林业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (9): 25-35.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20220903
罗斯生1,2,罗碧珍1,*,魏书精2,胡海清1,李小川2,王振师2,周宇飞2,宋兆2,钟映霞2
收稿日期:
2020-08-17
出版日期:
2022-09-25
发布日期:
2023-01-18
通讯作者:
罗碧珍
基金资助:
Sisheng Luo1,2,Bizhen Luo1,*,Shujing Wei2,Haiqing Hu1,Xiaochuan Li2,Zhenshi Wang2,Yufei Zhou2,Zhao Song2,Yingxia Zhong2
Received:
2020-08-17
Online:
2022-09-25
Published:
2023-01-18
Contact:
Bizhen Luo
摘要:
目的: 分析不同林龄马尾松次生林在森林火灾前后土壤理化性质、土壤活性有机碳组分(LOC)的动态特征及变化趋势,定量评价中度林火强度对土壤碳库稳定性的影响,可为定量研究中度林火对土壤碳平衡与碳循环的影响提供参考。方法: 选择成熟林、中龄林和幼龄林的马尾松次生林,采集火烧迹地及相邻未烧林分0~60 cm土壤,测定其土壤理化性质、细根生物量和土壤LOC组分含量,通过计算土壤碳库管理指数(CPMI)分析土壤碳库变化特征,采用通径分析探讨土壤CPMI的直接影响和间接影响因素。结果: 与对照样地相比,森林火灾后各林龄0~60 cm土层的土壤密度提高3.80%~4.85%、土壤pH值提高4.21%~5.78%、土壤全磷含量提高7.97%~12.44%,土壤含水率降低3.41%~3.97%、土壤全氮含量降低15.09%~17.45%、土壤有机碳含量降低10.07%~14.31%,幼龄林、中龄林和成熟林的土壤活性有机碳(LOC)分别降低22.70%、19.48%和17.48%。不同林龄马尾松次生林土壤CPMI对森林火灾的响应有差异,幼龄林、中龄林和成熟林的土壤CPMI分别为26.15、30.57和32.09,呈随林龄的增长而增加的趋势。马尾松次生林土壤CPMI与土壤LOC各组分呈极显著相关关系(P<0.01),与土壤理化性质和土壤细根生物量亦呈极显著相关关系(P<0.01)。通径分析表明,土壤全氮含量对土壤CPMI的直接影响最大,通径系数达1.786,土壤全磷含量、土壤细根生物量对其影响次之,通径系数分别为-1.021和0.981。结论: 中度林火对马尾松次生林土壤有机碳库稳定性产生重要影响,森林火灾后3种林龄之间的土壤活性有机质矿化释放的土壤养分产生差异,是马尾松次生林土壤碳库稳定性变化不一致的主要原因。土壤有机碳库稳定性随着林龄的增加和土壤深度增加而增强。因此,在制定火烧迹地生态修复策略时,应加强成熟林地的保护,同时加强对中幼龄林地的人工抚育,促进火后马尾松次生林的自然更新和恢复。
中图分类号:
罗斯生,罗碧珍,魏书精,胡海清,李小川,王振师,周宇飞,宋兆,钟映霞. 中度火灾一年后马尾松林土壤碳库特征[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(9): 25-35.
Sisheng Luo,Bizhen Luo,Shujing Wei,Haiqing Hu,Xiaochuan Li,Zhenshi Wang,Yufei Zhou,Zhao Song,Yingxia Zhong. Characteristics of Soil Carbon Pool in Pinus massoniana Forest One Year after Moderate Forest Fires[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58(9): 25-35.
表1
样地基本信息"
龄组 Age group | 样地类型 Plot type | 平均年龄 Average age/a | 纬度 Latitude | 经度 Longitude | 林分密度 Tree density/(plant·hm-2) | 郁闭度 Canopy density | 平均胸径 Average DBH/cm | 平均树高 Average tree height/m | 坡度 Slope/(°) | 坡位 Slope position | 坡向 Aspect | 海拔 Altitude/m |
幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 过火样地 Plot after fire | 8 | 22°46′01″N | 112°50′56″E | 1 632 | 0.85 | 8.25 | 6.75 | 15~25 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 52 |
对照样地 CK | 8 | 22°45′58″N | 112°50′57″E | 1 647 | 0.85 | 8.34 | 6.27 | 10~25 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 48 | |
中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 过火样地 Plot after fire | 17 | 22°45′52″N | 112°50′53″E | 1 047 | 0.75 | 10.85 | 9.14 | 20~30 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 59 |
对照样地 CK | 17 | 22°45′48″N | 112°50′53″E | 1 107 | 0.75 | 10.71 | 9.35 | 15~25 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 75 | |
成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 过火样地 Plot after fire | 31 | 22°45′44″N | 112°50′55″E | 796 | 0.70 | 17.43 | 15.62 | 20~30 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 65 |
对照样地 CK | 31 | 22°45′41″N | 112°50′56″E | 817 | 0.70 | 17.24 | 15.24 | 20~35 | 中 Middle | 阳坡 Sunny | 64 |
表2
不同林龄马尾松次生林细根生物量(平均值±标准差)"
林龄 Forest aged | 土层Soil layer/cm | |||||
0~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | 30~40 | 40~60 | ||
幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 对照样地 CK | 3.10±0.20 | 2.25±0.12 | 1.48±0.09 | 0.79±0.06 | 0.21±0.01 |
过火样地 Plot after fire | 2.30±0.16 | 1.83±0.10 | 1.30±0.09 | 0.76±0.04 | 0.19±0.01 | |
中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 对照样地 CK | 4.51±0.31 | 3.12±0.20 | 2.18±0.13 | 1.02±0.08 | 0.32±0.02 |
过火样地 Plot after fire | 3.22±0.21 | 2.45±0.18 | 1.86±0.12 | 0.98±0.07 | 0.30±0.02 | |
成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 对照样地 CK | 5.13±0.29 | 3.24±0.16 | 2.53±0.15 | 1.18±0.08 | 0.34±0.02 |
过火样地 Plot after fire | 3.14±0.18 | 2.38±0.16 | 2.06±0.10 | 1.05±0.07 | 0.29±0.02 |
表3
森林火灾对马尾松次生林土壤理化性质影响①"
土层 Soil layer/cm | 土壤密度 Soil bulk density/(g·cm-3) | 土壤含水率 Soil moisture(%) | 土壤pH Soil pH | 土壤TN含量 Soil TN content/(g·kg-1) | 土壤TP含量 Soil TP content/(g·kg-1) | 土壤有机碳含量 Soil organic carbon content/(g·kg-1) | |||||||||||||||||
幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | 幼龄林 Young-aged forest | 中龄林 Middle-aged forest | 成熟林 Mature-aged forest | ||||||
0~10 | 1.33±0.09 (+14.66%) | 1.29±0.07 (+14.16%) | 1.23±0.08 (+12.84%) | 19.96±0.76 (-8.27%) | 23.04±0.65 (-6.57%) | 24.65±0.85 (-8.47%) | 4.45±0.12 (+10.70%) | 4.29±0.12 (+10.28%) | 4.23±0.14 (+10.73%) | 0.43±0.02 (-21.67%) | 0.56±0.03 (-17.62%) | 0.64±0.04 (-15.24%) | 0.20±0.01 (+20.27%) | 0.24±0.01 (+25.14%) | 0.27±0.01 (+13.41%) | 5.91±0.25 (-27.37%) | 8.06±0.32 (-22.74%) | 11.17±0.37 (-22.45%) | |||||
10~20 | 1.42±0.06 (+2.90%) | 1.41±0.08 (+4.44%) | 1.27±0.08 (+2.42%) | 19.01±0.86 (-4.85%) | 21.16±0.83 (-2.35%) | 22.88±0.61 (-5.80%) | 4.82±0.14 (+8.31%) | 4.69±0.12 (+7.82%) | 4.54±0.15 (+6.57%) | 0.29±0.02 (-20.83%) | 0.37±0.02 (-28.98%) | 0.46±0.03 (-16.52%) | 0.18±0.01 (+20.00%) | 0.21±0.01 (+17.46%) | 0.25±0.01 (+9.32%) | 4.42±0.17 (-20.12%) | 6.28±0.27 (-16.58%) | 7.77±0.31 (-15.95%) | |||||
