Effects of forest litter cover on hydrological response of hillslopes in the Loess Plateau of China

Xin-shi, LU; Song, Xiaoyu; Fu, Na; Cui, Shengyu; Li, Lanjun; Li, Huaiyou; Li, Yaolin

doi:10.1016/j.catena.2019.104076

Cited by 49 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is consistent with the results of many previous studies (e.g. Xia et al, ; Xin et al, ). However, litter incorporation within top‐soil layer did not cause a significant enhance in infiltration in comparison to bare slope.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Meanwhile, plant litter can intercept rainfall, which depends on litter type and coverage (or mass). The intercepted rainfall by litter layer will evaporate after rainfall event, in other words, this process decreases the rate of water reaching soil surface (Kim, Onda, Kim, & Yang, ; Walsh & Voigt, ; Xia et al, ). All these effects induce a different runoff hydrograph from bare hillslopes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effect of litter on infiltration and runoff varies with litter type. Xia et al () demonstrated that needle‐leaf litter had less effect (19%) to reduce runoff than that of broad‐leaf litters (26%). Pannkuk and Robichaud () reported a 5% increase in runoff on the slope covered by Douglas fir, compared to the slope covered by Ponderosa pine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the effects of litter covering and incorporation on infiltration and soil erosion under simulated rainfall

Wang

Zhang

Zhu

et al. 2020

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant litter can either cover on soil surface or be incorporated into top‐soil layer in natural ecosystems. Their effects on infiltration and soil erosion are likely quite different. This study was performed to compare the effects of litter covering on soil surface and being incorporated into top‐soil layer on infiltration and soil erosion under simulated rainfall. Four litter types (needle‐leaf, broad‐leaf, brush, and herb) were collected from fields and applied to cover on soil surface or to be incorporated into top‐soil layer (5 cm) at the same rate (0.2 kg/m2). The simulated rainfalls (40 and 80 mm/hr) were run at two slope angles (10° and 20°). The results showed that the mean infiltration rate of litter covering treatment was 1.4 times as great as that of litter incorporated. Litter covering enhanced infiltration via protecting surface from soil sealing. Whereas, litter incorporation affected infiltration by its water repellency. Soil erosion of litter incorporated treatment was 5.4 times as large as that of litter covered treatment, which was attributed to the changes in surface litter coverage and soil erosion resistance. Litter type affected soil erosion through the variations in litter coverage and litter morphology. For litter covering treatment, litter coverage can explain the major variance of soil loss on the slopes. Whereas, for litter incorporated treatment, both the influences of litter coverage and litter length on soil erosion resistance were considered necessary to well explain the variance of soil loss. The results also showed that the benefits of litter to control soil erosion declined with rainfall intensity and slope gradient for both covering and incorporated treatments. The results of this study are helpful to understand the mechanisms of litter influencing hydrological and erosion processes on hillslopes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the effects of litter covering and incorporation on infiltration and soil erosion under simulated rainfall

Wang

Zhang

Zhu

et al. 2020

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second step in managing for hotter drought is to draw on, and modify as feasible, traditional anticipatory forest management practices (Bradford et al, 2018) that would be most effective prior to the onset of a hotter drought event ( Table 1). These options are not limited to, but include traditional stand-level practices such as: (1) dispersal of carefully selected seed mixes to reduce erosion and risk of unwanted species like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) and novel techniques such as seed pillows or seed pellets to improve recruitment (Gornish et al, 2015;Davies, 2018;Madsen et al, 2018); (2) selective thinning of stands to reduce competition for water during drought events and minimize drought-drive growth declines that lead to mortality (Bréda et al, 1995;McDowell et al, 2006;Millar and Stephenson, 2015;Andrews et al, 2020); (3) contouring to slow overland flow, increase infiltration, and enhance soil water availability (Panagos et al, 2015); (4) vegetation and pest management-to control pests using pesticides or pheromones and to manipulate vegetation characteristics and demography, including understory vegetation, such as size, age, distribution, and noxious, non-native vs. native species (Millar and Stephenson, 2015); (5) mulching residual thinning debris to enhance soil water storage and reduce erosion (Grant et al, 2013;Xia et al, 2019); and (6) fire management for reducing fuel loads and risk of crown fire (Moreira et al, 2011).…”

Section: Hotter Droughts: Existing Forest Management Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest Management Under Megadrought: Urgent Needs at Finer Scale and Higher Intensity

Field

Breshears

Bradford

et al. 2020

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drought and warming increasingly are causing widespread tree die-offs and extreme wildfires. Forest managers are struggling to improve anticipatory forest management practices given more frequent, extensive, and severe wildfire and tree die-off events triggered by “hotter drought”—drought under warmer than historical conditions. Of even greater concern is the increasing probability of multi-year droughts, or “megadroughts”—persistent droughts that span years to decades, and that under a still-warming climate, will also be hotter than historical norms. Megadroughts under warmer temperatures are disconcerting because of their potential to trigger more severe forest die-off, fire cycles, pathogens, and insect outbreaks. In this Perspective, we identify potential anticipatory and/or concurrent options for non-timber forest management actions under megadrought, which by necessity are focused more at finer spatial scales such as the stand level using higher-intensity management. These management actions build on silvicultural practices focused on growth and yield (but not harvest). Current management options that can be focused at finer scales include key silvicultural practices: selective thinning; use of carefully selected forward-thinking seed mixes; site contouring; vegetation and pest management; soil erosion control; and fire management. For the extreme challenges posed by megadroughts, management will necessarily focus even more on finer-scale, higher-intensity actions for priority locations such as fostering stand refugia; assisted stand recovery via soil amendments; enhanced root development; deep soil water retention; and shallow water impoundments. Drought-induced forest die-off from megadrought likely will lead to fundamental changes in the structure, function, and composition of forest stands and the ecosystem services they provide.

show abstract

“…Vegetation increases the streamflow time and extends the concentration of the flow slope to the river, hence increasing both evapotranspiration from land and water [36]. Although vegetation increases groundwater volume by improving the water storage capacity of the soil to a certain extent [37], evapotranspiration due to vegetation is actually about 10 times the intercepted amount of water stored [38].…”

Section: Responses Of Baseflow To Climate and Vegetation Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of Baseflow to Ecological Construction and Climate Change in Different Geomorphological Types in The Middle Yellow River, China

Yang

Han

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baseflow is a critical component of streamflow in arid areas. Determining variations in baseflow and the factors affecting it have positive roles for water resource utilization in arid watersheds. Two watersheds, the Hailiutu River watershed (HLTR) and the Dali River watershed (DLR), located in two different geomorphological regions of the middle Yellow River, were selected for this study. By using the Eckhardt segment method (fourth digital filtering method, DF4), baseflow was separated from streamflow based on its daily data. Mann-Kendall trend test analysis (M-K trend test) was used to test the trends in baseflow change at different times. Complex Morlet wavelet analysis was used to judge baseflow periodicity. Heuristic segmentation and sequential cluster analysis were used to identify the potential change points in the baseflow series for the two regions together with Pearson correlation coefficient. The results showed: (1) the annual baseflow of the HLTR and the DLR showed significantly decreasing trends (P < 0.01), more significantly for the HLTR (0.33 × 108 m3) than the DLR (0.20 × 108 m3). The annual base flow index (BFI, baseflow/total streamflow) in the wind-sand region (0.75) was larger than for the loess region (0.55), and the BFI in the wind-sand region was more stable in different periods. (2) The annual baseflow of the HLTR and the DLR both exhibited a complete main cycle of 42 years and 38 years, respectively. The change points of the annual baseflow in the HLTR were 1967 and 1986, and 1971 and 1996 in the DLR. (3) There was no significant change in annual precipitation in the two watersheds, while annual reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in the DLR showed a significant increasing trend (P < 0.01). The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) on the DLR (0.40) was higher than on the HLTR (0.26). (4) Baseflow in the wind-sand region, where vegetation improvement was the only ecological activity, decreased faster than in the loess region where there had been numerous ecological measures such as vegetation improvement, check dams and terraces. This implied that comprehensive measures such as these were helpful in slowing the rate at which the baseflow decreases. Therefore, the effect of ecological construction should be considered in future baseflow studies in other geomorphological types within the Middle Yellow River Basin.

show abstract

Effects of forest litter cover on hydrological response of hillslopes in the Loess Plateau of China

Cited by 49 publications

References 54 publications

Comparison of the effects of litter covering and incorporation on infiltration and soil erosion under simulated rainfall

Comparison of the effects of litter covering and incorporation on infiltration and soil erosion under simulated rainfall

Forest Management Under Megadrought: Urgent Needs at Finer Scale and Higher Intensity

Responses of Baseflow to Ecological Construction and Climate Change in Different Geomorphological Types in The Middle Yellow River, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About