Comparison of interrill soil loss for laboratory and field procedures

Abstract This paper focuses on the way that experimental methodology can affect erosion research results. Soil erosion rates obtained from two laboratory soil pan (or plot box) designs were compared with reported field soil loss values. Two types of simulated rainfall, from a constant drop size (4.6 mm) simulator and an oscillating nozzle (mean drop size of 2.3 mm) simulator, were used and both splash and wash (soil losses) were measured from each soil pan. Ranking of soil loss values between a 0.14 m 2 soil pan for the constant drop size simulator and the field experiments were directly opposite. Splash and wash for the nozzle type simulator were much less than for the constant drop simulator for the 0.14 m 2 box. Wash values for a 0.32 m 2 soil pan with a 0.30 m wide surrounding soil border were within the range of reported field soil loss values. Design of the 0.32 m 2 pan allows for a separation of erosion sub-processes controlling interrill soil loss. Design of the 0.14 m 2 pan limits its use primarily to splash detachment studies.

[1]  L. D. Meyer,et al.  How Row-Sideslope Length and Steepness Affect Sideslope Erosion , 1989 .

[2]  E. Seyhan,et al.  Essential conditions of rainfall simulation for laboratory water erosion experiments , 1977 .

[3]  C. Mutchler,et al.  Applicator for Laboratory Rainfall Simulator , 1963 .

[4]  J. Bradford,et al.  New Methods of Studying Soil Detachment due to Waterdrop Impact1 , 1981 .

[5]  Rorke B. Bryan,et al.  Laboratory experiments on the variation of soil erosion under simulated rainfall , 1981 .

[6]  F. D. Whisler,et al.  A Laboratory Method for Predicting the Size Distribution of Sediment Eroded from Surface Soils , 1982 .

[7]  L. D. Meyer,et al.  Multiple-intensity rainfall simulator for erosion research on row sideslopes. , 1979 .

[8]  R. Bryan.  Water Erosion by Splash and Wash and the Erodibility of Albertan Soils , 1974 .

[9]  W. C. Moldenhauer,et al.  Effect of initial clod size on characteristics of splash and wash erosion , 1968 .

[10]  R. Lal.  Soil Erosion from Tropical Arable Lands and its Control , 1984 .

[11]  J. M. Bradford,et al.  Interrill soil erosion processes. I: Effect of surface sealing on infiltration, runoff, and soil splash detachment , 1987 .

[12]  R. Loch.  Field rainfall simulator studies on two clay soils of the Darling Downs, Queensland. III. An evaluation of current methods for deriving soil erodbilities (K factors) , 1984 .

[13]  L. D. Meyer,et al.  Susceptibility of Agricultural Soils to Interrill Erosion , 1984 .

[14]  S. Luk.  Effect of soil properties on erosion by wash and splash , 1979 .

[15]  J. Poesen.  Rainwash experiments on the erodibility of loose sediments , 1981 .

[16]  J. Poesen,et al.  The concept of soil erodibility and some problems of assessment and application , 1989 .

[17]  M. Agassi,et al.  Effect of raindrop impact energy and water salinity on infiltration rates of sodic soils , 1985 .

[18]  The influence of soil properties on the erodibility of Belgian loamy soils: A study based on rainfall simulation experiments , 1984 .

[19]  J. Poesen.  Surface sealing as influenced by slope angle and position of simulated stones in the top layer of loose sediments , 1986 .