韦江杏(2000—),广西河池人,主要从事土壤侵蚀与水土保持等方面研究。E-mail:
界限含水率是土壤水理性质的重要参数,可表征土体状态随含水量变化而变化的能力,与崩岗土体稳定性密切相关,对预测降雨和崩岗侵蚀关系具有重要意义。本研究选取桂东南区活动型、半稳定型和稳定型3种花岗岩崩岗为研究对象,分析各崩岗土壤界限含水率空间变异规律并利用通径分析方法揭示其影响因素。结果表明:崩岗各部位土壤界限含水率在空间上存在差异,活动型和半稳定型崩岗土壤液塑限在崩壁上部有最大值(液限分别为54.45%和57.08%,塑限分别为32.84%和34.04%),洪积锥顶部有最小值(液限分别为35.39%和30.72%,塑限分别为21.92%和20.23%);稳定型崩岗崩壁下部土壤液塑限最小(液限为33.78%,塑限为22.47%);随着崩岗发育逐渐稳定,各部位土壤界限含水率总体呈增加趋势。黏粒、有机质、总孔隙度和毛管孔隙度与土壤液塑限及塑性指数呈极显著正相关关系,其中,总孔隙度对土壤液塑限的影响最显著。总孔隙度、黏粒、有机质、毛管孔隙度对界限含水率变化起主导作用,总孔隙度、黏粒和毛管孔隙度分别是土壤液塑限、塑性指数和液性指数的主要影响因子。此研究结果可进一步明确崩岗侵蚀危害并确定高侵蚀风险部位,为崩岗危害预防与治理提供相关理论支撑。
Collapsing gully is an erosion phenomenon of hillside soil under the effect of gravity damage collapse and hydraulic scouring. It is also the most serious and harmful typical soil erosion mode in the granite red soil area in South China. Collapsing gully is mainly distributed in granite hilly areas in seven provinces of Guangdong, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Fujian, Hunan, Hubei and Anhui, and their erosion modulus is large and widely distributed. This causes serious concerns for the local ecological environment and economic development. Limiting water content is an important parameter of soil hydraulic properties, which can characterize the ability of the soil state to change with a change in water content. Given that this is closely related to the stability of collapsing gullies soil, it is of great significance to predict the relationship between rainfall and collapsing gullies erosion.
We selected three types of granite collapsing gullies in southeastern Guangxi, active, semi-stable and stable, as the object of study to analyze the spatial variation of soil limiting water content in each collapsing gullies and to reveal the influencing factors by using the method of path analysis.
The main results were as follows: (1) Soil limiting water content of each part of collapsing gully varies spatially, the liquid plastic limit of active and semi-stable collapsing gullies soils had maximum value at top of collapsing wall(the liquid limit was 54.45% and 57.08%, the plastic limit was 32.84% and 34.04%, respectively) and minimum value at the top of the pluvial cone(the liquid limit was 35.39% and 30.72%, the plastic limit was 21.92% and 20.23% respectively). Also, the liquid plastic limit of stable collapsing gully had the lowest value at the bottom of the colluvial deposit (the liquid limit was 33.78% and the plastic limit was 22.47%). After gradually stabilizing the development of collapsing gullies, the limiting water content of the soil in each part showed an overall increasing trend.(2) Correlation analysis showed that clay content, organic matter, total porosity and capillary porosity were positively correlated with soil liquid plastic limit and plasticity index, with total porosity having the most significant effect on soil liquid plastic limit. Nevertheless, soil bulk, gravel content and sand content were negatively correlated with soil liquid plastic limit and plasticity index.(3) Path analysis showed that total porosity, clay content, organic matter and capillary porosity played a dominant role in the variation of the limiting water content. Furthermore, total porosity, clay content and capillary porosity were the main factors influencing the liquid plastic limit, plasticity index and liquidity index of soil, respectively. The higher the clay content, total porosity and organic matter, the higher the liquid plastic limit and plasticity index of soil. Also, the stronger the cohesion of the soil, the better the water retention performance of the soil, and the more difficult it is for the soil to crumble and be lost. Capillary porosity negatively affects the liquidity index, that is, the larger the capillary porosity, the lower the liquidity index and the more stable the soil is.
The limiting water content is closely related to the start-up and stability of collapsing gullies. When the limiting water content is low and is washed by rain, the soil state is easy to change, and surface runoff is produced, which causes soil collapse and fertility loss. Therefore, the results of this study can help to clarify the soil erosion process, further clarify the erosion hazards of collapsing gullies and identify high erosion risk areas. It can also provide theoretical support for the prevention and management of collapsing gullies hazard and have important significance for the prediction of regional soil and water conservation.
界限含水率是黏性土从一个稠度状态逐渐过渡到另外一个稠度状态时的分界含水率,可分为液限、塑限和缩限[
崩岗是山坡土体在重力破坏崩塌及水力冲刷作用下的一种侵蚀现象,也是华南花岗岩红壤区侵蚀最严重、危害最大的典型土壤侵蚀方式[
本研究分析了桂东南花岗岩不同发育阶段(活动型、半稳定型、稳定型)的崩岗土壤界限含水率的空间分布规律,探讨了界限含水率与崩岗侵蚀的联系,并结合土壤基本理化性质对界限含水率的影响因素进行通径分析,以期揭示崩岗侵蚀与水力复合作用的内在联系规律,为崩岗侵蚀的预防和治理提供科学依据。
研究区位于广西壮族自治区梧州市龙圩区(22°58′—24°10′N,110°51′—111°40′E),属南亚热带季风气候,易受热带气旋影响,气候温和,雨水充足,太阳辐射光强,年均气温21.2℃,年无霜期323 d,年均降雨量1 507 mm,降雨年内分布极不均匀,冬春两季雨量少,夏秋两季雨量多且集中。该区地形主要为丘陵、低山,土壤以花岗岩风化壳发育的侵蚀性赤红壤为主,结构较为松散,疏松深厚的风化壳可为崩岗的发生提供充足的物质基础。同时,受海拔地带性和纬度地带性影响,湿热条件会限制花岗岩的风化,而梧州市龙圩区山高海拔约为18~474 m,为桂东南低山丘陵地带,常年高温多雨,与该区其他地方相比,水热条件良好,残积红土发育更旺盛;地壳抬升幅度较小,花岗岩风化壳更厚,崩岗形成速度更快。因此,龙圩区的土壤和气候条件为桂东南花岗岩区所特有,同时该区是广西崩岗发育集中区域,也是南方花岗岩崩岗侵蚀的主要分布区域之一[
桂东南区高温湿润的气候特点有助于促进花岗岩等母质风化为深厚的土层,进而发育形成崩岗。因此,该区域崩岗侵蚀类型十分丰富,数量多且大都集中分布于两广交界的苍梧地区。在前期大量调查的基础上,分别选择梧州市龙圩区发育年限约30年的3个花岗岩崩岗,崩岗呈瓢形,土壤剖面层次清晰完整。同时,根据2005年水利部南方崩岗外业普查标准和陈志彪等[
采用常规方法测定其土壤理化性质[
参考《土工试验方法标准》(GB/T 50123-2019),采用液塑限联合测定法测定土壤塑限和液限。风干土样过0.5 mm筛后,取土样200 g,分成3份,加不同量纯水,调成3种不同稠度的试样(3种不同稠度的试样含水量依次为达到接近液限、中间状态和塑限的含水量),采用电磁落锥法,分别测圆锥自由下落沉入试样5 s时的下沉深度,3点圆锥入土深度分别为3~4、7~9和15~17 mm。该试验方法标准按照沉入深度17 mm所对应的土壤含水量为液限,沉入2 mm所对应的土壤含水量为塑限。塑性指数和液性指数的计算公式如下[
式中:
采用变异系数(coefficient of variation,CV)分析土壤理化性质和界限含水率的变异程度[
采用通径分析法对土壤液塑限的多个影响因子的影响程度进行量化分析,通径分析可将各个自变量与因变量的相关系数分解为各自变量对因变量的直接作用和通过其他自变量对该因变量的间接作用,因此,可以直观地表达各个变量之间的相互关系[
本研究所用的花岗岩土壤大多属于砂黏壤,其次为黏壤,少部分为壤土。桂东南花岗岩发育而来的侵蚀性红壤,石砾、砂砾含量较多、黏粒含量较少,土壤颗粒之间的胶结能力较弱,因而所选的崩岗土壤中石砾和砂粒等颗粒占有较大比重,黏粒所占比例小,土壤多为砂性土壤。由
土壤理化性质和界限含水率描述性统计
Descriptive statistics of soil physical and chemical properties and limiting water content
指标 |
极小值 |
极大值 |
均值 |
偏度 |
峰度 |
CV | |
①Bulk density;②Soil particle density;③Soil organic matter;④Total porosity;⑤Capillary porosity;⑥Non-capillary porosity;⑦Natural water content;⑧Plastic limit;⑨Liquid limit;⑩Plasticity index;⑪ Liquidity index | |||||||
容重BD①/(g·cm–3) | 1.16 | 1.46 | 1.32 | 0.02 | –0.92 | 5.95 | |
土粒密度ρ②/(g·cm–3) | 2.57 | 2.69 | 2.63 | 0.09 | –0.74 | 1.23 | |
石砾Gravel/% | 13.32 | 36.68 | 23.78 | 0.37 | –0.16 | 24.56 | |
砂粒Sand/% | 32.72 | 69.20 | 47.65 | 0.40 | –0.28 | 18.59 | |
粉粒Silt/% | 22.70 | 38.72 | 31.36 | –0.31 | –0.51 | 13.52 | |
黏粒Clay/% | 8.10 | 36.64 | 20.70 | 0.55 | –1.05 | 42.66 | |
土壤有机质SOM③/(g·kg–1) | 0.45 | 14.88 | 5.43 | 0.51 | –0.70 | 75.55 | |
总孔隙度TP④/% | 45.39 | 55.05 | 49.88 | 0.04 | –1.12 | 5.61 | |
毛管孔隙度CP⑤/% | 29.60 | 45.64 | 38.70 | –0.81 | 0.54 | 9.84 | |
非毛管孔隙度NP⑥/% | 3.37 | 17.37 | 11.14 | –0.13 | –0.61 | 31.99 | |
天然含水量NWC⑦/% | 15.66 | 23.70 | 19.35 | 0.67 | 0.21 | 9.56 | |
塑限 |
20.23 | 35.85 | 28.37 | –0.11 | –1.05 | 15.51 | |
液限 |
30.72 | 59.68 | 44.95 | 0.12 | –0.60 | 16.64 | |
塑性指数 |
10.49 | 23.71 | 16.58 | 0.64 | 0.03 | 21.41 | |
液性指数 |
–1.00 | –0.09 | –0.53 | 0.09 | 0.57 | –40.68 |
由
不同发育阶段崩岗不同部位界限含水率
Limiting water content of different parts of the crumbling hill at different stages of development
类型 |
部位 |
液限 |
塑限 |
塑性指数 |
液性指数 |
注:AG:活动型崩岗;MG:半稳定型崩岗;SG:稳定型崩岗;UC:集水坡面;WT:崩壁上部;WM:崩壁中部;WL:崩壁下部;DT:崩积堆上部;DL:崩积堆下部;SC:沟道;PT:锥顶;PM:锥中;PE:锥底。不同大写字母表示不同发育阶段的崩岗同一部位之间差异显著,不同小写字母表示同一发育阶段的崩岗不同部位之间差异显著( |
|||||
AG | UC | 50.35±0.69Cb | 31.18±0.95Bab | 19.17±0.25Bab | –0.81±0.04Ad |
WT | 54.45±1.21Aa | 32.84±1.15Aa | 21.61±0.06Aa | –0.64±0.00Acd | |
WM | 41.43±0.29Bd | 26.03±0.84Acd | 15.40±0.55Abc | –0.45±0.07Abc | |
WL | 35.44±0.92Af | 22.29±1.03Ae | 13.15±1.94Ac | –0.42±0.05Aabc | |
DT | 38.58±0.20Be | 23.55±0.34Bde | 15.03±0.54Abc | –0.39±0.12Aabc | |
DL | 43.96±0.14Bc | 28.82±2.68Abc | 15.14±2.54Abc | –0.63±0.22Acd | |
SC | 48.75±1.62Ab | 30.62±1.43Aab | 18.13±3.05Aab | –0.39±0.12Aabc | |
PT | 35.39±0.41Af | 21.92±0.44Be | 13.47±0.04Ac | –0.14±0.11Aa | |
PM | 42.26±0.70Bcd | 27.18±0.93Bc | 15.08±0.23Abc | –0.31±0.04Aab | |
PE | 50.51±1.18ABb | 32.53±2.48Aa | 17.98±3.67Aab | –0.58±0.23Abcd | |
MG | UC | 54.99±1.23Ba | 33.25±0.38Aa | 21.74±0.85ABa | –0.66±0.03Abc |
WT | 57.08±0.84Aa | 34.04±1.59Aa | 23.04±0.74Aa | –0.56±0.07Abc | |
WM | 43.28±1.19ABcd | 27.80±0.34Abc | 15.48±1.54Abc | –0.56±0.06Abc | |
WL | 35.29±0.39Ae | 22.26±0.09Ad | 13.03±0.29Acd | –0.51±0.17Abc | |
DT | 43.29±0.37Acd | 28.12±1.02Abc | 15.17±1.39Abc | –0.56±0.14Abc | |
DL | 44.97±0.28Ac | 29.04±2.23Ab | 15.93±2.51Abc | –0.70±0.25Ac | |
SC | 43.73±1.62Bc | 26.68±0.64Bbc | 17.05±2.26Ab | –0.37±0.02Aab | |
PT | 30.72±0.37Bf | 20.23±0.21Cd | 10.49±0.17Cd | –0.09±0.03Aa | |
PM | 41.11±0.08Bd | 26.43±0.30Bc | 14.68±0.22Abc | –0.56±0.05Bbc | |
PE | 48.77±1.62Bb | 33.92±1.19Aa | 14.85±0.44Abc | –1.00±0.07Ad | |
SG | UC | 59.68±1.85Aa | 34.97±0.38Abc | 24.71±2.23Aa | –0.64±0.08Acd |
WT | 56.48±2.73Ab | 33.20±0.32Ab | 23.28±3.05Aa | –0.60±0.08Abcd | |
WM | 45.39±0.18Ad | 26.95±2.63Ad | 18.44±2.81Ab | –0.43±0.13Ab | |
WL | 33.78±0.44Af | 22.47±0.21Ae | 11.31±0.64Ad | –0.52±0.09Abc | |
DT | 45.51±1.44Ad | 29.27±1.34Acd | 16.24±0.10Ab | –0.51±0.02Abc | |
DL | 45.77±0.45Ad | 30.57±0.62Ac | 15.20±1.06Abc | –0.62±0.02Abcd | |
SC | 42.26±2.22Be | 24.26±3.44Be | 18.00±1.08Ab | –0.18±0.09Aa | |
PT | 36.05±0.61Af | 24.27±0.05Ae | 11.78±0.57Bcd | –0.48±0.07Bbc | |
PM | 45.94±0.45Ad | 30.63±1.05Ac | 15.31±0.60Abc | –0.76±0.09Cde | |
PE | 53.36±0.22Ac | 35.85±0.51Aa | 17.51±0.29Ab | –0.89±0.05Ae |
塑性指数是土壤质地分类和评价的重要指标[
液性指数是评价土体状态的指数,可表征土体抵抗外力的能力[
花岗岩崩岗土壤界限含水率变化过程复杂,受各土壤理化性质的综合影响。分析表明,土壤界限含水率受土壤容重、土粒密度、石砾含量、砂粒、粉粒、黏粒、有机质、总孔隙度、毛管孔隙度和非毛管孔隙度的直接影响和间接作用。利用Origin 2021软件绘制热图,结果如
土壤理化性质与界限含水率的相关系数
Correlation coefficients between soil physicochemical properties and limiting water content
土壤理化性质对界限含水率的通径分析
Path analysis of soil physicochemical properties on limiting water content
界限含水率 | 自变量 | 相关系数 | 直接通径系数 | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | 决定系数 | ||||
注:*和**分别表示在0.05和0.01水平上显著。黑色表示正相关,灰色表示负相关,颜色越深相关性越强,面积越大相关性越强。Note:* and** denotes significant correlation at 0.05 and 0.01 levels,respectively. Black indicates a positive correlation,grey indicates a negative correlation,the darker the colour the stronger the correlation and the larger the area the stronger the correlation. | |||||||||
Limiting |
Independent |
Correlation |
Direct path |
TP | Clay | SOM | CP | 间接通径系数合计 |
Decision |
液限 |
TP | 0.712 | 0.491 | - | 0.119 | 0.102 | - | 0.221 | 0.458 |
Clay | 0.709 | 0.472 | 0.124 | - | 0.113 | - | 0.237 | 0.447 | |
SOM | 0.687 | 0.222 | 0.224 | 0.241 | - | - | 0.465 | 0.256 | |
塑限 |
TP | 0.677 | 0.465 | - | 0.084 | 0.128 | - | 0.212 | 0.381 |
Clay | 0.589 | 0.327 | 0.118 | - | 0.144 | - | 0.262 | 0.278 | |
SOM | 0.661 | 0.281 | 0.213 | 0.167 | - | - | 0.380 | 0.294 | |
