栗子坪自然保护区不同海拔梯度土壤入渗特性研究

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202310013

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） ›› 2025, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (2): 143-152.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202310013

栗子坪自然保护区不同海拔梯度土壤入渗特性研究

陆其伟¹(), 脱云飞¹^,^*(), 郑阳², 骆伟², 代勤龙², 何霞红¹

1.西南林业大学水土保持学院,云南昆明 650224
2.四川栗子坪国家级自然保护区管理局,大熊猫小种群保护与复壮研究开放实验室,栗子坪大熊猫生态与保护四川省野外科学观测研究站,四川石棉 625499

收稿日期:2023-10-11 接受日期:2024-04-12 出版日期:2025-03-30 发布日期:2025-03-28
通讯作者: *脱云飞(tyunfei@163.com)。
作者简介:
陆其伟(xnlyluqiwei@163.com)。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(51979134);四川省栗子坪国家级自然保护区陆生动物生境调查研究项目(2021ZD0125)

Research on characteristics of soil infiltration at different altitude gradients in Liziping Nature Reserve

LU Qiwei¹(), TUO Yunfei¹^,^*(), ZHENG Yang², LUO Wei², DAI Qinlong², HE Xiahong¹

1. College of Soil and Water Conservation, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, China
2. Sichuan Liziping National Nature Reserve Administration, Open Laboratory of Shimian Research Center of Giant Panda Small Population Conservation and Rejuvenation, Liziping Giant Panda’s Ecology and Conservation Observation and Research Station of Sichuan Province, Shimian 625499, China

Received:2023-10-11 Accepted:2024-04-12 Online:2025-03-30 Published:2025-03-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探究四川栗子坪国家级自然保护区土壤入渗对不同海拔梯度土壤类型响应特征。【方法】以自然保护区4个海拔梯度(1 900、2 100、2 300和2 500 m)土壤为采样对象,通过环刀法测定不同海拔梯度土壤入渗特征,采用通径及相关性分析法明确影响土壤入渗特征的关键因子,并用Kostiakov、Philip、Horton等入渗模型进行拟合,分析其适宜性。【结果】土壤入渗速率与海拔呈极显著负相关关系(P<0.01),而土壤微生物生物量与入渗速率呈显著正相关关系(P<0.05),促进了土壤水分入渗;在入渗前20 min,海拔1 900、2 100 m土壤入渗率降低了50%左右,海拔2 300、2 500 m降低了72%~85%,海拔2 300、2 500 m入渗衰弱速率明显快于海拔1 900、2 100 m,这主要是受到土壤有机质含量、团聚体粒级结构及微生物生物量影响;模型拟合发现,Kostiakov模型R²为0.896~0.959,Philip模型R²为0.874~0.965,Horton模型R²为0.945~0.984,综合考虑土壤入渗模型决定系数R²大小以及拟合值与实测值精确度的一致性,Kostiakov模型更适合对研究区域土壤入渗进行拟合。【结论】海拔梯度对土壤入渗特征影响显著,主要是受到土壤有机质含量、团聚体粒级结构及微生物生物量等因素影响。

关键词: 海拔梯度, 土壤理化性质, 入渗特征, 模型拟合, 栗子坪自然保护区, 微生物生物量

Abstract:

【Objective】The purpose of this study was to explore how soil infiltration responds to different elevation gradients in Liziping National Nature Reserve, Sichuan. 【Method】Soil samples were collected from four elevation gradients (1 900, 2 100, 2 300, and 2 500 m) within the nature reserve. Soil infiltration characteristics at these gradients were measured using the ring knife method. Key factors affecting soil infiltration were identified through path and correlation analyses. Additionally, the suitability of infiltration models, including Kostiakov, Philip and Horton, was evaluated by fitting and analyzing the data. 【Result】Soil infiltration rates showed a highly significantly negative correlation with elevation (P < 0.01). Soil microbial biomass had a significant positive correlation with infiltration rates (P < 0.05), promoting water infiltration. In the first 20 min, soil infiltration rates decreased by about 50% at elevations of 1 900 and 2 100 m, and by 72% to 85% at elevations of 2 300 and 2 500 m. The rate of infiltration decreased at 2 300 and 2 500 m was significantly faster that than at 1 900 and 2 100 m, primarily due to differences in soil organic matter, aggregate grain structure, and microbial biomass. The model fitting showed that the R² values were 0.896-0.959 for the Kostiakov model, 0.874-0.965 for the Philip model, and 0.945-0.965 for the Horton model. Based on the R² values and the alignment between fitted and measured values, the Kostiakov model was found to be the most suitable for the study area. 【Conclusion】Elevation gradients significantly affect soil infiltration characteristics, primarily influenced by soil organic matter, aggregate grain structure, and microbial biomass.

Key words: elevation gradient, soil physical and chemical property, infiltration characteristic, model fitting, Liziping Nature Reserve, microbial biomass

中图分类号:

S714.7

陆其伟,脱云飞,郑阳,等. 栗子坪自然保护区不同海拔梯度土壤入渗特性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 143-152.

LU Qiwei, TUO Yunfei, ZHENG Yang, LUO Wei, DAI Qinlong, HE Xiahong. Research on characteristics of soil infiltration at different altitude gradients in Liziping Nature Reserve[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2025, 49(2): 143-152.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202310013.

图/表 8

表1

表2

表3

图1

表4

表5

表6

图2

参考文献 39

[1]	SCHWARTZ R C, SCHLEGEL A J, BELL J M, et al. Contrasting tillage effects on stored soil water,infiltration and evapotranspiration fluxes in a dryland rotation at two locations[J]. Soil Tillage Res, 2019, 190:157-174.DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2019.02.013.
[2]	刘目兴, 杜文正, 张海林. 三峡库区不同林型土壤的入渗能力研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2013, 22(3):299-306.
	LIU M X, DU W Z, ZHANG H L. Research on the soil infiltration capacity of different forest types in the Three Gorges reservoir area[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2013, 22(3):299-306.
[3]	陈娟, 陈林, 宋乃平, 等. 荒漠草原不同土壤类型水分入渗特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(4):18-23.
	CHEN J, CHEN L, SONG N P, et al. Soil infiltration characteristics of different soils types in desert steppe[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2018, 32(4):18-23.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2018.04.004.
[4]	周维, 张建辉. 金沙江支流冲沟侵蚀区四种土地利用方式下土壤入渗特性研究[J]. 土壤, 2006, 38(3):333-337.
	ZHOU W, ZHANG J H. Soil infiltration under different patterns of land use in gully erosion area of the Jinshajiang River basin[J]. Soils, 2006, 38(3):333-337.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9829.2006.03.017.
[5]	刘茜茹, 冯天骄, 王平, 等. 晋西黄土区长期植被恢复对土壤表层入渗与水分储量差异的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023, 43(2):50-59.
	LIU X R, FENG T J, WANG P, et al. Effect of long-term vegetation restoration on surface soil water infiltration and water storage in loess area of western province[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2023, 43(2):50-59.DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.02.007.
[6]	赵洋毅, 王玉杰, 王云琦, 等. 渝北水源区水源涵养林构建模式对土壤渗透性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(15):4162-4172.
	ZHAO Y Y, WANG Y J, WANG Y Q, et al. Effects of structures of plantation forests on soil infiltration characteristics in source water protect areas in northern Chongqing City[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2010, 30(15):4162-4172.
[7]	舒锟, 张家春, 张珍明, 等. 不同海拔梯度下梵净山土壤机械组成及养分特征[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2017, 35(1):52-59.
	SHU K, ZHANG J C, ZHANG Z M, et al. Soil mechanical composition and nutrient properties along an elevational gradient in Fanjing Mountain[J]. J Sichuan Agric Univ, 2017, 35(1):52-59.DOI: 10.16036/j.issn.1000-2650.2017.01.008.
[8]	JERÁBEK J, ZUMR D, DOSTÁL T. Identifying the plough pan position on cultivated soils by measurements of electrical resistivity and penetration resistance[J]. Soil Tillage Res, 2017, 174:231-240.DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2017.07.008.
[9]	GAO L L, BECKER E, LIANG G P, et al. Effect of different tillage systems on aggregate structure and inner distribution of organic carbon[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 288:97-104.DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.005.
[10]	卢振启, 黄秋娴, 杨新兵. 河北雾灵山不同海拔油松人工林枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(1):112-116.
	LU Z Q, HUANG Q X, YANG X B. Research on hydrological effects of forest litters and soil of Pinus tabuliformis plantations in the different altitudes of Wuling Mountains in Hebei[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2014, 28(1):112-116.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2014.01.003.
[11]	胡晓聪, 黄乾亮, 金亮. 西双版纳热带山地雨林枯落物及其土壤水文功能[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(1):55-63.
	HU X C, HUANG Q L, JIN L. Hydrological functions of the litters and soil of tropical montane rain forest in Xishuangbanna,Yunnan,China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2017, 28(1):55-63.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201701.018.
[12]	亢晨波, 郭汉清, 张垚, 等. 关帝山不同海拔和坡向土壤水分入渗特征[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2022, 50(6):76-82.
	KANG C B, GUO H Q, ZHANG Y, et al. Infiltration characteristics of soil moisture at different altitudes and slopes of Guandi Mountain[J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2022, 50(6):76-82.DOI: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2022.06.018.
[13]	刘瑞, 夏卫生, 梁羽石, 等. 湖南省衡山不同海拔高度土壤的入渗特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2019, 39(4):82-88.
	LIU R, XIA W S, LIANG Y S, et al. Soil infiltration characteristics at different altitudes in Hengshan Mountains of Hu’nan Province[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2019, 39(4):82-88.DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2019.04.013.
[14]	FU Y, LI G L, ZHENG T H, et al. Splash detachment and transport of loess aggregate fragments by raindrop action[J]. CATENA, 2017, 150:154-160.DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.021.
[15]	印家旺, 阿拉木萨, 苏宇航, 等. 科尔沁沙地不同土地利用类型土壤入渗特征比较研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(4):90-98.
	YIN J W, Alamusa, SU Y H, et al. Comparative study on soil infiltration characteristics of different land use types in Horqin sandy land[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2022, 42(4):90-98.DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2022.04.012.
[16]	云慧雅, 毕华兴, 王珊珊, 等. 不同林分类型土壤理化特征及其对土壤入渗过程的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(6):183-189.
	YUN H Y, BI H X, WANG S S, et al. Soil physical and chemical characteristics of different forest types and their effects on soil infiltration process[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2021, 35(6):183-189.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.06.025.
[17]	张利荣, 李惠通, 郑立津, 等. 不同林龄杉木人工林的林下植被与土壤理化特性[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2021, 17(3):165-172.
	ZHANG L R, LI H T, ZHENG L J, et al. Undergrowth vegetation of Chinese fir plantations of different ages and soil physical and chemical properties[J]. Subtrop Agric Res, 2021, 17(3):165-172.DOI: 10.13321/j.cnki.subtrop.agric.res.2021.03.004.
[18]	李新星, 刘桂民, 吴小丽, 等. 马衔山不同海拔土壤碳、氮、磷含量及生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(3):758-765.
	LI X X, LIU G M, WU X L, et al. Elevational distribution of soil organic carbon,nitrogen and phosphorus contents and their ecological stoichiometry on Maxian Mountain[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2020, 39(3):758-765.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202003.004.
[19]	韦慧, 邓羽松, 林立文, 等. 喀斯特生态脆弱区典型小生境土壤团聚体稳定性比较研究[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(7):2751-2762.
	WEI H, DENG Y S, LIN L W, et al. Comparative study on the stability of soil aggregates in typical microhabitats in Karst ecologically fragile areas[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2022, 42(7):2751-2762.DOI: 10.5846/stxb202103200736.
[20]	刘光崧. 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社,1996.
	LIU G S. Soil physical and chemical analysis & description of soil profiles[M]. Beijing: Standards Press of China,1996.
[21]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	BAO S D. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[22]	刘艳娇, 刘庆, 贺合亮, 等. 亚高山粗枝云杉人工林土壤原核微生物群落结构与功能变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(12):3279-3290.
	LIU Y J, LIU Q, HE H L, et al. Changes in the structure and function of soil prokaryotic communities in subalpine Picea asperata plantations[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2023, 34(12):3279-3290.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202312.031.
[23]	阿茹·苏里坦, 常顺利, 张毓涛. 天山林区不同群落土壤水分入渗特性的对比分析与模拟[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(24):9111-9118.
	Aru Sultan, CHANG S L, ZHANG Y T. Comparative analysis and simulation of soil moisture infiltration characteristics in different communities in the forests of Tianshan Mountains,China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(24):9111-9118. DOI:10.5846/stxb201810072160.
[24]	牛文全, 邹小阳, 刘晶晶, 等. 残膜对土壤水分入渗和蒸发的影响及不确定性分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(14):110-119.
	NIU W Q, ZOU X Y, LIU J J, et al. Effects of residual plastic film mixed in soil on water infiltration,evaporation and its uncertainty analysis[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2016, 32(14):110-119.DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2016.14.016.
[25]	郑健, 张彦宁, 王燕, 等. 沼液穴灌入渗特征及Philip入渗模型拟合[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(1):144-150.
	ZHENG J, ZHANG Y N, WANG Y, et al. Infiltration characteristics and Philip model fitting analysis of biogas slurry hole-irrigation[J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2019, 37(1):144-150.DOI: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2019.01.20.
[26]	曾江敏, 何丙辉, 李天阳, 等. 喀斯特槽谷区不同林草恢复模式下土壤入渗特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(4):58-64.
	ZENG J M, HE B H, LI T Y, et al. Soil infiltration characteristics under different forest and grass restoration models in Karst trough-valley region[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2019, 33(4):58-64.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.009.
[27]	陆其伟, 脱云飞, 冯永钰, 等. 栗子坪自然保护区林分类型对土壤化学计量特征、微生物及其季节动态响应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2024, 38(5):285-295.
	LU Q W, TUO Y F, FENG Y Y, et al. Response of forest stand types to soil stoichiometric characteristics, microorganisms and their seasonal dynamics in Liziping Nature Reserve[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2024, 38(5):285-295. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2024.05.035.
[28]	李志, 袁颖丹, 胡耀文, 等. 海拔及旅游干扰对武功山山地草甸土壤渗透性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(2):635-645.
	LI Z, YUAN Y D, HU Y W, et al. Effects of elevation and tourism disturbance on meadow soil infiltration on Wugong Mountain[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018, 38(2):635-645.
[29]	石玉龙, 周晨霓, 王建峰, 等. 西藏色季拉山不同海拔梯度急尖长苞冷杉林土壤入渗特征研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2015(4):98-103.
	SHI Y L, ZHOU C N, WANG J F, et al. Soil infiltration characteristics in Abies georgei var.smithii forest of Sygara Mountains in Tibet based on different elevations[J]. For Resour Manag, 2015(4):98-103.DOI: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2015.04.017.
[30]	曹瑞, 吴福忠, 杨万勤, 等. 海拔对高山峡谷区土壤微生物生物量和酶活性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(4):1257-1264.
	CAO R, WU F Z, YANG W Q, et al. Effects of altitudes on soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity in alpine-gorge regions[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2016, 27(4):1257-1264.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201604.018.
[31]	丛静, 刘晓, 卢慧, 等. 神农架自然保护区土壤微生物生物量碳、氮沿海拔梯度的变化及其影响因素[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014, 33(12):3381-3387.
	CONG J, LIU X, LU H, et al. Changes of soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen along the altitude gradient and its influence factors in Shennongjia Natural Reserve,China[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2014, 33(12):3381-3387.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.2014.0303.
[32]	胡璟, 刘兴良, 胡宗达, 等. 川西亚高山典型灌丛土壤微生物量及其碳氮磷化学计量特征[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2024, 30(2):220-228.
	HU J, LIU X L, HU Z D, et al. Changes in soil microbial C∶N∶P stoichiometry in different shrub types in subalpine regions of western Sichuan Province,China[J]. Chin J Appl Environ Biol, 2024, 30(2):220-228.DOI: 10.19675/j.cnki.1006-687x.2023.05017.
[33]	胡嵩, 张颖, 史荣久, 等. 长白山原始红松林次生演替过程中土壤微生物生物量和酶活性变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(2):366-372.
	HU S, ZHANG Y, SHI R J, et al. Temporal variations of soil microbial biomass and enzyme activities during the secondary succession of primary broadleaved-Pinus koraiensis forests in Changbai Mountains of northeast China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2013, 24(2):366-372.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2013.0168.
[34]	王彦武, 罗玲, 张峰, 等. 河西绿洲荒漠过渡带梭梭林土壤保育效应[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(3):749-762.
	WANG Y W, LUO L, ZHANG F, et al. Soil conservation effect of Haloxylon ammodendron bushes in Hexi oasis-desert ecotone[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2019, 56(3):749-762.DOI: 10.11766/trxb201806260176.
[35]	李秋嘉, 薛志婧, 周正朝. 宁南山区植被恢复对土壤团聚体养分特征及微生物特性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(1):137-145.
	LI Q J, XUE Z J, ZHOU Z C. Effects of vegetation restoration on nutrient and microbial properties of soil aggregates with different particle sizes in the Loess Hilly regions of Ningxia,northwest China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2019, 30(1):137-145.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201901.022.
[36]	翟辉, 张海, 张超, 等. 黄土峁状丘陵区不同类型林分土壤微生物功能多样性[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(12):84-91.
	ZHAI H, ZHANG H, ZHANG C, et al. Soil microbial functional diversity in different types of stands in the hilly-gully regions of Loess Plateau[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2016, 52(12):84-91.DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20161210.
[37]	ISLAM M U, JIANG F H, GUO Z C, et al. Does biochar application improve soil aggregation?A meta-analysis[J]. Soil Tillage Res, 2021,209:104926.DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104926.
[38]	冯娜, 刘冬冬, 赵荣存, 等. 岩溶山地植被恢复中碳酸盐岩红土入渗特征及其影响因素[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(6):162-169,175.
	FENG N, LIU D D, ZHAO R C, et al. Infiltration characteristics and influencing factors of carbonate laterite from Karst Mountain areas during vegetation restoration[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2019, 33(6):162-169,175.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.06.023.
[39]	郭海云, 王根绪, 孙守琴. 氮添加对亚高山针叶林土壤结构及水分入渗性能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2023, 37(1):238-245.
	GUO H Y, WANG G X, SUN S Q. Effects of nitrogen addition on soil structure and water infiltration of subalpine coniferous forest[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2023, 37(1):238-245.DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2023.01.031.

海拔/m altitude	林分类型 forest type	优势群落 dominant community	土壤类型 soil type	经度(E) longitude	纬度(N) latitude	郁闭度/% canopy
1 900	青冈-川杨阔叶混交林 Quercus glauca- Populus szechuanica broad-leaved mixed forest	青冈、川杨、木姜子(Litsea pungens)	山地黄棕壤	102°21'36″	28°52'58″	50~60
2 100	栓皮栎落叶阔叶林 Quercus variabilis deciduous broad-leaved forest	栓皮栎、槐(Styphnolobium japonicum)	山地棕壤	102°16'38″	29°02'56″	50~60
2 300	冷杉-云杉针叶混交林 Abies fabri-Picea asperata coniferous mixed forest	云杉、冷杉、白桦(Betula platyphylla )	山地棕壤	102°23'34″	29°00'07″	50~60
2 500	石棉玉山竹林 Yushania lineolata forest	石棉玉山竹 (Y. lineolata)	山地暗棕壤	102°24'15″	28°59'40″	60~70

海拔/m altitude	容重/ (g·cm^-3) bulk density	总孔隙度/% total porosity	含水率/% water content	毛管持水量/% capillary water holding capacity	毛管孔隙度/% capillary porosity	非毛管孔隙度/% non-capillary porosity	有机质质量分数/ (g·kg^-1) organic matter fraction
1 900	1.00±0.01 b	62.14±0.01 b	29.07±0.06 a	37.43±0.02 a	37.54±0.02 a	24.60±0.02 c	49.54±6.67 a
2 100	1.10±0.06 a	58.54±0.06 a	34.25±0.08 a	41.99±0.08 a	45.72±0.07 a	12.82±0.05 d	31.11±6.45 bc
2 300	1.00±0.03 b	62.15±0.03 b	13.10±0.02 b	15.77±0.02 b	15.59±0.01 b	46.56±0.01 a	37.45±2.37 b
2 500	1.17±0.04 a	55.93±0.04 a	12.29±0.04 b	16.74±0.04 b	19.46±0.05 b	36.47±0.07 b	25.10±7.26 c

海拔/m altitude	机械组成/% mechanical composition			团聚体粒径分布/% agglomerate distribution				微生物生物量碳质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) MBC mass fraction	微生物生物量氮质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) MBN mass fraction
海拔/m altitude	砂粒 sand	粉粒 silt	黏粒 clay	≥2.00 mm	[1.00,2.00) mm	[0.25,1.00) mm	<0.25 mm	微生物生物量碳质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) MBC mass fraction	微生物生物量氮质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) MBN mass fraction
1 900	25.89±7.84 a	62.16±6.37 a	10.49±1.94 a	37.39±6.05 a	19.64±5.98 a	25.4±3.54 a	16.47±3.32 a	0.94±0.28 a	0.058±0.018 a
2 100	23.10±13.87 a	56.39±14.25 a	17.12±5.84 a	30.47±10.20 a	21.74±5.59 a	32.31±9.12 a	14.66±4.80 a	0.44±0.16 b	0.040±0.013 b
2 300	29.04±7.42 a	54.54±8.21 a	12.62±1.68 a	29.91±3.60 a	26.57±1.80 a	30.83±4.70 a	12.32±1.02 a	0.32±0.07 b	0.033±0.010 bc
2 500	32.45±10.36 a	55.93±2.24 a	10.99±1.88 a	27.2±22.18 a	17.32±10.65 a	34.99±16.20 a	20.27±8.59 a	0.30±0.18 b	0.023±0.004 c

微生物 microbial	海拔/m altitude	ACE指数 ACE index	Chao1指数 Chao1 index	Simpson指数 Simpson index	Shannon指数 Shannon index	覆盖度 coverage
细菌 bacteria	1 900	1 473.20±417.83 a	1 470.07±418.19 a	0.996±0 a	9.21±0.52 a	0.999 8±0 a
	2 100	1 216.00±307.29 a	1 212.14±306.28 a	0.996±0 a	8.93±0.50 a	0.999 8±0 a
	2 300	1 317.23±90.60 a	1 312.54±89.10 a	0.997±0 a	9.24±0.15 a	0.999 7±0 a
	2 500	1 239.97±310.18 a	1 235.82±309.98 a	0.996±0 a	9.09±0.47 a	0.999 7±0 a
真菌 fungi	1 900	815.87±25.56 ab	811.25±26.53 ab	0.961±0 a	6.42±0.07 a	0.999 7±0 b
	2 100	518.39±75.44 b	516.56±74.74 b	0.886±0.040 a	5.46±0.51 a	0.999 9±0 a
	2 300	599.71±213.69 b	597.87±215.06 b	0.966±0.020 a	6.67±0.80 a	0.999 9±0 a
	2 500	1 141.87±303.42 a	1139.62±304.14 a	0.895±0.090 a	5.85±1.11 a	0.999 8±0 ab

海拔/m altitude	Kostiakov模型 Kostiakov model			Philip模型 Philip model			Horton模型 Horton model
海拔/m altitude	a	b	R²	S	A	R²	A₀	A	k	R²
1 900	7.01	0.39	0.937	10.89	1.66	0.915	7.91	1.11	0.34	0.984
2 100	6.14	0.34	0.896	8.76	1.87	0.874	6.80	2.38	0.20	0.967
2 300	5.75	0.42	0.931	9.77	0.89	0.934	7.53	2.51	0.48	0.945
2 500	1.44	0.62	0.959	2.28	0.31	0.965	2.02	0.73	0.62	0.980

栗子坪自然保护区不同海拔梯度土壤入渗特性研究

Research on characteristics of soil infiltration at different altitude gradients in Liziping Nature Reserve

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 39

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

因子 factor	DR	R	间接通径系数 indirect path coefficient												决策系数 coefficient	排序 sort
因子 factor	DR	R	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	IDR	决策系数 coefficient	排序 sort
X₁	-0.654	0.164		0.096	0.058	0.100	-0.016	0.224	0.034	0.109	-0.003	-0.113	0.330	0.819	-0.644	11
X₂	0.214	0.217	-0.293		0.065	0.096	-0.026	0.127	0.033	0.012	0.048	0.068	-0.127	0.003	0.173	4
X₃	0.208	0.257	-0.184	0.067		-0.051	-0.023	0.261	0.052	0.043	-0.018	0.106	-0.204	0.049	0.113	5
X₄	0.290	0.280	-0.226	0.071	-0.036		-0.041	-0.005	-0.018	0.035	0.023	-0.151	0.338	-0.010	0.188	3
X₅	0.058	-0.424	0.184	-0.095	-0.083	-0.204		-0.162	-0.029	0.046	-0.019	0.065	-0.186	-0.483	-0.030	9
X₆	0.861	0.857	-0.170	0.031	0.063	-0.002	-0.011		0.101	-0.020	0.055	-0.051	-0.001	-0.005	0.886	1
X₇	0.130	0.634	-0.169	0.054	0.083	-0.040	-0.013	0.672		-0.040	0.054	-0.006	-0.091	0.504	0.006	8
X₈	0.312	0.046	-0.228	0.009	0.028	0.032	0.008	-0.055	-0.017		-0.004	-0.011	-0.030	-0.268	0.055	6
X₉	-0.131	-0.678	-0.016	-0.079	0.029	-0.050	0.008	-0.361	-0.054	0.009		0.082	-0.116	-0.548	0.026	7
X₁₀	-0.310	0.336	-0.220	-0.047	-0.071	0.141	-0.012	0.140	0.003	0.011	0.035		0.686	0.666	-0.329	10
X₁₁	0.742	0.179	-0.291	-0.037	-0.057	0.132	-0.015	-0.002	-0.016	-0.012	0.021	-0.287		-0.564	0.551	2

[1]	李洋, 张赟齐, 温玥, 张绥林, 陈永浩, 齐建勋, 张俊佩, 侯智霞. 早实核桃坚果表型和内在品质的关联分析及模型构建[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 119-127.
[2]	张苗, 阮宏华, 沈彩芹, 丁学农, 曹国华. 长期施用沼液对杨树人工林土壤碳氮磷及其计量比的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(6): 102-110.
[3]	武燕, 黄青, 刘讯, 郑睿, 岑佳宝, 丁波, 张运林, 符裕红. 西南喀斯特地区马尾松人工林林龄对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(3): 99-107.
[4]	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.
[5]	夏捷, 陈胜, 吴一凡, 张玮, 谢锦忠. 种植竹荪后毛竹林土壤微生物生物量和微生物熵的动态变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 127-134.
[6]	刘倩倩, 彭孝楠, 刘鑫, 王舒甜, 戴康龙, 徐海兵, 董丽娜, 张金池. 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.
[7]	赵爽, 王邵军, 杨波, 左倩倩, 曹乾斌, 王平, 张路路, 张昆凤, 樊宇翔. 西双版纳热带森林碳循环中土壤呼吸对次生演替的响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 12-18.
[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.
[10]	郭传阳, 林开敏, 郑鸣鸣, 任正标, 李茂, 郑宏, 游云飞, 陈志云. 间伐对杉木人工林土壤微生物生物量碳氮的短期影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(5): 125-131.
[11]	许梦璐, 吴炜, 颜铮明, 曹国华, 沈彩芹, 阮宏华. 滨海滩涂不同土地利用类型土壤活性有机碳含量与垂直分布[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 167-175.
[12]	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, 43(02): 1-6.
[13]	赵友朋,孟苗婧,张金池,马洁怡,刘胜龙. 凤阳山主要林分类型土壤团聚体及其稳定性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(05): 84-90.
[14]	马思文,张洪江,程金花,李明峰,王平. 三峡库区典型城郊防护林土壤饱和导水率特征研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(05): 99-106.
[15]	宋蕾,林尤伟,金光泽. 模拟氮沉降对典型阔叶红松林土壤微生物群落特征的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 41(05): 7-12.