林业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (11): 24-36.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20211103
白云星,周运超*,张薰元,杜姣姣
收稿日期:
2020-06-20
出版日期:
2021-11-25
发布日期:
2022-01-12
通讯作者:
周运超
基金资助:
Yunxing Bai,Yunchao Zhou*,Xunyuan Zhang,Jiaojiao Du
Received:
2020-06-20
Online:
2021-11-25
Published:
2022-01-12
Contact:
Yunchao Zhou
摘要:
目的: 探讨不同阔叶树种引入对马尾松人工林凋落物和土壤水源涵养能力的影响,为针阔混交林的营造和改造及其水文作用改善提供科学依据。方法: 在贵州省国有龙里林场选择立地条件和营林方式基本一致的5种马尾松针阔混交林(马尾松×伯乐、马尾松×桂南木莲、马尾松×连香树、马尾松×油茶、马尾松×深山含笑),以马尾松人工纯林为对照,通过野外调查和室内试验,并结合凋落物储量、土壤团聚体含量和土壤有机碳含量等参数,比较混交改造15年后不同人工林的凋落物、土壤特征及其持水能力变化。结果: 林下凋落物有效拦蓄量表现为马尾松×深山含笑(23.11 t·hm-2)>马尾松×连香树(18.77 t·hm-2)>马尾松×伯乐(18.28 t·hm-2)>马尾松×桂南木莲(16.01 t·hm-2)>马尾松纯林(13.39 t·hm-2)>马尾松×油茶(8.85 t·hm-2);在0~20 cm土层,伯乐、桂南木莲、油茶和深山含笑的引入分别使马尾松人工林土壤饱和蓄水量提高6.94%、9.00%、15.10%和23.90%,而连香引入使马尾松人工林土壤饱和蓄水量降低6.62%;在0~100 cm土层,油茶和深山含笑引入分别使马尾松人工林土壤饱和蓄水量提高8.08%和19.47%;土壤毛管蓄水量、非毛管持水量、饱和蓄水量均与土壤有机碳含量、毛管孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度、总孔隙度极显著正相关(P<0.01),与土壤密度和分形维数显著(P<0.05)或极显著(P<0.01)负相关;坐标综合评定法结果表明,深山含笑更适合作为改造马尾松人工纯林的混交树种,油茶引入会降低马尾松人工林凋落物、土壤水源涵养能力。结论: 不同阔叶树种与马尾松人工纯林混交改造15年后,林分凋落物组成、数量和土壤理化性质会发生不同程度改变,凋落物和土壤水源涵养能力表现为马尾松×深山含笑>马尾松×伯乐>马尾松×连香树>马尾松×桂南木莲>马尾松纯林>马尾松×油茶。未来人工林生态水文研究应关注不同树种及其混交林的凋落物和土壤水文功能差异,对人工针叶纯林进行阔叶树种混交改造时应注意选择合适的混交树种和混交比例。
中图分类号:
白云星,周运超,张薰元,杜姣姣. 马尾松针阔混交人工林凋落物和土壤水源涵养能力[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(11): 24-36.
Yunxing Bai,Yunchao Zhou,Xunyuan Zhang,Jiaojiao Du. Water Conservation Capacity of Litter and Soil in Mixed Plantation of Pinus massoniana and Broadleaved Trees[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(11): 24-36.
表1
样地概况"
林分类型 Stand type | 马尾松 Pinus massoniana | 阔叶树种 Broadleaf tree species | 密度 Density/ hm-2 | 混交比例 Mix proportion | 坡度 Slope/(°) | 坡向 Aspect | ||
树高Tree height/ m | DBH/ cm | 树高Tree height/ m | DBH/ cm | |||||
Ⅰ | 28.68 | 32.98 | - | - | 750 | - | 19 | 西北Northwest |
Ⅱ | 29.22 | 36.45 | 8.93 | 9.62 | 733 | 7∶3 | 23 | 西北Northwest |
Ⅲ | 28.07 | 47.27 | 13.53 | 15.24 | 708 | 7∶3 | 26 | 东北Northeast |
Ⅳ | 30.66 | 44.84 | 9.88 | 10.89 | 710 | 7∶3 | 15 | 东East |
Ⅴ | 30.82 | 39.79 | 2.49 | 4.97 | 775 | 7∶03 | 18 | 西南Southwest |
Ⅵ | 29.04 | 44.73 | 6.59 | 13.74 | 750 | 7∶03 | 27 | 东南Southeast |
表2
不同林分类型凋落物厚度与储量①"
林分类型 Stand type | 厚度 Thickness/cm | 储量 Stock/(t·hm-2) | |||
未分解层 Undecomposed | 半分解层 Semi-decomposed | 未分解层(比例) Undecomposed (proportion) | 半分解层(比例) Semi-decomposed (proportion) | ||
Ⅰ | 2.15±0.23a | 0.69±0.17a | 11.58±2.56a(78.62%) | 3.15±0.73a(21.38%) | |
Ⅱ | 2.71±0.24b | 1.32±0.17b | 8.83±1.13a(68.13%) | 4.13±0.60b(31.87%) | |
Ⅲ | 2.35±0.39ab | 1.29±0.12b | 9.39±0.75ab(64.58%) | 5.15±0.62b(35.42%) | |
Ⅳ | 1.68±0.16a | 1.26±0.17b | 6.38±1.18a(58.75%) | 4.48±0.61b(41.25%) | |
Ⅴ | 2.22±0.49ab | 1.63±0.29b | 5.99±1.44ac(60.94%) | 3.84±0.55b(39.06%) | |
Ⅵ | 3.14±0.52b | 1.58±0.16b | 6.48±1.00ac(64.80%) | 3.52±0.52b(35.20%) |
表3
不同林分类型凋落物持水率(x)与浸水时间(y)的关系"
凋落物Litter | 林分类型Stand type | 曲线方程Curve equation | R2 | P |
半分解层 Semi-decomposed | Ⅰ | y=0.195 8lnx+1.351 6 | 0.956 | 0.001 |
Ⅱ | y=0.183 9lnx+1.433 8 | 0.972 | 0.001 | |
Ⅲ | y=0.187 8lnx+1.165 6 | 0.957 | 0.001 | |
Ⅳ | y=0.190 6lnx+1.220 3 | 0.956 | 0.001 | |
Ⅴ | y=0.168 2lnx+0.897 8 | 0.967 | 0.001 | |
Ⅵ | y=0.179 6lnx+1.346 1 | 0.972 | 0.001 | |
未分解层 Undecomposed | Ⅰ | y=0.157 7lnx+1.541 4 | 0.974 | 0.001 |
Ⅱ | y=0.177 0lnx+1.479 0 | 0.989 | 0.001 | |
Ⅲ | y=0.172 3lnx+1.437 8 | 0.982 | 0.001 | |
Ⅳ | y=0.207 3lnx+1.475 1 | 0.975 | 0.001 | |
Ⅴ | y=0.138 8lnx+1.001 3 | 0.976 | 0.001 | |
Ⅵ | y=0.188 8lnx+1.723 8 | 0.97 | 0.001 |
表4
不同林分类型土壤理化性质①"
林分类型 Stand type | 土层 Soil layer/cm | 平均质量直径 Mean weight diameter(MWD)/mm | 几何平均值径 Geometric mean diameter GMD/mm | 分形维数 Fractal dimension(D) | 土壤密度 Soil density/(g·cm-3) | 毛管孔隙度 Capillary porosity (%) | 非毛管孔隙度 Non-capillary porosity (%) | 总孔隙度 Total porosity (%) | 土壤有机碳含量 Soil organic carbon content/ (g·kg-1) |
Ⅰ | 0~20 | 3.01±0.25b | 1.42±0.30ab | 2.73±0.05c | 1.36±0.04b | 44.98±1.44ab | 5.55±0.63ab | 50.53±1.68ab | 18.80±0.82a |
20~40 | 3.17±0.30b | 1.59±0.35ab | 2.71±0.06bc | 1.53±0.02b | 39.94±1.35a | 3.23±0.37a | 43.17±1.16ab | 13.98±1.40a | |
40~60 | 3.54±0.33a | 2.19±0.44abc | 2.59±0.06b | 1.55±0.43bc | 39.52±1.50a | 3.33±0.47a | 42.84±1.30a | 12.83±1.66a | |
60~80 | 3.38±0.58a | 2.07±0.67a | 2.63±0.10b | 1.57±0.03b | 41.81±1.64b | 2.90±0.34ab | 44.71±1.58b | 12.32±3.36ab | |
