Ephemeral gully erosion in concentrated flow channels induced by rainfall and upslope inflow on steep loessial slopes

Bibliographic Data

ID21648803
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), Mingming Guo (0000-0002-4887-5688, Key Laboratory of Mollisols Agroecology Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Harbin 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)
Year2021
Volume32
Issue17
Pages5037-5051
Publication date2021-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLand Degradation and Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1085-3278 • E-ISSN: 1099-145X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ldr.4089
OpenAlexW3198740566
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited52

Ephemeral gullies (EGs) play a crucial role in hydrological connectivity, soil erosion, and land degradation. However, little research has focused on flow hydraulics in concentrated flow channels and their effects on EG erosion on steep loessial slopes. A simulated experiment of rainfall (60–120 mm hr −1 ) and upslope inflow (0.45–2.25 m 2 hr −1 ) were conducted on concentrated flow channels with loess at 15°–25° slope gradients. The concentrated flow was turbulent and subcritical in most cases. The flow shear stress, stream power, and unit stream power in the concentrated flow channels varied from 32.65 to 109.40 N m −2 , 10.85 to 38.66 N m −1 s −1 , and 0.08 to 0.16 m s −1 , respectively. The EG depth, width, and width‐depth ratio varied within 14.8–24.6 cm, 18.5–33.8 cm, and 1.13–1.83, respectively. Moreover, the EG depth and width increased in a power function with the runoff rate ( R 2 = 0.82–0.83; p −2 s −1 under the different treatments and had a good linear relationship with the runoff rate ( R 2 = 0.78; p 3 hr −1 and 2.66 N m −2 . However, the coefficient of determination for the linear relationship between Ys and shear stress was low (0.58). The results indicate that the flow shear stress mechanism might not be enough to explain sediment load variation for EG erosion, and headcut erosion mechanism should be taken into account

Bank erosion · Bed load · Erosion · Geometry · Geomorphology · Geotechnical engineering · Hydraulics · Hyperconcentrated flow · Loess · Mechanics · Sediment · Sediment transport · Shear stress · Stream power · Surface runoff · Turbulence · Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes · Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies · Materials Science · Mathematics · Soil erosion and sediment transport · Geology

Tools

Open DOI