PDF Download

[1]SUN Hao,LIU Xiaoyong,HE Qifa,et al.Assessments of Four Types of Forests on Soil Water Conservation Functions in the Upper Reaches of Xiu River[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2017,24(04):337-341,348.

Copy

Assessments of Four Types of Forests on Soil Water Conservation Functions in the Upper Reaches of Xiu River

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 24 Number of periods: 2017 04 Page number: 337-341,348 Column: Public date: 2017-08-28

Title:: Assessments of Four Types of Forests on Soil Water Conservation Functions in the Upper Reaches of Xiu River

Author(s):: SUN Hao, LIU Xiaoyong, HE Qifa, JIANG Liuchun, XU Xin; Institution of Forestry Survey and Planning in Jiangxi Province, Nanchang 330046, China

Keywords:: upper reaches of Xiu river; soil water conservation functions; litterfall layer; soil layer

CLC:: S714.2;S715.7

DOI:: -

Abstract:: To understand the soil water conservation functions of different types of forests in the upper reaches of Xiu River, the eco-hydrological functions of the litterfall and soil were studied in the four main types of forests (i. e., Cuninghamia lanceolata forests, Pinus massoniana forests, broadleaved forests, Phyllostachys heterocycla forests). The results showed that:(1) the litter contents of the four types of forests ranged from 3.50～5.99 t/hm², and the largest was observed in C. lanceolata foress, while the lowest was found in Ph.heterocycla forest; the largest water-holding capacities of litterfall decreased in the order: broadleaved forest > P.massoniana forest > C.lanceolata forest > Ph.heterocycla foress, which indicated that broadleaved forest had greater effect on soil water conservation than conifer forests; (2) the soil bulk densities in the four types of forest decreased in the sequence of P.massoniana forests > C.lanceolata forests > Ph.heterocycla forests > broadleaved forests, and the result showed that broadleaved forest was more beneficial to improve the soil structure; the water conservation of soil in Ph.heterocycla (376.50 t/hm²) forest was the largest among the four types of forests, followed by broadleaved forest (373.17 t/hm²) and P.massoniana forest (213.50 t/hm²), while C.lanceolata forest (186.42 t/hm²) was lower; (3) the comprehensive soil water conservation of litterfall and soil decreased in the sequence: Ph.Heterocycla forests > broadleaved forests > P.massoniana forests > C.lanceolata forests. These results suggested that the soil water conservation functions of broadleaved and Ph.heterocycla were superior to conifer forests, so we should do more to protect broadleaved and Ph. heterocycla.

References:: [1] 时忠杰,王彦辉,于澎涛,等.宁夏六盘山林区几种主要森林植被生态水文功能研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(3):134-138.
[2] 高岗,秦富仓,姚云峰,等.农牧交错带小流域防护林水源涵养功能研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2009,23(8):180-185.
[3] 钟剑飞,刘东兰,郑小贤.水源涵养林结构与功能量化研究进展[J].现代农业科学,2009,16(3):110-112.
[4] 杨春时.系统论信息论控制论浅说[M].北京:中国广播电视出版社,1987:23-24.
[5] Crockford R H, Richardson D P. Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception:effect of forest type, ground cover and climate[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2000,14(16/17):2903-2920.
[6] Bruijnzeel L A. Hydrological functions of tropical forests:not seeing the soil for the trees[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2004,104(1):185-228.
[7] 王会利,唐玉贵,韦娇媚.低效林改造对土壤理化性质及水源涵养功能的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(5):72-78.
[8] Dietz J, Hölscher D, Leuschner C. Rainfall partitioning in relation to forest structure in differently managed montane forest stands in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2006,237(1):170-178.
[9] 马惠,张洪江,王伟,等.重庆市四面山不同森林类型林冠的截留作用[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(6):108-114.
[10] 黄国勤.江西修河流域生态系统研究[J].江西农业大学学报:自然科学版,2002,24(6):873-877.
[11] 陈琳,赵廷宁,赵陟峰.晋西半干旱黄土地区典型林分枯落物及土壤水文效应[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39(23):14106-14108.
[12] 国家林业局.森林生态系统长期定位观测方法[S].中华人民共和国林业行业标准(LY/T1952-2011):31-36.
[13] 张庆费,宋永昌,由文辉.浙江天童植物群落此生演替与土壤肥力关系[J].生态学报,1999,19(2):174-178.
[14] 樊登星,余新晓,岳永杰,等.北京西山不同林分枯落物层持水特性研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2008,30(S2):177-181.
[15] 马雪华.森林水文学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1993.
[16] 黎建强,张洪江,程金花,等.长江上游不同植物篱系统的土壤物理性质[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(2):418-424.
[17] Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, et al. A history of research on the link between(micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2004,79(1):7-31.
[18] 王会利,唐玉贵,韦娇媚.低效林改造对土壤理化性质及水源涵养功能的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(5):72-78.
[19] 王树力,沈海燕,孙悦,等.长白落叶松纯林改造对林地土壤性质的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2009,7(6):98-103.
[20] 北京林业大学.土壤学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1993.
[21] 李沛霖.杉木林土壤理化性质与水源涵养功能及相关性研究:以福寿林场为例[D].长沙:中南林业科技大学,2014:37.
[22] 胡建忠,郑佳丽,张春霞.黄河上游退耕地植被组成、结构及水保功能评价[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(2):42-50.
[23] 张洪江,杜士才.重庆四面山森林植物群落及其土壤保持与水文生态功能[M].北京:科学出版社,2010:238.
[24] 陈延武,史正涛,曾建军,等.水源地不同林分水源涵养功能评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(2):67-74.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01