岷江上游山地森林—干旱河谷交错带土壤抗蚀力研究
|
摘要
环境问题是当今国际关注的热点问题,而土壤侵蚀则是全球性主要生态环境问题之一。土壤侵蚀可导致土地资源退化和损失,是限制当今人类生存与发展的全球性环境灾害。本研究通过野外调查和室内分析相结合的方法,针对岷江上游山地森林-干旱河谷交错带生态环境建设的需求和土壤侵蚀研究的重要内容,研究了不同植被条件下土壤抗蚀、抗冲性特征、土壤可蚀性K值变化特征及其影响因素,以期揭示区域土壤侵蚀的本质,为研究区域退耕还林及生态环境建设提供理论依据。主要研究结果如下：
1、不同植被条件下土壤抗蚀性变化特征及其影响因素
阳坡坡面,退耕岷江柏林地土壤抗蚀性最好,岷江柏幼林和天然次生林地土壤抗蚀性次之,刺槐林地土壤抗蚀性最小。0-10 cm土层土壤抗蚀性强于10-20 cm,且在各土层间不同植被条件下土壤抗蚀性指数均达显著差异。阴坡坡面,杂草地土壤抗蚀性最强,灌木林和岷江柏幼林地土壤抗蚀性次之,天然次生林地土壤抗蚀性最小。
阳坡坡面,0—10 cm土层,土壤机械组成中砂粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、团聚度呈显著或极显著负相关；物理性粘粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度呈显著或极显著正相关,中、细粉粒与水稳性指数和结构系数呈显著或极显著正相关,与分散系数均呈极显著负相关。微团聚体组成中,<0.001 mm颗粒与抗蚀指数呈显著负相关,与水稳性指数呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,机械组成中砂粒与团聚度、物理性粘粒与分散系数呈极显著负相关；粗粉粒与团聚度、物理性粘粒与结构系数和团聚度呈极显著正相关。微团聚体组成中,1-0.05 mm颗粒与团聚度呈显著负相关。阴坡坡面,0-10cm土层,砂粒与抗蚀指数、结构系数、团聚度之间呈显著或极显著负相关,与分散系数呈显著正相关；粗粉粒与团聚度之间呈极显著正相关；物理性粘粒与结构系数呈显著正相关,中、细粉粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数之间呈显著或极显著正相关,与分散系数均呈极显著负相关。微团聚体组成中,1—0.05 mm颗粒与分散系数之间呈显著正相关,与结构系数呈显著负相关；<0.001 mm颗粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度之间呈显著或极显著负相关,与分散系数呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,机械组成和微团聚体中不同粒级的颗粒与各抗蚀指标之间的的相关性均不显著。
阳坡坡面,0-10 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度与有机质、全氮含量之间呈显著正相关；水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度与速效钾含量之间呈显著负相关；分散系数与有机质、全氮含量之间呈显著负相关,与速效钾含量之间呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关；水稳性指数、结构系数与速效钾含量之间呈显著负相关；分散系数与速效钾含量之间呈显著正相关；团聚度与土壤化学性质的相关性均未达到显著。阴坡坡面,0-10 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关；抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、团聚度与速效磷含量之间呈极显著负相关；分散系数与有机质含量之间呈显著负相关。10-20 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关,与速效磷含量之间呈极显著负相关。
2、不同植被条件下表层土壤侵蚀率与其物理性质的关系
不同植被条件下表层(0—10 cm)土壤侵蚀率介于6.51%-21.34%之间,平均土壤侵蚀率为13.18%,以土壤侵蚀率>10%的样地为主体,土壤侵蚀较为严重。退耕岷江柏林地土壤侵蚀率最低；刺槐林植被的土壤侵蚀率最高。土壤有机质含量、结构破坏率、团聚体MWD和团聚体GMW、>0.25 mm水稳性团聚体含量对表层不同植被条件下土壤侵蚀率影响较大。
3、不同植被条件下土壤抗冲性变化特征及其影响因素
不同植被条件下土壤径流量随冲刷时间的变化较明显,总体上曲线呈单峰变化、先增大后减小。对照裸地(CK)径流随时间变化量低于灌木林地,但高于其他植被条件。灌木林地和对照裸地(CK)随着冲刷时间延长,径流量变化幅度较大；天然次生林、岷江柏幼林地在冲刷全过程中径流量变化幅度较小。不同植被条件下土壤冲刷过程中含沙量呈先降低后趋于平缓的变化规律。退耕岷江柏林、灌木林和岷江柏幼林地在产流过程中径流含沙量随时间变化较平稳,其中退耕岷江柏林地林含沙量最小。混交林地含沙量总体较小,趋于稳定的时间滞后于其他植被条件。不同植被条件下土壤抗冲指数依次为退耕岷江柏林>岷江柏幼林>刺槐林>灌木林>天然次生林>混交林幼林>裸地(CK)。
不同植被条件下,土壤容重与抗冲指数呈显著负相关,微团聚体组成中<0.001 mm颗粒与土壤抗冲指数间呈显著正相关,其他粒级颗粒与与土壤抗冲指数之间的相关性也均未达到显著。土壤速效磷与抗冲指数呈显著负相关,土壤有机质、全氮、速效钾与抗冲指数之间的相关性均未达到显著。
4、不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性变化特征及其影响因素
0-10 cm土层,阳坡坡面各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：刺槐林>混交林幼林>灌木林>岷江柏幼林>天然次生林>退耕岷江柏林；阴坡各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：天然次生林>灌木林>杂草地>岷江柏幼林。10-20 cm土层,阳坡坡面各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：刺槐林>混交林幼林>天然次生林>退耕岷江柏林>岷江柏幼林>灌木林；阴坡各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：杂草地>天然次生林>灌木林>岷江柏幼林。不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性变化与其抗蚀性较为一致,可见,采用EPIC模型估算研究区域土壤可蚀性K值是可行的。
0-10 cm土层,不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性K值与土壤有机碳、全氮和粉粒含量呈极显著负相关,与砂粒含量呈极显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性K值与土壤有机碳、全氮含量呈极显著负相关,与粉粒含量却呈极显著正相关。
The environmental issues have been arisen broad attention, while the soil erosion is one of the global environment problems. Soil erosion is the main cause the degeneration and loss of land source, which is an kind of natural disaster to restrict the human survival and the development for today's global environment. By the methods of field investigation and laboratory analysis, change characteristics of soil anti-erodibility, soil anti-scourability, soil erodibility and their influence factors were studied under different vegetations in dry valley and montane forest at the upstream of Minjiang River. The study is not only the need of ecology construction, but also it is the important contents of soil erosion. At the same time, the study would help to reveal the essence of soil erosion and provide theoretical basis for the ecology construction and conversion of farmland to forestry.
1.Characteristics and influence factors of soil anti-erodibility under different vegetations
On sunny slopes, soil anti-erodibility was the strongest for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress, followed Minjiang young cypress and natural secondary forests. However, soil anti-erodibility was the poorest for the Robinia pseudoacacia. Soil anti-erodibility of 0-1 Ocm layer was higher than that of 10-20 cm layer. At the same time, there were significant difference among the index of soil anti-erodibility in the 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm layer under the different vegetations. On shady slopes, soil anti-erodibility was the strongest for the weed, followed the shrub and Minjiang young cypress. However, soil anti-erodibility was the poorest for the natural secondary forests.
On sunny slopes, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, aggregation degree in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly positive correlation between physical clay and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index, aggregation degree. They were significantly positive correlation between medium-fine dust and water stable index, structural granular index. However, they were significantly negative correlation between medium-fine dust and soil dispersion coefficient. They were significantly negative correlation between<0.001mm content of micro-aggregate composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, they were significantly positive correlation between<0.001mm content of micro-aggregate composition and water stable index. In 10-20 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and aggregation degree, physical clay, soil dispersion coefficient, however, they were significantly positive correlation between coarse dust of mechanical composition and aggregation degree. They were significantly positive correlation between physical clay of mechanical composition and aggregation degree, structural granular index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05mm in micro-aggregate composition and aggregation degree.
On shady slopes, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, structural granular index, soil aggregation degree in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly positive correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and soil dispersion coefficient. They were significantly positive correlation between coarse dust of mechanical composition and soil aggregation degree.They were significantly positive correlation between physical clay and structural granular index. They were also significantly positive correlation between medium-fine dust and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil structural granular index. However, they were significantly negative correlation between medium-fine dust of mechanical composition and soil dispersion coefficient. In 0-10 cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil dispersion coefficient, however, they were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil structural granular index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil structural granular index,soil aggregation degree, however, they were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil dispersion coefficient. In 10-20 cm layer, there were no significantly different between content of different particles and all indexes of soil anti-erodibilityfor the micro-aggregate composition and soil mechanical composition under different vegetations.
On sunny slopes, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index, soil aggregation degree and soil organic mater, content of soil total N in 0-10 cm layer, however, they were significantly negative correlation between water stable index structural granular index, soil aggregation degree and content of soil available K. They were significantly negative correlation netween soil dispersion coefficient and soil organic mater, content of total N, however, they were significantly negative correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and content of soil available K. In 10-20cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and soil organic mater. However, they were significantly negative correlation between water stable index, soil structural granular index and content of soil available K. They were also significantly positive correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and content of soil available K. However, there were no significant differences between soil aggregation degree and soil chemical properties.
On shady slopes, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index and soil organic mater in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly negative correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil aggregation degree and content of soil available P. At the same time, they were significantly negative correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and soil organic mater. In 10-20cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and soil organic mater. However, they were significantly negative correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and content of soil available P.
2. Relationships between soil erosion rate and soil physical properties in 0-10 cm layer under different vegetations
Soil erosion rates were from 21.34% to 60.51% under different vegetations, and the average value of soil erosion rate was 13.18%. Soil erosion rate of six vegetations had high proportions of>10%. The value of soil erosion rate was the lowest for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress. However, the value of soil erosion rate was the highest for the Robinia pseudoacacia. These factors had the important effect on soil erosion rate, and these factors included soil organic mater, structure ped breaking ration aggregate mean weight diameter, geometric mean diameter and water stable aggregate of>0.25mm.
3. Characteristics and influence factors of soil anti-scourability under different vegetations
Changes of runoff amount were obvious with scouring time under different vegetations. Runoff amount was decrease after increase with the increasing of scouring time under different vegetations. Runoff amount of the control (CK) was lower than that of the shrub, and was higher than that of the other vegetations. Change amplitudes of runoff amount were the higher with the increasing of scouring time for the shrub and the control (CK). Change amplitudes of runoff amount were the lower with the increasing of scouring time for natural secondary forests and Minjiang young cypress. Sediment concentration was flat after decrease with the increasing of scouring time under different vegetations. Sediment concentration was the lowest with the increasing of scouring time for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress. Sediment concentration was the lower with the increasing of scouring time for the mixed young stands, and the time of steady sediment concentration was later than that of the other vegetations.The results demonstrated that soil anti-scouring index changed in the following order of treatments: the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress> Minjiang young cypress> Robinia pseudoacacia> the shrub> the mixed young stands> the control (CK).
Under different vegetations, they were significantly negative correlation between soil anti-scouring index and soil bulk density. They were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil anti-scouring index. They were no significantly diffrent between content of the other particles in micro-aggregate composition and soil anti-scouring index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of soil available P and soil anti-scouring index. However, they were no significantly diffrent between soil anti-scouring index and soil organic mater, content of soil total N, content of soil available K.
4. Characteristics and influence factors of soil erodibility under different vegetations
In 0-10 cm layer, the results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:Robinia pseudoacacia> mixed young stands>the shrub> Minjiang young cypress> natural secondary forests> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress on sunny slopes under different vegetations. The results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:natural secondary forests> the shrub>the weed> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress on shady slopes under different vegetations.
In 10-20cm layer, the results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:Robinia pseudoacacia>mixed young stands>natural secondary forests> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress> Minjiang young cypress>the shrub on sunny slopes under different vegetations.The results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:the weed> natural secondary forests> Robinia pseudoacacia> Minjiang young cypress on shady slopes under different vegetations. They showed the same change between soil anti-scourability and soil erodibility under different vegetations. So, EPIC model was available for estimating soil erodibility in ecotone between dry valley and montane forest.
In 0-10 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between soil erodibility and soil organic carbon, the content of soil total N, content of soil silt under different vegetations. However, they were significantly positive correlation between soil erodibility and content of soil sand under different vegetations. In 10-20 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between soil erodibility and soil organic carbon, the content of soil total N under different vegetations. However, they were significantly positive correlation between soil erodibility and content of soil silt under different vegetations.
1、不同植被条件下土壤抗蚀性变化特征及其影响因素
阳坡坡面,退耕岷江柏林地土壤抗蚀性最好,岷江柏幼林和天然次生林地土壤抗蚀性次之,刺槐林地土壤抗蚀性最小。0-10 cm土层土壤抗蚀性强于10-20 cm,且在各土层间不同植被条件下土壤抗蚀性指数均达显著差异。阴坡坡面,杂草地土壤抗蚀性最强,灌木林和岷江柏幼林地土壤抗蚀性次之,天然次生林地土壤抗蚀性最小。
阳坡坡面,0—10 cm土层,土壤机械组成中砂粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、团聚度呈显著或极显著负相关；物理性粘粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度呈显著或极显著正相关,中、细粉粒与水稳性指数和结构系数呈显著或极显著正相关,与分散系数均呈极显著负相关。微团聚体组成中,<0.001 mm颗粒与抗蚀指数呈显著负相关,与水稳性指数呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,机械组成中砂粒与团聚度、物理性粘粒与分散系数呈极显著负相关；粗粉粒与团聚度、物理性粘粒与结构系数和团聚度呈极显著正相关。微团聚体组成中,1-0.05 mm颗粒与团聚度呈显著负相关。阴坡坡面,0-10cm土层,砂粒与抗蚀指数、结构系数、团聚度之间呈显著或极显著负相关,与分散系数呈显著正相关；粗粉粒与团聚度之间呈极显著正相关；物理性粘粒与结构系数呈显著正相关,中、细粉粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数之间呈显著或极显著正相关,与分散系数均呈极显著负相关。微团聚体组成中,1—0.05 mm颗粒与分散系数之间呈显著正相关,与结构系数呈显著负相关；<0.001 mm颗粒与抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度之间呈显著或极显著负相关,与分散系数呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,机械组成和微团聚体中不同粒级的颗粒与各抗蚀指标之间的的相关性均不显著。
阳坡坡面,0-10 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度与有机质、全氮含量之间呈显著正相关；水稳性指数、结构系数、团聚度与速效钾含量之间呈显著负相关；分散系数与有机质、全氮含量之间呈显著负相关,与速效钾含量之间呈显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关；水稳性指数、结构系数与速效钾含量之间呈显著负相关；分散系数与速效钾含量之间呈显著正相关；团聚度与土壤化学性质的相关性均未达到显著。阴坡坡面,0-10 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、结构系数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关；抗蚀指数、水稳性指数、团聚度与速效磷含量之间呈极显著负相关；分散系数与有机质含量之间呈显著负相关。10-20 cm土层,抗蚀指数、水稳性指数与有机质含量之间呈显著正相关,与速效磷含量之间呈极显著负相关。
2、不同植被条件下表层土壤侵蚀率与其物理性质的关系
不同植被条件下表层(0—10 cm)土壤侵蚀率介于6.51%-21.34%之间,平均土壤侵蚀率为13.18%,以土壤侵蚀率>10%的样地为主体,土壤侵蚀较为严重。退耕岷江柏林地土壤侵蚀率最低；刺槐林植被的土壤侵蚀率最高。土壤有机质含量、结构破坏率、团聚体MWD和团聚体GMW、>0.25 mm水稳性团聚体含量对表层不同植被条件下土壤侵蚀率影响较大。
3、不同植被条件下土壤抗冲性变化特征及其影响因素
不同植被条件下土壤径流量随冲刷时间的变化较明显,总体上曲线呈单峰变化、先增大后减小。对照裸地(CK)径流随时间变化量低于灌木林地,但高于其他植被条件。灌木林地和对照裸地(CK)随着冲刷时间延长,径流量变化幅度较大；天然次生林、岷江柏幼林地在冲刷全过程中径流量变化幅度较小。不同植被条件下土壤冲刷过程中含沙量呈先降低后趋于平缓的变化规律。退耕岷江柏林、灌木林和岷江柏幼林地在产流过程中径流含沙量随时间变化较平稳,其中退耕岷江柏林地林含沙量最小。混交林地含沙量总体较小,趋于稳定的时间滞后于其他植被条件。不同植被条件下土壤抗冲指数依次为退耕岷江柏林>岷江柏幼林>刺槐林>灌木林>天然次生林>混交林幼林>裸地(CK)。
不同植被条件下,土壤容重与抗冲指数呈显著负相关,微团聚体组成中<0.001 mm颗粒与土壤抗冲指数间呈显著正相关,其他粒级颗粒与与土壤抗冲指数之间的相关性也均未达到显著。土壤速效磷与抗冲指数呈显著负相关,土壤有机质、全氮、速效钾与抗冲指数之间的相关性均未达到显著。
4、不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性变化特征及其影响因素
0-10 cm土层,阳坡坡面各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：刺槐林>混交林幼林>灌木林>岷江柏幼林>天然次生林>退耕岷江柏林；阴坡各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：天然次生林>灌木林>杂草地>岷江柏幼林。10-20 cm土层,阳坡坡面各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：刺槐林>混交林幼林>天然次生林>退耕岷江柏林>岷江柏幼林>灌木林；阴坡各植被条件下土壤的可蚀性K值大小表现为：杂草地>天然次生林>灌木林>岷江柏幼林。不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性变化与其抗蚀性较为一致,可见,采用EPIC模型估算研究区域土壤可蚀性K值是可行的。
0-10 cm土层,不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性K值与土壤有机碳、全氮和粉粒含量呈极显著负相关,与砂粒含量呈极显著正相关。10-20 cm土层,不同植被条件下土壤可蚀性K值与土壤有机碳、全氮含量呈极显著负相关,与粉粒含量却呈极显著正相关。
The environmental issues have been arisen broad attention, while the soil erosion is one of the global environment problems. Soil erosion is the main cause the degeneration and loss of land source, which is an kind of natural disaster to restrict the human survival and the development for today's global environment. By the methods of field investigation and laboratory analysis, change characteristics of soil anti-erodibility, soil anti-scourability, soil erodibility and their influence factors were studied under different vegetations in dry valley and montane forest at the upstream of Minjiang River. The study is not only the need of ecology construction, but also it is the important contents of soil erosion. At the same time, the study would help to reveal the essence of soil erosion and provide theoretical basis for the ecology construction and conversion of farmland to forestry.
1.Characteristics and influence factors of soil anti-erodibility under different vegetations
On sunny slopes, soil anti-erodibility was the strongest for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress, followed Minjiang young cypress and natural secondary forests. However, soil anti-erodibility was the poorest for the Robinia pseudoacacia. Soil anti-erodibility of 0-1 Ocm layer was higher than that of 10-20 cm layer. At the same time, there were significant difference among the index of soil anti-erodibility in the 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm layer under the different vegetations. On shady slopes, soil anti-erodibility was the strongest for the weed, followed the shrub and Minjiang young cypress. However, soil anti-erodibility was the poorest for the natural secondary forests.
On sunny slopes, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, aggregation degree in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly positive correlation between physical clay and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index, aggregation degree. They were significantly positive correlation between medium-fine dust and water stable index, structural granular index. However, they were significantly negative correlation between medium-fine dust and soil dispersion coefficient. They were significantly negative correlation between<0.001mm content of micro-aggregate composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, they were significantly positive correlation between<0.001mm content of micro-aggregate composition and water stable index. In 10-20 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and aggregation degree, physical clay, soil dispersion coefficient, however, they were significantly positive correlation between coarse dust of mechanical composition and aggregation degree. They were significantly positive correlation between physical clay of mechanical composition and aggregation degree, structural granular index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05mm in micro-aggregate composition and aggregation degree.
On shady slopes, they were significantly negative correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, structural granular index, soil aggregation degree in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly positive correlation between sand fraction of mechanical composition and soil dispersion coefficient. They were significantly positive correlation between coarse dust of mechanical composition and soil aggregation degree.They were significantly positive correlation between physical clay and structural granular index. They were also significantly positive correlation between medium-fine dust and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil structural granular index. However, they were significantly negative correlation between medium-fine dust of mechanical composition and soil dispersion coefficient. In 0-10 cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil dispersion coefficient, however, they were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of 1-0.05mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil structural granular index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil structural granular index,soil aggregation degree, however, they were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil dispersion coefficient. In 10-20 cm layer, there were no significantly different between content of different particles and all indexes of soil anti-erodibilityfor the micro-aggregate composition and soil mechanical composition under different vegetations.
On sunny slopes, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index, soil aggregation degree and soil organic mater, content of soil total N in 0-10 cm layer, however, they were significantly negative correlation between water stable index structural granular index, soil aggregation degree and content of soil available K. They were significantly negative correlation netween soil dispersion coefficient and soil organic mater, content of total N, however, they were significantly negative correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and content of soil available K. In 10-20cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and soil organic mater. However, they were significantly negative correlation between water stable index, soil structural granular index and content of soil available K. They were also significantly positive correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and content of soil available K. However, there were no significant differences between soil aggregation degree and soil chemical properties.
On shady slopes, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, structural granular index and soil organic mater in 0-10 cm layer. However, they were significantly negative correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index, soil aggregation degree and content of soil available P. At the same time, they were significantly negative correlation between soil dispersion coefficient and soil organic mater. In 10-20cm layer, they were significantly positive correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and soil organic mater. However, they were significantly negative correlation between index of soil anti-erodibility, water stable index and content of soil available P.
2. Relationships between soil erosion rate and soil physical properties in 0-10 cm layer under different vegetations
Soil erosion rates were from 21.34% to 60.51% under different vegetations, and the average value of soil erosion rate was 13.18%. Soil erosion rate of six vegetations had high proportions of>10%. The value of soil erosion rate was the lowest for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress. However, the value of soil erosion rate was the highest for the Robinia pseudoacacia. These factors had the important effect on soil erosion rate, and these factors included soil organic mater, structure ped breaking ration aggregate mean weight diameter, geometric mean diameter and water stable aggregate of>0.25mm.
3. Characteristics and influence factors of soil anti-scourability under different vegetations
Changes of runoff amount were obvious with scouring time under different vegetations. Runoff amount was decrease after increase with the increasing of scouring time under different vegetations. Runoff amount of the control (CK) was lower than that of the shrub, and was higher than that of the other vegetations. Change amplitudes of runoff amount were the higher with the increasing of scouring time for the shrub and the control (CK). Change amplitudes of runoff amount were the lower with the increasing of scouring time for natural secondary forests and Minjiang young cypress. Sediment concentration was flat after decrease with the increasing of scouring time under different vegetations. Sediment concentration was the lowest with the increasing of scouring time for the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress. Sediment concentration was the lower with the increasing of scouring time for the mixed young stands, and the time of steady sediment concentration was later than that of the other vegetations.The results demonstrated that soil anti-scouring index changed in the following order of treatments: the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress> Minjiang young cypress> Robinia pseudoacacia> the shrub> the mixed young stands> the control (CK).
Under different vegetations, they were significantly negative correlation between soil anti-scouring index and soil bulk density. They were significantly positive correlation between content of at the size of<0.001 mm in micro-aggregate composition and soil anti-scouring index. They were no significantly diffrent between content of the other particles in micro-aggregate composition and soil anti-scouring index. They were significantly negative correlation between content of soil available P and soil anti-scouring index. However, they were no significantly diffrent between soil anti-scouring index and soil organic mater, content of soil total N, content of soil available K.
4. Characteristics and influence factors of soil erodibility under different vegetations
In 0-10 cm layer, the results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:Robinia pseudoacacia> mixed young stands>the shrub> Minjiang young cypress> natural secondary forests> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress on sunny slopes under different vegetations. The results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:natural secondary forests> the shrub>the weed> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress on shady slopes under different vegetations.
In 10-20cm layer, the results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:Robinia pseudoacacia>mixed young stands>natural secondary forests> the conversion of farmland to Minjiang cypress> Minjiang young cypress>the shrub on sunny slopes under different vegetations.The results demonstrated that the value of soil erodibility(K) changed in the following order of treatments:the weed> natural secondary forests> Robinia pseudoacacia> Minjiang young cypress on shady slopes under different vegetations. They showed the same change between soil anti-scourability and soil erodibility under different vegetations. So, EPIC model was available for estimating soil erodibility in ecotone between dry valley and montane forest.
In 0-10 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between soil erodibility and soil organic carbon, the content of soil total N, content of soil silt under different vegetations. However, they were significantly positive correlation between soil erodibility and content of soil sand under different vegetations. In 10-20 cm layer, they were significantly negative correlation between soil erodibility and soil organic carbon, the content of soil total N under different vegetations. However, they were significantly positive correlation between soil erodibility and content of soil silt under different vegetations.
引文
安和平.北盘江中游地区土壤抗蚀性及预测模型研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(4)：38—42.
卜楠,朱清科,王蕊,等.陕北黄土区生物土壤结皮抗冲性研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2009,31(5)：96-101.
卜兆宏,李全英.土壤可蚀性(K)值图的编制方法的初步研究[J].遥感技术与应用,1994,9(4)：22-27.
查小春,唐克丽.黄土丘陵林地土壤侵蚀与土壤性质变化[J].地理学报,2003,58(3)：464—469.
查小春,唐克丽.黄土丘陵区开垦地土壤抗冲性的时间变化研究[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(2)：8-11.
查轩,黄少燕,陈世发.退化红壤地土壤侵蚀与坡度坡向的关系-基于GIS的研究[J].自然灾害学报,2010,19(2)：32-39.
陈明华,聂碧娟.土壤侵蚀转折坡度的研究[J].福建水土保持,1995,3：35—38.
陈晏,史东梅,文卓立,等.紫色土丘陵区不同土地利用类型土壤抗冲性特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(2)：24-27,35.
陈云明,刘国彬,徐炳成.黄土丘陵区人工沙棘林水土保持作用机理及效益[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(4)：595-599.
戴全厚,刘国彬,薛楚,等.侵蚀环境退耕撂荒地水稳性团聚体演变特征及土壤养分效应[J].2007,21(2)：61-64
丁军,王兆骞,陈欣.红壤丘陵区林地根系对土壤抗冲增强效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4)：9-12.
丁文峰,李占斌.土壤抗蚀性的研究动态[J].水土保持科技情报,2001(1)：36-39.
董慧霞,李贤伟,张健,等.不同草本层三倍体毛白杨林地土壤抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(3)：70-79.
董莉丽,郑粉莉,秦瑞杰.基于LB法不同植被类型下土壤团聚体水稳性研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2010,28(2)：191-196.
窦葆璋.土地利用方式对黄绵土抗冲性的影响[C].陕西省土壤学会.1978年学术年会议论文集,1978,358-394.
方学敏,万兆惠,徐永年.土壤抗蚀性研究现状综述[J].泥沙研究,1997,2：87-91.
傅伯杰,赵文武,陈利顶,等.多尺度土壤侵蚀评价指数[J].科学通报,2006,51(16)：1936-1942.
高华端,李锐.喀斯特地区原状土的可蚀性[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(5):1-4.
高维森,王佑民.土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究综述[J].水圭保持通报,1992,12(5)：59—63.
高维森.土壤抗蚀性指标及其适用性初步研究[J].水土保持学报,1991,5(2)：60—65.
郭培才,王佑民.黄土高原沙棘林地土壤抗蚀性及其指标的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1989,4(1)：80-86.
龚伟,颜晓元,蔡祖聪,等.长期施肥对华北小麦-玉米轮作土壤物理性质和抗蚀性影响研究[J].土壤学报,2009,46(3)：520—525.
何其华,何永华,包维楷.岷江上游干旱河谷典型阳坡海拔梯度上土壤水分动态[J].应用与环境生物学报,2004,10(1)：68—74.
何淑勤,郑子成,杨玉梅.茶园土壤团聚体分布特征及其对有机碳含量影响的研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(5)：187—190,199.
何兴元,胡志斌,李月辉,等.GIS支持下岷江上游土壤侵蚀动态研究[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(12)：2271-2278.
何雨,贾铁飞,李容全.黄土丘陵区沟谷发育及其稳定性评价[J].干旱区地理,1999,22(2)：64—70.
侯大斌.川渝地区土壤可蚀性评价[D].雅安：四川农业大学,2001.
胡建忠,范小玲,王原昌,等.黄土高原沙棘人工林地土壤抗蚀性指标探讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(2)：25-30,93.
胡建忠,范小玲.黄土高原沙棘人工林地土壤抗蚀性指标探讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(2)：25-30.
胡世雄,靳长兴.坡面土壤侵蚀临界坡度问题的理论与实验研究[J].地理学报,1999,54(4)：347-356.
胡忠良,潘根兴,李恋卿,等.贵州喀斯特山区不同植被下土壤C、N、P含量和空间异质性[J].生态学报,2009,29(8)：4187—4195.
黄少燕,查轩.坡耕地侵蚀过程与土壤理化特性演变[J].山地学报,2002,20(3)：290-295.
贾文锦,佟士儒,李春金.中国土壤系统分类进展[M].北京：科学出版社,1993,191-197
姜小三,潘剑君,杨林章,等.土壤可蚀性K值的计算和K值图的制作方法研究-以南京市方便水库小流域为例[J].土壤,2004,36(2)：177—180.
蒋德麒,朱显谟.水土保持[A].中国农业科学院土壤肥料研究所,中国农业土壤学编著委员会.中国农业土壤论文集[C].上海：上海科学技术出版社,1962.
蒋定生,王宁,王煜,等.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利电力出版社,1997,67-139.
蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社,1997,47-49.
蒋定生.黄土抗冲性的研究[C].陕西省土壤学会.1978年学术年会议论文集,1978,145-163.
蒋定生.黄土区不同利用类型土壤抗冲刷能力的研究[J].土壤通报,1979,10(4)：20-23.
雷俊山,杨勤科,郑粉莉.黄土破面细沟侵蚀试验研究及土壤抗冲性评价[J].水土保持通报,2004,24(2):1-4.
雷俊山,杨勤科.坡面薄层水流侵蚀试验研究及土壤抗冲性评价[J].泥沙研究,2004,6:22—26.
李勇.黄土高原土壤侵蚀环境调控的核心与途径[J].水土保持研究.1995,2(4)：69-74.
李勇,吴钦孝,朱显谟,等.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究-油松人工林根系对土壤抗冲性的增强效应[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):1-5,10.
李勇,朱显谟,田积莹,等.黄土高原土壤抗冲性机理初步研究[J].科学通报,1990,5：39.-393.
李勇.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性机理初步研究[J].中国科学(B辑),1992,3:254-259.
李云涛,唐峰.土壤类型与抗冲性关系特性分析[J].国外建材科技,2006,27(4)：117—119,133.
林秋月.花岗岩区土壤抗蚀性评价因子体系研究[D].福州：福建农林大学,2006.
刘宝元,张科利,焦菊英,等.土壤可蚀性及其在侵蚀预报中的应用[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4)：345—350.
刘秉正,王佑民,陈东立.刺槐林地土壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].西北林学院学报,1984,5(2)：15-18.
刘国彬,蒋定生,朱显漠.黄土区草地根系生物力学特性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(3)：21-28.
刘国彬.黄土高原土壤抗冲性研究及有关问题[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(5):91-101.
刘国彬.黄土高原草地土壤抗冲性及其机理研究[D].杨凌：中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所,1998.
刘洪升,宋秋华,李凤民.根分泌物对根际矿物营养及根际微生物的效应[J].西北植物学报,2002,22(3)：693-702.
刘建立,徐绍辉,刘慧.参数模型在壤土类土壤颗粒大小分布中的应用[J].土壤学报,2004,41(3)：375—380.
刘世德.罗玉沟流域坡面土壤侵蚀与土壤理化性质[J].水土保持学报,1980,7(3)：3—8.
卢金伟.土壤团聚体水稳定性及其与土壤可蚀性之间关系研究[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2002.
卢喜平,史东梅,蒋光毅,等.两种果草模式根系提高土壤抗蚀性的研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(5)：64—67,124.
吕春娟,白中科,陈卫国,等.黄土区大型排土场植被根系的抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2)：35-38,143.
吕喜玺,沈荣明.土壤可蚀性因子K值的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(1):63-69.
罗利芳,张科利,李双才.撂荒后黄土高原坡耕地土壤透水性和抗冲性的变化[J].地理科学,2003,23(6)：728-732.
骆东奇,侯春霞,魏朝富,等.不同母质发育紫色土团粒结构的分形特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(1)：130—133.
门明新,赵同科,彭止萍,等.基于土壤粒径分布模型的河北省土壤可蚀性研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11)：1647—1653.
牛德奎,郭晓敏.土壤可蚀性研究现状及趋势分析[J].江西农业大学学报,2004,26(6)：936—940.
彭新华,张斌,赵其国.红壤侵蚀裸地植被恢复及土壤有机碳对团聚体稳定性的影响[J].生态学报,2003,23(10)：2176—2183.
邱仁辉,杨玉胜,俞新妥.不同栽植代数杉木林土壤结构特性研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1998,20(4)：6-11.
阮伏水.福建花岗岩地区坡度和坡长对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].福建师范大学学报(自然科学版),1995,11(1)：100—106.
沈慧,姜凤岐,杜晓军,等.水土保持林土壤肥力及其评价指标[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2)：60-65.
沈慧,姜凤岐,杜晓军,等.水土保持林土壤抗蚀性能评价研究[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(3)：345-348.
石晨,郭成久,卢明春.人工降雨条件下东北典型黑土侵蚀因子K值研究[J].现代农业科学,2009,16(2)：27—29.
石生新,赵崇伟.土壤抗冲性的研究[J].山西水利科技,1998,3：90-93.
史长婷,王恩姮,陈祥伟.典型黑土区水土保持林对土壤可蚀性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(3)：25—28.
史学正,于东升,吕喜玺.用人工模拟降雨仪研究我国亚热带土壤的可蚀性[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(3)：38-42.
史学正,于东升,邢廷炎.用田间实测法研究我国亚热带土壤的可蚀性K值[J].土壤学报,1997,34(4)：399—405.
宋阳,刘连友,严平,等.土壤可蚀性研究述评[J].干旱区地理,2006,29(1):124—131.
邰通桥,杭朝平,杨胜俊.果园套种绿肥对果园土壤改良的效果[J].贵州农业科学,1999,27(1):35-37.
唐克丽.黄土高原地区土壤侵蚀区域特征及其防止途径[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1990,24-27.
田积莹,黄义端.子午岭连家砭地区土壤物理性质与土壤抗侵蚀性能指标的初步研究[J].土壤学报,1964,12(3)：286—296.
田育新,吴建平.林地土壤抗冲性研究[J].湖南林业科技,2002,29(3)：21-23.
王峰,石辉,周立江,等.土壤抗冲性研究进展[J].山地农业生物学报,2010,29(6)：528-537.
王库.植物根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力的影响[J].土壤与环境,2001,10(3):250—252.
王景燕,胡庭兴,龚伟,等.川南地区不同退耕地对土壤抗蚀性的影响[J].2010,12：30-32.
王一峰,张平仓,朱兵兵,等.长江中上游地区土壤抗冲性研究[J].长江科学院院报,2007,24(1)：12—15.
王佑民,郭培才,高维森.黄土高原土壤抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(4)：11—14.
王云琦,王玉杰,朱金兆.重庆缙云山典型林分林地土壤抗蚀性分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(6)：775—780.
王忠林,李会科,贺秀贤.渭北汉源花椒地埂林土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(1)：1-5.
魏天兴,朱金兆.黄土残塬沟壑区坡度和坡长对土壤侵蚀的影响分析[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(1)：59—62.
文卓立,周飞.缙云山典型植物群落次生演替中土壤抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(2)：13-16.
吴昌广,曾毅,周志翔,等.三峡库区土壤可蚀性K值研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(3):8—12.
吴淑安,蔡强国,靳长兴.内蒙古东胜地区土壤抗蚀性实验研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,1996,10(2)：38-45.
夏青,何丙辉.土壤物理特性对水力侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持应用技术,2006,5：12-15
徐多润,吕甚悟,杜昌玉.紫色土山丘地区不同土地利用类型的水土流失及治理[J].土壤农化通报,1995,10(3)：26-30.20.
薛萐,李占斌,李鹏,等.不同植被恢复模式对黄土丘陵区土壤抗蚀性的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(1)：69：72.
薛萐,刘国彬,张超,等.黄土丘陵区人工灌木林土壤抗蚀性演变特征[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(15)：3143—3150.
严代碧.岷江上游干旱河谷区退化植被特征及其恢复重建的研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2006.
闫峰陵,史志华,蔡崇法,等.红壤表土团聚体稳定性对坡面侵蚀的影响[J].土壤学报,2007,44(4)：577—583.
严积有,徐凯然,申新山.放牧干扰对人工林土壤物理性状的影响[J].水土保持通报,2008,28(6)：138—141.
杨安学.麻江县主要土壤类型的物理性质与土壤抗蚀性的关系的初步研究[J].贵州林业科技,2004,32(2)：25—29.
杨建国,安韶山,郑粉莉.宁南山区植被自然恢复中土壤团聚体特征及其与土壤性质关系[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(1)：72-75,98.
杨文元,张奇,张建华,等.紫色丘陵区土壤抗冲性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(2)：22-28.
杨玉梅,郑子成,李廷轩.不同土地利用方式下土壤抗冲性动态变化特征及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(4)：64—68.
杨玉盛,何宗明,林光耀.不同治理模式对严重退化红壤抗蚀性影响的研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学 报,1996,2(2)：32—37.
杨玉盛.不同利用方式下紫色土可蚀性的研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(3)：52—58.
叶延琼,陈国阶,樊宏.岷江上游脆弱生态环境刍论[J].长江流域资源与环境,2002,11(4)：383—387.
尹先平,周运超,罗明,等.赣江源区主要土壤抗蚀性能对比[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(2):8—14.
余清珠,师明洲.半干旱黄土丘陵沟壑区人工混交林土壤抗蚀性研究初报[J].水土保持通报,1990,10(5)：5—9.
余树全,苏增建.沱江上游深丘地区不同立地土壤抗蚀性、渗透性及其影响因素[J].防护林科技,2003,1(54):1-4.
曾光,杨勤科,姚志宏.黄土丘陵沟壑区不同土地利用类型土壤抗侵蚀性研究[J].水土保持通报,2008,28(1)：6—9,38.
张保华,何毓蓉.长江上游几种林地表层土壤侵蚀率及与相关土壤性质关系[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(4)：220-225.
张保华,刘子亭,周长辉.川中紫色丘陵区人工林表层土壤侵蚀率与土壤结构性关系[J].林业资源管理,2005.5：51-65
张超,刘国彬,薛萐,等.黄土丘陵区不同林龄人工刺槐林土壤抗蚀性演变特征[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(2):1-7.
张光辉,刘宝元,张科利.坡面径流粉粒土壤的水动力学试验研究[J].土壤学报,2002,39(6)：828-886.
张光辉,刘国彬.黄土丘陵区小流域土壤表面特性变化规律研究[J].地理科学,2001,21(2)：118-121.张洪江.土壤侵蚀原理[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2008,69—70.
张建辉,刘刚才,倪师军,等.紫色土不同土地利用条件下十壤抗冲性研究[J].中国科学E辑技术科学,2003,33(增刊)：61-68.
张建军,张宝颖,毕华兴,等.黄土区不同植被条件下的土壤抗冲性[J].北京林业大学学报,2004,26(6)：25-29.
张金池,陈三雄,刘道平,等.浙江安吉主要植被类型土壤抗蚀性指标筛选及评价模型构建[J].亚热带水土保持,2006,18(2):1-5.
张金池,臧廷亮,曾峰.岩质海岸防护林树木根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应[J].南京林业大学学报,2001,25(1)：9—12.
张科利,蔡永明,刘宝元,等.黄土高原地区土壤可蚀性及其应用研究.生态学报,2001,21(10)：1689—1697.
张科利,蔡永明,刘宝元,等.土壤可蚀性动态变化规律研究[J].地理学报,2001,56(6)：673—681.
张科利,彭文英,杨红丽.中国土壤可蚀性值及其估算[J].土壤学报,2007,44(1):7—13.
张琪,方海兰,史志华,等.侵蚀条件下土壤性质对团聚体稳定性影响的研究进展[J].林业科学,2007,43(增刊1)：77-82.
张黎明.我国南方不同类型土壤可蚀性K值及相关因子研究[D].滁州：华南热带农业大学,2005.
张文太,于东升,史学正,等.中国亚热带土壤可蚀性K值预测的不确定性研究[J].土壤学报,2009,46(2)：185—191.
张向炎,于东升,史学正,等.中国亚热带地区十壤可蚀性的季节性变化研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(1)：41-44.
张笑培,杨改河,王和洲,等.植被恢复土壤抗蚀性响应及其评价研究[J].农业现代化研究,2010,31(3)：352—355.
张一平,张昭辉,何云玲.岷江上游气候立体分布特征[J].山地学报,2004,22(2)：179—183.
张蕴薇,韩建国,李志强.放牧强度对土壤物理性质的影响[J].草地学报,2001,10(1)：74—78.
张振国,黄建成,焦菊英,等.安塞黄土丘陵沟壑区退耕地植物群落土壤抗蚀性分析[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(1)：28—31.
张振明,余新晓,吴海龙,等.北京八达岭林场油松林地土壤抗冲性研究[J].林业资源管理,2009,6(6)：80—83.
章明奎,韩常灿.浙江省丘陵土壤的抗蚀性[J].浙江农业学报,2000,12(1)：25—30.
赵晓光,石辉.水蚀作用下土壤抗蚀能力的表征[J].干旱区地理,2003,26(1)：12-16.
赵洋毅,周运超,段旭.黔中喀斯特地区不同岩性土壤的抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(29)：9311—9313,9317.
赵洋毅.黔中植被和岩性对土壤抗蚀抗冲性的影响[D].贵阳：贵州大学,2008.
郑海金,杨洁,喻荣岗,等.红壤坡地土壤可蚀性K值研究[J].土壤通报,2010,41(2):425-428.
郑师章,吴辉,何敏.凤眼莲根部分泌物中还原糖分析及其化学信息作用的研究.生态学研究进展[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991,70-72.
郑子成,李廷轩,张锡洲,等.不同土地利用方式下土壤团聚体的组成及稳定性研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(5)：228—236
中科院《中国自然地理》编辑委员会.中国自然地理总论[M].北京：科学出版社,1985,257-339.
周刚,赵辉,陈国玉,等.花岗岩红壤区不同地类土壤抗蚀性分异规律研究[J].中国水土保持,2008,9:27—29,45.
周利军,奇实,王云琦.三峡库区典型林分林地土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持保究,2006,13(1)：186 —188.
周佩华,武春龙.黄土高原抗冲性的试验研究方法探讨[J].水土保持学报,1993,7(1)：29—34.
周佩华,郑世清,吴普特,等.黄十高原十壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(5)：47-58.
周维,张建辉,李勇,等.金沙江干暖河谷不同土地利用条件下土壤抗冲性研究[J].水土保持通报,2006,26(5)：26—30,42.
朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,等.土地退化/恢复中土壤可蚀性动态变化[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(2)：56—61.
朱明勇,谭淑端,顾胜.湖北丹江口水库库区小流域土壤可蚀性特征[J].土壤通报,2010,41(2)：434—436.
朱显谟.黄土地区植被因素对水土流失的影响[J].土壤学报,1960,8(2)：110-121.
朱显谟.黄土高原水蚀的主要类型及其有关因素(三)[J].水土保持通报,1982(1)：25—30.
朱显谟.黄土区土壤侵蚀的分类[J].土壤学报,1956,4(2)：99—115.
朱显漠.泾河流域土壤侵蚀现象及其演变[J].土壤学报,1954,2(4)：209—222.
朱祖祥.中国农业百科全书-土壤卷[M].北京：农业出版社,1996.
庄家尧,张金池,林杰,等.安徽省大别山区上舍小流域植被根系与土壤抗冲性研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(6)：15—20.
Bernard B, Eric R. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptibility to runoffand erosion:validation atseveral levels[J].Catena,2002,47:133-149.
Bennett HH. Some comparisons of the properties of humid-tropicaland humid-temperate American soils, with special reference to indi-cated relations between chemical composition and physical properties[J].Soil Sci., 1926,21:349-375.
Bouyoucos G J. The clay ratio as a criterion of susceptibility of soils to erosion[J]. Journal of American Society of Agronomy,1935,27:738-741.
Chepil W S.Measurement of wind erosiveness of soils by dry sieving procedure[J].Sci Agr,1942,23:154-160.
Cotler H.Ortega-Larrocea M.P.Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem,Chamela watershed, Mexico[J]. Catena,2006,65:107-117.
Ellison W D. Soil erosion studies-Part I [J].Agricultural Engineering,1947,28:145-146.
Kukal S.S.,Manmeet Kaur, Bawa, S.S.,et al.Water-drop stability of PVA-treated natural soil aggregates from different land uses[J] Catena,2007,70:475-479.
Lundekvam H E. Plot studies and modelling of hydrology and erosion in southeast Norway[J].Catena,2007, 71:200-209.
MA Q,YU W T,ZHAO S H, et al. Relationship between water-stable aggregates and nutrients in Black Soils after reclamation[J].Pedosphere,2007,17(4):538-544.
Middleton H E.Properties of soils which influence soil erosion[J].USDA.Technical Bulletin,1930,178:6-11.
Morgan R P C.Soil Erosion and Conservation, Longman Group UK Limited,1986.
P.Sarah.Soil organic matter and land degradation in semi-arid area, Israel[J].Catena,2006,67:50-55.
Peterson P.J. Unusual accumulations of elements by plants and animals[J]. Science Progress,1971,59:505-526.
Rhoton F E,Emmerich W E,Goodrich D.C,et al. An Aggregation/Erodibility Index for Soils in a Semiarid Watershed Southeastern Arizona[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2007,71(3):984-992.
Rhoton F.E.,Emmerich W.E.,Goodrich D.C.,et al., An Aggregation/Erodibility Index for Soils in a Semiarid Watershed,Southeastern Arizona[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2007,71(3):984-992.
Rorke B. Bryan. Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope[J]. Geomorphology, 2000,32:385-415.
Sharply A N, Williams J R. EPIC erosion/productivity impact calculator.1 model documentation[M].USDA,TB-1768,1990,25-33.
Skaggs T.H, Arya L.M, Shouse P.J, et al. Estimating particle-size distribution from limited soil texture data. Soil Science Society of America Journal,2001,65:1038-1044.
Snakin V V, Krechetov P P, Kuzovnikova T A,et al.The system of assessment of soil degradation[J].Soil Technology,1996,8:331-343
Tamlin C. Olson and Wischmeier W H., Soil erodibility.evaluations for soils on the runoff and erosion stations,Soil Science Society of American Proceedings,1963,27(5):590-592.
Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses:a guide to conservation planning[M].Agriculture Handbook 537. Washington, D C:USDA,1978:1-58.
Wischmeier, W. H. et al. A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. of Soil&Water Cons.26:189-192.1971.
Zhang F, Zheng F L, An S S, Li Y Z. The impacts of accelerated erosion on soil nutrient loss and microbial quantity following deforestation in the Ziwuling area. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science,2006, 12(6):826-833.
Zheng F L, Zhang C. Impact of accelerated erosion on dynamics of soil humic acids. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999,19(2):194-199.
卜楠,朱清科,王蕊,等.陕北黄土区生物土壤结皮抗冲性研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2009,31(5)：96-101.
卜兆宏,李全英.土壤可蚀性(K)值图的编制方法的初步研究[J].遥感技术与应用,1994,9(4)：22-27.
查小春,唐克丽.黄土丘陵林地土壤侵蚀与土壤性质变化[J].地理学报,2003,58(3)：464—469.
查小春,唐克丽.黄土丘陵区开垦地土壤抗冲性的时间变化研究[J].水土保持通报,2001,21(2)：8-11.
查轩,黄少燕,陈世发.退化红壤地土壤侵蚀与坡度坡向的关系-基于GIS的研究[J].自然灾害学报,2010,19(2)：32-39.
陈明华,聂碧娟.土壤侵蚀转折坡度的研究[J].福建水土保持,1995,3：35—38.
陈晏,史东梅,文卓立,等.紫色土丘陵区不同土地利用类型土壤抗冲性特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(2)：24-27,35.
陈云明,刘国彬,徐炳成.黄土丘陵区人工沙棘林水土保持作用机理及效益[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(4)：595-599.
戴全厚,刘国彬,薛楚,等.侵蚀环境退耕撂荒地水稳性团聚体演变特征及土壤养分效应[J].2007,21(2)：61-64
丁军,王兆骞,陈欣.红壤丘陵区林地根系对土壤抗冲增强效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4)：9-12.
丁文峰,李占斌.土壤抗蚀性的研究动态[J].水土保持科技情报,2001(1)：36-39.
董慧霞,李贤伟,张健,等.不同草本层三倍体毛白杨林地土壤抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(3)：70-79.
董莉丽,郑粉莉,秦瑞杰.基于LB法不同植被类型下土壤团聚体水稳性研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2010,28(2)：191-196.
窦葆璋.土地利用方式对黄绵土抗冲性的影响[C].陕西省土壤学会.1978年学术年会议论文集,1978,358-394.
方学敏,万兆惠,徐永年.土壤抗蚀性研究现状综述[J].泥沙研究,1997,2：87-91.
傅伯杰,赵文武,陈利顶,等.多尺度土壤侵蚀评价指数[J].科学通报,2006,51(16)：1936-1942.
高华端,李锐.喀斯特地区原状土的可蚀性[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(5):1-4.
高维森,王佑民.土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究综述[J].水圭保持通报,1992,12(5)：59—63.
高维森.土壤抗蚀性指标及其适用性初步研究[J].水土保持学报,1991,5(2)：60—65.
郭培才,王佑民.黄土高原沙棘林地土壤抗蚀性及其指标的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1989,4(1)：80-86.
龚伟,颜晓元,蔡祖聪,等.长期施肥对华北小麦-玉米轮作土壤物理性质和抗蚀性影响研究[J].土壤学报,2009,46(3)：520—525.
何其华,何永华,包维楷.岷江上游干旱河谷典型阳坡海拔梯度上土壤水分动态[J].应用与环境生物学报,2004,10(1)：68—74.
何淑勤,郑子成,杨玉梅.茶园土壤团聚体分布特征及其对有机碳含量影响的研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(5)：187—190,199.
何兴元,胡志斌,李月辉,等.GIS支持下岷江上游土壤侵蚀动态研究[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(12)：2271-2278.
何雨,贾铁飞,李容全.黄土丘陵区沟谷发育及其稳定性评价[J].干旱区地理,1999,22(2)：64—70.
侯大斌.川渝地区土壤可蚀性评价[D].雅安：四川农业大学,2001.
胡建忠,范小玲,王原昌,等.黄土高原沙棘人工林地土壤抗蚀性指标探讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(2)：25-30,93.
胡建忠,范小玲.黄土高原沙棘人工林地土壤抗蚀性指标探讨[J].水土保持通报,1998,18(2)：25-30.
胡世雄,靳长兴.坡面土壤侵蚀临界坡度问题的理论与实验研究[J].地理学报,1999,54(4)：347-356.
胡忠良,潘根兴,李恋卿,等.贵州喀斯特山区不同植被下土壤C、N、P含量和空间异质性[J].生态学报,2009,29(8)：4187—4195.
黄少燕,查轩.坡耕地侵蚀过程与土壤理化特性演变[J].山地学报,2002,20(3)：290-295.
贾文锦,佟士儒,李春金.中国土壤系统分类进展[M].北京：科学出版社,1993,191-197
姜小三,潘剑君,杨林章,等.土壤可蚀性K值的计算和K值图的制作方法研究-以南京市方便水库小流域为例[J].土壤,2004,36(2)：177—180.
蒋德麒,朱显谟.水土保持[A].中国农业科学院土壤肥料研究所,中国农业土壤学编著委员会.中国农业土壤论文集[C].上海：上海科学技术出版社,1962.
蒋定生,王宁,王煜,等.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利电力出版社,1997,67-139.
蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失与治理模式[M].北京：中国水利水电出版社,1997,47-49.
蒋定生.黄土抗冲性的研究[C].陕西省土壤学会.1978年学术年会议论文集,1978,145-163.
蒋定生.黄土区不同利用类型土壤抗冲刷能力的研究[J].土壤通报,1979,10(4)：20-23.
雷俊山,杨勤科,郑粉莉.黄土破面细沟侵蚀试验研究及土壤抗冲性评价[J].水土保持通报,2004,24(2):1-4.
雷俊山,杨勤科.坡面薄层水流侵蚀试验研究及土壤抗冲性评价[J].泥沙研究,2004,6:22—26.
李勇.黄土高原土壤侵蚀环境调控的核心与途径[J].水土保持研究.1995,2(4)：69-74.
李勇,吴钦孝,朱显谟,等.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究-油松人工林根系对土壤抗冲性的增强效应[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):1-5,10.
李勇,朱显谟,田积莹,等.黄土高原土壤抗冲性机理初步研究[J].科学通报,1990,5：39.-393.
李勇.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性机理初步研究[J].中国科学(B辑),1992,3:254-259.
李云涛,唐峰.土壤类型与抗冲性关系特性分析[J].国外建材科技,2006,27(4)：117—119,133.
林秋月.花岗岩区土壤抗蚀性评价因子体系研究[D].福州：福建农林大学,2006.
刘宝元,张科利,焦菊英,等.土壤可蚀性及其在侵蚀预报中的应用[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4)：345—350.
刘秉正,王佑民,陈东立.刺槐林地土壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].西北林学院学报,1984,5(2)：15-18.
刘国彬,蒋定生,朱显漠.黄土区草地根系生物力学特性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(3)：21-28.
刘国彬.黄土高原土壤抗冲性研究及有关问题[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(5):91-101.
刘国彬.黄土高原草地土壤抗冲性及其机理研究[D].杨凌：中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所,1998.
刘洪升,宋秋华,李凤民.根分泌物对根际矿物营养及根际微生物的效应[J].西北植物学报,2002,22(3)：693-702.
刘建立,徐绍辉,刘慧.参数模型在壤土类土壤颗粒大小分布中的应用[J].土壤学报,2004,41(3)：375—380.
刘世德.罗玉沟流域坡面土壤侵蚀与土壤理化性质[J].水土保持学报,1980,7(3)：3—8.
卢金伟.土壤团聚体水稳定性及其与土壤可蚀性之间关系研究[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2002.
卢喜平,史东梅,蒋光毅,等.两种果草模式根系提高土壤抗蚀性的研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(5)：64—67,124.
吕春娟,白中科,陈卫国,等.黄土区大型排土场植被根系的抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2)：35-38,143.
吕喜玺,沈荣明.土壤可蚀性因子K值的初步研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(1):63-69.
罗利芳,张科利,李双才.撂荒后黄土高原坡耕地土壤透水性和抗冲性的变化[J].地理科学,2003,23(6)：728-732.
骆东奇,侯春霞,魏朝富,等.不同母质发育紫色土团粒结构的分形特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(1)：130—133.
门明新,赵同科,彭止萍,等.基于土壤粒径分布模型的河北省土壤可蚀性研究[J].中国农业科学,2004,37(11)：1647—1653.
牛德奎,郭晓敏.土壤可蚀性研究现状及趋势分析[J].江西农业大学学报,2004,26(6)：936—940.
彭新华,张斌,赵其国.红壤侵蚀裸地植被恢复及土壤有机碳对团聚体稳定性的影响[J].生态学报,2003,23(10)：2176—2183.
邱仁辉,杨玉胜,俞新妥.不同栽植代数杉木林土壤结构特性研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1998,20(4)：6-11.
阮伏水.福建花岗岩地区坡度和坡长对土壤侵蚀的影响[J].福建师范大学学报(自然科学版),1995,11(1)：100—106.
沈慧,姜凤岐,杜晓军,等.水土保持林土壤肥力及其评价指标[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2)：60-65.
沈慧,姜凤岐,杜晓军,等.水土保持林土壤抗蚀性能评价研究[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(3)：345-348.
石晨,郭成久,卢明春.人工降雨条件下东北典型黑土侵蚀因子K值研究[J].现代农业科学,2009,16(2)：27—29.
石生新,赵崇伟.土壤抗冲性的研究[J].山西水利科技,1998,3：90-93.
史长婷,王恩姮,陈祥伟.典型黑土区水土保持林对土壤可蚀性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(3)：25—28.
史学正,于东升,吕喜玺.用人工模拟降雨仪研究我国亚热带土壤的可蚀性[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(3)：38-42.
史学正,于东升,邢廷炎.用田间实测法研究我国亚热带土壤的可蚀性K值[J].土壤学报,1997,34(4)：399—405.
宋阳,刘连友,严平,等.土壤可蚀性研究述评[J].干旱区地理,2006,29(1):124—131.
邰通桥,杭朝平,杨胜俊.果园套种绿肥对果园土壤改良的效果[J].贵州农业科学,1999,27(1):35-37.
唐克丽.黄土高原地区土壤侵蚀区域特征及其防止途径[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1990,24-27.
田积莹,黄义端.子午岭连家砭地区土壤物理性质与土壤抗侵蚀性能指标的初步研究[J].土壤学报,1964,12(3)：286—296.
田育新,吴建平.林地土壤抗冲性研究[J].湖南林业科技,2002,29(3)：21-23.
王峰,石辉,周立江,等.土壤抗冲性研究进展[J].山地农业生物学报,2010,29(6)：528-537.
王库.植物根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力的影响[J].土壤与环境,2001,10(3):250—252.
王景燕,胡庭兴,龚伟,等.川南地区不同退耕地对土壤抗蚀性的影响[J].2010,12：30-32.
王一峰,张平仓,朱兵兵,等.长江中上游地区土壤抗冲性研究[J].长江科学院院报,2007,24(1)：12—15.
王佑民,郭培才,高维森.黄土高原土壤抗蚀性研究[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(4)：11—14.
王云琦,王玉杰,朱金兆.重庆缙云山典型林分林地土壤抗蚀性分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(6)：775—780.
王忠林,李会科,贺秀贤.渭北汉源花椒地埂林土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2000,7(1)：1-5.
魏天兴,朱金兆.黄土残塬沟壑区坡度和坡长对土壤侵蚀的影响分析[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(1)：59—62.
文卓立,周飞.缙云山典型植物群落次生演替中土壤抗冲性研究[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(2)：13-16.
吴昌广,曾毅,周志翔,等.三峡库区土壤可蚀性K值研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(3):8—12.
吴淑安,蔡强国,靳长兴.内蒙古东胜地区土壤抗蚀性实验研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,1996,10(2)：38-45.
夏青,何丙辉.土壤物理特性对水力侵蚀的影响[J].水土保持应用技术,2006,5：12-15
徐多润,吕甚悟,杜昌玉.紫色土山丘地区不同土地利用类型的水土流失及治理[J].土壤农化通报,1995,10(3)：26-30.20.
薛萐,李占斌,李鹏,等.不同植被恢复模式对黄土丘陵区土壤抗蚀性的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(1)：69：72.
薛萐,刘国彬,张超,等.黄土丘陵区人工灌木林土壤抗蚀性演变特征[J].中国农业科学,2010,43(15)：3143—3150.
严代碧.岷江上游干旱河谷区退化植被特征及其恢复重建的研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2006.
闫峰陵,史志华,蔡崇法,等.红壤表土团聚体稳定性对坡面侵蚀的影响[J].土壤学报,2007,44(4)：577—583.
严积有,徐凯然,申新山.放牧干扰对人工林土壤物理性状的影响[J].水土保持通报,2008,28(6)：138—141.
杨安学.麻江县主要土壤类型的物理性质与土壤抗蚀性的关系的初步研究[J].贵州林业科技,2004,32(2)：25—29.
杨建国,安韶山,郑粉莉.宁南山区植被自然恢复中土壤团聚体特征及其与土壤性质关系[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(1)：72-75,98.
杨文元,张奇,张建华,等.紫色丘陵区土壤抗冲性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(2)：22-28.
杨玉梅,郑子成,李廷轩.不同土地利用方式下土壤抗冲性动态变化特征及其影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(4)：64—68.
杨玉盛,何宗明,林光耀.不同治理模式对严重退化红壤抗蚀性影响的研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学 报,1996,2(2)：32—37.
杨玉盛.不同利用方式下紫色土可蚀性的研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(3)：52—58.
叶延琼,陈国阶,樊宏.岷江上游脆弱生态环境刍论[J].长江流域资源与环境,2002,11(4)：383—387.
尹先平,周运超,罗明,等.赣江源区主要土壤抗蚀性能对比[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(2):8—14.
余清珠,师明洲.半干旱黄土丘陵沟壑区人工混交林土壤抗蚀性研究初报[J].水土保持通报,1990,10(5)：5—9.
余树全,苏增建.沱江上游深丘地区不同立地土壤抗蚀性、渗透性及其影响因素[J].防护林科技,2003,1(54):1-4.
曾光,杨勤科,姚志宏.黄土丘陵沟壑区不同土地利用类型土壤抗侵蚀性研究[J].水土保持通报,2008,28(1)：6—9,38.
张保华,何毓蓉.长江上游几种林地表层土壤侵蚀率及与相关土壤性质关系[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(4)：220-225.
张保华,刘子亭,周长辉.川中紫色丘陵区人工林表层土壤侵蚀率与土壤结构性关系[J].林业资源管理,2005.5：51-65
张超,刘国彬,薛萐,等.黄土丘陵区不同林龄人工刺槐林土壤抗蚀性演变特征[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(2):1-7.
张光辉,刘宝元,张科利.坡面径流粉粒土壤的水动力学试验研究[J].土壤学报,2002,39(6)：828-886.
张光辉,刘国彬.黄土丘陵区小流域土壤表面特性变化规律研究[J].地理科学,2001,21(2)：118-121.张洪江.土壤侵蚀原理[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2008,69—70.
张建辉,刘刚才,倪师军,等.紫色土不同土地利用条件下十壤抗冲性研究[J].中国科学E辑技术科学,2003,33(增刊)：61-68.
张建军,张宝颖,毕华兴,等.黄土区不同植被条件下的土壤抗冲性[J].北京林业大学学报,2004,26(6)：25-29.
张金池,陈三雄,刘道平,等.浙江安吉主要植被类型土壤抗蚀性指标筛选及评价模型构建[J].亚热带水土保持,2006,18(2):1-5.
张金池,臧廷亮,曾峰.岩质海岸防护林树木根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应[J].南京林业大学学报,2001,25(1)：9—12.
张科利,蔡永明,刘宝元,等.黄土高原地区土壤可蚀性及其应用研究.生态学报,2001,21(10)：1689—1697.
张科利,蔡永明,刘宝元,等.土壤可蚀性动态变化规律研究[J].地理学报,2001,56(6)：673—681.
张科利,彭文英,杨红丽.中国土壤可蚀性值及其估算[J].土壤学报,2007,44(1):7—13.
张琪,方海兰,史志华,等.侵蚀条件下土壤性质对团聚体稳定性影响的研究进展[J].林业科学,2007,43(增刊1)：77-82.
张黎明.我国南方不同类型土壤可蚀性K值及相关因子研究[D].滁州：华南热带农业大学,2005.
张文太,于东升,史学正,等.中国亚热带土壤可蚀性K值预测的不确定性研究[J].土壤学报,2009,46(2)：185—191.
张向炎,于东升,史学正,等.中国亚热带地区十壤可蚀性的季节性变化研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(1)：41-44.
张笑培,杨改河,王和洲,等.植被恢复土壤抗蚀性响应及其评价研究[J].农业现代化研究,2010,31(3)：352—355.
张一平,张昭辉,何云玲.岷江上游气候立体分布特征[J].山地学报,2004,22(2)：179—183.
张蕴薇,韩建国,李志强.放牧强度对土壤物理性质的影响[J].草地学报,2001,10(1)：74—78.
张振国,黄建成,焦菊英,等.安塞黄土丘陵沟壑区退耕地植物群落土壤抗蚀性分析[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(1)：28—31.
张振明,余新晓,吴海龙,等.北京八达岭林场油松林地土壤抗冲性研究[J].林业资源管理,2009,6(6)：80—83.
章明奎,韩常灿.浙江省丘陵土壤的抗蚀性[J].浙江农业学报,2000,12(1)：25—30.
赵晓光,石辉.水蚀作用下土壤抗蚀能力的表征[J].干旱区地理,2003,26(1)：12-16.
赵洋毅,周运超,段旭.黔中喀斯特地区不同岩性土壤的抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(29)：9311—9313,9317.
赵洋毅.黔中植被和岩性对土壤抗蚀抗冲性的影响[D].贵阳：贵州大学,2008.
郑海金,杨洁,喻荣岗,等.红壤坡地土壤可蚀性K值研究[J].土壤通报,2010,41(2):425-428.
郑师章,吴辉,何敏.凤眼莲根部分泌物中还原糖分析及其化学信息作用的研究.生态学研究进展[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991,70-72.
郑子成,李廷轩,张锡洲,等.不同土地利用方式下土壤团聚体的组成及稳定性研究[J].水土保持学报,2009,23(5)：228—236
中科院《中国自然地理》编辑委员会.中国自然地理总论[M].北京：科学出版社,1985,257-339.
周刚,赵辉,陈国玉,等.花岗岩红壤区不同地类土壤抗蚀性分异规律研究[J].中国水土保持,2008,9:27—29,45.
周利军,奇实,王云琦.三峡库区典型林分林地土壤抗蚀抗冲性研究[J].水土保持保究,2006,13(1)：186 —188.
周佩华,武春龙.黄土高原抗冲性的试验研究方法探讨[J].水土保持学报,1993,7(1)：29—34.
周佩华,郑世清,吴普特,等.黄十高原十壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].水土保持研究,1997,4(5)：47-58.
周维,张建辉,李勇,等.金沙江干暖河谷不同土地利用条件下土壤抗冲性研究[J].水土保持通报,2006,26(5)：26—30,42.
朱冰冰,李占斌,李鹏,等.土地退化/恢复中土壤可蚀性动态变化[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(2)：56—61.
朱明勇,谭淑端,顾胜.湖北丹江口水库库区小流域土壤可蚀性特征[J].土壤通报,2010,41(2)：434—436.
朱显谟.黄土地区植被因素对水土流失的影响[J].土壤学报,1960,8(2)：110-121.
朱显谟.黄土高原水蚀的主要类型及其有关因素(三)[J].水土保持通报,1982(1)：25—30.
朱显谟.黄土区土壤侵蚀的分类[J].土壤学报,1956,4(2)：99—115.
朱显漠.泾河流域土壤侵蚀现象及其演变[J].土壤学报,1954,2(4)：209—222.
朱祖祥.中国农业百科全书-土壤卷[M].北京：农业出版社,1996.
庄家尧,张金池,林杰,等.安徽省大别山区上舍小流域植被根系与土壤抗冲性研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(6)：15—20.
Bernard B, Eric R. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptibility to runoffand erosion:validation atseveral levels[J].Catena,2002,47:133-149.
Bennett HH. Some comparisons of the properties of humid-tropicaland humid-temperate American soils, with special reference to indi-cated relations between chemical composition and physical properties[J].Soil Sci., 1926,21:349-375.
Bouyoucos G J. The clay ratio as a criterion of susceptibility of soils to erosion[J]. Journal of American Society of Agronomy,1935,27:738-741.
Chepil W S.Measurement of wind erosiveness of soils by dry sieving procedure[J].Sci Agr,1942,23:154-160.
Cotler H.Ortega-Larrocea M.P.Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem,Chamela watershed, Mexico[J]. Catena,2006,65:107-117.
Ellison W D. Soil erosion studies-Part I [J].Agricultural Engineering,1947,28:145-146.
Kukal S.S.,Manmeet Kaur, Bawa, S.S.,et al.Water-drop stability of PVA-treated natural soil aggregates from different land uses[J] Catena,2007,70:475-479.
Lundekvam H E. Plot studies and modelling of hydrology and erosion in southeast Norway[J].Catena,2007, 71:200-209.
MA Q,YU W T,ZHAO S H, et al. Relationship between water-stable aggregates and nutrients in Black Soils after reclamation[J].Pedosphere,2007,17(4):538-544.
Middleton H E.Properties of soils which influence soil erosion[J].USDA.Technical Bulletin,1930,178:6-11.
Morgan R P C.Soil Erosion and Conservation, Longman Group UK Limited,1986.
P.Sarah.Soil organic matter and land degradation in semi-arid area, Israel[J].Catena,2006,67:50-55.
Peterson P.J. Unusual accumulations of elements by plants and animals[J]. Science Progress,1971,59:505-526.
Rhoton F E,Emmerich W E,Goodrich D.C,et al. An Aggregation/Erodibility Index for Soils in a Semiarid Watershed Southeastern Arizona[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2007,71(3):984-992.
Rhoton F.E.,Emmerich W.E.,Goodrich D.C.,et al., An Aggregation/Erodibility Index for Soils in a Semiarid Watershed,Southeastern Arizona[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,2007,71(3):984-992.
Rorke B. Bryan. Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope[J]. Geomorphology, 2000,32:385-415.
Sharply A N, Williams J R. EPIC erosion/productivity impact calculator.1 model documentation[M].USDA,TB-1768,1990,25-33.
Skaggs T.H, Arya L.M, Shouse P.J, et al. Estimating particle-size distribution from limited soil texture data. Soil Science Society of America Journal,2001,65:1038-1044.
Snakin V V, Krechetov P P, Kuzovnikova T A,et al.The system of assessment of soil degradation[J].Soil Technology,1996,8:331-343
Tamlin C. Olson and Wischmeier W H., Soil erodibility.evaluations for soils on the runoff and erosion stations,Soil Science Society of American Proceedings,1963,27(5):590-592.
Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses:a guide to conservation planning[M].Agriculture Handbook 537. Washington, D C:USDA,1978:1-58.
Wischmeier, W. H. et al. A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. of Soil&Water Cons.26:189-192.1971.
Zhang F, Zheng F L, An S S, Li Y Z. The impacts of accelerated erosion on soil nutrient loss and microbial quantity following deforestation in the Ziwuling area. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science,2006, 12(6):826-833.
Zheng F L, Zhang C. Impact of accelerated erosion on dynamics of soil humic acids. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999,19(2):194-199.