永定河流域官厅水库南岸典型林分土壤饱和导水率研究
|
摘要
为研究永定河流域官厅水库南岸生态水源保护林土壤饱和导水率(K_(fs))的特征,科学评价水源保护林功能,选取水源保护林典型林分与当地成林和非林地作对比,采用方差分析、相关分析和因子分析的方法研究土壤理化性质对饱和导水率的影响并根据因子得分排名探究土壤通透性最好的林分。结果表明:(1)土壤饱和导水率随土层深度增加而减小,水源保护林中混交林的饱和导水率大于纯林接近于成林,侧柏×山杏混交林的饱和导水率最高;(2)因子分析结果表明,影响饱和导水率最主要的因素为饱和含水量、容重和有机质含量;次重要因子为土壤砂粒、粉粒和粘粒含量,土壤毛管孔隙度和非毛管孔隙度对本区域饱和导水率影响不大;(3)综合因子得分排名分析,以侧柏×山杏混交林的土壤通透性最好,油松×山杏混交林次之。目前生态水源保护林对土壤通透性的改善优势明显,造林颇具成效。
In order to explore the characteristics of saturated hydraulic conductivity(K_(fs)) of the soils of the south coast of Guanting Reservoir in Yongding River watershed and to assess the function of water resource protection forests scientifically, this study used typical water resource protection forest stands as study objects, which were compared with local mature forests and non-forest land. Variance analysis, correlation analysis, and factor analysis methods were applied to investigate the influence of edaphic physical and chemical properties on saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the forest stands with the best soil permeability were screened according to the score ranking of influencing factors. The results showed that:(1) Saturated hydraulic conductivity decreased as the soil depth increased. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of mixed forests of water resource protection forests was greater than that of pure forests but similar to that of mature forests, among which Platycladus orientalis and Armeniaca sibirica mixed forest had the highest K_(fs) value;(2) Factor analysis indicated that the primary factors affecting K_(fs) were saturated moisture, soil bulk density, and soil organic matter content, while the secondary influencing factors were the contents of sand, silt, and clay in soil. Soil capillary porosity and non-capillary porosity had little effects on the K_(fs) value;(3) According to the score ranking of the comprehensive factors, soil permeability in the P. orientalis and A. sibirica mixed forest was the best, followed by that in the mixed forest of Pinus tabuliformis and A. sibirica. The present study demonstrated that ecological water conservation forests have the superiority in improving soil permeability, and that the afforestation project has shown remarkable achievements.
In order to explore the characteristics of saturated hydraulic conductivity(K_(fs)) of the soils of the south coast of Guanting Reservoir in Yongding River watershed and to assess the function of water resource protection forests scientifically, this study used typical water resource protection forest stands as study objects, which were compared with local mature forests and non-forest land. Variance analysis, correlation analysis, and factor analysis methods were applied to investigate the influence of edaphic physical and chemical properties on saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the forest stands with the best soil permeability were screened according to the score ranking of influencing factors. The results showed that:(1) Saturated hydraulic conductivity decreased as the soil depth increased. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of mixed forests of water resource protection forests was greater than that of pure forests but similar to that of mature forests, among which Platycladus orientalis and Armeniaca sibirica mixed forest had the highest K_(fs) value;(2) Factor analysis indicated that the primary factors affecting K_(fs) were saturated moisture, soil bulk density, and soil organic matter content, while the secondary influencing factors were the contents of sand, silt, and clay in soil. Soil capillary porosity and non-capillary porosity had little effects on the K_(fs) value;(3) According to the score ranking of the comprehensive factors, soil permeability in the P. orientalis and A. sibirica mixed forest was the best, followed by that in the mixed forest of Pinus tabuliformis and A. sibirica. The present study demonstrated that ecological water conservation forests have the superiority in improving soil permeability, and that the afforestation project has shown remarkable achievements.
引文
[1] 姚淑霞,赵传成,张铜会.科尔沁不同沙地土壤饱和导水率比较研究.土壤学报,2013,50(3):469- 477.
[2] 蔡鲁,朱婉芮,王华田,张光灿,刘霞,杨吉华,王延平.鲁中南山地6个造林树种根系形态的比较.中国水土保持科学,2015,13(2):83- 91.
[3] 李建兴,何丙辉,谌芸.不同护坡草本植物的根系特征及对土壤渗透性的影响.生态学报,2013,33(5):1535- 1544.
[4] Wang S,Fu B J,He C S,Sun G,Gao G Y.A comparative analysis of forest cover and catchment water yield relationships in northern China.Forest Ecology and Management,2011,262(7):1189- 1198.
[5] 孟晨,牛健植,骆紫藤,杜晓晴,武晓丽.鹫峰地区不同植被群落土壤性质及饱和导水率特征.水土保持学报,2015,29(3):156- 160.
[6] 马思文,张洪江,程金花,李明峰,王平.三峡库区典型城郊防护林土壤饱和导水率特征研究.南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2018,42(5):99- 106.
[7] Western A W,Bl?schl G,Grayson R B.Geostatistical characterisation of soil moisture patterns in the Tarrawarra catchment.Journal of Hydrology,1998,205(1/2):20- 37.
[8] Warrick A W,Nielsen D R.Spatial variability of soil physical properties in the field//Hillel D,ed.Applications of Soil Physics.New York:Academic Press,1980:319- 344.
[9] 梁向锋,赵世伟,张扬,华娟.子午岭植被恢复对土壤饱和导水率的影响.生态学报,2009,29(2):636- 642.
[10] 王子龙,赵勇钢,赵世伟,黄菁华,杜璨,尚应妮.退耕典型草地土壤饱和导水率及其影响因素研究.草地学报,2016,24(6):1254- 1262.
[11] 迟春明,王志春.碱化盐土饱和导水率特征与影响因素研究.土壤通报,2014,45(3):601- 607.
[12] 张鼎华,翟明普,贾黎明,林平.沙地土壤有机质与土壤水动力学参数的关系.中国生态农业学报,2003,11(1):74- 77.
[13] 刘春利,邵明安.黄土高原坡地表层土壤饱和导水率和水分含量空间变异特征.中国水土保持科学,2009,7(1):13- 18.
[14] 孙丽.科尔沁沙丘—草甸相间地区表土饱和导水率的土壤传递函数研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2014.
[15] 姚荣江,杨劲松,张同娟,李芙荣,王相平,吴晓卫.滩涂围垦农田土壤饱和导水率的影响因素及转换函数研究.中国生态农业学报,2014,22(7):790- 797.
[16] 方堃,陈效民,张佳宝,王伯仁,黄晶,甘再福.红壤地区典型农田土壤饱和导水率及其影响因素研究.灌溉排水学报,2008,27(4):67- 69.
[17] 甘淼,贾玉华,李同川,毛娜,赵明阳.黄土区坡沟系统容重、饱和导水率和土壤含水量变化分析.干旱区研究,2018,35(2):315- 324.
[18] 张川,陈洪松,张伟,聂云鹏,叶莹莹,王克林.喀斯特坡面表层土壤含水量、容重和饱和导水率的空间变异特征.应用生态学报,2014,25(6):1585- 1591.
[19] 王斌会.多元统计分析及R语言建模(第四版).广州:暨南大学出版社,2016:185- 186.
[20] 汪明星.重庆山地丘陵区紫色土饱和导水率传递函数研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2017.
[21] 张君玉,程金花,吕湘海,张友焱,王彬俨,孙龙.晋西不同土地利用方式下土壤饱和导水率的影响因素.水土保持通报,2013,33(6):57- 61.
[22] 陈效民,潘根兴,王德建,李宝山.太湖地区农田生态环境中土壤饱和导水率研究.水土保持通报,2000,20(5):11- 12,59- 59.
[23] 胡传旺,王辉,刘常,袁红,李裕元.南方典型土壤水力特征差异性分析.水土保持学报,2017,31(2):97- 102.
[2] 蔡鲁,朱婉芮,王华田,张光灿,刘霞,杨吉华,王延平.鲁中南山地6个造林树种根系形态的比较.中国水土保持科学,2015,13(2):83- 91.
[3] 李建兴,何丙辉,谌芸.不同护坡草本植物的根系特征及对土壤渗透性的影响.生态学报,2013,33(5):1535- 1544.
[4] Wang S,Fu B J,He C S,Sun G,Gao G Y.A comparative analysis of forest cover and catchment water yield relationships in northern China.Forest Ecology and Management,2011,262(7):1189- 1198.
[5] 孟晨,牛健植,骆紫藤,杜晓晴,武晓丽.鹫峰地区不同植被群落土壤性质及饱和导水率特征.水土保持学报,2015,29(3):156- 160.
[6] 马思文,张洪江,程金花,李明峰,王平.三峡库区典型城郊防护林土壤饱和导水率特征研究.南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2018,42(5):99- 106.
[7] Western A W,Bl?schl G,Grayson R B.Geostatistical characterisation of soil moisture patterns in the Tarrawarra catchment.Journal of Hydrology,1998,205(1/2):20- 37.
[8] Warrick A W,Nielsen D R.Spatial variability of soil physical properties in the field//Hillel D,ed.Applications of Soil Physics.New York:Academic Press,1980:319- 344.
[9] 梁向锋,赵世伟,张扬,华娟.子午岭植被恢复对土壤饱和导水率的影响.生态学报,2009,29(2):636- 642.
[10] 王子龙,赵勇钢,赵世伟,黄菁华,杜璨,尚应妮.退耕典型草地土壤饱和导水率及其影响因素研究.草地学报,2016,24(6):1254- 1262.
[11] 迟春明,王志春.碱化盐土饱和导水率特征与影响因素研究.土壤通报,2014,45(3):601- 607.
[12] 张鼎华,翟明普,贾黎明,林平.沙地土壤有机质与土壤水动力学参数的关系.中国生态农业学报,2003,11(1):74- 77.
[13] 刘春利,邵明安.黄土高原坡地表层土壤饱和导水率和水分含量空间变异特征.中国水土保持科学,2009,7(1):13- 18.
[14] 孙丽.科尔沁沙丘—草甸相间地区表土饱和导水率的土壤传递函数研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2014.
[15] 姚荣江,杨劲松,张同娟,李芙荣,王相平,吴晓卫.滩涂围垦农田土壤饱和导水率的影响因素及转换函数研究.中国生态农业学报,2014,22(7):790- 797.
[16] 方堃,陈效民,张佳宝,王伯仁,黄晶,甘再福.红壤地区典型农田土壤饱和导水率及其影响因素研究.灌溉排水学报,2008,27(4):67- 69.
[17] 甘淼,贾玉华,李同川,毛娜,赵明阳.黄土区坡沟系统容重、饱和导水率和土壤含水量变化分析.干旱区研究,2018,35(2):315- 324.
[18] 张川,陈洪松,张伟,聂云鹏,叶莹莹,王克林.喀斯特坡面表层土壤含水量、容重和饱和导水率的空间变异特征.应用生态学报,2014,25(6):1585- 1591.
[19] 王斌会.多元统计分析及R语言建模(第四版).广州:暨南大学出版社,2016:185- 186.
[20] 汪明星.重庆山地丘陵区紫色土饱和导水率传递函数研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2017.
[21] 张君玉,程金花,吕湘海,张友焱,王彬俨,孙龙.晋西不同土地利用方式下土壤饱和导水率的影响因素.水土保持通报,2013,33(6):57- 61.
[22] 陈效民,潘根兴,王德建,李宝山.太湖地区农田生态环境中土壤饱和导水率研究.水土保持通报,2000,20(5):11- 12,59- 59.
[23] 胡传旺,王辉,刘常,袁红,李裕元.南方典型土壤水力特征差异性分析.水土保持学报,2017,31(2):97- 102.