PDF Download

[1]ZHAO Jian-sheng,WANG Yong-ming,YANG Xin-bing.Hydrological Effects of Forest Soil in Mountain Area of Northern Hebei[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2013,20(03):201-205.

Copy

Hydrological Effects of Forest Soil in Mountain Area of Northern Hebei

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 20 Number of periods: 2013 03 Page number: 201-205 Column: Public date: 2013-06-28

Title:: Hydrological Effects of Forest Soil in Mountain Area of Northern Hebei

Author(s):: ZHAO Jian-sheng¹, WANG Yong-ming², YANG Xin-bing²; 1. Beidashan Forest Farm of Hebei Province, Chengde, Hebei 067405, China;
2. College of Forest, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding, Hebei 071000, China

Keywords:: forest hydrology; soil hydrology; infiltration; mountain area of Northern Hebei

CLC:: S715

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Hydrological effects of forest soil are the foundation of the ecological and hydrological functions of forest. The hydrological effects of forest soil were studied based on soil bulk density, porosity, soil water holding capacity and infiltration capacity in six typical forest types of the mountain area, Northern Hebei, China. The result showed that the highest and lowest mean bulk densities were 1.21 g/cm³ and 1.00 g/cm³ in soils of Larix principic-rupprechtii pure forest and Betula platyphylla pure forest, respectively; the highest and lowest total porosity values were 50.75% and 42.58% in soils of B. platyphylla pure forest and Pinus tabulaeformis-Quercus mongolica mixed forest, respectively. The soil water holding capacity of P. tabulaeformis pure forest was the most powerful and amounted to 241.00 t/hm², and L. principic-rupprechtii pure forest was the worst and the value was 57.75 t/hm². As for soil infiltration capacity, the highest and lowest steady infiltration rates were 15.00 mm/min and 0.68 mm/min in soils of P. tabulaeformis pure forest and L. principic-rupprechtii pure forest, respectively.

References:: [1] 张雷燕,刘常富,王彦辉,等.宁夏六盘山地区不同森林类型土壤的蓄水和渗透能力比较[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(1):95-98.
[2] 赵世伟,周印东,吴金水.子午岭北部不同植被类型土壤水分特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4):119-122.
[3] 张光灿,夏江宝,王贵霞,等.鲁中花岗山区人工林土壤水分物理性质[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(6):44-48.
[4] 李德生,张萍,张水龙,等.黄前库区经济林土壤水文效益研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(1):141-143.
[5] 郑郁善,郭海涛,徐凤兰,等.福建含笑杉木混交林水源涵养功能差异研究[J].福建林学院学报,1997,17(2):126-130.
[6] 王光玉.杉木混交林水源涵养和土壤性质研究[J].林业科学,2003,39(S1):15-20.
[7] 邓艳,蒋忠诚,李先琨,等.广西弄岗不同演替阶段植被群落的小气候特征[J].热带地理,2004,24(4):364-367.
[8] 田超,杨新兵,李军,等.冀北山地不同海拔蒙古栎林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(4):221-226.
[9] 李军,田超,杨新兵.河北省木兰林管局典型森林类型枯落物水文效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(4):192-196.
[10] 李淑春,张伟,姚卫星,等.冀北山地不同林分类型林冠层降水分配研究[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):124-127.
[11] 潘明亮,访军,谭伟,等.贵州西部四种典型林地土壤水文特性研究[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):139-143.
[12] 黄进,杨会,张金池.桐庐生态公益林主要林分类型的土壤水文效应[J].生态环境学报,2009,18(3):1094-1099.
[13] 刘敏,王玉杰,赵洋毅,等.重庆缙云山水源涵养林地土壤水文效应[J].中国水土保持,2010(5):41-44.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01