Abstract
Soil loss and surface runoff patterns were studied in erosion plots developed on manmade steep slopes (60 percent) over three years (1997–2000) in which rainfall ranged from 1338.4 to 1429.2 mm/year. Surface runoff and soil loss was examined under three different rainfall intensity classes. Runoff was mainly controlled by the rainfall distribution pattern on the seasonal scale. The soil loss was influenced by runoff during the first year. Both soil loss and runoff were reduced due to bioengineering measures in the first year irrespective of species planted. In the third year, combined effects of growth of grasses on protected plots, soil compaction and sediment exhaustion was noticed on runoff and soil loss. This was reflected by reduction in the runoff and soil loss from untreated and treated plots. In the high intensity class, reduction in runoff in treated plots was about 50 percent in three years and reduction in soil loss ranged between 94–95 percent in all plots. Physical treatment with brushwood structures was more efficient in erosion control in the low intensity class.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aggrawal, D.K., Kumar, K., Satyal, G.S., Majhila, B.S. and Palni, L.M.S. (1997) Control of man induced erosion in hills: lowcost alternatives and their assessment-preliminary results. In Perspectives of the Mountain Risk Engineering in the Himalayan Region (D.K. Aggrawal, A.P. Krishna, V. Joshi, K. Kumar and L.M.S. Palni, eds.) pp. 189–98. Nainital, India: Gyanodaya Prakashan.
APHA (1989) Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition 1467 pp. Washington DC: American PublicHealth Association.
Boubakari, M. and Morgan, R.P.C. (1999) Contour grass strips for soil erosion control on steep lands: A laboratoryevaluation. J. Soil Use and Management 15(1), 21–6.
Dhruv Narayan, V.V., Ram Babu and Venkatrantnam, C. (1986) Soilerosion under different agro-climatic conditions in India. Indian J. Soil Conservation 14(2), 39–50.
Garcia-Ruiz, J.M., Lasanta, T., Ortigosa, L., Ruiz-Flano, P., Marti, C. and Gonjalez, C. (1995) Sediment yield under different land uses in the Spanish Pyrenees. Mountain Researchand Development 15(3), 229–40.
Grace III, J.M. (2000) Forest road sideslopes and soil conservation techniques. J.Soil and Water Conservation 85(1), 96–101.
Harden, C.P. (2001) Soil erosion and sustainable mountain development. MountainResearchand Development 21(1), 77–83.
Joshi, V., Negi, G.C.S. and Kumar, K. (1998) Surface runoff, soil loss and land use studiesin two micro catchment of the Western Himalaya, India. In Ecohydrology of Mountain Areas (S.R. Chalise, A. Herrmann, N.R. Khanal, H. Lang, L. Molnar and A.P. Pokhrel, eds.) pp. 467–72. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
Rai, R.N. and Singh, A. (1986) Effect of hill slope on runoff, soil loss, nutrient loss and rice yield. Indian J. Soil Conservation 14(2),1–6.
Rawat, J.S. and Rawat, M.S. (1994) Accelerated erosion and denudation in the Nanakosi watershed, Central Himalaya, India, Part I.Mountain Researchand Development 14(1), 25–38.
Scott, A.C. and Walter, M.F. (1993) Local knowledge and conventional soilscience approaches to erosional processes in the Shiwalik Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 13(1), 61–72.
Sharma, K.N. and Sharma, S.D. (2000) Rainfall and runoff modeling-A case study of Ib river basin. J. Soil and Water Conservation 44,72–6.
Shastry, G. and Kumar, P. (1999) Water responses to various conservation measures in Doon valley. J. Soil and WaterConservation 43, 135–40.
Valdiya, K.S. (1985) Accelerated erosion and landslide-prone zones in the central Himalayan region. InEnvironment Regeneration in Himalaya: Concepts and Strategies (J.S. Singh, ed.) pp. 12–38. Nainital, India: Gyanodaya Prakashan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kumar, K., Pant, D., Panda, Y. et al. Runoff and soil loss from steep slopes treated with low cost bioengineering measures. The Environmentalist 22, 133–141 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015325531620
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015325531620