SOME EFFECTS OF VEGETAL COVER UPON THE HYDROLOGY OF WATERSHEDS AT EAST LANSING, MICHlGAN Thesis for the Dogre'o'of Ph. D. MICHiGAN STATE COLLEGE James Le Ray Smith 1954 T heals ‘0 This is to certify that the thesis entitled " SOME EFFECTS OF VEGETAL COVER UPON THE HYDROLOGY OF WATERSHEDS AT EAST LANSING, MICHI GAN' ' presented by J an: LeRoy Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for JILL degree in mm Major professor Date July 30. 19514 0-169 MSU LIBRARIES ”b u g! mu; "mum fl“ gin (ljlljj gnu 1111 Iljljflllzl ll RETURNING MATERIAL§5 Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if booE is returned after the date stamped below. ————— V 7 _.r 'l“ ‘ ' .r‘ '1 r 1— " r1 U “’ an“) "(1‘ R =7)" _.1 «c - x ;«. t ‘ p ‘ “i“ . _ r‘l ‘ ' ._ a. ‘ruhfl SOME EFFECTS OF VEGETAL COVER UPON THE HYDROLOGY OF WATERSHRDS A? EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN By JAMES LEROY surcn A THESIS Submitted te the School ef Graduate Btudtee ef Niehdgan State Gellege ef Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment ef the requiremente fer the degree ef ‘ DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department ef lereetry 1954 71-1581: AGKNOHLEDGIMENTS All ef the hydrelegic data used herein was taken free the recerds ef the Michigan Hydrelegic Research Statien at last Lansing. lichigan. This statien is a ceeperative predect between the Michigan Agricultural prerilent Statien and the Seil and Water Censervatien Research Branch ef the Agricultural Research Service. United States Departnent ef Agriculture. The writer wishes te express his appreciatien te Mr. Geerge A. Grabb‘ Superviser ef the etatien fer his assistance and censtructive criticise . Acknevledceaent is made te Dr. T.D. Stevens. Head ef the rerestry Department and chairman ef the writer's graduate eennittee, fer guidance. criticise, and enceurageaent in this study; Aetnevledgeaent is alse nade te Dr. Lee late, Prefesser ef Hathenatiss, fer assistance in eutlining statistieal preceduree. The writer wishes te alse eXprees appreciatiea te his wife. launda,Beven Saith. fer assistance in the preperatien ef this aanuscript. James LeRoy Smith candidate for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Final Examination; Friday. July 30. 9:00 a.m.. Forestry Building Dissertation: Some Effects of Vegetal Cover Upon the hydrology of Watersheds at East Lansing. Michigan. Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Forestry Minor Subject: Soil Science Biographical Items: Born June 6. 1921. Cordele. Georgia High School Nashville. Georgia. 1938 Undergraduate Studies University of Georgia. 1938-41 and l9h7—h9 Graduate Studies University of Georgia. 1949-50 Michigan State College. 1951-5h EIPerience Instructor in Forestry. 1950-51 Research.Assistant. 1951-5U Member Xi Sigma Pi. Rational Forestry Honorary. Society of American Foresters SOME EFFECTS OF VEGETAL COVER UPON THE HYDROLOGY OF WATERSHEDS AT EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN By JAMES LEROY SMITH AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry Year 1951+ W. PM? 4244/ V JAMES LEROY SMITH ABSTRACT Two small watersheds at East Lansing. Michigan were compared on the basis of 11 years records. One watershed was forested. the other cultivated. The watersheds were compared as to differences in soil moisture. physical soil differences. soil losses and surface run-off. A further comparison was made between the wooded watershed while forested. and for the first.year after a commercial clear cut. Soil moisture at the wooded watershed was found to be consistently higher than that found at the cultivated watershed. This was due to the higher absorptive qualities of the wooded watershed soils. Both Retention and detention storage were higher for the wooded watershed soils. Organic content was higher. volume weights lower and saturation point higher for the wooded soils. The cultivated watershed lost a large amount of winter precipitation to surface run—off. while the wooded losses were insignificant. Cultivated losses were due to rain and snow melt on frozen soil. The wooded soils were seldom observed in a frozen state. while the cultivated soils were frozen for most of the first three months of the year e As a result of the clear cut on the wooded watershed. soil moisture for the first year following the out was higher than usual. This high moisture content of the soil was due to lessened use of water caused by removal of most of the vegetation on the area. This high moisture was the cause d‘a run-off in August 1952. This was the second run—off in August for the period of studya-lz years. I, vi JAMES LEROY SMITH ABSTRACT The first runpoff was caused by an abnormal rainfall for the entire year. The 1952 run—off occured in spite of a rainfall of 10 inches less than that registered for the year of the first run—off. The cultivated watershed lost over 50.000 pounds of soil per acre in an eleven year period. In the same time. wooded watershed erosion losses were only 62.0 pounds of soil per acre. The cultivated watershed lost 13 percent of yearly precipitation to run-off. the wooded lost only 1.7 percent. Storms for the eleven year period were classified as to intensity class. High intensity storms were found to occur during the period from May to September. Low intensity storms were found to occur during the winter months. High intensity storms were found to be statistic— ally significant in producing run-off on the cultivated. but not the wooded watershed. Soil and air temperatures on the wooded watershed for year pre- ceeding the out and the year following the cut showed a change due to vegetation removal. Air temperatures at 2.5 feet elevation above the forest floor were more nearly equal to those at 4.5 feet elevation in a field outside the forest. after the cut. Winter minimum tempera atures were lower after the out than before. Summer maximun temper- atures were higher after the out than before. TABLE OF CONTENTS Till. 3-493 immmmmnmmms. ... ... ... ... ... .... ... . 2 HISTORY or was PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .'. . IMPORTANCEOFTHESTUDY PAST was: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . CLIMATE or ran sass LANSING sass . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . INSTRUMENTATIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Precipitation . . . . . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "tcr 13.8‘6. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ‘f': EvaporatIOI a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e. e e e e e e e e ‘7 {i A Infiltra‘ion . C O . . . . . O O O O C O O O O I O O C O O 0 43:1. Erosion Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seil Temperature . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ Air Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physical Aspect .. . ... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Woeded Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultivated Watershed B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vegetatien. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The wooded Watershed . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Itivated "at 01.8th B O O I O O C I O O O D e O 0 O O 0 O TITLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AND WITHIN THE Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanical Analysis . . . . Soil Organdc Matter . . . . Velume Weight . . . . . . . Porosity . . . . . . . . . . Permeability . . . . . . . . Infiltration Rates . . . . . 3011 ”Dist“. 0 I O O O O O O WATERSHEDS DUE TO VEGETATION. Soil Moisture Comparisons Between the Watersheds . . . . . Soil Moisture Changes Due to Clear-cutting the flooded Watershed e e e e e e e e The Effect of Moisture Increase on Surface Run—off . . The Effect of Frozen 8011 on Surface Run—off . . . . . . . Surface Bun—off Summary for the Months of January. February and March . . . Soil Temperature Variations Caused by Clear-cutting the "OOdOd Waterlhed e e e e e e e Air Temperature Variations Caused by Clear-cutting the Wooded watershed . . . . . . PATTERNS AND CLASSES OF RAINEALL AND THEIR EFFECT UPON SURIACE RUN-O" O O O I O O O C O O V O O O The Establishment of Classes . lPrecipitation Pattern Establishment . . . . . . . l‘h’attern Designations and Definitions . . . . . . viii PACE m-— e la pt (I 1 a . a ”It rt 2mm Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEfitAStical ADEIYUI. e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e e s e PRECIPITATION. RUN—OFT AND SOIL LOSS SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 1941-1951 ................... RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f RUILOFF PRODUCING STORMS or ran woonro VATERSEED . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lffect of Frozen Soil upon Surface Runpoff . . Soil and Air Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . Precipitation. Run-off and Soil Loss Summary . Effect of Cover in Reducing Soil and water Loss Cultivated.Vatershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . Run~off Producing Storms on the flooded Watershed coscnosross . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . LITERATURE CITED .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Pmnn e O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O C O at the fiix lAQE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT A cooperative hydrologic study between the Michigan Agricul- tural EIperiment Ststien and the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture was established at East Lansing. Michigan in 1940. The primary purpose of this study was the determination of the effect of land use on the hydrology of farm lands under varying types of snow cover and frozen soil. The two primary objectives were: (1) The determination of the manner in which freezing and thawing of soils with varying types of land use centri- butes to run-eff. erosion. and flood flew under northern conditions. and (2) to determine the basic hydrologic relationships of typical Michigan A seile under different types of land use- particularly under froesiag and thawing conditions such as are encountered in the last Lansing area. Under the guidance of Mr. Walter U. Garstka. the first supervisor of the station. three watersheds in the East Lansing area were selected as sites fer future hydrologie installations. The original plans called for the establishment of only two watersheds. both under cultiva- ted crepe. However. the Forestry Department of Michigan State College prevailed upon the governing committee to include a forested watershed along with the two cultivated watersheds. Three watersheds. as nearly alike as was possible to find. were selected. Two of these watersheds lie side by side on lands belonging to Michigan State College and are located approximately two miles south of the campus. These two watersheds are planted to a five year rotation of corn. oats and a mixture of alfalfa and brome grass for three years. Tillage and other farm practices. including the use of winter cover crops to control erosion. are the same as generally followed in this locality. The third watershed is located on lands of the Rose Lake Wild—Life Experiment Station. ten miles north—east of East Lansing. This woodlot was covered by a good stand of pole size oak-hickory. During the winter of 1951-52. this watershed was clear—cut to a “.5 inch diameter limit. in order to determine the effect of this type logging operation upon the hydrology of the watershed. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY As population pressures increase. and with the continued indus— trial development ef the Michigan area. the once seemingly inexhaus- table resource of usable water is being rapidly depleated to the point that it threatens to hamper the continued development of the area. When one adds to this the increased demand for supplemental irrigation water for farms and orchards; the new use of water for such.purposee as sprinkling muck farmlands to prevent frost damage by early frosts and the increased demands made on lakes and streams for recreation. this resource assumes a new importance. The southern and central portion of Michigan has an average annual precipitation of 31.b3 inches. Of this amount. 20 inches comes during a growing season of 158 days. From the standpoint of farming. this means the farmer must dopend.upon at least five inches of water stored in the soil reservoir from winter precipitation in order to produce a crop of corn (15). . In the year 19fl6. yearly precipitation was only 21.65 inches at the cultivated watersheds and 23.88 inches at the wooded watershed. The cultivated watershed dealt with in this study. watershed.B. was covered by a second year growth of alfalfa-brome during the entire year. Thus crep yielded one cutting during the year as compared with the normal of two cuttings per year. With a total precipitation of only 21.65 inches. watershed 3 lost 3.31 inches to surface run-off. Impressed. in terms of corn yield this lack of precipitation caused a decrease in yield. The sister watershed to B had a yield of 37.6 bushels dry weight of corn per acre. as apposed to the yield of 8b.8 bushels per acre in 1950. a year with a total precipitation of 38.59 inches and a water loss of 5.10 inches to run-off. In 1951. the yield of corn for this water- shed was 52.0 bushels per acre. with a total precipitation of 30.82 inches and a water loss of 2.00 inches. Doubtless. a sizable portion of the increased yields for 1950 and 1951 can be attributed to the greater amount of water available for plant use. As a result of the unreliability of rainfall. there is a growing awareness of the advisability of developing methods of holding water in the soil for later use. There is also a growing trend toward supplemental irrigation. with its attendant demands upon streams. lakes and ground water storage. Thus. methods of trapping winter precipitation. and methods of holding it in the soil until needed are receiving much attention. This is of importance to the entire population as well as the farmer. for unless this water is temporarily detained in the soil and digtributgd “only to the streams. disastrous floods occur during periods of heavy snow melt and heavy rainfalls. In addition to this. lake levels and river levels drOp during the dry summer months unless sustained by inflow from the soil reservoir. One of the important sources of income for Michigan is the tourist trade. No small percent of the resort dollar is spent either directly or indirectly on fishing. An excess of run-off water. with the silting in of streams. lakes and reservoirs. the result of uncontrolled run-off. is one of the surest ways to lose this important source of revenue. The concept of land management for the production of water of the purity needed for human consumption. for fish production. for industrial use. is a new one for the nation and for Michigan. However. as artesian water levels continue to drop. as flood threats increase and as droughts increase in frequency. there comes a growing awareness that this is a problem that must be met. The only foreseeable answer in the minds of the men in the field is the fullest use of this concept of land manage- ment for the production and control of water. It is the eXpressed purpose of this study to attempt to add a little to the knowledge of the reaction of lands under various types of vegetal cover to the precipitation encountered in the southern and central portions of the lower peninsula of Michigan. PAST WORK The management of natural watersheds to insure favorable conditions of streamflow first attained some degree of national recognition approximately sixty years ago. At that time. the national Congress set aside the Federal Forest Reserves in the west. This action came about as the result of reports that destruction of the plant cover had induced violent floods. Since that time. the Congress has authorised a large number of programs designed to strengthen and broaden this work (21). / J During this sixty year span. the published literature on various phases of the work has become voluminous. The writer will. therefore. not attempt to review the literature in the entire field. but will attempt to cite various projects that have been carried on in the past or that are being currently carried on that are pertinent to this study. When the Forest Reserves were transferred to the Department of Agriculture and became the present system of national forests. authority was given to enlarge the system to include aid to states and private land owners. and to do research on matters pertaining to forest and range problems. These problems included watershed management (38). At a later date. authorisation was given the Department of .Lgriculture to give financial and technical aid for soil and water conservation practices carried out on the farm. The Taylor Grazing .Act was another effort designed to provide better protection through management of the Public Domain. During the depression years. the Civilian» Conservation Corps Act authorised an extensive program of "J ( land improvement. much of which was directed toward flood and erosion control measures. In 1936. the Omnibus flood Control Act gave the Secretary of Agriculture the authority needed to make surveys. and to authorise measures for the prevention of erosion on lands where floods had caused damage. As an example of the seriousness with which the problem of soil and water conservation is viewed. the following list of stations conducting this type work is presented. KATIRSHID RISIARCH CENTERS IN TH] UNITED STAIIB (As of January 1. 1950) U.8. DIPABIMENT OF AGRICULTURE 0.3. Forest Service (primarily in forest. brush. or range areas). Sierra Ancha. Globe. Arisona. San Dimas (Southern California). Glendora. California. Continental Divide. Fraser. Colorado. (Bureau of Reclamation. Department of the Interior. co-operating on snowacover relations phase . Front Range. Woodland Park. Colorado. Western Slope. Delta. Colorado. Coweeta Bydrologic Laboratory (southern Appalachian Nountains). Dillard. Georgia. Boise Basin. Boise. Idaho. Delaware Basin. Bethlehem. Pennsylvania. Central Piedmont. Union. South Carolina. Great Basin. Ephraim. Utah. Wasatch. Farmington. Utah. Tallahatchie. Oxford. Mississippi. Mountain State. Blkins. West Virginia. Soil Conservation Service (in agricultural areas). Iatkinsville. Georgia last Lansing. Michigan Bdwardsville. Illinois Hastings. Nebraska Lafayette. Indiana Ithaca. New York Iowa City. Iowa Coshocton. Ohio Boonsboro. Maryland Guthrie. Oklahoma College Park. haryland Waco. Texas i. . 1....ull1uli..i..llwl.nl.)2. V: at? El. 8 Blacksburg. Virginia. LaCrosse. Wisconsin Chatham. Virginia Fennimore. Wisconsin Staunton. Virginia DERARTMEET OF THE ARMY AgD DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Corps of Engineers. in co-Operation with weather Bureau Central Sierra Snow Laboratory. Soda Springs. California. Upper Columbia Snow Laboratory. Marias Pass. Montana. Millamette Snow Laboratory. Blue Riven. Oregon U. S. DIRABTMEET or Th3 INTERIOR Geological Survey Central New York. Albany . 1m. (in co-Oporation with new York State Department of Conservation) Green River. Tacoma. Wash. (in co—operation with city of Tacoma. "”hs) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Chestuee Creek. Athens. Tenn. Copper Basin. Copper Hill. Tenn. Ihite Hollow. Norris. Tenn. Henderson County. Tenn. The Soil Conservation Service established one of its first experimental watershed projects in the vicinity of Coshocton. Ohio. Studies on watershed management are being carried out on Ch watersheds under various covers. One of the studies carried out at Coschocton in 19h1 by Dreibelbis and Post (17) was a comparison between a wooded. two cultivated and a pastured watershed. On the cultivated watersheds. 15 percent of the precipitation was lost to surface run—off. while 1.“ percent appeared as run-off on the pastured area and only 0.2 percent on the wooded area. These results are substantiated by the findings of Smith and Crabb(29) at lhst Lansing. Michigan. At last Lansing. two small cultivated and one small wooded watershed were compared on the basis of eleven years 9 records. The results showed a loss to surface run-off of 14.5 percent and 13.4 percent for the two cultivated watersheds and a loss of only 1.7 percent for the wooded watershed. .A watershed study near Zanesville. Ohio showed. according to Borst : and Voodburn (7). a loss of annual precipitatien to surface run-off of 0.3“ percent.while under wooded cover. If”- Two Soil Conservation Service watershed projects located in the Piedmont regions of the south. Watkinsville. Georgia and Statesville. North Carolina. are engaged in studying the effects of vegetation upon run-off and soil loss. Studies at Statesville are centered on both cultivated and wooded watersheds. To date. these studies indicate decreasing soil losses in the order given: fallow. continuous cotton. cotton and corn rotated with winter cover crops. grass. woods burned annually and unburned wooded areas. The same order is followed as regards surface run—off with the exception of burned woods. which yields more to run—off than grassed areas. Unburned woods allowed only 0.7 percent of the annual precipitation to become surface run—off. A published progress report on the experimental watershed for the ZBrazos Drainage Basin near'Vaco. Texas (36). indicated results from fallow. cultivated. and wooded watersheds to be similiar to those reported from Statesville. North.Carolina. In the Brazos project. plots in 'wooded cover yielded 0.12 percent of annual precipitation as run—off. ‘with.a.1oss to run—off of 30 percent from fallow plots and 10 percent from continuously cropped cotton land. The Coweeta Bydrologic Laboratory. a unit of the Southeastern E. Forest hperiment Station of the United States Forest Service. located near Dillard. Georgia. is engaged in a large number of hydrologic studies. Amoung the studies pertinent to this project are those which include the determination of the effects upon water yield and quality of the following: (a) permanent. complete removal of all major vegetation. (b) temporary. complete removal of all major vegetation. (c) woodland grasing and (d) mountain farming. following a standardizing period under wooded cover. These investigations have been carried on long enough to‘provide the following results. Results are listed in the same order as above(a) water yields to streams were increased by 1? area inches per year. This increased yield appeared as sub-surface flow rather than surface run-off (35). (b) temporary. complete removal of major vegetation increases water yields by 17 area inches. become progress- ively less as cover increases (35). (c) woodland grasing brings about a drastic increase in run-off and soil loss (18). and mountain farm- ing after a period under wooded cover results in a change in surface run—off from 2.66 percent to 14.50 percent of annual precipitation (ll). The Sierra Ancha Experimental l‘orest near Globe. Arizona is engaged in experimental research designed to show the influence of wooded cover. evergreen shrub cover. and range cover upon erosion. surface run-off. stream flow and water uses by plants involved. This station utilises so—called I'natural lysimeters'. watersheds and plots in its studies. Studies at this station indicate that ungraxed range lands where the cover is good. produced higher water yields. less overland flow and less erosion than overgrased. poorly covered range lands (an) e .fln-flv 'Ul‘i'xas s 1“ 11 The Northeastern Forest Experiment Station's Lehigh - Delaware Experimental Forest is the site of a watershed management research project designed to show the influence of scrub-oak on surface run—off. Future plans for this area include the gradual conversion of the stand to a better forest type. and evaluating this change from a hydrologic stand— point. . Trimble. Hale and Better (32). found in a study of the.Allegheny River watershed that the movement and storage of water in the soil are affected by grasing. drainage conditions. and humus type. The greater the humus depth. the greater the retentive capacity of the soil. In Open lands. soils are most affected by vegetative cover and by drainage condition.- The lowest percolation rates were observed in land devoted to row crops. This land also had the lowest detention storage capacities. The highest rates were found in forested lands. followed by good pasture. close-growing crops and hay. Bamser reported as early as 1927 (26). that forest cover exerted a decided influence in reducing surface run—off rates from a watershed. unless the storm in question had been preceded by high antecedent rainfall (indicating high soil moisture). in which case the influence is slight. In 1951. the Tennessee Valley Authority published results from a 15 year study on the White Hellew watershed. located near Norris. Tennessee. Results of this study indicate the improvement in forest cover resulted in greater soil protection without decrease in water yield. There was no seasonal shift in run-off pattern as a result of cover improvement. 12 One of the results of this study showed that as cover improved there was no change in evapo-transpiration plus other losses. indicating that evaporation and transpiration were working to offset one another. .As cover increased.peak: discharges during the summer became progressively smaller. Time distribution charts show that the better cover produced a prolonging of the flow of surface runoff. giving a more sustained flow and less flashy flow. There was also a material reduction in soil loss as cover improvedijl). As this summary of past work of a nature similiar to the present study indicates. the literature pertaining to hydrologic research is voluminous. and the results of many research projects point to the‘ indisputable fact that vegetal cover exerts a modifying effect upon surface run-off. silt loss and other related factors. There are few cases on record where watersheds have been instrumented to Operate on a round the year basis in a belt of alternate freesing and thawing conditions. It is the purpose of this study to attempt to evaluate the different factors which acting together produce the end result-.- a lessening or increasing of soil loss and surface run-off. .lnl. I'll} 3'17..." 7 A? «41% . CLIMATE OF THE “ST LANSING AREA The atmospheric climate of the area under discussion alternates between continental and semi-marine. with changing meteorologic condi.. tions (37). The semi-urine type of climate is primarily occasioned by the influence of the Great Lakes. which surround the Lower Peninsula of the state on three sides. This lake influence is controlled by the force and direction of the winds. During periods of slight wind movement over the area. the climate follows the continental pattern. with sharp variations in temperatures. ranging from hot summers to severely cold winters. These extremes vary sharply and are quickly modified by a strong wind from over the lakes. The area has a fifty year average annual January temperature of 22.9 degrees Fahrenheit and an average July temperature of 71.1 degrees. The average date of the last killing frost in the spring is May 5. and the average date of the first killing frost in the fall is October 10. Average annual precipitation amounts to 31.113 inches. of which 20 inches falls during the frost free season. The remaining precipitation may occur as rain. snow or sleet. The normal annual amount of insolation received in the area is 102.602‘Iang1eys (39). As stated above. wind direction and velocity plays an important role in shaping the climate of the area. The daily hourly wind velocities of the area are at their maximum during the period from lovember to the first of April. During this time. velocities average 8.5 miles per hour. but may reach velocities as high as 20 miles per hour. empressed In as a.daily hourly velocity. The period from July to August has the least wind movement of the year. with an average daily hourly velocity of 5.5 miles per hour. The April to July interval is one of declining velocities. while the period from August 31 to November 1 is a period of higher velocities (3). Eaten and lichmeier (3) report the humidity for the East Lansing area. based on g thirty nine year daily average. to be rather high. The greatest relative humidities for the area occur during the fall and winter months. During the months of September. October. the latter part of December and all of January. the average relative humidity at 7:30 Add. 18 reported to be approximately 88 percent. The month of lovember shows an average of 85 percent. while the latter part of April. May. June. and July. show the lowest readings. These range from 75 to 80 percent relative humidity for the seven-thirty readings for the above months. The 1:30 Pm. readings for the 39 Year average are lower. but still significantly higher than for much of the nation. High readings for the one-thirty period occur during December and January and range from 65 to 85 percent. Low readings occur during the summer months. with the low coming during July and registering 45 percent. IISTRUHENTATION As has been previously stated. this project was designed to Operate during the winter months as well as the frost free period. In order to gather the large amount of data needed for a comprehensive analysis of the hydrologic factors operating under northern conditions. the project had to be heavily instrumented. The factors considered impor— tant for this study and thus the determinants for selecting instruments were: 1. Precipitation .e Amount b. Intensity 2. Iater Losses 3. Bunpoff (1).Amount and rate (2) Ivaperation and transpiration (3) Infiltration 3. Irosion Losses h. Soil Moisture 5. Temperature a. Soil temperature at several depths b. ‘1: temperature 6. Wind Movement a. Total amount b. Direction and velocity 7. Solar Radiation Since the station was designed as a one-man station. as many of the instruments as possible were designed to operate either by use of electrical power or clocks. The project was initiated during a time d’national emergency. and war restrictions ends it impossible to constructs power line to the wooded watershed. As a consequence. this watershed has not ‘bsen instrumented in such detail as has the cultivated. )6 Description of the Instruments Precipitatigp. Precipitation is measured by the standard U.S. Weather Bureau type. non—recording rain gage. In addition. it is also measured by a nine-inch weighing type recording rain gage. to provide intensity values. A standard rain gage. equipped with Nipher shield is also used to check the reliability of rainfall measurements under conditions of high wind. These instruments are placed in two locations. One instrument grouping is located adjacent to the wooded watershed; the other adjacent to the cultivated watersheds. later losses. Surface run-off is measured below each watershed by means of a float type water stage recorder and a 3—H flame. A concrete approach section leads from each.watershed outlet to the measuring flume. In order to prevent freesing of the water in the flume during periods of alternately freesing and thawing weather. strip heaters were installed under and along the edges of the flu-es at the cultivated watersheds. An electric heater was suspended in the still well of these two flumes in such manner as to permit free float action. These heaters are adequate to keep the still well from freezing. but will not thaw ice once it has formed. lach run—off recorder is equipped with an adjustable float stop in such a way that the float never drops lower in the still well than its zero point of buoyancy. The float step adjustment can be read to the nearest 0.001 foot. Evaporation. Evaporation losses from a free water surface are determined by means of a black pan evaporimeter. at a height of four feet. .ewewcaem undone: was spouses—Eon» use masnmauomaouwhn med-non someone .03» mama degeuma momma :me 5mm M5930?» "and “mm: o» to." mom." secondhand“ .uemnaousm cocoon on» o» «ascends oncogene announce: .H .m: 18 This instrument is unique and not in general use elsewhere. The unit measures evaporation during the frost free season and sublimation of ice during the winter. It consists of a shallow black pan mounted on a Fergusson nine inch. weighing type. recording gage. When water evaporates from this pan. it is replaced. maintaining a uniform level. The evaporimeter is located adjacent to a standard raingage. so that any accretion to the evaporimeter by rainfall can be accounted for. In 1951 a standard Weather Bureau evaporation pan was installed near the evaporimeter. Results of a comparison of water losses to evaporation between the two types ef evaperimeters show that the Weather Bureau pan averaged only 89 percent of the losses of the black pan evaporimeter. Crabb (10) accounts for this difference by one or both of two inherent differences existing between the two types of instruments. There is. first of all. a four foot difference in elevation between the exposed water surfaces. and secondly. the evaporimeter pan is blackened for maximum heat absorption. while the leather Bureau pan has a galvanised finish. Infiltratigg. Infiltration rates have been determined by means of twdrograph analysis of individual storms. and by means of tests utilising the double ring type infiltrometer. Erosion los_s_es. Soil losses are determined for each watershed after each run-off producing storm. Run-off water from a watershed enters a concrete silt box after passing through the flame. Since the silt boxes are not large enough to hold the total quantity of run—off yielded by some storms. the outlet end of the box is equipped with a weir over which 19 runpoff water flows after reaching a depth of two feet in the box. In the side of each silt box. a.Ramser divisor was installed. thus capturing an aliquot sample of the excess run—off being discharged over the weir. This sample is caught in a catchment tank and total soil loss for any storm may be determined by analysing for dry weight per cubic foot the catchment in the auxiliary tank. multiplying by the tetal volume of runpoff which.passed over the weir and adding that to the dry weight of the soil caught in the silt box. Soil moigture. A method of measuring seil moisture was needed which was accurate. rapid. and which did not require the taking of soil samples. The Beuyeuces electrical resistance method (8). making use of the gypsum block principle. was selected. This methed utilizes variations in the electrical resistance of porous blocks buried in the soil. The resistance of such units is directly related to the moisture content and temperature of the blocks. Since the wooded watershed was located some ten miles from the college and could not be serviced every day. soil samples were taken twice monthly for moisture determination. Soil moisture at the wooded watershed was sampled at depths of 0-6 inches. 12—18 inches. and 30—36 inches. Moisture was sampled at the cultivated ‘watershed at 12 depths. ranging from one inch to 60 inches. §oil temperature. A: the wooded watershed a threeapen soil ther- :mograph is used for recording soil temperatures. This instrument simultaneously records the temperature at the one inch. six inch soil depths. and ht a point six inches above the surface of the soil. Soil temperatures at the cultivated watershed are taken by means of 20 thermocouples and resistance thermometers. The thermocouple temp— eratures are read and recorded manually each day at 8:00 A.M. The resistance thermometers are connected to a recorder which automatically records. at 15 minute intervals. soil temperatures at each of 14 diff— erent locations. and air temperature three inches above the soil. Fig. 2. Three-pen soil thermograph at the wooded watershed. Top pen records air temperature. middle pen records soil one_inch temperature and bottom pen records six inch soil temperature. Maximum—minimum thermometers are above thermograph clock. 21 Air temperature. Air temperatures are measured at the watersheds by means of standard Weather Bureau maximum-minimum thermometer sets. supplemented by mercurial current thermometeters. hygro-thermographs and resistance thermometers. The hygro—thermographs simultaneously record air temperature and relative humidity by means of a bourdon- tube thermal unit and moisture sensitive hair element. DEIGN OF THE PROBLEM An evaluation of the effects of vegetal cover upon the hydrology of an area must of necessity encompass several different subjects. some of which at first glance may seem to have little relation to the others. However. when. one views each in relation to the effect it has upon the production of run-off from an area. it becomes apparent that many factors work together to contribute the set of circumstances which permit water to become run-off rather than enter the soil. Of primary importance in this study. is an evaluation of the vegetal cover found upon these watersheds at the time of the study. Of equal , importance with vegetal cover. is the soil found upon these watersheds. so a 131‘8. degree. the soil‘characteristics which affect the hydrology of soil are a direct result of man's manipulation of the vegetation upon the soil effected. Another factor vitally affecting the hydrology of a watershed in the central Michigan area. is the temperature of the soils affected. If one soil freeses rapidly while another remains in an unfrozen state. the frozen soil is far more likely to yield precipitation to surface rum-off than the unfrozen soil. Lassen. Lull and Frank (20) state that in regions subject to freesing and thawing action. infiltration and permeability may be affected by the formation of frost. Ihe type of frost formed depends upon the type. condition. or treatment of the vegetal cover as reflected in soil compaction and the reductien of organic matter. Bayer (a) points out that frost penetration is deeper and its disapearance slower under bare ground than under grass cover. since grass acts as an insulating layer to the soil. He states that there is ample evidence that soilsin forests with a good surface litter freeze only to a rather shallow depth during the coldest winter. Boil moisture is another factor which has a vital bearing upon whether a watershed. will hold precipitation falling upon it. or whether this watershed will discharge a.portion of the precipitation in the form of surface runpoff. The intensity with which rain drops fall upon soil has been shown by many investigators to be of paramount importance in determining _ whether run-off will result from any given storm. The portion of the storm in which the highest intensities occur is of equal importance with the intensity rate. It is easy to perceive from brief discussion that any comparative analysis between the wooded watershed and the cultivated watershed will of necessity cover a wide field and will consist of many seemingly disconnected topics. The writer has attempted to separate these diverse factors into separate chapters. first drawing conclusions between the cover types based on the differences between individual factors. such.as soil moisture. frozen or unfrozen soil conditions and storm intensity differences. to name a few. Statistical analyses have been made wherever practical. and here again. the comparisons between the types of cover are held to differences attributable to changes in one factor. In the hydrologic summary section of the study the writer has attempted to point out the an end result obtained by the working together of all these factors. The writer has also attempted to point out some factors which have affected the soil temperature and soil moisture of the wooded watershed during the first year following the clear—cutting Operation of 1951—52. It is realized that many years of research are preferred to one year when dealing with hydrologic data. However. the writer felt Justified in utilizing a single year's data in a study of the kind attempted here. In an emperiment where tree cover is removed and allowed to come back in naturally. the area is not in a static condition. Dash of the first few years after the cut covers a.poriod of rapid change in the revegotation of the area. An average of conditions existing during the first 10 years following the cut would perhaps be those present during the fifth year and would not reflect conditions existing during the first year. As an example. the first year following the cut on the watershed there was little undergrowth and almost no grass cover. The second year saw an invasion of herbaceous cover and grasses and the third brought a heavy growth of shrubs and grasses. The shielding effect from the sun's rays under heavy vegetal growth is quite different from that emporienced under conditions of sparse cover. Likewise. transpirationsl-evaporationsl requirements of the two conditions will be different. DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHEDS Physical Aspect The woodgd waterghld. The wooded watershed of the Michigan Hydrologic Research Station is located some ten miles north—east of the campus of Michigan State College. It is situated on lands belonging to the Rose Lake Wildlife.Jkperiment Station. the watershed in question has an area of 1.65 acres and is roughly oval in shape. The aspect of the watershed is to the north. as is the case with all the station's watersheds. rho weighted average slope of the watershed is 6.1 percent. At it's steepest. the watershed slopes a distance of 17 vertical feet from, west to east.in a matter d'some 150 feet. from north to south the slope amounts to 1? vertical feet in 335 foot. The wooded watershed from the begining of the study in l9hl until December 1951 was covered by a good. well stocked ooh-hickory stand averaging 70-80 feet in height for the dominants. with an average diameter of 12 inches. Soils of the wooded watershed are derived from glacial till. and have been mapped by Soil Conservation Service personal as Gonovor loam. Gonover silt loam. Miami loam. Hillsdale sandy loan and Hillsdalo sandy loam—Motea sandy loam complex. All of these soils with the exception of Metea are derived from nonpstrntifisd parent mater131, The Match is a twoqstoried soil. Fig. 3: View from north to south along the steep west slope of the wooded watershed. Summer 1952. .owaae Magoo: 23 3 Eco neurone .m don- neudh voodbuodpo 3 6: 23 ggfltivated watershggng. The cultivated watershed used in this study is located two miles south.of the campus of Michigan State College. It is one of a pair which lie side by side. The watershed has been planted to a rotation of corn, oats and alfalfa-brome since its inception in l9ul. Physiographically. the soils of this watershed are classed as consisting of undulating and rolling till. the soils are menbers of the GrayuBrown.Podsolic region. Locally they are known as Spinks fine sandy loan. Spinks loany fine sand and Inscola fine sandy loan. The aspect of the watershed is to the north. It has an ayerage weighted slope of 6.5 percent. A comparison of the slope class distributions for the wooded and cultivated watersheds is given below. win I courmson or smr's cuss nzsrnnaumos -‘A- Slope class Percent of watershed in slaps 312!! in Mt flooded g Cultivated 2-3 17 3 3.1+ 3 17 4—6 30 29 6.8 3“ 29 8.10 6 10 10-12 5 12 12-1“ 5 0 Ieighted average 6.1 6.5 -—" —— m _ Vegetation The wooded 3mg. An extensive vegetative survey of the watershed was made during the summer of 1951. This survey included a cruise of all stems one inch in diameter and up. The results of this cruise are shown in table 2. There were 7'49 cubic feet of timber in the “.5 to 9.5 inch diameter class. and a total of 9.010 board feet. International one-fourth inch log rule. on the entire watershed. This breaks down to “.9115 board feet per acre of timber 10 inches in diameter and larger. Species wise. 715.? percent of the timber was composed of finer-cg; vglgtig and W. Basal area is 105.076 per acre. As shown in table it. when the basal area is broken down into one inch diameter classes. 93.“ percent is shown to be in the “.5 inch diameter class and above. Sixty two and a half percent of the basal area is in the 9.5 through the 1&5 inch class. Basal area by species for the watershed is tabulated in table 5. Thu,- table shows that 88 percent of the basal area is in Wm ““1 9AM- A lesser vegetation survey on nine plots. measuring 15 feet square. '3' carried out at the same time as the cruise. Species were identified "“1 the proportion of the plot surface covered by each species was d°t°rlllined. The results of this survey are given in table 6. A crown cover map of the wooded watershed. showing the projection °f all crowns of stems one inch in diameter and larger is presented in ‘he appendix. In addition to the crown preJection. all stem locations. 'peciea of tree and stem diameter are shewn en the map. TABLE II 30 CUBIC AND BOARD FOOT VOLUMES. HOODED WATERSHED 3951 -—v——. V_‘-—_-v~—.—V -_——_.— Dimeter at breast height Cubic and Board Foot Volumes by species 1 Quercus Quercus Caryn Garya Quercue Leer in inches velutina rubra ovalis ovata alba rubrum 5 l 15 30 10 6 2 20 12 , 10 7 2h #8 28 36 8 42 60 5h he 9 72 9 5“ 81 99 10 W 72 204 216 11 #58 208 397 396 21k 212 722 7“ 7b 166 13 1396 336 13‘! 90 33 11} 1131 315 183 15 52k 206 ‘ 16 2‘60 106 217’ 206 18 181} 233 Total board feet 50‘»? 1678 '$63 856 860 106 1. Diameter classes 5-9 inches are given in cubic feet. Classes 10.18 menu are given in board feet. TABLI III SPICIIS COMPOSITIOI BY PERCENT Ol‘ CBUISI w Species Percent of Total ‘— Quercus velutina Quercus rubra Carya ovalis Caryn ovate. - Quercus alba Acer rubrun Hm a i' 2' «a.» , “\‘J kllr ‘: View along northern boundary. showing average stand spacing r1805! er- ' T! . . . I: 1' h -( 5 I 5: h": , .c-‘m ,».~£‘o—m.—— ‘p ' >fif~7 3 din; Lt"..“ .‘j .‘ ab [Ea/'2 ) ."‘_. ‘ A D - .. 4 “ts“ l. L Pig. 6. Density of one and two inch stems on the forest floor under the largest canopy Opening; located in the depression in the center of the watershed. Lesser Vegetation in front of approach section. rise 7e vegetation is largely mayapple. TABLE IV BASAI- ARIA. BY ONE 1303 DIAMETER CLASSB. WOODID WATERSHED Diameter class Basal Area:L Percent of 1”“. Total .1 3.8445 2.2 . 2 3.849 2.2 3 2.158 1.2 u 1.7% 1.0 5 5.397 3.1 6 5.749 3.9 7 7.096 15.1 8 15.959 9.2 9 9.670 5.7 10 16.053 9.3 12 17.128 9.9 13 16,335 9.5 in 22.368 12.9 15 10.660 6.1 16 5.395 3.1 17 #.675 2.7 18 3.517 2.0 19 1.887 1.0 1. Basal area for entire watershed area of 1.65 acres. TABLE V BASAL ARIA BY SPECIES. HOODED HATERSHID Species Basal.Area per acre Quercus velutina 32.818 Quercus rubra 20.515 Ulmus themasi. .227 Praxinns americana .013 Crataegus me e 167 Hamamelis virginiana .017 Prunus virginiana .812 Caryn ovalis 10.607 Caryn ovate 17.369 Acer ruhrum 1.259 Cornus racemosa ..026 Prunus serotina “.359 Quercus alba 16.821 Total 105.076 Lesser vegetation was very dense under the fewfiopenings that existed in the canopy. There were few’such.openings. however. and meat of the forest floor was simply covered by a dense mat of leaves. ‘Ae shown in table 6. when nine test quadrats measuring 15 feet square were mapped for lesser vegetation. #6 percent of the area had no lesser vegetation. .The largest constituent of the lesser vegetation was sedge (Carex penngzlvggica). which.covered 25 percent of the test ”as TABLE VI LISSEB‘VDGETATIOR ON TEST QUADRATS BY SPESIES AND PERJSE? OF AREA COVERED. WOODED‘UATERSHID.AUGUST. 1951‘- Specie Percent lo lesser vegetation “6.161 Carex pennsylvanica Lam. 25.138 Prunns virginiana L.. 5.608 Oalium boreale L. ‘ 3.721 Prunus serotina lhrh. 3.678 Hamamelis virginiana L. 3.373 Aster macrophyllus L. 1.632 Salsola pestifer Nels. l.h#8 Quercus velutina Lana . 1.4h0 Solidago bicolor var. ovalis Parw. 1.005 Amphicarpa bracteata L. .821 Rosa carolina L. .795 mm thonafli 331$. .53“ Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. .h-Bl Cornus racemosa Lam. .376 Alnus rugosa lhrh. .371 Quercus alba L. .332 Galium circaezans Mich. .307 Bubus spp. (Tenth) L. . .307 Pedophyllum peltatum L. .238 Helianthus divaricatas L. .202 Caryn ovata.Mill. .186 Thalictrum dioicum 1.. .181 Crataegus spp. L. .087 Caryn ovalis Sarg. .0?“ Osmorhisa longistylis Torr. .053 Antennaria plantaginifolia L. .028 Prenanthes alba L. _ .020 Quercus boreaalis Hich.§/ .012 Circaea latifolia L._ .012 Desmodium nudiflorum L. .005 Praxinus americana L. .005 1. All scientific names from 92511! H 1 of Bot . ld.8.‘ edited by M.L. Pernold. American Company; New York. 1632 pp.. 1950. 2. i ed Tr e . rarest Service. 0.8. Department of Agriculture. Agricult- Given as Quercug rubra L.in “1'81 Handbook Foe “1. 1953a L t N v d.l tur 31 Cultivated watershed B. Thevegetative cover on the cultivated watershed for the period l9hl to 1953 is presented in diary form. This watershed has been under a rotation of corn. oats and alfalfa-brome. Crop diary for cultivated watershed B for the period 19fll-1953. 19M 19H2 1993 1994 1995 1996 19“? April “-5 June 6 June 13 June 19—20 September 30 October 7 April 15 “ay'12 Hay’29 June 11 July 18 rebruary 10 Octeber 20 July 5 July 6 April 19 June 3 June 4 June 2h-25 September 11 October 5 Soil bare Corn cultivated Corn 6-10 inches tall Corn cultivated Rye seeded Rye washed out Soil bare during winter of l9ul-H2 Oats seeded Oats 6-12 inches tall Oats 10-1h inches tall Oats 2h—30 inches tall Oats harvested Yield of 59.9 bushels per acre plus 1450 pounds air dry litter per acre. Alfalfa- brome planted. Dead growth of alfalfa brome Yield of alfalfa-brome for year of 3.63“ pounds of hay per acre. .Alfalfa—brome and clovers for entire year. Used as a sheep pasture. Alfalfapbrone and clovers for entire year. Used as a sheep pasture. Alfalfa mowed Eay raked Plowed Double diskcd both ways Spring tooth harrowed both.ways and.p1anted to corn Cultivated corn Drilled rye in corn Harvested corn. Yield of 56.7 bushels per acre 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Mars May 25 June 15 July 9 September 25 April 13 April 14 August 15 June 22 August 23 October 30 April 20 August 30 November 3 - lay 9 May 14 October 16 May 8 May 16 June 1 Octeber 12 October 13 38 Plowed and culti-packed Planted corn Cultivated corn Cultivated corn Conn cut for ansilaea. Yield of 5.49? pounds green corn per acre. and 13.630 pounds of ensilage per acre. Rye drilled in stubble. Plowed .Drilled oats. brome and alfalfa Oats harvested Hay cut Hay out 11:31:. 6.8 inches tall. thin growth. Yield of first cut was.2.254 pounds per acre air dry weight. Yield of second cut was 2.783 pounds per acre. air dry weight. Alfalfapbrome 2.4 inches tall .Alfalfapbrome 4—6 inches tall ‘Alfalfa-brome 12—16 inches tall Bay cut. Yield of 5.704 pounds per acre. Hay cut. Yield of 2.536 pounds per acre. “edium growth in 11.14 Plowed Planted corn Corn picked. yield of 61.5 bushels per acre. Plowed Planted corn Cultivated corn Harvested corn Stubble dished. rye seeded. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AND WITHIN THE iATERSHEDS DUE TO VEGETATION Soils Various investigators have shown that soil characteristics exert a very powerful influence upon the hydrology of an area. Soil in the eyes of the watershed manager is simply a reservoir in which to store water. There are two regions of storage in this soil reservoir. They are the groundwater reservoir and the portion of the soil profile lying between the water table and the surface. The groundwater reservoir is of importance in the central Michigan area as the source of our springs and artesian wells. Recharge water for this sone must come from.precipitation entering the reservoir at an outcropping of some aquifer material such as porous sandstone or limestone. or it must percolate downward through the soil into this porous structure at some point where it is not capped by an impervious material. This artesian water finds its way by graitatienal flew te a zone of outlet. usually many miles from the inlet area. Fletcher (13) states that if the avenues for recharging this artesian aquifer are . destroyed by some abusive land management. the water table will drop. He further states that it would be in the best interests of both:flood control and increased water yield for forest soil profiles in humid regions to be handled in such manner that they would transmit maximum amounts of water through the soil profile to the groundwater profile. ‘A soil must be considered as a dynamic. changing organism. It is continually changing in color. structure and even in depth. These "*0 changes come about as the direct result of such agencies as freezing and thawing. burrowing of animals. shrinking and expanding under the influence of wetting and drying cycles. moving under the influence of flowing water or moving ice. and changing structure. color and depth with the addition or depletion of organic matter. Lassen. Lull and Prank (20). speak of the soil as a series of seives. In this likeness. if water is poured on a household seive. if flows out very rapidly. However. if several seives are placed one upon the other. and water 1. poured through. it goes through less=rapidly than before. Flore water may also be retained on the meshes than before. Also. the larger the meshes. the faster the water will flow through them. Soil like a seive is composed of many pores. or openings. The greater the sise of the pores and the shallower the soil. the faster the water will]. percolate through a soil. Soil pores are divided into two groups (17). These groups are distinguished primarily by forces which control the movement and storage of water through and in the soil profile. The first of these groups makes up what is known as detention storage. It is the storage space available in the large pores. the non-capillary pores of the soil. The second group. making up the retention storage is composed of the small. or capillary pores. Cater in the large soil pores. non—capillary pores. is said to be in detention storage. This water moves downward through the chain of pores by the pull of gravity. The large poses may transmit water laterally down a slope as well as vertically. 'hureh and Heever (17) point out that the factors influencing water storage opportunities in 41 the detention storage are volume. size. size distribution and shape of the large pores. as well as their continuity. In addition. the volume of the pore space available at any given time is of importance. The large pores will drain within a period of from a few to 48 hours after saturation in all but the heaviest soils. This rate of drain is. of course. tied in very closely with the continuity of the pores. If there is a layer of less permeable toil underlying a layer of highly porous surface soil. once the surface layer porosity is filled to capacity. this layer can only discharge water to the layers below it at the rate imposed by the less perneabile sub-soil. The second group of pores. the smell. capillary pores make up the soil's retention storage. This water is held in the small pores against the pull of gravity. Iater in retention storage is subject to the pull of evaporation and to transpirational draft. Some of this water in the retention storage is completely unavailable to evaporative or transpirational draft. It adhere so tightly to the soil particles that plants wilt before it because available. The portion of soil water in retention storage that the hydrologist is chiefly interested in is that portion lying between pl' 1.78 (field capacity) and pr “.2 (permanent wilting point) (13). Retention storage is influenced by the same factors thatinfluence detention storage. However. it is influenced more by soil moisture. in that it takes longer for retention storage to be depleted than for detentien. Of importance in retention storage is the size of the particles making up the soil. Water is held in. films around the particles. 42 This water must be held against the pull of gravity. The point at which the holding forces refuse to release water in response to gravi— tational pull is known as the field capacity of the soil. More simply stated. it is the point at which all gravitational water has been drained. Adsorption of moisture is a surface phenomenon. and the total adsorbed on a particle at any adsorptive force is directly prOportional to the surface area of the particle. .Ls can be seen. the surface area of the soil particles is an important factor to consider in determining the storage capacity of a soil. Of importance and related to the above. is the rule that the surface area of a unit volume of soil particles ‘will increase as the number of particles increase(20). Retention storage capacities of various textural classes of soils are given below (I): Textural class Retention storage capacity (inches depth of water per foot depth of soil) line sand 0.5 Sandy loam 1.7 Silt loam 2,5 Loam 3e3 One of the important factors affecting retention storage is the amount of organic matter present in the soil. Organic matter serves' a two bld purpose. It increases the storage capacity of the soil and increases the total volume of the soil. Organic matter being‘very absorptive may take on It.“ times its own weight in water (19). 43 When organic matter is decomposed and mixed in the soil. it surrounds the soil particles with a very absorptive. gel—like coating. This has the effect of increasing the surface area of the particle. as well as the storage capacity of the soil profile. Mechgpical agglzgig. A mechanical analysis. the results of which are shewn in table 7. was made in order to determine the size distribution of the individual particles which go into making up the soil. The relative amounts of each of the different sised particles which go into a soil determines the texture of a soil. From a hydrologic standpoint. other things being equal. texture influences the amount of surface area of the soil particles. which in turn affects the water holding capacity of a soil. Retention storage is greater in silts and clays than in sands. ”a high.percentage of sand may indicate the presence of a large number of non—capillary pores. increasing detention storage. The soils were prepared for the mechanical analysis by breaking the large clods and shaking the soil on a 2 millimeter seive. the samples passing through the seive were then subjected to the Bouya oucos Hydrometer uethod of mechanical analysis (9). In general. the clay and silt content of the soils from the cultivated watershed were less than the clay and silt content for soils from the same depths at the wooded watershed. This is especially true of the first three inches of the Spinks loamy fine sand. The specific gravity of eroded material from this watershed during the first five years of the study consistently ran in the neighborhood of 1.18 . This indicates that the humus matter in the sell was among the first victims of erosion. bit TABLE VII SUMMARI OF RESULTS 0! MECHANICAL ANALYSIS ~j_ v- w—w —- Depth. Soil type and Mgchanicgl Composition in percent Watershed Sand Silt Clay 0-3 inch layer Wooded watershed M13311 loam “5.3 38e1 15s? Conover loan 65.2 16.8 18.0 Billsdale sandy 1081b Hetea sandy loam complex 63.9 28.5 7.“ Oonover silt loam 30.3 59.7 10.0 Cultivated watershed Spinks loamy fine sand 78.7 17.” 3.9 Spinks fine sandy loam 61.6 27.5 10.9 4—7 inch layer flooded watershed H1831 108' h7e 3 35 e0 17e5 Conover loan 67.? 15.3 17.0 Rillsdale sandy loam - letea sandy loam complex 61.0 29.2 9.9 Hillsdale sandy loam 60.6 30.1 10.3 Oonover silt loam 31.3 51.3 17.“ Cultivated watershed Spinks loamy fine sand 62.3 28.9 8.8 Spinks fine sandy loam 66.“ 20.5 9.1 12-15 inch layer Wooded.watershed fliami loam 40.0 31.0 28.0 Conover loam 72.8 14.3 12.9 Rillsdale sandy loam - Metsa sandy loam complex 50.0 26.2 2h.8 Hillsdale sandy loam 57.1 26.1 16.8 Oonover silt loam 32.0 52.3 15.7 Cultivated watershed Spinks loamy fine sand 56.6 33.9 9.5 Spinks fine sandy loam 68.8 20.0 10.8 All soil values used in this study were replicated three times. The fine sandy soils at the cultivated watershed fall into the third grouping ef Atterberg“s system of particle size seperation {2}. This group consists of particles from 0.2 to 0.02 millimeters in size. Bayer (a) states that the lower range of these sands do not have the normal properties of sands and can be coagulated to form better structure. These sands are on the dividing line between dry. unproductive sands. and moist productive soils. Soil orgapic matter. Soil organic matter has a very decided influence upon a soils water holding capacity. High organic matter content may increase both the detention and the retention storage. Organic matter for the soils on the two watersheds was measured in this study. Organic matter content was determined by the dry com- bustion method (28). Organic matter is determined by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide evolved in the combustion of soil and converting it into percent of organic matter present in the sample before the burning. .As shown in table VIII. organic matter content in the wooded soils is high. while that of the cultivated soils is low. This is reflected in the greater retentivity. as well as the greater detention storage present in the wooded soils. The effect of the high erganic matter content is further shown in the lower volume weights for the wooded goils. Organic matter content for the wooded soils drops sharply from the first three inches to the next. while the decline for the cultivated soils is less abrupt. This is due to the mixing effect of plowing. —— ‘5‘“ .... #6 Volume weight. Volume weight is the ratio between the dry weight of a given mass of undisturbed soil and its volume, and is found by dividing the oven dry weight of the soil in grams by the volume of the core in cubic centimeters. Volume weight is dependent upon structure and organic matter content. Usually, compact soils with low pore volume possess a high.volume weight. Porous soils. however, may do the same. Soils with high organic matter content have low volume weights. Soils with low volume weights usually show'good soil-water relations. Those with high volume weights usually have a low infiltration rats and low detention storage. Volume weights for the wooded soils are in general much lower than those for corresponding depths at the cultivated watershed. This is due primarily to the effect of the much higher organic matter present in the wooded soils. ILBLI IX ORGANIC CONTENT AND VOLUME HEIGHTS Dgpth in Inchgl Soils and Watershed are!” HEW” 13 Persist W 0.3 u.7 12-15 0—3 4-7 12-15 Wooded watershed Miami loam 18.2 6.“ .1 .79 1.01 1.51 Conover loam 8.8 3.h .2 1.00 1.27 1.05 Hillsdale sandy loam - Hetea sandy loam 15.0 6.3 .7 .87 1.09 1.#3 Hillsdals sandy loam 19.3 5.6 .9 .76 1.01 1.35 Conover silt loam 5.3 1.5 1.36 1.68 1.60 Cultivated watershed Spinks 1am fine sand 1.8 1.7 .5 1A5 1.44 1.60 Spinks fine sandy loam 1.9 1.“ .2 1.H0 1.h1 1.61 13? Porosity. The most important single criterion for Judging the hydrology of a soil is perhaps the pore space distribution of that soil. Soil porosity is divided into two classes. capillary and non— capillary. In making porosity determinations for this study. 3x3 inch soil cores were saturated. weighed and placed on a tension table. There they were subjected to tensions of 10. 20. #0. and 60 centimeters. The division point of 60 centimeters_was used as the line between capillary and non-cqpillary porosity. After being removed from the tsnsien table. the cores were even dried at 105 degrees Centigrade to determine capillary velume and velume weights. Average values obtained for the various soils for capillary. non— capillary and total porosity are given in table x. In general. the wooded soils had a considerably higher total porosity than their cultivated counterparts. Even more important than total porosity are the percentages of capillary and non—capillary pore space distribution. .All the surface layers of the wooded watershed soils have much.grsater non-capillary pore space than the cultivated. and most of the #-7 inch layer in the wooded soils also has higher non-capillary pere space values. The Miami loam. ‘which makes up approximately half the area of the wooded watershed. has a very low non—capillary pore space at the 12-15 inch level. indicating poor detention storage. as well as poor permeability. The Conover silt loan has poor detention storage space in the area from '4—15 inches deep. This is. again. an indication of poor permeability. This means that water will move through these layers at a low rate of speed. “8 TABLE X TOTAL, CAPILLABI. AND NON-CAPILLARY FORE SPACE DISTRIBUTION OF SOILS FROM THE'WOODIm AND GULTIVATED HATERSHEDS v‘v ‘—— ..____n___2_.L 1:: $011 and Watershed Depth in Pore S ace 1 tribution in Percent_fl Inches Total Capillary lon.capillary Hooded watershed Miami loam 0-3 53.29 37.10 16.19 14.7 “9.50 30.90 1“.6o 12-15 38.78 35.19 3.59 Conover loam 0-3 “8.08 35.2. 12.87 12-15 “0.62 30.86 9.76 Hillsdale sandy loam- . Metea sandy loam 0.3 50.“2 33.02 17.90 “.7 “6.25 32.38 13.86 12-15 “3.80 3“.62 10.18 Hillsdale sandy loam 0.3 5“.09 38.01 16.09 “.7 “8.05 37.38 10.6? 12-15 38.30 28.65 9.65 Gonover silt loam 0.3 51.65 38.38 13.27 “-7 32005 26e 38 5 e67 12-15 35.30 25.65 9.65 Gultivated watershed _ Spinks loamy fine sand 0.3 “5.09 3“.5“ 10.56 “—7 “5.09 36.53 8.56 Spinks fine sandy loam 0-3 “0—9“ 29.20 11.7“ “.7 “0.00 3“.10 5.90 12-15 37e63 30e63 7e00 w The low non-capillary porosity of the Conover silt loam is particularly important since this soil occurs in the central basin of the watershed. Any water flowing over the Gonover silt loam has little opportunity to infiltrate. but must continue to flow down slope as surface run-off. In addition to surface run-off. water draining down slaps from the large pores in the Miami loam will come to the surface over the Conover silt loan and will become surface run—off unless the Conover can absorb it. With the very low detention storage it possesses. there is little likelihood of its abserbing large quantities.. The cultivated soils had relatively low detention storage space in the two lower layers. In addition. the cultivated soils had a lower retention storage_than the wooded soils. Permeability. Permeability of the soil is the rate at which water moves through the soil column. It differs from infiltration. in that infiltration is the rate at which water enters the soil. These two form the most important of criteria for Judging the hydrology of a soil. If a soil has a high permeability rate and a low infiltration rate. caused perhaps by the sealing of the surface pores as a result of the beating action of raindrops. the high permeability will be little used. Likewise. if the surface has a high infiltration rate and a lower layer possesses a low permeability rate. then the soil will only be able to absorb water at the surface. once the surface becomes saturated. at a rate equal to the permeability rate of the dense layer below it. Permeability rates for the study were determined in inches per hour by determining the time required for known quantities of water to pass through saturated 3 x 3 inch cores of soil. The permeability rates listed.iriTab1e 11 are probably very near the true field conditions.for the cultivated soils. The rates for the wooded watershed are probably low. since the effects of hydraulic channels made by rodents. worms and decaying roots could not be measured by use of 3 x 3 inch cores of soil. TABLI.XI PERMEABILITY RATES Depth in Inches gateg in Inches per ngr Soil and Watershed 0.3 4.7 12.15 Wooded watershed Miami loam 70.96 25.70 0.05 Conover Loam 15.36 3.62 2.00 Hillsdale sandy loam - Metea sandy loam complex 38.30 21.00 5.15 Billsdale sandy loam “5.18 19.35 2.01 Conover silt loam 1“.3“ .08 1.0“ Cultivated watershed Spinks loamy fine sand 17.01 11.36 .6“ Splnkl fin. Indy 103m, 15e6u 7e06 e80 Permeability values for the wooded soils are considerably higher than those of the cultivated. with one notable exception. The 12-15 inch layer of the Miami loam has a rate of only 0.05 inches per hour. It is felt that this rate is a true reflection of the permeability for this layer. Infiltration tests on the sub.soil of the Miami. and infiltration rates obtained by hydrograph analysis show a constant rate of 0.0“ inch.per hour after the soil becomes saturated. In V1°V'°f the foregoing and in view of the fact that the Miami loam covers half of the watershed. it is valid to assume that practically all the surface run-off for the watershed comes from the Miami loam and the Conover silt loam. When the Miami loam becomes saturated. it begins discharging water downslope onto the Conover silt loam. since the clay layer below the Miami has such a low rate of permeability. ‘As the concentration of water builds up on the surface of the Conover silt loam. which has a Very low rate of permeability itself. it finally overcomes the resistance of brush dams and begins to run off the watershed. The writer observed' a run.off on the watershed on March 2“. 195“ which clearly supports the above. The watershed yielded run-off as the result of a rain which placed 1.68 inches of water on the watershed in a period of ten hours. Soil moisture at the begining of the rain was near field capacity. it the time of first observation. seven hours after the begining of run—off. the entire central basin of the watershed was covered in standing water to a depth of from two to four inches. The Gonover Silt loam covers practically all of the basin. .At this time. water was observed trickling out of the Miami at the base of the slaps-lying to the west of the center basin. The period of the next observation was some 30 hours after run-off began. All run—off had ceased at this time. but some puddles of water were still standing on the surface of the Conover. Permeability rates for the cultivated soils show the 12—15 inch layer to be the critical one. Rates of 0.6“ and 0.80 inch.per hour were obtained in the laboratory. Previous preliminary analysis of storms occuring on the cultivated watershed have shown that once enough precipitation has fallen to saturate the soil. an intensity greater than 0.80 inch per hour would cause run-off. ‘2 Infiltrgtion. Results of a Double Ring infiltration test on the Miami loam of the wooded watershed indicated the infiltration rate over a period of seven hours for the surface soil was 7.5 inches per hour. Before saturation the rate amounted to 12.“ inches per hour. Subsoil at a depth of 13 inches gave a rate of only 0.0“ inch.per hour. As stated in the previous section. when the Miami becomes sat- urated it discharges water down slope. Under this thesis. the rate of 7.5 inches per hour sustained infiltration is not so much a measure of how fast water is moving downward into the soil. but it is a measure of how fast this water is being discharged downslope. Infiltration tests have not been run on the cultivated soils. .Analysis of hydrographs of run-off from the cultivated watershed indicate that initial rates vary drastically. depending‘upon the extent of cover. Sustained rates of infiltration seem to approximate the 0.80 inch.per hour that was noted in the permeability test. Soil Moisture In order to determine the saturation point and field capacity. as well as the manner in which the soils lose moisture. soil cores were drained at various tensions on the tension table. The results of the study are given in table XII. All soils of the wooded watershed are accounted for in this table. Only one of the two cultivated soils is listed. since both gave almost identical results. 55 TABLE XII SOIL MOISTURE IN PERCENT FOR VARIOUS TENSIONS FOR SOILS FROM THE CULTIVATED AND HOODED WATERSHED Soil ' n th h Tension in Centi- 9p inajpc 65 meters 0-3 “-7 12-15 30-33 Hooded Watershed Miami loam Saturation 67.0 35.5 28.3 16.0 10.0 55.0 2“.5 23.0 15.0 20.0 52.0 23.5 22.1 15.0 “0.0 “8.0 ' 23.0 20.5 1“.5 60.0 “5.5 21.5 19.0 l“.0 Conover loam Saturation 36.5 25.3 27.2 16.0 10.0 3“.0 23.5 24.0 14.5 20.0 32.5 22.1 23.5 1“.0 “0.0 32.0 19.5 21.8 1“.0 60.0 31.0 17.5 20.9 13.0 Eiillsdale sandy loam - Metea sandy loam complex . Saturation “1.0 29.1 22.5 2“.0 10.0 33.9 2“.5 22.0 23.1 20.0 33.2 23.5 22.0 23.0 “0.0 30.5 21.1 19.0 19.2 60.0 28.2 17.1 16.5 16.8 Hi llsdale sandy loam Saturation 65.0 “5.0 28.0 32.0 10.0 57.0 39.0 26.0 31.5 20.0 55.0 36.0 25.5 ' 31.0 “0.0 50.5 3“.0 23.0 30.5 60.0 “9.0 33.0 20.3 29.0 Connaqbo .m .o: o z o m < ... ... I 4 .2 u Beams-a seem m. NR: /. amassed nee» 0% assumes you» 0L: .I(\ 3326: .38 enema-e4: 338: O z o m < a ... 2 < 2 b snags-a use» 0 emsuoee use» w Hosanna use» m as .om em On <3 sfm IRIOHIJ KI IEDISIOH TIOS .3383: couch-H3 as. e38: 2: as names as; we 1 S has canoe-ca :0. «mg use .emsue: use .5533 .fi-E-xsa nfinusoalg use» Nam .3 .ME exam-o: dam queues-94> 335.38 0 z o m < -. ... .2 < s. a a. n p n - r n p u p h b - 0 assumes an?» wJV . . .. ememesm mean 0.1. . .... .. «mammal; .. . .0. «has seen 0 ..ON _,on gang: HHom 3&943 nan-003 aaom<_._.2<.z.a... s h D e e s I m P 0 .o. mafia-a mesh 0 sweet-s use» 0 . mnSJl . ass-Hes use.» 0 ON a. MOREcI III WSIOH 'IIOS ...-senescent user-ago use deuce: on» as named nos.- wmu on no.“ essaeuoa Sou Nnma use .0235 use .5533 ...-means...- »Hmasoaag use» Ham .3 .u: awn—ammo: 30m Emma-BB4: dizgfiao .o.z.o.m 4... a. 2.42.. a enema-a use» 0].. . . . t . . 0 emsuops Hash m1! . . 1 ass-Mes seem 01w .o. .m. 5N gamma: ..Som Bank: 3003 .o.z-o.m.<... .. x < s. a .. D b P P P h o ass-nae use». his. fin .o. emesopm use» wclw .. .m. was/...... ...... . . .........o.... Ensues use.» 0111* .mw .8 I... mama KI WSIOfl ‘IIOS .Nan can -nm~ hoe oussoeoa Has. comatose: eoeoos .Nm .wna O 2 woe I @543 $003 $9 m0h2§m¢ox AHw‘m n. a . ..\ / . . W, .n ..x. .. .. ...”, .0. women.- mmlma /\ ./.. _. /../// .m .22: on-om\ /.\ 1. /1l/ 1\ \/ ..\x _ dN semen.- mto .WM Wm Q NWQH I Gasman-“<3 39.003 an. No.9 §mHOS AHOW 0 Z O m < q. ... . 2 . < . . 2 . u . ... .n .0— 355 manfi .22: emuom 3%.: .2 111108511 KI 11111151011 'IIOS .uuoa each-Ks on» an men-moo.- ..“ moaueue Madmen nuclear- emu new e159- »aefiiauau dance on..- 3 ea red» .9309» on» so «me.- ewapeu Mat-on. ..aso emu means handguns“ venomous: mouse: .9 .mg Pig. 1“. Wooded watershed in August 1953. two growing seasons after the cut. 1 1JI|leln1 a 73 \ J \ There were slight. short duration drape in the 0-6 and 12-18 inch levels. but not to the extent that existed previously. The 30-36 inch level continued unseasonably high. As a further help in making the evaluation. the following table is presented. It should be noted that the total.precipitatien fer 1951 is almost identical with the average for the previous six years. It should also be noted that the August precipitation is quite high in favor of 1952. The June precipitation is much greater for 1951. however. It should also be noted that the year 1952 showed a deficit of almost four inches for the entire year when compared with 1951. yet it ended the year with soil moisture values as high as those of 1951. TABLIJXIV risoxrrumon Br mourns son 1951 AND 1952 Precipitation in Precipitation in Month 19292! Month ._____£nghgg___ 1951 1952 1951 1952 January 2.85 2.01 July 1.41 2.79 February 1.56 1.5“ August 2.5“ “.35 March 1.76 2.09 September 2.72 1.68 April 3.80 3.58 October “.21 _ .51 May 3.09 4.09 November 2.97 3.47 June 3.1? 1.15 December 2.66 1.73 Total 32.7“ ' 28.99 ..A _‘_ Hydrologically the increased soil moisture caused by less use of moisture due to the reduction1 of vegetation. is of importance. It will be shown in a later chapter that the period from July to September is one of thunderstorm-activity. with high.precipitation intensities and high 66 total precipitation per rainstorm. It seems logical to assume that the higher soil moisture caused by cutting will leave less storage space in the soil and will thus aid in producing some surface run-off in the event one of the high precipitation intensity storms should occur. All storms occuring on the wooded watershed which yielded 0.25 inch rain or over for the period 19h5-l951 were analyzed by means of a two way table and using Chi Square to determine significance. These storms were divided into those producing run-off and those producing no run-off. These were further divided into two groups. those which fell on soil having a percent moisture at or above field capacity. and those falling on soil below field capacity. There were 12 runqeff preducing sterms .. gh. ...dgd watershed during this time. Of the 12. only two fell on soil which had a moisture content below field capacity. The Chi Square test showed that high soil moisture was highly significant in aiding to produce run—off. Neal (23) noted that the soil moisture content at the begining of a rain had a greater effect upon the rate of infiltration during the first 20 minutes than any other factor. The rate of infiltration varied approximately inversely as the square root of the soil moisture content at the begining of the rain. C A Chi Square analysis similiar to the one made at the wooded water— shed was made for the cultivated watershed. In this analysis. however. the soil moisture conditions proceeding the storms were divided at 9.5 percent soil moisture. It is realised that this is well below field capacity for these soils. but examination of the data indicated this to be a critical point. When storms falling during the frost—free 6? period of the year were analyzed. it was found that an antecedent soil moisture of 9.5 or over in the first six inches of the profile. proved to be highly significant in aiding to produce run-off. The effect of gutting on the first years surface run-off. An attempt was made to determine the effect. if any. the cutting ef the timber growth would have on surface run-off for the first year following the As shown in Figures 3 and 4. there was very little lesser vegetation cut. Figure 13 shows the condition on the forest floor before the cut was made. of the forest floor following the out. After the cut was made there was an interim period of one year before any appreciable amount of vegetation came up to cover the area and begin using the additional .011 moisture made available by the lack of transpiration of the former Figure 14 shows that by the end of two years there was a vegetation. However. the first year's large amount of vegetation on the area. cover consisted of the scattered small stems left on the area and a. few small patches of grass and shrubs. With less water usage than formerly. the soil moisture was unusually high. at all levels tested. There were only two run—offs during 1952. One of these occured in April. a month of high soil moisture in any year at the wooded watershed. This storm. occuring on April 12. 13. and 114. dumped 2.13 inches of rain on the watershed with the highest Run-eff smeunted te 0.05 inch. intensity, only 0.6 inch. per heur. The This storm was compared with the storm of December 20.22. 1949. December storm was as nearly like the April 1952 storm as could be found in the records. The major differences were that the December storm Yielded 2.51 inches of precipitation. compared to 2.13 for the (38 April storm. The December storm had higher intensities than the April storm also. In every instance. the December storm was more conducive to Producing runfloff. yet it did not. while the smaller April 1952 storm did produce rump-off. The second run-off of 1952. while yielding less surface run—off than the April one. was more spectacular in pointing out the effect the increased soil moisture has on run-off. The August 16. 1952 rain yielded 1. 80,1nches of precipitation in four hours. Intensities reached a peak. of 2.76 inches per hour for a period of five minutes during this storm. The surface run—off for the storm amounted to .0028 inch and run—off lasted for three hours. the major portion coming during the first 1&0 minutes following the peak intensity. The wooded watershed has yielded surface run-off on only one other occasion during the history of the project.in the month of August. August. as shown in Figures 9. 10 and 11. is a month of high transpiration. and soil moisture is at a low during this month. On August 31. 1905 a rain of 1.149 inches. lasting for a period of 3 hours and ’41 minutes fell on the wooded watershed. This rain caused a trace of run-off which lasted for a period of 52 minutes. 30th of these August storms were of high intensity types. Intensities for the 1916 storm reached a peak intensity of 3.00. 0.00 and 2.150 inches per hour for periods of 2. 3. and 2 minutes respectively. The storms were of the same pattern. Both started with a high intensity burst of rain. followed by low intensities before the highest intensities . in “10 middle of the storm. 1* appears from the above description that these two storms are O\ NO sufficiently alike that it can be safely said that the difference in run-off produced was due to some factor not inherent in the storms themselves. As soil moisture measurements were not begun until 17 days after the 1905 storm. the antecedent soil moisture measurements can not be com- pared. The measurements for the rest of l9#5 are given in table I? and do help in analysing the situation. TABLB.XV SOIL MOISTURI I] PIRGEHT FOR BART GT 1945 FOR TEI‘IOODID IAIIIIHID W Heath 1955 __ 1252 0—6 12—18 30—36 0-6 12—18 30-36 .OthIbOr 11s6 8e6 5e9 21‘s? 15e6 19s? October 18.1 16.5 10.0 17.0 13.8 16.3 'OVOIber 21.0 13e3 9e“ 23.? l‘eé lgeh December 19.1 15.7 13.2 33.2 16.8 21.2 Precipitation for the years l9h5 and 1952 are given in table 1Y1. Precipitation for 19h5 amounted to nearly ten inches more than that received in 1952. Rainfall for the four months proceeding the 19h5 storm amounted to 18.76 inches. Rainfall for the four months proceeding the 1952 storm amounted to only 12.38 inches. The month of August for the two years had almost the same amount of rain. as did the month of July for both years. In the months of Hay and June. the precipitation for 1995 was over twice that of 1952. It should also be noted that September 19%5 received 6.18 inches rain while the same month in 1952 received only 1.68 inches. However. as is shown in table 1'. soil moisture at the wooded watershed was much greater in 1952 than in 1945. This is true for all three depths tested. It follows from the above 70 the reason for the low moisture content of the soil in 19h5 was the heavy use of water by the vegetation. and the high soil moisture of 1952 was due to the low use of water due to the absence of vegetation. It then follows that the high soil moisture present in 1952 was conducive to allowing run—off as a result of a rain of the magnitude of the August 16. 1952 storm. This was the only storm of such. magnitude during the July to September period. It seems reasonable to assume that if as much precipitation had fallen in 1952 as fell in 1995. soil moisture would have been even higher than it was. and more than 0.05 inch of run—off would have resulted from a storm such as the August 16 one. TABLE XVI mars rucmmzos m m woonsn urnsm ron no mas . Precipitation in Inchel Ionth l9fl5 1952 January O.“1 2.01 rebruary 1.17 1.5“ March 2.19 2.09 April 3e6° 3-58 Ila: 7021 “.09 June “.00 1.15 July 2.60 2.79 MI‘ “e 95 “e35 September 6.18 1.68 October‘ 3.27 0.51 lovember 1.51 3.4? December 1.33 1.73 Total 38.h2 28.99 2h; effect of frozen goil on gurface run—org. Conditions of frosen.soil have not occured so frequently at the wooded watershed as at‘the cultivated. The cultivated is usually in a frosen state from December to April. The wooded watershed while freesing at times. only remains in a frosen state for a short time. and the frozen layer seldom extends beyond six inches. This portion of the study will be concerned with the freesing of the soil at the cultivated watershd. it's effect upon run-off. and the comparison of run—off from the two watersheds during the period of freesing temperatures. Table 1711 is a compilation of precipitation. run-off. soil moisture fer unfrosen soil and a tabulation of all frosen layers in the soil profile. The table covers the period from December 1. 1906 to the middle of April. 191w. ‘An examination of table XVII shows that as soil moisture froze to a depth of six inches. run-off occured on two days. as a result of snow melt. There was little run-off for the month as a whole. On January 10..a short period of warm weather caused snow melt. and again run-off occured. On January 14. a rain of .08 inch caused a partial thawing of the frozen soil. and again run-off occured as the result of melting snow. This continued until January 26. when warm weather again forced a partial thaw. At this time. all run-off ceased. with the mean air temperature going as high as 14-h degrees Fahrenheit. All snow melt occuring during this time was absorbed by the partially thawed soil. On February 0. temperatured dropped drastically to daily means of 6 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit. In response to this. the soil again reached a state of hard freesing to a depth of 12 inches. run I"! rncmr 1401mm. noun 3011.1. PRICIPITHIOIZUD nun-on ros umsm s. new mud-191;? Type Amount Mpff Preci it tion 60 1&8 Date ‘e (v H r4: r4 5rd .3 O OH \f\ 00 r“- e E9 00 O GIBBS. H or ‘11 mar: g mmmmmm N “WWW““WWWW‘AW‘H‘RWWWWWWWO 0 O MMMMMMMMMMMMMNMMMNMMMMQJ’ 3 \n‘n‘n‘nhnn‘nh‘n‘n‘n‘nnn‘nn‘n‘nhhhn‘nn eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHO-‘flflHHHHHH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOO NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN OOOOOOOOWOOOOOOWV‘OV‘V‘OOOOO NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON‘QWWOO O NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNC‘WM \n‘nnv‘vyn‘nnnnnoo OOW‘QWWOOOOO V‘ #:833333383“W““WWW‘AOWOOOO nnnnnmnvxnnoonnnooooococo 0 BBBfiBK‘BFBBQOQQQQQCQOQOQOQ OOOOv‘OOOOOOOWWWOOOOOOOOOO O. 0000 cocoooooooooooooooooo HHHHO‘H HHHHHH ...—“...... HHHHHH OOWO“OOOOOV\OOOOOOO O ...... O O O... O .0. O mwsmbaocommootxmooomoomoe HO O O O H o 00 "2° 'nv‘cgn'no eoe ”OHM.O¢H¢G$Hdfihhhhfifihfihhfi TABLE IV II (CONTIIUID) ‘ Run-off Pr ci itatio 42 1&8 60 36 2h 30 18 12 D th of Observation in Inche Date Amount Type December (Continued) .13 .02 .h3 R R R .0188 000000 e e e e e e 333333 mnnm‘nn 0:41-0:44; 000000 0 NNNNNN HERO. H l‘ 1' f f I l‘ I 26 27 l‘ 28 f 29 l‘ 1' F 30 31 December 2.“? . 0193 Total January 19“? mm H 00 H .30 O O . . E" 88. E4 I 0 mm m mmm mm m MN r-iNO H No .76!“ (I) OH HNO 0 CO \000 O O. .0. O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 333333333333333333 WWWWWV‘OOOOWWWOWOOO HHHHHHNNNNNNM‘AWBBN nonconononoooonooo unnaaannoonmmmmmao mnnoon‘nvxmvxooom‘nvxno Nmmmnnnmnmeaaaaaan WOWNWOOOOWOWOQOWWO WWéWOFFBFFQ‘Q‘QQéG: ooononnnnv‘nn nvxonnn O O O O O O O O O O O O O Bbuhbssfipgxpunfiégxég: OV\U\OOV\OV\OV\V\V\OOV\V\V\\A QOOQOOOQQOOGQQOQQQ OOOOOOOOOOOWOWOOOO eee eeee eeeeeeee thhHhNMHHNNhMMS—chh hhhhhhhhhhhfihfihhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhmhhhh HNm-fl‘MWBQOOHSM-fl'n‘g 2&3 unis m: (cannon) Type Amount Run-off Pre i it tion Date \l\ Hr‘l 60mm 3 CO 000‘!) 0E4 [-0800 see. H N at!) campus: 660) H3O W \O O\ omo 3363 m mono 350 H ONO NHOC 3 ... .... C H OOOOvanvynovznv} 333333333‘nfl‘n‘n “WOOOOWOOOOWW eeeeeeeeeeeee Ffiwmmmwwmmmwm V‘OVDOOhOOO‘fiomV‘ £GO:O\O\O\O\O\O:O\O:O\O\ oqnoonmnoqoqn Wnnwwwvmflbfififi ‘fi‘fl‘fl‘fi‘fl‘fifi'fi‘n‘QWO O 6666666666660: “OWV‘W‘I‘OOWO‘QWO NO. 656:»6656566 “QW‘Q‘I‘WQWO‘A‘QWW 6666666666666 OOV‘OWOWOOOWV‘“ eeeeee eeeeee I f I I I F f f f a a e O hutch.luio&uh.~ce e e ~.s HHHNHFHHOQHMN 19 20 21 22 23 2a 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Total for January January 19“? (Continued) 74 66666666 OOnOtAOOOOn O O O O I O O O I I \Oxoowbmmmmw U\<>V\U\V\<>C>U\<><> a>¢>a>¢>a>¢>a>a>a>¢> WOOOOOO‘HOO QO:O\O:O:O\O:O:O\O: “\QOOOOOWWO 6566666666 vxvxv\U\U\<>c>uxuwvw 6666666666 OOOQWWMOMW 66656666135. nonm‘noonmm e e e e e e e e e e 6606666666 \n‘n'nnvzon‘n OOOFO:°°O\®. Hfiu oooon 0.... aver-cam HHHH Hhhmh I» whhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh HNM3WWB®¢S February 19”? TABLE XVII (CONTINUED) Type Amount Run—off Preci itation 42 48 60 36 2h 30 18 12 De th of Observation in Inches Date Hg H NN o O 00 mes-451 e ee E-O (”WWW (0 mm (D \OMHW HO‘N” ONNO 0000 e e e e WWWWWV‘OOWOMOWOOO‘JWW (0600.00. O‘O:O\O\O\O:®.O\O\O\O\O: “MOOOOOWOMWOWOOnmn mmmmmmmmfimmmflmwmwm OOOOOWOO‘AOOOOOOOOO O‘C‘O‘O\O\®O‘O\®O\O\O\O\O\O~O\O\O\ onnnovxnvxnmnnnnonom mewwwmmwmmmmmmwmm “MOOOOOMWMOOOOOWOO seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mmwmmmmmwmwmmmmmmm \nnnnnnnnonnv‘onnmnn b-b~o~o~o~o~o~o~abr~o~o~a3o~o~o~o~c~ nooooooonnoooooonm OCDCDCDQQQQQQQOQCDQQBN fichhh'HQ-tfii Ohfiahhhhhhh hhhhhhhkhhlhhhhhhhh hhhhhhfihhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhwhhhfihhhhhhhh hhhhhflhhhhhhhhhhhh 12 13 1h 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 February 19“? (Continued) 11 e1? .0595 .... d as O H be :3 E ,a O In March 19“? OWOWV) 000:0:0: ooooo ... C. mmwmm 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 nnvyn‘n (1)0000. 00000 e e e e e mewm nnnvwn OI... o~o~o~o~o~ Bet-4F!!! hfiohhfin hhhhh hhhfinh hhfinhh Inf-think. HNM3W mm m: (coummm) Depth of Observation in Inches Rungoff Precipit ti Type Amount 60 48 42 18 2h 30 12 nab. March 1947 (Continued) pa rd -3c>V\V\<>V\V\V\V\V\<> o~e~o~o~o~c~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~c~o~o~o~o~o~ hhhhhhhHHMMQ-OHHHHHHHH: hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Record incomplete for this .12 .01 1.33 .01 £00102") 0) c>V\V\V\V\V\ «Jelr:o~o:o~ “00000 e e e e e e FNI‘FFB— "3 Q5...“ .MNHNHO HMO... l..- hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhlhhhh MOO... vx vxc>w\c>V\ O .0... . _I'\ fifiHNONe Ih h.htfiefiohukchutah.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.h.~.p¢ papa . ‘1 “2“} '2 .3 .4c: ‘0 huh.huhuhahuh-huechuhchahnhnhuhaiuhusara nqnasae eqtaé: 60G " 5600H3 C3r4 ex ‘0 Firdazfl 9:3:IE323E323§35:3:83caisgaggoaozezcxrxfi x '7 .mueu o» spouse 6 .rome o» uneven a .N .esno 000.06 nope unsaveeu anode cocoa-«eon new: .Haoa seuoau eeoeouccu h .sano 000.06 a» 00.0H menu emmausou nooan someoeuaou new: .Haoe meaeau espoused“ « .sano 000.0H use» useH eudaueea mooap eoqsosueeu near .aaos aeuouu seaso«ema e .H 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.6 0.6 0.~H 0.HH 6.6M 0.NH 0.HH 0 . 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.6 0.6 6.0a 0.0a 6.HH 6.ma 0.HH 6 06.m 6 00:6. 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.6 6.0 0.6 6.6 6.NH 0.0a 0.- 6 0m. 6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 6.0 6.0 6.0 s 6.0 0.0 0.0a 0.6a : 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 6.0 0.0 s e 6.0 6.NH 0.Na m 00. m 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 0.0 6.6 s e s 06H 6.3M N 60. m 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 6.0 0.6 e s e 0.aa s a SS :34 2:35 25. S we «a an on 3. 3 S a m m m I!" 'I 3.1241: do...” talcum 1 . open eczema ea moaaeaueepo no semen '-.b-!'i 'I -l -.I’o'l‘ - D (I! «35.580 :2 33 W: at .nudu an agency m .:000 o» cacao» u .N .uaao 000.06 hobo umducwou xooan condo-«ooh no“: .Hao- nououu uoaaoucnu h ..ano 000.06 a» 00.0a sou» .muwduou Mooap conduuanou near .Haoa nououu noucuucuu u .aana 000.0a can» unoH «mauvdou nooap conduaauou no") .Huo- nououu coauodvaa c .H 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.6 0.6 0.~H 0.HH 6.HH 0.NH 0.HH 0 _ 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.6 0.6 6.0a 0.0a 6.~H 6.NH 0.HH 6 06.m m 0036. 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.6 6.0 0.6 6.6 6.N~ 0.6a 0.6a 6 om. m 0.0 ed o.0 od 6.0 6.0 6.0 .. 6.0 o.0 0.2 0.2 a 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 6.0 0.0 c o 6.0 6.NH 0.Na n 00. m 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 0.0 6.6 u c s 0.6a 6.0a N 60. m 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 6.0 6.0 0.6 o u e 0.aH o a $3 2.34 232: :5 3 3 ...: mm on ER 3 S , 0 -m n H 3.0.»... :41: 3... .....m toafim Sun canon” a“ nodudpuoapo no 30009 -..-Fla- I’, l‘ 'II||."ID AEHESV 25 3mg "('8 On l'ebruary lit accumulated snow began melting and contributing to surface run-off over frozen soil. This was caused by temperatures high enough to melt snow. but not high enough to affect the frozen soil under the snow blanket. l‘ebruary 16 affords an exapmle of normal ice release from the soil in this area. with thawing taking place from both the top and bottom. 'ih. coldest layer is generally between the two extremes. During the mouth of March. rising temperatures on the 10th. to the 111 th. caused snow molt. aided by some rain. the greater part of the rain and snow melt ran off the watershed. The high temperatures of March 214 and 25. together with the rains of these days. completely eliminated the ice from the top three inches. The colder weather which followed ra—froso the surface one inch. the other layers continued to thaw. until all ice vanished hon the soil on April it. A close appraisal of the table points out the fact that one of the most serious problems facing the hydrologist in this area is the determination of means by which snow melt during the winter months may be channeled down into the soil. rather than run—off over a frozen surface. As shown earlier in this study. soil moisture field capacity at the cultivated watershed is considerably lower than that of the wooded water- shed. However. the cultivated soils can not take advantage of the “0136‘ capacity they DMD. due to poor infiltration during the months when the soil is frosen. Under the conditions of soil freesing outlined in Table XVII, during the month of January. the watershed lost an amount of water “1,331 m half the precipitation falling during the month. In rebruary. ‘4‘ 9 with the soil frozen to a 12 inch depth. one third the precipi— tation was lost to run—off. In Harch, with the soil frozen to 18 inches. more snow melt and rain water were.lost to run-off than fell during the month. This indicates that some of the previous month's snow ran-off during larch. Table XVIII is a summary of the precipitation and runpoff for the two watersheds for the period December l9u6 to April 5. 1947. It very clearly shows that while the cultivated watershed was losing large quantities of it's precipitation to run—off. the wooded only had one run-off for the winter. This run—off occured on.April 5. at the same time the cultivated had a run-off. The wooded watershed run—off occured as the result of snow melt and rain occuring on saturated soil. TKBLI XVIII sauna! or 9330911133101: mp mam, wxmm 1916—1910 A - Gultivatgd water-gigs B 'goded Ugtorghed Honth Precipitation Bun—off Precipitation Run—off ’in Inches in Inches in Inches in Inches December 2.“? 0.0193 2.83 0.00 January 2.83 1.0199 3.20 0.00 rebmary 0e 17 . 0e0595 0e71 ‘ 0.00 March 1.33 1.5207 1.8“ 0.00 Table XIX is a compilation of snow depths. density and soil moisture for the two watersheds for the period mentioned above. It should be noted that while the cultivated watershed was in a.frozen state from the middle of December to the first of April. the wooded use a... .J . V's". 80 watershed was not observed in a frozen condition all winter. It is interesting to note that the snow survey of February 17 to March 17 showed the snow at the cultivated watershed to be in such a frozen state that no snow survey was poasible. The snow at the wooded watershed was not in this condition. Snow depths at the wooded watershed were greater in every instance than at the cultivated. This deeper snow blanket will have a temper. ing effect upon soil temperatures. hindering any sudden changes. TABLE XIX COMPARATIVE SHOV DEPTHS. DENSITY AND SOIL MOISTURE. WINTER 1946.47 U Cultivated Vatgrghed Hooded Ugtgrghed Date Snow Depth Density Soil Snow Depth Density Soil in Inches in Per» Moisture in Inches in Per. Moisture cent in Per. cent in Per— cent cent 12-16-1946 No snow Frozen No snow 18,5 12-23-46 1.62 14.81 Frozen 2.33 9.01 12n30-46 2.73 14.81 Frozen 2.95 13.22 29.8 1 — 6-4? 6.09 13.79 Frozen 6.95 15.97 29.8 1 -13-4? 3.68 17.12 Frozen 4.73 20.08 1 -20-47 .31 70.9? Frozen 2.88 28.13 27.3 1 —27-47 Trace Frozen Trace 26.9 2 - 3.1;? 4.94 37.65 Frozen 7.08 31.07 21.9 2 - 11-47 7.61 30.22 Frozen 9.18 26.69 2 - 17-47 To much ice to make survey Frozen 7.4? 27.80 17.6 2 _24-47 To much ice Frozen 8.63 27.46 3 _ 3—4? To much ice Frozen 10.02 24.65 20.2 3 -10-47 To much ice Frozen 7.93 32.28 3 —17L47 To much ice Frozen 5.96 33.72 22.1 3 _24~47 No snow 14.0 No snow 3 -31-47 Trace of snow Frozen 4.72 25.00 35.5 4 _ 5.47 Snow gone 12.0 Snow gone Satur- ated 81 An examination of soil temperatures for the winter of 1946—47 showed that one inch soil temperatures at the wooded watershed frequently reached 28 degrees Fahrenheit several times without freezing. Soil temperatures of 32 degrees indicated freezing at the cultivated water- shed. if these temperatures remained for any appreciable length of time. Little is known about the freezing point for various soils. This is a flexible point. depending upon the salts in solution in the soil moisture. the quantity of soil moisture. organic content and duration of freezing. The problem of freezing temperatures has not been completely evaluated. The problem of freezing temperatures. the point'at which various soils freeze. means of preventing freezing in soils. and methods of inducing infiltration during periods of freezing temperatures is of vital importance in the hydrology of an area such as Lansing. The entire question of the influence of frost on infiltration rates is yet to be completely evaluated. The type of frost appears to be a factor. There appear to be two types. concrete and honeycommed (24).- It is believed the concrete type may reduce infiltration rates drastically. much more so than the honeycombel type. due to the greater density of the concrete type. Root material. organic matter. air space and.tem_ peratures slightly below freezing seem to favor the development of the honeycomb type. while compact soil. high soil moisture content. low volumes of air space and low temperatures seem to favor the develop— ment of the concrete type of frost. 32 §urfg§g run-giggsu’mmmjor the month; of January- Februarypfld‘ m. Tables H and XXI show the percent of run-off occuring during the first three months of the year. the months of heavy soil freezing. It clearly indicates this period to be the most important one in the year from the standpoint of surface run—off. The one year which was the exception to the rule. 1941. was a year with relatively warn winter temperatures and little soil freezing. As may be seen in Table XX. the three month precipitation was smallest in 1951. The cultivated watershed received. on the basis of an eleven year average. 18.36 percent of it's yearly precipitation during the first three months. It lost. to surface run-off. during this time. 78.35 percent of the total amount 1”: to surface run-off. The wooded watershed indicated another trend. with 18.45 percent of the yearly precipitation coming during the test period. It lost 39.42 percent of it‘s contribution to run-off during the first three months. The similiarity between the watersheds ended here. The wooded received an average of 32.77 inches precipitation per year to 31.55 inches for the cultivated. In nine out of the eleven years in the test period. the wooded watershed received more precipitation than the cultivated. The cultivated lost to surface run-off an average of 4.23 inches per year, with 3.77 inches being lost during the three month period. The wooded watershed lost a yearly average of 0.5423 inch to run—off. with 0.2138 inch of this coming during the first three month period. A statistical analysis of all rain producing storms occuring over the cultivated watershed during the period 1945 b 1951 was made. This analysis was carried out to determine the effect of cover in 83 mm.ma 0m.mn 00.m m~.e nn.nn pounced oo.oon mm.0n nw.n mo.n mm.on ammn m~.n0 a0.n~ o~.: n:.e 06.6m ommn $.66 00.3 inn «0.6 9.40 30..“ -.06 00.nm no.0 06.6 m6.6~ 6:0n oa.oo an.nn nn.o nm.o 06.0m 0:0n 0m.oo 00.nm 0~.m Hm.m mo.n~ wean oo.om no.nn no.n m0.n 0:.0n mean 60.60 0n.a~ 0a.n mm.m mm.- seam ~m.am em.nn 66.2 nn.~ 0o.mn mama 60.nm om.en we.» n0.a no.en moan oo.o Ho.on oo.o 6n.~ 0e.6~ neon chemo: cannon oonmm oedema eomoeu mu meson” nu nouns nu umoanmm ma eoaamuamuoenm ma Macadam umonmem mouumaanuoeum use» doses b 300.30 Hones no ameonem Bane: n 0.73: hands» . 5394: 39403.50! no; a: Hannah .uaphdh no «manor Ema 60h H3396 oncoqomnhm NH :39 4411?“ No.00 no.6” mmn~.o nmem.o 00.~n oneness oo.oon 0m.0n oooaa oooea ea.~m anon an.m: 60.nm n06~.o ~006.o nm.0m omen oo.oon HH.e~ enn.o anno.o o:.~m mean 30.00 mo.n~ ~eww.o omnm.n am.0m mean oc.o Hw.nn oooo.o 00m0.o 00.6m anon oo.oon o~.=~ omao.o mmao.o mm.n~ wean oo.o me.nn oooo.o cowo.o Ne.mm neon m0.~ no.m~ mano.o 0mam.o n0.n~ anon 2.3 mafia Swag. $60; 00:6 93 00.00” on.mn 0000.o aoma.o an.0m mama oo.oon 00.0 mmoo.o mnoo.o eo.0~ neon enamel game: 0939 0303 0303 5 .305 a.“ oonna on ccoansm on nonnonaaaooam an ccosqam “nausea eonuonaanooaa coo» Heuos no oneonem Hones no 230qu memo: e938 hammer 0.730» auger—.43 fiance: ... $221 a: Hammih .Hmdbmdh. .60 amazon Mus No.6 2:255 0:030qu HRH 36,49 00.00 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 o0¢eop< 00.000 00.00 .0000 .0000 00.00 0000 00.00 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.000 00.00 000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.00 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.0 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.000 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.0 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.0 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.00 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.000 00.00 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 00.000 00.0 0000.0 0000.0 00.00 0000 enema: emcee: nouns nemomn oedema a0 oedema m0 00 ucouqam 00o.eem 000000000oo00 no.» oonna o0 ucounem e0 oo00o0000oo00 mono: enema haueow 0000c» Heuoa no ameuuem Hopes no «noonom qummas<3 nmqooa 106064: 024 wmdbmmns .0645246 00 @6920: M69 men wmdzzam ouoonomnwm nun adm‘a 85 preventing run—off during periods when the soil was frozen. The analysis was carried out by means of two way tables and Chi Square. by the method of expected numbers. It contrasted the effect of open cultivated cropsresidue interspersed with rye against the cover afforded by a winter cover of alfalfa-brome. The results of the analysis indicated that within the limits tested. cover did not have any significant effect in preventing the begining of surface run—off when the soil was frozen. Another analysis was made to determine the effect of cover upon the size of run-off. This study indicated that the alfalfa-brome was significantly better than corn stubble and rye in preventing the run-offs from becoming large. .Put in other words. run-offs under alfalfa-brome were significantly smaller than those under corn stubble and rye. A statistical analysis was not made of the wooded watershed for this portion of the study. since cover was the same for eleven years. and it was not felt that the one years data following the cut was. sufficient basis for a statistical analysis. .Ne analysis was made_between the watersheds on the basis of cover. since the size of the rainstorms. as well as their intensities were not always the same. The differences between the hydrologic summaries of run-off for the watersheds were so great that a statistical analysis was not needed te prove significance. Soil temperature variationgcaused by clear—cutting_the woodgg watershed. It is of importance. from a hydrologic standpoint to know the effect upon soil temperatures of a clear-cutting Operation such as was carried out on the wooded watershed. If. for example. winter soil temperatures drop several degrees lower under denuded conditions 86 than under wooded. and this temperature drop leads to soil freez- ing where none existed before. or if it leads to a concrete type frost. where honeycomb would have resulted before the cut. the risk is run of incurring serious run-off by such a out. In order to partially determine the effect such a cut would have upon soil temperatures. a statistical analysis was made on two years data. one year proceeding the cut. and the first year following the out. It is realized that a long period of study is to be desired for such a study. However. in view of the fact that the first year following the cut is so different from any other in relation to vegetation. the writer felt Justified in making the analysis. Since the differences exhibited by the two years in question was so small. a graphic presentation of the differences was made. The daily records from a hygrothermograph at an elevation of 4.5 feet above the surface of the ground. located in an open field adjacent to the watershed. and one inch soil temperatures taken from a three-pen soil thermogpaph located on the watershed were used. The daily ranges of temperatures for each day in the two years were taken from the charts in question. Bach daily soil temperature range was subtracted from the 4.5 feet elevation air temperature range for the same day. The differences were then submitted to Fishers ”t" test in order to determine significance between the summed diff- erences of the two years. As shown in Table XXII. the difference obtained was barely sufficient to give significance at the one percent level. Since the difference between the means for the two years was 87 only 1.4 degrees. and since the results were barely significant. the accumulated differences between ranges of degrees Fahrenheit between maximum and minimum temperatures for the one inch soil depth and the air temperature at the ’4.5 feet elevation. were plotted As shown in both figure 14 and Table XXII. the The as monthly totals. differancss that do exist between the two years are slight. effect of this slight change was impossible to measure with the one 1”” ' data available. Data taken over the next ten years should furniah the answer to the question. TABLE XXII soun VALUES USED IN CALCULATING “1:" iron om: mun son. TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES FOR NO nuns \ \ - —'— I X 2 X 2'_ N ...—1.21.... I‘D 't' Dag. Difference between Number of Differences Obtained Needed fiangee. in Degrees Observations between for Fahrenheit Ranges in Signifi- \ Degrees I. cance 3;; 5207 95111 359 14.5 2.687 2.590 at 4715 77227 359 13.1 the 1% level \ _‘ Air tegperature changes caused by clear—cutting the wooded___w_;a.t,e_r‘srk£d_. S the. air temperatures near the surface of the soil are instru— ment al in melting snow and in determining '0“- temperature. any "P‘lgt1gns in the temperature of the air near the surface of the ‘.11 that is caused by the clear-cutting of a watershed is of importance. .oanuo» manuaoa an copaOHm .noaon>oao noon m.: a an oadooaoaaop has was named auoa Anna one you amauumnomaoa adsucwa one aaauuna wagon coozuop uaonaehnsb nooaMov mo common as aooconomuav consananood ”3H .wam amaze: . a . a . o . m . 4 . h . b . a . 4 _ x . h . a oom coca Ill’llll‘IIIIIIllliliil‘llll’llll‘lIll‘tII-ltift- oonfl ooom oomm ooom oomm oooo com: mama _Hmoa . IIWHHYJ Wild MEWHOOV NI MOWHIG 88 The differences between ranges of degrees between maximum and minimum monthly averages. made up from weekly readings. for two elev— ationa are plotted in FIGURE 15. These differences are for the years 1951 and 1952. and were taken from the readings of maximum—minimum thermometer sets located in standard Weather Bureau houses at elevations of 15.5 and 2.5 feet. The “.5 feet station is located in an open field adjacent to the wooded watershed. while the 2.5 feet station is located on the watershed. the plotted values were obtained by subtracting for the year 1951. the nonthly average minimu- froa the monthly average minua for MS foot. The aonthly average minimum for 2.5 feet was then subtracted from it 's maximum. These two operations yielded two ranges. Range one was then subtracted from range two. and the difference plotted for the reapeetivs year. The same operation was performed for each year. The resulting chart is a graphical presentation of the differences in atmospheric fluctuation between the two elevations while the water- “1" was under wooded cover and after the area was clear-cut. An examination of the chart indicates that the daily fluctuations °f telllperatures between the two elevations were greater before than after the cut. Fluctuations were greatest during the summer months. before the cut. but there were definite differences during the winter as well. Table XXIII is a presentation of average maximum. minimum weekly t'm9ratnres expressed as monthly means for 1951 and 1952 for the two above mentioned elevations. .aacoh or» you anouuopoao pooh m.m can m.a now aowsao>c mamanoa Bananas can sneanma coeraop aoopMoo uo summon cu aoocoquMaa .m~.m«m amaze: o,z o m < .. a. a a an .. pb-aP-P-p-ao 0' 10.! the- {A 0\ (H > ‘\\ / I s e w I I o - N. t I ma §°n =9 9'2 mama mesa KI nomaam QOF@D.¢MN- ‘ r 90 Figures 16 and 17 are made up from the values in Table XXIII. They show that under wooded cover the 2.5 feet elevation has higher maximums during the winter than does the 4.5 feet elevation in the Open field. The shielding effect of the trees in cutting down on wind move— ment would tend to make the woods warmer than the-outside. In 1952. after the cut. temperatures tended to be more nearly equal. During the summer. maximums were considerably loss under wooded cover than outside the forest. After the cut. the 2.5 feet elevation maxi-nae within the cut over area were some warmer than those at “.5 feet outside. Figure 17 is a.graphica1 presentation of the temperature comparisons for 1952 , Changes in the minimums are less than those for the maximums. but some differences do exist. The greatest difference exists in the months between February and lay. Hinimums under wooded cover were higher than they were after the stand was cut. .uoom m.: no thugs: on» o» accoswoa oaoau some as aw panacea aozao soundboao an an oonaaopsr cocoa) on» no ooumooa snaacaa hflsaqca zoos can anHaNda hanpnoa have on» hood n. Hnmfl m<flw Hue NON amaze: m 4 h a a < b h a L — sznzmz Mamanoz ndflx I \‘I I’ll‘\\ xoxHxax waxeaoz nan: noon n.o .Jt homecooao an as name on» one .uoeu w.~ as one nounwuon or» new we nooaaenaoo .wH .Man \ . on x \ Elwoom W. N om dIIHNIEHVI SSIHBIG .uoom m.: no nodaapeao an as inoanr cocoon on» on anaconda oaoum come as :« counooa usage on com. noon .nouaaaoae woom m.~ um commences one no voodooa one “manuaon or» you manages manages mean one asauxsa hfinpnoa seen one no :oo«nsaaoo Nnma Ndflh any man amaze: 4 Q a o m h n S 4 x h a n u L! a h a a - a - taxman: Hamazos 24H: LTL . good To \.w\ no: m o \ \ .aa .maa ca om JIIBKIXHVI SEIKOIU 93 .eoac doc-each a you ewdausoa auoonohao nepaw opus dado: coaaacnoo copanaaao on» one .ananoa soon» nuance ado made» no aeoooun on» ad on: consumes: can .onaa noun can sonaoa.uopaoooq can nonnopon .uopoaoo mucosa» hasnash yo nausea on» you one amma you aocanp .H a.ma o.on a.ma n.oo a.o o.on a o.on non-ouoo n.oa a.ao o.o~ o.oo e.oa o.~n u n.~n nonnapoa m.a~ m.~a m.on o.aa n.a~ m.aa o. o.na nopoaoo n.5n o.nm a.pm e.mm o.mn a.:s m. o.n> «uneconom o.oo o.oo o.mo o.ow o.oo o.oa a a.no aasuno o.mo o.oo o.oo a.ao n.oo ~.~o o.oo have ~.na o.mm e.oa o.ao 0.“: ~.wp a.~m ouch o.~m :.~m m.~m o.oo o.mn :.ma o.om as: a.n~ a.oo a.m~ o.ao «.mN o.mo m.~o Hanna o.~a m.mo o.oa o.o: o.oa «.No o.nn nuns: ~.o o.oo a.o H.oo o.~ a.no o.oo anaona.a o.o a.oa a.o n.mo “.1 m.oo ~.an ananoan insane: annex»: enough: Iguana: sundae: .aoanuna noses“: anaeuaa :. _qaommmmmuququu mauaquuumunmuuwnwgm o anon anon N a gene: 11. mwmmI: anon anon teamma .aan: womanoa nae m4.onmmnamau mnmouaunmxna ma< magma: apnea»: ouudinu< .OHumuommua!a HoaoHNNamHNoc nHoHuum .N ..vod« a« HHNMInHNu Hauoa .H NN. N. N. N. N.H N.N :.N N.N N.NH H.NN H.NH OOH Naoouom H N N N N oH NH 3N N: NN oNH NNN Haves N.H . HN.H NN.N NN.N NN.HH NN.HH NH.:N NN.N: «noouom w w m .N. m ..N .mH .N..N N255 Huaoauepm H H N NN.N N H N H. a a oN.NH N N a NN.N N N H NN.N N .Hmom H H N N N p HN.NN oH .NaN.NHuN H H H N a N N 4 NN.oN NN NH.NN NN onuN.Nux noon H N HN.H H .poz.»oo H .H HN.H H £3332 H p HN.H H NN.N N .poH.auN NN N HNHN.N.N. N N o N N N oo N N H oo H o c 0 an.» Hmwo Non Hmwo Non maNoNN Na» 0H o» o» a» o» o» o» 0H on a» a» -HNN -Nom .asz -Nom ..asz «gage: No ..NHo Hm. NN.N HN.N NN.N HN.N NN.H HN.H NN.H Ho.H NN.o HN.o NN.o apoNHam.noNn NH .Npaoz NoaooHom popeaz sheen Idemcchm Hdpowrwmwwwmmmw nwuaauovm no nonmmw -.."Ir', AQMDBHBZOOV H>NN Handy Nauoam no umpadz aH Napoam no hopedz Haves 108 the total precipitation fell in rains of 0.25 inch or less. As stated earlier. rainfall intensities are of the utmost impor— tance in determining whether a soil is able to soak up all the rain falling on it. If the'intens'ity exceeds the infiltration rate. the pre- cipitation excess has no recourse except to run-off.(hl). As soil moisture increases and approaches the saturation point. the infiltration rate becomes less importantand the permeability of the least permeable soil layer becomes important and becomes the limit— ing factor in determining how fast water may move into and through the soil prefile.(h). In order to more clearly illustrate the part rainfall intensities play in contributing to run—off. and to illustrate the peak sizes of rainfall experienced in a typical year. Figure 19 has been presented. This chart illustrates peak intensities experienced at last.Lansing for the entire year of 1942. Peak intensities are given for periods of two and five minutes. It should be noted that the rise and decline of intensity peaks follow the same trends as those noted earlier under the rainfall class study. The highest intensity noted for two minutes was 6.00 inches per hour. Intensities have reached 9.00 inches per hour at this station for periods up to one minute. It should be noted that this 13 well y1thin the range of infiltration values for both watersheds under ideal conditions. However. due to other factors. such as surface sealing under raindrOp impact on bare.soil. frosen soil. high soil moisture. and others. both watersheds have yielded sone run-off as the result of most storms with intensity rates over 6.00 inches per hour for two minutes or longer. .N:¢H use» on» you camHnon .mnHuch «New as NeoceHNomwe seconds oer and era mo evoHuem new eeHNHNnoacH seem .aH omHh mumam Hanna: fibuh mam 3.9sz 039 oz o N < _. ..r:.<.xr uto .orzr o. N..«... H. a -5: H.346 H H H HN.H .HHHHHH_ .H HHHHHH. HH. .H- H. iHHr . . . H_. H HHHH ...H. J... H: H. HHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH. HHH HHH H H H HHHHHH .HH.. 2:. H HHHHHH HHHH HH H H H HHHH_ . H H H H H H H H33 HH :HH. ..HHHHH . HH H ..HH HH HHHH HH H H HHHH ,: .HHH . HH HH HH . HH HHHH HHH H .03 HHH _ H ”H H H . H H H.” H H H H 81103 33:! 8130!! II SIIIISEEMI Statigticalfianalzggg. Statistical analyses. using the Chi Square test for independence in 2 x 2 tables. were made to determine if the quantity of rainfall was significant in producing rainfall on the wooded watershed. In this study, all rainfalls over 0.25 inch were divided into those under 1.00 inch total and those over 1.00 inch. These were further subdivided into storns producing run-off and those prod— ucing no run—off. Rainfalls of 1.00 inch and greater proved to be significant in aiding to produce run—off. .A similiar analysis was run on these storms occuring over the wooded watershed to determine if the precipitation class (intensity) was significant in aiding to produce run—eff. The two highest classes. five and six. did not prove to be significantly different from those of lesser intensity. It is felt that this is true for the conditions at the wooded watershed. Several factors contribute to this seemingly contradictory statesent. The heavy vegetal cover and leaf lat break . the inpact of the raindrops. and the beating effect of the higher intensities is not felt in the woods. Infiltration under wooded cover is so great that infiltration capacity is never lower than rain inten- Iity until soil moisture reaches a relatively high level. 'hen soil moisture approaches saturation the permeability of the least per- neabile layer becomes the liniting factor. and this is so low that ““1 number two store could contribute more water than the soil could discharge through it's layers. Perhaps the most ilportant factor lies in the simple fact that the lower intensities occur during the ”inter and spring months when soil noisture is at it's highest. This 1- the period of greatest number of run—offs. ILs. 3.5Ngwhh .- ‘1. 1.1- Due to the larger number of storms which produced run—off at the cultivated watershed. it was possible to make two analyses of the effect of total amounts of rainfall in any given storm. The effect of total rainfall upon producing run-off was tested by means of Chi Square and 2 x 2 tables. and storms of 1.00 inch and greater proved to be highly significant at the one percent level. A similiar test was made of all storms producing runpoff during the frost free periods of the years 1941 to 1951. The purpose of this study was to determine if the larger rains tended to produce larger run—offs. On the basis of the small number of storms available for the study. larger storms. with the exception of the very large,.did not prove to be significantly different from the smaller ones. The same type analysis was made to determine if storms of intensity classes five and six were significantly different from the lower ones in producing run-off on the-cultivated watershed. The two higher classes proved to be highly significant in this respect. n ‘N .'\ y high View of the cultivated watershed following run-eff occasioned b intensity storm occuring on bare soil. ri‘e 20s “113 PRECIPITATION. RUN-OFF AID SOIL LOSS SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 1%1-51 The monthly and yearly values for precipitation. run—off and soil loss for the cultivated and wooded watersheds are shown in Table X11]! and Table XXX. Table XXIX shows the hydrologic summary for precipi- tation. soil loss and run—off. The wooded waterst has received more precipitation for the period than the cultivated. It has received more precipitation in all but two of the eleven years. The total eleven year precipitation for the cul- tivated watershed was 357.51 inches. of which l$.57 inches was lost to surface rump-off. The wooded watershed received 360.50 inches precipi- tation. with a loss of only 5.96 inches. The difference in soil loss is even more striking. The cultivated watershed lost 56.235.5 pounds of soil per acre. while the wooded watershed lost only 62 pounds of soil per acre for the period. It is important to know both the total run-off amounts for the year as well as the months in wich these run-off's occur. Table 11:: is a compilation of average precipitation. run—off and soil loss by months. for the entire period. These figures become more useful if the number of years each month contributed to run—off is known. This infor— mation is given in Table m1. Tables xxx and xxx: show that on the basis of an eleven year average. winter water losses are very high. When the first three months are examined. it is seen that this is a consistently highwater loss period. Run—off has occured in seven months out of the eleven for the 11% ~H .‘fi. 1 -vou. . qu » --r.ru- w<.:. m.mH ‘ one tag 006M890 on «sea cogmuamuo team no unconom o.~N Naoa.m NN.NNn m.nmmmm moon.ma HN.HHN decoy as.~m N.Nma. aanm.a NN.Nm “mm” N.Hn Neon. mn.mn N.NNN woa:.: NN.Nn omma aaao. N:.~n N.~aaa NNNN.N m:.¢n Name ~.am omam.a an.m~ a.a~n nmwN.N NN.NN mama Hana. ma.Nm a.mame~ amNN.N mn.an same muse. NN.n~ anon.n NN.HN mama Nome. ~:.Nn Noma.m N:.am mead NNNN. mN.n~ nnmm.n «N.N~ eaaa NNnN.H NN.Hn HNNH.N No.nm mean “can. Ha.am N.N~o~ «Noa.a no.3n Nam” Nmoo. ao.a~ o.~amo~ coma.~ as.N~ flea“ 0.34 934 . com acccom eonocH senocn ca non condom Nemoca somonu ca meMeM 30m ca .301ch coaaeounaoomm mood 30m mu umolqmm moaamawmanwmwm use» unsuccess.u.eoox .n. u.n.cooua.uoos>aaauo anmauaamn .am4xzpm NNoa gnom .ano.zpm .zoaaeaameonma an an: t..- Elli TABLE XXII 1 L‘; mm 01" YEARS EACH MONTH CONTRIBUTED AT LEAST ONCE TO SURFACI BULLOPF AND SOIL LOSS FOR THE PERIOD 1941 - 1951 Wooded wgtgrlhed Month Cultivated Vaterghed Run—off Soil loss Run-off Soil loss January 7 3 1 » February 10 h 3 March 10 5 6 2 April 1+ l 2 1 “av 3 3 3 J une 1+ It 3 1 July 2 1 August 5 a September 2 1 October 1 l lovember 1 December 5 l L fi“ 116 IABLB.XXI AVERAGE PRECIPITAIION. SURFACE RUN40FF. AND SOIL LOSS BY MONTHS FOR THE HOODED AND CULTIVATED WATERSHED. 1941-1951 ‘v— — Cultizeted Watershed Woodedzggteggged _‘ loath Precipi— Run-eff Soil Lose Precipl— Run-off in 8011 Lone tation in in Inches 1n Pound: tetlon Inchee in Pounds '__Inc§gg r;per Acre 13 Inches per Acre___ January 1.89 .8191 50.03 2.10 .0010 February 1.3“ 1.3110 96.83 1.58 .0270 larch 2.32 1.6870 198.22 2.53 .1856 3.0? April 2.67 .1099 1.31 2.65 .0831 1.50 May 4.09 .0752 60.20 0.21 .0877 June 3.88 .2365 1588.13 3.64 .1573 .65 July 2.b5 .0081 .05 2.05 Anguet 2.81 .0312 8.10 3.12 Septenber 3.11: .0988 2236.36 3.30 October 2.58 .0719 867.27 2.72 ‘0' C'bor 2 e 09 o 0063 2 o 31 December 1.89 .1090 1.73 2.06 Total 31.55 0.6048 5112.27 32.71 .5017 5.62 '1 1.7 month of January. and in ten of the eleven for both February and March. Run-off is most likely to occur in the month of Harch at the wooded watershed also. Run—off occured in six of the eleven years recorded at the wooded watershed. pu later Losses as Influenced by Cover on the Cultivated Watershed Iater losses are broken down by cover types and season in fable f 11111. The monthly grouping was arranged as follows. the first period 1: consists of the months of January. February. Harch and.April. Ehis is the period of snow accumulations. frosen soil and the spring thav. This is the period of high.water loss. The second period consists of the months from May through.August. It has been taken as the growing season. marked by heavy plant use of water, high intensities and low water loss. Soil loss during this period is high. the months of September to Dec- ember are usually marked by low soil moisture. and relatively good cover over the soil surface. Soil and water losses during this period are usually caused by large storms. frost conditions enter the picture in December, but seldom have any effect upon run—off. Snow accumulation during December is usually light and may be carried over into the next year. During the first period. the precipitation is low, compared with that received during the growing season. For the twelve year period under study, precipitation amounted to an average of 8.22 inches for the four month period. Of this amount. 08.9 percent was lost to surface run-off. 118 An inspection of soil moisture charts shows the first four months to be the season of moisture recharge. The highest soil moisture of the year is recorded during this time. During this season. transpiration, and evaporation are at a minimum. If the water can be held on the soil until it has a chance to infiltrate it will be a valuable source of moisture for the drier months of the summer. Cultivated watershed B, with it's average loss of 0.00 inches to surface run-off during the first four months of the year presents one of the most important conservation problems in Michigan. Harold and Dreibelbis (15) state that 25.0 inches of water is needed to produce a corn crop in the vicinity of Coschocton. Ohio. With a loss of b.00 inches of water during the first four months of the year out of a total of only 31.55 inches in an average year. the margin for producing a corn crop safely is slight. If the winter run-off could be stored in the soil for use later on. it would constitute insurance against drought losses. A basic problem. the solution of which is pressing. is the deter- mination of methods of increasing infiltration during the frost season. It has been generally felt that cover exerted a great influence over whether runpoff would occur from a storm. In order to deter- mine the effects of heavy cover (alfalfa—brome). as opposed to lighter cover. (corn and rye). Iables XXIII and.XXXIII have been prepared. These tables show the comparative precipitation. runpoff and soil loss for the cultivated watershed for years when the watershed was planted to various crops. so "J A close study of Table XXIII shows that during the first four months of the year. based on a total of 12 years. watershed 3 had 98.79 inches of precipitation and lost “0.55 inches to run-off. Vhen broken down into cover types. the watershed was planted to rye. follow; ing a corn crap for three winters. Under this cover. the watershed received 25.31 inches of precipitation and lost 17.71 inches to runpeff. This was a loss of 31.08 percent. Percentage wise. the loss to run- off under sod was less than half that under rye. This fact is further substantuated by the results of the Chi Square test. This test. utilising all storms occuring on the watershed during periods when the soil was not frosen. showed sod to be significantly superior to corn and rye in preventing run—off. The period during the middle of the year received the largest amount of rainfall. more than one and one-half times as much as that received during either of the other two periods. This is also the period of high rainfall intensity. These high intensity rains are acconpanisd by high intensity run—offs. Out of a total of 370.58 inches precipi- tation for the 12 years. 161.75 inches fell during this period. Of this amount. enly 3.82 inches were lost to run-off. There is a definite indication that sed decreases run—off during the summer months. Sod lost only 0.38 inch to run—off over a six year period. while clean tilled crops lost 3.uu inches during the same time .pan. There was almost the same amount of precipitation for each period. The great differences between run—off for the two covers may be explained by referring to FIGURE 18. It will be noted that during these months storms of class five and six predominate. These high 1&0 ma.o ee.o ma.me mn.~ ma.e em.mn Heaoanpea Ha.o no.3 mn.ng we.o ee.a ae.m soaaoooa an.wa no.0 mn.o mo.oa oopaoeoz :~.ma ea.o ~m.e oe.oH poaonuo No.0 mo.o Hm.em mo.a ma.m - am.aa nopeonaom name» ”and” made» finch mm.o ae.o ~e.om em.“ ea.“ aa.on ee.a ma.m mm.om antennae» an.o ea.o ma.me me.o me.o ma.“ ¢H.o a~.H oo.aa_ aesue< ec.o an.o am.ea no.o ma.o mm.e . nn.a has» oe.ea aa.a nm.oa HH.HH ~e.~ me.oa ne.~a one» aa.o No.0 ~n.a~ Hm.o ma.m we.e eo.o o~.o nH.eH as: name» Nam ones» can. when» Hook em.mm mo.an we.ma Ha.aa ae.ee an.n~ Heuoaaaua mm.a nn.e ~a.a~ aa.e eased om.oa mm.on mo.aa «o.m o~.om oo.oa none: mm.a mm.ee an.ea ea.e mo.HmH oa.e assuage» ma.m e~.aa an.ma mn.~ mm.~: oe.m aeeeaee one?» on; once» 00.39 2525 talcum talcum cu cod» 30.63 30:55 .325 3 Condom who-dun monocH ma 23cc: eocofi acoomwm loamAmoomm aococH accouom nodusaamwooam eonocu acouuem coxeflmaooam he. cornea «t5 com snoop? in once 3 .350 ohm Numaueeea : m.anammuaop< mNnaqi Ne.N omen .N one» a NH n on stone Nneo. we. omen .nN manna N an n on .soae omen. em. omen .eN anaa< e m n on oton< memo. nN. omen .oN nose: on o e on .»094 mnmo. on. one“ .nN.noee: me on N on .toae mean. _ Nm. emaa .NN anesupma on «N N on .toaa came. mm. omen .en meanness m e e on .top4 echo. on.a ease .ma seasons me an n ea semen mmNe. ea.N ween .om as: on on e as acute Name. mm.n meem .ea noes: mN n m as ..op4 same. eN.N use” .n mnea< on an N on otoa4 oNeo. Nn. mead .m menu: a n e on .top4. conga ee.m meme .Hm ».ues4 mm nN e on epona memo. NH.N neon .ma as: m N e on opoa< mean. a:. seam .HN as: “N m a on opoa< ammo. on. seem .om nose: m m w on 265 334 2.4 92 .93 e5.» oN on a on stone omen. an.a mama .Hm as: an a n om atone nomN. aN.H need .nm note: an mm a on otoa< ocean ma. mean .om sees: a N H as .peg4 ammo. so. need .MN homespun n m H meaoah sodas ha. mama .Nm haosupoh m NH n om spend. ocean we. mama .0 haecnpeh m a N on .pop4 eaNN. on. Name .aa noes: NH e e on stopa neNe. ae.a Neon .oa nose: nN AN H on otep< ease. mm.m Name .e noes: uudao nmolcmm moaamwwmuoowm hpaecoacn Awauuaao: muotqmm monocn ma open steam an nonsense soaps» anon ooeossm seneecaanoosa, lunaooum antanma .nflmmmfladx_nH9003 Qua no mxmoam canopnomm amounnm mam >~HHH.EAM‘H .||«1|III,> ..u M) e . ~1hllbs1... layer is saturated. any rain in excess of 0.0“ inch per hour will cause run—off. (2) Some of the run-off producing storms have been high intensity stormm with large total precipitation. The high intensities have usually occured in the middle or at the end of the storm. after the earlier portion of the storm had satisfied much of the soil moisture require- ?' ments of the soil. 127 SUMMARY Basically there are two regions of a watershed affected by vegetal cover. One is concerned with differences within the soil itself. and is concerned with such factors as the effect of humus upon freesing and the freesing point of the soil. It is also concerned with the soil moisture retentive capacity. and the increased percolation of water through the soil due to the addition of organic matter. root channels and animal borings within the soil as well as the improved structure that comes with the addition of organic matter. The surface of the soil is the second region affected. The better the surface is protected by vegetal cover. the less risk is run of raindrop splash sealing the sur- face pores. The heavy transpiration of water by plants during the growing season also provides storage space for winter precipitation and the large amount of debris on the surface acts as a sponge in absorbing and holding large quantities of water. as well as slowing down surface run—off by providing barriers. This action gives the soil a chance to infiltrate the water during any break in the high rainfall intensity. §2il;. The basic difference between the two watersheds is pri- marily one of organic matter content of the soils of the watersheds. There are differences due to clay and silt contents. but organic matter differences overshadow the others. . Infiltration rates at both watersheds are basically good. Howe ever. those at the cultivated are subject to splash erosion. The Miami soil at the wooded watershed has a limiting layer of clay at a depth 128 seven to twelve inches with infiltration and percolation rates of only 0.0“ inch per hour. Since this soil makes 1p almost half the area of the watershed. when the soil above this layer becomes saturated. almost any rain will cause surface run—off. The cultivated soils do not have this limiting clay layer. but they also do not lave the retentiv. A n-5,,“ storage capacity of the wooded soils. 'gpil Moisture. Soil moisture at the wooded watershed is almost always higher than that of the cultivated. The retentive capacity l_x.‘L. of the wooded soils is much greater and this storage is utilised to t a greater extent than that at the cultivated. Soil moisture at the woods reaches a low near the permanent wilt- ing point in late summer and then begins a gradual climb to saturation. or near saturation in March or April. Moisture remains high until June. when it begins a rapid decline under heavy tranqpirational use by plants. It appears.on the basis of one years records. that a cutting such as was administered to the timber of the wooded watershed. tends to increase the soil moisture. particularly in the 12-18 and 30—36 inch levels. The increase is noticeable at the 0-6 inch depth. but not to the extent that prevails at the lower levels. Hydrologically. . this increased water provides less storage space for winter precipi- tation. as well as the high intensity and high total rainfall storms of the summer. Theoretically. run-offs could be occasioned by smaller rains than previously. This theory seems to be substantuated by the run—off of August 16. 1952. This storm occasioned run-off in August. a month in which run—off has occured once before in eleven years. 129 The previous run—off came as the result of unusually heavy rains and high soil moisture occasioned by a yearly rainfall of over 38 inches. The 1952 run—off occured although the yearly precipitation was only slightly over 28 inches. and the yearly precipitation from January to August was much lower than was the case in the previous storm. 1 Cultivated soil moisture was almost always considerably below the wooded. During long periods of summer drought conditions. the watershed soil moisture approaches and often goes below the permanent wilting T91! .‘. as .‘u' L._. point for considerable lengths of time. Any Practice that will aid in storing more water in the soil will provide additional water for plant growth during these droughty conditions. Stubble mulch tillage studies have shown this form of addition of organic matter to the soil increases the storage of water. ggfect gf frosen goil upon gurface run-off. Soil moisture at the cultivated watershed usually reached a frosen state in December and remained in this condition until April. During this time. in the typical year chosen for the study. the watershed lost 3.0188 inches to run—off. while receiving only 5.13 inches precipitation. This loss all came as the result of rain and melting snow on a frosen soil. The wooded watershed soil was not observed in a frozen state during the winter under discussion. The only runpoff for the year came as the result of a rain of both high intensity and large total amount falling on a saturated soil. In line with the unfrosen soil of the wooded watershed. the snow surveys for the winter showed snow depths under wooded cover to be deeper than those on the cultivated watershed. 139 §oi1 and.§ir temperaturgg. Soil temperatures changed significantly at the wooded watershed as a result of cutting the vegetation on the wooded watershed. Maximum and minimum monthly averages of air temperatures in the open were compared with those in the watershed. The statiln on the watershed showed less fluctuation and closer uniformity of temperature with the station in the open after the cut. - .Patterns and classes of rainfall. Glass one. two and three storms were the most numerous during the winter months when they are practically the only classes to appear. High intensity classes reach a maximum during the period May to September. Class five and six storms were found to be of the advanced and uniform patterns in the majority of cases. These storms occur during ~ the summer months. It was found that 69.2 percent of the storms occuring in the last Lansing area had a total precipitation of less than 0.25 inch pre- cipitation. These storms made up 22.6 percent of the total rainfall. Rainfalls of 1.00 inch and over were found to be significant in producing water from both watersheds. when the storms of this sise were contrasted to those of smaller sise. Precipitation classes did not prove to be significantly different in producing run—off on the wooded watershed. Classes five and six did prove to be significantly different from lower classes in this respect at the cultivated watershed. W on. wooded water-had received 360.5 inches precipitation. with a loss of only 5.96 inches Inna-off and a soil loss of only 62 pounds over an 11 year period. 13} During the same period. the cultivated watershed received 3h?.51 inches precipitation and lost b6.57 inches to surface run—off. and had a soil loss of 56.235.5 pounds of soil per acre. January. rebrngry and March were the months of high water loss at the cultivated watershed. The maJority of run—offs for the wooded wat.rshed occured in March. Run-off occured in 7 out of 11 years for January 3 at the cultivated. and 10 out of 11 for the months of rebruary and March. Run—off occured during March at least once each.larch for six years out of eleven. .1199; g; govgr in reducing log; 32d water logs at the cultivgtgd nterghed. When planted to sod. the watershed lost 31.08 percent for precipitation. 'hen planted to rye. it lost 69.97 percent of the precipitation received. These were winter losses.t Summer losses for sod were only 0.47 percent of precipitation. while losses under corn amounted to 3.16 percent. During the fall months. losses under sod amounted to 0.97 percent of precipitation. while that of corn—rye amounted to 6.15 percent. f r d to r . There were 26 instances of run—off from the wooded watershed during the 11 year study’period. Of these. 23 were the direct result of precipitation falling on saturated soil. or soil so near saturation that the pre- cipitation raised the moisture content above saturation. Two storms fell on soil having soil moisture below field capacity. Both of these were of large total amounts and high intensities. One storm fell on frosen mail. melting an accumulation of snow. CONCLUSIONS 1. Soil moisture under wooded cover is considerably higher than under cultivated conditions. This is due to organic matter content. Practices such as stubble mulch tillage will increase stored water. and will also cut down on run-off losses. 2. The cultivated watershed remains in a frosen state during m°9‘\ of the winter. Hater losses for this period are higher than for-any other period of the year. The wooded watershed. while freesing during some winters. does not freese to the depths. not for the same length of time as the cultivated. later losses from the wooded watershed as the result of run-off over frosen soil are very small. b. As a result of cutting the timber on the watershed. there appeared to be an increased soil moisture content for all depths tested. This in turn appeared to be directly responsible for a run—off in the month of August. That was the second run-off in twelve years of records. The first run-off was caused by unusually high rainfall for the entire year. The run-off in 1952 came during a droughty year. when rainfall was approximately #.00 inches less than normal. 5. Winter rainstorms are almost exclusively storms of low intensity. Storms of high intensity occur during the months of May to September. Most run—offs occur as the result of melting snow. or rain falling on frosen mil. The heaviest intensity classes are significant in prod.- ucing run—off on the cultivated watershed. but not the wooded. 13? 6. Rainfalls of 1.00 inch or over proved to be significant in producing run—off. when tested against those d'smaller size. 7. The loss of water to surface rungoff by the wooded watershed was much less than that of the cultivated watershed. 8. Causes of run-off from the wooded watershed have been. in de- creasing erder of importance. (1) precipitation or melting snow on saturated soil. (2) high intensity and high total precipitation storms. and (3) rain or melting snow on frozen soil. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The entire state of Michigan has become a heavily used resort area. One of the most important drawing cards for the resort centers is the sport fishing afforded by the streams and lakes of the state. This sport fishing is most important in the less heavily populated northern portions of the state. This area was once covered by timber. With the coming of the white man. the timber was cut. fire ravaged the area. and settlers cultivated the soil. .Bivers and streamQIwhich once furnished a habitat for trout and other game fishyrapidly.mdlted in. As a result. the game fish disappeared from many of the streams. Biologists of Michigan State College are attempting to find methods of con— trolling this form of pollution. and attempting to return these streams to a condition which will encourage their use by game fish. In this sort. yardsticks for determining rates of erosion from watersheds under different covers.are needed. It is of importance for the research specialist in soil conservation to know the basic causes of run-off and erosion from the soils of his locality. It is also of importance for him to have at hand all the information that relates to the causal factors of erosion and run-off. such as precipitation intensity classes and patterns that may be empected to occur at various seasons of the year. Knowing these. the technician is in a position to design cultural practices. and choose cover crops which will provide maximum protection for the soil. Highway engineers have depended to a large extent upon formulae for the determination of bridge and culvert size. These formulae have proved to be an unsatisfactory tool. There has come an awareness in these circles that the only way to effectively and accurately design a structure which will discharge the maximum amounts of run-off water and yet not have a safety factor so great that the cost is burdensome. is to accurately know the amounts of water which will be discharged through these structures. A formula will not give this amount with the certainty needed. Therefore. when a formula is used. the engineer must add a safety factor. which in turn increases the cost of the structure. It is heped this study will supply part of the answers to the problem. for only by knowing the drainage characteristics of different watersheds under various cover types. and only with the gathering and assimilation of this data from many watersheds over the area. can the engineer design and build bridges and culverts which are designed to carry the preper amounts of water. instead of one of such size that it will carry a run-off from a storm of such magnitude that it will occur perhaps once in 100 years instead of the once in 25 years the engineer was striving for. .... 4-..—lar._—a _.-—__-n M _ Al ll 4 3. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. LITERATURE CITED American Society of Civil Engineers. Hydrology Handbook. Manuals of Engineering Practice No. 28. 181+ pp.. l9h9. Atterberg. A. Die Nechanische Bodonanalyso und die Klassi- ficaticn der Mineralboden Schwodons. Intern. Mitt. Bedenk.. 2: 3.5%2. 1912. Bates. LB. and A.B. lichmeier.~ A Sumary of Weather Conditions at Let Lansing. Michigan prior to 1950. flichigaa State College. Agricultural hperiment Station. last Lansing. Michigan. December 1951. Baver. L.D. Soil Physics. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 398 pp.. 1998. Bentley. Vilsoa. Studies of Raindrops and Raindrop Phenomena. lonthly Heather Review. Volume 32. pp. #504556. 19010. Beret. 3.1.. and B. Woodburn. The Effect of Mulching and Methods of Cultivation on Bum-off and lrosion from Muskingum Silt Loam. Journal American Society of Agricultural Engineers; Volume 23. pp.l9-22. 1942. . Sydrologic Studies-rCompilation of Rainfall and Bun—off from the Watersheds of the North Appalachain Conservation hperiment Station. Zanesvillo. Ohio. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service llimeograph. 138 pp.. 1938. Bouyeucos. C.J.. and A.B. Hick. An llectrical Resistance Method for the Continuous lleasuroment of Soil Ioisture Under Tield Conditions. Kichigan state College. Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 172. 19150. . Directions for flaking Mechanical Studies Analyses of Soils. Soil Science. Volume 22. No. 3. 1936. Crabb. G.A. Insolation: A Primary l‘actor in lvaporation from A Free Water Surface in Hichigan. Michigan State College. Agricultural hperiment Station Quarterly Bulletin. Volume 35. lo. 2. PP. 186-192. November 1952. ll. 13. lb. 15. 16. 1?. 18. 19. 20. 155 Dils. 12.]. Influence of Forest Cutting and Hountain Farming on Some Vegetation. Surface Soil and Surface Bun-off Character- istics. United States Department of Agriculture. United States Forest Service. Southeastern Forest hperiment Station. Asheville. North Carolina. Station Paper Bo. 2h. 55 pp.. June 1953. Dreibelbis. LB. and B.A. Post. An Inventory of Soil Water Relationships on Woodland. Pasture and Cultivated Soils. Soil ! Science Society of America Proceedings. Volume 6. pp. 1462-473. , 19‘t1. J'letcher. PJ. The Bydrologic Function of orest Soils in latershed uanagement. Paper presented at I Annual Meeting of the Society of American Poresters. Div (ion of watershed Management. Biloxi. lies" December 1951. Iw-a Prank. B. and A. Netboy. Water. Land and People. New York: Alfred Knopf. 331 pp. 1950. / Barrold. LJ... and LB. Dreibelbis. Agricultural Hydrology as Evaluated by Monolith Lysimeters. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Coschocton. Ohio. Technical Bulletin Ho. 1050. nccchbcr 1951. k Borner. SJ. and Jens. SJ. Surface Bun-off Determination from Bum-off without Using Coefficients. Proceedings American Society of Civil Bngineers. Volume 67. P. 533. 1941. Bursh. C.R. and 15.)). Hoover. Soil Profile Characteristics fertinent to Bydrologic Studies in the Southern Appalachains. Proceedings Soil Science Society of America. Volume 68 pp. flit-#22. 191+l. ’ Johnson. B.A. Bffect of Farm Ioodland Grasing on Uate‘rshed Values in the Southern Appalachian Hountains. Journal of forestry so (2): 109-113. 1952. teen. B.A. and Coutts. J .B.B. Single Value Properties: A Study of the Significance of Certain Soil Constants. Journal of Agricultural Science. 18: 7%..765. Illus. 1928. Lassen. L. Ed. Bull and B. Prank. Some Fundamental Plant- 8011— Uater Relations in Watershed Hanagement. United States Department of Agriculture. rarest Service. Division of Forest Influences Circular No. 910. 75 pp.. 1951. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 136 Lewis. B.A. Laws relating to Forestry. Game Conservation. Flood Control and Related Subjects. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1936. ’ Lows. J.0. The Relation of Raindrops size to Erosion and Infiltration. Journal American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Volume 21. pp. 1531—433. 19140. Real. J.B. The Effect of Slaps and Rainfall Characteristics on Rum-off and Soil Erosion. Hissouri Agricultural Experiment . Experiment Station Research Bulletin 280. 1937. Post. LA. and Dreibelbis. LR. Some Influences of Frost Pene- tration and Micro—climate on the water Relationships of flood- land. Pasture. and Cultivated Soils. Proceedings Soil Science Society of America. Volume 7: pp. 95-10% 191.52. Ramser. 0.]. and DJ. Irimgold. Detailed Working Plans for Intershed Studios in the North Appalachian Region. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Coschocton. Ohio. 80 pp.. Bovember 1935. . Run—off from Small Agricultural Areas. Journal of Agricultural Research. ' Volume 3h (9): 797-823. 1927. Schiff. 1.. Classes and Patterns of Rainfall with Reference to Surface Run-off. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union of 19103. ' Smith. J .L. and C.A. Crabb. Progress Report on the flooded Sator- shed of the Michigan Bydrologic Research Station. llichigan State College. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. hst Lansing. Quarterly Bulletin Volume 31‘. lo. 15. pp. 383-39“. llay 1952. Soils Department Hichigan State College. Proposed Taxonomic Classification of Hichigan Soils. Unpublished mimeograph. 11 pp. January 1951. Tennessee Valley Authoritnyfect of 15 Years of forest Cover Improvement upon Hydrologic Characteristics of Shite Hollow Vatershed. Tennessee Valley Authority. Division of Water Control Planning. Hydraulic Data Branch. Report Do. 0.5163. Trimble. C.R.. C.E. Hale and 11.8. Potter. Effect of Soil and Cover Conditions on Soil-Water Relationships. United States Department of Agriculture. Porest Service. North—eastern Porost Service Experiment Station. Station paper Ho. 39. Mppu February 1951. 37. 38. 39. #1. .1. 37 Tyson. J. and G.A. Crabb. Comparative Tillage Tests at East Lansing. Michigan. A Progress Report. Michigan State College. Agricultural Experiment Station.Quarterly Bulletin Volume 3“. no. h. pp. #12-h2h. May 1952. U. S. D. A.. Watershed Research.Aids Salt River Valley. United States Department of.Agriculture. Forest Service. Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 pp. l9u7. __ Watershed Management Research. Coweeta Experimental Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Southeastern forest Experiment Station. 33 pp. 19h8. Research Progress Report. Influences of Vegetation and.Watershed Treatments on Run-off. Silting and Streamflow. United States Department of Agriculture. Misc. Publ. So. 397. 80 pp. l9“0. Climate and Man. United States Department of Agric- ulture Yearbook. pp. 270-291. l9h1 _ Watershed Management. With.Particular Reference to Forest and Range-Lands. Prepared for the President's Water Policy Commission. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. August 1950. U.S.W.B. Climatological Betas-Rational Summary. United States Department of Commerce. Weather Bureau. Volume 1 (1) 23 pp. 1950. Veatch. J.O. Agricultrial Lnad Classification and Land Types of Michigan. Michigan State College. Agricultrial Emperiment Station Special Bulletin 231. 67 pp. October 19h1. Wisler. 0.0. and 1.1. Brater. Hydrology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 419 pp. l9fi9. APPENDIX Title lean? .6 Crown Cover Map of the Wooded Watershed Before the Clear—cut Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Crown Cover Map of the Wooded Watershed After Completion of the Commercial Clear Cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 CROWN COVER MAP OF THE WOODED WATERSHED MICHIGAN HYDROLOGIC RESEARCH PROJECT AFTER COMPLETION OF COMMERCIAL CLEAR cur :1 ' I (MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY [\ ROSE LAKE WILDLIFE EXPERIMENT STATION US D.A. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE COOPERATORS) 03;4_ e. . IL wnnsuzn nzn- L55 Acfiti use. us. I’S o‘ w - H L E G E N 0 PS cm g ‘ “92’2”"8 o P" C: ' 1 “‘ ‘Pv *] nuworr MEASURING INSTALLATION x was sru . r . §PE§ ES AR ACER RUBRUM 03M CUERCUS BOREALIS MAXIM/l c canesuus SPP. 0v ouERcus VELUYINA co ccrmus “crease UA uLMus‘AMERICAN :07 CARYA OVAVA VT ULMUS TNOMASI COV CARYA OVALIS FA nuxmus AMERICANA GROW,NS :: 1:23:12: ISER;::1’::I‘“ ronMEs DoMINANT-coooumsm FORM . ', pv PRUNUS VIRGINIA“ an Surpassszn Iurznsamn 3 0A caucus ALBA as T , 11.3%: .' : es" ' . ‘. / ' PS : ‘ 9 . : 5,27 - - . » rim _- I: ‘ :» COT . 52 .2» ~ X 1 ,' ' ' .- p3 . P" pv ~ - . XIa Y '\ WT v P" CDT VAR -\~ .X> um I >855. X46 X69 x \ mx exec . . X3. _' 0" '-‘ ' Z s x54 . a _- \ ,. cov , X55 PS 0‘ ' no ;x1~‘ _~ 1 ' . Ccv x / ‘_ ifs 15.0 CROWN COVER MAP OF THE WOODED WATERSHED MICHIGAN HYDROLOGIC RESEARCH PROJECT (MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY \ ROSE LAKE WILDLIFE EXPERIMENT STATION USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE COOPERATORS) MAPPED IN I95] BY : D.F. BRUNSON J.L. MITH J,G.YOHO DRAWN BY 1 J.L SMITH u so :20 I50 240 you azo use WATERSHED AREA : I65 ACRES m; In: I'so‘ w ‘ L E_G_E.Ifl3 I RUNOFF MEASURING INSTALLATION CIES BEE DESIGNATION ACER RUBRUM X CRATAEGUS SPF. CD CO-DOMINANT TREE CORNUS RACEMOSA D DOMINANT TREE CARVA OVATA I INTERMEDIATE TREE CARYA OVALI UNDESIGNATED TREES ARE FRAXINUS AMERICANA SUPPRESSED, 6 FT HIGH 5 OVER MAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA DBN. GIVEN FOR IINCH 8 OVER FRUNUS SEROTINA PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 7* OUERCUS ALBA (T‘ \ OVERTOPPEO PORTION OF DOMINANT CROWN DESIGNATION OUERCUS BOREALIS MAXIMA OR COADOMINANT \' ‘ 9‘ OUERCUS VELUTINA OVERTOPPING DOMINANT OR \ Pix-Hz ULMUS AMERICANA cO-DOMINANT ULMUS THOMASI SUPPRESSED OR INTERMEDIATE xsxp \ or"? ' 1" x55: um rs x m.) p at . uI 6W x xIa UT x \ 1 Dim \ »_ in!“ \ UNIV. LIBRN"IES ”‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III I 0942