Assessment of the WEPP capability in coupling with GeoWEPP for predicting spatial distribution of soil erosion in Taleghan's pair catchments

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Corresponding Author, Associate Prof., Dept. of Arid and Mountainous Region Reclamation, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

2 M.Sc. Graduate in Watershed Management, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

3 Professor, Dept. of Arid and Mountainous Region Reclamation, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

4 M.Sc. Student of Watershed Management Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract
Background and purpose: protection of water and soil is the fundamental work for development natural resources in any country. Lake of available data of soil erosion is a limitation for land managers to apply soil and water conservation in the watershed scale. Over the past decades several erosion models have been invented under different environmental conditions, but, very limited numbers can be used under watershed scale that are enable to considering soil conservation measures. Among the existing methods, WEPP model, has been known as a process oriented model that can be used in different spatial scale namely: hillslope, watershed and large basin. The WEPP model requires a large amount of input data and the model efficiency is highly related into the input data. The main aim of the present investigation was the assessment of WEPP model and spatial extension of the GeoWEPP for estimating of soil erosion and sediment yield in the paired watershed.
Materials and methods: The study area is located into the Taleghan watershed and the pair catchments of Zaidasht with area of 198.4 ha. All environmental data including: soil attributes, vegetation, climate data were extracted by field and laboratory data analysis for the five erosion plots and whole of the watershed. Model calibration was conducted based on the both infiltration and erodibility parameter through Nash- Sttcliff and R2 as well as RMSE coefficients.
Results: After optimizing the base value of hydraulic conductivity to about 50% for runoff, the efficiency of the model using the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient was 0.64, which means that the estimated runoff of each plot is close to the observed values. For the amount of sediment, using the basic values of the model relationships, the model did not provide the right result and the best results were obtained with an increase of 100% for rill erodibility and 150% for interrill erosion, and a decrease of 9% for shear stress and 12% for conductivity. has obtained hydraulics and the efficiency of the model using the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient was 0.51%, the estimated values are close to the observed values of the plots. Also The results showed that in 2016 , the sediment on the submontane level was 0.2 and 0.1 ton/ha/yr for the control and the sample, respectively and In the watershed, 1.1 and 0.3 ton/ha/yr were obtained for control and sample, respectively.Therefore, the WEEP model in the study area will be effective when the parameters of erodibility and hydraulic conductivity are measured with high accuracy. On the other hand, the results of GeoWEPP were obtained in the control and sample basins, respectively, 3.3 and 2.5 ton/ha/yr.
Conclusion: Based on the field observations and forms of erosion, GeoWEPP spatial extension was able to present a realistic picture of the erosion situation at the basin level Considering that this extension can remove the limitation of the model implementation in terms of area, therefore it is recommended to estimate the sediment in the scale of the watershed and in a distributed manner.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.Refahi, H. 2006. Water erosion and its control. Tehran Univ. Press. (In Persian)
2.Arabkhedri, M., Shadfar, S., Ardakani, A.J., Bayat, R., Khajavi, E., and Mahdian, M.H. 2018. Iran for Estimates Erosion Water Improving, Journal of watershed reaserch (reasearch and development). 120: 13-27.
3.Ismaili, A., and Abdullahi, Kh. 2011. Groundwater management and soil protection. Mohaghegh Ardabili University Press, Ardabil, Iran. 574p. (In Persian)
4.Morgan, R.P.C., and Nearing, M.A.2011. Handbook of erosion modelling. Handbook of erosion modelling.
5.Mutreja, K.N. 1986. Applied hidrology, Tata McGraw-hill, New Delhi, 959p.
6.Merritt, W.S., Letcher, R.A., and Jakeman, A.J. 2003. A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18: 8. 761-799.
7.Laflen, J.M., and Flanagan, D.C. 2013. The development of US soil erosion prediction and modeling. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 1: 2. 1-11.
8.Minkowski, M. 2010. Advanced GeoWEPP Tools. Creation and Use of Four Text Files Linked to Landuse and Soils Layers within GeoWEPP.‏
9.Abbasi Jundani, Sh., and Talebi, A. 2016. Water Erosion Modeling Book Using WEPP Family Models (Volume I & II), Yazd University Press.
10.Wilcox, B.P., and Simanton, J.R. 1998. Predicting runoff in semiarid woodlands: Evaluation of the WEPP model. In Modelling Soil Erosion by Water.pp. 131-140‏.
11.Han, F., Ren, L., and Zhang, X. 2016. The WEPP Model application in a small watershed in the Loess Plateau. PloS one, 11: 3.
12.Mohammed, S. 2020. Sediment Yield Modeling in the Coastal Region of Syria Using the WEPP-Model. 7p. (In Persian)
13.Brooks, E.S., Dobre, M., Elliot, W.J., Wu, J.Q., and Boll, J. 2016. Watershed-scale evaluation of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model in the Lake Tahoe basin. Journal of Hydrology, 533: 389-402.
14.Singh, R.K., Panda, R.K., Satapathy, K.K., and Ngachan, S.V. 2012. Runoff and sediment yield modelling for a treated hilly watershed in Eastern Himalaya using the water erosion prediction project model. Water resources management, 26: 3. 643-665
15.Effendy, Z., Setiawan, M.A., and Mardiatno, D. (2019, April). Geospatial-Interface Water Erosion Prediction Project (GeoWEPP) application for the planning of Bompon Watershed conservation-prioritized area, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 256p.
16.Doorabad, E., and Jesarati, A. 2017. Estimating the sedimentation of Aladyzgeh catchment area by using WEPP model in GIS environment. Jornal of Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement, 7: 23. 101-112.‏
17.Sadeghzadeh, M.I., and Yarahmadi, J. 2013. Evaluation of WEPP model in estimating erosion and sediment in marl lands of Khajeh region of Tabriz, Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Geomorphological Research, 2: 1. 97-112.
18.Golkarian, A. 2004. Estimation of water erosion and sedimentation using WEPP model in Neyshabour Bararieh watershed, Master of Watershed Management, University of Tehran. (In Persian)
19.Pezhohesh, M. 2016. Comparing the efficiency of WEPP and MPSIAC models with the amount of observed sediment in estimating soil erosion and sediment rate Case study: (Gojan Chal Namd watershed in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province). Quantitative geomorphological research. 4: 4. Shahrekord University. pp. 165-150.(In Persian)
20.Feiznia, S. 1995. Resistance of rocks to erosion in different climates of Iran Journal of Natural Resources of Iran.
47: 95-116. (In Persian)
21.Soil Science and Land Capability Report of Zidasht Watershed, Watershed Management. 1998. Tehran Province Jihad Sazandegi Organization (In Persian)
22.Flangan, D.C., and Livingston, S.J. (eds). 1995. USDA- Water Erosion Prediction Project: WEPP User Summery. NSERL Report No. 11, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, IN.
23.Jafarzadeh, M.S., Rouhani, H., Salmani, H., and Fathabadi, A. 2016. Reducing uncertainty in semi distributed hydrological modeling within the GLUE framework. Journal of water and Soil Conservation, 23: 1. 83-100.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 29, Issue 4
March 2023
Pages 51-73

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics