Effect assessment of land cover pattern on soil and water loss on red soil plots
TANG Chongjun1, LIU Yu2,3, XU Aizhen1, GUO Liping1,4
1. Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Prevention, 330029, Nanchang, China; 2. Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Observation and Modelling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101, Beijing, China; 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049, Beijing, China; 4. Research Center of Water Resources and Ecological Environment of Poyang Lake, the Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China, 330029, Nanchang, China
Abstract：[Background] Evaluating the potential of spatial pattern of land cover on preventing soil and water loss by field monitoring is time-consuming and financially expensive. Pattern indices designed with concern of soil erosion, sediment flow and hydrological processes provide time-saving and low-cost solution. However, most of these indices are developed, tested and applied in arid and semiarid environment. Their suitability in areas covered by red soil and with greater precipitation is untested.[Methods] In this paper, the Directional Leakiness Index (DLI) and Flow-length-weighted Directional Leakiness Index (FDLI) were applied to assess the soil and water retention capacity of land cover patterns at plot scale in humid climate and with red soil. Runoff generation and sediment yield of ten 20m-by-5m plots (coded as PG1-PG10) with different land cover patterns were compared and used to test suitability of these two indices.[Results] The plots with grass bands paralleling to elevation contours have low DLI and FDLI compared with those without grass strips. The plots can be ranked differently according to runoff depth and sediment yield. According to runoff depth, the ten plots are ranked as PG4 > PG10 > PG9 > PG8 > PG1 > PG3 > PG6 > PG7 > PG2 > PG5. When ranked based on sediment yield, these plots are ranked as PG9 > PG10 > PG8 > PG4 > 2 > PG3 > PG1 > PG6 > PG7 > PG5. It is showed that DLI is logarithmically related with sediment production and runoff depth. Significant logarithmic regressions also are derived between FDLI and sediment yield, and between FDLI and runoff depth. The goodness of regression equations between land cover pattern indices and sediment yields (R2=0.771 6 for DLI, R2=0.890 7 for FDLI) is better than that of regression equations between land cover pattern indices and runoff depths (R2=0.598 7 for DLI, R2=0.684 7 for FDLI). For plots with a strong soil and water retention capacity, and accordingly lower DLI and FDLI, the responses of sediment yield and runoff generation to rainfall depth can be described by linear or exponential equations. However, for plots that have low capacity to retain soil and water, i.e., with great DLI and FDLI, the goodness of both linear and exponential regression equations between runoff depth and rainfall depths and between sediment yield and rainfall depth are close to zero, which argues that both linear equation and exponential equation are unsuitable for describing the response of runoff generation and sediment yield to rainfall depth.[Conculsions] These results confirmed the suitability of DLI and FDLI for ranking a set of land cover patterns according to capacity in soil and water loss prevention, and the importance of vegetation cover pattern for soil and water conservation in this humid and red soil covered region. It is also emphasized that reclassifying land cover into sources and sinks according to their actual effect on sediment yield and runoff generation is necessary, which can evidently promoted the effectiveness of the indices used to coupling the land cover pattern with soil loss and runoff generation.
汤崇军, 刘宇, 徐爱珍, 郭利平. 红壤径流小区覆被格局的水土保持效应评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2020, 18(2): 36-42.
TANG Chongjun, LIU Yu, XU Aizhen, GUO Liping. Effect assessment of land cover pattern on soil and water loss on red soil plots. SSWC, 2020, 18(2): 36-42.
OUYANG Wei, SKIDMORE A K, HAO Fanghua, et al. Soil erosion dynamics response to landscape pattern[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2010, 408:1358.
[2]
刘宇, 吕一河, 傅伯杰. 景观格局-土壤侵蚀研究中景观指数的意义解释及局限性[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(1):267. LIU Yu, LÜ Yihe, FU Bojie.Implication and limitation of landscape metrics in delineating relationship between landscape pattern and soil erosion[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(1):267.
[3]
LIU Yu, FU Bojie, LÜ Yihe, et al. Linking vegetation cover patterns to hydrological responses using two process-based pattern indices at the plot scale[J]. Science China:Earth Sciences, 2013, 56(11):1888.
[4]
HECKMANN T, CAVALLI M, CERDAN O, et al. Indices of sediment connectivity:opportunities, challenges and limitations[J].Earth-science Reviews, 2018, 187:77.
[5]
LUDWIG J A, EAGER R W, BASTIN G N, et al. A leakiness index for assessing landscape function using remote sensing[J]. Landscape Ecology, 2002, 17(2):157.
[6]
FU Bojie, ZHAO Wenwu, CHEN Liding, et al. A multiscale soil loss evaluation index[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2006, 51(4):448.
[7]
IMESON A C, PRINSEN H A M. Vegetation patterns as biological indicators for identifying runoff and sediment source and sink areas for semi-arid landscapes in Spain[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2004, 104(2):333.
[8]
LUDWIG J A, EAGER R W, LIEDLOFF A C, et al. A new landscape leakiness index based on remotely sensed ground-cover data[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2006, 6(2):327.
[9]
BAUTISTA S, MAYOR Á G, BOURAKHOUADAR J, et al. Plant spatial pattern predicts hillslope runoff and erosion in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape[J]. Ecosystems, 2007, 10(6):987.
[10]
赵其国,黄国勤, 马艳芹.中国南方红壤生态系统面临的问题及对策[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33:7615. ZHAO Qiguo, HUANG Guoqin, MA Yanqin. The problems in red soil ecosystem in southern of China and its countermeasures[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(24):7615.
[11]
王学强, 蔡强国, 和继军. 红壤丘陵区水保措施在不同坡度坡耕地上优化配置的探讨[J]. 资源科学, 2007, 29(6):68. WANG Xueqiang, CAI Qiangguo, HE Jijun. Water and soil conservation measures for different slope land in Red-Earth Hilly Region[J]. Resources Science, 2007, 29(6):68.
[12]
袁久芹, 梁音, 曹龙熹, 等. 红壤坡耕地不同植物篱配置模式减流减沙效益对比[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(2):400. YUAN Jiuqin, LIANG Yin, CAO Longxi, et al. Comparison of benefits of runoff and sediment reduction of different hedgerow configuration modes in Red-soil Hilly Area[J]. Soils, 2015, 47(2):400.
[13]
李忠佩, 张桃林, 杨艳生, 等. 红壤丘陵区水土流失过程及综合治理技术[J]. 水土保持通报, 2001, 21(2):12. LI Zhongpei, ZHANG Taolin, YANG Yansheng, et al. Process and comprehensively harnessing techniques of soil and water loss in Hilly Red Soil Regions[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2001, 21(2):12.
[14]
MAYOR Á G, BAUTISTA S, SMALL E E, et al. Measurement of the connectivity of runoff source areas as determined by vegetation pattern and topography:A tool for assessing potential water and soil losses in drylands[J]. Water Resources Research, 2008, 44(10):W10423.
[15]
CORRY R C, NASSAUER J I. Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005, 72(4):265.
2020, Vol. 18 
