Soil loss tolerance limits for planning of soil conservation measures in Shivalik-Himalayan region of India

被引:23
作者
Bhattacharyya, P. [1 ]
Bhatt, V. K. [1 ]
Mandal, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] CSWCRTI, Res Ctr, Chandigarh, India
关键词
India; quantitative assessment; planning conservation measure; Shivalik-Himalayan region; soil loss tolerance limit;
D O I
10.1016/j.catena.2007.10.001
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
Soil loss tolerance limit is defined as the threshold upper limit of soil erosion that can be allowed without degrading long term productivity of specific soils. In India a default soil loss tolerance limit (SLTL) of 11.2 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) is followed for planning soil conservation activities. The objective of this investigation is to provide a methodology to estimate quantitative SLTL for the Shivalik-Himalayan region in India for suggesting suitable soil conservation measures. A quantitative model was used to integrate potential soil indicators such as infiltration rate, bulk density, water stable aggregate, organic carbon and fertility status to assess soil quality governing soil resistibility to erosion. Scaling functions were used to convert soil parameters to unit less 0 to I scale. Normalized values of soil parameters were then multiplied by assigned weights based on relative importance and sensitivity analysis of each indicator. Soils were grouped into 1, 2 and 3 depending on overall additive score. A general guideline developed by the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was followed with certain modifications in depth category for estimation of SLTLs. Soil loss tolerance limits varied from 2.5 to 12.5 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) compared to single value of 11.2 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) being followed earlier. Consideration of the newly estimated SLTLs would facilitate site specific conservation planning and prioritising areas for watershed management activities in India. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:117 / 124
页数:8
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California [J].
Andrews, SS ;
Karlen, DL ;
Mitchell, JP .
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2002, 90 (01) :25-45
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1985, LAND EVALUATION 1
[3]  
Arshad MA, 1996, SSSA SPECIAL PUBLICA, V49, P123, DOI DOI 10.2136/SSSASPECPUB49.C7
[4]  
ARYA SL, 2001, REVISITING WATERSHED, P104
[5]  
Blake G. R., 1986, Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods, P377
[6]  
Bork H. R., 1997, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft, V83, P83
[7]  
BRAVER LD, 1972, SOIL PHYS, P498
[8]   FUZZY CLASSIFICATION METHODS FOR DETERMINING LAND SUITABILITY FROM SOIL-PROFILE OBSERVATIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY [J].
BURROUGH, PA ;
MACMILLAN, RA ;
VANDEURSEN, W .
JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE, 1992, 43 (02) :193-210
[9]  
CHAUDHRI RS, 2000, 50 YEARS RES SUSTAIN, P3
[10]  
COLE GW, 1985, T ASAE, V28, P1921, DOI 10.13031/2013.32542