为了解祁连山东段天祝高寒地区不同土地利用方式对土壤持水能力和渗透性的影响,研究选取天然草地、退耕自然恢复地、燕麦地和多年生草地4种土地利用方式,研究了不同土地利用方式对土壤持水能力和渗透性的影响。结果表明,不同土地利用方式对土壤持水能力和渗透性影响显著。土壤容重大小依次为退耕自然恢复地(1.104 g/cm3)>多年生草地(1.061 g/cm3)>燕麦地(1.011 g/cm3)>天然草地(0.781 g/cm3);总孔隙度为天然草地(68.196%)>燕麦地(60.606%)>多年生草地(58.93%)>退耕自然恢复地(57.5%);土壤最大持水量和土壤稳渗速率天然草地最大(681.966 t/hm2和3.02 mm/min),退耕自然恢复地最小(575.005 t/hm2和1.004 mm/min)。从土壤持水性能和入渗性能来看,4种土地利用方式中天然草地最好,退耕自然恢复地最差,燕麦地和多年生草地土壤持水能力和渗透性能优于退耕自然恢复地。
The effect of land use patterns on the soil moisture retention capacity and soil infiltration property in Tianzhu, the alpine area in the eastern Qilian Mountains, was studied. The four land use patterns were selected in the experimental area, including natural grassland, naturally restored abandoned cropland, oats and sowed perennial grassland. The results showed that there existed significant differences in soil moisture retention capacity and soil infiltration property among the four types of land use patterns. The soil bulk density from high to low was returned farmland to naturally restorated grassland (1.104 g/cm3)>sowed perennial grassland (1.061 g/cm3)>oats (1.011 g/cm3)>natural grassland (0.781 g/cm3); the soil total porosity from high to low was natural grassland(68.196%)>oats (60.606%)>sowed perennial grassland (58.93%)>returned farmland to naturally restorated grassland (57.5%); total water holding capacity and infiltration rates of the soil of natural grassland was the largest(681.966 t/hm2, 3.02 mm/min), while the total water holding capacity and infiltration rates of returned farmland to naturally restorated grassland was the lowest (575.005 t/hm2, 1.004 mm/min). In general, the soil of the natural grassland has the best hydrological function in soil water retention capacity and infiltration property. These characteristics are better in the oats and sowed perennial grassland, while the performance of the returned farmland to naturally restorated grassland is the worst in four aspects.
[1] Turner B L, Meyer W B, Skole D L. Global land-use land-cover change—Towards an integrated study [J]. AMBIO, 1994, 23(1): 91-95.
[2] 邱莉萍, 张兴昌. 子午岭不同土地利用方式对土壤性质的影响[J]. 自然资源学报, 2006, 21(6): 966-972.
[3] 马群, 赵庚星. 集约农区不同土地利用方式对土壤养分状况的影响[J]. 自然资源学报, 2010, 25(11): 1834-1844.
[4] Claudio Z, Annalisa C, Franco P. Soil degradation by land use change in an agropastoral area in Sardinia (Italy) [J]. Catena, 2010, 83(1): 46-54.
[5] 刘春利, 邵明安. 黄土高原六道沟流域不同土地利用方式下土壤水力特性及其对土壤水分的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(11): 2400-2407.
[6] 赵洋毅, 王玉杰, 王云琦, 等. 渝北水源区水源涵养林构建模式对土壤渗透性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(15): 4162-4172.
[7] 刘广路, 范少辉, 漆良华, 等. 不同类型毛竹林土壤渗透性研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(6): 44-47, 56.
[8] 王云琦, 王玉杰. 缙云山典型林分森林土壤持水与入渗特性[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2006, 28(3): 102-108.
[9] 段文标, 颜永强, 赵雨森. 莲花湖库区落叶松水源涵养林土壤入渗性能的空间分布特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2010, 25(12): 2081-2090.
[10] 中国科学院南京土壤研究所土壤物理研究室. 土壤物理性质测定[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1978: 147-148.
[11] 孙艳红, 张洪江, 程金花, 等. 缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2006, 20(2): 106-109.
[12] 巍强, 张秋良, 代海燕, 等. 大青山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(2): 111-114.
[13] 徐宁, 吴兆录, 李正玲. 滇西北亚高山不同土地利用类型土壤容重与根系生物量的比较研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008, 36(5): 1961-1963.
[14] 杨成德, 龙瑞军, 陈秀蓉, 等. 东祁连山不同高寒草地类型土壤表层碳、氮、磷密度特征[J]. 中国草地学报, 2008, 30(1): 1-4. [YANG Cheng-de, LONG Rui-jun, CHEN Xiu-rong, et al. Characteristics of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus density in top soil under different alpine grasslands on the Eastern Qilian Mountains. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008, 30(1): 1-4.]
[15] 魏兴琥, 谢忠奎, 段争虎. 黄土高原西部弃耕地植被恢复与土壤水分调控研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2006, 26(4): 590-595.
[16] 韩永伟, 韩建国, 张蕴薇. 农牧交错带退耕还草对土壤物理性状的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2002, 10(2): 100-105.
[17] 赵小社, 毕玉芬, 孙涛, 等. 金沙江流域退耕还草对土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2007, 22(5): 726-735.
[18] 柴亚凡, 王恩姮, 陈祥伟, 等. 植被恢复模式对黑土贮水性能及水分入渗特征的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2008, 22(1): 60-64.
[19] 李红, 范素芳, 张光灿, 等. 黄土丘陵区退耕还林后不同林地土壤孔隙与贮水特性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2010, 30(1): 27-30.
[20] 李卓, 吴普特, 冯浩, 等. 容重对土壤水分蓄持能力影响模拟试验研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2010, 47(7): 611-620.
[21] 李卓, 吴普特, 冯浩, 等. 容重对土壤水分入渗能力影响模拟试验[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009, 25(6): 40-45.
[22] 潘云, 吕殿青. 土壤容重对土壤水分入渗特性影响研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2009, 28(2): 59-67, 77.
[23] 张昌顺, 范少辉, 官凤英, 等. 闽北毛竹林的土壤渗透性及其影响因子[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 45(1): 36-42.
