放牧对沙地樟子松林土壤养分及微生物群落的影响

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.02.04

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (2): 194-202.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.02.04

放牧对沙地樟子松林土壤养分及微生物群落的影响

张彤^1,²(),刘静^1,²,韩叙^1,²,童郁强^1,²,魏亚伟^1,²()

1.沈阳农业大学林学院，辽宁沈阳 110866
2.辽宁辽河平原森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站，辽宁昌图 112500

收稿日期:2022-07-04 修回日期:2022-10-21 出版日期:2023-02-15 发布日期:2023-03-08
通讯作者: 魏亚伟
作者简介:张彤（1997-），女，硕士研究生，主要从事森林土壤研究. E-mail: 1220808962@qq.com
基金资助:
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDA23070103);国家林业和草原局林草科技创新平台运行补助项目“辽宁辽河平原森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站运行补助”(2020132029);国家林业和草原局林草科技创新平台运行补助项目“辽宁辽河平原森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站运行补助”(2021132053)

Effects of grazing on soil nutrients and microbial community of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest in sandy land

ZHANG Tong^1,²(),LIU Jing^1,²,HAN Xu^1,²,TONG Yuqiang^1,²,WEI Yawei^1,²()

1. College of Forestry, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, Liaoning, China
2. Research Station of Liaohe-River Plain Forest Ecosystem, Chinese Forest Ecosystem Research Network, Changtu 112500, Liaoning, China

Received:2022-07-04 Revised:2022-10-21 Online:2023-02-15 Published:2023-03-08
Contact: Yawei WEI

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究放牧对土壤养分和微生物群落的影响，本研究分别选取了放牧和围封沙地樟子松林为研究对象，基于高通量测序技术，并测定土壤化学指标，分析放牧与围封土壤中养分、微生物群落组成以及多样性的差异。研究结果显示：（1）放牧后全磷含量显著降低（P<0.05），土壤有机碳和全氮含量也降低，但差异并不显著（P>0.05）。（2）从土壤微生物群落组成上来看，真菌分类学门水平中担子菌门比例放牧显著低于围封（P<0.05），但对细菌门水平并未产生显著影响（P>0.05）。（3）就土壤微生物多样性而言，放牧极显著降低了细菌的Chao1指数和Shannon指数（P<0.01），对真菌群落多样性无明显影响（P>0.05），可见，放牧对土壤细菌多样性指数的影响较真菌更大。综上所述，沙地樟子松林的放牧行为对土壤养分及土壤微生物均有不同程度的负面影响，所以该地区应适度减少放牧行为，缓解土地压力，以保障樟子松人工林的可持续利用。

关键词: 沙地樟子松, 放牧, 土壤养分, 土壤微生物

Abstract:

A grazing and enclosed Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forests in sandy land was selected to explore the effects of grazing on soil nutrients and microbial communities. The microbial community composition and diversity between grazing and enclosed soil was determined using high-throughput sequencing technology. Soil chemical indexes were determined for estimating variation in the nutrients. The results showed that total phosphorus content decreased significantly after grazing (P < 0.05). Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen content also decreased, while ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and available phosphorus increased, but the change was not significant (P > 0.05). The grazing and enclosed plots showed 17.1%-24.6% similarity in the soil microbial community composition and the OTUs of fungi and bacteria were lower in grazing than enclosed plots. At each classification level, the number of fungi and bacteria in grazing plots was less than that in enclosed plots. Results showed grazing significantly reduced the number of bacteria at the genus level(P < 0.05). The proportion of basidiomycetes in grazing was significantly lower than that in enclosure (P < 0.05). No significant indigenous effect on bacterial phylum level (P > 0.05) was observed. In terms of soil microbial diversity, grazing significantly reduced the Chao1 index and Shannon index of bacteria (P < 0.01), and had no significant effect on fungal community diversity (P > 0.05). The effect of grazing on soil bacterial diversity index was greater than that of fungi. In summary, grazing in the Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest in sandy land has different degrees of negative impacts on soil nutrients and soil microorganisms. Therefore, the grazing should be moderately reduced in this region to alleviate land pressure and ensure the sustainable utilization of the Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantation.

Key words: sandy Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica, grazing, soil nutrients, soil microorganism

张彤,刘静,韩叙,童郁强,魏亚伟. 放牧对沙地樟子松林土壤养分及微生物群落的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(2): 194-202.

ZHANG Tong,LIU Jing,HAN Xu,TONG Yuqiang,WEI Yawei. Effects of grazing on soil nutrients and microbial community of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest in sandy land[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(2): 194-202.

图/表 10

表1

表2

图1

表3

图2

图3

表4

表5

表6

土壤养分相关性分析"

	有机碳SOC	全氮TN	铵态氮 $N H 4 + - N$	硝态氮 $N O 3 - - N$	全磷TP	有效磷AP
有机碳SOC	1	-	-	-	-	-
全氮TN	0.856^*	1	-	-	-	-
铵态氮NH₄⁺-N	-0.177	-0.204	1	-	-	-
硝态氮NO₃^--N	-0.458	-0.047	-0.130	1	-	-
全磷TP	0.866^*	0.708	-0.177	-0.686	1	-
有效磷AP	-0.310	0.003	0.097	0.922^**	-0.638	1

表6

图4

参考文献 30

[1]	于东伟, 雷泽勇, 赵国军, 等. 樟子松固沙林土壤理化特性对林分密度的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(1): 134-141.
	[Yu Dongwei, Lei Zeyong, Zhao Guojun, et al. Response of soil physicochemical properties under stand-fixation forest of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica to stand density[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37 (1): 134-141.]
[2]	石柯, 董士刚, 申凤敏, 等. 小麦播量与减氮对潮土微生物量碳氮及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 8(15): 2646-2663.
	[Shi Ke, Dong Shigang, Shen Fengmin, et al. Effects of wheat seeding rate with nitrogen fertilizer application reduction on soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and enzyme activities in fluvo-aquic soil in Huang-Huai Plain[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 8(15): 2646-2663.]
[3]	Liu T, Wu X, Li H, et al. Soil organic matter, nitrogen and pH driven change in bacterial community following forest conversion-Science Direct[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2020, 477: 118473. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118473
[4]	周恒, 周会程, 肖海龙, 等. 三江源不同海拔高寒草原表层土壤酶活性特征[J]. 草原与草坪, 2019, 3(5): 20-30.
	[Zhou Heng, Zhou Huicheng, Xiao Hailong, et al. Characteristics of enzyme activity in surface soil of alpine steppe under different altitudes on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Grassland and Turf, 2019, 3(5): 20-30.]
[5]	马源, 李林芝, 张德罡, 等. 退化高寒草甸优势植物根际与非根际土壤养分及微生物量的分布特征[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 797-804. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.002
	[Ma Yuan, Li Linzhi, Zhang Degang, et al. Distribution characteristics of nutrients and microbial biomass in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils of dominant plants in degraded alpine meadow[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(4): 797-804.] doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.002
[6]	亓琳, 李艳玲, 赵威, 等. 锶污染下燕麦对土壤酶活性和微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 38(13): 4888-4896.
	[Qi lin, Li Yanling, Zhao Wei, et al. Effect of Avena sativa L. on soil enzyme activity and microbe functional diversity under strontium pollution[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 38(13): 4888-4896.]
[7]	郭辉, 唐卫平. 不同林龄华北落叶松根际与非根际土壤酶和土壤微生物研究[J]. 环境生态学报, 2020, 29(11): 2163-2170.
	[Guo Hui, Tang Weiping. Enzyme activity and microbial community diversity in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil of Larix principis-rupprechtii[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 29 (11): 2163-2170.]
[8]	于德良, 雷泽勇, 张岩松, 等. 沙地樟子松人工林土壤酶活性及其影响因子[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 2(3): 621-629.
	[Yu Deliang, Lei Zeyong, Zhang Yansong, et al. Soil enzyme activity and its affecting factors under Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica plantation in sandy land[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2019, 2(3): 621-629.]
[9]	丁成翔, 杨晓霞, 董全民. 青藏高原高寒草原放牧方式对植被、土壤及微生物群落的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 159-169. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.01.018
	[Ding Chengxiang, Yang Xiaoxia, Dong Quanmin. Effects of grazing patterns on vegetation, soil and microbial community in alpine grassland of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(1): 159-169.] doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.01.018
[10]	杨阳, 贾丽欣, 乔荠瑢, 等. 重度放牧对荒漠草原土壤养分及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2019, 41(4): 72-79.
	[Yang Yang, Jia Lixin, Qiao Qirong, et al. Effects of heavy grazing on soil nutrients and microbial diversity in desert steppe[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2019, 41(4): 72-79.]
[11]	高昌宇, 齐志远, 郑慧, 等. 土壤有效养分和微生物特征对短期不同放牧强度的响应[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7): 1641-1650. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.004
	[Gao Changyu, Qi Zhiyuan, Zheng Hui, et al. Responses of soil available nutrients and microbial characteristics to short-term grazing intensities[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1641-1650.] doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.004
[12]	马香云, 王俊杰. 放牧对人工草地群落特征及土壤养分的影响[J]. 草原与草业, 2019, 31(4): 19-26.
	[Ma Xiangyun, Wang Junjie. Effects of grazing on community characteristics and soil nutrients of artificial grassland[J]. Grassland and Prataculture, 2019, 31(4): 19-26.]
[13]	祁正超, 常佩静, 李永善, 等. 放牧对荒漠灌丛草地土壤团聚体组成及其稳定性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 87-94.
	[Qi Zhengchao, Chang Peijing, Li Yongshan, et al. Effects of grazing intensity on soil aggregates compositi, stability, nutrients and C/N in desert shrubland[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(1): 87-94.]
[14]	Thomas W, Stephen M, Daniel S, et al. Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(22): 7033-7038. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502956112 pmid: 26038557
[15]	Fanin N, Gundale M J, Farrell M, et al. Consistent effects of biodiversity loss on multifunctionality across contrasting ecosystems[J]. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2018, 2: 269-278. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0415-0 pmid: 29255299
[16]	M Delgado-Baquerizo, Giaramida L, Reich P B, et al. Lack of functional redundancy in the relationship between microbial diversity and ecosystem functioning[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2016, 104(4): 936-946. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12585
[17]	Tian C, Chen J, Yang Z. Phylogenetic diversity of microbes and its perspectives in conservation biolog[J]. Plant and Soil, 2016, 407(1): 1-15 doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-3040-9
[18]	Osono T. Ecology of ligninolytic fungi associated with leaf litter decomposition[J]. Ecological Research, 2007, 22(6): 955-974. doi: 10.1007/s11284-007-0390-z
[19]	Lienhard P, Terrat S, Prévost-Bouré N C, et al. Pyrosequencing evidences the impact of cropping on soil bacterial and fungal diversity in Laos tropical grassland[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2014, 34(2): 525-533. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0162-9
[20]	Wang M, Wang S, Wu L, et al. Evaluating the lingering effect of livestock grazing on functional potentials of microbial communities in Tibetan grassland soils[J]. Plant and Soil, 2016, 407: 385-399. doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-2897-y
[21]	尹亚丽, 王玉琴, 李世雄, 等. 围封对退化高寒草甸土壤微生物群落多样性及土壤化学计量特征的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(1): 127-136. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201901.009
	[Yin Yali, Wang Yuqin, Li Shixiong, et al. Effects of enclosing on soil microbial community diversity and soil stoichiometric characteristics in a degraded alpine meadow[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(1): 127-136.] doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201901.009
[22]	杜宇凡, 古琛, 王亚婷, 等. 放牧率对短花针茅根际和非根际土壤氮素的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2016, 33(6): 1021-1027.
	[Du Yufan, Gu Chen, Wang Yating, et al. Effects of grazing on nitrogen contents in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil of Stipa breviflora[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2016, 33 (6): 1021-1027.]
[23]	Li Y, Wang S, Jiang L, et al. Changes of soil microbial community under different degraded gradients of alpine meadow[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environmen, 2016, 222: 213-222.
[24]	王天乐, 卫智军, 刘文亭, 等. 不同放牧强度下荒漠草原土壤养分和植被特征变化研究[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(4): 711-716. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2017.04.004
	[Wang Tianle, Wei Zhijun, Liu Wenting, et al. Study on changes of soil nutrients and plant community of Stipa breviflora steppe under different grazing intensities[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(4): 711-716.] doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2017.04.004
[25]	Mcsherry M E, Ritchie M E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review[J]. Global Change Biology, 2013, 19(5): 1347-1357. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12144 pmid: 23504715
[26]	Ashworth A J, Debruyn J M, Allen F L, et al. Microbial community structure is affected by cropping sequences and poultry litter under long-term no-tillage[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 114: 210-219. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.07.019
[27]	Walker T, Christina K, Florian S, et al. Microbial temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with warming[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8: 885-889. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0259-x pmid: 30288176
[28]	侍世玲, 任晓萌, 张晓伟, 等. 库布齐沙漠沙枣防护林土壤养分及化学计量特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(2): 469-476.
	[Shi Shiling, Ren Xiaomeng, Zhang Xiaowei, et al. Soil nutrients and stoichiometric characteristics of the Elaeagnus angustifolia shelterbelt in the Hobq Desert[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(2): 469-476.]
[29]	王利彦, 周国娜, 朱新玉, 等. 凋落物对土壤有机碳与微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(7): 2709-2718.
	[Wang Liyan, Zhou Guona, Zhu Xinyu, et al. Effects of litter on soil organic carbon and microbial functional diversity[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(7): 2709-2718.]
[30]	杨思维, 张德罡, 牛钰杰, 等. 短期放牧对高寒草甸表层土壤入渗和水分保持能力的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(4): 96-101.
	[Yang Siwei, Zhang Degang, Niu Yujie, et al. Effect of short-term grazing on surface soil infiltration and soil water retention in alpine meadow[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(4): 96-101.]

