青土湖退耕地植被群落特征与土壤理化性质分析

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2021.01.23

干旱区研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (1): 223-232.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2021.01.23

青土湖退耕地植被群落特征与土壤理化性质分析

何洪盛¹(),田青¹(),王理德^1,²,孟存宏³,何芳兰²,郭春秀²,吴昊²

1.甘肃农业大学林学院,甘肃兰州 730070
2.甘肃省治沙研究所,甘肃兰州 730070
3.甘肃省武威市石羊河林业总场,甘肃民勤 733399

收稿日期:2020-05-06 修回日期:2020-06-14 出版日期:2021-01-15 发布日期:2021-03-05
通讯作者: 田青
作者简介:何洪盛（1994-）,男,硕士研究生,主要从事水土保持与荒漠化防治研究. E-mail: 1178042655@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31760709);国家自然科学基金项目(31860175);国家自然科学基金项目(41801102);甘肃省民生专项(20CX4FH018);甘肃省青年科技基金项目(18JR3RA019)

Study on vegetation community characteristics and soil physical and chemical properties of abandoned land in Qingtu Lake

HE Hongsheng¹(),TIAN Qing¹(),WANG Lide^1,²,MENG Cunhong³,HE Fanglan²,GUO Chunxiu²,WU Hao²

1. College of Forestry, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
2. Gansu Desert Control Research Institute, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
3. Shiyanghe Forestry Headquarters in Wuwei of Gansu Province, Minqin 733399, Gansu, China

Received:2020-05-06 Revised:2020-06-14 Online:2021-01-15 Published:2021-03-05
Contact: Qing TIAN

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

选取不同年限退/弃耕地（退耕1 a、2 a、4 a、8 a、13 a、20 a、30 a、40 a和CK）为研究对象,采用时空替代法,分析了不同年限退/弃耕地植被群落特征和土壤理化性质及其相关性。结果表明：（1）石羊河下游青土湖退/弃耕地40 a的植被恢复过程中,9个样方共出现15科29属43种植物,退/弃耕地物种构成表现为：多数种属于少数科、少数种属于多数科。植被演变分为：一年生草本和多年生植物快速生长期（1~2 a）,一年生草本向多年生草本演变期（2~8 a）,多年生草本向灌木演变期（8~20 a）和以灌木为主的稳定期（20~40 a）;（2）随退耕年限增加,土壤含水量呈先减小后增加最后波动式减小趋势,上层土壤含水量高于下层土壤含水量。各样方比例最大是细砂粒,粉粒次之,比例最小的是粗砂粒和黏粒,随退耕年限的变化,各粒径占比变化不大;（3）随退耕年限增加,土壤全氮和有机质均呈下降趋势,速效钾含量呈先增加后减小趋势,速效磷含量呈先减小后增加再减小趋势,表聚现象明显;（4）植被群落演替与土壤理化性质具有密切相关性。Margalef丰富度指数与土壤全氮和有机质呈极显著正相关关系,Shannon多样性指数与土壤容重和细砂粒呈显著的正相关关系,与土壤黏粒和粉粒呈显著负相关关系。退耕第4 a是青土湖退/弃耕地在恢复治理过程中关键时期。

关键词: 青土湖, 退/弃耕地, 植被群落特征, 土壤理化性质

Abstract:

