黄河头道拐—潼关区间植被恢复及其对水沙过程影响

doi:10.11821/dlxb202105012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

黄河头道拐—潼关区间是黄河泥沙的主要来源区,也是中国植被恢复最快的地区。植被的快速恢复对径流和输沙过程产生了深远影响。本文基于250 m分辨率的归一化植被指数数据（MOD13Q1 NDVI）,使用统计分析和趋势分析技术,分析了头道拐—潼关区间不同景观单元植被恢复特点、影响因素以及其对水沙过程的影响,并对头道拐—潼关区间植被未来发展趋势进行了预测。研究结果显示：头道拐—潼关区间82.87%区域的植被呈显著增加趋势（p < 0.05）,且植被恢复速度最快的区域为半湿润的黄土丘陵沟壑区,坡度和降水量在不同景观单元下对植被恢复的影响不同。随着降水量的增加,头道拐—潼关区间NDVI和年降水量的相关性降低。在植被恢复背景下,黄河中游主要河流径流的主要影响因素仍然是降水量,输沙量同时受到降水量和植被恢复的影响,含沙量与NDVI呈现出较强的负相关关系,而与降水量的相关性较弱。随着植被覆盖度的增加,流域土壤侵蚀量降低,河流输沙量也呈降低趋势,土壤侵蚀量对河流输沙量的贡献率变化于39%~88%之间。基于植被恢复潜力和恢复速度,本文预测头道拐—潼关区间2020年、2030年、2040年以及2050年的NDVI平均值将分别达到0.68、0.75、0.79以及0.80。

关键词: 植被恢复, 趋势分析, 黄河中游, 水沙过程

Abstract:

The Toudaoguai-Tongguan section is the main source area of sediments in the Yellow River and has the largest vegetation restoration rate in China. Subsequently, the rapid restoration of vegetation has had significant effects on the runoff and sediment transport processes. In this paper, the vegetation restoration characteristics, and the influencing factors and their effects on runoff and sediment processes in different landform units in the Toudaoguai-Tongguan section were analyzed based on the MOD13Q1 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data using the statistical and trend analysis techniques. And then, the future vegetation development trend in this area was predicted. The results suggest that the vegetation exhibits a significant increasing trend (p < 0.05) in 82.87% of the study area, and the semi-humid loess hilly and gully zones have the largest vegetation restoration rate. Slope gradient and precipitation have different effects on the vegetation restoration in different landform units. With the increase of precipitation, the correlation between NDVI and annual precipitation in the Toudaoguai-Tongguan section is lessened. In the context of vegetation restoration, precipitation is still the major factor influencing the main river runoffs in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, whereas the sediment load is affected by both precipitation and NDVI, and the sediment concentration exhibits a relatively strong negative correlation with NDVI. With the increase of vegetation coverage, the amount of soil erosion in the watershed decreases, and the river sediment load exhibits a decreasing trend. The contribution rate of the amount of soil erosion to the sediment load varies between 39%-88%. Based on the vegetation restoration potential and vegetation restoration rate, it was predicted that the mean values of NDVI in the Toudaoguai-Tongguan section in 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 would be 0.68, 0.75, 0.79, and 0.80, respectively.

Key words: vegetation restoration, trend analysis, middle reaches of the Yellow River, runoff and sediment process

高海东, 吴曌. 黄河头道拐—潼关区间植被恢复及其对水沙过程影响[J]. 地理学报, 2021, 76(5): 1206-1217.

GAO Haidong, WU Zhao. Vegetation restoration and its effect on runoff and sediment processes in the Toudaoguai-Tongguan section of the Yellow River[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021, 76(5): 1206-1217.

图/表 12

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

图4

图5

表3

表4

水文因子与植被和降水量的偏相关系数

流域/站点	水文因子	NDVI	年降水量	流域/站点	水文因子	NDVI	年降水量
皇甫川/ 皇甫	径流量	-0.35	0.73^**	清涧河/ 延川	径流量	-0.30	0.35
	输沙量	-0.55^*	0.62^*		输沙量	-0.31	0.07
	含沙量	-0.68^**	-0.02		含沙量	-0.48	0.12
县川河/ 旧县	径流量	-0.41	0.36	昕水河/ 大宁	径流量	-0.13	0.77^**
	输沙量	-0.33	0.24		输沙量	-0.82^**	0.50
	含沙量	-0.39	0.16		含沙量	-0.86^**	0.05
孤山川/ 高石崖	径流量	-0.58^*	0.86^**	延河/ 甘谷驿	径流量	-0.29	0.73^**
	输沙量	-0.80^**	0.66^**		输沙量	-0.46	0.27
	含沙量	-0.88^**	0.36		含沙量	-0.54^*	0.07
朱家川/ 桥头	径流量	-0.30	0.63^*	仕望川/ 大村	径流量	0.65^*	0.81^**
	输沙量	-0.43	0.53^*		输沙量	0.19	0.26
	含沙量	-0.36	0.25		含沙量	-0.06	0.15
窟野河/ 温家川	径流量	-0.15	0.72^**	洛河/ 刘家河	径流量	-0.60^*	0.90^**
	输沙量	-0.90^**	0.80^**		输沙量	-0.52^*	0.85^**
	含沙量	-0.88^**	0.61^*		含沙量	-0.40	0.75^**
秃尾河/ 高家川	径流量	-0.56^*	0.34	葫芦河/ 张村驿	径流量	0.70^*	0.56^*
	输沙量	-0.53^*	0.17		输沙量	0.64^*	0.84^**
	含沙量	-0.51^*	0.15		含沙量	-0.39	0.48
汾河/ 静乐	径流量	0.86^**	0.12	马莲河/ 雨落坪	径流量	-0.42	0.75^**
	输沙量	-0.73^**	0.60^*		输沙量	-0.59^*	0.67^**
	含沙量	-0.77^**	0.51		含沙量	-0.43	0.27
佳芦河/ 申家湾	径流量	-0.06	0.74^**	泾河/ 杨家坪	径流量	-0.09	0.59^*
	输沙量	-0.50^*	0.79^**		输沙量	-0.72^**	0.62^*
	含沙量	-0.72^**	0.79^**		含沙量	-0.61^*	0.18
湫水河/ 林家坪	径流量	-0.11	0.54^*	渭河/ 秦安	径流量	0.50^**	0.91^**
	输沙量	-0.20	0.27		输沙量	-0.76^**	0.73^**
	含沙量	-0.33	0.23		含沙量	-0.68^**	0.06
大理河/ 绥德	径流量	-0.44	0.68^**	渭河/ 武山	径流量	0.66^**	0.92^**
	输沙量	-0.59^*	0.61^*		输沙量	-0.25	0.45
	含沙量	-0.62^*	0.56^*		含沙量	-0.50	0.07

表4

图6

表5

图7

参考文献 33

[1]	Fu B J, Wang S, Liu Y, et al. Hydrogeomorphic ecosystem responses to natural and anthropogenic changes in the Loess Plateau of China. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 2017,45(1):223-243. doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020552
[2]	Smith T M, Shugart H H, Bonan G B, et al. Modeling the potential response of vegetation to global climate change. Advances in Ecological Research, 1992,22:93-116.
[3]	Beerling D J. Long-term responses of boreal vegetation to global change: An experimental and modelling investigation. Global Change Biology, 1999,5(1):55-74. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00209.x
[4]	Gonsamo A, Chen J M. Circumpolar vegetation dynamics product for global change study. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2016,182:13-26. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.022
[5]	Zeppel M J B, Wilks J V, Lewis J D. Impacts of extreme precipitation and seasonal changes in precipitation on plants. Biogeosciences, 2014,11(11):3083-3093. doi: 10.5194/bg-11-3083-2014
[6]	Seddon A, Macias-Fauria M, Long P, et al. Sensitivity of global terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability. Nature, 2016,531(7593):229-232. doi: 10.1038/nature16986
[7]	Chen C, Park T, Wang X H, et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nature Sustainability, 2019,2:122-129. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7 pmid: 30778399
[8]	Murray S J, Foster P N, Prentice I C . Future global water resources with respect to climate change and water withdrawals as estimated by a dynamic global vegetation model. Journal of Hydrology, 2012,448/449:14-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.044
[9]	Xin Z B, Yu X X. Impact of vegetation restoration on hydrological processes in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, China. Forestry Studies in China, 2009,11(4):209-218. doi: 10.1007/s11632-009-0037-y
[10]	Ouyang W, Hao F H, Skidmore A K, et al. Soil erosion and sediment yield and their relationships with vegetation cover in upper stream of the Yellow River. Science of the Total Environment, 2010,409(2):396-403. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.10.020
[11]	Wang S, Fu B J, Piao S L, et al. Reduced sediment transport in the Yellow River due to anthropogenic changes. Nature Geoscience, 2016,9(1):38-41. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2602
[12]	Hao Z X, Zheng J Y, Ge Q S. Precipitation cycles in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River (1736-2000). Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2008,18(1):17-25. doi: 10.1007/s11442-008-0017-5
[13]	Wang Jianbang, Zhao Jun, Li Chuanhua, et al. The spatial-temporal patterns of the impact of human activities on vegetation coverage in China from 2001 to 2015. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(3):504-519.
	[ 王建邦, 赵军, 李传华, 等. 2001—2015年中国植被覆盖人为影响的时空格局. 地理学报, 2019,74(3):504-519.]
[14]	Zheng Jingyun, Yin Yunhe, Li Bingyuan. A new scheme for climate regionalization in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010,65(1):3-12.
	[ 郑景云, 尹云鹤, 李炳元. 中国气候区划新方案. 地理学报, 2010,65(1):3-12.]
[15]	Didan K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250 m SIN Grid V006 [Dataset]. NASA EOSDIS LP DAAC. 2015. DOI: 10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006.
[16]	Liu J Y, Kuang W H, Zhang Z X, et al. Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns, and causes of land-use changes in China since the late 1980s. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2014,24(2):195-210. doi: 10.1007/s11442-014-1082-6
[17]	Hensel D, Frans L. Regional Kendall test for trend. Environmental Science and Technology, 2006,40(13):4066-4073. doi: 10.1021/es051650b
[18]	Sen P K. Estimates of regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1968,63(324):1379-1389. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1968.10480934
[19]	Zhang Wenbo, Xie Yun, Liu Baoyuan. Rainfall erosivity estimation using daily rainfall amounts. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2002,22(6):705-711.
	[ 章文波, 谢云, 刘宝元. 利用日雨量计算降雨侵蚀力的方法研究. 地理科学, 2002,22(6):705-711.]
[20]	Liu Baoyuan, Liang Yin, Cao Longxi, et al. Grid data on soil erodibility in China. National Earth System Science Data Center,National Science & Technology Infrastructure of China, 2018.
	[ 刘宝元, 梁音, 曹龙熹, 等. 中国土壤可蚀性因子K栅格数据集. 国家科技基础条件平台: 国家地球系统科学数据中心, 2018.]
[21]	Zhang H M, Yang Q K, Li R, et al. Extension of a GIS procedure for calculating the RUSLE equation LS factor. Computers & Geosciences, 2013,52:177-188. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2012.09.027
[22]	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 and Water Conservation, 1996,1:1-9.
	[ 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, 1996,1:1-9.]
[23]	Miao C Y, Ni J R, Borthwick A G L, et al. A preliminary estimate of human and natural contributions to the changes in water discharge and sediment load in the Yellow River. Global and Planetary Change, 2011,76(3/4):196-205. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.01.008
[24]	Wang S, Fu B J, Liang W, et al. Driving forces of changes in the water and sediment relationship in the Yellow River. Science of the Total Environment, 2017,576:453-461. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.124
[25]	Wei Y H, Jiao J Y, Zhao G J, et al. Spatial-temporal variation and periodic change in streamflow and suspended sediment discharge along the mainstream of the Yellow River during 1950-2013. Catena, 2016,140:105-115. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.01.016
[26]	Xu G C, Zhang J X, Li P, et al. Vegetation restoration projects and their influence on runoff and sediment in China. Ecological Indicators, 2018,95(1):233-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.047
[27]	Sun G, Zhou G Y, Zhang Z Q, et al. Potential water yield reduction due to forestation across China. Journal of Hydrology, 2006,328(3/4):548-558. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.013
[28]	Chen L D, Wang J P, Wei W, et al. Effects of landscape restoration on soil water storage and water use in the Loess Plateau region, China. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010,259(7):1291-1298. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.025
[29]	Gao G Y, Zhang J J, Liu Y, et al. Spatio-temporal patterns of the effects of precipitation variability and land use/cover changes on long-term changes in sediment yield in the Loess Plateau, China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2017,21(9):4363-4378. doi: 10.5194/hess-21-4363-2017
[30]	Zhang J J, Gao G Y, Fu B J, et al. Formulating an elasticity approach to quantify the effects of climate variability and ecological restoration on sediment discharge change in the Loess Plateau, China. Water Resources Research, 2019,55(11):9604-9622. doi: 10.1029/2019WR025840
[31]	Zhang G H, Tang K M, Ren Z P, et al. Impact of grass root mass density on soil detachment capacity by concentrated flow on steep slopes. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineer, 2013,56(3):927-934.
[32]	Gao H, Xu X Z, Zhang H W, et al. How effective is vegetation in reducing gravity erosion on loess gully sidewall under intense rainfalls? Land Degradation & Development, 2020: 31(17):2605-2619. doi: 10.1002/ldr.v31.17
[33]	Gao Haidong, Pang Guowei, Li Zhanbin, et al. Evaluating the potential of vegetation restoration in the Loess Plateau. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(5):863-874.
	[ 高海东, 庞国伟, 李占斌, 等. 黄土高原植被恢复潜力研究. 地理学报, 2017,72(5):863-874.]

