ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2006, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 879884. Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2006.

. Original Russian Text A.M. Rusanov, 2006, published in Pochvovedenie, 2006, No. 8, pp. 977982.

SOIL EROSION

The Integrated Assessment of Soil Erosion Resistance

A. M. Rusanov
Laboratory for Rational Use and Ecology of Soils in the Southern Urals, Orenburg State University, pr. Pobedy 13, Orenburg, 460352 Russia
Received March 15, 2004

AbstractThe use of models for quantitative assessment of permissible erosion level (soil loss tolerance) is considered. A method of score estimation of soil resistance to erosion is suggested that accounts for the water permeability, aggregate-size composition, and the humus status based on the classical grades of these properties. The results of approbation of this method for the loamy chernozems of the Southern Cis-Urals are given. DOI: 10.1134/S1064229306080114

INTRODUCTION For correct planning of erosion-control measures for soils and designing of erosion-resistant agricultural landscapes, the erosion hazard of the land should be revealed and adequately assessed. In this connection, the importance attached to the development of methods of erosion prediction is not accidental, the main purpose of which is focused on the description of soil erosion at a particular point on a slope during a certain period of time and the assessment of the intensity of this phenomenon. As is known, a long-term prediction of erosion is made by three groups of methods, i.e., expert and score estimations, as well as calculation of the mathematical dependences for quantitative assessment of erosion [16]. The experts (authors) subjectivism in assessing particular erosion criteria appears to be a drawback of the rst group of methods. Semiquantitative methods of comparative score estimation are based on vast experimental data, and, hence, they are more scientically grounded; however, these methods are still not devoid of subjectivism in the choice of scales for the values obtained for erosion assessment, since these scales are usually developed by the author himself. Currently, mathematical models of erosion prediction are becoming more and more widespread. The WischmeierSmith equation produced in the United States and published in its nal form in 1965 is most often used in many countries of the world. This equation resulted from the statistical processing of numerous observational data obtained from a runoff plot, and it is often referred to as a universal soil loss equation. Both this equation and other similar models [13, 18, 20, 32, 35, etc.] are based on rather complex (sometimes difcult for calculation) mathematical formulas and coefcients for a quantitative expression for the contribution of each factor to erosion development. After their addition or multiplication, we come up with the calculated value of mean annual soil loss from erosion.

Despite a number of drawbacks (sometimes fundamental), which were repeatedly a matter of serious disputes [3, 11, 16, 17, 32, etc.], these methods have undoubted advantages, and upon introducing improved zonal corrections to their mathematical equations, they may give a rather accurate idea about soil loss due to erosion. At the nal stage of the erosion hazard prediction, this calculated erosion value is compared to the permissible loss for the given soil type, and when this value exceeds it, the appropriate corrections are introduced to the slope agrolandscape use pattern up to its withdrawal from agricultural use [25]. Obviously, the permissible mean annual soil loss from erosion should not exceed the mean annual rate of soil formation. It is the comparison between the mathematically predicted erosion and the actual rate of soil formation that appears to be the main goal of any erosion model. However, it is difcult to compare the calculated and permissible data, which signicantly restricts the application of mathematical models to erosion prediction. This difculty consists in the following: the permissible erosion rate remains an issue for discussion, as modern science has sufcient available data neither on the soil formation rates for the main types of virgin soils nor on the inuence of subtypal, facial, regional, and landscape soil-formation specics on this process. We may judge just hypothetically the soil formation intensity in arable soils, including old-plow soils, as well as soils of different erosion degree, which differ noticeably from the natural soil biogeocenoses in adjacent slope landscapes in both biological and climatic factors of soil formation. There are no strict criteria on the soil loss tolerance even for regions with well-studied soil cover. For example, two scales for erosion intensity assessment (with grades ranging from weak to extreme) were developed for the Republic of Moldova in different years, with the quantitative values of each grade differing by a factor of ten [9, 11]. Here, the erosion intensity limit was not specied for Moldovan chernozems. The absence of a single opinion raises the role of a subjective factor in the esti-

879

880

RUSANOV

mation of the soil-formation rate and the soil loss tolerance. In turn, the comparison of the calculated erosion values obtained using strict mathematical methods (which provide a precision of potential soil loss up to grams per square meter) with the data on soil formation rate (which are predominantly subjective) decreases considerably the precision of soil erosion prediction. Meanwhile, the errors in calculations of this kind become manifested many years later, when they could hardly be corrected. In order to substantiate theoretically and express quantitatively the soil-formation rate on a particular territory, numerous facts should be analyzed and assessed, i.e., the type and intensity of exogenesis [22, 28], the evolution and self-development of soils from the standpoint of the polyclimax and polygenetic concept [14, 24, 27, 29], the soil ecology [1, 5], the soil-cover structure in the slope landscape [6, 31], the natural erosion rate [10], the inuence of anthropogenic impact on these natural phenomena [8, 15], etc. Even a brief review of this incomplete list of factors affecting the soil-formation intensity, which are bound by complex causeeffect relations, brings us to the following conclusion: both theoretical and practical calculation of soil-formation rate is not a less complicated problem than the calculation of the soil loss due to erosion. The present work was aimed at nding a method of determining the erosion hazard level for agricultural landscapes without using models providing quantitative estimates of the threshold erosion. The research tasks included the substantiation of this approach to the assessment of erosion hazard of lands in one of the regions of Russia, the development of a procedure and estimation scale that would permit researchers to reveal the potential soil resistance to the destructive force of running water, and the approbation of the method. OBJECTS AND METHODS The chernozems of different subtypes present in the Southern Cis-Urals were the main object of study. The forest-steppe and steppe zones in this region are noted for their intense erosion [12]. At the same time, there is no information on the soil formation rates for the chernozems covering this territory. Judging by indirect indices (e.g., the thickness of the upper genetic soil horizons), the soil-formation rate appears to be a dynamic value varying signicantly within the same watershed surface and the same slope landscape. The thickness of the A + AB horizon of ordinary heavy loamy chernozem on a slope of northern aspect under natural vegetation was found to change from the interuve to the lower part of the transit zone (i.e., the discharge zone) from 37 to 47 cm (that is, to increase by 27%), whereas, the thickness of the humus horizon in the southern clayey chernozem in virgin land on a similar slope was found out to rise from 36 to 43 cm in the same direction

(i.e., by 19%) [2, 26]. These changes result from the heterogeneity of different slope fragments under such soil-formation conditions as the projection coverage of the natural vegetation, the phytomass reserves, the hydrothermal indices of mesoclimate, the duration of the soil biological activity period, and the microbiological and fermentative activity. The slope aspect exerts a no less signicant effect on the soil prole thickness. The comparative study of the opposite (northern and southern) slopes of the same interuve with southern chernozems attested to an average of a 4-cm difference in the humus horizon thickness. In addition, the soils on the opposite slopes showed differences in the following basic genetic features: the content of carbonates, the structural status, the qualitative and quantitative humus properties, the soil solution pH, and water permeability [19, 30]. All of the aforementioned parameters support the necessity of conducting special research in order to reveal the soil formation rates typical of this region, which, in turn, will permit us to establish adequately the permissible erosion rate. The absence of such information gives us grounds to seek alternative methods of nding relationships between the soil properties and erosion factors. The method of complex (score) assessment of soil stability to erosion may be adopted as such a model. The stability of soils to erosion is taken to mean their ability to resist being washed away by water streams [10, p. 54]. In its essence, the term soil stability to erosion is opposite to another term, soil erodibility. The latter term is often used in erosion science and represents a combined characteristic of soil properties related to erosion. The factor of soil erodibility is used in mathematical models of erosion, including the universal WischmeierSmith equation, in which it is calculated according to the Wischmeier, Johnson, and Cross nomograph proceeding from the data on soil structure, water permeability, humus content, and particle-size distribution. These soil parameters manifest a close relationship to the erosion rate [37]. In this context, the complex characteristics of soil stability to erosion included the indices of qualitative composition of humus, soil structure, and water permeability out of the entire diversity of soil properties to one extent or another controlling the development of erosion [4, 21]. The specic feature of the selected set of soil properties directly inuencing erosion is that it encompasses not only the traditional quantitative indices but also the qualitative features, without which the idea of the potential resistance of chernozem to erosion would be incomplete. Just note that the soil structure depends on the degree of organic matter humication, and the water resistance of aggregates exerts a crucial effect on water permeability both upon rains in the fall (which are sometimes very intense in the Ural steppe zone) and, in particular, during the spring snowmelt (which lasts just several days in the Southern Urals in some years). In order to minimize the subjective factor in determining the role of each factor in the total score
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 39 No. 8 2006

THE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION RESISTANCE Table 1. The scale of soil resistance to erosion assessment Indices of resistance to erosion Estimate, score Humus status (according to Grishina, [7]) humus content humification degree % 5 4 3 2 1 >10.0 very high 6.010.0 high 4.06.0 medium 2.04.0 low <2.0 very low > 40 very high 3040 high 2030 medium 1020 slight <10 very slight > 80 excellent 6080 good 4060 satisfactory 2040 unsatisfactory < 20 poor > 70 excellent 5570 good 4055 satisfactory 2040 unsatisfactory < 20 poor > 500 excessively high 100500 the best 70100 good 3070 satisfactory < 30 unsatisfactory 2225 excellent 1821 good 1317 satisfactory Structural status (according to Dolgov and Bakhtin) dry sieving wet sieving

881

Integral estimation water permeability (ac- of soil resistance cording to Kachinskii), to erosion* rate, mm/h

812 unsatisfactory 57 poor

* The total score is above the line and the feature level is below the line.

according to the scale of soil resistance to erosion (Table 1), we used the universal grades and levels that were approved long ago and are widely used in traditional soil science, i.e., the humus properties (assessed according to Grishinas grades [7]), the structural state (according to Dolgov and Bakhtin), and water permeability (according to Kachinskii [34]). EXPERIMENTAL The resistance to erosion of virgin, arable, and eroded (to different degree) ordinary chernozems of the Southern Cis-Urals was estimated using the abovedescribed scale. The studies on the wash-off inuence on the soil resistance to erosion was performed on a slope of the Obshchii Syrt upland occupied along its entire length by perennial cropland and a pasture with well-preserved natural vegetation; the latter is conventionally taken to be a reference as virgin land, and its soil properties are used as a standard. A slightly convex slope consists of three geomorphological parts, i.e., eluvial, transitional, and accumulative positions. The eluvial position is formed by a watershed surface with the slope gradient being up to 1.0; the transitional part includes the top of the slope (2.0) and its middle part (3.03.5; locally, up to 4.5). The accumulative position (the footslope) has a gradient up to 1.5. The local erosion base level was equal to 72 m. The slope length was 1350 m. The soil-forming deposits were represented by eluvial Permian carbonate clay in the upper slope part and by deluvial Quaternary clay in the middle and foot parts. After the snowmelt, the moisture reserves in the soil layer of 0100 cm were equal to 254, 262, 269, and 285
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 39 No. 8 2006

mm at the interuve, the upper and middle slope parts, and at the footslope, respectively. During the summer droughts, the amount of moisture decreased substantially on the chernozem slopes to 129, 156, 148, and 185 mm at the interuve and the upper, middle, and lower parts of the slope, respectively. The natural vegetation on the slope changed from the top down from forbsheep fescuefeather grass and forbsheep fescue to sheep fescueforb and forb associations. The share of forbs gradually increased in the phytocenosis to become prevailing at the footslope. The phytomass reserves (both surface and subsurface) were equal to 22.5, 23.6, 24.6, and 24.8 t/ha at the interuve and the upper, middle, and lower parts of the slope, respectively. In accordance with the changing soil-formation conditions along the slope, the soil catena consisted of ordinary calcareous heavy loamy chernozem of medium thickness (A + AB = 42 cm) at the interuve and ordinary clayey chernozem of medium thickness at the remaining parts of slope. The humus horizon grew thicker downslope (from 44 cm in the upper part to 58 cm in the lower, i.e., accumulative, parts of the slope). The humus content in the soil layer of 020 cm was equal to 5.6% near the interuve; 6.2 and 6.6% in the moderately thick chernozems of the upper and middle parts of the slope, respectively; and 7.3% in the soil of the footslope. The degree of organic matter humication varied from 38.3 to 43.0%, with the minimum within the footslope, which is evidently related to the elevated moistening, which is typical of slopes of a shaded northern aspect and provides conditions for the development of mobile fulvic acids.

882

RUSANOV

Table 2. Assessment of resistance to erosion of virgin chernozems and chernozems eroded to different degrees in the Cis-Urals Indices of soil resistance to erosion Humus status Degree of soil erosion humus content humification degree % Virgin land Full-profile tillage Weakly eroded Moderately eroded Strongly eroded 6.6 4 5.9 4 5.4 3 4.7 3 3.1 2 43.0 5 40.3 5 38.0 4 31.1 4 36.3 4 81.6 5 66.6 4 62.4 4 47.7 3 51.2 3 67.1 4 63.8 4 55.0 4 42.8 3 37.4 2 191 4 134 4 142 4 88 3 56 2 22 excellent 20 good 19 good 16 satisfactory 13 satisfactory Structural status dry sieving dry sieving Assessment water of soil resistance permeability, to erosion* Rate, mm/h

* The total score is above the line and the feature level is below the line.

The structural analysis data attested to 73.3% of agriculturally valuable and 63.7% of water-stable aggregates in the virgin soils at the interuvial part of slope revealed by dry sieving. These values were equal to 76.6 and 60.3% in the soils of the upper slope position and 81.6 and 67.1% in chernozems of the middle slope part. Water permeability of the soils turned out to be the best and was equal to 152220 mm/hour. At the time of the investigation, the slope had been plowed for 50 years. Its soil cover consisted of noneroded chernozems and chernozems eroded to different degrees. The soils were noneroded at the interuvial parts of the slope. The humus content was equal to 4.9% there, with a relatively high humication rate (35.6%). The amount of agriculturally valuable aggregates was equal to 63.9%, including 60.8% of waterstable aggregates, and the water permeability reached 126 mm/hour. The areas of eroded chernozems of all three erosion degrees developed in the middle part of the slope. The bulk of them covered an area of 5002500 m2, with the trend to a lesser area with a higher degree of erosion. They were found to be conned either to the steepest slope fragments or to the rills. The slopes remained noneroded in the upper part of the slope and in the accumulative position. Each feature included in the combined index of soil resistance to erosion was assessed according to a ve-score scale (Table 2). The data obtained proved that the resistance of chernozems to erosion decreased both by the total score and by the general level of features with the intensication of erosion processes and the degree of soil wash-off.

This regularity was supported by the performed systematization and the subsequent analysis of numerous results of our studies and archival data on the inuence of erosion on the main soil properties, including the data on the humus status dynamics, water permeability, and structure. It was revealed that genetically similar soils on the same slope but of different degree of erosion (subjected, for example, to weak and moderate erosion) usually have a different degree of erodibility. More seldom, they fall within the same gradation, although their scores differ. Only in a few cases did soils of similar erosion degree fall into the same gradation level and differ just in the absolute property indices. These situations premise either repeating the soil analysis or revising the soil erosion degree, since the absence of a reliable difference between the properties of chernozems of different erosion degree causes doubts about the accuracy of their identication. The method of score rating of soil resistance to erosion, being rened and improved, has been used by the land surveying bodies of Orenburg oblast for many years for planning erosion-control measures and monitoring the agricultural and ecological as well as production conditions of the available land in the region. In recent years, this eld of activities became a subject of scientic research [2, 23, etc.]. In addition to the absence of reliable data on the soil-formation rate, there is another circumstance complicating the application of mathematical models for quantitative determination of the soil loss from erosion, above all, the WischmeierSmith equation, to the agricultural landscapes of the Southern Urals. This is the usage of the Wischemier, Johnson, and Cross nomoEURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 39 No. 8 2006

THE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION RESISTANCE

883

graph for erodibility calculation. It was derived from the results of a study of a fallow site with a slope gradient of 4.5 tilled along the slope. However, it has been proven that tillage should not be arranged on slopes steeper than 3 in order to avoid development of soil erosion even in the chernozemic zone with soils manifesting the highest natural resistance to erosion. Taking these restrictions into account, a system of measures to optimize the available land structure has been developed and is being introduced step by step in the Orenburg oblast. This system implies the withdrawal of agrolandscapes with slope gradients exceeding 3 from tillage with their subsequent transformation into other types of agricultural land (pastures, hayelds, perennial herb elds, forest belts, etc.). Therefore, the standard used in the nomograph compilation cannot serve as an object of comparison in the chernozemic zone of the Cis-Urals region. CONCLUSIONS At present, the application of mathematical models to estimate the soil loss tolerance is limited owing to a lack of reliable data on the soil-formation rate for most of the soils in Russia, which makes it necessary to introduce corrections to the existing methods of calculating soil loss from sheet erosion taking into the account the local natural, ecological, and economic conditions. In order to predict development of erosion, the method of score assessment of soil resistance to erosion was developed, which was adjusted to the regional specics of soil formation and agricultural land use. The method is based on qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the set of the most important genetic properties controlling development of erosion, i.e., the humus status, structure, and water permeability using the commonly adopted gradations of these features. On the basis of the generalization and statistical analysis of our results as well as other experiments performed earlier, the method was successfully approved for forest-steppe and steppe chernozems of the slope landscapes in the Southern Cis-Urals. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 04-04-49006. REFERENCES
1. V.M. Alifanov and L.A. Gugalinskaya, Soil Science and Ecology: Conceptual and Terminological Problems in Russian Soil Science, Pochvovedenie, No. 10, 12681272 (2004) [Eur. Soil Sci. 37 (10), 11221126 (2004)]. 2. D.S. Bulgakov, N.I. Prikhozhai, and A.M. Rusanov, Development of Erosion Resistance of Typical and Southern Chernozems in the Orenburg Cisural Region
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 39 No. 8 2006

3.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18. 19.

20.

and Its Dynamics under the Effect of Erosion, in Proceedings of the All-Russia Scientic and Practical Conference Geoecological Problems of Southern Urals, Orenburg, Russia, 2003 (Orenburg, 2003), pp. 7376 [in Russian]. S.Yu. Bulygin, M.A. Nearing, and A.B. Achasov, Parameters of Interrill Erodibility in the WEPP Model, Pochvovedenie, No. 11, 13971403 (2002) [Eur. Soil Sci. 35 (11), 12371242 (2002)]. A.M. Voznesenskii, Erosion Resistance of the Main Soil Types in the Transcaucasus, in Problems of the Erosion Resistance of Soils (Tbilisi, 1940), pp. 4569 [in Russian]. V.R. Volobuev, Soil Ecology (Akad. Nauk AzSSR, Baku, 1963) [in Russian]. Ya.M. Godelman, Soil Cover Heterogeneity and Land Use (Nauka, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian]. L.A. Grishina, Humus Formation and the Humus Status of Soils (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1984) [in Russian]. G.V. Dobrovolskii and E.D. Nikitin, Conservation of Soils as an Irreplaceable Component of the Biosphere (Nauka, Moscow, 2000) [in Russian]. M.N. Zaslavskii, Erosion Science (Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian]. M.N. Zaslavskii, Soil Erosion (Mysl, Moscow, 1979) [in Russian]. M.N. Zaslavskii, Erosion of Soils and Agriculture on Slopes (Kartya Moldovenyaske, Chisinau, 1966) [in Russian]. A S. Izvekov, Problems in Soil Erosion Control, in Soil Science: Aspects, Problems, and Solutions (Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva, Moscow, 2003), pp. 581608 [in Russian]. Instructions for the Calculation of Hydrological Parameters in the Design of Erosion-Control Measures in the European Soviet Union (Leningrad, 1979) [in Russian]. V.A. Kovda, Basic Theory of Soils (Nauka, Moscow, 1973) [in Russian]. E.N. Krasekha, Soil Degradation as an Inevitable Process of Their Anthropogenic Evolution, in Proceedings of the Scientic Session on Fundamental Soil Science (Moscow, 2004), pp. 7374 [in Russian]. M.S. Kuznetsov and G. P. Glazunov, Erosion and Conservation of Soils (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1996) [in Russian]. G.A. Larionov, Foreign Experience in Assessing the Potential Erosion Hazard, in Estimation and Mapping of Erodible and Deatable Lands (Moscow, 1973), pp. 3544 [in Russian]. Methodological Recommendations for Designing of Erosion-Control Measures (Kursk, 1985) [in Russian]. E.A. Milyakova, Effect of Slope Aspects on the Ecological Conditions of Soil Formation in Southern Chernozems of the Orenburg Cisural Region, in Proceedings of the IV Congress of the Dokuchaev Soil Science Society (Nauka-Tsentr, Novosibirsk, 2004), Vol. 2, p. 419 [in Russian]. Ts.E. Mirtskhulava, Engineering Methods for the Calculation and Prediction of Water Erosion (Moscow, 1970) [in Russian].

