WEPS模型在乌兰布和沙漠油莎豆（Cyperus esculentus）种植区的应用

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2022.05.15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究WEPS模型的风蚀预测效果,在内蒙古乌兰布和沙漠油莎豆（Cyperus esculentus）种植区,对全采收（CK）、留4采6、留6采6油莎豆纯作和油莎豆-梭梭间作留茬4种不同采收模式地表进行风蚀监测,并利用2020年11月15日和12月26日2次实测风蚀数据对WEPS模型风蚀预测结果进行验证。结果表明：（1）与全采收相比,3种留茬模式均能有效降低风力对种植区地表的侵蚀作用,地表防风固沙能力随留茬数量的增加而提高。（2） WEPS模型预测单宽风蚀量与实测结果有明显差异,模型值最大为实测值的10.16倍,最小为实测值的0.58倍;模型预测质量有不确定性,在植被覆盖度较高的地表预测效果较差。（3）模型预测的单宽输沙量随实测值的增加呈幂函数增加,能够较准确地预测不同地表特征风蚀量变化趋势;在风蚀定量化估算上,WEPS模型还需根据实际风蚀环境对公式及参数进行修正。

关键词: WEPS模型, 油莎豆（Cyperus esculentus）, 风力侵蚀, 乌兰布和沙漠

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to explore the wind erosion evaluation accuracy of the Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). Wind erosion monitoring was carried out on the surface of four different harvest modes in the Ulan Buh Desert Cyperus esculentus planting area in Inner Mongolia, China as follows: full harvest, retain four harvest six, retain six harvest six, and retain intercrop (Cyperus esculentus and Haloxylon ammodendron). Wind erosion monitoring was carried out on the model surface, and the wind erosion prediction results of the WEPS model were verified using the wind erosion data, which was measured twice. The research results showed that compared with full harvesting, the three stubble modes effectively reduced the effect of wind erosion on the surface of the planting area. The intercropping stubble had the strongest wind-proof and sand-fixing ability among them, and the six remaining six harvested was the weakest. The surface wind-proof and sand-fixing ability was the weakest. With the increased number of remaining stubble, the structural characteristics of wind-sand flow gradually changed from a tortuous shape to the shape of “1”. This can provide a basis for the promotion of planting Cyperus esculentus in northern sandy areas to balance ecological and economic benefits. With the increased height, the sediment load of full harvest, with four remaining six harvested and six remaining six harvested, showed an exponential decreasing trend. The intercropping stubble sediment load showed a logarithmic decrease with the increase of height. The fitting degree decreased gradually, and the distribution law of sediment transport with height changed to a logarithmic direction. There was a certain difference between the WEPS prediction and the measured results. The maximum model value was 10.16 times the measured value, and the minimum was 0.58 times the measured value. The model prediction quality was uncertain, and the prediction effect was poor on the surface with high vegetation coverage. However, there was reasonable consistency as the unit-width sediment load predicted by the model increased as a power function with the increase of the measured value. Overall, the model is feasible in small-scale areas to predict the variation trend of wind erosion with different surface characteristics. However, in the quantitative prediction of wind erosion, the prediction value is less stable. It is necessary to strengthen the research on the model in multi-climate, multi-type surface vegetation coverage, multi-sequence prediction, and other factors related to wind erosion to establish a database that adjusts the model parameters and formulas according to the actual wind erosion environment to improve the universality of WEPS in the future.

Key words: Wind Erosion Prediction System, Cyperus esculentus, wind erosion, Ulan Buh desert

廖贵云,吴秀芹,谭锦,李丹,冯梦馨. WEPS模型在乌兰布和沙漠油莎豆（Cyperus esculentus）种植区的应用[J]. 干旱区研究, 2022, 39(5): 1504-1513.

LIAO Guiyun,WU Xiuqin,TAN Jin,LI Dan,FENG Mengxin. Application of the Wind Erosion Prediction System in the Ulan Buh Desert Cyperus esculentus planting area[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(5): 1504-1513.

