Abstract

The morphology and stability of concave surface of the straw checkerboard barriers are the fundamental guiding principles of exploring the mechanism of erosion and deposition, evaluating effectiveness and life period, and optimizing the physical structures of the sand barriers. Especially, in alpine sandy land, characteristics of erosion (deposition) and capacity for anti-erosion and sand burial of straw checkerboard barriers are significantly different from the arid and semi-arid desert regions. Erosion (deposition) measurements and wind–sand observations for different specifications (1 m × 1 m, 1.5 m × 1.5 m and 2 m × 2 m) and slope positions (toe, middle and top of the windward areas) of wheat straw checkerboard barriers were adopted in the eastern shore of the Qinghai Lake study area. The different sizes of straw checkerboards at different windward areas have distinctly erosive and depositional stability and intensity. Including the checkerboards with 1.5 m × 1.5 m (medium) size at the middle and top, 1 m × 1 m (small) size at the top and 2 m × 2 m (large) size at the toe, all the erosion (deposition) coefficients are between 0.09 and 0.11, while their intensities of accumulation are relatively steady (70–90 kg m−2), which are the easiest to form stable concaves, and the heights of the barriers change least. Nevertheless, the concaves with small size at the toe are seriously buried, but eroded in the center of some checkerboards with large size at the top, which lead to a short protective period within 3 years and an unbalance between erosion and deposition. Moreover, the transects of erosion (deposition) dominated by southwesterly and northwesterly winds reflect the different intensities of erosion (deposition) at various orientations. On the transect of the NW–SE orientation, at the dune section, each square in the NW direction is strongly accumulated, and the center–SE azimuth is weakly eroded. Usually, deeper accumulation in the center of transects happen in those checkerboards with smaller size and lower terrain slope, which is mainly caused by an obviously positive correlation between the northwest and southwest wind velocity and the erosive depth, and the same is true with the wind frequency (all correlation coefficients are between 0.85 and 0.95). Taking the characteristics of erosion (deposition), sand protection benefits and costs of all types into account, large size at the toe and medium size at the middle of windward slope are the most practical combinations, while small size is suitable to play an emergency treatment role in some extremely serious hazard areas in alpine sandy land.

Highlights

  • The wheat straw checkerboard barrier is an innovative feature in China’s long history of anti-desertification

  • According to the factors of the manner and speed of sand burials, as well as local wind conditions, Xu et al (1982) estimated the protective life of straw checkerboard barriers to establish a linear relationship between the width of sand barriers and their effective years of use

  • The erosion coefficient of an area 1 m 9 1 m is less than 0.07, and the intensity of accumulation is greater than 100 kg m−2, leading to severe sand burial at the bottom and middle of a windward slope

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The wheat straw checkerboard barrier is an innovative feature in China’s long history of anti-desertification. It has been extensively studied and demonstrated to be a simple, Environ Earth Sci (2015) 74:573–584 feasible, and effective mechanical sand control measure (Wu 2009). Afterwards, in the arid and semi-arid desert region in northern China, the size, height, material porosity, protective width and other structural indicators of straw checkerboard barriers were verified using theoretical improvements in various areas. Enhancing the analysis of a fitting curve’s erosion (deposition) features may serve to illustrate the method of protection, thereby extending the service life and achieving the best protective effect of straw checkerboard barriers (Iversen and Rasmussen 1999; Dong et al 2007)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call