parts in the x- and y-direction, respectively.
Finally, to use the SolidWorks software it was necessary to follow
three main steps. First, the primary topsoil level was drawn by sketch/
surface/surface extruded. Second, 75 curves were depicted and then
those curves were converted to the secondary topsoil level by curve/
surface/surface boundary. Finally, to show both primary and secondary
layers on a coordinate sheet to calculate the volume of space between
two created features and evaluate mass properties we followed the
steps: Parts and Features/Features/Tools for Features/Modifying
Geometry with the Intersect Tool/Measuring Internal Volume
(
Planchard, 2017
). The trend of soil depletion per year was graphed
with Excel plus 2016 software.
3. Results
3.1. Soil erosion estimations
The average soil loss was 4.95 mm yr
−1
, ranging from 2.5 to
7.4 mm yr
−1
, respectively. On the ridge, soil erosion was 4.1 mm yr
−1
(2.0–6.2 mm yr
−1
), and in the furrow 6.5 mm yr
−1
(3.5–9.8 mm yr
−1
)
(
Fig. 6
-a). The standard deviation (StDev) for soil erosion data for the
total measured area, ridge and furrow were 0.91, 0.81 and 1.20 mm,
respectively. Soil depletion for the ridge and furrow was individually
estimated with MATLAB software (
Fig. 6
-b). Erosion at the ridge (row)
and furrow (inter-row areas) were 37.23 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
and
58.89 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respectively. This demonstrated that the general
soil depletion in the furrow area was 37% higher than the ridge area.
Soil depletion ranged from 24.38 to 38.42 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
on the ridge
and from 50.14 to 82.48 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
in the furrow. StDev values for
the ridge, furrow and average data were 0.59, 0.95 and
0.75 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respectively. The highest and lowest soil depletion
rates in the measured field were 69.55 and 34.51 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, re-
spectively (
Fig. 7
).
3.1.1. ArcMap method
The micro-topography map was created using ArcGIS 10.2 (
Fig. 8
).
According to
Fig. 8
, the upper half of the measured area (section c and
d) showed a higher soil displacement compared to the lower half
(section a and b). Average, maximum, minimum, variance and StDev
for all the measured points were 5.5, 11.6, −0.2, 4.4 and 2.1 mm yr
−1
,
respectively. Soil erosion in sections a, b, c, and d was 33.91, 52.85,
47.24, and 47.94 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respectively (
Table 1
).
3.1.2. SolidWorks method
Soil erosion for the studied area as determined using the SolidWorks
software was 4.64 Mg yr
−1
over 925 m
2
(50.19 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
). Soil
erosion was calculated for individual sections in SolidWorks. The total
amount of soil displacement for sections a (0–45 m), b (45–90 m), c
(90–135 m) and d (135–185 m) were 48.50, 43.18, 56.20, and
46.85 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respectively. Soil erosion on the ridge portions of
sections a, b, c, and d was 35.25, 33.20, 43.64, and 37.23 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
while it was 58.74, 53.16, 68.75, and 56.47 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respec-
tively, in the furrow sections (
Table 2
).
Fig. 7.
Soil depletion trend per unit area along planting row (without separating the ridge & furrow).
F. Bayat, et al.
Catena 183 (2019) 104176
6
3.1.3. MATLAB method
The total trend of soil erosion was analyzed using a regression
generated by MATLAB R2016b software (
Figure 9
). The MATLAB re-
sults showed an average soil erosion value of 50.41 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
(
Table 3
). Individual soil depletion rates in the a, b, c, and d sections
were 50.09, 44.72, 57.99, and 48.30 Mg ha
−1
yr
−1
, respectively
(
Table 3
).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |