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
Chapter 2 – Land Erodibility ControlsThere is a tendency for erodibility factors to deviate from the assumptions and formaldefinitions of erodibility presented by Houghton and Charman (1986) and Bryan et al.(1989). This has arisen from authors creating new definitions of the term to suit particularstudies. For example, while the soil erodibility factor (I) holds to the definition of erodibility(Houghton and Charman, 1986), the field erodibility factor (E) could be defined as a measureof wind erosion hazard. While Geeves et al. (2000) note that the factor is a contradiction toerodibility definitions, nearly all other ‘erodibility’ indices developed since could also beconsidered to be so.The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed the Wind ErodibilityGroups (WEGs) to provide a ranking of the erodibility of soils. The scheme was based onwind tunnel experiments conducted by Chepil (1953) and Zingg (1951). The WEGs rank theerodibility of soils based on surface textural characteristics and an assigned wind erodibilityindex (Table 2.2).Table 2.2 Wind Erodibility Groups and Wind Erodibility Index for soils in the United States (afterSkidmore et al., 1994).WEG Soil Description Wind ErodibilityIndex (t/ha)1 Very fine sand, fine sand or coarse sand 6592 Loamy very fine sand, loamy fine sand, loamy sand, loamycoarse sand or sapric soil materials3 Very fine sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam orcoarse sandy loam4 Clay, silty clay, non-calcareous clay loam or silty clay loamwith more than 35% clay content3001931934LCalcareous clay loam and silt loam or calcareous clay loamand silty clay loam1935 Non-calcareous loam and silt loam with less than 20% claycontent or sandy clay loam, sandy clay and hemic organicsoils6 Non-calcareous loam and silt loam with more than 20%clay content or non-calcareous clay loam with less than35% clay content7 Silt, non-calcareous silty clay loam with less than 35% claycontent and fibric organic soil material126108858 Soils not susceptible to wind erosion 028
Chapter 2 – Land Erodibility ControlsThe wind erodibility index (Table 2.2) is a measure of the mass of sediment eroded from soilcontaining more than 60% dry aggregates (diameter >0.84 mm) relative to the soil containingother portions of aggregates under the same conditions. A similar classification wasdeveloped by Leys (1991b) for Australian soils in western New South Wales. The WEGs arefaithful to the definition of erodibility given by Houghton and Charman (1986).Two additional erodibility ranking systems have been proposed that are of interest here: the‘Lorikey’ and the Land Erodibility Index (LEI). These provide contrasting approaches forassessing and ranking the susceptibility of soil and land areas to wind erosion.Lorimer (1985) developed the ‘Lorikey’ to provide a method for assessing the susceptibilityof soils and land to wind erosion. The key extended early soil erodibility ranking systems(Marshall, 1973; Kimberlain et al., 1977) and the WEGs. These systems were combined withfactors quantifying wind strength, site exposure (topography) and the frequency of erodiblewinds, as well as soil surface condition, organic matter and texture. The Lorikey does nothave a measurable unit like the WEGs or the soil or field erodibility factors (Table 2.1). Likethe field erodibility index (K), the Lorikey allows for the assessment of land susceptibility towind erosion. However, the Lorikey does not include vegetation effects on wind erosion.Application of the Lorikey is therefore restricted to bare (cultivated) agricultural regions.McTainsh et al. (1999) developed a Land Erodibility Index (LEI). The LEI provides anindication of the relative susceptibility of land types (e.g. downs, dunes and playa) to winderosion, as well as temporal changes to these in response to climate variability. The LEI iscalculated as the dust flux (sediment flux at 0.5 to 2 m) divided by the cube of the mean windspeed above 6 ms -1 for the sampling period (monthly or annual). Unlike the soil erodibilityfactor, WEGs and the Lorikey, the LEI represents an historic account of wind erosionprocesses and is responsive to changes in soil surface condition, moisture, vegetation coverand windiness.2.1.1 Temporal Changes in Soil ErodibilitySoil erodibility is not constant but varies through time. Factors controlling soil erodibilityinclude texture, soil moisture and binding agents (both mineral and organic). Temporalvariations in soil erodibility are influenced by soil aggregation and crusting which affect the29
- Page 1: Modelling Land Susceptibility toWin
- Page 4: AUSLEM was developed as a Geographi
- Page 8 and 9: who joined me on many trips, shared
- Page 10 and 11: Conference Presentations by the Aut
- Page 12 and 13: 2.2.5 Soil Moisture Effects........
- Page 14 and 15: Chapter 6: Assessing Land Susceptib
- Page 16 and 17: List of FiguresChapter 1: Introduct
- Page 18 and 19: Figure 2.11 Conceptual model of lan
- Page 20 and 21: hand column) presents trajectories
- Page 22 and 23: List of TablesChapter 1: Introducti
- Page 24 and 25: xxii
- Page 26 and 27: Chapter 1 - Introduction• The abi
- Page 28 and 29: Chapter 1 - Introductionchapter the
- Page 30 and 31: Chapter 1 - Introductionevents yr -
- Page 32 and 33: Chapter 1 - IntroductionFigure 1.2
- Page 34 and 35: Chapter 1 - Introductionsusceptibil
- Page 36 and 37: Chapter 1 - Introductiontemporal pa
- Page 38 and 39: Chapter 1 - Introduction1.5 Researc
- Page 40 and 41: Chapter 1 - IntroductionFigure 1.3
- Page 42 and 43: Chapter 1 - IntroductionMitchell Gr
- Page 44 and 45: Chapter 1 - IntroductionSimpson-Str
- Page 46 and 47: Chapter 1 - IntroductionDowns. Wind
- Page 48 and 49: Chapter 1 - IntroductionChapter 2 p
- Page 50 and 51: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 54 and 55: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 56 and 57: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 58 and 59: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 60 and 61: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 62 and 63: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 64 and 65: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 66 and 67: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 68 and 69: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 70 and 71: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 72 and 73: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 74 and 75: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 76 and 77: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 78 and 79: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 80 and 81: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 82 and 83: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 84 and 85: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 86 and 87: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 88 and 89: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 90 and 91: Chapter 2 - Land Erodibility Contro
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 3 - Modelling Land Erodibil
- Page 95 and 96: Chapter 3 - Modelling Land Erodibil
- Page 97 and 98: Chapter 3 - Modelling Land Erodibil
- Page 99 and 100: Chapter 3 - Modelling Land Erodibil
- Page 101 and 102: Chapter 3 - Modelling Land Erodibil
Chapter 2 – Land Erodibility ControlsThere is a tendency for erodibility factors to deviate from the assumptions and formaldef<strong>in</strong>itions of erodibility presented by Houghton and Charman (1986) and Bryan et al.(1989). This has arisen from authors creat<strong>in</strong>g new def<strong>in</strong>itions of the term to suit particularstudies. For example, while the soil erodibility factor (I) holds to the def<strong>in</strong>ition of erodibility(Houghton and Charman, 1986), the field erodibility factor (E) could be def<strong>in</strong>ed as a measureof w<strong>in</strong>d erosion hazard. While Geeves et al. (2000) note that the factor is a contradiction toerodibility def<strong>in</strong>itions, nearly all other ‘erodibility’ <strong>in</strong>dices developed s<strong>in</strong>ce could also beconsidered to be so.The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed the <strong>W<strong>in</strong>d</strong> ErodibilityGroups (WEGs) to provide a rank<strong>in</strong>g of the erodibility of soils. The scheme was based onw<strong>in</strong>d tunnel experiments conducted by Chepil (1953) and Z<strong>in</strong>gg (1951). The WEGs rank theerodibility of soils based on surface textural characteristics and an assigned w<strong>in</strong>d erodibility<strong>in</strong>dex (Table 2.2).Table 2.2 <strong>W<strong>in</strong>d</strong> Erodibility Groups and <strong>W<strong>in</strong>d</strong> Erodibility Index for soils <strong>in</strong> the United States (afterSkidmore et al., 1994).WEG Soil Description <strong>W<strong>in</strong>d</strong> ErodibilityIndex (t/ha)1 Very f<strong>in</strong>e sand, f<strong>in</strong>e sand or coarse sand 6592 Loamy very f<strong>in</strong>e sand, loamy f<strong>in</strong>e sand, loamy sand, loamycoarse sand or sapric soil materials3 Very f<strong>in</strong>e sandy loam, f<strong>in</strong>e sandy loam, sandy loam orcoarse sandy loam4 Clay, silty clay, non-calcareous clay loam or silty clay loamwith more than 35% clay content3001931934LCalcareous clay loam and silt loam or calcareous clay loamand silty clay loam1935 Non-calcareous loam and silt loam with less than 20% claycontent or sandy clay loam, sandy clay and hemic organicsoils6 Non-calcareous loam and silt loam with more than 20%clay content or non-calcareous clay loam with less than35% clay content7 Silt, non-calcareous silty clay loam with less than 35% claycontent and fibric organic soil material126108858 Soils not susceptible to w<strong>in</strong>d erosion 028