黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.09.001

自然资源学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (9): 1001-1012.doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.09.001

• 资源评价 • 下一篇

黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价

李强^1,2, 许明祥^1,2, 赵允格^1,2, 高丽倩^1,2, 张金^1,2, 张晓伟^1,2

1. 西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所, 陕西杨凌 712100;
2. 中国科学院、水利部水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100

收稿日期:2011-05-12 修回日期:2011-11-13 出版日期:2012-06-20 发布日期:2012-06-20
通讯作者: 许明祥 E-mail:xumx@nwsuaf.edu.cn
基金资助:
中科院战略性先导科技专项子课题(XDA05050504);国家自然科学基金(40971174,41171422);中科院"西部之光"人才培养计划项目。

Gully Erosion Soil Quality Assessment on the Cultivated Slope Land in the Loess Plateau Region, China

LI Qiang^1,2, XU Ming-xiang^1,2, ZHAO Yun-ge^1,2, GAO Li-qian^1,2, ZHANG Jin^1,2, ZHANG Xiao-wei^1,2

1. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, CAS & MWR, Yangling 712100

Received:2011-05-12 Revised:2011-11-13 Online:2012-06-20 Published:2012-06-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀广泛而严重。科学评价沟蚀土壤质量是侵蚀环境下土壤保育和利用的重要基础。论文以沟间土壤为对照,分析了坡耕地沟蚀对土壤质量单因子的影响并建立了沟蚀土壤质量综合评价模型。利用加权和法对黄土高原坡耕地不同沟蚀深度下土壤质量进行综合评价。结果表明:①沟蚀对坡耕地不同土壤质量因子的影响有较大差异。沟蚀导致土壤硬化,pH值增加,而土壤团聚体和养分含量(除全磷)随着沟蚀深度增加表现出明显的层次性,近似呈"W"型变化规律。②沟蚀深度对土壤质量的影响可以用幂函数y=0.866 8 x^-0.142(R²=0.877)较好地拟合。微度侵蚀(<5 cm)、中度侵蚀(5~30 cm)和重度侵蚀(30~50 cm)的土壤质量指数较沟间土壤分别降低了10.6%、27.9%和36.5%。沟蚀深度5 cm和30 cm是土壤质量显著下降的两个关键点。③反映沟蚀土壤质量的指标可以归为肥力因子、质地因子和结构因子三类。土壤有机质、水稳性团聚体、土壤比表面积和容重4项指标能够很好地反映土壤质量状况,可作为坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量的表征指标。

关键词: 土壤质量评价, 土壤沟蚀, 坡耕地, 黄土高原

Abstract: Characterized by dry climate, concentrated rainfall and fragile soil, the Loess Plateau has experienced serious soil erosion for long time. Gully erosion of cultivated slope land is wide and serious,which has led to tremendous soil and nutrient losses as well as production reduction. However, the effect of gully erosion on soil degradation hasn’t been paid enough attention from the managers and agricultural scientists because soil degradation is a gradual process and might not ostensibly lead to a serious loss of agricultural production. It’s still not quite clear about the effect of gully erosion on soil attributes and soil quality on the Loess Plateau. In the present study, the soil in the inter-gully was chosen to be the control soil. Sixty-four profiles, with various erosion depths were selected and 16 soil physiochemical indicators were determined in gully and inter-gully soil. Subsequently, a comprehensive assessment model was established through analyzing the effect of gully erosion on soil quality factors. Using principal component analysis (PCA) and stepwise discriminant analysis, the soil quality evolution under different gully erosion depths was evaluated quantitatively with weighted integrated method of PCA. The result showed that the effect of gully erosion on soil quality indicators was different in the cultivated slope land. In detail, gully erosion would harden the surface soil and increase pH value, while the changes of soil water-stable aggregate and nutrient content showed an obvious hierarchy with increment of gully erosion depth. The change law presents a "W shaped" pattern. The relationship between gully erosion and soil quality index (SQI) could be preferably fitted by the power function curve of y=0.8668 x^-0.142(R²=0.877). Therefore, the SQI under the condition of low erosion intensity (<5 cm), moderate erosion intensity (5-30 cm) and high erosion intensity (30-50 cm) reduced 10.6%, 27.9% and 36.5%, respectively as compared with the control soil. It was noted that the SQI under moderate erosion intensity was 17.3% lower than that of low erosion intensity while about 8.6% higher than that of high erosion intensity. Thus, the erosion depths of 5 cm and 30 cm were the two critical points where the SQI reduced significantly. Besides, the soil quality indicators that could well responded to the gully erosion in the cultivated slope land could be classified into soil fertilizer indicator, texture indicator and structure indicator. Moreover, four soil quality indicators including soil organic matter, soil specific surface area, soil aggregate content and soil bulk density were identified as the most sensitive and simplified indicators for evaluating soil quality influenced by gully erosion in the cultivated slope land on the Loess Plateau.

Key words: soil quality assessment, gully erosion, cultivated slope land, Loess Plateau 

中图分类号:

S157

李强, 许明祥, 赵允格, 高丽倩, 张金, 张晓伟. 黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(9): 1001-1012.

LI Qiang, XU Ming-xiang, ZHAO Yun-ge, GAO Li-qian, ZHANG Jin, ZHANG Xiao-wei. Gully Erosion Soil Quality Assessment on the Cultivated Slope Land in the Loess Plateau Region, China[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2012, 27(9): 1001-1012.

参考文献

[1] Lal R. Productivity Assessment of Tropical Soils and the Effects of Erosion [M]. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1984:70-94.
[2] 闫业超, 张树文, 岳书平. 近40 a黑土典型区坡沟侵蚀动态变化[J]. 农业工程学报, 2010, 26(2): 109-115.
[3] 李薇, 刘孝盈, 徐炳丰, 等. 英国土壤侵蚀科学研究综述[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2010, 8(1): 113-118.
[4] 贺金红, 廖允成, 胡兵辉, 等. 黄土高原坡耕地退耕还林(草)的生态经济效应研究[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2006, 27(2): 110-114.
[5] Wang Z Q, Liu B Y, Wang X Y, et al. Erosion effect on the productivity of black soil in Northeast China [J]. Science in China Series D:Earth Sciences, 2009, 52(7): 1005-1021.
[6] 朱显谟. 黄土区土壤侵蚀的分类[J]. 土壤学报, 1956, 4(2): 99-115.
[7] Fenton T E, Kazemi M, Lauterbach-Barrett M A. Erosional impact on organic matter content and productivity of selected Iowa soils [J]. Soil & Tillage Research, 2005, 8(1): 163-171.
[8] 陈永宗. 黄河中游黄土丘陵区的沟谷类型[J]. 地理科学, 1984, 4(4): 321-327.
[9] lvaro Gómez Gutiérrez, Susanne Schnabel, Francisco Lavado Contador. Gully erosion, land use and topographical thresholds during the last 60 years in a small rangeland catchment in SW Spain [J]. Land Degradation and Development, 2009, 20(4): 535-550.
[10] 刘保元, 朱显谟, 周佩华, 等. 黄土高原坡面沟蚀的类型及其发生发展规律[J]. 中国科学院西北水土保持研究所集刊, 1988, 7:5-8.
[11] 秦元伟, 赵庚星, 董超, 等. 乡镇级耕地质量综合评价及其时空演变分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2010, 25(3): 454-464.
[12] 许明祥, 刘国彬, 赵允格. 黄土丘陵区侵蚀土壤质量评价研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005, 16(10): 1843-1848.
[13] Rodríguez-Blanco M L, Taboada-Castro M M. Sediment and phosphorus loss in runoff from an agro-forestry catchment, NW, Spain [J]. Land Degradation and Development, 2010, 21(4): 161-170.
[14] Guo T L, Wang Q J. Sediment and solute transport on soil slope under simultaneous influence of rainfall impact and scouring flow [J]. Hydrological Processes, 2010, 24(2): 1446-1454.
[15] 郑粉莉, 张锋, 王彬. 近100年植被破坏侵蚀环境下土壤质量退化过程的定量评价[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(22): 6044-6051.
[16] 肖培青, 郑粉莉, 汪晓勇, 等. 黄土坡面侵蚀方式演变与侵蚀产沙过程试验研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(1): 24-27.
[17] Li Q, Xu M X, Zhao Y G, et al. Soil physical degradation affected by gully erosion in cultivated slope land on the Loess Plateau . International Conference on Combating Land Degradation and Annual Councilor Meeting of WASWC, October 11-15, 2010, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, China, 2010: 515-520.
[18] Foster G R, Young R A, Neibling W H. Sediment composition for non-point source pollution analyses [J]. Transactions of ASAE, 1985, 28(2): 133-139.
[19] 邱莉萍, 张兴昌, 张晋爱. 黄土高原长期培肥土壤团聚体中养分和酶的分布[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(2): 364-372.
[20] 刘光崧. 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1996.
[21] 毛志刚, 谷孝鸿, 刘金娥, 等. 盐城海滨盐沼湿地及围垦农田的土壤质量演变[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(8): 1986-1992.
[22] 吕春花, 郑粉莉. 黄土高原子午岭地区植被恢复过程中的土壤质量评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2009, 7(3): 12-18.
[23] 刘占锋, 傅伯杰, 刘国华, 等. 土壤质量与土壤质量指标及其评价[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(3): 901-913.
[24] 陈奇伯, 王克勤, 李金洪. 元谋干热河谷坡耕地土壤侵蚀造成的土地退化[J]. 山地学报, 2004, 22(5): 528-532.
[25] 贾科利, 常庆瑞, 王占礼, 等. 陕北坡耕地土壤侵蚀对土壤性质的影响研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2006, 14(1): 96-99.
[26] 田均良. 黄土高原生态建设环境研究[M]. 北京: 气象出版社, 2010: 106-107.
[27] 桂东伟, 穆桂金, 雷加强, 等. 干旱区农田不同利用强度下土壤质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(4): 894-900.
[28] 何毓蓉, 周红艺, 张保华, 等. 金沙江干热河谷典型区土壤退化机理研究——土壤侵蚀对土壤退化的作用[J]. 水土保持学报, 2002, 16(3): 24-27.

黄土高原坡耕地沟蚀土壤质量评价

Gully Erosion Soil Quality Assessment on the Cultivated Slope Land in the Loess Plateau Region, China

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	杨静涵, 刘梦云, 张杰, 张萌萌, 曹润珊, 曹馨悦. 黄土高原沟壑区小流域土壤养分空间变异特征及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 743-754.
[2]	陈卓鑫, 王文龙, 郭明明, 王天超, 郭文召, 王文鑫, 康宏亮, 杨波, 赵满. 黄土高塬沟壑区植被恢复对不同地貌部位土壤可蚀性的影响[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(2): 387-398.
[3]	张文强, 孙从建, 李新功. 晋西南黄土高原区植被覆盖度变化及其生态效应评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(8): 1748-1758.
[4]	亢小语, 张志强, 陈立欣, 冷曼曼, 杨锋伟. 黄土高原中尺度流域基流变化驱动因素分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(3): 563-572.
[5]	梁鑫源, 李阳兵. 三峡库区“耕—果”转换时空变化特征及其启示——以草堂溪流域为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 385-399.
[6]	张钦弟, 卫伟, 陈利顶, 杨磊. 黄土高原草地土壤水分和物种多样性沿降水梯度的分布格局[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(8): 1351-1362.
[7]	任婧宇, 彭守璋, 曹扬, 霍晓英, 陈云明. 1901—2014年黄土高原区域气候变化时空分布特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(4): 621-633.
[8]	赵安周, 张安兵, 刘海新, 刘焱序, 王贺封, 王冬利. 退耕还林（草）工程实施前后黄土高原植被覆盖时空变化分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(3): 449-460.
[9]	邱甜甜, 刘国彬, 王国梁, 孙利鹏, 姚旭. 人工油松林不同生长阶段深层土壤有机碳和活性碳的差异及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(8): 1399-1409.
[10]	曾全超, 李鑫, 董扬红, 安韶山. 黄土高原延河流域不同植被类型下土壤生态化学计量学特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(11): 1881-1891.
[11]	郭正，李军，张玉娇，曹裕，张丽娜，范鹏. 黄土高原不同降水量区旱作苹果园地水分生产力和土壤干燥化效应模拟与比较[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(1): 135-150.
[12]	曾全超, 李鑫, 董扬红, 李娅芸, 程曼, 安韶山. 陕北黄土高原土壤性质及其生态化学计量的纬度变化特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(5): 870-879.
[13]	乔艳琴, 樊军, 高宇, 王胜, 易彩琼. 黄土高原水蚀风蚀交错区植被间土壤水分竞争[J]. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(5): 801-809.
[14]	孙文义, 邵全琴, 刘纪远. 黄土高原不同生态系统水土保持服务功能评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(3): 365-376.
[15]	郭慧敏, 张彦军, 刘庆芳, 姜继韶, 李俊超, 王蕊, 李娜娜, 李如剑, 郭胜利, 李春越. 黄土高原半干旱区土壤呼吸对土地利用变化的响应[J]. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(10): 1686-1695.