、灌木层的物种丰富度呈显著正相关,HAB、C:N与PCH草本层物种丰富度呈显著正相关。综上所述,尾巨桉与红锥混交能显著提高林下物种多样性,维持灌草生物量平衡,改良土壤质量,有效提升混交树种和混交林分的生长量和生物量,是一种较好的发展模式。

关键词: 林下植被, 生物多样性, 生物量, 尾巨桉-红锥混交林, 土壤理化性质

Abstract:

The effects of mixing E. urophylla×E. grandis with C. hystrix on understory species diversity, biomass, soil physicochemical properties and their correlations were studied in pure E. urophylla×E. grandis plantations (PEU), pure C. hystrix plantations (PCH) and mixed E. urophylla×E. grandis and C. hystrix plantations (MEC) under eco-silviculture regime. The results showed that (1) the understory species richness of MEC was significantly higher than that of the two pure forests. The species richness in shrub layer of MEC and PEU was significantly higher than that of PCH, while the species richness in herb layer of MEC and PCH was significantly higher than that of PEU. MEC significantly increased Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of the shrub layer. (2) The shrub aboveground biomass was significantly increased in PEU, while herb biomass was significantly decreased in PEU. The biomass of shrub layer was decreased and biomass of herb layer was increased in PCH. In addition, the relative balance of shrub and herb biomass and aboveground and underground biomass can be maintained at a high level in MEC. (3) The pH values of MEC in 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80 and 80-100 cm soil layer were significantly higher than that of the two pure forests. The soil bulk density of five soil layers in PEU was higher than that in MEC and PCH, and the significant difference was observed in 0-20 cm soil layer. The soil organic carbon of MEC and PCH was significantly higher than that of PEU. Except for some soil layers (60-80 cm), the total nitrogen and total potassium in MEC and PEU soil layers were significantly higher than those in PCH, but there was no significant difference in soil total phosphorus in all soil layers of the three stands. (4) The main factors affecting the species diversity of understory plant community were shrub belowground biomass (SBB), herb aboveground biomass (HAB), tree aboveground biomass (TAB), total nitrogen (TN), C/N ratio, N/P ratio and pH. Among them, TAB, SBB, TN, pH and N:P were significantly positively correlated with the species richness in understory plant community and shrub layer of PEU and MEC, while HAB, C:N were significantly positively correlated with the species richness in herb layer of PCH. In conclusion, mixing E. urophylla×E. grandis with C. hystrix can significantly improve understory species diversity, maintain shrub and herb biomass balance, improve soil quality, and effectively increase the growth and biomass both at tree species and stands level. Consequently, we recommend the promotion and application of mixed E. urophylla×E. grandis and C. hystrix plantations in the southern Subtropical region.

Key words: understory vegetation, biodiversity, biomass, mixed E. urophylla×E. grandis and C. hystrix plantations, soil physicochemical properties

中图分类号:

王磊, 温远光, 周晓果, 朱宏光, 孙冬婧. 尾巨桉与红锥混交对林下植被和土壤性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(7): 1340-1349.

WANG Lei, WEN Yuanguang, ZHOU Xiaoguo, ZHU Hongguang, SUN Dongjing. Effects of Mixing Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis with Castanopsis hystrix on Understory Vegetation and Soil Properties[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(7): 1340-1349.

图/表 6

参考文献 39

[1]	DIXON P, 2003. A package of R functions for community ecology[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(6): 927-930. DOI URL
[2]	FORRESTER D I, BAUHUS J, COWIE A L, 2005. On the success and failure of mixed-species tree plantations: lessons learned from a model system of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 209(1-2):147-155. DOI URL
[3]	FORRESTER D I, 2013. Growth responses to thinning, pruning and fertiliser application in Eucalyptus plantations: A review of their production ecology and interactions[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 310: 336-347. DOI URL
[4]	HUANG X M, LIU S R, WANG H, et al., 2014. Changes of soil microbial biomass carbon and community composition through mixing nitrogen-fixing species with Eucalyptus urophylla in subtropical China[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 73: 42-48. DOI URL
[5]	CATFORD J A, DAEHLER C C, MURPHY H T, et al., 2012. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and plant invasions: Implications for species richness and management[J]. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 14(3): 231-241. DOI URL
[6]	LAI J S, ZOU Y, ZHANG J L, et al., 2022. Generalizing hierarchical and variation partitioning in multiple regression and canonical analyses using the rdacca.hp R package[J]. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13(4): 782-788. DOI URL
[7]	LEVICK, SHAUN, RATCLIFFE, et al., 2015. Tree neighbourhood matters-tree species composition drives diversity-productivity patterns in a near-natural beech forest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 335: 225-234. DOI URL
[8]	RIVAIE A A, 2014. The effects of understory vegetation on P availability in Pinus radiate forest stands: A review[J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 25(3): 489-500. DOI URL
[9]	ROTHE A, BINKLEY D, 2001. Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests: a synthesis[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31(11): 1855-1870. DOI URL
[10]	SAGAR R, RAGHUBANSHI A S, SINGH J S, 2003. Tree species composition, dispersion and diversity along a disturbance gradient in a dry tropical forest region of India[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 186(1): 61-71. DOI URL
[11]	TURNBULL, J W, 1999. Eucalypt plantations[J]. New Forests, 17: 37-52. DOI URL
[12]	TRAN V C, THANG N T, HA D T T, et al., 2013. Relationship between aboveground biomass and measures of structure and species diversity in tropical forests of Vietnam[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 310: 213-218. DOI URL
[13]	WEN Y G, DUO Y, CHEN F, et al., 2010. The changes of understory plant diversity in continuous cropping system of Eucalyptus plantations, South China[J]. Journal of Forest Research, 15(4): 252-258. DOI URL
[14]	WU J P, LIU Z F, WANG X L, et al., 2011. Effects of understory removal and tree girdling on soil microbial community composition and litter decomposition in two Eucalyptus plantations in South China[J]. Functional Ecology, 25(4): 921-931. DOI URL
[15]	ZHOU X G, ZHU H G, WEN Y G, et al., 2020. Intensive management and declines in soil nutrients lead to serious exotic plant invasion in Eucalyptus plantations under successive short-rotation regimes[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 31(3): 297-310. DOI URL
[16]	鲍士旦, 2018. 土壤农化分析[M]. 第3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社:1-120.
	BAO S D, 2018. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis[M]. 3rd edition. Beijing: China Agriculture Press: 1-120.
[17]	陈科屹, 张会儒, 雷相东, 等, 2017. 基于目标树经营的抚育采伐对云冷杉针阔混交林空间结构的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 30(5): 718-726.
	CHEN K Y, ZHANG H R, LEI X D, et al., 2017. Effect of thinning on spatial structure of spruce-fir mixed broadleaf-conifer forest base on crop tree management[J]. Forest Research, 30(5): 718-726.
[18]	陈秋海, 周晓果, 朱宏光, 等, 2022. 桉树与红锥混交对土壤养分及林下植物功能群的影响[J]. 广西植物, 42(4): 556-568.
	CHEN Q H, ZHOU X G, ZHU H G, et al., 2022. Effects of a mixture of Eucalyptus and Castanopsis hystrix on soil nutrients and understory plant functional groups[J]. Guihaia, 42(4): 556-568.
[19]	董玉梁, 余胜, 卫芯宇, 等, 2018. 川西平原香樟林和香椿林中小型土壤动物群落结构特征[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 36(3): 344-349.
	DONG Y L, YU S, WEI R Y, et al., 2018. Meso-micro soil fauna community structure in Cinnamomum camphora and Toona sinensis plantations in Western Sichuan plain[J]. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 36(3): 344-349.
[20]	耿玉清, 孙向阳, 亢新刚, 等, 1999. 长白山林区不同森林类型下土壤肥力状况的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 21(6): 97-101.
	GEN Y Q, SUN X Y, KANG X G, et al., 1999. Soil fertility of different forest types in the Changbai Mountains[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 21(6): 97-101.
[21]	国家林业和草原局, 2019. 中国森林资源报告 (2014-2018)[R]. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	National Forestry and Grassland Administration, 2019. China forest resources report (2014-2018)[R]. Beijing: China Forestry Press.
[22]	黄宇, 冯宗炜, 汪思龙, 等, 2005. 杉木、火力楠纯林及其混交林生态系统C、N贮量[J]. 生态学报, 25(12): 3146-3154.
	HUANG Y, FENG Z Y, WANG S L, et al., 2005. C and N stocks under three plantation forest ecosystems of Chinese-fir, Michelia macclurei and their mixture[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(12): 3146-3154.
[23]	李朝婷, 周晓果, 温远光, 等, 2019. 桉树高代次连栽对林下植物、土壤肥力和酶活性的影响[J]. 广西科学, 26(2): 176-187.
	LI C T, ZHOU X G, WEN Y G, et al., 2019. Effects of high-generation rotations of Eucalyptus on understory, soil fertility and enzyme activities[J]. Guangxi Sciences, 26(2): 176-187.
[24]	李茂金, 闫文德, 李树战, 等, 2012. 改变碳源输入对针阔叶混交林土壤氮矿化的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 32(5): 108-112.
	LI M J, YAN W D, LI S Z, et al., 2012. Effects of controlling carbon input on nitrogen mineralization in soils of broadleaved-needle mixed forest plantation[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 32(5): 108-112.
[25]	邵文哲, 周晓果, 温远光, 等, 2022. 桉树与红锥混交对土壤水解酶活性及其化学计量特征的影响[J]. 广西植物, 42(4): 543-555.
	SHAO W Z, ZHOU X G, WEN Y G, et al., 2022. Effects of mixing Castanopsis Hystrix and Eucalyptus on soil hydrolytic enzyme activities and ecoenzymatic stoichiometry[J]. Guihaia, 42(4): 543-555.
[26]	舒韦维, 卢立华, 李华, 等, 2021. 林分密度对杉木人工林林下植被和土壤性质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 41(11): 4521-4530.
	SHU W W, LU L H, LI H, et al., 2021. Effects of stand density on understory vegetation and soil properties of Cunninghamia lanceloata plantation[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(11): 4521-4530.
[27]	孙冬婧, 温远光, 罗应华, 等, 2015. 近自然化改造对杉木人工林物种多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 28(2): 202-208.
	SUN D J, WEN Y G, LUO Y H, et al., 2015. Effect of close-to-nature management on species diversity in a Cunninglamia lanceolate plantation[J]. Forest Research, 28(2): 202-208.
[28]	汪殿蓓, 暨淑仪, 陈飞鹏, 2001. 植物群落物种多样性研究综述[J]. 生态学杂志, 20(4): 55-60.
	WANG D B, JI S Y, CHEN F P, et al., 2001. A review on the species diversity of plant community[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 20(4): 55-60.
[29]	王慧敏, 张峰, 庞春花, 等, 2013. 汾河流域中下游植物群落物种多样性与土壤因子的关系[J]. 西北植物学报, 33(10): 2077-2085.
	WANG H M, ZHANG F, PANG C H, et al., 2013. Interrelation between plant species diversity and soil factors in the middle and lower reaches of Fenhe River[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 33(10): 2077-2085.
[30]	王丽美, 姜永涛, 郭广猛, 2020. 森林生物量的根冠分配特征及其影响因子分析[J]. 南阳师范学院学报, 19(1): 44-50.
	WANG L M, JIANG Y T, GUO G M, 2020. Biomass allocation between root and shoot and its impact factors of forest ecosystems[J]. Journal of Nanyang Normal University, 19(1): 44-50.
[31]	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.
[32]	温远光, 2008. 桉树生态、社会问题与科学发展[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社: 1-136.
	WEN Y G, 2008. Eucalyptus ecology, social issues and scientific development[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Press: 1-136.
[33]	温远光, 陈放, 刘世荣, 等, 2008. 广西桉树人工林物种多样性与生物量关系[J]. 林业科学, 44(4): 14-19.
	WEN Y G, CHEN F, LIU S R, et al., 2008. Relationship between species diversity and biomass of Eucalyptus plantation in Guangxi[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 44(4): 14-19.
[34]	温远光, 刘世荣, 陈放, 2005. 连栽对桉树人工林下物种多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 16(9): 1667-1671.
	WEN Y G, LIU S R, CHEN F, 2005. Effects of continuous cropping on understory species diversity in Eucalypt plantations[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16(9): 1667-1671.
[35]	温远光, 张祖峰, 周晓果, 等, 2020a. 珍贵乡土树种与桉树混交对生态系统生物量和碳储量的影响[J]. 广西科学, 27(2): 111-119.
	WEN Y G, ZHANG Z F, ZHOU X G, et al., 2020. Effects of mixing precious indigenous tree species and Eucalyptus on ecosystem biomass and carbon stocks[J]. Guangxi Sciences, 27(2):111-119.
[36]	温远光, 周晓果, 喻素芳, 等, 2018. 全球桉树人工林发展面临的困境与对策[J]. 广西科学, 25(2): 107-116.
	WEN Y G, ZHOU X G, YU S F, et al., 2018. The predicament and countermeasures of development of global Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Guangxi Sciences, 25(2):107-116.
[37]	温远光, 周晓果, 朱宏光, 2020b. 桉树生态营林理论、技术与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社: 1-254.
	WEN Y G, ZHOU X G, ZHU H G, 2020. Theory, technology and practice of Eucalyptus ecological forestry[M]. Beijing: Science Press: 1-254.
[38]	中国林学会, 2016. 桉树科学发展问题调研报告[R]. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	Chinese Society of Forestry, 2016. Investigation report on scientific development of Eucalyptus [R]. Beijing: China Forestry Press.
[39]	周晓果, 2016. 林下植物功能群丧失对桉树人工林土壤生态系统多功能性的影响[D]. 南宁: 广西大学.
	ZHOU X G, 2016. Effects of understory plant functional groups loss on soil ecosystem multifunctionality in Eucalyptus plantations[D]. Nanning: Guangxi University.

林分类型 Stand type	海拔 Altitude/ m	坡度Slope/ (°)	郁闭度 Canopy density	胸径 DBH/cm	树高 Height/m	胸高断面积Basal area/ (m²∙hm^-2)	乔木生物量 Tree biomass/ (t∙hm^-2)
尾巨桉纯林 Pure Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis plantations	241	14	0.49±0.01c	13.61±0.20a	19.38±0.20a	18.35±0.59b	130.47±5.65b
红锥纯林 Pure Castanopsis hystrix plantations	281	16	0.75±0.02a	7.34±0.16c	9.52±0.14c	8.87±0.90c	35.79±4.20c
尾巨桉-红锥混交林 Mixed E. urophylla×E. grandis and C. hystrix plantations	245	14	0.68±0.02b	13.01±0.18b	18.39±0.29b	24.57±0.95a	175.80±8.68a
尾巨桉 E. urophylla×E. grandis				14.28±0.30	20.79±0.77	20.99±0.60*	159.45±6.68*
红锥 C. hystrix				9.49±1.12*	11.68±2.26*	3.58±0.45*	16.35±2.91*

林分类型 Stand type	海拔 Altitude/ m	坡度Slope/ (°)	郁闭度 Canopy density	胸径 DBH/cm	树高 Height/m	胸高断面积Basal area/ (m²∙hm^-2)	乔木生物量 Tree biomass/ (t∙hm^-2)
尾巨桉纯林 Pure Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis plantations	241	14	0.49±0.01c	13.61±0.20a	19.38±0.20a	18.35±0.59b	130.47±5.65b
红锥纯林 Pure Castanopsis hystrix plantations	281	16	0.75±0.02a	7.34±0.16c	9.52±0.14c	8.87±0.90c	35.79±4.20c
尾巨桉-红锥混交林 Mixed E. urophylla×E. grandis and C. hystrix plantations	245	14	0.68±0.02b	13.01±0.18b	18.39±0.29b	24.57±0.95a	175.80±8.68a
尾巨桉 E. urophylla×E. grandis				14.28±0.30	20.79±0.77	20.99±0.60*	159.45±6.68*
红锥 C. hystrix				9.49±1.12*	11.68±2.26*	3.58±0.45*	16.35±2.91*

林分类型 Stand type	土层深度 Soil depth/ cm	pH	土壤含水率 Soil moisture content/%	土壤容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm^-3)	有机碳 w_{(organic carbon)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全氮 w_{(total nitrogen)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全钾 w_{(total potassium)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全磷 w_{(total phosphorus)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	速效钾 w_{(available potassium)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)	有效磷 w_{(available phosphorus)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)
尾巨桉纯林Pure Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis plantations	0‒20	4.41±0.07Bb	24.42±2.32Ab	1.33±0.05Ca	19.97±1.99Ac	2.00±0.15Aa	10.12±3.33Ba	0.30±0.06Aa	44.06±2.03Aa	4.52±0.18Ac
	20‒40	4.62±0.28ABb	21.57±6.03ABa	1.59±0.22Ba	7.51±1.92Bb	1.53±0.27Ba	13.55±4.56ABa	0.25±0.05Aa	25.92±2.35Ba	1.43±0.30Bc
	40‒60	4.80±0.16Ab	20.82±6.67ABa	1.58±0.11Ba	6.57±1.29BCb	1.27±0.23BCa	16.90±4.15Aa	0.27±0.07Aa	25.92±3.11Ba	1.89±1.78Bb
	60‒80	4.69±0.38ABb	18.12±3.87ABb	1.69±0.09ABa	2.95±1.75Db	1.06±0.30Cab	15.75±6.41ABa	0.23±0.09Aa	23.06±4.12Ba	1.17±0.51Bc
	80‒100	4.91±0.18Ab	15.56±3.72Bb	1.78±0.12Aa	4.69±1.25CDb	1.17±0.08Ca	18.45±2.88Aa	0.25±0.08Aa	24.49±1.25Ba	0.85±0.27Bc
尾巨桉-红锥混交林Mixed E. urophylla× E. grandis and Castanopsis hystrix plantations	0‒20	5.00±0.13Ca	27.64±0.69Aa	1.25±0.02Cb	27.00±3.89Ab	2.08±0.36Aa	8.77±5.20Ba	0.29±0.09Aa	44.88±14.56Aa	7.87±0.60Aa
	20‒40	5.12±0.14BCa	25.12±2.66ABa	1.44±0.09Bab	15.81±2.52Ba	1.40±0.35Ba	10.13±4.6ABa	0.25±0.08Aa	27.96±8.5Ba	4.57±0.93Ba
	40‒60	5.27±0.14ABa	25.18±1.71ABa	1.50±0.03ABab	13.85±3.86BCa	1.28±0.32Ba	11.65±5.46ABa	0.27±0.08Aa	26.26±6.06Ba	3.88±0.15Ba
	60‒80	5.39±0.22Aa	24.99±3.01ABa	1.52±0.06ABb	11.66±3.47BCa	1.22±0.18Ba	13.13±4.6ABa	0.29±0.08Aa	25.10±4.83Ba	4.55±1.95Ba
	80‒100	5.41±0.18Aa	24.26±3.36Ba	1.56±0.08Ab	10.99±2.14Cab	1.24±0.25Ba	15.77±4.39Aa	0.24±0.04Aa	26.19±4.63Ba	4.08±1.06Ba
红锥纯林 Pure C. hystrix plantations	0‒20	4.55±0.10ABb	25.82±0.93Aab	1.22±0.05Cb	33.95±3.43Aa	2.29±0.09Aa	2.16±0.96Ab	0.31±0.06Aa	50.61±21.57Aa	5.31±0.70Ab
	20‒40	4.34±0.05Cc	23.12±2.54Aa	1.33±0.06BCb	18.90±3.05Ba	1.21±0.32Ba	2.73±1.22Ab	0.36±0.24Aa	22.86±15.83Ba	3.20±0.59Bb
	40‒60	4.47±0.10Bc	23.33±2.31Aa	1.40±0.07ABb	12.06±4.39Ca	0.83±0.14Cb	3.06±1.22Ab	0.25±0.01Aa	15.71±12.26Ba	2.97±0.56Bab
	60‒80	4.57±0.11ABb	23.61±3.12Aa	1.39±0.15ABb	8.98±2.71Ca	0.83±0.13Cb	3.19±1.23Ab	0.24±0.03Aa	13.06±10.54Bb	2.86±0.49Bb
	80‒100	4.60±0.09Ac	24.30±3.00Aa	1.47±0.07Ab	11.93±7.86Ca	0.79±0.15Cb	3.30±1.30Ab	0.25±0.05Aa	10.61±6.79Bb	2.75±0.72Bb

林分类型 Stand type	土层深度 Soil depth/ cm	pH	土壤含水率 Soil moisture content/%	土壤容重 Soil bulk density/ (g∙cm^-3)	有机碳 w_{(organic carbon)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全氮 w_{(total nitrogen)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全钾 w_{(total potassium)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	全磷 w_{(total phosphorus)}/ (g∙kg^-1)	速效钾 w_{(available potassium)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)	有效磷 w_{(available phosphorus)}/ (mg∙kg^-1)
尾巨桉纯林Pure Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis plantations	0‒20	4.41±0.07Bb	24.42±2.32Ab	1.33±0.05Ca	19.97±1.99Ac	2.00±0.15Aa	10.12±3.33Ba	0.30±0.06Aa	44.06±2.03Aa	4.52±0.18Ac
	20‒40	4.62±0.28ABb	21.57±6.03ABa	1.59±0.22Ba	7.51±1.92Bb	1.53±0.27Ba	13.55±4.56ABa	0.25±0.05Aa	25.92±2.35Ba	1.43±0.30Bc
	40‒60	4.80±0.16Ab	20.82±6.67ABa	1.58±0.11Ba	6.57±1.29BCb	1.27±0.23BCa	16.90±4.15Aa	0.27±0.07Aa	25.92±3.11Ba	1.89±1.78Bb
	60‒80	4.69±0.38ABb	18.12±3.87ABb	1.69±0.09ABa	2.95±1.75Db	1.06±0.30Cab	15.75±6.41ABa	0.23±0.09Aa	23.06±4.12Ba	1.17±0.51Bc
	80‒100	4.91±0.18Ab	15.56±3.72Bb	1.78±0.12Aa	4.69±1.25CDb	1.17±0.08Ca	18.45±2.88Aa	0.25±0.08Aa	24.49±1.25Ba	0.85±0.27Bc
尾巨桉-红锥混交林Mixed E. urophylla× E. grandis and Castanopsis hystrix plantations	0‒20	5.00±0.13Ca	27.64±0.69Aa	1.25±0.02Cb	27.00±3.89Ab	2.08±0.36Aa	8.77±5.20Ba	0.29±0.09Aa	44.88±14.56Aa	7.87±0.60Aa
	20‒40	5.12±0.14BCa	25.12±2.66ABa	1.44±0.09Bab	15.81±2.52Ba	1.40±0.35Ba	10.13±4.6ABa	0.25±0.08Aa	27.96±8.5Ba	4.57±0.93Ba
	40‒60	5.27±0.14ABa	25.18±1.71ABa	1.50±0.03ABab	13.85±3.86BCa	1.28±0.32Ba	11.65±5.46ABa	0.27±0.08Aa	26.26±6.06Ba	3.88±0.15Ba
	60‒80	5.39±0.22Aa	24.99±3.01ABa	1.52±0.06ABb	11.66±3.47BCa	1.22±0.18Ba	13.13±4.6ABa	0.29±0.08Aa	25.10±4.83Ba	4.55±1.95Ba
	80‒100	5.41±0.18Aa	24.26±3.36Ba	1.56±0.08Ab	10.99±2.14Cab	1.24±0.25Ba	15.77±4.39Aa	0.24±0.04Aa	26.19±4.63Ba	4.08±1.06Ba
红锥纯林 Pure C. hystrix plantations	0‒20	4.55±0.10ABb	25.82±0.93Aab	1.22±0.05Cb	33.95±3.43Aa	2.29±0.09Aa	2.16±0.96Ab	0.31±0.06Aa	50.61±21.57Aa	5.31±0.70Ab
	20‒40	4.34±0.05Cc	23.12±2.54Aa	1.33±0.06BCb	18.90±3.05Ba	1.21±0.32Ba	2.73±1.22Ab	0.36±0.24Aa	22.86±15.83Ba	3.20±0.59Bb
	40‒60	4.47±0.10Bc	23.33±2.31Aa	1.40±0.07ABb	12.06±4.39Ca	0.83±0.14Cb	3.06±1.22Ab	0.25±0.01Aa	15.71±12.26Ba	2.97±0.56Bab
	60‒80	4.57±0.11ABb	23.61±3.12Aa	1.39±0.15ABb	8.98±2.71Ca	0.83±0.13Cb	3.19±1.23Ab	0.24±0.03Aa	13.06±10.54Bb	2.86±0.49Bb
	80‒100	4.60±0.09Ac	24.30±3.00Aa	1.47±0.07Ab	11.93±7.86Ca	0.79±0.15Cb	3.30±1.30Ab	0.25±0.05Aa	10.61±6.79Bb	2.75±0.72Bb

变量 Variables	RDA1	RDA2	r²	P
灌木层地下部分生物量 Shrub belowground biomass	-0.756	0.655	0.715	0.001
草本层地上部分生物量 Herb aboveground biomass	0.992	-0.126	0.644	0.002
乔木层地上部分生物量 Tree aboveground biomass	-1.000	0.009	0.565	0.001
土壤碳氮比 Soil C:N ratio	0.779	-0.627	0.640	0.003
土壤全氮含量 Soil total nitrogen content	-0.988	0.153	0.534	0.014
土壤氮磷比 Soil N:P ratio	-0.922	0.388	0.412	0.039
土壤pH值 Soil pH	-0.905	-0.426	0.383	0.046
土壤速效钾含量 Soil available potassium content	-0.948	0.319	0.337	0.088

尾巨桉与红锥混交对林下植被和土壤性质的影响

Effects of Mixing Eucalyptus urophylla×E. grandis with Castanopsis hystrix on Understory Vegetation and Soil Properties

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 39

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王雪梅, 杨雪峰, 赵枫, 安柏耸, 黄晓宇. 基于机器学习算法的干旱区绿洲地上生物量估算[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1007-1015.
[2]	陈科屹, 林田苗, 王建军, 何友均, 张立文. 天保工程20年对黑龙江大兴安岭国有林区森林碳库的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1016-1025.
[3]	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.
[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]	杨耀东, 陈玉梅, 涂鹏飞, 曾清如. 经济作物轮作模式下镉污染农田修复潜力[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 627-634.
[6]	宋志斌, 周佳诚, 谭路, 唐涛. 高原河流着生藻类群落沿海拔梯度的变化特征--以西藏黑曲、雪曲为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 274-282.
[7]	李威闻, 黄金权, 齐瑜洁, 刘小岚, 刘纪根, 毛治超, 高绣纺. 土壤侵蚀条件下土壤微生物生物量碳含量变化及其影响因素的Meta分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 47-55.
[8]	黄伟佳, 刘春, 刘岳, 黄斌, 李定强, 袁再健. 南岭山地不同海拔土壤生态化学计量特征及影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 80-89.
[9]	王洁, 单燕, 马兰, 宋延静, 王向誉. 秸秆/生物质炭协同还田措施对黄河三角洲盐碱土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 90-98.
[10]	陈科屹, 王建军, 何友均, 张立文. 黑龙江大兴安岭重点国有林区森林碳储量及固碳潜力评估[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1725-1734.
[11]	刘桢迪, 宋艳宇, 王宪伟, 谭稳稳, 张豪, 高晋丽, 高思齐, 杜宇. 冻土区泥炭地植物生长及碳氮特征对模拟增温的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1765-1772.
[12]	陈乐, 卫伟. 西北旱区典型流域土地利用与生境质量的时空演变特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1909-1918.
[13]	王礼霄, 刘晋仙, 柴宝峰. 华北亚高山土壤细菌群落及氮循环对退耕还草的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1537-1546.
[14]	李婷婷, 侯梦丹, 邓欣妍, 周徐平, 王顺莉, 黄丹, 曾芷若, 彭涛. 贵州习水国家级自然保护区4种植被类型树附生苔藓植物多样性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1556-1565.
[15]	花莉, 成涛之, 梁智勇. 固定化混合菌对陕北黄土地区石油污染土壤的修复效果[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1610-1615.