Soil Improvement Effect of Five Different Typical Forests in Saline-alkali Soil in Western Jilin Province

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0408

Abstract

Abstract:

To reveal the soil improvement effect of different forest types in saline land of western Jilin Province, five types of typical forests distributed in Qian’an County, Songyuan City were selected as research objects, which were Tamarix chinensis forest, Populus × xiaohei forest, Pinus tabuliformis forest, Populus × xiaohei and Ulmus pumila mixed forest and Lycium chinense forest, respectively. Took the unplanted land as control, the physicochemical properties of soil in 0-30 cm were studied by the method of soil sampling and laboratory measurement. The results showed that: compared with the unplanted land, the physical and chemical properties of soil of the 5 kinds of forests were all improved to a certain extent. The soil bulk density decreased while the soil porosity increased. Soil infiltration capacity in different forest types was improved. The pH significantly decreased by 3.69% to 7.50% compared with the unplanted land in 0-10 cm soil layer. Soil nutrient content of forestland was significantly increased compared with the unplanted land. Soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, total phosphorous, available phosphorous, total potassium and available potassium content of forestland were higher than that of the unplanted land in every soil layer. Soil nutrient content mainly concentrated in 0-20 cm, showing obvious surface accumulation. Using principal component analysis to evaluate the 14 soil quality indicators, the comprehensive score of the 5 types of forests were listed in the sequence of Lycium chinense forest (43.81) > Tamarix chinensis forest (40.79) > Populus ×xiaohei and Ulmus pumila mixed forest (40.33) > Populus ×xiaohei forest (39.31) > Pinus tabuliformis forest (39.03) > CK (33.55). The five types of typical forests could improve soil physiochemical properties. Lycium chinense and Tamarix chinensis could be considered as the optimized tree species in the process of saline land improvement by restoring vegetation in western Jilin Province.

Key words: forest types, soil improvement, physicochemical properties, principal component analysis, western Jilin Province, saline land

CLC Number:

Wang Zimo, Lin Shijie, Zhang Dawei, He Huaijiang, Chen Siyu, Bao Guangdao, Jia Qingbin, Zhang Zhonghui. Soil Improvement Effect of Five Different Typical Forests in Saline-alkali Soil in Western Jilin Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(15): 55-62.

Figures/Tables 7

References 26

[1]	潘洁, 王立艳, 肖辉, 等. 滨海盐碱地不同耐盐草本植物土壤养分动态变化[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(18):168-172.
[2]	侯贺贺. 黄河三角洲盐碱地生物措施改良效果研究[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2014.
[3]	董海凤. 黄河三角洲长期人工林地土壤特征与改良[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2014.
[4]	关胜超. 松嫩平原盐碱地改良利用研究[D]. 北京:中国科学院大学(中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所), 2017.
[5]	许永德. 北方平原地区盐碱地改良利用研究[J]. 水利规划与设计, 2018(05):91-92,177.
[6]	刘彩虹. 吉林西部苏打盐渍土区土壤水氮空间分布特征及行为模拟[D]. 长春:吉林大学, 2016.
[7]	许晓鸿, 刘肃, 赵英杰, 等. 吉林省西部不同环境因子对苏打盐碱地分布的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018,38(01):89-95.
[8]	陈苗苗. 不同树种对黄河三角洲滨海盐碱地的土壤改良效应评价[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2017.
[9]	邓丞. 天津滨海盐碱地沿海防护林配置模式及构建技术的研究[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2014.
[10]	张永民, 钟林生. 松嫩平原典型盐碱化地区土地利用格局变化研究——以吉林省乾安县为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2008(09):124-128.
[11]	曹云, 欧阳志云, 郑华, 等. 森林生态系统的水文调节功能及生态学机制研究进展[J]. 生态环境报, 2006,15(6):360-365.
[12]	冯楷斌, 张暘暘, 郭敬丽. 冀北山地不同类型白桦林枯落物及土壤持水性能研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2016,4(2):74-80.
[13]	吕刚, 翟景轩, 李叶鑫, 等. 辽西北风沙地不同植物群落土壤入渗特性[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018,36(04):133-139.
[14]	汪欣, 向兆, 李策, 等. 全自动凯氏定氮仪测定土壤全氮含量方法的优化探索[J]. 山东农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2020,51(03):438-440,446.
[15]	赵名彦. 滨海盐碱地造林技术与效果研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2011.
[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(03):638-647.
[17]	任蔓莉, 魏晨辉, 裴忠雪, 等. 松嫩平原沙土区不同植被类型对土壤相关指标的影响[J]. 植物研究, 2015,35(05):765-771.
[18]	于大炮. 辽西地区生态经济型水土保持林效益评价及模式研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2001.
[19]	魏平. 柿砧木耐盐抗旱及嫁接亲和性研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2017.
[20]	邱月. 渤海泥质海岸典型防护林对土壤主要性状的影响[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2018.
[21]	宋雪. 黄河三角洲盐碱地混交林对土壤的改良[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2012.
[22]	张平. 不同造林树种对盐碱地土壤理化性质的影响[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2014.
[23]	陈苗苗, 刘桂民, 刘德玺, 等. 不同人工林对黄河三角洲滨海盐碱地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017,24(06):41-44.
[24]	王丽琴. 滨海盐碱地不同造林模式对土壤理化性质及水盐运动的影响[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2014
[25]	刘桂民, 陈苗苗, 李长贵, 等. 基于因子分析的盐碱地人工林土壤改良效应评价——以黄河三角洲为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017,33(28):50-54.
[26]	刘艳. 枸杞对晋北重度盐碱地改良效果研究[D]. 晋中:山西农业大学, 2016.

