天童常绿阔叶林不同砍伐程度对土壤动物群落的影响
|
摘要
森林砍伐是林业生产和森林经营活动的重要组成部分,它对森林生态系统产生较大的扰动,是一种较为常见的干扰。就不同程度的森林砍伐对其中的土壤动物群落产生的影响进行长期跟踪调查研究具有重要的生态学意义。
论文以浙江天童国家森林公园内2003年经不同砍伐程度处理的5个永久样地为研究对象,在前人调查研究工作的基础上,就砍伐干扰对常绿阔叶林中土壤动物群落的影响进行了继续的跟踪调查研究。5个样地分别为:样地Ⅰ——对高度大于8m,胸径大于5cm的乔木进行择伐,保留萌枝;样地Ⅱ——清除地面所有植物,仅保留枯枝落叶层;样地Ⅲ——清除地面所有植物、枯枝落叶层和0～10cm表层土;样地Ⅳ——仅保留大树,清除下木层和草本层;样地Ⅴ——对照样地。于2007年7月至2008年10月按四季对以上样地凋落物层和土层中大型土壤动物、中小型干生土壤动物和湿生土壤动物进行了详细调查。深入研究不同砍伐程度对土壤动物群落组成、数量、垂直分布、季节变化等产生的影响,同时分析不同程度砍伐后土壤温湿度和养分含量的变化及其对土壤动物群落的影响;并在此基础上,将五个样地中土壤动物群落的现状与前人的研究工作进行比较分析,即砍伐5年后土壤动物群落的状况与砍伐前及砍伐后1个月、1年的状况进行了对比分析,探讨了土壤动物群落对森林砍伐干扰的响应。主要结果如下:
1、不同砍伐程度对土壤动物类群组成和密度的影响
不同砍伐程度样地中土壤动物的类群组成不同,在五个样地中线虫纲均为优势类群,其他常见类群与稀有类群组成各异。Ⅲ号样地中土壤动物的类群数最少,Ⅴ号样次之,其它3个样地类群数较接近。5个样地中,Ⅰ号样地土壤动物密度最高,主要类群蜱螨目与弹尾目在Ⅰ号样地最多,Ⅲ号样地最少。
2、不同砍伐程度对土壤动物群落垂直分布的影响
不同砍伐处理下土壤动物的垂直分布具有明显的表聚性,随着土层的加深,土壤动物的密度依次递减,超过85%的土壤动物生活于0～10cm层。但是在类群数上表现出逆分布的现象。
3、不同砍伐程度下土壤动物群落的季节变化
不同季节土壤动物群落类群组成变化规律不明显,但密度却发生明显的变化,土壤动物密度的季节变化规律为秋季>冬季>春季>夏季。不同程度的砍伐处理下土壤动物季节变化主要表现为:凋落物层Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅴ号样地在秋季最高,Ⅲ号样地在冬季达到最高,而Ⅳ号样地在夏季达到最高。土层中Ⅰ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ号样地在冬季达到最高,而Ⅱ、Ⅲ号样地在秋季达到最高。
4、不同砍伐处理下土壤动物群落的多样性变化
运用不同多样性指数对土壤动物多样性季节变化所得结果不同,密度-类群DG指数能够综合考虑多方面的因素,最终反映出土壤动物群落多样性的四季变化,其规律为秋季>夏季>冬季>春季。各样地的多样性指数用密度-类群DG指数表示,则是Ⅰ>Ⅳ>Ⅱ>Ⅴ>Ⅲ。
5、环境因子对土壤动物群落的影响
各样地凋落物层与土层中的温湿度均差异显著。各样地的凋落物层与土层在总氮、总磷间没有显著性差异,而有机质、pH值差异显著。凋落物层土壤动物的总密度与pH值、总氮呈显著正相关,而与有机质、总磷相关性不显著。土层中土壤动物总密度与pH值、有机质和总氮呈显著正相关,与总磷相关性不显著。总氮含量是影响土壤动物密度的重要因素。
6、砍伐前后土壤动物群落的年际变化
砍伐前后土壤动物的类群组成发生变化,有些类群在砍伐后消失,有些类群在砍伐几年之后重新恢复。砍伐一年后凋落物层土壤动物密度远低于砍伐前,砍伐五年后其密度相较于第一年有所增长,但仍远低于砍伐前的密度,Ⅲ号样地仅为砍伐前的1/10。土层中的土壤动物在砍伐后一个月及一年内,其密度均减少,但经过五年的恢复,其密度反而高于砍伐前的密度。
Deforestation is a common phenomenon, which is an important part of forestry production and management. It can generate disturbance in forest ecosystem, and had greater effects in nearby, which can affected farther. It is significantly to study the influence of different slash in evergreen broad-leaved forest on soil animal community.
In order to understand the soil animal community in evergreen broad-leaved forest, we chosen the five slashed plots that processed in 2003 in Tiantong national forest park in Zhejiang province. On the basis of the former research, we followed it to continue research on the influence of different slash in soil animal community. We used the five following treatments in five sites: (I) big trees with height>8 m and DBH>5 cm were removed but root collar sprouts were retained; (II) ground surface vegetation was removed but litter was retained; (III) all vegetation and 0-10 cm topsoil were removed; (IV) undergrowth was removed but big trees were retained; and (V) a control plot without any disturbance. An all-round four-season investigation was conducted into the soil animal communities, including macrofauna, mesofauna and the wet type of soil animal in the litter and soil in the above plots from the July of 2007 to October of 2008. Based on a comprehensive knowledge of the feature of soil animal community in the disturbanced, the paper probed into the influence of the different slash of communities on the structure of soil animal communities as well as the seasonal change. The influences on the environment by different slash are discussed and the correlations between the change of environment and soil animal communities are analyzed, and compared to the community which had not been slashed, slashed for a month and for a year. The research results are as follows:
1、Influence on composition and density of soil animal in different slashed plots
The group composition and density of soil animal were obviously different among the plots. Group number in site III was lest and the site V was more than III. The group number in the other three plots were close to each other. The number of soil animal was most in site I, mainly group Acarina and Collembola were also mostin site I ,and lest in site III.
2、Vertical distribution of soil animal in different slashed plots
The vertical distribution of soil animal with different treatment have obvious surface segregation. More than 85% soil animal lived in 0-10 cm layer, and the number of groups and density decrease with the depth of soil. However, the group number in the different layer showed an inverse distribution.
3、Seasonal change of soil animal in different slashed plots
The group composition of soil animal did not vary widely in four seasons, but the density had changed a lot. The seasonal fluctuations of soil animal community in different slashed plots can be represented as: In the litter layer, the density in site I、II、V were highest in autumn, and site III reached the maximum in winter and the site IV reached the maximum in summer. In the soil layer, the site I, IV、V reached the highest in winter and the site II、III were in autumn reached their maximum.
4、The diversity change of soil animal in different slashed plots
Various of diversity indices were used to analyze the soil animal community structure, and displayed different results. The density-group index can comprehensive express the factor, and the sequence of the density-group index to soil animal community were atutmn> summer> winter> spring. density-group index in different slashed plots showed I >IV> II > V>III.
5、The impact on soil animal by environment
The temperature and humidity among the five plots had obviously different not only in litter but also in soil layer. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus have no obvious different among these plots both in litter and soil layer. In the litter layer, the density of soil animal have positive correlation with pH value and total nitrogen, but have no correlation with the organic matter and total phosphorus. In soil layer, the density of soil animal have positive correction with pH value, organic matter and total nitrogen, and have no correlation with total phosphorus.
6、The soil animal response to different disturbance
The soil animal composition had changed a lot between before and after slash. Some group disappeared while other recurred after several years recover. A year after slash ,the density of soil animal in litter layer was far lower than that unslash. After five years recover, the density of soil animal was also lower than before. The density of soil animal in soil layer decreased in a month and a year after slash, but after five years recover, the density of soil animal exceed before slashed.
论文以浙江天童国家森林公园内2003年经不同砍伐程度处理的5个永久样地为研究对象,在前人调查研究工作的基础上,就砍伐干扰对常绿阔叶林中土壤动物群落的影响进行了继续的跟踪调查研究。5个样地分别为:样地Ⅰ——对高度大于8m,胸径大于5cm的乔木进行择伐,保留萌枝;样地Ⅱ——清除地面所有植物,仅保留枯枝落叶层;样地Ⅲ——清除地面所有植物、枯枝落叶层和0～10cm表层土;样地Ⅳ——仅保留大树,清除下木层和草本层;样地Ⅴ——对照样地。于2007年7月至2008年10月按四季对以上样地凋落物层和土层中大型土壤动物、中小型干生土壤动物和湿生土壤动物进行了详细调查。深入研究不同砍伐程度对土壤动物群落组成、数量、垂直分布、季节变化等产生的影响,同时分析不同程度砍伐后土壤温湿度和养分含量的变化及其对土壤动物群落的影响;并在此基础上,将五个样地中土壤动物群落的现状与前人的研究工作进行比较分析,即砍伐5年后土壤动物群落的状况与砍伐前及砍伐后1个月、1年的状况进行了对比分析,探讨了土壤动物群落对森林砍伐干扰的响应。主要结果如下:
1、不同砍伐程度对土壤动物类群组成和密度的影响
不同砍伐程度样地中土壤动物的类群组成不同,在五个样地中线虫纲均为优势类群,其他常见类群与稀有类群组成各异。Ⅲ号样地中土壤动物的类群数最少,Ⅴ号样次之,其它3个样地类群数较接近。5个样地中,Ⅰ号样地土壤动物密度最高,主要类群蜱螨目与弹尾目在Ⅰ号样地最多,Ⅲ号样地最少。
2、不同砍伐程度对土壤动物群落垂直分布的影响
不同砍伐处理下土壤动物的垂直分布具有明显的表聚性,随着土层的加深,土壤动物的密度依次递减,超过85%的土壤动物生活于0～10cm层。但是在类群数上表现出逆分布的现象。
3、不同砍伐程度下土壤动物群落的季节变化
不同季节土壤动物群落类群组成变化规律不明显,但密度却发生明显的变化,土壤动物密度的季节变化规律为秋季>冬季>春季>夏季。不同程度的砍伐处理下土壤动物季节变化主要表现为:凋落物层Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅴ号样地在秋季最高,Ⅲ号样地在冬季达到最高,而Ⅳ号样地在夏季达到最高。土层中Ⅰ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ号样地在冬季达到最高,而Ⅱ、Ⅲ号样地在秋季达到最高。
4、不同砍伐处理下土壤动物群落的多样性变化
运用不同多样性指数对土壤动物多样性季节变化所得结果不同,密度-类群DG指数能够综合考虑多方面的因素,最终反映出土壤动物群落多样性的四季变化,其规律为秋季>夏季>冬季>春季。各样地的多样性指数用密度-类群DG指数表示,则是Ⅰ>Ⅳ>Ⅱ>Ⅴ>Ⅲ。
5、环境因子对土壤动物群落的影响
各样地凋落物层与土层中的温湿度均差异显著。各样地的凋落物层与土层在总氮、总磷间没有显著性差异,而有机质、pH值差异显著。凋落物层土壤动物的总密度与pH值、总氮呈显著正相关,而与有机质、总磷相关性不显著。土层中土壤动物总密度与pH值、有机质和总氮呈显著正相关,与总磷相关性不显著。总氮含量是影响土壤动物密度的重要因素。
6、砍伐前后土壤动物群落的年际变化
砍伐前后土壤动物的类群组成发生变化,有些类群在砍伐后消失,有些类群在砍伐几年之后重新恢复。砍伐一年后凋落物层土壤动物密度远低于砍伐前,砍伐五年后其密度相较于第一年有所增长,但仍远低于砍伐前的密度,Ⅲ号样地仅为砍伐前的1/10。土层中的土壤动物在砍伐后一个月及一年内,其密度均减少,但经过五年的恢复,其密度反而高于砍伐前的密度。
Deforestation is a common phenomenon, which is an important part of forestry production and management. It can generate disturbance in forest ecosystem, and had greater effects in nearby, which can affected farther. It is significantly to study the influence of different slash in evergreen broad-leaved forest on soil animal community.
In order to understand the soil animal community in evergreen broad-leaved forest, we chosen the five slashed plots that processed in 2003 in Tiantong national forest park in Zhejiang province. On the basis of the former research, we followed it to continue research on the influence of different slash in soil animal community. We used the five following treatments in five sites: (I) big trees with height>8 m and DBH>5 cm were removed but root collar sprouts were retained; (II) ground surface vegetation was removed but litter was retained; (III) all vegetation and 0-10 cm topsoil were removed; (IV) undergrowth was removed but big trees were retained; and (V) a control plot without any disturbance. An all-round four-season investigation was conducted into the soil animal communities, including macrofauna, mesofauna and the wet type of soil animal in the litter and soil in the above plots from the July of 2007 to October of 2008. Based on a comprehensive knowledge of the feature of soil animal community in the disturbanced, the paper probed into the influence of the different slash of communities on the structure of soil animal communities as well as the seasonal change. The influences on the environment by different slash are discussed and the correlations between the change of environment and soil animal communities are analyzed, and compared to the community which had not been slashed, slashed for a month and for a year. The research results are as follows:
1、Influence on composition and density of soil animal in different slashed plots
The group composition and density of soil animal were obviously different among the plots. Group number in site III was lest and the site V was more than III. The group number in the other three plots were close to each other. The number of soil animal was most in site I, mainly group Acarina and Collembola were also mostin site I ,and lest in site III.
2、Vertical distribution of soil animal in different slashed plots
The vertical distribution of soil animal with different treatment have obvious surface segregation. More than 85% soil animal lived in 0-10 cm layer, and the number of groups and density decrease with the depth of soil. However, the group number in the different layer showed an inverse distribution.
3、Seasonal change of soil animal in different slashed plots
The group composition of soil animal did not vary widely in four seasons, but the density had changed a lot. The seasonal fluctuations of soil animal community in different slashed plots can be represented as: In the litter layer, the density in site I、II、V were highest in autumn, and site III reached the maximum in winter and the site IV reached the maximum in summer. In the soil layer, the site I, IV、V reached the highest in winter and the site II、III were in autumn reached their maximum.
4、The diversity change of soil animal in different slashed plots
Various of diversity indices were used to analyze the soil animal community structure, and displayed different results. The density-group index can comprehensive express the factor, and the sequence of the density-group index to soil animal community were atutmn> summer> winter> spring. density-group index in different slashed plots showed I >IV> II > V>III.
5、The impact on soil animal by environment
The temperature and humidity among the five plots had obviously different not only in litter but also in soil layer. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus have no obvious different among these plots both in litter and soil layer. In the litter layer, the density of soil animal have positive correlation with pH value and total nitrogen, but have no correlation with the organic matter and total phosphorus. In soil layer, the density of soil animal have positive correction with pH value, organic matter and total nitrogen, and have no correlation with total phosphorus.
6、The soil animal response to different disturbance
The soil animal composition had changed a lot between before and after slash. Some group disappeared while other recurred after several years recover. A year after slash ,the density of soil animal in litter layer was far lower than that unslash. After five years recover, the density of soil animal was also lower than before. The density of soil animal in soil layer decreased in a month and a year after slash, but after five years recover, the density of soil animal exceed before slashed.
引文
A.S.Zaitsev,V.Wolters,R.Waldhardt.2006.Long-term succession of oribatid mites after conversion of croplands to grasslands.Applied Soil Ecology,34:230-239.
G.W.Yeates.1987.How plants affect nematodes.Advances in ecological research,17:61-113..
G.W.Yeates,T.Bongers.1999.Nematode diversity in agroecosystems.Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment,74:113-135.
H.Li,J.F.Reynolds.2005.On definition and quantification of heterogeneity.Oikos,1995,73:280-284.
J.Bengtsson,S.G.Nilsson,A.Franc,P.Menozzi.2000 Biodiversity,disturbances,ecosystem function and management of European forests.Forest Ecology and Management,132:39-50.
J.E.Kammenga,M.S.J.Arts,W.J.M Oude-Breuil.1998.HSP60 as a potential biomarker of toxic stress in the nematode Plectus acnminatus.Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,34:253-258.
J.F.Ponge,S.Gillet,F.Dubs,E.Fedoroff,L.Haese,J.P.Sousa,P.Lavelle.2003.Collembola communities as bioindicators of land use intensification.Soil Biology and Biochemistry,35,813-826.
N.Shukurov,S.Pen-Mouratov,Y.Steinberger.2005.The impact of the Almalyk Industrial Complex on soil chemical and biological properties.Environmental Pollution,136:331-340.
N.Shukurov,S.Pen-Mouratov,Y.Steinberger.2006.The influence of soil pollution on soil microbial biomass and nematode community structure in Navoiy Industrial Park,Uzbekistan.Environment International,32:1-11.
S.Salmon,N.Artuso,L.Frizzera,R.Zampedri.2008.Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms:Response to forest dynamics and solar radiation,Soil Biology and Biochenistry,40:1707-1715.
S.T.Pickett,P.S.White.1985.The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics.Academic Press.
V.Wolters.Biodiversity of soil faunas and its function.2001.European journal of soil biology,37:221-227.
查书平,丁裕国,王宗英,汪权方,孙庆业.2004.铜陵市铜尾矿土壤动物群落生态研究.生态环境,13(2):167-169.
陈秉聪,任露泉,徐晓波,崔相旭,王煜明,张伯兰,葛辽海,金桂萍.1990.土壤粘性仿生研究(二)典型土壤动物体表形态减粘脱土的初步研究.农业工程学报,6(2):1-6.
陈利顶,傅伯杰.2000.干扰的类型、特征及其生态学意义.生态学报,20(4):581-586.
陈小鸟,由文辉,易兰.2009.浙江天童太白山不同海拔土壤动物的群落结构.生态学杂志,28(2):270-276.
陈欣,唐建军,王兆骞.1999.农业活动对生物多样性的影响.生物多样性,7,234-239.
陈延贵,张金屯.1999.十五个物种多样性指数的比较研究.河南科学,17(专辑):55-57.
陈颖彪,殷秀琴.2000.凉水地区不同林型土壤动物群落研究.29(2):79-85.
达良俊,陈波,宋坤,杨同辉.2007.常绿阔叶林生态系统干扰与恢复定位实验.引自:宋永昌和陈小勇 中国东部常绿阔叶林生态系统退化机制与生态恢复.北京:科学出版社.
邓志平,卢毅军.2007.不同干扰强度对杭州西湖山区植被多样性的影响.江西林业科技,2:15-17.
丁岩钦.1994.昆虫数学生态学,北京:科学出版社.
傅必谦,陈 卫,董晓辉,邢忠民,高武.2002.北京松山四种大型土壤动物群落组成和结构.生态学报,22(2):215-223.
傅荣恕,尹文英.1997.伏牛山地区土壤动物群落的初步研究.动物学研究,32(2):10-15.
高明,周保同,魏朝富,谢德体,张磊.2004.不同耕作方式对稻田土壤动物、微生物及酶活性的影响研究.应用生态学报,15(7):1177-1181.
葛宝明,孔军苗,程宏毅,郑祥,鲍毅新.2005.不同利用方式土地秋季大型土壤动物群落结构.动物学研究,26(3):272-278.
谷加存,王政权,韩有志,王向荣,梅莉.2005.采伐干扰对帽儿山天然次生林土壤表层水分空间异质性的影响.生态学报,25(8):2002-2009.
谷加存,王政权,韩有志,王向荣,梅莉,张秀娟,程云环.2005.采伐干扰对帽儿山天然次生林土壤表层温度空间异质性的影响.应用生态学报,17(12):2248-2259.
江小蕾,张卫国,杨振宇,王刚.2003.不同干扰类型对高寒草甸群落结构和植物多样性的影响.两北植物学报.23(9):1479-1485.
柯欣,赵立军,尹文英.1999.青冈林土壤动物群落结构在落叶分解过程中的演替变化.动物学研究,20(3):207-213.
柯欣,赵立军,尹文英.2001.青冈林土壤跳虫群落结构在落叶分解过程中的变化.生态学报.21(6):982-987.
李斌,董元华,王辉,严海娟,曲继强,张峰,马以桐,陈建秀.2005.太仓地区有机氯污染农田土壤动物群落结构分析.土壤学报,42(4):687-691.
李朝达,肖宁年,杨大荣,匡溥人.1997.西双版纳片断热带雨林土壤动物组成比较.动物学研究,18(1):45-49.
李淑梅,马克世,李季平.2008.土地不同利用类型下土壤动物群落多样性研究.安徽农业科学,36(2):695-696,744.
李忠武,王振中,张友梅,邢协加.2000.Cd对土壤动物群落结构的影响.应用生态学报,22(6):931-934.
梁文举,张万民,李维光,段玉玺.2001.施用化肥对黑土地区线虫群落组成及多样性影响.生物多样性,9(3):237-240.
廖崇惠,李健雄,黄海涛.1997.南亚热带森林土壤动物群落多样性研究.生态学报,17(5):549-555.
廖崇惠,林少明,李健雄,陈锦华,黄海涛.1995.不同类型人工林土壤动物群落结构与功能研究Ⅲ.3个人工林凋落物的分解试验.生态学报,15(增刊A):197-203.
林来仙,石雷,岳祥华.2007.干扰和森林可持续发展.安徽农学通报,13(10):109-111.
林英华.2003.长期施肥对农田土壤动物群落影响及安全评价.北京:中国农业科学院博士学位论文.
林英华,孙家宝,郑桂华,张夫道,孙龙,金森.2005a.帽儿山土壤动物在凋落叶分解过程中的动态和作用.东北林业大学学报,33(6):33-36.
林英华,杨德付,张夫道,王建修,白秀兰,王兵.2006a.栎林凋落物层土壤动物群落结构及其在凋落物分解中的变化.林业科学研究,19(3):331-336.
林英华,杨学云,张夫道,古巧珍,孙本华,马路军.2005b.陕两黄土区不同施肥条件下农田土壤动物的群落组成和结构.生物多样性,13(3):88-196.
林英华,张夫道,张俊清,欧阳学军,莫定生,周国逸.2005c.鼎湖山不同自然植被土壤动物群落结构时空变化.生态学报,25(10):2616-2622.
林英华,朱平,张夫道,彭畅,高洪军,刘淑环.2006b.吉林黑土区不同施肥处理对农田土壤昆虫的影响.生态学报,26(4):1122-1130.
刘继亮,殷秀琴,邱丽丽.2008.左家自然保护区大型土壤动物与土壤因子关系研究.土壤学报,45(1):130-136.
刘新民,乾德门,乌宁,刘永江.1994.不同牧压梯度上草原土壤动物生物多样性的初步分析. 内蒙古教育学院学报,4:1-6.
马万里,罗菊春,荆涛,J.Kujiansuu.2007.采伐干扰对长白山核桃揪林生物多样性的影响研究.植物研究,27(1):119-124.
马文明,陈智华,吴鹏飞.2008.我国土壤动物生态学研究进展.安徽农业科学,36(22):9644-9645,9698.
毛志宏,朱教君.2006.干扰对植物群落物种组成及多样性的影响.生态学报,26(8):2695-2701.
苗雅杰,殷秀琴.2005.小兴安岭红松阔叶混交林土壤动物群落研究.林业科学,41(2):204-209.
邱咏梅,郑荣泉,李灿阳,孙晶.2006.百草清除草剂对农田生态系统土壤动物群落结构的影响.土壤通报,37(5):976-980.
任露泉,陈德闪,胡建国.1990.土壤动物减粘脱土规律初步分析.农业工程学报,6(1):15-20.
任露泉,王云鹏.1997.土壤动物柔性非光滑体表及其防粘降阻特性.科学通报,42(17):1887-1890.
邵莉勤.2007.土壤生物在土壤环境污染中的指示作用.湖北生态工程职业技术学院学报,5(3):22-25.
宋博,马建华,李剑,魏林恒,殷秀琴.2007.开封市土壤动物及其对士壤污染的响应.土壤学报,44(3):529-535.
宋永昌,陈小勇.2007.中国东部常绿阔叶林生态系统退化机制与生态恢复.北京:科学出版社.
唐守正.2005.东北天然林生态采伐更新技术研究.北京:中国科学技术出版社.
王广力,王勇,韩立亮,张美文,李波.2005.洞庭湖区不同土地利用方式下的土壤动物群落结构.生态学报,25(10):2629-2636.
王金凤.2007.城市生态系统中不同土地利用类型土壤动物群落学研究.上海:华东师范大学博士学位论文.
王振中,张友梅,夏卫生,郑云友,胡觉莲,邢协加,颜亨梅,郭永灿,赖勤.1996.有机磷农药对土壤动物群落结构的影响研究.生态学报,16(4):357-366.
王振中,张友梅,郭永灿等.2000a.有机磷农药对土壤动物毒性的影响研究.环境科学学报.12(1):47-56.
王振中,张友梅,郭永灿等.2000b.农药污染与土壤动物.见尹文英等著中国土壤动物.北京:科学技术出版社,307-319.
王振中,张友梅,邢协加.2002.土壤环境变化对土壤动物群落影响的研究.土壤学报,2002,39(6):892-897.
温远光.1998.常绿阔叶林退化生态系统恢复过程物种多样性的发展趋势与速率.广西农业大学学报,17(2),93-106.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006a.长春市不同土地利用条件下大型土壤动物群落结构与组成.动物学报,52(2):279-287.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006b.长春市不同土地利用生境土壤弹尾虫群落结构特征.生态学杂志,25(2):180-184.
吴东辉,张柏,卜照义,陈鹏.2006c.长春市不同土地利用生境土壤螨类群落结构特征.生态学报,26(1):16-25.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006d.吉林省黑土区农业生境大型土壤节会动物群落组成与生态分布.中国农业科学,39(1):125-131.
肖玖金.2008.采伐干扰前后巨桉人工林土壤动物群落的比较研究.四川雅安:四川农业大学硕士学位论文.
忻介六.1986.土壤动物知识.北京:科学出版社,5.
邢协加,王振中,张友梅,李忠武.1997.杀虫双农药对土壤螨类和弹尾类影响的研究.湖南师范大学自然科学学报,20(1):79-84.
邢协加,王振中,张友梅,向昌国,李忠武,李文芳.1998.乐果农药污染对土壤动物呼吸强度的影响.湖南师范大学自然科学学报,21(1):89-92.
徐国良,莫江明,周国逸2006N沉降下土壤动物群落的响应:1年研究结果总述 北京林业大学学报,28(3),1-7.
徐国良,莫江明,周国逸,彭少麟.2003.士壤动物与N素循环及对N沉降的响应.生态学报,23(11):2453-2463.
徐化成.1998.中国大兴安岭森林.北京:科学出版社.
徐秋芳,钱新标,桂祖云.1998.不同林木凋落物分解对土壤性质的影响.浙江林学院学报.15(1):27-31.
许振文,刘刚,左伟.2003.长白山余脉土们岭土壤动物调查与分析.土壤,3:156-159.
阎恩荣,王希华,周武.2008.天童常绿阔叶林演替替系列植物群落的N:P化学计量特征.植 物生态学报,32(1),13-22.
殷秀琴.2001.东北森林土壤动物研究.长春:东北师范大学出版社,235-237.
殷秀琴,王海霞,周道玮.2003.松嫩草原区不同农业生态系统土壤动物群落特征.生态学报,23(6):1071-1078.
杨效东.2004.热带季节雨林凋落叶分解过程中的中小型土壤节肢动物的群落结构及动态.生物多样性,12(2):252-261.
易兰.2005.浙江天童受损常绿阔叶林的次生演替对土壤动物群落的影响.上海:华东师范大学博士学位论文.
易兰,由文辉.2006.浙江天童栲树林土壤动物群落结构及其季节变化.华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2:112-120.
尹文英.1992.中国亚热带土壤动物.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.1998.中国土壤动物检索图鉴.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.2000.中国土壤动物.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.2001.土壤动物学研究的回顾与展望.生物学通报,36(8):1-3.
余广彬,杨效东.2007.不同演替阶段热带森林地表凋落物和土壤节肢动物群落特征.生物多样性,15:188-198.
曾馥平,彭晚霞,宋同清,王克林,吴海勇,宋希娟,曾昭霞.2007.桂西北喀斯特人为干扰区植被自然恢复22年后群落特征.生态学报,27(12):5110-5119.
张荣祖.1980.生态系统中土壤动物国外研究动态.森林生态系统研究,1:257-263.
张荣祖,王振中,廖崇惠等《土壤动物研究方法手册》编写组.1998.土壤动物研究方法手册.北京:中国林业出版社.
张秀娟,杨晨利,倪向利.2006.洞庭湖湿地小型节肢土壤动物垂直分布及季节变化.武汉科技学院学报,19(1):62-65.
张雪萍.1995.帽儿山针叶林与针阔混交林土壤动物对比研究Ⅰ区系组成与特征.哈尔滨师范大学自然科学学报,11(2):94-99.
张雪萍,李春艳,殷秀琴.1999.不同使用方式林地的土壤动物与土壤营养元素的关系.应用与环境生物学报,5(1):26-31.
张雪萍,仲伟彦,马志伟,王立明.1995.阔叶树落叶分解过程与土壤动物的作用.林业科技,21(3):1-4.
张智英,张亮,李玉辉,何晓岚.2005.云南石林喀斯特景区不同生境大型土壤动物多样性研 究.林业科学研究,6:6-15.
赵小鲁,谢炳庚.1996.动物生态地理研究.成都:成都地图出版社,1-7,224-506.
郑乐怡,归鸿.1999.昆虫分类(上、下).南京:南京师范大学出版社.
钟觉民.1985.昆虫分类图谱.南京:江苏科学技术出版社.
钟觉民.1990.幼虫分类学.北京:农业出版社.
中科院南京土壤研究所.1978.土壤理化分析.上海:上海科学技术出版社.
朱教君,刘足根.2004.森林干扰生态研究.应用生态学报,15(10):1703-1710.
朱立安,魏秀国.2007.土壤动物群落研究进展.生态科学,26(3):269-273.
G.W.Yeates.1987.How plants affect nematodes.Advances in ecological research,17:61-113..
G.W.Yeates,T.Bongers.1999.Nematode diversity in agroecosystems.Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment,74:113-135.
H.Li,J.F.Reynolds.2005.On definition and quantification of heterogeneity.Oikos,1995,73:280-284.
J.Bengtsson,S.G.Nilsson,A.Franc,P.Menozzi.2000 Biodiversity,disturbances,ecosystem function and management of European forests.Forest Ecology and Management,132:39-50.
J.E.Kammenga,M.S.J.Arts,W.J.M Oude-Breuil.1998.HSP60 as a potential biomarker of toxic stress in the nematode Plectus acnminatus.Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,34:253-258.
J.F.Ponge,S.Gillet,F.Dubs,E.Fedoroff,L.Haese,J.P.Sousa,P.Lavelle.2003.Collembola communities as bioindicators of land use intensification.Soil Biology and Biochemistry,35,813-826.
N.Shukurov,S.Pen-Mouratov,Y.Steinberger.2005.The impact of the Almalyk Industrial Complex on soil chemical and biological properties.Environmental Pollution,136:331-340.
N.Shukurov,S.Pen-Mouratov,Y.Steinberger.2006.The influence of soil pollution on soil microbial biomass and nematode community structure in Navoiy Industrial Park,Uzbekistan.Environment International,32:1-11.
S.Salmon,N.Artuso,L.Frizzera,R.Zampedri.2008.Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms:Response to forest dynamics and solar radiation,Soil Biology and Biochenistry,40:1707-1715.
S.T.Pickett,P.S.White.1985.The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics.Academic Press.
V.Wolters.Biodiversity of soil faunas and its function.2001.European journal of soil biology,37:221-227.
查书平,丁裕国,王宗英,汪权方,孙庆业.2004.铜陵市铜尾矿土壤动物群落生态研究.生态环境,13(2):167-169.
陈秉聪,任露泉,徐晓波,崔相旭,王煜明,张伯兰,葛辽海,金桂萍.1990.土壤粘性仿生研究(二)典型土壤动物体表形态减粘脱土的初步研究.农业工程学报,6(2):1-6.
陈利顶,傅伯杰.2000.干扰的类型、特征及其生态学意义.生态学报,20(4):581-586.
陈小鸟,由文辉,易兰.2009.浙江天童太白山不同海拔土壤动物的群落结构.生态学杂志,28(2):270-276.
陈欣,唐建军,王兆骞.1999.农业活动对生物多样性的影响.生物多样性,7,234-239.
陈延贵,张金屯.1999.十五个物种多样性指数的比较研究.河南科学,17(专辑):55-57.
陈颖彪,殷秀琴.2000.凉水地区不同林型土壤动物群落研究.29(2):79-85.
达良俊,陈波,宋坤,杨同辉.2007.常绿阔叶林生态系统干扰与恢复定位实验.引自:宋永昌和陈小勇 中国东部常绿阔叶林生态系统退化机制与生态恢复.北京:科学出版社.
邓志平,卢毅军.2007.不同干扰强度对杭州西湖山区植被多样性的影响.江西林业科技,2:15-17.
丁岩钦.1994.昆虫数学生态学,北京:科学出版社.
傅必谦,陈 卫,董晓辉,邢忠民,高武.2002.北京松山四种大型土壤动物群落组成和结构.生态学报,22(2):215-223.
傅荣恕,尹文英.1997.伏牛山地区土壤动物群落的初步研究.动物学研究,32(2):10-15.
高明,周保同,魏朝富,谢德体,张磊.2004.不同耕作方式对稻田土壤动物、微生物及酶活性的影响研究.应用生态学报,15(7):1177-1181.
葛宝明,孔军苗,程宏毅,郑祥,鲍毅新.2005.不同利用方式土地秋季大型土壤动物群落结构.动物学研究,26(3):272-278.
谷加存,王政权,韩有志,王向荣,梅莉.2005.采伐干扰对帽儿山天然次生林土壤表层水分空间异质性的影响.生态学报,25(8):2002-2009.
谷加存,王政权,韩有志,王向荣,梅莉,张秀娟,程云环.2005.采伐干扰对帽儿山天然次生林土壤表层温度空间异质性的影响.应用生态学报,17(12):2248-2259.
江小蕾,张卫国,杨振宇,王刚.2003.不同干扰类型对高寒草甸群落结构和植物多样性的影响.两北植物学报.23(9):1479-1485.
柯欣,赵立军,尹文英.1999.青冈林土壤动物群落结构在落叶分解过程中的演替变化.动物学研究,20(3):207-213.
柯欣,赵立军,尹文英.2001.青冈林土壤跳虫群落结构在落叶分解过程中的变化.生态学报.21(6):982-987.
李斌,董元华,王辉,严海娟,曲继强,张峰,马以桐,陈建秀.2005.太仓地区有机氯污染农田土壤动物群落结构分析.土壤学报,42(4):687-691.
李朝达,肖宁年,杨大荣,匡溥人.1997.西双版纳片断热带雨林土壤动物组成比较.动物学研究,18(1):45-49.
李淑梅,马克世,李季平.2008.土地不同利用类型下土壤动物群落多样性研究.安徽农业科学,36(2):695-696,744.
李忠武,王振中,张友梅,邢协加.2000.Cd对土壤动物群落结构的影响.应用生态学报,22(6):931-934.
梁文举,张万民,李维光,段玉玺.2001.施用化肥对黑土地区线虫群落组成及多样性影响.生物多样性,9(3):237-240.
廖崇惠,李健雄,黄海涛.1997.南亚热带森林土壤动物群落多样性研究.生态学报,17(5):549-555.
廖崇惠,林少明,李健雄,陈锦华,黄海涛.1995.不同类型人工林土壤动物群落结构与功能研究Ⅲ.3个人工林凋落物的分解试验.生态学报,15(增刊A):197-203.
林来仙,石雷,岳祥华.2007.干扰和森林可持续发展.安徽农学通报,13(10):109-111.
林英华.2003.长期施肥对农田土壤动物群落影响及安全评价.北京:中国农业科学院博士学位论文.
林英华,孙家宝,郑桂华,张夫道,孙龙,金森.2005a.帽儿山土壤动物在凋落叶分解过程中的动态和作用.东北林业大学学报,33(6):33-36.
林英华,杨德付,张夫道,王建修,白秀兰,王兵.2006a.栎林凋落物层土壤动物群落结构及其在凋落物分解中的变化.林业科学研究,19(3):331-336.
林英华,杨学云,张夫道,古巧珍,孙本华,马路军.2005b.陕两黄土区不同施肥条件下农田土壤动物的群落组成和结构.生物多样性,13(3):88-196.
林英华,张夫道,张俊清,欧阳学军,莫定生,周国逸.2005c.鼎湖山不同自然植被土壤动物群落结构时空变化.生态学报,25(10):2616-2622.
林英华,朱平,张夫道,彭畅,高洪军,刘淑环.2006b.吉林黑土区不同施肥处理对农田土壤昆虫的影响.生态学报,26(4):1122-1130.
刘继亮,殷秀琴,邱丽丽.2008.左家自然保护区大型土壤动物与土壤因子关系研究.土壤学报,45(1):130-136.
刘新民,乾德门,乌宁,刘永江.1994.不同牧压梯度上草原土壤动物生物多样性的初步分析. 内蒙古教育学院学报,4:1-6.
马万里,罗菊春,荆涛,J.Kujiansuu.2007.采伐干扰对长白山核桃揪林生物多样性的影响研究.植物研究,27(1):119-124.
马文明,陈智华,吴鹏飞.2008.我国土壤动物生态学研究进展.安徽农业科学,36(22):9644-9645,9698.
毛志宏,朱教君.2006.干扰对植物群落物种组成及多样性的影响.生态学报,26(8):2695-2701.
苗雅杰,殷秀琴.2005.小兴安岭红松阔叶混交林土壤动物群落研究.林业科学,41(2):204-209.
邱咏梅,郑荣泉,李灿阳,孙晶.2006.百草清除草剂对农田生态系统土壤动物群落结构的影响.土壤通报,37(5):976-980.
任露泉,陈德闪,胡建国.1990.土壤动物减粘脱土规律初步分析.农业工程学报,6(1):15-20.
任露泉,王云鹏.1997.土壤动物柔性非光滑体表及其防粘降阻特性.科学通报,42(17):1887-1890.
邵莉勤.2007.土壤生物在土壤环境污染中的指示作用.湖北生态工程职业技术学院学报,5(3):22-25.
宋博,马建华,李剑,魏林恒,殷秀琴.2007.开封市土壤动物及其对士壤污染的响应.土壤学报,44(3):529-535.
宋永昌,陈小勇.2007.中国东部常绿阔叶林生态系统退化机制与生态恢复.北京:科学出版社.
唐守正.2005.东北天然林生态采伐更新技术研究.北京:中国科学技术出版社.
王广力,王勇,韩立亮,张美文,李波.2005.洞庭湖区不同土地利用方式下的土壤动物群落结构.生态学报,25(10):2629-2636.
王金凤.2007.城市生态系统中不同土地利用类型土壤动物群落学研究.上海:华东师范大学博士学位论文.
王振中,张友梅,夏卫生,郑云友,胡觉莲,邢协加,颜亨梅,郭永灿,赖勤.1996.有机磷农药对土壤动物群落结构的影响研究.生态学报,16(4):357-366.
王振中,张友梅,郭永灿等.2000a.有机磷农药对土壤动物毒性的影响研究.环境科学学报.12(1):47-56.
王振中,张友梅,郭永灿等.2000b.农药污染与土壤动物.见尹文英等著中国土壤动物.北京:科学技术出版社,307-319.
王振中,张友梅,邢协加.2002.土壤环境变化对土壤动物群落影响的研究.土壤学报,2002,39(6):892-897.
温远光.1998.常绿阔叶林退化生态系统恢复过程物种多样性的发展趋势与速率.广西农业大学学报,17(2),93-106.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006a.长春市不同土地利用条件下大型土壤动物群落结构与组成.动物学报,52(2):279-287.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006b.长春市不同土地利用生境土壤弹尾虫群落结构特征.生态学杂志,25(2):180-184.
吴东辉,张柏,卜照义,陈鹏.2006c.长春市不同土地利用生境土壤螨类群落结构特征.生态学报,26(1):16-25.
吴东辉,张柏,陈鹏.2006d.吉林省黑土区农业生境大型土壤节会动物群落组成与生态分布.中国农业科学,39(1):125-131.
肖玖金.2008.采伐干扰前后巨桉人工林土壤动物群落的比较研究.四川雅安:四川农业大学硕士学位论文.
忻介六.1986.土壤动物知识.北京:科学出版社,5.
邢协加,王振中,张友梅,李忠武.1997.杀虫双农药对土壤螨类和弹尾类影响的研究.湖南师范大学自然科学学报,20(1):79-84.
邢协加,王振中,张友梅,向昌国,李忠武,李文芳.1998.乐果农药污染对土壤动物呼吸强度的影响.湖南师范大学自然科学学报,21(1):89-92.
徐国良,莫江明,周国逸2006N沉降下土壤动物群落的响应:1年研究结果总述 北京林业大学学报,28(3),1-7.
徐国良,莫江明,周国逸,彭少麟.2003.士壤动物与N素循环及对N沉降的响应.生态学报,23(11):2453-2463.
徐化成.1998.中国大兴安岭森林.北京:科学出版社.
徐秋芳,钱新标,桂祖云.1998.不同林木凋落物分解对土壤性质的影响.浙江林学院学报.15(1):27-31.
许振文,刘刚,左伟.2003.长白山余脉土们岭土壤动物调查与分析.土壤,3:156-159.
阎恩荣,王希华,周武.2008.天童常绿阔叶林演替替系列植物群落的N:P化学计量特征.植 物生态学报,32(1),13-22.
殷秀琴.2001.东北森林土壤动物研究.长春:东北师范大学出版社,235-237.
殷秀琴,王海霞,周道玮.2003.松嫩草原区不同农业生态系统土壤动物群落特征.生态学报,23(6):1071-1078.
杨效东.2004.热带季节雨林凋落叶分解过程中的中小型土壤节肢动物的群落结构及动态.生物多样性,12(2):252-261.
易兰.2005.浙江天童受损常绿阔叶林的次生演替对土壤动物群落的影响.上海:华东师范大学博士学位论文.
易兰,由文辉.2006.浙江天童栲树林土壤动物群落结构及其季节变化.华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2:112-120.
尹文英.1992.中国亚热带土壤动物.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.1998.中国土壤动物检索图鉴.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.2000.中国土壤动物.北京:科学出版社.
尹文英.2001.土壤动物学研究的回顾与展望.生物学通报,36(8):1-3.
余广彬,杨效东.2007.不同演替阶段热带森林地表凋落物和土壤节肢动物群落特征.生物多样性,15:188-198.
曾馥平,彭晚霞,宋同清,王克林,吴海勇,宋希娟,曾昭霞.2007.桂西北喀斯特人为干扰区植被自然恢复22年后群落特征.生态学报,27(12):5110-5119.
张荣祖.1980.生态系统中土壤动物国外研究动态.森林生态系统研究,1:257-263.
张荣祖,王振中,廖崇惠等《土壤动物研究方法手册》编写组.1998.土壤动物研究方法手册.北京:中国林业出版社.
张秀娟,杨晨利,倪向利.2006.洞庭湖湿地小型节肢土壤动物垂直分布及季节变化.武汉科技学院学报,19(1):62-65.
张雪萍.1995.帽儿山针叶林与针阔混交林土壤动物对比研究Ⅰ区系组成与特征.哈尔滨师范大学自然科学学报,11(2):94-99.
张雪萍,李春艳,殷秀琴.1999.不同使用方式林地的土壤动物与土壤营养元素的关系.应用与环境生物学报,5(1):26-31.
张雪萍,仲伟彦,马志伟,王立明.1995.阔叶树落叶分解过程与土壤动物的作用.林业科技,21(3):1-4.
张智英,张亮,李玉辉,何晓岚.2005.云南石林喀斯特景区不同生境大型土壤动物多样性研 究.林业科学研究,6:6-15.
赵小鲁,谢炳庚.1996.动物生态地理研究.成都:成都地图出版社,1-7,224-506.
郑乐怡,归鸿.1999.昆虫分类(上、下).南京:南京师范大学出版社.
钟觉民.1985.昆虫分类图谱.南京:江苏科学技术出版社.
钟觉民.1990.幼虫分类学.北京:农业出版社.
中科院南京土壤研究所.1978.土壤理化分析.上海:上海科学技术出版社.
朱教君,刘足根.2004.森林干扰生态研究.应用生态学报,15(10):1703-1710.
朱立安,魏秀国.2007.土壤动物群落研究进展.生态科学,26(3):269-273.