
Effects of earthworms and litterfalls on the soil enzyme activities of poplar plantations
WANG Guobing, XU Jin, XU Xiao, RUAN Honghua, CAO Guohua
JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3) : 8-14.
Effects of earthworms and litterfalls on the soil enzyme activities of poplar plantations
【Objective】We aimed to reveal the effects of the earthworm inoculation and litterfall addition on the soil enzyme activities of poplar plantations to provide a scientific basis for accurately evaluating the role of earthworms and litterfalls on the soil nutrient cycling in a poplar plantation ecosystem and optimizing the management of poplar plantations to promote their long-term productivity, maintenance and ecological service functional improvement. 【Method】A poplar plantation was chosen as the study site in Dongtai Forest Farm of Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province. We used a randomized block design with five different experimental treatments as well as a control (CK). Specifically, the treatments were poplar leaf litter mulch on the soil (T1), the poplar leaf litter incorporation into the soil (T2), earthworm inoculation (T3), poplar leaf litter mulch on the soil with earthworm inoculation (T4) and poplar leaf litter incorporation into the soil with earthworm inoculation (T5). The enzyme activities of invertase, urease, catalase and cellulase in different treatments were determined. Additionally, changes in soil microbial biomass carbon, soil microbial biomass nitrogen content, soil bulk density, soil pH value, soil total organic carbon, soil total nitrogen content and other important soil environmental factors were also analyzed. 【Result】①Compared with CK, treatments T3, T4 and T5 signi-ficantly increased the soil invertase activity and the soil urease activity, and the average increases in the soil invertase activity were 30.85%, 34.58% and 50.90%, respectively; the average increases in soil urease activity were 27.57%, 33.67% and 66.64%, respectively. ②Compared with CK, all five treatments significantly increased soil cellulase activities, with an average increase of 38.39% in T1, 51.79% in T2, 79.91% in T3, 129.33% in T4, and 149.52% in T5. ③Compared with CK, T1 and T2 treatments significantly reduced the soil catalase activity, with average decreases of 13.23% and 17.56%, respectively. T3, T4 and T5 treatments showed no significant difference compared with CK. ④The seasonal dynamic analysis showed that the soil sucrase activity was the highest in September and the lowest in March, with a minimum value of 0.40 mg/(g·d) and a maximum value of 0.77 mg/(g·d). The soil urease activity was higher in summer and autumn, and lower in spring and winter, with a minimum value of 5.61 mg/(g·d) and a maximum value of 10.57 mg/(g·d). The soil catalase activity was highest in June and lower in other seasons, with a minimum value of 2.22 mg/(g·h) and a maximum value of 4.20 mg/(g·h). The activity of cellulase was higher in summer and autumn and lower in spring and winter, with a minimum value of 2.36 mg/(g·d) and a maximum value of 6.93 mg/(g·d). Compared with CK, the earthworm inoculation and litterfall addition treatments did not change the seasonal variation patterns of the four soil enzymes. ⑤The repeated ANOVA measures showed that seasonal changes and treatments significantly affected soil invertase, urease, cellulase and catalase activities, which only had significant interactions on the soil catalase activity, but no significant interaction on soil invertase, urease and cellulase activities. ⑥The correlation analysis showed that soil invertase, urease and cellulase activities were negatively correlated with the soil bulk density and pH value, and positively correlated with soil total nitrogen, soil total organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon, soil microbial biomass nitrogen content and soil microbial biomass C/N ratio. The soil catalase activity was not significantly correlated with the above soil environmental factors. 【Conclusion】Soil enzyme activities of invertase, urease and cellulase in a poplar plantation could be significantly improved by the earthworm inoculation, and the effects of earthworm inoculation on soil enzyme activities of invertase, urease and cellulase could be further promoted by the poplar leaf litter incorporation into the soil than by mulch on the soil. The poplar leaf litter incorporation into the soil and earthworm inoculation treatments both significantly improved the soil enzymes indexes, while the litter incorporation into the soil with earthworm inoculation treatments further significantly improved the soil enzymes indexes. Therefore, the combination management measures of the litter incorporation into the soil and earthworm inoculation are recommended in agricultural and forestry production.
poplar plantation / earthworm / litterfall / soil enzyme activity / soil enzyme index
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
冯雯. 蚯蚓对农田土壤微生物和微动物群落结构和功能的影响[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2014.
|
[4] |
陈平, 赵博, 杨璐, 等. 接种蚯蚓和添加凋落物对油松人工林土壤养分和微生物量及活性的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2018,40(6):63-71.
|
[5] |
崔丽娟. 蚯蚓粪对土壤主要微生物学特性影响的研究[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2012.
|
[6] |
徐晓燕, 何应森, 龙孝燕, 等. 接种蚯蚓对土壤过氧化氢酶和转化酶活性的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2011,38(12):75-77.
|
[7] |
张宝贵, 李贵桐, 孙钊, 等. 两种生态类型蚯蚓几种消化酶活性比较研究[J]. 生态学报, 2001,21(6):978-981.
|
[8] |
袁向华, 周艳玲, 宋清姿, 等. 蚯蚓吞食过程中土壤理化性质与放线菌多样性的变化特征[J]. 生态学报, 2017,37(4):1199-1210.
|
[9] |
王丹丹, 李辉信, 胡锋, 等. 蚯蚓活动对锌污染土壤微生物群落结构及酶活性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2006,15(3):538-542.
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
赵静. 氮添加与凋落物对土壤微生物和酶活性的影响[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2016.
|
[14] |
陈晓丽, 王根绪, 杨燕, 等. 山地森林表层土壤酶活性对短期增温及凋落物分解的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(21):7071-7079.
|
[15] |
闫慧荣, 曹永昌, 谢伟, 等. 玉米秸秆还田对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015,43(7):177-184.
|
[16] |
沈芳芳, 袁颖红, 樊后保, 等. 氮沉降对杉木人工林土壤有机碳矿化和土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012,32(2):517-527.
|
[17] |
王艮梅, 罗琳琳, 郑聚锋. 苏北不同代次和林龄杨树人工林土壤酶活性季节变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2014,38(4):45-50.
|
[18] |
王国兵, 王瑞, 徐瑾, 等. 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(2):1-6.
|
[19] |
徐瑾, 王瑞, 邓芳芳, 等. 施用生物炭对东台沿海杨树人工林土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2020,49(3):348-353.
|
[20] |
许明祥, 刘国彬, 赵允格. 黄土丘陵区土壤质量评价指标研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005,16(10):1843-1848.
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
李艺坚, 谢学方, 孔令泽, 等. 林下蚯蚓养殖对胶园土壤速效养分、酶活性和橡胶树细根根密度的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2019,39(2):61-65.
|
[23] |
张池, 陈旭飞, 周波, 等. 华南地区壮伟环毛蚓(Amynthas robustus)和皮质远盲蚓(Amynthas corticis)对土壤酶活性和微生物学特征的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012,45(13):2658-2667.
|
[24] |
周东兴, 宁玉翠, 徐明明, 等. 蚯蚓粪对温室黑土土壤酶活性及细菌多样性的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2014(4):835-840.
|
[25] |
王笑. 不同生态型蚯蚓对土壤群落结构和功能的影响[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2016.
|
[26] |
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.
|
[27] |
万忠梅, 宋长春. 土壤酶活性对生态环境的响应研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2009,40(4):951-956.
|
[28] |
李辉信, 胡锋, 沈其荣, 等. 接种蚯蚓对秸秆还田土壤碳、氮动态和作物产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002,13(12):1637-1641.
|
[29] |
刘莹莹, 苏妮尔, 赵彩鸿, 等. 落叶松凋落叶水提液对苗圃土壤微生物数量和土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2020,36(5):24-33.
|
[30] |
王兵, 刘国彬, 薛萐. 退耕地养分和微生物量对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国环境科学. 2010,30(10):1375-1382.
|
[31] |
周礼恺, 张志明, 陈恩凤. 黑土的酶活性[J]. 土壤学报, 1981,18(2):158-166.
|
[32] |
刘丽, 郭宝贝, 刘娟桃, 等. 蚯蚓粪肥对玉露香梨果实品质及土壤理化性状和酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(20):38-43.
|
[33] |
王瑞, 王国兵, 徐瑾, 等. 凋落物与蚯蚓对杨树人工林土壤团聚体分布及其碳氮的影响[J/OL]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),(2020-06-19). [2020-11-10]. http://kns.cnki,net/kcms/detail/32.1161.S.20200619.1435.004.html.
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |