典型喀斯特石漠化环境特征及土壤水分对造林树种的影响
|
摘要
喀斯特地貌在世界广泛分布,中国西南地区是喀斯特典型地区之一。由于脆弱的自然背景叠加了不合理的人为因素,导致土地石漠化。中国现有石漠化面积达12.96万km2,严重影响了区域生态环境与经济的可持续发展,迫切需要开展石漠化的生态治理工作。恢复地上植被是石漠化治理的有效措施,但是在开展人工造林恢复植被过程中,由于未能很好地掌握石漠化生态系统的环境特征与恢复物种的生物学特性,导致造林过程中造林成活率低,植被恢复速度与质量差,石漠化生态治理的效果不显著。本研究在石漠化典型地区广西自治区凌云县,通过野外调查和定位观测对石漠化生态系统的主要生态因子进行了调查分析,研究不同演替阶段植被组成与多样性动态变化规律、不同植被类型对环境小气候、土壤质量及水土流失的影响,分析石漠化植被恢复的限制性因子与植被的环境效应;采用室内模拟土壤水分试验,针对主要造林树种的种子与幼苗分析了水分对其生长及生理生化产生的影响,有助于掌握石漠化生态系统生态环境变化规律,明确土壤水分对造林树种的影响,为石漠化地区植被恢复物种选择与植被恢复提供参考。研究结果如下:
1、喀斯特石漠化地区植被自然恢复过程可分成草丛阶段、草灌阶段、藤刺灌丛阶段、次生乔林阶段和顶级群落阶段。以空间代替时间选取典型样地,分析了各阶段群落的物种组成,应用物种丰富度、Simpson指数、Shannon指数和Pielou均匀度指数分别研究各演替阶段草本层、灌木层、乔木层和群落总体的物种多样性。结果表明,石漠化地区,植被种类单一,多样性下降,植被以草本为主。在植被演替过程中,除草本层外,各生活型物种丰富度从草丛阶段开始增加,到次生乔林阶段达到峰值。草本层物种丰富度和Shannon指数略有波动,Simpson指数和均匀度都逐渐下降,到顶级群落阶段达到最低;灌木层、乔木层和群落总体各测度指数均表现为先增加后下降的趋势,但各测度指数达到峰值的阶段不同。草丛阶段物种多样性为草本层大于灌木层;进入草灌阶段以后,灌木层多样性上升并逐渐超过草本层;当乔木出现后,乔木层多样性最低。植物多样性能增加生态系统恢复力,促进生态系统稳定性,植被恢复工作中应丰富造林物种,增加物种多样性。
2、通过对5种不同植被类型样地环境的光照强度、空气温度、空气相对湿度、土壤温度、-5cm土壤含水量等5个小气候因子的观测研究,结果表明,不同植被类型地上植被的组成、覆盖度和高度不同,改变了样地的环境小气候。对小气候的改善作用整体表现为林地>灌林地>草地>农耕地>石漠化裸地。石漠化裸地光照强度强,空气温度高和土壤温度高,空气湿度和土壤含水量低,且变动幅度大,样地环境趋向于干热化演替;与石漠化裸地相比,林地、灌林地、草地、农地内的光照强度分别下降了96.4%、52.0%、17.0%、44.2%,空气温度分别下降了30.1%、20.2%、12.7%、17.8%,空气相对湿度分别提高了129.2%、57.2%、18.0%、41.2%,土壤温度分别下降了11.5%、8%、2.5%、5.5%,土壤含水量分别提高了42.6%、33.2%、15.7%、14.0%,且各因子变动幅度趋缓,样地环境趋向于凉湿化演替。
3、针对农田、退耕台地、退耕坡地、草地、灌木林地、针叶林地、阔叶林地等7种不同植被类型的土壤理化性质进行调查分析,结果表明,不同利用方式样地总体间土壤容重、土壤含水量、总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度存在极显著的差异(p<0.01),样地总体间的变异系数分别为12.37%、29.72%、18.07%、12.66%、84.70%。有机质、全氮、全磷、全钾、速效氮、速效磷、速效钾及交换性Ca2+含量总体间差异达到极显著。土壤容重与土壤其它指标间呈负相关,土壤有机质与其他化学指标存在着较高的正相关。运用相对退化指数方法对不同利用方式条件下的土壤的定量分析表明,相对阔叶林地土壤,灌木林、针叶林、退耕台地、草地、退耕坡地、农田土壤的退化程度依次增加,其相对退化指数分别为-25.3%、-56.3%、-56.6%、-56.7%、-62.2%、-68.4%。多层综合评估结果表明农田土壤质量为最低,针叶林地、草地、退耕坡地、退耕台地土壤质量为中等,灌木林地与阔叶林地土壤质量较高。
4、喀斯特石漠化地区有地表径流产生,石漠化样地水土流失显著高于有植被覆盖的样地,单次径流系数平均值在1.5～13.8%之间,年平均径流量为75.86mm。不同植被类型间年径流量差异极显著(p<0.01),农耕地产生的年径流量最大,达122.75mm,灌木林地产生的年径流量最小,达54.08mm,径流中泥沙浓度整体表现出春秋季浓度高,夏季浓度低的趋势。不同植被类型间的土壤侵蚀模数差异极显著(p<0.01),侵蚀模数平均达到45.88 t/km~2·a,属于微度侵蚀。径流中全N呈现出随时间而下降的趋势,全P、全K流失浓度呈现出春秋季高、夏季低的趋势。不同植被类型间流失全N、全P、全K总量差异极显著(p<0.01),平均年流失量全N为230.491 mg/m~2·a,全P为4.408mg/m~2·a,全K为929.050mg/m~2·a。
5、采用不同浓度的聚乙二醇(PEG)对3个石漠化地区造林树种种子萌发进行人工土壤水分处理,结果表明,不同浓度PEG处理胁迫对种子的萌发均有一定的延缓作用。随着水势的下降,发芽率、发芽指数、活力指数总体呈下降趋势,不同树种变化趋势相似,但变化幅度有明显差异。3个主要造林树种任豆、银荆和滇楸种子萌发的临界PEG值分别为:30%(-1.20MPa)、20%(-0.60MPa)和10%(-0.2MPa)。
6、3个主要造林树种幼苗在土壤水分胁迫条件下生长和生物量发生了明显变化。总的趋势为,随土壤含水量的减少,3个供试树种幼苗的苗高、地径、总生物量等生长指标均呈下降趋势。不同水分处理对银荆、滇楸和任豆的根系活力影响趋势也相同,各树种幼苗的根系活力随土壤含水量的减少而呈现下将趋势。但在一定的水分范围内,这3个树种的根冠比(R/S)值均随土壤干旱程度加剧而增大。
7、土壤水分胁迫条件下,3个树种幼苗的Pn、Tr、Gs、WUE明显降低,Ci/CO2值和Tleaf-Tair值却明显升高,随着土壤水分胁迫的加剧,影响尤为突出。在轻度胁迫和中度胁迫下影响3个树种幼苗光合作用的因素既包括气孔因素也包括非气孔因素,但在严重和极度干旱时,非气孔因素占主导作用。
8、土壤水分胁迫使滇楸、任豆和银荆的可溶性蛋白含量下降。任豆和银荆幼苗脯氨酸含量随着胁迫时间的延长,呈上升的趋势,而滇楸恰好与之相反。土壤水分下,3个树种幼苗酶活性提高的早晚不同,而且SOD和POD酶在各个树种的贡献不同;在胁迫过程中,MDA含量的变化与SOD和POD酶活性呈一定的负相关。
Karst widely distributed in the world, and southwest of China was the one of the most typical area. Because the fragile nature environment and human unfit disturbances, rocky desertification was serious in these zone. The area of karst rock desertification in China has always arrived 129.6 thousands km~2, and such area is expanding 2 500 km~2 annually. For the ecology control, the main ecology factors and the effects of water stress on the recovery tree species were studied in Guangxi province, Lingyun city. The results show that:
(1) The natural succession process of vegetation in Lingyun city of Guangxi province after rocky desertification appearing was divided into the herbosa stage, the stage of herbosa-shrub, the stage of vine-shrub, the stage of subaltern tree forest and the climax stage. Typical plots were set up using space instead of time. The species composition was analyzed in each stage and the species diversity in the layers of herb, shrub, tree and community at different succession stages was measured by the methods of species abundance, Simpson index, Shannon index and Pielou’s evenness index. The results showed that, with the exception of the herb layer, the species abundance in all layers rose steadily when the succession developed from the herb stage, and reached the maximum in the stage of subaltern tree forest. In the herb layer, species abundance and Shannon index fluctuated but Simpson index and evenness index decreased gradually, and reached the minimum in the climax stage. Simpson index, Shannon index and Pielou’s evenness index first increased, followed by a decline, but the stage at which the index reached its maximum was not consistent. Diversity indices of the herb layer were higher than those of the shrub layer in the stage of herbosa. When the succession entered into the stage of herbosa-shrub, Diversity indices of the shrub layer rose and exceeded those of the herb layer. Diversity indices of tree layer were the lowest from the time when arbor appeared.
(2) To study the effect of different disturbance to environment microclimate diurnal dynamics in the Karst zone, five typical modes were chosen and light intensity, air temperature, air relative humidity, soil temperature, and soil water content of -5cm were measured. The results showed that different plant types observably changed the composition, coverage, and height of overground vegetation, so the environment microclimate was changed at different degree. The effect of forest was the best, then was shrub, grass, farmland, and Rocky Desertification land. In the rockland, light intensity was strongest, air temperature and soil temperature were highest, air relative humidity and soil water content were lowest, and the variations of the five factors were notable. The microclimatic conditions of rockland developed towards much more dry and hot. While, compared to rockland, in forestland, shrubland, grassland, and farmland, the light intensity 96.4%、52.0%、17.0%、44.2% respectively, air temperature decreased 30.1%、20.2%、12.7%、17.8%, soil temperature decreased 11.5%、8%、2.5%、5.5%, and air relative humidity increased 129.2%、57.2%、18.0%、41.2%, soil water content increased 42.6%、33.2%、15.7%、14.0%. The five factors fluctuations were less than rockland. Light intensity, air temperature, and soil temperature were positive correlation, and negative correlation to air relative humidity and soil water content. Air temperature and soil water content were positive correlation.
(3) The soil physical and chemical properties of different plant types in the typical Karst rocky desertification zone were analyzed. The plots included 7 types, such as farmland(FL), retired terrace farmland(RTL), retired sloping land(RSL), grassland (GL), shrubland(SL), coniferous forest land(CFL), broadleaf forest land(BFL). The physical properties indexes were bulk weight(BW), water content(WC), total porosity(TP), capillary porosity(CP), non-capillary porosity(NCP). And the chemical properties consisted of pH, organic matter(OM), total N, total P, total K, dissoluble N(DN), dissoluble P(DP), dissoluble K(DK), Exchangeable Ca~(2+)(EC).The results show that different plant types did significantly effect on the soil physical and chemical properties. The difference between BW, WC, TP, CP and NCP of 7 types plant types soil was distinct(p<0.01). Coefficients of variation between 7 types plant types soil respectively were 12.37%、29.72%、18.07%、12.66%、84.70%. The difference OM, total N, total P, total K, DN, DP, DK and EC of 7 types plant types soil was distinct(p<0.01), too. BW was negative correlation with other indexes, while OM was positive correlation with other indexes. Relative soil quality indexes method was used to evaluated the soil quality, compared to the BFL soil, the relative soil degenerate indexes of SL, CFL, RTL, GL, RSL, FL respectively were -25.3%、-56.3%、-56.6%、-56.7%、-62.2%、-68.4%. Fuzzy multidimensional comprehensive evaluation’s result show that the soil quality of FL was the worst, CFL, GL, RSL and RTL were middle, then the SL and BFL were higher.
(4) The rainfall distribution is seasonal change, mainly happened in June to September and minimum in November. There were 108 times rain in whole year, and among them there were 60 times light rain, 25 times moderate rain, 11 times heavy rain, 8 times rainstorm, 4 times heavy rainstorm. Rainstorm and heavy rainstorm mainly effected the whole year rainfall. In research area, there were 53 stages (total 211 days) no-rain-date. No-rain-date was more than rain-date.
Runoff could occur in KSD zone, and the runoff coefficient of every time changed between 1.5～13.8%, and the mean runoff was 75.86mm. There was prominence difference between different vegetation types(p<0.01), the runoff of farmland (122.75mm) was the highest. The sediment concentrations of runoff in spring and autumn were higher than in summer. The soil erosion modulus between vegetation types was prominence(p<0.01), and the mean erosion modulus was 45.88t/km~2·a, belong to slight erosion. The total N concentrations declined with time, while, total P and total K were same to the sediment concentrations change. The difference of gross total N, P, K between different vegetations was prominence(p<0.01), and the gross was 230.491mg/m~2·a, 4.408 mg/m~2·a and 929.050 mg/m~2·a.
(5) The effects of water stress on three trees seeds from rocky desertification area was tested by the treatments with different concentrations of polyethylene glycol(PEG). The results showed that PEG could retard the germination of stressed seeds. the germination rate, germination index vigor index decreased in total. The change tendency of different drought resistance among three trees was similar, but the changes range was different remarkably.
(6) Water stress had significant effects on three seedling height growth and biomass. The main results showed that: activity of root system, shoot length increment, diameter growtgh increment and total biomass of three seedlings declinde with the declining soil moisture. But shoot-root ratio of three tree species enhance with the declining soil moisture.
(7) As stress increasing and time delaying, the net photosynthesis rate, transpiration, stomata conduct and WUE were gradually decreased but CO_2 concentration in stomata, COi/CO2 and Tleaf-Tair was increased, the effects becomes severity with the declining soil moisture. The midday depression of photosynthesis under both light and heavier stress may be induced by a combination of stomatal limitation and non-stomatal factors, but under extreme drought conditions, induced mainly by the non-stomatal factors.
(8) The soluble protein of all seedling content decreased with water stress strengthened. The two trees seedling proline, Zenia insignis, and Acacia dealbata, increased sharply, but Catalpa fargesii was contrary with them. It demonstrated that different trees had different available osmotic substances when they were under the force of water stress. The acivity of SOD and POD enzymes of three trees seedlings were increased with the water stress, but the time of enhancing differed each other. The content of MDA, however, showed obviously negative corrlelation with activity of protective enzyme (POD and SOD) when water stress happened.
1、喀斯特石漠化地区植被自然恢复过程可分成草丛阶段、草灌阶段、藤刺灌丛阶段、次生乔林阶段和顶级群落阶段。以空间代替时间选取典型样地,分析了各阶段群落的物种组成,应用物种丰富度、Simpson指数、Shannon指数和Pielou均匀度指数分别研究各演替阶段草本层、灌木层、乔木层和群落总体的物种多样性。结果表明,石漠化地区,植被种类单一,多样性下降,植被以草本为主。在植被演替过程中,除草本层外,各生活型物种丰富度从草丛阶段开始增加,到次生乔林阶段达到峰值。草本层物种丰富度和Shannon指数略有波动,Simpson指数和均匀度都逐渐下降,到顶级群落阶段达到最低;灌木层、乔木层和群落总体各测度指数均表现为先增加后下降的趋势,但各测度指数达到峰值的阶段不同。草丛阶段物种多样性为草本层大于灌木层;进入草灌阶段以后,灌木层多样性上升并逐渐超过草本层;当乔木出现后,乔木层多样性最低。植物多样性能增加生态系统恢复力,促进生态系统稳定性,植被恢复工作中应丰富造林物种,增加物种多样性。
2、通过对5种不同植被类型样地环境的光照强度、空气温度、空气相对湿度、土壤温度、-5cm土壤含水量等5个小气候因子的观测研究,结果表明,不同植被类型地上植被的组成、覆盖度和高度不同,改变了样地的环境小气候。对小气候的改善作用整体表现为林地>灌林地>草地>农耕地>石漠化裸地。石漠化裸地光照强度强,空气温度高和土壤温度高,空气湿度和土壤含水量低,且变动幅度大,样地环境趋向于干热化演替;与石漠化裸地相比,林地、灌林地、草地、农地内的光照强度分别下降了96.4%、52.0%、17.0%、44.2%,空气温度分别下降了30.1%、20.2%、12.7%、17.8%,空气相对湿度分别提高了129.2%、57.2%、18.0%、41.2%,土壤温度分别下降了11.5%、8%、2.5%、5.5%,土壤含水量分别提高了42.6%、33.2%、15.7%、14.0%,且各因子变动幅度趋缓,样地环境趋向于凉湿化演替。
3、针对农田、退耕台地、退耕坡地、草地、灌木林地、针叶林地、阔叶林地等7种不同植被类型的土壤理化性质进行调查分析,结果表明,不同利用方式样地总体间土壤容重、土壤含水量、总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度存在极显著的差异(p<0.01),样地总体间的变异系数分别为12.37%、29.72%、18.07%、12.66%、84.70%。有机质、全氮、全磷、全钾、速效氮、速效磷、速效钾及交换性Ca2+含量总体间差异达到极显著。土壤容重与土壤其它指标间呈负相关,土壤有机质与其他化学指标存在着较高的正相关。运用相对退化指数方法对不同利用方式条件下的土壤的定量分析表明,相对阔叶林地土壤,灌木林、针叶林、退耕台地、草地、退耕坡地、农田土壤的退化程度依次增加,其相对退化指数分别为-25.3%、-56.3%、-56.6%、-56.7%、-62.2%、-68.4%。多层综合评估结果表明农田土壤质量为最低,针叶林地、草地、退耕坡地、退耕台地土壤质量为中等,灌木林地与阔叶林地土壤质量较高。
4、喀斯特石漠化地区有地表径流产生,石漠化样地水土流失显著高于有植被覆盖的样地,单次径流系数平均值在1.5～13.8%之间,年平均径流量为75.86mm。不同植被类型间年径流量差异极显著(p<0.01),农耕地产生的年径流量最大,达122.75mm,灌木林地产生的年径流量最小,达54.08mm,径流中泥沙浓度整体表现出春秋季浓度高,夏季浓度低的趋势。不同植被类型间的土壤侵蚀模数差异极显著(p<0.01),侵蚀模数平均达到45.88 t/km~2·a,属于微度侵蚀。径流中全N呈现出随时间而下降的趋势,全P、全K流失浓度呈现出春秋季高、夏季低的趋势。不同植被类型间流失全N、全P、全K总量差异极显著(p<0.01),平均年流失量全N为230.491 mg/m~2·a,全P为4.408mg/m~2·a,全K为929.050mg/m~2·a。
5、采用不同浓度的聚乙二醇(PEG)对3个石漠化地区造林树种种子萌发进行人工土壤水分处理,结果表明,不同浓度PEG处理胁迫对种子的萌发均有一定的延缓作用。随着水势的下降,发芽率、发芽指数、活力指数总体呈下降趋势,不同树种变化趋势相似,但变化幅度有明显差异。3个主要造林树种任豆、银荆和滇楸种子萌发的临界PEG值分别为:30%(-1.20MPa)、20%(-0.60MPa)和10%(-0.2MPa)。
6、3个主要造林树种幼苗在土壤水分胁迫条件下生长和生物量发生了明显变化。总的趋势为,随土壤含水量的减少,3个供试树种幼苗的苗高、地径、总生物量等生长指标均呈下降趋势。不同水分处理对银荆、滇楸和任豆的根系活力影响趋势也相同,各树种幼苗的根系活力随土壤含水量的减少而呈现下将趋势。但在一定的水分范围内,这3个树种的根冠比(R/S)值均随土壤干旱程度加剧而增大。
7、土壤水分胁迫条件下,3个树种幼苗的Pn、Tr、Gs、WUE明显降低,Ci/CO2值和Tleaf-Tair值却明显升高,随着土壤水分胁迫的加剧,影响尤为突出。在轻度胁迫和中度胁迫下影响3个树种幼苗光合作用的因素既包括气孔因素也包括非气孔因素,但在严重和极度干旱时,非气孔因素占主导作用。
8、土壤水分胁迫使滇楸、任豆和银荆的可溶性蛋白含量下降。任豆和银荆幼苗脯氨酸含量随着胁迫时间的延长,呈上升的趋势,而滇楸恰好与之相反。土壤水分下,3个树种幼苗酶活性提高的早晚不同,而且SOD和POD酶在各个树种的贡献不同;在胁迫过程中,MDA含量的变化与SOD和POD酶活性呈一定的负相关。
Karst widely distributed in the world, and southwest of China was the one of the most typical area. Because the fragile nature environment and human unfit disturbances, rocky desertification was serious in these zone. The area of karst rock desertification in China has always arrived 129.6 thousands km~2, and such area is expanding 2 500 km~2 annually. For the ecology control, the main ecology factors and the effects of water stress on the recovery tree species were studied in Guangxi province, Lingyun city. The results show that:
(1) The natural succession process of vegetation in Lingyun city of Guangxi province after rocky desertification appearing was divided into the herbosa stage, the stage of herbosa-shrub, the stage of vine-shrub, the stage of subaltern tree forest and the climax stage. Typical plots were set up using space instead of time. The species composition was analyzed in each stage and the species diversity in the layers of herb, shrub, tree and community at different succession stages was measured by the methods of species abundance, Simpson index, Shannon index and Pielou’s evenness index. The results showed that, with the exception of the herb layer, the species abundance in all layers rose steadily when the succession developed from the herb stage, and reached the maximum in the stage of subaltern tree forest. In the herb layer, species abundance and Shannon index fluctuated but Simpson index and evenness index decreased gradually, and reached the minimum in the climax stage. Simpson index, Shannon index and Pielou’s evenness index first increased, followed by a decline, but the stage at which the index reached its maximum was not consistent. Diversity indices of the herb layer were higher than those of the shrub layer in the stage of herbosa. When the succession entered into the stage of herbosa-shrub, Diversity indices of the shrub layer rose and exceeded those of the herb layer. Diversity indices of tree layer were the lowest from the time when arbor appeared.
(2) To study the effect of different disturbance to environment microclimate diurnal dynamics in the Karst zone, five typical modes were chosen and light intensity, air temperature, air relative humidity, soil temperature, and soil water content of -5cm were measured. The results showed that different plant types observably changed the composition, coverage, and height of overground vegetation, so the environment microclimate was changed at different degree. The effect of forest was the best, then was shrub, grass, farmland, and Rocky Desertification land. In the rockland, light intensity was strongest, air temperature and soil temperature were highest, air relative humidity and soil water content were lowest, and the variations of the five factors were notable. The microclimatic conditions of rockland developed towards much more dry and hot. While, compared to rockland, in forestland, shrubland, grassland, and farmland, the light intensity 96.4%、52.0%、17.0%、44.2% respectively, air temperature decreased 30.1%、20.2%、12.7%、17.8%, soil temperature decreased 11.5%、8%、2.5%、5.5%, and air relative humidity increased 129.2%、57.2%、18.0%、41.2%, soil water content increased 42.6%、33.2%、15.7%、14.0%. The five factors fluctuations were less than rockland. Light intensity, air temperature, and soil temperature were positive correlation, and negative correlation to air relative humidity and soil water content. Air temperature and soil water content were positive correlation.
(3) The soil physical and chemical properties of different plant types in the typical Karst rocky desertification zone were analyzed. The plots included 7 types, such as farmland(FL), retired terrace farmland(RTL), retired sloping land(RSL), grassland (GL), shrubland(SL), coniferous forest land(CFL), broadleaf forest land(BFL). The physical properties indexes were bulk weight(BW), water content(WC), total porosity(TP), capillary porosity(CP), non-capillary porosity(NCP). And the chemical properties consisted of pH, organic matter(OM), total N, total P, total K, dissoluble N(DN), dissoluble P(DP), dissoluble K(DK), Exchangeable Ca~(2+)(EC).The results show that different plant types did significantly effect on the soil physical and chemical properties. The difference between BW, WC, TP, CP and NCP of 7 types plant types soil was distinct(p<0.01). Coefficients of variation between 7 types plant types soil respectively were 12.37%、29.72%、18.07%、12.66%、84.70%. The difference OM, total N, total P, total K, DN, DP, DK and EC of 7 types plant types soil was distinct(p<0.01), too. BW was negative correlation with other indexes, while OM was positive correlation with other indexes. Relative soil quality indexes method was used to evaluated the soil quality, compared to the BFL soil, the relative soil degenerate indexes of SL, CFL, RTL, GL, RSL, FL respectively were -25.3%、-56.3%、-56.6%、-56.7%、-62.2%、-68.4%. Fuzzy multidimensional comprehensive evaluation’s result show that the soil quality of FL was the worst, CFL, GL, RSL and RTL were middle, then the SL and BFL were higher.
(4) The rainfall distribution is seasonal change, mainly happened in June to September and minimum in November. There were 108 times rain in whole year, and among them there were 60 times light rain, 25 times moderate rain, 11 times heavy rain, 8 times rainstorm, 4 times heavy rainstorm. Rainstorm and heavy rainstorm mainly effected the whole year rainfall. In research area, there were 53 stages (total 211 days) no-rain-date. No-rain-date was more than rain-date.
Runoff could occur in KSD zone, and the runoff coefficient of every time changed between 1.5～13.8%, and the mean runoff was 75.86mm. There was prominence difference between different vegetation types(p<0.01), the runoff of farmland (122.75mm) was the highest. The sediment concentrations of runoff in spring and autumn were higher than in summer. The soil erosion modulus between vegetation types was prominence(p<0.01), and the mean erosion modulus was 45.88t/km~2·a, belong to slight erosion. The total N concentrations declined with time, while, total P and total K were same to the sediment concentrations change. The difference of gross total N, P, K between different vegetations was prominence(p<0.01), and the gross was 230.491mg/m~2·a, 4.408 mg/m~2·a and 929.050 mg/m~2·a.
(5) The effects of water stress on three trees seeds from rocky desertification area was tested by the treatments with different concentrations of polyethylene glycol(PEG). The results showed that PEG could retard the germination of stressed seeds. the germination rate, germination index vigor index decreased in total. The change tendency of different drought resistance among three trees was similar, but the changes range was different remarkably.
(6) Water stress had significant effects on three seedling height growth and biomass. The main results showed that: activity of root system, shoot length increment, diameter growtgh increment and total biomass of three seedlings declinde with the declining soil moisture. But shoot-root ratio of three tree species enhance with the declining soil moisture.
(7) As stress increasing and time delaying, the net photosynthesis rate, transpiration, stomata conduct and WUE were gradually decreased but CO_2 concentration in stomata, COi/CO2 and Tleaf-Tair was increased, the effects becomes severity with the declining soil moisture. The midday depression of photosynthesis under both light and heavier stress may be induced by a combination of stomatal limitation and non-stomatal factors, but under extreme drought conditions, induced mainly by the non-stomatal factors.
(8) The soluble protein of all seedling content decreased with water stress strengthened. The two trees seedling proline, Zenia insignis, and Acacia dealbata, increased sharply, but Catalpa fargesii was contrary with them. It demonstrated that different trees had different available osmotic substances when they were under the force of water stress. The acivity of SOD and POD enzymes of three trees seedlings were increased with the water stress, but the time of enhancing differed each other. The content of MDA, however, showed obviously negative corrlelation with activity of protective enzyme (POD and SOD) when water stress happened.
