| 摘要: |
| 以呼和浩特市和林格尔县盛乐经济园区4 种林分类型( 油松Pinus tabulaeformis、樟子松Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica 分别与沙棘Hippophae rhamnoides 和山杏Armeniaca sibirica 针灌混交) 为研究对
象，采用样地调查和室内浸泡法，研究枯落物的水文效应。结果表明:（1）4 种人工林枯落物储量范围为10.69~10.87 t/hm2，其中枯落物储量最大的是樟子松、山杏针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m），为
10.87 t/hm2，油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）最小，为10.69 t/hm2。（2）4 种林分类型下的半分解层枯落物储量均大于未分解层；最大持水量方面油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（10.05 t/hm2）＞油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（9.99 t/hm2）= 樟子松、山杏针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（9.99 t/hm2）＞樟子松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（9.96 t/hm2）。（3）平均最大持水率在4 个林分类型之间呈现规律是油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（187.63%）＞油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（186.9%）＞樟子松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（185.63%）＞樟子松、山杏针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（183.82%）。（4）有效拦蓄量规律为油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（6.32 t/hm2）＞油松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（6.25 t/hm2）＞樟子松、沙棘针灌4:1 带行状混交林（2 m×4 m）（6.23 t/hm2）＞樟子松、山杏针灌4:1 带行状混交林（1.5 m×5 m）（6.17 t/hm2）。（5）枯落物持水量（率）随浸泡时间呈现指数关系式，吸水速率随时间呈现指数关系式。综合结果表明樟子松的枯落物层持水能力最好，该地区樟子松防护林的枯落物层涵养水源功能优于其他类型的林分。 |
| 关键词: 人工林 枯落物 水文效应 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:内蒙古自治区科技成果转化项目(CGZH2018030)；呼和浩特市科技计划项目(产学研-2018-11)；内蒙古自治区科技创新引导项目(KCBJ2018012)第一作者：田菊,女,1990年10月,重庆市,博士研究生,林业中级工程师,研究方向：林学、森林培育学、生物化学与分子生物学。Email:1215813245@qq.com。通讯作者：李国靖,女,1972年出生,内蒙赤峰人,教授,博士,研究方向：植物逆境生理和分子生物学研究。E-mail：liguojing@imau.edu.cn。 |
|
| Research on Water Conservation Function of Litter by Four Plantation in HeLinGeEr |
|
Tian Ju,Li GuoJing,Liu Yang
|
|
1.college of science,Inner Mongolia Agricultural University,Hohhot,Inner Mongolia;2.Inner Mongolia Hesheng Ecological Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd
|
| Abstract: |
| Four forests types (Pinus tabulaeformis and Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica mixed with Hippophae rhamnoides and Armeniaca sibirica) were researched in Shengle Economic Park, HelinGeEr county, Hohhot city. The hydrological effects of litter were studied by sample plot investigation and indoor soaking. The results showed that: (1) the storage of litter in four plantation ranged from 10.69 to 10.87 t/hm2, the largest was 4:1 of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Armeniaca sibirica (1.5 m×5 m), which was 10.87 t/hm2, and the smallest was 10.69 t/hm2 of Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides (1.5 m×5 m); (2)the amount of litter in the semi decomposed layer is larger than that in the nondecomposed layer; in the aspect of the maximum
water holding capacity, the amount of litter in the 4:1 mixed forest with row (1.5 m×5 m) (10.05 t/hm2) of Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides ＞ 4:1 mixed forest with row (2 m×4 m) (9.99 t/hm2) of Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides ＝ 4:1 mixed forest with row (1.5 m×5 m) (9.99 t/hm2) of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Armeniaca sibirica ＞ 4:1 mixed forest (2 m×4 m) (9.96 t/hm2) of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Hippophae rhamnoides; (3) the maximum water holding rate between the four forest types is 4:1 mixed forest of Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides (1.5 m×5 m) (187.63%) >4:1 mixed forest of Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides (2 m×4 m) (186.9%) > 4:1 mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Hippophae rhamnoides (2 m×4 m) (185.63%) ＞ 4:1 mixed forest of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Armeniaca sibirica (1.5 m×5 m) (183.82%); (4) the effective storage capacity was that Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides were 4:1 mixed forest with row (1.5 m×5 m) (6.32 t/hm2) >Pinus tabulaeformis and Hippophae rhamnoides were 4:1 mixed forest with row (2 m×4 m) (6.25 t/hm2) > Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Hippophae rhamnoides were 4:1 mixed forest with row (2 m×4 m) (6.23 t/hm2) >Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica and Armeniaca sibirica were 4:1 mixed forest with row (1.5 m×5 m) (6.17 t/ hm2); (5) the water holding capacity (rate) of litter showed an exponential relationship with soaking time, and the water absorption rate showed an exponential relationship with time. The comprehensive results showed that the water holding capacity of litter layer of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica was the best, and the water conservation function of litter layer of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica forest in this area was better than that of other types of forests. |
| Key words: plantation litter hydrological effects |
