|
|
|
| Properties of soil microbes, nutrients and soil enzyme activities and their relationship in a degraded wetland of Yellow River Delta |
| Wang Di1, Ma Fengyun1,2, Yao Xiufen1, Xin He1, Song Xue1, Zhang Zhongxin1 |
| 1. Forestry College of Shandong Agricultural University,271018,Tai’an,Shandong; 2. Laboratory of Ecology and Environment,Shandong Agricultural University,271018,Tai’an,Shandong:China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The soil enzyme activities,nutrients and microbes and their relationship at different successive stages were analyzed in a degraded wetland of the yellow river delta,the main results indicated that during the reverse succession from Imperata cylindrical community to bare land in wetland,the vitality of soil urease and protease activity decreased gradually. Similarly,the vitality of alkaline phosphates activity and catalase also decreased. The othernesses of enemy activity existed in different successive stages,the activity of soil protease enzyme was the best. With reverse succession of wetlands,main soil nutrients almost declined. There were significant differences of soil nutrient in different successive stages. The microbial quantity had significant differences in a degraded wetland of the yellow river delta. In soil microbial community,bacteria accounted for the largest proportion,which took absolute advantage in the amount. Secondly is actinomyces,and amount of fungi was the least. Imperata cylindrical community had maximum value on bacteria and fungi while actinomyces reached the maximum at Tamarix chinensis community. The soil enzyme had remarkable positive correlation with nutrients and microbes. Bacteria were closely related to soil urease and catalase enzyme. Fungi had remarkable correlation with soil urease enzyme,catalase enzyme and alkaline phosphate enzyme.
|
|
Received: 16 January 2012
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
LI Changzhun, CHEN Lixin, DUAN Wenbiao, LI Shaoran, LI Yifei, YU Yingying, ZHU Jiahui, ZHAO Gerong. Effects of litter treatment on soil organic carbon, total nitrogen and total phosphorus in different forest types[J]. SSWC, 2020, 18(1): 100-109. |
|
|
|
|