We selected arable areas with different years of abandonment (1 a, 2 a, 4 a, 8 a, 13 a, 20 a, 30 a, 40 a, and CK) as research objects and used the space-time substitution method to analyze the vegetation community and soil physical-chemical characteristics during the restoration period at the Qingtu Lake. Our results showed that 15 plant families, with 29 genera and 43 species appeared in our plots during the 40-year restoration process, with most species belonging to a few plant families and few species belonging to one dominant plant family. We divided the vegetation restoration process into four stages. The first rapid-recovery stage (grain for 1a to 2 a) is composed of annual and perennial root herbs; the second stage (grain for 2 a to 8 a) is composed of annual herbaceous and perennial herbaceous plants; in the third stage (grain for 8 a to 20 a), perennial herbaceous and perennial shrub are the most common species; and perennial shrubs dominate the fourth final succession stage (grain for 20 a to 40 a). In areas where farming activities were more intensive, the soil-water content was more volatile, with increasing and decreasing periods. In the final succession stage, the topsoil layer had more moisture in compasrison to the lower-soil layer. Independent of the restoration stage, the proportion of fine sand grains was the largest, followed by the proportion of powder grains, whereas the proportion of coarse sand grains and clay grains were the smallest, and these particle proportions did not change depending on time and intensity of farming activities. We observed that according to the intensity of the farming activities, both total nitrogen and organic matter showed a downward trend. Still, the soil’s available potassium first increased and then decreased, whereas the available phosphorus showed the opposite trend. The surface aggregation phenomenon was evident. Finally, the succession of the vegetation community was closely related to soil physical-chemical properties. The Margalef richness index positively correlated with total soil nitrogen and organic matter, whereas the Shannon diversity index positively correlated with soil bulk density and fine sand particles and negatively correlated with soil clay and silt particles. The 4th year of the return of farming activity was crucial in the recovery process at Qingtu Lake.

Key words: Qingtu Lake, abandoned land, vegetation community characteristics, soil physical and chemical properties

何洪盛,田青,王理德,孟存宏,何芳兰,郭春秀,吴昊. 青土湖退耕地植被群落特征与土壤理化性质分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 223-232.

HE Hongsheng,TIAN Qing,WANG Lide,MENG Cunhong,HE Fanglan,GUO Chunxiu,WU Hao. Study on vegetation community characteristics and soil physical and chemical properties of abandoned land in Qingtu Lake[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(1): 223-232.

