Comparison of deep soil recharge characteristics between Mu Us Sandy Land and Hunshandake Sandy Land

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00120

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2): 69-76.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00120

Previous Articles Next Articles

Comparison of deep soil recharge characteristics between Mu Us Sandy Land and Hunshandake Sandy Land

Hairong Liang¹^,²(), Tao Wang²^,³(), Yu Yang², Wei Feng⁴, Honglin Lian²^,⁵, Xuefeng Liu¹, Jiatao Li¹, Jia Liu¹

^1.Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Science，Hohhot 010010，China
^2.Inner Mongolia Low Coverage Sand Control Technology Development Co. ，Ltd. ，Hohhot 010010，China
^3.Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^4.Xilingol Vocational College，Xilinhot 026000，Inner Mongolia，China
^5.Desert Science and Engineering College，Inner Mongolia Agricultural University，Hohhot 010019，China

Received:2021-08-12 Revised:2021-09-18 Online:2022-03-20 Published:2022-03-30
Contact: Tao Wang

Abstract

Abstract:

Deep soil recharge （DSR） is an important indicator of the connectivity between surface water and groundwater in sandy land. In order to analyze the characteristics of DSR in different sandy land with different precipitation gradients， this study used a newly designed Lysimeter to monitor the amount of DSR in 0-200 cm depth soil layer by the annual precipitation of mobile dunes in real time. The results of the study showed that the annual precipitation amount in the Hunshandake Sandy Land from 2017 to 2019 was 229.9±45.6 mm， the average annual leakage was 8.2±7.4 mm， and the annual DSR accounted for 3.1%±2.3% of the annual precipitation. The average annual precipitation in Mu Us Sandy Land from 2013 to 2015 was 328.1±61.1 mm， the average annual DSR was 64.1±58.3 mm， and the annual DSR accounted for 17.0%±13.7% of the annual precipitation in the same period. The DSR of the mobile sandy dunes in the Hunshandake Sandy Land was mainly due to the continuous but small amount of precipitation recharge. Among the precipitation events， the daily recharge amount of less than 0.25 mm of DSR was more frequent. On the contrary， the daily recharge amount of more than 0.25 mm of DSR was more frequent in the Mu Us sandy land. When the precipitation was small， the DSR was mainly continuous， long-term， but small amount. Large precipitation amount or continuous small precipitation events not only significantly increased the amount of DSR， but also made the delay time of DSR shorter， and the fluctuation frequency of precipitation fluctuation was consistent with the fluctuation frequency of DSR.

Key words: Mu Us Sandy Land, Hunshandake Sandy Land, mobile sandy dune, deep soil recharge, precipitation pulse

CLC Number:

S152.7

Hairong Liang, Tao Wang, Yu Yang, Wei Feng, Honglin Lian, Xuefeng Liu, Jiatao Li, Jia Liu. Comparison of deep soil recharge characteristics between Mu Us Sandy Land and Hunshandake Sandy Land[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(2): 69-76.

Figures/Tables 6

References 18

1	刘新平，赵哈林，何玉惠，等.生长季流动沙地水量平衡研究［J］.中国沙漠，2009，29（4）：663-667.
2	刘新平，张铜会，赵哈林，等.流动沙丘降雨入渗和再分配过程［J］.水利学报，2006，37（2）166-171.
3	刘峻杉，高琼，郭柯，等.毛乌素裸沙丘斑块的实际蒸发量及其对降雨格局的响应［J］.植物生态学报，2008，32（1）：123-132.
4	曹静，阿拉木萨，张圆浩.科尔沁沙地沙丘水分深层渗漏量和侧向运移量［J］.中国沙漠，2019，39（3）：41-46.
5	Xiao H L， Cheng G D， Li X R，et al.Ecohydrological change mechanism of a rainfed revegetation ecosystem at southeastern edge of Tengger desert，Northwest China［J］.Science China：Series D，2004，47（1）：71-77.
6	吴永胜，哈斯，乌格特莱勒.毛乌素沙地南缘沙丘表面径流特征［J］.科学通报，2011，56（34）：2917-2922.
7	刘新平，张铜会，赵哈林，等.流动沙丘降雨入渗和再分配过程［J］.水利学报，2006，37（2）：166-171.
8	原鹏飞，丁国栋，王炜炜，等.毛乌素沙地降雨入渗和蒸发特征［J］.中国水土保持科学，2008，6（4）：23-27.
9	姚冬梅，冯金超，冯伟，等.毛乌素沙地典型流动沙丘水分深层渗漏量及动态特征［J］.中国沙漠，2017，37（2）：222-227.
10	杨文斌，党宏忠.土壤深层水量渗漏测试记录仪：201110252184.7［P］.2011.
11	冯伟.毛乌素沙地东北缘土壤水分动态及深层渗漏特征［D］.北京：中国林业科学研究院，2015.
12	李卫，冯伟，杨文斌，等.流动沙丘水分深层入渗量与降雨的关系［J］.水科学进展，2015，26（6）：779-796.
13	Yang W B， Tang J N， Liang H R，et al.Deep soil water infiltration and its dynamic variation in the shifting sandy land of typical deserts in China［J］.Science China：Earth Sciences，2014，57（8）：1816-1824.
14	冯伟，杨文斌，唐进年，等.中国沙漠（地）深层渗漏量及动态变化［J］.中国沙漠，2015，35（5）：1362-1370.
15	Cheng Y B， Li Y L， Yang W B，et al.New comparative experiments of different soil types for farmland water conservation in arid region［J］.Water，2018（10）：2-12.
16	Cheng Y B， Yang W B， Zhan H B，et al.On the origin of deep soil water infiltration in the arid sandy region of China［J］.Water，2020（12）：1-17.
17	王宇详，刘廷玺，段利民，等.半干旱地区半流动沙丘水分深层渗漏量及其对降雨格局的响应［J］.应用生态学报，2020，31（8）：2710-2720.
18	吴丽丽，刘丹一，杨文斌，等.降雨量、土壤蓄水量对流动沙地土壤水分深层渗漏的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2020，40（3）：210-218.

研究区	时间	降雨日数 /d	总降雨量 /mm	降雨日数/d,累积降雨量/mm
研究区	时间	降雨日数 /d	总降雨量 /mm	≤5 mm	5—10 mm	≥10 mm
浑善达克沙地	2017—2019年	180	689.6	135,188.4	26,197.4	18,303.8
毛乌素沙地	2013—2015年	243	984.2	181,240.2	33,246.6	29,497.4

研究区	时间	降雨日数 /d	总降雨量 /mm	降雨日数/d,累积降雨量/mm
研究区	时间	降雨日数 /d	总降雨量 /mm	≤5 mm	5—10 mm	≥10 mm
浑善达克沙地	2017—2019年	180	689.6	135,188.4	26,197.4	18,303.8
毛乌素沙地	2013—2015年	243	984.2	181,240.2	33,246.6	29,497.4

地点	年份	降雨						渗漏
		总日数	日最大降雨量 /mm	降雨日数/d,累积降雨量/mm				总日数	日最大渗漏量 /mm	渗漏补给日数/d,累积渗漏量/mm
		总日数	日最大降雨量 /mm	≤5 mm	5— 10 mm	10— 15 mm	≥15 mm	总日数	日最大渗漏量 /mm	≤0.25 mm	0.25— 0.5mm	0.5— 1.0 mm	≥1 mm
浑善达克沙地	2017	55	19.6	44,70.6	6,44.8	2,23.2	3,53.6	21	0.1	21,1.9	—	—	—
	2018	66	34.6	47,64.8	12,92.0	3,37.6	4,99.6	141	0.6	126,12.5	9,2.8	6,3.2	—
	2019	59	22.0	45,53.0	8,60.6	3,36.6	3,53.2	48	0.1	48,4.3	—	—	—
毛乌素沙地	2013	83	38.0	61,83.0	9,69.6	3,36.8	10,216.2	178	14.2	120,18.2	22,8.7	12,7.9	29,111.9
	2014	85	36.0	62,86.8	16,116.8	4,44.6	3,74.0	170	1.0	100,14.0	56,17.2	12,7.6	2,2.0
	2015	75	20.2	58,70.4	8,60.2	6,69.4	3,56.4	77	0.5	76,6.8	1,0.5	—

地点	年份	降雨						渗漏
		总日数	日最大降雨量 /mm	降雨日数/d,累积降雨量/mm				总日数	日最大渗漏量 /mm	渗漏补给日数/d,累积渗漏量/mm
		总日数	日最大降雨量 /mm	≤5 mm	5— 10 mm	10— 15 mm	≥15 mm	总日数	日最大渗漏量 /mm	≤0.25 mm	0.25— 0.5mm	0.5— 1.0 mm	≥1 mm
浑善达克沙地	2017	55	19.6	44,70.6	6,44.8	2,23.2	3,53.6	21	0.1	21,1.9	—	—	—
	2018	66	34.6	47,64.8	12,92.0	3,37.6	4,99.6	141	0.6	126,12.5	9,2.8	6,3.2	—
	2019	59	22.0	45,53.0	8,60.6	3,36.6	3,53.2	48	0.1	48,4.3	—	—	—
毛乌素沙地	2013	83	38.0	61,83.0	9,69.6	3,36.8	10,216.2	178	14.2	120,18.2	22,8.7	12,7.9	29,111.9
	2014	85	36.0	62,86.8	16,116.8	4,44.6	3,74.0	170	1.0	100,14.0	56,17.2	12,7.6	2,2.0
	2015	75	20.2	58,70.4	8,60.2	6,69.4	3,56.4	77	0.5	76,6.8	1,0.5	—

[1]	Ming Yan, Yinghua Zhang, Li He, Weiming Cheng, Suiji Wang, Jiongxin Xu. Blocking effect of upper reaches of Wuding River on desertification [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(2): 62-68.
[2]	Xiaoqin Yuan, Shengquan Liu, Feng Ai, Zheng Zhang, Qiang Li, Jinyu Jiang, Changchun Shi. Wind erosion resistance of litter of Salix psammophila community in the southeast edge of Mu Us Sandy Land， China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2022, 42(1): 134-138.
[3]	Lin Shi, Yuxing Zhao, Eerdun Hasi, Ping Zhang, Yingjun Xu, Zhuoran Wang. Changes of vegetation and soil nutrient on windward slope of dune under sand barrier environment in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(5): 140-146.
[4]	Hong Zhou, Bo Wu, Ying Gao, Long Cheng, Xiaohong Jia, Yingjun Pang, Heju Zhao. Composition and influencing factors of the biological soil crust bacterial communities in the Sabina vulgaris community in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(5): 130-141.
[5]	Mingjing Xu, Lü Ping, Nan Xiao, Junhuai Yang, Zhengyao Liu, Miaoyan Feng, Zhun Liang. Effect of vegetation cover on dune migration in northwest Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(4): 71-80.
[6]	Su Langga, Tian Guiquan, Hong Xia. Diversity of bryophyte in Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(3): 51-59.
[7]	Zhan Jin, Li Yulin, Han Dan, Yang Hongling. Effect of Grazing on Vegetation Community and Soil of Lowland in the Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(6): 184-191.
[8]	Han Rui, Su Zhizhu, Li Xiang, Liu Miaomiao, Ma Yijuan. Holocene Climate Change Revealed by Grain Size and Magnetic Susceptibility in the Eastern Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(2): 105-114.
[9]	Pang Yingjun, Wu Bo, Jia Xiaohong, Shi Lin, Gaodabuxilatu, Li Shizhong. Characteristics of Wind Regime and Drift Potential in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 62-67.
[10]	Liu Zhenyu, Jin Heling, Liu Bing, Xue Wenping. Desert Evolution during the Mid Holocene Reflected by Grain-size Variation of Aeolian Sand and Paleosoil Sequence Records from Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(1): 88-96.
[11]	Yang Junhuai, Dong Zhibao, Nan Weige, Song Shaopeng, Xiao Nan, Liu Shengquan, Meng Xiaoqiang. Soil Grain-Size Characteristics under Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica in the Southeast Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(4): 815-822.
[12]	Chen Guoxiang, Dong Zhibao, Cui Xujia, Xiao Weiqiang, Li Lulu, Yang Junhuai, Shi Weikang. Composition and Micro-morphological Characteristics of Aeolian Sand in the Middle of the Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(3): 473-483.
[13]	Cao Rui, Liu Guohou, Lan Qing, Liu Guanzhi, Mu Zongjie, Gui Rong, Liu Lihong, Wang Jian. Change of Plant Community in Air-Seeding Area of the Hunshandake Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2018, 38(3): 535-544.
[14]	Wu Yongsheng, Yin Ruiping, Tian Xiumin, Hasi. Development Characteristics of Biological Crusts under Artificial Vegetation in Southern Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2018, 38(2): 339-344.
[15]	Zhao Yuanyuan, Ding Guodong, Gao Guanglei, Peng Le, Cui Xiao. Regionalization for Aeolian Desertification Control in the Mu Us Sandy Land Region,China [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2017, 37(4): 635-643.

Comparison of deep soil recharge characteristics between Mu Us Sandy Land and Hunshandake Sandy Land

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 18

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments