乌兰布和沙漠草方格-灌木林对土壤水分物理性质的影响

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.05.06

干旱区研究 ›› 2023, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 737-746.doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.05.06 cstr: 32277.14.j.azr.2023.05.06

乌兰布和沙漠草方格-灌木林对土壤水分物理性质的影响

高君亮^1,^2,^3,⁴(),罗凤敏^1,^2,^3,⁴(),刘泓鑫⁵,乔靖然^1,³,于猛^1,³,许亚欣^1,³

1.中国林业科学研究院沙漠林业实验中心，内蒙古磴口 015200
2.乌兰布和沙漠综合治理国家长期科研基地，内蒙古磴口 015200
3.国家林业草原防沙治沙工程技术研究中心，内蒙古磴口 015200
4.内蒙古磴口荒漠生态系统国家定位观测研究站，内蒙古磴口 015200
5.伊金霍洛旗水利技术服务中心，内蒙古伊金霍洛 017200

收稿日期:2023-03-09 修回日期:2023-05-03 出版日期:2023-05-15 发布日期:2023-05-30
作者简介:高君亮（1985-），男，博士，高级工程师，主要从事荒漠化防治研究. E-mail: gaojl@caf.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划课题(2022YFF1303202);内蒙古自治区科技计划项目(2020GG0125);巴彦淖尔市科技计划项目(K202125)

Effects of typical ecological projects of desertification combating on soil physical properties in Ulan Buh Desert

GAO Junliang^1,^2,^3,⁴(),LUO Fengmin^1,^2,^3,⁴(),LIU Hongxin⁵,QIAO Jingran^1,³,YU Meng^1,³,XU Yaxin^1,³

1. Experimental Center of Desert Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Dengkou 015200, Inner Mongolia, China
2. Ulan Buh Desert Comprehensive Control National Permanent Scientific Research Base, Dengkou 015200, Inner Mongolia, China
3. Combat Desertification Engineering Technology Research Center, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Dengkou 015200, Inner Mongolia, China
4. Inner Mongolia Dengkou Desert Ecosystem National Observation Research Station, Dengkou 015200, Inner Mongolia, China
5. Ejin Horo Banner Technology Service Center of Water Conservancy, Ejin Horo 017200, Inner Mongolia, China

Received:2023-03-09 Revised:2023-05-03 Published:2023-05-15 Online:2023-05-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨乌兰布和沙漠典型防沙治沙生态工程实施后对土壤水分物理性质及持水性能的影响，以流沙地为对照、选择草方格沙障+两种乡土树种（梭梭、花棒）为主的防沙治沙工程为研究对象，采用野外取样与室内分析相结合的方法，对各样地0~100 cm深度内不同土层的土壤粒度组成、水分含量、容重、孔隙度、持水性能等进行了分析。结果表明：营建以草方格沙障+乡土树种为主的防沙治沙生态工程对沙地土壤水分物理性质及持水性能均有一定的改良作用。（1）表层土壤粒度组成整体出现细化趋势，土壤容重减小，土壤孔隙度增大，土壤持水量和贮水量增大，土壤持水性能明显提升。（2）乌兰布和沙漠典型防沙治沙生态工程实施后，土壤成土作用较明显、持水性能明显提升，沙化土地治理效果良好。研究结果可为区域防沙治沙的成效评估提供基础数据，同时也可为区域防沙治沙生态工程的类型选择提供科学依据和参考。

关键词: 土壤物理性质, 固沙林, 防沙治沙工程, 乌兰布和沙漠

Abstract:

To probe into the effects of typical ecological projects on improving soil moisture and other physical properties like water retention in Ulan Buh Desert, the desertification combating projects included straw checkerboard barrier and two native tree species (Haloxylon ammodendron and Hedysarum scoparium), and the shifting sandy land as the research object. The soil mechanical composition, moisture content, bulk density, porosity, water holding capacity, and water storage capacity of different soil layers at a depth of 0-100 cm were analyzed based on field sampling and lab analysis methods. The results showed that the ecological projects have a certain effect on the improvement of soil water physical properties and water retention of the aeolian sandy soil. (1) Compared to the control, the implementation of ecological projects promoted the apparent refinement of the grain size composition of the surface soil, showing decreased bulk density, increased soil porosity, and significantly increased soil water holding capacity and water storage capacity. (2) After the implementation of the typical ecological projects, the soil water retention was significantly improved, and the desertification land management effect was good. The results can provide basic data for the effective evaluation of regional desertification combating, and provide a scientific basis and theoretical reference for the type of selection of regional desertification combating ecological projects.

Key words: soil physical properties, sand fixation plantation, ecological project of desertification combating, Ulan Buh Desert

高君亮, 罗凤敏, 刘泓鑫, 乔靖然, 于猛, 许亚欣. 乌兰布和沙漠草方格-灌木林对土壤水分物理性质的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(5): 737-746.

GAO Junliang, LUO Fengmin, LIU Hongxin, QIAO Jingran, YU Meng, XU Yaxin. Effects of typical ecological projects of desertification combating on soil physical properties in Ulan Buh Desert[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(5): 737-746.

图/表 7

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 34

[1]	昝国盛, 王翠萍, 李锋, 等. 第六次全国荒漠化和沙化调查主要结果及分析[J]. 林业资源管理, 2023, 52(1): 1-7.
	[Zan Guosheng, Wang Cuiping, Li Feng, et al. Key data results and trend analysis of the sixth national survey on desertification and sandificationg[J]. Forest Resources Mangement, 2023, 52(1): 1-7. ]
[2]	卢琦, 雷加强, 李晓松, 等. 大国治沙: 中国方案与全球范式[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2020, 35(6): 656-664.
	[Lu Qi, Lei Jiaqiang, Li Xiaosong, et al. China’s combating desertification: National solutions and global paradigm[J]. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2020, 35(6): 656-664. ]
[3]	唐永发, 熊东红, 张宝军, 等. 雅江河谷中段典型防沙治沙生态工程对沙地持水性能的改良效应[J]. 山地学报, 2021, 39(4): 461-472.
	[Tang Yongfa, Xiong Donghong, Zhang Baojun, et al. Study on the water holding capacity of aeolian sandy land impacted by different typical vegetation ecological projects in the middle part of Yarlungzangbo River Valley, Tibet, China[J]. Mountain Research, 2021, 39(4): 461-472. ]
[4]	李尝君, 曾凡江, 郭京衡, 等. 植被恢复程度与沙地土壤性质——以塔克拉玛干沙漠南缘为例[J]. 干旱区研究, 2015, 32(6): 1061-1067.
	[Li Changjun, Zeng Fanjiang, Guo Jingheng, et al. Soil properties of different sandy lands under different vegetation recovering levels: A case in southern Taklimakan Desert[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2015, 32(6): 1061-1067. ]
[5]	田丽慧, 张登山, 彭继平, 等. 高寒沙地人工植被恢复区地表沉积物粒度特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2015, 35(1): 32-39. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00186
	[Tian Lihui, Zhang Dengshan, Peng Jiping, et al. Grain size of land surface deposits in a vegetation restoration region of the alpine sandyland in Qinghai, China[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2015, 35(1): 32-39. ] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00186
[6]	付鹏程, 胡广录, 巩炜, 等. 河西走廊沙漠-绿洲过渡带固沙植物根区土壤物理性质及持水特性[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(4): 811-820.
	[Fu Pengcheng, Hu Guanglu, Gong Wei, et al. Soil physical properties and water retention characteristics of the sand-fixing plant root zone in the desert-oasis transition area of Gansu corridor[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2021, 52(4): 811-820. ]
[7]	冯伟. 毛乌素沙地东北缘土壤水分动态及深层渗漏特征[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2015.
	[Feng Wei. Soil Moisture Dynamics and Deep Soil Layer Infiltration Process in Northeastern Margin of Mu Us Sandland[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academic of Forestry, 2015. ]
[8]	Li X R, Kong D S, Tan H J, et al. Changes in soil and vegetation following stabilization of dunes in the southeastern fringe of the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Plant and Soil, 2007, 300: 221-231. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9407-1
[9]	牛存洋, 阿拉木萨, 刘亚, 等. 科尔沁沙地固沙植物根系与土壤水分特征研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2015, 29(10): 106-111.
	[Niu Cunyang, Alamusa, Liu Ya, et al. the characteristics of sand- fixation plantations roots and soil moisture in horqin sandy land[J]. Journal of Arid land Resources and Environment, 2015, 29(10): 106-111. ]
[10]	Wang H B, Jia X P, Li Y S, et al. Selective deposition response to aeolian-fluvial sediment supply in the desert braided channel of the upper Yellow River, China[J]. Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences, 2015, 3(2): 1269-1290.
[11]	李鹏, 高永, 赵青, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠东北缘人工梭梭林防风效能分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(5): 34-39.
	[Li Peng, Gao Yong, Zhao Qing, et al. Windbreak effectiveness of Haloxylon ammodendron on northeast edge of Ulan Buh Desert[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 37(5): 34-39. ]
[12]	赵纳祺, 李锦荣, 温文杰, 等. 乌兰布和沙漠黄河段不同治理措施固沙效果研究[J]. 内蒙古林业科技, 2018, 44(1): 7-12, 28.
	[Zhao Naqi, Li Jinrong, Wen Wenjie, et al. Sand-fixing effects of different management measures in the yellow river section of Wulanbuhe Desert[J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Forestry Science & Technology, 2018, 44(1): 7-12, 28. ]
[13]	高君亮, 郝玉光, 丁国栋, 等. 乌兰布和荒漠生态系统防风固沙功能价值初步评估[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2013, 27(12): 41-46.
	[Gao Junliang, Hao Yuguang, Ding Guodong, et al. Primary assessment on the wind-breaking and sand-fixing function of the vegetation and its value in Ulan Buh Desert ecosystem[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2013, 27(12): 41-46. ]
[14]	辛颖. 阿什河上游天然次生林与人工林小流域水文生态效益对比研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2011.
	[Xin Ying. Comparison of Hydrological Ecology between Secondary Forest and Artificial Forest Small Watershed in the Upper Reaches of Ashihe River[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2011. ]
[15]	贾宝全, 慈龙骏, 高志海, 等. 绿洲荒漠化及其评价指标体系的初步探讨[J]. 干旱区研究, 2001, 18(2): 19-24.
	[Jia Baoquan, Ci Longjun, Gao Zhihai, et al. The desertification of oasis and its assessment indicators[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2001, 18(2): 19-24. ]
[16]	Gao G L, Ding G D, Zhao Y Y, et al. Characterization of soil particle size distribution with a fractal model in the desertified regions of northern China[J]. Acta Geophysica, 2016, 64: 1-14. doi: 10.1515/acgeo-2015-0050
[17]	齐雁冰, 常庆瑞. 高寒地区人工植被恢复对风沙土区土壤效应影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005, 19(6): 40-43.
	[Qi Yanbing, Chang Qingrui. Effect of artificial vegetation restoration on sandificational soil characteristics in high frigid regions of China[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2005, 19(6): 40-43. ]
[18]	肖洪浪, 张继贤, 李金贵. 腾格里沙漠东南缘降尘粒度特征和沉积速率[J]. 中国沙漠, 1997, 17(2): 127-132.
	[Xiao Honglang, Zhang Jixian, Li Jingui. Dustfall particle-size and sediment rate at the southern edge of Tengger Desert[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 1997, 17(2): 127-132. ]
[19]	刘铮瑶, 董治宝, 赵杰, 等. 人工固沙措施对沙丘沉积物特征及土壤养分的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(4): 1383-1391.
	[Liu Zhengyao, Dong Zhibao, Zhao Jie, et al. Effects of artificial sand fixation on sediment characteristics and soil nutrients[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020, 40(4): 1383-1391. ]
[20]	孙琰蕙, 张定海, 张志山. 腾格里沙漠不同类型沙丘土壤水分含量与地形-植被因子关系研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(5): 1570-1578.
	[Sun Yanhui, Zhang Dinghai, Zhang Zhishan. Relationship between soil moisture content and topography-vegetation factors in different types of dunes in the Tengger Desert[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(5): 1570-1578. ]
[21]	李新荣, 马凤云, 龙立群, 等. 沙坡头地区固沙植被土壤水分动态研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2001, 21(3): 217-222.
	[Li Xinrong, Ma Fengyun, Long Liqun, et al. Soil water dynamics under sand-fixing vegetation in Shapotou area[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2001, 21(3): 217-222. ]
[22]	赵文智. 科尔沁沙地人工植被对土壤水分异质性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2002, 39(1): 107-113.
	[Zhao Wenzhi. Impact of plantation on spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture in Horqin Sandy Land[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(1): 107-113. ]
[23]	李海东, 沈渭寿, 林乃峰, 等. 雅鲁藏布江中游河岸交错带沙地土壤水分的空间异质性[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012, 28(6): 150-155.
	[Li Haidong, Shen Weishou, Lin Naifeng, et al. Spatial variability of soil moisture on aeolian sandy land in riparian ecotone of middle reaches of Yarlung Zangbo River Valley[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2012, 28(6): 150-155. ]
[24]	Wang S K, Zao X Y, Qu H, et al. Variation in soil water content to rainfall under Caragana microphylla shrub in Horqin Sandy Land[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2010, 2(3): 174-179. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1227.2010.00174
[25]	Cheng Y B, Yang W B, Zhan H B, et al. On change of soil moisture distribution with vegetation reconstruction in Mu Us Sandy Land of China, with newly designed lysimeter[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021, 12: 609529. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.609529
[26]	Song S S, Liu B, Wang J J, et al. Response of soil moisture to rainfall in Pine Sylvestris in the Mu Us Sandy Land[J]. Environment, Resource and Ecology Journal, 2022, 6(2): 119-127.
[27]	卢立娜, 赵雨兴, 胡莉芳, 等. 沙棘(Hippophae rhamnoides)种植对鄂尔多斯砒砂岩地区土壤容重、孔隙度与贮水能力的影响[J]. 中国沙漠, 2015, 35(5): 1171-1176. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00099
	[Lu Lina, Zhao Yuxing, Hu Lifang, et al. Effects of Hippophae rhamnoides plantation on soil bulk density, porosity and moisture capacity in the arsenic sandstone area of Inner Mongolia[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2015, 35(5): 1171-1176. ] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2014.00099
[28]	张素, 熊东红, 校亮, 等. 干湿交替对土壤性质影响的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(3): 762-768.
	[Zhang Su, Xiong Donghong, Xiao Liang, et al. Influence of dry-wet cycling on soil properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2017, 48(3): 762-768. ]
[29]	田超, 杨新兵, 李军, 等. 冀北山地不同海拔蒙古栎林枯落物和土壤水文效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2011, 25(4): 221-226.
	[Tian Chao, Yang Xinbing, Li Jun, et al. Hydrological effects of forest litters and soil of Quercus mongolica in the different altitudes of north mountain of Hebei Province[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 25(4): 221-226. ]
[30]	Wang G H, Yu K L, Gou Q Q. Effects of sand disturbance on establishment of three desert shrub species in the margin of oasis northwestern China[J]. Ecological Research, 2019, 34(1): 127-135. doi: 10.1111/ere.2019.34.issue-1
[31]	张晓梅, 邸利, 王彦辉, 等. 黄土高原典型林分土壤水文物理性质及持水性能[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2019, 54(3): 117-124, 133.
	[Zhang Xiaomei, Di Li, Wang Yanhui, et al. Soil hydro-physical properties and water holding capacity of typical forest stands on the Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2019, 54(3): 117-124, 133. ]
[32]	唐永发, 张宝军, 熊东红, 等. 雅江河谷防沙治沙生态工程实施年限对沙地持水性能的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(4): 55-63.
	[Tang Yongfa, Zhang Baojun, Xiong Donghong, et al. Effects of different implementation period of the vegetation ecological projects on the water holding capacity of aeolian sandy land in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 35(4): 55-63. ]
[33]	李永涛, 魏海霞, 王振猛, 等. 黄河三角洲不同林分类型对土壤水分物理特性的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2020, 40(8): 106-112.
	[Li Yongtao, Wei Haixia, Wang Zhenmeng, et al. Effects of different forest stands on soil water physical properties of saline-alkali land in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2020, 40(8): 106-112. ]
[34]	蔡楚雄, 贾玉华, 郭成久. 科尔沁沙地南缘不同植被对土壤物理性质改良作用研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(2): 49-54.
	[Cai Chuxiong, Jia Yuhua, Guo Chengjiu. Research for effect of different types of vegetation on physical properties improvement of sandy soil in the sandy land in south Horqin[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 24(2): 49-54. ]

