川鄂褶皱山地溪洪-滑坡灾害与主要自然因子的关系——以香溪河流域为例
|
摘要
[目的]明确影响香溪河流域溪洪—滑坡灾害分布的瓶颈性自然因子,为其代表的三峡库区东部川鄂褶皱山地山洪地质灾害防治提供科学依据,并探讨地理探测器模型的应用表现。[方法]应用GIS技术、逐步回归和地理探测器模型,分析研究流域溪洪—滑坡灾害分布与主要自然因子的定量关系。[结果]进入回归模型的5项因子总解释度80.6%,贡献率依次为岩性脆弱性28.6%,断层缓冲区19.8%,NDVI18.9%,暴雨极值16.4%,岩性软硬程度16.3%;地理探测中对因变量解释度较大的5项因子分别为岩性脆弱性24.5%,断层缓冲区20.9%,NDVI 18.3%,土壤入渗性16.3%,岩性软硬程度14.8%;岩性脆弱性与NDVI值、坡度的交互作用强度分别达68.8%和62.0%。[结论]地质要素对流域溪洪—滑坡灾害分布具有绝对的控制作用,植被的影响其次,土壤和降水的影响有限,地形的作用体现在协同方面;地理探测器模型为定量分析非线性变量间的关联性提供了新的视角,但它消除了自变量的数值属性,在变量影响方向和重复性侦测方面有局限。
[Objective]The key natural factors affecting the distribution of landslide disasters induced by mountain torrent in the Xiangxi catchment,which represents the Sichuan-Hubei fold mountain area inner Eastern Three Gorges Area,was studied in order to provide scientific support for the regional prevention and control of the mountain torrent and geologic disasters.Besides,the performance of Geodetector model was also discussed.[Methods]The quantitative relationships between the regional torrent-landslide distributed pattern in disaster-prone mountain and its main natural impact factors was analyzed based on field investigation,GIS,general statistic method and Geodetector.[Results]The stepwise regression analysis indicated that the main five factors,i.e.,lithology frangibility,fault range,NDVI,extreme value of storm and lithology hard degree can totally explain 80.6%of the variation of the pattern,and the contributions of them were 28.6%,19.8%,18.9%,16.4%and 16.3%,respectively.The Geodetector analysis indicated that the main factorswere lithology frangibility,fault range,NDVI,soil erodibility and lithology hard degree,their contributions were 24.5%,20.9%,18.3%,16.3%and 14.8%,respectively.The interactions between lithology frangibility and the two vaiables of NDVI and slope,can explained 68.8% and 62.0% of the pattern,respectively.[Conclusion]The regional mountain torrent-landslide disaster pattern were mainly controlled by lithology,fault and vegetation cover.The harder the rock was,and the farther from the fault,and the higher cover level of vegetation,the less the mountain torrent-landslide developed.The Geodetector is suitable for the nonlinear geographical phenomenon in general.However,the linear characteristic of independent variable is ignored in this method,and naturally the repeatability among the variables cannot be distinguished.Therefore,the classic statistical method should be combined for understanding the results comprehensively.
[Objective]The key natural factors affecting the distribution of landslide disasters induced by mountain torrent in the Xiangxi catchment,which represents the Sichuan-Hubei fold mountain area inner Eastern Three Gorges Area,was studied in order to provide scientific support for the regional prevention and control of the mountain torrent and geologic disasters.Besides,the performance of Geodetector model was also discussed.[Methods]The quantitative relationships between the regional torrent-landslide distributed pattern in disaster-prone mountain and its main natural impact factors was analyzed based on field investigation,GIS,general statistic method and Geodetector.[Results]The stepwise regression analysis indicated that the main five factors,i.e.,lithology frangibility,fault range,NDVI,extreme value of storm and lithology hard degree can totally explain 80.6%of the variation of the pattern,and the contributions of them were 28.6%,19.8%,18.9%,16.4%and 16.3%,respectively.The Geodetector analysis indicated that the main factorswere lithology frangibility,fault range,NDVI,soil erodibility and lithology hard degree,their contributions were 24.5%,20.9%,18.3%,16.3%and 14.8%,respectively.The interactions between lithology frangibility and the two vaiables of NDVI and slope,can explained 68.8% and 62.0% of the pattern,respectively.[Conclusion]The regional mountain torrent-landslide disaster pattern were mainly controlled by lithology,fault and vegetation cover.The harder the rock was,and the farther from the fault,and the higher cover level of vegetation,the less the mountain torrent-landslide developed.The Geodetector is suitable for the nonlinear geographical phenomenon in general.However,the linear characteristic of independent variable is ignored in this method,and naturally the repeatability among the variables cannot be distinguished.Therefore,the classic statistical method should be combined for understanding the results comprehensively.
引文
[1]高连通,易夏玮,李喜,等.三峡库区典型滑坡变形与高水位涨落关系研究[J].地质科技情报,2011,30(4):132-136.
[2]黄波林,陈小婷.香溪河流域白家堡滑坡变形失稳机制分析[J].岩土工程学报,2007,29(6):938-942.
[3]张国栋,谈太溪,徐志华,等.三峡库区谭家河滑坡变形监测成果分析[J].自然灾害学报,2017,26(3):185-192.
[4]廖秋林,李晓,李守定,等.三峡库区千将坪滑坡的发生、地质地貌特征、成因及滑坡判据研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2005,24(17):3146-3153.
[5]张平仓,赵健,胡维忠,等.中国山洪灾害防治区划[M].湖北武汉:长江出版社,2009.
[6]邓清禄,王学平.长江三峡库区滑坡与构造活动的关系[J].工程地质学报,2000,8(2):136-141.
[7]陈剑,李晓,杨志法.三峡库区滑坡的时空分布特征与成因探讨[J].工程地质学报,2005,13(3):305-309.
[8]白世彪,闾国年,盛业华,等.基于GIS的长江三峡库区滑坡影响因子分析[J].山地学报,2005,23(1):63-70.
[9]乔建平,朱阿兴,吴彩燕,等.采用本底因子贡献率法的三峡库区滑坡危险度区划[J].山地学报,2006,24(5):569-573.
[10] Wang Xianmin,Niu Ruiqing.Spatial forecast of landslides in Three Gorges based on spatial data mining[J].Sensors,2009,9(3):2035-2061.
[11]李雪,李井冈,刘小利,等.三峡库首区滑坡空间分布特征分析及危险性评价[J].大地测量与地球动力学,2016,36(7):630-634.
[12]张俊,殷坤龙,王佳佳,等.三峡库区万州区滑坡灾害易发性评价研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2016,35(2):284-296.
[13]王劲峰,徐成东.地理探测器:原理与展望[J].地理学报,2017,72(1):116-134.
[14]范大波.三峡库区香溪河段滑坡发育特征及水库蓄水对岸坡稳定性的影响研究[D].四川成都:成都理工大学,2011.
[15]杜俊,丁文峰,任洪玉.四川省不同类型山洪灾害与主要影响因素的关系[J].长江流域资源与环境,2015,24(11):1977-1983.
[16]刘惠英,任洪玉,张平仓,等.香溪河流域近60年来降雨量变化趋势及突变分析[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(4):282-286.
[17]万荣荣,杨桂山.流域土地利用/覆被变化的水文效应及洪水响应[J].湖泊科学,2004,16(3):258-264.
[18]李雪转,樊贵盛.土壤有机质含量对土壤入渗能力及参数影响的试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(3):188-190.
[19]李卓,吴普特,冯浩,等.不同黏粒含量土壤水分入渗能力模拟试验研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(3):71-77.
[20]杜俊,师长兴,周园园.长江上游侵蚀产沙格局及其控制因素[J].山地学报,2010,28(6):22-29.
[21]黄润秋,李为乐.汶川大地震触发地质灾害的断层效应分析[J].工程地质学报,2009,17(1):21-30.
[22]王孔伟,张帆,邱殿明.三峡库区黄陵背斜形成机理及与滑坡群关系[J].吉林大学学报:地球科学版,2015,45(4):1142-1154.
[23]吴昌广,林德生,周志翔,等.三峡库区降水量的空间插值方法及时空分布[J].长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(7):752-758.
[24]赵良军,陈冬花,李虎,等.基于二元逻辑回归模型的新疆果子沟滑坡风险区划[J].山地学报,2017,35(2):203-211.
[25]曹洪洋,郝东恒,白聚波.区域滑坡灾害地形地貌因子敏感性分析研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2011,21(11):3-7.
[2]黄波林,陈小婷.香溪河流域白家堡滑坡变形失稳机制分析[J].岩土工程学报,2007,29(6):938-942.
[3]张国栋,谈太溪,徐志华,等.三峡库区谭家河滑坡变形监测成果分析[J].自然灾害学报,2017,26(3):185-192.
[4]廖秋林,李晓,李守定,等.三峡库区千将坪滑坡的发生、地质地貌特征、成因及滑坡判据研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2005,24(17):3146-3153.
[5]张平仓,赵健,胡维忠,等.中国山洪灾害防治区划[M].湖北武汉:长江出版社,2009.
[6]邓清禄,王学平.长江三峡库区滑坡与构造活动的关系[J].工程地质学报,2000,8(2):136-141.
[7]陈剑,李晓,杨志法.三峡库区滑坡的时空分布特征与成因探讨[J].工程地质学报,2005,13(3):305-309.
[8]白世彪,闾国年,盛业华,等.基于GIS的长江三峡库区滑坡影响因子分析[J].山地学报,2005,23(1):63-70.
[9]乔建平,朱阿兴,吴彩燕,等.采用本底因子贡献率法的三峡库区滑坡危险度区划[J].山地学报,2006,24(5):569-573.
[10] Wang Xianmin,Niu Ruiqing.Spatial forecast of landslides in Three Gorges based on spatial data mining[J].Sensors,2009,9(3):2035-2061.
[11]李雪,李井冈,刘小利,等.三峡库首区滑坡空间分布特征分析及危险性评价[J].大地测量与地球动力学,2016,36(7):630-634.
[12]张俊,殷坤龙,王佳佳,等.三峡库区万州区滑坡灾害易发性评价研究[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2016,35(2):284-296.
[13]王劲峰,徐成东.地理探测器:原理与展望[J].地理学报,2017,72(1):116-134.
[14]范大波.三峡库区香溪河段滑坡发育特征及水库蓄水对岸坡稳定性的影响研究[D].四川成都:成都理工大学,2011.
[15]杜俊,丁文峰,任洪玉.四川省不同类型山洪灾害与主要影响因素的关系[J].长江流域资源与环境,2015,24(11):1977-1983.
[16]刘惠英,任洪玉,张平仓,等.香溪河流域近60年来降雨量变化趋势及突变分析[J].水土保持研究,2015,22(4):282-286.
[17]万荣荣,杨桂山.流域土地利用/覆被变化的水文效应及洪水响应[J].湖泊科学,2004,16(3):258-264.
[18]李雪转,樊贵盛.土壤有机质含量对土壤入渗能力及参数影响的试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(3):188-190.
[19]李卓,吴普特,冯浩,等.不同黏粒含量土壤水分入渗能力模拟试验研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(3):71-77.
[20]杜俊,师长兴,周园园.长江上游侵蚀产沙格局及其控制因素[J].山地学报,2010,28(6):22-29.
[21]黄润秋,李为乐.汶川大地震触发地质灾害的断层效应分析[J].工程地质学报,2009,17(1):21-30.
[22]王孔伟,张帆,邱殿明.三峡库区黄陵背斜形成机理及与滑坡群关系[J].吉林大学学报:地球科学版,2015,45(4):1142-1154.
[23]吴昌广,林德生,周志翔,等.三峡库区降水量的空间插值方法及时空分布[J].长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(7):752-758.
[24]赵良军,陈冬花,李虎,等.基于二元逻辑回归模型的新疆果子沟滑坡风险区划[J].山地学报,2017,35(2):203-211.
[25]曹洪洋,郝东恒,白聚波.区域滑坡灾害地形地貌因子敏感性分析研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2011,21(11):3-7.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |