我们的网站为什么显示成这样?

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式,您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本,以获取对此功能的支持,访问下面的网站,获取关于浏览器的信息:

|Table of Contents|

不同土地利用类型水土保持特征研究(PDF)

《南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)》[ISSN:1000-2006/CN:32-1161/S]

Issue:
2009年04期
Page:
57-61
Column:
研究论文
publishdate:
2009-07-30

Article Info:/Info

Title:
Effects of different landuse on characteristics of soil and water conservation
Author(s):
Effects of different landuse on characteristics of soil and water conservation
KONG Weijian, ZHOU Benzhi*, FU Maoyi, LI Zhengcai, XIE Jinzhong, WU Ming
Keywords:
landuse type soil and water conservation surface runoff runoff coefficient soil erosion modulus eastwest gradient
Classification number :
S715
DOI:
10.3969/j.jssn.1000-2006.2009.04.012
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, CAF, Fuyang 311400, ChinaThe surface runoff and sediment yield of six landuse types has been monitored consecutively for two years in Fuyang, Anji, Pingjiang and Muchuan, which include natural forest, coniferous forest, extensivelymanaged bamboo stand, intensivelymanaged bamboo stand, economic forest and farmland. The results showed as follows: (1)The surface runoff of different landuse/vegetation types showed significant differences. The surface runoff and the runoff coefficient of natural forests was the minimum, followed by coniferous forest, intensivelymanaged bamboo stand, economic forest and extensivelymanaged bamboo stand. The surface runoff of farmland was the maximum, which was 3 to 8 times as that of natural forest. (2)The soil erosion modulus of different landuse/vegetation types also showed the similar trend as the runoff coefficient. The soil erosion modulus of natural forest was the minimum, followed by coniferous forest, extensivelymanaged bamboo stand, intensivelymanaged bamboo stand and economic forest. The soil erosion modulus of farmland was the maximum, which was 3 to 9 times as that of natural forest. (3)The characteristics of the soil and water conservation of different landuse types along the eastwest gradient of China had a significant difference. In the eastern part of China, the surface runoff coefficient and soil erosion modulus were significantly lower than that of the central and western regions. It was related to the difference between the regions of the natural conditions, economic and social development level and the status quo of soil and water conservation.

References

[1]Turner II B L, Dadd S, Steven S, et al. Land use and land cover change[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 1997, 4(1-2): 26-33.
[2]罗湘华,倪晋仁. 土地利用/覆盖变化研究进展[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报,2000,8(3):262-272.
[3]Anderson H W, Trobitz H K. Influence of some watershed variables on a major flood[J]. Forestry, 1949, 47(5): 347-356.
[4]Dieterich M. Dynamics of a biotic parameters, solute removal and sediment retention in summerdry headwater streams of western Oregon[J]. Hydrobiology, 1998, 379: 1-5.
[5]赵辉,郭索彦,解明曙,等. 南方花岗岩红壤区不同土地利用类型坡地产流与侵蚀产沙研究[J]. 水土保持通报,2008,28(2):6-10.
[6]朱连奇,许叔明,陈沛云,等. 山区土地利用/覆被变化对土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 地理研究,2003,22(4):432-438.
[7]蒋有绪. 中国森林生态系统结构与功能规律研究[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社,1996.
[8]杨茂瑞. 亚热带杉木、马尾松人工林的林内降雨、林冠截持和树干径流[J]. 林业科学研究,1992,5(2):158-162.
[9]阮伏水,周伏健. 花岗岩不同土地利用类型坡地产流和入渗特征[J]. 土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(3):1-7.
[10]袁东海,王兆骞,陈欣,等. 不同农作措施红壤坡耕地水土流失特征的研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2001,15(4):66-69.
[11]左长清,胡根华,张华明. 红壤坡地水土流失规律研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2003,17(6):89-91.
[12]申卫军,周国逸. 南亚热带鹤山5种生态系统的地表径流[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报,1999,7(4):273-281.
[13]李云岚,李春华,魏晶,等. 辽西5种人工林水土保持效应研究[J]. 水土保持应用技术,2007(5):4-6.
[14]谢锦忠,肖贤坦. 丛生竹林生态系统的水文效应研究:Ⅰ麻竹人工林地表径流规律[J]. 竹子研究汇刊,2000,19(4):18-25.
[15]张志强,王盛萍,孙阁,等. 流域径流泥沙多尺度植被变化响应研究进展[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(7):2 356-2 364.
[16]张建军,贺康宁,朱金兆. 晋西黄土区水土保持林林冠截留的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报,1995,17(2):27-31.
[17]张建军,毕华兴,张宝颖. 坡面水土保持林地地表径流挟沙能力研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报,2003,25(5):25-28.
[18]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]. 北京林业大学学报,2004,26(6):25-29.
[19]张建军,纳磊,方家强. 晋西黄土区坡面糙率的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报,2007,29(1):108-113.
[20]金雁海,柴建华,朱智红,等. 内蒙古黄土丘陵区坡面径流及其影响因素研究[J]. 水土保持研究,2006,13(5):292-298.
[21]焦居仁,史立人,牛崇桓,等. 我国东中西部水土保持发展战略[J]. 中国水土保持科学,2006,4(5):1-6.

Last Update: 2009-07-30