高级检索

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

海南不同林分地表径流特征分析

王华 向仰州 杨曾奖 郭俊誉

王华, 向仰州, 杨曾奖, 郭俊誉. 海南不同林分地表径流特征分析[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(11): 22-30. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190275
引用本文: 王华, 向仰州, 杨曾奖, 郭俊誉. 海南不同林分地表径流特征分析[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(11): 22-30. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190275
Wang Hua, Xiang Yangzhou, Yang Zengjiang, Guo Junyu. Characteristics analysis of surface runoff for three types of forests in Hainan Island, southern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2019, 41(11): 22-30. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190275
Citation: Wang Hua, Xiang Yangzhou, Yang Zengjiang, Guo Junyu. Characteristics analysis of surface runoff for three types of forests in Hainan Island, southern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2019, 41(11): 22-30. doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190275

海南不同林分地表径流特征分析

doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190275
基金项目: 贵州省高层次创新人才项目(黔科合平台人才[2018]5633)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    王华,高级工程师。主要研究方向:森林生态。Email:506064209@qq.com  地址:550003贵州省贵阳市云岩区枣山路122号贵州省林业调查规划院

    责任作者:

    向仰州,博士,高级工程师。主要研究方向:森林生态。Email:yzhxiang18@126.com  地址:550018贵州省贵阳市乌当区高新路115号贵州师范学院 地理与资源学院

  • 中图分类号: Q948;S714

Characteristics analysis of surface runoff for three types of forests in Hainan Island, southern China

  • 摘要: 目的探讨桉树林、橡胶林和次生林3种森林地表径流的月动态以及不同雨量等级发生的地表径流规律,为准确评价3种森林水源涵养效益以及人工林可持续经营提供科学依据。方法在海南黎母山不同林分建立径流场,其中桉树林中有4个(F1、F2、F3、F4),橡胶林有1个(F5)、次生林中有1个(F6),从2010年4月到2011年3月进行地表径流观测,对比分析了3种森林类型地表径流特征,并借助G(2,1)模型基本思路以及sigmoid模型预测了月地表径流系数。结果(1)F1 ~ F6径流场全年地表径流量分别为230 、49 、170.1 、84.2 、340 、396.4 mm,其中雨季地表径流量分别占全年地表径流量的90.28%、91.61%、87.89%、92.74%、91.86%、90.88%。(2)各月地表径流量大小呈现相同的顺序,即F6 > F5 > F1 > F3 > F4 > F2。(3)雨季次生林地表径流总量是桉树林的1.75 ~ 8.11倍,橡胶林是桉树林的1.49 ~ 6.89倍。(4)单次降雨超过10 mm才会发生地表径流,地表径流随降雨等级而增大,大于60 mm的降雨量占全年总雨量的57.95%,而F1 ~ F6径流场产生的地表径流分别占全年地表径流量的84.92%、89.08%、82.14%、87.75%、79.56%、83.49%。sigmoid模型对雨季地表径流系数的预测精到高于旱季,但对2010年8月各径流场的地表径流预测偏差较大。结论该地区5年生桉树、6年生橡胶人工林的地表径流并不总是比次生林大,因此在评价人工林水源涵养能力时有必要考虑林龄和地理位置。

     

  • 图  1  3种森林地表径流系数的一二阶累积曲线(2010−04—2011−03)

    Figure  1.  The first and second order cumulative curves of surface runoff coefficient for three types of forests

    表  1  径流场环境特征

    Table  1.   General information for runoff fields

    项目 Item 径流场编号 Runoff field No.
    F1F2F3F4F5F6
    林龄/a Stand age/year 5 5 5 5 6
    平均胸径 Average DBH/cm 12.5 12.2 12.4 12.3 26.1 5.4
    平均树高 Mean height/m 13.5 13.1 13.7 13.4 12.9 7.8
    密度/(株·hm− 2) Stand density/(plant·ha− 1) 1 258 1 217 1 239 1 206 476 1 582
    海拔 Altitude/m 441 406 402 400 392 455
    坡度 Slope/(°) 25 10 20 15 19 23
    坡向 Aspect 东 East 东南 Southeast 东南 Southeast 东南 Southeast 东南 Southeast 东南 Southeast
    郁闭度 Canopy coverage 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.56
    枯落物盖度 Litter coverage/% 85 85 86 80 60 75
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  不同森林地表径流月动态

    Table  2.   Monthly dynamics of surface runoff in three types of forests

    日期
    Date
    降雨量
    Rainfall/mm
    径流量 Runoff/mm径流系数 Runoff coefficient/%
    F1F2F3F4F5F6F1F2F3F4F5F6
    2010−04 70 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5
    2010−05 320 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.3 8.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 2.5
    2010−06 71 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2
    2010−07 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    2010−08 217 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.3 3.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.5
    2010−09 427 30.7 5.6 25.1 11.2 51.1 62.8 7.2 1.3 5.9 2.6 12.0 14.7
    2010−10 1 581 174.8 38.6 122.5 65.6 255.2 289.1 11.1 2.4 7.7 4.1 16.1 18.3
    2010−11 273 22.2 4.0 20.4 6.0 30.8 31.9 8.1 1.5 7.5 2.2 11.3 11.7
    2010−12 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    2011−01 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    2011−02 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    2011−03 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    雨季 Rainy season 2 643 207.6 44.9 149.5 78.1 309.0 364.1 7.9 1.7 5.7 3.0 11.7 13.8
    旱季 Dry season 447 22.4 4.1 20.6 6.1 31.0 32.3 5.0 0.9 4.6 1.4 6.9 7.2
    全年 Whole year 3 090 230.0 49.0 170.1 84.2 340.0 396.4 7.4 1.6 5.5 2.7 11.0 12.8
    注:雨季指2010年5月至10月,旱季指2010年4月、2010年11月到2011年3月。Notes: rainy season refers to May to October, 2010; and the dry season refers to April 2010, November 2010 to March 2011.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  不同降雨级下3种森林地表径流

    Table  3.   Surface runoff of three types of forests under different classes of rainfall

    降雨梯度
    Rain gradient/mm
    降雨量
    Rainfall/mm
    径流量 Runoff/mm径流系数 Runoff coefficient/%
    F1F2F3F4F5F6F1F2F3F4F5F6
    0 ≤ RG < 10 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    10 ≤ RG < 20 218 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.9 2.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.9 1.3
    20 ≤ RG < 30 174 3.3 0.5 4.0 1.4 7.8 11.7 1.9 0.3 2.3 0.8 4.5 6.8
    30 ≤ RG < 40 184 10.1 1.7 8.9 2.5 15.2 21.8 5.5 0.9 4.8 1.4 8.3 11.9
    40 ≤ RG < 50 131 7.4 0.8 7.5 1.2 12.8 17.5 5.6 0.6 5.7 0.9 9.8 13.4
    50 ≤ RG < 60 234 12.7 2.2 9.2 4.8 18.3 27.2 5.5 0.9 3.9 2.0 7.8 11.6
    60 ≤ RG < 70 195 12.2 2.4 11.3 5.4 28.2 30.3 6.2 1.2 5.8 2.8 14.4 15.5
    70 ≤ RG < 100 246 24.1 6.2 19.5 10.8 45.4 47.9 9.8 2.5 7.9 4.4 18.5 19.5
    100 ≤ RG < 150 385 34.0 8.3 29.5 11.5 37.4 51.7 8.8 2.2 7.7 3.0 9.7 13.4
    150 ≤ RG < 200 487 61.7 12.0 38.9 20.3 84.7 84.8 12.7 2.5 8.0 4.2 17.4 17.4
    200 ≤ RG < 250 477 63.4 14.7 40.6 25.8 88.2 100.8 13.3 3.1 8.5 5.4 18.5 21.1
    RG < 60 1 299 34.7 5.4 30.4 10.3 56.1 81.0 2.7 0.4 2.3 0.8 4.3 6.2
    RG ≥ 60 1 791 195.3 43.6 139.7 73.9 283.9 315.4 10.9 2.4 7.8 4.1 15.9 17.6
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  3种森林类型地表径流的sigmoid模型参数

    Table  4.   Sigmoid model parameters of surface runoff coefficient for three types of forests

    模型参数 Model parameterF1F2F3F4F5F6
    AdjR2 0.997 6 0.998 3 0.996 3 0.998 3 0.997 4 0.996 3
    a 27.385 1 5.465 5 22.169 7 9.399 40.721 4 48.291 3
    b 0.449 3 0.349 1 0.295 9 0.474 7 0.571 2 0.495 5
    c 0.700 1 0.467 7 0.304 3 0.907 4 1.433 0.720 8
    x0 6.772 9 6.972 3 7.286 6 6.464 8 6.161 6.582 5
    y0 0.358 5 0.255 5 0.153 7 0.391 1 0.596 8 2.425 1
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  5  月地表径流系数的估算精度

    Table  5.   Estimation accuracy of monthly surface runoff coefficient

    月份
    Month
    201020102010201020102010201020102010201120112011
    040506070809101112010203
    实测值 Measured value 0.27 0.32 0.14 0 0.46 7.18 11.06 8.11 0 0 0 0
    F1 预测值 Predicted value 0.36 0.01 0.06 0.29 1.34 5.61 12.36 6.52 1.05 0.12 0.01 0.00
    偏差 Bias/% 34.09 96.04 57.24 191.06 21.85 11.78 19.59
    实测值 Measured value
    0.14 0.14 0.13 0 0.07 1.30 2.44 1.47 0 0 0 0
    F2 预测值 Predicted value 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.29 1.06 2.58 1.31 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00
    偏差 Bias/% 81.19 96.40 84.51 288.40 18.84 5.63 10.68
    实测值 Measured value 0.26 0.27 0.17 0 0.44 5.87 7.75 7.47 0 0 0 0
    F3 预测值 Predicted value 0.19 0.06 0.17 0.49 1.36 3.77 9.09 6.63 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.00
    偏差 Bias/% 26.38 77.40 2.26 209.56 35.72 17.29 11.35
    实测值 Measured value 0.17 0.24 0.18 0 0.18 2.62 4.15 2.19 0 0 0 0
    F4 预测值 Predicted value 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.46 2.35 4.39 1.79 0.28 0.04 0.00 0.00
    偏差 Bias/% 129.59 99.35 94.22 165.11 10.62 5.91 18.43
    实测值 Measured value 0.34 0.42 0.23 0 0.59 11.95 16.14 11.26 0 0 0 0
    F5 预测值 Predicted value 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.16 1.68 10.30 18.11 8.24 1.82 0.33 0.06 0.01
    偏差 Bias/% 75.08 99.74 94.09 184.61 13.86 12.19 26.88
    实测值 Measured value 0.50 2.55 1.17 0 1.51 14.70 18.29 11.68 0 0 0 0
    F6 预测值 Predicted value 2.44 0.05 0.20 0.86 3.57 12.35 20.26 9.09 1.64 0.23 0.03 0.00
    偏差 Bias/% 615.58 88.74 10.91 504.54 3.36 25.50 19.31
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 周国逸, 余作岳, 彭少麟. 小良试验站三种植被类型地表径流效应的对比研究[J]. 热带地理, 1995, 15(4):306−312.

