不同植被下碳酸盐岩石发育形成土壤属性研究

罗美; 周运超; 唐凤华

doi:10.11932/karst2022y17

不同植被下碳酸盐岩石发育形成土壤属性研究

doi: 10.11932/karst2022y17

罗美^{1, 2,},
周运超^1, ,,
唐凤华¹

1.
贵州大学贵州省森林资源与环境研究中心/贵州省高原山地林木培育重点实验室/林学院,贵州贵阳 550001
2.
贵州财经大学, 贵州贵阳 550001

基金项目: 贵州省一流学科建设项目(GNYL[2017]007)；中国地质科学院岩溶地质研究所地质调查委托项目(YR-JJHT-2017-206)；黔科合基础（[2017]1018 ）；贵州省“百层次”培养计划项目(QKHRC-2015-4022)

详细信息

作者简介:
罗美（1981－），女，副教授，博士，主要研究方向：土壤环境学。E-mail：luomei9999@126.com

通讯作者:
周运超（1964－），男，教授，博士生导师，主要研究方向：森林土壤学。E-mail：yc409@163.com

中图分类号: S151.9；P931.5
计量
- 文章访问数: 2718
- HTML浏览量: 1932
- PDF下载量: 103
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-12-23
- 网络出版日期: 2023-02-16
- 刊出日期: 2023-04-25

Soil properties of carbonate rocks under different vegetation types

LUO Mei^{1, 2
,},
ZHOU Yunchao^{1
, ,},
TANG Fenghua¹

1.
Research Center for Forest Resources and Environment of Guizhou Province, Guizhou University/Key Laboratory of Forest Cultivation in Plateau Mountain of Guizhou Province/College of Forestry, Guiyang, Guizhou 550001, China
2.
Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang, Guizhou 550001, China

