Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 79, Supplement 1, pp 255–289 | Cite as

Modelling the occurrence of gullies at two spatial scales in the Olteţ Drainage Basin (Romania)

  • Marta Jurchescu
  • Florina Grecu
Original Paper

Abstract

Gully erosion is both a significant natural hazard and an important sediment source. The design of proper prevention measures relies firstly on the prediction of the future locations of gullies. But, as recent progress has shown, methods and results in any environmental modelling greatly depend upon scale, the selection of which should be based on management needs. This research deals with predicting the spatial potential for gullying at two different scales grouped in a top-down framework, i.e. starting with a preliminary, regional scale analysis (1:100,000–1:200,000) to develop a simplified model, and performing a more detailed, intermediate level analysis at a medium scale (1:25,000–1:50,000) for the basin sector revealed as the most threatened by the process. At the same time, the study searches for relationships among: scale of analysis, area of investigation, precision and accuracy of input data, and the quality of expected results and their applicability. The study area is the Olteţ Drainage Basin (2439 km2) in southern Romania, which extends over four landform types: mountains, hills, a plateau (piedmont) and a plain. Aiming to investigate the scale effect, the same statistical method is selected for both analyses, namely Classification and Regression Trees (CART). Scale-adapted procedures and resolutions are applied for defining the dependent variable, deriving the environmental attributes and deciding the sampling strategy needed to provide information for the statistical analyses. In order to detect the degree of gullying at the regional scale, the statistical method is used over the entire basin, and gully density is selected as the target variable. For the analysis of gully susceptibility at the medium scale, within the most affected area of the Olteţ Basin identified as the piedmont sector, the single gully and the intensely gullied spot are defined as the target variables. The best validated maps obtained at the two scales are compared. The results reveal that both individual maps are characterized by statistical accuracy (a NRMSE value of 0.05–0.08 and an AUC of 0.86 for the regional scale and the medium scale models, respectively). Yet, the regional scale map is affected by high uncertainties when compared to the medium scale one. The scale dependency of results and hence the relative nature of their accuracy and reliability are highlighted in the context of both fundamental and applied research.

Keywords

Gully erosion Prediction CART Gully density Gully susceptibility Top-down approach Scale dependency 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the Romanian Academy Research Project ‘The National Geographic Atlas of Romania’ (2014, 2015) (coordinated by Professor Dan Bălteanu). The authors thank Professor Ion Ionita (“Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania) for strongly believing in this paper and constantly offering his unconditional support. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions and to the editors for their support. The Salford Systems Company is thanked for kindly permitting the use of the SPM (Salford Predictive Modeler®) software through an evaluation version. We are much indebted to Professor Michael Fullen (The University of Wolverhampton, UK) for improving the English language of the paper.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgün A, Türk N (2011) Mapping erosion susceptibility by a multivariate statistical method: a case study from the Ayvalık region, NW Turkey. Comput Geosci 37:1515–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aksoy H, Kavvas ML (2005) A review of hillslope and watershed scale erosion and sediment transport models. Catena 64(2–3):247–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badea L (1967) Subcarpaţii dintre Gilort şi Cerna Olteţului (The Subcarpathians between the Gilort and the Cerna Olteţului rivers. Geomorphic study). Studiu geomorfologic, Edit Academiei, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  5. Badea L, Niculescu G, Roată S, Buza M, Sandu M (2001) Unităţile de relief ale României I. Carpaţii Meridionali şi Munţii Banatului (The relief units of Romania I. The Southern Carpathians and the Banat Mountains). Edit Ars Docendi, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  6. Badea L, Niculescu G, Sandu M, Roată S, Micu M, Sima M, Jurchescu M (2008) Unităţile de relief ale României III. Dealurile pericarpatice. Dealurile Crişanei şi Banatului, Subcarpaţi (The relief units of Romania III. The pericarpathian hills. The Crişana and Banat Hills, the Subcarpathians). Edit Ars Docendi, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  7. Badea L, Sandu M, Buza M (2010) Unităţile de relief ale României IV. Podişurile pericarpatice (The relief units of Romania IV. The pericarpathian plateaux). Edit Ars Docendi, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  8. Badea L, Buza M, Sandu M, Sima, M, Micu M, Jurchescu M (2012) Unităţile de relief ale României, V. Câmpiile pericarpatice. Câmpia Banatului şi Crişanei, Câmpia Română, Lunca Dunării, Delta Dunării şi Câmpia Litorală. (The relief units of Romania V. The pericarpathian plains. The Banat and Crişana Plain, the Romanian Plain, the Danube Floodplain, the Danube Delta and the Coastal Plain). Edit Ars Docendi, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  9. Bălteanu D, Chendeş V, Şerban M, Drăgoi I-J (2004) Geomorphological hazards map, 1:4,000,000. In: Romania. Soil quality and the electricity transmission grid. Geographical Atlas. Edit Academiei Române, Bucureşti, plate 60Google Scholar
