Rolled erosion control systems for hillslope surface protection: a critical review, synthesis and analysis of available data. I. Background and formative years

Sutherland, Ross A.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-145x(199811/12)9:6<465::aid-ldr311>3.0.co;2-4

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although biological geotextiles have the potential for soil erosion control, field studies on quantification of the effectiveness of biological geotextiles in reducing soil interrill erosion rates are inadequate. Limited data exist on the effectiveness of different biological geotextiles in reducing runoff volume and soil erosion (Sutherland, 1998a, 1998b; Rickson, 2006), especially under different agro‐climatic conditions. Moreover, in many of the studies reviewed by Rickson and Vella (1992) and Sutherland (1998a, 1998b), most studies were conducted under simulated rainfall in laboratories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of biological geotextiles for soil and water conservation in different agro‐environments

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Available studies do not allow comparison and quantification of the effects of biological geotextiles on runoff and water erosion rates under different agro-environmental conditions. Hence, this paper addresses this issue by comparing runoff and soil loss data obtained from field experiments (using different types of biological geotextiles) conducted in the United Kingdom, Hungary, South Africa, China, Thailand and Vietnam. Palm leaf mats (Borassus and Buriti mats) were used in the European countries. In the UK, Borassus mats were used as whole plot cover (area coverage $76 per cent; termed Borassus completely covered to differentiate from the Borassus buffer strip plots) and as buffer zones (area coverage $10 per cent), whereas Buriti mats were used only as buffer zones (area coverage $10 per cent). Only Lala mats were used in South Africa. Elsewhere (China, Thailand and Vietnam) biological geotextiles were constructed using other indigenous local materials, such as bamboo, rice straw and maize stalks. Biological geotextiles were used on bare plots in South Africa and the European countries. In the UK, plots were maintained bare by need based herbicide spraying. However, in South Asia, different crops were grown on the geotextile-covered plots. Results suggest that biological geotextiles were very effective for soil erosion control in all locations and the effectiveness for decreasing soil erosion rates by water was in the range of $67-99 per cent. The effectiveness of biological geotextiles in reducing runoff volume was in the range of $26-81 per cent. In the UK, total runoff and soil loss (during 8 January 2007-6 May 2008; total precipitation ¼ 1145.8 mm) from the Borassus (one metre wide) buffer zone plots (cover percentage $7.6 per cent) were, respectively, $81 and $93 per cent less than bare plots. In Hungary and China, plots with $38 and 22 per cent geotextile-cover, respectively, had $88 and 96 per cent less soil loss, than bare plots. In most months with low precipitation (depth) in Hungary and the UK, runoff volume was greater from plots with geotextile-cover than from bare soils. However, complete data sets indicate that in the UK and Hungary, runoff reduction by different treatments over bare plots ranged between $26 and 81 per cent. Results from the UK showed that plots with buffer strips of Borassus and Buriti mats had similar effects in reducing soil losses as completely covered plots of the Borassus mats. Thus, foreseeing biological geotextilecover on vulnerable segments of the landscape is highly effective for soil erosion control.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of biological geotextiles for soil and water conservation in different agro‐environments

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies have appeared in scientific or management journals that are subject to peer review (Sutherland, 1998a). In most of the available field and laboratory studies as reviewed by Rickson and Vella (1992) and Sutherland (1998aSutherland ( , 1998b, results are difficult to interpret, because of very few treatment replications and non-uniform experimental conditions. Even so, there is little understanding of how geotextiles interact with the various hydraulic (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentrated flow erosion rates reduced through biological geotextiles

Smets

Poesen

Langhans

et al. 2009

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil erosion by concentrated flow can cause serious environmental damage. Erosion-control geotextiles have considerable potential for reducing concentrated flow erosion. However, limited data are available on the erosion-reducing potential of geotextiles. In this study, the effectiveness of three biological geotextiles in reducing soil losses during concentrated flow is investigated. Hereto, runoff was simulated in a concentrated flow flume, filled with an erodible sandy loam on three slope gradients (13·5, 27·0 and 41·5%). Treatments included three biological geotextiles (borassus, buriti and bamboo) and one bare soil surface. Darcy–Weisbach friction coefficients ranged from 0·01 to 2·84. The highest values are observed for borassus covered soil surfaces, followed by buriti, bamboo and bare soil, respectively. The friction coefficients are linearly correlated with geotextile thickness. For the specific experimental conditions of this study, borassus geotextiles reduced soil detachment rate on average to 56%, buriti geotextiles to 59% and bamboo geotextiles to 66% of the soil detachment rate for bare soil surfaces. Total flow shear stress was the hydraulic parameter best predicting soil detachment rate for bare and geotextile covered surfaces (R² = 0·75–0·84, p < 0·001, n = 12–15). The highest resistance against soil detachment was observed for the borassus covered soil surfaces, followed by buriti, bamboo and bare soil surfaces, respectively. Overall, biological geotextiles are less effective in controlling concentrated flow erosion compared with interrill erosion. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

“…Effectiveness of soil loss reduction was calculated as follows (Sutherland, 1998) (Galvonaitė et al, 2013). During the autumn and spring periods, when the rains are long-lasting but sparse, the erosion on soil surface is weaker, but the conditions for leaching are very favourable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of soil erosion processes as influenced by different land-use systems on hilly rolling landscape of Western Lithuania

Kinderienė¹,

Karčauskienė²

2016

Zemdirbyste-Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to estimate long-term effect of different land-use/cover systems on soil erosion processes on the hilly topography of Žemaičiai Upland in Lithuania. The study analyses long-term (18 years) monitoring data from three individual erosion experiments set up on slopes of 7-8°, 7-9° and 9-11° steepness with installed water and outwash collectors. Six land-use systems were investigated: field crop rotation (F), field crop rotation with the black fallow (FF), erosion-resisting grain-grass (GR), erosion-resisting grass-grain (GS), not fertilized and not used grassland (NG) and fertilized and mown grassland (FG). It was found that soil erosion losses and water runoff volume on the slopes of the arable agricultural land generally depended on the erosionpreventative capabilities of different crops, tillage technology and vegetation cover of slope, soil texture and precipitation characteristics. Torrential rainfall in summer and autumn was the cause of most cases of rainwash and soil loss -167.8-229 Mg ha -1 yr -1 , which is described as very strong erosion. Climate warming processes (about 0.7°C over more than 30 years) and a positive air temperature encouraged snow melting and runoff water flow down of the slope surface, even during the cold period. Summarized long-term research results suggest that the highest average annual precipitation runoff volume -529 hl ha -1 yr -1 and average annual soil loss -11.6 Mg ha -1 yr -1 were from bare soil plot in the black fallow land-use system on 9-11° slope with a larger amount of sand particles, compared with the other experimental soil. Erosionresisting grain-grass and grass-grain land-use systems decreased soil loss compared with black fallow system by on average 5 and 15.5 times, respectively. Effectiveness of soil loss reduction of the not fertilized and not used grassland and fertilized and mown grassland land-use/cover systems with a cover formed of permanent multicomponent plant mixture was 99-100%. High erosion resistance of plants by using suitable land-use systems on the hillslopes markedly reduced soil loss (r = −0.99, P < 0.01, n = 18) and runoff volume (r = −0.607, P < 0.01, n = 18). Not fertilized and not used and fertilized and mown grassland systems prevented erosion regardless of the location, steepness of the slope and soil texture and increased the stability against erosion by water on the hilly topography of Lithuania.

show abstract

Rolled erosion control systems for hillslope surface protection: a critical review, synthesis and analysis of available data. I. Background and formative years

Cited by 47 publications

References 29 publications

Effectiveness of biological geotextiles for soil and water conservation in different agro‐environments

Effectiveness of biological geotextiles for soil and water conservation in different agro‐environments

Concentrated flow erosion rates reduced through biological geotextiles

Assessment of soil erosion processes as influenced by different land-use systems on hilly rolling landscape of Western Lithuania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About