|Table of Contents|

Study on the Self-healing Ability of the Roots of Caragana microphylla Lam Under the Damage of Two Types of Erosional Force

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2019年08
Page:
82-89
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Study on the Self-healing Ability of the Roots of Caragana microphylla Lam Under the Damage of Two Types of Erosional Force
Author(s):
LIU Jiawei1; LIU Jing1; ZHANG Xin2; LIN Nanping1; LI Youfang1; WANG Chenjia1
(1.College of Desert Science and Engineering,Inner Mongolia Agricultural University,Hohhot,Inner Mongolia 010019；2.Institute of Water Resource for Pasturing Area of the Ministry of Water Resources,Hohhot,Inner Mongolia 010019)
Keywords:
Caragana microphylla Lam; straight roots; anti-tensile force; anti-fracture force; self-healing
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20183822
Abstract:
The Caragana microphylla Lam which is the common plant in the semi-arid mining area was used to the study object.In a nonisolated state,the damage tensile force (70% ultimate tensile force) or damage fracture force (70% ultimate fracture force) was applied in the straight roots of 1.5-3.5 mm root diameters range.After 5 months of self-healing,the self-healing characteristics of biological and mechanical were researched.In order to explore the effect of tensile and fracture damage on the sustainable soil fixation of plant roots.The results showed that the survival rate of the straight roots of Caragana microphylla Lam.was higher than 65%,and the growth rate of root diameter was higher than 18%.The difference of anti-tensile strength,control group (42.29±4.81) MPa>after 5 months of self-healing (33.64±3.30) MPa>before damage (28.57±3.03) MPa.The difference of anti-fracture strength:control group (48.72±2.26) MPa>after 5 months of self-healing (44.37±2.36) MPa>before damage (37.60±5.96) MPa.Comparison between two types of damage the effect of tensile force damage on the growth of straight root was significant.The survival rate and root diameter growth rate were lower.The anti-fracture strength was significantly higher than the anti-tensile strength,it indicated that the root of Caragana microphylla Lam resistance to soil settlement was stronger than the resistance to strong wind pull force.The survival rate of thinner straight roots (diameter 1.5-2.4 mm) after self-healing was 0.99 times of thicker straight roots (diameter 2.5-3.5 mm).It′s root diameter growth rate was 1.32 times of thicker taproots.And the decline rate of strength was 0.81 times of thicker straight roots.The growing states and mechanical properties of the thinner straight roots after self-healing were better than those thicker straight roots.

References:

[1]江凌,肖燚,饶恩明,等.内蒙古土地利用变化对生态系统防风固沙功能的影响[J].生态学报,2016,36(12):3734-3747.[2]ZHOU D W,WU K,CHENG G L,et al.Mechanism of mining subsidence in coal mining area with thick alluvium soil in China[J].Arabian Journal of Geosciences,2015,8(4):1855-1867.[3]王双明,杜华栋,王生全.神木北部采煤塌陷区土壤与植被损害过程及机理分析[J].煤炭学报,2017,42(1):17-26.[4]赵冰清,郭东罡,白中科,等.半干旱区露天煤矿复垦土地人工植被2010—2015年间群落动态[J].生态学杂志,2018,37(6):1636-1644.[5]ZHANG N,PAN D J,ZHAO Y M,et al.Evaluation of relative mining intensity in western China based on interval analytic hierarchy process[J].Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,2014,19(Z):2941-2953.[6]SONG J,HAN C,LI P,et al.Quantitative prediction of mining subsidence and its impact on the environment[J].International Journal of Mining Science and Technology,2012,22(1):69-73.[7]胡晶晶,毕银丽,龚云丽,等.接种AM真菌对采煤沉陷区文冠果生长及土壤特性的影响[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(5):341-345,351.[8]封建民,董桂芳,郭玲霞,等.榆神府矿区景观格局演变及其生态响应[J].干旱区研究,2014,31(6):1141-1146.[9]刘治兴,杨建英,杨阳,等.高速公路不同植物防护边坡根土复合体抗剪能力研究[J].生态环境学报,2015,24(4):631-637.[10]田佳,及金楠,钟琦,等.贺兰山云杉林根土复合体提高边坡稳定性分析[J].农业工程学报,2017,33(20):144-152.[11]周萍,文安邦,严冬春,等.三峡库区紫色土坡耕地草本植物根系固结地埂的土力学机制[J].水土保持学报,2017,31(1):85-90.[12]李有芳,刘静,张欣,等.外力作用下4种植物根系易损部位的研究[J].林业科学研究,2017,30(1):63-68.[13]罗龙皂,李绍才,孙海龙,等.刺槐根系抗弯特性研究[J].水土保持通报,2011,31(2):77-81,87.[14]ROERING J J,SCHMIDT K M,STOCK J D,et al.Shallow landsliding,root reinforcement,and the spatial distribution[J].Canadian Geotechnical Journal,2003,40(2):237-253.[15]FAN C C.A displacement-based model for estimating the shear resistance of root-permeated soils[J].Plant & Soil,2012,355(1-2):103-119.[16]刘玥.4种植物直段根和侧根分支处抗弯力学特性的研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2015.[17]于瑞雪,李少朋,毕银丽,等.煤炭开采对沙蒿根系生长的影响及其自修复能力[J].煤炭科学技术,2014,42(2):110-113.[18]毕银丽,王瑾,冯颜博,等.菌根对干旱区采煤沉陷地紫穗槐根系修复的影响[J].煤炭学报,2014,39(8):1758-1764.[19]苑淑娟.4种植物单根抗拉力学特性的研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2010.[20]郑永刚.4种植物直根抗折力学特性的研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2015.[21]周云艳,陈建平,王晓梅.植物根系固土护坡机理的研究进展及展望[J].生态环境学报,2012,21(6):1171-1177.[22]PASSIOURA J B.Soil structure and plant growth[J].Soil Research,1991,29(6):717-728.[23]LEE J T,TSAI S M.The nitrogen-fixing Frankia significantly increases growth,uprooting resistance and root tensile strength of Alnus formosana[J].African Journal of Biotechnology,2018,17(7):213-225.[24]张欣,刘静,郑永刚,等.4种植物直根抗折力和抗折强度的研究[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(5):338-342.[25]吕春娟,陈丽华,周硕,等.不同乔木根系的抗拉力学特性[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(S1):329-335.[26]赵玉娇,胡夏嵩,李华坦,等.寒旱环境灌木根系增强边坡土体抗剪强度特征[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(11):174-180.[27]栗岳洲,付江涛,余冬梅,等.寒旱环境盐生植物根系固土护坡力学效应及其最优含根量探讨[J].岩石力学与工程学报,2015,34(7):1370-1383.[28]刘鹏飞,刘静,朱宏慧,等.4种植物生长旺盛期侧根分支处与相邻上级直根抗折特性的差异[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(1):33-39.[29]STOKES A,ATGER C,BENGOUGH A G,et al.Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and engineered slopes against landslides[J].Plant & Soil,2009,324(1-2):1-30.[30]BURYLO M,REY F,MATHYS N,et al.Plant root traits affecting the resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion[J].Earth Surface Processes & Landforms,2012,37(14):1463-1470.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2019-06-03