4.7 Article

Grass hedge effects on controlling soil loss from concentrated flow: A case study in the red soil region of China

期刊

SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 97-105

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2014.12.009

关键词

Grass hedges; Concentrated flow; Runoff simulation; Soil loss; Red soil region

资金

  1. Key Technologies Research and Development Program of China [2011BAD31B04-2]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41101253, 40971163]
  3. ISSCAS Innovation Program [ISSASIP1116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grass hedges are widely applied on sloping croplands as a low-cost measure to reduce soil and nutrition loss. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of hedgerows in runoff and sediment processes. In this study, 36 field runoff simulation experiments were conducted in the red soil region of China to determine flow hydraulics and soil loss processes under 12 different hedgerow conditions. Specifically, two types of hedgerow widths (two-row and three-row) were planted for each of three species of vegetation (Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), Vetiver (Vetiveria nigtitana) and Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva)), and these plots were tested both before and after the removal of the grass stems. Grass stems played an important role in decreasing the flow velocity and filtering sediment. For the three selected vegetation types, the final flow velocities (V3) were ranked in the following order: Bahia grass (0.12 m/s) < Vetiver (0.17 m/s) 30%) than the two-row hedges (decrease ratio <20%) in reducing the flow velocity ahead of the grass barriers (V2). Nevertheless, soil losses from the grass hedges were mainly related to the final flow velocity (Pearson's R = 0.66, N = 36) rather than the V2. The final flow velocity and the total soil loss rate did not decrease remarkably when using the three-row hedges. These results could be used to provide sound field recommendations for designing and managing hedges in the red soil region of China. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据