杨树人工林不同措施的保水效应及对林木生长量影响研究
|
摘要
本文对I-107杨树人工林不同保水措施的保水效应及对林木生长量影响进行研究。分析了不同保水措施下I-107杨树人工林的土壤含水量、土壤蓄水性能、土壤改良效应、林木生长量状况。并根据杨树的生理特性,用Logistic曲线方程来表达I-107杨树人工林树高、胸径、单株材积的生长规律,模拟其生长过程并进行检验。对不同保水措施下I-107杨树人工林的生长量进行静态和动态经济效益分析。研究结果表明:
1、各处理0-20cm土层的土壤含水量在6月7日降到测定时段的最低值。各值相比较,单一处理的覆黑膜比对照多58%,黑+保比覆黑膜多20%,比对照多89%,多重处理的黑+草+保比黑+保多5%,比覆黑膜多25%,比对照多98%。各处理保持土壤水分效果大小依次为黑+草+保>白+草+保>黑+保>白+保>黑+草>白+草>草+保>覆黑膜>覆白膜>覆草>保水剂>对照。多重处理要大于双重处理大于单一处理大于对照。
2、与实施保水措施的第1a相比,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保分别增长35.97%、35.75%;草+保、黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保分别增加34.09%、34.17%、33.98%、30.64%、31.63%;覆黑膜、覆白膜、覆草、保水剂、对照分别增加28.24%、27.21%、27.13%、28.28%、23.83%。各保水措施下的土壤贮水量在实施保水措施的第2a至第4a土壤饱和贮水量增长最快,土壤饱和贮水量的增加值占实施保水措施7a的土壤饱和贮水量增加值的47%以上。分别对土壤毛管最大持水量和土壤饱和贮水量进行方差分析,均得Sig.=0.000<0.05,说明各保水措施的土壤毛管最大持水量和土壤饱和贮水量均存在显著差异。
3、土壤容重前4a减小较快,约占60%-70.66%。实施保水措施第7a,各保水措施处理的土壤容重与对照相比,减小的程度更加明显,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保分别减少12.50%、11.72%;双重处理的黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保、草+保分别减少10.16%、10.16%、9.37%、7.03%、7.81%;单一处理的覆黑膜、覆白膜、保水剂、覆草分别减少4.69%、3.91%、3.91%、4.69%。不同保水措施的土壤总孔隙度都有所增加,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保增加最多,分别为5.40%、5.42 %;双重处理的草+保、黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保分别增加5.35%、5.36%、5.34%、5.33%、5.26%;单一处理的覆黑膜、覆白膜、覆草、保水剂、对照分别增加5.24%、5.24%、5.20%、5.19%、5.07%。对实施保水措施第7a的土壤容重、土壤孔隙度进行方差分析,土壤容重、土壤总孔隙度的P值都为0.000 <0.01。说明实施保水措施后的土壤容重、土壤总孔隙度均存在显著差异。
4、树高在1-4a生长迅速,各保水措施下的树高1-4a生长量占总生长量的53%-56%。从第4a开始,各保水措施下的树高生长量开始出现差异。树高年平均生长量1a时较低,2-4a逐年增大,4a达到峰值,然后生长缓慢。胸径在2-5a生长迅速,各保水措施下的胸径2-5a生长量约占总生长量的72%。胸径年平均生长量在第5a达到最大值。各保水措施的单株材积在第3-6a生长迅速,约占总生长量的73%。各保水措施在促进树高、胸径、单株材积方面的作用大小依次为:多重处理>双重处理>单一处理>对照。12种处理按照保水措施的类型分成4类,分别是对照、单一处理、双重处理、多重处理,分别对树高、胸径、单株材积的四类之间进行方差分析得Sig.=0.001﹤0.05,说明各类之间均存在显著差异。
5、不同保水措施处理条件下杨树人工林树高、胸径、单株材积动态模拟的相关系数R2都在0.96以上。树高速生点为第2a-3a,速生期的起始点均为第1a,终止点为第4a-5 a。胸径速生点为第3a -4a,胸径起始点均为第1a-2a,终止点为第5a-6a。单株材积速生点为第4a-5a,速生期的起始点均为第3a,终止点为第6a-7a。
6、各处理的树高、胸径、单株材积的实测值和模型模拟值T值检验的双边显著性概率分别在0.362-0.980、0.168-0.837、0.120-0.634之间,均大于0.05,说明各保水措施之间的树高、胸径、单株材积实测值和模拟值均不存在显著性差异。
7、各处理的投入产出比从大到小依次为白+保>黑+保>覆白膜>覆黑膜>黑+草+保>白+草+保>保水剂>白+草>黑+草>草+保>覆草>对照。年均利润均达到12645.56元/hm2·a以上。资金利润率每投入100元均能带来376.66元以上的利润。不同保水措施下杨树人工林净现值率在4.76-5.67之间,均大于对照的3.77。
Different materials were carried out on the I-107 poplar plantation.Analyzed soil water content, soil maximum capillary cpacity and soil saturated water content, soil physical characteristic, growth quantity condition of I-107 poplar plantation. Used Logistic curve equation to express and inspect the height, dbh, and individual volume of I-107 poplar plantation. Measures on the I-107 poplar plantation static and dynamic economic analysis in different water retention covering.The research were as follows:
1. The minimum soil water content was on June 7 of 0-20cm depth in different water retention covering. Black veil mulch was more than 58% compared with contrast. Soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch were more than 20% compared with black veil mulch ,more than 89% compared with contrast. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments were more than 5% compared with soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch, more than 25% compared with black veil dual mulch, more than 98% compared with contrast.The effective of different water retention covering were soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and white veil dual mulch > black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch >black veil mulch>white veil mulch>wheatstraw mulch>soil with water absorbing resin >contrast. Multiple treatments were better than dual treatments, and more than single treatments.
2. Compared with the first year,soil maximum capillary cpacity of soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple has growed 35.97%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 35.75%. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch has growed 34.09%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 34.17%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 33.98%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 30.64%, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 31.63%. Black veil mulch has growed 28.24%, white veil mulch 27.21%, wheatstraw mulch 27.13%, soil with water absorbing resin 28.28%, contrast 27.13%. From the second year to fourth year,soil saturated water content grow fastly, about 47% of value added. Analysis of variance soil maximum capillary cpacity and saturated soil water content was Sig.=0.000<0.05.
3. Soil bulk density reduced about 60%-70.66% from the first year to fourth year. Compared with contrast, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple of soil bulk density in the 7th year has reduced 12.50%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 11.72%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 10.16%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 10.16%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 9.37, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 7.03%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch 7.81%, black veil mulch 4.69%, white veil mulch 3.91%, wheatstraw mulch 4.69%. Soil porosity has increased in different water retention covering. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple has increased 5.40%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 5.42%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.35%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.36%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.34%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 5.33%, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 5.26%, black veil mulch 5.24%, white veil mulch 5.24%, wheatstraw mulch 5.20%, soil with water absorbing resin 5.19%, contrast 5.07%. Analysis of variance soill soil bulk density and soil porosity was Sig.=0.000<0.01.
4. The tree height has growed about 53%-56% from the first year to fourth year. The tree dbh has growed about 72% from the second year to 5th year. The tree individual volume has growed about 73% from the third year to 6th year.Height increment apparent differently from the fourth year. The maximum tree height was in the fourth year. The maximum tree dbh was in the 5th year. The effective in promoting the growth of different water retention covering were multiple treatments > dual treatments > single treatments > contrast. Twelve different water retention coverings has divided into 4 classes: multiple treatments, dual treatments, single treatments, contrast. Analysis of variance them was Sig.=0.001<0.05.
5. Dynamic prediction model R2 of height, dbh, individual volume were more than 0.96 in different water retention covering. High point of height was the second year or third year, starting point of high-speed was the first year, and the end point of high-speed was the fourth year or 5th year. High point of dbh was the third year or fourth year, starting point of high-speed was the first year or second year, and the end point of high-speed was the 5th year or 6th year. High point of individual volume was the fourth year or 5th year, starting point of high-speed was the third year, and the end point of high-speed was the 6th year or 7th year.
6. T value of measured and simulation on height in different water retention covering was between 0.362 and 0.980, on dbh was between 0.168 and 0.837, on individual volume was between 0.120 and 0.634. Then were more than 0.05.
7. Input-output analysis of different water retention covering were soil with water absorbing resin and white veil dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch >white veil mulch>black veil mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin > white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch> black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch > wheatstraw mulch> contrast.Annual profit were more than 12645.56 element per hectare each year. Profit margin of capital were more than 376.66 element based on 100 element.Net present value ratio were more than 3.77, between 4.76 and 5.67.
1、各处理0-20cm土层的土壤含水量在6月7日降到测定时段的最低值。各值相比较,单一处理的覆黑膜比对照多58%,黑+保比覆黑膜多20%,比对照多89%,多重处理的黑+草+保比黑+保多5%,比覆黑膜多25%,比对照多98%。各处理保持土壤水分效果大小依次为黑+草+保>白+草+保>黑+保>白+保>黑+草>白+草>草+保>覆黑膜>覆白膜>覆草>保水剂>对照。多重处理要大于双重处理大于单一处理大于对照。
2、与实施保水措施的第1a相比,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保分别增长35.97%、35.75%;草+保、黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保分别增加34.09%、34.17%、33.98%、30.64%、31.63%;覆黑膜、覆白膜、覆草、保水剂、对照分别增加28.24%、27.21%、27.13%、28.28%、23.83%。各保水措施下的土壤贮水量在实施保水措施的第2a至第4a土壤饱和贮水量增长最快,土壤饱和贮水量的增加值占实施保水措施7a的土壤饱和贮水量增加值的47%以上。分别对土壤毛管最大持水量和土壤饱和贮水量进行方差分析,均得Sig.=0.000<0.05,说明各保水措施的土壤毛管最大持水量和土壤饱和贮水量均存在显著差异。
3、土壤容重前4a减小较快,约占60%-70.66%。实施保水措施第7a,各保水措施处理的土壤容重与对照相比,减小的程度更加明显,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保分别减少12.50%、11.72%;双重处理的黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保、草+保分别减少10.16%、10.16%、9.37%、7.03%、7.81%;单一处理的覆黑膜、覆白膜、保水剂、覆草分别减少4.69%、3.91%、3.91%、4.69%。不同保水措施的土壤总孔隙度都有所增加,多重处理的黑+草+保、白+草+保增加最多,分别为5.40%、5.42 %;双重处理的草+保、黑+草、白+草、黑+保、白+保分别增加5.35%、5.36%、5.34%、5.33%、5.26%;单一处理的覆黑膜、覆白膜、覆草、保水剂、对照分别增加5.24%、5.24%、5.20%、5.19%、5.07%。对实施保水措施第7a的土壤容重、土壤孔隙度进行方差分析,土壤容重、土壤总孔隙度的P值都为0.000 <0.01。说明实施保水措施后的土壤容重、土壤总孔隙度均存在显著差异。
4、树高在1-4a生长迅速,各保水措施下的树高1-4a生长量占总生长量的53%-56%。从第4a开始,各保水措施下的树高生长量开始出现差异。树高年平均生长量1a时较低,2-4a逐年增大,4a达到峰值,然后生长缓慢。胸径在2-5a生长迅速,各保水措施下的胸径2-5a生长量约占总生长量的72%。胸径年平均生长量在第5a达到最大值。各保水措施的单株材积在第3-6a生长迅速,约占总生长量的73%。各保水措施在促进树高、胸径、单株材积方面的作用大小依次为:多重处理>双重处理>单一处理>对照。12种处理按照保水措施的类型分成4类,分别是对照、单一处理、双重处理、多重处理,分别对树高、胸径、单株材积的四类之间进行方差分析得Sig.=0.001﹤0.05,说明各类之间均存在显著差异。
5、不同保水措施处理条件下杨树人工林树高、胸径、单株材积动态模拟的相关系数R2都在0.96以上。树高速生点为第2a-3a,速生期的起始点均为第1a,终止点为第4a-5 a。胸径速生点为第3a -4a,胸径起始点均为第1a-2a,终止点为第5a-6a。单株材积速生点为第4a-5a,速生期的起始点均为第3a,终止点为第6a-7a。
6、各处理的树高、胸径、单株材积的实测值和模型模拟值T值检验的双边显著性概率分别在0.362-0.980、0.168-0.837、0.120-0.634之间,均大于0.05,说明各保水措施之间的树高、胸径、单株材积实测值和模拟值均不存在显著性差异。
7、各处理的投入产出比从大到小依次为白+保>黑+保>覆白膜>覆黑膜>黑+草+保>白+草+保>保水剂>白+草>黑+草>草+保>覆草>对照。年均利润均达到12645.56元/hm2·a以上。资金利润率每投入100元均能带来376.66元以上的利润。不同保水措施下杨树人工林净现值率在4.76-5.67之间,均大于对照的3.77。
Different materials were carried out on the I-107 poplar plantation.Analyzed soil water content, soil maximum capillary cpacity and soil saturated water content, soil physical characteristic, growth quantity condition of I-107 poplar plantation. Used Logistic curve equation to express and inspect the height, dbh, and individual volume of I-107 poplar plantation. Measures on the I-107 poplar plantation static and dynamic economic analysis in different water retention covering.The research were as follows:
1. The minimum soil water content was on June 7 of 0-20cm depth in different water retention covering. Black veil mulch was more than 58% compared with contrast. Soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch were more than 20% compared with black veil mulch ,more than 89% compared with contrast. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments were more than 5% compared with soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch, more than 25% compared with black veil dual mulch, more than 98% compared with contrast.The effective of different water retention covering were soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and white veil dual mulch > black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch >black veil mulch>white veil mulch>wheatstraw mulch>soil with water absorbing resin >contrast. Multiple treatments were better than dual treatments, and more than single treatments.
2. Compared with the first year,soil maximum capillary cpacity of soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple has growed 35.97%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 35.75%. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch has growed 34.09%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 34.17%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 33.98%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 30.64%, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 31.63%. Black veil mulch has growed 28.24%, white veil mulch 27.21%, wheatstraw mulch 27.13%, soil with water absorbing resin 28.28%, contrast 27.13%. From the second year to fourth year,soil saturated water content grow fastly, about 47% of value added. Analysis of variance soil maximum capillary cpacity and saturated soil water content was Sig.=0.000<0.05.
3. Soil bulk density reduced about 60%-70.66% from the first year to fourth year. Compared with contrast, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple of soil bulk density in the 7th year has reduced 12.50%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 11.72%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 10.16%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 10.16%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 9.37, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 7.03%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch 7.81%, black veil mulch 4.69%, white veil mulch 3.91%, wheatstraw mulch 4.69%. Soil porosity has increased in different water retention covering. Soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple has increased 5.40%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple 5.42%, soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.35%, black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.36%, white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch 5.34%, soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch 5.33%, soil with water absorbing resin and white veil mulch 5.26%, black veil mulch 5.24%, white veil mulch 5.24%, wheatstraw mulch 5.20%, soil with water absorbing resin 5.19%, contrast 5.07%. Analysis of variance soill soil bulk density and soil porosity was Sig.=0.000<0.01.
4. The tree height has growed about 53%-56% from the first year to fourth year. The tree dbh has growed about 72% from the second year to 5th year. The tree individual volume has growed about 73% from the third year to 6th year.Height increment apparent differently from the fourth year. The maximum tree height was in the fourth year. The maximum tree dbh was in the 5th year. The effective in promoting the growth of different water retention covering were multiple treatments > dual treatments > single treatments > contrast. Twelve different water retention coverings has divided into 4 classes: multiple treatments, dual treatments, single treatments, contrast. Analysis of variance them was Sig.=0.001<0.05.
5. Dynamic prediction model R2 of height, dbh, individual volume were more than 0.96 in different water retention covering. High point of height was the second year or third year, starting point of high-speed was the first year, and the end point of high-speed was the fourth year or 5th year. High point of dbh was the third year or fourth year, starting point of high-speed was the first year or second year, and the end point of high-speed was the 5th year or 6th year. High point of individual volume was the fourth year or 5th year, starting point of high-speed was the third year, and the end point of high-speed was the 6th year or 7th year.
6. T value of measured and simulation on height in different water retention covering was between 0.362 and 0.980, on dbh was between 0.168 and 0.837, on individual volume was between 0.120 and 0.634. Then were more than 0.05.
7. Input-output analysis of different water retention covering were soil with water absorbing resin and white veil dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and black veil dual mulch >white veil mulch>black veil mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and black veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw and white veil multiple treatments > soil with water absorbing resin > white veil and wheatstraw dual mulch> black veil and wheatstraw dual mulch > soil with water absorbing resin and wheatstraw dual mulch > wheatstraw mulch> contrast.Annual profit were more than 12645.56 element per hectare each year. Profit margin of capital were more than 376.66 element based on 100 element.Net present value ratio were more than 3.77, between 4.76 and 5.67.
引文
艾文胜,杨明,谢建军,等.抗旱保水剂在毛竹林中的应用[J].湖南林业科技,2006,33(6):84-87.
白大鹏,赵建强,陈明昌,等.整秸覆盖免耕条件下黄土高原地的养分消长研究[J].土壤学报,1997,34(1):103-106.
白文波,李茂松,赵虹瑞,等.保水剂对土壤积水入渗特征的影响[J].中国农业科学2010,43(24):5055-5062.
蔡典雄,王小彬,Keith saxton.土壤保水剂对土壤持水性及作物出苗的影响[J].土壤肥,1999(1):13-16.
蔡典雄,赵兴宝.保水剂探秘[N].中国绿色时报,2000,1(3).
陈冠文,余渝,王波,等.地膜覆盖棉田生态系统的结构及其特征[J].新疆农业科学,1998,35(4):189-193.
陈永祥,刘孝义.地膜覆盖栽培的土壤结构与空气状况研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1995,26(2):146-151.
川岛和夫.农用土坡改良剂一新型保水剂[J].土壤学进展,1986 (3):49-50,41.
丁凤梅,鲁法典,侯占勇,等.杨树速生丰产林经济成熟与经济效益分析[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2008,39(2):233-238.
杜守宇.秸秆覆盖还田的整体功能效应与系列化技术研究[J].干早地区农业研究.1994,12(2):88-94.
樊金拴,陈原国.渭北黄土高原核桃林地的土壤水分特征[J].中国水土保持科学.2005,3(2):76-86.
冯金朝,赵金龙,胡应娣等.土壤保水剂对沙地农作物生长的影响[J].干早地区农业研究,1993,11(2):36-40.
高世铭,马天恩,田富林.旱地春小麦全生育期地膜覆盖栽培技术研究初报[J].甘肃农业科技,1987,(1):22-26.
郭世芳,张丽华,丁长富,等.内蒙古大兴安岭林区人工落叶松林数量成熟龄及工艺成熟龄的确定[J].内蒙古林业调查设计,2005,28(4):28-29.
郭志利,孙常青,卢成达,等.谷豆覆膜条带种植技术及其光合水分变化研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2009,17(5):909-913.
郝小平.早地小麦应用保水剂的增产效果及施用技术[J].内蒙古农业科技,1996(5):29.
何腾兵,田仁国,陈焰,等.高吸水剂对土壤物理性质的影响(II)[J].耕作与栽培,1996(6):46-48.
贺菊美,王一鸣.不同覆盖材料对春玉米土壤环境及产量效应的研究[J].中国农业气象,1996,17(3):33-36.
胡芬,陈尚模.寿阳试验区玉米地农田水分平衡及其覆盖调控试验[J].农业工程学报,2000,16(4):146-148.
胡芬,姜雁北.高吸水剂KH841在旱地农业中的应用[J].干旱地区农业研究,1994(4):83-86.
黄俊,张弩,闵泽萍.不同地面覆盖材料对早熟温州蜜柑果实品质及桔园土壤温度和水分的影响效应研究[J].中国南方果树,2010,39(3):15-17.
黄义德,张自立,魏凤珍,等.水稻覆膜旱作的生态生理效应[J].应用生报,1999,10(3):305-308.
孔庆全,赵存虎,贺小勇,等.绿豆地膜覆盖栽培效益分析[J].内蒙古农业科技2010(6):34.
李倩,刘景辉,张磊,等.覆盖和保水剂对马铃薯的形态特征和质膜透性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2011,28(6):177-182.
李秋洪.论农田“白色污染”的防治技术[J].农业环境与发展,1997,(2):17-19.
李世清,李东方,李凤民,等.半干旱农田生态系统地膜覆盖的土壤生态效应[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2003,31(5):21-29.
李世清,刘小兰,李凤民.半干旱黄土高原地区春小麦地膜覆盖的效应及其模式[J].西北植被学报,2001,21(2):198-206.
梁铭,蒋丽芳.用计算机模拟闽粤栲天然林生长模型[J].福建林业科技,2007,34(1):63-66.
梁亚超,于桂霞,杨殿荣,等.玉米地膜覆盖蓄水保墒高产机理的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1990(1):27-32.
刘建新.覆草对果园土壤肥力及苹果产量与品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2004,22(1):102-105.
刘建新.覆草对杏园土壤物理性状、肥力及果实产量与品质的影响[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):183-185.
刘世明.双垄全膜覆盖栽培技术的优点及操作要点[J].内蒙古农业科技2010(6):94.
刘忠民,山仑,马国忠.提高宁南半干旱区旱地春小麦产量及水分利用的综合技术途径研究[J].水土保持研究,1998,5(1):55-64.
马彦,谢莲梅.旱地苹果园覆草覆膜的效果试验[J].落叶果树1996(1):17-18.
莫凡,罗兴录,周红英,等.保水剂不同用量对土壤理化性状和木薯产量的影响[J].广西农业科学,2010,41(5):459-462.
任军荣,杨建利,李殿荣.旱地油菜地膜覆盖栽培的水热效应研究[J].中国油料作物学报,2001,23(3):34-37.
宋海燕,汪有科,汪星,等.保水剂用量对土壤水分的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(3):33-36.
唐建维,邹寿青.望天树人工林林木个体前期生长节律的研究[J].西部林业科学,2008,37(4):45-48.
田维军,吴昌富,彭万琼,等.玉米垄作覆膜栽培效果分析[J].耕作与栽培,2010,5:48-54.
王春红,肖娟.秸秆覆盖对坡面径流及土壤流失影响的研究[J].山西农业大学学报,1998,18(2):149-152.
王劲松,张一鸣,靳建军,等.旱地苹果园不同覆盖栽培技术研究[J].宁夏农林科技.1999.3(11):11-13.
王俊,李凤民,李世清,等.地膜覆盖和底墒灌溉对春小麦产量形成的影响[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(5):735-738.
王喜庆,李生秀,高亚军.地膜覆盖对旱地春玉米生理生态和产量的影响[J].作物学报,1998,24(3):348-353.
王砚田,华孟,赵小雯,等.高吸水性树脂对土壤物理性状的影响[J].北京农业大学学报.1990.16(2):181-187.
王玉娟,陈永忠,王湘南,等.稻草覆盖对油茶幼林林地土壤温度及新梢的影响[J].经济林研究,2009,27(2):49-52.
温随良,刘军.陇中.旱地少免耕覆盖对提高土壤养分效应的研究[J].甘肃农业大学学报,1996,31(1):27-31.
吴德瑜.保水剂与农业[M].北京:中国农业出版社.1991.
谢驾阳,王朝辉,李生秀.地表覆草和覆膜对西北旱地土壤有机碳氮和生物活性的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(24): 6781-6786.
谢文.玉米作物秸秆覆盖试验示范研究[J].耕作与栽培,2001,(2):9-10.
刑玉芬,帅修富,李长荣.高吸水性树脂单施及与肥料混施对土壤水分燕发及团聚作用的影响[J].北京农业大学学报,1993,19(4):52-55.
杨来胜,席正英,李玲,等.马铃薯高垄黑膜覆土栽培技术[J].甘肃农业科技,2008,7:63-64.
杨永辉,吴普特,武继承,等.保水剂对冬小麦土壤水分和光合生理特征的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(5): 36-41.
姚建武,王艳红,唐明灯,等.施用保水剂对旱地赤红壤持水能力及氮肥淋失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(5):191-194.
伊德里萨,张展羽,郭相平,等.不同水分条件下秸秆覆盖对冬小麦生长的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2008,28(1):125-127.
袁家富,麦田秸秆覆盖效应及增产作用[J].生态农业研究.2004. 4 (3): 61-65.
张富仓,康绍忠.BP保水剂及其对土镶与作物的效应[J].农业工程学报,1999,15(2):74-78.
张坤,王发林,刘小勇,等.地面覆盖对果园土壤水热分布和果实品质的影响[J].西北农业学报,2010,19(11):125-130.
张雷,牛芬菊,李小燕,等.旱地全膜双垄沟播秋覆膜对玉米产量和水分利用率的影响[J].中国农学通报2010,26(22):142-145.
张志田.旱地农田覆盖的保墒效应研究(硕士学位论文).中国农业科学研究院.1992.
赵聚宝.秸秆覆盖对早地作物水分利用率的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(2):59-66.
赵荣华,李萍,黄明镜.秋季覆膜对旱地谷子若干生理特性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,1998,16(1):41-44.
赵燮京,张建华.四川丘陵坡耕地综合治理的主要配套技术研究[J].水土保持研究,1999,6(2):121-125.
周朝彬,李亚辉,曾勇,等.不同土壤水分条件下保水剂对杨树水分利用效率的影响[J].林业科技,2010,35(5):5-7.
朱自玺,方文松,赵国强,等.麦秸和残茬覆盖对夏玉米农田小气候的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(2):19-24.
宗萍萍,杨吉华,史秀娟,等.不同旱作保水措施对龙廷杏梅园地土壤水环境调控效应的影响研究[J].水土保持研究,2009,16(3):169-173.
Feng～min Li, An～hong Gao, and Hong Wei. Effects of clear plastic film mulch on yield of spring wheat [J]. Field Crops Res. 1999, 63:79-86
GUO Mi-juan, YU Cheng-qun and ZHONG Hua-ping. Effects of Film Mulching on the Growth of Silage Maize and Weed [J]. AgriculturalScience& Technology, 2010, 11(7):66-68, 98.
Huang YL, Chen LD, Fu BJ,et al. The wheat yields and water-use efficiency in the LoessPlateau: Straw mulch and irrigation effects.AgriculturalWaterManagement, 2005, 72: 209-222
Janardan S, Singh J. Effect of stockosorb polymers and potassium levels on potato and onion [J]. Journal of Potassium Research, 1998, 4(1):78-82.
Michael S, Johnson, Comelis JVeltkamp.Structure and functioning of water-storing agricultural polycrylamides [J]. J Sci Food Agri, 1985, 36: 789-793.
P A. Costigan and S. J. Locascio. Fertilizer additives within or around the gel for fluid-drilled cabage and lettuce [J]. HortSci.1992,5(7): 746-748.
Parichehr Hemyari and D. L. Nofziger. Super slurper effects on crust strength, water retention, and water infltration of soils [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.J. 1981(45):799-801.
Silberbush-M. Adar, E. And De Malach, Y Use of an hydrophilic polymer to improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes. II. Cabbage in-igated by sprinkling with different water salinities [J]. Agricultural Water Management. 1993 (23):315-327.
Silberbush-M. Adar, E. And De Malach, Y. Use of an hydrophilic polymer to improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes. I. Corn irrigated by trickling [J]. Agricultural Water Management.1993 (23):303-313.
W.G.Pill and D.M. Watts. Nutrient～fortified gel as a growth medium for tomato seedlings. HortSci. 1983(18)6:909-911.
Wallace G. Pill. Granular gels as growth media for tomato seedlings [J]. HortSci. 1988, 6(23):998-1000.
白大鹏,赵建强,陈明昌,等.整秸覆盖免耕条件下黄土高原地的养分消长研究[J].土壤学报,1997,34(1):103-106.
白文波,李茂松,赵虹瑞,等.保水剂对土壤积水入渗特征的影响[J].中国农业科学2010,43(24):5055-5062.
蔡典雄,王小彬,Keith saxton.土壤保水剂对土壤持水性及作物出苗的影响[J].土壤肥,1999(1):13-16.
蔡典雄,赵兴宝.保水剂探秘[N].中国绿色时报,2000,1(3).
陈冠文,余渝,王波,等.地膜覆盖棉田生态系统的结构及其特征[J].新疆农业科学,1998,35(4):189-193.
陈永祥,刘孝义.地膜覆盖栽培的土壤结构与空气状况研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1995,26(2):146-151.
川岛和夫.农用土坡改良剂一新型保水剂[J].土壤学进展,1986 (3):49-50,41.
丁凤梅,鲁法典,侯占勇,等.杨树速生丰产林经济成熟与经济效益分析[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2008,39(2):233-238.
杜守宇.秸秆覆盖还田的整体功能效应与系列化技术研究[J].干早地区农业研究.1994,12(2):88-94.
樊金拴,陈原国.渭北黄土高原核桃林地的土壤水分特征[J].中国水土保持科学.2005,3(2):76-86.
冯金朝,赵金龙,胡应娣等.土壤保水剂对沙地农作物生长的影响[J].干早地区农业研究,1993,11(2):36-40.
高世铭,马天恩,田富林.旱地春小麦全生育期地膜覆盖栽培技术研究初报[J].甘肃农业科技,1987,(1):22-26.
郭世芳,张丽华,丁长富,等.内蒙古大兴安岭林区人工落叶松林数量成熟龄及工艺成熟龄的确定[J].内蒙古林业调查设计,2005,28(4):28-29.
郭志利,孙常青,卢成达,等.谷豆覆膜条带种植技术及其光合水分变化研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2009,17(5):909-913.
郝小平.早地小麦应用保水剂的增产效果及施用技术[J].内蒙古农业科技,1996(5):29.
何腾兵,田仁国,陈焰,等.高吸水剂对土壤物理性质的影响(II)[J].耕作与栽培,1996(6):46-48.
贺菊美,王一鸣.不同覆盖材料对春玉米土壤环境及产量效应的研究[J].中国农业气象,1996,17(3):33-36.
胡芬,陈尚模.寿阳试验区玉米地农田水分平衡及其覆盖调控试验[J].农业工程学报,2000,16(4):146-148.
胡芬,姜雁北.高吸水剂KH841在旱地农业中的应用[J].干旱地区农业研究,1994(4):83-86.
黄俊,张弩,闵泽萍.不同地面覆盖材料对早熟温州蜜柑果实品质及桔园土壤温度和水分的影响效应研究[J].中国南方果树,2010,39(3):15-17.
黄义德,张自立,魏凤珍,等.水稻覆膜旱作的生态生理效应[J].应用生报,1999,10(3):305-308.
孔庆全,赵存虎,贺小勇,等.绿豆地膜覆盖栽培效益分析[J].内蒙古农业科技2010(6):34.
李倩,刘景辉,张磊,等.覆盖和保水剂对马铃薯的形态特征和质膜透性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2011,28(6):177-182.
李秋洪.论农田“白色污染”的防治技术[J].农业环境与发展,1997,(2):17-19.
李世清,李东方,李凤民,等.半干旱农田生态系统地膜覆盖的土壤生态效应[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2003,31(5):21-29.
李世清,刘小兰,李凤民.半干旱黄土高原地区春小麦地膜覆盖的效应及其模式[J].西北植被学报,2001,21(2):198-206.
梁铭,蒋丽芳.用计算机模拟闽粤栲天然林生长模型[J].福建林业科技,2007,34(1):63-66.
梁亚超,于桂霞,杨殿荣,等.玉米地膜覆盖蓄水保墒高产机理的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1990(1):27-32.
刘建新.覆草对果园土壤肥力及苹果产量与品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2004,22(1):102-105.
刘建新.覆草对杏园土壤物理性状、肥力及果实产量与品质的影响[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):183-185.
刘世明.双垄全膜覆盖栽培技术的优点及操作要点[J].内蒙古农业科技2010(6):94.
刘忠民,山仑,马国忠.提高宁南半干旱区旱地春小麦产量及水分利用的综合技术途径研究[J].水土保持研究,1998,5(1):55-64.
马彦,谢莲梅.旱地苹果园覆草覆膜的效果试验[J].落叶果树1996(1):17-18.
莫凡,罗兴录,周红英,等.保水剂不同用量对土壤理化性状和木薯产量的影响[J].广西农业科学,2010,41(5):459-462.
任军荣,杨建利,李殿荣.旱地油菜地膜覆盖栽培的水热效应研究[J].中国油料作物学报,2001,23(3):34-37.
宋海燕,汪有科,汪星,等.保水剂用量对土壤水分的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(3):33-36.
唐建维,邹寿青.望天树人工林林木个体前期生长节律的研究[J].西部林业科学,2008,37(4):45-48.
田维军,吴昌富,彭万琼,等.玉米垄作覆膜栽培效果分析[J].耕作与栽培,2010,5:48-54.
王春红,肖娟.秸秆覆盖对坡面径流及土壤流失影响的研究[J].山西农业大学学报,1998,18(2):149-152.
王劲松,张一鸣,靳建军,等.旱地苹果园不同覆盖栽培技术研究[J].宁夏农林科技.1999.3(11):11-13.
王俊,李凤民,李世清,等.地膜覆盖和底墒灌溉对春小麦产量形成的影响[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(5):735-738.
王喜庆,李生秀,高亚军.地膜覆盖对旱地春玉米生理生态和产量的影响[J].作物学报,1998,24(3):348-353.
王砚田,华孟,赵小雯,等.高吸水性树脂对土壤物理性状的影响[J].北京农业大学学报.1990.16(2):181-187.
王玉娟,陈永忠,王湘南,等.稻草覆盖对油茶幼林林地土壤温度及新梢的影响[J].经济林研究,2009,27(2):49-52.
温随良,刘军.陇中.旱地少免耕覆盖对提高土壤养分效应的研究[J].甘肃农业大学学报,1996,31(1):27-31.
吴德瑜.保水剂与农业[M].北京:中国农业出版社.1991.
谢驾阳,王朝辉,李生秀.地表覆草和覆膜对西北旱地土壤有机碳氮和生物活性的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(24): 6781-6786.
谢文.玉米作物秸秆覆盖试验示范研究[J].耕作与栽培,2001,(2):9-10.
刑玉芬,帅修富,李长荣.高吸水性树脂单施及与肥料混施对土壤水分燕发及团聚作用的影响[J].北京农业大学学报,1993,19(4):52-55.
杨来胜,席正英,李玲,等.马铃薯高垄黑膜覆土栽培技术[J].甘肃农业科技,2008,7:63-64.
杨永辉,吴普特,武继承,等.保水剂对冬小麦土壤水分和光合生理特征的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(5): 36-41.
姚建武,王艳红,唐明灯,等.施用保水剂对旱地赤红壤持水能力及氮肥淋失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(5):191-194.
伊德里萨,张展羽,郭相平,等.不同水分条件下秸秆覆盖对冬小麦生长的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2008,28(1):125-127.
袁家富,麦田秸秆覆盖效应及增产作用[J].生态农业研究.2004. 4 (3): 61-65.
张富仓,康绍忠.BP保水剂及其对土镶与作物的效应[J].农业工程学报,1999,15(2):74-78.
张坤,王发林,刘小勇,等.地面覆盖对果园土壤水热分布和果实品质的影响[J].西北农业学报,2010,19(11):125-130.
张雷,牛芬菊,李小燕,等.旱地全膜双垄沟播秋覆膜对玉米产量和水分利用率的影响[J].中国农学通报2010,26(22):142-145.
张志田.旱地农田覆盖的保墒效应研究(硕士学位论文).中国农业科学研究院.1992.
赵聚宝.秸秆覆盖对早地作物水分利用率的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(2):59-66.
赵荣华,李萍,黄明镜.秋季覆膜对旱地谷子若干生理特性的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,1998,16(1):41-44.
赵燮京,张建华.四川丘陵坡耕地综合治理的主要配套技术研究[J].水土保持研究,1999,6(2):121-125.
周朝彬,李亚辉,曾勇,等.不同土壤水分条件下保水剂对杨树水分利用效率的影响[J].林业科技,2010,35(5):5-7.
朱自玺,方文松,赵国强,等.麦秸和残茬覆盖对夏玉米农田小气候的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(2):19-24.
宗萍萍,杨吉华,史秀娟,等.不同旱作保水措施对龙廷杏梅园地土壤水环境调控效应的影响研究[J].水土保持研究,2009,16(3):169-173.
Feng～min Li, An～hong Gao, and Hong Wei. Effects of clear plastic film mulch on yield of spring wheat [J]. Field Crops Res. 1999, 63:79-86
GUO Mi-juan, YU Cheng-qun and ZHONG Hua-ping. Effects of Film Mulching on the Growth of Silage Maize and Weed [J]. AgriculturalScience& Technology, 2010, 11(7):66-68, 98.
Huang YL, Chen LD, Fu BJ,et al. The wheat yields and water-use efficiency in the LoessPlateau: Straw mulch and irrigation effects.AgriculturalWaterManagement, 2005, 72: 209-222
Janardan S, Singh J. Effect of stockosorb polymers and potassium levels on potato and onion [J]. Journal of Potassium Research, 1998, 4(1):78-82.
Michael S, Johnson, Comelis JVeltkamp.Structure and functioning of water-storing agricultural polycrylamides [J]. J Sci Food Agri, 1985, 36: 789-793.
P A. Costigan and S. J. Locascio. Fertilizer additives within or around the gel for fluid-drilled cabage and lettuce [J]. HortSci.1992,5(7): 746-748.
Parichehr Hemyari and D. L. Nofziger. Super slurper effects on crust strength, water retention, and water infltration of soils [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.J. 1981(45):799-801.
Silberbush-M. Adar, E. And De Malach, Y Use of an hydrophilic polymer to improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes. II. Cabbage in-igated by sprinkling with different water salinities [J]. Agricultural Water Management. 1993 (23):315-327.
Silberbush-M. Adar, E. And De Malach, Y. Use of an hydrophilic polymer to improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes. I. Corn irrigated by trickling [J]. Agricultural Water Management.1993 (23):303-313.
W.G.Pill and D.M. Watts. Nutrient～fortified gel as a growth medium for tomato seedlings. HortSci. 1983(18)6:909-911.
Wallace G. Pill. Granular gels as growth media for tomato seedlings [J]. HortSci. 1988, 6(23):998-1000.