半干旱草原大中型土壤动物在畜粪分解中的作用

程建伟, 王亚东, 王桠楠, 李莹, 郭颖, 白正, 刘新民, 李永宏

Effects of soil macro- and meso-fauna on the decomposition of cattle and horse dung pats in a semi-arid steppe

Jianwei Cheng, Yadong Wang, Yanan Wang, Ying Li, Ying Guo, Zheng Bai, Xinmin Liu, Frank Yonghong Li

图2 畜粪分解一年过程中土壤动物对畜粪质量损失的影响。(a)马粪干质量损失; (b)牛粪干质量损失; (c)马粪湿质量损失; (d)牛粪湿质量损失。柱状图表示分解结束时不同土壤动物处理下畜粪质量损失的变化。T0, 粪添加+0.425 mm隔离网(排除了粪金龟(粪居型和掘洞型粪金龟)和中型土壤动物); T1, 粪添加+1 mm隔离网(排除了粪金龟); T2, 粪添加+2 mm隔离网(排除了掘洞型粪金龟); T3, 仅粪添加(不排除土壤动物)。采用Duncan检验进行事后比较, *和不同小写字母代表不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。

Fig. 2 Effects of soil fauna on the mass loss of animal dung over a 1-year period. (a) Horse-dry; (b) Cattle-dry; (c) Horse-wet; (d) cattle-wet. The bar graph shows the change in the mass loss of animal dung under different soil fauna treatments at the end of decomposition period. T0, Dung pat covered with a wire-mesh-cage of 0.425 mm holes (excluding dung beetles and soil meso-fauna); T1, Dung pat covered with a wire-mesh-cage of 1 mm holes (excluding dung beetles); T2, Dung pat covered with a wire-mesh-cage of 2 mm holes (excluding tunneler dung beetle); T3, Exposed dung (with no exclusion of soil fauna). The significant differences between treatments at P < 0.05 are denoted using * and different lowercase letters (one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s multiple-range tests for post hoc comparisons).