Soil Infiltration Characteristics Under Different Forest and Grass Restoration Models in Karst Trough-valley Region

ZENG Jiangmin; HE Binghui; LI Tianyang; CHEN Zhanpeng; WU Yaopeng; ZENG Rongchang

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.009

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Soil Infiltration Characteristics Under Different Forest and Grass Restoration Models in Karst Trough-valley Region

更新时间：2025-03-12

- Soil Infiltration Characteristics Under Different Forest and Grass Restoration Models in Karst Trough-valley Region
- Vol. 33, Issue 4, Pages: 58-64(2019)
- 作者机构：
  
  西南大学资源环境学院, 三峡库区生态环境教育部重点实验室,重庆,400715
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.009
  CLC： S152.7
- Published：2019
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
ZENG Jiangmin, HE Binghui, LI Tianyang, et al. Soil Infiltration Characteristics Under Different Forest and Grass Restoration Models in Karst Trough-valley Region[J]. 2019, 33(4): 58-64.
DOI：

ZENG Jiangmin, HE Binghui, LI Tianyang, et al. Soil Infiltration Characteristics Under Different Forest and Grass Restoration Models in Karst Trough-valley Region[J]. 2019, 33(4): 58-64. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.009.

摘要

为研究不同林草恢复模式对喀斯特槽谷区坡面的水土保持效应，采用野外调查和室内分析相结合的方法，对比分析了喀斯特槽谷区顺、逆向坡面不同林草模式（林地、花椒地、灌草地）下的土壤理化性质和入渗特征。结果表明：（1）顺、逆向坡面下林地容重最小，孔隙度最好，含水率和有机质含量最高，其次是花椒地和灌草地；顺向坡土壤有机质含量显著高于逆向坡（P<0.05），但其他理化指标间差异不显著（P>0.05）。（2）顺、逆向坡面下花椒地入渗曲线较陡峭，而林地、灌草地相对较缓；灌草地入渗率最先趋于稳定（20 min左右），而花椒地和林地入渗率在30 min左右开始缓慢下降，直到75 min以后渐渐趋于稳定；各林草恢复模式下土壤入渗能力均为林地 > 花椒地 > 灌草地（P<0.05）。（3）入渗模型中，Horton模型拟合效果最好（R2>0.712），模拟稳定入渗率与实测值间的回归方程决定系数R2高达0.978 9。（4）研究区土壤稳定入渗率与总孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度、饱和含水量及pH均呈正相关，而与有机质呈负相关，其中总孔隙度对土壤入渗性能影响最大，有机质影响最小；利用上述指标建立的多元线性回归方程可精确预测土壤稳定入渗率。研究结果可为喀斯特槽谷区坡面植被恢复选择及土壤入渗性能评估提供理论参考。

Abstract

In order to study the effects of different forest and grass restoration models on soil and water conservation on the hill slope in Karst trough-valley areas

the physical and chemical properties and infiltration characteristics of soils under different forest and grass patterns (forest land

pepper land and shrub grassland) on the consequent and reverse hill slopes in Karst trough-valley area were compared and analyzed by field investigation and indoor analysis. The results showed that:(1) The bulk density of forest land was the smallest

and the porosity

soil moisture content and organic matter content were the highest

followed by pepper land and shrub grassland. The soil organic matter content of the consequent hill slope was significantly higher than that of the reverse hill slope (P<0.05)

but there was no significant difference in other physical and chemical indexes (P>0.05).(2) The infiltration curve of pepper land was steeper both on the consequent and reverse hill slopes

while that of forest land and shrub grassland were relatively slow. The infiltration rate of shrub grassland tended to be stable earlier (about 20 minutes)

while the infiltration rate of pepper land and forest land began to decline slowly in about 30 minutes

and became gradually stable after 75 minutes. The soil infiltration capacity of forest and restoration modes on the consequent and reverse slopes was forest land > pepper land > shrub grassland(P<0.05). (3) In the infiltration model

Horton model had the best fitting effect (R2>0.712)

compared with Kostiakov and Philip models. The determining coefficient R2 of the regression equation between simulated stable infiltration rate and measured value was as high as 0.978 9.(4) The soil stable infiltration rate in the study area was positively correlated with total porosity

non-capillary porosity

saturated water content and pH value

but was negatively correlated with organic matter. Total porosity had the greatest impact on soil infiltration performance

while organic matter had the least impact. The multiple linear regression equation established by the above indexes could accurately predict the stable infiltration rate of soil. The results could provide a theoretical reference for the selection of vegetation restoration and the assessment of soil infiltration performance on the slopes of Karst trough-valley areas.

关键词

Keywords

references

魏强,凌雷,张广忠,等.甘肃兴隆山主要森林类型土壤渗透性[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(3):57-62.

Wu G L, Yang Z, Cui Z, et al. Mixed artificial grasslands with more roots improved mine soil infiltration capacity[J]. Journal of Hydrology,2016,535:54-60.

付同刚,陈洪松,王克林.喀斯特小流域土壤饱和导水率垂直分布特征[J].土壤学报,2015,52(3):538-546.

Sun D, Yang H, Guan D X, et al. The effects of land use change on soil infiltration capacity in China:A meta-analysis[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2018,626:1394-1401.

Yimer F, Messing I, Ledin S, et al. Effects of different land use types on infiltration capacity in a catchment in the highlands of Ethiopia[J]. Soil Use and Management,2010,24(4):344-349.

Neris J, Jiménez C, Fuentes J, et al. Vegetation and land-use effects on soil properties and water infiltration of Andisols in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain)[J]. Catena,2012,98:55-62.

林代杰,郑子成,张锡洲,等.不同土地利用方式下土壤入渗特征及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(1):33-36.

李天阳,何丙辉,田家乐,等.重庆璧山5种典型农林混作模式土壤理化性质及水分入渗特性[J].水土保持学报,2013,27(4):103-108.

吴清林,梁虹,熊康宁,等.石漠化环境水土综合整治与山地混农林业前沿理论与对策[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(2):11-18.

苏维词.中国西南岩溶山区石漠化的现状成因及治理的优化模式[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(2):29-32.

任启文,毕君,李联地,等.冀北山地3种森林植被恢复类型对土壤质量的影响[J].生态环境学报,2018,27(10):1818-1824.

Li X Y, Contreras S, Albert Solé-Benet, et al. Controls of infiltration-runoff processes in Mediterranean karst rangelands in SE Spain[J]. Catena,2011,86(2):98-109.

Benegas L,Ilstedt U, Roupsard O, et al. Effects of trees on infiltrability and preferential flow in two contrasting agroecosystems in Central America[J]. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 2014,183:185-196.

Paul W W. The role of the epikarst in karst and cave hydrogeology:A review[J]. International Journal of Speleology,2008,37(1):1-10.

张治伟,朱章雄,王燕,等.岩溶坡地不同利用类型土壤入渗性能及其影响因素[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(6):71-76.

刘丽红,蒋勇军,王翱宇,等.岩溶槽谷区不同土地利用方式土壤入渗规律研究[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(4):51-55.

徐勤学,李春茂,陈洪松,等.喀斯特峰丛坡地灌木林地与梯田旱地土壤水分入渗特征[J].农业工程学报,2018,34(8):124-131.

杨剑虹,王成林,代亨林,等.土壤农化分析与环境监测[M].北京:中国大地出版社,2008.

王佩将,戴全厚,丁贵杰,等.喀斯特地区植被恢复过程中土壤渗透性能及其影响因素[J].中国水土保持科学,2012,10(6):12-18.

李天阳,何丙辉,张怡,等.重庆山地血橙园不同模式土壤水分物理性状[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(2):33-38.

赵东波.线性回归模型中多重共线性问题的研究[D].辽宁锦州:渤海大学,2017.

刘青柏,刘明国,王玉涛,等.不同林型立地土壤水分性状及其持水能力的比较[J].干旱区研究,2011,28(5):775-779.

Almeida W S D, Elói P, Oliveira P T S D, et al. Effect of soil tillage and vegetal cover on soil water infiltration[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2018,175:130-138.

刘目兴,聂艳,于婧.不同初始含水率下黏质土壤的入渗过程[J].生态学报,2012,32(3):871-878.

黄茹,黄林,何丙辉,等.三峡库区不同林草治理措施下土壤入渗特征研究[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2013,35(9):119-126.

Prado E A F D, Vitorino A C T, Oliveira W H D, et al. Dispersion index of aggregates in a Rhodic Ferrasol cultivated with cane under stillage application[J].Semina:Ciencias Agrarias,2014,35(4):2347-2356.

Santos M A D N D, Panachuki E, Alves S T, et al. Water infiltration in an Ultisol after cultivation of common bean[J].Revista Brasileira De Ciência Do Solo,2014,62(38):1612-1620.

Shao Q, Baumgartl T. Field evaluation of three modified infiltration models for the simulation of rainfall sequences[J]. Soil Science,2016,181(2):45-56.

邵水仙,董智,李红丽,等.不同造林模式对退化石灰岩山地土壤理化性质及水文效应的影响[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(1):263-267.

戴全厚,严友进.西南喀斯特石漠化与水土流失研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(2):1-10.

唐益群,张晓晖,周洁,等.喀斯特石漠化地区土壤地下漏失的机理研究:以贵州普定县陈旗小流域为例[J].中国岩溶,2010,29(2):121-127.

梁向锋,赵世伟,张扬,等.子午岭植被恢复对土壤饱和导水率的影响[J].生态学报,2009,29(2):636-642.

彭舜磊,由文辉,沈会涛.植被群落演替对土壤饱和导水率的影响[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(11):78-84.

Views

1331

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Effect of Exposed Bedrock on Soil Water Infiltration in Karst Region

Infiltration Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Karst Shallow Fissured Soil

Differences of Soil Infiltration Characteristics Between Exposed Rock-soil Interface and Non-rock-soil Interface in Rocky Desertification Area of Karst Plateau

Effects of Vegetation Root Distribution on Preferential Flow Characteristics in Woodland and Grassland of Karst Areas

Differentiation of Soil Characteristics in Gully Head of Black Soil and Its Influence on K Value

Related Author

DONG Tianfu

ZHANG Jun

NIE Yunpeng

CHEN Hongsong

ZENG Hong

YANG Jing

ZHU Liekun

DAI Quanhou

Related Institution

College of Forestry， Guizhou University

Huanjiang Observation and Research Station for Karst Ecosystems， Chinese Academy of Sciences， Huanjiang

Institute of Subtropical Agriculture， Chinese Academy of Sciences

College of Forestry, Guizhou University

Soil Erosion and Ecological Restoration Research Center, Guizhou University

⁰