مهندسی و مدیریت آبخیز

با همکاری انجمن آبخیزداری ایران

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

راهنمای نویسندگان

راهنمایی دریافت کد ORCID

داوران

راهنمای عضویت در Publons

کاربرد مقایسه‌ای روش‌های اسکنر نوری، شیارسنج، پارافین در اندازه‌گیری فرسایش شیاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

3 دکتری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

4 استادیار، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

5 کارشناس ارشد آبخیزداری، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

اندازه‌گیری فرسایش و رسوب معمولا با استفاده از روش‌های مختلف برای دستیابی به اطلاعات قابل اعتماد از میزان هدررفت خاک ضروری می‌باشد. در این راستا، به‌کارگیری روش‌های نو و دانش روز به‌ سبب تسهیل در اندازه‌گیری‌ها و افزایش دقت مورد نظر از اهمیت زیادی برخوردار است. لکن اطلاعات کافی در زمینه کارایی روش‌های نوین در دسترس نیست. لذا، پژوهش حاضر با هدف به‌کارگیری اسکنر نوری به‌عنوان یکی از روش‌های نوین اندازه‌گیری فرسایش خاک و مقایسه نتایج حاصل از آن‌ با دو روش سنتی شیارسنج و پارافین در زمینه اندازه‌گیری فرسایش شیاری در شرایط آزمایشگاهی صورت پذیرفت. برای انجام پژوهش، ابتدا یک خاک لومی رسی در کرت‌های آزمایشی با ابعاد 30 در 40 سانتی‌متر و با شیب 20 درصد در معرض باران با شدت 50 میلی‌متر بر ساعت به‌ مدت 20 و 80 دقیقه و ایجاد فرسایش سطحی قرار داده شد. سپس، در مرحله بعد، باران با شدت‌های 90 و 100 میلی‌متر بر ساعت به‌ترتیب در مدت‌های 20 و 80 دقیقه برای ایجاد فرسایش‌های شیاری با ابعاد مختلف اجرا و در نهایت میزان فرسایش شیاری با سه روش اسکنر نوری، شیارسنج و پارافین اندازه‌گیری شد. نتایج به‌دست آمده از اسکنر نوری با مقادیر غلظت رسوب اندازه‌گیری شده در خروجی کرت و نیز روش‌های شیارسنج و پارافین مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت. میانگین میزان جا‌به‌جایی خاک از روش‌های اسکنر نوری، شیارسنج و پارافین برای شدت 90 میلی‌متر بر ساعت با مدت 20 دقیقه به‌ترتیب 79.73±283.30، 8.27±35.49 و 9.22±45.93 گرم و میانگین میزان جابه‌جایی خاک برای شدت 100 میلی‌متر بر ساعت با مدت 80 دقیقه در اسکنر نوری، شیارسنج و پارافین به‌ترتیب 274.22±377.94، 5.71±41.45 و 11.45±46.20 به‌دست آمد. بر اساس نتایج به‌دست آمده، مشخص شد که نتایج حاصل از اسکنر نوری بسیار متفاوت و مقادیر آن بسیار بالاتر از دو روش سنتی مورد مطالعه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative application of optic scanner, rillmeter and paraffin methods in rill erosion measurement

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi 1
  • Fahimeh Mirchooli 2
  • Zeinab Hazbavi 3
  • Abdulvahed Khaledi Darvishan 4
  • Mohsen Khorsand 5

1 Professor, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Students, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran

4 Assistant, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

5 MSc Student, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Measuring soil erosion and sediment yield using different methods is necessary to achieve integrated and reliable information from amount of soil loss. In this regards, the application of new and up-to-date innovative methods is required and important to facilitate the measurements, which leads to increase the accuracy. However, there is no enough information for the efficiency assessment of innovative techniques. An optic scanner method therefore was used in the present study to measure soil particles detached/transported by splash/runoff. Then, the obtained results were compared with two traditional methods. Including rillmeter and paraffin, which were applied for the measurement of rill erosion in the laboratory. For this study, first a clay loam soil was poured in experimental plots with 30×40 cm dimensions and slope of 20%. The study plots were then exposed to sheet erosion under simulated rainfall intensity of 50 mm h-1 with duration of 20 minutes. In the next stage, two simulated rainfall intensities of 90 and 100 mm h-1 with duration of 20 and 80 minutes, were applied, respectively. The output runoff and sediment were collected and measured. Consequently, the results of optic scanner were compared with sediment measurements and also rillmeter and paraffin methods. Average soil erosion amount at the intensity of 90 mm h-1 with duration of 20 minutes based on optic scanner, rillmeter and paraffin were 283.30±79.73, 35.8±49.27, and 45.93±9.22 gr, whereas average soil erosion amount at the intensity of 100 mm h-1 with duration of 80 minutes were 377.94±274.22, 41.5±45.71, and 46.20±11.45 gr, respectively. According to the results, it was clear that the results of optic scanner was significantly different from other methods and overestimated soil erosion.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Erosion plots
  • Innovative technologies
  • Rainfall simulator system
  • Soil erodibility
  • Soil and water resources
مراجع
  1. Afana, A., A. Sole-Benet and J. Perez. 2010. Determination of soil erosion using laser scanners. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 39-42.
  2. Barbarella, M. and M. Fiani. 2012. Landslide monitoring using terrestrial laser scanner, georeferencing and canopy filtering issues in a case study. ISPRS-International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 39: B5.
  3. Berger, C., M. Schulze and D. Rieke-Zapp. 2010. Rill development and soil erosion: a laboratory study of slope and rainfall Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 35(12): 1456–1467.
  4. Bewket, W. and G. Sterk. 2003. Assessment of soil erosion in cultivated fields using a survey methodology for rills in the Chemoga Watershed, Ethiopia.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 97(1): 81-93.
  5. Bouaziz, M., A. Wijaya and R. Gloaguen. 2011. Remote gully erosion mapping using Aster data and geomorphologic analysis in the Main Ethiopian Rift. Geo-spatial Information Science, 14(4): 246-254.
  6. Bremer, M. and Sass. 2012. Combining airborne and terrestrial laser scanning for quantifying erosion and deposition by a debris flow event. Geomorphology,138(1): 49-60.
  7. Carollo, F., C. Stefano, V. Ferro and V. Pampalone. 2015. Measuring rill erosion at plot scale by a drone-based technology. Hydrological Processes, 29: 3802-3811.
  8. Chen, X.Y., Y.H. Huang, Y. Zhao, B. Mo and H.X. Mi. 2015. Comparison of loess and purple rill erosions measured with volume replacement method. Journal of Hydrology,530: 476-483.
  9. Chen, X.Y., Y. Zhao, H.X. Mi and B. Mo. 2016. Estimating rill erosion process from eroded morphology in flume experiments by volume replacement method. Catena, 136: 135-140.
  10. Consuelo, C.R., L. Stroosnijder and A. Guillermo. 2007. Interrill and rill erodibility in the northern Andean Highlands. Catena, 70(2): 105–113.
  11. Dąbek, P.B., C. Patrzałek, B. Ćmielewski and R. Żmuda. The use of terrestrial laser scanning in monitoring and analyses of erosion phenomena in natural and anthropogenic ally transformed areas. Cogent Geoscience, 4(1): 1437684.
  12. D’Oleire-Oltmanns, S., I. Marzolff, K.D. Peter and J.B. Ries. 2012. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for monitoring soil erosion in Morocco. Remote Sensing, 4: 3390-3416.
  13. Eltner, A., P. Baumgart, H.G. Maas and D. Faust. 2015. Multi-temporal UAV data for automatic measurement of rill and interrill erosion on loess soil. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 40(6): 741-755.
  14. Guo, M., H. Shi, J. Zhao, P. Liu, D. Welbourne and Q. Lin. 2016. Digital close range photogrammetry for the study of rill development at flume scale. Catena, 143: 265-274.
  15. Hazbavi, Z., S.H.R. Sadeghi and H. Younesi. 2013. Analysis and assessing effectability of runoff components from different levels of polyacrylamide. Water and Soil Resource Conservation, 2(2): 1-13 (in Persian)
  16. Hazbavi, Z., S.H.R. Sadeghi and M. Kiani Harchegani. 2016. Application of biochar on temporal variability of runoff volume and coefficient. 3rd Conference of the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, 22-26 August, 6
  17. Hekmat, H. 2012. Optical three-dimensional measuring devicestechnology and its application. Manufacturing and Production Magazine, 34: 96-99 (in Persian).
  18. Hosseini, S.H., A. Mosaedi, K. Naseri and A. Golkarian. 2012. Identification of the most effective elements on rill erosion in the hill slope units of Mashhad south west, Iran. Geography and Envioronmental Hazards, 2: 87-99 (in Persian).
  19. Kaviani, A., R. Asgariyan, Z. Jafarian Jeloudar and M.A. 2012. Effect of soil properties on runoff and sediment yield in farm scale, case study: a part of Sari towns neighboring Croplands.Water and Soil Science, 23(4): 45-57 (in Persian).
  20. Khaledi Darvishan, A.V.,H.R. Sadeghi, M. Homaee and M. Arabkhedri. 2014. Affectability of runoff threshold and coefficient from rainfall intensity and antecedent soil moisture content in laboratorial erosion plots. Iran Water Research Journal, 8(15): 441-49 (in Persian).
  21. Khaledi Darvishan, A.V., S.H.R. Sadeghi, M. Homaee and M. Arabkhedri. 2014. Measuring sheet erosion using synthetic color-contrast aggregates. Hydrological Processes, 28: 4463-4471.
  22. Khaledi Darvishan, A.V., K. Banasik, S.H.R. Sadeghi, L. Gholami and L. Hejduk. 2015. Effects of rain intensity and initial soil moisture on hydrological responses in laboratory conditions. International Agrophysics, 29: 165-173.
  23. Kheirfam, H., S.H.R. Sadeghi, M. Homaee and B. Zarei Darki. 2017. Quality improvement of an erosion-prone soil through microbial enrichment. Soil and Tillage Research, 165: 230–238.
  24. Liying, S., F. Haiyan, Q. Deli, L. Junlan and C. Qinanggueo. 2013. A review on rill process and its influencing factors. Chinese Geographical Science, 23(4): 389–402.
  25. Nadal-Romero, E., J. Revuelto, P. Errea and J.I. Lopez-Moreno. 2015. The application of terrestrial laser scanner and SfM photogrammetry in measuring erosion and deposition processes in two opposite slopes in a humid badlands area Central Spanish Pyrenees. Soil, 1: 561-573.
  26. Novara, A., A. Armstrong, L. Gcristina, K.T. Semple and J.N. Quinton. 2012. Effects of soil compaction, rain exposure and their interaction on soil carbon dioxide emission. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37(9): 994-999.
  27. Romanescu, G., V. Cotiuga, A. Asandulesei and C. Stoleriu. 2012. Use of the 3-D scanner in mapping and monitoring the dynamic degradation of soils, case study of the Cucuteni-Baiceni Gully on the Moldavian Plateau Romania. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16: 953–966.
  28. Sadeghi, S.H.R. 2010. Study and measurement of water erosion. Tarbiat Modares Press, 200 pages (in Persian).
  29. Sadeghi, S.H.R and S. Gharemahmudli. 2013. Investigating bed sediment granolometry precision based on image processing of cameras with different resolutions. Watershed Engineering and Management, 5(2): 115-124 (in Persian).
  30. Sadeghi, S.H.R., Z. Hazbavi, H. Younesi and M. Behzadfar. 2013. Trend of soil loss and sediment concentration changeability due to application of polyacrylamide. Water and Soil Resource Conservation, 2(4): 53-67 (in Persian).
  31. Sadeghi, S.H.R., Z. Hazbavi and M. Kiani Harchegani. 2016a. Controlling of runoff and soil loss from small plots treated by vinasse-produced biochar. Science of the Total Environment, 15: 483-490.
  32. Sadeghi, S.H.R., Z. Hazbavi, H. Younesi and N. Bahramifar. 2016b. Trade-off between runoff and sediments from treated erosion plots and polyacrylamide and acrylamide residues. Catena, 142: 213-220.
  33. Sadeghi, S.H. R., M.B. Raisi and Z. Hazbavi. 2016c. Effects of polyacrylamide in controlling of splash erosion from a soil induced freeze-thaw cycle. Journal of Water and Soil, 29(6): 1601-1611 (in Persian).
  34. Sadeghi, S.H.R., E. Sharifi Moghadam and A. Khaledi Darvishan. 2016d. Effects of subsequent rainfall events on runoff and soil erosion components from small plots treated by vinasse. Catena, 138: 1-12.
  35. Shi, Z.H., N.F. Fang and F.Z. Wu. 2012. Soil erosion processes and sediment sorting associated with transport mechanisms on steep slopes. Journal of Hydrology, 454: 123–130.
  36. Stroosnijder, L. 2005. Measurement of erosion: is it possible? Catena, 64: 162-173.
  37. Torkashvand, A.M., D. Nikkami, M. Esfandiari and S.K. Alavipanah. 2010. Investigating some methodologies in preparing rill erosion map, using RS and GIS. Watershed Engineering and Management, 2(3): 150-161 (in Persian).
  38. A.R. and A. Vatani. 2015. Determining rill erodibility in some soils in Zanjan province under simulated rainfall. Water and Soil Science, 19(71): 59-68 (in Persian).
  39. Vinci, A., R. Brigante, F. Todisco, F. Mannocchi and F. Radicioni. 2015. Measuring rill erosion by laser scanning.Catena,124: 97-108.
  40. Vinci, A., F. Todisco and F. Mannocchi. 2016. Calibration of manual measurements of rills using terrestrial laser scanning. Catena, 140: 164-168.
  41. Zoratipour, A. and M. ArabKhedri. 2015. Assessment of the effect of the rainfall returns period and pattern on the hillslope erosion on the catchments, case study: Heshan Basin. Irrigation Science and Engineering, 39(4): 123-132 (in Persian).
مهندسی و مدیریت آبخیز
دوره 12، شماره 1
فروردین 1399
صفحه 125-136
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار