4.7 Article

Impacts of logging disturbance on hillslope saturated hydraulic conductivity in a tropical forest in Peninsular Malaysia

期刊

CATENA
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 89-104

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2006.02.008

关键词

soil depth; saturated hydraulic conductivity; perched water table; rainfall intensity; runoff generation; logging impact recovery; skid trails; ultisol; amoozemeter; knocking-pole penetrometer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a constant-head permeameter we found an abrupt natural decrease in saturated hydraulic conductivity (K-s) within the upper 1.0-m soil profile of an Orthoxic Tropudult at the Bukit Tarek Experimental Catchments research area in tropical, Peninsular Malaysia. The depth at which low K-s could cause a perched water table in response to high-intensity rainfall, however, was too great to generate saturation overland flow on planar hillslopes in the study area. The effects of logging activity on K-s at five subsurface depths (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 m) on the non-roaded portion of the harvest area were examined at the three following sites, which differed in the degree of disturbance and recovery since timber harvesting: (1) selective logging conducted in the 1960s; (2) mechanized selective tree removal conducted 4 years ago; and (3) high-impact clear-cutting just prior to measurement. This recent logging greatly disturbed the soil surface (via compaction, topsoil/subsoil mixing, burning) and produced comparatively high variability in near-surface K-s. Changes in K-s at or below 0.25-m, however, were not detected with certainty at any sites. In terms of hillslope hydrologic response, the connectivity of zones of low K-s in the harvest area with dense networks of skid trails and terraces was identified as one of the most important consequences of timber harvesting, although this phenomenon was not quantified. We estimate the recovery time for near-surface K-s on the non-roaded hillslope to be less than 40 years. (c) 2006 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