围栏封育对蒿类荒漠植物-土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0474

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2023, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (3): 178-187.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2022.0474

• 生物制造资源生态 • 上一篇

围栏封育对蒿类荒漠植物-土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响

聂婷婷¹(), 董乙强¹^,²^,³(), 杨合龙¹^,²^,³, 阿斯太肯·居力海提¹, 周时杰¹, 安沙舟¹^,²^,³

^1.新疆农业大学草业学院，乌鲁木齐 830052
^2.新疆农业大学新疆草地资源与生态自治区重点实验室，乌鲁木齐 830052
^3.新疆农业大学西部干旱区草地资源与生态教育部重点实验室，乌鲁木齐 830052

收稿日期:2022-06-05 接受日期:2022-06-30 出版日期:2023-03-15 发布日期:2023-05-22
通讯作者: 董乙强
作者简介:聂婷婷 E-mail：1783239058@qq.com；
基金资助:
天山青年计划项目;新疆农业大学高层次人才科研培育计划项目

Effects of Enclosure on Plant and Soil Stoichiometric Characteristics in an Artemisia Desert

Tingting NIE¹(), Yiqiang DONG¹^,²^,³(), Helong YANG¹^,²^,³, Asitaiken Julihaiti¹, Shijie ZHOU¹, Shazhou AN¹^,²^,³

^1.College of Grassland Science, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China
^2.Key Laboratory of Grassland Resources and Ecology of Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China
^3.Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecology and Resources in Western Arid Zone, Ministry of Education, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China

Received:2022-06-05 Accepted:2022-06-30 Online:2023-03-15 Published:2023-05-22
Contact: Yiqiang DONG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为明确蒿类荒漠植物茎、叶、根和土壤碳（C）、氮（N）、磷（P）含量及其化学计量特征对围栏封育的响应规律，对封育区（2年）和放牧区荒漠草地植被及其土壤C、N、P含量进行测定分析。结果表明，与放牧区相比，短期封育对蒿类荒漠植物群落茎、叶和根系C、N和P含量影响不显著，而植物群落茎氮磷比（N∶P）显著降低14.27%。封育区20—30 cm土层中的根系C含量、碳氮比（C∶N）、碳磷比（C∶P）相较于放牧区显著增加45.00%、 80.72%、41.58%；而30—50 cm根系的N含量、N∶P显著降低 21.81%、37.56%，但P含量显著增加22.22%；50—70 cm根系C∶N也显著增加64.53%。与放牧区相比，短期封育后0—5 cm土壤N显著降低36.76%；5—10 cm土壤N和P含量分别显著降低37.34%和25.35%；50—70 cm土壤P含量显著降低12.5%。此外，封育区20—30 cm土壤C∶P和10—20 cm土壤N∶P显著降低36.93%和23.45%。因此，短期封育没有达到植被、土壤恢复的效果，应加长封育年限，采取添加磷肥等综合措施促进退化草地的恢复。

关键词: 围栏封育, 蒿类荒漠, 植被养分, 土壤养分, 化学计量特征

Abstract:

In order to clarify the response of Artemisia desert plant stems， leaves， roots and soil carbon （C）， nitrogen （N） and phosphorus （P） contents and their stoichiometric characteristics to fencing， the vegetation and soil C， N and P contents of desert grassland in the fenced area（2 years） and the grazed area were measu and analyze. The results showed that， compared with the grazed area， short-term sealing had no significant effect on the C， N and P contents of Artemisia desert plant community stems， leaves and roots， while the N∶P ratio of plant community stems was significantly reduced by 14.27%. The C content， C∶N and C∶P ratios of the roots in the 20—30 cm soil layer of the closed area increased significantly by 45.00%， 80.72% and 41.58% compared to the grazed area， while the N content and N∶P ratio of the 30—50 cm roots decreased significantly by 21.81%， 37.56% and 22.22% compared to the grazed area. However， P content significant increased by 22.22% and C∶N of the 50—70 cm root system also increased significantly by 64.53%. Short-term sealing significantly reduced N by 36.76% in the 0—5 cm soil， 37.34% and 25.35% in the 5—10 cm soil and 12.5% in the 50—70 cm soil， respectively. In addition， soil C：P at 20—30 cm and soil N：P at 10—20 cm were significantly reduced by 36.93% and 23.45%， respectively， in the blocked area. Therefore， short-term sealing did not achieve the effect of vegetation and soil restoration， and a combination of measures should be taken to promote the restoration of degraded grassland， such as extending the sealing period and adding phosphorus fertiliser.

