野生狼尾草护坡性能研究
|
摘要
本研究针对当前国内护坡草本植物种类单一、生态适应性差、易退化等重要问题,从开发我国丰富野生植物资源着手,以湖南等地广泛分布、适应性强的野生狼尾草[Pennisetum alopecuroides(L.)Spreng]为研究对象,以常用护坡草种普通狗牙根[Cynodondactylon(L.)Pers]为对照,首次对野生狼尾草的茎叶水文生态效应、根系机械力学效应和抗旱性展开系统研究,以便为推广利用该植物开展边坡防护、植被恢复等生态工程实践提供科学的理论依据。主要研究结论如下:
1、野生狼尾草茎叶水文生态效应总体上优于对照草种。野生狼尾草成坪时间49d,最大草层高度117.14cm,生长4个多月后茎叶鲜重112.93t/hm~2、茎叶干重32.99t/hm~2、茎叶最大截留率45.35%、茎叶最大截留量5.12mm,均明显优于对照草种;生长4个多月后枯落物有效蓄水率304.88%,略低于对照草种,但两者枯落物有效蓄水量均极低;野生狼尾草茎叶覆盖降低地表温度、保持土壤水分的生态效应比对照草种更显著。
2、野生狼尾草根系机械力学效应明显强于对照草种。生长5个月后,野生狼尾草最大根深≥49.42cm,平均根粗1.05mm,0～50cm土层总根重7.72g/100cm~2,根系平均最大抗拉力23.0N,根系平均抗拉强度40.18MPa,有效根密度54个/100cm~2,土壤抗冲系数159.76L·s/g,根系减沙效应0.83,均明显大于对照草种。相同根径下野生狼尾草根系最大抗拉力和抗拉强度均明显高于对照草种;其根系最大抗拉力与根径成线性正相关,方程为F_r=26.56D-1.5225(R~2=0.9805);其根系抗拉强度与根径成指数负相关,方程为T_r=31.657D~(-0.9227)(R~2=0.9672)。两草种根系明显增加了土体最大剪切力和最大剪位移,相同垂直压力下野生狼尾草土体抗剪强度显著大于对照草种;自然状态下(垂直压力10kPa),野生狼尾草的土体抗剪强度为82.152kPa,根系强化土壤值为56.758kPa,均倍于对照草种;野生狼尾草的土体抗剪强度库仑公式为τ_f=σ·tan26.27°+77.216,φ=26.27°,c=77.216kPa;两草种根系主要是通过增加土壤粘聚力来增强土体抗剪强度。
3、野生狼尾草抗旱性强于对照草种。干旱胁迫下,较之对照草种,野生狼尾草叶片相对电导率增幅小,质膜更稳定;叶片丙二醛(MDA)积累少,抗膜脂过氧化能力更强;叶绿素含量下降小,抗分解能力更强;叶片游离脯氨酸(Pro)积累慢,峰值高且出现时间晚,叶片可溶性糖含量高、增幅大,两者对野生狼尾草的渗透调节作用更持久有效。
Aiming at the current important problems in herbaceous plant for slope protection,for example,the variety is unitary,the ecological adaptability is bad and so on,this research took exploitation of abundant wild plants resources in our country as the starting point,took wild Pennisetum alopecuroides[Pennisetum alopecuroides(L.) Spreng],which is widespread in Hunan province and has strong adaptability,as the object of study,and took Cynodon dactylon[Cynodon dactylon(L.) Pers],which is usually used in slope protection,as the contrast.Wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was systemly researched for the first time on the hydrological and ecological effect of stems and leaves,the mechanical effect of roots system and the drought resistance.In order to provide scientific theory basis for making use of this wild plant in ecological engineering practices,such as slope protection,vegetation recovering and so on.The main research results are as follows:
1.The hydrological and ecological effect of stems and leaves of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was overally better than Cynodon dactylon's.The Formation time was 49d,the max.grass height was 117.14cm;after growth for more than 4 months,the fresh weight of stems and leaves was 112.93t/hm~2,the dry weight was 32.99t/hm~2,the max.interception rate and amount of stems and leaves were 45.35%and 5.12mm;wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently better than Cynodon dactylon in these aspects.After growth for more than 4 months,the effective retaining-water rate of litter layer was 304.88%and less than Cynodon dactylon,but both of the effective retaining-water amounts were very low.Stems and leaves of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides can reduce ground temperature and maintain soil water more evidently and effectivly than Cynodon dactylon's.
2.The mechanical effect of roots system of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently stronger than Cynodon dactylon's.After growth for 5 months,the deepest root was more than 49.42cm,the average roots diameter was 1.05mm,the roots weight was 7.72g/100cm~2 in 0～50cm soil,the average roots max.tensile stress was 23.0N,the average roots tensile strength was 40.18MPa,the effective roots density was 54/100cm~2,the soil Anti-scouribility coefficient was 159.76L·s/g,the roots effect on reducing sand was 0.83,wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently more than Cynodon dactylon in these aspects.The roots max. tensile stress and tensile strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides were greater than Cynodon dactylon's with the same diameter;the relation between roots max.tensile stress and roots diameter was linear and positive,the formula was F_r=26.56D-1.5225(R~2=0.9805); the relation between roots tensile strength and roots diameter was linear and negative,the formula was T_r=31.657D~(-0.9227)(R~2=0.9672).Roots of two grasses evidently increased the max.shear stress and the max.shear displacement of soil,the soil shear strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently greater than Cynodon dactylon's under the same vertical stress;the soil shear strength and the roots strengthening value of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides,which were far more than Cynodon dactylon's,were 82.152kPa and 56.758kPa in natural conditions(the vertical stress was 10kPa);the Coulomb formula for soil shear strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides wasτ_f=σ·tan26.27°+77.216,φ=26.27°,c =77.216kPa;Roots of two grasses strengthened soil shear strength mainly because they increased the soil cohesion.
3.The drought resistance of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was stronger than Cynodon dactylon's.Compared with Cynodon dactylon,the leaves relative conductivity of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was increased less,the plasma membrane was stabler;the leaves MDA content was accumulated less,the peroxidation resistance of membrane and fat was stronger;the Chlorophyl content was decreased less,the Chlorophyl dissolution resistance was stronger;the leaves Pro content was accumulated more slowly,the peak value of leaves Pro content,which appeared later,was higher,the leaves soluble sugar content was higher, and increasing range was greater,the osmotic adjustment of Pro and soluble sugar in wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was more lasting and effective.
1、野生狼尾草茎叶水文生态效应总体上优于对照草种。野生狼尾草成坪时间49d,最大草层高度117.14cm,生长4个多月后茎叶鲜重112.93t/hm~2、茎叶干重32.99t/hm~2、茎叶最大截留率45.35%、茎叶最大截留量5.12mm,均明显优于对照草种;生长4个多月后枯落物有效蓄水率304.88%,略低于对照草种,但两者枯落物有效蓄水量均极低;野生狼尾草茎叶覆盖降低地表温度、保持土壤水分的生态效应比对照草种更显著。
2、野生狼尾草根系机械力学效应明显强于对照草种。生长5个月后,野生狼尾草最大根深≥49.42cm,平均根粗1.05mm,0～50cm土层总根重7.72g/100cm~2,根系平均最大抗拉力23.0N,根系平均抗拉强度40.18MPa,有效根密度54个/100cm~2,土壤抗冲系数159.76L·s/g,根系减沙效应0.83,均明显大于对照草种。相同根径下野生狼尾草根系最大抗拉力和抗拉强度均明显高于对照草种;其根系最大抗拉力与根径成线性正相关,方程为F_r=26.56D-1.5225(R~2=0.9805);其根系抗拉强度与根径成指数负相关,方程为T_r=31.657D~(-0.9227)(R~2=0.9672)。两草种根系明显增加了土体最大剪切力和最大剪位移,相同垂直压力下野生狼尾草土体抗剪强度显著大于对照草种;自然状态下(垂直压力10kPa),野生狼尾草的土体抗剪强度为82.152kPa,根系强化土壤值为56.758kPa,均倍于对照草种;野生狼尾草的土体抗剪强度库仑公式为τ_f=σ·tan26.27°+77.216,φ=26.27°,c=77.216kPa;两草种根系主要是通过增加土壤粘聚力来增强土体抗剪强度。
3、野生狼尾草抗旱性强于对照草种。干旱胁迫下,较之对照草种,野生狼尾草叶片相对电导率增幅小,质膜更稳定;叶片丙二醛(MDA)积累少,抗膜脂过氧化能力更强;叶绿素含量下降小,抗分解能力更强;叶片游离脯氨酸(Pro)积累慢,峰值高且出现时间晚,叶片可溶性糖含量高、增幅大,两者对野生狼尾草的渗透调节作用更持久有效。
Aiming at the current important problems in herbaceous plant for slope protection,for example,the variety is unitary,the ecological adaptability is bad and so on,this research took exploitation of abundant wild plants resources in our country as the starting point,took wild Pennisetum alopecuroides[Pennisetum alopecuroides(L.) Spreng],which is widespread in Hunan province and has strong adaptability,as the object of study,and took Cynodon dactylon[Cynodon dactylon(L.) Pers],which is usually used in slope protection,as the contrast.Wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was systemly researched for the first time on the hydrological and ecological effect of stems and leaves,the mechanical effect of roots system and the drought resistance.In order to provide scientific theory basis for making use of this wild plant in ecological engineering practices,such as slope protection,vegetation recovering and so on.The main research results are as follows:
1.The hydrological and ecological effect of stems and leaves of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was overally better than Cynodon dactylon's.The Formation time was 49d,the max.grass height was 117.14cm;after growth for more than 4 months,the fresh weight of stems and leaves was 112.93t/hm~2,the dry weight was 32.99t/hm~2,the max.interception rate and amount of stems and leaves were 45.35%and 5.12mm;wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently better than Cynodon dactylon in these aspects.After growth for more than 4 months,the effective retaining-water rate of litter layer was 304.88%and less than Cynodon dactylon,but both of the effective retaining-water amounts were very low.Stems and leaves of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides can reduce ground temperature and maintain soil water more evidently and effectivly than Cynodon dactylon's.
2.The mechanical effect of roots system of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently stronger than Cynodon dactylon's.After growth for 5 months,the deepest root was more than 49.42cm,the average roots diameter was 1.05mm,the roots weight was 7.72g/100cm~2 in 0～50cm soil,the average roots max.tensile stress was 23.0N,the average roots tensile strength was 40.18MPa,the effective roots density was 54/100cm~2,the soil Anti-scouribility coefficient was 159.76L·s/g,the roots effect on reducing sand was 0.83,wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently more than Cynodon dactylon in these aspects.The roots max. tensile stress and tensile strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides were greater than Cynodon dactylon's with the same diameter;the relation between roots max.tensile stress and roots diameter was linear and positive,the formula was F_r=26.56D-1.5225(R~2=0.9805); the relation between roots tensile strength and roots diameter was linear and negative,the formula was T_r=31.657D~(-0.9227)(R~2=0.9672).Roots of two grasses evidently increased the max.shear stress and the max.shear displacement of soil,the soil shear strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was evidently greater than Cynodon dactylon's under the same vertical stress;the soil shear strength and the roots strengthening value of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides,which were far more than Cynodon dactylon's,were 82.152kPa and 56.758kPa in natural conditions(the vertical stress was 10kPa);the Coulomb formula for soil shear strength of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides wasτ_f=σ·tan26.27°+77.216,φ=26.27°,c =77.216kPa;Roots of two grasses strengthened soil shear strength mainly because they increased the soil cohesion.
3.The drought resistance of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was stronger than Cynodon dactylon's.Compared with Cynodon dactylon,the leaves relative conductivity of wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was increased less,the plasma membrane was stabler;the leaves MDA content was accumulated less,the peroxidation resistance of membrane and fat was stronger;the Chlorophyl content was decreased less,the Chlorophyl dissolution resistance was stronger;the leaves Pro content was accumulated more slowly,the peak value of leaves Pro content,which appeared later,was higher,the leaves soluble sugar content was higher, and increasing range was greater,the osmotic adjustment of Pro and soluble sugar in wild Pennisetum alopecuroides was more lasting and effective.
引文
[1]施金生.福建省高速公路景观绿化植物的选择与配置[J].福建热带作物科技,2002,27(3):19-22.
[2]卓慕宁,李定强.论高速公路建设中的水土保持生态恢复[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(4):209-211.
[3]周跃.植被与侵蚀控制:坡面生态工程基本原理探索[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2):297-300.
[4]蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失的治理模式[M].北京:中国水利水电出版社,1997.
[5]Lee I W Y.A review of vegetative slope stabilization[J].Hong Kong Inst of Engineer,1985,13(7):9-12.
[6]周德培,张俊云.植被护坡工程技术[M].北京:人民交通出版社,2003.
[7]Ministry of works and transport(Nepal).Use of bio-engineering in the road sector(Geo-environmental unit).1999.
[8]杨秀丽.人工边坡的植被护坡技术和景观设计方法[D].重庆:重庆大学,2005.
[9]余作岳.热带亚热带退化生态系统植被恢复生态学研究[M].广州:广东科技出版社,1997.
[10]Coppin N J,Richards I G.Use of Vegetation in civil Engineering[M].Ciria:Butterworth,1990,292.
[11]Gray D H,Sotir B R.Biotechnical and soil Bioengineering slope stabilization:a practical Guile for erosion control[M].Toronto:John Wiley & Sons,1996.
[12]熊燕梅,夏汉平,李志安,等.植物根系固坡抗蚀的效应与机理研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(4):895-904.
[13]李铁军,李晓华.植被固坡机制的研究[J].水土保持科技情报,2004,(2):1-3.
[14]Gray D H,Influence of vegetation on the stability of slopes.In:Barker D H.Vegetation and Slopes Stabilization,Protection and Ecology.London:Thomas Telford,1995,2-25.
[15]Nordin A R.Bioengineering to ecoengineering,Part one:the many name[J].International Group of Bioengineers Newsletter,1993,(3):15-18.
[16]刘定辉,李勇.植物根系提高土壤抗侵蚀性机理研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):34-37.
[17]鲍文,何丙辉,包维楷,等.森林植被对降雨的截留效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(1):193-197.
[18]周国逸.几种常用造林树种冠层对降水动能分配及生态效益分析[J].植物生态学报.1997,21(3):250-259.
[19]黄忠良,孔国辉,余清发,等.南亚热带季风常绿阔叶林水文功能及其养分动态的研究[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(2):17-161.
[20]田大伦,杨晚华,方海波.第二代杉木幼林中降雨对养分的淋溶作用[J].湖北民族学院学报(自然科学版),1999,17(1):1-5.
[21]刘世海,余新晓,于志民.北京密云水库集水区板栗林水化学元素性质研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2001,23(3):12-15.
[22]马雪华,杨茂瑞,胡星弼.亚热带杉木、马尾松人工林水文功能的研究[J].林业科学,1993,29(3):199-206.
[23]王礼先,张志强.森林植被变化的水文生态效应研究进展[J].世界林业研究,1998.(6):14-23.
[24]汪有科,吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,等.林地枯落物抗冲机理研究[J].水土保持学报,1993,7(1):75-80.
[25]刘创民,李昌哲,陈军华,等.北京九龙山主要植被类型水文作用的研究[J].林业科技通讯,1994,(7):10-12.
[26]刘永宏,梁海荣,张文才.森林水文研究综述[J].内蒙古林业科技,2000,(增刊):67-73.
[27]张光灿,刘霞,赵玖.泰山几种林分枯落物和土壤水文效应研究[J].林业科技通讯,1999,(6):28-29.
[28]袁聚云,徐超,赵春风,等.土工试验与原位测试[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2004.84-87.
[29]封金财,王建华.乔木根系固坡作用机理的研究进展[J].铁道建筑,2004,(3):29-31.
[30]Endo T,Tsuruta T.1969.The effect of the tree's roots on the shear strength of soil.Annual Report of Hokkaidd Branch Forest Experiment Station,18:167-182.
[31]Ziemer R R.1981.Roots and the stability of forested slopes//Davies T R H,Pearce A J eds Erosion and Sedinent Transport in Pacific Rin Steeplands Christ church:International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication:343-361.
[32]Hengchaovanich D,Nilaweera N.1998.An assessment of strength properties of vetiver grass roots in relation to slope stabilization//Chom chalow N.Henle H,eds.Proceedings of the First International Conference on Vetiver Bangkok:ORDPB:153-158.
[33]Ekanayake J C,Phillips C J,Marden M.1999.A comparison of methods for stability analysis of vegetated slopes//International Erosion Control Association,eds.Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference and Trade Exhibition on Ground and Water Bioengineering for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilisation Manila the Philippines.411-418.
[34]Lawrance C J,Rickson R J,Clark J E.1996.The effect of grass roots on the shear strength of colluvial soil in Nepal//Anderson MG,Brooks SM,eds.Advances in Hillslope Processes Vol 2 Chichester John Wiley & Sons 857-868.
[35]Wu T H.1976.Investigation of Landslides on prince of Wales Island,Alaska Geotechnical Engineering Report(No 5).Columbus Ohio State University.94-95.
[36]Waldron L J.1977.The shear resistance of root-permeated homogeneous and stratified soil Soil Science Society of America Journal,41:843-849.
[37]Wu T H,Mckinnell W P,Swanston D N.1979.Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island,Alaska Canadian Geotechnical Journal.16(1):19-33.
[38]O' Loughlin C L,Ziemer R R.1982.The inportance of root strength and deterioration rates upon edaphic stability in steepland forests//Waring R H,ed.Carbon Uptake and Allocation in Subalpine Ecosystems as a Key to Management Proceedings of an IU FRO Work shop Corvallis Oregun.70-78.
[39]O' Loughlin C L,Rowe L K,Pearce A J.1982.Exceptional storm influences on slope erosion and sedinent yield in small forest catchments North Westland New Zealand//Proceedings of 1st National Symposium on Forest Hydrology.Barton ACT:Intemational Conference Publicalion 84-91.
[40]Bischetti G B,Chiaradia E A,Simonato T,etal.2005.Root strength and root area ratio of forest species in Lombardy(Northern Italy).Plant and Soil,278:11-22.
[41]Mattie C,Bischetti G B,Gentile F.2005.Biotechnical characteristics of root systems of typical Mediterranean species.Plant and Soil,278:23-32.
[42]Roering J J,Schmidt K M,Stock J D,etal.2003.Shallow landsliding root reinforcement and the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon Coast Range.Canadian Geotechnical Joumal,40:237-253.
[43]Schmidt K M,Roering J J,Stock J D,etal.2001.The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range.Canadian Geotechnical Joumal,38:995-1024.
[44]Easson G,Yarbrough L D.2002.The effects of riparian vegetation on bank stability.Environmental and Engineering Geoscience,8(4):247-260.
[45]Genet M,Stokes A,Salin F E,etal.2005.The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots.Plant and Soil,278:1-9.
[46]Nilaweera N S,Nutalaya P.1999.Role of tree roots in slope stabilisation.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,57(4):337-342.
[47]刘国彬,蒋定生,朱显谟.黄土区草地根系生物力学特性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(3):21-28.
[48]野久田捻郎,林拙郎,等著.李晓华译.由根系抗拉强度推算其固坡效果[J].水土保持科技情报,1997,(1):25-28.
[49]程洪,颜传胜,李建庆,等.草本植物根系网的固土机制模式与力学试验研究[J].水土保 持研究,2006,13(1):62-65.
[50]杨永红,刘淑珍,王成华,等.浅层滑坡生物治理中的乔木根系抗拉实验研究[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(1):138-200.
[51]吴钦孝,李勇.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究:Ⅱ.草本植物根系提高表层土壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):11-16.
[52]查小春,贺秀斌.土壤物理性质与土壤侵蚀关系研究进展[J].水土保持研究,1999,6(2):98-104.
[53]Gyssels G,Poesen J,Liu G,etal.2006.Effects of cereal roots on detachment rates of single-and double-drilled topsoils during concentrated flow.European Journal of Soil Science.57:381-391.
