吉兰泰盐湖防护体系建立38 a以来土壤养分特征

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.05.07

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 747-755.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.05.07

吉兰泰盐湖防护体系建立38 a以来土壤养分特征

魏亚娟^1,²(),刘美英³,解云虎¹(),李星⁴

1.包头师范学院资源与环境学院，内蒙古包头 014030
2.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院，内蒙古呼和浩特 010018
3.内蒙古农业大学草原与资源环境学院，内蒙古自治区土壤质量与养分资源重点实验室，内蒙古呼和浩特 010018
4.中国林业科学研究院沙漠林业实验中心，内蒙古磴口 015200

收稿日期:2023-02-06 修回日期:2023-03-22 出版日期:2023-05-15 发布日期:2023-05-30
通讯作者: 解云虎. E-mail: xieyhsd@126.com
作者简介:魏亚娟（1994-），女，博士，讲师，主要从事荒漠化防治研究. E-mail: weiyajuan0305@163.com
基金资助:
自治区高等学校碳达峰碳中和研究专项(STZX202213);国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(41901009);包头师范学院高层次引进人才科研启动基金(01108022/008);包头师范学院高层次人才引进科研启动基金项目(BTTCRCQD2020-011);包头师范学院自然科学类一般项目(BSYKJ2021-ZY02);包头师范学院自然科学类重点项目(BSYKJ2022-ZZ01)

Characteristics of soil nutrient accumulation after 38 years of the Jilantai Salt Lake protection system

WEI Yajuan^1,²(),LIU Meiying³,XIE Yunhu¹(),LI Xing⁴

1. Department of Resource and Environment, Baotou Teachers’ College, Baotou 014030, Inner Mongolia, China
2. College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, Inner Mongolia, China
3. Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Soil Quality and Nutrient Resource, College of Grassland, Resources and Environment, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, Inner Mongolia, China
4. Experimental Center for Desert Forestry, CAF, Dengkou 015200, Inner Mongolia, China

Received:2023-02-06 Revised:2023-03-22 Online:2023-05-15 Published:2023-05-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了科学评价吉兰泰盐湖防护体系对土壤养分积累的影响。以吉兰泰盐湖防护体系不同防护体系类型（流沙固阻带、封沙育草带、防风阻沙带和盐湖防护林带）为研究对象，采用野外取样与室内实验相结合的方法，对其土壤养分积累状况进行对比研究，从而为吉兰泰盐湖防护林的管理提供理论依据。结果表明：（1）土壤有机碳（SOC）、全氮（TN）、全磷（TP）、碱解氮（AN）和速效磷（AP）含量增加量分别介于0.45~1.92 g·kg^-1、0.03~0.58 g·kg^-1、0.15~0.43 g·kg^-1、1.33~13.31 mg·kg^-1和0.12~12.94 mg·kg^-1，且土层深度、防护体系类型及其二者的相互作用对土壤SOC、TN、TP和AP含量增加影响显著。（2）盐湖防护体系营建对0~100 cm土层土壤养分有显著正效应，且土层深度、防护体系类型及其二者的相互作用对土壤TP相对相互作用强度（RII_TP）、AN相对相互作用强度（RII_AN）、AP相对相互作用强度（RII_AP）和总相对相互作用强度（RII_总）影响显著。（3）土壤养分恢复指数表明盐湖防护体系内不同防护体系类型土壤养分均有不同程度提高，流沙固阻带、封沙育草带、防风阻沙带和盐湖防护林带土壤养分恢复指数分别为7.83%、37.72%、185.12%和252.36%。吉兰泰盐湖防护体系经过38 a的营建能有效促进土壤养分累积，有利于吉兰泰盐湖周边生态恢复和重建。

关键词: 植被恢复, 养分积累, 相对相互作用强度, 防护体系类型, 盐湖防护体系

Abstract:

This study was established to evaluate the influence of the Jilantai Salt Lake protection system on soil nutrient accumulation. This is a comparative study of soil nutrient accumulation in different protection system types under the salt lake protection system (zones for fixing shifting sand, fencing dunes for grass recovery, preventing wind and stopping sand, and a forest for protecting the salt lake) using the method of representative investigation and laboratory analysis. The goal was to provide a theoretical basis for the management of shelter forest in Jilantai Salt Lake. Our results showed the following: (1) The increases in soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), available nitrogen (AN), and available phosphorus (AP) contents were in the range of 0.45-1.92 g·kg^-1, 0.03-0.58 g·kg^-1, 0.15-0.43 g·kg^-1, 1.33-13.31 mg·kg^-1, and 0.12-12.94 mg·kg^-1, respectively. Soil depth, protection system type, and their interaction had significant positive effects on the increase in the soil SOC, TN, TP, and AP contents. (2) Establishment of the salt lake protection system had a significant effect on soil nutrients at a depth of approximately 0-100 cm, and the soil depth, protection system type, and their interaction had a significant impact on soil TP relative interaction intense (RII_TP), AN relative interaction intense (RII_AN), AP relative interaction intense (RII_AP), and total RII. (3) Nutrient restoration index showed that soil nutrients improved to different degrees in different protection system types of the salt lake protection system, and their nutrient restoration indexes of zones for fixing shifting sand, fencing dunes for grass recovery, preventing wind and stopping sand and a forest for protecting the salt lake were 7.83%, 37.72%, 185.12%, and 252.36%, respectively. This study showed that, in the 38 years since its establishment, the salt lake protection system could effectively promote soil nutrient accumulation and accelerate soil nutrient restoration in the salt lake area, benefitting the ecological restoration and reconstruction around Jilantai Salt Lake.

Key words: vegetation restoration, nutrient accumulation, relative interaction intense, protection system type, salt lake protection system

魏亚娟, 刘美英, 解云虎, 李星. 吉兰泰盐湖防护体系建立38 a以来土壤养分特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(5): 747-755.

WEI Yajuan, LIU Meiying, XIE Yunhu, LI Xing. Characteristics of soil nutrient accumulation after 38 years of the Jilantai Salt Lake protection system[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(5): 747-755.

图/表 7

图1

表1

图2

表2

图3

表3

表4

参考文献 30

[1]	李从娟, 雷加强, 高培, 等. 人工防护林作用下风沙土成土过程的研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2012, 49(6): 1227-1234.
	[Li Congjuan, Lei Jiaqiang, Gao Pei, et al. Research progress of soil forming process of the study of soil formation process of aeolian sandy soil under the effect of artificial shelter-belt[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012, 49(6): 1227-1234. ]
[2]	王涛, 蒙仲举, 党晓宏, 等. 库布齐沙漠典型防护林土壤养分特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(1): 325-331.
	[Wang Tao, Meng Zhongju, Dang Xiaohong, et al. Soil nutrient characteristics of typical shelterbelt in Hobq Desert[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(1): 325-331. ]
[3]	Xu M J, Cheng S L, Fang H J, et al. Low-level nitrogen addition promotes net methane uptake in a boreal forest across the Great Xing’an Mountain Region, China[J]. Forest Science, 2014, 60(2): 973-981. doi: 10.5849/forsci.13-075
[4]	黄雅茹, 郝玉光, 董礼隆, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠东北缘典型固沙林土壤养分特征研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2018, 33(2): 1-9.
	[Huang Yaru, Hao Yuguang, Dong Lilong, et al. Comparative study on soil chemical properties of typical sand-fixing forests in Ulanbuh Desert[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2018, 33(2): 1-9. ]
[5]	杨玉婷, 石玉林, 李战刚, 等. 陕北“三北”防护林下草本群落特征及其与林分结构和土壤养分的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(18): 6542-6551.
	[Yang Yuting, Shi Yulin, Li Zhangang, et al. Community characteristics of understory herb layer and its relationships with stand structure and soil nutrient availability in the Three-North shelterbelt of Shaanxi, China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(18): 6542-6551. ]
[6]	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. ]
[7]	王岩松, 马保明, 高海平, 等. 晋西黄土区油松和刺槐人工林土壤养分及其化学计量比对林分密度的响应[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2020, 42(8): 81-93.
	[Wang Yansong, Ma Baoming, Gao Haiping, et al. Response of soil nutrients and their stoichiometric ratios to stand density in Pinus tabuliformis and Robinia pseudoacacia plantations in the loess region of western Shanxi Province, northern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2020, 42(8): 81-93. ]
[8]	于东伟, 雷泽勇, 张岩松, 等. 沙地樟子松人工林的生长对土壤氮变化的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(6): 179-186.
	[Yu Dongwei, Lei Zeyong, Zhang Yansong, et al. Plantation on soil nitrogen change in sandy land[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(6): 179-186. ]
[9]	吕倩, 尹海锋, 何朋俊, 等. 马尾松人工林目标树经营初期对土壤理化性质与植物多样性的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2018, 24(3): 500-507.
	[Lv Qian, Yin Haifeng, He Pengjun, et al. Effects of early management of Pinus massoniana plantation target trees on soil physicochemical properties and plant[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2018, 24(3): 500-507. ]
[10]	顾梦鹤, 周立华, 王睿, 等. 防护林对库布其沙漠土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 53(5): 646-651.
	[Gu Menghe, Zhou Lihua, Wang Rui, et al. Effects of a shelter forest on soil physical and chemical properties in the Kubuqi Dersert[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), 2017, 53(5): 646-651. ]
[11]	樊华, 杨志国, 丛志军, 等. 防护林带和封育对沙化草场土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2007, 5(6): 43-46, 64.
	[Fan Hua, Yang Zhiguo, Cong Zhijun, et al. Effect of enclosure and shelter belt on soil physicochemical properties of desertified meadow[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2007, 5(6): 43-46, 64. ]
[12]	管雪薇, 杨采怡, 刘广明, 等. 吉兰泰盐湖防护体系阻沙效应及输沙粒度特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2022, 42(4): 50-59. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00202
	[Guan Xuewei, Yang Caiyi, Liu Guangming, et al. Sand blocking effect and grain size characteristics of Jilantai Salt Lake protection system[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(4): 50-59. ] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00202
[13]	丁延龙, 高永, 汪季, 等. 生物基可降解聚乳酸(PLA)沙障对沙丘表层沉积物粒度特征的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2018, 38(2): 262-269. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2016.00156
	[Ding Yanlong, Gao Yong, Wang Ji, et al. Effects of biodegradable Poly Lactic Acid sand barriers on surface sediment grain-size characteristics at sand dunes[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(2): 262-269. ] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2016.00156
[14]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 第三版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	[Bao Shidan. Soil Agrochemical Analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2000. ]
[15]	Armas C R, Ordiales, Pugnaire F I. Measuring plant interactions: A new comparative index[J]. Ecology, 2004, 85: 2682-2686. doi: 10.1890/03-0650
[16]	罗维成, 赵文智, 任珩, 等. 不同气候区灌丛沙堆形态及土壤养分积累特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2021, 41(2): 191-199. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00133
	[Luo Weicheng, Zhao Wenzhi, Ren Heng, et al. Nebkha morphological characteristics and soil nutrition content in three regions with different climates in North China[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(2): 191-199. ] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00133
[17]	Bruno J E, Stachowicz J J, Bertness M D. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2003, 18: 119-125. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9
[18]	Goldberg D E, Rajaniemi T, Gurevitch J, et al. Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: Competition and facilitation along productivity gradients[J]. Ecology, 1999, 80: 1118-1131. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1118:EATQII]2.0.CO;2
[19]	Holzapfel C, Mahall B E. Bidirectional facilitation and interference between shrubs and annuals in the Mojave Desert[J]. Ecology, 1999, 80: 1747-1761. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1747:BFAIBS]2.0.CO;2
[20]	董莉丽, 郑粉莉. 黄土丘陵沟壑区土地利用和植被类型对土壤质量的影响[J]. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 46(2): 39-44.
	[Dong Lili, Zheng Fenli. Effects of land use and vegetation types on soil quality in the loess hilly-gully region of China[J]. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), 2010, 46(2): 39-44. ]
[21]	熊瑛楠, 冯天骄, 王平, 等. 晋西黄土区长期人工林恢复对土壤水分和养分性质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(2): 228-237, 246.
	[Xiong Yingnan, Feng Tianjiao, Wang Ping, et al. Effects of long-term artificial forest restoration on soil moisture and nutrient characteristics in the Loess Area of Western Shanxi Province, China[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(2): 228-237, 246. ]
[22]	魏亚娟, 汪季, 党晓宏, 等. 干旱荒漠区人工梭梭林土壤碳氮磷密度与生态化学计量特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(3): 259-266.
	[Wei Yajuan, Wang Ji, Dang Xiaohong, et al. Soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus densities and ecological stoichiometry characteristics of Haloxylon ammodendron plantations in arid desert area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(3): 259-266. ]
[23]	高君亮, 罗凤敏, 段娜, 等. 绿洲化对土壤养分及化学计量特征的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(4): 50-55.
	[Gao Junliang, Luo Fengmin, Duan Na, et al. Soil nutrient and stoichiometry characteristics in process of oasisization in the Ulan Buh Desert Oasis, Inner Mongolia[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(4): 50-55. ]
[24]	黄雅茹, 马迎宾, 郝玉光, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠东北缘白刺群落与油蒿群落土壤养分特征分析[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 50(4): 559-565.
	[Huang Yaru, Ma Yingbin, Hao Yuguang, et al. Soil nutrient characteristics analysis of Artemisia ordosica and Nitraria tangutorum communities in Ulanbuh desert[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 50(4): 559-565. ]
[25]	Li Y Y, Shao M A. Change of soil physical properties under long termnatural vegetation restorationin the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2006, 64(1): 77-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.04.005
[26]	黄雅茹, 辛智鸣, 葛根巴图, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠东北缘典型灌木群落多样性与土壤养分相关性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(9): 95-105. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2017.0478
	[Huang Yaru, Xin Zhiming, Gegenbatu, et al. Correlation of typical shrub community diversity and soil nutrient in Northeast Ulanbuh Desert[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018, 20(9): 95-105. ] doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2017.0478
[27]	王博, 段玉玺, 王伟峰, 等. 库布齐东段不同植被恢复阶段荒漠生态系统碳氮储量及分配格局[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(7): 2470-2480.
	[Wang Bo, Duan Yuxi, Wang Weifeng, et al. Carbon and nitrogen storage and distribution patterns of desert ecosystems at different vegetation restoration stages in the eastern Hobq Desert[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(7): 2470-2480. ]
[28]	于洋, 贾志清, 朱雅娟, 等. 高寒沙地植被恢复区乌柳人工防护林对土壤的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(11): 9-15.
	[Yu Yang, Jia Zhiqing, Zhu Yajuan, et al. Effects of Salix cheilophila plantation on the improving of soil properties in vegetation restoration area of high-cold sandy land[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(11): 9-15. ]
[29]	程才, 李玉杰, 张远东, 等. 石漠化地区苔藓结皮对土壤养分及生态化学计量特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(24): 9234-9244.
	[Cheng Cai, Li Yujie, Zhang Yuandong, et al. Effects of moss crusts on soil nutrients and ecological stoichiometry characteristics in karst rocky desertification region[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 40(24): 9234-9244. ]
[30]	Lesschen J, Cammeraat L, Kooijman A, et al. Development of spatial heterogeneity in vegetation and soil properties after land abandonment in a semi-arid ecosystem[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2008, 72(11): 2082-2092. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.06.006

防护体系类型	建植方式	恢复年限/a	优势种	灌木			草本		盖度/%	凋落物/（g·m^-2）
防护体系类型	建植方式	恢复年限/a	优势种	株高/cm	冠幅/m²	密度/（株·hm^-2)	株高/cm	密度/（株·m^-2）	盖度/%	凋落物/（g·m^-2）
流沙固阻带	-	-	沙米、白刺	-	-	-	5.65	3.12	<10	0
封沙育草带	自然恢复	-	白刺为主，其他植被有芦苇、苦豆子和披针叶野决明。	30.61	9.68	25.95	48.23	20.00	20	133.25
防风阻沙带	人工植苗	36	沙枣、梭梭、沙拐枣、花棒	295.33	19.82	1666.7	15.20	6.00	58	310.01
盐湖防护林带	人工植苗	36	沙枣、花棒、梭梭、柽柳	259.00	14.48	1111.1	28.00	9.62	45	223.14

因素	指标	SOC	TN	TP	AN	AP
防护体系类型	F	55.01	8.56	10.44	2.21	150.72
防护体系类型	P	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.102	0.000^***
土层深度	F	70.18	52.33	136.97	35.73	56.76
土层深度	P	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***
防护体系类型×土层深度	F	9.1	3.35	2.94	1.52	7.25
防护体系类型×土层深度	P	0.000^***	0.002^**	0.005^**	0.160	0.000^***

因素	指标	RII_SOC	RII_TN	RII_TP	RII_AN	RII_AP	RII_总
防护体系类型	F	1.92	1.51	26.01	28.29	165.13	59.07
防护体系类型	P	0.141	0.228	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***
土层深度	F	18.15	58.70	107.67	25.00	6.81	56.53
土层深度	P	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***
防护体系类型×土层深度	F	10.03	5.20	6.62	10.71	13.23	10.03
防护体系类型×土层深度	P	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***	0.000^***

防护体系类型	SOC	TN	TP	AN	AP	平均值
流沙固阻带	11.15	12.46	2.89	3.32	9.35	7.83
封沙育草带	89.74	13.86	6.21	11.73	67.05	37.72
防风阻沙带	86.86	275.61	17.07	16.42	529.63	185.12
盐湖防护林带	109.87	800.94	30.34	68.28	1394.42	252.36

吉兰泰盐湖防护体系建立38 a以来土壤养分特征

Characteristics of soil nutrient accumulation after 38 years of the Jilantai Salt Lake protection system

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 30

相关文章 5

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	赵晨光,李慧瑛,鱼腾飞,陈薇宇,谢宗才,张斌武,张军. 腾格里沙漠东北缘人工植被对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(4): 1112-1121.
[2]	李小乐,魏亚娟,党晓宏,戴玉芝,翟波,迟旭,吴惠敏. 红砂灌丛沙堆土壤粒度组成及养分积累特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3): 933-942.
[3]	刘源,李晓晶,段玉玺,王博,王伟峰,刘宗奇,冯涛. 库布齐沙漠东部植被恢复对土壤生态化学计量的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3): 924-932.
[4]	汤东,程平,杨建军,李宏,孙建文,王凯. 天山北坡山前植物对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(6): 1683-1694.
[5]	莫宏伟,任志远. 陕西关中地区植被指数变化多尺度分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(1): 59-63.