【作者】 谢锦升；

【导师】 杨玉盛；

【作者基本信息】 福建农林大学 ， 水土保持与荒漠化防治， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 退化生态系统的恢复与生物多样性、全球气候变化并列为生物领域的三大研究热点，并成为九十年代西方国家生态学领域的十大基础研究课题之一。我国是世界上较早开展生态恢复实践和研究的国家之一，在亚热带红壤严重侵蚀地区进行了大量的生态恢复工作，研究主要集中于生态恢复试验示范、生态恢复技术和生态恢复的效益及其评价，特别是在生态恢复效益方面如植物多样性的恢复，水土保持效益，生产力的提高，土壤肥力恢复以及小区域的气候因子变化等方面的研究较多，而在生态恢复过程中碳贮存、能量、养分循环等方面的变化研究较少。 从1999年至2001年，在中亚热带花岗岩发育红壤的典型土壤流失区——长汀河田，以严重侵蚀地采取种草促林（措施Ⅰ）、植灌促林（措施Ⅱ）、栽阔促林（措施Ⅲ）、封禁管理（措施Ⅳ）等多种生态恢复措施后的生态系统为研究对象，并以未采取恢复措施的严重侵蚀退化生态系统（对照Ⅰ）和风水林（对照Ⅱ）为对照，分析和讨论了严重侵蚀退化生态系进行生态恢复后系统的固碳功能、能量利用、养分循环的变化。研究结果表明： （1） 生态恢复措施Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ的碳贮量分别为49.9、113.1、85.0和69.3t·hm^-2，高于对照Ⅰ的碳贮量17.5t·hm^-2，低于对照Ⅱ的碳贮量192.2t·hm^-2。4种生态恢复措施中，土壤和乔木层碳贮量占总贮量的平均比例分别为51.6％和45.3％；对照Ⅰ土壤和乔木层碳贮量分别占97.2％和1.4％，对照Ⅱ土壤和乔木层碳贮量分别占48.2％和46.7％，4种措施的土壤和乔木层碳贮量占生态系统总贮量的比例与对照Ⅱ的接近，对照Ⅰ地上植被的碳贮量极低，是一个“碳源”。4种措施地上部分的碳贮量分别是对照Ⅰ的32.2～146.1倍，而土壤的碳贮量分别是对照Ⅰ的2.0～2.5倍，在生态恢复过程中，土壤有机碳积累速度滞后于植被有机碳的积累速度。 （2） 4种措施采取前乔木的有机碳积累量分别占调查时的1.50％、0.59％、0.39％和1.09％；措施Ⅰ在生态恢复措施采取后1～5年期间有机碳积累积累量达到高峰期，措施Ⅳ在措施采取后6～10年期间积累量达到高峰，而措施Ⅱ和Ⅲ在措施采取后11～15年期间达到高峰。4种措施植被的平均碳年净增量为3907.56kg·hm^-2，每年能吸收大量的CO₂，已成为“碳汇”。 （3） 生态恢复措施Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ的能量现存量分别为57012.5、258900.8、158058.0和129829.9kJ·m^-2，是对照Ⅰ(1658.8kJ·m^-2)的34.4、156.1、95.3和78.3倍，为对照Ⅱ(328823.6 kJ·m^-2)的17.3％、78.7％、48.1％和39.5％。4种措施乔木层的能量现存量分别占群落总能量的94.0％、98.1％、97.8％和97.1％，而对照Ⅰ为58.89％，对照Ⅱ的为92.0％，生态恢复后乔木层成为能量积累的主体。 （4） 生态恢复措施Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ和Ⅳ的能量年存留量分别为对照Ⅰ的6.9倍、59.6倍、 28．2倍和29．8倍，太阳能转化率分别为o．27％，1．55％、o．78％和0．引％；对照1 能量年存留量＄J 454．5 kJ·m”’·a’，太阳能转化率为 0．023％，对照＊能量年存留量 为 23293厂 kJ·mJ，太阳能转化率为 1．39％。生态恢复后降低了太阳能对地表无效 能的输人，通过光合作用输入生态系统的能量增加，缓和了地表温度的变幅，改 善了群落干热的生境。采取综合的生态恢复措施，充分利用光能，提高群落的能 量生产能力，降低太阳光向地表土壤输入过多的能量（有害能），将是中亚热带 严重侵蚀退化生态系统成功恢复的关键技术之一。 （5）在养分空间分布中，植被的养分储量极为有限，养分绝大部分贮存于士壤中；措 施I、11、Ill、IV群落N、P元素积累量分别占生态系统总量的4．43％和0．05O、 11．6O和0．17O、’7．．24％和0．11o、7．．78O和 0．10O；．而对照1的仅占生态系统总量 的0．36％和0．00：％；K、Ca、Mg的贮量占生态系统总量的比例均极小。4种措 施群落的养分总积累量分别为对照 11的 12．4％、55．4％、34，7O和 29，00，对照 1 仅为对照11的0：6％，不同措施养分积累和保持能力有明显提高。 （6）生态恢复措施l、11、ill和＊的养分年存留量分别为13．517、82．996、45．375、 42．814 kg·hm卫，归还量分别为 12．446、40．141、28．295、25＊95kg·hm工，吸收 量分别为24．517、123．137、73＊70、68＊09 kg·hm”‘，大大高于对照1的养分年 存留量、归还量、吸收量（分别为 2．320、1．506、3．826 kg·bio’），小于对照回 的年存留量、归还量、吸收量(分别为9＆n6、7工64人17】76 kg·hm”个。对照 J养分循环不畅，生态恢复后养分循环功能得到一定程度的恢复，对退化土壤肥 力恢复起到十分积极作用。 （）通过对不同措施 20多个指标的模糊?更多还原

【Abstract】 The restoration of degraded ecosystem, bio-diversity and global climatic change are three hotspots in the study area of biology and the restoration of degraded ecosystem is one of the 10 basic problems in ecology study for western countries since the 90s. China is on one of earlier countries in the research and practice of ecological restoration, there is a great deal of ecological restoration practice in subtropical severely eroded area of red soil. Where demonstration, technique, benefit and estimation of ecological restoration are emphasized, especially in the vegetable diversity, soil and water conservation, productivity, soil fertility and the changes of microclimate, and less focus on carbon reserve, energy and nutrient cycle in the process of ecological restoration.From 1999 to 2001, changes of carbon reserve, energy and nutrient cycle of ecosystems which had taken four kinds of ecological restoration measures, viz. grass-planting (measure I), shrub-planting (measure II), broadleaved tree-planting (measure III) and the closing of hillsides and management (measure IV) to facilitate afforestation and those ecosystems which are severe eroded degraded ecosystem (control I) and geomantic forest (control II) were studied, in seriously eroded areas of mid-subtropical granite red soil in Hetian of Changting. The results showed that:(1) Carbon reserve of those measures, I, II, III and IV was 49.9, 113.1, 85.0 and 69.3 t/hm2 respectively, and are higher control I (17.5t/hm2) and lower control 11(192.2 t/hm2). Carbon reserve of soil and arbor is mean 51.6% and 45.3% respectively in proportion to total carbon reserve in 4 measures ecosystem, 97.2% and 1.4% in control I and 48.2% and 46.7% in control II. The proportion of carbon reserve of soil and arbor in measure I, II, HI and IV close to of the control II, the quality of carbon reserve of vegetation in control 1 was very low and it is a "carbon source". Aboveground carbon reserve in four measures was 32.2~146.1 times as high as that in the control I, while the reserve of organic carbon in soils was 2.0~2.5 times those in the control I. ItChanges of Carbon Reserve, Energy and Nutrient Cycle of the Extreme Degrade Ecosystem in the Process of Ecological RestorationAbstractThe restoration of degraded ecosystem, bio-diversity and global climatic change are three hotspots in the study area of biology and the restoration of degraded ecosystem is one of the 10 basic problems in ecology study for western countries since the 90s. China is on one of earlier countries in the research and practice of ecological restoration, there is a great deal of ecological restoration practice in subtropical severely eroded area of red soil. Where demonstration, technique, benefit and estimation of ecological restoration are emphasized, especially in the vegetable diversity, soil and water conservation, productivity, soil fertility and the changes of microclimate, and less focus on carbon reserve, energy and nutrient cycle in the process of ecological restoration.From 1999 to 2001, changes of carbon reserve, energy and nutrient cycle of ecosystems which had taken four kinds of ecological restoration measures, viz. grass-planting (measure I), shrub-planting (measure II), broadleaved tree-planting (measure III) and the closing of hillsides and management (measure IV) to facilitate afforestation and those ecosystems which are severe eroded degraded ecosystem (control I) and geomantic forest (control II) were studied, in seriously eroded areas of mid-subtropical granite red soil in Hetian of Changting. The results showed that:(1) Carbon reserve of those measures, I, II, III and IV was 49.9, 113.1, 85.0 and 69.3 t/hm2 respectively, and are higher control I (17.5t/hm2) and lower control 11(192.2 t/hm2). Carbon reserve of soil and arbor is mean 51.6% and 45.3% respectively in proportion to total carbon reserve in 4 measures ecosystem, 97.2% and 1.4% in control I and 48.2% and 46.7% in control II. The proportion of carbon reserve of soil and arbor in measure I, II, HI and IV clo更多还原