Effects of Long-Term Drainage for Afforestation on Soil Physicochemical Properties of Subtropical Sphagnum Mire in Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.01.010

Abstract

Abstract:

The effects of drainage and afforestation on the physical and chemical properties of soil in subtropical Sphagnum mire were explored to provide a theoretical basis for scientific protection and restoration of this type of wetland.Natural Sphagnum mire in Niangniang Mountain wetland,Guizhou was selected as the control site,and Cryptomeria fortunei forest formed by drainage for afforestation in the sphagnum mire with similar site conditions for 20 years was selected as the treatment site,and the differences in the physical and chemical properties of the surface (0~10cm) soil between the two kinds of sites were compared.Main results:1) The total soil carbon content,total nitrogen content,pH,mass ratio of carbon to phosphorus (C:P),mass ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P),available potassium content,nitrate nitrogen content,ammonium nitrogen content and soil mass water content of the Sphagnum mire were significantly higher than the corresponding index values of the Cryptomeria fortunei forest (P<0.05).The soil bulk density of Sphagnum mire was significantly lower than that of the Cryptomeria fortunei forest.2) PCA showed that the overall physical and chemical properties of the soil had changed significantly after the long-term afforestation of Cryphieria fortunea forest.3) Total soil carbon content was significantly positively correlated with total nitrogen content(P<0.01),and both of them were significantly positively correlated with C:P,N:P,available potassium content,nitrate nitrogen content,mass water content,respectively (P<0.01),and significantly negatively correlated with bulk density(P<0.01).C:P,N:P,ammonium nitrogen content,nitrate nitrogen content and available potassium content were very significantly or significantly positively correlated with each other.Mass water content was negatively correlated with bulk density(P<0.01).In conclusion,after a long-term afforestation of Cryptomeria fortuneana forest in Sphagnum mire,a large amount of organic matter in the surface soil oxidized and decomposed,soil water content decreased significantly,bulk density increased significantly,soil phosphorus limitation was relieved,and the soil physical and chemical properties were significantly different overall,and the peat soil was transformed into mineral soil.

Key words: Sphagnum mire, drainage for afforestation, Cryptomeria fortuneana, soil physicochemical properties, subtropics

CLC Number:

S714
Q148

YANG Junheng, CUI haijun, SHI Xunxun, GUO Ying, ZHANG Putao, BI Xiaoting. Effects of Long-Term Drainage for Afforestation on Soil Physicochemical Properties of Subtropical Sphagnum Mire in Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, (1): 80-86.

Figures/Tables 4

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

References 23

[1]	黄咸雨, 张志麒, 王红梅, 等. 神农架大九湖泥炭湿地关键带监测进展[J]. 地球科学, 2017, 42(6):1026-1038.
[2]	Li Tingting, Lei Yun, Dai Can, et al. Effects of both substrate and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on Sphagnum palustre growth in subtropical high-mountain regions and implications for peatland recovery[J]. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2018, 26(4):651-663. doi: 10.1007/s11273-018-9598-7
[3]	卜兆君, 杨允菲, 代丹, 等. 长白山泥炭沼泽桧叶金发藓种群的年龄结构与生长分析[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005, 16(1):44-48.
[4]	Kandel T P, Laerke P E, Elsgaard L. Annual emissions of CO₂,CH₄ and N₂O from a temperate peat bog:Comparison of an undrained and four drained sites under permanent grass and arable crop rotations with cereals and potato[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2018, 256:470-481.
[5]	Sloan T J, Payne R J, Anderson A R, et al. Peatland afforestation in the UK and consequences for carbon storage[J]. Mires and Peat, 2019, 23:1-17.
[6]	何春梅, 张朝晖, 王智慧, 等. 贵州麻若平台泥炭藓沼泽中泥炭藓持水特性及其与土壤营养元素关系研究[J]. 植物科学学报, 2020, 38(5):618-626.
[7]	Kraigher B, Stres B, Hacin J, et al. Microbial activity and community structure in two drained fen soils in the Ljubljana Marsh[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2006, 38(9):2762-2771. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.031
[8]	Ausec L, Kraigher B, Mandic-Mulec I. Differences in the activity and bacterial community structure of drained grassland and forest peat soils[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2009, 41(9):1874-1881. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.06.010
[9]	Nieminen M, Sarkkola S, Lauren A. Impacts of forest harvesting on nutrient,sediment and dissolved organic carbon exports from drained peatlands:A literature review,synthesis and suggestions for the future[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2017, 392:13-20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.046
[10]	Li Tingting, Wang Zhengxiang, Bu Guijun, et al. Effects of microtopography and water table on Sphagnum palustre L.in subtropical high mountains and implications for peatland restoration[J]. Journal of Bryology, 2019, 41(2):121-134. doi: 10.1080/03736687.2019.1601446
[11]	Urbanová Z, Bárta J. Effects of long-term drainage on microbial community composition vary between peatland types[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2016, 92:16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.017
[12]	斯南雍茜, 葛继稳, 李愈, 等. 神农架大九湖亚高山典型泥炭湿地土壤养分特征分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5):321-326.
[13]	Straková P, Niemi R M, Freeman C, et al. Litter type affects the activity of aerobic decomposers in a boreal peatland more than site nutrient and water level regimes[J]. Biogeosciences, 2011, 8(9):2741-2755. doi: 10.5194/bg-8-2741-2011
[14]	孟祥久. 排水造林对泥炭沼泽湿地碳循环的影响概述[J]. 湿地科学与管理, 2013, 9(4):60-64.
[15]	邵宗仁, 赵光影, 臧淑英, 等. 排水造林对小兴安岭沼泽湿地土壤酶活性及氮含量的影响[J]. 环境工程, 2016, 34(11):122-126.
[16]	Minkkinen K, Vasander H, Jauhiainen S, et al. Post-drainage changes in vegetation composition and carbon balance in Lakkasuo mire,Central Finland[J]. Plant and Soil, 1999, 207(1):107-120. doi: 10.1023/A:1004466330076
[17]	Andersen R, Chapman S J, Artz R R E. Microbial communities in natural and disturbed peatlands:A review[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2013, 57:979-994. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.003
[18]	张云萍, 刘石宁, 徐志伟, 等. 长白山白江河天然和排水泥炭沼泽土壤酶活性研究[J]. 湿地科学, 2019, 17(4):445-452.
[19]	Cleveland C C, Liptzin D. C:N:P stoichiometry in soil:Is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?[J]Biogeochemistry, 2007, 85(3):235-252. doi: 10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0
[20]	Hill B H, Elonen C M, Jicha T M, et al. Ecoenzymatic stoichiometry and microbial processing of organic matter in northern bogs and fens reveals a common P-limitation between peatland types[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2014, 120(1-3):203-224. doi: 10.1007/s10533-014-9991-0
[21]	Kaštovská E, Straková P, Edwards K Z, et al. Cotton-grass and blueberry have opposite effect on peat characteristics and nutrient transformation in peatland[J]. Ecosystems, 2018, 21(3):443-458. doi: 10.1007/s10021-017-0159-3
[22]	Larmola T, Leppanen S M, Tuittila E S, et al. Methanotrophy induces nitrogen fixation during peatland development[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 111(2):734-739.
[23]	Verhoeven J T A, Liefveld W M. The ecological significance of organochemical compounds in Sphagnum[J]. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 1997, 46(2):117-130. doi: 10.1111/plb.1997.46.issue-2

指标	NTX			LS
TC/(mg/g)	207.02	±	70.68a	70.64	±	30.99b
TN/(mg/g)	11.57	±	4.64a	4.75	±	2.21b
TP/(mg/g)	1.67	±	0.21a	1.48	±	0.28a
TK/(mg/g)	46.69	±	16.01a	66.74	±	32.67a
pH	4.67	±	0.15a	4.28	±	0.14b
C:N	18.33	±	2.95a	15.41	±	3.34a
C:P	125.08	±	46.91a	47.55	±	19.84b
N:P	6.92	±	2.63a	3.12	±	1.19b
AK/(mg/kg)	272.7	±	112.82a	79.87	±	14.85b
AP/(mg/kg)	4.97	±	4.71a	10.32	±	6.49a
NO₃/(mg/kg)	71.96	±	28.63a	21.21	±	2.63b
NH₄/(mg/kg)	50.60	±	34.88a	13.57	±	9.82b
Wg/%	3169	±	531a	99.33	±	20.45b
VW/(g/cm³)	0.03	±	0.01a	0.68	±	0.14b

指标	PC1	PC2
TC	-1.1408	-0.25611
TN	-1.0546	-0.71972
TP	-0.4022	-1.86579
TK	0.5426	-1.64633
pH	-0.7635	-0.15556
C:N	-0.5102	1.53389
C:P	-1.1168	0.03697
N:P	-1.0879	-0.43768
AK	-1.1171	-0.0412
AP	0.4335	-1.5396
NO₃	-1.1027	-0.14819
NH₄	-0.8913	0.01954
Wg	-1.049	-0.09896
VW	1.0687	-0.28784

指标	TC	TN	TP	TK	pH	C:N	C:P	N:P	AK	AP	NO₃	NH₄	Wg
TN	0.938^**
TP	0.415	0.565
TK	-0.399	-0.286	0.378
pH	0.515	0.461	0.382	-0.063
C:N	0.392	0.086	-0.357	-0.623^*	0.226
C:P	0.976^**	0.866^**	0.233	-0.441	0.458	0.491
N:P	0.963^**	0.972^**	0.396	-0.343	0.437	0.203	0.942^**
AK	0.941^**	0.927^**	0.311	-0.490	0.452	0.306	0.915^**	0.945^**
AP	-0.209	-0.141	0.366	0.625^*	-0.402	-0.373	-0.239	-0.182	-0.379
NO₃	0.916^**	0.850^**	0.269	-0.368	0.529	0.346	0.925^**	0.909^**	0.920^**	-0.218
NH₄	0.774^**	0.580	0.145	-0.234	0.408	0.467	0.828^**	0.678^*	0.674^*	-0.104	0.779^**
Wg	0.796^**	0.760^**	0.459	-0.346	0.834^**	0.356	0.723^*	0.724^*	0.808^**	-0.421	0.802^**	0.525
VW	-0.805^**	-0.716^*	-0.267	0.448	-0.858^**	-0.482	-0.779^**	-0.730^*	-0.787^**	0.509	-0.789^**	-0.608^*	-0.947^**