Effects of understory vegetation management measures on soil quality of Eucalyptus urophylla × grandis plantation

LU Aozou, ZHANG Huanchao, WANG Huili, ZHUANG Shunyao, FAN Meijuan, SONG Yingying, HUANG Chen

Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition） ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (2) : 215-224.

PDF(2246 KB)
南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）
PDF(2246 KB)
Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition） ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (2) : 215-224. DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202410004

Effects of understory vegetation management measures on soil quality of Eucalyptus urophylla × grandis plantation

Author information +
History +

Abstract

【Objective】Understory vegetation is frequently removed during long-term stand management to promote the growth of target tree species. This study aims to investigate the effects of different understory vegetation management measures on soil physicochemical and biological properties in Eucalyptus urophylla×grandis and to assess associated changes in soil quality, while thereby providing a theoretical basis for the scientific management of Eucalyptus plantation understory vegetation.【Method】The research was conducted in a fourth-generation E. urophylla×grandis plantation (plant spacing: 2 m × 3 m) in Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. Three understory vegetation removal methods were applied: artificial tending, herbicide tending, and a combination of artificial and herbicide tending. Soil samples were collected in August 2023 from three depth layers [0,10), [10,20), [20,40) cm in plots subjected to each treatment. The samples were analyzed to determine differences in soil physicochemical and biological properties. Soil quality was comprehensively evaluated using the total dataset (TDS) and a minimum dataset (MDS) approach. The accuracy of the newly established MDS was validated through linear regression analysis.【Result】Different understory vegetation management measures led to distinct differences in soil properties and overall soil quality. The forest land soil receiving artificial tending maintained superior physical properties, in the 0-10 cm soil layer, bulk density was significantly lower, while total porosity and maximum water-holding capacity were significantly higher compared to artificial and herbicide tending forest land. However, capillary porosity, capillary water-holding capacity, and field water-holding capacity were not significantly affected by the different understory vegetation management measures. Within the 0-40 cm soil layer, the contents of soil organic matter, total nitrogen, alkaline hydrolyzed nitrogen, available potassium, microbial biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN), and microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP) generally followed the order: artificial tending> artificial and herbicide tending > herbicide tending. In contrast, the available phosphorus content showed the opposite trend: herbicide tending> artificial and herbicide tending> artificial tending. With increasing soil depth under the same management practice, total porosity, non-capillary porosity, maximum water-holding capacity, and the contents of organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available nutrients, and microbial biomass decreased significantly, whereas bulk density increased significantly. Using soil MBC, MBN, and MBP as key biological indicators, a minimum dataset was constructed, comprising MBP, MBC, capillary water-holding capacity, non-capillary porosity, and pH. Soil quality evaluation based on this MDS yielded results consistent with those from the TDS. The soil quality index under different treatments followed the order: artificial tending> artificial and herbicide tending > herbicide tending.【Conclusion】Artificial removal of understory vegetation maintained better soil quality, whereas herbicide application led to further decline in the soil quality of plantation forests. The management of Eucalyptus plantations should prioritize artificial tending, and herbicide use should be minimized to maintain soil quality and ensure the long-term, high-quality management of these Eucalyptus plantations.

Key words

Eucalyptus urophylla×grandis / understory vegetation / vegetation management / minimum data set / soil quality

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations
LU Aozou , ZHANG Huanchao , WANG Huili , et al . Effects of understory vegetation management measures on soil quality of Eucalyptus urophylla × grandis plantation[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition）. 2026, 50(2): 215-224 https://doi.org/10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202410004

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis
[1]
曹继钊, 李孝忠. 桉树人工林沃土保育与可持续经营思考[J]. 广西林业科学, 2017, 46(2):233-236.
CAO J Z, LI X Z. Think about the soil conservation and sustainable management of Eucalyptus plantation[J]. Guangxi Forestry Science, 2017, 46(2):233-236. DOI: 10.19692/j.cnki.gfs.2017.02.025.
Cited in this article [1]
[2]
吕世凡, 黄方, 董必珍, 等. 4种木材真菌对桉树采伐剩余物的降解试验[J]. 林业科技通讯, 2017(7):82-85.
LYU S F, HUANG F, DONG B Z, et al. Decomposing test on several fungi on felled wood of native tree species in Guangxi on the harvesting residues of Eucalyptus[J]. Forest Science and Technology, 2017(7):82-85. DOI: 10.13456/j.cnki.lykt.2017.07.025.
Cited in this article [1]
[3]
王会利, 吴秦展, 兰文明, 等. 多代连栽桉树人工林林下植被和土壤物理性状的变化[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2023, 43(2):1-9.
WANG H L, WU Q Z, LAN W M, et al. Dynamics of understory vegetation and soil physical properties in Eucalyptus plantations of different generations[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2023, 43(2):1-9. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2023.02.001.
Cited in this article [1]
[4]
陆佳, 王华响, 陈利军. 连栽对桉树土壤稀有微生物群落及多功能性的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2025, 41(8):1034-1044.
LU J, WANG H X, CHEN L J. Effect of successive rotations on rare microbial community and soil multifunctionality in Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2025, 41(8):1034-1044. DOI: 10.19741/j.issn.1673-4831.2024.0435.
Cited in this article [1]
[5]
何艺玲, 傅懋毅. 人工林林下植被的研究现状[J]. 林业科学研究, 2002, 15(6):727-733.
HE Y L, FU M Y. Review of studies on understorey of plantations[J]. Forest Research, 2002, 15(6):727-733. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2002.06.015.
Cited in this article [1]
[6]
邱超明. 桉树幼林抚育管理的重要性及解决策略[J]. 农业与技术, 2019, 39(8):71-72.
QIU C M. Importance of tending management of Eucalyptus young forest and its solutions[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2019, 39(8):71-72. DOI: 10.19754/j.nyyjs.20190430033.
Cited in this article [1]
[7]
曹光球, 费裕翀, 路锦, 等. 林下植被不同管理措施培育杉木大径材林分土壤酶活性差异及质量评价[J]. 林业科学研究, 2020, 33(3):76-84.
CAO G Q, FEI Y C, LU J, et al. The differences of soil enzyme activity and quality evaluation of Cunninghamia lanceolata large-diameter industrial plantation under different understory vegetation management measures[J]. Forest Research, 2020, 33(3):76-84. DOI: 10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj.2020.03.010.
Cited in this article [1]
[8]
LEKBERG Y, WAGNER V, RUMMEL A, et al. Strong indirect herbicide effects on mycorrhizal associations through plant community shifts and secondary invasions[J]. Ecological Applications, 2017, 27(8):2359-2368. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1613.
Cited in this article [1]
[9]
侯文军, 邹明, 李宝福, 等. 施用草甘膦对桉树人工林土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(8):20-26.
HOU W J, ZOU M, LI B F, et al. Effect of glyphosate on soil physicochemical properties of Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(8):20-26. DOI: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20200803.
Cited in this article [1]
[10]
周晓果, 左晓庆, 温远光, 等. 除草剂对桉树人工林下植物及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(17):6749-6763.
ZHOU X G, ZUO X Q, WEN Y G, et al. Effects of herbicide on understory plant and soil microbial communities in Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(17):6749-6763. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201909161922.
Cited in this article [1]
[11]
张万儒. 森林土壤分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1999.
ZHANG W R. Forest soil analysis methods[M]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 1999.
Cited in this article [1]
[12]
李振高, 骆永明, 滕应. 土壤与环境微生物研究法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008.
LI Z G, LUO Y M, TENG Y. Research method of soil and environmental microorganisms[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2008.
Cited in this article [1]
[13]
王艺霖, 梁尧, 蔡红光, 等. 基于最小数据集的不同有机物料还田黑土土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2024, 55(1):68-75.
WANG Y L, LIANG Y, CAI H G, et al. Soil quality evaluation of black soil under different returning treatments of organic materials based on minimum data set[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2024, 55(1):68-75. DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2022070801.
Cited in this article [2]
[14]
梁淑敏, 谢瑞芝, 李朝苏, 等. 成都平原不同耕作模式的农田效应研究:Ⅱ.土壤综合质量评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(4):738-744.
LIANG S M, XIE R Z, LI C S, et al. Effects of tillage systems on fields in Chengdu Plain:Ⅱ.the evaluation of soil quality[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011, 44(4):738-744. DOI: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.04.011.
Cited in this article [1]
[15]
李桂林, 陈杰, 孙志英, 等. 基于土壤特征和土地利用变化的土壤质量评价最小数据集确定[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(7):2715-2724.
LI G L, CHEN J, SUN Z Y, et al. Establishing a minimum dataset for soil quality assessment based on soil properties and land use change[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(7):2715-2724. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2007.07.007.
Cited in this article [1]
[16]
蒋林, 覃恒, 邓建英, 等. 不同树种和比例对桉树人工混交林土壤肥力质量的影响[J]. 桉树科技, 2022, 39(2):9-14.
JIANG L, QIN H, DENG J Y, et al. Effects of different tree species in mixed plantations with Eucalyptus on soil fertility[J]. Eucalypt Science & Technology, 2022, 39(2):9-14. DOI: 10.13987/j.cnki.askj.2022.02.002.
Cited in this article [1]
[17]
王嘉琛, 赵隽宇, 黄康庭, 等. 桂北土壤肥力质量对尾叶桉人工林连栽连作的响应[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2019, 39(1):106-113.
WANG J C, ZHAO J Y, HUANG K T, et al. Response of soil fertility quality to continuous cropping of Eucalyptus urophylla plantation in northern Guangxi[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (Natural Sciences), 2019, 39(1):106-113. DOI: 10.11929/j.swfu.201807003.
Cited in this article [1]
[18]
LAGOMARSINO A, MOSCATELLI M C, DI TIZIO A, et al. Soil biochemical indicators as a tool to assess the short-term impact of agricultural management on changes in organic C in a Mediterranean environment[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2009, 9(3):518-527. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.07.003.
Cited in this article [1]
[19]
路鹏, 苏以荣, 牛铮, 等. 土壤质量评价指标及其时空变异[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2007, 15(4):190-194.
LU P, SU Y R, NIU Z, et al. Soil quality assessment indicators and their spatialtemporal variability[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2007, 15(4):190-194. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2004.03.023.
Cited in this article [2]
[20]
程彩云, 薛建辉, 马洁. 基于最小数据集的喀斯特不同类型人工林土壤质量评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2025, 49(2):134-142.
CHENG C Y, XUE J H, MA J. Assessment of different Karst plantation types on soil quality based on a minimum data set[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 2025, 49(2):134-142. DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202311032.
Cited in this article [1]
[21]
MINASNY B, HONG S Y, HARTEMINK A E, et al. Soil pH increase under paddy in south Korea between 2000 and 2012[J]. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 221:205-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.042.
Cited in this article [1]
[22]
汪景宽, 徐英德, 丁凡, 等. 植物残体向土壤有机质转化过程及其稳定机制的研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(3):528-540.
WANG J K, XU Y D, DING F, et al. Process of plant residue transforming into soil organic matter and mechanism of its stabilization:a review[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 56(3):528-540. DOI: 10.11766/trxb201811140559.
Cited in this article [1]
[23]
曹萌萌, 朱利霞, 赵欣, 等. 外源有机碳输入对林地土壤有机碳矿化的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2025, 41 (3):462-470.
CAO M M, ZHU L X, ZHAO X, et al. Effects of exogenous organic carbon input on soil organic carbon mineralization in plantation[J]. Forest Engineering, 2025, 41(3):462-470. DOI: 10.7525/j.issn.1006-8023.2025.03.003.
Cited in this article [1]
[24]
贾朋聚, 刘亚敏, 刘玉民, 等. 林下植被对桢楠幼林生长和土壤质量的影响[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2025, 45(1):53-61.
JIA P J, LIU Y M, LIU Y M, et al. Effects of understory vegetation on the growth and soil quality of young Phoebe zhennan forest[J]. Journal of Forest and Environment, 2025, 45(1):53-61. DOI: 10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.202408025.
Cited in this article [1]
[25]
张友, 戴全厚, 严友进, 等. 施用草甘膦除草剂对土壤质量影响的研究进展[J]. 水土保持学报, 2023, 37(4):7-13.
ZHANG Y, DAI Q H, YAN Y J, et al. Research progress on the impact of glyphosate herbicide application on soil quality[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2023, 37(4):7-13. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2023.04.002.
Cited in this article [2]
[26]
邓晓, 李雅琦. 草甘膦对土壤微生物影响的研究[J]. 农药, 2005, 44(2):59-62.
DENG X, LI Y Q. Effect of glyphosate on soil microorganisms[J]. Pesticides, 2005, 44(2):59-62. DOI: 10.16820/j.cnki.1006-0413.2005.02.004.
Cited in this article [1]
[27]
STRATTON G W, STEWART K E. Effects of the herbicide glyphosate on nitrogen cycling in an acid forest soil[J]. Water,Air,and Soil Pollution, 1991, 60(3):231-247. DOI: 10.1007/BF00282625.
Cited in this article [1]
[28]
POCHRON S, CHOUDHURY M, GOMEZ R, et al. Temperature and body mass drive earthworm (Eisenia fetida) sensitivity to a popular glyphosate-based herbicide[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2019, 139:32-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.03.015.
Cited in this article [1]
[29]
呼蕾, 和文祥, 高亚军. 草甘膦对土壤微生物量及呼吸强度的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2010, 19(7):168-172.
HU L, HE W X, GAO Y J. Effect of glyphosate on soil microbial biomass and respiration[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2010, 19(7):168-172. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1389.2010.07.037.
Cited in this article [2]
[30]
陈隆升, 陈永忠, 彭映赫, 等. 草甘膦对油茶林土壤微生物数量及酶活性的影响[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2015, 42(4):32-35.
CHEN L S, CHEN Y Z, PENG Y H, et al. Effect of glyphosate on number of soil microbial and enzyme activity of Camellia forest[J]. Hunan Forestry Science & Technology, 2015, 42(4):32-35. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5710.2015.04.008.
Cited in this article [1]
PDF(2246 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail
Sections
Recommended
The full text is translated into English by AI, aiming to facilitate reading and comprehension. The core content is subject to the explanation in Chinese.

Author

Reader

Reviewer

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

/

〈 〉