华南地区漓江上游3种典型森林不同层次土壤湿度比较研究

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.03.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

不同森林植被改变了林下穿透雨、树干径流、蒸发散和地表入渗,进而对林下不同层次土壤湿度产生重要影响。以华南地区漓江上游3种典型森林,包括毛竹林(Phyllostachys pubescens)、荷木林(Schima superba)和杉木林(Cunninghamia lanceolata)为研究对象,比较其不同层次土壤湿度及其影响因素。结果表明：(1) 毛竹林、荷木林和杉木林3种典型植被林下凋落物层和土壤层存在明显差异,荷木林林下土壤入渗强于毛竹林和杉木林;(2) 由于森林植被垂直结构差异,从0-20 cm表层土壤到50-80 cm深层土壤,3种典型植被不同层次土壤湿度存在较大的时空差异;(3) 荷木林各层次土壤湿度都明显高于毛竹林和杉木林;(4) 各层次土壤含水量与年降雨关系密切,随雨旱两季变化,毛竹林、荷木林和杉木林不同层次土壤湿度随降雨变化趋势基本一致; (5) 在0-20 cm表层土壤,土壤湿度主要受地表凋落物性质的影响,而在深层土壤,土壤湿度主要受植物根系分布和土壤物理性质的影响。本研究为深入了解漓江上游森林植被对降水产流的调节作用,客观评估漓江上游水资源和科学管理水源涵养林提供理论依据。

关键词: 土壤湿度, 不同层次土壤, 典型森林植被, 华南地区

Abstract:

Throughfall, stemflow, evapotranspiration and infiltration are likely to vary with forest types, and consequently affect soil moisture regimes in different soil layers. In this study, the spatial and temporal characteristics of soil moisture were investigated to understand variations in soil moisture in three typical forests, including Phyllostachys pubescens forest (abbreviated as PPF), Schima superba forest (abbreviated as SSF) and Cunninghamia lanceolata forest (abbreviated as CLF) in the upper reaches of Lijiang River basin in southern China. The results showed that, (1) Litterfall and soil physical properties differed significantly in the three typical forests. Infiltration capacity in SSF was more favorable to soil moisture than in PPF and CLF. (2) Large variations were found in soil moisture at different forest stands and depths. Due to complicated vertical structures, there were obvious differences in soil moisture from the 0-20 cm soil layer to the 50-80 cm soil layer. (3) Average soil moisture in each layer was higher in SSF than in PPF and CLF. (4) Soil moisture in different layers correlated closely with precipitation (P<0.01) and the three typical forests had the same change trends with rainfall during the studying period. (5) In topsoil, soil moisture was influenced by soil properties which were mostly determined by litterfall, while in deep soil, soil moisture was affected by variations of soil characteristics, which were mostly determined by root distribution. This study provides a scientific basis for better understanding the relationships between forest vegetation and its hydrological effects, helping to facilitate water resources conservation and achieving wise forest management in the upper reaches of Lijiang River basin.

Key words: soil moisture, different soil layers, typical forests, southern China

李海防, 刘庆华, 李士美, 李伟, 杨金明. 华南地区漓江上游3种典型森林不同层次土壤湿度比较研究[J]. 资源与生态学报, 2019, 10(3): 307-314.

LI Haifang,LIU Qinghua,LI Shimei,LI Wei,YANG Jinming. Comparison of Soil Moisture in Different Soil Layers between Three Typical Forests in the Upper Reaches of Lijiang River Basin, Southern China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(3): 307-314.

图/表 7

参考文献 42

[1]	Aubert D, Loumagne C, Oudin L.2003. Sequential assimilation of soil moisture and stream flow data in a conceptual rainfall-runoff model.Journal of Hydrology, 280(1-4): 145-161.
[2]	Bell K R, Blanchard B J, Schmugge T J, et al.1980. Analysis of surface moisture variations within large field sites.Water Resources Research, 16(4): 796-810.
[3]	Benegas L, Ilstedt U, Roupsard O, et al.2014. Effects of trees on infiltrability and preferential flow in two contrasting agroecosystems in Central America.Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 183: 185-196.
[4]	Blake G R, Hartge K N.1986. Bulk density.In: Klute B (ed). Methods of soil analysis. ASA & SSSA, Madison, 363-375.
[5]	Brocca L, Melone F, Moramarco T, et al.2009. Soil moisture temporal stability over experimental areas in Central Italy.Geoderma, 148(3-4): 364-374.
[6]	Castillo V M, Gómez-Plaza A, Martínez-Mena M.2003. The role of antecedent soil water content in the runoff response of semiarid catchments: a simulation approach.Journal of Hydrology, 284(1-4): 114-130.
[7]	Dalsgaard L.2007. Above and below ground gaps-the effects of a small canopy opening on throughfall, soil moisture and tree transpiration in Suserup Skov, Denmark.Ecological Bulletins, 52: 81-102.
[8]	Famiglietti J S, Rudnicki J W, Rodell M.1998. Variability in surface moisture content along a hillslope transect: Rattlesnake Hill, Texas.Journal of Hydrology, 210(1-4): 259-281.
[9]	Fu B, Chen L.2000. Agricultural landscape spatial pattern analysis in the semi-arid hill area of the Loess Plateau, China.Journal of Arid Environments, 44(3): 291-303.
[10]	Gwak Y S, Kim S H.2016. Factors affecting soil moisture spatial variability for a humid forest hillslope.Hydrological Processes, 31(2): 431-445.
[11]	He Z B, Zhao W Z, Liu H, et al.2012. The response of soil moisture to rainfall event size in subalpine grassland and meadows in a semi-arid mountain range: a case study in northwestern China’s Qilian Mountains.Journal of Hydrology, 420: 183-190.
[12]	Hu Z Y, Wang J X, Peng P H, et al.2003. Studies on soil amelioratin of the protection forests in the hilly areas of central Sichuan.Journal of Sichuan Forestry Science and Technology, 24(3): 17-24. (in Chinese)
[13]	Hudson B D.1994. Soil organic matter and available water capacity.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 49(2): 189-194.
[14]	ISSCAS(Institute of Soil Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences). 1978. Physical and chemical analysis methods of soils. Shanghai:.Shanghai Science Technology Press. (in Chinese)
[15]	Li X Y, Contreras S, Solé-Benet A, et al.2011. Controls of infiltration- runoff processes in Mediterranean karst rangelands in SE Spain.Catena, 86(2): 98-109.
[16]	Liu H Y, Huang J G.2005. Dynamics of soil properties under secondary succession forest communities in Mt. Jinyu.Chinese Journal Applied Ecology, 16(11): 2041-2046. (in Chinese)
[17]	Liu J, Ma D, Shi J.1999. A View of Harnessing Flood Disasters and Water Deficiency in Dry Seasons Along Li River.Carsologica Sinica, 18(2): 159-169. (in Chinese)
[18]	Liu X, Zhang G C, Heathman G C, et al.2009. Fractal features of soil particle-size distribution as affected by plant communities in the forested region of Mountain Yimeng, China.Geoderma, 154(1-2): 123-130.
[19]	Ma Z L, Gong Y B, Hu T X.2006. Characteristic of soil hydro-physical properties and water dynamics under different vegetation restoration types.Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 11(4): 1009-1014.
[20]	Mahmood R, Hubbard K G.2007. Relationship between soil moisture of near surface and multiple depths of the root zone under heterogeneous land uses and varying hydro climatic condition.Hydrological Processes, 21(25): 3449-3462.
[21]	Neris J, Jiménez C, Fuentes J, et al.2012. Vegetation and land-use effects on soil properties and water infiltration of Andisols inTenerife (Canary Islands, Spain).Catena, 98: 55-62.
[22]	Neumann R B, Cardon Z G.2012. The magnitude of hydraulic redistribution by plant roots: a review and synthesis of empirical and modeling studies.New Phytologist, 194: 337-352.
[23]	Penna D, Borga M, Norbiato D, et al.2009. Hillslope scale soil moisture variability in a steep alpine terrain.Journal of Hydrology, 364(3-4): 311-327.
[24]	Seeger M, Errea M P, Beguería S, et al.2004. Catchment soil moisture and rainfall characteristics as determinant factors for discharge/suspended sediment hysteretic loops in a small headwater catchment in the Spanish Pyrenees.Journal of Hydrology, 288(3-4): 299-311.
[25]	Sharda V N, Ojaswi P R.2006. Hydrological evaluation of forest tree covers in different agro-ecological regions of India. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Impacts of Reforestation of Degraded Lands on Landscape hydrology in the Asian Region, Roorkee, India. 6-10 March: 1-18.
[26]	Staelens J A, De Schrijver A, Verheyen K, et al.2006. Spatial variability and temporal stability of throughfall water under a dominant beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) tree in relationship to canopy cover. Journal of Hydrology, 330(3-4): 651-662.
[27]	Sun F X, Lu Y H, Wang J L, et al.2015. Soil moisture dynamics of typical ecosystems in response to precipitation: a monitoring-based analysis of hydrological service in the Qilian Mountains.Catena, 129: 63-75.
[28]	Vereecken H, Huisman J A, Pachepsky Y, et al.2014. On the spatio-temporal dynamics of soil moisture at the field scale.Journal of Hydrology, 516: 76-96.
[29]	Venkatesh B, Lakshman N, Purandra B K, et al.2010. Analysis of observed soil moisture patterns under different land covers in Western Ghats, India.Journal of hydrology, 397(3-4): 281-294.
[30]	Venkatesh B, Nandagiri N, Purandara BK, et al.2011. Modelling soil moisture under different land covers in a sub-humid environment of Western Ghats, India.Journal of Earth System Science, 120(3): 387-398.
[31]	Wang G X, Li Y S, Hu H C, et al.2008. Synergistic effect of vegetation and air temperature changes on soil water content in alpine frost meadow soil in the permafrost region of Qinghai-Tibet.Hydrological Processes, 22(17): 3310-3320.
[32]	Wang G X, Liu G S, Li C J.2012. Effects of changes in alpine grassland vegetation cover on hillslope hydrological processes in a permafrost watershed. Journal of Hydrology, 444-445: 22-33.
[33]	Wilson D J, Western A W, Grayson R B.2005. A terrain and data based method for generating the spatial distribution of soil moisture.Advances in Water Resources, 28(1): 43-54.
[34]	Wohlfahrt G, Bianchi K, Cernusca A.2006. Leaf and stem maximum water storage capacity of herbaceous plants in a mountain meadow.Journal of Hydrology, 319(1-4): 383-390.
[35]	Wu Q X, Han B, Li Y Y.2004. Characteristics of soil infiltration in watersheds in Loess Hilly Region.Science of Soil &Water Conservation, 2(2): 1-5. (in Chinese)
[36]	Zhang C S, Xie G D, Fan S H, et al.2010. Variation in vegetation structure and soil properties, and the relation between understory plants and environmental variables under different phyllostachys pubescens forests in southeastern China.Environmental Management, 45(4): 779-792.
[37]	Zhang W G, An S Q, Xu Z, et al.2011. The impact of vegetation and soil on runoff regulation in headwater streams on the east Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China.Catena, 87(2): 182-189.
[38]	Zhao H L, Yi X Y, Zhou R L, et al.2006. Wind erosion and sand accumulation effects on soil properties in Horqin Sandy Farmland, Inner Mongolia.Catena, 65(1): 71-79.
[39]	Zhao X N, Wu P T, Gao X D, et al.2014. Changes of soil hydraulic properties under early-stage natural vegetation recovering on the Loess Plateau of China.Catena, 113: 386-391.
[40]	Zheng Y S, Chen LG, Hong W.1998. Study on productivity and soil properties of mixed forests of Chinese fir and phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 34(1): 16-25. (in Chinese)
[41]	Zheng H, Chen F L, Ouyang Z Y, et al.2008. Impacts of reforestation approaches on runoff control in the hilly red soil region of southern China.Journal of Hydrology, 356(1-2): 174-184.
[42]	Zimmermann B, Elsenbeer H.2008. Spatial and temporal variability of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity in gradients of disturbance.Journal of Hydrology, 361(1-2): 78-95.

Forest type	PPF	SSF	CLF
Elevation (m)	680	700	710
Slope aspect	SW	SW	W
Slope (°)	35	32	37
Canopy density (%)	90	85	95
Density (trees ha^-1)	2250	1200	320
DBH (cm)	8.3	18.4	19.3
Average height (m)	10	7.5	15
Soil types	Mountain yellow earths

Forest type	PPF	SSF	CLF
Elevation (m)	680	700	710
Slope aspect	SW	SW	W
Slope (°)	35	32	37
Canopy density (%)	90	85	95
Density (trees ha^-1)	2250	1200	320
DBH (cm)	8.3	18.4	19.3
Average height (m)	10	7.5	15
Soil types	Mountain yellow earths

Forest type		PPF	SSF	CLF
Litter layer	Litterfall (t ha^-1)	11.21	14.73	13.49
Litter layer	Maximum water holding capacity (t ha^-1)	13.8	32.8	25.7
0-20 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	0.85	0.74	0.79
	Capillary porosity (%)	12.74	16.92	10.48
	Noncapillary porosity (%)	44.96	45.48	39.73
	Total porosity (%)	57.70	62.40	50.21
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	6.20	5.85	6.41
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.70	0.23	0.54
20-50 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	1.02	0.93	0.78
	Capillary porosity (%)	9.14	12.78	5.84
	Non-capillary porosity (%)	43.54	44.75	50.88
	Total porosity (%)	52.68	57.53	56.71
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	5.42	5.48	6.38
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.16	0.18	0.48
50-80 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	1.09	0.88	0.92
	Capillary porosity (%)	3.38	17.79	11.22
	Noncapillary porosity (%)	49.78	39.89	44.93
	Total porosity (%)	53.16	57.68	56.15
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	5.48	5.42	5.99
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.27	0.15	0.55

Forest type		PPF	SSF	CLF
Litter layer	Litterfall (t ha^-1)	11.21	14.73	13.49
Litter layer	Maximum water holding capacity (t ha^-1)	13.8	32.8	25.7
0-20 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	0.85	0.74	0.79
	Capillary porosity (%)	12.74	16.92	10.48
	Noncapillary porosity (%)	44.96	45.48	39.73
	Total porosity (%)	57.70	62.40	50.21
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	6.20	5.85	6.41
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.70	0.23	0.54
20-50 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	1.02	0.93	0.78
	Capillary porosity (%)	9.14	12.78	5.84
	Non-capillary porosity (%)	43.54	44.75	50.88
	Total porosity (%)	52.68	57.53	56.71
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	5.42	5.48	6.38
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.16	0.18	0.48
50-80 cm soil layer	Soil bulk density (g cm^-3)	1.09	0.88	0.92
	Capillary porosity (%)	3.38	17.79	11.22
	Noncapillary porosity (%)	49.78	39.89	44.93
	Total porosity (%)	53.16	57.68	56.15
	Initial infiltration rate (mm/min)	5.48	5.42	5.99
	Steady infiltration rate (mm/min)	0.27	0.15	0.55

Soil depth (cm)	PPF			SSF			CLF			Sig.
Soil depth (cm)	MEAN±SE	max	min	MEAN±SE	max	min	MEAN±SE	max	min	Sig.
0-20	39.71(0.28)	41.19	38.01	50.53(0.58)	53.84	47.55	36.75(0.33)	38.61	35.01	P<0.01
20-50	41.06(0.34)	42.78	39.04	43.70(0.79)	49.37	41.08	32.04(0.23)	33.97	30.61	P<0.01
50-80	42.97(1.05)	50.07	38.26	46.27(0.57)	48.39	42.42	31.47(0.65)	34.51	27.60	P<0.01