PDF Download

[1]WANG Qiuxia,DING Shuwen,ZHAO Xin,et al.Studies on the Variation of Soil Antierodibility of Collapse Horizons of Weathered Earth in Granite Region[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2015,22(03):6-9.

Copy

Studies on the Variation of Soil Antierodibility of Collapse Horizons of Weathered Earth in Granite Region

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 22 Number of periods: 2015 03 Page number: 6-9 Column: Public date: 2015-06-28

Title:: Studies on the Variation of Soil Antierodibility of Collapse Horizons of Weathered Earth in Granite Region

Author(s):: WANG Qiuxia¹, DING Shuwen^2,3, ZHAO Xin¹, TONG Lisha¹, WAN Yinkang¹, ZHANG Yong²; 1. College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;
2. Research Center of Soil and Water Conservation, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;
3. Key Labrortory of Arable Land Conservation for Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River, Ministry of Agriculture, Wuhan 430070, China

Keywords:: soil anti-erodibility; artificial rainfall simulation experiments; runoff; infiltration rate; sediment transport rate; particle size analysis

CLC:: S157.1

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Soil anti-erodibility is the ability to resist to the damage and removal from external forces, the stronger the anti-erodibility of soil is, the less erosion damages it suffers. This paper aimed to conduct the research on anti-erodibility of different soil layers developed from the granite in collapsed gullies through lots of artificial simulation of rainfall experiments with eluvial horizon, illuvial horizon and parent material horizon of collapsed gullies granite development in Tongcheng County and collecting runoff and sediment under certain rainfall intensity and slope conditions. The results showed that there was a significant anti-erodibility difference among eluvial horizon, illuvial horizon and parent material horizon of collapsed gullies granite development while the infiltration rate of different soil layers showed the stable difference, the stable infiltration rate of illuvial horizon was 1.25 times greater than the eluvial horizon and 2.27 times greater than the parent material horizon. The transport rates showed a sharp distinction. The average sediment transport rate of parent material horizon was 1.79 times greater than the illuvial horizon, 3.11 times greater than the eluvial horizon. Combining with analysis of physical and chemical properties of three layers and particle sizes in the soil profile, soil anti-erodibility of the parent material horizon is the weakest, followed by the illuvial horizon, while eluvial horizon is the strongest. The main factors determining soil anti-erodibility of the three layers are the contents of medium and small particle sizes and bonding capability of particles.

References:: [1] Wang B, Zheng F, R?mkens M J M, et al. Soil erodibility for water erosion:A perspective and Chinese experiences[J]. Geomorphology,2013,187:1-10.
[2] Auerswald K, Fiener P, Martin W, et al. Use and misuse of the K factor equation in soil erosion modeling:An alternative equation for determining USLE nomograph soil erodibility values[J]. Catena,2014,118:220-225.
[3] Bryan R B. Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope[J]. Geomorphology,2000,32(3):385-415.
[4] Stavi I, Lal R. Variability of soil physical quality and erodibility in a water-eroded cropland[J]. Catena,2011,84(3):148-155.
[5] Gupta R D, Arora S, Gupta G D, et al. Soil physical variability in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses in foothills of Siwaliks in NW India[J]. Tropical Ecology,2010,51(2):183-197.
[6] 王文艳.黄土中主要黏土矿物构成对土壤肥力与抗蚀性的影响及空间变异研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2013.
[7] 门明新,赵同科,彭正萍,等.基于土壤粒径分布模型的河北省土壤可蚀性研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11):1647-1653.
[8] 林金石,黄炎和,张旭斌,等.南方花岗岩区典型崩岗侵蚀产沙来源分析[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(3):53-57.
[9] 张黎明,于东升,史学正,等.不同降雨类型下的南方典型土壤侵蚀量差异研究[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(4):1-6.
[10] 林敬兰,黄炎和,蒋芳市,等.崩岗土体的渗透性能机理研究[J].水土保持学报,2013,27(2):53-56.
[11] 周璟,张旭东,何丹,等.小流域土壤可蚀性的空间变异及其在不同土地类型下的比较[J].土壤通报,2011,42(3):715-719.
[12] 何毓蓉,廖超林,张保华.长江上游人工林与天然林土壤结构质量及保水抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,2006,19(5):1-4.
[13] 黎建强,张洪江,陈奇伯,等.长江上游不同植物篱系统土壤抗冲、抗蚀特征[J].生态环境学报,2012,21(7):1223-1228.
[14] 刘旦旦,张鹏辉,王健,等.黄土坡面不同土地利用类型土壤抗蚀性对比[J].林业科学,2013,49(9):102-106.
[15] 薛萐,刘国彬,张超,等.黄土丘陵区人工灌木林土壤抗蚀性演变特征[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(15):3143-3150.
[16] 陈佳,陈洪松,冯腾,等.桂西北喀斯特地区不同土地利用类型土壤抗蚀性研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2012,20(1):105-110.
[17] 于俊峰,孙丽娜,王震洪.不同土地利用类型对紫色土抗蚀性影响研究[J].广东农业科学,2013,39(24):62-64.
[18] 刘旦旦,张鹏辉,王健,等.黄土坡面不同土地利用类型土壤抗蚀性对比[J].林业科学,2013,49(9):102-106.
[19] 任兵芳,丁树文,吴大国,等.鄂东南崩岗土体特性分析[J].人民长江,2013(3):93-96.
[20] 张德斌.南方花岗岩区崩岗不同土层抗蚀性评价因子研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2010.
[21] 郑子成,杨玉梅,李廷轩.不同退耕模式下土壤抗蚀性差异及其评价模型[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(10):199-205.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01