Next Article in Journal
Jointly Modeling Drought Characteristics with Smoothed Regionalized SPI Series for a Small Island
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of a Floating Cylinder with Solid and Water Ballast
Open AccessArticle

Response Relationship between Microtopographic Variation and Slope Erosion under Sand-Cover

1
State Key Laboratory of Eco-Hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region of China, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China
2
Shanxi Province Institute of Resources and Electric Power Investigation and Design, Xi’an 710048, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dry-land Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling 712100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(12), 2488; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122488
Received: 22 October 2019 / Revised: 21 November 2019 / Accepted: 21 November 2019 / Published: 26 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Slope microtopography is an important factor that affects the process of slope erosion. We quantified the responses between microtopography and the amount of erosion on overland sand slope and loess slopes through an indoor artificial simulated rainfall experiment. Three continuous rainfall tests under 1.5 mm/min rain intensity were used to analyze the spatial variation of slope microtopography and soil erosion with three-dimensional laser scanning technology. Our results show that under 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm sand-covered slopes, the runoff time of the first rainfall is delayed by 18, 19, and 23 min, respectively, compared with the loess slope. Furthermore, the average sediment concentration on the slope decreased with subsequent rainfall events. The total erosion of the slope under 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm sand was 4.24, 3.57, and 5.40 times that of the loess slope, respectively. The erosion of the sand-covered slopes was much larger than that of the loess slope. The length of the main sand production area was about 2.4 times that of the loess slope and the peaks of the erosion amount of the slope were mostly distributed in the lower part of the slope. As the rainfall progressed, the microtopographic factors of the loess slopes increased significantly (p < 0.05), and the microtopographic factors of the sand slopes increased, but not significantly (p > 0.05). We found that the microtopographic factors with the strongest erosion responses to the loess slope and the sand-covered slope were surface incision and surface roughness. The response relationship between microtopographic variation and erosion of the loess slope was stronger than the sand-covered slope, and suggests that other, unaccounted-for factors may be affecting the erosion of sand-covered slopes. This study provides a reference for erosion mechanisms of the wind–water erosion crisscross region. View Full-Text
Keywords: sand-covered slope; spatial distribution of erosion; microtopographic; ridge regression sand-covered slope; spatial distribution of erosion; microtopographic; ridge regression
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, F.; Xu, G.; Li, L.; Li, Z.; Li, P.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, Y. Response Relationship between Microtopographic Variation and Slope Erosion under Sand-Cover. Water 2019, 11, 2488.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop