Evaluation of soil quality in Leymus chinensis-Achnatherumsplendens grassland and in Stipa sareptana grassland

doi:10.11686/cyxb2020371

Abstract

Abstract:

This research investigated soil quality of the vegetation communities in typical grassland in Inner Mongolia. Two sites （approximately 1340 m altitude）， one dominated by Leymus chinensis and Achnatherum splendens （Lc-As） mixed grassland （tolerant of soil salinity） andthe other by Stipa sareptana （Ss） grassland （intolerant of soil salinity） were selected for study. Soil quality data were evaluated for six soil horizons in Lc-As （A₁， A₂， AB， B_k， B_b， C>130 cm） and five horizons in Ss （A₁， A₂， AB， B_k， C>90 cm） using multivariate nonlinear methods. Initially， 10 soil physicochemical parameters were measured and a principal component （PC） analysis performed on these. From these 10 parameters a ‘minimum data set’ （MDS） was selected based on a ‘Norm’ score which assessed the influence of each parameter based on size of PC coefficients （≥0.5） and uniqueness of information （low Pearson correlation with other parameters）. In this way three parameters were selected for inclusion in the MDS： soil organic matter （OM， indicative of nutrient status）， electrical conductivity （EC， indicative of salinity） and bulk density （BD， lower bulk density indicating better soil aeration）. It was found that： 1） Soil water content and electrical conductivity of Lc-As grassland in the A₂ to B_k horizons was significantly higher than that of Ss grassland （P<0.05）， and pH of Lc-As grassland in the A₂ and AB horizons was higher than in Ss grassland （P<0.05）. The average nutrient content of Lc-As grassland was higher than that of Ss grassland in the A horizon （P<0.05）， but the opposite was true in the B_k to C horizons. 2） A soil quality index （SQI） was calculated from the MDS with OM， EC and BD weighted 0.39， 0.16 and 0.45， respectively. 3） The SQI of Lc-As grassland was higher than that of Ss in the A₁ horizon， while in the A₂ to C horizons， the SQI of Lc-As grassland was significantly lower than in Ss grassland （P<0.05）. These research results provide scientific parameters useful for the development of sustainable grassland management practices.

Key words: Leymus chinensis and Achnatherum splendens, Stipa sareptana, soil physicochemical properties, minimum data set, soil quality

Li-xing ZHANG, Chun-xing HAI, Yao-wen CHANG, Xiao-mei GAO, Wen-bang GAO, Yun-hu XIE. Evaluation of soil quality in Leymus chinensis-Achnatherumsplendens grassland and in Stipa sareptana grassland[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(4): 68-79.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1 Vegetation of study area

Table 1 Plot location and information of plant community about sampling sites

样地

Plot

海拔

Altitude (m)

地理位置

Location

物种组成/盖度

Community types/coverage

物种组成/优势度

Community types/dominance

羊草+芨芨草草原 L. chinensis and A.splendens grassland

1337.6

42°16′19.40″ N

113°48′36.85″ E

羊草L. chinensis/50%、芨芨草A.splendens/31%, 阿尔泰狗娃花H. altaicus/8%, 二裂委陵菜P. bifurca/6%, 木地肤K. prostrate/5%, 骆驼蓬P. harmala/2%, 冷蒿A. frigida/1%

羊草L. chinensis/39%, 芨芨草A.splendens/32%, 阿尔泰狗娃花H. altaicus/8%, 冷蒿A. frigida/6%, 二裂委陵菜P. bifurca/5%, 木地肤K. prostrate/5%, 骆驼蓬P. harmala/5%

西北针茅草原S.sareptana grassland

1341.4

42°16′19.40″ N

113°48′37.39″ E

西北针茅S.sareptana/46%, 糙隐子草C. squarrosa/6%, 木地肤K. prostrate/1%, 野韭菜A. japonicurn/1%, 蒙古韭（沙葱）A. mongolicum/1%, 猪毛菜Salsolacollina/1%, 尖齿糙苏P. dentosa/1%, 寸苔草 C. duriuscula/1%

西北针茅S.sareptana/56%, 糙隐子草C. squarrosa/10%, 尖齿糙苏P. dentosa/9%, 猪毛菜S. collina/7%, 木地肤K. prostrate/5%, 野韭菜A. japonicurn/5%, 蒙古韭（沙葱）A. mongolicum/5%, 寸苔草C. duriuscula/3%

Fig.2 Distribution of soil sampling sites and soil profile in the study area

Table 2 Analysis of soil indicators in the soil profiles of L. chinensis and A. splendens grassland and S.sareptana grassland

植被类型 Vegetation types	土壤发生层 Soil horizon (cm)	土壤水分 Water content (%)	容重 Bulk density (g·cm^-3)	有机质 Organic matter (g·kg^-1)	速效氮 Available nitrogen (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total phosphorus (g·kg^-1)	pH	电导率 Electrical conductivity (dS·m^-1)
羊草及芨芨草草原 L. chinensis and A. splendens grassland	A₁(0~20)	6.12±0.16a	0.70±0.01a	25.30±0.35a	75.20±3.71a	6.04±0.18a	276.22±3.59a	2.84±0.17a	1.08±0.09a	8.21±0.04a	0.12±0.01a
	A₂(20~32)	8.45±0.16a	0.77±0.01a	21.29±0.52a	71.87±0.40a	5.30±0.01a	62.91±1.80a	2.53±0.12a	1.38±0.03a	8.09±0.01a	1.26±0.01a
	AB (32~44)	9.11±0.10a	0.75±0.01a	17.75±0.40a	70.05±9.05a	5.19±0.14a	50.31±1.09a	1.03±0.08a	1.36±0.03a	8.11±0.03a	1.52±0.09a
	B_k (44~77)	10.92±0.05a	0.75±0.03a	7.55±0.15a	38.27±6.91a	4.87±0.13a	43.46±0.41a	0.70±0.02a	1.27±0.02a	8.95±0.05a	0.97±0.01a
	B_b (77~130)	7.59±0.48A	0.81±0.03A	1.41±0.30A	35.47±5.90A	4.91±0.05A	57.16±1.95A	1.35±0.13A	1.19±0.06A	9.29±0.02A	0.22±0.01A
	C (>130)	5.99±0.20Aa	0.76±0.02Aa	1.61±0.13Aa	29.33±1.78Aa	4.72±0.07Aa	65.89±1.49Aa	2.63±0.14Aa	1.31±0.05Aa	8.89±0.01Aa	0.24±0.02Aa
西北针茅草原 S. sareptana grassland	A₁(0~15)	6.89±0.30a	0.76±0.01b	25.34±0.90a	73.13±2.64b	5.69±0.09b	239.08±1.09b	2.35±0.21b	1.03±0.11b	7.91±0.01b	0.06±0.01b
	A₂(15~32)	6.29±0.16b	0.78±0.02a	17.10±0.29b	63.56±0.62a	5.17±0.38a	99.49±4.20a	2.69±0.07b	1.16±0.02b	8.33±0.04b	0.11±0.04b
	AB (32~60)	5.89±0.58b	0.80±0.02b	15.72±0.23b	59.83±1.78a	5.15±0.22a	86.56±1.22a	2.01±0.19b	1.31±0.05b	8.31±0.02b	0.10±0.02b
	B_k (60~90)	2.51±0.18b	0.84±0.01b	11.02±0.11b	44.47±1.04a	5.02±0.24a	81.03±0.23b	1.09±0.41b	1.35±0.24a	8.35±0.13b	0.09±0.01b
	C (>90)	3.19±0.08a	0.78±0.06a	10.93±0.31b	48.35±3.55a	5.11±0.07a	87.11±0.68b	1.40±0.10a	1.13±0.01a	8.32±0.07b	0.13±0.01a

Table 2 Analysis of soil indicators in the soil profiles of L. chinensis and A. splendens grassland and S.sareptana grassland

