tab. 1 Value of chief environmental factors 10 φ ( ) ( ε ) ( ) ( %) ( )

21 6 2002 11 GEO GRAPHICAL RESEARCH Vol. 21, No. 6 Nov., 2002 : 1000-0585 (2002) 06-0689 - 11,,, ( 130024) : 12,, : > >, > > 28. 9 % ( ) 28. 2 % ( ) 26. 2 % ( ),, 12 86. 7 % ( ) 84. 6 % ( ) 78. 7 % ( ), 10,,,, : ; ; ; : P935 ; S154. 5 : A,,,, [19 ] [1012 ],, [13,14 ] 19951998 12,, 1 1. 1 128 53 20 E, 47 10 50 N,,, 100200m, 1015, - 0. 3, 680mm,,, 1 : 2002-04 - 08 ; : 2002-07 - 24 : (49471045) ; ( ) : (1951 - ),,,, 60 () E - mail : yinxiuqin @163. net

690 21 1. 2 1 tab. 1 Value of chief environmental factors 10 φ ( ) ( ε ) ( ) ( %) ( ) 1995 0. 07 82. 2 391. 1 16. 4 13. 4 1996-1. 50 82. 2 493. 9 15. 8 13. 5 1997 0. 03 80. 8 601. 4 17. 4 15. 3 1998 0. 20 91. 4 527. 6 19. 2 16. 2 : 112 ; 10 φ 5 9 ; 59 1995 10, ( Fraxi nus m andshurica) ( Phel2 lodondron am uriensis) ( J uglans m andshurica) ( Tilia am urensis) ( A cer mono) ( Pi nus koraiensis) ( Ul m us laci niata) ( Popu2 l us ussuriensis) ( Bet ula platyphylla) ( A bies nephrolepis) ( L ari x gmeli nii) ( Picea koraiensis) 12 6 (, ) 30 (, ) 260 (, ), 15 φ 20 φ, 10g (, ) 9,,, 12 54, 648 216, 216, 108, 36 6 8 10 2 2 1, 60, 24,,, ; 10 1, 6 8 10, ( 50 φ 50 φ ) Tullgren ( 10 φ 10 φ ), ; 6 8 10, 2 2. 1,, : D = ( W 0 - W 1 ) / W 0 : D ; W 0 ; W 1 12 (1) 1, 12 > >, 28. 9 % ( ) 28. 2 % ( ) 26. 2 % ( ) ;,

6 : 691 86. 7 % ( ) 84. 6 % ( ) 78. 7 % ( ), 2 3 4,, 31. 01 %, 24. 68 % ; 29. 48 %, 25. 60 % ; 27. 92 %, 22. 81 %, 1 12 Fig. 1 Decomposition rates of12 species of defoliation 2 Fig. 2 Comparison of decomposition rates of broad - leaved and coniferous defoliation in large mesh bags 3 Fig. 3 Comparison of decomposition rates of broad - leaved and coniferous defoliation in small mesh bags 4 Fig. 4 Comparison of decomposition rates of broad - leaved and coniferous defoliation in experiment mesh bags, 12, > > > >, 5, [15 ],

692 21, 2. 2,,, Olson [15 ], : X/ X 0 = e - kt : X 0 ; X t ; k, ; t 50 % t 0. 5,, t 0. 5 = 0. 693/ k ;, t 0. 95 95 %, t 0. 95 = 2. 996/ k 2 2 12 50 %95 % Tab. 2 Semi - decomposition rates and the time decomposed 95 % of three treatment process of 12 species of defoliation T 0. 5 t 0. 95 T 0. 5 t 0. 95 0. 540. 570. 742. 352. 453. 20 0. 610. 650. 762. 632. 813. 28 0. 500. 590. 782. 162. 553. 32 1. 481. 982. 146. 378. 569. 25 1. 251. 391. 455. 396. 006. 28 1. 311. 802. 275. 647. 789. 82 1. 201. 612. 215. 196. 959. 57 1. 411. 411. 666. 126. 127. 18 0. 961. 242. 134. 155. 369. 19 1. 851. 852. 218. 008. 009. 56 1. 471. 341. 556. 355. 796. 69 1. 471. 521. 966. 366. 578. 49 2,, 95 %,, ; 95 %,, ; 95 %,, 2. 3 67 47828, 4 9 28 (Arachnida) ( Insecta) ( Oligochaeta) ( Nematoda) (Diplopoda) (Chilopoda) ( Pauropoda) ( Gastropoda) (Symphyla) 2. 3. 1 65 25029, 9 27 3 12, ; ( )

6 : 693 3 Tab. 3 Chief soil animals in large mesh bags 1 Oribatida 476 280 863 816 805 676 565 1002 813 583 579 364 + + + 2 Gamasida 124 118 179 229 149 154 141 323 148 256 271 153 + + 3 Actinedida 105 143 356 271 225 108 183 260 183 112 91 95 + + 4 Tomoceridae 122 104 230 303 283 213 144 145 218 188 75 43 + + 5 Hypogastruridae 57 43 198 124 45 33 41 54 229 35 35 13 + + 6 Isotomidae 149 152 292 425 455 319 267 364 373 673 835 285 + + + 7 Onychiuridae 24 19 45 97 122 57 83 97 86 329 415 224 + + 8 Entomobryidae 41 20 65 60 49 61 56 59 41 57 91 58 + + 9 Sminthuridae 32 10 26 26 21 39 15 19 11 85 146 48 + + 10 Enchytraeidae 27 27 28 57 64 38 36 26 46 88 137 131 + + 11 Diptera 18 4 23 37 43 29 7 11 20 2 + 12 Araneida 6 5 31 10 8 7 11 7 11 7 3 3 + 13 Chironomidae 11 5 5 50 26 15 5 15 10 2 6 + 14 Coleoptera 17 6 12 46 16 10 58 12 32 + 15 J uliformia 4 4 11 11 2 11 12 5 4 10 5 2 + 16 Lithobiidae 3 3 11 18 5 2 3 5 12 42 3 1 + 17 Gastropoda 1 2 4 2 2 3 1 + 18 Lumbricidae 1 1 1 1 + : + + +, 10 % ; + +, 110 % ; +, 1 %, (46 ) (51 ) ;, 4 2. 3. 2 56 18336, 8 25 12 5 5, ; ;, (45 ) > (41 ) > (38 ) ;, 45. 4 %, 6,,,,

694 21 4 Tab. 4 Dominant and common groups in large mesh bags 1 Oribatida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 Gamasida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3 Actinedida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 Tomoceridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5 Hypogastruridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6 Isotomidae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7 Onychiuridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8 Rntomobryidae6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9 Sminthuridae + + + + + + + + + + + + 10 Neanuridae + + + + + + 11 Enchytraeidae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 12 Diptera + + + + + + + + 13 formicidae + + + + 14 Coccinellidae + + 15 Araneida + + 16 Chironomidae + + + + 17 Coleoptera + + + + + + + + 18 Psocidae + + + + + + 19 Lithobiidae + + + + 14 11 12 13 11 10 12 10 10 11 10 9 5 Tab. 5 Chief soil animals in small mesh bags 1 Oribatida 336 223 663 626 521 431 370 638 570 257 196 97 + + + 2 Gamasida 139 123 151 182 188 95 119 122 159 166 145 57 + + 3 Actinedida 200 152 264 176 201 82 133 234 185 85 88 36 + + 4 Tomoceridae 119 124 158 152 192 164 79 73 165 49 20 8 + + 5 Hypogastruridae 64 49 227 42 51 48 23 49 80 69 25 4 + + 6 Isotomidae 321 154 222 346 523 359 182 268 498 453 801 117 + + + 7 Onychiuridae 44 20 50 98 96 31 119 55 47 267 163 92 + + 8 Entomobryidae 31 10 33 48 55 41 31 35 20 42 29 31 + + 9 Sminthuridae 25 10 13 28 29 29 2 6 3 67 15 21 + + 10 Enchytraeidae 72 61 28 81 88 67 84 36 49 55 97 35 + + 11 Diptera 14 9 16 22 18 24 13 11 18 + 12 Chironomidae 16 17 12 35 9 17 18 1 6 1 + 13 Coleoptera 22 8 12 7 22 24 30 29 30 + 14 J uliformia 2 15 10 10 4 5 6 5 15 2 2 1 + 15 Psocidae 17 23 14 4 24 16 10 7 12 + 16 Lithobiidae 2 1 10 11 4 2 2 8 11 12 4 2 + 17 Gastropoda 1 1 +

6 : 695 6 Tab. 6 Dominant and common groups in small mesh bags 1 Oribatida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2 Gamasida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3 Actinedida + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 Tomoceridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5 Hypogastruridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6 Isotomidae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7 Onychiuridae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8 Entomobryidae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9 Sminthuridae + + + + + + + + + + + + 10 Neanuridae + + 11 Pseudachortidae + + 12 Enchytraeidae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 Diptera + + + + + + 14 Coccinellidae + + 15 Chironomidae + + + + + + + + + + 16 Coleoptera + + + + + + + + + + + + 17 Psocidae + + + + + + + + 14 11 9 12 12 15 12 10 10 10 9 9 2. 3. 3, 73, 52 ; 7 8 7 8 7 Tab. 7 Chief soil animals in the litter of Pinus koraiensis and broad - leaved mixed forest 1 Isotomidae + + + 2 Oribatida + + + 3 Enchytraeidae + + 4 Lithobiidae + + 5 Gamasida + + 6 Tomoceridae + + 7 Actinedida + + 8 Hypogastrodae + + 9 J uliformia + + 10 Onychiuridae + + 11 Diptera + + 12 Coleoptera + 13 Staphylinidae + 14 Entomobryidae + 15 Gastropoda + 16 Carabidae + 17 Lumbricidae + 18 Chironomidae + 19 Formicidae + 8 Tab. 8 Chief soil animals in the litter of Picea and Abies forset 1 Isotomidae + + + 2 Oribatida + + + 3 Enchytraeidae + + 4 Onychiuridae + + 5 Hypogastrodae + + 6 Actinedida + + 7 Gamasida + + 8 Lithobiidae + + 9 Entomobryidae + + 10 Geophilidae + + 11 J uliformia + 12 Staphylinidae + 13 Carabidae + 14 Lumbricidae + 15 Cecidomyiidae + 16 Pseudachorutidae + 17 Sminthuridae + 18 Tomiceridae + 19 Muscidae +

696 21,, 9 57, 3 37 2. 4 2. 4. 1 12, 5 Fig. 5 Decomposition of soil animals on defoliation > >, > > (5),,, (1997 10 ), ; <, (1997 10 ), (1998 6 ) 12,,,,,,,, 2. 4. 2,, 12,,,,, 2. 4. 3 12,,,,,,,,,,, (6), [16 ] ( ),,

6 : 697 6 12 Fig. 6 Decomposition of soil animals and soil microorganism on 12 species of defoliation,,,,, 2. 5 12 (6),, > >,,, Satchyl, J. E. (1977), [17] Satchyl, J. E., 7 8 1998, (1998 10 ) ; 7 Fig. 7 Content of microorganism in the litter of Pinus koraiensis and broad - leaved mixed forest 8 Fig. 8 Content of microorganism in the litter Picea and A bies forest

698 21,,, 810 3 (1) 12 > >, 86. 7 % ( ) 84. 6 % ( ) 78. 7 % ( ), >, (2) 12,, ;,, ; (3),,,,,,,,,,, (4) 12,, (5),,, 0,, [6,11,17,18 ] : [ 1 ],..,1984,4 (2) :19. [ 2 ],..,1989,44 (2) :205213. [ 3 ],..,1994,13 (2) :7481. [ 4 ],..,1993,4 (2) :167173. [ 5 ],,..,1999,10 (4) :511513. [ 6 ],,. III,.,1990, (6) :4754. [ 7 ].. :,1977. 235243. [ 8 ] Tian G., et al. Role of soil microarthropods in leaf decomposition and N release under various land - use practices in the humid tropics. Pedobiologia,1998,42 :3342. [ 9 ] Postle A C, et al. Soil and little inertebrates and litter decomposition in Jarrach forest affected by Jarrah dieback fungus. Pedobiologia, 1986, 29 :4769. [10 ] Yin Xiuqin. Study on soil animals and the litters of forest in Jilin province. In : Song Yongchang. Applied Vegetation Ecol., 1994, 161165. [ 11 ],..,1990,10 (2) :173176. [ 12 ] Whalen J K, et al. Movement of N from decomposing earthworm tissue to soil, microbial and plant N pools. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,1999,31 :487492. [ 13 ],..,2000, 37 (1) :117

6 : 699 123. [ 14 ],,,..,2002,22 (1) :5461. [ 15 ].. :,1994. 115147. [ 16 ].. :,1973. 134137. [ 17 ]..,1980, (3) :3848. [ 18 ],.. :,2000. 108124. Decomposition of f orest def oliation and role of soil animals in Xiao Hinggan Mountains YIN Xiu - qin, ZHON G Wei - yan, WAN G Hai - xia, CHEN Peng (College of Urban and Environmental Science, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China) Abstract :Study on the decomposition of 12 kinds of forest defoliation and the role of soil ani2 mals in Pinus koraiensis broad - leaved mixed forest and spruce - fir of Xiao Hinggan Moun2 tains. The method of eliminating the role of soil animals of different groups from different mesh decomposition bags was adopted. The result s show t hat t he decomposition efficiency of t he defo2 liation is large mesh > small mesh > check, that is to say the role of large - type and middle - small - type soil animals and microorganism > t he role of middle - small - type soil animals and microorganism > t he role of microorganism only. The average decomposition efficiency of t hree years is 28. 9 %(large mesh), 28. 2 %(small mesh) and 26. 2 %(check mesh). By the end of the third year, the degree of decomposition of three kinds of mesh bags is 86. 7 % (large mesh), 84. 6 %( small mesh) and 78. 7 % (check mesh). The decomposition of latifoliate defoliation is entirely higher than conifer defoliation in three kinds of mesh bags. In latifoliate defoliation, the decomposition degree of Phellodondron amuriensis, Fraxinus mandshurica, Ulmus laciniata, J uglans mandshurica and Acer mono is the highest. But in conifer defoliation, the decomposi2 tion degree of Pinus koraiensis is the highest. From the decomposition of 12 kinds of defoliations in 3 years, the decomposition of defoliation is effected not only by large - size soil animals but also by middle - small - size soil animals, but the degree of function is different. In the prophase of decomposition, t he role of soil animals was gradually increasing and t he biggest value ap2 peared in October of t he second year. Subsequently, t he sole of soil animals was decreasing, and the role of large - type soil animals > the role of middle - small - type soil animals. The role of soil animals is different when the kind of defoliation and the time of decomposition are differ2 ent. Key word :forest defoliation ; decomposition ; soil Animals ; Xiao Hinggan Mountains