伊犁河谷土壤理化性质及可蚀性特征分析

doi:10.18402/resci.2016.07.02

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探讨河谷坡地的土壤特性及其可蚀性对保护土地资源、制定水土保持措施具有重要意义。基于伊犁河谷典型区域127个调查点表层土壤的实地调查与取样分析,利用EPIC模型公式计算土壤可蚀性,分析了不同土地利用方式下土壤理化性质及土壤可蚀性的特征、探讨了土壤可蚀性与其他土壤特征因子间的关系以及土壤各特征因子的空间变化与异质性。研究结果显示：新开垦坡地增加了表层土壤水分、改善了土壤结构与质地,有助于减小土壤可蚀性;土壤理化性质随着海拔升高、由西南向东北明显改善,土壤可蚀性降低,质地更好的土壤有助吸水、保水与植被生长,进而降低土壤可蚀性;各土壤特性,包括土壤可蚀性,空间异质性在小尺度上总体较小,空间分布自相关程度多中等到高等。

关键词: 山前坡地, 土地利用, 土壤可蚀性, 空间异质性, 伊犁河谷

Abstract:

The large scale exploitation of water and land resources in the Yili River Valley in recent decades is the background for this work. The exploitation has mainly been concentrated in the piedmont slope of the valley and this may have affected soil properties and erodibility. Research on soil properties and erodibility can help conduct better prospection of land resources,and develop effective soil and water conservation measures. We selected the piedmont slope of the valley as the research focus and conducted an investigation based on field surveys,sampling and experimental analysis. A typical area of piedmont slope with 400km² and 127 survey points was selected in order to obtain soil properties. Experience estimation formula of the EPIC model was used to get soil erodibility. This work analyzes the soil properties and soil erodibility under different land use patterns,tests the relationship between soil erodibility and each soil characteristic factor,and analyzes the spatial heterogeneity of soil properties and soil erodibility. We found that newly reclaimed fields increased soil water content,improved soil properties and structure,to some extent,and contributed to reducing soil erodibility. Soil N content and soil organic materials show an obvious decline in newly reclaimed fields than circumjacent uncultured areas. From southwest to northeast the soil becomes better with increasing altitude,such as lower soil bulk density,higher soil organic materials and N,and higher soil water content;soil erodibility is gradually declining. There is a close relationship between soil physicochemical properties and soil erodibility. The spatial heterogeneity of most soil properties,including soil erodibility,is low and at a relatively small scale. The degrees of autocorrelation of the spatial distribution of soil properties are middle to high.

Key words: piedmont slope, land use, soil erodibility, spatial heterogeneity, Yili Valley

朱成刚, 李卫红, 李大龙, 刘志明, 富磊. 伊犁河谷土壤理化性质及可蚀性特征分析[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(7): 1212-1221.

ZHU Chenggang,LI Weihong,LI Dalong,LIU Zhiming,FU Lei. Feature analysis of soil physicochemical properties and erodibility of the Yili Valley[J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(7): 1212-1221.

图/表 6

图1

表1

图2

表2

土壤理化特征因子与土壤可蚀性K的相关关系"

		高程	土壤水分	土壤容重	砂粒含量	粉粒含量	黏粒含量	有机碳含量	土壤氮含量	土壤全盐	土壤 pH	土壤可蚀性
高程	皮尔森相关系数	1.000	0.313**	-0.372**	-0.395**	0.407**	0.153	0.581**	0.612**	-0.029	-0.537**	-0.445**
	显著性检验（双尾）	-	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.087	0.000	0.000	0.745	0.000	0.000
土壤水分	皮尔森相关系数	0.313**	1.000	-0.116	-0.290**	0.294**	0.149	0.469**	0.493**	0.262**	-0.386**	-0.355**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	-	0.195	0.001	0.001	0.094	0.000	0.000	0.003	0.000	0.000
土壤容重	皮尔森相关系数	-0.372**	-0.116	1.000	0.265**	-0.330**	0.122	-0.344**	-0.327**	-0.197*	0.093	0.389**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.195	-	0.003	0.000	0.173	0.000	0.000	0.027	0.297	0.000
砂粒含量	皮尔森相关系数	-0.395**	-0.290**	0.265**	1.000	-0.982**	-0.700**	-0.268**	-0.296**	-0.114	0.309**	0.816**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.001	0.003	-	0.000	0.000	0.002	0.001	0.200	0.000	0.000
粉粒含量	皮尔森相关系数	0.407**	0.294**	-0.330**	-0.982**	1.000	0.566**	0.291**	0.312**	0.118	-0.318**	-0.831**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.001	0.000	0.000	-	0.000	0.001	0.000	0.187	0.000	0.000
黏粒含量	皮尔森相关系数	0.153	0.149	0.122	-0.700**	0.566**	1.000	0.068	0.114	0.055	-0.167	-0.445**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.087	0.094	0.173	0.000	0.000	-	0.450	0.202	0.537	0.060	0.000
有机碳含量	皮尔森相关系数	0.581**	0.469**	-0.344**	-0.268**	0.291**	0.068	1.000	0.974**	0.213*	-0.556**	-0.545**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.002	0.001	0.450	-	0.000	0.016	0.000	0.000
土壤氮含量	皮尔森相关系数	0.612**	0.493**	-0.327**	-0.296**	0.312**	0.114	0.974**	1.000	0.245**	-0.568**	-0.517**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.000	0.202	0.000	-	0.006	0.000	0.000
土壤全盐	皮尔森相关系数	-0.029	0.262**	-0.197*	-0.114	0.118	0.055	0.213*	0.245**	1.000	0.250**	-0.159
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.745	0.003	0.027	0.200	0.187	0.537	0.016	0.006	-	0.005	0.075
土壤pH	皮尔森相关系数	-0.537**	-0.386**	0.093	0.309**	-0.318**	-0.167	-0.556**	-0.568**	0.250**	1.000	0.346**
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.000	0.297	0.000	0.000	0.060	0.000	0.000	0.005	-	0.000
土壤可蚀性	皮尔森相关系数	-0.445**	-0.355**	0.389**	0.816**	-0.831**	-0.445**	-0.545**	-0.517**	-0.159	0.346**	1.000
	显著性检验（双尾）	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.075	0.000	-

表2

图3

表3

参考文献 29

[1]	Pimental D,Harvey C,Resosudarmo P,et al.Environmental and economic cost of soil erosion and conservation benefits[J]. Science,1995,267(5201):1117-1123.
[2]	张科利,蔡永明,刘宝元,等. 土壤可蚀性动态变化规律研究[J]. 地理学报,2001,56(6):673-681.
	[Zhang K L,Cai Y M,Liu B Y,et al.Fluctuation of soil erodibility due to rainfall intensity[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica,2001,56(6):673-681.]
[3]	David P.Soil erosion:A food and environmental threat[J]. Environ-ment,Development and Sustainability,2006,8(1):119-137.
[4]	Dotterweich M.The history of human-induced soil erosion:Geomorphic legacies,early descriptions and research,and the development of soil conservation-a global synopsis[J]. Geo-morphology,2013,201(4):1-34.
[5]	Panagos P,Borrelli P,Poesen J,et al.The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe[J]. Environmental Science & Policy,2015,54:438-447.
[6]	姚华荣,杨志峰,崔保山. GIS支持下的澜沧江流域云南段土壤侵蚀空间分析[J]. 地理研究,2006,25(3):421-429.
	[Yao H R,Yang Z F,Cui B S.Spatial analysis on soil erosion of Lancing River Watershed in Yunnan province under the support of GIS[J]. Geograpical Research,2006,25(3):421-429.]
[7]	刘吉峰,李世杰,秦宁生,等. 青海湖流域土壤可蚀性K值研究[J]. 干旱区地理,2006,29(3):321-326.
	[Liu J F,Li S J,Qin N S,et al.Soil erodibility K in the catchment of Qinghai Lake[J]. Arid Land Geography,2006,29(3):321-326.]
[8]	何淑勤,宫渊波,郑子成,等. 山地森林-干旱河谷交错带表层土壤侵蚀率与土壤物理性质的关系[J]. 资源科学,2013,35(4):824-830.
	[He S Q,Gong Y B,Zheng Z C,et al.Relationship between surface soil erosion rate and soil physical properties in a mountain forests-arid valley ecotone[J]. Resources Science,2013,35(4):824-830.]
[9]	李鹏,李占斌,郑郁. 不同土地利用方式对干热河谷地区土壤可蚀性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究,2011,18(4):16-19.
	[Li P,Li Z B,Zheng Y.Influence of land utilization types on soil erodibility in dry-hot valley in Jinsha River[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2011,18(4):16-19.]
[10]	Panagopoulos T,Jesus J,Blumberg D,et al.Spatial variability of durum wheat yield as related to soil parameters in an organic field[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,2014,45(15):2018-2031.
[11]	梁音,刘宪春,曹龙熹,等. 中国水蚀区土壤可蚀性K值计算与宏观分布[J]. 中国水土保持,2013,(10):35-40.
	[Liang Y,Liu X C,Cao L J,et al.The calculation and macroscopic distribution of soil erodibility K values in water erosion area of China[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China,2013,(10):35-40.]
[12]	Cambardella C A,Moorman T B,Novak J M,et al.Field-scale variability of soil properties in Central Iowa soils[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,1994,58(5):1501-1511.
[13]	Pérez-Rodríguez R,Marques M,Bienes R.Spatial variability of the soil erodibility parameters and their relation with the soil map at subgroup level[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2007,378(1-2):166-173.
[14]	张伟,张宏业,王秀红,等. 伊犁新垦区土地利用变化及其对生态系统服务价值的影响[J]. 资源科学,2009,31(12):2042-2046.
	[Zhang W,Zhang H Y,Wang X H,et al.Land use changes and its influences on ecosystem service value over the newly reclaimed area of Yili,Xinjiang[J]. Resources Research,2009,31(12):2042-2046.]
[15]	康蕾,张红旗. 新疆伊犁新垦区土地荒漠化敏感性评价[J]. 资源科学,2012,34(5):896-902.
	[Kang L,Zhang H Q.Assessment of the land desertification sensitivity of newly re-claimed area in Yili,Xinjiang[J]. Resources Research,2012,34(5):896-902.]
[16]	张科利,彭文英,杨红丽. 中国土壤可蚀性值及其估算[J]. 土壤学报,2007,44(1):7-13.
	[Zhang K L,Peng W Y,Yang H L.Soil erodibility and its estimation for agricultural soil in China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica,2007,44(1):7-13.]
[17]	黄晓强,赵云杰,信忠保,等. 北京山区典型土地利用方式对土壤理化性质及可蚀性的影响[J]. 水土保持研究,2015,22(1):5-10.
	[Huang X Q,Zhao Y J,Xin Z B,et al.Influence of typical land use types on soil physicochemical properties and erodibility in Beijing mountainous[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conser-vation,2015,22(1):5-10.]
[18]	Leh M,Bajwa S,Chaubey I.Impact of land use change on erosion risk:An integrated remote sensing geographic information system and modeling methodology[J]. Land Degradation &Development,2013,24(5):409-421.
[19]	Yang D,Kanae S,Oki T,et al.Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate change[J]. Hydrological Processes,2003,17(14):2913-2928.
[20]	Cerdà A,Doerr S H.Soil wettability,runoff and erodibility of major dry-Mediterranean land use types on calcareous soils[J]. Hydrological Processes,2007,21(17):2325-2336.
[21]	Blavet D,De Noni G,Le Bissonnais Y,et al.Effect of land use and management on the early stages of soil water erosion in French Mediterranean vineyards[J]. Soil &Tillage Research,2009,106(1):124-136.
[22]	曹鹤,薛立,谢腾芳,等. 华南地区八种人工林的土壤物理性质[J]. 生态学杂志,2009,28(4):620-625.
	[Cao H,Xue L,Xie T F,et al.Cluster analysis of eight artificial forest stands in South China based on soil physical properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology,2009,28(4):620-625.]
[23]	Batjes N H,Dijkshoorn J A.Carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soils of the Amazon Region[J]. Geoderma,1999,89(3-4):273-286.
[24]	Batjes N H,Sombroek W G.Possibilities for carbon sequestration in tropical and subtropical soils[J]. Global Change Biology,2003,3(2):161-173.
[25]	赵世伟,周印东,吴金水. 子午岭北部不同植被类型土壤水分特征研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2002,16(4):119-122.
	[Zhao S W,Zhou Y D,Wu J S.Soil moisture characteristics of different vegetations in northern of Ziwuling[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,2002,16(4):119-122.]
[26]	Brejda J J,Moorman T B,Karlen D L,et al.Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators:I. Central and Southern High Plains[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,2000,64(6):2115-2124.
[27]	陈思旭,杨小唤,肖林林,等. 基于RUSLE 模型的南方丘陵山区土壤侵蚀研究[J]. 资源科学,2014,36(6):1288-1297.
	[Chen S X,Yang X R,Xiao L L,et al.Study of soil erosion in the southern hillside area of China based on RUSLE model[J]. Resources Research,2014,36(6):1288-1297.]
[28]	Paz-González A V S,Vieira S R,Castro M T. The effect of cultivation on spatial variability of selected properties of an umbric horizon[J]. Geoderma,2000,97(3-4):273-292.
[29]	Wang Y Q,Shao M A.Spatial variability of soil physical pro-perties in a region of the loess plateau of PR China subject to wind and water erosion[J]. Land Degradation & Development,2013,24(3):296-304.

	土壤水分 SWC /%	土壤容重 γ /（g/cm³）	砂粒含量 SAN /%	粉粒含量 SIL /%	黏粒含量 CLA /%	有机碳含量 SOC /%	土壤氮含量 N /（g/kg）	土壤全盐 SS /（g/kg）	土壤 pH值	土壤可蚀性K /（t∙hm²∙h）/ （hm²∙MJ∙mm）
果林	5.81±2.49a	1.28±0.86a	34.52±11.18a	58.47±9.86a	7.01±1.91a	0.51±0.13a	0.57±0.12a	0.54±0.10a	8.22±0.06a	0.080±0.006a
葡萄园	9.35±3.72b	1.29±0.12a	26.85±5.18b	65.35±3.44b	7.79±2.19b	0.42±0.05b	0.56±0.09a	0.60±0.07a	8.19±0.08a	0.076±0.003b
旱田	5.11±1.59c	1.24±0.11a	31.51±3.54a	61.92±2.32a	6.56±1.42a	0.46±0.06b	0.53±0.13a	0.54±0.02a	8.15±0.06a	0.079±0.003a
生态林	5.60±1.77a	1.25±0.12a	33.32±11.14a	59.71±9.65a	6.96±1.97a	0.58±0.06c	0.53±0.11a	0.53±0.13a	8.21±0.17a	0.079±0.009a
低覆盖草场	4.43±2.44d	1.28±0.13a	35.62±8.47a	60.04±6.96a	4.34±2.67c	0.57±0.12c	0.66±0.25b	0.54±0.08a	8.22±0.17a	0.081±0.010a
中覆盖草场	4.85±1.91d	1.25±0.11a	31.49±9.01a	61.09±7.99a	7.26±1.47a	0.76±0.1d	0.85±0.36c	0.55±0.06a	8.16±0.13a	0.078±0.013a
高覆盖草场	6.25±3.09e	1.18±0.12b	33.29±12.01a	60.12±10.44a	6.59±2.04a	1.30±0.93e	1.39±0.87d	0.58±0.10a	8.07±0.26b	0.076±0.020b
砂质沙土	4.45±1.09a	1.40±0.18a	57.49±6.99a	37.78±6.51a	4.73±1.30a	0.61±0.10a	0.79±0.21a	0.51±0.14a	8.19±0.24a	0.105±0.020a
粉砂质沙土	5.08±2.51b	1.25±0.10b	30.93±7.19b	61.72±6.01b	7.28±1.84b	0.69±0.48b	0.77±0.46a	0.55±0.08b	8.18±0.15a	0.077±0.009b
平均	5.04±2.46	1.26±0.11	32.39±9.39	60.41±8.14	7.14±1.91	0.69±0.47	0.78±0.45	0.55±0.09	8.18±0.15	0.079±0.012

分析项目	拟合模型	块金值C_o	基台值C_o+C	变程A	C_o/C+C_o	分维数D	决定系数R²
土壤可蚀性K	线性模型	7E-04	19E-04	0.210	0.368	1.810	0.844
土壤含水量SWC	指数模型	3.400	7.900	0.250	0.430	1.910	0.918
土壤容重γ	线性模型	0.009	0.014	0.210	0.643	1.920	0.622
土壤有机碳SOC	球状模型	0.020	0.320	0.260	0.067	1.670	0.947
土壤氮N	高斯模型	0.045	0.260	0.310	0.173	1.664	0.952
土壤全盐SS	线性模型	0.005	0.008	0.190	0.625	1.917	0.593
土壤Ph值	高斯模型	0.010	0.034	0.160	0.294	1.803	0.956
土壤砂粒含量SAN	线性模型	32.270	103.170	0.210	0.313	1.840	0.930