广西大学 农学院/广西农业环境与农产品安全重点实验室,广西,南宁,530004
纸质出版:2023
移动端阅览
周小淇, 陈婷婷, 李勇, 等. 不同植被盖度香根草减少沟渠侵蚀和C,N,P流失的有效性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(5):62-68.
Zhou Xiaoqi, Chen Tingting, Li Yong, et al. Effects of Different Vegetation Coverage of Vetiver in Reducing Ditch Erosion and C, N, P Loss[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(5): 62-68.
周小淇, 陈婷婷, 李勇, 等. 不同植被盖度香根草减少沟渠侵蚀和C,N,P流失的有效性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2023,43(5):62-68. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.20230327.001.
Zhou Xiaoqi, Chen Tingting, Li Yong, et al. Effects of Different Vegetation Coverage of Vetiver in Reducing Ditch Erosion and C, N, P Loss[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(5): 62-68. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.20230327.001.
[目的] 探究植物在降低沟渠侵蚀及减少C,N,P流失方面的影响,为流域沟渠侵蚀防控及污染物治理提供技术支撑。[方法] 以中国南亚热带集约化蔗区那辣流域沟渠为研究对象,在沟渠中植入不同植被盖度:全部裸露,植被覆盖度为0(BG);部分覆盖,植被覆盖度1%~40%(SC);大部分覆盖,植被覆盖41%~80%(MC);全覆盖,植被覆盖81%~100%(CC)的草本植物香根草。对4—10月的植草沟渠在降雨后定期实地调查和监测,量化不同植被盖度下沟渠的侵蚀与养分流失特征。[结果] ①4—10月,不同植被盖度沟渠宽度、侵蚀量和C,N,P流失量随着时间的增加逐渐增加,大小均表现为:BG>SC>MC>CC。②相比于BG,SC,MC和CC沟渠侵蚀量分别降低了37.01%,71.60%和75.04%;C流失量分别降低了35.56%,70.91%和75.23%,N流失量分别降低了35.89%,71.01%和74.39%;P流失量分别降低了34.22%,70.59%和77.01%。③相关性分析表明,沟渠侵蚀量与覆盖度和植物根系密度均达到极显著负相关关系(p<0.01),分别解释了沟渠侵蚀变化的91.94%和89.23%。[结论] 流域内植草,随着沟渠植被盖度的增加,沟蚀量和养分流失量逐渐降低,且植被盖度在处理MC和CC之间差异不显著。这一结果在改善其他水源区沟渠的侵蚀及降低污染物方面可提供参考依据。
[Objective] The influences of plants on reducing ditch erosion and C
N and P loss were studied in order to provide technical support for the prevention of ditch erosion and pollution control. [Methods] The study was conducted on ditches of the Nala River basin in the intensive sugarcane growing area of Southern Subtropical China. Vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides
a herbaceous plant) was planted at different vegetation coverage amounts 〔bare ground. vegetation coverage of 0% (BG); somewhat covered
vegetation coverage of 1%—40% (SC); mostly covered
vegetation coverage of 41%—80% (MC); completely covered
vegetation coverage of 81%—100% (CC)〕 in the ditches. Regular field investigation and monitoring of planted ditches were conducted after rainfall events from April to October
and the characteristics of erosion and nutrient loss under different vegetation coverage were quantified. [Results] ① From April to October
the width
erosion amount
and nutrient loss of ditches with different vegetation coverage gradually increased over time. Values for all three parameters followed the same order of BG>SC>MC>CC; ② Compared with BG
the erosion amounts for SC
MC
and CC decreased by 37.01%
71.60% and 75.04%; C loss decreased by 35.56%
70.91% and 75.23%; N loss decreased by 35.89%
71.01% and 74.39%
and P loss decreased by 34.22%
70.59% and 77.01%
respectively; ③ Correlation analysis showed that the erosion amount for ditches was significantly negatively correlated with vetiver grass coverage and plant root density (p<0.01)
accounting for 91.94% and 89.23% of the erosion changes
respectively. [Conclusion] As vegetation coverage increased
ditch erosion and nutrient loss gradually decreased. There were no significant differences in ditch erosion and nutrient loss when vegetation coverage was between MC and CC. These results provide guidance for ameliorating ditch erosion and reducing pollutants in other water source areas.
陆宏鑫,吕伟娅,严成银.生态沟渠植物对农田排水中氮磷的截留和去除效应[J].江苏农业学报,2013,29(4):791-795.
Hill M J, Chadd R P, Morris N, et al. Aquatic macroinvertebrate biodiversity associated with artificial agricultural drainage ditches [J]. Hydrobiologia, 2016,776(1):249-260.
李如忠,殷齐贺,高苏蒂,等.农业排水沟渠硝态氮吸收动力学特征及相关性分析[J].环境科学,2018,39(5):2174-2183.
Clarke S J. Conserving freshwater biodiversity: the value, status and management of high quality ditch systems [J]. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2015,24:93-100.
韩例娜,李裕元,石辉,等.水生植物对农田排水沟渠氮磷迁移生态阻控效果比较研究[J].农业现代化研究,2012,33(1):117-120.
Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J, et al. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England [J]. Biological Conservation, 2004,115(2):329-341.
Davies B R, Biggs J, Williams P J, et al. A comparison of the catchment sizes of rivers, streams, ponds, ditches and lakes: implications for protecting aquatic biodiversity in an agricultural landscape [J]. Hydrobiologia,2008,597(1):7-17.
Biggs J, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers [J]. Hydrobiologia, 2017,793(1):3-39.
Avilés D. Soil Erosion and Mass Movement in Agricultural Drainage Ditches[D]. Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2020.
宋立芳,王毅,吴金水,等.水稻种植对中亚热带红壤丘陵区小流域氮磷养分输出的影响[J].环境科学,2014,35(1):150-156.
彭世彰,熊玉江,罗玉峰,等.稻田与沟塘湿地协同原位削减排水中氮磷的效果[J].水利学报,2013,44(6):657-663.
张燕,祝惠,阎百兴,等.排水沟渠炉渣与底泥对水中氮、磷截留效应[J].中国环境科学,2013,33(6):1005-1010.
Freeman M W. Region Ⅲ Forest Resources & Practices Riparian Management Annotated Bibliography[M]. Alaska:Alaska Board of Forestry, 2000.
Wynn T M, Mostaghimi S, Alphin E F. The effects of vegetation on stream bank erosion[C]//2004 ASAE Annual Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2004.
Aviles D, Wesström I, Joel A. Effect of vegetation removal on soil erosion and bank stability in agricultural drainage ditches [J]. Land, 2020,9(11):441.
刘冉,余新晓,蔡强国,等.坡长对坡面侵蚀、搬运、沉积过程影响的研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学(中英文),2020,18(6):140-146.
Li Yong, Mo Yaqi, Are K S, et al. Sugarcane planting patterns control ephemeral gully erosion and associated nutrient losses: evidence from hillslope observation [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2021,309:107289.
黄俣晴,陈婷婷,李勇,等.流域沟渠植草拦截农田氮磷入河污染的有效性研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2021,27(11):1993-2000.
Levavasseur F, Biarnès A, Bailly J S, et al. Time-varying impacts of different management regimes on vegetation cover in agricultural ditches [J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2014,140:14-19.
李炳杨.广西甘蔗种植现状、问题及对策[J].热带农业科学,2018,38(4):119-127.
Li Yong, Tang Cheng, Huang Zhigang, et al. Increase in farm size significantly accelerated stream channel erosion and associated nutrient losses from an intensive agricultural watershed [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2020,295:106900.
马博英.香根草逆境生理生态适应研究进展[J].生物学杂志,2009,26(1):65-68.
Li Y, Yu H Q, Zhou N, et al. Linking fine root and understory vegetation to channel erosion in forested hillslopes of Southwestern China [J]. Plant and Soil, 2015,389(1):323-334.
鲁如坤.土壤农业化学分析方法[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社,2000.
Puigdefábregas J. The role of vegetation patterns in structuring runoff and sediment fluxes in drylands [J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2005,30(2):133-147.
杨翠红,周小淇,郭豪,等.甘蔗种植配置模式对坡面沟蚀及土壤有机碳流失的影响研究[J/OL].江苏农业科学:1-10[2023-03-06].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/32.1214.S.20230104.1127.003.html
王京行,吕刚,李晗,等.排土场边坡土壤侵蚀特征对雨强和植被覆盖度的响应[J].灌溉排水学报,2021,40(S1):36-39.
唐诚.广西集约化蔗区沟渠侵蚀及其污染物输移与控制措施[D].广西南宁:广西大学,2021.
彭琼,刘宝元,曹琦,等.作物覆盖度对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持学报,2022,36(5):97-103.
安曈昕,周锋,吴珍珍,等.坡耕地间作作物群体水土保持耕作措施[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(2):17-22.
Baker D W, Bledsoe B P, Price J M. Stream nitrate uptake and transient storage over a gradient of geomorphic complexity, north-central Colorado, USA[J]. Hydrological Processes,2012,26(21):3241-3252.
da Fonseca A F, Melfi A J, Monteiro F A, et al. Treated sewage effluent as a source of water and nitrogen for Tifton 85 bermudagrass [J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2007,87(3):328-336.
Su Yuanyi, Zhang Yang, Wang Huanyuan, et al. Interactive effects of rainfall intensity and initial thaw depth on slope erosion [J]. Sustainability, 2022,14(6):3172.
Li Yong, Are K S, Huang Zhigang, et al. Particulate N and P exports from sugarcane growing watershed are more influenced by surface runoff than fertilization [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2020,302:107087.
Gyssels G, Poesen J, Bochet E, et al. Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review [J]. Progress in Physical Geography (Earth and Environment), 2005,29(2):189-217.
朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,等.草本植被覆盖对坡面降雨径流侵蚀影响的试验研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(3):401-407.
Stanley W Trimble, Alexandra C. Mendel. The cow as a geomorphic agent: a critical review [J]. Geomorphology, 1995,13(1/4): 233-253.
0
浏览量
592
下载量
3
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621