Soil Erosion pp 181-197 | Cite as

A Process-Based Evaluation of a Process-Based Soil-Erosion Model

  • A. J. Parsons
  • J. Wainwright
Part of the Environmental Science book series (ESE)

Abstract

In recent years, efforts to achieve better prediction of soil erosion by overland flow have emphasized the development of process-based models. It is claimed that process-based erosion models provide several advantages over empirically based erosion-prediction technology, amongst which is the capability to estimate spatial and temporal distributions of soil loss (Nearing et al. 1989). Evaluation of such process-based models has, however, been generally made in terms of their outputs rather than in terms of their correct representation of the erosion processes (see, for example, the evaluations reported in Boardman and Favis-Mortlock 1998). Such evaluation is limited for two reasons. First, a match between the output of the model and observed values for erosion does not demonstrate that the model is successfully representing the operation of processes. As Grayson and Moore (1992) have convincingly demonstrated in the context of overland flow hydrographs, the same output can be generated from a variety of sources and types of overland flow. These authors showed that a match of the runoff hydrograph is insufficient to demonstrate that the model is adequately representing the hillslope processes that generate the runoff. Secondly, where model output and observed runoff and erosion rates do not agree, an evaluation only in terms of model output provides no basis for identifying an explanation for the disparity that would lead to improvements to the model.

Keywords

Clay Porosity Depression Silt Eter 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahams AD, Parsons AJ, Luk SH (1991) The effect of spatial variability in overland flow on the downslope pattern of soil loss on a semi-arid hillslope, southern Arizona. Catena 18:255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boardman J, Favis-Mortlock D (eds) (1998) Modeling soil erosion by water. Springer-Verlag, ASINATO Series I-55, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellison WD (1947) Soil erosion studies — Part II. Agricultural Engineering 28:197–201Google Scholar
  4. Evereart W (1991) Empirical relations for the sediment transport capacity of interrill flows. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 16:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gelderman FW (1970) Soil survey of Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed: a special report. US Depart Agricult, Soil Conserv Service and Agricultural Res Service, Portland, Ore, 54 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Grayson RB, Moore ID (1992) Effect of land-surface configuration on catchment hydrology. In: Parsons AJ, Abrahams AD (eds) Overland flow hydraulics and erosion mechanics. UCL Press, London, 147–175Google Scholar
  7. Nearing MA, Foster GR, Lane LJ, Finkner SC (1989) A process-based soil erosion model for USDA-water erosion prediction technology. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32:1587–1593Google Scholar
  8. Morgan RPC, Quinton JN, Rickson RJ (1992) Eurosem documentation manual. Silsoe College, 34 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Morgan RPC, Quinton JN, Rickson RJ (1993) Eurosem: A user guide. Silsoe College, 84 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Parsons AJ, Abrahams AD (1989) A miniature flume for sampling interrill overland flow. Phys Geogr 10:96–105Google Scholar
  11. Parsons AJ, Abrahams AD, Luk SH (1990) Hydraulics of interrill overland flow on a semi-arid hillslope, southern Arizona. Journal of Hydrology 117:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parsons AJ, Abrahams AD, Wainwright J (1994) Rainsplash and erosion rates in an interrill area on semi-arid grassland, southern Arizona. Catena 22:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Parsons AJ, Wainwright J, Abrahams AD (1996) Runoff and erosion on semi-arid hillslopes. In: Anderson MG, Brooks SM (eds) Advances in hillslope processes. Wiley, Chichester, 1061–1078Google Scholar
  14. Parsons AJ, Wainwright J, Abrahams AD (1997) Distributed dynamic modeling of interrill overland flow. Hydrological Processes 11:1833–1859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poesen J (1985) An improved splash transport model. Z Geomorph 29:193–211Google Scholar
  16. Poesen J, Torri D (1988) The effect of cup size on splash detachment and transport measurements. Part I: Field measurements. Catena Suppl 12:113–126Google Scholar
  17. Schultz JP, Jarrett AR, Hoover JR (1985) Detachment and splash of a cohesive soil by rainfall. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28:1878–1884Google Scholar
  18. Wainwright J, Parsons AJ (1998) Sensitivity of sediment-transport equations to errors in hydraulic models of overland flow. In: Boardman J, Favis-Mortlock D (eds) Modeling soil erosion by water. Springer-Verlag, ASI-NATO Series I-55, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. White SJ (1970) Plane bed thresholds of fine grained sediments. Nature 228:152–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Parsons
  • J. Wainwright

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations