踩踏干扰下紫金山土壤质量季节变化特征

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.2020110005

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (3): 185-193.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.2020110005

踩踏干扰下紫金山土壤质量季节变化特征

刘倩倩¹(), 彭孝楠¹, 刘鑫¹, 王舒甜¹, 戴康龙², 徐海兵², 董丽娜², 张金池¹^,^*()

1.南京林业大学,南方现代协同创新中心,江苏省水土保持与生态修复重点实验室,江苏南京 210037
2.中山陵园管理局,江苏南京 210014

收稿日期:2020-11-23 接受日期:2021-04-15 出版日期:2022-05-30 发布日期:2022-06-10
通讯作者: 张金池
基金资助:
江苏省农业科技自主创新资金项目(CX(17)1004);江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目(PAPD);南京市建设系统科研计划项目(Ks2005)

Seasonal variation characteristics of soil quality in Zijin Mountain under the disturbance of trample

LIU Qianqian¹(), PENG Xiaonan¹, LIU Xin¹, WANG Shutian¹, DAI Kanglong², XU Haibin², DONG Li’na², ZHANG Jinchi¹^,^*()

1. Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing 210037, China
2. The Administration Bureau of Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Mausoleum, Nanjing 210014, China

Received:2020-11-23 Accepted:2021-04-15 Online:2022-05-30 Published:2022-06-10
Contact: ZHANG Jinchi

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探究踩踏干扰下紫金山国家城市森林公园土壤质量变化特征,分析季节变化对同一踩踏干扰条件下土壤质量的影响。【方法】以南京紫金山国家城市森林公园土壤为研究对象,随机选择8条宽度为3 m的游人道路,将7 m×1 m的土壤采集样带垂直设置在每条游人步道上,每条土壤采集样带上设置3个土壤取样点,分别作为活动区、缓冲区、背景区。测定游人道路在不同踩踏干扰强度下土壤理化性质和土壤酶活性的季节变化。采用因子分析法计算主成分的方差贡献率,并对各指标在各主成分线性组合中的系数进行加权平均,探究土壤质量变化规律。【结果】在背景区、缓冲区和活动区,土壤容重以春、秋季较高,夏、冬季较低,夏、冬季土壤最大持水量和孔隙度高于春、秋季;土壤pH以夏、冬季高于春、秋季;春季土壤有机质含量显著低于夏、秋、冬季,土壤速效磷养分含量以夏季最高、春季最低;夏季土壤酶活性高于春、秋、冬3季。在背景区,春季土壤质量低于夏、秋、冬3季;在不同踩踏干扰程度下,夏、冬季土壤质量均高于春、秋季;随着踩踏干扰强度增强,土壤容重和pH在4个季节均呈上升趋势,土壤最大持水量、孔隙度、生化指标和土壤酶活性在4个季节均呈下降趋势。结构平衡方程模型(SEM)分析显示,土壤理化指标和土壤酶活性与土壤质量存在显著相关性。【结论】土壤全氮含量、速效磷含量、最大持水量和蔗糖酶活性对不同季节和踩踏干扰强度下土壤质量变化的贡献度较大,可以作为紫金山国家城市森林公园土壤综合质量评价指标;季节变化对同一踩踏干扰强度的土壤理化性质和土壤酶活性影响显著。

关键词: 土壤理化性质, 酶活性, 踩踏, 季节变化, 紫金山国家城市森林公园

Abstract:

【Objective】 This research aims to explore the characteristics of soil quality change in Zijin Mountain National Urban Forest Park under trampling disturbance and study the influence of seasonal changes on soil quality under the same trampling disturbance conditions. 【Method】This study took Nanjing Zijin Mountain National Urban Forest Park as the research object. Eight tourist roads with a width of 3 m were randomly selected; a 7 m × 1 m soil collection sample strip was set vertically on each tourist trail, and soil was collected from each strip. Three 1 m × 1 m soil sampling points were set up on the transect. The first, second and third sampling points were respectively 1 m, 3 m and 7 m away from the center of the road as the active area, buffer zone and background area, respectively. The soil was collected over four seasons to determine the seasonal changes in soil physical and chemical properties and soil enzymes under different trampling disturbance intensities on the tourist roads. A factor analysis method was used to calculate the variance contribution rates of the principal components, and the coefficients of each index in the linear combination of the principal components were weighted and averaged to determine the weight and law of soil quality changes. 【Result】 In the background area, buffer zone and active area, the bulk density was higher in spring and autumn and lower in summer and winter. The maximum moisture content and porosity of the soil in summer and winter were higher than those in spring and autumn. The pH were higher in summer and winter, and lower in spring and autumn. The organic matter content in spring was significantly lower than that in summer, autumn and winter, and the content of available phosphorus was the highest in summer and lowest in spring. Soil enzyme activity in summer was higher than that in spring, autumn and winter. In the background area, the soil quality in spring was lower than that in summer, autumn and winter. Under different degrees of trampling disturbance, the soil quality in summer and winter was higher than that in spring and autumn. With increasing intensity of trampling disturbance, soil bulk density and pH showed an upward trend in the four seasons. However, maximum moisture content, capillary porosity, biochemical indicators and enzyme activity all showed a downward trend in the four seasons. Structural equilibrium equation model (SEM) analysis showed that soil physical and chemical characteristics and soil enzyme activity were significantly correlated with soil quality. 【Conclusion】 The study showed that soil total nitrogen content, available phosphorus content, maximum moisture content, and enzyme activity are more weighted; that is, they make a greater contribution to changes in soil quality under different seasons and intensities of trampling and can be used as the soil comprehensive quality evaluation index of Zijin Mountain National Urban Forest Park. Seasonal changes have significant effects on soil physical and chemical properties and soil enzymes with the same intensity of trampling disturbance.

Key words: physical and chemical properties of soil, enzyme activity, trampling, seasonal changes, Zijin Mountain National Urban Forest Park

中图分类号:

S158

刘倩倩,彭孝楠,刘鑫,等. 踩踏干扰下紫金山土壤质量季节变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 185-193.

LIU Qianqian, PENG Xiaonan, LIU Xin, WANG Shutian, DAI Kanglong, XU Haibin, DONG Li’na, ZHANG Jinchi. Seasonal variation characteristics of soil quality in Zijin Mountain under the disturbance of trample[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(3): 185-193.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.2020110005.

图/表 6

表1

图1

表2

图2

图3

图4

参考文献 44

[1]	赵敏. 旅游活动对黄山土壤和植被的影响[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 46(1):78-81.
	ZHAO M. Impact of tourist activity on soil and vegetation in Huangshan Mountain[J]. J Shandong Agric Univ (Nat Sci Ed),2015, 46(1):78-81.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2015.01.017. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2015.01.017
[2]	谭小爱, 王平, 邹亚萍, 等. 旅游活动对香格里拉景区土壤重金属污染的影响[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 39(6): 121-127.
	TAN X A, WANG P, ZOU Y P, et al. Impact of tourist activities on heavy metal pollution of soil in the Shangri-La Scenic Area[J], J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 2017, 39(6): 121-127.DOI: 10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2017.06.019. doi: 10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2017.06.019
[3]	王文娟, 李景文, 王中斌, 等. 胡杨根际土壤真菌群落代谢特征及其土壤影响因子研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(7):1429-1437.
	WANG W J, LI J W, WANG Z B, et al. The soil fungi community metabolic characteristics and influence factors in rhizosphere soils of Populus euphratica Chinese[J]. Acta Bot Boreali Occidentalia Sin, 2017, 37(7):1429-1437.
[4]	陶宝先, 张金池, 俞元春, 等. 苏南丘陵地区森林土壤酶活性季节变化[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(10):2349-2354.
	TAO B X, ZHANG J C, YU Y C, et al. Season variations of forest soil enzyme activities in the hilly region of southern Jiangsu Province[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2010, 19(10):2349-2354.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2010.10.042. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2010.10.042
[5]	杨宁, 杨满元, 雷玉兰, 等. 紫色土丘陵坡地土壤微生物群落的季节变化[J]. 生态环境学报, 2015, 24(1):34-40.
	YANG N, YANG M Y, LEI Y L, et al. Seasonal variations of soil microbial communities on sloping-land with purple soils[J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2015, 24(1):34-40.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2015.01.006. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2015.01.006
[6]	WARREN S D, NEVILL M B, BLACKBURN W H, et al. Soil response to trampling under intensive rotation grazing[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 1986, 50(5):1336-1341.DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000050050x. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000050050x
[7]	ROESCH A, WEISSKOPF P, OBERHOLZER H, et al. An approach for describing the effects of grazing on soil quality in life-cycle assessment[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(18):4870.DOI: 10.3390/su11184870. doi: 10.3390/su11184870
[8]	谭周进, 肖启明, 杨海君, 等. 旅游对张家界国家森林公园土壤酶及微生物作用强度的影响[J]. 自然资源学报, 2006, 21(1):133-138.
	TAN Z J, XIAO Q M, YANG H J, et al. Studies on the effect of recreational activities on soil enzyme and microbial activities in Zhangjiajie National Forest Park Chinese[J]. J Nat Resour, 2006, 21(1):133-138.
[9]	BORGES W L B, CALONEGO J C, ROSOLEM C A. Impact of crop-livestock-forest integration on soil quality[J]. Agrofor Syst, 2019, 93(6):2111-2119.DOI: 10.1007/s10457-018-0329-0. doi: 10.1007/s10457-018-0329-0
[10]	段青倩, 樊文华, 吴艳军, 等. 旅游踩踏对五台山东台山地草甸土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(4):97-100.
	DUAN Q Q, FAN W H, WU Y J, et al. Effect of tourist trampling on enzyme activity of Dongtai meadow in Wutai Mountain[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2015, 35(4):97-100.DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.04.019. doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.04.019
[11]	郭亚芬, 王朋薇. 旅游活动对红花尔基国家森林公园土壤肥力及酶活性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2009, 40(3):529-532.
	GUO Y F, WANG P W. Studies on effect of recreational activities on soil fertility and soil enzyme[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2009, 40(3):529-532.DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2009.03.013. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2009.03.013
[12]	柴锦隆, 徐长林, 张德罡, 等. 模拟践踏和降水对高寒草甸土壤养分和酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(1):333-344.
	CHAI J L, XU C L, ZHANG D G, et al. Effects of simulated trampling and rainfall on soil nutrients and enzyme activity in an alpine meadow[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(1):333-344.
[13]	杨倩, 刘目兴, 王苗苗, 等. 武汉市典型绿地植被类型对表层土壤入渗和持水性能的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(6):1324-1333.
	YANG Q, LIU M X, WANG M M, et al. Characterization of surface soil water infiltration and retention capacity in urban green space of Wuhan City[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(6):1324-1333.
[14]	巩劼, 陆林, 晋秀龙, 等. 黄山风景区旅游干扰对植物群落及其土壤性质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(5):2239-2251.
	GONG J, LU L, JIN X L, et al. Impacts of tourist disturbance on plant communities and soil properties in Huangshan Mountain Scenic Area[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2009, 29(5):2239-2251.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.008. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.008
[15]	李灵, 梁彦兰, 江慧华, 等. 旅游干扰对武夷山风景区土壤重金属污染和土壤性质的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012, 39(19):171-174,181.
	LI L, LIANG Y L, JIANG H H, et al. Impacts of tourist disturbance on soil heavy metal pollution and properties in Wuyishan Scenery District[J]. Guangdong Agric Sci, 2012, 39(19):171-174,181.DOI: 10.16768/j.issn.1004-874x.2012.19.009. doi: 10.16768/j.issn.1004-874x.2012.19.009
[16]	石强, 雷相东, 谢红政. 旅游干扰对张家界国家森林公园土壤的影响研究[J]. 四川林业科技, 2002, 23(3): 28-33.
	SHI Q, LEI X D, XIE H Z. Tourism impacts on soil in Zhangjiajie National Forest Park[J]. J Sichuan For Sci Technol, 2002, 23(3): 28-33. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5508.2002.03.004. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5508.2002.03.004
[17]	孔祥丽, 李丽娜, 龚国勇, 等. 旅游干扰对明月山国家森林公园土壤的影响[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2008, 29(3):350-353.
	KONG X L, LI L N, GONG G Y, et al. Effect of tourism disturbance on soil of Mingyue Mountain National Forest Park[J]. Res Agric Mod, 2008, 29(3):350-353.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0275.2008.03.023. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0275.2008.03.023
[18]	何贵永, 孙浩智, 史小明, 等. 青藏高原高寒湿地不同季节土壤理化性质对放牧模式的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(4):12-20.
	HE G Y, SUN H Z, SHI X M, et al. Soil properties of Tibetan Plateau alpine wetland affected by grazing and season[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sin, 2015, 24(4):12-20.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb20150402. doi: 10.11686/cyxb20150402
[19]	高雪峰, 韩国栋, 张功, 等. 荒漠草原不同放牧强度下土壤酶活性及养分含量的动态研究[J]. 草业科学, 2007, 24(2):10-13.
	GAO X F, HAN G D, ZHANG G, et al. Study on dynamics of soil enzyme activity and nutrient of desert steppe under different grazing intensities[J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2007, 24(2):10-13.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2007.02.003. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2007.02.003
[20]	曲学斌, 胡继超, 朱红霞, 等. 紫金山南坡土壤养分分布状况分析[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2009, 15(20):39-40,57.
	QU X B, HU J C, ZHU H X, et al. Analysis on soil nutrient distribution of south side of Purple Mountain[J]. Anhui Agric Sci Bull, 2009, 15(20):39-40,57.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7731.2009.20.023. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7731.2009.20.023
[21]	王舒甜, 张金池, 郑丹扬, 等. 钟山风景区土壤环境对人为踩踏扰动的响应[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(8):9-16.
	WANG S T, ZHANG J C, ZHENG D Y, et al. Impacts of recreational human trampling on soil properties in Zhongshan Scenic Park[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2017, 53(8):9-16.DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20170802. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20170802
[22]	曹丽娟. 旅游干扰对河南云台山风景区土壤质量的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015(4): 73-77.
	CAO L J. Effects of tourist disturbance on soil quality in Yuntai Mountain scenic area, He’nan Province[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015(4): 73-77.DOI: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.04.013. doi: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.04.013
[23]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
	LU R K. Methods for agricultural chemical analysis of soil[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000.
[24]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1986.
	GUAN S Y, Soil enzyme and its research method[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 1986.
[25]	刘世平, 陈后庆, 聂新涛, 等. 稻麦两熟制不同耕作方式与秸秆还田土壤肥力的综合评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2008, 24(5):51-56.
	LIU S P, CHEN H Q, NIE X T, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of tillage and straw returning on soil fertility in a wheat-rice double cropping system[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2008, 24(5):51-56.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2008.05.011. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2008.05.011
[26]	吴玉红, 田霄鸿, 南雄雄, 等. 基于因子和聚类分析的保护性耕作土壤质量评价研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(2):223-228.
	WU Y H, TIAN X H, NAN X X, et al. Evaluation of soil quality under conservation tillage via factor and cluster analyses[J]. Chin J Eco Agric, 2010, 18(2):223-228.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2010.00223. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2010.00223
[27]	孙飞达, 朱灿, 李飞, 等. 旅游干扰对高寒草地植物多样性和土壤生化特性的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(11):2541-2549.
	SUN F D, ZHU C, LI F, et al. Effect of grassland tourism on plant diversity and soil bio-chemical properties of an alpine grassland[J]. Pratacultural Sci, 2018, 35(11):2541-2549.DOI: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2018-0021. doi: 10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2018-0021
[28]	石亚芳, 赵允格, 李晨辉, 等. 踩踏干扰对生物结皮土壤渗透性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(10):3227-3234.
	SHI Y F, ZHAO Y G, LI C H, et al. Effect of trampling disturbance on soil infiltration of biological soil crusts[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2017, 28(10):3227-3234.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201710.011. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201710.011
[29]	李灵, 张玉, 江慧华, 等. 旅游干扰对武夷山风景区土壤质量的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2009, 16(6):56-62.
	LI L, ZHANG Y, JIANG H H, et al. Effects of tourist activities on soil quality of Wuyishan Scenery District[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2009, 16(6):56-62.
[30]	朱芳, 白卓灵, 陈耿, 等. 旅游活动对武当山风景区生态环境的影响[J]. 林业资源管理, 2015(3):89-95.
	ZHU F, BAI Z L, CHEN G, et al. Impacts of tourist activities on ecological environment in scenic spots of Wudang Mountains[J]. For Resour Manag, 2015(3):89-95.DOI: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2015.03.018. doi: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2015.03.018
[31]	刘小兰. 旅游干扰对九寨沟冷杉林下枯落物及其土壤水文功能的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(2):229-234.
	LIU X L. Impacts of tourist disturbance on litter and soil hydrology functions of Abiesfargesii var. faxoniana forest in Jiuzhaigou,Sichuan, Chinese[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2015, 22(2):229-234.DOI: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.02.044. doi: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.02.044
[32]	曾丹娟, 徐广平, 黄玉清, 等. 北部湾经济区枯落物及其林下土壤持水能力研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(4):210-213,220.
	ZENG D J, XU G P, HUANG Y Q, et al. Study on different forest litter and soil water-holding capacity in Guangxi North Gulf economic zone[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2015, 22(4):210-213,220.DOI: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.04.039. doi: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.04.039
[33]	陈广磊, 田昆, 王行, 等. 高原湿地纳帕海土壤持水力对不同放牧的响应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(4):123-129,141.
	CHEN G L, TIAN K, WANG H, et al. The response of soil water-holding capacity to different livestock patterns in Plateau Napahai Wetland[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2016, 30(4):123-129,141.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2016.04.021. doi: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2016.04.021
[34]	陆林, 巩劼, 晋秀龙. 旅游干扰对黄山风景区土壤的影响[J]. 地理研究, 2011, 30(2):209-223.
	LU L, GONG J, JIN X L. Impacts of tourist disturbance on soil in Huangshan Mountain Scenic Area[J]. Geogr Res, 2011, 30(2):209-223.
[35]	马剑, 刘贤德, 何晓玲, 等. 旅游干扰对祁连山风景区土壤性质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2016, 48(5):924-930.
	MA J, LIU X D, HE X L, et al. Effects of tourism disturbance on soil properties of Qilian Mountains Scenery District[J]. Soils, 2016, 48(5):924-930.DOI: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2016.05.013. doi: 10.13758/j.cnki.tr.2016.05.013
[36]	邓如军, 张天汉, 石多仁, 等. 旅游干扰对额济纳旗胡杨林区土壤环境的影响[J]. 林业调查规划, 2018, 43(6):87-93.
	DENG R J, ZHANG T H, SHI D R, et al. Effect of tourism disturbance on soil environment in Populus euphratica forest of Ejin Banner[J]. For Invent Plan, 2018, 43(6):87-93..DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3168.2018.06.019. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3168.2018.06.019
[37]	王立龙, 陆林. 旅游干扰对太平湖国家湿地公园土壤酶活性及大型土壤动物分布的影响[J]. 湿地科学, 2013, 11(2):212-218.
	WANG L L, LU L. Effects of tourism disturbances on activities of soil enzymes and soil macrofauna in Taiping Lake National Wetland Park[J]. Wetl Sci, 2013, 11(2):212-218.DOI: 10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2013.02.006. doi: 10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2013.02.006
[38]	杨万勤, 王开运. 森林土壤酶的研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2004, 40(2):152-159.
	YANG W Q, WANG K Y. Advances in forest soil enzymology[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2004, 40(2):152-159.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2004.02.027. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2004.02.027
[39]	朱家琪, 满秀玲, 张頔, 等. 大兴安岭北部针叶林土壤团聚体酶活性研究[J]. 森林工程, 2020, 36(4):1-11.
	ZHU J Q, MAN X L, ZHANG D, et al. Study on the enzyme activity of soil aggregates in coniferous forests in the north of Daxing’an Mountains[J]. Forest Engineering, 2020, 36(4): 1-11.
[40]	文都日乐, 张静妮, 李刚, 等. 放牧干扰对贝加尔针茅草原土壤微生物与土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2010, 18(4):517-522.
	WEN D R L, ZHANG J N, LI G, et al. Effect of grazing disturbance on soil microorganisms and soil enzyme activities of Stipa baicalensis Rosev steppe[J]. Acta Agrectir Sin, 2010, 18(4):517-522.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-0435.2010.04.007. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-0435.2010.04.007
[41]	曹淑宝, 刘全伟, 王立群, 等. 短期放牧对草甸草原土壤微生物与土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2012, 39(6):741-748.
	CAO S B, LIU Q W, WANG L Q, et al. Effect of short-term grazing on soil microorganisms and soil enzyme activities in Meadow Steppe[J]. Microbiol China, 2012, 39(6):741-748.DOI: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.2012.06.003. doi: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.2012.06.003
[42]	倪珊珊, 彭琳, 高越. 旅游干扰对峨眉山风景区土壤及植被的影响[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2016, 37(3):93-96.
	NI S S, PENG L, GAO Y. Impacts of tourist disturbance on soil properties and palant communities in Emeishan Mountain Scenic Region[J]. Chin J Agric Resour Reg Plan, 2016, 37(3):93-96.DOI: 10.7621/cjarrp.1005-9121.20160315. doi: 10.7621/cjarrp.1005-9121.20160315
[43]	孟庆华, 李根英. 山东主要土类有机质及其与供磷特性的关系[J]. 土壤通报, 2007, 38(1):25-28.
	MENG Q H, LI G Y. Soil organic matter as related to P releasing properties in different types of soil in Shandong Province[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2007, 38(1):25-28.DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2007.01.006. doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2007.01.006
[44]	MEKURIA D W, VELDKAMP E, HAILE M, et al. Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray,Ethiopia[J]. J Arid Environ, 2007, 69(2):270-284.DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.10.009. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.10.009

踩踏干扰强度 trampling intensity	季节 season	土壤容重/ (g·cm^-3) soil density	最大持水量/ (g·kg^-1) maximum moisture content	毛管持水量/ (g·kg^-1) capillary moisture content	毛管孔隙度/% capillary porosity	非毛管孔隙度/% no capillary porosity
弱(背景区) weak (background area)	春	1.40±0.03 Ba	239.88±13.00 Ab	182.00±4.50 Ab	26.63±2.24 Ac	6.65±2.59 Aa
	夏	1.36±0.03 Ba	269.06±24.14 Aa	224.50±36.25 Aab	31.32±6.8 Ab	8.46±3.01 Aa
	秋	1.41±0.02 Ba	233.94±12.93 Ab	180.86±4.83 Ab	26.94±5.05 Ac	7.63±2.55 Aa
	冬	1.39±0.02 Ba	272.65±28.65 Aa	250.00±30.08 Aa	36.06±4.44 Aa	3.34±2.28 Ab
中(缓冲区) medium (buffer area)	春	1.58±0.04 Aa	185.15±14.30 Bb	149.01±6.85 Bc	24.18±2.77 Ac	6.33±3.06 ABa
	夏	1.53±0.07 Aa	235.28±20.33 ABa	185.60±12.31 ABb	29.68±4.52 ABb	8.08±3.71 Aa
	秋	1.58±0.03 Aa	189.09±7.36 Bb	145.21±11.57 Bc	24.16±7.05 Ac	7.34±2.8 Aa
	冬	1.46±0.03 Aa	252.07±17.79 Ba	238.08±28.17 Aa	35.64±3.93 Aa	3.03±1.7 Ab
强(活动区) strong (activity area)	春	1.65±0.02 Aa	173.46±4.11 Bc	134.90±10.35Cb	24.22±3.5 Abc	5.64±2.11 Bc
	夏	1.60±0.04 Aa	204.67±4.92 Cb	158.33±13.91 Bb	26.31±3.16 Bb	7.71±1.96 Aa
	秋	1.63±0.03 Aa	174.54±6.89 Bc	134.30±14.61 Bb	22.79±3.79 Ac	6.86±3.22 Abc
	冬	1.51±0.05 Ab	247.04±17.34 Ba	232.68±24.52 Aa	36.22±3.34 Aa	2.53±1.74 Ad
双因素方差分析 two-factor analysis	季节	0.005	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	踩踏干扰强度	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.008	0.296
	季节×踩踏干扰强度	0.593	0.038	0.063	0.460	0.240

踩踏干扰强度 trampling intensity	季节 season	pH	有机质含量/ (g·kg^-1) organic matter content	全氮含量/ (g·kg^-1) total nitrogen	速效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) available phosphorus content
弱(背景区) weak (background area)	春	4.89±0.05 Bb	44.11±1.85 Aa	3.67±0.49 Aa	9.66±1.32 Ab
	夏	4.98±0.02 Ba	46.48±1.49 Aa	3.88±0.38 Aa	12.20±0.64 Aa
	秋	4.94±0.05 Bab	46.33±1.39 Aa	3.98±0.41 Aa	10.29±1.42 Aab
	冬	4.95±0.03 Bab	44.81±3.47 Aa	3.55±0.28 Aa	11.88±0.36 Aa
中(缓冲区) medium (buffer area)	春	5.10±0.04 ABb	29.43±2.37 Bb	2.33±0.12 Bc	5.58±0.91 Bc
	夏	5.38±0.11 ABa	37.50±2.66 Ba	2.78±0.11 Ba	8.12±0.51 Ba
	秋	5.10±0.07 ABb	35.13±4.52 Ba	2.61±0.13 Bab	6.21±0.97 Bbc
	冬	5.24±0.10 ABab	37.08±0.76 Ba	2.51±0.14 Bbc	7.42±0.39 Bab
强(活动区) strong (activity area)	春	5.36±0.14 Aa	25.39±1.83 Cb	1.99±0.15 Bb	5.42±0.49 Bb
	夏	5.47±0.14 Aa	33.55±1.05 Ba	2.29±0.15 Ca	6.93±0.14 Ca
	秋	5.35±0.12 Aa	33.89±1.90 Ba	2.12±0.16 Cab	5.75±0.65 Bb
	冬	5.42±0.10 Aa	33.45±1.92 Ca	2.09±0.09 Cab	6.82±0.14 Ca
双因素方差分析 two-factor analysis	季节	0.001	<0.001	0.034	<0.001
	踩踏干扰强度	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	季节×踩踏干扰强度	0.338	0.053	0.827	0.892

踩踏干扰下紫金山土壤质量季节变化特征

Seasonal variation characteristics of soil quality in Zijin Mountain under the disturbance of trample

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 44

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	郭聪聪, 沈永宝, 史锋厚. 温度对白皮松种子萌发过程中储藏物质代谢及酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 25-34.
[2]	王纪, 方升佐. 不同抗褐化剂对青钱柳愈伤组织酶活性和生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 167-174.
[3]	李惠芝, 关庆伟, 赵家豪, 李俊杰, 王磊, 李凤凤, 左兴平, 陈斌. 地形对麻栎人工林土壤肥力质量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 161-168.
[4]	王碧霞, 杜小奇, 邓燕, 蔡晓梅, 苏光灿. 凉山油橄榄主栽品种叶中营养物质和酚类含量的季节性变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 169-176.
[5]	张晓荣, 段广德, 郝龙飞, 刘婷岩, 张友, 张盛晰. 氮沉降和接种菌根真菌对灌木铁线莲非结构性碳水化合物及根际土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(1): 171-178.
[6]	邹雨婷, 朱铭玮, 李永荣, 翟金庭, 李淑娴. ‘凤丹’种子发育及其营养物质含量和相关酶活性的动态变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(5): 62-70.
[7]	惠昊, 关庆伟, 王亚茹, 林鑫宇, 陈斌, 王刚, 胡月, 胡敬东. 不同森林经营模式对土壤氮含量及酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(4): 151-158.
[8]	王冰, 张鹏杰, 张秋良. 不同林型兴安落叶松林土壤团聚体及其有机碳特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(3): 15-24.
[9]	王国兵, 徐瑾, 徐晓, 阮宏华, 曹国华. 蚯蚓与凋落物对杨树人工林土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(3): 8-14.
[10]	李娜, 朱培林, 丰采, 温敏学, 方升佐, 尚旭岚. 青钱柳嫁接愈合过程中砧穗生理特性及其与亲和性的关系[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(1): 13-20.
[11]	王爱斌, 宋慧芳, 张流洋, 张明, 杨诗雯, 张凌云. 生物肥和菌肥对蓝莓苗生长及土壤养分的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(6): 63-70.
[12]	卢伟伟, 耿慧丽, 张伊蕊, 阮宏华. 生物质炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 143-150.
[13]	俞琳琳, 胡海波, 余伟. 城市绿地类型对大气PM_2.5浓度的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(3): 179-184.
[14]	张悦, 冯会丽, 王维枫, 薛建辉, 吴永波, 于水强. 洪泽湖地区杨树人工林碳水通量昼夜和季节变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(5): 113-120.
[15]	王国兵,王瑞,徐瑾,曹国华,阮宏华. 生物炭对杨树人工林土壤微生物生物量碳、氮、磷及其化学计量特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 62(02): 1-6.