绿洲防护林不同滴灌水量下土壤水盐运移初探

白 元1; 2; 徐海量1; 3; 刘新华1; 赵新风1

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2013.00022

中国沙漠 >

2013 , Vol. 33 >Issue 1: 153 - 159

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2013.00022

生物与土壤

绿洲防护林不同滴灌水量下土壤水盐运移初探

白元1 ,
2 ,
徐海量1 ,
3 ,
刘新华1 ,
赵新风1

展开

1.中国科学院新疆生态与地理研究所, 新疆乌鲁木齐 830011;
2.中国科学院大学, 北京 100049; 3.中国科学院绿洲生态与荒漠环境重点实验室, 新疆乌鲁木齐 830011

收稿日期: 2012-06-14

修回日期: 2012-08-28

网络出版日期: 2013-01-20

收起

The Effects of Drip Irrigation with Different Quota on the Soil Water & Salt Conditions in Oasis Shelter Forest

BAI Yuan1 ,
2 ,
XU Hai-liang1 ,
3 ,
LIU Xin-hua1 ,
ZHAO Xin-feng1

Expand

1.Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China;
2.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3.Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology and Desert Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xinjiang 830011, China

Received date: 2012-06-14

Revised date: 2012-08-28

Online published: 2013-01-20

Fold

摘要

为了探明滴灌滴头流量一致条件下,不同灌水量处理对绿洲防护林地土壤水盐随时间分布的影响,采用30 L·株-１·次-１（处理Ⅰ）、40 L·株-１·次-1（处理Ⅱ）、50 L·株-1·次-1（处理Ⅲ）不同处理对比试验,在塔里木河下游喀拉米吉镇绿洲人工栽培的防护林地进行了野外滴灌监测。结果表明:①处理Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ的剖面平均含水量分别达6.68%、8.99%、9.92%,土壤湿润锋运移的水平距离分别为58、62、74 cm,垂直深度分别为40、50、67 cm,表明灌水量决定土壤含水量的高低,灌水量增加有利于水分在水平和垂直方向的渗透。②处理Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ的盐分锋值水平方向位置为40、52、63 cm,垂直方向为41、45、55 cm,脱盐率分别为62.2%、67.0%、76.5%,灌水量的增加有利于土壤的脱盐。③随着时间的推移,处理Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ土壤0～60 cm主要根系分布层分别在第5天、第11天、第15天土壤贮水亏缺度达到23.91%～59.25%,33.38%～51.75%,39.69%～56.53%,表层积盐同时达到最大。本研究认为防护林地滴灌水量40～50 L·株-1·次-1、滴灌周期以11～15 d比较适宜,可为极端干旱区防护林的合理灌溉和防治土壤次生盐渍化提供科学依据, 具有一定的现实意义。

关键词： 防护林; 滴灌; 土壤水分; 土壤盐分

本文引用格式

白元1 , 2 , 徐海量1 , 3 , 刘新华1 , 赵新风1 . 绿洲防护林不同滴灌水量下土壤水盐运移初探[J]. 中国沙漠, 2013 , 33(1) : 153 -159 . DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2013.00022

Abstract

In order to analyze the effect of different quantities of drip irrigation on soil moisture and salinity distribution and movement at oasis shelter forest, a field experiment with different irrigation quota of 30 L per plant once (treatment Ⅰ), 40 L per plant once (treatment Ⅱ) and 50 L per plant once (treatmentⅢ) was conducted in the Kalamiji oasis shelter forest at the lower reaches of the Tarim River. The results showed that: (1) The mean soil water content in the treatment Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ were 6.68%, 8.99% and 9.92%, respectively, the horizontal movement of the soil wetting front value was 58cm, 62 cm and 74 cm for the treatment Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ, while the corresponding value for downward movement was 40 cm, 50 cm and 67 cm, respectively, suggesting that the increased drip irrigation volume could promote the water permeability both horizontaly and verticaly. (2) The horizontal movement of the salt front in the treatment Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ reached 40 cm, 52 cm and 63 cm, respectively, and the corresponding downward value was 41 cm, 45 cm and 55 cm, respectively, showing that the increased drip irrigation water quantity could promote soil desalinization. (3) The water deficit in 0-60 cm soil of the treatment Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ was 23.91%-59.25%, 33.38%-51.75% and 39.69%-56.53% at day 5, 11 and 15 after drip irrigation, respectively, and the salinization value was maximum simultaneously. We thought that a regime with 40-50 L per plant once and 10-15 d cycle could be the most suitable for drip irrigating the shelterbelt.

Key words： forest shelter; drip irrigation; soil moisture; soil salt

参考文献

[1]钱正英.中国水利[M].北京:水利电力出版社,1991:3.

[2]孙鸿烈,李秀彬,樊江文,等.西北干旱区生态建设的若干科学问题[J].科学,2005,57(6):48-50.

[3]程国栋,李锐.西部地区生态环境建设的若干问题与政策建议[J].地理科学,2007,20(6):503-510.

[4]窦超银,康跃虎,万书勤,等.覆膜滴灌对地下水浅埋区重度盐碱地土壤酶活性的影响[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(3):44-51.

[5]Hanson B R,Hutmacher R B,May D M.Drip irrigation of tomato and cotton under shallow saline ground water conditions[J].Irrigation and Drainage Systems,2006,20(2):155-175.

[6]Bresler E.Two-dimensional transport of solutes during nonsteady infiltration from a trickle source[J].Soil Science Society of America Journal,1975,39(4):604-613.

[7]王全九,王文焰.膜下滴灌盐碱地水盐运移特征研究[J].农业工程学报,2000,16(4):54-57.

[8]吕殿青,王全九,王文焰,等.膜下滴灌水盐运移影响因素研究[J].土壤学报,2002,39(6):794-801.

[9]张琼,李光永,柴付军.棉花膜下滴灌条件下灌水频率对土壤水盐分布和棉花生长的影响[J].水利学报,2004,9:123-126.

[10]马东豪,王全九,来剑斌.膜下滴灌条件下灌水水质和流量对土壤盐分分布影响的田间试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2005,21(3):42-46.

[11]袁素芬,陈亚宁,李卫红.干旱区新垦绿洲防护林体系的防护效益分析——以克拉玛依农业综合开发区为例[J].中国沙漠,2007,27(4):600-607.

[12]杨红梅,徐海量,牛俊勇.干旱区滴灌条件下防护林次生盐渍化土壤水盐运移规律研究[J].土壤学报,2010,47(5):1023-1027.

[13]张建国,徐新文,雷加强,等.咸水滴灌对沙漠公路防护林土壤环境的影响[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(10):34-39.

[14]张鹏,赵新风,张涛,等.滴灌对干旱区绿洲防护林土壤盐分的淋洗作用[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(5):25-30.

[15]常学礼,赵爱芬.生态脆弱带的尺度与等级特征[J].中国沙漠,1999,19(2):115-119.

[16]赵成义,王玉潮,李子良,等.田块尺度下土壤水分和盐分的空间变异性[J].干旱区研究,2003,20(4):252-256.

[17]张伟,吕新,李鲁华,等.新疆棉田膜下滴灌盐分运移规律[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(8):15-19.

[18]陈渠昌,吴忠渤.滴灌条件下沙地土壤水分分布与运移规律[J].灌溉排水,1999,18(1):28-31.

[19]莫治新,尹林克,文启凯.塔里木河中下游表层土壤盐分空间变异性研究[J].干旱区研究,2004,21(3):250-253.

[20]苏里坦,阿不都·沙拉木,宋郁东.膜下滴灌水量对土壤水盐运移及再分布的影响[J].干旱区研究,2011,28(1):79-84.

[21]段争虎,何兴东.塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地灌溉土壤水分循环特征[J].干旱区资源与环境,2001,15(3):63-67.

[22]王进鑫,罗伟祥,刘广全,等.黄土高原人工林根区土壤水分亏缺状况与空间分布[J].西北林学院学报,2004,19(4):1-4.

[23]汪志荣,王文焰,王全九,等.点源入渗土壤水分运动规律实验研究[J].水利学报,2000,6:39-44.

[24]赵良菊,肖洪浪,李新荣,等.灌水量对土壤水肥分布与春小麦水分利用效率的影响[J].中国沙漠,2005,25(2):256-261.

[25]谭军利,康跃虎,焦艳平,等.不同种植年限覆膜滴灌盐碱地土壤盐分离子分布特征[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(6):59-63.

[26]托乎提·艾合买提,赵新风,叶茂,等.塔里木河下游新生林地滴灌下土壤盐分分布特征研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2009,28(6):107-111.

[27]姚德良,朱进生.土壤水盐运动模式研究及其在干旱区农田的应用[J].中国沙漠,2001,21(3):286-290.

[28]徐新文,李丙文,王晓静.塔克拉玛干沙漠腹地沙地咸水灌溉(技术)研究[J].科学通报,2006,51(增刊1):133-136.

[29]高艳红,程国栋,吕世华.西北干旱区滴灌数值模拟[J].中国沙漠,2007,25(4):500-504.

[30]齐广平,张恩和.膜下滴灌条件下不同灌溉量对番茄根系分布和产量的影响[J].中国沙漠,2009,29(3):463-467.

Options

文章导航

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献