Wind Erosion in Western Queensland Australia
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Wind Erosion in Western Queensland Australia

Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One

nintione.com.au
from nintione.com.au More from this publisher
10.08.2015 Views

Chapter 4 –Modelling Soil Erodibility DynamicsConsiderable research has been conducted examining soil properties affecting wind erosion(reviewed in Chapter 2). The piecemeal nature of much of the research, however, has meantthat it is difficult to integrate research findings to build models of ‘big picture’ processes.This characteristic is a result of the complex response of soil aggregation and crust dynamicsto external drivers, and difficulties associated with extracting meaningful data on soilclimate-managementinteractions (Merrill et al., 1997). In particular this affects our ability toparameterise models to predict temporal changes in soil erodibility.Table 4.1 summarises a selection of studies examining: a) soil aggregation changes inresponse to climate and management variability, b) soil crust disturbance effects on soilerodibility; and c) soil crust responses to trampling disturbance by livestock. Studiesexamining aeolian abrasion of crusts have not been included as these pertain to the process oferosion and dust emission as opposed to the immediate erodibility of a soil surface. Bothqualitative and quantitative approaches have been used to examine temporal changes in soilerodibility, and passive monitoring and active manipulation of sites have been used todetermine relationships between control and response variables.Historically, soil aggregation responses to climate variability have been studied in cultivatedregions where the economic and social consequences of severe wind erosion are wellrecognised. The majority of these studies have been conducted in North America and havefocused on monitoring seasonal responses of soils to freeze-thaw cycles and under cultivation(Bisal and Ferguson, 1968; Merrill et al., 1999; Bullock et al., 2001). Standard methods forreporting on soil aggregation conditions, for example through aggregate size distributions,aggregate stability or the soil erodible fraction, have been adopted in many of these studies.This means that there is potential for comparing results between studies on different soil,management or climate conditions and parameterising a generalised model of soil erodibilityresponse to climate, like that presented here. Few studies have used regression analyses tointegrate relationships between factors controlling soil aggregation in empirical models (e.g.Zobeck and Popham, 1990; Fryrear et al., 1994; Lόpez et al., 2007).122

Chapter 4 –Modelling Soil Erodibility DynamicsTable 4.1 Summary of a selection of studies examining: (a) soil aggregation changes in response to climate and management variability; (b) soil crustdisturbance effects on soil erodibility; and (c) soil crust responses to trampling disturbance by livestock.(a)ReferenceDataFrequencySamplingPeriod (months)No. SoilVarietiesNo. Cultivation/Surface TypesNo. Aggregation/ CrustParametersSurfacePreparationErodibilityIndicatorBisal and Ferguson (1968) Monthly 144 3 2 1 Field Erodible FractionGillette (1988) a Monthly 14 52 10 5 Field u *tMerrill et al. (1999) Monthly 84 1 4 4 Active Field QBullock et al. (2001) Monthly 8 1 3 3 Active Field Erodible FractionSarah (2005) Annual 36 4 - 5 Field -Hevia et al. (2007) Monthly 28 1 3 4 Active Field Erodible Fraction(b)ReferenceCrust Types(Phys./Biol.)SurfacePreparationNo. Soil/CrustVarietiesDisturbanceMethodsCrust/DisturbanceMeasuresNo. CrustParametersErodibilityIndicatorBelanp and Gillette (1997) Biological Active Field 4 Boot, Vehicle Qualitative - u *tLeys and Eldridge (1998) Biological Active Field 2 Sheep Foot Qualitative 2 Q, u *tBelnap and Gillette (1998) Biological Active Field 4 Vehicle, Livestock Qualitative - u *tEldridge and Leys (2003) Biological Active Field 2 Sheep Foot, Raking Qualitative 4 QBelnap et al. (2007) Biological Active Field 5 Boot Qualitative 3 u *tGillette et al. (1982) Physical Field 44 Vehicle Qualitative 1 u *tLeys et al., (1996) Physical Active Field 9 Cultivation Qualitative 1 Q, u *tRajot et al. (2003) Physical Field 1 - Quantitative 2 QGoossens (2004) Physical Field 1 - Quantitative 1 Q, u *t(c)ReferenceCrust Types(Phys./Biol.)SamplingTypeNo. SoilVarietiesDisturbanceMethodsDisturbanceMeasuresDisturbanceMeasuresHodgins and Rogers (1997) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Dung Desnity 4Memmott et al. (1998) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Stocking Rate, 2CultivationThomas and DougilllBiological Field Not Livestock Quantitative Track Frequency, 3(2007)SpecifiedDung DensityWilliams et al. (2008) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Dung Density 2No. CrustParameters123

Chapter 4 –Modell<strong>in</strong>g Soil Erodibility DynamicsTable 4.1 Summary of a selection of studies exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g: (a) soil aggregation changes <strong>in</strong> response to climate and management variability; (b) soil crustdisturbance effects on soil erodibility; and (c) soil crust responses to trampl<strong>in</strong>g disturbance by livestock.(a)ReferenceDataFrequencySampl<strong>in</strong>gPeriod (months)No. SoilVarietiesNo. Cultivation/Surface TypesNo. Aggregation/ CrustParametersSurfacePreparationErodibilityIndicatorBisal and Ferguson (1968) Monthly 144 3 2 1 Field Erodible FractionGillette (1988) a Monthly 14 52 10 5 Field u *tMerrill et al. (1999) Monthly 84 1 4 4 Active Field QBullock et al. (2001) Monthly 8 1 3 3 Active Field Erodible FractionSarah (2005) Annual 36 4 - 5 Field -Hevia et al. (2007) Monthly 28 1 3 4 Active Field Erodible Fraction(b)ReferenceCrust Types(Phys./Biol.)SurfacePreparationNo. Soil/CrustVarietiesDisturbanceMethodsCrust/DisturbanceMeasuresNo. CrustParametersErodibilityIndicatorBelanp and Gillette (1997) Biological Active Field 4 Boot, Vehicle Qualitative - u *tLeys and Eldridge (1998) Biological Active Field 2 Sheep Foot Qualitative 2 Q, u *tBelnap and Gillette (1998) Biological Active Field 4 Vehicle, Livestock Qualitative - u *tEldridge and Leys (2003) Biological Active Field 2 Sheep Foot, Rak<strong>in</strong>g Qualitative 4 QBelnap et al. (2007) Biological Active Field 5 Boot Qualitative 3 u *tGillette et al. (1982) Physical Field 44 Vehicle Qualitative 1 u *tLeys et al., (1996) Physical Active Field 9 Cultivation Qualitative 1 Q, u *tRajot et al. (2003) Physical Field 1 - Quantitative 2 QGoossens (2004) Physical Field 1 - Quantitative 1 Q, u *t(c)ReferenceCrust Types(Phys./Biol.)Sampl<strong>in</strong>gTypeNo. SoilVarietiesDisturbanceMethodsDisturbanceMeasuresDisturbanceMeasuresHodg<strong>in</strong>s and Rogers (1997) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Dung Desnity 4Memmott et al. (1998) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Stock<strong>in</strong>g Rate, 2CultivationThomas and DougilllBiological Field Not Livestock Quantitative Track Frequency, 3(2007)SpecifiedDung DensityWilliams et al. (2008) Biological Field 1 Livestock Quantitative Dung Density 2No. CrustParameters123

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!