4.7 Article

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in limestone dolines:: Influence of vegetation and rock fragments

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 145, 期 3-4, 页码 288-294

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.03.018

关键词

hydraulic conductivity; vegetation; rock fragments; doline; karstic landscape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vegetation and rock fragments have a profound impact on runoff generation in the dolines of the Sierra de Gador, southeastern Spain. This study investigated the effect of vegetation and rock fragments on unsaturated hydraulic conductivity [K(h)] in three limestone dolines and examined whether variation in K (h) was consistent with differences in runoff from simulated rainfall. Tension infiltrometers were used to measure unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at three pressure heads (h) of -30, -60 and -120 mm, at 70 locations within the three dolines. Generally, the trends of the K(h) were consistent with the simulated rainfall data and accounted for difference in runoff for the vegetated surfaces. Vegetation resulted in high infiltration with unsaturated hydraulic conductivities at -30 and -60 mm are significantly greater for the vegetated surface than for the rock fragment covered surface and bare soil surface. Rock fragments had no obvious effect on soil hydraulic conductivity as compared with bare soils. The K(h) of the non-crusted soil were 2-5 times higher than that of the crusted soil. The K(h) decreased with increasing tensions, K(60) and K (120) were only 8.4 and 0.89%, respectively, of K(30) for the vegetated surfaces, and were about 30 and 8.7%, respectively, of K(30) for both rock fragment covered surfaces and bare soils, suggesting that pores in the 0.5- to 1-mm diameter range dominate flow under unsaturated conditions. There were significant differences in K(h) among the different topographic units of the dolines, and K(h) tended to be higher in the upper position than in the lower position of the doline. (c) 2008 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