Soil Physicochemical Properties of Betula platyphylla Secondary Forest Under Different Disturbances in Daxing' anling

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.02.018

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil physical and chemical properties directly affect forest growth and forest ecosystem health and stability. This research took Betula platyphyllain northern Daxing'anling with forest fire disturbance,the cutting interference and artificial stripe interference as the research object,selected a total of 11 indexes of soil physical and chemical properties,such as pH,soil organic matter,etc,used the subjective and objective comprehensive assignment method combining analytic hierarchy process (ahp) and entropy weight methodto determine the synthesis weights,and at the same time,by applying the method of grey correlation,the soil fertility status was evaluated by calculating the comprehensive indexes of each soil. The results showed that soil available P and soil organic matter accounted for 0.233 and 0.165,respectively,which indicated that soil available P and soil organic matter were important factors affecting soil fertility. Soil values from big to small were in the order of 0.88 (artificial stripe interference),0.74 (the cutting interference),0.65 (interference) on fire,showing the birch forest soil fertility was the best in artificial stripe interference,the birch forest soil fertility was the worst in fire interference,showing that reasonable moderate artificial measureswouldbe conducive to the birch forest soil fertility improvement. The results will provide a scientific basis for the formulation of effective measures to improve the ecological function of Betula platyphylla secondary forest in Daxing'anling.

Key words: Daxing'anling, Betula platyphylla secondary forest, different disturbances, soil fertility

CLC Number:

SA Rula, HU Richa, YU Xiaoyu, WANG Zirui. Soil Physicochemical Properties of Betula platyphylla Secondary Forest Under Different Disturbances in Daxing' anling[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, (2): 135-140.

Figures/Tables 7

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

References 20

[1]	路翔. 中亚热带4种森林凋落物及土壤碳氮贮量与分布特征[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2012.
[2]	王兵, 任晓旭, 胡文. 中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评估[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(2):145-153.
[3]	白杨, 欧阳志云, 郑华, 等. 海河流域森林生态系统服务功能评估[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(7):2029-2039.
[4]	Schwartzman S, Alencar A, Zarin H, et al. Social movements and large-scale tropical forest protection on the Amazon frontier:conservation from chaos[J]. Journal of Environment & Development, 2010, 19(3):274-299.
[5]	陆元昌, 栾慎强, 张守攻, 等. 从法正林转向近自然林:德国多功能森林经营在国家、区域和经营单位层面的实践[J]. 世界林业研究, 2010, 23(1):1-11.
[6]	Alston L J, Andersson K P. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Forest Protection:The Transaction Costs of Redd[J]. Nber Working Papers, 2011, 2(2):281-289.
[7]	Takahashi R, Todo Y. Impact of community-based forest management on forest protection:evidence from an aid-funded project in Ethiopia[J]. Environmental Management, 2012, 50(3):396-404. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9887-5 pmid: 22736315
[8]	张忠华, 胡刚, 祝介东, 等. 喀斯特森林土壤养分的空间异质性及其对树种分布的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(10):1038-1049. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01038
[9]	朱玉杰, 董希斌. 大兴安岭用材林不同强度采伐后土壤模糊聚类分析[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014, 42(10):65-71.
[10]	李广会, 郭素娟, 邹锋, 等. 板栗叶片营养与土壤养分的动态变化及回归分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2012, 32(9):41-46.
[11]	纪浩. 大兴安岭低质林改造后土壤肥力质量评价[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2013.
[12]	Danielsonr M, Vvisser S. Effects of forest soil acidification on ectomycorrhizal and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal development[J]. New Phytologist, 2010, 112(1):41-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1989.tb00306.x
[13]	韩敏, 董希斌, 管惠文, 等. 大兴安岭天然落叶松林不同演替阶段土壤性质对生态功能的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(12):50-54.
[14]	管惠文, 董希斌, 曲杭峰, 等. 抚育间伐强度对大兴安岭落叶松次生林土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(2):27-33.
[15]	李银祥, 季蒙, 曹恭祥, 等. 蛮汉山典型森林植被土壤理化性质特征研究[J]. 内蒙古林业科技, 2021, 47(2):24-29.
[16]	王冰, 周扬, 张秋良. 兴安落叶松林土壤有机碳特征及与其他土壤理化性质关系研究[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2021, 37(9):1200-1208.
[17]	陈小伟, 刘发林, 韩育明. 火干扰后枫香次生林不同土层土壤理化性质研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2020, 29(3):45-53.
[18]	于楠楠, 马世明, 刘瑞龙, 等. 内蒙古苏木山华北落叶松人工林土壤养分变化规律[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2019, 33(11):190-194.
[19]	张扬, 铁牛, 刘洋, 等. 大兴安岭火烧迹地土壤有机质含量的Meta分析[J]. 中国林副特产, 2021(5):1-4.
[20]	孟京辉, 陆元昌, 刘刚, 等. 不同演替阶段的热带天然林土壤化学性质对比[J]. 林业科学研究, 2010, 23(5):791-795.

样地代号	干扰类型	方式与强度	恢复年限 /a	林分平均年龄/a	平均海拔 /m	坡向	坡度 /(°)	郁闭度
M	人工条带改造	50m人工落叶松林带改造	26	22	905	东坡	8	0.60
H	火烧	火烧强度90%	18	8	940	东坡	4	0.30
S	采伐	二次渐伐	20	12	940	西南坡	2	0.64

分析对象	测定方法	主要仪器
pH	电位法	pH计
有机质	重铬酸钾法	油浴锅
全氮	高氯酸-硫酸消化法	开氏定氮仪
全磷	高氯酸-硫酸消化法	分光光度计
全钾	氢氟酸-高氯酸消化法	原子吸收仪
速效氮	氯化钠溶液浸提	开氏定氮仪
速效磷	碳酸氢钠溶液浸提	分光光度计
速效钾	醋酸铵溶液浸提	原子吸收仪

样地	pH	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	全磷/ (g/kg)	全钾/ (g/kg)	速效氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	孔隙度/ %	土壤容重/ (g/kg)	土壤含水率/%
M	6.29	113.40	1.02	1.64	24.34	15.82	35.92	420.18	71.63	0.61	42.28
H	5.46	90.57	0.43	0.90	22.98	22.53	37.61	222.23	49.33	1.34	33.63
S	5.50	103.27	0.80	0.97	21.26	28.11	36.44	378.68	59.70	1.07	48.05

数值	pH	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	全磷/ (g/kg)	全钾/ (g/kg)	速效氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	孔隙度/ %	土壤容重/ (g/kg)	土壤含水率/%
极小值	5.14	34.07	0.18	0.62	10.74	8.30	7.65	156.20	36.4	0.61	21.7
极大值	6.58	238.71	1.83	1.78	26.22	36.35	81.6	580.4	76.4	1.69	63.5
均值	5.78	102.41	0.75	1.17	22.86	21.60	36.66	340.37	60.2	1.05	41.3
标准差	0.43	50.18	0.44	0.38	3.65	7.04	18.58	124.26	0.11	0.30	0.11
变异系数/%	7.4	49.0	58.7	32.5	16.0	32.6	50.7	36.5	18.3	28.6	26.6

样地	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
M	1.02±0.33a	1.64±0.08a	24.34±1.42a	15.82±2.00b	35.92±9.85a	420.18±28.76a
H	0.43±0.30b	0.90±0.27b	22.98±2.63a	22.53±4.07ab	37.61±23.86a	222.23±97.15b
S	0.80±0.65ab	0.97±0.46b	21.26±3.99a	28.11±5.06a	36.44±23.15a	378.68±135.38ab
样地	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	孔隙度/%	土壤容重/(g/kg)	土壤含水率/%
M	6.29±0.15a	113.40±13.31a	71.63±3.49a	0.61±0.09ab	42.28±6.28a
H	5.46±0.24b	90.57±68.37a	49.33±10.69b	1.34±0.28ab	33.63±11.13a
S	5.50±0.39ab	103.27±78.76a	59.70±13.98ab	1.07±0.37a	48.05±13.67a