基于主成分-聚类分析的崩岗侵蚀强度评价
|
摘要
为了研究湖北省通城县杨垄小流域崩岗群的崩岗侵蚀强度,提高评估的可靠性,使用RTK测量崩岗,获取崩岗面积、主沟坡降、内部平均坡度等11个参数,将其作为崩岗侵蚀强度分析的评价因子,通过主成分分析提取了崩岗侵蚀强度参数的4个主成分因子,得出选择的16个崩岗侵蚀强度。结果表明:杨垄小流域不同崩岗侵蚀强度分为3类:2号,5号,10号,11号为高度侵蚀;8号,15号,16号为中度侵蚀;其余为轻度侵蚀;小流域的中高度侵蚀型崩岗面积占崩岗群总面积的2/3以上,侵蚀面积较大。依据分类结果,可针对不同崩岗存在的风险因素制定对应的风险控制方案和措施,有利于崩岗的防治。
In order to accurately examine the risk of sixteen collapsing valleys in the Yanglong Town of Tongcheng County,Hubei Province.A total of eleven parameters were selected as the factors for real-time kinematic analysis of the risk of collapse erosion,including area,main channel gradient,average internal slope and so on.Four principal component factors and the erosion intensities of the sixteen collapse valleys were obtained through principal component analysis.The erosion intensities of the 16 different collapsing gullies are divided into three categories:high-risk,moderate-risk and mild-risk according to cluster analysis.The high-risk group includes the second,fifth,tenth and eleventh collapse valleys.The moderate-risk group includes the eighth,fifteenth and sixteenth collapse valleys.The mild-risk group covers the other nine collapsie valleys.The results show that the area of moderate-risk and high-risk groups is larger and accounts for more than two-thirds of the total area of collapse valleys.The corresponding measures should be established on the basis of the risk factors of different collapse valleys according to the result,which is of significance for the prevention and management of the collapse valley.
In order to accurately examine the risk of sixteen collapsing valleys in the Yanglong Town of Tongcheng County,Hubei Province.A total of eleven parameters were selected as the factors for real-time kinematic analysis of the risk of collapse erosion,including area,main channel gradient,average internal slope and so on.Four principal component factors and the erosion intensities of the sixteen collapse valleys were obtained through principal component analysis.The erosion intensities of the 16 different collapsing gullies are divided into three categories:high-risk,moderate-risk and mild-risk according to cluster analysis.The high-risk group includes the second,fifth,tenth and eleventh collapse valleys.The moderate-risk group includes the eighth,fifteenth and sixteenth collapse valleys.The mild-risk group covers the other nine collapsie valleys.The results show that the area of moderate-risk and high-risk groups is larger and accounts for more than two-thirds of the total area of collapse valleys.The corresponding measures should be established on the basis of the risk factors of different collapse valleys according to the result,which is of significance for the prevention and management of the collapse valley.
引文
[1] Deng Y,Cai C,Xia D,et al.Soil Atterberg limits of different weathering profiles of the collapsing gullies in the hilly granitic region of southern China[J].Solid Earth,2017,8(2):499-513.
[2]邓羽松,丁树文,蔡崇法,等.鄂东南崩岗剖面土壤水分特征曲线及模拟[J].土壤学报,2016,53(2):355-364.
[3]刘希林,张大林,贾瑶瑶.崩岗地貌发育的土体物理性质及其土壤侵蚀意义:以广东五华县莲塘岗崩岗为例[J].地球科学进展,2013,28(7):802-811.
[4]史德明.我国热带,亚热带地区崩岗侵蚀的剖析[J].水土保持通报,1984,4(3):32-37.
[5]张淑光,钟朝章.广东省崩岗形成机理与类型[J].水土保持通报,1990,10(3):8-16.
[6]李思平.广东省崩岗侵蚀规律和防治的研究[J].自然灾害学报,1992,1(3):68-74.
[7]阮伏水,朱鹤健.福建省花岗岩地区土壤侵蚀与治理[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1997:77-78.
[8]牛德奎.赣南山地丘陵区崩岗侵蚀阶段发育的研究[J].江西农业大学学报,1990,12(1):29-36.
[9]林敬兰,陈志明,黄炎和,等.安溪县崩岗侵蚀空间分布特征探讨[J].水土保持研究,2009,16(6):63-68.
[10]方芸芸,陈志强,陈志彪.根溪小流域崩岗分布特征研究[J].吉林师范大学学报:自然科学版,2014,35(3):145-148.
[11]季翔,黄炎和,林金石,等.基于生态位适宜度的南方花岗岩区崩岗发生敏感性评价方法[J].中国农业大学学报,2017,22(10):159-168.
[12]陈嘉林.福建省典型崩岗区潜在性崩岗强度评估与预测[D].福州:福建农林大学,2015.
[13]程冬兵,赵元凌,张平仓,等.基于Logistic模型的江西省崩岗侵蚀风险评估[J].中国水土保持科学,2017,15(6):106-116.
[14]吕悦凝,王任雅弘,李瑶瑶,等.基于主成分—聚类分析评价崩岗洪积扇土壤施肥效应[J].湖北农业科学,2016,55(14):3569-3573.
[15]孟晋晋,刘花台.基于主成分—聚类分析模型的生态环境脆弱性分析:以平潭综合试验区为例[J].环境科学与技术,2014,37(1):179-182.
[16]陈欢,曹承富,张存岭,等.基于主成分—聚类分析评价长期施肥对砂姜黑土肥力的影响[J].土壤学报,2014,51(3):609-617.
[2]邓羽松,丁树文,蔡崇法,等.鄂东南崩岗剖面土壤水分特征曲线及模拟[J].土壤学报,2016,53(2):355-364.
[3]刘希林,张大林,贾瑶瑶.崩岗地貌发育的土体物理性质及其土壤侵蚀意义:以广东五华县莲塘岗崩岗为例[J].地球科学进展,2013,28(7):802-811.
[4]史德明.我国热带,亚热带地区崩岗侵蚀的剖析[J].水土保持通报,1984,4(3):32-37.
[5]张淑光,钟朝章.广东省崩岗形成机理与类型[J].水土保持通报,1990,10(3):8-16.
[6]李思平.广东省崩岗侵蚀规律和防治的研究[J].自然灾害学报,1992,1(3):68-74.
[7]阮伏水,朱鹤健.福建省花岗岩地区土壤侵蚀与治理[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1997:77-78.
[8]牛德奎.赣南山地丘陵区崩岗侵蚀阶段发育的研究[J].江西农业大学学报,1990,12(1):29-36.
[9]林敬兰,陈志明,黄炎和,等.安溪县崩岗侵蚀空间分布特征探讨[J].水土保持研究,2009,16(6):63-68.
[10]方芸芸,陈志强,陈志彪.根溪小流域崩岗分布特征研究[J].吉林师范大学学报:自然科学版,2014,35(3):145-148.
[11]季翔,黄炎和,林金石,等.基于生态位适宜度的南方花岗岩区崩岗发生敏感性评价方法[J].中国农业大学学报,2017,22(10):159-168.
[12]陈嘉林.福建省典型崩岗区潜在性崩岗强度评估与预测[D].福州:福建农林大学,2015.
[13]程冬兵,赵元凌,张平仓,等.基于Logistic模型的江西省崩岗侵蚀风险评估[J].中国水土保持科学,2017,15(6):106-116.
[14]吕悦凝,王任雅弘,李瑶瑶,等.基于主成分—聚类分析评价崩岗洪积扇土壤施肥效应[J].湖北农业科学,2016,55(14):3569-3573.
[15]孟晋晋,刘花台.基于主成分—聚类分析模型的生态环境脆弱性分析:以平潭综合试验区为例[J].环境科学与技术,2014,37(1):179-182.
[16]陈欢,曹承富,张存岭,等.基于主成分—聚类分析评价长期施肥对砂姜黑土肥力的影响[J].土壤学报,2014,51(3):609-617.