图/表 11

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

表3

不同采收模式输沙量与高度的拟合关系"

日期/年-月-日	采收模式	拟合方程	R²	P
2020-11-15	全采收	$Q = 6.3343 e - 0.225 Z$	0.970	4.4E-3
	留4采6	$Q = 9.342 e - 0.378 Z$	0.947	6.2E-3
	留6采6	$Q = 0.5458 e - 0.137 Z$	0.923	4.6E-3
	间作留茬	$Q = 0.0567 - 0.017 l n Z$	0.920	7.8E-5
2020-12-26	全采收	$Q = 12.919 e - 0.252 Z$	0.978	1.4E-3
	留4采6	$Q = 1.1503 e - 0.21 Z$	0.948	2.2E-2
	留6采6	$Q = 0.876 e - 0.189 Z$	0.921	5.3E-3
	间作留茬	$Q = 0.1376 - 0.039 l n Z$	0.907	2.7E-5

表3

表4

表5

表6

图4

图5

参考文献 29

[1]	董治宝, 李振山, 严平. 国外土壤风蚀的研究历史与特点[J]. 中国沙漠, 1995, 15(1): 100-104.
	[Dong Zhibao, Li Zhenshan, Yan Ping. An outling of the wind erosion research history in the world[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 1995, 15(1): 100-104. ]
[2]	于宝勒, 吴文俊, 赵学军, 等. 内蒙古京津风沙源治理工程土壤风蚀控制效益研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2016, 33(6): 1278-1286.
	[Yu Baole, Wu Wenjun, Zhao Xuejun, et al. Benefits of soil wind erosion control of the Beijing-Tianjin sand source control project in Inner Mongolia[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2016, 33(6): 1278-1286. ]
[3]	廖超英, 郑粉莉, 刘国彬, 等. 风蚀预报系统(WEPS)介绍[J]. 水土保持研究, 2004, 11(4): 77-79.
	[Liao Chaoying, Zheng Fenli, Liu Guobin, et al. A brief introduction to Wind Erosion Prediction System[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2004, 11(4): 77-79. ]
[4]	席成, 左合君, 王海兵, 等. 高立式尼龙网沙障防风阻沙特征及其合理配置[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(3): 882-891.
	[Xi Cheng, Zuo Hejun, Wang Haibing, et al. Wind-proof and sand-blocking characteristics of high vertical nylon mesh sand barrier and its rational allocation[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(3): 882-891. ]
[5]	Maurer T, Herrmann L, Gaiser T, et al. A mobile wind tunnel for wind erosion field measurements[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2006, 66(2): 257-271. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.002
[6]	王仁德, 邹学勇, 赵婧妍. 半湿润区农田土壤风蚀的风洞模拟研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2012, 32(3): 640-646.
	[Wang Rende, Zou Xueyong, Zhao Jingyan. Research on farmland soil wind erosion characteristics in semi-humid region by wind-tunnel simulation[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2012, 32(3): 640-646. ]
[7]	Zhang C, Zou X, Yang P, et al. Wind tunnel test and ¹³⁷Cs tracing study on wind erosion of several soils in Tibet[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2007, 94(2): 269-282. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2006.08.002
[8]	王仁德, 常春平, 彭帅, 等. 基于粒度对比法的坝上农田风蚀与粉尘释放量估算[J]. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(21): 108-114.
	[Wang Rende, Chang Chunping, Peng Shuai, et al. Estimation on farmland wind-erosion and dust emission amount in Bashang of Hebei Province by grain composition contrast[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2013, 29(21): 108-114. ]
[9]	Böhner J, Schäfer W, Conrad O, et al. The WEELS model: Methods, results and limitations[J]. Catena, 2003, 52(3): 289-308. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00019-5
[10]	de Oro L A, Colazo J C, Buschiazzo D E. RWEQ-wind erosion predictions for variable soil roughness conditions[J]. Aeolian Research, 2016, 20: 139-146. doi: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.01.001
[11]	邹学勇, 张春来, 程宏, 等. 土壤风蚀模型中的影响因子分类与表达[J]. 地球科学进展, 2014, 29(8): 875-889. doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2014.08.0875
	[Zou Xueyong, Zhang Chunlai, Cheng Hong, et al. Classification and representation of factors affecting soil wind erosion in a model[J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2014, 29(8): 875-889. ] doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2014.08.0875
[12]	董治宝, 高尚玉, 董光荣. 土壤风蚀预报研究述评[J]. 中国沙漠, 1999, 19(4): 16-21.
	[Dong Zhibao, Gao Shangyu, Dong Guangrong. A review of wind erosion prediction research[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 1999, 19(4): 16-21. ]
[13]	吴芳芳, 曹月娥, 卢刚, 等. 准东地区土壤风蚀影响因子分析与风蚀量估算[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(6): 56-60.
	[Wu Fangfang, Cao Yue’e, Lu Gang, et al. Impact factors of soil wind erosion and estimation of soil loss in Zhundong, Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(6): 56-60. ]
[14]	南岭, 杜灵通, 王锐. 土壤风蚀模型研究进展[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 2013, 35(4): 505-509.
	[Nan Ling, Du Lingtong, Wang Rui. Reviews on development of soil wind erosion models[J]. World Sci-Tech R & D, 2013, 35(4): 505-509. ]
[15]	Wagner L E. A history of wind erosion prediction models in the United States department of agriculture: The Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS)[J]. Aeolian Research, 2013, 10: 9-24. doi: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.10.001
[16]	陈莉, 韩婷婷, 李涛, 等. 基于WEPS模型的天津郊区土壤风蚀起尘及对中心城区迁移量估算[J]. 环境科学, 2012, 33(7): 2197-2203.
	[Chen Li, Han Tingting, Li Tao, et al. Estimation of the effect derived from wind erosion of soil and dust emission in Tianjin suburbs on the central district based on WEPS model[J]. Environmental Science, 2012, 33(7): 2197-2203. ]
[17]	王燕, 王萍. 风蚀预报系统(WEPS)在民勤荒漠地区的应用分析研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2013, 36(1): 109-117.
	[Wang Yan, Wang Ping. Application of Wind Erosion Prediction System in Minqin desert area[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2013, 36(1): 109-117. ]
[18]	刘珺, 郭中领, 常春平, 等. 基于RWEQ和WEPS模型的中国北方农牧交错带潜在风蚀模拟[J]. 中国沙漠, 2021, 41(2): 27-37.
	[Liu Jun, Guo Zhongling, Chang Chunping, et al. Potential wind erosion simulation in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China using RWEQ and WEPS models[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(2): 27-37. ]
[19]	Liu Y, Teng Y, Liang S, et al. Establishment of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 emission inventories from wind erosion source and simulation of its environmental impact based on WEPS-Models 3 in southern Xinjiang, China[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2021, 248: 118222.
[20]	赵小庆, 刘和, 路战远, 等. 北方风沙区油莎豆防风固沙技术模式[J]. 现代农业, 2019(7): 13-14.
	[Zhao Xiaoqing, Liu He, Lu Zhanyuan, et al. Technical model of windbreak and sand fixation of Cyperus esculentus planting in soil wind erosion area of northern China[J]. Modern Agriculture, 2019(7): 13-14. ]
[21]	Yan G, Li L, Coy A, et al. Improving the estimation of fractional vegetation cover from UAV RGB imagery by colour unmixing[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2019, 158: 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.09.017
[22]	Hagen L J, Wagner L E, Skidmore E L. Analytical solutions and sensitivity analyses for sediment transport in WEPS[J]. Journal of Electronic Packaging: Transactions of the ASME, 1999, 42: 1715-1721.
[23]	瞿萍梅, 程治英, 龙春林, 等. 油莎豆资源的综合开发利用[J]. 中国油脂, 2007, 32(9): 61-63.
	[Qu Pingmei, Cheng Zhiying, Long Chunlin, et al. Comprehensive development of chufa (Cyperusesclentus L. var. sativus)[J]. China Oils and Fats, 2007, 32(9): 61-63. ]
[24]	Funk R, Skidmore E L, Hagen L J. Comparison of wind erosion measurements in Germany with simulated soil losses by WEPS[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2004, 19(2): 177-183.
[25]	Hagen L J. Evaluation of the Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) erosion submodel on cropland fields[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2004, 19(2): 171-176.
[26]	Tatarko J, van Donk S J, Ascough J C, et al. Application of the WEPS and SWEEP models to non-agricultural disturbed lands[J]. Heliyon, 2016, 2(12): e215.
[27]	Liu L Y, Skidmore E, Hasi E, et al. Dune sand transport as influenced by wind directions, speed and frequencies in the Ordos Plateau, China[J]. Geomorphology, 2005, 67(3) : 283-297. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.10.005
[28]	Maurer T, Gerke H. Modelling aeolian sediment transport during initial soil development on an artificial catchment using WEPS and aerial images[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2011, 117: 148-162. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2011.09.008
[29]	张奕, 肖辉杰, 辛智鸣, 等. 乌兰布和沙区典型灌木防风阻沙效益[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2021, 19(1): 87-96.
	[Zhang Yi, Xiao Huijie, Xin Zhiming, et al. Wind prevention and sand resistance of typical shrubs in Ulan Buh Desert[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 19(1): 87-96. ]