图/表 8

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 32

[1]	王蓓, 赵军, 仲俊涛. 2005—2015年石羊河流域生态系统服务时空分异[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019,36(2):474-485.
	[ Wang Bei, Zhao Jun, Zhong Juntao. Spatiotemporal differentiation of ecosystem services in the Shiyang River Basin from 2005 to 2015[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2019,36(2):474-485. ]
[2]	吴江琪, 马维伟, 李广, 等. 黄土高原4种植被类型对土壤物理特征及渗透性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(4):133-138.
	[ Wu Jiangqi, Ma Weiwei, Li Guang, et al. Effects of four vegetation types on soil physical characteristics and permeability in Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018,32(4):133-138. ]
[3]	Chen X H, Duan Z H. Changes in soil physical and chemical properties during reversal of desertification in Yanchi County of Ningxia Hui autonomous region, China[J]. Environmental Geology, 2009,57:975-985.
[4]	姚宝辉, 王缠, 张倩, 等. 甘南高寒草甸退化过程中土壤理化性质和微生物数量动态变化[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019,33(3):138-145.
	[ Yao Baohui, Wang Chan, Zhang Qian, et al. Dynamic characteristics of soil physicochemical properties and microbial quantity during the degradation of Gannan alpine meadow[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019,33(3):138-145. ]
[5]	柴晓虹, 王理德, 姚拓, 等. 石羊河中下游不同退耕年限次生草地土壤理化及生物学特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2015,24(8):24-34.
	[ Chai Xiaohong, Wang Lide, Yao Tuo, et al. Effects of different years of cultivation abandonment on soil physical, chemical and microbial characteristics in the midstream and downstream of Shiyang River area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015,24(8):24-34. ]
[6]	赵富王, 王宁, 苏雪萌, 等. 黄土丘陵区主要植物根系对土壤有机质和团聚体的影响[J]. 水保持学报, 2019,33(5):105-113.
	[ Zhao Fuwang, Wang Ning, Su Xuemeng, et al. Effects of main plant roots on soil organic matter and aggregates in Loess Hilly Region[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019,33(5):105-113. ]
[7]	戴雅婷, 闫志坚, 解继红, 等. 基于高通量测序的两种植被恢复类型根际土壤细菌多样性研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2017,54(3):735-748.
	[ Dai Yating, Yan Zhijian, Xie Jihong, et al. Soil bacteria diversity in rhizosphere under two types of vegetation restoration based on high throughput sequencing[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2017,54(3):735-748. ]
[8]	马静利, 马红彬, 沈艳, 等. 不同轮牧方式对荒漠草原土壤理化性质及草地健康的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(5):151-156.
	[ Ma Jingli, Ma Hongbin, Shen Yan, et al. Effects of different rotational grazing methods on soil physical and chemical properties and steppe health in desert steppe[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018,32(5):151-156. ]
[9]	王方琳, 王理德, 韩富贵, 等. 石羊河下游民勤绿洲退耕地植被自然演替特征及物种多样性分析[J]. 西北植物学报, 2013,33(7):1459-1464.
	[ Wang Fanglin, Wang Lide, Han Fugui, et al. Natural vegetation succession characteristics and species diversity in abandoned lands in the Minqin Oasis, downstream of the Shiyang River[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2013,33(7):1459-1464. ]
[10]	李永强, 焦树英, 赵萌莉, 等. 草甸草原撂荒地演替过程中植被多样性指数变化[J]. 中国草地学报, 2016,38(3):116-120.
	[ Li Yongqiang, Jiao Shuying, Zhao Mengli, et al. Change of plant community diversity index during abandoned succession in meadow steppe[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2016,38(3):116-120. ]
[11]	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 physiochemical properties under sand-fixation forest of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica to stand density[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020,37(1):134-141. ]
[12]	焦梦妍, 从怀军, 姚静, 等. 自然恢复序列梯度上退耕地土壤容重变化及其蓄水性能效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(5):128-133.
	[ Jiao Mengyan, Cong Huaijun, Yao Jing, et al. Soil bulk density changes and its water-storage capacity of abandoned farmland in natural restoration series gradient of Loess hilly-gully region[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018,32(5):128-133. ]
[13]	甘淼, 贾玉华, 李同川, 等. 黄土区坡沟系统容重、饱和导水率和土壤含水量变化分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2018,35(2):315-324.
	[ Gan Miao, Jia Yuhua, Li Tongchuan, et al. Spatial variation of soil bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil water content in a slope-gully unit of the northern Loess Plateau[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2018,35(2):315-324. ]
[14]	柴晓虹, 王理德, 姚拓, 等. 石羊河中下游不同退耕年限次生草地土壤理化及生物学特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2015,24(8):24-34.
	[ Chai Xiaohong, Wang Lide, Yao Tuo, et al. Effects of different years of cultivation abandonment on soil physical, chemical and microbial characteristics in the midstream and downstream of Shiyang River area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015,24(8):24-34. ]
[15]	马俊梅, 满多清, 李得禄, 等. 干旱荒漠区退耕地植被演替及土壤水分变化[J]. 中国沙漠, 2018,38(4):800-807.
	[ Ma Junmei, Man Duoqing, Li Delu, et al. Characteristics of vegetation succession and soil moisture in abandoned cropland of arid desert region[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018,38(4):800-807. ]
[16]	王璐, 仲启铖, 陆颖, 等. 群落配置对滨海围垦区土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2014,51(3):638-647.
	[ Wang Lu, Zhong Qicheng, Lu Ying, et al. Effects of configuration of plant community on physical and chemical properties of coastal polder soil[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2014,51(3):638-647. ]
[17]	王彦武, 罗玲, 张峰, 等. 河西绿洲荒漠过渡带梭梭林土壤保育效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2019,56(3):749-762.
	[ Wang Yanwu, Luo Ling, Zhang Feng, et al. Soil conservation effect of Haloxylon ammodendron Bushes in Hexi oasis-desert ecotone[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019,56(3):749-762. ]
[18]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 69-77.
	[ Huang Changyong. Soil Science[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science, 2000: 69-77. ]
[19]	郭春秀, 王理德, 韩福贵, 等. 石羊河下游民勤绿洲不同年限退耕地土壤物理性质变化研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014,30(27):72-76.
	[ Guo Cunxiu, Wang Lide, Han Fugui, et al. Studies of soil physical property of different abandoned lands in the Minqin Oasis, downstream of the Shiyang River[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014,30(27):72-76. ]
[20]	宿婷婷, 马红彬, 周瑶, 等. 黄土丘陵典型草原土壤理化性质对生态恢复措施的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2019,28(4):34-46.
	[ Su Tingting, Ma Hongbin, Zhou Yao, et al. Response of typical steppe grassland soil physical and chemical properties to various ecological restoration measures in the Ningxia Loess Hill Region[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019,28(4):34-46. ]
[21]	刘伟, 程积民, 高阳, 等. 黄土高原草地土壤有机碳分布及其影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2012,49(1):68-76.
	[ Liu Wei, Cheng Jimin, Gao Yang, et al. Distribution of soil organic carbon in grassland on Loess Plateau and its influencing factors[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2012,49(1):68-76. ]
[22]	安慧, 杨新国, 刘秉儒, 等. 荒漠草原区弃耕地植被演替过程中植物群落生物量及土壤养分变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(12):3145-3149.
	[ An Hui, Yang Xinguo, Liu Bingru, et al. Changes of plant community biomass and soil nutrients during the vegetation succession on abandoned cultivated land in desert steppe region[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011,22(12):3145-3149. ]
[23]	隋媛媛, 杜峰, 张兴昌. 黄土丘陵区撂荒群落土壤速效养分空间变异性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2011,20(2):76-84.
	[ Sui Yuanyuan, Du Feng, Zhang Xingchang. Spatial heterogeneity of available soil nutrients in abandoned ole-field communities in the Loess Hilly Region[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011,20(2):76-84. ]
[24]	由政, 张鹏, 薛萐, 等. 退耕地植被演替过程对土壤化学计量特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2017,25(3):657-661.
	[ You Zheng, Zhang Peng, Xue Sha, et al. Effect of vegetation succession on abandoned cropland on soil stoichiometry characteristics[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017,25(3):657-661. ]
[25]	唐梦迎, 丁建丽, 夏楠, 等. 干旱区典型绿洲土壤有机质含量分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 土壤学报, 2017,54(3):759-766.
	[ Tang Mengying, Ding Jianli, Xia Nan, et al. Distribution of soil organic matter content and its affecting factors in oases typical of arid region[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2017,54(3):759-766. ]
[26]	韩福贵, 王理德, 王芳琳, 等. 石羊河流域下游退耕地土壤酶活性及土壤肥力因子的相关性[J]. 土壤通报, 2014,45(6):1396-1401.
	[ Han Fugui, Wang Lide, Wang Fanglin, et al. Analysis of relationship between soil enzymes activities and fertilities in the field of grain for green in downstream of the Shiyang River[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2014,45(6):1396-1401. ]
[27]	马瑞, 赵锦梅. 东祁连山河谷高寒草地植被群落特征及其与土壤性状的关系[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020,37(2):374-381.
	[ Ma Rui, Zhao Jinmei. Relationship between the grassland and soil conditions in the Eastern Qilian Mountains[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020,37(2):374-381. ]
[28]	王理德. 民勤退耕区次生草地植被及土壤系统演变研究[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2016.
	[ Wang Lide. Evolution of Vegetation and Soil System on Secondary Grassland of Abandoned Land Area in Minqin[D]. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2016. ]
[29]	王媚臻, 毕浩杰, 金锁, 等. 林分密度对云顶山柏木人工林林下物种多样性和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(3):981-988.
	[ Wang Meizhen, Bi Haojie, Jin Suo, et al. Effects of stand density on understory species diversity and soil physicochemical properties of a Cupressus funebris plantation in Yunding Mountain[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(3):981-988. ]
[30]	常海涛, 赵娟, 刘佳楠, 等. 退耕还林与还草对土壤理化性质及分形特征的影响——以宁夏荒漠草原为例[J]. 草业学报, 2019,28(7):14-25.
	[ Chang Haitao, Zhao Juan, Liu Jianan, et al. Changes in soil physico-chemical properties and related fractal features during conversion of cropland into agroforestry and grassland: A case study of desertified steppe in Ningxia[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019,28(7):14-25. ]
[31]	肖鹏飞, 张世熔, 黄丽琴, 等. 成都平原区土壤速效磷时空变化特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005,19(4):89-92, 99.
	[ Xiao Pengfei, Zhang Shirong, Huang Liqin, et al. Temporal-spatial variability of soil available phosphorus in Chengdu Plain[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005,19(4):89-92, 99. ]
[32]	吕文强, 党宏忠, 王立, 等. 黄土高原带状植被土壤理化性质空间分异特征[J]. 草业学报, 2016,25(10):21-30.
	[ Lyu Wenqiang, Dang Hongzhong, Wang Li, et al. The spatial differentiation of soil properties under banded vegetation systems on the Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016,25(10):21-30. ]

样地编号	群落优势种	退耕年限/a	经纬度	海拔/m	土壤类型
1	地肤+中亚滨藜(Kochia scoparia + Atriplex centralasiatica)	1	103°35′07″ E39°03′57″ N	1306	沙漠灰棕土
2	盐生草+地肤+中亚滨藜(Halogeton glomeratus+ Kochia scoparia + Atriplex centralasiatica)	2	103°35′10″ E39°03′50″ N	1306
3	碱蓬+地肤+芨芨草+小果白刺(Suaeda glauca+Kochia scoparia+Achnatherum splendens+Nitraria sibirica)	4	103°35′10″ E39°03′50″ N	1308
4	小果白刺+黑果枸杞(Nitraria sibirica+ Lycium ruthenicum)	8	103°36′08″ E39°03′25″ N	1305
5	黑果枸杞(Lycium ruthenicum)	13	103°36′18″ E39°02′30″ N	1306
6	黑果枸杞(Lycium ruthenicum)	20	103°37′01″ E39°01′44″ N	1308
7	黑果枸杞+盐爪爪(Lycium ruthenicum+ Kalidium foliatum)	30	103°37′29″ E39°02′54″ N	1302
8	黑果枸杞+盐爪爪(Lycium ruthenicum+ Kalidium foliatum)	40	103°37′55″ E39°02′54″ N	1302
9	茴香(Foeniculum vulgare)	CK	103°35′14″ E39°03′52″ N	1308

多样性指数	退耕年限/a
多样性指数	1	2	4	8	13	20	30	40
个体数(N)	1125	1516	405	863	2172	3455	567	652
种群数(S)	20	19	20	14	14	13	6	8
Shannon多样性指数	1.81	2.576	3.447	2.481	1.839	2.194	1.652	2.221
Pielou均匀度指数	0.419	0.606	0.798	0.652	0.483	0.593	0.639	0.74
Simpson优势度指数	0.409	0.234	0.112	0.239	0.412	0.277	0.335	0.251
Margalef丰富度指数	1.875	1.704	2.194	1.333	1.173	1.021	0.547	0.749

退耕年限/a	含水量		容重
退耕年限/a	0~20 cm	20~40 cm	0~20 cm	20~40 cm
1	0.078±0.007cde	0.088±0.012abc	1.51±0.13bc	1.52±0.13b
2	0.074±0.003de	0.078±0.007bcd	1.53±0.1bc	1.68±0.03ab
4	0.07±0.017de	0.065±0.006bcd	1.68±0.03b	1.62±0.04ab
8	0.059±0.005e	0.06±0.006cd	1.6±0.05ab	1.61±0.01ab
13	0.126±0.031a	0.115±0.019a	1.29±0.16d	1.62±0.08ab
20	0.094±0.011abc	0.066±0.035ab	1.38±0.05bc	1.64±0.16ab
30	0.103±0.016de	0.093±0.016d	1.45±0.04bc	1.57±0.1ab
40	0.068±0.008bcd	0.053±0.011bcd	1.48±0.06cd	1.54±0.11ab
0	0.11±0.01ab	0.117±0.015a	1.73±0.04a	1.7±0.05a

指标	深度/cm	退耕年限/a
指标	深度/cm	1	2	4	8	13	20	30	40	CK
黏粒/%	0~20	6.5b	1.4d	1.5d	7.6a	7.1ab	7.4a	7ab	5.8c	5.5c
	20~40	1.5e	4.5d	5.5ab	7.6a	7.9bc	7.1bc	7.1d	5.7c	6.7f
粉粒/%	0~20	20.9c	6.8d	7.3d	29.1ab	30.5a	30.3a	30.5a	26.9b	20.c
	20~40	7.3c	20.1c	20.2a	31.9a	32.7a	31.2a	30.2b	25.5c	22d
细砂粒/%	0~20	61.9b	83.4a	82.8a	57.7bc	60.3b	54.2c	59.3b	62b	59.7b
	20~40	80.2b	66.4bc	64d	57.9e	48.1cd	60.3d	56.4cd	60.3cd	60.6a
粗砂粒/%	0~20	10.7ab	8.4abc	8.4abc	5.7bc	2c	8.1abc	3.1bc	5.3bc	14.1a
	20~40	11abc	9ab	10.3bc	2.6a	11.3c	1.5abc	6.3abc	8.4a	10.6a

指标	深度/cm	退耕年限/a
指标	深度/cm	1	2	4	8	13	20	30	40	CK
全氮/%	0~20	0.032c	0.024a	0.036bc	0.025c	0.022c	0.018c	0.018c	0.017c	0.023ab
全氮/%	20~40	0.029bc	0.022ab	0.026bc	0.021c	0.021d	0.017cd	0.015cd	0.018c	0.021a
速效钾/ (mg·kg^-1)	0~20	142ab	159ab	148b	234a	411ab	393a	199a	337ab	227c
速效钾/ (mg·kg^-1)	20~40	132cd	152d	112cd	154a	377bc	393bc	262ab	263cd	189d
速效磷/ [mg·(100g)^-1]	0~20	1.4bcd	0.96bcd	1.04bcd	1.1b	1.48cd	0.9d	0.76bcd	0.51a	3.88bc
速效磷/ [mg·(100g)^-1]	20~40	0.53b	0.2ab	0.26ab	0.5a	0.73ab	0.57ab	0.33ab	0.43ab	0.54
有机质/%	0~20	1.27bc	1.16a	1.35cd	1.06de	0.93e	0.77e	0.83e	0.84abc	1.23ab
有机质/%	20~40	1.26cd	0.90bc	0.92b	0.93bcd	0.87bcd	0.71d	0.79cd	0.69b	1.00a

青土湖退耕地植被群落特征与土壤理化性质分析

Study on vegetation community characteristics and soil physical and chemical properties of abandoned land in Qingtu Lake

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 32

相关文章 7

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

	含水率	容重	黏粒	粉粒	细砂粒	粗砂粒
Shannon多样性指数	-0.582	0.757^*	-0.749^*	-0.726^*	0.724^*	0.392
Pielou均匀度指数	-0.493	0.59	-0.449	-0.291	0.385	-0.078
Simpson优势度指数	0.652	-0.756^*	0.658	0.579	-0.6	-0.279
Margalef丰富度指数	-0.391	0.596	-0.641	-0.797^*	0.685	0.697

	全氮	速效钾	速效磷	有机质
Shannon多样性指数	0.577	-0.346	-0.124	0.586
Pielou均匀度指数	0.018	-0.123	-0.710^*	0.017
Simpson优势度指数	-0.294	0.302	0.48	-0.32
Margalef丰富度指数	0.931^**	-0.591	0.525	0.947^**

	含水率	容重	黏粒	粉粒	细砂粒	粗砂粒
全氮	-0.343	0.526	-0.515	-0.673^*	0.576	0.403
速效钾	0.457	-0.676^*	0.552	0.682^*	-0.577	-0.447
速效磷	0.465	0.5	0.029	-0.081	-0.167	0.668^*
有机质	-0.282	0.731^*	-0.605	-0.771^*	0.602	0.637

[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]	王佳,田青,王理德,何洪盛,宋达成,郭春秀. 民勤青土湖区不同年限退耕地对土壤水分与物种多样性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(2): 605-614.
[3]	胡亚伟,孙若修,申明爽,施政乐,刘畅,徐勤涛,刘俊廷,张建军. 晋西黄土区土地利用方式对土壤C:N:P化学计量特征及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(4): 990-999.
[4]	申紫雁,刘昌义,胡夏嵩,周林虎,许桐,李希来,李国荣. 黄河源区高寒草地不同深度土壤理化性质与抗剪强度关系研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(2): 392-401.
[5]	刘小娥,苏世平,李毅,王维. 黄土高原地区人工林营造——混交林模式生态效益研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(2): 380-391.
[6]	赵军，杨建霞，朱国锋. 生态输水对青土湖周边区域植被覆盖度的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2018, 35(6): 1251-1261.
[7]	王永芳, 包慧娟, 海春兴, 银山. 防护林对科尔沁沙地耕地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(6): 1009-1013.