[1]DONG Jinwei,LI Yiping,LI Xinkai,et al.Effects of Vegetation Types on Biocrusts and the Underlying Soil Nutrients in Mu Us Sandland[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2019,26(02):112-117.
Copy
Effects of Vegetation Types on Biocrusts and the Underlying Soil Nutrients in Mu Us Sandland
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
26
Number of periods:
2019 02
Page number:
112-117
Column:
Public date:
2019-04-28
- Title:
- Effects of Vegetation Types on Biocrusts and the Underlying Soil Nutrients in Mu Us Sandland
- Keywords:
- Mu Us Sandland; biocrusts; vegetation type; soil nutrients
- CLC:
- S154
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- In order to understand the nutrient effect of desert soil biocrusts and its relationship with shrub vegetation, this study focused on moss and algal crusts widely distributing in the Mu Us Sandland. Typical plots of four types of vegetation were selected and the effects of vegetation types on the distribution of nutrients of biocrusts and underlying soil were discussed in detail. The results showed that: (1) nutrients in algae crusts and underlying soil under the canopy of Artemisia ordosica were higher than those between the canopy, the corresponding values under the canopy of the Salix and Caragana communities were significantly lower than those between the canopies of the vegetation types (p<0.05); (2) soil nutrients in biocrusts of Salix psammophila, Artemisia ordosica and Caragana gradually decreased as soil depth increased, it indicated that soil nutrients in 5—10 cm soil were significantly higher than that in upper soil in grassland; the distribution of total nitrogen and organic matter in moss crust decreased in the order: Caragana korshinskii > grassland > Salix > Artemisia, the total phosphorus content of mossy crust and the nutrient content of algae crust decreased in the order: grassland > Caragana > Artemisia annua > Salix; (3) moss and algae crusts of each vegetation could significantly increase the nutrient contents in the 0—10 cm soil layer, and the nutrient enrichment of moss crusts was better than those of algae crusts.
- References:
-
[1] Bamforth S S. Water film fauna of microbiotic crusts of a warm desert[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2004,56(3):413-423.
[2] Belnap J, Prasse R, Harper K T. Influence of biological soil crusts on soil environments and vascular plants[M]//Belnap J, Lange O L. Biological Soil Crusts:Structure, Function, And Management. Berlin:Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2001:281-300.
[3] Belnap J, Lange O L. Biological Soil Crusts:Structure, Function, and Management[M]//Ecological Studies Series 150. Berlin:Springer-Verlag, 2003.
[4] 张元明,杨维康,王雪芹,等.生物结皮影响下的土壤有机质分异特征[J].生态学报,2005,25(12):3420-3425.
[5] 郭轶瑞,赵哈林,左小安,等.科尔沁沙地沙丘恢复过程中典型灌丛下结皮发育特征及表层土壤特性[J].环境科学,2008,29(4):1027-1034.
[6] 赵哈林,郭轶瑞,周瑞莲,等.植被覆盖对科尔沁沙地土壤生物结皮及其下层土壤理化特性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(7):1657-1663.
[7] 徐晓腾.宁夏盐池沙地土壤结皮理化性质对环境的影响及反射光谱的分析[D].北京:北京林业大学,2015.
[8] 周小泉,刘政鸿,杨永胜,等.毛乌素沙地3种植被下苔藓结皮的土壤理化效应[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(6):340-344.
[9] 薛英英.鄂尔多斯沙区沙漠生物结皮特征的研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2007.
[10] West N E. Structure and function of microphytic soil crusts in wildland ecosystems of arid to semi-arid regions[J]. Advances in Ecological Research, 1990,20:179-223.
[11] 肖波,赵允格,许明祥,等.陕北黄土区生物结皮条件下土壤养分的积累及流失风险[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(5):1019-1026.
[12] 高丽倩,赵允格,秦宁强,等.黄土丘陵区生物结皮对土壤物理属性的影响[J].自然资源学报,2012,27(8):1316-1326.
[13] 潘臻.不同植被下沙地生物结皮对土壤养分的影响[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2009.
[14] 杨晓娟,廖超英,刘莉丽,等.毛乌素沙地不同植被对土壤有机质和生物学特性的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2012,40(3):77-83.
[15] 杨永胜,邱永利,周小泉,等.毛乌素沙地人为干扰苔藓结皮的土壤水分和风蚀效应[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(1):20-24.
[16] 史作民,刘世荣,程瑞梅.内蒙古鄂尔多斯地区4个植物群落类型的土壤碳氮特征[J].林业科学,2004,40(2):21-27.
[17] 庄伟伟,张元明.生物结皮对荒漠草本植物群落结构的影响[J].干旱区研究,2017,34(6):1338-1344.
[18] 王莉,张强,牛西午,等.黄土高原丘陵区不同土地利用方式对土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2007,15(4):53-56.
[19] 王闪闪.黄土丘陵区干扰对生物结皮土壤氮素循环的影响[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2017.
[20] 蔡文涛,李贺祎,来利明,等.鄂尔多斯高原弃耕农田恢复过程中土壤物理性质和生物结皮的变化[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(3):829-837.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
1900-01-01