丹江口库区坡耕地不同农艺措施水土保持效果的研究
|
摘要
丹江口库区作为南水北调中线工程的水源区,其水质状况对这个宏伟工程的顺利完成有着举足轻重的地位。但相关数据显示,库区植被覆盖率低,水土流失严重,地表径流和侵蚀泥沙从坡耕地携带营养元素给库区的水质安全带来了很大的威胁。为了探究当地坡耕地水土流失的规律,为库区坡耕地利用和水土保持提供依据,本试验以库区坡耕地为研究对象,以种植不同作物(黄姜、红薯、芝麻、玉米)和不同耕作方式(免耕、免耕覆盖、常耕、常耕覆盖、覆膜、垄作)为处理,分别观察和记录了不同处理的水土流失情况,分析了不同作物和不同耕作方式对库区坡耕地水土流失的影响和规律。主要得到以下结论：
(1)库区普遍种植的夏季作物中,红薯和芝麻两种作物水土保持效果较好,能提高坡耕地植被覆盖度,消减天然降雨和地表径流的动能,减少坡耕地的地表径流量和泥沙侵蚀量。相对于黄姜,红薯可以减少79.60%的地表径流量,可以减少39.52%的泥沙量。与种植玉米相比较,红薯营养元素流失量只占玉米流失量的1/10,并且相对于种植玉米,种植红薯每公顷可增收0.63万元。种植红薯减少了径流和泥沙的入库,为库区的防汛和疏浚工作减轻压力；减少坡耕地氮素和磷素的流失,使流入水库的营养元素减少,防止了水域的富营养化,降低面源污染的程度,保护了库区的水质质量。红薯是一种适合本地推广种植的品种。
(2)不同耕作方式在玉米生长的前期和后期地表径流量和泥沙侵蚀量有所不同。在作物生长前期,各处理的地表径流流失量和泥沙侵蚀量显著大于后期流失量。免耕覆盖和常耕覆盖相对于免耕和常耕,每公顷分别少收入0.17万元和0.33万元；垄作的经济效益最差,仅为0.90万元/hm2。覆膜处理的小区泥沙侵蚀总量最小为6.89 kg/hm2但地表径流总量最高,为18 m3/hm2。免耕覆盖的水土流失量和营养元素流失量都处于较低的水平。与常耕相比,免耕覆盖可以减少58.7%的地表径流和64.24%的泥沙侵蚀量。
(3)覆膜和垄作处理的玉米生育期比常耕和常耕覆盖两种耕作方式的玉米要早一个星期左右,避开了高温少雨天气对玉米的胁迫。免耕和免耕覆盖的营养生长期时间最长,比常耕和常耕覆盖处理的玉米晚8天左右。覆膜处理的坡耕地在长时间不降雨情况下,水分环境最好,且玉米产量较高,免耕覆盖和常耕覆盖出现了一定的减产现象,垄作玉米产量最低。所以从综合效益来看免耕农资投入少,经济收入高,减少水土流失效果好,是一种适宜当地环境的耕作方式。
As the water source of the middle route line of South-to-North Water Transfer Project, the water quality of Danjiangkou reservoir area is important to accomplish this project. But according to some date, the ecological condition of the reservoir area is bad, the vegetation coverage is low, soil and water loss is serious. The nutrient of the slope fields, which losses with runoff and erosion soil have effected the water quality.
For research the rules of soil and water loss in the slope fields, and provide reference for land use and soil and water conservation, I designed several experiments. One is planting different crop species (include Dioscorea ZingiBerensis C.H.Wright, sweet potato, sesame, maize), another is about soil and water loss under different farming measures (the treatments is no-tillage, no-tillage with straw mulch, conventional tillage, conventional tillage with straw mulch, mulching with plastic film, contour ridge planting). I have observed and recorded the process of soil and water loss, analysed its loss rule and crop production efficiency. The experiments conclude as follows.
(1)Sweet potato and sesame compare to the other crop have more efficient in soil and water conservation. According to the date, these tow crops can improve the vegetation coverage, reduce the rainfall and runoff energy, control the ground runoff flow and soil erosion. Compare to Dioscorea ZingiBerensis C.H.Wright, sweet potato reduce 79.60% ground runoff flow and 39.52% sediment erosion. Compares with maize, the sweet potato nutrient element loss accounted for only 1/10, and increase income 6,300 yuan per hectare. Sweet potato reduce the runoff and erosion soil flowing to reservoir area, help relieve the flood control pressure. And these tow crops can also reduce the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus in slop cultivated land, that can help control the eutrophicated water and non-point source pollution. These suggest that sweet potato can protect the water quality of in reservoir area, and make sure this great project has a successful conclusion. Sweet potato is a crop species suitable for local popularization.
(2) Different tillage methods have different ground runoff flow and soil erosion at early and late stage. At early stage, different tillage methods have more ground runoff flow and soil erosion than its at late stage. Compare with non-tillage and conventional tillage, non-tillage with straw mulch and conventional tillage with straw mulch less income 1700 and 3300 yuan per hectare. Mulching with plastic film have the least sediment erosion, is only 6.89 kg/hm2, but the ground runoff is the largest. Conventional tillage with straw mulch soil and water erosion and nutrient loss are at a lower level. Compared with conservation tillage, conventional tillage with straw mulch can reduce 58.7% of ground runoff and 64.24% of sediment erosion.
(3) Compare with conventional tillage and conventional tillage with straw mulch, treating with mulching with plastic film and contour ridge planting's maize has a shorter growth stage, its about a week earlier, and that help crop avoid water stress during high-temperature, less rainfall period. When it comes to non-tillage and non-tillage with straw mulch, its about 8 days later. Treating with mulching with plastic film's sloping farmland has a better water circumstances, and a higher yield than the other treatment. Treating with on-tillage with straw mulch and conventional tillage with straw mulch's crop showed production decline, and the crop treating with contour ridge planting has the lowest output. So according to efficiency of agricultural investment, high income, and reduce soil erosion effect conventional tillage with straw mulch is a suitable tillage methods for reservoir area.
(1)库区普遍种植的夏季作物中,红薯和芝麻两种作物水土保持效果较好,能提高坡耕地植被覆盖度,消减天然降雨和地表径流的动能,减少坡耕地的地表径流量和泥沙侵蚀量。相对于黄姜,红薯可以减少79.60%的地表径流量,可以减少39.52%的泥沙量。与种植玉米相比较,红薯营养元素流失量只占玉米流失量的1/10,并且相对于种植玉米,种植红薯每公顷可增收0.63万元。种植红薯减少了径流和泥沙的入库,为库区的防汛和疏浚工作减轻压力；减少坡耕地氮素和磷素的流失,使流入水库的营养元素减少,防止了水域的富营养化,降低面源污染的程度,保护了库区的水质质量。红薯是一种适合本地推广种植的品种。
(2)不同耕作方式在玉米生长的前期和后期地表径流量和泥沙侵蚀量有所不同。在作物生长前期,各处理的地表径流流失量和泥沙侵蚀量显著大于后期流失量。免耕覆盖和常耕覆盖相对于免耕和常耕,每公顷分别少收入0.17万元和0.33万元；垄作的经济效益最差,仅为0.90万元/hm2。覆膜处理的小区泥沙侵蚀总量最小为6.89 kg/hm2但地表径流总量最高,为18 m3/hm2。免耕覆盖的水土流失量和营养元素流失量都处于较低的水平。与常耕相比,免耕覆盖可以减少58.7%的地表径流和64.24%的泥沙侵蚀量。
(3)覆膜和垄作处理的玉米生育期比常耕和常耕覆盖两种耕作方式的玉米要早一个星期左右,避开了高温少雨天气对玉米的胁迫。免耕和免耕覆盖的营养生长期时间最长,比常耕和常耕覆盖处理的玉米晚8天左右。覆膜处理的坡耕地在长时间不降雨情况下,水分环境最好,且玉米产量较高,免耕覆盖和常耕覆盖出现了一定的减产现象,垄作玉米产量最低。所以从综合效益来看免耕农资投入少,经济收入高,减少水土流失效果好,是一种适宜当地环境的耕作方式。
As the water source of the middle route line of South-to-North Water Transfer Project, the water quality of Danjiangkou reservoir area is important to accomplish this project. But according to some date, the ecological condition of the reservoir area is bad, the vegetation coverage is low, soil and water loss is serious. The nutrient of the slope fields, which losses with runoff and erosion soil have effected the water quality.
For research the rules of soil and water loss in the slope fields, and provide reference for land use and soil and water conservation, I designed several experiments. One is planting different crop species (include Dioscorea ZingiBerensis C.H.Wright, sweet potato, sesame, maize), another is about soil and water loss under different farming measures (the treatments is no-tillage, no-tillage with straw mulch, conventional tillage, conventional tillage with straw mulch, mulching with plastic film, contour ridge planting). I have observed and recorded the process of soil and water loss, analysed its loss rule and crop production efficiency. The experiments conclude as follows.
(1)Sweet potato and sesame compare to the other crop have more efficient in soil and water conservation. According to the date, these tow crops can improve the vegetation coverage, reduce the rainfall and runoff energy, control the ground runoff flow and soil erosion. Compare to Dioscorea ZingiBerensis C.H.Wright, sweet potato reduce 79.60% ground runoff flow and 39.52% sediment erosion. Compares with maize, the sweet potato nutrient element loss accounted for only 1/10, and increase income 6,300 yuan per hectare. Sweet potato reduce the runoff and erosion soil flowing to reservoir area, help relieve the flood control pressure. And these tow crops can also reduce the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus in slop cultivated land, that can help control the eutrophicated water and non-point source pollution. These suggest that sweet potato can protect the water quality of in reservoir area, and make sure this great project has a successful conclusion. Sweet potato is a crop species suitable for local popularization.
(2) Different tillage methods have different ground runoff flow and soil erosion at early and late stage. At early stage, different tillage methods have more ground runoff flow and soil erosion than its at late stage. Compare with non-tillage and conventional tillage, non-tillage with straw mulch and conventional tillage with straw mulch less income 1700 and 3300 yuan per hectare. Mulching with plastic film have the least sediment erosion, is only 6.89 kg/hm2, but the ground runoff is the largest. Conventional tillage with straw mulch soil and water erosion and nutrient loss are at a lower level. Compared with conservation tillage, conventional tillage with straw mulch can reduce 58.7% of ground runoff and 64.24% of sediment erosion.
(3) Compare with conventional tillage and conventional tillage with straw mulch, treating with mulching with plastic film and contour ridge planting's maize has a shorter growth stage, its about a week earlier, and that help crop avoid water stress during high-temperature, less rainfall period. When it comes to non-tillage and non-tillage with straw mulch, its about 8 days later. Treating with mulching with plastic film's sloping farmland has a better water circumstances, and a higher yield than the other treatment. Treating with on-tillage with straw mulch and conventional tillage with straw mulch's crop showed production decline, and the crop treating with contour ridge planting has the lowest output. So according to efficiency of agricultural investment, high income, and reduce soil erosion effect conventional tillage with straw mulch is a suitable tillage methods for reservoir area.
引文
1.安瞳听,李彩虹,吴伯志,胡昌应等.玉米不同间作方式对坡耕地水土流失的影响.水土保持学报,2007,(05)：18-20+24.
2.鲍士旦.土壤农化分析(第三版).北京：中国农业出版社,2005：30-107,127.
3.蔡强国,陈浩.降雨特性对溅蚀影响的初步试验研究.中国水土保持,1986,(06)：30-33.
4. 蔡强国,陈浩.影响降雨击溅侵蚀过程的多元回归正交试验研究.地理研究,1989,(04)：28-36.
5.陈素英,张喜英,刘孟雨.玉米秸秆覆盖麦田下的土壤温度和土壤水分动态规律.中国农业气象,2002,(04)：34-37.
6.陈一兵.测定溅蚀的方法研究.水土保持通报,1994,(04)：34-38.
7.程冬兵,左长清,蔡崇法.不同下垫面每次降雨水土流失特征及影响因素分析.草业学报,2007,(05)：84-89.
8.程琴娟,蔡强国,胡霞.不同粒径黄绵土的溅蚀规律及表土结皮发育研究.土壤学报,2007,(03)：392-396.
9.杜兵,邓健,李问盈,寥植犀.冬小麦保护性耕作法与传统耕作法的田间对比试验.中国农业大学学报,2000,(02)：55-58.
10.范世香,高雁,程银才,白清俊.林冠对降雨截留能力的研究.地理科学,2007,(02)：200-204.
11.付斌,胡万里,屈明,段宗颜,刘宏斌.不同农作措施对云南红壤坡耕地径流调控研究.水土保持学报,2009,(01)：17-20.
12.傅伯杰,邱扬,王军,陈利顶.黄土丘陵小流域土地利用变化对水土流失的影响.地理学报,2002,(06)：717-722.
13.傅涛,倪九派,魏朝富,谢德体.不同雨强和坡度条件下紫色土养分流失规律研究.植物营养与肥料学报,2003,(01)：71-74+101.
14.高学田,包忠谟,降雨特性和土壤结构对溅蚀的影响.水土保持学报,2001,(03)：24-26+47.
15.高亚军,李生秀.旱地秸秆覆盖条件下作物减产的原因及作用机制分析.农业工程学报,2005,(07)：15-19.
16.高扬,朱波,周培,汪涛,缪驰远.紫色土坡地氮素和磷素非点源输出的人工模拟研究.农业环境科学学报,2008,(04)：1371-1376·
17.葛方龙,张建辉,苏正安,聂小军.坡耕地紫色土养分空间变异对土壤侵蚀的响应.生态学报,2007,(02)：459-464.
18.郭庆荣,李玉山.非恒温条件下土壤中水热耦合运移过程的数学模拟中国农业大学学报,1997,(S1)：33-38.
19.郭晓霞,刘景辉,张星杰,等.不同耕作方式对土壤水热变化的影响.中国土壤与肥料,2010,(05)：11-15+70.
20.韩冰,吴钦孝,刘向东,汪有科,赵鸿雁.林地枯枝落叶层对溅蚀影响的研究.防护林科技,1994,(02)：7-10.
21.韩凤朋,郑纪勇,张兴昌.黄土退耕坡地植物根系分布特征及其对土壤养分的影响.农业工程学报,2009,25(2)：50-55.
22.韩建刚,李占斌.紫色土小流域土壤流失对不同土地利用类型的响应.中国水土保持科学,2005,(04)：37-41.
23.胡远安,程声通,贾海峰,等.袁水上游小流域非点源污染研究—实验设计与数据初步分析.农业环境科学学报,2003,(04)：442-445.
24.黄河仙,谢小立,王凯荣,殷芙蓉.不同覆被下红壤坡地地表径流及其养分流失特征.生态环境,2008,(04)：1645-1649.
25.黄金辉,廖允成,高茂盛,殷瑞敬.耕作和覆盖对黄土高原果园土壤水分和温度的影响.应用生态学报,2009,(11)：2652-2658.
26.黄丽,丁树文.三峡库区紫色土养分流失的试验研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1998,4(1)：8-13.
27.黄丽,张光远,丁树文,蔡崇法,蔡强国.侵蚀紫色土土壤颗粒流失的研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1999,(01)：35-39.
28.黄丽,项雅玲,袁锦方.三峡库区农田的化肥面源污染状况研究.农业环境科学学报,2007,(S2)：362-367.
29.黄满湘,章申,唐以剑,陈喜保.模拟降雨条件下农田径流中氮的流失过程.土壤与环境,2001,(01)：6-10.
30.江忠善,刘志.降雨因素和坡度对溅蚀影响的研究.水土保持学报,1989,(02)：29-35.
31.蒋光毅,史东梅,卢喜平,刘玉民.紫色土坡地不同种植模式下径流及养分流失研究.水土保持学报,2004,(05)：54-58+63.
32.孔刚,王全九,樊军.坡度对黄土坡面养分流失的影响实验研究.水土保持学报,2007,21(3)：14-18.
33.雷金银,吴发启,王健,郭建华.保护性耕作对土壤物理特性及玉米产量的影响.农业工程学报,2008,(10)：40-45.
34.雷瑞德.华山松林冠层对降雨动能的影响.水土保持学报,1988,(02)：31-39.
35.李光录,张胜利.黄土高原南部侵蚀对不同土壤颗粒级碳氮分布的影响.西北 农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,(08),146-150.
36.李庆召,王定勇,朱波自然降雨条件下紫色土区磷素的非点源输出规律.农业环境科学学报,2004,(06)：1050-1052.
37.李思悦,刘文治,顾胜,韩鸿印,张全发.南水北调中线水源地汉江上游流域主要生态环境问题及对策.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(3)：275-280.
38.李小坤,鲁剑巍,吴礼树.土壤钾素固定和释放机制研究进展.湖北农业科学,2008,(04)：473-477.
39.李勇,徐晓琴,朱显谟.田积莹草类根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应.土壤学报,1992,(03)：302-309.
40.李宗新,董树亭,王空军,等.不同施肥条件下玉米田土壤养分淋溶规律的原位研究.应用生态学报,2008,(01)：65-70.
41.廖晓勇,陈治谏,刘邵权,王海明三峡库区紫色土坡耕地不同利用方式的水土流失特征.水土保持研究.2005,(01)：159-161.
42.林超文,陈一兵,黄晶晶,涂仕华,庞良玉.不同耕作方式和雨强对紫色土养分流失的影响.中国农业科学,2007,(10)：2241-2249.
43.林超文,罗春燕,庞良玉.不同覆盖和耕作方式对紫色土坡耕地降雨土壤蓄积量的影响.水土保持学报,2010,(03)：213-216.
44.林超文,罗春燕,庞良玉.不同耕作和覆盖方式对紫色丘陵区坡耕地水土及养分流失的影响.生态学报,2010,(22)：6091-6101.
45.刘刚才,高美荣,林三益,刘淑珍.紫色土两种耕作制的产流产沙过程与水土流失观测准确性分析.水土保持学报,2002,(04)：108-111.
46.刘坤,陈治谏,廖晓勇.三峡库区紫色土坡地不同耕作措施的水土保持效应研究.水土保持研究,2008,(01)：17-19.
47.刘元保,唐克丽,查轩,史瑞云.坡耕地不同地面覆盖的水土流失试验研究.水土保持学报,1990,(01)：25-29.
48.刘允芬,李家永,陈永瑞,林耀明.红壤丘陵区森林植被恢复的增湿效应初探.自然资源学报,2001,(05)：457-461.
49.刘志,江忠善.降雨因素和坡度对片蚀影响的研究.水土保持通报,1994,(06)：19-22.
50.柳云龙,胡宏涛.红壤地区地形位置和利用方式对土壤物理性质的影响.水土保持学报,2004,(01)：22-26.
51.卢喜平,史东梅,吕刚,蒋光毅.紫色土坡地果草种植模式的水土流失特征研究.水土保持学报,2005,(02)：21-25.
52.吕耀.农业生态系统中氮素造成的非点源污染.农业环境保护,1998,17(1)： 35-39.
53.罗德,余新晓,董磊.密云山区林冠层对天然降雨能量影响的初步研究.水土保持学报,2008,(03)：60-63.
54.鲁如坤.土壤农业化学分析法.北京：中国农业科技出版社,1998.
55.罗伟祥,白立强,宋西德,等.不同覆盖度林地和草地的径流量与冲刷量.水土保持学报,1990,(01)：30-35.
56.马波,吴发启,马璠.谷子冠层下的土壤溅蚀速率特征.干旱地区农业研究,2010, (01)： 130-135.
57.马雪华(主编).森林水文学.北京：中国林业出版社,1993,70-73.
58.邱学礼,段宗颜,胡万里,付斌.降水特征与农作处理对坡耕地水土流失的动态研究.水土保持学报,2010,(01)：82-85.
59.全为民,严力蛟.农业面源污染对水体富营养化的影响及其防治措施.生态学报,2002,(03)：291-299.
60.任理,张瑜芳,沈荣开.条带覆盖下土壤水热动态的田间试验与模型建立.水利学报,1998,(01)：76-84.
61.司友斌,王慎强,陈怀满.农田氮、磷的流失与水体富营养化.土壤,2000,(04)：188-193.
62.孙建,刘苗,李立军,刘景辉,KENNETH Dean Sayre.不同耕作方式对内蒙古旱作农田土壤侵蚀的影响.生态学杂志,2010,(03)：485-490.
