Premium
Soil water dynamics under different forest vegetation cover: Implications for hillslope stability
Author(s) -
Hayati Elyas,
Abdi Ehsan,
Saravi Mohsen Mohseni,
Nieber John L.,
Majnounian Baris,
Chirico Giovanni B.,
Wilson Bruce,
Nazarirad Moharramali
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
earth surface processes and landforms
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.294
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1096-9837
pISSN - 0197-9337
DOI - 10.1002/esp.4376
Subject(s) - environmental science , deciduous , hydrology (agriculture) , interception , evapotranspiration , vegetation (pathology) , soil water , tree canopy , plant cover , canopy , water content , soil science , ecology , geology , biology , medicine , geotechnical engineering , pathology
Though it is well known that vegetation affects the water balance of soils through canopy interception and evapotranspiration, its hydrological contribution to soil hydrology and stability is yet to be fully quantified. To improve understanding of this hydrological process, soil water dynamics have been monitored at three adjacent hillslopes with different vegetation covers (deciduous tree cover, coniferous tree cover, and grass cover), for nine months from December 2014 to September 2015. The monitored soil moisture values were translated into soil matric suction (SMS) values to facilitate the analysis of hillslope stability. Our observations showed significant seasonal variations in SMS for each vegetation cover condition. However, a significant difference between different vegetation covers was only evident during the winter season where the mean SMS under coniferous tree cover (83.6 kPa) was significantly greater than that under grass cover (41 kPa). The hydrological reinforcing contribution due to matric suction was highest for the hillslope with coniferous tree cover, while the hillslope with deciduous tree cover was second and the hillslope with grass cover was third. The greatest contributions for all cover types were during the summer season. During the winter season, the wettest period of the monitoring study, the additional hydrological reinforcing contributions provided by the deciduous tree cover (1.5 to 6.5 kPa) or the grass cover (0.9 to 5.4 kPa) were insufficient to avoid potential slope failure conditions. However, the additional hydrological reinforcing contribution from the coniferous tree cover (5.8 to 10.4 kPa) was sufficient to provide potentially stable hillslope conditions during the winter season. Our study clearly suggests that during the winter season the hydrological effects from both deciduous tree and grass covers are insufficient to promote slope stability, while the hydrological reinforcing effects from the coniferous tree cover are sufficient even during the winter season. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.