Effects of Forest and Grass Restoration Types on Aggregate Stability and Infiltration Characteristics of Loess
Author:
Clc Number:

S157.1

  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [25]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    [Objective] The differences in aggregate stability and infiltration characteristics of loess under different forest and grass vegetation restoration types were compared in order to provide a theoretical basis for the optimization of ecological restoration patterns in the Loess Plateau. [Methods] Abandoned land (C1, control), alfalfa land (C2), natural grassland (C3), mixed forest land of Pinus tabuliformis and Platycladus orientalis (L1), and mixed forest land of Robinia pseudoacacia and P. orientalis (L2) were used to investigate differences in aggregate stability and infiltration characteristics and their exogenous factors. Water-stable aggregate composition and saturated hydraulic conductivity were determined by the Savinov method and a single-ring two-ponding depth infiltrometer, respectively. Mean weight diameter (MWD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), fractal dimension (D), percentage of aggregate destruction (PAD), water-stable macroaggregate content (>0.25 mm, Mw), and saturated hydraulic conductivity sample (Ks) were used as evaluation indicators. [Results] ① In the 0—30 cm soil layer, C1 had the lowest GMD and MWD, and GMD and MWD in forest and grass vegetation restoration types followed the order of 〔L1 and C3〕>〔L2 and C2〕, respectively, whereas PAD and D showed the opposite order. ② In the 0—10 cm soil layer, L1 dominated the highest macroaggregate (>0.25 mm) content (47.24%), followed by C3 and L2, while C1 had the lowest content (24.00%). In the 10—30 cm soil layer, C3 dominated the highest macroaggregate (>0.25 mm) content (35.41% at 10—20 cm; 27.96% at 20—30 cm), while L2 had the lowest content (11.46% at 10—20 cm; 8.00% at 20—30 cm). ③ The variation coefficients of topsoil infiltration characteristics for different restoration types ranged from 0.001 to 0.360. The Ks (0.307 cm/min) of L1 was the highest, while the Ks (0.044 cm/min) of C1 was the lowest. ④ Aggregate stability indicators (except PAD) and Ks were significantly correlated with soil organic carbon, porosity, and bulk density. [Conclusion] The restoration of forest and grass vegetation was beneficial for improving aggregate stability and infiltration performance. Compared with natural grassland, long-term forest restoration exhibited better aggregate stability and infiltration characteristics, but those characteristics were worse for short-term forest restoration than for natural grassland. Time accumulation should be emphasized when evaluating the effects of vegetation restoration.

    Reference
    [1] 高云飞,张栋,赵帮元,等.1990—2019年黄河流域水土流失动态变化分析[J].中国水土保持,2020(10):64-67.
    [2] 张雅茜,方晰,冼应男,等.亚热带区4种林地土壤微生物生物量碳氮磷及酶活性特征[J].生态学报,2019,39(14):5326-5338.
    [3] Nsabimana G, Bao Yuhai, He Xiubin, et al. Soil aggregate stability response to hydraulic conditions in water level fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China [J]. Catena, 2021,204:105387.
    [4] 胡昭,张懿,郭建.黄土丘陵区典型林地土壤团聚体稳定性评价[J].人民黄河,2020,42(8):104-108.
    [5] 王紫薇,邵明安,黄来明,等.青海省东部不同土地利用方式下土壤饱和导水率分布及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2021,35(3):150-155.
    [6] 冯璐.黄土丘陵沟壑区撂荒草地土壤性质变化特征研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2020.
    [7] 海龙,姚拓,张春红,等.黄土丘陵沟壑区不同年限苜蓿地土壤水稳性团聚体分布特征及稳定性研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2020,38(5):51-56.
    [8] 陈文媛,张少妮,华瑞,等.黄土丘陵区林草恢复进程中土壤入渗特征研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2017,39(1):62-69.
    [9] Liu Yifan, Liu Yu, Shi Zhihua, et al. Effectiveness of re-vegetated forest and grassland on soil erosion control in the semi-arid Loess Plateau [J]. Catena, 2020,195:104787.
    [10] Zeng Quanchao, Darboux F, Man Cheng, et al. Soil aggregate stability under different rain conditions for three vegetation types on the Loess Plateau (China) [J]. Catena, 2018,167:276-283.
    [11] 赵克昌,屈连宝.兰州南北两山植被恢复策略[J].中国沙漠,2006,26(3):493-497.
    [12] 李娟.基于GIS和RS的兰州市南北两山植被覆盖动态变化研究[D].甘肃兰州:西北师范大学,2009.
    [13] 王润泽,谌芸,李铁,等.紫色土区植物篱篱前淤积带土壤团聚体稳定性特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(2):210-216.
    [14] 邱陆旸,张丽萍,陆芳春,等.基于熵权法的林下土壤抗蚀性评价及影响因素分析[J].水土保持学报,2016,30(4):74-79.
    [15] Nimmo J R, Schmidt K M, Perkins K S, et al. Rapid measurement of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity for areal characterization [J]. Vadose Zone Journal, 2009,8(1):142-149.
    [16] 陈文媛,徐学选,华瑞,等.黄土丘陵区林草退耕年限对土壤团聚体特征的影响[J].环境科学学报,2017,37(4):1486-1492.
    [17] 白秀梅,韩有志,郭汉清.关帝山不同植被恢复类型土壤抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(2):79-84.
    [18] Abbas F, Zhu Zhaolong, An Shaoshan. Evaluating aggregate stability of soils under different plant species in Ziwuling Mountain area using three renowned methods [J]. Catena, 2021,207:105616.
    [19] Wu Xinliang, Cai Chongfa, Wang Junguang, et al. Spatial variations of aggregate stability in relation to sesquioxides for zonal soils, South-central China [J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2016,157:11-22.
    [20] 王辉,王全九,邵明安.表层土壤容重对黄土坡面养分随径流迁移的影响[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(3):10-13.
    [21] 刘旦旦,张鹏辉,王健,等.黄土坡面不同土地利用类型土壤抗蚀性对比[J].林业科学,2013,49(9):102-106.
    [22] 李阳芳,宋维峰,和俊,等.元阳梯田核心区不同土地利用类型土壤水文效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(6):54-57.
    [23] 杨振奇,郭建英,秦富仓,等.裸露砒砂岩区不同植被类型土壤团聚体稳定性与抗蚀性能[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(3):8-14.
    [24] 刘畅,张建军,张海博,等.晋西黄土区退耕还林后土壤入渗特征及土壤质量评价[J].水土保持学报,2021,35(5):101-107.
    [25] 刘效东,乔玉娜,周国逸.土壤有机质对土壤水分保持及其有效性的控制作用[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(12):1209-1218.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

帕力夏提·格明,王龙,徐学选,王维维,张连科,李梦瑶,Farhat Ullah Khan,杜锋.林草植被恢复类型对黄土团聚体稳定性和入渗特性的影响[J].水土保持通报英文版,2023,43(1):24-31

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:524
  • PDF: 614
  • HTML: 0
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Received:May 08,2022
  • Revised:July 25,2022
  • Online: April 08,2023