Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Ambiente & Água |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1980-993X2020000400305 |
Resumo: | Abstract Water erosion is the principal degradation process of tropical soils, and its effects can be measured by modeling techniques. Erosion models provide a diagnosis of the soil loss intensity and can support the planning of soil conservation practices. Models with low data requirements, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and, more recently, the Erosion Potential Method (EPM), are mainly applied in Brazil. Thus, the objective of this work was to estimate water erosion soil-loss rates using the EPM and RUSLE models on a tropical subbasin, followed by a comparison of their outcomes. The models’ application considered soil physical parameters, edaphoclimatic conditions of the area, land use, and subbasin management practices. The accuracy of the methods was verified using total transported sediment and water discharge data. We compared the models using Pearson's correlation analyses, considering a 5% of significance. We found a predominance of moderate-intensity erosion with average soil loss of 1.17 and 1.46 Mg ha-1 year-1, measured by EPM and RUSLE, respectively. The EPM model underestimated soil losses by 15.27%, and RUSLE overestimated by 19.08%, indicating a higher percentage of areas with high erosion rates (4.60%). The models presented results with a different order of magnitude, but with significant correlations, indicating that both methods pointed out similar zones of intense and light-erosion rates. |
id |
IPABHI-1_dcd04e06fc744051a599132015992667 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1980-993X2020000400305 |
network_acronym_str |
IPABHI-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Ambiente & Água |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysisRUSLESoil ConservationSoil LossesAbstract Water erosion is the principal degradation process of tropical soils, and its effects can be measured by modeling techniques. Erosion models provide a diagnosis of the soil loss intensity and can support the planning of soil conservation practices. Models with low data requirements, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and, more recently, the Erosion Potential Method (EPM), are mainly applied in Brazil. Thus, the objective of this work was to estimate water erosion soil-loss rates using the EPM and RUSLE models on a tropical subbasin, followed by a comparison of their outcomes. The models’ application considered soil physical parameters, edaphoclimatic conditions of the area, land use, and subbasin management practices. The accuracy of the methods was verified using total transported sediment and water discharge data. We compared the models using Pearson's correlation analyses, considering a 5% of significance. We found a predominance of moderate-intensity erosion with average soil loss of 1.17 and 1.46 Mg ha-1 year-1, measured by EPM and RUSLE, respectively. The EPM model underestimated soil losses by 15.27%, and RUSLE overestimated by 19.08%, indicating a higher percentage of areas with high erosion rates (4.60%). The models presented results with a different order of magnitude, but with significant correlations, indicating that both methods pointed out similar zones of intense and light-erosion rates.Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas2020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1980-993X2020000400305Revista Ambiente & Água v.15 n.4 2020reponame:Revista Ambiente & Águainstname:Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHI)instacron:IPABHI10.4136/ambi-agua.2501info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLense,Guilherme Henrique ExpeditoMoreira,Rodrigo SantosParreiras,Taya CristoSantana,Derielsen BrandãoBolelli,Talyson de MeloMincato,Ronaldo Luizeng2020-07-14T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1980-993X2020000400305Revistahttp://www.ambi-agua.net/PUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ambi.agua@gmail.com1980-993X1980-993Xopendoar:2020-07-14T00:00Revista Ambiente & Água - Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
title |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
spellingShingle |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis Lense,Guilherme Henrique Expedito RUSLE Soil Conservation Soil Losses |
title_short |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
title_full |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
title_fullStr |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
title_sort |
Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis |
author |
Lense,Guilherme Henrique Expedito |
author_facet |
Lense,Guilherme Henrique Expedito Moreira,Rodrigo Santos Parreiras,Taya Cristo Santana,Derielsen Brandão Bolelli,Talyson de Melo Mincato,Ronaldo Luiz |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Moreira,Rodrigo Santos Parreiras,Taya Cristo Santana,Derielsen Brandão Bolelli,Talyson de Melo Mincato,Ronaldo Luiz |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lense,Guilherme Henrique Expedito Moreira,Rodrigo Santos Parreiras,Taya Cristo Santana,Derielsen Brandão Bolelli,Talyson de Melo Mincato,Ronaldo Luiz |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
RUSLE Soil Conservation Soil Losses |
topic |
RUSLE Soil Conservation Soil Losses |
description |
Abstract Water erosion is the principal degradation process of tropical soils, and its effects can be measured by modeling techniques. Erosion models provide a diagnosis of the soil loss intensity and can support the planning of soil conservation practices. Models with low data requirements, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and, more recently, the Erosion Potential Method (EPM), are mainly applied in Brazil. Thus, the objective of this work was to estimate water erosion soil-loss rates using the EPM and RUSLE models on a tropical subbasin, followed by a comparison of their outcomes. The models’ application considered soil physical parameters, edaphoclimatic conditions of the area, land use, and subbasin management practices. The accuracy of the methods was verified using total transported sediment and water discharge data. We compared the models using Pearson's correlation analyses, considering a 5% of significance. We found a predominance of moderate-intensity erosion with average soil loss of 1.17 and 1.46 Mg ha-1 year-1, measured by EPM and RUSLE, respectively. The EPM model underestimated soil losses by 15.27%, and RUSLE overestimated by 19.08%, indicating a higher percentage of areas with high erosion rates (4.60%). The models presented results with a different order of magnitude, but with significant correlations, indicating that both methods pointed out similar zones of intense and light-erosion rates. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1980-993X2020000400305 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1980-993X2020000400305 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.4136/ambi-agua.2501 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Ambiente & Água v.15 n.4 2020 reponame:Revista Ambiente & Água instname:Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHI) instacron:IPABHI |
instname_str |
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHI) |
instacron_str |
IPABHI |
institution |
IPABHI |
reponame_str |
Revista Ambiente & Água |
collection |
Revista Ambiente & Água |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Ambiente & Água - Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||ambi.agua@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1752129751259021312 |