Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 2649–2668 | Cite as

Small Catchment Agricultural Management Using Decision Variables Defined at Catchment Scale and a Fuzzy Rule-Based System: A Mediterranean Vineyard Case Study

  • François Colin
  • Serge Guillaume
  • Bruno Tisseyre
Article

Abstract

Physically based hydrological models are increasingly used to simulate the impact of land use changes on water and mass transfers. The problems associated with this type of parameter-rich model from a water management perspective are related to the need for (1) a large number of local parameters instead of only a few catchment-scale decision variables and (2) the technical skills and computational expertise necessary to perform these models. This study aimed to show that it is possible to define a reduced number of decision variables and rules to synthesise numerical simulations carried out through a physically based model. The MHYDAS model was run on a Mediterranean vineyard catchment located in southern France (Roujan, Herault) for an actual, common rainfall event to calculate the runoff coefficient. The simulation results concerned 3,000 samples of contrasted scenarios. The scenarios were characterised by four catchment-scale decision variables related to agricultural practices: the proportion of the area of non agricultural land, the proportion of the area subjected to full chemical weeding practices (with the complement being mechanical weeding), the spatial arrangement of the practices based on the distance to the outlet and the initial soil moisture content. The simulation results were used to generate fuzzy linguistic rules to predict the runoff coefficient, as computed by the physical model from the decision variables. For a common end of spring rainfall event, simulations showed that the runoff coefficient was most heavily influenced by the initial soil moisture and the proportion of the area of full chemical weeding practices and the proportion of the area of other land uses and their spatial arrangement also played a role. The fuzzy rule-based model was able to reproduce the hydrological output with good accuracy (R2 = 0.97). Sensitivity analysis to the rainfall magnitude showed that if the amount of rainfall was the key factor explaining the runoff coefficient absolute values, the structure of the rule base remained stable for rainfall events close to the one studied.

Keywords

Surface runoff Weeding practices MHYDAS Numerical experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahuja LR, Fiedler F, Dunn GH, Benjamin JG, Garrison A (1998) Changes in soil water retention curves due to tillage and natural reconsolidation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1228–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbari M, Afshar A, Rezaei Sadrabadi M (2009) Fuzzy rule based models modification by new data: application to flood flow forecasting. Water Resour Manage 23:2491–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albanis TA (1992) Herbicide losses in runoff from the agricultural area of Thessaloniki in Thermaikos Gulf, N. Greece. Sci Total Environ 114:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrieux P, Bouzigues R, Joseph C, Voltz M, Lagacherie P, Bourlet M (1993) Le bassin versant de Roujan: caractéristiques générales du milieu. Report of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), Montpellier, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment. part I: model development. J Am Water Res Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Assouline S, Mualem Y (2006) Runoff from heterogeneous small bare catchments during soil surface sealing. Water Resour Res 42:W12405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardossy A (1996) The use of fuzzy rules for the description of elements of the hydrological cycle. Ecol Model 85:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beven KJ, Binley AM (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainity prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biarnes A, Colin F (2006) Methodology for assessing the hydrological impact of weed control practices with a view to management of Mediterranean vinegrowing catchments. Int J Sustain Dev 9(2):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bormann H, Diekkrüger B, Hanschild M (1999) Impacts of landscape management on the hydrological behaviour of small catchments. Phys Chem Earth 24(4):291–296Google Scholar
  11. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  12. Carluer N, De Marsily G (2004) Assessment and modelling of the influence of man-made networks on the hydrology of a small watershed: implications for fast flow components, water quality and landscape management. J Hydrol 285:76–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chahinian N (2004) Parametrisation multi-critere et multi-echelle d’un modele hydrologique spatialise de crue en milieu agricole (Multi-criteria and multi-scale parameterization of a flood-event distributed hydrological model in farmed basins). PhD dissertation, University of Montpellier, France, 238 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Chahinian N, Moussa R, Andrieux P, Voltz M (2005) Comparison of infiltration models to simulate flood events at the field scale. J Hydrol 306:191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chahinian N, Voltz M, Moussa R, Trotoux G (2006a) Assessing the impact of hydraulic properties of a crusted soil on overland flow modelling at the field scale. Hydrol Process 20:1701–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chahinian N, Moussa R, Andrieux P, Voltz M (2006b) Accounting for temporal variation in soil hydrological properties when simulating surface runoff on tilled plots. J Hydrol 326:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durga Rao KHV, Satish Kumar D (2004) Spatial decision support system for watershed management. Water Resour Manage 18:407–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (1998) World reference base for soil resources. World Soil Resources Report 84, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghesquiere J (2008) Integration des mecanismes de debordement dans la modelisation hydrologique spatialisee des crues en milieu agricole (Integration of overbank flow processes in distributed hydrological modelling of flood events in farmed basins). PhD dissertation, University of Montpellier, France, 214 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham DN, Butts MB (2006) Flexible, integrated watershed modelling with MIKE-SHE. In: Singh VP, Frevert DK (eds) Watershed models. CRC, New York, pp 245–272Google Scholar
  21. Green WA, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soils physics: 1. The flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci 4:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guillaume S (2001) Designing fuzzy inference systems from data: an interpretability-oriented review. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 9(3):426–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guillaume S, Charnomordic B, Lablée JL (2002) FisPro: an open source portable software for fuzzy inference systems. http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Departements/MIA/M/fispro
  24. Haberlandt U, Krysanova V, Bardossy A (2002) Assessment of nitrogen leaching from arable land in large river basins. Part II: regionalisation using fuzzy rule based modelling. Ecol Model 150:277–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han D, Cluckie ID, Karbassioun D, Lawry J, Krauskopf B (2002) River flow modelling using fuzzy decision trees. Water Resour Manage 16:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hebrard O, Voltz M, Andrieux P, Moussa R (2006) Spatio-temporal distribution of soil surface moisture in a heterogeneously farmed Mediterranean catchment. J Hydrol 329:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holvoet K, Gevaert V, van Griensven A, Seuntjens P, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Modelling the effectiveness of agricultural measures to reduce the amount of pesticides entering surface waters. Water Resour Manage 21:2027–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes DA, Sami K (1992) Transmission losses to alluvium and associated moisture dynamics in a semiarid ephemeral channel system in Southern Africa. Hydrol Process 6:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laflen JM, Lane JL, Foster GR (1991) WEPP—a new generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46(1):34–38Google Scholar
  30. Lagacherie P, Diot O, Domange N, Gouy V, Floure C, Kao C, Moussa R, Robbez-Masson JM, Szleper V (2006) An indicator approach for describing the spatial variability of artificial stream networks in regard with herbicide pollution in cultivated watersheds. Ecol Ind 6:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lagacherie P, Rabotin M, Colin F, Moussa R, Voltz M (2010) Geo-MHYDAS: a landscape discretization tool for distributed hydrological modeling of cultivated areas. Comput Geosci 36:1021–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lennartz B, Louchart X, Andrieux P, Voltz M (1997) Diuron and simazine losses to runoff water in Mediterranean vineyards. J Environ Qual 26:1493–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leonard J, Andrieux P (1998) Infiltration characteristics of soils in Mediterranean vineyards in southern France. Catena 32:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louchart X, Voltz M, Andrieux P, Moussa R (2001) Herbicide runoff at field and watershed scales in a Mediterranean vineyard area. J Environ Qual 30:982–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKergow LA, Weaver DM, Prosser IP, Grayson RB, Reed AEG (2003) Before and after riparian management: sediment and nutrient exports from a small agricultural catchment, Western Australia. J Hydrol 270:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mein RG, Larson CL (1973) Modelling infiltration during a steady rain. Water Resour Res 9:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montero FJ, Brasa A (2005) Land and water use management in vine growing by using Geographic Information Systems in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Agric Water Manag 77:82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morel-Seytoux HJ (1982) Analytical results for prediction of variable rainfall infiltration. J Hydrol 59:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moreno-Mateos D, Mander U, Pedrocchi C (2010) Optimal location of created and restored wetlands in Mediterranean agricultural catchments. Water Resour Manage 24:2485–2499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moussa R (1996) Analytical Hayami solution for the diffusive wave flood routing problem with lateral inflow. Hydrol Process 10:1209–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moussa R, Voltz M, Andrieux P (2002) Effects of the spatial organization of agricultural management on the hydrological behaviour of a farmed catchment during flood events. Hydrol Process 16:393–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moussa R, Voltz M, Andrieux P (2003) Impacts of various scenarios of agricultural management on the hydrological behaviour of a farmed catchment during flood events. In: Proc of conference on hydrology of the Mediterranean and semi-arid regions, Montpellier (France), 1–4 April 2003, pp 417–421Google Scholar
  43. Moussa R, Voltz M, Andrieux P, Lagacherie P (2000) Hydrological modelling of a farmed Mediterranean catchment. In Claps P, Siccardi F (eds) Mediterranean storms. European Geophysical Society Plinius conference ‘99, pp 377–386Google Scholar
  44. Moussa R (1997) Geomorphological transfer function calculated from digital elevation models for distributed hydrological modelling. Hydrol Process 11(5):429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mwendera EJ, Feyen J (1993) Predicting tillage effects on infiltration. Soil Sci 155:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mwendera EJ, Feyen J (1994) Effects of tillage and rainfall on soil surface roughness and properties. Soil Tech 7:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pineros Garcet JDM, Ordonez A, Roosen J, Vanclooster M (2006) Metamodelling: Theory, concepts and application to nitrate leaching modelling. Ecol Model 193(3–4):629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quinlan R (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn 1:81–106Google Scholar
  49. Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J Hydrol 198:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Refsgaard JC, Knudsen J (1996) Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour Res 30(7):2189–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanchez-Camazano M, Sanchez-Martin MJ, Crisanto T (1995) Occurrence of Atrazine in surface and ground waters in the province of Salamanca (Spain). Toxicol Environ Chem 47:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tiemeyer B, Moussa R, Lennartz B, Voltz M (2007) MHYDAS-DRAIN: a spatially distributed model for small, artificially drained lowland catchments. Ecol Model 29(1):2–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Dijck S (2000) Effects of agricultural land use on surface runoff and erosion in a Mediterranean area. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 246 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiler M, McDonnell JJ (2004) Virtual experiments: a new approach for improving process conceptualization in hillslope hydrology. J Hydrol 285:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiler M, McDonnell JJ (2006) Testing nutrient flushing hypotheses at the hillslope scale: a virtual experiment approach. J Hydrol 319:339–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wohlfahrt J, Colin F, Assaghir Z, Bockstaller C (2010) Assessing the impact of the spatial arrangement of agricultural practices on pesticide runoff in small catchments: combining hydrological modeling and supervised learning. Ecol Ind 10:826–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu J, Ransom MD, Kluitenberg GJ, Nellis MD, Seyler HL (2001) Land-use management using a soil survey geographic database for Finney County, Kansas. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Colin
    • 1
  • Serge Guillaume
    • 2
  • Bruno Tisseyre
    • 3
  1. 1.Montpellier SupAgro, UMR LISAHMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Cemagref, UMR ITAPMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Montpellier SupAgro, UMR ITAPMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations