PDF Download

[1]HE Qinfei,ZHENG Wei,PENG Yuhua,et al.Water-holding Characteristics of Litter Under Main Forest Types in the Middle Reaches of Pearl River Basin[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2017,24(01):128-134.

Copy

Water-holding Characteristics of Litter Under Main Forest Types in the Middle Reaches of Pearl River Basin

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 24 Number of periods: 2017 01 Page number: 128-134 Column: Public date: 2017-02-28

Title:: Water-holding Characteristics of Litter Under Main Forest Types in the Middle Reaches of Pearl River Basin

Author(s):: HE Qinfei^1,2,3, ZHENG Wei^1,2,3, PENG Yuhua^1,2,3, HOU Yuanrui^1,2,3, HE Feng^1,2,3, SHEN Wenhui^1,2,3; 1. Guangxi Forestry Research Institute, Nanning 530002, China;
2. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Superior Timber Trees Cultivation, Nanning 530002, China;
3. Central South Key Laboratory, Fast-growing Tree Cultivation of Forestry Ministry, Nanning 530002, China

Keywords:: litter; water-holding capacity; water-holding rate; water-absorption rate; Pearl River

CLC:: S715.7

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Litter layer plays a significant hydro-ecological role in forest ecosystem. By the field investigation and laboratory analysis, a study was conducted on the accumulation amount, water-holding capacity, water-holding rate and water-absorption rate of the litter under five main forests (Pinus massoniana forest, Eucalyptus forest, Castanopsis hystrix forest, Quercus griffithii forest, Pinus elliottii+Schima superba forest) in the middle reaches of Pearl River. The litter accumulation under the forest decreased in the order of P. elliottii + S. superba forest (40.18 t/hm²) > Eucalyptus forest (11.77 t/hm²) > P. massoniana forest (10.97 t/hm²) > C. hystrix forest (8.75 t/hm²) > Q. griffithii forest (7.71 t/hm²), and the percentage of semi-decomposed litter storage was higher than that of un-decomposed litter, whereas for P. massoniana forest, it was in adverse. The water-holding capacity and water-holding rate of litter at different decomposition degrees changed logarithmically, while the water-absorption rate assumed a power function of soaking time. The maximum water-holding capacity of the litter varied from 13.12 t/hm² to 77.09 t/hm², being the highest for P. elliottii + Schima superba forest and the lowest for C. hystrix forest. The maximum water-holding rate of the litter was 150.8~187.9%, being the highest for Q. griffithii forest and the lowest for C. hystrix forest. The effective retaining capacity of the litter ranged from 8.26 t/hm² to 49.31 t/hm², and decreased in the order of P. elliottii + S. superba forest > Q. griffithii forest > C. hystrix fores t > Eucalyptus forest > P. massoniana forest. Water conservation capacity of P. elliottii + S. superba forest was the strongest among these forests. So, this study can provide the important basic theory that can select conifer-broadleaf forest needle modes and broadleaved deciduous in improving hydro-ecological effects of water conservation forests.

References:: [1] 吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,刘向东,等.森林枯枝落叶层涵养水源保持水土的作用评价[J].水土保持学报,1998,4(2):23-28.
[2] 刘效东,乔玉娜,周国逸,等.鼎湖山3种不同演替阶段森林凋落物的持水特性[J].林业科学,2013,49(9):8-15.
[3] 闫文德,张学龙.祁连山森林枯落物水文作用的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1997,12(2):7-14.
[4] 耿玉清,王保平.森林地表枯枝落叶层涵养水源作用的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2000,22(5):49-52.
[5] 朱金兆,吴钦孝.森林凋落物层水文生态功能研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(5):30-34.
[6] 刘颖,韩士杰,林鹿.长白山四种森林类型凋落物动态特征[J].生态学杂志,2009,28(1):7-11.
[7] 王云琦,王玉杰.三峡库区典型森林植被生态水文功能[J].生态学杂志,2010,29(10):1892-1900.
[8] 鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.北京山地7种人工纯林枯落物及土壤水文效应[J].内蒙古农业大学学报:自然科学版,2013,34(5):53-59.
[9] 苏彩燕,周勤.珠江流域城市河道的综合整治建议与可持续发展[J].水利规划与设计,2006(3):19-21.
[10] 杨小兰,张天明,童德文.广西珠江流域防护林体系建设现状与对策[J].林业调查规划,2011,36(5):60-62.
[11] 唐玉贵,蒋燚,梁杰森.苍梧县珠江低效防护林形成原因与改造的技术对策研究[J].广西林业科学,2010,39(2):85-87.
[12] 常雅军,曹靖,马建伟,等.秦岭西部山地针叶林凋落物持水特性[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(11):2346-2351.
[13] 薛立,何跃君,屈明,等.华南典型人工林凋落物的持水特性[J].植物生态学报,2005,29(3):415-421.
[14] 杨玉莲,马兴艳,吴庆贵,等.龙门山断裂带主要森林类型凋落物累积量及其持水特性[J].水土保持通报,2014,34(3):69-74.
[15] 魏强,凌雷,张广忠,等.甘肃兴隆山主要森林类型凋落物累积量及持水特性[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(10):2589-2598.
[16] 王勤,张宗应,徐小牛.安徽大别山库区不同林分类型的土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):59-62.
[17] 刘世荣,温远道,王兵,等.中国森林生态系统水文生态功能规律[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1996.
[18] 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.
[19] 韩春华,赵雨森,辛颖,等.阿什河上游小流域主要林分枯落物层的持水特性[J].林业科学研究,2012,25(2):212-217.
[20] 王金建,崔培学,刘霞,等.小流域水土保持生态修复区森林枯落物的持水性能[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(1):48-52.
[21] 王佑民.中国林地枯落物持水保土作用研究概况[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(4):108-113.
[22] 顾宇书,邢兆凯,韩友志,等.浑河上游4种典型林分类型枯落物持水特征[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2013,37(1):31-36.
[23] 彭云,丁贵杰.不同林龄马尾松林枯落物储量及其持水性能[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2008,32(4):43-46.
[24] 罗新萍.云南泸水5种生态公益林凋落物持水性研究[J].西南林业大学学报,2012,32(4):51-55.
[25] 周祥,赵一鹤,张洪江,等.云南高原典型林分林下枯落物持水特征研究[J].生态环境学报,2011,20(2):248-252.
[26] 鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.北京山地不同海拔人工油松林枯落物及其土壤水文效应[J].水土保持研究,2013,20(6):54-58.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01