80~100 | 3.67±0.11a | 2.27±0.23a | 2.59±0.07a | 1.59±0.04bc | 42.42±2.32bc | 2.69±0.32ab | 45.10±2.11b | 10.74±2.95a | |
均值Meanvalue | 3.35±0.22b | 1.91±0.29ab | 2.65±0.05c | 1.52±0.02c | 41.73±0.78b | 3.54±0.24a | 45.27±0.80b | 13.73±1.34a | |
Ⅱ | 0~20 | 2.10±0.33a | 0.78±0.22a | 2.80±0.04c | 1.23±0.03ab | 49.57±2.29b | 4.47±0.53a | 54.04±2.22b | 22.72±1.39a |
20~40 | 2.21±0.36a | 0.84±0.21a | 2.80±0.04c | 1.38±0.05ab | 45.04±1.92b | 2.92±0.36a | 47.96±1.94b | 15.22±0.85a | |
40~60 | 2.95±0.19a | 1.37±0.16a | 2.72±0.01bc | 1.54±0.05bc | 36.30±2.17a | 3.25±0.46a | 39.55±1.97a | 13.19±0.75a | |
60~80 | 3.73±0.03a | 2.25±0.06a | 2.63±0.02b | 1.67±0.02bc | 34.26±0.76a | 2.38±0.27a | 36.64±0.65a | 9.61±0.47a | |
80~100 | 3.61±0.11a | 2.24±0.18a | 2.58±0.03a | 1.66±0.03bc | 36.71±0.97a | 2.57±0.25ab | 39.29±1.09a | 9.59±0.82a | |
均值Mean value | 2.92±0.10a | 1.50±0.07a | 2.71±0.01cd | 1.50±0.03c | 40.38±1.16ab | 3.12±0.20a | 43.49±1.22ab | 14.08±1.33a | |
Ⅲ | 0~20 | 2.18±0.16a | 0.89±0.08a | 2.74±0.01c | 1.27±0.03abc | 49.34±0.76b | 6.08±0.75ab | 55.08±1.10b | 19.34±0.49a |
20~40 | 3.11±0.47b | 1.74±0.45ab | 2.64±0.06bc | 1.51±0.05ab | 40.42±1.57a | 3.18±0.55a | 43.93±1.82ab | 9.88±1.02a | |
40~60 | 3.00±0.34a | 1.59±0.36a | 2.65±0.07b | 1.54±0.04bc | 38.90±1.02a | 3.18±0.47a | 42.08±1.17a | 8.55±1.67a | |
60~80 | 3.39±0.22a | 1.86±0.30a | 2.66±0.04a | 1.60±0.05b | 38.15±1.61ab | 2.01±0.32a | 40.16±1.87a | 9.04±0.76a | |
80~100 | 3.56±0.17a | 2.19±0.30a | 2.57±0.06a | 1.55±0.03b | 38.14±0.99ab | 2.25±0.37a | 40.39±1.05a | 8.22±1.34a | |
均值Mean value | 3.05±0.07ab | 1.65±0.03a | 2.65±0.01c | 1.50±0.03c | 40.99±0.83ab | 3.34±0.31a | 44.33±1.04ab | 11.00±1.20a | |
Ⅳ | 0~20 | 3.51±0.32bc | 2.17±0.48b | 2.58±0.06b | 1.40±0.05bc | 42.70±1.91a | 4.49±0.54a | 47.19±1.91a | 27.48±3.70ab |
20~40 | 3.89±0.21b | 2.74±0.36bc | 2.49±0.07b | 1.58±0.03b | 39.33±0.85a | 2.75±0.37a | 42.08±0.86a | 13.40±2.68a | |
40~60 | 3.96±0.21a | 2.88±0.32bc | 2.46±0.04ab | 1.60±0.03c | 37.72±1.15a | 2.75±0.24a | 40.47±1.28a | 10.28±2.42a | |
60~80 | 2.81±0.25a | 2.53±0.42ab | 2.54±0.08b | 1.56±0.03b | 36.99±1.12a | 2.59±0.29a | 39.58±1.18a | 8.08±0.49a | |
80~100 | 3.80±0.21a | 2.60±0.34a | 2.51±0.05a | 1.55±0.03b | 36.07±1.62a | 2.45±0.36ab | 38.52±1.56a | 7.86±2.73a | |
均值Meanvalue | 3.79±0.13c | 2.58±0.20bc | 2.52±0.03b | 1.54±0.02c | 38.56±0.69a | 3.01±0.20a | 41.57±0.75a | 13.42±2.19a | |
Ⅴ | 0~20 | 3.69±0.28bc | 2.49±0.42bc | 2.51±0.05b | 1.26±0.04abc | 53.14±1.01bc | 5.02±0.33ab | 58.16±1.10bc | 36.46±5.85b |
20~40 | 3.36±0.14b | 1.91±0.78b | 2.61±0.02bc | 1.32±0.05a | 47.79±1.46bc | 3.58±0.51a | 51.37±1.53bc | 19.28±3.21ab | |
40~60 | 3.17±0.56a | 1.87±0.65ab | 2.63±0.11b | 1.43±0.04b | 44.61±0.91b | 3.22±0.36a | 47.84±0.96b | 13.04±4.83a | |
60~80 | 3.77±0.17a | 2.52±0.28ab | 2.53±0.05b | 1.46±0.05ab | 42.32±0.85bc | 2.91±0.34ab | 45.23±0.88b | 8.84±4.13a | |
80~100 | 3.98±0.34a | 2.87±0.63a | 2.49±0.11a | 1.43±0.06ab | 39.67±1.00abc | 2.38±0.13ab | 42.05±0.97ab | 10.30±3.95a | |
均值Mean value | 3.59±0.13bc | 2.33±0.17b | 2.55±0.04bc | 1.38±0.02b | 45.51±0.84c | 3.42±0.20a | 48.93±0.96c | 17.58±3.18a | |
Ⅵ | 0~20 | 3.87±0.06c | 2.98±0.08bc | 2.27±0.01a | 1.15±0.07a | 55.19±1.62c | 7.42±1.44b | 62.61±1.80c | 40.89±5.84bc |
20~40 | 3.78±0.12b | 2.84±0.15bc | 2.32±0.01a | 1.29±0.06a | 51.51±1.13c | 5.69±1.26b | 57.19±1.99d | 30.82±10.57b | |
40~60 | 4.03±0.06a | 3.22±0.11c | 2.27±0.04a | 1.27±0.07a | 48.89±1.16c | 4.81±0.64b | 53.71±1.35c | 28.76±9.69b | |
60~80 | 4.32±0.07a | 3.67±0.17b | 2.19±0.07a | 1.37±0.06a | 46.38±1.56d | 3.95±0.80b | 50.33±1.86c | 20.43±5.62b | |
80~100 | 3.79±0.23a | 2.83±0.45a | 2.32±0.14a | 1.35±0.07a | 43.29±1.31c | 3.31±0.35b | 46.60±1.28bc | 16.01±3.64a | |
均值Mean value | 3.96±0.07c | 3.11±0.14c | 2.28±0.05a | 1.29±0.03a | 49.05±0.85d | 5.04±0.47b | 54.09±1.10d | 27.38±3.67b |
表5
不同林分类型土壤蓄水能力"
林分类型 Stand type | 土层 Soil layer/cm | 土壤饱和蓄水量 Soil saturated water storage/(t·hm-2) | 土壤毛管蓄水量 Soil capillary water storage/(t·hm-2) | 土壤非毛管持水量 Soil non-capillary water holding capacity/(t·hm-2) |
Ⅰ | 0~20 | 1 010.65±33.69ab | 899.59±228.76ab | 111.07±12.60ab |
20~40 | 863.42±23.12ab | 798.85±26.99a | 64.58±7.30a | |
40~60 | 856.85±25.99a | 790.29±30.00a | 66.56±9.30a | |
60~80 | 894.27±31.52b | 836.18±32.80b | 58.09±6.88ab | |
80~100 | 902.05±42.14b | 848.32±46.44b | 53.73±6.35ab | |
均值Mean value | 905.45±15.99b | 834.64±15.54b | 70.80±4.87a | |
Ⅱ | 0~20 | 1 080.76±44.40b | 991.45±45.70b | 89.31±10.62a |
20~40 | 959.18±38.76b | 900.87±38.46b | 58.31±7.12a | |
40~60 | 790.91±39.36a | 725.91±43.38a | 65.00±9.27a | |
60~80 | 732.78±13.03a | 685.16±15.20a | 47.62±5.40a | |
80~100 | 785.71±21.88a | 734.27±19.47a | 51.44±5.08ab | |
均值Mean value | 869.87±24.30ab | 807.53±23.16ab | 62.34±4.00a | |
Ⅲ | 0~20 | 1 101.64±21.92b | 986.80±15.51b | 121.51±14.98ab |
20~40 | 878.59±36.42ab | 808.37±31.31a | 63.56±10.94a | |
40~60 | 841.61±23.43a | 777.95±20.35a | 63.67±9.41a | |
60~80 | 803.17±37.41a | 762.97±32.10ab | 40.20±6.43a | |
80~100 | 807.79±20.95a | 762.70±19.85ab | 45.09±7.12a | |
均值Mean value | 886.56±20.79ab | 819.76±16.62ab | 66.80±6.17a | |
Ⅳ | 0~20 | 943.70±38.17a | 853.92±38.21a | 89.78±10.87a |
20~40 | 841.50±17.20a | 786.50±16.92a | 55.00±7.35a | |
40~60 | 809.33±25.56a | 754.38±22.90a | 54.96±4.74a | |
60~80 | 791.60±23.62a | 739.71±22.44a | 51.89±5.71a | |
80~100 | 770.42±31.27a | 721.42±32.50a | 49.00±7.21ab | |
均值Mean value | 831.31±15.08a | 771.19±13.73a | 60.12±3.91a | |
Ⅴ | 0~20 | 1 163.28±21.94bc | 1062.86±20.16bc | 100.42±6.51ab |
20~40 | 1 027.39±30.61bc | 955.70±29.15bc | 71.69±10.23a | |
40~60 | 956.72±19.17b | 892.23±18.22b | 64.49±7.24a | |
60~80 | 904.55±17.55b | 846.35±16.97bc | 58.20±6.75ab | |
80~100 | 841.02±19.45ab | 793.42±20.04abc | 47.60±2.61 | |
均值Mean value | 978.59±19.21c | 910.11±16.74c | 68.48±4.05a | |
Ⅵ | 0~20 | 1 252.21±35.98c | 1 103.75±32.47c | 148.47±28.79b |
20~40 | 1 143.86±39.90d | 1 030.11±22.61c | 113.76±25.28b | |
40~60 | 1 074.15±26.98c | 977.88±23.28c | 96.27±12.87b | |
60~80 | 1 006.53±37.13c | 927.60±31.12d | 78.93±16.04b | |
80~100 | 931.97±25.52bc | 865.75±26.17bc | 66.22±7.10b | |
均值Mean value | 1 081.75±21.97d | 981.02±17.02d | 100.73±9.45b |
表6
土壤性质与蓄水能力的相关性分析①"
项目 Item | 土壤饱和蓄水量 Soil saturated water storage | 土壤毛管蓄水量 Soil capillary water storage | 土壤非毛管持水量 Soil non-capillary water holding capacity | 土壤密度 Soil density | 非毛管孔隙度 Non-capillary porosity | 毛管孔隙度 Capillary porosity | 总孔隙度 Total porosity | 平均质量直径 Mean weight diameter(MWD) | 几何平均直径 Geometric mean diameter(GMD) | 分形维数 Fractal dimension(D) | 土壤有机碳含量 Soil organic carbon content |
土壤饱和蓄水量 Soil saturated water storage | 1 | ||||||||||
土壤毛管蓄水量 Soil capillary water storage | 0.989** | 1 | |||||||||
土壤非毛管持水量 Soil non-capillary water holding capacity | 0.761** | 0.657** | 1 | ||||||||
土壤密度Soil density | -0.901** | -0.873** | -0.773** | 1 | |||||||
非毛管孔隙度 Non-capillary porosity | 0.762** | 0.658** | 1.000** | -0.774** | 1 | ||||||
毛管孔隙度 Capillary porosity | 0.989** | 1.000** | 0.657** | -0.873** | 0.659** | 1 | |||||
总孔隙度Total porosity | 1.000** | 0.989** | 0.761** | -0.901** | 0.762** | 0.989** | 1 | ||||
平均质量直径 Mean weight diameter(MWD) | 0.411 | 0.404 | 0.326 | -0.254 | 0.326 | 0.404 | 0.411 | 1 | |||
几何平均直径 Geometric mean diameter(GMD) | 0.513* | 0.497* | 0.444 | -0.377 | 0.444 | 0.497* | 0.514* | 0.973** | 1 | ||
分形维数 Fractal dimension(D) | -0.655** | -0.631** | -0.574* | 0.528* | -0.574* | -0.631** | -0.655** | -0.871** | -0.950** | 1 | |
土壤有机碳含量 Soil organic carbon content | 0.667** | 0.598** | 0.786** | -0.741** | 0.785** | 0.598** | 0.667** | 0.331 | 0.404 | -0.503* | 1 |
图3
不同林分类型凋落物和土壤持水能力的影响因素 SD:土壤密度Soil density; D:分形维数Fractal dimension;MWD:平均质量直径Mean weight diameter;GMD:几何平均直径Geometric mean diameter;SS:土壤饱和蓄水量Soil saturated water storage;TP:总孔隙度Total porosity;SC:土壤毛管蓄水量Soil capillary water storage;CP:毛管孔隙度Capillary porosity;NSH:土壤非毛管持水量Soil non-capillary water holding capacity;NCP:非毛管孔隙度Non-capillary porosity;SOC:土壤有机碳Soil organic carbon;LEW:凋落物有效拦蓄量Effective water conservation capacity of litter;LMW: 凋落物最大持水量Maximum water holding capacity of litter."
