不同植被类型土壤-微生物生物量及其化学计量特征的比较研究

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-1031

中国农学通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (9): 40-47.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-1031

不同植被类型土壤-微生物生物量及其化学计量特征的比较研究

田琴¹(), 丁新辉¹, 冯筱¹, 韩红江², 苟晨阳¹

¹ 咸阳师范学院，地理与环境学院，陕西咸阳 712000
² 北京市海淀区教师进修学校附属实验学校，北京 100101

收稿日期:2025-12-26 修回日期:2026-04-15 出版日期:2026-05-15 发布日期:2026-05-15
作者简介:
田琴，女，1986年出生，内蒙古巴彦淖尔人，讲师，博士，研究方向：土壤微生物生态。通信地址：712000 陕西省咸阳市渭城区文林路咸阳师范学院，E-mail：tianqin135@126.com。
基金资助:
陕西省教育厅2021年度科学研究计划一般专项“黄土丘陵区不同植被恢复土壤微生物的群落构建机制”(21JK0967); 陕西省“十四五”教育科学规划2024年度课题“城乡中学地理教师数字素养的现状与提升策略”(SGH24Y3016); 咸阳师范学院大学生创新创业训练计划项目“渭北旱源两种人工林在土壤固氮效益差异性研究”(202410722022)

Comparative Study on Soil-Microbial Biomass Contents and Its Stoichiometry of Different Vegetation Types

TIAN Qin¹(), DING Xinhui¹, FENG Xiao¹, HAN Hongjiang², GOU Chenyang¹

¹ College of Geography and Environment, Xianyang Normal University, Xianyang, Shaanxi 712000
² Shiyan School Attached to Haidian Teacher’s Training College, Beijing 100101

Received:2025-12-26 Revised:2026-04-15 Published:2026-05-15 Online:2026-05-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了揭示植被重建对土壤质量的改善效果，以鹫峰国家森林公园不同植被类型为研究对象，撂荒地作为对照，测定了土壤-微生物生物量碳(C)、氮(N)、磷(P)的含量，分析了其化学计量比、微生物熵(qMB)与化学计量不平衡性之间的关系。研究结果显示：（1）天然混交林土壤的C、N、P含量显著高于其他植被类型，表现出更强的养分富集能力；油松人工林、侧柏人工林和天然混交林的C:N和C:P比例显著高于栓皮栎林和撂荒地，表明其土壤碳积累优势；土壤N:P差异不显著。（2）土壤微生物生物量总体表现为油松林、侧柏林和混交林的含量高于栓皮栎林和撂荒地。（3）油松和侧柏土壤MBC:MBN显著高于撂荒地，但人工林之间无显著差异；土壤MBN:MBP未达显著性水平，而混交林和撂荒地MBC:MBP值最低。（4）油松人工林土壤微生物熵最大；其中微生物熵碳(qMBC)在MF最低(12.39%)。微生物熵氮、磷(qMBN、qMBP)在栎林(12.30%)最低。（5）不同植被类型间C:N_imb差异不显著；土壤-微生物C:P_imb和N:P_imb在栎林最低，天然混交林达到最高。本研究发现天然混交林是提升土壤肥力的最优模式。因此，在植被恢复过程中，应优先构建针阔混交林、合理配置油松、侧柏等树种，以实现近自然化的生态重建方案。该研究为城市森林土壤质量评估、植被恢复策略优化提供了全新的生物学依据与实践参考，有助于促进理论创新与生态建设需求的有效衔接。

关键词: 人工林, 土壤养分, 土壤微生物量, 生态化学计量, 微生物熵

Abstract:

To reveal the improvement effect of vegetation restoration on soil quality, different vegetation types in Jiufeng National Forest Park were selected as research objects, with abandoned land as the control. The contents of soil-microbe biomass carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) were determined, and the relationships among their stoichiometric ratios, microbial entropy (qMB), and stoichiometric imbalance were analyzed. The research results showed that: (1) the contents of soil C, N, and P in the natural mixed forest were significantly higher than those in other vegetation types. In addition, the C:N and C:P ratios in the Pinus tabulaeformis plantation, Platycladus orientalis plantation, and natural mixed forest were significantly higher than those in the Quercus variabilis forest and abandoned land, while the soil N:P ratio showed no significant difference. (2) The overall content of soil microbial biomass was higher in the Pinus tabulaeformis forest, Platycladus orientalis forest, and mixed forest than in the Quercus variabilis forest and abandoned land. (3) The MBC:MBN of the soil in the Pinus tabulaeformis and Platycladus orientalis plantations was significantly higher than that in the abandoned land, but there was no significant difference between the two plantations. The soil MBN:MBP did not reach a significant level, while the MBC:MBP values in the mixed forest and abandoned land were the lowest. (4) The soil microbial entropy in the Pinus tabulaeformis plantation was the largest; among which, the microbial entropy carbon (qMBC) was the lowest in the MF (12.39%). The microbial entropy nitrogen and phosphorus (qMBN, qMBP) were the lowest in the oak forest (12.30%). (5) There was no significant difference in C:N_imb among different vegetation types; the soil-microbe C:P_imb and N:P_imb were the lowest in the oak forest, and the highest in the natural mixed forest. This study found that the natural mixed forest is the optimal model for improving soil fertility. When restoring vegetation, priority should be given to constructing mixed forests of coniferous and broad-leaved trees, and rationally configuring near-natural schemes such as Pinus tabulaeformis and Platycladus orientalis. This study provides new biological evidence and precise practical support for the assessment of urban forest soil quality and the optimization of vegetation restoration strategies, and helps to achieve the connection between theoretical innovation and ecological construction needs.

Key words: plantation forest, soil nutrients, soil microbial biomass, ecological stoichiometry, microbial entropy

中图分类号:

Q938微生物生态学和地区分布

田琴, 丁新辉, 冯筱, 韩红江, 苟晨阳. 不同植被类型土壤-微生物生物量及其化学计量特征的比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(9): 40-47.

TIAN Qin, DING Xinhui, FENG Xiao, HAN Hongjiang, GOU Chenyang. Comparative Study on Soil-Microbial Biomass Contents and Its Stoichiometry of Different Vegetation Types[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 40-47.

图/表 6

参考文献 21

[1]	褚海燕, 王艳芬, 时玉, 等. 土壤微生物生物地理学研究现状与发展态势[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(6):585-592.
[2]	HE X J, HOU E, VEEN G F, et al. Soil microbial biomass increases along elevational gradients in the tropics and subtropics but not elsewhere[J]. Global ecology and biogeography, 2020, 29(1):345-354. doi: 10.1111/geb.v29.2 URL
[3]	ZHAO H, SUN J, XU X L. Stoichiometry of soil microbial biomass carbon and microbial biomass nitrogen in China's temperate and alpine grasslands[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2017, 83:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.09.007 URL
[4]	王宝荣, 杨佳佳, 安韶山. 黄土丘陵区植被与地形特征对土壤和土壤微生物生物量生态化学计量特征的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(1):247-259. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201801.039
[5]	陈婕妮, 石思雨, 钟羡芳, 等. 武夷山不同海拔土壤微生物生物量碳、氮、磷含量及其生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(10):2999-3008.
[6]	张冠华, 牛俊, 易亮, 等. 不同植茶年限土壤-微生物生物量碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(4):969-976. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202304.015
[7]	贾培龙, 安韶山, 李程程, 等. 黄土高原森林带土壤养分和微生物量及其生态化学计量变化特[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(1):315-321.
[8]	于宗恺, 刘小伟, 朵莹, 等. 黄土高原退耕草地演替过程中土壤及微生物碳氮磷化学计量关系时空变化[J]. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(8):118-128.
[9]	田琴, 牛春梅, 谷口武士, 等. 黄土丘陵区植被类型与土壤微生物区系及生物量的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(20):6847-6854.
[10]	周正虎, 王传宽. 生态系统演替过程中土壤与微生物碳氮磷化学计量关系的变化[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(12):1257-1266. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2016.0218
[11]	STERNER R W, ELSER J J. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press,2002:8-27.
[12]	CLEVELAND C C, LIPTZIN D. C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2007, 85(3):235-252. doi: 10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0 URL
[13]	LI J W, LIU Y L, HAI X Y, et al. Dynamics of soil microbial C:N:P stoichiometry and its driving mechanisms following natural vegetation restoration after farmland abandonment[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 693:13361.
[14]	吴秀芝, 秉儒, 阎欣. 荒漠草地土壤微生物生物量和微生物熵对沙漠化的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(8):2691-2698. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201908.009
[15]	胡启武, 聂兰琴, 郑艳明. 沙化程度和林龄对湿地松叶片及林下土壤C,N,P化学计量特征影响[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(9):2246-2255.
[16]	SMITH J L, PAUL E A. The significance of soil microbial biomass estimations[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 1990, 22(5):699-705.
[17]	范跃新, 杨玉盛, 杨智杰, 等. 中亚热带常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段土壤活性有机碳含量及季节动态[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(18):5751-5759.
[18]	WARDLE D A, BARDGETT R D, KLIRONOMOS J N, et al. Ecological linkages between aboveground and below ground biota[J]. Science, 2004, 304(5677):1629-1633. doi: 10.1126/science.1094875 URL
[19]	ZECHMEISTER B S, KEIBLINGER K M, MOOSHAMMER M, et al. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining the productivity and health of soils[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2015, 90:104-115.
[20]	VICCA S, STOCKER B D, REED S C, et al. Using research networks to create the comprehensive datasets needed to assess nutrient availability as a key determinant of terrestrial carbon cycling[J]. Environmental research letters, 2018, 13(12):125006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaeae7 URL
[21]	ZHOU Z H, WANG C K. Soil resources and climate jointly drive variations in microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in China's forest ecosystems[J]. Biogeosciences, 2015, 12(22):6751-6760. doi: 10.5194/bg-12-6751-2015 URL

样地类型	坡向	坡度/°	郁闭度	海拔/m	树高/m
P	W	20.8	0.84	118	7.9
A	W	27.3	0.88	118	10.6
O	W	22.3	0.78	155	9.1
MF	W	30	0.85	256	5.5
B	W	25.7	—	137	—

样地类型	坡向	坡度/°	郁闭度	海拔/m	树高/m
P	W	20.8	0.84	118	7.9
A	W	27.3	0.88	118	10.6
O	W	22.3	0.78	155	9.1
MF	W	30	0.85	256	5.5
B	W	25.7	—	137	—

样地	pH	SOC/(g/kg)	TN/(g/kg)	TP/(mg/g)	C/N	C/P质量比	N/P
P	7.94±0.11c	12.01±2.64b	1.23±0.28b	0.57±0.04b	9.81±0.25a	21.42±5.88a	2.19±0.63a
A	7.26±0.375d	13.21±2.46b	1.27±0.20b	0.64±0.05b	10.38±0.98a	20.74±0.60a	2.01±0.15a
MF	6.78±0.32e	22.84±1.11a	2.21±0.04a	1.18±0.05a	10.29±0.54a	20.41±9.72a	1.98±0.92a
O	8.44±0.05b	2.70±2.04c	0.67±0.08b	0.48±0.08b	4.042±0.68c	5.62±0.49b	1.41±0.14a
B	8.70±0.22a	6.60±2.04bc	0.92±0.09b	0.65±0.47b	7.097±0.56b	10.11±2.28b	1.41±0.22a

样地	pH	SOC/(g/kg)	TN/(g/kg)	TP/(mg/g)	C/N	C/P质量比	N/P
P	7.94±0.11c	12.01±2.64b	1.23±0.28b	0.57±0.04b	9.81±0.25a	21.42±5.88a	2.19±0.63a
A	7.26±0.375d	13.21±2.46b	1.27±0.20b	0.64±0.05b	10.38±0.98a	20.74±0.60a	2.01±0.15a
MF	6.78±0.32e	22.84±1.11a	2.21±0.04a	1.18±0.05a	10.29±0.54a	20.41±9.72a	1.98±0.92a
O	8.44±0.05b	2.70±2.04c	0.67±0.08b	0.48±0.08b	4.042±0.68c	5.62±0.49b	1.41±0.14a
B	8.70±0.22a	6.60±2.04bc	0.92±0.09b	0.65±0.47b	7.097±0.56b	10.11±2.28b	1.41±0.22a

	TN	TP	MBC	MBN	MBP	C:N	C:P	N:P	MBC:N	MBC:P	MBN:P
SOC	0.981^**	0.652^**	0.681^**	0.824^**	0.843^**	0.760^**	0.838^**	0.693^**	-0.12	-0.2	-0.448
TN		0.633^*	0.556^*	0.745^**	0.774^**	0.634^*	0.783^**	0.702^**	-0.186	-0.273	-0.447
TP			0.308	0.670^**	0.706^**	0.520^*	0.231	-0.026	-0.385	-0.462	-0.401
MBC				0.734^**	0.706^**	0.890^**	0.856^**	0.646^**	0.387	0.332	-0.349
MBN					0.983^**	0.833^**	0.717^**	0.466	-0.285	-0.356	-0.402
MBP						0.802^**	0.697^**	0.459	-0.272	-0.381	-0.533^*
C:N							0.816^**	0.51	0.105	0.048	-0.363
C:P								0.910^**	0.187	0.127	-0.349
N:P									0.208	0.148	-0.295
MBC:N										0.958^**	-0.135
MBC:P											0.14

不同植被类型土壤-微生物生物量及其化学计量特征的比较研究

Comparative Study on Soil-Microbial Biomass Contents and Its Stoichiometry of Different Vegetation Types

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 21

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

	C:N_imb	C:P_imb	N:P_imb
SOC	0.648^**	0.897^**	0.750^**
TN	0.622^*	0.902^**	0.762^**
TP	0.724^**	0.520^*	0.094
MBC	0.286	0.487	0.648**
MBN	0.808^**	0.821^**	0.521^*
MBP	0.794^**	0.841^**	0.559^*
C:N	0.614^*	0.644^**	0.533^*
C:P	0.408	0.764^**	0.892^**
N:P	0.17	0.669^**	0.960^**
MBC:MBN	-0.684^**	-0.39	0.204
MBC:MBP	-0.733^**	-0.488	0.073
MBN:MBP	-0.275	-0.461	-0.534^*
C:N_imb		0.792^**	0.229
C:P_imb			0.734^**

[1]	肖于凡, 尹绍和, 秦汝平, 史怀平, 金枫翔, 赵锐智, 田静, 袁三红, 李德文, 罗启鹏. 曲靖马龙不同连作年限植烟土壤养分及微生物计量变化研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(9): 92-96.
[2]	王志平, 石颜通, 聂青, 胡潇怡, 安顺伟, 王福利, 曲明山, 徐进, 肖婷, 高飞, 张春红. 土壤养分速测技术和应用综述[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(8): 133-141.
[3]	李国龙, 陆钊华, 姚洁玲, 马留银, 杨德明, 徐建民, 胡志康, 张云东, 熊珊, 李光友. 修枝对桉树107无性系生长及碳汇效益的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(7): 70-76.
[4]	管西林, 田慎重, 刘振田, 董勤德, 董亮, 李强, 高新昊, 边文范, 张玉凤. 豆磷脂调理菌剂施用量对玉米-小麦轮作体系产量及养分吸收的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(7): 8-14.
[5]	彭翠仙, 王灿, 杨玉玲, 李玲, 李桂琳, 孙宏伟, 陶永宏. 不同生长年限野生叠鞘石斛根际土壤微生物群落的结构特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(7): 130-140.
[6]	苏岩, 赵晓英, 成日晟, 薛淑琴, 张英华. 苏尼特荒漠草原土壤主要养分变化特征及综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(5): 109-116.
[7]	李晔男, 刘彬昕, 贾鹏博, 尹智勇, 隋金超, 张国栋. 黑龙江省3种林分类型土壤养分特征与肥力评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(4): 67-74.
[8]	彭梓程, 李帅豪, 解世瑞, 杨海昌, 张凤华, 刘峰, 周中凯, 许运军. 密氮互作对盐碱地大豆生长及土壤养分的协同调控效应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(3): 109-118.
[9]	谷雨, 陈鸽, 刘琼峰, 周峻宇, 谢坚, 杨曾平, 饶中秀, 梁万栋, 张丽娜, 盛浩, 吴海勇. 有机肥施用对水稻产量及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(2): 120-127.
[10]	张冬敏, 黄婉莉, 陈心怡, 张朝坤, 肖世伟. 毛叶枣-大豆间作模式对毛叶枣土壤养分及果实品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2026, 42(1): 153-158.
[11]	王丽丽, 朱诗君, 卢晓红, 金树权. 木霉菌W1生物有机肥对滨海番茄种植的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(7): 100-106.
[12]	李相花, 范彩英, 徐芹, 侯剑, 王慧, 刘艳艳, 王恒, 刘光亚, 韩伟. 不同玉米大豆种植模式对作物产量、经济效益与土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(6): 22-28.
[13]	李艳兰, 蔡述江, 李晓亮, 胡新洲, 李成春, 李毅华, 高玉玺, 张玉荣, 业荣, 关翔, 杨进成. 有机肥替代部分化肥对鲜食蚕豆产量和土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(34): 82-86.
[14]	李安宁, 王炎, 马金慧, 王慧淼, 萨如拉, 邰继承, 姜珊, 赵廷超. 氮磷交互配施对玉米大豆复合种植土壤及幼苗生理特性影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(33): 81-87.
[15]	吴家龙, 黄雅芸, 梁春梅, 阮燕珠, 许昌超. 农林废弃物堆肥渗沥液替代部分化肥对园林苗木长势和土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(32): 46-53.