黄河三角洲盐地碱蓬湿地不同修复技术的效果评估

岳修鹏; 孙乾照; 吕梦雪; 李家奇; 王安东; 张树岩; 谢湉; 王青

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202408002

黄河三角洲盐地碱蓬湿地不同修复技术的效果评估

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202408002

岳修鹏¹,
孙乾照²,
吕梦雪³,
李家奇²,
王安东¹,
张树岩¹,
谢湉^2,4,
王青^2,4,5, ,

1. 山东黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区管理委员会, 山东东营 257091;
2. 北京师范大学环境学院水环境模拟国家重点实验室, 北京 100875;
3. 山东烟台市龙口市东江街道, 山东烟台 265718;
4. 黄河口湿地生态系统教育部野外科学观测研究站, 山东东营 257509;
5. 北京师范大学珠海校区流域环境生态工程研发中心, 广东珠海 519087

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目(42107057)

详细信息

作者简介:
岳修鹏(1972-),男,高级工程师,主要研究方向为湿地生态管理。994656092@qq.com

通讯作者:
王青(1989-),女,特聘副研究员,主要研究方向为湿地生态过程与修复。wq@bnu.edu.cn

计量
- 文章访问数: 51
- HTML全文浏览量: 8
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-09-04
- 网络出版日期: 2024-12-02

EVALUATION ON EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT RESTORATION MEASURES ON SUAEDA SALSA WETLAND IN THE YELLOW RIVER DELTA

1. Shandong Yellow River Delta National Nature Reserve Administration Committee, Dongying 257091, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;
3. Dongjiang Street, Longkou, Yantai City, Shandong Province, Yantai 265718, China;
4. Yellow River Estuary Wetland Ecosystem Observation and Research Station, Ministry of Education, Dongying 257509, China;
5. Research and Development Center for Watershed Environmental Eco-Engineering, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China

摘要

摘要: 为了维持盐地碱蓬群落分布格局与种群特征稳定,黄河三角洲国家级自然保护区自2019年起,在退化盐地碱蓬湿地开展了基于微地形调整及利用淡水补充压盐2种技术的生态修复工程。对修复工程进行了跟踪监测,对比分析了修复工程区、退化区以及自然湿地区中盐地碱蓬对的形态与群落特征、土壤理化性质以及大型底栖动物群落特征,以评估不同修复措施的实施效果。结果表明,微地形修复措施修复效果显著,修复区中盐地碱蓬密度、盖度和生物量均高于退化对照区,并与自然湿地区接近;底栖动物密度也得到了显著提升,但是群落结构发生了变化,多样性指数与均匀度指数下降。而淡水补充修复区由于补水中断,修复效果并不显著。
- 盐沼湿地 /
- 生态修复 /
- 微地形 /
- 淡水补充
Abstract: To maintain the stability of the Suaeda salsa population and their patterns, the Yellow River Delta National Nature Reserve has carried out ecological restoration projects in the degraded Suaeda salsa wetlands since 2019. Two types of restoration measures were carried out in the degraded area: microtopographic adjustment, and replenishing fresh water to reduce soil salinity. In order to evaluate the effect of the two restoration measures, we monitored and analyzed the morphological and population characteristics of Suaeda salsa, soil physicochemical properties, and macrobenthos community characteristics in the restoration project, degraded wetlands, and natural wetlands. The results showed that microtopographic adjustment was the most effective measure, while the density, coverage, and biomass of Suaeda salsa in the restoration project were higher than those in the degraded wetland, and were close to the natural wetland. In addition, the density of macrobenthos was increased, but the community structure of macrobenthos had been changed, and the diversity and evenness index decreased. On the contrary, the effect of the replenishment of fresh water was not significant, which might be caused by the interruption of fresh water.
- salt marshes /
- ecological restoration /
- microtopography /
- fresh water replenishment

HTML全文

参考文献(37)

[1]	BARBIER E B, HACKER S D, KENNEDY C, et al. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services[J]. Ecol Monogr, 2011, 81: 169-193.
[2]	MURRAY N J, WORTHINGTON T A, BUNTING P, et al. High-resolution mapping of losses and gains of Earth’s tidal wetlands[J]. Science, 2022, 376(6594): 744-749.
[3]	吴靖梅, 陈秋健. 盐城湿地国家级珍禽自然保护区缓冲区射阳段生态修复模式及修复工程研究[J].环境科学与管理,2023,48(4):178-183.
[4]	戈萍燕, 杨棠武, 张鹏,等. 基于鸟类栖息需求的盐城滨海湿地生态修复工程:以陈家港水库生态修复工程为例[J].湿地科学与管理, 2021, 17(4):33-36.
[5]	顾艳. 几种小微湿地生态修复工程的生态效应分析[D]. 南京:南京大学, 2019.
[6]	蒋卫国, 张泽, 凌子燕,等. 中国湿地保护修复管理经验与未来研究趋势[J]. 地理学报, 2023, 78(9):2223-2240.
[7]	洪佳, 卢晓宁, 王玲玲. 1973—2013 年黄河三角洲湿地景观演变驱动力[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(4): 924-935.
[8]	郭岳,徐清馨,佟守正,等.黄河三角洲滨海湿地退化原因分析及生态修复[J].吉林林业科技,2017,46(5):40-44.
[9]	韩潇源. 黄河三角洲石油开发的环境影响定量评价研究[D]. 青岛: 中国海洋大学, 2009.
[10]	刘峰. 黄河三角洲湿地水生态系统污染、退化与湿地修复的初步研究[D]. 青岛: 中国海洋大学, 2015.
[11]	ZHANG X Q, FU X S, ZHANG L N. Ecological vulnerability assessment of estuarine wetland of the Yellow River Delta[J]. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 2016, 19(4): 771-784.
[12]	袁秀, 孙燕燕, 王计平, 等. 基于水鸟栖息地恢复的黄河三角洲水资源综合利用策略[J].资源科学, 2020, 42(1): 104-114.
[13]	XIE T, CUI B, BAI J, et al. Rethinking the role of edaphic condition in halophyte vegetation degradation on salt marshes due to coastal defense structure[J]. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 2018, 103: 81-90.
[14]	WANG Q, SHAO D D, CUI B S, et al. Artificial modifications lead to the formation of persistent bare patches in saltmarshes[J]. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1026736.
[15]	刘康, 闫家国, 邹雨璇, 等. 黄河三角洲盐地碱蓬盐沼的时空分布动态[J]. 湿地科学, 2015, 13(6): 696-701.
[16]	LIU J K, ENGEL B A, WANG Y, et al. Multi-scale analysis of hydrological connectivity and plant response in the Yellow River Delta[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 702, 134889.
[17]	WANG Q, CUI B S, LUO M, SHI W. Designing microtopographic structures to facilitate seedling re-establishment in degraded salt marshes[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2018,120: 266-273.
[18]	WANG Q, CUI B S, LUO M. Effectiveness of microtopographic structure in species recovery in degraded salt marshes[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2018,133: 173-181.
[19]	XIE T, CUI B, LI S, BAI J. Topography regulates edaphic suitability for seedling establishment associated with tidal elevation in coastal salt marshes[J]. Geoderma, 2019,337: 1258-1266.
[20]	WANG Q, CUI B S, LUO M, et al. Microtopographic structures facilitate plant recruitment across a salt marsh tidal gradient[J]. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem, 2019,29(8):1336-1346.
[21]	唐娜,崔保山,赵欣胜.黄河三角洲芦苇湿地的恢复[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(8): 2616-2624.
[22]	路峰,毕作林,谭学界.黄河三角洲芦苇湿地恢复评价[J]. 山东林业科技, 2007, (2): 52-54.
[23]	FALK D A, PALMER M A, ZEDLER J B. Foundations of restoration ecology. Chapter 7: Topographic Heterogeneity Theory and Ecological Restoration[M]. Washington: Island Press, USA, 2006.
[24]	WEI W, CHEN L D, YANG L, et al. Microtopography recreation benefits ecosystem restoration[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46: 10875-10876.
[25]	BOUMA T J, DE VRIES M B, LOW E, et al. Flow hydrodynamics on a mudflat and in salt marsh vegetation: identifying general relationships for habitat characterisations[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2005, 540: 259-274.
[26]	BOUMA T, et al. Density-dependent linkage of scale-dependent feedbacks: a flume study on the intertidal macrophyte Spartina anglica[J]. Oikos, 2009, 1182: 260-268.
[27]	BROOKS K L, MOSSMAN H L, CHITTY J L, et al. Limited vegetation development on a created salt marsh associated with over-consolidated sediments and lack of topographic heterogeneity[J]. Estuaries and Coasts, 2015, 38: 325-336.
[28]	COURTWRIGHT J, FINDLAY S E G. Effects of microtopography on hydrology, physicochemistry, and vegetation in a tidal swamp of the Hudson River[J]. Wetlands, 2011,31: 239-249.
[29]	MOSER K, AHN C, NOE G. Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands[J]. Wetlands, 2007, 27: 1081-1097.
[30]	张晗旭, 李馨宇, 崔保山,等. 黄河三角洲湿地生态修复工程对底栖动物的影响效果研究[J]. 环境工程, 2023, 41(1): 222-231.
[31]	汪茂秋, 胡阳, 何宁,等. 湿地修复后大型底栖动物功能群的时空格局及其影响因素分析(英文)[J].Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(6):1152-1164.
[32]	BRULAND G L, RICHARDSON C J. Hydrologic, edaphic, and vegetative responses to microtopographic reestablishment in a restored wetland[J]. Restoration Ecology, 2005, 13: 515-523.
[33]	VIVIAN-SMITH G. Microtopographic heterogeneity and florystic diversity in experimental wetlands communities[J]. Journal of Ecology, 1997, 85: 71-82.
[34]	CUI B S, HE Q, ZHAO X S. Ecological thresholds of Suaeda salsa to the environmental gradients of water table depth and soil salinity[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008,28: 1408-1418.
[35]	贺强. 黄河口盐沼植物群落的上行、种间和下行控制因子[D]. 上海:上海交通大学, 2012.
[36]	彭斌,许伟,邵荣,等,石文艳.盐胁迫对不同生境种源盐地碱蓬幼苗生长、光合色素及渗透调节物质的影响[J]. 海洋湖沼通报,2017, 1: 63-72.
[37]	尹建道,姜志林,曹斌,等.滨海盐渍土脱盐动态规律及其效果评价:野外灌水脱盐模拟实验研究[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2002, 26(4): 15-18.