4.5 Article

Interactions among hydrological-aeolian processes and vegetation determine grain-size distribution of sediments in a semi-arid coppice dune (nebkha) system

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 24-33

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.03.011

关键词

Land degradation; Dune dynamics; Sediment; Aeolian transport; Hydraulic conductivity; Chihuahuan desert

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-1451489, EAR-1451518]
  2. U.S. Department of Transportation Southern Plains Transportation Center [SPTC14.1-39]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation of coppice dunes (nebkhas) has been attributed to both aeolian and hydrological processes, however, the interactions between these processes and vegetation dynamics are poorly understood. Additionally, a systematic study on the roles of dune geometry, morphology and hydrological processes in relation to sediment grain-size distribution in the coppice dune system is lacking. Here, we analyzed detailed grain-size distribution and saturated hydraulic conductivity for sediments collected from a series of coppice dunes with different morphological features and phases of development in a degraded shrubland in the southwestern US. Our results show that fine-grained dune sediments are associated with the wind-driven accumulation of very fine sand and fine sand (50-250 mu m), irrespective of the height of the dunes. Patterns of grain-size distribution are strongly related to the relative positions along the dune-interdune system and the alignment with the dominant wind direction. Thus, the current notion that dune sediments contain more sand and less silt than interdune soils is over-simplistic. The fact that the grain-size distribution and the saturated hydraulic conductivity are heterogeneous for the dune-interdune system with different morphological features suggests that the relative contributions of aeolian and hydrological processes are distinct in the evolution of coppice dunes.

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