Document Type : Review article
Authors
1
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resource Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Ahvaz. Iran
2
Department of Forest and Rangeland Research, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resource Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Ahvaz, Iran.
10.22034/iwm.2026.2087783.1269
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction: Dust storms are recognized as one of the most serious environmental, health, and economic challenges in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide, including Iran. This phenomenon arises from severe wind erosion of loose, bare soils, exacerbated by climate change and unsustainable human activities, leading to consequences such as increased respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, ecosystem degradation, reduced agricultural productivity, and damage to infrastructure. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of the efficiency, sustainability, cost, and environmental compatibility of various strategies for combating dust storms in Iran and globally.
Materials and Methods: This structured systematic review, following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, was designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of dust mitigation strategies in Iran and worldwide. A systematic literature search was performed across major international databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect) and Persian scientific repositories (SID, Magiran, Noormags, and IranDoc) using Boolean operators and a combination of Persian and English keywords related to dust storms, wind erosion, and control measures (biological, chemical, mechanical-engineering, policy, and novel technologies) over the period 2000–2025. Eligible studies included original research, theses, and official reports from reputable organizations that evaluated the effectiveness, cost, or sustainability of mitigation approaches, Duplicate records, studies without full-text access, and those focusing solely on etiology without addressing intervention strategies were excluded. The screening process was conducted in four stages (identification, title/abstract screening, full-text assessment, and final inclusion) independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. Study quality was appraised using appropriate checklists: JBI for quasi-experimental studies, STROBE for observational research, and AACODS for grey literature. Key data including bibliographic details, intervention type, efficacy indicators, costs, and implementation challenges were extracted using standardized forms and verified by a second reviewer. Due to considerable heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and climatic conditions, a meta-analysis was not feasible; therefore, findings were synthesized narratively, with studies categorized by intervention type and analyzed comparatively in terms of strengths, weaknesses, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. Potential biases, including publication and language bias, were considered in the interpretation of results. Ultimately, this review identifies knowledge gaps and outlines future research priorities in the field of dust storm mitigation.
Results and Discussion: Analysis of nearly 80 studies revealed that no single strategy fully addresses the crisis; success depends on the intelligent integration of methods tailored to regional ecological conditions. Quantitatively, biological methods (cultivating native resistant species and establishing vegetative windbreaks) were identified as the most sustainable option; however, their establishment period of three to five years and water requirements during the initial phase remain major challenges. Novel mineral mulches (including calcium‑based, magnesium‑based, clay, and gypsum types) have demonstrated very high efficacy in the rapid stabilization of soil in the majority of field studies, significantly reducing wind erosion within a short timeframe. Their implementation costs are considerably lower than those of synthetic polymer mulches and markedly lower than petroleum‑based mulches. Mechanical‑engineering methods such as gravel mulching, artificial windbreaks, and land imprinters have also proven effective in locally protecting infrastructure by physically reducing wind speed; nevertheless, their localized and limited nature prevents extensive coverage of critical erosion hotspots. In contrast, managerial and policy strategies including the allocation of wetland water rights, the enactment of comprehensive soil conservation laws, and the promotion of transboundary cooperation have been successful in numerous instances by targeting the root causes of the crisis, although their implementation requires strong political will and is a time‑consuming process. Novel technologies (nanosensors, ionization systems, and nano‑mulches) have enhanced monitoring precision and localized control, but their high initial costs and limited scalability hinder their widespread application in natural landscapes.
Conclusion: Effective and sustainable mitigation of dust storms requires an integrated, adaptive, and multi-level approach, combining rapid-action methods (mineral mulches and gravel mulching) for emergency stabilization with long-term biological and managerial solutions. Priority should be given to eco-friendly, soil-amending mulches (clay, gypsum, calcium, and magnesium) as cost-effective, low-risk alternatives to petroleum mulches. Additionally, empowering local communities, continuous monitoring using novel technologies, and strengthening environmental diplomacy to address transboundary challenges are fundamental pillars for the long-term sustainability of projects.
Keywords
Subjects