植被类型 Vegetation types	土壤发生层 Soil horizon (cm)	土壤水分 Water content (%)	容重 Bulk density (g·cm^-3)	有机质 Organic matter (g·kg^-1)	速效氮 Available nitrogen (mg·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg·kg^-1)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total phosphorus (g·kg^-1)	pH	电导率 Electrical conductivity (dS·m^-1)
羊草及芨芨草草原 L. chinensis and A. splendens grassland	A₁(0~20)	6.12±0.16a	0.70±0.01a	25.30±0.35a	75.20±3.71a	6.04±0.18a	276.22±3.59a	2.84±0.17a	1.08±0.09a	8.21±0.04a	0.12±0.01a
	A₂(20~32)	8.45±0.16a	0.77±0.01a	21.29±0.52a	71.87±0.40a	5.30±0.01a	62.91±1.80a	2.53±0.12a	1.38±0.03a	8.09±0.01a	1.26±0.01a
	AB (32~44)	9.11±0.10a	0.75±0.01a	17.75±0.40a	70.05±9.05a	5.19±0.14a	50.31±1.09a	1.03±0.08a	1.36±0.03a	8.11±0.03a	1.52±0.09a
	B_k (44~77)	10.92±0.05a	0.75±0.03a	7.55±0.15a	38.27±6.91a	4.87±0.13a	43.46±0.41a	0.70±0.02a	1.27±0.02a	8.95±0.05a	0.97±0.01a
	B_b (77~130)	7.59±0.48A	0.81±0.03A	1.41±0.30A	35.47±5.90A	4.91±0.05A	57.16±1.95A	1.35±0.13A	1.19±0.06A	9.29±0.02A	0.22±0.01A
	C (>130)	5.99±0.20Aa	0.76±0.02Aa	1.61±0.13Aa	29.33±1.78Aa	4.72±0.07Aa	65.89±1.49Aa	2.63±0.14Aa	1.31±0.05Aa	8.89±0.01Aa	0.24±0.02Aa
西北针茅草原 S. sareptana grassland	A₁(0~15)	6.89±0.30a	0.76±0.01b	25.34±0.90a	73.13±2.64b	5.69±0.09b	239.08±1.09b	2.35±0.21b	1.03±0.11b	7.91±0.01b	0.06±0.01b
	A₂(15~32)	6.29±0.16b	0.78±0.02a	17.10±0.29b	63.56±0.62a	5.17±0.38a	99.49±4.20a	2.69±0.07b	1.16±0.02b	8.33±0.04b	0.11±0.04b
	AB (32~60)	5.89±0.58b	0.80±0.02b	15.72±0.23b	59.83±1.78a	5.15±0.22a	86.56±1.22a	2.01±0.19b	1.31±0.05b	8.31±0.02b	0.10±0.02b
	B_k (60~90)	2.51±0.18b	0.84±0.01b	11.02±0.11b	44.47±1.04a	5.02±0.24a	81.03±0.23b	1.09±0.41b	1.35±0.24a	8.35±0.13b	0.09±0.01b
	C (>90)	3.19±0.08a	0.78±0.06a	10.93±0.31b	48.35±3.55a	5.11±0.07a	87.11±0.68b	1.40±0.10a	1.13±0.01a	8.32±0.07b	0.13±0.01a

Table 3 Results of principal component analysis of the soil indicators and their Norm values and groups

评价指标Evaluation index	分组Grouping	PC1	PC2	PC3	Norm
有机质Organic matter	1	0.910	0.281	0.230	2.06
速效氮Available nitrogen	1	0.860	0.387	0.219	1.97
速效磷Available phosphorus	1	0.910	0.016	-0.048	1.99
速效钾Available potassium	1	0.880	-0.309	-0.210	1.99
电导率Electrical conductivity	2	-0.180	0.959	0.019	1.50
pH	1	-0.768	-0.231	-0.496	1.82
容重Bulk density	3	-0.519	-0.296	0.641	1.42
土壤水分Water content	2	-0.101	0.763	-0.499	1.31
全氮Total nitrogen	1	0.612	-0.212	-0.097	1.38
全磷Total phosphorus	1	-0.564	0.499	0.422	1.52
主成分特征值Eigen value		4.766	2.263	1.306	-
主成分方差贡献率Variance (%)		47.659	22.634	13.061	-
主成分累积贡献率Cumulative (%)		47.659	70.293	83.354	-

