Current situation of karst groundwater environmental problems and spring source protection in the Gudui-Nanliang spring basin
-
摘要:
古堆-南梁泉域位于山西省南部, 是一个深循环与浅循环共存、冷水系统与热水系统循环转化、多级次排泄的复合型岩溶水系统, 因长期不合理的开发利用, 泉域内出现了一系列岩溶水环境地质问题。以水文地质调查工作为基础, 综合采用地下水流场对比分析、水文地球化学及同位素分析、岩溶水资源评价等方法, 详细论述了古堆-南梁泉域内岩溶水环境问题现状及其成因, 并提出了泉源区生态修复与规划方案。结果表明: 受气候变化与人类活动的叠加影响, 系统内古堆泉、南梁泉、海头泉分别于1999年、1992年、2002年断流, 2013-2021年区域地下水位平均下降速度达2.53 m/a; 水化学、同位素分析结果指示了排泄区九原山附近松散岩类孔隙水越流补给量、三泉水库渗漏补给量对岩溶地下水的影响已不可忽略; 泉域内岩溶水超Ⅲ类水水质标准样品占比由2014年的62.5%升高至2021年的81.25%;泉源区0.904 km2范围可细分为核心保护区、水库蓄水区、一般保护区, 应分区进行生态保护与修复规划。研究结果可为山西省超采区综合治理、古堆泉水生态修复与保护工作提供基础依据。
Abstract:Objective The Gudui-Nanliang spring basin located in southern Shanxi Province is a complex karst water system with the coexistence of deep and shallow circulation, the transformation of cold and hot water, and multistage discharge. Due to long-term unreasonable exploitation and utilization, a series of geological environment problems related to karst groundwater have emerged in the spring basin. The present study aims to propose an ecological restoration and planning scheme for the spring basin by discussing in detail the status of karst groundwater-related environmental problems and their causes.
Methods Based on a hydrogeological survey, this paper comprehensively employs a variety of methods, including comparative analysis of groundwater flow field, hydrogeochemical and isotopic analysis, and evaluation of karst water resources.
Results The results show that due to the superimposed effects of climate change and human activities, Gudui Spring, Nanliang spring, and Haitou spring cut off the flow in 1999, 1992, and 2002, respectively, and the average decline rate of the regional groundwater level from 2013 to 2021 reaches 2.53 m/a. The results of hydrochemical and isotopic analysis indicate that the recharge to the karst groundwater of porous groundwater from unconsolidated deposits through leakage and surface water from Sanquan Reservoir through seepage cannot be ignored. The proportion of karst water samples worse than the water quality standard of class Ⅲ in the spring basin increased from 62.5% in 2014 to 81.25% in 2021. The range of 0.904 km2 of the spring source area can be subdivided into core protection zone, general protection zone and reservoir storage zone. Ecological protection and restoration planning should be carried out considering the differences between the three zones.
Conclusion The results of the study can provide a basis for the comprehensive management of groundwater overexploitation areas in Shanxi Province and the ecological restoration and protection of Gudui spring basin.
-
图 1 古堆泉域水文地质略图
1.碳酸盐岩裸露区；2.碳酸盐岩覆盖区；3.碳酸盐岩浅埋藏区；4.碳酸盐岩深埋藏区；5.非碳酸盐岩区；6.早期泉域边界；7.新泉域边界(下部细线为子系统边界)；8.控制性钻孔碳酸盐岩埋藏深度(m)；9.岩溶泉水(蓝色为出流下降泉，红色为断流上升泉)；10.地下水流向(左侧为浅循环流向，右侧为深循环流向)；11.剖面线及起止点标注；12.长观孔位置及名称。Ar.新太古界; ∈.寒武系; O.奥陶系；C.石炭系；C-P.石炭系-二叠系；Q+N.第四系+新近系；Q.第四系; πδη.火成岩侵入体
Figure 1. Hydrogeological sketch of the Gudui spring basin
图 3 古堆泉域地下水流场与取样点位置图
1.碳酸盐岩裸露区；2.碳酸盐岩覆盖区；3.碳酸盐岩浅埋藏区；4.碳酸盐岩深埋藏区；5.非碳酸盐岩区；6.早期泉域边界；7.新泉域边界(下部细线为子系统边界)；8.岩溶泉水(蓝色为出流下降泉，红色为断流上升泉)；9.地下水流向(左侧为浅循环流向，右侧为深循环流向)；10.地下水位统测点及水位(上部深蓝色为2021年水位标高，下部浅蓝色为2013年水位标高, 单位m)；11.水质取样点及编号；12.岩溶水等水位线(红色表示2021年等水位线，蓝色表示2013年等水位线)
Figure 3. Groundwater flow field and sampling point locations in the Gudui spring basin
图 4 古堆泉域长系列观测孔地下水位动态曲线
Figure 4. Dynamic curve of groundwater level in the long series observation holes in the Gudui spring basin
图 5 排泄区岩溶水位与孔隙水位对比图
1.碳酸盐岩裸露区；2.碳酸盐岩覆盖区；3.碳酸盐岩浅埋藏区；4.碳酸盐岩深埋藏区；5.地下水流向(右侧为浅循环流向，左侧为深循环流向)；6.断流泉水位置及名称；7.泉域边界(下部细线为子系统边界)；8.断层；9.乡镇位置及名称；10.等水位线与水位标高(m)；11.岩溶水孔位及水位标高(m)；12.浅层孔隙水孔位及水位标高(m)；13.中深层孔隙水孔位及水位标高(m)
Figure 5. Comparison of the karst groundwater level and pore groundwater level in the discharge area
图 6 排泄区岩溶水温度与电导率分布
1.碳酸盐岩裸露区；2.碳酸盐岩覆盖区；3.碳酸盐岩浅埋藏区；4.碳酸盐岩深埋藏区；5.地下水流向(右侧为浅循环流向，左侧为深循环流向)；6.断流泉水位置及名称；7.泉域边界(下部细线为子系统边界)；8.断层；9.乡镇位置及名称；10.岩溶水孔位(分子表示温度(℃)，分母表示电导率(S/m))
Figure 6. Temperature and conductivity distribution of karst water in the discharge area
图 8 岩溶水与三泉水库水δD、δ18O关系图
Figure 8. δD and δ18O relationship plot for karst water and Sanquan Reservoir water
图 9 两期水质评价结果对比图
Figure 9. Comparison of the water quality assessment results between the two periods
图 11 古堆泉泉源保护区环境修复规划图
1.旅游服务区；2.泉水排泄区；3.三泉水库区；4.文物修复与商业开发区；5.九原山森林公园区；6.古堆村住宅区；7.基本农田区；8.深水库区水上游览区；9.浅水库区水上乐园区；10.特色花卉种植区；11.观赏树林；12.瓜果采摘园；13.特色花卉园；14.休闲垂钓场；15.泉水位置及名称；16.文物庙宇；17.库区码头；18.新苏公路；19.观光小路
Figure 11. Environmental restoration planning of the Gudui spring source protection area
表 1 古堆泉水流量观测统计
Table 1. Statistical table of Gudui spring flow observations
观测时间(年) 1956以前 1964-1968 1974-1978 1979-1982 1983-1986 1987-1988 1989-1990 1991-1993 1999 泉流量/(m3·s-1) 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.715 0.618 0.495 0.715 0.532 断流 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 海头泉水流量观测统计
Table 2. Statistical table of Haitou spring flow observations
时间 泉流量/(m3·s-1) 时间 泉流量/(m3·s-1) 1949年以前 0.137 1975年 0.163 1949年 0.154 1976年 0.157 1950年 0.154 1978年 0.116 1951年 0.154 1986年 0.155 1960年 0.168 八十年代 0.120 1961年 0.170 1997-2001年 0.049 1968年 0.158 2002年1月 0.049 1974年 0.154 2002年3月20日泉、自流井
全部断流
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 两期水位统测统计对比分析
Table 3. Statistical comparative analysis of water level measurements for the two periods
地下水位/m 统计结果 2013年 2021年 水位变差 最小值 393.17 364.60 28.57 最大值 1 026.04 944.80 81.24 平均 520.87 500.66 20.21
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 各子系统内两期水位变差统计
Table 4. Statistics on the variation of groundwater levels between the two periods with each subsystem
子系统名称 统测点数 2013年平均水位/m 2021年平均水位/m 水位变差/m 下降速度/(m·a-1) 古堆泉 5 399.43 367.98 31.45 3.93 海头泉 7 534.63 520.14 14.49 1.81 南梁泉 5 682.83 656.76 26.07 3.26 侯马深循环 4 455.94 427.53 28.41 3.55
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 古堆泉、三泉水库多年水化学、同位素特征对比
Table 5. Comparison of hydrochemical and isotopic characteristics of Gudui spring and Sanquan Reservoir over the years
取样位置 取样
年份pH 温度/℃ Ca2+ SO42- HCO3- HB TDS NO3- F- δD/‰ δ18O/‰ ρB/(mg·L-1) 古堆泉 1986 7.44 22.50 109.82 270.53 256.28 437.55 790.27 4.00 2.00 -76.00 -10.30 古堆泉 2000 7.66 22.50 102.20 266.57 268.82 430.21 777.38 8.00 1.44 未采样 未采样 古堆泉 2004 8.03 22.50 105.20 290.60 238.00 430.08 787.00 2.50 1.30 未采样 未采样 古堆泉 2008 6.88 21.70 114.52 308.26 256.38 457.72 819.90 2.54 2.00 未采样 未采样 古堆泉 2014 7.96 23.80 101.00 239.00 282.00 417.50 747.00 8.92 0.93 -71.00 -9.80 古堆泉 2019 7.53 21.85 92.00 218.63 261.32 385.00 688.00 7.34 0.75 -63.80 -8.50 古堆泉 2020 8.06 21.64 63.26 154.52 208.53 275.32 528.00 6.18 0.60 -58.20 -7.64 古堆泉 2021 7.68 20.20 85.50 175.36 307.99 364.00 696.00 7.20 0.96 -60.80 -7.81 三泉水库 2014 7.49 30.10 51.90 149.00 168.00 230.00 500.00 0.79 0.35 -59.00 -7.70 三泉水库 2021 7.74 30.40 49.97 167.00 203.94 263.86 658.00 1.17 0.32 -62.10 -8.08 注：表中1986、2000、2004年数据详见参考文献[9]，2008年数据详见参考文献[4]，2014年及以后数据为笔者及团队实测。水化学组分由PHS-3CpH计、可见光光度计和离子色谱仪等测定。氢氧同位素利用稳定同位素质谱仪MAT253测定，氢同位素采用Pt水平衡法测定，氧同位素采用CO2-H2O水平衡法测定，以上均由国土资源部岩溶地质资源环境监督检测中心测试。HB.总硬度; TDS.溶解性总固体
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 古堆泉域岩溶水两期水化学质量浓度对比统计
Table 6. Comparative statistics of water chemistry of karst groundwater in the Gudui spring basin between the two periods
取样时间 项目 pH K+ Na+ Ca2+ Mg2+ SO42- Cl- ρB/(mg·L-1) 2014年 最小值 7.49 0.80 8.15 37.70 15.30 21.10 7.66 最大值 8.23 13.00 479.00 152.00 58.60 868.00 488.00 平均 7.83 5.31 108.32 97.05 34.57 279.62 91.62 2021年 最小值 7.48 1.13 4.29 49.97 17.54 31.36 5.89 最大值 8.03 22.33 454.09 148.40 82.99 703.39 606.55 平均 7.68 5.80 125.52 97.27 38.34 300.60 92.29 单项指标变化率 -1.92% +9.19% +15.88% +0.23% +10.92% +7.51% +0.73% 取样时间 项目 HCO3- HB TDS NO3- F- Sr2+ ρB/(mg·L-1) 2014年 最小值 168.00 171.00 298.00 0.00 0.20 0.22 最大值 298.00 622.00 2265.00 8.92 2.58 3.14 平均 257.12 384.65 786.76 3.58 1.07 1.24 2021年 最小值 203.94 247.06 278.00 0.05 0.09 0.17 最大值 472.39 619.42 1854.00 25.53 2.62 4.30 平均 281.42 402.93 828.47 6.83 1.28 1.72 单项指标变化率 +9.45% +4.75% +5.30% +90.86% +19.06% +37.94% 注：水化学组分由PHS-3CpH计、可见光光度计和离子色谱仪等测定，由国土资源部岩溶地质资源环境监督检测中心测试
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Liang Y P, Gao X B, Zhao C H, et al. Review characterization, evolution, and environmental issues of karst water systems in northern China[J]. Hydrogeology Journal, 2018, 26: 1371-1385. doi: 10.1007/s10040-018-1792-4 [2] 胡子瑛, 周俊菊, 张利利, 等. 中国北方气候干湿变化及干旱演变特征[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(6): 1908-1919. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-STXB201806003.htmHu Z Y, Zhou J J, Zhang L L, et al. Climate dry-wet change and drought evolution characteristics of different dry-wet areas in northern China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(6): 1908-1919(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-STXB201806003.htm [3] 梁永平, 王维泰, 赵春红, 等. 中国北方岩溶水变化特征及其环境问题[J]. 中国岩溶, 2013, 32(1): 34-42. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR201301008.htmLiang Y P, Wang W T, Zhao C H, et al. Variations of karst water and environmental problems in northern China[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2013, 32(1): 34-42 (in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR201301008.htm [4] 申豪勇, 梁永平, 赵春红, 等. 古堆泉岩溶地下水系统特征及系统圈划[J]. 吉林大学学报: 地球科学版, 2020, 50(1): 217-225. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ202001018.htmShen H Y, Liang Y P, Zhao C H, et al. Hydro-geological characteristics and demarcation of Gudui spring karst groundwater system[J]. Journal of Jinlin University: Earth Science Edition, 2020, 50(1): 217-225(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ202001018.htm [5] 梁永平, 王维泰. 中国北方岩溶水系统划分与系统特征[J]. 地球学报, 2010, 31(6): 860-868. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQXB201006017.htmLiang Y P, Wang W T. The division and characteristics of karst water systems in northern China[J]. Acta Geoscientica Sinica, 2010, 31(6): 860-868(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQXB201006017.htm [6] Deng X, Xing L T, Yu M, et al. Characteristics of the water cycle of Jinan karst spring in northern China[J]. Water Practice and Technology, 2022, 17: 1470-1489. doi: 10.2166/wpt.2022.075 [7] 申豪勇, 李佳, 王志恒, 等. 黄河支流汾河流域水资源开发利用现状及生态环境问题[J]. 中国地质, 2022, 49(4): 1127-1138. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DIZI202204007.htmShen H Y, Li J, Wang Z H, et al. Water resources utilization and eco-environment problem of Fenhe River, branch of Yellow River[J]. Geology of China, 2022, 49(4): 1127-1138(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DIZI202204007.htm [8] 王宏, 邓安利, 茹哲敏. 山西省地下水超采区范围的复核划分[J]. 山西农业大学学报: 自然科学版, 2012, 32(4): 373-378. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXNY201204018.htmWang H, Deng A L, Ru Z M. Re-examination and partition of underground water over-exploitation area in Shanxi Province[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University: Nature Science Edition, 2012, 32(4): 373-378 (in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXNY201204018.htm [9] 山西省水利厅, 中国地质科学院岩溶地质研究所, 山西省水资源管理委员会. 山西省岩溶泉域水资源保护[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2007: 64-75.Department of Water Resources of Shanxi Province, Institute of Karst Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Shanxi Provincial Water Resources Management Committee. Water resources protection of karst spring area in Shanxi Province[M]. Beijing: China Water Resources and Hydropower Press, 2007: 64-75(in Chinese). [10] 谢浩, 梁永平, 申豪勇, 等. 汾河流域岩溶大泉的亘古亘今[J]. 中国矿业, 2019, 28(增刊1): 358-360. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGKA2019S1095.htmXie H, Liang Y P, Shen H Y, et al. The ancient and present of karst springs in Fenhe River Basin[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2019, 28(S1): 358-360(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGKA2019S1095.htm [11] 徐永新, 张志祥, 张永波, 等. 山西岩溶泉研究进展与前瞻[J]. 太原理工大学学报, 2017, 48(3): 413-426. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TYGY201703020.htmXu Y X, Zhang Z X, Zhang Y B, et al. Research advance in karst springs of Shanxi Province[J]. Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology, 2017, 48(3): 413-426(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TYGY201703020.htm [12] 郭清海, 王焰新, 马腾, 等. 山西岩溶大泉近50年的流量变化过程及其对全球气候变化的指示意义[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2005, 35(2): 167-175. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JDXK200502007.htmGuo Q H, Wang Y X, Ma T, et al. The discharge variation process of karst springs in Shanxi Province in recent 50 years and its significance for global climate change[J]. Science in China: Earth Sciences, 2005, 35(2): 167-175(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JDXK200502007.htm [13] 郭振中, 张宏达, 于开宁. 山西岩溶大泉衰减的多因复成性[J]. 工程勘察, 2004(2): 22-25. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCKC200402006.htmGuo Z Z, Zhang H D, Yu K N. Multifactorial complexity of the attenuation of karst spring in Shanxi Province[J]. Geotechnical Investigation & Surveying, 2004(2): 22-25(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GCKC200402006.htm [14] 王志恒, 梁永平, 申豪勇, 等. 自然与人类活动叠加影响下晋祠泉域岩溶地下水动态特征[J]. 吉林大学学报: 地球科学版, 2021, 51(6): 1823-1837. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ202106017.htmWang Z H, Liang Y P, Shen H Y, et al. Dynamic characteristics analysis of karst groundwater in Jinci spring under the superimposed influence of natural and human activities[J]. Journal of Jilin University: Earth Science Edition, 2021, 51(6): 1823-1837 (in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CCDZ202106017.htm [15] 万力, 王旭升, 蒋小伟. 地下水循环结构的动力学研究进展[J]. 地质科技通报, 2022, 41(1): 19-29. doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0003Wan L, Wang X S, Jiang X W. Advances in dynamics of groundwater circulation patterns[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology, 2022, 41(1): 19-29(in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0003 [16] 霍建光, 赵春红, 梁永平, 等. 娘子关泉域径流-排泄区岩溶水污染特征及成因分析[J]. 地质科技情报, 2015, 34(5): 147-152. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZKQ201505023.htmHuo J G, Zhao C H, Liang Y P, et al. Characteristic and cause analysis in the runoff-drainage area of Niangziguan spring[J]. Geological Science and Technology Information, 2015, 34(5): 147-152(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZKQ201505023.htm [17] 王志恒, 梁永平, 唐春雷, 等. 北方断流岩溶大泉复流的生态修复模式与复流措施效果的定量评价: 以山西太原晋祠泉为例[J]. 中国地质, 2020, 47(6): 1726-1738. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DIZI202006011.htmWang Z H, Liang Y P, Tang C L, et al. Ecological restoration pattern and quantitative evaluation of recirculation measures for northern discontinuous karst spring: A case study on Jinci spring in Taiyuan City[J]. Geology in China, 2020, 47(6): 1726-1738(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DIZI202006011.htm [18] 王攀, 靳孟贵, 路东臣, 等. 永城市浅层地下水污染分布特征及来源识别[J]. 地质科技通报, 2022, 41(1): 260-268. doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2021.0136Wang P, Jin M G, Lu D C, et al. Distribution characteristics and source identification of shallow groundwater pollution in Yongcheng City[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology, 2022, 41(1): 260-268(in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2021.0136 [19] 林若静, 孙从建, 陈伟, 等. 汾河下游河谷地区地下水水质特征分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(11): 135-142. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GHZH202111019.htmLin R J, Sun C J, Chen W, et al. Groundwater quality characteristics in downstream valley of Fenhe River[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2021, 35(11): 135-142(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GHZH202111019.htm [20] 赵春红, 申豪勇, 王志恒, 等. 汾河流域地表水水化学同位素特征及其影响因素[J]. 环境科学, 2022, 43(10): 4440-4448. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJKZ202210015.htmZhao C H, Shen H Y, Wang Z H, et al. Hydrochemical and isotopic characteristics in the surface water of the Fenhe River Basin and influence factors[J]. Environmental Science, 2022, 43(10): 4440-4448. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJKZ202210015.htm [21] 李扭串. 三泉水库库区渗漏模式及渗漏强度问题研究[J]. 水利建设与管理, 2017, 37(8): 59-63. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SLJS201708017.htmLi N C. Study on seepage pattern and intensity in Sanquan Reservoir area[J]. Water Conservancy Construction and Management, 2017, 37(8): 59-63(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SLJS201708017.htm [22] 许秀丽, 李云良, 高博, 等. 黄河中游汾河入黄口湿地水源组成与地表地下水转化关系[J]. 湖泊科学, 2022, 34(1): 247-261. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FLKX202201020.htmXu X L, Li Y L, Gao B, et al. Composition of water sources and transformation relationship between surface water and groundwater in the Fenhe River estuarine wetland of the middle Yellow River[J]. Journal of Lake Sciences, 2022, 34(1): 247-261(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FLKX202201020.htm [23] 李晓欣, 王仕琴, 陈肖如, 等. 北方区域尺度地下水-包气带硝酸盐分布与变化特征[J]. 中国生态农业学报: 中英文, 2021, 29(1): 208-216. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGTN202101021.htmLi X X, Wang S Q, Chen X R, et al. Spatial distribution and changes of nitrate in the vadose zone and underground water in northern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2021, 29(1): 208-216(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGTN202101021.htm [24] 高旭波, 王万洲, 侯保俊, 等. 中国北方岩溶地下水污染分析[J]. 中国岩溶, 2020, 39(3): 287-298. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202003001.htmGao X B, Wang W Z, Hou B J, et al. Analysis of karst groundwater pollution in northern China[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2020, 39(3): 287-298(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202003001.htm [25] Zhang Z X, Xu Y X, Wang Z L, et al. Ecological restoration and protection of Jinci spring in Shanxi, China[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2020, 13: 744. [26] 梁永平, 申豪勇, 赵春红, 等. 对中国北方岩溶水研究方向的思考与实践[J]. 中国岩溶, 2021, 40(3): 363-380. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202103001.htmLiang Y P, Shen H Y, Zhao C H, et al. Thinking and practice on the research direction of karst water in northern China[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2021, 40(3): 363-380(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202103001.htm [27] 王焰新. 我国北方岩溶泉域生态修复策略研究: 以晋祠泉为例[J]. 中国岩溶, 2022, 41(3): 331-344. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202203001.htmWang Y X. Study on ecological restoration strategy of karst spring region in North China: Taking Jinci spring as an example[J]. Carsologica Sinica, 2022, 41(3): 331-344(in Chinese with English abstract). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYR202203001.htm -
下载:
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 634
- PDF下载量: 131
- 被引次数: 0
