缙云山典型林分森林土壤持水与入渗特性

Soil water retaining capacity and infiltration property of typical forests in the Jinyun Mountain.

该文根据2004年8月的实测数据，对三峡库区重庆缙云山4种典型林分（马尾松阔叶混交林、常绿阔叶林、楠竹林和常绿阔叶灌丛）森林土壤的持水和人渗特性进行研究．结果表明，4种典型林分森林土壤的非毛管持水量是农地的1．5～2倍；除楠竹林外，各林分土壤的有效蓄水容量为农地的1．1～1．9倍；各林分土壤持水量为：常绿阔叶灌丛（454．1mm）〉马尾松阔叶混交林（327．6mm）〉常绿阔叶林（292．5mm）〉楠竹林（218．9mm）；4种典型林分森林土壤稳渗率的顺序为：常绿阔叶灌丛（10．169mm／min）〉楠竹林（0．927mm／min）〉马尾松阔叶混交林（0．743mm／min）〉常绿阔叶林（0．551mm／min）〉农地（0．253mm／min）；从土壤持水性能和人渗性能来看，常绿阔叶灌丛的水源涵养和理水调洪功能远好于其他林分土壤，而马尾松阔叶混交林优于常绿阔叶林，楠竹林较差．

In order to evaluate hydrological functions of different vegetation communities in the Three Gorges Region, the results of a study in August 2004 on the water retaining capacity and infiltration property of soil of four typical forest stands （mixed Pinus massoniana-deciduous forests, evergreen broadleaved forests, Phyllostachys pubescens forests and evergreen broadleaved shrub forests） in the Jinyun Mountain of the Three Gorges Region, Chongqing were presented. Study showed that the non-capillary water retaining capacity was 1.5 -2 times as high as that of arable farmland soil and the effective water storage of the soil was 1.1 -1.9 times as high, the exception was the soil of P. pubescens forests. For the four forest stands, the water retaining capacities of the soil were ranked as follows： evergreen broadleaf shrub forests （454.1 mm ） 〉 mixed P. massonianadeciduous forests （327.6 mm） 〉 evergreen broadleaf forests （292.5 mm） 〉 P. pubescens forests （218.9 mm）. The stable infiltration rates of the soil of four typical forest stands were ranked in the following order： evergreen broadleaf forests （10. 169 mm/min） 〉 P. pubescens forests （0.927 mm/min） 〉 mixed P. massoniana-deciduous forests （0.743 mm/min） 〉 evergreen broadleaved forests （0.551 mm/min） 〉 arable farmland （0.253 mm/min）. In general, the soil of the evergreen broadleaved shrub forests has the best hydrological function in soil water retention capacity and infiltration property. These characteristics are better in the mixed P. massoniana-deciduous forests than in the evergreen broadleaf forests, while the performance of the P. pubescens forests is worse in both capacities.