Effects of Home-field Advantage of Leaf Litter Decomposition on Soil Humus in Wudalianchi Volcano Kipuka

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0933

Abstract

Abstract:

This study focused on the differential effects of plant leaf litter types on soil humus composition and content. Wudalianchi volcano kipuka, a special habitat, was selected as the sample site, the method of in situ leaf litter bag was adopted to carry out the cavitation experiment to study the effects of leaf litter of different species (Populus davidiana, Betula platyphylla and Larix gmeliniion) on soil humus in coniferous forest and broad-leaved forest. The responses of extractable humus, humic acid and fulvic acid contents in soil, and humic acid/fulvic acid ratio to the home field advantage during leaf litter decomposition were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) when leaf litter decomposed away field from home field, it changed the variation trend of soil humus composition; (2) forest type, leaf litter species, decomposition time and their interactions all had significant effects on the content of soil humus components; (3) at the beginning of decomposition, the EHS and HA content of the home field, FA content of the away field and humic acid/fulvic acid ratio of the home field soil under the three leaf litters were as follows: Populus davidiana>Betula platyphylla>Larix gmelinii; the EHS, HA, HM, humic acid/fulvic acid ratio and PQ values of the away field soil under the three leaf litters were as follows: Larix gmelinii> Betula platyphylla> Populus davidiana; (4) at the end of decomposition, the FA content of home field and the HM content of away field of the soil under the three leaf litters were as follows: Larix gmelinii> Betula platyphylla> Populus davidiana, both of the home and away field of EHS, HA, humic acid/fulvic acid ratio and PQ values of soil under the three leaf litters were as follows: Betula platyphylla> Larix gmelinii> Populus davidiana. To sum up, the effects of the decomposition of three kinds of leaf litter on each component of soil humus and humification in the Wudalianchi volcano kipuka are not all home field advantages. All the components of soil humus under leaf litter of Betula platyphylla leaf litter show home field>away field, with home field advantage, the extractable humus and humin from the soil under the Populus davidiana leaf litter show that the home field is higher than the away field.

Key words: Wudalianchi volcano, kipuka, leaf litter, soil humus, home-field advantage

CLC Number:

S718.5森林生态学

JIANG Mingyue, YANG Fan, HUANG Qingyang, XIE Lihong, CAO Hongjie, SHA Gang. Effects of Home-field Advantage of Leaf Litter Decomposition on Soil Humus in Wudalianchi Volcano Kipuka[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(10): 117-123.

