Table 1.
Forest type | Restoration age | Soil water content | Bulk density | pH | TC | T N | TP | NO3−-N | NH4+-N | AP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(g·g−1) | (g·cm−3) | (g·kg−1) | (g·kg−1) | (g·kg−1) | (mg∙kg−1) | (mg∙kg−1) | (mg∙kg−1) | |||
PT | 10 years | 0.09 ± 0.01b | 0.48 ± 0.01a | 7.95 ± 0.01a | 11.72 ± 0.68c | 0.27 ± 0.02c | 0.69 ± 0.04ab | 10.39 ± 0.6c | 8.10 ± 0.47b | 8.90 ± 0.51a |
20 years | 0.06 ± 0.01b | 0.51 ± 0.02a | 7.95 ± 0.01a | 20.98 ± 1.21b | 1.02 ± 0.06b | 0.61 ± 0.04b | 13.45 ± 0.78b | 9.53 ± 0.55ab | 7.90 ± 0.46ab | |
30 years | 0.24 ± 0.05a | 0.44 ± 0.01b | 7.84 ± 0.01b | 35.84 ± 2.07a | 1.65 ± 0.1a | 0.78 ± 0.05a | 21.25 ± 1.23a | 10.69 ± 0.62a | 6.80 ± 0.39b | |
UP | 10 years | 0.1 ± 0.03b | 0.49 ± 0.01a | 8.00 ± 0.00a | 31.23 ± 1.8b | 1.75 ± 0.1b | 0.65 ± 0.04b | 11.22 ± 0.65a | 10.15 ± 0.59b | 4.60 ± 0.27b |
20 years | 0.11 ± 0.02b | 0.48 ± 0.02a | 7.81 ± 0.01b | 32.65 ± 1.89ab | 1.9 ± 0.11b | 0.75 ± 0.04ab | 11.75 ± 0.68a | 11.83 ± 0.68ab | 7.70 ± 0.44a | |
30 years | 0.27 ± 0.01a | 0.39 ± 0.01b | 7.75 ± 0.02c | 35.10 ± 2.03a | 2.31 ± 0.13a | 0.87 ± 0.05a | 11.78 ± 0.68a | 13.01 ± 0.75a | 8.80 ± 0.51a | |
Summary of ANOVA (p-values) | ||||||||||
Forest type | 0.02 | 0.008 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.004 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | |
Restoration age | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | |
Forest type × restoration age | 0.255 | 0.009 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.923 | <0.001 |
PT, Pinus tabuliformis; UP, Ulmus pumila; TC, total carbon content; TN, total nitrogen content; TP, total phosphorus content; NO3−-N, nitrate nitrogen; NH4+-N, ammonium nitrogen; AP, available P content. Values are mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). Statistical significance was assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by LSD multiple comparison test. Different lowercase letters per column indicate the significant difference (p < 0.05).