基于CSLE模型的大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征研究

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202304015

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2024, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (3): 117-124.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202304015

• 专题报道Ⅱ:土壤生态修复理论与技术研究(执行主编张金池) • 上一篇下一篇

基于CSLE模型的大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征研究

纪昕雨(), 于悦^*(), 张思帆, 刘媛媛

辽宁师范大学地理科学学院,辽宁大连 116029

收稿日期:2023-04-13 修回日期:2023-08-03 出版日期:2024-05-30 发布日期:2024-06-14
作者简介:纪昕雨(1053777390@qq.com)。
基金资助:
辽宁省教育厅科学研究项目(LQ2019028);辽宁师范大学2020高端科研成果培育计划(GD20L003)

The spatio-temporal characteristics of soil erosion in orchards of Dalian City based on the CSLE model

JI Xinyu(), YU Yue^*(), ZHANG Sifan, LIU Yuanyuan

School of Geography Science, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China

Received:2023-04-13 Revised:2023-08-03 Online:2024-05-30 Published:2024-06-14

1. 基于CSLE模型的大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征研究.zip(2173KB)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】定量分析大连市果园土壤侵蚀状况和时空分异特征,并探究其主要影响因素,为大连市果园产业的健康发展和生态保护提供参考。【方法】基于在线地理大数据和目视解译结果,利用中国土壤流失方程(Chinese soil lose equation, CSLE),得出大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征,分析研究区土壤侵蚀动态变化及影响因素。【结果】 ①大连市土壤侵蚀面积约占大连市总面积的40%,北部及南部的山地丘陵区侵蚀较严重;②2015—2020年大连市果园平均土壤侵蚀模数依次为1 230.29、1 150.95、2 311.36、6 384.55、3 399.60和3 484.24 t/(km²·a),以微度侵蚀和轻度侵蚀为主,强烈及以上等级侵蚀主要分布在甘井子区、金州区和旅顺口区;③大连市果园土壤侵蚀主要分布于坡度25°以下等级以及500~900 mm降雨等级区;④大棚覆盖可以减少设施大棚果园和露地/设施大棚果园的土壤侵蚀,对于露地果园,植被覆盖度则能够有效降低果园水土流失。【结论】大连市果园土壤侵蚀具有南高北低的空间分布特征,适当提高设施大棚覆盖面积、增加露地大棚的植被盖度并合理选择果园位置,是今后治理果园土壤水土流失以及促进果园产业高效可持续发展的关键。

关键词: 土壤侵蚀, 土壤侵蚀模数, CSLE模型, 设施大棚, 大连市果园

Abstract:

【Objective】 The orchards in Dalian City suffer from soil erosion due to vigorous developmental activities. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the status of soil erosion, determine the spatio-temporal characteristics of soil erosion in orchards in Dalian City, and explore the key factors that influence soil erosion. The results can provide significant insights for the healthy development and ecological protection of the orchard industry in Dalian City. 【Method】 The characteristics of soil erosion in orchards in Dalian City were assessed by using the Chinese soil loss equation (CSLE) model, based on geographic big data available online. The results were visually interpreted, and the dynamic changes and factors influencing soil erosion in the study area were subsequently analyzed. 【Result】 The area of soil erosion constituted approximately 40% of the total area of Dalian City, and the erosion was serious in the northern and southern mountainous and hilly regions. The average soil erosion modulus of the orchards in Dalian City was 1 230.29, 1 150.95, 2 311.36, 6 384.55, 3 399.60 and 3 484.24 t/(km²·a) in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. Analysis of the intensity of soil erosion primarily revealed micro and slight erosion. Strong and above grade erosion was primarily observed in Ganjingzi, Jinzhou, and Lüshunkou District. Soil erosion was primarily observed in slope grades below 25° and in regions with rainfall grades ranging between 500 and 900 mm. The finding revealed that greenhouse coverage could reduce soil erosion in greenhouse orchards and open field/facility orchards, and vegetation coverage could effectively reduce soil erosion in open field orchards. 【Conclusion】 Soil erosion in the orchards in Dalian City exhibits obvious spatial distribution characteristics in that the intensity of erosion is high in the south and low in the north area. The successful control of soil erosion in orchards and the efficient promotion and sustainable development of the orchard industry can be achieved in future by increasing the area of greenhouse coverage, increasing the vegetation coverage of outdoor greenhouses, and selecting the location of orchards reasonably.

