Oelbermann Maren, Raimbault Beverly A, Gordon A M
Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada,
Environ Manage. 2015 Feb;55(2):496-507. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0410-z. Epub 2014 Nov 29.
Rehabilitated riparian zones in agricultural landscapes enhance environmental integrity and provide environmental services such as carbon (C) sequestration. This study quantified differences in organic matter input, soil biochemical characteristics, and soil respiration in a 25-year-old rehabilitated (RH), grass (GRS), and undisturbed natural forest (UNF) riparian zone. Input from herbaceous vegetation was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the GRS riparian zone, whereas autumnal litterfall was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the RH riparian zone. Soil bulk density was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the RH riparian zone, but its soil chemical characteristics were significantly lower. Soil respiration rates were lowest (P < 0.05) in the UNF (106 C m(-2) h(-1)), followed by the RH (169 mg C m(-2) h(-1)) and GRS (194 C m(-2) h(-1)) riparian zones. Soil respiration rates were significantly different (P < 0.05) among seasons, and were significantly correlated with soil moisture (P < 0.05) and soil temperature (P < 0.05) in all riparian zones. Soil potential microbial activity indicated a significantly different (P < 0.05) response of the microbial metabolic diversity in the RH compared to the GRS and UNF riparian zones, and principle component analysis showed a distinct difference in microbial activity among the riparian land-use systems. Rehabilitating degraded riparian zones with trees rather than GRS is a more effective approach to the long-term mitigation of CO2. Therefore, the protection of existing natural/undisturbed riparian forests in agricultural landscapes is equally important as their rehabilitation with trees, given their higher levels of soil organic C and lower soil respiration rates.
农业景观中恢复的河岸带增强了环境完整性,并提供了诸如碳固存等环境服务。本研究量化了一个有25年历史的恢复河岸带(RH)、草地河岸带(GRS)和未受干扰的天然森林河岸带(UNF)在有机质输入、土壤生化特性和土壤呼吸方面的差异。草本植被输入在GRS河岸带显著更高(P < 0.05),而秋季凋落物在RH河岸带显著更多(P < 0.05)。RH河岸带的土壤容重显著更高(P < 0.05),但其土壤化学特性显著更低。土壤呼吸速率在UNF河岸带最低(P < 0.05)(106 毫克碳每平方米每小时),其次是RH河岸带(169 毫克碳每平方米每小时)和GRS河岸带(194 毫克碳每平方米每小时)。土壤呼吸速率在各季节间显著不同(P < 0.05),并且在所有河岸带中都与土壤湿度(P < 0.05)和土壤温度(P < 0.05)显著相关。土壤潜在微生物活性表明,与GRS和UNF河岸带相比,RH河岸带微生物代谢多样性的响应显著不同(P < 0.05),主成分分析显示河岸土地利用系统间微生物活性存在明显差异。用树木而非草地恢复退化的河岸带是长期缓解二氧化碳的更有效方法。因此,鉴于农业景观中现有天然/未受干扰的河岸森林具有更高的土壤有机碳水平和更低的土壤呼吸速率,保护它们与用树木恢复它们同样重要。