Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences ›› 2026, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (3): 374-385.DOI: 10.7523/j.ucas.2024.059
• Environmental Science & Geography • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2024-05-16
Accepted:2024-05-31
Online:2026-05-15
Contact:
Aibin ZHAO
CLC Number:
Aibin ZHAO, Anru LOU. Impact of artificial vegetation restoration on wind erosion in the eastern sandy land of Qinghai Lake[J]. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2026, 43(3): 374-385.
| 样地编号 | 优势种 | 优势种平均高度/cm | 总盖度/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZG | 沙蒿 | 24.15 | 56.5 |
| SJB | 沙棘 | 38.09 | 28.0 |
| SHG | 沙蒿 | 40.44 | 47.1 |
| SWB | 沙蒿 | 42.43 | 27.6 |
| WLB | 沙蒿 | 42.96 | 36.3 |
| LS | — | 0 | 0 |
Table 1 Dominant species, their average height, and total coverage across sites
| 样地编号 | 优势种 | 优势种平均高度/cm | 总盖度/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZG | 沙蒿 | 24.15 | 56.5 |
| SJB | 沙棘 | 38.09 | 28.0 |
| SHG | 沙蒿 | 40.44 | 47.1 |
| SWB | 沙蒿 | 42.43 | 27.6 |
| WLB | 沙蒿 | 42.96 | 36.3 |
| LS | — | 0 | 0 |
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 恢复时间/a | Simpson指数 D | Shannon-Wiener指数H | Pielou均匀度指数 E | Margalef丰富度指数 S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘群落 | ZG | 25 | 0.705 | 1.476 | 0.710 | 1.652 |
| SHG | 6 | 0.675 | 1.242 | 0.896 | 0.752 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳群落 | SWB | 6 | 0.728 | 1.381 | 0.858 | 1.296 |
| WLB | 4 | 0.822 | 1.869 | 0.899 | 1.665 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿群落 | SJB | 13 | 0.605 | 1.008 | 0.918 | 0.582 |
Table 2 Species diversity index of artificial plant communities
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 恢复时间/a | Simpson指数 D | Shannon-Wiener指数H | Pielou均匀度指数 E | Margalef丰富度指数 S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘群落 | ZG | 25 | 0.705 | 1.476 | 0.710 | 1.652 |
| SHG | 6 | 0.675 | 1.242 | 0.896 | 0.752 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳群落 | SWB | 6 | 0.728 | 1.381 | 0.858 | 1.296 |
| WLB | 4 | 0.822 | 1.869 | 0.899 | 1.665 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿群落 | SJB | 13 | 0.605 | 1.008 | 0.918 | 0.582 |
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 恢复时间/a | FRic | FEve | FDiv | FDis | RaoQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘群落 | ZG | 25 | 0.218 | 0.573 | 0.663 | 0.143 | 0.032 |
| SHG | 6 | 0.079 | 0.471 | 0.854 | 0.118 | 0.021 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳群落 | SWB | 6 | 0.095 | 0.663 | 0.789 | 0.191 | 0.041 |
| WLB | 4 | 0.198 | 0.607 | 0.757 | 0.162 | 0.040 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿群落 | SJB | 13 | 0.024 | 0.536 | 0.841 | 0.096 | 0.015 |
Table 3 Functional diversity index of artificial plant communities
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 恢复时间/a | FRic | FEve | FDiv | FDis | RaoQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘群落 | ZG | 25 | 0.218 | 0.573 | 0.663 | 0.143 | 0.032 |
| SHG | 6 | 0.079 | 0.471 | 0.854 | 0.118 | 0.021 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳群落 | SWB | 6 | 0.095 | 0.663 | 0.789 | 0.191 | 0.041 |
| WLB | 4 | 0.198 | 0.607 | 0.757 | 0.162 | 0.040 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿群落 | SJB | 13 | 0.024 | 0.536 | 0.841 | 0.096 | 0.015 |
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 0.25 m风速 | 0.5 m风速 | 1 m风速 | 2 m风速 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘固定沙地群落 | ZG | 2.64 | 3.21 | 4.23 | 5.62 |
| SHG | 3.35 | 3.71 | 5.29 | 6.47 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳半固定沙地群落 | SWB | 3.19 | 3.85 | 4.99 | 5.64 |
| WLB | 2.78 | 3.26 | 4.14 | 5.43 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿半固定沙地群落 | SJB | 3.44 | 4.04 | 5.53 | 6.52 |
| 流沙地 | LS | 5.14 | 5.97 | 6.78 | 8.07 |
Table 4 Standardized average wind speeds at different elevations in various plots on the lake east sand
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 0.25 m风速 | 0.5 m风速 | 1 m风速 | 2 m风速 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 沙蒿-沙棘固定沙地群落 | ZG | 2.64 | 3.21 | 4.23 | 5.62 |
| SHG | 3.35 | 3.71 | 5.29 | 6.47 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳半固定沙地群落 | SWB | 3.19 | 3.85 | 4.99 | 5.64 |
| WLB | 2.78 | 3.26 | 4.14 | 5.43 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿半固定沙地群落 | SJB | 3.44 | 4.04 | 5.53 | 6.52 |
| 流沙地 | LS | 5.14 | 5.97 | 6.78 | 8.07 |
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 粗糙度Z0/mm | 防风作用/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 m | 0.5 m | 1 m | 2 m | |||
| 沙蒿-沙棘固定沙地群落 | ZG | 46.1 | 67.3 | 60.2 | 47.6 | 30.4 |
| SHG | 35.9 | 58.5 | 54.0 | 34.4 | 19.8 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳半固定沙地群落 | SWB | 19.2 | 60.5 | 52.3 | 38.2 | 30.1 |
| WLB | 33.0 | 65.6 | 59.6 | 48.7 | 32.7 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿半固定沙地群落 | SJB | 29.7 | 57.4 | 49.9 | 31.5 | 19.2 |
| 流沙地 | LS | 6.5 | — | — | — | — |
Table 5 Surface roughness and wind resistance of various plots on the lake east sand
| 群落类型 | 样地编号 | 粗糙度Z0/mm | 防风作用/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 m | 0.5 m | 1 m | 2 m | |||
| 沙蒿-沙棘固定沙地群落 | ZG | 46.1 | 67.3 | 60.2 | 47.6 | 30.4 |
| SHG | 35.9 | 58.5 | 54.0 | 34.4 | 19.8 | |
| 沙蒿-乌柳半固定沙地群落 | SWB | 19.2 | 60.5 | 52.3 | 38.2 | 30.1 |
| WLB | 33.0 | 65.6 | 59.6 | 48.7 | 32.7 | |
| 沙棘-沙蒿半固定沙地群落 | SJB | 29.7 | 57.4 | 49.9 | 31.5 | 19.2 |
| 流沙地 | LS | 6.5 | — | — | — | — |
| 优势种平均高度 | 总盖度 | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 优势种平均高度 | 1.000 | 0.571 | 31.345 | 16.854 | |
| / | 0.237 | ||||
| 总盖度 | 0.571 | 1.000 | 32.583 | 19.514 | |
| 0.237 | / | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.861* | 0.845* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.028 | 0.034 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.854* | 0.824* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.031 | 0.044 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.763 | 0.813* | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.078 | 0.049 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.751 | 0.823* | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.085 | 0.044 | ||||
Table 6 Correlation coefficient between wind resistance and community coverage and dominant species height
| 优势种平均高度 | 总盖度 | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 优势种平均高度 | 1.000 | 0.571 | 31.345 | 16.854 | |
| / | 0.237 | ||||
| 总盖度 | 0.571 | 1.000 | 32.583 | 19.514 | |
| 0.237 | / | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.861* | 0.845* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.028 | 0.034 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.854* | 0.824* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.031 | 0.044 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.763 | 0.813* | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.078 | 0.049 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.751 | 0.823* | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.085 | 0.044 | ||||
| Simpson指数 D | Shannon-Wiener指数 H | Pielou均匀度指数 E | Margalef丰富度指数 S | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simpson指数 D | 1.000 | 0.973** | 0.945** | 0.847* | 0.589 | 0.297 | |
| / | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.033 | ||||
| Shannon-Wiener指数 H | 0.973** | 1.000 | 0.855* | 0.924** | 1.163 | 0.637 | |
| 0.001 | / | 0.030 | 0.009 | ||||
| Pielou均匀度指数 E | 0.945** | 0.855* | 1.000 | 0.631 | 0.714 | 0.358 | |
| 0.004 | 0.030 | / | 0.179 | ||||
| Margalef丰富度指数 S | 0.847* | 0.924** | 0.631 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 0.662 | |
| 0.033 | 0.009 | 0.179 | / | ||||
| 风速 | 0.25 m | -0.967** | -0.963** | -0.862* | -0.913* | 3.423 | 0.898 |
| 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.027 | 0.011 | ||||
| 0.5 m | -0.973** | -0.966** | -0.884* | -0.882* | 4.007 | 1.016 | |
| 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.019 | 0.020 | ||||
| 1 m | -0.905* | -0.964** | -0.730 | -0.978** | 5.160 | 0.971 | |
| 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.100 | 0.001 | ||||
| 2 m | -0.954** | -0.971** | -0.817* | -0.956** | 6.292 | 0.986 | |
| 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.047 | 0.003 | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.985** | 0.939** | 0.943** | 0.823* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.044 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.986** | 0.946** | 0.939** | 0.825* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.043 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.970** | 0.981** | 0.853* | 0.932** | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.007 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.953** | 0.971** | 0.816* | 0.957** | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.047 | 0.003 | ||||
Table 7 Correlation coefficients between species diversity index and average wind speed and wind resistance
| Simpson指数 D | Shannon-Wiener指数 H | Pielou均匀度指数 E | Margalef丰富度指数 S | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simpson指数 D | 1.000 | 0.973** | 0.945** | 0.847* | 0.589 | 0.297 | |
| / | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.033 | ||||
| Shannon-Wiener指数 H | 0.973** | 1.000 | 0.855* | 0.924** | 1.163 | 0.637 | |
| 0.001 | / | 0.030 | 0.009 | ||||
| Pielou均匀度指数 E | 0.945** | 0.855* | 1.000 | 0.631 | 0.714 | 0.358 | |
| 0.004 | 0.030 | / | 0.179 | ||||
| Margalef丰富度指数 S | 0.847* | 0.924** | 0.631 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 0.662 | |
| 0.033 | 0.009 | 0.179 | / | ||||
| 风速 | 0.25 m | -0.967** | -0.963** | -0.862* | -0.913* | 3.423 | 0.898 |
| 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.027 | 0.011 | ||||
| 0.5 m | -0.973** | -0.966** | -0.884* | -0.882* | 4.007 | 1.016 | |
| 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.019 | 0.020 | ||||
| 1 m | -0.905* | -0.964** | -0.730 | -0.978** | 5.160 | 0.971 | |
| 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.100 | 0.001 | ||||
| 2 m | -0.954** | -0.971** | -0.817* | -0.956** | 6.292 | 0.986 | |
| 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.047 | 0.003 | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.985** | 0.939** | 0.943** | 0.823* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.044 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.986** | 0.946** | 0.939** | 0.825* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.043 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.970** | 0.981** | 0.853* | 0.932** | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.007 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.953** | 0.971** | 0.816* | 0.957** | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.047 | 0.003 | ||||
| FRic | FEve | FDiv | FDis | RaoQ | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRic | 1.000 | 0.618 | 0.396 | 0.684 | 0.783 | 0.102 | 0.089 | |
| / | 0.191 | 0.437 | 0.134 | 0.066 | ||||
| FEve | 0.618 | 1.000 | 0.917* | 0.951** | 0.881* | 0.475 | 0.241 | |
| 0.191 | / | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.021 | ||||
| FDiv | 0.396 | 0.917* | 1.000 | 0.805 | 0.671 | 0.651 | 0.326 | |
| 0.437 | 0.010 | / | 0.053 | 0.144 | ||||
| FDis | 0.684 | 0.951** | 0.805 | 1.000 | 0.972** | 0.118 | 0.067 | |
| 0.134 | 0.004 | 0.053 | / | 0.001 | ||||
| RaoQ | 0.783 | 0.881* | 0.671 | 0.972** | 1.000 | 0.025 | 0.016 | |
| 0.066 | 0.021 | 0.144 | 0.001 | / | ||||
| 风速 | 0.25 m | -0.813* | -0.940** | -0.846* | -0.893* | -0.861* | 3.423 | 0.898 |
| 0.049 | 0.005 | 0.034 | 0.017 | 0.028 | ||||
| 0.5 m | -0.793 | -0.925** | -0.871* | -0.874* | -0.834* | 4.007 | 1.016 | |
| 0.060 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.039 | ||||
| 1 m | -0.928** | -0.857* | -0.695 | -0.863* | -0.895* | 5.160 | 0.971 | |
| 0.008 | 0.029 | 0.125 | 0.027 | 0.016 | ||||
| 2 m | -0.817* | -0.952** | -0.788 | -0.963** | -0.960** | 6.292 | 0.986 | |
| 0.047 | 0.003 | 0.063 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.681 | 0.969** | 0.936** | 0.893* | 0.818* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.137 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.017 | 0.047 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.697 | 0.956** | 0.932** | 0.884* | 0.813* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.124 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.020 | 0.049 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.835* | 0.935** | 0.830* | 0.904* | 0.886* | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.039 | 0.006 | 0.041 | 0.013 | 0.019 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.818* | 0.951** | 0.788 | 0.963** | 0.960** | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.047 | 0.004 | 0.063 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||||
Table 8 Correlation coefficients between functional diversity index and average wind speed and wind resistance
| FRic | FEve | FDiv | FDis | RaoQ | 平均值 | 标准差 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRic | 1.000 | 0.618 | 0.396 | 0.684 | 0.783 | 0.102 | 0.089 | |
| / | 0.191 | 0.437 | 0.134 | 0.066 | ||||
| FEve | 0.618 | 1.000 | 0.917* | 0.951** | 0.881* | 0.475 | 0.241 | |
| 0.191 | / | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.021 | ||||
| FDiv | 0.396 | 0.917* | 1.000 | 0.805 | 0.671 | 0.651 | 0.326 | |
| 0.437 | 0.010 | / | 0.053 | 0.144 | ||||
| FDis | 0.684 | 0.951** | 0.805 | 1.000 | 0.972** | 0.118 | 0.067 | |
| 0.134 | 0.004 | 0.053 | / | 0.001 | ||||
| RaoQ | 0.783 | 0.881* | 0.671 | 0.972** | 1.000 | 0.025 | 0.016 | |
| 0.066 | 0.021 | 0.144 | 0.001 | / | ||||
| 风速 | 0.25 m | -0.813* | -0.940** | -0.846* | -0.893* | -0.861* | 3.423 | 0.898 |
| 0.049 | 0.005 | 0.034 | 0.017 | 0.028 | ||||
| 0.5 m | -0.793 | -0.925** | -0.871* | -0.874* | -0.834* | 4.007 | 1.016 | |
| 0.060 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.039 | ||||
| 1 m | -0.928** | -0.857* | -0.695 | -0.863* | -0.895* | 5.160 | 0.971 | |
| 0.008 | 0.029 | 0.125 | 0.027 | 0.016 | ||||
| 2 m | -0.817* | -0.952** | -0.788 | -0.963** | -0.960** | 6.292 | 0.986 | |
| 0.047 | 0.003 | 0.063 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||||
| 防风作用 | 0.25 m | 0.681 | 0.969** | 0.936** | 0.893* | 0.818* | 51.550 | 25.556 |
| 0.137 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.017 | 0.047 | ||||
| 0.5 m | 0.697 | 0.956** | 0.932** | 0.884* | 0.813* | 46.000 | 22.898 | |
| 0.124 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.020 | 0.049 | ||||
| 1 m | 0.835* | 0.935** | 0.830* | 0.904* | 0.886* | 33.400 | 17.770 | |
| 0.039 | 0.006 | 0.041 | 0.013 | 0.019 | ||||
| 2 m | 0.818* | 0.951** | 0.788 | 0.963** | 0.960** | 22.033 | 12.226 | |
| 0.047 | 0.004 | 0.063 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||||
| [1] | 李森, 董玉祥, 董光荣, 等. 青藏高原土地沙漠化区划[J]. 中国沙漠, 2001, 21(4): 418-427. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2001.04.018 . |
| [2] | 张登山, 武健伟, 鲁瑞洁, 等. 环青海湖区沙漠化综合治理规划研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2003, 20(4): 307-311. DOI: 10.13866/j.azr.2003.04.016 . |
| [3] | 冯宗炜, 冯兆忠. 青海湖流域主要生态环境问题及防治对策[J]. 生态环境, 2004, 13(4): 467-469. DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2004.04.001 . |
| [4] | 姚檀栋, 朴世龙, 沈妙根, 等. 印度季风与西风相互作用在现代青藏高原产生连锁式环境效应[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(9): 976-984. DOI: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2017.09.007 . |
| [5] | Wei H C, Chongyi E, Zhang J, et al. Climate change and anthropogenic activities in Qinghai Lake Basin over the last 8500 years derived from pollen and charcoal records in an aeolian section[J]. CATENA, 2020, 193: 104616. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104616 . |
| [6] | Wei H C, C E, Duan R L, et al. Fungal spore record of pastoralism on the NE Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau since the middle Holocene[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2021, 64: 1318-1331. DOI: 10.1007/s11430-020-9787-4 . |
| [7] | 朱秀莲. 海晏县沙化现状调查及治理对策[J]. 青海草业, 2009, 18(2): 40-42. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-1445.2009.02.011. |
| [8] | 张登山, 高尚玉. 青海高原沙漠化研究进展[J]. 中国沙漠, 2007, 27(3): 367-372. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2007.03.004 . |
| [9] | 张登山, 石昊, 魏殿生, 等. 青海湖流域人工治沙措施防风固沙效益初步研究[J]. 地球环境学报, 2010, 1(3): 239-242. |
| [10] | 张登山, 田丽慧, 鲁瑞洁, 等. 青海湖湖东沙地风沙沉积物的粒度特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2013, 36(2): 203-211. DOI: 10.13826/j.cnki.cn65-1103/x.2013.02.004 . |
| [11] | 丁之勇, 鲁瑞洁, 刘畅, 等. 环青海湖地区气候变化特征及其季风环流因素[J]. 地球科学进展, 2018, 33(3): 281-292. DOI: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2018.03.0281 . |
| [12] | 曹军骥, 安芷生. 青海湖流域生态和环境治理技术集成与试验示范项目简介及主要进展[J]. 地球环境学报, 2010, 1(3): 158-161. |
| [13] | 赵爱斌. 青海湖流域克土沙区固沙植物生态适应性研究[D]. 北京:北京师范大学, 2011. |
| [14] | 赵爱斌, 娄安如. 青海湖湖东沙地人工植被群落特征研究[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 59(4): 653-660. DOI: 10.12202/j.0476-0301.2023124 . |
| [15] | 吴汪洋, 张登山, 田丽慧, 等. 近10年青海湖东沙地人工植被群落特征[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(6): 2109-2121. |
| [16] | 汪海娇, 田丽慧, 张登山, 等. 青海湖东沙地不同植被恢复措施下土壤水分变化特征[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(1): 76-86. DOI:10.13866/j.azr.2021.01.09 . |
| [17] | 张春来, 邹学勇, 程宏, 等. 包兰铁路沙坡头段防护体系近地面流场特征[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2006, 14(3): 353-360. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0930.2006.03.006 . |
| [18] | 吴汪洋, 张登山, 田丽慧, 等. 青海湖沙地人工治理沙丘的风速廓线变化特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2013, 20(6): 162-167. |
| [19] | 吴正, 等. 风沙地貌与治沙工程学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2003. |
| [20] | Cerato A B, Lutenegger A J. Specimen size and scale effects of direct shear box tests of sands[J]. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 2006, 29(6): 507-516. DOI: 10.1520/gtj100312 . |
| [21] | ASTM International. ASTM book of standards Vol 4.08: Construction: Soil and rock (I): D420-D5876 [S]. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2014. |
| [22] | 王洪涛, 董治宝, 钱广强, 等. 关于风沙流中风速廓线的进一步实验研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2003, 23(6): 721-724. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2003.06.023 . |
| [23] | 赵彩霞, 郑大玮, 何文清. 植被覆盖度的时间变化及其防风蚀效应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2005, 29(1): 68-73. |
| [24] | 董治宝, W.Fryrear Donald, 高尚玉. 直立植物防沙措施粗糙特征的模拟实验[J]. 中国沙漠, 2000, 20(3): 260-263. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2000.03.008 . |
| [25] | 刘小平, 董治宝. 空气动力学粗糙度的物理与实践意义[J]. 中国沙漠, 2003, 23(4): 337-346. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2003.04.001 . |
| [26] | 刘小平, 董治宝. 直立植被粗糙度和阻力分解的风洞实验研究[J]. 中国沙漠, 2002, 22(1): 82-87. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn: 1000-694X.2002.01.015 . |
| [27] | 汪海娇, 田丽慧, 张登山, 等. 青海湖东岸沙地风沙活动特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2020, 40(1): 49-56. DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2019.00040 . |
| [28] | 陈东雪, 鲁瑞洁, 丁之勇, 等. 青海湖湖东沙地河湖-风成沉积记录的中晚全新世以来环境变化[J]. 中国沙漠, 2021, 41(6): 99-110. DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2021.00092 . |
| [29] | Zhang H W, Tian L H, Hasi E, et al. Vegetation-soil dynamics in an alpine desert ecosystem of the Qinghai Lake watershed, northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023, 11: 1119605. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1119605 . |
| [30] | Wang C, Qiu Y H, Fan F L, et al. Rapid environmental changes in the Lake Qinghai Basin during the late Holocene[J]. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2023, 11: 1125302. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2023.1125302 . |
| [1] | MIAO Yu, ZHANG Huai, SHI Yaolin. Dynamic mechanism and river evolution under coupling effects of surficial and tectonic processes: a case study of Qinghai Lake and Daotang River [J]. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2024, 41(2): 212-221. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
Copyright © Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Support by Beijing Magtech Co.ltd support@magtech.com.cn
