PDF Download

[1]HUANG Cheng-biao,TAN Wei-ning,QIN Wen-geng,et al.Study on Soil and Water Loss in Karst Forest in Mulun[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2012,19(04):34-37.

Copy

Study on Soil and Water Loss in Karst Forest in Mulun

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 19 Number of periods: 2012 04 Page number: 34-37 Column: Public date: 2012-08-20

Title:: Study on Soil and Water Loss in Karst Forest in Mulun

Author(s):: HUANG Cheng-biao¹, TAN Wei-ning², QIN Wen-geng², WEI Guo-fu², WU Min¹, WEI Yue-luan²; 1. College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China;
2. Management Bureau of Mulun National Nature Reserve, Huanjiang, Guangxi 547100, China

Keywords:: karst forests; soil and water loss; nutrient loss; Mulun National Nature Reserve

CLC:: S715.3;S714.7

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Forest soil erosion is an important indicator for evaluating ecological benefits of forest hydrology. The comparison of soil and water losses between the karst forest and shrub-grass vegetation was carried out in Mulun National Nature Reserve from 2006 to 2010 through the slope surface runoff plots. The results showed that: (1) the average surface runoff in Karst forest was 1.77 mm/a (0.78～2.85 mm/a), which occupied 0.10% of the local average annual rainfall and reduced 69.8% compared with the shrub-grass slope (5.87 mm); (2) the average soil erosion in Karst forest was 17.7 kg/(hm²·a), 9.9~28.5 kg/(hm²·a), decreasing 69.8% compared with shrub-grass soil erosion (58.7 kg/hm²·a); (3) the average total nutrient loss (N, P, K) in Karst forest was 0.019 kg/(hm²·a), reducing 70.3% compared with the shrub-grass (0.064 kg/hm²·a); (4) soil and water loss and nutrient loss mostly concentrated from May to August, accounting for 76.3%,92.7% of the total annual loss, which matched the rainfall pattern in the same area.

References:: [1] Matheussen B,Kirscbaum R,Goodman I A,et al.Effects of land cover change on streamflow in the interior Columbia River Basin (USA and Canada)[J].Hydrological Processes,2000,14(5):867-885.
[2] 罗海波,钱晓刚,刘方,等.喀斯特山区退耕还林(草)保持水土生态效益研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):31-35.
[3] Swank W T,Crossley D A.Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta[M].New York:Springer-Verlag,1988.
[4] Chirino E,Bonet A,Bellot J,et al.Effects of 30-year-old Aleppo pine plantations on runoff,soil erosion,and plant diversity in asemi-arid landscape in south eastern Spain[J].Catena,2006,65(1):19-29.
[5] Chandler D G.Reversibility of forest conversion impacts on water budgets in tropical karst terrain[J].ForestEcology and Management,2006,224(1/2):95-103.
[6] 孙惠南.近20年来关于森林作用研究的进展[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(5):407-412.
[7] 刘艳,刘学全,崔鸿侠,等.低丘黄壤区不同植被恢复模式水土保持功能分析[J].水土保持研究,2010,17(6):49-52.
[8] 赵健,魏天兴,陈致富,等.陕西吴起县退耕还林地不同植被水土保持效益分析[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(3):31-34,49.
[9] 李锡泉,田育新,袁正科,等.湘西山地不同植被类型的水土保持效益研究[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(2):123-126.
[10] 魏晶,吴钢.辽西低山丘陵区人工油松林和沙棘林的水文生态效应[J].生态学报,2006,26(7):2087-2092.
[11] 邓南荣,吴志峰,刘平,等.白盆珠水库库区坡面径流侵蚀规律初步研究[J].土壤与环境,2001,10(3):185-187.
[12] 闫俊华,周国逸,张德强,等.鼎湖山顶级森林生态系统水文要素时空规律[J].生态学报,2003,23(1):2359-2366.
[13] 李香云,王玉杰.缙云山两种植被类型对坡面产流的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2003,25(5):81-84.
[14] 张喜,薛建辉,许效天,等.黔中喀斯特山地不同森林类型的地表径流及影响因素[J].热带亚热带植物学报,2007,15(6):527-537.
[15] 伍红琳,张辉,孙庆业.坡面人工植物群落修复对水土流失及控磷的影响[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(3):26-30.
[16] 周毅,魏天兴,解建强,等.黄土高原不同林地类型水土保持效益分析[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(3):12-21.
[17] 森林土壤分析方法:森林土壤水化学分析(GB 7892-87)[S].北京:标准出版社,1998.
[18] 贾乃亮.数理统计[M].3版.北京:中国林业出舨社,1991:155-159.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01