洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游河岸胡杨林土壤有机碳及活性组分的影响

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.08.05

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (8): 1248-1257.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.08.05 cstr: 32277.14.j.azr.2023.08.05

洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游河岸胡杨林土壤有机碳及活性组分的影响

马继龙^1,^2,³(),史军辉^2,³(),王新英^2,³,阿丽亚·拜都热拉¹,刘茂秀^2,³,艾吉尔·阿不拉^2,³

1.新疆农业大学林学与风景园林学院，新疆乌鲁木齐 830052
2.新疆林科院造林治沙研究所，新疆乌鲁木齐 830063
3.新疆塔里木河胡杨林生态系统国家定位观测研究站，新疆乌鲁木齐 830046

收稿日期:2023-01-09 修回日期:2023-05-06 出版日期:2023-08-15 发布日期:2023-08-24
作者简介:马继龙（2000-），男，硕士研究生，主要从事荒漠化防治方向研究. E-mail: mjl4ever888@163.com
基金资助:
自治区公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(KY2019047);自治区公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(KY2019049)

Effects of flood overflow on soil organic carbon and active components of Populus euphratica forest in the middle reaches of the Tarim River

MA Jilong^1,^2,³(),SHI Junhui^2,³(),WANG Xinying^2,³,Aliya BAIDOURELA¹,LIU Maoxiu^2,³,Aijier ABULA^2,³

1. College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, Xinjiang, China
2. Research Institute of Afforestation and Desertification Prevention and Control, Xinjiang Academy of Forestry Sciences, Urumqi 830063, Xinjiang, China
3. Xinjiang Tarim Poplus euphratica Riparian Forest Ecosystem Research Station, Urumqi 830046, Xinjiang, China

Received:2023-01-09 Revised:2023-05-06 Published:2023-08-15 Online:2023-08-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

塔里木河生态输水使流域两岸洪水漫溢强度增加，进而对河岸胡杨林生态系统碳循环产生了重要影响。以塔里木河中游周期性洪水漫溢区胡杨林为研究对象，测定并分析河岸胡杨林洪水漫溢过程中漫溢前（W1）、漫溢第4 d（W2）、漫溢第17 d（W3）和退水后（W4）4个不同阶段1 m土体有机碳及活性组分含量的变化特征。结果表明：（1） SOC（土壤有机碳）含量在漫溢前均高于漫溢后；洪水漫溢对0~20 cm土层SOC含量的影响较20~100 cm土层显著；在同一阶段内，随着土层的深入，SOC含量呈降低趋势。（2） 0~10 cm及40~100 cm土层的土壤DOC（可溶性有机碳）、MBC（微生物生物量碳）含量在漫溢第4 d较漫溢前均显著升高，但随着漫溢时间的延长，其含量逐渐降低，且各阶段间差异显著(P<0.05)；同一土层随漫溢时间的延长DOC/SOC、MBC/SOC差异显著(P<0.05)。（3）漫溢前0~10 cm土层EOC（易氧化有机碳）含量高于漫溢后，其他土层EOC含量则表现为漫溢期高于漫溢前及退水后；0~10 cm、20~60 cm土层EOC/SOC在不同漫溢阶段间差异显著(P<0.05)。（4）漫溢前至漫溢第17 d SOC与DOC含量呈极显著正相关（r>0.69，n=15），退水后EOC和DOC呈显著正相关（r=0.54，n=15），漫溢前SOC和DOC含量与漫溢后各阶段含量之间相关性显著。综上所述，塔里木河中游洪水漫溢过程对河岸胡杨林SOC及活性组分分布产生了显著影响，并且各组分的敏感土层不同，SOC以0~20 cm土层影响最为显著，DOC、MBC以0~10 cm及40~100 cm土层影响最为显著，EOC则为20~60 cm土层影响最为显著，其变化规律具有森林和湿地的双重特征。

关键词: 河岸胡杨林, 洪水漫溢, 土壤有机碳, 活性组分, 分布特征, 塔里木河

Abstract:

The ecological water transport of the Tarim River increases flood intensity on both sides of the basin, which has an important effect on the carbon cycle of the riparian Populus euphratica forest ecosystems. We studied the P. euphratica forest in the middle reaches of the Tarim River and the content changes of organic carbon and measured and analyzed the active components of the riparian P. euphratica forest at four different stages (1 m before (W1); 4 days after (W2); 17 days after (W3); and after (W4)). We found that the soil organic carbon (SOC) content was higher before and after overflow. The effect of flood overflow on the SOC content in the 0-20 cm soil layer was more significant than that of the 20-100 cm soil layer. During the same stage, the SOC content decreased with soil layer depth. The dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in the 0-10 cm and 40-100 cm soil layers were significantly increased on the 4^th day of the overflow compared to before the overflow. The contents decreased gradually with the extension of the overflow time. The differences between each stage were significant (P < 0.05). The DOC/SOC and MBC/SOC in the same soil layer differed significantly as time since the overflow extended (P < 0.05). The extracted organic carbon (EOC) content in the 0-10 cm soil layer before the overflow was higher than after the overflow. The EOC content in other soil layers during the overflow period was higher than before or after the overflow. The EOC/SOC in the 0-10 cm and 20-60 cm soil layers were significantly different at each overflow stage (P < 0.05). There was a significantly positive correlation between SOC and DOC content from before the overflow to day 17 of the overflow (r > 0.69, n = 15) and a significantly positive correlation between EOC and DOC content after discharge (r = 0.54, n = 15). There was a significant correlation between SOC and DOC content before the overflow and at various stages after the overflow. Based on the above analysis, the flooding process in the middle reaches of the Tarim River had a significant effect on the distribution of SOC and the active components of the riparian poplar forest, with differences found in the sensitive soil layers of each component. SOC was most significant in the 0-20 cm soil layer. DOC and MBC were most significant in the 0-10 cm soil layer and the 40-100 cm soil layer, respectively, and EOC was most significant in the 20-60 cm soil layer. Thus, the observed change regularity has the dual characteristics of forest and wetland.

Key words: riparian Populus euphratica forests, flooding, soil organic carbon, active composition, distribution characteristics, Tarim River

马继龙, 史军辉, 王新英, 阿丽亚·拜都热拉, 刘茂秀, 艾吉尔·阿不拉. 洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游河岸胡杨林土壤有机碳及活性组分的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(8): 1248-1257.

MA Jilong, SHI Junhui, WANG Xinying, Aliya BAIDOURELA, LIU Maoxiu, Aijier ABULA. Effects of flood overflow on soil organic carbon and active components of Populus euphratica forest in the middle reaches of the Tarim River[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(8): 1248-1257.

图/表 5

表1

图1

图2

图3

表2

参考文献 47

[1]	Fontaine S, Barot S, Barré P, et al. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply[J]. Nature, 2007, 450(7167): 277-U10. doi: 10.1038/nature06275
[2]	常帅, 于红博, 曹聪明, 等. 锡林郭勒草原土壤有机碳分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(5): 1355-1366.
	[ Chang Shuai, Yu Hongbo, Cao Congming, et al. Distribution characteristics of soil organic carbon in Xilin Gol steppe and its influencing factors[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(5): 1355-1366. ]
[3]	Roldán A, Salinas-García J R, Alguacil M M, et al. Changes in soil enzyme activity, fertility, aggregation and C sequestration mediated by conservation tillage practices and water regime in a maize field[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2005, 30(1): 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.01.004
[4]	杜雪, 王海燕. 中国森林土壤有机碳活性组分及其影响因素[J]. 世界林业研究, 2022, 35(1): 76-81.
	[ Du Xue, Wang Haiyan. Active components of forest soil organic carbon and its influencing factors in China[J]. World Forestry Research, 2022, 35(1): 76-81. ]
[5]	管海英, 赵鑫, 靳佳, 等. 荒漠生态系统土壤表层微生物量碳空间分布及其影响因子[J]. 干旱区研究, 2014, 31(6): 1125-1131.
	[ Guan Haiying, Zhao Xin, Jin Jia, et al. Spatial patterns of soil microbial biomass carbon and factors influencing the distribution in a typical desert ecosystem[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2014, 31(6): 1125-1131. ]
[6]	史常明, 柳洋, 张富荣, 等. 焉耆盆地绿洲农田不同类型土壤有机碳空间分布特征及储量估算[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(3): 672-681.
	[ Shi Changming, Liu Yang, Zhang Furong, et al. Soil organic carbon spatial distribution and reserve estimation of different soil types in Yanqi Basin oasis area[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(3): 672-681. ]
[7]	张淑香, 张文菊, 徐明岗. 土壤活性有机碳的影响因素与综合分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(6): 1178-1179. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.009
	[ Zhang Shuxiang, Zhang Wenju, Xu Minggang. Influencing factors and comprehensive analysis of soil active organic carbon[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(6): 1178-1179. ] doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.06.009
[8]	侯翠翠. 水文条件变化对三江平原沼泽湿地土壤碳蓄积的影响[D]. 长春: 中国科学院研究生院(东北地理与农业生态研究所), 2012.
	[ Hou Cuicui. Effects of Hydrological Changes on Soil Carbon Sequestration of Marsh in the Sanjiang Plain[D]. Changchun: Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology), 2012. ]
[9]	Schimel J, Balser T C, Wallenstein M. Microbial stress‐response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function[J]. Ecology, 2007, 88(6): 1386-1394. doi: 10.1890/06-0219 pmid: 17601131
[10]	Denef K, Six J, Bossuyt H, et al. Influence of dry-wet cycles on the interrelationship between aggregate, particulate organic matter, and microbial community dynamics[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2001, 33(12): 1599-1611. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00076-1
[11]	Sotta E D, Meir P, Malhi Y, et al. Soil CO₂efflux in a tropical forest in the central Amazon[J]. Global Change Biology, 2004, 10(5): 601-617. doi: 10.1111/gcb.2004.10.issue-5
[12]	Davidson E A, Verchot L V, Cattanio J H, et al. Effects of soil water content on soil respiration in forests and cattle pastures of eastern Amazonia[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2000, 48(1): 53-69. doi: 10.1023/A:1006204113917
[13]	Buchmann N, Guehl J M, Barigah T S, et al. Interseasonal comparison of CO₂concentrations,isotopic composition and carbon dynamics in an Amazonian rainforest(French Guiana)[J]. Oecologia, 1997, 110(1): 120-131. doi: 10.1007/s004420050140 pmid: 28307460
[14]	Holt J A, Hodgen M J, Lamb D. Soil respiration in the seasonally dry tropics near Townsville, North Queensland[J]. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 1990, 28: 737-745.
[15]	邓琦, 周国逸, 刘菊秀, 等. CO₂浓度倍增、高氮沉降和高降雨对南亚热带人工模拟森林生态系统土壤呼吸的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2009, 33(6): 1023-1033. doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2009.06.002
	[ Deng Qi, Zhou Guoyi, Liu Juxiu, et al. Effects of CO₂ enrichment, high nitrogen deposition and high precipitation on a model forest ecosystem in southern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2009, 33(6): 1023-1033. ] doi: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2009.06.002
[16]	Blazejewski G A, Stolt M H, Gold A J, et al. Macro and micromorphology of subsurface carbon in riparian zone soils[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2005, 69(4): 1320-1329. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0145
[17]	张丹丹. 三峡水库消落区土壤有机碳动态格局与微生物学特征[D]. 武汉: 中国科学院大学(中国科学院武汉植物园), 2020.
	[ Zhang Dandan. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamic and Microbiological Characteristics in the Fluctuating Zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir[D]. Wuhan: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences), 2020. ]
[18]	高灯州, 曾从盛, 章文龙, 等. 水淹频率增加对闽江口湿地土壤有机碳及其活性组分的影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2016, 36(3): 974-980.
	[ Gao Dengzhou, Zeng Congsheng, Zhang Wenlong, et al. Effects of increasing flooded frequency on soil organic carbon and its active composition in the Min River estuarine wetland[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2016, 36(3): 974-980. ]
[19]	Sutfin N A, Wohl E E, Dwire K A. Banking carbon: A review of organic carbon storage and physical factors influencing retention in floodplains and riparian ecosystems[J]. Earth surface Processess and Landforms, 2016, 41(1): 38-60. doi: 10.1002/esp.3857
[20]	王新英, 史军辉, 刘茂秀, 等. 洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游天然胡杨林叶渗透调节物质及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(6): 1544-1551.
	[ Wang Xinying, Shi Junhui, Liu Maoxiu, et al. Effects of flood overtopping on leaf osmotic adjustment substances and antioxidant enzyme activities of natural Populus euphratica forest in the middle reaches of Tarim River[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2020, 37(6): 1544-1551. ]
[21]	袁继红, 任琼, 周莉荫, 等. 鄱阳湖湿地不同环境条件土壤有机碳组分特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(6): 1323-1329.
	[ Yuan Jihong, Ren Qiong, Zhou Liyin, et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of soil organic carbon components under different environmental conditions in Poyang Lake wetland[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2023, 42(6): 1323-1329. ]
[22]	侯翠翠, 宋长春, 李英臣, 等. 不同水分条件下小叶章湿地表土有机碳及活性有机碳组分季节动态[J]. 环境科学, 2011, 32(1): 290-297.
	[ Hou Cuicui, Song Changchun, Li Yingchen, et al. Seasonal dynamics of soil organic carbon and active organic carbon fractionsin calamagrostis angustifolia wetlands topsoil under different water conditions[J]. Environmental Science, 2011, 32(1): 290-297. ]
[23]	王红丽, 肖春玲, 李朝君, 等. 崇明东滩湿地土壤有机碳空间分异特征及影响因素[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(7): 1522-1528.
	[ Wang Hongli, Xiao Chunling, Li Zhaojun, et al. Spatial variability of organic carbon in the soil of wetlands in chongming dongtan and its influential factors[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2009, 28(7): 1522-1528. ]
[24]	杨玉海, 李卫红, 李慧敏, 等. 塔里木河下游退化生态系统恢复对土壤有机碳的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2010, 41(4): 855-859.
	[ Yang Yuhai, Li Weihong, Li Huimin, et al. Impacts of degraded ecological system restoration on soil organic carbon in inland basin of Tarim River[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2010, 41(4): 855-859. ]
[25]	孙彩丽. 陕北退耕还林(草)的土壤固碳效应及对碳组分的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2014.
	[ Sun Caili. Effect of Vegetation Restoration on Soil Cerbon Sequestrstion and Carbon Fractins in Northern Shanxi[D]. Yangling: North West Agriculture and Forestry University, 2014. ]
[26]	Liang B C, Mackenzie A F, Schnitzer M, et al. Management-induced change in labile soil organic matter under continuous corn in eastern Canadian soils[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1997, 26(2): 88-94. doi: 10.1007/s003740050348
[27]	Wu J, O"Donnell A G, He Z L, et al. Fumigation-extraction method for the measurement of soil microbial biomass-S[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 1994, 26(1): 117-125. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90203-8
[28]	Blair G, Lefroy R, Lisle L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46(7): 393-406. doi: 10.1071/AR9950393
[29]	Canarini A, Kiaer L P, Dijkstra F A. Soil carbon loss regulated by drought intensity and available substrate: A meta-analysis[J]. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 2017, 112(38-717): 90-99.
[30]	高俊琴, 徐兴良, 张锋, 等. 水分梯度对若尔盖高寒湿地土壤活性有机碳分布的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(3): 126-131.
	[ Gao Junqin, Xu Xingliang, Zhang Feng, et al. Distribution characteristics of soil labile carbon along water table gradient of alpine wetland soils[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 22(3): 126-131. ]
[31]	王棣, 耿增超, 佘雕, 等. 秦岭典型林分土壤有机碳储量及碳氮垂直分布[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(16): 5421-5429.
	[ Wang Di, Geng Zengchao, She Diao, et al. Soil organic carbon storage and vertical distribution of carbon and nitrogen across different forest types in the Qinling Mountains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(16): 5421-5429. ]
