1992-2013年巢湖流域土壤侵蚀动态变化

doi:10.11821/dlxb201511002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于GIS和RS技术,利用修正的通用土壤流失方程（RUSLE）模型,结合遥感影像、DEM数据、土壤类型数据及相关统计确定了模型中参数因子,计算出巢湖流域1992-2013年土壤侵蚀模数,分析了土壤侵蚀强度的时空动态变化特征。结果表明：巢湖流域土壤侵蚀区域主要呈东北至西南方向分布。微度、轻度、中度、强度、极强和剧烈侵蚀占土壤侵蚀总面积百分比分别是93.46%、6.25%、0.68%、0.19%、0.01%、0.01%。1992-2006年土壤侵蚀模数由510.70 t/（km²·a）减少到129.79 t/（km²·a）,降幅为74.59%,同时植被覆盖率由37.0%增至47.80%,土壤侵蚀的面积比例变化明显,轻度、中度、强度、极强和剧烈侵蚀由8.93%、2.33%、1.32%、0.09%、0.05%分别减少为4.74%、1.39%、0.28%、0.02%、0.01%,微度侵蚀由87.88%增加到94.16%。但2013年土壤微度侵蚀又减少为93.46%,土壤微度侵蚀有向高一级转换趋势。2006-2013年土壤侵蚀模数也由129.79 t/（km²·a）增加到149.44 t/（km²·a）,增幅为15.14%。

关键词: 土壤侵蚀, 地理信息系统, RUSLE, 巢湖流域

Abstract:

With the help of GIS and RS technology, and based on remote sensing image data, DEM data, soil type data and relevant statistical data, we use the modified universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) as the evaluation model to determine the relevant parameters of the model, to calculate the soil erosion modulus in Chaohu Watershed from 1992 to 2013, and to analyze the spatial and temporal dynamic changes of soil erosion intensity in this region. The soil erosion area in Chaohu basin is mainly distributed in the NE-SW direction. Slight, mild, moderate, intense, strong and severe erosion accounted for 93.46%, 6.25%, 0.68%, 0.19%, 0.01% and 0.01% of the total watershed area respectively. The largest erosion area was paddy field, accounting for 64.42% of the total watershed, followed by woodland (20.98%) and urban and industrial land (10.36%), which was based on micro erosion and mild erosion mentioned above. From 1992 to 2006, the soil erosion modulus decreased from 510.70 t/(km²·a) to 129.79 t/(km²·a), falling by 74.59%, while the vegetation cover increased from 37% to 47.80%. The change of soil erosion area was obvious: mild (8.93%), moderate (2.33%), intense (1.32%), extreme (0.09%) and severe erosion (0.05%) were reduced to 4.74%, 1.39%, 0.28%, 0.02% and 0.01%, respectively, while slight erosion increased from 87.88% to 94.16%. However, the slight erosion reduced to 93.46%, and the slight erosion had a worsening trend in 2013. From 1992 to 2013, the soil erosion modulus increased from 129.79 t/(km²·a) to 149.44 t/(km²·a), an increase of 15.14%, meanwhile the vegetation cover rate decreased from 47.80% to 45.15%.

Key words: soil erosion, geographic information systems(GIS), RUSLE, Chaohu Watershed

查良松, 邓国徽, 谷家川. 1992-2013年巢湖流域土壤侵蚀动态变化[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(11): 1708-1719.

Liangsong ZHA, Guohui DENG, Jiachuang GU. Dynamic changes of soil erosion in the Chaohu Watershed from 1992 to 2013[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(11): 1708-1719.

