Characteristics of soil organic carbon changes in abandoned farmland of yellow soil and limestone soil in karst area
-
摘要: 本研究探究退耕地不同植被恢复阶段土壤有机碳含量（SOC）、各粒级团聚体SOC的变化特征，为生态恢复提供理论依据。以贵州喀斯特区黄壤和石灰土退耕地的五个不同阶段（耕地、草地、灌丛、林地、自然林地）为研究对象，分析五个阶段0~30 cm土层各层SOC和各粒径团聚体SOC的变化特征。结果表明：由草地演替到林地，两种土壤类型SOC均显著增加（P<0.05）；石灰土各阶段各层土壤的SOC均高于黄壤，且都以林地0~10 cm层含量最高，分别为石灰土区85.50 g·kg−1，黄壤区49.95 g·kg−1；演替后期林地相较于耕地，三层土壤中SOC含量的增长率石灰土区（48.48%）远远高于黄壤区（0.24%）。两种土壤草地各层SOC皆显著低于耕地（P<0.05）。两种土壤区各粒级团聚体SOC含量随着演替程度加深均有不同程度升高，石灰土区均高于黄壤区，各植被覆盖类型下大粒径团聚体SOC均高于SOC。两种土壤均以>2 mm粒级团聚体对有SOC的贡献率最大，分别为黄壤区34.74%，石灰土区53.02%。相关分析表明：黄壤SOC与交换性钙、全氮、全钾极显著正相关（P<0.01），与容重显著负相关（P<0.05）；石灰土SOC与交换性钙镁、全氮、全磷、砂粒极显著或显著正相关（P<0.01），与容重、粉粒、黏粒显著负相关（P<0.05）。主成分分析显示黄壤区的草地、灌丛与耕地具有很好的分异性，而石灰土区三种退耕植被类型与耕地的分异性不明显。总体而言，退耕有助于提高土壤质量，改善土壤紧实状况，提升土壤有机碳储量，石灰土相较于黄壤具有更好的固碳效益。Abstract:
This study investigates the variation characteristics of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) content and SOC in different aggregate fractions across various vegetation restoration stages in abandoned croplands, providing a theoretical basis for ecological restoration. Focusing on five succession stages (cropland, grassland, shrubland, forestland, and natural forestland) in yellow soil and limestone soil of the karst area in Guizhou, we analyzed the characteristics of SOC changes at the 0-30cm soil layer and in aggregates of different particle sizes across the five stages. The results showed that SOC significantly increased (P < 0.05) from grassland to forestland in both soil types. At all succession stages, limestone soil exhibited higher SOC than yellow soil, with the highest SOC observed in the 0−10 cm layer of forestland (85.50 g·kg−1 in limestone soil vs. 49.95 g·kg−1 in yellow soil). In later succession stages, the SOC growth rate of forestland compared to that of the cropland was significantly higher in limestone soil (48.48%) than in yellow soil (0.24%). Grassland SOC was significantly lower than cropland SOC in both soil types (P < 0.05). With progressive succession, SOC content in different aggregate fractions increased to varying degrees, consistently higher in limestone soil than in yellow soil. Across all vegetation types, large aggregates (>2 mm) contained higher SOC than smaller fractions. The >2 mm aggregate fraction contributed the most to SOC storage (34.74% in yellow soil, 53.02% in limestone soil). Correlation analysis revealed that in yellow soil, SOC was significantly positively correlated with exchangeable calcium (Ca), total nitrogen (N), and total potassium (K) (P < 0.01), and negatively correlated with bulk density (P < 0.05). In limestone soil, SOC showed strong positive correlations with exchangeable Ca, magnesium (Mg), TN, total phosphorus (P), and sand content (P < 0.01), while negatively correlating with bulk density, silt, and clay (P < 0.05). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) indicated clear differentiation among grassland, shrubland, and cropland in yellow soil, whereas limestone soil exhibited less distinct separation among the three abandoned vegetation types and cropland. Overall, returing farmland to vegetation helps improve soil quality, alleviates soil compaction, and enhances soil organic carbon storage. Limestone soil demonstrates greaterr carbon sequestration benefits compared to yellow soil. -
Key words:
- karst /
- yellow soil /
- limestone soil /
- abandomed farmland /
- SOC /
- soil aggregates
-
图 1 不同植被覆盖类型SOC分布特征
注：不同大写字母表示同一土层深度不同植被类型间差异显著（p<0.05），不同小写字母表示同一植被类型不同土层深度间差异显著（P<0.05）。
Figure 1. Distribution characteristics of SOC under different vegetation cover types
Note: Different uppercase letters indicate significant difference between different vegetation types at the same soil depth (P<0.05),while different lowercase letters indicate significant difference at different soil depth of the same vegetation type(P<0.05).
图 2 两种土壤类型区不同植被覆盖类型各粒级土壤团聚体有机碳含量
注：不同大写字母表示同一土层深度不同植被类型间差异显著（P<0.05），不同小写字母表示同一植被类型不同土层深度间差异显著（P<0.05）。
Figure 2. Organic carbon content of soil aggregates at different particle size under various vegetation cover types in two soil types areas
Note: Different uppercase letters indicate significant difference between different vegetation types at the same soil depth (P<0.05),while different lowercase letter sindicate significant difference at different soil depth of the same vegetation type(P<0.05).
图 3 不同植被覆盖类型土壤团聚体有机碳贡献率
Figure 3. Contribution rate of soil aggregate organic carbon under different vegetation cover types
图 4 两种土壤类型区SOC与各因子间的主成分分析
Figure 4. Principal component analysis of SOC and various factors in two soil types areas
表 1 研究样地基本信息
Table 1. Basic information of the sample plots
土壤类型 样地 样地概况 黄壤 GD 种植玉米，行距约1 m，株距约40 cm，每年在3月中上旬播种，7月中下旬收获 CD 退耕3—5年，主要草本植被为白茅（Imperata cylindrica），高25~90 cm GC 退耕约20年，以马桑（Coriaria nepalensis）为主要植被，株高1.5~2.5 m，冠幅3~18 m2 LD 退耕30—40年，主要树种有刺槐（Robinia pseudoacacia）、盐肤木（Rhus chinensis）、构树（Broussonetia papyrifera），株高2.5~12 m，冠幅7~40 m2 ZL 无耕作历史，主要植被有朴树（Celtis sinensis）、马桑（Coriaria nepalensis）、苦参（Sophora flavescens）、修枝荚蒾（Viburnum burejaeticum）、竹叶花椒（Zanthoxylum armatum）、多花木蓝（Indigofera amblyantha）等，株高2.5~10 m，冠幅7~30 m2 石灰土 GD 种植玉米，行距约1 m，株距约40 cm，每年在3月中上旬播种，7月中下旬收获 CD 退耕约5年，主要草本植被为白茅（Imperata cylindrica），高50~150 cm GC 退耕约20年，主要植被有火棘（Pyracantha fortuneana）、马桑（Coriaria nepalensis）、修枝荚蒾（Viburnum burejaeticum），株高1.5~2.5 m，冠幅5~20 m2 LD 退耕约40年，主要树种有盐肤木（Rhus chinensis）、构树（Broussonetia papyrifera）、栾树（Koelreuteria paniculata），株高3.5~12 m，冠幅7~40 m2 ZL 无耕作历史，主要植被有鼠刺（Itea chinensis）、马桑（Coriaria nepalensis）、火棘（Pyracantha fortuneana）、修枝荚蒾（Viburnum burejaeticum）、构树（Broussonetia papyrifera）、桃金娘（Rhodomyrtus tomentosa）、竹叶花椒（Zanthoxylum armatum）、多花木蓝（Indigofera amblyantha）等，株高3.5~12 m，冠幅5~28 m2 注：GD-耕地, CD-退耕草地, GC-退耕灌丛, LD-退耕林地, ZL-自然林地, 下同。Note: GD-cultivated land, CD-return to grassland, GC-reclaimed scrub, LD-converted forest land, ZL-natural forest land. The same below. 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 黄壤区不同植被覆盖类型土壤理化性质
Table 2. Soil physical and chemical properties under different vegetation cover types in the yellow soil areas
土地类型 土层/
cm容重/
g·cm−3交换性钙/
g·kg−1交换性镁/
g·kg−1TN/
g·kg−1TP/
g·kg−1TK/
g·kg−1砂粒 粉粒 黏粒 pH GD 0~10 1.13±0.03ABa 2.64±0.16 Ba 0.96±0.07Ba 1.74±0.03Aa 0.71±0.04Aa 10.35±0.47ABa 15.66±1.39Bc 28.41±0.69Ab 55.93±1.20ABa 5.8±0.4Ba 10~20 1.21±0.04Aa 2.74±0.13Aa 0.95±0.1Aa 1.47±0.05Ab 0.65±0.01Aa 9.58±0.32 Ba 19.82±0.69Ac 25.64±0.69Ab 54.54±0.69Ba 5.9±0.3Ba 20~30 1.23±0.05Aa 2.71±0.17Ba 0.86±0.08Ba 1.42±0.07Ab 0.62±0.02Aa 9.38±0.51Ba 18.43±1.83Ac 27.03±0.00Ab 54.54±1.83Ba 6.0±0.3Ba CD 0~10 1.16±0.05Aa 2.72±0.13Ba 0.99± 0.11Ba 1.47±0.08Ba 0.70±0.05Aa 9.98±0.83Ba 15.66±1.83Bb 13.17±3.67Bb 71.17±5.41Aa 6.1±0.2ABa 10~20 1.19±0.02Aa 2.70±0.16Aa 1.06±0.13Aa 1.21±0.05Aa 0.59±0.01ABab 9.14±0.75Ba 14.28±3.02Ab 13.17±3.67Bb 72.56±6.68Aa 6.3±0.4Aa 20~30 1.20±0.03ABa 2.68±0.09Ba 0.96±0.14ABa 1.19±0.11Aa 0.51±0.03BCb 8.19±0.28Ca 12.20±1.39Ab 13.17±4.86Bb 74.64±6.00Aa 6.3±0.2Aa GC 0~10 1.12±0.04ABa 3.04± 0.21ABa 1.16±0.13ABa 1.49±0.02Ba 0.59±0.01Aa 10.44±0.72ABa 20.51±1.39ABb 20.10±2.78ABb 59.39±3.67ABa 6.2±0.2Aa 10~20 1.17±0.03ABa 2.62±0.11Ab 1.06±0.08Aa 1.31±0.05Ab 0.53±0.01Bb 10.03±0.56ABa 19.13±3.18Ab 20.79±1.20ABb 60.08±3.60ABa 6.2±0.3ABa 20~30 1.19±0.04ABa 2.54±0.12Bb 1.04±0.15ABa 1.21±0.07Ab 0.47±0.01Cc 9.17±0.49Ba 16.35±3.02Ab 19.40±0.69ABb 64.24±3.60ABa 6.3±0.3Aa LD 0~10 1.13±0.05ABa 2.96±0.17ABa 1.05±0.09ABa 1.74±0.03Aa 0.67±0.02Aa 11.76±0.81Aa 23.28±1.20Ab 24.95±1.20Ab 51.77±0.00Ba 6.2±0.3Aa 10~20 1.15±0.07ABCa 2.70±0.09Aa 1.04±0.12Aa 1.47±0.08Ab 0.61±0.03Aa 11.14±0.63Aa 17.05±1.20Ac 27.03±1.20Ab 55.93±1.20ABa 6.4±0.3Aa 20~30 1.17±0.06ABa 2.83±0.16ABa 0.99±0.1ABa 1.34±0.10Ab 0.59±0.02ABa 10.43±0.45Aa 18.43±1.39Ac 27.72±1.83Ab 53.85±1.20Ba 6.3±0.3Aa ZL 0~10 1.09±0.03Ba 3.23±0.23Aa 1.31±0.18Aa 1.83±0.07Aa 0.38±0.01Ba 10.09±0.58Ba 17.07±1.41ABb 18.09±1.97ABb 64.84±3.35ABa 6.0±0.3ABa 10~20 1.11±0.05Ba 2.84±0.15Aa 1.20±0.16Aa 1.38±0.09Ab 0.36±0.001Ca 9.88±0.27Ba 17.51±1.51Ab 18.99±2.28ABb 63.50±3.74ABa 6.2±0.3ABa 20~30 1.12±0.04Ba 3.11±0.15Aa 1.26±0.12Aa 1.33±0.05Ab 0.36±0.02Da 9.07±0.36BCa 18.27±1.68Ab 16.01±2.27ABb 65.71±0.66ABa 6.2±0.3ABa 注：数据为均值±标准误，不同大写字母表示同一土层深度不同植被类型间差异显著（P<0.05），不同小写字母表示同一植被类型不同土层深度间差异显著（P<0.05）；TN-全氮， TP-全磷， TK-全钾；表中TN、TP、TK、砂粒、粉粒、黏粒数据均来源于课题组前期研究成果[22]。
Note: The data are mean ± standard error. Different uppercase letters indicate significant difference between different vegetation types at the same soil depth (P<0.05), while different lowercase letters indicate significant difference at different soil depth of the same vegetation type (P<0.05); TN-total nitrogen，TP-total phosphorus，TK-total potassium; The TN, TP, TK, sand, powder and clay data in the table are all derived from the previous research results of the research group.
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 石灰土区不同植被覆盖类型土壤理化性质
Table 3. Soil physical and chemical properties under different vegetation cover types in limestone soil areas
土地
类型土层/cm 容重/
g·cm−3交换性钙/
g·kg−1交换性镁/
g·kg−1TN/
g·kg−1TP/
g·kg−1TK/
g·kg−1砂粒 粉粒 黏粒 pH GD 0~10 0.96±0.04Ba 4.48±0.32Ba 0.64±0.1Ba 1.75±0.04Da 1.37±0.03Aa 11.16± 0.45ABa 14.97±1.20Cc 25.64±2.50Ab 59.39±3.02Aa 7.3±0.4Ba 10~20 1.02±0.03Ba 4.36±0.33ABa 0.58±0.08Ba 1.64±0.18CDa 1.22±0.09Aa 10.59± 0.57Aa 14.28±1.83Cc 24.95±2.40ABb 60.78±1.83Aa 7.4±0.3Ba 20~30 1.05±0.06Ba 4.70±0.28ABa 0.65±0.09Ba 1.47±0.15Ca 1.14±0.03Aa 9.24± 0.39Ba 15.66±1.83Cc 25.64±1.39Ab 58.70±3.02Aa 7.4±0.3Ba CD 0~10 1.11±0.06Aa 3.47±0.24Ca 0.98±0.12Ba 1.83±0.15Da 0.84±0.02Ca 12.09±0.48Aa 29.52±0.00Bb 22.18±3.02ABb 48.30±3.02Ba 7.4±0.3ABa 10~20 1.17±0.07Aa 3.42±0.24Ca 0.98±0.13ABa 1.47±0.05Dab 0.71±0.02Cb 11.89±0.73Aa 22.59±4.22BCb 22.18±4.54ABb 55.23±6.83ABa 7.4±0.2Ba 20~30 1.19±0.05Aa 2.66±0.16Ca 0.81±0.08Ba 1.18±0.09Cb 0.56±0.05Cc 11.13±0.59Aa 18.43±7.62BCb 24.26±6.61Ab 57.31±7.72ABa 7.5±0.3ABa GC 0~10 1.05±0.05ABa 4.99±0.37Ba 1.27±0.15ABa 2.73±0.10Ca 0.96±0.02BCa 12.63±0.71Aa 30.21±1.83Bb 26.33±0.69Ab 43.45±1.20BCa 7.5±0.3ABa 10~20 1.14±0.05Aa 4.06±0.17Ba 1.18±0.11ABa 2.09±0.08Cb 0.85±0.02BCb 11.93±0.53Aa 23.98±1.39BCb 26.33±1.39Ab 49.69±2.40ABa 7.5±0.3ABa 20~30 1.16±0.09Aa 3.73±0.19Ba 1.19±0.13Aa 1.96±0.07Bb 0.78±0.03Bb 11.76±0.47Aa 28.14±1.83ABCb 30.49±0.69Ab 41.37±2.40ABCa 7.5±0.2Ba LD 0~10 0.93±0.03BCa 4.73±0.25Ba 1.36±0.17ABa 3.36±0.10Ba 1.03±0.04Ba 12.87±0.75Aa 29.52±2.40Bb 24.95±2.08Ab 45.53±1.20BCa 7.5±0.3ABa 10~20 0.97±0.07Ba 4.17±0.39ABa 1.25±0.14Aa 2.65±0.10Bb 0.97±0.03Bab 12.36±0.81Aa 28.83±0.69Bb 24.95±1.20ABb 46.22±1.39ABa 7.5±0.2ABa 20~30 1.09±0.05Ba 3.36±0.25Ba 1.27±0.17Aa 2.28±0.10Bb 0.82±0.05Bb 12.11±0.64Aa 33.68±2.08ABab 27.03±1.20Ab 39.29±1.20BCa 7.6±0.3ABa ZL 0~10 0.86±0.09Ca 6.60±0.63Aa 1.50±0.18Aa 4.61±0.02Aa 1.38±0.03Aa 11.09±0.50ABa 46.85±1.83Aa 15.25±0.69Bc 37.91±1.83Cb 7.7±0.3Aa 10~20 0.90±0.06Ca 5.34±0.51Aa 1.45±0.19Aa 3.60±0.04Ab 1.24±0.03Ab 12.18±0.67Aa 45.46±0.69Aa 14.55±1.20Bb 39.99±1.83Ba 7.8±0.3Aa 20~30 1.02±0.08Ba 5.10±0.33Aa 1.33±0.16Aa 3.40±0.04Ac 1.25±0.01Ab 11.59±0.44Aa 45.46±1.83Aa 16.63±1.20Ac 37.91±0.69Cb 7.9±0.3Aa 注：同表2。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 两种土壤类型区SOC与各因子间的相关性
Table 4. Correlation between SOC and various factors in two soil types
土壤类型 相关指标 SOC 容重 交换性钙 交换性镁 TN TP TK 砂粒 粉粒 黏粒 pH 黄壤土 SOC 1 容重 −0.580* 1 交换性钙 0.681** −0.703** 1 交换性镁 0.300 −0.815** 0.763** 1 TN 0.924** −0.584* 0.496 0.215 1 TP 0.136 0.383 −0.432 −0.753** 0.238 1 TK 0.643** −0.476 0.237 0.083 0.665** 0.396 1 砂粒 0.571* −0.242 0.401 0.143 0.417 0.139 0.665** 1 粉粒 0.361 0.081 −0.134 −0.396 0.411 0.427 0.582* 0.512 1 黏粒 −0.484 0.027 −0.044 0.249 −0.466 −0.376 −0.687** −0.756** −0.949** 1 pH 0.161 −0.254 0.432 0.510 −0.054 −0.530* 0.111 0.485 −0.100 −0.101 1 石灰土 SOC 1 容重 −0.807** 1 交换性钙 0.867** −0.841** 1 交换性镁 0.782** −0.367 0.443 1 TN 0.988** −0.773** 0.824** 0.830** 1 TP 0.606* −0.852** 0.844** 0.058 0.560* 1 TK 0.299 −0.047 −0.087 0.667** 0.351 −0.294 1 砂粒 0.806** −0.470 0.566* 0.890** 0.873** 0.292 0.426 1 粉粒 −0.646** 0.550* −0.594* −0.416 −0.658** −0.501 0 −0.703** 1 黏粒 −0.698** 0.312 −0.414 −0.935** −0.779** −0.105 −0.557* −0.920** 0.369 1 pH 0.365 −0.053 0.148 0.499 0.396 0.012 0.307 0.542* −0.433 −0.470 1 注：*表示在P<0.05水平上显著；**表示在P<0.01水平上显著。
Note: The single asterisk (*) denotes the significance at P<0.05, and double asterisks (**) denotes the significance at P<0.01 level.
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 丁金梅, 王维珍, 米文宝, 侯凯元, 张喜旺, 赵亚楠, 文琦. 宁夏草地土壤有机碳空间特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(5): 1913-1922.Ding Jinmei, Wang Weizhen, Mi Wenbao, Hou Kaiyuan, Zhang Xiwang, Zhao Yanan, Wen Qi. Spatial characteristics of soil organic carbon in grassland of Ningxia and its influencing factors[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2023, 43(5): 1913-1922. [2] 徐英德, 汪景宽, 王思引, 孙雪冰, 李君薇, 张明垚, 高晓丹. 玉米残体分解对不同肥力棕壤团聚体组成及有机碳分布的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(7): 1029-1037.Xu Yingde, Wang Jingkuan, Wang Siyin, Sun Xuebing, Li Junwei, Zhang Mingyao, Gao Xiaodan. Effects of maize residue decomposition on aggregate composition and organic carbon distribution of different fertilities brown soils[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2018, 26(7): 1029-1037. [3] 陈朝, 吕昌河, 范兰, 武红. 土地利用变化对土壤有机碳的影响研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(18): 5358-5371.Chen Zhao, Lyu Changhe, Fan Lan, Wu Hong. Effects of land use change on soil organic carbon: a review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(18): 5358-5371. [4] Liu Shujuan, Zhang Wei, Wang Kelin, Pan Fujing, Yang Shan, Shu Shiyan. Factors controlling accumulation of soil organic carbon along vegetation succession in a typical karst region in Southwest China[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2015, 521: 52-58. [5] 杨青, 杨广斌, 戴丽, 赵青松, 罗毓融. 喀斯特地区石漠化与土壤类型的空间相关分析: 以贵州省为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2019, 38(1): 80-87.Yang Qing, Yang Guangbin, Dai Li, Zhao Qingsong, Luo Yurong. Spatial correlation analysis of rocky desertification and soil type in karst area: A case study of Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2019, 38(1): 80-87. [6] 段亚玲, 李景壮, 赵亚洲, 席培宇, 谭红. 氟环唑在贵州土壤中淋溶特性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(29): 184-187.Duan Yaling, Li Jingzhuang, Zhao Yazhao, Xi Peiyu, Tan Hong. Study on leaching characteristics of fluazinam in Guizhou soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(29): 184-187. [7] 杨晓红. 贵州省耕地资源现状与可持续利用对策[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2017, 45(9): 129-132.Yang Xiaohong. Current status of cultivated land resources and sustainable utilization countermeasures in Guizhou Province[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(9): 129-132. [8] 程东亚, 李旭东. 贵州高原地形空间分布格局及其利用分析[J]. 高原科学研究, 2019, 3(3): 61-74.Cheng Dongya, Li Xudong. Spatial distribution pattern and utilization analysis of plateau terrain in Guizhou[J]. Plateau Science Research, 2019, 3(3): 61-74. [9] Hu Peilei, Liu Shujuan, Ye Yingying, Zhang Wei, Wang Kelin, Su Yirong. Effects of environmental factors on soil organic carbon under natural or managed vegetation restora-tion[J]. Land Degradation Development, 2018, 29(3): 387-397. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2876 [10] Tong Xiaowei, Martin Brandt, Yue Yuemin, Ciais Philippe, Martin Rudbeck Jepsen, Josep Penuelas, Jeanpierre Wigneron, Xiao Xiangming, Song Xiaopeng, Stephanie Horion, Kjeld Rasmussen, Sassan Saatchi, Fan Lei, Wang Kelin, Zhang Bing, Chen Zhengchao, Wang Yuhang, Li Xiaojun, Rasmus Fensholt. Forest management in southern China generates short term extensive carbon sequestration[J]. Nature communications, 2020, 11(1): 129. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13798-8 [11] Hu Peilei, Zhang Wei, Chen Hongsong, Li Dejun, Zhao Yuan, Zhao Jie, Xiao Jun Xiao, Wu Fangji, He Xunyang, Luo Yiqi, Wang Kelin. Soil carbon accumulation with increasing temperature under both managed and natural vegetation restoration in calcareous soils[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2021, 767: 145298. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145298 [12] Zhong Zekun, Wu Shaojun, Lu Xuqiao, Ren Zhaoxuan, Wu Qimeng, Xu Miaoping, Ren Chengjie, Yang Gaihe, Han Xinhui. Organic carbon, nitrogen accumulation, and soil aggregate dynamics as affected by vegetation restoration patterns in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Catena, 2021, 196: 104867. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104867 [13] 靳小莲, 赵巍, 李梦迪, 刘栋栋, 鞠文亮. 黄土高原退耕还草土壤水分对植物地上部化学计量特征的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(2): 57-63.Jin Xiaolian, Zhao Wei, Li Mengdi, Liu Donggong, Ju Wenliang. Effects of soil moisture on the stoichiometric characteristics of aboveground plants following conversion of farmland to grassland on the Loess Plateau[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(2): 57-63. [14] 胡磊, 佘冬立, 杨震. 晋西北黄土丘陵区小流域土壤团聚体稳定性及其分异特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(1): 72-77.Hu Lei, She Dongli, Yangzhen. Stability of Soil Aggregates and Its Differentiation Characteristics in Small Watersheds in Loess Hilly Region of North western Shanxi[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 29(1): 72-77. [15] 陈恩凤, 关连珠, 汪景宽, 颜丽, 王铁宇, 张继宏, 周礼恺, 陈利军, 李荣华. 土壤特征微团聚体的组成比例与肥力评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2001,38(1): 49-53.Chen Enfeng, Guan Lianzhu, Wang Jingkuan, Yan Li, Wang Tiewu, Zhang Jihong, Zhou Likai, Chen Lijun, Li Ronghua. Composition ratio of soil microaggregates and fertility evaluation[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2001,38 (1): 49-53. [16] 黄先飞, 周运超, 张珍明. 喀斯特石漠化区不同土地利用方式下土壤有机碳分布特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(5): 215-221.Huang Xianfei, Zhou Yuncao, Zhang Zhenming. Distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon under different land uses in a karst rocky desertification area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation2017, 31(5): 215-221. [17] 李燕燕, 刘亮英, 张志坚, 吴春生, 刘苑秋, 樊后保. 亚热带红壤区自然恢复草地转换为人工林后对土壤团聚体有机碳周转的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(1): 80-85.Li Yanyan, Liu Liangying, Zhang Zhijian, Wu Chunsheng, Liu Yuanqiu, Fan Houbao. Effects of conversion of degraded grassland into plantations on organic carbon turnover of soil aggregate in subtropical red soil area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(1): 80-85. [18] 张曼夏, 季猛, 李伟, 刘华存, 王彦杰, 张林, 潘开文. 土地利用方式对土壤团聚体稳定性及其结合有机碳的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2013, 19(4): 598-604. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1145.2013.00598Zhang Manxia, Ji Meng, Li Wei, Liu Huachun, Wang Yanjie, Zhang Lin, Pan Kaiwen. Effect of land use patterns on soil aggregate stability and aggregate-associated organic carbon[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2013, 19(4): 598-604. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1145.2013.00598 [19] 沈彩霞. 格氏栲天然林转为人工林对土壤碳储量的影响[J]. 福建林业科技, 2022, 49(3): 24-29.Shen Caixia. Effects of Converted Castanopsis kawakamii Evergreen natural forest to plantations on soil carbon storage[J]. Journal of Fujian Forestry Science and Technology, 2022, 49(3): 24-29. [20] 李媛, 程积民, 魏琳, 陈芙蓉. 云雾山典型草原火烧不同恢复年限土壤化学性质变化[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(7): 2131-2138.Li Yuan, Cheng Jimin, Wei Lei, Chen Furong. Changes of soil chemical properties after different burning years in typical steppe of Yunwun Mountains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(7): 2131-2138. [21] 周伟, 张运龙, 徐明岗, 李文瑾, 吴红慧, 文石林. 长期撂荒对黑土土壤有机碳组分的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(4): 11-18.Zhou Wei, Zhang Yunlong, Xu Minggang, Li Wenjin, Wu Honghui, Wen Shilin. Influence of long-term abandonment on soil organic carbon components in black soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2021(4): 11-18. [22] 董天富, 邓志豪, 杨静, 戴全厚, 聂云鹏. 喀斯特退耕地不同植被恢复阶段土壤团聚体稳定性特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2024, 31(2): 33-42.Dong Tianfu, Deng Zhihao, Yang Jing, Dai Quanhou, Nie Yunpeng. Characteristics of stability of soil aggregates at different vegetation restoration stages in karst reclaimed land[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2024, 31(2): 33-42. [23] 杨丰, 唐文汉, 王建立, 姚红艳, 程巍, 刘洪来. 贵州喀斯特山区草地生态系统类型转变对土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(4): 733-737.Yang Feng, Tang Wenhan, Wang Jianli, Yao Hongyan, Cheng Wei, Liu Honglai. Influence of grass land ecosystems ehift on eoil organic carbon in the karst mountain area of Guizhou Province[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(4): 733-737. [24] 陈高起, 傅瓦利, 沈艳, 伍宇春, 胡宁, 文志林. 岩溶区不同土地利用方式对土壤有机碳及其组分的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(3): 123-129.Chen Gaoqi, Fu Wali, Shen Yan, Wu Yuchun, Hu Ning, Wen Zhilin. Effects of land use types on soil organic carbon and its fractions in karst area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29(3): 123-129. [25] Marcos D Robles, Ingrid C Burke. Soil organic matter recovery on Conservation Reserve Program fields in southeastern Wyoming.[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1998, 62(3): 725-730. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1998.03615995006200030026x [26] Qian Zongyao, Li Yanni , Du Hu, Wang Kelin, Li Dejun. Increa-sing plant species diversity enhances microbial necromass carbon content but does not alter its contribution to soil organic carbon pool in a subtropical forest[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2023, 187: 109183. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109183 [27] Deng Lei, Shangguan Zhouping. Afforestation drives soil carbon and nitrogen changes in China[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2017, 28(1): 151-165. [28] Hu Peilei, Zhang Wei, Yakov Kuzyakov, Xiao Lumei, Xiao Dan, Xu Lin, Chen Hongsong, Zhao Jie, Wang Kelin. Linking bacterial life strategies with soil organic matter accrual by karst vegetation restoration[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2023, 177: 108925. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108925 [29] Hu Peilei, Zhang Wei, Chan Hongsong, Xu Lin, Xiao Jun, Luo Yiqi, Wang Kelin. Lithologic control of microbial-derived carbon in forest soils[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2022, 167: 108600. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108600 [30] 张华渝, 王克勤, 宋娅丽. 滇中尖山河流域不同土地利用类型土壤粒径分布对土壤有机碳组分的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2020, 40(4): 93-100.Zhang Huayu, Wang Keqin, Song Yali. Effects of soil particle size distribution of different land use types on soil organic carbon components in Jianshan river watershed in middle Yunnan province[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2020, 40(4): 93-100. [31] Hans Göransson, Peter J Edwards, Kristel Perreijn, Rienk H Smittenberg, Harry Olde Venterink. Rocks create nitrogen hotspots and N∶P heterogeneity by funnelling rain[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2014, 121: 329-338. doi: 10.1007/s10533-014-0031-x [32] David A Wardle, Micael Jonsson, Sheel Bansal, Richard D Bardgett,Michael J Gundale, Daniel B Metcalfe. Linking vegetation change, carbon sequestration and biodiversity: Insights from island ecosystems in a long–term natural experiment[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2012, 100(1): 16-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01907.x [33] Cambardella C A, Elliott E T. Carbon and nitrogen distribution in aggregates from cultivated and native grassland soils[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1993, 57(4): 1071-1076. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700040032x [34] Wei Xiaorong, Li Xuezhang, Jia Xiaoxu, Shao Mingan. Accumulation of soil organic carbon in aggregates after afforestation on abandoned farmland[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2013, 49: 637-646. doi: 10.1007/s00374-012-0754-6 [35] 谭秋锦, 宋同清, 彭晚霞, 曾馥平, 杜虎, 杨钙仁, 范夫静. 峡谷型喀斯特不同生态系统土壤团聚体稳定性及有机碳特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(3): 671-678.Tang Qiujin, Song Tongqing, Peng Wanxia, Zeng Fuping, Du Hu, Yang Gairen, Fan Fujing. Stability and organic carbon characteristics of soil aggregates under different ecosystems in karst canyon region[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(3): 671-678. [36] 卢凌霄, 宋同清, 彭晚霞, 曾馥平, 王克林, 徐云蕾, 俞孜, 刘艳. 喀斯特峰丛洼地原生林土壤团聚体有机碳的剖面分布[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(5): 1167-1174.Lu Lingxiao, Song Tongqing, Peng Wanxia, Zeng Fuping, Wang Kelin, Xu Yunlei, Yu Zi, Liu Yan. Profile distribution of soil aggregates organic carbon in primary forests in karst cluster-peak depression region[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(5): 1167-1174. [37] Luo Xianzhen, Zhang Rui, Zhang Lingling, Adam Frew, Yu Hanxia, Hou Enqing, Wen Dazhi. Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stabilization and its response to conversion of primary natural broadleaf forests to secondary forests and plantation forests[J]. Catena, 2024, 240: 108021. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2024.108021 [38] 罗晓虹, 王子芳, 陆畅, 黄容, 王富华, 高明. 土地利用方式对土壤团聚体稳定性和有机碳含量的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(8): 3816-3824.LUO Xiaohong, WANG Zhifang, LU Chang, HUANG Rong, WANG Fuhua, GAO Ming. Effects of land use type on the content and stability of organic carbon in soil aggregates[J]. Environmental Science, 2019, 40(8): 3816-3824. [39] 李春越, 常顺, 钟凡心, 薛英龙, 苗雨, 王益, 党廷辉. 种植模式和施肥对黄土旱塬农田土壤团聚体及其碳分布的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(1): 191-200.Li Chunyue, Chang Shun, Zhong Fanxin, Xue Yinglong, Miao Yu, Wang Yi, Dang Tinghui. Effects of fertilization and planting patterns on soil aggregate and carbon distribution in farmland of the Loess Plateau, Northwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 32(1): 191-200. [40] Adugna Feyissa, Syed Turab Raza, Chen Xiaoli. Soil carbon stabilization and potential stabilizing mechanisms along elevational gradients in alpine forest and grassland ecosystems of Southwest China[J]. Catena, 2023, 229: 107210. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2023.107210 [41] 韩磊, 庄涛, 周慧华, 袁旭音, 朱海, 韩年, 杨新明, 李洁. 小清河滨岸带土壤碳氮变化及影响因素研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2019, 42(6): 28-34.Han Lei, Zhuang Tao, Zhou Huihua, Yuan Xuyin, Zhu Hai, Han Nian, Yang Xinning, Li Jie. Study on the change of soil carbon and nitrogen and their influencing factors in the riparian zone of Xiaoqing River[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 42(6): 28-34. [42] 朱凤武, 徐彩瑶, 濮励杰, 陈一铭, 王小涵. 苏北滩涂围垦区土壤碳氮磷含量及其生态化学计量特征[J]. 中国土地科学, 2017, 31(12): 77-83.Zhu Fengwu, Xu Caiyao, Pu Lijie, Chen Yiming, Wang Xiaohan. Effects of reclamation activity on soil C, N and P contents and the stoichiometric characteristics of coastal wetland in Northern Jiangsu Province[J]. China Land Sciences, 2017, 31(12): 77-83. [43] 耿川雄, 马心灵, 杨景华, 武建林, 周敏, 陈安强, 郭永杰, 周金华, 孔垂思, 郑毅. 钙镁磷土壤调理剂配施生物菌剂对设施红壤酸化消减效果研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2023, 37(5): 1056-1062.Geng Chuanxiong, Ma Xinling, Yang Jinghua, Wu Jianlin, Zhou Min, Chen Anqiang, Guo Yongjie, Zhou Jinhua, Kong Chuisi, Zheng Yi. Study on the effect of soil conditioner containing calcium, magnesium and phosphorus combined with biological agents on reducing acidification of protected red soil[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 37(5): 1056-1062. [44] 赵青, 刘爽, 陈凯, 王世君, 吴承祯, 李键, 林勇明. 武夷山自然保护区不同海拔甜槠天然林土壤有机碳变化特征及影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(13): 5328-5339.Zhao Qing, Liu Shuang, Chen Kai, Wang Shijun, Wu Chengzhen, Li Jian, Lin Yongming. Change characteristics and influencing factors of soil organic carbon in Castanopsis eyreinatural forests at different altitudes in Wuyishan Nature Reserve[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(13): 5328-5339. [45] Paul B Hook, Ingrid C Burke. Biogeochemistry in a shortgrass landscape: Control by topography, soil texture, and microclimate[J]. Ecology, 2000, 81(10): 2686-2703. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2686:BIASLC]2.0.CO;2 [46] John J Brejda, Maurice J Mausbach, Jeffrey J Goebel, Deborah L Allan, Thanh H Dao, Douglas L Karlen, Thomas B Moorman, Jeffrey L Smith. Estimating surface soil organic carbon content at a regional scale using the National Resource Inventory[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2001, 65(3): 842-849. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2001.653842x [47] 刘淑娟, 张伟, 王克林, 陈洪松, 韦国富. 桂西北喀斯特峰丛洼地土壤物理性质的时空分异及成因[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(9): 2249-2256.Liu Shujuan, Zhang Wei, Wang Kelin, Chen Hongsong, Wei Guofu. Temporal and spatial variations and causes of soil physical properties in the peak-cluster depression area of northwest Guangxi karst[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(9): 2249-2256. [48] 邓廷飞, 刘彦, 颜秋晓, 何腾兵, 高安勤. 贵州典型山银花土壤机械组成与养分特性及其关系[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(5): 209-214.Deng Tingfei, Liu Yan, Yan Qiuxiao, He Tengbing, Gao Anqing. Mechanical composition and soil nutrient characteristics and their relationships in typical Lonicera cinfusa soil of Guizhou[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 28(5): 209-214. -
点击查看大图
图(4) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 9
- HTML浏览量: 4
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
