覆沙坡面径流冲刷试验研究
|
摘要
通过室内模拟冷冻和放水冲刷试验,采用2个放水流量(1,2L/min)、2个土壤处理(未冻坡面,冻结坡面)和4个覆沙厚度(0,1,2,3cm)研究不同处理对覆沙黄土坡面产流产沙的影响。结果表明:(1)相同流量条件下,覆沙坡面初始产流时间延长,随着覆沙厚度的增加,延长效果越明显,而冻融作用使坡面初始产流时间缩短;不同处理坡面的产流产沙峰值均增大,并且产流量与产沙量的峰现时间具有不同步性。(2)不同流量条件下,不同处理坡面总产流量是对照坡面的1.02~1.28倍,冻结坡面和冻结-覆沙坡面的总产流量与对照坡面有显著差异(p<0.05),坡面总产沙量是对照坡面的1.97~10.94倍,冻结坡面、对照-覆沙坡面和冻结-覆沙坡面的总产沙量与对照坡面有显著差异(p<0.05)。(3)不同流量条件下,相同处理坡面产流强度随产流时间变化趋势大致相同,裸坡坡面产沙强度随着产流时间的变化趋势较为平稳,而覆沙坡面产沙强度波动程度较大,覆沙是影响坡面产沙过程的主要因素;相同流量条件下,不同处理坡面产流强度大致分为"快速上升-相对稳定"和"相对稳定"两种变化趋势。(4)相同流量条件下,裸坡坡面的产流强度受冻融作用的影响较大,冻融和覆沙处理对产沙强度的影响均较大,冻融作用在裸坡条件下对产沙过程的影响大于覆沙坡面,覆沙坡面在土壤未冻结的情况下对产沙过程的影响大于在土壤冻结的情况。
Through the simulations of freezing and water scouring test,two water discharges(1,2 L/min),two soil treatments(unfrozen slope,frozen slope)and four sand coverings(0,1,2,3 cm)were compared to study the effects of the different treatments on runoff and sediment yield on the Loess slope.The results showed that:(1)Under the same flow conditions,the initial runoff time of the sand-covered slope was prolonged,and the extension effect was more obvious as the sand cover thickness increased,however,the initial runoff time was shortened by freeze-thaw action.When the peak value increased,the peak current time of output flow and sediment yield were asynchronous.(2)Under different flow conditions,the total output of different slopes was 1.02~1.28 times of that of the control slopes,then the total outputs of freezing slopes and freezing-covered slopes were significantly different from the control slopes(p <0.05).The total sediment yield of the slope was 1.97~10.94 times of that of the control slope.The total sediment yield of the frozen slope,the control-covered slope and the frozen-covered slope were significantly different from thecontrol slope(p <0.05).(3)Under the different flow conditions,the trend of runoff intensity of the same treated slope is roughly the same with runoff time.The trend of the runoff intensity of bare slope is steady with the runoff time;however,the runoff intensity's fluctuating degree is larger.Sand cover is the main factor affecting the sediment yield of slope.Under the same flow rate,the runoff intensities of different treatment slopes were roughly divided into two kinds,"rapid rise-relatively stable"and "relatively stable".(4)Under the same flow conditions,the runoff intensity on the bare slope was greatly influenced by the freeze-thaw action.The effects of freeze-thaw and the overburden slope on the sediment yield were large,and the effect of freeze-thaw on sediment yield was greater to bare slope than that to sand-covered slope.The effect of sand cover on the sediment yield was greater than that of the soil under unfrozen soil condition.
Through the simulations of freezing and water scouring test,two water discharges(1,2 L/min),two soil treatments(unfrozen slope,frozen slope)and four sand coverings(0,1,2,3 cm)were compared to study the effects of the different treatments on runoff and sediment yield on the Loess slope.The results showed that:(1)Under the same flow conditions,the initial runoff time of the sand-covered slope was prolonged,and the extension effect was more obvious as the sand cover thickness increased,however,the initial runoff time was shortened by freeze-thaw action.When the peak value increased,the peak current time of output flow and sediment yield were asynchronous.(2)Under different flow conditions,the total output of different slopes was 1.02~1.28 times of that of the control slopes,then the total outputs of freezing slopes and freezing-covered slopes were significantly different from the control slopes(p <0.05).The total sediment yield of the slope was 1.97~10.94 times of that of the control slope.The total sediment yield of the frozen slope,the control-covered slope and the frozen-covered slope were significantly different from thecontrol slope(p <0.05).(3)Under the different flow conditions,the trend of runoff intensity of the same treated slope is roughly the same with runoff time.The trend of the runoff intensity of bare slope is steady with the runoff time;however,the runoff intensity's fluctuating degree is larger.Sand cover is the main factor affecting the sediment yield of slope.Under the same flow rate,the runoff intensities of different treatment slopes were roughly divided into two kinds,"rapid rise-relatively stable"and "relatively stable".(4)Under the same flow conditions,the runoff intensity on the bare slope was greatly influenced by the freeze-thaw action.The effects of freeze-thaw and the overburden slope on the sediment yield were large,and the effect of freeze-thaw on sediment yield was greater to bare slope than that to sand-covered slope.The effect of sand cover on the sediment yield was greater than that of the soil under unfrozen soil condition.
引文
[1]张辉,李鹏,鲁克新,等.冻融作用对坡面侵蚀及泥沙颗粒分选的影响[J].土壤学报,2017,54(4):836-843.
[2]张洋,李占斌,牛雯,等.模拟径流条件下覆沙黄土坡面产流产沙过程[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(4):6-10.
[3]张翔,李鹏,张洋,等.东柳沟沉积泥沙粒径空间分布与特征[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(1):75-79.
[4]孙宝洋,李占斌,张洋,等.黄河内蒙古支流“十大孔兑”区风蚀强度时空变化特征[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(17):112-119.
[5]唐克丽,侯庆春,王斌科,等.黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错带和神木试区的环境背景及整治方向[J].水土保持研究,1993(2):2-15.
[6]唐克丽.黄土高原生态环境建设关键性问题的研讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(1):1-7.
[7]康宏亮,王文龙,薛智德,等.冲刷条件下黄土丘陵区浅沟侵蚀形态及产流产沙特征[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(20):161-170.
[8]谢林妤,白玉洁,张风宝,等.沙层厚度和粒径组成对覆沙黄土坡面产流产沙的影响[J].土壤学报,2017,54(1):60-72.
[9]李秋艳,蔡强国,方海燕.风水复合侵蚀与生态恢复研究进展[J].地理科学进展,2010,29(1):65-72.
[10]海春兴,史培军,刘宝元,等.风水两相侵蚀研究现状及我国今后风水蚀的主要研究内容[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(2):50-52.
[11]张丽萍,唐克丽,张平仓.片沙覆盖的黄土丘陵区土壤水蚀过程研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1999,5(1):40-45.
[12]惠振江.陕北毛乌素沙地与黄土区过渡地带荒漠化研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2001.
[13]汤珊珊,李占斌,任宗萍,等.覆沙坡面产流产沙过程试验研究[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):25-28.
[14]汤珊珊,高海东,李占斌,等.坡面覆沙后侵蚀泥沙颗粒分选特性[J].农业工程学报,2017,33(2):125-130.
[15]汤珊珊,李占斌,李聪,等.模拟降雨条件下覆沙坡面产流产沙过程研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2016,44(5):139-146.
[16]Xu G C,Tang S S,Lu K X,et al.Runoff and sediment yield under simulated rainfall on sand-covered slopes in a region subject to wind-water erosion[J].Environmental Earth Sciences,2015,74(3):2523-2530.
[17]Zhang F B,Bai Y J,Xie L Y,et al.Runoff and soil loss characteristics on loess slopes covered with aeolian sand layers of different thicknesses under simulated rainfall[J].Journal of Hydrology,2017,549:244-251.
[18]景国臣.冻融侵蚀及其形式探讨[J].黑龙江水利科技,2003,30(4):111-112.
[19]王随继.黄河中游冻融侵蚀的表现方式及其产沙能力评估[J].水土保持通报,2004,24(6):1-5.
[20]王飞,范昊明,郭成久,等.我国两大冻融侵蚀区气候环境变化对比分析[J].生态环境,2008,17(1):173-177.
[21]苏远逸,李鹏,李占斌,等.坡面植被格局对坡沟系统能量调控及水沙响应关系的影响[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(5):32-39.
[22]李占斌,李社新,任宗萍,等.冻融作用对坡面侵蚀过程的影响[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):56-60.
[23]李聪.植被格局对坡沟系统侵蚀输沙过程调控作用试验研究[D].西安:西安理工大学,2015.
[2]张洋,李占斌,牛雯,等.模拟径流条件下覆沙黄土坡面产流产沙过程[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(4):6-10.
[3]张翔,李鹏,张洋,等.东柳沟沉积泥沙粒径空间分布与特征[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(1):75-79.
[4]孙宝洋,李占斌,张洋,等.黄河内蒙古支流“十大孔兑”区风蚀强度时空变化特征[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(17):112-119.
[5]唐克丽,侯庆春,王斌科,等.黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错带和神木试区的环境背景及整治方向[J].水土保持研究,1993(2):2-15.
[6]唐克丽.黄土高原生态环境建设关键性问题的研讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(1):1-7.
[7]康宏亮,王文龙,薛智德,等.冲刷条件下黄土丘陵区浅沟侵蚀形态及产流产沙特征[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(20):161-170.
[8]谢林妤,白玉洁,张风宝,等.沙层厚度和粒径组成对覆沙黄土坡面产流产沙的影响[J].土壤学报,2017,54(1):60-72.
[9]李秋艳,蔡强国,方海燕.风水复合侵蚀与生态恢复研究进展[J].地理科学进展,2010,29(1):65-72.
[10]海春兴,史培军,刘宝元,等.风水两相侵蚀研究现状及我国今后风水蚀的主要研究内容[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(2):50-52.
[11]张丽萍,唐克丽,张平仓.片沙覆盖的黄土丘陵区土壤水蚀过程研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1999,5(1):40-45.
[12]惠振江.陕北毛乌素沙地与黄土区过渡地带荒漠化研究[D].陕西杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2001.
[13]汤珊珊,李占斌,任宗萍,等.覆沙坡面产流产沙过程试验研究[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):25-28.
[14]汤珊珊,高海东,李占斌,等.坡面覆沙后侵蚀泥沙颗粒分选特性[J].农业工程学报,2017,33(2):125-130.
[15]汤珊珊,李占斌,李聪,等.模拟降雨条件下覆沙坡面产流产沙过程研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2016,44(5):139-146.
[16]Xu G C,Tang S S,Lu K X,et al.Runoff and sediment yield under simulated rainfall on sand-covered slopes in a region subject to wind-water erosion[J].Environmental Earth Sciences,2015,74(3):2523-2530.
[17]Zhang F B,Bai Y J,Xie L Y,et al.Runoff and soil loss characteristics on loess slopes covered with aeolian sand layers of different thicknesses under simulated rainfall[J].Journal of Hydrology,2017,549:244-251.
[18]景国臣.冻融侵蚀及其形式探讨[J].黑龙江水利科技,2003,30(4):111-112.
[19]王随继.黄河中游冻融侵蚀的表现方式及其产沙能力评估[J].水土保持通报,2004,24(6):1-5.
[20]王飞,范昊明,郭成久,等.我国两大冻融侵蚀区气候环境变化对比分析[J].生态环境,2008,17(1):173-177.
[21]苏远逸,李鹏,李占斌,等.坡面植被格局对坡沟系统能量调控及水沙响应关系的影响[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(5):32-39.
[22]李占斌,李社新,任宗萍,等.冻融作用对坡面侵蚀过程的影响[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(5):56-60.
[23]李聪.植被格局对坡沟系统侵蚀输沙过程调控作用试验研究[D].西安:西安理工大学,2015.