Subsurface Erosion in Response to Land Management Changes and Soil Hydropedology. G.V. Wilson, J. R. Rigby, S.M. Dabney

Similar documents
Updating Slope Topography During Erosion Simulations with the Water Erosion Prediction Project

Monitoring and modelling hydrological fluxes in support of nutrient cycling studies in Amazonian rain forest ecosystems Tobon-Marin, C.

Monitoring Headwater Streams for Landscape Response to

Watershed Conservation Management Planning Using the Integrated Field & Channel Technology of AnnAGNPS & CONCEPTS

Landscape Function Analysis

Maggie Payne Jim Turenne

Lowest and Youngest Terrace : Soil Pit #4

On-Site Soils Investigation. Buttermilk Way Storm water Treatment Project Buzzards Bay. MA. February 28 th, 2012

CONCEPTS Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System

Parent Materials. & some of Seattle s soils

Why Geomorphology for Fish Passage

Overview of fluvial and geotechnical processes for TMDL assessment

Erosion and Sedimentation Basics

GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND MATERIALS SGM210

What Is Water Erosion? Aren t they the same thing? What Is Sediment? What Is Sedimentation? How can Sediment Yields be Minimized?

Coarse Sediment Traps

Surface Water and Stream Development

Soil Surveys. What are the most important properties to consider in a taxonomic system used for making a soil survey?

Circle the correct (best) terms inside the brackets:

APPENDIX E. GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MONTORING REPORT Prepared by Steve Vrooman, Keystone Restoration Ecology September 2013

Geomorphic Importance of Winter Peak Flows and Annual Snowmelt Hydrographs in a Sierra Nevada Boulder-Bedrock River

Jim Turenne. Soils on Social Media

4. Soils and soil conditions

Erosion Surface Water. moving, transporting, and depositing sediment.

Track design and management


Rock Sizing for Waterway & Gully Chutes

Gully Erosion Part 1 GULLY EROSION AND ITS CAUSES. Introduction. The mechanics of gully erosion

Landslides & Debris Flows

In Situ Soil Pipeflow Experiments on Contrasting Streambank Soils

SOIL PROFILE STUDY GUIDE

Statement of Impact and Objectives. Watershed Impacts. Watershed. Floodplain. Tumblin Creek Floodplain:

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

IMAGING A SOIL FRAGIPAN USING A HIGH-FREQUENCY MASW METHOD. Abstract

Weathering, Soil, and Mass Movements

Watershed concepts for community environmental planning

Chapter 6 Geoarchaeological Investigation of New Philadelphia: Soil Core Testing of Thermal Infrared Anomalies 1

Flood and Stream Restoration

What is weathering and how does it change Earth s surface? Answer the question using

Development and testing of improved physically based streambank erosion and sediment routing routines in SWAT

Topic 6: Weathering, Erosion and Erosional-Deposition Systems (workbook p ) Workbook Chapter 4, 5 WEATHERING

Appendix I SOIL RATING CHART. (Storie soil Index Rating = factor A* factor B* factor C* factor X) FACTOR A- Rating on character of Physical Profile

Rock & Aggregate Drop Inlet Protection

Storm Sewer Design [2]

TEXTURE ANALYSIS. Unknown 1 Unknown 2. Unknown 3 6O 6O O Z 14X 10Z X X 8Z

Conservation Planning evaluate land management alternatives to reduce soil erosion to acceptable levels. Resource Inventories estimate current and

Black Gore Creek 2013 Sediment Source Monitoring and TMDL Sediment Budget

Measurement of effective stress shear strength of rock

PREDICTING BACKGROUND AND RISK-BASED SEDIMENTATION FOR FOREST WATERSHED TMDLS

1/6/ th Grade Earth s Surface. Chapter 3: Erosion and Deposition. Lesson 1 (Mass Movement)

Climate effects on landslides

Sediment Distribution and Characteristics

Do you think sediment transport is a concern?

Science EOG Review: Landforms

PR206 NARRATIVE Updated 16 June 2015

Each basin is surrounded & defined by a drainage divide (high point from which water flows away) Channel initiation

Diagnostic Geomorphic Methods for Understanding Future Behavior of Lake Superior Streams What Have We Learned in Two Decades?

Application of SWAT Model to Estimate the Runoff and Sediment Load from the Right Bank Valleys of Mosul Dam Reservoir

MAFF Ministry of IfiriLE Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Remote Sensing and GIS Applications for Hilly Watersheds SUBASHISA DUTTA DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IIT GUWAHATI

RIVERS, GROUNDWATER, AND GLACIERS

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Weathering, Erosion and Deposition

mountain rivers fixed channel boundaries (bedrock banks and bed) high transport capacity low storage input output

Starting at Rock Bottom

10YR 3/1 Weakly developed fine to coarse angular blocky peds

Roger Andy Gaines, Research Civil Engineer, PhD, P.E.

Chapter 10. Running Water aka Rivers. BFRB Pages

Sedimentation Rate Change in the Winooski River Delta

NATURE OF RIVERS B-1. Channel Function... ALLUVIAL FEATURES. ... to successfully carry sediment and water from the watershed. ...dissipate energy.

TPDES: Soil, Erosion and Sedimentation Methods

2017 NACTA Contest FAQs for 2-Year and 4-Year Universities

Exploring the role of channel processes and legacy sediment in nutrient and sediment delivery, Upper Pecatonica River, Wisconsin

SECTION G SEDIMENT BUDGET

Classify Rock (rock1)

Low Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1]

Open Channel Flow Part 2. Ch 10 Young, notes, handouts

Waterbury Dam Disturbance Mike Fitzgerald Devin Rowland

Technical Memorandum No Sediment Model

Effect of Runoff and Sediment from Hillslope on Gully Slope In the Hilly Loess Region, North China**

ENGINEERING HYDROLOGY

STUDY GUIDE FOR CONTENT MASTERY. Surface Water Movement

Chapter 2. Wearing Down Landforms: Rivers and Ice. Physical Weathering

Improved physically based approaches for Channel Erosion Modeling in SWAT. Balaji Narasimhan, P. M. Allen, J. G. Arnold, and R.

Clyde River Landslide

Effect of GIS data quality on small watershed stream flow and sediment simulations

DATA REPOSITORY FIGURES AND TABLES

Instream Sediment Control Systems

Using Weather and Climate Information for Landslide Prevention and Mitigation

EFFECTS OF RIPARIAN RETENTION (IN WATERSHEDS) ON ALLUVIAL FANS

INTRODUCTION TO STATIC ANALYSIS PDPI 2013

The Interaction Between Trees and the Landscape Through Debris Flows

Floodplain modeling. Ovidius University of Constanta (P4) Romania & Technological Educational Institute of Serres, Greece

Landslide FE Stability Analysis

STATEMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS REPORT FOR WELLINGTON, HEREFORD AND WORCESTER MINERALS LOCAL PLAN

SLOPE FAILURE SLOPES. Landslides, Mudflows, Earthflows, and other Mass Wasting Processes

Changes to Land 5.7B. landforms: features on the surface of Earth such as mountains, hills, dunes, oceans and rivers

Which map shows the stream drainage pattern that most likely formed on the surface of this volcano? A) B)

Think about the landforms where you live. How do you think they have changed over time? How do you think they will change in the future?

[1] Performance of the sediment trap depends on the type of outlet structure and the settling pond surface area.

Transcription:

Subsurface Erosion in Response to Land Management Changes and Soil Hydropedology G.V. Wilson, J. R. Rigby, S.M. Dabney USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory

Soil Pipeflow & Internal Erosion Impacts Rapid flow through soil pipes causes landslides and mud/debris flow (Uchida et al., 2001) when blockage of the soil pipe by eroded material causes internal water pressures to jump. Photo by Joe Gartner, USGS Foster et al., (2000, 2002) concluded that internal erosion of soil pipes by pipe flow was the leading cause of embankment failures. Internal erosion of soil pipes occurs undetected until a mature gully is suddenly formed by tunnel collapse (Swanson et al., 1989)

Pipes Form Over Restrictive Layers A common feature for pipe-erosion is the existence of water-restrictive layers, which Faulkner (2006) termed duplex soils, that focus flow through soil-pipes. Lateral Flow Lateral Flow Perched water Perched water Water-Restricting Horizon Water-Restricting Horizon Preferential flow can be so rapid that the shear forces exceed the soil strength binding particles and the pore erodes internally to form a soil-pipe. Pipeflow can be occurring even when no surface runoff. Internal erosion of soil pipes can be occurring undetected on the surface. If IE continues, the shear strength of the soil can be exceeded by the overburden forces and the pipe collapses producing an ephemeral gully at an advanced stage of development or sink holes/pipe openings.

Pipe Collapse Features

Field Site Description C1 C2 C3 GCEW The 2,132 ha Goodwin Creek Experimental Watershed is located in Panola County, MS. Agriculture (cotton) was historically practiced over the majority of the watershed, but is currently only in flat (slope < 2%) alluvial plains occupying only 6% of the area whereas the hilly forest and pasture lands occupy 39 and 55 %, respectively. MS

Soils of GCW Pasture Site Loring silt loam C1 C2 C3 Catchment 1 = 5.0 ha, 72% Loring, 28 % gullied Catchment 2 = 6.5 ha, 98% Loring, 2% gullied Catchment 3 = 1.4 ha, 55% Loring, 45% gullied (fine-silty, mixed, active thermic Oxyaquic Fragiudalf) A p 0 to 18 cm, SiL, 10YR 4/3, moderate fine granular B t1 18 to 36 cm, SiL, 7.5YR 4/4, medium subangular blocky B t2 36 cm to 71 cm, SiL, 7.5YR 4/4, medium subangular blocky B tx1 71 cm to 81 cm, SiL, 7.5 YR 4/4, prisms to medium subangular blocky, iron accumulations (10YR 5/6) and depletions (10YR 6/2) B tx2 81 to 102 cm, SiL, 7.5 YR 4/4, prisms to medium subangular blocky, iron depletions (10YR 5/1) and accumulations (10YR 5/4) B tx3 102 to 127 cm, SiL, coarse prisms, iron depletions (10YR 5/1) and accumulations (10YR 5/4)

Pipe Collapses in GCW Pasture Site C1 C2 C3 Catchment 1 (purple) has no pipe collapse features, density=0 Catchment 2 (green) has 100 pipe collapse features, density=15.4 ha -1 Catchment 3 (orange) has 40 pipe collapse features, density=29.4 ha -1 WHY?

Pipe Collapses in GCW Pasture Site C2 Total Depth Length Width Volume Feature number cm cm cm m 3 Flute hole 56 29.2 25.2 20.4 0.14 Sink Hole 19 14.8 71.5 62.4 0.06 Small GW 19 33.6 85.1 40.6 2.30 Large GW 6 60.6 3352 163.7 198.91

Pipe Collapses in GCW Pasture Site C3 Total Depth Length Width Volume Feature number cm cm cm m 3 Flute hole 14 55.5 38.4 31.6 0.10 Sink Hole 12 13.7 77.9 72.5 0.04 Small GW 5 44.0 172.4 70.2 2.66 Large GW 9 58.3 601.8 110.7 45.60

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site Soil cores have water retention determined using Tempe Cell apparatus, and K sat by constant head method. Then Pinhole test. Classify Soil according Pinhole to test: flow rate, effluent Pinhole color, (2mm and final diam) hole through size as: center Dispersive Constant Moderately heads (50, Dispersive 180, 380, 1020 mm) Measure flow Slightly rate, sed. Dispersive conc, effluent color Nondispersive (Non Erodible) 1 min intervals for 5 minutes at each head

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site C1 Swale/thalweg positions Anthropic soil A p 0 to 5 cm, SiL, 10YR 3/4, granular, 5YR 5/6 flakes L1 5 to 19 cm, SiL, 10YR 6/6, weak subangular blocky, 10YR4/4 fragic pieces, L2 19 to 40 cm, SiL, 10YR 5/6, weak subangular blocky, occasional fragic pieces and gravel L3 40- cm, SiL, 10YR 4/3, weak subangular blocky, mottles, concretions, occasional gravel C1 Catchment Severely Eroded Hillslopes positions Natural Loring silt loam A p 0 to 4 cm, SiL, 10YR4/4, granular B t1 3 to 18 cm, SiL, 10YR4/6, weak subangular blocky B t2 24 to 32 cm, SiL, 10YR5/6, subangular blocky, mottles B tx1 25 to 38 cm, SiL, 7.5 YR 5/6, subangular blocky, weak iron depletions (10YR 6/2) B tx2 28 to 41 cm, SiL, 10YR 4/4, prismatic, iron depletions (10YR6/2) B tx3 41 to 48, SiL, 10YR4/4, prismatic, strong iron depletions (10YR7/1) Hillslopes have severely eroded Loring soil with upper layers missing Swale positions have Anthropic soil: sediment deposition

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site C2 Swale/thalweg positions Anthropic soil A p 0 to 14 cm, SiL, 10YR 5/2, granular L1 14 to 33 cm, Si, 10YR 6/2, blocky, charcoal L2 33 to 46 cm, SiL, 10YR 5/4, 5YR5/6 flakes, subangular blocky, charcoal L3 46 to 65 cm, SiL, 10YR 5/6, 5YR5/6 flakes, subangular blocky, charcoal, concretions L4 65 to 88 cm, SiL, 10YR 5/6, 10YR4/4 fragic pieces, massive, charcoal, concretions C2 Catchment Hillslopes positions Natural Loring silt loam A p 0 to 11 cm, Si, 10YR 4/4, granular B t1 11 to 30 cm, Si, 7.5YR 4/6, subangular blocky B t2 30 to 48 cm, SiL, 7.5YR 5/8, subangular blocky B tx1 48 to 62 cm, SiL, 7.5 YR 4/6, subangular blocky, iron depletions (10YR 6/2) B tx2 62 to 74 cm, SiL, 7.5 YR 4/6, prismatic, iron depletions (10YR 7/1) B tx3 74 -, SiL, prismatic, iron depletions (10YR 7/2) Hillslopes have eroded Loring soil Swale positions have Anthropic soil: charcoal, artifiacts,

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site All layers present, A p severely eroded C3 C3 Catchment All positions Natural Loring silt loam A p 0 to 5 cm, Si, 10YR4/4, granular B t1 5 to 27 cm, SiL, 10YR5/6, subangular blocky B t2 27 to 45 cm, SiL, 10YR5/4, weak subangular blocky, concretions, mottles B tx1 45 to 61 cm, SiL, 10YR4/4, subangular blocky, weak iron depletions (10YR 5/2), concretions B tx2 61 to 81 cm, Si, 10YR4/4, prismatic, iron depletions (10YR 5/2) B tx3 81-, Si, 10YR4/4, prismatic, strong iron depletions (10YR 7/1)

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site Horizon Bulk Density mg m -3 SV kpa SPR kpa Pinhole Erodibility Natural Soil A p 1.25 170 1342 Non Erodible B t1 1.36 113 1512 Non/Slightly Dispersive B t2 1.33 125 1782 Slightly Dispersive B tx1 1.34 150 2724 Slight/Mod. Dispersive B tx2 1.37 158 2334 Slight/Mod. Dispersive B tx3 1.36 180 3022 Slightly Dispersive Anthropic Soil A p 1.35 161 1972 Non Erodible 1 1.57 97 1729 Slightly Dispersive 2 1.40 83 1553 Moderately Dispersive 3 1.42 85 1230 Moderately Dispersive 4 1.40 99 Moderately Dispersive Surface layer is non erodible due to high OM and root density Subsurface layers more erosive, especially the Anthropic soils Surface layer forms a bridge over soil pipes formed below Lower fragipan layer is erosion resistant and forms lower boundary

Soil Characterization of GCW Pasture Site 104 102 Elevation (m) 100 98 96 94 92-25 -20-15 -10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance (m) 104 Elevation (m) 104 102 100 98 96 94 92-25 -20-15 -10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance (m) Elevation (m) 102 100 98 96 94 92-25 -20-15 -10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance (m) Anthropic material

Past Land Use of GCW Pasture Site C1 in pasture, C2 in forest, C3 still in cotton with terraces C1 was pure gullies and raw banks late 1950s trees removed from C2, piled up and burnt C1 was smoothed and in C2 the burnt trees pushed into gullies and the gullies were filled in Trees removed from C3 swale All three catchments converted to pasture

Past Land Use of GCW Pasture Site 1977 no pipe collapse features 1978 Pipe collapse features first appear in C3 1992 Pipe collapse features first appear in C2 2013 over 100 pipe collapse features

Soil Pipe Erosion Processes Vertical Macropores: Increased from 12 to 40 ha -1 with depth Lateral Macropores on gully sidewalls: 30 ha -1 (0.1 to 0.5 cm diameter) Mostly between 55-65 depth Pinhole goes from 2 mm to >10 mm in 20 minutes with 5 to 100 cm heads

Soil Pipe Erosion Processes 70 60 P19 14.0 12.0 10.0 P23 Pressure (cm) 50 40 30 20 10 0 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 time 35.0 P8 30.0 25.0 Pressure (cm) Pressure (cm) 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 60.0 P13 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 time 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 Pressure (cm) 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 80.0 P2 time 70.0 0.0 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 time Pressure (cm) 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Heads of 5-100 cm that last for hours to days 20.0 10.0 0.0 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 Time

Soil Pipe Erosion Processes Pinhole goes from 2 mm to >10 mm in 20 minutes of 5 to 100 cm heads Comparable heads and flow rates that last for hours during numerous storm events annually.

Summary Erosion can take place in subsurface without evidence of erosion on surface Fragipan layers can restrict vertical water movement and foster lateral flow The surface layer is non-erodible and forms a bridge over more erosive subsurface layers Lower fragipan layer is erosion resistant and forms bottom of gullies Sediment deposited in old filled-in gullies are highly susceptible to piping Susceptibility to piping is dependent upon land use history as well as soil properties 20 to 40 year transition period following conversion of forest/cropland to pasture, combined with filling-in gullies, for pipe erosion to be evident on surface