PDF Download

[1]BAO Qian,LIANG Jianfa,WANG Qi,et al.Characteristics of Soil Water Storage Under Different Eco-vegetation Types in Huajiang Karst Rocky Desertification[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2017,24(01):18-24.

Copy

Characteristics of Soil Water Storage Under Different Eco-vegetation Types in Huajiang Karst Rocky Desertification

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 24 Number of periods: 2017 01 Page number: 18-24 Column: Public date: 2017-02-28

Title:: Characteristics of Soil Water Storage Under Different Eco-vegetation Types in Huajiang Karst Rocky Desertification

Author(s):: BAO Qian, LIANG Jianfa, WANG Qi, YANG Rui; College of Forestry, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China

Keywords:: Huajiang; Eco-economic vegetation; structural properties of the soil; soil water holding capability; total water storage capacity

CLC:: S714.7

DOI:: -

Abstract:: We selected several different eco-economic vegetation restoration models which widely distribute in Huajiang karst demonstration area of rocky desertification integrated rehabilitation of Guizhou Province, set waste-grassland as control. The soil physical properties and water storage capacity was compared by means of alcohol combustion method and cutting ring water immersion method. The results show that: (1) the range of the soil bulk density in the study area are 1.09～1.40 g/cm³, the soil bulk density increases with the soil depth, while the soil porosity decreases with the increase of soil depth, suggesting that the upper soil water storage capacity and permeability are better than that of the lower layer; (2) compared with waste-grassland, the soil bulk density and porosity status under Broussonetia papyrifera, Hylocereus undulates Britt, Zanthoxylum planispinum var. din-tanensis, Lonicera japonica and mixed forest have been improved, while the soil bulk density and and porosity status have the worst performance under Amomum villosum; (3) for the total water storage capacity and soil moisture content of soil (0—30 cm), the maximum moisture content (37.69%) was observed in the mixed forest, which is 3.18%, 4.33%, 4.83%, 7.49%, 10.15%, 13.18% more than that under Lonicera japonica, Hylocereus undulatus Britt, Broussonetia papyrifera, Zanthoxylum planispinum, waste-grassland and Amomum villosum, respectively; the total water storage capacity decrease in the order: mixed forest (1 769.54 t/hm²) > Hylocereus undulatus Britt (1 732.94 t/hm²) > Broussonetia papyrifera (1 722.14 t/hm²) > Zanthoxylum planispinum (1 698.43 t/hm²) > Lonicera japonica (1 655.58 t/hm²) > waste-grassland (1 640.79 t/hm²) > Amomum villosum (1 428.75 t/hm²); (4) correlation analysis shows that the soil bulk density and capillary porosity are highly significantly correlated with the maximum water holding capacity and capillary water holding capacity (p < 0.01), the correlation coefficients are -0.931, 0.897, -0.915 and 0.890, respectively. Therefore, the priority should be adopt mixed forest with Zanthoxylum planispinum and Lonicera japonica, Hylocereus undulatus Britt in the process of vegetation restoration in Huajiang karst rocky desertification.

References:: [1] 耿佳,于法展,杨盼盼,等.苏北山丘区典型性次生林下土壤蓄水能力分析[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(1):184-186.
[2] 李庆云,余新晓,信忠保,等.黄土高原典型流域不同土地利用类型土壤物理性质分析[J].水土保持研究,2010,17(6):106-110.
[3] 莫菲,李叙勇,贺淑霞,等.东灵山林区不同森林植被水源涵养功能评价[J].生态学报,2011,31(17):5009-5016.
[4] 吴庆贵,邹利娟,吴福忠,等.涪江流域丘陵区不同植被类型水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(6):254-258.
[5] 杨媛媛,李鉴北,欧阳勋志,等.上犹县长防林不同森林植被类型土壤蓄水能力初探[J].土壤通报,2012,43(1):10-14.
[6] 杨汉奎.喀斯特荒漠化是一种地质:生态灾难[J].海洋地质与第四纪地质,1995,15(3):137-147.
[7] 但文红.喀斯特峡谷农业可持续发展模式研究:以贵州省花江峡谷为例[J].中国岩溶,1999,18(3):251-256.
[8] 熊康宁,李晋,龙明忠.典型喀斯特石漠化治理区水土流失特征与关键问题[J].地理学报,2012,67(7):878-888.
[10] 王膑,钱晓刚,彭熙.花江峡谷不同植被类型下土壤水分时空分布特征[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(5):139-141.
[11] 李安定,卢永飞,韦小丽,等.花江喀斯特峡谷地区不同小生境土壤水分的动态研究[J].中国岩溶,2008,27(1):56-62.
[12] 盛茂银,刘洋,熊康宁.中国南方喀斯特石漠化演替过程中土壤理化性质的响应[J].生态学报,2013,33(19):6303-6313.
[13] 国家林业局.森林土壤分析方法(中华人民国和国林业行业标准)[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2000.
[14] 黄蓉,王辉,王蕙,等.华家岭低效防护林带改造对林地土壤蓄水性能的影响[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(2):53-57.
[15] 宋小帅,康峰峰,韩海荣,等.辽河源典型森林类型的土壤水文效应[J].水土保持通报,2015,35(2):101-105.
[16] 王莉,张强,牛西午,等.黄土高原丘陵区不同土地利用方式对土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2007,15(4):53-56.
[17] 周毅,魏天兴,解建强,等.黄土高原不同林地类型水土保持效益分析[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(3):12-16.
[18] 李卓,吴普特,冯浩,等.容重对土壤水分蓄持能力影响模拟试验研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(4):611-620.
[19] 李庆梅,侯龙鱼,马风云.黄河三角洲盐碱地不同利用方式土壤理化性质[J].中国生态农业学报,2009,17(6):1132-1136.
[20] 宫渊波,麻泽龙,陈林武,等.嘉陵江上游低山暴雨区不同水土保持林结构模式水源涵养效益研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(3):28-32.
[21] 孙梅,黄运湘,孙楠,等.农田土壤孔隙及其影响因素研究进展[J].土壤通报,2015(1):233-238.
[22] 丁访军,王兵,钟洪明,等.赤水河下游不同林地类型土壤物理特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(3):179-183.
[23] 刘霞,张光灿,李雪蕾,等.小流域生态修复过程中不同森林植被土壤入渗与贮水特征[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(6):1-5.
[24] 陈引珍,程金花,张洪江,等.缙云山几种林分水源涵养和保土功能评价[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(2):66-70.
[25] 张雷燕,刘常富,王彦辉,等.宁夏六盘山地区不同森林类型土壤的蓄水和渗透能力比较[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(1):95-98.
[26] 孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01