不同耕作措施对花生结荚期产流产沙过程的影响

张杰豪; 梁心蓝; 黄洪粮; 唐恺; 王清震; 周苍宁; 毛熹

doi:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.01.010

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

不同耕作措施对花生结荚期产流产沙过程的影响

更新时间：2025-03-12

- 不同耕作措施对花生结荚期产流产沙过程的影响
- Effects of Different Tillage Practices on the Yield of Runoff and Sediment in Peanut Podding Stage
- 水土保持学报 2021年35卷第1期页码：71-78
- 作者机构：
  
  四川农业大学水利水电学院,四川,雅安,625014
- 作者简介：
  
  [ "张杰豪(1996-),男,在读硕士研究生,主要从事水土保持研究。E-mail:1210501312@qq.com" ]
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金项目（41601292）四川省教育厅项目（15ZB0007）四川农业大学社科研究专项重点项目（2018ZD01）
- DOI：10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.01.010
  中图分类号： S157.1
- 纸质出版：2021
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
张杰豪, 梁心蓝, 黄洪粮, 等. 不同耕作措施对花生结荚期产流产沙过程的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(1):71-78.

ZHANG Jiehao, LIANG Xinlan, HUANG Hongliang, et al. Effects of Different Tillage Practices on the Yield of Runoff and Sediment in Peanut Podding Stage[J]. 2021, 35(1): 71-78.
张杰豪, 梁心蓝, 黄洪粮, 等. 不同耕作措施对花生结荚期产流产沙过程的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(1):71-78. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.01.010.

ZHANG Jiehao, LIANG Xinlan, HUANG Hongliang, et al. Effects of Different Tillage Practices on the Yield of Runoff and Sediment in Peanut Podding Stage[J]. 2021, 35(1): 71-78. DOI： 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.01.010.

摘要

为了研究不同耕作措施在花生结荚期时对紫色土区产流产沙过程的影响，通过对顺坡垄作、横坡垄作、穴播、平作这4种耕作措施种植花生以及对照组平坡裸地进行野外模拟降雨试验，得到其径流泥沙特征。利用滑动秩和检验法找出产流产沙过程变异时刻点，对变异时刻点后用Mann-Kendall趋势检验法分析产流产沙过程趋势。结果表明：产流产沙过程变异时刻点后均处于一个较为稳定状态，平坡裸地的稳定径流率、侵蚀率均最大，顺坡垄作次之，然后是平作，再是穴播，横坡垄作最小；而各耕作措施初始产流时间则与稳定径流率和侵蚀率相反。在减流减沙效益方面，相对于平坡裸地，不同耕作措施均表现出减流减沙效果，具体表现为横坡垄作 > 穴播 > 平作 > 顺坡垄作。

Abstract

In order to study the effects of different tillage practices on the yield of runoff and sediment in purple soil area in peanut podding stage. Field rainfall simulation experiments were carried out to study the yield of runoff and sediment in four tillage practices and one control group (longitudinal ridge

cross ridge

bunch planting

flat planting and bare land on flat slope). The sliding-rank-sum-test was used to find out the catastrophe point of runoff and sediment production process. The Mann-Kendall trend test method was used to analyze the trend of runoff and sediment yield process after the catastrophe point. The results showed that the runoff and sediment yield process was in a relatively stable state after the catastrophe point. The stable rate of runoff and sediment yield in bare land was the largest

followed by longitudinal ridge

then flat planting

bunch planting

and cross ridge was the smallest. However

the initial runoff yield time of each tillage practice was opposite to the stable rate of runoff and sediment yield. Compared to bare land on flat slope

all tillage practices showed the effects of runoff and sediment reduction. The specific performance was cross ridge > bunch planting > flat planting > longitudinal ridge.

关键词

Keywords

references

王健,尹武君,云峰,等.渭北旱塬坡耕地水土和养分流失特征[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(1):33-37.

张平仓,程冬兵.南方坡耕地水土流失过程与调控研究[J].长江科学院院报,2017,34(3):35-39,49.

马波,刘雨鑫,吴发启.植大豆对坡耕地径流侵蚀产沙的影响[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(4):32-36.

张翼夫,李洪文,何进,等.玉米秸秆覆盖对坡面产流产沙过程的影响[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(7):118-124.

Yao W Y, Xiao P Q, Shen Z Z, et al. Responses of runoff process and threshold of sediment generation for different vegetation-covered plot[J].Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,2011,42(12):1438-1444.

王健,尹武君,刘旦旦.玉米苜蓿间作对黄土坡耕地降雨产流产沙的影响[J].节水灌溉,2011(8):43-46,54.

任雨之,郑江坤,付滟,等.不同耕种模式下遂宁组紫色土坡耕地产流产沙特征[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(2):30-38.

边锋,郑粉莉,徐锡蒙,等.东北黑土区顺坡垄作和无垄作坡面侵蚀过程对比[J].水土保持通报,2016,36(1):11-16.

王磊,何超,郑粉莉,等.黑土区坡耕地横坡垄作措施防治土壤侵蚀的土槽试验[J].农业工程学报,2018,34(15):141-148.

Gebreegziabher T, Nyssen J, Govaerts B, et al. Contour furrows for in situ soil and water conservation, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia[J].Soil & Tillage Research,2009,103(2):257-264.

Liu Q J, Zhang H Y, An J, et al. Soil erosion processes on row sideslopes within contour ridging systems[J].Catena,2014,115:11-18.

Arnhold S, Ruidisch M, Bartsch S, et al. Simulation of runoff patterns and soil erosion on mountainous farmland with and without plastic-covered ridge-furrow cultivation in South Korea[J].Transactions of the Asabe,2013,56(2):667-679.

卢齐齐.人工模拟降雨条件下紫色土氮磷流失规律试验研究[D].重庆:重庆大学,2011.

雷红富,谢平,陈广才,等.水文序列变异点检验方法的性能比较分析[J].水电能源科学,2007,25(4):36-40.

陈康,苏佳林,王延贵,等.黄河干流水沙关系变化及其成因分析[J].泥沙研究,2019,44(6):19-26.

Wang L H, Dalabay N, Lu P, et al. Effects of tillage practices and slope on runoff and erosion of soil from the Loess Plateau, China, subjected to simulated rainfall[J].Soil and Tillage Research,2017,166:147-156.

郑子成,林代杰,李廷轩,等.不同耕作措施下成熟期玉米对径流及侵蚀产沙的影响[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(2):24-28.

Borselli L, Torri D, Poesen J, et al. Effects of water quality on infiltration, runoff and interrill erosion processes during simulated rainfall[J].Earth Surface Processes & Landforms,2015,26(3):329-342.

林庆明,丁文峰,张长伟,等.模拟降雨条件下红壤坡面侵蚀产沙水动力学特征[J].水土保持通报,2019,39(2):16-21.

Vermang J, Norton L D, Huang C, et al. Characterization of soil surface roughness effects on runoff and soil erosion rates under simulated rainfall[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,2015,79(3):903-916.

李坤,姚文艺,肖培青,等.植被对土壤入渗和地表产流过程的影响研究进展[J].中国水土保持,2017(3):27-30.

宋玥,张忠学.不同耕作措施对黑土坡耕地土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(2):14-16,25.

张会茹,郑粉莉.不同降雨强度下地面坡度对红壤坡面土壤侵蚀过程的影响[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(3):40-43.

张佳琪,王红,张瑞芳,等.雨强对片麻岩坡面径流养分流失规律的影响[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(3):42-45,51.

Seeger M. Uncertainty of factors determining runoff and erosion processes as quantified by rainfall simulations[J].Catena,2007,71:60-67.

朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,等.草本植被覆盖对坡面降雨径流侵蚀影响的试验研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(3):401-407.

安娟,卢嘉,郑粉莉,等.不同地表条件下黑土区坡耕地侵蚀过程中土壤团聚体迁移[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(6):100-104.

董元杰,付伟章,陈为峰,等.鲁中山区小流域坡面土壤侵蚀产流、产沙及侵蚀方式变化过程的研究[J].土壤通报,2010,41(1):185-188.

马悦,郭年冬,张瑞芳,等.片麻岩坡面花生不同生长时期水土及养分流失规律[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(5):304-309.

浏览量

966

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

放水冲刷条件下工程边坡产流产沙及氮磷输出特征

黄土高原人为加速侵蚀下水土与养分流失耦合研究

黄土坡耕地径流水力学参数与侵蚀产沙的模拟

湘北红壤低山丘陵区典型水土流失治理模式径流泥沙效应

汾河上游不同土地利用方式对坡地水土流失的影响