样地	土层/cm	土壤容重/(g/cm³)	总孔隙度/%	毛管孔隙度/%	非毛管孔隙度/%
柽柳	0~10	1.51±0.02e	43.02±0.62e	28.09±1.81d	14.93±1.79bc
	10~20	1.53±0.05c	42.32±1.91c	27.91±1.10d	14.41±2.00ab
	20~30	1.62±0.02c	38.87±0.80c	26.68±1.04b	12.19±1.34a
枸杞	0~10	1.52±0.01e	42.54±0.15de	25.56±0.94bc	15.98±1.21c
	10~20	1.57±0.02b	40.86±0.63b	26.41±1.12c	14.45±0.98ab
	20~30	1.60±0.02c	39.53±0.69c	24.99±1.09bc	14.54±1.40cd
黑杨	0~10	1.55±0.05bc	41.51±0.60bc	27.58±1.31cd	13.93±1.66ab
	10~20	1.52±0.02c	42.64±0.86c	28.32±0.99d	14.32±0.94a
	20~30	1.64±0.03b	38.11±1.05b	23.06±1.54cd	15.05±1.93d
黑杨白榆混交林	0~10	1.57±0.03b	40.66±0.27b	26.14±1.25ab	14.52±1.76ab
	10~20	1.56±0.06b	40.93±0.76b	25.07±1.15ab	15.86±1.40c
	20~30	1.61±0.02c	39.19±0.77c	23.55±0.75b	15.64±1.33d
油松	0~10	1.54±0.02cd	41.81±0.25cd	26.91±1.20b	14.90±1.51bc
	10~20	1.57±0.02b	40.82±0.60b	25.17±1.47bc	15.65±1.40bc
	20~30	1.61±0.02c	39.26±0.76c	26.33±1.12ab	12.93±1.33cd
裸地	0~10	1.62±0.02a	38.78±0.16a	25.44±0.85a	13.34±1.22a
	10~20	1.64±0.03a	38.04±1.13a	24.15±1.09a	13.90±1.74a
	20~30	1.66±0.01a	37.32±0.55a	23.70±1.07a	13.62±1.37bc

样地	土层/cm	土壤容重/(g/cm³)	总孔隙度/%	毛管孔隙度/%	非毛管孔隙度/%
柽柳	0~10	1.51±0.02e	43.02±0.62e	28.09±1.81d	14.93±1.79bc
	10~20	1.53±0.05c	42.32±1.91c	27.91±1.10d	14.41±2.00ab
	20~30	1.62±0.02c	38.87±0.80c	26.68±1.04b	12.19±1.34a
枸杞	0~10	1.52±0.01e	42.54±0.15de	25.56±0.94bc	15.98±1.21c
	10~20	1.57±0.02b	40.86±0.63b	26.41±1.12c	14.45±0.98ab
	20~30	1.60±0.02c	39.53±0.69c	24.99±1.09bc	14.54±1.40cd
黑杨	0~10	1.55±0.05bc	41.51±0.60bc	27.58±1.31cd	13.93±1.66ab
	10~20	1.52±0.02c	42.64±0.86c	28.32±0.99d	14.32±0.94a
	20~30	1.64±0.03b	38.11±1.05b	23.06±1.54cd	15.05±1.93d
黑杨白榆混交林	0~10	1.57±0.03b	40.66±0.27b	26.14±1.25ab	14.52±1.76ab
	10~20	1.56±0.06b	40.93±0.76b	25.07±1.15ab	15.86±1.40c
	20~30	1.61±0.02c	39.19±0.77c	23.55±0.75b	15.64±1.33d
油松	0~10	1.54±0.02cd	41.81±0.25cd	26.91±1.20b	14.90±1.51bc
	10~20	1.57±0.02b	40.82±0.60b	25.17±1.47bc	15.65±1.40bc
	20~30	1.61±0.02c	39.26±0.76c	26.33±1.12ab	12.93±1.33cd
裸地	0~10	1.62±0.02a	38.78±0.16a	25.44±0.85a	13.34±1.22a
	10~20	1.64±0.03a	38.04±1.13a	24.15±1.09a	13.90±1.74a
	20~30	1.66±0.01a	37.32±0.55a	23.70±1.07a	13.62±1.37bc

样地	初渗速率/(mm/min)	稳定速率/(mm/min)	平均渗透速率/(mm/min)	到稳渗透速率时间/min
柽柳	8.64±0.10f	3.12±0.08d	3.95±0.12e	28
枸杞	8.27±0.01e	3.05±9.12d	3.73±0.09d	30
杨树	7.69±0.09d	2.34±0.07c	3.19±0.07c	32
杨树白榆混交林	7.05±0.11c	2.13±0.11b	2.83±0.09b	30
油松	7.18±0.06b	2.17±0.09b	2.93±0.09b	34
裸地	5.85±0.09a	2.02±0.14a	2.54±0.06a	42

样地	初渗速率/(mm/min)	稳定速率/(mm/min)	平均渗透速率/(mm/min)	到稳渗透速率时间/min
柽柳	8.64±0.10f	3.12±0.08d	3.95±0.12e	28
枸杞	8.27±0.01e	3.05±9.12d	3.73±0.09d	30
杨树	7.69±0.09d	2.34±0.07c	3.19±0.07c	32
杨树白榆混交林	7.05±0.11c	2.13±0.11b	2.83±0.09b	30
油松	7.18±0.06b	2.17±0.09b	2.93±0.09b	34
裸地	5.85±0.09a	2.02±0.14a	2.54±0.06a	42

	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	X₁₃	X₁₄
X₁	1
X₂	-0.999^**	1
X₃	-0.614^**	0.620^**	1
X₄	-0.409^**	0.404^**	-0.468^**	1
X₅	-0.655^**	0.660^**	0.498^**	0.162	1
X₆	-0.302^*	0.307^*	0.277^*	0.023	0.880^**	1
X₇	-0.830^**	0.831^**	0.593^**	0.244	0.794^**	0.508^**	1
X₈	-0.687^**	0.688^**	0.073	0.296^*	0.351^**	0.007	0.685^**	1
X₉	-0.437^**	0.435^**	0.096	0.166	-0.006	-0.198	0.477^**	0.582^**	1
X₁₀	-0.605^**	0.610^**	0.599^**	-0.12	0.354^**	0.180	0.621^**	0.435^**	0.778^**	1
X₁₁	-0.545^**	0.545^**	0.420^**	0.124	0.418^**	0.261	0.687^**	0.532^**	0.769^**	0.771^*	1
X₁₂	-0.622^**	0.621^**	0.336^*	0.307^*	0.454^**	0.272^*	0.712^**	0.569^**	0.690^**	0.698^**	0.779^**	1
X₁₃	-0.686^**	0.681^**	0.245	0.482^**	0.631^**	0.337^*	0.714^**	0.667^**	0.217	0.163	0.431^**	0.461^**	1
X₁₄	0.558^**	-0.551^**	-0.81	-0.526^**	-0.381^**	-0.148	-0.695^**	-0.741^**	-0.614^*	-0.343^*	-0.639^**	-0.679^**	-0.742^**	1