The Ecological Water Demand of Different Vegetation Types in the Bashang Area, Northwest Hebei Province

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.01.013

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to construct stable vegetation for reducing wind and sand disasters and soil erosion in the Bashang Area of Northwest Hebei Province in China, it is very important to understand the ecological water demand of different vegetation types in this area. Based on observed data and the Irmak-Allen formula, we investigated the ecological water demand and ecological water shortage of arbor, shrub and grassland in Bashang Area of northwestern Hebei province. The results showed that the actual evapotranspiration values of the three vegetation types in the growing seasons in the study area from high to low were arbor forest (401.81 mm), shrub (358.78 mm) and grassland (346.02 mm). The minimum ecological water requirements of arbor forest, shrub and grassland in the growing season were 243.96 mm, 218.35 mm and 211.36 mm, respectively, and the optimal ecological water requirements were 472.99 mm, 423.34 mm and 409.77 mm, respectively. In addition, the optimal ecological water shortage values were 198.56 mm for arbor forest, 148.91 mm for shrub and 135.34 mm for grassland. The ecological water shortage of vegetation has obvious seasonality, with the largest water shortage in May and June, and a lower and steady water surplus in July to October. Therefore, an artificial water supplementation in May and June would alleviate the drought stress of the vegetation. The rainfall in Bashang Area of Northwest Hebei Province can meet the requirements of minimum ecological water demand for arbor forest, but the gap between the rainfall and the optimal ecological water requirement is too large to support good growth of an arbor forest, which could explain why the degradation of poplar protective forests has occurred in Bashang Area.

Key words: Bashang Area, Northwest Hebei, vegetation, actual evapotranspiration, ecological water demand

XU Zhongqi, ZHANG Naixuan, WANG Ran, YANG Xin, SUN Shoujia, YAN Tengfei. The Ecological Water Demand of Different Vegetation Types in the Bashang Area, Northwest Hebei Province[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(1): 113-119.

Figures/Tables 6

References 24

[1]	Bai X, Ji X X, Zhao C L, et al. 2021. Artificial forest conversion into grassland alleviates deep-soil desiccation in typical grass zone on China’s Loess Plateau: Regional modeling. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 320: 107608. DOI: 10.1016/J.AGEE.2021.107608. DOI
[2]	Chen L H, Wang L X. 2001. Classification of ecological water use and quota determination of ecological water use of forest cover in Beijing. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 8(4): 161-164. (in Chinese)
[3]	Chu B. 2009. Calculation and forecast of ecological water demand and consumption for floodplain forest in arid area. Diss., Beijing, China: Tsinghua University. (in Chinese)
[4]	Dong X, Zhou J P, Hu H T, et al. 2018. Ecological water requirement estimation of typical plantation tree species in Yanqing, Beijing. Journal of West China Forestry Science, 47(1): 74-79. (in Chinese)
[5]	Guo Y L. 2013. Causes of death of poplar protective forest in Bashang Area. Land Greening, (8): 37. (in Chinese)
[6]	He Y T, Min Q W, Li W H, et al. 2004. Calculation of ecological water requirement of forests in Jinghe Watershed. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 18(6): 152-155.. (in Chinese)
[7]	Li T S, Xia J, Kuang Y, et al. 2017. The applicability of various potential evapotranspiration estimation methods in the middle and upper reaches of Hanjiang River Basin. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 15(6): 1-10.. (in Chinese)
[8]	Li Y F, Zhang L X, Cao Y Q, et al. 2019. Spatiotemporal variations of potential evapotranspiration and its climate influencing factors in Hebei Province. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 17(3): 67-78. (in Chinese)
[9]	Liu C F. 2007. Energy and water budget of a poplar plantation in Suburban Beijing. Diss., Beijing, China: Beijing Forestry University. (in Chinese)
[10]	Liu J. 2014. Study on the vegetation ecological water requirement in the Heihe River Basin based on 3S technology. Diss., Yangling, China: Northwest A&F University.
[11]	Liu Z H, Jia G D, Yu X X, et al. 2021. Morphological trait as a determining factor for Populus simonii Carr. to survive from drought in semi-arid region. Agricultural Water Management, 253: 106943. DOI: 10.1016/J.AGWAT.2021.106943. DOI URL
[12]	Jensen M E. 1982. Consumptive use of water and irrigation water requirements. Xiong Y Z, Lin X C (Transtalted). Beijing, China: Agricultural Press. (in Chinese)
[13]	Min Q W, He Y T, Li W H, et al. 2004. Estimation of forests’ ecological water requirement based on agrometeorology: Taking Jinghe Watershed as an example. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 24(10): 2130-2135. (in Chinese)
[14]	Qin M S, Hao L, Shi T T, et al. 2016. Comparison and modification of five crop reference evapotranspiration models for Qinhuai River Basin. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 37(4): 390-399. (in Chinese)
[15]	Sun S J, He C X, Qiu L F, et al. 2018. Stable isotope analysis reveals prolonged drought stress in poplar lantation mortality of the Three-North Shelter Forest in Northern China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 252: 39-48. DOI URL
[16]	Wang L, Feng X X, Liu G, et al. 2017. Dynamic changes in water consumption and supply of soil in artificial Pinus tabuliformis land. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 29(3): 80-84. (in Chinese)
[17]	Wang L X. 2000. Vegetative eco environment construction and water use of eco environment-Taking northwestern area for an example. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 7(3): 5-7. (in Chinese)
[18]	Xiao C L, Zhang L X, Cao Y Q, et al. 2019. Differentiation and analysis on characteristics of potential evapotranspiration in Hebei Province and related dominant factors. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 50(6): 1-10. (in Chinese)
[19]	Xing H F. 2015. Analysis on death causes of poplar shelterbelt in Bashang. Hebei Forestry Science and Technology, (1): 76-77. (in Chinese)
[20]	Xu C Y, Singh V P. 2005. Evaluation of three complementary relationship evapotranspiration models by water balance approach to estimate actual regional evapotranspiration in different climatic regions. Journal of Hydrology, 308(1-4): 105-121. DOI URL
[21]	Yang W, Shen R X, Liu H X. 1999. On the sustainable management of the Poplar canker (Dothiorella gregaria Sacc.). Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 21(4): 13-17. (in Chinese)
[22]	Zhang Y, Yang Z F. 2002. Calculation method of ecological water requirement for forestland and its application to Huang-Huai-Hai Region. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 13(12): 1566-1570. (in Chinese) PMID
[23]	Zheng C Y, Xu Z Q, Ma C M, et al. 2018. The factors influencing the poplar shelterbelt degradation in the Bashang Plateau of Northwest Hebei Province. Forest Resources Management, (1): 9-15, 147. (in Chinese)
[24]	Zhou X D. 2017. Study on the spatial and temporal of vegetation ecological water requirement in Xiaojiang Basin Yunnan Province based on GIS. Diss., Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences.

Month	Forest	Shrub	Grassland
April	0.5	0.4	0.3
May	0.7	0.6	0.6
June	0.9	0.8	0.8
July	1.1	0.9	0.9
August	0.8	0.8	0.8
September	0.6	0.6	0.6
October	0.5	0.5	0.4

Month	Forest	Shrub	Grassland
April	0.5	0.4	0.3
May	0.7	0.6	0.6
June	0.9	0.8	0.8
July	1.1	0.9	0.9
August	0.8	0.8	0.8
September	0.6	0.6	0.6
October	0.5	0.5	0.4

Month	Monthly average soil moisture (%)	Modified soil moisture coefficient K_S
April	6.58	0.87
May	4.81	0.79
June	3.08	0.68
July	7.25	0.89
August	3.69	0.73
September	7.10	0.89
October	8.66	0.93

Month	Monthly average soil moisture (%)	Modified soil moisture coefficient K_S
April	6.58	0.87
May	4.81	0.79
June	3.08	0.68
July	7.25	0.89
August	3.69	0.73
September	7.10	0.89
October	8.66	0.93

Month	Forest		Shrub		Grassland
Month	Actual evapotranspiration (mm)	Proportion (%)	Actual evapotranspiration (mm)	Proportion (%)	Actual evapotranspiration (mm)	Proportion (%)
April	37.71	9.39	30.17	8.41	22.63	6.54
May	58.55	14.57	50.19	13.99	50.19	14.50
June	65.57	16.32	58.28	16.24	58.28	16.84
July	109.13	27.16	89.29	24.89	89.29	25.80
August	63.39	15.78	63.39	17.67	63.39	18.32
September	41.38	10.30	41.38	11.53	41.38	11.96
October	26.07	6.49	26.07	7.27	20.86	6.03
Whole growing season	401.81	100.00	358.78	100.00	346.02	100.00