塑性指数 |
TP | 0.660 | 0.499 | - | 0.161 | - | - | 0.161 | 0.410 |
Clay | 0.764 | 0.637 | 0.127 | - | - | - | 0.127 | 0.868 | |
液性指数 |
CP | –0.655 | –0.655 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
由
与土壤塑限呈极显著负相关关系的影响因子是土壤容重和砂粒含量,呈极显著正相关的影响因子是黏粒含量、有机质、总孔隙度和毛管孔隙度。由通径分析可知,塑限主要影响因子为总孔隙度、黏粒和有机质。总孔隙度对塑限的影响最大,其影响规律与其对液限的作用相同。黏粒含量对塑限的作用主要以正向直接作用为主。有机质对塑限的直接通径系数小于间接通径系数(0.281 < 0.380),即有机质主要通过黏粒含量和总孔隙度的正向间接作用影响土壤塑限。从决定系数大小来看,总孔隙度对土壤塑限的影响依然是最大的。
土壤液性指数与砂粒呈极显著正相关关系,相关系数为0.532;与黏粒含量、有机质和总孔隙度呈显著负相关关系,相关系数依次为–0.403、–0.463、–0.422;与毛管孔隙度呈极显著负相关关系,相关系数为–0.655。由通径分析可知,土壤液性指数主要影响因子为毛管孔隙度,直接通径系数为–0.655,无间接通径系数,说明毛管孔隙度对液性指数产生的效应为直接负效应,即花岗岩土壤毛管孔隙度越大,液性指数越小。塑性指数与土壤容重、石砾含量、砂粒、黏粒、有机质、总孔隙度和毛管孔隙度呈极显著相关关系,相关性最大的因子为黏粒,相关系数为0.764。由通径分析可知,黏粒含量和总孔隙度对塑性指数变化起主要作用,且二者对土壤塑性指数变化均起正向直接作用。同时,由决定系数可知,黏粒对塑性指数的影响最大,这也间接验证了塑性指数是土体质地评价的重要指标。
土壤界限含水率在崩岗不同部位存在着显著差异。崩岗集水坡面由持水性和涨缩性较强的红土层及表土层组成,有机质含量高,土壤容重较小,毛管孔隙度较大,黏粒含量整体也较高,致使水分难以向下渗透[
崩壁上部主要由表土层和被破坏后的红土层组成,其有机质和黏粒含量较高,土壤颗粒之间的胶结能力强,团聚状况好,使得该层土壤液限、塑限和塑性指数最大。崩壁中部主要土壤颗粒为砂粒,黏粒含量较低,土体大多呈散状结构,质地疏松多孔,透水性能强,故该部位与其他部位相比土壤液塑限值较低。崩壁下部砂粒含量高,黏粒含量极低,有机质含量达到最低,土壤结构十分松散。因此,崩壁下部土壤液塑限极低。崩积堆是崩岗沟头或沟壁崩坍下来的物质在底部堆积形成的锥形堆积物[
不同发育阶段的崩岗土壤界限含水率存在差异。由于活动型崩岗处于持续崩塌状态,土壤容重大,有机质含量低,土壤疏松,土体稳定性弱。相对于其他两种崩岗,此类崩岗土壤液塑限值比较低。半稳定型崩岗也处于较为活跃的状态,土体不断崩塌而使土壤得到更新,土壤有机质升高、土壤容重降低、土壤孔隙少,因而土壤液塑值变高。稳定型崩岗处于较为稳定的状态,土壤发育较为成熟,结构稳定,同时植被覆盖度增加,生物活动增强,在一定程度上提高了土壤养分含量,土体更加稳定,进而使土壤的液塑限值变高。因此,随着崩岗发育趋于稳定,崩岗各部位土壤有机质含量升高,土壤容重减小,黏粒含量不断增加,土壤团聚状况变好,土体强度变高,结构更稳定,因而崩岗各部位土壤界限水率总体呈增加趋势。
土壤容重是土壤的基本理化性质之一,对土壤通气性、渗透性和持水性有重要影响[
土壤结构影响界限含水率大小。从活动型崩岗崩壁土壤颗粒电镜扫描结果(
花岗岩风化壳不同土层土壤颗粒微形态特征
Micromorphological character of soil particles in different soil layers of granite weathering crust
有机质是土壤的重要组成成分,对养分供给、土壤物理性质的改善及土壤侵蚀的防治有重要意义[
经通径分析发现,不同因子对界限含水率的影响效果不同,土壤液塑限值的高低对土壤侵蚀也有一定的影响。崩岗集水坡面土壤液塑限值相对较高,是因为土壤黏粒较多、质地较细、非毛管孔隙度较低、持水性能较好[
崩壁上部土壤液塑限相对中部和下部要高。由于崩壁上部土壤液限值较中部大,其抗蚀能力相对较强,土体强度较大。Xia等[
综合分析土壤基本性质和界限含水率空间变化规律可知,总体上崩岗各部位液塑限值均增大。活动型崩岗处于活跃状态,侵蚀区内植被覆盖率低,表土裸露,土体松散,土壤液塑限值低。因此,在降雨的情况下,坡面水分含量升高,土壤易达到液塑限值,进而产生地表径流,造成崩塌和水土流失。半稳定型崩岗也在不断更新中,但土壤相对紧实,土体强度较高,土壤液塑限值较高,植被逐渐得到恢复,土壤发生侵蚀的概率变小。稳定型崩岗趋于稳定状态,由于植被得到大面积恢复,土壤团聚状况良好,界限含水率高,崩岗不易发生侵蚀。由此可知,植被的恢复对侵蚀区内土壤界限含水率大小及崩岗侵蚀的发生有极其重要的意义。
(1) 花岗岩崩岗土壤界限含水率在崩岗各个部位呈现出明显的空间差异,活动型和半稳定型崩岗土壤液塑限在崩壁上部有最大值,洪积锥顶部有最小值;稳定型崩岗崩壁下部土壤液塑限最小;随着崩岗发育逐渐稳定,各部位土壤界限含水率总体呈增加趋势。(2)相关性分析表明,黏粒含量、有机质、总孔隙度和毛管孔隙度与土壤液塑限和塑性指数呈极显著正相关关系,其中总孔隙度对土壤液塑限的影响最显著;土壤容重和砂粒含量与土壤液塑限和塑性指数呈极显著负相关关系。(3)通径分析表明,总孔隙度、黏粒含量、有机质、毛管孔隙度对界限含水率变化起主要作用,其中总孔隙度、黏粒含量和毛管孔隙度分别对土壤液塑限、塑性指数和液性指数的影响效果最为明显。表现为黏粒含量、总孔隙度和有机质越高,土壤液塑限和塑性指数越高,土体的黏结力增强,土壤保水性能好,土壤便难以发生崩塌和流失。毛管孔隙度对液性指数产生负效应,即毛管孔隙度越大,液性指数越低,土壤越稳定。(4)探讨土壤界限含水率的空间分布特征及理化因子对界限含水率的影响,有助于阐明土壤侵蚀过程,明确其与花岗岩崩岗侵蚀的启动与稳定关系,为崩岗危害防治提供理论支撑,对预防和控制水土流失有重要意义。
Bobrowsky P T, Marker B, Ostad-Ali-Askari K. Encyclopedia of engineering geology[M]. New York: Springer International Publishing, 2018.
Arthur E, Rehman H U, Tuller M, et al. Estimating Atterberg limits of soils from hygroscopic water content[J]. Geoderma, 2021, 381: 114698.
Li S M, Liu Z K, Meng J P. Effect of pH value on boundary water content of red clay in Guilin and its mechanism[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017, 39(10): 1814-1822.
李善梅, 刘之葵, 蒙剑坪. pH值对桂林红黏土界限含水率的影响及其机理分析[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2017, 39(10): 1814-1822.
Sivakumar V, Glynn D, Cairns P, et al. A new method of measuring plastic limit of fine materials[J]. Géotechnique, 2009, 59(10): 813-823.
Zhuang Y T, Huang Y H, Lin J S, et al. Study on liquid limit and plastic limit characteristics and factors of Benggang in red soil layer[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 21(3): 208-211, 216.
庄雅婷, 黄炎和, 林金石, 等. 崩岗红土层土壤液塑限特性及影响因素研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2014, 21(3): 208-211, 216.
Zhou B C, Lu N. Correlation between atterberg limits and soil adsorptive water[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2021, 147(2): 04020162.
Zhang Q, Yan R T, Wei C F, et al. Effects of pore fluids on consistency limits of silty clay[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2015, 36(S1): 558-562, 608.
张芹, 颜荣涛, 韦昌富, 等. 孔隙溶液对粉质黏土界限含水率的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2015, 36(S1): 558-562, 608.
Polidori E. Relationship between the atterberg limits and clay content[J]. Soils and Foundations, 2007, 47(5): 887-896.
Lalitha M, Kumar K S A, Nair K M, et al. Evaluating pedogenesis and soil Atterberg limits for inducing landslides in the Western Ghats, Idukki District of
Sparks D. Using atterberg limits to predict the expansion of clays[J]. Civil Engineering, 2010, 18: 12-14.
Lu S, Xiao H X, Mao C Y, et al. Correlation and path analysis of major agronomic traits of maize types[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(19): 11-14.
鲁珊, 肖荷霞, 毛彩云, 等. 不同类型玉米主要农艺性状的相关和通径分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(19): 11-14.
Hu B, Chen L H. Characteristics of soil moisture and path analysis of influencing factors on different forest lands on the Loess Plateau[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 19(1): 79-86.
胡波, 陈丽华. 黄土高原不同林地土壤水分特征及影响因子通径分析[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2021, 19(1): 79-86.
Song S M, Liu X, Zhang R H, et al. Path analysis of soil wind erosion influence factors to cultivated land in Yellow River flooded wind sand area[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 37(3): 249-253.
宋胜明, 刘霞, 张荣华, 等. 黄泛风沙区耕地土壤风蚀影响因子的通径分析[J]. 水土保持通报, 2017, 37(3): 249-253.
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.
Niu D K, Guo X M, Zuo C Q, et al. Analysis of the distribution and environmental surroundings of collapsed hills land of red soil in south of China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitis Jiangxiensis, 2000, 22(2): 204-208.
牛德奎, 郭晓敏, 左长清, 等. 我国南方红壤丘陵区崩岗侵蚀的分布及其环境背景分析[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2000, 22(2): 204-208.
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.
Liu X L, Qiu J A, Zhang D L. Analysis of soil wetting mechanism and influencing factors on the headwall of collapsing hill and erosional gully[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(4): 80-84.
刘希林, 邱锦安, 张大林. 崩岗侵蚀区崩壁土体湿化机理及影响因素分析[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(4): 80-84.
Deng Y S, Ding S W, Cai C F, et al. Characteristic curves and model analysis of soil moisture in collapse mound profiles in southeast Hubei[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2016, 53(2): 355-364.
邓羽松, 丁树文, 蔡崇法, 等. 鄂东南崩岗剖面土壤水分特征曲线及模拟[J]. 土壤学报, 2016, 53(2): 355-364.
Wang Y H, Xie X D, Wang C Y. Formation mechanism of calamities due to Benggang processes of weathered granitic rocks[J]. Journal of Mountain Research, 2000, 18(6): 496-501.
王彦华, 谢先德, 王春云. 风化花岗岩崩岗灾害的成因机理[J]. 山地学报, 2000, 18(6): 496-501.
Wen L L, Zheng F L, Shen H O, et al. Rainfall intensity and inflow rate effects on hillslope soil erosion in the Mollisol region of Northeast China[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 79(1): 381-395.
Zhou H Y, Li H X. The study on soil disintegration characteristics and its influence factors of collapsing wall in the collapsing hill erosion region of Southern China[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 31(1): 74-79.
周红艺, 李辉霞. 华南活动型崩岗崩壁土体的崩解特性及其影响因素[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(1): 74-79.
Duan X Q, Ni C, Chen J, et al. Study on the preferential flow of red soil erosion in granite slope collapse with high frequency monitoring of water content[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 30(5): 82-88.
段晓倩, 倪晨, 陈姣, 等. 基于含水量高频监测的花岗岩崩岗侵蚀红壤优先流研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(5): 82-88.
Chen Z B, Zhu H J, Liu Q, et al. Slump gully characteristic of small watershed of Genxi River and its control measures[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2006, 15(5): 83-88.
陈志彪, 朱鹤健, 刘强, 等. 根溪河小流域的崩岗特征及其治理措施[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2006, 15(5): 83-88.
Bao S D. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 第3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
Wu S G. Soil mechanics[M]. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press, 2016.
吴曙光. 土力学[M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2016.
Entin J K, Robock A, Vinnikov K Y, et al. Temporal and spatial scales of observed soil moisture variations in the extratropics[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2000, 105(D9): 11865-11877.
Zhang F Y, Li L H, Ahmad S, et al. Using path analysis to identify the influence of climatic factors on spring peak flow dominated by snowmelt in an alpine watershed[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2014, 11(4): 990-1000.
Ministry of Water Resources. GB/T 50145-2007 Soil engineering classification standard[S]. Beijing: China Planning Press, 2008: 7.
中华人民共和国水利部. GB/T 50145-2007土的工程分类标准[S]. 北京: 中国计划出版社, 2008: 7.
Zong Q L, Xia J Q, Zhang Y, et al. Experimental study on scouring characteristics of cohesive bank soil in the Jingjiang reach[J]. Advances in Water Science, 2014, 25(4): 567-574.
宗全利, 夏军强, 张翼, 等. 荆江段河岸粘性土体抗冲特性试验[J]. 水科学进展, 2014, 25(4): 567-574.
Lin J S, Zhuang Y T, Huang Y H, et al. Shear strengths of collapsing hill in red soil as affected by soil moisture under different experimental methods[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2015, 31(24): 106-110.
林金石, 庄雅婷, 黄炎和, 等. 不同剪切方式下崩岗红土层抗剪特征随水分变化规律[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(24): 106-110.
Ruan F S. Study on slump gully erosion and its control in Fujian Province[J]. Journal of Mountain Research, 2003, 21(6): 675-680.
阮伏水. 福建省崩岗侵蚀与治理模式探讨[J]. 山地学报, 2003, 21(6): 675-680.
Zhang C, Chen H S, Zhang W, et al. Spatial variation characteristics of surface soil water content, bulk density and saturated hydraulic conductivity on Karst slopes[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(6): 1585-1591.
张川, 陈洪松, 张伟, 等. 喀斯特坡面表层土壤含水量、容重和饱和导水率的空间变异特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(6): 1585-1591.
Wu C F, Yu X L, Lu S G. Synchrotron-based X-ray tomographic microscopy reveals morphology and spatial structure of intra-aggregate pores in red soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2020, 57(6): 1422-1429.
吴呈锋, 於修龄, 卢升高. 运用同步辐射显微CT揭示红壤团聚体内孔隙形态与空间分布[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(6): 1422-1429.
Jiang F S, Huang Y H, Lin J S, et al. Soil particle size distribution and fractal dimensions of colluvial deposits in granite Benggang[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2014, 21(6): 175-180.
蒋芳市, 黄炎和, 林金石, 等. 花岗岩崩岗崩积体颗粒组成及分形特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2014, 21(6): 175-180.
Yang W D, Wang Z Q, Sui G P, et al. Impact of soil erosion on soil fertility and land productivity[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 1999, 10(2): 175-178.
杨武德, 王兆骞, 眭国平, 等. 土壤侵蚀对土壤肥力及土地生物生产力的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 1999, 10(2): 175-178.
Liu Y H. Correlation analysis on liquid-plastic limit of regional soil[J]. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 2002, 19(1): 28-30.
刘艳华. 区域土的液限和塑限的相关性分析[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2002, 19(1): 28-30.
Zhang Y, Zhao D F, Zheng Q M, et al. Effects of temperature on soil atterberg limit in soil of collapsing gully wall in the hilly granitic region of South China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2022, 59(1): 118-128.
张越, 赵冬峰, 郑勤敏, 等. 花岗岩红壤丘陵区崩岗土体界限含水量的温度效应研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2022, 59(1): 118-128.
Zhu H X, Deng Y S, Xia Z G, et al. Liquid and plastic limits and influencing factors for the profiles of collapse slope in Southeast of Hubei Province[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 14(5): 1-7.
朱慧鑫, 邓羽松, 夏振刚, 等. 鄂东南花岗岩崩岗剖面土壤液塑限特征及影响因子分析[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2016, 14(5): 1-7.
Ni C. Study on soil moisture distribution in a granitic Benggang hillslope[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2016.
倪晨. 花岗岩崩岗集水坡面土壤水分状况研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2016.
Xia D, Deng Y S, Wang S L, et al. Fractal features of soil particle-size distribution of different weathering profiles of the collapsing gullies in the hilly granitic region, South China[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 79(1): 455-478.
Ou X L, Chen Z B, Chen Z Q, et al. Variation in soil property and its response to vegetation restoration in areas of collapse mounds in mid-subtropical China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(6): 2180-2190.
区晓琳, 陈志彪, 陈志强, 等. 中亚热带植被恢复过程中崩岗土壤性质分异特征[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(6): 2180-2190.
Zhang X M, Ding S W, Cai C F, et al. Mechanism of effects of wetting-drying on nonuniform settlement and caved wall collapse in slope disintegration erosion area[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2013, 34(S2): 299-305.
张晓明, 丁树文, 蔡崇法, 等. 干湿效应下崩岗岩土不均匀沉降变形规律与崩壁崩坍机制[J]. 岩土力学, 2013, 34(S2): 299-305.