Effects of Planting Various Forage Grass on Restoration of Vegetation and Soil Fertility in Rocky Desertification Area in Yunnan

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0212

Abstract

Abstract:

Various forage planting patterns are introduced to attempt to rehabilitate rocky desertification grassland so that suitable vegetation patterns can be selected for ecosystem functioning restoration. Six different planting modes were conducted experimentally at the typical rocky desertification areas with three different levels of degradation in Yanshan County, southeast of Yunnan Province. The six modes were Lolium perenne monoculture, Festuca ovina monoculture, Setaria anceps monoculture, intercropping of Festuca ovina and Crotalaria pallida, intercropping of Setaria anceps and Trifolium repens, and intercropping of Setaria anceps and Medicago sativa. The results showed that (1) a variety of vegetation and soil traits increased significantly after rehabilitation, which included above- and under- ground biomass, gross cover, soil organic matter, total phosphorus, available phosphorus and available potassium. (2) There were significant differences among six modes in soil water content, water utilization efficiency, gross cover, above-ground biomass, under-ground biomass and the ratio of above-ground biomass to under-ground biomass. Lolium perenne monoculture had the highest soil water content, water utilization efficiency, above-ground biomass and the ratio of above-ground biomass to under-ground biomass, while intercropping of Setaria anceps and Medicago sativa and intercropping of Festuca ovina and Crotalaria pallida had got highest gross cover and under-ground biomass respectively. Planting forages had a remarkably positive effect on vegetation and soil restoration at target region. However, intercropping patterns had not explicit superiority over monoculture, and each pattern acted distinctively.

Key words: rocky desertification, planting forage, vegetation, soil, ecological restoration

QIAO Lu, WANG Qi, DUAN Liwu, ZHANG Yuwen. Effects of Planting Various Forage Grass on Restoration of Vegetation and Soil Fertility in Rocky Desertification Area in Yunnan[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(32): 62-67.

Figures/Tables 3

References 36

[1]	王宇, 黄兴章, 谭继中, 等. 云南省岩溶水有效开发利用规划建议报告[R]. 昆明: 云南省地质矿产厅,云南省计划委员会,1997.
[2]	王宇, 张贵, 柴金龙, 等. 云南岩溶石山地区重大环境地质问题及对策[M]. 昆明: 云南科技出版社, 2013:17-27.
[3]	阮方佑, 吴宁, 安科, 等. 云南省岩溶地区石漠化土地动态变化研究[J]. 林业调查规划, 2023, 48(3):13-18.
[4]	丁文荣, 李玉辉, 曾学梅, 等. 云南石林典型植被类型的降水垂直分配及水平汇聚规律观测研究[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2021, 32(1):22-28.
[5]	曾庆飞, 陈莹, 杨春燕, 等. 贵州高原石漠化灌丛草地土壤真菌群落结构及多样性研究[J]. 中国草地学报 2015, 37(5):96-102.
[6]	唐兴成, 龙华映, 张进义, 等. 云南省巧家县石漠化区不同治理措施草地植被特征研究[J]. 草业科学, 2010, 27(1):31-36.
[7]	李馨, 熊康宁, 龚进宏, 等. 人工草地在喀斯特石漠化治理中的作用及其研究现状[J]. 草业学报, 2011, 20(6):279-286.
[8]	田晓龙, 柳鑫, 金宝成, 等. 喀斯特地区不同石漠化程度草地根系分解与周转特征[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(10):4203-4212.
[9]	沈明潭, 谭炳香,戚,曌, 等. 滇东南喀斯特石漠化地区植被覆盖度时空变化特征研究——以砚山县为例[J]. 林业调查规划, 2022, 47(5):1-11.
[10]	陈莹, 王茜, 王子苑, 等. 不同石漠化程度对灌丛草地土壤细菌遗传多样性的影响[J]. 2017, 25(4):756-761.
[11]	刘凯旋, 熊康宁, 郭文, 等. 喀斯特石漠化地区草地高效生产与草地畜牧业潜力评价[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2018, 39(10):64-69.
[12]	SONG S, XIONG K, CHI Y. Grassland ecosystem service and its enlightenment on the revitalization of rural ecological animal husbandry in the rocky desertification area: a Literature review[J]. Polish journal of environmental studies, 2022, 31(5):4499-4510.
[13]	王吉高, 汪依妮, 陈超, 等. 岩溶地区不同石漠化程度下草地细根对土壤养分的贡献[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(1):313-321.
[14]	王爱娟, 穆洪晓. 石漠化的生态治理技术与治理模式发展[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(5):285-289.
[15]	黄磊, 曾亚军, 郭金鹏, 等. 3种治理模式对石漠化地区土壤微生物群落结构的影响及治理能力比较[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(12):201-209.
[16]	王进, 刘子琦, 张国, 等. 喀斯特石漠化治理不同恢复模式土壤养分分布特征——以贵州花江示范区为例[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(7):1578-1585.
[17]	杨乙未. 石漠化综合治理区玫瑰混农林模式下土壤螨类群落结构研究[D]. 贵阳: 贵州师范大学, 2021:17-25.
[18]	刘子琦, 肖杰, 李开萍, 等. 石漠化治理区经果林地土壤养分对种植模式的响应[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(4):821-827.
[19]	池永宽. 石漠化治理中农草林草空间优化配置技术与示范[D]. 贵阳: 贵州师范大学, 2015:10-15.
[20]	熊康宁. 喀斯特石漠化的遥感——GIS典型研究:以贵州省为例[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2002.
[21]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
[22]	薛建辉, 周之栋, 吴永波. 喀斯特石漠化山地退化土壤生态修复研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 46(6):135-145. doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202207040
[23]	QIU S J, PENG J, ZHENG H N, et al. How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems?A review of research in the south China Karst region[J]. Science of total environment, 2022, 807:150723.
[24]	孙泉忠, 刘瑞禄, 陈菊艳, 等. 贵州省石漠化综合治理人工种草对土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013, 27(4):67-72.
[25]	程汉亭, 李勤奋, 王晓敏, 等. 不同植被恢复策略对贵州喀斯特生态系统土壤渗透特性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(6):110-116.
[26]	李文娆, 张岁岐, 丁圣彦, 等. 干旱胁迫下紫花苜蓿根系形态变化及水分利用的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(19):5140-5150.
[27]	冯萌, 于成, 林丽果, 等. 灌溉和施氮对河西走廊紫花苜蓿生物量分配与水分利用效率的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(12): 1623-1632.
[28]	王星. 喀斯特峰丛洼地不同生态恢复模式对土壤持水性和抗蚀性的影响[D]. 桂林: 桂林理工大学, 2020:8-12.
[29]	刘莹, 赵楠, 罗京焰, 等. 贵州晴隆石漠化地区人工种草对土壤肥力及生产力的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2013, 41(2):127-130.
[30]	李亚娟, 瞿丹, 高亚君, 等. 东祁连山高寒草甸不同退化阶段植被/土壤磷素特征及其与生物量的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(18):7381-7389.
[31]	孙泉忠. 贵州省石漠化综合治理人工种草土壤肥力综合评价[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2015, 43(9):94-97.
[32]	TIAN H Q, CHEN G S, ZHANG C, et al. Pattern and variation of C:N:P ratios in China's soils: a synthesis of observational data[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2010, 98(1):139-151.
[33]	ZHANG C, TIAN H Q, LIU J Y, et al. Pools and distributions of soil phosphorus in China[J]. Global biogeochemical cycles, 2005, 19(1):GB1020.
[34]	陶慧敏, 孙宁骁, 温家豪, 等. 滇南喀斯特地区灌木群落和人工林土壤元素化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(24):9119-9130.
[35]	王元素, 李莉, 王堃. 喀斯特地区三叶草混播草地群落组分20年动态[J]. 草地学报, 2014, 22(3):475-480. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2014.03.007
[36]	李莉, 王元素, 王堃. 喀斯特地区永久性禾草+白三叶混播草地群落种间竞争与共存[J]. 草业科学, 2014, 31(10):1943-1950.