  10. Becker A, Bloeschl G, Hall A (1999) Preface to special issue on scale in hydrology. J Hydrol 217:169–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Begueria S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Hazards 37:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bou Kheir R, Wilson J, Deng Y (2007) Use of terrain variables for mapping gully erosion susceptibility in Lebanon. Earth Surf Process Landf 32:1770–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  14. Călin D (1988) Observaţii geomorfologice în unele perimetre afectate de degradări de teren din Munţii Parâng-Căpăţânii (Geomorphic observations in some perimeters of the Parâng-Căpăţânii Mountains affected by land degradation). Terra XX (XL):38–42 (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  15. Cascini L (2008) Applicability of landslide susceptibility and hazard zoning at different scales. Eng Geol 102:164–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cascini L, Bonnard C, Corominas J, Jibson R, Montero-Olarte J (2005) Landslide hazard and risk zoning for urban planning and development. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide risk management. Proceedings of the international conference on landslide risk management. Vancouver, Canada. A. A. Balkema Publishers, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 199–235Google Scholar
  17. Chaplot V, Coadou le Brozec E, Silvera N, Valentin C (2005) Spatial and temporal assessment of linear erosion in catchments under sloping lands of northern Laos. Catena 63:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung CF, Fabbri AG (1999) Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 65(12):1389–1399Google Scholar
  19. Conforti M, Aucelli PPC, Robustelli G, Scarciglia F (2011) Geomorphology and GIS analysis for mapping gully erosion susceptibility in the Turbolo stream catchment (Northern Calabria, Italy). Nat Hazard 56:881–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conoscenti C, Di Maggio C, Rotigliano E (2008) Soil erosion susceptibility assessment and validation using a geostatistical multivariate approach: a test in Southern Sicily. Nat Hazard 46:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conoscenti C, Agnesi V, Angileri S, Cappadonia C, Rotigliano E, Märker M (2013) A GIS-based approach for gully erosion susceptibility modelling: a test in Sicily, Italy. Environ Earth Sci 70:1179–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Conoscenti C, Angileri S, Cappadonia C, Rotigliano E, Agnesi V, Märker M (2014) Gully erosion susceptibility assessment by means of GIS-based logistic regression: a case of Sicily (Italy). Geomorphology 204:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Oliveira MAT (1990) Slope geometry and gully erosion development: Bananal, São Paulo, Brazil. Z Geomorphol NF 34(4):423–434Google Scholar
  24. Desmet PJJ, Poesen J, Govers G, Vandaele K (1999) Importance of slope gradient and contributing area for optimal prediction of the initiation and trajectory of ephemeral gullies. Catena 37:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewitte O, Daoudi M, Bosco C, Van Den Eeckhaut M (2015) Predicting the susceptibility to gully initiation in data-poor regions. Geomorphology 228:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dietrich WE, Wilson CJ, Montgomery DR, McKean J (1993) Analysis of erosion thresholds, channel networks, and landscape morphology using a digital terrain model. J Geol 101:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. EEA (2010) Corine Land Cover (CLC) 2006 database. Programme to Coordinate Information on the Environment, ECGoogle Scholar
  28. Ene M, Tîrlă L, Marin M (2011) Torrential erosion in the Olteţ Plateau, Romania. In: Proceedings of the 6th Romanian Turkish Geographical Seminar, June 5–14, 2009, Bucharest, Sibiu, Cluj-Napoca, Timişoara—Romania. Edit Universitară, Bucureşti, pp 85–89Google Scholar
  29. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ (JTC-1) (2008) Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and risk zoning for land use planning. Eng Geol 102:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Florea N, Munteanu I (2003) Sistemul roman de taxonomie a solurilor, SRTS (SRTS, The Romanian system of soil taxonomy). Edit Estfalia, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  31. Fressard M, Thiery Y, Maquaire O (2014) Which data for quantitative landslide susceptibility mapping at operational scale? Case study of the Pays d’Auge plateau hillslopes (Normandy, France). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:569–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geissen V, Kampichler C, López-de Llergo-Juárez JJ, Galindo-Acántara A (2007) Superficial and subterranean soil erosion in Tabasco, tropical Mexico: development of a decision tree modeling approach. Geoderma 139:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) (2011) Landsat surface reflectance, Landsat 7 ETM+ June 2000, Global Land Cover Facility University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. Gómez Gutiérrez Á, Schnabel S, Felicísimo ÁM (2009a) Modelling the occurrence of gullies in rangelands of southwest Spain. Earth Surf Process Landf 34:1894–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gómez Gutiérrez Á, Schnabel SJ, Contador FL (2009b) Using and comparing two nonparametric methods (CART and MARS) to model the potential distribution of gullies. Ecol Model 220:3630–3637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Günther A, Reichenbach P, Malet J-P, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J, Foster C, Guzzetti F (2013) Tier-based approaches for landslide susceptibility assessment in Europe. Landslides 10:529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hengl T (2006) Finding the right pixel size. Comput Geosci 32:1283–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hervás J (ed) (2007) Guidelines for mapping areas at risk of landslides in Europe. Proceedings of the experts meeting, Ispra, Italy, 23–24 October 2007. JRC Report EUR 23093 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  39. Hobson RD (1972) Surface roughness in topography: quantitative approach. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Spatial analysis in geomorphology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 221–245Google Scholar
  40. Hughes AO, Prosser IP (2012) Gully erosion prediction across a large region: Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Soil Res 50:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hughes AO, Prosser IP, Stevenson J, Scott A, Lu H, Gallant J, Moran CJ, CSIRO (2001) Land and Water, Canberra, Technical Report 26/01, 2001 Gully Erosion Mapping for the National Land and Water Resources AuditGoogle Scholar
  42. Ichim I, Rădoane M, Rădoane N, Grasu C, Cochior C (1994) Bugetul de aluviuni al bazinului râului Olteţ (The sediment budget of the Olteţ drainage basin). Lucr. sesiunii ştiinţifice anuale 1993. Institutul de Geografie al Academiei, pp 139–144 (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  43. ICPA (1971, 1974, 1975, 1979, 1979) Harta Solurilor României 1:200,000 (Romania’s Soil Map 1:200,000). Craiova, Slatina, Piteşti, Târgu Jiu, Orăştie sheets. Edit Comitetul Geologic, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  44. IGR (1968) Harta geologică 1:200,000 (The Geological Map 1:200,000). Târgu Jiu, Piteşti, Craiova, Slatina şi Orăştie sheets. Comitetul de Stat al Geologiei, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  45. Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy (2005) Geografia României V. Câmpia Română, Dunărea, Podişul Dobrogei, Litoralul românesc al Mării Negre şi Platforma Continentală (Geography of Romania, V. The Romanian Plain, the Danube, the Dobrogea Plateau, the Romanian Black Sea Coast and the Continental Shelf). Edit Academiei, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  46. Ionita I (1998) Studiul geomorfologic al degradarilor de teren din bazinul mijlociu al Barladului (Geomorphological study of the land degradation in the middle catchment of the Barlad river). Manuscript Ph.D. thesis, University “Alexandru Ioan Cuza,” Iaşi (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  47. Ionita I (2006) Gully development in the Moldavian Plateau of Romania. In: Special Issue Helming K, Rubio JL, Boardman J (eds) Soil erosion research in Europe. Catena 68(2–3):133–140Google Scholar
  48. Jurchescu M (2012) Bazinul morfohidrografic al Olteţului. Studiu de geomorfologie aplicată (The Olteţ drainage basin. Study of applied geomorphology). Manuscript Ph.D. thesis. University of Bucharest (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  49. Karydas C, Sarakiotis IL, Zalidis GC (2014) Multi-scale risk assessment of stream pollution by wastewater of olive oil mills in Kolymvari, Crete. Earth Sci Inform 7:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kok K, Farrow A, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH (2001) A method and application of multi-scale validation in spatial land use models. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lesschen JP, Schoorl JM, Cammeraat LH (2009) Modelling runoff and erosion for a semi-arid catchment using a multi-scale approach based on hydrological connectivity. Geomorphology 109:174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lucà F, Conforti M, Robustelli G (2011) Comparison of GIS-based gullying susceptibility mapping using bivariate and multivariate statistics: Northern Calabria, South Italy. Geomorphology 134:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Magliulo P (2010) Soil erosion susceptibility maps of the Janare Torrent Basin (Southern Italy). J Maps 6:435–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Magliulo P (2012) Assessing the susceptibility to water-induced soil erosion using a geomorphological, bivariate statistics-based approach. Environ Earth Sci 67:1801–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Märker M, Pelacani S, Schröder B (2011) A functional entity approach to predict soil erosion processes in a small Plio-Pleistocene Mediterranean catchment in Northern Chianti, Italy. Geomorphology 125:530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martínez-Casasnovas JA (1998) Soils and their management in a prone erosion area devoted to high quality wine production. Gully erosion: mapping and modelling. In: Boixadera J, Poch RM, Herrero C (eds) Tour Guide B8. Soil information for sustainable development. 16th World Congress of Soil Science. Montpellier, France, International Union of Soil Science. Lleida, Spain, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  57. Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meyer A, Martínez-Casasnovas JA (1999) Prediction of existing gully erosion in vineyard parcels of the NE Spain: a logistic modelling approach. Soil Tillage Res 50:319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Millares A, Gulliver Z, Polo MJ (2012) Scale effects on the estimation of erosion thresholds through a distributed and physically-based hydrological model. Geomorphology 153–154:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mircea S (1999) Studiul evoluţiei formaţiunilor eroziunii în adâncime în condiţii de amenajare şi neamenajare din zona Buzăului (The study of gully formations’ evolution in managed and non-managed conditions, the Buzău area). Ph.D. thesis. University of Agronomic Science and Veterinary Medicine, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  61. Mitasova H, Mitas L, Brown WM (1999) Multiscale simulation of land use impact on soil erosion and deposition patterns. In: Stott DE, Mohtar RH, Steinhardt GC (eds) Sustaining the global farm. Selected Papers from the 10th International Scale Conservation Organization Meeting held in May 24–29, 1999 at Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, pp 1163–1169Google Scholar
  62. Montgomery DR, Dietrich WE (1992) Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science 255:826–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Morgan RPC (2005) Soil erosion and conservation, 3rd edn. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  64. Morgan RPC, Mngomezulu D (2003) Threshold conditions for initiation of valley-side gullies in the Middle Veld of Swaziland. Catena 50:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moţoc M (1982) Ritmul mediu de degradare erozională a solului în R.S. România (Mean rate of soil degradation by erosion in Romania). Buletin Informativ ASAS 12, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  66. Moţoc M (1984) Participarea proceselor de eroziune şi a folosinţelor terenului la diferenţierea transportului de aluviuni în suspensie pe râurile din România (Contribution of erosion processes and land use to the differentiation of suspended sediment transport on the Romanian rivers). Buletin Informativ ASAS 13, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  67. Mucherino A, Papaiorgji PJ, Pardalos PM (2009) Data mining in agriculture. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mukundan R, Radcliffe DE, Risse LM (2010) Spatial resolution of soil data and channel erosion effects on SWAT model predictions of flow and sediment. J Soil Water Conserv 65(2):92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mutihac V, Stratulat IM, Fechet MR (2004) Geologia României (Geology of Romania). Edit Didactică şi Pedagogică R.A., Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  70. Overmars KP, de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A (2003) Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecol Model 164(2–3):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pike AC, Mueller TG, Schorgendorfer A, Shearer SA, Karathanasis AD (2009) Erosion index derived from terrain attributes using logistic regression and neural networks. Agron J 101:1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Deckers J (2000) Gullies in the Tersaert Forest (Huldenberg, Belgium): climatic or anthropogenic cause? In: Verstraete G (ed) Gully erosion processes in the belgian loess belt: causes and consequences. Excursion guide. International symposium on gully erosion under global change, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 16–19 April 2000, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  73. Poesen J, Nachtergaele J, Verstraeten G, Valentin C (2003) Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena 50:91–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Poesen PJ, Torri DB, Vanwalleghem T (2011) Gully erosion procedures to adopt when modelling soil erosion in landscapes affected by gullying. In: Morgan RPC, Nearing M (eds) Handbook of erosion modelling. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 360–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prosser IP, Abernethy B (1996) Predicting the topographic limits to a gully network using a digital terrain model and process thresholds. Water Resour Res 32:2289–2298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Prosser IP, Moran CJ, Lu H, Scott A, Rustomji P, Stevenson J, Priestly G, Roth CH, Post D (2002) Regional patterns of erosion and sediment transport in the Burdekin River catchment. Technical report 5/02. CSIRO Land and Water, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  77. Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5. Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  78. Rădoane M, Rădoane N (1992) Areal distribution of gullies by the grid square method. Case study: Siret and Prut interfluve. Rev Roum Géol Géophys Géogr sér Géogr 36:95–98Google Scholar
  79. Rădoane M, Rădoane N (2007) Geomorfologie aplicată (Applied geomorphology). Edit Universităţii din Suceava, Suceava (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  80. Rădoane M, Rădoane N, Ichim I (1995) Gully distribution and development in Moldavia, Romania. Catena 24:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rădoane M, Rădoane N, Ichim I (1997) Analiza multivariată a geomorfologiei ravenelor din Podişul Moldovei (Multivariate analysis of gullies geomorphology in the Moldavian Plateau). Analele Universităţii “Ştefan cel Mare,” Suceava, pp 19–32 (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  82. Rădoane M, Ichim I, Rădoane N, Surdeanu V (1999) Ravenele: forme, procese, evoluţie (Gullies: forms, processes, evolution). Presa Univ Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  83. Renschler CS (2005) Scales and uncertainties in using models and GIS for volcano hazard prediction. J Volcanol Geoth Res 139:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Samani AN, Ahmadi H, Jafari M, Boggs G, Ghoddousi J, Malekian A (2009) Geomorphic threshold conditions for gully erosion in Southwestern Iran (Boushehr-Samal watershed). J Asian Earth Sci 35:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Şandric I (2008) Sistem informaţional geografic temporal pentru analiza hazardelor naturale. O abordare bayesiană cu propagare a erorilor (Temporal geographic information system for the analysis of natural hazards. A Bayesian approach with error propagation). Manuscript Ph.D. thesis, University of Bucharest (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  86. Sappington JM, Longshore KM, Thomson DB (2007) Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. J Wildl Manag 71(5):1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schoorl JM, Sonneveld MPW, Veldkamp A (2000) Three-dimensional landscape process modelling: the effect of DEM resolution. Earth Surf Process Landf 25(9):1025–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Steinberg D, Golovnya M (2002) CART 6.0. User’s guide. Salford-Systems, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  89. Steinberg D, Cardell NS, Golovnya M (2012) Introduction into Salford Predictive Modeler. Training in CART, May 2012, Salford-Systems. http://www.salford-systems.com/videos/training/cart. Last Accessed 26 Feb 2015
  90. Svoray T, Michailov E, Cohen A, Rokah L, Sturm A (2012) Predicting gully initiation: comparing data mining techniques, analytical hierarchy processes and the topographic threshold. Earth Surf Process Landf 37:607–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and contributing areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33(2):309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Valentin C, Poesen J, Li Y (2005) Gully erosion: impacts, factors and control. Catena 63:132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J, Jaedicke C, Malet J-P, Picarelli L (2010) Calibration of logistic regression coefficients from limited landslide inventory data for European-wide landslide susceptibility modelling. In: Malet J-P, Glade T, Casagli N (eds) Proceedings of the international conference mountain risks: bringing science to society, Florence, Italy, 24–26 November 2010. CERG Editions, Strasbourg, pp 515–521Google Scholar
  94. Van Noordwijk M, Van Roode M, McCallie EL, Lusiana B (1998) Erosion and sedimentation as multiscale, fractal processes: implications for models, experiments and the real world. In: Penning de Vries FWT, Agus F, Kerr J (eds) Soil erosion at multiple scales: principles and methods for assessing causes and impacts. CAB International, Wallingford, in assoc. with IBSRAM, pp 223–253Google Scholar
  95. Vandaele K, Poesen J, Govers G, Van Wesemael B (1996) Geomorphic threshold conditions for ephemeral gully incision. Geomorphology 16:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vandekerckhove L, Poesen J, Oostwoud Wijdenes D, Nachtergaele J, Kosmas C, Roxo MJ, De Figueiredo T (2000) Thresholds for gully initiation and sedimentation in Mediterranean Europe. Earth Surf Process Landf 25:1201–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Veldkamp A, Kok K, De Koning GHJ, Schoorl JM, Sonneveld MPW, Verburg PH (2001) Multi-scale system approaches in agronomic research at the landscape level. Soil Tillage Res 58:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Verburg PH, Eickhout B, van Meijl H (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Ann Reg Sci 42:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Veregin H (1999) Data quality parameters. In: Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (eds) Geographical Information Systems. Principles and technical issues, vol 1. Wiley, New York, pp 177–189Google Scholar
  100. Wagenet RJ (1998) Scale issues in agroecological research chains. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 50:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. World Reference Base (1998) World reference base for soil resources. FAO. World resources report no. 84, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GeographyRomanian AcademyBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations