تعیین مؤثرترین ویژگی های فیزیکی و مکانیکی خاک برافزایش سطح مقطع آبکندها در استان اردبیل

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• حسین شهاب آرخازلو ¹
• حجت امامی ²
• غلامحسین حق نیا ²
• اباذر اسمعلی ³

¹ فردوسی مشهد

² دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

³ محقق اردبیلی

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v30i6.52921

چکیده

فرسایش آبکندی یکی از مهمترین انواع فرسایش در سطح کشور است که در نقاط مختلف استان اردبیل وجود دارد و یکی از شاخص های گسترش آبکند افزایش سطح مقطع آن می باشد. توپوگرافی منطقه و ویژگی های خاک از جمله مهمترین عوامل مؤثر بر فرسایش آبکندی می باشند. با وجود اهمیت ویژگی های خاک در فرسایش آبکندی، تأثیر مستقیم این عوامل کمتر بررسی شده است و مطالعات محدودی در مورد تأثیر ویژگی-های فیزیکی و مکانیکی خاک بر فرسایش آبکندی انجام شده است. هدف این پژوهش تعیین تأثیر توپوگرافی بر فرسایش آبکندی و تأثیر ویژگی-های فیزیکی و مکانیکی خاک سطحی و زیرسطحی بر افزایش سطح مقطع آبکندها و در نهایت انتخاب مهمترین ویژگی های خاک مؤثر بر آن در سه منطقه اُرتاداغ، ملااحمد و سرچم استان اردبیل بود. همچنین رابطه بین مهمترین ویژگی های خاک و عوامل توپوگرافی نیز بررسی گردید. با استفاده از دو روش رابطه طبقات شیب با تراکم آبکندها و شاخص آستانه توپوگرافی که S و A شیب و مساحت حوضه زه کشی آبکند و a و b ضرائب محیطی هستند، تأثیر توپوگرافی بر فرسایش آبکندی در سه منطقه ارزیابی شد. پس از انتخاب مجموعه ای مشابه از آبکندها در هر منطقه از نظر مشخصات حوضه زه کشی، گسترش آبکندها با اندازه گیری افزایش سطح مقطع آن ها در طول دو سال و در چهار نقطه از طول آبکندها اندازه گیری شد. با اندازه گیری 17 ویژگی مکانیکی و فیزیکی خاک سطحی و زیرسطحی در نقاط اندازه گیری سطح مقطع، با استفاده از تحلیل مؤلفه-های اصلی (PCA) مهمترین ویژگی های مؤثر بر افزایش سطح مقطع آبکند تعیین شد. در نهایت مدل رگرسیونی افزایش سطح مقطع آبکند در اثر مهمترین ویژگی های خاک حاصل از PCA، با رگرسیون گام به گام برای هر منطقه به دست آمد. رابطه طبقات شیب و تراکم آبکند نشان داد در منطقه ملااحمد با افزایش شیب تراکم آبکند بیشتر شده است و در منطقه اُرتاداغ تا شیب 20-30 درصد این روند مشاهده شد، در حالی که در منطقه سرچم رابطه ای بین طبقات شیب و تراکم آبکند وجود نداشت. با استفاده از شاخص آستانه توپوگرافی، فرآیند غالب هیدرولوژیکی تشکیل آبکند برای منطقه ملااحمد رواناب سطحی و برای منطقه سرچم جریان زیرزمینی تشخیص داده شد و در اُرتاداغ هر دو نوع جریان سطحی و زیرزمینی مؤثر شناخته شد. با انجام PCA در دو منطقه ملااحمد و اُرتاداغ عمدتا ویژگی های مکانیکی و پایداری خاکدانه ها بر افزایش سطح مقطع آبکند تأثیر بیشتری داشتند، در حالی که در منطقه سرچم کلاس های اندازه ذرات و شاخص های پایداری خاکدانه ها تأثیر بیشتری داشتند. به طور کلی رابطه ی بین تراکم آبکند در طبقات مختلف شیب، آستانه توپوگرافی تشکیل آبکند و ویژگی های فیزیکی و مکانیکی مؤثر بر گسترش آبکندها نشان داد که بین نوع جریان هیدرولوژیکی تشکیل آبکند و مهمترین ویژگی های خاک مؤثر بر افزایش سطح مقطع آبکند هماهنگی وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• آستانه توپوگرافی
• بالاکند
• تحلیل عاملی
• فرسایش زیرزمینی

20.1001.1.20084757.1395.30.6.26.6

عنوان مقاله [English]

Determination the most important physical and mechanical soil properties on increasing cross sections in Ardebil province

نویسندگان [English]

• Hossain Shohab Arkhazloo ¹
• H. Emami ²
• Gholam Hosain Haghnian ²
• Abazar Esmali ³

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

³

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Gully erosion is an important type of soil erosion in Iran and Ardebil province (Moghimi and Salami, 2011; Khatibi, 2006). Increasing the cross section of gullies is an indicator for gully developing (Deng et al, 2015). Topography and soil properties are two important factors in gully developing in various regions of worldwide (Poesena et al, 2003). Despite the importance of soil properties in gully erosion, the direct effect of these agents was less investigated and few researches have been carried out to the effect of physical and mechanical soil properties on gully erosion. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to determine 1) the effect of topography on gully erosion, 2) effect of surface and subsurface soil physical and mechanical properties on increasing the cross section of gullies and 3) to select the most important soil properties affect developing the cross section of gullies in three regions of Ardebil province (Ortadagh, Molla Ahmad, and Sarcham). In addition, the relationship between the most soil properties and topographic agents was investigated
Materials and Methods: The effect of topography on gully erosion was investigated by using of two methods i.e. topographic threshold of gully forming (as , where A and S is gully watershed cross section and slop, respectively, a and b is local coefficients) and the relationship between slope classes with gullies density. In regard to catchment characteristics, a set of similar gullies was selected in each region and the changes of cross section area for gullies in four points along its length were measured as indicator of gully development during two years. 17 physical and mechanical of surface and subsurface soil properties in each point were measured and the most important properties that affect on gully development were selected based on principle component analysis (PCA) method. Finally, the stepwise regression model was fitted to the soil properties selecting from PCA for gully's development in each region.
Results: The relationship between Slope classes and gully density showed that in MollaAhmad region gully density was increased with increasing the slope. In OrtaDaghregion, similar trend was observed up to 20-30% slope, while in Sarcham region these was no relationship between slope classes and gully density. According to the topographic threshold it seems that runoff is the main agent for gully forming in MollaAhmad,but in Sarchamthe piping and tunnel erosion might have caused gully formation and in Ortadagh both surface and subsurface flows were recognized as effective agents for gully formation. Increasing values of the cross section for the selected gullies during 2 years was 0.9, 0.6, and 0.8 m2 for Ortadagh, MollaAhmad, and Sarcham regions respectively, which were 41, 44 and 61 percent more than their initial cross sections. Among mechanical soil properties, liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and shear strength (SS) had the negative and significant correlations with increasing the cross sections of gullies in 3 regions. Among the particle size fractions, Water dispersible clay had the most effect on increasing the gully’s cross sections and except for surface depth of Molla Ahmad, its correlation with gully’s cross section was significant. Principle component analysis (PCA) demonstarated that in MollaAhmad and Ortadagh mainly mechanical properties of soil and aggregate stability had the more effect on increasing the gully cross section, but in Sarcham soil particle size classes and aggregate stability indices had more effect on gully’s cross section.
Conclusion: According to topography threshold, it can be concluded that surface runoff is the main agent for gully forming in MollaAhmad and gully density increases by increasing the slope classes. In this region the effect of surface runoff on surface soil erosion was sever. In Sarcham there was no relationship between slope and gully density and it was found that the subsurface flow is predominant factor for gully forming. In OrtaDagh both surface and subsurface flows were the main factors for gully forming, so due to increasing the surface flow up to slope 20-30% class, maximum gully density was noted in this slope class and the effect of subsurface soil properties in developing gully cross section was higher than surface soil properties. In general, the relationship between gully density with slope classes, topographic threshold and soil physical and mechanical properties which were effective on gully development indicated the close consistency between the type of hydrologic flow in gully forming and the most important soil properties on increasing the gully’s cross section.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Factor analysis
• Head cut
• Topographic threshold
• Tunnel erosion

مراجع

1- Agharazi H., Davodirad A., and Soufi M. 2014. Area-slope threshold of gully's in Zahir Abad watershed of Markazi province. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 6:1-9. (in Persian)

2- Bayatti M. 2006. Gully properties and gully controlling factors, case study: between Meshkinshahr and ahhar. Geography and Development Iranian Journal, 4:115-136. (in Persian)

3- Bili P., and Dramis F. 2003. Geomorphological investigation on gully erosion in the rift valley and the northern highlands of Ethiopia. Catena, 50: 353-368.

4- Bradford J., and Piest R. 1980. Erosional development of valley bottem gullies in the upper midwestern United States, p. 75-101. In: D.R. coates, andJ.D. Vited (ed.) Geomorphic thresholds, Dowden and culver, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

5- Canton Y., Sole-Benet A., Asensio C., Chamizo S., and Puigdefabregas J. 2009. Aggregate stability in range sandy loam soils. Relationships with runoff and erosion. Catena, 77:192–199.

6- Chaplot V. 2013. Impact of terrain attributes, parent material and soil types on gully erosion. Geomorphology, 186:1-11.

7- Chaplot V., Coadou le Brozec E., Silvera N., and Valentin C. 2005. Spatial and temporal assessment of linear erosion in catchments under sloping lands of northern Laos. Catena, 63: 167–184.

8- Deng Q., Qin F., Zhang B., Wang H., Luo M., Shu C., Liu H., and Liu G. 2015. Characterizing the morphology of gully cross-sections based on PCA: A case of Yuanmou Dry-Hot Valley. Geomorphology, 228: 703-713.

9- Dexter A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma, 120:201-214.

10- Di Stefano C., Ferro V., Pampalone V., and Sanzone F. 2013. Field investigation of rill and ephemeral gully erosion in the Sparacia experimental area, South Italy. Catena, 101:226–234.

11- Dlapa P., Chrenkova K., Mataix-Solera J., and Šimkovic I. 2012. Soil profile improvement as a by-product of gully stabilization measures. Catena, 92:155–161.

12- Esteves M., and Lapetite J.M. 2003. A multi scale approach of runoff generation in a Sahelian gully catchment: a case study in Niger. Catena, 50:255-271.

13- Faulkner H. 2013. Badlands in marl lithologies: A field guide to soil dispersion, subsurface erosion and piping-origin gullies. Catena, 106:42-53.

14- Frankl A., Poesen J., Scholiers N., Jacob M., Haile M., Deckers J., and Nyssen J. 2013. Factors controlling the morphology and volume (V)-length (L) relations of permanent gullies in the northern Ethiopian Highlands. Earth Surface Process Landforms, 38:1672–1684.

15- Gao X., Wu P., Zhao X., Zhang B., Wang J., and Shi Y. 2012. Estimating the spatial means and variability of root-zone soil moisture in gullies using measurements from nearby uplands. Journal of Hydrology, 476:28-41.

16- Gee G.W., and Bauder J.M. 1986. Partical-size analysis.p. 383-411. In: A.L. Page et al. (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monogroph No. 9 (2nd edition), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

17- Hafezi Moghaddas N. 2011. Engineering Geology. Arses press. 488p. (in Persian)

18- Hossein Zadeh M., Esmaeili R., Kalhor S., and Nosrati K. 2011. Assesment of local changes of gully erosion under geomorphology factors with multivariate statistics. Environmental Erosion Research. 1: 57-66. (in Persian)

19- Kemper W.D., and Rosenau R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. p. 425–442. In: A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part a: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

20- Khalil Moghadam B., Afyuni M., Jalalian A., Abbaspour K.C., and Dehghani A.A. 2011. Estimation Surface Soil Shear Strength by Pedo-Transfer Functions and SoilSpatial Prediction Functions. Water and Soil, 25:187-195. (in Persian)

21- Marquez C.O., Garcia V. J., Cambardella C. A., Schultz R. C., and Isenhart T. M. 2004. Aggregate-Size Stability Distribution and Soil Stability. Soil Science Society of American Journal, 68:725-735.

22- Moghimi I., and Salammi N. 2011. Mechanism of geomorphologic creation and development of gully in the winter quarter of Haj Mohammad in the northern slope of Khoroslu in Ardebil. Territory, 30:49-61. (in Persian)

23- Morgan R.P.C., and Mngomezulu D. 2003. Threshold conditions for initiation of valley-side gullies in the middle veld of Swaziland. Catena, 50:401-414.

24- Mortezaei Gh., Ahmadi H., Ghoddosee J., Feiznia S., and Jafari M. 2008. Evaluation of the quantitative effects of environmental parameters on occurance of gully erosion. Journal of the Iranian Natural Resource, 60: 1211-1223. (in Persian)

25- Nachtergaele J., and Poesen J. 2002. Spatial and temporal variations in resistance of loess-derived soils to ephemeral gully erosion. European Journal of Soil Science, 53:449– 463.

26- Nayebi H. 2014. Applied advanced statistics by SPSS. University of Tehran press. 401p. (in Persian).

27- Poesen J. 1993. Gully typology and gully control measures in the European loess belt. p. 221– 239.In: S. Wicherek (ed.) Farm Land Erosion in Temperate Plains Environment and Hills. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

28- Poesena J., Nachtergaelea J., Verstraetena G., and Valentin C. 2003. Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena, 50:91– 133

29- Rafahi H.Gh. 2006. Water erosion and conservation. University of Tehran press. 671p. (in Persian)

30- Reynolds W.D., Drury C.F., Tan C.S., Fox C.A., and Yang X.M. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volumefunction characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma, 152:252-263.

31- Reynolds W. D., Elrick D. E., and Youngs E.G. 2002. Ring or cylinderinfiltrometers (vadose zone). p. 818- 826. In: J.H. Dane, G.C. and Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis, Part 4. Physical methods, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin USA.

32- Servati M., ghodosi J., and dadkhah M. 2008. Gully erosion formation and extension controlling factors in losses. Pajohesh and sazandeghi, 78:20-33. (in Persian)

33- Shadfar S., Zahedi S., Namaki M., and Sharifi I. 2007. Assessment of gully erosion development in Ali Abad watershed of Guilan province. 4th Iran watershed science and engineering congress. 20-21 Feb. 2007. Karaj, Iran. (in Persian)

34- Shahrivar A., and Hassan Pour B. 2005. Effect of soluble salts, area and slope of gully basin on gully erosin in Sog region. 9th Iranian soil science congress. 28-31 Aug. 2005. Shahre Kord, Iran. (in Persian)

35- Soleimanpour S.M., Soufi M., Ahmadi H. 2009. Determining Effective Factors on Gully Development in Konartakhte Region, Fars Province. Water and Soil, 23:131-141. (in Persian)

36- Soufi M., and Esaei H. 2010. Estimate of gully erosion volume with morphometric and soil properties in Gholestan province. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 2:73-82. (in Persian)

37- Valentin C. J., Poesen J., Yong Li. 2005. Gully erosion: Impacts, factors and control. Catena, 63:132–153.

38- Vandekerckhove L., Poesen J., Oostwoud Wijdenes D., Nachtergaele J., Kosmas C., Roxo M.J., and De Figueiredo T. 2000. Thresholds for gully initiation and sedimentation in Mediterranean Europe. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25:1201–1220.

39- Wick A.F., Ingram L.J., and Stahl P.D. 2009. Aggregate and organic matter dynamics in reclaimed soils as indicated by stable carbon isotopes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 41:201–209.

40- Yasrebi B., Soufi M., Mirnia K., and Mohammadi J. 2013. Effect of topography and soil on development of gully's in agriculture lands, case study: Illam province. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 5:31-40. (in Persian)

41- Zhu H., A. S.M., and Horton R. 2008. Impact of Gully on Soil Moisture of Shrubland in Wind-Water Erosion Crisscross Region of the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere, 18: 674-680.