No abstract

No abstract

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

Preliminary investigations suggest biological geotextiles could be an effective and inexpensive soil conservation method, with enormous global potential. However, limited quantitative data are available on the erosion-reducing effects of biological geotextiles. Therefore, the objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of biological geotextiles in reducing runoff and soil loss under controlled laboratory conditions and under field conditions reflecting continental, temperate and tropical environments. In laboratory experiments, interrill runoff, interrill erosion and concentrated flow erosion were simulated using various rainfall intensities, flow shear stresses and slope gradients. Field plot data on the effects of biological geotextiles on sheet and rill erosion were collected in several countries (UK, Hungary, Lithuania, South Africa, Brazil, China and Thailand) under natural rainfall. Overall, based on the field plot data, the tested biological geotextiles reduce runoff depth and soil loss rates on average by 46 per cent and 79 per cent, respectively, compared to the values for bare soil. For the field and laboratory data of all tested geotextiles combined, no significant difference in relative runoff depth between field measurements and interrill laboratory experiments is observed. However, relative soil loss rate for the concentrated flow laboratory experiments are significantly higher compared to the interrill laboratory experiments and the field plot measurements. Although this study points to some shortcomings of conducting laboratory experiments to represent true field conditions, it can be concluded that the range and the mean relative runoff depth and soil loss rate as observed with the field measurements is similar to those as observed with the interrill laboratory experiments.

No abstract