不同改造措施对柏木低效林中小型土壤动物群落结构的影响

doi:10.11934/j.issn.1673-4831.2016.05.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Meso- and micro-soil fauna can be used as an important indicator of habitat quality. It's not only sensitive to changing environment, but also plays an important role in soil ecosystem. So it is used to evaluate ecological effects of measures of reforming low-efficient cypress forests in this study. A field experiment, carried out in a cypress forest, was designed to have 6 treatments, that is, Treatment HT (interplanted with walnut trees free of mulch), Treatment HB (interplanted with walnut trees and mulched with white film), Treatment HH (interplanted with walnut trees and mulched with black film), Treatment HZ (interplanted with walnut trees and mulched with shade net), Treatment HD (interplanted with walnut trees and mulched with litter) and Treatment BM (no interplanting and no mulching). Investigations of meso- and micro-soil faunal diversity were performed during the period from June, 2013 to June, 2014 for comparison. Meso- and micro-soil animals were isolated from the soil, using the dry and wet funnel methods, and a total of 4 893 soil faunal individuals were gathered and sorted into 13 groups, 5 classes and 2 phyla. Results show that composition of that soil fauna, in terms of dominant group, common group, and scarce/rare group, varied sharply with the treatment. Similarity analysis reveals that structure of the soil fauna community also differed greatly between treatments. In Treatments HT, HB, HH and HZ population, individual density, Shannon index, Pielou index and Simpson index of the meso and micro-soil fauna increased significantly(P<0.05), with Treatment HD in particular. Besides, the four treatments affected spatial distribution of the soil fauna remarkably, and improved soil physic-chemical properties. And the improved soil properties and their interactions jointly affected structure of the soil faunal community. Treatment HT did have some marked effects on soil total potassium, readily available potassium, organic matter and spatial distribution of the soil fauna (P<0.05), but not much on population, individual density, Shannon index, Pielou index and Simpson index of the soil fauna. In conclusion, the treatments of interplanting walnut trees and mulching is proven to be able to improve community structure of the meso and micro-soil fauna in the low-efficient cypress forest and the treatment of interplanting walnut trees and mulching with litter (HD) is the most outstanding in this effect.

Key words: cypress, walnut, surface mulch, low-benefit forest, soil fauna

CLC Number:

TIE Lie-hua, BAI Wen-yu, FENG Mao-song, WU Tao, LI Wen-bing, HAN Dong-miao, ZHANG Zhong-yu. Effects of Reforming Low-Efficient Cypress Forest on Meso- and Micro-Soil Faunal Community[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2016, 32(5): 767-773.