图/表 17

图1

表1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

图6

图7

表3

图8

图9

图10

表4

表5

图11

表6

参考文献 32

[1]	Lal R.Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Critical Reviews Plant Sciences, 1998, 17: 319-463. doi: 10.1080/07352689891304249
[2]	Zheng Fenli, Wang Zhanli.The retrospection and prospect on soil erosion research in China. Chinese Journal of Nature, 2008, 30(1): 12-16.
	[郑粉莉, 王占礼. 我国土壤侵蚀科学研究回顾和展望. 自然杂志, 2008, 30(1): 12-16.]
[3]	Li Zhiguang.Current status and developing trend of soil erosion in China. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 6(1): 57-62.
	[李智广. 我国水土流失状况与发展趋势研究. 中国水土保持科学, 2008, 6(1): 57-62.]
[4]	Liu Zheng. From the current situation as Ecology soil erosion and water conservation and the main task of strategic layout. Theory Discussion, 2002(7): 31-33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2002.06.002
	[刘震. 从我国水土流失现状看水土保持生态建设战略布局及主要任务. 理论探讨, 2002(7): 31-33.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0941.2002.06.002
[5]	Zhou Zhengchao, Shangguan Zhouping. Overview on soil erosion model research. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2004(1): 52-56.
	[周正朝, 上官周平. 土壤侵蚀模型研究综述. 中国水土保持科学, 2004(1): 52-56.]
[6]	Wischmeier W H, Smith D D.Predicting rainfall erosion losses a guide to conservation planning Agricultural Handbook.US Department of Agriculture, 1978.
[7]	Renard K G, foster G R. Weesies G A. RUSLE a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation. USDA Agricultural Handbook, 1997: 703.
[8]	Prasannakumar V, Shiny R, Geetha N, Vijith H.Spatial prediction of soil erosion risk by remote sensing, GIS and RUSLE approach. Environ Earth Sciences, 2011, 64: 965-972.
[9]	De Asis A M, Omasa K. Estimation of vegetation parameter for modeling soil erosion using linear spectral mixture analysis of Landsat ETM data. Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 2007, 62(4): 309-324. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.05.013
[10]	Pu Zhaohong.Research progress on quantitative remote sensing of soil loss and its application. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 1997, 34(3): 235-245.
	[卜兆宏. 水土流失定量遥感方法及其应用的研究. 土壤学报, 1997, 34(3): 235-245.]
[11]	Liu Baoyuan.Soil erosion prediction model for Chinese studies//Twelfth Conference of the International Soil Conservation, Beijing, 2002.
	[刘宝元. 中国土壤侵蚀预报模型研究//北京第十二届国际水土保持大会, 2002.]
[12]	Jiang Zhongshan, Wang Zhiqiang, Liu Zhi.Quantitative study on spatial variation of soil erosion in a small watershed in the loess hilly region. Journal of Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation, 1996, 2(1): 1-9.
	[江忠善, 王志强, 刘志. 黄土丘陵区小流域土壤侵蚀空间变化定量研究. 土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报, 1996, 2(1): 1-9.]
[13]	Laflen T M, Lwonard T L, Foster G R.WEPP a new of erosion generation prediction technology. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1991, 46(1): 34-38. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1991)117:1(150.2)
[14]	Baffalt C, Nearing M, Nicks A.Impact of GLIGEN parameters on predicted WEPP predicted average soil loss. Transactions of the ASAE, 1996, 39(2): 1001-1020.
[15]	Renard K G, Ferreira V A.RUSLE model description and database sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1993, 22(3): 458-466. doi: 10.2134/jeq1993.00472425002200030009x
[16]	Hudson N W. Soil Conservation. London: B. T. Ratsfnrd, 1976.
[17]	Wang Wanzhong, Jiao Juying. Study on Rainfall Erosivity in China (I). Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1995(4): 5-18.
	[王万中, 焦菊英. 中国降雨侵蚀力R值的计算与分布(I). 水土保持学报, 1995(4): 5-18.]
[18]	Arnoldus H M J. An approximation of the rainfall factor in the universal soil loss equation//De Boodt M, Gabriels D. Assessment of Erosion. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1980: 127-132.
[19]	Bouyoucos G J.The clay ratio as a criterion of susceptibility of soils to erosion. Journal of American Society of Agronomy, 1935, 27: 738-741.
[20]	Williams J, Nearing M, Nicks A, et al.Using soil erosion models for global change studies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1996, 51(5): 381-385. doi: 10.2307/4002933
[21]	Cai Chongfa, Ding Shuwen, Shi Zhihua, et al. Study of applying USLE and geographical information system IDRISI to predict soil erosion in small watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000(2): 19-24. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2000.02.005
	[蔡崇法, 丁树文, 史志华, 等. 应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究. 水土保持学报, 2000(2): 19-24.] doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1009-2242.2000.02.005
[22]	Wolock D M, McCabe G J. Differences in topographic characteristics computed fern 100 m and 1000 m resolution digital elevation model data. Hyrological Processes, 2000, 14: 987-002. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(20000430)14:6<987::AID-HYP980>3.0.CO;2-A
[23]	Tang Guoan, Zhao Mudan, Li Tianwen, et al.Modeling slope uncertainty derived from DEMs in Loess Plateau. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2003, 58(6): 824-830.
	[汤国安, 赵牡丹, 李天文, 等. DEM提取黄土高原地而坡度的不确定性. 地理学报, 2003, 58(6): 824-830.]
[24]	Yang Q K, Jupp D, Li R, et al.Rescaling lower resolution slopes by histogram matching//Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Terrain Analysis and Digital Terrain Modelling, Nanjing, 2006. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77800-4_11
[25]	Moore I Burch G. Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the uninversal soil loss equation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1986, 50: 1294-1298.
[26]	Alejandro M A, Kenji O.Estimation of vegetation parameter for modeling soil erosion using linear spectral mixture analysis of Landsat ETM data. Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 2007, 62: 309 324. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.05.013
[27]	Feng Qiang.The study on cover-management factor in USLE and RUSLE:a review. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2014, 16: 4461-4472. doi: 10.5846/stxb201306151710
	[冯强. USLE/RUSLE中植被覆盖与管理因子研究进展. 生态学报, 2014, 16: 4461-4472.] doi: 10.5846/stxb201306151710
[28]	Van der Knijff M, Jones RJA, Montanarella L. Soil erosion risk in Italy. EUR19022 EN. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg, 1999: 54.
[29]	Van der Knijff JM, Jones RJA, Montanarella L. Soil erosion risk assessment in Europe. EUR 19044 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000: 34.
[30]	Cheng Xianfu,Yu Fen.Spatial distribution of soil erosion and its relationship to environment factors in Anhui Province. Geographical Research, 2010, 29(8): 1461-1470.
	[程先富, 余芬. 安徽省土壤侵蚀空间分布及其与环境因子的关系. 地理研究, 2010, 29(8): 1461-1470.]
[31]	People's Republic of China Ministry of Water Resources. SL190-2007 Standards of Classification of Soil Erosion.Beijing: China Water Power Press, 2007.
	[中华人民共和国水利部. SL190-2007土壤侵蚀分类分级标准. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2007.]
[32]	Chen Mingxing, Lu Dadao, Zha Liangsong.The comprehensive evaluation of China's urbanization and effects on resources and environment. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2010, 20(1): 17-30. doi: 10.1007/s11442-010-0017-0

影像数据	成像时间	条带号	地面分辨率(m)
Landsat TM	1992-07-23	121/38	30
Landsat TM	1991-08-31	120/38	30, 15
Landsat ETM+	2000-07-05	121/38	30, 15
Landsat ETM+	2000-06-12	120/38	30, 15
Landsat ETM+	2006-07-30	121/38	30, 15
Landsat ETM+	2006-07-31	120/38	30, 15
Landsat 8 OLI_TIRS	2013-05-13	121/38	30, 15

土类名称	亚类名称	土属名称	PH值	全氮(g/kg)	全磷(g/kg)	全钾(g/kg)	k值
潮土	灰潮土	石灰性砂泥土	8.55	0.098	0.063	1.91	0.253
水稻土	潴育水稻土	马肝田	6.92	0.210	0.066	1.96	0.282
紫色土	石灰性紫色	石灰性紫色土	7.40	0.074	0.023	1.91	0.000
黄褐土	粘盘黄褐土	马肝土	6.98	0.061	0.026	1.96	0.299
水稻土	渗育水稻土	渗泥质田	6.02	0.208	0.042	2.36	0.249
水稻土	潜育水稻土	青泥田	6.07	0.085	0.022	1.86	0.248
水稻土	淹育水稻土	浅马肝田	7.35	0.057	0.020	1.67	0.249
黄棕壤	黄棕壤	铁质黄棕壤	6.89	0.071	0.323	1.44	0.362
粗骨土	酸性粗骨土	硅铁质砂砾土	5.10	0.102	0.137	2.24	0.000
水稻土	漂洗水稻土	澄白土田	7.44	0.012	0.030	1.35	0.250
石质土	酸性石质土	硅质岩砾质土	4.90	0.088	0.018	1.13	0.000
水稻土	脱潜水稻土	脱青潮砂泥田	6.32	0.083	0.019	2.02	0.254
石灰岩土	棕色石灰土	棕色石灰土	6.70	0.144	0.052	1.67	0.384
石灰岩土	黑色石灰土	黑色石灰土	7.57	0.341	0.111	1.32	0.384
紫色土	酸性紫色土	酸性紫色土	4.43	0.083	0.028	1.79	0.000
潮土	潮土	两合土	8.27	0.065	0.051	1.75	0.253
紫色土	中性紫色土	中性紫色土	6.60	0.072	0.027	2.04	0.000
黄棕壤	黄棕壤性土	黄棕壤性土	4.87	0.104	0.021	1.24	0.362
红壤	黄红壤	铁质黄红壤	4.79	0.087	0.041	1.73	0.217
棕壤	酸性棕壤	硅铝质暗棕土	5.34	0.056	0.100	1.83	0.314
黄棕壤	暗黄棕壤	硅铝质暗黄棕壤	5.19	0.150	0.030	2.56	0.362

	微度	轻度	中度	强度	极强	剧烈	总计
1992年	→ 2000年
微度	14299.66	201.12	29.65	14.58	0	0	14545.01
轻度	574.24	798.62	85.17	19.63	0	0	1477.65
中度	128.27	131.68	98.67	27.02	0.60	0.09	386.33
强度	0.01	1.90	72.23	137.89	6.93	0.11	219.07
极强	0	0	2.34	2.59	5.18	5.33	15.44
剧烈	0	0	1.74	3.31	1.57	1.81	8.43
总计	15002.17	1133.32	289.79	205.02	14.27	7.35
2000年	→ 2006年
微度	14791.57	166.92	30.28	13.40	0	0	15002.17
轻度	688.68	415.51	21.26	7.87	0	0	1133.32
中度	95.46	167.18	20.99	5.67	0.39	0.11	289.79
强度	10.06	34.48	154.20	5.80	0.37	0.11	205.02
极强	0	0	2.61	8.62	2.86	0.17	14.27
剧烈	0	0	0.14	5.60	0.27	1.33	7.35
总计	15585.76	784.09	229.48	46.96	3.89	1.73
2006年	→ 2013年
微度	15246.95	279.02	43.95	15.85	0	0	15585.76
轻度	212.97	543.66	21.61	5.85	0	0	784.09
中度	8.61	205.06	10.64	4.22	0.89	0.07	229.49
强度	0.64	6.77	35.71	3.01	0.75	0.08	46.96
极强	0	0	0.63	1.88	0.62	0.76	3.89
剧烈	0	0	0.73	0.75	0.19	0.07	1.73
总计	15469.16	1034.51	113.27	31.56	2.45	0.98

侵蚀强度	水田	旱地	林地	草地	水域	城镇及工矿用地	未利用地
微度	63.62	1.92	20.63	0.88	1.32	10.26	0.01
轻度	0.66	0.02	0.30	0.02	0.04	0.08	0.00
中度	0.08	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.00
强度	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
极强	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
剧烈	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00
合计	64.42	1.95	20.98	0.91	1.38	10.36	0.01