| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,208 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,560 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 53,002,181 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 92,287,747 |
سهمبندی رسوب در کرتهای آزمایشگاهی با شبیهسازی باران | ||
| پژوهش های آبخیزداری | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 34، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 131، تیر 1400، صفحه 15-31 اصل مقاله (2.04 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/wmej.2020.123819.1164 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عبدالواحد خالدی درویشان* 1؛ سیدحمیدرضا صادقی2؛ مهدی همایی3؛ محمود عرب خدری4 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه مهندسی آبخیزداری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، نور، مازندران، ایران | ||
| 2استاد گروه مهندسی آبخیزداری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، نور، مازندران، ایران | ||
| 3استاد گروه خاک شناسی، دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران | ||
| 4دانشیار پژوهشکده حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، سازمان تحقیقات آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تولید رسوب در هر یک از مرحلههای فرسایش و بازتوزیع آن در مقیاسهای مختلف آبخیز، دامنه و حتا کرت متفاوت است. در دو دههی اخیر به تهیهکردن نمودارهای سهم رسوب در مقیاس آبخیز و دامنه توجه شده است. بررسی این ابزار در مقیاس کرت نیز ممکن است به شناخت بهتر فرآیند تولید، بازتوزیع و تحویل رسوب کمک کند. این پژوهش با هدف سهمبندی رسوب در کرتهای آزمایشگاهی با خاک شنی بافت متوسط و با شبیهسازی باران با شدتهای 30، 50، 70 و 90 میلیمتر در ساعت انجام شد. رسوب در سطح کرتها با سنجش تغییر تراکم خاکدانههای رنگی مصنوعی با پردازش تصویر ردیابی شد. نتیجه نشان داد که این روش برای تهیهکردن نمودارهای سهم رسوب در مقیاس کرت سودمند است. با افزایشیافتن شدت بارندگی سهم فرسایش بینشیاری در تولید رسوب افزایش، و نسبت بازتوزیع رسوب در کرت کاهش یافت. متوسط نسبت تحویل رسوب برای شدتهای بارندگی 30، 50، 70 و 90 میلیمتر در ساعت بهترتیب 7/30، 8/54، 11/74 و 15/64% بود. تاکید میشود که بهدلیل زمان کوتاه آزمایش، این نسبت در مقیاس کرت کوچک است و در پژوهشهای آزمایشگاهی باید به آن توجه شود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| خاکدانههای رنگی مصنوعی؛ فرسایش بین شیاری؛ فرسایش پاشمانی؛ نسبت تحویل رسوب؛ نمودار سهم رسوب | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Sediment Budgeting in Laboratory Plots under Rainfall Simulation | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Abdulvahed Khaledi Darvishan1؛ Seyed Hamid Reza Sadeghi2؛ Mehdi Homaee3؛ Mahmood Arabkhedri4 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Mazandaran, Iran | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Mazandaran, Iran | ||
| 3Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 4Associate Professor, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute (SCWMRI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Sediment production at each stage of erosion and its redistribution vary at different scales in a watershed, a slope and even a plot. The preparation of sediment budgets on watershed and slope scales have been considered in the two preceding decades, and a review of this tool on a plot scale can also help to better understand the process of sediment production, redistribution and delivery. The present study was conducted to budget sediments in laboratory plots with sandy-loamy soil and under rainfall simulation with the intensities of 30, 50, 70 and 90 mm h-1. Sediment tracing was performed on the surface of the plots by measuring the changes in the density of synthetic color-contrast aggregates using image processing. The results indicated the ability of this method to prepare sediment budgets on a plot scale. The contribution of interrill erosion in sediment production was increased with an increase in the rainfall intensity; however, the proportion of sediment redistribution within the plot was decreased. The average sediment delivery ratios for the rainfall intensities of 30, 50, 70 and 90 mm h-1 were 7.30, 8.54, 11.74 and 15.64%, respectively. The insignificance of this ratio on a plot scale was emphasized due to the short period of the experiment and should be considered in laboratory research projects. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Inter rill erosion, sediment budget, sediment delivery ratio, splash erosion, synthetic color-contrast aggregates | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Agassi M, Bradford JM. 1999. Methodologies for interrill soil erosion studies. Soil & Tillage Research. 49: 277–287. Arsham A, Akhund Ali AM, Behnia A. 2009. Effect of soil Antecedent Moisture Contents on runoff and Sedimentation Values with Simulated Rainfall Method. Iranian Journal of Rangeland and Desert Research. 16(4): 445–455. (In Persian). Auerswald K, Mutchler CK, McGregor KC. 1994. The Influence of Tillage-Induced Differences in Surface Moisture Content on Soil Erosion. Soil & Tillage Research. 32: 41–50. Castillo VM, Gomez-Plaza A, Martinez-Mena M. 2003. The role of antecedent soil water content in the runoff response of semiarid catchments: A Simulation Approach. Journal of Hydrology. 284: 114–130. Chaplot V, Poesen J. 2012. Sediment, soil organic carbon and runoff delivery at various spatial scales. Catena. 88(1): 46–56. Cunningham LM. 2008. Sediment transport & vegetation change: A study using medium-scale landscape units as indicators of the influence of a vegetation transition on sediment production. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leicester. 175 p. Darboux F, Davy Ph, Gascuel-Odoux C, Huang C. 2001. Evolution of soil surface roughness and flowpath connectivity in overland flow experiments. Catena. 46: 125–139. De Vente J, Poesen J, Arabkhedri M, Verstraeten G. 2007. The sediment delivery problem revisited. Progress in Physical Geography. 31(2): 155–178. Defersha MB, Quraishi S, Mellese AM. 2011. The effect of slope steepness and antecedent moisture content on interrill erosion, runoff and sediment size distribution in the highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 15: 2367–2375. Dietrich WB, Dunne T. 1978. Sediment budget for a small catchment in mountainous terrain. Zeitschift fur Geomorphologie. 29: 191–206. Frings RM, Ten Brinke WB. 2018. Ten reasons to set up sediment budgets for river management. International Journal of River Basin Management. 16(1): 35–40. Gellis, AC, Walling DE. 2011. Sediment source fingerprinting (tracing) and sediment budgets as tools in targeting river and watershed restoration programs. Stream restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools. 194: 263–291. Ghahramani A, Ishikawa Y, Gomi T, Miyata Sh. 2011. Downslope Soil Detachment-Transport on Steep Slopes via Rain Splash. Hydrological Processes. 25(15): 2471–2480. Grimaldi S, Angeluccetti I, Coviello V, Vezza P. 2015. Cost‐effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures on the catchment sediment budget–the Laaba watershed case study, Burkina Faso. Land Degradation & Development. 26(7): 737–747. Haan CT, Barfield BJ, Hayes JC. 1994. Design hydrology and sedimentology for small catchments. Academic Press, INC, USA. Hawke RM, Price AG, Bryan RB. 2006. The effect of initial soil water content and rainfall intensity on near-surface soil hydrologic conductivity: A laboratory investigation. Catena. 65(3): 237–246. Johnson DL, Lewis LA. 1995. Land Degradation: Creation and Destruction. Blackwall: Oxford. Keesstra SD, Bruijnzeel LA, Van Huissteden J. 2009. Meso‐scale catchment sediment budgets: combining field surveys and modeling in the Dragonja catchment, southwest Slovenia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34(11): 1547-1561. Khaledi Darvishan A, Homayounfar V, Sadeghi SHR. 2016. The impact of standard preparation practice on the runoff and soil erosion rates under laboratory conditions. Solid Earth. 7(5): 1293–1302. Khaledi Darvishan A, Sadeghi SH, Homaee M, Arabkhedri M. 2012. Potential use of synthetic color-contrast aggregates and a digital image processing technique in soil splash measurements. Erosion and Sediment Yields in the Changing Environment. IAHS Publication. 356: 364–368. Khaledi Darvishan A, Sadeghi SH, Homaee M, Arabkhedri M. 2014. Measuring sheet erosion using synthetic color‐contrast aggregates. Hydrological Processes. 28(15): 4463–4471. Kinnell PIA. 2005. Raindrop-impact-induced erosion processes and prediction: A review. Hydrological Processes. 19: 2815–2844. Kondolf GM, Schmitt RJ, Carling P, Darby S, Arias M, Bizzi S, Castelletti A, Cochrane TA, Gibson S, Kummu M, Oeurng C. 2018. Changing sediment budget of the Mekong: Cumulative threats and management strategies for a large river basin. Science of the Total Environment. 625: 114–134. Kukal SS, Sarkar M. 2010. Splash erosion and infiltration in relation to mulching and polyviny1 alcohol application in semi-arid tropics. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 56(6): 697–705. Kukal SS, Srakar M. 2011. Laboratory simulation studies on splash erosion and crusting in relation to surface roughness and raindrop size. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Sciences. 59(1): 87–93. Luk SH, Hamilton H. 1986. Experimental effects of antecedent moisture and soil strength on rainwash erosion of two luvisols, ontario. Geoderma. 37: 29–43. Luk SH. 1985. Effect of Antecedent Soil Moisture Content on Rainwash Erosion. Catena. 12: 129–139. Meade RH, Trimble SW. 1974. Changes in sediment loads of rivers in the Atlantic drainage of the United States since 1900. Effects of Man on the Interface of the Hydrological Cycle with the Physical Environment; IAHS Publication. 113: 99–104. Mertens G, Elsen L. 2006. Use of computer assisted image analysis for the determination of the grain-size distribution of sands used in mortars. Cement and Concrete Research. 36: 1453–1459. Minella JP, Walling DE, Merten GH. 2014. Establishing a sediment budget for a small agricultural catchment in southern Brazil, to support the development of effective sediment management strategies. Journal of Hydrology. 519(Part B): 2189–2201. Mutchler C, Larson C. 1971. Splash Amounts from Waterdrop Impact on a Smooth Surface. Water Resources Research. 7: 195-200. Parsons AJ, Stone PM. 2006. Effects of intra-storm variations in rainfall intensity on interrill runoff and erosion. Catena. 67(1): 68-78. Parsons AJ, Wainwright J, Powell DM, Kaduk J, Brazier RE. 2004. A Conceptual model for determining soil erosion by water. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 29(10): 1293–1302. Peeters I. 2007. Spatial modelling of sediment redistribution patterns on a millennial time scale. Ph.D. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 236 p. Phillips JD. 1991. Fluvial sediment budgets in the North Carolina Piedmont. Geomorphology. 4: 231–241. Porto P, Walling DE, La Spada C, Callegari G. 2016. Validating the use of 137 Cs measurements to derive the slope component of the sediment budget of a small rangeland catchment in southern Italy. Land Degradation & Development. 27(3): 798–810. Rainato R, Mao L, García-Rama A, Picco L, Cesca M, Vianello A, Preciso E, Scussel GR, Lenzi MA. 2017. Three decades of monitoring in the Rio Cordon instrumented basin: Sediment budget and temporal trend of sediment yield. Geomorphology. 291: 45–56. Rapp A. 1960. Recent development of mountain slopes in Karkevagge and surroundings, northern Scandinavia. Geografiska Annaler. 42(2–3): 65–200. Sedighi F, Khaledi Darvishan A, Zare MR. 2021. Effect of watershed geomorphological characteristics on sediment redistribution. Geomorphology. 375: 107–559. Shi ZH, Fang NF, Wu FZ, Wang L, Yue BJ, Wu GL. 2012. Soil erosion processes and sediment sorting associated with transport mechanisms on steep slopes. Journal of Hydrology. 454-455: 123–130. Slaymaker O. 2003. The sediment budget as conceptual framework and management tool. Hydrobiologia. 494: 71–82. Smetanová A, Verstraeten G, Notebaert B, Dotterweich M, Létal A. 2017. Landform transformation and long-term sediment budget for a Chernozem-dominated lowland agricultural catchment. Catena. 157: 24–34. Tramblay Y, Bouvier C, Martin C, Didon-Lescot JF, Todorovik D, Domergue JM. 2010. Assessment of initial soil moisture conditions for event-based rainfall–runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology. 387: 176–187. Trimble SW. 1983. A sediment budget for Coon Creek basin in the Driftless Area, Wisconsin, 1853–1977. American Journal of Science. 283: 454–474. Ventura E, Nearing MA, Amore E, Norton LD. 2002. The study of detachment and deposition on a hillslope using a magnetic tracer. Catena. 48(3): 149–161. Verheijen FGA, Jones RJA, Rickson RJ, Smith CJ. 2009. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Science Reviews. 94(1–4): 23–38. Wainwright J, Parsons AJ, Michaelides K, Powell DM, Brazier R. 2003. Linking short- and long-term soil erosion modelling. Lang A, Hennrich K, Dikau R. (Eds.), Long term hillslope and fluvial system modelling. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. 101: 37–51. Walling DE, Collins AL, Sichingabula HM, Leeks GJL. 2001. Integrated assessment of catchment suspended sediment budgets: A zambian example. Land Degradation & Development. 12(5): 387–415. Walling DE, Collins AL. 2008. The catchment sediment budget as a management tool. Environmental Science and Policy. 11(2): 136–143. Walling DE, Collins AL. 2008. The catchment sediment budget as a management tool. Environmental Science & Policy. 11(2): 136–143. Walling DE. 1983. The sediment delivery problem. Journal of Hydrology. 65: 209–237. Walling DE. 1999. Linking land use, erosion and sediment yields in river basins. Hydrobiologia. 410: 223–240. Walling DE. 2006. Tracing versus monitoring: New challenges and opportunities in erosion and sediment delivery research. In: Owens PN, Collins AJ, Editors. Soil Erosion and Sediment Redistribution in River Catchments. CABI, Wallingford. pp. 13–27. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,087 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 969 |
||