郑鹏(1995—),男,湖北宜昌人,硕士研究生,主要从事水土保持工程技术研究。E-mail:
露天煤矿排土场土壤理化特性差直接影响复垦效果,改善土壤水分特性对排土场的复垦具有重要的理论与实践意义。本试验以内蒙古自治区的黑岱沟露天煤矿为对象进行土壤改良试验,将粉煤灰(F)、砒砂岩(S)作为添加物,对排土场土壤(L)进行3种组合处理(LF、LS、LFS)并设置不同的质量比例梯度,试验共设(L3F1、L4F1、L5F1、L1S1、L2S1、L3S1、L4S1、L5S1、L1F1S1、L2F1S1、L3F1S1、L4F1S1、L5F1S1)13种不同质量比的混合处理和(L、F、S)3种对照处理,采用离心机法测定各复配土壤在不同水吸力下的含水量,利用Gardner模型拟合并绘制其水分特征曲线,计算各复配土壤的比水容量、田间持水量、萎蔫系数、有效水含量。结果表明:(1)Gardner模型能够很好地拟合13种复配土壤的水分特征曲线,粉煤灰的添加使排土场土壤中的细土粒含量(黏粒、粉粒)增加了24.11%~37.19%,提高了土壤的持水性和供水性,添加砒砂岩能够改良土壤的持水性但不能改良供水性能。(2)排土场土壤、粉煤灰、砒砂岩质量比为1︰1︰1(L1F1S1)时持水性能最好,较排土场土壤提高了47.6%;排土场土壤、粉煤灰质量比为3︰1(L3F1)时其供水性能最好,较排土场土壤提高了40.23%。(3)LF组合处理和LFS组合处理的田间持水量和有效水含量随着添加物比例的增加而提升,当排土场土壤、粉煤灰质量比为3︰1(L3F1)时田间持水量最大为18.02%,排土场土壤、粉煤灰、砒砂岩质量比为1︰1︰1(L1F1S1)时有效水含量最大为13.1%。综上,粉煤灰、砒砂岩综合利用有利于煤矿排土场土壤水分特性的改良,且复配土壤的黏粒、粉粒含量在30%~35%范围时,土壤的持水供水能力较好,在本试验中三者按1︰1︰1的质量比例进行复配效果最佳。
Reclaimed soil in an open-air coal mine is highly infertile due to its poor physical and chemical characteristics. The reclamation methods usually improve soil moisture content which has important theoretical and practical significance for the reclaimed mine soil.
This experiment was conducted in the Heidaigou open-air coal mine in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in which the following treatments were applied; fly ash, arsenic sandstone and dump soil. A certain mass ratio gradient was set, including 13 blended treatments denoted as L3F1, L4F1, L5F1, L1S1, L2S1, L3S1, L4S1, L5S1, L1F1S1, L2F1S1, L3F1S1, L4F1S1, L5F1S1, in which the L, F, S represented three kinds of controlled treatments. The volumetric water content of each compound soil under different water suctions was measured by the centrifuge method for the drawing of the water characteristic curve using the Gardner fitting model. The specific water capacity, field water capacity, wilting coefficient and effective water content of each treatment were also calculated.
The results showed that the Gardner model was appropriate to fit the water characteristic curves of the 13 compound soils. The addition of fly ash increased the content of fine soil particles (i.e., clay and silt) by 24.11% to 37.19%, respectively, and improved the water holding capacity and water supply of soil. Furthermore, the addition of arsenic sandstone improved the water holding capacity of soil but failed to improve the water supply performance. The water holding capacity of L1F1S1 treatment and water supply performance of L3F1 treatment was the best, which was 47.6% and 40.23% higher than that of the dump soil, respectively. The field water holding capacity and available water content of LF combined treatment and LFS combined treatment were enhanced with the increase of additive proportion. When the mass ratio of soil and fly ash in the dump was 3︰1 (L3F1), the maximum field water holding capacity was 18.02%. On the other hand, the maximum available water content was 13.1% with the mass ratio of soil, fly ash and arsenic sandstone of 1︰1︰1 (L1F1S1).
Overall, the comprehensive utilization of fly ash and arsenic sandstone is beneficial to improve the soil water characteristics of coal mine dump, and the soil water holding capacity and water supply capacity is better when the clay and silt contents of the soil are within the range of 30%-35%. In this experiment, the mass ratio of 1︰1︰1 is the best.
黄土高原地区煤炭资源丰富,所持有的大型煤矿与煤炭开采量均占全国的60%以上[
土壤水分是干旱半干旱地区植物生长的主要限制因子,对于排土场土壤这种存在问题的土壤,改善土壤水分特性对于土壤复垦和生态修复具有重要意义[
黑岱沟露天煤矿(39°43′—39°49′N,111°13′—111°20′E)位于内蒙古自治区鄂尔多斯市准格尔煤田中部,地处黄河西岸,是晋、陕、蒙接壤黄土地区的一部分。排土场的土壤为复填土,土壤堆积过程经过了剧烈扰动和碾压,地貌平坦且质地较轻,养分含量低,土壤结构性差,是典型的矿区土壤类型,极易发生水土流失[
本试验在实验室进行模拟研究。试验所用砒砂岩系内蒙古准格尔旗的黄砒砂岩,其中黏土矿物主要以水敏性的蒙脱石族矿物为主,骨骼颗粒主要由石英、长石组成,颗粒间孔隙较少,但裂隙相对较多,并且颗粒间及颗粒表面赋存的胶结物质较多,胶结结构属于较为松散的基底—孔隙式结构,化学组成中SiO2含量最高,约为40%~50%,Al2O3含量在7%~16%,Fe2O3含量在1%~7%[
实验前先将三种试验材料风干研磨后过2 mm孔径筛,混合均匀后采用四分法取样,并用英国马尔文的Mastersizer 2000测定机械组成(国际制),试验材料的机械组成测定结果如
试验材料的机械组成
Mechanical composition of the test material
试验材料 |
机械组成 |
土壤质地 |
||
黏粒 |
粉粒 |
砂粒 |
||
排土场土壤Dump soil(L) | 4.1 | 18.3 | 77.6 | 砂质土壤 |
粉煤灰Fly ash(F) | 8.7 | 47.0 | 44.3 | 粉砂质土壤 |
砒砂岩Arsenic sandstone(S) | 11.4 | 14.3 | 74.2 | 砂质土壤 |
考虑到土壤改良的可行性和经济性,设定添加物的比例小于排土场土壤比例,否则需要大量的添加物,工程的可操作性和经济性将严重降低。本试验将粉煤灰标记为F,砒砂岩标记为S,排土场土壤标记为L,设计(LF组合处理、LS组合处理、LFS组合处理)三组不同的混合方式,每组按不同的比例梯度混合设计(如
各试验处理复配质量比例设计
The composite mass proportion of each test treatment
LF处理Treatment LF | LS处理Treatment LS | LFS处理Treatment LFS | ||||||||||||||
L3F1 | L4F1 | L5F1 | L1S1 | L2S1 | L3S1 | L4S1 | L5S1 | L1F1S1 | L2F1S1 | L3F1S1 | L4F1S1 | L5F1S1 | ||||
注:L:排土场土壤;F:粉煤灰;S:砒砂岩,下同。Note:L:Dump soil,F:Fly ash,S:Arsenic sandstone. The same as below. | ||||||||||||||||
质量比例 |
3︰1 | 4︰1 | 5︰1 | 1︰1 | 2︰1 | 3︰1 | 4︰1 | 5︰1 | 1︰1︰1 | 2︰1︰1 | 3︰1︰1 | 4︰1︰1 | 5︰1︰1 |
Gardner模型符合脱水曲线的中低水吸力段,能较好地表达土壤水分特征曲线的变化趋势。宋佳龙等[
式中,a、b为经验参数;S为土壤水吸力(100 kPa);θ为体积含水量(cm3·cm–3),将上式对土壤含水量θ求导得出土壤比水容量的计算公式为:
式中,Cθ为土壤的比水容量,参数A为土壤水吸力S=100 kPa时的容积含水量,在一定程度上反映了土壤持水能力的大小[
通过复配土壤的水分特征曲线可以得到一些重要的水分参数。在该类型复配土壤中,田间持水量大约相当于水吸力为33 kPa时的土壤含水量,萎蔫系数大约相当于水吸力为1500 kPa时的土壤含水量[
数据通过Excel进行初步整理计算,使用Origin 2018进行土壤水分特征曲线的拟合与绘制。
排土场土壤与粉煤灰、砒砂岩复配后土壤的机械组成改变显著(
不同处理土壤复配土壤的机械组成
Mechanical composition of fly ash, arsenic sandstone and dump soil
排土场土壤与砒砂岩(a)排土场土壤与粉煤灰(b)排土场土壤与粉煤灰、砒砂岩(c)不同复配比例土壤的水分特征曲线
(a)soil-water characteristic curve of arsenic sandstone and dump soil with different mix ratios; (b)soil-water characteristic curve of fly ash and dump soil with different mix ratios; (c)soil-water characteristic curve of arsenic sandstone, fly ash and dump soil with different mix ratios
不同处理下土壤水分特征曲线拟合方程
