黄土丘陵区自然恢复与人工修复流域生态效益对比分析

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2010.06.011

PDF(227 KB)

自然资源学报 ›› 2010, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (6) : 990-1000. DOI: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2010.06.011

资源生态

黄土丘陵区自然恢复与人工修复流域生态效益对比分析

郑江坤,魏天兴,朱金兆,赵健,陈致富,朱文德,大林直

作者信息 +

Contrast Analysis of Ecological Benefit between Artificial Restoration Areas and Natural Restoration Areas in Loess Hilly Region

ZHENG Jiang-kun,WEI Tian-xing,ZHU Jin-zhao,ZHAO Jian,CHEN Zhi-fu,ZHU Wen-de,DALIN Zhi

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

论文以陕西吴起县柴沟和合家沟为例,通过样地的植被和土壤调查,在小流域尺度上分析了退耕10 a后人工修复和自然恢复方式生物多样性、生物量、群落特征和土壤物理性质的差异。结果表明:两者草本群落结构相近,相似性系数为0.925。人工修复区乔灌草三层的层盖度和为99.03%,三层的物种数和为85,草本层的株均高为0.41 m,还有该层的物种丰富度指数、多样性指数、均匀度指数均高于自然恢复区;而平均生物量、群落密度、土壤含水率、土壤容重和毛管孔隙度分别为5.890 t·hm^-2、8.11×10⁵株·hm^-2、8.8%、1.251 g·cm^-3和48.9%,均低于自然恢复区。两区土壤指标的变异系数变化较为复杂。

Abstract

Taking Chaigou and Hejiagou watersheds of Wuqi County in Shaanxi Province as example, in the small watershed scale, discrepancy of biodiversity, biomass, community features and soil physical properties under approach of rehabilitation and abandonment were analyzed through vegetation and soil investigation of sample plot in ten years after returning farmland to forestry. The results showed that: in approach of rehabilitation and abandonment, structure of the herbal community is similar and the similarity coefficient is 0.925. In rehabilitation areas, summation cover and species of tree, shrub and herb layer is 99.03% and 85; average plant height of herb layer was 0.41 m, with indexes of species richness, diversity index, evenness of herb layer, were higher than in the natural restoration areas. But in rehabilitation areas, average biomass, community density, soil moisture, soil bulk density, capillary porosity were 5.890 t·hm^-2, 8.11×10⁵ ind·hm^-2, 8.8%, 1.251g·cm^-3 and 48.9%, lower than that in natural restoration areas. Change of coefficient of variation about soil indicators in two areas was complicated.

导出引用

郑江坤,魏天兴,朱金兆,赵健,陈致富,朱文德,大林直. 黄土丘陵区自然恢复与人工修复流域生态效益对比分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2010, 25(6): 990-1000 https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2010.06.011

ZHENG Jiang-kun,WEI Tian-xing,ZHU Jin-zhao,ZHAO Jian,CHEN Zhi-fu,ZHU Wen-de,DALIN Zhi. Contrast Analysis of Ecological Benefit between Artificial Restoration Areas and Natural Restoration Areas in Loess Hilly Region[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2010, 25(6): 990-1000 https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2010.06.011

中图分类号： S154.4

参考文献

[1]. Chinea J D. Tropical forest succession on abandoned farms in the Humacao Municipality of eastern Puerto Rico [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 167: 195-207.
[2]. Uri V, Tullus H, Lonhmus K. Biomass production and nutrient accumulation in short-rotation grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench) plantation on abandoned agricultural land[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 161: 169-179.
[3]. Zhu Wei-xing. Consideration of soil ecological processes in restoration and succession[J]. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2005, 29(3): 479-486.
[4]. 薛萐, 刘国彬, 戴全厚, 等.不同植被恢复模式对黄土丘陵区侵蚀土壤微生物量的影响[J].自然资源学报, 2007, 22(1): 20-27.
[5]. 温仲明, 杨勤科, 焦峰. 水土保持对区域植被演替的影响——以黄土高原地区为例[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2005, 3(1): 32-37.
[6]. 秦伟, 朱清科, 张宇清, 等. 陕北黄土区生态修复过程中植物群落物种多样性变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(2): 403-409.
[7]. 杜峰, 山仑, 梁宗锁, 等. 陕北黄土丘陵区撂荒演替过程中的土壤水分效应[J]. 自然资源学报, 2005, 20(5): 669-678.
[8]. 王国梁, 刘国彬, 侯喜禄. 黄土高原丘陵沟壑区植被恢复重建后的物种多样性研究[J]. 山地学报, 2002, 20(2): 182-187.
[9]. 邱扬, 张英, 韩静, 等. 生态退耕与植被演替的时空格局[J]. 生态学杂志, 2008, 27(11): 2002-2009.
[10]. 吴起县地方志编纂委员会. 吴起县志[M]. 西安: 三秦出版社, 1991.
[11]. 张晓娟, 魏天兴, 荆丽波, 等. 晋西黄土区天然次生林营养元素分配与积累研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2008, 30(3): 84-89.
[12]. 朱桂林, 韦文珊, 张淑敏, 等. 植物地下生物量测定方法概述及新技术介绍[J]. 中国草地学报, 2008, 30(3): 94-99.
[13]. 关君蔚. 水土保持原理[M]. 北京: 北京林业大学出版社, 1986: 55-60.
[14]. 向师庆. 灌草丛根系保持土壤资源的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 1988, 10(4): 23-29.
[15]. 张娜, 梁一民. 黄土丘陵区天然草地地下/地上生物量的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2002, 11(2): 72-78.
[16]. 陈云明, 刘国彬, 杨勤科. 黄土高原人工林土壤水分效应的地带性特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2004, 19(2): 195-200.