样地编号	样地名称	样地概况
1	草方格沙障+花棒	2013年春季，在流沙地上铺设草方格沙障，规格1 m×1 m，沙障铺设后在障格内种植花棒，种植规格2 m×2 m，每坑种植2~4株。目前保存率63%，10 m×10 m的样方保存数量平均为16株，平均株高2.25 m，冠幅253 cm×314 cm，单丛分枝数平均8枝，平均地径4.5 cm，冠幅下地表覆盖1.5 cm厚度的花棒同化枝枯枝，几乎无风蚀。林下草本植物以沙蓬、猪毛菜、雾冰藜、虫实为主
2	草方格沙障+梭梭	2013年春季，在流沙地上铺设草方格沙障，规格1 m×1 m，沙障铺设后在障格内种植梭梭，种植规格2 m×2 m，每坑种植2~4株。目前保存率70%，10 m×10 m的样方保存数量平均为18株，平均株高2.15 m，冠幅205 cm×298 cm，单丛分枝数平均5枝，平均地径5.6 cm，梭梭枝干周围有物理结皮。林下草本植物以沙蓬、猪毛菜、雾冰藜、虫实、沙鞭等为主
3	流沙地	未治理，地表植被很少，仅有零星的沙蓬和虫实，1 m×1 m的样方内沙蓬和虫实数量为9株

土层深度/cm	总孔隙度/%			毛管孔隙度/%			非毛管孔隙度/%
土层深度/cm	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地
0~10	39.23±0.67 Aa	36.79±0.46 Bb	37.51±0.14 Ba	31.18±2.29 Aa	27.02±2.59 Bc	29.45±4.26 Ba	8.04±1.90 Ba	9.77±2.99 Aab	8.06±2.46 Ba
10~20	39.62±0.88 Aa	38.41±1.86 Aab	37.89±0.21 Aa	29.62±5.36 Aa	29.65±1.12 Ab	28.88±2.25 Aa	10.00±5.97 Aa	8.76±2.16 Bb	9.01±2.22 ABa
20~40	39.86±0.74 Aa	40.08±0.42 Aa	37.42±0.16 Ba	30.33±5.86 Aa	28.36±2.29 Bb	28.21±1.47 Ba	9.53±6.54 Ba	11.72±2.62 Aa	9.21±1.57 Ba
40~60	39.61±1.79 Aa	40.88±1.00 Aa	37.69±0.44 Ba	31.19±4.43 ABa	33.51±1.44 Aa	28.99±2.30 Ba	8.42±5.26 Aa	7.37±2.09 Ab	8.70±1.89 Aa
60~80	39.88±1.23 Aa	40.10±0.65 Aa	37.65±0.68 Ba	30.75±2.08 Aa	28.20±5.93 Bb	28.84±2.14 Ba	9.12±1.02 Ba	11.90±5.44 Aa	8.81±2.16 Ba
80~100	39.78±1.10 Aa	37.96±1.13 Bb	37.47±0.51 Ba	30.01±2.88 Aa	29.34±5.95 Ab	28.45±3.00 Aa	9.77±1.55 Aa	8.62±4.82 Ab	9.02±1.48 Aa
0~100	39.66±0.22	39.04±1.43	37.61±0.16	30.51±0.58	29.35±2.05	28.80±0.40	9.15±0.71	9.69±1.65	8.83±0.37

土层深度/ cm	饱和持水量/%			毛管持水量/%			田间持水量/%
土层深度/ cm	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地
0~10	25.81±0.84 Aa	23.10±0.54 Ab	24.05±0.14 Aa	22.46±0.83 Aa	16.96±1.56 Bc	19.55±0.34 ABa	21.02±1.20 Aa	15.96±1.35 Ba	14.40±0.56 Ba
10~20	25.73±0.68 Aa	25.06±1.96 Aab	24.48±0.35 Aa	19.24±3.56 Ab	19.32±0.93 Ab	19.15±1.01 Aa	18.07±3.07 Ab	18.01±0.65 Ab	14.74±1.23 Ba
20~40	26.43±0.59 Aa	26.99±0.19 Aa	23.94±0.15 Ba	20.10±3.78 Aab	19.10±1.61 Ab	18.68±0.33 Aa	18.25±2.70 Ab	17.88±1.11 Ab	15.45±0.82 Ba
40~60	27.21±1.25 Aa	27.73±0.88 Aa	24.25±0.44 Ba	21.39±2.77 Aa	22.73±1.17 Aa	19.22±0.81 Ba	20.09±2.47 Aab	20.21±0.41 Aa	15.83±1.20 Ba
60~80	26.45±1.13 Aa	27.18±0.84 Aa	24.21±0.38 Ba	20.41±1.59 Aab	16.40±4.07 Bc	19.12±0.54 Aa	19.69±1.64 Aab	15.42±3.82 Ba	15.75±0.47 Ba
80~100	27.22±0.55 Aa	25.37±1.15 ABab	24.00±0.22 Ba	20.54±1.21 Aab	19.64±4.26 Ab	18.85±0.10 Aa	18.99±2.12 Aab	17.79±3.84 Ab	15.59±0.28 Ba
0~100	26.48±0.59	25.91±1.58	24.16±0.18	20.69±1.01	19.03±2.06	19.10±0.28	19.35±1.04	17.55±1.56	15.29±0.53

土层深度/cm	饱和贮水量/（t·hm^-2）			吸持贮水量/（t·hm^-2）			滞留贮水量/（t·hm^-2）
土层深度/cm	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地	花棒林	梭梭林	流沙地
0~10	39.23±0.67 Aa	36.79±0.46 Bb	37.51±0.14 Ba	31.18±2.29 Aa	27.02±2.59 Bb	29.45±4.26 ABa	8.04±1.90 Ba	9.77±2.99 Aab	8.06±2.46 Ba
10~20	39.62±0.88 Aa	38.41±1.86 Ab	37.89±0.21 Aa	29.62±5.36 Aa	29.65±1.12 Ab	28.88±2.25 Aa	10.00±5.97 Aa	8.76±2.16 Bb	9.01±2.22 ABa
20~40	39.86±0.74 Aa	40.08±0.42 Aa	37.42±0.16 Ba	30.33±5.86 Aa	28.36±2.29 Ab	28.21±1.47 Aa	9.53±6.54 Ba	11.72±2.62 Aa	9.21±1.57 Ba
40~60	39.61±1.79 Aa	40.88±1.00 Aa	37.99±0.44 Ba	31.19±4.43 ABa	33.51±1.44 Aa	28.99±2.30 Ba	8.42±5.26 Aa	7.37±2.09 Ab	8.70±1.89 Aa
60~80	39.88±1.23 Aa	40.10±0.65 Aa	37.65±0.68 Ba	30.75±2.08 Aa	28.20±5.93 Ab	28.84±2.14 Aa	9.12±1.02 ABa	11.90±5.44 Aa	8.81±2.16 Ba
80~100	39.78±1.10 Aa	37.96±1.13 Ab	37.47±0.51 Aa	30.01±2.88 Aa	29.34±5.95 Ab	28.45±3.00 Aa	9.77±1.55 Aa	8.62±4.82 Ab	9.02±1.48 Aa
0~100	237.98	234.22	225.93	183.08	176.08	172.82	54.88	58.14	52.81

乌兰布和沙漠草方格-灌木林对土壤水分物理性质的影响

Effects of typical ecological projects of desertification combating on soil physical properties in Ulan Buh Desert

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 34

相关文章 8

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	赵东颖, 蒙仲举, 孟芮冰, 马泽. 乌兰布和沙漠风沙入黄段植被覆盖动态变化特征及驱动力[J]. 干旱区研究, 2024, 41(4): 639-649.
[2]	牛丹妮, 韩蓉, 马瑞, 王振亭, 刘虎俊, 魏林源. 林分密度和种植点配置对梭梭人工林防风效应的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(1): 143-151.
[3]	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.
[4]	于东伟, 雷泽勇, 赵国军, 张岩松, 于德良, 白津宁, 李尧. 樟子松固沙林土壤理化特性对林分密度的响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2020, 37(1): 134-141.
[5]	魏翔鸿, 左合君, 闫敏, 贾光普. 尼龙网方格沙障防风效应复变规律[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 36(6): 1584-1591.
[6]	常宏, 左合君, 王海兵, 闫敏. 黄河乌兰布和沙漠段两岸地表沉积物多重分形特征及其指示意义[J]. 干旱区研究, 2019, 36(6): 1559-1567.
[7]	杨晓娟, 廖超英, 孙文艳, 包耀贤, 李陆平. 乌兰布和沙漠东北部沙区人工林土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 干旱区研究, 2012, 29(4): 604-608.
[8]	任昱, 高永, 虞毅, 张景波, 姜靖宇, 邢铁鹏. 乌兰布和沙漠湖泊变化与气候关系[J]. 干旱区研究, 2011, 28(1): 168-174.