露天煤矿排土场不同治理模式边坡细沟侵蚀特征研究

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2017.01.010

草地学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (1): 61-68.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2017.01.010

露天煤矿排土场不同治理模式边坡细沟侵蚀特征研究

陈同德¹, 王文龙^1,2, 董玉锟¹, 郭明明¹, 康宏亮¹, 朱宝才^1,3

1. 西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100;
2. 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所, 陕西杨凌 712100;
3. 山西农业大学林学院, 山西太谷 030801

收稿日期:2016-01-26 修回日期:2016-11-08 出版日期:2017-02-15 发布日期:2017-05-06
通讯作者: 王文龙,E-mail:wlwang@nwsuaf.edu.cn
作者简介:陈同德(1993-),男,青海民和人,硕士研究生,研究方向为土壤侵蚀机理,E-mail:1966093839@qq.com
基金资助:
中国科学院西部行动计划“晋陕蒙能源基地受损生态系统恢复重建关键技术与示范”（KZCX-XB3-13）；国家自然科学基金“煤矿开发建设中人为侵蚀机理及新增水土流失预报模型-以神府东胜煤田为例”（40771127）；水利部公益性行业专项“工程开挖面与堆积体水土流失测算技术研究”（201201048）资助

The Rill Erosion Characteristics of Dump Slope Managed by Different Models in Opencast Mining Area

CHEN Tong-de¹, WANG Wen-long^1,2, DONG Yu-kong¹, GUO Ming-ming¹, KANG Hong-liang¹, ZHU Bao-cai^1,3

1. State Key Laboratory of Soil and Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
2. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
3. Forestry College, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi Province 030801, China

Received:2016-01-26 Revised:2016-11-08 Online:2017-02-15 Published:2017-05-06

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

露天煤矿新建排土场边坡土质疏松，细沟侵蚀强烈。本文通过野外实地调查，以裸坡为对照，对内蒙古永利煤矿排土场边坡2种不同治理模式（A模式-沙柳方格+沙打旺（Salix Psammophila Checkerboard +Astragalus adsurgens），B模式-沙柳方格）下边坡的细沟侵蚀特征进行了研究。结果表明：裸坡细沟侵蚀总量为283.73 kg，A和B治理模式下边坡的细沟侵蚀总量较裸坡减少46.36%和35.09%。细沟密度、割裂度和宽深比从坡顶至坡脚的变化趋势，在裸坡上表现为减小-增大-减小，而在A模式治理的边坡上均为缓慢增大，在B模式治理的边坡上均为先增大后减小。距坡顶0~14 m处，75%和45%覆盖度沙打旺相比裸坡可使细沟侵蚀量降低37.29%~70.82%和43.10%~70.34%，二者控蚀效果基本相同；距坡顶14~20 m处，75%覆盖度坡面细沟侵蚀量较45%覆盖度减小53.32%~61.49%；距坡顶>20 m处，沙打旺不能有效控制细沟侵蚀。结果可为矿区生态环境安全与可持续发展提供科学依据。

关键词: 露天煤矿, 排土场边坡, 细沟侵蚀, 沙打旺, 沙柳方格

Abstract:

Soil erosion in mining area is a major problem for the ecological security, especially in Loess Plateau. Non-conservation managing practices have further aggravated the situation, especially in new dump slope, which are affected by the highest rates of soil erosion among mining area. Therefore, it is necessary to find a right managing model for the environment restoration of mining area. The one-year dump slopes were selected to evaluate rill erosion. Two managing models were applied to these one-year slopes of opencast coal mine in Inner Mongolia Erdos Yongli. Type A was Salix Psammophila Checkerboard mixed Astragalus adsurgens and type B was Salix Psammophila Checkerboard. In order to easily test the effect of A and B, a bare lope was regarded as a contrast (CK). The experiment included five sample sites: two A, two B, and a CK. Results showed that: rill density, degree of rill dissection, and rill width-depth ratio showed the trend of declining-rising-declining with increasing slope length on CK, but steadily rising on A, rising-declining on B; The rill erosion amount of CK increased rapidly 8 m interval, and reached 283.73 kg; the total rill erosion amount of A and B decreased 46.36% and 35.09% compared to CK. Therefore, A type decreased rill erosion due to the function of Astragalus adsurgens; The accumulation of rill erosion changed with the increase of slope length, and the relationships among them was exponential function of CK, and power function of A and B; the effect of control rill erosion was not different between 75% coverage and 45% coverage before 14 m. The 75% coverage was more effective than 45% between 14~20 m, and the rill erosion amount decreased 53.32%~61.49%. However, the effective control on erosion was within 20 m. This study may provide some scientific basis for the management of dump slope and the ecological security of mining area.

Key words: Opencast mining area, Dump slope, Rill erosion, Astragalus adsurgens, Salix Psammophila Checkerboard

中图分类号:

S157.1

陈同德, 王文龙, 董玉锟, 郭明明, 康宏亮, 朱宝才. 露天煤矿排土场不同治理模式边坡细沟侵蚀特征研究[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(1): 61-68.

CHEN Tong-de, WANG Wen-long, DONG Yu-kong, GUO Ming-ming, KANG Hong-liang, ZHU Bao-cai. The Rill Erosion Characteristics of Dump Slope Managed by Different Models in Opencast Mining Area[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(1): 61-68.

参考文献

[1] 蒲玉宏,王伟. 煤矿废弃堆积物坡面侵蚀研究初报[J]. 中国水土保持,1995(10):11-14
[2] 刘瑞顺,王文龙,廖超英,等. 露天煤矿排土场边坡防护措施减水减沙效益分析[J]. 西北林学院学报,2014(04):59-64
[3] 王治国,白中科,赵景逵,等. 黄土区大型露天矿排土场岩土侵蚀及其控制技术的研究[J]. 水土保持学报,1994(02):10-17
[4] 陈海迟,丁占强,杨翠林. 降雨特性与排土场边坡水力侵蚀的关系[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版),2011(02):103-108
[5] Toy T J, Foster G R, Renard K G. Rusle for mining, construction and reclamation lands[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,1999,54(2):462-467
[6] 郭建英,何京丽,李锦荣,等. 典型草原大型露天煤矿排土场边坡水蚀控制效果[J]. 农业工程学报,2015(03):296-303
[7] 郭明明,王文龙,李建明,等. 神府矿区弃土弃渣体侵蚀特征及预测[J]. 土壤学报,2015(05):1044-1057
[8] Renard K G, Foster G R, Yoder D C, et al. Rusle recisited-status, questions, answers, and the future[J]. Joural of Soil and Water Conservation,1994,49(3):213-220
[9] 叶翠玲,许兆义,董瑞锟,等. USLE用于估算工程建设项目水土流失量的讨论[J]. 中国水土保持,2001(12):33-34
[10] Kimaro D N, Poesen J, Msanya B M, et al. Magnitude of soil erosion on the northern slope of the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania: Interrill and rill erosion[J]. CATENA,2008,75(1):38-44
[11] 郑良勇,李占斌,李鹏,等. 稀土元素示踪坡面次降雨条件下的侵蚀过程[J]. 农业工程学报,2010,26(3):87-91
[12] 蔡强国,朱远达,王石英. 几种土壤的细沟侵蚀过程及其影响因素[J]. 水科学进展,2004,15(1):12-18
[13] 李蕾蕾,李聪,王永辰,等. 灌溉与密度对沙打旺种子产量及其构成因素的影响[J]. 草地学报,2008,16(1):65-69
[14] 郑粉莉. 细沟侵蚀量测算方法的探讨[J]. 水土保持通报,1989(04):41-45
[15] 蔡强国. 坡长在坡面侵蚀产沙过程中的作用[J]. 泥沙研究,1989(04):84-91
[16] Kara O, Sensoy H, Bolat I. Slope length effects on microbial biomass and activity of eroded sediments[J]. JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS,2010,10(3):434-439
[17] 谢云,刘宝元,章文波. 侵蚀性降雨标准研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2000(04):6-11
[18] Gilley J E, Gee G W, Bauer A, et al. Runoff and Erosion Characteristics of Surface- Mined Sites in Western North Dakota[J]. Transactions of the asae,1977,4(20):697-700,704
[19] 赵宇,陈晓燕,米宏星,等. 基于体积法对黄土细沟侵蚀沿程分布模拟的研究[J]. 土壤学报,2014(06):1234-1241
[20] 欧阳潮波,王文龙,黄鹏飞,等. 黄土高塬沟壑区植物对土质路蓄水减沙及水力参数的影响[J]. 草地学报,2014(05):971-979
[21] 焦菊英,王万忠. 人工草地在黄土高原水土保持中的减水减沙效益与有效盖度[J]. 草地学报,2001(03):176-182
[22] 和继军,宫辉力,李小娟,等. 细沟形成对坡面产流产沙过程的影响[J]. 水科学进展,2014,25(1):90-97
[23] 王龙生,蔡强国,蔡崇法,等. 黄土坡面细沟与细沟间水流水动力学特性研究[J]. 泥沙研究,2013(6):45-52
[24] Kara ö, ?ensoy H, Bolat ?. Slope length effects on microbial biomass and activity of eroded sediments[J]. Journal of Soils and Sediments,2010,10(3):434-439
[25] 孔亚平,张科利,唐克丽. 坡长对侵蚀产沙过程影响的模拟研究[J]. 水土保持学报,2001,15(2):17-20,24
[26] 付兴涛,张丽萍. 红壤丘陵区坡长对作物覆盖坡耕地土壤侵蚀的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2014(05):91-98
[27] 王禹,杨明义,刘普灵. 典型黑土直型坡耕地土壤侵蚀强度的小波分析[J]. 核农学报,2010(01):98-103

露天煤矿排土场不同治理模式边坡细沟侵蚀特征研究

The Rill Erosion Characteristics of Dump Slope Managed by Different Models in Opencast Mining Area

PDF

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]	马晓春, 秦立刚, 崔国文, 李景欣. 沙打旺早熟新品系‘东农’的品比试验[J]. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 1030-1034.
[2]	史倩华, 李垚林, 王文龙, 刘瑞顺, 郭明明, 欧阳潮波. 不同植被措施对露天煤矿排土场边坡径流产沙影响[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(6): 1263-1271.
[3]	曾翠云, 朱晓玉, 崔振, 李彦忠. 药用植物提取液对沙打旺黄矮根腐病菌的抑菌活性及对其种子萌发的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2015, 23(2): 366-371.
[4]	王永新, 夏方山, 董秋丽, 董宽虎, 赵祥, 高文俊. 盐碱草地不同改良措施对沙打旺氮代谢的影响[J]. , 2012, 20(2): 324-330.
[5]	左胜鹏, 王会梅, 李凤民, 程积民, 夏传俊. 渭北旱塬苜蓿和沙打旺生产力对种间竞争的响应[J]. , 2008, 16(2): 181-185.
[6]	李蕾蕾, 李聪, 王永辰, 苗丽宏. 灌溉与密度对沙打旺种子产量及其构成因素的影响[J]. , 2008, 16(1): 65-69.
[7]	张晓红, 徐炳成, 李凤民. 密度对三种豆科牧草生产力和水分利用率的影响[J]. , 2007, 15(6): 593-598.
[8]	周洪友, 杨合同, 唐文华. 沙打旺根腐病发生及病原菌鉴定[J]. , 2004, 12(4): 285-288,297.
[9]	徐炳成, 山仑. 苜蓿和沙打旺苗期需水及其根冠比[J]. , 2003, 11(1): 78-82.
[10]	李瑞芬, 李聪, 苏加楷. 沙打旺种质资源遗传多样性RAPD分析[J]. , 2001, 9(3): 171-175,190.
[11]	王兆卿, 李聪, 苏加楷. 野生与栽培型沙打旺品质性状比较[J]. , 2001, 9(2): 133-136.
[12]	李瑞芬, 李聪, 苏加楷. 沙打旺与鹰咀紫云英种间杂交不亲和性研究[J]. , 2001, 9(1): 8-15.
[13]	孙启忠, 桂荣. 科尔沁沙地沙打旺草地衰退规律与恢复技术研究[J]. , 2000, 8(4): 253-261.
[14]	张春光, 刘静玲, 冯江. 沙打旺叶片愈伤组织诱导和植株再生的研究[J]. , 1996, 4(2): 148-154.
[15]	李青丰, 易津, 苏玉珍. 沙打旺和白沙蒿种子萌发检验标准化的研究[J]. , 1994, 2(2): 43-48.