文章快速检索     高级检索
  中国水土保持科学   2017, Vol. 15 Issue (3): 1-8.  DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2017.03.001
0

引用本文 

顾亚兰, 梁音, 曹龙熹, 卢慧中, 张玉刚. 红黏土侵蚀劣地集水区30年植被恢复中的水沙特征[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2017, 15(3): 1-8. DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2017.03.001.
GU Yalan, LIANG Yin, CAO Longxi, LU Huizhong, ZHANG Yugang. Characteristics of runoff and sediment yield of catchment area under 30 years vegetation restoration in red clay erosion badland[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 15(3): 1-8. DOI: 10.16843/j.sswc.2017.03.001.

项目名称

国家科技支撑计划"大型崩岗的农业综合开发技术与示范"(2014BAD15B0302);国家自然科学基金"红壤丘陵区小流域路网的水沙效应作用机理与模拟"(41571273);江苏省自然科学基金"基于GIS的流域坡长因子自动计算方法研究"(BK2015610)

第一作者简介

顾亚兰(1990-), 女, 硕士研究生。主要研究方向:土壤侵蚀与水土保持。E-mail:ylgu@issas.ac.cn

通信作者简介

梁音(1963-), 男, 博士, 研究员。主要研究方向:土壤侵蚀与水土保持。E-mail:yliang@issas.ac.cn

文章历史

收稿日期:2017-02-18
修回日期:2017-03-31
红黏土侵蚀劣地集水区30年植被恢复中的水沙特征
顾亚兰1,2, 梁音1, 曹龙熹1, 卢慧中1,2, 张玉刚3    
1. 土壤与农业可持续发展国家重点实验室, 中国科学院南京土壤研究所, 210008, 南京;
2. 中国科学院大学, 100049, 北京;
3. 太湖流域水土保持监测中心站, 200434, 上海
摘要:为探究红黏土侵蚀劣地植被恢复的水土保持效益,在自然降雨条件下,对红黏土区裸地对照及植被恢复的2个自然集水区进行长期降雨径流泥沙监测,得到30年的产流产沙数据。结果表明:1)植被恢复第6年裸地对照和恢复林地的产流差距显著,8年后恢复林地基本不再产沙。年内产流产沙集中在雨季4-6月,植被的减流和减沙效益分别超过40%和90%。在次降雨尺度上,植被能够显著降低径流泥沙曲线斜率,在降雨量相同的条件下减小地表产流产沙量。2)降雨过程产流产沙与降雨强度I60变化趋势一致,呈多峰型,总体上恢复区延缓产流1 h以上,产流峰值减小67%~83%,中雨条件下植被延缓径流和降低产流峰值的效益最好。3)恢复林地径流中全N、全P、全K流失量分别减少54.62%、57.53%、56.46%,次降雨过程中全N和全K流失质量浓度高于全P浓度,且随径流过程波动较大。植被恢复后的红黏土集水区产流产沙及养分流失显著减少,水土流失得到有效控制。
关键词红黏土区    植被恢复    水土流失    降雨过程    养分流失    
Characteristics of runoff and sediment yield of catchment area under 30 years vegetation restoration in red clay erosion badland
GU Yalan1,2, LIANG Yin1, CAO Longxi1, LU Huizhong1,2, ZHANG Yugang3    
1. State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 210008, Nanjing, China;
2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049, Beijing, China;
3. Taihu Basin Monitoring Central Station for Soil and Water Conservation, 200434, Shanghai, China
Abstract: [Background] The red soil region is one of the typical areas suffering serious soil erosion in southern China. The red clay badland is a kind of seriously eroded degradation and is still one of the main obstacle factors in enhancing regional soil quality and ecosystem function. Thus, suitable management is urgently needed, and systematic analysis and evaluation should be carried out. This paper is therefore conducted to evaluate the soil and water conservation benefit of the vegetation restoration measures in red clay badland. [Methods] Two field plots were built according to the natural drainage boundary 30 years ago. One is in the bare land as control and the other is vegetation restoration treatment. Runoff and sediment generation were monitored continuously under the natural rainfall condition. According to the long-term field plot monitoring data and rainfall event process information, the dynamic of runoff and sediment yield can be quantitatively described and the benefits of vegetation restoration can be evaluated. [Results] 1) The runoff yield showed significant differences between the bare land and vegetation treatment at the 6th year of restoration. Sediment yield was approximately zero in the vegetation recovered plot after 8 years. The dynamic characteristics of both runoff and sediment yield throughout a year followed the same trend as rainfall, concentrating from April to June. The efficiencies for vegetation restoration in reducing runoff and soil loss were more than 40% and 90% respectively. The vegetation significantly reduced the coefficients of regression curves, meaning that the runoff and sediment yield in the restored land tended to be less than that of the bare land with the same precipitation. 2) The dynamic of the runoff and sediment yield during a rainfall event process showed multi peak curves and consistent with the trend of the rainfall intensity (I60max). The time to runoff and sediment yield in the vegetation treatment generally 1 hour delayed compared with the bare land. Meanwhile, the peak runoff and sediment in the restored land were also delayed and decreased by 67%-83%. The benefit of vegetation on reducing peak value of the runoff under moderate rain was better than that under rainstorm or heavy rain. 3) Comparing with the bare land, the loss of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and total potassium (TK) in the restored land were reduced by 54.62%, 57.53%, and 56.46% respectively. During a rainfall and runoff process, the total losses of TP were obviously lower than the TN and TK. The concentration of TN and TK in rainfall process fluctuated and was higher than TP which was relatively stable. [Conclusions] The rapid restoration of vegetation can effectively control the surface runoff and sediment yield, delay runoff generation process and reduce peak flow. Meanwhile, recovery measures can significantly reduce nutrient loss in runoff and sediment. Therefore the vegetation restoration can be applied in local ecology recover and soil management. This study can provide a scientific basis for the assessment of the water and soil conservation benefit of vegetation restoration in red clay badland.
Key words: red clay area    vegetation restoration    soil and water losses    rainfall event process    nutrient loss    

我国南方红壤区降雨强度大且集中,丘陵地形广泛分布,加之不合理的人类活动扰动,长期以来水土流失危害严重,土壤表层乃至亚表层遭到剥蚀而网纹层裸露,演变成红黏土侵蚀劣地[1]。此类土壤养分贫乏,结构较差,开发利用难度大,至今仍是制约区域土壤质量提高的主要障碍因素之一;因此迫切需要对红黏土侵蚀劣地进行生态恢复并开展水土保持效益研究。

植被恢复是遏制生态环境退化和提升脆弱生态系统功能的有效措施。研究表明植被恢复与林下土壤恢复特征呈正向关系[2-3],并且植被作为大气与土壤间的保护层可以增加入渗,减少地表径流量,减弱雨滴和径流对地表泥沙的分离和搬运能力,从而减轻土壤侵蚀[4]。学者们针对植被恢复水土保持效益的研究大多是基于径流小区观测次降雨径流和泥沙量,研究年尺度的侵蚀量和径流深[5],而对恢复条件下地表产流产沙的响应过程关注不够。部分学者基于林地标准径流小区开展人工降雨实验,如肖培青等采用模拟降雨试验研究了灌草的减流减沙效益[6-7],孙佳美等在模拟降雨下研究植被盖度对坡面流水动力学特性的影响[8]。模拟试验研究对于理解坡面尺度的植被恢复水土保持机制具有重要意义,但在现实中水土流失是以自然集水区为单元的水沙过程,集水区内有坡面和沟道等地类,和坡面上的产流产沙过程差别较大,而目前以林地集水区为研究对象的自然降雨水沙过程监测研究报道较少。

笔者基于30年红黏土侵蚀劣地自然集水区植被恢复对照试验,监测天然次降雨条件下的产流产沙和养分流失过程,对比林地恢复和裸地对照集水区的水沙变化特征,以期指导红黏土侵蚀劣地植被恢复,为科学评价该区域植被恢复水土保持效益提供依据。

1 研究区概况

研究区选在位于江西省鹰潭市余江县的中国科学院红壤生态实验站(E116°55′30″,N28°15′20″)。研究区森林植被类型有针叶林、常绿阔叶林、竹林、针阔混交林等,森林覆盖率为41.9%。成土母质为第四纪红黏土,土壤类型为红壤,富含铁氧化物,黏土矿物以高岭石为主。区域内地势变化平缓,以低丘和岗地为主,坡度为在3°~15°。该区属于亚热带湿润季风气候,年均气温17.6 ℃,极端最高气温41.0 ℃,极端最低气温-10.4 ℃,>10 ℃的年积温5 527.6 ℃,无霜期为258 d,年均日照时间1 739.4 h,年蒸发量1 378 mm,年均降水量1 788 mm,但季节分布不均,雨季为每年的3—6月,雨季降雨量占全年降水的60%。

2 研究方法

本研究设置植被恢复林地和裸地对照(CK)2个集水区,在1987年建设时全部为寸草不生的裸地。其中植被恢复区面积为562.5 m2,采用快速植被恢复技术进行治理[9],至今恢复的时间已有30年,植被覆盖度由零演变为乔灌完全覆盖,乔木主要以香樟(Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl.)、杨梅(Myrica rubra (Lour.) S. et Zucc.)、喜树(Camptotheca acuminata)等为主,在整个恢复林地小区内均匀分布,灌木主要以山胡椒(Lindera glauca (Sieb. et Zucc.) Bl)、栀子(Gardenia jasminoides Ellis)、胡枝子(Lespedeza bicolor Turcz)为主。裸地对照小区面积146.3 m2,沟道两侧的坡度为20°~30°,土壤侵蚀一直十分强烈,网纹层出露。试验区恢复土壤的有机质质量分数为27.07 g/kg,与恢复前相比提高了10倍,与对照相比提高了近6倍;全氮质量分数为1.52 g/kg,与恢复前比提高了近6倍,与对照相比提高了近4倍。

小区建设时在集水口处修建径流池,自1987年开始径流泥沙监测,在降雨后先测量径流池水深,然后充分搅匀取一定水样,经过滤收集泥沙样品分析径流泥沙特征。2015年开始采用无动力水土流失过程自动观测装置(中国科学院东北地理与农业生态研究所研发,型号XYZ-Ⅲ)进行水沙过程监测,装置翻斗仪连接的计数器可以实时记录次降雨径流事件的动态过程,同时自动采集对应时刻的径流泥沙过程样品。降雨过程资料来自鹰潭红壤生态实验站的气象观测数据,次降雨间隔为6 h。2015年8月至2016年7月降雨共209次,按照气象学规定的降雨等级划分方法(日降雨量R<10 mm为小雨;10 mm≤R<25 mm为中雨;25 mm≤R<50 mm为大雨;50 mm≤R<100 mm为暴雨)进行分类,降雨量大于10 mm的65次,其中大雨和暴雨共23次,60%的大雨和暴雨集中在4—6月,是引发该区水土流失的主要月份。仪器记录的监测数据共1万736次,其中次降雨产流过程数据95次,其中仅对照区产流的有45次,对照及恢复区均产流的有50次。每次降雨停止后采集样品,共采集样品251个。根据仪器记录的产流量及测定出的样品含沙量推算过程的产沙量。含沙量测定采用烘干称量法,径流样品养分测定选取全N、全P、全K等指标,全N采用过硫酸钾氧化-紫外分光光度计法测定,全P采用过硫酸钾氧化-钼蓝比色法测定,全K采用氢氧化钠熔融-火焰光度法测定。

本研究使用Excel 2013和SPSS 16.0进行数据整理和分析,并使用Origin8.5软件对分析结果进行作图。

3 结果与分析 3.1 产流产沙特征对比

红黏土侵蚀劣地集水区恢复6年(1993年)后植被覆盖度超过80%,形成乔灌草复合型冠层结构,由图 1(a)可以看出,1993年之后对照和植被恢复区的产流差距变大,植被恢复10年后恢复区的产流显著小于裸地对照,恢复8年后产沙得到控制,产沙量几乎为零(图 1(b)),长期降雨与产流产沙间呈现相同的变化趋势。

图 1 研究区年际降雨产流产沙特征 Figure 1 Characteristics of annual mean rainfall and runoff (a) and sediment yield (b)

年内产流产沙主要集中在雨季4—6月(图 2),5月降雨最多,对照裸地产流、产沙也最多,植被恢复的减流减沙效益分别达到78.30%和96.88%。而恢复林地4月产流产沙量最多,分析原因是由于恢复林地5月份的植被覆盖度较4月份高,植被冠层对降雨的截留及对径流传递的阻碍作用,可以降低产流量,同时减轻对地面的土壤溅蚀能力,因而恢复林地5月份产流产沙量较4月份少[10]。植被减流效益超过40%,减沙效果更明显,总体上超过90%。

图 2 研究区年内降雨产流产沙特征 Figure 2 Characteristics of monthly rainfall (a) runoff (b) sediment yield (c) in the study area

选取2个集水区均产流且降雨量大于10 mm的26次降雨分析降雨因子与产流产沙的关系。将最大时段侵蚀性降雨强度I60、降雨量、降雨历时与产流量、产沙量进行相关性分析,得出对照及恢复集水区产流产沙量均与降雨量相关性最好,且裸地对照降雨-产流、降雨-产沙关系曲线的斜率显著大于恢复林地,表明植被具有减小产流产沙增加趋势的作用(图 3(a)(b)),恢复林地降雨-产沙关系曲线斜率近乎为零,表明恢复林地产沙量很小。分析原因是由于在降雨不断增加的过程中,植被有效拦截了一部分雨水,植物通过叶片降低雨滴动能,同时也降低对地表的溅蚀力,减少降雨侵蚀,植物的根系具有蓄水拦沙的作用,减少土壤的流失,这与以往学者在红壤区的研究结果[11-14]一致。南方红壤区雨季暴雨频发且降雨集中,因此,通过恢复措施可以有效控制水土流失。对裸地及恢复林地的产流量与产沙量进行统计分析发现:裸地对照及恢复林地的产流-产沙均呈显著的正相关关系,且对照区产流-产沙关系曲线斜率显著高于恢复区,表明裸地对照区与恢复林地产流量相同时,对照区比恢复林地产沙量大,表明植被恢复林地的保水保土效益显著(图 3(c))。

图 3 研究区年内降雨-产流、降雨-产沙及产流-产沙关系曲线 Figure 3 Relationship between rainfall and runoff (a), rainfall and sediment yield (b), and runoff and sediment yield (c)
3.2 典型产流产沙过程

选择包含暴雨、大雨、中雨、小雨4种类型的7场典型降雨对比不同恢复措施的地表产流产沙过程(表 1)。2个集水区的产流产沙量及产流峰值均与降雨量及降雨强度的变化趋势一致(暴雨>大雨>中雨>小雨)。恢复区产流量较对照减少33%~65%,裸地对照径流系数是恢复林地的1.5~3.0倍,恢复林地降低产流峰值效益显著,达到67%~83%。植被可以延缓产流、产流峰值出现时间降低产流峰值,中雨、小雨条件相较于暴雨、大雨降低产流峰值效益更好,超过80%。相同降雨量条件下,降雨强度越大延缓产流的时间越短。另外,由于夏季植被覆盖度高,2场暴雨及2场大雨中,夏季的延缓产流时间均高于秋季[15]

表 1 研究区次降雨过程降雨产流产沙特征 Table 1 Characteristics of runoff and sediment yield at single rainfall event in the study area

过程产流趋势与降雨强度I60变化趋势一致,总体上对照区产流时间早于恢复区1 h以上,2个集水区产流过程均呈多峰型(图 4)。产流滞后时间随雨强减小而增大,通常坡面产流在仅降雨变化的条件下,与降雨强度小的降雨相比,一般降雨强度高的降雨入渗至土壤的雨水相对较少,坡面更容易产生径流,故其产流滞后降雨的时间较短[15]。恢复林地次降雨减沙效益显著,达到91%~98%,恢复林地产沙延缓时间与产流一致(图 5(a)(b))。次降雨过程泥沙含量表现为先增大后减小最后趋向稳定,恢复林地径流中含沙量很小,土壤侵蚀不明显(图 4(c))。

图 4 研究区次降雨过程中降雨强度及产流变化特征 Figure 4 Characteristics of rainfall intensity and runoff at single rainfall event in the study area
图 5 研究区次降雨过程产沙量及含沙量变化 Figure 5 Characteristics of sediment yield(a)(b)and sediment concentration(c) at single rainfall event in the study area
3.3 养分流失特征

根据2015年8月至2016年7月对照区及恢复林地均产流且降雨量大于10 mm的26次降雨产流样品中养分含量均值及月产流量估算径流中月养分流失量及全年养分流失总量。恢复林地年内径流中全氮、全磷、全钾流失量较裸地对照分别减少54.62%、57.53%和56.46%,表明植被保持水土养分的效益显著。年内2个集水区径流中养分流失量均集中在雨季4—6月且裸地对照养分流失量显著高于恢复林地(图 6),养分流失量与降雨量、径流量呈现相同的变化趋势。对照区5月降雨量最大,养分流失量最多,而恢复林地径流中养分流失最多的是4月,年内变化趋势与降雨产流一致。

Note:TN:Total nitrogen. TP:Total phosphorus. TK:Total potassium. The same below. 图 6 研究区径流中全氮、全磷、全钾流失特征 Figure 6 Characteristics of monthly TN(a), TP(b), and TK(c)in the runoff of the study area

次降雨过程径流中全P流失质量浓度明显低于全N和全K,且全N及全K浓度波动较大,而全P浓度变化较稳定(图 7),分析原因是红壤是富含铁铝的酸性土,P容易被其吸附固定,迁移能力低;另外,发育于第四纪红黏土母质的红壤富N缺P,导致径流中全P流失量较低,浓度波动较小[16-17]

图 7 研究区次降雨过程养分流失含量变化 Figure 7 Characteristics content of nutrient loss in the runoff of a single rainfall event in the study area
4 结论与讨论

本文研究表明红黏土侵蚀劣地植被恢复6年后覆盖度达到80%,开始表现出明显的减流减沙效益,8年后恢复林地基本不再产沙,而吴雨赤等学者在红壤区的研究也发现植物恢复5—6年后覆盖度显著提高,水土流失情况得到显著控制[18-19],这与本研究结果是一致的。从年尺度上来看,植被恢复的减流效益超过40%,减沙总体上超过90%,这一效益与红壤区其他林灌草综合恢复模式的减沙效益也比较接近[20-22]。在次降雨过程尺度上,总体上恢复林地延缓产流1 h以上,产流峰值减小67%~83%,且中雨条件下植被延缓径流和降低产流峰值的效益最好,李钢等研究发现恢复林地的减流减沙效益随雨强的增大先升后降[22],这一趋势和本研究结果比较吻合。与红壤区大面积分布的马尾松纯林相比[22],本研究采用的植被快速恢复技术形成了较为稳定的乔灌草立体复合结构,可以削弱雨滴动能,减少雨滴击溅而产生的沙源,并可拦截径流,降低径流冲刷破坏土体的能量,因而水土保持效益显著提高。与裸地相比,恢复林地径流中的全N、全P、全K流失量均减少50%以上。以上研究结果说明采用植被快速恢复技术可以有效地控制红黏土侵蚀劣地地表产流产沙,延缓径流泥沙过程和消减径流峰值,显著减少径流泥沙中的养分流失。

本研究可为红壤侵蚀劣地植被恢复及林地生态系统的水土保持功能评价提供科学依据,但由于径流泥沙过程数据不够丰富,后续的工作中需要加大径流泥沙和养分流失过程的监测力度,通过获取过程参数,为物理模型的构建和应用提供理论依据。

参考文献
[1] 杨艳生. 第四纪红粘土区侵蚀土壤退化机理研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 1997, 4(1): 100.
YANG Yansheng. Research on soil deterioration mechanism in quaternary red clay region[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 1997, 4(1): 100.
[2] DANTAS V D L, BATALHA M A. Vegetation structure:Fine scale relationships with soil in a cerrado site[J]. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 2011, 206(4): 341. DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2010.11.003.
[3] JIAO F, WEN Z M, AN S S. Changes in soil properties across a chronosequence of vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Catena, 2011, 86(2): 110. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.03.001.
[4] OUYANG W, HAO F, SKIDMORE A K, et al. Soil erosion and sediment yield and their relationships with vegetation cover in upper stream of the Yellow River[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2010, 409(2): 396. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.10.020.
[5] 梁娟珠. 不同植被措施下红壤坡面径流变化特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(6): 159.
LIANG Juanzhu. Runoff changes on slope with different vegetation measures in red soil region[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 35(6): 159.
[6] 肖培青, 姚文艺, 王昌高. 灌木减流减沙效应及其水力学机理试验研究[J]. 泥沙研究, 2012(5): 33.
XIAO Peiqing, YAO Wenyi, WANG Changgao. Experimental study of effect of shrubs on runoff and sediment reduction and its hydrodynamic mechanism[J]. Journal of Sediment Research, 2012(5): 33.
[7] 肖培青, 姚文艺, 申震洲, 等. 草被减流减沙效应及其力学机制分析[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2010, 8(2): 15.
XIAO Peiqing, YAO Wenyi, SHEN Zhenzhou, et al. Reduction effects of grass on runoff and sediment and its mechanical mechanism[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2010, 8(2): 15.
[8] 孙佳美, 余新晓, 樊登星, 等. 模拟降雨下植被盖度对坡面流水动力学特性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(8): 2574.
SUN Jiamei, YU Xinxiao, FAN Dengxing, et al. Impact of vegetation cover on surface runoff hydraulic characteristics with simulated rainfall[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(8): 2574.
[9] 杨艳生. 红壤生态系统研究[M]. 南昌: 江西科学技术出版社, 1992: 251.
YANG Yansheng. Research on red soil ecosystem[M]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Science and Technology Publishing House, 1992: 251.
[10] 张兴昌, 刘国彬, 付会芳. 不同植被覆盖度对流域氮素径流流失的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2000(6): 16.
ZHANG Xingchang, LIU Guobin, FU Huifang. Soil nitrogen losses of catchment by water erosion as affected by vegetation coverage[J]. Environmental Science, 2000(6): 16.
[11] 左长清, 马良. 天然降雨对红壤坡地侵蚀的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005, 19(2): 1.
ZUO Changqing, MA Liang. Effects of natural rainfall on red soil slope land erosion[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005, 19(2): 1.
[12] 黄鹏飞, 陈晓安, 郑太辉, 等. 红壤坡地不同植物措施消减径流峰值研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(1): 79.
HUANG Pengfei, CHEN Xiaoan, ZHENG Taihui, et al. Study on reduction of runoff peaks induced by different vegetation measures on red soil slope[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(1): 79.
[13] 康佩佩, 查轩, 刘家明, 等. 不同植被种植模式对红壤坡面侵蚀影响试验研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2016, 23(4): 15.
KANG Peipei, ZHA Xuan, LIU Jiaming, et al. Analysis of influence of different vegetation planting patterns on soil erosion on the red soil slope[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 23(4): 15.
[14] 马琨, 王兆骞, 陈欣. 红壤坡面产流产沙与养分流失特征研究[J]. 宁夏农学院学报, 2003, 24(2): 3.
MA Kun, WANG Zhaoqian, CHEN Xin. Study on the properties of runoff yield and sediment yield and nutrient loss in red soil slope land[J]. Journal of Ningxia Agricultural College, 2003, 24(2): 3.
[15] 赵梦杰, 姚文艺, 王金花, 等. 植被覆盖度对黄土高原地区土壤入渗及产流影响的试验研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2015(6): 41.
ZHAO Mengjie, YAO Wenyi, WANG Jinhua, et al. Experimental study on influence of vegetation coverage to soil infiltration and runoff-producing of the loess plateau region[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2015(6): 41.
[16] 奚同行, 左长清. 天然降雨下红壤坡地氮磷流失过程与特征分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2012, 32(5): 136.
XI Tonghang, ZUO Changqing. Processes and characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus losses on red soil sloping land under natural rainfall[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 32(5): 136.
[17] 吕玉娟, 彭新华, 高磊, 等. 红壤丘陵岗地区坡地地表径流氮磷流失特征研究[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2): 297.
LÜ Yujuan, PENG Xinhua, GAO Lei, et al. Characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus losses through surface runoff on sloping land, red soil hilly region[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(2): 297.
[18] 吴雨赤. 第四纪红粘土侵蚀劣地桃树种植试验[J]. 中国水土保持, 1997(11): 21.
WU Yuchi. Planting experiment of peach growing in quaternary red clay region[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 1997(11): 21.
[19] 张盛钟. 侵蚀劣地与工程侵蚀区的快速覆盖技术与途径[J]. 亚热带水土保持, 2011, 23(1): 36.
ZHANG Shengzhong. Technique and approach of rapid cover for eroded badland and engineering erosion area[J]. Subtropical Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 23(1): 36.
[20] 武艺, 杨洁, 汪邦稳, 等. 红壤坡地水土保持措施减流减沙效果研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2008(10): 37.
WU Yi, YANG Jie, WANG Bangwen, et al. Effect of runoff and sediment reduction of red soil sloped land through soil and water conservation[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2008(10): 37. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2008.10.015.
[21] 谢颂华, 郑海金, 杨洁, 等. 南方丘陵区水土保持植物措施减流效应研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2010, 24(3): 35.
XIE Songhua, ZHENG Haijin, YANG Jie, et al. Effect of runoff reduction through vegetation measures of soil and water conservation in the hilly-land area southern China[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2010, 24(3): 35.
[22] 李钢, 梁音, 曹龙熹. 次生马尾松林下植被恢复措施的水土保持效益[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2012, 10(6): 25.
LI Gang, LIANG Yin, CAO Longxi. Effects of different vegetation restoration patterns on soil erosion in secondary Pinus massoniana pure forest[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 10(6): 25.