景观单元	气候带	Theil Sen斜率值	趋势	占比(%)
黄土丘陵沟壑区	半干旱	0.0115	降低	0.06
			增加	90.72
			不显著	9.22
	半湿润	0.0124	降低	0.13
			增加	95.55
			不显著	4.32
土石山区	半干旱	0.0078	降低	0.06
			增加	85.72
			不显著	14.22
	半湿润	0.0056	降低	0.19
			增加	89.28
			不显著	10.53
黄土高塬沟壑区	半干旱	0.0085	降低	0.20
			增加	74.52
			不显著	25.28
	半湿润	0.0088	降低	2.20
			增加	73.62
			不显著	24.18
平原区		0.0021	降低	13.93
			增加	34.37
			不显著	51.70
风沙区		0.0086	降低	0.22
			增加	88.29
			不显著	11.49
头道拐—潼关区间		0.0086	降低	1.66
			增加	82.87
			不显著	15.47

景观单元	坡度(°)	占比(%)	Theil Sen斜率值
黄土丘陵沟壑区	0~15	55	0.0119
黄土丘陵沟壑区	> 15	45	0.0120
黄土高塬沟壑区	0~15	74	0.0080
黄土高塬沟壑区	>15	26	0.0108
土石山区	0~15	40	0.0070
土石山区	> 15	60	0.0055

景观单元	土地利用变化	占比(%)	Theil Sen斜率值
风沙区	草地→草地	46.10	0.0086
	沙地→沙地	26.81	0.0086
	耕地→耕地	9.51	0.0092
平原区	耕地→耕地	67.99	0.0024
	建筑用地→建筑用地	10.54	0.0011
	耕地→建筑用地	6.81	-0.0031
黄土高塬沟壑区	耕地→耕地	54.96	0.0081
黄土高塬沟壑区	草地→草地	24.36	0.0109
土石山区	林地→林地	47.68	0.0046
	草地→草地	23.57	0.0081
	耕地→耕地	12.90	0.0091
	草地→林地	9.38	0.0042
黄土丘陵沟壑区	草地→草地	40.69	0.0121
	耕地→耕地	36.22	0.0123
	林地→林地	7.83	0.0103
	耕地→草地	5.38	0.0135