文慧(1995-),女,硕士研究生,主要从事土壤侵蚀与环境生态研究。E-mail:
为探究南方崩岗侵蚀区不同植被类型下土壤抗剪强度的分布规律,明确崩岗治理后土壤基本性质对抗剪强度的影响。以3种不同植被类型下崩岗各部位表层土壤为研究对象,对土壤基本性质的变化规律、抗剪强度参数变化特征及其影响因素,利用路径分析和主成分分析进行研究。结果表明,土壤抗剪强度由大到小依次为林地 > 柑橘地 > 灌木地 > 草地 > 侵蚀区,且柑橘地较灌木地土壤抗剪强度提高了29.74%。随地势降低,毛管孔隙度总体呈升高趋势,黏粒、粉粒等细颗粒物质占比也不断上升,汇聚于坡下。随着恢复时间增加,土壤养分含量逐渐上升。土壤黏聚力在同种植被类型下,随着恢复年限增加,表现为递增趋势,内摩擦角则表现为缓慢递减趋势,均表现为上坡最大。其中有机质、饱和导水率与黏聚力存在极显著相关关系,含水率、容重与内摩擦角也存在极显著相关关系。试验以总孔隙、毛管孔隙、黏粒含量和土壤饱和导水率来表征土壤饱和状态下的抗剪强度,建立了预测方程(
This study was designed to explore the distribution of soil shear strength under different vegetation restorations types in the erosion area of Benggang in southern Jiangxi, and to clarify the influence of soil basic properties on shear strength after restoration.
The surface soil of various parts of the Benggang under three different vegetation types was used as our research object. We analyzed and studied the changes in soil basic properties and the change characteristics of shear strength parameters and their influencing factors using Path analysis and principal component analysis.
The results showed that the shear strength from high to low was forest > arboreal forest > scrubland > grassland > erosion area, and the soil shear strength of arboreal forest was 29.74% higher than that of scrubland. As the terrain decreases, the capillary pores were increasing, and the proportion of fine particles such as clay particles and powder particles was also increased and converged under the lower slope. Moreover, the soil nutrient content was gradually increased as the recovery time increased. The cohesion of Benggang soil showed an increasing trend as the recovery period increased while the internal friction angle showed a slowly decreasing trend, and reached the maximum on the upper slope. Importantly, the cohesive force had a very significant correlation with organic matter and saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the internal friction angle also had a significant correlation with water content and bulk density. The total pores, capillary pores, clay content and soil saturated hydraulic conductivity were selected to characterize the shear strength of the soil undersaturation and a prediction equation (
The research results reveal the control factors of shear strength under different vegetation types, which can provide a certain reference for soil restoration processes in the southern Benggang eroded area.
崩岗是指山坡土体受水力、重力共同作用出现崩塌侵蚀而导致岩土稳定性下降的现象,主要发生在我国南方花岗岩地区,是造成生态环境恶化的重要原因,常被形象地称为“生态溃疡”[
近年来相关研究者在土壤抗剪强度变化规律及其影响因素方面做了大量研究,主要集中于不同剪切速率、含水量、土壤碱度等条件下的抗剪强度变化[
崩岗治理后,植被对土壤理化性质的影响还需进一步研究。因此,本文以江西赣县金钩形小流域不同植被类型崩岗土壤为研究对象,通过土壤抗剪强度参数呈现出的规律性变化,及恢复过程中土壤基本理化性质对抗剪强度的影响,以期进一步了解崩岗的恢复情况。
研究区位于江西省赣县北部金钩形小流域,介于26°10′—26°13′N,115°9′—115°12′E,属亚热带丘陵山区季风湿润气候区,年均气温19.3℃,年平均降雨量1 076 mm。该地崩岗的成土母质以花岗岩类风化物为主,花岗岩风化壳厚,含沙量大,土壤颗粒较粗,由此形成的土壤结构松散、透水性强等,极易产生崩岗侵蚀。赣南山地丘陵属强度侵蚀区,主要以崩岗侵蚀为主,而金钩形小流域崩岗侵蚀面积达95.8 hm2,分布广,侵蚀类型丰富,单个崩岗年土壤流失量可达到1.2万吨,是一个崩岗发育明显、侵蚀较大的典型区域[
前期调查研究将金钩形流域内崩岗分为三种不同治理模式(生态防护型、产业经济型、修复完善型)[
不同植被类型崩岗的基本特征
Basic characteristics of Benggang at different vegetation types
植被类型 |
位置 |
海拔 |
恢复时间 |
主要植物 |
|
注:NF30:崩岗侵蚀后自然恢复林地;RA13、RA10、RA8:治理后柑橘地;RS9、RS3:治理后灌木地;AG2:崩岗治理后草地;EA:崩岗侵蚀区。 |
|||||
NF30 | 林地 |
115°11’00” E |
198 | 30 | Pinus elliottii Engelm and Schima superba Gardn. et Champ. |
RA13 | 柑橘地 |
115°11’31” E |
220 | 13 | Citrus sinensis(Linn.)Osbeck |
RA10 | 柑橘地 |
115°10’59” E |
195 | 10 | Citrus sinensis(Linn.)Osbeck |
RA8 | 柑橘地 |
115°11’24” E |
224 | 8 | Citrus sinensis(Linn.)Osbeck |
RS9 | 灌木地 |
115°11’11” E |
212 | 9 | Camellia sinensis(L.)O. Ktze |
RS3 | 灌木地 |
115°11’04” E |
200 | 3 | Camellia sinensis(L.)O. Ktze |
AG2 | 草地 |
115°11’38” E |
203 | 2 | Paspalum wettsteinii Hack. |
EA | / | 115°11’35” E |
210 | / | Dicranopteris pedata(Houtt.)Nakaike,Pinus massoniana Lamb |
研究区及采样点位置
Location of the study area and sampling sites
土壤抗剪强度采用ZJ型应变控制式四联直剪仪测定,在不同剪切垂直压力(50、100、150、200 kPa)下进行直剪试验,试验前将环刀放在吸水石(79.8×10 mm)上,加水泡24 h至完全饱和。剪切速率为0.8 mm·min–1,量力环系数C为154.1 kPa·mm–1,施加剪切力进行不排水快剪,每组进行3次重复实验,采用Mohr-Coulomb强度理论,准确测定土壤抗剪强度。Mohr-Coulomb公式如下:
式中,
采用决定系数(
崩岗不同植被类型下土壤采样点的基本性质如
不同植被恢复类型崩岗的土壤理化性质
Soil basic properties of the sampling sites at different vegetation restoration types
样点 |
部位 |
粒径分配 |
容重 |
总孔隙度Total porosity/% | 毛管孔隙 |
田间持水量 |
土壤饱和 |
pH | 有机质 |
||
黏粒 |
粉粒 |
砂粒 |
|||||||||
注:US:上坡;MS:中坡;LS:下坡。不同的大写字母表示不同类型植被之间的差异显著。不同小写字母表示相同部位的不同类型植被之间差异显著。 |
|||||||||||
NF30 | US | 47.85Aa | 37.22Ce | 14.93Ac | 1.16Bc | 56.55Aa | 46.61Ba | 12.18Bh | 7.39Aa | 4.44Cb | 14.97ABa |
MS | 39.92Bab | 48.24Bcd | 11.84ABbc | 1.22Ac | 54.47Ba | 46.79Bb | 10.46Cf | 7.15Aa | 4.67Abc | 14.62Ba | |
LS | 39.08Bb | 51.83Ab | 9.12Bc | 1.20ABc | 49.78Cb | 54.20Aa | 13.83Aef | 7.17Aa | 4.61Bb | 15.77Aa | |
RA13 | US | 38.13Bb | 40.01Ae | 21.86Ab | 1.15Bc | 47.99Ab | 45.19Bb | 20.59Aa | 6.52Ab | 4.01Ce | 10.86Bb |
MS | 50.60Aa | 33.06Be | 16.33Bb | 1.25Ad | 47.72Ac | 42.06Cd | 14.86Cc | 5.51Bb | 4.64Abc | 11.97Bb | |
LS | 49.03Aa | 40.97Ac | 10.01Cbc | 1.28Abc | 49.08Abc | 51.23Ab | 16.29Bc | 6.22ABb | 4.17Bd | 15.07Aa | |
RA10 | US | 32.05Ac | 39.64Ce | 28.31Aa | 1.33Aab | 46.79Cc | 44.95Bb | 14.28Cg | 4.92Ac | 4.90Ab | 12.52Ab |
MS | 28.04Bb | 54.32Bc | 17.64Bab | 1.22Cd | 50.88Bb | 47.52Ab | 19.06Bb | 4.47Bc | 4.48Cc | 11.07Bbc | |
LS | 23.17Cd | 59.62Ab | 17.22Bb | 1.27Bbc | 52.75Aa | 48.73Ac | 20.04Ab | 5.11Ac | 4.56Bbc | 11.20Bbc | |
RA8 | US | 26.43Bb | 58.25Ac | 15.32Cc | 1.28Ab | 45.77Cd | 43.83Cbc | 16.21Bd | 4.43Bcd | 4.65Ac | 8.50Ac |
MS | 35.14Ab | 47.54Bcd | 17.32BCab | 1.22Ad | 51.71Bb | 50.42Aa | 20.27Aa | 3.85Cd | 4.09Cd | 9.76Ac | |
LS | 37.46Ad | 36.3Cc | 26.21Aa | 1.31Ab | 48.59Ac | 46.11Bd | 13.83Cef | 5.17Ac | 4.25Bcd | 10.58Abc | |
RS9 | US | 31.91Ac | 55.02Bcd | 13.07Bc | 1.35Bab | 44.52Be | 42.20Cc | 17.61Ac | 4.02Ad | 4.56Bcd | 11.17Bb |
MS | 22.52Bb | 65.20Ab | 12.28Bbc | 1.43Aa | 45.00ABd | 43.35Bcd | 11.52Be | 3.98Ad | 4.82Ab | 11.61Bbc | |
LS | 29.40Ac | 51.93Bb | 18.67Aab | 1.42Aa | 46.29Ad | 50.00Abc | 10.95Bg | 3.15Bd | 4.61ABb | 14.64Aa | |
RS3 | US | 23.68Bd | 51.308Ad | 25.02Aab | 1.35Aab | 43.15Bf | 43.34Ac | 17.99Ab | 3.88Ad | 5.07Aa | 6.82Ccd |
MS | 31.68Bb | 43.71ABd | 24.61Aa | 1.39Ab | 43.61Bde | 43.59Acd | 14.32Bc | 3.42Bd | 5.56Aa | 10.60Bc | |
LS | 48.96Aa | 36.05Bc | 14.99Bbc | 1.46Aa | 45.64Ad | 44.31Ade | 13.62Bf | 2.63Ce | 5.28Aa | 12.23Ab | |
AG2 | US | 1.76Bf | 77.97Aa | 20.27Abc | 1.41Aa | 40.78Cg | 39.39Bd | 14.99Bf | 2.71Be | 4.70Ab | 4.59Bd |
MS | 4.73Ac | 83.00Aa | 12.27Bbc | 1.45Aa | 43.73Be | 44.31Acd | 13.35Bc | 2.19Cf | 4.69Ab | 4.92Bd | |
LS | 2.34Be | 84.11Aa | 13.55Bbc | 1.47Bbc | 44.54Ae | 44.47Ae | 14.64Aa | 2.32Ad | 4.75Ab | 4.25Ac | |
EA | US | 13.32Be | 63.98Bb | 22.70Ab | 1.42Aa | 40.53Bg | 40.20Bd | 14.64Ae | 2.53Ae | 4.88Ac | 5.08Ad |
MS | 5.40Cc | 85.73Aa | 8.87Cc | 1.43Aa | 42.20Ade | 43.65Ac | 14.67Bd | 0.85Be | 4.89Abc | 4.45Ad | |
LS | 28.88Ac | 58.31Cb | 12.80Bbc | 1.22Aa | 44.01Ae | 43.5Ade | 21.04Ad | 3.53Abe | 4.87Ab | 9.02Ad |
土壤抗剪强度是表征土壤抗侵蚀力的重要指标,被广泛应用于土壤侵蚀研究中,其大小受黏聚力、内摩擦角及法向应力3个因素的影响。如
不同植被恢复类型各部位(内摩擦角、黏聚力)雷达图
The distribution of soil cohesion and internal friction angle at different vegetation restoration types
不同空间部位的抗剪强度参数见
不同植被恢复类型各部位抗剪强度统计参数
Statistics of soil shear strength relative to position of different vegetation restoration types
部位 |
最小值 |
最大值 |
平均值 |
标准误差 |
变异系数 |
|
黏聚力 |
上坡 |
2.78 | 12.04 | 6.75 | 3.01 | 44.59 |
中坡 |
1.47 | 11.27 | 5.38 | 3.19 | 59.29 | |
下坡 |
1.48 | 14.28 | 6.66 | 4.19 | 62.91 | |
内摩擦角 |
上坡 |
40.45 | 46.99 | 42.54 | 1.99 | 4.33 |
中坡 |
34.04 | 49.75 | 42.04 | 1.43 | 6.14 | |
下坡 |
37.45 | 45.49 | 41.82 | 1.71 | 4.09 |
土壤抗剪强度主要受内摩擦角和黏聚力的影响,而这些因素与土壤的理化性质存在紧密联系。根据崩岗治理后的周围环境条件,本文采用约束性排序方法分析不同植被类型土壤基本性质与黏聚力和内摩擦角之间的关系。RDA排序结果显示了黏聚力与内摩擦角和土壤基本性质之间的相关关系:箭头长短,表示两者之间相关性的大小。由
基于RDA排序的土壤抗剪强度与环境因素排序
RDA ranking diagram of soil shear strength and environmental factors
将上述参数与两个抗剪强度指标分别进行逐步回归分析,根据结果选定了总孔隙度、毛管孔隙、黏粒含量和饱和导水率作为最适参数指标与土壤抗剪强度参数进行拟合。用上述四个参数来描述抗剪强度变化特征,并对它们进行拟合,分别呈现出如
土壤基本性质与抗剪强度指标的关系
Relationship between soil basic physicochemical properties and shear strength index
通过土壤基本理化性质来定量分析抗剪强度指标,采用拟合结果较优的黏粒含量与毛管孔隙为自变量,构造以黏聚力和内摩擦角为因变量的多元回归模型:采用决定系数(
式中,
通过测量饱和状态下不同恢复年限崩岗的土壤抗剪强度,基于土壤基本性质,建立崩岗土壤侵蚀预报模型。预测值与实测值具有良好的重叠度(
崩岗系统内土壤粉粒含量高,持水能力弱,土壤养分低。从空间角度看,随地势降低,毛管孔隙度总体呈升高趋势,黏粒、粉粒等细颗粒物质占比也不断上升,汇聚于下坡。土壤养分含量上升,保水保肥能力提高。此外,土壤黏聚力随地势降低而升高,内摩擦角则随恢复时间的增长出现缓慢下降趋势,并且柑橘地的土壤抗剪能力优于灌木地。总孔隙、毛管孔隙、黏粒含量和饱和导水率构建的多元回归模型,能够在不通过抗剪切实验基础上,仅利用土壤基本性质,有效、方便地预测崩岗的土壤抗剪强度。但缺少对植物根系的研究,对于土壤性质的差异存在一定的不确定性。因此,在后期试验中需要对植被根系特征进行更为深入的研究,以及对0~20 cm范围内不同土层的原状土进行样本分析,以期为南方崩岗侵蚀区治理恢复技术提供更有效的参考。
Zeng Z X. Soil erosion on the red soil regions in South China[J]. Renmin Zhujiang, 1992, 13(6): 15-20.
曾昭璇. 华南红土区水土流失问题[J]. 人民珠江, 1992, 13(6): 15-20.
Liang Y, Ning D H, Pan X Z, et al. Characteristic and management of dilapidated granite erosion of red soil region in south[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2009(1): 31-34.
梁音, 宁堆虎, 潘贤章, 等. 南方红壤区崩岗侵蚀的特点与治理[J]. 中国水土保持, 2009(1): 31-34.
Xiao S S, Yang J, Fang S W, et al. Different control measures for collapsed gully erosion in hilly red soil region of South China[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2014, 31(1): 18-22.
肖胜生, 杨洁, 方少文, 等. 南方红壤丘陵崩岗不同防治模式探讨[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2014, 31(1): 18-22.
Li S X, Gui H Z, Ding S W. Features of special layout of hill collapse in South China[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2013, 32(1): 83-86.
李双喜, 桂惠中, 丁树文. 中国南方崩岗空间分布特征[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2013, 32(1): 83-86.
Feng M H, Liao C Y, Li S X, et al. Investigation on status of hill collapsing and soil erosion in Southern China[J]. Yangtze River, 2009, 40(8): 66-68, 75.
冯明汉, 廖纯艳, 李双喜, 等. 我国南方崩岗侵蚀现状调查[J]. 人民长江, 2009, 40(8): 66-68, 75.
Liao Y S, Tang C Y, Yuan Z J, et al. Research progress on Benggang erosion and its prevention measure in red soil region of Southern China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2018, 55(6): 1297-1312.
廖义善, 唐常源, 袁再健, 等. 南方红壤区崩岗侵蚀及其防治研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2018, 55(6): 1297-1312.
Yang J H, Dong J Y, Huang Z Q, et al. Large-scale direct shear tests on accumulation body with different stone contents[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 38(S2): 161-166.
杨继红, 董金玉, 黄志全, 等. 不同含石量条件下堆积体抗剪强度特性的大型直剪试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2016, 38(S2): 161-166.
Feng S Y, Wen H, Ni S M, et al. Study on integrated control measure modes of typical collapsing in the south of China[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2019(2): 18-22.
冯舒悦, 文慧, 倪世民, 等. 南方典型崩岗综合治理模式研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2019(2): 18-22.
Lei J, Zhang G M, Liu L Y, et al. Measuring soil shear strength and impact factors[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University(Natural Science), 2016, 52(4): 486-492.
雷洁, 张国明, 刘连友, 等. 土壤抗剪强度测定与影响因素研究进展[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 52(4): 486-492.
Amiri Khaboushan E, Emami H, Mosaddeghi M R, et al. Estimation of unsaturated shear strength parameters using easily-available soil properties[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2018, 184: 118-127.
Knapen A, Poesen J, Govers G, et al. Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: A review[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2007, 80(1/2): 75-109.
Léonard J, Richard G. Estimation of runoff critical shear stress for soil erosion from soil shear strength[J]. Catena, 2004, 57(3): 233-249.
Xu X Y, Zhao Z L, Tang L S. Experimental research for shear strength and influencing factors of granite residual soil in Guangzhou area[J]. Guangdong Architecture Civil Engineering, 2018, 25(7): 89-94.
徐晓宇, 赵占仑, 汤连生. 广州地区花岗岩残积土抗剪强度及其影响因素试验研究[J]. 广东土木与建筑, 2018, 25(7): 89-94.
Chen H X, Li F H, Hao S L, et al. Effects of soil water content and soil sodicity on soil shearing strength[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2007, 23(2): 21-25.
陈红星, 李法虎, 郝仕玲, 等. 土壤含水率与土壤碱度对土壤抗剪强度的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2007, 23(2): 21-25.
Lin J L, Huang Y H, Zhang D B, et al. Influence of soil moisture content on shear characteristics of Benggang[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2013, 27(3): 55-58.
林敬兰, 黄炎和, 张德斌, 等. 水分对崩岗土体抗剪切特性的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2013, 27(3): 55-58.
Zhang B, Zhao Q G, Horn R, et al. Shear strength of surface soil as affected by soil bulk density and soil water content[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2001, 59(3/4): 97-106.
Singh H V, Thompson A M. Effect of antecedent soil moisture content on soil critical shear stress in agricultural watersheds[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 262: 165-173.
Chen X A. Stratified difference of soil physical properties of collapse mound erosion areas and its influence to the development of collapse mound[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2015(12): 71-72, 86.
陈晓安. 崩岗侵蚀区土壤物理性质分层差异及其对崩岗发育的影响[J]. 中国水土保持, 2015(12): 71-72, 86.
Feng S Y, Wang J G, Wen H, et al. Soil shear strength of collapsing erosion area in south Jiangxi of China relative to position of the soil and its influencing factors[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2020, 57(1): 71-83.
冯舒悦, 王军光, 文慧, 等. 赣南崩岗侵蚀区不同部位土壤抗剪强度及影响因素研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(1): 71-83.
Zhang C L, Wang X S, Zou X Y, et al. Estimation of surface shear strength of undisturbed soils in the eastern part of Northern China's wind erosion area[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2018, 178: 1-10.
Chen X, Su F L, Li H F, et al. Study on soil shear strength of main vegetation types in desertification area of western Liaoning Province[J]. Yangtze River, 2020, 51(5): 84-88.
陈旭, 苏芳莉, 李海福, 等. 辽西沙化地区主要植被类型土壤抗剪强度研究[J]. 人民长江, 2020, 51(5): 84-88.
Li J X, He B H, Chen Y, et al. Root distribution features of typical herb plants for slope protection and their effects on soil shear strength[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2013, 29(10): 144-152.
李建兴, 何丙辉, 谌芸, 等. 不同护坡草本植物的根系分布特征及其对土壤抗剪强度的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(10): 144-152.
Yi Y L. Soil physics research method[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2009.
依艳丽. 土壤物理研究法[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2009.
Lu R K. Analytical methods for soil and agro-chemistry[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
Wang S L. Study on soil water characteristics and fertility based on the terracing of collapsing hill in jingouxing small watershed of Ganxian in Jiangxi Province[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2016.
王书玲. 江西赣县金钩形小流域崩岗削坡开梯土壤水分特征及肥力研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2016.
Chen X M, Huang D A, Wu H S. Characteristics of macropores and their affecting factors of major paddy soils in Taihu Lake region[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2006, 43(3): 509-512.
陈效民, 黄德安, 吴华山. 太湖地区主要水稻土的大孔隙特征及其影响因素研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2006, 43(3): 509-512.
Zhang X M, Ding S W, Cai C F. Effects of drying and wetting on nonlinear decay of soil shear strength in slope disintegration erosion area[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2012, 28(5): 241-245.
张晓明, 丁树文, 蔡崇法. 干湿效应下崩岗区岩土抗剪强度衰减非线性分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2012, 28(5): 241-245.
Ni J P, Gao M, Wei C F, et al. Dynamics of soil shearing strength of three types of soils under wetting-drying alternation in Chongqing area[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2013, 50(6): 1090-1101.
倪九派, 高明, 魏朝富, 等. 干湿循环条件下重庆地区三种土壤抗剪强度的动态变化[J]. 土壤学报, 2013, 50(6): 1090-1101.
Huang Y J, Fu M F, Liu W P. Experimental study on shear strength of soil in collapse area[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2017, 35(12): 127-130.
黄莹晶, 扶名福, 刘伟平. 崩岗区残积土抗剪强度试验研究[J]. 水电能源科学, 2017, 35(12): 127-130.
Zhang X M, Zhang J C, Wang Y N, et al. Research on soil shear strength of the major forest types in headwaters of Qiantang River[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 22(4): 79-84, 90.
张晓勉, 张金池, 王云南, 等. 钱塘江源头主要植被类型土壤抗剪强度研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(4): 79-84, 90.
Chen X A, Yang J, Xiong Y, et al. Research on the soil characteristics and factors of collapsing erosion in the red soil zone[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2013, 44(10): 1175-1181.
陈晓安, 杨洁, 熊永, 等. 红壤区崩岗侵蚀的土壤特性与影响因素研究[J]. 水利学报, 2013, 44(10): 1175-1181.
Xue L, Wang S J, Li X, et al. Impact of soil particle deletion on erosion resistance of purple soil in Chongqing based on strength index[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2019, 56(3): 582-591.
薛乐, 汪时机, 李贤, 等. 重庆紫色土抗侵蚀能力的粒组效应研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(3): 582-591.