Sediment yield assessment by EPM and PSIAC models using GIS data in semi-arid region

doi:10.1007/s11707-011-0168-z

Front Earth Sci

0, Vol.

Issue () : 207-216 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-011-0168-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sediment yield assessment by EPM and PSIAC models using GIS data in semi-arid region

Ali Bagherzadeh¹(

), Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar²

1. Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University-Mashhad Branch, Mashhad 91735-413, Iran; 2. Department of Geography, Islamic Azad University-Mashhad Branch, Mashhad 91735-413, Iran

Download: PDF(759 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Among land degradation processes, soil erosion is the most serious threat to soil and water conservation in semi-arid regions. At the present study, the sedimentation hazard and the erosion zonation were investigated at Kardeh watershed, north-east of Iran by Erosion Potential Method (EPM) and Pacific Sonth-west Inter Agency Committee (PSIAC) models, in combination with the geographical information system (GIS) data, satellite data and field observations. According to our investigation the study area can be categorized into heavy, moderate and slight erosion zones with the total sediment yield of 147859 and 148078 m³/a estimated by EPM and PSIAC models, respectively. The sub-basins located at the middle and south parts of the watershed are highly eroded due to the geology formation and soil erodibility conditions, while the sub-basins at the north parts are moderately eroded because of the intensive land cover. The amounts of the sediment yield in most areas are found to be consistent between the EPM and PSIAC models (R² = 0.95). Our data suggest the applicability of both empirical models in evaluating the sediment yield in arid and semi-arid watersheds.

Keywords erosion Erosion Potential Method (EPM) model Pacific Sonth-west Inter Agency Committee (PSIAC) model geographical information system (GIS) sediment yield

Corresponding Author(s): Bagherzadeh Ali,Email:abagher_ch@yahoo.com

Issue Date: 05 June 2011

Cite this article:

Ali Bagherzadeh,Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar. Sediment yield assessment by EPM and PSIAC models using GIS data in semi-arid region[J]. Front Earth Sci, 0, (): 207-216.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-011-0168-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y0/V/I/207

Tab.1 Characteristics of sub-basins at the study area

Fig.1 Location and geographical position of the study area

Fig.2 The satellite image including the sub-basins of the study area

Tab.2 Effective factors on the erosion and the sediment yield and their ranking values in PSIAC model

Tab.3 The EPM and PSIAC coefficients derived from geological formations including rock and soil resistance to the erosion (-coefficient), observed erosion processes (-coefficient), the susceptibility of surface geology to weathering and erosion (X-factor) and upland erosion (X-factor)

Tab.4 The evaluated coefficient of rock and soil resistance to the erosion (- coefficient) used in EPM model and soil types (X-factor) and runoff (X-factor) coefficient used in the PSIAC model

Tab.5 The land use coefficient (X) used in the EPM model, and the land cover (X-factor) and land use (X-factor) coefficients applied in the PSIAC model

Tab.6 Slope classes and the assigned ‘-factor’ for each map class used in the EPM model, and ‘X-PSIAC’ used in the PSIAC model

Fig.3 The geology amp, soil type's distribution, elevation and slope gradient of the study area

Fig.4 Isohypse, isotherm, land use/cover, channels and streams maps of the study area

Tab.7 Rainfall classes and evaluated ‘H’ and ‘X-factor’ used in the EPM and PSIAC models, respectively

Tab.8 The EPM erosion coefficient and the PSIAC total ranking values R of the nine factors for the study area

Tab.9 Mean annual temperature intervals and the calculated ‘T’ parameter used in the EPM model

Tab.10 The estimated sediment yield ( and ), the area and the percentage of each erosion class from total basin area calculated after the EPM and PSIAC models, respectively

Fig.5 Annual specific production of sediment () derived from the EPM model and the rate of sediment yield () derived from the PSIAC model

Tab.11 Total sediment production at each sub-basin after EPM and PSIAC models/(m·a)

Tab.12 Correlation between EPM and PSIAC models on total sediment production in eight sub-basins of the study area

Fig.6 Percentage of total sediment production in the PSIAC and EPM models at Kardeh sub-basins

1	Aide T M, Zimmerman J K, Herrera L, Rosario M, Seran M (1995). Forest recovery in abandoned tropical pastures in Puerto Rico. For Ecol Manage , 77(1-3): 77–86 doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(95)03576-V
2	Bissonais Y L, Montier C, Jamagne M, Daroussin J, King D (2002). Mapping erosion risk for cultivated soil in France. Catena , 46(2-3): 207–220 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00167-9
3	de Koning G H J, Veldkamp A, Fresco L O (1998). Land use in Ecuador: A statistical analysis at different aggregation levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ , 70(2-3): 231–247 doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00151-0
4	Erskine W D, Mahmoudzadeh A, Myers C (2002). Land use effects on sediment yields and soil loss rates in small basins of Triassic sandstone near Sydney, Australia. Catena , 49(4): 271–287
5	Gavrilovic Z (1988). The use of an empirical method (Erosion Potential Method) for calculating sediment production and transportation in unstudied or torrential streams. International Conference of River Regime, 18-20 May, Wallingford, England : 411–422
6	Heydarian S A (1996). Assessment of erosion in mountain regions. Proceedings of 17th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing , 4-8November, Sri Lanka
7	Johnson C W, Gembhart K A, (1982). Predicting sediment yields from sagebrush rangelands. In: ARS ,ed. Estimating Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield on Ragelands. Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Agricultural Reviews and Manuals-W-26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tucson, AZ : 145–156 .
8	Lin C Y, Lin W T, Chou W C (2002). Soil erosion prediction and sediment yield estimation: The Taiwan experience. Soil Tillage Res , 68(2): 143–152 doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00114-9
9	Martinez-Casasnovas J A (2003). A spatial information technology approach for the mapping and quantification of gully erosion. Catena , 50(2-4): 293–308 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00134-0
10	Mati B M, Morgan R P C, Gichuki F N, Quinton J N, Brewer T R, Liniger H P (2000). Assessment of erosion hazard with the USLE and GIS: a case study of the upper Ewaso Ng’iro North basin of Kenya. Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 2(2): 78–86 .
11	Milliman J D, Syvitski J P M (1992). Geomorphology/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: The importance of small mountainous rivers. J Geod , 100: 525–544
12	Millward A A, Mersey J E (1999). Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena , 38(2): 109–129 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00067-3
13	Millward A A, Mersey J E (2001). Conservation strategies for effective land management of protected areas using an erosion prediction information system (EPIS). J Environ Manage , 61(4): 329–343 doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0415 pmid:11383105
14	Nelson C V, Rasele Y (1989). Evaluating the debris flow potential after a wild fire, rapid response using the PSIAC method, Salt Lake County, Utah. GSA Abstracts with Programs, pp121
15	Passmore D G, Macklin M G (1994). Provenance of fine grained alluvium and late Holocene land-use change in the Tyne basin, Northern England. Geomorphology , 9(2): 127–142 doi: 10.1016/0169-555X(94)90071-X
16	Rafaelli S G, Montgomery D R, Greenberg H M (2001). A comparison of thematic mapping of erosional intensity to GIS-driven process models in an Andean drainage basin. J Hydrol (Amst) , 244(1-2): 33–42 doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00419-4
17	Raghunath J (2002). Potential erosion map for Bagmati basin using GRASS-GIS. Proceeding of the Open Source GIS-GRASS Users Conference, 11-13September, Trena, Italy.
18	Refahi H, Nematti M (1995). Erodibility assessment of the Alamout subcatchment and its effect on the sediment yield. J Agric Sci, Iran , 26: 48–56 (in Persian)
19	Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee (PSIAC) (1968). Report of the Water Management Subcommittee on Factors Affecting Sediment Yield in the Pacific Southwest Area and Selection and Evaluation of Measures for Reduction of Erosion and Sediment Yield. ASCE, 98, Report No. HY12
20	Sahin S, Kurum E (2002). Erosion risk analysis by GIS in environmental impact assessments: a case study—Seyhan K?prü Dam construction. J Environ Manage , 66(3): 239–247 doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)90574-8 pmid:12448403
21	Szilassi P, Jordan G, Van Rompaey A, Csillag G (2006). Impacts of historical land use changes on erosion and agricultural soil properties in the Kali Basin at Lake Balaton, Hungary. Catena , 68(2-3): 96–108 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2006.03.010
22	Tangestani M H (2001). Integrating geographic information systems in erosion and sediment yield applications using the erosion potential method (EPM). In: Proceedings of the GIS Research UK, 9th Annual Conference , 18-20April, University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK: 621–623
23	Tangestani M H (2006). Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi arid environment. J Asian Earth Sci , 27(5): 585–597 doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.06.002
24	Thornton P K, Jones P O (1998). A conceptual approach to dynamic agricultural land use modeling. Agric Syst , 57(4): 505–521 doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(98)00005-5
25	Veldkamp A, Fresco L O (1996). CLUE: A conceptual model to study the conversion and its effects. Ecol Modell , 85(2-3): 253–270 doi: 10.1016/0304-3800(94)00151-0
26	Wischmeier W H, Smith D D (1978). Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook(No. 537) . Washington D C: US Department of Agriculture
27	Yuliang Q, Yun Q (2002). Fast soil erosion investigation and dynamic analysis in the loess plateau of China by using information composite technique. Adv Space Res , 29(1): 85–88 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00633-0

[1]	Junfu FAN, Taoying HU, Xiao YU, Jiahao CHEN, Liusheng HAN, Yuke ZHOU. Evaluation of freeze–thaw erosion in Tibet based on the cloud model[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2021, 15(3): 495-506.
[2]	Md. Yousuf GAZI, Farhad HOSSAIN, Sumiya SADEAK, Md. Mahin UDDIN. Spatiotemporal variability of channel and bar morphodynamics in the Gorai-Madhumati River, Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(4): 828-841.
[3]	Junhua ZHU, Jianwei QIAO, Feiyong WANG, Quanzhong LU, Yuyun XIA, Ransheng CHEN, Haiyuan ZHAO, Jingliang DONG. Development characteristics and formation analysis of the Liangjia Village earth fissure in the Weihe Basin, China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(4): 758-769.
[4]	Boyuan ZHU, Jinyun DENG, Jinwu TANG, Wenjun YU, Alistair G.L. BORTHWICK, Yuanfang CHAI, Zhaohua SUN, Yitian LI. Erosion-deposition patterns and depo-center movements in branching channels at the near-estuary reach of the Yangtze River[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(3): 537-552.
[5]	Zhitao WU, Mingyue WANG, Hong ZHANG, Ziqiang DU. Vegetation and soil wind erosion dynamics of sandstorm control programs in the agro-pastoral transitional zone of northern China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(2): 430-443.
[6]	Bilaşco ŞTEFAN, Roşca SANDA, Fodorean IOAN, Vescan IULIU, Filip SORIN, Petrea DĂNUŢ. Quantitative evaluation of the risk induced by dominant geomorphological processes on different land uses, based on GIS spatial analysis models[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(2): 311-324.
[7]	Sergey R. CHALOV, Anatolii S. TSYPLENKOV, Jan PIETRON, Aleksandra S. CHALOVA, Danila I. SHKOLNYI, Jerker JARSJÖ, Michael MAERKER. Sediment transport in headwaters of a volcanic catchment—Kamchatka Peninsula case study[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(3): 565-578.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed