几种保护措施对红壤坡地水文过程及干旱的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.24.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】中国亚热带红壤坡地的农业生产受水蚀与季节性干旱双重影响，水蚀与季节性干旱之间的水文联系仍然不明确。本研究探索农田常用保护措施如何影响红壤坡地的雨旱季水文过程和土壤-作物水分胁迫，为更有针对性地选择农田管理措施提供依据。【方法】 2008—2010年在湖北咸宁第四纪红色粘土母质发育的红壤8°坡地上开展大田试验，设置无保护措施或对照（CK）、牧草带（GS）、地表施用聚丙烯酰胺（PAM）、地表覆盖稻草（SM）4种处理，第一年和后两年分别以花生（白沙1018）和玉米（登海3632）为供试作物，研究不同处理的地表产流和产沙、土壤储水、土壤-作物干旱、作物产量。【结果】当降雨量相近时，降雨强度越大产流、产沙量一般也越大；总体上，产流、产沙量均为CK＞PAM＞GS＞SM，4种处理的水蚀程度依次降低；与CK比较，3种保护措施平均减少产流量36.6%，减少产沙量52.7%，减少产沙量的作用更明显。0—45 cm土壤储水量动态变化在雨旱季的特征明显不同。总体上，土壤储水量在雨季呈升高趋势，在旱季呈下降趋势；处理间差异随降雨持续而减小,随无雨期延长而增大。雨旱季土壤储水量最高的和波动变化最小的均为SM处理，其次是PAM处理，GS和CK处理的土壤储水量最接近。旱季持续干旱阶段，0—15 cm土壤干旱程度D值随土壤干旱的持续逐渐增大；两年D值均为CK＞GS＞PAM＞SM，4种处理的土壤干旱程度依次减小。受气候、作物生长期及保护措施的共同影响，作物胁迫积温SDD值的增加过程及处理间差异的变化都表现出明显的阶段性，整个旱季的SDD值均为CK＞GS＞SM和PAM，4种处理的作物水分胁迫依次减小。作物产量是SM和PAM＞GS和CK。与CK比较，GS、PAM、SM 3种处理分别使2008年的花生增产19.3%、33.0%、27.3%；对于2009年的玉米产量，GS处理减产0.5%，PAM、SM处理分别增产17.1%和36.3%。不同保护措施对干旱的影响不同，GS因自身耗水而不能明显缓解土壤-作物干旱；PAM主要通过减少蒸散发来减轻土壤-作物干旱；SM明显增加土壤雨季储水和减少旱季土壤水分耗失，因此有效缓解土壤-作物干旱。【结论】GS、PAM、SM 3种农田保护措施在红壤坡地上都能够阻控水蚀和缓解季节性干旱，但作用途径、特点、程度不同，雨季减少产流量和增加土壤储水量的作用有限，增加雨季土壤储水的作用小于其减轻旱季土壤-作物水分胁迫的作用。

关键词: 农田保护措施, 土壤-作物干旱, 水文过程, 红壤

Abstract: 【Objective】 In subtropical China, agricultural production of the red soil sloping land is limited by water erosion and seasonal drought. The hydrological relationships between water erosion and seasonal drought are not well understood. The objective of this study was to explore how field commonly used conservation practices influence the hydrologic processes in rainy and dry seasons and the soil and crop water stress in the red soil sloping land, and to provide a theoretical basis for selecting more pertinent field management practices. 【Method】 From 2008 to 2010, a field experiment was conducted in Xianning, Hubei. The zonal soil was red soils (Ultisols), developed from the Quaternary red clay. The experiment field is a typical low hill with a slope of 8°. Four treatments were used in the experiment plots, including no-conservation practice or control treatment (CK), grass strip (GS), application of polyacrylamide on the soil surface (PAM), and mulching the soil surface with rice straw (SM). Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L., Baisha 1018) and maize (Zea mays L., Denghai 3632) were planted in the first and the next two years, respectively. The surface runoff amounts, sediment yields, soil water storages, soil and crop drought, and crop yields among the four treatments were studied. 【Result】 When rainfall amounts were close, surface runoff amounts and sediment yields generally increased with the rising rainfall intensities. As a whole, surface runoff amounts and sediment yields were in the same declining order of CK＞PAM＞GS＞SM, indicating the four treatments reduced water erosion by different degrees. Compared with the CK, the three conversation practices reduced surface runoff amounts and sediment yields by about 36.6% and 52.7% on average, respectively, with more significant decreases in the sediment yields. Soil water storage dynamics in the 0-45 cm depth were obviously different between the rainy and dry seasons. In general, the water storages rose up in rainy seasons, while gradually reduced during dry seasons. In addition, the differences among the four treatments turned to be smaller and smaller in persistent rainfalls, however they became larger and larger during rain free periods. Both in rainy and dry seasons, the SM had the highest soil water storage and the least fluctuation, followed by the PAM. GS and CK had close water storages. Values of soil drought degree (D) in the 0-15 cm depth gradually increased during the continuous drought in dry seasons. Both in the two years, D values were in the declining order of CK＞GS＞PAM＞SM, suggesting that soil drought degrees in the four treatments declined in turn. Under the influences of climate, crop growing periods and conversation practices, the increases in stress degree day (SDD) and the variability in differences among treatments appeared obvious periodicity. In the whole dry season, values of SDD were all in the reducing order of CK＞GS＞SM and PAM, showing that crop water stresses in the four treatments reduced in sequence. SM and PAM had larger crop yields than GS and CK. Compared to the CK, the GS, PAM and SM separately increased peanut yields by 19.3%, 33.0%, and 27.3% in 2008. While in 2009, the GS reduced maize yield by 0.5% and the PAM and SM separately increased maize yields by 17.1% and 36.3%. Different conversation practices had different kinds of impacts on the drought. For example, the GS didn’t greatly relieve soil and crop drought for its water consumption. The PAM reduced soil and crop drought mainly by reducing the loss of evaporation. The SM markedly increased soil water storage in rainy seasons, and greatly reduced soil moisture loss in dry seasons, and therefore significantly alleviated soil and crop drought. 【Conclusion】When applied in the red soil sloping farmland, all the three conservation practices of GS, PAM, and SM could reduce water erosion and alleviated seasonal drought in different ways, with different characteristics and degrees. In rainy seasons, the three conservation practices reduced surface runoff amount and increased soil water storage only by limited volumes. The function in increasing the soil water storage in the rainy season was smaller than that in alleviating the soil and crop water stress in the dry season.

Key words: field conservation practices, soil and crop drought, hydrologic process, red soil

林丽蓉，陈家宙，王峰，邓盛华. 几种保护措施对红壤坡地水文过程及干旱的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(24): 4858-4867.

LIN Li-rong, CHEN Jia-zhou, WANG Feng, DENG Sheng-hua. Several Conservation Practices Influencing the Hydrologic Processes and Drought of the Red Soil Sloping Farmland[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(24): 4858-4867.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.24.009

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2014/V47/I24/4858

参考文献

[1] 姚贤良. 红壤水问题及其管理. 土壤学报, 1996, 33(1): 13-20.

Yao X L. Water problem of red soil and its management. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 1996, 33(1): 13-20. (in Chinese)

[2] Liang Y, Li D C, Lu X X, Yang X, Pan X Z, Mu H, Shi D, Zhang B. Soil erosion changes over the past five decades in the red soil region of southern China. Journal of Mountain Science, 2010, 7(1): 92-99.

[3] Luk S H, diCenzo P D, Liu X Z. Water and sediment yield from a small catchment in the hilly granitic region, South China. Catena, 1997, 29(2): 177-189.

[4] Luk S H, Woo M K. Soil erosion in South China. Catena, 1997, 29(2): 93-95.

[5] 黄道友, 彭廷柏, 陈桂秋, 王克林. 亚热带红壤丘陵区季节性干旱成因及其发生规律研究. 中国生态农业学报, 2004, 12(1): 124-126.

Huang D Y, Peng T B, Chen G Q,Wang K L. Study on causes and occurrence rules of seasonal drought in subtropical red soil hilly region. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2004, 12(1): 124-126. (in Chinese)

[6] Zhang B, Yang Y S, Zepp H. Effect of vegetation restoration on soil and water erosion and nutrient losses of a severely eroded clayey Plinthudult in southeastern China. Catena, 2004, 57(1): 77-90.

[7] Yu D S, Shi X Z, Weindorf D C. Relationships between permeability and erodibility of cultivated acrisols and cambisols in subtropical China. Pedosphere, 2006, 16(3): 304-311.

[8] Zhang T L, Zhao Q G, Zhai Y S, Chen B F, Sun B. Sustainable land use in hilly red soil region of southeastern China. Pedosphere, 1995, 5(1): 1-10.

[9] Chakraboyty D, Nagarajan S, Aggarwal P, Gupta V K, Tomar R K, Garg R N, Sahoo R N, Sarkar A, Chopra U K, Sundara Sarma K S, Kalra N. Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management, 2008, 95(12): 1323-1334.

[10] Fabrizzi K P, Garc??a F O, Costa J L, Picone L I. Soil water dynamics, physical properties and corn and wheat responses to minimum and no-tillage systems in the southern Pampas of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research, 2005, 81(1): 57-69.

[11] Jordán A, Zavala L M, Gil J. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain. Catena, 2010, 81(1): 77-85.

[12] Kargas G, Kerkides P, Poulovassilis A. Infiltration of rain water in semi-arid areas under three land surface treatments. Soil and Tillage Research, 2012(120): 15-24.

[13] Schwen A, Bodner G, Loiskandl W. Time-variable soil hydraulic properties in near-surface soil water simulations for different tillage methods. Agricultural Water Management, 2011, 99(1): 42-50.

[14] Unger P W, Stewart B A, Parr J F, Singh R P. Crop residue management and tillage methods for conserving soil and water in semi-arid regions. Soil and Tillage Research, 1991, 20(2/4): 219-240.

[15] Zuzel J F, Pikul J L J. Effects of straw mulch on runoff and erosion from small agricultural plots in northeastern Oregon. Soil Science, 1993, 156(2): 111-117.

[16] Faucette L B, Governo J, Jordan C F, Lockaby B G, Carino H F, Governo R. Erosion control and storm water quallity from straw with PAM, mulch, and compost blankets of varying particle sizes. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2007, 62(6): 404-413.

[17] Bissonnais Y L, Lecomte V, Cerdan O. Grass strip effects on runoff and soil loss. Agronomie, 2004, 24(3): 129-136.

[18] Ghadiri H, Rose C W, Hogarth W L. The influence of grass and porous barrier strips on runoff hydrology and sediment transport. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Ergineers, 2001, 44(2): 259-268.

[19] Shi X Z, Wang K, Warner E D, Yu D S, Wang H J, Yang R W, Liang Y, Shi D M. Relationship between soil erosion and distance to roadways in undeveloped areas of China. Catena, 2008, 72(2): 305-313.

[20] Dou C Y, Li F H, Wu L S. Soil erosion as affected by polyacrylamide application under simulated furrow irrigation with saline water. Pedosphere, 2012, 22(5): 681-688.

[21] Flanagan D C, Norton L D, Peterson J R, Chaudhari K. Using polyacrylamide to control erosion on agricultural and disturbeds soils in rainfed areas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2003, 58(5): 301-311.

[22] Fox D, Bryan R B. Influence of a polyacrylamide soil conditioner on runoff generation and soil erosion: Field tests in Baringo District, Kenya. Soil Technology, 1992, 5(2): 101-119.

[23] Yu J, Lei T, Shainberg I, Mamedov A I, Levy G J. Infiltration and erosion in soils treated with dry PAM and gypsum. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2003, 67(2): 630-636.

[24] Lin C W, Tu S H, Huang J J, Chen Y B. The effect of plant hedgerows on the spatial distribution of soil erosion and soil fertility on sloping farmland in the purple-soil area of China. Soil and Tillage Research, 2009, 105(2): 307-312.

[25] Shi Z H, Yan F L, Li L, Li Z X, Cai C F. Interrill erosion from disturbed and undisturbed samples in relation to topsoil aggregate stability in red soils from subtropical China. Catena, 2010, 81(3): 240-248.

[26] 贺湘逸. 红壤坡地利用中的水分问题//杨炎生, 信乃诠. 中国南方红黄壤地区农业综合发展与对策. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 1995: 107-111.

He Y X. Water problems in the utilization of the red soil sloping land//Yang Y S, Xin N Q. Agriculture Comprehensive Development and Countermeasure in The Red-Yellow Soil Region in South China. Beijing: China Agriculture Technonolgy Press, 1995: 107-111. (in Chinese)

[27] 熊德祥, 武心齐. 减缓丘陵红壤旱地季节性干旱影响的综合配套技术, 水土保持通报, 2000, 20(4): 31-32.

Xiong D X, Wu X Q. Sythetical agriculture technology for delaying affection of seasonal drought in low-hill red soil region. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000, 20(4):31-32. (in Chinese)

[28] 景元书, 张斌, 王明珠,Thimm A, Zepp H. 鹰潭小流域季节性降雨径流特征研究. 水土保持学报, 2003, 17(5): 45-47.

Jing Y S, Zhang B, Wang M Z,Thimm A, Zepp H. Seasonal rainfall-runoff characteristics at small catchment of Yingtan area. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2003, 17(5): 45-47. (in Chinese)

[29] Chen J Z, Lin L R, Lu G A. An index of soil drought intensity and degree: An application on corn and a comparison with CWSI. Agricultural Water Management, 2010, 97(6): 865-871.

[30] Jackson R D, Reginato R J, Idso S B. Wheat canopy temperature: A practical tool for evaluating water requirements. Water Resources Research, 1977, 13(3): 651-656.

[31] Tanaka D L, Anderson R L. Soil water storage and precipitation storage efficiency of conservation tillage systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1997, 52(5): 363 -367.

[32] 于东升, 史学正. 红壤区不同生态模式的“土壤水库”特征及其防洪减灾效能. 土壤学报, 2003, 40(5): 656 -664.

Yu D S, Shi X Z. Characteristics of soil-water reservoir and their efficiency in flooding control under different ecological patterns of red soils in the south of china. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2003, 40(5): 656-664. (in Chinese)

[33] Mulumba L N, Lal R. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 2008, 98(1): 106-111.

[34] Hu X, Liu L Y, Li S J, Cai Q G, Lu Y L, Guo J R. Development of soil crusts under simulated rainfall and crust formation on a Loess soil as influenced by Polyacrylamide. Pedosphere, 2012, 22(3): 415-424.

[35] Seybold C A. Polyacrylamide review: Soil conditioning and environmental fate. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 1994, 25(11/12): 2171-2185.

[36] Abu-Zreig M. Control of rainfall-induced soil erosion with various types of polyacrylamide. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2006, 6(3): 137-144.

[37] Enloe S F, DiTomaso J M, Orloff S B, Drake D J. Soil water dynamics differ among rangeland plant communities dominated by yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), annual grasses, or perennial grasses. Weed Science, 2004, 52(6): 929-935.

[38] Salako F K, Tian G. Soil water depletion under various leguminous cover crops in the derived savanna of West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2003, 100(2/3): 173-180.

[39] Döring T F, Brandt M, Heß J, Finckh M R, Saucke H. Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes. Field Crops Research, 2005, 94(2/3): 238-249.