草业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2): 212-219.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020116
• 研究简报 • 上一篇
熊梅1(), 乔荠瑢1, 杨阳1, 张峰1, 郑佳华1, 吴建新2, 赵萌莉1()
收稿日期:
2020-03-13
修回日期:
2020-04-22
出版日期:
2021-02-20
发布日期:
2021-01-19
通讯作者:
赵萌莉
作者简介:
E-mail: nmgmlzh@126.com基金资助:
Mei XIONG1(), Ji-rong QIAO1, Yang YANG1, Feng ZHANG1, Jia-hua ZHENG1, Jian-xin WU2, Meng-li ZHAO1()
Received:
2020-03-13
Revised:
2020-04-22
Online:
2021-02-20
Published:
2021-01-19
Contact:
Meng-li ZHAO
摘要:
以荒漠草原建群种短花针茅为研究对象,分析不同载畜率(对照,CK;轻度放牧,LG;中度放牧,MG和重度放牧,HG)对短花针茅与其对应土壤(0~20 cm和20~40 cm)碳(C)、氮(N)、磷(P)及化学计量比的影响。结果表明:放牧对短花针茅N、P及C∶N∶P化学计量比没有显著影响,但C含量随载畜率的增加而显著增加(P<0.05);除表层土壤C∶N外,载畜率对两层土壤的N、P及C∶N∶P化学计量比有显著的影响(P<0.05),这些差异主要由土壤N和P的变化决定,但不同土层下载畜率间的化学计量特征没有一致的变化规律;整体上看短花针茅化学计量特征不受土壤化学计量特征变化的影响,放牧具有降低短花针茅P和土壤C的作用,但这种作用随载畜率的增加而降低。相比不放牧处理,重度放牧完全改变了土壤N、P、C∶N和短花针茅C、C∶N特征,而土层深度的加深对MG处理下的土壤P、N∶P和C∶P影响较大。
熊梅, 乔荠瑢, 杨阳, 张峰, 郑佳华, 吴建新, 赵萌莉. 不同载畜率下短花针茅和土壤生态化学计量特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 212-219.
Mei XIONG, Ji-rong QIAO, Yang YANG, Feng ZHANG, Jia-hua ZHENG, Jian-xin WU, Meng-li ZHAO. Stocking rate effects on stoichiometric characteristics of the steppe grassland pioneer species Stipabreviflora and its underlying soil[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 212-219.
载畜率Stocking rate | C (mg·g-1) | N (mg·g-1) | P (mg·g-1) | C∶N | C∶P | N∶P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照CK | 445.04±3.62c | 18.30±1.58a | 1.53±0.06a | 24.64±1.82a | 292.55±13.41a | 12.09±1.46a |
轻度放牧LG | 445.08±2.76c | 19.00±0.63a | 1.28±0.04a | 23.47±0.79a | 349.58±14.08a | 14.91±0.59a |
中度放牧MG | 454.69±6.87b | 19.15±1.07a | 1.48±0.13a | 23.87±1.25a | 312.62±29.13a | 13.28±1.90a |
重度放牧HG | 464.50±1.82a | 16.68±0.27a | 1.46±0.50a | 27.85±0.34a | 318.97±11.84a | 11.46±0.54a |
表1 不同载畜率下短花针茅C、N、P及C∶N∶P化学计量比特征
Table 1 C, N, P and C∶N∶P ratio characters of S. breviflora under different stocking rates
载畜率Stocking rate | C (mg·g-1) | N (mg·g-1) | P (mg·g-1) | C∶N | C∶P | N∶P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照CK | 445.04±3.62c | 18.30±1.58a | 1.53±0.06a | 24.64±1.82a | 292.55±13.41a | 12.09±1.46a |
轻度放牧LG | 445.08±2.76c | 19.00±0.63a | 1.28±0.04a | 23.47±0.79a | 349.58±14.08a | 14.91±0.59a |
中度放牧MG | 454.69±6.87b | 19.15±1.07a | 1.48±0.13a | 23.87±1.25a | 312.62±29.13a | 13.28±1.90a |
重度放牧HG | 464.50±1.82a | 16.68±0.27a | 1.46±0.50a | 27.85±0.34a | 318.97±11.84a | 11.46±0.54a |
土层Depth | 载畜率Stocking rate | C (mg·g-1) | N (mg·g-1) | P (mg·g-1) | C∶N | C∶P | N∶P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0~20 cm | 对照CK | 13.14±0.72a | 1.19±0.03b | 0.55±0.03ab | 10.30±0.61a | 24.35±2.17ab | 2.23±0.18b |
轻度放牧LG | 12.56±0.44a | 1.20±0.03b | 0.45±0.07bc | 10.58±0.53a | 34.41±9.46ab | 3.12±0.61ab | |
中度放牧MG | 12.73±0.99a | 1.31±0.04ab | 0.60±0.01a | 9.71±0.51a | 21.37±2.15b | 2.20±0.12b | |
重度放牧HG | 12.63±0.81a | 1.37±0.09a | 0.35±0.04c | 9.25±0.02a | 43.10±6.79a | 4.67±0.73a | |
20~40 cm | 对照CK | 17.70±0.44a | 1.01±0.05ab | 0.45±0.03a | 17.69±0.56ab | 33.68±8.46b | 1.94±0.50b |
轻度放牧LG | 16.17±0.89a | 0.86±0.03c | 0.51±0.08a | 19.01±1.36a | 34.53±8.13b | 1.80±0.37b | |
中度放牧MG | 14.84±1.15a | 0.94±0.05bc | 0.24±0.00b | 15.89±0.17b | 60.87±5.61a | 3.84±0.29a | |
重度放牧HG | 14.70±1.96a | 1.12±0.09a | 0.45±0.01a | 13.01±0.75c | 38.19±7.57ab | 2.97±0.50ab |
表2 各土层不同载畜率下的土壤C、N、P及C∶N∶P化学计量比特征
Table 2 Soil C, N, P and C∶N∶P ratios of the two soil layers under different stocking rates
土层Depth | 载畜率Stocking rate | C (mg·g-1) | N (mg·g-1) | P (mg·g-1) | C∶N | C∶P | N∶P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0~20 cm | 对照CK | 13.14±0.72a | 1.19±0.03b | 0.55±0.03ab | 10.30±0.61a | 24.35±2.17ab | 2.23±0.18b |
轻度放牧LG | 12.56±0.44a | 1.20±0.03b | 0.45±0.07bc | 10.58±0.53a | 34.41±9.46ab | 3.12±0.61ab | |
中度放牧MG | 12.73±0.99a | 1.31±0.04ab | 0.60±0.01a | 9.71±0.51a | 21.37±2.15b | 2.20±0.12b | |
重度放牧HG | 12.63±0.81a | 1.37±0.09a | 0.35±0.04c | 9.25±0.02a | 43.10±6.79a | 4.67±0.73a | |
20~40 cm | 对照CK | 17.70±0.44a | 1.01±0.05ab | 0.45±0.03a | 17.69±0.56ab | 33.68±8.46b | 1.94±0.50b |
轻度放牧LG | 16.17±0.89a | 0.86±0.03c | 0.51±0.08a | 19.01±1.36a | 34.53±8.13b | 1.80±0.37b | |
中度放牧MG | 14.84±1.15a | 0.94±0.05bc | 0.24±0.00b | 15.89±0.17b | 60.87±5.61a | 3.84±0.29a | |
重度放牧HG | 14.70±1.96a | 1.12±0.09a | 0.45±0.01a | 13.01±0.75c | 38.19±7.57ab | 2.97±0.50ab |
项目 Item | 0~20 cm | 20~40 cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤C Soil C | 土壤N Soil N | 土壤P Soil P | 土壤C Soil C | 土壤N Soil N | 土壤P Soil P | |
植物C Plant C | -0.338 | -0.310 | 0.483 | -0.466 | 0.004 | 0.359 |
植物N Plant N | 0.411 | -0.480 | 0.424 | 0.277 | -0.523 | 0.486 |
植物P Plant P | -0.242 | 0.445 | 0.023 | -0.189 | -0.173 | -0.332 |
表3 短花针茅与土壤C、N、P含量的相关性
Table 3 Correlations of C, N, P content between S. breviflora and soil
项目 Item | 0~20 cm | 20~40 cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤C Soil C | 土壤N Soil N | 土壤P Soil P | 土壤C Soil C | 土壤N Soil N | 土壤P Soil P | |
植物C Plant C | -0.338 | -0.310 | 0.483 | -0.466 | 0.004 | 0.359 |
植物N Plant N | 0.411 | -0.480 | 0.424 | 0.277 | -0.523 | 0.486 |
植物P Plant P | -0.242 | 0.445 | 0.023 | -0.189 | -0.173 | -0.332 |
项目 Item | 0~20 cm | 20~40 cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤C∶N Soil C∶N | 土壤C∶P Soil C∶P | 土壤N∶P Soil N∶P | 土壤C∶N Soil C∶N | 土壤C∶P Soil C∶P | 土壤N∶P Soil N∶P | |
植物C∶N Plant C∶N | -0.467 | -0.042 | 0.282 | -0.479 | 0.222 | 0.455 |
植物C∶P Plant C∶P | 0.354 | -0.034 | -0.202 | 0.103 | -0.380 | -0.281 |
植物N∶P Plant N∶P | 0.506 | -0.026 | -0.286 | 0.306 | -0.402 | -0.406 |
表4 短花针茅与土壤C∶N∶P化学计量比的相关性
Table 4 Correlations of C∶N∶P ratios between S. breviflora and soil
项目 Item | 0~20 cm | 20~40 cm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
土壤C∶N Soil C∶N | 土壤C∶P Soil C∶P | 土壤N∶P Soil N∶P | 土壤C∶N Soil C∶N | 土壤C∶P Soil C∶P | 土壤N∶P Soil N∶P | |
植物C∶N Plant C∶N | -0.467 | -0.042 | 0.282 | -0.479 | 0.222 | 0.455 |
植物C∶P Plant C∶P | 0.354 | -0.034 | -0.202 | 0.103 | -0.380 | -0.281 |
植物N∶P Plant N∶P | 0.506 | -0.026 | -0.286 | 0.306 | -0.402 | -0.406 |
图1 不同载畜率下短花针茅与土壤C、N、P主成分分析双标图图中Sb和Soil分别代表短花针茅及其对应的土壤,下同。“Sb” and “Soil” represent characters of S. breviflora and soil, respectively, the same below.
Fig.1 Results of principal component analysis for C, N and P from S. breviflora and soil under different stocking rates
图2 不同载畜率下短花针茅与土壤C∶N∶P化学计量比主成分分析双标图
Fig.2 Results of principal component analysis for C∶N∶P ratios from S. breviflora and soil under different stocking rates
1 | Elser J J, Sterner R W, Gorokhova E, et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 2000, 3(6): 540-550. |
2 | Cheng B, Zhao Y J, Zhang W G, et al. The research advances and prospect of ecological stoichiometry. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(6): 1628-1637. |
程滨, 赵永军, 张文广, 等. 生态化学计量学研究进展. 生态学报, 2010, 30(6): 1628-1637. | |
3 | Martínez‐Vilalta J, Sala A, Asensio D, et al. Dynamics of non‐structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants: A global synthesis. Ecological Monographs, 2016, 86(4): 495-516. |
4 | Elser J J, Bracken M E S, Cleland E E, et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 2007, 10(12): 1135-1142. |
5 | Yang H M, Wang D M. Advances in the study on ecological stoichiometry in grass-environment system and its response to environmental factors. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2): 244-252. |
杨慧敏, 王冬梅. 草——环境系统植物碳氮磷生态化学计量学及其对环境因子的响应. 草业学报, 2011, 20(2): 244-252. | |
6 | Yu H L, Fan J W, Li Y Z. Foliar carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry in a grassland ecosystem along the Chinese Grassland Transect. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(3): 133-139. |
7 | Koerselman W, Meuleman A F M. The vegetation N∶P ratio: A new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1996, 33(6): 1441-1450. |
8 | Zeng D H, Chen G S. Ecological Stoichiometry: A science to explore the complexity of living systems. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2005, 29(6): 1007-1019. |
曾德慧, 陈广生. 生态化学计量学: 复杂生命系统奥秘的探索. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(6): 1007-1019. | |
9 | Zeng Q, Li X, Dong Y, et al. Soil and plant components ecological stoichiometry in four steppe communities in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena, 2016, 147: 481-488. |
10 | Tian H Q, Chen G S, Zhang C, et al. Pattern and variation of C∶N∶P ratios in China’s soils: A synthesis of observational data. Biogeochemistry, 2010, 98: 139-151. |
11 | Wang Y T. Effect of stocking rate on carbon isotope in the main species of Stipa breviflora steppe. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2018. |
王亚婷. 载畜率对短花针茅草原主要植物稳定性碳同位素的影响. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2018. | |
12 | Han M Q, Wang Z W, Jin Y X, et al. Response of species diversity and productivity to long-term grazing in the Stipa breviflora desert steppe. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2017, 37(11): 2273-2281. |
韩梦琪, 王忠武, 靳宇曦, 等. 短花针茅荒漠草原物种多样性及生产力对长期不同放牧强度的响应. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(11): 2273-2281. | |
13 | Sun S X, Yun X J, Wu X H, et al. Seasonal variations of ecological stoichiometry characteristics of major plant populations in desert steppe. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 27(1): 47-54. |
孙世贤, 运向军, 吴新宏, 等. 荒漠草原主要植物种群生态化学计量学特征季节变化. 生态环境学报, 2018, 27(1): 47-54. | |
14 | Bai Y, Wu J, Clark C M, et al. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C∶N∶P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 49(6): 1204-1215. |
15 | An Y, An H, Li S B. Effects of grazing on ecological stoichiometry of soil and dominant plants in desert grassland. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(12): 94-102. |
安钰, 安慧, 李生兵. 放牧对荒漠草原土壤和优势植物生态化学计量特征的影响. 草业学报, 2018, 27(12): 94-102. | |
16 | Bao S D. Soil agrochemical analysis. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. |
鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. | |
17 | Sterner R W, Elser J J. Ecological stoichiometry: The biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. |
18 | Taylor D R, Aarssen L W, Loehle C. On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity: A new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. Oikos, 1990, 58: 239-250. |
19 | Coley P D, Bryant J P, Chapin F S. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science, 1985, 230(4728): 895-899. |
20 | Niu K, He J, Zhang S, et al. Tradeoffs between forage quality and soil fertility: Lessons from Himalayan rangelands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 234: 31-39. |
21 | Gu C, Zhao T Q, Wang Y T, et al. The response of growth and reproduction for Stipa breviflora to different stocking rates. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 26(1): 36-42. |
古琛, 赵天启, 王亚婷, 等. 短花针茅生长和繁殖策略对载畜率的响应. 生态环境学报, 2017, 26(1): 36-42. | |
22 | Liu J H, Wang Z W, Han G D. Effects of heavy grazing on the interspecific relationship of main plant species and community stability in a desert steppe. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(9): 2595-2602. |
刘菊红, 王忠武, 韩国栋. 重度放牧对荒漠草原主要植物种间关系及群落稳定性的影响. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(9): 2595-2602. | |
23 | Wang K B, Shangguan Z P. Seasonal variations in leaf C, N, and P stoichiometry of typical plants in the Yangou watershed in the loess hilly gully region. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(17): 4985-4991. |
王凯博, 上官周平. 黄土丘陵区燕沟流域典型植物叶片C、N、P化学计量特征季节变化. 生态学报, 2011, 31(17): 4985-4991. | |
24 | He J, Wang L, Flynn D F B, et al. Leaf nitrogen: Phosphorus stoichiometry across Chinese grassland biomes. Oecologia, 2008, 155(2): 301-310. |
25 | Hamilton Iii E W, Frank D A. Can plants stimulate soil microbes and their own nutrient supply? Evidence from a grazing tolerant grass. Ecology, 2001, 82(9): 2397-2402. |
26 | Li X Z, Chen Z Z. Influences of stocking rates on C, N and P contents in plant-soil system. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 1998, 6(2): 90-98. |
27 | Ding H J, Han G D, Wang Z W, et al. Effect of stocking rate on Stipa breviflora desert steppe soil. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2016, 24(4): 524-531. |
丁海君, 韩国栋, 王忠武, 等. 短花针茅荒漠草原不同载畜率对土壤的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2016, 24(4): 524-531. | |
28 | Rong Y P, Han J G, Wang P, et al. The effects of grazing intensity on soil physics and chemical properties. Grassland of China, 2001, 23(4): 42-48. |
戎郁萍, 韩建国, 王培, 等. 放牧强度对草地土壤理化性质的影响. 中国草地, 2001, 23(4): 42-48. | |
29 | Throop H L, Lerdau M T. Effects of nitrogen deposition on insect herbivory: Implications for community and ecosystem processes. Ecosystems, 2004, 7(2): 109-133. |
30 | Li M T, Qin Y Y, Cao J J, et al. Effects of grassland management patterns on soil stoichiometry on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2018, 37(8): 2262-2268. |
李梦天, 秦燕燕, 曹建军, 等. 青藏高原草地管理方式对土壤化学计量特征的影响. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(8): 2262-2268. | |
31 | Wang A Q. Natural conditions and soil formation of brown calcium land in desert steppe in eurasia. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1962, 28(2): 95-110. |
汪安球. 欧亚大陆荒漠草原棕钙土地带的自然条件与土壤形成. 地理学报, 1962, 28(2): 95-110. | |
32 | Xue R, Zheng S X, Bai Y F. Impacts of grazing intensity and management regimes on aboveground primary productivity and compensatory growth of grassland ecosystems in Inner Mongolia. Biodiversity Science, 2010, 18(3): 300-311. |
薛睿, 郑淑霞, 白永飞. 不同利用方式和载畜率对内蒙古典型草原群落初级生产力和植物补偿性生长的影响. 生物多样性, 2010, 18(3): 300-311. |
[1] | 孙忠超, 郭天斗, 于露, 马彦平, 赵亚楠, 李雪颖, 王红梅. 宁夏东部荒漠草原向灌丛地人为转变过程土壤粒径分形特征[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 34-45. |
[2] | 蒙仲举, 陈颜洁, 包斯琴. 苏尼特右旗荒漠草原三种放牧方式下群落斑块特征[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 13-23. |
[3] | 王子欣, 胡国铮, 水宏伟, 葛怡情, 韩玲, 高清竹, 干珠扎布, 旦久罗布. 不同时期干旱对青藏高原高寒草甸生态系统碳交换的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 24-33. |
[4] | 顾继雄, 郭天斗, 王红梅, 李雪颖, 梁丹妮, 杨青莲, 高锦月. 宁夏东部荒漠草原向灌丛地转变过程土壤微生物响应[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 46-57. |
[5] | 张茹, 李建平, 彭文栋, 王芳, 李志刚. 柠条枝条覆盖对宁夏荒漠草原土壤水热及补播牧草生物量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 58-67. |
[6] | 张丽星, 海春兴, 常耀文, 高晓媚, 高文邦, 解云虎. 羊草及芨芨草草原和西北针茅草原土壤质量评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 68-79. |
[7] | 罗巧玉, 王彦龙, 杜雷, 刘念, 李丽, 马玉寿. 黄河源区发草适生地植物群落特征及其土壤因子解释[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 80-89. |
[8] | 张超, 闫瑞瑞, 梁庆伟, 娜日苏, 李彤, 杨秀芳, 包玉海, 辛晓平. 不同利用方式下草地土壤理化性质及碳、氮固持研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(4): 90-98. |
[9] | 侯金伟, 陈焘, 南志标. 不同埋藏方式及杀菌剂处理对黄土高原3种植物种子存活的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 129-136. |
[10] | 刘帅楠, 李广, 吴江琪, 马维伟, 杨传杰, 张世康, 姚瑶, 陆燕花, 魏星星, 张娟. 黄土丘陵区不同土地类型下土壤养分特征—基于生态化学计量学[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 200-207. |
[11] | 李洁, 潘攀, 王长庭, 胡雷, 陈科宇, 杨文高. 三江源区不同建植年限人工草地根系动态特征[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 28-40. |
[12] | 刘斯莉, 王长庭, 张昌兵, 胡雷, 唐立涛, 潘攀. 川西北高原3种禾本科牧草根系特征比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 41-53. |
[13] | 王晓娇, 蔡立群, 齐鹏, 王雅芝, 陈晓龙, 武均, 张仁陟. 培肥措施对旱地农田土壤CO2排放和碳库管理指数的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 32-45. |
[14] | 孙华方, 李希来, 金立群, 李成一, 张静. 黄河源人工草地土壤微生物多样性对建植年限的响应[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 46-58. |
[15] | 宋达成, 王理德, 吴昊, 吴春荣, 赵赫然, 韩生慧, 胥宝一. 民勤退耕区次生草地土壤特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 59-68. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||