Soil Nutrient Characteristics and Fertility Evaluation of Three Forest Types in Heilongjiang Province

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0498

Abstract

Abstract:

The aims of the study are to explore the soil nutrient characteristics and fertility status under different forest types, clarify effective measures for improving soil physical and chemical properties and optimizing nutrient cycling processes, expound the influence mechanism of forest structure and tree species composition on soil fertility formation and evolution, and provide scientific references for resource utilization planning in the sustainable development of the forestry industry in Heilongjiang Province. Three different forest types, including Larix gmelinii pure forest, Larix gmelinii- Juglans mandshurica mixed forest, and Juglans mandshurica pure forest, were selected as the research objects. Soils in the 0-10, 10-20 and 20-30 cm soil layers were sampled and measured. The physical and chemical properties of the soil were quantitatively analyzed, and single-factor analysis of variance and comprehensive soil fertility evaluation methods were used for analysis. The results showed that: (1) with the increase of soil depth, soil bulk density increased, while natural water content, saturated water content, and capillary water content showed decreasing trends, but the degree of change varied under different forest types; (2) forest types had significant effects on some soil chemical properties. The physical and chemical index values of Larix gmelinii pure forest were lower than those of Juglans mandshurica pure forest and Larix gmelinii- Juglans mandshurica mixed forest; (3) principal component analysis was used to evaluate the soil fertility of different forest types, and the results showed that the soil fertility order was: Larix gmelinii- Juglans mandshurica mixed forest> Juglans mandshurica pure forest> Larix gmelinii pure forest. It was recommended to consider near-natural forest cultivation in the management of existing forest stands, timely carry out understory replanting and renewal, create coniferous-broadleaved mixed forests, construct multi-layered and uneven-aged mixed forest structures, and improve soil quality through litter return and microorganism-driven nutrient transformation processes to enhance the fertility of coniferous forest land in this area.

Key words: soil nutrient characteristics, different forest types, soil physical properties, soil chemical properties, soil fertility evaluation

LI Yenan, LIU Binxin, JIA Pengbo, YIN Zhiyong, SUI Jinchao, ZHANG Guodong. Soil Nutrient Characteristics and Fertility Evaluation of Three Forest Types in Heilongjiang Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(4): 67-74.

Figures/Tables 10

References 28

[1]	杨晓娟, 王海燕, 刘玲, 等. 吉林省东部低山丘陵区4种林分类型林地的土壤肥力分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2013, 33(4):142-148.
[2]	渠开跃, 代力民, 冯慧敏, 等. 辽东山区不同林型土壤有机质和NPK分布特征[J]. 土壤通报, 2009, 40(3):558-562.
[3]	DONG C Y. Effects of biological metabolism of Metasequoia glyptostroboides on nutrient element content and enzyme activity in seedling soil[J]. Turkish journal of agriculture and forestry, 2021, 45(5):642-650. doi: 10.3906/tar-2106-17 URL
[4]	SMALL J C, MCCARTHY C B. Relationship of understory diversity to soil nitrogen, topographic variation, and stand age in an eastern oak forest, USA[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2005, 217(2-3):229-243. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.06.004 URL
[5]	董希斌, 杨学春, 杨桂香. 采伐对落叶松人工林土壤性质的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2007, 35(10):7-10.
[6]	余玉珠, 石国欢, 苏强, 等. 广西国有钦廉林场桉树人工林土壤肥力评价[J]. 广西林业科学, 2022, 51(2):249-254. doi: 10.19692/j.issn.1006-1126.202202013
[7]	杨斌, 王家学, 郭小玮, 等. 景谷县思茅松人工林土壤养分特征与肥力评价[J]. 西部林业科学, 2023, 52(4):7-12.
[8]	刘巧娟. 大兴安岭北部白桦林土壤微生物生物量及土壤酶活性研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2024.
[9]	翁晓虹, 隋心. 基于Web of Science的森林土壤微生物多样性研究趋势分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(10):157-164. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0481
[10]	杨真真, 刘琳. 数学视角下黑龙江省地表水pH值影响因素分析[J]. 广东化工, 2021, 48(16):200-201.
[11]	韩铭, 李华, 蔡体久. 黑龙江太平沟国家级自然保护区森林群落植物多样性特征[J]. 森林工程, 2025, 23(1):1-8.
[12]	管惠文, 董希斌, 曲杭峰, 等. 抚育间伐强度对大兴安岭落叶松次生林土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(2):27-33.
[13]	卢纹岱. SPSS for Windows统计分析[M]. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2000:336-374.
[14]	王晋波, 李那, 高志丽, 等. 滇中人工林土壤的斥水性及其对土壤理化性质的响应[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2025, 17(1):1-13.
[15]	BREARLEY F Q. Ecophysiological response of dipterocarp seedlings to ectomycorrhizal colonisation[J]. Ecophysiology of tropical plants,2023:138-145.
[16]	周永斌, 张飞, 殷鸣放, 等. 白石砬子自然保护区不同森林类型土壤化学性质与养分状况分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(11):118-122.
[17]	冉健民, 宋小艳, 王丹, 等. 退化高寒草甸土壤有机碳组分变化与增汇潜力研究[J]. 草业学报, 2025(3):1-15.
[18]	杨志远, 徐灵颖, 续勇波, 等. 土壤pH和有机物料碳氮比对强还原处理去除设施土壤硝酸盐效果和途径的影响[J]. 土壤, 2025(3):1-11.
[19]	陆珍先, 曹宇轩, 曾莉, 等. 广西人工林土壤养分分布特征及土壤肥力综合评价[J]. 桉树科技, 2025(3):1-9.
[20]	赵雅涵, 李宝珍, 付皓宇, 等. 高氮有机物料添加对稻田土壤碳及pH的调控作用[J]. 土壤通报, 2025(3):1-8.
[21]	李悦. 贺兰山东麓葡萄园自然生草对土壤理化性质和微生物多样性的影响研究[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2023.
[22]	梁小翠. 亚热带4种森林土壤微生物呼吸及其驱动机制研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2022.
[23]	陈春晓. 不同区域森林土壤有机碳组分对氮添加的响应[D]. 曲阜: 曲阜师范大学, 2024.
[24]	LIANG H, SONG Y, DAI Z, et al. Soil total nitrogen content and pH value estimation method considering spatial heterogeneity: Based on GNNW-XGBoost model[J]. Spectrochimica acta part A: Molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy, 2025, 330:125716. doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2025.125716 URL
[25]	刘鸿雁, 黄建国. 缙云山森林群落次生演替中土壤理化性质的动态变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005, 16(11):2041-2046.
[26]	金哲浩, 王克勤, 黄帅, 等. 基于MDS的滇池流域5种典型林分土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2025, 39(1):141-151.
[27]	薄延素, 李昊明, 王葛霏, 等. 松嫩平原西部草地土壤有机质含量预测[J]. 水土保持研究, 2025, 32(3):63-71.
[28]	黄英梅, 梁春梅, 许昌超, 等. 不同类型有机质对高山榕根系形态性状及土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2024, 36(12):46-57.

林分类型	样地编号	坡度/°	海拔/m	株数密度/(株/hm²)	平均树高/m	平均胸径/cm	平均冠幅/m×m
落叶松-胡桃楸混交林	1	2.3	297	651	17.5	27.9	8.3×8.5
	2	4.7	308	518	18.3	31.5	8.9×7.0
	3	3.8	321	718	16.9	25.3	6.12×8.0
落叶松纯林	4	2.8	316	468	20.9	25.4	11.2×11.5
	5	3.9	362	534	19.0	20.7	9.2×10.5
	6	4.1	312	484	21.0	20.3	9.8×11.2
胡桃楸纯林	7	5.4	442	384	16.9	24.8	12.3×11.0
	8	6.1	419	351	17.1	18.6	10.0×10.5
	9	4.8	384	418	19.4	22.9	11.4×12.5

林分类型	样地编号	坡度/°	海拔/m	株数密度/(株/hm²)	平均树高/m	平均胸径/cm	平均冠幅/m×m
落叶松-胡桃楸混交林	1	2.3	297	651	17.5	27.9	8.3×8.5
	2	4.7	308	518	18.3	31.5	8.9×7.0
	3	3.8	321	718	16.9	25.3	6.12×8.0
落叶松纯林	4	2.8	316	468	20.9	25.4	11.2×11.5
	5	3.9	362	534	19.0	20.7	9.2×10.5
	6	4.1	312	484	21.0	20.3	9.8×11.2
胡桃楸纯林	7	5.4	442	384	16.9	24.8	12.3×11.0
	8	6.1	419	351	17.1	18.6	10.0×10.5
	9	4.8	384	418	19.4	22.9	11.4×12.5

林分类型	土层深度/cm	土壤容重/(g/cm³)	土壤自然含水量/%	土壤饱和含水量/%	土壤毛管持水量/%
落叶松-胡桃楸混交林	0~10	0.82	36.65	57.65	51.54
	10~20	1.02	29.18	47.72	43.39
	20~30	1.18	23.84	35.86	28.15
落叶松纯林	0~10	0.88	37.06	46.49	38.42
	10~20	0.96	35.74	41.87	36.48
	20~30	1.13	32.53	37.53	33.85
胡桃楸纯林	0~10	0.88	38.59	49.52	41.08
	10~20	1.05	24.96	35.46	29.36
	20~30	1.11	24.45	34.83	27.01

林分类型	土层深度/cm	土壤容重/(g/cm³)	土壤自然含水量/%	土壤饱和含水量/%	土壤毛管持水量/%
落叶松-胡桃楸混交林	0~10	0.82	36.65	57.65	51.54
	10~20	1.02	29.18	47.72	43.39
	20~30	1.18	23.84	35.86	28.15
落叶松纯林	0~10	0.88	37.06	46.49	38.42
	10~20	0.96	35.74	41.87	36.48
	20~30	1.13	32.53	37.53	33.85
胡桃楸纯林	0~10	0.88	38.59	49.52	41.08
	10~20	1.05	24.96	35.46	29.36
	20~30	1.11	24.45	34.83	27.01

林分类型	土层深度/cm	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
胡桃楸纯林	0~10	5.65±0.11	126.66±4.38	6.88±1.90	1.06±0.17	6.93±0.11	32.93±3.63	243.82±12.90
	10~20	5.69±0.06	87.83±6.25	4.54±1.01	0.95±0.10	6.90±0.05	25.11±8.39	156.75±6.26
	20~30	5.70±0.09	75.33±6.03	3.81±0.96	0.85±0.05	6.72±0.16	17.55±0.69	156.51±6.21
落叶松纯林	0~10	5.93±0.19	122.56±7.83	5.77±1.09	1.01±0.04	6.54±0.28	14.71±5.20	156.24±6.44
	10~20	5.67±0.06	106.72±4.92	5.11±0.64	0.99±0.02	6.93±0.44	7.45±4.73	134.57±8.67
	20~30	5.76±0.11	97.27±3.27	4.83±0.41	0.89±0.12	6.30±0.75	4.62±0.31	112.50±6.27
落叶松-胡桃楸混交林	0~10	5.83±0.11	216.16±9.23	9.08±1.69	0.96±0.04	7.34±0.14	15.55±2.30	283.42±8.82
	10~20	5.89±0.04	109.24±1.57	5.15±0.81	0.93±0.13	6.06±0.06	8.86±0.61	143.06±10.00
	20~30	5.89±0.06	105.07±5.91	3.89±0.32	0.82±0.07	5.84±0.25	9.38±0.44	160.94±10.09