[32]	侯浩, 张宋智, 关晋宏, 等. 小陇山不同林龄锐齿栎林土壤有机碳和全氮积累特征[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(24): 8025-8033.
	[ Hou Hao, Zhang Songzhi, Guan Jinhong, et al. Accumulation of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata forests at different age stagesin the Xiaolongshan Mountains, Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(24): 8025-8033. ]
[33]	John L. Let the soil work for us[J]. Bioscience, 1997, 47(5): 321-322. doi: 10.2307/1313195
[34]	万忠梅. 水位对小叶章湿地CO₂、CH₄排放及土壤微生物活性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2013, 22(3): 465-468.
	[ Wan Zhongmei. Effects of water level on CO₂ and CH₄ flux and soil microbial activity in Calamagrostis angustifolia marsh[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 22(3): 465-468. ]
[35]	Rinklebe J, Langer U. Microbial diversity in three floodplain soils at the Elbe River(Germany)[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2006, 38(8): 2144-2151. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.01.018
[36]	Poret-Peterson A T, Ji B Engelhaupt E, Gulledge J. Soil microbial biomass along a hydrologic gradient in a subsiding coastal bottomland forest: Implications for future subsidence and sea-level rise[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2007, 39(2): 641-645. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.09.016
[37]	Lipson D A, Schmidt S K, Monson R K. Carbon availability and temperature control the post-snowmelt decline in alpine soil microbial biomass[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2000, 32(4): 441-448. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00068-1
[38]	张哲, 王邵军, 李霁航, 等. 土壤易氧化有机碳对西双版纳热带森林群落演替的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(17): 6257-6263.
	[ Zhang Zhe, Wang Shaojun, Li Jihang, et al. Response of soil readily oxidizable carbon to community succession of Xishuangbanna tropicalforests[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(17): 6257-6263. ]
[39]	贾国梅, 牛俊涛, 席颖. 三峡库区消落带湿地土壤有机碳及其组分特征[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(5): 926-931.
	[ Jia Guomei, Niu Juntao, Xi Ying. Characteristics of soil organic carbon and its fraction at riparian wetland of There Gorges Reservoir Area[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(5): 926-931. ]
[40]	Shao X X, Yang W Y, Wu M. Seasonal dynamics of soil labile organic carbon and enzyme activities in relation to vegetation types in Hangzhou Bay Tidal Flat Wetland[J]. PloS one, 2015, 10(11): 142677-142677.
[41]	Briggs S V, Maher M T, Tongway D J. Dissolved and particulate organic carbon in two wetlands in southwestern New South Wales, Australia[J]. Hydrobiologia, 1993, 264(1): 13-19. doi: 10.1007/BF00014660
[42]	康根丽, 杨玉盛, 司友涛, 等. 米槠人促更新林与杉木人工林叶片及凋落物溶解性有机物的数量和光谱学特征[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(8): 1946-1955.
	[ Kang Genli, Yang Yusheng, Si Youtao, et al. Quantities and spectral characteristics of DOM released from leaf and litterfall in Castanopsis carlesii forest and Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(8): 1946-1955. ]
[43]	张耀鸿, 王艳玲, 李仁英, 等. 互花米草入侵对潮滩土壤活性有机碳组分的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2012, 43(1): 102-106.
	[ Zhang Yaohong, Wang Yanling, Li Renying, et al. Effects of spartina alterniflora invasion on active soil organic carbon in the coastal marshes[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2012, 43(1): 102-106. ]
[44]	Post W M, Kwon K C. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential[J]. Global Change Biology, 2010, 6(3): 317-327. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x
[45]	张金波, 宋长春. 土地利用方式对土壤碳库影响的敏感性评价指标[J]. 生态环境, 2003, 12(4): 500-504.
	[ Zhang Jinbo, Song Changchun. The sensitive evaluation indicators of effects of land-use change on soil carbon pool[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2003, 12(4): 500-504. ]
[46]	朱志建, 姜培坤, 徐秋芳. 不同森林植被下土壤微生物量碳和易氧化态碳的比较[J]. 林业科学研究, 2006, 19(4): 523-526.
	[ Zhu Zhijian, Jiang Peikun, Xu Qiufang. Study on the active organic carbon in soil under different types of vegetation[J]. Forest Research, 2006, 19(4): 523-526. ]
[47]	崔东, 闫俊杰, 刘海军, 等. 伊犁河谷不同类型湿地土壤活性有机碳组分及其含量差异[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(7): 2087-2093.
	[ Cui Dong, Yan Junjie, Liu Haijun, et al. Soil labile organic carbon fractions and the differences of their concentrations in different types of wetlands in Yili valley[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(7): 2087-2093. ]

土层/cm	土壤有机碳含量/（g·kg^-1）
土层/cm	W1	W2	W3	W4
0~10	9.35±1.10 Aa	4.32±1.01 Ba	4.02±1.72 Bab	6.91±2.30 ABa
10~20	4.91±2.83 Ab	3.60±0.96 Aab	5.76±2.72 Aa	3.92±0.49 Ab
20~40	3.71±0.45 Ab	2.71±0.38 Bb	2.64±0.36 Bb	3.54±0.18 Ab
40~60	2.95±0.53 Ab	2.70±0.20 Ab	2.57±0.24 Ab	3.33±0.51 Ab
60~100	2.73±0.53 Ab	2.79±0.21 Ab	3.32±0.20 Aab	3.01±0.29 Ab

指标	W1 SOC	W1 MBC	W1 EOC	W1 DOC	W2 SOC	W2 MBC	W2 EOC	W2 DOC	W3 SOC	W3 MBC	W3 EOC	W3 DOC	W4 SOC		W4 MBC	W4 EOC	W4 DOC
W1 SOC	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W1 MBC	0.37	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W1 EOC	0.42	0.18	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W1 DOC	0.69^**	0.38	0.23	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W2 SOC	0.61^*	0.21	-0.10	0.72^**	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W2 MBC	-0.06	-0.47	-0.10	-0.26	-0.19	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W2 EOC	-0.31	-0.57	0.30	-0.16	-0.29	-0.06	1	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W2 DOC	0.84^**	0.22	0.23	0.66^**	0.67^**	0.19	-0.34	1	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W3 SOC	0.18	0.24	0.44	0.33	0.45	-0.36	0.17	0.10	1	-	-	-	-		-	-	-
W3 MBC	0.32	-0.01	-0.01	0.17	0.06	0.23	-0.13	0.42	-0.50	1	-	-	-		-	-	-
W3 EOC	-0.51	0.11	0.28	-0.44	-0.74^*	-0.03	0.41	-0.63^*	0.01	-0.14	1	-	-		-	-	-
W3 DOC	0.74^**	0.44	0.64^*	0.63^*	0.45	-0.32	-0.13	0.57^*	0.58^*	-0.17	-0.29	1	-		-	-	-
W4 SOC	0.89^**	0.24	0.47	0.64^**	.637^*	0.04	-0.26	0.88^**	0.19	0.38	-0.53^*	0.60^*		1	-	-	-
W4 MBC	0.57^*	0.40	0.06	0.63^*	0.51	-0.35	-0.17	0.54^*	-0.05	0.69^**	-0.31	0.21	0.54^*		1	-	-
W4 EOC	0.33	0.08	-0.03	0.18	0.46	0.15	-0.32	0.18	0.35	-0.51	-0.38	0.27	0.27		-0.24	1	-
W4 DOC	-0.09	0.27	0.05	0.08	0.18	-0.47	-0.02	-0.32	0.63^*	-0.85^**	0.04	0.31	-0.19		-0.37	0.54^*	1

洪水漫溢对塔里木河中游河岸胡杨林土壤有机碳及活性组分的影响

Effects of flood overflow on soil organic carbon and active components of Populus euphratica forest in the middle reaches of the Tarim River

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 47

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	王婷, 沈赣华, 刘兵, 孙莹琳, 汪再光. 天山北坡经济带水库群时空变化特征及驱动机制[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(9): 1456-1467.
[2]	杨荣钦, 肖玉磊, 池苗苗, 穆振侠. 近20 a塔里木河流域人类活动及景观生态风险时空变化[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(6): 1010-1020.
[3]	程晓瑜, 吕洁华. 塔里木河流域碳储量的气候影响机制及地形分异下的归因[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(5): 865-875.
[4]	张音, 孙从建, 刘庚, 钞锦龙, 耿甜伟. 近20 a塔里木河流域山区NDSI对气候变化的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(10): 1639-1648.
[5]	陈爱军,张寅,楚志刚. 基于FY-4A QPE的中亚五国降水时空分布特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(9): 1369-1381.
[6]	杜慧娟, 王光耀, 冉光妍, 吕密. 面向SDGs的塔里木河流域农业灰水足迹分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(7): 1184-1193.
[7]	赵克明, 孙鸣婧, 李霞, 施俊杰, 安大维, 许婷婷. 两种典型大气扩散指数在新疆的分布特征及其适用性对比[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(5): 691-702.
[8]	程谦, 塔依尔江·艾山, 玉米提·哈力克, 王新英. 塔里木河中游不同林龄胡杨活立木空心树特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(2): 247-256.
[9]	骆成彦,陈伏龙,何朝飞,龙爱华,乔长录. CMADS在玉龙喀什河径流模拟中的适用性研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(4): 1090-1101.
[10]	王子康,焦阿永,凌红波,单钱娟,张广朋,王文琦. 不同灌溉模式下胡杨断根处理根蘖繁殖特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(4): 1133-1142.
[11]	张林,张云玲,马松梅,张丹,贺凌云. 准噶尔盆地大赖草分布格局及关键因子分析[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(3): 863-871.
[12]	刘哲杰,白涛,高凡,杨鹏年,王光焰. 面向生态系统多对象保护与修复的水库优化调度[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(2): 410-418.
[13]	周龙,杨鹏年,王永鹏,艾力西尔·库尔班,王光焰. 塔里木河下游河段耗水特征与输水方式演变研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(1): 144-154.
[14]	常帅,于红博,曹聪明,马梓策,刘月璇,李想. 锡林郭勒草原土壤有机碳分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(5): 1355-1366.
[15]	孔子洁,邓铭江,凌红波,王光焰,徐生武,王增如. 塔里木河下游河道断流区生态安全评估与生态恢复对策[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(4): 1128-1139.