[54]Bui E N,Box J E.1993.Growing corn root effects on interrill soil erosion.Soil Science Society of America Journal,57:1066-1070.
[55]Ghidey F,Alberts E E.1997.Plant root effects on soil erodibility,splash detachment,soil strength,and aggregate stability.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,40:129-135.
[56]Kort J,Collins M,Ditsch D.1998.A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops.Biomass and Bioenergy,14:351-359.
[57]Prosser I P,Dietrich W E,Stevenson J.1995.Flow resistance and sediment transport by concentrated overland flow in a grassland valley.Geomorphology,13:71-86.
[58]朱显谟.黄土高原地区植被因素对于水土流失的影响[J].土壤学报,1960,8(2):110-120.
[59]李勇,吴钦孝,朱显谟,等.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):1-6.
[60]吴彦,刘世全,付秀琴,等.植物根系提高土壤水稳性团粒含量的研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(1):45-49.
[61]陈士银,黄月琼,吴雪彪.湿地松林根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力影响的研究[J].西南农业大学学报,2000,22(5):468-471.
[62]张金池,臧廷亮,曾锋.岩质海岸防护林树木根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应[J].南京林业大学学报,2001,(1):9-12.
[63]丁军,王兆骞,陈欣,等.红壤丘陵区林地根系对土壤抗冲增强效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4):9-12.
[64]蒋定生,范兴科,李新华,等.黄土高原水土流失严重地区土壤抗冲性的水平和垂直变化规律研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(2):1-8.
[65]李勇.黄土高原植物根系与土壤抗冲性[M].北京:科学出版社,1995.43-54.
[66]查轩,唐克丽,张科利.等.植被对土壤特性及土壤侵蚀的影响研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(2):52-58.
[67]沈晶玉,周心澄,张伟华,等.祁连山南麓植物根系改善土壤抗冲性研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2004,2(4):87-91.
[68]刘国彬.黄土高原草地土壤抗冲性及其机理研究[J].水土保持学报,1998,4(1):93-96.
[69]王库.植物根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力的影响[J].土壤与环境,2001,10(3):250-252.
[70]王芝芳,杨亚川,赵作善,等.土壤-草本植被根系复合体抗水蚀能力的土壤力学模型[J].中国农业大学学报,1996,1(2):39-45.
[71]夏汉平,刘世忠,敖惠修.优良水土保持植物与坡地复合农林业[M].北京:中国气象出版社,2000,30-35.
[72]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝,刘国彬.黄土高原森林植被水土保持机理研究[J].林业科学,2001,37(5):140-144.
[73]Morgan R R C,Rickson R J.1995.Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control-A Bioengineering Approach.London:E & EN Spon.
[74]蒋自力,江海东.高等级公路边坡植被的选择方案[J].江苏交通工程,2002,(2):35-37.
[75]王慧芳,罗承德.高等级公路边坡绿化植物材料选择初探[J].四川草原,2004,(3):53-55.
[76]李长平.高速公路绿化树种的选择和利用[J].山西交通科技,2004,(168):68-72.
[77]仓田益二郎著.顾保衡译.绿化工程技术[M].成都:四川科技出版社,1983.
[78]山寺喜成,安保昭,吉田宽著.罗晶编译.恢复自然环境绿化工程概论-坡面绿化基础与模式设计[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1997.
[79]席嘉宾,杨中艺,陈宝书,等.西安地区高等级公路边坡绿化草种的引种栽培试验[J].草业科学,1998,15(5):12-15.
[80]龙忠富,唐成斌,刘秀峰,等.草本植物混播对公路边坡的防护效果研究[J].中国水土保持,2003,(3),25-26.
[81]安保昭著,周庆相译.坡面绿化施工法[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1992.
[82]席嘉宾.高等级公路边坡牧草绿化混播试脸的研究.甘肃农业大学学报,1997,32(3):271-272.
[83]刘世同,陈志一.公路植草护坡草种及草种组合研究[J].华东公路,1998,(1):68-71.
[84]刘建宁,高洪文.山西汰旧高速公路边坡绿化种草技术研究[J].中国草地,1996,(6):23-26.
[85]夏汉平,敖惠修.百喜草-护坡草坪植物新秀[J].广东园林,1997(4):33-34.
[86]常根柱,杜天庆,王朝凌.野生狗牙根栽培利用试验研究[J].公路,1999(4):8-10.
[87]刘勇,何花.百喜草-多用途宝贝草[J].农村养殖技术,2002,(10):24.
[88]赵大勇.固堤护坡理想植物-马蔺[J].国土绿化,2000,(5):44.
[89]李西.应用于植被护坡两种岩生植物土壤植被系统(SVS)研究[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2004.
[90]白景文.应用于植被护坡的两种野生岩生植物抗旱适应性研究[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[91]陈庆平,谢良.香根草等高植物篱防治边坡侵蚀[J].福建水土保持,2000,(6):47-50.
[92]吴建华.种植香根草是防治水土流失和绿化边坡重要措施[J].西南农业学报,2004,(1):302-304.
[93]冯子元,张丽萍,张镇鑫.“香根草技术”在百色水利枢纽工程河道边坡防护中的应用[J].人民珠江,2003,(4),66-69.
[94]冯子元.“香根草技术”在龙滩水电站道路边坡上的应用[J].广西水利水电,2003,(1),57-63.
[95]夏汉平,敖惠修,刘世盅.香根草生态工程应用于公路护坡的效益研究[J].草业科学,2002,19(1),52-56.
[96]胥晓刚,王锦平,杨冬升.弯叶画眉草在风化岩石边坡种植的适应性研究[J].公路,2001,(11):106-108.
[97]郭建光.适用于公路边坡生态防护的草本植物-扁茎黄芪[J].草原与草坪,2003,(2):61.
[98]张伦,辛克敏,陈谦海,等.贵州长序狼尾草生物生态学特点及其利用的初步研究[J].武汉植物学研究,1996,14(3):223-230.
[99]卢欣石,申玉龙,江玉林,等.狼尾草属野生种在黄土高原地区适应性观察与研究[J].草业科学 1991,8(3):33-36.
[100]刘文珍,毕贵福.昆明地区两种野生狼尾草的农艺性状及营养成份[J].云南农业科技,1995,(4):12-14.
[101]同文轩,张林海,何咏松.中国狼尾草属(Pennisetum Rich.)牧草资源的发掘及其开发利用前景[J],草业科学,1990,7(2):25-26.
[102]同文轩,张林海,何咏松.国产狼尾草属野生种比较研究初报[J].草业科学,1990,7(4):51-52.
[103]武菊英,滕文军,王庆海.狼尾草的生物学特性及在园林中的应用[J].中国园林,2005,(12):57-59.
[104]Micheal King.Gardening with grasses[M].Timber Press,1998.
[105]谭志坚,何利群,刘清益.中国重庆地区高速公路绿化现状和策略[J].四川草原,2002,(4):43-47.
[106]李西,罗承德,陈其兵.岩石边坡植被护坡植物选择初探[J].中国园林,2004,(9):52-53.
[107]章浚平.优质高产青绿饲料杂交狼尾草的开发利用[J].中国水土保持,1995(2):38-39.
[108]白淑娟,杨运生,顾洪如,等.杂交狼尾草在苏南农区养殖业中的利用[J].中国草地,1991(4):33-35.
[109]朱练峰,江海东,高雅,等.不同前作对杂交狼尾草产量和品质的影响[J].草业学报,2006,15(1):76-83.
[110]余晓华.我国西南紫色土地区公路护坡草种适应性研究[J].生态科学,2002,21(4):342-345.
[111]中野秀章.森林水文学[M].李云森译.北京:中国林业出版社,1983.
[112]张永才,赖万玉.几种优良的工程护坡草种应用介绍[J].草业科学,2000,17(2):26-30.
[113]胡丽珍.野生结缕草品系生物学特性及坪用性状的研究[D].长沙:湖南农业大学,2007.
[114]刘向东,吴钦孝,施立明,等.对六盘山森林截留降水作用的研究[J].林业科技通讯,1982,(3):18-21.
[115]赵金荣,孙立达,朱金兆.黄土高原水土保持灌木[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,1994.
[116]胡建忠,李文忠,郑佳丽,等.祁连山南麓退耕地主要植物群落植冠层的截留性能[J].山地学报,2004,22(4):492-501.
[117]程金花,张洪江,史玉虎,等.三峡库区几种林下枯落物的水文作用[J].北京林业大学学报,2003,25(2):8-13.
[118]范世香,裴铁番,蒋德明,等.两种不同林分截留能力的比较研究[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(5):671-674.
[119]雷瑞德.秦岭火地塘林区华山松林水源涵养功能的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1984,(1):19-33.
[120]吴长文,王礼先.水土保持林中枯落物的作用[J].中国水土保持,1993,(4):28-30.
[121]吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,韩冰.黄土高原森林枯枝落叶层保持水土的有效性[J].西北农林科技大学学报,2001,29(5):95-98.
[122]赵鸿雁,吴铁孝,刘嗣彬.黄土高原人工油松林枯枝落叶层的水土保持功能研究[J].林业科学,2003,39(1):168-172.
[123]曹成有,朱丽晖,韩春声,等.辽宁东部山区森林枯落物层的水文作用[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(1):44-48.
[124]高人,周广柱.辽宁东部山区几种主要森林植被类型枯落物层持水性能研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2002,33(2):115-118.
[125]韩同吉,裴胜民,张光灿,等.北方石质山区典型林分枯落物层涵蓄水分特征[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,36(2):275-278.
[126]朱志芳,覃志刚,陈林武,等.嘉陵江流域低山丘陵区几种主要森林类型水文特征研究[J].四川林业科技,2003,24(3):31-35.
[127]崔鸿侠,张卓文,陈玉声,等.三峡库区莲峡河小流域马尾松水文生态效应[J].中南林学院学报,2005,25(2):46-49.
[128]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝.黄土高原几种枯枝落叶吸水机理研究[J].防护林科技,1996,(4):15-18.
[129]程洪,张新全.草本植物根系网固土原理的力学实验探究[J].水土保持通报,2002,22(5):20-23.
[130]蒋定生.黄土区不同利用类型土壤抗冲刷能力的研究[J].土壤通报,1979,(2):20-23.
[131]刘宝元,张科利,焦菊英.土壤可蚀性及其在侵蚀预报中的应用[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4):345-350.
[132]邹翔,崔鹏,陈杰,等.小江流域土壤抗冲性实验研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):71-73.
[133]张晓明,王玉杰,夏一平,等.重庆缙云山典型植被原状土抗剪强度的灰色关联度分析与评价[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(2):145-147.
[134]范兴科,蒋定生,赵合理.黄土高原浅层原状土抗剪强度浅析[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(4):69-75.
[135]张祖荣.植物根系提高土壤抗侵蚀能力的初步研究[J].渝西学院学报(自然科学版),2002,15(1):31-35.
[136]程洪,蔡儒珍,傅恒生,等.公路工程中的香根草等高植物篱护坡技术[J].华东公路,2003,(1):45-47.
[137]张金池.苏北海堤林带树木根系固土功能研究[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(2):43-55.
[138]曾信波.贵州紫色土上植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究[J].贵州农学院学报,1995,14(2):20-24.
[139]张志良,瞿伟箐.植物生理学实验指导(第三版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[140]陈娟.六种野生灌木的抗旱性研究及园林应用[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[141]胡学俭.10树种苗期抗旱特性及其抗旱评价指标体系的研究[D].济南:山东农业大学,2005.
[142]张国珍.四川野生狗牙根抗旱性研究及评价[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[143]张海燕,赵可夫.盐分和水分胁迫对盐地碱蓬幼苗渗透调节效应的研究[J].植物学报,1998,40(1):56-60.
[144]董丽华.草地早熟禾不同品种抗旱性研究[D].兰州:宁夏大学,2005.
[145]葛体达,隋方功,张金政,等.玉米根、叶质膜透性和叶片水分对土壤干旱胁迫的反应[J].植被植物学报,2005,25(3):507-512.
[146]王玉刚.三种草坪草抗旱性研究[D].乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2004.
[147]韩建民.抗旱性不同的水稻品种对渗透胁迫的反应及其与渗透调节的关系[J].河北农业大学学报,1990,13(1):17-21.
[148]上官周平.不同抗旱性冬小麦品种渗透调节的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1991(4):61-65.
[149]骆爱玲.甜菜碱脱氢酶在波菜叶中的定位[J].植物生理学报,1995,21(2):117-122.
[2]卓慕宁,李定强.论高速公路建设中的水土保持生态恢复[J].水土保持研究,2003,10(4):209-211.
[3]周跃.植被与侵蚀控制:坡面生态工程基本原理探索[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2):297-300.
[4]蒋定生.黄土高原水土流失的治理模式[M].北京:中国水利水电出版社,1997.
[5]Lee I W Y.A review of vegetative slope stabilization[J].Hong Kong Inst of Engineer,1985,13(7):9-12.
[6]周德培,张俊云.植被护坡工程技术[M].北京:人民交通出版社,2003.
[7]Ministry of works and transport(Nepal).Use of bio-engineering in the road sector(Geo-environmental unit).1999.
[8]杨秀丽.人工边坡的植被护坡技术和景观设计方法[D].重庆:重庆大学,2005.
[9]余作岳.热带亚热带退化生态系统植被恢复生态学研究[M].广州:广东科技出版社,1997.
[10]Coppin N J,Richards I G.Use of Vegetation in civil Engineering[M].Ciria:Butterworth,1990,292.
[11]Gray D H,Sotir B R.Biotechnical and soil Bioengineering slope stabilization:a practical Guile for erosion control[M].Toronto:John Wiley & Sons,1996.
[12]熊燕梅,夏汉平,李志安,等.植物根系固坡抗蚀的效应与机理研究进展[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(4):895-904.
[13]李铁军,李晓华.植被固坡机制的研究[J].水土保持科技情报,2004,(2):1-3.
[14]Gray D H,Influence of vegetation on the stability of slopes.In:Barker D H.Vegetation and Slopes Stabilization,Protection and Ecology.London:Thomas Telford,1995,2-25.
[15]Nordin A R.Bioengineering to ecoengineering,Part one:the many name[J].International Group of Bioengineers Newsletter,1993,(3):15-18.
[16]刘定辉,李勇.植物根系提高土壤抗侵蚀性机理研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(3):34-37.
[17]鲍文,何丙辉,包维楷,等.森林植被对降雨的截留效应研究[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(1):193-197.
[18]周国逸.几种常用造林树种冠层对降水动能分配及生态效益分析[J].植物生态学报.1997,21(3):250-259.
[19]黄忠良,孔国辉,余清发,等.南亚热带季风常绿阔叶林水文功能及其养分动态的研究[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(2):17-161.
[20]田大伦,杨晚华,方海波.第二代杉木幼林中降雨对养分的淋溶作用[J].湖北民族学院学报(自然科学版),1999,17(1):1-5.
[21]刘世海,余新晓,于志民.北京密云水库集水区板栗林水化学元素性质研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2001,23(3):12-15.
[22]马雪华,杨茂瑞,胡星弼.亚热带杉木、马尾松人工林水文功能的研究[J].林业科学,1993,29(3):199-206.
[23]王礼先,张志强.森林植被变化的水文生态效应研究进展[J].世界林业研究,1998.(6):14-23.
[24]汪有科,吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,等.林地枯落物抗冲机理研究[J].水土保持学报,1993,7(1):75-80.
[25]刘创民,李昌哲,陈军华,等.北京九龙山主要植被类型水文作用的研究[J].林业科技通讯,1994,(7):10-12.
[26]刘永宏,梁海荣,张文才.森林水文研究综述[J].内蒙古林业科技,2000,(增刊):67-73.
[27]张光灿,刘霞,赵玖.泰山几种林分枯落物和土壤水文效应研究[J].林业科技通讯,1999,(6):28-29.
[28]袁聚云,徐超,赵春风,等.土工试验与原位测试[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2004.84-87.
[29]封金财,王建华.乔木根系固坡作用机理的研究进展[J].铁道建筑,2004,(3):29-31.
[30]Endo T,Tsuruta T.1969.The effect of the tree's roots on the shear strength of soil.Annual Report of Hokkaidd Branch Forest Experiment Station,18:167-182.
[31]Ziemer R R.1981.Roots and the stability of forested slopes//Davies T R H,Pearce A J eds Erosion and Sedinent Transport in Pacific Rin Steeplands Christ church:International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication:343-361.
[32]Hengchaovanich D,Nilaweera N.1998.An assessment of strength properties of vetiver grass roots in relation to slope stabilization//Chom chalow N.Henle H,eds.Proceedings of the First International Conference on Vetiver Bangkok:ORDPB:153-158.
[33]Ekanayake J C,Phillips C J,Marden M.1999.A comparison of methods for stability analysis of vegetated slopes//International Erosion Control Association,eds.Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference and Trade Exhibition on Ground and Water Bioengineering for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilisation Manila the Philippines.411-418.
[34]Lawrance C J,Rickson R J,Clark J E.1996.The effect of grass roots on the shear strength of colluvial soil in Nepal//Anderson MG,Brooks SM,eds.Advances in Hillslope Processes Vol 2 Chichester John Wiley & Sons 857-868.
[35]Wu T H.1976.Investigation of Landslides on prince of Wales Island,Alaska Geotechnical Engineering Report(No 5).Columbus Ohio State University.94-95.
[36]Waldron L J.1977.The shear resistance of root-permeated homogeneous and stratified soil Soil Science Society of America Journal,41:843-849.
[37]Wu T H,Mckinnell W P,Swanston D N.1979.Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island,Alaska Canadian Geotechnical Journal.16(1):19-33.
[38]O' Loughlin C L,Ziemer R R.1982.The inportance of root strength and deterioration rates upon edaphic stability in steepland forests//Waring R H,ed.Carbon Uptake and Allocation in Subalpine Ecosystems as a Key to Management Proceedings of an IU FRO Work shop Corvallis Oregun.70-78.
[39]O' Loughlin C L,Rowe L K,Pearce A J.1982.Exceptional storm influences on slope erosion and sedinent yield in small forest catchments North Westland New Zealand//Proceedings of 1st National Symposium on Forest Hydrology.Barton ACT:Intemational Conference Publicalion 84-91.
[40]Bischetti G B,Chiaradia E A,Simonato T,etal.2005.Root strength and root area ratio of forest species in Lombardy(Northern Italy).Plant and Soil,278:11-22.
[41]Mattie C,Bischetti G B,Gentile F.2005.Biotechnical characteristics of root systems of typical Mediterranean species.Plant and Soil,278:23-32.
[42]Roering J J,Schmidt K M,Stock J D,etal.2003.Shallow landsliding root reinforcement and the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon Coast Range.Canadian Geotechnical Joumal,40:237-253.
[43]Schmidt K M,Roering J J,Stock J D,etal.2001.The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range.Canadian Geotechnical Joumal,38:995-1024.
[44]Easson G,Yarbrough L D.2002.The effects of riparian vegetation on bank stability.Environmental and Engineering Geoscience,8(4):247-260.
[45]Genet M,Stokes A,Salin F E,etal.2005.The influence of cellulose content on tensile strength in tree roots.Plant and Soil,278:1-9.
[46]Nilaweera N S,Nutalaya P.1999.Role of tree roots in slope stabilisation.Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,57(4):337-342.
[47]刘国彬,蒋定生,朱显谟.黄土区草地根系生物力学特性研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1996,2(3):21-28.
[48]野久田捻郎,林拙郎,等著.李晓华译.由根系抗拉强度推算其固坡效果[J].水土保持科技情报,1997,(1):25-28.
[49]程洪,颜传胜,李建庆,等.草本植物根系网的固土机制模式与力学试验研究[J].水土保 持研究,2006,13(1):62-65.
[50]杨永红,刘淑珍,王成华,等.浅层滑坡生物治理中的乔木根系抗拉实验研究[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(1):138-200.
[51]吴钦孝,李勇.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究:Ⅱ.草本植物根系提高表层土壤抗冲性的试验研究[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):11-16.
[52]查小春,贺秀斌.土壤物理性质与土壤侵蚀关系研究进展[J].水土保持研究,1999,6(2):98-104.
[53]Gyssels G,Poesen J,Liu G,etal.2006.Effects of cereal roots on detachment rates of single-and double-drilled topsoils during concentrated flow.European Journal of Soil Science.57:381-391.
[54]Bui E N,Box J E.1993.Growing corn root effects on interrill soil erosion.Soil Science Society of America Journal,57:1066-1070.
[55]Ghidey F,Alberts E E.1997.Plant root effects on soil erodibility,splash detachment,soil strength,and aggregate stability.Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,40:129-135.
[56]Kort J,Collins M,Ditsch D.1998.A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops.Biomass and Bioenergy,14:351-359.
[57]Prosser I P,Dietrich W E,Stevenson J.1995.Flow resistance and sediment transport by concentrated overland flow in a grassland valley.Geomorphology,13:71-86.
[58]朱显谟.黄土高原地区植被因素对于水土流失的影响[J].土壤学报,1960,8(2):110-120.
[59]李勇,吴钦孝,朱显谟,等.黄土高原植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究[J].水土保持学报,1990,4(1):1-6.
[60]吴彦,刘世全,付秀琴,等.植物根系提高土壤水稳性团粒含量的研究.土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(1):45-49.
[61]陈士银,黄月琼,吴雪彪.湿地松林根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力影响的研究[J].西南农业大学学报,2000,22(5):468-471.
[62]张金池,臧廷亮,曾锋.岩质海岸防护林树木根系对土壤抗冲性的强化效应[J].南京林业大学学报,2001,(1):9-12.
[63]丁军,王兆骞,陈欣,等.红壤丘陵区林地根系对土壤抗冲增强效应的研究[J].水土保持学报,2002,16(4):9-12.
[64]蒋定生,范兴科,李新华,等.黄土高原水土流失严重地区土壤抗冲性的水平和垂直变化规律研究[J].水土保持学报,1995,9(2):1-8.
[65]李勇.黄土高原植物根系与土壤抗冲性[M].北京:科学出版社,1995.43-54.
[66]查轩,唐克丽,张科利.等.植被对土壤特性及土壤侵蚀的影响研究[J].水土保持学报,1992,6(2):52-58.
[67]沈晶玉,周心澄,张伟华,等.祁连山南麓植物根系改善土壤抗冲性研究[J].中国水土保持科学,2004,2(4):87-91.
[68]刘国彬.黄土高原草地土壤抗冲性及其机理研究[J].水土保持学报,1998,4(1):93-96.
[69]王库.植物根系对土壤抗侵蚀能力的影响[J].土壤与环境,2001,10(3):250-252.
[70]王芝芳,杨亚川,赵作善,等.土壤-草本植被根系复合体抗水蚀能力的土壤力学模型[J].中国农业大学学报,1996,1(2):39-45.
[71]夏汉平,刘世忠,敖惠修.优良水土保持植物与坡地复合农林业[M].北京:中国气象出版社,2000,30-35.
[72]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝,刘国彬.黄土高原森林植被水土保持机理研究[J].林业科学,2001,37(5):140-144.
[73]Morgan R R C,Rickson R J.1995.Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control-A Bioengineering Approach.London:E & EN Spon.
[74]蒋自力,江海东.高等级公路边坡植被的选择方案[J].江苏交通工程,2002,(2):35-37.
[75]王慧芳,罗承德.高等级公路边坡绿化植物材料选择初探[J].四川草原,2004,(3):53-55.
[76]李长平.高速公路绿化树种的选择和利用[J].山西交通科技,2004,(168):68-72.
[77]仓田益二郎著.顾保衡译.绿化工程技术[M].成都:四川科技出版社,1983.
[78]山寺喜成,安保昭,吉田宽著.罗晶编译.恢复自然环境绿化工程概论-坡面绿化基础与模式设计[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1997.
[79]席嘉宾,杨中艺,陈宝书,等.西安地区高等级公路边坡绿化草种的引种栽培试验[J].草业科学,1998,15(5):12-15.
[80]龙忠富,唐成斌,刘秀峰,等.草本植物混播对公路边坡的防护效果研究[J].中国水土保持,2003,(3),25-26.
[81]安保昭著,周庆相译.坡面绿化施工法[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1992.
[82]席嘉宾.高等级公路边坡牧草绿化混播试脸的研究.甘肃农业大学学报,1997,32(3):271-272.
[83]刘世同,陈志一.公路植草护坡草种及草种组合研究[J].华东公路,1998,(1):68-71.
[84]刘建宁,高洪文.山西汰旧高速公路边坡绿化种草技术研究[J].中国草地,1996,(6):23-26.
[85]夏汉平,敖惠修.百喜草-护坡草坪植物新秀[J].广东园林,1997(4):33-34.
[86]常根柱,杜天庆,王朝凌.野生狗牙根栽培利用试验研究[J].公路,1999(4):8-10.
[87]刘勇,何花.百喜草-多用途宝贝草[J].农村养殖技术,2002,(10):24.
[88]赵大勇.固堤护坡理想植物-马蔺[J].国土绿化,2000,(5):44.
[89]李西.应用于植被护坡两种岩生植物土壤植被系统(SVS)研究[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2004.
[90]白景文.应用于植被护坡的两种野生岩生植物抗旱适应性研究[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[91]陈庆平,谢良.香根草等高植物篱防治边坡侵蚀[J].福建水土保持,2000,(6):47-50.
[92]吴建华.种植香根草是防治水土流失和绿化边坡重要措施[J].西南农业学报,2004,(1):302-304.
[93]冯子元,张丽萍,张镇鑫.“香根草技术”在百色水利枢纽工程河道边坡防护中的应用[J].人民珠江,2003,(4),66-69.
[94]冯子元.“香根草技术”在龙滩水电站道路边坡上的应用[J].广西水利水电,2003,(1),57-63.
[95]夏汉平,敖惠修,刘世盅.香根草生态工程应用于公路护坡的效益研究[J].草业科学,2002,19(1),52-56.
[96]胥晓刚,王锦平,杨冬升.弯叶画眉草在风化岩石边坡种植的适应性研究[J].公路,2001,(11):106-108.
[97]郭建光.适用于公路边坡生态防护的草本植物-扁茎黄芪[J].草原与草坪,2003,(2):61.
[98]张伦,辛克敏,陈谦海,等.贵州长序狼尾草生物生态学特点及其利用的初步研究[J].武汉植物学研究,1996,14(3):223-230.
[99]卢欣石,申玉龙,江玉林,等.狼尾草属野生种在黄土高原地区适应性观察与研究[J].草业科学 1991,8(3):33-36.
[100]刘文珍,毕贵福.昆明地区两种野生狼尾草的农艺性状及营养成份[J].云南农业科技,1995,(4):12-14.
[101]同文轩,张林海,何咏松.中国狼尾草属(Pennisetum Rich.)牧草资源的发掘及其开发利用前景[J],草业科学,1990,7(2):25-26.
[102]同文轩,张林海,何咏松.国产狼尾草属野生种比较研究初报[J].草业科学,1990,7(4):51-52.
[103]武菊英,滕文军,王庆海.狼尾草的生物学特性及在园林中的应用[J].中国园林,2005,(12):57-59.
[104]Micheal King.Gardening with grasses[M].Timber Press,1998.
[105]谭志坚,何利群,刘清益.中国重庆地区高速公路绿化现状和策略[J].四川草原,2002,(4):43-47.
[106]李西,罗承德,陈其兵.岩石边坡植被护坡植物选择初探[J].中国园林,2004,(9):52-53.
[107]章浚平.优质高产青绿饲料杂交狼尾草的开发利用[J].中国水土保持,1995(2):38-39.
[108]白淑娟,杨运生,顾洪如,等.杂交狼尾草在苏南农区养殖业中的利用[J].中国草地,1991(4):33-35.
[109]朱练峰,江海东,高雅,等.不同前作对杂交狼尾草产量和品质的影响[J].草业学报,2006,15(1):76-83.
[110]余晓华.我国西南紫色土地区公路护坡草种适应性研究[J].生态科学,2002,21(4):342-345.
[111]中野秀章.森林水文学[M].李云森译.北京:中国林业出版社,1983.
[112]张永才,赖万玉.几种优良的工程护坡草种应用介绍[J].草业科学,2000,17(2):26-30.
[113]胡丽珍.野生结缕草品系生物学特性及坪用性状的研究[D].长沙:湖南农业大学,2007.
[114]刘向东,吴钦孝,施立明,等.对六盘山森林截留降水作用的研究[J].林业科技通讯,1982,(3):18-21.
[115]赵金荣,孙立达,朱金兆.黄土高原水土保持灌木[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,1994.
[116]胡建忠,李文忠,郑佳丽,等.祁连山南麓退耕地主要植物群落植冠层的截留性能[J].山地学报,2004,22(4):492-501.
[117]程金花,张洪江,史玉虎,等.三峡库区几种林下枯落物的水文作用[J].北京林业大学学报,2003,25(2):8-13.
[118]范世香,裴铁番,蒋德明,等.两种不同林分截留能力的比较研究[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(5):671-674.
[119]雷瑞德.秦岭火地塘林区华山松林水源涵养功能的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1984,(1):19-33.
[120]吴长文,王礼先.水土保持林中枯落物的作用[J].中国水土保持,1993,(4):28-30.
[121]吴钦孝,赵鸿雁,韩冰.黄土高原森林枯枝落叶层保持水土的有效性[J].西北农林科技大学学报,2001,29(5):95-98.
[122]赵鸿雁,吴铁孝,刘嗣彬.黄土高原人工油松林枯枝落叶层的水土保持功能研究[J].林业科学,2003,39(1):168-172.
[123]曹成有,朱丽晖,韩春声,等.辽宁东部山区森林枯落物层的水文作用[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(1):44-48.
[124]高人,周广柱.辽宁东部山区几种主要森林植被类型枯落物层持水性能研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2002,33(2):115-118.
[125]韩同吉,裴胜民,张光灿,等.北方石质山区典型林分枯落物层涵蓄水分特征[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,36(2):275-278.
[126]朱志芳,覃志刚,陈林武,等.嘉陵江流域低山丘陵区几种主要森林类型水文特征研究[J].四川林业科技,2003,24(3):31-35.
[127]崔鸿侠,张卓文,陈玉声,等.三峡库区莲峡河小流域马尾松水文生态效应[J].中南林学院学报,2005,25(2):46-49.
[128]赵鸿雁,吴钦孝.黄土高原几种枯枝落叶吸水机理研究[J].防护林科技,1996,(4):15-18.
[129]程洪,张新全.草本植物根系网固土原理的力学实验探究[J].水土保持通报,2002,22(5):20-23.
[130]蒋定生.黄土区不同利用类型土壤抗冲刷能力的研究[J].土壤通报,1979,(2):20-23.
[131]刘宝元,张科利,焦菊英.土壤可蚀性及其在侵蚀预报中的应用[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4):345-350.
[132]邹翔,崔鹏,陈杰,等.小江流域土壤抗冲性实验研究[J].水土保持学报,2004,18(2):71-73.
[133]张晓明,王玉杰,夏一平,等.重庆缙云山典型植被原状土抗剪强度的灰色关联度分析与评价[J].水土保持研究,2007,14(2):145-147.
[134]范兴科,蒋定生,赵合理.黄土高原浅层原状土抗剪强度浅析[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(4):69-75.
[135]张祖荣.植物根系提高土壤抗侵蚀能力的初步研究[J].渝西学院学报(自然科学版),2002,15(1):31-35.
[136]程洪,蔡儒珍,傅恒生,等.公路工程中的香根草等高植物篱护坡技术[J].华东公路,2003,(1):45-47.
[137]张金池.苏北海堤林带树木根系固土功能研究[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(2):43-55.
[138]曾信波.贵州紫色土上植物根系提高土壤抗冲性能的研究[J].贵州农学院学报,1995,14(2):20-24.
[139]张志良,瞿伟箐.植物生理学实验指导(第三版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[140]陈娟.六种野生灌木的抗旱性研究及园林应用[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[141]胡学俭.10树种苗期抗旱特性及其抗旱评价指标体系的研究[D].济南:山东农业大学,2005.
[142]张国珍.四川野生狗牙根抗旱性研究及评价[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2005.
[143]张海燕,赵可夫.盐分和水分胁迫对盐地碱蓬幼苗渗透调节效应的研究[J].植物学报,1998,40(1):56-60.
[144]董丽华.草地早熟禾不同品种抗旱性研究[D].兰州:宁夏大学,2005.
[145]葛体达,隋方功,张金政,等.玉米根、叶质膜透性和叶片水分对土壤干旱胁迫的反应[J].植被植物学报,2005,25(3):507-512.
[146]王玉刚.三种草坪草抗旱性研究[D].乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2004.
[147]韩建民.抗旱性不同的水稻品种对渗透胁迫的反应及其与渗透调节的关系[J].河北农业大学学报,1990,13(1):17-21.
[148]上官周平.不同抗旱性冬小麦品种渗透调节的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1991(4):61-65.
[149]骆爱玲.甜菜碱脱氢酶在波菜叶中的定位[J].植物生理学报,1995,21(2):117-122.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |