几种不同材料机械沙障防风效应研究
|
摘要
机械沙障是降低近地表土壤风蚀的重要措施,其主要通过改变下垫面的性质,增加地表粗糙度来实现降低风速、减弱风蚀,进而达到防风固沙的目的。然而,以往的实验主要以风洞模拟为主,野外实验结果稀少。本研究选取毛乌素沙地南缘作为样地,通过大量野外实验,观测不同沙障措施(麦草、芦苇杆、聚酯纤维沙袋、塑料网)下近地表风速变化规律和土壤的蚀积特征,探讨沙障措施对土壤风蚀影响的机理,找出各项沙障技术利用目前存在的问题,并提出有效的解决办法,以期能为制定防治土壤风蚀的对策提供科学的依据,结论如下：
(1)对于塑料网沙障,本试验选取了规格为1m×1m、2m×2m、3m×3m及4m×4m,高度分别为20cm、30cm、40cm和50cm,孔隙度为20%、30%、50%及70%的64种组合方式。经过对比分析得出：沙障规格为1m×1m,高度为50cm,孔隙度为20%时,塑料网沙障在四种材料中防风固沙效果最佳。在同一高度条件下,所有规格沙障当沙障高度为40cm时,防风固沙效果和高度为50cm时的相差很小,而且当沙障孔隙度为30%时,防风固沙效果和孔隙度为20%时的相差不大。综合考虑沙障的设置成本等因素,沙障在相同的条件下,选择高40cm,孔隙度为30%较为适宜。
(2)沙袋沙障的防风固沙效果分析结果表明,在1m×1m、1.5m×1.5m、2m×2m、3m×3m及4m×4m等5种规格当中,1m×1m规格的防风固沙效果最佳。不足之处为该材料跟其他材料沙障相对比较,防风固沙效果最差。这是由于沙袋沙障的高度固定为10cm,相对较低,从野外试验结果来看,增大粗糙度的效果不明显。从野外试验结果分析得出,当野外平均风速达到8m／s以上时,沙袋方格内部的沙粒大部分被吹出,使得沙障内部的风蚀程度大于裸地,沙袋沙障的设置反而加强了沙障内部的风蚀。同时,从野外观察发现,在铺设沙袋沙障后,迎风面的沙袋的底部首先遭到大风的‘掏蚀’,之后沙袋自然下塌,从而使得该沙障达不到理想的防风固沙的作用。沙袋沙障的优势是能就地取材,以沙治沙,布设办法简易,费时短,效率高,成本低廉,在一定面积里需要的材料量比其他材料少。不足之处为生产费用和运送费比其它材料贵。
(3)对1m×1m、1.1m×1.1m、1.2m×1.2m、1.4m×1.4m、1.5m×1.5m、1.6m×1.6m、1.8m×1.8m及2m×2m 8种规格麦草沙障防风固沙效果进行了分析。分析结果为：随着麦草沙障规格的增大,相对风速逐渐降低,防风固沙效果降低。麦草沙障的地面粗糙度分析结果显示,1m×1m规格麦草沙障的地面粗糙度最大,2m×2m规格的最小。随着麦草沙障规格增大,地面粗糙度逐渐降低。在麦草沙障内部的蚀积量观测结果显示,1m×1m到1.4m×1.4m的麦草沙障与其他规格的沙障相比,稳定区范围较大,侵蚀区的范围较小。试验的8种规格当中,1m×1m麦草沙障蚀积量最小。麦草沙障的成本在这四种材料当中最低。
(4)对规格为1m×1m、2m×2m及4m×4m的芦苇杆沙障防风固沙效果分析结果为：1m×lm和2m×2m芦苇杆沙障的防风固沙效果差别不大。4m×4m芦苇杆沙障的平均粗糙度最小,防风固沙效果最差。防沙效果对比分析结果表明,1m×1m和4m×4m芦苇杆沙障在第一个方格中粒径为0.25mm以上的输沙量比旷野的输沙量多。从粗糙度分析,1m×1m和2m×2m规格芦苇杆沙障的平均粗糙度为0.1009m和0.0925m,差别不大。从防风固沙效果、输沙率和粗糙度综合分析表明,1m×1m沙障效果最好。而2m×2m沙障的防风固沙效果、输沙率和粗糙度则与1m×1m沙障的差别不大。芦苇杆沙障的成本仅次于麦草沙障。
(5)从上述结论可以看出,沙障的防风固沙效果与高度和孔隙度均有密切关系。在以往布设格状沙障时,通常只考虑材料和沙障规格,而忽视了孔隙度的重要性。因此,今后实施固沙措施时,除了材料本身以外,沙障孔隙度也是一个关键指标。在沙区布设沙障,不仅要考虑防风固沙效果,还要尽量控制沙障成本,只有综合考虑生态和经济因素,才能从根本上解决治沙问题。
This study was conducted in ShaQuanWan, YanChi County, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, which is located in the southern border of Mu Us Sand Land in China, and the effect and the mechanism of windbreak and sandbreak differently installed by size, by height, and by porosity using four kinds of sand barriers including straw, reed, polyester sand sausage, and rubber net were examined. The results are as follows:
(1) The study on the windbreak and the sandbreak for the rubber net sand barriers was conducted by combining the four sets of sizes including 1m×1m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4mx4m, the four heights such as 20cm,30cm,40cm and 50cm, and four porosities such as 20%,30%,50% and 70%. The research results are as follows:In case of size of the sand barrier lmxlm, the height 50cm, and the porosity 20%, the effect of windbreak and sandbreak for the rubber net sand barrier was the greatest. The comprehensive result was that except lmxlm, the sizes of 2m×2m,3m×3m and 4mx4m with the sand barrier height of 40cm showed the similar results to those with the sand barrier height of 50cm. Also, the windbreak and sandbreak effect of porosity 30% for 1m×1m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4m×4m was similar to that of porosity 20% for each responding size. Accordingly, I conclude that it is the most effective to build up the sand barrier with the height 40cm and the porosity 30% in a desert site. The installation of rubber net sand barrier is simple and easy, and saves installing time and labor. However, as the production cost is high presently, it is considered that the mass production in a factory should contribute to overcoming the poor price competiveness and becoming good material for windbreak.
(2) The results of analyzing the effect of the sand sausage sand barrier are as follows: The best effect of windbreak was shown by 1m×1m of the sand barrier sizes among the five sets of sizes including 1m×1m,1.5m×1.5m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4m×4m. The weakness of this material was that it was the least effective sand barrier comparing with the others. The major cause of this was that the height of the sand sausage was fixed to 10cm, which was relatively lower than the others. I found from the results of field experiment that the surface roughness showed no big differences regardless of the sizes of sand barriers. According to the results of field experiment analysis, on condition of the average wind speed of 8m/s or above at the height of 2m on the ground, most of the sand particles inside the sand sausage were blown away by the wind, and this phenomenon formed the major cause that made the wind erosion of the interior of the sand barrier severer than an open land. Also, according to the observation result of the experiment, when strong wind hit the lower part of the sand sausage facing the direction for the wind after the installation of the sand barrier, the'Undercutting'occurred and a hole was created leading the sand sausage to collapse naturally. Therefore, this sand barrier failed to show ideal effect of windbreak and sandbreak. The strengths of the sand sausage sand barrier lie in that it can be built up with the environment-friendly material which uses the on-site sand and that its installation is simple and easy and takes short time to be installed. However it has the weakness that the production cost and the transportation expenses are more expensive than the others.
(3) The windbreak effect of straw sand barrier was analyzed after subdividing the sizes between 1m×1m and 2m×2m into eight categories including 1m×1m,1.1m×1.1m, 1.2m×.2m,1.4m×1.4m,1.5m×1.5m,1.6m×1.6m,1.8m×1.8m and 2m×2m. The analysis results of the windbreak effect of straw sand barrier are as follows:The more the sizes of the straw sand barrier grew, the slower wind velocity became. This means that the bigger the size of the straw sand barrier gets, the less the windbreak effect gets. According to the analysis of the surface roughness of the straw sand barrier, the surface roughness of the straw sand barrier with the size of lmxlm was the greatest, and that of the straw sand barrier with the size of 2mx2m was the lowest. As the sizes of the straw sand barrier became larger, the surface roughness grew less. The observation results of the wind erosion inside the straw sand barrier showed that the erosion of the straw sand barrier with the size of lmxlm was the smallest out of the eight categories. Also, the stabilized zone was the widest for the straw sand barrier with the sizes between 1m×1m and 1.4m×1.4m, and the range of erosion area for it was relatively small. The straw sand barrier had the merits that the price was the most competitive of all the four materials for sand barriers and it was environment-friendly material. On the other hand, it had the defects that the windbreak effect could last short depending on the geographical features and the strength of wind.
(4) The study on windbreak, the sandbreak, and the mechanism of reed sand barrier by the three sizes categories of 1m×1m,2m×2m and 4m×4m was conducted. The analysis results of windbreak effect and sandbreak effect of the reed sand barrier are as follows: There was no significant difference in the windbreak effect of the reed sand barrier between the sizes of lmxlm and 2m×2m. For the reed sand barrier with the size of 4m×4m, the average surface roughness was the lowest and both the windbreak and sandbreak effect were the lowest as well. As a result of the comparative analysis of sand barrier effect, the quantity of sand particle with the diameter of 0.25mm or above in the first grid of the reed sand barrier with the sizes of lmxlm and 4m×4m is larger than that of the wilds spot. The analysis results of surface roughness of reed sand barrier by sizes showed that the surface roughness of the sand barriers with the sizes of lmxlm and 2m×2m was 0.1009m and 0.0925m respectively, displaying not much difference. According to the general analysis of windbreak effect, sand quantity, and surface roughness, the reed sand barrier with the size of 1m×1m was the most excellent. However, the windbreak effect, the sand quantity and the surface roughness of the reed sand barrier with the size of 2m×2m were little different from those of the reed sand barrier with the size of lmxlm. In terms of the installation cost, the reed sand barrier was the second cheapest of the four kinds of materials.
(5) As you can see from the results of the experiment, the windbreak effect and the sandbreak effect of sand barrier are closely correlated with the sand barrier height and the porosity. In the previous installation of sand barrier, only the materials for sand barrier and the sizes of the sand barrier were considered but the height of sand barrier and the porosity were almost ignored. Therefore, in addition to the material selection, the porosity also should be selected as the critical criterion. In particular, this experiment was focused on the installation cost as well. The radical solution to sand control includes the comprehensive consideration of economical fields such as installation cost including the cost of materials for sand barrier, the transportation expenses, and labor cost as well as the ecological fields such as the windbreak effect and the sandbreak effect of materials for sand barrier installation.
(1)对于塑料网沙障,本试验选取了规格为1m×1m、2m×2m、3m×3m及4m×4m,高度分别为20cm、30cm、40cm和50cm,孔隙度为20%、30%、50%及70%的64种组合方式。经过对比分析得出：沙障规格为1m×1m,高度为50cm,孔隙度为20%时,塑料网沙障在四种材料中防风固沙效果最佳。在同一高度条件下,所有规格沙障当沙障高度为40cm时,防风固沙效果和高度为50cm时的相差很小,而且当沙障孔隙度为30%时,防风固沙效果和孔隙度为20%时的相差不大。综合考虑沙障的设置成本等因素,沙障在相同的条件下,选择高40cm,孔隙度为30%较为适宜。
(2)沙袋沙障的防风固沙效果分析结果表明,在1m×1m、1.5m×1.5m、2m×2m、3m×3m及4m×4m等5种规格当中,1m×1m规格的防风固沙效果最佳。不足之处为该材料跟其他材料沙障相对比较,防风固沙效果最差。这是由于沙袋沙障的高度固定为10cm,相对较低,从野外试验结果来看,增大粗糙度的效果不明显。从野外试验结果分析得出,当野外平均风速达到8m／s以上时,沙袋方格内部的沙粒大部分被吹出,使得沙障内部的风蚀程度大于裸地,沙袋沙障的设置反而加强了沙障内部的风蚀。同时,从野外观察发现,在铺设沙袋沙障后,迎风面的沙袋的底部首先遭到大风的‘掏蚀’,之后沙袋自然下塌,从而使得该沙障达不到理想的防风固沙的作用。沙袋沙障的优势是能就地取材,以沙治沙,布设办法简易,费时短,效率高,成本低廉,在一定面积里需要的材料量比其他材料少。不足之处为生产费用和运送费比其它材料贵。
(3)对1m×1m、1.1m×1.1m、1.2m×1.2m、1.4m×1.4m、1.5m×1.5m、1.6m×1.6m、1.8m×1.8m及2m×2m 8种规格麦草沙障防风固沙效果进行了分析。分析结果为：随着麦草沙障规格的增大,相对风速逐渐降低,防风固沙效果降低。麦草沙障的地面粗糙度分析结果显示,1m×1m规格麦草沙障的地面粗糙度最大,2m×2m规格的最小。随着麦草沙障规格增大,地面粗糙度逐渐降低。在麦草沙障内部的蚀积量观测结果显示,1m×1m到1.4m×1.4m的麦草沙障与其他规格的沙障相比,稳定区范围较大,侵蚀区的范围较小。试验的8种规格当中,1m×1m麦草沙障蚀积量最小。麦草沙障的成本在这四种材料当中最低。
(4)对规格为1m×1m、2m×2m及4m×4m的芦苇杆沙障防风固沙效果分析结果为：1m×lm和2m×2m芦苇杆沙障的防风固沙效果差别不大。4m×4m芦苇杆沙障的平均粗糙度最小,防风固沙效果最差。防沙效果对比分析结果表明,1m×1m和4m×4m芦苇杆沙障在第一个方格中粒径为0.25mm以上的输沙量比旷野的输沙量多。从粗糙度分析,1m×1m和2m×2m规格芦苇杆沙障的平均粗糙度为0.1009m和0.0925m,差别不大。从防风固沙效果、输沙率和粗糙度综合分析表明,1m×1m沙障效果最好。而2m×2m沙障的防风固沙效果、输沙率和粗糙度则与1m×1m沙障的差别不大。芦苇杆沙障的成本仅次于麦草沙障。
(5)从上述结论可以看出,沙障的防风固沙效果与高度和孔隙度均有密切关系。在以往布设格状沙障时,通常只考虑材料和沙障规格,而忽视了孔隙度的重要性。因此,今后实施固沙措施时,除了材料本身以外,沙障孔隙度也是一个关键指标。在沙区布设沙障,不仅要考虑防风固沙效果,还要尽量控制沙障成本,只有综合考虑生态和经济因素,才能从根本上解决治沙问题。
This study was conducted in ShaQuanWan, YanChi County, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, which is located in the southern border of Mu Us Sand Land in China, and the effect and the mechanism of windbreak and sandbreak differently installed by size, by height, and by porosity using four kinds of sand barriers including straw, reed, polyester sand sausage, and rubber net were examined. The results are as follows:
(1) The study on the windbreak and the sandbreak for the rubber net sand barriers was conducted by combining the four sets of sizes including 1m×1m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4mx4m, the four heights such as 20cm,30cm,40cm and 50cm, and four porosities such as 20%,30%,50% and 70%. The research results are as follows:In case of size of the sand barrier lmxlm, the height 50cm, and the porosity 20%, the effect of windbreak and sandbreak for the rubber net sand barrier was the greatest. The comprehensive result was that except lmxlm, the sizes of 2m×2m,3m×3m and 4mx4m with the sand barrier height of 40cm showed the similar results to those with the sand barrier height of 50cm. Also, the windbreak and sandbreak effect of porosity 30% for 1m×1m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4m×4m was similar to that of porosity 20% for each responding size. Accordingly, I conclude that it is the most effective to build up the sand barrier with the height 40cm and the porosity 30% in a desert site. The installation of rubber net sand barrier is simple and easy, and saves installing time and labor. However, as the production cost is high presently, it is considered that the mass production in a factory should contribute to overcoming the poor price competiveness and becoming good material for windbreak.
(2) The results of analyzing the effect of the sand sausage sand barrier are as follows: The best effect of windbreak was shown by 1m×1m of the sand barrier sizes among the five sets of sizes including 1m×1m,1.5m×1.5m,2m×2m,3m×3m and 4m×4m. The weakness of this material was that it was the least effective sand barrier comparing with the others. The major cause of this was that the height of the sand sausage was fixed to 10cm, which was relatively lower than the others. I found from the results of field experiment that the surface roughness showed no big differences regardless of the sizes of sand barriers. According to the results of field experiment analysis, on condition of the average wind speed of 8m/s or above at the height of 2m on the ground, most of the sand particles inside the sand sausage were blown away by the wind, and this phenomenon formed the major cause that made the wind erosion of the interior of the sand barrier severer than an open land. Also, according to the observation result of the experiment, when strong wind hit the lower part of the sand sausage facing the direction for the wind after the installation of the sand barrier, the'Undercutting'occurred and a hole was created leading the sand sausage to collapse naturally. Therefore, this sand barrier failed to show ideal effect of windbreak and sandbreak. The strengths of the sand sausage sand barrier lie in that it can be built up with the environment-friendly material which uses the on-site sand and that its installation is simple and easy and takes short time to be installed. However it has the weakness that the production cost and the transportation expenses are more expensive than the others.
(3) The windbreak effect of straw sand barrier was analyzed after subdividing the sizes between 1m×1m and 2m×2m into eight categories including 1m×1m,1.1m×1.1m, 1.2m×.2m,1.4m×1.4m,1.5m×1.5m,1.6m×1.6m,1.8m×1.8m and 2m×2m. The analysis results of the windbreak effect of straw sand barrier are as follows:The more the sizes of the straw sand barrier grew, the slower wind velocity became. This means that the bigger the size of the straw sand barrier gets, the less the windbreak effect gets. According to the analysis of the surface roughness of the straw sand barrier, the surface roughness of the straw sand barrier with the size of lmxlm was the greatest, and that of the straw sand barrier with the size of 2mx2m was the lowest. As the sizes of the straw sand barrier became larger, the surface roughness grew less. The observation results of the wind erosion inside the straw sand barrier showed that the erosion of the straw sand barrier with the size of lmxlm was the smallest out of the eight categories. Also, the stabilized zone was the widest for the straw sand barrier with the sizes between 1m×1m and 1.4m×1.4m, and the range of erosion area for it was relatively small. The straw sand barrier had the merits that the price was the most competitive of all the four materials for sand barriers and it was environment-friendly material. On the other hand, it had the defects that the windbreak effect could last short depending on the geographical features and the strength of wind.
(4) The study on windbreak, the sandbreak, and the mechanism of reed sand barrier by the three sizes categories of 1m×1m,2m×2m and 4m×4m was conducted. The analysis results of windbreak effect and sandbreak effect of the reed sand barrier are as follows: There was no significant difference in the windbreak effect of the reed sand barrier between the sizes of lmxlm and 2m×2m. For the reed sand barrier with the size of 4m×4m, the average surface roughness was the lowest and both the windbreak and sandbreak effect were the lowest as well. As a result of the comparative analysis of sand barrier effect, the quantity of sand particle with the diameter of 0.25mm or above in the first grid of the reed sand barrier with the sizes of lmxlm and 4m×4m is larger than that of the wilds spot. The analysis results of surface roughness of reed sand barrier by sizes showed that the surface roughness of the sand barriers with the sizes of lmxlm and 2m×2m was 0.1009m and 0.0925m respectively, displaying not much difference. According to the general analysis of windbreak effect, sand quantity, and surface roughness, the reed sand barrier with the size of 1m×1m was the most excellent. However, the windbreak effect, the sand quantity and the surface roughness of the reed sand barrier with the size of 2m×2m were little different from those of the reed sand barrier with the size of lmxlm. In terms of the installation cost, the reed sand barrier was the second cheapest of the four kinds of materials.
(5) As you can see from the results of the experiment, the windbreak effect and the sandbreak effect of sand barrier are closely correlated with the sand barrier height and the porosity. In the previous installation of sand barrier, only the materials for sand barrier and the sizes of the sand barrier were considered but the height of sand barrier and the porosity were almost ignored. Therefore, in addition to the material selection, the porosity also should be selected as the critical criterion. In particular, this experiment was focused on the installation cost as well. The radical solution to sand control includes the comprehensive consideration of economical fields such as installation cost including the cost of materials for sand barrier, the transportation expenses, and labor cost as well as the ecological fields such as the windbreak effect and the sandbreak effect of materials for sand barrier installation.
引文
[1]安万秀,朱会文,王梅睿,于文玲.不同类型麦草沙障在治理流动风沙中的作用对比试验[J].甘肃农业.2007,10：18-19.
[2]曹波,孙保平,高永,左合君,杨越,张小英,杨莉,高志亮,刘殿君.高立式沙柳沙障防风效益研究[J].中国水土保持科学.2007,5(2)：40-45.
[3]曹显军.治理高大流动沙丘技术介绍植物再生沙障[J].内蒙古林业.2000,(2)：30.
[4]曹子龙,赵廷宁,郑翠玲,孙保平.基于三维激光扫描技术的草方格沙障内蚀积形态监测[J].测绘科学.2009,34(2)：90-92.
[5]慈龙骏.中国荒漠化发生机理与防治对策[J].第四纪研究.1998(2)：97-107.
[6]常兆丰,仲生年,韩富贵,李爱德.民勤沙区风害及防风固沙林的效益观测研究[J].甘肃环境研究与监测.1997,(4)：11-14.
[7]陈兰周,刘永定,李敦海,沈银武,谢作明.荒漠藻类及其结皮的研究[J]．中国科学基金.2003,(2)：90-93.
[8]陈全会,谭兴华主编.水土保持生态建设工程定额与造价[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社.2008：pp.235.
[9]丁国栋.野外风沙流结构的定量研究[J].内蒙古林业科技.1994,(4)：38-40.
[10]董智.乌兰布和沙漠绿洲农田沙害及其控制研究.博士论文.北京林业大学.2004.
[11]董智,李红丽,左舍君,罗俊宝,孙保平.土壤凝结剂沙障防沙机理的风洞模拟实验研究[J].干旱区资源与环境.2004,18(3)：35-38.
[12]董治宝.土壤风蚀预报简述[J].中国水土保持.1999,6：17-19.
[13]董治宝,陈广庭.内蒙古后山地区土壤风蚀问题初论[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报.1997,3(2)：85-90.
[14]董治宝,陈渭南.植被对土壤风蚀影响作用的实验研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报.1996,2(2)：2-8.
[15]董治宝,陈渭南,董光荣等.植被对风沙土风蚀作用的影响[J].环境科学报.1996,16(4)：437-443.
[16]董治宝,董光荣,陈广庭.风沙物理学研究进展与展望[J].大自然探索.1995,14(53)：30-38.
[17]董治宝.Fryrear,D.W直立植物防沙措施粗糙特征的模拟实验[J].中国沙漠.2000,20(3)：260-263.
[18]高菲,高永,高强,严喜斌.沙柳沙障对土壤理化性质的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2006,27(2)：39-42.
[19]高国荣.20世纪30年代美国大平原的荒漠化及其治理[J]．中国社会科学院院报.2008-8-5(002).
[20]高国荣,周钢.20世纪30年代美国对荒漠化与沙尘暴的治理[J].求是杂志.2008,(10)：60-62.
[21]高永,邱国玉,丁国栋,清水英幸,虞毅,胡春元,刘艳萍,户部和夫,王义,汪季.沙柳沙障的防风固沙效益研究[J]．中国沙漠.2004,24(3)：365-370.
[22]郜永贵,林庆功.高立式移动沙障应用技术试验研究[J].中国沙漠.2005,25(5)：790-794.
[23]耿宽宏.民勤粘土沙障固沙初见成效[J].地理.1961,(9)：200-205.
[24]国家林业局.中国荒漠化和沙化状况公报.2005.
[25]郭景山,朱玉明,武占河,薛社贤,赵恒志,郝才元.乌吉线沙害治理机械沙障设置的研究[J].内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版).2002,33(3)：324-327.
[26]郭力宏,曹志伟,张玉柱,张庭文,朱玉博,王红梅,卜金祥.嫩江沙地黄柳小红柳高立式活体沙障调查与分析[J].防护林科技.2008,84(4)：15-16.
[27]郭秋菊,郭志年,德永军,韦勤,巴日斯.科尔沁沙地杨柴沙障对小气候的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2007,28(2)：50-54.
[28]韩丽文,李祝贺,单学平,张新山.土地沙化与防沙治沙措施研究[J].水土保持研究.2005,12(5)：210-213.
[29]韩致文,陈广庭,胡英娣,姚正义.塔里木沙漠公路防沙体系建设几个问题的探讨[J].干旱区资源与环境.2000a,16(6)：35-41.
[30]韩致文,刘贤万,姚正义,邵国胜.复膜沙袋阻沙体与芦苇高立式方格沙障防沙机理风洞模拟实验[J].中国沙漠.2000b,(1)：40-44.
[31]韩致文,王涛,董治宝,张伟民,王雪芹.风沙危害防治的主要工程措施及其机理[J].地理科学进展.2001,23(1)：13-21.
[32]胡春元,崔琳,罗俊宝,杨茂.库布齐沙漠公路沙害综合防护技术[J].内蒙古公路与运输.2003a,(01)：30-33.
[33]胡春元,杨茂,杨存良,刘永茂,蒋有则,张润焕.库布齐沙漠穿沙公路沙害综合防治技术[J].干旱区资源与环境.2003b,16(9)：71-77.
[34]贾晓红,李新荣,王新平,樊恒文,赵金龙.流沙固定过程中土壤性质变异初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4)：46-50.
[35]贾玉奎,李钢铁,董锦兰.乌兰布和沙漠固沙林土壤水分变化规律的初步研究[J].干旱区资源与环境.2006,20(6)：169-172.
[36]贾晓霞.全球荒漠化变化态势《联合国防治荒漠化公约》面临的挑战[J].世界林业研究.2005,18(6)：11-16.
[37]金昌宁,董治宝,李吉均,陈广庭.高立式沙障处的风沙沉积及其表征的风沙运动规律.中国沙漠[J].2005,25(5)：652-657.
[38]金正道.国外治沙技术[J].国土绿化.2002,(2)：45.
[39]蒋富强,邸耀全,张红利.沙障立柱受力分析及埋深计算[J]．中国沙漠.1999,19(2)：187-190.
[40]康世勇,奇跃进.内蒙古东胜煤田南部精煤矿鞠沙漠化治理的环境效益分析[J].内蒙古环境保护.1995,7(2)：30-32.
[41]李滨生主编.治沙造林学[M].北京：中同林业出版社,1990：pp.243.
[42]李洪文,杜绍敏,阴秀琪.内蒙古自治区东部荒漠化成因分析[J].自然灾害学报.2006,15(2)：95-98.
[43]李星.世界荒漠化现状与防治对策[J].世界林业研究.2000,13(5)：1-6.
[44]李泽江,张文军,石凤翎,任建民,杜宝红,孙静.科尔沁沙地活沙障对土壤种子库的影响[J].内蒙古林业科技.2007,33(2)：5-8
[45]林光辉.美国荒漠化研究与防治策略[J].中国农业科技导报.1999,(3)：122.
[46]凌裕泉.草方格沙障的防护效益-腾格里沙漠沙坡头地区流沙治理研究[M].银川：宁夏人民出版社.1980：pp.280.
[47]刘公社.中国北方农牧交错带可持续发展研究[J].科技导报.1999,(10)：6-9.
[48]刘晋浩,舒庆.草方格铺设机器人虚拟样机建模及平顺性分析[J].北京林业大学学报.2007,29(4)：72-74
[49]刘世增,蔡宗良.荒漠化地区活沙障建植技术研究防护林科技[J].防护林科技.1997,9(3)：1-6.
[50]刘贤万,凌裕泉,贺大良,陈福生.下导风工程的风洞实验研究-[1]平面上的实验[J].中国沙漠.1982.(04)：32-36.
[51]刘贤万,凌裕泉,贺大良,陈福生.下导风工程的风洞实验研究-[2]地形条件下的实验[J].中国沙漠.1983,(3)：75-79
[52]刘艳军,刘明义,修竹奇,张利,郑文秀.新发流动沙丘治理措施研究及效益分析[J].中国水土保持.1995,(8)：10-12.
[53]卢广伟.草方格沙障在七墩滩风沙治理中的应用[J].甘肃水利水电技术.2007,43(3)：225-226.
[54]卢琦,吴波.中国荒漠化灾害评估及其经济价值核算[J].中国人口资源与环境.2002,12(2)：29-33.
[55]卢琦.欧洲地中海国家的荒漠化整治策略[J].世界林业研究.1998,(2)：54-59.
[56]马全林,王继和,詹科杰,刘虎俊.塑料方格沙障的固沙原理及其推广应用前景[J].水土保持学报.2005,19(1)：36-39.
[57]孟琳.科尔沁沙地植物沙障对环境因子改善作用研究[D].东北林业大学,2006.
[58]聂文果,魏怀东.荒漠化监测与防沙治沙法[J].干旱区资源与环境.2002,16(3)：78-82.
[59]韩国庆尚北道山林环境研究院.http://www.kbfoa.go.kr/sub03/sub03_3_9.html.2009.
[60]屈建军,凌裕泉,俎瑞平,张克存.半隐蔽格状沙障的综合防护效益观测研究[J].中国沙漠.2005,(3)：329-335.
[61]任余艳,胡春元,贺晓,李戎凤,赵国平.毛乌素沙地巴图塔沙柳沙障对植被恢复作用的研究[J].水土保持研究.2007,14(2)：13-15.
[62]史培军,张宏,王平,周武光.中国沙区防沙治沙的区域模式[J].自然灾害学报.2000,9(3)：1-7.
[63]孙保平.荒漠化防治工程学[M].北京：中国林业出版社.2000：pp.423.
[64]孙荣华,刘玉山,刘志和,宋维嘉,牛月英.沙质荒漠化土地生物沙障结构与配置技术研究[J].林业科学研究.2006,19(1)：125-128.
[65]孙显科,郭志中.沙障固沙原理的研究[J].甘肃林业科技.1999,24(2)：7-12.
[66]孙中峰,荣建东,李英杰,李文淑.应用沙障作用治理流动沙地的试验研究[J].黑龙江水专学报.1994,(4)：54-55.
[67]唐进年,张盹明,徐先英,金红喜,贺访印,张晓琴,朱淑娟.不同人工措施对沙质荒漠生态恢复与重建初期效应的影响[J].生态环境.2007,16(6)：1748-1753.
[68]王海,胡玉梅,曹志伟,张玉柱,许成启,毕广有,王红梅.嫩江沙地立式活体沙障的建立及其生态效应[J]．防护林科技.2008,86(5)：40-41.
[69]王树力,刘玉山.赤峰市流动沙地植物沙障治理模式的研究[J].水土保持学报.2005,19(4)： 144-157.
[70]王淘,赵哈林,肖洪浪.中国沙漠化研究的进展[J]．中国沙漠.1999,4(19)：299-311.
[71]王翔宇,丁国栋,高函,张进虎,胡晋茹,张玉明.带状沙柳沙障的防风固沙效益研究[J].水土保持学报.2008,22(2)：42-46.
[72]王振亭,郑晓静.草方格沙障尺寸分析的简单模型[J].中国沙漠.2002,22(2)：229-232.
[73]魏林.埃及治沙经验值得借鉴[J].内蒙古林业调查设计.2005,28(3)：47-48.
[74]许林书,许嘉巍.沙障成林的固沙工程及生态效益研究[J].中国沙漠.1996,16(4)：392-396
[75]严钦尚.陕北榆林靖边定边间流动沙丘及其改造[J].科学通报.1954,(11)：28-34.
[76]姚正毅,陈广庭,韩致文,吴奇骏.机械防沙体系防沙功能的衰退过程[J].中国沙漠.2006.26(2)：226-231.
[77]张广,武俊瑛,惠彦君,武银君,赵满喜,徐建波,秦艳.浑善达克沙地公路综合防护技术及其效益分析[J].干旱区资源与环境.2006,20(5)：189-196.
[78]张春来,邹学勇,刘玉璋,杨硕,王周龙.狮泉河盆地风沙灾害成因及其防治[J].自然灾害学报.2006,15(2)：1-9.
[79]张瑞麟,刘果厚,崔秀.浑善达克沙地黄柳活沙障防风固沙效益的研究[J].中国沙漠.2006,26(5)：717-721.
[80]张风春,蔡宗良.活沙障适宜树种选择研究[J]．中国沙漠.1997,17(3)：304-308.
[81]张国祯.北京市沙化土地现状评价及其防治策略研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2007.
[82]张克存,屈建军,董治宝,俎瑞平,方海燕.格状沙障内风速波动特征初步研究[J].干旱区研究.2006,23(1)：93-97.
[83]张奎壁,邹受益.治沙原理与技术[M].北京：中国林业出版社.1990：pp.226.
[84]张粼粼.12省区签下防沙治沙“军令状”[N].中国经济导报.2007-3-31(A01).
[85]张文军,刘德义,李泽江,任建民,路银山.科尔沁沙地植物再生沙障人工群落结构特征[J].中国水土保持科学.2007,5(5)：56-59.
[86]张亚玲,王翔宇,高函,尚润阳,石慧书,杨学武.沙柳沙障防风效益模拟试验研究[J].水土保持应用技术.2007,6：3-5.
[87]赵国平,胡春元,张勇,严喜斌,徐连秀.高立式沙柳沙障防风阻沙效益的研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2006,27(1)：59-63.
[88]赵廷宁,曹子龙,郑翠玲,孙保平,丁国栋.平行高立式沙障对严重沙化草地土壤有机质含量及颗粒组成的影响[J].中国水土保持科学.2004,2(4)：73-77.
[89]郑北鹰.中国荒漠化防治事业取得重大进展[N].光明日报.2008-1-25.
[90]郑敏.中国荒漠化状况及防治对策[J].烟台师范学院学报(自然科学版).2000,16(2)：140-145.
[91]中华人民共和国水利部[编].水土保持工程概(估)算编制规定[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2003a：pp.108.
[92]中华人民共和国水利部[编].水土保持工程概算定额[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2003b：pp.428.
[93]周丹丹.生物可降解聚乳酸(PLA)材料在防沙治沙中的应用研究.博士论文.内蒙古农业大学.2009.
[94]周月鲁主编.黄河水土保持生态工程概算定额[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2001：pp.148.
[95]朱俊风,朱震达.中国沙漠化防治[M].北京：中国林业出版社.1999：pp.495.
[96]竺可桢.改造沙漠是我们的历史任务[R].人民日报.1959-03-02.
[97]朱震达等著.治沙工程学[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社.1998：pp.191.
[98]Bagnold, R.A, The movement of desert sand [J]. Royal Society of London, Proceedings.1936. 157:594-620.
[99]Bagnold, R.A., The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes [M], London:Methuen,1941: pp.256.
[100]Bofah, K.K., Alhinai, K.G., Field tests of porous fence in the regime of sand land wind[J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.1986,23:309-319.
[101]Buterfield, R.G, Application of thermal anemometry and high-frequency measurement of mass fluxto aeolians ediment transport research [J].Geomorphology.1999,29:31-58
[102]Chepil, W.S., Woodruff, N.P., The physics of wind erosion and its control [J]. Advance in Agornomy.1963,15:211-302
[103]Chun, K. W., Yi, J.S., Park, W. G, Koki, Z.F., Nakashima, Y., Eazaki, T. A Study on Coast Sand Dune Fixation and Stablizing in Japan (Ⅱ) [J]. J. for Sci., Kangwon National University.2004, 20:69-81.
[104]Daniel, R.Parsons., Giles, F.S., Wiggs, Ian.J,. Walker, Robert, I. Ferguson, Brian G. Garvey., Numerical modeling of airflow over an idealised transverse dune [J]. Envi ronmental Modelling&Software.2004a,19:153-162
[105]Daniel, R.Parsonsa., Ian, J., Walkerb., Giles, F.S.Wiggsc. Numerical modelling of flow Structures over ideal ized transverse Aeolian dunes of varying geometry [J]. Geomorphology. 2004b,59:149-164
[106]Dong, Z.B., Luo, W.Y., Qian, G.Q., Wang, H.T. A wind tunnel simulation of the mean velocity fields behind upright porous fences. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology [J].2007,146:82-93.
[107]Goudie, A.S., Dust storms and their geomorphological implications [J]. Jounral of Arid Enviornments.1978,1:291-310.
[108]Goudie, A.S., Dust storms in space and time [J]. Progress in Physical Geography.1983,7:502-530.
[109]Iversen, J.D., Rasmussen, K.R, The effect of wind speed and bed slope on sand transport [J]. Sedimentology.1999,46:723-731.
[110]Kim, H.B., Lee, S.J., The structure of turbulent shear flow around a two-dimensional porous fence having a bottom gap [J]. Jounral of fluid sand structures.2002,16(3):317-329.
[111]Kim, Jong Sun.,2007 A Policy status and improvement of erosion control works [J]. Journal of Korea Socciety Forest Engineering Technic.2007,5(1):58-83.
[112]Lee, J.A., The role of desert shrub size and spacing on wind profile parameters [J].Physical Geography.1990,12:72-89.
[113]Lee, S.J., Kim, H.B., Laboratory measurements of velocity and turbulence field behind porous fences [J]. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics.1999,80:311-26.
[114]Lee, S.J., Park, K.C., Park, C.W., Wind tunnel observations about the shelter effect of porous fences on the sand particle movements [J]. Atmospheirc Environment.2002,36:1453-1463.
[115]McEvan, I.K., Bagnold's kink:a physical feature of a wind velocity profile modified by blown sand [J]. Earth surface process and land forms.1993,18:145-156.
[116]Park, C.W., Lee, S.J., Experimental study on surface pressure and flow structure aorund a trianglar prism located behind a porous fence [J]. Journal of wind engineering and aerodynamics.2003,91:165-184.
[117]Saleh, A. and Fryrear, D.W. Soil roughness for the revised wind erosion equation [J]. Journal of soil and water conservation.1999. Second Quarter:473-476.
[2]曹波,孙保平,高永,左合君,杨越,张小英,杨莉,高志亮,刘殿君.高立式沙柳沙障防风效益研究[J].中国水土保持科学.2007,5(2)：40-45.
[3]曹显军.治理高大流动沙丘技术介绍植物再生沙障[J].内蒙古林业.2000,(2)：30.
[4]曹子龙,赵廷宁,郑翠玲,孙保平.基于三维激光扫描技术的草方格沙障内蚀积形态监测[J].测绘科学.2009,34(2)：90-92.
[5]慈龙骏.中国荒漠化发生机理与防治对策[J].第四纪研究.1998(2)：97-107.
[6]常兆丰,仲生年,韩富贵,李爱德.民勤沙区风害及防风固沙林的效益观测研究[J].甘肃环境研究与监测.1997,(4)：11-14.
[7]陈兰周,刘永定,李敦海,沈银武,谢作明.荒漠藻类及其结皮的研究[J]．中国科学基金.2003,(2)：90-93.
[8]陈全会,谭兴华主编.水土保持生态建设工程定额与造价[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社.2008：pp.235.
[9]丁国栋.野外风沙流结构的定量研究[J].内蒙古林业科技.1994,(4)：38-40.
[10]董智.乌兰布和沙漠绿洲农田沙害及其控制研究.博士论文.北京林业大学.2004.
[11]董智,李红丽,左舍君,罗俊宝,孙保平.土壤凝结剂沙障防沙机理的风洞模拟实验研究[J].干旱区资源与环境.2004,18(3)：35-38.
[12]董治宝.土壤风蚀预报简述[J].中国水土保持.1999,6：17-19.
[13]董治宝,陈广庭.内蒙古后山地区土壤风蚀问题初论[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报.1997,3(2)：85-90.
[14]董治宝,陈渭南.植被对土壤风蚀影响作用的实验研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报.1996,2(2)：2-8.
[15]董治宝,陈渭南,董光荣等.植被对风沙土风蚀作用的影响[J].环境科学报.1996,16(4)：437-443.
[16]董治宝,董光荣,陈广庭.风沙物理学研究进展与展望[J].大自然探索.1995,14(53)：30-38.
[17]董治宝.Fryrear,D.W直立植物防沙措施粗糙特征的模拟实验[J].中国沙漠.2000,20(3)：260-263.
[18]高菲,高永,高强,严喜斌.沙柳沙障对土壤理化性质的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2006,27(2)：39-42.
[19]高国荣.20世纪30年代美国大平原的荒漠化及其治理[J]．中国社会科学院院报.2008-8-5(002).
[20]高国荣,周钢.20世纪30年代美国对荒漠化与沙尘暴的治理[J].求是杂志.2008,(10)：60-62.
[21]高永,邱国玉,丁国栋,清水英幸,虞毅,胡春元,刘艳萍,户部和夫,王义,汪季.沙柳沙障的防风固沙效益研究[J]．中国沙漠.2004,24(3)：365-370.
[22]郜永贵,林庆功.高立式移动沙障应用技术试验研究[J].中国沙漠.2005,25(5)：790-794.
[23]耿宽宏.民勤粘土沙障固沙初见成效[J].地理.1961,(9)：200-205.
[24]国家林业局.中国荒漠化和沙化状况公报.2005.
[25]郭景山,朱玉明,武占河,薛社贤,赵恒志,郝才元.乌吉线沙害治理机械沙障设置的研究[J].内蒙古大学学报(自然科学版).2002,33(3)：324-327.
[26]郭力宏,曹志伟,张玉柱,张庭文,朱玉博,王红梅,卜金祥.嫩江沙地黄柳小红柳高立式活体沙障调查与分析[J].防护林科技.2008,84(4)：15-16.
[27]郭秋菊,郭志年,德永军,韦勤,巴日斯.科尔沁沙地杨柴沙障对小气候的影响[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2007,28(2)：50-54.
[28]韩丽文,李祝贺,单学平,张新山.土地沙化与防沙治沙措施研究[J].水土保持研究.2005,12(5)：210-213.
[29]韩致文,陈广庭,胡英娣,姚正义.塔里木沙漠公路防沙体系建设几个问题的探讨[J].干旱区资源与环境.2000a,16(6)：35-41.
[30]韩致文,刘贤万,姚正义,邵国胜.复膜沙袋阻沙体与芦苇高立式方格沙障防沙机理风洞模拟实验[J].中国沙漠.2000b,(1)：40-44.
[31]韩致文,王涛,董治宝,张伟民,王雪芹.风沙危害防治的主要工程措施及其机理[J].地理科学进展.2001,23(1)：13-21.
[32]胡春元,崔琳,罗俊宝,杨茂.库布齐沙漠公路沙害综合防护技术[J].内蒙古公路与运输.2003a,(01)：30-33.
[33]胡春元,杨茂,杨存良,刘永茂,蒋有则,张润焕.库布齐沙漠穿沙公路沙害综合防治技术[J].干旱区资源与环境.2003b,16(9)：71-77.
[34]贾晓红,李新荣,王新平,樊恒文,赵金龙.流沙固定过程中土壤性质变异初步研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4)：46-50.
[35]贾玉奎,李钢铁,董锦兰.乌兰布和沙漠固沙林土壤水分变化规律的初步研究[J].干旱区资源与环境.2006,20(6)：169-172.
[36]贾晓霞.全球荒漠化变化态势《联合国防治荒漠化公约》面临的挑战[J].世界林业研究.2005,18(6)：11-16.
[37]金昌宁,董治宝,李吉均,陈广庭.高立式沙障处的风沙沉积及其表征的风沙运动规律.中国沙漠[J].2005,25(5)：652-657.
[38]金正道.国外治沙技术[J].国土绿化.2002,(2)：45.
[39]蒋富强,邸耀全,张红利.沙障立柱受力分析及埋深计算[J]．中国沙漠.1999,19(2)：187-190.
[40]康世勇,奇跃进.内蒙古东胜煤田南部精煤矿鞠沙漠化治理的环境效益分析[J].内蒙古环境保护.1995,7(2)：30-32.
[41]李滨生主编.治沙造林学[M].北京：中同林业出版社,1990：pp.243.
[42]李洪文,杜绍敏,阴秀琪.内蒙古自治区东部荒漠化成因分析[J].自然灾害学报.2006,15(2)：95-98.
[43]李星.世界荒漠化现状与防治对策[J].世界林业研究.2000,13(5)：1-6.
[44]李泽江,张文军,石凤翎,任建民,杜宝红,孙静.科尔沁沙地活沙障对土壤种子库的影响[J].内蒙古林业科技.2007,33(2)：5-8
[45]林光辉.美国荒漠化研究与防治策略[J].中国农业科技导报.1999,(3)：122.
[46]凌裕泉.草方格沙障的防护效益-腾格里沙漠沙坡头地区流沙治理研究[M].银川：宁夏人民出版社.1980：pp.280.
[47]刘公社.中国北方农牧交错带可持续发展研究[J].科技导报.1999,(10)：6-9.
[48]刘晋浩,舒庆.草方格铺设机器人虚拟样机建模及平顺性分析[J].北京林业大学学报.2007,29(4)：72-74
[49]刘世增,蔡宗良.荒漠化地区活沙障建植技术研究防护林科技[J].防护林科技.1997,9(3)：1-6.
[50]刘贤万,凌裕泉,贺大良,陈福生.下导风工程的风洞实验研究-[1]平面上的实验[J].中国沙漠.1982.(04)：32-36.
[51]刘贤万,凌裕泉,贺大良,陈福生.下导风工程的风洞实验研究-[2]地形条件下的实验[J].中国沙漠.1983,(3)：75-79
[52]刘艳军,刘明义,修竹奇,张利,郑文秀.新发流动沙丘治理措施研究及效益分析[J].中国水土保持.1995,(8)：10-12.
[53]卢广伟.草方格沙障在七墩滩风沙治理中的应用[J].甘肃水利水电技术.2007,43(3)：225-226.
[54]卢琦,吴波.中国荒漠化灾害评估及其经济价值核算[J].中国人口资源与环境.2002,12(2)：29-33.
[55]卢琦.欧洲地中海国家的荒漠化整治策略[J].世界林业研究.1998,(2)：54-59.
[56]马全林,王继和,詹科杰,刘虎俊.塑料方格沙障的固沙原理及其推广应用前景[J].水土保持学报.2005,19(1)：36-39.
[57]孟琳.科尔沁沙地植物沙障对环境因子改善作用研究[D].东北林业大学,2006.
[58]聂文果,魏怀东.荒漠化监测与防沙治沙法[J].干旱区资源与环境.2002,16(3)：78-82.
[59]韩国庆尚北道山林环境研究院.http://www.kbfoa.go.kr/sub03/sub03_3_9.html.2009.
[60]屈建军,凌裕泉,俎瑞平,张克存.半隐蔽格状沙障的综合防护效益观测研究[J].中国沙漠.2005,(3)：329-335.
[61]任余艳,胡春元,贺晓,李戎凤,赵国平.毛乌素沙地巴图塔沙柳沙障对植被恢复作用的研究[J].水土保持研究.2007,14(2)：13-15.
[62]史培军,张宏,王平,周武光.中国沙区防沙治沙的区域模式[J].自然灾害学报.2000,9(3)：1-7.
[63]孙保平.荒漠化防治工程学[M].北京：中国林业出版社.2000：pp.423.
[64]孙荣华,刘玉山,刘志和,宋维嘉,牛月英.沙质荒漠化土地生物沙障结构与配置技术研究[J].林业科学研究.2006,19(1)：125-128.
[65]孙显科,郭志中.沙障固沙原理的研究[J].甘肃林业科技.1999,24(2)：7-12.
[66]孙中峰,荣建东,李英杰,李文淑.应用沙障作用治理流动沙地的试验研究[J].黑龙江水专学报.1994,(4)：54-55.
[67]唐进年,张盹明,徐先英,金红喜,贺访印,张晓琴,朱淑娟.不同人工措施对沙质荒漠生态恢复与重建初期效应的影响[J].生态环境.2007,16(6)：1748-1753.
[68]王海,胡玉梅,曹志伟,张玉柱,许成启,毕广有,王红梅.嫩江沙地立式活体沙障的建立及其生态效应[J]．防护林科技.2008,86(5)：40-41.
[69]王树力,刘玉山.赤峰市流动沙地植物沙障治理模式的研究[J].水土保持学报.2005,19(4)： 144-157.
[70]王淘,赵哈林,肖洪浪.中国沙漠化研究的进展[J]．中国沙漠.1999,4(19)：299-311.
[71]王翔宇,丁国栋,高函,张进虎,胡晋茹,张玉明.带状沙柳沙障的防风固沙效益研究[J].水土保持学报.2008,22(2)：42-46.
[72]王振亭,郑晓静.草方格沙障尺寸分析的简单模型[J].中国沙漠.2002,22(2)：229-232.
[73]魏林.埃及治沙经验值得借鉴[J].内蒙古林业调查设计.2005,28(3)：47-48.
[74]许林书,许嘉巍.沙障成林的固沙工程及生态效益研究[J].中国沙漠.1996,16(4)：392-396
[75]严钦尚.陕北榆林靖边定边间流动沙丘及其改造[J].科学通报.1954,(11)：28-34.
[76]姚正毅,陈广庭,韩致文,吴奇骏.机械防沙体系防沙功能的衰退过程[J].中国沙漠.2006.26(2)：226-231.
[77]张广,武俊瑛,惠彦君,武银君,赵满喜,徐建波,秦艳.浑善达克沙地公路综合防护技术及其效益分析[J].干旱区资源与环境.2006,20(5)：189-196.
[78]张春来,邹学勇,刘玉璋,杨硕,王周龙.狮泉河盆地风沙灾害成因及其防治[J].自然灾害学报.2006,15(2)：1-9.
[79]张瑞麟,刘果厚,崔秀.浑善达克沙地黄柳活沙障防风固沙效益的研究[J].中国沙漠.2006,26(5)：717-721.
[80]张风春,蔡宗良.活沙障适宜树种选择研究[J]．中国沙漠.1997,17(3)：304-308.
[81]张国祯.北京市沙化土地现状评价及其防治策略研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2007.
[82]张克存,屈建军,董治宝,俎瑞平,方海燕.格状沙障内风速波动特征初步研究[J].干旱区研究.2006,23(1)：93-97.
[83]张奎壁,邹受益.治沙原理与技术[M].北京：中国林业出版社.1990：pp.226.
[84]张粼粼.12省区签下防沙治沙“军令状”[N].中国经济导报.2007-3-31(A01).
[85]张文军,刘德义,李泽江,任建民,路银山.科尔沁沙地植物再生沙障人工群落结构特征[J].中国水土保持科学.2007,5(5)：56-59.
[86]张亚玲,王翔宇,高函,尚润阳,石慧书,杨学武.沙柳沙障防风效益模拟试验研究[J].水土保持应用技术.2007,6：3-5.
[87]赵国平,胡春元,张勇,严喜斌,徐连秀.高立式沙柳沙障防风阻沙效益的研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报.2006,27(1)：59-63.
[88]赵廷宁,曹子龙,郑翠玲,孙保平,丁国栋.平行高立式沙障对严重沙化草地土壤有机质含量及颗粒组成的影响[J].中国水土保持科学.2004,2(4)：73-77.
[89]郑北鹰.中国荒漠化防治事业取得重大进展[N].光明日报.2008-1-25.
[90]郑敏.中国荒漠化状况及防治对策[J].烟台师范学院学报(自然科学版).2000,16(2)：140-145.
[91]中华人民共和国水利部[编].水土保持工程概(估)算编制规定[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2003a：pp.108.
[92]中华人民共和国水利部[编].水土保持工程概算定额[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2003b：pp.428.
[93]周丹丹.生物可降解聚乳酸(PLA)材料在防沙治沙中的应用研究.博士论文.内蒙古农业大学.2009.
[94]周月鲁主编.黄河水土保持生态工程概算定额[M].郑州：黄河水利出版社.2001：pp.148.
[95]朱俊风,朱震达.中国沙漠化防治[M].北京：中国林业出版社.1999：pp.495.
[96]竺可桢.改造沙漠是我们的历史任务[R].人民日报.1959-03-02.
[97]朱震达等著.治沙工程学[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社.1998：pp.191.
[98]Bagnold, R.A, The movement of desert sand [J]. Royal Society of London, Proceedings.1936. 157:594-620.
[99]Bagnold, R.A., The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes [M], London:Methuen,1941: pp.256.
[100]Bofah, K.K., Alhinai, K.G., Field tests of porous fence in the regime of sand land wind[J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.1986,23:309-319.
[101]Buterfield, R.G, Application of thermal anemometry and high-frequency measurement of mass fluxto aeolians ediment transport research [J].Geomorphology.1999,29:31-58
[102]Chepil, W.S., Woodruff, N.P., The physics of wind erosion and its control [J]. Advance in Agornomy.1963,15:211-302
[103]Chun, K. W., Yi, J.S., Park, W. G, Koki, Z.F., Nakashima, Y., Eazaki, T. A Study on Coast Sand Dune Fixation and Stablizing in Japan (Ⅱ) [J]. J. for Sci., Kangwon National University.2004, 20:69-81.
[104]Daniel, R.Parsons., Giles, F.S., Wiggs, Ian.J,. Walker, Robert, I. Ferguson, Brian G. Garvey., Numerical modeling of airflow over an idealised transverse dune [J]. Envi ronmental Modelling&Software.2004a,19:153-162
[105]Daniel, R.Parsonsa., Ian, J., Walkerb., Giles, F.S.Wiggsc. Numerical modelling of flow Structures over ideal ized transverse Aeolian dunes of varying geometry [J]. Geomorphology. 2004b,59:149-164
[106]Dong, Z.B., Luo, W.Y., Qian, G.Q., Wang, H.T. A wind tunnel simulation of the mean velocity fields behind upright porous fences. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology [J].2007,146:82-93.
[107]Goudie, A.S., Dust storms and their geomorphological implications [J]. Jounral of Arid Enviornments.1978,1:291-310.
[108]Goudie, A.S., Dust storms in space and time [J]. Progress in Physical Geography.1983,7:502-530.
[109]Iversen, J.D., Rasmussen, K.R, The effect of wind speed and bed slope on sand transport [J]. Sedimentology.1999,46:723-731.
[110]Kim, H.B., Lee, S.J., The structure of turbulent shear flow around a two-dimensional porous fence having a bottom gap [J]. Jounral of fluid sand structures.2002,16(3):317-329.
[111]Kim, Jong Sun.,2007 A Policy status and improvement of erosion control works [J]. Journal of Korea Socciety Forest Engineering Technic.2007,5(1):58-83.
[112]Lee, J.A., The role of desert shrub size and spacing on wind profile parameters [J].Physical Geography.1990,12:72-89.
[113]Lee, S.J., Kim, H.B., Laboratory measurements of velocity and turbulence field behind porous fences [J]. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics.1999,80:311-26.
[114]Lee, S.J., Park, K.C., Park, C.W., Wind tunnel observations about the shelter effect of porous fences on the sand particle movements [J]. Atmospheirc Environment.2002,36:1453-1463.
[115]McEvan, I.K., Bagnold's kink:a physical feature of a wind velocity profile modified by blown sand [J]. Earth surface process and land forms.1993,18:145-156.
[116]Park, C.W., Lee, S.J., Experimental study on surface pressure and flow structure aorund a trianglar prism located behind a porous fence [J]. Journal of wind engineering and aerodynamics.2003,91:165-184.
[117]Saleh, A. and Fryrear, D.W. Soil roughness for the revised wind erosion equation [J]. Journal of soil and water conservation.1999. Second Quarter:473-476.