Influence of Geological Formation on the Ecological Spatial Pattern of Soil and Vegetation in the Danjiang River Source Region

doi:10.19657/j.geoscience.1000-8527.2023.004

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the major factors affecting the ecological spatial pattern of soil and vegetation in the Danjiang River source region, and support the ecological management of the basin, we analyze the contributions of different geological formations on the soil properties and vegetation coverage. The study encompasses the aspects of the type, nutrient content and joint by combining GIS, RS and elemental geochemical analysis methods. Soil texture, physical and chemical properties, and nutrient element content in soil and vegetation have clear correlations with the rock type, and the joint development has a significant impact on forest type and vegetation coverage. The joint density of the Paleozoic mafic volcanic rock and mafic magmatic rock formation, the Triassic and Precambrian felsic magmatic rock formation is over 4 m/m². The occurrence is steep, and the content of P and other nutrient elements is high, which is conducive to the growth of deep-rooted trees. The joint density of the Precambrian clastic rock formation and the Paleozoic felsic magmatic rock formation is 3-4 m/m², and the occurrence is relatively slow. Thus, the forest type is dominated by thickets, and minor Pinus tabulaeformis grows on the slope top. The Cretaceous-Paleogene clastic rock formation is mainly composed of glutenite and mudstone interbeds, with the joint density below 1 m/m² and poor penetration, i.e., the forest type is a small number of low shrubs. The formation type plays a vital role in controlling soil properties and ecological vegetation patterns, providing the scientific basis for local governments to implement land spatial zoning control based on geological construction.

Key words: geological formation, soil nutrient, vegetation cover, Danjiang river source, Shangluo,Shaanxi

CLC Number:

P642.1

QIAN Xinyu, BIAN Xiaowei, ZHANG Yafeng, WANG Yingwei, YANG Yunjun, YOU Jun. Influence of Geological Formation on the Ecological Spatial Pattern of Soil and Vegetation in the Danjiang River Source Region[J]. Geoscience, 2023, 37(04): 903-913.

Figures/Tables 8

References 33

[1]	MEYER W B, TURNER B L II. Human population growth and global land-use/cover change[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1992, 23: 39-61. DOI URL
[2]	ZHU Z C, PIAO S L, MYNENI R B, et al. Greening of the earth and its drivers[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(8): 791-795. DOI
[3]	于贵瑞, 李文华, 邵明安, 等. 生态系统科学研究与生态系统管理[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(12): 2620-2635. DOI
[4]	VALLADARES F, BASTIAS C C, GODOY O, et al. Species coexistence in a changing world[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6: 866. DOI PMID
[5]	严桃桃, 吴轩, 权养科, 等. 从岩石到土壤再到水系沉积物: 风化过程的岩性地球化学基因[J]. 现代地质, 2018, 32(3): 453-467.
[6]	CHAPELA LARA M, BUSS H L, PETT-RIDGE J C. The effects of lithology on trace element and REE behavior during tropical weathering[J]. Chemical Geology, 2018, 500: 88-102. DOI URL
[7]	杨志忠, 周文龙, 罗勇军, 等. 贵州镇远县耕地土壤中硒的分布特征及控制因素[J]. 现代地质, 2021, 35(2): 434-442.
[8]	刘洪, 黄瀚霄, 欧阳渊, 等. 基于地质建造的土壤地质调查及应用前景分析: 以大凉山区西昌市为例[J]. 沉积与特提斯地质, 2020, 40(1): 91-105.
[9]	张腾蛟, 刘洪, 欧阳渊, 等. 不同地质建造类型的生态环境功能特征: 以西昌地区为例[J]. 中国地质调查, 2021, 8(6): 35-49.
[10]	张维理, 徐爱国, 张认连, 等. 土壤分类研究回顾与中国土壤分类系统的修编[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(16): 3214-3230. DOI
[11]	BIRKELAND P W. Holocene soil chronofunctions, southern Alps, New Zealand[J]. Geoderma, 1984, 34(2):115-134. DOI URL
[12]	MAYES M, MARIN-SPIOTTA E, SZYMANSKI L, et al. Soil type mediates effects of land use on soil carbon and nitrogen in the Konya Basin, Turkey[J]. Geoderma, 2014, 232/233/234: 517-527.
[13]	王京彬, 卫晓锋, 张会琼, 等. 基于地质建造的生态地质调查方法: 以河北省承德市国家生态文明示范区综合地质调查为例[J]. 中国地质, 2020, 47(6): 1611-1624.
[14]	卫晓锋, 樊刘洋, 孙紫坚, 等. 河北承德柴白河流域地质建造对植物群落组成的影响[J]. 中国地质, 2020, 47(6): 1869-1880.
[15]	何泽新, 樊刘洋, 卫晓锋, 等. 基于地质建造和流域地貌的河北省承德蟠龙湖地区大比例尺地质遗迹调查[J]. 中国地质, 2020, 47(6): 1881-1893.
[16]	聂洪峰, 肖春蕾, 戴蒙, 等. 生态地质调查工程进展与主要成果[J]. 中国地质调查, 2021, 8(1): 1-12.
[17]	LI M Y, LIANG D, XIA J, et al. Evaluation of water conservation function of Danjiang River Basin in Qinling Mountains, China based on InVEST model[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 286: 112212. DOI URL
[18]	国家气象科学数据中心. 中国地面气候资料月值数据集(1951—2020年)[D]. 北京: 国家科学数据中心,2021.
[19]	张国伟, 孟庆任, 赖绍聪. 秦岭造山带的结构构造[J]. 中国科学(B辑), 1995(9): 994-1003.
[20]	王宗起, 闫全人, 闫臻, 等. 秦岭造山带主要大地构造单元的新划分[J]. 地质学报, 2009, 83(11): 1527-1546.
[21]	陕西省土壤普查办公室. 陕西省第二次土壤普查数据集(1979-1990年):地球系统科学数据共享平台——黄土高原科学数据共享平台[R]. 北京: 国家科学数据中心, 2008.
[22]	潘贤章, 施建平. 全国第二次土壤普查典型土种的剖面数据库(1980—1996):国家地球系统科学数据共享平台——土壤科学数据中心[R]. 北京: 国家科学数据中心, 2015.
[23]	陕西师范大学地理系陕西省《商洛地区地理志》编写组. 陕西省商洛地区地理志[M]. 西安: 陕西人民出版社, 1981.
[24]	陈岳龙, 杨忠芳. 环境地球化学[M]. 北京: 地质出版社, 2017.
[25]	张恋, 王宇飞, 罗建林, 等. 地层岩性对植物群落分布特征的影响[J]. 中国地质调查, 2021, 8(6): 78-86.
[26]	HU F Y, LIU S W, ZHANG W Y, et al. A westward propagating slab tear model for Late Triassic Qinling Orogenic Belt geodynamic evolution: Insights from the petrogenesis of the Caoping and Shahewan intrusions, central China[J]. Lithos, 2016, 262: 486-506. DOI URL
[27]	贾晨. 秦岭三十里铺辉长杂岩体地球化学特征及构造环境[D]. 西安: 长安大学, 2016.
[28]	陕西省地质矿产局第十三地质队区调分队. 1:50000商县幅区域地质调查报告[R]. 西安: 陕西省地质矿产局, 1996.
[29]	张成立, 周鼎武, 韩松. 陕西商州地区丹凤变质火山岩的地球化学特征[J]. 地质科学, 1994, 29(4): 384-392.
[30]	杨力, 陈福坤, 杨一增, 等. 丹凤地区秦岭岩群片麻岩锆石U-Pb年龄: 北秦岭地体中—新元古代岩浆作用和早古生代变质作用的记录[J]. 岩石学报, 2010, 26(5): 1589-1603.
[31]	鄢明才, 顾铁新, 迟清华, 等. 中国土壤化学元素丰度与表生地球化学特征[J]. 物探与化探, 1997, 21(3): 161-167.
[32]	潘丽萍, 刘永贤, 黄雁飞, 等. 土壤-植物体系中硒与重金属镉的相互作用[J]. 生物技术进展, 2017, 7(5): 480-485. DOI
[33]	WICHE O, SZÉKELY B, MOSCHNER C, et al. Germanium in the soil-plant system—a review[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(32): 31938-31956. DOI

地质建造	N (mg/kg)	P (mg/kg)	K₂O (%)	CaO (%)	MgO (%)	^TFe₂O₃ (%)	Mn (mg/kg)	Cu (mg/kg)	Zn (mg/kg)	Mo (mg/kg)	B (mg/kg)
古生代基性火山岩	644	726	2.860	2.120	2.54	4.960	692	15.8	58.2	0.70	44.2
三叠纪酸性岩浆岩	483	976	3.915	0.950	1.42	4.655	633	17.4	68.7	0.90	55.1
古生代基性岩浆岩	483	805	2.180	3.325	2.32	6.585	664	35.0	73.4	1.14	32.0
前寒武酸性岩浆岩	523	706	2.635	2.485	1.59	3.920	702	20.6	75.6	0.56	8.26
古生代酸性岩浆岩	564	470	2.530	6.450	1.67	4.610	642	29.8	72.5	0.55	37.7
前寒武碎屑岩	301	748	2.290	1.270	1.60	4.970	1071	43.9	85.0	0.44	21.6
白垩纪—古近纪碎屑岩	971	510	2.290	1.900	1.09	4.450	640	35.4	114.0	0.89	68.9

地质建造	N (mg/kg)	P (mg/kg)	K₂O (%)	CaO (%)	MgO (%)	^TFe₂O₃ (%)	Mn (mg/kg)	Cu (mg/kg)	Zn (mg/kg)	Mo (mg/kg)	B (mg/kg)
古生代基性火山岩	644	726	2.860	2.120	2.54	4.960	692	15.8	58.2	0.70	44.2
三叠纪酸性岩浆岩	483	976	3.915	0.950	1.42	4.655	633	17.4	68.7	0.90	55.1
古生代基性岩浆岩	483	805	2.180	3.325	2.32	6.585	664	35.0	73.4	1.14	32.0
前寒武酸性岩浆岩	523	706	2.635	2.485	1.59	3.920	702	20.6	75.6	0.56	8.26
古生代酸性岩浆岩	564	470	2.530	6.450	1.67	4.610	642	29.8	72.5	0.55	37.7
前寒武碎屑岩	301	748	2.290	1.270	1.60	4.970	1071	43.9	85.0	0.44	21.6
白垩纪—古近纪碎屑岩	971	510	2.290	1.900	1.09	4.450	640	35.4	114.0	0.89	68.9

影响因素	指标	P	Mg	^TFe	K	Mn	Ca
基岩元素含量	P	0.764^**
	Mg		0.721^**
	TFe			0.435^*
	K				0.497^**
	Mn					0.182^*
	Ca						0.004

影响因素	指标	P	Mg	^TFe	K	Mn	Ca
基岩元素含量	P	0.764^**
	Mg		0.721^**
	TFe			0.435^*
	K				0.497^**
	Mn					0.182^*
	Ca						0.004

地质建造	建造面积(hm²)	林地面积(hm²)	覆盖率(%)	节理密度(m/m²)	节理样方数
白垩纪—古近纪碎屑岩建造	122.6041	79.0422	64.47	0.75	4
古生代酸性岩浆岩建造	426.5701	374.3329	87.75	3.22	3
前寒武纪碎屑岩建造	961.0268	861.3130	89.62	3.73	3
古生代基性岩浆岩建造	537.6749	487.1379	90.60	4.62	4
前寒武纪酸性岩浆岩建造	1907.7503	1730.0929	90.69	4.15	5
三叠纪酸性岩浆岩建造	279.9992	255.7484	91.34	4.79	4
古生代基性火山岩建造	2.0801	1.9032	91.50	4.66	3