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|

流溪河小流域3种林分的土壤水分物理性质(PDF)

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

Issue:
2010年03期
Page:
62-66
Column:
研究论文
publishdate:
2010-06-29

Article Info:/Info

Title:
Soil moisture physical characteristics of three types of forest in Liuxihe small watershed
Author(s):
QIU Zhijun1 ZENG Zhenjun2 ZHOU Guangyi1 YANG Song1 TAN Bin2
1.Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Guangzhou 510520, China; 2.Guangzhou Liuxihe Forest Farm, Guangzhou 510956, China
Keywords:
soil physical characteristics water conservation Liuxihe small watershed broadleaf forest bamboo forest litchi forest
Classification number :
S152
DOI:
10.3969/j.jssn.1000-2006.2010.03.013
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
In order to understand ecohydrology effect of forest soil in Liuxihe small watershed, soil physical characteristics and water conservation characteristics of evergreen broadleaf forest, bamboo forest and litchi forest in Liuxihe small watershed were measured by cutting ring method. The test results showed that: (1)soil bulk density of three types of forest increased with soil layer depth. Soil bulk densities 0—60 cm depth were ranked in the order of litchi forest (1.45 g/cm3), broadleaf forest(1.22 g/cm3), bamboo forest (1.11 g/cm3). (2)Porosity of three types of forest decreased with the soil depth. In 0—60 cm depth, total porosity and capillary porosity of bamboo forest were the max in three types of forest, and total porosity of litchi forest and evergreen broadleaf forest were almost the same. Noncapillary porosities in 0—60 cm depth were ranked in the order of broadleaf forest (11.51 %), bamboo forest(7.38 %), and litchi forest(5.91 %). (3) Water storage capacity in 0—60 cm depth were ranked in the order of broadleaf forest (63.39 mm), bamboo forest(41.86 mm), and litchi forest(33.96 mm). Water draught capacity of 0—60 cm soil depth were ranked in the order of broadleaf forest (65.44 mm), bamboo forest(43.59 mm), and litchi forest(34.68 mm). Therefore, forest of Liuxihe watershed had good effect on soil physical characteristics, and the water conservation capacity of broadleaf forest was better than that of bamboo and litchi forest.

References

[1]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
[2]党宏忠,周泽福,赵雨森,等. 祁连山水源涵养林土壤水文特征研究[J]. 林业科学研究,2006(1):39-44.
[3]马雪华. 四川米亚罗地区高山冷杉林水文作用的研究[J]. 林业科学,1987,23(3):253-265.
[4]李德生,张萍,张水龙,等. 黄前库区经济林土壤水文效益研究[J]. 水土保持研究,2004,11(1):141-143.
[5]张光灿,夏江宝,王贵霞,等. 鲁中花岗山区人工林土壤水分物理性质[J]. 水土保持学报,2005,19(6):44-48.
[6]李伟烈. 广东省水资源问题及可持续利用对策[J]. 生态环境,2004,13(2):284-286.
[7]付春风,张贵. 广州流溪河国家森林公园森林景观稳定性研究[J]. 福建林业科技,2008,35(8):176-201.
[8]郭志华,肖文发,周云龙. 广州流溪河常绿阔叶林的植物区系地理分析[J]. 林业科学研究,2003,16(5):622-627
[9]林业部科技司. 森林生态系统定位研究方法[M]. 北京:科学技术出版社,1994.
[10]宋吉红,张洪江,姜广翔. 缙云山自然保护区4种森林类型林地土壤的持水特性研究[J]. 西部林业科学,2007,36(4):26-33.
[11]蒋俊明,费世民,和献峰,等. 攀枝花干热河谷四种人工植被类型土壤水源涵养特征分析[J]. 四川林业科技,2006,27(6):19-23.
[12]骆土寿,李意德,陈德祥,等. 广东白盆珠水库水源林土壤水源涵养能力研究[J]. 生态科学,2007,26(2):159-164.
[13]王燕,王兵,赵广东,等. 江西大岗山3种林型土壤水分物理性质研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2008,22(1):151-153,173.
[14]雷云飞,张卓文,苏开君,等. 流溪河森林各演替阶段凋落物层的水文特性[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(6):38-43. (责任编辑郑琰燚)

Last Update: 2010-06-29