Different Planting Restoration Methods Affect Runoff and Sediment Redution on an Abandoned Soil Slope
  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [26]
  • | | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    [Objective] Vegetation restoration can effectively prevent and control soil and water losses at abandoned production sites and construction projects. Determining the soil and water conservation effects of various vegetation restoration methods in an abandoned dreg field can provide a theoretical basis for subsequent management and supervision of the area. [Methods] An artificial rainfall simulation experiment was set up to obtain the runoff and sediment production characteristics of a slope surface covered with selected waste slags under different planting methods (broadcast sowing, drill sowing, and hole sowing) and vegetation restoration stages (growth, maturity, and withering periods) from the production and construction projects in the Dabie Mountains of Western Anhui Province, and the patterns and differences were analyzed by methods such as cumulative average deviation. [Results] Compared with bare slope, vegetation restoration effectively delayed the initial runoff generation time. The most obvious effect was observed for broadcast sowing. Various planting methods exhibited varying degrees of effectiveness in reducing runoff and sediment, with the overall runoff and sediment output from a slope following the order of bare slope > hole sowing > drill sowing > broadcast sowing, and withering period < maturity period < growth period. The production of sediment and runoff were characterized by distinct processes, and the effect of reducing runoff was weaker than that of reducing sediment. [Conclusion] The runoff and sediment reduction benefits of planting methods were shown to be greater for broadcast sowing than for drill sowing, with hole sowing being the worst. The efficacy of reducing runoff and sediment during the growth period surpassed that of the maturity period, while the withering period yielded the least benefits. Among the various sowing methods, broadcast sowing exhibited the highest efficiency in reducing runoff and sediment during the growth period, with rates of 49.6% and 95.5% respectively.

    Reference
    [1] 李叶鑫.生产建设项目工程堆积体边坡稳定性分析[D].西南大学,2015.
    [2] 曾红娟,孙宇,王莉.长江流域(片)部批生产建设项目水土保持监督检查发现问题分析[J].中国水土保持,2022(08):49-51.
    [3] 林田苗,孙中峰.弃渣场水土保持合理性探讨[J].中国水土保持,2022,No.479(02):47-52.
    [4] 史志刚.皖西大别山区水土流失特征及其综合防治研究[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(05):39-42.
    [5] 安徽省水利厅.2021年安徽省水土保持公报[R].安徽:安徽省水利厅,2023.
    [6] 汪邦稳,杨洁,汤崇军,等.南方红壤区百喜草及其枯落物对降雨径流分配的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(02):7-10+36.
    [7] 吴蕾.黄土高原植被水土保持作用的研究[D].西北农林科技大学,2020.
    [8] 王大为.定西市生产建设项目水土流失分析及弃渣场防治措施研究[D].甘肃农业大学,2016.
    [9] 寇龙.山区高速公路建设对水土流失环境影响与防治研究[D].西安理工大学,2019.
    [10] 仲亚婷.植被及土壤类型对坡面产流产沙特征的影响[D].新疆农业大学,2017.
    [11] 孙佳美,侯沛轩,逄育波等.植被覆盖坡面土壤侵蚀的水动力学机理[J].水土保持通报,2022,42(02):1-7.
    [12] 朱永杰,王超,刘自强.降雨和植被覆盖对铁路路基边坡土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持通报,2021,41(06):8-14.
    [13] 齐晓芳,张新全,凌瑶,刘伟,彭燕.我国狗牙根种质资源研究进展[J].草业科学,2011,28(03):444-448.
    [14] 钟荣华,贺秀斌,鲍玉海,等.狗牙根和牛鞭草的消浪减蚀作用[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(02):133-140.
    [15] 王赞,吴彦奇,毛凯.狗牙根研究进展[J].草业科学,2001(05):37-41.
    [16] 秦嘉惠,程谅,曹丹妮,等.两种草本植物根系对土壤可蚀性的影响[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(02):55-61.
    [17] 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(02):284-294.
    [18] 占海歌.3种草本植物根系特征对土壤抗侵蚀性能影响[D].华中农业大学,2017.
    [19] 郑子成,林代杰,李廷轩,等.不同耕作措施下成熟期玉米对径流及侵蚀产沙的影响[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(02):24-28.
    [20] 盖浩,刘平奇,张梦璇,等.黑土坡耕地横坡垄作对减少径流及土壤有机碳流失的作用[J].水土保持学报,2022,36(02):300-304+311.
    [21] 王振龙,杜明成,姜翠玲,王发信,王怡宁,周超.基于人工降雨试验的淮北地区产流产沙差异性研究[J].水科学进展,2019,30(04):507-514.
    [22] 戴育全,肖理,刘文虎等.西南山区土质边坡防护措施的减流减沙效益评估[J].中国水土保持科学(中英文),2023,21(01):73-82.
    [23] 焦若禺,宋孝玉,赵新凯等.黄土沟壑区黑麦草植被冠层与根系坡面水沙效益及水力特性[J].干旱区地理,2022,45(01):208-218.
    [24] 王葆,程金花,王文凯,等.北京北部褐土区2种典型植物措施减流减沙效应[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(03):56-61+68.
    [25] 昝玉亭,奚同行,吴治玲,等.不同植物配置模式对人工边坡减流减沙效益的影响[J].水土保持通报,2022,42(03):1-7+22.
    [26] 刘纪根,张昕川,李力,等.紫色土坡面植被覆盖度对水土流失影响研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(03):16-20+27.
    Related
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:461
  • PDF: 569
  • HTML: 0
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Received:April 18,2023
  • Revised:June 27,2023
  • Adopted:July 04,2023
  • Online: November 02,2023