VARIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION AND SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT RECLAMATION YEARS IN TIANJIN COASTAL AREA

JIA Lin; ZHANG Jin-long; LIU Lu-yao; WANG Peng-shan; MI Hong-lei; LI Zhi-ming; TIAN Xiao-ming; WANG Guo-qiang

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202106027

Volume 39 Issue 6

Jan. 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING > 2021 > 39(6): 179-186,159

JIA Lin, ZHANG Jin-long, LIU Lu-yao, WANG Peng-shan, MI Hong-lei, LI Zhi-ming, TIAN Xiao-ming, WANG Guo-qiang. VARIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION AND SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT RECLAMATION YEARS IN TIANJIN COASTAL AREA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(6): 179-186,159. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202106027

Citation:

JIA Lin, ZHANG Jin-long, LIU Lu-yao, WANG Peng-shan, MI Hong-lei, LI Zhi-ming, TIAN Xiao-ming, WANG Guo-qiang. VARIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION AND SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT RECLAMATION YEARS IN TIANJIN COASTAL AREA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(6): 179-186,159. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202106027

Citation:

JIA Lin, ZHANG Jin-long, LIU Lu-yao, WANG Peng-shan, MI Hong-lei, LI Zhi-ming, TIAN Xiao-ming, WANG Guo-qiang. VARIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION AND SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT RECLAMATION YEARS IN TIANJIN COASTAL AREA[J]. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING , 2021, 39(6): 179-186,159. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202106027

PDF( 2972 KB)

VARIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION AND SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT RECLAMATION YEARS IN TIANJIN COASTAL AREA

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202106027

1. Tianjin Engineering Center of Saline-alkali Soil Eco-landscaping, Tianjin 300457, China;
2. Tianjin TEDA Greening Group Limited Company, Tianjin 300457, China

Received Date: 2020-05-25
Available Online: 2022-01-18

Abstract

Abstract

In order to explore the variation law of soil physical and chemical properties in the process of plant restoration in coastal heavy saline-alkali, the physical and chemical properties and vegetation characteristics of five reclaimed soils in Tianjin coastal area with different dredging years were analyzed comprehensively. The results showed that:as the blowing years increase, 1) the vegetation community was descended from the single Suaeda salsa community to the Suaeda salsa-Phragmites communis-Suaeda glauca community and then to the Suaeda salsa-Tamarix chinensis-Kochia scoparia-Limonium sinense community; 2) the variety, aboveground biomass and coverage of vegetation showed an increasing trend; 0~60 cm soil layer, soil bulk density, soil salt content and soil pH showed a general trend of decrease, soil porosity and soil organic matter content showed a general trend of increase, and the content of available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium showed no obvious law on the whole.The content of organic matter and available nitrogen were in the state of deficiency; 3) The results of correlation analysis showed that, there was a significant positive correlation between blowing years and vegetation richness, vegetation coverage, root depth, vegetation biomass, total soil porosity and soil organic matter, however, there was a significant negative correlation between blowing years and soil bulk density, salt content, soil pH and the content of available potassium but not with the content of available nitrogen and available phosphorus. The above research showed that the main physical and chemical properties of soil in coastal reclamation area showed certain differences and regularity with the reclamation years. Vegetation had a direct impact on improving the physical and chemical properties of coastal reclamation soil. These results provided theoretical support for the ecological construction of the coastal heavy saline-alkali land.
- the sea reclamation,
- soil physicochemical properties,
- revegetation,
- relevance,
- heavy saline-alkali soil

FullText(HTML)

References(41)

References

[1]	尹德洁,荆瑞,关海燕,等.天津滨海新区湿地耐盐植物分布与土壤化学因子的相关关系[J].北京林业大学学报,2018,40(8):103-115.
[2]	赵秀芳,王振宇,张振,等.不同吹填年限围海吹填土的障碍特征分析[J].中国农学通报,2016,32(17):91-97.
[3]	张洁,荆瑞,董丽.山东滨海盐渍区植物群落与土壤化学因子的关系[J].应用生态学报,2018,29(11):3521-3529.
[4]	祁通,孙阳讯,黄建,等.两种盐生植物在南北疆地区的适生性及吸盐能力[J].中国土壤与肥料,2017(1).144-148.
[5]	杨策,陈环宇,李劲松,等.盐地碱蓬生长对滨海重盐碱地的改土效应[J].中国生态农业学报,2019,27(10):1578-1586.
[6]	郝翠,梁耀元,孟伟庆,等.天津滨海新区自然湿地植物分布与土壤理化性质的关系[J].湿地科学,2009,7(3):266-272.
[7]	赵林,郑义,毛国柱,等.天津围海造陆区吹填土氮磷的分布特征[J].吉林大学学报(地球科学版),2015,1(1):255-264.
[8]	祝烨.秸秆体系应用于围海造地吹填土加固[D].淮南:安徽理工大学,2018.
[9]	涂晶,白玉川,徐海珏,等.渤海湾围垦工程引起的岸线及潮流变化[J].港工技术,2017,54(4):1-4.
[10]	李文峰.天津滨海吹填土区土壤改良机制及柽柳栽植技术研究[D].天津:天津理工大学,2017.
[11]	阎旭东,赵松山.环渤海湾低平原区耐盐植物资源及环境改良[M].北京:中国农业科学技术出版社,2011.
[12]	赵秀芳,张清,王振宇.微地形对天津滨海吹填土土壤理化性质和植被状况的影响[J].土壤通报,2014,45(2):281-285.
[13]	杜改俊,李艳红,张小萌,等.艾比湖湿地典型植物群落土壤养分和盐分的空间异质性[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(8):1302-1309.
[14]	弋良朋,马健,李彦.荒漠盐生植物根际土壤盐分和养分特征[J].生态学报,2007,27(9):3565-3571.
[15]	司梦可,曹建生,阳辉.微地形变化对地表水文过程影响的研究进展[J].中国生态农业学报,2019,27(10):1587-1595.
[16]	由政.退耕地不同演替阶段植物群落特征及其对土壤性质的影响[D].咸阳:西北农林科技大学,2016.
[17]	吕渡.不同恢复类型植被细根分布特征及其与土壤理化性质耦合关系[D].咸阳:西北农林科技大学,2018.
[18]	陈苗苗.不同树种对黄河三角洲滨海盐碱地土壤改良效应评价[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2017.
[19]	王鑫皓,王云琦,马超,等.根系构型对土壤渗透性能的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2018,16(4):73-82.
[20]	郗金标,张福锁,陈阳,等.盐生植物根冠区土壤盐分变化的初步研究[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(1):53-58.
[21]	尹传华,董积忠,石秋梅,等.不同生境下盐生灌木盐岛效应的变化及生态学意义[J].土壤学报,2012,49(2):289-295.
[22]	张国明,史培军,王静爱,等.滨海盐碱地不同盐生植物群落与土壤微域特征分析[J].北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2013,49(4):417-420.
[23]	赵春桃,弋良朋.天津滨海主要盐生植物根际土壤特征研究[J].天津农业科学,2012,18(4):53-57.
[24]	王立艳,潘洁,肖辉,等.种植耐盐植物对滨海盐碱地土壤盐分的影响[J].华北农学报,2014,29(5):226-231.
[25]	杨皓,胡继伟,黄先飞,等.喀斯特地区金刺梨种植基地土壤肥力研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(3):50-55.
[26]	张天举.黄河三角洲河口湿地植物群落演替与驱动力分析[D].聊城:聊城大学,2019.
[27]	张天举,陈永金,刘加珍.黄河口湿地不同植物群落土壤盐分与养分分布特征[J].土壤,2020,52(1):180-187.
[28]	郭嘉,徐化凌,张明乾,等.6种典型盐生植物生长对盐土养分的作用研究[J].林业资源管理,2019(3):107-112.
[29]	侯本栋,马风云,邢尚军,等.黄河三角洲不同演替阶段湿地群落的土壤和植被特征[J].浙江林学院学报,2007,24(3):313-318.
[30]	朱源山,冯若昂,靖淑慧,等.黄河三角洲不同植被类型下土壤氮的差异研究[J].科技视界,2016(26):51-52.
[31]	杜云鸿,徐振,谢文霞,等.胶州湾盐沼不同植物群落下土壤磷的分布特征[J].湿地科学,2016,14(3):415-420.
[32]	靖淑慧,刘佳珍,陈永金,等.滨海湿地不同群落对土壤磷的有效性影响研究[J].土壤通报,2018,49(2):392-401.
[33]	李玉婷,曹银贵,王舒菲,等.黄土露天矿区排土场重构土壤典型物理性质空间差异分析[J].生态环境学报,2020,29(3):615-623.
[34]	马宁,李强,郭玉涛,等.神东矿区典型植被不同恢复年限对土壤质量的影响[J].中国水土保持,2019(11):59-62.
[35]	冯璐,丁康,屈媛媛,等.黄土塬边坡植被类型对土壤孔隙的影响[J].草业科学,2020,37(4):625-634.
[36]	王国华,任亦君,缑倩倩.河西走廊荒漠绿洲过渡带封育对土壤和植被的影响[J].中国沙漠,2020,40(2):222-231.
[37]	OROZCO-ACEVES M,STANDISH R J,TIBBETT M.Soil conditioning and plant-soil feedbacks in a modified forest ecosystem are soil-context dependent[J].Plant and Soil,2015,390(1/2):183-194.
[38]	EDIRIWEERA S,SINGHAKUMARA BMP,ASHTON M S.Variation in canopy structure,light and soil nutrition across elevation of a Sri Lankan tropical rain forest[J].Forest Ecology and Management,2008,256(6):1339-1349.
[39]	SUMBERIA N M,GUPTA G D,ARORA S,et al.Soil physical variability in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses in foothills of Siwaliks in N-W India[J].Tropical Ecology,2010,51(2):183-197.
[40]	田稼,孙超,杨明琰,等.黄土高原不同树龄苹果园土壤微生物、养分及pH的相关性[J].西北农业学报,2012,21(7):138-141 ,148.
[41]	王颖,崔江慧,刘会玲,等.环渤海地区盐渍土养分空问分布特征及影响因素分析[J].湖北农业科学,2016,6(55):1390-1395.