Transformation of the annual water budget of soils under shelterbelts

Lazarev, Mykola

doi:10.1134/s1064229306120064

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies that shelterbelts can greatly intercept runoff and sediment. Similar findings by Lazarev (2006) demonstrated that the shelterbelts decreased surface runoff by four to five times in dry steppes of the Northern Caucasus, the Volga region.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…As the most important and widespread agroforestry system, shelterbelts are also widely implemented to fight against soil erosion in America (Garrett, 2009), Canada (Kort, 1988), Russia (Chendev et al., 2015) and other countries (Nuberg & Mylius, 2002). However, during the past decades, most of the studies were focused on the impacts of shelterbelts on wind force and farmland microclimate (Rivest & Vezina, 2015; Torita & Satou, 2007), water and soil nutrients (Chendev et al., 2015; Lazarev, 2006; Nuberg & Mylius, 2002) and crop yield (Kort, 1988; Zheng, Zhu, & Xing, 2016). In contrast, the impact of shelterbelts on water erosion still has received less attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying farmland shelterbelt impacts on catchment soil erosion and sediment yield for the black soil region, northeastern China

Fang

2020

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As one part of the ‘Three Norths’ forest protection system, dense farmland shelterbelt networks in northeastern China could greatly modify water and sediment flows. In this paper, catchment soil erosion rate and sediment yield (SY) that are impacted by farmland shelterbelts were estimated using WaTEM/SEDEM model. The shelterbelts reduced catchment soil erosion and SY to some extent. The mean soil erosion rate and specific sediment yield (SSY; defined as the ratio of SY to catchment area; t km−2 yr−1) of the 25 reservoir catchments decreased from 351.6 and 93.9 t km−2 yr−1 under the supposed scenario without shelterbelts to 331.1 t km−2 yr−1 and 86.3% t km−2 yr−1 under the current situation with shelterbelts. The sediment trap efficiencies (STEs) varied from 0.01% to 23.6% with an average value of 7.6%. The STEs were significantly correlated with shelterbelt density, catchment perimeter, topographic factors, RUSLEP‐factor and land use patterns including patch density (PD), patch cohesion index (COHESION), Shannon's diversity index (SHDI) and aggregation index (AI). The multiple regression equation involving factors of catchment's topography and morphology and land use pattern has a satisfactory performance, and mean slope gradient (MSG) and AI explained most of the variability of shelterbelts’ STE. This information can help land managers to better design shelterbelts and to reduce water‐derived soil loss at catchment scale.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying farmland shelterbelt impacts on catchment soil erosion and sediment yield for the black soil region, northeastern China

Fang

2020

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A key measure undertaken to restore salinity threatened soils is the incorporation and reintroduction of trees into the landscape, lowering ground-waters and reducing salinity risk (George, Nulsen, Ferdowsian, & Raper, 1999) and potentially increasing precipitation (Lazarev, 2006). Unfortunately, rising salinity can lead to tree die-back (Jolly et al, 1993), potentially limiting the reversal of salinization.…”

Section: Salinity Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further benefits in infiltration and site water balance have been found in agroforestry systems, which boost the amount and distribution of macropores, enhancing vertical hydraulic conductivity (Udawatta, Gantzer, Anderson, & Garrett, ) and reducing surface evaporation (Nikitin, ). Importantly, trees can increase precipitation by 22% and reduce specific water uptake of crops by up to 20% (Lazarev, ), further benefitting water‐limited regions. Therefore, conserving and incorporating trees into the landscape are essential for climate management and restoration in water‐limited regions.…”

Section: Climate Restoration and Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing our options: Managing water‐limited soils for conservation and restoration

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Food and Agriculture Organization considers around a quarter of global land to be degraded. Of particular concern are threats to soils in water‐limited regions, which are critical to food and economic security in countries across the globe but are under increasing pressure due to human use and climatic forcing. These soils have been used to feed and provide resources and services to human societies for millennia, with earliest land‐uses dating back to prehistoric times. With the adoption of modern, frequently unsuitable agricultural practices combined with the population pressures and shifting consumption patterns, soils in water‐limited regions have come under threat, resulting in degradation and in worst‐case scenarios, desertification. Here, we review the current state of soils in water‐limited environments and provide a guide to management for conservation and restoration of these fragile soils. Options to manage specific threats to soil functionality, namely, erosion, soil salinity, loss of functionality due to landscape homogenization, degradation of soil organic matter, and climate vulnerability are presented for specific land‐uses using a whole‐system approach management framework.

show abstract

“…France, England [Baudry et al 2000]. They are also present in Central and Eastern Europe [Ryszkowski et al 2003, Lazarev 2006 as well as in North America [Brandle et al 2004] and on other continents [Onyewotu et al 2004, Tsitsilas et al 2006]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%