지리산국립공원 내 조릿대 임분의 수원함양기능 분석

Analysis of Water Retention Capacity at Sasa borealis Stands in Jirisan National Park

Although landslides were frequently occurred under Tripterygium regelii and Rubus sp. vegetations, the damage of landslide was not observed in sasa (Sasa borealis) stands. These phenomena may be affected by forest vegetation types. This result suggested that the landslide occurred in Jirisan (Mt.) National Park may be closely related to water retention capacity at Sasa borealis stands. This study compared and analyzed the water retention capacity of each soil horizon of sasa, larch (Larix leptolepis) and mongolian oak (Quercus mongorica) stands. Soil bulk density in A horizon was lower in sasa (0.776g/$cm^3$) than in mongolian oak (0.828g/$cm^3$) and in larch stands (1.282g/$cm^3$). Water permeability in A horizon was 0.02055cm/sec for sasa, 0.00575cm/sec for mongolian oak, and 0.0007cm/sec for larch stands, respectively. The water permeability of sasa stand was about 3.6 times and about 29 times higher than in mongolian oak and in larch stands, respectively. This result indicates that water infiltration of soil surface during a rain event is more rapid in sasa than in other two stands. Soil organic matter content in B horizon was lower in larch (0.7%) than in mongolian oak (6.5%) and in Sasa (3.3%) stands. The solid ratio in A horizon was highest in larch among three stands, but that of mongolian oak and larch stands showed a similar rate. Pore space rates was 70.7% for A horizon and 70.6% for B horizon of sasa, 68.9% for A horizon and 70.6% for B horizon of sasa, 68.9% for A horizon and 70.6% for B horizon of mongolian oak forests and 51.7% for A horizon and 49.2% for B horizon of larch forests, respectively. According to pore space rates, the water retention capacity may be poor in larch stand compared with other two stands. Soil strength in sasa and mongolian stands was over 25kgf/$cm^2$ from 40cm depth, while the strength was over 25kgf/$cm^2$ from 25cm depth in larch stand. The result indicates that tree growth and water permeability in larch stand could be limited due to high soil strength. Larch stand was poor for soil pore space development to be offered to the water retention capacity, but water retention capacity of A horizon soil in sasa stand was high than that of other two stands. Therefore, establishment of sasa stand under larch stand could help to prevent landslides.