| Literature DB >> 28982191 |
Ruoyang He1, Kaijun Yang1, Zhijie Li1, Martin Schädler2, Wanqin Yang1, Fuzhong Wu1, Bo Tan3, Li Zhang1, Zhenfeng Xu1.
Abstract
Forest land-use changesEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28982191 PMCID: PMC5642014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Basic description of three forest stands.
| Forest type | Age (yr) | Dominant species | Dominant understory | Coverage | Organic soil depth (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NF | >150 | 0.9 | 14.0±1.8 | ||
| SF | ~70 | 0.8 | 10.4±2.0 | ||
| PT | ~60 | 0.8 | 9.3±2.2 |
NF: natural coniferous forest; SF: secondary birch forest; PT: spruce plantation
Soil chemical properties in the organic and mineral soils of three subalpine forests.
| Forest type | Soil layer | C(g/kg) | N(g/kg) | P(g/kg) | C:N | C:P | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NF | OL | 206.46±12.27 | 13.98±1.06 | 0.59±0.05 | 15±1 | 352±33 | 5.10±0.22 |
| ML | 43.61±14.27 | 2.23±0.49 | 0.25±0.04 | 19±2. | 179±75 | 5.78±0.26 | |
| SF | OL | 215.78±85.11 | 13.78±3.62 | 0.50±0.05 | 15±2 | 445±225 | 7.21±0.16 |
| ML | 65.92±19.13 | 4.62±1.93 | 0.41±0.04 | 14±2 | 158±31 | 6.48±0.28 | |
| PT | OL | 88.51±18.23 | 5.43±0.86 | 0.41±0.02 | 16±1 | 217±40 | 6.40±0.05 |
| ML | 30.76±14.28 | 1.71±1.04 | 0.35±0.01 | 19±2 | 88±37 | 7.33±0.07 | |
| forest type | ns | ns | |||||
| soil layer | ns | ||||||
| forest type × soil layer | ns | ns | ns |
NF: natural coniferous forest; SF: secondary birch forest; PT: dragon spruce plantation; OL: organic layer; ML: mineral layer; The values are means ± SD, n = 3. ns: non-significant;
*: p<0.05;
**: p<0.01;
***: p<0.001.
Fig 1Soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC), nitrogen (MBN), MBC:MBN and microbial respiration in three contrasting subalpine forests on the eastern Tibetan Plateau.
Different uppercases denote significant differences between forest types in same soil layer. Different lowercases denote significant differences between soil layers in same forest type. NF: natural coniferous forest; PT: spruce plantation; SF: secondary birch forest. The values are means ± SD, n = 3.
Results of two-way ANOVA showing the p values for responses of measured variables to forest type and soil layer.
| Parameters | forest type | soil layer | forest type × soil layer |
|---|---|---|---|
| MBC | |||
| MBN | |||
| MBC:MBN | ns | ns | ns |
| MR | |||
| Total PLFAs | |||
| Bacteria | ns | ||
| Fungi | ns | ||
| Bacteria: Total PLFAs | |||
| Fungi: Total PLFAs | |||
| Bacteria: Fungi | |||
| G+ bacteria | ns | ||
| G- bacteria | ns | ||
| G+ bacteria: G- bacteria | ns | ns | ns |
MBC: microbial biomass carbon; MBN: microbial biomass nitrogen; MBC:MBN: the ratio of MBC to MBN; MR: microbial respiration; ns: non-significant;
*: p<0.05;
**: p<0.01;
***: p<0.001.
Fig 2The phospholipid fatty acid biomarker contents in three contrasting subalpine forests on the eastern Tibetan Plateau.
Different uppercases denote significant differences between forest types in same soil layer. Different lowercases denote significant differences between soil layers in same forest type. NF: natural coniferous forest; PT: spruce plantation; SF: secondary birch forest. The values are means ± SD, n = 3.
Fig 3Redundancy analyses between soil microbial PLFAs and chemical parameters.
Tbacteria: total bacteria PLFAs; Tfungi: total fungi PLFAs; Gram+: gram-positive bacteria; Gram-: gram-negative bacteria; B:F: the ratio of bacteria to fungi; G+:G-: the ratio of gram-positive bacteria to gram-negative bacteria. TOC: total organic carbon; TN: total nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus; MBC: microbial biomass carbon; MBN: microbial biomass nitrogen; C:N: the ratio of TOC to TN; C:P: the ratio of t to TP.