Advertisement

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

  • Ali BagherzadehEmail author
  • Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar
Research Article

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 148078m3/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 (R 2 = 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 

References

  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): 77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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: 411–422Google Scholar
  6. Heydarian S A (1996). Assessment of erosion in mountain regions. Proceedings of 17th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, 4–8Google Scholar
  7. November, Sri Lanka 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: 145–156Google Scholar
  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): 143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martinez-Casasnovas J A (2003). A spatial information technology approach for the mapping and quantification of gully erosion. Catena, 50(2–4): 293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milliman J D, Syvitski J PM(1992). Geomorphology/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: The importance of small mountainous rivers. J Geod, 100: 525–544Google Scholar
  12. Millward A A, Mersey J E (1999). Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena, 38(2): 109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 121Google Scholar
  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): 127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raghunath J (2002). Potential erosion map for Bagmati basin using GRASS-GIS. Proceeding of the Open Source GIS-GRASS Users Conference, 11–13Google Scholar
  18. September, Trena, Italy 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)Google Scholar
  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. HY12Google Scholar
  20. Sahin S, Kurum E (2002). Erosion risk analysis by GIS in environmental impact assessments: a case study—Seyhan Köprü Dam construction. J Environ Manage, 66(3): 239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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): 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 18–20 April, University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK: 621–623Google Scholar
  23. Tangestani M H (2006). Comparison of EPMand PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi arid environment. J Asian Earth Sci, 27(5): 585–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thornton P K, Jones P O (1998). A conceptual approach to dynamic agricultural land use modeling. Agric Syst, 57(4): 505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Veldkamp A, Fresco L O (1996). CLUE: A conceptual model to study the conversion and its effects. Ecol Modell, 85(2–3): 253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  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): 85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Bagherzadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AgricultureIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran
  2. 2.Department of GeographyIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations