Assessment of different Karst plantation types on soil quality based on a minimum data set

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202311032

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2025, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (2): 134-142.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202311032

Previous Articles Next Articles

Assessment of different Karst plantation types on soil quality based on a minimum data set

CHENG Caiyun¹(), XUE Jianhui¹^,²^,^*(), MA Jie³

1. College of Ecology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
2. Institute of Botany, Jiangsu Province and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210014, China
3. Jiangsu Shunde Ecological Environment Technology Co., Ltd., Nanjing 210043, China

Received:2023-11-26 Accepted:2024-03-05 Online:2025-03-30 Published:2025-03-28
Contact: XUE Jianhui E-mail:caiyuncheng5280@foxmail.com;jhxue@cnbg.net

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】This study evaluated soil quality under different types of plantation vegetation restoration in Karst areas, aiming to provide guidance on selecting suitable tree species and improving soil quality. 【Method】Three types of plantation forests—Cupressus duclouxiana forest, Robinia pseudoacacia forest, and C. duclouxiana-R. pseudoacacia mixed forest—along with unplanted land (control) in Guizhou Province, were selected for the study. The soil physical, chemical, and enzymatic characteristics were analyzed. Redundancy analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) were used to assess soil fertility quality, while total data set (TDS), minimum data set (MDS), and gray correlation degree method (GRA) were employed to evaluate soil fertility. 【Result】(1) Compared with unplanted land, soil water content, porosity, organic matter, total nitrogen, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, total phosphorus, and available phosphorus content were significantly higher in plantation forests. Conversely, soil bulk density, pH, total potassium, and available potassium were significantly lower. (2) Except for alkaline phosphatase, the activities of urease, polyphenol oxidase, sucrase, and catalase were the highest in the C. duclouxiana-R. pseudoacacia mixed forest. Urease, alkaline phosphatase, and catalase activities were higher in plantations than those in unplanted land. (3) The minimum data set derived from PCA was suitable for soil quality evaluation in Karst plantations. This data set included soil total nitrogen, total potassium, available potassium content, non-capillary porosity, alkaline phosphatase, and polyphenol oxidase activities. (4) Soil quality evaluations based on MDS align with those based on TDS and grey correlation degree. The soil quality order was as follows: C. duclouxiana-R. pseudoacacia mixed forest > R. pseudoacacia forest > C. duclouxiana forest > unplanted land. The mixed forest demonstrated significantly better soil quality than the pure forests. 【Conclusion】 During vegetation restoration and plantation development in Karst areas, following the principles of tree adaptation and site suitability, and focusing on constructing mixed forests, can enhance overall soil quality and improve the ecological benefits of artificial vegetation restoration.

Key words: Karst area, evaluation of soil quality, principal component analysis(PCA), minimum data set(MDS)

CLC Number:

S714

CHENG Caiyun, XUE Jianhui, MA Jie. Assessment of different Karst plantation types on soil quality based on a minimum data set[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2025, 49(2): 134-142.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig. 1

Table 5

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

References 36

[1]	戎宇, 刘成刚, 薛建辉. 喀斯特山地不同人工林土壤特性差异与综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 35(2): 108-112.
	RONG Y, LIU C G, XUE J H. Difference and integrated evaluation on soil fertility properties of different plantations in Karst area[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2011, 35(2): 108-112. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2011.02.023.
[2]	ZHANG Y, XU X, LI Z, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil quality in degraded Karst landscapes of southwest China[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2019, 650: 2657-2665. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.372.
[3]	YUAN Y, LI X, XIONG D, et al. Effects of restoration age on water conservation function and soil fertility quality of restored woodlands in phosphate mined-out areas[J]. Environ Earth Sci, 2019, 78(23): 653. DOI:10.1007/s12665-019-8671-8.
[4]	刘占锋, 傅伯杰, 刘国华, 等. 土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J]. 生态学报, 2006(3): 901-913.
	LIU Z F, FU B J, LIU G H, et al. Soil quality: concept, indicators and its assessment[J]. Acta Ecol Sin. 2006(3): 901-913.
[5]	张连金, 赖光辉, 孙长忠, 等. 北京九龙山土壤质量综合评价[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2016, 36(1): 22-29.
	ZHANG L J, LAI G H, SUN C Z, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of soil qua-lity fertility in Jiulong Mountain, Beijing[J]. J Forest Environ, 2016, 36(1): 22-29. DOI: 10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2016.01.004.
[6]	梅楠, 谷岩, 李德忠, 等. 基于最小数据集的吉林省黑土耕层土壤质量评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(12): 91-98.
	MEI N, GU Y, LI D Z, et al. Soil quality evaluation in topsoil layer of black soil in Jilin Province based on minimum data set[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2021, 37(12): 91-98. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2021.12.011.
[7]	HE Y J, HAN X R, WANG X P, et al. Long-term ecological effects of two artificial forests on soil properties and quality in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2021, 796: 148986. DOI:/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148986
[8]	XING Y, WANG N, NIU X, et al. Assessment of potato farmland soil nutrient based on MDS-SQI model in the Loess Plateau[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(7): 3957. DOI:10.3390/su13073957
[9]	RAIESI F, KABIRI V. Identification of soil quality indicators for assessing the effect of different tillage practices through a soil quality index in a semi-arid environment[J]. Ecol Indicators, 2016, 71: 198-207. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.061
[10]	SHAO G D, AI J J, SUN Q W, et al. Soil quality assessment under different forest types in the Mount Tai, central eastern China[J]. Ecol Indicators, 2020, 115: 106439. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106439
[11]	杨文娜, 任嘉欣, 李忠意, 等. 主成分分析法和模糊综合评价法判断喀斯特土壤的肥力水平[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(6): 1307-1313.
	YANG W N, REN J X, LI Z Y, et al. Soil fertility in Karst regions with analysis of principal component and fuzzy synthetic evaluation[J]. Southwest China J Agric Sci, 2019, 32(6): 1307-1313. DOI: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2019.6.017.
[12]	刘成刚, 薛建辉. 喀斯特石漠化山地不同类型人工林土壤的基本性质和综合评价[J]. 植物生态学报, 2011, 35(10): 1050-1060.
	LIU C G, XUE J H. Difference and integrated evalua-tion on soil fertility properties of different plantations in Karst area[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(10): 1050-1060. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01050.
[13]	马洁, 薛建辉, 吴永波, 等. 贵州省喀斯特山地3种人工林林下植物多样性和地上部生物量及其相关性[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2021, 30(1): 17-26.
	MA J, XUE J H, WU Y B, et al. Diversity and above-ground biomass of undergrowth plants of 3 plantations in Karst mountainous region of Guizhou Province and their correlation[J]. J Plant Resour Environ, 2021, 30(1): 17-26. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7895.2021.01.03.
[14]	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.
[15]	关松荫, 张德生, 张志明. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986, 14-339.
[16]	LEPŠ J, ŠMILAUER P. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[17]	冯瑞琦, 潘萍, 欧阳勋志, 等. 基于最小数据集的闽楠天然次生林土壤质量评价[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2021, 43(3): 585-597.
	FENG R Q, PAN P, OUYANG X Z, et al. Soil quality evaluation of natural secondary forest of Phoebe bournei based on minimum data set[J]. Acta Agric Univ Jiangxiensis, 2021, 43(3): 585-597. DOI: 10.13836/j.jjau.2021065.
[18]	王建国, 杨林章, 单艳红. 模糊数学在土壤质量评价中的应用研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2001, 38(2): 176-183.
	WANG J G, YANG L Z, SHAN Y H. Application of fuzzy mathematics to soil quality evaluation[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2001, 38(2): 176-183. DOI: 10.11766/trxb200008290205.
[19]	金晶炜, 许岳飞, 熊俊芬, 等. 应用灰色关联度法评价砷污染土壤修复效果[J]. 水土保持通报, 2009, 29(6): 213-216.
	JIN J W, XU Y F, XIONG J F, et al. Application of grey relevant analysis in remediation effect evaluation of arsenic contaminated soils[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2009, 29(6): 213-216. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2009.06.013.
[20]	刘可意, 杨佳, 姜淑娜, 等. 基于最小数据集的典型黑土区不同林龄小黑杨土壤质量差异[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(9).
	LIU K Y, YANG J, JIANG S N, et al. Evaluation of differences in soil quality of Populus simonii × P. nibra (P. nigra) of diffe-rent stand ages in typical black soil area based on a minimum data set[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2024, 44(9). DOI: 10.20103/j.stxb.202307091478
[21]	TEJASHVINI A, RAMAMURTHY V, THIMMAPPA S C. Soil quality assessment of different land use systems of peri-urban-rural landscape of Deccan plateau, hot semi-arid agro-ecosystem[J]. Archives Agronomy Soil Sci, 2023: 1-13. DOI:10.1080/03650340.2023.2196718
[22]	贡璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(3): 682-689.
	GONG L, ZHANG X N, RAN Q Y. Quality assessment of oasis soil in the upper reaches of Tarim River based on minimum data set[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2015, 52(3): 682-689. DOI: 10.11766/trxb201406290331.
[23]	金慧芳, 史东梅, 陈正发, 等. 基于聚类及PCA分析的红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价指标[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(7): 155-164.
	JIN H F, SHI D M, CHEN Z F, et al. Evaluation indicators of cultivated layer soil quality for red soil slope farmland based on cluster and PCA analysis[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2018, 34(7): 155-164. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2018.07.020.
[24]	邓绍欢, 曾令涛, 关强, 等. 基于最小数据集的南方地区冷浸田土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(5): 1326-1333.
	DENG S H, ZENG L T, GUANG Q, et al. Minimum dataset-based soil quality assessment of waterlogged paddy field in south China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2016, 53(5): 1326-1333. DOI: 10.11766/trxb201509070.
[25]	PAN F, ZHANG W, LIANG Y, et al. Increased associated effects of topography and litter and soil nutrients on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass along vegetation successions in Karst ecosystem, Southwestern China[J]. Environ Sci Pollution Res 2018, 25(17): 16979-16990. DOI:10.1007/s11356-018-1673-3.
[26]	OSBURN E D, ELLIOTTT K J, KNOEPP J D, et al. Soil microbial response to Rhododendron understory removal in southern appalachian forests: effects on extracellular enzymes[J]. Soil Biol Biochemistry, 2018, 127: 50-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.008.
[27]	魏树伟, 王少敏, 张勇, 等. 不同土壤管理方式对梨园土壤养分、酶活性及果实风味品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(12): 46-55.
	WEI S W, WANG S M, ZHANG Y, et al. Effects of different soil management methods on the soil nutrients, enzyme activity and fruit quality of pear orchards[J]. Acta Pra-taculturae Sin, 2015, 24(12): 46-55. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2015149.
[28]	唐祎欣, 张伟, 吴汉卿, 等. 植被恢复对西南喀斯特地区土壤气候韧性的提升作用[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(20): 8430-8441.
	TANG Y X, ZHANG W, WU H Q, et al. Vegetation restoration enhances the resilience of soil quality to climate change in the southwest karst region[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2023, 43(20): 8430-8441. DOI: 10.20103/j.stxb.202302070207.
[29]	石海龙, 张林星, 甘凤玲, 等. 喀斯特槽谷区侵蚀坡面的土壤质量评价及障碍因子[J]. 水土保持学报, 2024, 38(2).
	SHI H L, ZHANG L X, GANG F L, et al. Soil quality evaluation and obstacle factors of erosion slop in Karst trough valley area[J]. J Soil and Water Conserv, 2024, 38(2). DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2024.02.007.
[30]	田英, 许喆, 王娅丽, 等. 宁夏银川平原沙化土地不同人工林土壤质量评价[J]. 生态学报, 2023(4): 1-11.
	TIAN Y, XU Z, WANG Y L, et al. Evaluation soil quality evaluation for diffe-rent forest plantation of sandy land in Yinchuan Plain, Ningxia[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2023(4): 1-11. DOI: 10.5846/stxb202103180720.
[31]	董茜, 王根柱, 庞丹波, 等. 喀斯特区不同植被恢复措施土壤质量评价[J]. 林业科学研究, 2022, 35(3): 169-178.
	DONG Q, WANG G Z, PANG D B, et al. Soil quality evaluation of different vegetation restoration measures in Karst area[J]. For Res, 2022, 35(3): 169-178. DOI: 10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj.2022.03.019
[32]	黄宇, 汪思龙, 冯宗炜, 等. 不同人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2004(12): 2199-2205.
	HUANG Y, WANG S L, FENG Z W, et al. Soil quality assessment of forest stand in different plantation esosystems[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2004(12): 2199-2205. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2004.0454.
[33]	戴凌, 黄志宏, 文丽. 长沙市不同森林类型土壤养分含量与土壤酶活性[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014, 34(6): 100-105.
	DAI L, HUANG Z H, WEN L. Soil nutrients and enzyme activity characteristics of different type forests in Changsha City[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2014, 34(6): 100-105. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2014.06.002.
[34]	PRETZSCH H, SCHUTZE G. Effect of tree species mixing on the size structure, density, and yield of forest stands[J]. European J Forest Res, 2016, 135(1): 1-22. DOI:10.1007/s10342-015-0913-z.
[35]	李静鹏, 徐明锋, 苏志尧, 等. 不同植被恢复类型的土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(9): 2297-2307.
	LI J P, XU M F, SU Z Y, et al. Soil fertility quality assessment under different vegetation restoration patterns[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2014, 34(9): 2297-2307. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201306111672
[36]	钟琪. 混交林营造技术分析[J]. 绿色科技, 2016(9): 81-83.
	ZHONG Q. Analysis on planting technology of mixed forest[J]. J Green Sci Technol, 2016(9): 81-83. DOI: 10.16663/j.cnki.lskj.2016.09.041.

Metrics

Comments

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

林分类型 forest type	地理位置 location	坡度/ (°) slope	海拔/m altitude	林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) stand density	平均树高/m average tree height	平均胸径/cm average DBH	平均地径/cm average ground diameter	群落盖度/% coverage
CD	105°48'58.3″E,26°15'44.6″N	18	1 410	2 155	8.1	8.13	2.7	95.6
RP	105°50'49.2″E,26°16'57.7″N	10	1 470	1 722	4.2	4.77	4.8	94.9
CR	105°51'09.0″E,26°17'03.4″N	12	1 480	2 100	7.6	9.31	8.0/6.4	97.3
CK	105°51'11.6″E,26°16'53.5″N	13	1 480	—	—	—	—	91.4

林分类型 forest type	含水率/% WC	容重/ (g·cm^-3) BD	总孔隙度/% STP	毛管孔隙度/% SCP	非毛管孔隙度/% NSCP
CD	40.75±5.38 a	0.87±0.06 b	53.15±1.98 b	41.62±2.04 b	11.53±2.80 a
RP	46.08±3.71 a	0.70±0.03 d	64.76±5.17 a	50.91±1.24 a	13.84±6.37 a
CR	44.90±11.05 a	0.76±0.02 c	63.11±5.70 a	50.69±2.61 a	12.42±4.99 a
CK	34.97±5.39 b	0.97±0.03 a	46.35±5.00 c	39.48±6.08 b	6.86±2.21 b

林分类型 forest type	pH	有机质质量分数/ (g·kg^-1) SOM mass fraction	全氮质量分数/ (g·kg^-1) TN mass fraction	碱解氮质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) HN mass fraction	全磷质量分数/ (g·kg^-1) TP mass fraction	速效磷质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) AP mass fraction	全钾质量分数/ (g·kg^-1) TK mass fraction	速效钾质量分数/ (mg·kg^-1) AK mass fraction
CD	7.28±0.11 a	50.43±2.28 bc	3.54±0.13 c	269.60±8.95 c	0.86±0.03 ab	7.28±0.53 b	5.80±0.41 b	155.51±7.59 b
RP	6.76±0.13 c	53.87±2.95 ac	4.52±0.11 b	308.00±6.68 b	0.80±0.02 b	6.81±0.28 b	6.23±0.85 ab	163.05±7.78 b
CR	6.75±0.13 c	59.77±2.71 a	4.98±0.02 a	347.2±6.33 a	0.99±0.03 a	9.01±0.16 a	6.09±0.36 ab	149.7±7.29 b
CK	7.59±0.10 a	37.55±2.39 b	3.08±0.02 d	245.00±4.82 d	0.58±0.04 c	5.51±0.18 c	7.54±0.35 a	171.15±5.22 a

林分类型 forest type	脲酶活性/ (mg·g^-1·d^-1) UR activity	多酚氧化酶活性/ (mg·g^-1·h^-1) PO activity	蔗糖酶活性/ (mg·g^-1·d^-1) SU activity	碱性磷酸酶活性/ (mmol·g^-1·h^-1) ALP activity	过氧化氢酶活性/ (mol·g^-1·min^-1) CA activity
CD	766.14±21.80 b	33.22±3.66 b	42.20±9.22 b	42.70±1.18 a	8.08±0.59 a
RP	855.49±43.19 ab	23.21±2.93 c	75.22±5.53 a	45.21±1.07 a	8.26±0.12 a
CR	905.24±43.072 a	43.65±1.02 a	87.07±0.99 a	44.74±0.48 a	8.40±0.08 a
CK	681.40±26.74 b	28.76±2.09 b	42.66±0.77 b	41.58±0.16 b	6.46±0.04 b

土壤指标 soil index	分组 group	主成分principal component
土壤指标 soil index	分组 group	1	2	3	4	5
WC	1	-0.621	-0.136	0.125	0.201	-0.391
BD	1	0.842	-0.028	-0.213	-0.056	-0.149
STP	1	-0.889	-0.004	0.381	-0.009	0.027
SCP	1	-0.839	0.156	0.042	0.094	0.038
NSCP	3	-0.520	-0.202	0.615	-0.130	0.000
pH	1	-0.757	-0.064	0.295	0.196	0.010
SOM	1	0.666	0.345	0.234	-0.179	-0.267
TN	1	0.949	-0.020	0.097	0.035	-0.072
HN	1	0.871	-0.250	0.210	0.064	-0.020
TP	1	0.496	0.403	0.136	0.260	0.180
AP	1	0.588	0.387	0.431	0.051	0.055
TK	5	-0.225	-0.409	0.145	-0.466	0.585
AK	4	-0.205	-0.355	-0.420	0.517	0.388
UR	1	0.621	0.086	0.093	-0.281	0.367
PO	4	0.298	0.350	0.426	0.512	0.270
SU	1	0.666	-0.297	0.057	0.227	0.138
ALP	2	-0.316	0.867	-0.201	-0.067	0.117
CA	2	0.435	-0.821	0.188	0.103	-0.147
特征值 eigenvalue		7.428	2.521	1.452	1.108	1.045
方差贡献率/% percent of variance		41.265	14.007	8.065	6.153	5.806
累积方差贡献率/% cumulative percent of variance		41.265	55.272	63.337	69.490	75.296

Assessment of different Karst plantation types on soil quality based on a minimum data set

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 36

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

[1]	ZHANG Zanpei, GU Yueying, SHANG Xulan, WANG Ji, FANG Shengzuo. An evaluation on the cold tolerance of twenty-three Cyclocarya paliurus families under natural low temperatures [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(4): 85-92.
[2]	ZHAO Zhiqiang, XU Xiaolong, YUAN Qing, WU Yan. Landscape pattern evolution and driving factors of Songhua River wetland in Harbin [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(2): 219-226.
[3]	ZHANG Heng, CUI Mengran, SHAN Yanlong, WANG Fei. Study on flammability of herbaceous fuel in typical grassland of China-Mongolia border [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(5): 171-177.
[4]	CHENG Juan, DING Fangjun, TAN Zhenghong, LIAO Liguo, ZHOU Ting, CUI Yingchun. Leaf stomatal morphological characteristics and their effects on transpiration for two tree species in Maolan Karst area,Guizhou Province [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(5): 125-132.
[5]	DENG Ping, ZHAO Ying, WANG Xia, CHEN Qiuyou, WU Min. Effects of salicylic acid on germination of Cyclobalanopsis glauca seeds under NaHCO₃ stress in Karst area of northwest Guangxi [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(4): 114-122.
[6]	WANG Aibin, SONG Huifang, ZHANG Liuyang, ZHANG Ming, YANG Shiwen, ZHANG Lingyun. Effects of bio-organic and microbial fertilizers on growth and soil nutrients of Vaccinium spp. seedlings [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(6): 63-70.
[7]	ZHANG Yiwen, GUO Aodong, WU Hailong, YUAN Hongwu, DONG Yunchun. Seasonal prediction of PM_2.5 based on the PCA-BP neural network [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(5): 231-238.
[8]	WANG Lei, XU Jiachen, ZHU Pengfei, LI Jiayan, ZHANG Heng. Physical and chemical properties and combustibility of predominant landscape tree species in Hohhot, China [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(3): 74-80.
[9]	ZHANG Lan,ZHANG Yi,DUAN Ruyan,WEI Xiaoli,XU Xiaoqin. Genetic variation among origin locations of Phoebe bournei(Hemsl.) Yang and a preliminary selection based on seedling growth and root traits [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2016, 40(06): 33-40.
[10]	BAO Yu, WANG Zhitai, WANG Zhijie. Landscape pattern and gradient analysis of urban green space in central town of the Meitan county [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2012, 36(03): 85-90.
[11]	GAO Sheng, WANG Lei, XUE Jianhui*, WU Yongbo, RONG Yu. The relationship between coverage of herbaceous vegetation communities and soil nutrients in the Karst area of Guizhou province [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2012, 36(01): 79-83.
[12]	WANG Zhen1，2，ZHANG Jinchi1，YU Shuiqiang1，WANG Xiao3，WANG Ruyan1，CUI Xiaoxiao1. The vanguard role of bryophytes in the course of vegetation restoration of Karst degradation area [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2011, 35(03): 28-.
[13]	RONG Yu, LIU Chenggang, XUE Jianhui*. Difference and integrated evaluation on soil fertility properties of different plantations in Karst area [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2011, 35(02): 108-112.
[14]	LIU Chenggang, RONG Yu, XUE Jianhui*, YAO Jian. Relationship between soil enzyme activities and structural characteristics of herbaceous layer in different plantations in Karst area [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2011, 35(02): 99-102.
[15]	LI Anding, YANG Rui, LIN Changhu, YU Lifei. The estimation on ecological water requirement of forestland under different mulching plantations in typical Karst area [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2011, 35(01): 57-61.