内蒙古东北林草交错生态脆弱区的公路边坡生态袋防护效益研究

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0444

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (11): 195-204.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0444

• 生物制造资源生态 • 上一篇

内蒙古东北林草交错生态脆弱区的公路边坡生态袋防护效益研究

张宇¹(), 李龙¹^,²(), 刘宝河³^,⁴, 曹治明¹, 李鹏飞⁵, 王嫣娇³, 王颖⁶, 张睿姝⁷

^1.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院，呼和浩特 010018
^2.内蒙古农业大学沙漠治理学院，国家林业局荒漠生态系统保护与修复重点实验室，呼和浩特 010000
^3.内蒙古交通设计研究院有限责任公司，呼和浩特 010010
^4.内蒙古自治区工程创面修复及路域生态系统建设工程技术研究中心，呼和浩特 010010
^5.国道331线零点至宝格达山段公路工程建设管理办公室，内蒙古科尔沁 137499
^6.乌兰察布市公共资源交易中心，内蒙古乌兰察布 012000
^7.呼和浩特市公路服务中心，呼和浩特 010010

收稿日期:2024-06-03 接受日期:2024-09-30 出版日期:2025-11-15 发布日期:2025-11-17
通讯作者: 李龙
作者简介:张宇 E-mail：1311293543@qq.com；
基金资助:
内蒙古自治区交通运输厅建设科技项目(NJ-2018-31)

Study on Ecological Bag Protection Benefit of Highway Slope in Northeast China of Inner Mongolia

Yu ZHANG¹(), Long LI¹^,²(), Baohe LIU³^,⁴, Zhiming CAO¹, Pengfei LI⁵, Yanjiao WANG³, Ying WANG⁶, Ruishu ZHANG⁷

^1.School of Desert Management，Inner Mongolia Agricultural University，Hohhot 010018，China
^2.Key Laboratory of Desert Ecosystem Protection and Restoration，State Forestry Administration，School of Desert Management，Inner Mongolia Agricultural University，Hohhot 010000，China
^3.Inner Mongolia Transportation Design and Research Institute，Hohhot 010010，China
^4.Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Engineering Surface Restoration and Road Ecosystem Construction Engineering Technology Research Center，Hohhot 010010，China
^5.Construction of National Highway 331 from Zero Point to Baogeda Mountain Section Management Office，Inner Mongolia Horqin 137499，China
^6.Ulanqab City Public Resources Trading Center，Inner Mongolia Ulanqab 012000，China
^7.Hohhot Highway Service Centre，Hohhot 010000，China

Received:2024-06-03 Accepted:2024-09-30 Online:2025-11-15 Published:2025-11-17
Contact: Long LI

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

公路工程开挖造成较大面积的裸露岩石边坡是引起水土流失的主要原因。为探究生态袋在公路边坡生态防护中的作用，选取内蒙古东北林草交错生态脆弱区的公路边坡为研究对象，采取野外调查与室内试验相结合的方法分析生态袋的土壤、植被指数及根系特征。结果表明，坡向对土壤理化性质（容重、全氮含量除外）的影响均表现为阴坡>阳坡>对照边坡，其中，阴坡的全钾含量变化最显著，比阳坡、对照边坡分别高18%、26%；坡向对植物株高、盖度、生物量的影响均表现为阴坡>阳坡>对照边坡，阴坡的总根系长度比阳坡、对照边坡分别高30%、38%。主成分分析表明，阴坡、阳坡和对照边坡的主成分综合得分分别为46.16、-13.00、-33.15。原裸露岩石边坡与生态袋防护边坡对比发现，使用生态袋进行生态防护的边坡土壤养分及植被生长较好；而原生态边坡生态环境较脆弱，需加强对脆弱区裸露岩石边坡的生态保护力度。研究结果为进一步探究生态袋对公路边坡的影响提供理论依据。

关键词: 公路边坡, 坡向, 生态袋, 主成分分析

Abstract:

The excavation of highway projects causes a large area of exposed rocky slopes which is the main cause of soil erosion. In order to explore the role played by eco-bags in ecological protection of highway slopes， the highway slopes in the ecologically fragile area of forest and grass interspersed in Northeast Inner Mongolia were selected as the research object， and a combination of field investigation and indoor experiment was adopted to analyse the soil， vegetation index and root characteristics of the eco-bags. The results showed that the effect of slope direction on soil physicochemical properties （except for bulk density and total nitrogen content） were negative>positive>control slopes， in which the total potassium content of the negative slopes varied most significantly， which was 18% and 26% higher than that of the positive slopes and control slopes， respectively； the slope direction was negative>positive>control slopes in terms of the height， cover and biomass of the plant plants， and the total length of the root system of the negative slope was 30% and 38% higher than that of the positive slope and control slope， respectively. The principal component analysis showed that the composite scores of shady slope， sunny slope and control slope reached 46.16，-13.00 and -33.15， respectively. Comparison between the original exposed rocky slope and the slope protected by eco-bags revealed that the soil nutrients and vegetation growth of slopes protected by eco-bags were better， while the ecological environment of the original ecological slopes was more fragile， and the ecological protection of exposed rocky slopes in the fragile areas should be strengthened. The ecological environment of the original slopes is more fragile. The results provided a theoretical basis for further investigation of the impact of ecological bags on highway slopes.

Key words: highway slope, slope direction, ecological bag, principal component analysis

中图分类号:

S732

张宇, 李龙, 刘宝河, 曹治明, 李鹏飞, 王嫣娇, 王颖, 张睿姝. 内蒙古东北林草交错生态脆弱区的公路边坡生态袋防护效益研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(11): 195-204.

Yu ZHANG, Long LI, Baohe LIU, Zhiming CAO, Pengfei LI, Yanjiao WANG, Ying WANG, Ruishu ZHANG. Study on Ecological Bag Protection Benefit of Highway Slope in Northeast China of Inner Mongolia[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(11): 195-204.

图/表 8

图1 生态袋处理下不同边坡的土壤物理性质

Fig. 1 Physical properties of soil on different slopes under ecological bag treatment

图2 生态袋处理下不同边坡的土壤化学性质注：不同小写字母表示不同边坡间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 2 Soil chemical properties of different slopes under ecological bag treatmentNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different slopes at P <0.05 level.

图3 生态袋处理下不同边坡的植被盖度及生物量注：不同小写字母表示不同边坡间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 3 Vegetation cover and biomass of different slopes under ecological bag treatmentNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different slopes at P <0.05 level.

图4 生态袋处理下不同边坡的草本物种组成

Fig. 4 Herbaceous species composition of different slopes under ecological bag treatment

图5 生态袋处理下不同边坡的草本物种多样性指数注：不同小写字母表示不同边坡间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 5 Herbaceous species diversity index of different slopes under ecological bag treatmentNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different slopes at P <0.05 level.

图6 生态袋处理下不同边坡的植被根系注：不同小写字母表示不同边坡间在P<0.05水平差异显著。

Fig. 6 Vegetation roots of different slopes under ecological bag treatmentNote： Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different slopes at P <0.05 level.

图7 不同边坡的土壤理化性质、植被指数及根系特征的相关性分析注：*、**和***分别表示在P<0.05、P<0.01和P<0.001水平相关显著。

Fig. 7 Correlation analysis of soil physicochemical properties， vegetation index and root characteristics of different slopesNote： *，** and *** indicate significant correlations at P<0.05，P<0.01 and P<0.001 levels， respectively.

表1 不同坡向土壤理化性质及植被指数主成分分析和总额分析

Table 1 Principal component analysis and gross analysis of soil physical and chemical properties and vegetation index in different slope directions

