长江流域资源与环境 >> 2018, Vol. 27 >> Issue (11): 2609-2618.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201811022

• 农业发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

三峡库区消落带农用坡地磷素径流流失特征

刘莲1,2,刘红兵3 ,汪涛1* ,朱波1 ,姜世伟1   

  1. (1.中国科学院/水利部成都山地灾害与环境研究所,四川 成都 610041;2.中国科学院大学,北京100049;
    3.四川省农业厅土壤肥料与资源环境处,四川 成都 610041
  • 出版日期:2018-11-20 发布日期:2018-12-14

Phosphorus Loss from Sloping Cropland in Water Fluctuation Zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir

LIU Lian1,2, LIU Hongbing3, WANG Tao1, ZHU Bo1, JIANG Shiwei1   

  1. (1.Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Science, Chengdu 610041, China; 
    2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049,China; 3. Department of Soil Fertilizer, 
    Resources and Environment, Sichuan Provincial Department of Agriculture, Chengdu 610041,China
  • Online:2018-11-20 Published:2018-12-14

摘要: 消落带是三峡库区重要的生态交错带,但自发农用和无序开发可能会造成更多的氮磷流失,进而加剧三峡库区水体富营养化。通过对库区连续3 a的定位监测(2011~2013年),研究了三峡库区消落带农用坡地的磷素流失特征。结果表明:次降雨事件中常规施肥处理的地表径流、壤中流总磷平均浓度分别为0.848±0.153、0.140±0.006 mg/L,其中地表径流中磷的形态以颗粒态为主,壤中流以溶解态的生物可利用磷为主。常规施肥下,地表径流、壤中流磷素年均流失通量分别为0.236±0.004、0.100±0.003 kg·hm2,地表径流、壤中流磷素流失通量分别占总流失通量的70.2%、29.8%,地表径流是坡地磷素流失的主要途径,但壤中流也是不可忽视的重要途径。与常规施肥处理相比,减量施肥处理地表径流、壤中流磷素流失量分别降低了45.3%、40.0%。建议采取减量施肥的方式,以降低营养盐负荷,保护水环境。

关键词: 三峡库区, 消落带, 坡地, 磷素, 径流流失

Abstract: Water fluctuation zone is an important riparian zone in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Eutrophication could be exacerbated as the spontaneous and disorder reclamation of water fluctuation zone by local famers likely induce substantial soil phosphorus loss into receiving water bodies in the Three Gorges Reservoir. However, phosphorus loss characteristic via overland flow and interflow from sloping cropland in the water fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir is unclear. In this study, plot experiments were conducted to study the characteristics of phosphorus loss via overland flow and interflow from sloping cropland in the water fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir from 2011 to 2013. Results showed that the average concentration of total phosphorus in overland flow and interflow per runoff event were 0.848±0.153 mg/L and 0.140±0.006 mg/L in the conventional fertilization treatment, respectively. Particulate phosphorus was the main form in overland flow, while bioavailable phosphorus dominated in interflow. Annual phosphorus loss flux via overland flow for the conventional fertilization treatment was 0.236±0.004 kg/hm2, accounting for 70.2% of total hydrological phosphorus loss flux. By contrast, annual phosphorus loss flux via interflow for the conventional fertilization treatment was only 0.100±0.003 kg/hm2 that only accounted for 29.8% of total hydrological phosphorus loss flux. Our results indicated that overland flow was the main way of phosphorus loss from slope croplands in the water fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir. However, phosphorus loss via interflow could not be ignored because its dominant form was bioavailable phosphorus. Moreover, compared with conventional fertilization, the optimized fertilization treatment reduced phosphorus losses of overland flow and interflow by 45.3% and 40.0%, respectively, which could represent an important practice of controlling phosphorus losses from sloping cropland in the water fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir via reducing nitrogen fertilizer.


Key words: Three Gorges Reservoir, water fluctuation zone, sloping cropland, phosphorus, runoff loss

[1] 黄亚男, 纪道斌, 龙良红, 刘德富, 宋林旭, 苏青青. 三峡库区典型支流春季特征及其水华优势种差异分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(03): 461-470.
[2] 应弘, 李阳兵. 三峡库区腹地草堂溪小流域土地功能格局变化[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(02): 227-237.
[3] 祖波, 周领, 李国权, 刘波. 三峡库区重庆段某排污口下游污染物降解研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(01): 134-141.
[4] 刘均卫, 刘涛. 三峡库区支流常年库区航道通航尺度研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(11): 1711-1719.
[5] 刘金珍, 樊皓, 阮娅. 乌东德水库坝前段消落带生态类型划分及生态修复模式初探[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(11): 1767-1773.
[6] 王彬俨, 严冬春, 文安邦, 陈佳村. 三峡水库干流消落带沉积泥沙粒径特征及其物源意义[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(09): 1421-1429.
[7] 刘睿, 周李磊, 彭瑶, 嵇涛, 李军, 张虹, 戴技才. 三峡库区重庆段土壤保持服务时空分布格局研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(06): 932-942.
[8] 王晓荣, 程瑞梅, 肖文发, 潘磊, 曾立雄. 三峡库区消落带水淹初期主要优势草本植物生态位变化特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(03): 404-411.
[9] 杨杉, 吴胜军, 周文佐, 吕明权, 张德微, 黄平. 三峡库区典型土壤酸碱缓冲性能及其影响因素研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(01): 163-170.
[10] 王林, 陈正洪, 代娟, 汤阳. 气象因子与地理因子对长江三峡库区雾的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(10): 1799-1804.
[11] 徐建霞, 彭刚志, 王建柱. 三峡库区香溪河消落带植被多样性及分布格局研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(08): 1345-1350.
[12] 施鹏程, 彭道黎, 黄国胜, 王雪军, 曾伟生, 马炜, 叶林妹. 三峡库区乔木林生物量和碳储量的估算[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(06): 1052-1059.
[13] 吕明权, 吴胜军, 温兆飞, 陈吉龙, 姜毅, 甘捷. 基于SCS-CN与MUSLE模型的三峡库区小流域侵蚀产沙模拟[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(05): 860-867.
[14] 刘晓冉, 杨茜, 程炳岩, 张天宇. 三峡库区21世纪气候变化的情景预估分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(01): 42-.
[15] 王丽婧, 郑丙辉, 李子成. 三峡库区及上游流域面源污染特征与防治策略[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(8): 783-.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 王舒曼,谭 荣,吴丽梅. 农地资源舒适性价值评估——以江苏省为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(6): 720 -724 .
[2] 张 虹. 三峡重庆库区消落区基本特征与生态功能分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(3): 374 .
[3] 宋 敏,张安录.  湖北省农地资源正外部性价值量估算——基于对农地社会与生态之功能和价值分类的分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(4): 314 .
[4] 庄建琦, 崔鹏. 基于BP神经网络泥石流沟发育阶段的判定[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(9): 849 .
[5] 焦文献|陈兴鹏. 基于STIRPAT模型的甘肃省环境影响分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(01): 105 .
[6] 黄治勇 |牛 奔 |叶丽梅 |姚望玲 |王佑兵. 长江三峡库区极端大雾天气的气候变化特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(05): 646 .
[7] 房国良 |高 原 |徐连军|胡 龙 |张善发. 上海市降雨变化与灾害性降雨特征分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(10): 1270 .
[8] 郭恢财| 胡斌华| 李琴. 堑秋湖渔业模式对鄱阳湖南矶湿地越冬候鸟种群数量的影响和保育对策[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2014, 23(01): 46 .
[9] 张超亚, 张小林, 李红波. 快速交通对区域中心城市日常可达性影响——以长江三角洲地区为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(02): 194 .
[10] 张晨笛,王兆印,李志威,赵娜,李文哲. 水库渗漏水流溶解氧与水温沿程恢复的试验研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(02): 292 .