The curve fitting equation of soil moisture characteristics under different treatments
处理 |
拟合方程 |
处理 |
拟合方程 |
|||
F | 0.975 0 | L3S1 | 0.969 8 | |||
S | 0.982 0 | L4S1 | 0.961 1 | |||
L | 0.947 6 | L5S1 | 0.972 6 | |||
L3F1 | 0.992 6 | L1F1S1 | 0.992 9 | |||
L4F1 | 0.993 0 | L2F1S1 | 0.982 1 | |||
L5F1 | 0.990 0 | L3F1S1 | 0.986 9 | |||
L1S1 | 0.972 3 | L4F1S1 | 0.981 2 | |||
L2S1 | 0.960 0 | L5F1S1 | 0.980 2 |
利用
不同水吸力下不同处理复配土壤的比水容重/[mL·(100 kPa·g)–1]]
Specific water capacity of soil mixed with different mass ratios of arsenic sandstone, fly ash and dump soil under different water suction
处理 |
土壤水吸力Soil water suction/(kPa) | |||||||||||
3 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 70 | 100 | 300 | 500 | 700 | 1 000 | |
F | 2.32 | 2.20 | 2.13 | 1.35 | 3.31×10–1 | 1.72×10–1 | 1.42×10–1 | 1.06×10–1 | 8.03×10–2 | 7.04×10–2 | 1.02×10–2 | 8.89×10–3 |
S | 1.09 | 9.12×10–1 | 6.01×10–1 | 5.00×10–1 | 1.14×10–1 | 6.39×10–2 | 4.35×10–2 | 1.56×10–2 | 6.28×10–3 | 4.63×10–3 | 3.01×10–3 | 1.65×10–3 |
L | 1.49 | 1.41 | 1.35 | 8.48×10–1 | 2.02×10–1 | 9.94×10–2 | 6.69×10–2 | 2.33×10–2 | 9.00×10–3 | 6.15×10–3 | 4.55×10–3 | 2.01×10–3 |
L3F1 | 1.75 | 1.69 | 1.63 | 1.32 | 2.99×10–1 | 1.50×10–1 | 9.54×10–1 | 9.54×10–2 | 9.01×10–3 | 6.79×10–3 | 5.44×10–3 | 5.33×10–3 |
L4F1 | 1.83 | 1.72 | 1.60 | 1.04 | 2.54×10–1 | 1.31×10–1 | 1.02×10–1 | 8.51×10–2 | 5.31×10–2 | 8.95×10–3 | 6.58×10–3 | 5.12×10–3 |
L5F1 | 1.89 | 1.75 | 1.58 | 1.05 | 2.52×10–1 | 1.30×10–1 | 1.16×10–1 | 8.41×10–2 | 5.30×10–2 | 8.22×10–3 | 6.43×10–3 | 5.02×10–3 |
L1S1 | 1.19 | 1.10 | 1.00 | 6.47×10–1 | 1.69×10–1 | 9.03×10–2 | 5.98×10–2 | 1.72×10–2 | 7.01×10–3 | 5.40×10–3 | 3.70×10–3 | 1.75×10–3 |
L2S1 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 1.08 | 6.91×10–1 | 1.75×10–1 | 9.24×10–2 | 6.07×10–2 | 1.75×10–2 | 7.84×10–3 | 5.20×10–3 | 3.74×10–3 | 1.78×10–3 |
L3S1 | 1.29 | 1.20 | 1.18 | 7.51×10–1 | 1.86×10–1 | 9.71×10–2 | 6.33×10–2 | 1.85×10–2 | 7.96×10–3 | 5.20×10–3 | 3.98×10–3 | 1.82×10–3 |
L4S1 | 1.32 | 1.25 | 1.19 | 7.58×10–1 | 1.87×10–1 | 9.77×10–2 | 6.36×10–2 | 1.99×10–2 | 7.98×10–3 | 5.42×10–3 | 4.01×10–3 | 1.85×10–3 |
L5S1 | 1.42 | 1.38 | 1.34 | 1.13 | 1.98×10–1 | 9.99×10–2 | 6.49×10–2 | 2.03×10–2 | 7.58×10–3 | 5.90×10–3 | 4.32×10–3 | 1.98×10–3 |
L1F1S1 | 1.87 | 1.81 | 1.76 | 1.11 | 2.71×10–1 | 1.41×10–1 | 1.21×10–1 | 9.2×10–2 | 5.66×10–2 | 7.31×10–3 | 9.52×10–3 | 5.33×10–3 |
L2F1S1 | 1.72 | 1.75 | 1.66 | 1.05 | 2.46×10–1 | 1.32×10–1 | 1.28×10–1 | 8.2×10–2 | 5.00×10–2 | 6.83×10–3 | 9.11×10–3 | 5.23×10–3 |
L3F1S1 | 1.77 | 1.70 | 1.64 | 1.03 | 2.55×10–1 | 1.28×10–1 | 1.25×10–1 | 7.58×10–2 | 4.52×10–2 | 9.03×10–3 | 6.59×10–3 | 4.86×10–3 |
L4F1S1 | 1.76 | 1.71 | 1.61 | 1.01 | 2.43×10–1 | 1.26×10–1 | 1.11×10–1 | 7.5×10–2 | 3.89×10–2 | 6.28×10–3 | 8.56×10–3 | 4.23×10–3 |
L5F1S1 | 1.7 | 1.68 | 1.60 | 1.00 | 2.44×10–1 | 1.25×10–1 | 1.10×10–1 | 7.20×10–2 | 3.21×10–2 | 6.15×10–3 | 8.23×10–3 | 4.12×10–3 |
A*B值可用来反映土壤供水能力的大小。纯粉煤灰的供水性最好,A*B值为0.0709,纯砒砂岩A*B的值仅为0.0290,小于排土场土壤的A*B值0.042,供水性最差。FS组合处理的复配土壤A*B值排序为:S < L1S1 < L2S1 < L3S1 < L4S1 < L5S1 < L,A*B的值随砒砂岩质量比例的增加而减小;组合处理LFS间的A*B的值由L5F1S1处理的0.0506增加至L5F1S1处理的0.0578,A*B的值与砒砂岩、粉煤灰的混合比例有显著的线性关系,其线性方程为
不同处理复配土壤的田间持水量(a)、萎蔫系数(b)、速效水含量(c)、迟效水含量(d)
Field capacity(a), wilting coefficient(b), rapidly available water content(c)and delayed water content(d)of soils mixed with fly ash, arsenic sandstone and dump soil in different proportions
研究结果表明,砒砂岩、粉煤灰与排土场土壤混合能够改良土壤的持水性,且随着添加比例的增加,土壤水分特征曲线呈上移的趋势,复配土壤的持水能力逐渐增强,当等质量比的砒砂岩、粉煤灰比加入到排土场土壤中时,A值变化规律与砒砂岩、粉煤灰单独添加情况相同,且L1F1S1处理的A值大于L1S1处理和L3F1处理,故在排土场土壤中添加等质量比的砒砂岩和粉煤灰能够提高土壤的持水性,且持水效果优于砒砂岩、粉煤灰单独与排土场土壤混合。这是因为在排土场土壤中添加粉煤灰显著改变了原土壤的机械组成,添加比例越高复配土壤的细土粒含量越高,其中L1F1S1处理的黏粒、粉粒含量最高达34.6%,相较于排土场土壤提高了54.46%,随着土粒粒径的减小,土粒的吸湿量、持水量不断增加[
在排土场土壤中添加粉煤灰或者等质量比的砒砂岩、粉煤灰混合物则能够很好地改良排土场土壤的供水性能,且添加比例越高,供水性能越好,而砒砂岩并不能改良排土场土壤的供水性能。其中L1F1S1处理、L3F1处理的A*B值最大分别为0.0539、0.0589,相较于排土场土壤分别提高了28.33%、40.23%,这说明当排土场土壤与粉煤灰复配比例为3︰1时,土壤供水性能最好,排土场土壤、粉煤灰、砒砂岩以1︰1︰1的比例混合时也能够很好地改良土壤的供水性能,但效果与纯粉煤灰相比次之。这是因为粉煤灰的加入改变了排土场土壤的孔隙结构,小粒径的粉煤灰颗粒具有丰富的小孔隙和巨大的比表面积,使得总孔隙度减少而毛管孔隙比例升高[
在排土场土壤中添加粉煤灰、砒砂岩或者等质量比的砒砂岩、粉煤灰混合物均可以提高土壤的田间持水量,其中粉煤灰的效果最好;虽然砒砂岩能够改良土壤的田间持水量,但其降低了排土场土壤的有效水含量,这是因为砒砂岩虽然提高了复配土壤的田间持水量,但由于蒙脱石系2︰1型的晶层结构,晶层间的结合力很弱,具有很大的胀缩性,遇水膨胀使得胶结较弱的砒砂岩破碎[
(1)Gardener模型(
Bai Z K, Wang W Y, Li J C, et al. Ecological rehabilitation of drastically disturbed land at large opencut coal mine in loess area[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1998, 9(6): 621—626.
白中科, 王文英, 李晋川, 等. 黄土区大型露天煤矿剧烈扰动土地生态重建研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 1998, 9(6): 621—626.
Zhang L, Han J C, Luo L T, et al. Water-holding characteristics of compounded soil with feldspathic sandstone and aeolian sandy soil[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University(Natural Science Edition), 2014, 42(2): 207—214.
张露, 韩霁昌, 罗林涛, 等. 砒砂岩与风沙土复配土壤的持水特性研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 42(2): 207—214.
Wang Z H, Liu Z B, Chen J P. Research on plan of land reclamation and ecological reconstruction in Hei Daigou Open Mine[J]. Opencast Coal Mining Technology, 2003, 18(1): 19—21.
王志宏, 刘志斌, 陈建平. 黑岱沟露天煤矿土地复垦及生态重建规划研究[J]. 露天采矿技术, 2003, 18(1): 19—21.
Wang S F, Cao Y G, Bai Z K, et al. Spatial characteristics of reconstructed soil texture in dumping site of loess open-pit mining area[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2020, 35(6): 40—51.
王舒菲, 曹银贵, 白中科, 等. 黄土露天矿区排土场重构土壤质地空间特征研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2020, 35(6): 40—51.
Liu Z, Han L, Wang D Y, et al. Soil physicochemical properties and quality assessment in the coal mining area of Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2021, 46(5): 1555—1564.
刘钊, 韩磊, 王丹月, 等. 陕北黄土高原煤矿区土壤理化性质及质量评价[J]. 煤炭学报, 2021, 46(5): 1555—1564.
Huang Y H, Cao Y G, Pietrzykowski M, et al. Spatial distribution characteristics of reconstructed soil bulk density of opencast coal-mine in the loess area of China[J]. Catena, 2021, 199: 105116.
Xi M Z, Zhao Z Q, Bai Z K, et al. A review on soil carbon sequestration in reclaimed opencast coal mine[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2019, 50(3): 748—756.
席梅竹, 赵中秋, 白中科, 等. 露天煤矿区复垦土壤碳库研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(3): 748—756.
Li H K, Zhang Y N. Evaluation of soil quality in the dump of Heidaigou mining area, Inner Mongolia[J]. Soil and Water Conservation in China, 2014(10): 63—66.
李海宽, 张雅楠. 内蒙古黑岱沟矿区排土场土壤质量评价[J]. 中国水土保持, 2014(10): 63—66.
Shan L. Plant water use efficiency and agricultural water use in semi-arid regions[J]. Plant Physiology Communications, 1994, 30(1): 61—66.
山仑. 植物水分利用效率和半干旱地区农业用水[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1994, 30(1): 61—66.
Vos C, Don A, Prietz R, et al. Field-based soil-texture estimates could replace laboratory analysis[J]. Geoderma, 2016, 267: 215—219.
Wu L, Zheng Y H, Zhang Z G, et al. Assessment of nutrient and pollution risk of fly ash as a soil amendment[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2020, 43(9): 219—227.
武琳, 郑永红, 张治国, 等. 粉煤灰用作土壤改良剂的养分和污染风险评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2020, 43(9): 219—227.
Zhao L, Tang Z J, Liu F. Laboratory tests of fly ash as a sandy soil amendment and its effects on soil water[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2009, 29(9): 1951—1957.
赵亮, 唐泽军, 刘芳. 粉煤灰改良沙质土壤水分物理性质的室内试验[J]. 环境科学学报, 2009, 29(9): 1951—1957.
Song G L, Han L B, Li D Y. Hydraulic conductivity characteristics of rootzones at different ratios of sand to soil[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2008, 30(4): 89—94.
宋桂龙, 韩烈保, 李德颖. 不同沙土配比根系层导水特性研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2008, 30(4): 89—94.
Gangloff W J, Ghodrati M, Sims J T, et al. Impact of fly ash amendment and incorporation method on hydraulic properties of a sandy soil[J]. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2000, 119(1/2/3/4): 231—245.
Liu H T, Zheng J Y, Li G L, et al. Characteristics of soil aggregates in the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Monglia opencast coal dump, China[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2021, 40(1): 137—143.
刘鸿涛, 郑纪勇, 李高亮, 等. 晋陕蒙露天煤矿排土场土壤团聚体的变化特征[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(1): 137—143.
Tang J, Dang T H, Xue J, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil aggregate characteristics of an opencast coal mine dump in the loess area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(16): 5067—5077.
唐骏, 党廷辉, 薛江, 等. 植被恢复对黄土区煤矿排土场土壤团聚体特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(16): 5067—5077.
Ge L, Li J, Peng B. Study on microstructure characteristics of soft rocks in Ordos[J]. Land Development and Engineering Research, 2019, 4(8): 36—42.
葛磊, 李娟, 彭飚. 鄂尔多斯砒砂岩微观结构特征研究[J]. 西部大开发: 土地开发工程研究, 2019, 4(8): 36—42.
Li K Y, Li Y S. Significance and application of soil moisture characteristic curve[J]. Shaanxi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1991, 37(4): 47—48.
李开元, 李玉山. 土壤水分特征曲线的意义及其应用[J]. 陕西农业科学, 1991, 37(4): 47—48.
Li Y L, Guo C Y, Xu M. Non-saturated layer moisture content characteristic curve empirical formula research[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2010, 19(8): 105—109.
李云龙, 郭春颖, 徐敏. 非饱和带水分特征曲线经验公式研究[J]. 中国矿业, 2010, 19(8): 105—109.
Yuan J F. Soil moisture characteristic curve and soil moisture hysteresis[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 1986, 17(1): 43—47.
袁剑舫. 土壤水分特征曲线和土壤水分的滞后现象[J]. 土壤通报, 1986, 17(1): 43—47.
Fu X L, Shao M A, Lü D Q. Quantitative relationship between mass water content, pressure head and bulk density in determination of soil water retention characteristics Ⅱ. Undisturbed soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(1): 50—55.
付晓莉, 邵明安, 吕殿青. 土壤持水特征测定中质量含水量、吸力和容重三者间定量关系Ⅱ. 原状土壤[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(1): 50—55.
Ning T, Guo Z S, Li Y L. Soil water characteristic curves and soil water constants at different depths in the abandoned sloping field of loess hilly region[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 28(3): 166—170.
宁婷, 郭忠升, 李耀林. 黄土丘陵区撂荒坡地土壤水分特征曲线及水分常数的垂直变异[J]. 水土保持学报, 2014, 28(3): 166—170.
Yang D, Ma Y D. Feasibility studies on coal-fly-ash application in refuse dump of coal mine for soil improvement[J]. Journal of Liaoning Technical University, 2006, 25(S1): 324—326.
杨丹, 马云东. 用粉煤灰对煤矿排土场土壤改良可行性研究[J]. 辽宁工程技术大学学报, 2006, 25(S1): 324—326.
Mi M X, Shao M A, Wu X G, ,et al. The effects of coal gangues and caliche nodules on plant growth and soil moisture[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2021, 58(6): 1460—1471.
米美霞, 邵明安, 武小刚, 等. 煤矸石和钙结石对植物生长和土壤含水量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(6): 1460—1471.
Shang M T, Zhang J Y, Liu J F, et al. Effects of macropore on soil specific water capacity and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2012, 31(2): 1—5.
尚熳廷, 张建云, 刘九夫, 等. 大孔隙对土壤比水容重及非饱和导水率影响的实验研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2012, 31(2): 1—5.
Huang C Y. Coursematerials for the 21 st century-Soil science[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000: 24—25.
黄昌勇. 面向21世纪课程教材土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 24—25.
Zheng Z C, Li W, Li T X, et al. Soil water retention curve based on fractal theory in greenhouse soil[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2012, 43(5): 49—54.
郑子成, 李卫, 李廷轩, 等. 基于分形理论的设施土壤水分特征曲线研究[J]. 农业机械学报, 2012, 43(5): 49—54.