摘要

摘要: 为探究喀斯特地区不同植被条件下碳酸盐岩石发育土壤属性的分布特征及其影响因素，以贵阳市花溪区范围内的碳酸盐岩石（石灰岩、灰质白云岩和白云岩）发育土壤为研究对象，采集不同植被类型下0~40 cm土壤，分析不同植被类型、基岩类型、土层层次对土壤性质分布特征的影响。结果表明：基岩和植被类型是影响碳酸盐岩石发育成为土壤的主要影响因素，其次是土壤层次。在0~20 cm和20~40 cm土层中，石灰岩、灰质白云岩和白云岩发育土壤的肥力和颗粒均差异显著，而0~20 cm与20~40 cm土层间，除石灰岩发育土壤石砾含量（SLC）和细颗粒比（<0.002 mm），白云岩发育土壤速效磷（AP）和有机质（SOM）含量外，同类基岩发育土壤性质无显著差异；在0~40 cm土层，基岩类型显著影响土壤pH、AP、SLC、速效氮（AN）、全氮（TN）、SOM、0.2~0.25 mm和0.002~0.02 mm颗粒的分布；植被类型显著影响石灰岩发育土壤pH、AP、TN含量，白云岩形成土壤的pH、SLC、粗颗粒（0.25~2 mm）和细颗粒，灰质白云岩形成土壤的AN、SOM、粗颗粒和细颗粒；土壤层次显著影响石灰岩发育土壤的SLC、粗颗粒和细颗粒及白云岩发育土壤的AP的分布。研究区内荒草坡和草被下土壤，以及石灰岩发育的土壤可能正遭受侵蚀的破坏。因此，结合母岩岩性，改变植被种植结构，对提高土壤养分、改善土壤颗粒组成和增强土壤的抗侵蚀能力具有积极作用。
- 喀斯特 /
- 植被类型 /
- 碳酸盐岩石 /
- 土壤属性 /
- 花溪
Abstract: Guizhou Province is located in the largest continuous karst area in the world. The karst landform accounts for 73.8% of the province's land area where 88% of its rural population live. The exposed area of carbonate rocks developed in karst reaches 130,000 km², accounting for 73% of land area in this province. Soil erosion leads to the exposure of carbonate rocks on the surface, aggravates the process of karst rocky desertification, and causes a series of ecological and environmental problems, all of which seriously affect the development of local economy and people's life. The research on the comprehensive prevention and control of karst rocky desertification has become a scientific problem that needs to be solved urgently. In addition, bedrock and vegetation play a prominent role in soil development and formation. In different soil development stages, bedrock and vegetation types have an important impact on the soil physical and chemical properties. However, the current research on karst soils mainly focuses on the soil properties of limestone-formed soils. There is still a lack of research on the characteristics of soil developed by carbonate rock and the effects of their interactions on soil in karst areas from the perspective of vegetation-soil-bedrock system.Taking the soil developed by carbonate rock (limestone, calcareous dolomite and dolomite) as the research object, this study aims to explore the distribution characteristics and influencing factors of the soil developed by carbonate rock under different vegetation conditions in karst areas, and analyze the effects of different vegetation types, bedrock types and soil layers on soil properties. The study area is located in Huaxi district, Guiyang City, Guizhou Province. It has a subtropical monsoon climate with an average annual temperature of 14.9 ℃ and an average annual precipitation of 1,229 mm. Three representative plots in Huaxi district were selected, including Huaxi Reservoir, Huaxi TV Tower, and the area near the southern Guizhou University, and a total of 60 soil samples were collected from these three sample plots of different carbonate rock types. The main tree species in the study area are Cupressus funebris, Quercus, and Myrsine Africana, and grass species are Stipa bungeana and Cynodon dactylon. The soil physicochemical properties were determined by potentiometric method, Kjeldahl method, alkaline hydrolysis diffusion method, molybdenum antimony anti-colorimetric method (sodium bicarbonate extraction), and potassium dichromate oxidation with an external heating method. The particle size distribution of soil was determined by the hydrometer method. In SPSS24 software, Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normality of the data. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test (multiple comparison, Bonferroni method) were used to test the difference of soil properties with different sampling depths, vegetation types and bedrock types. Scheirer-Ray-Hare test was used to determine whether vegetation type, bedrock type, soil layer, and their interactions had a significant effect on soil particles and fertility. Permutation multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was used to analyze whether there were significant differences between two or three groups of data. Non-metric multi-dimensional (NMDS) was used to analyze the particle and fertility indexes of the soil developed by different bedrock types in the 0-20 and 20-40 cm soil layers. Redundancy analysis (RDA) was used to analyze the effects of vegetation type, bedrock type, and soil layer on changes in soil properties. These analyses were performed in the R version 4.0.3.The bedrock and vegetation types are the main factors affecting the development of carbonate rocks into soil, followed by soil layers. In 0-20 and 20-40 cm soil layers, the fertility and particles of the soil developed by limestone, limy dolomite and dolomite are significantly different. However, between the 0-20 and 20-40 cm soil layers, there is no significant difference in the nature of the soil developed from the same bedrock except the differences between gravel content (SLC) and fine particle ratio (<0.002 mm) of limestone-developed soil and the differences between available phosphorus (AP) and organic matter (SOM) content of dolomite-developed soil. In the 0-40 cm soil layer, the bedrock type significantly affects the distribution of soil pH, AP, SLC, AN, total nitrogen (TN), SOM, and 0.2-0.25 mm and 0.002-0.02 mm particles. Vegetation type significantly affects the pH value, AP, TN content of limestone-developed soil, pH, SLC, coarse particles (0.25-2 mm) and fine particles of dolomite-developed soil, and available nitrogen (AN), SOM, coarse and fine particles of soil developed by limestone dolomite. The soil layer significantly affects the distribution of SLC, coarse and fine particles in limestone-developed soil and AP in dolomite-developed soil.At present, the soil under the abandoned grassland slope and grass cover and the limestone-developed soil in the study area are likely being damaged by erosion. Therefore, according to the lithology of the parent rock, moderately changing the planting structure of vegetation on soil has a positive effect on improving soil nutrients and soil particle composition, and enhancing soil erosion resistance. Besides, the interaction of bedrock-vegetation-soil system and human activities should be comprehensively considered in the prevention and control of soil erosion in karst areas.
- karst /
- vegetation type /
- carbonate parent rock /
- soil properties /
- Huaxi district

HTML

图 1 不同基岩类型发育土壤性质的非度量多维标度分析

注：分析前对数据进行“Hellinger”转换，距离为“bray”a-石灰岩　b-灰质白云岩 c-白云岩　Cllykyl-常绿落叶阔叶林 Gml-灌木林 Hp-荒坡 Cb-草被 Zkhjl-针阔混交林 Gcxqm-灌丛小乔木 Zkyl-针阔叶林 Zyl-针叶林 Hcp-荒草坡。

Figure 1. Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) analysis of soil properties developed from different bedrock types

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 植被、基岩及土壤层次与土壤性质的RDA排序图

注：图中小写首字母表示0~20 cm土层，大写首字母表示20~40 cm土层。分析前对植被、基岩类型和土壤层次数据进行“log10”转化，对土壤性质数据进行“hellinger”转化，分析时采用了envfit()函数（置换模拟次数999），其决定系数R²值越大，解释变量对响应变量的分布影响越大^[16]。a-石灰岩 b-灰质白云岩 c-白云岩 Depth-土壤层次 Jiyanleixing-基岩类型 Zhibeileixing-植被类型 Clly-常绿落叶阔叶林 Gm-灌木林 Hp-荒坡 Cb-草被 Zkh-针阔混交林 Gc-灌丛小乔木 Zky-针阔叶林 Zy-针叶林 Hcp-荒草坡

Figure 2. Ordination diagram of redundancy analysis (RDA) of vegetation, bedrock, soil layers and soil properties

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 石灰岩发育土壤的颗粒及肥力特点

Table 1. Characteristics of particle and fertility of limestone-developed soil

土壤层次/cm	植被类型	pH	AP/mg·kg⁻¹
0~20	常绿落叶阔叶林	6.75(6.44,6.92)	27.36(25.10,28.50)ab
	灌木林	6.78(6.48,7.02)	9.80(9.23,10.36)b
	荒坡	7.01(6.88,7.15)	33.60(28.50,44.36)a
H值		2.76（P=0.25）	6.88（P=0.03）
20~40	常绿落叶阔叶林	6.51(5.76,6.73)A	17.73(14.33,38.70)
	灌木林	6.72(6.51,6.82)AB	21.70(14.33,33.60)
	荒坡	7.01(6.98,7.02)B	41.53(29.63,73.83)
H值		6.31（P=0.04）	3.29（P=0.19）
土壤层次/cm		SLC/%	<0.002 mm/%
0~20		1.36(0.07,2.45)	28.54(17.29,36.73)
20~40		0.43(0.00,1.38)	35.47(25.83,51.65)
U值		14.00（P=0.02）	67.00（P=0.02）
注：数据为中位数（最小值，最大值），仅列出Kruskal-Wallis H或者Mann-Whitney U检验存在显著差异各组，显著水平为P≤0.05；同一深度不同植被类型的同种土壤性质用不同字母标记表示差异显著（表2和表3同理）。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 白云岩发育土壤的颗粒及肥力特点

Table 2. Characteristics of particles and fertility of dolomite-developed soil

土壤层次/cm	植被类型	pH	0.25~2 mm/%
0~20	阔叶小乔林	6.88(6.87,7.05)ab	0.48(0.21,4.60)
	针阔混交林	6.93(6.86,7.50)ab	2.77(1.60,3.94)
	针叶林	5.08(4.03,6.60)a	0.95(0.37,1.55)
	荒草坡	7.46(7.15,7.60)b	29.30(2.82,33.75)
H值		8.23（P=0.04）	6.18（P=0.10）
20~40	阔叶小乔林	6.54(6.41,7.01)AB	1.49(0.56,5.88)AB
	针阔混交林	7.17(6.35,7.25)AB	1.47(1.43,1.50)AB
	针叶林	5.14(4.25,6.75)A	0.13(0.11,0.67)A
	荒草坡	7.39(7.26,7.71)B	20.18(18.12,24.76)B
H值		7.82（P=0.05）	8.69（P=0.03）
土壤层次/cm		AP/mg·kg⁻¹	SOM/g·kg⁻¹
0~20		4.98(1.30,9.80)	40.95(26.43,111.59)
20~40		7.53(3.53,193.40)	28.66(11.34,61.29)
U值		110.50（P=0.03）	33.00（P=0.02）

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 灰质白云岩发育土壤的颗粒及肥力特点

Table 3. Characteristics of particle and fertility of soil developed from limy dolomite

土壤层次/cm	植被类型	AN/mg·kg⁻¹	AP/mg·kg⁻¹	0.25~2 mm/%	<0.002 mm/%
0~20	常绿落叶阔叶林	23.03 (19.16,26.81)ab	15.46 (8.10,26.23)ab	1.59 (0.80,2.01)a	39.74 (34.76,39.96)
	草被	16.53 (14.71,16.98)a	5.83 (5.83,5.83)a	13.52 (4.92,14.64)b	18.45 (14.45,20.63)
	针阔混交林	33.25 (25.39,37.76)b	26.80 (20.00,52.30)b	4.06 (2.94,4.70)ab	17.80 (15.54,20.66)
H值		6.49（P=0.04）	6.71（P=0.04）	7.20（P=0.03）	5.43（P=0.07）
20~40	常绿落叶阔叶林	20.02 (18.38,32.54)	10.36 (9.23,20.56)	0.65 (0.54,1.27)A	39.22 (35.00,42.87)A
	草被	15.17 (11.67,17.04)	14.90 (4.70,37.00)	16.48 (13.81,17.91)B	12.98 (4.22,16.51)B
	针阔混交林	26.42 (22.18,38.15)	10.36 (6.96,18.30)	3.76 (3.56,5.22)AB	21.85 (13.13,30.07)AB
H值		5.96（P=0.051）	0.16（P=0.93）	7.20（P=0.03）	6.49（P=0.04）

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 不同基岩发育土壤的颗粒及肥力特点

Table 4. Characteristics of soil particles and fertility developed from different bedrocks

土壤层次/ cm	基岩类型	pH	SLC/%	AN/mg·kg⁻¹	AP/mg·kg⁻¹	TN/g·kg⁻¹	SOM/g·kg⁻¹	0.2~0.25 mm/%	0.002~0.02 mm/%
0~20	石灰岩	6.88 (6.62,7.02)a	1.36 (0.46,1.99)a	82.35 (55.75,141.41)a	27.36 (10.08,31.05)a	1.50 (0.82,4.37)ab	20.25 (13.11,25.63)a	13.23 (7.38,20.57)a	35.42 (31.47,37.62)a
	灰质白云岩	7.25 (7.03,7.33)b	8.73 (4.44,15.17)b	23.03 (16.76,30.03)ab	15.46 (5.83,26.52)a	1.55 (1.48,2.33)a	78.99 (53.23,104.98)b	21.50 (16.08,35.58)ab	31.07 (27.77,39.87)a
	白云岩	6.91 (6.67,7.38)ab	2.21 (0.31,11.35)ab	9.87 (7.10,15.65)b	4.98 (4.70,6.40)b	4.00 (2.58,5.70)b	40.95 (35.11,46.66)b	29.91 (23.51,38.65)b	22.42 (16.60,25.94)b
H值		7.21 （P=0.03）	9.88 （P=0.01）	23.35 （P=0.000）	17.29 （P=0.000）	8.55 （P=0.01）	21.92 （P=0.000）	9.42 （P=0.01）	17.12 （P=0.00）
20~40	石灰岩	6.82 (6.51,7.00)A	0.00 (0.00,1.12)A	60.41 (46.34,86.56)A	29.63 (16.03,40.12)A	1.31 (0.34,1.74)A	14.21 (9.27,16.30)A	12.57 (3.76,23.68)A	33.78 (28.03,40.35)A
	灰质白云岩	7.28 (7.19,7.33)B	14.25 (2.83,23.41)B	20.02 (16.11,29.48)A	10.36 (8.10,19.43AB	1.82 (1.65,2.30)AB	84.43 (45.28,95.18)B	28.43 (16.60,34.64)B	27.57 (24.72,37.58)AB
	白云岩	6.88 (6.37,7.26)AB	0.49 (0.23,13.03)AB	8.54 (6.74,11.02)B	7.53 (5.13,17.59)B	2.90 (2.18,4.91)B	28.66 (16.06,39.88)A	26.39 (16.42,29.94)AB	23.18 (18.11,28.53)B
H值		10.14 （P=0.01）	9.84 （P=0.01）	25.08 （P=0.000）	8.00 （P=0.02）	17.36 （P=0.000）	18.86 （P=0.000）	6.91 （P=0.03）	6.69 （P=0.04）
0~40	石灰岩	6.82 (6.51,7.01)a	0.89 (0.00,1.45)a	70.42 (48.47,105.73)a	27.93 (14.33,34.88)a	1.49 (0.57,2.59)a	14.77 (11.33,23.26)a	12.57 (5.88,23.09)a	34.50 (30.81,39.59)a
	灰质白云岩	7.26 (7.15,7.33)b	9.74 (3.62,17.76)b	21.10 (16.87,28.24)b	12.63 (6.68,21.98)a	1.81 (1.54,2.31)a	81.71 (50.44,98.96)b	24.35 (16.19,34.21)b	30.53 (25.82,37.36)a
	白云岩	6.91 (6.44,7.26)a	1.09 (0.31,11.58)ab	9.48 (6.74,12.23)c	6.40 (4.70,7.53)b	3.67 (2.31,4.91)b	35.28 (26.79,45.46)c	26.48 (19.83,35.84)b	23.18 (17.08,27.51)b
H值		18.19 （P=0.000）	18.14 （P=0.000）	49.18 （P=0.000）	22.64 （P=0.000）	23.61 （P=0.00）	39.32 （P=0.000）	14.75 （P=0.001）	22.96 （P=0.000）
注：数据为中位数和四分位数[P50（P25,P75）]，仅列出Kruskal-Wallis H检验存在显著差异各组，显著水平为P≤0.05；同一土层、不同植被类型或者不同基岩类型的相同土壤性质用不同字母标记表示差异显著。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(35)

[1]	毛志中. 贵州几类岩石的生态特点及其与土壤的关系[J]. 贵州林业科技, 1991, 19(1):53-57. MAO Zhizhong. Ecological characteristics of several types of rocks in Guizhou and their relationship with soil[J]. Guizhou Forestry Science and Technology, 1991, 19(1):53-57.
[2]	韩至钧, 金占省. 贵州省水文地质志[M]. 北京: 地震出版社, 1996. HAN Zhijun, JIN Zhansheng. Hydrogeology of Guizhou Province[M]. Beijing: Seismological Press, 1996.
[3]	龙健, 黄昌勇, 李娟. 喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2002, 16(1): 76-79. LONG Jian, HUANG Changyong, LI Juan. Effects of land use on soil quality in karst hilly area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2002, 16(1): 76-79.
[4]	Collins M E, Puckett W E, Schellentrager G W, Yust N A. Using GPR for micro-analyses of soils and karst features on the Chiefland Limestone Plain in Florida[J]. Geoderma, 1990, 47:159-170. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(90)90053-C
[5]	王德炉, 朱守谦, 黄宝龙. 石漠化过程中土壤理化性质变化的初步研究[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2003, 22(3):204-207, 213. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0457.2003.03.004 WANG Delu, ZHU Shouqian, HUANG Baolong. Primary study on soil physical and chemical properties in rocky desertification process[J]. Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology, 2003, 22(3):204-207, 213. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0457.2003.03.004
[6]	刘方, 王世杰, 刘元生, 何腾兵, 罗海波, 龙健. 喀斯特石漠化过程土壤质量变化及生态环境影响评价[J]. 生态学报, 2005, 25(3):639-644. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2005.03.035 LIU Fang, WANG Shijie, LIU Yuansheng, HE Tengbing, LUO Haibo, LONG Jian. Changes of soil quality in the process of karst rocky desertification and evaluation of impact on ecological environment[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2005, 25(3):639-644. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2005.03.035
[7]	Li W, Yu L J, He Q F, Wu Y, Yuan D X, Cao J H. Effects of microbes and their carbonic anhydrase on Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ migration in column-built leached soil-limestone karst systems[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2005, 29(3):274-281. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2004.12.001
[8]	Zhang W, Liu C Q, Wang Z L, Zhang L L, Luo X Q. Speciation and isotopic composition of sulfur in limestone soil and yellow soil in karst areas of Southwest China: Implications of different responses to acid deposition[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2014, 43(3):809-819. doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.09.0359
[9]	Nina Z, Rok T, Milo M, Helena G. Geochemical fingerprint of insoluble material in soil on different limestone formations[J]. Catena, 2018, 170:10-24. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.040
[10]	周运超. 贵州龙里猴子沟森林土壤与地质地貌相关性的研究[J]. 贵州农学院学报, 1995, 14(2):16-19. ZHOU Yunchao. The correlation study between the forest soil with the geologic and geographic conditions of Monkey Valley in Longli county of Guizhou, China[J]. Journal of Guizhou Agricultural College, 1995, 14(2):16-19.
[11]	Meyer M D, North M P, Gray A N, Zald H S J. Influence of soil thickness on stand characteristics in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest[J]. P1ant and Soil, 2007, 294:113-123. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9235-3
[12]	周玮, 严敏, 苏春花, 李玲, 雷章琴. 不同碳酸盐岩和土层厚度下土壤微生物数量及生物量的研究:以贵阳市花溪区为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2018, 37(2):168-174. ZHOU Wei, YAN Min, SU Chunhua, LI Ling, LEI Zhangqin. Study on soil microbial quantity and biomass developed from different carbonate-rock and soil thickness: A case study of Huaxi district in Guiyang[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2018, 37(2):168-174.
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 3版[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. BAO Shidan. Soil agrochemistry analysis. 3^rd Edition[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2000.
[14]	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 Anqin. 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.
[15]	Clarke K R, Warwick R M. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation(second edition)[M].PRIMER-E Ltd.: Plymouth, UK, 2001.
[16]	赖江山, 米湘成. 基于Vegan软件包的生态学数据排序分析[C]. 全国生物多样性保护与持续利用研讨会, 2010: 332-343. LAI Jiangshan, MI Xiangcheng. Ordination analysis of ecological data based on Vegan software package[C]. National Symposium on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, 2010: 332-343.
[17]	刘羽霞, 许嘉巍, 靳英华, 朱瑞帅, 牛莉平, 王嫒林, 张英洁. 基于地形因子的长白山高山苔原土理化性质空间差异[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(3):640-648. LIU Yuxia, XU Jiawei, JIN Yinghua, ZHU Ruishuai, NIU Liping, WANG Yuanlin, ZHANG Yingjie. Spatial variability of soil physicochemical properties in the alpine tundra of Changbai Mountain in relation to topographic factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36(3):640-648.
[18]	潘复静, 张伟, 梁月明, 王克林, 靳振江. 喀斯特不同植被恢复阶段土壤有机酸季节变化与有效氮磷的关系[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(4):1112-1120. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202004.010 PAN Fujing, ZHANG Wei, LIANG Yueming, WANG Kelin, JIN Zhenjiang. Seasonal changes of soil organic acid concentrations in relation to available N and P at different stages of vegetation restoration in a karst ecosystem[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2020, 39(4):1112-1120. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202004.010
[19]	欧芷阳, 申文辉, 庞世龙, 彭玉华, 谭一波, 何琴飞. 平果喀斯特山地不同植物群落的土壤质量评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(10):2771-2777. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.2015.0258 OU Zhiyang, SHEN Wenhui, PANG Shilong, PENG Yuhua, TAN Yibo, HE Qinfei. Assessment of soil quality of different plant communities in the karst mountains of Pingguo county, Guangxi[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2015, 34(10):2771-2777. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.2015.0258
[20]	刘方, 刘元生, 卜通达, 陈祖拥. 贵州喀斯特山区植被演替对土壤有效性氮磷含量及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国岩溶, 2012, 31(1):31-35. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2012.01.006 LIU Fang, LIU Yuansheng, BU Tongda, CHEN Zuyong. Impact of vegetation community succession on available N, P and enzyme activity of the soil in karst hill of Guizhou Province[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2012, 31(1):31-35. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4810.2012.01.006
[21]	白尚斌, 张彦东, 王政权. 落叶松根际pH值与供磷水平及土壤磷有效性的关系[J]. 林业科学, 2001, 37(4):129-133. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2001.04.021 BAI Shangbin, ZHANG Yandong, WANG Zhengquan. The relationship between pH changes and P-availability in rhizosphere of Larix Gmelinii[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2001, 37(4):129-133. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2001.04.021
[22]	易艳灵, 吴丽英, 杨倩, 任永胜, 刘海, 李贤伟, 范川. 柏木根系分泌物对盆栽香椿土壤养分和酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(7):2080-2086. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201907.023 YI Yanling, WU Liying, YANG Qian, REN Yongsheng, LIU Hai, LI Xianwei, FAN Chuan. Effects of root exudates of Cupressus funebris on soil nutrients and enzyme activities of potted Toona sinensis[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(7):2080-2086. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201907.023
[23]	杜阿朋, 王彦辉, 管伟, 何常清, 于澎涛, 刘建立. 六盘山叠叠沟小流域的土壤石砾含量坡面分布特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2009, 23(5): 76-80, 127. DU Apeng, WANG Yanhui, GUAN Wei, HE Changqing, YU Pengtao, LIU Jianli. Distribution of rock fragment content on slopes in the small watershed of Diediegou of Liupan Mountains[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009, 23(5): 76-80, 127.
[24]	何腾兵, 董玲玲, 刘元生, 舒英格, 罗海波, 刘方. 贵阳市乌当区不同母质发育的土壤理化性质和重金属含量差异研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(6): 157-162. HE Tengbing, DONG Lingling, LIU Yuansheng, SHU Yingge, LUO Haibo, LIU Fang. Change of physical-chemical properties and heavy mental element in soil from different parent material/rock[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 20(6): 157-162.
[25]	邹显花, 刘露奇, 刘青青, 马祥庆, 吴鹏飞, 刘爱琴. 杉木凋落物源有机酸对土壤磷有效性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(5): 1154-1161. ZOU Xianhua, LIU Luqi, LIU Qingqing, MA Xiangqing, WU Pengfei, LIU Aiqin. Influence of organic acids derived from litters to the availability of soil phosphorus in Chinese fir plantations[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2017, 48(5): 1154-1161.
[26]	彭韬, 邢学刚, 蔡先立, 王世杰, 张信宝, 孟凡德, 张林. 保水剂与活性炭改良白云岩石漠化坡地土壤促进植物生长的盆栽试验研究[J]. 中国岩溶, 2016, 35(5):525-532. PENG Tao, XING Xuegang, CAI Xianli, WANG Shijie, ZHANG Xinbao, MENG Fande, ZHANG Lin. Pot experiment research on the effects of water retaining agent and activated carbon as soil amendments for plant growing on dolomitic rocky desertification slopes[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2016, 35(5):525-532.
[27]	周玮, 王应飞, 李玲. 黔中岩溶区不同土层厚度土壤碳、氮、磷含量及其转化酶的活性[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2017, 45(3): 76-79. ZHOU Wei, WANG Yingfei, LI Ling. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus content and invertase activity in soil with different soil thickness in karst area of central Guizhou[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(3): 76-79.
[28]	吴振铎, 吴耀先, 吴江, 杨蔚峰, 焦晓明, 赵庆喜, 李健. 人工针阔混交林生态条件作用机理的研究[J]. 辽宁林业科技, 2001(2):4-6,13. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1714.2001.02.002 WU Zhenduo, WU Yaoxian, WU Jiang, YANG Weifeng, JIAO Xiaoming, ZHAO Qingxi, LI Jian. Study on functions of ecological factors in conifer-hardwood plantation[J]. Journal of Liaoning Forestry Science & Technology, 2001(2):4-6,13. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1714.2001.02.002
[29]	董玲玲, 何腾兵, 刘元生, 舒英格, 罗海波, 刘方. 喀斯特山区不同母质(岩)发育的土壤主要理化性质差异性分析[J]. 土壤通报, 2008, 39(3):471-474. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2008.03.002 DONG Lingling, HE Tengbing, LIU Yuansheng, SHU Yingge, LUO Haibo, LIU Fang. Changes of soil physical-chemical properties derived from different parent materials/rocks in karst mountain[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2008, 39(3):471-474. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2008.03.002
[30]	Shaban M, Peng Q, Lin S, Wu Y, Zhao J, Hu R. Nitrous oxide emission from two acidic soils as affected by dolomite application[J]. Soil Research, 2014, 52:841-848. doi: 10.1071/SR14129
[31]	王尚彦, 况顺达, 戴传固, 王明章, 刘家仁. 白云岩和石灰岩山区石漠化速度差异原因分析[J]. 贵州地质, 2009, 26(1):49-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5943.2009.01.010 WANG Shangyan, KUANG Shunda, DAI Chuangu, WANG Mingzhang, LIU Jiaren. Analyses on the reason of rocky desertification speed difference of dolomite and limestone in mountain area[J]. Guizhou Geology, 2009, 26(1):49-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5943.2009.01.010
[32]	Shaaban M, Wu Y, Peng Q, Wu L, Hu R. The interactive effects of dolomite application and straw incorporation on soil N₂O emissions[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2018, 69:502-511. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12541
[33]	Tang Y, Lian B, Dong H L, Liu D, Hou W. Endolithic bacterial communities in dolomite and limestone rocks from the Nanjiang canyon in Guizhou karst area (China)[J]. Geomicrobiology Journal, 2012, 29(3):213-225. doi: 10.1080/01490451.2011.558560
[34]	董茜, 尤勇刚, 罗为群, 刘绍华, 王根柱, 刘玉国, 周金星. 岩溶区不同母岩植物群落物种组成及优势种群生态位差异[J]. 中国岩溶, 2021, 40(5):849-859. DONG Qian, YOU Yonggang, LUO Weiquan, LIU Shaohua, WANG Genzhu, LIU Yuguo, ZHOU Jinxing. Species composition and niche differences of dominant populations of plant communities from different parent rocks in karst area[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2021, 40(5):849-859.
[35]	Deng L, Wang K B, Shangguan Z P. Long-term natural succession improves nitrogen storage capacity of soil on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Soil Research, 2014, 52:262-270. doi: 10.1071/SR12377