[1]肖鹏,吕刚,王洪禄,等.不同植被恢复模式对露天煤矿排土场土壤抗冲性的影响[J].水土保持研究,2019,26(06):18-24,31.
 XIAO Peng,Lü Gang,WANG Honglu,et al.Effects of Different Vegetation Restoration Models on Soil Scour Resistance in Dump of Open-Pit Coal Mine[J].,2019,26(06):18-24,31.
点击复制

不同植被恢复模式对露天煤矿排土场土壤抗冲性的影响()
分享到:

《水土保持研究》[ISSN:1005-3409/CN:61-1272/P]

卷:
26卷
期数:
2019年06期
页码:
18-24,31
栏目:
出版日期:
2019-10-17

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effects of Different Vegetation Restoration Models on Soil Scour Resistance in Dump of Open-Pit Coal Mine
作者:
肖鹏1 吕刚1 王洪禄2 翟景轩3
1. 辽宁工程技术大学 环境科学与工程学院, 辽宁 阜新 123000;
2. 铁岭市国土资源调查规划局, 辽宁 铁岭 112608;
3. 杭州大地科技有限公司, 杭州 310004
Author(s):
XIAO Peng1 Lü Gang1 WANG Honglu2 ZHAI Jingxuan3
1. College of Environment Science and Engineering, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China;
2. Tieling Bureau of Land Resource Survey and Planning;Tieling, Liaoning 112608, China;
3. Hangzhou Dadi Technology Co., Ltd, Hangzhou 310004, China
关键词:
土壤抗冲性植被恢复土地复垦排土场露天煤矿
Keywords:
soil erosion resistancevegetation restorationland reclamationdumpopencast coal mine
分类号:
S157
摘要:
为了探究不同植被复垦模式对排土场土壤抗冲性的影响,以辽宁省阜新市海州露天煤矿排土场复垦区内灌木林地(紫穗槐)、榆树林地、刺槐林地、混交林地(刺槐和榆树混交)、荒草地和耕地6种复垦模式为研究对象,采用野外采样和室内改进土壤抗冲槽的方法获取了径流含沙量、抗冲性指数、根系指标和根系对土壤抗冲性的强化值(ΔANS)等评价指标。结果表明:土壤冲刷过程中,不同复垦模式下的径流含沙量在冲刷6 min内变化幅度较大,伴随着冲刷时间的延长,6 min后含沙量相对稳固;不同复垦模式土壤冲刷过程累积径流含沙量表现为耕地较大,荒草地、6986树林地、混交林地和刺槐林地次之,灌木林地较小。土壤抗冲性变化与土壤冲刷过程含沙量呈反比,随土壤冲刷时间延长,土壤抗冲性增强。平均抗冲性指数趋势表现为灌木林地较大,刺槐林地、混交林地、榆树林地次之,荒草地和耕地较小。土壤抗冲性与土壤理化性质的相关性研究表明,在冲刷过程中,土壤容重越小,孔隙度越大,黏粒含量越高,土壤紧实程度越高,土壤抗冲性越强。不同复垦模式土壤抗冲性能强化值(ΔANS)范围为0.06~0.73,强化百分率在28%~630%;植物根系对土壤抗冲性变化特征表现为:灌木林地 > 混交林地 > 刺槐林地 > 榆树林地 > 荒草地 > 耕地,植物根系对灌木林地的强化作用最为明显。
Abstract:
In order to explore the effect of different vegetation reclamation models on soil scour resistance of dump, the shrub land (Amorpha acacia), elm forest land, Robinia pseudoacacia forest land, mixed forest land (Robinia pseudoacacia and elm tree mixed), wasteland and cultivated land in Haizhou open-pit coal mine dump of Fuxin City, Liaoning Province, were selected as the study sites. The methods of field sampling and laboratory improvement were used to obtain the evaluation indexes of runoff and sediment content, scour resistance index, root system index and root system strengthening value (ΔANS) to soil erosion resistance. The results showed that the runoff and the sediment content in different reclamation models changed greatly within 6 minutes of scouring, and the sediment contents after 6 minutes was relatively stable with the prolongation of scouring time; the accumulated runoff and sediment content during the soil erosion process in different reclamation models decreased in the order:cultivated land > barren grassland > elm forest land, mixed forest land and Robinia pseudoacacia forest land>shrub forest land; the soil erosion resistance was inversely proportional to the sediment content during soil erosion process, and the soil erosion resistance increased with the prolongation of soil erosion time; the average impact resistance index decreased in the order:shrub land>Robinia pseudoacacia forest land, the mixed forest land, the elm forest land>wasteland and the farmland. The correlation between soil erosion resistance and soil physical and chemical properties shows that the smaller the bulk density is, the greater the porosity is, the higher the clay content is, and the higher the soil compactness is, the stronger the soil scour resistance is. The strengthening values of soil scour resistance (ΔANS) of different reclamation models were in the range of 0.06~0.73, and the percentage of reinforcement was between 28% and 630%; the plant root resistance to soil decreased in the sequence:shrub land > mixed forest land > Robinia pseudoacacia forest land > elm forest land > barren grassland > cultivated land.

参考文献/References:

[1] 朱显谟.黄土地区植被因素对水土流失的影响[J].土壤学报,1960,8(2):110-121.
[2] 周义贵,李贤伟,张健,等.土壤抗冲性的研究方法和影响因素[C]//中国林学会,第九届中国林业青年学术年会论文摘要集.成都,2010.
[3] 吴普特.黄土坡地径流冲刷与土壤抗冲动态响应过程研究[D].陕西杨凌:中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所,1996.
[4] 徐加盼,邓羽松,陈峰云,等.花岗岩崩岗不同层次土壤抗冲性及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2017(5):9-13.
[5] 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(2):1-8.
[6] 伏耀龙.岷江上游干旱河谷区土壤质量评价及侵蚀特征研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2012.
[7] 张素.元谋干热河谷冲沟发育区土体抗冲性及其影响因素研究[D].成都:四川农业大学,2015.
[8] 刘红岩,周正朝,王宁,等.黄土区草被生长初期土壤抗冲性及其影响因素[J].中国水土保持科学,2018,16(2):55-61.
[9] 郭明明,王文龙,史倩华,等.黄土高塬沟壑区退耕地土壤抗冲性及其与影响因素的关系[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(10):129-136.
[10] 郭宏忠,汪三树,于亚莉,等.紫色丘陵区坡耕地生物埂土壤抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(4):206-209.
[11] 郑子成,张锡洲,李廷轩,等.玉米季土壤抗冲性变化特征及其影响因素分析[J].农业机械学报,2014,45(9):180-186.
[12] 高珍萍,徐祥明,邱秀亮,等.赣南地区不同植被覆盖下红壤抗冲性动态研究[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(5):1-4.
[13] 侯春镁,王克勤,李玲,等.不同土地利用类型土壤大团聚体与抗冲性关系[J].人民长江,2017,48(11):223-232.
[14] 董玉琨.内蒙露天煤矿排土场边坡抗冲性及减水减沙效益研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2015.
[15] 耿宝军.露天煤矿排土场土壤抗冲性影响因素分析[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报:自然科学版,2010,29(S),155-157.
[16] 魏忠义,白中科.露天矿大型排土场水蚀控制的径流分散概念及其分散措施[J].煤炭学报,2003,28(5):46-50.
[17] 王金满,郭伶俐,白中科,等. 黄土区露天煤矿排土场复垦后土壤与植被的演变规律[J].农业工程学报,2013,29(21):223-232.
[18] 吕春娟,白中科,陈卫国,等.黄土区大型排土场植被根系的抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):35-38,143.
[19] 吕刚,刘宏民,高旭英,等.排土场边坡根系分布及其对土壤抗冲性的影响[J].土壤通报,2014,45(2):711-715.
[20] 吕刚,傅昕阳,李叶鑫,等.露天煤矿排土场复垦区不同植被类型枯落物持水特性研究[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(1):146-152.
[21] 中国科学院南京土壤研究所.土壤理化分析[M].上海:上海科学技术出版社,1978.
[22] 李勇,徐晓琴,朱显谟,等.草类根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应[J].土壤学报,1992(3):302-309.
[23] 潘德成,李海燕,吴祥云,等.阜新煤矿区次生裸坡土壤抗冲性动态变化[J].水土保持通报,2013,43(6):203-206.
[24] 李俊超,党廷辉,薛江,等.植被重建下露天煤矿排土场边坡土壤碳储量变化[J].土壤学报,2015,52(2):453-460.
[25] 张爱国,张平仓,杨勤科.区域水土流失土壤因子研究[M].北京:地质出版社,2003.
[26] 景可,王万忠,郑粉莉.中国土壤侵蚀与环境[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[27] 周正朝,上官周平.子午岭次生林植被演替过程的土壤抗冲性[J].生态学报,2006,26(10):3270-3275.
[28] 李强,刘国彬,许明祥,等.黄土丘陵区撂荒地土壤抗冲性及相关理化性质[J].农业工程学报,2013,29(10):153-159.
[29] 曾信波.贵州紫色土上植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究[J].贵州农学院学报,1995,14(2):20-24.
[30] 李强,刘国彬,张正,等.黄土风沙区根系强化抗冲性土体构型的定量化研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2017,15(3):99-104.

相似文献/References:

[1]李晶,高照良,张小娟,等.宝牛高速公路路域植被恢复效果调查分析[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(06):100.
 LI Jing,GAO Zhao-liang,ZHANG Xiao-juan,et al.Investigation and Assessment on Vegetation Restoration along the Baoniu Highway[J].,2012,19(06):100.
[2]查轩,唐克丽,白红英.植被恢复对土壤抗侵蚀特性影响的研究[J].水土保持研究,1993,(01):37.
 Zha Xuan,Tang Keli,Bai Hongying.The Effect of Vegetation Restoration on Properties of Soil Resistance in Erosion[J].,1993,(06):37.
[3]郑粉莉,张科利,唐克丽,等.植被破坏与恢复对坡面浅沟侵蚀影响的研究[J].水土保持研究,1993,(01):54.
 Zheng Fenli,Zhang Keli,Tang Keli,et al.Impact of Vegetation Destruction and Restoration on Shallow Gully Erosion[J].,1993,(06):54.
[4]郭晓敏,牛德奎,刘苑秋,等.江西省红壤侵蚀劣地植被恢复技术及综合治理效果研究[J].水土保持研究,1998,5(02):108.
 Guo Xiaomin,Niu Dekui,Liu Yuanqiu,et al.Restoring Technique of Vegetation on Eroded Red Soil in Jiangxi and Benefits From Its Comprehensive Harnessing[J].,1998,5(06):108.
[5]王忠林,李会科,贺秀贤.渭北旱塬花椒地埂林土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(01):33.
 WANG Zhong-lin,LI Hui-ke,HE Xiu-xian.Study on Soil Anti-erosion and Anti-scour of Prickly Ash at Edges of Terraces in Drought Upland of Weibei[J].,2000,7(06):33.
[6]王改玲,白中科.安太堡露天煤矿排土场植被恢复的主要限制因子及对策[J].水土保持研究,2002,9(01):38.
 WANG Gai-ling,BAI Zhong-ke.Main Limiting Factors for Re-vegetation and Measures of Dumping Site in Antaibao Opencast Mine[J].,2002,9(06):38.
[7]雷俊山,杨勤科.土壤因子研究综述[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(02):156.
 LEI Jun-shan,YANG Qin-ke.Summarization on Soil Factor Researches[J].,2004,11(06):156.
[8]梁杰明,林建平,陈海平,等.珠海建设迹地岩土坡植被恢复的生态效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(03):175.
 LIANG Jie-ming,LIN Jian-ping,CHEN Hai-ping,et al.Study on Ecological Effect by Revegetation on Rock/Soil Slope Left by Project Construction in Zhuhai[J].,2004,11(06):175.
[9]陈浩,蔡强国,周金星,等.黄河中游侵蚀产沙环境要素临界与交互作用研究进展[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(04):54.
 CHEN Hao,CAI Qiang-guo,ZHOU Jin-xing,et al.Research Progress of Interactive Influence and Thresholds of Geographic Environmental Elements on Sediment Yield of Drainage Basins in the Middle Reaches of the Yellow River Basin[J].,2004,11(06):54.
[10]马祥华,焦菊英.黄土高原植被恢复与土壤环境相互作用研究进展[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(04):157.
 MA Xiang-hua,JIAO Ju-ying.Research Progresses in Interaction Between Vegetation Restoration and Soil Environment in the Loess Plateau[J].,2004,11(06):157.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2018-12-27;改回日期:2019-02-21。
作者简介:肖鹏(1992-),男,辽宁阜新人,硕士研究生在读,研究方向为土壤侵蚀流域治理。E-mail:384232227@qq.com
通讯作者:吕刚(1979-),男,吉林九台人,副教授,主要从事水土保持与生态修复的教学和科研工作。E-mail:lvgang2637@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01