No. 22,p.++ +2 · * ** Janya SANG ARUN*** * E#ect of Grass Strips on Reduction of Sediment Loss...
Transcript of No. 22,p.++ +2 · * ** Janya SANG ARUN*** * E#ect of Grass Strips on Reduction of Sediment Loss...
���������� �����
����*�����**�Janya SANG�ARUN***��� ��*
E#ect of Grass Strips on Reduction of Sediment Loss from Upland Field
Takashi UENO*, Machito MIHARA**, Janya SANG�ARUN*** and Yukiko DOKIYA*
* Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, -�/�2 Saiwaiocho Fuchuoshi Tokyo, Japan
** Tokyo University of Agriculture, +�+�+ Sakuragaoka Setagayaoku Tokyo, Japan
*** Mae Fah Luang University, --- Moo. +. Tasud subodistrict, Muang district,
Chiang Rai, Thailand
Abstract
The e#ect of grass strips on the reduction of sediment and eutrophic salt loads is been widely
recognized. However, there is very little knowledge of the e#ect of grass strips on the reduction
of sediment and eutrophic salt losses. Attention was hence focused on the investigation of what
grass strips should be managed.
Soil suspension was supplied to the experimental plots under simulated rainfall. During the
experiment, surface discharge and sediment concentration were measured. In order to observe
the e#ect of grass strips on the reduction of sediment loss, the di#erence between the amounts of
sediment supplied and sediment loss was investigated in each plot.
While the sediment concentration and load from the bare upland field exceeded the concentra-
tion and load of the soil suspension supplied, the sediment concentration and load from all the
grass strips were lower than the concentration and load of the supplied soil suspension. The
di#erence between the sediment supplied and the sediment loss from the cutting weeds plot for
pest control was approximately equivalent to that of the plot with the natural weeds. Therefore,
it was concluded that cutting weeds for pest control can be applied to the grass strip for reduction
of the sediment loss. There was little di#erence between the reduction of the sediment loss from
the plot with 2** stems/m, and that from the plot with +,.2* stems/m, of Tall Fescue (F.
arundinacea). However the plot with ,,--* stems/m, of Tall Fescue was e#ective for the reduc-
tion of sediment loss comparing with 2** stems/m, and +,.2* stems/m,. It suggests that stem
density for grass strips should be maintain ,,--* stems/m, to control soil loss from upland field.
Key words : Grass strips, Sediment loss , Surface runo#, Upland
+� � � � �
����������������� ��!"#$%&'( )*+�,-���./01234'56789:;< =Pennisetum alopecuroides>( ?8<@=Vetiveria zizanioides> �ABCDEF�GHIJKL'"MJNO&'( EF�PQRSTCD�����
����JU56V%0WX34'56 =YZ( +33/(Dalton�( +330>7 [\&( ]�^5)*+_`+a_���bc`d%efgh_ij( )*+��k_���lmJ�6��n���0o�%34'567"p( "q]�)*+a_���Bbcr6stu!34'567 vFw 0* m�x�CDJ�5'( yzkJ +* m]�{|+B,-r6V%J�}~����
J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.
���/�No. 22, p. ++�+2 �,**+�
*������ �+2-�2/*3 ����� -�/�2( **������������k �+/0�2/*, ������ +�+�+(***����@�������k =���>�� : )*+( ��n( F�¡¢( x�
�
�� ,-�� ���������������� �.1� ��� 0� ������������ �Uusi�Kamppa and Ylaranta, +33,�� ���� -1m������� �� � ..- m�� 2./ m���!�"#�$%&���'� ()��*����� /*�+,�-.� ������/������0�-.��������% �Parsons1� +33.�� &�1�23�'� 45678��9:�"#�$%&�;� 9:�������<���=�>������%?�@�A�����1�&�1�23;�'BCDE���F�9:�������G�"�H���IJ�KE�� �Ghadiri1� ,***�� 9:�� ,* cm��� .* cm��LM9:��" ��NO9:� �1���� IJPQ�����9:����NO9:��,�!��<�"R�S1��0��� 9:��; �<�"R�T�UVFDW������%�#�W��%� 9:���� X�� !:��� Y$Z[� G�� ()PQ� 9:\�]^_%`�&�ab�'c�de$%�fH1�%�g� �1F%23�(����'� �<����)hF9:��i'*�j$%23 k�C��lD'��H%� ��� ��<�mno+����� �����pq���_%`,�rF1s,tr`,��u%���� ���-�����p.$%&��/1D�����' �vw� ,0� +333�� �<���xy�=�>��-����������0)h;B%&�0A����%�z{|1F23���� }~4���c!�5��67$%�g� }~4��"LM9:��.�8�.� �<���=�>����xy�)h9 $%���:;�%� .D.� }~4���67.�c! ;~<�=�">H%?�@��u%:A����B����FW�'� ��,�CD0:�%�g� !�'&�c!Y$�.l.lEF�F% �!G1� +33.�� .��W�� LMZH�9:��rF1s!�'&�Y$�KE��9:���%�<�����"I�%� �F;B%���� �<����)hF9:��!:���i'*�j.� ���F�ZH�B%� G���-�mnJ
