Litter Decomposition and Hydrological Effects in

QIU Cong; QIN Qianqian; ZHENG Dacheng; LIU Yanhong

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.01.026

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Litter Decomposition and Hydrological Effects in

更新时间：2025-03-12

- Litter Decomposition and Hydrological Effects in
- Vol. 36, Issue 1, Pages: 196-204(2022)
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 北京林业大学生态与自然保护学院,北京,100083
  2. 北京林业大学森林资源生态系统过程北京市重点实验室,北京,100083
  3. 北京林业大学林学院,北京,100083
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.01.026
  CLC： S715
- Published：2022
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
QIU Cong, QIN Qianqian, ZHENG Dacheng, et al. Litter Decomposition and Hydrological Effects in[J]. 2022, 36(1): 196-204.
DOI：

QIU Cong, QIN Qianqian, ZHENG Dacheng, et al. Litter Decomposition and Hydrological Effects in[J]. 2022, 36(1): 196-204. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.01.026.

摘要

以北京市重度火烧迹地油松人工林为对象

基于原位采样法和室内浸泡法于2020年7—12月在对照样地和火烧样地采集凋落物样品并测定分析其现存量、持水量、有效拦蓄量等指标

探究林火干扰下凋落物的分解及水文效应

为更好促进森林水源涵养功能以及水土保持功能提供依据。结果表明: (1)油松人工林半分解和完全分解层凋落物平均现存量分别为16.18(叶占比>80%)

31.88 t/hm2

平均厚度分别为2.77

2.79 cm; 与对照相比

火烧后半分解层凋落物厚度及现存量分别降低39.35%

53.77%。(2)油松人工林半分解层凋落物平均自然含水率(41.94%)略高于完全分解层(36.07%)

平均最大持水率为201.88%

其在7—9月低于完全分解层

10—12月则反之; 半分解层凋落物平均最大持水量和有效拦蓄量分别为35.80

19.85 t/hm2

在8—12月均显著(P < 0.05)低于完全分解层(69.28

46.64 t/hm2)。与对照样地相比

火烧后半分解层凋落物自然含水率降低32.19%

最大持水率和最大持水量分别降低13.36%

60.05%

有效拦蓄量降低了62.47%。(3)在24 h浸水过程中

7—9月对照样地半分解层凋落物持水量、吸水速率小于完全分解层

10—12月则反之; 火烧后

半分解层凋落物持水量、吸水速率较对照样地半分解层凋落物减少。综上

油松人工林凋落物(半分解层)分解表现为先快后慢

火烧后其分解加速; 凋落物持水性能及持水过程主要呈现完全分解层>半分解层

未火烧>重度火烧

即凋落物水文效应受分解阶段和火烧干扰影响。

Abstract

The Pinus tabulaeformis plantation of severely burned areas in Beijing was taken as the research object

based on in situ sampling method and indoor immersion method

litter samples were collected in control plot and burned plot from July 2020 to December 2020 and their standing crops

water holding capacity and effective retention were measured and analyzed to explore the decomposition and hydrological effects of litter under the interference of forest fire. It could provide a basis for giving better exerting the function of forest water conservation and soil and water conservation. The results showed that: (1) The average standing crop of litter in semi-decomposed layer and decomposed layer of Pinus tabulaeformis plantation were 16.18 t/hm2 (leaves proportion > 80%) and 31.88 t/hm2

the average thickness were 2.77

2.79 cm

respectively. Compared with the control plot

the litter thickness and standing crop of the semi-decomposed layer after fire were decreased by 39.35% and 53.77% respectively. (2) The average natural moisture content of litter in semi-decomposed layer (41.94%) was slightly higher than that in decomposed layer (36.07%) in Pinus tabulaeformis plantation

and the average maximum water holding capacity was 201.88%

which was lower than that of decomposed layer from July to September

and vice versa from October to December. The average maximum water holding capacity and effective retention in semi-decomposed layer were 35.80

19.85 t/hm2

which were significantly (P < 0.05) lower than those of decomposed layer from August to December (69.28

46.64 t/hm2). Compared with the control plot

the natural moisture content

maximum water holding rate

maximum water holding capacity and the effective retention of litter in semi-decomposed layer after fire were decreased by 32.19%

13.36%

60.05% and 62.47% respectively. (3) In the 24-hour immersion process

the litter water holding capacity and water absorption rate in semi-decomposed layer were lower than those of decomposed layer from July to September

and vice versa from October to December. The water holding capacity and water absorption rate of litter after fire in semi-decomposed layer were lower than those in control plot. In conclusion

the decomposition of litter (semi-decomposed layer) in Pinus tabulaeformis plantation was first fast and then slow

and the decomposition was accelerated after burning. The indexes of water holding capacity and water holding processes of litter mainly showed that decomposed layer was higher than semi-decomposed layer

and non-burned was higher than severe burned

that is

the hydrological effects of litter was affected by the decomposition stage and burning.

关键词

Keywords

references

刘蕾, 申国珍, 陈芳清, 等. 神农架海拔梯度上4种典型森林凋落物现存量及其养分循环动态[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(7): 2142-2149.

Wang C, Zhao C Y, Xu Z L, et al. Effect of vegetation on soil water retention and storage in a semi-arid alpine forest catchment [J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2013, 5(2): 207-219.

武启骞, 王传宽, 赵娟, 等. 帽儿山2种森林类型凋落物和土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(3): 161-166.

周巧稚, 毕华兴, 孔凌霄, 等. 晋西黄土区不同密度刺槐林枯落物层水文生态功能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(4): 115-121.

王玲, 赵广亮, 周红娟, 等. 八达岭林场不同密度油松人工林枯落物水文效应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(9): 1767-1775.

王丽红, 辛颖, 邹梦玲, 等. 大兴安岭重度火烧迹地植被恢复过程中枯落物持水特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(6): 262-267.

Huang Y H, Li Y L, Xiao Y, et al. Controls of litter quality on the carbon sink in soils through partitioning the products of decomposing litter in a forest succession series in South China [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2011, 261(7): 1170-1177.

李超, 董希斌, 宋启亮. 大兴安岭白桦低质林皆伐改造后枯落物水文效应[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2013, 41(10): 23-27.

Tan Z H, Zhang Y P, Song Q H, et al. Rubber plantations act as water pumps in tropical China [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011, 38(24): e24406.

Stephens S L, Agee J K, Fulé P Z, et al. Managing forests and fire in changing climates [J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 41-42.

秦倩倩, 刘艳红. 重度火烧干扰下的森林土壤功能[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2021, 27(2): 503-512.

孙龙, 窦旭, 胡同欣. 林火对森林生态系统碳氮磷生态化学计量特征影响研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(2): 1-9.

Butler O M, Elser J J, Lewis T, et al. The multi-element stoichiometry of wet eucalypt forest is transformed by recent, frequent fire [J]. Plant and Soil, 2020, 447(1/2): 447-461.

Keeley J E. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage [J]. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2009, 18(1): 116-126.

韩春兰, 邵帅, 王秋兵, 等. 兴安落叶松林火干扰后土壤有机碳含量变化[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(9): 3023-3033.

Kong J J, Yang J, Bai E. Long-term effects of wildfire on available soil nutrient composition and stoichiometry in a Chinese boreal forest [J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 642: 1353-1361.

杨新芳, 鲍雪莲, 胡国庆, 等. 大兴安岭不同火烧年限森林凋落物和土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(5): 1359-1367.

韩雪成, 赵雨森, 辛颖, 等. 大兴安岭北部火烧迹地兴安落叶松人工林土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2012, 26(4): 183-188.

梁文俊, 魏曦, 赵伟文, 等. 关帝山不同林分结构华北落叶松林枯落物水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2): 324-329, 337.

杜雪, 王海燕, 耿琦, 等. 云冷杉针阔混交林枯落物持水性能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(2): 361-368.

刘效东, 乔玉娜, 周国逸, 等. 鼎湖山3种不同演替阶段森林凋落物的持水特性[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(9): 8-15.

Papa S, Cembrola E, Pellegrino A, et al. Microbial enzyme activities, fungal biomass and quality of the litter and upper soil layer in a beech forest of south Italy [J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2014, 65(2): 274-285.

李素丽, 徐佳文, 丁翊东, 等. 赣江中游水源涵养林乔木和蕨类植物凋落物持水和失水特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(3): 170-176.

刘一霖, 温娅檬, 李巧玉, 等. 川西高山峡谷区6种森林枯落物的持水与失水特性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(5): 151-156, 162.

秦倩倩. 天然云冷杉针阔混交林凋落物生态功能及养分空间变异[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2019.

郑金萍, 郭忠玲, 徐程扬, 等. 长白山北坡主要森林群落凋落物现存量月动态[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(15): 4299-4307.

陆恩富, 朱习爱, 曾欢欢, 等. 西双版纳典型林型凋落物及其水文特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(7): 2104-2112.

宣立辉, 佟彦国, 张军, 等. 冀北山区油松人工林林分密度对枯落物层和土壤层水文特征的影响[J]. 林业与生态科学, 2019, 34(1): 15-23.

石媛, 鲁绍伟, 陈波, 等. 河北雾灵山不同密度油松人工林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(3): 92-97.

卜涛, 张水奎, 宋新章, 等. 几个环境因子对凋落物分解的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2013, 30(5): 740-747.

赵磊, 王兵, 蔡体久, 等. 江西大岗山不同密度杉木林枯落物持水与土壤贮水能力研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013, 27(1): 203-208, 246.

张勇强, 李智超, 厚凌宇, 等. 林分密度对杉木人工林下物种多样性和土壤养分的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(1): 239-250.

杨霞, 陈丽华, 康影丽, 等. 辽东低山区5种典型水源涵养林枯落物持水特性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(9): 2662-2670.

郑淼. 华北土石山区不同林分类型枯落物及土壤水文生态效应[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2020, 18(2): 84-91.

张建利, 王加国, 李苇洁, 等. 贵州百里杜鹃自然保护区杜鹃林枯落物储量及持水功能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(3): 167-173.

Views

852

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Study on the Hydrological Effects of the Litters Layer from Five Typical Plantations in South Subtropics of China

Effects of Water Stress on Drought Resistance Physiological Characteristics of

Water Holding Characteristics in Three Broadleaved Plantations

Influence on Precipitation Distribution of Pinus tabuleaefomis Forest in Miyun Reservoir

Related Author

WANG Jinyue

DENG Yusong

LIN Liwen

HUANG Juan

JIANG Daihua

HUANG Zhigang

LIU Qing

XU Xiaoyang

Related Institution

College of Forestry Guangxi University

College of Agricultural Guangxi University

Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences

Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling

College of Soil and Water Conservation Science and Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling

⁰