grass- Cynodon Dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge. The second investigation showed that the vegetation cover rate almost achieves 100% in the study

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "grass- Cynodon Dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge. The second investigation showed that the vegetation cover rate almost achieves 100% in the study"

尤闻
7 years ago
Views:

1 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) (1) (2) (3) 90.23% 100% 15 Vegetation Characteristic of Landslide Areas after Hydroseeding Shin-Hwei Lin Professor, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. Chi-Sheng Hung, Chun-Jen Huang Graduate Student, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study is to investigate the vegetation on landslide areas, caused by 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. The major places of investigation located in 4 landslide areas with hydroseeding. Based on the results of two field investigations of vegetation datum after hydroseeding, the vegetation restoration, vegetation composition and distribution of invaded plants on landslides are discussed. The first investigation showed that the average vegetation cover rate is 90.23% in the study areas. The dominant plants of the vegetation colonization are herbaceous plants, especially hydroseeding 35

2 grass- Cynodon Dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge. The second investigation showed that the vegetation cover rate almost achieves 100% in the study areas. Among the invaded herbaceous plants, the most dominant species are the trailing plants, such as Mikania micrantha, Macroptilium atropurpureum, Ipomoea cairica, etc. In addition, the woody plants are one of the dominant species especially Trema irientalis, Buddleja asiatica Lour., Acacia catechu. The percentage of the woody plants is still increasing. According to the results of Matrix Cluster Analysis, the fifteen study areas can be divided into four vegetation types in the first investigation and five vegetation types in the second investigation. Because of the influence of the hydroseeding mixture, the variation and distribution of soil nutrients are considerably wide. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the relationship between environment factors and vegetation species at early stage. (KeywordsHydroseeding, vegetation recovery, vegetation analysis) 21,969 11,297 4 () ( SC) 47 4 SC1SC2SC3 SC ~ ~ () ( SS) 21,969 11, ~

3 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 22~ () ( YT) () ( SJ) 栀 6 1~ ~ ~ Figure 1. Location of study areas. 1. GPS () () ( ) 37

4 1. Table 1. The day of vegetation investigation 1. SC SS SJ YT (Phytosociological parameters) () ( 1983) ~19 (1) (frequency) 1/41/23/ (Relative frequencyr.f.) 1. R.F.= 100% 2. =( / (2) (cover) )* Stokes Law (Relative coverr.c.) 4. R.C.= 100% 5. ph 11 (3) (Importance Value Index 30min ph meter IVI) 6. (AA) 7. 2mm = + IVI = R.F.+ R.C. ( 200) () (4) 38

5 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) Motyka et al.(1950) 3. Motyka 2Mw IS mo = 100% MA + MB matrix of index of similarity value MAA (cluster analysis) MBB (dendrogram) Mw EXCEL Species diversity index ( 1983) (1) Species richnessr 1983) R = S N ( 1987) SPSS S Pearson N (2) Simpson (Simpson s index of diversity)d si D si 2 ( n N ) = 1 ( P) i = 1 C = 1 i n i i Pi= n i /N N ( 1987) (3) Shannon (Shannon s index of diversity) D sh 2 D sh ( n ) ( ) i N log ni N = Pi = logpi (4) Evenness indexe E = D log S sh ~

6 1 2500mm 6. ph ph 2000mm 2. SC1pH 7.1SJ m 485m 410m ( 1992) 250m ( 2001) ppm ppm ppm ppm () 5. Y X 2 50% 27% 1. SC3 87% 100% 40

7 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 2. Table 2. Environment data of study areas. (%) OM ( ) (m) (%) (%) (%) ph (ppm) Ca Mg Na K SC1 E N SC2 E N SC3 E N ( ) SC4 E N SS1 E N SS2 E N SS3 E N ( ) SS4 E N SJ E N ( ) YT1 E N YT2 E N YT3 E N YT4 E N ( ) YT5 E N YT N

8 3. Table 3. The monthly rainfall at the study areas mm 1 (m) (2) (2) 337 (2) (4) SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS SJ YT1 YT2 YT3 YT4 YT5 YT6 YT Figure 2. The comparison of vegetation cover in study areas. SC3SC4SS1SS3 (53 ) (52.17%) 100% (6.95% ) 3. SC % 2. SC % 82.14% 87% 42

9 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 45 () SS1SS2 IVI SS2SS3 SS4IVI (SC) 55 SC1SC2 SC3 SS SS2 31% 癀 SS3 SC4 IVI % SS4 IVI SC4 SC4 SC SC3 IVI SS1 SC1SC4 IVI SS2SS3 IVI 15 SS3 40% IVI SC2 IVI SS1SS2 IVI 38 SS4 IVI SC1 IVI 癀 SC4 IVI SS1 IVI 2. (SS) SS1 43

10 Table 4. The importance value index of plants in study areas at first vegetation investigation. SJ IVI R.C 癀 SS2 IVI R.C SC1 IVI R.C SC3 IVI R.C 癀 SS1 IVI R.C SS3 IVI R.C 癀 SC4 IVI R.C SC2 IVI R.C

11 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) Table 4. The importance value index of plants in study areas at first vegetation investigation YT4 IVI R.C SS4 IVI R.C 癀 YT3 IVI R.C 癀癀 YT2 IVI R.C YT1 IVI R.C YT5 IVI R.C 癀

12 5. ( ) () Table 5. The importance value index of plants in study areas at second vegetation investigation 癀 SC1 IVI R.C SS2 IVI R.C YT6 IVI R.C 癀 SC4 IVI R.C SC2 IVI R.C SJ IVI R.C SS3 IVI R.C SS1 IVI R.C 癀 SC3 IVI R.C

13 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 5. ( ) () Table 5. The importance value index of plants in study areas at second vegetation investigation SS4 IVI R.C YT4 IVI R.C 癀癀鈎 YT3 IVI R.C 蘝 YT6 IVI R.C 癀癀 YT1 IVI R.C YT5 IVI R.C 癀 YT2 IVI R.C

14 IVI 7.63% 3. (SJ) YT3YT5YT6 ( YT1) ( YT1YT2YT3) 17 ( YT2YT3YT4) ( IVI YT4) ( YT5) IVI ( YT5YT6) ( YT6) (29.8) (20.57) IVI 57 YT2YT3YT4 YT5 20% YT1 IVI YT6 癀 IVI 50 IVI 癀 39.8% (36.43) (14.43) YT4YT5 (12.72) (10.97) YT1 IVI % 4. (YT) 63 () YT1YT4 6 YT2YT3 YT2 YT5 (D YT 6 si 0.95D sh 1.42) YT6 (D 癀 si 0.47D sh 0.54) YT3(D YT4YT5 YT6 IVI sh 1.35) YT5(D sh 1.35) YT1(D YT2YT5 sh 0.84)YT6(D sh 0.78) 48

15 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) YT6 癀 IVI % ( 1995) Table 6. Index of species diversity in study areas. R Dsi Dsh E SJ YT YT YT YT YT YT SC SC SC SC SS SS SS SS

16 () Motyka 3 4 (IS) 1. ( 1983) YT1~YT4 4 IS=35% IS=44% 3. ( ) Figure 3. Dendrogram by matrix cluster analysis of study areas on landslides in the first vegetation. 50

17 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 4. ( ) Figure 4. Dendrogram by matrix cluster analysis of study areas on landslides in the second vegetation Investigation. 2. SJ SS1~4 4. SC4 SC1~3 8 () 3. 癀 YT5 YT6 癀 1. YT m ph (3.8~5.7) (55.2~855.0ppm) (28.1~173.5ppm) (64.0~128.0ppm) 51

18 5. 癀 YT6 2. SC1-4 4 癀 470m 50% (5.36 ~12.21%) () (0.67~5.81%) SS1SS2SS % (0.15~0.95%) (180.3~255.9ppm) 4. SS3 SJ SJ 565m 10 SPSS 52

19 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) (The first vegetation investigation) (The second vegetation investigation) 5. Figure 5. Dendrogram by Matrix cluster analysis of combined study areas. 7 癀 4 (1988) (1989) ph 3 ph 9 ph ( ph (3.80~4.38) ) YT1YT2YT3YT4YT6 癀 53

20 7. Table 7. The correlation coefficients of dominant plants with environmental factors. ( 2001) ( 2001) 54

21 36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 3. ( ) 黄 % % ( 1989) ~ ~ ~ % % ~ ~

22 ~ Fang. W. and S. L. Peng1997 Develop- ment of species diversity in the restoration 91~112 process of establishing a tropical man-made forest ecosystem in China Forest ecology and management, 99: Ghirelli LChiesura 13. Ghanim A. Abbadi and Mohamad A. Lorenzoni F 1995 El-Sheikh 2002 Vegetation analysis of Failaka Island (Kuwait). Journal of Arid ~393 Environments, 50:

(1) (2) (IVI) (2001) (IVI) 50% ~8% 1~30cm (IVI) Study on the Plant Succession of Slopeland Landslide Areas Following H

(1) (2) (IVI) (2001) (IVI) 50% ~8% 1~30cm (IVI) Study on the Plant Succession of Slopeland Landslide Areas Following H (1) (2) 921 7-200120022006 2008 (IVI)(2001) (IVI) 50% 2008 7~8% 1~30cm (IVI) Study on the Plant Succession of Slopeland Landslide Areas Following Hydroseeding Process Chiao-Shu Feng Graduate Student, Department