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|

3种植被恢复过程中水土流失规律的研究(PDF)

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

Issue:
2010年02期
Page:
59-63
Column:
研究论文
publishdate:
2010-03-30

Article Info:/Info

Title:
Study on the water and soil erosion rules during the three types of vegetation recovery process
Author(s):
HUANG Chengbiao1 LIU Yunhua2 QIN Wuming1 WEI Shanhua2 HUANG Dan1 LI Baoping1
1.College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning 530005, China; 2.Gaofeng Forest Farm in Guangxi, Nanning 530001, China
Keywords:
Acasia crassicarpa Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis plantation shrubgrass natural vegetation process of vegetation restoration water and soil erosion
Classification number :
S714.7
DOI:
10.3969/j.jssn.1000-2006.2010.02.013
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
Soil erosion is an important indicator of ecoefficiency evaluation for the process of artificial vegetation restoration. Form 2002 to 2006, in the fir forest cutover land of Guangxi Nanning’ outskirts hilly country, three runoff plots were set as Acasia crassicarpa plantation in Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis plantation and shrubgrass natural vegetation. Based on continuous observation on the loss of soil and nutrient, the results showed that: (1)The annual mean surface runoff amount were Acasia crassicarpa forest (39.60 t/hm2), Eucalyptus urophylla×E.grandis forest (45.03 t/hm2), shrubgrass (64.30 t/hm2); (2)The annual average soil erosion amount were Acasia crassicarpa forest (0.26 t/hm2), E.urophylla×E.grandis forest (0.29 t/hm2), shrubgrass (0.32 t/hm2); (3)The average annual water and soil nutrients (N, P, K) loss amount were Acasia crassicarpa forest (0.036 kg/hm2), E.urophylla×E.grandis forest (0.039 kg/hm2), shrubgrass (0.054 kg/hm2); (4)The volume of soil and nutrient loss between the various vegetation types had no significant difference, while they were significant difference among years. According to the amount of the soil erosion of vegetation restoration in the five years period, they can be divided into three stages as follows: the peak period (planting year), loss mitigation period (2—3 years after planting), and the loss stability period (4—5 years after planting); (5)The amount of water and soil erosion for seasonal variation were summer (48.6 %—72.5 %)>spring (20.8 %—48.2 %) >autumn (2.5 %—3.9 %)>winter (0.7 %—2.8 %), which was consistent with the seasonal rainfall distribution in the same period; (6)The results demonstrated that establish short rotation cycle industrial forest play an important role for conserving soil and water, reducing nutrient loss, and maintaining the ecological security in Guangxi.

References

[1]王礼先,朱金兆. 水土保持学[M]. 2版. 北京:中国林业出版社,2006.
[2]Ramos, M C. Soil loss and soil water content affected by land leveling in Penedes vineyards, NE Spain[J]. Catena, 2007, 71(2): 210-217.
[3]Michael D White, Keith A Greer. The effects of watershed urbanization on the stream hydrology and riparian vegetation of Los Pefiasquitos Creek, California[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006, 74(2): 125-138.
[4]Anne Chin, Melinda D Daniels, Michael A Urban, et al. Perceptions of wood in rivers and challenges for stream restoration in the United States[J].Environmental Management,2008,41 (6):893-903.
[5]王礼先,张有实,李锐,等. 关于我国水土保持科学技术的重点研究领域[J]. 中国水土保持科学,2005,3 (1):1-6.
[6]余新晓,秦永胜. 森林植被对坡地不同空间尺度侵蚀产沙影响分析[J]. 水土保持研究,2001,8(4):66- 69,99.
[7]张金池,李海东,林杰,等. 基于小流域尺度的土壤可蚀性K值空间变异[J]. 生态学报,2008,28(5):2199 -2206.
[8]谢影,张金池. 黄河、长江流域水土流失现状及森林植被保护对策[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学 版,2002,26(6):88-92.
[9]刘福云,王准,周永丽,等. 岩桂人工林水土流失监测及效益评估[J]. 中南林学院学报,2005,25(1):15- 20.
[10]马祥庆,刘爱琴,何智英,等. 抚育方式对杉木人工林生态系统的影响[J]. 土壤侵蚀与水土保持学 报,1999,15(3):11-17.
[11]盛炜彤. 杉木人工林水土流失及养分损耗研究[J]. 林业科学研究,2000,13(6):589-598.
[12]邓湘雯,康文星,田大伦,等. 不同年龄阶段杉木人工林生态系统的径流规律[J]. 林业科学,2007,43 (6):1-6.
[13]马祥庆,何智英,张顺恒,等. 杉木世行造林水土流失及土壤肥力监测[J]. 福建林学院学报1996,16 (1):71-74.
[14]林杰,张金池,吴玉敏,等. 南京市水土流失的现状、原因及防治对策[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学 版,2008,32(2):43-46.
[15]俞新妥,杨玉盛,何智英. 杉木幼林地水土流失规律的研究[J]. 林业科学,1993,29(1):25-32.
[16]张建辉,李勇,DavidALobbz,等. 我国南方丘陵区土壤耕作侵蚀的定量研究[J]. 水土保持学 报,2001,15(2):1-4.
[17]李艳兰,何慧,黄雪松. 南宁市近50年气候变化特征[J]. 广西大学学报:自然科学版,2007,32(2):159- 162.
[18]刘俊民,余新晓. 水文与水资源学[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社,2001.
[19]GB 7892—87. 森林土壤分析方法:第9分册—森林土壤水化学分析[S]. 北京:标准出版社,1998.
[20]黄承标,韦炳二,黎洁娟. 广西不同植被类型地表径流的研究[J]. 林业科学,1991,27(5):490-497.

Last Update: 2010-05-14