PDF Download

[1]WU Chunrong,XING Caiping.Comparison of Fine Root Biomass of Three Main Arbors in Qilian Mountains[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2015,22(05):325-330.

Copy

Comparison of Fine Root Biomass of Three Main Arbors in Qilian Mountains

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 22 Number of periods: 2015 05 Page number: 325-330 Column: Public date: 2015-10-28

Title:: Comparison of Fine Root Biomass of Three Main Arbors in Qilian Mountains

Author(s):: WU Chunrong¹, XING Caiping²; 1. Institute of Desert Control of Gansu, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. College of Forestry, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Keywords:: arbor vegetation; fine root biomass; soil water content; soil bulk density; soil nutrients

CLC:: Q945

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Using the method of soil core sampling, we analyzed the fine root biomass, soil moisture content, soil bulk density and soil nutrient in 0—40 cm soil layers of the three kinds of main arbor vegetation (Picea crassifolia, Poplar and Sabina przewalskii) in the middle west of the Qilian Mountain, and compared the characteristics of the three vegetation types. The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between total fine root biomass and live fine root biomass of the three arbor vegetations in the study area, while the soil moisture and soil bulk density were also significantly negatively correlated with fine root biomass. Both soil nutrients and soil water all played the positive role in the development of the fine root biomass. The root biomass of three fine vegetation types mainly distributed in the 20—40 cm soil layers, the fine root biomass of poplar was 154 times of the Picea crassifolia, 308 times of Sabina przewalskii. The soil bulk densities of three vegetation types were significantly different with the rank of S_{d Yang} > S_{d Bai} > S_{d Shan}. Soil moisture appeared significantly different in 0—10 cm layers, it was much higher in Picea crassifolia forest than those under the other two types of vegetation. In addition, the soil carbon content and nitrogen content of three vegetation types were also significantly different.

References:: [1] 苏永中,赵哈林.土壤有机碳储量影响因素及其环境效应的研究进展[J].中国沙漠,2002,22(3):220-228.
[2] 李庆华,曹扬,陈云明,等.陕西油松人工林下枯落物层生物量及其碳储量[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(4):24-28,54.
[3] 刘满强,胡锋,陈小云,等.中国土壤有机碳库及空间分布特征分析[J].地理学报,2000,55(5):533-544.
[4] 鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.北京山地不同林分乔木层生物量和生产力研究[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(4):155-159.
[5] 彭守璋,赵传燕,郑祥霖,等.祁连山区青海云杉林生物量和碳储量空间分布特征[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(7):1689-1694.
[6] 苏嫄,焦菊英,马祥华,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区主要群落地上生物量季节变化及其与土壤水分的关系[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(6):7-12.
[7] 姜红梅,李明治,王亲,等.祁连山东段不同植被下土壤养分状况研究[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):166-170.
[8] 罗云建,张小全,王效科,等.森林生物量的估算方法及其研究进展[J].林业科学,2009,45(8):129-134.
[9] 许文强,罗格平,陈曦,等.干旱区三工河流域土壤有机碳储量及空间分布特征[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(10):1740-1747.
[10] 党宏忠,赵雨森,陈祥伟,等.祁连山青海云杉林地土壤水分特征研究[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(7):1148-1152.
[11] 王绍强,周成虎,李克让,等.中国土壤有机碳库及空间分布特征分析[J].地理学报,2000,55(5):533-544.
[12] 苏纪帅,程积民,高阳,等.宁夏大罗山4种主要植被类型的细根生物量[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(3):626-632.
[13] 彭守璋,赵传燕,许仲林,等.黑河上游祁连山区青海云杉生长状况及其潜在分布区的模拟[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(6):605-614.
[14] 胡启武,欧阳华,刘贤德.祁连山北坡土壤碳氮分布特征[J].山地学报,2006,24(6):654-661.
[15] 常学向,赵爱芬,王金叶,等.祁连山林区大气降水特征与森林对降水的截留作用[J].高原气象,2002,21(3):274-280.
[16] 方精云,郭兆迪,朴世龙,等.1981-2000年中国陆地植被碳汇的估算[J].中国科学:D辑地球科学,2007,37(6):804-812.
[17] 梁二,蔡典雄,张丁辰,等.中国陆地土壤有机碳储量估算及其不确定性分析[J].中国土壤与肥料,2010,(6):75-79.
[18] 潘根兴,李恋卿,张旭辉,等.中国土壤有机碳库量与农业土壤碳固定动态的若干问题[J].地球科学进展,2003,18(4):609-618.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01