�"KL�.��M!3;B'� NO�'���<mnP�&��� �1���%768���� �F. ar-
undinacea� &�QR�S�W� � TXO��u%/U34���� +*** stems/m,+������% �;��V����� +33*� �� ��.��<����)hF9:��!:������C�� ����W$%EF�B%�323; NO()PQ�;9:����<_%`"�R��%IJ"K�� X���@P�&"KL�.�9:Y$�9:���%�<��� ��>H%de"�W.�� XY�!:���¡F%768����9:�" ��� �������Z.�9:��!:��"�W.��
,� � � � �
323�IJ [¢;�.£\���NO()#]"]H�G�^¤¥J_" ��KW��¦§�+�¨©�' Plot �ª�;B%� Plot � *./m� � ,m� G�«� +0¬;B'� `b®ab¯c;°�.��-±�"²� *.,m;³�.�� ³��<��@ LiC�´d�� +..*�;BW� �-�+�� Plot � e�ZH"µ¶.� Plot ���� Plot � �<"³�· -¸¹º4�.�� c!"67���LM9: Plot�.�� ��� -¸¹º�4�·� Plot ��9:"�-�D1 +*
���+ NO()»��¥J_Photo. + Simulated rainfall system and experi-
mental plots.
��+ �<�<$@Table + Physical properties of soil
Specificgravity
Particle size distribution* (�)Dispersionratio (�)
Ignitionloss (�)
Soiltexture
Gravel Coarse sand Fine sand Silt Clay
,40* *4* 241 -*40 ,/40 -/4+ 14* +.4* LiC
* International methods.
�<�<$@ X 22¼ �,**+�12
cm�������� � Plot�� ����� Plot���������������� !"#�$%���& Plot�'(")�*+,-./0 1rd)� 23,%
4'5�63/0�7�,�8��� & Plot9,*+,-./0 *.2,�*.21 1g/cm-: ,;<9�=>�� &Plot�'?@ +** cm,AB9,63/0CD� +*EFGH?� 3/�,IJAK�'("LMN�63/0O�
��, PQR,23'5�STUVTable , Vegetation and management in plots
Plot Vegetation (scientific name) rd(g/cm-)
Density of stems (W+)(stems/m,)
Management
Plot I
Plot II
Plot III
Plot IV
Plot V
Plot VI
None
Weed (10� with Setaria viridis)
Weed (2-� with Setaria viridis)
Tall Fescue (F. arundinacea)
Tall Fescue (F. arundinacea)
Tall Fescue (F. arundinacea)
*42-
*421
*42-
*42,
*42.
*42-
X,5.2* 1,5//*:,5-2* 1,52.*:
2**
+5.2*
,5--*
Bare
Cutting
None
None
None
None
W+ : , weeks after the cutting weed of plot II.
��+ YZ[\]^_�'("`a7bcde#'5�cf*# 1gh23 Plot �����i:
Fig. + Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
(before the cutting weed in plot II).
��, YZ[\]^_�'("`a7bcde#'5�cf*# 1gh23 Plot �����jk:
Fig. , Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
(just after the cutting weed in plot II).
lm : 23n�o?�pq*+,c�rstu 13
�� ���� Plots �� ����� ������/������������� �� Plot � �� Plot
�� �!"#�$�%&'()*+, -Setaria
viridis. /0110�� 2-��23456��� Plots �������789:5;<=>� ��01,.2*
stems/m,� ,-2* stems/m,�%?�/� 789: ,@AB� ��� Plot ��� ,//* stems/m,�C�DEFGH�� Plot ��� ,2.* stems/m,�IJK�� L��� 789:��8 Plot �� M&���NO/�PQ�����RS�&�TUVWXYZ5[\K� Plots �� �� �����]�^� 2** stems/m,� +.2* stems/m,� ,--*
stems/m,�%?�� [\_� ��`��Q�&a�b�c�bd/ +*** stems/m,e��%&L�f��Plot �/[\_� M&�8ghi�j�k5llmn8� Plots �� �/j�k5on?��&L�/Sf
&�0 Plot� M&pq��4�5 ,.rAs���K�B� .2 mm/h�tuv�� -*4A�w_tuxy5;�� zg�{��� �|p�� }~����5��K��w_tu������5 + mS/cm�m���K��!����;?�� Q�������&pq����5��&��� .2 mm/h�w_tu��m�� tu�� +/
4��B�8tu���� +/4A� Plot�o�f�pq���5 *.*- dm-/s���QH�zg�{����|p�� }~����5��K�� pq����� Plot����pq�� ¡¢p�£�5J¤�¥4���K���¦�5x�K�B��� ��� §�K¨/����5©ªK���¦�5«��h?�� ��¦� �������m��� USLE`�¬y� M& +3310®�¯°r�±²³��´µ -Mihara� ,**+. �j¶
��- w_tu��m� M&�·zg�{�� ���|p� -���� Plot �789: ,
@AB.Fig. - Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall (,
weeks after the cutting weed in plot II).
��. w_tu��m��pq����©ª�¸<�·zg�{�� ���|p� -����Plot �789:=B.
Fig. . Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
with additional suspended water supply
(just after the cutting weed in plot II).
pq�¹�º » 22¼ -,**+.14
������ ���� ������� +1,0**�,+,-** g/m-���������
-� �����
+� �� !"#$%&'(�)�*+,- Plot �.�� ! Plots �� ��/012345#$%&67�89:��)':;<�+�-#=���,- Plot �#$%&��6=��)':��� !Plots �� �#>?�@�AB��;=��� CD�67�89:$EF�)':G Plot �H Plots �� �;IJAKL���M���� ! Plot �#$��� NOPQ ,RST���6=��)':�UVWS 3/��XY�H -/- g/m-��O� Plot ��XY� ,*0 g/m-
.�Z�,- Plot ��XY� /,.+ g/m-.>?&.[
.\]^�._`�J��Plot �#$%& !�NOPQaT$EF ,RST
#$��� /012345�'(� 9;����b��c#$%&67�89:� �)':;<�.� /#=��� ,- Plot �#$%&��6=��)':���� ! Plots �� �#>?�@�AB��;=�� ���'(� 9�� 9��;KL��� bd��Plot�Kefg���� 9��5#EO,-W�hiH!j��k.lmgd&� �f�� �� !Plots �� �#$���� '(� 9��5#n��)':����Kop&G��� ���� 9��;5L��� E��� !"#EO��� 9q�'(Hrsd�._`�J�� M�� CD��)':�� �� ! Plot ��NOPQaT$EF ,RST#$��� Plots �� �.G#,- Plot �;IJA5L���t�c345#$��� �� !"�NOPQ�uv#
��/ /012345��'(� 9�wx#nyCD67�89:$EF�)': z�� !Plot �NOPQ ,RST�
Fig. / Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
with additional suspended water supply
(, weeks after the cutting weed in plot
II).
��0 /012345#$%&CD67�89:$EF�)': z{|}~����
Fig. 0 Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
(Tall Fescue).
�� : !";����-'(�����*+ 15
���������� �������������� ����� +* cm����� ��� ���!"#$������ �%&�'��()*+,
,- .�/0�12�3456789���� :�;<�=>.�/0�12�3456789���� ��� ?@ABCD EFABGHI��JKL�;MCD!NO+ PQ�0� 1-,
Plots � P2** stems/m,-� � P+.2* stems/m,-� �P,--* stems/m,- �?@ABR� :�S0�T�;<UV� WXYZ 3/���[\�]^0,/ g/m-� 0.. g/
m-� +/- g/m-�'O+, �_L` /��V Plot ��Plot ���Z��_aVbc�d2�O+�� .�/0 ,--* stems/m,� Plot �� :�;<UV� Plot
� EF Plot ���Z��_L` /���_a�bc�d+, �����Ee� Plot �� :�S0�T�;<U�f� Plot!ghiIj������O+ PQ�0-, �+� ABGHI�JKL!;M�k+CD� ��V� JKL�;M�lO�ABmnEe +2
opqr�;<U�st*+, Plots �� �� :�S0�T�;<UV�_L` /���_a�bc�d2�O+��u*�� Plot ��V Plots �� ���_a�bc�d+, .�/0 2** stems/m,v,--* stems/
m,� Plots �v�� :�S0�T�;<UV� ;M�k+JKLS0!ghiIjO+����� wx@� :��e�yz�{`�'� +*** stems/m,
|0�.�/0����V;<�� ����'e������CDGH�V� ,--* stems/m,|0�.�/0!st�k����� }!~��d�����h+,
��1 ?@ABGHI��JKL����l�����;�LU EF;<U P3456789-
Fig. 1 Changes in cumulative surface runo#
and soil loss under simulated rainfall
with additional suspended water supply
(Tall Fescue).
��2 ���� Plot II�e���r� :�a*�h;<U
Fig. 2 Comparison between amount of soil
supplied and of soil loss under simu-
lated rainfall with additional suspended
water supply (just after the cutting
weed in plot II).
���� � 22� P,**+-16
-� ��������� ��������������������
! Plot"#$%��� &L,� "#��������'()*�� &L+� +����,-+������� &L,�L+� ./0� ! Plot��1(�������+2�23+* �4�,52�2 �4�,67 89 Plot �����:����
���; 1+3 g/m, .<�=>-+.7 89?@�:���;ABC(DEF.��G�,5 H, IJKLM &Plot �� �'NO7PQRS+TU,KLM&Plot �� ����: �������;!VW/02
g/m, W/3*g/m,�X7 ��YZ[�\.]^�;_= .`�abF.��G=c.;d"U,5 efghijkKLM�X( Plots � &2** stems/m,� �&+.2* stems/m,� ����: �������:.`�W0,,g/m, �XU,; l`mLnop� Plot �
&,--* stems/m,� �������:W00. g/m, �X7 Plots � ���q�'7r-;<�"U,5cc."# st�uv�X( +*** stems/m,wo'7`st+Ax� mLno ,--* stems/m,wopno�efghijk+yzC(. ���YZ�{|�X(.}~��,5
.� � � � �
c�H� �9"#�EC(��YZ�{|_KLM�7�:����q#���_�5 �c� ����:�������+��.�,�mO7PQ;KLM�'(��YZ�[���(��+�q(,� ���F���+��� ������������+Plot� "#)*� ¡¢�£��'N���+¤/�,5 9¡¢'7 +* cmp¥��mO7PQ+TU,KLM�'N¦O7PQKLM�: Plot"#���. Plot� "#����'7)*�,�
��3 IJKL Plot IIO7PQ , §¨©��1(�������
Fig. 3 Comparison between amount of soil
supplied and of soil loss under simu-
lated rainfall with additional suspended
water supply (, weeks after the cutting
weed in plot II).
��+* efghijkKLM��1(�������
Fig. +* Comparison between amount of soil
supplied and of soil loss under simu-
lated rainfall with additional suspended
water supply (Tall Fescue).
ª« : KLM+��,¬9���Er®¯ 17
�������������� ��� �������������� �� Plot����������� ���!"# $"� %&'(����)����� ����� ��*+��� ��,-��.�/�0��� %&'(����)����� �1�23�4�567!�89��"# :�+�;<)&� =>?��@A"BCD�E!F.� �G�HI��J�K��*A"#LM�� ���N�O�"BCD�>CP�QR�S�T"U� >CP�V7WXYZ[\]��!F����� ��^!F_-"# >CP�2**`,--* stems/m,�ab"T-F� Plot�EcdP�e��� ��� �f�g" �hijdP����klA"# �+�� >CP 2** stems/m,E)m+.1* stems/m,� Plot��dP�e��� �� ����� ��.��n��o+�7*A"�� ,--*
stems/m,�BCD�EcdP� 2** stems/m,E)m +.2* stems/m,�BCD)&p�� ����� ��E!F.)&������:���*A"#:�+�;<)&� qrs�Ec�& �t�QR�K +*** stems/m,uP�>CP�BCD��� ��N��J�K&� �+� ,--* stems/m,uP�>CP�vw�g:���Nx�yz+�:���*A"#
� � � �
Dalton, P.A., Smith, R.J. and Truong, P.N.V. (+330) :
Vetiver grass hedges for erosion control on a
cropped flood plain : hedge hydraulics, Agricul-
tural Water Management, -+ : 3+�+*..
Ghadiri, H., Hogarth, B. and Rose, C. (,***) : The e#ec-
tiveness of grass strips for the control of sedi-
ment and associated pollutant transport in
runo#, The Role of Erosion and Sediment Trans-
port in Nutrient and Contaminant Transfer, pp.
2-�3+, International Association of Hydrological
Science Press, U.K..
Mihara, M. (,**+) : Nitrogen and phosphorus losses
due to soil erosion during a typhoon, Japan,
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
12 (,) : ,*3�,+0.
Uusi�Kamppa, J. and Ylaranta, T. (+33,) : Reduction
of sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen transport
on vegetated bu#er strips, Agric.Sci.Finl. + : /03�/1/.
Parsons, J.E., Gilliam, J.W., Mun`oz�Carpena, R.,
Daniels, R.B. and Dillaha, T.A. (+33.) : Nutrient
and sediment removal by grass and riparian
bu#ers, Environmentally sound agriculture pro-
ceedings of the second conference : +.1�+/..
>{|}�~���������� �+33.� : =>?������]� pp. +/�,3� ����� ���
���� �+33/� : �� ����� E)m� ���"U���>r���� ������ 1+ : -1�.*.
�� � �¡¢� �+33*� : �& �ts� a£�¤s�¥��� pp. +30�+32� ��¦§¨©¡¢� ���
ª«¬®�y�¯° �+333� : ���Ec ����±²E)m³��´�� � � �� �µ¢�¨¶� ,** : 1�+..
·¸¹º» : ,***¹ 3º +-»·�¹º» : ,**+¹ -º ,-»
����� L 22¼ �,**+�18