喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地的持水性能

罗秀龙; 舒英格; 龙慧; 李雪梅

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.05.002

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地的持水性能

试验研究

- 喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地的持水性能
- Water-holding Capacity of Reclaimed Grassland with Different Ages in Karst Regions
- 水土保持通报 2023年43卷第5期页码：7-17
- 作者机构：
  
  贵州大学农学院,贵州,贵阳,550025
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  国家自然科学基金项目“喀斯特山区林草间作生态恢复过程中土壤质量演变规律及其评价:以贵州'晴隆模式’为例”(31460133)
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.05.002
  中图分类号： S812.2
- 纸质出版：2023
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
罗秀龙, 舒英格, 龙慧, 等. 喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地的持水性能[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(5):7-17.

Luo Xiulong, Shu Yingge, Long Hui, et al. Water-holding Capacity of Reclaimed Grassland with Different Ages in Karst Regions[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(5): 7-17.
罗秀龙, 舒英格, 龙慧, 等. 喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地的持水性能[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(5):7-17. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.05.002.

Luo Xiulong, Shu Yingge, Long Hui, et al. Water-holding Capacity of Reclaimed Grassland with Different Ages in Karst Regions[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(5): 7-17. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.05.002.

摘要

[目的] 研究不同年限退耕草地持水性能，为喀斯特地区退耕草地持水性能和水土保持提供科学依据。[方法] 选取贵州省安顺市喀斯特地区不同年限退耕草地(5，10，15，20 a)和耕地(对照CK)为研究对象，采用“时空替代法”研究凋落物蓄积量、持水量和拦蓄量以及土壤剖面容重、孔隙度、颗粒组成、含水率及持水量随退耕年限的变化特征。[结果] ①凋落物层蓄积量、最大持水量、最大拦蓄量和有效拦蓄量均表现为:15 a＞20 a＞10 a＞5 a，且凋落物层持水量、吸水速率与浸水时间的关系分别符合对数函数和幂函数。②退耕草地砂粒含量和容重随着退耕年限的延长均呈现出先下降再上升的趋势；粉粒、黏粒、总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、最大持水量和毛管持水量的变化规律与土壤容重相反。③凋落物层和土壤层的持水总量表现为:10 a＞20 a＞15 a＞5 a＞CK，其中土壤层最大持水量贡献率达到99%以上。[结论] 退耕草地不仅增加了凋落物层的生物积累、拦截降雨作用和持水性能，还在改善土壤结构和孔隙状况的同时，提高了土壤持水性能。退耕草地均在退耕10 a以后逐渐趋于稳定。因此，建议在退耕10 a以后种植落叶树种。

Abstract

[Objective] The water-holding capacity of reclaimed grassland of different ages was studied in order to provide a scientific basis for water retention and soil and water conservation of reclaimed grassland in karst regions. [Methods] Reclaimed grassland of different ages (5

20 yr) and cultivated land (CK) in a karst area in Anshui City

Guizhou Province was selected as the research objects

and the “space-time substitution method” was used to study litter storage

water-holding capacity

and water storage capacity. The change characteristics of soil profile bulk density

porosity

particle composition

water content

and water-holding capacity were determined for different ages of reclaimed grassland. [Results] ① The litter-layer storage capacity

maximum water-holding capacity

maximum storage capacity

and effective storage capacity followed the reclaimed grassland age order of 15 yr＞20 yr＞10 yr＞5 yr. The relationships of litter-layer water-holding capacity and water absorption rate with soaking time were characterized by a logarithmic function and a power function

respectively. ② The sand content and bulk density of the reclaimed grassland showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing as age of reclaimed grassland increased. Changes in silt

clay

total porosity

capillary porosity

maximum water-holding capacity

and capillary water-holding capacity were opposite to the changes in soil bulk density. ③ The total water-holding capacity of the litter layer and the soil layer followed the order of 10 yr＞20 yr＞15 yr＞5 yr＞CK. The maximum water-holding contribution rate of the soil layer was more than 99%. [Conclusion] Reclaimed grassland of different ages not only increased the bioaccumulation

rainfall interception

and water-holding capacity of the litter layer

but also improved soil structure and pore status. The soil water-holding capacity gradually stabilized after 10 years. Therefore

it is recommended that planting deciduous trees after 10 years of farmland conversion to grassland.

关键词

Keywords

references

李士美,谢高地.草甸生态系统水源涵养服务功能的时空异质性[J].中国草地学报,2015,37(2):88-93.

程汉亭,李勤奋,王晓敏,等.不同植被恢复策略对贵州喀斯特生态系统土壤渗透特性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(6):110-116.

熊康宁,李晋,龙明忠.典型喀斯特石漠化治理区水土流失特征与关键问题[J].地理学报,2012,67(7):878-888.

王德炉,朱守谦,黄宝龙.贵州喀斯特区石漠化过程中植被特征的变化[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,27(3):26-30.

段亚锋,王克林,冯达,等.典型喀斯特小流域土壤有机碳和全氮空间格局变化及其对退耕还林还草的响应[J].生态学报,2018,38(5):1560-1568.

Brevik E C, Cerdà A, Mataix-Solera J, et al. The interdisciplinary nature of soil [J]. Soil, 2015,1(1):117-129.

李卓,吴普特,冯浩,等.容重对土壤水分蓄持能力影响模拟试验研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(4):611-620.

Ilek A, Kucza J, Szostek M. The effect of stand species composition on water storage capacity of the organic layers of forest soils [J]. European Journal of Forest Research, 2015,134(1):187-197.

Li Xiliang, Hou Xiangyang, Liu Zhiying, et al. Long-term overgrazing-induced changes in topsoil water-retaining capacity in a typical steppe [J]. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 2017,70(3):324-330.

王涛.大山包不同退耕年限湿地土壤理化性质研究[D].云南昆明:云南师范大学,2015.

刘效东,乔玉娜,周国逸,等.鼎湖山3种不同演替阶段森林凋落物的持水特性[J].林业科学,2013,49(9):8-15.

张永旺,王俊,屈亚潭等.黄土高原植被恢复过程中土壤水分有效性评价[J].灌溉排水学报,2020,39(6):79-85,114.

易湘生,李国胜,尹衍雨,等.黄河源区草地退化对土壤持水性影响的初步研究[J].自然资源学报,2012,27(10):1708-1719.

王普昶,王志伟,丁磊磊,等.贵州喀斯特人工草地土壤水分空间异质性对放牧强度的响应[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(3):291-296.

Tu Zhihua, Chen Suyi, Ruan Dongshuo, et al. Differential hydrological properties of forest litter layers in artificial afforestation of eroded areas of latosol in China [J]. Sustainability, 2022,14(22):14869.

简永旗,吴家森,盛卫星,等.间伐和林分类型对森林凋落物储量和土壤持水性能的影响[J].浙江农林大学学报,2021,38(2):320-328.

王忠禹,刘国彬,王兵,等.黄土丘陵区典型植物枯落物凋落动态及其持水性[J].生态学报,2019,39(7):2416-2425.

Wang Dong, Liu Chun, Yang Yongsheng, et al. Clipping decreases plant cover, litter mass, and water infiltration rate in soil across six plant community sites in a semiarid grassland [J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023,861:160692.

吕宸,龚伟,车明轩,等.海拔和坡向对高寒灌丛草甸凋落物水源涵养功能的影响[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(6):219-225.

Xie Jingjie, Su Derong. Water-holding characteristics of litter in meadow steppes with different years of fencing in inner Mongolia, China [J]. Water, 2020,12(9):2374.

程唱,贺康宁,俞国峰,等.干旱半干旱区不同林型人工林水源涵养能力比较研究[J].生态学报,2021,41(5):1979-1990.

刘均阳,周正朝,苏雪萌.植物根系对土壤团聚体形成作用机制研究回顾[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(3):267-273.

闫雷,喇乐鹏,董天浩,等.耕作方式对东北黑土坡耕地土壤物理性状及根系垂直分布的影响[J].农业工程学报,2021,37(1):125-132.

何露露,强薇,张燕等.川西亚高山针叶林次生演替对土壤持水量的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报,2021,27(03):639-647.

王金悦,邓羽松,林立文,等.南亚热带5种典型人工林凋落物水文效应[J].水土保持学报,2020,34(5):169-175.

Zagyvai-Kiss K A, Kalicz P, Szilágyi J, et al. On the specific water holding capacity of litter for three forest ecosystems in the eastern foothills of the Alps [J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019,278:107656.

Zhou Qiuwen, Keith D M, Zhou Xu, et al. Comparing the water-holding characteristics of broadleaved, coniferous, and mixed forest litter layers in a karst region [J]. Mountain Research and Development, 2018,38(3):220-229.

何洪盛,田青,王理德,等.青土湖退耕地植被群落特征与土壤理化性质分析[J].干旱区研究,2021,38(1):223-232.

宿婷婷,马红彬,周瑶,等.黄土丘陵典型草原土壤理化性质对生态恢复措施的响应[J].草业学报,2019,28(4):34-46.

孙永磊,周金星,庞丹波,等.喀斯特断陷盆地不同植被恢复模式土壤水分动态变化[J].林业科学研究,2018,31(4):104-112.

李静,周正朝,张强,等.黄土区不同退耕年限草地土壤分离速率及其理化性质[J].干旱区研究,2017,34(3):504-510.

王理德,田青,郭春秀,等.不同退耕年限干旱绿洲植被群落及灰棕漠土特性变化[J].土壤学报,2021,58(6):1436-1447.

马志林,周心澄,史常青.高寒山区退耕还林不同年限土壤理化性质研究:以青海省大通县为例[J].林业资源管理,2008(3):72-76.

柴晓虹,王理德,姚拓,等.石羊河中下游不同退耕年限次生草地土壤理化及生物学特性研究[J].草业学报,2015,24(8):24-34.

Mei Xuemei, Ma Lan, Zhu Qingke, et al. Responses of soil moisture to vegetation restoration type and slope length on the loess hillslope [J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2018,15(3):548-562.

赵军,陈建伟,吕刚.白石砬子自然保护区主要森林类型土壤水源涵养功能研究[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(33):16619-16621.

浏览量

664

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

喀斯特地区不同土地利用类型土壤侵蚀特征研究

喀斯特地区土地石漠化风险及评价指标体系

不同经营措施对油松林枯落物持水性能的影响研究

喀斯特地区不同林草植被的减流减沙作用

基于探地雷达的喀斯特峰丛洼地土壤深度和分布探测