| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,005 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,631 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 44,479,787 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 30,136,281 |
تأثیر اقدام‌های آبخیزداری بر امکان فرسایش خاک با شبیه‌ساز آزمایشگاهی در گوربند، سیستان و بلوچستان | ||
| پژوهش های آبخیزداری | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 34، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 132، مهر 1400، صفحه 19-39 اصل مقاله (2.91 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/wmej.2021.351438.1357 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نرگس کریمی نژاد1؛ عباس گلی جیرنده2؛ هادی علیزاده2؛ محسن حسینعلی زاده1؛ حمید رضا پورقاسمی* 3 | ||
| 1گروه مدیریت مناطق بیابانی، دانشکده مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان | ||
| 2شرکت مهندسین مشاور نوآوران علوم مکانی | ||
| 3دانشیار بخش مهندسی منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف از این تحقیق تحلیل اندازه اثرگزاری اقدام‌های آبخیزداری در زیر حوضه نمونه و مقایسه‌ی آن با زیرحوضه شاهد در گوربند سیستان و بلوچستان، و شناسایی منطقه‌های حساس به فرسایش در آنها است. در این تحقیق تصاویر پهپاد در دو زیرحوضه با مساحت 58 هکتار (شاهد) و 83 هکتار (نمونه) به‌کار گرفته‌شد. نقشه شماره منحنی و چهار نقشه پایه شامل ارتفاع، درجه شیب، جهت زه‌کشی و تجمع آبراه تهیه، و براساس آنها سه حالت ممکن 20، 40 و 60 میلی متر بارش روزانه برای شبیه‌سازی با لندپلنر، با دو شاخص فرسایش و آستانه پستیبلندی درنظر گرفته شد. نتیجه به دست‌آمده برای دو زیرحوضه با روش‌های چارچوب جعبه‌یی، چارچوب چهاروجهی و سطح زیرمنحنی عمل‌کرد نسبی ارزیابی شد. شاخص فرسایش در شبیه‌ساز لندپلنر با در نظرگرفتن بیشینه بارش روزانه (60 میلی متر) نشان داد که اندازه‌ی فرسایش خاک در زیرحوضه شاهد 0/54821 بود، که بیشتر از اندازه فرسایش خاک در زیرحوضه نمونه (0/15593) است. شبیه‌سازی براساس آستانه فرسایش نیز نشان داد که تغییر عددی شاخص آستانه پستیبلندی 2-0 در زیرحوضه نمونه کمتر از تغییر ناشی از این شاخص در زیرحوضه شاهد (3-0) است. به طور کلی می‌توان گفت که به دلیل اقدام‌های آبخیزداری مناسبی که در زیرحوضه نمونه انجام شد، این زیرحوضه در شرایط بهتری از شاهد است، زیرا اندازه فرسایش خاک در آن به‌مراتب کمتر از آن است، در حالی که هر سه حالت ممکن بارش کمتر بودن فرسایش خاک را در زیرحوضه نمونه پیش بینی می کند. بنابراین، شبیه سازی براساس حالت‌های بارش و شماره منحنی با شبیه‌ساز آزمایشگاهی لندپلنر برای ارزیابی اثرگزاری اقدام‌های آبخیزداری در زیرحوضه زوجییی که امکان فرسایش خاک در آنها وجود دارند، توصیه می‌شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| پهپاد؛ سیستان و بلوچستان؛ زیرحوضه زوجی؛ شبیه‌ساز فیزیک‌محور | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An Assessment of Watershed Management Activities on the Soil Erosion Potential Using the Physical LANDPLANER Model in the Treated and Control Sub-catchment of the Goorband in Sistan and Baluchestan | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Narges Kariminejad1؛ Abbas Goli Jirandeh2؛ Hadi Alizadeh2؛ Mohsen Hosseinalizadeh1؛ Hamid Reza Pourghasemi3 | ||
| 1Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources, Faculty of Range and Watershed Management, Dept. of Arid Zone Management, Gorgan, Iran | ||
| 2Spatial Sciences Innovators (SSI) Consulting Engineering Co. | ||
| 3Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of watershed management activities in a representative sub-catchment (treated) and its comparison with a control on, and to identify the erosion sensitive areas in these sub-catchments areas of 58 hectares (control) and 83 hectares (treated) the using UAV photogrammetry. Based on a curve number and four other basic maps (elevation, slope, drainage direction, and accumulation density), three daily precipitation scenarios of 20, 40, and 60 mm were considered to model the LANDPLANER with two indices of Erosion Index and Topographic Threshold. The results were evaluated using the boxplot methods, foufold plot, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Erosion index (IE) in the LANDPLANER model, considering the maximum daily precipitation of 60 mm, was 0.54821 for the control sub-catchment which was more than that of the treated one (0.15593). The modeling based on the topographic Threshold also showed that the numerical changes of the index between 0-2 in the trated sub-catchment were less than that of the control area(0-3). Therefore, it can be said that due to the appropriate protective operations that had taken place on the treated sub-catchment, this area is in a better condition than the control one, as the volume of soil erosion was less than that of the control sub-catchment. It is informative to know that all of the three precipitation scenarios predict less soil erosion in the treated sub-catchment. Therefore, simulation based on the rainfall and curve number scenarios with LANDPLANER physical model is recommended to evalute the effect of watershed management activities on the paired sub- catchments that are degraded due to soil erosion. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Phisical-based model, paired sub-catchments, Sistan and Baluchestan, UAV | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Amiri M, Pourghasemi HR, Ghanbarian GA, Afzali SF. 2019. Assessment of the importance of gully erosion effective factors using Boruta algorithm and its spatial modeling and mapping using three machine learning algorithms. Geoderma. 340:55–69. Bartley R, Poesen J, Wilkinson S, Vanmaercke M. 2020. A review of the magnitude and response times for sediment yield reductions following the rehabilitation of gullied landscapes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 45(13): 3250–3279. Bovi RC, Moreira CA, Rosolen VS, Rosa FTG, Furlan LM, Helene LPI. 2020. Piping process: Genesis and network characterization through a pedological and geophysical approach. Geoderma. 361: 114101–114109. Campo Bescós MA, Flores Cervantes JH, Bras RL, Casalí J, Giráldez JV. 2013. Evaluation of a gully headcut retreat model using multitemporal aerial photographs and digital elevation models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface. 118(4): 2159–2173. Capra A, Scicolone B. 2002. SW—Soil and Water: Ephemeral gully erosion in a wheat-cultivated area in sicily (Italy). Biosystems Engineering. 83(1): 119–126. Chen JP, Kok K, Verburg PH, Cammeraat LH. 2007. Identification of vulnerable areas for gully erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast Spain. Catena. 71(1): 110–121. De Vente J, Poesen J, Verstraeten G, Govers G, Vanmaercke M, Van Rompaey A, Arabkhedri M, Boix-Fayos C. 2013. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at regional scales: where do we stand?. Earth-Science Reviews. 127(3): 16–29. Dotterweich M, Rodzik J, Zgłobicki W, Schmitt A, Schmidtchen G, Bork HR. 2012. High resolution gully erosion and sedimentation processes, and land use changes since the Bronze Age and future trajectories in the Kazimierz Dolny area (Nałęczów Plateau, SE-Poland). Catena. 95(1): 50–62. Dube HB, Mutema M, Muchaonyerwa P, Poesen J, Chaplot V. 2020. A global analysis of the morphology of linear erosion features. Catena. 190(1): 104–542. Foster GR. 2005. Modeling ephemeral gully erosion for conservation planning. International Journal of Sediment Research, 20(3): 157–175. Guan L, Pan H, Zou S, Hu J, Zhu X, Zhou P. 2020. The impact of horizontal errors on the accuracy of freely available Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(19): 7383–7399. Hamshaw SD, Engel T, Rizzo DM, O’Neil-Dunne J, Dewoolkar MM. 2019. Application of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for monitoring bank erosion along river corridors. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. 10(1): 1285–1305. Hosseinalizadeh M, Alinejad M, Zarei H, Jalalifard AR. 2018. Tunnel erosion, threat or opportunity. Scientific-Extension Journal of Land Management. 7(2): 177–165. (In Persian). Hosseinalizadeh M, Kariminejad N, Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Alinejad M, Behbahani AM, Tiefenbacher J. 2019. How can statistical and artificial intelligence approaches predict piping erosion susceptibility?. Geomorphology. 646: 1554–1566. Jalalifard A, Hosseinalizadeh M, Komaki ChB, Azim Mohseni B. 2018. Piping erosion modeling in loess soils. Environmental Erosion Research. 8 (4): 1–18. (In Persian). Kariminejad N, Rossi M, Hosseinalizadeh M, Pourghasemi HR, Santosh M. 2020. Gully head modelling in Iranian Loess Plateau under different scenarios. CATENA. 194(3): 104769–104779. Kariminejad N, Hosseinalizadeh M, Pourghasemi HR, Bernatek-Jakiel A, Campetella G, Ownegh M. 2019. Evaluation of factors affecting gully headcut location using summary statistics and the maximum entropy model: Golestan Province, NE Iran. Science of The Total Environment. 677(10): 281–298. Kariminejad N, Hosseinalizadeh M, Pourghasemi HR. 2020. A review of spatial monitoring of piping collapse using unmanned aerial vehicle in loess-derived soils in the Golestan Province. Journal of Watershed Management Research. (2) 33: 69–53. (In Persian). Khoja J, Qudusi J, Ismaili R. 2012. Investigation of the relationship between physical and chemical properties of soil and the prevalence of trench erosion in the Golestan Province Basin, Watershed Management Research Journal. 3(5): 41–27. (In Persian). Koci J, Jarihani B, Leon JX, Sidle RC, Wilkinson SN, Bartley R. 2017. Assessment of UAV and ground-based Structure from Motion with multi-view stereo photogrammetry in a gullied savanna catchment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 6(11): 328–339. Kornejady A, Pourghasemi HR, Afzali SF. 2019. Presentation of RFFR new ensemble model for landslide susceptibility assessment in Iran. In Landslides: Theory, Practice and Modelling. 50(978): 123–143. Ebrahimi M, Javadi M, Vafakhah M. 2015. Investigation of effective soil and non-soil factors in creating linear gully erosion in Aq Imam watershed. Soil Research (Soil and Water Sciences). 29(4): 447–498. (In Persian). Peeters I, Rommens T, Verstraeten G, Govers G, Van Rompaey A, Poesen J, Van Oost K. 2006. Reconstructing ancient topography through erosion modelling. Geomorphology. 78(3–4): 250–264. Poesen J. 2018. Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: Research needs. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 43(1): 64–84. Poesen JWA, Torri DB, Vanwalleghem T. 2011. Gully erosion: Procedures to adopt when modelling soil erosion in landscapes affected by gullying. Handbook of Erosion Modelling. Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G, Valentin C. 2003. Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena. 50(2–4): 91–133. Pourghasemi HR, Kariminejad N, Gayen A, Komac M. 2020. Statistical functions used for spatial modelling due to assessment of landslide distribution and landscape-interaction factors in Iran. Geoscience Frontiers. 11(4): 1257–1269. Rahmati O, Tahmasebipour N, Haghizadeh A, Pourghasemi HR, Feizizadeh B. 2017a. Evaluation of different machine learning models for predicting and mapping the susceptibility of gully erosion. Geomorphology. 298(1): 118–137. Rieke-Zapp DH, Nichols MH. 2011. Headcut retreat in a semiarid watershed in the southwestern united States since 1935. Catena. 87(1): 1–10. Rossi M, Torri D, Santi E. 2015. Bias in topographic thresholds for gully heads. Natural Hazards. 79(1): 51–69. Rossi M, Torri D, Santi E, Bacaro G, Marchesini I, Mondini A, Felicioni G. 2014. Slope dynamics and climatic change through indirect interactions. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. 1(1): 551–555. Roshan Zamir S. 2020. Zoning of landslide sensitivity of Maragheh Basin to gully erosion using fuzzy multi-characteristic decision making method. Quantitative GeomorphologicalR. 9 (2): 194–175. (In Persian). Saber Chenari K, Beneficiary AA. 2016. Zoning of trench erosion risk in Qarnaveh Watershed, Golestan Province. Echo Hydrology. 3 (2): 231– 219. (In Persian). Temme A, Veldkamp A. 2009. Multi‐process late quaternary landscape evolution modelling reveals lags in climate response over small spatial scales. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34(4): 573–589. Torri D, Poesen J. 2014. A review of topographic threshold conditions for gully head development in different environments. Earth-Science Reviews. 130(1): 73–85. Torri D. Poesen J. Rossi M. Amici V. Spennacchi D. Cremer C. 2018. Gully head modelling: a Mediterranean badlands case study. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms. 43(12): 2547–2561. Toy TJGR, Foster KG, Renard. 2002. Soil erosion, processes, prediction, measurement and control, John Wiley and Sons. Tucker GE, Slingerland RL. 1994. Erosional dynamics, flexural isostasy, and long lived escarpments: A numerical modeling study. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 99(B6): 12229–12243. USDA NCRS. 2012. National Engineering Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Valcárcel M, Taboada MT, Paz A, Dafonte J. 2003. Ephemeral gully erosion in northwestern Spain. Catena. 50(2): 199–216. Valentin C, Poesen J, Li Y. 2005. Gully erosion: Impacts, factors and control. Catena. 63(2–3): 132–153. Vandekerckhove L. Poesen J. Oostwoud Wijdenes D. Gyssels G. 2001. Short-term bank gully retreat rates in Mediterranean environments. Catena, 44(2):133–161. Vanmaercke M, Poesen J, Van Mele B, Demuzere M, Bruynseels A, Golosov V, Bezerra JFR, Bolysov S, Dvinskih A, Frankl A, Fuseina Y, Guerra AJT, Haregeweyn N, Ionita I, Makanzu Imwangana F, Moeyersons J, Moshe I, Nazari Samani A, Niacsu L, Nyssen J, Otsuki Y, Radoane M, Rysin I, Ryzhov YV,Yermolaev O. 2016. How fast do gully heads retreat? Earth-Science Rev. 154(1): 336–355. Vanwalleghem T, Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G. 2005. Charecteristics, controlling factors and importance of deep gullies under cropland on loeess-derived soils. Geomorphology. 69(1–4):76–91. Wells RR, Bennett SJ, Alonso CV. 2011. Impact of upstream sediment inflow on headcut morphodynamics. Landform Analysis. 17(1429): 225–227. Zahraei B. Naseri M. Roozbehani A. 2010. Modeling the effects of climate change on water resources in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Fourth Regional Conference on Climate Change. Tehran. (In Persian). Zarei H, Najafinejad A, Hosseinalizadeh M, Alipour K. 2017. Evaluation of the efficiency of EGEM model for estimating gully erosion in Ikeh Aghzali watershed of Golestan province. Soil and water conservation research. 24(5): 162–147. (In Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,609 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 789 |
||