Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 570–579 | Cite as

Assessment of the performance of WEPP in purple soil area with simulated rainfall experiments

  • Bin Fu
  • Yukuan WangEmail author
  • Pei Xu
  • Kun Yan
Article

Abstract

The water erosion prediction project (WEPP) model is a popular water erosion prediction tool developed on the basis of the physical processes of water erosion. Although WEPP has been widely used around the world, its application in China is still insufficient. In this study, the performance of WEPP used to estimate the runoff and soil loss on purple soil (Calcaric Regosols in FAO taxonomy) sloping cropland was assessed with the data from runoff plots under simulated rainfall conditions. Based on measured soil properties, runoff and erosion parameters, namely effective hydraulic conductivity, inter-rill erodibility, rill erodibility, and critical shear stress were determined to be 2.68 mm h−1, 5.54 × 106 kg s−1 m−4, 0.027 s m−1 and 3.5 Pa, respectively, by using the recommended equations in the WEPP user manual. The simulated results were not good due to the low Nash efficiency of 0.41 for runoff and negative Nash efficiency for soil loss. After the four parameters were calibrated, WEPP performed better for soil loss prediction with a Nash efficiency of 0.76. The different results indicated that the equations recommended by WEPP to calculate parameters such as erodiblity and critical shear stress are not suitable for the purple soil areas, Sichuan Province, China. Although the predicted results can be accepted by optimizing the runoff and erosion parameters, more research related to the determination of erodibility and critical sheer stress must be conducted to improve the application of WEPP in the purple soil areas.

Keywords

WEPP Soil erosion Simulated rainfall Purple soil Erodibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberts EE, Ghidey F (1997). Comparison of WEPP model predictions to measured erosion losses for large events. Eurasian Soil Science 30(5):564–568.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts EE, Nearing MA, Weltz MA, et al. (1995). USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation:Chapter 7. Soil component 7.1–7.43.Google Scholar
  3. Bhuyan SJ, Kalita PK, Janssen KA, et al. (2002). Soil loss predictions with three erosion simulation models. Environmental Modelling & Software 17(2):137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan RB (2000). Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope. Geomorphology 32(3–4):385–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliot W, Olivieri L, Laflen J, et al. (1990). Predicting soil erodibility from soil properties including classification, mineralogy, climate. and topography. ASAE Paper. No. 902557. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAEGoogle Scholar
  6. Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (1995). USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report No.10, 298. West Lafayette, IN: USDA-ARS.Google Scholar
  7. Flanagan DC, Gilley JE, Franti TG (2007). Water Erosion Prediction Project(WEPP): Development history, model capabilities, and future enhancements. Transactions of the ASAEB, 50(5):1603–1612.Google Scholar
  8. Foster GR, Flanagan DC, Nearing MA, et al. (1995). USDAWater Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation:Chapter 11. hillslope erosion component 11.1–11.12.Google Scholar
  9. Fu B, Wang YK, Xu P (2009). Changes in overland flow and sediment during simulated rainfall events on cropland in hilly areas of the Sichuan Basin, China. Progress in Natural Science 19:1613–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghidey F, Alberts EE, Kramer LA (1995). Comparison of Runoff and Soil Loss Predictions from the WEPP Hillslope Model to Measured Values for Eight Cropping and Management Treatments. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 95-2383. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.Google Scholar
  11. Ghidey F, Alberts EE (1996). Comparison of measured and WEPP predicted runoff and soil loss for midwest claypan soil. Transactions of the ASAEB 39(4):1395–1402.Google Scholar
  12. Govers G, Loch RJ (1993). Effects of Initial Water-Content and Soil Mechanical Strength on the Runoff Erosion Resistance of Clay Soils. Australian Journal of Soil Research 31(5):549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gronsten HA, Lundekvam H (2006). Prediction of surface runoff and soil loss in southeastern Norway using the WEPP Hillslope model. Soil & Tillage Research 85(1–2):186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kramer LA, Alberts EE (1995). Validation of WEPP 95.1 Daily Erosion Simulation. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 95-2384. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.Google Scholar
  15. Laflen JM, Flanagan DC, Engel BA (2004). Soil erosion and sediment yield prediction accuracy using WEPP. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(2):289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larsen IJ, MacDonald LH (2007). Predicting postfire sediment yields at the hillslope scale: Testing RUSLE and Disturbed WEPP. Water Resources Research 43, w11412. doi:10.1029/2006WR005560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, ZM, Zhang XW, Tang SJ (1991). Purple Soil in China (1). Science Press, Beijing.1–340.Google Scholar
  18. Mamo M, Bubenzer GD (2001). Detachment rate, soil erodibility, and soil strength as influenced by living plant roots part I: Laboratory study. Transactions of the ASAE 44(5):1167–1174.Google Scholar
  19. Moffet CA, Pierson FB, Robichaud PR, et al. (2007). Modeling soil erosion on steep sagebrush rangeland before and after prescribed fire. Catena 71(2):218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nachtergaele J, Poesen P (2002). Spatial and temporal variations in resistance of loess-derived soils to ephemeral gully erosion. European Journal of Soil Science 53(3):449–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nash J, Sutcliffe J (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. Journal of hydrology 10(3):282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nearing MA, Deerascough L, Laflen JM (1990). Sensitivity Analysis of the Wepp Hillslope Profile Erosion Model. Transactions of the ASAE 33(3):839–849.Google Scholar
  23. Pieri L, Bittelli M, Wu JQ, et al. (2007). Using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model to simulate fieldobserved runoff and erosion in the Apennines mountain range, Italy. Journal of hydrology 336(1–2):84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Risse LM, Nearing MA, Savabi MR (1994). Determining the Green-Ampt Effective Hydraulic Conductivity from Rainfall-Runoff Data for the Wepp Model. Transactions of the ASAE 37(2):411–418.Google Scholar
  25. Soto B, Diaz-Fierros F (1998). Runoff and soil erosion from areas of burnt scrub: comparison of experimental results with those predicted by the WEPP model. Catena 31(4):257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spaeth KE, Pierson FB, Weltz MA, et al. (2003). Evaluation of USLE and RUSLE estimated soil loss on rangeland. Journal of Range Management 56(3):234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tiwari AK, Risse LM, Nearing MA (2000). Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE. Transactions of the ASAE 43(5):1129–1135.Google Scholar
  28. USDA(2007). National Engineering Handbook: Part 630 Hydrology, Hydrologic Soil Groups. USDA NRCS, Washington, DC., USA.Google Scholar
  29. Willmott C(1981). On the validation of models. Physical geograph, 2(2):184–194.Google Scholar
  30. Yu B, Rosewell CJ(2001). Evaluation of WEPP for runoff and soil loss prediction at Gunnedah, NSW, Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39(5):1131–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang XC, Nearing MA, Risse LM, et al. (1996). Evaluation of WEPP runoff and soil loss predictions using natural runoff plot data. Transactions of the ASAE 39(3):855–863.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Earth Surface ProcessChinese Academy of SciencesChengduChina
  2. 2.Institute of Mountain Hazards and EnvironmentChinese Academy of SciencesChengduChina

Personalised recommendations