4.7 Article

Effects of Long-Term Enclosing on Vertical Distributions of Soil Physical Properties and Nutrient Stocks in Grassland of Inner Mongolia

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11091832

关键词

grazing; enclosing; litter; soil texture; soil bulk density; nutrient stocks

资金

  1. Open Fund project of the Key Laboratory of Mollisols Agroecology, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [2020ZKHT-04]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA28110200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term enclosing can increase grassland production, but also decrease nutrient stocks in the soil.
Enclosing plays a crucial role in vegetation and soil quality in grassland. The biomass of green plants, litter, and vertical distributions of soil physical properties and nutrient stocks were evaluated at plot enclosed long term for 38 years inside a fence and a long-term grazing plot outside a fence in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia. The results showed that dry matter of green plants and litter during the 38-year enclosing treatment was higher than in the grazing treatment (p < 0.01). The soil silt (2-50 mu m) in the 38-year enclosing treatment was 5.9% higher than in the grazing treatment (p < 0.01) in 0-10 cm soil, and the fine sand (100-250 mu m) was 6.0% lower (p < 0.05). The 38-year enclosing treatment slightly decreased the bulk density and significantly decreased the electrical conductivity in each soil layer (0-100 cm). The 38-year enclosing treatment significantly increased the stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK) on the surface soil, and obviously decreased the stocks of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), and available nitrogen (AN) in each soil layer (0-100 cm). In conclusion, long-term enclosing improved grassland production, but decreased most nutrient stocks in soil.

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

4.7
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