| Biology and Soil |
|
|
|
|
| Effect of Different Tillage Methods on Soil Water Retention and Infiltration Capability of Rainfed Field |
| CAI Li-qun1,2,3, LUO Zhu-zhu1,2,3, ZHANG Ren-zhi1,2,3, HUANG Gao-bao3, LI Ling-ling3, XIE Jun-hong3 |
1.College of Resources and Environmental Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
2.Gansu Engineering Research Center for Agriculture Water-saving, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China;
3.Gansu Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract A six-year conservation tillage experiment with wheat-pea-wheat or pea-wheat-pea rotation was conducted in Dingxi City, Gansu Province. The soil moisture characteristic curves, soil bulk density, soil porosity, soil saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0-30 cm soil layer under different tillage methods were determined. Results indicate that soil water characteristic curves of 0-30 cm soil layer under the two rotation systems and different tillage methods are nearly overlapped when the soil water suction are 5 bar or 15 bar, respectively; the characteristic curves are different under 3 bar, 1 bar and 0.5 bar soil water suction. The fitting result of the Gardner model suggest that, in the suction range from 0.5 bar to 15 bar, the relationships between soil water suction (S) and soil water content (θ) meet the power function of S=Aθ-B, and the correlation coefficient passes the extremely significant level. Both no-tillage with stubble mulch and no-tillage with plastic film mulch tillage methods improve the soil water-holding capacity than traditional tillage. The soil bulk density of 0-5 cm soil layer under both conventional tillage with straw incorporation and no-tillage with stubble mulch tillage methods are significantly lower than that under conventional tillage methods and the total soil porosity are increased. The method of no-tillage but with stubble mulch can significantly increase the soil saturation conductivity.
|
|
Received: 07 March 2012
Published: 20 September 2012
|
|
|
| [1]李玲玲,黄高宝,张仁陟,等.不同保护性耕作措施对旱作农田土壤水分的影响[J].生态学报,2005,25(9):2326-2332.[2]晋小军,黄高宝.陇中半干旱地区不同耕作措施对土壤水分及利用效率的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(5):109-112.[3]黄高宝,郭清毅,张仁陟,等.保护性耕作条件下旱地农田麦-豆双序列轮作体系的水分动态及产量效应[J].生态学报,2006,26(4):170-180.[4]张鸣,张仁陟,蔡立群,等.不同耕作措施下春小麦和豌豆叶水势变化及其与环境因子的关系[J].应用生态学,2008,19(7):1467-1474.[5]郭清毅,黄高宝.保护性耕作对旱地麦-豆双序列轮作农田土壤水分及利用效率的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(3):166-200.[6]逄蕾,黄高宝.不同耕作措施对旱地土壤有机碳转化的影响[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(3):110-113.[7]蔡立群,齐鹏,张仁陟,等.保护性耕作对麦-豆轮作条件下土壤团聚体组成及有机碳含量的影响[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(2):141-145.[8]何玉梅,张仁陟,张丽华,等.不同耕作措施对土壤真菌群落结构与生态特征的影响[J].生态学报,2007,27(1):113-119.[9]江晶,张仁陟,海龙.耕作方式对黄绵土无机磷形态的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(2):387-391.[10]中国科学院南京土壤研究所土壤物理研究室.土壤物理性质测定法[M].北京:科学出版社,1978.[11]许明祥,刘国彬,卜崇峰,等.圆盘入渗仪法测定不同利用方式土壤渗透性试验研究[J].农业工程学报,2002,18(4):54-58.[12]陈丽华,鲁绍伟,张学培,等.晋西黄土区主要造林树种林地土壤水分生态条件分析[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(4):394-397.[13]刘元波,陈荷生,高前兆,等.田间测定沙地水分运动参数初步研究[J].中国沙漠,1996,16(1):19-23. [14]苏永红,朱高峰,冯起,等.蒸发条件下一维垂向非饱和土壤水分运动的数值模拟[J].中国沙漠,2009,29(2):236-240.[15]李小刚,杨治,谢恩波.甘肃几种旱地土壤低吸力段持水性能的初步研究[J].土壤通报,1994,25(4):155-157.[16]张强.宁夏毛乌素沙地SPAC系统水分运移规律研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,2007.[17]孙艳红,张洪江,程金花,等.缙云山不同林地类型土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):106-109.[18]杨玉海,陈亚宁,李卫红,等.干旱区新垦绿洲人工防护林土壤物理特性及其生态意义[J].中国沙漠,2010,30(5):1120-1127.[19]贺康宁.水土保持林地土壤水分物理性质的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1995,17(3):44-50.[20]黄高宝,罗珠珠,辛平,等.耕作方式对黄土高原旱地土壤渗透性能的影响[J].水土保持通报,2007,(6):34-37.[21]罗珠珠.保护性耕作对黄土高原旱地土壤渗透性能的的影响[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2005.[22]许淑青,张仁陟,董博,等.耕作方式对耕层土壤结构性能及有机碳含量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2009,13(5):611-614.[23]王蕙,赵文智.绿洲化过程中绿洲土壤物理性质变化研究[J].中国沙漠, 2009,29(6):1109-1115.[24]刘贤,康绍忠.降雨入渗和产流问题研究的若干进展及评述[J].水土保持通报,1999,19(2):57-65.[25]沈裕琥,黄相国,王海庆.秸秆覆盖的农田效应[J].干旱地区农业研究,1998,16(1):45-50.[26]杨招弟,蔡立群,张仁陟,等.不同耕作方式对旱地土壤酶活性的影响[J].土壤通报,2008,39(3):514-517.[27]贺康宁.水土保持林地土壤水分物理性质的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1995,17(3):44-50.[28]袁东海,陈明亮.鄂东南红壤水分运动参数与红壤性质的相关性[J].华中农业大学学报,1995,14(1):53-57. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
2012, Vol. 32 