	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	地上生物量/(g/m²)	根系生物量/(g/m²)	群落总盖度/%	地上生物量/地下生物量
修复前	22.403±10.967b	1.29±0.31b	1.227±0.33b	93.56±16.294b	258.643±121.142b	1353.387±339.584b	47.693±16.275b	0.18±0.06a
修复后	25.507±9.916a	1.457±0.313a	1.397±0.275a	101.917±17.94a	364.514±141.896a	2305.154±545.271a	67.25±20.426a	0.152±0.048b

	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	地上生物量/(g/m²)	根系生物量/(g/m²)	群落总盖度/%	地上生物量/地下生物量
修复前	22.403±10.967b	1.29±0.31b	1.227±0.33b	93.56±16.294b	258.643±121.142b	1353.387±339.584b	47.693±16.275b	0.18±0.06a
修复后	25.507±9.916a	1.457±0.313a	1.397±0.275a	101.917±17.94a	364.514±141.896a	2305.154±545.271a	67.25±20.426a	0.152±0.048b

	土壤含水量/%	水分利用率/(g/kg)	群落总盖度/%	地上生物量/地下生物量	根系生物量/(g/m²)	地上生物量/(g/m²)
H	16.8±1.556a	7.395±0.757a	75.65±4.455b	0.187±0.027a	1426.97±378.316ab	299.55±123.107a
Y	16.05±1.202ab	5.675±0.629b	64.85±2.333cd	0.153±0.017b	1407.205±279.102ab	292.25±118.299a
G	14.533±2.468c	5.667±3.119b	59.8±33.661e	0.142±0.076bc	1259.11±469.632ab	209.2±171.654b
Y+S	16.35±0.495ab	5.875±0.375b	65.75±3.606c	0.151±0.012bc	1491.925±413.848a	290.15±112.076a
G+B	15.233±2.65bc	5.747±2.84b	61.867±33.681de	0.129±0.078c	1222.73±402.286b	210.7±162.311b
G+M	16.95±0.636a	7.29±0.665a	82±2.263a	0.165±0.006ab	1424.85±446.043ab	298.7±111.44a

	土壤含水量/%	水分利用率/(g/kg)	群落总盖度/%	地上生物量/地下生物量	根系生物量/(g/m²)	地上生物量/(g/m²)
H	16.8±1.556a	7.395±0.757a	75.65±4.455b	0.187±0.027a	1426.97±378.316ab	299.55±123.107a
Y	16.05±1.202ab	5.675±0.629b	64.85±2.333cd	0.153±0.017b	1407.205±279.102ab	292.25±118.299a
G	14.533±2.468c	5.667±3.119b	59.8±33.661e	0.142±0.076bc	1259.11±469.632ab	209.2±171.654b
Y+S	16.35±0.495ab	5.875±0.375b	65.75±3.606c	0.151±0.012bc	1491.925±413.848a	290.15±112.076a
G+B	15.233±2.65bc	5.747±2.84b	61.867±33.681de	0.129±0.078c	1222.73±402.286b	210.7±162.311b
G+M	16.95±0.636a	7.29±0.665a	82±2.263a	0.165±0.006ab	1424.85±446.043ab	298.7±111.44a