1. 江西农业大学林学院,南昌,330045
2. 鄱阳湖流域森林生态系统保护与修复实验室,南昌,330045
[ "温林生(1996-),男,硕士研究生,主要从事生态水文及同位素水文研究。E-mail:825906052@qq.com" ]
纸质出版:2020
移动端阅览
温林生, 邓文平, 彭云, 等. 江西退化红壤区3种森林恢复模式的枯落物和土壤表层水文功能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(4):158-163.
WEN Linsheng, DENG Wenping, PENG Yun, et al. The Hydrological Functions of Litter and Soil Surface of Three Forest Restoration Modes in Degraded Red Soil Area of Jiangxi Province[J]. 2020, 34(4): 158-163.
温林生, 邓文平, 彭云, 等. 江西退化红壤区3种森林恢复模式的枯落物和土壤表层水文功能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020,34(4):158-163. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.04.024.
WEN Linsheng, DENG Wenping, PENG Yun, et al. The Hydrological Functions of Litter and Soil Surface of Three Forest Restoration Modes in Degraded Red Soil Area of Jiangxi Province[J]. 2020, 34(4): 158-163. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.04.024.
为探讨退化红壤区植被恢复对枯落物层及土壤层的水源涵养功能影响,进一步揭示退化生态系统植被恢复的功能效应,采用室内浸水法和环刀法分别测定了3种恢复模式(木荷纯林、马尾松纯林、马尾松间伐补木荷林)的枯落物层与0—20 cm土层的持水能力。结果表明:(1)马尾松纯林的枯落物层蓄积量最大(7.91 t/hm2),持水能力最强(15.39 t/hm2),但持水率不如木荷纯林(246.69%)。(2)马尾松纯林的枯落物层有效拦蓄量和最大拦蓄量均为最大(7.75,10.02 t/hm2),木荷纯林的最小(3.83,5.36 t/hm2)。(3)3种恢复模式的枯落物层持水量随浸水时间的变化均遵循对数函数Q=aln(t)+b,R2>0.90,枯落物持水速率随浸水时间变化均符合幂函数:V=atb,R2>0.95,拟合效果均较好。(4)马尾松间伐补木荷林、马尾松纯林、木荷纯林0—20 cm土层的水分最大滞留量分别为10.49,9.83,8.28 mm;木荷纯林土壤最大吸持贮水量(38.39 mm)高于马尾松间伐补木荷林(31.13 mm)和马尾松纯林(30.35 mm)。从枯落物最大持水量、有效拦蓄量及土壤毛管孔隙度、非毛管孔隙度多个因素的计算综合推断可知,3种恢复模式中马尾松纯林的枯落物和土壤表层的水源涵养能力最佳,马尾松间伐补木荷林次之,木荷纯林第三。在水土流失较为严重的退化红壤区,种植合适密度的马尾松林,可以通过地表枯落物层有效减缓水土流失。
In order to explore the impact of vegetation restoration on the water conservation function of litter layer and soil layer in degraded red soil region
and further reveal the functional effects of vegetation restoration in degraded ecosystems
water holding capacity of the litter layer and the 0—20 cm soil layer of three recovery modes (Schima superba Gardn. et Champ. pure forest
Pinus massoniana Lamb. pure forest
Pinus massoniana Lamb. replanted with Schima superba Gardn. et Champ) were measured by indoor flooding and cutting ring methods. The results showed that: (1) Pure Pinus massoniana. forest had the maximum litter accumulation (7.91 t/hm2) and water holding capacity (15.39 t/hm2)
but lower maximum water holding rate than that of Schima superba. pure forest (246.69%).(2) The effective and the maximum storage capacity of litter layer in pure Pinus massoniana forest was the largest (7.75
and 10.02 t/hm2
respectively)
while the smallest (3.83
5.36 t/hm2
respectively) was found in Schima superba pure forest. (3) The relationship between water holding capacity of litter layer and the immersion time followed the logarithmic function Q=aln(t)+b
R2>0.90; while the change of water holding rate of litter with the time of immersion fit the power function: V=atb
R2>0.95
and the fitting is better. (4) The averaged maximum water retention of 0—20 cm soil layer in Pinus massonian are planted with Schima superba
Pinus massoniana pure forest and Schima superba pure forest were 10.49 mm
9.83 mm
and 8.28 mm
respectively. The mean value of soil maximum water absorption and storage capacity was higher in Schima superba (38.39 mm) than those in Pinus massoniana replanted with Schima superba (31.13 mm) and Pinus massoniana (30.35 mm). Therefore
it could be inferred that Pinus massoniana pure forest had the largest water conservation capacity
followed by Pinus massoniana replanted with Schima superb and then Schima superba pure forest. In the degraded red soil area where soil erosion is more serious
Pinus massoniana can provide a compromise solution for reducing soil erosion through the surface litter layer.
李庆逵.中国红壤[M].北京:科学出版社,1983.
江西土地资源管理局.江西土壤[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社,1991.
吴卓,戴尔阜,林媚珍.气候变化和人类活动对南方红壤丘陵区森林生态系统影响模拟研究:以江西泰和县为例[J].地理研究,2018,37(11):2141-2152.
赵其国,黄国勤,王礼献.中国南方森林生态系统的功能、问题及对策[J].森林与环境学报,2015,35(4):289-296.
黄小春,宋小妹.江西低丘红壤水土流失区植被恢复策略及理论探讨[J].江西林业科技,2008(6):42-47.
乔雪,李硕,陈伊郴.侵蚀环境下植被恢复的水文效应分析:以江西兴国潋水流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(5):136-142.
龚诗涵,肖洋,郑华等.中国生态系统水源涵养空间特征及其影响因素[J].生态学报,2017,37(7):2455-2462.
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.
王正安,邸利,王彦辉,等.白桦纯林和华北落叶松纯林枯落物层的水文效应:以六盘山叠叠沟小流域为例[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2019,54(3):93-98,107.
李阳,万福绪.黄浦江中游5种典型林分枯落物和土壤水源涵养能力研究[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(2):264-271.
Neris J, Tejedor M, Rodriguez J M, et al. Effect of forest floor characteristics on water repellency, infiltration, runoff and soil loss in Andisols of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain)[J].Catena,2013,108(9):50-57.
庞梦丽,朱辰光,翟博超,等.河北省太行山区3种人工水土保持林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(1):51-56.
宣立辉,康凡,谷建才等.冀北地区典型林分枯落物层与土壤层的水文效应[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(4):86-91.
邢亮.辽东山区水源涵养林枯落物持水特性的研究[J].防护林科技,2019(2):11-15.
韦小茶,周秋文,崔兴芬,等.喀斯特针叶林枯落物层水文效应[J].生态科学,2017,36(4):120-127.
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.
贾剑波,刘文娜,余新晓,等.半城子流域3种林地枯落物的持水能力[J].中国水土保持科学,2015,13(6):26-32.
孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.
陈琦,刘苑秋,刘士余,等.杉木取代阔叶林后林下水源涵养功能差异评价[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(2):244-250.
张亚庆,胡慧蓉.滇中磨盘山几种典型林分枯落物及土壤的持水特性[J].江苏农业科学,2019,47(15):296-301.
徐定兰.官山森林大样地凋落物产量、储量及分解动态[D].南昌:江西农业大学,2019.
周林涛,黄欣,宋曰钦.不同形态外源氮对马尾松与广玉兰落叶分解的影响[J].湖南林业科技, 2017,44(2):34-37.
蒲嘉霖,刘亮.亚热带森林凋落物分解特征及水文效应[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(6):165-170.
崔鸿侠,潘磊,黄志霖,等.神农架巴山冷杉林凋落物量养分归还及分解特征[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2017,41(1):194-198.
徐胜,付伟,平琴,等.气候变化对树木凋落物分解的影响研究进展[J].生态学杂志,2017,36(11):3266-3272.
李晶晶,白岗栓,张蕊.陕北丘陵沟壑区常见树种叶片的吸水性能[J].中国水土保持科学,2013,11(1):99-102.
孙欧文,蔡建国,吴家森,等.浙江省典型森林类型枯落物及林下土壤水文特性[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(1):118-123.
王伟平,李绍才,孙海龙,等.杉木和柳杉人工林的土壤理化性质对比[J].四川林业科技,2018,39(5):68-73.
孙艳红,张洪江,杜士才,等.四面山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(5):109-112.
田超,杨新兵,李军,等.冀北山地不同海拔蒙古栎林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(4):221-226.
董莉莉.透光抚育对辽东山区"栽针保阔"红松林水文效应的影响[J].辽宁林业科技,2019(5):1-4.
王磊.抚育间伐对华北落叶松枯落物与土壤持水量的影响研究[J].安徽农学通报,2018,24(16):105-108.
0
浏览量
985
下载量
10
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621