Forest Impact on Flood Peak Discharge and Sediment Yield in Streamflow

  • James C. Bathurst
  • Steve J. Birkinshaw
  • Felipe Cisneros Espinosa
  • Andrés Iroumé
Chapter

Abstract

Two recent studies help to define the extent to which forest cover, compared with a cover of shorter vegetation, can reduce flood peaks and sediment yields at the catchment scale as part of an integrated flood control programme. First, field data analysis and model analysis tested the hypothesis that, as the size of the rainfall event increases, the effect of forest cover on peak discharge becomes less important. Second, a systematic model analysis assessed the relationship between specific sediment yield and catchment area for various land use scenarios. The results show that the change in forest cover must apply to 20–30 % of the catchment area to affect the hydrological response; forest cover can affect the peak discharges for small to moderate floods but has little effect on large floods; increased cultivation in headwater areas can increase sediment yield, but the effect becomes attenuated over an order of magnitude increase in catchment area. In an Indian context, these results suggest that altered land use in the Himalayas has little immediate effect on flood magnitude and sediment yield in Bangladesh. However, forests can have a role in controlling floods and sediment yield in smaller headwater catchments.

Keywords

Catchment models Flood magnitude Forest impact Himalayan degradation Sediment yield 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The MEDACTION and EPIC FORCE projects were funded by the European Commission through its Framework Programme under contract numbers EVK2-CT-2000-00085 and INCO-CT2004-510739, respectively.

References

  1. Alila Y, Kuraś PK, Schnorbus M, Hudson R (2009) Forests and floods: a new paradigm sheds light on age-old controversies. Water Resour Res 45. doi:10.1029/2008WR007207
  2. Amaranthus MP, Rice RM, Barr NR, Ziemer RR (1985) Logging and forest roads related to increased debris slides in Southwestern Oregon. J For 83:229–233Google Scholar
  3. Andréassian V (2004) Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate. J Hydrol 291:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bathurst JC (2011) Predicting impacts of land use and climate change on erosion and sediment yield in river basins using SHETRAN. In: Morgan RPC, Nearing MA (eds) Handbook of erosion modelling. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 263–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bathurst JC, Iroumé A (2014) Quantitative generalizations for catchment sediment yield following forest logging. Water Resour Res 50(11):8383–8402. doi:10.1002/2014WR015711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bathurst JC, Wicks JM, O’Connell PE (1995) The SHE/SHESED basin scale water flow and sediment transport modelling system. In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, pp 563–594Google Scholar
  7. Bathurst JC, Kilsby C, White S (1996) Modelling the impacts of climate and land-use change on basin hydrology and soil erosion in Mediterranean Europe. In: Brandt CJ, Thornes JB (eds) Mediterranean desertification and land use. Wiley, Chichester, pp 355–387Google Scholar
  8. Bathurst JC, Sheffield J, Vicente C, White SM, Romano N (2002) Modelling large basin hydrology and sediment yield with sparse data: the Agri Basin, Southern Italy. In: Geeson NA, Brandt CJ, Thornes JB (eds) Mediterranean desertification: a mosaic of processes and responses. Wiley, Chichester, pp 397–415Google Scholar
  9. Bathurst JC, Moretti G, El-Hames A, Moaven-Hashemi A, Burton A (2005) Scenario modelling of basin-scale, shallow landslide sediment yield, Valsassina, Italian Southern Alps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bathurst JC, Amezaga J, Cisneros F, Gaviño Novillo M, Iroumé A, Lenzi MA, Mintegui Aguirre J, Miranda M, Urciuolo A (2010a) Forests and floods in Latin America: science, management, policy and the EPIC FORCE Project. Water Int 35(2):114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bathurst JC, Bovolo CI, Cisneros F (2010b) Modelling the effect of forest cover on shallow landslides at the river basin scale. Ecol Eng 36:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bathurst JC, Iroumé A, Cisneros F, Fallas J, Iturraspe R, Gaviño Novillo M, Urciuolo A, de Bièvre B, Guerrero Borges V, Coello C, Cisneros P, Gayoso J, Miranda M, Ramirez M (2011a) Forest impact on floods due to extreme rainfall and snowmelt in four Latin American environments 1: field data analysis. J Hydrol 400:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bathurst JC, Birkinshaw SJ, Cisneros F, Fallas J, Iroumé A, Iturraspe R, Gaviño Novillo M, Urciuolo A, Alvarado A, Coello C, Huber A, Miranda M, Ramirez M, Sarandón R (2011b) Forest impact on floods due to extreme rainfall and snowmelt in four Latin American environments 2: model analysis. J Hydrol 400:292–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beschta RL, Pyles MR, Skaugset AE, Surfleet CG (2000) Peakflow responses to forest practices in the Western Cascades of Oregon, USA. J Hydrol 233:102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw SJ, Bathurst JC (2006) Model study of the relationship between sediment yield and river basin area. Earth Surf Process Landf 31:750–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw SJ, Bathurst JC, Iroumé A, Palacios H (2011) The effect of forest cover on peak flow and sediment discharge – an integrated field and modelling study in central-southern Chile. Hydrol Process 25(8):1284–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bosch JM, Hewlett JD (1982) A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 55:3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical trees: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:185–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burton A, Bathurst JC (1998) Physically based modelling of shallow landslide sediment yield at a catchment scale. Environ Geol 35:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calder IR (1990) Evaporation in the uplands. Wiley, Chichester, 148ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Calder IR (2005) Blue revolution, integrated land and water resource management, 2nd edn. Earthscan, London, 353ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Calder IR, Aylward B (2006) Forest and floods: moving to an evidence based approach to watershed and integrated flood management. Water Int 31:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. CIFOR, FAO (2005) Forest and floods: drowning in fiction or thriving on facts? http://www.cgiar.org/insightdev/upload/291/145_BCIFOR0501.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2015
  24. Costa MH, Botta A, Cardille JA (2003) Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia. J Hydrol 283:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Croke J, Hairsine P, Fogarty P (1999) Sediment transport, redistribution and storage on logged forest hillslopes in south-eastern Australia. Hydrol Process 13:2705–2720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dadson SJ, Hovius N, Chen H, Dade WB, Lin J-C, Hsu M-L, Lin C-W, Horng M-J, Chen T-C, Milliman J, Stark CP (2004) Earthquake-triggered increase in sediment delivery from an active mountain belt. Geology 32(8):733–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davies PE, Nelson M (1993) The effect of steep slope logging on fine sediment infiltration into the beds of ephemeral and perennial streams of the Dazzler Range, Tasmania, Australia. J Hydrol 150:481–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dedkov A (2004) The relationship between sediment yield and drainage basin area. In: Sediment transfer through the fluvial system. Intl Ass Hydrol Sci, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, Publ 288:197–204Google Scholar
  29. Dedkov AP, Moszherin VI (1992) Erosion and sediment yield in mountain regions of the world. In: Erosion, debris flows and environment in mountain regions, Intl Ass Hydrol Sci, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, Publ 209:29–36Google Scholar
  30. DeWalle DR (2003) Forest hydrology revisited. Hydrol Process 17:1255–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ewen J, Parkin G, O’Connell PE (2000) SHETRAN: distributed river basin flow and transport modeling system. Proc Am Soc Civ Engrs, J Hydrol Engrg 5:250–258Google Scholar
  32. Forsyth T (1998) Mountain myths revisited: integrating natural and social environmental science. Mt Res Dev 18(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glade T (2003) Landslide occurrence as a response to land use change: a review of evidence from New Zealand. Catena 51:297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grayson RB, Haydon SR, Jayasuriya MDA, Finlayson BL (1993) Water quality in mountain ash forests – separating the impacts of roads from those of logging operations. J Hydrol 150:459–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guthrie RH (2002) The effects of logging on frequency and distribution of landslides in three watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geomorphology 43:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall RL, Calder IR (1993) Drop size modification by forest canopies – measurements using a disdrometer. J Geophys Res 90:465–470Google Scholar
  37. Hamilton LS (1987) What are the impacts of Himalayan deforestation on the Ganges-Brahmaputra lowlands and delta? Assumptions and facts. Mt Res Dev 7(3):256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hofer T (1993) Himalayan deforestation, changing river discharge, and increasing floods: myth or reality? Mt Res Dev 13(3):213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hofer T, Messerli B (2006) Floods in Bangladesh: history, dynamics and rethinking the role of the Himalayas. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  40. Islam MR, Begum SF, Yamaguchi Y, Ogawa K (1999) The Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers in Bangladesh: basin denudation and sedimentation. Hydrol Process 13:2907–2923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ives JD (1987) The theory of Himalayan environmental degradation: its validity and application challenged by recent research. Mt Res Dev 7(3):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jain SK, Storm B, Bathurst JC, Refsgaard JC, Singh RD (1992) Application of the SHE to catchments in India ─ part 2: field experiments and simulation studies with the SHE on the Kolar subcatchment of the Narmada River. J Hydrol 140:25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones JA, Grant GE (1996) Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resour Res 32(4):959–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krishnaswamy J, Richter DD, Halpin PN, Hofmockel MS (2001) Spatial patterns of suspended sediment yields in a humid tropical watershed in Costa Rica. Hydrol Process 15:2237–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuraś PK, Alila Y, Weiler M (2012) Forest harvesting effects on the magnitude and frequency of peak flows can increase with return period. Water Resour Res 48. doi:10.1029/2011WR010705
  46. La Marche JL, Lettenmaier DP (2001) Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surf Process Landf 26:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. López-Moreno JI, Beguería S, García-Ruiz JM (2006) Trends in high flows in the central Spanish Pyrenees: response to climatic factors or to land-use change? Hydrol Sci J 51(6):1039–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moore RD, Wondzell SM (2005) Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific northwest: a review. J Am Wat Res Ass 41(4):763–784Google Scholar
  49. Phillips C, Marden M, Pearce A (1990) Effectiveness of reforestation in prevention and control of landsliding during large cyclonic storms. In: Proceedings of the 19th IUFRO World Congress, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  50. Pizarro R, Araya S, Jordán C, Farías C, Flores JP, Bro PB (2006) The effects of changes in vegetative cover on river flows in the Purapel River basin of central Chile. J Hydrol 327:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Refsgaard JC, Seth SM, Bathurst JC, Erlich M, Storm B, Jørgensen GH, Chandra S (1992) Application of the SHE to catchments in India ─ part 1: general results. J Hydrol 140:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reid LM, Dunne T (1984) Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resour Res 20(11):1753–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schumm SA (1977) The fluvial system. Wiley, New York, 338ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Sikka AK, Samra JS, Sharda VN, Samraj P, Lakshmanan V (2003) Low flow and high flow responses to converting natural grassland into bluegum (Eucalyptus Globulus) in Nilgiris watersheds of south India. J Hydrol 270:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stednick JD (1996) Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J Hydrol 176:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas RB, Megahan WF (1998) Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion. Water Resour Res 34(12):3393–3403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trimble SW (1976) Sedimentation in Coon Creek Valley, Wisconsin. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Denver, Symposium 5. Sedimentation Committee, Water Resources Council, pp 5.100–5.112Google Scholar
  58. Walling DE, Webb BW (1996) Erosion and sediment yield: a global overview. In Erosion and sediment yield: global and regional perspectives. Intl Ass Hydrol Sci, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, Publ 236:3–19Google Scholar
  59. Wicks JM, Bathurst JC (1996) SHESED: a physically based, distributed erosion and sediment yield component for the SHE Hydrological Modelling System. J Hydrol 175:213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilk J, Andersson L, Plermkamon V (2001) Hydrological impacts of forest conversion to agriculture in a large river basin in northeast Thailand. Hydrol Process 15:2729–2748CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • James C. Bathurst
    • 1
  • Steve J. Birkinshaw
    • 1
  • Felipe Cisneros Espinosa
    • 2
  • Andrés Iroumé
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Programa para el Manejo de Agua y Suelo (PROMAS), Department of Water and Soil Resources Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringCuenca UniversityCuencaEcuador
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Recursos Naturales, Instituto de Conservación, Biodiversidad y TerritorioAustral University of Chile (UACh)ValdiviaChile

Personalised recommendations