用于土壤流失估算的基底分异新方法--葡萄牙中北部烧毁地区的案例研究

IF 3.4 2区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY
Frank G. A. Verheijen, Martinho A. S. Martins, Sergio A. Prats, Jan J. Keizer
{"title":"用于土壤流失估算的基底分异新方法--葡萄牙中北部烧毁地区的案例研究","authors":"Frank G. A. Verheijen, Martinho A. S. Martins, Sergio A. Prats, Jan J. Keizer","doi":"10.1007/s11676-023-01694-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil pedestals have long been used as qualitative indicators of soil splash erosion. In rangelands, plant-capped pedestals, generally grass tussocks, have also been used to quantitatively estimate soil loss since the first half of the twentieth century. In agricultural lands, forests, and badlands, stone-capped pedestals have been used as qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators of active, ‘extreme’ erosion. Little work has been reported on using capstone pedestal data for quantifying soil loss. We postulate that three distinct capstone pedestal types may be present in any given location and that a detailed analysis of a pedestal height histogram may be used to recognize their populations. This analysis can subsequently inform if soil loss can be reliably estimated and if so, which of the existing methods using pedestal height data will provide more accurate results. The three proposed capstone pedestal types are: (1) neo-pedestals formed underneath surface stones exposed by (partial) removal of the soil surface cover; (2) endo-pedestals formed underneath stones that were buried in the soil but have been exposed by erosion; and (3) phoenix-pedestals formed underneath stones from collapsed pedestals. In the pedestal height histogram of any given location, a skew to smaller heights may indicate the existence of endo- and/or phoenix-pedestals, which may be revealed as a bi-(or tri) modal distribution when using a smaller bin size. This concept was applied to a case study where soil loss had been monitored for control plots and mulched plots during a 5-year period following wildfire in a eucalypt plantation. We measured pedestal heights and used methods to quantitatively assess soil loss from soil pedestal data in the available literature. Soil pedestal data at the end of the 5-year period under or overestimated soil loss in the control treatment, with results ranging from 60 to 115% of measured soil loss, depending on the method. It is postulated that phoenix- and endo-pedestals may be a driving factor behind the observed discrepancies. We discuss how future research may provide more insight into dominant processes, and how frequency distributions may be used to select the best methods for estimating soil loss from pedestals.</p>","PeriodicalId":15830,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forestry Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new approach to pedestal differentiation for soil loss estimation—a case study from a burnt area in north-central Portugal\",\"authors\":\"Frank G. A. Verheijen, Martinho A. S. Martins, Sergio A. Prats, Jan J. Keizer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11676-023-01694-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Soil pedestals have long been used as qualitative indicators of soil splash erosion. In rangelands, plant-capped pedestals, generally grass tussocks, have also been used to quantitatively estimate soil loss since the first half of the twentieth century. In agricultural lands, forests, and badlands, stone-capped pedestals have been used as qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators of active, ‘extreme’ erosion. Little work has been reported on using capstone pedestal data for quantifying soil loss. We postulate that three distinct capstone pedestal types may be present in any given location and that a detailed analysis of a pedestal height histogram may be used to recognize their populations. This analysis can subsequently inform if soil loss can be reliably estimated and if so, which of the existing methods using pedestal height data will provide more accurate results. The three proposed capstone pedestal types are: (1) neo-pedestals formed underneath surface stones exposed by (partial) removal of the soil surface cover; (2) endo-pedestals formed underneath stones that were buried in the soil but have been exposed by erosion; and (3) phoenix-pedestals formed underneath stones from collapsed pedestals. In the pedestal height histogram of any given location, a skew to smaller heights may indicate the existence of endo- and/or phoenix-pedestals, which may be revealed as a bi-(or tri) modal distribution when using a smaller bin size. This concept was applied to a case study where soil loss had been monitored for control plots and mulched plots during a 5-year period following wildfire in a eucalypt plantation. We measured pedestal heights and used methods to quantitatively assess soil loss from soil pedestal data in the available literature. Soil pedestal data at the end of the 5-year period under or overestimated soil loss in the control treatment, with results ranging from 60 to 115% of measured soil loss, depending on the method. It is postulated that phoenix- and endo-pedestals may be a driving factor behind the observed discrepancies. We discuss how future research may provide more insight into dominant processes, and how frequency distributions may be used to select the best methods for estimating soil loss from pedestals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forestry Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forestry Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-023-01694-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forestry Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-023-01694-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,土壤基座一直被用作土壤飞溅侵蚀的定性指标。在牧场,自二十世纪上半叶以来,植物覆盖的基座(通常是草丛)也被用来定量估算土壤流失量。在农田、森林和荒地,石盖基座被用作活跃的 "极端 "侵蚀的定性和半定量指标。利用顶石基座数据来量化土壤流失的工作鲜有报道。我们推测,在任何给定地点都可能存在三种不同的顶石基座类型,对基座高度柱状图的详细分析可用于识别它们的数量。这项分析随后可告知我们是否能可靠地估算出土壤流失量,如果能,现有方法中哪种使用基座高度数据的方法能提供更准确的结果。建议的三种顶石基座类型是(1) 新基座形成于(部分)土壤表层覆盖物被移除后露出的表层石块下;(2) 内基座形成于被埋在土壤中但因侵蚀而露出的石块下;(3) 凤凰基座形成于坍塌基座的石块下。在任何给定地点的基座高度直方图中,向较小高度的倾斜可能表明存在内基座和/或凤基基座,当使用较小的分隔尺寸时,可能会显示为双模态(或三模态)分布。我们将这一概念应用到一项案例研究中,在桉树种植园发生野火后的 5 年时间里,我们对对照地块和覆盖地块的土壤流失情况进行了监测。我们测量了基座高度,并根据现有文献中的土壤基座数据采用了定量评估土壤流失的方法。5 年期末的土壤基座数据低估或高估了对照处理的土壤流失量,根据不同的方法,结果为测量土壤流失量的 60% 到 115%。据推测,凤座和内座可能是造成观察到的差异的一个驱动因素。我们讨论了未来的研究如何更深入地了解主导过程,以及如何利用频率分布来选择估算基座土壤流失的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A new approach to pedestal differentiation for soil loss estimation—a case study from a burnt area in north-central Portugal

A new approach to pedestal differentiation for soil loss estimation—a case study from a burnt area in north-central Portugal

Soil pedestals have long been used as qualitative indicators of soil splash erosion. In rangelands, plant-capped pedestals, generally grass tussocks, have also been used to quantitatively estimate soil loss since the first half of the twentieth century. In agricultural lands, forests, and badlands, stone-capped pedestals have been used as qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators of active, ‘extreme’ erosion. Little work has been reported on using capstone pedestal data for quantifying soil loss. We postulate that three distinct capstone pedestal types may be present in any given location and that a detailed analysis of a pedestal height histogram may be used to recognize their populations. This analysis can subsequently inform if soil loss can be reliably estimated and if so, which of the existing methods using pedestal height data will provide more accurate results. The three proposed capstone pedestal types are: (1) neo-pedestals formed underneath surface stones exposed by (partial) removal of the soil surface cover; (2) endo-pedestals formed underneath stones that were buried in the soil but have been exposed by erosion; and (3) phoenix-pedestals formed underneath stones from collapsed pedestals. In the pedestal height histogram of any given location, a skew to smaller heights may indicate the existence of endo- and/or phoenix-pedestals, which may be revealed as a bi-(or tri) modal distribution when using a smaller bin size. This concept was applied to a case study where soil loss had been monitored for control plots and mulched plots during a 5-year period following wildfire in a eucalypt plantation. We measured pedestal heights and used methods to quantitatively assess soil loss from soil pedestal data in the available literature. Soil pedestal data at the end of the 5-year period under or overestimated soil loss in the control treatment, with results ranging from 60 to 115% of measured soil loss, depending on the method. It is postulated that phoenix- and endo-pedestals may be a driving factor behind the observed discrepancies. We discuss how future research may provide more insight into dominant processes, and how frequency distributions may be used to select the best methods for estimating soil loss from pedestals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.30%
发文量
2538
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forestry Research (JFR), founded in 1990, is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal in English. JFR has rapidly emerged as an international journal published by Northeast Forestry University and Ecological Society of China in collaboration with Springer Verlag. The journal publishes scientific articles related to forestry for a broad range of international scientists, forest managers and practitioners.The scope of the journal covers the following five thematic categories and 20 subjects: Basic Science of Forestry, Forest biometrics, Forest soils, Forest hydrology, Tree physiology, Forest biomass, carbon, and bioenergy, Forest biotechnology and molecular biology, Forest Ecology, Forest ecology, Forest ecological services, Restoration ecology, Forest adaptation to climate change, Wildlife ecology and management, Silviculture and Forest Management, Forest genetics and tree breeding, Silviculture, Forest RS, GIS, and modeling, Forest management, Forest Protection, Forest entomology and pathology, Forest fire, Forest resources conservation, Forest health monitoring and assessment, Wood Science and Technology, Wood Science and Technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信