مقایسه ویژگی‌های زیستی خاک و ذخیره کربن آلی کهور ایرانی و سمر (مطالعه موردی: عسلویه)

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری علوم زیستی جنگل، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران.

2 دانشیار ،مؤسسه تحقیقات جنگل‌ها و مراتع کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار ، گروه جنگل‌شناسی و اکولوژی جنگل، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران.

4 استادیار، مؤسسه تحقیقات جنگل‌ها و مراتع کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: در اکوسیستم‌های خشک و نیمه‌خشک، ارتباط گونه‌های درختی با رویشگاه بدلیل وجود تنش‌های محیطی شکننده است. گونه بومی کهور ایرانی و غیربومی سمر از جمله گونه‌هایی هستند که علاوه بر روابط آب-خاک-گیاه، زندگی سایر گونه‌های جانوری و گیاهی این مناطق را تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهند. در این مناطق نقش درختان بومی در ذخیره کربن و تغییر ویژگی‌های خاک حائز اهمیت است. خاک نقش مهمی در چرخه کربن دارد و منبع مهمی برای ذخیره کربن است و گونه‌های درختی می‌توانند به‌دلیل تحمل شرایط سخت محیطی مانند درجه حرارت بالا و تشعشع، تغییراتی را در ویژگی‌های خاک و ذخیره کربن آلی ایجاد ‌کنند. ویژگی‌های زیستی خاک شاخص‌ مناسبی برای سنجش کیفیت خاک هستند و با بررسی آنها اطلاعات مناسبی از تنفس، چرخه‌ غذایی، زیست‌توده میکروبی و ظرفیت معدنی‌کردن نیتروژن خاک بدست می‌آید. کهور ایرانی (Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce) یکی از گونه‌های مهم بومی و با ارزش ناحیه رویشی صحارا- سندی است که از قابلیت استقرار و سازگاری خوبی برخوردار است و باعث بهبود ویژگی‌های خاک می‌شود. گونه غیربومی سمر (Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC) به‌صورت گسترده و با رشد سریع و جلوگیری از ریزگردها به‌عنوان درخت علوفه کاشته می‌شود. درختان این نواحی رویشی می‌توانند بر خاک زیر تاج خود به روش‌های مختلف دامنه‌ای از پیامدهای متفاوت داشته باشند و تأثیر حیاتی در غنای میکروارگانیسم‌های خاک دارند. با توجه به اهمیت هر دو گونه در این ناحیه رویشی مقایسه تغییرات ویژگی‌های زیستی خاک و ذخیره کربن آلی در زیر و بیرون تاج پایه‌های کهور ایرانی و سمر در شهرستان عسلویه در استان بوشهر انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: برای سنجش تنفس پایه و برانگیخته، کربن زیست‌توده میکروبی و پتانسیل نیتریفیکاسیون 24 نمونه خاک از عمق 30-0 سانتی‌متر به‌روش تصادفی از زیر و بیرون تاج هر دو گونه جمع‌آوری شد. برای محاسبه ذخیره کربن آلی خاک در قطعه‌ نمونه‌های 1×1 مترمربع به کمک سیلندر از عمق 10-0 سانتی‌متر خاک برای بدست آوردن جرم مخصوص ظاهری و کربن آلی نمونه‌برداری انجام شد. همچنین برای اندازه‌گیری ذخیره کربن آلی در لاشبرگ و پوشش علفی در همان قطعه نمونه‌، لاشبرگ و پوشش علفی جمع‌آوری شدند و وزن آنها یادداشت شد. در نهایت 120 نمونه برای هر دو گونه در زیر و بیرون تاج جمع‌آوری شد.
یافته‌ها: نتایج تحلیل کرت‌های خردشده نشان داد تأثیر گونه به‌عنوان عامل اصلی بر تنفس پایه (05/0p <) و برانگیخته (01/0p <) معنی-دار است و به‌ترتیب در کهور ایرانی 73/2 و 47/22 میلی‌گرم CO2 در روز و ساعت و در سمر 9/0 و 57/15 میلی‌گرم CO2 در روز و ساعت بود و در کربن زیست‌توده میکروبی و پتانسیل نیتریفیکاسیون اثر معنی‌دار نداشت. تأثیر موقعیت نمونه‌برداری برای تمام متغیرهای بررسی شده معنی‌دار و در زیر تاج بیشتر از بیرون تاج بود.
نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به تأثیر مثبت گونه کهور ایرانی در تنفس پایه و برانگیخته خاک، حفظ و احیاء این گونه بومی با ارزش بسیار حیاتی است و اثر منفی گونه غیر بومی سمر بر تنفس پایه و برانگیخته خاک می‌تواند موجب کاهش فعالیت میکروبی و برهم‌خوردن تعادل چرخه عناصر غذایی و بخصوص کربن شود. بنابراین توصیه می‌شود جهت حفظ بهبود و کیفیت خاک در جنگل‌های طبیعی، جنگلکاری و احیاء اکوسیستم‌های بومی، استفاده از گونه‌های بومی در اولویت قرار گیرد و از ورود گونه‌های غیر بومی به جنگل طبیعی اجتناب شود. همچنین گونه سمر بدلیل مقاومت زیاد، بهتر است در عرصه‌های بیابان‌زدایی و برای تثبیت شن‌های روان کشت شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of soil biological properties and carbon storage of Prosopis cineraria and Prosopis juliflora (Case study: Assaluyeh)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Tahereh Alizadeh 1
  • Mohammad Matinizadeh 2
  • Hashem Habashi 3
  • Seyed Mousa Sadeghi 4
1 Ph.D. Student of Biology Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
2 Associate Prof., Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Prof., Faculty of Forest Science, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
4 Forests Research Division, Research Institute of Forests and Range Lands, , Areeo, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: In arid and semi-arid ecosystems, the relationship between tree species and habitat is fragile due to environmental stresses. Native species of Prosopis cineraria and non-native Prosopis juliflora are among the species that in addition to water-soil-plant relationships, affect the life of other animal and plant species in these areas. In these areas, the role of native trees in carbon storage and change in soil properties is important. Soil plays an important role in the carbon cycle and is an important source of carbon storage and tree species can make changes in soil properties and organic carbon storage due to tolerating hard environmental conditions such as high temperatures and radiation. Soil biological properties are a good indicator for measuring soil quality and by examining them, appropriate information about respiration, nutrient cycle, microbial biomass and mineral nitrogen mineralization capacity is obtained. (Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce) is one of the most important native species in the Sahara-Sindhi area, which has a good ability to establishment and adapt and improves soil properties. The non-native species of (Prosopis juliflora (SW) DC) is widely planted with fast growth and prevention of fine dust as a fodder tree. Trees in these areas can have a range of different effects on the soil under their canopy in various ways and have a vital effect on the richness of soil microorganisms. Due to the importance of both species in this habitat, a comparison of changes in soil biological properties and organic carbon storage under and outside the canopy of Prosopis cineraria and Prosopis juliflora bases was performed in Assaluyeh in Bushehr province.
Materials and methods: To measure basic and induce respiration, microbial biomass carbon and nitrification potential, 24 soil samples were collected from 0-30 cm depth randomly from under and outside the canopy of both species. To calculate organic carbon storage of soil with the cylinder in a 1×1 m2 plot, sampling was done from a depth of 0-10 cm of soil to obtain the bulk density and organic carbon. Also for measuring organic carbon storage in litter and grass cover in the same sample plot, litter and grass cover were collected and their weight was recorded. Finally, 120 samples were taken in two location under and outside the canopy of both species.
Results: The results of analysis of fragmented plots showed that the effect of species as the main factor on basic (p<0.05) and induce (p<0.01) respiration was significant and it was in Prosopis cineraria 2.73 and 22.47 mg Co2 in day and hour and in Prosopis juliflora 0.9 and 15.57 mg Co2 in day and hour, respectively was higher in Prosopis cineraria than Prosopis juliflora and had no significant effect on microbial biomass carbon and nitrification potential. The effect of sampling location was significant for all variables studied and under the canopy was greater than outside the canopy.
Conclusion: Due to the positive effect of Prosopis cineraria species on basic and induce soil respiration, preservation and revitalization of this valuable native species is very vital and negative effect of non-native species of Prosopis juliflora on basic and induce soil respiration can reduce microbial activity and upset the balance of the nutrient cycle, especially carbon. Therefore, it is recommended to use native species for improvement and quality of soil in natural forests, afforestation and restoration of ecosystems and the entry of non-native species avoid into the natural forest. Also Prosopis juliflora species is better to be cultivated because high resistance in de- desertification areas and for quicksand stabilization.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • microbial biomass carbon
  • Nitrification potential
  • Organic carbon storage
  • Soil microbial respiration
 1.Aggarwal, R.K. 1980. Physico-chemical status of soil under Khejri (P. cineraria Linn.). In: H.S. Mann and S.K. Saxena, (eds). Khejri (P. cineraria) in the Indian Desert-its role in Agroforestry, CAZRI Monograph. 11: 32-36.
2.Alvarez-Rogel, J., Martinez-Sanchez, J.J., Carrasco, B.L., and Marin, S.C.M. 2006. A conceptual model of salt marsh plant distribution in coastal dunes of southeastern Spain. Wetlands. 26: 703-717.
3.Anderson, T.H., and Domsch, K.H. 1990. Application of eco-physiological quotients on microbial biomasses from soils of different cropping histories. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 22: 251-255.
4.Asgharzadeh, A. 2010. Laboratory methods of soil biology. TabrizUniv. Press. Tabriz, Iran. 755p. (In Persian)
5.Bakhshandehmehr, L., Soltani, S., and Sepehr, A. 2013. Assessment of current situation of desertification and modified MEDALUS model in the Isfahan Segzi plain. J. of Range and Watershed Management. 66: 27-41. (In Persian)
6.Barth, R.C., and Klemmedson, J.O. 1982. Amount and distribution of dry matter, nitrogen, and organic carbon in soil plant systems of Mesquite and Palo Verde. J. of Range Management. 35: 412-418.
7.Bazgir, M., and Maghsoudi, Z. 2019. Soil biological properties of desert soil under canopy of natural Tamarix shrub (Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb.). J. of Water and Soil Conservation. 26: 5. 181-195.
8.Beheshti, A., Raiesi, F., and Golchin, A. 2011. The effects of land-use conversion from pasturelands to croplands on
soil microbiological and biochemical indicators. J. of Water and Soil.25: 3. 548-562. (In Persian)
9.Buck, J.R., and St Clair, S.B. 2012. Aspen increase soil moisture, nutrients, organic matter, and respiration in Rocky Mountain forest communities. Plos One. 7: 12. e52369.
10.Burton, J., Chen, C., Xu, Z., and Ghadiri, H. 2010. Soil microbial biomass, activity, and community composition in adjacent native and plantation forests of subtropical Australia. J. of Soils and Sediments.10: 7. 1267-1277.
11.Catovsky, S., and Bazzaz, F.A. 2002. Feedbacks between canopy composition and seedling regeneration in mixed conifer broad-leaved forests. Oikos.98: 403-420.
12.Conti, G., Kowaljow, E., Baptist, F., Rumpel, C., Cuchietti, A., Pérez Harguindeguy, N., and Díaz, S. 2016. Altered soil carbon dynamics under different land-use regimes in subtropical seasonally-dry forests of central Argentina. Plant and Soil. 403: 375-387.
13.Doran, J.W., and Parkin, T.B. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality, In: Defining soil quality for a sustainable Environment, edited by Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A. Soil Science Society of America. Special Publication. No. 35. Madison, Wisconsin. USA. pp. 3-21.
14.Dorfer, C., Kuhn, P., Baumann, F., He, J.S., and Scholten, T. 2013. Soil organic carbon pools and stocks in permafrost-affected soils on the Tibetan Plateau. PLos One. 8: 2. e57024.
15.Drury, C.E., Hart, S.C., and Yang, X.M. 2008. Nitrification techniques for soils. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 495-513.
16.El-Keblawy, A. 2012. Impacts of native and exotics Prosopis species on native plants in arid lands of the UAE. International Conference on Ecology. Agriculture and Chemical Engineering. pp. 233-237.
17.Facelli, J.M., and Carson, W.P. 1991. Heterogeneity of plant litter accumulation in successional communities. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 118: 62-66.
18.Follstad Shah, J.J., Harner, M.J.,and Tibbets, T.M. 2010. Elaeagnus angustifolia elevates soil inorganic nitrogen pools in riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems. 13: 46-61.
19.Garcia-Franco, N., Wiesmeier, M., Goberna, M., Martínez-Mena, M., and Albaladejo, J. 2014. Carbon dynamics after afforestation of semiarid shrublands: implications of site preparation techniques. Forest Ecology and Management. 319: 107-115.
20.Geesing, D., Felker, P., and Bingham, R.L. 2000. Influence of mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) on soil nitrogen and carbon development: Implications for global carbon sequestration. J. of Arid Environments. 46: 157-180.
21.Gei, M.G., and Powers, J.S. 2013. Do legumes and non-legumes tree species affect soil properties in unmanaged forests and plantations in Costa Rican dry forests? Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 57: 2. 264-272.
22.Hashemi, S.A., Hojati, S.M., Hoseiny Nasr, S.M., Asadyan, M., and Tafazoli, M. 2017. Studying soil physical and net Nitrogen mineralization in plantation and natural stands in Darabkola Forest (sari). J. of Forest Research and Development. 3: 2. 119-132. (In Persian)
23.Jia, B., Zhou, G., Wang, E., Wang, Y., and Weng, E. 2007. Effects of grazing on soil respiration of Leymus chinensis steppe. Climatic Change. 82: 211-223.
24.Karami Kordalivand, P., Hosseini, S.M., Rahmani, A., and Mokhtari, J. 2015. Effects of pure and mixed Caucasian alder (Alnus subcordata C.A.Mey.) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids Marsh). Plantation on carbon sequestration and some physical and chemical properties. Iranian J. of forest and Poplar Research. 23: 3. 402-412. (In Persian)
25.Karamian, M., and Hosseini, V. 2016. Effect of tree canopy and elevation on some chemical properties of forest soil (Case study: Tang Dalab, Ilam province). J. of Natural Ecosystems of Iran. 7: 1. 81-97.
26.Kaur, R., Gonzáles, W.L., Llambi, L.D., Soriano, P.J., Callaway, R.M., Rout, M.E., and Gallaher, T.J. 2012. Community impacts of Prosopis juliflora invasion biogeographic and congeneric comparisons. PLoS ONE. 7. e44966.
27.Kimmins, J.P. 2004. Forest ecology: a foundation for sustainable forest management and environmental ethics in forestry. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River. NJ. 611p.
28.Kooch, Y., Rostayee, F., and Hosseini, S.M. 2016. Effects of tree species on topsoil properties and nitrogen cycling in natural forest and tree plantations of northern Iran. Catena. 144: 2. 65-73.
29.Kramer, S., and Green, D.M. 1999. Phosphorus pools in tree and inter canopy microsites of a Juniper-Grass ecosystem. J. of Soil Science Society of America. 63: 1902-1905.
30.Kutsch, W.L., Persson, T., Schrumpf, M., Moyano, F.E., Mund, M., Andersson, S., and Schulze, E.D. 2010. Heterotrophic soil respiration and soil carbon dynamics in the deciduous Hainich forest obtained by three approaches. Biogeochemistry. 100: 167-183.
31.Lal, R. 2004. Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems. Environmental Management. 33: 528-544.
32.Ludwig, J.A., Reynolds, J.F., and Whitson, P.D. 1975. Size-biomass relations of several Chihuahuan Desert shrubs. American Midland Naturalist. 94: 451-461.
33.Mahdhi, M., Tounekti, T., and Khemira, H. 2019. Effects of Prosopis juliflora on germination, plant growth of Sorghum bicolor, mycorrhiza, and soil microbial properties. J. of Allelopathy. 46: 2. 265-276.
34.Moradi, M., Imani, F., Naji, H.R., Moradi Behbahani, S., and Ahmadi, M.A. 2017. Variation in soil carbon stock and nutrient content in sand dunes after afforestation by Prosopis juliflora in the Khuzestan province (Iran).iForest. Biogeosciences and Forestry. 10: 585-589.
35.Moslehi Juibari, M., Hasani, M., Sadeghi, S.M., Ahmadi, A., Bizhani, A., and Sadeghi, M. 2021. Allelopathic effect of native species (Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce) and exotic species (Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC) on seed germination of native plant. Research institute of forests and Rangelands. 2021. Final Report of the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands. Tehran.
36.Murugan, R., Beggi, F., Perabakaran, N., Maqsood, Sh., and Joergensen, R.G. 2020. Changes in plant community and soil ecological indicators in response to Prosopis juliflora and Acacia mearnsii invasion and removal in two biodiversity hotspots in Southern India. Soil Ecology Letters. 2: 1. 61-72.
37.Najafi, K., and Jalili, A. 2012. Effects of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC on some physical and chemical soil properties. Iranian J. of Range and Desert research. 19: 3. 406-420. (In Persian)
38.Paul, K.L., Polglase, P.J., Nyakuengama, J.G., and Khanna, P.K. 2002. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management. 168: 241-257.
39.Pausas, J.G. 1997. Litterfall and litter decomposition in Pinus sylvestris forests of the Eastern Pyrenees. J. of Vegetation Science. 8: 643-650.
40.Pearson, T.R., Brown, S.L., and Birdsey, R.A. 2007. Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. General technical report, USDA forest service.
41.Prasad, Sh., and Baishya, R. 2019. Interactive effects of soil moisture and temperature on soil respiration under native and non-native tree species in semi-arid forest of Delhi, India. International Society for Tropical Ecology. 60: 252-260.
42.Raich, J.W., and Tufekcioglu, A.2000. Vegetation and soil respiration: correlation and controls. Biogeochemistry. 48: 71-90.
43.Rouhi Moghaddam, A., Hosseini, S.M., Rahmani, A., Tabari, M., and Ebrahimi, E. 2012. Nutritional process and nutrients return in pure and mixed plantations of Oak (A case study: lowland forests of Chamestan, Noor). Iranian J. of forest and Poplar Research. 20: 2. 256-272. (In Persian)
44.Sadeghi, S.M. 2011. Ecological survey on Iranian Prosopis habitats in Bushehr province. Agricultural and natural resources research center of Bushehr province. 2011. Final report agricultural and natural resources research center of Bushehr province, Bushehr.
45.Schinner, F., Öhlinger, R., Kandeler, E., and Margasin, R. 1996. Methods in soil biology. Berlin: Springer. 426p.
46.Shackleton, R.T., Le Maitre, D.C., Pasiecznik, N.M., and Richardson, D.M. 2014. Prosopis: a global assessment of the biogeography, benefits, impacts, and management of one of the world's worst woody invasive plant taxa. AoB PLANTS. 6: plu027. 1-18.
47.Shankar, V., Dadhich, N.K., and Saxena, S.K. 1976. Effect of Khejri tree (P. cineraria) on the productivity of range grasses growing in its vicinity. Forage Research. 2: 91-96.
48.Sheklabadi, M., Khademi, H., Karimian Iqbal, M., and Nourbakhsh, F. 2007.
The effect of climate and long-term exclosure on some biological indicators of soil quality in some parts of the Central Zagros. J. of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 11: 41. 103-115. (In Persian)
49.Subedi, B.P., Pandey, S.S., Pandey, A., Rana, E.B., Bhattarai, S., Banskota, T.R., Charmakar, S., and Tamrakar, R. 2010. Forest carbon stock measurement: guidelines for measuring carbon stocks in community-managed forests. Asia network for sustainable agriculture and bioresources, Federation of community forest users, International center for integrated mountain development, Kathmandu, Nepal. 69p.
50.Tiedemann, A.R., and Klemmedson, J.O. 1972. Effect of mesquite on physical and chemical properties of the soil. J. of Range Management. 26: 27-29.
51.Voigtlaender, M., Laclau, J.P., de Moraes Gonçalves, J.L., de Cássia Piccolo, M., Moreira, M.Z., Nouvellon, Y., Ranger, J., and Bouillet, J.P. 2012. Introducing Acacia mangium trees in Eucalyptus grandis plantations: consequences for soil organic matter stocks and nitrogen mineralization. Plant and Soil. 352: 12. 99-111.
52.Xiong, Y., Xia, H., Li, Z.A., Cai, X.A., and Fu, S. 2008. Impacts of litter and understory removal on soil properties in a subtropical Acacia mangium plantation in China. Plant and Soil. 304: 12. 179-188.
53.Yang, K., Zhu, J., Zhang, M., Yan, Q., and Sun, O.J. 2010. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in forest ecosystems of Northeast China: a comparison between natural secondary forest and larch plantation. J. of Plant Ecology. 3: 3. 175-182.
54.Zhou, L., Sun, Y., Saeed, S., Zhang, B., and Luo, M. 2020. The difference of soil properties between pure and mixed Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations depends on tree species. Global Ecology and Conservation.
22: e01009.