水保所知识产出(1956---)知识库

对比研究不同土壤的溅蚀和片蚀特征，可为侵蚀预报模型构建提供重要的理
论依据，其对坡面侵蚀防治也具有重要的指导意义。本论文针对我国主要侵蚀土
壤溅蚀和片蚀特征的对比研究相对薄弱的现实，以我国三个主要水蚀区（西北黄
土高原地区、东北黑土区和南方红壤区）的典型侵蚀土壤黄绵土、黑土和红壤为
研究对象，基于相同的试验方法，对比分析了三种主要侵蚀土壤的溅蚀和片蚀特
征，量化了溅蚀对片蚀的贡献，探究了片蚀的水动力学机理，构建了适用于我国
主要水蚀区的溅蚀和片蚀预报模型。主要研究结论如下：
（ 1 ）对比分析了三种主要侵蚀土壤溅蚀特征。试验条件下黄土、黑土和红
壤坡面不同方向溅蚀量（向上坡、向下坡，侧向）、净溅蚀量（向下坡 - 向上坡）
和总溅蚀量（向上坡 + 向下坡 + 左侧 + 右侧）均随降雨强度和降雨能量的增加而增
大。当降雨强度由 50 mm h –1 增加到 100 mm h –1 时，黄土、黑土和红壤坡面总溅
蚀量分别增加了 0.2~14.2 ， 1.9~10.9 和 1.1~11.3 倍。次降雨坡面向上坡，向下坡
和侧向溅蚀量分别占总溅蚀量的 14.1%~14.7% ， 32.8%~33.3% 和 26.0%~26.3% 。
三种主要侵蚀土壤不同方向溅蚀量，净溅蚀量和总溅蚀量大小关系为：黑土最大，
红壤次之，黄土最小。坡面不同方向土壤溅蚀量，净溅蚀量和总溅蚀量在坡面产
流前后表现出较大的差异性，坡面产流前，三种主要侵蚀土壤干土溅蚀量均显著
高于湿土溅蚀量；而坡面产流后，前期土壤含水量对黑土和红壤的影响表现出三
种现象，即干、湿土的溅蚀量之间没有显著性差异，干土溅蚀量显著高于湿土溅
蚀量，湿土溅蚀量显著高于干土溅蚀量。
（ 2 ）阐明了三种主要侵蚀土壤坡面片蚀特征。三种主要侵蚀土壤坡面片蚀
量均随降雨强度，降雨能量和前期土壤含水量的增加而增大。当降雨强度由 50 mm
h –1 增加为 100 mm h –1 时，黄土、黑土和红壤坡面片蚀量分别增加了 8.3~19.3 ，15.0~68.8 和 5.1~36.9 倍。随着前期土壤含水量的增加，黑土和红壤坡面片蚀量分
别增加了 1.4~9.0 和 1.2~15.8 倍。干土条件下，红壤坡面的片蚀量高于黑土坡面。
湿土条件下，三种土壤片蚀量的大小关系受降雨强度和降雨能量的影响。 50 mm
h –1 降雨强度下或 100 mm h –1 降雨强度而降雨能量小于 8.52 J m –2 mm –1 时，三种
土壤片蚀量大小关系为：红壤最大，黄土次之，黑土最小； 100 mm h –1 降雨强度
下，当降雨能量高于 8.52 J m –2 mm –1 时，黄土坡面片蚀量最大，红壤次之，黑土
最小。
（ 3 ）量化了溅蚀对片蚀的贡献。三种主要侵蚀土壤总溅蚀量对片蚀量的贡
献受降雨特性和前期土壤含水量的综合影响。黄土向上坡，向下坡，侧向，净溅
蚀量和总溅蚀量与片蚀量的比值平均值分别为 0.2 ， 0.4 ， 0.3 ， 0.2 和 1.2 ；黑土向
上坡，向下坡，侧向，净溅蚀量和总溅蚀量与片蚀量的比值平均值分别为 1.1 ，
2.4 ， 1.9 ， 1.3 和 7.3 ；红壤向上坡，向下坡，侧向，净溅蚀量和总溅蚀量与片蚀
量的比值平均值分别为 0.4 ， 0.9 ， 0.9 ， 0.5 和 3.1 。干土条件下，黑土总溅蚀量对
片蚀量的贡献高于红壤。湿土条件下，当降雨强度为 50 mm h –1 时，三种主要侵
蚀土壤总溅蚀量对片蚀量的贡献为黑土最大，黄土次之，红壤最小；而当降雨强
度为 100 mm h –1 ，降雨能量小于 12.85 J m –2 mm –1 时，三种主要侵蚀土壤总溅蚀
量对片蚀量的贡献为黑土最大，红壤次之，黄土最小。当降雨能量高于 12.85 J m –2
mm –1 时，三种主要侵蚀土壤之间总溅蚀量对片蚀量的贡献差异较小。
（ 4 ）探究了片蚀的水动力学机理。对于三种主要侵蚀土壤，随降雨强度、
降雨能量和前期土壤含水量的增加，径流流速和雷诺数显著增加，弗汝德数无明
显变化， Darcy-Weisbach 阻力系数显著减小。三种土壤临界径流剪切力、临界水
流功率、临界单位水流功率大小关系为，黑土最大，红壤次之，黄土最小。对于
三种主要侵蚀土壤，径流流速是最佳的水力学参数，而径流剪切力是最佳的水动
力学参数。
（ 5 ）构建了溅蚀和片蚀预报模型，其模型有效性系数 E NS 分别达到 0.82 和
0.85 ，表明模型具有较高的预报精度。
关键词：主要侵蚀土壤；降雨物理特征参数；前期土壤含水量；溅蚀；片蚀；预
报模型

The splash and sheet erosion characteristics for three soils were investigated
comparatively, which not only provide important theoretical basis for the
establishment of soil erosion prediction model, but also provide important guidance for
the prevention of soil erosion. However, the comparative study of splash and sheet
erosion characteristics for different main eroded soils is still relatively weak. Therefore,
three typical eroded soils (Cambisol, Mollisol, Ultisol) were chosen from the Loess
Plateau, the Northeast China and the southern hilly region, respectively. The splash
erosion and sheet erosion characteristics were analyzed comparatively by adopting
uniform experimental technologies. The contribution of splash erosion to sheet erosion
were quantified. The flow hydraulic characteristics and dynamic mechanisms of sheet
erosion were explored. Additionally, splash erosion and sheet erosion prediction
models in China were established and validated. The main results were as follows:
(1) The splash erosion characteristics of three main eroded soils were
comparatively analyzed. The directional (upslope, lateral, downslope), net
(downslope-upslope) and total (upslope+downslope+left+right) splash erosion
significantly increased with an increase in rainfall intensity and raindrop kinetic
energy. As rainfall intensity increased from 50 to 100 mm h –1 , total splash erosion of
Cambisol, Mollisol and Ultisol significantly increased by 0.2~14.2, 1.9~10.9 and
1.1~11.3, respectively. Additionally, upslope, downslope and lateral slope splash
erosion occupied 14.1%~14.7%, 32.8%~33.3% and 26.0%~26.3% of total splash
erosion for three soils, respectively. Furthermore, the order of the directional, net and
total splash erosion at different raindrop kinetic energy at the same rainfall intensity
was: Mollisol > Ultisol > Cambisol. Moreover, there were significant differences in  directional, net and total splash erosion under different antecedent soil moisture regime
before and after runoff occurrence for three soils at the same raindrop kinetic energy.
Before runoff occurrence, splash erosion in dry run was significantly greater than that
in wet run. After runoff occurred, there were three trends for the effects of antecedent
soil moisture regime on splash erosion: (i) Antecedent soil moisture had no significant
influence on splash erosion. (ii) Splash erosion in dry run was significantly greater
than that in wet run. (iii) Splash erosion in wet run was significantly greater than that
for dry run.
(2) The sheet erosion characteristics of three main eroded soils were clarified.
Sheet erosion significantly increased with the increasing rainfall intensity, raindrop
kinetic energy and antecedent soil moisture. As rainfall intensity increased from 50 to
100 mm h –1 , sheet erosion of Cambisol, Mollisol and Ultisol significantly increased by
8.3~19.3, 15.0~68.8 and 5.1~36.9, respectively. With antecedent soil moisture
increased, sheet erosion of Mollisol and Ultisol significantly increased by 1.4~9.0 and
1.2~15.8, respectively. Furthermore, in dry run, sheet erosion of Ultisol was
significantly greater than that of Mollisol. While in wet run, sheet erosion of three soils
were mainly affected by both of rainfall intensity and raindrop kinetic energy. At 50
mm h –1 rainfall intensity or at 100 mm h –1 rainfall intensity with raindrop kinetic
energy lower than 8.52 J m –2 mm –1 , the order of sheet erosion for three soils was:
Ultisol > Cambisol > Mollisol; at 100 mm h –1 rainfall intensity, when raindrop kinetic
energy was greater than 8.52 J m –2 mm –1 , the order of sheet erosion for three soils was:
Cambisol > Ultisol > Mollisol.
(3) The contribution of splash erosion to sheet erosion was quantified, which
were affected by both of rainfall physical properties and antecedent soil moisture. For
Cambisol, the ratios of upslope, downslope, lateral slope, net and total splash erosion
to sheet erosion were 0.2, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2 and 1.2, respectively. For Mollisol, the ratios of
upslope, downslope, lateral slope, net and total splash erosion to sheet erosion were
1.1, 2.4, 1.9, 1.3 and 7.3, respectively. For Ultisol, the ratios of upslope, downslope,
lateral slope, net and total splash erosion to sheet erosion were 0.4, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5 和 3.1,
respectively. In addition, in dry run, the ratios of total splash erosion to sheet erosion
of Mollisol was significantly greater than those of Ultisol. While in wet run, at rainfall  intensity of 50 mm h –1 , the ratios of total splash erosion to sheet erosion for three soils
were in the order: Mollisol > Ultisol > Cambisol. At 100 mm h –1 rainfall intensity,
when raindrop kinetic energy was lower than 12.85 J m –2 mm –1 , the ratios of total
splash erosion to sheet erosion for three soils were in the order: Mollisol > Ultisol >
Cambisol; when the raindrop kinetic energy was greater than 12.85 J m –2 mm –1 , there
were no significant differences in the ratios of total splash erosion to sheet erosion for
three soils.
(4) The overland flow hydraulic characteristics and dynamic mechanisms of sheet
erosion were explored. For three soils, as rainfall intensity, raindrop kinetic energy and
antecedent soil moisture increased, flow velocity and Reynolds number significantly
increased; there was no differences in Froude number; while Darcy-Weisbach
resistance coefficient significantly decreased. The critical shear stress, critical stream
power and critical unit stream power of three soils in the order of Mollisol, Ultisol and
Cambisol. Furthermore, sheet erosion of three main eroded soils were sensitive to flow
velocity and shear stress.
(5) The splash and sheet erosion prediction models were established. The
Nash-Sutcliffe simulation efficiency of the splash and sheet erosion prediction model
established in this study were 0.82 and 0.85, respectively. This indicated that the
models had better prediction accuracy.
Key Words : main eroded soils; rainfall physical parameters; antecedent soil moisture
content; splash erosion; sheet erosion; prediction model