    Zhou G Y, Yu Z Y, Peng S L. Comparative study of surface flow for three types of vegetation in Xiaoliang Experimental Station[J]. Tropical Geography, 1995, 15(4): 306−312.
    [2] Metcalfe R A, Buttle J M. Soil partitioning and surface store controls on spring runoff from a boreal forest peatland basin in north-central Manitoba, Canada[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2001, 15(12): 2305−2324. doi: 10.1002/hyp.262
    [3] Kolka R K, Smidt M F. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk density, surface runoff, sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2004, 202(1−3): 313−323. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.042
    [4] Abari M E, Majnounian B, Malekian A, et al. Effects of forest harvesting on runoff and sediment characteristics in the Hyrcanian forests, northern Iran[J]. European Journal of Forest Research, 2017, 136(2): 375−386. doi: 10.1007/s10342-017-1038-3
    [5] Stoof C R, Ferreira A J D, Mol W, et al. Soil surface changes increase runoff and erosion risk after a low-moderate severity fire[J]. Geoderma, 2015, 239: 58−67.
    [6] Butzen V, Seeger M, Marruedo A, et al. Water repellency under coniferous and deciduous forest: experimental assessment and impact on overland flow[J]. Catena, 2015, 133: 255−265. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2015.05.022
    [7] 黄国勤, 赵其国. 广西桉树种植的历史、现状、生态问题及应对策略[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(18):5142−5152.

    Huang G Q, Zhao Q G. The history, status quo, ecological problems and countermeasures of eucalyptus plantations in Guangxi[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 34(18): 5142−5152.
    [8] 张一平, 王馨, 王玉杰, 等. 西双版纳地区热带季节雨林与橡胶林林冠水文效应比较研究[J]. 生态学报, 2003, 23(12):2653−2665.

    Zhang Y P, Wang X, Wang Y J, et al. Comparison research on hydrological effect of the canopy of the tropical seasonal rainforest and rubber plantation in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2003, 23(12): 2653−2665.
    [9] Engel V, Jobbágy E G, Stieglitz M, et al. Hydrological consequences of eucalyptus afforestation in the Argentine Pampas[J]. Water Resources Research, 2005, 41(10): 1−14.
    [10] Zheng H, Chen F L, Ouyang Z Y, et al. Impacts of reforestation approaches on runoff control in the hilly red soil region of southern China[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2008, 356(1−2): 174−184. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.04.007
    [11] 曾宪海, 安锋, 谢贵水, 等. 中国橡胶林的水土保持效应[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(3):299−305.

    Zeng X H, An F, Xie G S, et al. Effect of soil and water conservation in China rubber plantation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2010, 26(3): 299−305.
    [12] Sharda V N, Samraj P, Samra J S, et al. Hydrological behaviour of first generation coppiced bluegum plantations in the Nilgiri sub-watersheds[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 1998, 211(1−4): 50−60. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00193-0
    [13] 胡荣轩, 毛荣生, 陈小红. 黄河中游区水、沙变化趋势及其预测[J]. 地理学报, 1992, 47(4):315−324. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.1992.04.004

    Hu R X, Mao R S, Chen X H. The tendency and prediction of water and sediment at the middle reaches of the Huang He River[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1992, 47(4): 315−324. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.1992.04.004
    [14] 徐建新, 李振全, 张福芬, 等. 用灰色系统理论进行径流预测研究[J]. 华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 26(3):1−3. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5634.2005.03.001

    Xu J X, Li Z Q, Zhang F F, et al. Application and research of grey system theory in surface runoff forecast[J]. Journal of North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power (Natural Science Edition), 2005, 26(3): 1−3. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5634.2005.03.001
    [15] 郑郁善, 陈卓梅, 邱尔发, 等. 不同经营措施笋用麻竹人工林的地表径流研究[J]. 生态学报, 2003, 23(11):2387−2395. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2003.11.023

    Zheng Y S, Chen Z M, Qiu E F, et al. Study on runoff in Dendrocalamus latiflorus plantation used for shoot by the different management measures[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2003, 23(11): 2387−2395. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2003.11.023
    [16] 黄承标, 韦炳二, 黎洁娟. 广西不同植被类型地表径流的研究[J]. 林业科学, 1991, 27(5):490−497.

    Huang C B, Wei B E, Li J J. A study on surface runoff of different types of vegetation in Guangxi Autonomous Region[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 1991, 27(5): 490−497.
    [17] 张喜, 薛建辉, 许效天, 等. 黔中喀斯特山地不同森林类型的地表径流及影响因素[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2007, 15(6):527−537. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3395.2007.06.010

    Zhang X, Xue J H, Xu X T, et al. Forest surface runoff and its influence factor s in karst mountainous area in center of Guizhou Province, China[J]. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany, 2007, 15(6): 527−537. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3395.2007.06.010
    [18] 谭家得, 薛立, 郑卫国. 等湿地松林的地表径流及钾流失特征[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2009, 30(4):57−61. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-411X.2009.04.013

    Tan J D, Xue L, Zheng W G. Characteristics of surface runoff and potassium export in a Pinus elliottii stand[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2009, 30(4): 57−61. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-411X.2009.04.013
    [19] 闫俊华, 周国逸, 申卫军. 用灰色关联法分析森林生态系统植被状况对地表径流系数的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2000, 6(3):197−200. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2000.03.001

    Yan J H, Zhou G Y, Shen W J. Grey correlation analysis of the effect of vegetation status on surface runoff coefficient of forest ecosystems[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology, 2000, 6(3): 197−200. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-687X.2000.03.001
    [20] Podwojewski P, Orange D, Jouquet P, et al. Land-use impacts on surface runoff and soil detachment within agricultural sloping lands in Northern Vietnam[J]. Catena, 2008, 74(2): 109−118. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2008.03.013
    [21] Zhou G Y, Morris J D, Yan J H, et al. Hydrological impacts of reafforestation with eucalypts and indigenous species: a case study in southern China[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 167(1−3): 209−222. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00694-6
    [22] Myers B J, Theiveyanathan S, O’brien N D, et al. Growth and water use of Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus radiata plantations irrigated with effluent[J]. Tree Physiology, 1996, 16(1−2): 211−219. doi: 10.1093/treephys/16.1-2.211
    [23] 刘玉洪, 张一平, 马友鑫, 等. 西双版纳橡胶人工林地表径流与地下径流的关系[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2002, 26(1):75−77. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2002.01.018

    Liu Y H, Zhang Y P, Ma Y X, et al. A study on the dividing of ground and underground runoff in rubber plantation in Xishuangbanna, southwest China[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 2002, 26(1): 75−77. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2002.01.018
    [24] Larsen M C, Torres-Sánchez A J, Concepción I M. Slopewash, surface runoff and fine-litter transport in forest and landslide scars in humid-tropical steeplands, luquillo experimental forest, Puerto Rico[J]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1999, 24(6): 481−502. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199906)24:6<481::AID-ESP967>3.0.CO;2-G
    [25] Sorriso-Valvo M, Bryan R B, Yair A, et al. Impact of afforestation on hydrological response and sediment production in a small Calabrian Catchment[J]. Catena, 1995, 25(1−4): 89−104. doi: 10.1016/0341-8162(95)00002-A
    [26] 魏天兴, 朱金兆. 黄土残塬沟壑区坡度和坡长对土壤侵蚀的影响分析[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2002, 24(1):59−62. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2002.01.012

    Wei T X, Zhu J Z. Effects of slope length and grade on soil erosion in the gully regions in Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2002, 24(1): 59−62. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2002.01.012
    [27] 李文华, 何永涛, 杨丽韫. 森林对径流影响研究的回顾与展望[J]. 自然资源学报, 2001, 16(5):398−406. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.2001.05.002

    Li W H, He Y T, Yang L Y. A summary and perspective of forest vegetation impacts on water yield[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2001, 16(5): 398−406. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.2001.05.002
  • 加载中
图(1) / 表(5)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1450
  • HTML全文浏览量:  611
  • PDF下载量:  45
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2019-07-30
  • 修回日期:  2019-09-16
  • 网络出版日期:  2019-10-19
  • 刊出日期:  2019-11-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回