A comparative analysis of sediment yield simulation by empirical and process-oriented models in Thailand

被引:23
作者
Bhattarai, Rabin [1 ]
Dutta, Dushmanta [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Agr & Biol Engn, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[2] Monash Univ, Sch Engn & Appl Sci, Churchill, Vic 3842, Australia
来源
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES | 2008年 / 53卷 / 06期
关键词
MUSLE; process-oriented model; RUSLE/SEDD; sediment yield; soil erosion;
D O I
10.1623/hysj.53.6.1253
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
Although soil erosion has been recognized worldwide as a threat to the sustainability of natural ecosystems, its quantification presents one of the greatest challenges in natural resources and environmental planning. Precise modelling of soil erosion and sediment yield is particularly difficult, as soil erosion is a highly dynamic process tit the spatial scale. The main objective of this study was to simulate soil erosion and sediment yield using two Fundamentally different approaches: empirical and process-oriented. The revised form of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), along with a sediment delivery distributed model (SEDD) and the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE), which are Popular empirical models, Were applied in a sub-basin or the Mun River basin, Thailand. The results obtained From the RUSLE/SEDD and MUSLE models were compared with those obtained from a process-oriented soil erosion and sediment transport model. The latter method involves spatial disaggregation of the catchment into homogeneous grid cells to capture the catchment heterogeneity. A GIS technique was used for the spatial discretization of the catchment and to derive the physical parameters related to erosion in the grid cells. The simulated outcomes from the process-oriented model were found to be closer to observations as compared to the outcomes of the empirical approaches.
引用
收藏
页码:1253 / 1269
页数:17
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Scale effect in USLE and WEPP application for soil erosion computation from three Sicilian basins [J].
Amore, E ;
Modica, C ;
Nearing, MA ;
Santoro, VC .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2004, 293 (1-4) :100-114
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1972, J HYDR DIV
[3]  
ARIATHURAI R, 1978, J HYDR ENG DIV-ASCE, V104, P279
[4]  
BEASLEY DB, 1980, T ASAE, V23, P938, DOI 10.13031/2013.34692
[5]  
Beven K. J., 1996, Distributed hydrological modelling., P255
[6]  
Bhuyan SJ, 2002, ENVIRON MODELL SOFTW, V17, P137, DOI 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00046-9
[7]   THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THROUGHFALL DROPS UNDER VEGETATION CANOPIES [J].
BRANDT, CJ .
CATENA, 1989, 16 (4-5) :507-524
[8]   SIMULATION OF THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND EROSIVITY OF RAINDROPS AND THROUGHFALL DROPS [J].
BRANDT, CJ .
EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 1990, 15 (08) :687-698
[9]   Validation of EPIC for two watersheds in southwest Iowa [J].
Chung, SW ;
Gassman, PW ;
Kramer, LA ;
Williams, JR ;
Gu, R .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 1999, 28 (03) :971-979
[10]  
Cochrane TA, 1999, J SOIL WATER CONSERV, V54, P678