Key words: enclosure, Artemisia desert, vegetation nutrients, soil nutrients, stoichiometric characteristics

中图分类号:

S714.2

聂婷婷, 董乙强, 杨合龙, 阿斯太肯·居力海提, 周时杰, 安沙舟. 围栏封育对蒿类荒漠植物-土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 178-187.

Tingting NIE, Yiqiang DONG, Helong YANG, Asitaiken Julihaiti, Shijie ZHOU, Shazhou AN. Effects of Enclosure on Plant and Soil Stoichiometric Characteristics in an Artemisia Desert[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(3): 178-187.

图/表 7

图1 围栏封育下蒿类荒漠植物群落植物茎C、N、P含量及其化学计量特征注：同一指标中不同小写字母表示差异在P < 0.05水平显著。

Fig. 1 C， N and P contents of plant stems and stoichiometric characteristics in Artemisia desert plant communities under fencing and sealingNote： Different lowercase letters in same index indicate significant differences at P < 0.05 level.

图2 围栏封育下蒿类荒漠植物群落植物叶C、N、P含量及其化学计量特征注：同一指标中不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平显著。

Fig. 2 C， N and P contents of plant leafs and stoichiometric characteristics in Artemisia desert plant communities under fencing and sealingNote： Different lowercase letters in same index indicate significant differences at P<0.05 level.

表1 围栏封育下蒿类荒漠地下根系C、N、P含量及其化学计量特征

Table 1 C， N and P contents and stoichiometric characteristics of below-ground root systems of Artemisia deserts under fencing and sealing

土层

Layer/cm

处理

Treatment

C含量

C content/（g·kg^-1）

N含量

N content/（g·kg^-1）

P含量

P content/（g·kg^-1）

192.43±64.08 a

242.37±26.18 a

18.69±1.13 a

18.85±0.96 a

0.67±0.02 a

0.86±0.11 a

10.52±3.61 a

13.06±2.00 a

282.63±84.01 a

301.75±73.74 a

28.10±2.16 a

22.72±2.67 a

5—10

280.64±30.22 a

243.17±10.51 a

17.91±0.39 a

22.34±4.03 a

0.68±0.10 a

0.82±0.15 a

15.67±1.64 a

11.70±2.26 a

423.86±53.02 a

314.67±47.68 a

27.57±3.83 a

30.51±9.40 a

10—20

275.76±21.35 a

260.67±13.74 a

17.64±0.56 a

21.74±1.42 a

0.58±0.03 a

0.75±0.13 a

15.71±1.53 a

12.03±0.51 b

477.29±25.48 a

370.67±73.39 a

30.73±1.98 a

31.01±6.69 a

20—30

303.39±20.09 a

209.23±26.74 b

15.76±1.26 a

19.23±1.12 a

0.69±0.03 a

0.68±0.07 a

19.50±1.97 a

10.79±0.82 b

442.08±11.76 a

312.25±42.76 b

23.03±1.79 a

28.86±2.82 a

30—50

283.93±33.95 a

255.36±33.14 a

14.34±1.23 b

18.34±1.03 a

0.66±0.01 a

0.54±0.04 b

20.46±3.88 a

13.82±1.05 a

427.78±51.99 a

485.27±91.78 a

21.56±1.73 b

34.53±3.75 a

50—70

297.89±27.30 a

239.16±41.46 a

13.30±1.01 a

17.55±1.97 a

0.68±0.09 a

0.59±0.03 a

22.36±0.86 a

13.59±1.86 b

459.42±91.23 a

409.47±86.03 a

20.30±3.20 a

29.75±3.91 a

图3 围栏封育下蒿类荒漠土壤C、N、P含量注： *表示差异在P<0.05水平显著。

Fig. 3 C， N and P content of Artemisia desert soils under fencing and sealingNote： * indicates significant differences at P<0.05 level.

表2 围栏封育下蒿类荒漠土壤C、N、P化学计量特征

Table 2 Chemometric characteristics of C， N and P in Artemisia desert soils under fencing and sealing

12.88±1.58 a

8.63±1.85 a

25.35±1.90 a

26.86±0.63 a

2.00±0.13 a

3.38±0.62 a

5—10

10.82±2.50 a

6.66±1.09 a

18.76±1.26 a

14.76±1.51 a

1.90±0.40 a

2.33±0.39 a

10—20

9.37±2.79 a

7.41±1.17 a

14.96±2.30 a

16.76±2.74 a

1.73±0.22 b

2.26±0.06 a

20—30

6.29±1.35 a

8.13±0.96 a

10.40±0.51 b

16.49±1.77 a

1.79±0.31 a

2.05±0.15 a

30—50

5.91±1.46 a

5.61±0.60 a

8.93±1.24 a

10.34±0.83 a

1.62±0.27 a

1.86±0.09 a

50—70

5.13±2.43 a

4.65±0.82 a

4.39±1.78 a

7.98±2.59 a

0.91±0.06 a

1.65±0.29 a

图4 植物和土壤养分相关性分析注：左下角为封育区，右上角为放牧区；红色代表正相关，蓝色代表负相关，颜色越深相关系数越大； * 和**分别表示相关在P<0.05和P<0.01水平显著。

Fig. 4 Correlation analysis of plant and soil nutrientsNote： Lower left corner is the enclosed area （U） and the upper right corner is the grazing area （G）； red represents positive correlation and blue represents negative correlation， the darker the color is， the greater the correlation coefficient is； * and ** indicate significant correlations at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels，respectively.

图5 植物和土壤养分化学计量特征相关性分析注：左下角为封育区，右上角为放牧区；红色代表正相关，蓝色代表负相关，颜色越深相关系数越大； * 和**分别表示相关性在P<0.05和P<0.01水平显著。

Fig. 5 Correlation analysis of stoichiometric characteristics of plant and soil nutrientsNote： Lower left corner is the enclosed area （U） and the upper right corner is the grazing area （G）； red represents positive correlation and blue represents negative correlation， the darker the color is， the greater the correlation coefficient is； * and ** indicate significant correlations at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels，respectively.