Table 4 Correlation coefficient matrix of indicators for soil quality evaluation

土壤指标 Index	有机质 Organic matter	速效氮 Available nitrogen	速效磷 Available phosphorus	速效钾 Available potassium	电导率 Electrical conductivity	pH	容重 Bulk density	土壤水分 Water content	全氮 Total nitrogen
速效氮Available nitrogen	0.931**
速效磷Available phosphorus	0.815**	0.733**
速效钾Available potassium	0.683**	0.547**	0.828**
电导率Electrical conductivity	0.100	0.200	-0.130	-0.456**
pH	-0.885**	-0.845**	-0.627**	-0.477**	-0.100
容重Bulk density	-0.366*	-0.357*	-0.462**	-0.467**	-0.180	0.190
土壤水分Water content	0.040	0.120	-0.060	-0.200	0.706**	0.210	-0.351*
全氮Total nitrogen	0.442**	0.393**	0.448**	0.549**	-0.336*	-0.330*	-0.341*	-0.150
全磷Total phosphorus	-0.302*	-0.260	-0.520**	-0.713**	0.557**	0.130	0.309*	0.170	-0.270

Table 5 Communality and weight of soil quality indicators

评价指标 Evaluation index	总数据集Total data set (TDS)		最小数据集Minimum data set (MDS)
评价指标 Evaluation index	公因子方差Communality	权重Weight	公因子方差Communality	权重Weight
有机质Organic matter	0.967	0.12	0.571	0.39
速效氮Available nitrogen	0.930	0.11	-	-
速效磷Available phosphorus	0.835	0.10	-	-
速效钾Available potassium	0.911	0.11	-	-
电导率Electrical conductivity	0.952	0.11	0.232	0.16
pH	0.931	0.11	-	-
容重Bulk density	0.768	0.09	0.650	0.45
土壤水分Water content	0.865	0.10	-	-
全氮Total nitrogen	0.429	0.05	-	-
全磷Total phosphorus	0.748	0.09	-	-

Table 6 Mean of soil quality indicators and normalization equations of the scoring curves

参数

Parameter

有机质

Organic

matter

速效氮

Available

nitrogen

速效磷

Available

phosphorus

速效钾

Available

potassium

电导率

Electrical

conductivity

容重

Bulk

density

土壤水分

Water

content

全氮

Total

nitrogen

全磷

Total

phosphorus

归一化方程

Normalization

equation

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

Table 6 Mean of soil quality indicators and normalization equations of the scoring curves

参数

Parameter

有机质

Organic

matter

速效氮

Available

nitrogen

速效磷

Available

phosphorus

速效钾

Available

potassium

电导率

Electrical

conductivity

容重

Bulk

density

土壤水分

Water

content

全氮

Total

nitrogen

全磷

Total

phosphorus

平均值Mean

14.08

27.71

5.20

104.48

0.44

8.43

0.77

0.07

1.87

1.23

归一化方程

Normalization

equation

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

1 1 + (x x 0) - 2.5

Fig.3 Soil quality index of minimum data set (MDS) and total data set (TDS)

Fig.4 Relationship between minimum data set(MDS)and total data set(TDS)

