4.6 Article

INTRODUCED EUCALYPTUS UROPHYLLA PLANTATIONS CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY IN SUBTROPICAL CHINA

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 400-406

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2161

关键词

soil microbial community; PLFAs; fungi-to-bacteria ratio; dissolved organic carbon; Eucalyptus plantations; South China

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [30925010, 31100384, 31160153]
  2. Education department of Jiangxi Province [GJJ12637]
  3. Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-EW-Z-6, KSCX2-EW-J-28]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fast-growing tree species are widely used as pioneers for reforestation. These plantations strongly affect the ecosystem productivity and nutrient cycling, whereas their effect on the soil microbial community is still unclear. In a reforestation chronosequence in subtropical China consisting of Eucalyptus plantation with ages of 1, 2, 4 or 5years, we examined the response of the soil microbial community and its function. The results showed that soil bulk density and dissolved organic carbon decreased significantly along the chronosequence. Soil pH was highest in the 5-year-old plantation. The amount of bacterial phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal PLFAs increased, but the ratio of fungal-to-bacterial PLFAs decreased with increasing forest age. The composition of the soil microbial community obviously changed after 5years' development. Redundancy analysis showed that dissolved organic carbon was the major factor associated with the changes of soil microbial community composition. The short-rotation Eucalyptus plantation could affect the composition of soil microbial communities through changing soil available carbon when planted in subtropical region at the early developmental stage. We suggest that soil microbial community composition should be taken into consideration in the large-scale reforestation activities. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据