贡嘎山暗针叶林土壤优先流形成因素的初步研究

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2006.0095

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

该研究以长江上游贡嘎山暗针叶林生态系统的降雨过程、地被物层、根系层及土壤层的生长发育特点和水分运动状况为基础,利用自制实验仪器,在研究区域开展室内土柱实验,与野外实地示踪影像分析及树种根系调查相结合,针对研究区域土壤包气带根系层中水分快速运动的优先流形成的内外影响因子展开研究工作。研究结果表明研究区域土壤松散和多孔,土壤的孔隙度较大,大部分降雨为低强度、低雨量级和长历时,并具有较厚的地被物层和丰富的根系层,这些诱发因素存在,使研究区域——贡嘎山高山生态系统具有优先流形成的条件,降雨不会对土壤造成击溅作用,水分运移沿着土壤孔隙或植物根孔等处开辟优先路径,在地被物层及土壤层形成一个水流通道,随着长历时的降雨的继续,水分及其所携带的溶质继续沿着此路径向下运移。

关键词: 贡嘎山暗针叶林, 优先流, 影响因子

Abstract:

Background and Aims Preferential flow is the physical phenomenon of rapid transport of water and solutes in soil. It occurs in most soils and determines field-scale transport of contaminants in soils, thereby contributing to groundwater pollution.

Methods Research on preferential flow involves studying the mechanism of soil water movement and can answer key questions that could not be explained by Darcy's law and Convective-Diffusive Equation in early hydrological research. Experimental or technological analyses are difficult because this movement is not detected easily. Preferential flow increases the difficulty and complexity of the research due to non-equilibrium, regional characteristics and the involvement of many influencing factors. To date, the mechanism of the movement of preferential flow has not been properly defined. This study involved detailed research on the influencing factors of preferential flow, using a soil column experiment in combination with dye-tracer analyzes in the root zone of the dark coniferous ecosystem in the upper drainage of the Yangtze River. Factors examined included rainfall processes, growth characteristics and water movement states of litter, moss, roots and soil.

Key Results The soil of the research area is porous with large pores, and rainfall is low in amount and intensity and long-lasting. The soil also has thick litter and moss and is rich in roots. Therefore, the Gongga Mountain ecosystem may have preferential flow. Water transport has opened up preferential flow pathways along soil pores and root channels, forming a water channel in litter, moss and soil.

Conclusions Soil will be transported continuously along these channels with longtime rainfall.

Key words: Dark coniferous forest of Gongga Mountain, Preferential flow, Influencing factors

牛健植, 余新晓, 赵玉涛, 张东升, 陈丽华, 张志强. 贡嘎山暗针叶林土壤优先流形成因素的初步研究. 植物生态学报, 2006, 30(5): 732-742. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0095

NIU Jian-Zhi, YU Xin-Xiao, ZHAO Yu-Tao, ZHANG Dong-Sheng, CHEN Li-Hua, ZHANG Zhi-Qiang. STUDY OF SOIL PREFERENTIAL FLOW IN THE DARK CONIFEROUS FOREST OF GONGGA MOUNTAIN, CHINA. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2006, 30(5): 732-742. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2006.0095

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.17521/cjpe.2006.0095

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2006/V30/I5/732

图/表 18

图1 土柱实验装置示意图

Fig.1 Schematic graph of soil column experiment

图2 示踪物在幼龄林中的运移路径影像图

Fig.2 Image chart of the tracer movement in young forest

图3 示踪物在中龄林中的运移路径影像图

Fig.3 Image chart of the tracer movement in middle-aged forest

图4 示踪物在成熟林中的运移路径影像图

Fig.4 Image chart of the tracer movement in mature forest

图5 示踪物在过熟林林中的运移路径影像图

Fig.5 Image chart of the tracer movement in over-mature forest

表1 研究地区土壤孔隙分布状况表

Table 1 Distribution status of soil pores in study area

林地类型 Type of forest land	土层深度 Depth(cm)	毛管孔隙度 Capillary(%)	总孔隙度 Total porosity(%)	非毛管孔隙度 Non-capillary(%)	土壤通气度 Ventilation(%)
过熟林 Over-mature forest	0~20	83.47	95.32	11.86	94.79
	20~40	25.14	28.14	2.99	28.03
成熟林 Mature forest	0~20	61.27	64.94	3.67	64.56
	20~40	77.03	79.01	1.97	78.55
	40~60	64.07	65.90	1.84	65.46
	60~80	64.20	65.21	1.01	64.84
	80~100	62.28	64.02	1.74	63.77
	100~120	61.45	62.51	1.06	62.27
中龄林 Middle-aged forest	0~20	72.68	79.70	7.02	79.31
	20~40	42.01	43.37	1.36	43.12
幼龄林 Young forest	0~20	42.53	52.74	10.21	52.53

表2 0.22、0.50和1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,在规定时间100 min内,成熟林坡积物原状土柱及其过筛填充土柱的土壤出流流量

Table 2 Accumulative outflow of the undisturbed column and corresponding repacked column in the settled time of 100 min at rainfall intensities of 0.22, 0.50 and 1.00 mm·min-1

雨强 Rainfall intensities (mm·min^-1)	100 min规定时间内,成熟林坡积物土壤所取土柱累计出流流量 Accumulative outflow of mature forest in the settled time of 100 min (ml)
雨强 Rainfall intensities (mm·min^-1)	样地D原状土柱 Undisturbed column of plot D	样地E原状土柱 Undisturbed column of plot E	对照过筛填充土柱 Corresponding repacked column
0.22	305	493	59
0.50	593	542	82
1.00	702	601	98

图6 0.50 mm·min-1雨强下,成熟林坡积物土壤样地D中所取地被物原状土柱土壤含水量变化

Fig.6 Soil moisture change of the undisturbed column in the zones of litters and moss of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensities of 0.50 mm·min-1

图7 1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,成熟林坡积物土壤样地D中所取地被物原状土柱土壤含水量变化

Fig.7 Soil moisture change of the undisturbed column in the zones of litters and moss of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensities of 1.00 mm·min-1

图8 0.50 mm·min-1雨强下,在成熟林坡积物土壤样地D和E的土壤层及地被物层所取原状土柱累计出流量与时间的关系

Fig.8 The schematic graph of accumulative outflow and time in the zones of soil, litters and moss of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensities of 0.50 mm·min-1

表3 0.50 mm·min-1雨强下,地被物层上、下层土壤含水量方差分析

Table 3 The square deviation analysis of effects of the upper and lower of the zones of litters and moss on soil moisture at the rainfall intensity of 0.50 mm·min-1

差异源 Differential source	SS	自由度df	MS	F	F crit
组间Inter-group	0.004 443 271	1	0.004 443 271	3.235 885 9	4.46
组内Intra-group	0.010 984 988	8	0.001 373 124
总计Total	0.015 428 259	9

表4 1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,地被物层上、下层土壤含水量方差分析

Table 4 The square deviation analysis of effects of the upper and lower of the zones of litters and moss on soil moisture at the rainfall intensity of 1.00 mm·min-1

差异源 Differential source	SS	自由度df	MS	F	F crit
组间Inter-group	0.004 429 688	1	0.004 429 688	8.036 300 0	4.26
组内Intra-group	0.013 228 958	24	0.000 551 207
总计Total	0.017 658 646	25

图9 1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,在成熟林坡积物土壤样地D和E的土壤层及地被物层所取原状土柱累计出流量与时间的关系图例同图8

Fig.9 The schematic graph of the relation of accumulative outflow and time in the zones of soil, litters and moss of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensities of 1.00 mm·min-1 Legends see Fig. 8

表5 0.50 mm·min-1雨强下,地被物层对土壤水分运移影响的方差分析

Table 5 The square deviation analysis of effects of the zones of litters and moss on soil moisture at the rainfall intensity of 0.50 mm·min-1