处理	样地类型	林龄/a	土层厚度/cm	郁闭度	林分密度/（株·hm²）	平均高度/m	干扰方式
放牧（G）	樟子松人工林 Pinus sylvestris var. Mongolica	50	65.00	0.70	275	14.10	放牧，踩踏
围封（CK）	樟子松人工林 Pinus sylvestris var. Mongolica	50	65.00	0.70	270	14.50	无人为干扰

土壤微生物	处理	OTUs	交并集	相似度/%
真菌	CK	1451	585	24.6
	G	929	-	-
细菌	CK	14388	4272	17.1
	G	10597	-	-

土壤微生物	处理	界	门	纲	目	科	属	种
真菌	CK	1	7.6±0.89a	20.6±3.97a	47.4±7.77a	78.8±13.18a	116.4±26.88a	101.2±26.24a
	G	1	7.2±0.84a	18.8±2.17a	40.6±3.51a	64.2±5.45a	88.8±10.38a	74.6±10.41a
细菌	CK	1	26.8±2.59a	76.0±5.24a	159.4±10.06a	250.0±11.92a	371.6±25.14a	99.8±18.78a
	G	1	25.8±2.17a	74.0±2.92a	151.8±9.83a	233.2±12.89a	332.6±20.39b	83.0±11.16a

