不同种植模式和坡度对片麻岩山坡地氮素流失的影响
|
摘要
通过室外人工模拟降雨的方法,研究了在不同坡度(5°,15°,25°,35°)与不同欧李种植模式(1,2,3行)下对片麻岩山坡地土壤坡面氮素流失和产流的影响。结果表明:(1)产流时间随着坡度增大而提前,平均产流时间从种植模式3行到1行推迟了59.23%,2行到1行推迟了32.28%;不同种植模式下产流强度及波动幅度均为1行>2行>3行;(2)降雨过程中,不同种植模式下氮素流失量和流失浓度表现为1行>2行>3行,不同坡度下,氮素流失量和流失浓度为5°<15°<25°>35°,临界坡度为25°;(3)相同坡度,种植模式由2行到3行时硝态氮流失量减幅最大,5°,15°,25°,35°分别减少了16.78%,44.71%,41.33%,41.89%;(4)氮素流失过程中硝态氮流失量占比40.35%,铵态氮流失量占比10.13%,流失形式以硝态氮为主;(5)相同种植模式,2种氮素流失量和流失浓度与坡度存在二次函数关系,相同坡度,与种植模式存在线性关系,相关系数(R~2)范围分别为0.531～0.999,0.102～0.999;(6)种植模式与硝态氮流失量和铵态氮流失量均呈线性负相关关系,是影响氮素流失的主要因子。在片麻岩山坡地,利用多行交错方式种植欧李可显著降低氮素流失。
Through the method of outdoor artificial rainfall simulation, the effects of different slopes(5°, 15°, 25° and 35°) and different planting patterns of Prunus humilis(one row, two rows and three rows) on nitrogen loss and runoff production in gneiss hillsides were studied. The results showed that:(1) The runoff yield time was advanced with the increasing of the slope gradient, and the average runoff yield time was delayed by 59.23% from three rows planting to one row planting, and it was delayed by 32.28% from two rows planting to one row plant, and the runoff yield intensity and fluctuation range of the different planting patterns followed the order of one row > two rows > three rows.(2) During the rainfall process, the nitrogen loss and the loss concentration of different planting patterns were sequenced as one row>two rows>three rows. Under the different slopes, the nitrogen loss and the loss concentration were sequenced as 5°<15°<25°>35°, and the critical slope gradient was 25°.(3) On the same slope, the loss of nitrate nitrogen was the largest when the planting pattern was two rows to three rows, which decreased by 16.78%, 44.71%, 41.33% and 41.89%, respectively.(4) During the nitrogen loss process, nitrate nitrogen loss accounted for 40.35%, ammonium nitrogen loss accounted for 10.13%, and nitrate nitrogen was the main form of loss.(5) In the same planting pattern, there was a quadratic function between the loss amount and the loss concentration of the nitrogen and the slope, the correlation coefficients(R~2) ranged from 0.531 to 0.999. On the same slope, the loss amount and the loss concentration of the nitrogen had linear relationship with the planting pattern, and the correlation coefficients(R~2) ranged from 0.102 to 0.999.(6) Planting pattern was negatively correlated with nitrate nitrogen loss and ammonium nitrogen loss, which was the main factor affecting nitrogen loss. In the gneiss hillsides, planting P. humilis in multi-row staggered way could significantly reduce nitrogen loss.
Through the method of outdoor artificial rainfall simulation, the effects of different slopes(5°, 15°, 25° and 35°) and different planting patterns of Prunus humilis(one row, two rows and three rows) on nitrogen loss and runoff production in gneiss hillsides were studied. The results showed that:(1) The runoff yield time was advanced with the increasing of the slope gradient, and the average runoff yield time was delayed by 59.23% from three rows planting to one row planting, and it was delayed by 32.28% from two rows planting to one row plant, and the runoff yield intensity and fluctuation range of the different planting patterns followed the order of one row > two rows > three rows.(2) During the rainfall process, the nitrogen loss and the loss concentration of different planting patterns were sequenced as one row>two rows>three rows. Under the different slopes, the nitrogen loss and the loss concentration were sequenced as 5°<15°<25°>35°, and the critical slope gradient was 25°.(3) On the same slope, the loss of nitrate nitrogen was the largest when the planting pattern was two rows to three rows, which decreased by 16.78%, 44.71%, 41.33% and 41.89%, respectively.(4) During the nitrogen loss process, nitrate nitrogen loss accounted for 40.35%, ammonium nitrogen loss accounted for 10.13%, and nitrate nitrogen was the main form of loss.(5) In the same planting pattern, there was a quadratic function between the loss amount and the loss concentration of the nitrogen and the slope, the correlation coefficients(R~2) ranged from 0.531 to 0.999. On the same slope, the loss amount and the loss concentration of the nitrogen had linear relationship with the planting pattern, and the correlation coefficients(R~2) ranged from 0.102 to 0.999.(6) Planting pattern was negatively correlated with nitrate nitrogen loss and ammonium nitrogen loss, which was the main factor affecting nitrogen loss. In the gneiss hillsides, planting P. humilis in multi-row staggered way could significantly reduce nitrogen loss.
引文
[1] 罗永霞,高波,颜晓元,等.太湖地区农业源对水体氮污染的贡献:以宜溧河流域为例[J].农业环境科学学报,2015,34(12):2318-2326.
[2] 冯勇.不同坡度和雨强条件下紫色土壤中流氮磷养分流失特征研究[J].水土保持应用技术,2014(4):4-6.
[3] 李虎军.坡长和植被对坡面水土养分流失特征的影响研究[D].西安:西安理工大学,2018.
[4] 彭华.土壤侵蚀临界坡度研究进展[J].水土保持科技情报,2004(2):30-32.
[5] 马平安,郭全邦,李荣华,等.太行山片麻岩山地植被水土保持效益研究[J].地理学与国土研究,1999,15(3):43-46.
[6] 顾新庆,张金香.太行山片麻岩低山区水土流失规律研究[J].林业科技开发,2005,19(4):29-32.
[7] 钱金平,魏立涛,冯忠江.河北省山区水土流失现状及其成因分析[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(4):131-133.
[8] 马维玲,石培礼,宗宁,等.太行山区主要森林生态系统水源涵养能力[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(4):478-489.
[9] 孙辉,唐亚,谢嘉穗.植物篱种植模式及其在我国的研究和应用[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):114-117.
[10] 安娟.东北黑土区土壤侵蚀过程机理和土壤养分迁移研究[D].北京:中国科学院研究生院(教育部水土保持与生态环境研究中心),2012.
[11] 赵莹,耿灵生,陈风琴,等.山东壤土坡面人工降雨水土流失规律研究[J].水土保持应用技术,2015(1):1-4.
[12] 谌芸.植物篱对紫色土水土特性的效应及作用机理[D].重庆:西南大学,2012.
[13] 龙天渝,刘金辉,刘祥章,等.地表覆盖对紫色土坡耕地壤中流流动和硝态氮运移过程的影响[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(6):68-73.
[14] 陈娟,陈林,宋乃平,等.荒漠草原不同土壤类型水分入渗特征[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(4):18-23.
[15] 段然,汤月丰,王亚男,等.不同施肥方法对双季稻区水稻产量及氮素流失的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(12):1815-1822.
[16] 由政,姚旭,景航,等.不同演替阶段群落根系分布与土壤团聚体特征的协同变化[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(6):20-25,31.
[17] 李学平,孙燕,石孝均.紫色土稻田磷素淋失特征及其对地下水的影响[J].环境科学学报,2008,28(9):1832-1838.
[18] Ansar M F I S.Management of slopping lands for sustainable agriculture in Pothwar [J].Journal of Agricultural Research,2003,52(5):376-380.
[19] Singh S,Kulsherstha U C.Abundance and distribution of gaseous ammonia and particulate ammonium at Delhi,India [J].Biogeosciences,2012,9(12):5023-5029.
[20] 张丽萍,张锐波,吴希媛.不同管理方式竹林坡地降雨径流中氮磷流失特性模拟试验[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(6):1-6.
[21] 黄丽,丁树文,董舟,等.三峡库区紫色土养分流失的试验研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1998,4(1):9-14,22.
[22] 黄利玲,王子芳,高明,等.三峡库区紫色土旱坡地不同坡度土壤磷素流失特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(1):30-33.
[23] Mahmood T,Kaiser W M,Alir R,et al.Ammonium versus nitrate nutrition of plants stimulates microbial activity in the Rhizosphere [J].Plant and Soil,2005,277(1/2):233-243.
[24] 王云,徐昌旭,汪怀建,等.施肥与耕作对红壤坡地养分流失的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(3):500-507.
[2] 冯勇.不同坡度和雨强条件下紫色土壤中流氮磷养分流失特征研究[J].水土保持应用技术,2014(4):4-6.
[3] 李虎军.坡长和植被对坡面水土养分流失特征的影响研究[D].西安:西安理工大学,2018.
[4] 彭华.土壤侵蚀临界坡度研究进展[J].水土保持科技情报,2004(2):30-32.
[5] 马平安,郭全邦,李荣华,等.太行山片麻岩山地植被水土保持效益研究[J].地理学与国土研究,1999,15(3):43-46.
[6] 顾新庆,张金香.太行山片麻岩低山区水土流失规律研究[J].林业科技开发,2005,19(4):29-32.
[7] 钱金平,魏立涛,冯忠江.河北省山区水土流失现状及其成因分析[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(4):131-133.
[8] 马维玲,石培礼,宗宁,等.太行山区主要森林生态系统水源涵养能力[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(4):478-489.
[9] 孙辉,唐亚,谢嘉穗.植物篱种植模式及其在我国的研究和应用[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):114-117.
[10] 安娟.东北黑土区土壤侵蚀过程机理和土壤养分迁移研究[D].北京:中国科学院研究生院(教育部水土保持与生态环境研究中心),2012.
[11] 赵莹,耿灵生,陈风琴,等.山东壤土坡面人工降雨水土流失规律研究[J].水土保持应用技术,2015(1):1-4.
[12] 谌芸.植物篱对紫色土水土特性的效应及作用机理[D].重庆:西南大学,2012.
[13] 龙天渝,刘金辉,刘祥章,等.地表覆盖对紫色土坡耕地壤中流流动和硝态氮运移过程的影响[J].水土保持研究,2018,25(6):68-73.
[14] 陈娟,陈林,宋乃平,等.荒漠草原不同土壤类型水分入渗特征[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(4):18-23.
[15] 段然,汤月丰,王亚男,等.不同施肥方法对双季稻区水稻产量及氮素流失的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2017,25(12):1815-1822.
[16] 由政,姚旭,景航,等.不同演替阶段群落根系分布与土壤团聚体特征的协同变化[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(6):20-25,31.
[17] 李学平,孙燕,石孝均.紫色土稻田磷素淋失特征及其对地下水的影响[J].环境科学学报,2008,28(9):1832-1838.
[18] Ansar M F I S.Management of slopping lands for sustainable agriculture in Pothwar [J].Journal of Agricultural Research,2003,52(5):376-380.
[19] Singh S,Kulsherstha U C.Abundance and distribution of gaseous ammonia and particulate ammonium at Delhi,India [J].Biogeosciences,2012,9(12):5023-5029.
[20] 张丽萍,张锐波,吴希媛.不同管理方式竹林坡地降雨径流中氮磷流失特性模拟试验[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(6):1-6.
[21] 黄丽,丁树文,董舟,等.三峡库区紫色土养分流失的试验研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1998,4(1):9-14,22.
[22] 黄利玲,王子芳,高明,等.三峡库区紫色土旱坡地不同坡度土壤磷素流失特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(1):30-33.
[23] Mahmood T,Kaiser W M,Alir R,et al.Ammonium versus nitrate nutrition of plants stimulates microbial activity in the Rhizosphere [J].Plant and Soil,2005,277(1/2):233-243.
[24] 王云,徐昌旭,汪怀建,等.施肥与耕作对红壤坡地养分流失的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(3):500-507.