اثر کاربری‌های مختلف اراضی با سوابق جنگلی و مرتعی بر شاخص‌های زیستی خاک شرق مازندران

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه مرتعداری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، نور، ایران

2 محقق بخش تحقیقات جنگل‌ها، مراتع و آبخیزداری، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان ایلام، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، ایلام، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه علوم و صنایع چوب و کاغذ، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران و مرکز تحقیقات ایمنی غذا و امنیت غذایی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: شاخص‌های زیستی، از جمله فعالیت آنزیمی، تنوع میکروبی و کربن آلی، نقش کلیدی در سلامت و عملکرد اکوسیستم‌های خاکی ایفا می‌کنند. تغییرات کاربری اراضی می‌توانند تأثیرات قابل‌توجهی بر شاخص‌های زیستی و کیفیت خاک داشته باشند. بنابراین مطالعه حاضر با هدف اثر کاربری‌های مختلف اراضی با سوابق جنگلی و مرتعی بر شاخص‌های زیستی خاک شرق مازندران انجام گرفته است.
مواد و روش‌ها: ویژگی‌های مختلف لاشبرگ (نیتروژن، کربن و نسبت کربن به نیتروژن)، ویژگی‌های فیزیکی، شیمیایی و زیستی خاک تحت کاربری‌های مختلف (جنگل با غالبیت بلند مازو، باغ با سابقه جنگل، باغ با سابقه مرتع، زراعت با سابقه جنگل و زراعت با سابقه مرتع) مطالعه شد. بدین منظور در هر کاربری سه قطعه منتخب یک هکتاری با فواصل حداقل 600 متر انتخاب و در هر قطعه منتخب، پنج نمونه و در مجموع از هر یک از کاربری ها، 15 نمونه لاشبرگ و 15 نمونه خاک برداشت و مورد آزمایش قرار گرفت.
یافته‌ها: نتایج حاکی از اثرات معنی‌دار کاربری‌های مختلف بر اکثر ویژگی‌های فیزیکی، شیمیایی و زیستی خاک و ویژگی‌های لاشبرگ بود، به‌طوریکه بیشترین میزان کربن و نیتروژن لاشبرگ به کاربری جنگل با غالبیت بلندمازو و کاربری باغی با سابقه جنگل تعلق داشت. بیشترین مقادیر ویژگی‌های تخلخل، پایداری خاکدانه، رس، محتوای رطوبت، واکنش خاک، هدایت الکتریکی، کربن و ماده آلی، ذخیره کربن و نیتروژن، نیتروژن، پتاسیم، کلسیم، منیزیم، معدنی ‌شدن نیتروژن، آمونیوم، نیترات، کربن و نیتروژن ذره‌ای و آلی محلول، فعالیت‌های آنزیم (اوره‌آز، اینورتاز، آریل سولفاتاز و فسفاتازاسیدی)، جمعیت میکروارگانیسم‌های خاک (قارچ، باکتری، کنه، نماتد، پادمان، کرم خاکی و پروتوزوئر)، زیست توده ریز ریشه، تنفس پایه، کربن و نیتروژن زیتوده میکروبی، سهم میکروبی، نسبت اوره‌آز به کربن آلی، نسبت اسید فسفاتاز به کربن آلی و نسبت نیتروژن زیست توده میکروبی به نیتروژن کل در کاربری جنگل مشاهده شد. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل مؤلفه‌های اصلی (PCA) الگوی تفکیک واضحی بین کاربری‌ها مختلف را نشان داد. به ‌طوریکه رویشگاه‌هایی با حاصلخیزی خاک، تجمع عناصر غذایی و فعالیت زیستی بالا متعلق به کاربری جنگل بود. این درحالیست که اراضی زراعی با سابقه جنگلی و مرتعی با جرم مخصوص ‌ظاهری و دمای خاک در ارتباط بودند و از کیفیت و عناصر غذایی کمتری برخوردار بودند.
