PDF Download

[1]FENG Wei,YE Jing.Effects of Biological Soil Crusts on Infiltration and Soil and Water Conservation Under Trample Disturbance[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2016,23(01):34-37,43.

Copy

Effects of Biological Soil Crusts on Infiltration and Soil and Water Conservation Under Trample Disturbance

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 23 Number of periods: 2016 01 Page number: 34-37,43 Column: Public date: 2016-02-28

Title:: Effects of Biological Soil Crusts on Infiltration and Soil and Water Conservation Under Trample Disturbance

Author(s):: FENG Wei¹, YE Jing²; 1. Monitoring Center of Soil and Water Conservation, Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing 100055, China;
2. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, CAS & MWR, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China

Keywords:: biological soil crusts; trample; infiltration; runoff and sediment

CLC:: S157.1;S152.7

DOI:: -

Abstract:: In order to improve soil moisture condition, we examined the effect of soil and water conservation of biological soil crusts (BSCs) under 3 trampling intensities widespread in the wind-water erosion crisscross region on the Loess Plateau through two aspects which were rainfall infiltration-runoff and sediment based on the field observation. The results are as follows： (1) The performance of infiltration-runoff of BSCs without trampling did not only increase or reduce compared with the control. BSCs increased infiltration and reduced runoff in the initial period of rainy season, but conversely in the later period. (2) The effects of trampling intensities on infiltration-runoff had significant differences. Compared to the control, mild trampling BSCs increased infiltration by 12% and reduced runoff by 23.2%, moderate trampling BSCs reduced runoff by 5.3% and infiltration by 3.6%, severe trampling BSCs reduced infiltration by 25.5%and increased runoff by 21.3%. (3) Whether being trampled or not, BSCs significantly decreased sediment content compared with bare soil. The mild decreased by 56.3%, the moderate decreased by 43.5% and the severe decreased by 37.9%, but the latter two were significant higher than untrampled BSCs. Considering the infiltration and soil erosion, BSCs with mild trampling could promote infiltration, reduce runoff and improve soil moisture conditions in the premise of causing insignificant soil erosion.

References:: [1] 李金峰,孟杰,叶菁,等.陕北水蚀风蚀交错区生物结皮的形成过程与发育特征[J].自然资源学报,2014,29(1):67-79.
[2] 李聪会,朱首军,陈云明,等.黄土丘陵区生物结皮对土壤抗蚀性的影响[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(3):6-10.
[3] Bowker M A, Miller M E, Belnap J, et al. Prioritizing conservation effort through the use of biological soil crusts as ecosystem function indicators in an arid region[J]. Conservation Biology, 2008,22(6):1533-1543.
[4] 孟杰,卜崇峰,赵玉娇,等.陕北水蚀风蚀交错区生物结皮对土壤酶活性及养分含量的影响[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(11):1864-1874.
[5] 肖波,赵允格,许明祥,等.陕北黄土区生物结皮条件下土壤养分的积累及流失风险[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(5):1019-1026.
[6] 赵建成,张丙昌,张元明.新疆古尔班通古特沙漠生物结皮绿藻研究[J].干旱区研究,2006,23(2):189-194.
[7] 高丽倩,赵允格,秦宁强,等.黄土丘陵区生物结皮对土壤可蚀性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(1):105-112.
[8] 唐克丽.黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错区治理的重要性与紧迫性[J].中国水土保持,2000,224(11):11-12.
[9] 李莉,孟杰,杨建振,等.不同植被下生物结皮的水分入渗与水土保持效应[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(5):105-109.
[10] 张侃侃,卜崇峰,高国雄.黄土高原生物结皮对土壤水分入渗的影响[J].干旱区研究,2011,28(5):808-812.
[11] 孟杰.黄土高原水蚀交错区生物结皮的时空发育特征研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2011.
[12] 肖波,赵允格,邵明安.黄土高原侵蚀区生物结皮的人工培育及其水土保持效应[J].草地学报,2008,16(1):28-33.
[13] 成向荣,黄明斌,邵明安.神木水蚀风蚀交错带主要人工植物细根垂直分布研究[J].西北植物学报,2007,27(2):321-327.
[14] 路炳军,袁爱萍,章文波.径流小区集流桶(池)泥沙含量快速测定方法探讨[J].水土保持通报,2009,29(2):15-17.
[15] 熊好琴,段金跃,王妍,等.毛乌素沙地生物结皮对水分入渗和再分配的影响[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(4):82-87.
[16] 张玉斌,郑粉莉.近地表土壤水分条件对坡面土壤侵蚀过程的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(2):5-10.
[17] 秦宁强.黄土丘陵区生物土壤结皮对降雨侵蚀力的响应及影响[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2012.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01