Analysis of the Impacts on the Physical Properties of Mangrove Soil in Eastern Fujian Coastal Wetlands under the Invasion of Spartina alterniflora

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.02.024

Abstract

Abstract:

With eastern Fujian coastal wetlands under the invasion of Spartina alterniflora as the research object and through comparative analysis of soil moisture content,soil porosity and soil bulk density and using the IBM SPSS Statistics 19,the single factor variance analysis(One-way ANOVA)was performed to test the data difference significance.According to the results,the five communities in Xinan town include single dominant community of mangrove forest,single dominant community of Spartina alterniflora,50% autumn mangrove forest,50% Spartina alterniflora mixed community,75% autumn mangrove forest,25% Spartina alterniflora mixed community and 25% autumn mangrove forest,75% Spartina alterniflora mixed community.The soil moisture content of 0~20cm soil depth was significantly different from that in 40~60cm soil depth,but there was no significant difference in soil porosity and soil bulk density of the single dominant community of mangrove forest and single dominant community of Spartina alterniflora.The soil moisture content,soil porosity and soil bulk density were all significantly different in 40~60cm soil depth with 0~20cm soil depth and 20~40cm soil depth of 50% autumn mangrove forest,50% Spartina alterniflora mixed community.The invasion of Spartina alterniflora caused soil bulk density to increase,the soil porosity decrease and the trend of soil moisture content showed different patterns in different Kandelia Candel-Spartina alterniflora mixed communities in eastern Fujian coastal wetlands.

Key words: Spartina alterniflora, mangrove, soil moisture content, soil porosity, soil bulk density, eastern Fujian coastal wetlands

CLC Number:

S154.1
S45

LI Weiwei, HE Dongjin, YAN Sixiao, CAI Jinbiao, WANG Ren, YOU Weibin, HOU Dongliang, BAI Jing. Analysis of the Impacts on the Physical Properties of Mangrove Soil in Eastern Fujian Coastal Wetlands under the Invasion of Spartina alterniflora[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, (2): 151-156.

Figures/Tables 3

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

References 23

[1]	Sala O E, Wall D H. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100[J]. Science, 2000,287:1770-1774. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 pmid: 10710299
[2]	Vitousek P M, D’Antonio C M, Loope L L, et al. Introduced species:a significant component of human-caused global change[J]. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 1996,21(1):1-16.
[3]	范继辉, 蒋莉, 程根伟. 我国南方生物入侵的问题与对策[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005,16(3):568-572.
[4]	陈宝明, 彭少麟, 吴秀平, 等. 近20年外来生物入侵危害与风险评估文献计量分析[J]. 生态学报, 2016,36(20):6677-6685. doi: 10.5846/stxb201504060690
[5]	李玉凤, 刘红玉. 湿地分类和湿地景观分类研究进展[J]. 湿地科学, 2014,12(1):102-108.
[6]	游巍斌, 何东进, 林立, 等. 闽东滨海湿地生态脆弱性动态评价[J]. 福建农林大学学报:自然版, 2013,42(6):648-653.
[7]	林立, 何东进, 王韧, 等. 闽东滨海湿地景观分类体系与格局特征[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2012,32(2):62-67.
[8]	徐国万, 卓荣宗. 我国引种互花米草的初步研究[J]. 南京大学学报, 1985,40(2):212-225.
[9]	王卿. 互花米草在上海崇明东滩的入侵历史、分布现状和扩张趋势的预测[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011,20(6):690-696.
[10]	何军, 赵聪蛟, 清华, 等. 土壤水分条件对克隆植物互花米草表型可塑性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(7):3518-3524.
[11]	左平, 刘长安. 中国海岸带外来植物物种影响分析——以大米草与互花米草为例[J]. 海洋开发与管理, 2008,25(12):107-112.
[12]	陈慧丽, 李玉娟, 李博, 等. 外来植物入侵对土壤生物多样性和生态系统过程的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2005,13(6):555-565. doi: 10.1360/biodiv.050058
[13]	福建省海洋与渔业局. 2006 年福建省海洋环境状况公报[Z]. 福州:福建省海洋与渔业局, 2007.
[14]	Dostálek T, Münzbergová Z, Kladivová A, et al. Plant-soil feedback in native vs.invasive populations of a range expanding plant[J]. Plant & Soil, 2016,399(112):209-220.
[15]	布乃顺, 胡悦, 杨骁, 等. 互花米草入侵对长江河口湿地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017,26(1):100-109.
[16]	何东进, 游巍斌, 王韧, 等. 中国红树林天然分布北缘区不同起源秋茄林湿地沉积物重金属空间分布特征比较[J].应用与环境生物学报, 2013(6):945-951.
[17]	林立, 何东进, 王韧, 等. 闽东滨海湿地景观分类体系与格局特征[J]. 西南林业大学学报:自然科学, 2012,32(2):62-67.
[18]	何东进, 谭勇, 廖小娟, 等. 闽东滨海湿地重金属生态风险评价方法选择与比较研究[J].福建林学院学报, 2014(2):97-103.
[19]	何东进, 郑开基, 王韧, 等. 闽东滨海湿地不同起源秋茄林重金属元素Zn、Cd、Cu的累积与分布特征比较[J]. 福建农林大学学报:自然版, 2012,41(2):187-192.
[20]	Elizabete M, Annelise K, Sten S, et al. Short-and long-term impacts of Acacia longifolia invasion on the belowground processes of a Mediterranean coastal dune ecosystem[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2008,40(2):210-217. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.004
[21]	陈正勇, 王国祥, 刘金娥, 等. 苏北潮滩群落交错带互花米草斑块与土著种竞争关系研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2011,20(10):1436-1442.
[22]	Heneghan L, Fatemi F, Umek L, et al. The invasive shrub European buckthorn(Rhamnus cathartica,L.)alters soil properties in Midwestern U.S.woodlands[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2006,32(1):142-148. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.03.009
[23]	刘效东, 乔玉娜, 周国逸. 土壤有机质对土壤水分保持及其有效性的控制作用[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011,35(12):1209-1218. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01209

群落符号	群落名称
A	秋茄红树林单优势群落
B	互花米草单优势群落
C	50%秋茄红树林、50%互花米草混合群落
D	75%秋茄红树林、25%互花米草混合群落
E	25%秋茄红树林、75%互花米草混合群落

样地名称	土层深度 /cm	样地平均含水量/%	样地平均孔隙度/%	样地平均土壤容重/(g/cm³)	样地总平均含水量/%	样地总平均孔隙度/%	样地总平均土壤容重/(g/cm³)
	0~20	129.0±8.7ab	78.3±1.0a	0.574±0.026a
A	20~40	124.2±5.3a	75.6±1.5a	0.646±0.040a	121.0±7.4	76.4±2.1	0.625±0.055
	40~60	109.9±8.1ac	75.2±3.7a	0.656±0.099a
	0~20	129.6±2.2ab	73.8±1.9a	0.695±0.050a
B	20~40	119.4±6.0a	73.3±1.1a	0.708±0.029a	120.6±5.3	72.9±1.8	0.720±0.049
	40~60	112.8±7.6ac	71.5±2.5a	0.755±0.067a
	0~20	122.1±2.1a	74.9±0.5a	0.666±0.013a
C	20~40	124.4±1.9a	73.9±0.9a	0.692±0.024a	119.3±4.2	73.7±0.5	0.700±0.012
	40~60	111.4±8.7b	72.4±0.0b	0.731±0.001b
	0~20	124.5±4.4a	73.4±0.7a	0.704±0.019a
D	20~40	128.7±3.9a	73.3±2.7a	0.707±0.071a	125.5±5.7	72.6±1.6	0.730±0.042
	40~60	123.3±8.8a	71.1±1.3a	0.767±0.035a
	0~20	128.6±9.5a	75.0±1.2a	0.662±0.031a
E	20~40	133.2±9.3a	74.4±0.9a	0.679±0.023a	126.5±8.7	74.4±1.0	0.680±0.026
	40~60	117.8±7.4a	73.9±0.9a	0.692±0.025a

样地名称	土层深度 /cm	样地平均含水量/%	样地平均孔隙度/%	样地平均土壤容重/(g/cm³)
A		129.0±8.7	78.3±1.0	0.574±0.026
B		129.6±2.2	73.8±1.9	0.695±0.050
C	0~20	122.1±2.1	74.9±0.5	0.666±0.013
D		124.5±4.4	73.4±0.7	0.704±0.019
E		128.6±9.5	75.0±1.2	0.662±0.031
A		124.2±5.3	75.6±1.5	0.646±0.040
B		119.4±6.0	73.3±1.1	0.708±0.029
C	20~40	124.4±1.9	73.9±0.9	0.692±0.024
D		128.7±3.9	73.3±2.7	0.707±0.071
E		133.2±9.3	74.4±0.9	0.679±0.023
A		109.9±8.1	75.2±3.7	0.656±0.099
B		112.8±7.6	71.5±2.5	0.755±0.067
C	40~60	111.4±8.7	72.4±0.0	0.731±0.001
D		123.3±8.8	71.1±1.3	0.767±0.035
E		117.8±7.4	73.9±0.9	0.692±0.025