PDF Download

[1]SUN Zhen-ling,GAO Hua-duan,ZHANG Guang-hui,et al.Effects of Lithology on Physical and Chemical Properties and Anti-scourability of Surface Soil in Karst Region of Central Guizhou[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2011,18(05):23-25,31.

Copy

Effects of Lithology on Physical and Chemical Properties and Anti-scourability of Surface Soil in Karst Region of Central Guizhou

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 18 Number of periods: 2011 05 Page number: 23-25,31 Column: Public date: 2011-10-20

Title:: Effects of Lithology on Physical and Chemical Properties and Anti-scourability of Surface Soil in Karst Region of Central Guizhou

Author(s):: SUN Zhen-ling¹, GAO Hua-duan², ZHANG Guang-hui^1,3, SUN Quan-zhong², YUAN Yong²; 1. School of Geography, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;
2. College of Forestry, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China;
3. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

Keywords:: lithology; soil physical and chemical property; anti-scourability; karst region

CLC:: S157.1;S153

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Discovering the influence of lithologic discrepancy on soil physical and chemical properties and anti-scourability in karst area is significance of studying the processes of rocky desertification. Five lithological soils in karst region of central Guizhou Province were chosen to measure soil physical and chemical properties and anti-scourability. The results indicated: there were significant differences in soil mechanical composition, bulk density, porosity and content of organic matter among different lithologies. Soils derived from carbonate rocks (dolomite and limestone) had the best physical properties, followed by soils developed from sandstones(arkose and purple feldspar quartz sandstone). Properties of soils derived from coal measures strata are the poorest. Besides, the anti-scourability of soil from coal measures is the weakest. So more attention should be paid on soils developed from different lithology in soil conservation, especially for the coal measures.

References:: [1] 徐燕,龙健.贵州喀斯特山区土壤物理性质对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(1):157-159,175.
[2] 蔡雄飞,王济,雷丽,等.中国西南喀斯特地区土壤退化研究进展[J].亚热带水土保持,2009,21(1):32-39.
[3] 吕明辉,王红亚,蔡运龙.西南喀斯特地区土壤侵蚀研究综述[J].地理科学进展,2007,26(2):87-96.
[4] 郭建军,李惠卓,郝金宏.不同母岩母质上土壤特性的分析与研究[J].河北林业科技,2004(6):13-14.
[5] 张建军,张宝颖,毕华兴,等.黄土区不同植被条件下的土壤抗冲性[J].北京林业大学报,2004,26(6):25-29.
[6] 周清,王翠红,郭朝晖,等.湖南省丘岗红壤抗冲性实验研究[J].湖南农业大学学报,2001,27(3):202-204.
[7] 邹翔,崔鹏,陈杰,等.小江流域土壤抗冲性实验研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):71-73.
[8] 蒋定生.黄土区不同利用类型土壤抗冲刷能力的研究[J].土壤通报,1979(4):20-23.
[9] 刘秉正,王佑民,陈东立.刺槐林地土壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].西北林学院报,1984,1(1):83-94.
[10] 刘国彬.黄土高原草地植被恢复与土壤抗冲性形成过程:Ⅱ.植被恢复不同阶段土壤抗冲性特征[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(S1):111-121.
[11] 李勇,朱显谟,田积莹.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性的有效性[J].科学通报,1991(12):935-938.
[12] 李勇,徐晓琴,朱显谟,等.植物根系与土壤抗冲性[J].水土保持学报,1993,7(3):11-18.
[13] 吴秀芹,蔡运龙,蒙吉军.喀斯特山区土壤侵蚀与土地利用关系研究:以贵州省关岭县石板桥流域为例[J].水土保持研究,2005,12(4):46-48,77.
[14] 袁勇,高华端,孙泉忠.黔中喀斯特地区不同地类土壤侵蚀研究[J].中国水持保持,2010(6):50-51,66.
[15] 高华端,孙泉忠,袁勇.喀斯特地区不同土地利用类型土壤侵蚀特征研究[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(2):92-96.
[16] 蒋定生,范兴科,李新华,等.黄土高原水土流失严重地区土壤抗冲性的水平和垂直变化规律研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(2):1-8.
[17] 张丽萍,张镱锂,王英安,等.国内外土壤质地自动分类程序介绍[J].土壤通报,2007,38(5):989-992.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01