Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the impact of management scenarios and land use changes on annual surface runoff and sediment yield using the GeoWEPP: a case study from the Lighvanchai watershed, Iran

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate land use change impact and management scenarios on annual average surface runoff (SR) and sediment yield (SY) using the GeoWEPP tool in the Lighvanchai watershed (located in northwestern Iran). Following a sensitivity analysis, the WEPP model was calibrated (2005–2007) and validated (2008–2010) against monthly observed SY and SR. The coefficient of determination (R 2), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), mean bias error (MBE), and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were applied to quantitatively evaluate the WEPP model. The results indicate a satisfactory model performance with R 2 > 0.80 and NSE > 0.60. Therefore, the model for current land use (scenario 1) was run for a 30-year time period (1982–2011). The annual average of SR and sediment load were predicted as 93,584 m3/year and 4340 ton/year, respectively. To reduce the annual average surface runoff and sediment yield at the watershed scale, the second scenario (alfalfa cultivation with suitable tillage) and the third scenario (grassland development) as two management scenarios of land use changes were defined by identifying the critical hillslopes. The rate of SR and sediment load in the second scenario were 42,096 m3/year and 429 ton/year, respectively. For the third scenario, the model predictions were 30,239 m3/year and 226 ton/year, respectively. Compared to the first scenario, the reduction rates in annual average of sediment load were about 90 and 94%, respectively. Moreover, for the second and third management scenarios, the reduction rates in annual average of SR were about 55 and 67%, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmadi H, Taheri S, Azarnivand H (2011) Runoff and sediment yield modeling using WEPP in a semi-arid environment (case study: Orazan watershed). Desert 16:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbari A, Sedaei L, Naderi M, Samah AA, Sedaei N (2015) The application of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model for the estimation of runoff and sediment on a monthly time resolution. Environ Earth Sci 74:5827–5837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Mukhtar M, Dunger V, Merkel B (2014) Runoff and sediment yield modeling by means of WEPP in the Bautzen dam catchment, Germany. Environ Earth Sci 72:2051–2063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amore E, Modica C, Nearing MA, Santoro VC (2004) Scale effect in USLE and WEPP application for soil erosion computation from three Sicilian basins. J Hydrol 293:100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arabkhedri M, Varvani J, Hakimkhani S (2004) The validity of extrapolation methods in estimations of annual mean suspended sediment yield (17 hydrometric stations). J Agric Sci Natur Reso 11:123–131 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:411–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascough J II, Baffaut C, Nearing M, Liu B (1997) The WEPP watershed model I: hydrology and erosion. Trans ASAE 40:921–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baffaut C, Nearing M, Ascough J II, Liu B (1997) The WEPP watershed model: II. Sensitivity analysis and discretization on small watersheds. Trans ASAE 40:935–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley D, Huggins L, Monke A (1980) ANSWERS: a model for watershed planning. Trans ASAE 23:938–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG (1991) A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 37:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneshvar MRM, Bagherzadeh A (2012) Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq watershed, Northeast of Iran. Front Earth Sci 6:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimpour M, Balasundram S, Talib J, Anuar A, Memarian H (2011) Accuracy of GeoWEPP in estimating sediment load and runoff from a tropical watershed. Malays J Soil Sci 15:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanian M, Babaei S (2013) Evaluation of hybrid model for estimating daily solar radiation in some solar sites of Iran. J Water Soil 27:158–168 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanian M, Babaei S (2016) Trend analysis of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and precipitation at some synoptic stations of the Lake Urmia Basin. J Water Res 10:153–162 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanian M, Ghahramani P, Saadat H (2014) Mapping of potential soil erosion hazard using fuzzy logic in Gharnave waetershed, Golestan province. J Watershed Manag Sci Eng 7:43–52 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanian M, Bayazi M, Abghari H, Esmali Ouri A (2015a) Monthly simulation of streamflow and sediment using the SWAT in Nazlochai and prioritization of critical regions. J Watershed Eng Manag 7:552–562 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanian M, Ghaharahmani P, Saadat H (2015b) Assessment of soil erosion risk using a fuzzy model in Gharnaveh watershed, Golestan province. J Water Soil Conserv 21:135–154 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan D, Ascough J, Nicks A, Nearing M, Laflen J, Flanagan D, Nearing M (1995) Overview of the WEPP erosion prediction model. Technical documentation: USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

  • Flanagan DC, Ascough JC II, Nearing MA, Laflen JM (2001) The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. Landscape erosion and evolution modeling. Springer, New York, pp 145–199

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan DC, Gilley JE, Franti TG (2007) Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): development history, model capabilities, and future enhancements. Trans ASABE 50:1603–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan DC, Frankenberger JR, Cochrane TA, Renschler CS, Elliot WJ (2013) Geospatial application of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. Trans ASABE 56:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz AJ (2003) An evaluation of sediment rating curves for estimating suspended sediment concentrations for subsequent flux calculations. Hydrol Process 17:3387–3409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isik S (2013) Regional rating curve models of suspended sediment transport for Turkey. Earth Sci Inform 6:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaledi Darvishan A, Sadeghi S, Gholami L, Telvari A (2010) Calibration of USLE different versions in Chehelgazi watershed in Kurdistan. J Watershed Res 1:30–43 (in Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laflen JM, Flanagan DC (2013) The development of U.S. soil erosion prediction and modeling. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 1:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laflen JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991) WEPP: a new generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Nearing M, Baffaut C, Ascough J II (1997) The WEPP watershed model: III. Comparisons to measured data from small watersheds. Trans ASAE 40:945–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maalim FK, Melesse AM, Belmont P, Gran KB (2013) Modeling the impact of land use changes on runoff and sediment yield in the Le Sueur watershed, Minnesota using GeoWEPP. CATENA 107:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meghdadi AR (2013) Identification of effective best management practices in sediment yield diminution using GeoWEPP: the Kasilian watershed case study. Environ Monit Assess 185:9803–9817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer C (2011) General description of the CLIGEN model and its history. USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nearing M (2004) Capabilities and limitations of erosion models and data. In: Proceedings of the 13th international soil conservation organization conference, Brisbane

  • Renschler CS (2003) Designing geo-spatial interfaces to scale process models: the GeoWEPP approach. Hydrol Process 17:1005–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi S (2005) A semi-detailed technique for soil erosion mapping based on BLM and satellite image applications. J Agric Sci Technol 7:133–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi S, Gholami L, Khaledi Darvishan A (2013) Suitability of MUSLT for storm sediment yield prediction in Chehelgazi watershed, Iran. Hydrol Sci J 58:892–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi S, Gholami L, Khaledi Darvishan A, Saeidi P (2014) A review of the application of the MUSLE model worldwide. Hydrol Sci J 59:365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saghafian B, Meghdadi AR, Sima S (2015) Application of the WEPP model to determine sources of run-off and sediment in a forested watershed. Hydrol Process 29:481–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen Z, Gong Y, Li Y, Hong Q, Xu L, Liu R (2009) A comparison of WEPP and SWAT for modeling soil erosion of the Zhangjiachong watershed in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Agric Water Manag 96:1435–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh R, Panda R, Satapathy K, Ngachan S (2011) Simulation of runoff and sediment yield from a hilly watershed in the eastern Himalaya, India using the WEPP model. J Hydrol 405:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabari H, Hosseinzadeh Talaei P, Willems P, Martinez C (2016) Validation and calibration of solar radiation equations for estimating daily reference evapotranspiration at cool semi-arid and arid locations. Hydrol Sci J 61:610–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangestani MH (2006) Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi-arid environment: Afzar catchment, Fars province, Iran. J Asian Earth Sci 27:585–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaezi A, Sadeghi S (2011) Evaluating the RUSLE model and developing an empirical equation for estimating soil erodibility factor in a semi-arid region. Span J Agric Res 9:912–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams J, Renard K, Dyke P (1983) EPIC: a new method for assessing erosion’s effect on soil productivity. J Soil Water Conserv 38:381–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu X, Zhang X, Lili N (2009) Simulated multi-scale watershed runoff and sediment production based on GeoWEPP model. Int J Sediment Res 24:465–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yüksel A, Akay AE, Gundogan R, Reis M, Cetiner M (2008) Application of GeoWEPP for determining sediment yield and runoff in the Orcan Creek watershed in Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Sensors 8:1222–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JX, Wu JQ, Elliot WJ, Dun S, Chang KT (2006) Effects of DEM resolution on forest hydrologic and erosion prediction using WEPP. ASABE Meeting

  • Zhang Z, Sheng L, Yang J, Chen X, Kong L, Wagan B (2015) Effects of land use and slope gradient on soil erosion in a red soil hilly watershed of southern China. Sustainability 7:14309–14325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo D, Xu Z, Yao W, Jin S, Xiao P, Ran D (2016) Assessing the effects of changes in land use and climate on runoff and sediment yields from a watershed in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci Total Environ 544:238–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would appreciate three anonymous reviewers for their remarkable comments, and valuable contributions to the improvement of the manuscript. We also appreciate Dr. Gabriele Buttafuoco, the associate editor of Environmental Earth Sciences for the valuable comments and edition which improved the manuscript. The authors also thank Mr. Hadi Beigi for providing the english map of the Urmia Lake basin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Range and Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

    Roya Narimani, Mahdi Erfanian, Habib Nazarnejad & Ahmad Mahmodzadeh

Authors
  1. Roya Narimani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahdi Erfanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Habib Nazarnejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmad Mahmodzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Erfanian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Narimani, R., Erfanian, M., Nazarnejad, H. et al. Evaluating the impact of management scenarios and land use changes on annual surface runoff and sediment yield using the GeoWEPP: a case study from the Lighvanchai watershed, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 76, 353 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6694-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6694-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation