论文部分内容阅读
对比研究表明，治理措施分布的时空顺序不同，所形成的治理模式也不同，在治理程度相近的情况下，其水保效益差异显著。张家山流域以梯田为主，先以坡面中部成带连片，随后向中、下部推移的治理时序及模式，其效益明显优于官兴岔、花岔流域梯田从缓坡、村庄邻近处连片不成完整带的治理时序及模式。张家山治理程度每增加一个百分点，其减沙效益增加２％，而官兴岔、花岔流域仅为０．８３％～０．９０％；张家山粮食生产潜势利用率达３７．７２％，官兴岔为３５．９％；张家山饲草潜势利用率达４５．６７％，官兴岔为２４．３４％；张家山产值达７．９９万元／ｋｍ２，官兴岔仅为３．３７万元／ｋｍ２；张家山产投比为３．８１８，官兴岔为１．９１０。
Comparative studies have shown that the spatial and temporal order of distribution of governance measures is different, and the governance modes formed are also different. Under the similar governance level, the benefits of water conservation have significant differences. The Zhangjiashan Valley is dominated by terraced fields. The management sequence and pattern of the middle part and the lower part of the Zhangjishan Basin first dominated by the contiguous sections of the middle part of the slope, and the benefits are obviously superior to those of the Guanxingcha. Film is not complete with the management of the timing and mode. For each increase of one percentage point of Zhangjiashan’s governance, the benefit of sediment reduction increased by 2%, while that of Guanxingcha and Huacha watersheds only increased from 0.83% to 0.90%. The utilization rate of grain production in Zhangjiashan reached 37.72% , Guanxingcha 35.9%; Zhangjiashan grass forage utilization rate of 45.67%, Guan Xingcha 24.34%; Zhang Jiashan production value of 7.99 yuan / km2, Guanxingcha only 3.37 million / km2; Zhang Jiashan production-to-output ratio of 3.818, Guanxingchab 1.910.