蒲焱¹,左建梅²
PU Yan¹, ZUO Jian-mei²

• 1:理县环境保护和林业局，四川 阿坝 611130
• 2:攀枝花市林业局，四川 攀枝花 611130

摘要(Abstract)：

土壤水分-物理性质是衡量土壤质量的重要指标。本文测定了岷江上游理县云杉人工林、灌木林、经济林和农耕地的土壤物理性质。结果表明：（1）云杉人工林的土壤容重最小，土壤毛管孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度、田间最大持水量、毛管持水量显著高于其余3种植被类型；（2）灌木林与经济林的非毛管孔隙度、毛管持水量、田间最大持水量差异不显著，但灌木林的土壤容重显著小于经济林；（3）农耕地的土壤容重显著高于其余3种植被类型，非毛管孔隙度、毛管持水量、田间最大持水量显著低于其余3种植被类型。研究结果说明4种植被类型的土壤物理性质存在较大差异，选择合理的植被类型和减少人为干扰对于岷江上游地区植被恢复和生态功能改善具有重要的作用。
Soil physical properties are the important indicators for measuring soil quality.The soil water-physical properties were tested in the spruce plantation,shrubs,economic forests and agricultural land in Lixian,located in the upstream areas of the Minjiang River.The results showed that (1) The soil bulk density of the spruce plantation was the lowest,soil capillary porosity,non-capillary porosity,maximum water holding capacity,and capillary water holding capacity were significantly higher than those in other three vegetation types.(2) The non-capillary porosity,capillary water holding capacity and maximum water holding capacity of the shrub forest and economic forest were not significantly different,but the soil bulk density of shrub forest was significantly lower than that of economic forest.(3) The soil bulk density of the agricultural land was significantly higher than that of the other three vegetation types.The non-capillary porosity,capillary water holding capacity,and maximum water holding capacity of the agricultural land were significantly lower than those in other three vegetation types.It could be seen that there were large differences in the soil physical properties of the four vegetation types.It would play an important role to choose a reasonable vegetation type and reduce human disturbance in vegetation restoration and ecological function improvement in the upstream areas of the Minjiang River.

关键词(KeyWords)： 植被类型;土壤物理性质;理县;岷江上游
Vegetation types;Soil physical property;Li-xian County;Upstream areas of the Minjiang Ri-ver

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 蒲焱¹,左建梅²
PU Yan¹, ZUO Jian-mei²

参考文献(References)：

• [1] 张维玲,张金池.不同种植时间脐橙园土壤理化特性研究[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版).2018,42(04):181~186.
  [2] 邹文秀,韩晓增,陆欣春,等.不同土地利用方式对黑土剖面土壤物理性质的影响[J].水土保持学报.2015,29(05):187~193.
  [3] 杨亚辉,赵文慧,木热提江·阿不拉,等.不同植被对土壤理化性质影响——以王东沟小流域为例[J].水土保持通报.2016,36(01):249~252.
  [4] 范呈根,吴建富,曾研华,等.稻草全量还田替代部分化肥对双季稻田土壤理化性质的影响[J].2018,46(27):134~136,146.
  [5] 杨德军,雷少刚,卞正富,等.土壤物理质量指标研究进展及在矿区环境中的应用展望[J].长江流域资源与环境.2015,24(11):1961~1968.
  [6] 张登科,宋珍珍.不同连作年限下土壤物理性质对土壤饱和导水率空间分布的影响[J].西部大开发(土地开发工程研究).2018,3(10):41~47.
  [7] 张玉娥,杨习文,王勇,等.耕作模式与氮肥运筹对土壤主要理化性状及作物产量的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究.2018,36(01):186~193.
  [8] 朱艺旋,孟京辉.不同发育阶段杉木人工林土壤物理性质对比分析[J].河北林果研究.2015,30(02):103~107.
  [9] 徐光荣,张世熔,钟钦梅,等.岷江上游典型土壤磷的迁移特性研究[J].农业环境科学学报.2018,37(08):1741~1747.
  [10] 马丽,王青,沈凇涛,等.岷江上游杂谷脑流域耕作区壤土和粉壤土的理化性质及肥力异质性[J].干旱区资源与环境.2018,32(11):144~149.
  [11] 吕夏婷.岷江上游泥石流活动对森林植被垂直分异的响应研究[D].西南科技大学,2018.
  [12] 刘金山,倪福全,邓玉,等.岷江上游流域土壤侵蚀风险评估[J].南水北调与水利科技,http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/13.1334.TV.20181108.1406.004.html
  [13] 李寅龙,刘星岑.不同放牧强度影响下荒漠草原土壤物理性质变化研究[J].内蒙古科技与经济.2018(04):51~53.
  [14] 王来,高鹏翔,刘滨,等.农田向农林复合系统转变过程中土壤物理性质的变化[J].应用生态学报.2017(01):96~104.
  [15] 杨婷惠,祁凯斌,黄俊胜,等.林窗式疏伐对云杉人工林土壤持水性能的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报.2018(05):1171~1178.
  [16] 郁鑫,王旭东.黄土高原不同耕作方式对土壤理化性质及作物产量的影响[J].安徽农业科学.2018(05):144~146.
  [17] 刘乐,王新杰,王廷蓉,等.皆伐与不同迹地清理方式对杉木林土壤物理性质的影响[J].中南林业科技大学学报.2016,36(07):55~59.
  [18] 李银,杨洁,李岩.天津市不同功能区土壤物理特性研究[J].水土保持通报.2018,38(04):331~336.
  [19] 吴江琪,马维伟,李广,等.黄土高原4种植被类型对土壤物理特征及渗透性的影响[J].水土保持学报.2018,32(04):133~138.
  [20] 董心亮,林启美.生物质炭对土壤物理性质影响的研究进展[J].中国生态农业学报.2018,26(12):1846~1854.
  [21] 庞学勇,包维楷,江元明,等.九寨沟和黄龙自然保护区原始林与次生林土壤物理性质比较[J].应用与环境生物学报.2009(06):768~773.
  [22] 汤鸣强,沈凤娟,姚源琼,等.喷施宝叶面肥对农药胁迫下土壤脲酶活性的影响[J].广东农业科学.http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/44.1267.S.20190110.0931.002.html.