Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
p,
p,
A SCIENCE PUBLISHERS BOOK
A SCIENCE PUBLISHERS BOOK
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted,
or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, includ-
ing photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written
permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com
(http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety
of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment
has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
part includes land evaluation, modeling soil erosion, case studies on use of
various models like Erosion 3D model and SWAT model and futuristic approach
to watershed management. The comprehensive insight of the watersheds and
modeling of the hydrological processes in the watersheds and the detailed
concepts of watershed hydrology and watershed management, recent advances in
the watershed management such as the application of remote sensing and GIS and
hydrological models have been included in the book. This book will be a guide
for professional and competitive examinations, and to undergraduate students
of agriculture and agricultural engineering and master students of soil science,
soil and water engineering, agricultural physics, hydrology and watershed
management.
We are extremely grateful to the authors who have contributed chapters in
this book. We express our thanks to Science Publishers, CRC Press for their
cooperation and publication of this book.
Abrar Yousuf
Manmohanjit Singh
Contents
Preface iii
Index 197
Chapter 1
Watershed Hydrology and
Management
Anil Bhardwaj
Introduction
Water is the most abundant substance on earth upon which all life on earth is
dependent. Hydrology deals with the earth’s water in all its phases and is therefore
a subject of great importance to society for the creation of liveable environment.
Human activities such as cultivation on terraced lands, clearing of forests for
different purposes, construction of roads, mining, over exploitation of groundwater,
dumping wastes into rivers and reservoirs, and application of high fertilizer doses for
achieving higher yields, etc., changes the pattern of distribution and circulation of
earth’s water. As every inhabitant living on the earth belongs to a particular watershed,
they are continuously influencing quantity/availability and quality of water by their
actions, and the use of water. The protection, conservation, and management of
water resources and water quality depend upon all of us understanding the basic
concepts of hydrology as well as that of watershed and watershed health. To do so
the understanding of the hydrologic cycle is very important.
Hydrologic Cycle
We know that earth’s water is always in movement. The natural water cycle that
describes the continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Email: abhardwaj@pau.edu
2 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
changing from one state to another and is moving at different speeds through
different paths. The water falling on earth surface follows different routes on its
way back to the ocean. The shortest leg of this journey is the water falling directly
into the ocean. The longest leg of journey is probably the water infiltrating into
the land surface and percolating down to join the groundwater, which eventually
flows to the streams as spring flow and finds its way back to the ocean.
ocean. In that case the watershed might be referred to as a river basin and the
rivers involved in such cases generally used to be perennial rivers. A river basin
or a large watershed or catchment includes a number of small watersheds within
its boundary, each draining runoff into the same river. Watershed or river basin
boundaries do not respect district or state boundaries determined by political
considerations.
Scales in Hydrology
Depending on a given hydrologic problem and the situation, the hydrologic cycle
or its component processes can be assumed to vary at different scales of space
and time.
Spatial scales
From the point of view of hydrologic studies, the three spatial scales are readily
distinct. These are the global scale, the river basin scale and the watershed scale.
The global scale is the largest scale and the watershed is the smallest spatial scale.
Hydrologic study at the global scale is necessary to understand the
global fluxes and global circulation patterns. The global hydrologic study can
be considered to be comprised of three major systems namely the oceans, the
atmosphere, and the land surfaces. The principal processes that transmit water
from one system to another are required to be considered. These are precipitation,
runoff, groundwater and evaporation. The results of these hydrologic studies are
important in water resource planning and assessment at national or regional level,
weather forecasting, and climate change studies.
In the river basin scale, the spatial coverage can range from a few square
km to thousands of square kms. In the water movements of the earth system,
three systems can be recognized and considered. These are the surface system, the
subsurface system, and the aquifer system. When the focus is on the hydrologic
cycle of the land surface system, the dominant processes to be considered are
precipitation, evaporation and transpiration, infiltration, and surface runoff. The
surface system comprises of three subsystems: vegetation, topography and soil.
The exchange of water among these subsystems takes place through the processes
of infiltration, base flow or exfiltration, percolation, and capillary rise. These
subsystems abstract and store water from precipitation through interception,
depression and detention storage, which is either lost to the atmospheric system
or enters subsurface system.
The watershed scale or micro scale is the smallest scale for conducting a
hydrologic study for studying the different components of hydrologic cycle. It is
more or less similar to river basin scale except the spatial coverage on the earth
system. The spatial coverage of the watershed scale can range from less than a
hectare to a few thousand hectares. As in the case of basin scale, three systems
Watershed Hydrology and Management 5
can be recognized to study the water movement of the watershed: the surface
system, the subsurface system, and the aquifer system. The surface system of a
watershed comprises of three subsystems: vegetation, topography and soil. These
three subsystem characteristics are generally manipulated within a watershed to
modify the response/output of the watershed in the form of runoff to different
values of rainfall input. This makes watershed the most important and basic
spatial scale to modify hydrologic response as per the needs of the inhabitants and
the environment.
Temporal scales
The time scale used in hydrologic studies could be anything from a storm lasting
for a few hours to a study spanning many years. It depends on the nature of the
hydrologic problem and its objectives. Hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual
time scales are common. Sometimes the time interval for the collection of data
determines the time scale. The time interval of the available data also affects the
time scale of the hydrologic study.
A hydrologic variable like rainfall varies in both the time and space within
a watershed. However depending on the objective or purpose of the study, type
of hydrologic analysis and above all the spatial scale, rainfall can be assumed
to be either constant in both time and space; constant in space but varying in
time; or varying in both time and space. The spatial scale or size of the watershed
determines which one of these assumptions is reasonable from a practical point
of view. For small watersheds, rainfall can be assumed constant in both time and
space in modeling rainfall—runoff relationships. As the size of the watershed
increases to medium size, rainfall is considered variable in time but constant in
space. However rainfall over a large watershed or a river basin is assumed to vary
both in time and space. The areal extent of these watersheds may be different in
hilly areas and in plain areas. Rainfall may be considered as constant over larger
areas when watershed land topography is plain, as compared to hilly watersheds.
Watershed
Input (Precipitation) as Output (Runoff)
Operator
Fig.2. 2:Watershed
Fig. Watershed as a hydrologic
as a hydrologic system. system
lakes, glaciers, soil storage and groundwater storage along with water stored on
vegetation, structures, etc., as interception following precipitation. Transfers or
flows include infiltration, percolation, overland flow, surface flow over the land
surface in streams, rivers and other drainage channels.
Precipitation
Precipitation provides the primary input of water into the watershed. Precipitation
is the moisture or water that falls from the atmosphere in the form of rain, snow,
sleet, fog or hail. It varies in its amount, intensity, and form by season and the
geographic location of the watershed. However rain and snowfall contribute
water significantly to the watershed hydrologic system. In most parts of the
world, snow and rainfall are observed and records are maintained. The watersheds
located in Himalayas that are at the mean sea level of around 2000 m generally
receive precipitation more as snowfall and less as rainfall, and those located in
foot-hills or lower hills and plain areas including coastal regions receive that as
rainfall. Precipitation is influenced by the elevation of the watershed. However,
rainfall being the predominant form of precipitation causing flood flow, the term
precipitation is synonymous with rainfall. Himalayan as well as the coastal
watersheds tends to have higher amounts of precipitation than the plain lowlands.
It may be due to the orographic effect, in which rising air mass currents cool,
condense and release moisture as precipitation. The leeward side of the mountains
or barriers receive less precipitation than the windward sides because most of
the available moisture in the air mass is lost to precipitation before it reaches the
leeward side. The snow packed watersheds contribute stream flow significantly as
these act as source of water round the year for the major perennial river systems
of the world. In fact the factors such as rainstorm characteristics that is; amount,
duration, intensity and average return period determines whether the rain water
8 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
will flow into streams or infiltrate into the ground. And this information is crucial
for crop planning and management as well as for engineering design of water
harvesting and flood control structures in the watershed.
The capacity of vegetated surfaces to intercept and store the precipitation
water is of great practical importance to the hydrologists. A part of the precipitation
while falling from the atmosphere is trapped or intercepted by the vegetation
and other structures above the ground surface and is evaporated back to the
atmosphere. This portion of the precipitation is known as interception losses, and
is not available either for infiltration or for runoff generation. As such, interception
and its subsequent evaporation constitute a net loss to the watershed hydrologic
system which may assume considerable values under certain conditions. It may
be responsible for losses reaching 10%–20% of the total precipitation, annually.
Interception is a function of precipitation characteristics and the type, age and
density of vegetation. The amount of interception, although negligible during the
extreme events, is an important term of water balance. Interception water losses
from tall forests exceed those associated with lower vegetation, such as grass
land and agricultural crops. Coniferous trees tend to intercept more water than
deciduous trees on an annual basis as the deciduous trees drop their leaves for
a period of time (Chang 2006). The presence or absence of vegetation not only
affects the amount of precipitation reaching the watershed surface, but also its
kinetic energy, and thus its capacity to detach and transport soil material.
Depression storage
Depression storage is the amount of rainwater stored in the micro or macro
depressions on the watershed surface before starting of runoff. The roughness of
the soil surface, including roughness brought about by tillage, affects runoff and
erosion, and determines the volume of water that can be held on the surface as
depression storage. Four grades of surface roughness are categorized (0–1.2 cm;
1.2–2.0 cm; 2.0–3.0 cm; and > 3 cm micro-relief) in relation to tillage practices
(Morgan et al. 1998). Only a proportion of the depression depth constitutes
effective depression storage. It produces a rainwater loss that depends on the local
characteristics of slope, land use and soil type. The amount of water that is stored
in the surface depressions is ponded to evaporate or be infiltrated later. Hence,
the rainwater loss then depends on the evaporation from the water surface and the
infiltration. It has been found that no appreciable surface storage exists on slopes
above 20%.
Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration is a loss of water from the watershed hydrologic system unlike
precipitation, which is an input to the system. Evapotranspiration is the combined
net effect of the processes of evaporation and transpiration. Evaporation is a loss of
Watershed Hydrology and Management 9
water from the land surface and water bodies, and transpiration is the evaporation
of water from leaf stomata following movement of soil water and ground water
from the roots upward through the plants and trees. Transpiration accounts for
approximately 10% of all evaporating water. The evaporation and transpiration
depend on the same physical processes to transform water from a liquid to a gas
and both the processes result in a loss of water from the watershed. Hence these
processes are often considered together and termed as evapotranspiration. This
process moves large quantities of water from the soil and land surface back to the
atmosphere. More than 50% of the total amount of precipitation is returned to the
atmosphere through this process. Evaporation and transpiration rates vary widely
depending upon many factors, including precipitation, temperature, aspect,
humidity, and wind speed (Gregersen et al. 2007). Higher temperatures usually
result in increased evaporation and transpiration unless soil moisture is limited.
Aspect, i.e., the position of watershed slopes or land surface relative to the sun,
affects the amounts of solar radiation and heat received with the result that both
evaporation and transpiration increase from north to east to west to south-facing
aspects. Lower relative humidity also increases evapotranspiration because dry air
has a greater capacity to accept moisture than more humid air at same temperature.
That is why evaporation and transpiration during precipitation events used to be
very low as the air is saturated with moisture. Evaporation increases in response
to wind because it energizes the change from liquid water to water vapour at the
molecular level, and also because moist air is moved away from the water source
and replaced with relatively dry air. Similarly, when plants transpire, a thin layer
of air around the leaves becomes saturated. Wind stirs and moves that saturated
air away from the leaves and replaces it with drier air that enhances evaporation
from stomata. The amount of evapotranspiration from an area under field crops, in
addition to these factors depends on how much water is available in the root zone,
which depends on the field capacity of soil. In forests, transpiration accounts for
much greater loss of water than any other mechanism or process in the watershed.
A mature tree can transpire tens to hundreds of litres of water per day, depending
upon soil moisture availability.
Infiltration
Infiltration is the entry of precipitation water into the soil surface within the
watershed. It ensures that moisture will be available to sustain the growth of
vegetation and helps to sustain the ground water supply to wells, springs and
streams. The rate of infiltration may be influenced by the watershed characteristics
such as soil type, antecedent moisture content of soil, slope, land use and land
cover, and also the precipitation characteristics like amount, intensity and duration.
On reaching the ground surface, water infiltrates into the soil, saturates the soil
in the crop root zone and percolates down to the groundwater reservoir or it may
flow over the land surface as runoff. Percolation is the infiltration process below
10 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
the root zone. Light textured soils having large well-connected pores tend to have
higher infiltration rates than heavy textured soils. Land use and land cover also
affects infiltration. Infiltration would be higher for soils under forest vegetation
and trees than bare land. Tree roots loosen the soil and provide flow paths for
infiltrating water. Crop foliage and residues and also surface litter reduce the
impact of falling rain drops and prevent choking of the soil pores and passages,
thereby maintaining infiltration rates.
P–R–ET = 0 (2)
Considering the hydrologic budget equation for individual storms, the amount
of ET is much smaller and the change in sub-surface storage is due to infiltration
(IN) such that ΔSGW = IN; and the equation reduces to:
where, ΔSS consists of interception and depression storage, and when it is coupled
with infiltration it accounts for abstraction (Ab), i.e., Ab = IN + ΔSS. And hydrologic
equation becomes:
P–R = Ab
and (4)
R = P–Ab
The hydrologic budget equation provides a relatively simple way for estimating
the change in water availability in response to the change in different watershed
management interventions. This equation in fact is used to describe and estimate
or predict the hydrologic response of an entire watershed to an input precipitation
as watershed is assumed to behave like a closed system such that outputs from
the watershed are fully dependent only on the inputs within the watershed. The
boundaries of the watershed ensure that this hypothesis holds good. However,
under the situations where the transfer of water across the watershed boundaries
do occur, and the magnitude of those losses or gains have not taken in to account,
estimates using the hydrologic budget equation that would be erroneous.
of size ranging from a few square meters to a number of hectares, for enabling
rainwater to infiltrate into the soil and controlling excess runoff because of high
intensity storms. The amount of runoff generated due to a rain storm depends
on the rainfall infiltrating into the soil, and that depends on the porosity of the
soil within the watershed or its micro-watersheds. Depending upon the quantity
of excess rainfall and runoff flow rates, watershed treatments on forest land,
agricultural land, including that of drainage lines/streams are planned and
executed for its proper management in meeting watershed water demands, and
safe disposal without causing any adverse effect along its course of flow.
Some of the commonly adopted watershed treatments are trenching, bunding,
terracing, water harvesting and silt detention structures, drop structures/check
dams, spurs, retaining walls, etc. Construction of these interventions has been
an integral and important component of most of the watershed development
programmes in managing watershed hydrology. These measures perform one or
more functions namely; water conservation, moderation of floods, soil erosion
control, sediment control and drainage. They facilitate the establishment of
vegetation; provide protection against the damaging runoff at points that
cannot be adequately protected in any other way. A lot of work has been done
and reported on watershed treatments and their effectiveness, around the globe,
though information is scattered in the relevant literature. Some of the experiences
in hilly areas are described in the following sub-sections.
The treatments such as bunding and terracing are relevant especially in
the arable sloping lands of the watershed. While bunding is the construction of
small embankments or bunds across the slope of the land, terracing is a method
of modifying the land surface for soil and water conservation. Terraces may
be broad base terraces and bench terraces. Bunding and terracing decrease the
length of slope and thus reduce the concentration of runoff and hence control soil
erosion. Bunding is suitable for lands having slopes from 2% to 10%. Hydrology
of areas with less than 2% slope is controlled by using biological measures. Bench
terracing is suitable for lands having a slope beyond 10%. According to a study,
the average peak rate of runoff which was 2.2 times that of a contiguous reference
forest watershed before the treatment of an agricultural watershed, reduced to
0.11 times after bunding and terracing. Also 2.12 times more rain water/runoff
which was earlier leaving the watershed through its outlet before the treatment,
came down to 0.43 times that from the referenced watershed after the treatment
(Samra 2000). Wei et al. (2016) reported that terracing reduces the soil erosion
and runoff by 11.5 and 2.60 times respectively and increased the biomass and soil
water recharge 1.94 and 1.20 times. Kosmowski (2018) investigated the effect of
two widely adopted soil water management practices, terraces and contour bunds,
on yields and assesses their potential to mitigate the effects of climate change in
Ethiopia. Although the yield on terraced plots was slightly lower than the non-
terraced plots but it was observed that terraced plots acted as a buffer against
the 2015 Ethiopian drought, while contour bunds did not. It was concluded that
terraces have the potential to help the farmer deal with current climate risks.
Watershed Hydrology and Management 15
that even the simple enclosure of a hilly watershed to biotic interference reduces
runoff from 30% to 7% of the annual rainfall (Bhardwaj 2002).
Rivers and streams while flowing have tendency to erode away their banks
and change their flow paths. Protection of stream banks and slopes involves
construction of revetments, training walls, spurs or retards, etc. Spurs may be of
repelling, attracting or deflecting type, and constructed depending upon grade,
width, depth, velocity of flow and characteristics of the material carried by flowing
water. Sometimes single row or double row live spurs are being used to confine
the stream flow to a slightly narrow bed. Gorrie (1946) suggested a herringbone
plantation of sand loving plants such as “nara” (arundo donax) and “banha”
(vitex negundo), set at a slight angle (10º–15º) to the stream flow direction.
Sand gets deposited in between the rows thereby raising a new platform. Gabion
spurs are ideally suited for stream flow training as they are flexible, porous, and
economical. These measures are economically viable with a benefit–cost ratio 2.7
(Bhardwaj and Rana 2008).
Planning of watershed treatments should be done on the basis of the
watershed and their execution should start from the head end of the watershed,
proceeding the way the water flows downstream. However, the construction of
these conservation structures is a costly affair, involving a huge sum of money
and efforts. It requires good judgement in determining the need for them and
the extent of their use. If these measures are not properly selected, designed or
located on the most appropriate site, they may do more harm than good. Hence
their planning and design should be based on the detailed study and surveys of
the watershed.
Conclusions
Hydrologic processes govern water movement in a watershed through terrestrial
environments and as groundwater and surface water. An understanding of the
various hydrologic processes within a watershed is essential to keep the watershed
in good health. The hydrologic budget equation provides a relatively simple way
for estimating the change in water availability in response to the prevailing climate,
topography, soil, and land use and covers conditions in the watershed. Health of
the watershed is mainly dependent on its hydrology. Watershed health indicators
are related to the supply and availability of water in the watershed. If water supply
is sufficient, both quantitatively and qualitatively, these indicators would indicate
the positive health of the watershed. Hence to keep a watershed healthy, watershed
hydrology needs to be managed properly. Watershed treatments are required to be
identified, planned and designed carefully based on the detailed study and surveys
of the watershed for proper conservation and management of precipitation water
to meet watershed water demands, and safe disposal. Local inhabitants must be
involved in the whole process, for the sustainability of the adopted measures to
keep the watershed hydrologic system, healthy.
Watershed Hydrology and Management 17
References
Adimassu, Z., K. Mekonnen, C. Yirga and A. Kessler. 2012. Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil
and nutrient losses and crop yield in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev.
25: 554–564. doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2182.
Ahn, So-Ra and S. Kim. 2017. Assessment of integrated watershed health based on natural
environment, hydrology, water quality, and aquatic ecology. Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci. Discuss.
21: 5583–5602. DOI:10.5194/hess-2017-88.
Bhardwaj, A. 2002. Controlling reservoir sedimentation through watershed treatment—a review.
Indian J. Power River Valley Dev. 2: 97–100.
Bhardwaj, A. and D.S. Rana. 2008. Torrent control measures in Kandi area of Punjab—A case study.
J. Water Manage. 16: 55–63.
Chang, M. 2006. Forest hydrology—An introduction to water and forests. Boca Raton, CRC Press.
Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment and L.W. Mays. 1988. Applied hydrology. Int. Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York.
Gebreegziabher, T., J. Nyssen, B. Govaerts, F. Getnet, M. Behailu, M. Haile and J. Deckers. 2009.
Contour furrows for in situ soil and water conservation, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil
Tillage Res. 103: 257–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2008.05.021.
Gorrie, R.M. 1946. Soil Conservation in Punjab. Govt. Printing Press, Lahore, Pakistan.
Gregersen, H.M., P.F. Ffolliott and K.N. Brooks. 2007. Integrated Watershed Management: Connecting
People to Their Land. CAB International, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gregory, K.J., I.G. Simmons, A.J. Brazel, J.W. Day, E.A. Keller, A.G. Sylvester and A. Yanez-
Arancibia. 2012. Environmental Sciences: A Student’s Companion. SAGE Publications,
California.
Kosmowski, F. 2018. Soil water management practices (terraces) helped to mitigate the 2015 drought
in Ethiopia. Agril. Water Manage. 204: 11–16. doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.025.
Morgan, R.P.C., J.N. Quinton, R.E. Smith, G. Govers, J.W.A. Poesen, K. Auerswald, G. Chisci,
D. Torri, M.E. Styczen and A.J.V. Folly. 1998. The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM):
documentation and user guide. pp. 1–89. Silsoe College, Cranfield University.
Pamela, J., W.J.W. Karl and E.S. Jon. 2015. Fundamentals of watershed hydrology. J. Contemp. Water
Res. Edu. 154: 3–20.
Pidwirny, M. 2006. The Hydrologic Cycle. Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition. http://
www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8b.html.
Samra, J.S. 2000. Soil conservation and watershed management in Asia and the Pacific-India. Asian
Productivity Organization, Tokyo, 123–156.
Sur, H.S., A. Bhardwaj and P.K. Jindal. 2001. Performance evaluation and impact assessment of small
water harvesting structures in the Shivalik foot-hills of Northern India. Am. J. Alt. Agric.
16: 124–130.
Sur, H.S., A. Bhardwaj and P.K. Jindal. 1999. Some hydrological parameters for design and operation of
small earthen dams in lower Shiwaliks of Northern India. Agric. Water Manage. 42: 111–121.
Wei, W., D. Chen, L. Wang, S. Daryanto, L. Chen, Y. Yang, Y. Lu, G. Sun and T. Feng. 2016.
Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-
ScienceRev. 159: 388–403. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.06.010.
Yu, X. and C.J. Duffy 2018. Watershed Hydrology: Scientific Advances and Environmental
Assessments. Water 10: 288. doi:10.3390/w10030288.
Chapter 2
Runoff and Rainwater
Harvesting
Junaid N Khan,1,* Rohitashw Kumar1 and Abrar Yousuf 2
Introduction
Excess rainfall is the rainfall remaining after satisfying all the hydrologic
abstractions such as interception, infiltration and depression storage. Excess
rainfall becomes runoff and eventually streamflow. In most urban areas, the
population is increasing rapidly and the issue of supplying adequate water to meet
societal needs and to ensure equity in access to water is one of the most urgent
and significant challenges faced by decision-makers. With respect to the physical
alternatives to fulfil the sustainable management of freshwater, there are two
solutions: finding an alternate or additional water resources using conventional
centralized approaches; or better utilizing the limited amount of water resources
available in a more efficient way. To date, much attention has been given to the first
option and only limited attention has been given to optimizing water management
systems. Among the various alternative technologies used to augment freshwater
resources, rainwater harvesting and utilization is a decentralized, environmentally
sound solution, which can avoid many environmental problems often caused in
conventional large-scale projects using centralized approaches.
1
College of Agricultural Engineering, SKUAST-Kashmir, Srinagar 190025, India.
Emails: rohituhf@rediffmail.com
2
Regional Research Station (Punjab Agricultural University), Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar,
144521, India.
Email: er.aywani@gmail.com
* Corresponding author: junaidk1974@gmail.com
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 19
Runoff
Runoff is the portion of rainfall which flows over the land surface and reaches the
watershed outlet and discharges into any stream or channel. Runoff is formed after
all the initial abstractions such as interception, infiltration, depression storage are
satisfied.
When it rains over a catchment area, some of the rain is intercepted by the
crop canopy, a part of is it infiltrated into the soil surface and some part is retained
as depression storage. After satisfying all these abstractions, the excess rainfall
begins to flow over the land surface through the small channels and joins the
larger/main drainage channel to reach the catchment outlet. This flow is known as
runoff (Subramanya 1993).
Types of runoff
Surface runoff
It is that portion of the runoff which enters the stream immediately after the
rainfall. After satisfying all the initial abstractions, if the rainfall continues with
an intensity greater than the infiltration rate of the soil, this part of rainfall flows
directly over the land surface as surface runoff.
Sub-surface runoff
It is that portion of the runoff which enters into the soil and moves parallel to
the land surface within the soil and reappears at the surface at some other point.
Sub-surface runoff is also known as interflow or quick return flow because it takes
a very small time to reappear at the surface.
Base flow
It is that portion of the rainfall which infiltrates into the soil and flows through
the soil layers to reach the groundwater. The rate of flow in this type of runoff is
20 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
very slow, in the order of months and years. This part of the runoff is also known
as groundwater flow.
Hence, the total runoff generated by a rainfall event is the sum of surface
runoff (including sub-surface runoff) and base flow.
Climatic factors
1. Type of Precipitation
2. Rainfall Intensity
3. Duration of Rainfall
4. Rainfall Distribution
5. Direction of Prevailing Wind
Physiographical factors
1. Size of watershed
2. Shape of watershed
3. Slope of watershed
4. Land Use
5. Soil Type
6. Soil Moisture
7. Topographic Characteristics
8. Drainage Density
Climatic factors
The effect of different climatic factors on the runoff is discussed below.
Type of precipitation
The type of precipitation is an important factor affecting the runoff. Precipitation
in the form of rainfall generates runoff quickly as compared to snow.
Rainfall intensity
Among the different rainfall characteristics, rainfall intensity is a very important
factor for the rainfall-runoff process. The amount and peak runoff rate resulting
from the rainfall event depends on the rainfall intensity. The runoff takes place
only when the rainfall intensity is greater than that of the infiltration rate of the
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 21
soil. Generally, high intensity rainfall events generate high runoff and vice-versa.
A number of studies have been conducted to study the effect of the different
rainfall intensities on the surface runoff at the field/plot scale (Huang et al.
2013, Mohamadi and Kavian 2015). As evident from results of different studies;
the influence of rainfall intensity on runoff is not straightforward. On the one
hand, increased rainfall intensity leads to increased runoff, due to the fact that
increased rainfall intensity may bring about the formation of the soil crust, and the
development of such soil crusts would reduce the infiltration (Mu et al. 2015). On
the other hand, owing to the spatial heterogeneity in the infiltration characteristics
of the soil surface, infiltration would increase with increased rainfall intensity and
runoff might decrease (Parsons and Stone 2006).
Duration of rainfall
The runoff generated from the rainfall event is directly related to the rainfall
duration. Higher the rainfall duration, the higher will be the runoff generated.
Distribution of rainfall
Rainfall distribution over the watershed affects the runoff behaviour of the
watershed. The term distribution coefficient is used to express the effect of
rainfall distribution on the runoff. Distribution coefficient is defined as the ratio of
rainfall at a particular point in the watershed to the average rainfall over the entire
watershed. In general, higher the value of the distribution coefficient, the higher
the runoff and vice versa.
Physiographic factors
The effect of different physiographic factors on the runoff is discussed below.
Size of watershed
Under given rainfall characteristics, the size of watershed directly affects the
runoff yield. The larger watershed will produce a higher runoff as compared to a
smaller watershed. However, the larger watersheds take a longer time to drain off
the entire runoff to the watershed outlet, hence have the smaller peak.
22 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Shape of watershed
The fan shaped watershed produces higher peak runoff rate as compared to the
fern shaped watershed. It is because in fan shaped watershed, all the parts of
watershed contribute runoff simultaneously to the outlet in less time as compared
to fern shaped watershed.
Slope of watershed
The slope of the watershed affects the overland flow and velocity of the runoff.
Generally, higher the slope of watershed, the higher is the peak runoff rate in the
watershed and vice-versa.
Land use
The land use of the watershed has a prominent effect on the runoff. Vegetation
intercepts the rain water and increases the infiltration in the soil. Further, it
retards the movement of runoff over the soil surface. In barren fields, there is no
interception of rainfall and no hindrance to the flow of runoff. Naharuddin et al.
2018 studied the effect of different land use systems on runoff and soil erosion in
different watersheds of Indonesia. The results showed that the highest runoff was
generated from the non-agro–forestry land use system, followed by teak tree and
cocoa based agro-forestry system.
Soil type
The coarse textured soils such as sandy soils have a high infiltration rate and hence
produce a lesser amount of runoff. Fang et al. 2015 conducted rainfall simulation
experiments to study the effect of rainfall intensity and slope gradient on runoff,
soil loss and rill development under two different loess soils (Anthrosol and
Cakcaric Cambisol). It was observed that runoff and soil loss from the Anthrosol
soils were generally higher than those from the Calcaric Cambisol soils.
Soil moisture
The amount of soil moisture at the time of rainfall influences the runoff yield.
High soil moisture means that there is less infiltration in the soil and consequently
high runoff. On the other hand, when the soil is dry, infiltration is more and hence
less runoff.
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 23
Topographic characteristics
The term topographic characteristics mean the undulating nature of the watershed.
Usually undulating watersheds produce more runoff than the flat lands due to the
slope of the watershed.
Drainage density
The drainage density is defined as the ratio of the length of all the channels in
the watershed to the total area of the watershed. Its dimensions are [L–1]. Higher
the drainage density of the watershed, the higher is the peak runoff rate of the
watershed. Ogden et al. 2011 in their study on a 14.3 km2 watershed located in
Maryland, USA, observed that with an increase in drainage density, particularly
increases in density from low values, produces significant increases in the runoff
peaks.
Estimation of Runoff
Rational method
The rational method uses existing rainfall data and land use to estimate peak
runoff from small drainage areas that are less than 15 km2 (Ramser 1972). The
rational method used the following equation to estimate the peak runoff rate from
the watershed.
CIA
Q=
360
where,
Q is the peak runoff rate (m3/s)
C is the runoff coefficient, which is defined as the ratio of depth of runoff produced
to the rainfall occurred. Its value ranges from 0 to 1
I is the intensity of rainfall (mm/h) for a duration equal to time to concentration
of watershed and a given recurrence interval
A is the area of watershed (ha)
The rainfall intensity (I) is read from Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF)
curves.
Tc = 0.0195L0.77 S–0.385
24 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
where
Tc is the time of concentration (minutes)
L is the length of channel (m)
S is the average slope of channel (m/m)
Haan et al. (1982) developed the following equation to calculate the time of
concentration for a small watershed where the overland flow is predominant. He
introduced the term for the overland flow. The equation is as follows:
0.467
2L n
=Tc 0.0195 L0.77 S −0.385 + o
So
where
Lo is the length of overland flow
n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient
So is the slope of the land surface
( P − 0.2 S ) 2
Q=
P + 0.8S
where
Q is the runoff depth (mm)
P is the rainfall (mm)
S is the retention parameter (mm)
The retention parameter, S, is given as:
25400
=S − 254
CN
where
CN is the curve number
This method introduces the curve number (CN) which describes the runoff
generating capacity of the surface. The value of the curve number varies between
0–100.
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 25
The curve number method is adaptable and widely used for runoff estimation.
This method takes into consideration important properties of the watershed,
especially soil permeability, land use and antecedent soil water conditions. The
curve number method has been used worldwide for the estimation of surface
runoff from watersheds having different characteristics (Xiao et al. 2011, Bofu
2012, Ajmal 2015, Satheeshkumar 2017, Soulis 2018).
Creager’s method
Creager (1945) proposed the following the empirical equation to estimate the
peak runoff rate from the watersheds
Qm = C1 ´ (0.386A)0.894 ´ (0.386A)–0.048
where
Qm is the Maximum or peak flow for a given return period.
A is the Catchment area (Sq. Km).
C1 is the Creager’s number (max. 130)
1
=R P ( P − 17.8)
254
where
R is the annual runoff (cm)
P is the annual rainfall (cm)
Talbot Method
Runoff can be related to the morphological properties of the catchment. Runoff
(Q), in m3/sec, can be calculated using the following formula
Q = aCAn
26 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Khosla’s formula
Khosla (1960) developed an empirical relationship between monthly runoff and
monthly rainfall.
Rm = Pm – Lm
and
Lm = 0.48Tm for Tm> 4.5ºC
Lm = 2.17 at 4.5ºC
Lm = 1.78 at –1ºC
Lm = 1.52 at –6.5ºC
where
Rm is monthly runoff (cm)
Pm is monthly rainfall (cm)
Lm is monthly losses (cm)
Tm is mean monthly temperature (ºC)
Ryves formula
Ryves developed an empirical relationship between the peak flow rate and the
watershed area in 1884. It is given as:
Qp = Cr A2/3
Dickens formula
Dicken’s formula was developed in 1865 to estimate the peak flow rate from the
watershed and it is is given as:
Qp = Cd A3/4
where
Qp is the peak flow rate (m3/s)
Cd is the Dicken’s constant, value ranges from 6 to 30
A is the watershed area (km2)
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 27
Staff gauge
A staff gauge is the simplest device to measure the river stage. It is usually
installed vertically or may be at an angle with the vertical. The staff is rigidly
attached to a permanent structure such as a bridge, pier, wall abutment, etc. The
gauge indicates water-surface elevation on a staff that is graduated with clear and
accurate markings in tenths of a foot or in centimetres. A portion of the scale is
immersed in the water at all times (http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in).
3. Turn on the pump and open the valve, wait until water discharge over a weir.
Then, close the valve and turn the pump off and allow water to drop until
water flow over the weir stops.
4. Be sure that the water surface is in the same level as the weir crest or the
lower tip of weir. Adjust the Hook gauge to touch the water surface. Set and
record the reading to be the zero gauge reading, so that the bottom of the
notch is taken as the datum.
5. Turn on the pump and open the valve again.
6. Adjust the Hook gauge to touch water surface. Read the scale as the Gauge
reading and minus it by the Zero gauge reading to get the water height, H.
Record H in your data sheet.
7. Measure the discharge by the Weight time measurement method. Record Q in
your data sheet.
8. Adjust the valve again to get a total of 8 points of data for each type.
Weirs are mainly classified as (1) Sharp crested weirs and (2) Broad crested
weirs
Q = 0.0184LH1.5
where
Q is the flow rate (lps)
H is the head on the weir (cm)
L is the width of the weir (cm)
Triangular Weirs or V notch: These weirs are generally used to measure the low
volumes of the runoff. They are made with different angles like 45º, 90º and 120º.
Among, the three, 90º-notch is most commonly used.
For a triangular or v-notch the flow rate can be expressed as:
8 θ
Q= 2 g tan H 2.5
15 2
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 29
where
Q is the flow rate (m3/s)
g is the acceleration due to gravity
θ is the v-notch angle (degrees)
H is the head (cm)
For 90º V notch, the formula for discharge is given as:
Q = 0.0138H 2.5
Trapezoidal weir: Trapezoidal weir having the side slope of 1:4 is known as
Cipolleti weir (named after Italian engineer, Cipolleti). The following equation is
used to measure the discharge through the weir:
Q = 0.0186LH 1.5
Flumes
In addition to weirs, the flumes are also used for runoff measurements in the
field. The principle of the flumes is based on the concept of the specific energy
and critical flow in open channels. Two types of flumes are commonly used:
(1) Parshall flume (2) H flume.
Fig. 1. Digital stage level recorder installed for measurement of runoff at Regional Research Station,
Ballowal Saunkhri.
Operational instructions
A wire attached to the float passes over a pulley on the recorder and a counterweight
is attached to the other end of the wire and hangs in the well. When the clearance
between the float and the well casing is small, the float cable should be set so that
the counterweight does not have to pass the float, but is always above or below the
water level. If the counterweight is immersed below the water level, a little extra
weight should be added to offset the water’s buoyancy.
Chart or graphic recorder is the simplest device, but it is not commonly in
use. It is a drum chart that is actuated mechanically by a float that follows the
water level. The graphic recorder provides a continuous pen and ink trace of the
water level on a chart, which is graduated to record both water level and time.
Battery operated clocks for graphic recorders can be set to record a wide variety
of intervals, ranging from a few hours to 1 month. Data is retrieved by changing
the paper chart. Now a days, digital water level recorders are available to measure
the surface runoff. These recorders can record and store the data for different time
intervals. The recorded data can be easily downloaded in MS Excel file on the
computer using the data shuttle.
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 31
Current Meter
A current meter is oceanographic device for flow measurement by mechanical
(rotor current meter), tilt (Tilt Current Meter), acoustical (ADCP) or electrical
means.
When the meter is lowered in water and when it faces the current of water in
the channel the wheel rotates. To keep the meter facing the direction of flow a tail
is attached. This tail aligns the meter in the direction of flow. The meter is also
fitted with a streamlined weight (fish weight) which keeps the meter in a vertical
position. The rate of rotation of the wheel depends on the velocity of flow. A dry
battery is kept on the shore or in a boat and an electric current is passed to the
wheel from it. A commutator is fixed to the shaft of the revolving wheel.
It makes and breaks the contact in an electrical circuit at each revolution. An
automatic revolution counter is kept in the boat or on the shore with the battery
which registers the revolutions. When an electric circuit is broken, an electric
bell in the boat rings or a head phone in the boat buzzes. Then the time taken for
a required number of revolutions may be noted. The velocity of flow can be read
from a rating table. The rating table is always provided with the meter.
New Techniques
1. Runoff harvesting-short-term storage
2. Semi-Circular Hoops
3. Trapezoidal bunds
4. Nala Bandhan” (Mini earthen check dams)
5. Off-contour bunds or graded bunds
6. Rock catchment
7. Ground Catchment
32 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Site selection
The selection of suitable site for the farm pond is important. Following points
should be considered while selecting the farm pond:
1. The site should be such that all the runoff from the catchment is concentrated
towards the site.
2. The site should be such that a large capacity is obtained with the least amount
of the earth work. This will make construction of pond economical.
3. The pond should be located nearest to the area where the harvested water will
be used.
4. The site should be such that it provides the proper spillway for the safe
disposal of the excess water.
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 33
5. The soil at the site should be impervious enough to prevent the seepage
through the pond area.
6. The pond site may be surrounded by tall trees to reduce the evaporation form
the pond area.
Capacity of pond
The capacity of the farm pond depends primarily on the catchment area, volume of
water required and soil characteristics. The amount of water that can be harvested
in the pond directly depends on the catchment area.
The ponds capacity is determined by studying the contour map of the
catchment area of the pond. From the contour plan of the site, the capacity is
computed for different stages using the trapezoidal or Simpson’s formulae. The
area enclosed by each contour is measured with the help of planimeter.
Design of embankment
The design of embankment consists of foundation, cross section and side slope.
The data required for the design of embankment includes hydrologic data, climate
data, geologic data and data for dams.
Foundation
The foundation should be such that it provides stable support and resistance to the
seepage of water. A mixture of coarse sand and fine texture soil like gravel-sand-clay
mixture, sand-clay mixtures and sand-silt mixtures are good foundation materials.
Cross section
The cross section of the embankment depends both on the nature of foundation
and fill materials. The materials used for embankment construction should be
fine and impervious. If the fine and impervious material is not available, then an
impervious core and a cut-off trench should be provided in the embankment for
seepage control.
Side slope
The side slope of the embankment depends on the height of dam, nature foundation
material and nature of fill material. For sandy loam soils, the side slope of 3:1 and
2.5:1 is usually provided on upstream and downstream side respectively. Similarly
for clay soil, it should be 2.5:1 on upstream side and 2:1 on downstream side.
34 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Seepage control
To control the seepage from the ponds, suitable lining material should be used. Most
common lining material is the UV stabilized polythene sheets because of the lesser
cost in material. In addition to polythene sheets, concrete lining is also applied on
the pond. The concrete lining is more expensive than the polythene sheets (Fig. 2).
3V − d 3 Z 2
=b − dz
3d
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 35
Fig. 2. Concrete lined farm pond at Regional Research Station, Ballowal Saunkhri.
36 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Conclusions
Quantification of runoff is very important for design of soil and water conservation
structures. The quantification of runoff can be done by direct or indirect methods.
Direct methods involve measurement of surface runoff from small watersheds with
the help of weirs, flumes and stage level recorders. The weirs and flumes measure
the discharge from the watersheds in terms of head (depth of water flowing over
the weirs or flumes). The head is then converted into the discharge with the help of
formulae for different weirs and flumes. Indirect methods involve application of
different empirical formulae for estimation of surface runoff. SCS Curve number
method, Rational formula, Creagor’s method, Ryves formula are some of the
methods discussed in this chapter. The erratic and uneven distribution of rainfall
both spatially and temporally, necessitates rainwater harvesting to increase and
sustain agricultural productivity. Different types of rainwater structures have been
developed over the years. The most common rainwater harvesting constructed
is the farm pond. The farm ponds should be designed carefully keeping in view
the rainfall of the region and catchment area of the pond. The locally adoptable
low-cost technologies for rainwater harvesting can be implemented as a viable
alternative to conventional irrigation and drinking water supply schemes
considering the fact that any land anywhere can be used to harvest rainwater. The
Government and local communities have to identify it as an effective measure to
combat the problem of finding a workable technology option for the mitigation
of droughts, preserving the groundwater reserves, hindering soil erosion, and
providing a dependable source of drinking as well as irrigation water. Mitigation
and adaptive measures are needed to offset any future impact of climate change
on agriculture and water resources.
References
Ajmal, M. and T. Kim. 2015. Quantifying excess stormwater using SCS-CN–based rainfall runoff
models and different curve number determination methods. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage.
141(3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943–4774.0000805.
Arora, K.R. 1980. Fluid Mechanics, Hydraulics and Hydraulic Machines. Standard Publishers, New
Delhi.
Bofu, Y. 2012. Validation of SCS Method for Runoff Estimation. J. Hydrol. Engg. 17(11):
1158–1163. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000484.
Creager, W.P., J.D. Justin and J. Hinds. 1945. Engineering for Dams. Vol. 1. John Wiley, New York,
USA.
Das, G. 2002. Hydrology and Soil Conservation Engineering, Printce Hall of India Private Limited,
New Delhi, India.
Fang, H., L. Sun and Z. Tang. 2015. Effects of rainfall and slope on runoff, soil erosion and rill
development: an experimental study using two loess soils. Hydrol. Process. 29: 2649–2658.
Haan, C.T., H.P. Johnson and D.L. Brakensick. 1982. Hydrologic modeling of small watersheds.
ASAE Monograph No. 5, ASAE.
http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in Last access in 23 August 2019.
Huang, J., P. Wu. and X. Zhao. 2013. Effects of rainfall intensity, underlying surface and slope gradient
on soil infiltration under simulated rainfall experiments. Catena. 104: 93–102. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.10.013.
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 37
Introduction
Soil erosion implies the physical removal of topsoil by various agents, including
falling raindrops, water flowing over and through the soil profile, wind velocity
and gravitational pull. Erosion is defined as “the wearing away of the land surface
by running water, wind, ice or other geological agents, including such processes
as gravitational creep”. Soil erosion refers to the detachment and carrying away
of soil particles to another place by the agencies of water, wind or gravitational
forces, etc. Soil erosion is most destructive phenomenon worldwide since it
involves not only the loss of water and plant nutrients but ultimately the soil
itself. Noticeably or unnoticeably erosion of the soil goes on at all moments and
at all places. When the rate of erosion does not exceed the rate of soil formation it
is termed as geologic, natural or normal erosion. When the rate of erosion exceeds
the rate of soil formation it is called accelerated erosion. The accelerated erosion
is primarily man-made because of the effect of agriculture and deforestation.
Accelerated erosion is a serious problem in all climates because wind as
well as water can remove soil. It affects both agricultural areas and the natural
environment. It has impacts which are both on-site (at the place where the soil is
detached) and off-site (Zeneli 2017). The use of powerful agricultural implements
1
Regional Research Station (Punjab Agricultural University), Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar,
144521, India.
2
IPROconsult GmbH, Department of Ecology and Environment, Dresden Germany.
Email: Kerstin.hartsch@iproconsult.com
* Corresponding author: mmjsingh@pau.edu
Basics of Soil Erosion 39
has, in some parts of the world, led to damaging amounts of soil moving down
slope, under the action of gravity, which is called tillage erosion. It has been
estimated that accelerated soil erosion has irreversibly destroyed 30% of the
present cultivated area in the world. In general soil erosion is more severe in
mountainous and undulating areas.
Causes of soil erosion can be listed as:
• Large scale deforestation.
• Developmental activities, e.g., construction of roads, big dams and mining in
regions of very steep slopes.
• Shifting cultivation, wrong agricultural practices and cultivation of fragile
areas.
• Over population, harsh climatic conditions, over exploitation and unwise use
of soil resources.
• Increased demand for fodder, fuel, timber and additional land.
On-site Effects
Loss of agricultural productivity
Soil erosion’s on-site effects are predominant on agricultural lands. It results in
loss of soil from the field, redistribution of soil within a field and reduction in
soil quality in terms of the breakdown of soil structure, decline in organic matter
and nutrients and reduction of cultivable soil depth. The available soil moisture
capacity is also reduced resulting in more drought-prone conditions. The net effect
is loss of soil fertility and soil productivity, which restricts what can be grown and
results in an increased expenditure on fertilizers to maintain yield (Agata et al.
2018).
Economic impact
Increased use of artificial fertilizers may to an extent and for a time, compensate
for erosion-induced loss of soil quality, where economic circumstances are
favourable. Farmers of developed countries can cope to some extent the loss in
soil productivity by applying chemical fertilizers but for the resource poor farmers
of rest of the world it is not feasible (Posthumus et al. 2015). These extra costs
are necessarily borne by the farmers although they may be passed on in part to
the community in terms of higher food prices as yields decline or land goes out of
production. At the community level it results in a substantial decline in land value
and has consequences for food security.
40 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Other on-site effects such as loss of roads and bridges, forest and grazing
lands, loss of animal or human lives by mass movements or landslides, etc., has
social and economic effects at the regional, community level or national level.
Off-site Effects
Sedimentation
Sedimentation or silting down streams or downwind is a major off-site problem.
It results in reduced capacity of rivers, dams and drainage ditches, enhances the
risk of flooding, blocks irrigation canals and shortens the design life of reservoirs.
Many hydroelectricity and irrigation projects have been ruined as a consequence
of erosion. Improperly designed soil conservation structures or water harvesting
structures are also silted up with in a short span of time.
Sedimentation may also be in agricultural fields downstream or downwind,
which may leave the land unproductive or unmanageable. Sedimentation results
in the pollution of water bodies as sediments may have high quantities of nitrogen,
phosphorous and other agro chemicals. These result in eutrophication and the loss
of aquatic life.
The indirect impacts of off-site sedimentation on agriculture may be loss
of irrigation facilities by the siltation of water harvesting structures and reduced
power generation affecting agriculture indirectly. The breakdown of soil
aggregates also reduces soil carbon storage as carbon dioxide is released into
the atmosphere resulting in global consequences such as climate change and
the greenhouse effect. Lal (1995) has estimated that global soil erosion releases
about 1.14 Pg C annually to the atmosphere. However, there is an extraordinary
variability in soil erosion rates in the world (Garcia–Ruiz et al. 2015).
Flash floods
As water is not retained on the sloping lands due to the absence of natural
vegetation, there is very little time for rainwater to infiltrate into the soil. This
causes an increase in runoff and flash floods. These floods may cause a loss of
property and life. The results of the study conducted by Paix et al. (2011) showed
that the use of fuelwood and the competition for agriculture land are the main
causes of deforestation, which leads to increased soil erosion and floods.
The economic consequences of off-site effects may be much higher as
compared to the on-site effects. The off-site effects are borne by govt. agencies in
addition to farmers.
Basics of Soil Erosion 41
b. Accelerated erosion
Due to the activities of man, or when climate or topographic conditions are such
that the geological erosion is quicker than usual, it leads to accelerated erosion.
In other words when the rate of soil erosion exceeds rate of soil formation,
accelerated erosion is said to take place.
The most important activity by man, which results in accelerated erosion,
is agricultural activity. Nearly all agricultural operations tend to increase or
encourage erosion. When vegetation is cleared the ground is more exposed, and
there are fewer trees to slow down the wind, which causes wind erosion. There
is also less vegetation to absorb the energy of falling rain, which again results in
more soil erosion. By ploughing and tilling soil strength is decreased which may
in turn accelerate soil erosion.
a. Water
This is the most important single agent of erosion. Rainfall, streams and rivers all
scour away or carry away soil. Waves erode the shores of sea and lakes. Water in
movement is always eroding at its boundaries.
42 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
b. Wind
Wind does not by itself wear away rocks, but abrasion, even of hard rock, resulting
from grains of sand or soil carried in suspension cause erosion. Wind erosion
takes place normally in arid and semi-arid areas devoid of vegetation, where the
wind velocity is high.
c. Temperature
The cracking and flaking of rocks by variations in temperature is a common
feature. Rapid variations between day and night temperatures affect the surface
of rocks, while the changes due to slower variations between summer and winter
penetrate deeper. When the temperature changes include frost, disruption is
greatly increased by the expansion of water in cracks and crevices.
d. Biological agents
Living organisms such as lichens and mosses on rocks cause actual destruction.
But the main effect of living things is the disturbance, which speeds up the effect
of other agents. Animals trampling on rocks or soil break it down and make it
more easily carried away by wind or water. Earthworms and termites disturb
the soil and increase the aeration and oxidation, and so speed up the process of
conversion from resistant rocks to erodible soil.
c. Rill erosion
Rill erosion is the most common form of erosion. When sheet erosion is allowed
to continue unchecked, the silt-laden runoff forms well-defined small ephemeral
channels called rills. The concentrated flow is able to detach and transport soil
particles and channels up to 30 cm deep can be formed. The rills formed from
one storm are often obliterated before the next storm, when the channels may
form an entirely fresh network, unrelated to the position of previous rills. The rill
system is discontinuous and has no connection with the main river system. Only
occasionally does a master rill develop a permanent cause with an outlet to the
river. The rill channels can temporarily be obliterated by tillage. Rill erosion can
be prevented by either reducing flow velocity or hardening the soil to erosion.
d. Gully erosion
Gully erosion is an advanced stage of rill erosion where surface channels have
eroded to the point where they cannot be removed by tillage operation. Gullies
are the most spectacular evidence of the destruction of soil. Gully erosion is
responsible for removing vast amounts of soils, irreversibly destroying farmlands,
roads and bridges and reducing water quality by increasing the sediment load in
streams. Gully erosion occurs when the concentration flow of water along flow
routes cause sharp-sided entrenched channels deeper than 0.5 m.
b. Pinnacle erosion
In highly erodible soils high pinnacles in gully sides or bottoms are found. Deep
vertical rills in gully sides cut back rapidly and they join and leave the isolated
pinnacle. A more resistant soil layer or gravel or stones, often cap the pinnacle (as
in pedestal erosion). This may be due to physical or chemical soil conditions such
as excessive sodium and complete de-flocculation.
c. Piping or tunnelling
It occurs when surface water infiltrates through the soil surface, cracks, root
channels and animal burrows and moves downwards until it comes to a less
permeable layer. If there is an outlet so that the water can flow laterally through the
soil over the less permeable layer, then the fine particles of the more porous soil
may be washed out. This in turn increases the lateral flow, so the sideways erosion
increases, and eventually the whole of the surface flow disappears down a vertical
pipe and flows underground probably through the sides of a gully. This tunnelling
is an insidious form of sub-surface erosion, resulting in considerable damage even
Basics of Soil Erosion 45
d. Slumping
It is usually a process of geological erosion and although it may be accelerated as
with the sides of gullies, it can occur without any intervention of man. It becomes
prominent in high rainfall areas with deep soils. In such areas it can become the
main agent in the development of gullies. The other main causes of slumping are
riverbank collapse and coastal erosion.
e. Fertility erosion
It is the loss of plant nutrients by erosion and can be comparable in magnitude
with the removal of the same elements in the harvested crop. Phosphorous is
mainly lost along with the colloidal particles on whose surface it is adsorbed.
Nitrogen is soluble in the forms of nitrite and nitrate and is lost in solution forms
in the runoff without any physical soil movement.
f. Puddle erosion
It is the physical breakdown of soil by rain and washing of fine soil fractures
into a depression which results in a structure less soil and choked soil whose
productivity decreases.
g. Vertical erosion
It is washing down of fine clay particles through porous sand or gravel to
accumulate at some less pervious layer further down the profile. It takes place
during puddling soils for rice cultivation.
Climate
Climatic factors affecting erosion are precipitation, temperature, wind, humidity
and solar radiation. Precipitation is a broad term used for fog, mist, hail, snow
and rain. It is rain and snow that play a major role in soil erosion. Temperature
and wind are most evident through their effect on evaporation and transpiration;
however wind also changes raindrop velocities and the angle of impact. Humidity
and solar radiation are somewhat less directly involved in that they are associated
with temperature and the rate of soil water depletion.
Rainfall characteristics affecting soil erosion are amount, intensity,
distribution, raindrop size, seasonality and variability of rainfall. The most
important aspects of rainfall are its total quantity and its intensity. The erosive
effect of rain is enhanced by the disaggregating and the splashing effect of
raindrops. Besides depending on the disaggregating effect of raindrops, the
total amount of eroded soil also depends on the erosive action and transporting
capacity of surface flow. Without surface runoff, the amount of soil erosion caused
by precipitation is relatively small. Therefore, a critical factor that determines
the erosive effect of rainwater is the permeability of the soil, which indirectly
influences total soil losses and the pattern of erosion processes on slopes. While
the erosive activity (erosivity) of raindrops is determined by the kinetic energy of
the raindrops, the erosive action and transporting capacity of surface flow depends
on its quantity, velocity and degree of confluence. Rainfall simulation experiments
were conducted on two runoff plots with four varying slopes and two rainfall
intensities (90 and 120 mm h–1) by Fang et al. 2015. It was observed that higher
rainfall intensity produced less runoff and more sediment under all treatments.
At lower rainfall intensities a linear function fits the relationship between soil
loss and rainfall intensity whereas this function tends to be non-linear at higher
intensities. A strong non-linear relationship was found between different quartiles
of storms and soil loss (Mohamadi and Kavian 2015).
While the erosive effect of raindrops depends on the size of the soil grains for
a given type of soil and on the velocity of the falling raindrops (which is a function
of their size), the erosive effect of surface flow depends on the critical velocity
of the water and its carrying capacity, which varies according to the soil grains
being carried. The erosive action of rain-water increases with increasing size of
the raindrops, since larger drops have the effect of reducing soil permeability.
As the intensity of rain increases, the contribution made to the overall erosion
by surface runoff increases faster than that made by the impact of the rain on the
soil. A laboratory study was conducted to quantify the effects of raindrop impact
and runoff detachment on soil erosion and soil aggregate loss during hillslope
erosion processes (Lu et al. 2016). A soil pan was subjected to different rainfall
intensities under two soil surface conditions: with and without raindrop impact
by placing a nylon net over the soil pan. The results showed that raindrop impact
played the dominant role in hillslope soil erosion and soil aggregate loss. Soil loss
caused by raindrop impact was 3.6–19.8 times higher than that caused by runoff
Basics of Soil Erosion 47
Soil
Although soil resistance to erosion depends in part on topographic position,
slope steepness and the amount of disturbance created by man (during tillage)
the soil properties are the most important determinants. The corresponding soil
characteristics that describe the ease with which soil particles eroded are soil
detachability and soil transportability, which when combined called soil erodibility.
Soil erodibility, which is the resistance of the soil to both detachment and
transport, depends on the physical and hydrological, chemical and mineralogical,
and biological and biochemical properties as well as soil profile characteristics.
Important soil physical properties that affect the resistance of a soil to erosion
include texture, structure, water retention and transmission properties and shear
strength.
Soil with a sufficiently high permeability to absorb precipitation of maximum
intensity (about 5 mm min–1) is only seldom affected by sheet erosion, and is
therefore, damaged only by splash erosion. However, soils of this type show only
little resistance to erosion and any confluence of surface water easily carves rills,
which attain a considerable size during heavy rains.
Low permeability soil and impermeable soils, on the other hand, have more
resistance, but then much greater surface runoff develops on soils of this type.
Erosion increases if soil permeability is reduced artificially, or if surface layers
are loosened as a result of soil cultivation. Soil permeability, as well as resistance
to erosion may be increased by improving the soil structure, especially if the
proportion of water table aggregates is increased.
In addition to other soil properties, soil erodibility can be determined by soil
texture, active surface area of particles and by the homogeneity of granulation,
etc. The coarser the soil texture, the smaller the active surface area and the more
homogeneous the granulation, the smaller the resistance of the soil to erosion.
Since all these properties are altered by the selective action of erosion and by
48 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
the transport of the particles loosened by erosion, soil that has already been
transported is less resistant to erosion.
Wischmeier and Smith (1978) assessed soil erodibility in terms of the depth of
removed soil divided by the index of rainfall-mediated erosion. These parameters
were based on measurements made on denuded soil on experimental plots of
constant dimensions (22 m length, 9% slope inclination). Soil erodibility assessed
in this way is doubtless the nearest to reality, yet it depends on the dimensions
of the experimental plots, and, to a certain extent is distorted by the amount of
surface runoff. Wischmeier et al. (1971) developed a nomograph to estimate soil
erodibility but that nomograph was not applicable in many soil conditions and
was modified (Singh and Khera 2009, Aureswald et al. 2014).
Slope length
Slope length is important mainly with respect to the increase in the flow of water
on slopes and the degree of confluence. As the quantity of water and its degree
of confluence grow, the velocity and transporting capacity change. In general,
with the growing length of the slope the multiple of erosion intensity decreases,
although the absolute differences have an increasing tendency.
Slope aspect
The effect of slope aspect operates through the different degrees of isolation
occurring on sunny versus shaded slopes. With the higher temperatures
attained on sunny slopes, the rate of decomposition of organic matter, the rate
Basics of Soil Erosion 49
Vegetation
Vegetation acts as a protective layer or buffer between the atmosphere and the
soil. The major effects of vegetation in reducing erosion are:
a. Interception of rainfall by absorbing the energy of the raindrops and thus
reducing surface sealing and runoff.
b. Retardation of erosion by decreased surface velocity.
c. Physical restraint of soil movement.
d. Improvement of aggregation and porosity of the soil by roots and plant
residues.
e. Increased biological activity in the soil.
f. Transpiration, which decreases soil water, resulting in increased storage
capacity and less runoff.
These vegetative influences vary with the season, crop, degree of maturity of
the vegetation, soil and climate, as well as, with the kind of vegetative material,
mainly roots, plant tops and plant residues.
Agricultural measures
Soil cultivation plays an important part in the reduction of erosion mainly on
account of the effect on surface roughness, soil permeability, soil resistance against
destruction caused by raindrops and surface runoff freezing of the soil, and the
mobilization of nutrients and water for plant growth. It is generally accepted that
soil cultivation, fertilizing, irrigation and crop distribution according to rotation
practice are basic soil conservation measures applied on agricultural land by
means of which erosion on land of low and medium erodibility may be reduced to
a harmless level. In addition, also mulching of the ground and its reinforcement by
50 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Infiltration capacity
The maximum sustained rate at which soil can absorb water is influenced by pore
size, pore stability and the form of the soil profile. Soils with stable aggregates
maintain their pore spaces better while soils with swelling clays or minerals that
are unstable in water tend to have low infiltration capacities. In layered soils, it
is the layer with the lowest infiltration capacity, which is critical. In sandy soils,
formation of crust results in decreased infiltration. Increasing intensity of rain
may not lead to a corresponding increase in runoff and decreasing intensity may
even lead to runoff.
Rainfall erosivity
Rainfall erosion is the interaction of two factors—the rain and the soil. The
amount of erosion, which occurs in any given circumstances, will be influenced
by both. It has been established that one storm can cause more erosion than
another on the same land and the same storm causes more erosion on one field
than on another. This effect of rain is called erosivity and the effect of the soil is
called erodibility. Erosivity is the potential ability of rain to cause erosion. It is a
function of the physical characteristics of rainfall. Erodibility on the other hand
is the vulnerability or susceptibility of the soil to erosion and it is a function of
both the physical characteristics of the soil and the management of the soil. A
value on the scale of erosivity depends solely on rainfall properties, and to this
extent it is independent of the soil. But a quantitative measurement of erosivity
may only be made when erosion occurs, and this involves the erodibility of the
eroded material.
Basics of Soil Erosion 51
Similarly the relative values of erodibility are not influenced by rain, but can
only be measured when caused by rain, which must have erosivity. Thus neither
is independently quantitative but may be studied quantitatively while the other is
held constant.
Rainfall erosivity
Soil erosion is a work process in the physical sense that work is the expenditure
of energy, and energy is used in all the phases of erosion—in breaking down soil
aggregates, in splashing them in the air, in causing turbulence in surface runoff, in
scouring and carrying away soil particles. In Table 1, the kinetic energy available
from falling rain is compared with that from surface runoff. The exact figures used
in this calculation are not important since they are based upon assumptions of the
percentage runoff and assumed velocities but clearly the difference in the amount
of energy is very large, with rainfall energy dominating the picture.
The rain thus has 256 times more kinetic energy than the surface runoff. The
principal effect of raindrops is to detach soil, while that of surface flow is the
transportation of the detached soil.
Raindrop impact has other important effects as well as particle detachment.
The detached particles lead to the sealing of the soil surface and hence to lower
infiltration and increased surface runoff. The rain energy causes turbulence in the
runoff, thus greatly increasing its capacity to scour and to transport soil particles.
Table 1. Kinetic energy of rain and runoff.
Character Rain Runoff
Mass Assuming the mass of falling Assuming 25% runoff mass of
Rain is R runoff is R/4
Velocity Assume terminal velocity of Assume speed of surface flow
8 m/s of 1 m/s
Kinetic energy ½* R(8)2 = 32 R ½.R/4. (1)2 = R/8
time increments of uniform intensity. For each time period, knowing the intensity
of the rain, the kinetic energy of rain at that intensity is estimated using the
equation:
This K.E. multiplied by the amount of rain gives the kinetic energy for that
time period. The sum of the kinetic energy values for all the time periods gives
the total kinetic energy of the storm. To be valid as an index of potential erosion,
an index must be significantly correlated with soil loss.
EI30: Studies have shown that soil loss by splash, overland flow and rill erosion
is related to a compound index of kinetic energy and the maximum 30-minute
rainfall intensity (I30). T is the greatest average intensity experienced in any
30-minute period during a storm. It is computed from recording rain gauge charts
by locating the greatest amount of rain which falls in any 30 minutes, and then
doubling this amount to get the intensity (rainfall per hour). It can be computed
for individual storms, and the storm values can be summed up over periods of
time to give weekly, monthly or annual value of erosivity.
This EI index is being criticized for the following reasons. Firstly it is based
on estimates of kinetic energy and using the empirical equation is not valid for
tropical rains of high intensity. Secondly, it assumes that erosion occurs even
with light intensity rain. The inclusion of I30 in the index is an attempt to correct
for overestimating the importance of light intensity rains but it is not entirely
successful. In fact, there is no obvious reason why the maximum 30-minute
intensity is the most appropriate parameter to choose. At some places with sparse
and dense plant cover 15 and 5 minute intensities have shown better results.
KE > 25 index: It is based on the fact that little erosion takes place at low
intensities. At low intensity, rain is composed mainly of small drops, falling with
low velocity, and hence low energy. Even if a little splash erosion occurs, there
is usually no runoff to carry away the splashed particles. Studies have shown that
although there is variation from storm to storm, the intensity of 25 mm per hour
can be taken as a threshold value separating erosive and non-erosive rain. KE > 25
index means summing the kinetic energy received in those time increments when
the rainfall intensity equals 25 mmh–1 or greater. The index has been modified for
temperate regions using a lower threshold value of 10 mmh–1.
AIm: It is the product of amount of rain (A) and maximum intensity over a 7.5
minute period. It correlated best with soil loss from small plots in Nigeria.
Basics of Soil Erosion 53
Soil Properties Soil moisture potential, particle size distribution, soil structure, organic
matter, bulk density, exchangeable cations and shear strength.
Landforms Slope steepness, slope shape and aspect, slope length.
Rainfall characteristics Mass, size, shape and impact velocity of raindrop, kinetic energy and
momentum, intensity, wind velocity
Overland flow Depth, type of flow, i.e., laminar or turbulent
Vegetation caver Canopy cover, foliage distribution.
Basics of Soil Erosion 55
the terminal velocity of the impacting drops. There is a threshold impact velocity
below which the soil particles are not displaced by raindrop impact. Fu et al.
(2016) derived a relation between the amount of splash detachment, drop size and
distance of splash detachment. The relationship is as follows:
M = 0.741D4.846 × S–1.820
where M is the splash detachment (grams), D is the drop size (mm) and S is splash
detachment (cm).
Rain does not always fall on to a dry surface. During a storm it may fall on the
surface water in the form of puddles or overland flow. The ability of a raindrop to
cause detachment and soil splash differs when overland flow is present or absent.
As the thickness of the surface water layer increases, so does splash erosion. It is
because of the turbulence that the impacting raindrops impart to the water. There
is however a critical water depth beyond which erosion decreases exponentially
with increasing water depth because more of the rainfall energy is dissipated in
the water and does not affect the soil surface. In addition to soil splash, raindrop
impact in the overland flow may increase the transport capacity of the overland
flow. There is movement of even bigger sized particles when they are submerged
in water.
Wind speed impacts a horizontal force to a falling raindrop until its horizontal
velocity component equals the velocity of the wind. As a result, the kinetic energy
of the raindrop is increased. Detachment of soil particles by impacting wind
driven raindrops can be some 1.5–3.0 times greater than that resulting from rains
of the same intensity without wind.
Vegetation cover may dissipate raindrop impact and protect the soil against
splash. Vegetation cover alters the volume, drop size distribution, impact velocity
and kinetic energy of the rainfall reaching the ground. The effect of vegetation
cover as splash erosion depends on many factors like, foliage characteristics,
canopy height and ground cover percentage. Canopy cover may not be effective
in controlling splash erosion particularly when the canopy height is more. The
reason may be that when coalesced drops fall from large trees, they often reach
the terminal velocity and have high kinetic energy.
Since splash erosion acts uniformly over the land surface its effects are
seen only where stone or tree roots selectively protect the underlying soil and
splash pedestals or soil pillars are formed. Such features frequently indicate the
severity of erosion. If raindrops fall on crop residue or growing plants, the energy
is absorbed and thus soil splash is reduced. Raindrop impact on bare soil not
only causes splash but also decreases aggregation and causes deterioration to soil
structure. The most important contribution of splash erosion is to deliver detached
particles to overland flow, which was the main agent of sediment transport in the
inter-rill areas.
56 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Overland flow
Overland flow is an important agent of water erosion. Overland flow is water that
flows over the land surface en route to stream channels. It is the initial phase of
surface runoff that eventually becomes a major agent of sediment detachment,
entrainment and deposition. Although overland flow is visualized as a broad sheet
flow, it includes many shallow but easily definable channels.
Overland flow occurs on hillsides during a rainstorm when:
• Surface depression storage is exceeded.
• In the case of prolonged rain, soil moisture storage is exceeded.
• With intense rains, the infiltration capacity of soil is exceeded.
Excess rainfall over infiltration in first used to fill all the depression storages,
which may range from 2.5 cm for smooth-surface clay to 5.0 cm for sandy soils.
Depression storage may be far greater in soil with stubble and vegetation cover
than in bare soil.
Shallow flow may be laminar, turbulent or both. Areas of turbulent flow are
often interspersed with areas of laminar flow. Turbulence is caused by following
raindrops and wind driven rain. Turbulent flow is the most relevant to the soil
erosion. The hydraulic characteristics of the flow are described by its Reynolds
number (Re) and its Froude number (F), defined as follows:
Vr V
Re
= = ,F
υʋ gr
where V is velocity of water, ʋ is kinematic viscosity, r is hydraulic radius, which
for overland flow, is taken as equal to flow depth.
The Reynolds number is an index of the turbulence of the flow. The greater
the turbulence, the greater is the erosive power generated by the flow. At numbers
less than 500, laminar flow prevails and at values above 2000, flow is fully
turbulent. In turbulent flow, the water moves in highly irregular paths, causing
an exchange of momentum from one portion of water to another. The turbulence
increases shear stresses throughout the fluid. In laminar flow, each fluid layer
moves in a straight line with uniform velocity and there is no mixing between the
layers. Intermediate values are indicative of transitional or disturbed flow, often a
result of turbulence being imparted to laminar flow by raindrop impact.
The Froude number is an index of whether or not gravity waves will form in
the flow. When the Froude number is less than 1.0, gravity waves do not form and
the flow, being relatively smooth, is described as tranquil or sub critical. Froude
number greater than 1.0 denote rapid or supercritical flow, characterized by
gravity waves, which in more erosive. Most overland flow are super critical and
Froude no’s can be as high as 15. Steady flow occurs when conditions (velocity,
density, presence and temperature at any point in water) do not change with time.
The flow is unsteady when conditions at any point change with time. Uniform
flow occurs when the velocity vector at every point is identical (in magnitude and
Basics of Soil Erosion 57
direction) for any given instant. In non-uniform flow, velocity vector varies from
place to place at any given instant.
Rill erosion
Rills are usually described as small, intermittent water courses that present no
obstacles or impediments to tillage operations using conventional equipment. Rill
erosion is the predominant form of erosion under most conditions. Rills also carry
the connotation that once obliterated, the will not inherently reform at precisely the
same location. Even excessive inter rill erosion can go unnoticed, but rill erosion
is easily observed. Rills are initiated at a critical distance down slope, where
overland flow becomes channelled. The depth and velocity of water in channelled
flow are much greater than in pre-channel flow. The depth of channelled flow may
be 50 times that of overland flow, and the velocity 10 times greater. Shear stress
exerted by the concentrated flow causes soil detachment along channel sides and
floor. Studies of the hydraulic characteristic of the flow show that the change from
overland flow to rill flow passes through four stages, i.e., un-concentrated overland
flow, overland flow with concentrated flow paths, micro channels without head cuts
and micro channels with head cuts (Wang et al. 2014). At the point of rill initiation,
flow conditions change from sub critical to supercritical.
Both depth and velocity of flow are important in determining rill erosion.
There is also a critical value of shear velocity before rill erosion begins which
is normally 3.0–3.5 cm S–1. The critical shear velocity of rill initiation (Ucrit) is
linearly related to the shear strength of the soil (ƬS ).
Qs
Dr = K r (T − Tc ) (1 − )
Tc
where Qs is the rate of sediment flow in the rill and Ƭc is sediment transport
capacity of rill. Once rills have been formed their migration upslope occurs by the
retreat of head cut at the top of the channel. The rate of retreat is controlled by the
58 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
cohesiveness of the soil, the height and angle of the head wall, the discharge and
the velocity of the flow. Mass failure of the side walls can contribute more than
half of the sediment removed in rills, particularly when heavy rains follow a long
dry period during which cracks have developed in the soil.
Rill erosion may account for the bulk of the sediment removed from a hillside,
depending on the spacing of the rill and the extent of the area affected. The inter
rill and rill erosion processes are used in several process-based erosion prediction
computer models.
Gully erosion
Gully erosion is a highly visible form of soil erosion that affects soil productivity,
restricts land use and can threaten roads, fences and buildings. The large channels
that cannot be removed by tillage are called gullies. A large gully is also called
a ravine. Gullies are relatively steep sided watercourses which experience
ephemeral flows during heavy or extended rainfall. A gully channel may be
U or V shaped depending upon the strength of the sub soils’ resistance or its
resistance to water’s cutting action. Gullies are formed when the surface and sub
soil materials are uniformly weak. V shaped gullies are formed when the sub soil
is more resistant to erosion than the surface soil. Gullies are having relatively
greater death and smaller width, carry large sediment loads and display very
erratic behaviour so that relationships between sediment discharge and run off are
frequently poor. Gully erosion has become a field of growing interest among the
research community but there sre still are numerous knowledge gaps that need to
be addressed (Castillo and Gomez 2016).
Gullies are almost always associated with accelerated erosion and therefore
with landscape instability. Ephemeral gullies are the channels intermediate in size
between rills and classical gullies. They are larger than rills but are small enough
to be obliterated by usual farming practices. This gullies reform at same location
year by year. Processes involved in transition from rill to gully erosion are not
well understood. As a simple guide it is taken that when the cross sectional area of
channels increases than 1 m2, these are called gullies.
Gully erosion is caused when run off concentrates and flows at a velocity
sufficient to detach and transport soil particles. In cultivated area or in pasture,
advanced rill erosion can develop into gully erosion if no protective measures are
taken. Cattle beds can be a starting point for a small rill that can develop into a
large gully.
In the first stage of gully formation, small depressions or knicks form on
a hill side as a result of localized weakening of vegetation cover by grazing or
by fire. Water concentrates in these depressions and enlarges them until several
depressions coalesce and an incipient channel is formed. Erosion is concentrated
at the heads of the depressions where near vertical scraps develop over which
superficial flow occurs. Some soil particles are detached from the scrap itself but
most erosion is associated with scouring at the base of the scrap which results in
Basics of Soil Erosion 59
Mass movements
When there is an instantaneous movement of a large volume of soil mass
or rock material down the slope, it is called mass soil movement. Although
mass movement has been widely studied by geologists, geomorphologists and
engineers, it is generally neglected in the context of soil erosion.
The presence of moisture in the soil mass adds weight to it which destroys the
cohesive properties of the soil. Generally the movement of soil mass is triggered
by the action of gravity. The factors responsible for soil mass movement includes
the natural or artificial modification to the gradient of the slope, the erosion of the
bottom line of a sloping land surface owing to the water flow in a channel or a
water courses and the mining activities down the slope, etc. Changes in the water
60 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Slow movement
Creep: This is a relatively slow sliding of the surface layers of the soil cover,
generally without detachment and is widely observed on steep slopes where
young fresh samplings are bent and the base of adult trees crooked.
Rapid sliding
Debris flow is a generic term used to describe the rapid movement of rocks, soil,
water and vegetation downhill. A debris flow could be a mudslide or a landslide,
depending on the amount of water present. Flow contains many different size
particles from sand grains to boulders, but the bigger rocks travel at the front of
the flow.
Landslides: Landslides are at the drier end of the debris flow spectrum. Landslides
come in two forms, i.e., block slips and rotational block slips.
Mudslides: Mudslides contain more water than landslides. They can contain solid
material, too, but generally have fewer large rocks and trees than landslides.
Basics of Soil Erosion 61
Local forms: This category includes rock slides, the undermining of banks and
slope subsidence leading to localized sliding. These are very frequent at gully
heads.
References
Agata, N., A.M. Pisciotta, A. Minacapilli, F. Maltese, A. Capodici, A. Cerda and L. Gristina. 2018.
The impact of soil erosion on soil fertility and vine vigor. A multidisciplinary approach based
on field, laboratory and remote sensing approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 622-623: 474–480.
Auerswald, K., P. Fiener, W. Martin and D. Elhaus. 2014. Use and misuse of the K factor equation
in soil erosion modeling: An alternative equation for determining USLE nomograph soil
erodibility values. Catena. 118: 220–225.
Castillo, C. and J.A. Gomez. 2016. A century of gully erosion research: Urgency, complexity and
study approaches. Earth-Sci. Rev. 160: 300–319.
Fang, H., L. Sun and Z. Tang. 2015. Effects of rainfall and slope on runoff, soil erosion and rill
development: an experimental study using two loess soils. Hydrol. Process. 29: 2649–2658.
Fu, Y., G. Li., T.Z.B. Li and T. Zhang. 2016. Impact of raindrop characteristics on the selective
detachment and transport of aggregate fragments in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 80: 1071–1077.
Garcia-Ruiz, J.M., S. Begueria, E. Nadal-Romero, J.C. Gonzalez-Hidalgo, N. Lana-Renault and Y. Sanjuan.
2015. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology. 239: 160–173.
Jakiel, A.B. and J. Poesen. 2018. Subsurface erosion by soil piping: significance and research needs.
Earth-Sci. Rev. 185: 1107–1128.
Jiang, F., Z. Zhenzhi, J. Chen, J. Li, M. Kuang, W. Hongli and G.Y. Huang. 2018. Rill erosion
processes on a steep colluvial deposit slope under heavy rainfall in flume experiments with
artificial rain. Catena. 169: 46–58.
Kukal, S.S. and M. Sarkar. 2011. Laboratory simulation studies on splash erosion and crusting in
relation to surface roughness and raindrop size. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 59: 87–93.
Lal, R. 1995. Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, E. Levine
and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soils and Global Change. CRC/Lewis Boca Raton, FL: 131–141.
Lu, J., F. Zheng, G. Li, F. Bian and J. An. 2016. The effects of raindrop impact and runoff detachment
on hillslope soil erosion and soil aggregate loss in the Mollisol region of Northeast China.
Soil Till. Res. 161: 79–85.
Mohamadi, M.A. and A. Kavian. 2015. Effects of rainfall patterns on runoff and soil erosion in field
plots. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 3: 273–281.
Paix, M.J., L. Lanhai, C. Xi, S. Ahmed and A. Varenyam. 2011. Soil degradation and altered flood risk
as a consequence of deforestation. Land Degrad. Dev. 24: 478–485.
Posthumus, H., L.K. Deeks, R.J. Rickson and J.N. Quinton. 2015. Costs and benefits of erosion control
measures in the UK. Soil Use Manage. J. 31: 16–33.
Prosdocimi, M., P. Tarolli and A. Cerdà. 2016. Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A
review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 161: 191–203.
Singh, M.J. and K.L. Khera. 2009. Nomographic estimation and evaluation of soil erodibility under
simulated and natural rainfall conditions. Land Degrad. Dev. 20: 471–480.
Wang, B., G.H. Zhang, Y.Y. Shi and X.C. Zhang. 2014. Soil detachment by overland flow under
different vegetation restoration models in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena. 116: 51–59.
Wischmeier, W.H., C.B. Johnson and B.V. Cross 1971. A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and
construction sites. J. Soil Water Cons. 26: 189–92.
Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses.USDA Agricultural
Service Handbook 537.
Yao, C., T. Lei, W.J. Elliot, D.K. McCool, J. Zhao and S. Chen. 2008. Critical conditions for rill
initiation. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 51: 107–114.
Zeneli, G., S. Loca, A. Diku and A. Lila. 2017. On-Site and Off-Site Effects of Land Degradation in
Albania. Ecopersia. 2017: 1787–1797.
Chapter 4
Measurement of Soil
Erosion by Water
Manmohanjit Singh1,* and SS Kukal2
Introduction
Accelerated soil erosion as a serious global problem is widely recognized;
therefore the assessment of soil erosion is of utmost importance. It is difficult to
assess reliably and precisely the extent, magnitude and rate of soil erosion and its
economic and environmental consequences. Information readily available in the
relavant literature is often based on reconnaissance surveys and extrapolations
based on sketchy data. At present the quality of available data is extremely uneven.
Land use planning based on unreliable data may lead to costly and gross errors.
Standardization of erosion hazard assessments and measurement of different types
or processes of erosion is important for the adoption of proper soil conservation
measures and land use policy.
1
Regional Research Station (Punjab Agricultural University), Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar,
144521, India.
2
College of Agriculture, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, India.
Email: sskukal@rediffmail.com
* Corresponding author: mmjsingh@pau.edu
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 63
excessive soil loss or the off-site damage arising from erosion is unacceptable.
Potential erosion risk takes into consideration the local condition of soil, climate
and slope, whereas, the actual erosion risk is greatly modified by the land cover.
Therefore, based on soil, climate and slope the area can be designated as having
high risk but because of vegetation, it may actually be having a low erosion risk.
Assessment of soil erosion can be done by taking into consideration the rainfall,
soil and slope data which can be obtained from soil surveys conducted at regional
or national levels. Other way is to conduct a detailed soil survey at the field scale
at many locations and then extrapolate the information at a national or regional
level.
Generalized assessment
The generalized assessment is either based on rainfall data or some indices, such
as factorial scoring are also used for this purpose.
Based on this index mean annual erosivity maps have been produced for the
Middle East and Africa north of the equator (Arnoldus 1980) and for 16 countries
of the European Union (Horvath et al. 2016).
Factorial scoring
Stocking and Elwell (1973) developed a simple scoring system for rating erosion
risk in Zimbabwe. By taking a 1:1000000 base map, the country was divided on a
grid system into units of 184 Km2. Each unit was rated on a scale from 1 (low risk)
to 5 (high risk) in respect of erosivity, erodibility, slope, ground cover and human
occupation (density of population and the type of settlement). The five factor
scores were summed to give a total score, which was then compared with an
arbitrarily chosen classification system to categorize areas of low, moderate and
high erosion risk. The scores were mapped and areas of similar risk delineated.
Factorial scoring approach being a simple approach can give general
information about the vulnerability of an area to erosion risk and the areas having
a high vulnerability can be assessed in more detail. Limitation in this method is
its sensitivity to different scoring systems, ignoring interaction among factors,
combination of factors by addition rather than by multiplication and to provide
equal weightage to all factors. Binonnais et al. (2002) modified the factorial method
by devising a system based on the susceptibility of the soils to crusting (four
classes), the shear strength of the soil (three classes), land cover (nine classes) and
rainfall erosivity (four classes). Yin et al. (2018) used factorial scoring to assess
regional soil erosion risk values.
Semi-detailed assessment
Semi-detailed assessment of soil erosion hazard includes land capability
classification, land systems classification and soil erosion survey.
of limitation. The land capability unit is often the same as a soil series in the
pedological sense, but may not be same always. In US system land is allocated
into eight classes arranged from class 1, characterized by no or very slight risk
of the damage to the land when used for cultivation, to class VIII, very rough
land that can be safely used only for wildlife, limited recreation and watershed
conservation. Class I to IV is suitable for agriculture and remaining classes are
unsuitable.
The system of land capability classification was modified to cater to the needs
of specific regions. A more detailed assessment of erosion risk was given by Soil
Survey of England and Wales (1983) by combining the data of land capability
class with rainfall erosivity and wind velocity with knowledge of the susceptibility
of soils to erosion. Levin et al. (2017) provided detailed information on changes in
the use of soil capability classification in the changing scenarios.
Detailed assessment
Detailed soil erosion surveys which give information on extent and severity of
erosion, are conducted at selected sites manually. These are also conducted on
ground truth study for remote sensing data. Easily visible features such as the
exposure of tree roots, crusting of the soil surface, formation of splash pedestals,
the size of rills and gullies and the type and structure of plant cover are taken into
account. Factorial scorings are used to rate the severity of erosion. For evaluating
the density of rills and gullies and for tree cover large scale (usually 100 m2),
for shrub covers medium scale (usually 10 m2) and for grass cover, crusting and
depth of ground lowering, etc., small scale (usually 1 m2) is used. Performa can
be designed. As there is much seasonal variation in vegetation and soil erodibility,
therefore selection of the proper time of survey and its recording is very important.
Measurement at macro-scale
Macro-scale measurement of soil erosion includes erosion by streams and rivers
and the area may vary from a few hundred to a few thousand square kilometers.
The purpose is to study the geographical, ecological and regional aspects of soil
erosion to plan development strategies at the regional or national level. Global
maps of erosion rates have been prepared by using this approach (Fournier 1960).
Some of the methods used to measure soil erosion at the macro-scale are presented
in brief.
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 67
and national maps have been developed from these databases. Aerial photography
and satellite imageries are also being used for this purpose. The topic has already
been discussed under erosion hazard assessment. Various reconnaissance methods
of estimating soil erosion used at macro and meso-scale are discussed in next
section.
Use of tracers
Radioactive isotope Caesium–137 (137Cs) is the most commonly used tracer
in soil erosion measurement. By measuring the isotope content of soil cores
collected on a grid system the spatial pattern of isotope loading is established.
This Caesium–137 fell from the atmosphere during the testing of nuclear
weapons from 1950s to 1970s. Models are available to convert this information
into estimates of erosion rates (Walling et al. 2002). Generally, soil erosion rates
obtained using Caesium–137 compare well with measured rates from erosion
plots and instrumented catchments (Theochoropoulos et al. 2003, Zhang et al.
2003, Lionel et al. 2018).
Measurement at meso-scale
The meso-scale involves the evaluation of soil erosion at the scale of farm units,
i.e., from a few hectares to few hundred hectares. Various techniques used at
macro-scale for example the use of radioisotopes, aerial surveys and satellite
imageries can be used at the meso-scale also. Various reconnaissance methods are
available which can be used for the semi-quantitative assessment of soil erosion.
Reconnaissance methods
Reconnaissance methods are ways to get a first approximation of the amount of
erosion in a given situation—this approximation may be all that is needed, or
it could be followed by more precise studies if required. These reconnaissance
methods are cheap and simple, and need only semi-skilled staff and require little
maintenance. Many measurements can be made, so these are reliable and more
representative than single precise measurement. Simple techniques may also be
useful as demonstrations, when the object is not to measure the amount of runoff
or soil loss, but to show farmers, or extension workers, or the general public, that
a lot of erosion is taking place and something should be done about it.
A common problem in all off-station field trials is the interference with the
equipment by the local population. The solution is not to let it happen and then
react, but to anticipate it and avoid it. This means gaining the confidence and
cooperation of the local community. They should already know about the project
from having been involved in its planning—if they were not, the project is starting
off on the wrong foot. So, a public relations programme is required to explain
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 69
what is happening, how it will help and hence secure the support of the whole
local population.
The direct measurement of changes in soil level is appropriate in the case
of localized erosion where rates are high and the position of the erosion can
be predicted, such as steep land, which has been deforested, or cattle tracks on
rangeland. It is usually not suitable for soil losses from arable land because the
surface level is affected by cultivation and settlement.
Individual measurements of change in level at a single point will vary widely,
but if it is an inexpensive and simple method, and a large number of points can
be sampled, then a usable estimate can result. Point measurements include use of
erosion pins, paint collars, pedestals, bottle tops, exposed tree root measurements
and profile meters. Because there is much more spatial variation in soil erosion,
so large number of point measurements give a usable estimate.
Erosion pins: This widely used method consists of driving a pin into the soil so
that the top of the pin gives a datum from which changes in the soil surface level
can be measured. Alternatively called pegs, spikes, stakes or rods, the pins can
be of wood, iron or any other material, which will not rot, or decay and is readily
and cheaply available. The pin should be a length which can be pushed or driven
into the soil to give a firm stable datum: 300 mm is typical, less for a shallow soil,
more for loose soil. A small diameter of about 5 mm is preferable, as thicker stakes
could interfere with the surface flow and cause scour. A rectangular or square grid
layout will give a random distribution of points with spacing appropriate to the
area being studied.
Paint collars: An indication of large changes in level, for example in a stream bed
or gully floor, can be obtained by painting a collar just above soil level round rocks,
boulders, tree roots, fence posts, or anything firm and stable. Erosion reveals an
unpainted band below the paint line, indicating the depth of soil removed. When
painting the collar it is advisable to mask the soil with old newspaper as paint
accidentally sprayed or brushed onto the soil might make it less erodible.
Bottle tops: Another simple way to record the original level is to press bottle tops
into the soil surface. The depth of subsequent erosion is shown by the height of
the pedestals where the soil is protected by the bottle top. This leads to the use of
naturally occurring indicators of changes in soil surface level.
Pedestals: When an easily eroded soil is protected from splash erosion by a stone
or tree root, isolated pedestals capped by the resistant material are left standing
up from the surrounding ground. The erosion of the surrounding soil is shown to
be mainly by splash rather than by surface flow if there is little or no undercutting
at the base of the pedestal. Like the bottle top method, it is possible to deduce
approximately what depth of soil has been eroded by measuring the height of the
pedestals.
70 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Tree roots: Exposed tree roots may offer a valid indication of change when the
reason is obvious, such as erosion in a streambed below a paint collar. Very long-
term rates of erosion (over several centuries) have been estimated from tree root
exposure.
Profile meters: To measure small changes in surface level along a cross section
such as an area with a number of parallel cattle tracks, a profile meter may be
suitable. The requirement for a profile meter is to be able to set up a datum from
which changes in level can be measured along a straight line and which can be
re-established at the same points later to measure changes in level. Usually this
takes the form of a horizontal bar with rods, which can be lowered down to the
soil surface, and is the same principle as used to measure surface roughness in
studies of tillage and tilth.
Volumetric measurements
Estimates of soil loss based on three-dimensional measurements of volume can be
used in different ways. For erosion from rills or roads, the length of the eroding
section and changes in cross-sectional area are measured. For gully erosion,
usually information is needed not only on the volume lost, but also on how much
the gully is increasing, so changes in length as the gully cuts back also have to be
measured. The other volumetric approach is to measure or estimate the volume
deposited as an outwash fan, or in a catch pit or reservoir.
Rills: Measuring the cross-section of all the rills in a sample area or along a sample
transect is quick and easy, so the method is suitable for measuring change over
short time periods, such as the change caused by a single heavy storm. The cross-
section may be re-estimated from measurements of average width and depth if the
shape is fairly uniform, or by summing the area of segments if the cross-section
of the rill is irregular. The accuracy of estimates of total soil loss based only on
measurements of rill erosion will depend on how much inter-rill erosion by splash
and sheet wash is also occurring.
Gullies and stream banks: When the progress of gully erosion is being studied,
measurements are needed both of the horizontal spread of the gully and vertical
changes within the gully. To measure the surface area, and changes from cutting
back or bank collapse, a rectangular grid of erosion pins is set out at an appropriate
grid interval. From measurements along the grid lines from the nearest pin to
the gully edge, the surface area can be plotted on squared paper. The grid lines
also serve as transects for cross-sections across the gully. A string is stretched
at ground level along a grid line with markers at fixed intervals of, say, 1 m. At
each marker the depth is measured from the gully floor using a survey staff or a
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 71
ranging rod, and the section can be plotted. The volume of soil lost from the gully
is calculated and subsequent measurements will quantify the changes. Changes in
a gully may be interpreted from the use of sequences of photographs. The position
of the camera and the direction of the photograph must be carefully recorded.
For studies of the long-term development of gullies, aerial photography can be a
useful tool.
Catch pits: Simple catch pits may be used to demonstrate comparisons of soil
erosion under different treatments. It is not possible to get a reliable estimate of
the total soil movement unless the receiving reservoir is large enough to contain
the whole flow and sediment load, but smaller pits which only catch an unknown
proportion of the sediment can still be used to obtain comparative information.
A simple method for measuring relative soil movement at different points in
the catchment uses ‘mesh bags’. A 30 cm by 30 cm square of 5 mm mesh nylon
fabric is fastened on 3 sides over the same size of 2 mm mesh. The bags are pinned
to the soil surface with the open edge uphill in a line across the contour to measure
horizontal variation, or up-and-down slope to measure variation down the catena.
Some of the soil moved by surface flow is trapped in the mesh bag and may be
dried and weighed at intervals. The method is an inexpensive and simple way of
studying relative soil movement at different points in the field. As an alternative
to excavating catch pits, gully check dams can be used to give an approximation
of the effect of different treatments in their catchments.
Direct measurements
Direct measurements are perhaps the most accurate way of measuring soil
erosion, but also the most laborious and time consuming. They involve collecting
deposited materials and taking volumetric and weight measurements. It includes
establishing bounded runoff plots to collect surface runoff, with a flow-collecting
device at outlet. Detailed field studies to measure soil erosion are usually conducted
for research purposes to study basic soil erosion processes or to evaluate the effect
of soil conservation practices on soil erosion. These studies are either done under
natural rainfall conditions or under artificial rainfall conditions using a rainfall
simulator in the field or laboratory conditions.
Measurement at micro-scale
The area of study may vary from a fraction of a meter to a few hundred square
meters. The study may be done under natural in situ conditions or under laboratory
conditions. Natural or simulated rainfall can be used for this purpose.
quantity of splashed material measured per unit area depends upon the diameter
of the funnels and cups, the following corrections has to be applied to determine
the real mass of particles detached by splash:
MSR = MSe0.054D
where MSR is the real mass of splashed material per unit area (g cm–2), MS is
the measured splash per unit area (g cm–2), and D is the diameter of the cup or
funnel (cm). Scholten (2011) introduced a new splash cup based on Ellison’s
archetype that reliably and accurately measures kinetic energy as a function of
sand loss under a large variety of conditions. The developed cup, known as,
Tübingen splash cup (T splash cup) is relatively easy to operate under harsh field
conditions, and can be used in experimental designs with a large number of plots
and replications at reasonably low costs. The splash cups have been calibrated
in combination with a laser distrometer using a linear regression function with
r2 = 0.98.
