How does land use/cover influence gully head retreat rates? An in‐situ simulation experiment of rainfall and upstream inflow in the gullied loess region, China

Bibliographic Data

ID21648463
AuthorsHongliang Kang (0000-0001-7269-9795, State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau Institute of Water and Soil Conservation, Northwest A&F University Yangling PR China), Wenlong Wang (0000-0001-8355-3863, State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau Institute of Water and Soil Conservation, Northwest A&F University Yangling PR China, corresponding author), Mingming Guo (0000-0002-4887-5688, Key Laboratory of Mollisols Agroecology, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology Chinese Academy of Sciences Harbin PR China), Jianming Li (0000-0003-1854-0892, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources Yangling PR China), Qianhua Shi (0000-0001-9925-6679, State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau Institute of Water and Soil Conservation, Northwest A&F University Yangling PR China)
Year2021
Volume32
Issue9
Pages2789-2804
Publication date2021-05-30
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLand Degradation and Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1085-3278 • E-ISSN: 1099-145X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ldr.3892
OpenAlexW3124552621
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited77

Land use/cover plays a crucial role in gully head retreat (GHR). However, little is known about how land use/cover influences GHR rates. An in situ simulation experiment of rainfall and upstream inflow was conducted in a gullied loess region to investigate hydraulic erosion, mass movements, and linear GHR processes under three types of land use/cover (bare land, grassland, and shrub‐grass land). The results showed that the average linear GHR rates on grassland and shrub‐grass land were 87–89% and 72–81% lower than that on bare land (0.99–2.06 cm min −1 ), respectively. Gully heads retreat by hydraulic and gravitational erosion. In the case of hydraulic erosion, upstream runoff incision is dominant on bare land, while undercutting by on‐wall and jet flow dominates on grassland and shrub‐grass land. In the case of mass movement, collapse dominates with a frequency of 62–100%, of which gully sidewall collapse is most common, especially on bare land and it acts to widen the gully. Gully headwall collapse dominates on grassland and shrub‐grass land to cause retreat of the gully head. Overall, on bare land, upstream runoff incision dominates GHR. However, on grassland/shrub‐grass land GHR is mainly driven by the undercutting of on‐wall and jet flow and subsequent gully headwall collapses. As a consequence, the GHR length on bare land exponentially increases over time, while on grassland or shrub‐grass land, it discretely increases as an analogous step function. Moreover, the average linear GHR rate on grassland was considerably lower than that on shrub‐grass land, implying that an optimized vegetation restoration pattern enhances GHR control

Erosion · Geomorphology · Geotechnical engineering · Grassland · Loess · Shrub · Surface runoff · Environmental Science · Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes · Landslides and related hazards · Soil erosion and sediment transport · Ecology · Geology

Tools

Open DOI