4.6 Article

SIMULATION STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PERMANENT GROUNDCOVER ON SOIL AND WATER CHANGES IN JUJUBE ORCHARDS ON SLOPING GROUND

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 946-954

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2281

关键词

simulated rainfall; vegetation cover; jujube tree; runoff and sediment; soil moisture

资金

  1. Special Foundation of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [31172039]
  2. National Science & Technology Supporting Plan [2011BAD29B09]
  3. '111' Project from the Ministry of Education
  4. State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs [B12007]
  5. Supporting Project of Young Technology Nova of Shaanxi Province [2010KJXX-04]
  6. Supporting Plan of Young Elites
  7. Northwest AF University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land degradation is recognized as a major environmental problem in rainfed fruit orchards on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Six treatments were used to investigate surface runoff and soil moisture by means of simulated rainfall experiments: (i) a control (clean cultivation) (CC); (ii) strip cock's foot (Dactylis glomerata L.) cover (SCF); (iii) strip crown vetch (Coronilla varia L.) cover (SCV); (iv) strip bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) cover (SBF); (v) strip white clover (Trifolium repens L.) cover (SWC); and (vi) complete white clover cover (WCC). The time to runoff was significantly longer under WCC than under other treatments (p<0.05). The total runoff volume and sediment yield were significantly greater under CC than under the vegetation cover treatments (p<0.05). The mean infiltration rate under WCC and CC was the largest and lowest and differed significantly from that under other treatments (p<0.05). The change of soil water storage was the largest under WCC and the least under CC. The soil moisture was significantly greater under SCF than under other treatments (p<0.05). Treatment SCF seemed to be the best groundcover for rainfed sloping jujube orchards on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Copyright (C) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据