Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Catena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/catena
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Rill erosion plays an important role in the amount of soil detachment and the transport sediment load on
Detachment rate models hillslope. Quantification of the soil erosion requires a more precise understanding of the processes and devel-
Flow and rill geometry opment of rill erosion models. The objective of this study was to derive and evaluate hydraulics and detachment
Hydrology models of rill erosion in calcareous soils of northwestern Iran. Rill erosion experiments were carried out at 55
Modeling
locations with three replications under field conditions. At each point, the rill plots were created with a 0.2 m
Soil erosion
width and 4 m length on agricultural soils. The inflow rates were 4, 12, 20 and 30 l min−1 with varying slope
from 4 to 25.5%. The results indicated that all conditions of flow regimes including sub- and super-critical
(laminar and turbulent) were observed in created rills by overland flow. The mean flow velocity and rill depth
have been described well by flow rate and slope gradient, while rill width and flow depth have been explained
well by flow rate. The prediction detachment rate by rill flow based on stream power model by non-linear
regression yielded the best results (R2 = 0.545 and RMSE = 0.00213 kg m−2 s−1) for all combinations of slope
classes. However, there are no significant differences between prediction accuracy of linear and non-linear
models, when individual slope classes were considered.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ghorbani-sh@agr.sku.ac.ir (S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.01.016
Received 25 September 2017; Received in revised form 7 January 2018; Accepted 18 January 2018
Available online 20 February 2018
0341-8162/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
Fig. 1. Location of study area northwest Iran and distribution of studied points.
where V is the measured runoff velocity (m s−1) (Bagnold, 1966). on silt loam and loamy sand soils with rough and smooth beds.
Wagenbrenner et al. (2010) compared rill erosion models in two dis-
Ωu = Vsin[tan−1 (S)] (5)
turbed forest soils in the USA. It was observed that the stream power
(Yang, 1972). was a feasible and reliable predictor. Similar results were also observed
Γ = γAsin[tan−1 (S)] for rangeland sites (Al-Hamdan et al., 2012). Li et al. (2015) quantified
(6)
land use effects on soil detachment in the Loess Plateau. In this study,
2
where A is the rill cross-sectional area (m ) (Giménez and Govers, the detachment capacity was predicted by stream power, slope gra-
2002). dient, soil bulk density, median diameter, silt content, cohesion, and
Nearing et al. (1991) indicated that shear stress and stream power root density parameters. Wang et al. (2016) showed, in a loessial soil,
were unsuitable predictors to estimate the soil detachment rate. They detachment predictions by flow velocity, unit energy and stream power
found out that there was a logarithmic function between the dependent were better, but shear stress and unit stream power based detachment
variable (soil detachment) and independent variable (flow depth, bed models presented poor results. These contrasting results to determine
slope and mean weight diameter of the aggregates) on silt loam soil. the best hydraulic parameter for estimating soil detachment rate by
McIsaac et al. (1992) showed unit stream power was the best predictor concentrated flow could be a result of different conditions at the studied
to predict soil detachment by concentrated flow. Elliot and Laflen sites.
(1993) showed that the stream power model was highly efficient to It is clear that flow hydraulic parameters (i.e. τ, Ω, Ωu and Γ) are
describe the detachment capacity rate on the 36 sites with a wide range functions of the flow velocity, flow depth, rill depth, rill width and
of geological, geomorphic, and geochemical properties from the WEPP slope gradient. The results of more studies show that flow and rill
model database. Nearing et al. (1997, 1999) reported that both shear geometry (flow depth, flow velocity, rill depth and rill width) are re-
stress or stream power were better suited to predict detachment rate lated to the corresponding flow discharge for concentrated flow, but the
and concluded the stream power-based detachment model was favored relationships are varied in the studies. Early research by Meyer et al.
on silt loam and sandy loam soils. Zhang et al. (2003) showed that the (1975) and Lane and Foster (1980) found that flow velocity and rill
stream power by a power function was the best predictor to estimate width predicted well from flow discharge. Gilley et al. (1990) using a
detachment rate at shallow flow conditions on the two silt loam soil nonlinear regression method, predicted rill width from flow discharge.
from rangeland and cropland. Giménez and Govers (2002) indicated Govers (1992) found that mean flow velocity depends on flow
the superiority of the unit length shear force-based detachment model
108
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
The study area is located in the northeast part of Azerbaijan pro- 2.2. Rill erosion simulation
vince, Iran (38° 55.9′–39° 14.6′ N and 47° 9.4′–47° 22.4′ E) (Fig. 1). The
general landscape of the study region is shown in Fig. 1. The study area The rill experiments were carried out at 55 sites the use of rills with
is approximately 41,000 ha. Elevation ranges from 335 to 1690 m a width of 0.2 m and a length of 4 m on cultivated soil (Fig. 3). In
above the sea level (Fig. 1). Dominated aspects in this area are north created rills on cultivated soil, stones and vegetation residue were
and east. This region has parent materials of limestones and Quaternary manually removed. Inflow rates including 4, 12, 20 and 30 l min−1
deposits which are enriched by carbonates. were added at the top of each rill as sequential by an energy dissipater
Predominant land uses are agricultural and mostly used for wheat and controlled using a flow regulator. Each inflow rate was continued
and barley production. The study region was ploughed to 20 cm depth to observe the steady state condition. A steady state condition was often
using a moldboard and residues were returned in the late May (Mirzaee observed after 10-min. However, to ensure steady state condition, the
et al., 2016). 15-min duration was selected (Fig. 3). The procedure at each point was
The region is characterized by a semiarid climate and has an annual replicated three times. The rill length was divided into 3 transects to
average temperature and precipitation of 14.2 °C and 383.5 mm, re- facilitate data measuring (Fig. 3). In each of these sections, the geo-
spectively. In the period 2003–2016 the driest month was August metric and hydraulic rill changes were recorded to obtain a mean value
(Fig. 2). Most of the heavy rainfall occurs in short episodes during (Cocharane and Flanagan, 1996).
March and April (Fig. 2) and they lead to serious soil erosion. During each inflow rate, the flow properties including flow velocity,
Soil samples were taken using a random sampling method at 55 sites width and depth were determined four times. The flow width and depth
(Fig. 1). Three sub-soil samples were collected at the depth of 0–15 cm. were measured by a scale ruler. Surface flow velocity was measured
At each site in three corners of a triangle with an approximate area of using a dye method (Govers, 1992). A KMnO4 solution is used as a dye.
Surface flow velocity (V) was calculated as 2 m divided by the mean
travel time of the dye between the 1 and 3 m transects. The mean flow
velocity (ū) was accounted for laminar flow (Reynolds number <
2400) and turbulent flow (Reynolds number > 2400) as following
(Abrahams et al., 1985):
u = V × 0.7 for Laminar flow (8)
109
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
2.3. Estimation flow and rill geometry and detachment models of rill erosion determination) (Eq. (12)).
0.5
To estimate flow and rill geometry, the stepwise method was used to ⎡ ∑ (Y i − Y)
N 2
i ⎤
RMSE = ⎢ i = 1 ⎥
develop the regression models using the MatLab v.8.5. Hydraulic N (11)
⎣ ⎦
parameters including shear stress (τ), stream power (Ω), unit stream
power (Ωu) and unit length shear force (Γ) were calculated with Eq. (3), ∑i = 1 (Yi −
N
Y) 2
i
(4), (5) and (6), respectively. The linear rill detachment model was R2 = 1 − N 2
N (∑i = 1 Yi)
applied to determine linear τ, Ω, Ωu and Γ-based detachment models as ∑i = 1 (Y2i ) − (12)
N
following:
where Yi and Yi are measured and estimated values of parameters, re-
Dc = KHP (HP − HPc) (2)
spectively. N is the number of data (i.e. 55).
where KHP is soil rill erodibility parameter, HP is hydraulic parameters
and HPc is the critical value below which no detachment occurs. HP can 3. Results and discussion
be τ, Ω, Ωu and Γ. Also, a nonlinear method was used to develop the
regression models from hydraulic parameters (i.e. τ, Ω, Ωu and Γ). 3.1. The characteristics of hydraulic parameters
2.4. Performance criteria The descriptive statistics for hydraulic parameters are presented in
Table 2. Some hydraulic properties indicated a slight positive and ne-
In present study, the cross-validation method was used for vali- gative skewness in the data. However, on the basis of Kolmogorov-
dating regression models. The accuracy of estimations was investigated Smirnov test, all hydraulic parameters were normally distributed at the
by the RMSE (root mean square error) (Eq. (11)) and R2 (coefficient of 5% level of significance. Fig. 4 indicates the Froude numbers versus
110
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
A multiple regression models were derived to estimate mean flow 3.3.2. Using hydraulic parameters by non-linear equations
velocity, flow depth, rill width and rill depth from flow rate and slope 3.3.2.1. Flow velocity. In erosion modeling, mean flow velocity plays a
as following: major role because effect of upon flow rate, soil surface roughness and
slope. The results showed that detachment rate increased with the
u = 18.21Q0.24 + 0.199S (RMSE=4.92 − R2 = 0.65) (13)
increasing flow velocity for each inflow rate and slope present (Fig. 7).
These can be showed using a power function in all slope classes (Fig. 7).
Hw = 0.528Q0.459 (RMSE=0.25 − R2 = 0.84) (14)
A power equation of flow velocity can be used to estimate the
111
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
Table 3
Rill erodibility based on shear stress (Kτ), stream power (KΩ), unit stream power (KΩu) and unit length shear force (KΓ) for linear model of Dc = KHP(HP − HPc) equation.
Slope class Kτ shear stress KΩ stream power KΩu unit stream power (kg m−1) KΓ unit length shear force (s)
(s m−1) (s2)
4–8% 4.4 × 10−4 (0.264) 1.2 × 10−3 (0.472) 2.2 × 10−1 (0.381) 2.6 × 10−3 (0.243)
8–12% 4.9 × 10−4 (0.444) 1.1 × 10−3 (0.530) 2.3 × 10−1 (0.449) 2.6 × 10−3 (0.343)
12–16% 4.8 × 10−4 (0.376) 9.7 × 10−4 (0.552) 1.8 × 10−1 (0.542) 2.7 × 10−3 (0.338)
> 16% 2.9 × 10−4 (0.332) 7.3 × 10−4 (0.556) 1.1 × 10−1 (0.401) 1.8 × 10−3 (0.339)
All 2.8 × 10−4 (0.303) 7.2 × 10−4 (0.486) 7.9 × 10−2 (0.285) 2.1 × 10−3 (0.324)
Fig. 7. Relationship between the detachment (Dc) and flow velocity (ū).
112
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
Table 4 Table 7
Non-linear model to predict detachment rate (Dc) from flow rate (Q). Non-linear model to predict detachment rate (Dc) from unit length shear force (Γ).
Slope classes (%) Non-linear models R2 Slope classes (%) Non-linear models R2
3.3.2.5. Unit stream power. The increasing unit stream power increased
3.3.2.3. Shear stress. The drag exerted by the flow on the soil is shear Dc by concentrated flow (Fig. 8). According to the R2 value (Table 3 and
stress. The relationship between detachment rate and shear stress for Fig. 8) linear and non-linear models were similar performance for slope
Fig. 8. Relationship between the detachment (Dc) and unit stream power (Ωu).
113
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
Fig. 9. Comparison of detachment rate predicted by present study (a), Nearing et al. (1999) (b) and Zhang et al. (2003) (c).
classes, except for slope class of 4–8%. somewhat attributed to the coefficients of stream power parameter in
At all combinations of slope classes, the relationship between de- stream power based detachment model, probably not being well suited
tachment rate by concentrated flow and unit stream power can be to conditions in the current study area. The difference between the
shown by a non-linear regression model, as: results of this study and other studies might be due to the unique in-
fluence of calcareous materials in soils (Ostovari et al., 2016). The high
Dc = 0.044Ω u 0.676 (RMSE=0.00252 − R2 = 0.339) (21)
calcium saturation tends to keep the calcareous soils in well aggregated
The results showed that the non-linear model for all combinations of form. Aggregate stability is more important for infiltration, root growth
slope classes performed better than the linear model (Table 3 and Eq. and resistance to water and wind erosion. Stable aggregates can also
(21)). provide a large range in pore space, including small pores within and
large pores between aggregates. Large pores associated with large,
3.3.2.6. Unit length shear force. The relationship between Dc and unit stable aggregates favor high infiltration rates. However, surface crusts
length shear at each slope classes are given in Table 7. These and filled pores occur in weakly aggregated soils. Surface crusts prevent
relationships at all combinations of slope classes can be described by infiltration and promote erosion (Algayer et al., 2014). This suggests
a non-linear regression model, following as: that erosion sub-models need to be calibrated for the variable field
conditions that exist in different areas.
Dc = 0.0049Γ 0.51s (RMSE=0.0024 − R2 = 0.383) (22)
4. Conclusion
Like the other hydraulic parameters, using the non-linear equation
had the better performance than the linear model for prediction de-
In this study, the relationship between hydraulic-detachment
tachment rate.
models and hydrodynamic parameters is investigated. Detachment rate
and hydraulic parameters were measured in calcareous soils in north-
3.3.3. Comparisons of hydraulic parameters based detachment rate (Dc) western Iran. The models developed using flow rates and slope gra-
The highest R2 and the smallest RMSE value in all combinations of dients were only able to account for up to 65, 84, 46 and 61% of the
slope classes data was produced by the non-linear stream power based variation in mean flow velocity, flow depth, rill width and rill depth,
model, while the highest RMSE and smallest R2 was obtained by the respectively. Moreover, the best predictor to estimate detachment rates
linear unit stream power based model. Nonetheless, most physically was stream power for each slope classes and all combinations of slope
erosion models use the shear stress (Nearing et al., 1989) or the unit classes. Non-linear equation between detachment rate and stream
stream power (Morgan et al., 1998) to estimate soil detachment rate by power was the best to describe detachment rate for all combinations of
overland flow. In present study, the superiority of stream power based slope classes. The variation of the detachment rate explained up to
detachment model could be related to the flow velocity, which was 54.5% by non-linear stream power based detachment model. However,
responsible for better performance stream power based detachment there were no significant differences between linear and non-linear
model than the shear stress based detachment model. Torri et al. (1998) performance when individual slope classes were considered. The results
reported that detachment rate by overland flow was closely related to could be useful to understanding the mechanism of rill erosion process
the stream power. Nearing et al. (1997, 1999) and Zhang et al. (2003) and to allocating soil conservation measures in northwestern Iran.
studies for prediction detachment rate showed that non-linear stream Future work could concentrate on quantifying at other land uses in-
power based detachment model was more accurate. Li et al. (2015) and cluding grasslands and forests on calcareous soils.
Wang et al. (2016) found out that the predictions based on stream
power are powerful. However, the low R2 of relationship between de- References
tachment capacity and shear stress, unit stream power and unit length
shear force indicate that detachment capacity in present study is not Abrahams, A.D., Parsons, A.J., Luk, S.H., 1985. Field measurement of the velocity of
well estimated by shear stress, unit stream power and unit length shear overland flow using dye tracing. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 11, 653–657.
force based detachment models. These results are similar to those re- Abrahams, A.D., Li, G., Parsons, A.J., 1996. Rill hydraulics on a semiarid hillslope,
southern Arizona. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 21, 35–47.
ported in previous studies (Nearing et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2003;
Algayer, B., Wang, B., Bourennane, H., Zheng, F., Duval, O., Li, G., Le Bissonnais, Y.,
Wang et al., 2016). These studies were carried out on a stony soil in a Darboux, F., 2014. Aggregate stability of a crusted soil: differences between crust and
semiarid environment (Nearing et al., 1999), on the natural, un- sub-crust material, and consequences for interrill erodibility assessment. An example
disturbed, mixed mesic typical Udorthent soil (Zhang et al., 2003) and from the Loess Plateau of China. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65 (3), 325–335.
Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Pierson, F.B., Nearing, M.A., Williams, C.J., Stone, J.J., Kormos, P.R.,
on loessial soil (Wang et al., 2016). Boll, J., Weltz, M.A., 2012. Concentrated flow erodibility for physically based erosion
As can be seen from the Fig. 9, Nearing et al. (1999) and Zhang et al. models: temporal variability in disturbed and undisturbed rangelands. Water Resour.
(2003) models performed poorly in comparison to the function derived Res. 48, 1–15.
Bagnold, R.A., 1966. An approach to the sediment transport problem from general phy-
here using non-linear regression model. The lack of precision and low sics. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 422 (1), 22–37.
accuracy of the Nearing et al. (1999) and Zhang et al. (2003) can be
114
S. Mirzaee, S. Ghorbani-Dashtaki Catena 164 (2018) 107–115
Cocharane, T.A., Flanagan, D.C., 1996. Detachment in a simulated rill. Trans. ASAE 40 Chisci, G., Torri, D., Styczen, M.E., 1998. The European soil erosion model
(1), 111–119. (EUROSEM): a dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and
Di Stefano, C., Ferro, V., Pampalone, V., Sanzone, F., 2013. Field investigation of rill and small catchments. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 23, 527–544.
ephemeral gully erosion in the Sparacia experimental area, South Italy. Catena 101, Nearing, M.A., Foster, G.R., Lane, L.J., Finkner, S.C., 1989. A process-based soil erosion
226–234. model for USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project technology. Trans. ASAE 32,
Elliot, W.J., Laflen, J.M., 1993. A process-based rill erosion model. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1587–1593.
36 (1), 65–72. Nearing, M.A., Bradford, J.M., Parker, S.C., 1991. Soil detachment by shallow flow at low
Foster, G.R., Meyer, L.D., 1972. A closed-form equation for upland areas. In: Shen, H. slopes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55, 339–344.
(Ed.), Sedimentation, Symp. to Honour Prof. H.A. Einstein, Fort Collins, pp. Nearing, M.A., Norton, L.D., Bulgakov, D.A., Larionov, G.A., 1997. Hydraulics and ero-
12.1–12.17. sion in eroding rills. Water Resour. Res. 33 (4), 865–876.
Foster, G.R., Huggins, L.F., Meyer, L.D., 1984. A laboratory study of rill hydraulics: I. Nearing, M.A., Simanton, J.R., Norton, L.D., Bulygin, S.J., Stone, J., 1999. Soil erosion by
Velocity relationship. Trans. ASAE 27, 790–796. surface water flow on a stony semiarid hillslope. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 24,
Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil 677–686.
Analysis: Part 1 Agronomy Handbook No 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Nelson, R.E., 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R.
Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 383–411. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, second ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. ASA,
Gilley, J.E., Kottwitz, E.R., Simanton, J.R., 1990. Hydraulic characteristics of rills. Trans. Madison, WI, pp. 181–197.
ASAE 33, 1900–1906. Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.P., 1986. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In:
Giménez, R., Govers, G., 2001. Interaction between bed roughness and flow hydraulics in Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2: Agronomy Handbook No 9.
eroding rills. Water Resour. Res. 37 (3), 791–799. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp.
Giménez, R., Govers, G., 2002. Flow detachment by concentrated flow on smooth and 539–579.
irregular beds. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 1475–1483. Ostovari, Y., Ghorbani-Dashtaki, S., Bahrami, H.A., Naderi, M., Dematte, J.A.M., Kerry,
Govers, G., 1992. Relationship between discharge, velocity, and flow area for rills eroding R., 2016. Modification of the USLE K factor for soil erodibility assessment on cal-
in loose, non-layered materials. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 17, 515–528. careous soils in Iran. Geomorphology 273, 385–395.
Govers, G., Gimenez, R., Oost, K.V., 2007. Rill erosion: exploring the relationship between Peng, W., Zhang, Z., Zhang, K., 2015. Hydrodynamic characteristics of rill flow on steep
experiments, modeling and field observation. Earth Sci. Rev. 84, 87–102. slopes. Hydrol. Process. 29, 3677–3686.
Hairsine, P.B., Rose, C.W., 1992. Modeling water erosion due to overland-flow using Takken, I., Govers, G., Ciesiolka, C.A.A., Silburn, D.M., Loch, R.J., 1998. Factors influ-
physical principles. 2. Rill flow. Water Resour. Res. 28, 245–250. encing the velocity–discharge relationship in rills. In: Proceedings of the
Jackson, M.L., 1965. Soil Chemical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA. International Symposium on Modelling Soil Erosion, Sediment Transport and Closely
Lane, L.J., Foster, G.R., 1980. Concentrated flow relationships. In: Knisel, W.G. (Ed.), Related Hydrological Processes, Vienna. 249. pp. 63–70.
CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Torri, D., Ciampalini, R., Accolti, G.P., 1998. The role of aggregates on soil erosion
Management Systems, Conservation Research Report. 26. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, processes. Presented at the “Global Changes: Modeling Soil Erosion by Water”
Washington D.C., pp. 174–485. conference. NATO ARW, Oxford.
Li, Z.W., Zhang, G.H., Geng, R., Wang, H., Zhang, X.C., 2015. Land use impacts on soil Torri, D., Poesen, J., Borselli, L., Knapen, A., 2006. Channel width flow discharge re-
detachment capacity by overland flow in the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 124, 9–17. lationships for rills and gullies. Geomorphology 76, 273–279.
McIsaac, G.F., Mitchell, J.K., Hummel, J.W., Elliot, W.J., 1992. An evaluation of unit USDA (Ed.), 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed. USDA National Resources
stream power theory for estimating soil detachment and sediment discharge from Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
tilled soils. Trans. ASAE 35 (2), 535–544. Wagenbrenner, J.W., Robichaud, P.R., Elliot, W.J., 2010. Rill erosion in natural and
Meyer, I.D., Foster, G.R., Romkens, M.J.M., 1975. Source of soil eroded by water from disturbed forests: 2. Modeling approaches. Water Resour. Res. 46, 1–12.
upland slopes. In: Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields Wang, D., Wang, Z., Shen, N., Chen, H., 2016. Modeling soil detachment capacity by rill
and Sources: Agricultural Research Service Report, ARS-S-40, pp. 177–189. flow using hydraulic parameters. J. Hydrol. 535, 473–479.
Mirzaee, S., Ghorbani-Dashtaki, S., Mohammadi, J., Asadi, H., Asadzadeh, F., 2016. Yang, C.T., 1972. Unit stream power and sediment transport. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 98,
Spatial variability of soil organic matter using remote sensing data. Catena 145, 1805–1826.
118–127. Zhang, G.H., Liu, B.Y., Liu, G.B., He, X.W., Nearing, M.A., 2003. Detachment of un-
Morgan, R.P., Quinton, J.N., Smith, R.E., Govers, G., Poesen, J.W.A., Auerswald, K., disturbed soil by shallow flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67 (3), 713–719.
115