模拟降雨条件下黄土区边坡植物护坡效应
详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |
  • 英文篇名:Hydrological Effects of Vegetations in Slope Protection in Loess Area Under Simulated Rainfall Conditions
  • 作者:窦增宁 ; 胡夏嵩 ; 刘昌义 ; 徐志闻
  • 英文作者:DOU Zengning;HU Xiasong;LIU Changyi;XU Zhiwen;Geological Engineering Department,Qinghai University;Qinghai Institute of Salt Lakes,Chinese Academy of Sciences;
  • 关键词:模拟降雨 ; 水土保持 ; 植物护坡 ; 地表径流 ; 黄土边坡
  • 英文关键词:rainfall simulation;;soil and water conservation;;vegetation slope protection;;surface runoff;;loess slope
  • 中文刊名:RMHH
  • 英文刊名:Yellow River
  • 机构:青海大学地质工程系;中国科学院青海盐湖研究所;
  • 出版日期:2018-03-10
  • 出版单位:人民黄河
  • 年:2018
  • 期:v.40;No.391
  • 基金:国家自然科学基金资助项目(41572306,41162010);; 青海省自然科学基金资助项目(2014-ZJ-906)
  • 语种:中文;
  • 页:RMHH201803020
  • 页数:5
  • CN:03
  • ISSN:41-1128/TV
  • 分类号:87-91
摘要
为研究寒旱环境下草本和灌木植物固土护坡作用,以西宁盆地作为研究区,采用野外模拟降雨试验装置,分别对自建试验区草本植物垂穗披碱草和细茎冰草、灌木植物柠条锦鸡儿和霸王以及裸坡开展模拟降雨试验。试验结果表明:在降雨强度为35 mm/h、降雨历时为90 min时,裸坡坡面单位面积累计产流量与累计产沙量均相对较大,分别为4 816.52 m L/m2、30.10 g/m2,霸王与柠条锦鸡儿边坡的分别为4 082.79 m L/m2、18.58 g/m2与4 329.01 m L/m2、21.70 g/m2,垂穗披碱草与细茎冰草边坡的分别为3 693.18 m L/m2、13.92 g/m2与3 469.35 m L/m2、10.20 g/m2;裸坡雷诺数(平均值为132)与弗劳德数(平均值为0.11)比灌木与草本植物边坡的大,反映了裸坡坡面水流侵蚀现象最严重;草本植物边坡阻力系数比灌木边坡的大,说明草本阻滞坡面径流作用比灌木的大。
        In order to study the effects of herbs and shrubs in soil reinforcement in the cold-arid environment,the Xining Basin was chosen as the study area. Using field simulation rain testing device,the research group carried out in-situ rainfall simulations on the slopes covered by herbs Elymus nutans Griseb and Agropyron trachycaulum(Linn.) Gaertn,shrubs Caragana korshinskii Kom and Zygophyllum xanthonylon(Bunge) Maxim,and a slope without vegetation under the same test conditions was set up as the control slope. The results show that the cumulative runoff and cumulative sediment flux per unit area of the bare slope are bigger under the rainfall intensity of 35 mm/h,rainfall duration of 90 min,with the values of 4 816.52 m L and 30.10 g; the same indexes of shrub slopes are 4 082.79 m L and 18.58 g for Zygophyllum xanthonylon,and 4 329.01 ml and 21.7 0 g for Caragana korshinskii respectively; the values of herb slopes are 3 693.18 m L and 13.92 g for Agropyron trachycaulum,and 3 469.35 m L and 10.20 g for Elymus nutans respectively. Meanwhile,the Reynolds number of the bare slope(132) and Froude number of the bare slope(0.11) are bigger than that of the slope planted with shrubs or herbs,which means that the phenomena of the flow erosion on the bare slope are relatively serious; the Darcy-Weisbach resistance coefficient of the slopes planted with herbs is bigger than the slopes planted with shrubs,which reflects that the inhibitory effect of herbs in resisting surface runoff is more significant than that of shrubs.
引文
[1]张莹,胡夏嵩,李国荣,等.寒旱环境黄土区灌木与草本植物护坡的水文效应研究[J].中国水土保持,2008(6):38-40.
    [2]ADEKALU K O,OLORUNFEMI I A,OSUNBITAN J A.Grass Mulching Effecton Infiltration,Surface Runoff and Soil Loss of Three Agricultural Soils in Nigeria[J].Bioresource Technology,2007,98(4):912-917.
    [3]孙婷婷,李柏,刘慧博.三种生态护坡形式的水土保持效果研究[J].中国水土保持,2017(2):10-12.
    [4]荣浩,珊丹,刘艳萍,等.草原工程侵蚀区植被恢复模式的水土保持效应[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(3):24-28.
    [5]CARROLL C,MERTON L,BURGER P,et al.Impact of Vegetation Coverand Slope on Runoff,and Water Quality for Field Plots on a Range of Soil and Spoil Materials on Central Queensland Coal Mines[J].Australian Journal of Soil Research,2000,38(2):313-328.
    [6]HARMEL R D,RICHARDSON C W,KING K W,et al.Runoff and Soil Loss Relationshipsfor the Texas Blackland Prairies Ecoregion[J].Journal of Hydrology,2006,331(34):471-483.
    [7]ZHOU Z C,SHANG GUAN Z P,ZHAO D.Modeling Vegetation Coverage and Soil Erosion in the Loess Plateau Area of China[J].Ecological Modeling,2006,198(2):263-268.
    [8]丁文斌,史东梅,何文健,等.放水冲刷条件下工程堆积体边坡径流侵蚀水动力学特性[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(18):153-161.
    [9]荐圣淇,赵传燕,方书敏,等.黄土高原丘陵沟壑区柠条和沙棘灌丛的降雨截留特征[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(9):2383-2389.
    [10]CURRAN J C,HESSION W C.Vegetative Impactson Hydraulics and Sediment Processes Across the Fluvial System[J].Journal of Hydrology,2013,505(8):364-376.
    [11]张俊云.岩石边坡植被护坡系统的水分平衡及控制[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2013,32(9):1729-1735.
    [12]PENG X,SHI D,JIANG D,et al.Runoff Erosion Process on Different Underlying Surfaces from Disturbed Soils in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area,China[J].Catena,2014,123:215-224.
    [13]ASSOULINE S,BEN-HUR M.Effects of Rainfall Intensity and Slope Gradient on the Dynamics of Interrill Erosion During Soil Surface Sealing[J].Catena,2006,66(3):211-220.
    [14]林凯,姜静,李雄威,等.人工模拟降雨机装置的研究与制作[J].山西建筑,2013,39(35):58-59.
    [15]赵玉丽,牛健植.人工模拟降雨试验降雨特性及问题分析[J].水土保持研究,2012,19(4):278-283.
    [16]常周梅,胡文博,张丽娟.西宁市1951—2015年气温及降水量变化特征[J].水电能源科学,2017,35(2):7-11.
    [17]魏鸿业,祁栋林,马明亮,等.降水对西宁市城市空气污染的影响分析[J].青海环境,2015,25(2):54-58.
    [18]康晓燕,周万福,金惠瑛,等.1961—2013年青海省雷暴变化特征分析及趋势预测[J].中国农学通报,2016,32(5):144-151.
    [19]GVNN R,KINGERG D.The Terminal Velocity of Fall for Water Droplets[J].Journal of Metevorology,1949(6):243-248.
    [20]任树梅,刘洪禄,顾涛.人工模拟降雨技术研究综述[J].中国农村水利水电,2003(3):73-75.
    [21]刘蓓,马占良.2015年青海省春季气候[J].青海气象,2015,4(2):49-52.
    [22]LI G,ABRAHAMS A D,ATKINSON J F.Correction Factors in the Determination of Mean Velocity of Overland Flow[J].Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,1998,21(6):509-515.
    [23]朱建新,李肖锋.植被护坡的水文效应探讨[J].西部探矿工程,2006,18(8):274-276.
    [24]陈洪松,邵明安,张兴昌,等.野外模拟降雨条件下坡面降雨入渗产流试验研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(2):5-8.
    [25]宋维峰,余新晓,张颖.坡度和刺槐覆盖对黄土坡面产流产沙影响的模拟降雨研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(2):15-18.
    [26]李华坦,赵玉娇,李国荣,等.寒旱环境黄土区植物护坡原位模拟降雨试验研究[J].水土保持研究,2014,21(6):304-311.
    [27]张宽地,王光谦,王占礼,等.人工加糙床面薄层滚波流水力学特性试验[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(4):28-34.
    [28]吴淑芳,吴普特,原立峰.坡面径流调控薄层水流水力学特性试验[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(3):14-19.
    [29]施明新,李陶陶,吴秉校,等.地表粗糙度对坡面流水动力学参数的影响[J].泥沙研究,2015(4):83-87.
    [30]杨春霞,王丹,王玲玲,等.草被覆盖度对坡面流水动力学参数的影响[J].中国水土保持,2008(9):36-38.
    [31]肖培青,姚文艺,李莉,等.植被影响下坡面流阻力变化特征研究[J].泥沙研究,2013(3):1-5.

© 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