不同林龄华北落叶松白桦混交林土壤微生物量碳氮含量研究

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.04.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以山西太岳山15a,20a和25a华北落叶松白桦混交林为研究对象,研究其土壤微生物量、土壤理化性质及其相关关系,探讨不同林龄混交林土壤特征及微生物学特性,以期为华北落叶松林合理经营提供理论依据。研究结果表明:土壤有机碳、全氮、微生物量及微生物熵均随着土层深度的加深逐渐减小;土壤微生物量碳氮、有机碳、全氮含量均表现为随林龄增加而先减小后增加的趋势,且土壤碳氮比在25a混交林内显著低于其他两种林龄,土壤由“真菌型”向“细菌型”转变。随混交林林龄的增加,表层土壤微生物熵逐渐增大,土壤有机碳活性较大,碳库稳定性较差。相关分析表明,不同林龄的华北落叶松白桦混交林下,土壤微生物量碳氮含量与土壤有机碳、全氮、pH、微生物碳熵和氮熵均有极显著的相关关系。因此,土壤微生物可以敏感地指示土壤肥力的变化。

关键词: 土壤微生物量碳氮, 林龄, 混交林, 土壤微生物碳氮比值, 全氮

Abstract:

To study soil microbial biomass in Larch-Betula platylla mixed forests of different ages,this paper analyzed the content and correlation of soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen,soil physicochemical properties and the ratio of soil microbial carbon and nitrogen,aiming to explore the characteristics of soil and soil microorganisms.The results showed that soil organic carbon,total nitrogen,soil microbial biomass and soil microbial entropy gradually decreased with soil depth.All of them represented a trend of decreasing firstly and then increasing as forest ages increased,and soil turned from “fungal type” to “bacteria type”.The ratio of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in the age of 25 was extremely lower than both of other two ages.In forest floor,soil microbial entropy was greater with the forest age increase,with the higher activities of soil organic carbon,and the instability of soil carbon pool.The correlation analysis showed that there was a significant relationship among soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen and soil organic carbon,total nitrogen,the value of pH,microbial entropy.Thus,soil microorganism presented the variation of the soil fertility as a sensitive indicator.

Key words: soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, forest ages, mixed forests, the ratio of microbial carbon and nitrogen, otal nitrogen

中图分类号:

王云霞, 马军. 不同林龄华北落叶松白桦混交林土壤微生物量碳氮含量研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2018,(4): 55-60.

WANG Yunxia, MA Jun. Research on Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen in Larch-Betula platylla Mixed Forests of Different Ages[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018,(4): 55-60.

图/表 6

表1

表2

图1

图2

表3

表4

参考文献 32

[1]	张景源. 长期不同施肥措施下红壤旱地土壤微生物的生物量和多样性[D]. 华中农业大学, 2008.
[2]	Yao H, He Z L, Wilson M J, et al. Microbial biomass and community structure in a sequence of soils with increasing fertility and changing land use[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2000,40:223-237. doi: 10.1007/s002480000053
[3]	罗达, 史作民, 唐敬超, 等. 南亚热带乡土树种人工纯林及混交林土壤微生物群落结构[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014,25(9):2543-2550.
[4]	Yan D R, Liu Y J, Wang J Y, et al. Study on the soil fertility and the microorganism content of pure larch plantations[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University. 1996,24(3):46-50.
[5]	Lundquist E J, Jackson L E, Scow K M, et al. Changes in microbial biomass and community composition,and soil carbon and nitrogen pools after incorporation of rye into three California agricultural soils[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1999,31(2):221-236. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00093-5
[6]	Jackson D S, Ladd J N. Microbial biomass in soil:measurement and tumover[J]. Soil Bioc, 1981(5):415-417.
[7]	杨芳, 吴家森, 钱新标, 等. 不同施肥雷竹林土壤微生物量碳的动态变化[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2006,23(1):70-74.
[8]	曹裕松, 胡文杰, 周兵, 等. 武功山高山草甸土壤微生物生物量碳及其影响因素[J]. 井冈山大学学报:自然科学版, 2013,34(5):26-30.
[9]	Yang Q, Lei A P, Li F L, et al. Structure and function of soil microbial community in artificially planted Sonneratia apetala and S.caseolaris forests at different stand ages in Shenzhen Bay,China[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2014,85:754-763. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.024
[10]	He H, Zhang W, Zhang X. Temporal responses of soil microorganisms to substrate addition as indicated by amino sugar differentiation[J]. Soil Biol Bioc, 2011,43(6):1155-1161.
[11]	Ding L J, Wu J S, Xiao H, et al. Mobilisation of inorganic phosphorus induced by rice straw in aggregates of a highly weathered upland soil[J]. J.Sci.Food Agri., 2012,92(5):1073-1079.
[12]	陈会海, 许修宏, 李洪涛. 应用PCR-DGGE分析三江湿地土壤真菌群落结构的多样性[J]. 环境科学研究, 2012,25(11):1272-1278.
[13]	Wang H, Liu S, Wang J, et al. Effects of tree species mixture on soil organic carbon stocks and greenhouse gas fluxes in subtropical plantations in China[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2012,300:4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.005
[14]	程小琴. 山西太岳山油松人工林土壤碳特征对林分密度调控响应的研究[D]. 北京林业大学, 2014.
[15]	吴然, 康峰峰, 韩海荣, 等. 山西太岳山不同林龄华北落叶松林土壤微生物特性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016: 3183-3190.
[16]	吴然, 康峰峰, 韩海荣, 等. 山西太岳山典型植被类型土壤微生物量特征[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2016: 486-493.
[17]	魏孝荣, 邵明安. 黄土沟壑区小流域土壤pH值的空间分布及条件模拟[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009(5):61-67.
[18]	杨凯, 朱教君, 张金鑫, 等. 不同林龄落叶松人工林土壤微生物生物量碳氮的季节变化[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(10):5500-5507.
[19]	Luan J W, Liu S R, Wang J X, et al. Rhizospheric and heterotrophic respiration of a warm-temperate oak chronosequence in China[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2011,43(3):503-512. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.010
[20]	何容, 汪家社, 施政, 等. 武夷山植被带土壤微生物量沿海拔梯度的变化[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(9):5138-5144.
[21]	王宁, 杨雪, 李世兰, 等. 不同海拔红松混交林土壤微生物量碳、氮的生长季节动态[J]. 林业科学, 2016,52(1):150-158. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20160118
[22]	Kramer C, Trumbore S, Froberg M, et al. Recent (< 4 year old)leaf litter is not a major source of microbial carbon in a temperate forest mineral soil[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2010,42(7):1028-1037. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.021
[23]	Brant J B, Myrold D D, Sulzman E W. Root controls on soil microbial community structure in forest soils[J]. Oecologia, 2006,148(4):650-659. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0402-7
[24]	王启兰, 曹广民, 王长庭. 高寒草甸不同植被土壤微生物数量及微生物生物量的特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2007,26(7):1002-1008.
[25]	赵彤, 闫浩, 蒋跃利, 等. 黄土丘陵区植被类型对土壤微生物量碳氮磷的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013,33(18):5615-5622. doi: 10.5846/stxb201304160723
[26]	李娇, 蒋先敏, 尹华军, 等. 不同林龄云杉人工林的根系分泌物与土壤微生物[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014,25(2):325-332.
[27]	胡亚林, 王思龙, 颜绍馗, 等. 杉木人工林取代天然次生阔叶林对土壤生物活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报. 2005,16(8):1411-1416.
[28]	Vance E D, Chapin F S. Substrate limitations to microbial activity in taiga forest floors[J]. Soil Biology and Biology, 2001,33:173-188.
[29]	王春阳, 周建斌, 董燕婕, 等. 黄土区六种植物凋落物与不同形态氮素对土壤微生物量碳氮含量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010,30(24):7092-7100.
[30]	Marumoto T, Anderson J P E, Damsch K H. Decomposition of¹⁴C- and¹⁵N-labelled microbial cells in soil[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1982,14:461-467. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(82)90105-5
[31]	吴建平, 梁国华, 熊鑫, 等. 鼎湖山季风常绿阔叶林土壤微生物量碳和有机碳对模拟酸雨的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(20):1-10.
[32]	牛小云, 孙晓梅, 陈东升. 辽东山区不同林龄日本落叶松人工林土壤微生物、养分及酶活性[J]. 应用生态学报. 2015,26(9):2663-2672.

林龄/a	坡向	坡位	坡度/(°)	海拔/m
15	阴坡	中部	26	2179
20	阴坡	中部	22	2250
25	阴坡	中部	24	2220

土层/cm	年龄/a	有机碳SOC/(g/kg)	全氮TN/(g/kg)	土壤碳氮比SOC/TN	含水率	pH
a层 0~10	15	29.861±3.620a	2.686±0.097a	11.134±1.440b	0.314±0.021b	7.043±0.256b
	20	20.580±2.303b	1.805±0.234c	11.528±1.561b	0.370±0.077b	7.339±0.235a
	25	27.676±5.644a	2.150±0.237b	12.867±2.023a	0.456±0.117a	6.797±0.064c
b层 10~20	15	24.159±3.273a	2.174±0.048a	11.121±1.561b	0.270±0.025b	7.264±0.075a
	20	16.616±2.515b	1.296±0.478c	14.206±4.750a	0.328±0.078ab	7.310±0.258a
	25	23.720±1.496a	1.782±0.089b	13.353±1.249a	0.405±0.132a	7.080±0.180b
c层 20~30	15	19.575±2.798b	1.871±0.042a	10.482±1.607c	0.256±0.023b	7.505±0.170a
	20	16.276±2.186c	1.166±0.516b	16.835±7.639a	0.456±0.065a	7.301±0.387b
	25	24.470±3.171a	1.625±0.099a	15.121±2.250b	0.375±0.106a	7.214±0.204b
d层 30~40	15	15.590±2.686b	1.587±0.037a	9.849±1.827b	0.262±0.013b	7.684±0.204a
	20	12.793±2.676c	1.155±0.477b	12.236±3.344b	0.430±0.076a	7.378±0.284b
	25	22.444±3.097a	1.458±0.160a	15.781±4.046a	0.392±0.117a	7.252±0.173b

土层	年龄 /a	微生物量碳氮比 MBC/MBN	微生物碳熵/% MBC/SOC	微生物氮熵/% MBN/TN
a层	15	7.341±0.707a	2.250±0.281b	3.387±0.223b
	20	7.864±0.471a	2.322±0.298b	3.404±0.642b
	25	7.546±0.606a	2.650±0.436a	4.490±0.841a
b层	15	8.901±2.516a	2.356±0.839a	2.899±0.376b
	20	8.651±1.092a	2.027±0.446a	3.197±0.844b
	25	7.214±1.717a	2.247±0.504a	4.245±0.794a
c层	15	8.952±3.250a	2.205±0.605a	2.724±0.763b
	20	9.281±2.107ab	1.509±0.458b	2.726±1.401b
	25	6.502±1.447b	1.415±0.457b	3.309±0.973a
d层	15	10.824±7.714a	1.777±0.539a	1.968±0.590b
	20	8.517±1.384ab	1.271±0.228b	1.841±0.634b
	25	6.100±1.156b	1.137±0.588b	2.609±0.723a

	MBC	MBN	MBC/MBN	SOC	TN	SOC/TN	pH	MBC/SOC	MBN/TN
MBC	1	0.848^**	0.127	0.641^**	0.768^**	-0.302^**	-0.377^**	0.808^**	0.501^**
MBN		1	-0.339^**	0.683^**	0.735^**	-0.226^*	-0.422^**	0.571^**	0.738^**
MBC/MBN			1	-0.163	-0.032	-0.151	0.243^*	0.304^**	-0.466^**
SOC				1	0.665^**	0.143	-0.411^**	0.100	0.339^**
TN					1	-0.590^**	-0.096	0.518^**	0.114
SOC/TN						1	-0.408^**	-0.523^**	0.262^**
pH							1	-0.146	-0.514^**
MBC/SOC								1	0.362^**
MBN/TN									1