Evaluation of Eco-hydrological Effect of Composite Erosion Control of Pisha Sandstone Slope Based on WEPP Model

HU Jianru; RAO Liangyi; SHEN Zhenzhou

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.02.018

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Evaluation of Eco-hydrological Effect of Composite Erosion Control of Pisha Sandstone Slope Based on WEPP Model

更新时间：2025-03-12

- Evaluation of Eco-hydrological Effect of Composite Erosion Control of Pisha Sandstone Slope Based on WEPP Model
- Vol. 34, Issue 2, Pages: 123-129(2020)
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 北京林业大学水土保持学院,北京,100083
  2. 水土保持国家林业局重点实验室,北京,100083
  3. 黄河水利委员会黄河水利科学研究院,郑州,450003
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.02.018
  CLC： S157;TU45
- Published：2020
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
HU Jianru, RAO Liangyi, SHEN Zhenzhou. Evaluation of Eco-hydrological Effect of Composite Erosion Control of Pisha Sandstone Slope Based on WEPP Model[J]. 2020, 34(2): 123-129.
DOI：

HU Jianru, RAO Liangyi, SHEN Zhenzhou. Evaluation of Eco-hydrological Effect of Composite Erosion Control of Pisha Sandstone Slope Based on WEPP Model[J]. 2020, 34(2): 123-129. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.02.018.

摘要

基于2014—2016年二老虎沟小流域坡面径流小区的7场野外降雨下径流泥沙监测数据，在砒砂岩区表土（0—20 cm）条件下，通过累积误差法率定模型土壤参数；同时采用模型有效性系数（ME）和决定系数（R2）对模型有效性进行验证，并利用WEPP模型对不同侵蚀治理措施坡面径流泥沙情况进行了模拟预测，对其减流减沙生态水文效应进行了比较分析。结果表明：（1）当模型有效水力传导系数为4.73 mm/h、临界剪切力为1 Pa和细沟土壤可蚀性为0.01 s/m时，模型模拟效果最佳。（2） WEPP模型模拟无措施（裸地）小区径流量和侵蚀量的R2分别为0.722 3和0.702 5，ME分别为0.616 0和0.616 7，WEPP模型模拟措施（草地）小区径流量和侵蚀量的R2分别为0.711 6和0.844 7，ME分别为0.674 1和0.690 3；措施小区的模型效果比无措施小区的模拟效果好。（3）不同降雨类型下，情景a （阳坡低盖度草本）、情景b （阳坡低盖度灌丛）、情景c （阳坡中盖度灌丛）、情景d （阴坡灌木林）、情景e （阴坡高盖度灌丛）、情景f （阴坡低盖度灌丛）的植物措施减流效应为13.04%~91.28%，减沙效应为44.46%~99.98%。总体来看，不同情景的减流减沙效应为情景d > 情景e > 情景c > 情景f > 情景b > 情景a。

Abstract

Based on the field monitoring data of runoff plot in erhugou small watershed from 2014 to 2016

under the condition of the surface soil (0-20 cm) in the pisha sandstone area

the soil parameters of the model were calibrated by the cumulative error method; at the same time

the model validity coefficient (ME) and the decision coefficient (R2) were used to verify the model validity

and WEPP model was used to simulate the runoff and sediment conditions of different erosion control measures. The ecohydrological effects of runoff and sediment reduction were compared and analyzed. The results showed that:(1) When the effective hydraulic conductivity

critical shear force

and erodibility of rill soil are 4.73 mm/h

1 Pa and 0.01 m/s respectively

the simulation effect of the model is the best. (2) The R2 and ME of WEPP model to simulate runoff and erosion of no measure (bare land) plot were 0.722 3 and 0.616 0

0.702 5 and 0.616 7 respectively

and the runoff and erosion of WEPP model to simulate measure (grassland) plot were were 0.711 6 and 0.674 1

0.844 7 and 0.690 3

respectively

and the simulation effect of the model with measures was better than that without measures. (3) Under different rainfall types

the effects of scenario a (herbage with low coverage on sunny slope)

scenario b (shrub with low coverage on sunny slope)

scenario c (shrub with medium coverage on sunny slope)

scenario d (shrub with high coverage on cloudy slope)

scenario e (shrub with high coverage on cloudy slope)

and scenario f (shrub with low coverage on cloudy slope) on runoff reduction were 13.04%~91.28%

and the effects of sediment reduction were 44.46%~99.98%. In general

the effects of different scenarios were:scenario d > scenario e > scenario c > scenario f > scenario b > scenario a.

关键词

Keywords

references

王愿昌,吴永红,寇权,等.砒砂岩分布范围界定与类型区划分[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(1):14-18.

张金慧,徐雪良,张锐,等.砒砂岩类型区筑坝材料可行性分析[J].中国水土保持,1999(1):28-30.

王愿昌,吴永红,李敏.砒砂岩地区水土流失及其治理途径研究[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2007.

张德全.砒砂岩区的侵蚀及危害[A].中国水土保持学会.发展水土保持科技、实现人与自然和谐:中国水土保持学会第三次全国会员代表大会学术论文集[C].中国水土保持学会:中国水土保持学会,2006:2.

姚文艺,李长明,张攀,等.砒砂岩侵蚀机理研究与展望[J].人民黄河,2018,40(6):1-7.

王立久,李长明,董晶亮.砒砂岩分布及岩性特征[J].人民黄河,2013,35(12):91-93.

王伟,张永波,叶浩,等.内蒙古砒砂岩的模糊聚类分析[J].吉林大学学报(地球科学版),2009,39(6):1168-1172.

赵国际.内蒙古砒砂岩地区水土流失规律研究[J].水土保持研究,2001,8(4):158-160.

王伦江.砒砂岩风化物陡边坡水土流失规律研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2015.

肖培青,姚文艺,刘慧.砒砂岩地区水土流失研究进展与治理途径[J].人民黄河,2014,36(10):92-94.

张腾飞.砒砂岩侵蚀区水土流失治理新模式探讨[J].亚热带水土保持,2016,28(2):44-46.

歌丽巴,王玉杰,王云琦,等.WEPP模型在北京山区的适用性评价[J].北京林业大学学报,2015,37(12):69-76.

谢炎敏.WEPP与RUSLE在南方红壤丘陵区土壤侵蚀模拟中的应用对比研究[J].人民珠江,2018,39(10):34-38.

朱韵峤.WEPP模型在紫色土区域适用性研究[J].安徽农业科学,2017,45(23):106-108,113.

叶俊道,秦富仓,岳永杰,等.WEPP模型在砒砂岩地区土壤侵蚀模拟的适用性研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2012,26(7):132-135.

常平.冲蚀条件下砒砂岩坡面水力侵蚀特性试验研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2018.

查同刚.土壤理化分析[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2017.

Foster G R, Lane L J. User requirements, USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)[R].NSERL Report No.1, West Lafayette: USDA—ARS National Soil Erosion laboratory,1987.

张晴雯,雷廷武,姚春梅,等.WEPP细沟剥蚀率模型正确性的理论分析与实验验证机[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(1):35-39.

余长洪,李就好,陈凯,等.砖红壤区WEPP模型土壤参数的率定[J].广东农业科学,2013,40(4):177-178,186.

董荣万,朱兴平,何增化,等.定西黄土丘陵沟壑区土壤侵蚀规律研究[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(3):1-9.

刘远利,郑粉莉,王彬,等.WEPP模型在东北黑土区的适用性评价:以坡度和水保措施为例[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(1):139-145.

王怀智.沙棘的生物学特征及生态作用[J].现代农业科技,2011(16):193-194.

刘胜,贺康宁,王正宁,等.青海大通地区退耕地人工林分的消光特性[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(3):59-64.

尹婧,邱国玉,何凡,等.半干旱黄土丘陵区人工林叶面积特征[J].植物生态学报,2008,32(2):440-447.

王浩,黄晨璐,杨方社,等.砒砂岩区沙棘根系的生境适应性[J].应用生态学报,2019,30(1):157-164.

刘广全,土小宁,王鸿哲,等.沙棘苗木根系生长发育特征研究[J].西北林学院学报,2005(3):26-30,52.

云锦凤,米福贵.干旱地区一种优良禾草:蒙古冰草[J].内蒙古草业,1990(2):70-71,25.

余新晓,张晓明,武思宏,等.黄土区林草植被与降水对坡面径流和侵蚀产沙的影响[J].山地学报,2006,24(1):19-26.

秦隆宇.基于不同水土保持措施下径流小区降雨与产流产沙关系研究[J].黑龙江水利科技,2018,46(11):51-54.

Liu Z, Notaro M, Gallimore R. Indirect vegetation-soil moisture feedback with application to Holocene North Africa climate[J].Global Change Biology,2010,16:1733-1743.

Views

1156

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Influence of Bedding Structure on Shear Characteristics of Pisha Sandstone

Soil and Water Loss Characteristics of Construction Service Road Hillside in Engineering Construction Based on WEPP Model—Take Bayi District, Nyingchi City as An Example

Study of the Rheological Behavior of Pisha Sandstone Slurry Based on Dynamic Oscillatory Shear

Using Study of Sloping WEPP Model in Sichuan Hilly Basin

Soil and Water Conservation Effect of Different Terrace Configurations in Land Consolidation Project

Related Author

YAN Xiangjun

ZHANG Guanghe

QI Zihan

ZHANG Xiaoming

WANG Yunqi

CHEN De

ZHOU Yang

HE Caisong

Related Institution

China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research

Jinyun Mountain Three-Gorges Reservoir Area （Chongqing） Forest Ecosystem Research Station， School of Soil and Water Conservation， Beijing Forestry University

Three-Gorges Reservoir Area （Chongqing） Forest Ecosystem Research Station， School of Soil and Water Conservation， Beijing Forestry University

Energy Saving and Environmental Protection and Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, China Academy of Railway Sciences Corporation Limiter

Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Desertification Combating, Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University

⁰