不同规格芦苇沙障生态保护成效研究

田美荣; 田雨欣; 杨伟超; 冯朝阳; 高吉喜; 王世曦

doi:10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20220522

不同规格芦苇沙障生态保护成效研究

doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20220522

1.
环境基准与风险评估国家重点实验室，中国环境科学研究院
2.
郑州大学生态与环境学院
3.
山东省人民政府人工影响天气办公室
4.
生态环境部卫星环境应用中心

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划项目(2021YFB3901104)

详细信息

作者简介:
田美荣（1981—），女，研究员，博士，主要从事生态保护与修复研究，tianmeirong007@163.com

通讯作者:
高吉喜（1964—），男，研究员，博士，主要从事环境科学与资源利用研究，gaojx168@163.com

中图分类号: X37
计量
- 文章访问数: 307
- HTML全文浏览量: 186
- PDF下载量: 34
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-05-26
- 录用日期: 2023-02-01
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-22

Study on conservation effectiveness of reed sand barrier with different types

1.
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
2.
School of Ecology and Environment, Zhengzhou University
3.
Weather Modification Office of Shandong Province
4.
Satellite Application Center for Ecology and Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment

摘要

摘要:
沙障是减缓地表风蚀、保护地表植被的重要措施之一，为筛选适宜呼伦湖流域沙地风沙防治的芦苇沙障设置模式，试验按照行距1、1.5、2 m的带状以及1 m×1 m、1.5 m×1.5 m、2 m×2 m的方格状共设置6种不同规格芦苇沙障，选取防风效能、表层土壤含水量、地表蒸发量、沙障内修复物种生长情况4个指标评估不同规格芦苇沙障生态保护成效。结果显示：方格状芦苇沙障生态保护成效高于带状芦苇沙障，其中方格状芦苇沙障平均防风效能、表层土壤含水量及地表蒸发量由高到低依次为1 m×1 m>1.5 m×1.5 m>2 m×2 m；对6种芦苇沙障模式内冰草〔Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.〕、披碱草(Elymus dahuricus Turcz. ex Griseb. in Ledeb.)和小叶锦鸡儿(Caragana microphylla Lam.)的植被生长情况分析显示，冰草在1 m×1 m方格状芦苇沙障生长较好。合理的沙障设置，不仅能够防风固沙，并且可减少土壤水分的流失。
- 芦苇沙障 /
- 防风效能 /
- 保护成效 /
- 沙地 /
- 呼伦湖流域
Abstract:
Sand barrier is one of the important measures to mitigate the surface wind erosion and protect the surface vegetation. In order to select the suitable mode of reed sand barrier for controlling wind and sand in Hulun Lake Basin, six types of reed sand barriers were set up including three belt sand barriers with the banded row spacing of 1 m, 1.5 m, 2 m and the square sand barriers of 1 m × 1 m, 1.5 m × 1.5 m, 2 m × 2 m. Four indexes including wind prevention efficiency, soil moisture content, surface evaporation, and the growth of ecological restoration species in sand barriers were selected to evaluate the ecological protection achievement of six types of reed sand barriers. The results showed that the ecological protection achievement of square reed sand barriers were higher than that of belt reed sand barriers. The average windbreak efficiency, soil surface moisture content and surface evaporation of square reed sand barriers from high to low were: 1 m × 1 m > 1.5 m × 1.5 m > 2 m × 2 m. The analysis of the ability vegetation growth of Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn., Elymus dahuricus Turcz. ex Griseb. in Ledeb., and Caragana microphylla Lam. in the six types of reed sand barrier showed that Agropyron cristatum grew well in the 1 m×1 m square reed sand barrier. The preferred measure of sandy land control in Hulun Lake basin was the 1.0 m×1.0 m reed sand barrier planting Agropyron cristatum, which could inhibit wind speed and reduce soil moisture loss, and provide theoretical basis and practical reference for the restoration of sandy grassland in this area.
- reed sand barrier /
- windproof efficiency /
- conservation effectiveness /
- sandy land /
- Hulun Lake Basin

HTML全文

图 1 芦苇沙障测试点示意

Figure 1. Chart of reed sand barrier test points

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同规格芦苇沙障在不同位置防风效能对比

Figure 2. Comparison of windproof efficiency of reed sand barrier with different types at different positions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 6种规格沙障表层土壤含水量随时间变化趋势

Figure 3. Changes of surface soil moisture content with time in six types of sand barrier

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 地表蒸发量对比

Figure 4. Comparison of surface evaporation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 植物在不同规格沙障内生长情况比较

Table 1. Comparison of plant growth in different sand barriers

处理组	规格/m	平均株高/cm	平均出苗率/%	平均盖度/%	平均生物量/ (g/m²)
CK+A		3.00	14.03	12.10	0.06
CK+E		0.50	0.21	0.10	0.01
CK+C		2.00	0.67	0.20	0.01
F+A	1×1	4.84	41.11	35.33	0.69
	1.5×1.5	4.45	26.11	22.44	0.28
	2×2	3.83	14.22	12.23	0.09
F+E	1×1	5.47	11.80	13.57	1.09
	1.5×1.5	4.17	14.52	7.42	0.43
	2×2	3.91	31.57	9.08	0.42
F+C	1×1	3.02	12.22	3.67	0.24
	1.5×1.5	1.40	2.67	0.80	0.04
	2×2	2.08	1.78	0.53	0.03
D+A	1	3.12	12.80	11.00	0.18
	1.5	3.21	18.73	16.10	0.22
	2	3.18	21.64	18.60	0.22
D+E	1	3.73	0.35	0.40	0.02
	1.5	3.58	1.48	1.70	0.09
	2	3.63	0.17	0.20	0.01
D+C	1	1.52	0.67	0.20	0.01
	1.5	1.79	0.67	0.20	0.01
	2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同规格芦苇方格沙障的生态保护成效

Table 2. Wind-proof and sand-fixing ability grades of different types of reed square sand barriers

规格/m	沙漠防风效能	对近地表含水量	土壤表层蒸发量	沙障内修复物种长势
1×1	Aa	Ba	Aa	Aa
1.5×1.5	Bb	Aa	Ba	Bab
2×2	Cb	Cb	Cb	Cb
1	Aa	Aa	Aa	Aa
1.5	Bb	Ba	Ba	Ba
2	Cb	Ca	Ca	Ca
注：不同小写字母代表在0.05水平上差异显著。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(46)

[1]	赵媛媛, 高广磊, 秦树高, 等.荒漠化监测与评价指标研究进展[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2019,33(5):81-87. ZHAO Y Y, GAO G L, QIN S G, et al. Desertification detection and the evaluation indicators: a review[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment,2019,33(5):81-87.
[2]	贾晓红, 吴波, 余新晓, 等.京津冀风沙源区沙化土地治理关键技术研究与示范[J]. 生态学报,2016,36(22):7040-7044. JIA X H, WU B, YU X X, et al. Research and demonstration of pivotal technology on desertified land restoration in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei sandstorm source zone[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2016,36(22):7040-7044.
[3]	宋丽弘, 刘大炜.浅析国外治沙法对我国的启示[J]. 内蒙古民族大学学报(社会科学版),2017,43(3):113-118. SONG L H, LIU D W. Analysis of the enlightenment in foreign law of sand control to China[J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia University for the Nationalities (Social Sciences),2017,43(3):113-118.
[4]	赵晓迪, 李忠魁.澳大利亚土地退化管理及对我国的启示[J]. 水土保持应用技术,2015(5):38-41.
[5]	李锐.黄土高原水土保持工作70年回顾与启示[J]. 水土保持通报,2019,39(6):298-301. LI Y. Review and enlightenments of soil and water conservation on Loess Plateau in past 70 years[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2019,39(6):298-301.
[6]	计伟, 刘海江, 高吉喜, 等.黄河流域生态质量时空变化分析[J]. 环境科学研究,2021,34(7):1700-1709. JI W, LIU H J, GAO J X, et al. Spatial-temporal variations of ecological quality in the Yellow River Basin[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2021,34(7):1700-1709.
[7]	高艳妮, 杨彩云, 冯朝阳, 等.辽河保护区退耕封育措施消减污染物入河量估算[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2020,10(4):539-544. GAO Y N, YANG C Y, FENG C Y, et al. Estimation of pollutants into river reduced by measures of returning cropland to enclosure in Liaohe Conservation Area[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2020,10(4):539-544.
[8]	刘硕, 李品, 冯兆忠.京津冀防风固沙植被生态修复研究进展与对策[J]. 生态学杂志,2019,38(1):267-274. LIU S, LI P, FENG Z Z. Eco-restoration research progress and strategy about wind-break and sand-fixation forest in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Metropolitan region[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology,2019,38(1):267-274.
[9]	刘朔, 蔡凡隆, 杨建勇, 等.川西北沙化治理现状及治理区划[J]. 林业调查规划,2011,36(3):122-126. LIU S, CAI F L, YANG J Y, et al. Desertification governance and its governance regionalization in northwest Sichuan[J]. Forest Inventory and Planning,2011,36(3):122-126.
[10]	田美荣, 傅馨逸, 杨伟超, 等.挡风墙设计及其在呼伦贝尔沙地治理中的应用[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2021,11(5):970-975. TIAN M R, FU X Y, YANG W C, et al. Design of wind-break walls and their application in Hulunbeier sandy land control[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2021,11(5):970-975.
[11]	丁新辉, 刘孝盈, 刘广全.我国沙障固沙技术研究进展及展望[J]. 中国水土保持,2019(1):35-37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2019.01.014 DING X H, LIU X Y, LIU G Q. Research progress and prospects of sand barrier technology in China[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China,2019(1):35-37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2019.01.014
[12]	李红悦, 哈斯额尔敦.机械沙障固沙效应及生态效应的研究综述[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版),2020,56(1):63-67. LI H Y, HASI ERDUN. Sand-fixing effect and ecological effect of mechanical sand barriers: a review[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science),2020,56(1):63-67.
[13]	王振亭, 郑晓静.草方格沙障尺寸分析的简单模型[J]. 中国沙漠,2002,(3):28-31. WANG Z T, ZHENG X J. A simple model for calculating measurements of straw checkerboard barriers[J]. Journal of Desert Research,2002,(3):28-31.
[14]	赵晨, 高永, 党晓宏, 等. 不同铺设年限沙柳沙障土壤养分的变化[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2022,40(4):583-590. ZHAO C, GAO Y, DANG X H, et al.Changes Surrounding Soil Nutrients of Salix psammophila Sand Barriers in Different Setting Years[J]. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 2022,40(4):583-590.
[15]	HUANG N, XIA X P, TONG D. Numerical simulation of wind sand movement in straw checkerboard barriers[J]. The European Physical Journal E, 2013, 36(9): 1-7.
[16]	石涛, 蒙仲举, 崔向新, 等.库布齐沙漠光伏电站内芦苇沙障的防风固沙效益[J]. 水土保持通报,2020,40(5):166-171. SHI T, MENG Z J, CUI X X, et al. Wind-prevention and sand-fixing benefits of reed-sand barrier at photovoltaic plant in Hobq desert[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2020,40(5):166-171.
[17]	LI X J, ZHOU R P, JIANG H T, et al. Quantitative analysis of how different checkerboard sand barrier materials influence soil properties: a study from the eastern edge of the Tengger Desert, China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences,2018,77(13):1-15.
[18]	TIAN L H, WU W Y, ZHANG D S, et al. Characteristics of erosion and deposition of straw checkerboard barriers in alpine sandy land[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences,2015,74(1):573-584. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4059-6
[19]	刘晓波.PLA沙袋格状沙障的合理运用[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计,2012,35(5):46-47. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6993.2012.05.019
[20]	ZHANG C L, LI Q, ZHOU N. et al. Field observations of wind profiles and sand fluxes above the windward slope of a sand dune before and after the establishment of semi-buried straw checkerboard barriers[J]. Aeolian Research,2016,20:59-70. doi: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2015.11.003
[21]	LIU L, BO T L. Effects of checkerboard sand barrier belt on sand transport and dune advance[J]. Aeolian Research,2020,42(42):100546.
[22]	ZHAO W Z, HU G L, ZHANG Z H. et al. Shielding effect of oasis-protection systems composed of various forms of wind break on sand fixation in an arid region: a case study in the Hexi corridor, northwest China[J]. Ecological Engineering,2008,33(2):119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.02.010
[23]	党晓宏, 高永, 虞毅, 等.新型生物可降解PLA沙障与传统草方格沙障防风效益[J]. 北京林业大学学报,2015,37(3):118-125. DANG X H, GAO Y, YU Y, et al. Windproof efficiency with new biodegradable PLA sand barrier and traditional straw sand barrier[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University,2015,37(3):118-125.
[24]	ZHANG S, DING G D, YU M H, et al. Effect of straw checkerboards on wind proofing, sand fixation, and ecological restoration in shifting sandy land[J]. International Journal Environmental Research Public Health, 2018, 15(10):2184.
[25]	XU B, ZHANG J, HUANG N, et al. Characteristics of turbulent Aeolian sand movement over straw checkerboard barriers and formation mechanisms of their internal erosion form[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres,2018,123(13):6907-6919. doi: 10.1029/2017JD027786
[26]	张帅, 丁国栋, 高广磊, 等.不同年限的草方格沙障对生态恢复的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学,2018,16(5):10-15. ZHANG S, DING G D, GAO G L, et al. Effects of straw checkerboard barrier in different setting years on ecological restoration[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation,2018,16(5):10-15.
[27]	原伟杰, 虞毅, 王戈, 等.可降解聚乳酸沙障降解性能研究[J]. 水土保持通报,2012,32(3):107-110. YUAN W J, YU Y, WANG G, et al. Degradation characteristics of degradable polylactic acid sand barrier[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation,2012,32(3):107-110.
[28]	袁立敏. 模块沙障的构建及其防护效益研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2014.
[29]	LI X R. , XIAO H L, HE M Z, et al. Sand barriers of straw checkerboards for habitat restoration in extremely arid desert regions[J]. Ecological Engineering,2006,28(2):149-157. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.020
[30]	孙浩, 刘晋浩, 黄青青, 等.多边形草沙障防风效果研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报,2017,39(10):90-94. SUN H, LIU J H, HUANG Q Q, et al. Research on the windproof efficiency of polygonal straw sand barrier[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University,2017,39(10):90-94.
[31]	张凯, 杨子江, 王起才, 等.格库铁路HDPE板沙障孔隙率与有效防护距离关系[J]. 中国铁道科学,2019,40(5):16-21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4632.2019.05.03 ZHANG K, YANG Z J, WANG Q C, et al. Relationship between porosity and effective protection distance of HDPE board sand barrier on Golmud: Korla railway[J]. China Railway Science,2019,40(5):16-21. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4632.2019.05.03
[32]	马述宏, 李积山.不同沙障的作用及对周围治沙的影响: 以民勤县青土湖重点风沙口为例[J]. 安徽农业科学,2011,39(17):10415-10416. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2011.17.112 MA S H, LI J S. The use of different sand barriers and effects to surrounding government[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences,2011,39(17):10415-10416. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2011.17.112
[33]	祁延录.南疆戈壁区机械防沙措施阻沙效益的风洞测试研究[J]. 铁道科学与工程学报,2021,18(4):892-900.
[34]	张娜, 乌力吉, 刘松涛, 等.呼伦湖地区气候变化特征及其对湖泊面积的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(7):192-197. ZHANG N, WU L J, LIU S T, et al. The characteristics of climate change and its influence on water area of Hulun lake[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment,2015,29(7):192-197.
[35]	席青虎.呼伦贝尔市多措并举保护治理呼伦湖[J]. 内蒙古林业,2018(1):10-12. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1033-8221.2018.01.004
[36]	赵新华.呼伦湖周边地区沙化土地现状及防治对策[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计,2018,41(5):1-2. ZHAO X H. Present situation of desertificated land around Hulun lake and control measures[J]. Inner Mongolia Forestry Investigation and Design,2018,41(5):1-2.
[37]	杨伟超. 生态修复中不同类型沙障防风固沙效应研究 [D]. 南京: 南京信息工程大学, 2017.
[38]	梁丽娥. 中晚全新世以来呼伦湖沉积记录的环境与气候演变[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2017.
[39]	鄂云峰, 孙辉成.呼伦湖湿地退化成因分析及对策建议[J]. 现代农业,2009(9):71-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0708.2009.09.055 E Y F, SUN H C. Analysis on the causes of Hulun lake wetland degradation and countermeasures[J]. Modern Agriculture,2009(9):71-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0708.2009.09.055
[40]	张海芳. 呼伦贝尔沙地不同植被恢复模式土壤微生物多样性[D]. 天津: 天津师范大学, 2012.
[41]	刘贤万. 草方格的风洞试验[A]. 流沙治理研究(二)[M]. 银川: 宁夏人民出版社, 1988: 326-334.
[42]	MIRI A, DRAGOVICH D, DONG Z B. Wind flow and sediment flux profiles for vegetated surfaces in a wind tunnel and field-scale windbreak[J]. Catena, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2020.104836.
[43]	蒋菊芳, 陈雷, 丁文魁, 等.荒漠草本植物生长对干旱胁迫的反应[J]. 中国农学通报,2017,33(24):68-73. JIANG J F, CHEN L, DING W K, et al. Response of desert herbaceous plants to drought stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2017,33(24):68-73.
[44]	LI G S, QU J J, HAN Q J, et al. Responses of three typical plants to wind erosion in the shrub belts atop Mogao Grottoes, China[J]. Ecological Engineering,2013,57:293-299. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.04.042
[45]	成聪聪, 闫德仁, 海春兴.PLA沙障对沙丘迎风坡土壤水分的影响[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(3):176-181. CHENG C C, YAN D R, HAI C X. Effect of PLA sand-barrier on soil moisture of windward slope of dunes[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment,2016,30(3):176-181.
[46]	LI, S H, LI C, YAO D. et al. Feasibility of microbially induced carbonate precipitation and straw checkerboard barriers on desertification control and ecological restoration [J]. Ecological Engineering 2020, 152: 105883.