不同草灌配比对泌桐高速公路护坡植物群落特征的影响

草业学报 ›› 2009, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (4): 27-34.

不同草灌配比对泌桐高速公路护坡植物群落特征的影响

张相锋¹,马闯^2*,董世魁¹,张文辉²,刘新成²

1.北京师范大学环境学院环境模拟与污染控制国家重点联合实验室,北京 100875;
2.天津师范大学化学与生命科学学院,天津　300387

收稿日期:2008-09-02 出版日期:2009-08-20 发布日期:2009-08-20
作者简介:张相锋(1973-),男,河南南阳人,博士。E-mail: zhangxf@bnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家863项目(2007AA063Z350)资助。

Influence of different ratios of herbage and shrubs on plant community characteristics for roadside deforestation and soil protection on the Bi-Tong Expressway

ZHANG Xiang-feng¹, MA Chuang², DONG Shi-kui¹, ZHANG Wen-hui², LIU Xin-cheng²

1.School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental
Simulation and Pollution Control, Beijing 100875, China; 2.College of Chemistry and
Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China

Received:2008-09-02 Online:2009-08-20 Published:2009-08-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过在泌桐高速公路典型边坡分别建立自然恢复样地、单一狗牙根播种样地和5个不同播种密度的草灌混播样地,调查统计植物种类分布和植物功能群类型,研究播种密度对群落的数量特点和多样性指标的影响,对不同样地之间进行相似性分析,结果表明,1)样地植物豆科、禾本科、菊科的植物所占比例较大,根据优势种变化,随着播种密度的增加,将草灌混播样地划分为:狗牙根草地(300~400株/m²)、狗牙根与紫花苜蓿共生草地(500~600株/m²)和紫花苜蓿草地(700株/m²);2)群落密度、盖度、高度和生物量均随着草本播种密度的增加表现为先减小后增加,并在草本播种密度700株/m²样地处达到最大;3)群落的物种丰富度、多样性指数以及均匀度指数,随着播种密度的增加呈单峰形变化,在草本播种密度500株/m²样地达到最大;4)随着播种密度增加,不同样地与自然恢复样地(BL)的相似性指数呈先下降后增加的趋势,决定群落差异的因素是人工播种组成成分,而与播种密度无关;5)草本播种密度大于500株/m²时,播种密度对群落高度、盖度、生物量以及多样性指数的变化影响无差异。选择合适的草种配比和合理的播种密度,可以节约成本,实现最佳的边坡恢复效果。

Abstract: The species composition, plant functional groups, community characteristics, and diversity index were investigated through building natural restoration. The Cynodon dactylon community and five kinds of mixture-planting plots of shrub and herbage on the Bi-Tong Expressway typical slope, and species similarity between different plots was analyzed. Plants of Leguminosae, Gramineae and Compositae occupied a fairly large proportion and played important roles in the reforestation plots. The mixture-planting plots of shrub and herbage could be divided into three patterns based on the change of dominate species. C. dactylon grassland (300-400 plants/m²), intergrowth land with C. dactylon and Medicago sativa(500-600 plants/m²), and M. sativa grassland (700 plants/m²). The density, coverage, height and biomass of reforestation communities tended to decrease and then increase as the density of herbage became higher. The maximum value was 700 plants/m². The species richness (Margalef index),plant diversity (Shannon-Wiener index), and Pielou evenness index tended to increase, to a density of 500 plants/m² then decrease. As the density of herbage became higher, species similarity between different plots and natural restoration tended to decrease and then increase, indicating that the composition of artificial restoration, not the herbage density, decided the community composition. The density had no serious effect on coverage, height, biomass and diversity of reforestation communities when the density was over 500 plants/m². The cost should be reduced and the optimum effect of restoration achieved by choosing the appropriate proportion of species and density.

中图分类号:

Q948.15⁺8

张相锋,马闯,董世魁,张文辉,刘新成. 不同草灌配比对泌桐高速公路护坡植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2009, 18(4): 27-34.

ZHANG Xiang-feng, MA Chuang, DONG Shi-kui, ZHANG Wen-hui, LIU Xin-cheng. Influence of different ratios of herbage and shrubs on plant community characteristics for roadside deforestation and soil protection on the Bi-Tong Expressway[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(4): 27-34.

参考文献

[1] 欧云峰,王洪亮,王宫,等.黄土高原地区高速公路生态护坡植被恢复研究[J].武汉理工大学学报,2007,29(9):162-166.
[2] 刘春霞,韩烈保.高速公路边坡植被恢复研究进展[J].生态学报,2007,27(5):2090-2098.
[3] 孔东莲,郭小平,赵廷宁.植被护坡技术的研究[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(1):59-71.
[4] 周跃,Watt D.坡面生态工程及其发展现状[J].生态学杂志,1999,18(5):68-73.
[5] 刘志明,李建中,张可能,等. 公路边坡工程中的植物生态防护技术[J]. 地下空间与工程学报,2006,1(6):1025-1028.
[6] 肖建平,庞平珍,沈文. 植被护坡技术在高速公路边坡治理中的应用[J]. 土工基础,2007,21(1):25-28.
[7] 郑煜基,卓慕宁,李定强,等.草灌混播在边坡绿化防护中的应用[J]. 生态环境,2007,16(1):149-151.
[8] 王喜华,赵志明,吴光.不同类型植被对边坡防护作用的探讨[J]. 路基工程,2007, (3):147-148.
[9] 蒋自立,江海东.高等级公路边坡植被的选择方案[J].江苏交通工程,2002,(2):35-37.
[10] 成子桥.客土喷播技术在泌桐高速公路的应用[J].隧道建设,2007,27(1):80-83.
[11] 董鸣,王义凤,孔繁志,等. 陆地生物群落调查观测与分析[M].北京: 中国标准出版社, 1997.
[12] Hector A. Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: Effects through litter quality and microenvironment[J]. Oikos,2000,90:357-371.
[13] 徐学华,张文辉,张慧,等.黄土丘陵区狼牙刺群落恢复过程中物种多样性动态研究[J].河北农业大学学报,2006,29(3):1-5.
[14] 曲仲湘.植物生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1983.134.
[15] 谭永钦,张国安,郭尔祥.草坪杂草生态位研究[J].生态学报,2004,24(6):1300-1305.
[16] 马克平.生物群落多样性测度方法——a多样性测度方法[J]. 生物多样性,1994,2(3):162-168.
[17] 白文明,李凌浩,宋世环.内蒙古多伦农牧交错区固定沙丘植被群落特征分析[J]. 草地学报, 2003,11(3):223-227.
[18] 汪永华,陈北光,苏志尧.物种多样性研究的进展[J]. 生态科学, 2000,19(3):50-54.
[19] 李裕元,邵明安.黄土高原北部紫花苜蓿草地退化过程与植物多样性研究[J]. 应用生态学报,2005,16(12):2321-2327.
[20] 李玉霖,孟庆涛,赵学勇,等.科尔沁沙地流动沙丘植被恢复过程中群落组成及植物多样性演变特征[J].草业学报,2007,16(6):54-61.
[21] 史惠兰,王启基,景增春,等.江河源区人工草地群落特征、多样性及其稳定性分析[J].草业学报,2005,14(3):23-30.
[22] 赵有益,龙瑞军,林慧龙. 草地生态系统安全及其评价研究[J].草业学报,2008,17(2):143-150.
[23] 张志权,束文圣,廖文波,等. 豆科植物与矿业废弃地植被恢复[J].生态学杂志,2002,21(2):47-52.
[24] 任海,彭少麟.恢复生态学导论[M].北京:科学出版社,2001.19.
[25] Bradshaw A D. Restoration ecology as science[J]. Restoration Ecology,1993,1(2):71-73.
[26] Maestre F T, Cortina J, Vallejo R. Are ecosystem composition, structure, and functional status related to restoration success: A test from semiarid mediterranean steppes[J]. Restoration Ecology, 2006, 14: 258-266.
[27] 王国宏.再论生物多样性与生态系统的稳定性[J].生物多样性,2002, 10:126-134.
[28] 卢涛,马克明,倪红伟,等. 三江平原不同强度干扰下湿地植物群落的物种组成和多样性变化[J].生态学报,2008,28(5):1893-1900.
[29] 周萍,刘国彬,侯喜禄.黄土丘陵区铁杆蒿群落植被特性及土壤养分特征研究[J].草业学报,2008,17(2):9-18.
[30] 闫玉春,唐海萍.草地退化相关概念辨析[J].草业学报,2008,17(1):93-99.
[31] Elton C S. The reasons for conservation[A]. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants[M].London: Chapman &Hall,1958.143-153.
[32] 任继周. 草业科学研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1998.1-22.
[33] 董世魁,胡自治,龙瑞军,等.高寒地区多年生禾草混播草地的群落学特征研究[J].生态学杂志,2003,22(5):20-25.