ArticlePloS one2024
Identification of gully erosion activity and its influencing factors: A case study of the Sunshui River Basin.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gully erosion is one of the most severe forms of land degradation and poses a serious threat to regional food security, biodiversity, and human survival. However, there are few methods for the quantitative evaluation of gully activity, and the relationships between gully activity and influencing factors require further in-depth study. This study takes the Sunshui River Basin, as a case study. Based on field investigation, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photography and remote sensing images, 71 typical gullies were identified. The vegetation coverage (VC), slope and main-branch gully ratio (MBGR) were used as evaluation indicators, and the gully activity was calculated using the fuzzy mathematics membership degree and then evaluated quantitatively. The factors influencing different active gullies were also analyzed. The results showed that (1) the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method can be used to identify gully activity. Different levels of gully activity were defined based on the gully activity index. The active indices of stable gullies ranged from 0-0.25, those of semiactive gullies ranged from 0.25-0.75, and those of active gullies ranged from 0.75-1. (2) The activity indices of the 71 gullies ranged from 0.054 to 0.999, with an average value of 0.656. There are 31 active gullies, and 31 semiactive gullies. A total of 87.32% of the gullies in the study area were in the early or middle stage of gully development. Gully erosion was intense, which is consistent with the serious reality of soil erosion. (3) Gully activity was affected by multiple factors. It was significantly positively correlated with topographic relief (TR) (r = 0.64, P<0.01) and surface curvature (SC) (r = 0.51, P<0.01), while it was significantly negatively correlated with land use type (LUT) (r = -0.5, P<0.01). Surface roughness (SR) (r = 0.2, P<0.01) was positively correlated with gully activity; but not significantly. There was no significant correlation between aspect (As) and gully activity. The results of this study are helpful for quantitatively determining the level of gully activity and understanding the development process and mechanism controlling gullies, providing a reference for research on related regions and geomorphologic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.