坡向

Slope aspect

PC1得分

PC1 score

PC2得分

PC2 score

综合得分

Combined score

排名

Ranking

阴坡

Shady slope

4.74

0.55

46.16

阳坡

Sunny slope

-0.91

-1.25

-13.00

对照边坡

Comparison slope

-3.83

0.70

-33.15

参考文献 32

[1]	FU H Y, ZHA H Y, ZENG L, et al.. Research progress on ecological protection technology of highway slope:status and challenges [J]. Transport. Saf. Environ., 2020, 2(1):3-17.
[2]	李国峰.高速公路水土保持措施分析建议[J].智能城市,2018,4(14):110-111.
[3]	罗宇.高速公路边坡生态防护研究与探讨[J].黑龙江交通科技,2020,43(2):7-9, 13.
	LUO Y.Research and discussion on ecological protection of expressway slope [J]. Commun. Sci. Technol. Heilongjiang, 2020, 43(2):7-9, 13.
[4]	李浩瑄,刘宝河,罗煦,等.东北林草交错生态脆弱区公路工程创面生态修复现状及对策分析[J].内蒙古科技与经济,2020(21):80,84.
[5]	刘志浩,左雪燕,何洋.喷播基质对边坡修复效果的影响分析[J].山东水利,2023(12):22-25.
[6]	程强.植被混凝土技术在高陡边坡生态修复中的应用——以焦作某矿山地质环境恢复治理工程为例[J].化工矿产地质,2023,45(4):334-340.
	CHENG Q. Application of vegetation concrete technology in ecological rehabilitation of high and steep slopes—take the geological environment restoration and treatment project of a mine in Jiaozuo as an example [J]. Geol. Chem. Mineral,2023, 45(4):334-340.
[7]	杨阳,杨建英,赵平,等.两种框格梁生态护坡技术及其应用效果——以安徽岳武高速公路为例[J].中国水土保持科学,2015,13(5):118-124.
	YANG Y, YANG J Y, ZHAO P, et al.. Two technologies of concrete frame ecological slope protection and application effect:taking the Anhui Yuewu highway as an example [J]. Sci. Soil Water Conserv., 2015, 13(5):118-124.
[8]	黄滔,刘长红,廖菊阳,等.邵怀高速公路厚层基材喷射植被护坡技术研究[J].西北林学院学报,2009,24(6):77-79.
	HUANG T, LIU C H, LIAO J Y, et al.. Thick layer base material spraying slope protection technique applying in Shaohuai highway [J]. J. Northwest For. Univ., 2009, 24(6):77-79.
[9]	王志婷,刘廷玺,童新,等.不同处理方式对沙丘-草甸草地植被和土壤特征的影响[J].中国草地学报,2022,44(7):43-52.
	WANG Z T, LIU T X, TONG X,et al.. Effects of different treatments on vegetation and soil characteristics of dune-meadow grassland [J]. Chin. J. Grassland, 2022, 44(7):43-52.
[10]	鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M]. 第3版.北京:中国农业出版社,2000:25-109.
[11]	刘和,王晓丽,王彦龙,等.三江源区建植“黑土山”人工草地对土壤性质的影响[J].草地学报, 2023,31(8):2527-2536.
	LIU H, WANG X L, WANG Y L, et al.. The effect of planting “black-soil mountain” artificial grassland on soil properties in the Three Rivers Source Region [J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2023, 31(8):2527-2536.
[12]	金立群,李希来,孙华方,等.高寒矿区排土场不同坡向植被和土壤特征研究[J].土壤,2020,52(4):831-839.
	JIN L Q, LI X L, SUN H F, et al.. Characteristics of vegetations and soils under different aspects of slag mountain in alpine mining area [J]. Soils, 2020, 52(4):831-839.
[13]	赵晓雪,饶良懿,申震洲.砒砂岩区不同地形位置土壤物理性质分异特征[J].应用与环境生物学报,2020,26(6):1359-1368.
	ZHAO X X, RAO L Y, SHEN Z Z. Heterogeneous characteristics of soil physical properties of different terrain locations in the Pisha sandstone area [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol., 2020, 26(6):1359-1368.
[14]	周萍,刘国彬,侯喜禄.黄土丘陵区侵蚀环境不同坡面及坡位土壤理化特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(1):7-12.
	ZHOU P, LIU G B, HOU X L. Study on soil physical and nutrients properties of different slope aspects and positions in eroded Loess Hilly Region [J]. J. Soil Water Conserv., 2008, 22(1):7-12.
[15]	蒲玉琳,龙高飞,刘世全,等.山地土壤坡向性分异的研究概况[J].土壤通报,2007,38(4):753-757.
	PU Y L, LONG G F, LIU S Q, et al.. Research progress in slope-directive variation of mountain soils [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2007, 38(4):753-757.
[16]	刘旻霞,王刚.高寒草甸植物群落多样性及土壤因子对坡向的响应[J].生态学杂志,2013,32(2):259-265.
	LIU M X, WANG G. Responses of plant community diversity and soil factors to slope aspect in alpine meadow [J]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2013, 32(2):259-265.
[17]	刘辉,宛涛,伊卫东,等.不同坡向乌丹蒿化学计量特征及其与土壤养分的关系[J].西北植物学报,2020,40(5):862-869.
	LIU H, WAN T, YI W D, et al.. Stoichiometric characteristics of different slopes of Artemisia wudanica and their relationship with soil nutrients [J]. Acta Bot. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2020, 40(5):862-869.
[18]	罗蓉,曹国璠,李金玲,等.不同坡向对白术根际土壤养分及产质量的影响[J].山东农业科学,2023,55(1):100-105.
	LUO R, CAO G F, LI J L, et al.. Effects of different slope directions on soil nutrient,yield and quality of Atractylodes macrocephala koidz [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci., 2023, 55(1):100-105.
[19]	王国梁,刘国彬,许明祥.黄土丘陵区纸坊沟流域植被恢复的土壤养分效应[J].水土保持通报,2002,22(1):1-5.
	WANG G L, LIU G B, XU M X.Effect of vegetation restoration on soil nutrient changes in Zhifanggou watershed of Loess Hilly Region [J]. Bull. Soil Water Conserv., 2002, 22(1):1-5.
[20]	王彦龙,王晓丽,马玉寿.坡向对长江源区高寒草地植被生长和土壤养分特征的影响[J].草业科学,2018,35(10):2336-2346.
	WANG Y L, WANG X L, MA Y S. Effect of slope aspect on vegetation growth and soil nutrient characteristics of alpine grassland in the source region of Yangtze River [J]. Pratac. Sci., 2018, 35(10):2336-2346.
[21]	王雪,杨斯茜,张易帆,等.坡向对切挖边坡土壤钾素特征的影响[J].四川大学学报(自然科学版),2023,60(2):157-161.
	WANG X, YANG S Q, ZHANG Y F, et al.. Influence of slope aspect on soil potassium characteristics of cut slopes [J]. J. Sichuan Univ. (Nat. Sci.), 2023, 60(2):157-161.
[22]	邹雨函,唐希颖,崔丽娟,等.不同干扰强度下土壤理化性状对湿地植物多样性的影响[J/OL].生态学杂志,2024:1-12[2024-05-12]. .
	ZOU Y H, TANG X Y, CUI L J, et al.. Dependence of wetland plant diversity on soil physicochemical properties under different disturbance intensities [J/OL]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2024:1-12 [2024-05-12]. .
[23]	陈梦,袁丛军,舒德远,等. 黔东南丘陵山地5种林分类型土壤有机碳与理化性质间的关系[J].水土保持研究,2024,31(5):26-34.
	CHEN M, YUAN C J, SHU D Y, et al.. The relationship between soil organic carbonand physicochemical properties in different forest types [J]. Res. Soil Water Conserv., 2024, 31(5):26-34.
[24]	牧仁, 李新乐, 徐光甫,等. 乌兰布和沙漠不同生境土壤养分分布[J/OL].生态学杂志,2024:1-12 [2024-05-12].
	MU R, LI X L, XU G F, et al.. Soil nutrient distributions in different habitatsof the Ulanbuh Desert [J/OL]. Chin. J. Ecol., 2024:1-12 [2024-05-12]. .
[25]	刘梓莹,高志伟,吴肇惠,等.不同生态修复方式对内蒙古荒漠草原露天矿山土壤肥力的影响[J].天津师范大学学报(自然科学版),2024,44(4):39-45.
	LIU Z Y, GAO Z W, WU Z H, et al.. Effects of different ecological restoration methods on soil fertility of open-pit mine in Inner Mongolia desert grassland [J]. J. Tianjin Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.), 2024, 44(4):39-45.
[26]	刘旻霞,马建祖.甘南高寒草甸植物功能性状和土壤因子对坡向的响应[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(12):3295-3300.
	LIU M X, MA J Z. Responses of plant functional traits and soil factors to slope aspect in alpine meadow of South Gansu, Northwest China [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2012, 23(12):3295-3300.
[27]	苑晓霞,刘润红,盘远方,等.桂林喀斯特石山不同坡向乔灌木功能性状对比研究[J].广西科学院学报,2019,35(4):253-261.
	YUAN X X, LIU R H, PAN Y F, et al.. Comparative study on functional traits of trees and shrubs in different slope aspects on Karst hills of Guilin [J]. J. Guangxi Acad. Sci., 2019, 35(4):253-261.
[28]	李鹏飞.豫南丘陵公路边坡植被垂直空间与土壤稳定性耦合关系[D].郑州:河南农业大学,2016.
	LI P F. Coupling relationship between vegetation verticalspace and soil stability of highway slope in hillyregion of north Henan province [D]. Zhengzhou: Henan Agricultural University, 2016.
[29]	WALKER B, KINZIG A, LANGRIDGE J. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species [J]. Ecosystems, 1999, 2(2):95-113.
[30]	曹现富,王晓丽,邹广权,等.不同坡向对尾巨桉人工林林木生长及林下植物多样性的影响[J].西南农业学报,2023,36(11):2511-2517.
	CAO X F, WANG X L, ZOU G Q, et al.. Effects of different slope orientations on growth and understory plant diversity of Eucalyptus urophylla × E.grandis plantation forests [J]. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci., 2023, 36(11):2511-2517.
[31]	薛文鹏,赵忠,李鹏,等.王东沟不同坡向刺槐细根分布特征研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2003,31(6):27-32.
	XUE W P, ZHAO Z, LI P, et al.. Researches on root distribution characteristics of Robinia pseudoacacia stand in Wangdonggou on different site conditions [J]. J. Northwest A&F Univ. (Nat. Sci.), 2003, 31(6):27-32.
[32]	冯国建,王婷婷.某高速公路不同坡向情况下的边坡稳定性分析研究[J].北方交通,2021(3):44-47.
	FENG G J, WANG T T. Analysis and research on slope stability of an expressway under different aspects [J]. North. Commun., 2021(3):44-47.

内蒙古东北林草交错生态脆弱区的公路边坡生态袋防护效益研究

Study on Ecological Bag Protection Benefit of Highway Slope in Northeast China of Inner Mongolia

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 32

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	陈林涛, 刘兆祥, 蓝莹, 牟向伟, 马旭, 王日俊. 基于高光谱技术与主成分分析的稻种品种识别研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(3): 104-111.
[2]	王如月, 虎海防, 罗莎莎, 甄紫怡, 徐业勇, 胡晓静. 杏李不同采收成熟度果实品质分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(2): 158-169.
[3]	曾宝珍, 成永娟, 杨娟博, 车莉莉, 梁靖, 卢世雄, 梁国平, 马宗桓, 毛娟. 甘肃民勤地区‘慕合怀特’葡萄最佳采收期的确定[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(2): 70-79.
[4]	王婷, 杜婧含, 张光弟, 王江龙, 贾毅男, 王玉, 包文毅. 宁南山区新优甘蓝品种品质及挥发性物质研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(1): 165-180.
[5]	王学庆, 张波, 韩丽婷, 吕转转, 陈建军, 张竹林, 张军强, 杜建梅. 超高压处理对赤霞珠葡萄挥发性物质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(9): 146-158.
[6]	孙宪印, 牟秋焕, 米勇, 吕广德, 亓晓蕾, 孙盈盈, 尹逊栋, 王瑞霞, 吴科, 钱兆国, 赵岩, 高明刚. 基于GT双标图对小麦新品系的分类评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(7): 14-24.
[7]	石玉涛, 谢惠珍, 郑淑琳, 羽观华, 王飞权, 李力, 张渤, 李远华, 罗盛财. 武夷山地方茶树种质生化特性和茶多糖清除超氧阴离子自由基活性分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(5): 65-76.
[8]	潘越, 王宝庆, 王季姣, 马勇, 李亚兰. 不同山葡萄品种CO₂响应模型拟合及评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(4): 58-66.
[9]	曹婷婷, 刘春, 范又维, 马力, 任志雨, 袁素霞, 张军云, 钱遵姚, 杨光炤. 不同氮素供应水平对微型盆栽月季生长发育的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(2): 67-79.
[10]	孟盼盼, 何海燕, 曹钰昕, 张丽欣, 吕清豪, 祁瑞林, 张红瑞. 5个栽培类型药菊分枝期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(2): 90-99.
[11]	李生梅, 庞博, 耿世伟, 宋武, 李红梅, 马茂森, 张茹, 王新燕, 高文伟. 棉花海陆回交群体盛铃期的光合特性及其生理基础[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(1): 40-51.
[12]	卢倩倩, 阿布都外力·阿不力米提, 侯毅兴, 李志慧, 王爽, 周龙. 复合盐碱胁迫下7个鲜食葡萄品种光合特性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(7): 63-76.
[13]	王爽, 侯毅兴, 冯琳骄, 卢倩倩, 周龙. 干旱胁迫对鲜食葡萄叶片解剖结构的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 40-49.
[14]	郑淑琳, 石玉涛, 王飞权, 吴邦强, 李远华, 张渤, 叶乃兴. 不同茶树种质资源花器矿质元素含量分析与综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 178-188.
[15]	郭胜微, 边思文, 丁建文, 张晓辰, 杨兴, 杜锦, 向春阳. 糯玉米萌发期耐低温品种资源的综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 38-47.