63.孙建,刘苗,李立军,刘景辉,Surya N.Acharya.不同耕作方式对内蒙古旱作农田土壤水热状况的影响.生态学报,2010,(06)：1539-1547.
64.唐涛,郝明德,单凤霞.人工降雨条件下秸秆覆盖减少水土流失的效应研究.水土保持研究,2008,15(1)：9-11.
65.唐泽军,雷廷武,张晴雯,赵军.雨滴溅蚀和结皮效应对土壤侵蚀影响的试验研究.土壤学报,2004,(04)：632-635.
66.汪涛,朱波,罗专溪,张剑.紫色土坡耕地径流特征试验研究.水土保持学报,2008,(06)：30-34.
67.王春燕,黄丽,谭文峰,胡红青.几种侵蚀红壤中有机质和团聚体的关系.水土保持学报,2007,(03)：52-56.
68.王晗生,刘国彬.试论防蚀有效植被的基本特征——贴地面覆盖.中国水土保持,2000,(03)：28-31.
69.王洪杰,李宪文,史学正,于东升.不同土地利用方式下土壤养分的分布及其与土壤颗粒组成关系.水土保持学报,2003,(02)：44-46+50.
70.王辉,王全九,邵明安.表层土壤容重对黄土坡面养分随径流迁移的影响,水 土保持学报,2007,21(3)：10-18.
71.王健,吴发启,蒋学玮.作物覆盖与径流能量的关系.人民黄河,2005,(08)：34-36+64.
72.王珂,朱荫湄,王人潮土壤耕作与农业非点源污染.耕作与栽培,1996,(02)：14-17.
73.王文林,周瑞云,成庆利.丹江口水库水体主要营养盐含量变化特征.海洋湖沼通报,2008,(02)：123-129.
74.王彦辉.几个树种的林冠降雨特征.林业科学,2001,(04)：2-9.
75.王勇强,王玉宽,傅斌,王先拓,王道杰.不同耕作方式对紫色土侵蚀的影响.水土保持研究,2007,(03)：333-335.
76.王正非,朱廷曜,朱劲伟.森林气象学.北京：中国林业出版社,1985.185-189.
77.吴普特,周佩华,地表坡度对雨滴溅蚀的影响.水土保持通报,1991,(03)：8-13+28.
78.吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,刘向东.持续提高黄土高原植被水土保持功能的配套技术(Ⅰ)森林保持水土的条件.农村生态环境,2002,(02)：50-52.
79.吴希媛,张丽萍.坡地水土流失对水体富营养化贡献的研究进展.水土保持研究,2006,(05)：296-298.
80.吴旭东,周梅,张慧东.兴安落叶松林冠截留与降雨量及降雨强度的关系.内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2006,(04)：83-86.
81.武卫国,胡庭兴,唐天云,等.华西雨屏区5种坡地利用方式产流产沙与养分流失特征.水土保持学报.2007,(04)：38-42.
82.向万胜,梁称福,肖润林.三峡库区坡耕地利用与水土保持种植制.长江流域资源与环境,1998,(03)：255-259.
83.肖国明,杜华杰..加强丹江口库区综合治理,确保南水北调供水安全. 中国水土保持,2003,(3)：20-21.
84.徐泰平,朱波,汪涛,况福虹.秸秆还田对紫色土坡耕地养分流失的影响.水土保持学报,2006,(01)：30-32+36.
85.徐宪立,马克明,傅伯杰等.植被与水土流失关系研究进展.生态学报,2006,(09)：3137-3143.
86.杨建霞,雷孝章,邱景,陈平安.5°-25°坡耕地径流小区产流产沙规律.中国水土保持科学,2008,6(增刊)：30-34.
87.杨云马,贾树龙,孟春香,孙颜铭.不同耕作及秸秆还田条件下冬小麦养分利用率研究.华北农学报,2010,(S1)：202-204.
88.杨泽贵,陈婷,林立金,朱雪梅.不同土地利用方式对水土流失的影响.人民 长江,2009,(11)：68-69+97.
89.易秀,等.氮肥在土中的渗漏污染研究.农业环境保护,1993,12(6)：50-52.
90.游珍,李占斌,蒋庆丰.植被在坡面的不同位置对降雨产沙量影响.水土保持通报,2006,(06)：28-31.
91.余新晓.森林植被减弱降雨侵蚀能量的数理分析.水土保持报,1988,(02)：24-30.
92.余新晓,张晓明,武思宏,魏天兴,张学培.黄土区林草植被与降水对坡面径流和侵蚀产沙的影响.山地学报,2006,(01)：19-26.
93.余泳昌,刘晓文,李明枝,梁晓辉.夏玉米免耕秸秆覆盖机械化栽培技术的研究.河南农业大学学报,2002,(04)：309-312.
94.袁东海,王兆骞,郭新波,陈欣,张如良.红壤小流域不同利用方式水土流失和有机碳流失特征研究.水土保持学报,2002,(02)：24-28.
95.臧英,高焕文,周建忠.保护性耕作对农田土壤凤蚀影响的试验研究.农业工程学报,2003,19(2)：56-60.
96.张翠萍,潘玉荣,郭文静,王丽先.玉米如何进行测产.吉林农业,2007,(11)：14.
97.张建军,毕华兴,张宝颖.坡面水土保持林地地表径流挟沙能力研究.北京林业大学学报,2003,(05)：25-28.
98.张科利,细山田健三.坡面溅蚀发生过程及其与坡度关系的模拟研究.地理科学,1998,(06)：561-566.
99.张利华,龙昱,李辉,董玉森.基于～(137)Cs示踪的丹江口市农用地土壤侵蚀与有机质流失分析.水土保持学报,2008,(02)：54-57.
100.张世贤.三张图表说喜忧——中国面临的严峻挑战与机遇.中国农村,1996,(5)：6-9.
101.张伟,汪春,梁远,李玉清.残茬覆盖对寒地旱作区土壤温度的影响.农业工程学报,2006,(05)：70-73.
102.张兴昌,刘国彬,付会芳.不同植被覆盖度对流域氮素径流流失的影响.环境科学,2000,(06)：16-19.
103.张兴昌,邵明安,黄占斌,卢宗凡.不同植被对土壤侵蚀和氮素流失的影响.生态学报,2000,(06)：1038-1044.
104.张兴昌,邵明安.侵蚀泥沙、有机质和全氮富集规律研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(4)：541-544.
105.张颖,牛健植,谢宝元,等.森林植被对坡面土壤水蚀作用的动力学机理.生态学报,2008,28(10)：5084-5092.
106.赵鸿雁,刘向东,吴钦孝,杨华.油松人工林和天然山杨林林内降雨动能的初步研究.中国科学院水利部西北水土保持研究所集刊(森林水文生态与水土保持林效益研究专集),1991,(02)：44-50.
107.郑粉莉,唐克丽,周佩华.坡耕地细沟侵蚀的发生、发展和防治途径的探讨.水土保持学报,1987,(01)：36-48.
108.中野秀章(日),李云森(译).森林水文学.北京：中国林业出版社,1983,58-63.
109.朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,游珍.草本植被覆盖对坡面降雨径流侵蚀影响的试验研究.土壤学报,2010,(03)：401-407.
110.朱明勇,党海山,谭淑端,陈正洪,张全发.湖北丹江口水库库区降雨侵蚀力特征.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(9)：837-842.
111.庄源益,陶志宁,戴树桂,等.降雨面源污染及其模型研究近况.环境科学进展,1994,2(5)：20-34.
112.Barzegar A R, Hashemi A M, Herbert S J, Asoodar M A. Interactive effects of tillage system and soil water content on aggregate size distribution for seedbed preparation in Fluvisols in southwest Iran. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,78:45-45.
113.Munodawafa A, Assessing nutrient losses with soil erosion under different tillage systems and their implications on water quality. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2007,32:1135-1140.
114.Abrahams A D, Parsons A J, John Wainwright. Effects of vegetation change on interrill runoff and erosion, Walnut Gulch, southern Arizona. Geomorphology,1995, 13:37-48.
115.Bochet E, Rubio J L, Poesen J. Relative efficiency of three representative matorral species in reducing water erosion at the microscale in a semi-arid climate (Valencia, Spain). Geomorphology,1998,23:139-150.
116.Casermeiro M A, Molina J A, de la Cruz Caravaca M T, Hernando Costa J, et al. Influence of scrubs on runoff and sediment loss in soils of Medeterranean climate. Catena,2004,57:91-107.
117.Duran Zuazo V H. Impact of vegetaion cover on runoff and soil erosion at hill slope scale in Lanjaron, Spain. The Envionmentalist,2004,24:39-48.
118.Pinheiro E F M, G.Pereira M, Anjos L H C.Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a Red Latosol from Brazil. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,77:79-84.
119.Ekwue E I, Harrilal A. Effect of soil type, peat, slope, compaction effort and their interactions on infiltration, runoff and raindrop erosion of some Trinidadian soils. biosystems engineering,2009,1-7.
120.Eduardo Martinez, Juan-Pablo Fuentes, Paula Silva, Susana Valle, Edmundo Acevedo. Soil physical properties and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and conventional tillage systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile. Soil & Tillage Research,2008,99:232-244.
121.Garcia-Orenes F, Cerda A, Mataix-Solera J, etal. Effects of agricultural management on surface soil properties and soil-water losses in eastern Spain. Soil & Tillage Research,2009,106:117-123.
122.Basic F, Kisic I, M.Mesic, Nestroy O, Butorac A, Tillage and crop management effects on soil erosion in central Croatia. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,78, 197-206.
123.Finney H J. The effect of crop covers on rainfall characteristics and splash detachment. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,1984,29:337-343.
124.Zhang G. S, Chan K Y, Oates A, Heenan D P, Huang G B, Relationship between soil structure and runoff/soil loss after 24 years of conservation tillage. Soil & Tillage Research,2007,92:122-128.
125.Gonzalez Hidalgo J C, Raventos J, Echevarria M T. Comparison of sediment ratio curves for plants with different architectures. Catena,1997,29:333-340.
126.Lal R. Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture:tropics versus temperate environments. Advances in Agronomy,1989,42:166-170.
127.Manuel Seeger. Uncertainty of factors determining runoff and erosion processes as quantified by rainfall simulations. Catena 2007,71:56-67.
128.Marcus Zeiger, Nicola Fohrer. Impact of organic farming systems on runoff formation processes-A long-term sequential rainfall experiment. Soil & Tillage Research,2009,102:45-54.
129.Morgan R P C. Effect of corn and soybean canopy on soil detachment by rainfall. Transactions of the ASAE,1985,28(4):1135-1140.
130.Rachid Mrabet, Stratification of soil aggregation and organic matter under conservation tillage systems in Africa. Soil & Tillage Research,2002,66:119-128.
131.RajanBhatt, Khera K L. Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil & Tillage Research,2006, 88:107-115.
132.Sarkar S, Singh S R, Interactive effect of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley. Soil & Tillage Research,2007, 92:79-86.
133.Sanchez L A, Ataroff M, Lopez R. Soil erosion under different vegetation covers in the Venezuelan Andes. The Environmentalist,2002,22:161-172.
134.Smets T, Poesen J, Knapen A. Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water. Earth-Science Reviews,2008,89:1-12.
135.Fister W, Ries J B. Wind erosion in the central Ebro Basin under changing land use management, Field experiments with a portable wind tunnel. Journal of Arid Environments,2009,73:996-1004.
136.Wei Wei, Liding Chen, Bojie Fu, Zhilin Huang, etal. The effect of land uses and rainfall regimeson runoff and soil erosion in the semi-arid loess hilly area, China. Journal of Hydrology,2007,335:247-258.
137.Xian L X, Ma K M, Fu B J, etal. Soil and water erosion under different plant species in a semiarid river valley, SW China:the effects of plant morphology. Ecol Res, 2009,24:37-46.
138.Bissonnais Y Le, Cerdana O, Lecomte V, etal. Variability of soil surface characteristics influencing runoff and interrill erosion. Catena,2005,62:111-124.
139.Zheng Mingguo, Cai Qiangguo, Chen Hao. Effect of vegetation on runoff-sediment yield relationship at different spatial scales in hilly areas of the Loess Plateau, North China. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2007,27(9):3572-3581.
140.Zhi WuBo, Yi Zheng, Zheng YuanXia. Effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop productivity on subtropical Ultisols in Yunnan Province, China, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2004,104:343-357.
2.鲍士旦.土壤农化分析(第三版).北京：中国农业出版社,2005：30-107,127.
3.蔡强国,陈浩.降雨特性对溅蚀影响的初步试验研究.中国水土保持,1986,(06)：30-33.
4. 蔡强国,陈浩.影响降雨击溅侵蚀过程的多元回归正交试验研究.地理研究,1989,(04)：28-36.
5.陈素英,张喜英,刘孟雨.玉米秸秆覆盖麦田下的土壤温度和土壤水分动态规律.中国农业气象,2002,(04)：34-37.
6.陈一兵.测定溅蚀的方法研究.水土保持通报,1994,(04)：34-38.
7.程冬兵,左长清,蔡崇法.不同下垫面每次降雨水土流失特征及影响因素分析.草业学报,2007,(05)：84-89.
8.程琴娟,蔡强国,胡霞.不同粒径黄绵土的溅蚀规律及表土结皮发育研究.土壤学报,2007,(03)：392-396.
9.杜兵,邓健,李问盈,寥植犀.冬小麦保护性耕作法与传统耕作法的田间对比试验.中国农业大学学报,2000,(02)：55-58.
10.范世香,高雁,程银才,白清俊.林冠对降雨截留能力的研究.地理科学,2007,(02)：200-204.
11.付斌,胡万里,屈明,段宗颜,刘宏斌.不同农作措施对云南红壤坡耕地径流调控研究.水土保持学报,2009,(01)：17-20.
12.傅伯杰,邱扬,王军,陈利顶.黄土丘陵小流域土地利用变化对水土流失的影响.地理学报,2002,(06)：717-722.
13.傅涛,倪九派,魏朝富,谢德体.不同雨强和坡度条件下紫色土养分流失规律研究.植物营养与肥料学报,2003,(01)：71-74+101.
14.高学田,包忠谟,降雨特性和土壤结构对溅蚀的影响.水土保持学报,2001,(03)：24-26+47.
15.高亚军,李生秀.旱地秸秆覆盖条件下作物减产的原因及作用机制分析.农业工程学报,2005,(07)：15-19.
16.高扬,朱波,周培,汪涛,缪驰远.紫色土坡地氮素和磷素非点源输出的人工模拟研究.农业环境科学学报,2008,(04)：1371-1376·
17.葛方龙,张建辉,苏正安,聂小军.坡耕地紫色土养分空间变异对土壤侵蚀的响应.生态学报,2007,(02)：459-464.
18.郭庆荣,李玉山.非恒温条件下土壤中水热耦合运移过程的数学模拟中国农业大学学报,1997,(S1)：33-38.
19.郭晓霞,刘景辉,张星杰,等.不同耕作方式对土壤水热变化的影响.中国土壤与肥料,2010,(05)：11-15+70.
20.韩冰,吴钦孝,刘向东,汪有科,赵鸿雁.林地枯枝落叶层对溅蚀影响的研究.防护林科技,1994,(02)：7-10.
21.韩凤朋,郑纪勇,张兴昌.黄土退耕坡地植物根系分布特征及其对土壤养分的影响.农业工程学报,2009,25(2)：50-55.
22.韩建刚,李占斌.紫色土小流域土壤流失对不同土地利用类型的响应.中国水土保持科学,2005,(04)：37-41.
23.胡远安,程声通,贾海峰,等.袁水上游小流域非点源污染研究—实验设计与数据初步分析.农业环境科学学报,2003,(04)：442-445.
24.黄河仙,谢小立,王凯荣,殷芙蓉.不同覆被下红壤坡地地表径流及其养分流失特征.生态环境,2008,(04)：1645-1649.
25.黄金辉,廖允成,高茂盛,殷瑞敬.耕作和覆盖对黄土高原果园土壤水分和温度的影响.应用生态学报,2009,(11)：2652-2658.
26.黄丽,丁树文.三峡库区紫色土养分流失的试验研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1998,4(1)：8-13.
27.黄丽,张光远,丁树文,蔡崇法,蔡强国.侵蚀紫色土土壤颗粒流失的研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1999,(01)：35-39.
28.黄丽,项雅玲,袁锦方.三峡库区农田的化肥面源污染状况研究.农业环境科学学报,2007,(S2)：362-367.
29.黄满湘,章申,唐以剑,陈喜保.模拟降雨条件下农田径流中氮的流失过程.土壤与环境,2001,(01)：6-10.
30.江忠善,刘志.降雨因素和坡度对溅蚀影响的研究.水土保持学报,1989,(02)：29-35.
31.蒋光毅,史东梅,卢喜平,刘玉民.紫色土坡地不同种植模式下径流及养分流失研究.水土保持学报,2004,(05)：54-58+63.
32.孔刚,王全九,樊军.坡度对黄土坡面养分流失的影响实验研究.水土保持学报,2007,21(3)：14-18.
33.雷金银,吴发启,王健,郭建华.保护性耕作对土壤物理特性及玉米产量的影响.农业工程学报,2008,(10)：40-45.
34.雷瑞德.华山松林冠层对降雨动能的影响.水土保持学报,1988,(02)：31-39.
35.李光录,张胜利.黄土高原南部侵蚀对不同土壤颗粒级碳氮分布的影响.西北 农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2007,(08),146-150.
36.李庆召,王定勇,朱波自然降雨条件下紫色土区磷素的非点源输出规律.农业环境科学学报,2004,(06)：1050-1052.
37.李思悦,刘文治,顾胜,韩鸿印,张全发.南水北调中线水源地汉江上游流域主要生态环境问题及对策.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(3)：275-280.
38.李小坤,鲁剑巍,吴礼树.土壤钾素固定和释放机制研究进展.湖北农业科学,2008,(04)：473-477.
39.李勇,徐晓琴,朱显谟.田积莹草类根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应.土壤学报,1992,(03)：302-309.
40.李宗新,董树亭,王空军,等.不同施肥条件下玉米田土壤养分淋溶规律的原位研究.应用生态学报,2008,(01)：65-70.
41.廖晓勇,陈治谏,刘邵权,王海明三峡库区紫色土坡耕地不同利用方式的水土流失特征.水土保持研究.2005,(01)：159-161.
42.林超文,陈一兵,黄晶晶,涂仕华,庞良玉.不同耕作方式和雨强对紫色土养分流失的影响.中国农业科学,2007,(10)：2241-2249.
43.林超文,罗春燕,庞良玉.不同覆盖和耕作方式对紫色土坡耕地降雨土壤蓄积量的影响.水土保持学报,2010,(03)：213-216.
44.林超文,罗春燕,庞良玉.不同耕作和覆盖方式对紫色丘陵区坡耕地水土及养分流失的影响.生态学报,2010,(22)：6091-6101.
45.刘刚才,高美荣,林三益,刘淑珍.紫色土两种耕作制的产流产沙过程与水土流失观测准确性分析.水土保持学报,2002,(04)：108-111.
46.刘坤,陈治谏,廖晓勇.三峡库区紫色土坡地不同耕作措施的水土保持效应研究.水土保持研究,2008,(01)：17-19.
47.刘元保,唐克丽,查轩,史瑞云.坡耕地不同地面覆盖的水土流失试验研究.水土保持学报,1990,(01)：25-29.
48.刘允芬,李家永,陈永瑞,林耀明.红壤丘陵区森林植被恢复的增湿效应初探.自然资源学报,2001,(05)：457-461.
49.刘志,江忠善.降雨因素和坡度对片蚀影响的研究.水土保持通报,1994,(06)：19-22.
50.柳云龙,胡宏涛.红壤地区地形位置和利用方式对土壤物理性质的影响.水土保持学报,2004,(01)：22-26.
51.卢喜平,史东梅,吕刚,蒋光毅.紫色土坡地果草种植模式的水土流失特征研究.水土保持学报,2005,(02)：21-25.
52.吕耀.农业生态系统中氮素造成的非点源污染.农业环境保护,1998,17(1)： 35-39.
53.罗德,余新晓,董磊.密云山区林冠层对天然降雨能量影响的初步研究.水土保持学报,2008,(03)：60-63.
54.鲁如坤.土壤农业化学分析法.北京：中国农业科技出版社,1998.
55.罗伟祥,白立强,宋西德,等.不同覆盖度林地和草地的径流量与冲刷量.水土保持学报,1990,(01)：30-35.
56.马波,吴发启,马璠.谷子冠层下的土壤溅蚀速率特征.干旱地区农业研究,2010, (01)： 130-135.
57.马雪华(主编).森林水文学.北京：中国林业出版社,1993,70-73.
58.邱学礼,段宗颜,胡万里,付斌.降水特征与农作处理对坡耕地水土流失的动态研究.水土保持学报,2010,(01)：82-85.
59.全为民,严力蛟.农业面源污染对水体富营养化的影响及其防治措施.生态学报,2002,(03)：291-299.
60.任理,张瑜芳,沈荣开.条带覆盖下土壤水热动态的田间试验与模型建立.水利学报,1998,(01)：76-84.
61.司友斌,王慎强,陈怀满.农田氮、磷的流失与水体富营养化.土壤,2000,(04)：188-193.
62.孙建,刘苗,李立军,刘景辉,KENNETH Dean Sayre.不同耕作方式对内蒙古旱作农田土壤侵蚀的影响.生态学杂志,2010,(03)：485-490.
63.孙建,刘苗,李立军,刘景辉,Surya N.Acharya.不同耕作方式对内蒙古旱作农田土壤水热状况的影响.生态学报,2010,(06)：1539-1547.
64.唐涛,郝明德,单凤霞.人工降雨条件下秸秆覆盖减少水土流失的效应研究.水土保持研究,2008,15(1)：9-11.
65.唐泽军,雷廷武,张晴雯,赵军.雨滴溅蚀和结皮效应对土壤侵蚀影响的试验研究.土壤学报,2004,(04)：632-635.
66.汪涛,朱波,罗专溪,张剑.紫色土坡耕地径流特征试验研究.水土保持学报,2008,(06)：30-34.
67.王春燕,黄丽,谭文峰,胡红青.几种侵蚀红壤中有机质和团聚体的关系.水土保持学报,2007,(03)：52-56.
68.王晗生,刘国彬.试论防蚀有效植被的基本特征——贴地面覆盖.中国水土保持,2000,(03)：28-31.
69.王洪杰,李宪文,史学正,于东升.不同土地利用方式下土壤养分的分布及其与土壤颗粒组成关系.水土保持学报,2003,(02)：44-46+50.
70.王辉,王全九,邵明安.表层土壤容重对黄土坡面养分随径流迁移的影响,水 土保持学报,2007,21(3)：10-18.
71.王健,吴发启,蒋学玮.作物覆盖与径流能量的关系.人民黄河,2005,(08)：34-36+64.
72.王珂,朱荫湄,王人潮土壤耕作与农业非点源污染.耕作与栽培,1996,(02)：14-17.
73.王文林,周瑞云,成庆利.丹江口水库水体主要营养盐含量变化特征.海洋湖沼通报,2008,(02)：123-129.
74.王彦辉.几个树种的林冠降雨特征.林业科学,2001,(04)：2-9.
75.王勇强,王玉宽,傅斌,王先拓,王道杰.不同耕作方式对紫色土侵蚀的影响.水土保持研究,2007,(03)：333-335.
76.王正非,朱廷曜,朱劲伟.森林气象学.北京：中国林业出版社,1985.185-189.
77.吴普特,周佩华,地表坡度对雨滴溅蚀的影响.水土保持通报,1991,(03)：8-13+28.
78.吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,刘向东.持续提高黄土高原植被水土保持功能的配套技术(Ⅰ)森林保持水土的条件.农村生态环境,2002,(02)：50-52.
79.吴希媛,张丽萍.坡地水土流失对水体富营养化贡献的研究进展.水土保持研究,2006,(05)：296-298.
80.吴旭东,周梅,张慧东.兴安落叶松林冠截留与降雨量及降雨强度的关系.内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2006,(04)：83-86.
81.武卫国,胡庭兴,唐天云,等.华西雨屏区5种坡地利用方式产流产沙与养分流失特征.水土保持学报.2007,(04)：38-42.
82.向万胜,梁称福,肖润林.三峡库区坡耕地利用与水土保持种植制.长江流域资源与环境,1998,(03)：255-259.
83.肖国明,杜华杰..加强丹江口库区综合治理,确保南水北调供水安全. 中国水土保持,2003,(3)：20-21.
84.徐泰平,朱波,汪涛,况福虹.秸秆还田对紫色土坡耕地养分流失的影响.水土保持学报,2006,(01)：30-32+36.
85.徐宪立,马克明,傅伯杰等.植被与水土流失关系研究进展.生态学报,2006,(09)：3137-3143.
86.杨建霞,雷孝章,邱景,陈平安.5°-25°坡耕地径流小区产流产沙规律.中国水土保持科学,2008,6(增刊)：30-34.
87.杨云马,贾树龙,孟春香,孙颜铭.不同耕作及秸秆还田条件下冬小麦养分利用率研究.华北农学报,2010,(S1)：202-204.
88.杨泽贵,陈婷,林立金,朱雪梅.不同土地利用方式对水土流失的影响.人民 长江,2009,(11)：68-69+97.
89.易秀,等.氮肥在土中的渗漏污染研究.农业环境保护,1993,12(6)：50-52.
90.游珍,李占斌,蒋庆丰.植被在坡面的不同位置对降雨产沙量影响.水土保持通报,2006,(06)：28-31.
91.余新晓.森林植被减弱降雨侵蚀能量的数理分析.水土保持报,1988,(02)：24-30.
92.余新晓,张晓明,武思宏,魏天兴,张学培.黄土区林草植被与降水对坡面径流和侵蚀产沙的影响.山地学报,2006,(01)：19-26.
93.余泳昌,刘晓文,李明枝,梁晓辉.夏玉米免耕秸秆覆盖机械化栽培技术的研究.河南农业大学学报,2002,(04)：309-312.
94.袁东海,王兆骞,郭新波,陈欣,张如良.红壤小流域不同利用方式水土流失和有机碳流失特征研究.水土保持学报,2002,(02)：24-28.
95.臧英,高焕文,周建忠.保护性耕作对农田土壤凤蚀影响的试验研究.农业工程学报,2003,19(2)：56-60.
96.张翠萍,潘玉荣,郭文静,王丽先.玉米如何进行测产.吉林农业,2007,(11)：14.
97.张建军,毕华兴,张宝颖.坡面水土保持林地地表径流挟沙能力研究.北京林业大学学报,2003,(05)：25-28.
98.张科利,细山田健三.坡面溅蚀发生过程及其与坡度关系的模拟研究.地理科学,1998,(06)：561-566.
99.张利华,龙昱,李辉,董玉森.基于～(137)Cs示踪的丹江口市农用地土壤侵蚀与有机质流失分析.水土保持学报,2008,(02)：54-57.
100.张世贤.三张图表说喜忧——中国面临的严峻挑战与机遇.中国农村,1996,(5)：6-9.
101.张伟,汪春,梁远,李玉清.残茬覆盖对寒地旱作区土壤温度的影响.农业工程学报,2006,(05)：70-73.
102.张兴昌,刘国彬,付会芳.不同植被覆盖度对流域氮素径流流失的影响.环境科学,2000,(06)：16-19.
103.张兴昌,邵明安,黄占斌,卢宗凡.不同植被对土壤侵蚀和氮素流失的影响.生态学报,2000,(06)：1038-1044.
104.张兴昌,邵明安.侵蚀泥沙、有机质和全氮富集规律研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(4)：541-544.
105.张颖,牛健植,谢宝元,等.森林植被对坡面土壤水蚀作用的动力学机理.生态学报,2008,28(10)：5084-5092.
106.赵鸿雁,刘向东,吴钦孝,杨华.油松人工林和天然山杨林林内降雨动能的初步研究.中国科学院水利部西北水土保持研究所集刊(森林水文生态与水土保持林效益研究专集),1991,(02)：44-50.
107.郑粉莉,唐克丽,周佩华.坡耕地细沟侵蚀的发生、发展和防治途径的探讨.水土保持学报,1987,(01)：36-48.
108.中野秀章(日),李云森(译).森林水文学.北京：中国林业出版社,1983,58-63.
109.朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,游珍.草本植被覆盖对坡面降雨径流侵蚀影响的试验研究.土壤学报,2010,(03)：401-407.
110.朱明勇,党海山,谭淑端,陈正洪,张全发.湖北丹江口水库库区降雨侵蚀力特征.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(9)：837-842.
111.庄源益,陶志宁,戴树桂,等.降雨面源污染及其模型研究近况.环境科学进展,1994,2(5)：20-34.
112.Barzegar A R, Hashemi A M, Herbert S J, Asoodar M A. Interactive effects of tillage system and soil water content on aggregate size distribution for seedbed preparation in Fluvisols in southwest Iran. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,78:45-45.
113.Munodawafa A, Assessing nutrient losses with soil erosion under different tillage systems and their implications on water quality. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2007,32:1135-1140.
114.Abrahams A D, Parsons A J, John Wainwright. Effects of vegetation change on interrill runoff and erosion, Walnut Gulch, southern Arizona. Geomorphology,1995, 13:37-48.
115.Bochet E, Rubio J L, Poesen J. Relative efficiency of three representative matorral species in reducing water erosion at the microscale in a semi-arid climate (Valencia, Spain). Geomorphology,1998,23:139-150.
116.Casermeiro M A, Molina J A, de la Cruz Caravaca M T, Hernando Costa J, et al. Influence of scrubs on runoff and sediment loss in soils of Medeterranean climate. Catena,2004,57:91-107.
117.Duran Zuazo V H. Impact of vegetaion cover on runoff and soil erosion at hill slope scale in Lanjaron, Spain. The Envionmentalist,2004,24:39-48.
118.Pinheiro E F M, G.Pereira M, Anjos L H C.Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a Red Latosol from Brazil. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,77:79-84.
119.Ekwue E I, Harrilal A. Effect of soil type, peat, slope, compaction effort and their interactions on infiltration, runoff and raindrop erosion of some Trinidadian soils. biosystems engineering,2009,1-7.
120.Eduardo Martinez, Juan-Pablo Fuentes, Paula Silva, Susana Valle, Edmundo Acevedo. Soil physical properties and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and conventional tillage systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile. Soil & Tillage Research,2008,99:232-244.
121.Garcia-Orenes F, Cerda A, Mataix-Solera J, etal. Effects of agricultural management on surface soil properties and soil-water losses in eastern Spain. Soil & Tillage Research,2009,106:117-123.
122.Basic F, Kisic I, M.Mesic, Nestroy O, Butorac A, Tillage and crop management effects on soil erosion in central Croatia. Soil & Tillage Research,2004,78, 197-206.
123.Finney H J. The effect of crop covers on rainfall characteristics and splash detachment. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,1984,29:337-343.
124.Zhang G. S, Chan K Y, Oates A, Heenan D P, Huang G B, Relationship between soil structure and runoff/soil loss after 24 years of conservation tillage. Soil & Tillage Research,2007,92:122-128.
125.Gonzalez Hidalgo J C, Raventos J, Echevarria M T. Comparison of sediment ratio curves for plants with different architectures. Catena,1997,29:333-340.
126.Lal R. Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture:tropics versus temperate environments. Advances in Agronomy,1989,42:166-170.
127.Manuel Seeger. Uncertainty of factors determining runoff and erosion processes as quantified by rainfall simulations. Catena 2007,71:56-67.
128.Marcus Zeiger, Nicola Fohrer. Impact of organic farming systems on runoff formation processes-A long-term sequential rainfall experiment. Soil & Tillage Research,2009,102:45-54.
129.Morgan R P C. Effect of corn and soybean canopy on soil detachment by rainfall. Transactions of the ASAE,1985,28(4):1135-1140.
130.Rachid Mrabet, Stratification of soil aggregation and organic matter under conservation tillage systems in Africa. Soil & Tillage Research,2002,66:119-128.
131.RajanBhatt, Khera K L. Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil & Tillage Research,2006, 88:107-115.
132.Sarkar S, Singh S R, Interactive effect of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley. Soil & Tillage Research,2007, 92:79-86.
133.Sanchez L A, Ataroff M, Lopez R. Soil erosion under different vegetation covers in the Venezuelan Andes. The Environmentalist,2002,22:161-172.
134.Smets T, Poesen J, Knapen A. Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water. Earth-Science Reviews,2008,89:1-12.
135.Fister W, Ries J B. Wind erosion in the central Ebro Basin under changing land use management, Field experiments with a portable wind tunnel. Journal of Arid Environments,2009,73:996-1004.
136.Wei Wei, Liding Chen, Bojie Fu, Zhilin Huang, etal. The effect of land uses and rainfall regimeson runoff and soil erosion in the semi-arid loess hilly area, China. Journal of Hydrology,2007,335:247-258.
137.Xian L X, Ma K M, Fu B J, etal. Soil and water erosion under different plant species in a semiarid river valley, SW China:the effects of plant morphology. Ecol Res, 2009,24:37-46.
138.Bissonnais Y Le, Cerdana O, Lecomte V, etal. Variability of soil surface characteristics influencing runoff and interrill erosion. Catena,2005,62:111-124.
139.Zheng Mingguo, Cai Qiangguo, Chen Hao. Effect of vegetation on runoff-sediment yield relationship at different spatial scales in hilly areas of the Loess Plateau, North China. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2007,27(9):3572-3581.
140.Zhi WuBo, Yi Zheng, Zheng YuanXia. Effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop productivity on subtropical Ultisols in Yunnan Province, China, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2004,104:343-357.