Figures/Tables 6

References 30

[1]	DONG H, MEI W, QIAN L, et al. The combined effects of soil moisture and salinity on the spatial differences of soil humification intensity in the Yangtze River estuarine wetlands[J]. Journal of soils and sediments, 2025, 25(4):1227-1240. doi: 10.1007/s11368-025-04019-5
[2]	NADPOROZHSKAYA M A, BYKHOVETS S S, ABAKUMOV E V. Application of the ROMUL mathematical model for estimation of CO₂ emission and dynamics of organic matter in the subantarctic lithozems[J]. Eurasian soil science, 2022, 55(4):413-424. doi: 10.1134/S1064229322040123
[3]	NEUMANN M, UKONMAANAHO L, JOHNSON J, et al. Quantifying carbon and nutrient input from litterfall in European forests using field observations and modeling[J]. Global biogeochemical cycles, 2018, 32:784-798. doi: 10.1029/2017GB005825 URL
[4]	SOVOVA S, STORKOVA N, KURKOVÁ M, et al. The utilization of biochar as a conditioner for soil enrichment[J]. EGU General assembly, 2021:19-30.
[5]	PENG T, KYLE M J, SHENGEN L, et al. Form of nitrogen deposition affects soil organic matter priming by glucose and cellulose[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2019, 55:383-91. doi: 10.1007/s00374-019-01357-8
[6]	程淑兰, 方华军, 徐梦, 等. 氮沉降增加情景下植物—土壤—微生物交互对自然生态系统土壤有机碳的调控研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(23):8285-8295.
[7]	付琦, 邢亚娟, 闫国永, 等. 北方森林凋落物动态对长期氮沉降的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(7):1341-1350. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.07.007
[8]	LIPCZYNSKA-KOCHANY E. Humic substances, their microbial interactions and effects on biological transformations of organic pollutants in water and soil: A review[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 202:420-37. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.104 URL
[9]	赵小祥, 朱彬彬, 田秋香, 等. 叶片凋落物分解的主场优势研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47(5):597-607. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2022.0143
[10]	刘谣, 焦泽彬, 谭波, 等. 川西亚高山森林凋落物去除对土壤腐殖质动态的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(3):330-340. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0166
[11]	COTRUFO M F, WALLENSTEIN M D, BOOT C M, et al. The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter?[J]. Global change biology, 2013, 19(4):988-995. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12113 pmid: 23504877
[12]	包寒阳, 李杨, 邓先智, 等. 根系分泌物和凋落物对高寒沙化草地土壤微生物的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2023, 29(3):546-553.
[13]	卫芯宇, 倪祥银, 谌亚, 等. 三种不同类型亚高山森林凋落物输入对土壤腐殖化的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2022(20):8266-8275.
[14]	卫芯宇, 杨万勤, 张丽, 等. 冻融环境下凋落叶添加对亚高山森林土壤腐殖化程度的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(18):6521-6529.
[15]	STRICKLAND M S, OSBURN E, LAUBER C, et al. Decomposition rates as a function of inoculum characteristics[J]. Functional ecology, 2009, 23(3):627-636. doi: 10.1111/fec.2009.23.issue-3 URL
[16]	VEEN G F, FRESCHET G T, ORDONEZ A, et al. Litter quality and environmental controls ofhome-field advantage effects on litter decomposition[J]. Oikos, 2015, 124(2):187-195. doi: 10.1111/oik.2015.v124.i2 URL
[17]	ZHAO X, TIAN Q, MICHELSEN A, et al. Home-field advantage of litter decomposition differs among leaves, absorptive roots, and transport roots[J]. Plant & soil, 2024, 500(1/2):391-402.
[18]	王程栋, 徐宜民, 马兴华, 等. 中国优质烤烟产区耕层土壤腐殖质组分特征[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(4):919-928.
[19]	陈子豪, 张晓蓉, 谭波, 等. 冻融循环对川西亚高山森林土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(8):2662-2669.
[20]	张健瑜, 李灿, 曾和平, 等. 不同植被类型紫色土腐殖质的剖面分布特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019(5):85-91.
[21]	李晗. 亚高山针叶林林窗对凋落叶分解过程中化学组分的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2018:60-73.
[22]	刘株秀, 刘俊杰, 焦峰, 等. 基于发生层的均腐土理化性质和元素生态化学计量特征分析[J]. 土壤与作物, 2024, 13(3):1-14.
[23]	郭月峰, 王娟, 祁伟, 等. 风沙土区黄柳根系及其碳储量分布特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2017, 34(2):344-349.
[24]	窦森, 李艳, 关松, 等. 腐殖物质特异性及其产生机制[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(4):821-831.
[25]	贾树海, 王薇薇, 张日升. 不同林型土壤有机碳及腐殖质组成的分布特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(6):189-195.
[26]	LI J J, JI H B, WANG W J, et al. Study on the profile distribution and morphology of soil humic substances in Karst Area of Zunyi City, China[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(10):6145. doi: 10.3390/su14106145 URL
[27]	张日升, 贾树海, 王薇薇. 樟子松人工林土壤有机碳及腐殖质碳组成的变化特征[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2020(4):1-6.
[28]	DIMRI B M, KOTIYAL P B, BALA N. Altitudinal and seasonal variation in soil humic acid and fulvic acid in upper Yamauna Forests, Garhwal Himalayas[J]. Indian journal of forestry, 2019, 42(4):342-347. doi: 10.54207/bsmps1000 URL
[29]	郑延云, 张佳宝, 谭钧, 等. 不同来源腐殖质的化学组成与结构特征研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2019(2):386-398.
[30]	HUANG H, GENG K, WANG C, et al. Impact of fulvic acid and Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidan inoculum amount on the formation of secondary iron minerals[J]. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023, 20(6):4736. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064736 URL

因子	df	F_EHS	F_FA	F_HA	F_HM	F_胡富比	F_PQ
分解时间	1	99.87^**	104.75^**	125.63^**	129.60^**	344.39^**	385.22^**
森林类型	2	28.81^**	11.97^**	29.55^**	5.58^**	18.18^**	300.34^**
凋落叶	5	220.4^**	1052.13^**	206.82^**	34.67^**	307.03^**	32.81^**
森林类型×凋落叶	2	49.53^**	22.37^**	53.36^**	1.08^**	81.58^**	173.36^**
分解时间×森林类型	5	60.79^**	151.55^**	69.3^**	35.98^**	182.23^**	94.23^**
分解时间×凋落叶	10	31.3^**	133.5^**	30.15^**	3.18^**	52.86^**	40.74^**
时间×森林类型×凋落叶	9	32.23^**	105.75^**	35.99^**	7.27^**	87.84^**	89.32^**

因子	df	F_EHS	F_FA	F_HA	F_HM	F_胡富比	F_PQ
分解时间	1	99.87^**	104.75^**	125.63^**	129.60^**	344.39^**	385.22^**
森林类型	2	28.81^**	11.97^**	29.55^**	5.58^**	18.18^**	300.34^**
凋落叶	5	220.4^**	1052.13^**	206.82^**	34.67^**	307.03^**	32.81^**
森林类型×凋落叶	2	49.53^**	22.37^**	53.36^**	1.08^**	81.58^**	173.36^**
分解时间×森林类型	5	60.79^**	151.55^**	69.3^**	35.98^**	182.23^**	94.23^**
分解时间×凋落叶	10	31.3^**	133.5^**	30.15^**	3.18^**	52.86^**	40.74^**
时间×森林类型×凋落叶	9	32.23^**	105.75^**	35.99^**	7.27^**	87.84^**	89.32^**