| Literature DB >> 35805863 |
Haimei Lin1, Leichao Bai2,3, Mingliang Luo2,3, Zhicheng Wang2, Dan Yang2,3, Bin Zhang2,3, Yebin Lin2,3.
Abstract
Gully erosion is a common form of soil erosion in dry-hot valleys, and it often brings serious land degradation. A multi-criteria method integrating the characteristics of the longitudinal profile (LP), the cross profile (CP) and the knickpoints of gullies was applied to identify the development stage of gullies in Yuanmou County, Yunnan Province, in southwestern China. Firstly, based on the high-resolution data sources produced by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), 50 gullies were selected as the typical ones in Tutujiliangzi and Shadi village. The LPs were extracted, and their morphological indices, information entropy and fitting functions were calculated. The morphological characteristics of the CPs and the presence or absence of knickpoints were recorded. The results show that the period of the gullies in Tutujiliangzi and Shadi is dominated by the deep incision period and the equilibrium adjustment period, which means that most gullies are in the period of the severe erosion stage. Among the gullies, 13 LPs' morphological index is between 0.636 and 0.933, and the morphology of the LP presents an upward convex shape; the cross profiles are mainly V-shaped and U-shaped. Thirty-two LPs' morphological index is between 1.005~2.384, which presents a slightly concave shape; the cross profiles are mainly repeated U-shapes. The remaining five LPs have a morphological index of 0.592, 0.462, 1.061, 1.344 and 0.888, respectively; the LPs of upstream and downstream are different. The LPs of the Tutujiliangzi gullies are nearly straight lines and slightly concave, while those of the Shadi village gullies are convex and nearly straight lines. The knickpoints and step-pools in Shadi village are more developed, while the gullies in Tutujiliangzi develop more rapidly. This study shows that in counties with similar conditions, these conditions such as temperature and precipitation, local topographic changes, soil properties and vegetation conditions have obvious effects on the development of gullies.Entities:
Keywords: cross profile; dry-hot valley; gully developmental stage; gully erosion; longitudinal profile; multi-criteria decision analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805863 PMCID: PMC9266558 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of the study area.
Figure 2DEM data production process.
Quantitative indices of the gully erosion development stage.
| Evolution Period | Longitudinal Profile Morphological Index | Longitudinal Profile Information Entropy | Longitudinal Profile Shape | Developmental Stage | Terrain Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial stage | N < 1 | H(N) < 0.193 | Convex | Deep incision erosion stage | Downward erosion is deepened, headward erosion is slowed down |
| Medium stage | N = 1 | H(N) = 0.193 | Close to a straight line | Transition stage | Gully bed expansion is slowed down |
| Late stage | N > 1 | H(N) > 0.193 | Concave | Equilibrium adjustment stage | Downward erosion is weak, wide gully develops |
| Terminal stage | N > 1 | H(N) > 0.193 | Concave | Equilibrium profile stage | Downward stopped and lateral erosion prevailed |
Figure 3Methodological framework.
The gully index of Tutujiliangzi and the optimum-fit functions.
| Gully Number | A | L | N | H(N) | Morphology of Longitudinal Profile | Linear Function | Exponential Function | Logarithm Function | Power Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 16.37 | 134.71 | 1.147 | 0.230 | concave | 0.983 | 0.962 | 0.944 | 0.995 * |
| T2 | 111.17 | 898.51 | 1.075 | 0.212 | concave | 0.732 | 0.803 | 0.477 | 0.916 * |
| T3 | 18.77 | 154.93 | 2.384 | 0.515 | concave | 0.815 | 0.636 | 0.881 * | 0.740 |
| T4 | 30.76 | 249.00 | 0.592 | 0.093 | knickpoint | 0.406 * | 0.298 * | 0.283 | 0.203 |
| T5 | 18.74 | 145.47 | 0.462 | 0.064 | knickpoint | 0.989 * | 0.996 * | 0.977 | 0.987 |
| T6 | 10.67 | 119.46 | 2.148 | 0.464 | concave | 0.964 | 0.954 | 0.854 | 0.999 * |
| T7 | 118.44 | 969.61 | 1.255 | 0.257 | concave | 0.884 | 0.868 | 0.733 | 0.972 * |
| T8 | 73.59 | 616.76 | 1.309 | 0.270 | concave | 0.823 | 0.933 * | 0.671 | 0.944 * |
| T9 | 20.54 | 171.94 | 1.491 | 0.314 | concave | 0.942 | 0.992 * | 0.846 | 0.978 |
| T10 | 30.48 | 259.75 | 1.375 | 0.286 | concave | 0.999 * | 0.989 | 0.985 | 0.999 * |
| T11 | 25.96 | 228.24 | 1.445 | 0.303 | concave | 0.970 | 0.831 | 0.996 * | 0.967 |
| T12 | 62.45 | 505.19 | 1.190 | 0.240 | concave | 0.790 | 0.934 * | 0.624 | 0.856 |
| T13 | 22.67 | 190.2 | 0.700 | 0.118 | convex | 0.739 * | 0.634 | 0.529 | 0.433 |
| T14 | 15.59 | 131.33 | 1.605 | 0.341 | concave | 0.998 | 0.975 | 0.969 | 0.999 * |
| T15 | 28.24 | 228.44 | 1.005 | 0.194 | concave | 0.880 | 0.967 * | 0.682 | 0.905 |
| T16 | 31.68 | 254.65 | 1.865 | 0.402 | concave | 0.962 | 0.971 | 0.835 | 0.996 * |
| T17 | 23.33 | 190.72 | 0.700 | 0.118 | convex | 0.423 | 0.441 * | 0.246 | 0.271 |
| T18 | 61.80 | 511.65 | 1.576 | 0.335 | concave | 0.711 | 0.924 * | 0.508 | 0.920 |
| T19 | 35.10 | 301.38 | 1.543 | 0.327 | concave | 0.761 | 0.898 | 0.602 | 0.910 * |
| T20 | 34.45 | 279.67 | 1.752 | 0.376 | concave | 0.925 | 0.996 * | 0.786 | 0.976 |
| T21 | 39.34 | 322.58 | 1.607 | 0.342 | concave | 0.880 | 0.984 * | 0.801 | 0.945 |
| T22 | 22.87 | 184.58 | 1.024 | 0.199 | concave | 0.959 | 0.981 * | 0.853 | 0.921 |
| T23 | 25.61 | 207.11 | 1.278 | 0.262 | concave | 0.954 | 0.998 * | 0.879 | 0.971 |
| T24 | 28.76 | 230.68 | 1.600 | 0.340 | concave | 0.881 | 0.951 * | 0.824 | 0.911 |
| T25 | 12.21 | 100.58 | 1.287 | 0.364 | concave | 0.999 * | 0.928 | 0.970 | 0.993 |
| Average | 36.78 | 303.49 | 1.337 | 0.279 |
“*” represents optimum-fit functions of longitudinal profile.
The gully index of Shadi and the optimum-fit functions.
| Gully Number | A | L | N | H(N) | Morphology of Longitudinal Profile | Linear Function | Exponential Function | Logarithm Function | Power Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 20.13 | 165.73 | 1.511 | 0.319 | concave | 0.991 * | 0.647 | 0.869 | 0.942 |
| S2 | 16.23 | 128.55 | 0.933 | 0.176 | convex | 0.982 | 0.935 | 0.907 | 0.994 * |
| S3 | 26.60 | 219.15 | 1.253 | 0.256 | concave | 0.965 * | 0.831 | 0.961 | 0.905 |
| S4 | 13.19 | 106.10 | 0.645 | 0.106 | convex | 0.944 | 0.846 | 0.972 * | 0.959 |
| S5 | 9.04 | 72.22 | 1.306 | 0.269 | concave | 0.926 | 0.828 | 0.981 * | 0.918 |
| S6 | 20.78 | 166.68 | 1.061 | 0.208 | knickpoint | 0.969 * | 0.805 | 0.945 | 0.965 |
| S7 | 10.90 | 88.72 | 0.927 | 0.175 | convex | 0.989 * | 0.977 | 0.896 | 0.991 * |
| S8 | 16.53 | 134.53 | 0.636 | 0.104 | convex | 0.986 * | 0.987 * | 0.892 | 0.945 |
| S9 | 16.68 | 136.85 | 1.027 | 0.200 | concave | 0.981 | 0.987 * | 0.897 | 0.990 * |
| S10 | 23.43 | 195.99 | 1.331 | 0.275 | concave | 0.884 * | 0.643 | 0.659 | 0.498 |
| S11 | 24.99 | 206.22 | 1.344 | 0.279 | knickpoint | 0.972 * | 0.870 | 0.893 | 0.974 * |
| S12 | 25.70 | 202.75 | 0.888 | 0.165 | knickpoint | 0.968 * | 0.865 | 0.772 | 0.966 |
| S13 | 23.58 | 192.10 | 0.839 | 0.153 | convex | 0.976 * | 0.843 | 0.956 | 0.973 |
| S14 | 17.45 | 143.07 | 0.748 | 0.131 | convex | 1.000 * | 0.983 | 0.971 | 0.999 |
| S15 | 12.95 | 105.58 | 0.912 | 0.171 | convex | 0.984 | 0.853 | 0.940 | 0.997 * |
| S16 | 24.09 | 194.02 | 0.839 | 0.153 | convex | 0.975 * | 0.973 | 0.870 | 0.949 |
| S17 | 24.62 | 197.31 | 2.120 | 0.458 | concave | 0.958 | 0.968 | 0.840 | 0.998 * |
| S18 | 14.45 | 116.95 | 1.498 | 0.316 | concave | 0.998 * | 0.917 | 0.981 | 0.989 |
| S19 | 12.29 | 99.36 | 0.922 | 0.175 | convex | 0.938 | 0.830 | 0.970 * | 0.936 |
| S20 | 11.36 | 91.71 | 1.519 | 0.321 | concave | 0.948 | 0.998 * | 0.899 | 0.981 |
| S21 | 6.04 | 50.53 | 0.771 | 0.136 | convex | 0.993 | 0.925 | 0.970 | 0.999 * |
| S22 | 24.75 | 198.16 | 1.209 | 0.245 | concave | 0.978 | 0.884 | 0.987 * | 0.982 |
| S23 | 22.57 | 181.15 | 1.527 | 0.323 | concave | 0.948 * | 0.657 | 0.943 | 0.762 |
| S24 | 17.57 | 147.90 | 0.760 | 0.134 | convex | 0.790 | 0.938 * | 0.406 | 0.647 |
| S25 | 5.03 | 40.82 | 1.524 | 0.322 | concave | 0.997 * | 0.936 | 0.943 | 0.996 |
| Average | 17.64 | 143.29 | 1.122 | 0.223 |
“*” represents the optimum-fit functions of longitudinal profile.
Figure 4Percentage of longitudinal profile morphology.
Figure 5Longitudinal and cross profile fitting diagram of T4.
Figure 6Longitudinal and cross profile fitting diagram of T5.
Figure 7Longitudinal and cross profile fitting diagram of S6.
Figure 8Longitudinal and cross profile fitting diagram of S11.
Figure 9Longitudinal and cross profile fitting diagram of S12.
Figure 10The gullies’ locations.
Figure 11Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of T6.
Figure 12Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of T13.
Figure 13Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of T14.
Figure 14Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of S1.
Figure 15Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of S6.
Figure 16Gully shape and profile fitting diagram of S3.
Characteristics of gully development in different developmental stages.
| Longitudinal Profile Morphological Index | Cross Profile | Longitudinal Profile | Gully Head | Knickpoint |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.636 < N < 0.933 | V-shape or U-shape | Convex | Begins to cut down, the top forms a drop or cliff | Knickpoints prone to occur in gully bed |
| 1.005 < N < 2.384 | Repeated U-shape | Concave | The top drop is not obvious, forming a smooth curve | Knickpoints close to gully head |