蒸散视角下护坡植被滴灌技术评价

王辰元; 周明涛; 胡旭东; 赵同晖; 许文年

doi:10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.10.011

蒸散视角下护坡植被滴灌技术评价

1.
三峡大学土木与建筑学院，宜昌 443002
2.
水泥基生态修复技术湖北省工程研究中心（三峡大学），宜昌 443002
3.
三峡库区生态环境教育部工程研究中心，宜昌 443002

基金项目: 国家重点研发计划项目（2017YFC05049-02）；中国华电集团公司科研基金项目（12IJD201800018）

计量
- 文章访问数: 210
- HTML全文浏览量: 0
- PDF下载量: 196
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-01-10
- 修回日期: 2022-02-28
- 发布日期: 2022-05-30

Assessment of buried drip irrigation in soil of slope-protection vegetation from evapotranspiration perspective

1.
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
2.
Hubei Provincial Engineering Research Center of Slope Habitat Construction Technique Using Cement-based Materials (China Three Gorges University), Yichang 443002, China
3.
Engineering Research Center of Eco-environment in Three Gorges Reservoir Region, Ministry of Education, Yichang 443002, China

摘要

摘要: 为探明以复合型人造土壤为边坡种植土的植物蒸散对于高陡边坡生态恢复评价体系制定及水资源利用的重要意义，以黑麦草、高羊茅、早熟禾和"黑麦草+高羊茅+早熟禾"混合草种为研究对象，采用壤中滴灌技术，通过改进后的Penman-Monteith公式研究草本植物实际蒸散量与作物系数，以此评价壤中滴灌技术的生态效益。结果表明：高羊茅的作物实际蒸散量和作物系数最大，黑麦草其次，早熟禾最小，拟合的决定系数不小于0.847；养护初期各植物蒸散量相差较小，均保持在4.2 mm/d左右；养护结束后混合草种的蒸散量最大，早熟禾最小，分别约6.2、5.7 mm/d；养护前20 d，除早熟禾外，黑麦草、高羊茅、混合草种实际蒸散量均差异不显著，养护20 d后黑麦草、早熟禾、混合草种开始发生显著变化；30 d后各草种蒸散量均差异不显著；4类草本植物蒸散量差值随时间递增，前期混合草种蒸散量低于黑麦草、高羊茅，后期有明显的提升，50 d起混合草种作物系数大于单草种作物系数。以30 d为界，30 d作物系数相近；生长初期的作物系数变幅最明显，且月增幅随时间呈下降趋势，但黑麦草和高羊茅的作物系数在任意时段均相近。边坡模型试验前期，以坡面喷灌方式灌溉的植物生态值较高，植物生长情况优于壤中滴灌方式，但自养护中期开始，壤中滴灌技术在生态效益上凸显优势，比坡面喷灌技术高出40.7%～1 444.0%的生态值。
- 灌溉 /
- 草 /
- 蒸散 /
- 植被混凝土 /
- Penman-Monteith公式 /
- 壤中滴灌 /
- 作物系数 /
- 植物生态值
Abstract: Abstract: A vegetation concrete protection has been one of the most widely used technologies for the bare steep slopes in the ecology fields. Among them, the vegetation evapotranspiration can determine the regional distribution of available water resources in the soil-vegetation-atmosphere system. It is also a high demand to evaluate the utilization of water resources for the high-steep slope. In this study, a systematic evaluation was made of the ecological benefit of herbs planted in vegetation concrete under the buried drip irrigation in soil. An improved Penman-Monteith formula was also adopted to calculate the actual crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and the crop coefficient for the herbs, including Lolium perenne L., Festuca arundinacea, Poa annua L. and the mixed-grass seeds of "Lolium perenne L.+Festuca arundinacea+Poa annua L." Hence, the experimental materials were prepared, and the slope planting soil was selected as the composite artificial soil. Subsequently, the improved Penman-Monteith formula was established for the slope ecological restoration using the slope coefficient factor, according to the project requirement of ecological slope protection. Specifically, the test grass was sown in the surface layer of the proportioned vegetation concrete that was attached to the slope model, when installing the irrigation equipment. The irrigation system was also designed to ensure the same amount of irrigation per day using the average evapotranspiration of plants and irrigation water utilization coefficient. Moreover, the evapotranspiration test was conducted to balance the water resource for the daily vegetation evapotranspiration to measure. In addition, the equipment for buried drip irrigation in soil and slope sprinkler irrigation were installed on two slope models in fields. The results revealed that the actual evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of Festuca arundinacea were the largest, followed by Lolium perenne L. and the lowest of Poa annua L. All the determination coefficients R2 were not less than 0.847 for the linear fitting of the actual crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficient. There was a small difference in evapotranspiration of each plant at the initial stage of the maintenance, particularly at around 4.2 mm/d. After finishing maintenance, the largest and lowest evapotranspiration were obtained for the mixed grass, and Lolium perenne L., which were about 6.2 and 5.7 mm/d, respectively. In the first 20 days of the maintenance stage, there was no significant difference in the actual evapotranspiration of Lolium perenne L., Festuca arundinacea and mixed grass, except Poa annua L. More importantly, the Lolium perenne L., Poa annua L. and mixed grass greatly varied after 20 days, but there was no significant difference in the evapotranspiration of each grass after 30 days. The differences in the evapotranspiration of four herbs increased with time. Particularly, the evapotranspiration of mixed grass was lower than those of Lolium perenne L. and Festuca arundinacea at the early stage, but rose significantly at the later stage. The crop coefficient of mixed grass was also greater than those of the rest of single grass over 50 days. Taking the 30th day (one month) as a threshold, there was only a little divergence of crop coefficient within 30 days. Moreover, there was the largest variation of crop coefficient at the initial stage of growth, indicating a downward trend for the monthly increase. However, the values of crop coefficient were similar for the Lolium perenne L. and Festuca arundinacea at any period. As such, the obtained crop coefficients were utilized to calculate the vegetation ecological value for the evaluation of the ecological benefits of the technology of buried drip irrigation in soil and slope sprinkler irrigation. The results showed that the vegetation ecological value increased with the maintenance time, indicating a positive impact of two technologies on the value. Additionally, the slope sprinkler irrigation presented a higher vegetation ecological value than the buried drip irrigation in soil for the vegetation growth in the early stage of the slope model test. Nevertheless, the buried drip irrigation in soil was superior to the ecological benefit during the middle stage. In a word, the vegetation ecological benefit of buried drip irrigation in soil was better than that of slope sprinkler irrigation, where the ecological value was 40.7%-1 444.0% higher than that of slope sprinkler irrigation.
- irrigation /
- grass /
- evapotranspiration /
- vegetation concrete /
- Penman-Monteith formula /
- buried drip irrigation in soil /
- crop coefficient /
- vegetation ecological value

