Soil Erodibility of Different Surface and Underground Erosion Fields in Karst Rift Basin of Eastern Yunnan

QI Can; FAN Tao; CHEN Jinhao

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.05.010

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Soil Erodibility of Different Surface and Underground Erosion Fields in Karst Rift Basin of Eastern Yunnan

更新时间：2025-03-12

- Soil Erodibility of Different Surface and Underground Erosion Fields in Karst Rift Basin of Eastern Yunnan
- Vol. 36, Issue 5, Pages: 66-74(2022)
- 作者机构：
  
  云南师范大学地理学部, 云南省高原地理过程与环境变化重点实验室,昆明,650500
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.05.010
  CLC： S157.2
- Published：2022
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
QI Can, FAN Tao, CHEN Jinhao. Soil Erodibility of Different Surface and Underground Erosion Fields in Karst Rift Basin of Eastern Yunnan[J]. 2022, 36(5): 66-74.
DOI：

QI Can, FAN Tao, CHEN Jinhao. Soil Erodibility of Different Surface and Underground Erosion Fields in Karst Rift Basin of Eastern Yunnan[J]. 2022, 36(5): 66-74. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.05.010.

摘要

以滇东海峰岩溶盆地土壤复合侵蚀过程为研究对象

分析综合土壤可蚀性指数(CSEI)的分布特征

探讨地表、地下土壤可蚀性的关联性、变化趋势及其影响因素

以期深入认识岩溶地区土壤侵蚀机理

治理石漠化现象。通过野外调查取样结合土壤比重计法、团聚体湿筛等方法

分析了滇东岩溶断陷盆地地表、地下不同侵蚀场土壤的理化性质及可蚀性变化特征。结果表明:(1)土壤理化性质随侵蚀过程发生变化。土壤中黏粒、SOC、大团聚体(>0.25 mm)呈递减趋势

粉砂、小团聚体(<0.25 mm)呈递增趋势。不同侵蚀过程土壤特征存在显著差异

地表侵蚀过程土壤黏粒(20.91%~45.62%)、砂粒(44.96%~64.59%)、SOC(4.93~88.72g/kg)、大团聚体(17.82%~99.86%)含量>地下漏失过程(15.30%~30.86%

43.63%~64.59%

3.57~19.05 g/kg

16.81%~85.94%);粉砂(4.85%~30.84%)、小团聚体(0.14%~82.18%)含量p＜0.01)

与粉砂、小团聚体呈极显著正相关(p＜0.01)

CSEI的主要影响因素为SOC和土壤团聚体的稳定性。黏粒、砂粒、SOC、水稳性团聚体含量对地表侵蚀过程CSEI影响更大

其他因素对地下漏失过程CSEI影响更大。(3) CSEI对岩溶盆地地表、地下侵蚀过程土壤可蚀性的评价具有适用性

CSEI地下>CSEI地表

二者随侵蚀过程和土层深度的变化而上升

地下漏失过程存在二次侵蚀影响。其土壤侵蚀过程是地表、地下复合、持续进行的过程

植被-土壤的协同恢复能增强土壤抗侵蚀能力。

Abstract

Taking the soil composite erosion process of Haifeng karst basin in eastern Yunnan province as the research object

the distribution characteristics of comprehensive soil erodibility index (CSEI) were analyzed

and the correlation

variation trend and influencing factors of soil erodibility between surface and underground soil were discussed

so as to deeply understand the soil erosion mechanism in karst area and control rock desertification. Through field investigation and sampling

soil hydrometer

wet screening of aggregates and other methods

the physical and chemical properties and erodibility change characteristics of soils in different erosion fields on the surface and underground of karst fault basin in eastern Yunnan were analyzed. The results showed that: (1) Soil physical and chemical properties changed with the erosion process. Clay

SOC and large aggregate (>0.25 mm) in the soil showed a decreasing trend

while silt and small aggregate (<0.25 mm) showed an increasing trend. There were significant differences in soil characteristics among different erosion processes. The content of soil clay (20.91%~45.62%)

sand (44.96%~64.59%)

SOC (4.93~88.72 g/kg) and large aggregate (17.82%~99.86%) in surface erosion process was higher than that in underground leakage process (15.30%~30.86%

43.63%~64.59%

3.57~19.05 g/kg and 16.81%~85.94%). The content of silt (4.85%~30.84%) and small aggregates (0.14%~82.18%) was less than that of underground leakage process (16.03%~25.86% and 14.06%~83.19%). (2) CSEI was closely related to soil physical and chemical properties. CSEI was negatively correlated with clay

sand

large aggregates

SOC

MWD and GMD (p<0.01)

and positively correlated with silt and small aggregates (p<0.01). The main influencing factors of CSEI were SOC and soil aggregates stability. Clay

sand

SOC and water-stable aggregate contents had greater influence on CSEI of surface erosion process

while other factors had greater influence on CSEI of underground loss process. (3) CSEI had applicability to evaluate soil erodibility in the process of surface and underground erosion in karst basin

the CSEI of underground leakage was higher than that of surface erosion

both of which rose with the change of erosion process and soil depth. And the underground leakage process had secondary erosion effect. The soil erosion process was a compound and continuous process of surface erosion and underground leakage. The synergistic restoration of vegetation-soil could enhance soil erosion resistance.

关键词

Keywords

references

周念清,李彩霞,江思珉,等.普定岩溶区水土流失与土壤漏失模式研究[J].水土保持通报,2009,29(1):7-11.

张信宝,焦菊英,贺秀斌,等.允许土壤流失量与合理土壤流失量[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(2):114-116.

曹建华,蒋忠诚,杨德生,等.中国西南岩溶区土壤允许流失量及防治对策[J].中国水土保持,2008(12):40-45.

Wei X P, Yan Y E, Xie D T, et al. The soil leakage ratio in the Mudu watershed, China[J].Environmental Earth Sciences, 2016,75(8):e721.

张信宝,王世杰,曹建华,等.西南喀斯特山地水土流失特点及有关石漠化的几个科学问题[J].中国岩溶,2010,29(3):274-279.

冯腾,陈洪松,张伟,等.桂西北喀斯特坡地土壤

137

Cs的剖面分布特征及其指示意义[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(3):593-599.

魏兴萍,谢德体,倪九派,等.重庆岩溶槽谷区山坡土壤的漏失研究[J].应用基础与工程科学学报,2015,23(3):462-473.

Zhou J, Tang Y Q, Yang P, et al. Inference of creep mechanism in underground soil loss of karst conduits I. Conceptual model[J].Natural Hazards,2012,62(3):1191-1215.

Zhang X B, Bai X Y, He X B. Soil creeping in the weathering crus of carbonate rocks and underground soil losses in the karst mountain areas of southwest China[J].Carbonates and Evaporites,2011,26(2):149-153.

林芳,朱兆龙,曾全超,等.延河流域3种土壤可蚀性

值估算方法比较[J].土壤学报,2017,54(5):1136-1146.

Saygin S D, Huang C H, Flanagan D C, et al. Process-based soil erodibility estimation for empirical water erosion models[J].Journal of Hydraulic Research,2018,56(2):181-195.

刘宽梅,周秋文.典型喀斯特森林土壤的抗蚀性[J].生态学报,2020,40(2):568-577.

刘鹏,蒋忠诚,李衍青,等.岩溶断陷盆地高原面洼地不同坡位土壤抗蚀性研究[J].地球学报,2021,42(3):373-381.

鲍恩俣,熊康宁,刘子琦,等.喀斯特不同侵蚀场地土壤颗粒分布及可蚀性特征[J].森林与环境学报,2020,40(2):156-163.

陈英,魏兴萍,雷珊.青木关岩溶槽谷流域不同土地利用类型土壤可蚀性分析[J].中国岩溶,2020,39(6):836-844.

孙德亮,赵卫权,李威,等.基于GIS与RUSLE模型的喀斯特地区土壤侵蚀研究:以贵州省为例[J].水土保持通报,2016,36(3):271-276,283.

Xu Y Q, Luo D, Peng J. Land use change and soil erosion in the Maotiao River watershed of Guizhou Province[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences,2011,21(6):1138-1152.

赵海兵,安裕伦,夏品华,等.基于GIS的喀斯特流域土壤侵蚀模数估算:以贵阳麦西河流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):99-103,295.

刘丽,梁虹,焦树林,等.基于GIS的喀斯特流域土壤侵蚀敏感性研究:以贵州省三岔河流域为例[J].贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版),2015,33(2):12-17.

李冕,郭菁,杨世凡,等.贵州省不同类型石漠化的

值特征初步研究:以石漠化治理工程典型小流域为例[J].中国农学通报,2017,33(29):55-60.

Dong L B, Li J W, Zhang Y, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration types on soil nutrients and soil erodibility regulated by slope positions on the Loess Plateau[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2022,302(a):e113985.

Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, et al. A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics[J].Soil and Tillage Research,2004,79(1):7-31.

Guo M M, Chen Z X, Wang W L, et al. Revegetation induced change in soil erodibility as influenced by slope situation on the Loess Plateau[J].Science of the Total Environment,2021,772:e145540.

Walia M K, Dick W A. Selected soil physical properties and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen as influenced by gypsum, crop residue, and glucose[J].Geoderma,2018,320:67-73.

Li W B, Jin C J, Guan D X, et al. The effects of simulated nitrogen deposition on plant root traits:A meta-analysis[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2015,82:112-118.

张海东,于东升,董林林,等.侵蚀红壤恢复区植被垂直结构对土壤恢复特征的影响[J].土壤,2014,46(6):1142-1148.

Lu M, Zhou X H, Luo Y Q, et al. Minor stimulation of soil carbon storage by nitrogen addition:A meta-analysis[J].Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2011,140(1):234-244.

何停,范弢,徐宗恒,等.滇东石漠化坡地浅层裂隙漏失土壤的抗剪强度及其影响因素[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(3):31-39,49.

陈进豪,范弢,户红红.滇东海峰岩溶盆地石漠化坡地土壤机械组成和有机碳的变化特征[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(5):33-39.

曹建华,邓艳,杨慧.喀斯特断陷盆地石漠化演变及治理技术与示范[J].生态学报,2016,36(22):7103-7108.

孙涛,刘艺杉,孙崇玉,等.石灰岩山地植被恢复对土壤水稳性团聚体的影响[J].草业科学,2018,35(6):1361-1367.

鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:30-34.

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.

Yang P, Tang Y Q, Zhou N Q, et al. Characteristics of red clay creep in karst caves and loss leakage of soil in the karst rocky desertification area of Puding County, Guizhou, China[J].Environmental Earth Sciences,2011,63:543-549.

王敬贵,亢庆,邝高明,等.尖山河小流域土壤可蚀性

值空间变异研究[J].生态环境学报,2014,23(4):555-560.

赵洋毅,周运超,段旭,等.黔中喀斯特地区不同植被土壤抗蚀性研究[J].农业现代化研究,2007,28(5):633-636.

Zheng J Y, Zhao J S, Shi Z H, et al. Soil aggregates are key factors that regulate erosion-related carbon loss in citrus orchards of southern China:Bare land vs. grass-covered land[J].Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2021,309:e107254.

Views

603

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Research Progress on the Process and Mechanism of Soil Water Loss or Leakage on Slope in Southwest Karst of China

Characteristics of Soil Erosion in the Karst Regions of Southwest China Research Advance and Prospective

Small Watershed Erosion Model （SWEM）

Response of Soil Total Nitrogen Distribution to Erosion under Ecological Restoration in Qinling Water Source Area

Response of Slope Runoff Hydrodynamic Characteristics to Gravel Coverage in Alpine Regions under Artificial Rainfall Simulation

Related Author

彭旭东

戴全厚

李昌兰

CHEN Hongsong1

FENG Teng3

LI Chengzhi1

Related Institution

College of Forestry, Guizhou University

Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Science

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

School of Resources, Environment and Safety Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

⁰