物理结皮和生物结皮的斥水特征及其对水分入渗的影响

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.202207.013

应用生态学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (7): 1843-1852.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202207.013

物理结皮和生物结皮的斥水特征及其对水分入渗的影响

钟香艳¹, 石辉^1,2*, 李旋¹, 赵一键¹

¹西安建筑科技大学环境与市政工程学院/西北水资源与环境生态教育部重点实验室, 西安 710055;
²陕西省土地整治重点实验室, 西安 714103

收稿日期:2022-03-21 接受日期:2022-05-06 出版日期:2022-07-15 发布日期:2023-01-15
通讯作者: *E-mail: shihui@xauat.edu.cn
作者简介:钟香艳, 女, 1997年生, 硕士研究生。主要从事环境土壤研究。E-mail: 1336140714@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41771309)和陕西省土地整治重点实验室开放基金项目(2019-JC16)资助。

Water repellent characteristics of physical and biological crusts and their effects on water infiltration

ZHONG Xiang-yan¹, SHI Hui^1,2*, LI Xuan¹, ZHAO Yi-jian¹

¹School of Environmental and Municipal Enginee-ring, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology/Northwest China Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environmental Ecology, Ministry of Education, Xi’an 710055, China;
²Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Land Reclamation Engineering, Xi’an 714103, China

Received:2022-03-21 Accepted:2022-05-06 Online:2022-07-15 Published:2023-01-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 土壤结皮是一种常见的自然现象,但由于结皮形成机制的不同,会产生不同的亲水性和斥水性,从而影响土壤的水力学特征与水文循环。本研究利用水滴穿透时间法测定了野外不同植被下物理结皮和生物结皮的斥水特征,利用扫描电镜观测了结皮的表面形态,并用微型入渗装置测定了结皮及其对照土壤的入渗特征。结果表明: 1)物理结皮的平均水滴穿透时间(WDPT)为3.3 s,对照为0.9 s,表现为亲水性;生物结皮的平均WDPT介于20.9～140.9 s,是无结皮的2.8～19倍,其中君迁子和刺槐林下的生物结皮平均WDPT分别为134.5和140.9 s。2)与对照相比,物理结皮累积入渗量、平均入渗速率和吸湿力分别降低了0～4.3%、3.5%～5.1%和27.2%～90.1%,生物结皮分别降低了0～25%、1.4%～28.2%和36.0%～84.9%。3)无论是否存在结皮,利用Philip模型拟合处理入渗数据均存在“曲棍球状”曲线;曲线上斥水性停止时间(WRCT)之前,点源微入渗以水平方向上的扩散为主,WRCT点以后以垂直方向上的入渗为主,土壤结皮的形成延长了该转折点的形成时间。综上,物理结皮是无机矿质颗粒堵塞了表层土壤,不影响斥水性的变化;生物结皮表现为斥水性有机物对土壤结构的影响,增强了其斥水性。物理结皮和生物结皮均会降低土壤的累积入渗量和平均入渗速率,但物理结皮主要影响土壤的吸湿力,对稳定入渗速率影响不大;生物结皮不仅降低了土壤吸湿力,还增加了稳定入渗速率。

关键词: 物理结皮, 生物结皮, 土壤斥水性, 入渗特征, “曲棍球状”曲线

Abstract: Soil crust is a normal natural phenomenon with different water hydrophilicity and repellency due to different formation mechanism, thus affecting soil hydraulic characteristics and hydrological cycle. In this study, we measured water repellent characteristics of physical and biological crusts under different vegetations in the field using water drop penetration time (WDPT). The surface morphology of crusts was observed using scanning electron microscopy, and the infiltration characteristics of crusts and their non-crust soils (control) was evaluated with micro-infiltration device. The results showed that: 1) The average WDPT of physical crusts and the control soils was 3.3 s and 0.9 s, respectively, indicating that both were hydrophilic. The average WDPT of biological crusts ranged from 20.9 s to 140.9 s, which was 2.8 to 19 times that of control, and that under Diospyros lotus and Robinia pseudoacacia was 134.5 s and 140.9 s, respectively. 2) Compared with the control, the cumulative infiltration amount, average infiltration rate and moisture absorption force of physical crusts decreased by 0-4.3%, 3.5%-5.1%, and 27.2%-90.1%, respectively, while those of biological crusts decreased by 0-25%, 1.4%-28.2% and 36.0%-84.9%, respectively. 3) Regardless of the presence of crusts or not, there were “hockey-stick-like” curves by using Philip model to fit infiltration data. Before the WRCT point in the “hockey-stick-like” curve, the point source infiltration was mainly horizontal diffusion. After the WRCT point, the infiltration was mainly vertical diffusion. The presence of soil crust prolonged the formation time of the turning point. In all, physical crusts formed by inorganic mineral particles blocking the surface soil did not affect water repellency, while biological crusts that reflected the effects of hydrophobic organic compounds on soil structure enhanced its water repellency. Both physical crusts and biological crusts decreased the cumulative infiltration amount and average infiltration rate of soil. Compared with the control, physical crusts mainly affected soil hygroscopicity, but with limited effects on the steady infiltration rate. Biological crust decreased soil hygroscopicity and increased steady infiltration rate.

Key words: physical crust, biological crust, soil water repellency, infiltration characteristic, “hockey-stick-like” curve

钟香艳, 石辉, 李旋, 赵一键. 物理结皮和生物结皮的斥水特征及其对水分入渗的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1843-1852.

ZHONG Xiang-yan, SHI Hui, LI Xuan, ZHAO Yi-jian. Water repellent characteristics of physical and biological crusts and their effects on water infiltration[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2022, 33(7): 1843-1852.

参考文献

[1] 杨邦杰. 土壤斥水性引起的土地退化、调查方法与改良措施研究. 环境科学, 1994, 15(4): 88-90
[2] Doerr SH, Ferreira AJD, Walsh RPD, et al. Soil water repellency as a potential parameter in rainfall-runoff modelling: Experimental evidence at point to catchment scales from Portugal. Hydrological Processes, 2003, 17: 363-377
[3] 闵雷雷, 于静洁. 土壤斥水性及其对坡面产流的影响研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(7): 855-860
[4] 倪世民, 杨伟, 王杰, 等. 不同类型土壤团聚体斥水性及其对溅蚀的影响. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(1): 167-173
[5] Braun B, Böckelmann U, Grohmann E, et al. Bacterial soil communities affected by water-repellency. Geoderma, 2010, 158: 343-351
[6] 李晓丽, 申向东. 结皮土壤的抗风蚀性分析. 干旱区资源与环境, 2006, 20(2): 203-207
[7] Singer MJ. Physical properties of arid region soils// Skujins J, ed. Semiarid Lands and Deserts: Soils Resource and Reclamation. New York: M. Dekker Inc., 1991: 81-109
[8] Eldridge D, Greene R. Microbiotic soil crusts: A review of their roles in soil and ecological processes in the rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 1994, 32: 389-415
[9] Belnap J, Weber B, Büdel B. Biological soil crusts as an organizing principle in drylands// Weber B, Buedel B, Belnap J, eds. Biological Soil Crusts: An Organizing Principle in Drylands. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2016: 3-13
[10] 吴发启, 范文波. 土壤结皮对降雨入渗和产流产沙的影响. 中国水土保持科学, 2005, 3(2): 97-101
[11] 吴秋菊, 吴佳, 王林华, 等. 黄土区坡耕地土壤结皮对入渗的影响. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(2): 303-311
[12] 贾志军, 王小平. 黄土表面结皮对夏闲坡耕地土壤水分的影响研究. 中国水土保持, 2002(9): 18-19
[13] 卫伟, 温智, 陈利顶, 等. 半干旱黄土丘陵区土壤结皮的地表水文效应. 环境科学, 2012, 33(11): 3901-3904
[14] 张思琪, 张科利, 曹梓豪, 等. 喀斯特坡面生物结皮发育特征及其对土壤水分入渗的影响. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(8): 2875-2885
[15] 张侃侃, 卜崇峰, 高国雄. 黄土高原生物结皮对土壤水分入渗的影响. 干旱区研究, 2011, 28(5): 808-812
[16] 刘翔, 周宏飞, 刘昊, 等. 不同类型生物土壤结皮覆盖下风沙土的入渗特征及模拟. 生态学报, 2016, 36(18): 5820-5826
[17] 孙福海, 肖波, 张鑫鑫, 等. 黄土高原生物结皮覆盖对土壤积水入渗特征的影响及其模型模拟. 西北农林科技大学学报: 自然科学版, 2020, 48(10): 82-91
[18] 张培培, 赵允格, 王媛, 等. 黄土高原丘陵区生物结皮土壤的斥水性. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(3): 657-663
[19] 吕贻忠, 于雅琼, 高原. 鄂尔多斯沙地土壤生物结皮物理特性研究. 中国土壤学会第十一届全国会员代表大会暨第七届海峡两岸土壤肥料学术交流研讨会论文集(中), 北京, 2008: 46-50
[20] 朱磊, 尤今, 陈玖泓. 裂隙网络对坡面流及土壤水分入渗影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2017, 36(12): 95-100
[21] Lozano-Baez SE, Cooper M, de Barros Ferraz SF, et al. Assessing water infiltration and soil water repellency in Brazilian Atlantic forest soils. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(6): 1950
[22] Doerr SH. On standardizing the ‘water drop penetration time’ and the ‘molarity of an ethanol droplet’ techniques to classify soil hydrophobicity: A case study using medium textured soils. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1998, 23: 663-668
[23] Dekker LW, Ritsema CJ. How water moves in a water repellent sandy soil. 1. Potential and actual water repellency. Water Resources Research, 1994, 30: 2507-2517
[24] Hallett PD, Young IM. Changes to water repellence of soil aggregates caused by substrate-induced microbial activity. European Journal of Soil Science, 1999, 50: 35-40
[25] Philip JR. The theory of infiltration. 1. The infiltration equation and its solution. Soil Science, 1957, 83: 345-358
[26] Lichner L, Hallett PD, Drongová Z, et al. Algae influence the hydrophysical parameters of a sandy soil. Catena, 2013, 108: 58-68
[27] Chen Y, Tarchitzky J, Brouwer J, et al. Scanning electron microscope observations on soil crusts and their formation. Soil Science, 1980, 130: 49-55
[28] 胡霞, 严平, 李顺江, 等. 人工降雨条件下土壤结皮的形成以及与土壤溅蚀的关系. 水土保持学报, 2005, 19(2): 13-16
[29] Doerr SH, Shakesby RA, Walsh R. Soil water repellency: Its causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Science Reviews, 2000, 51: 33-65
[30] 郭成久, 陈乐, 肖波, 等. 黄土高原苔藓结皮斥水性及其对火烧时间的响应. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2016, 47(2): 212-217
[31] 李金涛, 刘文杰, 卢洪健. 土壤斥水性研究进展. 西南林学院学报, 2010, 30(5): 82-87, 94
[32] 李毅, 商艳玲, 李振华, 等. 土壤斥水性研究进展. 农业机械学报, 2012, 43(1): 68-75
[33] Fischer T, Veste M, Wiehe W, et al. Water repellency and pore clogging at early successional stages of microbio-tic crusts on inland dunes, Brandenburg, NE Germany. Catena, 2010, 80: 47-52

物理结皮和生物结皮的斥水特征及其对水分入渗的影响

Water repellent characteristics of physical and biological crusts and their effects on water infiltration

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	明姣, 杨光, 赵允格, 马昕昕, 孙会, 乔羽. 放牧对降雨条件下黄土高原退耕草地土壤水分补给的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(6): 1555-1562.
[2]	郭玥微, 赵允格, 钱煦坤, 万杨卓群, 王闪闪. 黄土高原三种耐干藓营养繁殖的季节差异及机理 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1738-1746.
[3]	庞景文, 卜崇峰, 郭琦, 鞠孟辰, 江熳, 莫秋霞, 王鹤鸣. 毛乌素沙地区域尺度生物结皮有机碳 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1755-1763.
[4]	江熳, 卜崇峰, 郭琦, 鞠孟辰, 庞景文, 莫秋霞, 王鹤鸣. 不同降水条件下生物结皮覆盖对沙地土壤有机碳的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1764-1772.
[5]	张冠华, 易亮, 孙宝洋, 李建明, 沈盛彧. 亚热带苔藓结皮对土壤-微生物-胞外酶化学计量特征的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1791-1800.
[6]	刘哲, 叶兴旺, 王吉平, 程永韬, 钱隆, 肖敬尚, 吴丽. 生物结皮胞外多糖理化特性及菌群结构的季节动态 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1801-1809.
[7]	淡晨希, 张琼, 刘畅, 郭珍, 刘刚. 生物结皮与草本植物共生坡面的产流-入渗过程特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1853-1860.
[8]	郭雅丽, 赵允格, 高丽倩, 杨凯, 孙会, 谷康民. 黄土丘陵区草本植物覆盖下生物结皮对坡面径流流速的削减作用 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(7): 1871-1877.
[9]	谷康民, 赵允格, 高丽倩, 杨凯, 孙会, 郭雅丽. 黄土高原生物结皮对SCS-CN模型初损率的影响 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(12): 4186-4194.
[10]	樊瑾,李诗瑶,杜雅仙,王融融,余海龙,黄菊莹. 火电厂周边不同生物结皮细菌群落特征差异及其影响因素 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(11): 4107-4118.
[11]	姚小萌, 肖波, 王国鹏, 李胜龙, 田乐乐, 孙福海. 外源输入氮素在藓类生物土壤结皮中各氮组分的分配特征与归趋途径 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(8): 2653-2662.
[12]	王博, 段玉玺, 王伟峰, 李晓晶, 刘源, 刘宗奇. 油蒿灌丛群落浅层土壤水分对不同降雨格局的响应 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(5): 1571-1578.
[13]	杨巧云, 赵允格, 包天莉, 丁倩, 刘广亮. 黄土丘陵区不同类型生物结皮下的土壤生态化学计量特征 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(8): 2699-2706.
[14]	王博, 段玉玺, 王伟峰, 刘宗奇, 李晓晶, 刘源, 李少博, 郗雯. 库布齐沙漠东部不同生物结皮发育阶段土壤温室气体通量 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(3): 857-866.
[15]	谢申琦,高丽倩,赵允格,郭玥微. 模拟降雨条件下生物结皮坡面产流产沙对雨强的响应 [J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(2): 391-397.