黄土区两种植物篱不同部位土壤持水特征对比

党宏忠; 党汉瑾; 李卫; 冯伟; 莫保儒

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.03.020

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

黄土区两种植物篱不同部位土壤持水特征对比

试验研究

- 黄土区两种植物篱不同部位土壤持水特征对比
- Comparison of Soil Water Retention Characteristics for Different Part of Two Kinds of Hedgerow System in Loess Area
- 水土保持通报 2015年35卷第3期页码：78-84
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 中国林业科学研究院荒漠化研究所,北京,100091
  2. 甘肃省林业科学研究院,甘肃,兰州,730000
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  "十二五"国家科技支撑课题"农田水土流失生物防护关键技术研究"(2011BAD31B02)
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.03.020
  中图分类号：
- 纸质出版：2015
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
党宏忠, 党汉瑾, 李卫, 等. 黄土区两种植物篱不同部位土壤持水特征对比[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015,35(3):78-84.

DANG Hongzhong, DANG Hanjin, LI Wei, et al. Comparison of Soil Water Retention Characteristics for Different Part of Two Kinds of Hedgerow System in Loess Area[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2015, 35(3): 78-84.
党宏忠, 党汉瑾, 李卫, 等. 黄土区两种植物篱不同部位土壤持水特征对比[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015,35(3):78-84. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.03.020.

DANG Hongzhong, DANG Hanjin, LI Wei, et al. Comparison of Soil Water Retention Characteristics for Different Part of Two Kinds of Hedgerow System in Loess Area[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2015, 35(3): 78-84. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2015.03.020.

摘要

[目的] 研究植物篱不同部位土壤持水性能的分异特征

指导植物篱系统的设计与经营管理。[方法] 在测定柠条、山杏两种典型植物篱土壤水分物理参数的基础上

利用van Genuchten模型比较分析植物篱系统带内、带间的土壤水分特征曲线及其参数。[结果] (1) 两种植物篱在土壤总孔隙度、水稳性团聚体含量、渗透系数等方面均高于耕地(对照)

其中柠条植物篱带内土壤总孔隙度(66.36%)、水稳性微团聚体含量(35.50%)和有机质含量(44.1 g/kg)比带间分别高7.34%

1.95%和25.64%。山杏植物篱的这3项指标带内比带间分别高11.93%

29.33%和21.48%。(2) 柠条、山杏植物篱带内土壤脱湿过程中凋萎系数分别是耕地的7倍和3.25倍

田间持水量分别是耕地的1.46和1.25倍

柠条植物篱土壤保水优势更明显。(3) 在相同的土壤水吸力下

土壤吸湿与脱湿过程中带内土壤的水分含量均明显高于带间

带内土壤的持水性更高

这与带内较高的黏粒含量相一致;柠条带内土壤水分含量高于山杏带内

二者均高于耕地。[结论] 植物篱的二相结构能明显促进带内黏粒、微团聚体和养分的富集(有机质)

进而提高带内土壤的持水性能和饱和渗透性能。

Abstract

[Objective] To study the differentiation characteristics of soil water retention in different part of the hedgerow system in order to provide guidelines for design and management of hedgerow systems.[Methods] Based on measuring the physical parameters of soil moisture for Caragana korshinskii and Armeniacc sibirica

the soil water retention curve as well as derived parameters of in-band and inter-band of hedgerow System were compared by van Genuchten model. [Results] (1) The total soil porosity

water stable micro-aggregates content and soil permeability was higher for C. korshinskii and A. sibirica. hedgerows than farmland(as a check). Soil properties from the in-band of C. korshinskii such as total soil porosity(66.36%)

water stable micro-aggregates content(35.50%) and organic matter content(44.1 g/kg) were 7.34%

1.95% and 25.64% higher than that from the inter-band

respectively. Similarly

the above three indicators from the in-band hedgerows of A. sibirica were 11.93%

29.33% and 21.48% higher than that from the inter-band hedgerows

respectively. (2) The wilting coefficient of C. korshinskii and A. sibirica was 7 and 3.25 times of farmland

respectively

and the field capacity was 1.46 and 1.25 times

respectively

which display a more obvious advantages in soil water retention of farmland. (3) The soil water content of the in-band hedgerows was higher than that from the inter-band for both moisture absorption and desorption process with the same soil water suction

which was consistent with the content of soil clay. The in-band soil water content of C. korshinskii was higher than that of A. sibirica. They were both higher than that in the farmland. [Conclusion] The two-phase structure of hedgerows can significantly promote the enrichment of soil clay

micro-aggregates and organic matter in in-band hedgerows

which is the key mechanism to improve soil water retention and saturated soil permeability.

关键词

Keywords

references

Barnes G, Williamson T. Hedgerow history:ecology, history and landscape character[M]. Oxford:Windgather Press, 2008.

Baudry J, Bunce R, Burel F. Hedgerows:an international perspective on their origin, function and management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2000,60(1):7-22.

Sun Hui, Tang Ya, Xie Jiasui. Contour hedgerow intercropping in the mountains of China:a review[J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2008,73(1):65-76.

唐亚,谢嘉穗,陈克明,等.等高固氮植物篱技术在坡耕地可持续耕作中的应用[J].水土保持研究,2001,8(1):104-109.

王青杵,王彩琴,杨丙益.黄土残塬沟壑区植物篱水土保持效益研究[J].中国水土保持,2001(12):25-27.

孙辉,唐亚,陈克明,等.等高固氮植物篱控制坡耕地地表径流的效果[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(2):48-51.

雷志栋,杨诗秀,谢森传.土壤水动力学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1988.

吴煜禾,张洪江,王伟,等.重庆四面山不同土地利用方式土壤水分特征曲线测定与评价[J].西南大学学报:自然科学版,2011(05):102-108.

刘建立,徐绍辉,刘慧.估计土壤水分特征曲线的间接方法研究进展[J].水利学报,2004(2):68-76.

来剑斌,王全九.土壤水分特征曲线模型比较分析[J]. 水土保持学报,2003,17(1):137-140.

夏卫生,雷廷武,刘贤赵,等.土壤水分特征曲线的推算[J].土壤学报,2003,40(2):311-315.

姚其华,邓银霞.土壤水分特征曲线模型及其预测方法的研究进展[J].土壤通报,1992(3):142-145.

李开元,李玉山.土壤水分特征曲线的意义及其应用[J].陕西农业科学,1991(4):47-48.

邵明安,李开元,钟良平.根据土壤水分特征曲线推求土壤的导水参数[J].中国科学院水利部西北水土保持研究所集刊(SPAC中水分运行与模拟研究专集), 1991(1):26-32.

中华人民共和国农业部.NY/T 1121.3-2006土壤检测(第3部分):土壤机械组成的测定[S].北京:中国农业出版社,2006.

王秀颖,高晓飞,刘和平,等.土壤水稳性大团聚体测定方法综述[J].中国水土保持科学,2011(3):106-113.

卢金伟,李占斌.土壤团聚体研究进展[J].水土保持研究,2002,9(1):81-85.

中华人民共和国农业部.NY/T 1121.6-2006土壤检测(第6部分):土壤有机质的测定[S].北京:中国农业出版社,2006.

刘洪波,张江辉,虎胆·吐马尔白,等.土壤水分特征曲线VG模型参数求解对比分析[J]. 新疆农业大学学报,2012,34(5):437-441.

王小华,贾克力,刘景辉,等.Van Genuchten模型在土壤水分特征曲线拟合分析中的应用[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(2):179-183.

肖建英,李永涛,王丽.利用van Genuchten模型拟合土壤水分特征曲线[J].地下水,2007,29(5):46-47.

黄昌勇.土壤学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:74-76.

全国土壤普查办公室.全国第二次土壤普查暂行技术规程[S].北京:农业出版社,1979.

Richards L A, Weaver L R. Fifteen-atmosphere percentage as related to the permanent wilting percentage[J]. Soil Science, 1943,56(5):331-339.

Colman E A. A laboratory procedure for determining the field capacity of soils[J]. Soil Science, 1947,63(4):277-283.

李玉山,韩仕峰,汪正华.黄土高原土壤水分性质及其分区[J].中国科学院西北水土保持研究所集刊:土壤分水与土壤肥力研究专集,1985,1(2):1-17.

胡恒觉,张仁陟,黄高宝.黄土高原旱地农业[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:33-34.

Ratliff L F, Ritchie J T, Cassel D K. Field-measured limits of soil water availability as related to laboratory-measured properties[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1983,47(4):770-775.

浏览量

1489

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

黄土坡面种植柠条对土壤团聚体稳定性和可蚀性的影响

冻融循环条件下伊犁地区滑坡黄土湿陷特性及微观机理

海河流域气候-土地利用-生态治理对水生态系统服务的影响

不同空间尺度耕地埂坎提取方法及其分布特征

黄河中游沙家湾小流域风沙环境特征及其入沟过程