Determining the Most Important Indicators of Surface Crust Resistance and Their Effect on Wind Erosion Control in Dust Storm Sources in Khuzestan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph. D. student, Desert Studies Faculty, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

2 Associate professor, Desert Studies Faculty, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Rangeland research division, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Desert research division, Research Institute of Forests and rangelands, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
In most arid and semi-arid areas, the soils have a compact surface layer that is denser and less permeable than the underlying layers. These layers are referred to as surface coating when they are wet, and when they dry, they are referred to as surface crust. Surface crust can be divided into physical, chemical, and biological crusts depending on the nature of formation. Physical and biological soil crusts are the most significant types of soil crusts in arid and semi-arid regions. Two types of the physical crust are structural and depositional. Natural events, such as raindrops and the drying process, are the primary causes of the formation of surface crust. The process involves the creation of hard, thin layers on the surface of the soil. The thickness of the surface crusts is typically between 1 mm and 5 cm. Many researches have described different theoretical mechanisms for the formation of surface crusts in soil and reported their effective role in controlling wind erosion. The formation of crust in soil involves multiple stages, and the reaction of the soil surface to raindrop energy is divided into two main parts, as it was demonstrated. The first part involves the splashing of soil particles by raindrops' impact. A layer with a thickness of approximately 0. 1 mm is produced in this instance. The second component is composed of fine soil particles that penetrate the soil pores with water and cause the formation of a layer that is 2 mm thick. According to a study, soil loss control is not affected by the crust cover beyond 30%. There is a linear relationship between soil loss and surface crust coverage, as the surface crust cover develops gradually, soil loss differs between soil types.
 
Material and Methods
During field surveys of dust storm sources in Khuzestan, it was observed that there are surface crusts that are strong enough to act as a barrier against wind erosion in certain locations. The


 
suggestion was made to investigate the type and general characteristics of these surface crusts. The purpose of this study is to examine the general characteristics of these surface crusts and their effect on wind erosion control. The study was conducted by randomly obtaining 18 surface crust samples, each containing three sub-samples from a depth of 0 to 5 cm from the dust storm sources of Khuzestan province. After being air dried, they were then passed through a sieve of 2 mm. The factors of pH, EC, CaCo3, CEC, ESP, Ca, Mg, Po3-4 texture, initial moisture, and apparent density of the surface crusts were measured. The soil's sensitivity to crust formation was assessed by using soil stability index, Crusting Index, pressure resistance, and shear resistance. The stability of soil aggregates was assessed using the mean weight diameter and geometric mean diameter indices. Soil samples were collected and tested in a wind tunnel to examine the impact of these surface crusts on wind erosion control and the amount of soil loss and the speed of wind erosion were assessed. An orbital wind tunnel device was utilized for this purpose. Trays with soil were placed on the bottom of the tunnel in this manner. After the wind blew (speeds of 15, 10, 25 m/s) by measuring the difference in the weight of the tray before and after the wind blowing, the amount of erosion was calculated from a certain surface. Then, the threshold speed for wind erosion was determined. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 26 software. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify data normality. Then, the data sets were entered into a step-by-step regression as independent components to determine their relationship with the index of crust formation and stability of soil aggregates, as well as the effect of crusts and stability of soil aggregates on the amount of wind erosion. The accuracy of the regression models was verified by using RMSE, RSE, MAE, and R2 statistics. The morphology of the crusts was finally determined by using a scanning electron microscope.
 
Results and Discussion
The results showed that the lowest amount of RMSE, and RSE statistics, and the lowest absolute error for evaluating the sensitivity of soil to crust formation in the dust storm sources of East Ahvaz, Southeast Ahvaz and Omidieh, Mahshahr and Hendijan, respectively belong to the index of compressive strength, soil stability and shear resistance. The scanning electron microscope images taken of the crusts of three dust storm sources indicated that small foreign matter is present in the soil's pores. The features of the sedimentary crust are displayed in all the images. The external materials in the crust structure reflect the different washing processes in soil particles, which cause adhesion and connection between the soil particles and make the crusts resistant to wind erosion. Based on the given explanations, it is possible that the crusts found in Khuzestan's dust storm sources are usually sedimentary crusts. Results also showed that the wind erosion threshold speed in the dust storm sources of East Ahvaz, South East Ahvaz and the sources of Mahshahr, Omidiye and Hendijan are 1. 44, 1. 62 and 2. 1 time their powdered state, respectively. These sources experience a soil loss of 3. 55, 2. 09, and 3. 01 times the intact crusts, respectively.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Abbasi, H. R., Khaksarian, F., Kashi Zenuzi, L., Gohardost, A., & Yathrebi. B. (2018). Determining the sensitivity of soil to wind erosion in fine dust centers of Khuzestan, Research project by research Institute of forests and rangelands. [In Persian]
  2. Afzali, S. F., & Gholami Nobandegani, Z. (2018). The resistance of surface sediments and soil of Bakhtegan wetland to wind erosion and creation of fine dust under the influence of crust, 4th International Congress of Agricultural Development, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism of Iran, Tabriz. [In Persian]
  3. Argaman, E., Singer, A., & Tsoar, H. (2006). Erodibility of some crust forming soils sediments from the Southern Aral Sea Basin as determined in a wind tunnel. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31 (1), 47-63.   DOI: 1002/esp. 1230
  4. Armin, M., Rouhipour, H., Ahmadi, H., Salajegheh, A., Mahdian, M. H., & Ghorban Nia Kheybari, V. (2016). Relationship between aggregate stability and selected soil properties in Taleghan watershed. Range and Watershed Managment, 69 (2), 275-295. DOI: 22059/jrwm. 2016. 61683. [In Persian]
  5. Bell, F. G. (1996). Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Engineering Geology, 42 (4), 223-237. DOI: 1016/0013-7952 (96) 00028-2
  6. Belnap, J., Phillips, S. L., & Troxler. T. (2006). Soil lichen and moss cover and species richness can be highly dynamic: the effects of invasion by the annual exotic grass Bromus tectorum, precipitation, and temperature on biological soil crusts in SE Utah. Applied Soil Ecology, 32 (1), 63-76. DOI: 1016/j. apsoil. 2004. 12. 010
  7. Bronick, C. J., & Lal, R. (2005). Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma, 124 (1), 3-22. DOI: 1016/j. geoderma. 2004. 03. 005
  8. Canton, Y., Roman, J. R., Chamizo, S., Rodriguez-Caballero, E., & Moro, M. J. (2014), Dynamics of organic carbon losses by water erosion after biocrust removal, Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 62 (4), 258-268. DOI:  2478/johh-2014-0033
  9. Chen, Y., Tarchitzky, J., Brouwer, J., Morin, J., & Banin. A. (1980). Scanning electron microscope observations on soil crusts and their formation. Soil Science, 130 (1), 49-55. DOI: 2136/sssaj1984. 03615995004800050
  10. Chong-Feng, B. U., Gale, W. J., Qiang-Guo, C. A. I., & Shu-Fang, W. U. (2013). Process and mechanism for the development of physical crusts in three typical Chinese soils. Pedosphere, 23 (3), 321-332. DOI: 1016/S1002-0160 (13) 60023-5
  11. Dinarvand, M., Keneshloo, H., & Fayyaz. M. (2018). Vegetation of dust sources in Khuzestan Province. Iran Nature3 (3), 32-42. DOI: 10. 22092/irn. 2018. 116781. [In Persian]
  12. Dojani, S., Budel, B., Deutschewitz, K., & Weber, B. (2011). Rapid succession of biological soil crusts after experimental disturbance in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa, Applied Soil Ecology, 48, 263–269. DOI: 1016/j. apsoil. 2011. 04. 013
  13. Evans, D. D., & Buol, S. W. (1968). Micromorphological study of soil crusts. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 32 (1), 19-22. DOI: https://doi. org/10. 2136/sssaj1968. 03615995003200010005x
  14. Fang, H. Y., Cai, Q. G., Chen, H., & Li, Q. Y. (2007). Mechanism of formation of physical soil crust in desert soils treated with straw checkerboards. Soil and Tillage Research, 93 (1), 222-230. DOI: 1016/j. still. 2006. 04. 006
  15. Fukue, M., Nakamura, T., & Kato. Y. (1999). Cementation of soils due to calcium carbonate. Soils and Foundations, 39 (6), 55-64. DOI: 3208/sandf. 39. 6_55
  16. Gee, G. W., & Or, D. (2002). Particlesize analysis. In: Dane, J. H. & Topp, G. C., (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 4, physical methods. Madison: Soils Science Society of America. DOI: 2136/sssabookser5. 1. 2ed. c15
  17. Ghafari, H. (2021). The effect of physical crust development and disturbance on erodibility and dust emission in laboratory conditions. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 52 (4), 1059-1069. DOI: 22059/IJSWR. 2021. 316173. 668853 [In Persian]  
  18. Ghobadi, M. H., Babazadeh, R., & Abdilor, Y. (2014). Utilization of lime for stabilizing marly soils and investigating the effect of pH variations on shear strength parameters. Engineering Geology, 8 (1), 1939-1962.
  19. Hadas, A. & Frenkel, H. (1982). Infiltration as affected by long-term use of sodicsaline water for irrigation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 46 (3), 524–530. DOI: 2136/sssaj1982. 03615995004600030016x
  20. Huang, L. (2017). Spatial distribution of Agriophyllum squarrosum Moq. Chenopodiaceae in the straw checkerboards at a revegetated land of the Tengger Desert, northern China. Arid Land, 9, 176–187. DOI: 1007/s40333-017-0010-x
  21. Irankhah Poshtmokhi, H., Asadi, H., Shabanpour, A., Shahrestani, M., & Ghorbanzadeh. N. (2015). Relationship between the stability of soil Aggregates and some characteristics of soil and climate, the first international conference and the second national conference on agriculture, environment and food security, Jiroft, Iran. [In Persian]
  22. Ishizuka, M., Mikami, M., Leys, J., Yamada, Y., Heidenreich, S., Shao, Y., & McTainsh. G. H. (2008). Effects of soil moisture and dried raindroplet crust on saltation and dust emission. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 113 (D24212), 1-15. DOI: 1029/2008JD009955
  23. Katra, I. (2020). Soil erosion by wind and dust emission in semi-arid soils due to agricultural activities. Agronomy, 10 (1), 89. DOI:  3390/agronomy10010089
  24. Khalil Moghadam, B., Afyuni, M., Jalalian, A., Abbaspour, K., & Dehghani, A. A. (2011). Estimation of soil shear strength using transfer functions and soil spatial prediction functions. Water and soil, 25 (1), 187-195. DOI: 22067/JSW. V0I0. 8520. [In Persian].
  25. McLean, E. O. (1982). Soil pH and lime requirement. In: Page, A. L., (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, Chemical and microbiological properties, Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.
  26. Moncada, M. P., Gabriels, D., Lobo, D., De Beuf, K., Figueroa, R., & Cornelis, W. M. (2014). A comparison of methods to assess susceptibility to soil sealing. Geoderma, 226, 397-404. DOI: 1016/j. geoderma. 2014. 03. 014
  27. Munkholm, L. J., Schjonning, P., Debosz, K., Jensen, H. E., & Christensen, B. T. (2002). Aggregate strength and mechanical behaviour of a sandy loam soil under long‐term fertilization treatments. European Journal of Soil Science, 53 (1), 129-137. DOI: 1046/j. 1365-2389. 2002. 00424. x
  28. Mussa, S. A. B., Elferjani, H. S., Haroun, F. A., & Abdelnabi, F. F. (2009). Determination of available nitrate, phosphate and sulfate in soil samples. International Journal of PharmTech Research, 1 (3), 598-604. DOI: 23977/pnssi. 2022. 010101
  29. Neaman, A., & Singer, A. (2011). The effects of palygorskite on chemical and physicochemical properties of soils. In: Galan, E., & Singer, A. (Eds.), Developments in palygorskite-sepiolite research, Oxford, Elsevier.
  30. Neave, M. A. & Rayburg, S.) 2007 (. A field investigation into the effects of progressive rainfall–induced soil seal and crust development on runoff and erosion rates the impact of surface cover. Geomorphology, 87 (4), 378–390. DOI: 10. 1016/j. geomorph. 2006. 10. 007
  31. Nguetnkam, J. P., & Dultz, S. (2011). Soil degradation in Central North Cameroon Water-dispersible clay in relation to surface charge in Oxisol A and B horizons. Soil and Tillage Research, 113 (1), 38-47. DOI: 1016/j. still. 2011. 01. 006
  32. Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., & Keeney, D. R. (1982). Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, Chemical and microbiological properties, Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.
  33. Pi, H., Webb, N. P., Huggins, D. R., & Sharratt, B. (2021). Influence of physical crust cover on the wind erodibility of soils in the inland Pacific Northwest, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 46 (8), 1445-1457. DOI: 1002/esp. 5113
  34. Schinner, F., & Von Mersi, W. (1990). Xylanase-, CM-cellulase-and invertase activity in soil: an improved method. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 22 (4), 511-515. DOI: 1016/0038-0717 (90) 90187-5
  35. Scott, F., Reed, S. C. & Jayne, B. (2015). Climate change and physical disturbance cause similar community shifts in biological soil crusts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA.
  36. Singer, M. J., & Shainberg, I. (2004). Mineral soil surface crusts and wind and water erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 29 (9), 1065-1075. DOI: 1002/esp. 1102
  37. Souza‐Egipsy, V., Wierzchos, J., Sancho, C., Belmonte, A., & Ascaso, C. (2004). Role of biological soil crust cover in bioweathering and protection of sandstones in a semi‐arid landscape (Torrollones de Gabarda, Huesca, Spain). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 29 (13), 1651-1661. DOI: 1002/esp. 1118
  38. Spark, D. (1996). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods, Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.
  39. Sun, Z. Q., Kang, Y. H. & Jiang, S. F.) 2010 (. Effect of sprinkler and border irrigation on topsoil structure in winter wheat field. Pedosphere. 20, 419–426. DOI: 1016/S1002-0160 (10) 60031-8
  40. Tayel, M. Y., Abdel-Hady, M., & Eldardiry, E. I. (2010). Soil structure affected by some soil characteristics, American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environment Sciences, 7 (6), 705-712.
  41. Valentin, C., & Bresson, L. M. (1997). Soil crusting, In: Lal, R., Winfried, E., Blum, H., Valentin, C., & Stewart, B. A., (Eds.), Methods for assessment of soil degradation, Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  42. Walkley, A. J., & Black, I. A. (1934). Estimation of soil organic carbon by the chromic acid titration method, Soil Science, 37, 29-38.
  43. Zejun, T., Tingwu, L., Qingwen, Z., & Jun, Z. (2002). The sealing process and formation at soil surface under the impacts of raindrops and polyacrylamid, Twelfth International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Beijing, China.
  44. Zhou, X., Zhao, Y., Belnap, J., Zhang, B., Bu, C., & Zhang. Y. (2020). Practices of biological soil crust rehabilitation in China experiences and challenges. Restoration Ecology, 28, 45-55. DOI:  1111/rec. 13148
  45. Zhu, X., Liang, Y., Cao, L., Tian, Z., & Li, M. (2022). Pore characteristics of physical crust samples from two typical erodible soils in southern China. European Journal of Soil Science73 (2), e13234. DOI: 1111/ejss. 13234