PDF Download

[1]OU Zhiyang,SHEN Wenhui,PENG Yuhua,et al.Soil Enzyme Activities of Different Plant Communities in Karst Mountains of Pinguo County, Guangxi[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2017,24(03):75-79.

Copy

Soil Enzyme Activities of Different Plant Communities in Karst Mountains of Pinguo County, Guangxi

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 24 Number of periods: 2017 03 Page number: 75-79 Column: Public date: 2017-06-28

Title:: Soil Enzyme Activities of Different Plant Communities in Karst Mountains of Pinguo County, Guangxi

Author(s):: OU Zhiyang¹, SHEN Wenhui¹, PENG Yuhua¹, PANG Shilong¹, HE Qinfei¹, HUANG Xiaorong¹, LIANG Yan²; 1. Guangxi Forestry Research Institute, Nanning 530002, China;
2. Central South University of Forestry & Technology, Changsha 410004, China

Keywords:: soil enzyme; karst; plant community; soil nutrient; correlation

CLC:: S718.5;S714.2;S154.2

DOI:: -

Abstract:: To study soil enzyme activity characteristics of plant communities under different restoration stages in Pinguo karst moutains, Guangxi, differences of soil enzyme activities among plant communities were analyzed and the correlations between soil enzyme activities and soil chemical properties were also explored through correlation analysis, multiple comparisons and principal component analysis based on field survey and experimental analysis. The results showed that: (1) except soil alkaline phosphatase (APE), the activities of soil catalase (CAT), urease (URE), and invertase (INV) were significant different among plant communities, suggesting that community types have influence on the soil enzyme activities; (2) soil pH value was very significantly positively correlated with CAT and URE (p < 0.01), and significantly negatively related to APE(p < 0.05); (3) APE, CAT, URE, and INV were strongly associated with soil organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium, available nitrogen, and available potassium, but available phosphorus was not significantly correlated with the four parameters (p > 0.05); (4) CAT, URE, and APE could be used as the sensitive indicators for dynamic changes of the soil qualities in the study area.

References:: [1] 张超,刘国彬,薛莛,等.黄土丘陵区不同林龄人工刺槐林土壤酶演变特征[J].林业科学,2010,46(12):23-29.
[2] 司登宇,张金池,陈莉莎,等.浙江省凤阳山不同林分类型土壤酶活性研究[J].水土保持通报,2013,33(6):258-263.
[3] 胡雷,王长庭,王根绪,等.三江源区不同退化演替阶段高寒草甸土壤酶活性和微生物群落结构的变化[J].草业学报,2014,23(3):8-19.
[4] 胡国珠,杨馥宁,谢双喜.黔中地区皂荚生长与不同岩性土壤酶活性的关系[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2012,36(6):58-62.
[5] 刘成刚,吴永波,薛建辉,等.刺槐滇柏混交林及纯林土壤酶与养分相关性研究[J].土壤通报,2012,43(6):1427-1431.
[6] 王群,夏江宝,张金池,等.黄河三角洲退化刺槐林地不同改造模式下土壤酶活性及养分特征[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(4):133-137.
[7] 王翔,李晋川,岳建英,等.安太堡露天矿复垦地不同人工植被恢复下的土壤酶活性和肥力比较[J].环境科学,2013,34(9):3601-3606.
[8] Fu B J, Liu S L, Chen L D, et al. Soil quality regime in relation to land cover and slope position across a highly modified slope landscape[J]. Ecological Research,2004,19(1):111-118.
[9] 杨宁,邹冬生,杨满元,等.衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同植被恢复阶段土壤酶活性特征研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2013,19(6):1516-1524.
[10] 陈祖拥,刘方,蒲通达,等.贵州中部喀斯特森林退化过程中土壤酶活性的变化[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(2):47-51.
[11] 崔晓晓,王纪杰,罗惠宁,等.喀斯特峡谷区植被恢复过程中土壤酶活性的变化[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2011,25(2):103&107.
[12] 刘成刚,戎宇,薛建辉,等.喀斯特山地不同人工林土壤酶活性与草本层结构特征的关系[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2011,35(2):99-102.
[13] 符裕红,黄宗胜,喻理飞.岩溶区典型根系地下生境类型中土壤酶活性研究[J].土壤学报,2012,49(6):1202.
[14] 向悟生,李先琨,何成新,等.石漠化山地复合生态系统评价:以广西平果县龙何屯生态重建示范区为例[J].长江流域资源与环境,2007,16(6):826-830.
[15] 于明含,孙保平.广西平果县退耕还林土壤环境效应及生态效益价值估算[J].浙江农业学报,2012,24(1):114-119.
[16] 欧芷阳,申文辉,庞世龙,等.平果喀斯特山地不同植物群落的土壤质量评价[J].生态学杂志,2015,34(10):2771-2777.
[17] 鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[18] 关松荫.土壤酶及研究方法[M].北京:农业出版社,1986.
[19] 李振高,骆永明,滕应.土壤与环境微生物研究法[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[20] 王启兰,王溪,王长庭,等.高寒矮嵩草草甸土壤酶活性与土壤性质关系的研究[J].中国草地学报,2010,32(3):51-56.
[21] 司志国,俞小鹏,白玉杰,等.徐州城市绿地表层土壤酶活性及其影响因素[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2013(2):73-76,80.
[22] 戴凌,黄志宏,文丽.长沙市不同森林类型土壤养分含量与土壤酶活性[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2014,34(6):100-105.
[23] 杨宁,杨满元,雷玉兰,等.衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地土壤酶活性对植被恢复的响应[J].生态环境学报,2014,23(4):575-580.
[24] Guan Z J, Luo Q, Chen X, et al. Saline soil enzyme activities of four plant communities in Sangong River basin of Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2014,6(2):164-173.
[25] 杨文彬,耿玉清,王冬梅.漓江水陆交错带不同植被类型的土壤酶活性[J].生态学报,2015,35(14):4604-4612.
[26] 龙健,李娟,江新荣,等.喀斯特石漠化地区不同恢复和重建措施对土壤质量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(4):615-619.
[27] 杨小青,胡宝清.喀斯特石漠化生态系统恢复演替过程中土壤质量特性研究:以广西都安县澄江小流域为例[J].生态与农村环境学报,2009,25(3):1-5.
[28] Puglisi E, Del Re A A M, Rao M A, et al. Development and validation of numerical indexes integrating enzyme activities of soils[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2006,38(7):1673-1681.
[29] 刘成刚,薛建辉.喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(10):1050-1060.
[30] 赵燕娜,廖超英,李晓明,等.毛乌素沙地不同林龄樟子松人工林土壤酶活性变化特征[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(2):1-5.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01