Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 83–94 | Cite as

Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq Watershed, Northeast of Iran

  • Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar
  • Ali Bagherzadeh
Research Article


Regarding the importance of watersheds in arid and semi-arid regions, it is necessary to better protect water supplies such as dam reservoirs. The most efficient way of conserving water sources is to apply proper management to decrease erosion and sedimentation. The first step of this process is to be aware of sediment yield (Q s)/production and identify erosive zones in upper reach of reservoirs. The present study aims to evaluate Q s and production in Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (PSIAC) and modified PSIAC (MPSIAC) models by using satellite data, GIS analysis, and field observations. According to the results, the study area can be categorized into five erosive classes: very high, high, moderate, low and negligible. The east part of the watershed is slightly eroded due to its hard surface geology and relatively flat topography characteristics, while the northern and southern parts of the basin are highly eroded because of the high erodibility potential of soil and intensive cultivation of the area. A comparison of the output maps from PSIAC and MPSIAC models showed that the calculated Q s in most parts correspond well in both models and with field observations. The results of regression between main determining factors (surface geology, soil, topography and land cover) and Q s derived from each model indicated moderate to strong correlation coefficient (R 2 = 0.436−0.996 to 0.893–0.998) after PSIAC and MPSIAC models, respectively.


evaluation of sediment yield (Qserodible factors Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (PSIAC) and modified PSIAC (MPSIAC) models sediment production GIS Toroq Watershed Northeast of Iran 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aide T M, Cavelier J (1994). Barriers to low land tropical forest restoration in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Columbia. Restor Ecol, 2(4): 219–229Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bazzoffi P (1985). Methods for net erosion measurement in watersheds as a tool for the validation of models in central Italy. In:Workshop on Soil Erosion and Hillslope Hydrology with Emphasis on Higher Magnitude Events, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark K B (2001). An estimate of sediment yield for two small sub catchments in a geographic information system. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. de Vente J, Poesen J (2005). Predicting soil erosion and Q s at the basin scale: scale issues and semi-quantitative models. Earth Sci Rev, 71(1–2): 95–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erskine W D, Mahmoudzadeh A, Myers C (2002). Land use effects on Q s and soil loss rates in small basins of Triassic sandstone near Sydney, Australia. Catena, 49(4): 271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feyznia S (1995). Rocks strength against erosion factors in different climates of Iran. Journal of the Natural Resources of Iran, 47: 95–116 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  9. Johnson C W, Gembhart K A (1982). Predicting sediment yields from sagebrush rangelands. In: Agricultural Research Service, ed. Estimating Soil Erosion and Sediment Yields on Ragelands. Agricultural Reviews and Manuals-W-26. Department of Agriculture, ARS, Tucson, USA, 145–156Google Scholar
  10. Lageras P, Sandgren P (1994). The use of mineral analysis in identifying middle and late Holocene agriculture—a study of peat profiles in Smaland, Southern Sweden I. Arch Sci, 21(5): 687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Le Bissonais Y, Montier C, Jamagne M, Daroussin J, King D (2002). Mapping erosion risk for cultivated soil in France. Catena, 46(2–3): 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin C Y, Lin W T, Chov W C (2002). Soil erosion prediction and sediment yield estimation: the Taiwan experience. Soil Tillage Res, 68: 143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf, 2(2): 78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meade R H, Yuzyk T R, Day T J (1990). Movement and storage of sediment in rivers of United States of America. In: The Geology of North America. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 255–280Google Scholar
  16. Milliman J D, Syvitski J P M (1992). Geomorphologie/teetonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. J Geod, 100: 525–544Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (1968). Factors Affecting Sediment Yield in the Pacific Southwest Area and Selection and Evaluation of Measures for Reduction of Erosion and Sediment Yield. Water Management Subcommittee on ASCE, Report No. HY12, 1998Google Scholar
  20. Qiao Y L, Qiao Y (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
  21. 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, 244(1–2): 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raghunath J (2002). Potential erosion map for Bagmati basin using GRASS-GIS. In: Proceeding of the Open Source GIS-GRASS Users Conference, 11th–13th September, Trena, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. Refahi H, Nematti M (1995). Erodibility assessment of the Alamout sub catehment and its effect on the sediment yield. J Agric Sci Iran, 26: 48–56Google Scholar
  24. 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): 239–247Google Scholar
  25. Shrimali S S, Aggarwal S P, Samra I S (2001). Prioritizing erosion-prone areas in hills using remote sensing and GIS–a case study of the Sukhna Lake catchment, Northern India. Int I Applied Earth Observ. Geoinform, 3(1): 54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tangestani M H (2001). Integrating geographic information systems in erosion and sediment yield applications using the erosion potential method (EPM). In: Proceedings of the 015 Research UK, 9th Annual Conference, 18th–20th April, University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK, 621–623Google Scholar
  28. Tangestani M H (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: 585–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thornton P K, Jones P O (1998). A conceptual approach to dynamic agricultural land use modeling. Agric Syst, 57(4): 505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Williams J R, Berndt H D (1972). Sediment yield computed with universal equation. J Hydraul Div ASCE, 98(HY2): 2087–2098Google Scholar
  32. Wischmeier W H, Smith D D (1978). Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook, No. 537. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Woida K, Moines D, Clark K B (2001). A GIS application of PSIAC for predicting sediment-yield rates. Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. USGS, Report No. 25-32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar
    • 1
  • Ali Bagherzadeh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations