Controlled Experiments on Soil Compaction Produced by Off-Road Vehicles in the Mojave Desert, California

Adams, J.A.S.; Endo, Albert; Stolzy, L. H.; Rowlands, Peter G.; Johnson, Hyrum B.

doi:10.2307/2403001

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• recreational activity (Grubb and King 1991;McGarigal et al 1991;Grubb and Bowerman 1997;Swarthout and Steidl 2001) • vehicle traffic (Awbrey 1993;Brattstrom and Bondello 1994;Benson 1995;Guyer et al 1995;Grubb et al 1998) and associated fragmentation effects (Berry 1984;Trombulak and Frissell 2000;Norris and Stutchbury 2001) • construction projects (Holthuijzen et al 1990) • human approach and presence (Fyfe and Olendorff 1976;Steenhof and Kochert 1982;Thomas 1995;Riffell et al 1996) • impacts on natural plant communities and soil substrates (e.g., habitat conversion and soil erosion) (Adams et al 1982;Lathrop 1983a, b;Prose and Wilshire 1986) • changes in the natural fire regime (e.g., fire suppression; LeBlond et al 1994). …”

Section: A Literature Review Of Sound Research On Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of Threatened and Endangered Species Sound Research on Army Installations

Delaney¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryThis report represents the first year of a continuing study addressing the effects of military training sound on Threatened and Endangered Species (TES). The purpose of this study was to prioritize specific TES of concern from the U.S. Army Environmental Requirement and Technology Assessment (AERTA) species list.The primary objective for this project was to develop a prioritized list of TES for future sound research relative to military training sound effects. From these recommendations, future sound research could be developed, initiated, and established with the goal of protecting TES, while also allowing Department of Defense (DoD) installations to train to standard and maintain operational readiness.The primary research objective for future sound research will be to determine the impact of certain types of military training sound on TES. This will require the development of a dose-response threshold relationship for quantifying animal response to sound levels and stimulus distances, and relate these to reproductive fitness parameters.A second objective is to develop and disseminate cost effective techniques for documenting the effects of training sound on TES populations. These techniques include the capability to characterize sound stimuli, to document behavioral responses, and to determine resulting population level effects due to military sound. Achieving these objectives will provide a means to manage impact on both military training capability and TES, but will also provide a factual basis for mitigation and management protocols and guidelines. This research will directly address the #1 Army Conservation Pillar User Requirement, which is concerned with impacts of military operations on TES.Ten primary factors were used to develop a prioritized list of TES for future sound research on U.S. Army installations. These factors included: 1. Number of installations with verified occurrences of AERTA-listed TES; 2. Level and type of military-based restrictions and their affect on installation-wide training capability. Both temporal (e.g., land-use restrictions during the breeding season) and spatial (e.g., back off distances from known TES use areas with restricted activity zones) restrictions were taken into account in rating overall training level restrictions for each installation(s) where specific species occurred.

show abstract

Section: A Literature Review Of Sound Research On Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of Threatened and Endangered Species Sound Research on Army Installations

Delaney¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On a range of soil textures, bulk densities were greater in tracks than between tracks to the depth of measurement, 0.1 m. Penetrometer resistances were considerably greater in the tracks, and at two sites the maximum possible depth of penetration was 0.04 m, with a between track penetration of 0.45 m. It was concluded from all sites that soil strength in the 0.05-0-1 m interval was increased by passage of a vehicle. Data of Adams, et al (1982) was referred to to lend support to the conclusion that, depending on impact conditions, the initial passage of a vehicle on undisturbed soil causes greater compaction than subsequent passes in the same conditions. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (KO) was less in the 0-0-05 and 04-0.1 m depth intervals in the tracked areas, although the KO values increased after wetting and drying.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Compaction of virgin soil by mechanized agriculture in a semiarid environment

Holloway¹,

Dexter

1990

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil compaction was assessed in terms of soil strength as measured with a penetrometer. Penetrometer resistance was measured on virgin soil and on the same soil after one and after five passes of a 7,610 kg tractor. Also, comparative studies were made of strength profiles of soils in arable fields and in adjacent areas of virgin soil. The strength of virgin soil was increased by wheel traffic and agricultural operations in all cases. The increase in soil strength was significant down to 0.3 m, which is considerably greater than the normal depth of tillage in the area (0.05 m). Reduction in the coefficient of variation of penetrometer strengths after the passage of wheels was taken as evidence for associated losses of soil structure. Virgin soils provide important reference sites for assessing the impact of agriculture in an area.

show abstract

“…Off-road driving has long been recognized as a major deleterious factor, causing widespread damage to the vegetation and producing tracks on the soil surface (Adams et al, 1982). Due to the fragility of the arid environment, the damage caused by even isolated incidents may be visible for many years (Lathrop, 1983;Le HoueH rou, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soil compaction reduces the ability of the soil to hold water and decreases the soil-gas volume (Rundel & Gibson, 1996). Furthermore, the penetration resistance of compacted soils on drying increases to a much greater extent than that of uncompacted soils (Adams et al, 1982). The roots of seedlings germinating on compacted soils should therefore be expected to encounter considerable difficulty in penetrating the surface layer (Taylor & Gardner, 1963;Wilhelm & Mielke, 1988), with obvious repercussions for seedling establishment (Bainbridge & Virginia, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Off-road vehicles and vegetation patterning in a degraded desert ecosystem in Kuwait

Brown

Schoknecht

2001

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controlled Experiments on Soil Compaction Produced by Off-Road Vehicles in the Mojave Desert, California

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

Prioritization of Threatened and Endangered Species Sound Research on Army Installations

Prioritization of Threatened and Endangered Species Sound Research on Army Installations

Compaction of virgin soil by mechanized agriculture in a semiarid environment

Off-road vehicles and vegetation patterning in a degraded desert ecosystem in Kuwait

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About