نتیجه گیری: نتایج این پژوهش حاکی از آنست که تغییر کاربری از جنگل به مرتع و زراعت سبب کاهش معنادار کیفیت و سلامت خاک می‌شود، به‌طوریکه شاخص‌های زیستی خاک مانند تنوع میکروبی، فعالیت آنزیمی و ذخیره کربن آلی تحت تأثیر منفی قرار می‌گیرند. این یافته‌ها به اهمیت حفظ پوشش جنگلی به‌عنوان یک اکوسیستم پایدار تأکید می‌کند. از اینرو، برنامه‌های حفاظتی از این عرصه‌های طبیعی بایستی بیش از پیش مورد توجه قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The effect of different land uses with forest and pasture backgrounds on soil biological indices in eastern Mazandaran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yahya Kooch 1
  • Nahid Jafarian 2
  • Katayoun Haghverdi 3
1 Corresponding Author, Professor, Dept. of Range Management, aculty of Natural Resources, arbiat odares University, Noor, Iran.
2 Researcher, Forests, Rangelands and Watershed Research Division, Ilam Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, AREEO, Ilam, Iran
3 Assistant Prof., Dept. of Wood and Paper Science and Technology, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran and Food Safety and Food Security Research Center, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: Biological indicators, including enzyme activity, microbial diversity, and organic carbon, play a key role in the health and functioning of soil ecosystems. Land use changes can have significant impacts on soil structure, biological indicators, and quality. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of different land uses with forest and pasture backgrounds on the biological indicators of soil in eastern Mazandaran.
Materials and methods:
The different characteristics were studied for the litter (nitrogen, carbon, and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio) and physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of soil covered with different land uses (forest with a predominance of Quercus castaneifolia, garden use with a background of forest, garden use with a background of pasture, agriculture with a background of forest and agriculture with a background of pasture (. For this purpose, in each of the Uses studied, 3 sample plots of one hectare were selected with at least 600 meters distances, and in each sample plot, 5 samples of litter and soil were collected, and a total of 15 samples of litter and 15 samples of soil were collected from each Use.
Results: The results showed significant effects of different Cland use on most physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil and litter characteristics; so that, the highest carbon and nitrogen in litter belongs to the forest land use with a predominance of Quercus castaneifolia. The highest characteristics of porosity, soil stability, clay, moisture content, pH, Ec, carbon and organic matter, storage of carbon and nitrogen, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, mineralization of nitrogen, ammonium, nitrate, particulate organic C and N, dissolved organic C and N, activity of enzymes (Urease, invertase, arylsulfatase, and acid phosphatase), soil organisms (Fungi, bacteria, Acarina, nematodes, Collembola, earthworms and protozoa), basic respiration, microbial biomass of carbon and nitrogen, microbial contribution, urease to organic carbon ratio, acid phosphatase to organic carbon ratio, and microbial biomass nitrogen to total nitrogen ratio were observed in the forest land use. The results of principal component analysis (PCA) showed a clear pattern of separation between different land uses. Habitats with high soil fertility, nutrient accumulation, and biological activity belonged to the forest land use. Meanwhile, agriculture with a background of forest and pasture was associated with apparent specific gravity and soil temperature and had lower quality and nutrients.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that land use changes from forest to pasture and agriculture cause a significant decrease in soil quality and health, resulting in a negative impact on soil biological indicators, including microbial diversity, enzyme activity, and organic carbon storage.
These findings underscore the importance of maintaining forest cover as a vital component of a sustainable ecosystem. Therefore, conservation programs for these natural areas should be given more attention than before.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • land use change
  • soil fertility
  • enzyme activity
  • soil microorganisms
  • litter

مراجع

 1.Lal, R. (2020). Soil science beyond COVID‐19. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75(4), 79A-81A. DOI:10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A.
2.Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environment International, 132, 105078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078.
3.Ritz, K., Black, H. I. J., Campbell, C. D., Harris, J. A., & Wood, C. (2009). Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: A framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development. Ecological Indicators, 110, 105951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.009.
4.Sun, Y., Luo, C., Jiang, L., Song, M., Zhang, D., Li, J., Li, Y., Ostle, N. J., & Zhang, G. (2020). Land-use changes alter soil bacterial composition and diversity in tropical forest soil in China. Science of the total environment, 712, 136526. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2020.136526.
5.Dahir, Y. A., Derege, T. M., & Tadeos, S. W. (2022). Variability of soil chemical properties in lower Wabishebele Sub-Basin in Somali Region South-eastern Ethiopia, as influenced by land use and land cover. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 18 (2), 153-161. DOI://doi. org/10.5897/AJAR2021.15840.
6.Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2011). Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annual review
of environment and resources, 36, 343-371. DOI:10.1146/annurev-environ-090710-143732.
7.Zahedifar, M. (2023). Assessing alteration of soil quality, degradation, and resistance indices under different land uses through network and factor analysis. Catena, 222, 106807. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106807.
8.Leul, Y., Assen, M., Damene, S., & Legass, A. (2023). Effects of land use types on soil quality dynamics in a tropical sub-humid ecosystem, western Ethiopia. Ecological Indicators, 147, 110024. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2023.110024.
9.Liu, M., Han, G., Li, Z., Zhang, Q., & Song, Z. (2019). Soil organic carbon sequestration in soil aggregates in the karst Critical Zone Observatory, Southwest China. Plant, Soil & Environment, 65 (5), 253-259. DOI:10.17221/602/2018-PSE.
10.Jafari, M., Chahouki, M. A. Z., Tavili, A., & Azarnivand, H. (2013). Soil-vegetation relationships in rangelands of Qom Province, Iran. Journal of Rangeland Science, 3 (1), 11-20. DOI:10.3923/pjn.2003.329.334.
11.Kooch, Y., Hosseini, S. M., Zaccone, C., Jalilvand, H., & Hojjati, S. M. (2012). Soil organic carbon sequestration as affected by afforestation: The Darab Kola forest (north of Iran) case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 197, 457-464. DOI:10.1039/c2em30410d.
12.Post, W. M., & Kwon, K. C. (2000). Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology, 6 (3), 317-327. DOI: 10. 1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x.
13.Trivedi, P., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Anderson, I. C., & Singh, B. K. (2016). Response of soil properties and microbial communities to agriculture: Implications for primary productivity and soil health indicators. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 980. doi: 10.3389/ fpls.2016.00990.
14.Brevik, E. C., Cerdà, A., Mataix-Solera, J., Pereg, L., Quinton, J. N., Six, J., & Van Oost, K. (2015). The interdisciplinary nature of SOIL. SOIL, 1 (1), 117-129. DOI:10.5194/soil-1-117-2015.
15.Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill, S. L., Hoskins, A. J., Lysenko, I., Phillips, H. R., & Burton, V. J. (2016). Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science, 353 (6296), 288-291. DOI: 10.1126/ science.aaf2201.
16.Kooch, Y., Rostayee, F., & 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, 65-73. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/j.catena.2016. 05.002.
17.Huang, J., Liu, W., Yang, S., Yang, L., Peng, Z., Deng, M., Xu, S., Zhang, B., Ahirwal, J., & Liu, L. (2021). Plant carbon inputs through shoot, root, and mycorrhizal pathways affect soil organic carbon turnover differently. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 160, 108322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021. 108322.
18.Davari, M., Gholami, L., Nabiollahi, K., Homaee, M., & Jafari, H. J. (2020). Deforestation and cultivation of sparse forest impacts on soil quality (case study: West Iran, Baneh). Soil and Tillage Research, 198, 104504. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104504.
19.Barbero, F. M., Dominchin, M. F., Verdenelli, R. A., Frasier. I., Restovich, S. B., Campilongo Mancilla, E. J., Mlewski, E. C., Labuckas, D., Gil, S. V., & Meriles, J. M. (2025). Impact of land use changes on soil chemical properties, enzyme activities and microbial communities in two contrasting localities of the Argentinian Pampas. Applied Soil Ecology, 206, 105836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2024. 105836.
20.Rahmani, R., Hosseini, S. M., & Kooch, Y. (2021). Effects of land use change on soil properties and carbon sequestration in northern Iran. Journal of Environmental Management, 280, 111742.
21.Mehmandoost, F., Owliaie, H. R., Adhami, E., & Naghiha, R. (2018). Effect of Land Use Change on some Physicochemical and Biological Properties of the Soils of Servak Plain, Yasouj Region. Journal of Water and Soil, 32 (3), 578-599. DOI://doi.org/ 10.22067/jsw.v32i3.71746. [In Persian]
22.Akbari-Shahriari, F., Boroomand, N., Shahriari, A., Shirmohammadi, E., & Fazeli-Nasab, B. (2023). The effect of land use changes on soil organic carbon and determination of the affecting soil factors in a bio-sequence (Case study: Jazink region of Sistan plain). Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 30 (1), 131-150. 10.22069/jwsc.2023. 20864.3604. [In Persian]
23.Sadati, M. S., Beheshti Ale Agha, A., & Hamedi, F. (2023). The effect of land abandonment on biological, physical and chemical properties of soils. Journal of Water and Soil, 37 (3), 397-413. https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2022.77543.1179. [In Persian]
24.Blake, G. R., & Hartge, K. H. (1986). Particle density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd ed. SSSA Book Ser. 5. ASA and SSSA, Madison. Pp: 377-382.
25.Pires, L.F., Brinatti, A. M., Saab, S. C., & Cassaro, F. A. (2014). Porosity distribution by computed tomography and its importance to characterise soil clod samples. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 92, 37-45. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.apradiso.2014.06.010.
26.Tavakoli, M., Kooch, Y., & Akbarinia, M. (2018, May). The effect of degraded and reclaimed forest areas on carbon dioxide gas emissions and soil carbon mineralization in West of Mazandaran. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Climate Change and Dendrochronology in Caspian Ecosystems: Sari, Iran.
27.Bouyoucos, G. J. (1962). Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Journal of Agrobiology, 56, 464-465. doi: 10.2134/ agronj1962.00021962005400050028x.
28.Allison, L. E. (1965). Organic carbon. In: “Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties” (Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR eds). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, Pp: 1367-1378.
29.Handayani, I. P., Coyne, M. S., & Tokosh, R. S. (2010). Soil organic matter fractions and aggregate distribution in response to tall fescue stands. International Journal of Soil Science, 5, 1-10. doi: 10.3923/ijss.2010. 1.10.
30.Robertson, G. P., Coleman, D. C., Sollins, P., & Bledsoe, C. S. (1999). Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press on Demand. 480p.
31.Bremner, J. M., & Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen-total. In: “Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties” (Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR eds). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, Pp: 595-624.
32.Jones, D. L., & Willett, V. B. (2006). Experimental evaluation of methods to quantify dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38, 991-999. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.012.
33.Bower, C. A., Reitemeier, R. F., & Fireman, M. (1952). Exchangeable cation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Science, 73, 251-261. DOI:10.1097/ 00010694-195204000-00001.
34.Homer, C. D., & Pratt, P. F. (1961). Methods of analysis for soils, plants and waters. Agricultural Sciences Publications, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 309 p.
35.Kemper, W. D., & Rosenau, R. C. (1986). Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, Pp: 383-411.
36.Zancan, S., Trevisan, R., & Paoletti, M. G. (2006). Soil algae composition under different agro-ecosystems in North-Eastern Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.06.018.
37.Duran, J., Rodriguez, A., Palacios, J. M. F., & Gallardo, A. (2009). Changes in net Nmineralization rates and soil N and P pools in pine forest wildfire chronosequence. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45, 781-788. DOI:10.1007/s00374-009-0389-4.
38.Nianpeng, H., Yunhai, Z., Jingzhong, D., Xingguo, H., Taogetao, B., & Guirui, Y. (2012). Land-use impact on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration in typical steppe ecosystems, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 22, 859-873. DOI: 10.1007/ s11442-012-0968-4.
39.Bayranvand, M., Kooch, Y., & Rey, A. (2017). Earthworm population and microbial activity temporal dynamics in a Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forest. European Journal of Forest Research, 136, 447-456. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-017-1044-5.
40.Kooch, Y., Samadzadeh, B., & Hosseini, S. M. (2017). The effects of broad-leaved tree species on litter quality and soil properties in a plain forest stand. Catena, 150, 223-229. DOI: 10.1016/ j.catena.2016.11.023.
41.Neher, D. A. (1999). Soil community composition and ecosystem processes: comparing agricultural ecosystems with natural ecosystems. Agroforestry Systems, 45, 159-185. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006299 100678.
42.Adl, S. M., Acosta-Mercado, D., Anderson, T. R., & Lynn, D. H. (2006). Protozoa, supplementary material. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2 (1), 455-470.
43.Wollum, A. G. (1983). Cultural methods for soil microorganisms. In: “Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties” (Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR eds). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. Pp: 781-802.
44.Alef, K., & Nannipieri, P. (1995). Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. Academic Press, London.
45.Neatrour, M. A., Jones, R. H., & Golladay, S. W. (2005). Correlations between soil nutrient availability and fine-root biomass at two spatial scales in forested wetlands with contrasting hydrological regimes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35 (12), 2934-2941. DOI:10.1139/x05-217.
46.Anderson, T. H., & Domsch, K. H. (1990). Application of eco-physiological quotients (qCO2 and qD) on microbial biomasses from soils of different cropping histories. Soil Biol. Biochem, 22, 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0038-0717(90)90094-G.
47.Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G., & Jenkinson, D. S. (1985). Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 17, 837-842. https://doi org/10.1016/0038-0717(85)90144-0.
48.Paz-Ferreiro, J., Gascó, G., Gutiérrez, B., & Méndez, A. (2012). Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludgeand sewage sludge bio char to soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 48, 511-517. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-011-0644-3.
49.Lagomarsino, A., Benedetti, A., Marinari, S., Pompili, L., Moscatelli, M. C., Roggero, P. P., Lai, R., Ledda, L., & Grego, S. (2011). Soil organic C variability and microbial functions in a Mediterranean agro-forest ecosystem. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 47, 283-291. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-010-0530-4.
50.Mao, R., & Zeng, D. H. (2010). Changes in soil particulate organic matter, microbial biomass, and activity following afforestation of marginal agricultural lands in a semi-arid area of Northeast China. Environmental Management, 46 (2), 110-116. DOI: 10. 1007/s00267-010-9504-4.
51.Wang, Q., Liu, J., Wang, Y., Guan, J., Liu, L., & Lv, D. A. (2012). Land use effects on soil quality along a native wetland to cropland chronosequence. European Journal of Soil Biology, 53, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejsobi.2012.09.008.
52.Askari, E., Owliaie, H. R., Safari, Y., & Sedghi Asl, M. (2017). Spatial variability of some soil fertility characteristics affected by land use changes in Yasouj region. Journal of soil management and sustainable production, 9, 65-81. [In Persian]
53.Mueller, R. C., Rodrigues, J. L. M., Nüsslein, K., & Bohannan, B. J. M. (2016). Land use change in the Amazon rain forest favours generalist fungi. Functional Ecology, 30, 1845-1853. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/ 1365-2435. 12651. [In Persian]
54.Panwar, N.R., Ramesh, P., Singh, A. B., Ramana, S. (2010). Influence of organic, chemical, and integrated management practices on soil organic carbon and soil nutrient status under semi-arid tropical conditions in Central India. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 41 (9), 1073-1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103621003687166.
55.Raiesi, F., & Asadi, E. (2006). Soil microbial activity and litter turnover in native grazed and ungrazed rangelands in a semiarid ecosystem. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43, 76-82. DOI:10. 1007/s00374-005-0066-1.
56.Kooch, Y., Ghorbanzadeh, N., Hajimirzaaghaee, S., & Francaviglia, R. (2023). Soil biological quality as affected by vegetation types in shrublands of a semi-arid montane environment. Applied Soil Ecology, 189, 104980. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil. 2023.104980.
57.Owliaie, H. R., Adhami, E., Farajee, H., & Fayyaz, F. (2011). Influence of Oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) on selected soil properties of Oak forests in Yasouj region. Journal Water Soil Science, 15 (56), 193-208. [In Persian]
58.Sharrow, S. H., & Ismail, S. (2004). Carbon and nitrogen storage in agroforests, tree plantations, and pastures in western Oregon, USA. Agroforestry Systems, 60, 123-130. DOI: 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000013267. 87896.41.
59.Jiao, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Xu, Z., Kong, B., Li, Y., & Shen, Y. (2020). Variation of soil organic carbon and physical properties in relation to land uses in the Yellow River Delta, China. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 20317. DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-020-77303-8.
60.Fouché, J., Christiansen, C. T., Lafrenière, M. J., Grogan, P., & Lamoureux, S. F. (2020). Canadian permafrost stores large pools of ammonium and optically distinct dissolved organic matter. Nature Communications, 11 (1), 4500. doi: 10. 1038/s41467-020-18331-w. [In Persian]
61.Sagheb-Talebi, K., Sajedi, T., & Pourhashemi, M. (2014). Forests of Iran: A treasure from the past, a hope for the future. Springer Science & Business Media, Tehran.
62.Chase, P., & Singh, O. P. (2014). Soil nutrients and fertility in three traditional land use systems of Khonoma, Nagaland, India. Resources and Environment, 4 (4), 181-189. DOI: 10.5923/j.re.2014 0404.01.
63.Chi, Y., Shi, H., Wang, X., Qin, X., Zheng, W., & Peng, S. (2016). Impact factors identification of spatial heterogeneity of herbaceous plant diversity on five southern islands of Miaodao Archipelago in North China. Chinese journal of oceanology and limnology, 34 (5), 937-951. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00343-016-5111-4.
64.Owliaie, H. R., Adhami, E., & Najafi Ghiri, M. (2023). Effect of Land Use Change on Some Fertility and Biological Properties of the Soils of Yasouj Forest Region. Journal of Water and Soil Science, 27 (3), 57-75. DOI: 10.47176/ jwss.27.3.53491. [In Persian]
65.Meyfroidt, P., Vu, T. P., & Hoang, V. A. (2013). Trajectories of deforestation, coffee expansion and displacement of shifting cultivation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1187-1198. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.gloenvcha. 2013.04.005.
66.Binkley, D., & Fisher, R. (2012). Ecology and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley & Sons, 368p.
67.Tang, X., Qiu, J., Xu, Y., Li, J., Chen, J., Li, B., & Lu, Y. (2022). Responses of soil aggregate stability to organic C and total N as controlled by land-use type in a region of south China affected by sheet erosion. Catena, 218, 106543. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106543.
68.Six J., Elliot, E. T., & Paustian, K. (2000). Soil macroaggregate turn over and micro-aggregate formation for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32, 2099-2103.
69.Kooch, Y., & Sohrabzadeh, Z. (2024). Soil quality indicators are clearly plant species-specific: Implication for ecosystem management in a semi-arid landscape. Ecological Engineering, 207, 107357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107357.
70.Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002). Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology, 8 (4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x.
71.Gan, F., Shi, H., Gou, J., Zhang, L., Dai, Q., & Yan, Y. (2024). Responses of soil aggregate stability and soil erosion resistance to different bedrock strata dip and land use types in the karst trough valley of Southwest China. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 12 (3), 684-696. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.iswcr.2023.09.002.
72.Sullivan, P. F., Stokes, M. C., McMillan, C. K., & Weintraub, M. N. (2020). Labile carbon limits late winter microbial activity near Arctic tree line. Nature Communications, 11 (1), 1-9. DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-17790-5.
73.Sparks, D. L. (2003). Environmental soil chemistry (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
74.Augusto, L., De Schrijver, A., Vesterdal, L., Smolander, A., Prescott, C., & Ranger, J. (2015). Influences of evergreen gymnosperm and deciduous angiosperm tree species on the functioning of temperate and boreal forests.
Biological Reviews, 90 (2), 444-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12119.
75.Yuan, Z. Y., & Chen, H. Y. (2010). Fine Root Biomass, Production, Turnover Rates, and Nutrient Contents in Boreal Forest Ecosystems in Relation to Species, Climate, Fertility, and Stand Age: Literature Review and Meta-Analyses. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29 (4), 204-221. https://doi. org/10.1080/07352689.2010.483579.
76.Acosta-Martínez, V., Cruz, L., Sotomayor-Ramírez, D., & Pérez-Alegría, L. (2007). Enzyme Activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed. Applied Soil Ecology, 35 (1), 35-45. DOI:10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.05.012.
77.Ferreira, A. C. C., Leite, L. F. C., Araújo, A. S. F., & Eisenhauer, N. (2016). Land use type effects on soil organic Carbon and microbial properties in a semi-arid region of Northeast Brazil. Land Degradation and Development, 27 (2), 171-178.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2282.
78.Kooch, Y., & Ghaderi, E. (2023). The effect of Crataegus and Berberis canopy types on bioindicators of soil quality in a semi-arid climate. Journal of Arid Environments, 208, 104862. DOI:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2022.104862.
79.Tong, H., Simpson, A. J., Paul, E. A., & Simpson, M. J. (2021). Land-use change and environmental properties alter the quantity and molecular composition of soil-derived dissolved organic matter. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry,
5 (6), 1395-1406. https://doi.org/10. 1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00033.
80.Fabíola Barros, M., Pinho, B. X., Leão, T., & Tabarelli, M. (2018). Soil attributes structure plant assemblages across an Atlantic forest mosaic. Journal of Plant Ecology, 11 (4), 613-622. DOI:10.1093/jpe/rtx037.
81.Rothe, A., Cromack, K., Resh, S. C., Makineci, E., & Son, Y. (2002). Soil carbon and nitrogen changes under Douglas-fir with and without red alder. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66 (6), 1988-1995. DOI:10.2136/sssaj 2002.1988.
82.Stott, D. E. (2019). Recommended soil health indicators and associated laboratory procedures. Soil Health Technical Note [Preprint], Pp: 450-03.
83.Singh, J. S., Singh, D. P.,  &Kashyap, A. K. )2009(. A comparative account of the microbial biomass-N and N-mineralization of soils under natural forest, grassland and crop field from dry tropical region, India. Plant Soil Environ, 55 (6), 223-230. DOI: 10.17221/1021-PSE.
84.Brinkmann, N., Schneider, D., Sahner, J., Ballauff, J., Edy, N., Barus, H., Irawan, B., Budi, S. W., Qaim, M., Daniel, R., & Polle, A. (2019). Intensive tropical land use massively shifts soil fungal communities. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 1-11. DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-39829-4.
85.Spohn, M., Pötsch, E. M., Eichorst, S. A., Woebken, D., Wanek, W., & Richter, A. (2016). Soil microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover in a long-term fertilization experiment in a temperate grassland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 97, 168-175. DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio. 2016.03.008.
86.Tiamgne, X. T., Kalaba, F. K., & Nyirenda, V. R. (2021). Land use and cover change dynamics in Zambia's Solwezi copper mining district. Scientific African, 14, e01007. DOI:10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e01007.
87.Sherman, L., & Coleman, M. D. (2020). Forest soil respiration and exoenzyme activity in western North America following thinning, residue removal for biofuel production, and compensatory soil amendments. GCB Bioenergy,
12 (3), 223-236. https://doi.org/ 10. 1111/gcbb.12668.
88.Yao, Y., Shaoa, M., Fu, X., Wang, X., & Wei, X. (2020). Effects of shrubs on soil nutrients and enzymatic activities over a 0–100 cm soil profile in the desert-loess transition zone. Catena, 174, 362-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018. 11.031.
89.Zeng, D. H., Hu, Y. L., Chang, S. X., & Fan, Z. P. (2009). Land cover change effects on soil chemical and biological properties after planting Mongolian pine (Pinus sylvestris var. Mongolia) in sandy lands in Keerqin, northeastern China. Plant Soil, 317, 121-133. DOI:10.1007/s11104-008-9793-z.
90.Zhou, Z., Wang, C., & Luo, Y. (2020). Effects of forest degradation on microbial communities and soil carbon cycling: A global meta-analysis.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
29 (7), 1107-1119. DOI:10.1111/geb. 13084.
91.Cheng, F., Peng, X., Zhao, P., Yuan, J., Zhong, C., Cheng, Y., & Zhang, S. (2013). Soil microbial biomass, basal respiration, and enzyme activity of main forest types in the Qinling Mountains. PloS one, 8 (6), 1-12. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067353.
92.Wang, R., Creamer, C. A., Wang, X., He, P., Xu, Z., & Jiang, Y. (2016). The effects of a 9-year nitrogen and water addition on soil aggregate phosphorus and sulfur availability in semi-arid grassland. Ecological Indicators, 61, 806-814. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2015.10.033.
93.Bastida, F., Zsolnay, A., Hernández, T., García, C. (2008). Past, present and future of soil quality indices: a biological perspective. Geoderma, 147, 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoderma.2008.08.007.
94.García-Ruiz, R., Ochoa, V., Hinojosa, M. B., & Carreira, J. A. (2008). Suitability of enzyme activities for the monitoring of soil quality improvement in organic agricultural systems.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
40, 2137-2145. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.soilbio.2008.03.023.
95.Lemanowicz, J., Haddad, S. A., Bartkowiak, A., Lamparski, R., & Wojewódzki, P. (2020). The role of an urban park's tree stands in shaping the enzymatic activity, glomalin content and physicochemical properties of soil. Science of the Total Environment, 741, 140446. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2020.140446.
96.Schlesinger, W. H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2013). Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. Academic Press. 672p.
97.Phillips, H. R. P., Guerra, C. A., Bartz, M. L. C., Briones, G., Brown, T. W., Crowther, O., & et al. (2019). Global distribution of earthworm diversity. Science, 366 (6464), 480-485. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1126/science. aax4851.
98.Kooch, Y., Ghorbanzadeh, N., Wirth, S., Novara, A., & Shah Piri, A. (2021). Soil functional indicators in a mountain forest-rangeland mosaic of northern Iran. Ecological Indicators, 126, 107672. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107672.
99.Ravindran, A., Shang-Shyng, A., & Yang, A. (2015). Effects of vegetation type on microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in subalpine mountain forest soils. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 48, 362-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2014.02.003.
100.Rusek, J. (1998). Biodiversity of Collembola and their functional role in the ecosystem. Biodiversity & Conservation, 7 (9), 1207-1219. DOI:10.1023/A:1008887817883.
101.Koehler, H. H. (1999). Predatory mites (Gamasina, Mesostigmata). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74 (1-3), 395-410. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0167-8809(99)00045-6.
102.Fracetto, G. G. M., Azevedo, L. C. B., Fracetto, F. J. C., Andreote, F. D., Lambais, M. R., & Pfenning, L. H. (2013). Impact of Amazon landuse on the community of soil fungi. Sciatica Agricola, 70 (2), 59-67. DOI: 10.1590/ S0103-90162013000200001.
103.Blouin, M., Hodson, M. E., Delgado, E. A., Baker, G., Brussaard, L., Butt, K. R., Dai, J., Dendooven, L., Peres, G., Tondoh, J. E., Cluzeau, D., & Brun, J. J. (2013). A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Science, 64 (2), 161-182. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ejss.12025.
104.van den Hoogen, J., Geisen, S., Routh, D., Ferris, H., & et al. (2019). Soil nematode abundance and functional group composition at a global scale. Nature, 572 (7768), 194-198. DOI:10.1038/s41586-019-1418-6.
105.Bardgett, R. D., & van der Putten, W. H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature,
515 (7528), 505-511. DOI: 10.1038/ nature13855.
106.Fierer, N., Wood. A. S., & Mesquita, C. B. (2021). How microbes can, and cannot, be used to assess soil health. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 153, 108111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020. 108111.
107.Elie, F., Vincenot, L., Berthe, T., Quibel, E., Zeller, B., Saint-André, L., Normand, M., Chauvat, M., & Aubert, M. (2018). Soil fauna as bioindicators of organic matter export in temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 429, 549-557. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco. 2018.07.053.
108.Bazyari, M., Etemad, V., Kooch, Y., & Shirvany, A. (2021). Soil fauna communities and microbial activities response to litter and soil properties under degraded and restored forests of Hyrcania. iForest, 14, 490-498. doi: 10. 3832/ifor3583-014 [online 2021-11-11] .
109.Xu, X., Han, L., Wang, Y., & Inubushi, K. )2007(. Influence of vegetation types and soil properties on microbial biomass carbon and metabolic quotients in temperate volcanic and tropical forest soils. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 53 (4), 430-440. DOI:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00146.x.
110.Moscatelli, M. C., Tizio, A. D., Marinari, S., & Grego, S. )2007(. Microbial indicators related to soil carbon in Mediterranean land use systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 97, 51-59. DOI:10.1016/j.still.2007.08.007.
مجله مدیریت خاک و تولید پایدار
دوره 16، شماره 2
تیر 1405
صفحه 1-31

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار