海南岛热带山地雨林皆伐后不同更新方式对土壤物理性质的影响及恢复研究
Study on D ifferences and Restora tion Degrees of the So il Physica l Propertiesof Tropica lMontane Secondary Forest in Ha inan Island
-
摘要: 通过样地调查和取样测定,运用方差分析、差异显著检验和聚类分析方法,以海南热带山地雨林原始林(0501,植被类型代码)为对照,对热带山地雨林皆伐后的天然更新林(0502) 、皆伐炼山后人工促进天然更新林(0503)和皆伐炼山后种植人工林(0504)等3种次生林的土壤物理差异和恢复程度进行了研究,结果表明: (1)热带山地雨林采伐更新造成土壤密度的增加和表层毛管孔隙度的差异,进而引起总孔隙度的变化,影响0~40 cm土层的最小持水量及20~40 cm土层的毛管持水量;皆伐天然更新措施(0502样地)的土壤质地较好,表层土粒淋洗下移较少,整个剖面土壤毛管孔隙度较高,土体发育良好,具有很强的持水保水能力;皆伐炼山措施(0503和0504样地)使表层土壤易于向下淋溶和淀积,底层毛管孔隙度降低,增加了中层土壤密度并形成明显的淀积层,影响土壤的通气透水性能,容易造成雨季地表径流和旱季底层水分难向上传输;人工造林更新措施(0504样地)造成土壤表层土粒淋洗严重,各层毛管孔隙度降低和中、底土层非毛管孔隙度的减少,中、底土层明显的板结,影响林地的通气透水性能,各种持水保水能力大大降低,容易产生地表径流和存在土壤表层砂化危险。(2)皆伐天然更新林具有与原始林相似的土壤物理性质。人工促进天然更新林土壤属黏壤土至黏土质地,表层毛管孔隙度较大,底层毛管孔隙度最小及持水量递减率明显。人工更新林土壤为砂质黏壤土至黏土,表层土粒淋溶下移和砂化现象明显,中、底土层具有明显淀积层,持水保水能力最低。(3)皆伐迹地天然更新林(0502)和人工促进天然更新林(0503)土壤物理恢复程度较接近原始林,人工更新林(0504)土壤恢复程度明显不及天然更新林,次生林的土壤总孔隙度和持水量恢复较好,土壤颗粒比例较难恢复,表层土壤密度和中层土壤粉黏比的恢复度较差,中层土壤的毛管与非毛管孔隙度之比的恢复度较表层和底层高,皆伐炼山对深层土壤的恢复影响较大。Abstract: The differences and restoration degree of soil physical p roperties of the three secondary trop ical montanerainforests including natural regeneration forest after clear-cutting (0502) , artificial p romoting natural regenerationforest with some native p lants cultivated ( 0503 ) , and manmade forest with native p lants cultivated after clearcutting and burning (0504) were compared with virgin trop icalmontane rainfores (0501) byANOVA and clustering analysis. The results are as follows: ( 1) Cutting of trop ical rainforests and the following regeneration caused theincreasing of bulk density and the differences of surface layer cap illary porosity, which resulted in the total porositychanged. Both of them influenced the minimum water-holding capacity of 0—40 cm soil layer and the cap illarywater-holding capacity of 20—40 cm soil layer. Measures with natural regeneration after clear-cutting had a bettersoil texture, few top soil particles washed and illuviated by drip, higher cap illary porosity, well developed soil andstrong water-holding capacity. Measureswith clear-cutting and burningmade the top soil beingwashed and illuviatedeasily, the cap illary porosity of substrate soil decreased, the bulk density of middle stratum soil increased andilluviate lamination being shaped, the capabilities of surface flow in the rainy season and air exchange and waterpenetration being weaken. All of these changes caused the difficulty to transfer water from under soil in the dryseason. Artificial p lantation measure (0504) made the top soil particles being washed and illuviated severely, thecap illary porosity of all soil strata and anti-cap illary porosity of subsoil decreased, subsoil harden obviously, airexchange and water penetration capacity being influenced, and water-holding decreased remarkably. All of themresulted in surface flow and sand-conversion possibilities. (2) 0502 had similar physical characteristicswith 0501.However, the soil of 0503 belonged to clay loam to clay texture categories, with bigger cap illary porosities of top soiland least of under stratum soil, and obvious decreasing of water2holding rate. The soil of 0504 belonged to sandyclay loam to clay texture categories, with top soil particles washed and illuviated obviously, which formedaccumulation horizon in substratum and low water-holding capacity. ( 3) The restoration degree of 0502 and 0503were closed to 0501. However, 0504 was distinctly less than 0502 and 0503. The technical step of clear-cutting andcontrolled burning badly affected rehabilitation degree of substrata soil p roperties. The easy restoration physicalindices of the secondary forests were total porosity, and water-holding capacity, contrary to the difficult restorationindex-soil particle p roportion. Restoration degree of bulk density of top soil and slit/ clay ratio of middle soil layerwere poor. Ratio of cap illary and anti-cap illary of middle soil layer was higher than that in top soil and under layersoil. Therefore, clear-cutting and burning influenced the deep soil significantly.
-
[1] Attiwill PM. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological ba2sis for conservative management [J]. forest ecology and management, 1994, 63: 247 - 300 [2] [EB /OL]. 2001: http: / /www / fs. fed.us/pnw / fera [3] Alvarado E, Sandberg D V. Longing in trop ical forest: literature review on ecological impacts [4] 蒋有绪,卢俊培. 中国海南岛尖峰岭热带林生态系统[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 1991: 235 - 283 [5] 曾永泉. 海南岛刀耕火种迹地的生物地球化学特征和生态环境质量的研究[J]. 中山大学学报(自然科学) 论丛, 1986 ( 7 ) :55 - 67 [6] 张萍. 刀耕火种对土壤微生物和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 1996, 15 (3) : 64 - 67 [7] 卢俊培. 海南岛尖峰岭半落叶季雨林生态效应的研究IV - 游耕农业的地力分析[J]. 林业科学研究, 1988, 1 (1) : 25 - 31 [8] 中国林业科学研究院热带林业研究所、林业研究所联合课题组.海南岛尖峰岭热带林生态系统研究(续) V. 游耕农业的生态后果Ⅳ. 更新与演替Ⅶ. 简要结论[J]. 林业科学研究, 1988, 1(5) : 467 - 471 [9] 施济普,朱 华. 三种干扰方式对西双版纳热带森林群落植物多样性的影响[J] ,广西中外文, 2002, 22 (2) : 129 - 135 [10] 张 萍,刀志灵,郭辉军,等. 高黎贡山不同土地利用方式对土壤微生物数量和多样性的影响[J]. 云南植物研究, 1999 (增刊) :84 - 89 [11] 杨小波. 海南次生林植被与其土壤性质的关系探讨[J]. 土壤,2003, 35 (5) : 429 - 434 [12] 骆土寿,李意德,陈德祥,等. 海南岛热带山地鸡毛松人工林等土壤性质研究[J]. 海南大学学报:自然科学版, 2005, 23 ( 4 ) :340 - 346 [13] 曾觉民. 西双版纳热带人工林群落结构及生态功能恢复的研究[J]. 云南林业科技, 2002 (3) : 23 - 45 [14] 孙 波,赵其国. 红壤退化中的土壤质量评价指标及评价方法[J]. 地理科学进展, 1999, 18 (2) : 118 - 128 [15] 章家恩,徐 琪. 退化生态系统的诊断特征及其评价指标体系[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 1999, 8 (2) : 215 - 220 [16] 徐 琪,章家恩,董元华. 三峡地区土壤生态退化评价—以秭归县为例[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 2000, 22 (增刊) : 16 - 22 [17] 刘光崧. 中国生态系统研究网络观测与分析标准方法- 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京:中国标准出版社, 1996: 5 - 23 [18] 杨林章,徐 琪. 土壤生态系统[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2006:147 - 150 [19] 任 海,彭少麟,陆宏芳. 退化生态系统恢复与恢复生态学[J].生态学报, 2004, 24 (8) : 1760 - 1768 [20] 章明奎,徐建明. 造林方式对红壤养分流失和肥力质量的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报:农业与生命科学版, 2000, 26 (6) : 649 - 652 [21] 杨玉盛,陈光水,谢锦升. 南方林业经营措施与土壤侵蚀[J]. 水土保持通报, 2000, 20 (6) : 55 - 59
计量
- 文章访问数: 3293
- HTML全文浏览量: 181
- PDF下载量: 1435
- 被引次数: 0