Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
HERE are many changes for estimat- These same factor values are retained in
Copyright 1991 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
eastern United States, including corrections ceeded acceptable limits, the USLE was
Copyright 1991 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
sediment characteristics, such as those must be addressed in relation to the crop- diameter of the soil particles.
January-February 1991 31
USLE factor. For typical slope conditions, affects erosion the most. But after too much parisons with values in table 5 of Agricul-
a 10 percent error in the slope length results attention is given to ground cover without tural Handbook 537 when none of the crops
in a 5 percent error in computed soil loss. considering the within-soil effects, such as listed in the table closely matches the char-
The RUSLE uses three separate slope those associated with root mass and tillage. acteristics of the crop for which new values
length relationships. They include (a) a For example, 30 percent cover after plant- are needed.
function of slope steepness, as in the USLE, ing is the criterion frequently used for con- The RUSLE has computer routines for
(b) a function of the susceptibilityof the soil servation tillage. A 30 percent cover reduces many tillage operations and crops. In other
to rill erosion relative to interrill erosion, soil loss about 72 percent, according to the instances, the user must input new data re-
and (c) a slope length relationship specifical- USLE. For comparison, the soil loss from flecting the amount of residue incorporated
ly for the Palouse region in the Pacific a slope Ereshly plowed out of highly produc- by a tillage operation and the roughness
Northwest. A guide helps the user identify tive meadow is only 25 percent of that from residual following tillage. For crops not
the appropriate relationship for the par- the unit plot. Thus, within-soil effects can available in the computer program, data are
ticular field conditions. be substantial. needed to reflect canopy characteristics and
Soil loss is much more sensitive to In the RUSLE, the subfactor relationship root mass in the upper bur inches of the soil
changes in slope steepness than to changes is given by the equation: profile. Thus, the user must specify the
in slope length. In the present USLE, a 10 crops in a rotation; crop yield; and the dates
percent error in slope steepness gives about C =PLU *CC*SC*SR 121 of operations, such as tillage and harvest.
a 20 percent error in computed soil loss. where PLU is the prior land use subfactor, The computer calculates SLRs and the
Thus, special attention should be given to CC is the canopy subfactor, SC is the sur- average annual C-factor.
obtaining good estimates of slope steepness. face cover subfactor, and SR is the surface Grazing effects on rangeland, pasture, and
Copyright 1991 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
The RUSLE has a more nearly linear roughness subfactor. meadow are reflected in the effixt of canopy
Copyright 1991 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
trend observed frequently in our experience the residue stem), SLRs with which to fort between scientists and users to update
REFERENCES CITED
1. El-Swaify, S. A. and E. W. Dangler. 1976.
Erodibilities of selected tropical soils in relation
to structuml and hydrologic parameters. In Soil
Erosion: Predction and Conml, Soil Cons. Soc.
Am., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 105-114.
2. Gregory, J. M., T. R. McCarty, F. Ghidey, and
E. E. Alberts. 1985. Derivation and evaluation
of a residue decay equation. Trans., ASAE
28:98-101, 105.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. &sic
statistics: 1977 national resources inventoq Stat.
Bull. 686. Washington, D.C.
4. Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978.
Predicting m'nfall erosion losses. Agr. Handbk.
537. U. S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 0
January-February 1991 33