+Advanced Search
Home > Archive>Volume 39, Issue 4, 2019 >30-35,81. DOI:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.20190703.001
PDF HTML XML Export Cite reminder
Soil Anti-erodibility Under Different Vegetation Types in Karst Plateau Gorge Region
Author:
Clc Number:

S157

  • Article
    • | |
  • Metrics
    • |
  • Reference [35]
    • |
  • Related [20]
    • |
  • Cited by [5]
    • | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    [Objective] The characteristics of soil anti-erodibility of different vegetation types were analyzed in order to provide scientific support for soil and water conservation and restoration of fragile ecosystem in the gorge of the karst plateau.[Methods] Field study was carried out in the karst plateau gorge region with five different vegetation types. Principal component analysis was used to identify the optimum indexes influencing soil anti-erodibility from 11 soil physical and chemical parameters and evaluate of the soil anti-erodibility.[Results] Compared with cultivated land, soil anti-erodibility of other vegetation types significantly enhanced, the content of water-stable macro-aggregate significantly decreased(p ≤ 0.05), soil clay content marginally increased(p>0.05), and percentage of soil dispersion and aggregate disruption significantly decreased(p ≤ 0.05). Results of principal component analysis showed that the content of clay, structural particle index, dispersionrate, agglomeration condition, water-stable macro-aggregate content and agglomerate destruction rate were optimal indicators for evaluating soil anti-erodibility. Based on comprehensive soil anti-erodibility index, the anti-erodibility was strongest for forest land, intercrop between forest and grass, natural grassland, grassland returned form farmland and cultivated land followed inorder.[Conclusion] The soil anti-erodibility was best under the natural recovery of Catalpa bungei forest. Increasing the area of Catalpa bungei forest was suggested to improve soil corrosion resistance, promote regional ecological restoration and enhance soil and water conservation.

    Reference
    [1] 张信宝,王世杰,曹建华,等.西南喀斯特山地水土流失特点及有关石漠化的几个科学问题[J].中国岩溶,2010,29(3):274-279.
    [2] 陈洪松,冯腾,李成志,等.西南喀斯特地区土壤侵蚀特征研究现状与展望[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(1):10-16.
    [3] 王向栋,戴全厚,李翠莲,等.草海上游石漠化过程中土壤抗蚀性变化[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(3):13-18.
    [4] 蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京:中国水利水电出版社,1999.
    [5] Cotler H, Ortega-Larrocea M P. Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico[J]. Catena, 2006,65(2):107-117.
    [6] 谢颖颖,邵争,兰小机,等.喀斯特山区土地利用变化与土壤侵蚀耦合关系研究:以毕节试验区为例[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(6):1-5.
    [7] 陈佳,陈洪松,冯腾,等.桂西北喀斯特地区不同土地利用类型土壤抗蚀性研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2012,20(1):105-110.
    [8] 李会,周运超,刘娟,等.喀斯特土壤抗蚀性对不同土地利用方式的响应[J].中国水土保持科学,2015,13(5):16-23.
    [9] 贺祥,熊康宁,陈洪云.喀斯特石漠化地区不同治理措施下的土壤抗蚀性研究:以贵州毕节石桥小流域为例[J].西南师范大学学报:自然科学版,2009,34(4):133-139.
    [10] 付允,贾亚男,蓝家程.岩溶区不同土地利用方式土壤抗蚀性分析[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):5-9.
    [11] 王佩将,戴全厚,丁贵杰,等.退化喀斯特植被恢复过程中的土壤抗蚀性变化[J].土壤学报,2014,51(4):806-815.
    [12] 王春晓,谢世友,王灿.重庆南川岩溶山区土壤抗蚀性变化及预测模型研究[J].农业现代化研究,2009,30(6):756-760.
    [13] 劳家柽.土壤农化分析手册[M].北京:农业出版社,1988.
    [14] 张芸,李惠通,魏志超,等.不同发育阶段杉木人工林土壤有机质特征及团聚体水稳性[J].生态学杂志,2016,35(8):2029-2037.
    [15] 刘淑娟,张伟,王克林,等.桂西北喀斯特峰丛洼地土壤物理性质的时空分异及成因[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(9):2249-2256.
    [16] 吴尧,姚健,吴永波,等.岷江上游典型植被下土壤分形特征及对水分入渗的影响[J].水土保持通报,2012,32(2):12-16.
    [17] 史东梅,吕刚,蒋光毅,等.马尾松林地土壤物理性质变化及抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(6):35-39.
    [18] 张治伟,朱章雄,文志林.岩溶山地土壤微团聚体组成及其与土壤性质的关系[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(1):123-128.
    [19] 朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,等.土地退化/恢复中土壤可蚀性动态变化[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(2):56-61.
    [20] 唐夫凯.岩溶峡谷区不同土地利用方式土壤抗蚀性研究[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院,2016.
    [21] 蒲玉琳,林超文,谢德体,等.植物篱-农作坡地土壤团聚体组成和水稳性特征[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(1):122-128.
    [22] 贾红杰.重庆市中梁山岩溶区耕作侵蚀研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2008.
    [23] 何淑勤,宫渊波,郑子成,等.不同植被类型条件下土壤抗蚀性变化特征及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2013,27(5):17-22.
    [24] Mallick J, Alwadi H, Rahman A, et al. Spatial variability of soil erodibility and its correlation with soil properties in semi-arid mountainous watershed, Saudi Arabia[J]. Geocarto International, 2015,31(6):661-681.
    [25] 程谅,占海歌,郭忠录.3种草本植物根系对土壤抗蚀特性的响应[J].草业科学,2019,36(2):284-294.
    [26] Wang Zhenhong, Fang Hong, Chen Mouhui. Effects of root exudates of woody species on the soil anti-erodibility in the rhizosphere in a karst region, China[J]. PeerJ, 2017,5:1-19
    [27] 韦红波,李锐,杨勤科.我国植被水土保持功能研究进展[J].植物生态学报,2002,26(4):489-496.
    [28] 罗兰花,王翠红,谢红霞,等.大围山花岗岩风化物发育土壤抗蚀性垂直分异[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(1):62-65,71.
    [29] 李阳芳,宋维峰,和弦,等.元阳梯田区不同土地利用类型表层土壤抗蚀性研究[J].生态科学,2014,33(5):926-930.
    [30] Wang Hao, Zhang Guanghui, Li Ningning, et al. Soil erodibility influenced by natural restoration time of abandoned farmland on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Geoderma, 2018,325(9):18-27.
    [31] 沈艳,马红彬,谢应忠,等.宁夏典型草原土壤理化性状对不同管理方式的响应[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(5):84-89.
    [32] 刘映良.喀斯特典型山地退化生态系统植被恢复研究[D].江苏南京:南京林业大学,2005.
    [33] 刘警鉴,卢远,刘斌涛,等.广西壮族自治区土地利用与土壤侵蚀的关系[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(1):41-46,2.
    [34] Gao Liqian, Bowker M A, Xu Mingxiang, et al. Biological soil crusts decrease erodibility by modifying inherent soil properties on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2017,105(2):49-58.
    [35] 谢斐,杨再超,林长松,等.藓类生物结皮的生态适应及在石漠化修复中的作用研究[J].六盘水师范学院学报,2014,26(1):40-43.
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

肖盛杨,舒英格,陈梦军.喀斯特高原峡谷区不同植被类型的土壤抗蚀性[J].水土保持通报英文版,2019,39(4):30-35,81

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:918
  • PDF: 1035
  • HTML: 0
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Received:March 26,2019
  • Revised:May 15,2019
  • Online: September 12,2019

Website Copyright © Editorial Office of Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation

Supported by:Beijing E-Tiller Technology Development Co., Ltd.