故宫景福宫古树土壤肥力特征分析评价

doi:10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2023.01.06

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】了解故宫景福宫内古树土壤环境现状,保护和提升古树生态系统功能。【方法】通过采集故宫景福宫5个院落土壤并测定不同深度土壤水解性氮、速效钾、有效磷、有机质、pH值等共12项化学指标,采用土壤单因子评价、综合评价、主成分分析及Pearson相关性分析等方法对景福宫古树土壤肥力进行分析评价。【结果】故宫景福宫古树土壤除少部分区域呈强碱性外,大部分院落土壤呈碱性,整体无盐渍化现象。古树土壤水解性氮、速效钾、有机质、有效态铁、有效态铜含量基本充足。56%的土壤样品显示有效磷含量偏低;19%的土壤样品未检测出有效态锰、有效态锌。土壤微量元素变异系数较大,区域分布不均匀。古树土壤pH值权重系数最大（0.119）,且与水溶性盐总量、氯离子呈极显著正相关（P<0.01）,与有效态锰呈极显著负相关（P<0.01）,与有效态铜、有效态锌呈显著负相关（P<0.05）;水解性氮（0.111）和有机质（0.114）的权重系数也相对较大,且二者呈极显著正相关（P<0.01）。古树土壤综合肥力指数处于0.462~0.633,平均值为0.540,整体属于较好水平（IFI≥0.5）。各院落古树土壤肥力水平为景福宫西区域>景福宫西南区域>佛日楼区域>梵华楼区域>景福宫南区域。【结论】故宫景福宫区域古树土壤肥力水平整体较好,但不同院落间土壤肥力存在差异,并未达到理想的环境状态。

关键词: 景福宫古树, 土壤肥力, 主成分分析, Pearson相关性分析, 综合评价

Abstract: 【Objective】To understand the current soil environment status of ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings in the Forbidden City,in order to protect and enhance the ecosystem function of ancient trees.【Methods】By collecting the soil of five courtyards in the Palace of Great Blessings in the Forbidden City and measuring 12 chemical indicators such as soil hydrolytic N,available K,available P,organic matter and pH value at different depths,the soil fertility of ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings was analyzed and evaluated by soil single factor evaluation,comprehensive evaluation,principal component analysis and Pearson correlation analysis.【Results】Except for a few strong alkaline areas,the soil of ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings was alkaline with no soil salinization overall. The ancient tree soil content of hydrolytic N,available K,organic matter,available Fe,and available Cu were sufficient. In 56% of the soil samples the content of available P was low. Available Mn and available Zn was not detected in 19% soil samples. Soil microelements was unevenly distributed across different courtyards with high coefficient of variation. The soil pH value had the highest weight coefficient（0.119）and was extremely significantly（P<0.01）positively correlated with water soluble salt,chloride iron,extremely significantly（P<0.01）negatively correlated with available Mn and significantly（P<0.05）negatively correlated with the available Cu and available Zn. The weight coefficients of hydrolytic N（0.111）and organic matter（0.114）were also relatively large,and the two were extremely significantly（P<0.01）positively correlated. The comprehensive fertility index of ancient tree soil ranged from 0.462 to 0.633,with an average value of 0.540,which was generally at a good level（IFI≥0.5）. The soil fertility level of ancient trees in the courtyards was best in the Place of Great Blessings west yard followed by the Palace of Great Blessings southwest yard,the Sanctuary of Buddhist Light,the Sanctuary of Buddhist Essence and the Palace of Great Blessings south yard.【Conclusion】The soil fertility level of ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings in the Forbidden City was generally good,however there were variations among the courtyards,which prevented the environment from reaching the optimal state.

Key words: Ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings, Soil fertility, Principal component analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, Comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S714.8

高星, 贾慧果. 故宫景福宫古树土壤肥力特征分析评价[J]. 北方农业学报, 2023, 51(1): 45-60.

GAO Xing, JIA Huiguo. Analysis and evaluation of soil fertility characteristics for ancient trees in the Palace of Great Blessings in the Forbidden City[J]. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2023, 51(1): 45-60.

参考文献

[1] 聂立水,王登芝,王保国.北京戒台寺古油松生长衰退与土壤条件关系初步研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(5):32-36.
[2] 刘瑜,徐程扬.古树健康评价研究进展[J].世界林业研究,2013,26(1):37-42.
[3] 北京市质量技术监督局.古树名木评价标准:DB11/T 478—2007[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2007.
[4] 郭希梅,丛日晨,张常青,等.古油松衰弱衰老诊断的生理指标[J].林业科学,2011,47(4):43-48.
[5] 叶少萍,李铤,张俊涛,等.基于主成分分析的古树土壤肥力综合评价[J].生态科学,2022,41(1):196-205.
[6] 徐志平,叶广荣,吴渭湛,等.广州市沙面古树土壤调查[J].园林科技,2011(3):5-7.
[7] 汤珧华,潘建萍,邹福生,等.上海松柏古树生长与土壤肥力因子的关系[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2017,23(5):1402-1408.
[8] 原忠林,曹庆宏,王洪魁,等.千山古松衰亡原因及综合治理技术探讨[J].中国森林病虫,2002,21(4):25-27.
[9] 周章义,雷增普,王文新,等.七王坟古油松濒死原因的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1995,17(1):48-54.
[10] 申家轩. 北京市大兴区古树名木资源调查与保护研究[D].保定:河北农业大学,2019.
[11] WANG J H,LU X G,et al.JIANG M.Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of wetland soil quality degradation:A case study on the Sanjiang plain,northeast China[J].Pedosphere,2009,19(6):756-764.
[12] 冯嘉仪,储双双,王婧,等.华南地区5种典型林分类型土壤肥力综合评价[J].华南农业大学学报,2018,39(3):73-81.
[13] 刘家雄,汤珧华.基于主成分分析的古树土壤肥力等级评价[J].安徽农业科学,2018,46(3):104-106.
[14] 陈旭彤. 杭州城市绿地土壤肥力质量评价[J].贵州农业科学,2012,40(11):148-150.
[15] 张娟,田宇,王艳春.颐和园土壤肥力特征分析[C]//2014“城市园林绿化与和谐宜居之都建设”学术论坛暨学会成立50周年纪念大会论文集.北京:科学技术文献出版社,2014:417-421.
[16] 骆玉珍,张维维,李雅颖,等.上海市公园绿地土壤肥力特征分析与综合评价[J].中国土壤与肥料,2019(6):86-93.
[17] 杨义波,王菲.长春市重要园林植物群落土壤肥力特征分析与评价[J].江苏农业科学,2021,49(2):193-198.
[18] 刘秀琴. 兰州市古树名木调查及保护研究[D].兰州:兰州大学,2009.
[19] 北京市市场监督管理局.园林绿化种植土壤技术要求:DB11/T 864—2020[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2020.
[20] 叶回春,张世文,黄元仿,等.北京延庆盆地农田表层土壤肥力评价及其空间变异[J].中国农业科学,2013,46(15):3151-3160.
[21] 亢龙飞,王静,朱丽娜,等.不同形态磷酸盐及施用方式对石灰性土壤磷移动性和有效性的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2020,26(7):1179-1187.
[22] 陶晓,俞元春,张云彬,等.城市森林土壤碳氮磷含量及其生态化学计量特征[J].生态环境学报,2020,29(1):88-96.
[23] 张宇超. 北戴河区主要道路及公园园林绿地土壤养分状况调查与评价[D].秦皇岛:河北科技师范学院,2014.
[24] 邹明珠. 北京市园林绿化种植土壤质量标准的编制研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2012.
[25] 田宇. 北京市4个市属公园绿地土壤肥力评价研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2015.
[26] 杜田甜,孙向阳,李素艳,等.园林绿化废弃物覆盖对城市绿地土壤肥力影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2021,43(10):110-117.
[27] 安吉,李婷,傅翔,等.城市化梯度带绿地土壤碳氮的空间分布特征[J].生态学杂志,2019,38(9):2780-2787.
[28] 秦娟,许克福.我国城市绿地土壤质量研究综述与展望[J].生态科学,2018,37(1):200-210.
[29] 李丹丹. 避暑山庄古油松根区土壤特性研究[D].保定:河北农业大学,2015.
[30] 孙向阳. 土壤学[M].2版.北京:中国林业出版社,2021.
[31] 马秀梅. 北京城市不同绿地类型土壤及大气环境研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2007.
[32] 陈同斌,郑袁明,陈煌,等.北京市土壤重金属含量背景值的系统研究[J].环境科学,2004,25(1):117-122.
[33] 崔潇潇,高原,吕贻忠.北京市大兴区土壤肥力的空间变异[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(9):327-333.
[34] 郝瑞军. 上海城市绿地土壤肥力特征分析与评价[J].上海农业学报,2014,30(1):79-84.
[35] 王玉东. 人为干扰对黄帝陵古柏土壤理化性质影响的研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2015.
[36] 刘家雄. 主成分分析与聚类分析在土壤分类中的应用[J].上海农业学报,2011,27(3):110-113.
[37] 邹瑀琦,刘晶岚,杨兴康,等.北京古树土壤主要矿质元素特征及对古树健康响应分析[J].中国农学通报,2014,30(1):63-67.
[38] 赵娟,杨军,赖娜娜,等.古侧柏林土壤和植物营养元素含量与树势相关性研究[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(13):9-13.