吉林省西部不同林分类型凋落物与土壤持水能力研究
|
摘要
以松原市乾安县营建的柽柳林、杨树林、油松林、杨树白榆混交林及枸杞林为研究对象,裸地为对照,分别采用土壤水分-物理性质及枯落物持水性质测定方法研究各人工林分凋落物及土壤持水能力,结果表明:各人工林分凋落物现存量排序为杨树林(8.87 t·hm~(-2))>杨树白榆混交林(8.65 t·hm~(-2))>枸杞林(8.63 t·hm~(-2))>柽柳林(8.52 t·hm~(-2))>油松林(7.76 t·hm~(-2))。柽柳林凋落物的最大持水量及有效拦蓄量最大,分别为16.12 t·hm~(-2)与12.29 t·hm~(-2);油松林凋落物的最大持水量和有效拦蓄量最小,分别为9.98 t·hm~(-2)和7.89 t·hm~(-2)。0～30 cm土层中,各林地土壤容重均小于裸地。土壤总孔隙度最大的是柽柳,为41.4%;最小的是杨树白榆混交林,为40.33%。土壤持水量最大的是柽柳林,为414.04 t·hm~(-2);土壤持水量最小的是杨树白榆混交林,为402.63 t·hm~(-2)。通过对5种人工林分的凋落物及土壤层持水能力综合分析,表明柽柳林具有最大的持水能力。因而在吉林省西部地区人工林营建时,可优先考虑柽柳。
The mixed forests of Tamarix chinensis,Populus euphratica,Pinus tabulaeformis,mixed Populus euphratica and Ulmus pumila in Qian’an County Songyuan City were used as research objects,and bare soil was used as control.The soil moisture-physical properties and the water-holding properties of litter were used to study the each artificial forest stand litter and soil water holding capacity.The result showed that the standing crop of each artificial forest stand litter was ranked as Populus×xiaohei forest(8.87 t·hm~(-2))>Populus×xiaohei and Ulmus pumila mixed forest(8.65 t·hm~(-2))>Lycium chinense forest(8.63 t·hm~(-2))>Tamarix chinensis forest(8.52 t·hm~(-2))>Pinus tabulaeformis forest(7.76 t·hm~(-2)).The maximum water holding capacity and effective storage capacity of litter in Tamarix chinensis forest were the largest,9.98 t·hm~(-2)and 7.89 t·hm~(-2),respectively.The maximum water holding capacity and effective storage capacity of litter in Pinus tabulaeformis forest were the lowest,9.98 t·hm~(-2)和7.89 t·hm~(-2),respectively.In 0～30 cm soil layer,the soil bulk density of each forest land is smaller than bare land.The largest total soil porosity is Tamarix chinensis,41.4%,the smallest is the mixed forest of Populus euphratica,40.33%.The largest soil water holding capacity is Tamarix chinensis,414.04 t·hm~(-2),the smallest soil water holding capacity is the mixed Populus euphratica and Ulmus pumila,402.63 t·hm~(-2).Through comprehensive analysis of water holding capacity of litter and soil layer of five artificial forest stands,it can be indicated that Tamarix chinensis had the largest water holding capacity.Therefore,it is preferred to consider Tamarix chinensis when planting forests in the western of Jilin Province,.
The mixed forests of Tamarix chinensis,Populus euphratica,Pinus tabulaeformis,mixed Populus euphratica and Ulmus pumila in Qian’an County Songyuan City were used as research objects,and bare soil was used as control.The soil moisture-physical properties and the water-holding properties of litter were used to study the each artificial forest stand litter and soil water holding capacity.The result showed that the standing crop of each artificial forest stand litter was ranked as Populus×xiaohei forest(8.87 t·hm~(-2))>Populus×xiaohei and Ulmus pumila mixed forest(8.65 t·hm~(-2))>Lycium chinense forest(8.63 t·hm~(-2))>Tamarix chinensis forest(8.52 t·hm~(-2))>Pinus tabulaeformis forest(7.76 t·hm~(-2)).The maximum water holding capacity and effective storage capacity of litter in Tamarix chinensis forest were the largest,9.98 t·hm~(-2)and 7.89 t·hm~(-2),respectively.The maximum water holding capacity and effective storage capacity of litter in Pinus tabulaeformis forest were the lowest,9.98 t·hm~(-2)和7.89 t·hm~(-2),respectively.In 0～30 cm soil layer,the soil bulk density of each forest land is smaller than bare land.The largest total soil porosity is Tamarix chinensis,41.4%,the smallest is the mixed forest of Populus euphratica,40.33%.The largest soil water holding capacity is Tamarix chinensis,414.04 t·hm~(-2),the smallest soil water holding capacity is the mixed Populus euphratica and Ulmus pumila,402.63 t·hm~(-2).Through comprehensive analysis of water holding capacity of litter and soil layer of five artificial forest stands,it can be indicated that Tamarix chinensis had the largest water holding capacity.Therefore,it is preferred to consider Tamarix chinensis when planting forests in the western of Jilin Province,.
引文
[1]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.
[2]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.
[3]吴迪.九龙山不同林分枯落物层和土壤层水文效应研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2014.
[4]李永涛,李宗泰,王振猛,等.滨海盐碱区不同林龄柽柳人工林土壤水分物理性质差异性[J].东北林业大学学报,2018,46(9):75-79.
[5]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝,刘国彬.黄土高原人工油松林水文生态效应[J].生态学报,2003,23(2):376-379.
[6]许晓鸿,徐子棋,申聪颖,等.吉林省西部盐碱性闭合泡泽不同环境因子下植被群落特征和多样性特征[J].水土保持应用技术,2018,38(2):1-6.
[7]赵芳,李雪云,赖国桢,等.飞播马尾松林不同林下植被类型枯落物及土壤水文效应[J].中国水土保持科学,2016,14(4):26-33.
[8]饶良懿,朱金兆,毕华兴.重庆四面山森林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(1):33-37.
[9]孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.缙)云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.
[10]王燕,王兵,赵广东,等.江西大岗山3种林型土壤水分物理性质研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):151-153.
[11]苗胜杰,曾雯,古丽娜尔,等.雾灵山三种典型林分枯落物及其土壤水文效应研究[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2016,37(6):54-58.
[12]张淑兰,张海军,张武,等.小兴安岭不同森林类型枯落物储量及其持水特性比较[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(4):85-90.
[13]孟好军,刘贤德,张宏斌,等.祁连山人工林凋落物和土壤水分特征的研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报. 2013,33(2):11-15.
[14]陈倩,周志立,史琛媛,等.河北太行山丘陵区不同林分类型枯落物与土壤持水效益[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):206-211.
[15]张伟,杨新兵,张汝松,等.冀北山地不同林分枯落物及土壤的水源涵养功能评价[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(3):208-212.
[2]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.
[3]吴迪.九龙山不同林分枯落物层和土壤层水文效应研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2014.
[4]李永涛,李宗泰,王振猛,等.滨海盐碱区不同林龄柽柳人工林土壤水分物理性质差异性[J].东北林业大学学报,2018,46(9):75-79.
[5]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝,刘国彬.黄土高原人工油松林水文生态效应[J].生态学报,2003,23(2):376-379.
[6]许晓鸿,徐子棋,申聪颖,等.吉林省西部盐碱性闭合泡泽不同环境因子下植被群落特征和多样性特征[J].水土保持应用技术,2018,38(2):1-6.
[7]赵芳,李雪云,赖国桢,等.飞播马尾松林不同林下植被类型枯落物及土壤水文效应[J].中国水土保持科学,2016,14(4):26-33.
[8]饶良懿,朱金兆,毕华兴.重庆四面山森林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(1):33-37.
[9]孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.缙)云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.
[10]王燕,王兵,赵广东,等.江西大岗山3种林型土壤水分物理性质研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):151-153.
[11]苗胜杰,曾雯,古丽娜尔,等.雾灵山三种典型林分枯落物及其土壤水文效应研究[J].首都师范大学学报(自然科学版),2016,37(6):54-58.
[12]张淑兰,张海军,张武,等.小兴安岭不同森林类型枯落物储量及其持水特性比较[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(4):85-90.
[13]孟好军,刘贤德,张宏斌,等.祁连山人工林凋落物和土壤水分特征的研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报. 2013,33(2):11-15.
[14]陈倩,周志立,史琛媛,等.河北太行山丘陵区不同林分类型枯落物与土壤持水效益[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):206-211.
[15]张伟,杨新兵,张汝松,等.冀北山地不同林分枯落物及土壤的水源涵养功能评价[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(3):208-212.