Effects of Intra-Storm Soil Moisture and Runoff Characteristics on Ephemeral Gully Development: Evidence from a No-Till Field Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Field Equipment
2.3. Measuring Channel Cross Sections
2.4. Estimating Ephemeral Gully Erosion
2.5. Estimating Sheet and Rill Erosion
2.6. Erosion and Hydrologic Characteristics of a Runoff Event
- time at peak runoff hydrograph, tp (h);
- time 1 h prior to rainfall event, ta (h);
- duration of runoff event, td (h);
- antecedent soil moisture content, θa (%) at t = ta;
- 60 min peak runoff rate qp (m3∙s−1), and;
- channel flow depth hp (cm) at t = tp.
3. Results
3.1. Soil Erosion and Accumulation between Soil Surveys
3.2. Seasonal Changes in the Headcut Area
3.3. Elevation Changes along Ephemeral Gully
3.4. Daily Climate Dataseries
3.5. Significant Runoff Events
4. Discussion
4.1. Characteristics of the Critical Shear Stress
4.2. Applicability of the Critical Shear Stress Function to Field Experiment
- (i)
- a zone of definite erosion (τ > τC0τC1, τC1 > 1);
- (ii)
- a zone of no erosion (τ < τC0); and
- (iii)
- a zone of conditional erosion (τC0 < τ < τC0τC1, τC1 > 1).
4.3. Factors Affecting Ephemeral Gully Erosion
5. Conclusions
- Of 14 survey periods, soil erosion was observed during 3 periods in headcut and 4 periods in the channelized part of the ephemeral gully, whereas sediment accumulation was detected during 2 periods in headcut and 6 periods in the channelized part. Fluctuations of soil loss and accumulation in the headcut area were mainly caused by physical interactions between hydraulic shear forces and the soil surface, soil condition, and sediment load. In addition to physical factors similar to those in the headcut part, the channelized part of the gully experienced elevation changes due to the side wall collapsing, channel meandering, farming operations, and soil crusting.
- Twelve significant runoff events from 6 survey periods were identified to create hydraulic shear stresses at the peak flow rate that were higher than the base critical value. Under standard considerations all these events must cause soil erosion, however, it is contradictory to have observed erosion in 3 out of the 6 periods.
- Intra-storm flow and soil characteristics provided additional insight into channel development. Hydraulic shear stress and soil moisture content at peak flow rate, antecedent soil moisture content, and channel geometry were examined during 12 significant runoff events. The analysis provided the basis on which to extend the definition of the critical shear stress and explain the reasons for soil erosion for 4 relevant events.
- One functional form of the critical shear stress function was suggested by incorporating the changes in soil moisture content from its antecedent condition with the time of highest runoff intensity and testing it with collected data. This form allowed the excess shear stress equation to define the specific function of τ versus i and determine the zones of definite erosion, conditional erosion, and no erosion for the studied ephemeral gully.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P.; Meusburger, K.; Yu, B.; Klik, A.; Jae Lim, K.; Yang, J.E.; Ni, J.; Miao, C.; Chattopadhyay, N.; et al. Global rainfall erosivity assessment based on high-temporal resolution rainfall records. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keesstra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. SOIL 2016, 2, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, G.R. Understanding Ephemeral Gully Erosion. In Soil Conservation: Assessing the National Resources Inventory, Vol. 2; Committee on Conservation Needs and Opportunities, National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1986; pp. 90–125. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, G.A.; Sheshukov, A.Y.; Cruse, R.; Kolar, R.L.; Guertault, L.; Gesch, K.R.; Dutnell, R.C. Reservoir Sedimentation and Upstream Sediment Sources: Perspectives and Future Research Needs on Streambank and Gully Erosion. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 945–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hargrove, W.L.; Johnson, D.; Snethen, D.; Middendorf, J. From Dust Bowl to Mud Bowl: Sedimentation, conservation measures, and the future of reservoirs. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 65, 14A–17A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Wirtz, S.; Brevik, E.C.; Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D.; Ries, J.B. Assessment of agri-spillways as a soil erosion protection measure in Mediterranean sloping vineyards. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 1009–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). Glossary of Soil Science Terms 2008; Soil Science Society of America: Fitchburg, WI, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Taguas, E.V.; Guzmán, E.; Guzmán, G.; Vanwalleghem, T.; Gómez, J.A. Characteristics and importance of rill and gully erosion: A case study in a small catchment of a marginal olive grove. Cuad. Investig. Geográfica 2015, 41, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daggupati, P.; Sheshukov, A.Y.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R. Evaluating ephemeral gullies with a process-based topographic index model. Catena 2014, 113, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osmond, D.; Meals, D.; Hoag, D.; Arabi, M.; Luloff, A.; Jennings, G.; McFarland, M.; Spooner, J.; Sharpley, A.; Line, D. Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture-Conservation Effects Assessment Project. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 122A–127A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentin, C.; Poesen, J.; Li, Y. Gully erosion: Impacts, factors and control. Catena 2005, 63, 132–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Liu, B.; Zheng, Q.; Yin, J. Characteristics and factors controlling the development of ephemeral gullies in cultivated catchments of black soil region, Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, R.R.; Bennett, S.J.; Alonso, C.V. Effect of soil texture, tailwater height, and pore-water pressure on the morphodynamics of migrating headcuts in upland concentrated flows. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2009, 34, 1867–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capra, A.; Porto, P.; Scicolone, B. Relationships between rainfall characteristics and ephemeral gully erosion in a cultivated catchment in Sicily (Italy). Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 105, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Römkens, M.J.M.; Wells, R.R.; Wang, B.; Zheng, F.; Hickey, C.J. Soil Erosion on Upland Areas by Rainfall and Overland Flow. In Advances in Water Resources Engineering. Handbook of Environmental Engineering; Yang, C., Wang, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Swizerland, 2015; Volume 14, pp. 361–405. [Google Scholar]
- Ziadat, F.M.; Taimeh, A.Y. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, L.; Zhang, W.-C.; Yan, C.-A. A modified topographic index that incorporates the hydraulic and physical properties of soil. Hydrol. Res. 2017, 48, 370–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daggupati, P.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Sheshukov, A.Y. Predicting ephemeral gully location and length using topographic index models. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56, 1427–1440. [Google Scholar]
- Poesen, J.W.A.; Torri, D.B.; Vanwalleghem, T. Gully Erosion: Procedures to Adopt When Modelling Soil Erosion in Landscapes Affected by Gullying; Morgan, R.P.C., Nearing, M.A., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 360–386. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, J.; Jing, Y.; Yin, D. Soil erosion studies should consider the effect of water erosion on tillage erosion. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 38A–41A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco-Canqui, H.; Wienhold, B.J.; Jin, V.L.; Schmer, M.R.; Kibet, L.C. Long-term tillage impact on soil hydraulic properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soane, B.D.; Ball, B.C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; Roger-Estrade, J. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 118, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollock, C.; Reeder, R. No-Till—Plenty of Positives. Resour. Mag. 2010, 17, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
- Zuber, S.; Behnke, G.; Nafziger, E. Multivariate assessment of soil quality indicators for crop rotation and tillage in Illinois. Soil Tillage 2017, 174, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osouli, A.; Karimpour, M.; Bahri, P.S. Erosion Characteristics of Silty to Clayey Soils Using EFA and Lab-Scaled Levee-Floodwall Tests. Geotech. Test. J. 2017, 40, 20160152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ollobarren, P.; Capra, A.; Gelsomino, A.; Spada, C. La Effects of ephemeral gully erosion on soil degradation in a cultivated area in Sicily (Italy). Catena 2016, 145, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nachtergaele, J.; Poesen, J.; Sidorchuk, A.; Torri, D. Prediction of concentrated flow width in ephemeral gully channels. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16, 1935–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poesen, J.; Nachtergaele, J.; Verstraeten, G.; Valentin, C. Gully erosion and environmental change: Importance and research needs. Catena 2003, 50, 91–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tebebu, T.Y.; Abiy, A.Z.; Zegeye, A.D.; Dahlke, H.E.; Easton, Z.M.; Tilahun, S.A.; Collick, A.S.; Kidnau, S.; Moges, S.; Dadgari, F.; et al. Surface and subsurface flow effect on permanent gully formation and upland erosion near Lake Tana in the northern highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knapen, A.; Poesen, J.; Govers, G.; Gyssels, G.; Nachtergaele, J. Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2007, 80, 75–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, R.R.; Momm, H.G.; Rigby, J.R.; Bennett, S.J.; Bingner, R.L.; Dabney, S.M. An empirical investigation of gully widening rates in upland concentrated flows. Catena 2013, 101, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Stefano, C.; Ferro, V. Measurements of rill and gully erosion in Sicily. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 2221–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, J.G.; Jia, Y.W.; Zhou, Z.H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W.L.; Peng, H. An experimental study on dynamic processes of ephemeral gully erosion in loess landscapes. Geomorphology 2011, 125, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casalí, J.; Giménez, R.; Bennett, S. Gully erosion processes: Monitoring and modelling. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2009, 34, 1839–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, A.W.; Welch, R. Measurement of ephemeral gully erosion. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1988, 31, 1723–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo, C.; Pérez, R.; James, M.R.; Quinton, J.N.; Taguas, E.V.; Gómez, J.A. Comparing the Accuracy of Several Field Methods for Measuring Gully Erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karimov, V.; Sheshukov, A.; Barnes, P. Impact of precipitation and runoff on ephemeral gully development in cultivated croplands. In Sediment Dynamics: From the Summit to the Sea; Xu, Y.J., Ed.; IAHS Press: Wallingford, UK, 2014; pp. 87–92. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Gutiérrez, Á.; Schnabel, S.; Berenguer-Sempere, F.; Lavado-Contador, F.; Rubio-Delgado, J. Using 3D photo-reconstruction methods to estimate gully headcut erosion. Catena 2014, 120, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, L.M.; Bennett, S.J.; Bingner, R.L.; Theurer, F.D.; Alonso, C.V.; Gordon, L.M.; Bennett, S.J.; Bingner, R.L.; Theurer, F.D.; Alonso, C.V. Simulating ephemeral gully erosion in AnnAGNPS. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merkel, W.H.; Woodward, D.E.; Clarke, C.D. Method to Predict Cropland Ephemeral Gully Erosion; ASCE: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1989; pp. 356–361. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, G.R.; Lane, L.J. Erosion by concentrated flow in farm fields. In Proceedings of the D.B. Simons Symposium on Erosion and Sedimentation, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1983; pp. 9.65–9.82. [Google Scholar]
- Sheshukov, A.Y.; Daggupati, P.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R. High Spatial Resolution Soil Data for Watershed Modeling: 2. Assessing Impacts on Watershed Hydrologic Response. J. Nat. Environ. Sci. 2011, 2, 32–41. [Google Scholar]
- Flanagan, D.; Nearing, M. USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation; NSERL Report No. 10; USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1995.
- Soil Survey Staff Soil Series Classification Database. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/class/ (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- NOAA-NCEI Climate-Radar Data Inventories. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ (accessed on 1 January 2016).
- ESRI ArcMap 10; Environment System Resource Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2016.
- Onset Inc. Onset HOBO Dataloggers. Available online: http://www.onsetcomp.com/ (accessed on 15 October 2014).
- Decagon Inc. Decagon Devices. Available online: http://www.decagon.com/ (accessed on 15 October 2014).
- Cobos, D.; Campbell, C. Correcting Temperature Sensitivity of ECH2O Soil Moisture Sensors Application Note; Onset Inc.: Bourne, MA, USA, 2016; Available online: http://www.onsetcomp.com/files/15923-B Correcting Temperature Sensitivity of ECH2O Soil Moisture Sensors.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2017).
- ISCO Inc. Portable Sampler. Available online: http://www.teledyneisco.com/waterandwastewater/Pages/Portable-Samplers.aspx (accessed on 15 October 2016).
- Mathworks Inc. MATLAB: R2014a; Mathworks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Flanagan, D.; Fu, H.; Frankenberger, J.; Livingston, S.; Meyer, C. A Windows interface for the WEPP erosion model. In Proceedings of the Annual International Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA, 12–16 July 1998. ASAE Paper No. 98-2135. [Google Scholar]
- Date Access and Support Center (DASC). The Kansas Data Access and Support Center Data Catalog. Available online: http://www.kansasgis.org/ (accessed on 28 March 2017).
- Sheshukov, A.Y.; Daggupati, P.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Lee, M.-C. High Spatial Resolution Soil Data for Watershed Modeling: 1. Development of a SSURGO-ArcSWAT Utility. J. Nat. Environ. Sci. 2011, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.; Arnold, J.; Liew, M.V.; Bingner, R. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanagan, D.C.; Ascough, J.C.; Nicks, A.D.; Nearing, M.A.; Laflen, J.M. Overview of the WEPP Erosion Prediction Model; Technical Documentation; USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1995.
- Nouwakpo, S.K.; Huang, C.; Bowling, L.; Owens, P. Impact of Vertical Hydraulic Gradient on Rill Erodibility and Critical Shear Stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nouwakpo, S.K.; Huang, C. A Fluidized Bed Technique for Estimating Soil Critical Shear Stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1192–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.; Laften, J.M. Seepage and Soil Erosion for a Clay Loam Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996, 60, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Madhhachi, A.T.; Fox, G.A.; Hanson, G.J.; Tyagi, A.K.; Bulut, R. Mechanistic Detachment Rate Model to Predict Soil Erodibility Due to Fluvial and Seepage Forces. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2014, 140, 4014010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regazzoni, P.-L.; Marot, D.; Nguyen, H.H. Surface Erosion: Erodibility Characterisation and Physical Parameters Effects. In Proceedings of the ICSE—International Conference on Scour and Erosion, Francisco, CA, USA, 7–10 November 2010; American Society of Civil Engineers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 182–191. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, G.A.; Wilson, G.V. The Role of Subsurface Flow in Hillslope and Stream Bank Erosion: A Review. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Survey Period | All Days | Wet Days | Rain Events | Rain Fall (mm) | Surface Runoff (mm) | Sheet-Rill Erosion (kg) | Headcut Erosion (kg) | Channel Erosion (kg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | 28 June 2013–11 July 2013 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
P2 | 11 July 2013–6 August 2013 | 26 | 11 | 17 | 270 | 131 | 831 | 124 | 645 |
P3 | 6 August 2013–12 August 2013 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 146 | 82 | 687 | −26 | 133 |
P4 | 21 August 2013–19 September 2013 | 29 | 2 | 3 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
P5 | 19 September 2013–17 October 2013 | 28 | 3 | 3 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −95 |
P6 | 17 October 2013–7 November 2013 | 21 | 4 | 4 | 53 | 7 | 24 | 0 | −571 |
P7 | 7 November 2013–9 April 2014 | 153 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
P8 | 9 April 2014–9 May 2014 | 30 | 4 | 5 | 56 | 36 | 542 | −50 | −1031 |
P9 | 9 May 2014–31 May 2014 | 22 | 4 | 5 | 40 | 14 | 84 | 0 | 0 |
P10 | 31 May 2014–27 June 2014 | 27 | 4 | 4 | 85 | 46 | 228 | 232 | 1937 |
P11 | 27 June 2014–11 July 2014 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 28 | 4 | 36 | 0 | 97 |
P12 | 11 July 2014–5 August 2014 | 25 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 1 | 12 | 0 | −43 |
P13 | 5 August 2014–12 August 2014 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 47 | 35 | 313 | 0 | −223 |
P14 | 12 August 2014–14 September 2014 | 34 | 3 | 3 | 131 | 89 | 687 | 28 | −834 |
Event Number | Survey Period | Date | tpa (h) | td (h) | θa (%) | qp (10−2 m3 s−1) | hp (cm) | τ (Pa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E1 | P2 | 25 July 2013 | 4 | 6.7 | 84 | 3.8 | 11 | 10.9 |
E2 | P2 | 29 July 2013 | 10 | 5.5 | 96 | 1.4 | 7 | 6.7 |
E3 | P2 | 2 August 2013 | 2 | 4.0 | 89 | 1.7 | 8 | 7.4 |
E4 | P2 | 4 August 2013 | 4 | 8.3 | 83 | 1.0 | 6 | 5.9 |
E5 | P3 | 9 August 2013 | 3 | 8.8 | 91 | 1.3 | 7 | 6.2 |
E6 | P3 | 12 August 2013 | 2 | 5.3 | 80 | 6.2 | 14 | 13.6 |
E7 | P8 | 27 April 2014 | 3 | 4.0 | 75 | 1.9 | 8 | 6.2 |
E8 | P10 | 5 June 2014 | 5 | 8.0 | 85 | 1.1 | 7 | 5.2 |
E9 | P10 | 7 June 2014 | 6 | 6.0 | 83 | 0.5 | 5 | 3.8 |
E10 | P10 | 9 June 2014 | 7 | 17.8 | 81 | 1.8 | 9 | 6.1 |
E11 | P13 | 10 August 2014 | 3 | 5.0 | 76 | 1.8 | 8 | 5.9 |
E12 | P14 | 1 September 2014 | 4 | 6.2 | 75 | 12.1 | 16 | 16.0 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Karimov, V.R.; Sheshukov, A.Y. Effects of Intra-Storm Soil Moisture and Runoff Characteristics on Ephemeral Gully Development: Evidence from a No-Till Field Study. Water 2017, 9, 742. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100742
Karimov VR, Sheshukov AY. Effects of Intra-Storm Soil Moisture and Runoff Characteristics on Ephemeral Gully Development: Evidence from a No-Till Field Study. Water. 2017; 9(10):742. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100742
Chicago/Turabian StyleKarimov, Vladimir R., and Aleksey Y. Sheshukov. 2017. "Effects of Intra-Storm Soil Moisture and Runoff Characteristics on Ephemeral Gully Development: Evidence from a No-Till Field Study" Water 9, no. 10: 742. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100742