Fahimeh Mirchooli; Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi; Abdulvahed Khaledi Darvishan
Abstract
Soil erosion is an important subject in water and soil conservation researches which is influenced by natural and anthropogenic factors. Hence, knowledge on soil erosion amount enables the identification of critical areas and prioritization of measures. One of the effective factors in the evaluation ...
Read More
Soil erosion is an important subject in water and soil conservation researches which is influenced by natural and anthropogenic factors. Hence, knowledge on soil erosion amount enables the identification of critical areas and prioritization of measures. One of the effective factors in the evaluation of soil erosion is slope and length (LS) which could be calculated using different methods and algorithms, so the selection of the best method to provide proper estimation is important. However, the comparison of the performance of the different estimation methods has not been sufficiently considered. Therefore, the present study was conducted to calculate the LS factor and evaluate its effect on estimations of soil erosion in the Shazand Watershed using four common algorithms viz. Renard et al. (1997); Desmet and Govers (1996); Moore et al., 1991, and Böhner and Selige (2006) in geographical information system. The results of this study while confirming the difference of about 15 times among performances of various algorithms, indicated that the mean soil erosion using the algorithm of Renard et al. (1997); Desmet and Govers (1996); Moore et al. (1991), and Böhner and Selige (2006) were 4.95, 19.47, 1.73, 1.34 t ha-1 yr-1 in case of the stability of other factors of RUSLE model. Considering the calculated amounts of slope length on the topographic map, the Desmet and Govers (1996) algorithm performed better than other algorithms in LS calculation for the study watershed. It clearly verified the necessity of selecting pertinent procedures for the calculation of input factors for the precise estimation of soil erosion.
Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi; Fahimeh Mirchooli; Zeinab Hazbavi; Abdulvahed Khaledi Darvishan; Mohsen Khorsand
Abstract
Measuring soil erosion and sediment yield using different methods is necessary to achieve integrated and reliable information from amount of soil loss. In this regards, the application of new and up-to-date innovative methods is required and important to facilitate the measurements, which leads to increase ...
Read More
Measuring soil erosion and sediment yield using different methods is necessary to achieve integrated and reliable information from amount of soil loss. In this regards, the application of new and up-to-date innovative methods is required and important to facilitate the measurements, which leads to increase the accuracy. However, there is no enough information for the efficiency assessment of innovative techniques. An optic scanner method therefore was used in the present study to measure soil particles detached/transported by splash/runoff. Then, the obtained results were compared with two traditional methods. Including rillmeter and paraffin, which were applied for the measurement of rill erosion in the laboratory. For this study, first a clay loam soil was poured in experimental plots with 30×40 cm dimensions and slope of 20%. The study plots were then exposed to sheet erosion under simulated rainfall intensity of 50 mm h-1 with duration of 20 minutes. In the next stage, two simulated rainfall intensities of 90 and 100 mm h-1 with duration of 20 and 80 minutes, were applied, respectively. The output runoff and sediment were collected and measured. Consequently, the results of optic scanner were compared with sediment measurements and also rillmeter and paraffin methods. Average soil erosion amount at the intensity of 90 mm h-1 with duration of 20 minutes based on optic scanner, rillmeter and paraffin were 283.30±79.73, 35.8±49.27, and 45.93±9.22 gr, whereas average soil erosion amount at the intensity of 100 mm h-1 with duration of 80 minutes were 377.94±274.22, 41.5±45.71, and 46.20±11.45 gr, respectively. According to the results, it was clear that the results of optic scanner was significantly different from other methods and overestimated soil erosion.
