Cost Effectiveness of Erosion Control Covers during Vegetation Establishment under Simulated Rainfall

DOI: 10.4236/jwarp.2015.72010   PDF   HTML   XML   3,534 Downloads   4,264 Views   Citations


The main goal of this study was to quantify reduction of runoff responses using selected erosion control covers on 1.2 m × 0.6 m plots under simulated rainfall to determine the most cost-effective temporary cover treatment under similar soils, rainfall and embankment slope conditions. The different erosion control covers tested were polyacrylamide (PAM), wheat straw and PAM (WS + P) with and without seed; and engineered fiber matrix (EFM) with and without seed. The EFM + S and WS + P + S treatments were the most effective treatments for runoff volume with 68.0% and 48.9% reduction, respectively, as compared to control. EFM + S was the most effective treatment for turbidity and modified total suspended solids (MTSS) with 98.7%, and 99.8% reduction, respectively as compared to control. Vegetation in the wheat straw treatment significantly reduced turbidity but less effect on runoff volume and MTSS than vegetation in the EFM + S treatment. Seeded treatments combined (EFM + S, WS + P + S) had a significant negative correlation between MTSS delivery and time (r = –0.69), as compared to a positive correlation of corresponding non-seeded treatments (EFM, WS + P) over time (r = 0.14). The EFM + S treatment had 39% less average MTSS delivery than WS + P + S but the WS + P + S treatment ($1.03 kg-1 sediment reduction) was found to be 84% less expensive than the EFM + S treatment ($6.36 kg-1 sediment reduction). The WS + P + S treatment can therefore be recommended as the most cost effective method for sediment delivery reduction under similar conditions and within the limitations of this small scale plot study.

Share and Cite:

Sidhu, R. , Dougherty, M. , Zech, W. and Guertal, B. (2015) Cost Effectiveness of Erosion Control Covers during Vegetation Establishment under Simulated Rainfall. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 7, 119-129. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2015.72010.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2014) Erosion.
[2] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1994) What Is Non-Point Source Pollution? Questions and Answers. EPA-841-F94-005.
[3] Zech, W., Mcdonald, J.S. and Clement, T.P. (2009) Field Evaluation of Siltfencetie Back System Satahigh Way Construction Site. Practice Periodicalon Structural Design & Construction, 14, 105-112.
[4] Pitt, R., Clark, E. and Lake, W. (2007) Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Controls: Planning, Design and Performance. DEStech Publications, Lancaster.
[5] Grace, J.M. (2000) Forest Road Side Slopes and Soil Conservation Techniques. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55, 96-101.
[6] Bochet, E. and Garcia Fayos, P. (2004) Factors Controlling Vegetation Establishment and Water Erosiononmotor Way Slopes in Valencia, Spain. Restoration Ecology, 12, 166-174.
[7] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas.
[8] Foltz, R.B. and Dooley, J.H. (2003) Comparison of Erosion Reduction between Wood Strands and Agricultural Straw. Transactions of the ASABE, 46, 1389-1396.
[9] Wilson, W. (2010) Evaluation of Hydromulches as an Erosion Control Measure Using Intermediate-Scale Experiments. M. S. Diss, Auburn University, Auburn.
[10] Groen, H. and Woods, S.W. (2008) Effectiveness of Aerial Seeding and Strawmulch for Reducing Post-Wildfire Erosion, North-Western Montana, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17, 559-571.
[11] Benik, S., Wilson, B., Biesboer, D. and Hansen, B. (2003) Performance of Erosion Control Products on a High Way Embankment. Transactions of the ASAE, 46, 1113-1119.
[12] Lipscomb, C.M., Johnson, T., Nelson, R. and Lancaster, T. (2006) Comparison of Erosion Control Technologies: Blown Straw vs. Erosion Control Blankets.
[13] Babcock, D. and Mc Laughlin, R. (2008) Soil Facts: Mulch Options for Erosion Control on Construction Sites.
[14] Mc Laughlin, R.A. and Brown, T.T. (2006) Evaluation of Erosion Control Products with and without Added Polyacrylamide. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42, 675-684.
[15] Babcock, D.L. and McLaughlin, R.A. (2011) Runoff Water Quality and Vegetative Establishment for Groundcovers on Steep Slopes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66, 132-141.
[16] Shoemaker, A.L. (2009) Evaluation of Anionic Polyacrylamide as an Erosion Control Measure Using Intermediate-Scale Experimental Procedures. Master’s Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn.
[17] Soupir, M.L., Mostaghimi, S., Masters, A., Flahive, K.A., Vaughan, D.H., Mendez, A. and McClellan, P.W. (2004) Effectiveness of Polyacrylamide (PAM) in Improving Runoff Water Quality from Construction Sites. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40, 53-66.
[18] Flanagan, D.C. and Canady, N.H. (2006) Use of Polyacrylamide in Simulated Land Application of Lagoon Effluent: Part I. Runoff and Sediment Loss. Transactions of the ASABE, 49, 1361-1369.
[19] Roa-Espinosa, A., Bubenzer, G.D. and Miyashita, E.S. (1999) Sediment and Runoff Control on Construction Sites Using Four Application Methods of Polyacrylamidemix. ASAE Paper No. 99, ASAE, St. Joseph.
[20] Gyssels, G., Poesen, J., Bochet, E. and Li, Y. (2005) Impact of Plant Roots on the Resistance of Soils to Erosion by Water: A Review. Progress in Physical Geography, 29, 189-217.
[21] Pan, C.Z. and Shangguan, Z.P. (2006) Runoff Hydraulic Characteristics and Sediment Generation in Sloped Grass Plots under Simulated Rainfall Conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 331, 178-185.
[22] Liu, G., Tian, F.X., Warrington, D.N., Zheng, S.Q. and Zhang, Q. (2010) Efficacy of Grass for Mitigating Runoff and Erosion from an Artificial Loessial Earthen Road. Transactions of the ASABE, 53, 119-125.
[23] Hudson, N. (1993) Field Measurement of Soil Erosion and Runoff. 68th Edition, Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations Publications, Rome.
[24] The Irrigation Association (2002) Certified Irrigation Contractor Work Book. The Irrigation Association Publications, Falls Church.
[25] ASWCC, Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee (2009) Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Storm Water Management on Construction Site and Urban Areas.
[26] USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Method 160.2. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
[27] Statistical Analysis Software, SAS (2014) JMP11 Software. Version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
[28] Statpoint Technologies Inc. (2014) Statgraphics Centurion XVII. Warrenton.
[29] Donald, W. (2013) Performance Evaluations on Ditch Check Practices and Products for Channelized Stormwater Runoff Control Using Large-Scale Testing. Ph. D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn.
[30] Babcock, D. and McLaughlin, R. (2013) Erosion Control Effectiveness of Straw, Hydromulch, and Polyacrylamide in a Rainfall Simulator. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 68, 221-227.
[31] Doolette, J.B. and Smyle, J.W. (1990) Soil and Moisture Conservation Technologies: Review of Literature. In: Doolette, J.B. and Magrath, W.B., Eds., Watershed Developments in Asia: Strategies and Technologies, World Book Technical Paper No. 127, Washington DC, 35-69.
[32] Adekalu, K., Olorunfemi, I. and Osunbitan, J. (2007) Grass Mulching Effect on Infiltration, Surface Runoff and Soil Loss of Three Agricultural Soils in Nigeria. Bioresource Technology, 98, 912-917.
[33] Foltz, R.B. and Copeland, N.S. (2009) Evaluating the Efficacy of Wood Shreds for Mitigating Erosion. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 779-785.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.