ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Brief Report

Use of the K factor from the Universal Soil Loss Equation can show arable land in Palau

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2020
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.

Abstract

Palau is an island in the Micronesia region of the western Pacific Ocean. The island receives heavy rainfall and has steep slopes, so 92% of the land is categorized within the most erodible rank, with a T factor of 5. A recent study reported that the water infiltration rate is proportional to the root mass of the crop soil; therefore, we attempted to evaluate the performance of root mass for preventing soil erosion. We covered parts of the land, with a slope of 15.4° (13.4°–17.3°), with weed control fabric to prevent the growth of grass and roots, then removed the fabric, cultivated the land, planted sweet potatoes, and compared the amount of soil erosion with other areas. Surprisingly, there was no erosion at all in the test plots, although there were 24 rainfall events that caused erosion. For the parameters of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) equation used in the present study, only the K factor was not actually measured. This means the K factor was larger than the actual value. Land at low risk of soil erosion and suitable for agriculture can be found by measuring K factor locally, even if the area is categorized as unsuitable.

Keywords

Babeldaob, hillside farming, island, tillage, mulching, USLE equation

Introduction

Palau forms part of the Micronesia region in the western Pacific Ocean. There are open agricultural fields that were once utilized by the Japanese, prior to World War Two. The redevelopment of these fields is starting to occur. Generally, fields with inclines of more than 8° are unsuitable for growing crops, but most of the agricultural fields in Palau have slopes of more than 8°. As well as having steep slopes, the island is also subject to heavy rainfall, therefore 92% of the land is categorized within the most erodible rank, having a T factor of 5 (more than 5 tons per acre per year) (Smith, 1983). In recent studies, the estimated risk of soil erosion from agricultural land was reported to be from 720 to 813 tons per ha per year (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003). No-tillage farming is effective for preventing soil erosion (Zuazo & Pleguezuelo 2009), but the use of herbicides is unfavorable in Palau from an ecological perspective. Therefore, either tillage or the use of weed control fabric is necessary. The problem of tillage is the early stage of the crop of small vegetation coverage (Wischmeier & Smith 1978). It is essential to increase the water infiltration rate at this stage. The water infiltration rate is positively proportional to the root mass of the crop soil (Oda et al., 2019). Here, we clarified the risk of erosion in a field with an incline typical for Palau. In addition, we clarified the aftereffects of using weed control fabric, because the use of these fabrics can reduce root mass in the tropics and may result in erosion (Oda et al., 2019).

Methods

Site description

The experiment was conducted at the Palau Community College Research and Development Station (N7.53, E134.56). The soil here comprises “Ngardmau-Bablethuap Complex”, which is characterized as a very gravelly loam with low organic matter content of between 1% and 4% (Smith, 1983). The T factor is more than 5 tons per acre per year, although the permeability is moderately rapid (15–50 cm/hr) and very well drained. The available water capacity is between 0.05 and 0.10 cm/cm (Smith, 1983). The previous crop grown on the land was taro (Colocasia esculenta). The slope is 15.4° (13.4°–17.3°).

Treatments

We conducted the experiment from January to July 2019. The treatments were plants (with or without) × ridge (with or without) × 2 replications. We set these eight plots (2 × 10 m) randomly on the field (Table 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2). We tilled the field using a hand tractor on 22 January, leveled the field, and covered half the plots with weed control fabric (polypropylene, 0.4-mm thick, 120 g m–2; I-Agri Corp., Tsuchiura) on 28 January. We cut weeds on 16 April, blew off the residue, removed the weed control fabric on 17 April (Figure 3), then tilled each plot using the hand tractor up and down so that the soil did not mix. The average thickness of the soil tilled was 16 cm. We made a 70 cm width of the monitoring areas in the center of the plots by ridges or wooden boards (for the no-ridge treatment). We transplanted sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas) at 70 cm intervals on 17 April (Figure 4). We dug trenches at the upper end of the fields to prevent rainwater inflow. We embanked the lower ends and added 1-m lengths of weed control fabric to trap any eroded soil. Fertilizer was not applied. Hand weeding was conducted on 21 May and 6 June.

Table 1. Treatments.

BlockPlot IDPlantsRidgeSlope/°
Left415.1
7+17.3
Mid1+14.2
5++14.6
6++15.7
Right8+13.4
2+16.1
316.6
86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Location of plots.

Green: No mulch treatment, Stripe: Ridge treatment.

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Initial condition of the field.

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Conditions before cultivation.

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure4.gif

Figure 4. Initial conditions.

The order of the plots is 4, 7, 1, 5, 6, 8, 2, 3.

Determination

Following every heavy rainfall event, we collected any soil that had been eroded. We collected precipitation data every 5 minutes via a weather station in the Palau Community College Research and Development Station. The condition of the fields was recorded using an automatic camera.

Analysis

We identified rainfall events that caused severe erosion (more than 3 mm/10 min) (Onaga, 1969) and compared the amount of eroded soil of each events.

We estimated erosion using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) equation (Wischmeier & Smith 1978).

A = R×K×LS×P×C metric ton ha–1 year–1

E=210+89 log10 I30 100 metric ton ha–1

I30 cm h–1: maximum rainfall in 30 min multiplied to 60 min; rainfall less than 1.27 cm is omitted, and the maximum value is 7.62 cm.

A = EI×K×LS×P×C metric ton ha–1

K = 0.15

LS = (10/20.0)^0.5 × (68.19 sin2 15.4° + 4.75sin 15.4°+0.068)= 4.34

P = 1.00; vertical ridge

C =1.0; Tillage

EI = (E×I30)/100

Plot area = 7 m2

Results

Precipitation

The field site received regular rainfall, with total precipitation of 992 mm during the experimental period, from 17 April to 15 July (Figure 5). There were 46 days of erosive rainfall more than 3 mm per 10 min (Figure 6). The rainfall threshold where surface runoff occurs is 2–3 mm per 10 min on a 15° slope, although these values vary according to different soil characteristics (Onaga, 1969). There was a highly erosive rainfall event on day 7 after planting (2 May). Following weeding, an erosive period, a heavy rainfall event of 17 mm per 10 min occurred on the next day after weeding took place. The second weeding was conducted after seven days of intensive rainfall, with a further erosive rainfall event of 7 mm per 10 min that occurred just after weeding took place. Thus, the rainfall conditions during the experimental period were expected to result in severe soil erosion.

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure5.gif

Figure 5. Daily precipitation.

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure6.gif

Figure 6. Erosive rainfall events.

The blocks show a rainfall event of more than 3 mm/10 min and the amount of precipitation. The colors distinguish the events.

Estimated erosion

There were 24 rainfall events that could have caused erosion during the observation period (Table 2). The estimated erosion was 0.57 kg of erosion per plot on day 7, the first rainfall event, after transplanting. That was 2.82 kg after first weeding.

Table 2. Estimated erosion following each rainfall event.

DateDayI30 cm h–1EEIA t/haErosion kg/plotRemark
8-Apr–91.762324.080.890.62(Before planting)
24-Apr71.642293.760.820.571st rain
26-Apr91.362223.020.650.46
1-May142.762496.881.491.05
2-May152.842507.111.541.08
6-May191.522263.440.750.52
9-May221.682303.860.840.59
10-May232.922517.341.591.12
12-May253.522599.101.981.38
18-May312.922517.341.591.12
24-May376.5628318.554.022.82After weeding
2-Jun461.562273.540.770.54
3-Jun472.682486.651.441.01
5-Jun492.682486.651.441.01
8-Jun520.761991.520.330.23After weeding
8-Jun5222374.741.030.72
17-Jun611.722313.970.860.60
21-Jun651.122142.400.520.36
27-Jun711.962364.631.000.70
29-Jun731.62283.650.790.55
2-Jul761.042122.200.480.33
10-Jul845.3627514.733.202.24
13-Jul872.442445.971.290.91
14-Jul884.3226711.522.501.75
15-Jul892.442445.971.290.91(End of
observation)
19-Jul931.962364.631.000.70
19-Jul932.362435.741.250.87
25-Jul993.042537.691.671.17
26-Jul10022374.741.030.72
27-Jul1015.427514.863.222.26
28-Jul1024.2826611.392.471.73
30-Jul1041.42233.120.680.47
Sum of observation period (Day 7 to 89)32.2322.56

Soil erosion

Despite the severe rainfall conditions, none of the plots had any erosion at all through the experimental period (Figure 7).

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure7.gif

Figure 7. Actual erosion of the first rainfall event after transplanting.

The estimated erosion was 0.57 kg per plot.

Vegetation coverage

Most of the soil surface was bare by day 14 (1 May). The surface of the soil was covered by small weeds on day 21 (8 May), the day of the first weeding. The vegetation coverage by visual inspection ranged from 15–85% on day 54 (10 Jun), after the second weeding. The vegetation coverage was 100% by day 89 (15 July) (Figure 8).

86e578b1-4df0-4ecf-8fcd-bc8749af46b2_figure8.gif

Figure 8. Vegetation coverage.

Top panel: day 14, Upper middle panel: day 21 (before the first weeding), Lower middle panel: day 54 (after second weeding), Bottom panel day 89.

Discussion and conclusion

The experiment was conducted under severe conditions, with a slope of approximately 15° and vertical ridge. The treatment with weed control fabric was expected to erase the effect of root mass for preventing soil erosion. There were many intensive rainfall events during the experimental period. Nevertheless, no soil erosion occurred. This means that the risk of soil erosion was low for the experimental soil in fields with slopes of less than 15°. Tillage is available. Although the use of mulching material may erase the effect of root mass for preventing soil erosion, still the use of mulching material is available.

The results were unexpected. The vertical ridge may affect the result because a vertical ridge without a catch canal is less erosive (Shima et al., 1991).

For the parameters of the USLE equation in the present study, only the K factor was not actually measured. This means that the K factor was larger than the actual value. Low erosion land for agriculture can be found by measuring erosion locally, even if the area is categorized as being unsuitable for field crops. The risk of erosion should be clarified for other soil types, and the effect of the previous crop type too. For taro, the previous crop in these fields, the roots might be left in the soil; although, we took a fallow period. Land suitable for agriculture and at low risk of soil erosion can be found in Palau by determining site-specific K factor measurements.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Precipitation of Palau, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11769909.v1 (Oda et al., 2020). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4
VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Oda M, Nwe YY and Omae H. Use of the K factor from the Universal Soil Loss Equation can show arable land in Palau [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2020, 9:89 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22229.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2020
Views
55
Cite
Reviewer Report 30 Apr 2020
Kathleen B. Boomer, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Washington, DC, USA;  CBP Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, Washington, DC, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 55
Technical Review: Use of the K factor from the Universal Soil Loss Equation can show arable land in Palau by Oda et al.
 
General Comments:

The investigators report the results of measured and estimated ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Boomer KB. Reviewer Report For: Use of the K factor from the Universal Soil Loss Equation can show arable land in Palau [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2020, 9:89 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.24517.r61753)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 26 May 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    26 May 2020
    Author Response
    Thank you for the constructive comments.

    We will accept almost of all the comments; however, before submitting a revised manuscript, may I clarify the following points?

    1) Consolidate Figure 6 into one panel.
    Is ... Continue reading
  • Author Response 02 Jun 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    02 Jun 2020
    Author Response
    Define “T factor”.

    Now, I understood that I misunderstood the meaning of the "T factor".
    Thank you so much.
    Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
  • Author Response 24 Jun 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    24 Jun 2020
    Author Response
    Clarified the “story arc” of the paper including the lack of technical guidance specific to the region, the research objectives, and methods.
    1. The description of Palau was moved
    ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 26 May 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    26 May 2020
    Author Response
    Thank you for the constructive comments.

    We will accept almost of all the comments; however, before submitting a revised manuscript, may I clarify the following points?

    1) Consolidate Figure 6 into one panel.
    Is ... Continue reading
  • Author Response 02 Jun 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    02 Jun 2020
    Author Response
    Define “T factor”.

    Now, I understood that I misunderstood the meaning of the "T factor".
    Thank you so much.
    Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
  • Author Response 24 Jun 2020
    Masato Oda, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, 305-8686, Japan
    24 Jun 2020
    Author Response
    Clarified the “story arc” of the paper including the lack of technical guidance specific to the region, the research objectives, and methods.
    1. The description of Palau was moved
    ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4
VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 07 Feb 2020
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.