Table 7 Electrical conductivity and class

项目

Item

极低盐度

Very low salinity

低盐度

Low salinity

中盐度

Medium salinity

高盐度

High salinity

极高盐度

Very high salinity

对作物的影响

Impact on crops

一般作物生长正常

General crops grow normally

对敏感作物有障碍

Obstacles to sensitive crops

多数作物生长受阻Most crops are blocked

仅耐盐作物能生长

Only salt-tolerant crops can grow

仅极耐盐作物能生长

Only extremely salt-tolerant crops can grow

References 37

1	Fu Z Y， Jiang H， Wang G Q， et al. Effects of soil properties on plant community structure in a semi-arid grassland. Chinese Journal of Ecology， 2018， 37（3）： 823-830.
	傅致远，姜宏，王国强，等. 半干旱草原区土壤性质对植物群落结构的影响. 生态学杂志， 2018， 37（3）： 823-830.
2	Qu H， Zhao X Y， Wang S K， et al. Effects so different vegetation communities on soil carbon and nitrogen contents in Urad desert steppe. Pratacultural Science， 2014， 31（3）： 355-360.
	曲浩，赵学勇，王少昆，等.乌拉特荒漠草原不同植被群落对土壤碳、氮的影响. 草业科学， 2014， 31（3）： 355-360.
3	Wang X Q. Studies on the effects of nitrogen application and irrigation on seed production of Leymus chinensis， soil total nitrogen， pH， and electrical conductivity. Changchun： Northeast Normal University， 2012.
	王晓强. 水肥调控对羊草种子生产及土壤全氮、pH、电导率影响的研究.长春：东北师范大学， 2012.
4	Wang Y F， Han B， Zhang Z X. Study of the change of drought-resistant physiology of Stipa krylovii in Xilinguole steppe. Pratacultural Science， 2006， 23（2）： 22-26.
	王艳芳，韩冰，张占雄. 锡林郭勒草原克氏针茅抗旱生理变化的研究.草业科学， 2006， 23（2）： 22-26.
5	Liu S L， Fu B J， Ma K M， et al. Effects of vegetation types and landscape features on soil properties at the plateau in the upper reaches of Min jiang River. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology， 2004， 15（1）： 26-30.
	刘世梁，傅伯杰，马克明，等. 岷江上游高原植被类型与景观特征对土壤性质的影响. 应用生态学报， 2004， 15（1）： 26-30.
6	Finzi A C， Canham C， Van B N. Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests： Species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecological Applications， 1998， 8（2）： 440-446.
7	Nie M H. Spatial distribution and health assessment of vegetation and soil characteristics of different communication in desert steppe of Yanchi county， Ningxia. Yinchuan： Ningxia University， 2019.
	聂明鹤. 宁夏盐池县荒漠草原不同群落植被及土壤特征空间分布与健康评价. 银川：宁夏大学， 2019.
8	Wan Q Z， Zhu G F， Guo H W， et al. Influence of vegetation coverage and climate environment on soil organic carbon in the qilian mountains. Scientific Reports， 2019， 9（3）： 473-513.
9	Yue L. The source and degradation characteristics of plant organic matter in soil of main steppe community in Inner Mongolia. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia University， 2019.
	岳丽. 内蒙古草原主要群落土壤中植物性有机质的来源及其降解特征. 呼和浩特：内蒙古大学， 2019.
10	Liu Z F， Fu B J， Liu G H， et al. Soil quality： Concept， indicators and its assessment. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2006， 26（3）： 901-913.
	刘占锋，傅伯杰，刘国华，等.土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价. 生态学报， 2006， 26（3）： 901-913.
11	Andrews S S， Mitchell J P， Mancinelli R， et al. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California’s central valley. Agronomy Journal， 2002， 94（1）： 12-23.
12	Jin H F， Shi D M， Chen Z F， et al. Evaluation indicators of cultivated layer soil quality for red soil slope farmland based on cluster and PCA analysis. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering， 2018， 34（7）： 155-164.
	金慧芳，史东梅，陈正发，等.基于聚类及PCA分析的红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量评价指标. 农业工程学报， 2018， 34（7）： 155-164.
13	Li P F， Zhang X C， Hao M D， et al. Soil quality evaluation for reclamation of mining area on Loess Plateau based on minimum data set. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering， 2019， 35（16）： 265-273.
	李鹏飞，张兴昌，郝明德，等. 基于最小数据集的黄土高原矿区复垦土壤质量评价. 农业工程学报， 2019， 35（16）： 265-273.
14	Fernando S F， Antonio M G， Carmelo A Z， et al. Comparison of methods for evaluating soil quality of semiarid ecosystem and evaluation of the effects of physico-chemical properties and factor soil erodibility （Northern Plateau， Spain）. Geoderma， 2019， 354： 113872
15	Zhao L T. The research of soil diagnostic characteristics and systematic classification in arid and semi-arid grasslands in Inner Mongolia. Shenyang： Shenyang Agricultural University， 2018.
	赵丽婷. 内蒙古干旱半干旱草原典型土壤诊断特征及系统分类研究. 沈阳：沈阳农业大学， 2018.
16	Qiu X C， Peng D L， Wang H B， et al. Minimum data set for evaluation of stand density effects on soil quality in Larix principis-rupprechtii plantations in North China. Ecological Indicators， 2019， 103： 236-247.
17	Liu T Y， Zhao X， Shen H H， et al. Spectral feature differences between shrub and grass communities and shrub coverage retrieval in shrub-encroached grassland in Xianghuang Banner， Nei Mongol， China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology， 2016， 40（10）： 969-979.
	刘涛宇，赵霞，沈海花，等.灌丛化草原灌木和草本植物光谱特征差异及灌木盖度反演——以内蒙古镶黄旗为例.植物生态学报， 2016， 40（10）： 969-979.
18	Gong Z T， Zhang G L， Chen Z C. Pedogenesis and soil taxonomy. Beijing： Science Press， 2007： 21-33.
	龚子同，张甘霖，陈志诚. 土壤发生与系统分类. 北京：科学出版社， 2007： 21-33.
19	Zhang G L， Li D C. Manual of soil description and sampling. Beijing： Science Press， 2016： 33-125.
	张甘霖，李德成. 野外土壤描述与采样手册. 北京：科学出版社， 2016： 33-125.
20	Bao S D. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis. Beijing： China Agriculture Press， 2000： 22-114.
	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 北京：中国农业出版社， 2000： 22-114.
21	Xue F N. Study on spatial distribution characteristics of phosphorus and potassium elements in grassland watershed based on LIBS technology. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia Normal University， 2017.
	薛凤娜. 基于LIBS技术的草地小流域磷钾元素空间分布特征研究. 呼和浩特：内蒙古师范大学， 2017.
22	Li G L， Chen J， Sun Z Y， et al. Establishing a minimum data set for soil quality assessment based on soil properties and land use change. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2007， 27（7）： 2715-2724.
	李桂林，陈杰，孙志英，等. 基于土壤特征和土地利用变化的土壤质量评价最小数据集确定. 生态学报， 2007， 27（7）： 2715-2724.
23	Li X J， Zhou R P， Jiang H T， et al. Quantitative analysis of how different checkerboard sand barrier materials influence soil properties： A study from the eastern edge of the Tengger Desert， China. Environmental Earth Sciences， 2018， 77（13）： 1-15.
24	Liu G M， Yang J S. Study on the correlation of soil salt content with electric conductivity and soil water content. Chinese Journal of Soil Science， 2001， 32（S1）： 85-87.
	刘广明，杨劲松. 土壤含盐量与土壤电导率及水分含量关系的试验研究. 土壤通报， 2001， 32（增刊1）： 85-87.
25	Zhu J B， He H D， Li H Q， et al. Characteristics of soil bulk density and soil water-holding capacity in alpine meadow under grazing gradients. Research of Soil and Water Conservation， 2018， 25（5）： 66-71.
	祝景彬，贺慧丹，李红琴，等. 牧压梯度下高寒草甸土壤容重及持水能力的变化特征. 水土保持研究， 2018， 25（5）： 66-71.
26	Fu H， Chen Y M， Wang Y R， et al. Organic carbon content in major grassland types in Alex， Inner Mongolia. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2004， 24（3）： 469-476.
	傅华，陈亚明，王彦荣，等. 阿拉善主要草地类型土壤有机碳特征及其影响因素. 生态学报， 2004， 24（3）： 469-476.
27	Gile L H， Peterson F F， Grossman R B. Morphological and genetic sequences of carbonate accumulation in desert soils. Soil Science， 1966， 101（5）： 347-360.
28	Peng H Y， Tong S Y， Li X Y. Effects of thicketization of rangeland on soil and soil hydrological processes in Inner Mongolia. Journal of Natural Resources， 2017， 32（4）： 642-653.
	彭海英，童绍玉，李小雁. 内蒙古典型草原土壤及其水文过程对灌丛化的响应. 自然资源学报， 2017， 32（4）： 642-653.
29	Ge H. A study on community characteristics and ecological adaptability of Allium polyrhizum in Inner Mongolia plateau. Hohhot： Inner Mongolia University， 2015.
	葛欢. 内蒙古高原多根葱草原群落特征及其建群种生态适应性研究. 呼和浩特：内蒙古大学， 2015.
30	Xu J， Chen Y J， Liu J Z. Research progress of the effects of halophyte shrubs on spatial distribution of soil nutrients and salts and their mechanisms.Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences， 2020， 48（1）： 19-23， 69.
	许婕，陈永金，刘加珍. 盐生植物灌丛对土壤养分和盐分空间分布的影响及其机制研究进展. 安徽农业科学， 2020， 48（1）： 19-23， 69.
31	Zhou D W， Li Q， Song Y T， et al. Salinization-alkalization of Leymus chinensis grassland in Songnen Plain of Northeast China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology， 2011， 22（6）： 1423-1430.
	周道玮，李强，宋彦涛，等. 松嫩平原羊草草地盐碱化过程. 应用生态学报， 2011， 22（6）： 1423-1430.
32	Zhang W Z. The relationship between vegetation degeneration and soil salinization in an Aneurolepidium Chinensegrassland in Songnen Plain. China Journal of Plant Ecology， 1994， 18（1）： 50-55.
	张为政. 松嫩平原羊草草地植被退化与土壤盐渍化的关系. 植物生态学报， 1994， 18（1）： 50-55.
33	Ding H， Hu H B， Wang R C. The relationships between soil enzyme activity and soil physical-chemical properties or microbial biomass in semi-arid area. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University （Natural Sciences Edition）， 2007， 31（2）： 13-18.
	丁菡，胡海波，王人潮. 半干旱区土壤酶活性与其理化及微生物的关系. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）， 2007， 31（2）： 13-18.
34	Zhang X N， Meng Z J， Yang Z Q. Soil quality assessment under different exclusion measures in desert steppe in Xilamuren， Inner Mongolia. Chinese Journal of Soil Science， 2018， 49（4）： 788-793.
	张晓娜，蒙仲举，杨振奇. 不同封育措施下希拉穆仁荒漠草原土壤质量评价. 土壤通报， 2018， 49（4）： 788-793.
35	Gao L， Zhang S W， Zhao H B， et al. Spatial heterogeneity of soil physical and chemical properties in degraded grassland and its effect on soil moisture. Arid Zone Research， 2020， 37（3）： 607-617.
	高露，张圣微，赵鸿彬，等.退化草原土壤理化性质空间异质性及其对土壤水分的影响. 干旱区研究， 2020， 37（3）： 607-617.
36	Huang S W， Wang Y J， Jin J Y， et al. Status of salinity， pH and nutrients in soils in main vegetable production regions in China. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers， 2011， 17（4）： 906-918.
	黄绍文，王玉军，金继运，等. 我国主要菜区土壤盐分、酸碱性和肥力状况. 植物营养与肥料学报， 2011， 17（4）： 906-918.
37	Wang F. Study on soil microbial molecular diversity and organic matter transformation under soil salinization condition. Shihezi： Shihezi University， 2011.
	王飞. 盐分对土壤微生物多样性及土壤有机物转化的影响. 石河子：石河子大学， 2011.

[1]	Si-li LIU, Chang-ting WANG, Chang-bing ZHANG, Lei HU, Li-tao TANG, Pan PAN. A comparative study of root characteristics of three gramineous herbage species in the Northwest Sichuan Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 41-53.
[2]	LIU Jiang, LV Tao, ZHANG Li-xin, YE Li-na, LIU Xiang-yang, DAI Xiang-rong, WANG Wei-wei, DING Ru. Soil quality assessment by principal component analysis in Glycyrrhiza uralensis stands of differing ages [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(6): 162-171.
[3]	SU Ting-ting, MA Hong-bin, ZHOU Yao, JIA Xi-yang, ZHANG Rui, ZHANG Shuang-qiao, HU Yan-li. Response of typical steppe grassland soil physical and chemical properties to various ecological restoration measures in the Ningxia Loess Hill Region [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(4): 34-46.
[4]	QIN Yan, LIU Wen-hui, HE Feng, TONG Zong-yong, LI Xiang-lin. Influence of fertilization and root cutting on soil physicochemical properties and enzyme activities in a degraded Leymus chinensis steppe [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(1): 5-14.
[5]	WANG Hui, WANG Hui, HUANG Rong, MA Wei-wei. Effects of different exclosure management on soil and plant characteristics of sandy grassland [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2012, 21(6): 15-22.
[6]	SHAN Gui-lian1,2, XU Zhu1,3, NING Fa1,2, JIAO Yan4. Influence of seasonal exclosure on plant and soil characteristics in typical steppe [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(2): 3-10.