差异源 Differential source	SS	自由度df	MS	F	p	F crit
组间Inter-group	0.048 492	1	0.048 492	5.471 513	0.023 45	4.038 384
组内Intra-group	0.434 267	49	0.008 863
总计Total	0.482 759	50

表6 1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,地被物层对土壤水分运移影响的方差分析

Table 6 The square deviation analysis of effects of the zones of litters and moss on soil moisture at the rainfall intensity of 1.00 mm·min-1

差异源 Differential source	SS	自由度df	MS	F	p	F crit
组间Inter-group	0.531 891	1	0.531 891	29.115 960	1.87E-06	4.034 320
组内Intra-group	0.913 401	50	0.018 268
总计Total	1.445 291	51

图10 0.50 mm·min-1雨强下,成熟林坡积物土壤样地D土壤层、地被物层及包含地被物层及土壤层的原状土柱流速波动曲线示意图

Fig.10 The schematic graph of velocity of outflow in the zones of soil, litters and moss and undisturbed column of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensity of 0.50 mm·min-1

图11 1.00 mm·min-1雨强下,成熟林坡积物土壤样地D土壤层、地被物层及包含地被物层及土壤层的原状土柱流速波动曲线示意图流速波动曲线示意图图例同图10

Fig.11 The schematic graph of velocity of outflow in the zones of soil, litters and moss and undisturbed column of mature forest's plot D at rainfall intensity of 1.00 mm·min-1 Legends see Fig. 10

表7 峨眉冷杉、冬瓜杨和杜鹃根系生物量调查表

Table 7 The biomass of the roots of Abies fabric, Populus purdomii and Rhododendron

根系类型 Type	土层 Soil (cm)	≤1 mm		1~3 mm		3~5 mm		5~10 mm		10~30 mm		30~50 mm		50~100 mm
根系类型 Type	土层 Soil (cm)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)	根长 Length (cm)	根重 Weight (g)
峨眉冷杉 Abies fabric	0~20	4 284	42	7 530	87	436	40	840	149	630	432	116	342	172	2 530
	20~40	1 270	13	1 940	68	453	38	354	151	444	404	72	158	0	0
	40~60	120	57	75	81	12	184	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	60~100	75	36	24	18	25	52	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
冬瓜杨 Populus purdomii	0~20	0	0	45	0.8		2.7	0	0	13	45	0	0	15	1 050
	20~40	521	6	143	16	0	0	38	13	20	26	0	0	18	1 105
	40~60	226	6	220	8	50	6	180	42	0	0	0	0	40	1 250
	60~100	0	0	72	1.9	0	0	0	0	0	0	50	450	0	0
杜鹃 Rhododendron	0~20	6 596	36	4 010	43	309	35	321	70	110	350	60	173	15	600
	20~40	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	200	0	0
	40~60	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	60~100	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

参考文献 52

[1]	Andreini MS, Steenhuis TS (1990). Preferential flow paths under conventional and conservation tillage. Geoderma, 46,85-102.
[2]	Bauters TWJ, DiCarlo DA, Steenhuis TS, Parlange JY (1998). Preferential flow in water-repellent sands. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 62,1185-1190.
[3]	Beven K, Germann P (1982). Macropores and water flow in soils. Water Resources Research, 18,1311-1325.
[4]	Beven K, Germann P (1981). Water flow in soil macropores. 2. A combined flow model. Journal of Soil Science, 32,15-29.
[5]	Beven K (1991). Modeling preferential flow: an uncertain future? In: Gish TJ, Shirmohannadi A eds. Preferential Flow. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1-11.
[6]	Bouma J, Belmans CFM, Dekker LW (1982). Water infiltration and redistribution in a silt loam subsoil with vertical worm channels. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 46,917-921.
[7]	Bouma J (1981). Soil morphology and preferential flow along macropores. Agriculture Water Management, 3,235-250.
[8]	de Rooij GH (1995). A three-region analytical model of solute leaching in a soil with a water repellent top layer. Water Resource Research, 31,2701-2707.
[9]	de Rooij GH, de Vries P (1996). Solute leaching in a sandy soil with a water-repellent surface layer: a simulation. Geoderma, 70,253-263.
[10]	Dekker LW, Ritsema CJ (1996). Variation in water content and wetting patterns in Dutch water repellent peaty clay and clayey peat soils. Catena, 28,89-105.
[11]	Dekker LW, Ritsema CJ, Wendroth O, Jarvis N (1999). Moisture distributions and wetting rates of soils at experimental fields in the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Germany. Journal of Hydrology, 215,4-22.
[12]	Edwards WM, Shipitalo MJ, Owens LB, Norton LD (1990). Effect of Lumbricus terrestris L. burrow on hydrology of continuous no-till corn fields . Geoderma, 46,73-84.
[13]	Elsenbeer H, Lack A, Cassel K (1995). Chemical fingerprints of hydrological compartments and flow paths at La Cuenca, western Amazonia. Water Resources Research, 31,3051-3058.
[14]	Elsenbeer H, Lack A (1996). Hydrometric and hydrochemical evidence for fast flowpaths at La Cuenca, western Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology, 180,237-250.
[15]	Flühler H, Ursino N, Bundt M (2001). The preferential flow syndrom—a buzzword or a scientific problem. In: David B, Kevin K eds. International Symposium on Preferential Flow 2nd edn. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 21-24.
[16]	Flury M (1996). Experimental evidence of transport of pesticides through field soils—a review. Journal of Environment Quality, 25,25-45.
[17]	Flury M, Flühler H, Jury W A, Leuenberger J (1994). Susceptibility of soils to preferential flow of water: a field study. Water Resources Research, 30,1945-1954.
[18]	Freeze RA, Banner J (1970). The mechanisms of natural groundwater recharge and discharge. 2. Large column experiments and field measurements. Water Resources Research, 6,138-155.
[19]	Gerrit H, de Rooij, Stagnitti F (2002). Spatial and temporal distribution of solute leaching in heterogeneous soils: analysis and application to multisampler lysimeter data. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 54,329-346. DOI URL PMID
[20]	Glass RJ, Steenhuis TS, Parlange JY (1989). Mechanism for finger persistence in homogeneous unsaturated porous media: theory and verification. Soil Science, 148,60-70.
[21]	Helling CS, Gish TJ (1991). Physical and chemical processes affecting preferential flow. In: Gish TJ, Shirmohammadi A eds. Preferential Flow. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan,77-86.
[22]	Hendrickx JMH, Dekker LW, Boersma OH (1993). Unstable wetting fronts in water repellent field soils. Journal of Environment Quality, 22,109-118.
[23]	Hill DE, Parlange JY (1972). Wetting front instability in layered soils. Soil Science Society of America Process, 36,697-702.
[24]	Hornberger GM, Germann PF, Beven KJ (1991). Throughflow and solute transport in an isolated sloping soil block in a forested catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 124,81-99.
[25]	Hua M(华孟), Wang J(王坚) (1993). Soil Physics(土壤物理学). China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[26]	Huang JH(黄建辉), Han XG(韩兴国), Chen LZ(陈灵芝) (1999). Advances in the research of (fine) root biomass in forest ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 19,270-277. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	Jamison VC (1945). The penetration of irrigation and rain water into sandy soils of central Florida. Soil Science Society of America Pro-cess, 10,25-29.
[28]	Jarvis N (1998). Modeling the impact of preferential flow on non-point source pollution. In: Selim HH, Ma L eds. Physical Non-equilibrium in Soils: Modeling and Application. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan, 195-221.
[29]	Jones JAA (1971). Soil piping and stream channel initiation. Water Resources Research, 7,602-610.
[30]	Kung KJS (1990a). Preferential flow in a sandy vadose zone soil. 1. Field observation. Geoderma, 46,51-58.
[31]	Kung KJS (1990b). Preferential flow in a sandy vadose zone soil: 2. Mechanism and implications. Geoderma, 46,59-71.
[32]	Lawes JB, Gilbert JH, Warington R (1882). On the Amount and Composition of the Rain and Drainage Water Collected at Rothamsted. Williams, Clowes and Sons, London, UK.
[33]	Lissey A (1971). Depression-focused transient groundwater flow patterns in Manitoba. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper, 9,333-341.
[34]	Mabuchi T (1961). Infiltration and ensuing percolation in columns of laggard glass particles packed in laboratory. Transactions Agriculture Engineering Society of Japan,13-19.
[35]	Miller DE, Gardner WH (1962). Water infiltration into stratified soil. Soil Science Society of America Process, 26,115-119.
[36]	Nieber JL, Misra D (1995). Modeling flow and transport in heterogeneous, dual-porosity drained soils. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 9,217-237.
[37]	Nieber JL, van den Eertwegh GAPH, Feddes RA (1998). Modeling multidimensional water flow and solute transport in dual-porosity soils. In: In: Brown LC ed. Drainage in the 21st Century: Food Production and the Environment. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Drainage Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan,227-235.
[38]	Quisenberry VL, Phillips RE, Zeleznik JM (1994). Spatial distribution of water and chloride macropore flow in a well-structured soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58,1294-1300.
[39]	Ritsema CJ, Dekker LW, Nieber JL (1998). Modeling and field evidence of finger formation and finger recurrence in a water repellent sandy soil. Water Resources Research, 34,555-567.
[40]	Ritsema CJ, Dekker LW (1993). Preferential flow mechanism in a water repellent sandy soil. Water Resources Research, 29,2183-2193.
[41]	Ritsema CJ, Nieber JL, Dekker LW (1998). Stable or unstable wetting fronts in water repellent soils—effect of antecedent soil moisture content. Soil & Tillage Research, 47,111-123.
[42]	Roth K (1995). Steady state flow in an unsaturated, two-dimensional, macroscopically homogeneous, Millersimilar medium. Water Resources Research, 31,2127-2140.
[43]	Shipitalo MJ, Edwards WM, Dick WA, Owens LB (1990). Initial storm effects on macropore transport of surface applied chemicals in no-till soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 54,1530-1536.
[44]	Skopp J (1981). Comment on “Micro-, meso-, and macroporosity of soil”. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45,1246.
[45]	Tani M (1997). Runoff generation processes estimated from hydrological observation on a steep forested hillslope with a thin soil layer. Journal of Hydrology, 200,84-109.
[46]	van Dam JC, Hendrickx JMH, van Ommen HC (1990). Water and solute movement in a coarse-textured water-repellent field soil. Journal of Hydrology, 120,359-379.
[47]	Walsh RPD, Howells KA (1988). Soil pipes and their role in runoff generation and chemical denudation in humid tropical catchment in Dominica. Earth Surface Process and Landforms, 13,9-17.
[48]	Wang Z, Feyen J, Ritsema CJ (1998). Susceptibility and predictability of conditions for preferential flow. Water Resources Research, 34,2169-2182.
[49]	Wildenschild D, Vaz CMP, Rivers ML, Rikard D (2000). Using x-ray computed tomography in hydrology: systems, resolutions, and limitations. Journal of Hydrology, 267,285-297.
[50]	Woo M, diCenzo P (1988). Pipe flow in James Bay coastal wetlands. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 25,625-629.
[51]	Zhao YT (赵玉涛)(2002). Study on hydrological precess and modeling of dark coniferous forest ecosystem of upper reach of Yangtze River. PhD dissertation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[52]	Zhang HJ(张洪江), Wang YJ(王玉杰), Bei YZ(北原曜) (2000). A study in pipe flow on the slope of granite region of the three-gorge of Yangtze River. Journal of Beijing Forestry University(北京林业大学学报), 22(5),53-57. (in Chinese with English abstract)