Key words: soil erosion, soil erosion modulus, CSLE model, facility greenhouse, orchard of Dalian City

中图分类号:

S157.1

纪昕雨,于悦,张思帆,等. 基于CSLE模型的大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(3): 117-124.

JI Xinyu, YU Yue, ZHANG Sifan, LIU Yuanyuan. The spatio-temporal characteristics of soil erosion in orchards of Dalian City based on the CSLE model[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 48(3): 117-124.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202304015.

图/表 6

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

表3

参考文献 33

[1]	怡凯, 王诗阳, 王雪, 等. 基于RUSLE模型的土壤侵蚀时空分异特征分析: 以辽宁省朝阳市为例[J]. 地理科学, 2015, 35(3): 365-372.
	YI K, WANG S Y, WANG X, et al. The characteristics of spatial-temporal differentiation of soil erosion based on RUSLE model: a case study of Chaoyang City, Liaoning Province[J]. Sci Geogr Sin, 2015, 35(3): 365-372. DOI: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2015.03.016.
[2]	张燕, 彭补拙, 高翔, 等. 人类干扰对土壤侵蚀及土壤质量的影响: 以苏南宜兴低山丘陵区为例[J]. 地理科学, 2002, 22(3): 336-341.
	ZHANG Y, PENG B Z, GAO X, et al. Impact on soil erosion and soil properties by human disturbance:case of the low mountains and hills of Yixing, south Jiangsu Province[J]. Sci Geogr Sin, 2002, 22(3): 336-341. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0690.2002.03.014.
[3]	王坚桦, 邱凡, 谢福倩, 等. 清耕对赤红壤果园坡面土壤侵蚀特征的影响[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(3): 12-17.
	WANG J H, QIU F, XIE F Q, et al. Effects of cleaning tillage on soil erosion characteristics of lateritic red soil on slope in orchard[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2022, 29(3): 12-17. DOI: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.20210926.003.
[4]	大连市统计局. 大连统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2021.
	Dalian Municipal Bureau of Statistics. Dalian statistical yearbook[M]. Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House, 2021.
[5]	王耕, 韩冬雪. 1964—2014年大连市降雨侵蚀力时空演变分析[J]. 中国水土保持, 2017(11): 54-56, 67.
	WANG G, HAN D X. Temporal and spatial variability of rainfall erosivity in Dalian City in the period from 1964 to 2014[J]. Soil Water Conserv China, 2017(11):54-56, 67. DOI: 10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2017.0287.
[6]	陈茁新, 张金池. 近10年全球水土保持研究热点问题述评[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42(3): 167-174.
	CHEN Z X, ZHANG J C. Review of global soil and water conservation in last ten years[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2018, 42(3): 167-174. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201709028.
[7]	WISCHMEIER W H, SMITH D D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning[R]. Washington D C: U. S. Dept of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, 1978.
[8]	RENARD K G. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE)[M]. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1997.
[9]	LIU B Y, ZHANG K L, XIE Y. An empirical soil loss equation[C]// Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference. Process of Erosion and its Environmental Effects. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2002: 21-25.
[10]	陈锐银, 严冬春, 文安邦, 等. 基于GIS/CSLE的四川省水土流失重点防治区土壤侵蚀研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(1): 17-26.
	CHEN R Y, YAN D C, WEN A B, et al. Research on soil erosion in key prevention and control region of soil and water loss based on GIS/CSLE in Sichuan Province[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2020, 34(1): 17-26. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2020.01.003.
[11]	董丽霞, 蒋光毅, 张志兰, 等. 重庆市中国土壤流失方程因子研究进展[J]. 中国水土保持, 2021(2): 40-44,69.
	DONG L X, JIANG G Y, ZHANG Z L, et al. Research progress of the factors of Chinese soil loss equation in Chongqing[J]. Soil Water Conserv China, 2021(2):40-44, 69. DOI: 10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2021.0038.
[12]	陈羽璇, 杨勤科, 刘宝元, 等. 基于CSLE模型的珠江流域土壤侵蚀强度评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学(中英文), 2021, 19(6): 86-93.
	CHEN Y X, YANG Q K, LIU B Y, et al. Assessment of soil erosion intensity in Pearl River basin based on CSLE model[J]. Sci Soil Water Conserv, 2021, 19(6): 86-93. DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2021.06.011.
[13]	李嘉麟, 陈家慧, 华丽, 等. 基于CSLE的湖北省土壤侵蚀时空变化特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2022, 36(4): 43-52,62.
	LI J L, CHEN J H, HUA L, et al. Spatial and temporal characteristics of soil erosion in Hubei Province based on CSLE[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2022, 36(4): 43-52,62. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2022.04.007.
[14]	游浩妍, 黄曦涛, 陈瑞. 基于CSLE模型的神木市土壤侵蚀模数计算[J]. 中国水土保持, 2021(4): 47-49,68,9.
	YOU H Y, HUANG X T, CHEN R. Calculation of soil erosion modulus in Shenmu City based on CSLE model[J]. Soil Water Conserv China, 2021(4):47-49,68,9. DOI: 10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2021.0093.
[15]	沈子雅, 杨志, 李建国, 等. 基于CSLE模型的宁夏黄土地区水土保持措施因子研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2021(7): 53-55,5.
	SHEN Z Y, YANG Z, LI J G, et al. Research on factors of soil and water conservation measures in Ningxia loess area based on CSLE model[J]. Soil Water Conserv China, 2021(7):53-55,5. DOI: 10.14123/j.cnki.swcc.2021.0169.
[16]	马亚亚, 王杰, 张超, 等. 基于CSLE模型的陕北纸坊沟流域土壤侵蚀评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018, 38(6): 95-102.
	MA Y Y, WANG J, ZHANG C, et al. Evaluation of soil erosion based on CSLE model in Zhifanggou watershed of northern Shaanxi Province[J]. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2018, 38(6): 95-102. DOI: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.20180904.001.
[17]	顾治家, 谢云, 李骜, 等. 利用CSLE模型的东北漫川漫岗区土壤侵蚀评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(11): 49-56.
	GU Z J, XIE Y, LI A, et al. Assessment of soil erosion in rolling hilly region of northeast China using Chinese soil loss equation (CSLE) model[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2020, 36(11): 49-56. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2020.11.006.
[18]	苏新宇, 吴镇宇, 刘霞, 等. 基于CSLE模型的区域水土流失风险分析[J]. 中国水土保持科学(中英文), 2021, 19(5): 27-36.
	SU X Y, WU Z Y, LIU X, et al. Regional soil erosion risk analysis based on CSLE model[J]. Sci Soil Water Conserv, 2021, 19(5): 27-36. DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2021.05.004.
[19]	黄艳玲, 栾其琛. 大连市绿色有机及地理标志农产品发展现状与对策建议[J]. 农产品质量与安全, 2021(6): 63-66.
	HUANG Y L, LUAN Q C. Development status and countermeasures of green organic and geographical indications agro-products in Dalian[J]. Qual Saf Agro Prod, 2021(6): 63-66. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8255.2021.06.012.
[20]	FISCHER G, NACHTERGAELE F, PRIELEI S, et al. Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture. [DS/OL]. Austria and Italy: IIASA and FAO, 2008 [2023-03-27]. https://www.fao.org/.
[21]	GONG P, LIU H, ZHANG M N, et al. Stable classification with limited sample:transferring a 30 m resolution sample set collected in 2015 to mapping 10 m resolution global land cover in 2017[J]. Sci Bull, 2019, 64(6): 370-373. DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2019.03.002.
[22]	NASA JPL. NASADEM merged DEM global 1 arc second V001[DS/OL]. Washing to D C: NASA EOSDIS Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center, 2018[2023-03-27].https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/NASADEM/NASADEM_HGT.001.
[23]	WISCHMEIER W H, Smith D D. Rainfall energy and its relationship to soil loss[J]. Eos Trans AGU, 1958, 39(2): 285-291. DOI: 10.1029/TR039i002p00285.
[24]	崔云燕. 大连市土壤侵蚀评价[D]. 大连: 辽宁师范大学, 2010.
	CUI Y Y. Evaluation of soil erosion in Dalian City[D]. Dalian: Liaoning Normal University, 2010.
[25]	SHARPLEY A N, WILLIAMS J R. EPIC-erosion/productivity impact calculator: 1. model documentation[M]. United States: USDA Technical Bulletin, 1990.
[26]	张科利, 彭文英, 杨红丽. 中国土壤可蚀性值及其估算[J]. 土壤学报, 2007, 44(1): 7-13.
	ZHANG K L, PENG W Y, YANG H L. Soil erodibility and its estimation for agricultural soil in China[J]. Acta Pedol Sin, 2007, 44(1): 7-13. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2007.01.002.
[27]	符素华, 刘宝元, 周贵云, 等. 坡长坡度因子计算工具[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2015, 13(5): 105-110.
	FU S H, LIU B Y, ZHOU G Y, et al. Calculation tool of topographic factors[J]. Sci Soil Water Conserv, 2015, 13(5): 105-110. DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2015.05.018.
[28]	蔡崇法, 丁树文, 史志华, 等. 应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2000, 14(2): 19-24.
	CAI C F, DING S W, SHI Z H, et al. Study of applying USLE and geographical information system IDRISI to predict soil erosion in small watershed[J]. J Soil Water Conserv, 2000, 14(2): 19-24. DOI: 10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2000.02.005.
[29]	中华人民共和国水利部. 土壤侵蚀分级分类标准[S]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2008.
	Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Standards for classification and gradation of soil erosion[S]. Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2008.
[30]	刘思艺, 黄凤荣. 基于GIS的大连市土壤侵蚀强度估测[J]. 科学技术创新, 2021(22): 173-175.
	LIU S Y, HUANG F R. Estimation of soil erosion intensity in Dalian based on GIS[J]. Sci Technol Innov, 2021(22): 173-175.
[31]	汤紫霞. 福建省农业大棚遥感信息提取[D]. 福州: 福州大学, 2021.
	TANG Z X. Remote sensing extraction of agricultural greenhouses in Fujian Province[D]. Fuzhou: Fuzhou University, 2021. DOI: 10.27022/d.cnki.gfzhu.2021.000483.
[32]	周璟, 张旭东, 何丹, 等. 基于GIS与RUSLE的武陵山区小流域土壤侵蚀评价研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011, 20(4): 468-474.
	ZHOU J, ZHANG X D, HE D, et al. Soil erosion evaluation of small watershed in Wuling Mountain based on GIS and rusle[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2011, 20(4): 468-474.
[33]	ZHANG J C, ZHUANG J Y, SU J S, et al. Development of GIS-based FUSLE model in a Chinese fir forest sub-catchment with a focus on the litter in the Dabie Mountains, China[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2008, 255(7): 2782-2789. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.045.

行政区 district	面积/km² area							平均土壤侵蚀模数/ (t·km^-2·a^-1) average soil erosion modulus	平均土壤侵蚀量/ (t·a^-1) average soil loss
行政区 district	总体 sum	微度 micro	轻度 slight	中度 moderate	强烈 strong	极强烈 extreme	剧烈 severe	平均土壤侵蚀模数/ (t·km^-2·a^-1) average soil erosion modulus	平均土壤侵蚀量/ (t·a^-1) average soil loss
甘井子区 Ganjingzi	1.948	0.291	0.646	0.344	0.237	0.273	0.157	5 256.15	10 236.36
金州区 Jinzhou	7.475	3.441	2.638	0.545	0.318	0.301	0.232	2 209.29	16 512.99
旅顺口区 Lüshunkou	2.016	0.518	0.700	0.237	0.173	0.210	0.178	4 610.48	9 294.99
普兰店区 Pulandian	0.371	0.273	0.072	0.014	0.006	0.004	0.002	602.82	223.44
瓦房店市 Wafangdian	0.575	0.183	0.166	0.074	0.049	0.066	0.037	3 940.29	2 265.01
庄河市 Zhuanghe	0.690	0.414	0.209	0.041	0.015	0.008	0.003	875.61	604.92
平均土壤侵蚀模数/ (t·km^-2·a^-1) average soil erosion modulus		48.35	1 008.30	3 596.89	6 378.34	11 035.32	25 195.47
平均土壤侵蚀量/ (t·a^-1) average soil loss		247.64	4 468.20	4 511.89	5 088.86	9 502.72	15 318.38

年份 year	土壤侵蚀强度 soil erosion intensity	微度 micro	轻度 slight	中度 moderate	强烈 strong	极强烈 extreme	剧烈 severe	总计 total
	微度 micro	4.947	1.343	0.072	0.060	0.075	0.219	6.714
	轻度 slight	0.100	2.210	1.040	0.508	0.410	0.298	4.565
	中度 moderate	0.005	0.038	0.088	0.100	0.292	0.408	0.932
2015—2018	强烈 strong	0.003	0.008	0.009	0.023	0.059	0.353	0.454
	极强烈 extreme	0.002	0.002	0.002	0.004	0.018	0.272	0.299
	剧烈 severe	0	0	0	0	0.001	0.109	0.110
	总计 total	5.057	3.600	1.210	0.695	0.854	1.659	13.074
	微度 micro	4.740	0.286	0.009	0.004	0.011	0.007	5.057
	轻度 slight	0.737	2.511	0.262	0.044	0.023	0.022	3.600
	中度 moderate	0.074	0.563	0.398	0.104	0.057	0.015	1.210
2018—2020	强烈 strong	0.040	0.174	0.228	0.151	0.082	0.020	0.695
	极强烈 extreme	0.046	0.154	0.156	0.197	0.228	0.074	0.854
	剧烈 severe	0.032	0.195	0.167	0.194	0.422	0.649	1.659
	总计 total	5.669	3.882	1.220	0.695	0.823	0.786	13.074

种植设施类别 class of planting facility	面积/km² area	平均土壤侵蚀模数/(t·km^-2·a^-1) average soil erosion modulus	平均土壤侵蚀量/(t·a^-1) average soil loss	多年平均降水量/mm average precipitation
Ⅰ	1.61	0	0	623.83
Ⅱ	0.39	2 214.58	572.27	604.65
Ⅲ	11.08	3 233.36	35 823.34	598.00

基于CSLE模型的大连市果园土壤侵蚀特征研究

The spatio-temporal characteristics of soil erosion in orchards of Dalian City based on the CSLE model

RichHTML

PDF

详细数据

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 33

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	杨瑞, 吴朝明, 朱骊, 胡海波. 苏南丘陵区坡面经济林土壤侵蚀特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 70-76.
[2]	张相, 丁鸣鸣, 林杰, 李卓远, 崔琳琳, 郭赓, 杨皓. 水蚀作用下红壤丘陵区土壤特性的空间分异特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 77-84.
[3]	林杰, 张相, 姜姜, 蒯杰, 郭赓, 孟苗婧, 李肖. 水力侵蚀过程中土壤有机碳循环研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 187-194.
[4]	陈超, 齐斐, 徐雁南, 黎家作, 赵传普, 苏新宇. 基于空间自相关的县域尺度土壤侵蚀抽样方法研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 177-184.
[5]	陈茁新,张金池. 近10年全球水土保持研究热点问题述评[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(03): 167-174.
[6]	孔维健，周本智*，傅懋毅，李正才，谢锦忠，吴明. 不同土地利用类型水土保持特征研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2009, 33(04): 57-61.
[7]	徐天蜀;彭世揆;岳彩荣. 基于GIS的小流域土壤侵蚀评价研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2002, 26(04): 43-46.
[8]	胡海波;项卫东. 长江中下游环境特征与洪灾的关系[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 1999, 23(02): 37-41.
[9]	张金池;康立新;卢义山;冯福生;孙金林. 苏北海堤主要防护林类型防蚀功能研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 1996, 20(03): 11-15.
[10]	张金池,胡海波,朱克成,李兰,彭桂兰,徐亮. 苏南丘陵区不同土地利用状况的蓄水保土功能研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 1995, 19(03): 6-10.