南亚热带喀斯特区原生林和次生林凋落物与土壤水文效应
Study on the Effects of Litter and Soil Hydrology of Karst Forests in the South Subtropical Region
DOI: 10.12677/GSER.2023.121005, PDF,    国家自然科学基金支持
作者: 庞庆玲, 黄侩侩, 张 贝, 何业涌:南宁师范大学地理科学与规划学院,广西 南宁;韦慧丝, 胡 刚*:南宁师范大学环境与生命科学学院,广西 南宁
关键词: 喀斯特凋落物层土壤层水源涵养Karst Litter Layer Soil Layer Water Conservation
摘要: 本文以广西三十六弄-陇均省级自然保护区原生林和次生林为研究对象,通过野外调查和室内浸泡,探讨原生林和次生林凋落物层和土壤层水文效应。结果表明1) 凋落物厚度和蓄积量均呈原生林 > 次生林,原生林凋落物厚度和蓄积量分别为22.65 mm和7.35 t∙hm−2,次生林分别为19.51 mm和6.45 t∙hm−2。2) 凋落物最大持水量和有效拦蓄量均表现为原生林 > 次生林。3) 凋落物吸水速率和浸水时间的关系均符合幂函数关系(R² > 0.958, P < 0.01),持水量与浸水时间的关系均呈明显对数关系(R² > 0.913, P < 0.01)。持水过程中,原生林和次生林凋落物均表现为在浸水1 h内持水量迅速增加,1 h后增加速度变慢,10~12 h后持水量基本不变,24 h吸水速率趋于0。4) 在0~30 cm土层内,土壤容重均值呈现原生林 < 次生林,土壤有效持水量和最大持水量均表现为原生林 > 次生林。5) 原生林林地有效持水量为119.61 t∙hm−2,大于次生林105.01 t∙hm−2,原生林持水性能较好。综上,石灰岩常绿落叶阔叶混交林具有较强的水源涵养能力,且原生林优于次生林。
Abstract: This research took the primary forest and secondary forest in Guangxi 36 Lane-Longjun Provincial Nature Reserve as the research object, studying the hydrological effects of litter layer and soil layer based on field investigation and indoor immersion methods. The results showed that: 1) The litter thickness and the biomass storage showed primary forest > secondary forest, the litter thickness and biomass storage of primary forest were 22.65mm and 7.35 t∙hm−2, and secondary forest were 19.51 mm and 6.45 t∙hm−2, respectively. 2) The maximum water-holding capacity and modified interception amount exhibited primary forest > secondary forest. 3) Litter absorption rate and soaking time was power function relationship (R² > 0.958, P < 0.01), whereas water holding capacity and soaking time had visible logarithmic relationship (R² > 0.913, P < 0.01). In the water- holding process, the litters in primary forest and secondary forest showed that the water-holding capacity increased rapidly within 1 hour of immersion, and the increasing speed slowed down after 1 hour. After 10~12 hours, the litter basically stopped absorbing water, and the absorption rate reached 0 at 24 hour. 4) In the 0~30 cm soil layer, the average soil bulk density showed primary forest < secondary forest, and the soil effective water-holding capacity and maximum water- holding capacity revealed primary forest > secondary forest. 5) The effective water-holding capacity of primary forest was 119.61 t∙hm−2, which was greater than that of 105.01 t∙hm−2 in secondary forest, indicating that the water-holding capacity of primary forest was relatively good. In conclusion, the Karst mixed evergreen-deciduous broadleaf forest has a strong water conservation capacity, and the primary forest is better than the secondary forest.
文章引用:庞庆玲, 韦慧丝, 黄侩侩, 张贝, 何业涌, 胡刚. 南亚热带喀斯特区原生林和次生林凋落物与土壤水文效应[J]. 地理科学研究, 2023, 12(1): 52-60. https://doi.org/10.12677/GSER.2023.121005

参考文献

[1] 王金悦, 邓羽松, 林立文, 黄娟, 蒋代华, 黄智刚. 南亚热带5种典型人工林凋落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5): 169-175.
[2] 林立文, 邓羽松, 李佩琦, 杨钙仁, 蒋代华, 黄智刚, 雷震. 桂北地区不同密度杉木林枯落物与土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5): 200-207+215.
[3] 武启骞, 王传宽, 赵娟, 窦佳. 帽儿山2种森林类型凋落物和土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(3): 161-166.
[4] 韦小茶, 周秋文, 崔兴芬, 蔡明勇, 马龙生, 戴丽. 喀斯特针叶林枯落物层水文效应[J]. 生态科学, 2017, 36(4): 120-127.
[5] 邹奕巧, 孙欧文, 刘海英, 蔡人岳, 林松, 葛宏立, 吴家森. 浙江省天台县不同森林类型枯落物及土壤水文特性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2020, 40(3): 170-174.
[6] 曾昭霞, 刘孝利, 王克林, 曾馥平, 宋同清. 桂西北喀斯特区原生林与次生林凋落物储量及持水特性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30(7): 1429-1434.
[7] 刘效东, 乔玉娜, 周国逸, 肖崟, 张德强. 鼎湖山3种不同演替阶段森林凋落物的持水特性[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(9): 8-15.
[8] 陆恩富, 朱习爱, 曾欢欢, 刘文杰. 西双版纳典型林型凋落物及其水文特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(7): 2104-2112.
[9] 侯瑞萍, 张克斌, 郝智如. 造林密度对樟子松人工林枯落物和土壤持水能力的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(4): 624-630.
[10] 沈会涛, 由文辉, 蒋跃. 天童常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段枯落物和土壤水文特征[J]. 华东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2010(6): 35-44.
[11] 程欢, 付雨欣, 董洪君, 胡旭, 黄川雄, 刘益君, 车明轩, 付万权, 宫渊波. 川中丘陵区不同植被类型土壤理化性质及水文效应[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2019, 25(4): 845-853.
[12] Freschet, G.T. and Cornelissen, J.H.C. (2013) Linking Litter Decomposition of above and below Ground Organs to Plant-Soil Feedbacks Worldwide. Journal of Ecology, 101, 943-952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] 魏鲁明, 余登利, 陈正仁. 茂兰喀斯特森林凋落物量的动态研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 33(3): 31-34.
[14] 彭晚霞, 王克林, 宋同清, 曾馥平, 王久荣. 喀斯特脆弱生态系统复合退化控制与重建模式[J]. 生态学报, 2008(2): 811-820.
[15] 欧芷阳, 庞世龙, 何峰, 申文辉, 何琴飞, 郑威. 桂西南喀斯特山地蚬木叶片性状对微地形变化的响应[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(10): 2225-2231.
[16] Komatsu, H. and Rappleye, J. (2017) Incongruity between Scientific Knowledge and Ordinary Perceptions of Nature: An Ontological Perspective for Forest Hydrology in Japan. Journal of Forest Research, 22, 75-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[17] 曹云生, 赵艳玲. 不同灌木林分凋落物层与土壤层水源涵养能力研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(6): 179-183.
[18] 陈波, 杨新兵, 赵心苗, 王永明, 田超, 刘阳, 刘鹏. 冀北山地6种天然纯林凋落物及土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(2): 196-201.
[19] Xiao, B., Wang, H.F., Fan, J., Fischer, T. and Veste, M. (2013) Biological Soil Crusts Decrease Soil Temperature in Summer and Increase Soil Temperature in Winter in Semiarid Environment. Ecological Engineering, 58, 52-56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[20] 彭玉华, 郑威, 谭长强, 何琴飞, 申文辉, 曹艳云, 郝海坤, 黄志玲, 何峰. 广西壮族自治区的台湾桤木混交造林水源涵养功能评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(5): 98-105, 112.
[21] 贺宇, 丁国栋, 梁文俊, 臧荫桐, 高广磊, 安云. 林分密度对枯落物层持水特性的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 40(4): 68-72.
[22] 官丽莉, 周国逸, 张德强, 刘菊秀, 张倩媚. 鼎湖山南亚热带常绿阔叶林凋落物量20年动态研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2004, 28(4): 449-456.
[23] 张益, 林毅雁, 张杰铭, 贾国栋, 樊登星, 余新晓. 北京山区典型植被枯落物和土壤层水文功能[J]. 水土保持研究, 2023, 30(4): 1-9.
[24] 杨建伟, 杨建英, 何会宾, 唐静, 赵廷宁. 冀北山区滦平县4种新造林地水源涵养能力研究[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(18): 6731-6737.
[25] 宋思梦, 周扬, 李勋, 张艳, 张健. 金沙江干热河谷区不同坡位引种巨菌草(Pennisetum sinese)对土壤物理性质与水分特征的影响[J/OL]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2023, 1-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef