露天煤矿排土场不同治理模式边坡细沟侵蚀特征研究
详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |
  • 英文篇名:The Rill Erosion Characteristics of Dump Slope Managed by Different Models in Opencast Mining Area
  • 作者:陈同德 ; 王文龙 ; 董玉锟 ; 郭明明 ; 康宏亮 ; 朱宝才
  • 英文作者:CHEN Tong-de;WANG Wen-long;DONG Yu-kong;GUO Ming-ming;KANG Hong-liang;ZHU Bao-cai;State Key Laboratory of Soil and Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau,Institute of Soil and Water Conservation,Northwest A & F University;Institute of Soil and Water Conservation,Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources;Forestry College,Shanxi Agricultural University;
  • 关键词:露天煤矿 ; 排土场边坡 ; 细沟侵蚀 ; 沙打旺 ; 沙柳方格
  • 英文关键词:Opencast mining area;;Dump slope;;Rill erosion;;Astragalus adsurgens;;Salix Psammophila Checkerboard
  • 中文刊名:CDXU
  • 英文刊名:Acta Agrestia Sinica
  • 机构:西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室;中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所;山西农业大学林学院;
  • 出版日期:2017-01-15
  • 出版单位:草地学报
  • 年:2017
  • 期:v.25
  • 基金:中国科学院西部行动计划“晋陕蒙能源基地受损生态系统恢复重建关键技术与示范”(KZCX-XB3-13);; 国家自然科学基金“煤矿开发建设中人为侵蚀机理及新增水土流失预报模型-以神府东胜煤田为例”(40771127);; 水利部公益性行业专项“工程开挖面与堆积体水土流失测算技术研究”(201201048)资助
  • 语种:中文;
  • 页:CDXU201701010
  • 页数:8
  • CN:01
  • ISSN:11-3362/S
  • 分类号:64-71
摘要
露天煤矿新建排土场边坡土质疏松,细沟侵蚀强烈。本文通过野外实地调查,以裸坡为对照,对内蒙古永利煤矿排土场边坡2种不同治理模式(A模式-沙柳方格+沙打旺(Salix Psammophila Checkerboard+Astragalus adsurgens),B模式-沙柳方格)下边坡的细沟侵蚀特征进行了研究。结果表明:裸坡细沟侵蚀总量为283.73kg,A和B治理模式下边坡的细沟侵蚀总量较裸坡减少46.36%和35.09%。细沟密度、割裂度和宽深比从坡顶至坡脚的变化趋势,在裸坡上表现为减小-增大-减小,而在A模式治理的边坡上均为缓慢增大,在B模式治理的边坡上均为先增大后减小。距坡顶0~14 m处,75%和45%覆盖度沙打旺相比裸坡可使细沟侵蚀量降低37.29%~70.82%和43.10%~70.34%,二者控蚀效果基本相同;距坡顶14~20m处,75%覆盖度坡面细沟侵蚀量较45%覆盖度减小53.32%~61.49%;距坡顶>20m处,沙打旺不能有效控制细沟侵蚀。结果可为矿区生态环境安全与可持续发展提供科学依据。
        Soil erosion in mining area is a major problem for the ecological security,especially in Loess Plateau.Non-conservation managing practices have further aggravated the situation,especially in new dump slope,which are affected by the highest rates of soil erosion among mining area.Therefore,it is necessary to find a right managing model for the environment restoration of mining area.The one-year dump slopes were selected to evaluate rill erosion.Two managing models were applied to these one-year slopes of opencast coal mine in Inner Mongolia Erdos Yongli.Type A was Salix Psammophila Checkerboard mixed Astragalus adsurgens and type B was Salix Psammophila Checkerboard.In order to easily test the effect of A and B,a bare lope was regarded as a contrast(CK).The experiment included five sample sites:two A,two B,and a CK.Results showed that:rill density,degree of rill dissection,and rill width-depth ratio showed the trend of declining-rising-declining with increasing slope length on CK,but steadily rising on A,rising-declining on B;The rill erosion amount of CK increased rapidly 8 minterval,and reached 283.73kg;the total rill erosion amount of A and B decreased 46.36% and 35.09% compared to CK.Therefore,A type decreased rill erosion due to the function of Astragalus adsurgens;The accumulation of rill erosion changed with the increase of slope length,and the relationships among them was exponential function ofCK,and power function of A and B;the effect of control rill erosion was not different between 75% coverage and 45% coverage before 14 m.The 75% coverage was more effective than 45% between 14~20m,and the rill erosion amount decreased 53.32%~61.49%.However,the effective control on erosion was within 20 m.This study may provide some scientific basis for the management of dump slope and the ecological security of mining area.
引文
[1]蒲玉宏,王伟.煤矿废弃堆积物坡面侵蚀研究初报[J].中国水土保持,1995(10):11-14
    [2]刘瑞顺,王文龙,廖超英,等.露天煤矿排土场边坡防护措施减水减沙效益分析[J].西北林学院学报,2014(04):59-64
    [3]王治国,白中科,赵景逵,等.黄土区大型露天矿排土场岩土侵蚀及其控制技术的研究[J].水土保持学报,1994(02):10-17
    [4]陈海迟,丁占强,杨翠林.降雨特性与排土场边坡水力侵蚀的关系[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2011(02):103-108
    [5]Toy T J,Foster G R,Renard K G.Rusle for mining,construction and reclamation lands[J].Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,1999,54(2):462-467
    [6]郭建英,何京丽,李锦荣,等.典型草原大型露天煤矿排土场边坡水蚀控制效果[J].农业工程学报,2015(03):296-303
    [7]郭明明,王文龙,李建明,等.神府矿区弃土弃渣体侵蚀特征及预测[J].土壤学报,2015(05):1044-1057
    [8]Renard K G,Foster G R,Yoder D C,et al.Rusle recisitedstatus,questions,answers,and the future[J].Joural of Soil and Water Conservation,1994,49(3):213-220
    [9]叶翠玲,许兆义,董瑞锟,等.USLE用于估算工程建设项目水土流失量的讨论[J].中国水土保持,2001(12):33-34
    [10]Kimaro D N,Poesen J,Msanya B M,et al.Magnitude of soil erosion on the northern slope of the Uluguru Mountains,Tanzania:Interrill and rill erosion[J].CATENA,2008,75(1):38-44
    [11]郑良勇,李占斌,李鹏,等.稀土元素示踪坡面次降雨条件下的侵蚀过程[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(3):87-91
    [12]蔡强国,朱远达,王石英.几种土壤的细沟侵蚀过程及其影响因素[J].水科学进展,2004,15(1):12-18
    [13]李蕾蕾,李聪,王永辰,等.灌溉与密度对沙打旺种子产量及其构成因素的影响[J].草地学报,2008,16(1):65-69
    [14]郑粉莉.细沟侵蚀量测算方法的探讨[J].水土保持通报,1989(04):41-45
    [15]蔡强国.坡长在坡面侵蚀产沙过程中的作用[J].泥沙研究,1989(04):84-91
    [16]Kara O,Sensoy H,Bolat I.Slope length effects on microbial biomass and activity of eroded sediments[J].JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS,2010,10(3):434-439
    [17]谢云,刘宝元,章文波.侵蚀性降雨标准研究[J].水土保持学报,2000(04):6-11
    [18]Gilley J E,Gee G W,Bauer A,et al.Runoff and Erosion Characteristics of Surface-Mined Sites in Western North Dakota[J].Transactions of the asae,1977,4(20):697-700,704
    [19]赵宇,陈晓燕,米宏星,等.基于体积法对黄土细沟侵蚀沿程分布模拟的研究[J].土壤学报,2014(06):1234-1241
    [20]欧阳潮波,王文龙,黄鹏飞,等.黄土高塬沟壑区植物对土质路蓄水减沙及水力参数的影响[J].草地学报,2014(05):971-979
    [21]焦菊英,王万忠.人工草地在黄土高原水土保持中的减水减沙效益与有效盖度[J].草地学报,2001(03):176-182
    [22]和继军,宫辉力,李小娟,等.细沟形成对坡面产流产沙过程的影响[J].水科学进展,2014,25(1):90-97
    [23]王龙生,蔡强国,蔡崇法,等.黄土坡面细沟与细沟间水流水动力学特性研究[J].泥沙研究,2013(6):45-52
    [24]Karao,sensoy H,Bolat I·.Slope length effects on microbial biomass and activity of eroded sediments[J].Journal of Soils and Sediments,2010,10(3):434-439
    [25]孔亚平,张科利,唐克丽.坡长对侵蚀产沙过程影响的模拟研究[J].水土保持学报,2001,15(2):17-20,24
    [26]付兴涛,张丽萍.红壤丘陵区坡长对作物覆盖坡耕地土壤侵蚀的影响[J].农业工程学报,2014(05):91-98
    [27]王禹,杨明义,刘普灵.典型黑土直型坡耕地土壤侵蚀强度的小波分析[J].核农学报,2010(01):98-103

© 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