Soil Moisture Affecting Factors in Semi-arid Valley Forestland of Lhasa

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2017.05.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil moisture is one of the main limiting factors in vegetation survival.The objective of this study is to provide a theoretical basis for vegetation restoration in semi-arid valley area in Lhasa by studying environmental factors that affected soil moisture.In this study,three land types(flood land,terrace and footslope)including 7 typical forestland sites were selected.In field investigation,a survey of 10 environmental factors that were classified into soil properties,topography and geomorphology,and vegetation types,was conducted.The major factors affecting soil moisture and relationship among factors were analyzed with correlation analysis and principal component analysis.The results showed that the relationships between soil moisture and environmental factors were inconsistent among 3 different land types,whereas the same relationship was found between flood land and terrace.There was a non-significant positive or negative correlation between soil moisture and environmental factors.However,significant positive correlations were found among environmental factors.In footslope area,the soil moisture was significantly related to the environmental factors,and the correlation between environmental factors was significant as well.The key factor affecting the soil moisture in flood land and terrace was soil properties first,followed by vegetation types.The strongest factors affecting soil moisture in footslope area were topography and geomorphology,and the vegetation type was next.The soil properties had the weakest influence.Soil moisture was the result of the effects of a number of environmental factors.For each land type,the principal components were definite,which had a clearly explanation for soil moisture.The topography,vegetation and soil type were major factors that affected soil moisture in semi-arid valley of Lhasa.

Key words: soil moisture, environmental factors, correlation, principal component analysis, semi-arid valley of Lhasa

CLC Number:

S152.7

LI Yongxia, QIU Banggui, YANG Xiaolin. Soil Moisture Affecting Factors in Semi-arid Valley Forestland of Lhasa[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, (5): 61-65.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 19

[1]	张北赢, 徐学选, 李贵玉, 等. 土壤水分基础理论及其应用研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学, 2007(2):122-129.
[2]	杨海鹰, 冶林茂, 陈海波. 土壤水分研究进展[C]//第28届中国气象学会年会——S11气象与现代农业.中国气象学会, 2011: 5.
[3]	Trangmar B B, Yost R S, Uchara G. Application of geostatistics to spatial studies of soil properties[J]. Adv.Agron., 1985,38:44-94.
[4]	PhiliP J R. Plant water relations:some physical aspects[J]. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 1966,17:245-268. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.17.060166.001333
[5]	张强, 孙向阳, 张广才. 土壤水分研究进展[J]. 林业科学研究, 2004,17(S1):106-108.
[6]	张超, 王会肖. 土壤水分研究进展及简要评述[J]. 干早地区农业研究, 2003. 21(4):117-120.
[7]	张军红, 吴波. 干旱、半干旱地区土壤水分研究进展[J].中国水土保持, 2012(2):40-43.
[8]	Gomez-plaza A, Martínez-mena M, Albaladejo J, et al. Factors regulating spatial distribution of soil water content in small semi-arid catchment[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2001,253:211-226.
[9]	杨小林, 赵垦田, 马和平, 等. 拉萨半干旱河谷地带的植被数量生态研究[J]. 林业科学, 2010,46(10):15-22. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20101003
[10]	杨小林, 宫照红, 马和平. 拉萨半干旱河谷砂生槐灌丛群落退化程度评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2012,27(5):11-14.
[11]	寇韬. 拉萨半干旱河谷立地分类与评价[D]. 拉萨:西藏大学, 2010.
[12]	青藏高原综合科学考察队. 西藏森林[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985: 6-10.
[13]	张万儒, 许本彤. 森林土壤定位研究法[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1986: 30-36.
[14]	邱邦桂. 拉萨半干旱河谷宜林地土壤水分时空分布格局[D]. 拉萨:西藏大学, 2016.
[15]	尹海魁, 许皞, 李大伟, 等. 露天铁矿山典型立地类型划分与主导因子分析[J]. 金属矿山, 2016,480(6):173-179.
[16]	王冠丽, 刘廷玺, 孙铁军, 等. 基于主成分分析法的土壤蒸发能力影响因子研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008,36(11):4369-4370.
[17]	袁志发. 多元统计分析[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2002: 188-195.
[18]	黄录基, Munro D S, 张绍贤,等.降水、蒸发和径流的坡向效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 1994,8(1):18-25.
[19]	孙辉, 唐亚, 黄雪菊, 等. 横断山区干旱河谷研究现状和发展方向[J].世界科技研究与发展, 2005(3):54-61.

赋值	X₁ /%	X₂ /cm	X₃ /(g/cm³)	X₄ /%	X₅	X₆ /%	X₇ /(g/kg)	X₈	X₉ /(°)	X₁₀
10	≥18.0	≥80	≥1.40	≥53	灌草丛	≥50	≥40	阴坡	<5
8	15.0~18.0	60~80	1.30~1.40	52~53	灌丛	30~50	30~40	半阴坡	5~10
6	12.0~15.0	40~60	1.20~1.30	51~52	人工混交林	10~30	20~30	台阶地	10~15
4	9.0~12.0	20~40	1.10~1.20	50~51	人工纯林	5~10	10~20	半阳坡	15~25	上坡位
2	6.0~ 9.0	0~20	1.00~1.10	49~50	裸地	0~5	<10	阳坡	≥25	下坡位

因子	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇
X₁	1.000
X₂	-0.500	1.000
X₃	0.189	-0.756^*	1.000
X₄	-0.189	0.945^**	-0.929^**	1.000
X₅	0.500	0.500	-0.945^**	0.756^*	1.000
X₆	0.500	-0.951^**	0.7568^*	-0.945^**	-0.500	1.000
X₇	0.032	0.866^**	-0.982^**	0.982^**	0.866^**	-0.866^**	1.000

因子	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀
X₁	1.000
X₂	-0.302	1.000
X₃	0.853^**	-0.707^*	1.000
X₄	-0.522	0.577	-0.816^**	1.000
X₅	0.905^**	0.061	0.707^*	-0.577	1.000
X₆	0.302	-0.916^**	0.707^*	-0.577	0.011	1.000
X₇	0.674^*	0.447	0.316	-0.258	0.894^**	-0.447	1.000
X₈	0.763^*	0.005	0.671^*	-0.730^*	0.949^**	0.051	0.849^**	1.000
X₉	0.302	-0.961^**	0.707	-0.577	0.010	0.934^**	-0.447	0.015	1.000
X₁₀	0.853^**	-0.707^*	0.928^**	-0.816^**	0.707^*	0.707^*	0.316	0.671^*	0.707^*	1.000

因子	主成分
	河滩地、阶地		坡麓地
	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅰ	Ⅱ
土壤厚度	0.23	-0.03	-0.15	0.19
土壤容重	-0.21	-0.25	0.18	0.03
土壤总孔隙度	0.21	-0.25	-0.17	-0.04
植被类型	0.18	0.38	0.12	0.23
石砾含量	-0.07	0.59	0.15	-0.19
有机质含量	0.27	-0.07	0.04	0.29
坡向	—	—	0.12	0.23
坡度	—	—	0.15	-0.19
坡位	—	—	0.18	0.03
特征值	4.307	1.586	5.337	3.346
贡献率/%	71.776	26.441	59.295	37.175
累积贡献率/%	71.776	98.217	59.295	96.469