[1]WANG Ping,SUN Tao.Effect of Rehabilitation Measures on the Soil Physical and Chemical Characteristics in the Alpine Rangeland[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2014,21(04):31-34.

Copy

Effect of Rehabilitation Measures on the Soil Physical and Chemical Characteristics in the Alpine Rangeland

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 21 Number of periods: 2014 04 Page number: 31-34 Column: Public date: 2014-08-28

Title:: Effect of Rehabilitation Measures on the Soil Physical and Chemical Characteristics in the Alpine Rangeland

Author(s):: WANG Ping¹, SUN Tao²; 1. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation of Heilongjiang Province, Harbin 150000, China;
2. Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, CAS, Harbin 150081, China

Keywords:: degradation rangeland; enclosure rangeland; grazing prohibition rangeland; controlling weed; soil characteristic

CLC:: S812.8

DOI:: -

Abstract:: In order to understand the effect of f rehabilitation measures on the soil physical and chemical characteristics in the alpine rangeland. Based on the field survey and analysis, this paper compared the variation of soil physical and chemical properties under three rangeland rehabilitation measures (enclosure rangeland; grazing prohibition rangeland and controlling weeds) in alpine rangeland in the Qilian Mountain. The results showed that the soil physical and chemical properties were influenced by the rehabilitation measures of degraded rangeland. The soil bulk densities in the same soil depth of the enclosure rangeland; grazing prohibition rangeland and controlling weeds were significantly lower than that of heavy degraded rangeland (P < 0.05). Compared to heavy degraded rangeland, the soil total porosities in 0—10 cm layer in the controlling weed and enclosure rangeland increased 1.71% and 1.44%, soil capillary holding water also increased 1.08% and 1.15%. The order from largest to lowest of maximum water holding capacity was controlling weeds, enclosure rangeland, grazing prohibition and heavy degraded rangeland, and the difference is significantly obvious (P < 0.05). The content of organic matter, total N, total P, available N and K in enclosure rangeland and grazing prohibition rangeland were obviously higher than those of heavy degraded rangeland (P < 0.05). The content of organic matter, total N and available P in the 0—30 cm layer of controlling weeds were larger than that of the heavy degraded rangeland. The analysis of soil physical and chemical characteristic of alpine rangeland will provide reference for evaluating the rehabilitation control efficiency of heavy degraded rangeland.

References:: [1] 王国宏.祁连山北坡中段植物群落多样性的垂直分布格局[J].生物多样性,2002,10(1):7-14.
[2] 赵成章,樊胜岳,殷翠琴.祁连山区天然草原退化原因分析与可持续利用对策[J].中国沙漠,2004,24(2):207-210.
[3] 樊胜岳,张卉,赵成章.甘肃省肃南县草地过度放牧的社会经济成因分析[J].干旱区地理,2006,29(6):923-929.
[4] 龙瑞军,董世魁,胡自治.西部草地退化的原因分析与生态恢复措施探讨[J].草原与草坪,2005(6):3-7.
[5] 赵锦梅,张德罡,刘长仲,等.祁连山东段高寒地区土地利用方式对土壤性状的影响[J].生态学报,2012,32(2):548-556.
[6] 康冰,刘世荣,蔡道雄,等.南亚热带不同植被恢复模式下土壤理化性质[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(10):2479-2486.
[7] 赵成章,龙瑞军.石羊河上游甘肃臭草型退化草地植被恢复过程[J].山地学报,2008,26(3):286-292.
[8] 任珩,赵成章,安丽涓.祁连山北坡"毒杂草"型退化草地群落生态位特征[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(10):2711-2715.
[9] 林丽,曹广民,赵成章,等.祁连山东段退化草地优势种抗牧性响应[J].干旱区资源与环境,2011,25(5):218-222.
[10] 孙涛,龙瑞军,刘志云.祁连山高山草地蝗虫群落组成,发生时间动态及生物学特性[J].应用与环境生物学报,2010,16(4):550-554.
[11] 鲍士丹.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[12] 都耀庭,张东杰.禁牧封育措施改良高寒地区退化草地的效果[J].草业科学,2007,24(7):22-24.
[13] Hoh J A. Grazing pressure and soil carbon microbial biomass and enzyme activities in semiarid Northeastern Australia[J]. Applied Soil Ecology,1997,5(2):143-149.
[14] 王丽,张镱锂,王兆锋,等.放牧及水文扰动对拉萨地区湿草甸湿地土壤特征的影响[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(1):66-69.
[15] 刁兆岩,冯朝阳,徐立荣,等.草地围封内外植物多样性变化研究:以辉河自然保护区为例[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):148-151.
[16] 李璠,周国英,杨路存,等.围栏封育对青海湖流域主要植物群落多样性与稳定性的影响[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(4):135-140.
[17] 孙宗玖,安沙舟,段娇娇.围栏封育对新疆蒿类荒漠草地植被及土壤养分的影响[J].干旱区研究,2009,26(6):877-882.
[18] 陈晓鹏,祁智林,潘剑玲,等.灭除狼毒10年后不同放牧方式亚高山草地植物群落和土壤理化特征变化[J].中国草地学报,2013,35(1):91-95.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01