4.5 Article

Soil erosion risk assessment in the natural and planted forests using ICONA model and GIS technique

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-021-03536-3

关键词

Erosion risk class; Erosion risk map; Hyrcanian vegetation; Kasilian watershed; Soil erosion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the soil erosion risk in the kasilian watershed in Iran using the ICONA model and RS/GIS techniques, revealing the significant impact of human activities and forest type selection on erosion risk, with planted forests showing higher erosion risk compared to natural forests.
Soil erosion is a danger that threatens the world today and the basis of the fight against erosion must be sought in the role human. The aim of this study is determine a logical relationship between natural and planted forests conditions with soil erosion risk classes in the kasilian watershed. This basin is located in the Hyrcanian vegetation area on the northern slopes of the Alborz Mountains in northern Iran. In this research, the erosion risk map was prepared using the ICONA model and RS/GIS techniques and it was adapted to the physical realities of the area. The results showed that human interventions and pressures have reduced habitat good species percentage in the downstream areas in the northern part and upstream areas near the forest-rangeland boundary in the southern part. Also, the choice of species was incorrect in some planted forest. Therefore, high erosion risk class is clearly seen in these areas. There is a low erosion risk class (19.3%) in natural forest and a very low erosion risk class (2.73%) in plantation forest. The main reason for the high percentage of very low erosion risk class in planted forests can be due to the presence of 70-80% of canopy, which is a combination of 90% of broadleaf plants with 10% of conifers. These results are consistent with the realities in the study area. The ICONA model and RS/GIS techniques can be used as a reliable framework for erosion risk assessment.

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

4.5
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