Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published in Agron J 75:599-602 (1983)
© 1983 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gilley, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gilley, J. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gilley, J. E.

Relationship of Runoff and Soil Loss to Ground Cover of Native and Reclaimed Grazing Land1

L. Hoffman, R. E. Ries and J. E. Gilley2

Vegetation cover is a dominant factor in controlling runoff and water erosion from agricultural land and an important criterion for determining adequate reclamation of strip–mined land. A simulated rainfall study was conducted near Center, N.D. to determine the relationship of ground cover factors to runoff and soil loss. The point frame technique was used to estimate vegetation cover as measured by either the first contact (first hit) of the sliding pins with live vegetation, litter, or bare soil and rock or by a similar contact of the sliding pins at the soil surface (surface hit). Artificial rainfall was applied at the rate of 46 mm/h to 4.0 x 22.1 m runoff plots located on 9 to 12% slopes within reclaimed and unmined pastures. Reclaimed treatments were ungrazed or grazed at light, moderate, or heavy intensity plus vegetation and litter removed by burning. Native range treatments were ungrazed, closely grazed, and burned. Native ungrazed plots had greater live surface cover than ungrazed or lightly grazed reclaimed plots but similar soil loss, runoff, and soil loss/runoff ratio (SL/RO). Best fit techniques revealed some cover factors linearly related to soil loss, runoff, and SL/RO; others logarithmically related. Live surface cover estimates were poorly related to runoff and soil loss. Adequacy of soil protection can be best estimated by percentage of bare soil. Runoff or soil loss estimates were similar whether total cover was estimated by surface hits or first hits; however, surface hits were easier to determine in tall vegetation under windy conditions. The point frame technique is satisfactory for estimating whether the cover is adequate to maintain soil stability on reclaimed land or native range. Its use can be extended to estimate ground cover in other erosion studies.

Key Words: Bare soil • Grazing intensities • Sediment • Simulated rainfall • Soil loss/runoff ratio

1 Contribution from Northern Great Plains Research Center, USD–AARS. This research was supported in part by funds from the Environmental Protection Agency.

2 Research agronomist and range scientist, Northern Great Plains Research Center, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND 58554; and former Research Associate, North Dakota State Univ., located at Mandan, N.D., respectively.

Received for publication June 14, 1982.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1983 by the American Society of Agronomy.