884

RUSANOV 30. P. S. Tregubov and A. M. Rusanov, Soil-Forming Conditions on Watersheds and Slopes of Obshchii Syrt Upland, in Eroded Soils and Efciency of Erosion-Control Measures (Moscow, 1987), pp. 119124 [in Russian]. 31. V.M. Fridland, Soil Cover Structure (Mysl, Moscow, 1972) [in Russian]. 32. G.I. Shvebs, Theoretical Principles of Erosion Science (Visha Shkola, Odessa, 1981). 33. G.I. Shvebs, Development of Water Erosion, Sediment Runoffs, and Their Assessment (Leningrad, 1974) [in Russian]. 34. E.V. Shein and L. O. Karpachevskii, Concise Dictionary on Soil Physics (GEOS, Moscow, 2003) [in Russian]. 35. J.M. Laften, W.J. Elliot, J.R. Simaton, et al., WEPP Soil Erodibility Experiments for Rangeland and Cropland Soils, Soil Water Conserv. 46 (1), 3944 (1991). 36. W.H. Wischmeier, C.B. Johnson, and B.V. Cross, A Soil Erodibility Nomograph for Farmland and Construction Sites, J. Soil Water Conserv. 26 (5), 189193 (1971). 37. W. H. Wischmeier and J.V. Mannering, Relation of Soil Properties to Its Erodibility, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 33 (1), 131137 (1969).

21. L.M. Nosirova and A.F. Putilin, Methods of Determining the Erosion Resistance of Soils, in Eroded Soils and Increasing Their Fertility (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1985), pp. 97108 [in Russian]. 22. B.B. Polynov, Selected Works (Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1956) [in Russian]. 23. N.I. Prikhozhai, Extended Abstract of Candidates Dissertation in Agriculture (Ufa, 2004). 24. A.A. Rode, Pedogenesis and Evolution of Soils (OGIZ, Moscow, 1947) [in Russian]. 25. A.M. Rusanov, Determination of Soil Erosion and the Development of Landscape-Based Erosion-Control Measures, Ekologiya, No. 1, 1217 (2003). 26. A.M. Rusanov, Outlook for the Conservation and Restoration of Properties and Ecological Functions of Agricultural Soils, Geogr. Prir. Resur., No. 2, 5865 (1989). 27. I.A. Sokolov, Pedogenesis and Time: the Polyclimax and Polygenetic Properties of Soils, Pochvovedenie, No. 2, 102111 (1984). 28. I.A. Sokolov, Theoretical Problems of Genetic Soil Science (Novosibirsk, 2004) [in Russian]. 29. V.O. Targulian, Development of Soils in Time, in Pedogenesis Problems (Nauka, Moscow, 1982), pp. 108113 [in Russian].

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE

Vol. 39

No. 8

2006

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.