引文
[1]袁道先,岩溶环境学.重庆:重庆出版社.1988
[2]D.C. Fort,宋林华.喀斯特的定义及其发展.地理译报,1990,4:6-11
[3]袁道先,蒋忠诚.IGCP379“岩溶作用与碳循环”在中国的研究进展.水文地质工程地质,2000(1):49-51
[4]袁道先.全球岩溶生态系统对比:科学目标和执行计划.地球科学进展,2001,16(4):461-466
[5]王世杰.喀斯特石漠化—中国西南最严重的生态地质环境问题..矿物岩石地球化学通报,2003,22 (2):120-126
[6]John G, Smith D. Human Impact on the Cuilcagh karst Areas. Italy Universita di Padova, 1991.23-28
[7]Bogli A. Karst Hydrology and PHysical Speleology. Springer-Verlag.1980.1-132
[8]Sweeting M M. Karst in China, Its GeomorpHology and Environment. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.1995.55-69
[9]Legrand H E. Hydrological and ecological problems of Karst regions.Science, 1973,179:859-864
[10]Micro M, Aldino B. World inventory of karst researchers: Prelominary report. Sauro U, Bondesan A, Meneghel M. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Changes in Karst Areas. Italy: Universita di Padava, 1991,241-247
[11]Kobza R M, Jim K. Community structure of fishes inhabiting aquatic refuges in a threatened Karst wetland and its implications for ecosystem management. Biological Conservation. 2004,116(2):153-165
[12]Yuan Daoxian, Liu Zaihua. Global Karst Correlation. Bei-jing: Science Press & VSP BV1. 1998.1-13
[13]袁道先.袁道先院士1981年在美国科技促进年会(AAAS)上的学术报告.1981
[14]苏维词.贵州喀斯特山地石漠化及防治对策.长江流域资源与环境,1995,4 (2):177-182
[15]王世杰.喀斯特石漠化概念演绎及其科学内涵的探讨.中国岩溶,2002,21(2):101-105
[16]王世杰,李阳兵,李瑞玲.喀斯特石漠化的形成背景、演化与治理模式.第四纪研究,2003,23(6):657-666
[17]胡宝清,廖赤眉,严志强,等.基于RS和GIS的喀斯特石漠化驱动机制分析-以广西都安瑶族自治县为例.山地学报,2004,22(5):583-590
[18]WANG Shi-jie, LI Rui-lin, SUN Cheng-xing. How Types of carbonate assemblages constrain the distribution of karst rocky desertification in Guizhou Province, P.R. China: phenomena and mechanism. Land Degradation & Development, 2004,15:123-131
[19]黄秋昊,蔡运龙.基于RBFN模型的贵州省石漠化危险度评价.地理学报,2005,60(5):771-778
[20]苏维词.中国西南岩溶山区石漠化的现状成因及治理的优化模式.水土保持学报,2002,16(2):9-32,79
[21]喻理飞,朱守谦.人为干扰与喀斯特森林群落退化及评价研究.应用生态学报,2002,13(5):529-532
[22]朱守谦.喀斯特森林生态研究(II).贵阳:贵州科技出版社,1997,55-64
[23]White P S. Pattern, process and natural disturbance in vegetation. Bot Rev, 1979,45:229-299
[24]WhitmoreTC. Gaps in the forest canopy. In: Tomlinson P B and Zimmermann M H(eds). Tropical trees as living systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.1978,639-655
[25]龙翠玲,余世孝,魏鲁明,等.茂兰喀斯特森林干扰状况与林隙特征.林业科学,2005,41(4):13-19
[26]臧润国,刘涛,郭忠凌,等.长白山自然保护区阔叶红松林林隙干扰状况的研究.植物生态学报,1998,22(2):135-142
[27]沈泽昊,李道兴,王功芳.三峡大老岭山地常绿落叶阔叶混交林林隙干扰研究Ⅰ.林隙基本特征.植物生态学报,2001,25(3):276-282
[28]包维楷,刘照光,袁亚夫,等.瓦屋山中亚热带湿性常绿阔叶林的林窗形成特征.应用生态学报,2001,12(4):485-490
[29]龙翠玲.茂兰喀斯特森林林隙树种更新及数量特征.云南大学学报(自然科学版),2007,29(3):317-323
[30]蒋国芳.木论喀斯特森林区生物多样性初报.生物多样性,1995,3(2):91-94
[31]周运超.茂兰森林生态系统对岩溶环境的适应与调节.中国岩溶,2001,3:47
[32]万福绪,张金池.黔中喀斯特山区的生态环境特点及植被恢复技术.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(1):45-49
[33]刘方,王世杰,罗海波,等.喀斯特石漠化过程中植被演替及其对径流水化学的影响.应用生态学报, 2006,43(1):26-32
[34]王德炉,朱守谦,黄宝龙.贵州喀斯特区石漠化过程中植被特征的变化.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(3):26-30
[35]李阳兵,谢德体,魏朝富.岩溶生态系统土壤及表生植被某些特性变异与石漠化的相关性.土壤学报,2004,41(2):198-202
[36]刘方,王世杰,刘元生.喀斯特石漠化过程土壤质量变化及生态环境影响评价.土壤学报,2005,25(3):639-644
[37]涂成龙,何腾兵,林昌虎.贵州西部喀斯特石漠化地区草地土壤有机质和氮素变异特征初步研究.水土保持学报,2006,20(2):50-53
[38]龙健,黄昌勇,李娟.喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响.水土保持学报,2002,16(1):77-79
[39]龙健,李娟,汪境仁.典型喀斯特地区石漠化演变过程对土壤质量性状的影响.水土保持学报,2006,20(2):78-81
[40]龙健,李娟,江新荣,等.喀斯特石漠化地区不同恢复和重建措施对土壤质量的影响.应用生态学报, 2006,17(4):615-619
[41]罗海波,宋光煜,何腾兵.贵州喀斯特山区石漠化治理过程中土壤质量特性研究.水土保持学报,2004,18(6):112-115
[42]彭文英,张科利,陈瑶.黄土坡耕地退耕还林后土壤性质变化研究.自然资源学报,2005,20(2):272-278
[43]郝仕龙,安韶山,李壁成,等.黄土丘陵区退耕还林(草)土壤环境效应.水土保持研究,2005,12(3):30,56
[44]夏卫兵.略谈水土流失与土壤侵蚀.中国水土保持,1994,4:48-49
[45]杨明德.论喀斯特环境的脆弱性.云南地理环境研究,1990,2(1):21-29
[46]刘震.中国的水土保持现状及今后发展方向.水土保持科技情报,2004(1):1-4
[47]杨光,丁国栋,屈志强.中国水土保持发展综述.北京林业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(5):72-77
[48]李锐,杨勤科,赵永安.水土流失动态监测与评价研究现状与问题.中国水土保持,1999(11):31-34
[49]侯光炯.测定土壤水率及侵蚀率之捷法.土壤特刊.1938
[50]刘建善.天水水土保持测验的初步分析.科学通报,1953,(12):59-65
[51]江忠善.黄河中游黄土丘陵沟壑区小流域产沙量计算.北京河流泥沙国际学术讨论会文集.北京:水利出版社.1981
[52]牟金泽.陕北小流域产沙预报及水土保持措施拦沙计算北京河流泥沙国际学术讨论会文集.北京:水利出版社.1981
[53]张宪奎.黑龙江省土壤流失方程的研究.水土保持通报,1992,12(4):l-3
[54]陈法杨.通用土壤流失方程式在土壤水保站的应用.水土保持通报,1992,12(1):23-41
[55]周伏建.福建省土壤流失预报研究.水土保持学报,1995,9(1):25-36
[56]刘刚木.川中丘陵区土壤侵蚀及其P值的确定.水土保持学报,1992,7(2):41-44
[57]卜兆宏.关于土壤流失量遥感监测的植被因子算式的初步研究.遥感技术与应用,1993,8(4):16-22
[58]蔡强国.坡面侵蚀产沙模型的研究.地理研究,1989,7(1):94-102
[59]蔡强国,陆兆熊,王贵平.黄土丘陵沟壑区典型小流域侵蚀产沙过程模型.地理学报,1996,51 (2):108-117
[60]卢金发.黄土高原地区资源与环境遥感系列制图研究.北京地震出版社.1996.71-113
[61]周佩华.2000年中国水土流失趋势预测与防治对策.中国科学院水土保持研究所集刊.1988.7:57-71
[62]SHI H, SHAOMA. Soil and water loss from the Loess Plateau in China. Journal of Arid Environments.2000,45:9-20
[63]索安宁,赵文吉,王天明,等.近50年来黄土高原中部水土流失的时空演化特征.北京林业大学学报,2007.29(1):90-97
[64]张金池,胡海波.苏南山区不同土地利用方式对水流失影响研究.南京林业大学学报,1994,18(2):20-26
[65]HUANG M B, ZHANG L. Hydrological responses to conservation practices in a catchment of the Loess Plateau, China.Hydrological Processes. 2004. 18(10):1 885-1 898
[66]叶青超.黄河流域环境演变与水沙运行规律研究.济南:山东科学技术出版社.1994
[67]唐克丽.黄河流域的侵蚀与径流泥沙变化.北京:中国科学技术出版社.1993
[68]LIU G B. Soil conservation and sustainable agriculture on the Loess Plateau: Challenge and prospects.Ambio, 1999, 28(8):663-668
[69]HUANG Y F, CHEN X, HUANG G H,et al. GIS_based distributed model for simulating runoff and sediment load in the Malian River Basin.Hydrobiologia. 2003,494:127-134.
[70]黄河水利委员会黄河中游管理局.河龙区间水土保持措施减水减沙效益分析.北京:中国水利水电出版社.1998.
[71]索安宁,洪军,林勇,等.黄土高原景观格局与水土流失关系研究.应用生态学报,2005,16(9):1 719-1 723
[72]蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式.北京:中国水利水电出版社.1997:282-283
[73]高华端.贵州岩溶地区地质条件对水土流失的影响.山地农业生物学报,2003,22(1):20-22
[74]高华端,李锐.贵州省地质背景下的区域水土流失特征.中国水土保持科学,2006,4(4):26-32
[75]梅再美,熊康宁.喀斯特地区水土流失动态特征及生态效益评价.中国岩溶,2003,22(2):136-143
[76]刘延惠,张喜,崔迎春.贵州开阳喀斯特山地几种不同植被类型的地表径流研究.贵州林业科技,2005,33(2):8-10
[77]张喜,薛建辉,生原喜久雄,等.黔中山地喀斯特森林的水文学过程和养分动态.植物生态学报,2007,31(5):757-768
[78]裴建国,李庆松.典型岩溶峰丛山区土地利用与水土流失.水土保持通报,2006,26(2):94-99
[79]陈强,常恩福,毕波.滇东南岩溶地区两种地类的水土流失比较.水土保持研究,2007,14(1):281-286
[80]彭建,杨明德.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失状态分析.山地学报,2001,19(6):511-515
[81]龙俐,熊康宁,王代懿.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失及治理效果.贵州师范大学学报,2005,23(3):13-18
[82]张清海,林昌虎,何腾兵.贵州喀斯特山区水土流失因素与生态修复对策探讨.贵州科学,2006,24(3):62-65
[83]秦中,张捷,王腊春.北盘江流域水土流失及石漠化调控.中国岩溶,2005,24(1):51-55
[84]徐德应.森林与大气.见:周晓峰主编.中国森林与生态环境.北京:中国林业出版社.1999:56
[85]张远彬,王开运,鲜骏仁,等.川西亚高山白桦林小气候的时空动态特征.应用与环境生物学报,2006,12(3):297-303
[86]Federer C A.Spatial variation of net radiation albedo and surface temperature offorests. J. App1. Meteoral. 1968,7(2):789-795
[87]Garrett H E. Spatial and temperal variation in arb0n dioxide in an oak-hickry forest ravine. For. Sci. 1978,24(2):180-190
[88]Hirose T. et al. Canopy structure and photon flux partitioning among species in a herbaceous plant community. Ecol. 1995,76(2):466-474
[89]洪启法.马尾松幼林小气候.林业科学,1963,8(4):275-28
[90]常杰,潘晓东,葛滢,等.青冈常绿阔叶林内的小气候特征.生态学报,1999,19(1):68-75
[91]黄小澜,丁瑞兴.亚热丘陵茶林复合系统小气候特征的研究.生态学报,1991,11(1):7-12
[92]黄寿波,范兴海,傅懋毅,等.不同林-茶栽培模式小气候特征研究.林业科学研究,1994,7(1):93-100
[93]黄寿波,傅懋毅,傅金和,等.农林人工复合生态系统与人体舒适度关系研究.湖北气象,1996(1):41-44
[94]延杰.寒地果农间作小气候特点初探.生态农业研究,1997,4(2):69-72
[95]张一平,窦军霞,马友鑫.热带季节雨林林窗小气候要素时空分布特征.福建林学院学报,2002,22(1):42-46
[96]刘文杰,李庆军,张光明.西双版纳望天树林干热季不同林窗间的小气候差异.生态学报,2000,20(6):932-937
[97]刘文杰,李庆军,张光明.西双版纳望天树林林窗小气候特征研究.植物生态学报,2000,24(3):356-361
[98]孙雪峰,陈灵芝.暖温带落叶阔叶林辐射能量环境初步研究.生态学报,1995,15(3):278-88
[99]李海涛,陈灵芝.暖温带山地森林的小气候研究.植物生态学报,1999,23(2):139-147
[100]闫俊华,周国逸,韦琴.鼎湖山季风常绿阔叶林小气候特征分析.武汉植物学研究,2000,18(5):397-404
[101]Zhang Heping, Tian Dalun, Ai Shunru. Microclimate and its formation mechanism in Cunninghamia lanceolata Hook. Plantation ecosystems in the subtropical zone of China. Froestry studies in China. 2001.3(2):26-31
[102]潘开文,张咏梅,刘照光,等.四川中亚热带扁刺栲-桦木群系不同演替阶段林内小气候的比较.植物生态学报,2002,26(2):195-202
[103]李援越,穆彪,祝小科,等.喀斯特森林不同演替阶段群落的小气候特征..山地农业生物学报,1998,17(6):364-367
[104]龙翠玲,穆彪,李援越,等.喀斯特森林不同演替阶段群落的太阳辐射能特征.贵州气象,1998,22(5):22-25
[105]张邦琨,张萍,赵云龙.喀斯特地貌不同演替阶段植被小气候特征研究.贵州气象,2000,24(3)17-21
[106]邓艳,蒋忠诚,蓝芙宁,等.鼻拉典型峰丛洼地生态系统中青冈林群落的小气候特征比较.广西科学,2004.11(3):236-242
[107]邓艳,蒋忠诚,李先琨.广西弄岗不同演替阶段植被群落的小气候特征.热带地理,2004,24(4):316-325
[108]向悟生,李先琨,吕仕洪.广西岩溶植被演替过程中主要小气候因子日变化特征.生态科学,2004,23(1):25-31
[109]覃家科,李先琨,吕仕洪.广西马山岩溶山地植被恢复过程的种类更替与小气候动态.广西科学,2005,12(2):146-151
[110]喻方圆,刘远.聚乙二醇渗透处理对马尾松种子活力的影响.南京林业大学学报,2000,24(1):38-40
[111]Zur B. Osmotic control of the matric soil- Water potential Soil- w ater system. Soil Sci, 1966, 102(6): 394-398
[112]Kaufmann M R, Eckard A N Water potential and temperature effect on germ ination of Engelmann spruce and Lodgepole pinseeds. Forest Sci, 1977, 23:27-33
[113]Munre M B, Kidd F A. Seed source variation in induced moisture stress germination of ponderosa pine.Tree Planter Notes, 1982, 33 (1):12-14
[114]彭素琴,刘郁林,谢双喜.土壤水分对不同产地金银花种子发芽的影响.福建林业科技,2006,33 (1):48-52
[115]曾彦军,王彦荣,萨仁,等.几种旱生灌木种子萌发对干旱胁迫的响应.应用生态学报,2002,13 (8):953-956
[116]鱼小军,王彦荣,曾彦军,等.温度和水分对无芒隐子草和条叶车前种子萌发的影响.生态学报,2004,24(5):883-887
[117]余玲,王彦荣,孙建华.野大麦种子萌发条件及抗逆性研究.草业学报,1999,8(1):50-57
[118]Mahoney J M. Response of a hybrid poplar to water table decline in different substrates. Forest Ecology and Management, 1992, 54(1-4):141-156
[119]李林锋,刘新田.干旱胁迫对桉树幼苗的生长和某些生理生态特性的影响.西北林学院学报,2003, 19(1):14-17
[120]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲.土壤干旱对黄土高原4个乡土树种生长及干物质分配的影响.植物资源与环境学报,2005,14(1):10-15
[121]Metcalfe J C. Leaf growth of Eucalyptus seedlings under water deficit. Tree Physiology,1990,6(2):221-227
[122]温国胜,吉川贤,张国盛,等.干旱胁迫条件下臭柏的生长.内蒙古农业大学学报,2004,25(1):5-10
[123]Blake T J et al. Stomatal control of water use efficiency poplar clones and hybrids. Can. J. Bot.,1984,62:1344-1351
[124]鲍健寅,杨特武,冯蕊华.不同强度干旱胁迫后复水白三叶生长和生理特性恢复的研究.中国草地, 1995(3):30-33
[125]董朝霞,沈益新.苇状羊茅拔处理后的补偿性生长.南京农业大学学报,2002,25(1):15-18
[126]关义新,戴俊英.玉米花期干旱及复水对植株补偿生长及产量的影响.作物学报,1997,23(6):740-745
[127]谢会成,朱西存.土壤水分对栓皮栎幼苗生理特性及生长的影响.山东林业科技,2004,(2):6-7
[128]孙书存,陈灵芝.辽东栎幼苗对干旱和去叶的生态反应的初步研究.生态学报,2000,20(5):893-897
[129]Huston M A, Smith T M. Plant succession: Life history andcompetition. American Naturalist, 1987,130(2):168-198
[130]Tilman D. Plant Strategies and the Structure and Dynamics of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988,52-97
[131]Seiler J R .Physiological and morphological responses of three half-sib families of loblolly pine to water-stress conditioning. Forest Science,1988, 34(2): 487-495
[132]喻方圆,徐锡增,Robert D.水分和热胁迫对5种苗木生长及生物量的影响.南京林业大学学报,2003, 27(4):10-14
[133]Hsiao T C. Plant responses to water stress. Ann. Rev. Plant physiol, 1973,24:519-570
[134]Mazzoleni S. Differential physiological and morphological responses of two hybrid Populus clones to water stress. Tree Physiol.,1988, 4:61-70
[135]Metcalfe J C. Leaf growth of Eucalyptus seedlings under water deficit. Tree Physiol.,1990,6(2):221-227
[136]Smith W K, Hollinger D Y. Measuring stomata behaviour in Lassoie JP. Hinckley TM,eds. Techniques and Approach in forest tree ecophysiology. BocaRaton CRC Press Inc,1991
[137]武维华.植物生理学.北京:科学出版社.2003,4
[138]Bigras, F J. Photosynthetic response of white spruce families to drought stress. New forests,2005,29(2):135-148
[139]Delfine S, Loreto F, Pinelli P, Tognetti R, Alvino A. Isoprenoids content and photosynthetic limitations in rosemary and spearmint plants under water stress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2005, 106(2-3):243-252.
[140]姬兰柱,肖冬梅,王淼.模拟土壤水分对水曲柳光合速率及水分利用效率的影响.应用生态学报,2005,16(3):408-412
[141]牛洪斌,白润娥,张宪.土壤水分对欧李光合速率日变化的影响.湖北民族学院学报,2000,18(2):15-17
[142]郭卫华,李波,黄永梅.不同程度的土壤水分对中间锦鸡儿幼苗气体交换特征的影响.生态学报,2004,24(12):2716-2721
[143]DAI Li-min, LI Qiu-rong, WANG Miao. Responses of the seedlings of five dominant tree species in Changbai Mountainto soil water stress. Journal of Forestry Research, 2003,14(3):191-196
[144]范杰英,郭军战,彭少兵.10个树种光合和蒸腾性能对土壤水分的响应.西北林学院学报,2005,20(2):36-38
[145]吕爱霞,杨吉华,夏江宝,等.3种阔叶树气体交换特性及水分利用效率影响因子的研究.水土保持学报,2005,19(3):188～191
[146]仝川,杨吉力,李军,等.干旱条件下皇甫川流域4种灌木蒸腾特征比较研究.内蒙古大学学报,2004, 35(2):197-202
[147]周海燕.降水对青杨蒸腾速率及其内部调节机制的影响.旱区资源与环境,1998,12(2):62-66
[148]文建雷,刘志龙,王姝清.土壤水分条件下元宝枫的光合特征及水分利用效率.西北林学院学报,2003,18(2):1-3
[149]Aranda I; Castro L; Pardos M; Gil L; Pardos J A. Effects of the interaction between drought and shade on water relations, gas exchange and morphological traits in cork oak (Quercus suber L.) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005,210(1-3):117-129
[150]刘祖祺,张石城.植物抗性生理学.中国农业出版社.1994:89-90
[151]汤章城.逆境条件下植物脯氨酸的累积及其可能的意义.植物生理学通讯,1984,(1):15-21
[152]刘伟玲,谢双喜,喻理飞.几种喀斯特森林树种幼苗对土壤水分的生理响应.贵州科学,2003,21(3):51-53
[153]韦小丽,徐锡增,朱守谦.土壤水分下榆科3种幼苗生理生化指标的变化.南京林业大学学报,2005,29(2):47-50
[154]王海珍,梁宗锁,郝文芳,等.白刺花(Sophoraviciifolia)适应土壤干旱的生理学机制.干旱地区农业研究,2005,23(1):106-110
[155]Sano M, Kawashima N. Water stress induced proline accumulation at different stalk positions and growth stages of detached tobacco leaves. Agril. Bio. Chem, 1982,46(3): 647-653
[156]魏良民.几种旱生植物碳水化合物和蛋白质变化的研究.干旱区研究,1991,4:38-41
[157]孙国荣,张睿,阎秀峰.干旱胁迫下白桦(Betula platyphylla)实生苗叶片的水分代谢与部分渗透调节物质的变化.植物研究,2001,21(3):413-415
[158]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲.土壤干旱对黄土高原乡土树种水分代谢与渗透调节物质的影响.西北植物学报,2004,24(10):1 822-1 827
[159]阎秀峰,李晶,祖元刚.干旱胁迫对红松幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响.生态学报,1999, 19(6):850-854
[160]孙国荣,彭永臻等.干旱胁迫对白桦实生苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响.林业科学,2003, 39(1):165-167
[161]王霞,侯平,尹林克.土壤土壤水分对柽柳体内膜保护酶及膜脂过氧化的影响.干旱区研究, 2002,19(3):17-20
[162]陈坤荣,周蛟.薪炭林树种对PEG诱导土壤水分的生理反应.西南林学院学报,1994,14(3):149-154
[163]Kaminska R E, Pukacki P M. Effect of water deficit on oxidative stress and degradation of cell membranes in needles of Norway spruce. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2004, 26(4):431-442
[164]谢寅峰,沈惠娟.土壤水分下3种针叶树幼苗抗旱性与硝酸还原酶和超氧化物岐化酶活性的关系.浙江林学院学报,2000,17(1):24-27
[165]Alonso R, Elvira S, Castillo F J, Gimeno B S. Interactive effects of ozone and drought stress on pigments and activities of antioxidative enzymes in Pinus halepensis. Plant Cell and Environment, 2001, 24(9):905-916.
[166]侯嫦英,方升佐,薛建辉.干旱胁迫对青檀等树种苗木生长及生理特性的影响.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(6):103-106
[167]宋娟丽,姚军,吴发启.黄土高原21种造林树种的苗木根系活力与土壤含水量关系的研究.西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1 688-1 694
[168]Sweeting M M. Reflections on the development of Karst geomorphology in Europe and a comparison with its development in China, Z Geomorph, 1993,37:127-138
[169]屠玉麟.贵州喀斯特森林的初步研究.中国岩溶,1989,8(4):282-290
[170]杨汉奎,程任泽.贵州茂兰喀斯特森林群落生物量研究.生态学报,1991,11(4):307-312
[171]梁士楚.云贵鹅耳枥群落乔木种群生态位初探.广西植物,1994,14(3):227-230
[172]喻理飞,朱守谦,叶镜中,等.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复过程中群落动态研究.林业科学,2002,38(1):1-7
[173]喻理飞,朱守谦,叶镜中.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复评价研究.林业科学,2000,36(6):12-19
[174]区智,李先锟,吕仕洪,等.桂西南岩溶植被演替过程中的植物多样性.广西科学,2003,10(1):63-67
[175]朱守谦,陈正仁,魏鲁明.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复的过程和格局.贵州大学学报(农业与生物科学版),2002,21(1):19-25
[176]李援越,祝小科,朱守谦.退化喀斯特群落自然恢复程度评价.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(4):31-34
[177]杨瑞,喻理飞.黔中退化喀斯特森林恢复过程中早期群落结构分析.贵州科学,2004,22(3):44-47
[178]王震洪.基于植物多样性的生态系统恢复动力学原理.应用生态学报,2007,18(9):1965-1971
[179]Hector A, Beale A J, Minns A. Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: Effects through litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos, 2000,90(2):357-371
[180]Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: current knowledge and future challenges. Science,2001,294:804-808
[181]Mcann K, Hastings A, Huxel G. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature, 1999,385:794-798
[182]Mcgrady-steed J, Harris P M, Morin P. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature, 1997, 390:162-164
[183]Schulze E D, Mooney H A. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. New York: Springer-Verlag.1993
[184]Spehn E M, Joshi J, Schmid B, et al. Above ground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems. Functional Ecology,2000,14(3):326-337
[185]温远光,和太平,谭伟福,著.广西热带亚热带山地的植物多样性及群落特征.北京:气象出版社.2004
[186]李恩香,蒋忠诚,曹建华,等.广西弄拉岩溶植被不同演替阶段的主要土壤因子及溶蚀率对比研究.生态学报,2004,24(6):1131-1139
[187]马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰ,α多样性测度方法(上).生物多样性,1994,2(3):162-168
[188]马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰ,α多样性测度方法(下).生物多样性,1994,2(4):231-239
[189]高贤明,黄建辉,万师强,等.秦岭太白山弃耕地植物群落演替的生态学研究Ⅱ演替系列的群落α多样性特征.生态学报,1997,17(6):619-625
[190]程积民,万惠蛾,胡向明.黄土丘陵区植被恢复重建模式与演替过程研究.草地学报,2005,13(4):324-33
[191]马晓勇,上官铁梁.太岳山森林群落物种多样性.山地学报,2004,22(5):606-612
[192]宇万太,姜子绍,李新宇,等.不同土地利用方式对潮棕壤有机碳含量的影响.应用生态学报,2007,18 (12):2760-2764
[193]Federer C A.Spatial variation of net radiation albedo and surface temperature offorests. J. App1.Meteoral. 1968,7(2):789-795
[194]Garrett H E. Spatial and temperal variation in arb0n dioxide in an oak-hickry forest ravine. For. Sci. 1978.24(2):180-190
[195]Hirose T. et al. Canopy structure and photon flux partitioning among species in a herbaceous plant community. Ecol. 1988.14(2):18-19
[196]唐启义,冯光明著.实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统.科学出版社. 2002,43-80
[197]IGBP & IHDP. Land-use and Land-cover Change: Science Research Plan. IGBP Report No.35 & IHDP Report No.7, Stockholm and Geneva,1995
[198]Riebsame W E, Meyer W B, Turner B L. Modeling land use and cover as a part of global environmental change. Climatic Change,1994,28:45-64
[199]Reid R S, Kruska R L, Muthui N, et al. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political forces: The case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology, 2000,15:339-355
[200]李秀彬.全球环境变化研究的核心领域—土地利用/土地覆被变化的国际研究方向.地理学报,1996,51(6):553-557
[201]李晓文,方精云,朴世龙.近10年来长江下游土地利用变化及其生态环境效应.地理学报,2003,58(5):659-667
[202]Qian LX, Cui HS, Chang J. Impacts of land use and cover change on land surface temperature in the Zhujiang Delta. Pedosphere,2006,16(6):681-689
[203]Lal R, Mokma D, Lowery B. Relationship between soil quality and erosion. In:RattanL.ed.Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. Washington DC:CRC Press,1999,237-258
[204]Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma K M, et al. The relationship between land use and soil conditions in the hilly area of Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi,China.Catena, 2000,39:69-78
[205]韩书成,濮励杰,陈凤,等.长江三角洲典型地区土壤性质对土地利用变化的响应.土壤学报,2007,44(4):612-619
[206]Doran J W, Timmothy B P. Defining and Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1994
[207]龙健,黄昌勇,李娟.喀斯特山区不同土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响.水土保持学报,2002,16(1):76-80
[208]龙健,李娟,汪境仁.典型喀斯特地区石漠化演变过程对土壤质量性状的影响.水土保持学报,2006,20 (2):77-81
[209]Ellis E C, Wang S M. Sustainable traditional agriculture in the Tai Lake region of China. Agriculture,Ecosystem and Environment, 1997,61:177-193
[210]Vitousek P M. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 1997,277(25):494-499
[211]Ellis E C, Li R G, Yang L Z, et al. Agroecosystem sustainability: Developing practical strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.95-104
[212]焦加国,武俊喜,李辉信,等.华南丘陵区村级景观下土地利用/土地覆盖对土壤质量的影响.土壤学报,2007,44(2):204-211
[213]李香真,曲秋皓.蒙古高原草原土壤微生物量碳氮特征.土壤学报,2002,39(1):97-104
[214]邓聚龙.灰色系统理论教程.武汉:华中理工大学出版社,1990
[215]马瑛.北方农牧交错带土地利用生态安全评价.干旱区资源与环境,2007,27(1):53-58
[216]宋鹏飞,郝占庆.生态资产评估的若干问题探讨.应用生态学报,2007,18(10):2 367-2 373
[217]王占礼,邵明安,常庆瑞.黄土高原降雨因素对土壤侵蚀的影响.西北农业大学学报,1998,26(4):101-105
[218]Correll D L. The role of phosphorus in the eutuophicaion of receiving waters. Environ Qual, 1998,27:261-266
[219]袁道先.中国岩溶学.北京:地质出版社.1993
[220]Sims J T. Phosphorous soil testing: Innovations for water quality protection. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.,1998, 29(11/14):1471-1489
[221]Zhang G L, Yang J L, Zhao Y G. Nutrient discharges from a typical watershed in the hilly areas of subtropical China. Pedosphere, 2003,13(1):23-30
[222]Yang J L, Zhang G L. Quantitative relationship between land use and phosphorus discharge in subtropical hilly regions of China. Pedosphere, 2003, 13(1):67-74
[223]马琨,王兆骞,陈欣,等.不同雨强条件下红壤坡地养分流失特征研究.水土保持学报, 2002,16(1):16-19
[224]陈皓,章申.黄土地区氮磷流失的模拟研究.地理科学,1991,11(2):142-148
[225]康玲玲,朱小勇,王云璋,等.不同雨强下黄土性土壤养分流失规律研究.土壤学报,1999,16(4):536-543
[226]黄满湘,章申,唐以剑,等.模拟降雨条件下农田径流中氮的流失过程.土壤与环境,2001,10(1):6-10
[227]蔡崇法,丁树文,张光远,等.三峡库区紫色土坡地养分状况及养分流失.地理研究,1996,5(3):77-84
[228]傅涛,倪九派,魏朝富,等.不同雨强和坡度条件下紫色土养分流失规律研究.植物营养与肥料学报,2003,9(1):71-74.
[229]伦绪勇,梁平.主汛期相当暴雨日数与降水量的关系对暴雨预报的指导意义.贵州气象,2001,2(25):20-22
[230]陈京.抗旱性不同的甘薯品种对渗透胁迫的生理响应.作物学报,1999,25(2):232-236
[231]Nuneza M R,Calvob L. Effect of high temperatures on seed germination of Pinus sylvestris and Pinus halepensis.For Eco Man, 2000,131:183-190
[232]Humara J M, Lpez M, Cassares A et al., Temperature and provenance as two factors affecting Eucalyptus nitens need germination. Forestry, 2000,73:87-90
[233]McLarenl K P, McDonald M A. The effects of moisture an shade on seed germination and seedling survival in a tropical dry forest in Jamaica. For. Ecol. Man., 2003,183:61-75
[234]杨敏生.土壤水分下白杨派双交无性系主要生理过程研究.生态学报,1999,19(3):312-317
[235]郑希伟.辽西地区主要造林树种抗旱性的研究.林业科学,1990,26(4):253-358
[236]李吉跃.太行山区主要造林树种耐旱特性的研究.北京林业大学学报,1991,13(增):230-279
[237]肖春旺,刘玉成.不同光环境的四川大头茶幼苗的生态适应.生态学报,1999,19(3):422-426
[238]董鸣,阿拉腾宝,邢雪荣,等.根茎禾草沙鞭的克隆基株及分株种群特征.植物生态学报,1999,23(4):302-310
[239]肖春旺,董鸣,周广胜.鄂尔多斯高原沙柳幼苗对模拟降水量变化的响应.生态学报,2001,21(1):171-176
[240]Wilson J B. Shoot competition and root competition. Appl. Ecol., 1988, 25 (2):279-296
[241]Huston M A, Smith T M. Plant succession: Life history and competition. American Naturalist, 1987, 130(2):168-198
[242]Tilman D. Plant Strategies and the Structure and Dynamics of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988:52-97
[243]阮成江,李代琼.半干旱黄土丘陵区沙棘的光合特性及其影响因子.植物资源与环境学报,2000,9(1):16-21
[244]吴春荣,金红喜,严子柱等.樟子松在西北干旱沙区的光合日变化特征.干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(6):144-146
[245]Nijs I, Ferris R, Blum H. Stomatal regulation in a changing climate: A field study using free air temperature increase(FATL)and free air CO2 enrichment(FACE). Plant Cell Environment,1997,20:1 041-1 050
[246]FAR G D, SHARKEY T D. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiology, 1982, 33:317-334
[247]Delfine S, Loreto F, Pinelli P, Tognetti R, Alvino A. Isoprenoids content and photosynthetic limitations in rosemary and spearmint plants under water stress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2005, 106(2-3):243-252.
[248]郭连生,田有亮.9种针阔叶幼树清晨叶水势与土壤含水量的关系及其抗旱性研究.生态学报,1992,11(2):4-7
[249]Nijs I, Ferris R, BlumH. Stomatal regulation in a changing climate: A field study using free air temperature increase (FATI) and free aiCO2 enrichment. Plant, Cell and Environment, 1997, 2 0:1041-1 050
[250]Penuelas J, Filella I, Llusia J, etal., Comparative field study of spring and summer leaf gas exchange and photobiology of the Mediterranean trees Quercusilex and Phillyrealatifolia. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1998, 49(319):229-238.
[251]何维明,马风云.水分梯度对沙地柏幼苗荧光特征和气体交换的影响.植物生态学报,2000,24(5):630-634
[252]喻方圆,徐锡增, Robert D G.水分和热胁迫处理对4种针叶树苗木气体交换和水分利用效率的影响.林业科学,2004,40(2):38-44
[253]Jensen M E. Water consumption by agricultural plant. In: Kozlowski T, Water Deficit and Plant Growth. NewYork: Academic Press, 1976
[254]Deng X, Li X M, Zhang X M, et,al. Studies on gas exchange of Tamarix ramosissima Lbd. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2003, 23(1):180-187
[255]郭卫华,李波,张新时,等.土壤水分对沙棘和中间锦鸡儿蒸腾作用的比较.生态学报.2007,27(10):4132-4140
[256]Peter S, Claudia P, Gitta F. Release of reactive oxygen produced. J of Exp Bot, 2001,52(355):369-373
[257]蒋明义,郭绍川.水分亏缺诱导的氧化胁迫和植物的抗氧化作用.植物生理学通讯,1996,32(2):144-150
[258]Mishra N P, Mishra R K, Singhal G S. Changes in the activities of anti-oxidant enzymes during exposure of intact wheat leaves to strong visible light al different temperatures in the presence of protein synthesis inhibitors. Plant Physiol, 1993, 102:903-908
[259]Peter Schopfer, Claudia Plachy, Gitta Frahry. Release of reactive oxygen produced. J of Exp Bot, 2001,52(355):369-373
[260]于同泉,秦岭,王有年.渗透胁迫板栗苗可溶性糖的积累及组分变化的研究.北京农学院学报,1996,11(1):43-47
[261]孙国荣,张睿,姜丽芬,等.干旱胁迫下白桦实生苗叶片的水分代谢与部分渗透调节物质的变化.植物研究,2001,21(3):413-415
[262]付为国,李萍萍,吴沿友.镇江内江湿地不同演替阶段植物群落小气候日动态.应用生态学报,2006, 17(9):1699-1704
[263]闫明,钟章成,乔秀红.缙云山片断常绿阔叶林小气候边缘效应的初步研究.应用生态学报,2006,17(1):17-21
[264]李生,张守攻,姚小华,等.黔中石漠化地区不同土地利用方式对土壤环境的影响.长江流域资源与环境,2008,17(3):384-389
[265]俞新妥,杨玉盛,何智英.杉木幼林地水土流失规律研究.林业科学,1993,29(1):25-32
[266]杨承栋,魏以荣,冯福娟.杉木连栽土壤组成结构性质变化及对生长影响.林业科学,1996,32 (2):175-181
[267]林开敏,俞新妥.杉木人工林地力衰退与可持续经营.中国生态农业学报,2001,9(4):39-42
[268]黄宇,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.不同人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价.应用生态学报,2004,15 (12):2199-2205
[269]Hartermink A E. Soil chemical and physical properties as indicators of sustainable land management under sugar cane in Papua New Guinea. Geoderma, 1998, 85:283-306
[270]Karlen D L, Rosek M J, Gardner J C,et al.Conservation reserve program effects on soil quality indictors. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 1999,54(1):439-444
[271]Lal R. Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, D.C. 1999
[272]孙波,赵其国,张桃林,等.土壤质量与持续环境:Ⅲ土壤质量评价的生物学指标.土壤,1997,29(5):225-234
[273]Nambiar K K M, Gupta A P, Fu Q L,et al.Biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001,87:209-214
[274]Filip Z. International approach to assessing soil quality by ecologically-related biological parameters. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2002,88:169-174
[275]曹慧,孙辉,杨浩,等.土壤酶活性及其对土壤质量的指示研究进展.应用与环境生物学报,2003,9(1):105-109
[276]Jimenez PM, Horra M A, Pruzzo L, et al. Soil quality: anew index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biol Fertil Soils, 2002, 35:302-306
[277]王效举,龚子同.红壤丘陵小区域水平上不同时段土壤质量变化的评价和分析.地理科学,1997,17(2):141-149
[278]卢铁光,杨广林,王立坤.基于相对土壤质量指数法的土壤质量变化评价与分析.东北农业大学学报,2003,34(1):56-59
[279]KettlerTA, Doran J W, Gilbert TL. Simplified Method for Soil Particle-Size Determination to Accompany Soil-Quality Analyses. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2001, 65:849-852
[280]胡金明,刘兴土.三江平原土壤质量变化评价与分析.地理科学,1999,19(5):417-421
[281]Pulido J S, Bocco G. The traditional farming system of a Mexican indigenous community: the case of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Michoacan, Mexico. Geoderma, 2003, 111: 249-265
[282]Garrison S, Angela Z. The assessment of soil quality. Geoderma, 2003,14:143-148
[283]刘梦云,安韶山,常庆瑞,等.宁南山区不同土地利用方式土壤质量评价方法研究.水土保持研究,2005,12(3):41-43
[284]郑昭佩,刘作新.土壤质量及其评价.应用生态学报,2003,14(1):1-4
[285]Larson W E, Pierce F J. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable managemen∥Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1994:37-50
[286]Doran J W, Parkin T B. Defining and assessing soil quality∥Doran J W. Defining Soil Quality or A Sustainable Environment. SSSA spec publ SSSA and ASA,Madison,WI. 1994:3-31
[287]胡月明,万洪富,吴志峰,等.基于GIS的土壤质量模糊变权评价.土壤学报,2001,38(3):266-274
[288]周游游,蒋忠诚,韦珍莲.广西中部喀斯特干旱农业区的干旱程度及干旱成因分析.中国岩溶,2003,22(2):144-149
[289]杨慧,曹建华,张连凯,等.凌云县水土流失特性分析.中国水土保持,2006,(9):17-19
[290]张喜,薛建辉,许效天,等.黔中喀斯特山地不同森林类型的地表径流及影响因素.热带亚热带植物学报,2007,15(6):527-537
[291]中华人民共和国水利部.土壤侵蚀分类分级标准,SL190-196,北京:中国水利水电出版社.1997
[292]王效科,欧阳志云,肖寒,等.中国水土流失敏感性分布规律及其区划研究.生态学报,2001,21(1):14-19
[293]肖荣波,欧阳志云,王效科,等.中国西南地区石漠化敏感性评价及其空间分析.生态学杂志,2005,551-554
[294]Fitter A H. Functional significance of root morphology and root system architecture. Fitter A H, Atkinson D. Ecological Interactions in Soil: Plants, Microbea and Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Press, 1985:87-106
[295]Grime J P, CampbellB D, Mackey JM L, et al., Root plasticity, nitrogen cap ture and competitive ability. Atkinson A. Plant Root Growth: An Ecological Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Press, 1991: 381-397
[296]Heitholt J J. Water use efficiency and dry matter distribution in nitrogen-and water-stressed winter wheat. Agron, 1989, 81:464-469
[297]黄子琛.干旱对固沙植物的水分平衡和氮索代谢的影响.植物学报,1979,21(4):316-319
[298]Dhindsa R S. Water stress and protein synthesis. Plant physiology, 1977,(59):295-300
[299]Barnett N M. Amino Acid and proem Metabolism in Bermuda Grass During water Stress. Plant physiology, 1986,(41):1 222-1 230
[300]Dhinsa R S, Dhindsa P P, Thorpe T A. Leaf senescence: Correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation and decreased levels of superoxidation dismutasean catalase. J Exp Bot., 1981,16(2):12-15
[2]D.C. Fort,宋林华.喀斯特的定义及其发展.地理译报,1990,4:6-11
[3]袁道先,蒋忠诚.IGCP379“岩溶作用与碳循环”在中国的研究进展.水文地质工程地质,2000(1):49-51
[4]袁道先.全球岩溶生态系统对比:科学目标和执行计划.地球科学进展,2001,16(4):461-466
[5]王世杰.喀斯特石漠化—中国西南最严重的生态地质环境问题..矿物岩石地球化学通报,2003,22 (2):120-126
[6]John G, Smith D. Human Impact on the Cuilcagh karst Areas. Italy Universita di Padova, 1991.23-28
[7]Bogli A. Karst Hydrology and PHysical Speleology. Springer-Verlag.1980.1-132
[8]Sweeting M M. Karst in China, Its GeomorpHology and Environment. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.1995.55-69
[9]Legrand H E. Hydrological and ecological problems of Karst regions.Science, 1973,179:859-864
[10]Micro M, Aldino B. World inventory of karst researchers: Prelominary report. Sauro U, Bondesan A, Meneghel M. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Changes in Karst Areas. Italy: Universita di Padava, 1991,241-247
[11]Kobza R M, Jim K. Community structure of fishes inhabiting aquatic refuges in a threatened Karst wetland and its implications for ecosystem management. Biological Conservation. 2004,116(2):153-165
[12]Yuan Daoxian, Liu Zaihua. Global Karst Correlation. Bei-jing: Science Press & VSP BV1. 1998.1-13
[13]袁道先.袁道先院士1981年在美国科技促进年会(AAAS)上的学术报告.1981
[14]苏维词.贵州喀斯特山地石漠化及防治对策.长江流域资源与环境,1995,4 (2):177-182
[15]王世杰.喀斯特石漠化概念演绎及其科学内涵的探讨.中国岩溶,2002,21(2):101-105
[16]王世杰,李阳兵,李瑞玲.喀斯特石漠化的形成背景、演化与治理模式.第四纪研究,2003,23(6):657-666
[17]胡宝清,廖赤眉,严志强,等.基于RS和GIS的喀斯特石漠化驱动机制分析-以广西都安瑶族自治县为例.山地学报,2004,22(5):583-590
[18]WANG Shi-jie, LI Rui-lin, SUN Cheng-xing. How Types of carbonate assemblages constrain the distribution of karst rocky desertification in Guizhou Province, P.R. China: phenomena and mechanism. Land Degradation & Development, 2004,15:123-131
[19]黄秋昊,蔡运龙.基于RBFN模型的贵州省石漠化危险度评价.地理学报,2005,60(5):771-778
[20]苏维词.中国西南岩溶山区石漠化的现状成因及治理的优化模式.水土保持学报,2002,16(2):9-32,79
[21]喻理飞,朱守谦.人为干扰与喀斯特森林群落退化及评价研究.应用生态学报,2002,13(5):529-532
[22]朱守谦.喀斯特森林生态研究(II).贵阳:贵州科技出版社,1997,55-64
[23]White P S. Pattern, process and natural disturbance in vegetation. Bot Rev, 1979,45:229-299
[24]WhitmoreTC. Gaps in the forest canopy. In: Tomlinson P B and Zimmermann M H(eds). Tropical trees as living systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.1978,639-655
[25]龙翠玲,余世孝,魏鲁明,等.茂兰喀斯特森林干扰状况与林隙特征.林业科学,2005,41(4):13-19
[26]臧润国,刘涛,郭忠凌,等.长白山自然保护区阔叶红松林林隙干扰状况的研究.植物生态学报,1998,22(2):135-142
[27]沈泽昊,李道兴,王功芳.三峡大老岭山地常绿落叶阔叶混交林林隙干扰研究Ⅰ.林隙基本特征.植物生态学报,2001,25(3):276-282
[28]包维楷,刘照光,袁亚夫,等.瓦屋山中亚热带湿性常绿阔叶林的林窗形成特征.应用生态学报,2001,12(4):485-490
[29]龙翠玲.茂兰喀斯特森林林隙树种更新及数量特征.云南大学学报(自然科学版),2007,29(3):317-323
[30]蒋国芳.木论喀斯特森林区生物多样性初报.生物多样性,1995,3(2):91-94
[31]周运超.茂兰森林生态系统对岩溶环境的适应与调节.中国岩溶,2001,3:47
[32]万福绪,张金池.黔中喀斯特山区的生态环境特点及植被恢复技术.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(1):45-49
[33]刘方,王世杰,罗海波,等.喀斯特石漠化过程中植被演替及其对径流水化学的影响.应用生态学报, 2006,43(1):26-32
[34]王德炉,朱守谦,黄宝龙.贵州喀斯特区石漠化过程中植被特征的变化.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(3):26-30
[35]李阳兵,谢德体,魏朝富.岩溶生态系统土壤及表生植被某些特性变异与石漠化的相关性.土壤学报,2004,41(2):198-202
[36]刘方,王世杰,刘元生.喀斯特石漠化过程土壤质量变化及生态环境影响评价.土壤学报,2005,25(3):639-644
[37]涂成龙,何腾兵,林昌虎.贵州西部喀斯特石漠化地区草地土壤有机质和氮素变异特征初步研究.水土保持学报,2006,20(2):50-53
[38]龙健,黄昌勇,李娟.喀斯特山区土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响.水土保持学报,2002,16(1):77-79
[39]龙健,李娟,汪境仁.典型喀斯特地区石漠化演变过程对土壤质量性状的影响.水土保持学报,2006,20(2):78-81
[40]龙健,李娟,江新荣,等.喀斯特石漠化地区不同恢复和重建措施对土壤质量的影响.应用生态学报, 2006,17(4):615-619
[41]罗海波,宋光煜,何腾兵.贵州喀斯特山区石漠化治理过程中土壤质量特性研究.水土保持学报,2004,18(6):112-115
[42]彭文英,张科利,陈瑶.黄土坡耕地退耕还林后土壤性质变化研究.自然资源学报,2005,20(2):272-278
[43]郝仕龙,安韶山,李壁成,等.黄土丘陵区退耕还林(草)土壤环境效应.水土保持研究,2005,12(3):30,56
[44]夏卫兵.略谈水土流失与土壤侵蚀.中国水土保持,1994,4:48-49
[45]杨明德.论喀斯特环境的脆弱性.云南地理环境研究,1990,2(1):21-29
[46]刘震.中国的水土保持现状及今后发展方向.水土保持科技情报,2004(1):1-4
[47]杨光,丁国栋,屈志强.中国水土保持发展综述.北京林业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(5):72-77
[48]李锐,杨勤科,赵永安.水土流失动态监测与评价研究现状与问题.中国水土保持,1999(11):31-34
[49]侯光炯.测定土壤水率及侵蚀率之捷法.土壤特刊.1938
[50]刘建善.天水水土保持测验的初步分析.科学通报,1953,(12):59-65
[51]江忠善.黄河中游黄土丘陵沟壑区小流域产沙量计算.北京河流泥沙国际学术讨论会文集.北京:水利出版社.1981
[52]牟金泽.陕北小流域产沙预报及水土保持措施拦沙计算北京河流泥沙国际学术讨论会文集.北京:水利出版社.1981
[53]张宪奎.黑龙江省土壤流失方程的研究.水土保持通报,1992,12(4):l-3
[54]陈法杨.通用土壤流失方程式在土壤水保站的应用.水土保持通报,1992,12(1):23-41
[55]周伏建.福建省土壤流失预报研究.水土保持学报,1995,9(1):25-36
[56]刘刚木.川中丘陵区土壤侵蚀及其P值的确定.水土保持学报,1992,7(2):41-44
[57]卜兆宏.关于土壤流失量遥感监测的植被因子算式的初步研究.遥感技术与应用,1993,8(4):16-22
[58]蔡强国.坡面侵蚀产沙模型的研究.地理研究,1989,7(1):94-102
[59]蔡强国,陆兆熊,王贵平.黄土丘陵沟壑区典型小流域侵蚀产沙过程模型.地理学报,1996,51 (2):108-117
[60]卢金发.黄土高原地区资源与环境遥感系列制图研究.北京地震出版社.1996.71-113
[61]周佩华.2000年中国水土流失趋势预测与防治对策.中国科学院水土保持研究所集刊.1988.7:57-71
[62]SHI H, SHAOMA. Soil and water loss from the Loess Plateau in China. Journal of Arid Environments.2000,45:9-20
[63]索安宁,赵文吉,王天明,等.近50年来黄土高原中部水土流失的时空演化特征.北京林业大学学报,2007.29(1):90-97
[64]张金池,胡海波.苏南山区不同土地利用方式对水流失影响研究.南京林业大学学报,1994,18(2):20-26
[65]HUANG M B, ZHANG L. Hydrological responses to conservation practices in a catchment of the Loess Plateau, China.Hydrological Processes. 2004. 18(10):1 885-1 898
[66]叶青超.黄河流域环境演变与水沙运行规律研究.济南:山东科学技术出版社.1994
[67]唐克丽.黄河流域的侵蚀与径流泥沙变化.北京:中国科学技术出版社.1993
[68]LIU G B. Soil conservation and sustainable agriculture on the Loess Plateau: Challenge and prospects.Ambio, 1999, 28(8):663-668
[69]HUANG Y F, CHEN X, HUANG G H,et al. GIS_based distributed model for simulating runoff and sediment load in the Malian River Basin.Hydrobiologia. 2003,494:127-134.
[70]黄河水利委员会黄河中游管理局.河龙区间水土保持措施减水减沙效益分析.北京:中国水利水电出版社.1998.
[71]索安宁,洪军,林勇,等.黄土高原景观格局与水土流失关系研究.应用生态学报,2005,16(9):1 719-1 723
[72]蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式.北京:中国水利水电出版社.1997:282-283
[73]高华端.贵州岩溶地区地质条件对水土流失的影响.山地农业生物学报,2003,22(1):20-22
[74]高华端,李锐.贵州省地质背景下的区域水土流失特征.中国水土保持科学,2006,4(4):26-32
[75]梅再美,熊康宁.喀斯特地区水土流失动态特征及生态效益评价.中国岩溶,2003,22(2):136-143
[76]刘延惠,张喜,崔迎春.贵州开阳喀斯特山地几种不同植被类型的地表径流研究.贵州林业科技,2005,33(2):8-10
[77]张喜,薛建辉,生原喜久雄,等.黔中山地喀斯特森林的水文学过程和养分动态.植物生态学报,2007,31(5):757-768
[78]裴建国,李庆松.典型岩溶峰丛山区土地利用与水土流失.水土保持通报,2006,26(2):94-99
[79]陈强,常恩福,毕波.滇东南岩溶地区两种地类的水土流失比较.水土保持研究,2007,14(1):281-286
[80]彭建,杨明德.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失状态分析.山地学报,2001,19(6):511-515
[81]龙俐,熊康宁,王代懿.贵州花江喀斯特峡谷水土流失及治理效果.贵州师范大学学报,2005,23(3):13-18
[82]张清海,林昌虎,何腾兵.贵州喀斯特山区水土流失因素与生态修复对策探讨.贵州科学,2006,24(3):62-65
[83]秦中,张捷,王腊春.北盘江流域水土流失及石漠化调控.中国岩溶,2005,24(1):51-55
[84]徐德应.森林与大气.见:周晓峰主编.中国森林与生态环境.北京:中国林业出版社.1999:56
[85]张远彬,王开运,鲜骏仁,等.川西亚高山白桦林小气候的时空动态特征.应用与环境生物学报,2006,12(3):297-303
[86]Federer C A.Spatial variation of net radiation albedo and surface temperature offorests. J. App1. Meteoral. 1968,7(2):789-795
[87]Garrett H E. Spatial and temperal variation in arb0n dioxide in an oak-hickry forest ravine. For. Sci. 1978,24(2):180-190
[88]Hirose T. et al. Canopy structure and photon flux partitioning among species in a herbaceous plant community. Ecol. 1995,76(2):466-474
[89]洪启法.马尾松幼林小气候.林业科学,1963,8(4):275-28
[90]常杰,潘晓东,葛滢,等.青冈常绿阔叶林内的小气候特征.生态学报,1999,19(1):68-75
[91]黄小澜,丁瑞兴.亚热丘陵茶林复合系统小气候特征的研究.生态学报,1991,11(1):7-12
[92]黄寿波,范兴海,傅懋毅,等.不同林-茶栽培模式小气候特征研究.林业科学研究,1994,7(1):93-100
[93]黄寿波,傅懋毅,傅金和,等.农林人工复合生态系统与人体舒适度关系研究.湖北气象,1996(1):41-44
[94]延杰.寒地果农间作小气候特点初探.生态农业研究,1997,4(2):69-72
[95]张一平,窦军霞,马友鑫.热带季节雨林林窗小气候要素时空分布特征.福建林学院学报,2002,22(1):42-46
[96]刘文杰,李庆军,张光明.西双版纳望天树林干热季不同林窗间的小气候差异.生态学报,2000,20(6):932-937
[97]刘文杰,李庆军,张光明.西双版纳望天树林林窗小气候特征研究.植物生态学报,2000,24(3):356-361
[98]孙雪峰,陈灵芝.暖温带落叶阔叶林辐射能量环境初步研究.生态学报,1995,15(3):278-88
[99]李海涛,陈灵芝.暖温带山地森林的小气候研究.植物生态学报,1999,23(2):139-147
[100]闫俊华,周国逸,韦琴.鼎湖山季风常绿阔叶林小气候特征分析.武汉植物学研究,2000,18(5):397-404
[101]Zhang Heping, Tian Dalun, Ai Shunru. Microclimate and its formation mechanism in Cunninghamia lanceolata Hook. Plantation ecosystems in the subtropical zone of China. Froestry studies in China. 2001.3(2):26-31
[102]潘开文,张咏梅,刘照光,等.四川中亚热带扁刺栲-桦木群系不同演替阶段林内小气候的比较.植物生态学报,2002,26(2):195-202
[103]李援越,穆彪,祝小科,等.喀斯特森林不同演替阶段群落的小气候特征..山地农业生物学报,1998,17(6):364-367
[104]龙翠玲,穆彪,李援越,等.喀斯特森林不同演替阶段群落的太阳辐射能特征.贵州气象,1998,22(5):22-25
[105]张邦琨,张萍,赵云龙.喀斯特地貌不同演替阶段植被小气候特征研究.贵州气象,2000,24(3)17-21
[106]邓艳,蒋忠诚,蓝芙宁,等.鼻拉典型峰丛洼地生态系统中青冈林群落的小气候特征比较.广西科学,2004.11(3):236-242
[107]邓艳,蒋忠诚,李先琨.广西弄岗不同演替阶段植被群落的小气候特征.热带地理,2004,24(4):316-325
[108]向悟生,李先琨,吕仕洪.广西岩溶植被演替过程中主要小气候因子日变化特征.生态科学,2004,23(1):25-31
[109]覃家科,李先琨,吕仕洪.广西马山岩溶山地植被恢复过程的种类更替与小气候动态.广西科学,2005,12(2):146-151
[110]喻方圆,刘远.聚乙二醇渗透处理对马尾松种子活力的影响.南京林业大学学报,2000,24(1):38-40
[111]Zur B. Osmotic control of the matric soil- Water potential Soil- w ater system. Soil Sci, 1966, 102(6): 394-398
[112]Kaufmann M R, Eckard A N Water potential and temperature effect on germ ination of Engelmann spruce and Lodgepole pinseeds. Forest Sci, 1977, 23:27-33
[113]Munre M B, Kidd F A. Seed source variation in induced moisture stress germination of ponderosa pine.Tree Planter Notes, 1982, 33 (1):12-14
[114]彭素琴,刘郁林,谢双喜.土壤水分对不同产地金银花种子发芽的影响.福建林业科技,2006,33 (1):48-52
[115]曾彦军,王彦荣,萨仁,等.几种旱生灌木种子萌发对干旱胁迫的响应.应用生态学报,2002,13 (8):953-956
[116]鱼小军,王彦荣,曾彦军,等.温度和水分对无芒隐子草和条叶车前种子萌发的影响.生态学报,2004,24(5):883-887
[117]余玲,王彦荣,孙建华.野大麦种子萌发条件及抗逆性研究.草业学报,1999,8(1):50-57
[118]Mahoney J M. Response of a hybrid poplar to water table decline in different substrates. Forest Ecology and Management, 1992, 54(1-4):141-156
[119]李林锋,刘新田.干旱胁迫对桉树幼苗的生长和某些生理生态特性的影响.西北林学院学报,2003, 19(1):14-17
[120]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲.土壤干旱对黄土高原4个乡土树种生长及干物质分配的影响.植物资源与环境学报,2005,14(1):10-15
[121]Metcalfe J C. Leaf growth of Eucalyptus seedlings under water deficit. Tree Physiology,1990,6(2):221-227
[122]温国胜,吉川贤,张国盛,等.干旱胁迫条件下臭柏的生长.内蒙古农业大学学报,2004,25(1):5-10
[123]Blake T J et al. Stomatal control of water use efficiency poplar clones and hybrids. Can. J. Bot.,1984,62:1344-1351
[124]鲍健寅,杨特武,冯蕊华.不同强度干旱胁迫后复水白三叶生长和生理特性恢复的研究.中国草地, 1995(3):30-33
[125]董朝霞,沈益新.苇状羊茅拔处理后的补偿性生长.南京农业大学学报,2002,25(1):15-18
[126]关义新,戴俊英.玉米花期干旱及复水对植株补偿生长及产量的影响.作物学报,1997,23(6):740-745
[127]谢会成,朱西存.土壤水分对栓皮栎幼苗生理特性及生长的影响.山东林业科技,2004,(2):6-7
[128]孙书存,陈灵芝.辽东栎幼苗对干旱和去叶的生态反应的初步研究.生态学报,2000,20(5):893-897
[129]Huston M A, Smith T M. Plant succession: Life history andcompetition. American Naturalist, 1987,130(2):168-198
[130]Tilman D. Plant Strategies and the Structure and Dynamics of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988,52-97
[131]Seiler J R .Physiological and morphological responses of three half-sib families of loblolly pine to water-stress conditioning. Forest Science,1988, 34(2): 487-495
[132]喻方圆,徐锡增,Robert D.水分和热胁迫对5种苗木生长及生物量的影响.南京林业大学学报,2003, 27(4):10-14
[133]Hsiao T C. Plant responses to water stress. Ann. Rev. Plant physiol, 1973,24:519-570
[134]Mazzoleni S. Differential physiological and morphological responses of two hybrid Populus clones to water stress. Tree Physiol.,1988, 4:61-70
[135]Metcalfe J C. Leaf growth of Eucalyptus seedlings under water deficit. Tree Physiol.,1990,6(2):221-227
[136]Smith W K, Hollinger D Y. Measuring stomata behaviour in Lassoie JP. Hinckley TM,eds. Techniques and Approach in forest tree ecophysiology. BocaRaton CRC Press Inc,1991
[137]武维华.植物生理学.北京:科学出版社.2003,4
[138]Bigras, F J. Photosynthetic response of white spruce families to drought stress. New forests,2005,29(2):135-148
[139]Delfine S, Loreto F, Pinelli P, Tognetti R, Alvino A. Isoprenoids content and photosynthetic limitations in rosemary and spearmint plants under water stress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2005, 106(2-3):243-252.
[140]姬兰柱,肖冬梅,王淼.模拟土壤水分对水曲柳光合速率及水分利用效率的影响.应用生态学报,2005,16(3):408-412
[141]牛洪斌,白润娥,张宪.土壤水分对欧李光合速率日变化的影响.湖北民族学院学报,2000,18(2):15-17
[142]郭卫华,李波,黄永梅.不同程度的土壤水分对中间锦鸡儿幼苗气体交换特征的影响.生态学报,2004,24(12):2716-2721
[143]DAI Li-min, LI Qiu-rong, WANG Miao. Responses of the seedlings of five dominant tree species in Changbai Mountainto soil water stress. Journal of Forestry Research, 2003,14(3):191-196
[144]范杰英,郭军战,彭少兵.10个树种光合和蒸腾性能对土壤水分的响应.西北林学院学报,2005,20(2):36-38
[145]吕爱霞,杨吉华,夏江宝,等.3种阔叶树气体交换特性及水分利用效率影响因子的研究.水土保持学报,2005,19(3):188～191
[146]仝川,杨吉力,李军,等.干旱条件下皇甫川流域4种灌木蒸腾特征比较研究.内蒙古大学学报,2004, 35(2):197-202
[147]周海燕.降水对青杨蒸腾速率及其内部调节机制的影响.旱区资源与环境,1998,12(2):62-66
[148]文建雷,刘志龙,王姝清.土壤水分条件下元宝枫的光合特征及水分利用效率.西北林学院学报,2003,18(2):1-3
[149]Aranda I; Castro L; Pardos M; Gil L; Pardos J A. Effects of the interaction between drought and shade on water relations, gas exchange and morphological traits in cork oak (Quercus suber L.) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005,210(1-3):117-129
[150]刘祖祺,张石城.植物抗性生理学.中国农业出版社.1994:89-90
[151]汤章城.逆境条件下植物脯氨酸的累积及其可能的意义.植物生理学通讯,1984,(1):15-21
[152]刘伟玲,谢双喜,喻理飞.几种喀斯特森林树种幼苗对土壤水分的生理响应.贵州科学,2003,21(3):51-53
[153]韦小丽,徐锡增,朱守谦.土壤水分下榆科3种幼苗生理生化指标的变化.南京林业大学学报,2005,29(2):47-50
[154]王海珍,梁宗锁,郝文芳,等.白刺花(Sophoraviciifolia)适应土壤干旱的生理学机制.干旱地区农业研究,2005,23(1):106-110
[155]Sano M, Kawashima N. Water stress induced proline accumulation at different stalk positions and growth stages of detached tobacco leaves. Agril. Bio. Chem, 1982,46(3): 647-653
[156]魏良民.几种旱生植物碳水化合物和蛋白质变化的研究.干旱区研究,1991,4:38-41
[157]孙国荣,张睿,阎秀峰.干旱胁迫下白桦(Betula platyphylla)实生苗叶片的水分代谢与部分渗透调节物质的变化.植物研究,2001,21(3):413-415
[158]王海珍,梁宗锁,韩蕊莲.土壤干旱对黄土高原乡土树种水分代谢与渗透调节物质的影响.西北植物学报,2004,24(10):1 822-1 827
[159]阎秀峰,李晶,祖元刚.干旱胁迫对红松幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响.生态学报,1999, 19(6):850-854
[160]孙国荣,彭永臻等.干旱胁迫对白桦实生苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响.林业科学,2003, 39(1):165-167
[161]王霞,侯平,尹林克.土壤土壤水分对柽柳体内膜保护酶及膜脂过氧化的影响.干旱区研究, 2002,19(3):17-20
[162]陈坤荣,周蛟.薪炭林树种对PEG诱导土壤水分的生理反应.西南林学院学报,1994,14(3):149-154
[163]Kaminska R E, Pukacki P M. Effect of water deficit on oxidative stress and degradation of cell membranes in needles of Norway spruce. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2004, 26(4):431-442
[164]谢寅峰,沈惠娟.土壤水分下3种针叶树幼苗抗旱性与硝酸还原酶和超氧化物岐化酶活性的关系.浙江林学院学报,2000,17(1):24-27
[165]Alonso R, Elvira S, Castillo F J, Gimeno B S. Interactive effects of ozone and drought stress on pigments and activities of antioxidative enzymes in Pinus halepensis. Plant Cell and Environment, 2001, 24(9):905-916.
[166]侯嫦英,方升佐,薛建辉.干旱胁迫对青檀等树种苗木生长及生理特性的影响.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(6):103-106
[167]宋娟丽,姚军,吴发启.黄土高原21种造林树种的苗木根系活力与土壤含水量关系的研究.西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1 688-1 694
[168]Sweeting M M. Reflections on the development of Karst geomorphology in Europe and a comparison with its development in China, Z Geomorph, 1993,37:127-138
[169]屠玉麟.贵州喀斯特森林的初步研究.中国岩溶,1989,8(4):282-290
[170]杨汉奎,程任泽.贵州茂兰喀斯特森林群落生物量研究.生态学报,1991,11(4):307-312
[171]梁士楚.云贵鹅耳枥群落乔木种群生态位初探.广西植物,1994,14(3):227-230
[172]喻理飞,朱守谦,叶镜中,等.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复过程中群落动态研究.林业科学,2002,38(1):1-7
[173]喻理飞,朱守谦,叶镜中.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复评价研究.林业科学,2000,36(6):12-19
[174]区智,李先锟,吕仕洪,等.桂西南岩溶植被演替过程中的植物多样性.广西科学,2003,10(1):63-67
[175]朱守谦,陈正仁,魏鲁明.退化喀斯特森林自然恢复的过程和格局.贵州大学学报(农业与生物科学版),2002,21(1):19-25
[176]李援越,祝小科,朱守谦.退化喀斯特群落自然恢复程度评价.南京林业大学学报,2003,27(4):31-34
[177]杨瑞,喻理飞.黔中退化喀斯特森林恢复过程中早期群落结构分析.贵州科学,2004,22(3):44-47
[178]王震洪.基于植物多样性的生态系统恢复动力学原理.应用生态学报,2007,18(9):1965-1971
[179]Hector A, Beale A J, Minns A. Consequences of the reduction of plant diversity for litter decomposition: Effects through litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos, 2000,90(2):357-371
[180]Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: current knowledge and future challenges. Science,2001,294:804-808
[181]Mcann K, Hastings A, Huxel G. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature, 1999,385:794-798
[182]Mcgrady-steed J, Harris P M, Morin P. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature, 1997, 390:162-164
[183]Schulze E D, Mooney H A. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. New York: Springer-Verlag.1993
[184]Spehn E M, Joshi J, Schmid B, et al. Above ground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems. Functional Ecology,2000,14(3):326-337
[185]温远光,和太平,谭伟福,著.广西热带亚热带山地的植物多样性及群落特征.北京:气象出版社.2004
[186]李恩香,蒋忠诚,曹建华,等.广西弄拉岩溶植被不同演替阶段的主要土壤因子及溶蚀率对比研究.生态学报,2004,24(6):1131-1139
[187]马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰ,α多样性测度方法(上).生物多样性,1994,2(3):162-168
[188]马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰ,α多样性测度方法(下).生物多样性,1994,2(4):231-239
[189]高贤明,黄建辉,万师强,等.秦岭太白山弃耕地植物群落演替的生态学研究Ⅱ演替系列的群落α多样性特征.生态学报,1997,17(6):619-625
[190]程积民,万惠蛾,胡向明.黄土丘陵区植被恢复重建模式与演替过程研究.草地学报,2005,13(4):324-33
[191]马晓勇,上官铁梁.太岳山森林群落物种多样性.山地学报,2004,22(5):606-612
[192]宇万太,姜子绍,李新宇,等.不同土地利用方式对潮棕壤有机碳含量的影响.应用生态学报,2007,18 (12):2760-2764
[193]Federer C A.Spatial variation of net radiation albedo and surface temperature offorests. J. App1.Meteoral. 1968,7(2):789-795
[194]Garrett H E. Spatial and temperal variation in arb0n dioxide in an oak-hickry forest ravine. For. Sci. 1978.24(2):180-190
[195]Hirose T. et al. Canopy structure and photon flux partitioning among species in a herbaceous plant community. Ecol. 1988.14(2):18-19
[196]唐启义,冯光明著.实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统.科学出版社. 2002,43-80
[197]IGBP & IHDP. Land-use and Land-cover Change: Science Research Plan. IGBP Report No.35 & IHDP Report No.7, Stockholm and Geneva,1995
[198]Riebsame W E, Meyer W B, Turner B L. Modeling land use and cover as a part of global environmental change. Climatic Change,1994,28:45-64
[199]Reid R S, Kruska R L, Muthui N, et al. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political forces: The case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology, 2000,15:339-355
[200]李秀彬.全球环境变化研究的核心领域—土地利用/土地覆被变化的国际研究方向.地理学报,1996,51(6):553-557
[201]李晓文,方精云,朴世龙.近10年来长江下游土地利用变化及其生态环境效应.地理学报,2003,58(5):659-667
[202]Qian LX, Cui HS, Chang J. Impacts of land use and cover change on land surface temperature in the Zhujiang Delta. Pedosphere,2006,16(6):681-689
[203]Lal R, Mokma D, Lowery B. Relationship between soil quality and erosion. In:RattanL.ed.Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. Washington DC:CRC Press,1999,237-258
[204]Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma K M, et al. The relationship between land use and soil conditions in the hilly area of Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi,China.Catena, 2000,39:69-78
[205]韩书成,濮励杰,陈凤,等.长江三角洲典型地区土壤性质对土地利用变化的响应.土壤学报,2007,44(4):612-619
[206]Doran J W, Timmothy B P. Defining and Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1994
[207]龙健,黄昌勇,李娟.喀斯特山区不同土地利用方式对土壤质量演变的影响.水土保持学报,2002,16(1):76-80
[208]龙健,李娟,汪境仁.典型喀斯特地区石漠化演变过程对土壤质量性状的影响.水土保持学报,2006,20 (2):77-81
[209]Ellis E C, Wang S M. Sustainable traditional agriculture in the Tai Lake region of China. Agriculture,Ecosystem and Environment, 1997,61:177-193
[210]Vitousek P M. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 1997,277(25):494-499
[211]Ellis E C, Li R G, Yang L Z, et al. Agroecosystem sustainability: Developing practical strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.95-104
[212]焦加国,武俊喜,李辉信,等.华南丘陵区村级景观下土地利用/土地覆盖对土壤质量的影响.土壤学报,2007,44(2):204-211
[213]李香真,曲秋皓.蒙古高原草原土壤微生物量碳氮特征.土壤学报,2002,39(1):97-104
[214]邓聚龙.灰色系统理论教程.武汉:华中理工大学出版社,1990
[215]马瑛.北方农牧交错带土地利用生态安全评价.干旱区资源与环境,2007,27(1):53-58
[216]宋鹏飞,郝占庆.生态资产评估的若干问题探讨.应用生态学报,2007,18(10):2 367-2 373
[217]王占礼,邵明安,常庆瑞.黄土高原降雨因素对土壤侵蚀的影响.西北农业大学学报,1998,26(4):101-105
[218]Correll D L. The role of phosphorus in the eutuophicaion of receiving waters. Environ Qual, 1998,27:261-266
[219]袁道先.中国岩溶学.北京:地质出版社.1993
[220]Sims J T. Phosphorous soil testing: Innovations for water quality protection. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.,1998, 29(11/14):1471-1489
[221]Zhang G L, Yang J L, Zhao Y G. Nutrient discharges from a typical watershed in the hilly areas of subtropical China. Pedosphere, 2003,13(1):23-30
[222]Yang J L, Zhang G L. Quantitative relationship between land use and phosphorus discharge in subtropical hilly regions of China. Pedosphere, 2003, 13(1):67-74
[223]马琨,王兆骞,陈欣,等.不同雨强条件下红壤坡地养分流失特征研究.水土保持学报, 2002,16(1):16-19
[224]陈皓,章申.黄土地区氮磷流失的模拟研究.地理科学,1991,11(2):142-148
[225]康玲玲,朱小勇,王云璋,等.不同雨强下黄土性土壤养分流失规律研究.土壤学报,1999,16(4):536-543
[226]黄满湘,章申,唐以剑,等.模拟降雨条件下农田径流中氮的流失过程.土壤与环境,2001,10(1):6-10
[227]蔡崇法,丁树文,张光远,等.三峡库区紫色土坡地养分状况及养分流失.地理研究,1996,5(3):77-84
[228]傅涛,倪九派,魏朝富,等.不同雨强和坡度条件下紫色土养分流失规律研究.植物营养与肥料学报,2003,9(1):71-74.
[229]伦绪勇,梁平.主汛期相当暴雨日数与降水量的关系对暴雨预报的指导意义.贵州气象,2001,2(25):20-22
[230]陈京.抗旱性不同的甘薯品种对渗透胁迫的生理响应.作物学报,1999,25(2):232-236
[231]Nuneza M R,Calvob L. Effect of high temperatures on seed germination of Pinus sylvestris and Pinus halepensis.For Eco Man, 2000,131:183-190
[232]Humara J M, Lpez M, Cassares A et al., Temperature and provenance as two factors affecting Eucalyptus nitens need germination. Forestry, 2000,73:87-90
[233]McLarenl K P, McDonald M A. The effects of moisture an shade on seed germination and seedling survival in a tropical dry forest in Jamaica. For. Ecol. Man., 2003,183:61-75
[234]杨敏生.土壤水分下白杨派双交无性系主要生理过程研究.生态学报,1999,19(3):312-317
[235]郑希伟.辽西地区主要造林树种抗旱性的研究.林业科学,1990,26(4):253-358
[236]李吉跃.太行山区主要造林树种耐旱特性的研究.北京林业大学学报,1991,13(增):230-279
[237]肖春旺,刘玉成.不同光环境的四川大头茶幼苗的生态适应.生态学报,1999,19(3):422-426
[238]董鸣,阿拉腾宝,邢雪荣,等.根茎禾草沙鞭的克隆基株及分株种群特征.植物生态学报,1999,23(4):302-310
[239]肖春旺,董鸣,周广胜.鄂尔多斯高原沙柳幼苗对模拟降水量变化的响应.生态学报,2001,21(1):171-176
[240]Wilson J B. Shoot competition and root competition. Appl. Ecol., 1988, 25 (2):279-296
[241]Huston M A, Smith T M. Plant succession: Life history and competition. American Naturalist, 1987, 130(2):168-198
[242]Tilman D. Plant Strategies and the Structure and Dynamics of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988:52-97
[243]阮成江,李代琼.半干旱黄土丘陵区沙棘的光合特性及其影响因子.植物资源与环境学报,2000,9(1):16-21
[244]吴春荣,金红喜,严子柱等.樟子松在西北干旱沙区的光合日变化特征.干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(6):144-146
[245]Nijs I, Ferris R, Blum H. Stomatal regulation in a changing climate: A field study using free air temperature increase(FATL)and free air CO2 enrichment(FACE). Plant Cell Environment,1997,20:1 041-1 050
[246]FAR G D, SHARKEY T D. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiology, 1982, 33:317-334
[247]Delfine S, Loreto F, Pinelli P, Tognetti R, Alvino A. Isoprenoids content and photosynthetic limitations in rosemary and spearmint plants under water stress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2005, 106(2-3):243-252.
[248]郭连生,田有亮.9种针阔叶幼树清晨叶水势与土壤含水量的关系及其抗旱性研究.生态学报,1992,11(2):4-7
[249]Nijs I, Ferris R, BlumH. Stomatal regulation in a changing climate: A field study using free air temperature increase (FATI) and free aiCO2 enrichment. Plant, Cell and Environment, 1997, 2 0:1041-1 050
[250]Penuelas J, Filella I, Llusia J, etal., Comparative field study of spring and summer leaf gas exchange and photobiology of the Mediterranean trees Quercusilex and Phillyrealatifolia. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1998, 49(319):229-238.
[251]何维明,马风云.水分梯度对沙地柏幼苗荧光特征和气体交换的影响.植物生态学报,2000,24(5):630-634
[252]喻方圆,徐锡增, Robert D G.水分和热胁迫处理对4种针叶树苗木气体交换和水分利用效率的影响.林业科学,2004,40(2):38-44
[253]Jensen M E. Water consumption by agricultural plant. In: Kozlowski T, Water Deficit and Plant Growth. NewYork: Academic Press, 1976
[254]Deng X, Li X M, Zhang X M, et,al. Studies on gas exchange of Tamarix ramosissima Lbd. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2003, 23(1):180-187
[255]郭卫华,李波,张新时,等.土壤水分对沙棘和中间锦鸡儿蒸腾作用的比较.生态学报.2007,27(10):4132-4140
[256]Peter S, Claudia P, Gitta F. Release of reactive oxygen produced. J of Exp Bot, 2001,52(355):369-373
[257]蒋明义,郭绍川.水分亏缺诱导的氧化胁迫和植物的抗氧化作用.植物生理学通讯,1996,32(2):144-150
[258]Mishra N P, Mishra R K, Singhal G S. Changes in the activities of anti-oxidant enzymes during exposure of intact wheat leaves to strong visible light al different temperatures in the presence of protein synthesis inhibitors. Plant Physiol, 1993, 102:903-908
[259]Peter Schopfer, Claudia Plachy, Gitta Frahry. Release of reactive oxygen produced. J of Exp Bot, 2001,52(355):369-373
[260]于同泉,秦岭,王有年.渗透胁迫板栗苗可溶性糖的积累及组分变化的研究.北京农学院学报,1996,11(1):43-47
[261]孙国荣,张睿,姜丽芬,等.干旱胁迫下白桦实生苗叶片的水分代谢与部分渗透调节物质的变化.植物研究,2001,21(3):413-415
[262]付为国,李萍萍,吴沿友.镇江内江湿地不同演替阶段植物群落小气候日动态.应用生态学报,2006, 17(9):1699-1704
[263]闫明,钟章成,乔秀红.缙云山片断常绿阔叶林小气候边缘效应的初步研究.应用生态学报,2006,17(1):17-21
[264]李生,张守攻,姚小华,等.黔中石漠化地区不同土地利用方式对土壤环境的影响.长江流域资源与环境,2008,17(3):384-389
[265]俞新妥,杨玉盛,何智英.杉木幼林地水土流失规律研究.林业科学,1993,29(1):25-32
[266]杨承栋,魏以荣,冯福娟.杉木连栽土壤组成结构性质变化及对生长影响.林业科学,1996,32 (2):175-181
[267]林开敏,俞新妥.杉木人工林地力衰退与可持续经营.中国生态农业学报,2001,9(4):39-42
[268]黄宇,汪思龙,冯宗炜,等.不同人工林生态系统林地土壤质量评价.应用生态学报,2004,15 (12):2199-2205
[269]Hartermink A E. Soil chemical and physical properties as indicators of sustainable land management under sugar cane in Papua New Guinea. Geoderma, 1998, 85:283-306
[270]Karlen D L, Rosek M J, Gardner J C,et al.Conservation reserve program effects on soil quality indictors. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 1999,54(1):439-444
[271]Lal R. Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, D.C. 1999
[272]孙波,赵其国,张桃林,等.土壤质量与持续环境:Ⅲ土壤质量评价的生物学指标.土壤,1997,29(5):225-234
[273]Nambiar K K M, Gupta A P, Fu Q L,et al.Biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001,87:209-214
[274]Filip Z. International approach to assessing soil quality by ecologically-related biological parameters. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2002,88:169-174
[275]曹慧,孙辉,杨浩,等.土壤酶活性及其对土壤质量的指示研究进展.应用与环境生物学报,2003,9(1):105-109
[276]Jimenez PM, Horra M A, Pruzzo L, et al. Soil quality: anew index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biol Fertil Soils, 2002, 35:302-306
[277]王效举,龚子同.红壤丘陵小区域水平上不同时段土壤质量变化的评价和分析.地理科学,1997,17(2):141-149
[278]卢铁光,杨广林,王立坤.基于相对土壤质量指数法的土壤质量变化评价与分析.东北农业大学学报,2003,34(1):56-59
[279]KettlerTA, Doran J W, Gilbert TL. Simplified Method for Soil Particle-Size Determination to Accompany Soil-Quality Analyses. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2001, 65:849-852
[280]胡金明,刘兴土.三江平原土壤质量变化评价与分析.地理科学,1999,19(5):417-421
[281]Pulido J S, Bocco G. The traditional farming system of a Mexican indigenous community: the case of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Michoacan, Mexico. Geoderma, 2003, 111: 249-265
[282]Garrison S, Angela Z. The assessment of soil quality. Geoderma, 2003,14:143-148
[283]刘梦云,安韶山,常庆瑞,等.宁南山区不同土地利用方式土壤质量评价方法研究.水土保持研究,2005,12(3):41-43
[284]郑昭佩,刘作新.土壤质量及其评价.应用生态学报,2003,14(1):1-4
[285]Larson W E, Pierce F J. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable managemen∥Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1994:37-50
[286]Doran J W, Parkin T B. Defining and assessing soil quality∥Doran J W. Defining Soil Quality or A Sustainable Environment. SSSA spec publ SSSA and ASA,Madison,WI. 1994:3-31
[287]胡月明,万洪富,吴志峰,等.基于GIS的土壤质量模糊变权评价.土壤学报,2001,38(3):266-274
[288]周游游,蒋忠诚,韦珍莲.广西中部喀斯特干旱农业区的干旱程度及干旱成因分析.中国岩溶,2003,22(2):144-149
[289]杨慧,曹建华,张连凯,等.凌云县水土流失特性分析.中国水土保持,2006,(9):17-19
[290]张喜,薛建辉,许效天,等.黔中喀斯特山地不同森林类型的地表径流及影响因素.热带亚热带植物学报,2007,15(6):527-537
[291]中华人民共和国水利部.土壤侵蚀分类分级标准,SL190-196,北京:中国水利水电出版社.1997
[292]王效科,欧阳志云,肖寒,等.中国水土流失敏感性分布规律及其区划研究.生态学报,2001,21(1):14-19
[293]肖荣波,欧阳志云,王效科,等.中国西南地区石漠化敏感性评价及其空间分析.生态学杂志,2005,551-554
[294]Fitter A H. Functional significance of root morphology and root system architecture. Fitter A H, Atkinson D. Ecological Interactions in Soil: Plants, Microbea and Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Press, 1985:87-106
[295]Grime J P, CampbellB D, Mackey JM L, et al., Root plasticity, nitrogen cap ture and competitive ability. Atkinson A. Plant Root Growth: An Ecological Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Press, 1991: 381-397
[296]Heitholt J J. Water use efficiency and dry matter distribution in nitrogen-and water-stressed winter wheat. Agron, 1989, 81:464-469
[297]黄子琛.干旱对固沙植物的水分平衡和氮索代谢的影响.植物学报,1979,21(4):316-319
[298]Dhindsa R S. Water stress and protein synthesis. Plant physiology, 1977,(59):295-300
[299]Barnett N M. Amino Acid and proem Metabolism in Bermuda Grass During water Stress. Plant physiology, 1986,(41):1 222-1 230
[300]Dhinsa R S, Dhindsa P P, Thorpe T A. Leaf senescence: Correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation and decreased levels of superoxidation dismutasean catalase. J Exp Bot., 1981,16(2):12-15
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |