...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Hydrology >Scale effects on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and conventional tillage: The role of residue cover
【24h】

Scale effects on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and conventional tillage: The role of residue cover

机译:保护和常规耕作对耕地径流和侵蚀损失的规模影响:残留物覆盖的作用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

A literature survey as well as our own observations on runoff and soil losses measured under conventional and conservation tillage (CT) show that differences in runoff and erosion between both tillage techniques are scale-dependent: the difference in runoff and erosion response between conservation and conventional tillage increases with the length of the plot/field considered. The relative scale effect is more important for erosion than for runoff. The scale effect implies that plot measurements may lead to an underestimation of the effectiveness of conservation tillage in reducing runoff and erosion at the field or catchment scale. We tested experimentally the hypothesis that this scale-dependency can (partly) be explained by the occurrence of runoff transmission losses along the hillslope. In a 2.3. m long soil tray, filled with a silty loam soil, a seedbed was simulated and covered with different amounts of straw and maize residues. Our data showed that transmission losses can indeed be important and that they depend on cover percentage, discharge, time of discharge application and residue type. A simple model exercise shows that, under realistic assumptions, the effect of transmission losses on runoff and erosion on arable land may be highly significant. At present, most erosion models explicitly or implicitly assume a linear increase of runoff with slope length: taking into account transmission losses may contribute to a better estimation of runoff and soil losses. Since no interaction effect between cover percentage and inflow rate was found, the relative difference in runoff and soil loss between bare and residue-covered surfaces did not change with scale. Thus, other factors than those observed are responsible for the observed increasing differences between conservation and conventional tillage with increasing scale.
机译:一项文献调查以及我们对常规耕作和保护性耕作(CT)下的径流和土壤流失的观察表明,两种耕作技术之间的径流和侵蚀差异均取决于规模:保护性耕作和常规耕作的径流和侵蚀响应差异耕作随着所考虑的田地/田地长度的增加而增加。相对水垢效应对侵蚀比对径流更为重要。规模效应表明,样地测量可能导致低估了保护性耕作在减少田间或集水规模上的径流和侵蚀方面的有效性。我们通过实验检验了这种比例依赖性的假设(部分)可以通过沿山坡的径流传输损失的出现来解释。在2.3中。在装满粉质壤土的长土壤盘中,模拟了一个苗床,并用不同数量的秸秆和玉米残留物覆盖。我们的数据表明,传输损耗确实很重要,并且取决于覆盖率,放电,放电时间和残渣类型。一个简单的模型演算表明,在现实的假设下,传输损耗对耕地径流和侵蚀的影响可能非常显着。目前,大多数侵蚀模型都明确或隐含地假设径流量随坡长而线性增加:考虑到传输损失,可能有助于更好地估算径流量和土壤损失。由于没有发现覆盖率和流入量之间的相互作用,因此裸露和残渣覆盖的表面之间径流和土壤流失的相对差异不会随水垢而变化。因此,除观察到的因素外,其他因素也导致观察到的保护性耕作与常规耕作之间随着规模的增加而增加的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号