References

[1] GUO Xiao-ping,ZHU Jin-zhao,YU Xin-xiao,et al.Ways to Improve Low-Benefit Black Locust Forests in Loess Plateau[J].Forestry Studies in China,2005,7(2):57-62.
[2] 王会利,唐玉贵,韦娇媚.低效林改造对土壤理化性质及水源涵养功能的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(5):72-78
[3] 邓东周,张小平,鄢武先,等.低效林改造研究综述[J].世界林业研究,2010,23(4):65-69.
[4] 冯文贵,刘洋.四川盆地低山丘陵区柏木低效林改造效应研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(15):6296-6297,6303.
[5] 周立江.低效林评判与改造途径的探讨[J].四川林业科技,2004,25(1):16-21.
[6] 龚固堂,黎燕琼,朱志芳,等.川中丘陵区人工柏木防护林适宜林分结构及水文效应[J].生态学报,2012,32(3):923-930.
[7] 黎燕琼,龚固堂,郑绍伟,等.低效柏木纯林不同改造措施对水土保持功能的影响[J].生态学报,2013,33(3):934-943.
[8] 庞学勇,包维楷,张咏梅.岷江上游中山区低效林改造对土壤物理性质的影响[J].水土保持通报,2005,25(5):12-16.
[9] 高海生,朱凤妹,李润丰.我国核桃加工产业的生产现状与发展趋势[J].经济林研究,2008,26(3):119-126.
[10] 侯晓杰,汪景宽,李世朋.不同施肥处理与地膜覆盖对土壤微生物群落功能多样性的影响[J].生态学报,2007,27(2):655-661.
[11] 卜玉山,苗果园,周乃健,等.地膜和秸秆覆盖土壤肥力效应分析与比较[J].中国农业科学,2006,39(5):1069-1075.
[12] 蒋万祥,陈静,王洪凯,等.山东蒙山线蚓群落结构及其影响因子研究[J].生态与农村环境学报,2013,29(2):203-208.
[13] SIX J,BOSSUYTC H,DEGRYZED S,et al A History of Research on the Link Between (Micro) Aggregates,Soil Biota,and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics[J].Soil and Tillage Research,2004,79(1):7-31.
[14] VEIKKO H.The Role of Soil Fauna in Ecosystems:A Historical Review[J].Pedobiologia,2007,50(6):489-495.
[15] MA Wei-chun.Critical Body Residues (CBRs) for Ecotoxicological Soil Quality Assessment:Copper in Earthworms[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2005,37(3):561-568.
[16] SHAO Yuan-hu,ZHANG Wei-xin,SHEN Jue-cui,et al.Nematodes as Indicators of Soil Recovery in Tailings of a Lead/Zinc Mine[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2008,40(8):2040-2046.
[17] MIRA L,MIKO H,JARI H,et al.History of Land-Use Intensity Can Modify the Relationship Between Functional Complexity of the Soil Fauna and Soil Ecosystem Services:A Microcosm Study[J].Applied Soil Ecology,2012,55:53-61.
[18] 艾尼瓦尔·吐米尔,余曙光.乌鲁木齐北郊不同土地利用方式下大中型土壤动物群落分布特征[J].生态与农村环境学报,2008,24(2):36-40.
[19] 李娜,张雪萍,张利敏.红松人工林与天然次生林大型土壤动物功能类群[J].应用与环境生物学报,2014,20(1):22-29.
[20] 铁烈华,张林成,冯茂松,等.烘虫温度和时间对中小型土壤动物烘虫分离效果的影响[J].四川农业大学学报,2015,33(1):45-50.
[21] 铁烈华,白文玉,冯茂松,等.经济林草措施改造柏木低效林对中小型土壤动物群落结构的影响[J].生态学杂志,2016,35(2):346-353.
[22] 尹文英.中国土壤动物检索图鉴[M].北京:科学出版社,1998:38-387.
[23] 袁锋,张雅林,冯纪年,等.昆虫分类学[M].2版.北京:中国农业出版社,2005:58-539.
[24] 尹文英.中国亚热带土壤动物[M].北京:科学出版社,1992:18-64.
[25] 崔丽巍,刘世荣,刘兴良,等.米亚罗林区不同森林恢复方式下中小型土壤动物多样性[J].生态学杂志,2011,30(6):1153-1162.
[26] 李艳红,杨万勤,罗承德,等.桉-桤不同混合比例凋落物分解过程中土壤动物群落动态[J].生态学报,2013,33(1):159-167.
[27] 张义,谢永生,郝明德,等.不同地表覆盖方式对苹果园土壤性状及果树生长和产量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(2):279-286.
[28] 林英华,杨学云,张夫道,等.陕西黄土区不同施肥条件下农田土壤动物的群落组成和结构[J].生物多样性,2005,13(3):188-196.
[29] 闫根海,杨晓军,王斌,等.地膜覆盖对玉米产量及其土壤状况的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2010,38(12):6405-6406,6413.
[30] 杨佩,王海霞,岳佳.秸秆覆盖免耕条件下中小型土壤动物的生态分布特征[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(2):145-150.
[31] 于树,汪景宽,高艳梅.地膜覆盖及不同施肥处理对土壤微生物量碳和氮的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2006,37(4):602-606.
[32] HADRIAN F C,GERARDO S B V,HOWARD C L.Mulch Effects on Rainfall Interception,Soil Physical Characteristics and Temperature Under Zea mays L.[J].Soil and Tillage Research,2006,91(1):227-235.

Effects of Reforming Low-Efficient Cypress Forest on Meso- and Micro-Soil Faunal Community

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	SHAO Ying, CAO Si-ping, CAO Wen-wen, LIU Chang-hai. Effects of Degradation and Management of Nanniwan Wetland on Soil Fauna Diversity [J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2019, 35(5): 634-643.
[2]	ZHANG Ru-yi, HU Hong-ling, HU Ting-xing, YANG Li-mei, SHU Lan, RUAN Ruo-yu. Effects of Decomposing Walnut (Juglans regia) Leaf Litter on Growth, Photosynthesis and Resistance Physiology of Three Recipient Plants [J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2016, 32(4): 595-602.
[3]	CHEN Jun-Hua, GONG Gu-Tang, ZHU Zhi-Fang, LI Yan-Qiong, WU Xue-Xian, ZHENG Shao-Wei, MU Chang-Long. Ecological and Economic Benefits of Chicken Rearing in Cypress Forest in Hilly Areas of Central Sichuan [J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2013, 29(2): 214-219.
[4]	WANG Qiang, LUO Yan, JIN Ya-Li, YOU Wen-Hui. Community Structure of Soil Fauna in Forest Belt of Different Areas of Shanghai in Fall [J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2012, 28(6): 669-674.
[5]	WU Hai-Tao, Lü Xian-Guo , YANG Qing, JIANG Hai-Dong. Effect of Soil Fauna on Decomposition of Litters in Carex lasiocarpa Wetland in Sanjiang Plain [J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2006, 22(3): 5-10.