参考文献 41

1	何龙, 安沙舟, 靳瑰丽, 等.退化伊犁绢蒿荒漠草地高光谱特征分析[J]. 草地学报, 2014, 22(2): 271- 276.
	HE L, AN S Z, JIN G L, et al.. Analysis on high spectral characteristics of degraded Seriphidium transiliense desert grassland [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2014, 22(2): 271-276.
2	田新春.新疆草地生态问题思考和对策建议[J]. 草食家畜, 2022(2):48-53.
	TIAN X C. Causes of grassland degradation in Xinjiang and its impact on soil ecology and biodiversity [J]. Grass-feed. Lives., 2022(2): 48-53.
3	王宏生, 宋梅玲, 王玉琴, 等. 不同恢复措施对黄帚橐吾及毒害草型退化草地群落的影响[J].中国草地学报, 2022, 44(4): 32-39.
	WANG H S, SONG M L, WANG Y Q, et al.. Effects of different restoration methods on Ligularia virgaurea and toxic weed dominated degraded grassland community [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2022, 44(4): 32-39.
4	周华坤, 周立, 刘伟, 等. 封育措施对退化与未退化矮嵩草草甸的影响[J]. 中国草地, 2003,25(5):16-23.
	ZHOU H K, ZHOU L, LIU W, et al.. The influence of fencing on degraded Kobresia Humilis meadows an nondegraded [J]. Grassland China, 2003, 25(5): 16-23.
5	杨静, 孙宗玖, 柴艳. 封育对沙质荒漠草地植被特征及稳定性影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(3): 65-71, 108.
	YANG J, SUN Z J, CHAI Y. Effects of enclosure on vegetation characteristics and stability of sandy desert grassland [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2017, 39(3): 65-71, 108.
6	吕世海, 冯长松, 高吉喜, 等. 呼伦贝尔沙化草地围封效应及生物多样性变化研究[J]. 草地学报, 2008, 16(5): 442-447.
	LYU S H, FENG C S, GAO J X, et al.. Study on enclosing effects and biodiversity variation of desertification grassland in Hulunbeir steppe [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2008, 16(5): 442-447.
7	沙文生, 王蕾, 张娜, 等. 围封对荒漠草原植物群落特征的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(3): 81-83.
	SHA W S, WANG L, ZHANG N, et al.. Effects of enclosure on plant community characteristics in desert steppe [J]. Anhui Agric. Sci., 2021, 49(3): 81-83.
8	赵勇钢, 赵世伟, 华娟, 等. 半干旱典型草原区封育草地土壤结构特征研究[J]. 草地学报, 2009, 17(1): 106-112.
	ZHAO Y G, ZHAO S W, HUA J, et al.. Soil structural properties of enclosed steppe in the semiarid area [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2009, 17(1): 106-112.
9	程杰, 高亚军. 云雾山封育草地土壤养分变化特征[J]. 草地学报, 2007, 15(3): 273-277.
	CHENG J, GAO Y J. Variability of soil nutrient in enclosed grassland of Yunwu mountain [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2007, 15(3): 273-277.
10	孙宗玖,安沙舟,马金昌.围栏封育对草原植被及多样性的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2007, 24(5): 669-674.
	SUN Z J, AN S Z, MA J C. Effect of fencing on vegetation and diversity of steppe in the middle section of the Tianshan mountains, China [J]. Arid Zone Res., 2007, 24(5): 669-674.
11	SUN J, LIU M, FU B, et al.. Reconsidering the efficiency of grazing exclusion using fences on the Tibetan plateau [J]. Sci. Bull., 2020, 65(16): 1405-1414.
12	CHENG J M, JING G H, WEI L, et al.. Long-term grazing exclusion effects on vegetation characteristics, soil properties and bacterial communities in the semi-arid grasslands of China [J]. Ecol. Eng., 2016, 97(12): 170-178.
13	刘凤婵, 李红丽, 董智, 等. 封育对退化草原植被恢复及土壤理化性质影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2012, 10(5): 116-122.
	LIU F C, LI H L, DONG Z, et al.. Advances in research on enclosure effects on vegetation restoration and soil physicochemical property of degraded grassland [J]. Sci. Soil Water Conserv., 2012, 10(5): 116-122.
14	SHI X M, LI X G, LI C T, et al.. Grazing exclusion decreases soil organic C storage at an alpine grassland of the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau [J]. Ecol. Eng., 2013, 57(3): 183-187.
15	李润富, 牛海山, 孔倩, 等. 围栏封育对高寒草原植被-土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2021, 38(3): 399-409.
	LI R F, NIU H S, KONG Q, et al.. Effects of exclosure on plant and soil nutrients in an alpine grassland [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2021, 38(3): 399-409.
16	李国旗, 赵盼盼, 邵文山, 等.围封条件下荒漠草原两种植物群落土壤理化性状与酶活性的研究[J].草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 49-59.
	LI G Q, ZHAO P P, SHAO W S, et al.. Studies on the soil physical and chemical properties and enzyme activities of two fenced plant communities in desert steppe grassland [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2019, 28(7): 49-59.
17	刘兴华, 公彦庆, 陈为峰, 等. 黄河三角洲自然保护区植被与土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(11): 1720-1729.
	LIU X H, GONG Y Q, CHEN W F, et al.. C, N and P stoichiometry of typical plants and soils in the Yellow River delta natural reserve [J]. Chin. J. Ecol-Agric., 2018, 26(11): 1720-1729.
18	AGREN G I. The C∶N∶P stoichiometry of autotrophs-theory and observations [J]. Ecol. Lett., 2004, 7(3): 185-191.
19	刘万德, 苏建荣, 李帅锋, 等.云南普洱季风常绿阔叶林演替系列植物和土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(23): 6581-6590.
	LIU W D, SU J R, LI S F, et al.. Stoichiometry study of C, N and P in plant and soil at different successional stages of monsoon everareen broad-leaved forest in Pu'er, Yunnan province [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2010, 30(23): 6581-6590.
20	PANG Y, TIAN J, ZHAO X, et al.. The linkages of plant, litter and soil C:N:P stoichiometry and nutrient stock in different secondary mixed forest types in the Qinling mountains, China [J/OL]. Peer J., 2020, 8(4): e9274 [2022-05-02]. .
21	崔雨萱, 孙宗玖, 刘慧霞, 等. 短期封育对蒿类荒漠草地现存生物量及植物群落多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 17-26.
	CUI Y X, SUN Z J, LIU H X, et al.. Effects of short-term grazing exclusion on standing biomass and plant community diversity in Sagebrush desert [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2020, 29(12): 17-26.
22	李坤, 董乙强, 安沙舟, 等. 短期封育对伊犁绢蒿荒漠群落特征的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(5): 978-983.
	LI K, DONG Y Q, AN S Z, et al.. Effect of short-term fencing on Seriphidium transiliense desert community characteristics [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2018, 35(5): 978-983.
23	董乙强, 孙宗玖, 安沙舟, 等. 放牧强度对伊犁绢蒿种群特征及其群落多样性的影响[J].草地学报, 2016, 24(1): 22-27, 46.
	DONG Y Q, SUN Z J, AN S Z, et al.. Effect of grazing intensity on population characteristics and community diversity of Seriphidium transiliense [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2016, 24(1): 22-27, 46.
24	阿斯太肯·居力海提, 董乙强, 李靖, 等. 禁牧对不同气候区蒿类荒漠植被和土壤养分及化学计量特征的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(11): 157-164.
	Julihaiti Astaiken, DONG Y Q, LI J, et al.. Effects of grazing exclusion on nutrition and stoichiometry characteristics of Artemisia desert vegetation and soil [J]. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ., 2021, 35(11): 157-164.
25	王森, 张山清, 刘纪疆, 等. 基于GIS的呼图壁县制种玉米精细化气候区划[J]. 沙漠与绿洲气象, 2021, 15(4): 130-137.
	WANG S, ZHANG S Q, LIU J J, et al.. Fine climate division of maize seed production in Hutubi county based on GIS [J]. Desert Oasis Meteo., 2021, 15(4): 130-137.
26	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2013: 72-75.
27	郭晨睿, 杨敬坡, 李少伟, 等.围封对藏北高寒草原土壤矿质元素和群落特征的影响[J].草业科学, 2022, 39(4): 645-659.
	GUO C R, YANG J P, LI S W, et al.. Effects of grazing exclusion by fencing on soil mineral elements and plant community in alpine steppes of the northern Tibetan plateau [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2022, 39(4):645-659.
28	刘岩, 李宝林, 袁烨城, 等. 基于三江源高寒草甸群落结构变化评估围栏封育对草地恢复的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(18): 7125-7137.
	LIU Y, LI B L, YUAN Y C, et al.. Assessment of grazing exclusion on grassland restoration through the changes of plant community structure of alpine meadow in the Three River headwater region [J]. Acta Ecol. Sin., 2021, 41(18): 7125-7137.
29	FRANK D A. Ungulate and topographic control of nitrogenz: phosphorus stoichiometry in a temperate grassland; soils, plants and mineralization rates [J]. Oikos, 2008, 117(4): 591-601.
30	范燕敏, 武红旗, 靳瑰丽, 等. 封育对荒漠草地生态系统C、N、P化学计量特征的影响[J].中国草地学报, 2018, 40(3): 76-81.
	FAN Y M, WU H Q, JIN G L, et al.. Effects of enclosure on stoichiometric characteristics of C, N, P in desert grassland ecosystem [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2018, 40(3): 76-81.
31	李永强, 赵萌莉, 韩国栋, 等.不同年限草原撂荒地土壤理化特性研究[J].中国草地学报, 2012, 34(3): 61-64, 69.
	LI Y Q, ZHAO M L, HAN G D, et al.. Studies on soil physical and chemical properties of abandoned land [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2012, 34(3): 61-64, 69.
32	杨合龙. 封育对轻度退化下伊犁绢蒿荒漠植被及土壤养分的影响[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2015.
	YANG H L. Effects of enclosure on plants and soil nutrients of Seriphidium transiliense desert grassland under light degeneration [D]. Urumqi : Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2015.
33	KOERSELMAN W, MEULEMAN, ARTHUR F M. The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation [J]. J. Appl. Ecol., 1996, 33(6): 1441-1450.
34	李娜娜, 杨九艳, 贾喆亭, 等. 不同放牧方式对阿拉善左旗主要草场类型群落特征和土壤养分的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 991-1003.
	LI N N, YANG J Y, JIA Z T, et al.. Effects of different grazing patterns on community characteristics and soil nutrients in the main pasture types of Alxa Zuoqi [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2021, 29(5): 991-1003.
35	王悦骅, 靳宇曦, 王忠武, 等. 8年围封对内蒙古荒漠草原植物和土壤的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10): 2339-2345.
	WANG Y H, JIN Y X, WANG Z W, et al.. Effects of eight years enclosure on plants and soil of desert steppe in Inner Mongolia [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2021, 29(10): 2339-2345.
36	孙海燕, 万书波, 李林, 等. 放牧对荒漠草原土壤养分及微生物量的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(2): 82-88, 93.
	SUN H Y, WAN S B, LI L, et al.. Effects of grazing on soil nutrients and microbial biomass in desert steppe [J]. Bull. Soil Water Conserv., 2015, 35(2): 82-88, 93.
37	崔雨萱. 封育对蒿类荒漠草地土壤有机碳及土壤细菌多样性的影响[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2021.
	CUI Y X. Effect of grazing exclusion on soil organic carbon and soil bacterial diversity in sagebrush desert [D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2021.
38	陈文, 王桔红, 彭玉姣, 等.不同生境中鬼针草(Bidens pilosa)碳氮磷化学计量特征及其营养利用策略[J]. 广西植物, 2018, 38(3): 281-288.
	CHEN W, WANG J H, PENG Y J, et al.. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics of alien species Bidens pilosa from different habitats and strategy on their nutrient utilization [J]. Guangxi Plants, 2018, 38(3): 281-288.
39	胡艳宇, 乌云娜, 霍光伟, 等. 不同放牧强度下羊草草原群落斑块植被-土壤特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(1): 9-16.
	HU Y Y, WU Y N, HUO G W, et al..Vegetation and soil characteristics of plant community micro-patches under different grazing intensities [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2018, 37(1): 9-16.
40	黄菊莹, 余海龙, 王丽丽, 等.不同氮磷比处理对甘草生长与生态化学计量特征的影响[J].植物生态学报, 2017, 41(3): 325-336.
	HUANG J Y, YU H L, WANG L L, et al.. Effects of different nitrogen:phosphorus levels on the growth and ecological stoichiometry of Glycyrrhiza uralensis [J]. Chin. J. Plant Ecol., 2017, 41(3): 325-336.
41	赵如梦. 围栏封育对内蒙古草原生态系统化学计量特征的影响[D]. 咸阳: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.
	ZHAO R M. Efffects of fence enclosure on the stoichiometric characteristics of grassland ecosystem in Inner Mongolia [D]. Xianyang: Northwest A&F University, 2019.

[1]	姚佳, 刘加欣, 苏焱, 苏小娟. 烟杆炭配施氮肥对玉米苗期生长及土壤特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 140-151.
[2]	郑云珠, 孙树臣. 秸秆生物炭和秸秆对麦玉轮作系统土壤养分及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 152-162.
[3]	卢闯, 胡海棠, 覃苑, 淮贺举, 李存军. 基于无人机多光谱影像的春玉米田管理分区研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 106-115.
[4]	陈奎元, 刘卉, 丁伟. 草甘膦对大豆田土壤养分及其功能酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(5): 180-188.
[5]	何振嘉, 范王涛, 杜宜春, 王启龙. 基于土体有机重构的水肥耦合对土壤理化性质和水稻产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(3): 176-185.
[6]	何丽娟, 蒙仲举, 党晓宏, 吕涛. 种植甘草对风沙土机械组成与养分的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(2): 169-176.
[7]	刘著文, 杨龙飞, 刘茂林, 贾国涛, 姚倩, 马一琼, 崔廷, 杨欣玲, 陈洋, 程良琨. 不同土壤改良剂对土壤养分及烤烟内在品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(11): 190-198.
[8]	刘倩1,2,李纪潮1,左应梅1,杨天梅1,杨美权1,张金渝*. 有机覆盖三七对土壤养分及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(1): 162-175.
[9]	蒲全明1，杨鹏1*，邓榆川2，向承勇1，林邦民1，刘莉莎1，施松梅3，何泽民1，雍磊1. 不同施肥方式对冬春茬甘蓝根际土壤酶活性、土壤养分及品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(7): 130-139.
[10]	秦富仓，牛晓乐，杨振奇，马鑫，任小同. 冒山小流域不同地形和土地利用下的土壤养分空间变异特征[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(6): 138-148.
[11]	刘岑薇,叶菁,李艳春,林怡,王义祥*. 生物炭对茶园酸性红壤氮素养分淋溶的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(5): 181-186.
[12]	尚天翠,刘影,赵玉. 新疆野生樱桃李林自然保护区不同海拔梯度土壤养分特征及相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(8): 119-127.
[13]	珊丹,荣浩*,刘艳萍,邢恩德. 草原露天矿排土场微生物菌肥施用效果研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(6): 129-135.
[14]	靳辉勇1,齐绍武2*,朱益1,和七红1,梁仲哲1,淡俊豪1. 土壤调理剂对土壤养分含量及微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(5): 100-105.
[15]	吴心佳,王红,张爱军,张瑞芳,周大迈. 河流故道区不同施肥处理对土壤养分及其酶活性的影响[J]. , 2009, 11(6): 118-122.

围栏封育对蒿类荒漠植物-土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征的影响

Effects of Enclosure on Plant and Soil Stoichiometric Characteristics in an Artemisia Desert

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 41

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics