• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Soil-plant co-stimulation during forest vegetation restoration in a subtropical area of southern China

    2020-10-20 08:13:38ChanChenXiFangWenhuaXiangPifengLeiShuaiOuyangandYakovKuzyakov
    Forest Ecosystems 2020年3期

    Chan Chen,Xi Fang,2*,Wenhua Xiang,2,Pifeng Lei,2,Shuai Ouyang,2 and Yakov Kuzyakov,3,4

    Abstract

    Keywords: Vegetation restoration, Soil physicochemical properties, Soil organic carbon, Vegetation features, Driving factors

    Background

    Forest vegetation restoration has become a priority study area in efforts to solve global environmental problems,as highlighted by the Bonn Challenge, a global effort to restore 150 million hectares of degraded land and deforested forests by 2020 (Crouzeilles et al. 2016). Establishing the mechanisms of plant communities in the process of recovery has concentrated mainly on species composition,and their quantitative characteristics and spatial distribution. While these factors are relatively clear (Xiang et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2019), there is still a lack of indepth research on the feedback relationships between plant and soil,and the succession processes and regulation mechanisms of plant communities (Hu et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018a). The feedback relationship between vegetation and soil has a great impact on the plant community,soil nutrient cycling,and soil and water conservation during vegetation restoration (Demenois et al. 2018).Insights into vegetation-soil feedback relationships are instrumental in predicting future scenarios under varying environmental conditions (van der Putten et al. 2013), as well as in designing measures for vegetation restoration at different succession stages(Huang et al.2018).

    The interactive effects of soil and vegetation suggest that both are always co-evolving and developing, which are recognized as an important mechanism for forest succession and development (van der Putten et al. 2013).The association between soil and aboveground vegetation may shift over the course of restoration (Huang et al. 2015). In the early stage of vegetation restoration,soil resources are the main limiting factors(van Der Maarel and Franklin 2013). Research has shown that the enrichment, spatial distribution, and redistribution of soil nutrients significantly affect the growth, reproduction, distribution,succession,and net primary productivity of plants(Alday et al. 2012). In particular, soil nutrients and water are the key factors in regulating vegetation development,as confirmed by the results of some fertilization experiments(Chang and Turner 2019) and different forest succession series (Huang et al. 2017). In turn, vegetation development can drive changes in the development and maintenance of soil(Huang et al.2018).Especially in the late stage of vegetation restoration, the accumulation of plant biomass leads to an increase in the return of soil organic carbon (SOC)and nutrients (Gu et al. 2019). Furthermore, soil nutrient storage reflects the balance of the main ecological processes, including nutrients stored in aboveground biomass,nutrients decomposed and returned to soil, and nutrient leaching, these mixed results may cause the complexity of the interaction between soil and vegetation (Huang et al.2018). Therefore, knowledge of how soil, vegetation and their interaction act on vegetation restoration is of particular importance for predicting future ecological restoration and development.

    Subtropical forest covers an extensive area and supports a high level of biodiversity and a global carbon store, particularly in China which has 71%of the current total forest area in the subtropics according to the MODIS landcover layer for 2012, with abundant rainfall and abundant forest resources(Corlett and Hughes 2015).However,long-term severe human disturbance has a serious effect on subtropical forest ecosystems, with complex topography and climate change resulting in fewer climax forests and a decrease in the functioning of an ecological security barrier(Huang et al.2018).The Chinese government initiated a series of state-funded forestry ecological projects,including programs to protect natural forests, the Grain to Green program,and the construction of shelterbelts in the middle and upper reaches of the Yangtze River. Consequently,forest vegetation has been rapidly restored,forming a series of secondary vegetation communities at different stages of restoration in this area (Ouyang et al.2016).During vegetation restoration,aboveground vegetation and soil physicochemical properties gradually change(Zhang et al. 2019). Changes in plant development and soil variables during vegetation restoration have been demonstrated in several studies (Ayma-Romay and Bown 2019; Wang et al. 2018a; Zhang et al. 2019), but the restorative effect of soil or vegetation has rarely been explored, and there is little information on how soil physicochemical properties and vegetation act together to affect vegetation restoration(Chang and Turner 2019).To our knowledge, no studies have addressed the question of the relative importance of the effects of soil, vegetation and their synergism on promoting vegetation restoration.It has therefore become a burning issue to elucidate the coordinated control effect of vegetation restoration, soil,and water on vegetation ecology and restoration ecology(Chang and Turner 2019).

    In this study,we followed the succession process of subtropical forest communities,and selected four distinct restoration periods (i.e. 4-5, 10-12, 45-46 years and old growth forest), which represent the four main stages of vegetation restoration in the subtropics of China. We selected permanent plots and determined soil physicochemical properties and vegetation features; i.e. species diversity, biomass, height (H), and diameter at breast height (DBH). Our objective was to investigate how soil physicochemical properties and vegetation features change and how soil and vegetation stimulate vegetation restoration individually and collectively.We formulated two hypotheses: (1) that vegetation restoration would have an obvious positive effect on soil physicochemical properties and vegetation features; and (2) that soil properties and vegetation features would collectively promote vegetation restoration, especially would have a significant impact on biomass. In addition, the main impact factors of biomass would be different in different restoration periods.

    Methods

    Study site

    As shown in Fig. 1, the study site was located in Changsha County (28°23′-28°24′ N, 113°17′-113°27′ E), situated in the middle of Hunan Province, China. The topography features a typical low hilly landscape, at an altitude of 55-260 m above sea level with an average slope of 18°-25°. The climate is characterized by southeast monsoon and a mid-subtropical humid climate with an annual average precipitation of 1416.4 mm (primarily between April and August) and an annual mean air temperature of 17.3°C. minimum and maximum air temperatures are 10.3°C in January and 39.8°C in July and August, respectively. The soils are mainly composed of red earth, which developed from slate and shale and are categorized as Alliti-Udic Ferrosols in the Chinese Soil Taxonomy, corresponding to Acrisol in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB 2006). Evergreen broadleaved forests are the climax and primary vegetation, but have been disturbed in varying degrees by human activities such as firewood collection. Natural forest protection programs in the past two decades have resulted in a variety of vegetation communities at different restoration stages in this area.

    Vegetation sampling

    In October 2015, four adjacent vegetation communities,with basically similar environmental conditions (site,slope, soil and climate) as showed in Table 1 were selected to represent a vegetation restoration gradient(using the method of space-for-time substitution). These communities were:

    (1) 4–5 yrs. restoration period. Controlled burns and site preparation were carried out in native evergreen broadleaved forest in the winter of 1965.A Pinus massoniana plantation was established in 1966 without any fertilization during this operation and then clear-cut in 1990. The woodlands were repeatedly cut until 2012.Since that time the vegetation has naturally recovered. The community is dominated by well-grown herbs, presently accompanied by some young shrubs,and belongs to the early stage of restoration according to the succession process of subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest (Xiang et al.2016).

    Table 1 Stand characteristics of the four forest types

    (2) 10–12 yrs. restoration period.Native evergreen broadleaved forest underwent a prescribed burn in 1965 and deforested to establish a Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation in 1966. This C. lanceolata plantation was clear-cut in 1989. The woodlands were logged every 3 to 5 years until 2004. The vegetation has naturally recovered to form a shrub community with well-grown shrubs and belongs to midrestoration stage according to the succession process of subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest(Xiang et al. 2016). However, the shrub community has no obvious arbor layers and herbaceous plant is relatively infrequent.

    (3) 45–46 yrs. restoration period.This period represents the secondary stage of mid-restoration. Native evergreen broadleaved forest was deforested in the early 1970s, and then naturally recovered to coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest. The communities are now about 45-50 years old, and have abundant seedlings and saplings, with larger plant density.However, the proportion of large diameter individuals is relatively low.

    (4) Old growth forest (representing the late stage of restoration).Native evergreen broadleaved forest has been well protected against human disturbances. According to the survey with local residents, this forest has been more than 90 years.

    In October 2015, we randomly established 4 fixed sample plots for long-term observation in each restoration period (Fig. 1). In the 4-5 and 10-12 years restoration periods, the plots were set at 20 m×20 m. In the 45-46 years restoration periods and old growth forest, the plots were established at 30 m×30 m. The 4 fixed plots in each restoration period were set in different mountains as far as possible,and the space distance between the two plots was more than 1000 m. To investigate the floristic components and tree spatial patterns of the forests, each plot (20 m×20 m) in the 4-5 and 10-12 years restoration periods was subdivided into four subplots (10 m×10 m), and each plot (30 m×30 m) in the 45-46 years restoration periods and old growth forest was subdivided into nine subplots (10 m×10 m).

    Species diversity measurement

    Species identities were recorded and measurements were taken of total H, the lowest live branch and crown width, and DBH for all individuals with DBH >1 cm in each plot. The data were used to calculate vegetation structural parameters of the different restoration periods; i.e. density of main tree species, average DBH, and average H. The Shannon-Wiener index (SD) was used to quantify the diversity of woody plants species in each plant community with the equation below (Madonsela et al. 2018).

    In Eq. 1, n represents the total number of species in the community, and Pirepresents the relative frequency of species i in the community. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and site factors of each community.

    Biomass measurement

    Based on community surveys, biomass was measured by the harvest method and calculated by establishing relative growth equations of the organic biomass of the main tree species. For the 4-5 years restoration period, we collected all vegetation (shrubs,vines, herbs) in 2 m×2 m quadrats which were on plot peripheries and then classified the same plants according to the following criteria: shrubs were composed of fruit, leaf, branch, stem, and root;vines were composed of fruit, leaf, stem, and root;and herbs were composed of aboveground and underground parts. A 1 m×1 m quadrat was set up at the center of each 10 m×10 m subplot to determine litter biomass. All litter was collected from the ground in these quadrats and transported to the laboratory. Determined samples were freshly weighed and then oven-dried at 85°C to a constant weight to measure their dry mass for estimating biomass per plot area.

    For the 10-12 years restoration period, according to the average DBH and average H of the shrub (>1.5 m), and with the aim of ensuring that at least 3 average sample trees per dominant tree species were collected, 3 sample trees were selected and collected for each dominant tree in each plot periphery to determine fresh weight. Shrub samples were composed of fruit, leaf, branch, stem, and root. After oven-drying at 85°C to a constant weight, we determined moisture content and calculated each biomass component of each tree species, establishing their relative growth equations to calculate biomass per shrub plant(Table 2). The biomass determination of shrubs(below 1.5 m), vines, herbaceous layers, and litter layer used the same method as the 4-5 years restoration period. Finally, estimated biomass per plot area was based on data from community surveys.

    For the 45-46 years restoration period, 3 sample trees were selected for each dominant tree in each plot periphery according to average DBH and average H, with the same aim as that for the 10-12 years restoration period. Stratified samples (1.3 m, 3.6 m) were collected for the aboveground part and complete samples were excavated for the underground part (within 1.5 m of the tree stump) to measure fresh weight.Tree samples were composed of leaf, branch, stem,and root, in which root included fine root (<0.2 cm),rootlet (0.2-0.5 cm), thick root (0.5-2.0 cm), large root (>2.0 cm), and root apex. After determining fresh weight, samples were oven-dried at 85°C to a constant weight to calculate moisture content. We then estimated each biomass component of each tree species, established their relative growth equations and then calculated the biomass per tree plant (Table 2). The same methods as above were used to determine the biomass of shrubs, vines, herbaceous layers,and litter layer. Estimated biomass per plot area was based on data from community surveys. For the old growth forest, the relative growth equations for the main tree species in the tree layer were established using a similar method as the 45-46 years restoration period. However, because of the ban on logging in the old growth forest, the general growth equations of Cyclobalanopsis, deciduous broadleaf, evergreen broadleaf, and C. lanceolata, which were established by Ouyang et al. (2016) and Liu et al. (2010), were also used to estimate the biomass in the tree layer(Table 2).

    Soil sampling and analysis

    Each permanent plot was divided into 3 equal grids of cells along the diagonal for soil sampling. In each cell, soil profile characteristics were surveyed in 2015 to illustrate the consistency and comparability of soil background in different vegetation restoration periods, as shown in Table 3. Soil samples were taken by using cylindrical cores with a volume of 200 cm3collected at depths of 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, and 30-40 cm in December 2015, and in April, June, and October 2016.

    Soil samples from three cells at the same depth within a plot were mixed into a composite sample.Plant roots, debris, and gravels were cleared. Soil samples were air-dried and sieved through a 2-mm mesh for soil pH, available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK); through a 1-mm mesh for soil alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen (AN); and through a 0.25-mm mesh for soil SOC, TN, total phosphorus(TP), total potassium (TK), total calcium (Ca), and total magnesium (Mg) determinations. The following properties were determined in the soil samples:

    (1) Bulk density (BD) was calculated using weights of the dried soil sample from the known cylindrical core volume. (2) pH value was analyzed in a soil-towater (deionized) ratio of 1:2.5 using a pH meter(FE20, Mettler Toledo, Switzerland). (3) SOC content was determined by the K2Cr2O7-H2SO4oxidation method. (4) TN content was determined using a semi-micro Kjeldahl method (Bremner 1996). (5) TP,TK, Ca, and Mg were extracted via aqua regia and 1:1 HCl. After extraction, TP was determined by spectrophotometry and TK, Ca, and Mg by atomic emission spectrometry with inductively coupled plasma(ICP-OES) using a Perkin Elmer Optima 7300DV optical emission spectrometer (Nicia et al. 2018). (6) For

    AN and AK, we used the alkaline diffusion method and the ammonium acetate extraction flame spectrophotometer method (ISSCAS 1978). (7) For AP, we used the Olsen method (Olsen et al. 1983).

    Table 2 Relative growth equations of different biomass components of the main tree species

    Table 3 Structural characteristics of soil profile

    Statistical analysis

    For data processing, we used the Microsoft Excel package(Office 2010).All statistical analyses were conducted using the R statistical software package (R Development Core Team 2016). In order to reflect the annual average situation of the soil properties, the arithmetic mean of four seasons in the same soil layer of each plot was calculated.At the same time, taking into account the great changes between soil layers of each variable, a weighted average of four soil layers was carried out. The parameter content of a soil layer as a percentage of the sum of four soil layers(fi) was calculated using Eq. 2, and the weighted average(X0)was calculated using Eq.3.

    In Eqs. 2 and 3, n represents the number of soil layers;Lirepresents the parameter content of a soil layer; and Xirepresents the parameter content of a soil layer.

    The response rate was used to determine the effects of restoration periods on soil properties and vegetation features, calculated by Eq. 4.

    In Eq.4,X1represents one of the soil properties or vegetation features in the 4-5, 10-12, and 45-46 years restoration periods, and X2represents one of that in the old growth forest. In this study, only X1in the 4-5 years restoration period is selected to reflect the extent of variables variation over the whole vegetation restoration.A positive value indicates an increase,a negative value indicates a decrease,and greater absolute values indicate greater change.Figure 2 was drawn by the geom_histogram function of ggplot2 package in the R statistical software. Before drawing, the values were normalized to a proportion of maximum value (= 1) and by min-max normalization to keep a common scale ranging from 0 to 1(Jain et al.2005).The min-max normalization was calculated by Eq.5.

    Principal component analysis(PCA)was used to determine the main factors in soil properties and vegetation features influencing vegetation restoration, and the correlations between soil properties and vegetation features.The PCA was implemented using the prcomp function and drawn by the ggplot2 package of the R software.The selection criteria for principal components included a cumulative contribution rate over 85% and eigenvalues greater than 1. Indicator whose absolute value of a loading matrix was greater than 0.7 was selected as the dominant factors (Armstrong 1967) for vegetation restoration. The cosine values of the angles between variables indicate relationship strength; angles ranging from 0° to 90° indicate variables have positive correlations,and 90° to 180° indicate negative correlations.

    Based on the results of PCA, we used linear function analysis to further examine the significant correlations of soil properties and vegetation features. Before fitting the linear function, data were normalized by min-max normalization for unifying dimensions, and also calculated using Eq. 5. It was assumed that the relation between soil properties and vegetation features can be expressed by Eq. 6, where k represents slope, and b represents a constant.

    Figure 3 was produced via the lm function and plot function in R. Variation partitioning analysis (VPA) was performed to quantify the relative contributions of soil factors, vegetation factors and their joint action to changes in biomass by the varpart function of vegan package. Before VPA, the suitably independent variables with the variance inflation factor (VIF)<3 were selected by using the car package (Yang et al. 2017), and then the factor analysis (FA) were used to reduced soil factors and vegetation factors into a common factor respectively using psych package in R. Figure 4 was drawn by the geom_bar function of ggplot2 package in R. Following the results of PCA and linear function analysis, we conducted a stepwise regression analysis (SRA) to analyze,screen, and eliminate variables that cause multicollinearity, and to determine the leading impact factors of biomass per restoration period. The SRA was performed by the step function in R.

    Results

    Changes in vegetation features and soil physicochemical properties during vegetation restoration

    Vegetation features and soil physicochemical properties varied in the regularity of change according to the different restoration periods (Fig. 2). Vegetation features(species diversity, biomass, DBH, and H) increased remarkably with vegetation restoration, and the response rates increased by 86.36%, 2906.52%, 128.11%, and 596.97% respectively. Specifically, the highest values of species diversity and biomass were observed in the old growth forest, and the highest values of DBH and H were observed in the 45-46 years restoration period.The change trends of biomass, DBH, and H were basically the same (Fig. 2a). The maximum values of soil BD,pH value, Mg content, and AK content occurred in the 10-12 years restoration period. BD, pH, and AK content showed a decreasing trend whereas Mg showed an increasing trend with vegetation restoration (Fig. 2b). The response rates of BD, pH, and AK were negative but changed slightly. However, the contents of SOC, TN,TP, TK, Ca, AN, and AP increased with vegetation restoration, and their maximum values were recorded in the old growth forest except for TK (Fig. 2c and d). The response rates of SOC, TN, TP, TK, Ca, AN, and AP ranged from 10.63% to 544.35%, with AN having the highest response rate of 544.65%, followed by TN(222.48%) and SOC (140.76%).

    Factors of soil properties and vegetation features influencing vegetation restoration and their relationships

    The results of PCA showed that soil properties and vegetation features explained 81.54% of the variations(PC1=48.70%; PC2=20.21%; PC3=12.63%), revealing three main correlated variable groups of vegetation restoration (Fig. 5). There was a strong positive correlation between PC1 and SOC, TN, AN, AP, biomass, DBH,and H, and a negative correlation between PC1 and soil pH. As shown in Fig. 5, the successful discrimination of the 45-46 years restoration periods and old growth forest from other periods were strongly influenced by PC1.In the selection criteria, PC2 was correlated positively with Mg, and PC3 with TK. Figure 5 also shows that the successful discrimination of the 10-12 years restoration period from the 4-5 years restoration period was highly influenced by PC2 and PC3. Therefore, the key factors influencing vegetation restoration can be summarized as soil water and fertilizer conservation capacity (pH), organic matter (SOC), macro nutrients (TN, TK), medium nutrients (Mg), available nutrients (AN, AP), and the plant community growth situation (biomass, DBH, H).

    The results of PCA also showed that biomass,DBH,and H had significant correlations with each other, while species diversity was weakly correlated with them. Biomass,DBH, and H had similar relationships with soil factors(Fig.5).Specifically,the order of high positive correlations with soil factors was SOC >TN >AN >TP >AP, whereas a high negative correlation was with soil pH.The order of factors with high positive correlations with species diversity was Ca >AP >AN >TN(Fig.5).

    As shown in Fig.3,the results of linear function analysis revealed that as SOC,TN,AN,and AP increased,biomass,DBH, and H significantly increased (p <0.05). However,biomass decreased remarkably with the increased in pH(p <0.001). With the increasing of Ca and AP, species diversity showed a great increase trend(p <0.01).

    Effects of soil properties and vegetation features (DBH and H) on biomass variation

    The VPA results showed that the combination of soil properties and vegetation features explained 90.51% of the variation in biomass in the whole restoration process, and explained 83.44%, 99.99%, 99.99%, and 98.15% of the variation in 4-5, 10-12, 45-46 years vegetation periods and old growth forest,respectively(Fig.4).The interaction of soil properties and vegetation features all had the highest explanation for the variation in biomass, ranging from 55.55%-72.32%. The soil properties alone explained 3.30%-31.44% of the variation, and the vegetation features alone explained 5.09%-24.32%,among which soil properties had higher individual explanation than vegetation features except the 45-46 years restoration period.

    The results of SRA (Table 4) indicated that the factors influencing biomass in the whole restoration process included DBH and SOC. The fitting equation was: ybio-mass=7151.27xDBH+7595.62xSOC(R2=0.914, p=0.000).However, there were different factors influencing the biomass per restoration periods. In the 4-5 years restoration period, SOC was the only dominant factor, and the fitting equation was: ybiomass=-966.94xSOC(R2=0.903,p=0.050).H,pH,and AP were the main influential factors in the 10-12 years restoration period.The fitting equation was: ybiomass=15,620.74xH-1.00xpH-3484.06xAP(R2=0.990, p=0.000). H and pH were the main factors in the 45-46 years restoration period (ybiomass=-10,432.46xH+14,071.07xpH;R2=0.990,p=0.000).In the old growth forest, SOC, TN and AP were the impacting factors (ybio-mass=45,060.13xSOC+18,771.33xTN+26,287.80xAP; R2=0.990,p=0.000).In all periods,AN was not screened into the regression equation.

    Discussion

    Soil physicochemical properties during vegetation restoration

    Our results showed that soil BD decreased, and the contents of SOC, TN, TP, TK, Ca, AN, and AP increased with vegetation restoration (Fig. 2), indicating that soil physicochemical properties improved significantly.These results are partially consistent with our hypothesis and with the results of Zhang et al. (2019).

    The rapid recovery of SOC at our study site has been proven to be affected by plant biomass and soil nutrients(Gu et al. 2019). The response rate of SOC (140.76%) in this research was higher than the results under semi-arid conditions (71%) recorded by Boix-Fayos et al. (2009),which may be due to the more humid conditions in subtropical regions. Consistent with the rapid accumulation of SOC, the rates of change in TN and AN were greater than the SOC change. This result differs from the results of studies in the same subtropical area of southwest China (Xu et al. 2018), which may be due to differences in the degree of degradation and type of vegetation system. Additionally, soil N is also input from other N sources, such as atmospheric N deposition, and symbiotic N fixation by legumes (Alday et al. 2012). This explains why the recovery rates of TN and AN were greater than SOC. Our results for the increase in TP and AP contents are consistent with the results of Zhang et al. (2019), who proposed that soil TP and AP contents gradually increase with the composition of tree species,annual litter yield, and SOC content along with the development of a forest’s second succession. This is also supported by the significant positive correlation of soil TP and AP contents with the species diversity, biomass,and contents of SOC, TN and AN observed in this study(Fig. 5), which suggests that the accumulation of SOC improves soil nutrients during vegetation restoration(Zhang et al. 2019).

    The variation ranges of BD and pH in the subtropical regions of China are 0.97-1.47 g·cm-3and 4.5-6.0, respectively (Hunan Provincial Department of Agriculture1989). Our results were in the variation ranges. All the pH samples in our study indicate that soil pH (4.54-4.96) was lower than the results of Takoutsing et al.(2016), being formed by a moderate ferrallitic effect under high temperature and high humidity conditions in subtropical regions(Li et al.2012b).Meanwhile,decreasing soil BD and pH has also been attributed to the accumulation of organic matter, which is conducive to the formation of soil aggregates and the improvement of soil microbial activity (Bienes et al. 2016). This in turn releases a large number of small molecular organic acids during the decomposition of organic matter (van Breemen et al. 1984), resulting in a decline in soil BD and pH values. The SOC in our study increased and showed negative relationships with BD and pH during vegetation restoration (Fig. 5). In addition, this study shows that biomass stimulated the decrease in soil pH during vegetation restoration (Fig. 3). The accumulation of biomass led to increased biomass in the roots, almost certainly reflecting the development of the vegetation community from annual plant species to perennial plants, which is more conducive to the release and accumulation of the various acid exudates (Pang et al. 2018). Although BD and pH showed a general declining trend, their values reached a peak in the 10-12 years restoration period(Fig. 2). These results may be caused by a combination of factors (i.e. soil texture, vegetation types and soil acid-base equilibrium). Firstly, as herbs developed into shrubs in our study site, the erosion effect of rainwater on soil silt and clay particles resulted in a high proportion of sand particles in the 10-12 years restoration period, reflecting the transformation of soil texture to sandy soil with high BD (Wang et al. 2018b). Secondly,changes in vegetation types could be a major driver behind the difference in cations absorption of the vegetation and consequent variation in the proportions of soil cations (Gu et al. 2019). From soil acid-base equilibrium, the increase in cations (especially Mg and AK)suggests that the soil H+was replaced by increased alkaline ions (Berthrong et al. 2009). Due to the similar soil parent materials at different restoration stages, soil Ca,Mg, and K contents, which are all derived from parent rock materials, change little in response rates during vegetation restoration(Takoutsing et al. 2016).

    Table 4 Stepwise regression of corresponding factors for biomass(n=16)

    Vegetation development during restoration periods

    In our study, species diversity increased with an 86.36%recovery rate as restoration progressed, and these results are consistent with the results of Wang et al. (2018a).The amount of biomass increased significantly with the greatest recovery rate (2906.52%) over the old growth forest, followed by H (596%) and DBH (128%) in the 45-46 years period. These results are partially consistent with our hypothesis and are very similar to the results of Hu et al. (2017).

    Improvements to the soil environment can provide community habitat quality which then promotes the enrichment of community diversity (Huang et al. 2015). Ca content had a significant positive effect on species diversity (Fig. 3), reflected in the following mechanisms.Firstly, Ca2+has the function of maintaining the homeostasis of intracellular ions, especially in acidic soil where higher Ca2+content can counterbalance the toxicity of aluminum ions for plants, further improving plant resistance to adversity and being conducive to the improvement of community diversity (Roem et al. 2002).Secondly, the increase in soil Ca content alongside vegetation restoration can be instrumental in the coexistence of species with different Ca requirements and the settlement of calcium-loving species (Hooper 1998). Additionally, soil P determines the species composition of a vegetation community (Huang et al. 2015); thus, soil AP content was considered as another major factor determining species diversity increase (Fig. 3).

    In our study, biomass, DBH, and H had basically the same changing trend, and were all significantly affected by SOC, TN, AN, and AP contents (Figs. 4 and 5). This is consistent with Brandies et al. (2009), who demonstrated that there are significant positive growth rates and similar effect factors between biomass, DBH, and H in a general case. Data analysis of our study site confirmed that the percentages of individual trees with DBH greater than 8 cm and H greater than 5 m were larger in the 45-46 years restoration period (54% and 77% respectively) than in the old growth forest (41% and 63%respectively) (Chen et al. 2019). The greatest values of DBH and H in the 45-46 years restoration period may be because Pinus massoniana, as the dominant species,is a fast-growing heliophilous plant that gets more light by increasing vertical growth (H)(Cheng et al. 2011).

    Soil SOC, TN, AN, and AP contents were leading factors in stimulating the increase in biomass, DBH, and H(Fig. 3). As the environmental basis for vegetation survival, improving the soil provides a better habitat and essential nutrients for vegetation growth (Huang et al.2018), ultimately promoting the positive succession of vegetation (Liang et al. 2010). The accumulation of SOC affects biomass, DBH, and H mainly by decomposing and releasing large amounts of nutrients to meet plant growth needs, and by improving soil texture and promoting microbial activity which provide a better growing environment for vegetation (Alday et al. 2012). Moreover, the increase in N content promotes growth of the leaf area and improves plant photosynthesis, providing sufficient energy for the growth of individual plants. P is the nutrient that most limits productivity and species richness (Huang et al. 2015), and also controls leaf litter decomposition (Zeng et al. 2016). In addition, soil P changes the structure of the root system, promotes the formation and growth of fine roots, lateral roots and secretions of root exudates,and thereby stimulates plants to make more efficient use of soil nutrients(Li et al.2017).

    Key factors affecting vegetation restoration

    Soil factors (pH, SOC, TN, TK, Mg, AN, and AP) and vegetation features (biomass,DBH, and H) were the main factors influencing vegetation restoration at our study site.This is consistent with the finding that the recovery of degraded ecosystems not only relies on soil rehabilitation,but also on the reconstruction, productivity, and function of vegetation(Liang et al.2010;Peng et al.2012).

    The soil properties and vegetation features can be viewed as three distinct groups. The first group can be summarized as soil pH, SOC, TN, AN, AP, biomass,DBH, and H across the vegetation restoration periods.The roles of soil pH, SOC, TN, AN, and AP have been analyzed above. Specifically, soil resource is the main limiting factor in the early period of vegetation restoration. However, in the later period of vegetation restoration, the change in community characteristics leads to light conditions becoming a limiting factor (van Der Maarel and Franklin 2013). With the accumulation of biomass, a complex community structure reduces the understory light transmittance, controlling the vegetation in the understory including the growth and mortality of tree seedlings and saplings (Montgomery and Chazdon 2001). Therefore, the shade tolerant species are successively established,increasing understory vegetation richness. On the other hand, heliophilous species are shaped by increasing H and diameter to gain more light by adapting to strong interspecific competition. At increasingly larger H and DBH, light transmittance could further influence a species’ light-capturing ability and distribution (Cheng et al. 2011). The limitation of light conditions for vegetation growth and performance in the late vegetation restoration period means that increases in biomass, DBH, and H are the key growth factors, determining restoration success.

    The second group of soil variables includes Mg. The increase in Mg during the restoration periods was accompanied by a series of improvements in the plants’physiological processes, such as photosynthetic efficiency, carbohydrate metabolism, and synergistic absorption with P (Unger 2010). The third group showed that the vegetation restoration development was determined by TK. Besides N and P, K is the limiting nutrient with a significant influence on vegetation growth and development (Pang et al. 2018), mainly reflected in the impact on plant photosynthesis and respiration by controlling the regulation of stomata opening (Unger 2010), even though here the effect of TK on vegetation development was not significant.

    Previous studies have suggested that species diversity was the dominant vegetation factor for vegetation restoration in a large scale (Crouzeilles et al. 2016), because higher species richness can enhance ecosystem stability and increase nutrient use efficiency (Hu et al. 2017).However, species diversity was not considered to be an influential factor for vegetation restoration in our study.The difference could be due to the non-significance of the relationships between species diversity and the main soil physicochemical properties or biomass, indicating that species diversity had no significant effect on the recovery of soil fertility and plant communities at our study site.In addition, species diversity showed a decreasing trend in the 45-46 years restoration period (Fig. 2), in which dominant species transformed from simple shrubs and herbs to pioneer species such as Pinus massoniana.In fact, needles of some Pinus species have been reported as a hindering factor which influences the regeneration of native plants and increases in species diversity (Navarro-Cano et al.2010).It is reasonable that species diversity has no significant effect on vegetation restoration in specific study area,but further research is needed.

    Soil and vegetation factors affecting biomass

    The variation of biomass was one of the important indexes reflecting vegetation restoration (Mansourian et al.2005). Therefore, the relative importance of soil properties and vegetation features in driving biomass development can reflect the degree of their individual and joint influence on vegetation restoration.

    Our study revealed that the change in biomass was strongly influenced by the interaction of soil properties and vegetation features, which explained 55.55%-72.32%of the biomass variation (Fig. 4). This dominant contribution by joint influence to biomass may be explained by the close interaction between vegetation and soil(Liang et al. 2010). As we discussed above, there was a clear co-evolutionary relationship between soil factors(pH, SOC, TN, AN, and TP) and vegetation features(DBH and H) across the restoration periods. This result suggests that the variations in key soil factors (pH, SOC,TN, AN, and TP) were likely to promote the growth of plant and the restoration of vegetation structure (Alday et al. 2012). In turn, vegetation features (DBH, and H)could influence improvements in the soil environment(Fig. 3). These results also offer the further evidence for the hypothesis that the mechanisms of plant and soil promote vegetation restoration synergistically.

    This study also found that soil properties explained 3.30%-31.44% of the variation in biomass,which was basically higher than explanation of vegetation (5.09%-24.32%). This result provides evidence that the importance of soil properties in driving the changes observed in biomass is more than that of vegetation features in the study region, which is most likely because the advantage of hydrothermal conditions in the subtropical region accelerates the material circulation, and promotes the enrichment of soil organic matter (Corlett and Hughes 2015); thus, providing a fertile environment for plant growth. The regulation mechanism of soil properties on biomass development had been discussed previously. With vegetation restoration, the increased in plant species has intensified the competition of aboveground parts for light resources and underground roots for soil resources (Cheng et al. 2011; Li et al. 2017),which further induces the variations of individual growth and morphological structure of trees (DBH and H). As DBH and H increased, more fine materials and litters can be intercepted and accumulated by plants, further enhancing the accumulation of biomass (Li et al. 2017).

    The biomass development at our study site was influenced by different soil and vegetation factors in different restoration periods. In the early restoration period (4-5 years), SOC was the major influential factor (Table 4).The possibility is that SOC is the main source of most nutrients, and that the accumulation of SOC promotes improvements in other soil factors, such as TN, AN, and AP, which have a notable effect on vegetation growth and development (Alday et al. 2012). In the 4-5 years restoration period, SOC content was low (Fig. 2), which is not conducive to the improvement of soil structure or the accumulation of nutrients (Bienes et al. 2016).Therefore, the low SOC not only limits the growth of plant roots, but also intensifies the contradiction between the demand of plant growth for water and nutrients and the supply of soil water and nutrients, resulting in hindrances to plant growth.

    H, pH, and AP were the main factors driving biomass development in the 10-12 years restoration period. This could be attributed to the competition of shrubs for light,which would drive the increasing of H to adapt to interspecific competition (Cheng et al. 2011). Additionally, the accumulation of biomass impels plants to need more Nand P-rich substances (such as enzymes, transport proteins, and amino acids) to participate in metabolic activities (Qin et al. 2016). Therefore, shrubs need to absorb more N and P for growth than do herbs.In particular,P is an important limited factor in red soil area of south China(Gao et al. 2014).However,in the 10-12 years restoration period, the increasing of pH affected the availability of P(Duan et al. 2008), suggesting that the role of AP may intensity the inequity of competition among plants, rather than promote the accumulation of biomass.

    Biomass in the 45-46 years restoration period was conditioned by the synergistic effect of H and pH.The significant effects of H and pH may be caused by a combination of two factors. Firstly, the dominant tree species (Pinus massoniana) of 45-46 years restoration period obtains more light by increasing H and canopy density (Cheng et al.2011),resulting in lower density of woody plants(Table 1);thus,H had a negative effect on biomass.Secondly,low soil pH is beneficial to improve soil permeability, aggregates and porosity(such as BD),and the accumulation of soil nutrients (such as SOC, N and P) (Ramírez et al. 2015), and enhances the availability of P, K, Ca, and Mg (Duan et al.2008).Meanwhile,soil pH decreased with vegetation restoration,and the bioaccumulation and material circulation increased with advantageous hydrothermal conditions(Corlett and Hughes 2015),which were beneficial to the increment of soil nutrient content;thus restoration stimulates the increase of biomass.

    In the old growth forest (sub-climax community), the structure of plant community has reached a state of stable (Peng et al. 2012), which means that the development of vegetation features (DBH and H) has entered a slow growth stage and has less of an impact on biomass.Instead, as a nutrient bank and soil health indicator(Bienes et al. 2016), SOC continues to influence biomass growth. In addition, evergreen trees with a long leaf life need to accumulate more organic substances (such as lignin) to construct defensive structures, and require higher N and P content to maintain normal growth and metabolism (Zeng et al. 2016). Therefore, the supply capacity of soil N and P largely determines the effectiveness of vegetation restoration(Li et al. 2012a).

    Conclusions

    The present work has shown that vegetation restoration can improve significantly soil texture and fertility (especially N, P,and SOC) and vegetation features(species diversity, biomass, DBH, and H). The study showed a clear coupling relationship between some soil factors (pH,SOC, TN, AN, and TP) and vegetation development and structural components (biomass, DBH, and H). At the same time, soil properties and vegetation features had a strongly cooperative influence on the variation of biomass, which suggested that the successful restoration of a degraded forest was driven mainly by their synergistic effect. The individual effect of soil factors on biomass development was greater than that of vegetation factors.Notably, the controlling factors of biomass had differed in the different restoration periods.

    Abbreviations

    AK: Available potassium; AN: Alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen; AP: Available phosphorus; BD:Bulk density; Ca:Total calcium; DBH: Diameter at breast height; K: Potassium; Mg: Total magnesium; MODIS: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer; N: Nitrogen; P: Phosphorus; PCA:Principal component analysis; R2: Adjustment decision coefficient; SOC: Soil organic carbon; SRA: Stepwise regression analysis; H:Height; TK: Total potassium;TN: Total nitrogen;TP: Total phosphorus

    Acknowledgments

    We thank the administrative staff at the Dashanchong Forest Farm,Changsha County, Hunan Province, for their support.

    Authors’ contributions

    XF and CC designed the idea and study, and coordinated the manuscript preparation. CC, XF, WX, PL, SO, and YK processed the data and analyzed the results. CC, XF, WX, and YK contributed to the manuscript writing and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Funding

    This work was supported by the National Forestry Public Welfare Industry Research Project (grant no. 201504411) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 31570447 and 31300524).

    Availability of data and materials

    The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due[the data is a part of the author’s graduation thesis]but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Author details

    1Faculty of Life Science and Technology, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004,China.2Huitong National Field Station for Scientific Observation and Research of Chinese Fir Plantation Ecosystem in Hunan Province, Huitong 438107, China.3Department of Soil Science of Temperate Ecosystems, Georg-August University of Gottingen, 37077 G?ttingen, Germany.4Department of Agricultural Soil Science, Georg-August University of Gottingen, 37077 G?ttingen, Germany.

    Received: 18 November 2019 Accepted: 17 April 2020

    亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 黄色一级大片看看| 色网站视频免费| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产成人精品福利久久| 免费少妇av软件| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 自线自在国产av| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| av在线观看视频网站免费| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产 一区精品| 在线观看三级黄色| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 桃花免费在线播放| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| av.在线天堂| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 天堂8中文在线网| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 精品国产国语对白av| 久久久久久久国产电影| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 成人综合一区亚洲| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 丁香六月天网| 少妇的逼好多水| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 亚洲综合精品二区| 99热全是精品| 亚洲第一av免费看| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 99久久人妻综合| 中文欧美无线码| 男人舔奶头视频| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 大香蕉久久网| av天堂中文字幕网| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 色吧在线观看| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 少妇丰满av| 夫妻午夜视频| av卡一久久| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 久久99一区二区三区| 有码 亚洲区| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 老司机影院毛片| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 日本91视频免费播放| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 五月天丁香电影| 国产91av在线免费观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 一级片'在线观看视频| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产一级毛片在线| 久热这里只有精品99| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| av网站免费在线观看视频| tube8黄色片| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 久久精品夜色国产| 久久久欧美国产精品| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 在线看a的网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 大码成人一级视频| 久久6这里有精品| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 在线观看国产h片| a 毛片基地| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 春色校园在线视频观看| 国产成人一区二区在线| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产毛片在线视频| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 极品教师在线视频| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 欧美97在线视频| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 美女国产视频在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| av.在线天堂| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 免费看日本二区| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 多毛熟女@视频| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 如何舔出高潮| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 日韩视频在线欧美| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产在线免费精品| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 国产精品三级大全| videos熟女内射| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 日韩视频在线欧美| av有码第一页| 最黄视频免费看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 少妇 在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国产永久视频网站| 欧美另类一区| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 国产毛片在线视频| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 97在线视频观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产毛片在线视频| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 内地一区二区视频在线| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 嫩草影院入口| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 麻豆成人av视频| 99国产精品免费福利视频| av在线观看视频网站免费| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 99热网站在线观看| 午夜91福利影院| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 少妇人妻 视频| 一本一本综合久久| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 美女福利国产在线| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 少妇丰满av| 亚洲成人手机| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 九色成人免费人妻av| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 天美传媒精品一区二区| h视频一区二区三区| www.色视频.com| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 欧美日韩av久久| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 精品午夜福利在线看| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 日韩强制内射视频| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产成人精品婷婷| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 免费看日本二区| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 99热这里只有精品一区| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| videos熟女内射| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 亚洲内射少妇av| 在现免费观看毛片| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放 | 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| av不卡在线播放| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 国产永久视频网站| 天堂8中文在线网| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 春色校园在线视频观看| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 亚洲综合精品二区| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看 | 国产精品久久久久成人av| 日韩电影二区| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 免费观看av网站的网址| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区 | 成年av动漫网址| 国产av精品麻豆| 午夜久久久在线观看| 一级av片app| 国产av精品麻豆| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 久久午夜福利片| 国产精品.久久久| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 在线播放无遮挡| 一级a做视频免费观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 精品亚洲成国产av| 国产成人91sexporn| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看 | 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 国产av国产精品国产| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 亚洲国产精品999| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 日韩大片免费观看网站| tube8黄色片| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 日本91视频免费播放| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 日本91视频免费播放| 一级毛片 在线播放| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 亚洲图色成人| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 亚洲综合色惰| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 自线自在国产av| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 久久影院123| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 国内精品宾馆在线| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 一级爰片在线观看| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区 | 国产毛片在线视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产一级毛片在线| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 在线播放无遮挡| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 永久免费av网站大全| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 精品酒店卫生间| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 一级毛片 在线播放| 免费少妇av软件| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 午夜福利视频精品| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 久久久久精品性色| 久久99精品国语久久久| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 少妇丰满av| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 久久久国产一区二区| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| videossex国产| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 欧美日韩av久久| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| h日本视频在线播放| 春色校园在线视频观看| 亚洲精品视频女| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 9色porny在线观看| av福利片在线观看| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 天堂8中文在线网| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 深夜a级毛片| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 永久免费av网站大全| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 两个人免费观看高清视频 | 高清毛片免费看| 一区在线观看完整版| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 午夜免费观看性视频| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 日韩视频在线欧美| av免费在线看不卡| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频 | 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 极品教师在线视频| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 久久99热6这里只有精品| 两个人的视频大全免费| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 一区二区三区精品91| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 日韩一区二区三区影片| av播播在线观看一区| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 视频区图区小说| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 欧美97在线视频| 日韩av免费高清视频| 精品一区二区三卡| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 日韩视频在线欧美| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 在线播放无遮挡| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 免费大片18禁| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产 精品1| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 高清欧美精品videossex| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 九九在线视频观看精品| 99热全是精品| 桃花免费在线播放| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 午夜91福利影院| 国产极品天堂在线| 丁香六月天网| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 韩国av在线不卡| 久久久久久久久大av| kizo精华| 婷婷色综合www| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产综合精华液| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 久热久热在线精品观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产在线免费精品| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲综合精品二区| 深夜a级毛片| 中文字幕久久专区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 两个人的视频大全免费| 成年av动漫网址| av一本久久久久| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 精品少妇内射三级| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 国产在视频线精品| av.在线天堂| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 韩国av在线不卡| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 成人二区视频| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 国产 精品1| www.色视频.com| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 五月天丁香电影| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 国产永久视频网站| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 中文字幕制服av| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 国产综合精华液| 日本免费在线观看一区| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 五月天丁香电影| av在线老鸭窝| 午夜激情久久久久久久| av视频免费观看在线观看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产色爽女视频免费观看|