20~30 | 1.46±0.07 (+2.82%) | 1.44±0.06 (+2.86%) | 1.32±0.07 (+1.54%) | 18.49±0.74 (-1.18%) | 20.04±0.80 (-0.74%) | 20.87±0.66 (-1.51%) | 4.91±0.15 (+0.61%) | 4.73±0.20 (+3.50%) | 4.67±0.17 (+4.47%) | 0.28±0.01 (-16.83%) | 0.31±0.01 (-10.76%) | 0.41±0.02 (-18.69%) | 0.15±0.01 (+10.38%) | 0.17±0.01 (+3.99%) | 0.24±0.01 (+6.28%) | 4.05±0.17 (-17.49%) | 4.08±0.17 (-16.75%) | 6.64±0.24 (-5.00%) | |||||
30~40 | 1.48±0.08 (+1.37%) | 1.45±0.07 (+1.40%) | 1.37±0.05 (+1.48%) | 17.51±0.59 (-1.02%) | 18.75±0.87 (-1.37%) | 19.79±0.51 (-1.05%) | 4.94±0.17 (+0.61%) | 4.81±0.16 (+3.89%) | 4.74±0.14 (+3.49%) | 0.27±0.01 (-8.57%) | 0.28±0.02 (-10.93%) | 0.38±0.02 (-19.55%) | 0.15±0.01 (+6.66%) | 0.17±0.01 (+3.50%) | 0.24±0.01 (+4.38%) | 3.57±0.24 (-3.47%) | 3.79±0.18 (-1.58%) | 5.67±0.20 (-5.22%) | |||||
40~60 | 1.50±0.06 (+0.67%) | 1.47±0.09 (+1.38%) | 1.39±0.08 (+0.72%) | 16.56±0.65 (-4.55%) | 17.44±0.69 (-6.03%) | 19.29±0.59 (-0.26%) | 4.99±0.13 (+0.81%) | 4.84±0.15 (+3.42%) | 4.78±0.16 (+3.24%) | 0.26±0.02 (-8.96%) | 0.28±0.01 (-7.18%) | 0.35±0.02 (-17.26%) | 0.15±0.01 (+4.88%) | 0.17±0.01 (+8.41%) | 0.22±0.01 (+6.03%) | 3.40±0.16 (-3.09%) | 3.62±0.20 (-2.54%) | 4.61±0.25 (-1.75%) |
表4
马尾松次生林不同林龄CPMI①"
处理 Treatment | 幼龄林Young-aged forest | 中龄林Middle-aged forest | 成熟林Mature-aged forest | |||||||||||
CPL | CPLI | CPI | CPMI | CPL | CPLI | CPI | CPMI | CPL | CPLI | CPI | CPMI | |||
过火样地 Plot after fire | 0.44±0.15 | 0.86±0.11 | 0.30±0.08 | 26.15±9.53 | 0.52±0.20 | 0.90±0.11 | 0.33±0.08 | 30.57±10.63 | 0.54±0.28 | 0.95±0.05 | 0.33±0.10 | 32.09±10.87 | ||
对照样地 CK | 0.50±0.13 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.00 | 0.57±0.18 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.00 | 0.56±0.26 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.00 |
表5
马尾松次生林碳库管理的剖面垂直分布①"
处理 Treatment | 指标 Index | 土层Soil layer/cm | ||||
0~10 | 10~20 | 20~30 | 30~40 | 40~60 | ||
幼龄林对照样地 Young-aged forest CK | CPL | 0.59±0.10a | 0.57±0.10a | 0.53±0.09a | 0.51±0.10a | 0.30±0.05b |
CPLI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPMI | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |
幼龄林过火样地 Young-aged forest plot after fire | CPL | 0.59±0.13a | 0.55±0.10ab | 0.42±0.07b | 0.39±0.09bc | 0.23±0.04c |
CPLI | 1.00±0.04a | 0.98±0.01a | 0.79±0.01b | 0.77±0.02b | 0.76±0.04b | |
CPI | 0.37±0.05a | 0.35±0.04ab | 0.29±0.04bc | 0.28±0.04c | 0.19±0.03d | |
CPMI | 37.24±6.37a | 34.62±4.14a | 23.01±3.00b | 21.52±3.89bc | 14.36±2.52c | |
中龄林对照样地 Middle-aged forest CK | CPL | 0.77±0.16a | 0.59±0.10a | 0.58±0.11a | 0.57±0.15a | 0.33±0.06b |
CPLI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPMI | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |
中龄林过火样地 Middle-aged forest plot after fire | CPL | 0.79±0.16a | 0.58±0.12ab | 0.51±0.12b | 0.47±0.11bc | 0.27±0.06c |
CPLI | 1.03±0.02a | 0.98±0.03a | 0.87±0.04b | 0.82±0.02bc | 0.80±0.04c | |
CPI | 0.44±0.05a | 0.37±0.05ab | 0.34±0.05b | 0.32±0.05b | 0.21±0.04c | |
CPMI | 45.07±4.47a | 35.73±5.70b | 29.42±5.85bc | 25.91±3.76c | 16.73±3.62d | |
成熟林对照样地 Mature-aged forest CK | CPL | 0.99±0.28a | 0.50±0.09b | 0.49±0.10b | 0.47±0.10b | 0.34±0.06b |
CPLI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPI | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
CPMI | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |
成熟林过火样地 Mature-aged forest after fire | CPL | 1.00±0.29a | 0.49±0.11b | 0.47±0.09b | 0.43±0.09b | 0.30±0.07b |
CPLI | 1.01±0.01a | 0.97±0.03ab | 0.96±0.02b | 0.93±0.03b | 0.88±0.03c | |
CPI | 0.49±0.07a | 0.33±0.05b | 0.32±0.04bc | 0.30±0.04bc | 0.23±0.04c | |
CPMI | 49.76±7.69a | 31.73±5.55b | 30.53±3.15b | 27.99±3.08bc | 20.45±4.10c |
表8
马尾松次生林CPMI与土壤理化性质的通径分析"
变量 Variable | 直接通径系数 Direct path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||||
有机碳 SOC | 全氮 TN | 全磷 TP | 密度 Soil bulk density | 含水率 Soil moisture | pH | 碳磷比 C/P | 氮磷比 N/P | 细根生物量 Fine root biomass | ||
土壤有机碳SOC | 0.679 | 0.000 | 1.68 | -0.905 | -0.423 | -0.113 | 0.065 | -0.636 | -0.385 | 0.791 |
土壤全氮TN | 1.786 | 0.639 | 0.000 | -0.847 | -0.351 | -0.117 | 0.059 | -0.604 | -0.517 | 0.787 |
土壤全磷TP | -1.021 | 0.602 | 1.482 | 0.000 | -0.439 | -0.101 | 0.059 | -0.452 | -0.167 | 0.613 |
土壤密度 Soil bulk density | 0.526 | -0.547 | -1.192 | 0.852 | 0.000 | 0.072 | -0.072 | 0.452 | 0.088 | -0.571 |
土壤含水率 Soil moisture | -0.128 | 0.603 | 1.644 | -0.808 | -0.299 | 0.000 | 0.05 | -0.575 | -0.463 | 0.859 |
土壤pH Soil pH | -0.078 | -0.566 | -1.365 | 0.773 | 0.487 | 0.082 | 0.000 | 0.527 | 0.271 | -0.692 |
土壤碳磷比C/P | -0.685 | 0.63 | 1.576 | -0.674 | -0.347 | -0.107 | 0.06 | 0.000 | -0.501 | 0.851 |
土壤氮磷比N/P | -0.705 | 0.371 | 1.31 | -0.242 | -0.065 | -0.084 | 0.03 | -0.487 | 0.000 | 0.636 |
土壤细根生物量 Soil fine root biomass | 0.981 | 0.547 | 1.434 | -0.638 | -0.306 | -0.112 | 0.055 | -0.594 | -0.457 | 0.000 |
白云星, 周运超, 张薰元, 等. 马尾松针阔混交人工林凋落物和土壤水源涵养能力. 林业科学, 2021, 57 (11): 24- 36.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20211103 |
|
Bai Y X , Zhou Y C , Zhang X Y , et al. Water conservation capacity of litter and soil in mixed plantation of Pinus massoniana and broadleaved trees. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57 (11): 24- 36.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20211103 |
|
龚金玉, 彭金根, 谢利娟, 等. 深圳梧桐山不同树势毛棉杜鹃根际土壤微生物多样性分析. 林业科学, 2021, 57 (11): 190- 200.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20211119 |
|
Gong J Y , Peng J G , Xie L J , et al. Microbial diversity in rhizosphere soil of Rhododendron moulmainense with different tree potential in Wutong Mountain of Shenzhen. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57 (11): 190- 200.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20211119 |
|
谷加存, 赵妍丽, 王文娜, 等. 皮层和中柱对水曲柳和落叶松吸收根直径变异的影响. 林业科学, 2014, 50 (10): 59- 66. | |
Gu J C , Zhao Y L , Wang W N , et al. Effects of cortical thickness and stele diameter on variations of root diameter in Fraxinus mandshurica and Larix gmelinii. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2014, 50 (10): 59- 66. | |
国家林业局. 1999. LY/T 1210-1275-1999森林土壤分析方法: 北京: 中国标准出版社. | |
State Forestry Admincstrotion. 1999. LY/T 1210-1275-1999. The analysis methods of forest soil. Beijing: Standards Press of China. [in Chinese] | |
国家林业局. GB/T26424-2010森林资源规划设计调查技术规程. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011. | |
State Forestry Admincstrotion . GB/T26424-2010 Technical regulations of inventory for forest management planning and design. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2011. | |
胡海清, 罗碧珍, 罗斯生, 等. 2020. 林火干扰对森林生态系统碳库的影响研究进展. 林业科学, 56(4): 160-169. | |
Hu H Q, Luo B Z, Luo S S, et al. 2020. Research progress effects of forest fire disturbance on carbon pool of forest ecosystem, 56(4): 160-169. [in Chinese] | |
胡海清, 罗斯生, 罗碧珍, 等. 林火干扰对广东省杉木林土壤有机碳及其组分的影响. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41 (12): 108- 118.
doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20190179 |
|
Hu H Q , Luo S S , Luo B Z , et al. Effects of forest fire disturbance on soil organic carbon and its components of Cunninghamia lanceolata forest in Guangdong Province, southern China. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2019, 41 (12): 108- 118.
doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20190179 |
|
胡海清, 罗斯生, 罗碧珍, 等. 林火干扰对森林生态系统土壤有机碳的影响研究进展. 生态学报, 2020, 3 (6): 1- 12. | |
Hu H Q , Luo S S , Luo B Z , et al. Effects of forest fire disturbance on soil organic carbon in forest ecosystems: a review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 3 (6): 1- 12. | |
胡海清, 魏书精, 孙龙. 大兴安岭呼中区2010年森林火灾碳排放的计量估算. 林业科学, 2012, 48 (10): 109- 119.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20121017 |
|
Hu H Q , Wei S J , Sun L . Estimation of carbon emissions from forest fires in 2010 in Huzhong of Daxing'anling Mountain. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2012, 48 (10): 109- 119.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20121017 |
|
刘满强, 胡锋, 陈小云. 土壤有机碳稳定机制研究进展. 生态学报, 2007, 27 (6): 2642- 2650.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.06.059 |
|
Liu M Q , Hu F , Chen X Y . A review on mechanisms of soil organic carbon stabilization. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27 (6): 2642- 2650.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.06.059 |
|
鲁如坤. 土壤农化化学分析方法. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999. | |
Lu R K . Chemical analysis method of soil agrochemistry. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1999. | |
邱莉萍, 张兴昌, 程积民. 土地利用方式对土壤有机质及其碳库管理指数的影响. 中国环境科学, 2009, 29 (1): 84- 89.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6923.2009.01.017 |
|
Qiu L P , Zhang X C , Cheng J M . Effects of land-use type on soil organic matter and carbon management index in Ziwuling area. China Environmental Science, 2009, 29 (1): 84- 89.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6923.2009.01.017 |
|
徐明岗, 于荣, 孙小凤, 等. 长期施肥对我国典型土壤活性有机质及碳库管理指数的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006, 12 (4): 459- 465. | |
Xu M G , Yu R , Sun X F , et al. Effects of long-term fertilization on labile organic matter and carbon management index (CMI) of the typical soils of China. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2006, 12 (4): 459- 465. | |
薛萐, 刘国彬, 潘彦平, 等. 黄土丘陵区人工刺槐林土壤活性有机碳与碳库管理指数演变. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42 (4): 1458- 1464. | |
Xue S , Liu G B , Pan Y P , et al. Evolution of soil labile organic matter and carbon management index in the artificial Robinia of Loess hilly area. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009, 42 (4): 1458- 1464. | |
Abdalla M , Wattenbach M , Smith P , et al. Application of the DNDC model to predict emissions of N2O from Irish agriculture. Geoderma, 2009, 151 (3/4): 327- 337. | |
Alexander M E . Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1982, 60 (4): 349- 357.
doi: 10.1139/b82-048 |
|
An Z F , Bernard G M , Ma Z L , et al. Forest land-use increases soil organic carbon quality but not its structural or thermal stability in a hedgerow system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2021, 321, 107617. | |
Blair G J , Lefroy R D B , Lisle L . Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46 (7): 1459- 1466. | |
Cotrufo M F , Soong J L , Horton A J , et al. Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nature Geoscience, 2015, 8 (10): 776- 779. | |
Fritze H , Pennanen T , Pietikäinen J . Recovery of soil microbial biomass and activity from prescribed burning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1993, 23 (7): 1286- 1290. | |
Golchin A , Clarke P , Baldock J A , et al. The effects of vegetation and burning on the chemical composition of soil organic matter in a volcanic ash soil as shown by 13C NMR spectroscopy. Whole soil and humic acid fraction. Geoderma, 1997, 76 (3/4): 175- 192. | |
Kalambukattu J G , Singh R , Patra A K , et al. Soil carbon pools and carbon management index under different land use systems in the Central Himalayan region. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 2013, 63 (3): 200- 205. | |
Lai Z R , Zhang Y Q , Liu J B , et al. Fine-root distribution, production, decomposition, and effect on soil organic carbon of three revegetation shrub species in northwest China. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016, 359, 381- 388. | |
Mataix-Solera J , Cerdā A , Arcenegui V , et al. Fire effects on soil aggregation: a review. Earth-Science Reviews, 2011, 109 (1/2): 44- 60. | |
Pang D , Cui M , Liu Y , et al. Responses of soil labile organic carbon fractions and stocks to different vegetation restoration strategies in degraded karst ecosystems of southwest China. Ecological Engineering, 2019, 138, 391- 402. | |
Parton W J , Schimel D S , Cole C V , et al. Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains Grasslands 1. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1987, 51 (5): 1173- 1179. | |
Pellegrini A F A , Ahlström A , Hobbie S E , et al. Fire frequency drives decadal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen and ecosystem productivity. Nature, 2018, 553 (7687): 194- 198. | |
Priess J A , De Koning G H , Veldkamp A . Assessment of interactions between land use change and carbon and nutrient fluxes in Ecuador. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2001, 85 (1-3): 269- 279. | |
Ramesh T , Bolan N S , Kirkham M B , et al. Soil organic carbon dynamics: impact of land use changes and management practices: a review. Advances in Agronomy, 2019, 156, 1- 107. | |
Ren T B , Li J Y , Feng H L , et al. Micro-particle biochar for soil carbon pool management: application and mechanism. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2021, 157, 105229. | |
Sothe C , Gonsamo A , Arabian J , et al. Large Soil carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems of canada. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2022, 36 (2): e2021GB007213. | |
Tirol-Padre A , Ladha J K . Assessing the reliability of permanganate-oxidizable carbon as an index of soil labile carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2004, 68 (3): 969- 978. | |
Varela M E , Benito E , Keizer J J . Effects of wildfire and laboratory heating on soil aggregate stability of pine forests in Galicia: the role of lithology, soil organic matter content and water repellency. Catena, 2010, 83 (2/3): 127- 134. | |
Whitbread A M , Lefroy R D B , Blair G J . A survey of the impact of cropping on soil physical and chemical properties in north western New South Wales. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 1998, 36, 669- 681. | |
Xu H W , Qu Q , Lu B B , et al. Variation in soil organic carbon stability and driving factors after vegetation restoration in different vegetation zones on the Loess Plateau, China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2020, 204, 104727. | |
Xu M G , Yu R , Sun X F , et al. Effects of long-term fertilization on labile organic matter and carbon management index (CMI) of the typical soils of China. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2006, 12 (4): 459- 465. | |
Xu X , Cheng X , Zhou Y , et al. Variation of soil labile organic carbon pools along an elevational gradient in the Wuyi Mountains, China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2012, 1 (4): 368- 374. | |
Yang Y , Guo J , Chen G , et al. Effects of forest conversion on soil labile organic carbon fractions and aggregate stability in subtropical China. Plant and Soil, 2009, 323 (1/2): 153- 162. |
[1] | 陈嘉琪,赵光宇,李仰龙,董玉红,厚凌宇,焦如珍. 杉木人工林土壤磷素形态及含量的林龄变化[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(5): 10-17. |
[2] | 付晓,张煜星,王雪军. 2060年前我国森林生物量碳库及碳汇潜力预测[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(2): 32-41. |
[3] | 王淑真,梁晶晶,包明琢,潘菲,周垂帆. 不同林龄杉木林土壤磷形态与解磷菌变化[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(2): 58-69. |
[4] | 尹赛男,王东昶,单延龙,韩喜越,高博,王明霞. 黑龙江省3种主要火源引发森林火灾的次数和面积时空分布特征[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(6): 115-124. |
[5] | 赵珮杉,郭米山,高广磊,丁国栋,张英. 科尔沁沙地樟子松根内真菌群落结构和功能群特征[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(9): 87-96. |
[6] | 杨保国, 贾宏炎, 郝建, 李运兴, 庞圣江, 刘士玲, 张培, 牛长海, 蔡道雄. 不同林龄柚木人工林心边材生长变异特征[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(1): 65-73. |
[7] | 杜一尘, 李明泽, 范文义, 王斌. 基于地理加权回归模型与林火遥感数据估算森林年龄[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(6): 184-194. |
[8] | 刘宝, 王民煌, 余再鹏, 林思祖, 林开敏. 中亚热带天然林改造成人工林后土壤呼吸的变化特征[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(4): 1-12. |
[9] | 方祥, 王海晖, 陶骏骏, 盛昌栋. 林火蔓延过程中辐射换热和点燃特性分析[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(3): 97-105. |
[10] | 尹赛男, 舒立福, 张大明, 单延龙, 杜帅, 唐抒圆, 张鑫瑶, 张志文. 吉林省森林火灾火源数据特征分析[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(7): 165-172. |
[11] | 杨伟, 姜晓丽. 森林火灾火烧迹地遥感信息提取及应用[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(5): 135-142. |
[12] | 李翀, 周国模, 施拥军, 周宇峰, 徐林, 范叶青, 沈振明, 李少虹, 吕玉龙. 不同经营措施对毛竹林生态系统净碳汇能力的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(2): 1-9. |
[13] | 祖笑锋, 覃先林, 李增元, 孙桂芬, 刘树超. 基于幂律分布的森林燃烧生物量卫星遥感估测方法[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(10): 90-99. |
[14] | 张晨, 牛树奎, 陈锋, 邵潇, 王欢. 基于GIS的景观格局对云南省森林火灾的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(7): 96-103. |
[15] | 张德成, 陈绍志, 白冬艳. 森林火灾保险纯费率厘定模型及实证分析[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(7): 129-137. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||