+高级检索
首页 > 过刊浏览>2023年第43卷第4期 >31-43. DOI:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.04.005
PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒
西藏DG水电站工区边坡植被修复效果及生态因子分析
作者:
中图分类号:

X826,Q142

基金项目:

中国华电集团公司科研项目“高寒高海拔地区水电工程施工干扰植被修复技术研究与示范”(12IJD201800018);国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFC0504902-02)


Impacts of Slope Type and Ecological Factors on Vegetation Restoration at DG Hydropower Station in Xizang Autonomous Region
Author:
  • 摘要
    • | |
  • 访问统计
    • |
  • 参考文献 [34]
    • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
    • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的] 探究西藏DG水电站工区内边坡植被修复效果及主导生态因子，为提高工区植被修复成功率，治理水土流失，改善生态环境等提供理论依据和技术支撑。[方法] 以工区内5种不同类型边坡(渣土堆积体、土质、土石混合、岩质、混凝土)为研究对象，选取土壤相对湿度、气温、坡度、坡向为生态因子，通过实地监测和取样分析，采用熵权法计算植被特征(物种多样性、物种丰富度、植被盖度)和土壤肥力(有机质、速效磷、速效氮、速效钾)权重分值，再由综合评价法计算综合得分，并结合极差分析甄选主导生态因子。[结果] 西藏DG水电站工区内渣土堆积体边坡、土质边坡植被修复综合得分最高，均为10.000 0，现场植被修复效果最好，而混凝土边坡植被修复综合得分仅为5.369 0，现场植被修复效果较差；边坡类型不同，各生态因子对其植被修复影响的强弱不同，即土石混合边坡表现为：土壤相对湿度＞坡度＞气温＞坡向，岩质边坡表现为：土壤相对湿度＞气温＞坡度＞坡向，而土质边坡、混凝土边坡、渣土堆积体边坡均表现为：土壤相对湿度＞坡向＞坡度＞气温，但主导生态因子却均为土壤相对湿度。[结论] 影响西藏DG水电站工区内边坡植被修复主导生态因子为土壤相对湿度。不同类型边坡植被修复最优生态因子组合存在较大差异，其中土石混合边坡、岩质边坡、土质边坡、混凝土边坡和渣土堆积体边坡相对湿度和坡度均相同，差异主要体现在坡向和温度两方面。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] The slope vegetation restoration effect and dominant ecological factors in the working area of DG hydropower station in Xizang Autonomous Region were studied in order to provide a theoretical basis and technical support to increase the success rate of vegetation restoration, control soil erosion, and improve the ecological environment in the work area. [Methods] Five different types of slope (slag accumulation, soil, soil/rock mixed, rock, and concrete) were taken as the research objects, and the relative soil water content, air temperature, slope and slope aspect were selected as ecological factors. After in-situ monitoring, sampling and analyzing the entropy-weight method was used to calculate the weight scores of vegetation characteristics (species diversity, species richness, and vegetation coverage) and soil fertility (organic matter, available phosphorus, available nitrogen, and available potassium). Then the comprehensive-evaluation method was used to calculate the comprehensive score that was then combined with the range analysis to select the most dominant ecological factor. [Results] The highest comprehensive score of vegetation restoration (10.000 0) was obtained for the slag accumulation slope and the soil slope, and the effect of vegetation restoration was the best for these two slopes. The comprehensive score of vegetation restoration for the concrete slope was only 5.369 0, and the effect of vegetation restoration was poor. Different types of slope had different effects on vegetation restoration because of different ecological factors. The impact of ecological factors followed the order of relative soil water content＞slope＞air temperature＞slope aspect for the soil/rock mixed slope; relative soil water content＞air temperature＞slope＞slope aspect for the rock slope; relative soil water content＞slope aspect＞slope＞air temperature for the soil slope, concrete slope, and slag accumulation slope. Hence, relative soil water content was the most dominant ecological factor for all slopes. [Conclusion] The main ecological factor affecting slope vegetation restoration in the working area of DG hydropower station in Xizang Autonomous Region is soil relative humidity. There are great differences in the combination of optimal ecological factors for vegetation restoration in different types of slopes, among which the relative soil water content and slope of soil-rock mixed slope, rock slope, soil slope, concrete slope and residue accumulation body slope are the same, and the differences are mainly reflected in slope aspect and air temperature.

    参考文献
    [1] 樊启祥,林鹏,魏鹏程,等.高海拔地区水电工程智能建造挑战与对策[J].水利学报,2021,52(12):1404-1417.
    [2] 李朝霞,吕琳莉,李萍,等.西藏水电开发对河流生态环境影响评价[J].河海大学学报(自然科学版),2014,42(3):200-204.
    [3] 黄润秋.论中国西南地区水电开发工程地质问题及其研究对策[J].地质灾害与环境保护,2002(1):1-5.
    [4] 应丰,李健,王静等.高寒高海拔地区水电站施工扰动区生态修复技术及植物物种选择[J].中国水土保持,2018(1):36-39.
    [5] Zhu Ming, Zhang Jingjing, Zhu Lianqi. Article title variations in growing season NDVI and its sensitivity to climate change responses to green development in mountainous areas [J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2021,9:678450.
    [6] Che Cunwei, Xiao Shengchun, Ding Aijun, et al. Growth response of plantations Hippophae rhamnoides Linn. on different slope aspects and natural Caragana opulens Kom. to climate and implications for plantations management [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2022,138:108833.
    [7] 于昊辰,陈浮,尹登玉,等.采矿与气候变化对戈壁矿区土地生态系统的影响:以准东煤炭基地为例[J].煤炭学报,2021,46(8):2650-2663.
    [8] 毛芮,郭碧花,刘金平,等.寒区公路不同坡度护坡土壤性状和群落特征及功能群差异[J].草地学报,2022,30(6):1550-1557.
    [9] 张家喜,詹天宇,杨兴,等.坡度与坡位对工程创面土壤养分状况的影响研究[J].土壤通报,2020,51(1):58-62.
    [10] Pan Jian, Bai Zhongke, Cao Yingui, et al. Influence of soil physical properties and vegetation coverage at different slope aspects in a reclaimed dump [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017,24(30):23953-23965.
    [11] 陆雅佩,罗久富,王丽娜,等.海拔与坡向对伏牛山自然陡坡土壤种子库的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2022,44(6):74-84.
    [12] 张展,高照良,宋晓强,等.黄延高速公路边坡植被与土壤特性调查研究[J].水土保持通报,2009,29(4):191-195.
    [13] Rivera D, Mejias V, Jáuregui B, et al. Spreading topsoil encourages ecological restoration on embankments: Soil fertility, microbial activity and vegetation cover [J]. PLoS One, 2014,9(7):e101413.
    [14] 严雨洁,夏露,赵冰琴,等.向家坝工程扰动区不同修复类型边坡土壤养分及土壤酶活性特征[J].长江流域资源与环境,2020,29(9):2005-2015.
    [15] 王辰元,周明涛,胡旭东,等.蒸散视角下护坡植被滴灌技术评价[J].农业工程学报,2022,38(10):85-92.
    [16] 朱蒙恩,沙利云,周明涛,等.西藏高寒地区不同边坡生态修复类型土壤的肥力变化[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(4):158-165.
    [17] 章穗,张梅,迟国泰,等.基于熵权法的科学技术评价模型及其实证研究[J].管理学报,2010,7(1):34-42.
    [18] Li R, Kan S, Zhu M, et al. Effect of different vegetation restoration types on fundamental parameters, structural characteristics and the soil quality index of artificial soil [J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2018,184:11-23.
    [19] 张泽洲,王冬梅,李梦寻.干湿交替程度对土壤速效养分的影响[J].水土保持学报,2021,35(2):265-270.
    [20] 段玉婷,王志泰,徐小明,等.石质边坡植被建植后土壤养分与植物群落特征动态研究[J].草业学报,2015,24(9):10-18.
    [21] 全思懋,管晓进,王绪奎,等.江苏省域农田土壤速效钾含量变化及其影响因子研究[J].土壤,2019,51(2):257-262.
    [22] 雷斯越,赵文慧,杨亚辉,等.不同坡位植被生长状况与土壤养分空间分布特征[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(1):86-91,105.
    [23] 王丽,王力,王全九.不同坡度坡耕地土壤氮磷的流失与迁移过程[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(2):69-75.
    [24] 平李娜,王辉,沈紫燕.坡度对黏性红壤土坡面溶质迁移特征的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2013,32(5):47-50,58.
    [25] 高郯,李江荣,卢杰,等.色季拉山急尖长苞冷杉林不同坡向土壤养分及肥力研究[J].生态学报,2020,40(4):1331-1341.
    [26] 刘莹,许丽,丰菲,等.乌海矿区矸石山边坡植被重建初期物种多样性及群落稳定性[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(1):190-196.
    [27] 陈乐乐,施建军,王彦龙,等.高寒地区不同退化程度草地群落结构特征研究[J].草地学报,2016,24(1):210-213.
    [28] 税伟,冯洁,李慧,等.喀斯特退化天坑不同坡向植物群落系统发育与功能性状结构[J].生态学报,2022,42(19):8050-8060.
    [29] 何肖肖,王娇娇,孙鲁龙,等.基于AHP-EWM评价陕西渭北地区无袋栽培苹果果实品质[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2022,57(6):70-78,87.
    [30] 陈品章,杨海浪,胡波,等.基于植被恢复的水泥改性膨胀土换填土复合改良试验研究[J].长江科学院院报,2022,39(5):112-118.
    [31] Hu Xudong, Gao Jiazhen, Zhou mingtao, et al. Evaluating the success of engineering disturbed slope eco-restoration in the alpine region, Southeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China [J].山地科学学报(英文版),2021,18(11):2820-2832.
    [32] 乔欧盟,陈璋.矿区不同类型生态护坡工程植物多样性对环境因子的响应[J].应用生态学报,2022,33(3):742-748.
    [33] Wu Wenjuan, Zhou Guangsheng, Xu Zhenzhu. Driving mechanisms of climate-plant-soil patterns on the structure and function of different grasslands along environmental gradients in Tibetan and Inner Mongolian Plateaus in China [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022,339:130696.
    [34] 尹金珠,朱凯华,史翔宇,等.庆丰采石场岩质边坡植被恢复状况和土壤特性研究[J].水土保持通报,2012,32(1):144-149,155.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

申剑,李明明,周明涛,王辰元,程威.西藏DG水电站工区边坡植被修复效果及生态因子分析[J].水土保持通报,2023,43(4):31-43

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:187
  • 下载次数: 790
  • HTML阅读次数: 0
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2022-10-26
  • 最后修改日期:2022-12-23
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-09-27

网站版权 © 《水土保持通报》编辑部

京ICP备14043443号-5