1. 贵州大学林学院,贵阳,550025
2. 贵州大学土壤侵蚀与生态修复研究中心,贵阳,550025
[ "丁鹏玮(1997-),男,硕士,主要从事水土保持与生态恢复重建研究。E-mail:2858020224@qq.com" ]
纸质出版:2021
移动端阅览
丁鹏玮, 戴全厚, 姚一文, 等. 工程堆积体上不同植被类型枯落物和土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(4):135-142.
DING Pengwei, DAI Quanhou, YAO Yiwen, et al. Hydrological Effects of Litter and Soil of Different Vegetation Types on Engineering Accumulation[J]. 2021, 35(4): 135-142.
丁鹏玮, 戴全厚, 姚一文, 等. 工程堆积体上不同植被类型枯落物和土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021,35(4):135-142. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.04.019.
DING Pengwei, DAI Quanhou, YAO Yiwen, et al. Hydrological Effects of Litter and Soil of Different Vegetation Types on Engineering Accumulation[J]. 2021, 35(4): 135-142. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2021.04.019.
为探讨工程堆积体不同植被类型的枯落物特征、枯落物持水及拦蓄能力、土壤物理性状和土壤涵水性能,采用室内浸水法和环刀法分别对工程堆积体植被与原生植被的枯落物及0—20 cm土层的持水能力进行研究。结果表明:(1)不同植被类型枯落物厚度及蓄积量均存在显著差异(P<0.05),原生乔木林、乔木林、灌木林、草地枯落物厚度依次为3.76,2.89,2.67,1.23 cm,蓄积量分别为5.95,3.86,3.19,0.65 t/hm2。枯落物未分解层厚度、蓄积量均大于半分解层。(2)各植被类型土壤容重与毛管孔隙度范围分别在1.19~1.25 g/cm3和41.58%~46.13%,原生乔木林土壤容重小于乔木林,而土壤毛管孔隙度大于乔木林。堆积体各植被类型土壤毛管孔隙度大小依次为草地>灌木林>乔木林。(3)各植被类型土壤最大持水量及毛管持水量均存在显著差异(P<0.05),土壤最大持水量与毛管持水量范围分别为44.31~46.23,34.07~37.98 g/cm3,均呈现原生乔木林最高,乔木林最低。(4)枯落物持水量随时间呈对数关系,吸水速率随时间呈幂函数关系,其吸水速率在0.5 h最高,在4.0 h下降,12 h最大持水量达饱和,吸水速率接近于0。(5)原生乔木林枯落物最大持水率、有效拦蓄率均大于乔木林,工程堆积体各植被类型最大持水率及有效拦蓄率表现为草地>灌木林>乔木林。从堆积体枯落物和土壤持水能力角度来看,草灌混交这一搭配模式可以作为工程堆积体的先锋植被,用于在堆积体初期构建稳定群落生态结构。研究结果可为工程堆积体开展水土保持治理措施和植被恢复提供理论依据。
In order to explore the litter characteristics of different vegetation types in the engineering accumulation
the water holding capacity and retention capacity of the engineering accumulation vegetation
litter of the native vegetation and 0—20 cm soil layer were studied by indoor immersion method and cutting ring method respectively. The results showed that: (1) There were significant differences in litter’sthickness and volume among different vegetation types (P<0.05). The litter’sthickness of primary arbor forests
arbor forests
shrub forests
and grassland were 3.76
2.89
2.67
1.23 cm
and the litter’s volume amount were 5.95
3.86
3.19
0.65 t/hm2. The thickness and volume of the undecomposed layer were larger than that of semi-decomposed layer. (2) The soil bulk density and capillary porosity of different vegetation types ranged from 1.19 g/cm3 to 1.25 g/cm3 and 41.58% to 46.13% respectively. The soil bulk density of the primary arbor forests was lower than that of arbor forests
while the soil capillary porosity was higher than that of arbor forests. The order of soil capillary porosity of different vegetation types in the accumulation body was grassland
shrubs forests
and arbor forests. (3) The maximum soil water holding capacity and capillary water holding capacity of different vegetation types were significant different (P<0.05). The maximum soil water holding capacity and capillary water holding capacity ranged from 44.31 to 46.23 and 34.07 to 37.98 g/cm3
and the primary arbor forest was the highest and the arbor forest was the lowest. (4) The water holding capacity of litter showed logarithmic relationship with time. The water absorption rate was the highest at 0.5 h
and decreased at 4.0 h. The maximum water holding capacity reached saturation at 12 h
and the water absorption rate was close to 0. (5) The maximum water holding rate and effective interception rate of the primary arbor forests litter were higher than those of the arbor forests. The maximum water holding rate and effective interception rate of each vegetation type of the engineering accumulation body were grassland>shrub forests>arbor forests. From the perspective of litter and soil water holding capacity
the combination made of grass and shrub can be used as a pioneer vegetation for the construction of stable community ecological structure at the initial stage of the accumulation. The research results can provide a theoretical basis for the soil and water conservation measures and vegetation restoration.
史东梅,蒋光毅,彭旭东,等.不同土石比的工程堆积体边坡径流侵蚀过程[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(17):152-161.
赵暄.生产建设项目弃土堆置体下垫面概化与水土流失特征研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2013.
聂慧莹,王文龙,郭明明,等.降雨条件下两种土壤类型工程堆积体坡面水沙关系与侵蚀动力特征[J].应用生态学报,2020,31(9):3141-3153.
丁文斌,李叶鑫,史东梅,等.重庆市典型工程堆积体边坡物理力学变化及稳定性特征[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(1):109-115.
史东梅,蒋光毅,彭旭东,等.城镇化人为扰动下垫面类型影响水源涵养功能的评价[J].农业工程学报,2017,33(22):92-102.
刘志鹏,蒋光毅,史东梅,等.工程堆积体入渗特性及持水能力对降雨条件的响应[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(5):240-245,271.
吕钊.宁北风蚀区生产建设项目弃渣场植被恢复研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2013.
胡晓聪,黄乾亮,金亮.西双版纳热带山地雨林枯落物及其土壤水文功能[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(1):55-63.
高婵婵,赵传燕,王超,等.黑河上游天老池流域不同植被下土壤理化性质和入渗特征[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(1):117-121,126.
隋聚艳,王建文.黄土丘陵区3种典型林地土壤持水能力研究[J/OL].人民黄河:1-6[2021-03-13].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/41.1128.TV.20200621.1709.004.html.
杨震,黄萱,佘冬立.晋西北黄土丘陵区土壤饱和导水率的空间分布特征及影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(6):178-184.
张耿杰.矿区复垦土地质量监测与评价研究[D].北京:中国地质大学,2013.
闫浩,孙世国,金松丽,等.布沼坝露天矿生态复垦工程[J].煤矿安全,2013,44(1):150-152.
敖特根其木格,秦富仓,周佳宁,等.内蒙古自治区多伦县不同林地枯落物持水性能研究[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(4):114-118.
朱志俊.两种类型地被物覆盖下地被物层与土壤层水文动态过程研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2019.
Qi F, Zhang R H, Liu X, et al. Soil particle size distribution characteristics of different land-use types in the Funiu Mountainous region[J].Soil and Tillage Research,2018,184:45-51.
胡建朋,杨吉华,罗明达,等.山东砂石山区不同林分类型土壤的蓄水效益[J].中国水土保持科学,2011,9(9):67-72.
周祥,赵一鹤,张洪江,等.云南高原典型林分林下枯落物持水特征研究[J].生态环境学报,2011,20(2):248-252.
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.
沈盈佳,曾建军.保山北庙水库集水区5种森林类型枯落物持水特性研究[J].长江科学院院报,2015,32(1):43-48.
齐瑞,杨永红,陈宁,等.白龙江上游5种典型灌木林枯落物蓄积量及持水特性[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(6):123-127.
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.
刘西刚,王勇辉,焦黎.夏尔希里自然保护区典型植被土壤水源涵养功能探究[J].水土保持学报,2019,33(3):121-128.
高儒学,戴全厚,甘艺贤,等.土石混合堆积体坡面土壤侵蚀研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(6):1-8,39.
Wang J P, Zhuang P Z, Luan J Y, et al. Estimation of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of granular soils from particle size parameters[J/OL].Water,2019,11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091826.
牛耀彬,高照良,齐星圆,等.不同工程堆积体坡面治理措施对土壤抗冲刷侵蚀能力的影响[J].农业工程学报,2019,35(2):134-143.
李叶鑫,吕刚,刁立夫,等.露天煤矿排土场不同植被类型持水能力评价[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(5):309-314,320.
罗佳,田育新,周小玲,等.湘西北小流域不同植被类型枯落物层持水特性研究[J].湖南林业科技,2018(45):1-6.
栾莉莉,张光辉,孙龙,等.黄土丘陵区典型植被枯落物持水性能空间变化特征[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(3):225-230.
0
浏览量
850
下载量
6
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621