the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Understanding the soil loss at the permanent gully headcut area in the Mollisols region of Northeast China
Abstract. The development of permanent gullies can trigger both gravitational mass-wasting on over-steepen slopes and water erosion on the channel bed. This hydrogeomorphic process is typically driven by the hydrology process of the headcut area and the hydro-mechanical response within the soil mass. In this study, erosion intensities were observed at the headcut area of two permanent gullies in the Mollisols region of Northeast China during the rainy and snow-melting seasons. To understand water storage capacity and leakage process, as well as the suction stress level during the rainy and snow-melting seasons, critical parameters such as soil moisture, temperatures, and precipitation amounts were investigated. This analysis also incorporated the effects of pore water pressure rising and dissipation properties, and hydro-mechanical properties of Mollisols. The Mollisols at the interrupted headcut area of gully No. II exhibited a higher ratio and proxy of pore water rising and dissipation than those at the uninterrupted headcut of gully No. I. Moreover, the combination of soil and water characteristic curve along with the hydraulic conductivity function (HCF) indicate that the Mollisols of gully No. II has relatively higher air-entry pressure and saturated hydraulic conductivity during wetting and drying cycles than those of gully No. I. The headcut area of gully No. II exhibited rapid water infiltration and leakage responses during rain events, with high capacity in the water storage during torrential rain, rainstorm, and snow-melting season. Overall, the absolute suction stress within the Mollisols of gully No. II was lower than that of gully No. I, which could lead to high erosion intensity on the over-steepen slope. Importantly, we provided new evidence that the area erosion intensity of gravitational mass-wasting on the over-steepen slope was closely related to the soil suction stress level. Additionally, we observed a correlation between the erosion intensity of the gully bead near the headcut and the soil water storage. The findings of this study significantly deepen our understanding of the physical process of permanent gully development in the Mollisols region. We provide important insights that the accuracy of the Universal Soil Loss Equation could be improved by accounting for the effects of soil water storage pattern and soil suction stress status.
- Preprint
(1868 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Álvaro Gómez-Gutiérrez, 11 Jun 2024
This study observed erosion processes and some soil-hydrological properties at the headcut areas of two permanent gullies in Northeast China's Mollisols region during rainy and snow-melting seasons. Key parameters like soil moisture, temperature, and precipitation were investigated to understand water storage capacity, leakage processes, and suction stress levels. Although only two headcuts were monitored, I think the results could be of interest for the scientific community, but I would only recommend the publication of the work if a series of changes and improvements are carried out. In my opinion, the authors wrongly include methodological content and interpretations in the results section. These contents should be rightly placed in the corresponding section. Additionally, I miss some methodological details that I consider relevant (UAV data, processing, etc. see my comments below). Finally, figures must be notably improved, particularly the font size, please see my comments below. I detail these suggestions in the following lines:
Abstract: I have doubts about the last sentence as the USLE was nos designed to predict gully erosion. I would recommend to delete this sentence.
Figure 1. Should be improved, China is floating in the white. In general, some items in the figures are difficult to read, for example legend items in Figure 1c, the location map bewteen 1b and 1c is impossible to see.
Fig. 2 Again some labels are very difficult to read, for example H in b.
L150 monitoring instead "observarion work"
Section 3.1 How many flights did you carry out? what was the monitoring period? dates, UAV type, resolution? I miss so many details here.
L213-219 This is methodology and should be placed there, for example in section 3.1
RESULTS: there are many interpretations of the results that, in my opinion, are discussions more than objective results, therefore, I suggest to move these sentences to the corresponding section adn use the results just for the objective introduction of observed data or processes.
L241- These instead this
L281 - Soil instead soi
L271- I think you used this acronym before
L315-139 - Again methodological issues in the results section.
L321- 0,15ºC per day? specify
Fig. 8- I cannot see some details in (a), also happens in Fig. 9 (b)
L356-Avoid citations in the results.
Fig. 10- the title of X-axis is not vissible
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 18 Jun 2024
Thanks for your comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Firstly, the physical process of gravitational soil erosion in permanent gully has been long neglected in the soil-water conservation research field, while it plays an important role in permanent gully expansion and development. In this work, we clearly addressed their differences and similarities with the landslides and used the theory of unsaturated soil mechanics to study their physical process.
As you suggested, we should clearly state some methodological content and interpretations in the method part, not in the results part. Meanwhile, some short paragraph in the results part should be moved into discussion part. We also found that the texts in some figures are not clear enough to read and some errors exists. Therefore, we made a thorough revision of this manuscript and the figures.
