东北林草交错区土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及关键因子识别

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.08.009

自然资源学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (8): 1349-1361.doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.08.009

东北林草交错区土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及关键因子识别

乔治¹, 徐新良²

1. 北京师范大学环境学院, 北京 100875;
2. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所, 北京 100101

收稿日期:2011-08-16 修回日期:2012-01-09 出版日期:2012-08-20 发布日期:2012-08-20
通讯作者: 徐新良(1972- ) ,男,山东青岛人,副研究员,主要从事土地利用/土地覆被变化及陆地生态系统碳循环研究。E-mail: xuxl@lreis.ac.cn E-mail:xuxl@lreis.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家973计划(2010CB950901);国家科技支撑计划(2008BAK50B01);国家自然科学基金国际合作与交流项目(40921140410)。

Assessment of Soil Erosion Sensitivity and Key Factors Identification in the Wood-Grass Ecotone of Northeast China

QIAO Zhi¹, XU Xin-liang²

1. School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;
2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China

Received:2011-08-16 Revised:2012-01-09 Online:2012-08-20 Published:2012-08-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 土壤侵蚀是造成东北林草交错区生态脆弱的重要原因。论文应用GIS技术,综合降水、地形、土壤可蚀性、植被覆盖等因子,分析和评价了1990—2005年研究区土壤侵蚀敏感性时空变化过程,并通过叠加排序方法定量识别关键因子。结果表明:研究区以中度敏感为主,其次是轻度和高度敏感;中度敏感地区以大兴安岭山地为主,轻度敏感地区分布在东、西部平原地区,高度敏感地区主要分布在燕山山地和大兴安岭南部山地的林草交错区;从时间变化过程看,轻度、中度敏感地区面积增加,高度敏感地区面积减少,生态环境状况总体好转;地形起伏度和植被覆盖作为研究区土壤侵蚀关键因子,起主导作用。

关键词: 水土保持, 土壤侵蚀, 叠加排序法, 敏感性, 关键因子

Abstract: Soil erosion is one of the important reasons causing ecological fragility in the wood-grass ecotone of Northeast China. Using GIS technology, and integrating influence of rainfall, terrain, soil erodibility, and vegetation cover, the paper analyzes sensitivity of spatial-temporal variation of soil erosion in the wood-grass ecotone of the study area during the period of 1990-2005. The results show that the soil erosion sensitivity in the wood-grass ecotone is dominated by medium-sensitivity and then light and high sensitivity. In 2005, the area of medium-sensitivity was 370021.36 km², the areas of light-sensitivity and high-sensitivity were respectively 115544.38 km² and 38934.25 km², or being respectively 69.98%, 21.83%, and 7.36%. The medium-sensitivity regions are mainly distributed in the Great Hing’an Mountains, light-sensitivity regions mainly occur in the eastern and western plains, meanwhile the highly-sensitivity regions are mainly distributed in the wood-grass ecotone between Yanshan Mountain and the southern part of the Great Hing’an Mountains. In terms of time sequence, the area of light-sensitivity regions and medium-sensitivity regions increased but that of highly-sensitivity regions had a drop of 54.10%, indicating this eco-environmental situation is getting improvement. By overlapping and ordering method, the paper identifies the key factors and their spatial distribution. The area of land fluctuating degree is the most significant factor in light-sensitivity region accounting for 78.32%, and the vegetation cover is the most significant factor in medium-sensitivity region being 81.17%. It’s worthy noting that the area of rain erosivity is the most significant factor in highly-sensitivity region being 81.07%. So the former two are the key factors affecting soil erosion sensitivity, while the latter, as a trigger affecting soil erosion sensitivity.

Key words: water and soil conservation, soil erosion, overlapping and ordering method, sensitivity, key factors

中图分类号:

S157.1

乔治, 徐新良. 东北林草交错区土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及关键因子识别[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(8): 1349-1361.

QIAO Zhi, XU Xin-liang. Assessment of Soil Erosion Sensitivity and Key Factors Identification in the Wood-Grass Ecotone of Northeast China[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2012, 27(8): 1349-1361.

参考文献

[1] 孙希华, 张代民, 闫福江. 土壤侵蚀与水土保持生态安全——以青岛市为例[M]. 南京: 河海大学出版社, 2010.
[2] 李晓燕, 王宗明, 张树文, 等. 东北典型丘陵漫岗区沟谷侵蚀动态及空间分析[J]. 地理科学, 2007, 27(4): 531-536.
[3] 姚华荣, 崔保山. 澜沧江流域云南段土地利用及其变化对土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 环境科学学报, 2006, 26(8): 1362-1371.
[4] Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses . USDA Agricultural Handbook No 537, 1978.
[5] Renard K G, Foster G R, Weesies G A, et al. RUSLE—A guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation . USDA Agricultural Handbook No 703, 1997.
[6] Knisel W G. CREAMS: A field scale model for chemical, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems . USDA Conservation Research Report No 26, 1980.
[7] Williams J R, Neitsch S L, Arnold J G. Soil and water assessment tool—User’s manual . Texas: Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1999.
[8] Flangan D C, Nearing M A. USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope profile and watershed model documentation . USDA-ARS, NSERL, Report No 10, 1995.
[9] Morgan R P C, Quinton J N, Smith R E, et al. The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM): A dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments [J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1998, 23(6): 527-544.
[10] Liu B Y, Zhang K L, Xie Y. An empirical soil loss equation // Proceedings of 12th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Volume Ⅱ. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2002: 21-25.
[11] 王效科, 欧阳志云, 肖寒, 等. 中国水土流失敏感性分布规律及其区划研究[J]. 生态学报, 2001, 21(1): 14-19.
[12] 陈燕红, 潘文斌, 蔡芫镔. 基于RUSLE的流域土壤侵蚀敏感性评价——以福建省吉溪流域为例[J]. 山地学报, 2007, 25(4): 490-496.
[13] 王再岚, 李政海, 马中, 等. 鄂尔多斯东胜地区不同生态功能区的土壤侵蚀敏感性[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(1): 484-491.
[14] 周红艺, 李辉霞, 范建容, 等. 元谋干热河谷土壤侵蚀敏感性评价[J]. 中国水土保持, 2009(4): 39-41.
[15] 钟祥浩, 王小丹, 李辉霞, 等. 西藏土壤侵蚀敏感性分布规律及其区划研究[J]. 山地学报, 2003, 21(12): 143-147.
[16] 莫斌, 朱波, 王玉宽, 等. 重庆市土壤侵蚀敏感性评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2004, 24(5): 45-48.
[17] Meusburger K, Konz N. Soil erosion modelled with USLE and PESERA using QuickBird derived vegetation parameters in an alpine catchment [J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2010, 12(3): 208-215.
[18] 于书霞, 王宁, 朱颜明, 等. 基于地理信息系统的土壤侵蚀研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2001, 21(3): 20-23.
[19] 张淑荣, 陈利顶, 傅伯杰, 等. 农业区非点源污染潜在危险性评价——以于桥水库流域磷流失为例[J]. 第四纪研究, 2003, 23(3): 262-269.
[20] TANG Guo-an. A Research on the Accuracy of Digital Elevation Models [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2000.
[21] Amore E, Modica C, Nearing M A, et al. Scale effect in USLE and WEPP application for soil erosion computation from three Sicilian basins [J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2004, 293(1/4): 100-114.
[22] 王绍强, 周成虎. 中国陆地土壤有机碳库的估算[J]. 地理研究, 1999, 18(4): 349-356.
[23] 李国强, 陈利顶, 高启晨, 等. 黄土高原地区西气东输工程沿线水土流失敏感性评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2003, 17(6): 55-58.
[24] 李铖, 李俊祥, 朱飞鸽, 等. 基于RUSLE的环杭州湾地区土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及关键敏感因子识别 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2009, 20(7): 1577-1585.
[25] 朱旭东, 何洪林, 刘敏, 等. 近50 年中国光合有效辐射的时空变化特征[J]. 地理学报, 2010, 65(3): 270-280.
[26] 刘纪远, 刘明亮. 中国近期土地利用变化的空间格局分析[J]. 中国科学D辑, 2002, 32(12): 1031-1040.

东北林草交错区土壤侵蚀敏感性评价及关键因子识别

Assessment of Soil Erosion Sensitivity and Key Factors Identification in the Wood-Grass Ecotone of Northeast 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]	汪言在, 董一帆, 苏正安. 基于土地利用与植被恢复情景的土壤侵蚀演变特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(6): 1369-1380.
[2]	徐玲玲, 延昊, 钱拴. 基于MODIS-NDVI的2000—2018年中国北方土地沙化敏感性时空变化[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(4): 925-936.
[3]	王盛, 姚檀栋, 蒲健辰. 祁连山七一冰川物质平衡的时空变化特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(2): 399-412.
[4]	孙从建, 侯慧新, 陈伟, 杨伟, 郑振婧. 典型黄土塬区不同植物措施水土保持效应分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(7): 1405-1416.
[5]	陆荣杰, 王莺, 吴家森, 姜培坤. 不同经营方式毛竹林氮流失年动态规律[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(6): 1296-1305.
[6]	陈万旭, 李江风, 朱丽君. 长江中游地区生态系统服务价值空间分异及敏感性分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 325-337.
[7]	陈洁, 刘玉洁, 潘韬, 吴绍洪, 谭清华, 葛全胜, 刘燕华. 1961-2010年中国降水时空变化特征及对地表干湿状况影响[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(11): 2440-2453.
[8]	刘婷, 邵景安. 基于BP神经网络的三峡库区土壤侵蚀强度模拟[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(4): 669-683.
[9]	曹瑞芬, 张安录. 土地发展非均衡度测算及其敏感性分析——基于农地非农发展受限视角[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(5): 715-726.
[10]	钟科元, 郑粉莉. 1960—2014年松花江流域降雨侵蚀力时空变化研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(2): 278-291.
[11]	陈超, 庞艳梅, 张玉芳, 陈东东. 四川冬小麦产量对气候变化的敏感性和脆弱性研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(1): 127-136.
[12]	周夏飞, 朱文泉, 马国霞, 张东海, 郑周涛. 江西省赣州市稀土矿开采导致的水土保持价值损失评估[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(6): 982-993.
[13]	李婷, 刘康, 马力阳, 包玉斌, 吴磊. 秦岭山地丹江流域土地利用变化的土壤侵蚀效应评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(4): 583-595.
[14]	陈超, 庞艳梅, 张玉芳, 马振峰. 四川单季稻产量对气候变化的敏感性和脆弱性研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(2): 331-342.
[15]	许炯心. 黄河中游径流可再生性对于人类活动和气候变化的响应[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(3): 423-432.