Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Forces

Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute >

2026 , Vol. 43 >Issue 1: 59 - 65

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11988/ckyyb.20241213

Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration

Assessment of Winter Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Typical Herbaceous Plants in Riparian Zone of Xiongxi River Based on Global Warming Potential (GWP)

  • WU Xin-tong , 1, 2, 3 ,
  • PENG Juan 1, 2, 3 ,
  • YAN Feng , 1, 2, 3
Expand
  • 1 School of Infrastructure, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
  • 2 Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Environment and Resource Utilization of Ministry of Education,Nanchang University,Nanchang 330031,China
  • 3 Engineering Research Center of Ministry of Education on Watershed Carbon Neutralization, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China

Received date: 2024-11-26

  Revised date: 2025-05-21

  Accepted date: 2025-09-03

  Online published: 2025-07-02

Fold

Abstract

[Objective] This study aims to explore the role of river riparian zones in southern China as sources or sinks of greenhouse gases during winter. Traditional studies often focus on individual greenhouse gases, lacking simultaneous observation and comprehensive assessment of multiple greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Therefore, the core objectives of this study are: (1) to quantify the winter fluxes of CO2, CH4, and N2O under three common riparian herbaceous plants (Ophiopogon japonicus, Allium tuberosum, and Cynodon dactylon) and in bare soil control plots; (2) to comprehensively assess the contribution of different vegetation types to the net winter greenhouse effect in riparian zones based on the global warming potential (GWP) model; (3) to identify the key environmental drivers affecting greenhouse gas fluxes; and (4) to provide a scientific basis for vegetation selection and ecological management in southern riparian zones from the practical perspective of promoting “carbon neutrality”. [Methods] This study took the riparian zone of the Xiongxi River, a typical river in southern China, as the study area. Three widely distributed and representative herbaceous plant communities, along with bare soil as control areas, were selected. Throughout the winter, on one sunny day in the middle of each month, high-precision LI-7810 and LI-7820 trace gas analyzers were used for in-situ simultaneous observations to obtain flux data for the three greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, key environmental parameters such as air temperature, soil temperature, and soil moisture were synchronously recorded. To integrate the overall impact of the three greenhouse gases on global warming, the global warming potential model was adopted. On a 100-year time scale, with CO2 as the reference, all fluxes were uniformly converted into CO2 equivalents, thereby obtaining the daily comprehensive GWP for each study area. Data analysis was conducted using statistical methods including one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation analysis, and regression analysis. [Results] Herbaceous plants significantly reduced the net carbon emissions in riparian zones during winter. After comprehensive assessment of CO2, CH4, and N2O, significant differences were found in winter GWP values across different areas. The average GWP in the Cynodon dactylon area, Ophiopogon japonicus area, Allium tuberosum area, and bare area was 3 817.77±249.24, 3 963.31± 265.66, 6 876.89±536.17,8 653.71±756.08 mg/(m2∙d), respectively. Although all areas functioned as net carbon sources during winter, the GWP was effectively reduced in the three herbaceous plant-covered areas compared to bare land. This result, for the first time, quantified the mitigation effect of herbaceous plants on the greenhouse effect of riparian zones under a winter, multi-gas comprehensive assessment framework. The impact of different vegetation types on greenhouse gas composition was species-specific. In-depth analysis of each gas component showed that CO2 emission fluxes in all vegetated areas were significantly lower than in bare land. CH4 fluxes mostly exhibited weak absorption, with the lowest average in bare areas and the highest in Ophiopogon japonicus areas. Regarding N2O flux, bare areas showed the highest average, while the Cynodon dactylon areas had the lowest. Observations also indicated a distinct diurnal variation in riparian GWP, with higher values at noon and lower values in the morning and evening. Pearson correlation analysis revealed that soil temperature was the key environmental factor driving this diurnal pattern, showing a highly significant positive correlation with the GWP value. This finding clarified the central role of temperature in regulating the carbon emission process of riparian zones in winter. [Conclusion] (1) This study overcomes the limitations of traditional single-gas studies, systematically revealing for the first time in southern China’s winter riparian environment that common herbaceous plants significantly and differentially influence regional net greenhouse effects by altering CO2, CH4, and N2O emission profiles. It confirms that vegetation cover in winter also has a certain emission-reduction function.(2) From the perspective of the synergy between riparian ecological engineering management and carbon neutrality goals, vegetation selection is crucial. Among the three plants examined in this study, Cynodon dactylon proves to be the optimal choice in winter due to its lowest GWP, whereas Allium tuberosum, though visually appealing, has the highest GWP and is therefore not recommended for planting from an emission-reduction perspective.(3) Soil temperature is the key environmental factor controlling the diurnal variation of winter greenhouse gas fluxes in riparian zones. This implies that under future global warming, rising winter temperatures may significantly enhance the carbon emission intensity of such ecosystems and should be fully considered in carbon cycle models.

Key words： riparian zone; herbaceous plants; greenhouse gas fluxes; global warming potential model

Cite this article

WU Xin-tong , PENG Juan , YAN Feng . Assessment of Winter Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Typical Herbaceous Plants in Riparian Zone of Xiongxi River Based on Global Warming Potential (GWP)[J]. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 2026 , 43(1) : 59 -65 . DOI: 10.11988/ckyyb.20241213

0 引言

河岸带作为河流-陆地生态系统的交错界面,具有显著的淹水-落干水文节律特征[1]。河岸带也称消落区,季节性水位涨落是消落区形成的重要原因之一。除此之外,干旱等特殊的气候条件也会导致消落区的形成。频繁的周期性干湿交替,导致该区域生态环境较为脆弱。从功能上看,河岸带具有调节洪水、维持生物多样性等多种功能。总体而言河岸带在全球气候变化响应、流域生态安全维护及生物多样性保护中扮演着不可替代的角色。
值得注意的是:近年来有研究发现,河岸带在冬季可能表现为碳源,从而对“碳中和”产生负面影响。Wang等[2]研究埃菲尔国家公园内伍斯特巴赫集水区的河岸带温室气体排放时,发现冬季河岸带表现为碳源,CO2排放量为5.4 mgCO2-Cm-2·h-1。De Carlo等[3]研究加拿大南部的华盛顿溪河岸带的CO2排放特征时,发现冬季河岸带整体表现为弱碳源。
虽然既有文献已经初步表明河岸带在冬季可能表现为碳源,但相关研究在如下方面仍存在一定不足:温室气体的类型有很多种,如CO2、CH4、N2O均会导致气候变暖。在种植草本植物之后,河岸带常常出现部分温室气体释放而部分气体吸收的状态,因此往往难以评估多种温室气体的综合影响。而科学评估多种温室气体的综合影响,对于河岸带的草本植物选择具有重要的应用价值。
近年来出现的全球变暖潜能值(Global Warming Potential,GWP)模型为解决这一问题提供了可能。GWP模型是一个用于衡量和比较不同温室气体对全球变暖潜在影响的相对指标,已经被广泛应用于区域温室气体排放评价。谢立勇等[4]基于GWP模型对稻田评估显示,针对不同土壤条件和种植制度,适当调整肥水管理,可减少稻田温室气体排放。Goglio等[5]发现降低氮肥用量导致加拿大阿尔伯塔省两处种植系统的 GWP 平均降低 18%。
本研究以南昌雄溪河为例,选择南方河流河岸带3种常见的草本植物(麦冬、葱莲、狗牙根),采用LI-7810/7820温室气体通量监测仪,对不同植物冬季的CO2、CH4、N2O气体通量特征进行分析,并在此基础上评估它们的GWP,同时识别造成温室气体排放的关键理化因子,从而为河流生态治理中的河岸带植被选择提供依据。

1 研究方法

1.1 试验方法

研究区位于鄱阳湖平原核心地带的南昌雄溪河南侧东支(28°33'N—28°37'N,115°49'E—115°53'E)。雄溪河属清丰山水系,北接象湖公园玉带河,南至银三角莲西桥,是南昌县城区重要的生态廊道,也是南昌市“一江十河串百湖”水网格局的重要组成部分。雄溪河河道全长12.4 km,流域面积38.6 km2。该区域地处亚热带湿润季风气候区,年平均气温17.45 ℃,流域多年平均降水量1 188.2 mm。
水文地质方面,成土母质为第四纪红色黏土,具有较好的持水性和肥力。研究河段常水位高程14.0 m,防洪控制水位18.0 m,据此将河岸带界定为常水位至最高控制水位间的生态过渡带(宽度5~10 m),该范围涵盖水位波动敏感区与植被响应阈值区。
植被方面,河岸带优势草本植物以狗牙根(Cynodon dactylon)、葱莲(Zephyranthes candida)及麦冬(Ophiopogon japonicus)为主,形成梯度分布的草甸与混交群落。这些物种普遍分布于我国南方地区河流河岸带,具有显著的区域代表性,其生长特点见表1。
表1 消落区植物生长特点

Table 1 Growth characteristics of plants in riparian zones

植被
种类		 耐寒性 冬季状态 根系特征 光合作
用类型
麦冬 耐寒性
较弱		 生长停滞,
部分枯黄		 须根发达,浅层分布 C3
狗牙根 耐寒性
较弱		 地上部分休眠 匍匐根茎,深根固土 C4
葱莲 不耐寒 地上部分休眠 鳞茎存储,浅根 C3/C4
依据南方河流冬季水文特征,本研究在冬季枯水期2024年12月15日(初冬)、2025年1月16日(深冬)、2025年2月9日(冬末)进行观测,观测期内天气晴好。根据植被类型可以将沿河岸带梯度划分4类特征样区:麦冬区、狗牙根区、葱莲区、裸地区。每个样区沿护坡断面设置系统采样点:垂直坡向按高程梯度布设上(近岸区)、中(缓冲区)、下(近水区)3个观测节点,观测点分布如图1所示。
图1 观测点位分布及现场观测

Fig.1 Distribution of observation sites and field observation

本次试验中CH4、CO2、N2O气体通量及气温采用气体分析仪(LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln,NE,United States)和智能气室(Smart Chamber)测定,其中CH4、CO2通量采用LI-7810 CH4/CO2/H2O微量气体分析仪测定,N2O通量采用LI-7820 N2O微量气体分析仪同步采集。土壤参数监测方面,测定土壤含水率、土壤温度时外接传感器需插入土壤10 cm深处。测定时间为早上8:00—9:00、中午13:00—14:00、晚上18:00—19:00。试验开始前需清除土壤环中枯落物,并确保气室密封界面平整,测量期间土壤环位置保持不变。测定时将智能气室置于土壤环上,对每个土壤环持续测定120 s,换气时长45 s,连续重复测量3次,测量时减少对系统周边的扰动[6]。
为了有效控制误差并全面评估温室气体通量观测数据的质量,本研究引入了决定系数R2作为关键的质量评估指标。当气体通量的R2>0.9时认为该观测结果可靠,反之则剔除异常数据并进行数据插补,以确保数据集的完整性。3次连续测量并计算标准误差则可以提高试验的准确性和可靠性,以确保评估结果的可靠度。标准误差SE的计算式为
S E = σ n 　 。
式中: σ为总体标准差;n为观测次数。

1.2 全球变暖潜能值(GWP)模型

GWP模型考虑了温室气体的多种属性,能够全面评估其对气候变化的潜在影响。GWP模型为不同温室气体提供了统一的度量标准,通过将它们的影响与CO2进行比较,使得不同温室气体之间的环境影响变得可比[7]。
GWP模型考虑了温室气体在大气中的存留时间,能够评估不同温室气体在未来一段时间内的潜在影响。GWP模型可以根据不同的时间尺度(如20、100、500 a等)进行计算,与传统评价模型相比,该评价模型能够更好地适应不同的评估需求。
GWP是衡量温室气体对全球暖化影响的重要手段[8]。GWP是反映温室气体排放所产生的气候影响的指标,表示在一定时间内某种温室气体的温室效应对应于相同效应的CO2的质量。100 a尺度下CH4和N2O气体的GWP是CO2的29.8倍和273倍[9]。GWP计算式为[10]
G W P = E C O 2 + 29.8 E C H 4 + 273 E N 2 O 　 。
式中 E C O 2、 E C H 4、 E N 2 O分别为CO2、CH4、N2O的总排放量(mg/m2)。

2 结果

2.1 河岸带理化因子变化

河岸带不同植被区域气温、土壤温度及土壤含水率的变化情况如图2所示。观测期间,气温和土壤温度均随时间明显变化,变化特征一致,早晨最低之后逐步上升,在正午达到峰值,随后逐渐下降。土壤含水率具有时间差异,在正午达到最低值。3种理化因子在不同观测区域间无明显差异,受植被种类影响较小。
图2 河岸带不同植物区域气温、土壤温度、土壤含水率变化

Fig.2 Changes in air temperature, soil temperature, and soil moisture content in different plant areas of riparian zones

观测期间,温度因子平均值的最大值出现在正午,平均气温为(7.92±0.41) ℃,平均土壤温度为(9.31±0.33) ℃。相比之下,早晨与傍晚的温度平均值相对接近。
在土壤含水率方面,正午时段的均值呈现最低水平,为0.28±0.007,早晨时段的均值则达到最高,为0.30±0.007,表现出土壤含水率随时间变化的特征。
各植被类型区域间气温没有明显差异,土壤温度则有一定差异。早、晚时段裸地区的土壤温度最低,分别为(7.38±0.12) ℃和(7.77±0.29) ℃,正午时段则最高,为(12.92±0.14) ℃。这是因为在早晨和傍晚时段,相比于草本植物区,裸地区缺少植被的覆盖,使得土壤热量的散失增多;正午时段,裸地区由于缺少草本植物的遮挡,太阳辐射到达土壤表面增多,土壤温度相较于其他区域更高。

2.2 不同温室气体通量

河岸带不同植被区域温室气体通量的变化情况如图3所示。
图3 河岸带不同植物区域温室气体通量变化

Fig.3 Changes in greenhouse gas fluxes in different plant areas of riparian zones

如图3所示,不同类型的温室气体在一天之内的释放规律展现出了较为明显的差异。这些差异主要体现在释放量的峰值出现时间、波动的幅度上。观测期内CO2通量在裸地区释放量最大,狗牙根区释放量最小,均值分别为(360.60±26.58) mg/(m2·h)与(159.20±10.54)mg/(m2·h)。CH4表现为吸收状态,其中裸地区均值最小,为(-0.007 7±0.000 6)μg/(m2·h);麦冬区均值最大,为(0.004 0±0.000 2)μg/(m2·h)。N2O通量在(-2.38±0.17)~(0.52±0.02)μg/(m2·h)之间,其中裸地区均值最大,为(-0.12±0.01)μg/(m2·h);狗牙根区均值最小,为(-0.48±0.03)μg/(m2·h)。这一结果与扆凡等[11]在研究秦岭油松林时发现油松林土壤是CO2的排放源,是CH4的吸收汇这一研究结论具有相似性。
各研究区域在不同时间段内,CO2和N2O通量均呈现出明显的日变化规律。CO2通量在正午时段出现峰值,早晚时段则相对较低。正午时段CO2通量为(313.32±29.7)mg/(m2·h),约为早晚时段均值的1.5倍。除麦冬区外,其他研究区域CH4通量全天均为负值,呈微弱吸收状态,其中早晨为CH4吸收最弱时段,均值为(-0.001±0.000)μg/(m2·h);傍晚为一天中CH4傍晚为吸收最强时段,均值为(-0.005±0.000 2)μg/(m2·h)。N2O通量在正午达到(0.39±0.028)μg/(m2·h),傍晚为N2O通量最小的时段,均值为(-1.33±0.06)μg/(m2·h)。

2.3 全球变暖潜能值(GWP)评价

根据式(2),计算河岸带不同植被区域GWP结果如表2所示。
表2 河岸带不同植被区域GWP汇总

Table 2 Summary of GWP for different plant areas of riparian zones

植被种类 GWP/(mg·m-2∙d-1) 总GWP/( mg·m-2∙d-1)
CO2 CH4 N2O
麦冬 3 965.44±10.83 0.003±0.001 -2.13±0.06 3 963.31±265.66
狗牙根 3 820.90±10.53 -0.030±0.002 -3.13±0.12 3 817.77±249.24
葱莲 6 878.93±24.50 -0.030±0.002 -2.04±0.29 6 876.89±536.17
裸地 8 654.51±36.58 -0.060±0.003 -0.79±0.07 8 653.71±756.08
由表2可知,不同植被种植区域的GWP在(3 817.77±249.24)~(8 653.71±756.08) mg/(m2∙d)之间,其中裸地区GWP显著大于其他植被区域。在植被种植区域中,不同植物种类GWP差异较大,其中狗牙根区GWP最小,较裸地区低55.89%;麦冬区较裸地区低54.20%;葱莲区较裸地区低20.53%。
GWP越小说明植被在减少温室气体排放、降低全球变暖潜力方面的作用越大。这可能是由于植被的固碳能力更强及植被根系和土壤中有机质的碳储存能力更强导致的。狗牙根区是观测时段内GWP最小的植被区,说明狗牙根可能具有更强的光合作用能力,能够吸收并固定更多的CO2。这有助于减少大气中的CO2浓度,从而降低全球变暖的潜力。且狗牙根相较于其他两种植被具有更大的碳储存能力,种植狗牙根更有助于减少温室气体的排放。故从生态方面考虑,在麦冬、狗牙根、葱莲这3种常见的河岸带植被中更建议推荐种植狗牙根。

2.4 GWP与环境因子关系

河岸带不同植物区域温室气体GWP与各理化因子系数如表3所示。
表3 各样地与环境因子间的相关系数

Table 3 Coefficients of correlation between various sample plots and environmental factors

环境因子 相关系数
麦冬 狗牙根 葱莲 裸地
气温 0.697* 0.967** 0.727* 0.991**
土壤温度 0.703* 0.958** 0.729* 0.990**
土壤含水率 0.582 0.239 0.416 0.199

注:*.在P<0.05级别(双尾),相关性显著;**在P<0.01级别(双尾),相关性显著。

利用SPSS软件对各植被类型区域GWP分别与气温、土壤温度、土壤含水量进行相关性分析可知,各植被类型区域的GWP与气温和土壤温度表现为不同程度的正相关。其中裸地区GWP与土壤温度呈极显著正相关(r=0.990,P<0.01),狗牙根区GWP与土壤温度呈极显著正相关(r=0.958,P<0.01),麦冬区和葱莲区GWP与土壤温度呈显著正相关。这一结果与刘硕等[12]研究温带森林土壤温室气体排放时所得出的土壤含水量相同时,阔叶林和针叶林的土壤GWP随着温度的升高而增加这一结论一致。Xu等[13]也认为土壤温度的升高会导致有机质的快速分解。
4种植被种植区域GWP与土壤含水率没有明显的相关关系。Pacific等[14]在研究中提到河岸带土壤含水率处于中间范围时最适合土壤CO2生产。一方面增加的河岸土壤含水率可以促进土壤呼吸,但会减少土壤气体输运。另一方面,低土壤含水率会使土壤气体输运量增加,但土壤CO2产生量会减少。因此,部分植被区域土壤含水率未处在最适合土壤温室气体生产的中间范围可能是导致4种植被种植区域GWP与土壤含水率之间没有明显相关关系的原因。

3 讨论

基于GWP模型已对雄溪河河岸带典型草本植物冬季温室气体排放评估。参考国内外相关研究,主要结果对比如表4所示。
表4 本研究结果与国内外相关研究的对比

Table 4 Comparison of results of this study with researches in China and abroad

研究结论 本研究结果 国内外相关研究结果
总量评价 1.河岸带冬季表现为碳源,GWP分别为:狗牙根区(3 817.77±249.24) mg/(m2∙d),麦冬区(3 963.31±265.66) mg/(m2∙d),葱莲区(6 876.89±536.17) mg/(m2∙d),裸地区(8 653.71±756.08) mg/(m2∙d)。
2.相比于裸地区,种植草本植物有助于减少GWP。从碳减源增汇的角度,更推荐种植狗牙根。		 1.Alm等[15]发现冬季芬兰泥炭地CO2和CH4排放量在年排放量的占比为10%~30%,CO2和CH4在寒冷干燥的条件下依然能够保持排放。
2.梅雪英[16]研究发现上海城市草坪为CO2和N2O的排放源。
3.Schuler等[17]认为与C3(如麦冬)植物相比,C4植物(如狗牙根)在多种条件下均具有更高的光合作用效率。
影响因素 1.GWP和温度因子均呈正相关,特别是与土壤温度呈极显著正相关。
2.影响河流河岸带不同草本植物GWP的主要理化因子为土壤温度。		 1.Kim等[18]认为冬季CO2排放量随土壤温度的增加而显著增加。
2.Mazza等[19]发现GWP与土壤温度存在显著的指数关系,可以解释GWP的58%~72%。
温室气
体差异		 1.4个评价区域的CO2总体表现为释放,其均值为(242.91±18.15) mg/(m2·h);CH4与N2O表现为吸收,二者的均值分别为(-0.003±0.000 1 )μg/(m2·h)、(-0.31±0.02) μg/(m2·h)。
2.使用GWP模型能更好地评估河岸带不同植物对多种温室气体的综合影响。		 1.Merbold等[20]在瑞士高山草原用梯度法测得的冬季CO2通量平均值为(0.77±0.54) μmol/(m2·s),CH4通量平均值为(-0.14±0.09) nmol/(m2·s),N2O通量平均值为(0.23±0.23) nmol/(m2·s)。
2.Imer D等[21]研究不同海拔草原发现3种草原所有地点都是弱CH4汇,土壤吸收速率范围为(-0.56~-0.15 )nmol/(m2·s)。
根据表4,对比本研究试验结果和国内外相关研究可知:
(1)从总量来看。河岸带的3种草本植物在冬季均表现为碳源,这与此前学者研究结果类似[16-18]。除此之外,本研究进一步表明:相比于裸地区,植物区的GWP均有所降低。因此,种植草本植物均有助于减少河岸带的冬季碳排放。具体而言,狗牙根光合固碳能力强,其密集匍匐茎覆盖地表,能减少土壤有机质分解,同时根系分泌物促进土壤碳封存;狗牙根在温度调控方面也有优势,其密集植被层能减少太阳辐射直射土壤,降低土壤温度波动,抑制微生物呼吸和硝化作用;且狗牙根作为本土物种,抗逆性强,无需频繁人工干预,适合大规模生态修复。相较于狗牙根,麦冬的CO2、CH4释放较高,综合减排效果逊于狗牙根。葱莲的CO2排放十分显著,生态风险最大。故从减源增汇的角度来看,河岸带更推荐种植狗牙根。
(2)从影响因素来看。主要影响河流河岸带不同草本植物GWP的理化因子为土壤温度,这与Kim等[18]、Mazza等[19]的研究结果类似。由于土壤温度主要影响微生物的呼吸作用,结合上述研究可知,造成消落区冬季表现为碳源的根本原因可能是冬季温度较低,光合作用的固碳速率弱于呼吸作用造成的碳分解速率。狗牙根密集植被层能减少太阳辐射直射土壤,降低土壤温度波动,抑制微生物呼吸和硝化作用。
(3)从温室气体差异来看。不同温室气体的排放特征有较大差异。其中CO2均表现为释放,CH4总体表现为吸附,N2O则既有释放又有吸附,这与此前的研究一致[20-21]。因此相比于传统的单种温室气体分析,采用GWP模型对河岸带不同温室气体的综合评估结果更全面也更科学。

4 结论

河岸带不同温室气体气体的环境特征有较大差异。4个评价区域的CO2总体表现为释放,均值为(242.91±18.15)mg/(m2·h);而CH4与N2O总体表现为微弱吸收,二者均值分别为(-0.003±0.000 1)μg/(m2·h)、-0.31±0.02 μg/(m2·h)。相比于传统的单种温室气体分析,采用GWP模型对河岸带不同温室气体的综合评估结果更全面也更科学。
河岸带冬季表现为碳源,狗牙根区、麦冬区、葱莲区、裸地区的GWP分别为(3 817.77±249.24)、(3 963.31±265.66)、(6 876.89±536.17)、(8 653.71±756.08) mg/(m2∙d)。但相比于裸地区,种植草本植物有助于减少GWP。从碳减源增汇的角度,更推荐种植狗牙根。
主要影响河流河岸带不同草本植物GWP的理化因子为土壤温度。造成河岸带冬季表现为碳源的根本原因可能是冬季温度较低,光合作用的固碳速率弱于呼吸作用造成的碳分解速率。
本研究结果可为亚热带河岸带生态修复提供参考,对于水文条件类似的河流建议推广狗牙根种植以优化河岸带植被配置。在冬季低温期,通过在河岸带覆盖保温材料将表层土壤温度提升2~3 ℃,可使狗牙根区光合固碳速率提高,扭转河岸带碳源状态。

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
MARCÉ R, OBRADOR B, GÓMEZ-GENER L, et al. Emissions from Dry Inland Waters Are a Blind Spot in the Global Carbon Cycle[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2019, 188: 240-248.

DOI

[2]
WANG J, BOGENA H, SÜß T, et al. Investigating the Controls on Greenhouse Gas Emission in the Riparian Zone of a Small Headwater Catchment Using an Automated Monitoring System[J]. Vadose Zone Journal, 2021, 20(5): e20149.

[3]
DE CARLO N D, OELBERMANN M, GORDON A M. Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Spatiotemporal Variation in a Young and Mature Riparian Forest[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2019, 138: 353-361.

DOI

[4]
谢立勇, 许婧, 郭李萍, 等. 水肥管理对稻田CH4排放及其全球增温潜势影响的评估[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(7): 958-967.

(XIE Li-yong, XU Jing, GUO Li-ping, et al. Impact of Water/Fertilizer Management on Methane Emission in Paddy Fields and on Global Warming Potential[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(7): 958-967.) (in Chinese)

[5]
GOGLIO P, GRANT B B, SMITH W N, et al. Impact of Management Strategies on the Global Warming Potential at the Cropping System Level[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2014, 490: 921-933.

DOI

[6]
王晶苑, 魏杰, 温学发. 土壤CO2通量梯度观测技术和方法的理论、假设与应用进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(12): 1523-1536.

DOI

(WANG Jing-yuan, WEI Jie, WEN Xue-fa. Progress in the Theory, Hypothesis and Application of the Methods Measuring Soil CO2 Flux Gradient[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2022, 46(12): 1523-1536.) (in Chinese)

DOI

[7]
张若玉, 何金海, 张华. 温室气体全球增温潜能的研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(28): 17416-17419, 17422.

(ZHANG Ruo-yu, HE Jin-hai, ZHANG Hua. Overview of Researches on Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 39(28): 17416-17419, 17422.) (in Chinese)

[8]
RABBI M F, KOVÁCS S. Quantifying Global Warming Potential Variations from Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources in Forest Ecosystems[J]. Carbon Research, 2024, 3(1): 70.

[9]
IPCC. Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

[10]
李成伟, 刘章勇, 龚松玲, 等. 稻作模式改变对稻田CH4和N2O排放的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5):961-968.

DOI

(LI Cheng-wei, LIU Zhang-yong, GONG Song-ling, et al. Effects of Changing Rice Cropping Patterns on CH4 and N2O Emissions from Paddy Fields[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2022, 31(5):961-968.) (in Chinese)

[11]
扆凡, 庞军柱, 刘岳坤, 等. 秦岭油松林不同坡位土壤CO2、CH4、N2O通量研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018, 38(6): 2506-2517.

(YI Fan, PANG Jun-zhu, LIU Yue-kun, et al. Soil Greenhouse Gas Fluxes (CO2, CH4 and N2O) along a Slope of Pinus Tablaeformis Forest in Qinling Mountains[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2018, 38(6): 2506-2517.) (in Chinese)

[12]
刘硕, 李玉娥, 孙晓涵, 等. 温度和土壤含水量对温带森林土壤温室气体排放的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2013, 22(7):1093-1098.

(LIU Shuo, LI Yu-e, SUN Xiao-han, et al. Effects of Temperature and Soil Moisture on Greenhouse Gases Emission of Temperate Forest Soil[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 22(7):1093-1098.) (in Chinese)

[13]
XU Y, LUO T, WU B, et al. Soil Carbon Emissions and Influential Factors across Various Stages of Vegetation Succession in Vegetated Concrete[J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: 5963.

DOI PMID

[14]
PACIFIC V J, MCGLYNN B L, RIVEROS-IREGUI D A, et al. Variability in Soil Respiration across Riparian-hillslope Transitions[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2008, 91(1): 51-70.

DOI

[15]
ALM J, SAARNIO S, NYKÄNEN H, et al. Winter CO2 CH4 and N2O Fluxes on Some Natural and Drained Boreal Peatlands[J]. Biogeochemistry, 1999, 44(2): 163-186.

[16]
梅雪英. 城市草坪温室气体通量研究[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2008.

(MEI Xue-ying. Study on Greenhouse Gases Fluxes of Urban Lawn Ecosystems[D]. Shanghai: East China Normal University, 2008.) (in Chinese)

[17]
SCHULER M L, MANTEGAZZA O, WEBER A P M. Engineering C4 Photosynthesis into C3 Chassis in the Synthetic Biology Age[J]. The Plant Journal, 2016, 87(1): 51-65.

DOI PMID

[18]
KIM Y, KODAMA Y, FOCHESATTO G J. Environmental Factors Regulating Winter CO2 Flux in Snow-covered Black Forest Soil of Interior Alaska[J]. Geochemical Journal, 2017, 51(4): 359-371.

DOI

[19]
MAZZA G, AGNELLI A E, CANTIANI P, et al. Short-term Effects of Thinning on Soil CO2, N2O and CH4 Fluxes in Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2019, 651: 713-724.

DOI

[20]
MERBOLD L, STEINLIN C, HAGEDORN F. Winter Greenhouse Gas Fluxes (CO2, CH4 and N2O) from a Subalpine Grassland[J]. Biogeosciences, 2013, 10(5): 3185-3203.

DOI

[21]
IMER D, MERBOLD L, EUGSTER W, et al. Temporal and Spatial Variations of Soil CO2, CH4 and N2O Fluxes at Three Differently Managed Grasslands[J]. Biogeosciences, 2013, 10(9): 5931-5945.

DOI

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd.