大汶河流域土壤侵蚀强度时空变化规律及驱动因素研究

Spatiotemporal Variation of Soil erosion Intensity and Driving Factors in the Dawen River Basin

摘要

大汶河作为黄河在山东省内最大的支流，开展其流域土壤侵蚀研究，厘清土壤侵蚀强度特征，将对未来黄河下游的水土保持规划具有重要意义。本文以大汶河流域戴村坝水文站控制流域为研究区域，采用RUSLE模型及多尺度地理加权回归模型（MGWR），计算分析大汶河流域土壤侵蚀模数时空变化特征及驱动因素。研究结果表明：时间上在1990-2022年间，大汶河流域平均土壤侵蚀模数为685.3 t/（km ²·a），并以平均每年13.24 t/（km ²·a）的速率下降，土壤侵蚀强度主要以低强度侵蚀为主，多年平均微度侵蚀面积占比为70.5%，轻度侵蚀面积占比为22.4%；突变年份为2002和2003年，突变点均通过了0.05显著性检验；空间上75.82%的区域土壤侵蚀模数变化情况不显著，19.03%的区域变化情况为显著下降，显著下降区域多集中于山区边缘地带；全局自相关呈聚集模式，置信度大于99%，土壤侵蚀模数的变化情况受空间分布影响非常显著，局部自相关呈现以低低聚集为主；MGWR结果表明影响因素对土壤侵蚀模数有较强的空间差异性，水土保持措施因子和坡度为大汶河流域土壤侵蚀最主要的两个驱动因素，且具有正向作用；其次为植被指数，具有负向作用。

Abstract

As the largest tributary of the Yellow River in Shandong Province, conducting research on soil erosion in the Dawen River basin and clarifying the characteristics of soil erosion intensity will be of great significance for future soil and water conservation planning of the lower reaches of the Yellow River. This paper takes the watershed controlled by the Daicunba Hydrological Station in the Dawen River Basin as the study area, employing the RUSLE model and the Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) model to calculate and analyze the spatiotemporal variation characteristics and driving factors of soil erosion modulus in the Dawen River Basin. The results show that temporally, from 1990 to 2022, the average soil erosion modulus in the Dawen River Basin was 685.3 t/(km ²·a), decreasing at an average annual rate of 13.24 t/(km ²·a). The soil erosion intensity was mainly low-intensity erosion, with an average micro-erosion area accounting for 70.5% and a light erosion area accounting for 22.4%. The mutation years were 2002 and 2003, and the mutation points passed the 0.05 significance test. Spatially, 75.82% of the areas showed no significant change in soil erosion modulus, while 19.03% of the areas experienced a significant decline. The regions with significant decline were mostly concentrated in the marginal zones of mountainous areas. Global spatial autocorrelation exhibited an aggregation pattern, with a confidence level greater than 99%, indicating that the changes in soil erosion modulus were significantly influenced by spatial distribution. Local autocorrelation was dominated by low-low clustering. The MGWR results reveal strong spatial heterogeneity in the impact of influencing factors on soil erosion modulus. Soil and water conservation measures and slope are the two main driving factors of soil erosion in the Dawen River Basin, both exerting a positive effect. This is followed by the vegetation index, which has a negative effect.

关键词

RUSLE / MGWR / 时空格局 / 驱动因素

Key words

RUSLE / MGWR / spatial and temporal patterns / driving factors

参考文献

[1] Blum W E H . Functions of soil for society and the environment[J]. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/technology, 2005, 4: 75-79.

[2] 周萍, 王润生, 阎柏琨, 等. 高光谱遥感土壤有机质信息提取研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 2008, 27(05): 27-34.

[3] Li P, Mu X, Holden J, et al. Comparison of soil erosion models used to study the Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2017, 170: 17-30.

[4] Blaikie P . The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries[M]. London: Routledge, 2016.

[5] 王占礼. 中国土壤侵蚀影响因素及其危害分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2000, 16(04): 32-36.

[6] 李占斌, 朱冰冰, 李鹏. 土壤侵蚀与水土保持研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(05): 802-809.

[7] 郑粉莉, 刘峰, 杨勤科, 等. 土壤侵蚀预报模型研究进展[J]. 水土保持通报, 2001, 21(06): 16-18,32.

[8] Karamage F, Zhang C, Liu T, et al. Soil erosion risk assessment in Uganda[J]. Forests, 2017, 8(2): 52.

[9] De Roo A P J . The LISEM project: an introduction[J]. Hydrological Processes, 1996, 10(8): 1021-1025.

[10] Chatterjee S, Krishna A P, Sharma A P . Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin, Jharkhand, India[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2014, 71: 357-374.

[11] 汪东川, 卢玉东. 国外土壤侵蚀模型发展概述[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2004, 2(02): 35-40.

[12] 曹瑜, 胡光道. 地理信息系统在国内外应用现状[J]. 计算机与现代化, 1999(03): 1-4.

[13] 邹雅婧, 闫庆武, 谭学玲, 等. 渭北矿区土壤侵蚀评估及驱动因素分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019, 42(06): 1387-1394.

[14] 林锦阔. 河西地区土壤侵蚀时空分异及其驱动因素[D].兰州:兰州大学, 2020.

[15] 陈晨晨, 武谦, 张占友, 等. 澜沧江中下游流域土壤侵蚀时空演变特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(02): 11-17+30.

[16] 许功伟, 徐立荣, 张云苹, 等. 1970-2019 年大汶河流域降雨侵蚀力时空变化分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(06): 45-51.

[17] 王如岩. 大汶河流域降雨对水土流失的影响[J]. 水土保持应用技术, 2021(04): 50-52.

[18] 彭守璋. 中国1km分辨率逐月降水量数据集(1901-2023)[Z]. 国家青藏高原数据中心, 2020.

[19] 彭守璋 . 中国 1km 分辨率逐月平均气温数据集(1901-2023)[Z]. 国家青藏高原科学数据中心, 2020.

[20] 何永利. 基于世界土壤数据库(HWSD v1.2)的泛第三极土壤数据集[Z]. 国家青藏高原数据中心, 2019.

[21] 高吉喜, 史园莉, 张宏伟, 等. 中国区域250 米归一化植被指数数据集(2000-2023) [Z]. 国家青藏高原科学数据中心, 2023.

[22] Yang J, Huang X . 30 m annual land cover and its dynamics in China from 1990 to 2019[J]. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2021, 2021: 1-29.

[23] 陈云明, 刘国彬, 郑粉莉, 等. RUSLE侵蚀模型的应用及进展[J]. 水土保持研究, 2004, 11(04): 80-83.

[24] 王万忠, 焦菊英. 中国的土壤侵蚀因子定量评价研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 1996, 16(05): 1-20.

[25] 景凌洋. 基于RUSLE 模型的浙东四明山土壤侵蚀现状分析[D].武汉:华东师范大学, 2020.

[26] 刘文辉. 基于GIS 和RUSLE 模型的宁夏彭阳县土壤侵蚀变化研究[D].银川:宁夏大学, 2017.

[27] 林泽民. 基于RS和GIS的泰安市土壤侵蚀空间分布格局及防治对策研究[D].济南: 山东师范大学, 2015.

[28] 米济民. 陇南市土壤侵蚀时空分布特征及驱动因子探究[D].兰州:兰州大学, 2023.

[29] 汪攀, 刘毅敏. Sen's斜率估计与Mann-Kendall法在设备运行趋势分析中的应用[J]. 武汉科技大学学报, 2014, 37(06): 454-457+472.

[30] 魏凤英. 现代气候统计诊断与预测技术[M]. 北京: 气象出版社, 2007: 63-64.

[31] 孔波, 樊晶晶, 黄强. 北洛河流域分期径流变异诊断及成因分析[J]. 水资源保护, 2019, 35(06): 52-57.

[32] 胡锐, 刘志伟, 张雄浩, 等. 基于不同权重的土地利用空间自相关模型对比分析——以元谋县为例[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2024, 52(11): 54-59.

[33] 陈旭宗, 王萍, 王姝逸. 郑州市生境质量时空演变评价及其影响因素分析[J]. 天津农业科学, 2023, 29 (11): 78-83+90.

[34] 陈创, 聂平静, 郭军, 等. 基于USLE和MGWR模型的洞庭湖区水土流失评估及其影响因素[J]. 四川地质学报, 2025, 45(01): 147-153+188.

[35] 祝元丽. 东北低山丘陵区土壤侵蚀格局及其对土地利用变化的响应研究[D].长春:吉林大学, 2021.

[36] Ma D, Peng S, Lin Z, et al. Identification of high-risk soil erosion areas in the central Yunnan urban agglomeration and the differentiated driving mechanisms compared to the overall agglomeration[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15(1): 1-17.

基金资助

山东省自然科学基金面上项目(ZR2021ME058)