重庆市水土保持措施效应及小流域治理范式评价
|
摘要
重庆市地处川东山地丘陵区,总面积8124万km2,其中山地、丘陵、平坝分别占总面积的60%、30%、10%,地势起伏多变,是典型的山地丘陵地带,属区域生态脆弱区。同时,重庆市也是三峡库区生态环境重点保护地带,在原生脆弱生态环境和不合理人类开发活动共同作用下产生了严重的水土流失、面源污染,对三峡库区水土保持生态环境安全造成了巨大威胁。水土保持措施体系分类、水土保持措施效应分析及水土保持治理的范式评价是进行水土保持措施选择、规划和设计的重要依据,对水土保持生态环境建设有重要指导意义。本文根据重庆市水土流失和水土保持特点,提出根据治理对象划分水土保持措施体系并结合文献数据定量分析了重庆市及相似地区典型水土保持措施的效应,研究了基于USLE模型的水土保持因子C值的年内变化及不同措施的P值,分别采用流域可持续经营和基于USLE模型的土壤侵蚀减少比例进行了小流域治理范式评价。主要研究结果如下：
(1)根据水土保持治理对象,将重庆市水土保持措施划分为小流域综合治理措施、区域水土保持治理措施、专项水土保持治理措施以及开发建设项目水土保持治理措施。不同空间尺度的水土保持措施分类的建立可从水土保持生态建设的外部约束条件做出更为直接和积极的响应,在最优化理论支持下,实现小流域、区域、专项治理、开发建设项目的水土保持生态环境建设目标。
(2)在重庆市各项水土保持措施中,坡改梯减沙效益为8.4%,农业措施中的垄作和间作保土保水效应较为突出,分别在41.67%-68.00%、17.78%-45.99%,间作处理的金银花达到17.2%；与坡改梯、耕作措施相比,几种植物措施减沙减水效益都超过75%,说明植物措施的减沙减水效益最为明显。生态修复措施水土保持减沙、减水效益分别达到了42%和61%。不同水土保持措施对土壤改良的分析表明,植被能显著改良土壤结构,提高了土壤肥力,增加土壤入渗。通过对模型和数值的推导表明,水土保持措施因子P值与水土保持减沙效益互为相反数,该值可用于基于USLE模型的水土流失预测中。
(3)根据小区观测,不同坡耕地降雨侵蚀累积产沙规律为：荒地(HS-1)>顺坡耕地(HS-2)>横坡耕地(HS-3)>横坡植物篱耕地(HS-4)；利用USLE模型可得各种耕作方式顺坡、横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的C值分别为0.174、0.168和0.129,而顺坡、横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的P值分别为0.78、0.58和0.51；由实测数据获得的横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的P值分别为0.69、0.65,因此可见无论是模型值,还是实测值,都能较好的反映紫色丘陵区的水土保持措施P因子变化,即顺坡耕地>横坡耕地>横坡植物篱耕地。
(4)坡耕地水土流失强度因植被覆盖度、种植制度、种植模式以及不同作物种类等多种因素影响而差异很大；对于坡耕地而言,了解不同种植模式下的C值、P值大小及在年内变化特点,通过选择适宜的作物种类、种植制度、种植模式,尤其在降雨集中分布时期可增大地表盖度,可有效地控制水土流失,减少土地退化；并为坡耕地水土流失预测提供基本参数。
(5)仙鱼小流域2007年可持续发展度0.641,而2009年可持续发展度0.714,说明在实施了注重生态效益、社会效益、经济效益的小流域综合治理工程后已进入可持续发展状态；从指标贡献角度看,2009年资源环境承载能力明显比2007年高出15.55%,经济发展能力比2007年高出10.95%。采用基于USLE模型的土壤侵蚀减少比例评价表明,小流域土壤流失减少比例为28.19%,各项水土保持措施的土壤流失减少比例分别为石坎坡改梯1%,水土保持林15.03%,经济果林11.25%,封禁治理32.91%；土壤流失减少比例随坡度和坡长的增加而增加,坡度在25°以下土壤流失减少比率变化趋势较缓,坡度在25°以上变化趋势较陡,坡长在70m以下土壤流失减少比率变化趋势较缓,坡长在70m以上土壤流失减少比率增长较快。该小流域综合治理模式可为相似地区小流域治理提供参考范式。
Chongqing is located in eastern Sichuan mountain and hilly areas, with a total area of 82400 km2.60%,30%,10% of total area are mountains, hills, plain respectively. Chongqing is a typical mountain hill area and regional eco-fragile area. Chongqing also is an ecological environment protection area of Three Gorges Reservoir. Unreasonable development activities of human caused serious soil erosion, non-point pollution, and enormous ecological security threat. Systematic classification of soil and water conservation measures, effects analysis of soil and water conservation measures and evaluation of soil and water conservation paradigm are important basis for selecting measures, planning and designing, and also have an important significance in soil conservation ecological environment construction. According to soil erosion and soil conservation characteristics of Chongqing, presented a classification system based on controlling objects for soil and water conservation measures.This paper quantitatively analysis the typical effects of municipality water conservation measures, changes of factor C values and factor P values under different measures based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE). According to sustainable management of watershed and the soil erosion's decrease proportion based on USLE model, it given a paradigm for evaluation of small watershed management. The major results are as follows:
(1)According to the controlling objects, Chongqing soil and water conservation measures were divided into four categories, small watershed comprehensive management measures, regional soil and water conservation measures, special soil and water conservation measures and soil and water conservation measures for development and construction project. The establishment of classification of Soil and water conservation measures at different spatial scales can make a more direct and positive response from the external constraints, and also achieve the goal of soil conservation ecological environment construction.
(2) In the soil and water conservation measures in Chongqing, terrace sediment reduction efficiency is 8.4%, sediment reduction efficiency of ridge culture and intercropping in agricultural practices are 41.67%-68.00% 17.78%-45.99% respectively, and intercropping treatment honeysuckle 17.2%; Compared with terrace, tillage,the sediment and water reduction efficiency of plant measures is higher than 75%.It indicated that plant measures has the most obvious efficiency for sediment and water reduction. The efficiency of water and sediment reduction of ecological restoration measures are 42% and 61% respectively. Analysis of soil improvement by different soil and water conservation measures shows that vegetation can significantly improve soil structure, increase soil fertility, and soil infiltration. The derivation of the model and numerical indicated that factor P value and benefit of sediment reduction of soil and water conservation measures are opposite to each other, and the value can be used for soil erosion prediction based on USLE model.
(3)According to the observation of runoff plots, rainfall erosion and sediment yield characteristics of different sloping cumulative show that:wasteland (HS-1)>downslope cultivated farmland (HS-2)> cross slope farmland (HS-3)>cross slope farmland hedgerows (HS-4);using USLE model to calculate C values of tillage downslope, cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerows are 0.174,0.168 and 0.129, while the downslope, cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerow P values are 0.78,0.58 and 0.51;P-values of measured data of the cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerows are 0.69 and 0.65,It shows that both the model values and measured value can reflect laws of P factor changing in purple hilly area of water conservation measures, that is downslope cultivated land> cross slope farmland> cross slope farmland hedgerows.
(4) Soil Loss intensity due to vegetation cover, cropping systems, cropping patterns and crop types and other factors vary widely; through investigating the C value, P value changes in the years of different cropping patterns,we can choose suitable crops, cropping systems, cropping patterns, and increase surface coverage during the rain season. It can effectively control soil erosion and reduce land degradation and provide basic parameters for soil erosion prediction model.
(5)Xianyu watershed sustainable development degree is 0.641 in 2007.It indicated small watershed management works have entered the state of sustainable development; In terms of contribution of index, resources and environment carrying capacity of 2009 is 15.55% significantly higher than that in 2007, and economic development capacity is 10.95% higher than that in 2007.Based on USLE model the reduction proportion of soil erosion shows that ratio of reduce soil loss in small watershed is 28.19%, ratio of reduce soil loss in all soil conservation measures are as follow:Terrace is 1%,water and soil conservation forest is 15.03%,economic fruits is 11.25%, blockading administration is 32.91%;The proportion of soil loss reduce increases with the slope and slope length,The ratio of reduce soil loss of slope under 25°has a more moderate trend, The ratio of reduce soil loss of slope above 25°has a more steep trend; when the slope length is longer than 70m,the ratio of reduce soil loss has more moderate trend, otherwise it has a steep trend. The small watershed management could make a reference and paradigm for similar small watershed treatment.
(1)根据水土保持治理对象,将重庆市水土保持措施划分为小流域综合治理措施、区域水土保持治理措施、专项水土保持治理措施以及开发建设项目水土保持治理措施。不同空间尺度的水土保持措施分类的建立可从水土保持生态建设的外部约束条件做出更为直接和积极的响应,在最优化理论支持下,实现小流域、区域、专项治理、开发建设项目的水土保持生态环境建设目标。
(2)在重庆市各项水土保持措施中,坡改梯减沙效益为8.4%,农业措施中的垄作和间作保土保水效应较为突出,分别在41.67%-68.00%、17.78%-45.99%,间作处理的金银花达到17.2%；与坡改梯、耕作措施相比,几种植物措施减沙减水效益都超过75%,说明植物措施的减沙减水效益最为明显。生态修复措施水土保持减沙、减水效益分别达到了42%和61%。不同水土保持措施对土壤改良的分析表明,植被能显著改良土壤结构,提高了土壤肥力,增加土壤入渗。通过对模型和数值的推导表明,水土保持措施因子P值与水土保持减沙效益互为相反数,该值可用于基于USLE模型的水土流失预测中。
(3)根据小区观测,不同坡耕地降雨侵蚀累积产沙规律为：荒地(HS-1)>顺坡耕地(HS-2)>横坡耕地(HS-3)>横坡植物篱耕地(HS-4)；利用USLE模型可得各种耕作方式顺坡、横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的C值分别为0.174、0.168和0.129,而顺坡、横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的P值分别为0.78、0.58和0.51；由实测数据获得的横坡和横坡植物篱坡耕地的P值分别为0.69、0.65,因此可见无论是模型值,还是实测值,都能较好的反映紫色丘陵区的水土保持措施P因子变化,即顺坡耕地>横坡耕地>横坡植物篱耕地。
(4)坡耕地水土流失强度因植被覆盖度、种植制度、种植模式以及不同作物种类等多种因素影响而差异很大；对于坡耕地而言,了解不同种植模式下的C值、P值大小及在年内变化特点,通过选择适宜的作物种类、种植制度、种植模式,尤其在降雨集中分布时期可增大地表盖度,可有效地控制水土流失,减少土地退化；并为坡耕地水土流失预测提供基本参数。
(5)仙鱼小流域2007年可持续发展度0.641,而2009年可持续发展度0.714,说明在实施了注重生态效益、社会效益、经济效益的小流域综合治理工程后已进入可持续发展状态；从指标贡献角度看,2009年资源环境承载能力明显比2007年高出15.55%,经济发展能力比2007年高出10.95%。采用基于USLE模型的土壤侵蚀减少比例评价表明,小流域土壤流失减少比例为28.19%,各项水土保持措施的土壤流失减少比例分别为石坎坡改梯1%,水土保持林15.03%,经济果林11.25%,封禁治理32.91%；土壤流失减少比例随坡度和坡长的增加而增加,坡度在25°以下土壤流失减少比率变化趋势较缓,坡度在25°以上变化趋势较陡,坡长在70m以下土壤流失减少比率变化趋势较缓,坡长在70m以上土壤流失减少比率增长较快。该小流域综合治理模式可为相似地区小流域治理提供参考范式。
Chongqing is located in eastern Sichuan mountain and hilly areas, with a total area of 82400 km2.60%,30%,10% of total area are mountains, hills, plain respectively. Chongqing is a typical mountain hill area and regional eco-fragile area. Chongqing also is an ecological environment protection area of Three Gorges Reservoir. Unreasonable development activities of human caused serious soil erosion, non-point pollution, and enormous ecological security threat. Systematic classification of soil and water conservation measures, effects analysis of soil and water conservation measures and evaluation of soil and water conservation paradigm are important basis for selecting measures, planning and designing, and also have an important significance in soil conservation ecological environment construction. According to soil erosion and soil conservation characteristics of Chongqing, presented a classification system based on controlling objects for soil and water conservation measures.This paper quantitatively analysis the typical effects of municipality water conservation measures, changes of factor C values and factor P values under different measures based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE). According to sustainable management of watershed and the soil erosion's decrease proportion based on USLE model, it given a paradigm for evaluation of small watershed management. The major results are as follows:
(1)According to the controlling objects, Chongqing soil and water conservation measures were divided into four categories, small watershed comprehensive management measures, regional soil and water conservation measures, special soil and water conservation measures and soil and water conservation measures for development and construction project. The establishment of classification of Soil and water conservation measures at different spatial scales can make a more direct and positive response from the external constraints, and also achieve the goal of soil conservation ecological environment construction.
(2) In the soil and water conservation measures in Chongqing, terrace sediment reduction efficiency is 8.4%, sediment reduction efficiency of ridge culture and intercropping in agricultural practices are 41.67%-68.00% 17.78%-45.99% respectively, and intercropping treatment honeysuckle 17.2%; Compared with terrace, tillage,the sediment and water reduction efficiency of plant measures is higher than 75%.It indicated that plant measures has the most obvious efficiency for sediment and water reduction. The efficiency of water and sediment reduction of ecological restoration measures are 42% and 61% respectively. Analysis of soil improvement by different soil and water conservation measures shows that vegetation can significantly improve soil structure, increase soil fertility, and soil infiltration. The derivation of the model and numerical indicated that factor P value and benefit of sediment reduction of soil and water conservation measures are opposite to each other, and the value can be used for soil erosion prediction based on USLE model.
(3)According to the observation of runoff plots, rainfall erosion and sediment yield characteristics of different sloping cumulative show that:wasteland (HS-1)>downslope cultivated farmland (HS-2)> cross slope farmland (HS-3)>cross slope farmland hedgerows (HS-4);using USLE model to calculate C values of tillage downslope, cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerows are 0.174,0.168 and 0.129, while the downslope, cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerow P values are 0.78,0.58 and 0.51;P-values of measured data of the cross slope and cross slope farmland hedgerows are 0.69 and 0.65,It shows that both the model values and measured value can reflect laws of P factor changing in purple hilly area of water conservation measures, that is downslope cultivated land> cross slope farmland> cross slope farmland hedgerows.
(4) Soil Loss intensity due to vegetation cover, cropping systems, cropping patterns and crop types and other factors vary widely; through investigating the C value, P value changes in the years of different cropping patterns,we can choose suitable crops, cropping systems, cropping patterns, and increase surface coverage during the rain season. It can effectively control soil erosion and reduce land degradation and provide basic parameters for soil erosion prediction model.
(5)Xianyu watershed sustainable development degree is 0.641 in 2007.It indicated small watershed management works have entered the state of sustainable development; In terms of contribution of index, resources and environment carrying capacity of 2009 is 15.55% significantly higher than that in 2007, and economic development capacity is 10.95% higher than that in 2007.Based on USLE model the reduction proportion of soil erosion shows that ratio of reduce soil loss in small watershed is 28.19%, ratio of reduce soil loss in all soil conservation measures are as follow:Terrace is 1%,water and soil conservation forest is 15.03%,economic fruits is 11.25%, blockading administration is 32.91%;The proportion of soil loss reduce increases with the slope and slope length,The ratio of reduce soil loss of slope under 25°has a more moderate trend, The ratio of reduce soil loss of slope above 25°has a more steep trend; when the slope length is longer than 70m,the ratio of reduce soil loss has more moderate trend, otherwise it has a steep trend. The small watershed management could make a reference and paradigm for similar small watershed treatment.
引文
[1]张倬.水土保持在防治水土流失中的作用.[J].现代农业科学,2009,17：180-183.
[2]孙习稳,李晓妹.水土流失是我国最严重的公害[J].国土与自然资源研究,2002,4：36-38.
[3]李纯利,李瑞凤,姜蕊云.水土流失的危害及其防治.[J].水利科技与经济,2001,7(3)：40-42.
[4]王晖,廖炜,陈峰云等.长江三峡库区水土流失现状及治理对策探讨.[J].人民长江,2007,38(3)：66-67.
[5]唐继斗.三峡库区实施拦沙坝工程的效益分析[J].中国水土保持,2005(5)：24-25.
[6]王礼先.流域管理学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1999.
[7]王兆赛主编.农业生态系统管理[M].北京：中国农业出版社,1995：148-183.
[8]刘国彬,梁宗锁,郝明德.流域生态与管理学科发展及研究重点.西北植物学报[J],2003.23(8)：1315-1319.
[9]李怀甫编著.小流域治理理论与方法[M].北京：水利电力出版社,1989.
[10]张汉雄,邵明安.黄土高原生态环境建设[M].西安：陕西科学技术出版社,2001.
[11]Gander M,Jefferson B.Judd S.Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment are view withcost considerations[J].Sep Purif Technol 2000(18):10-15.
[12]Larson W.E.,Pierce F.J.The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management[A].Soil Science Society of America,Inc.,Madison,Wisconsin,U.S.A.,1994,37-52.
[13]Van Dijk L,Roncken GCG.Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment the state of newdevelopment[J].Wat Sci Tech,1997,35(10):8-14.
[14]W.H.,Smith D.Predicting rainfall erosion losses-a guide to conservation planning[J].Agriculture handbook,1978(6),537.
[15]陈廉.生命河的忧思与期待——长江流域水土流失及治理情况透视[J].中国林业,2001(10)：9-13.
[16]焦正安.水土保持是农村环境保护的重点[J].唯实,2007(7)：73-74.
[17]肖莉,蒋莉,陈治谏等.小流域可持续发展能力的生态足迹法分析——以重庆市万州区五桥河流域为例[J].农村生态环境2005,21(4)：22-27
[18]段文标,任翠梅.山区典型小流域可持续发展评价[J].中国农业生态学报,2005,13(4)：187-190.
[19]王礼先.水土保持学[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[20]陈光,范海峰,陈浩生,董国权,东北黑土区水土保持措施减沙效应监测[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(6)：13-17
[21]祁伟,曹文洪,郭庆超,分布式侵蚀产沙模型在流域减水减沙效应评价中的应用[J].水利水电技术,2008,39(3)：166-170.
[22]江忠善,郑粉莉,纸坊沟流域水土流失综合治理减沙效应评价[J].泥沙研究,2004,4(2)：59-66.
[23]袁希平,雷廷武,水土保持措施及其减水减沙效应分析[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(2)：92-95.
[24]王香芝,秸秆覆盖的土壤改良效应[J].现代农业科技,2009,14：123-126.
[25]王洪锋,刘德凯,浅谈农田防护林的土壤改良效应[J].农林论坛,2008,3：166-170.
[26]石生新,水土保持措施强化降水入渗试验研究[D].中国科学院、水利部水土保持研究所,2003,3：188-190.
[27]张玉斌,曹宁,闫飞,杨振明,黑土侵蚀区水土保持措施对土壤质量的影响[J],水土保持研究,2009,16(3)：76-79.
[28]尹迪信,唐华彬,朱青,李裕荣,李登美,梁大超,坡耕地不同水土保持措施下的养分平衡和土壤肥力变化,水土保持学报,2002,16(1)
[29]Omer, Mekki Ardellatif, Measurement and simulation of mulch and tillage effects on soil water conservation, Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume:49-08, Section:B, page: 3311.;Chairperson:Keith A.Saxton.1987.
[30]范兴科,蒋定生,黄国俊,黄土高原坡耕地水土保持措施效应评价试验研究(Ⅱ)坡耕地水土保持措施蓄水拦泥效应数学模型研究[J]中国水土保持,1990,3：186-190.
[31]陈卫宾,毋红军,董增,水土保持措施的水文效应模拟研究[J],中国水土保持SWCC,2009,6：99-103.
[32]付金沐,史志刚,张勇等,宿州学院地理与环境科学系.安徽宿州2.安徽省水利厅,安徽合肥[J].2009,6(2)：79-82.
[33]Angima, Samson Danford, Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE in central Kenya, Dissertation Abstracts International[J], Volume:62-06, Section:B, page:2558.;Major Professor:Diane E. Stott.,2000.
[34]陈丽华,刘东,李源茂等.山区小城镇建设可持续发展评价初探——以北京市门头沟区妙峰山镇为例.中国水土保持科学[J],2003,1(3)：52-55.
[35]洪华生,杨远,黄金良.基于GIS和USLE的下庄小流域土壤侵蚀量预测研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2005,44(5)：675～679.
[36]马超飞,马建文,布和敖斯尔.USLE模型中被覆盖因子的遥感数据定量估算[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(4)：629～634.
[37]汪东川,卢玉东.国外土壤侵蚀模型发展概述[J].中国水土保持科学,2004,2(2)：35～40.
[38]许月卿,邵晓梅.基于GIS和RUSLE的土壤侵蚀量计算-以贵州省猫跳河流域为例[J].北京林业大学学报,2006,28(4)：67～71.
[39]倪九派,谢春燕,魏朝富,等.土壤侵蚀预测建模研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2005, 3(1)：66～71.
[40]唐克丽.中国水土保持[M].北京：科学出版社,2004.88-93.
[41]叶学文.重庆水土保持事业的发展与展望[J].中国水土保持,2001(7)：11～14.
[42]潘竞虎,魏宏庆.区域水土保持生态修复模式及效果评价-以长江流域两当河上游为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2008,16(1)：192-195
[43]邓吉华,李运学,黄建胜.水土保持发展战略研究[J].水土保持学报.2002,16(5)：116-118.
[44]李新虎,李瑞雪,魏朝富.荒溪治理研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2003(5)：36-38,171.
[45]王海明,陈治谏,廖晓勇等.三峡库区坡耕地植物篱技术对土壤特性的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(2)：692-694.
[46]刘定辉,赵燮京,曹均城,等.紫色丘陵区蓑草植物篱的减流减沙效应及其机理[J].西南农业学报,2007,20(3)：439-442.
[47]梁伟,杨勤科.水土保持研究,遥感在区域水土保持研究中的应用[J].2004,11(2)：160-163.
[48]朱宪生,求真务实与时俱进开创重庆水土保持预防监督工作新局面[J].中国水土保持,2005(5)：8～10.
[49]焦居仁,史立人,牛崇桓,等.我国东中西部水土保持发展战略[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(5)：1-6.
[50]袁希平,蔡强国.水土保持措施及减水减沙效益分析[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(2)：296-300.
[51]史东梅,基于RUSLE模型的紫色丘陵区坡耕地水土保持研究[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(3)：
[52]刘坤,陈治谏,廖晓勇.三峡库区紫色土坡地不同耕作措施的水土保持效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(4)：257-259.
[53]李小兵,丁德蓉,何丙辉.不同种植模式对金银花水土保持效益的影响[J].西南农业大学学报(自然科学版)2004,26(2)：120-123.
[54]王珠娜,王晓光,史玉虎升,等.三峡库区秭归县退耕还林工程水土保持效益研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(1)：68-72.
[55]段文军,邹冬生,罗建新.南方紫色土荒坡地龙须草水土保持效益研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,29(3)204-206.
[56]卜崇峰,蔡强国,袁再健.三峡库区等高植物篱的控蚀效益及其机制[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(4)：14-18.
[57]张莉,何丙辉,李旭光,等.云南省姚安县水土保持生态修复措施的效益研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(3)：358-361.
[58]魏义长,康玲玲,王云璋,等.水土保持措施对土壤物理性状的影响-以黄土高原水土保持世界银行贷款项目区为例[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(5)：114-116.
[59]杨艳鲜,纪中华,沙毓沧,等.元谋干热河谷区旱坡地生态农业模式的水土保持效益研究 [J].水土保持学报,2006,20(3)：70-73.
[60]苗晓靖,徐桂华,宋芳,等.集流梯田工程水土保持效益试验浅析-以黄前流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(5)：220-224.
[61]段文军,邹冬生,罗建新.南方紫色土荒坡地龙须草水土保持效益研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),29(3)：204-206.
[62]马超飞,马建文,等.基于RS和GIS的岷江流域退耕还林还草的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4)：20-24.
[63]蔡崇法,丁树文,史志华,等.应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2)：19～24.
[64]周斌.浅谈水土流失遥感定量模型及其因子算法[J].地质地球化学,2000(1)：72-77.
蒋定生,范兴科,等.黄土高原水土流失严重地区土壤抗蚀性的水平和垂直变化规律研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(2)：1-8.
[63]魏义长,康玲玲,王云璋,等.水土保持措施对土壤物理性状的影响-以黄土高原水土保持世界银行贷款项目区为例[J].2006,9(3)：123-127.
[64]马超飞,马建文,等.基于RS和GIS的岷江流域退耕还林还草的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4)：20-24.
[65]江忠善,郑粉莉.坡面水蚀预报模型研究[J]。水土保持学报,2004,18(1)：66～69
[66]M.J.柯克比,R.P.C.摩根.土壤侵蚀,水利水电出版社,1987.3,书号15143.6011
[67]倪九派,傅涛等.应用ARC／INFO预测芋子沟小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究.[J],2001,15(4)：29-32.
[2]孙习稳,李晓妹.水土流失是我国最严重的公害[J].国土与自然资源研究,2002,4：36-38.
[3]李纯利,李瑞凤,姜蕊云.水土流失的危害及其防治.[J].水利科技与经济,2001,7(3)：40-42.
[4]王晖,廖炜,陈峰云等.长江三峡库区水土流失现状及治理对策探讨.[J].人民长江,2007,38(3)：66-67.
[5]唐继斗.三峡库区实施拦沙坝工程的效益分析[J].中国水土保持,2005(5)：24-25.
[6]王礼先.流域管理学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1999.
[7]王兆赛主编.农业生态系统管理[M].北京：中国农业出版社,1995：148-183.
[8]刘国彬,梁宗锁,郝明德.流域生态与管理学科发展及研究重点.西北植物学报[J],2003.23(8)：1315-1319.
[9]李怀甫编著.小流域治理理论与方法[M].北京：水利电力出版社,1989.
[10]张汉雄,邵明安.黄土高原生态环境建设[M].西安：陕西科学技术出版社,2001.
[11]Gander M,Jefferson B.Judd S.Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment are view withcost considerations[J].Sep Purif Technol 2000(18):10-15.
[12]Larson W.E.,Pierce F.J.The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management[A].Soil Science Society of America,Inc.,Madison,Wisconsin,U.S.A.,1994,37-52.
[13]Van Dijk L,Roncken GCG.Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment the state of newdevelopment[J].Wat Sci Tech,1997,35(10):8-14.
[14]W.H.,Smith D.Predicting rainfall erosion losses-a guide to conservation planning[J].Agriculture handbook,1978(6),537.
[15]陈廉.生命河的忧思与期待——长江流域水土流失及治理情况透视[J].中国林业,2001(10)：9-13.
[16]焦正安.水土保持是农村环境保护的重点[J].唯实,2007(7)：73-74.
[17]肖莉,蒋莉,陈治谏等.小流域可持续发展能力的生态足迹法分析——以重庆市万州区五桥河流域为例[J].农村生态环境2005,21(4)：22-27
[18]段文标,任翠梅.山区典型小流域可持续发展评价[J].中国农业生态学报,2005,13(4)：187-190.
[19]王礼先.水土保持学[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[20]陈光,范海峰,陈浩生,董国权,东北黑土区水土保持措施减沙效应监测[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(6)：13-17
[21]祁伟,曹文洪,郭庆超,分布式侵蚀产沙模型在流域减水减沙效应评价中的应用[J].水利水电技术,2008,39(3)：166-170.
[22]江忠善,郑粉莉,纸坊沟流域水土流失综合治理减沙效应评价[J].泥沙研究,2004,4(2)：59-66.
[23]袁希平,雷廷武,水土保持措施及其减水减沙效应分析[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(2)：92-95.
[24]王香芝,秸秆覆盖的土壤改良效应[J].现代农业科技,2009,14：123-126.
[25]王洪锋,刘德凯,浅谈农田防护林的土壤改良效应[J].农林论坛,2008,3：166-170.
[26]石生新,水土保持措施强化降水入渗试验研究[D].中国科学院、水利部水土保持研究所,2003,3：188-190.
[27]张玉斌,曹宁,闫飞,杨振明,黑土侵蚀区水土保持措施对土壤质量的影响[J],水土保持研究,2009,16(3)：76-79.
[28]尹迪信,唐华彬,朱青,李裕荣,李登美,梁大超,坡耕地不同水土保持措施下的养分平衡和土壤肥力变化,水土保持学报,2002,16(1)
[29]Omer, Mekki Ardellatif, Measurement and simulation of mulch and tillage effects on soil water conservation, Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume:49-08, Section:B, page: 3311.;Chairperson:Keith A.Saxton.1987.
[30]范兴科,蒋定生,黄国俊,黄土高原坡耕地水土保持措施效应评价试验研究(Ⅱ)坡耕地水土保持措施蓄水拦泥效应数学模型研究[J]中国水土保持,1990,3：186-190.
[31]陈卫宾,毋红军,董增,水土保持措施的水文效应模拟研究[J],中国水土保持SWCC,2009,6：99-103.
[32]付金沐,史志刚,张勇等,宿州学院地理与环境科学系.安徽宿州2.安徽省水利厅,安徽合肥[J].2009,6(2)：79-82.
[33]Angima, Samson Danford, Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE in central Kenya, Dissertation Abstracts International[J], Volume:62-06, Section:B, page:2558.;Major Professor:Diane E. Stott.,2000.
[34]陈丽华,刘东,李源茂等.山区小城镇建设可持续发展评价初探——以北京市门头沟区妙峰山镇为例.中国水土保持科学[J],2003,1(3)：52-55.
[35]洪华生,杨远,黄金良.基于GIS和USLE的下庄小流域土壤侵蚀量预测研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2005,44(5)：675～679.
[36]马超飞,马建文,布和敖斯尔.USLE模型中被覆盖因子的遥感数据定量估算[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(4)：629～634.
[37]汪东川,卢玉东.国外土壤侵蚀模型发展概述[J].中国水土保持科学,2004,2(2)：35～40.
[38]许月卿,邵晓梅.基于GIS和RUSLE的土壤侵蚀量计算-以贵州省猫跳河流域为例[J].北京林业大学学报,2006,28(4)：67～71.
[39]倪九派,谢春燕,魏朝富,等.土壤侵蚀预测建模研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2005, 3(1)：66～71.
[40]唐克丽.中国水土保持[M].北京：科学出版社,2004.88-93.
[41]叶学文.重庆水土保持事业的发展与展望[J].中国水土保持,2001(7)：11～14.
[42]潘竞虎,魏宏庆.区域水土保持生态修复模式及效果评价-以长江流域两当河上游为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2008,16(1)：192-195
[43]邓吉华,李运学,黄建胜.水土保持发展战略研究[J].水土保持学报.2002,16(5)：116-118.
[44]李新虎,李瑞雪,魏朝富.荒溪治理研究进展[J].水土保持学报,2003(5)：36-38,171.
[45]王海明,陈治谏,廖晓勇等.三峡库区坡耕地植物篱技术对土壤特性的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(2)：692-694.
[46]刘定辉,赵燮京,曹均城,等.紫色丘陵区蓑草植物篱的减流减沙效应及其机理[J].西南农业学报,2007,20(3)：439-442.
[47]梁伟,杨勤科.水土保持研究,遥感在区域水土保持研究中的应用[J].2004,11(2)：160-163.
[48]朱宪生,求真务实与时俱进开创重庆水土保持预防监督工作新局面[J].中国水土保持,2005(5)：8～10.
[49]焦居仁,史立人,牛崇桓,等.我国东中西部水土保持发展战略[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(5)：1-6.
[50]袁希平,蔡强国.水土保持措施及减水减沙效益分析[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(2)：296-300.
[51]史东梅,基于RUSLE模型的紫色丘陵区坡耕地水土保持研究[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(3)：
[52]刘坤,陈治谏,廖晓勇.三峡库区紫色土坡地不同耕作措施的水土保持效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(4)：257-259.
[53]李小兵,丁德蓉,何丙辉.不同种植模式对金银花水土保持效益的影响[J].西南农业大学学报(自然科学版)2004,26(2)：120-123.
[54]王珠娜,王晓光,史玉虎升,等.三峡库区秭归县退耕还林工程水土保持效益研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(1)：68-72.
[55]段文军,邹冬生,罗建新.南方紫色土荒坡地龙须草水土保持效益研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,29(3)204-206.
[56]卜崇峰,蔡强国,袁再健.三峡库区等高植物篱的控蚀效益及其机制[J].中国水土保持科学,2006,4(4)：14-18.
[57]张莉,何丙辉,李旭光,等.云南省姚安县水土保持生态修复措施的效益研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(3)：358-361.
[58]魏义长,康玲玲,王云璋,等.水土保持措施对土壤物理性状的影响-以黄土高原水土保持世界银行贷款项目区为例[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(5)：114-116.
[59]杨艳鲜,纪中华,沙毓沧,等.元谋干热河谷区旱坡地生态农业模式的水土保持效益研究 [J].水土保持学报,2006,20(3)：70-73.
[60]苗晓靖,徐桂华,宋芳,等.集流梯田工程水土保持效益试验浅析-以黄前流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(5)：220-224.
[61]段文军,邹冬生,罗建新.南方紫色土荒坡地龙须草水土保持效益研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),29(3)：204-206.
[62]马超飞,马建文,等.基于RS和GIS的岷江流域退耕还林还草的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4)：20-24.
[63]蔡崇法,丁树文,史志华,等.应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2)：19～24.
[64]周斌.浅谈水土流失遥感定量模型及其因子算法[J].地质地球化学,2000(1)：72-77.
蒋定生,范兴科,等.黄土高原水土流失严重地区土壤抗蚀性的水平和垂直变化规律研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(2)：1-8.
[63]魏义长,康玲玲,王云璋,等.水土保持措施对土壤物理性状的影响-以黄土高原水土保持世界银行贷款项目区为例[J].2006,9(3)：123-127.
[64]马超飞,马建文,等.基于RS和GIS的岷江流域退耕还林还草的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(4)：20-24.
[65]江忠善,郑粉莉.坡面水蚀预报模型研究[J]。水土保持学报,2004,18(1)：66～69
[66]M.J.柯克比,R.P.C.摩根.土壤侵蚀,水利水电出版社,1987.3,书号15143.6011
[67]倪九派,傅涛等.应用ARC／INFO预测芋子沟小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究.[J],2001,15(4)：29-32.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |