Surface roughness evolution of soils containing rock fragments

Soil surface roughness is a dynamic property which determines, to a large extent, erosion and infiltration rates. Although soils containing rock fragments are widespread in the Mediterranean region, the effect of the latter on surface roughness evolution is yet poorly understood. Therefore, laboratory experiments were conducted in order to investigate the effect of rock fragment content, rock fragment size and initial moisture content of the fine earth on the evolution of interrill surface roughness during simulated rainfall. Surface elevations of simulated plough layers along transects of 50 cm length were measured before and after simulated rainfall (totalling 192.5mm, Z = 70mm h-') with a laser microreliefmeter. The results were used to investigate whether systematic variations in interrill surface roughness along stony hillslopes in southeastern Spain could be attributed to rock fragment cover and rock fragment size. Soil surface elevations were measured along the contour lines (50 cm long transects) with a contact microreliefmeter. Roughness was expressed by two parameters related to the height and frequency of roughness elements, respectively: standard deviation of de-trended surface elevations (random roughness: RR), and correlation length (L) derived from exponential fits of the autocorrelation functions. The frequently used assumption that surface roughness (RR) of cultivated topsoils decreases exponentially with cumulative rain is not valid for soil surfaces covered by rock fragments. The RR of soils containing small rock fragments (1.72.7 cm) increased with cumulative rainfall after an initial decrease during the first 17.5 mm of rainfall. For soils containing large rock fragments (7.7 cm), RR increased with rainfall above a threshold rock fragment content by mass of 52 per cent. For a given rainfall application, RR increased non-linearly with rock fragment content. The correlation length for soils containing small rock fragments decreases with rock fragment content and is significantly lower than for soils with large rock fragments. Soils covered with small rock fragments (large RR and small L) are thus well protected against raindrop impact by a water film in the depressions between the rock fragments. On abandoned agricultural fields along hillslopes in southeastern Spain, rock fragments cover increases non-linearly with slope owing to selective erosion of finer particles on steep slopes. The increase of surface cover by large rock fragments (>25 mm) is even more pronounced. The simultaneous increase of rock fragment cover and rock fragment size with slope explains the non-linear increase of RR with slope. These relationships differ for soils covered by platy misaschists and those covered with cubic andesites. The variations in correlation length along the hillslopes are not clear, probably owing to a simultaneous increase in rock fragment cover and rock fragment size. These findings may provide a better prediction of soil surface roughness of interrill areas covered by rock fragments using slope angle and lithology.

[1]  H. KUIPERS,et al.  A reliefmeter for soil cultivation studies. , 1957 .

[2]  Jean Poesen,et al.  The hydrological response of soil surfaces to rainfall as affected by cover and position of rock fragments in the top layer , 1990 .

[4]  Walter G. Lovely,et al.  The Analysis of Soil Surface Roughness , 1970 .

[5]  R. Reyment,et al.  Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. , 1988 .

[6]  Joe M. Bradford,et al.  Depressional storage for Markov-Gaussian surfaces. , 1990 .

[7]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Crusting, runoff, and erosion response to soil water content and successive rainfalls , 1992 .

[8]  J. Elliot,et al.  An investigation of the change in surface roughness through time on the foreland of Austre Okstindbr , 1989 .

[9]  Curtis L. Larson,et al.  Tilled Soil Subsidence During Repeated Wetting , 1984 .

[10]  J. Y. Wang,et al.  A Laser Microreliefmeter , 1988 .

[11]  Dominique Courault,et al.  Testing roughness indices to estimate soil surface roughness changes due to simulated rainfall. , 1990 .

[12]  I. Gibson.  Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology , 1976, Mineralogical Magazine.

[13]  D. R. Linden,et al.  Parameters for Characterizing Tillage-induced Soil Surface Roughness1 , 1986 .

[14]  K. N. Potter.  Soil properties effect on random roughness decay by rainfall. , 1990 .

[15]  K. Auerswald.  Influence of initial moisture and time since tillage on surface structure breakdown and erosion of a loessial soil , 1993 .

[16]  J. Poesen,et al.  A field-scale study of surface sealing and compaction on loam and sandy loam sols. Part I. Spatial variability of soil surface sealing and crusting , 1986 .

[17]  J. Bradford,et al.  Antecedent Water Content and Rainfall Energy Influence on Soil Aggregate Breakdown , 1990 .

[18]  Hanoch Lavee,et al.  Rock fragments in top soils: significance and processes , 1994 .

[19]  J. R. Simanton,et al.  Spatial distribution of surface rock fragments along catenas in Semiarid Arizona and Nevada, USA , 1994 .

[20]  R. Moore,et al.  A distribution function approach to rainfall runoff modeling , 1981 .

[21]  C. A. Onstad,et al.  Depressional Storage on Tilled Soil Surfaces , 1984 .

[22]  C. A. Onstad,et al.  Tillage and rainfall effects on random roughness: A review , 1987 .

[23]  M. J. Romkens,et al.  Effect of Tillage on Surface Roughness , 1986 .

[24]  J. Poesen,et al.  Effects of rock fragments on physical degradation of cultivated soils by rainfall , 1995 .

[25]  R. L. Guthrie,et al.  Classification and Distribution of Soils Containing Rock Fragments in the United States , 2015 .

[26]  André Robert,et al.  Statistical properties of sediment bed profiles in alluvial channels , 1988 .

[27]  Joe M. Bradford,et al.  Applications of a Laser Scanner to Quantify Soil Microtopography , 1992 .

[28]  Dino Torri,et al.  Effects of rock fragments on soil erosion by water at different spatial scales: a review , 1994 .