油蒿与沙柳灌木地藓结皮发育差异研究

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.06.13

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (6): 979-987.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.06.13

油蒿与沙柳灌木地藓结皮发育差异研究

莫秋霞¹(),宋炜²,卜崇峰^3,⁴(),王春³,王鹤鸣⁵,李亚红⁶

1.西北农林科技大学资源环境学院，陕西杨凌 712100
2.四川省公路规划勘察设计研究院有限公司景观与工程分院，四川成都 610041
3.西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所，陕西杨凌 712100
4.中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所，陕西杨凌 712100
5.西北农林科技大学水利与建筑学院，陕西杨凌 712100
6.眉县县委办公室，陕西宝鸡 722399

收稿日期:2022-11-17 修回日期:2023-02-27 出版日期:2023-06-15 发布日期:2023-06-21
通讯作者: 卜崇峰. E-mail: buchongfeng@163.com
作者简介:莫秋霞（1997-），女，硕士研究生，主要从事生态修复研究. E-mail: moqiuxia2022@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金面上项目(41971131);鹏程尚学教育金(S5030022001)

Differences in moss crust development between Artemisia ordosica and Salix pasmmophia shrubs

MO Qiuxia¹(),SONG Wei²,BU Chongfeng^3,⁴(),WANG Chun³,WANG Heming⁵,LI Yahong⁶

1. College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
2. Landscape and Engineering Branch of Sichuan Highway Planning, Survey, Design and Research Institute Ltd., Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China
3. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
4. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
5. College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
6. Office of Meixian County Party Committee, Baoji 722399, Shaanxi, China

Received:2022-11-17 Revised:2023-02-27 Online:2023-06-15 Published:2023-06-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对毛乌素沙地油蒿灌木地的藓结皮发育总是明显优于沙柳灌木地的现象，基于两类灌木地的土壤性状、藓结皮发育指标的观测分析，结合两类灌木不同器官浸提液对藓结皮发育的化感试验，揭示造成两类灌木地中藓结皮发育差异巨大的原因。结果显示：（1）两类灌木地藓结皮的盖度存在显著差异(P<0.05)，灌木地藓结皮的总盖度及冠层下、冠层间盖度均表现为：油蒿>沙柳，且油蒿灌木地的藓结皮总盖度及冠层下、冠层间的藓结皮盖度分别为沙柳灌木地相应藓结皮盖度的1.6倍、2.9倍和1.1倍；（2） Pearson相关分析显示，冠层下藓结皮盖度与土壤含水率显著正相关、厚度与粉粒含量显著正相关；冠层间藓结皮盖度与土壤含水率、黏粒含量显著正相关(P<0.05)。油蒿灌木地较高的土壤含水率和黏粒、粉粒含量明显促进了藓结皮的发育；（3）化感试验表明，油蒿、沙柳的根、茎、叶水浸提液均抑制了藓结皮的发育，即化感综合效应(SE)均为负值。其中，0.2 g·mL^-1沙柳叶水浸提液的化感抑制作用最强，SE为-0.95，抑制作用显著高于油蒿叶(SE为-0.65)(P<0.05)。表明油蒿灌木地较高的土壤含水率、黏粒和粉粒含量，以及沙柳叶对藓结皮显著的化感抑制作用，共同导致油蒿灌木地藓结皮的发育状况优于沙柳地。

关键词: 油蒿, 沙柳, 藓结皮, 化感作用, 差异研究, 毛乌素沙地

Abstract:

The soil properties and moss crust development indices in typical Artemisia ordosica and Salix pasmmophia shrub land plots in the sandy area of Mu Us Sandland have previously been analyzed in combination with allelopathic tests of the extracts from the different shrub organs. The results showed that moss crust development in A. ordosica shrub land was better than that in S. pasmmophia shrub land, but the reason is unclear, and elucidating it is the aim of this investigation. A significant difference in the moss crust coverage between the two kinds of shrubs (P < 0.05) was identified. The total moss crust coverage and sub-canopy and inter-canopy crust coverage were as follows: A. ordosica > S. pasmmophia, and the total moss crust coverage and subcanopy and intercanopy crust coverage in the A. ordosica shrub land were 1.6, 2.9, and 1.1 times higher than those in the sand S. pasmmophia shrub land, respectively. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in moss crust thickness between the two kinds of shrubs (P > 0.05). Pearson correlation analysis showed that the moss crust coverage in the sub-canopy was significantly positively correlated with the soil water content, moss crust thickness in the sub-canopy was significantly positively correlated with silt content, and inter-canopy moss crust coverage was significantly positively correlated with soil water and clay content (P < 0.05). The higher soil water, clay, and silt contents in the A. ordosica shrub land promoted the development of moss crusts. The aqueous extracts from the roots, stems, and leaves of the A. ordosica and S. pasmmophia inhibited the development of moss crusts; that is, the allelopathic synthesis effect (SE) was negative. Specifically, the allelopathic inhibitory effect of the 0.2 g·mL^-1 aqueous extract of the S. pasmmophia leaves was the strongest, with an SE of -0.95. The inhibitory effect was significantly higher than that of the A. ordosica leaves (SE = -0.65). It can be inferred from the results that the higher soil water, clay, and silt contents in the A. ordosica shrub land and the significant allelopathic inhibition of the S. pasmmophia leaves on the moss crusts led to the improved development of moss crusts in A. ordosica shrub land when compared with S. pasmmophia shrub land.

Key words: Artemisia ordosica, Salix pasmmophia, moss crusts, allelopathy, comparative research, Mu Us Sandland

莫秋霞, 宋炜, 卜崇峰, 王春, 王鹤鸣, 李亚红. 油蒿与沙柳灌木地藓结皮发育差异研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(6): 979-987.

MO Qiuxia, SONG Wei, BU Chongfeng, WANG Chun, WANG Heming, LI Yahong. Differences in moss crust development between Artemisia ordosica and Salix pasmmophia shrubs[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(6): 979-987.

图/表 9

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

图2

图3

参考文献 35

[1]	Kidron G J. The dual effect of sand-covered biocrusts on annual plants: Increasing cover but reducing individual plant biomass and fecundity[J]. Catena, 2019, 182. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104120. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104120
[2]	Rodriguez-Caballero E, Belnap J, Buedel B, et al. Dryland photoautotrophic soil surface communities endangered by global change[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2018, 11(3): 185-189. doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0072-1
[3]	Strauss S L, Day T A, Garcia-Pichel F. Nitrogen cycling in desert biological soil crusts across biogeographic regions in the Southwestern United States[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2012, 108(1-3): 171-182. doi: 10.1007/s10533-011-9587-x
[4]	Elbert W, Weber B, Burrows S, et al. Contribution of cryptogamic covers to the global cycles of carbon and nitrogen[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2012, 5(7): 459-462. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1486
[5]	Bu C, Zhao Y, Hill R L, et al. Wind erosion prevention characteristics and key influencing factors of bryophytic soil crusts[J]. Plant and Soil, 2015, 397(1-2): 163-174. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2609-z
[6]	Chaudhary V B, Bowker M A, O'Dell T E, et al. Untangling the biological contributions to soil stability in semiarid shrublands[J]. Ecological Applications, 2009, 19(1): 110-122. doi: 10.1890/07-2076.1
[7]	Chamizo S, Rodriguez-Caballero E, Roman J R, et al. Effects of biocrust on soil erosion and organic carbon losses under natural rainfall[J]. Catena, 2017, 148: 117-125. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.017
[8]	Eldridge D J, Bowker M A, Maestre F T, et al. Interactive effects of three ecosystem engineers on infiltration in a semi-arid Mediterranean grassland[J]. Ecosystems, 2010, 13(4): 499-510. doi: 10.1007/s10021-010-9335-4
[9]	Chamizo S, Cantón Y, Lázaro R, et al. Crust composition and disturbance drive infiltration through biological soil crusts in semiarid ecosystems[J]. Ecosystems, 2012, 15(1): 148-161. doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9499-6
[10]	杨晓晖, 张克斌, 赵云杰. 生物土壤结皮——荒漠化地区研究的热点问题[J]. 生态学报, 2000, 21(3): 474-480.
	[Yang Xiaohui, Zhang Kebin, Zhao Yunjie. Microbiotic soil crust-a research forefront in desertification-prone areas[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2000, 21(3): 474-480.]
[11]	Concostrina-Zubiri L, Pescador D S, Martinez I, et al. Climate and small scale factors determine functional diversity shifts of biological soil crusts in Iberian drylands[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2014, 23(7): 1757-1770. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0683-9
[12]	Garibotti I A, Gonzalez Polo M. Divergence among biological soil crust communities developing under different environmental conditions[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2021, 32(1), doi: 10.1111/jvs.12987. doi: 10.1111/jvs.12987
[13]	Zaady E, Groffman P, Shachak M. Nitrogen fixation in macro- and microphytic patches in the Negev desert[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 1998, 30(4): 449-454. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00195-8
[14]	Zhou X J, Tan K, Li S X, et al. Induced biological soil crusts and soil properties varied between slope aspect, slope gradient and plant canopy in the Hobq desert of China[J]. Catena, 2020, 190: 104559. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104559. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104559
[15]	Briggs A, Morgan J W. Morphological diversity and abundance of biological soil crusts differ in relation to landscape setting and vegetation type[J]. Australian Journal of Botany, 2008, 56(3): 246-253. doi: 10.1071/BT07194
[16]	吴楠, 张元明, 潘惠霞. 古尔班通古特沙漠地衣结皮对放牧踩踏干扰的小尺度响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(6): 1032-1038.
	[Wu Nan, Zhang Yuanming, Pan Huixia. Response of fungi-algae symbiotic lichen crusts to grazed livestock disturbance in the Gurbantunggut Desert[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2012, 29(6): 1032-1038.]
[17]	张军红, 吴波, 贾子毅, 等. 毛乌素沙地油蒿植冠下生物结皮分布特征及其影响因素研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2010, 23(6): 866-871.
	[Zhang Junhong, Wu Bo, Jia Ziyi, et al. Pattern of biological soil crust and its driving factors under Artemisia ordosica in Mu Us Sandy Land[J]. Forestry Research, 2010, 23(6): 866-871.]
[18]	吴永胜, 尹瑞平, 田秀民, 等. 毛乌素沙地南缘人工植被区生物结皮发育特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2018, 38(2): 339-344. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2016.00161
	[Wu Yongsheng, Yin Ruiping, Tian Xiumin, et al. Development characteristics of biological crusts under artificial vegetation in Southern Mu Us Sandy Land[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(2): 339-344.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2016.00161
[19]	岳艳鹏, 孙迎涛, 庞营军, 等. 毛乌素沙地沙丘活化过程中油蒿(Artemisia ordosica)根系特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2020, 40(3): 177-184. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00001
	[Yue Yanpeng, Sun Yingtao, Pang Yingjun, et al. Root characteristics of Artemisia ordosica in the process of sand dunes activation in Mu Us Sandland[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 177-184.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00001
[20]	党晓宏, 李小乐, 蒙仲举, 等. 毛乌素沙地不同植被生境下藓类结皮对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(9): 158-163.
	[Dang Xiaohong, Li Xiaole, Meng Zhongju, et al. Effects of moss crusts on soil physical properties for different vegetation habitats in Mu Us Sandy Land[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2021, 35(9): 158-163.]
[21]	杨永胜, 冯伟, 袁方, 等. 快速培育黄土高原苔藓结皮的关键影响因子[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(4): 289-294.
	[Yang Yongsheng, Feng Wei, Yuan Fang, et al. Key Influential factors of rapid cultivation of moss crusts on Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 29(4): 289-294.]
[22]	Bruce Williamson G, Richardson D. Bioassays for allelopathy: Measuring treatment responses with independent controls[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1988, 14(1): 181-187. doi: 10.1007/BF01022540 pmid: 24277003
[23]	沈慧敏, 郭鸿儒, 黄高宝. 不同植物对小麦、黄瓜和萝卜幼苗化感作用潜力的初步评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005, 16(4): 740-743. pmid: 16011179
	[Shen Huimin, Guo Hongru, Huang Gaobao. Allelopathy of different plants on wheat, cucumber and radish seedlings[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005, 16(4): 740-743.] pmid: 16011179
[24]	舒霞, 吴玉程, 程继贵, 等. Mastersizer 2000激光粒度分析仪及其应用[J]. 合肥工业大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, 30(2): 164-167.
	[Shu Xia, Wu Yucheng, Cheng Jigui, et al. Mastersizer 2000 laser particle size analyzer and its applications[J]. Journal of Hefei University of Technology(Natural Science), 2007, 30(2): 164-167.]
[25]	Chock T, Antoninka A J, Faist A M, et al. Responses of biological soil crusts to rehabilitation strategies[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2019, 163: 77-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.10.007
[26]	Li X R, Song G, Hui R, et al. Precipitation and topsoil attributes determine the species diversity and distribution patterns of crustal communities in desert ecosystems[J]. Plant and Soil, 2017, 420(1-2): 163-175. doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3385-8
[27]	赵哈林, 郭轶瑞, 周瑞莲, 等. 植被覆盖对科尔沁沙地土壤生物结皮及其下层土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(7): 1657-1663. pmid: 19899467
	[Zhao Halin, Guo Yirui, Zhou Ruilian, et al. Effects of vegetation cover on physical and chemical properties of bio-crust and under-layer soil in Horqin Sand Land[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2009, 20(7): 1657-1663.] pmid: 19899467
[28]	罗雅曦, 刘任涛. 宁夏风沙区不同人工固沙灌丛林土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(5): 60-67.
	[Luo Yaxi, Liu Rentao. Evaluation on soil quality of different sand-binding shrub plantations within straw checkerboard in the desertified area of Ningxia[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(5): 60-67.]
[29]	汪海娇, 田丽慧, 张登山, 等. 青海湖东沙地不同植被恢复措施下土壤水分变化特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 76-86.
	[Wang Haijiao, Tian Lihui, Zhang Dengshan, et al. Variation of soil moisture content in vegetation restoration area of sandy land at east shore of Qinghai Lake[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(1): 76-86.]
[30]	张继义, 赵哈林. 退化沙质草地恢复过程土壤颗粒组成变化对土壤-植被系统稳定性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(4): 1395-1401. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906(2009)04-1395-07
	[Zhang Jiyi, Zhao Halin. Changes in soil particles fraction and their effects on stability of soil-vegetation system in restoration processes of degraded sandy grassland[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 18(4): 1395-1401.] doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906(2009)04-1395-07
[31]	郭鑫, 卢立娜, 贺晓辉, 等. 毛乌素沙地人工固沙灌木林凋落物分解及改良土壤的研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2014, 10(5): 74-78.
	[Guo Xin, Lu Lina, He Xiaohui, et al. Study on litter decomposition and soil improvement in artificial shrub forest in Maowusu Sandy Land[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2014, 10(5): 74-78.]
[32]	Zhao Y, Xu W W, Wang N. Effects of covering sand with different soil substrates on the formation and development of artificial biocrusts in a natural desert environment[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 213: 105081. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105081. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105081
[33]	Rice E L. Allelopathy[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1984: 320-324.
[34]	王方琳, 尉秋实, 柴成武, 等. 沙蒿(Artemisia desertorum)浸提液对自身种子萌发与幼苗生长的化感作用[J]. 中国沙漠, 2021, 41(6): 21-28. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00075
	[Wang Fanglin, Yu Qiushi, Chai Chengwu, et al. Allelopathic effects of Artemisia desertorum extracts on its own seed germination and seedling growth[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(6): 21-28.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00075
[35]	邓文红. 黑沙蒿群落植物演替过程中的化感作用研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016.
	[Deng Wenhong. Allelopathy of Artemisia ordosica Community in the Process of Plant Succession[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2016.]

灌木类型	植被盖度/%	株高/cm
油蒿	35.00±2.08a	59.00±1.86a
沙柳	45.00±3.79a	223.00±6.17a

灌木类型	全氮/(g·kg^-1)	全磷/(g·kg^-1)	有机质/(g·kg^-1)	含水率/%	pH	黏粒/%	粉粒/%	细砂/%	粗砂/%
油蒿	0.03±0.01a	0.15±0.01a	1.33±0.22a	1.62±0.09a	8.59±0.16a	2.21±038a	5.52±0.77a	34.84±1.13a	58.01±1.61a
沙柳	0.04±0.01a	0.20±0.01a	0.81±0.08a	1.38±0.10a	8.70±0.09a	2.54±0.16a	5.09±0.95a	35.45±0.53a	56..36±1.48a

样地类型	结皮厚度/mm	结皮盖度/%
油蒿	11.33±0.41a	88.62±0.74a
沙柳	10.84±0.31a	55.87±1.33b

样地类型		结皮厚度/mm	结皮盖度/%
冠层下	油蒿	12.22±0.41a	85.56±0.52a
冠层下	沙柳	11.11±0.43a	29.52±3.30b
冠层间	油蒿	10.44±0.41a	91.67±1.02a
冠层间	沙柳	10.56±0.85a	82.22±1.11b

土壤理化性状	冠层下		冠层间
土壤理化性状	油蒿	沙柳	油蒿	沙柳
全氮/(g·kg^-1)	0.27±0.03a	0.33±0.03a	0.19±0.02a	0.23±0.03a
全磷/(g·kg^-1)	0.30±0.03a	0.34±0.02a	0.28±0.02a	0.33±0.02a
有机质/(g·kg^-1)	5.67±0.43a	7.13±0.92a	4.05±0.37a	4.79±0.57a
含水率/%	3.80±0.17a	2.70±0.06b	4.70±0.09a	3.10±0.12b
pH	8.54±0.04a	8.43±0.01a	8.72±0.03a	8.61±0.07a
黏粒/%	3.80±0.32a	3.60±0.28a	6.40±0.40a	3.00±0.43b
粉粒/%	10.50±0.87a	9.40±0.62a	13.60±1.42a	8.40±0.85b
细砂/%	66.90±3.52a	69.20±1.30a	54.60±2.63b	66.10±2.14a
粗砂/%	19.00±4.68a	17.70±0.58a	25.40±3.41a	22.40±2.09a

油蒿与沙柳灌木地藓结皮发育差异研究

Differences in moss crust development between Artemisia ordosica and Salix pasmmophia shrubs

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 35

相关文章 12

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	海龙, 周梅, 张嘉開, 洪光宇, 李凤滋, 费菲. 毛乌素沙地不同林龄杨柴灌木林土壤呼吸及其影响因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(7): 1107-1116.
[2]	康利刚, 曹生奎, 曹广超, 杨羽帆, 严莉, 王有财. 青海湖沙柳河流域蒸散发时空变化特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(3): 358-372.
[3]	石麟,李红悦,赵雨兴,任余艳,何金军,于凤强,哈斯额尔敦. 毛乌素沙地流动沙丘不同沙障组合措施的防风固沙效益评价[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(2): 268-279.
[4]	胡晶华,刘静,白潞翼,张欣,兰鹏波,袁亚楠. 沙柳直根抗拉特性对循环荷载的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3): 900-907.
[5]	王荣女. 毛乌素沙地不同类型生物土壤结皮-土壤呼吸的季节变化特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(4): 961-972.
[6]	洪光宇,王晓江,刘果厚,张雷,高孝威,李卓凡,刘铁山,刘辰明,李梓豪. 毛乌素沙地沙柳液流特征及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(3): 794-801.
[7]	毛丽, 苏志珠, 王国玲, 马义娟, 李想. 毛乌素沙地不同土地利用类型的土壤粒度及有机质特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 36(3): 589-598.
[8]	张金玲, 陈海鹏, 程达, 李玉灵. 毛乌素沙地臭柏(Sabina vulgaris Ant.)光抑制响应机制研究意义[J]. 干旱区研究, 2018, 35(4): 882-890.
[9]	李成秀, 李小雁, 杨太保, 李岳坦. 青海湖流域沙柳河草甸群落结构与数量特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2013, 30(6): 1028-1035.
[10]	杨永胜, 卜崇峰, 高国雄. 毛乌素沙地生物结皮对土壤温度的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(2): 352-359.
[11]	魏宝, 丁国栋, 吴斌, 张宇清. 不同盖度沙蒿群丛防风作用研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(2): 213-217.
[12]	符超峰, 赵景波. 毛乌素沙地东南缘不同类型沙丘土壤水分分布特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2011, 28(3): 377-383.

浓度/(g·mL^-1)	灌木类型
浓度/(g·mL^-1)	油蒿			沙柳
0.00	根	茎	叶	根	茎	叶
0.02
0.20