日期/年-月-日	采收模式	0.5 m处日平均风速/（m·s^-1）	1.0 m处日平均风速/（m·s^-1）	1.4 m处日平均风速/（m·s^-1）	起风时长/h	风向
2020-11-15	全采收	6.88	7.83	7.87	22	西偏北
2020-12-26	全采收	6.09	6.85	7.23	23	西偏北
2020-11-15	留4采6	6.78	7.29	8.00	22	西偏北
2020-12-26	留4采6	5.33	6.30	6.85	23	西偏北
2020-11-15	留6采6	6.37	7.03	7.12	22	西偏北
2020-12-26	留6采6	3.93	4.78	5.89	23	西偏北
2020-11-15	间作留茬	6.50	7.04	7.36	22	西偏北
2020-12-26	间作留茬	3.81	4.95	5.71	23	西偏北

采收模式	平均密度/（株·m^-2）	带宽/m	带间距/m	土壤容重/（g·cm^-3）	土壤含水率/%	<50 μm颗粒/%
全采收	0	0	0	1.64±0.02a	1.78±0.47c	25.72±0.52a
留4采6	52.00±3.00a	4.20±0.23a	5.50±0.16a	1.57±0.04a	2.34±0.28b	16.17±0.34c
留6采6	48.00±2.00b	5.50±0.35b	5.50±0.21a	1.51±0.01b	2.24±0.43b	24.71±0.41a
间作留茬	47.00±3.00b	0.70±0.06c	2.50±0.11b	1.60±0.02a	2.94±0.53a	19.59±0.46b

日期/年-月-日	全采收	留4采6	留6采6	间作留茬
2020-11-15	10.06±0.02a	2.55±0.05b	1.56±0.05c	0.13±0.01d
2020-12-26	10.43±0.10a	3.17±0.03b	1.58±0.04c	0.36±0.02d

日期/年-月-日	采收模式	10 m处风速 /（m·s^-1）	空气动力学粗糙度/m	叶面积指数	直立植株高度/m	植被盖度/%	结皮面积比/%	倒放植被覆盖面积/%
2020-11-15	全采收	11.40	0.004	0	0	0	0	0
2020-12-26	全采收	9.40	0.002	0	0	0	0	0
2020-11-15	留4采6	11.40	0.032	0.844	0.196	18.003	1.561	0
2020-12-26	留4采6	9.40	0.013	0.624	0.154	15.323	2.177	0
2020-11-15	留6采6	11.40	0.062	0.672	0.153	28.832	1.728	0
2020-12-26	留6采6	9.40	0.047	0.432	0.132	24.126	1.328	0
2020-11-15	间作留茬	11.40	0.097	3.055	0.251	48.429	1.673	0
2020-12-26	间作留茬	9.40	0.062	1.974	0.218	45.362	1.824	0.12

日期/年-月-日	采收模式	摩阻风速/（m·s^-1）	有效植被拖曳系数	植被冠层空气动力学粗糙度/m	临界摩阻风速/（m·s^-1）
2020-11-15	全采收	0.673	0	0	0.370
2020-12-26	全采收	0.530	0	0	0.370
2020-11-15	留4采6	0.739	0.177	0.020	0.673
2020-12-26	留4采6	0.615	0.124	0.018	0.642
2020-11-15	留6采6	0.728	0.134	0.018	0.809
2020-12-26	留6采6	0.601	0.084	0.013	0.682
2020-11-15	间作留茬	0.734	0.611	0.021	0.884
2020-12-26	间作留茬	0.689	0.395	0.020	0.730