1. 桂林理工大学广西环境污染控制理论与技术重点实验室,广西,桂林,541004
2. 桂林理工大学岩溶地区水污染控制与用水安全保障协同创新中心,广西,桂林,541004
3. 湖北水总工程勘察设计有限公司,武汉,430070
[ "金鑫(1967-),男,博士,教授,主要从事土壤侵蚀机制研究。E-mail:jinxin1390@163.com" ]
纸质出版:2023
移动端阅览
金鑫, 翟婷, 汪蓬, 等. 黄土和红壤坡面侵蚀差异及其与土壤性质的关系[J]. 水土保持学报, 2023,37(4):118-123.
JIN Xin, ZHAI Ting, WANG Peng, et al. Difference of Slope Erosion Between Loess and Red Soil and Its Relationship with Soil Properties[J]. 2023, 37(4): 118-123.
金鑫, 翟婷, 汪蓬, 等. 黄土和红壤坡面侵蚀差异及其与土壤性质的关系[J]. 水土保持学报, 2023,37(4):118-123. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2023.04.016.
JIN Xin, ZHAI Ting, WANG Peng, et al. Difference of Slope Erosion Between Loess and Red Soil and Its Relationship with Soil Properties[J]. 2023, 37(4): 118-123. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2023.04.016.
为探究黄土和红壤侵蚀受雨强和坡度影响的差异及其与土壤性质的关系
通过测定分析黄土和红壤的各种理化性质
并分别对2种土壤在2个坡度(15°
20°)、2个雨强(60
90 mm/h)条件下开展4场降雨。结果表明:(1)与红壤相比
黄土的土壤颗粒更细
二者的毛管孔隙度、饱和含水量和田间持水量相差均在3%~6%以内
干筛时各粒级团聚体相差不大
但经湿筛破坏后二者团聚体差异较大
红壤的相对机械破碎指数(RMI)小于黄土
黄土有机质含量、阳离子交换量和络合态氧化物含量均高于红壤
无定形氧化物和游离氧化物则低于红壤;(2)同雨强、同坡度条件下
黄土产流时间均短于红壤
产流开始后
红壤比黄土先达到稳定径流率
不同雨强、坡度条件下
红壤稳定径流率为30~120 mL/s
黄土为100~220 mL/s
且在相同坡度、雨强范围内
红壤径流率变化层次分明
黄土则交错复杂;(3)红壤的产沙率和径流含沙率都较低
且多在产流几分钟即出现产沙率最大值
黄土产沙率则和径流率类似
在产流前期快速增长
10 min之后开始波动变化
再进入相对稳定产沙阶段
产沙率和径流含沙率随雨强和坡度的变化复杂;(4)不同土壤自身理化性质是影响坡面侵蚀的内在因素
与黄土相比
红壤的下渗能力更好
土壤抵抗径流剪切和剥蚀的能力更强
使得在同雨强、同坡度条件下红壤的侵蚀程度远低于黄土
规律性也更显著。
In order to explore the difference of loess and red soil erosion affected by rainfall intensity and slope and its relationship with soil properties
various physical and chemical properties of loess and red soil were measured and analyzed
and four rainfall events were carried out on the two soils under two slope gradients (15°
20°) and two rainfall intensity (60
90 mm/h). The results showed that: (1) Compared with red soil
soil particles of loess were finer
and the differences in capillary porosity
saturated water content and field water holding capacity between loess and red soil were within 3% to 6%. There was no significant difference in the aggregates of each size of dry sieving
but the difference between the aggregates of the two was large after the destruction of wet sieving. The relative mechanical fragmentation index (RMI) of red soil was lower than that of loess. The organic matter content
cation exchange capacity and complex oxide content of loess were all higher than that of red soil
while amorphous oxide and free oxide were lower than that of red soil. (2) Under the same rainfall intensity and slope conditions
the runoff generation time of loess was shorter than red soil
after the start of runoff
red soil reached a stable runoff rate before loess. Under different rain intensity and slope conditions
the stable runoff rate of red soil ranged from 30 to 120 mL/s
while that of loess was between 100 to 220 mL/s. And within this range of slope and rain intensity
the runoff rate of red soil varied in distinct layers
while that of loess was staggered and complex. (3) The sediment yield and runoff sand content rate of red soil were both low
and the maximum sediment yield rate usually occurred within a few minutes of runoff. The sand yield rate of loess was similar to the runoff rate
it increased rapidly in the early stage of runoff
and then began to fluctuate after 10 minutes. When it entered the stage of relatively stable sediment yield
the sand yield rate and runoff sediment rate changed complicated with rainfall intensity and slope. (4) Different physical and chemical properties of soil were the internal factors affecting slope erosion. Compared with loess
red soil had better infiltration capacity and stronger resistance to runoff shear and denudation. The erosion degree of red soil under the same rainfall intensity and slope condition was much lower than that of loess
and the regularity was more obvious.
史志华,刘前进,张含玉,等.近十年土壤侵蚀与水土保持研究进展与展望[J].土壤学报,2020,57(5):1117-1127.
Chen J, Xiao H B, Li Z W, et al. How effective are soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) in reducing soil and water losses in the red soil hilly region of China? A meta-analysis of field plot data[J].Science of the Total Environment,2020,735:e139517.
Zhao Q H, Li D Q, Zhuo M N, et al. Effects of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on erosion characteristics of the red soil slope[J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,2015,29:609-621.
车明轩,宫渊波,刘莲,等.人工模拟降雨条件下不同雨强、坡度对紫色土坡面产流的影响[J].水土保持通报,2016,36(4):164-168.
Khan M N, Gong Y B, Hu T X, et al. Effect of slope, rainfall intensity and mulch on erosion and infiltration under simulated rain on purple soil of south-western Sichuan province, China[J].Water,2016,8(11):e528.
张梦,周玥.雨强和坡度对黄土坡面土壤侵蚀及氮磷流失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(1):85-90.
梁志权,张思毅,卓慕宁,等.不同雨强及坡度对华南红壤侵蚀过程的影响[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(2):1-6.
范兴科,蒋定生,赵合理.黄土高原浅层原状土抗剪强度浅析[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(4):69-75.
陈明华,黄炎和.土壤可蚀性因子的研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(1):19-24.
李雪转,樊贵盛.土壤有机质含量对土壤入渗能力及参数影响的试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(3):188-190.
徐燕,龙健.贵州喀斯特山区土壤物理性质对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(1):157-159.
张保华,徐佩,廖朝林,等.川中丘陵区人工林土壤结构性及对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持通报,2005,25(3):25-28.
吴秉礼,石建忠,谢忙义,等.甘肃水土流失区防护效益森林覆盖率研究[J].生态学报,2003,23(6):1125-1137.
闫峰陵,史志华,蔡崇法,等.红壤表土团聚体稳定性对坡面侵蚀的影响[J].土壤学报,2007,44(4):577-583.
王洪娟,梁成华,杜立宇.设施蔬菜栽培对土壤团聚体组成及稳定性的影响[J].河南农业科学,2013,42(12):51-54.
胡国成,章明奎.氧化铁对土粒强胶结作用的矿物学证据[J].土壤通报,2002,33(1):25-27.
耿韧,张光辉,洪大林,等.我国水蚀区坡耕地土壤分离能力的空间分布与影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(3):156-161.
金鑫,谢斯琴,宋颖,等.人工红壤坡面对超大雨强降雨的响应过程[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(5):19-24.
李超群,刘立平,郭斌,等.土壤有机质的重铬酸钾氧化测定方法述评和应用[J].冶金工程,2017,4(4):251-259.
曹运珠,韩啸.分光光度法测定土壤中有机物含量的研究与应用[J].平顶山学院学报,2013,28(5):71-74.
马毅杰,陈家坊.我国红壤中氧化铁形态及其特性和功能[J].土壤,2017,30(1):1-6.
阳洋,黄伟濠,卢瑛,等.土壤游离氧化铁高光谱特征与定量反演[J].华南农业大学学报,2020,41(1):91-99.
赵友朋,孟苗婧,张金池,等.不同林地类型土壤团聚体稳定性与铁铝氧化物的关系[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(4):75-81.
刘蓉,邓茂,李莹莹,等.不同酸碱度土壤阳离子交换量的测定研究[J].中国环境监测,2020,36(1):125-130.
苏远逸,李鹏,任宗萍,等.坡度对黄土坡面产流产沙过程及水沙关系的影响[J].水土保持研究,2020,27(2):118-122.
和继军,蔡强国,刘松波.次降雨条件下坡度对坡面产流产沙的影响[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(5):1263-1268.
胡霞,严平,李顺江,等.人工降雨条件下土壤结皮的形成以及与土壤溅蚀的关系[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(2):13-16.
0
浏览量
916
下载量
4
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621