Advanced Search+
LIAO Wen-hai, ZENG Chun-xing, SUN Ou-wen, JIANG-Yi, WU Jia-sen, JIANG Zhong-long. Water Holding Capacity of Litter under Different Forest Types in Jiangshan City[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry Science and Technology, 2019, 39(6): 63-68.
Citation: LIAO Wen-hai, ZENG Chun-xing, SUN Ou-wen, JIANG-Yi, WU Jia-sen, JIANG Zhong-long. Water Holding Capacity of Litter under Different Forest Types in Jiangshan City[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry Science and Technology, 2019, 39(6): 63-68.

Water Holding Capacity of Litter under Different Forest Types in Jiangshan City

More Information
  • Received Date: May 07, 2019
  • Revised Date: October 11, 2019
  • Standard sample plots were established in October of 2017 in broad-leaved forest, Phyllostachys edulis forest, Cunninghamia lanceolata forest, Pinus massoniana forest, mixed broadleaf and conifer forest, shrub in Jiangshan city, Zhejiang province, to study their litter water holding capacity. The results demonstrated that litter reserves ranged 7.86-25.64 t/ha, ordered by mixed broadleaf and conifer forest>broad-leaved forest> pine forest>Chinese fir forest>bamboo forest>shrub, and the litter thickness had positive relation with reserves. The largest capacity of water holding changed from 11.19 to 33.42 t /ha, and the effective water retention rate from 87.37% to 126.41%. The order of effective water retention was followed by mixed broadleaf and conifer forest (25.18 t/ha)>broad-leaved forest(22.38 t/ha)>Chinese fir forest(21.87 t/ha)>pine forest(19.01 t/ha)>bamboo forest(15.01 t/ha)>shrub(7.86 t/ha). The experiments resulted that broad-leaved forest had better water holding capacity than coniferous forest, water holding capacity of litter had logarithmic function with soaking time, and water absorption rate had power function relation with soaking time.
  • [1]
    王谦,孙保平,丁国栋,等.陕西榆林樟子松人工林土壤及枯落物水文效应 [J].西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2015,43(8): 123-132.
    [2]
    时忠杰,王彦辉,于澎涛,等.宁夏六盘山林区几种主要森林植被生态水文功能研究 [J].水土保持学报,2005,19(3):134-138.
    [3]
    白英辰,朱江,程小琴,等.密度调控对华北落叶松人工林枯落物水文特征的影响 [J].水土保持学报,2016,30(6):128-133.
    [4]
    邓继峰,丁国栋,吴斌,等.宁夏盐池地区 3种林分枯落物层和土壤水文效应 [J]. 北京林业大学学报,2014,36(2):108-114.
    [5]
    刘冲. 川滇高山栎林降水再分配及枯落物持水能力研究 [D].南京:南京林业大学,2008.
    [6]
    MURTY D,KIRSCHBAUM M-U-F,MCMURTRIE R-E,et al. Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? a review of the literature[J]. Glob ChangBiol,2002,8(2):105-123.
    [7]
    胡静霞,杨新兵,朱辰光,等.冀西北地区 4种纯林枯落物及土壤水文效应 [J].水土保持研究,2017,24(4):304-310.
    [8]
    赵一鹤,赖建东,杨宇明,等.云南丽江拉市海汇水区不同森林枯落物的持水性能 [J].林业科学研究,2014,27(3):410-416.
    [9]
    尤倩,周秋文.喀斯特与非喀斯特地区森林枯落物持水性对比分析 [J].人民珠江,2017,38(9):43-46.
    [10]
    张宁,郭宾良,张楠,等.滦河典型林分枯落物层与土壤层的水文效应 [J].水土保持通报,2015,35(3):44-48.
    [11]
    栾莉莉,张光辉,孙龙,等.黄土丘陵区典型植被枯落物持水性能空间变化特征 [J].水土保持学报,2015,29(3):225-230.
    [12]
    杨振奇,秦富仓,李晓琴,等.砒砂岩区主要造林树种枯落物及林下土壤持水特性 [J].水土保持学报,2017,31(3):118-122.
    [13]
    韦小茶,周秋文,崔兴芬,等.喀斯特针叶林枯落物层水文效应 [J].生态科学,2017,36(4):120-127.
    [14]
    梁晓娇,王树力.阿什河源头不同类型红松人工林枯落物及其土壤水文特性 [J]. 水土保持学报,2017,31(1):140-145.
    [15]
    高志勤,傅懋毅.毛竹林等不同森林类型枯落物水文特性的研究 [J].林业科学研究,2005,18(3):274-279.
    [16]
    赵阳,余新晓,吴海龙,等.华北土石山区典型森林枯落物层和土壤层水文效应 [J].水土保持学报,2011,25(6):148-152.
    [17]
    钟梁,高友英,孙浩,等.抚河上游生态公益林 4种森林类型枯落物层和土壤层水文效应 [J].南方林业科学,2017,45(6):5-8.
    [18]
    林海礼,宋绪忠,钱立军,等.千岛湖地区不同森林类型枯落物水文功能研究 [J].浙江林业科技,2008,28(1):70-74.
    [19]
    毛玉明,吴初平,黄玉洁,等 .钱塘江源头水源林林分结构与功能分析 [J].浙江林业科技,2015,35(5):1-5.
    [20]
    薛建辉,郝奇林,何常清,等.岷江上游两种亚高山林分枯落物层水文特征研究 [J].水土保持学报,2009,23(3):168-172.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(4)

    1. 张甜,李龙龙. 中条山不同森林类型土壤和枯落物的水文性能分析. 森林工程. 2022(03): 32-39 .
    2. 李东宾,李金朝,叶子豪,吴家森,罗国安. 浙江省四明山区不同森林类型枯落物及土壤持水性能研究. 现代农业科技. 2022(20): 87-90 .
    3. 林松,张崑,蒋仲龙,郑得利,吴家森,刘海英. 永嘉县四海山林场森林枯落物及土壤持水能力研究. 中国水土保持. 2021(02): 52-55+69 .
    4. 董辉,严朝东,苏纯兰,曹洪麟. 东莞5种生态公益林枯落物及土壤水文效应. 水土保持学报. 2021(05): 144-149+160 .

    Other cited types(1)

Catalog

    Article views (532) PDF downloads (163) Cited by(5)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return