小兴安岭原始椴树红松林与次生杨桦林土壤氮组分特征

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0868

中国农学通报 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (26): 69-75.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0868

所属专题：生物技术；园艺；耕地保护

• 资源·环境·生态·土壤·气象 • 上一篇下一篇

小兴安岭原始椴树红松林与次生杨桦林土壤氮组分特征

刁云飞¹^,²^,³(), 张苏², 丛喜东², 杜倩², 王琪瑶², 刘学²^,⁴()

¹东北林业大学,哈尔滨 150040
²黑龙江省生态研究所,哈尔滨 150081
³黑龙江牡丹江森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站,哈尔滨 150081
⁴黑龙江省森林生态与林业工程重点实验室,哈尔滨 150081

收稿日期:2021-09-06 修回日期:2021-11-26 出版日期:2022-09-15 发布日期:2022-09-09
通讯作者: 刘学
作者简介:刁云飞,男,1982年出生,黑龙江哈尔滨人,副研究员,博士在读,研究方向：森林生态。通信地址：150081 黑龙江省哈尔滨市哈平路134号黑龙江省林业科学院425室,E-mail： diaoyunfei@126.com。
基金资助:
黑龙江省省属科研院所基本科研业务费项目C类“雪被厚度对土壤微生物群落结构的影响”(CZKYF2020C010);“森林生态屏障保育与资源利用国家技术创新中心”(CZKYF2020A003)

Characteristics of Soil Nitrogen Components of Original Tilia Pinus Koraiensis Forest and Secondary Poplar-Birch Forest in Lesser Khingan Mountains

DIAO Yunfei¹^,²^,³(), ZHANG Su², CONG Xidong², DU Qian², WANG Qiyao², LIU Xue²^,⁴()

¹Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040
²Heilongjiang Institute of Ecology, Harbin 150081
³Heilongjiang Mudanjiang Forest Ecosystem National Positioning Observation Research Station, Harbin 150081
⁴Heilongjiang Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Forestry Engineering, Harbin 150081

Received:2021-09-06 Revised:2021-11-26 Online:2022-09-15 Published:2022-09-09
Contact: LIU Xue

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探讨小兴安岭原始椴树红松林成熟林、中幼龄林及次生杨桦林的土壤氮组分特征,为评价该地区不同森林植被对土壤氮库的影响提供基础数据。以原始椴树红松林成熟林、中幼龄林和次生杨桦林为研究对象,采样分析了土壤容重、总有机碳、全磷、全氮、速效氮、铵态氮、硝态氮等土壤理化性质。结果表明：全氮、速效氮、铵态氮、硝态氮含量均随土层加深而递减。不同林型同一土层,椴树红松林成熟林及中幼龄林之间土壤全氮和硝态氮含量差异显著(P<0.05),但二者与次生杨桦林之间差异均不显著。土壤全氮与铵态氮、孔隙度呈极显著正相关(P<0.01),与总有机碳、速效氮呈显著相关(P<0.05);土壤硝态氮与速效氮、孔隙度呈极显著正相关(P<0.01),与凋落物量现存量呈显著相关(P<0.05),与含水率呈极显著负相关(P<0.01);铵态氮与全氮、孔隙度呈极显著正相关(P<0.01);速效氮与孔隙度呈极显著正相关(P<0.01),与全氮呈显著正相关(P<0.05),与其他指标相关关系不显著。在不同的氮组分中,速效氮、硝态氮作为优势氮种,对小兴安岭椴树红松林及次生杨桦林植被生长及土壤有机碳的影响作用更显著。地上凋落物对于土壤碳氮的贡献具有延后性,3种林型土壤氮组分差异是土壤理化性质、凋落物、土壤环境等多种因素综合作用的结果。

关键词: 椴树红松林, 次生杨桦林, 氮组分, 差异, 相关

Abstract:

To evaluate the effects of the different forests on soil nitrogen pool, the study was conducted to detect the characteristics of soil nitrogen components of Tilia Pinus Koraiensis forest in different periods and secondary poplar-birch forest in Lesser Khingan Mountains. Tilia Pinus Koraiensis forest in different periods and secondary poplar-birch forest were taken as the study objects, and soil samples were analyzed for the physical and chemical properties including soil bulk density, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available nitrogen, nitric nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen and etc. The results showed that the content of total nitrogen, available nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen all decreased with the deepening of the soil layer. In the same soil layer of different forest types, soil total nitrogen content and nitrate nitrogen content between mature forest and young forest of Tilia Pinus Koraiensis were significantly different (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between Tilia Pinus Koraiensis forest in the two periods and secondary poplar-birch forest. Total soil nitrogen had extremely and significantly positive correlation with ammonium nitrogen and porosity (P<0.01), and significant correlation with total organic carbon and available nitrogen (P<0.05). Soil nitrate nitrogen had extremely and significantly positive correlation with available nitrogen and porosity (P<0.01), significant correlation with the present stocking amount of litter (P<0.05), but extremely and significantly negative correlation with moisture content (P<0.01). Ammonium nitrogen had extremely and significantly positive correlation with total nitrogen and porosity (P<0.01). Available nitrogen had extremely and significantly positive correlation with porosity (P<0.01), significantly positive correlation with total nitrogen (P<0.05), but no correlation with other indicators. Among different nitrogen components, available nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were the dominant types, which had more significant effects on soil organic carbon and forest growth. The contribution of the ground litter to carbon and nitrogen was usually delayed for some reasons, and the differences of soil nitrogen components of the three forest types were the result of the combined effects of many factors such as soil physical and chemical properties, forest litter, soil environment and so on.

Key words: Tilia Pinus Koraiensis forest, secondary poplar-birch forest, nitrogen components, difference, correlation

中图分类号:

刁云飞, 张苏, 丛喜东, 杜倩, 王琪瑶, 刘学. 小兴安岭原始椴树红松林与次生杨桦林土壤氮组分特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(26): 69-75.

DIAO Yunfei, ZHANG Su, CONG Xidong, DU Qian, WANG Qiyao, LIU Xue. Characteristics of Soil Nitrogen Components of Original Tilia Pinus Koraiensis Forest and Secondary Poplar-Birch Forest in Lesser Khingan Mountains[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(26): 69-75.

图/表 5

参考文献 28

[1]	GRANT R F. Nitrogen mineralization drives the response of forest productivity to soil warming: Modelling in ecosys vs. measurements from the Harvard soil heating experiment[J]. Ecological modelling, 2014, 288:38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.05.015 URL
[2]	张笑千, 陈卓, 常鹏,等. 土壤氮素矿化研究进展[J]. 北方园艺, 2010(15):33-36.
[3]	李聪, 吕晶花, 陆梅,等. 文山自然保护区典型植被土壤碳氮储量变化特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021:1-15[2021-08-18]. https://doi.org/10.13292/j.1000-4890.202110.019.
[4]	MOFFAT A S. Global nitrogen overload problem grows critical[J]. Science, 1998. 279: 988-989. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5353.988 URL
[5]	陈立新, 姜一,等. 红松混交林凋落物氮储量及分解释放对土壤氮的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015.34(1):114-120.
[6]	张萍, 章广琦, 赵一娉,等. 黄土丘陵区不同森林类型叶片-凋落物-土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2018.38(14):5087-5098.
[7]	马红亮, 闫聪微, 高人,等. 林下凋落物去除与施氮对针叶林和阔叶林土壤氮的影响[J]. 环境科学研究, 2013.26(12):1316-1324.
[8]	袁志忠, Singh A N, 胡颖圆,等. 添加凋落物对土壤跳虫群落的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2014.45(4):841-846.
[9]	KUZYAKOV Y, HORWATH W R, DORODNIKOV M. Review and synthesis of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO²on soil processes: NO changes in pools, but increased fluxes and accelerated cycles[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2019, 128:66-78. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.10.005 URL
[10]	WANG X, DAI W W, FILLEY T R, et al. Above ground litter addition for five years changes the chemical composition of soil organic matter in a temperate deciduous forest[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2021,,Aug.
[11]	阮超越, 刘小飞, 吕茂奎,等. 杉木人工林凋落物添加与去除对土壤碳氮及酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2020.57(4):954-962.
[12]	马寰菲, 解梦怡. 秦岭不同海拔森林土壤-植物-凋落物化学计量特征对土壤氮组分的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020.39(3):749-757.
[13]	王泽西, 陈倩妹, 黄尤优,等. 川西亚高山森林土壤呼吸和微生物生物量碳氮对施氮的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2019.39(19):7197-7207.
[14]	姚甜甜, 张鹏, 万丹,等. 藏东南色季拉山迎风坡土壤物理性质垂直梯度差异性分析[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(24):94-102.
[15]	CHEN S P, WANG W T, XU W T, et al. Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States Of America, 2018, 115:4027-4032.
[16]	林宇, 何宗明, 丁国昌,等. 闽东南沿海2种防护林土壤有机碳和全氮垂直分布[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015, 43(9):67-71.
[17]	裴蓓, 高国荣, 凋落物分解对森林土壤碳库影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报2018.34(26):58-64.
[18]	陈晓萍, 郭炳桥, 钟全林,等. 武夷山不同海拔黄山松细根碳、氮、磷化学计量特征对土壤养分的适应[J]. 生态学报, 2018.38( 1) : 273-281.
[19]	王鑫, 罗雪萍, 字洪标.等. 青海森林凋落物生态化学计量特征及其影响因子[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8):1-14.
[20]	赵耀, 王百田, 李萌,等. 晋西吕梁山区3种森林碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2018.24(3):518-524.
[21]	BINGHAM A H, COTRUFO M F. Organic nitrogen storage in mineral soil[J].Implications for policy and management[J]. Sci total environment, 2016,May 1;551-552:116-26.
[22]	LI Z, TIAN D, WANG B, Wang J, et al. Microbes drive global soil nitrogen mineralization and availability[J]. Glob Chang Biol, 2019, Mar,25(3):1078-1088.
[23]	CHMITZ A, SANDERS T G M, BOLTE A, et al. Responses of forest ecosystems in Europe to decreasing nitrogen deposition[J]. Environ Pollution, 2019, Jan; 244:980-994. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.101 URL
[24]	RIBEIRO-KUMARA C, KÖSTER E, AALTONEN H, et al. How do forest fires affect soil greenhouse gas emissions in upland boreal forests?[J]. A review. Environment Res, 2020,May,184:109328.
[25]	SUBASHREE K, DAR J A, SUNDARAPANDIAN S. Variation in soil organic carbon stock with forest type in tropical forests of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary,Western Ghats, India[J]. Environment monitor assess, 2019, Oct, 30;191(11):690.
[26]	VESTERDAL L, CLARKE N, SIGURDSSON B D, et al. Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests?[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2013, 309: 4-18. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.017 URL
[27]	CALLESEN I, BORKEN W, KALBITZ K, et al. Long-term development of nitrogen flues in a coniferous ecosystem: does soil freezing trigger nitrate leaching?[J]. Journal of plant nutrition and soil science, 2007, 170(2):186-196.
[28]	SOCCI A M, TEMPLER P H. Temporal patterns of inorganic nitrogen uptake by mature sugar maple(Acer saccharum Marsh.) and red spruce (picea rubens Sarg.) trees using two common approaches[J]. Plant ecology and diversity, 2011, 4(2/3):141-152. doi: 10.1080/17550874.2011.624557 URL

林型	海拔/m	坡度/°	坡位	坡向	平均胸径/cm	郁闭度/%
中幼龄林	400±83	20±2	中坡	南	14.9.0±2.02	80±5
成熟林	406±50	12±3	中坡	西南	23.06±5.00	75±5
杨桦林	316±22	15±2	中坡	南	17.4±2.32	85±5

林型	海拔/m	坡度/°	坡位	坡向	平均胸径/cm	郁闭度/%
中幼龄林	400±83	20±2	中坡	南	14.9.0±2.02	80±5
成熟林	406±50	12±3	中坡	西南	23.06±5.00	75±5
杨桦林	316±22	15±2	中坡	南	17.4±2.32	85±5

林型	土层深度	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	铵态氮/(mg/kg)
红松林成熟林	0~10	6.36±0.55 Ba	201.13±13.32 Aa	77.89±12.71 Ba	78.55±13.47 Aa
	10~20	3.52±0.15 Bb	138.08±23.97 Aa	60.19±7.85 Bb	61.23±6.13 Aa
	20~30	2.46±0.24 Bb	115.62±22.26 Aa	40.98±5.67 Bb	59.38±6.09 Aa
红松林中幼龄林	0~10	9.11±0.42 Aa	258.42±38.68 Aa	64.03±0.76 Ba	102.44±7.29 Aa
	10~20	4.75±0.45 Ab	136.5±13.74 Aa	45.63±1.76 Bb	68.33±23.9 Aa
	20~30	3.08±0.39 Ab	120.87±21.62 Aa	35.36±2.76 Bb	48.49±14.32 Aa
次生杨桦林	0~10	8.13±0.76 ABa	273.11±43.5 Aa	75.19±4.74 Aa	91.22±17.23 Aa
	10~20	4.37±1.76 ABb	163.35±15.89 Aa	52.81±2.79 Ab	76.95±18.55 Aa
	20~30	3.40±1.70 ABb	143.97±43.17 Aa	43.97±2.99 Ab	67.59±18.36 Aa

林型	土层深度	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	硝态氮/(mg/kg)	铵态氮/(mg/kg)
红松林成熟林	0~10	6.36±0.55 Ba	201.13±13.32 Aa	77.89±12.71 Ba	78.55±13.47 Aa
	10~20	3.52±0.15 Bb	138.08±23.97 Aa	60.19±7.85 Bb	61.23±6.13 Aa
	20~30	2.46±0.24 Bb	115.62±22.26 Aa	40.98±5.67 Bb	59.38±6.09 Aa
红松林中幼龄林	0~10	9.11±0.42 Aa	258.42±38.68 Aa	64.03±0.76 Ba	102.44±7.29 Aa
	10~20	4.75±0.45 Ab	136.5±13.74 Aa	45.63±1.76 Bb	68.33±23.9 Aa
	20~30	3.08±0.39 Ab	120.87±21.62 Aa	35.36±2.76 Bb	48.49±14.32 Aa
次生杨桦林	0~10	8.13±0.76 ABa	273.11±43.5 Aa	75.19±4.74 Aa	91.22±17.23 Aa
	10~20	4.37±1.76 ABb	163.35±15.89 Aa	52.81±2.79 Ab	76.95±18.55 Aa
	20~30	3.40±1.70 ABb	143.97±43.17 Aa	43.97±2.99 Ab	67.59±18.36 Aa

土壤性质		有机碳		全磷
有机碳		1
全磷		0.553^**		1
全氮	0.443^*		-0.151		1
硝态氮	0.752^**		0.493^**		0.267	1
铵态氮	0.207		-0.047		0.500^*	0.160	1
速效氮	0.828^**		0.350		0.471^*	0.574^**	0.260	1
凋落物	0.316		-0.034		-0.041	0.420^*	0.006	-0.378	1
含水率	-0.616^**		-0.530^**		-0.103	-0.794^**	-0.301	0.147	-0.318	1
孔隙度	0.794^**		0.300		0.730^**	0.659^**	0.515^**	0.708^**	0.210	-0.536^*	1
C/N	0.635		0.353		0.84	0.533	0.413	0.156	0.372	-0.470	0.689^*	1

小兴安岭原始椴树红松林与次生杨桦林土壤氮组分特征

Characteristics of Soil Nitrogen Components of Original Tilia Pinus Koraiensis Forest and Secondary Poplar-Birch Forest in Lesser Khingan Mountains

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 28

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	卢倩倩, 冯琳骄, 王爽, 古力扎提·包尔汗, 褚韧, 周龙. 复合盐碱胁迫对鲜食葡萄生理生化指标的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1): 62-70.
[2]	崔莹莹, 周波, 陈义勇, 刘嘉裕, 黎健龙, 唐颢, 唐劲驰. 广东茶区土壤肥力时空变化分析与综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1): 85-95.
[3]	郑本川, 张锦芳, 蒋俊, 崔成, 柴靓, 黄友涛, 周正鉴, 李浩杰, 蒋梁材. 不同熟期“川油”系列甘蓝型油菜品种主要性状与产量的相关分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(7): 7-17.
[4]	付焱焱, 李云峰, 韩冬, 马树庆. 吉林省粮食主产区玉米生长季水分盈亏及其对产量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(7): 99-105.
[5]	姚金保, 杨学明, 周淼平, 张鹏. 江苏省小麦参试品种（系）产量与产量构成因素分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(6): 15-19.
[6]	次旺顿珠, 杜军, 次旺, 平措桑旦. 1981—2020年西藏“一江两河”主要农区负积温的时空变化特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(5): 99-105.
[7]	华利民, 刘慧颖, 薛颖昊, 兰希平, 王艺陶, 蔡广兴. 综合指数法定量评价地膜产品综合效应初探[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(4): 76-80.
[8]	郭玉林, 张立果, 郑重, 王春伟, 徐全忠, 武云喜, 李光鹏, 苏小虎, 张立. 戴瑞奶绵羊血清中生殖激素含量与超排效果相关性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(35): 90-96.
[9]	范婷, 赵凯敏, 刘明敏, 杨迪迪, 丁锦峰, 朱敏, 李春燕, 朱新开, 郭文善. 苏中地区稻茬小麦生产措施采用特征与效益调研分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(32): 155-164.
[10]	李舟, 杨雅云, 戴陆园, 张斐斐, 阿新祥, 董超, 王斌, 汤翠凤. 水稻白叶枯病抗性基因和相关因子研究利用进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(30): 91-99.
[11]	赵丽娟, 只佳增, 张建春, 杜浩, 周劲松, 刘学敏, 张荣琴. 香蕉种质资源叶片表型性状多样性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(30): 56-64.
[12]	李涌泉, 金赟, 李佳月, 孙学良, 陈树俊. 晋北谷子农艺和营养品质性状的相关性分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29): 22-30.
[13]	罗静静, 王贺亚, 柳延涛. 不同食葵品种间农艺性状及产量的比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(28): 7-12.
[14]	石丽红, 孙梅, 唐海明, 文丽, 李超, 程凯凯, 李微艳, 肖小平. 不同施肥模式下稻田土壤氮组分及微生物多样性研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(27): 106-110.
[15]	白苇, 胡杨, 李峰, 张宝英, 崔金丽, 杨素梅. 食葵氮磷钾肥对产量相关性状的影响及经济效益分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(26): 62-68.