We made a point-to-point response to your comments
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 18 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jul 2024
The hydro-mechanical properties of soils were widely recognized as a major factor influencing some key sub-processes of gully erosion, but due to the difficulty of monitoring the infiltration during the gully development, especially in the field. Therefore, this study have important contribution to reveal the influences of different hydro-mechanical properties on gully erosion through a well design monitoring scheme on soil-related properties. But there are a few key questions need be explained more clear and precisely, which may strongly affect the results and conclusion of this study. I suggest major revision right now.
- The authors should give more details about the gully monitoring by the UAV, and the processes to calculate the variation of the gullies, and the accuracy of the monitoring methods. How you dealt with the effects of vegetation on morphological changes of gullies? I saw a lot of plants on your selected gully beds.
- The authors should clarify the concept of “gully beds” and “slopes” in this manuscript, which I suggest you to marked the location of “gully beds” and “slopes” on figure 1b and c. And to me, the location of “slope” is very difficult to be determined.
- The discussion part is quite weak right now. The author shold compared your results with previous studies, especially some studies related to gully piping erosion . Soil properties i.e bulk density, grain sizes and porosity have great influence on soil hydro-mechanical properties, and more easy to obtain the data. So I suggest the authors to analyze the relationship between these properties.
- The erosion of "slope" was correlated with suction stress is OK to me (Fig 10.c), but the "gully bed" normally considered to eroded surface runoff, and how to explain the influences by water storage need be more clear.
Some details:
Line 27: “gully bead”?
Line 49-50: “one of the most important factors in the development of permanent gullies, could be determined by the topographical threshold and volumetric retreat rate of gully headcut”, the development of gullies determined by three main processes: headcut retreat, deepen and widen.
Line 56-57 “most studies on permanent gullies have primarily concentrated on the gully headcut retreat and topographic threshold conditions”, this sentence did not summarized the previous studies well, I suggest that the authors emphasize the GHR processes through surface runoff processes as per previous studies (contrast with runoff infiltration), and delete the topographic threshold part, which is not directly related to this study.
Line 114: check the total area of mollisols regions, which normally over 1,000 000 km2.
Line 115: whether maize belong to grain or not?
Line 125-127: give some basic topographic parameters of these two gullies i.e length, widths, depths, area, volumes.
Line 134-135: “The study area has a cold temperate continental monsoon climate with variable annual precipitations ranging from 480 mm to 512 mm, and 600 mm on average”, confusion data.
The second paragraph of section 3.1: more details about the gully monitoring are required: control plates were only applied to check the accuracy of the UAV DSMs, or also as the ground control points to improve the accuracy of DSMs? Which software you used to produce the DSMs? What about the flight height and the overlaps of photos? How to reduce the influences of the vegetation in gullies.
Fig 2 need a figure to show the locations of the two gullies in the catchment.
Fig 4. "Areal erosion intensity" is very confusion, I guess your means the volumetric changes divided by the area of the locations. If so, just "Erosion per unit area" is better. Also in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC6-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Jianjun Li, 17 Jul 2024
This study explained the erosion intensity of gravitational mass-wasting at gully head by soil water storage and drainage, and the suction stress etc. Two permanent gullies were selected and studied in Northeast China's Mollisols region. It is interesting that understanding permanent gully expansion from both classical mechanics and the state of stress perspectives. However, I don’t think this paper could be published before major reversion. What I concerned is that
- method part: the erosion volume derived from the UAV images based on the DoD (difference of DEM). DoD, as a typical method in 2D, may lead to the large uncertainty on the slopes, especially on the over-steepen slopes. For example, Fig. 3 in Kang, H., Wang, W., Guo, M., Li, J., & Shi, Q. (2021). How does land use/cover influence gully head retreat rates? An in‐situ simulation experiment of rainfall and upstream inflow in the gullied loess region, China. Land Degradation & Development, 32(9), 2789-2804. In this case, DoD was suitable for Fig. 3a condition, but not for Fig. 3b. Both conditions are typically at the gully head. The solution includes but not limited: M3C2 (Gao, C., Li, P., Hu, J., Yan, L., Latifi, H., Yao, W., Hao, M., Gao, J., Dang, T., & Zhang, S. (2021). Development of gully erosion processes: A 3D investigation based on field scouring experiments and laser scanning. Remote Sensing of Environment, 265, 112683). Furthermore, we noticed there were many vegetation in the gully, which may also result in large uncertainties in volume calculation because vegetation obscures the ground information that reflect erosion truly. If a LiDAR UAV with your used in this study, its ok. Please clarify these part in the methods.
- Paper was not well organized. Method part was not completed, missing UAV, remote sensing data processing and erosion volume calculation, some figures. Many paragraphs in results part should in method or discussion part. Discussion part should be in serval sanctions corresponding to the results part.
- This paper mentioned rainy season and snow-melting season, and erosion intensity in different seasons was analyzed (Fig. 4). But this paper not analyzed how factors influencing erosion intensity in different season. In other words, whether soil properties, hydrology, soil water have variation between seasons? This issue is critical to the whole story.
There are some specific suggestions below:
- The place name in Fig. 1 Haerbin should be Harbin, right? And the xing’an range, is the same with L120 Khingan Mountains?
- L132-133 both number was I?
- L181-182 Formatting
- L216-219 should be method
- L223 bed area? Slope area?
- L234 disscussion?
- L285 method?
- L290-297 method?
- In Figure 10, the sample size is too small, so the R square is meaningless, and the significance p-value should be shown.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-CC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on CC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC4-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Álvaro Gómez-Gutiérrez, 11 Jun 2024
This study observed erosion processes and some soil-hydrological properties at the headcut areas of two permanent gullies in Northeast China's Mollisols region during rainy and snow-melting seasons. Key parameters like soil moisture, temperature, and precipitation were investigated to understand water storage capacity, leakage processes, and suction stress levels. Although only two headcuts were monitored, I think the results could be of interest for the scientific community, but I would only recommend the publication of the work if a series of changes and improvements are carried out. In my opinion, the authors wrongly include methodological content and interpretations in the results section. These contents should be rightly placed in the corresponding section. Additionally, I miss some methodological details that I consider relevant (UAV data, processing, etc. see my comments below). Finally, figures must be notably improved, particularly the font size, please see my comments below. I detail these suggestions in the following lines:
Abstract: I have doubts about the last sentence as the USLE was nos designed to predict gully erosion. I would recommend to delete this sentence.
Figure 1. Should be improved, China is floating in the white. In general, some items in the figures are difficult to read, for example legend items in Figure 1c, the location map bewteen 1b and 1c is impossible to see.
Fig. 2 Again some labels are very difficult to read, for example H in b.
L150 monitoring instead "observarion work"
Section 3.1 How many flights did you carry out? what was the monitoring period? dates, UAV type, resolution? I miss so many details here.
L213-219 This is methodology and should be placed there, for example in section 3.1
RESULTS: there are many interpretations of the results that, in my opinion, are discussions more than objective results, therefore, I suggest to move these sentences to the corresponding section adn use the results just for the objective introduction of observed data or processes.
L241- These instead this
L281 - Soil instead soi
L271- I think you used this acronym before
L315-139 - Again methodological issues in the results section.
L321- 0,15ºC per day? specify
Fig. 8- I cannot see some details in (a), also happens in Fig. 9 (b)
L356-Avoid citations in the results.
Fig. 10- the title of X-axis is not vissible
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 18 Jun 2024
Thanks for your comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Firstly, the physical process of gravitational soil erosion in permanent gully has been long neglected in the soil-water conservation research field, while it plays an important role in permanent gully expansion and development. In this work, we clearly addressed their differences and similarities with the landslides and used the theory of unsaturated soil mechanics to study their physical process.
As you suggested, we should clearly state some methodological content and interpretations in the method part, not in the results part. Meanwhile, some short paragraph in the results part should be moved into discussion part. We also found that the texts in some figures are not clear enough to read and some errors exists. Therefore, we made a thorough revision of this manuscript and the figures.
We made a point-to-point response to your comments
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 18 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jul 2024
The hydro-mechanical properties of soils were widely recognized as a major factor influencing some key sub-processes of gully erosion, but due to the difficulty of monitoring the infiltration during the gully development, especially in the field. Therefore, this study have important contribution to reveal the influences of different hydro-mechanical properties on gully erosion through a well design monitoring scheme on soil-related properties. But there are a few key questions need be explained more clear and precisely, which may strongly affect the results and conclusion of this study. I suggest major revision right now.
- The authors should give more details about the gully monitoring by the UAV, and the processes to calculate the variation of the gullies, and the accuracy of the monitoring methods. How you dealt with the effects of vegetation on morphological changes of gullies? I saw a lot of plants on your selected gully beds.
- The authors should clarify the concept of “gully beds” and “slopes” in this manuscript, which I suggest you to marked the location of “gully beds” and “slopes” on figure 1b and c. And to me, the location of “slope” is very difficult to be determined.
- The discussion part is quite weak right now. The author shold compared your results with previous studies, especially some studies related to gully piping erosion . Soil properties i.e bulk density, grain sizes and porosity have great influence on soil hydro-mechanical properties, and more easy to obtain the data. So I suggest the authors to analyze the relationship between these properties.
- The erosion of "slope" was correlated with suction stress is OK to me (Fig 10.c), but the "gully bed" normally considered to eroded surface runoff, and how to explain the influences by water storage need be more clear.
Some details:
Line 27: “gully bead”?
Line 49-50: “one of the most important factors in the development of permanent gullies, could be determined by the topographical threshold and volumetric retreat rate of gully headcut”, the development of gullies determined by three main processes: headcut retreat, deepen and widen.
Line 56-57 “most studies on permanent gullies have primarily concentrated on the gully headcut retreat and topographic threshold conditions”, this sentence did not summarized the previous studies well, I suggest that the authors emphasize the GHR processes through surface runoff processes as per previous studies (contrast with runoff infiltration), and delete the topographic threshold part, which is not directly related to this study.
Line 114: check the total area of mollisols regions, which normally over 1,000 000 km2.
Line 115: whether maize belong to grain or not?
Line 125-127: give some basic topographic parameters of these two gullies i.e length, widths, depths, area, volumes.
Line 134-135: “The study area has a cold temperate continental monsoon climate with variable annual precipitations ranging from 480 mm to 512 mm, and 600 mm on average”, confusion data.
The second paragraph of section 3.1: more details about the gully monitoring are required: control plates were only applied to check the accuracy of the UAV DSMs, or also as the ground control points to improve the accuracy of DSMs? Which software you used to produce the DSMs? What about the flight height and the overlaps of photos? How to reduce the influences of the vegetation in gullies.
Fig 2 need a figure to show the locations of the two gullies in the catchment.
Fig 4. "Areal erosion intensity" is very confusion, I guess your means the volumetric changes divided by the area of the locations. If so, just "Erosion per unit area" is better. Also in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC2', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC6-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-795', Jianjun Li, 17 Jul 2024
This study explained the erosion intensity of gravitational mass-wasting at gully head by soil water storage and drainage, and the suction stress etc. Two permanent gullies were selected and studied in Northeast China's Mollisols region. It is interesting that understanding permanent gully expansion from both classical mechanics and the state of stress perspectives. However, I don’t think this paper could be published before major reversion. What I concerned is that
- method part: the erosion volume derived from the UAV images based on the DoD (difference of DEM). DoD, as a typical method in 2D, may lead to the large uncertainty on the slopes, especially on the over-steepen slopes. For example, Fig. 3 in Kang, H., Wang, W., Guo, M., Li, J., & Shi, Q. (2021). How does land use/cover influence gully head retreat rates? An in‐situ simulation experiment of rainfall and upstream inflow in the gullied loess region, China. Land Degradation & Development, 32(9), 2789-2804. In this case, DoD was suitable for Fig. 3a condition, but not for Fig. 3b. Both conditions are typically at the gully head. The solution includes but not limited: M3C2 (Gao, C., Li, P., Hu, J., Yan, L., Latifi, H., Yao, W., Hao, M., Gao, J., Dang, T., & Zhang, S. (2021). Development of gully erosion processes: A 3D investigation based on field scouring experiments and laser scanning. Remote Sensing of Environment, 265, 112683). Furthermore, we noticed there were many vegetation in the gully, which may also result in large uncertainties in volume calculation because vegetation obscures the ground information that reflect erosion truly. If a LiDAR UAV with your used in this study, its ok. Please clarify these part in the methods.
- Paper was not well organized. Method part was not completed, missing UAV, remote sensing data processing and erosion volume calculation, some figures. Many paragraphs in results part should in method or discussion part. Discussion part should be in serval sanctions corresponding to the results part.
- This paper mentioned rainy season and snow-melting season, and erosion intensity in different seasons was analyzed (Fig. 4). But this paper not analyzed how factors influencing erosion intensity in different season. In other words, whether soil properties, hydrology, soil water have variation between seasons? This issue is critical to the whole story.
There are some specific suggestions below:
- The place name in Fig. 1 Haerbin should be Harbin, right? And the xing’an range, is the same with L120 Khingan Mountains?
- L132-133 both number was I?
- L181-182 Formatting
- L216-219 should be method
- L223 bed area? Slope area?
- L234 disscussion?
- L285 method?
- L290-297 method?
- In Figure 10, the sample size is too small, so the R square is meaningless, and the significance p-value should be shown.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-795-CC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on CC1', Ma Chao, 06 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-795/egusphere-2024-795-AC4-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
406 | 122 | 65 | 593 | 19 | 20 |
- HTML: 406
- PDF: 122
- XML: 65
- Total: 593
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1