丁怡飞, 曹永庆, 姚小华, 等. 油茶-鼠茅草复合系统细根空间分布及地下竞争. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37 (4): 981- 986. | |
Ding Y F , Cao Y Q , Yao X H , et al. Spatial distribution of fine roots and underground competition in Camellia oleifera-Vulpia myuros intercropping system. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2018, 37 (4): 981- 986. | |
何圣嘉, 谢锦升, 杨智杰, 等. 南方红壤丘陵区马尾松林下水土流失现状、成因及防治. 中国水土保持科学, 2011, 9 (6): 65- 70.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3007.2011.06.011 |
|
He S J , Xie J S , Yang Z J , et al. Status, causes and prevention of soil and water loss in Pinus massoniana woodland in hilly red soil region of southern China. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 9 (6): 65- 70.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3007.2011.06.011 |
|
聂泽旭, 齐实, 马曦瑶, 等. 华蓥市山区典型林分水源涵养功能评价. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34 (2): 276- 282. | |
Nie Z X , Qi S , Ma X Y , et al. Evaluation of water conservation function of typical stands in mountainous areas of Huaying City. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 34 (2): 276- 282. | |
潘春翔, 李裕元, 彭亿, 等. 湖南乌云界自然保护区典型生态系统的土壤持水性能. 生态学报, 2012, 32 (2): 538- 547. | |
Pan C X , Li Y Y , Peng Y , et al. Soil water holding capacity under four typical ecosystems in Wuyunjie Nature Reserve of Hunan Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32 (2): 538- 547. | |
孙艳红, 张洪江, 程金花, 等. 缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20 (2): 106- 109.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2006.02.026 |
|
Sun Y H , Zhang H J , Cheng J H , et al. Soil characteristics and water conservation of different forest types in Jinyun Mountain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20 (2): 106- 109.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2006.02.026 |
|
王棣, 吕皎. 油松混交林的水土保持及水源涵养功能研究. 水土保持学报, 2001, 15 (4): 44- 46.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2001.04.012 |
|
Wang D , Lü J . Effects of replanting broad-leaved tree species on water conservation of Pinus massoniana plantation in red soil eroded region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2001, 15 (4): 44- 46.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2001.04.012 |
|
王利, 于立忠, 张金鑫, 等. 浑河上游水源地不同林型水源涵养功能分析. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29 (3): 249- 255. | |
Wang L , Yu L Z , Zhang J X , et al. Analysis of water conservation functions of different forest types in the upper reaches of Hunhe River. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29 (3): 249- 255. | |
颜耀, 张辉, 黄智军, 等. 补植阔叶树种对红壤侵蚀区马尾松林水源涵养功能的影响. 福建农林大学学报: 自然科学版, 2020, 49 (1): 67- 73. | |
Yan Y , Zhang H , Huang Z J , et al. Effects of replanting broad-leaved tree species on water conservation of Pinus massoniana plantation in red soil eroded region. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University: (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 49 (1): 67- 73. | |
朱少木. 杉木深山含笑混交林分生物量结构研究. 安徽农学通报(上半月刊), 2012, 18 (13): 121- 123. | |
Zhu S M . Biomass structure of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Michelia maudiae in mixed stand. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin (semimonthly), 2012, 18 (13): 121- 123. | |
朱万泽, 盛哲良, 舒树淼. 川西亚高山次生林恢复过程中土壤物理性质及水源涵养效应. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33 (6): 205- 212. | |
Zhu W Z , Sheng Z L , Shu S M . Soil physical properties and water holding capacity of natural secondary forests in a sub-alpine region of western Sichuan, China. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33 (6): 205- 212. | |
Bahnmann B , Mašínová T , Halvorsen R , et al. Effects of oak, beech and spruce on the distribution and community structure of fungi in litter and soils across a temperate forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2018, 119, 162- 173.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.021 |
|
Baptista M , Livesley S , Ghanbari Parmehr E , et al. Variation in leaf area density drives the rainfall storage capacity of individual urban tree species. Hydrological Processes, 2018, 32 (25): 3729- 3740.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.13255 |
|
Chen S , Cao T , Tanaka N , et al. Hydrological properties of litter layers in mixed forests in Mt. Qinling, China. IForest, 2018, 11 (1): 243- 250. | |
Gao X , Li H , Zhao X , et al. Identifying a suitable revegetation technique for soil restoration on water-limited and degraded land: considering both deep soil moisture deficit and soil organic carbon sequestration. Geoderma, 2018, 319, 61- 69.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.01.003 |
|
Gerrits M , Pfister L , Savenije H . Spatial and temporal variability of canopy and forest floor interception in a beech forest. Hydrological Processes, 2010, 24 (21): 3011- 3025.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.7712 |
|
Gerrits M , Savenije H , Hoffmann L , et al. New technique to measure forest floor interception-an application in a beech forest in Luxembourg. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences, 2007, 11 (74): 695- 701. | |
Gomyo M , Kuraji K . Effect of the litter layer on runoff and evapotranspiration using the paired watershed method. Journal of Forest Research, 2016, 21 (6): 306- 313.
doi: 10.1007/s10310-016-0542-5 |
|
Gu Z , Xiaoxia W , Feng Z , et al. Estimating the effect of Pinus massoniana Lamb plots on soil and water conservation during rainfall events using vegetation fractional coverage. Catena, 2013, 109, 225- 233.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2013.03.008 |
|
Horodecki P , Nowiński M , Jagodziński A . Advantages of mixed tree stands in restoration of upper soil layers on postmining sites: a five-year leaf litter decomposition experiment. Land Degradation and Development, 2018, 30 (1): 3- 13. | |
Jia X , Shao M , Zhu Y , et al. Soil moisture decline due to afforestation across the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Hydrology, 2017, 546, 113- 122.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.011 |
|
Keenan R , Reams G , Frédéric A , et al. Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO global forest resources assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 2015, 352, 9- 20.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.014 |
|
Lee R . Forest Hydrology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. | |
Li X , Xiao Q , Niu J , et al. Rainfall interception by tree crown and leaf litter: an interactive process. Hydrological Processes, 2017, 31 (20): 3533- 3542.
doi: 10.1002/hyp.11275 |
|
Li Y , Li B , Zhang X , et al. Differential water and soil conservation capacity and associated processes in four forest ecosystems in Dianchi Watershed, Yunnan Province, China. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 70 (3): 198- 206.
doi: 10.2489/jswc.70.3.198 |
|
Liu B , Liu Q , Daryanto S , et al. Responses of Chinese fir and Schima superba seedlings to light gradients: implications for the restoration of mixed broadleaf-conifer forests from Chinese fir monocultures. Forest Ecology and Management, 2018, 419, 51- 57. | |
Molina A , Llorens P , Garcia-Estringana P , et al. Contributions of throughfall, forest and soil characteristics to near-surface soil water-content variability at the plot scale in a mountainous Mediterranean area. Science of The Total Environment, 2018, 647, 1421- 1432. | |
Mosley M . The effect of a New Zealand Beech forest canopy on the kinetic energy of water drops and on surface erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1982, 7 (2): 103- 107.
doi: 10.1002/esp.3290070204 |
|
Neris J , Tejedor M , Rodríguez M , et al. Effect of forest floor characteristics on water repellency, infiltration, runoff and soil loss in Andisols of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). Catena, 2013, 108, 50- 57.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2012.04.011 |
|
Pérez-Bejarano A , Mataix-Solera J , Zornoza R , et al. Influence of plant species on physical, chemical and biological soil properties in a Mediterranean forest soil. European Journal of Forest Research, 2010, 129 (1): 15- 24.
doi: 10.1007/s10342-008-0246-2 |
|
Rodell M , Beaudoing H , L'Ecuyer T , et al. The observed state of the water cycle in the early 21st century. Journal of Climate, 2015, 28 (21): 8289- 8318.
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00555.1 |
|
Seitz S , Goebes P , Zumstein P , et al. The influence of leaf litter diversity and soil fauna on initial soil erosion in subtropical forests. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2015, 40 (11): 1439- 1447.
doi: 10.1002/esp.3726 |
|
Stone R . Nursing China's ailing forests back to health. Science, 2009, 325 (5940): 556- 558.
doi: 10.1126/science.325_556 |
|
Wang B , Zhao X , Liu Y , et al. Using soil aggregate stability and erodibility to evaluate the sustainability of large-scale afforestation of Robinia pseudoacacia and Caragana korshinskii in the Loess Plateau. Forest Ecology and Management, 2019, 450, 117491.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117491 |
|
Xie J , Guo J , Yang Z , et al. Rapid accumulation of carbon on severely eroded red soils through afforestation in subtropical China. Forest Ecology and Management, 2013, 300, 53- 59.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.038 |
|
Zhu G , Shangguan Z , Deng L . Soil aggregate stability and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen in natural restoration grassland and Chinese red pine plantation on the Loess Plateau. Catena, 2017, 149, 253- 260.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.10.004 |
|
Zhu X , Liu W , Chen H , et al. Effects of forest transition on litterfall, standing litter and related nutrient returns: implications for forest management in tropical China. Geoderma, 2019, 333, 123- 134.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.023 |
[1] | 宋娟,吴祝华,翁行良,赵邢,杨学祥,唐荣林,曹兵,巫昱,沈厚宇,任嘉红,陈凤毛. 枫香根际丛枝菌根真菌多样性[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(9): 98-109. |
[2] | 王梓璇,王鼎,赵鹏武,张岐岳,杨磊,周梅. 寒温带冻土区火烧木管理方式对土壤呼吸及其组分的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(8): 13-23. |
[3] | 房焕英,肖胜生,余小芳,熊永,欧阳勋志,秦晓蕾. 湿地松人工林土壤呼吸及其组分对模拟酸雨的响应[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(7): 20-31. |
[4] | 郑翔,曹敏敏,纪小芳,方万力,刘胜龙,姜姜. 森林土壤氧化亚氮排放对磷添加响应的研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(6): 150-157. |
[5] | 张燕林,黄彩凤,包明琢,周垂帆,何宗明. 生物炭及其老化对杉木林土壤养分含量和微生物群落组成影响的室内模拟[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(6): 169-179. |
[6] | 王丽红,高鸿坤,赵雨森,付强,何传源,孙鑫,梁建鑫,张啸鹏. 火烧迹地植被恢复对生长季林内小气候的调节作用[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(4): 14-23. |
[7] | 高艳丽,杨智杰,张丽,熊德成. 不同更新方式对亚热带常绿阔叶林土壤氮矿化的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(4): 24-31. |
[8] | 谢云,郭芳芸,陈丽华,曹兵. 大气CO2浓度升高对宁夏枸杞根区土壤微生物功能多样性及碳源利用特征的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(4): 163-172. |
[9] | 芦琛,蒋小董,吴冠宇,郝爽敬,丁宏博,佟小刚. 黄土丘陵区不同退耕林地表土水溶性有机质含量及光谱特征差异[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(11): 13-23. |
[10] | 刘静如, 曹艺, 李晗, 张丽, 游成铭, 徐振锋, 谭波. 四川低山丘陵区香樟和马尾松凋落叶分解进程中土壤节肢动物多样性[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(11): 119-133. |
[11] | 龚金玉, 彭金根, 谢利娟, 张银凤, 李朝婵, 王艳梅. 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[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(11): 190-200. |
[12] | 尹伊君,毛云飞,杨露,张璐璐,胡艳丽,毛志泉,陈学森,沈向. 增氧灌溉对平邑甜茶生长及根区土壤的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(10): 59-70. |
[13] | 赵晓红,柴姗姗,张曼曼,范义昌,毛云飞,毛志泉,沈向. 施用贝壳粉对酸化土壤微生物多样性及平邑甜茶幼苗生长的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(9): 153-163. |
[14] | 田奥,王加国,韩振诚,吴佳伟,李苇洁. 百里杜鹃林区马缨杜鹃凋落物花叶混合比例对分解的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(8): 1-10. |
[15] | 侯文军,邹明,李宝福,俞元春. 施用草甘膦对桉树人工林土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(8): 20-26. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||