تحلیل میزان فرسایش و رسوب ناشی از رخساره‌های فرسایشی حوضه کاخک با مدل شبیه‌ساز باران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

چکیده

در حوضه آبخیز کاخک واقع در خراسان رضوی، انواع‌ ناهنجاری‌های‌ طبیعی‌ از جمله فرسایش‌ خاک‌، انواع‌ رخساره‌های‌ فرسایشی‌ (سطحی-شیاری، شیاری و شیاری‌ - گالی‌) و رسوب‌زایی‌ متوسط تا بالا دیده می‌شود. برای انجام این پژوهش، ابتدا 4 واحد همگن (واحدهای کاری) بر مبنای نوع لیتولوژی شامل شیل و ماسه‌سنگ و گابرو، رخساره‌های فرسایشی در کاربری مرتعی و در شیب مشابه انتخاب شد. 32 آزمایش در شدت بارش 36 میلی‌متر در ساعت و به مدت 30 دقیقه با شبیه‌ساز باران بر روی واحدهای کاری، انجام شد. مقدار رسوب هر یک از آزمایش‌ها اندازه‌گیری شد. به منظور بررسی عوامل موثر در تلفات خاک و فرسایش‌پذیری، نمونه برداری از خاک در لایه 0 تا 15 سانتی‌متری نیز از مجاور پلات‌های مورد آزمایش برداشته شد. آنالیز آماری اطلاعات با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که لیتولوژی‌های مورد بررسی از نظر فرسایش و رسوبدهی با یکدیگر تفاوت معنی‌دار دارند. دو واحد کاری شامل شیل واجد فرسایش شیاری-خندقی (Jsh-RG) و ماسه‌سنگ واجد فرسایش سطحی-شیاری (Js-SR) به ترتیب با رسوبدهی 12/68 و و 12/45 گرم در مترمربع دارای بیشترین و کمترین مقدار رسوبدهی می‌باشند. برخی از ویژگی‌های خاک مانند درصد سیلت، شوری و نسبت جذب سدیم با میزان فرسایش و رسوبدهی خاک دارای همبستگی مستقیم و فاکتورهای درصد پوشش گیاهی و درصد سنگریزه موجود در سطح خاک و همچنین درصد ماسه، کربن آلی و درصد آهک فعال خاک با میزان فرسایش و تولید رسوب، همبستگی معکوس و معنی‌دار نشان می‌دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of Soil erosion and sediment yield from erosion facies of Kakhk watershed under rainfall simulation model

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Bagherian Kalat
Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization
چکیده [English]

Analysis of Soil erosion and sediment yield from erosion facies of Kakhk watershed under rainfall simulation model

Extended Abstract

Introduction
Soil physico-chemical properties has a important impact on soil erosion. Shaly originated soils due to the high susceptibility to erosion have high erosion rates in spite of occupying relatively small areas, can make disproportionate contributions to watershed scale sediment budgets. Critical source areas are usually associated with marls, clay rocks, mudstones and shales. Additionally, few reports showed that badland landforms there are on sands or poorly consolidated sandstones.
Rainfall simulation is a good method for comparison and quantification of different runoff and erosion processes and factors that influence them. Numerous researchers have used simulated rainfall experiments on a wide range for determination of soil erodibility.
The erodible lithologies (shalls) include more than 50 percent of the area of the kakhk watershed basin. Securitizing available literatures about effective factors on soil erosion in eroded soils shows that in spite of numerous reports on different soil erosion processes, little comparative study has been considered on sediment yield originated from soils with different parent material in plot scale under different rainfall intensities. So, there is a need for more detailed investigation on soil physico-chemical and vegetation properties that effect on soil erosion. Accordingly, the present study was carried out to comprehensively compare the effects of environmental factors and rainfall intensities controlling spatial variation in soil loss in kakhk drainage watershed.

Methodology
Study Area
This research has done in kakhk watershed (3720 ha) which located in the south of Khorasan Razavi province. In this area, half of the area is made up of shale lithologies which are very susceptible to erosion. The annual precipitation is about 220 mm. The predominant lithologies are shale, sandstone and gabbro. The soil profiles are poorly developed.
Plot Locations and Characteristics
For specifying location of the plots, geology, slop, land use and erosional facies maps were prepared using 1:50,000 topography, geology and dip maps and field surveying. 4 different locations in basis of difference in geology and erosion facies were selected for these experiments. The plots located on different parent materials consist of shale, sandstone and gabbro in the. same slope (20 %) and land use (rangeland) but different lithology and erosion facies. In all of working polygons, the rainfall simulations carried out with intensity of 36 mm h-1 in autumn 2016 .

The Experiments Design
The rainfall simulator that was used in this study is a portable non-pressurized rainfall simulator which developed at the Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute (SCWMRI).
The 32 rainfall simulation experiments were performed during the autumn of 2016. All runoff and sediment data were collected and analyzed in the laboratory.
Before performing the simulations, in order to determine effective factors in sediment production and erosion, 32 soil representative samples from the first 15 cm depth of soil were taken and analyzed.

Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis of data was conducted with the software SPSS for Windows. One-way analysis of variance techniques were used by Duncan Multiple Range Test with a level of significance of p≤0.05.
For determining the degree and type of correlation between sediment yield and soil physico-chemical properties and soil surface cover used the Pearson's correlation matrix (r) and multi-variable regression method. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of soil physico-chemical properties and soil surface cover on soil loss.

Results and discussion

The results showed that erosion and sediment yield in lithologies have meaningful differences. Jsh-RG (shale with Rill-Gully facies and Js-SR (sandstone with Sheer-Rill facies ) soil units with 68.12 and 45.12 gr/m2 have the most and the least sediment yield, respectively. It was found that the sediment yield had positive correlations with some soil properties such as silt percent, Ec, pH, and SAR and negative correlations with sand percent, OC, NPV (%), vegetation and rock fragment cover.
.
In this research, regression analysis was used to examine the relative contribution of soil physico-chemical properties on soil loss. The results present that the variables of percent of rock frogment (R.F) and Grass cover (G.C) have greater contribution in explaining the variations in soil loss.
Equation (1) with determination coefficients of 0.87 (R2) (p<0.01), selected as appropriate model for predicting soil loss.
Sediment Yield=109.112- 1.369 (R.F) -0.988(G.C) (1)
In these models, R2=0.87 indicate that 87% of the observed dissipation in dependent variables.

Conclusion
In this research, the spatial variability in soil loss for 4 representative selected soil samples derived from different parent rocks analyzed. The results revealed that rainfall simulation is well adapted to the analysis of rainfall-erosion processes within study area. Using a portable rainfall simulator revealed the effects on soil loss under rainfall intensity. Soils derived from shale with Rill-Gully facies and sandstone with Sheer-Rill facies showed the most and the least soil loss, respectively. ANOVAs showed that there are significant differences between treatments (different soils) in soil loss (P<0.01).
Multiple regression analysis revealed that rock fragment (R.F) and grass cover (G.C) are the most efficient factors determining soil loss.
Pearson’s correlation analysis showed that grass and rock fragment cover, soil vertical resistance and sand fraction are the efficient variables which have negative correlation with soil loss and the variables of silt fraction are the variables that have a positive correlation with soil loss. Meanwhile, the factors of SAR, EC and pH are the efficient chemical variables that have positive correlation with soil loss.
In this study, results of the experiments show that the magnitude of soil loss was highly controlled by some soil physical and chemical properties and soil vegetal and rock fragment cover. So, the mechanism of erosion involves the nature of the parent rocks, soil physico-chemical characteristics as well as ground cover.
Consequently, the finding of this research indicate that some physico-chemical properties of study soils and soil vegetation and rock fragment cover are suitable indicators for predicting soil loss in the study area.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Rainfall Simulator
  • Soil loss
  • soil physicochemical properties
  • Abdinejhad, P., S. Feiz Nia and H. R. Peyrowan. 2014. Comparison of Zanjan marly soils erodability using rainfall simulator. Irainian Journal of Soil Research, 28(2): 407-419 (in Persian).
  • Abu-zeid, M. A. and F. Z. El-shibini. 1997. Egypts High Aswan Dam. Water Resources Development, 13 (2): 209-217.
  • Barthes, B., and E. Roos. 2002. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptibility to runoff and erosion; validation at several level. Catena, 47: 133-149.
  • Benito, G., M. Gutierrez and C. Sancho. 1993. The Influence of Physico chmical properties on Erosion processes in Badland Areas ,Ebro Basin , Ne–spain, Zetschrift Fur Geomorphology, 37 (2): 199-214.
  • Boscagli, A., S. Maccherini, and A. Chiarucci. 1996. Germination of nine species of a pioneer plant community of pliocene clay soils of central western Italy under different photo- and thermo-periods. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 65 (3–4): 301–306.
  • Bouma, N. A. and  A. C. Imeson. 1999. Investigation of relationship between measured field indicators  and erosion processes on badland surfaces at petrer, Spain. Catena, 40: 147-171.
  • Brunori, F.; Penzo, M. c.; Torri, F. 1989. Soil shear strength: its measurement and soil detachability. Catena, 16: 59-71.
  •  Bryan, R.B. and I. A Campbell Edmonton. 1980. Sediment entrainment and transport during local rainstorms in the Steveville badlands, Alberta. Catena, 7: 51-65.
  • Canga, M. 1999. Effect of subsequent simulated rainfall on runoff and erosion. Turk. J. Agriculture Forestry, 23: 659-665.
  • Canton Y., F. Domingo, A. Sole Benet and J. Puigdefabregas.  2001. Hydrological and erosion response of a badland system in semiarid SE Spain. Jounal of Hydrology, 252: 65-84.
  • Cerda A., 1999. Parent Material and Vegetation Affect Soil Erosion in Eastern Spain. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:362-368.
  • Cerda, A. 2002. The effect of season and parent material on water erosion on highly eroded soils in eastern Spain. Journal of Arid Environments, 52: 319–337.
  • De Santis F., M.L.Giannossi, L. Medici, V. Summa, and F. Tateo. 2010. Impact of physico-chemical soil properties on erosion features in the Aliano area (Southern Italy). Catena, 81: 172–181.
  • Duiker, S.W., D.C. Flanagan and R. Lal. 2001. Erodibility and infiltration characteristics of five major soils of southwest Spain. Catena, 45(2): 103-121.
  • Eftekharnejhad, J. A. Behruzi A. 1976. 1:250000 Geological Map of Kashmar. Geological Survey and Mineral Exploration of Iran.
  • Ekwe, E. I. 1991. The effects of soil organic matter content, rainfall duration and aggregate size on soil detachment. Soil Technol., 4: 197-207.
  • Ekwue, E.I., C. Bharat, and K. Samaroo. 2009. Effect of soil type, peat and farmyard manure addition, slope and their interactions on wash erosion by overland flow of some Trinidadian soils. Bios. Engine., 102: 236-243.
  • Feiz Nia, S. and M. Khosheghbal. 2003. Investigating sensivity to erosion and sediment yield of formations in Latyan drainage basin. Iranian Journal of Natural Resources. 56 (4): 356-381 (in Persian).
  • Fernandez, C. and Jack. Vega. 2006. Run off and soil erosion after rainfall simulations in burned soil. Forest ecology and management, 375-387.
  • Haregeweyn, N., Poesen J., Nyssen J., Verstraeten J., Vente G., Govers G. S., Deckers S and C.A. Igwe. 2003. Erodibility of soils of the upper rainforest zone, Southeastern Nigeria. Land Degrad. And Develop., 14: 323-334.
  • Higuchi K., M. Chigira and D.H.  Lee . 2013. High rates of erosion and rapid weathering in a Plio-Pleistocene mudstone badland, Taiwan. Catena, 106: 68-82.
  • Hosseini, S. H., Feiz Nia S., Peyrowan H. R. and Gh. R. Zehtabian. 2009. Assessment of runoff and sediment generation in Neogene's units under rainfall simulator (Case study: Taleghan Basin). Journal of Range and Watershed Management, 62: 215-228 (in Persian).
  •  Hu B., Z. Yang, H. Wang, X. Sun , N. Bi and G. Li.  2009. Sedimentation in the Three Gorges Dam and the future trend of Changjiang (Yangtze River) sediment flux to the sea. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13: 2253–2264.
  • Jordan, A. and Z. Martinez. 2008. Soil Loss and runoff rates on unpaved forest roads in southern Spain after simulated rainfall. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(3): 913- 919.
  • Lee, C. R. and J. G. Skogerboe. 1985. Quantification of erosion control by vegetation on problem soils. Pages 437–444  in  W. C. El Swaify, W. C. Moldenhauer, and A. Lo, eds. Soil erosion and conservation. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA.
  • López-Tarazón, J.A., R. J. Batalla, D. Vericat and T. Francke. 2012. The sediment budget of a highly dynamicmesoscale catchment: the river Isábena. Geomorphology 138: 15–28.
  • Martinez-Murillo J.F., E. Nadal-Romero, D. Regues, A. Cerda and J. Poesen. 2013. Soil erosion and hydrology of the western Mediterranean badlands throughout rainfall simulation experiments: a review. Catena, 106: 101-112.
  • Merzouk, A. and G. R. Blake. 1991. Indices for the estimation of interrill erodibility of Moroccan soils. Catena, 18: 537-550.
  • Moreno-de las Heras. M. and F. Gallart. 2016. Lithology controls the regional distribution and morphological diversity. Geomorphology, 273: 107-115.
  • Natural Resources Administration of Razavi Khorasan (N. R. A. R. K.), 2010. Evaluation of Performanced Khoshroode-Kashmar Watershed Management. 90 p.
  • Nadal-Romero E., D. Regues, C. Marti-Bono and P. Serrano-Mula. 2007. Badland dynamics in the central Pyrenees: temporal and spatial patterns of weatheriang processes. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 32: 888-904.
  • Nadal-Romero, E., J.F. Martinez-Murillo, M. Vanmaercke and J. Poesen. 2011. Scale-dependency of sediment yield from badland areas in Mediterranean environments. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 35: 297–332.
  • Nichols, M.H., M. A. Nearing, V. O. Polyakov and J.J. Stone. 2004. A sediment budget for a small semiarid watershed in southeastern Arizona, USA. Geomorphology, 180–181: 137–145.
  • Page, A.L. 1992. Methods of Soil Analysis. ASA and SSSA Pub., Madison W.
  • Pardini G., G. Vigna Guidi, R. Pini, D. Regues and F. Gallart. 1996. Structural changes of smectite-rich mudrocks experimentally induced by freeze-thawing and wetting-drying cycles. Catena, 27: 149-165.
  • Pulice I., C. Cappadonia, S. Fabio, G. Robustelli, C. Conoscenti, R. De Rose, E. Rotigliano and V. Agnesi. 2012. Geomorphological, Chemical and Physical study of “Calanchi” landforms in NW Sicily (southern Italy). Geomorphology, 153–154: 219–231.
  • Regues D., R. Guardia and F. Gallart. 2000. Geomorphic agents versus vegetation spreading as causes of badland occurrence in a Mediterranean subhumid mountainous area. Catena, 40: 173-187.
  • Richter G. and J. F. Negendank. 1977. Soil erosion processes and their measurement in the German area of the Moselle river. Earth Surface Processes, 2: 261-78.
  • Seeger, M. 2007. Uncertainty of factors determining runoff and erosion processes as quantified by rainfall simulations. Catena, 71: 56-67.
  • Sheykh Rabiee M. R., Feiz Nia S. and H. R. Peyrowan. 2011. Study runoff and soil loss in Map Units of Hiv Watershed, measurements and comparision at the rainfall simulator scale. Scientific Quaterly Journal, Geoscience, 20 (80): 57-63 (in Persian).
  • Vahabi, J., and M. H. Mahdian. 2008. Rainfall simulation for the study of the effects of efficient factors on runoff rate. Current Sci. 95: 1439-1445.
  • Vahabi J. and D. Nikkami. 2008. Assessing dominant factors affecting soil erosion using a portable rainfall simulator. Elsevier, 23: 376-386.
  • Wang, X., Z. Li, C. Cai, Z. Shi, Q. Xu, Z. Fu and Z. Guo. 2012. Effect of rock fragment cover on hydrological response and soil loss from Regosols in a semi-humid environment in South-West China. Geomorphology, 151-152: 234-242.
  • WCD. 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision making, Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA.