Laserfiche WebLink
r Z6 <br />j USIE to the soil lass was estimated by correlation coefficients for t,*+~; s*+,*~ <br />9^ (Table 9) and reclaimed soils (Table 10). <br />~e factors most related to soil I~,s on the undistur3~ed sites were slope, <br />IS arri K (Table 9). Slope and IS had a correlation coefficient of 0.96, while K <br />was not significantly oarrelated to soil loss. Soil loss can then be predicted <br />by slope. A simple linear regression between soil loss and slope resulted in a <br />correlation coefficient of 0.77, which is greater than the 99 percent <br />signifies level (Table li). <br />Zhe stzr~darti error of the estimate was used to define soil loss intervals; 6 <br />mapping units were used to delineate slope intervals aryl associated soil loss <br />(Table 12). <br />~e correlation matrix between soil loss and variables and factors used in <br />the USIE for reclaimed soils also showed a stirorg correlation to IS, slope and K <br />(Table 10). IS was correlated significantly to slope (0.96). bus, slope again <br />can be used to pnadict soil erasion frtm reclaimed soils (Table 11). ~e simple <br />linear regression between slope and soil loss was significant at the 99 percent <br />level. ~e slope of this equation is 2.5 times less than the slope far the <br />equation for the undisturbed sites. Again, the standard error of the estimate <br />was used to define soil lass intervals, however the error for the reclamation was <br />but 20 peroent of the urYLst+,*~j e~,r~a„a error. 'Thus, the stand?**~ error was <br />doubled to make larger intervals, since the aoca~racy of the USIE is <br />,mdP_rstandably not greater than 0.5 tons/acre/year (Table 13). <br /> <br />