控制流域氮流失的最佳管理措施配置及效率评估

以潮河流域为研究对象，分别进行流域整体单一措施配置和氮流失分区综合措施配置，既采用负荷去除法从污染负荷削减率的角度对BMPs配置效率进行评价，也采用R-R-V （Reliability-Resilience-Vulnerability）指数法从可靠性、可修复性和脆弱性等角度对流域水质改善效果进行评价.结果表明，分区进行氮流失综合措施配置效果更为理想，研究年内流域出口总氮削减率为14.35%~31.65%，年平均削减率为24.98%，在地表水Ⅱ类评估标准下，年平均总氮R-R-V指数为0.37、0.24、95.78，而多项单一措施的年平均削减率为17.48%，月尺度平均总氮R-R-V指数为0.36、0.24、112.96.R-R-V指数法从可靠性、可修复性和脆弱性等角度反映消减效率，无论单一措施配置或分区综合措施配置，可靠性指数与脆弱性指数的改善效率较高（大于14%），而可修复性指数的改善效率较低.多数情况下可靠性指数与脆弱性指数的改善效率高于总氮削减率，可修复性指数的改善效率低于总氮削减率，表明流域总氮负荷虽然得到一定程度的削减且短期低于标准负荷，但其生态修复难度依旧较大.营养物标准负荷所对应浓度的设定是评估流域R-R-V指数改善效果的关键，且评估标准越严格，待评估营养物的R-R-V指数越趋于稳定.

Configuration and efficiency evaluation of the best management practices to control nitrogen loss in the watershed

In this paper, the single practice configuration and the comprehensive practices configuration were carried out respectively. Two evaluating methods including the load removal method, which was used to evaluate the configuration efficiency of BMPs from the perspective of pollution load reduction rate, and the R-R-V (Reliability-Resilience-Vulnerability) index method, which was used to evaluate the water quality improvement effect from the perspective of reliability, resilience and vulnerability, were both used in the Chaohe River Basin. The results showed that the effect of zoning comprehensive nitrogen loss practices was more ideal. The reduction rate of total nitrogen (TN) during the study year varied from 14.35% to 31.65%, and the average annual reduction rate was 24.98%. By the criteria for National surface water standard of Class II, the average annual R-R-V index of TN was 0.37, 0.24, and 95.78, respectively. The average annual reduction rate of multiple single practices was 17.48%, and the average monthly R-R-V index of TN was 0.36, 0.24, and 112.96, respectively. The R-R-V index reflected the reduction efficiency from multiple perspectives. Regardless of the configuration of single practices or the comprehensive practices, the improvement efficiency of reliability index and that of vulnerability index were higher (more than 14%), while the improvement efficiency of resilience index was lower. And in most cases, the improvement efficiency of reliability index and that of vulnerability index were higher than the TN reduction rate, while the improvement efficiency of resilience index was lower than the TN reduction rate. It shows that although the TN load has been reduced to a certain extent and is lower than the standard load in the short term, its ecological restoration is still difficult. The setting of the concentration corresponding to the standard load of nutrients is the key to evaluating the improvement efficiency of the R-R-V index. The stricter the evaluation standard, the more stable the R-R-V index of the nutrients to be evaluated.