Water Conservation Function of

TENG Qiumei; HE Bin; XU Guangping; YANG Junsong; ZHANG Zhongfeng; ZHANG Denan; ZHOU Longwu; HE Wen; HUANG Kechao; SUN Yingjie

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.05.026

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Water Conservation Function of

更新时间：2025-03-12

- Water Conservation Function of
- Vol. 33, Issue 5, Pages: 177-184(2019)
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 广西喀斯特植物保育与恢复生态学重点实验室, 广西壮族自治区中国科学院广西植物研究所,广西,桂林,541006
  2. 广西大学林学院,南宁,530004
  3. 贵州省贵阳市花溪区马铃乡林业站,贵阳,550027
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.05.026
  CLC：
- Published：2019
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
TENG Qiumei, HE Bin, XU Guangping, et al. Water Conservation Function of[J]. 2019, 33(5): 177-184.
DOI：

TENG Qiumei, HE Bin, XU Guangping, et al. Water Conservation Function of[J]. 2019, 33(5): 177-184. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.05.026.

摘要

为了研究广西西北部不同林龄光皮桦人工林的水源涵养功能，选择具有代表性的11，16年生光皮桦人工林、16年生杉木林，从林冠层、枯枝落叶层和土壤层3个层次及综合性的水源涵养能力进行了定量分析。结果表明：（1）11，16年生光皮桦人工林林冠层、灌木层、草本层持水量范围分别为12.54~21.06，2.15~3.05，1.27~1.52 t/hm2，凋落物总储量为4.54~7.42 t/hm2，最大持水量为12.55~16.00 t/hm2，16年生均显著大于11年生（P<0.05），凋落物吸水速率与浸水时间存在良好的线性关系（R2>0.86，P<0.05）。（2）土壤的孔隙状况表现为16年生光皮桦林>11年生光皮桦林，均大于对照的16年生杉木林，0-20 cm显著大于20-40，40-80 cm土层。（3）11年生光皮桦土壤最大持水量、毛管持水量、非毛管持水量的变化范围分别为28.97%~60.55%，25.35%~47.21%，3.71%~13.34%，16年生的为29.06%~63.45%，25.63%~48.70%，3.34%~14.75%，均随着土层的加深而减少；11，16年生光皮桦林0-80 cm土壤层自然含水量范围分别为27.46~30.16，28.12~30.22 g/cm3；总蓄水量分别为3 813.4，3 732.2 t/hm2，均大于16年生杉木林（3 659.2 t/hm2）。总体上，林龄较大的光皮桦人工林表现出较强的水源涵养功能，且优于同林龄的杉木人工林。研究结果可为该地区光皮桦人工林的经营管理提供科学依据。

Abstract

To evaluate the water conservation function of Betula luminifera plantations with different ages in Northwestern Guangxi

the representative 11 and 16-year-old B. luminifera plantations and 16-year-old Cunninghamia lanceolata were selected as main research object

and the water conservation capacities in three layers including the forest canopy

litter layer and the soil layer

as well as the comprehensive water conservation capacity were analyzed quantitatively. The results showed that:(1) The water holding capacity of the canopy

shrub layer and herb layer of the 11 and 16 year-old B. Luminifera plantations ranged from 12.54 to 21.06 t/hm2

2.15 to 3.05 t/hm2 and 1.27 to 1.52 t/hm2. The total litter reserve was 4.54~7.42 t/hm2

and the maximum water holding capacity was 12.55~16.00 t/hm2

which of 16-year-old plantation was significantly higher than that of 11-year-old plantation (P<0.05). There was a good linear relationship between the water absorption rate and water soaking time (R2>0.86

P<0.05). (2) The pore condition of soil followed the order of 16-year-old B. Luminifera forest > 11-year-old B. Luminifera forest > 16-years-old C. lanceolata forest

and the pore condition of soil was significantly higher in 0-20 cm soil layer than that in 20-40 cm and 40-80 cm soil layer. (3) The variation range of maximum water holding capacity

capillary water holding capacity and non-capillary water holding capacity of the 11-year-old B. Luminifera soil was 28.97%~60.55%

25.35%~47.21% and 3.71%~13.34%

and the range was 26.06%~63.45%

25.63%~48.70% and 3.34%~14.75% in 16-years-old B. Luminifera plantation

respectively

and all the values decreased with the increasing of the soil layer. The natural water content ranges of 0-80 cm soil layer in 11 and 16 year-old forest were 27.46~30.16 g/cm3 and 28.12~30.22 g/cm3

respectively

and total water storage capacities were 3 813.4 t/hm2 and 3 732.2 t/hm2

respectively

and all the values were greater than those in 16-year-old C. lanceolata forest (3 659.2 t/hm2). On the whole

the older B. luminifera plantation had stronger water conservation function

and it was superior to the same age C. lanceolata plantation. The results could provide scientific basis for the management of B. luminifera plantation in this area.

关键词

Keywords

references

周佳雯,高吉喜,高志球,等.森林生态系统水源涵养服务功能解析[J].生态学报,2018,38(5):1679-1686.

吴强,楚聪颖,张鹏,等.滦河上游7种典型林分类型水土保持功能[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):40-44.

侯贵荣, 毕华兴,魏曦,等.黄土残塬沟壑区3种林地枯落物和土壤水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(2):357-363,371.

李奕,满秀玲,蔡体久,等.大兴安岭山地樟子松天然林土壤水分物理性质及水源涵养功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(2):87-91,96.

孙立博,余新晓,陈丽华,等.坝上高原杨树人工林的枯落物及土壤水源涵养功能退化[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(1):104-110.

程志辉,李法云,李海燕,等.辽东山地水源涵养林典型植被凋落物C、N、P溶出特征及其影响因素[J].生态学杂志,2019,38(4):1031-1040.

涂志华,范志平,孙学凯,等.大伙房水库流域不同植被类型枯落物层和土壤层水文效应[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(1):127-133.

梁晓娇,王树力.阿什河源头不同类型红松人工林枯落物及其土壤水文特性[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(1):140-145,152.

马国飞,满苏尔·沙比提,张雪琪.托木尔峰自然保护区台兰河上游不同植被类型的水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报, 2018,32(1):210-216,224.

毕宁,周聿,周应书,等.光皮桦作为天麻菌材树种的优势分析[J].现代农业科技,2017(17):87-88.

赵庆萍,杨林,刘佳琪,等.优质速生树种光皮桦研究进展[J].贵州林业科技,2016,44(4):55-60,54.

滕秋梅,刘俊,廖倩苑,等.桂西北光皮桦人工林生态系统碳储量及其分布格局[J].西部林业科学,2016,45(4):119-122,129.

孙艳,李四,张楠.林龄对马尾松人工林水源涵养能力的影响研究[J].中国水土保持,2018(7):22-24,69.

刘蔚漪,喻庆国,罗宗伟,等.滇南亚热带地区典型公益林与商品林凋落物储量及持水特性[J].生态环境学报,2017,26(10):1719-1727.

郭梦娇,朱江,程小琴,等.辽河源不同林龄油松林水源涵养能力研究[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(3):279-284.

王美莲,王飞,姚晓娟,等.不同林龄兴安落叶松枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].生态环境学报,2015, 24(6):925-931.

富丽,赵锦梅,李永宁,等.陇东黄土高原不同林龄苹果林地枯落物及土壤的水文效应[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(5):40-45.

李红,范素芳,张光灿,等.黄土丘陵区退耕还林后不同林地土壤孔隙与贮水特性[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(1):27-30.

冯宜明,李毅,曹秀文,等.甘肃亚高山云杉人工林土壤特性及水源涵养功能对林分密度的响应特征[J].自然资源学报,2018,33(9):1529-1541.

陈光升,胡庭兴,黄立华,等.华西雨屏区人工竹林凋落物及表层土壤的水源涵养功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):159-162.

刘凯,贺康宁,田赟,等.青海高寒山区5种林分的土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(3):141-146.

王燕,宫渊波,尹艳杰,等.不同林龄马尾松人工林土壤水土保持功能[J].水土保持学报,2013,27(5):23-27,31.

李文影,满秀玲,张阳武.不同林龄白桦次生林土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].中国水土保持科学,2009,7(5):63-69.

李际平,李沛霖,曹小玉,等.福寿林场杉木人工林水源涵养功能比较研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2014,34(7):80-83,129.

Views

1214

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

The Hydrological Functions of Litter and Soil Surface of Three Forest Restoration Modes in Degraded Red Soil Area of Jiangxi Province

Soil Characteristics and Water Conservation Function of Five Forest Types in Qinghai Alpine Region

Study on Soil Water Conservation Function Under Typical Vegetation in Xarxili Nature Reserve

Degradation of Litter and Soil Water Conservation Function of Poplar Plantation in Bashang Plateau

Related Author

MA Zhiliang

ZHAO Wenqiang

LIU Mei

ZHU Pan

LIU Qing

WEN Linsheng

DENG Wenping

PENG Yun

Related Institution

Key Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization, Sichuan Key Laboratory of Ecological Restoration Biodiversity Conservation, Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Science

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

Sichuan Key Laboratory of Ecological Security and Protection, Mianyang Normal University

College of Forestry, Jiangxi Agricultural University

Laboratory for Forest Ecosystem Protection and Restoration in Poyang Lake Basin

⁰