土壤微生物	指数	处理
土壤微生物	指数	CK	G
真菌	Chao1	562.92±57.90a	408.99±112.45a
	Shannon	5.59±1.37a	5.54±0.50a
	Simpson	0.91±0.08a	0.93±0.03a
细菌	Chao1	4865.30±235.67A	3825.13±84.13B
	Shannon	10.80±0.08A	10.48±0.05B
	Simpson	1.00±0.00a	1.00±0.00a

处理	有机碳 SOC/(g·kg^-1)	全氮 TN/(g·kg^-1)	铵态氮 NH₄⁺-N/(mg·kg^-1)	硝态氮 NO₃^--N/(mg·kg^-1)	全磷 TP/(mg·kg^-1)	有效磷 AP/(mg·kg^-1)
G	10.28±0.25a	0.88±0.06a	8.76±0.9a	3.28±0.29a	30.73±3.80b	3.89±0.32a
CK	12.35±1.04a	0.98±0.1a	8.21±0.97a	2.45±0.22a	56.56±5.34a	3.02±0.32a

放牧对沙地樟子松林土壤养分及微生物群落的影响

Effects of grazing on soil nutrients and microbial community of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest in sandy land

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 30

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	李小锋, 惠婷婷, 李耀明, 毛洁菲, 王光宇, 范连连. 不同放牧管理方式对新疆山地草原植物群落特征的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(1): 124-134.
[2]	曹秭琦, 路战远, 任永峰, 赵小庆, 王建国, 侯智慧, 韩云飞, 王登云, 尚学燕, 段锐. 不同施氮水平对油莎豆农田土壤养分表观平衡和块茎产量的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(1): 71-79.
[3]	张颂安, 刘轩, 赵珮杉, 高广磊, 张英, 丁国栋, 柳叶, 任悦. 呼伦贝尔沙地樟子松人工林土壤细菌网络特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(6): 905-915.
[4]	回嵘, 谭会娟, 黄磊, 李新荣. 柴达木盆地盐渍化土壤养分和酶活性特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(11): 1776-1784.
[5]	谢明君,李广,马维伟,刘帅楠,常海刚,杜佳囝,丁宁. 水分对河西青贮玉米土壤化学计量比及稳态性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(4): 1312-1321.
[6]	侍世玲,任晓萌,张晓伟,蒙仲举,王涛. 库布齐沙漠沙枣防护林土壤养分及化学计量特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(2): 469-476.
[7]	李嘉珞,郭米山,高广磊,阿拉萨,杜凤梅,殷小琳,丁国栋. 沙地樟子松菌根化幼苗对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(6): 1704-1712.
[8]	娄泊远,王永东,闫晋升,艾柯代·艾斯凯尔. 亚寒带荒漠草原不同树种人工林土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(5): 1385-1392.
[9]	范向龙,吕新,张泽,高攀,张强,印彩霞,易翔. 基于距离聚类与K-means动态聚类的棉田土壤养分评价研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(4): 980-989.
[10]	王婷,李朝周,焦健,芝祥红. 不同生境芦苇根茎生长发育与根际微环境的比较研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 233-240.
[11]	祁正超,常佩静,李永善,田雪梅,李旭东,郭丁,牛得草. 放牧对荒漠灌丛草地土壤团聚体组成及其稳定性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 87-94.
[12]	宗宁, 石培礼, 孙建. 高寒草地沙化过程植被与土壤特征变化的生态阈值估算[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(6): 1580-1589.
[13]	王京伟, 王磊元, 李元, 牛文全. 覆膜滴灌对温室番茄土壤理化性状及其生物学特性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(4): 870-880.
[14]	赵生龙, 左小安, 张铜会, 吕朋, 岳平, 张晶. 乌拉特荒漠草原群落物种多样性和生物量关系对放牧强度的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(1): 168-177.
[15]	王巍琦, 李变变, 张军, 杨磊, 张凤华. 干旱区不同类型盐碱土壤细菌群落多样性 [J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 36(5): 1202-1211.