Effect of Different Afforestation Restoration Models on Soil Quality in Rocky Desertification Area in Sangzhi

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0242

Abstract

Abstract:

To selected the best plant configuration restoration mode of rocky desertification, this study took the forest land of six different restoration modes of 10C (coniferous forest), 7C3B (7 coniferous 3 broad-leaved), 5C5B (5 coniferous 5 broad-leaved), 3C7B (3 coniferous 7 broad-leaved), 10B (broad-leaved forest) and CK (barren hills and wasteland) of rocky desertification in Sangzhi County as the research object, compared the soil physiochemical properties and differences of each restoration mode, and comprehensively evaluated the soil quality of each mode. The results showed that in the study area, the soil physiochemical properties of rocky desertification forest land in different restoration modes were significantly different. There were significant differences in capillary porosity, soil bulk density, available P and available K content and organic matter between the five afforestation restoration modes and the control mode. There were also significant differences in other physical and chemical indicators between some models and the control. Soil bulk density was negatively correlated with other physiochemical indicators, indicating that the greater the soil bulk density, the lower the various nutrient contents. Soil bulk density was negatively correlated with other physical and chemical indexes, while soil total N, total P, total K, alkaline hydrolysis N, organic matter and other three physical indexes were positively correlated. Principal component analysis showed that the weight coefficients of bulk density, water content, total porosity, capillary porosity, total N, total K, available K and organic matter content of rocky desertification forest land were larger than 0.8, indicating that these indexes were the main indexes to characterize the physiochemical properties of soil in rocky desertification forest land. The comprehensive evaluation of soil quality of each mode was comprehensively scored, and the order of scores was 5 coniferous 5 broad-leaved > 3 coniferous 7 broad-leaved > coniferous forest > 7 coniferous 3 broad-leaved > broad-leaved forest > CK (barren hills and wasteland). Overall, afforestation was beneficial to improve the soil quality in rocky desertification area, through nearly 30 years of phytoremediation, the nutrient level of rocky desertification soil has been significantly improved. Except that the contents of alkali-hydrolyzable N and total P are still kept a low level, other nutrient indicators have risen to the upper-middle and above levels.

Key words: Sangzhi County, rocky desertification, restoration mode, soil physiochemical

LI Gui, TONG Fangping, WU Min, TONG Qi, LIU Zhenhua, PENG Zuwu, LIU Sen, DENG Yuanli, XIE Peiyuan, CHEN Rui. Effect of Different Afforestation Restoration Models on Soil Quality in Rocky Desertification Area in Sangzhi[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(35): 35-42.

Figures/Tables 7

References 28

[1]	REYNOLDS J F, SMITH D S, LAMBIN E F, et al. Golbal desertification: building a science for dryland development[J]. Science, 2007, 316(5826):847-851.
[2]	蒋勇军, 刘秀明, 何师意, 等. 喀斯特槽谷区土地石漠化与综合治理技术研发[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(22):7092-7097.
[3]	李贵, 童琪, 刘振华, 等. 桑植石漠化林地植物多样性及群落数量特征分析[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2021, 48(1):37-43.
[4]	杨丹丽, 喻阳华, 秦仕忆, 等. 石漠化区不同利用类型土地养分的含量及其生态化学计量特征[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(9):1875-1881.
[5]	谭玉兰, 杨丰, 陈超, 等. 喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(5):1133-1138.
[6]	刘娜, 喻理飞, 赵庆, 等. 喀斯特高原石漠化区次生林叶片—枯落物—土壤连续体碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2020, 26(3):681-688.
[7]	孙建, 刘子琦, 朱大运, 等. 石漠化治理区不同生态恢复模式土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(5):222-228.
[8]	李春情, 屈用函, 农全东, 等. 基于主成分和聚类分析的云南文山典型石漠化区土壤肥力分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(1):66-72. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0065
[9]	SHENG M Y, XIONG K N, WANG L J, et al. Response ofsoil physical and chemical properties to Rocky desertificationsuccession in South China Karst[J]. Carbonates and evapor-ites, 2018, 33(1):15-28.
[10]	侯自航, 王忠诚. 湘西慈利县不同石漠化程度下土壤理化性质特征[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(12):98-110.
[11]	刘彦伶, 李渝, 张萌, 等. 基于文献计量的贵州喀斯特地区石漠化等级土壤养分状况分析[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(2):171-180.
[12]	WEI T X, SHI X, ZHU J Z, et al. Evaluating the healthstatus of Robinia pseudoacacia L.by the root exudates[J]. Bangladesh journal of botany, 2015, 44(3):379-384.
[13]	DONG Z, WEI T X, ZHU Q K. Root exudates in Hippop haerhamnoides of different growth states detected by GC—MS[J]. Asian journal of chemistry, 2013, 25(18):10076-10078.
[14]	吴平, 薛建辉. 典型喀斯特地区3种人工林对土壤理化和微生物特性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 39(5):67-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2015.05.011
[15]	郑武扬, 王艳霞, 王月江, 等. 喀斯特石漠化区不同植被治理模式对土壤质量的影响[J]. 西部林业科学, 2020, 49(4):41-47.
[16]	李渊, 刘子琦. 石漠化区不同土地类型土壤侵蚀与理化性质特征[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2019, 39(5):515-523.
[17]	张万儒, 杨光滢, 潳星南, 等. 森林土壤水化学分析:LY/T 1275—1999[S]. 北京: 国家林业局, 1999.
[18]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2008.
[19]	黄文庆, 万福绪, 蒋丹丹. 苏北石灰岩山地不同造林模式对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014, 42(9):2665-2666,2705.
[20]	伏文兵, 严友进, 王凯, 等. 喀斯特石漠化区治理措施对土壤质量演变的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2021, 28(2):27-32.
[21]	高风, 文仕知, 韦铄星, 等. 桂西北石漠化区不同植被恢复类型对土壤理化性质、酶活与真菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(10):2425-2435. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20220879
[22]	邵水仙, 董智, 李红丽, 等. 不同造林模式对退化石灰岩山地土壤理化性质及水文效应的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(1):263-267.
[23]	盛茂银, 熊康宁, 崔高仰, 等. 贵州喀斯特石漠化地区植物多样性与土壤理化性质[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(2):434-448.
[24]	李贵, 陈瑞, 刘振华, 等. 不同修复模式石漠化林地土壤理化性质分析[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2022, 49(2):1-7.
[25]	杨同珂, 朱超, 郑云龙, 等. 鲁中南石灰岩山地不同造林模式对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 山东林业科技, 2013, 43(4):52-53,15.
[26]	温培才, 王霖娇, 盛茂银. 西南喀斯特高原峡谷石漠化生态系统植物群落特征及其与土壤理化性质的关系[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2018, 36(2):175-184.
[27]	陈双双, 朱宁华, 周光益, 等. 不同等级石漠化环境下人工乔木林的植被与土壤物理特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(1):52-61. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.01.007
[28]	董妍妍. 武陵山石漠化地区人工混交林土壤性质空间异质性[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2021.

模式号	修复模式	优势植物	小地名	土壤类型	样地数/块	样点数/个
CK	荒山荒地	丝茅	乔之湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
10C	针叶林	马尾松、杉木、柏木	长裕	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
7C3B	7针+3阔	柏木、马尾松、枫香、合欢	洪家关	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
5C5B	5针+5阔	柏木、杉木、马褂木、泡桐	高家湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
3C7B	3针+7阔	马尾松、樟树、朴树、板栗	丝茅岗	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
10B	阔叶林	马褂木、樟树、麻栎、刺楸	杨家湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9

模式号	修复模式	优势植物	小地名	土壤类型	样地数/块	样点数/个
CK	荒山荒地	丝茅	乔之湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
10C	针叶林	马尾松、杉木、柏木	长裕	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
7C3B	7针+3阔	柏木、马尾松、枫香、合欢	洪家关	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
5C5B	5针+5阔	柏木、杉木、马褂木、泡桐	高家湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
3C7B	3针+7阔	马尾松、樟树、朴树、板栗	丝茅岗	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9
10B	阔叶林	马褂木、樟树、麻栎、刺楸	杨家湾	黄壤、黄色石灰土	3	9

级别/指标	极高	高	中上	中	低	极低
有机质/(g/kg)	>40.00	30.0~40.00	20.00~30.00	10.00~20.00	6.00~10.00	<6.00
全N/(g/kg)	>2.00	1.50~2.00	1.00~1.50	0.75~1.00	0.50~0.75	<0.50
碱解N/(mg/kg)	>150.0	120.0~150.0	90.0~120.0	60.0~90.0	30.0~60.0	<30.0
全P/(g/kg)	>2.00	1.50~2.00	1.00~1.50	0.75~1.00	0.50~0.75	<0.50
速效P/(mg/kg)	>40.00	20.00~40.00	10.00~20.00	5.00~10.00	3.00~5.00	<3.00
全K/(g/kg)	>20.00	15.00~20.00	10.00~15.00	5.00~10.00	3.00~5.00	<3.00
速效K/(mg/kg)	>200.0	150.0~200.0	100.0~150.0	50.0~100.0	30.0~50.0	<30.0

级别/指标	极高	高	中上	中	低	极低
有机质/(g/kg)	>40.00	30.0~40.00	20.00~30.00	10.00~20.00	6.00~10.00	<6.00
全N/(g/kg)	>2.00	1.50~2.00	1.00~1.50	0.75~1.00	0.50~0.75	<0.50
碱解N/(mg/kg)	>150.0	120.0~150.0	90.0~120.0	60.0~90.0	30.0~60.0	<30.0
全P/(g/kg)	>2.00	1.50~2.00	1.00~1.50	0.75~1.00	0.50~0.75	<0.50
速效P/(mg/kg)	>40.00	20.00~40.00	10.00~20.00	5.00~10.00	3.00~5.00	<3.00
全K/(g/kg)	>20.00	15.00~20.00	10.00~15.00	5.00~10.00	3.00~5.00	<3.00
速效K/(mg/kg)	>200.0	150.0~200.0	100.0~150.0	50.0~100.0	30.0~50.0	<30.0

因素	容重	含水率	总孔隙度	毛管孔隙度	全N	全P	全K	碱解N	速效P	速效K	有效Ca	有机质	pH
容重	1
含水率	-0.911	1
总孔隙度	-0.982	0.958	1
毛管孔隙度	-0.981	0.891	0.948	1
全N	-0.971	0.958	0.965	0.968	1
全P	-0.164	0.427	0.279	0.100	0.273	1
全K	-0.936	0.994	0.965	0.931	0.979	0.374	1
碱解N	-0.542	0.597	0.650	0.400	0.465	0.259	0.533	1
速效P	-0.727	0.620	0.709	0.657	0.690	0.537	0.636	0.365	1
速效K	-0.886	0.925	0.896	0.914	0.933	0.443	0.950	0.324	0.701	1
有效Ca	-0.726	0.871	0.824	0.643	0.754	0.360	0.822	0.857	0.393	0.624	1
有机质	-0.878	0.979	0.923	0.885	0.935	0.478	0.982	0.481	0.623	0.973	0.775	1
pH	-0.453	0.438	0.441	0.514	0.450	-0.527	0.455	0.279	-0.279	0.291	0.484	0.376	1