Identifying Effective Factors on Morphology of South West of Nazar Abad Gullies Using UAV

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute

2 Soil Science Department, Faculty Agriculture and Natural Science, Lorestan University, Khoram Abad, Iran.

3 Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

4 Water Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University

5 Agronomy and Plant Breeding Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University

10.22092/ijsr.2024.364327.736

Abstract

Gully erosion is one of the most important and destructive forms of water erosion, and there are ambiguities regarding its initiation and development. The study aimed to identify the soil properties and other factors affecting gullies of South Nazar Abad in 2021. After the field survey, based on the Google Earth images, gullied area boundary draw, 32 gullies were selected, and their location was recorded with the GPS. A surface soil sample was taken from head cut wall of each gully and general analyses were done. The gullies watershed boundaries and morphological characteristics including area, perimeter, and slope were extracted from the DM obtained from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images. The general characteristics of the soil surface in the watershed of the gullies including canopy, bare soil, and residual percent were determined by 1 m x1 m plot. The gully length, width, and depth were measured and volumes were calculated. Modeling of factors affecting gullies was done using a multivariable linear regression model (step-by-step method) in MINITAB on 70% of observations. The relationship between the volume of gullies with gullies soil properties and watershed characteristics were investigated and a suitable gully development model (soil loss) was introduced. Also, in this research, 30% of the measured samples that were not used in the model construction were used for model validation. Percentage, RMSE, CRM, NSE, CD, MAE and drel statistics were used to determine model efficiency. Principal component analysis showed that EC, Na+, Cl-, K+, Erodibility, Mg++, canopy, bare soil, and SP characteristics had noticeable effect on gullies volume. Based on the results of the research and especially based on the Nash-Shutcliffe efficiency coefficient, no reliable model has been developed. Also, the presented model is valid based on the regression at the five percent significant level and according to the validation coefficients. The model with a correlation coefficient of 0.59 and four factors K+, bulk density, crop residues, and percent bare soil could explain 35% of the changes.Strengthening and restoring crop cover in the area is recommended.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Amiri M., Pourghasemi H.R., Ghanbarian G.A., and Afzali S.F. 2019. Assessment of the importance of gully erosion effective factors using Boruta algorithm and its spatial modeling and mapping using three machine learning algorithms. Geoderma, 340: 55–69.
  2. Arabameri A., Pradhan B., and Rezaei K. 2019. Gully erosion zonation mapping using integrated geographically weighted regression with certainty factor and random forest models in GIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 232: 928–942.
  3. Bergonse B., and Reis E. 2016. Controlling factors of the size and location of large gully systems: A regression-based exploration using reconstructed pre-erosion topography. Catena, 147: 621–631.
  4. Burian R., Vladimirovich Mitusov A., and Poesen J. 2015. Relationships of attributes of gullies with morphometric variables. Geomorphometry for Geosciences, Jasiewicz J., Zwoliński Zb., Mitasova H., Hengl T. (eds). Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań - Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, International Society for Geomorphometry, Poznań.
  5. Castillo C., and Gomez J.A. 2016. A century of gully erosion research: Urgency, complexity and study approaches. Earth Science Reviews, 160: 300-319.
  6. Dai W., Yang X., Nab J., Lib J., Brus D., Xiong L., Tang G., and Huang X. 2019. Effects of DEM resolution on the accuracy of gully maps in loess hilly areas. Catena, 177: 114–125.
  7. Ehiorobo J.O., and Audu H.A.P. 2012. Monitoring of gully erosion in an urban area using geoinformation technology. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2): 270-275.
  8. Ehis O.S., and Omougbo U.N. 2013. Evaluating factors responsible for gully development at the university of Benin. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(5): 707-713.
  9. Frankl A., Poesen J., Scholiers N., Jacob M., Haile Mitiku Deckers J., and Nyssen J. 2013. Factors controlling the morphology and volume (V) – length (L) relations of permanent gullies in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands. Earth Surf Process Landforms, online early view.
  10. Homaee M. Feddes R. A. and Direksen CA. 2002. Macroscopic water extraction model for non-uniform transient salinity and water stress. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66: 1764-1772.
  11. Kariminejad N., Hosseinalizadeh M., and Pourqasmi H. 2018. Spatial monitoring of piping erosion using UAV aerial images in loess lands of Golestan Province. Watershed Management research, Online publication.
  12. Karimov V., Sheshukov A., and Barnes P. 2014. Impact of precipitation and runoff on ephemeral gully development in cultivated croplands. Sediment Dynamics from the Summit to the Sea, Proceedings of a symposium held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, (IAHS Publ. 367, 2014). Pp. 87-92.
  13. Karimov V.R., and Sheshukov A.Y. 2017. Effects of intra-storm soil moisture and runoff characteristics on ephemeral gully development: evidence from a no-till field study. Water, 9(10): 742.
  14. Koci J., Sidle R.C., Jarihani B., and Cashman M.J. 2020. Linking hydrological connectivity to gully erosion in the catchment of a savanna rangelands tributary which flows to the great barrier reef using structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry. Land Degradation and Development, 31:20
  15. Krause P., Boyle D. P., and B¨ase F. 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model Assessment. Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89–97.
  16. Kumar Shit P., Sankar Bhunia G., and Maiti R. 2013. assessment of factors affecting ephemeral gully development in badland topography: a case study at Garbheta Badland (Pashchim Medinipur, West Bengal, India). International Journal of Geosciences, 4: 461-470.
  17. Li Z., Zhang Y., Zhu Q., Yang S., Li H., and Ma H. 2016. A gully erosion assessment model for the Chinese Loess Plateau based on changes in gully length and area. Catena, 148(2): 195-203.
  18. Liu K., Ding H., Tang G., Na g., Huang J., Xue Z., Yang X., and Li F. 2016. Detection of catchment-scale gully-affected areas using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) on the Chinese Loess Plateau. ISPRS, International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(238): 2-21.
  19. Lucà F., Conforti M., and Robustelli G. 2011. Comparison of GIS-based gullying susceptibility mapping using bivariate and multivariate statistics: Northern Calabria, South Italy. Geomorphology, 134: 297–308.
  20. Marzolff I., Poesen J., and Ries J.B. 2011. Short to medium-term gully development: Human activity and gully erosion variability in selected Spanish gully catchments. Landform Analysis, 17: 111–116.
  21. Morgan R.P.C., and Mnomezulu D. 2003. Threshold conditions for initiation of valley-side gullies in middle veld of Swaziland. Catena, 50: 401-414.
  22. Morgan, R.P.C. 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation. 2nd end, Longman Press, 320p.
  23. Oyegun CU., Erekaha U.N., and Eludoyin OS. 2016. Gully characterization and soil properties in selected communities in Ideato South Lga, Imo State, Nigeria. Natural Sciences, 14(2): 78-86.
  24. Raveloson A., Székely B., Molnár G., and Rasztovits S. 2013. The possibility of using photogrammetric and remote sensing techniques to model lavaka (gully erosion) development in Madagascar. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 15: EGU2013-8005-1.
  25. Saksa M., and Minar J. 2012. Assessing the natural hazard of gully erosion through a Geoecological Information System (GeIS): a case study from the Western Carpathians. Geografie, 117(2): 152–169.
  26. Siqueira Junior P., Silva MLN., Cândido B.M., Avalos F.A.P., Batista P.V.G., Curi N., Lima W., Quinton J.N. 2019. Assessing water erosion processes in degraded area using unmanned aerial vehicle imagery. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 43: e0190051.
  27. Soufi M., Bayat R., and Charkhabi A.H. 2020. Gully Erosion in I. R. Iran: Characteristics, Processes, Causes, and Land Use. In: Shit P., Pourghasemi H., Bhunia, G. (eds) Gully Erosion Studies from India and Surrounding Regions. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23243-6_23
  28. Wang R., Zhang S., Pu L., Yang J., Yang C., Chen J., Guan C., Wang Q., Chen D., Zegeye A.D., Langendoen E.D., Stoof C., Seifu A., Tilahun S.A., Dagnew D.C., Zimale F.A., Guzman. C.D., Yitaferu B., and Steenhuis T.S. 2016. Morphological dynamics of gully systems in the subhumid Ethiopian Highlands: the Debre Mawi watershed. SOIL, 2(443–458).
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 38, Issue 1
August 2024
Pages 61-76

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics