长江流域资源与环境 >> 2014, Vol. 23 >> Issue (08): 1153-.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201408016

• 生态环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

洞庭湖湿地土壤持水能力及其影响因素研究

谢亚军,谢永宏,陈心胜,李峰,邓正苗,侯志勇,李旭   

  1. (1. 中国科学院亚热带农业生态研究所,亚热带农业生态过程重点实验室,洞庭湖湿地生态观测研究站,湖南 长沙 410125;2. 中国科学院大学,北京 100049
  • 出版日期:2014-08-20

STUDY ON SOIL WATER HOLDING CAPACITY AND ITS IMPACT FACTORS IN THE DONGTING LAKE WETLANDS

XIE Yajun1, 2,XIE Yonghong1,CHEN Xinsheng1,LI Feng1,DENG Zhengmiao1,2,HOU Zhiyong1,LI Xu1   

  1. (1. Dongting Lake Station for Wetland Ecosystem Observation and Research, Key Laboratory of Agroecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha 410125, China;2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • Online:2014-08-20

摘要:

土壤持水能力是反映土壤调节水文和供给植物耗水的重要指标,受土壤有机质、容重、机械组成和植物地下生物量的直接或间接影响。与森林和农田生态系统相比,湿地土壤持水能力关注较少。于2010年12月,对洞庭湖湿地3种主要植被(苔草、芦苇和杨树)土壤持水能力、土壤理化性质和地下生物量进行了调查,并采用主成分分析对影响土壤持水能力的主要环境因子进行了分析。结果表明:除非毛管孔隙度外,3种植被上层土壤的总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度、田间持水量和含水量差异显著,均为苔草>芦苇=杨树,而中、下层无显著差异。沙粒为苔草≥杨树≥芦苇,而粗粉粒、细粉粒和粘粒均为杨树≥芦苇≥苔草;容重为杨树≥芦苇>苔草,有机质为苔草=芦苇>杨树。各级别生物量在植被类型大小顺序不一:总地下生物量、0~1 mm和>5 mm径级地下生物量均以芦苇最大,而1~5 mm径级地下生物量则以苔草最大。主成分分析表明,上层土壤,容重、有机质和1~5 mm径级地下生物量是影响其持水能力的主要因素,而中层土壤和下层土壤,环境因子对土壤持水能力的影响很小。此研究对于洞庭湖生物多样性保护和湿地管理政策的制定具有重要意义

Abstract:

Soil water holding capacity, which is usually affected by various factors, such as soil mechanical composition, soil bulk density, soil organic matter, as well as plant underground biomass, is an important index of soil capcity in hydrological regulation and water supply for plant growth. Studies on soil water holding capacity have mostly focused on cropland and forest ecosystem. Relevant studies on wetlands ecosystem are relatively less. In the present study, soil water holding capacity including soil total porosity, capillary porosity as well as field water holding capacity, and related environmental factors including soil mechanical composition, bulk density, organic matter as well as plant underground biomass, were investigated in three dominant vegetation types (Carex spp., Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Populus nigra) in Dongting Lake wetland in December, 2010. The results are as follows.(1) The soil total porosity, capillary porosity, and field water holding capacity of surface soil layer were significant different among three vegetation types, shown as Carex spp.>M. sacchariflorus=P. nigra, but had no significant differences among vegetation in middleor lowlayer soil. (2) In soil mechanical composition, for all the three vegetation types, percent of fine silt content were highest, followed by clay, while the coarse silt and sand were least. For all the percent of soil particles content, there were little significant differences among vegetation in surfacemiddleor lowlayer soil, but we failed to find even a consistent tendency for all these three vegetation types. Soil bulk density showed as P. nigra≥Carex spp.>M. sacchariflorus, while showed as Carex spp.=M. sacchariflorus>P. nigra in soil organic matter content. The total, 0-1 mm and >5 mm diameter class underground biomass were highest in M. sacchariflorus, to be contrast, the 1-5 mm diameter class underground biomass was highest in Carex spp, which were mainly because of plant root characteristic. For all sites, soil organic matter, soil bulk density, percent of sand and fine silt content, 0-1 mm, 1-5 mm diameter class and total biomass showed significant or very significant correlations with at least one of soil water holding ability, while coarse silt, clay and 1-5 mm diameter class underground biomass showed no significant correlations based on correlation analysis. Principal component analysis combined with the followed correlation analysis showed that among various environmental factors, the three main factors affecting surfacelayer soil water holding capacity in this wetland were bulk density, organic matter as well as 1-5 mm diameter class underground biomass, to be contrast, the effects of environmental factors on middle or lowerlayer soil were neglect. In the end, based on the succession trends and management status of Dongting Lake wetlands, some suggestions and methods of wetlands protection were put forward

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 李崇明,黄真理. 三峡水库入库污染负荷研究(Ⅱ)——蓄水后污染负荷预测[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(1): 97 -106 .
[2] 梅 艳, 刘友兆, 梁流涛. 基于相对承载力的区域可持续发展研究——以江苏省为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(3): 341 .
[3] 贾泽露,. GIS与SDM集成构建土地定级专家信息系统的研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(3): 323 .
[4] 李 娜,夏永久. 宁波城市基础设施现代化水平综合评价与预测[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(2): 136 -141 .
[5] 谢 洪,钟敦伦,李 泳,韦方强. 长江上游泥石流灾害的特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2004, 13(1): 94 -99 .
[6] 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 .
[7] 张文广,胡远满, 刘 淼,杨兆平,常 禹,李秀珍,杨 孟,问青春, . 基于土地利用变化的生态服务价值损益估算——以岷江上游地区为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(6): 821 .
[8] 曹 昀,王国祥. 水生高等植物对悬浮泥沙的去除研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2007, 16(3): 340 .
[9] 王琳, 朱天明, 杨桂山, 苏伟忠. 基于GIS空间分析的县域建设功〖JP2〗能空间分区研究——以江苏省昆山市为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(7): 125 .
[10] 王青, 李富程, 李国蓉, 慕长龙. 基于“压力状态响应”框架的长江上游防护林健康评价[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(8): 953 .