中度火灾一年后马尾松林土壤碳库特征

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20220903

摘要/Abstract

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。

关键词: 森林火灾, 马尾松次生林, 林龄, 土壤碳库, 碳库管理指数

Abstract:

Objective: The soil physicochemical properties, dynamic characteristics and changing trends of soil labile organic carbon (LOC) before and after forest fires in the secondary forests of Pinus massoniana were analyzed, and the impact of moderate forest fire intensity on the stability of the soil carbon pools was quantitatively evaluated, which can provide a reference for quantitative research on the effects of moderate forest fire intensity on soil carbon balance and carbon cycle. Method: The secondary forests of P. massoniana in mature forests, middle-aged forests and young forests were selected, and the soil samples from 0-60 cm layers in the burned area and adjacent unburned forests were collected. The soil physicochemical properties, fine root biomass and the soil LOC component content were measured and analyzed, and the soil carbon pool management index (CPMI) was calculated to explore the soil carbon pool change characteristics. The path analysis was used to explore the direct and indirect effects of soil CPMI. Result: Compared with the control plots, the soil bulk density increased by 3.80%-4.85%, soil pH increased by 4.21%-5.78%, and total soil phosphorus increased by 7.97%-12.44% in the 0-60 cm soil layers of each forest age after the forest fire. The soil moisture content decreased by 3.41%-3.97%, soil total nitrogen decreased by 15.09%-17.45%, and soil organic carbon decreased by 10.07%-14.31%. The soil labile organic carbon (LOC) in the young-aged, middle-aged and mature forests decreased by 22.70%, 19.48% and 17.48%, respectively. The soil CPMI of the secondary forest of P. massoniana with different forest ages was different in response to forest fire. The soil CPMI of young forest, middle-aged forest and mature forest was 26.15, 30.57 and 32.09, respectively, showing a increasing trend with the increase of forest age. Soil CPMI of P. massoniana secondary forest had a very significant correlation with each component of soil LOC (P < 0.01), and also had a very significant correlation with soil physicochemical properties and soil fine root biomass (P < 0.01). Path analysis showed that soil TN had the greatest direct effect on soil CPMI, with a path coefficient of 1.786, followed by soil TP and soil fine root biomass, with the path coefficients of -1.021 and 0.981, respectively. Conclusion: Moderate forest fire intensity has an important impact on the stability of soil organic carbon pool in the secondary forest of P. massoniana. The difference in soil nutrients released by mineralization of soil active organic matter among the three forest ages after forest fire is the key to the stability of soil carbon pool in the secondary forest of P. massoniana. The stability of soil organic carbon pool increases with the increase of stand age and soil depth. Therefore, when formulating the ecological restoration strategy in the burned area, the protection of mature forest land should be strengthened, and the artificial tending of young and middle-aged forest land should be strengthened to promote the natural regeneration and restoration of the secondary forest of P. massoniana after the fire.

Key words: forest fires, secondary forest of Pinus massoniana, different forest ages, soil organic carbon pools, carbon pool management index

中图分类号:

S718.5

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.

图/表 9

表1

表2

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)
土层 Soil layer/cm	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3

图1

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 0

	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.

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
幼龄林 Young-aged forest	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
中龄林 Middle-aged forest	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
成熟林 Mature-aged forest	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

林龄 Forest aged		土层Soil layer/cm
林龄 Forest aged		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
幼龄林 Young-aged forest	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
中龄林 Middle-aged forest	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
成熟林 Mature-aged forest	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

处理 Treatment	幼龄林Young-aged forest				中龄林Middle-aged forest				成熟林Mature-aged forest
处理 Treatment	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

处理 Treatment	指标 Index	土层Soil layer/cm
处理 Treatment	指标 Index	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

指标 Index	非活性有机碳 NLOC	土壤微生物生物量碳 MBC	土壤可溶性有机碳 DOC	土壤易氧化碳 EOC	土壤颗粒有机碳 POC
碳库管理指数 CPMI	0.486^**	0.825^**	0.645^**	0.884^**	0.766^**