Evaluation of the WEPP Process-based Model in Predicting Interrill Erosion Rate Using Rainfall Simulator

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Sciences, Agriculture Faculty, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

2 Professor, Department of Soil Sciences, Agriculture Faculty, University of Tehran

3 Associate Professor, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands

Abstract

Interrill erosion has been known as one of the common erosion forms in agricultural lands. This study was carried out to evaluate WEPP process-based model in predicting interrill erosion rate using rainfall simulator. For this purpose, different rain intensities of 25, 50 and 75 mm/h were simulated on three soil samples with different particle size distributions on four slopes of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10%. The model was evaluated with and without calibration, each at shear stresses less than the critical value (τ<τ0) and all shear stresses (τ >0), as well. The results of model evaluation without calibration for τ<τ0 showed that WEPP tended to over-estimate interrill erosion rates. For τ >0 due to the flow-driven processes, the differences between predicted and measured values decreased. In consequence of model calibration, the values of baseline interrill erodibility (Kib) for τ<τ0 and τ >0 were 6.44-11.05 and 3.57-9.56 times less than the model-predicted ones. Also, it was found that the efficiency of the model depended on soil type. The results of model calibration indicated that WEPP tends to over-estimate very small erosion rates and to under-estimate high values. Also, considering τ<τ0 compared to τ >0, the efficiency of the model was enhanced. For τ<τ0, as a result of model calibration using the averaging and optimizing methods, the coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.76 and 0.66 and also the model efficiency values of 0.68 and 0.58 were obtained, respectively. For τ >0, these values were 0.67 and 0.60 for R2 and 0.55 and 0.60 for model efficiency, respectively. The findings of this study reveal the need for a standard approach for measuring interrill erodibility and recognizing the dominant erosion based on critical shear stress.

Keywords

References

  1. اسدی، ح.، ح. روحی­پور، ح. رفاهی و م. شرفا. 1386. ارزیابی مدل WEPP برای برآورد فرسایش بین‌شیاری در شرایط آزمایشگاهی. مجله علوم کشاورزی ایران. جلد 38، شماره 4، صص. 553-563.
  2. Agassi, M. and J.M. Bradford. 1999. Methodologies for interrill soil erosion studies. Soil Till. Res., 49: 277-287.
  3. Bajracharya, R.M., W.J. Elliot, and R. Lal. 1992. Interrill erodibility of some Ohio soils based on field rainfall simulation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56: 267-272.
  4. Barthes, B. and E. Roose. 2002. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptibility to runoff and erosion: Validation at several levels. Catena, 47: 133-149.
  5. Blau, J.B., D.A. Wodhiser, and L.J. Lane. 1988. Identification of erosion model parameters. Trans. ASAE, 31(3): 839-845, 854.
  6. Bower, C.A.R., F. Reitemeier, and M. Fireman. 1952. Exchangeable-cation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Sci., 73: 251-261.
  7. Delta Lab. 1992. Technical manual: Rainfall simulator, EID 340. Voreppe, France, 17 p.
  8. Foster, G.R., D.C. Flanagan, M.A. Nearing, L.J. Lane, L.M. Risse, and S.C. Finkner. 1995. Hillslope erosion component. Chapter 11, In: Flanagan, D. C. and Nearing, M. A. (Eds.), USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project, Technical Documentation. NSERL. Report No. 10, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana.
  9. Foster, G.R., D.K. McCool, K.G. Renard, and W.C. Moldenhauer. 1981. Conversion of the Universal Soil Loss Equation to SI metric units. J. Soil Water Conserv., 36: 355-359.
  10. Grosh, J.L. and A.R. Jarrett. 1994. Interrill erosion and runoff on very steep slopes. Trans. ASAE, 37: 1127-1133.
  11. Jetten, V., A. de Roo, and D. Favis-Mortlock. 1999. Evaluation of field-scale and catchment- scale soil erosion models. Catena, 37: 521-541.
  12. Kincaid, D.C. 2002. The WEPP model for runoff and erosion prediction under sprinkler irrigation. Trans. ASAE, 45: 67-72.
  13. Kinnell, P.I.A. 2005. Raindrop- impact- induced erosion processes and prediction: A review. Hydro. Process., 19: 2815-2844.
  14. Kinnell, P.I.A. 2000. The effect of slope length on sediment concentrations associated with side- slope erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64: 1004-1008.
  15. Liebenow, A.M., W.J. Elliot, J.M. Laflen, and K.D. Kohl. 1990. Interrill erodibility: Collection and analysis of data from cropland soils. Trans. ASAE, 33: 1882-1888.
  16. Liu, Q.Q., H. Xiang, and V.P. Singh. 2006. A simulation model for unified interrill erosion and rill erosion on hillslopes. Hydro. Process, 20: 469-486.
  17. Meyer, L.D. and W.C. Harmon. 1984. Susceptibility of agricultural soils to interrill erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48: 1152-1157.
  18. Nash, J.E. and J.V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part 1. A discussion of principles. J. Hydro., 10: 282-290.
  19. Nearing, M.A., D.I. Page, J.P. Simanton, and L.J. Lane. 1989. Determining erodibility parameters from rangeland field data for a process- based erosion model. Trans. ASAE, 32(3): 919-924.
  20. Page, A.L., R.H. Miller, and D.R. Jeeney. 1992 a. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical properties. SSSA Pub. Madison. 1750 p.
  21. Page, A.L., R.H. Miller, and D.R. Jeeney. 1992 b. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and mineralogical properties. SSSA Pub. Madison. 1159 p.
  22. Pansu, M. and J. Gautheyrou. 2006. Handbook of Soil Analysis, Mineralogical, Organic and Inorganic Methods. Springer. 993 p.
  23. Pieri, L., M. Bittelli, J.Q. Wu, S. Dun, D.C. Flanagan, P.R. Pisa, F. Ventura, and F. Salvatorelli. 2007. Using the water erosion prediction project (WEPP) model to simulate field-observed runoff and erosion in the Apennines mountain range, Italy. J. Hydro., 336: 84-97.
  24. Renard, K.J., G.A. Foster, G.A. Weesies, and D. K. McCool. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 703. Washington DC. US.
  25. Rouhipour, H., H. Ghadiri, and C.W. Rose. 2006. Investigation of the interaction between flow-driven and rainfall-driven erosion processes. Aust. J. Soil Res., 44: 503-514.
  26. Schack-Kirchner, H., T. Schmid and E. Hildebrand. 2005. High- resolution monitoring of surface- flow depth with frequency- domain probes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69: 343-346.
  27. Shao, J. and D. Tu. 1995. The jackknife and Bootstrap. Springer, US. 516 p.
  28. Soto, B. and F. Diaz-Fierros. 1998. Runoff and soil erosion from areas of burnt scrub: Comparison of experimental results with those predicted by the WEPP model. Catena. 31: 257-270.
  29. Truman, C.C. and J.M. Bradford. 1995. Laboratory determination of interrill soil erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 59: 519-526.
  30. Walkley, A. and I.A. Black. 1934. An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci., 37: 29-38.
  31. Yu, B. and C.J. Rosewell. 2001. Evaluation of WEPP for runoff and soil loss prediction at Gunnedah, NSW, Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res., 39: 1131-1145.
  32. Yu, B., Ciesiolka, C.A. A.C. W. Rose, and K.J. Coughlan. 2000. A validation test of WEPP to predict runoff and soil loss from a pineapple farm on a sandy soil in subtropical Queensland, Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res., 38: 537-554.
  33. Zhang, X. C., Z.B. Li, and W. F. Ding. 2005. Validation of WEPP sediment feedback relationships using spatially distributed rill erosion data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69: 1440-1447.
  34. Zhang, X.C., M.A. Nearing, W.P. Miller, L.D. Norton, and L.T. West. 1998. Modeling interrill sediment delivery. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 62: 438-444.
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 27, Issue 1
April 2013
Pages 23-34

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics