Assessment of grass root effects on soil piping in sandy soils using the pinhole test

Bernatek‐Jakiel, Anita; Vannoppen, Wouter; Poesen, Jean

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.027

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, as to any cracks in the soil, when they are filled with water, the pore water pressure increases, resulting in seepage and thus piping erosion (Bracken, 2006; Nieber and Sidle, 2010). The largest number of earthworms and their channels are in profile C1A with soil pipes in the whole profile, whereas in other profiles there are fewer animal burrows and they occur down to 35 cm (C1B) and 50 cm (C2). Root content – although generally roots increase cohesion due to the binding effect of the soil within the root network and by TS of the roots themselves (Morgan, 2005; Bernatek‐Jakiel et al ., 2017b), in highly vegetated areas it may happen that the interlocking root systems enhance pipe development by holding the topsoil in place, while subsurface soil material is removed (Löffler, 1974; Wilson et al ., 2015, 2016; Bernatek‐Jakiel et al ., 2017a). Moreover, roots may act as preferential flow paths (Leslie et al ., 2014), as has recently been proved by dendrogeomorphological analysis (Bernatek‐Jakiel and Wrońska‐Wałach, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment detachment in piping‐prone soils: Cohesion sources and potential weakening mechanisms

Bernatek‐Jakiel

Bruthans

Vojtíšek

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil piping is a widespread land degradation process that may lead to gully formation. However, the processes involved in sediment detachment from soil pipe walls have not been well studied, although their recognition is a crucial step to protect soils from piping erosion. This study aims to recognize the factors affecting cohesion and to identify the mechanisms which are likely to be responsible for the disintegration of soil. The study has been conducted in mid-altitude mountains under a temperate climate (the Bieszczady Mountains, the Carpathians, SE Poland). The research was based on the detailed field and laboratory analyses of morphology, and the physical and chemical properties of soil profiles with and without soil pipes. Moreover, experiments with flooding the undisturbed soil samples using different solutions (deionized water, ammonium oxalate, dithionate citrate, 35% hydrochloric acid and 30% hydrogen peroxide) were conducted in order to check the role of air slaking, the removal of soil organic carbon (SOC), and Fe and Al oxides on sediment detachment. The obtained results have confirmed that soil pipes develop in quite cohesive soils (silt loams), which allow the formation and maintenance of pipes with a diameter up to 30cm. Soil cohesion, and thus susceptibility to piping, are impacted by the content of major oxides, soil particle size distribution, biological activity and porosity. The tested soils affected by piping erosion have a lower content of Al 2 O 3 and Fe 2 O 3 , and free Fe (Fe (DCB)), lower clay content, higher biological activity (more roots and animal burrows), higher porosity, and more and larger pores than the profile without soil pipes. The experiments have indicated that especially SOC along with Fe and Al oxides are an important cohesion source in the study area. This suggests that the removal of SOC, and Fe and Al oxides may weaken and disintegrate aggregates in soil pipes. Further study of soil leaching and tensile strength will broaden understanding of which chemical processes control where pipes will develop in other cohesive piping-prone soils.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment detachment in piping‐prone soils: Cohesion sources and potential weakening mechanisms

Bernatek‐Jakiel

Bruthans

Vojtíšek

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are already some reports on pipe development connected with a steep hydraulic gradient in earth banks, for example, sunken lanes and field terraces (Poesen, ; Poesen et al, ; Romero‐Díaz et al, ). The increasing pipeflow with increasing hydraulic gradient is also confirmed by laboratory experiments using the pinhole test (Bernatek‐Jakiel, Vannoppen, & Poesen, ; Nadal‐Romero, Verachtert, Maes, & Poesen, ; Wilson, ). Furthermore, the rangelands cover the part of the study area characterized by steep slopes (Figure c).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

GIS‐based susceptibility assessment of the occurrence of gully headcuts and pipe collapses in a semi‐arid environment: Golestan Province, NE Iran

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the effect of two soil erosion features, in this study, gully headcuts (GHs) and pipe collapses (PCs), is investigated jointly, a new comprehensive concept related to their controlling factors can be found. The objective of this paper to evaluate susceptibility to these two features in the hilly region of the Golestan Province (NE Iran), which may be helpful in land management and the sustainable development of the region. The maps of the controlling factors of GHs and PCs were constructed and the random forest algorithm was used to prioritize the factors controlling the occurrence of these two soil erosion features. The GHs and PCs susceptibility maps were prepared using the random forest model in the R software and validated applying the receiver operating characteristic curves, fourfold plot, and Cohen's kappa index, whereas the susceptibility map of the two soil erosion features was prepared by overlapping these maps. The results of factor importance analysis have indicated that land use, slope, and silt content are the most important factors in the occurrence of PCs, whereas slope gradient, silt content, and distance to streams are the most important in GHs occurrence. This means that steep and uncultivated slopes in the study area are most susceptible to GHs and PCs. The susceptibility models of GHs and PCs have excellent accuracy, that is, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of GHs and PCs models were 0.960 and 0.935, respectively. The susceptibility map of GHs and PCs analysed jointly has shown that 66% of the area is not susceptible to any of these soil erosion features, whereas 15% is susceptible to both of them. The places susceptible to the two types of soil erosion features (GHs and PCs) indicate the areas where there is a high probability of GHs retreat due to the PCs. This study has confirmed that it is feasible to forecast the spatial behaviour of GHs and PCs occurrence and development. This is particularly preferred when the developed methods are applied for the susceptibility evaluation under various mitigation scenarios.

show abstract

“…Torri et al (2013) observed that even small amounts of roots are sufficient to improve soil resistance to rill and piping erosion. Also, the laboratory experiments have proved that grass roots may reduce piping erosion (Bernatek‐Jakiel, Vannoppen, et al, 2017). Some other authors have reported that adding fibres to the soil increases piping resistance (Babu & Vasudevan, 2008), as well as adding manure and amendments (e.g., crop residues) that minimize crack formation may prevent pipe development (Somasundaram et al, 2011).…”

Section: Soil Pipes (Tunnels) and Pipe Collapses And Their Relationsh...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can soil piping impact environment and society? Identifying new research gaps

Bernatek‐Jakiel

Nadal‐Romero

2022

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil piping is a widespread, although often overlooked land degradation process. So far, subsurface soil erosion studies have been focused on the importance of soil piping in hydrological and geomorphological processes, and factors controlling piping processes. Nowadays, the environmental changes being caused by the Anthropocene have clearly demonstrated that society depends on soil more than ever before, so the traditional studies of soil erosion processes need to be redefined. In that sense, geomorphologists face to overcome new piping-related problems. In this article we identify new possible areas of research: (i) soil pipes and pipe collapses (PCs) as natural hazards, (ii) role of soil piping in carbon cycle, (iii) soil pipes and PCs and their relationships with biodiversity, and (iv) piping-affected areas as geodiversity sites. Only better recognition of natural hazards driven by soil piping, such as land subsidence and degradation, landslides, flooding and off-site sediment effects may result in better prevention and control measures in piping-affected areas. Moreover, in the context of Global Change the role of soil piping in carbon cycle should be raised. Land-use and land-cover changes, as well as climate change may affect piping dynamics in different morphoclimatic regions and soil loss due to piping may lead to carbon loss. Soil pipes and PCs are closely interlinked with biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Piping erosion may directly and indirectly destroy

show abstract

Assessment of grass root effects on soil piping in sandy soils using the pinhole test

Cited by 19 publications

References 63 publications

Sediment detachment in piping‐prone soils: Cohesion sources and potential weakening mechanisms

Sediment detachment in piping‐prone soils: Cohesion sources and potential weakening mechanisms

GIS‐based susceptibility assessment of the occurrence of gully headcuts and pipe collapses in a semi‐arid environment: Golestan Province, NE Iran

Can soil piping impact environment and society? Identifying new research gaps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About