HTML全文

参考文献(40)

[1]	Cheng H, Xu W N, Luo T, et al. Microbial functional diversity as affected by different engineered eco-restoration methods at Xiangjiaba hydropower station[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2020, 146(3): 04019125.
[2]	Zhao B Q, Liu D X, Xia Z Y, et al. Effect of cement content in vegetation concrete on soil physico-chemical properties, enzyme activities and microbial biomass[J]. Nature Environment & Pollution Technology, 2018, 17(4): 1065-1075.
[3]	Bai P, Liu X M, Zhang Y Q, et al. Assessing the impacts of vegetation greenness change on evapotranspiration and water yield in China[J]. Water Resources Research, 2020, 56(10): e2019WR027019.
[4]	Silva C O F, de Castro Teixeira A H, Manzione R L. Agriwater: An R package for spatial modelling of energy balance and actual evapotranspiration using satellite images and agrometeorological data[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2019, 120: 104497.
[5]	He S S, Zeng Y, Liang Z X, et al. Economic evaluation of water-saving irrigation practices for sustainable sugarcane production in Guangxi Province, China[J]. Sugar Tech, 2021, 23(6): 1325-1331.
[6]	Lozano D, Ruiz N, Baeza R, et al. Effect of pulse drip irrigation duration on water distribution uniformity[J]. Water, 2020, 12(8): 2276.
[7]	Zhu L H, Wang, Y J, Jiang L H, et al. Effects of residual hydrocarbons on the reed community after 10 years of oil extraction and the effectiveness of different biological indicators for the long-term risk assessments[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 48: 235-243.
[8]	王振龙，范月，吕海深，等. 基于气象-生理的夏玉米作物系数及蒸散估算[J]. 农业工程学报，2020，36(11)：141-148.Wang Zhenlong, Fan Yue, Lyu Haishen, et al. Estimation of summer maize crop coefficient and evapotranspiration based on meteorology-physiology[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2020, 36(11): 141-148. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	刘艳萍，杜雅丽，聂铭君，等. 基于称重式蒸渗仪及多种传感器的作物表型及蒸散监测系统研制[J]. 农业工程学报，2019，35(1)：114-122.Liu Yanping, Du Yali, Nie Mingjun, et al. Design of crop phenotype and evapotranspiration monitoring system based on weighing lysimeter and multi-sensors[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2019, 35(1): 114-122. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	Martel M, Glenn A, Wilson H, et al. Simulation of actual evapotranspiration from agricultural landscapes in the Canadian Prairies[J]. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 2018, 15: 105-118.
[11]	Ghiat I, Mackey H R, Al-Ansari T. A review of evapotranspiration measurement models, techniques and methods for open and closed agricultural field applications[J]. Water, 2021, 13(18): 2523.
[12]	冯浩，刘匣，褚晓升，等. 基于Blaney-Criddle方法估算潜在蒸散量的评价与校准[J]. 农业机械学报，2017，48(6)：159-167.Feng Hao, Liu Xia, Chu Xiaosheng, et al. Evaluation and calibration of Blaney-Criddle method for estimating potential evapotranspiration[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2017, 48(6): 159-167. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	Xiong Y J, Luo Y F, Wang Y, et al. Forecasting daily reference evapotranspiration using the Blaney-Criddle model and temperature forecasts[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2016, 62(6): 790-805.
[14]	Gong X W, Wang S S, Xu C D, et al. Evaluation of several reference evapotranspiration models and determination of crop water requirement for tomato in a solar greenhouse[J]. HortScience, 2020, 55(2): 244-250.
[15]	Mehdizadeh S, Saadatnejadgharahassanlou H, Behmanesh J. Calibration of Hargreaves-Samani and Priestley-Taylor equations in estimating reference evapotranspiration in the Northwest of Iran[J]. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2017, 63(7): 942-955.
[16]	曹金峰，李玉中，刘晓英，等. 四种参考作物蒸散量综合法的比较[J]. 中国农业气象，2015，36(4)：428-436.Cao Jinfeng, Li Yuzhong, Liu Xiaoying, et al. Comparision of four combination methods for reference crop evapotranspiration[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 2015, 36(4): 428-436. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	Xiao M Z, Kong D D. Improvement in the estimation of daily net surface radiation in China[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 2021, 147(3): 04021002.
[18]	Valiantzas J D. Temperature-and humidity-based simplified Penman's ET0 formulae: Comparisons with temperature-based Hargreaves-Samani and other methodologies[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2018, 208: 326-334.
[19]	王娟，王建林，刘家斌，等. 基于Penman-Monteith模型的两个蒸散模型在夏玉米农田的参数修正及性能评价[J]. 应用生态学报，2017，28(6)：1917-1924.Wang Juan, Wang Jianlin, Liu Jiabin, et al. Parameters modification and evaluation of two evapotranspiration models based on Penman-Monteith model for summer maize[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28(6): 1917-1924. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	Evett S R, Marek G W, Colaizzi P D, et al. Corn and sorghum ET, E, yield, and CWP as affected by irrigation application method: SDI versus mid-elevation spray irrigation[J]. Transactions of the ASABE, 2019, 62(5): 1377-1393.
[21]	Patil A, Tiwari K N. Evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of okra under subsurface drip with and without plastic mulch[J]. Current Science, 2018, 115(12): 2249-2258.
[22]	陈志君，朱振闯，孙仕军，等. Stacking集成模型模拟膜下滴灌玉米逐日蒸散量和作物系数[J]. 农业工程学报，2021，37(5)：95-104.Chen Zhijun, Zhu Zhenchuang, Sun Shijun, et al. Estimation of daily evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of maize under mulched drip irrigation by Stacking ensemble learning model[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2021, 37(5): 95-104. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	Yuan X L, Bai J, Li L H, et al. Modeling the effects of drip irrigation under plastic mulch on vapor and energy fluxes in oasis agroecosystems, Xinjiang, China[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019, 265: 435-442.
[24]	Dingre S K, Gorantiwar S D. Determination of the water requirement and crop coefficient values of sugarcane by field water balance method in semiarid region[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2020, 232: 106042.
[25]	顾哲，袁寿其，齐志明，等. 基于ET和水量平衡的日光温室实时精准灌溉决策及控制系统[J]. 农业工程学报，2018，34(23)：101-108.Gu Zhe, Yuan Shouqi, Qi Zhiming, et al. Real-time precise irrigation scheduling and control system in solar greenhouse based on ET and water balance[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2018, 34(23): 101-108. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	胡晨，葛继稳，许向南，等. 基于FAO56 Penman-Monteith公式估算神农架大九湖泥炭湿地蒸散及作物系数[J]. 应用生态学报，2020，31(5)：1699-1706.Hu Chen, Ge Jiwen, Xu Xiangnan, et al. Estimation of evapotranspiration and crop coefficient in Dajiuhu peatland of Shennongjia based on FAO56 Penman-Monteith[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(5): 1699-1706. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	段利民，童新，吕扬，等. 固沙植被黄柳、小叶锦鸡儿蒸腾耗水尺度提升研究[J]. 自然资源学报，2018，33(1)：52-62.Duan Limin, Tong Xin, Lv Yang, et al. Upscaling of the transpiration and water consumption of sand-fixing vegetation Salix gordejevii and Caragana microphylla[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(1): 52-62. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	Liu W L, Liu L N. Analysis of dry/wet variations in the Poyang Lake basin using standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index based on two potential evapotranspiration algorithms[J]. Water, 2019, 11(7): 1380.
[29]	段浩，赵红莉，蒋云钟. 遥感Penman-Monteith模型中土壤含水量与土壤蒸发的关系[J]. 南水北调与水利科技(中英文)，2020，18(3)：31-47.Duan Hao, Zhao Hongli, Jiang Yunzhong. Assessment the relationship between soil evaporation and soil moisture using remote sensing Penman-Monteith model[J]. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology, 2020, 18(3): 31-47. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	水电水利规划设计总院. NB/T35082-2016水电工程陡边坡植被混凝土生态修复技术规范[S/OL]. (2016-08-16)[2016-12-01] http: //www. nea. gov. cn/.
[31]	Penman H L. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1948, 193(1032):120-145.
[32]	王辰元，周明涛，胡旭东，等. 壤中滴灌条件下植被混凝土水分运移规律[J]. 水土保持学报，2022，36(2)：173-180.Wang Chenyuan, Zhou Mingtao, Hu Xudong, et al. Moisture migration of vegetation concrete under buried drip irrigation in soil[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 36(2): 173-180. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	黄会平，曹明明，宋进喜，等. 1957-2012年中国参考作物蒸散量时空变化及其影响因子分析[J]. 自然资源学报，2015，30(2)：315-326.Huang Huiping, Cao Mingming, Song Jinxi, et al. Temporal and spatial changes of potential evapotranspiration and its influencing factors in China from 1957 to 2012[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(2): 315-326. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D, et al. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56[M]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation, 1998.
[35]	ASCE-EWRI. The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation[R]. Task Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration. New York, USA: Technical Committee Report, 2005.
[36]	刘钰，蔡林根. 参照腾发量的新定义及计算方法对比[J]. 水利学报，1997，42(6)：28-34.Liu Yu, Cai Lingen. Update definition and computation of reference evapotranspiration comparison with former method[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1997, 42(6): 28-34. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	曹建如. 旱作农业技术的经济、生态与社会效益评价研究-以河北省为例[D]. 北京：中国农业科学院，2007.Cao Jianru. Economic, Ecological and Social Effect Evaluation of Dry Land Technology: A Case Study in Hubei Province[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2007. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[38]	赵炳祥，胡林，陈佐忠，等. 常用六种草坪草蒸散量及作物系数的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报，2003，25(6)：39-44.Zhao Bingxiang, Hu Lin, Chen Zuozhong, et al. Evapotranspiration rates and crop coefficients of turf grasses in North China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2003, 25(6): 39-44. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	袁小环，滕文军，张辉，等. 实测草坪蒸散量评价P-M模型在北京地区适用性[J]. 农业工程学报，2018，34(7)：147-154.Yuan Xiaohuan, Teng Wenjun, Zhang Hui, et al. Suitability assessment of P-M model by measuring ET0 of turfs in Beijing, China[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2018, 34(7): 147-154. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[40]	洪明，谷爱莲，张磊，等. 新疆乌鲁木齐市复合绿地耗水特性研究[J]. 草地学报，2019，27(1)：97-103.Hong Ming, Gu Ailian, Zhang Lei, et al. Study on water consumption characteristics of compound green space in Urumqi Xinjiang[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(1): 97-103. (in Chinese with English abstract)

施引文献(4)

期刊类型引用(4)

1.	李强，庞清刚，王晶，柏愈，徐百成. 黄土公路边坡生态防护滴灌系统一体化研究. 公路. 2025(01): 101-109 . 百度学术
2.	侯苗，杨星，齐斐，翁松干，鞠艳，张雯叶，王志寰. 江苏高邮灌区水稻需水量时频域特征及影响因素分析. 农业工程学报. 2025(01): 119-127 . 本站查看
3.	WANG Chenyuan，CHEN Jiangang，YOU Yong，ZHOU Mingtao，Abrar HUSSAIN，WANG Xi-an，WANG Jinshui. Water diffusion characteristics of vegetation concrete under buried infiltration irrigation. Journal of Mountain Science. 2025(04): 1189-1204 . 必应学术
4.	申剑，李明明，周明涛，王辰元，程威. 西藏DG水电站工区边坡植被修复效果及生态因子分析. 水土保持通报. 2023(04): 31-43 . 百度学术