陇东黄土高原不同林龄苹果林地枯落物及土壤的水文效应
|
摘要
[目的]探讨甘肃省东部黄土高原苹果林地枯落物和土壤持水规律,为经济林的经营管理和生态效益评价提供科学依据。[方法]以林龄为1,3,7,13,29a的苹果林地为研究对象,野外收集样品并采用室内浸水法和环刀法测定枯落物和0—80cm土层的土壤水文性能。[结果](1)7a林地的枯落物层蓄积量、最大持水量和有效拦蓄量显著高于1,3,13,29a的苹果林地;(2)苹果林地枯落物最大持水量为5.02~20.66t/hm2,与浸水时间呈对数关系(R>0.90);最大持水率为120.46%~352.53%,与浸水时间呈幂函数关系(R>0.64);(3)随林龄增加,土壤容重变化不大,其变化范围为1.173~1.372g/cm3,但总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度及最大持水量均表现为先增大后减小,分别为52.46%~57.06%,46.34%~51.87%,1 049.15~1 141.26t/hm2,非毛管孔隙度与有效持水量总体呈增加趋势;(4)林龄为3a的初渗率和平均渗透速率均高于其他林龄苹果林地,为3a>1a>29a>7a>13a。因此,林龄为3a的苹果林地在整个渗透时间内其渗透性均高于其他林地。[结论]苹果经济林能显著提高水源涵养和水土保持功能,但枯落物和土壤的水文效应随林龄增加的变化并不同步,且随林龄增大也会出现功能衰退的趋势。
[Objective]To investigate the litters and soil water-holding in apple tree plantation in the Loess Plateau of east Gansu Province,in order to provide scientific basis for economic forest management and ecological benefit evaluation.[Methods]Taking the stand age of 1,3,7,13 and 29-year old apple tree plantation as the research object,we collected soil samples and used indoor immersion method and cutting ring knife method to analyze the hydrological properties of litters and soil at 0—80 cm depth.[Results](1) The litters layer volume,maximum water holding capacity and effective interception volume of 7-year apple forest land were significantly higher than that of 1,3,13 and 29-year apple forest land.(2) The maximum water holding capacity of litter was 5.02~20.66 t/hm2 and had a logarithmic correlation with immersion time(R>0.90).The maximum water holding rate of litter was 120.46%~352.53% and had a power function relation with water immersion time(R>0.64).(3) Soil bulk density changed little with the increasing stand age,and the change range was 1.173~1.372 g/cm3.In contrast,the total porosity,capillary porosity and maximum water increased initially and then decreased,the range was 52.46%~57.06%,46.34%~51.87%and 1 049.15~1 141.26 t/hm2,respectively.Non-capillary porosity and effective water showed an overall increasing trend.(4) The initial infiltration rate and average permeation rate of 3-year old apple plantation were higher than those of other forest ages,which was 3 a>1 a>29 a>7 a>13 a.Therefore,the permeability of apple forest land aged 3 years was higher than other forest lands during the entire penetration time.[Conclusion]Apple economic forest can significantly improve the water conservation and soil and water conservation functions,but the hydrological effects of litters and soil are not synchronized,and with the increase of stand age,there will be a trend of functional decline.
[Objective]To investigate the litters and soil water-holding in apple tree plantation in the Loess Plateau of east Gansu Province,in order to provide scientific basis for economic forest management and ecological benefit evaluation.[Methods]Taking the stand age of 1,3,7,13 and 29-year old apple tree plantation as the research object,we collected soil samples and used indoor immersion method and cutting ring knife method to analyze the hydrological properties of litters and soil at 0—80 cm depth.[Results](1) The litters layer volume,maximum water holding capacity and effective interception volume of 7-year apple forest land were significantly higher than that of 1,3,13 and 29-year apple forest land.(2) The maximum water holding capacity of litter was 5.02~20.66 t/hm2 and had a logarithmic correlation with immersion time(R>0.90).The maximum water holding rate of litter was 120.46%~352.53% and had a power function relation with water immersion time(R>0.64).(3) Soil bulk density changed little with the increasing stand age,and the change range was 1.173~1.372 g/cm3.In contrast,the total porosity,capillary porosity and maximum water increased initially and then decreased,the range was 52.46%~57.06%,46.34%~51.87%and 1 049.15~1 141.26 t/hm2,respectively.Non-capillary porosity and effective water showed an overall increasing trend.(4) The initial infiltration rate and average permeation rate of 3-year old apple plantation were higher than those of other forest ages,which was 3 a>1 a>29 a>7 a>13 a.Therefore,the permeability of apple forest land aged 3 years was higher than other forest lands during the entire penetration time.[Conclusion]Apple economic forest can significantly improve the water conservation and soil and water conservation functions,but the hydrological effects of litters and soil are not synchronized,and with the increase of stand age,there will be a trend of functional decline.
引文
[1]熊莉,徐振锋,杨万勤,等.川西亚高山粗枝云杉人工林地上凋落物对土壤呼吸的贡献[J].生态学报,2015,35(14):4678-4686.
[2]周志立,张丽玮,陈倩,等.木兰围场3种典型林分枯落物及土壤持水能力[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(1):207-213.
[3]贲越,周一杨,李彧,等.枯落物分解与土壤蓄水能力关系的研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(5):1416-1418.
[4]时忠杰,王彦辉,徐丽宏,等.六盘山主要森林类型枯落物的水文功能[J].北京林业大学学报,2009,31(1):91-99.
[5]程金花,张洪江,余新晓,等.贡嘎山冷杉纯林地被物及土壤持水特性[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(3):45-49.
[6]张光灿,刘霞,赵玟,等.泰山几种林分枯落物和土壤水文效应研究[J].林业科技通讯,1999(6):28-29.
[7]孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.等缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.
[8]王勤,张宗应,徐小牛.安徽大别山库区不同林分类型的土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):59-62.
[9]Sharma S K,Sastry G.Impact of various land uses on the infiltration in Doon Valley[J].Indian Journal of Soil Conservation,1998,26(1):17-18.
[10]Zwieniecki M A.Water-holding characteristics of metasedimentary rock in selected forest ecosystems in Southwestern Oregon[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,1996,60(5):1578-1582.
[11]IrouméA,Huber A,Schulz K.Summer flows in experimental catchments with different forest covers[J].Journal of Hydrology,2005,300(1):300-313.
[12]李召青,张卫强,殷祚云,等.四种人工林枯落物持水特性[J].广东林业科技,2012,28(4):5-10.
[13]孙文泰,张坤,刘小勇,等.垄膜集雨对陇东旱塬苹果根系分布及土壤性状的影响[J].西北农业学报,2012,21(10):100-105.
[14]岳勇.静宁县苹果产业发展模式研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2014.
[15]胡晓聪,黄乾亮,金亮.西双版纳热带山地雨林枯落物及其土壤水文功能[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(1):55-63.
[16]李鹏鹏,艾炳伟,李强,等.甘肃静宁推进苹果化肥农药减施增效的现状及建议[J].果树实用与信息技术,2018(4):35-39.
[17]鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.半干旱黄土丘陵区不同人工植被恢复土壤水分的相对亏缺[J].生态学报,2011,31(11):3060-3068.
[18]卢振启,黄秋娴,杨新兵.河北雾灵山不同海拔油松人工林枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(1):112-116.
[19]王云强,邵明安,刘志鹏.黄土高原区域尺度土壤水分空间变异性[J].水科学进展,2012,23(3):310-316.
[20]王美莲,王飞,姚晓娟,等.不同林龄兴安落叶松枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):925-931.
[21]叶晶,吴家森,张金池,等.不同经营年限山核桃林地枯落物和土壤的水文效应[J].水土保持通报,2014,34(3):87-91.
[22]李文影,满秀玲,张阳武.不同林龄白桦次生林土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].中国水土保持科学,2009,7(5):63-69.
[23]刘芝芹,黄新会,徐璟,等.云南高原不同林分类型枯落物储量及持水特性[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):919-924.
[24]赵锦梅,马瑞,张富,等.兰州市北山不同人工林枯落物和土壤的水文特征[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(1):57-61.
[25]巍强,张秋良,代海燕,等.大青山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):111-115.
[26]柴亚凡,王恩姮,陈祥伟,等.植被恢复模式对黑土贮水性能及水分入渗特征的影响[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):60-64.
[27]李红,范素芳,张光灿,等.黄土丘陵区退耕还林后不同林地土壤孔隙与贮水特性[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(1):27-30.
[28]高朝侠,徐学选,宇苗子,等.黄土塬区土地利用方式对土壤大孔隙特征的影响[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(6):1578-1584.
[29]卢立娜,赵雨兴,胡莉芳,等.沙棘(Hippophae rhamnoides)种植对鄂尔多斯砒砂岩地区土壤容重、孔隙度与贮水能力的影响[J].中国沙漠,2015,35(5):1171-1176.
[30]李建兴,何丙辉,梅雪梅,等.紫色土区坡耕地不同种植模式对土壤渗透性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(3):725-731.
[31]潘云,吕殿青.土壤容重对土壤水分入渗特性影响研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2009,28(2):59-61,77.
[32]张昌顺,范少辉,官凤英,等.闽北毛竹林的土壤渗透性及其影响因子[J].林业科学,2009,45(1):36-42.
[2]周志立,张丽玮,陈倩,等.木兰围场3种典型林分枯落物及土壤持水能力[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(1):207-213.
[3]贲越,周一杨,李彧,等.枯落物分解与土壤蓄水能力关系的研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(5):1416-1418.
[4]时忠杰,王彦辉,徐丽宏,等.六盘山主要森林类型枯落物的水文功能[J].北京林业大学学报,2009,31(1):91-99.
[5]程金花,张洪江,余新晓,等.贡嘎山冷杉纯林地被物及土壤持水特性[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(3):45-49.
[6]张光灿,刘霞,赵玟,等.泰山几种林分枯落物和土壤水文效应研究[J].林业科技通讯,1999(6):28-29.
[7]孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.等缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.
[8]王勤,张宗应,徐小牛.安徽大别山库区不同林分类型的土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):59-62.
[9]Sharma S K,Sastry G.Impact of various land uses on the infiltration in Doon Valley[J].Indian Journal of Soil Conservation,1998,26(1):17-18.
[10]Zwieniecki M A.Water-holding characteristics of metasedimentary rock in selected forest ecosystems in Southwestern Oregon[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,1996,60(5):1578-1582.
[11]IrouméA,Huber A,Schulz K.Summer flows in experimental catchments with different forest covers[J].Journal of Hydrology,2005,300(1):300-313.
[12]李召青,张卫强,殷祚云,等.四种人工林枯落物持水特性[J].广东林业科技,2012,28(4):5-10.
[13]孙文泰,张坤,刘小勇,等.垄膜集雨对陇东旱塬苹果根系分布及土壤性状的影响[J].西北农业学报,2012,21(10):100-105.
[14]岳勇.静宁县苹果产业发展模式研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2014.
[15]胡晓聪,黄乾亮,金亮.西双版纳热带山地雨林枯落物及其土壤水文功能[J].应用生态学报,2017,28(1):55-63.
[16]李鹏鹏,艾炳伟,李强,等.甘肃静宁推进苹果化肥农药减施增效的现状及建议[J].果树实用与信息技术,2018(4):35-39.
[17]鲁绍伟,陈波,潘青华,等.半干旱黄土丘陵区不同人工植被恢复土壤水分的相对亏缺[J].生态学报,2011,31(11):3060-3068.
[18]卢振启,黄秋娴,杨新兵.河北雾灵山不同海拔油松人工林枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(1):112-116.
[19]王云强,邵明安,刘志鹏.黄土高原区域尺度土壤水分空间变异性[J].水科学进展,2012,23(3):310-316.
[20]王美莲,王飞,姚晓娟,等.不同林龄兴安落叶松枯落物及土壤水文效应研究[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):925-931.
[21]叶晶,吴家森,张金池,等.不同经营年限山核桃林地枯落物和土壤的水文效应[J].水土保持通报,2014,34(3):87-91.
[22]李文影,满秀玲,张阳武.不同林龄白桦次生林土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].中国水土保持科学,2009,7(5):63-69.
[23]刘芝芹,黄新会,徐璟,等.云南高原不同林分类型枯落物储量及持水特性[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(6):919-924.
[24]赵锦梅,马瑞,张富,等.兰州市北山不同人工林枯落物和土壤的水文特征[J].水土保持通报,2017,37(1):57-61.
[25]巍强,张秋良,代海燕,等.大青山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):111-115.
[26]柴亚凡,王恩姮,陈祥伟,等.植被恢复模式对黑土贮水性能及水分入渗特征的影响[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):60-64.
[27]李红,范素芳,张光灿,等.黄土丘陵区退耕还林后不同林地土壤孔隙与贮水特性[J].水土保持通报,2010,30(1):27-30.
[28]高朝侠,徐学选,宇苗子,等.黄土塬区土地利用方式对土壤大孔隙特征的影响[J].应用生态学报,2014,25(6):1578-1584.
[29]卢立娜,赵雨兴,胡莉芳,等.沙棘(Hippophae rhamnoides)种植对鄂尔多斯砒砂岩地区土壤容重、孔隙度与贮水能力的影响[J].中国沙漠,2015,35(5):1171-1176.
[30]李建兴,何丙辉,梅雪梅,等.紫色土区坡耕地不同种植模式对土壤渗透性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2013,24(3):725-731.
[31]潘云,吕殿青.土壤容重对土壤水分入渗特性影响研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2009,28(2):59-61,77.
[32]张昌顺,范少辉,官凤英,等.闽北毛竹林的土壤渗透性及其影响因子[J].林业科学,2009,45(1):36-42.