Manual of Soil and Water Conservation Engineering

Schwab, G. O.; Frevert, Richard K.; Barnes, Kenneth K.

doi:10.1097/00010694-195303000-00015

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hydrogen ion concentrations (pH) were analyzed in 1/2.5 soil-pure water conditions with Beckman H5 pH meter (Gülçur 1974). Determinations of the soil permeability were made according to Darcy Law with using this formula 2 (Schwab 1966).…”

Section: Laboratory Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of measured and simulated soil-loss amounts in a semiarid area in Turkey

Hacisalihoglu

2009

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of this research was soil-loss determination and comparison of the plot measurement results with simulation model (universal soil loss equation (USLE)) results in different land use and slope classes. The research took place in three different land-use types (Scotch pine forest, pasture land, and agricultural land) and in two different slope classes (15-20%, 35-40%). Within six measurement stations (for each land-use type and slope class-one station), totally 18 measurement plots have been constituted, and soil-loss amount measurements have been investigated during the research period (3 years along). USLE simulation model is used in these measurement plots for calculation the soil-loss amounts. The results pointed out that measured (in plots) and simulated (with USLE) soil-loss amounts differ significantly in each land-use type and slope class.

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of measured and simulated soil-loss amounts in a semiarid area in Turkey

Hacisalihoglu

2009

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Heede (1970) perpetuated Ireland et al’s (1939) belief that the shape factor expresses the gully evolutionary ‘stage’, developing from one to another over time in the Davisian paradigm of landscape evolution. Ireland et al (1939) expressed the stages as: V‐shaped rill/gullies incising resistant clay B‐horizons if the soil after A‐horizon removal; incision breaking through the less‐resistant C horizon or weathered rock material creating a clear headcut, and developing a U‐shaped channel profile; re‐adjustment with development towards a graded profile and shaping of the walls by weathering and erosional processes; the slowing of energy inputs and colonization by plants towards what was understood to be stability. These stages of gully growth towards inactivity (stability) have been expressed by several authors around the world but without the reference to cross‐sectional shape per se and with and without the reference to cyclicity (e.g., Sobolev, 1948 – cited in Haigh, 1984; Tejwani et al, 1975; Schwab et al, 1981; Dagar, 2018).…”

Section: What Is a Gully?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What type of gully is that? The need for a classification of gullies

Thwaites

Brooks

Pietsch

et al. 2021

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite over a century of investigations into gullies and gully erosion, the characterization and categorization of gullies and the varied definitions, nomenclatures and terminology used has caused some confusion in understanding and communicating the relationships of gully forms and processes around the world. We firstly review the gully literature and highlight how a lack of consistency in gully definition and characterization prevents unifying theory from being developed within this important field of research, since it is often unclear whether different landscape features being discussed are comparable. We propose that conventionally employed qualitative planform and cross‐sectional characteristics of gullies alone are inadequate to define gully types, yet both these features remain central to most modern gully descriptions. We discuss the need to revise and augment these basic characteristics with clearly defined morphogenetic attributes such as landscape context, soil material characteristics, erosion processes, hydrological integrity, modes of development, and head/side‐wall morphology for an effective, practicable, generic gully classification scheme. Central to a gully classification scheme is the need for a clear definition of what a gully is – and is not – for which geomorphological criteria are proposed to differentiate a ‘gully’ from other ‘incisional land surface forms’. This gully definition hinges largely on the identification of a retreating head scarp and the internal erosion by mass‐movement and other sidewall slope erosion processes, coupled with the transport of the soil materials from the gully void. By defining a gully and synthesizing descriptions of gully ‘types’ from the literature and our own experience, we propose key morphogenetic attributes of gullies necessary to form a framework for a systematic gully classification scheme. An initial, eclectic classification framework is presented as both a summation and a synthesis of the literature review, and as a progenitor to a dynamic generic classification scheme that is proposed in a follow‐up article.

show abstract

“…The height of wave for fetch was calculated by Hawksley's formula (Schwab et al, 1981) h = 0.014 (Df) 0.5 Where, h = Height of wave in metres from F.S.L. to crest and Df = Fetch or exposure in metres…”

Section: Wave Heightmentioning

confidence: 99%