Rainfall Simulation
Rainfall simulation, a device to produce rainstorms of desired characteristics,
has been widely used as a research tool in soil erosion studies because of the
unpredictable, infrequent and random nature of rainfall. The major advantages
of rainfall simulator research are four fold: it is more rapid, more efficient, more
controlled and more adaptable than natural rainfall research. The disadvantages
of rainfall simulators are cost and time required to construct a suitable rainfall
simulator and the difficulty of simulating natural rainfall characteristics. Important
design requirements of simulators include rainfall intensity, raindrop size, drop
size distribution, drop velocity at impact, and kinetic energy of rainfall. Rainfall
simulators can broadly be classified into two groups, i.e., those involving nozzles
from which water is forced at a significant velocity by pressure and those where
drops form and fall from a tip starting at zero velocity. Detailed information on
use of rainfall simulators in soil erosion is available in literature (Shrivastva and
Das 1998). Rainfall intensity, length of simulated rainstorms and sequence of
rainstorm can be varied as per requirement of the study. Mhaske et al. (2019)
designed rainfall simulator for soil erosion studies in laboratory.
Rainfall simulation under field conditions: In recent years considerable use has
been made of rainfall simulators in the field conditions. Natural runoff plots have
been virtually replaced by these simulated studies as a research tool. Field rainfall
simulators provide the advantages of field conditions for soils, slopes and plant
cover, all of which are difficult to reproduce in the laboratory, with the benefits
of a repeatable storm. Several designs for simple, portable simulators have been
produced (Cerda et al. 1997) with the ability to generate rainfall at intensities
between 40 and 120 mm h–1.
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 75
Runoff simulation: In small soil plots, the rainfall simulator may be supplemented
by a device to supply a known quantity of runoff at the top of the plot. Sediment
can also be added to the runoff upslope of the test soil. This type of simulation is
usually used to study the rill erosion under controlled conditions.
References
Arnoldus, H.M.J. 1980. An approximation of the rainfall factor in the universal soil loss equation.
pp. 127–132. In: De Boodt, M. and D. Gabriels (eds.). Assessment of Erosion. Wiley Chichester.
Baily, B., P. Collier, P. Farres, R. Inkpen and A. Pearson. 2003. Comparative assessment of analytical
and digital photogrammetric methods in the construction of DEM’s of geomorphological
forms. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 28: 307–320.
Betts, H.D., N.A. Trustrum and R.C. Rose. 2003. Geomorphic changes in a complex gully system
measured from sequential digital elevation models, and implications for management. Earth
Surf. Process. Landf. 28: 1043–1058.
Binonnais, Y., C. Montier, M. Jamagne, J. Daroussin and D. King. 2002. Mapping erosion risk for
cultivated soils in France. Catena 46: 207–220.
Cerda, A., S. Ibanez and A. Calvo. 1997. Design and operation of a small and portable rainfall
simulator for rugged terrain. Soil Tech. 11: 163–170.
Chen, X.Y., Y. Zhao, H.X. Mi and B. Mo. 2016. Estimating rill erosion processes
from eroded morphology in flume experiments by volume replacement method. Catena 136:
135–140.
Fournier, F. 1960. Climat et erosion: la relation entre l’erosion du sol par l’ eau et les
precipitatousatmospheriques. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
76 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Introduction
Soil is a critical resource for the future of mankind. It has to be protected and
enhanced. Instead, more than half (52%) of all fertile, food-producing soils globally
are now classified as degraded, many of them severely degraded (UNCCD 2015).
Soil degradation is the decline in any or all of the characteristics which make
soil suitable for producing food. Soil degradation occurs through the deterioration
of the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil that results in soil
compaction, salinization, acidification, and soil loss from wind and water erosion.
Soil degradation is a severe environmental problem, affecting about 1100 million
ha worldwide (56% of the total area affected by human-induced soil degradation).
Almost 80% of the terrain affected by water erosion has a light to moderate degree
of degradation. Among the major continents, Africa ranks second in the severity of
soil erosion after Asia (Oldeman 1992). The latest reference in this regard is given
by United Nations which states that the majority of the world’s soil resources are
1
Regional Research Station (Punjab Agricultural University), Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar,
144521, India.
2
TU, Bergakademie Freiberg, Soil and Water Conservation Unit, Freiberg, Germany.
Email: jonaspunktlenz@gmail.com
3
Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy), KVK- Kargil (SKUAST-K), J&K, 194103, India.
Email: dareajaz9@gmail.com
* Corresponding author: er.aywani@gmail.com
78 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
in only fair, poor or very poor condition (FAO and ITPS 2015). Deforestation,
tillage, inappropriate cultivation practices and over grazing are among the major
causes of soil erosion. The FAO led Global Soil Partnership has reported that
75 billion tonnes (Pg) of soil are eroded annually from arable lands worldwide,
which equates to an estimated financial loss of US$400 billion per year (GSP
2017). A recent study by the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative (ELD)
calculated that global soil degradation costs us between US$6.3 and US$10.6
trillion (£4.4 to £7 trillion) per year. The ELD study also estimated that US$480
billion (£317 billion) could be generated by enhancing carbon stocks in soils, and
that by adopting more sustainable farming practices increased crop production
worth an US$1.4 trillion (£900 million) could be achieved (ELD 2015).
Soil erosion is common in all areas of the world, but developing countries
suffer more because of the inability of their farming populations to replace
lost soils and nutrients (Mohamed 2015). Soil erosion impacts food security in
developing countries and these countries are further confounded by harsh climate
(e.g., frequent drought or flooding) and poor socio economic and political stability
(Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2010). Therefore, it is important to conserve the soil to
sustain life on earth and to ensure the food security in the world. There are three
main principles to control the soil erosion: use land according to its capability,
protect the soil surface with some form of cover and control runoff before
it develops into an erosive force. There are two different ways to control soil
erosion depending on the topography of the land: (1) Agronomic Measures and
(2) Mechanical/Engineering Measures. Agronomic measures are considered the
first line of defense against the soil erosion. These measures are more economical,
effective and long lasting. On the other hand, mechanical or engineering measures
are used to control the soil erosion immediately. They are considered a second
line of defense. Generally, engineering measures are employed only when the
agronomic measures are not sufficient to control the soil erosion. Engineering
measures are generally expensive as they involve the construction of different
types of structures to control the soil erosion. The appropriateness of a particular
adaptation strategy is highly dependent on time and place as they are influenced
by the cultural and indigenous observations and practices (Obert et al. 2016).
Pasture lands
These comprise areas of improved pasture where grasses and legumes suited
to the local soil and climatic conditions are planted and managed by regular
applications of fertilizers and organic manures, as well as areas of rangeland
composed of native grasses and shrubs. Since grass provides a dense cover, close
to the soil surface, it is a good protector of the land against erosion. Erosion
problems arise only when this cover is removed through overgrazing although
they can be exacerbated by drought and excessive burning. Agronomic measures
are usually adopted to control erosion in pasture lands. Controlled grazing and
growing of erosion resistant grasses and shrubs can be done to combat erosion.
Erosion resistant grasses are characterized by vigorous growth, tolerance to
drought and poor soils, palatability to livestock and resistance to the physical
effect of trampling. Traditional growing systems are often well adapted to the
local conditions of climate, soils and vegetation, making use of rotational grazing
on a nomadic basin. All traditional grazing systems are under pressure because
of an increase in human and livestock population. Usually pasture lands belong
to the community, whereas the livestock belongs to individuals hence leading to
conflicts.
80 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Forest lands
Forest lands usually have a multi-tier canopy which protects the land from erosion.
The addition of sufficient quantities of organic matter leads to an improvement
in the physical condition of soil such as infiltration, aggregation, water holding
capacity, etc. Low runoff rates and the protective role of the litter layers on the
surface of the soil produce low erosion rates in forest lands. Erosion is abruptly
increased when forests are cleared for agriculture. In forest conditions destruction
of trees and shrubs by grazing, cutting of trees for firewood and logging operations
cause erosion, and the growing of quick-growing tree species for firewood can be
a strategy to reduce the cropping of forest trees.
Logging operations if done using mechanical methods cause more erosion
than manual clearings. Forest removal causes the loss of shear strength gradually;
following the decay of root systems, which induces a risk of landslides.
Rough lands
Rough lands are usually located in hilly and mountainous terrain with shallow
stony soils and steep slopes or in sand dunes. These are too marginal that they
cannot be used for agriculture or forest land use and usually used for recreational
purposes. In these lands, the overuse of paths and tracks results in a reduction in
overall vegetative cover, compaction of soil and changes in soil moisture. Erosion
control strategies in these areas include exclusion of people, use erosion-resistant
plant species, improving drainage and soil strength. The plant species selected for
re-vegetation of rough lands should ideally be local.
Contour cultivation
In contour cultivation, all farming operations such as ploughing, sowing, tillage,
etc., are done along the contour or against the natural slope of the field. This
is a very simple technique to conserve the soil and water in the field. Contour
cultivation not only conserves the rain water within the field only but it also retards
the flow of the runoff water. This results in less soil erosion. Contour ploughing
builds a barrier against rainwater runoff which is collected in the furrows and
results in higher infiltration. Contour ploughing is especially important at the
beginning of the rainy season when biological conservation effects are poor. This
method is effective on moderate slopes. Tillage and planting operations follow
the contour line to promote positive row drainage and reduce ponding. Also,
by increasing the soil surface roughness, contour ridging results in rainwater
ponding in the furrow area, which reduces runoff velocity, increases infiltration,
and reduces soil erosion (Liu et al. 2014). In addition, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and
phosphorus) in runoff are retained better in contour ridge tillage compared with
up and downslope tillage (Ma et al. 2010, Liu et al. 2014). In dry areas, contour
farming increases crop yield by increasing infiltration and retaining water. The
effectiveness of contour ploughing decreases with an increase in slope gradient
and length, rainfall intensity and erodibility of the soil. The effectiveness of
contour farming in controlling soil erosion varies with the soil texture, land slope
and crop cover.
Strip cropping
Strip cropping is the system of growing alternate strips of erosion permitting
crops (row crops such as maize, jowar, bajra, cotton, etc.), and erosion resisting
crops (close growing crops such as green gram, black gram, moth, groundnut,
etc.), in the same field. This practice reduces the velocity of runoff and checks the
eroded soil from being washed away. Strip cropping is essential for controlling
the run-off erosion and thereby maintaining the fertility of the soil and is now
universally recognized. The effectiveness of the strip cropping in controlling
runoff and soil erosion is due to following reasons: it reduces the surface runoff
and increases the infiltration in to the soil. The reduction in surface runoff is due to
the obstruction to the flow caused by the crops and thus allowing the runoff more
82 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
time to infiltrate into the soil. In addition to controlling the runoff and soil erosion,
it is also effective in enhancing the soil fertility.
Strip cropping is practiced in four different ways: (1) Field strip cropping,
(2) Contour strip cropping, (3) Buffer strip cropping, and (4) Wind strip cropping.
length of the slope and checks the velocity of runoff water, filters out the soil
being carried off, and increases the infiltration of rain water by the soil. Strip
cropping provides for a larger number of small fields and encourages the use
of a proper crop rotation system and helps maintain a balance of soil-building
and harvested crops. It can be practiced at practically no expense and the cost of
maintenance is very low.
Mulching
Mulching is the practice of covering the soil surface with the plant residues or
other suitable material for example plastics. Mulching modifies the micro-climate
around the crop by affecting the soil moisture and soil temperature. It also reduces
the weed growth and enhances nutrient availability. In addition, mulching has
been found to be very effective in controlling soil erosion as it affects the erosion
process at different stages. Firstly, it dissipates the kinetic energy of the falling
drops and prevents the direct contact of the erosive raindrops on the soil surface
thereby decreasing splash erosion. Secondly, it obstructs the flow of the runoff
water preventing it from attaining the erosive velocity thereby preventing the
sheet or inter-rill erosion. It also improves the infiltration capacity of the soil.
Crop residues, straw materials, grasses, sawdusts, compost, gravel, crushed stone,
plastics etc. are used as mulching materials.
Vashisht et al. 2013 evaluated effect of three different mulches (sugarcane
trash, twigs and leaves of basooti and subabul) on soil erosion and the grain
yield of maize, and the carryover residual soil moisture for the sowing of rain fed
wheat. It was observed that lower runoff and soil loss was recorded in the mulched
plots than the un-mulched (control) plots. Also, more water was conserved in
the profiles with mulched treatments as compared to the control; during the crop
growth and at the harvest of maize.
Organic Mulches: Organic mulches are derived from plants. They include crop
residues, straw materials, grasses, saw dusts, compost, leaves, twigs, etc. They
decompose relatively quickly, sometimes in one season, enriching the soil with
organic matter and nutrients.
Inorganic Mulches: Inorganic mulches include stone mulch, soil mulch, gravel
and pebbles. Stone mulching is a practice of spreading stones on the soil surface
to conserve the soil moisture. It also reduces wind erosion. This type of mulching
is mostly practiced in arid regions. Soil mulch involves establishing a thick layer
of loose and dry soil on the soil surface. It reduces the capillary loss of water from
84 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
the lower layers as it breaks the contact with the moist soil layer, increases the
non-capillary pore spaces and resistance to wetting.
Tillage practices
Tillage is the mechanical manipulation of soil with tools and implements for
obtaining conditions ideal for seed germination, seedling establishment and
growth of crops. The purpose of tillage practices is to prepare a good seed bed
which helps the germination of seeds and creates conditions in the soil suited for
the better growth of crops. It is an important operation which controls the weed
growth, maintains the infiltration capacity and soil aeration.
Types of tillage
Conventional tillage
Conventional tillage involves primary tillage to break open and turn the soil
followed by the secondary tillage to obtain seed beds for sowing or planting. In
conventional tillage, continuous use of heavy ploughs creates a hard pan in the
subsoil, results in poor infiltration. It makes the soil more susceptible to run-off
and erosion. It is capital intensive and increases soil degradation. To avoid these
ill effects, modern concepts on tillage are being followed.
Conservation tillage
Conservation tillage is the practice of ploughing the fields with a lesser number of
passes over the entire land or ploughing only in the required space of the land. It is
a system of tillage in which organic residues are not inverted into the soil such that
they remain on surface as protective cover against erosion and the evaporation
losses of soil moisture. The residue left on the soil surface interferes with seed bed
preparation and sowing operations. The advantages of conservation tillage are:
(a) Energy conservation through reduced tillage operations (b) Improve the soil’s
physical properties (c) Reduce the runoff water from fields.
Different types of conservation tillage are minimum tillage, no tillage and
mulch tillage
No-tillage/Zero tillage: No tillage involves growing the crop in the residues of the
preceding crop without any soil manipulation or the seed bed preparation. The soil
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 85
surface in no-tillage is left undisturbed. This type of tillage is applicable for coarse
textured soils having good internal drainage, favorable initial soil structure and an
adequate quantity of crop residue as mulch. The no-tillage system considerably
reduces the soil erosion.
Mulch tillage/Stubble tillage: Mulch tillage is the practice wherein the soil is
protected from erosion either by growing the new crop or by leaving the crop
residue on the fields during the fallow periods. The soil is made cloddy with
the help of crop stubbles/residues. It has been reported that the mulch tillage is
effective in controlling the soil erosion and conserving the soil moisture.
Vegetative barriers
Vegetative barriers are alternative biological measures, which have been shown to
effectively conserve soil and water by moderating the surface runoff and allowing
the increased infiltration time. Vegetative barriers are narrow strips (1–3 feet wide)
of stiff, erect densely growing plants, usually grasses, planted across the slope
perpendicular to the dominant slope. Vegetative barriers retard and reduce the
surface runoff, control soil erosion and trap sediments at the bottom of the fields.
Vegetative barriers inhibit the flow of water because of their dense concentration
of thick stems, thus slowing and ponding water and causing sediments to deposit
back in them (Ramajayam et al. 2007). Over time these deposits can develop into
benched terraces. These barriers function to diffuse and spread the water runoff
so that it slowly flows through them without erosion. Dass et al. (2011) studied
the effect of different vegetative barriers planted in combination with a trench-
cum-bund, on runoff, soil loss, nutrient loss, soil fertility, moisture retention and
crop yield in the rain fed uplands in the Kokriguda watershed in southern Orissa.
Singh et al. (2017) evaluated the effect of five vegetative barriers namely Vetivar
grass (Vetiveria zizanoides), Bhabbar grass (Eulaliopsus binata), Kanna grass
(Sachharum munja), Subabul (Leucaena leucocephala) and Napier bajra hybrid
(Pennisetum purpureum X typhoides) on runoff, soil loss and crop parameters at
the research farm of Regional Research Station, Ballowal Saunkhri, Punjab. India.
Bunding
Bunds are embankment like structures constructed across the slope. Bunds break
the long slope length into smaller ones preventing the runoff from attaining the
erosive or threshold velocity. Bunds obstruct the flow of runoff and thus control
the soil erosion. Generally, no crops are grown on the bunds except for some
grasses. Bunding is usually practiced for the lands where the slopes vary from
2–10 percent. Bunding helps in increasing the soil moisture thereby increasing the
crop yields. Raes et al. (2006) found that bunding results in a higher yield of low
land rice in Tanzania. Gebreegziabher et al. (2009) provides evidence of a positive
effect of contour bunds on water utilization and soil conservation. Kato et al. 2011
also reported that contour bunds have the potential to increase the crop yields in
highlands. According to a study conducted by Adimassu et al. (2012), soil bunds
brought about a significant reduction in runoff and soil loss. Plots with soil bunds
reduced the average annual runoff by 28 per cent and the average annual soil loss
by 47 per cent. Consequently, soil bunds reduced the losses of soil nutrients and
organic carbon.
Bunds are known as contour bunds when constructed on the contour, and
graded bunds when some grade (slope) is given to them. The type of bund depends
on rainfall, soil type, topography and purpose of making the bund. Contour
bunds are constructed in low rainfall areas where the annual rainfall is less than
600 mm and soils are relatively permeable. Graded bunds are constructed in high
rainfall areas (more than 600 mm) and soils are less permeable. Graded bunds are
designed to dispose of the excess runoff safely without causing the soil erosion.
Graded bunds can have a uniform or variable grade. Bunding is not practiced in
clay or deep black soils because these soils develop cracks in hot weather season.
The different types of bunds are defined below:
Side bunds
Side bunds are constructed at the extreme ends of the contour bund. They are
constructed along the slope.
Supplemental bunds
Supplemental bunds are constructed between the two contour bunds in order to
minimize the horizontal spacing between the contour bunds. They are constructed
against the slope.
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 87
Lateral bunds
Lateral bunds are constructed along the slope in between the two side bunds in
order to protect the bunds against breaching due to the accumulation of runoff.
Shoulder bunds
The shoulder bund is constructed at the outer edge of the outward sloping terraces
in order to retain the runoff water within the terrace. It also provides stability to
the terrace.
Marginal bunds
Marginal bunds are constructed along the margin of the property/entity such as a
watershed, field, river, etc., to demarcate their boundary.
where VI is vertical interval (m), X is rainfall factor and Y is the infiltration rate
and crop cover factor, S is land slope (percent). The values of X and Y are given
in Table 1 and 2.
The horizontal spacing of bunds is based on the slope of the land. The
following can be used to calculate the horizontal spacing:
VI
HI
= × 100
S
where HI is horizontal interval (m), S is land slope (percent)
Re ´ VI
h=
50
where h is depth of ponding water behind the bund
Re is rainfall excess (cm) for 10 years recurrence interval
VI is vertical interval (m)
The total height of the bund (H) is given as:
H = Depth of ponding water (h) + Depth of water over outlet
+ Freeboard as 25% of h
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 89
3. Height of bund
The height of the bund is calculated on the basis of the amount of water to be
intercepted by the bund. The height of bund should be such that the runoff does
not flow over the bund. The height of bund is given as:
3 × HI × S
H=
50
where H is height of bund, HI is horizontal interval between the bunds and S is
slope (percent).
A freeboard of 25% is added to calculate the total height of bund.
6. Earthwork
The total earthwork involved in bunding is due to the main bunds, side bunds and
lateral bunds. The earthwork is simply computed using the formula for volume.
Earthwork = Cross sectional area of bund × Length of bund
If A is the cross-sectional area of bund and L is the length of bund, then
Earthwork in the main bund (Em) is given as:
Em = A × L
Using the relation for length of the bund in above equation, we get:
s
Em = A × 100
VI
The earthwork of side bunds and lateral bunds is taken as 30 percent of
earthwork of the main bund. Therefore, the total earthwork involved in bunding
is given as
s
Et = 1.3 × A × 100
VI
The cross-sectional area of bund is given as:
Terracing
Terracing is another engineering or mechanical measure used for controlling
soil erosion in highly sloping lands. Terraces are considered as one of the most
evident anthropogenic imprints on the landscape, covering a considerable part of
terrestrial landscapes (Tarolli et al. 2014). It is used extensively across diverse
landscapes such as in areas where severe water erosion, mass movement and
landslides from steep slopes threaten the security of land productivity, the local
environment and human infrastructure (Lasanta et al. 2001). Terraced slopes
even became the ideal sites for early human settlement and agricultural activities
(Stanchi et al. 2012), with ancient agricultural terraces serving as pronounced
evidences of ancient human history, diverse cultures and civilizations (Pietsch
and Mabit 2012, Calderon et al. 2015). Terracing reduces both the length of the
slope and the degree of slope. It is usually practiced in those areas where the land
slope is more than 10%, rainfall is high and soils are highly erodible. It is not
practiced in areas having relatively flat topography and shallow soils. Terracing
has been used to conserve water, reduce erosion, expand high-quality croplands
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 91
and restore degraded habitats (Bruins 2012). More recently, this practice has been
found to improve other ecosystem services (ESs), such as carbon sequestration,
food security as well as recreation (Ore and Bruins 2012, Garcia-Franco et al.
2014).
Terraces are classified as bench terraces and broad-based terraces. Bench
terraces are step like construction formed across the land slope to intercept the
runoff and minimize the soil erosion. Bench terraces break the original slope of
the land and convert it into the step like fields and hence make the hilly lands
suitable for cultivation. On the other hand, broad based terraces are series of broad
channels and embankments constructed along the contour on the gentle slopes.
These terraces are built with either a uniform or a variable but non erosive grade
leading to safe disposal of the runoff. They are also known as channel terraces.
Level bench terraces: These bench terraces are constructed in areas receiving
medium rainfall and have highly permeable and deep soils. The runoff generated
in these terraces is expected to get absorbed by the soils and no overflow is
expected in these terraces. The level bench terraces are suitable in areas where
high water requiring crops, like paddy, are cultivated. Therefore, these terraces
are also known as paddy terraces or table top terraces. The slope of level bench
terraces is as mild as 1 percent so as to have a proper impounding of water.
Bench terraces sloping inward: These bench terraces are constructed in areas
which receive heavy rainfall and have less permeable soils. The runoff generated
in these terraces is quite large, therefore a drainage channel is provided for the
safe disposal of runoff towards the inner side of the terrace. Crops which are
susceptible to the water logging, like potato, are cultivated on these terraces.
These terraces are also known as hill type bench terraces.
Bench terraces sloping outward: These bench terraces are constructed in areas
which receive medium rainfall and have permeable soils with medium depth. In
order to retain the runoff within the terrace, the shoulder bund is provided on the
outer end of the terrace. The shoulder bund also imparts stability to the terrace.
These terraces are also known as orchard type bench terraces.
92 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
2. Terrace spacing
The terrace spacing is expressed in terms of the vertical interval between the
two terraces. It depends on the soil type and slope of the area. Many empirical
relationships are available to compute the vertical interval between the terraces.
S
VI = 0.3 + 2
2
Where VI is vertical interval (m) and S is the land slope (percent)
There are three different cases to calculate the vertical interval:
a. When the terrace cut is vertical
WS
D or VI =
100
b. When the batter slope is 1:1
D/2 S
=
D/2 + W/2 100
Solving this, we get
WS
D=
100 – S
D/2 S
=
D/4 + W/2 100
Solving this, we get
2WS
D=
200 – S
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 93
3. Terrace width
The width of terrace depends on the terrace spacing and slope of the area.
The width of terrace is decided on the basis of the use it is put to after the
construction. The width should be such that it allows the farm operations without
any hinderance. Once the width of terrace is decided, vertical interval or terrace
spacing is calculated using the above equations.
4. Terrace gradient
Terrace gradient is important for the proper designing of the terraces in high
rainfall areas. Proper gradients are required to safely dispose of the runoff
generated on the terrace. The gradient should be such that it neither causes erosion
nor water logging on the terrace. It is decided based on the maximum rainfall that
has occurred in the area and peak discharge.
6. Earthwork
The earthwork for the bench terraces is computed using the following formula:
100WS
E=
8
where, W is the width of terrace (m)
S is the slope (%)
In addition to above described terraces, there are some other types of terraces,
which are described below:
Soil Stabilizers/Additives/Conditioners
Increasing aggregate stability at the soil surface and preventing clay dispersion is
known to control seal formation, increase the infiltration rate, and reduce runoff
in cultivated soils. Stable aggregates at the soil surface are less susceptible to
detachment by raindrop impact and to transportation by runoff water. Aggregate
stability can be improved by applying soil amendments or soil stabilizers to the
soil. These stabilizers include organic by-products, polyvalent salts and various
synthetic polymers. High cost of soil stabilizers limits their use for agricultural
purposes but can be effectively used at special sites such as at sand dunes, road
cuttings, embankments and stream banks, to provide temporary stability prior to
the establishment of a plant cover. Out of various soil amendments/stabilizers,
gypsum and synthetic organic polymers are commonly used.
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 95
Gypsum
Gypsum is a relatively common mineral that is widely available in agricultural
areas. It is mainly used as amendment for sodic soil reclamation because of its low
cost, availability and ease of handling. Sodic soils are particularly susceptible to
tunnel erosion. Their high Na content results in the dispersion of clay minerals and
causes structural deterioration. The Ca caution present in gypsum replaces the Na+
ion adsorbed on clay particles. But a good drainage system is required to wash out
the Na from the soil. Because of low solubility of gypsum, phosphogypsum (PG)
is also used because it is more rapidly soluble than mined gypsum. PG addition at
the rate of 5 Mg ha–1 resulted in a decrease in runoff of 0.3–2.5 times and roughly
decreased soil loss by 50% compared with the control. Application of gypsum
enhances flocculation and result deposition of suspended clay size particles in
the runoff water. It increases surface aggregate stability, thus fewer particles are
detached by raindrops or overland flow.
Polymers
These soil conditioners are of two types, hydrophobic which decrease infiltration
and increase runoff and hydrophilic which increase infiltration and decrease
runoff. Synthetic organic polymers are more effective for a longer period as
compared to natural polymers. Polyacrylamide (PAM) and polysaccharide
(PSD) are two synthetic organic polymers that have recently been extensively
investigated with respect to their efficacy as soil conditioners. The results of
various field experiments demonstrate that spreading a small amount of PAM
at the soil surface has a long-term effect on stabilizing the aggregates at the soil
surface and reducing runoff, which lasts over the entire rain/irrigation season. A
small amount of polymers (10–20 kg ha–1) sprayed directly onto the soil surface
or added to the applied water leads to stabilization and cementation of aggregates
at the soil surface and hence increases their resistance to seal formation and soil
erosion in the hill slopes and adjusting the eroded soil of the adjoining lands at the
appropriate places.
References
Adimassu, Z., K. Mekonnen, C. Yirga and A. Kessler. 2012. Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil
and nutrient losses and crop yield in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev.
25: 554–564. doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2182.
Blanco-Canqui, H. and R. Lal. 2010. Soil erosion and food security. pp. 493–512. In: Blanco-Canqui,
H. and R. Lal (Eds.). Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. Springer, Dordrecht.
Bochet, E., J.L. Rubio and J. Poesen. 1998. Relative efficiency of three representative matorral
species in reducing water erosion at the microscale in a semi-arid climate. Geomorphology
23: 139–150.
Bruins, H.J. 2012. Ancient desert agriculture in the Negev and climate-zone boundary changes during
average, wet and drought years. J. Arid Environ. 86: 28–42.
96 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Calderon, M.M., N.C. Bantayan, J.T. Dizon, A.J.U. Sajise, A.L. Codilan and M.S. Canceran. 2015.
Community-based resource assessment and management planning for the rice terraces of
Hungduan, Ifugao, Philippines. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 18: 47–53.
Dass, A., S. Sudhishri, N.K. Lenka and U.S. Patnaik. 2011. Runoff capture through vegetative barriers
and planting methodologies to reduce erosion, and improve soil moisture, fertility and crop
productivity in southern Orissa, India. Nutri. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 89: 45–57.
de Baets, S., J. Poesen, A. Knape, G.G. Barbera and J.A. Navarro. 2007. Root characteristics of
representative Mediterranean plant species and their erosion-reducing potential during
concentrated runoff. Plant Soil 294: 169–183.
Dimelu, M.U., S.E. Ogbonna and I.A. Enwelu. 2013. Soil Conservation practices among arable
farmers in Enugu-North Agricultural Zone, Nigeria: Implication for climate change. J. Agric.
Ext. 17: 184–196.
Durán, Z.V.H., M.J.R. Francia, P.C.R. Rodríguez, R.A. Martínez and R.B. Cárceles. 2006. Soil erosion
and runoff prevention by plant covers in a mountainous area (SE Spain): implications for
sustainable agriculture. Environmentalist 26: 309–319.
Edward, L.S. and J.D Simon. 2003. Soil erosion and conservation pp. 23–30. In: Nieder, R. and
D. Benbi. Handbook of Processes and Modelling in the Soil-Plant System. Ist Edition. CRC
Press. Boca Raton, USA.
ELD. 2015. The value of land: Prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainable land
management. The Economics of Land Degradation. Available from www.eld-initiative.org.
FAO and ITPS. 2015. The Status of the World’s Soil Resources (Main Report). Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Garcia-Franco, N., M. Wiesmeier, M. Goberna, M. Martinez-Mena and J. Albaladejo. 2014. Carbon
dynamics after afforestation of semiarid shrublands: implications of site preparation
techniques. For. Ecol. Manag. 319: 107–115.
Gebreegziabher, T., J. Nyssen, B. Govaerts, F. Getnet, M. Behailu, M. Haile and J. Deckers. 2009.
Contour furrows for in situ soil and water conservation, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil
Tillage Res. 103: 257–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2008.05.021.
GSP. 2017. Global Soil Partnership Endorses Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management http://www.
fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/416516/.
Kato, E., C. Ringler, M. Yesuf and E. Bryan. 2011. Soil and water conservation technologies: a buffer
against production risk in the face of climate change? Insights from the Nile basin in Ethiopia.
Agric. Econ. 42: 593–604.
Kell, W.V. and G.F. Brown. 1937. Strip cropping for soil conservation. Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture. USA.
Lasanta, T., J. Arnaez, M. Oserin and L.M. Ortigosa. 2001. Marginal lands and erosion in terraced
fields in the Mediterranean mountains: a case study in the Camero Viejo (Northwestern
Iberian System, Spain). Mt. Res. Dev. 21: 69–76.
Liu, Q.J., H.Y. Zhang, J. An and Y.Z. Wu. 2014. Soil erosion processes on row sideslopes within
contour ridging systems. Catena 115: 11–18.
Ma, Q., X. Yu, G. Lu and Q. Liu. 2010. Comparative study on dissolved N and P loss and eutrophication
risk in runoff water in contour and down-slope. J. Food Agric. Environ. 8: 1042–1048.
Martínez, R.A., Z.V.H. Durán and F.R. Francia. 2006. Soil erosion and runoff response to plant cover
strips on semiarid slopes (SE Spain), Land Degrad. Dev. 17: 1–11.
Mohamed, H.H. 2015. Cause and effect of soil erosion in Boqol-Jire Hargeisa, Somaliland. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Hargeisa, Somalia.
Obert, J., L. Paramu, C. Mafongoya, M. Chipo and M. Owen. 2016. Seasonal Climate prediction and
adaptation using indigenous knowledge systems in agriculture systems in Southern Africa: A
Review. J. Agril. Sci. 2: 23–27.
Oldeman, L.R. 1992. Global extent of soil degradation. ISRIC Bi-Annual Report. Wageningen, The
Netherlands. pp. 19–36.
Ore, G. and H.J. Bruins. 2012. Design features of ancient agricultural terrace walls in the Negev
desert: human-made geodiversity. Land Degrad. Dev. 23: 409–418.
Measures to Control Soil Erosion 97
Pietsch, D. and L. Mabit. 2012. Terrace soils in the Yemen Highlands: Using physical, chemical and
radiometric data to assess their suitability for agriculture and their vulnerability to degradation.
Geoderma 185-186: 48–60.
Puigdefabregas, J. 2005. The role of vegetation patterns in structuring runoff and sediment fluxes in
drylands. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 30: 133–147.
Raes, D., E.M. Kafiriti, J. Wellens, J. Deckers, A. Maertens, S. Mugogo, S. Dondeyne and
K. Descheemaeker. 2006. Can soil bunds increase the production of rain-fed lowland rice in
south eastern Tanzania? Agric. Water Manage. 89: 229–235.
Ramajayam, D., P.K. Mishra, S.K. Nalatwadmath, B. Mondal, R.N. Adhikari and B.K.N. Murthy.
2007. Evaluation of different grass species for growth performance and soil conservation in
Vertisols of Karnataka. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 35: 54–57.
Rey, F. 2003. Influence of vegetation distribution on sediment yield in forested marly gullies. Catena
50: 549–562.
Roose, E. 1992. Contraintes et espoirs de development d’ine agriculture durable en montages
tropicales. Bull. Reseau. Erosion. 12: 57–70.
Singh, M.J., A. Yousuf, S.C. Sharma, S.S. Bawa, A. Khokhar, V. Sharma, V. Kumar, S. Singh and
S. Singh. 2017. Evaluation of vegetative barriers for runoff, soil loss and crop productivity in
Kandi region of Punjab. J. Soil Water Conserv. 16: 325–332.
Singh, P.K. 2000. Watershed Management (Design and Practices). Agarwal Printers Private Limited,
Udaipur, Rajasthan. India.
Stanchi, S., M. Freppaz, A. Agnelli, T. Reinsch and E. Zanini. 2012. Properties, best manage-ment
practices and conservation of terraced soils in Southern Europe (from Mediter-ranean areas to
the Alps): a review. Quat. Int. 265: 90–100.
Suresh, R. 2016. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, Standard Publishers Distributors, New
Delhi, India.
Tarolli, P., F. Preti and N. Romano. 2014. Terraced landscapes: from an old best practice to a potential
hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene 6: 10–25.
UNCCD. 2015. Desertification, Land Degradation & Drought (DLDD): some global facts and figures.
United Nations Conventions to Combat Desertification. Available from: http://www.unccd.
int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD%20Facts.pdf.
Vashisht, B.B., B.S. Sidhu, S. Singh and N. Bilwalkar. 2013. Effect of different mulches on soil
erosion and carry-over of residual soil moisture for sowing of crop in maize-wheat cropping
sequence in rainfed Shivaliks of Punjab. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 41: 136–140.
Wainwright, J., A.J. Parsons and W.H. Schlesinger. 2002 Hydrology–vegetation interactions in areas
of discontinuous flow on a semi-arid bajada, Southern New Mexico. J. Arid Environ. 51:
319–338.
Chapter 6
Gully Erosion and its Control
Mahesh Chand Singh
Introduction
The advanced stage of rill or channel erosion is termed as gully erosion, which
cannot be smoothened by ordinary tillage practices. The gully development
process follows sheet and rill erosions, thereby resulting in the removal of soil
along drainage lines by surface runoff water. In addition to the natural depressions
on the land surface responsible for runoff accumulation, the unchecked rills
may also be encouraging the process of gully erosion. Once started, gullies will
continue to move by headword erosion or by the slumping of the side walls unless
steps are taken to stabilize the disturbance (Suresh 2018). With the advancement
in gully development through accelerated water erosion, sediment transport
gets significantly enhanced. The gullies formed are mainly either U-shaped or
V-shaped channels of at least 30 cm wide or 30 cm deep.
The rate of gully erosion is predominantly dependent on the runoff-producing
features such as drainage area, soil characteristics, shape, size and alignment of
gully, and the slope of the watershed channel. Moreover, the rate and the extent of
gully development is directly associated with the volume and velocity of runoff
water. The higher volume of runoff water in the absence of natural or perennial
vegetation inclines to detach and transport a relatively larger volume of soil
mass. Globally, the soil and water loss due to gully erosion has become one of
the foremost factors limiting local economic development. In other terms, gully
erosion has been considered as an important environmental hazard throughout the
world which affects several soil and land functions (Ionita et al. 2015). The factors
responsible for increasing the rate of soil erosion also include land topography
including slope, vegetative cover of soil surface, characteristics of rainfall and the
resistance offered by top soil and underlying hard layer.
At present, gully erosion has emerged out to be a major challenge in the
world to impart a negative impact on agricultural production, land value,
infrastructures, landscapes, arable farmlands and vegetation, and soil fertility or
productivity as well as human and animal lives (Poesen 2011, Abdulfatai et al.
2014). Gully erosion results in a significant loss of soil, roads and bridges and
land productivity. It also reduces water quality through an increased sediment load
in the streams. The soil type also influences the gully erosion to a great extent.
According to Poesen et al. (2003), gully-based valley sediment yield contributes
10 to 94% of the total watershed sediment yield. A well-developed soil (e.g.,
oxisol) is more homogeneous, cohesive and well formed with lateritic behaviour,
thereby increasing its resistance to erosion. However, the granite-gneiss saprolite
structure is less cohesive having reduced resistance to erosion due to the presence
of weathered minerals and other elements such as kaolinite (de Freitas Sampaio
et al. 2016).
Classification of a Gully
A gully can be classified as follows:
• Based on gully depth and drainage area
• Based on depth, width and slope of the gully
• Based on shape of gully cross-section
• Based on state of the gully
• Based on continuity of gully
Medium Gully
A gully having depth and drainage area in the range of 1–5 m and 2–20 ha
respectively, is termed as a medium gully. A medium gully cannot be crossed
easily by farm implements and can be stabilized through tillage operations or
terracing. The sides of the gully can be stabilized through vegetation.
Large gully
A gully having a depth more than 5 m and drainage more than 20 ha is termed as
a large gully. A large gully cannot be reclaimed and tree plantation can be adopted
as an effective control measure.
U-Shaped gullies
• These are formed where both the surface and sub-surface soil have the same
resistance against erosion. These types of gullies are found in alluvial plains.
• Features of U-shaped gullies:
○ They have a U-shaped cross-section
○ They have lower flow velocity compared to V-shaped gullies
○ They carry a massive discharge which is contributed from a large catchment
area
○ The longitudinal slope of the gully bottom and slope of the land through
which the gully passes normally remain parallel
○ Grow wider and longer, but not deeper
○ Continue to grow headword
○ Active erosion takes place from the side banks and the gully head due to
undercutting at the base of the vertical cut
○ They have a large lateral spacing
V-Shaped gullies
• This is the most common form of gully. These are formed where the sub-
surface soil has more resistance against erosion than surface soils. Their
shape is dependent upon the soil features, age of the gully, kinds of erosion
and climate of the area under consideration.
• Features of V-shaped gullies:
○ They are V-shaped in cross-section
○ Can carry a smaller discharge through them but have a higher velocity
○ Frequently developed from rill erosion when water from several rills
contributes into a single rill
○ They have a smaller lateral spacing between the gullies
○ Largely appear at a steep slope
○ The longitudinal gradient of the channel is greater than the land slope
○ Carry runoff from a relatively small catchment area
○ V-shaped gullies create difficulty in contour cultivation
Active gullies
The gullies found in plain areas are active gullies and their dimensions are
enlarged with the passage of time. The enlargement of gully size is dependent on
the soil features, land use and runoff volume passing through it.
Inactive gullies
They are found in rocky areas and their dimensions do not change considerably
with the passage of time due to higher resistance by rocks to erosion through
runoff water.
Continuous gully
A continuous gully has a main gully channel and is comprised of several mature or
immature branch gullies and many branch gullies. A gully system (gully network)
is comprised of several continuous gullies.
Discontinuous gully
A discontinuous gully is also termed as an independent gully and can develop
on hillsides after land sliding. Initially, a discontinuous gully does not have a
distinct junction with the stream channel or main gully and the water spreads over
a closely flat area. However, with passage of time, it reaches the stream or main
gully channel.
Man-made factors
• Improper land use, e.g., improper design, construction and maintenance of
waterways in cropped areas
• Diversion of a drainage line to an area of high risk to erosion
• Forest and grass fires
• Livestock and vehicle trails
• Mining
• Destructive logging
• Overgrazing, e.g., grazing on soils susceptible to gully erosion
• Road construction
Temporary structures
The temporary structures viz. woven wire dam, brushwood dam and loose rock
dams are practiced in G-1 type gullies (Table 2), in order to keep the gullies stable
and aid the establishment of vegetative cover. They are simple in construction
and maintenance, and can be made from easily available local materials. These
structures can have a life span of about 3 to 8 years.
Permanent structures
Straight drop spillway
It is one of the highly suitable permanent gully control structures mainly used at
the gully bed to create a control point. Many such drop structures are built across
Gully Erosion and its Control 107
the gully width at fixed intervals throughout the length to develop a continuous
break to the water flow for the deposition of sediments and the filling of the gully
section. Drop structures may also be used at the gully head for a risk free flow
and controlling of the gully head. A free board of 15–30 cm is required. The
components of a drop structure include head wall, head wall extension, side walls,
wing walls, apron, longitudinal sills, end sill and cut-off walls. This structure is
recommended in the G-2 type of gullies where the depth is limited to 3 m. A drop
structure has the following three major purposes.
• To provide a transition between a waterway (broad or flat) and a ditch or
gully section
• To raise the flow line of the waterway in order to provide drainage in the case
of wet waterways
• To form a sufficient soil depth for vegetative growth, where the gully bottom
is found to be at risk
Chute spillway
It is constructed on a steep slope with a suitable inlet and outlet used at the
locations where the head drop varies from 5 to 6 m. It is usually built to handle full
flow at the gully head. The chute spillway handles the flow with a super critical
velocity. This structure is recommended for G-3 type gullies where the depth is
more than 3 m.
The chute spillways are suitable for the following conditions:
• It can be used at the sites where the conditions are not suitable for constructing
the check dams
• It can be used suitably in combination with different structures such as check
dams and other detention-type structures
• For high over falls where a full flow structure is required
Advantages Limitations
Drop inlet spillway
1 One of the most efficient structures for the More susceptibility to get chocked by presence
stabilisation of gully grade and prevention of debris in the water
of flood
2 Less construction materials compared to the It is not suitable for use at places where greater
straight drop spillway for the same drop earthwork is vigorous for construction
3 Lesser construction cost Spillway capacity can be reduced
Chute spillway
1 Comparatively, are easy to construct Problem of seepage in poorly drained areas
2 Very stable having lower chances of serious Risk of undermining due to rodents
structural damage compared to other types
of structures
3 Lesser chances to be clogged by debris It requires extra effort such as thorough
compared other structures in relation to their compaction of the construction site in terms of
discharge capacities time and money
Straight Drop Spillway or drop structure
1 It is easy to construct A stable grade of gully is required for
construction
2 The risk of undermining by rodents is not The construction becomes costly in gullies,
possible. where discharge < 3 m3/s and the drop or total
head > 3 m
3 The clogging of the conduit by debris is not Technically, the construction of this structure
a problem cannot be justified particularly for temporary
storage
4 Lower susceptibility to structural damage
compared to other structures
Concrete dam
If the materials for construction of masonry check dams are not sufficient,
concrete dams are recommended, suitably using the specifications given for the
construction of masonry dams. A concrete dam if damaged cannot be repaired
easily. For constructing a concrete dam, cement of good grade, reinforcement
and steel bars are needed. The buttresses are made to support the head wall,
particularly if the length of spillway is more than 3 m. For protecting the structure
from sliding, the cut-off walls should be placed at fairly greater depth both in the
gully bed and sides.
10° with the vertical for ensuring proper settling. The length of the apron should
be greater than or equal to 1.5 times the dam height measured from apron floor to
the spillway’s crest. Drains or weep holes should also be provided near the base
of the dam for drainage.
Gabion structure
It is a stone filled rectangular wire mesh box where the size of stones filled
should always be greater than the mesh openings. They are flexible, permeable
and economical and constructed where stones are easily available in abundance.
Galvanized wires are used for making boxes to ensure longer service life and
prevent from rust formation. This structure is permanent, easy to construct,
efficient and economical.
References
Abdulfatai, I.A., I.A. Okinlola, W.G. Akande, L.D. Momoh and K.O. Ibrahim. 2014. Review of gully
erosion in Nigeria: causes, impacts and possible solutions. J. Geosci. Geomatics 2: 125–129.
Angela, A. and I.C. Ezeomedo. 2018. Changing Climate and the Effect of Gully Erosion on Akpo
Community Farmers in Anambra State, Nigeria. J. Ecol. Nat. Resour. 2: 000147. doi:
10.23880/jenr-16000147.
Arabameri, A., B. Pradhan, H.R. Pourghasemi, K. Rezaei and N. Kerle. 2018. Spatial modelling
of gully erosion using GIS and R programing: A comparison among Three Data Mining
Algorithms. Appl. Sci. 8: 1369. doi:10.3390/app8081369.
Brooks, A., T. Pietsch, R. Thwaites, R. Loch, H. Pringle, S. Eccles, T. Baumgartl, J. Biala,
J. Spencer, P. Zund, T. Spedding, A. Heap, D. Burrows, R. Andrewartha, A. Freeman,
S. Lacey, W. Higham and M. Goddard. 2016. Communique: Alluvial Gully Systems Erosion
Control & Rehabilitation Workshop, Collinsville 8–10 August 2016. Report to the National
Environmental Science Programme. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns
(23pp.).
114 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Casali, J., J. Loizu, M.A. Campo, L.M. de Santisteban and J. Alvarez-Mozos. 2006. Accuracy of
methods for field assessment of rill and ephemeral gully erosion. Catena 67(2): 128–138.
Danladi, A. and H.H Ray. 2014. Socio-economic effect of gully erosion on land use in Gombe
Metropolis, Gombe State, Nigeria. J. Geogr. Reg. Plann. 7(5): 97–105.
de Freitas Sampaio, L., M.P. Pires-de Oliveira, R. Cassaro, V.G. Silvestre-Rodrigues, O.J. Pejon,
J. Barbujiani-Sígolo and V. Martins-Ferreira 2016. Gully erosion, land uses, water and soil
dynamics: a case study of Nazareno (Minas Gerais, Brazil). DYNA 83(199): 198–206. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v83n199.54843.
Ezeigwe, P.C. 2015. Evaluation of socio-economic impacts of gully erosion in Nkpor and Obosi.
Environ. Res. 7(7): 34–38.
Gomez-Gutierrez. A., S. Schnabel, F. Lavado-Contador, J.J. de Sanjose-Blasco, A.D.J. Atkinson,
M. Pulido-Fernandez, M. Sanchez-Fernandez and A. Alfonso-Torreno. 2018. Studying gully
erosion processes in rangelands of SW Spain and guiding restoration strategies using the
UAV+SfM workflow. Geophy. Res. Abst. 20, EGU2018–19157–1.
Ionita, I. 2006. Gully development in the Moldavian Plateau of Romania. Catena 68(2-3): 133–140.
Ionita, I., M.A. Fullen, W. Zgłobicki and J. Poesen. 2015. Gully erosion as a natural and human
induced hazard. Nat. Hazards 79: S1–S5. Doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1935-z.
Martınez-Casasnovas, J.A. 2003. A spatial information technology approach for the mapping and
quantification of gully erosion. Catena 50(2-4): 293–308.
Poesen, J., J. Nachtergaele, G. Verstraeten and C. Valentin. 2003. Gully erosion and environmental
change: importance and research needs. Catena 50(2-4): 91–133.
Poesen, J. 2011. Challenges in gully erosion research. Landform analysis 17: 5–9.
Suresh, R. 2018. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, 5th edition, Standard Publisher
Distributors, Delhi, India.
Vandaele, K. and J. Poesen. 1995. Spatial and temporal patterns of soil erosion rates in an agricultural
catchment, central Belgium. Catena 25(1-4): 213–226.
Wang, T., F. He, A. Zhang, L. Gu, Y. Wen, W. Jiang and H. Shao. 2014. A quantitative study of
gully erosion based on Object-Oriented Analysis Techniques: A Case Study in Beiyanzikou
Catchment of Qixia, Shandong, China. The Sci. World J. Article ID 417325, 11pages. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/417325.
Wu, Y. and H. Cheng. 2005. Monitoring of gully erosion on the Loess Plateau of China using a global
positioning system. Catena 63(2-3): 154–166.
Zgłobicki, W., B. Baran-Zgłobicka, L. Gawrysiak and M. Telecka. 2015. The impact of permanent
gullies on present-day land use and agriculture in loess areas (E. Poland). Catena 126: 28–36.
Chapter 7
Soil Erosion by Water-Model
Concepts and Application
Jürgen Schmidt1,* and Michael von Werner 2
Introduction
The extent of soil erosion is largely determined by individual, extreme heavy
rainfall events. Erosion is therefore not a continuous process, but the result of
isolated individual events which cannot be directly compared with one another
due to the large number of influencing variables varying over time. Even with
the greatest possible effort, therefore, only individual states defined by the
local conditions and the respective external circumstances can be recorded by
observation (mapping, measurement). An extrapolation of the observed behaviour
to other states or boundary conditions is usually not possible without consideration
of the underlying physical relationships. In order to be able to assess the behaviour
of erosion for conditions or boundary conditions other than those given during
the measurement (e.g., to derive risk forecasts), a model is required which can
describe the interaction of the various individual influences either statistically or
on the basis of physical laws.
The development of such models was initially carried out primarily in
the USA. This was caused by catastrophic erosion damage, which became
increasingly widespread at the beginning of this century, especially in the middle
1
Technical University Freiberg.
Email jhschmidt@web.de
2
Geognostics, Berlin.
Email michael.von.werner@geognostics.de
116 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
west of the country. The aim of developing the model was to estimate the long-
term soil loss to be expected under current crop conditions and the success of
possible countermeasures (in particular with regard to changes in cultivation and
tillage methods) on the basis of the most objective principles possible.
The first useful approach to describe water erosion in this respect was the
so-called Universal Soil Loss Equation by Wischmeier and Smith (1965). The
equation developed on the basis of extensive erosion data describes the average
annual erosion as a function of various empirically determined factors with which
the influences of climate, soil and agriculture on erosion are mapped.
Purely empirical models such as USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation), since
they are derived from erosion data, allow a forecast of soil loss, however, they
are not able to quantify the transport of the excavated material and its deposition
elsewhere. Therefore, purely empirical approaches are seldom sufficient for
predicting so-called “off-site” losses. Then again, as it is precisely these damages
that have gained in importance, newer erosion models make use of predominantly
process-oriented, physically based approaches with which the effects of erosion—
e.g., substance inputs into the water network—outside the agricultural area can
also be calculated. One of the first model systems of this kind was CREAMS
(Knisel 1980).
Within the scope of this article, only a few selected approaches can be
described from the multitude of existing models for water erosion. The selection is
limited to models that are conceptually geared to practical planning applications.
Pure research models are not considered.
Empirical Models
The most widely used empirical approach to describe water erosion is the Universal
Soil Loss Equation or USLE by Wischmeier and Smith (1965). The equation is
based on extensive data from soil erosion measurements carried out between 1930
and 1952 in the Midwest of the USA on standardized erosion measuring plots.
The USLE describes the mean annual soil loss A as the product of the
following correlatively determined factors:
A = R . K . LS . C . P (1)
n
E kin = ∑(11,89 + 8, 73 ⋅ log I i ) ⋅ N i (2)
i =1
In a further step, the product of the kinetic energy Ekin and the maximum
30-minute intensity I30 is calculated for each individual erosive rainfall:
The sum of the EI30 values of all erosion-effective single events of a year
results in the R-factor, related to a single year. Due to the high annual fluctuations,
the mean of the R-factors of as many individual years as possible should be used
to indicate the average erosivity of precipitation.
The K-factor—relative to the standard slope (plot length = 22.6 m, slope =
9%, fallow land)—indicates the average soil loss (A) per unit of factor R (K=A/R).
It is a measure of the resistance of the soil to erosion.
To estimate the K-factor Wischmeier and Smith propose the following
regression equation (cf. Schwertmann et al. 1990):
K = 2, 77 ⋅ 10 −6 ⋅ M 1,14 ⋅ (12 − OS ) + 0, 043 ⋅ ( A − 2) + 0, 0033 ⋅ (4 − D) (4)
The equation is based on measurements carried out in the USA (see above)
and takes into account the following soil properties which do not vary much over
time:
M = content (in %) of grain size class 0,002 ≤ d ≤ 1 mm (corresponds to silt +
finest sand)
OS = organic matter content (in %) (OS=4% applies forOS>4%)
118 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Due to the multitude of possible usage variants and processing methods, the
determination of the C-factors is extraordinarily complex. As a rule, they only
have regional validity due to the pronounced regional differentiation of land use.
The P-factor is used to assess the effect of erosion protection measures. The
factor values express the ratio of soil erosion with protective measures to those
without protective measures. For certain measures, such as contour tillage or strip
usage, the factor values can be taken from tables depending on the slope length
and slope inclination or the strip width. For other measures, the P-factors must be
determined experimentally.
Purely empirical models such as USLE have the disadvantage that they
cannot be transferred to other conditions without restrictions. In any case, the
factors included in the equation must first be adapted to regional climate and soil
conditions.
Other points of criticism are:
• The definition range of USLE is restricted to the area of the slope that is
directly subject to erosion. USLE therefore does not provide any information
on the deposition of the removed soil material (location, quantity and particle
size distribution) or on its inflow into the water network.
• USLE is not suitable for estimating the erosion of individual erosion events
(Foster et al. 1985). It is therefore not possible to derive statements on peak
loads or extreme events that are required for risk assessment and as a basis
for assessing protective measures.
• The equation cannot be applied to arbitrarily small, homogeneous
compartments (Dettling 1989). The influences of the relief, the covering, etc.
cannot therefore be adequately considered in the case of differentiated slope
sections.
• The effort to determine the USLE factors is disproportionately high, provided
that the rules for determining the factors are observed and the necessary local
adjustments are actually made.
view of the increasing importance of “off-site” damages, they are therefore more
suitable for assessing damages or risks associated with erosion and defining
requirements for protective measures. However, the practical use of physically
based models often fails because the required information about parameters is not
completely and reliably available or the handling of the software programs is so
complicated that a longer training period is required. Some models, such as OPUS
(Smith 1988, 1992), are designed from the beginning as pure research models, so
that a broad application in practice is not aimed for anyway.
Table 2 provides an overview of some of the physically based model systems
currently available. The majority of the models mentioned here are currently
still in the development or test phase. None of the models has been sufficiently
validated to date.
The following models will be presented in more detail below: CREAMS
(Knisel 1980), WEPP (Lane and Nearing 1989), EROSION 2D (Schmidt 1991)
and EUROSEM (Morgan et al. 1992). What these models have in common is
that the following process components are differentiated for the mathematical
description of erosion:
• the detachment of the soil particles from the overflowed surface
• the transport of the particles with the surface runoff and
• the deposition of particles.
The reference period for the calculation is always individual single events.
This considers that the discharge of solids, as already mentioned, is not a
continuous process, but is always linked to individual events characterized by
different soil and weather conditions.
The mathematical basis of almost all physically based simulation models is
the so-called continuity equation. It can be expressed in simplified form as:
δ qs
= γ ( x,t ) (7)
δx
Table 2. Overview of some currently available, physically based soil erosion models.
The equation states that the erosion (γ < 0) or deposition rate (γ > 0) always
corresponds to the change of the solid mass flow (qs ) along the flow path (x).
Figure 1 shows the soil erosion and deposition resulting from the course of the
solid mass flow to explain this relationship. As the example shows, material is
removed as long as the mass flow of solids increases and material is deposited as
soon as it decreases. The steeper the curve of the solid mass flow rises or falls, the
greater the area-related removal or deposition rate.
Another basic assumption of physically based erosion models is that the
discharge by separation cannot be greater than the transport possible at maximum
utilization of the surface-parallel flow. If the actual concentration of the particles
exceeds the maximum concentration given by the transport capacity, e.g., when
the flow velocity decreases, the excess proportion of particles suspended in the
Fig. 1. Mass rate of flow, erosion and deposition on a convex-concave slope profile (simulation:
EROSION 2D).
122 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
effluent settles again. Erosion or deposition are thus determined either by the
properties of the soil (in the form of the erosion resistance to be overcome when
the particles are detached) or by the properties of the surface-parallel flow (in the
form of the transport capacity).
One of the first physically based erosion models developed on the basis
of these conceptual considerations is CREAMS (A Field Scale Model for
Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems). The
model consists of three independent submodels: a hydrological model, an erosion
model and a nutrient and pesticide model. The last two submodels each refer to
the calculated data of the previous submodel.
The hydrological submodel calculates the runoff at the soil surface on the
basis of an infiltration approach developed by Green and Ampt (1911). If the
precipitation data are not available in the required time resolution, a simple
empirical estimation method (SCS curve number method) is used.
The erosion submodel distinguishes the already mentioned subprocesses:
Separation of particles, transport with superficial discharge and deposition of
particles.
The detachment of the soil particles is calculated with a modified form of
USLE separately for inter-rill areas and rills. The inter-rill erosion depends on
the erosivity of the precipitation EI30 and the rill erosion depends on the runoff
rate q as well as on the slope length x. In the approaches for rill and inter-rill
erosion (Eqs. 8 and 9, respectively), the factors K, C and P known from USLE as
well as the slope inclination α are also taken into account:
4 m -1
x
D f = 37983 ⋅ m ⋅ q 3pk ⋅ ⋅ (sin α ) 2 ⋅ K ⋅ C ⋅ P (8)
76, 2
q pk
D i = 0, 21 ⋅ EI 30 ⋅ (sin α + 0, 014) ⋅ K ⋅ C ⋅ P ⋅ (9)
Q
If not explained yet, qpk = peak flow rate, Q = flow volume, m = dimensionless
slope length exponent (values in American units!).
The calculation of the transport capacity (Tc) of the surface-parallel flow
is based on an approach of Yalin (1963). The explanation of this approach in the
CREAMS manual (Knisel 1980) is physically only conditionally comprehensible.
The following equations were therefore taken directly from the original literature.
Yalin describes the transport capacity Tc (see Eq. 10) as a function of the
dimensionless transport coefficient Ps, the density of the particles ρs and the liquid
ρq, the particle diameter D and the shear stress velocity v*. According to Eq. 11,
the shear stress velocity v* is derived from the acceleration due to gravity g, the
slope S and the layer thickness of the runoff δ:
T c = P s ⋅ ( ρ s − ρ q) ⋅ D ⋅ v* (10)
v* = g ⋅ S ⋅ δ (11)
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 123
1
P s = 0, 635 ⋅ s ⋅ 1 − ⋅ log (1 + σ ) (12)
σ
The constant 0.635 contained herein is empirically determined; s and σ are
further dimensionless parameters. The following apply here:
Y
s= −1 (13)
Y crit
0,4
ρq
σ = 2, 45 ⋅ ⋅ Y crit ⋅ s (14)
ρs
ρ q ⋅ v*2
Y= (15)
( ρ s − ρ q) ⋅ g ⋅ D
Ycrit is the critical dimensionless shear stress at which erosion begins as a function
of the Reynolds number of particles (X = (D ⋅ v*)/υ). Ycrit must be determined
experimentally or estimated from existing data (e.g., the Shields diagram).
Equation 10 applies in the form given here only to equal grain sediments. In
CREAMS, the different particle sizes of a grain mixture are taken into account
by assigning a certain proportion of the transport capacity to each particle class
(a total of 5) depending on the size of the particles and their specific weight. If
the proportionate transport capacity in one of the particle classes is greater than
the quantity of sediment actually transported in this class and if there is a surplus
of sediment in another class at the same time, the excess transport capacity shall
be allocated to the first class of the second class. The share of the second particle
class in the available transport capacity can thus be increased relative to the share
of the other classes (cf. Astalosch 1990).
Particle detachment and transport are calculated segment by segment from
the highest point of the slope to the base of the slope.
For discharge from a segment, the following are decisive:
• the input into the segment with the inflow from above
• the amount of sediment detached within the segment per unit of time and unit
of area (depending on the erosivity of the precipitation, the runoff rate and the
specific erodibility of the soil)
• the transport capacity
In this case, only as much soil can be removed in a segment as can also
be removed with transport capacity. If the input into the segment is already
greater than the transport capacity, the portion exceeding the transport capacity
124 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
D c = k r ⋅ (τ f − τ c) (17)
In this context: Dc the detachment capacity of the flow, kr the specific erodibility
of the rill bottom, τf the shear stress exerted on the soil particles by the rill flow
and τc the critical shear resistance of the soil.
The shear stress τf is derived according to Eq. 18 from the specific gravity
of water γ (γ = ρ g), the mean gradient S and the hydraulic radius R (based on a
rectangular rill cross-section):
τf = γ . S . R . ( fs /ft ) (18)
In the case that the soil is covered by plants or similar, the quotient fs/ft takes
into account that part of the shear stress is consumed by plant parts, etc., in the
flow cross-section.
Taking into account the efficiency of the flow, given by the ratio of the
sediment quantity G (see below) to the transport capacity Tc, the net discharge Df
in the rills results according to:
G
D f = D c ⋅ 1 − (19)
Tc
Regardless of the detachment capacity of the flow (Dc), the net discharge (Df)
is zero as soon as the amount of sediment (G) carried along by the flow equals
the transport capacity (Tc). For the determination of the transport capacity Tc a
modified version of the YALIN equation is used (as with CREAMS).
The erosion contribution of the inter-rill areas is derived according to Eq. 20
from: the specific erodibility Ki of the inter-rill areas, the effective precipitation
intensity Ie, the coefficients Ce and Ge (to indicate the influence of plant or soil
cover), the groove spacing Rs and the rill width W:
Rs
D i = K i ⋅ l e2 ⋅ C e ⋅ G e ⋅ (20)
W
The total discharge is then calculated by adding the contributions from rill
(Df) and inter-rill areas (Di).
126 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
vs
Du = β ⋅ ⋅ (T c − G ) (21)
q
Equation 21 fully corresponds to the approach chosen in CREAMS. It means
that vs is the falling velocity of the sediment particles suspended in the flow and
q the discharge related to the slope width. The other variables have already been
explained.
WEPP is capable of continuously modeling the behavior of numerous
parameters relevant for erosion over a longer period of time, beyond the contexts
described here in summary. This requires, among other things, a much more
comprehensive description of the soil water balance. For these reasons, the
model includes further model approaches—for example to describe plant growth,
evaporation, drainage and snow melt. However, this also increases the need for data
that must first be entered into the model. This circumstance may severely restrict
the application of the model in practice. This disadvantage, which—although
not to the same extent—also applies to other physically based approaches, is
counterbalanced by the advantage that the model should be transferable to other
conditions without extensive adjustments.
The model EROSION 3D was developed with the intention to create an
easy-to-use tool for erosion prediction in soil and water conservation planning
and assessment (Schmidt 1992, Von Werner 1995). The model, which is
predominantly based on physical principles, simulates the detachment of soil,
the transport deposition of detached soil particles by overland flow, incl. the
grain size distribution of the transported sediment and the sediment delivery into
downstream water courses caused by single events (Schmidt 1992).
The theoretical base of the model was initially developed by J. Schmidt (1991,
1996) and later extended by M. Von Werner (1995). The model calculations are
executed for small and homogenous spatial raster elements and temporal steps,
allowing the model to perform simulations with a high spatial and temporal
resolution.
The model is structured along two main sub-models referring to infiltration and
runoff, soil detachment and transport (Fig. 2). Based on a specific spatiotemporal
element the simulation starts with the calculation of excess rainfall (infiltration
sub-model) followed by the analysis of flow distribution (kinematic flow routing).
Detachment and transport resp. deposition of soil particles are then calculated
on the basis of the momentum fluxes exerted by falling raindrops resp. surface
runoff.
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 127
Rainfall Detachment
Transport
Infiltration
Deposition
Overland flow
Sediment yield
Fig. 2. EROSION 3D conceptual scheme.
Infiltration sub-model
The infiltration submodel of EROSION 3D is based on the approach of Green
and Ampt (1911) which includes a simplification of the infiltration process by
assuming that rain water penetrates the soil in a piston-like flow and saturates
the available pore space completely. For the mathematical description, the
infiltration process is divided into a gravitational component i1 and a dynamic
matric component i2 (Weigert and Schmidt 2005). The gravitational component i1
is a function of the gravitational potential Ψg.
∆Ψg
i11 = k ⋅ k ⋅ g (22)
=
x f1
where i1 = infiltration rate of the gravitational component [kg/(m2 s)], k = hydraulic
conductivity of the transport zone [(kg s)/m3], Ψg = gravitational potential
[(N m)/kg], xf1 = depth of the wetting front of the gravitational component
[m], g = gravity constant [m/s2]
The matric component i2 is a function of the matric potential Ψm.
∆Ψm
i2= k ⋅ (23)
x f2 (t )
where i2 = infiltration rate of the matric component [kg/(m2 s)], k = hydraulic
conductivity of the transport zone [(kg s)/m3], Ψm = matric potential [(N m)/kg],
xf2(t) = depth of the wetting front of the matric component [m] at time t.
Assuming a continually advancing wetting front that moves downward in
the soil, the volume of water infiltrating the soil during a particular time interval
is a product of penetration velocity (dxf /dt) multiplied by the difference of initial
128 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
and saturated soil water content. Hence, the gravitational component i1 can be
calculated as follows:
dx f1
i1 = k ⋅ g = ρ f ⋅ ∆ ⋅ (24)
dt
with
ΔΘ = Θs – Θ0
where i1 = infiltration rate of the gravitational component [kg/(m2 s)], k = hydraulic
conductivity of the transport zone [(kg s)/m3], g = gravity [m/s2], ρf = fluid density
[kg/m3], xf1 = depth of the wetting front of the gravitational component [m] at time
t, t = time [s], Θs = saturated water content [m3/m3], Θ0 = initial water content [m3/
m3].
Similarly, the matric component i2 is given by
∆Ψmm dx f
i2 = k ⋅ = ρ f ⋅ ∆Θ ⋅ 2 (25)
x f2 (t ) dt
with
∆Ψ = Ψm − Ψm
m 0 s
where i2 = infiltration rate of the matric component [kg/(m2 s)], k = hydraulic
conductivity of the transport zone [(kg s)/m3], ρf = fluid density [kg/m3], xf 2(t)
= depth of the wetting front of the matric component [m] at time t, t = time [s],
Θs = saturated water content [m3/m3], Θ0 = initial water content [m3/m3], Ψmo =
matric potential related to the initial water content Θ0 [N m/kg], Ψms= matric
potential related to the water content of the transport zone Θs [N m/kg].
Under the assumption of nearly saturated conditions within the transport
zone the simplification Ψms ≈ 0 can be made, so that ΔΨm ≈ Ψm0 and k ≈ ks.
By rearranging and integrating Eqs. (25) and (26), the depth of the wetting
front xf1 at time t for the gravitational component i1 is obtained by:
ks ⋅ g ⋅ t
xf1 = (26)
ρ f ⋅ (Θ s − Θ0 )
where xf1 = depth of the wetting front of the gravitational component [m], ks =
saturated hydraulic conductivity [(kg s)/m3], g = gravity constant [m/s2], t = time
[s], ρf = fluid density [kg/m3], Θs = saturated water content [m3/m3], Θ0 = initial
water content [m3/m3].
And for the matric component i2 by
2k s ⋅ Ψm 0 ⋅ t
x f2 = (27)
ρ f ⋅ (Θ s − Θ 0 )
where xf2 = depth of the wetting front matric component [m], ks = saturated
hydraulic conductivity [(kg s)/m3], Ψmo = matric potential related to the initial
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 129
Ψm0
i2 = k s ⋅ (29)
2k s ⋅ Ψm0 ⋅ t
ρ f ⋅ (Θ s − Θ 0 )
Now the infiltration rate can be calculated as the sum of the gravitational i1
and the matric component i2:
Ψm0
i = i1 + i2 = k s ⋅ g + k s ⋅ (30)
2k s ⋅ Ψm0 ⋅ t
ρ f ⋅ (Θ s − Θ 0 )
where i = infiltration rate [kg/(m2 s)], i1 = infiltration rate of the gravitational
component [kg/(m2 s)], i2 = infiltration rate of the matric component [kg/(m2 s)], ks
= saturated hydraulic conductivity [(kg s)/m3], g = gravity constant [m/s2].
The independent variables of this equation can either be directly estimated
from field measurements (i.e., the initial water content θ0), or be derived from
basic soil parameters by applying the following pedotransfer functions:
with
where Ψm0 = matric potential related to the initial water content θ0 [N m/kg], ρb =
bulk density [kg/m3], θ0 = initial water content [m3/m3], θr = residual water content
[m3/m3], θ s = saturated water content [m3/m3], θ, n = parameters [–].
130 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
from the soil surface. Following this concept the erosional effects of raindrops
and overland flow can be related to the soil´s resistance to erosion (given by the
critical momentum flux ϕcrit) to give a dimensionless coefficient E (Eq. 34):
ϕ + ϕ r ⋅ sin α
E= q (34)
ϕ crit
where ϕq = momentum flux exerted by surface runoff [N], ϕr, = momentum flux
exerted by raindrops [N] and ϕcrit.= critical momentum flux (erosional resistance)
[N].
Erosion occurs if E > 1 whereas E ≤ 1 characterizes the erosion-free state of
flow.
For quantitative results, the coefficient E is correlated with experimental
data. Fifty experiments under simulated rainfall have been performed in a test
flume filled with silty soil (Schmidt 1988). The data can be fitted by the following
regression equation:
ϕ = q ⋅ ρ ⋅ v ⋅ ∆y
q q q (38)
where ϕq = momentum flux exerted by flow [N], q = volume rate of flow [m³/(m
s)], ρq= fluid density [kg/m³], Δy = the width of the slope segment [m] and vq =
mean flow velocity [m/s] according to the Manning equation:
1 2 / 3 1/ 2
vq = ⋅ δ ⋅ S (39)
n
where n = coefficient of surface roughness [s m–(1/3)], δ = thickness of runoff water
film [m], S = slope.
In order to transport detached particles the uplift by vertical (turbulent)
flow components of surface runoff must counteract the gravitational settling
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 133
of the suspended particles (Fig. 5). Since surface runoff in this case is usually
developed as a thin water film in the range of millimeters up to some centimeters
in depth, flow turbulence is predominantly a result of raindrop impact and not due
to friction effects within the water film. Raindrop impact results in an irregular
motion of surface runoff, which is essential for the lift up of eroded particles
and particle transport in suspension. Without raindrop impact and consequently
without turbulence only bedload transport occurs which is far less effective than
sediment transport in suspension.
To transfer the concept of particle transportation consistently to the momentum
flux approach, the vertical momentum flux component of the (turbulent) flow on
the one side and the critical momentum flux of particles (which is according to
Eqs. 40 and 41 a function of particle size, fluid density and fluid viscosity) on the
other side have to be taken under consideration.
1 g ⋅ D 2 ( ρp − ρq )
vp = ⋅ (40)
18 η
where vp = settling velocity of suspended particles [m/s], D = particle diameter
[m], ρp = particle density [kg/m³], ρq = fluid density [kg/m³], g = acceleration of
gravity [m/s²], η = fluid viscosity [kg/(m⋅s)].
ϕp , crit = c ⋅ ρp ⋅ A ⋅ vp 2 (41)
where φp,crit = critical momentum flux of suspended particles [(kg m)/(s² m²)],
c = concentration of particles [m³/m³], ρp = particle density [kg/m³], A = area of
slope segment [m²], vp = settling velocity of soil particles [m/s]
Hence the prior condition for particle transport is given by Eq. 42:
and aspect are determined for each grid element. Then all neighboring elements
are examined to select those which have lower elevations. Flow distributions
are calculated either by directing all runoff to the lowest neighboring element
(D8 algorithm) or by distributing runoff to all neighboring elements with lower
elevation in proportion to the difference in altitude (FD8 algorithm). For sheet flow
conditions the FD8 algorithm yields much better results as it shows a more natural
flow distribution compared to the D8 algorithm. However, in case of channel flow
the D8 algorithm is preferable because runoff is always directed totally to only
one downstream element. In order to differentiate sheet and channel flow runoff,
elements are stored in two grid layers. One layer contains the sheet flow whereas
the other one holds the channel flow data. The user can classify channel elements
manually or automatically by setting up the minimum drainage area upstream that
is necessary to define a channel (= critical source area). By specifying a pour point
EROSION 3D automatically determines the watershed and the drainage network
based on either the FD8 (sheet flow) or the D8 (channel flow) algorithm.
As shown in Fig. 6 there is a water film establishing at the soil surface when
runoff occurs according to Eq. 46:
3/ 5
q⋅n
δ = 1/ 2
(46)
S
where q = volume rate of flow [m³/(m s)], n = coefficient of surface roughness
[s m–(1/3)], δ = thickness of runoff water film [m], S = slope.
This water film can be considered as a dynamic storage, which results from
the thickness of the film and the area of the overflowed slope segment. Since
any change in flow rate results in an equivalent change in film thickness, the
film storage fills up as the flow rate increases and empties as it decreases. Major
changes in the flow rate occur predominantly at the beginning and at the end of a
rainstorm, causing a shift in the runoff hydrograph. Further, the emptying process
might maintain runoff beyond the end of the rainfall event (so-called afterflow). In
applying this concept, EROSION 3D is capable to simulate a runoff hydrograph
at any point of a catchment as shown in Fig. 7.
136 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Landuse map
Fig. 8. EROSION 3D model inputs.
138 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Runoff Erosion/Deposition
Sediment mass
Fig. 9. EROSION 3D model output maps.
scale modeling results showed that sediment yield and runoff vary by slope, land
use and soil type. The spatial sediment budget also showed the variability in the
erosion and deposition of sediment in the basin. Average simulated erosion in
cultivated land was about 120 t/ha/yr and the lowest simulated erosion rate was on
bush lands and grasslands, which indicate that change in land use has significant
impact on soil erosion in the Mara River basin.
Starkloff (2012) used two hydrological models LISEM and EROSION-3D
for the erosion prediction. EROSION-3D consolidated the results of LISEM
calibration and despite the different approaches taken to simulate the surface
discharge the results are not significantly different. Due to relatively less input
data requirement for the EROSION-3D model, the operational hours of the
EROSION-3D are lesser than the LISEM model. Also, the spatial distribution
of erosion deposition predicted by the EROSION-3D model appeared to be
more accurate than the LISEM model. However, during the calibration of the
EROSION-3D model in the sub catchment it was observed that process of finding
the correct grid size and time resolution for small catchments is not easy and
requires experience.
Kenderessy (2012) used EROSION-3D in his study in Bratislava to locate
the main areas of soil loss and to simulate the erosion rates before and after the
application of soil protection measures. The results showed that applied measures
can effectively reduce soil loss rates and they also reinforce that simulation
models such as EROSION-3D are able to provide the information necessary for
appropriate localization and extent of site-specific measures.
Schindewolf et al. (2015) applied the EROSION-3D model for prediction of
soil erosion in a reservoir in Germany. The EROSION-3D model was successfully
applied to simulate reservoir siltation in a meso-scaled German loess catchment.
The EROSION-3D-based soil loss prediction maps helped to identify the most
erosion-sensitive areas within the catchment, as well as the points of sediment
transfer into surface water bodies. It was concluded that the soil conservation
measures should be implemented within the catchment to avoid excessive siltation.
Honek et al. (2017) applied the EROSION-3D model to calculate the
potential soil water erosion in a small catchment in the Myjava Hill Land, and the
model was successfully calibrated for Slovak soil conditions. The results showed
the strong interaction between soil condition and potential soil water erosion,
corresponding to relief and precipitation.
Lenz et al. (2018) conducted a study to evaluate some important erosion
parameters (surface roughness, skin factor and resistance to erosion) required
to apply the EROSION-3D model. In this study, four rainfall experiments, each
including dry and wet run, were conducted on different land use conditions on a
research farm of the Regional Research Station Ballowal Saunkhri. The erosion
parameters were evaluated by using two methods and the evaluated values were
in close range to experimentally determined values for resistance to erosion and
surface roughness.
140 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
References
Astalosch, R. 1990. Beregnungsversuche zur Parameterbestimmung zeitlich differenzierter
Erosionsmodelle. Unveröffentlichte Vertiefungsarbeit am Institut für Wasserbau und
Kulturtechnik der Universität Karlsruhe.
Beasley, D.B. and L.F. Huggins. 1981. ANSWERS—user manual. EPA-Report, 905/9-82-001,
Chicago.
Campbell, G.S. 1985. Soil physics with BASIC. Transport models for soil-plant systems. Elsevier
Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dettling, W. 1989. Die Genauigkeit geoökologischer Feldmethoden und die statistischen Fehler
qualitativer Modelle. Physiogeographica - Basler Beiträge zur Physiogeographie 11, Basel.
Dikau, R. 1986. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zu Oberflächenabfluß und Bodenabtrag von
Meßparzellen und landwirtschaftlichen Nutzflächen. Heidelberger Geographische Arbeiten
81, Heidelberg.
Flanagan, D.C. 1990. Water Erosion Prediction Project—hillslope profile model documentation
corrections and additions. NSERL Report 4 (USDA–ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory),
West Lafayette, Indiana (USA).
Foster, G.R., J.M. Laflen and C.V. Alonso. 1985. A replacement for the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE). In: DeCOURSEY (ed.): Proceedings of the Natural Resources Modeling Symposium,
USDA, ARS-30, S. 468–472, Pingree Park, CO.
Foster, G.R. and L.J. Lane. 1987. User requirements. USDA-Water erosion prediction project (WEPP).
National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory Report, 1, West Lafayette, Indiana (USA).
Gebreselassie, B.Y. 2012. Possibilities to Reduce Suspended Sediment Loads into Reservoirs: A
Case Study for a Single Reservoir in the Catchment of Kulfo River, Ethiopia. PhD Thesis,
Technical University, Dresden.
Green, W.H. and G.A. Ampt. 1911. Studies on soil physics. I: The flow of air and water through soils.
J. Agric. Sci. 4: 1–24.
Guy, B.T. and W.T. Dickinson. 1990. Inception of sediment transport in shallow overland flow. Catena
(Suppl.) 17: 91–109.
Honek, D., Z. Nemetova and T. Latkova. 2017. Application of physically-based EROSION-3D model
in small catchment. Proc 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo Conference
SGEM at Vienna, Austria.
Kenderessy, P. 2012. Soil loss assessment in an agricultural landscape and its utilization in landscape
planning. Ekol. (Bratislava) 31: 309–321. DOI: 10.4149/ekol-2012-03-309.
Knisel, W.G. 1980. CREAMS-A field scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural
management systems. Conservation Research Report 26 (USDA), Washington.
Lane, L.J. and M.A. Nearing. 1989: USDA—Water Erosion Prediction Project: hillslope profile model
documentation. NSERL Report 2 (USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Laboratory), West
Lafayette, Indiana (USA).
Laws, J.D. 1941. Measurements of the fall-velocity of water-drops and raindrops. Trans. Am. Geophys.
Union. 21: 709–721.
Laws, J.D. and D.A. Parsons. 1943. The relation of raindrop size to intensity. Trans. Am. Geophys.
Union. 24: 52–460.
Lenz, J., A. Yousuf, M. Schindewolf, M.V. Werner, K. Hartsch, M.J. Singh and J. Schmidt. 2018.
Parameterization for EROSION-3D model under simulated rainfall conditions in lower
shivaliks of India. Geosciences 8: 1–18.
Mengistu, D., M. Assefa and M.V. Michael. 2012. Watershed scale application of WEPP and
EROSION-3D models for assessment of potential sediment source areas and runoff flux in
the Mara River Basin, Kenya. Catena 95: 63–72.
Michael, A. 2000. Anwendung des physikalisch begründeten Erosionsprognosemodells EROSION
2D/3D—Empirische Ansätze zur Ableitung der Modellparameter. Ph.D thesis TU Freiberg.
Morgan, R.P.C., J.N. Quinton and R.J. Rickson. 1992. EUROSEM: Documentation manual (Silsoe
College). Silsoe, UK.
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 141
Schindewolf, M. and W. Schmidt. 2010. Flächendeckende Abbildung der Bodenerosion durch Wasser
für Sachsen unter Anwendung des Modells EROSION 3D. Schriftenreihe des Landesamtes
für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie, Heft 9/2010, Dresden. ISSN: 1867–2868.
Schindewolf, M., C. Bornkampf, M.V. Werner and J. Schmidt. 2015. Simulation of reservoir siltation
with a process-based soil loss and deposition model. pp. 41–57. DOI: 10.5772/61576.
Schmidt, J. 1988. Wasserhaushalt und Feststofftransport an geneigten, landwirtschaftlich bearbeiteten
Nutzflächen. Ph.D. Thesis, Free University, Dresden.
Schmidt, J. 1991. A mathematical model to simulate rainfall erosion. In: Bork, H.R., D.E. Ploey,
A.P. Schick (eds.). Erosion, Transport and Deposition Processes—Theory and Models.
Catena (Suppl.) 19: 101–109.
Schmidt, J. 1992. Modeling long-term soil loss and landform change. In: Abrahams, A.J. and
A.D. Parsons (eds.). Overland Flow—Hydraulics and Erosion Mechanics. University College
London Press, London.
Schmidt, J. 1996. Entwicklung und Anwendung eines physikalisch begründeten Simulationsmodells
für die Erosion geneigter landwirtschaftlicher Nutzflächen. Berliner Geographische
Abhandlungen, H. 61.
Schmidt, J., M.V. Werner and A. Routschek. 1999. Application of the EROSION-3D model to the
CATSOP watershed, the Netherlands. Catena 37: 449–56.
Schob, A., J. Schmidt and R. Tenholtern. 2006. Derivation of site-related measures to minimize soil
erosion on the watershed scale in the Saxonian loess belt using the model EROSION-3D.
Catena 68: 153–60.
Schramm, M. 1992. Bestimmung des Bodenabtrags und des Stoffaustrags im Vorfluter eines kleinen
ländlichen Einzugsgebietes. In: PLATE, E.J. Prognosemodell für die Gewässerbelastung
durch Stofftransport aus einem kleinen ländlichen Einzugsgebiet. Schlußbericht BMFT-
Verbundprojekt, S. 229–256.
Schramm, M. 1994. Ein Erosionsmodell mit räumlich und zeitlich veränderlicher Rillenmorphologie.
Dissertation TH Karlsruhe.
Schwertmann, U., W. Vogland M. Kainz. 1990. Bodenerosion durch Wasser. Vorhersage des Abtrags
und Bewertung von Gegenmaßnahmen, 2. Aufl., Stuttgart.
Seidel, N. and J. Schmidt. 2009. Effects of land use on surface runoff – simulations with the EROSION
3D Computer Model. Geo-öko 29 (3–4), Göttingen.
Smith, R.E. 1988. OPUS-An advanced simulation model for non-point source pollution transport at
the field scale. Draft. USDA-ARS, Ft. Collins, CO.
Starkloff, T. 2012. Modelling of soil erosion with the EROSION-3D model for the Skuterud catchment
in Norway. Diploma Dissertation. Soil and Water Conservation Unit, Technical University of
Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany.
Van Genuchten, M. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44: 892–898.
Von Werner, M. 1991. Anwendung des Bodenerosionsmodells “EROSION-2D” in der agraren
Nutzungsplanung. Diplomarbeit FU Berlin.
Von Werner, M. 1995. GIS-orientierte Methoden der digitalen Reliefanalyse zur Modellierung von
Bodenerosion in kleinen Einzugsgebieten. Ph.D. Thesis Freie Universität, Berlin.
Weigert, A. and J. Schmidt. 2005. Water transport under winter conditions. Catena 64: 193–208.
Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the
Rocky Mountains. Agr. Handbook 282 (USDA), Washington D.C.
Woolhiser, D.A., R.E. Smith and D.C. Goodrich. 1990. KINEROS, a kinematic runoff and erosion
model: documentation and user manual. USDA–ARS–77.
Yalin, M.S. 1963. An expression for bed-load transportation. J. Hydraul. Division. Proc. Amer. Soc.
of Civil Eng. 89: 221–250.
Yoon, Y.N. and H.G. Wenzel. 1971. Mechanics of sheet flow under simulated rainfall. J. Hydraulics
Division Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil. Eng., 97, HY9, S. 1367–1386.
Chapter 8
SWAT Model and its
Application
VK Bhatt* and AK Tiwari
Introduction
There is need to understand the physical process of erosion in relation of
topography, land use and management in order to derive with best management
practices. Planned land use and conservation measures to optimize the use of
land and water resources help in increasing sustainable agricultural production.
However, to achieve this, quantification of runoff and soil loss from the
watersheds is must. Since it is very often impractical or impossible to directly
measure soil loss on every piece of land, and the reliable estimates of the various
hydrological parameters including runoff and soil loss for remote and inaccessible
areas are tedious and time consuming by conventional methods. Therefore, it is
desirable that some suitable methods and techniques are evolved for quantifying
the hydrological parameters from all parts of the watersheds. Use of mathematical
hydrological models to quantify runoff and soil loss for designing and evaluating
alternate land use and best management practices in a watershed is one of the most
viable options.
Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Chandigarh, 160019, India.
Email: gmaruntiwari@gmail.com
* Corresponding author: v_k_bhatt2001@yahoo.co.in
SWAT Model and its Application 143
SWAT Model
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a river basin model being used since
1993 mainly by hydrologists for watershed hydrology related issues (Santhi et al.
2001, Cao et al. 2006, Schuol and Ambaspour 2007, Keshta et al. 2009, Akiner and
144 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Akkoyunlu 2012, Kushwaha and Jain 2013, Bhatt et al. 2016, Hallouz et al. 2018).
It is currently one of the world’s leading spatially distributed hydrological models.
SWAT as a distributed parameter continuous time model was developed originally
by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Texas A&M University
(Arnold et al. 1998). It divides a watershed into smaller discrete calculation units
for which the spatial variation of the major physical properties is limited, and
hydrological processes can be treated as being homogeneous. The total watershed
behaviour is a net result of several small sub-basins. The soil map and land user
map within sub-basin boundaries are used to generate a homogeneous physical
property, i.e., Hydrological Response Unit (HRU). The water balance for HRUs
is computed on a daily time step. Hence, SWAT subdivides the river basin into
units that have similar characteristics in soil and land cover and that are located
in the same sub-basin. The SWAT model has been tested for predicting runoff
and soil loss throughout the world under different conditions (Abbaspour et al.
2015, Gamvroudis et al. 2015, Gyamfi et al. 2016, Anaba et al. 2017). It has
emerged as one of the most widely used water quality watershed and river basin-
scale models worldwide, applied extensively for a broad range of hydrologic and/
or environmental problems. The international use of SWAT can be attributed to
its flexibility in addressing water resource problems, extensive networking via
dozens of training workshops and the several international conferences that have
been held during the past decade, comprehensive online documentation and
supporting software, and an open source code that can be adapted by model users
for specific application needs (Gassman et al. 2014).
However, application of SWAT for prediction of runoff from micro-watershed
is limited. Data of several years is required for development of a long term plan
for homogeneous watersheds. The hydrologic component of SWAT is based on
the following water balance equation:
t
SWt = SW + ∑ (Ri − Qi – ETi – Pi – QRi) (1)
i=1
where: SWt is the final soil water content (mm), SW is the water content available
for plant uptake, defined as the initial soil water content minus the permanent
wilting point water content (mm), t is time in days, R is rainfall (mm), Qi is
surface runoff (mm), ETi is evapotranspiration (mm), Pi is percolation (mm) and
QRi is return flow. SWAT incorporates some of the most common hydrological
equations for the simulation of flow. For the accurate implementation of these
equations, detailed input data are needed. The digital elevation model (DEM)
of the watershed, the soil and land use data and the climatic data of the area are
required input to the model. The importance of land uses in the operation of the
model lies mainly in the computation of surface runoff with the help of the SCS
curve. The model includes in its database 102 different land use types, with each
one assigned to a CN-II value (Curve Number for hydrological condition II). The
user is required to link each of the land uses that appear in the watershed, to the
SWAT Model and its Application 145
ones that the model can identify. The success of the simulation depends highly on
the accuracy of soils and land uses.
In most of the developing countries of the world, the majority of the basins
are either sparsely gauged or not gauged at all. This necessitates the application
of a robust model for estimation of runoff and sediment. In the present study
the Arc View-SWAT interface (AVSWAT-X version 2005) was used to delineate
the watershed boundary and the burning option to derive drainage network of
choe gauging watershed. The main objective was to evaluate the applicability and
performance of the model in predicting yearly water yield. In order to achieve
the objectives sensitivity analysis, calibration and validation of the model were
essential steps for model testing as well as extending the application area.
was merged and burnt on the DEM data to exactly align the watershed outlets. The
salient morphological features of the study watersheds are as shown in Table 1.
DEM and subwatersheds with HRUs are shown in Fig. 1. Land use and soil
data were incorporated into SWAT model and used for reclassifying the land use
and soil data. Various GIS data preprocessor modules which involve watershed
delineation, input map characterization and processing, stream and outlet
definition, the computation of the geomorphic parameters, and characterization
of the land use/land cover and soil were developed in the course of modeling the
catchment. The simulation option of the rainfall runoff modeling was performed
on the basis of previous modeling techniques. These include using a curve number
method for calculating surface runoff (USDA-SCS 1972), a first order Marcov
Chain Skewed Normal to determine rainfall distribution, computing potential
evaporation by using Penman Monteith method and Muskingum routing method
for routing water through the channel networks.
Table 3. Range of parameter values used for modeling of Choe gauging watershed.
The objective function used to test the model performance were the Nash
and Sutcliffe model efficiency (h) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). These
functions are given as follows:
h = ((FIV-FRV)/FIV)*100 (2)
n
Where, FIV = Initial variance = ∑ (Q – Q–)
i
2
(3)
i=1
n
FRV = Remaining variance = ∑ (Qi – Q̂i)2 (4)
i=1
n
RMSE = (∑ (Qi – Q̂i)2/n)1/2 (5)
i=1
–
Where Qi and Q̂i are i observed and computed values of the rainfall series, Q is
th
200 0
180 100
160 200
140 300
Rainfall, mm
120 400
Runoff, mm
Rain fall
100 Observed runoff 500
80 Simulated runoff 600
60 700
40 800
20 900
0 1000
79 80 80 80 81 1 81
79 79 , 80 l, , ,8 ,
Ju
l, g, pt ne
,
Ju g, pt Ju
l, g pt
Au Se Ju Au Se Au Se
Months
Fig. 3. Simulated and observed runoff for Validation period (1979–81).
simulating the observed runoff values. Nash and Sutcliffe Efficiency were found
to be 80.2% for calibration and 73.3% (Table 4) for validation, as such these
values can be considered reasonably well for any model. Similarly, RMSE was
calculated as 5.8 and 12.3 respectively for calibration and validation.
Conclusions
Although the model generates detailed outputs at the spatial and temporal scale,
in the present analyses only water yield has been considered and reported. The
application of the SWAT model in generation of crucial information such as water
and sediment can be used.
The main objective of the study was to evaluate the performance and
applicability of the SWAT model in predicting the hydrology of the micro-
watershed of the lower Himalayas. The ability of this model to predict surface
runoff was evaluated through sensitivity analysis, model calibration and model
validation. The sensitive parameters were used to find the most reasonable
parameter values for optimum estimation of runoff. The analysis shows that base
flow parameter, i.e., alfa factor (days) and SCS curve number were found as the
most sensitive parameter for both the watersheds.
SWAT Model and its Application 151
References
Abbaspour, K.C., J. Yang, L. Maximov, R. Siber and K. Bogner. 2007. Modeling hydrology and water
quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 333: 413–430.
Abbaspour, K.C., E. Rouholahnejad, S. Vaghefi, R. Srinivasan, H. Yang and B. Klove. 2015. A
continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty
of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT Model. J. Hydrol. 524: 733–752. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027.
Anaba, L.A., N. Banadda, N. Kiggundu, J. Wanyama, B. Engel and D. Moriasi. 2017. Application of
SWAT to assess the effects of land use change in the Murchison bay catchment in Uganda.
Computat. WaterEnergyEnviron. Engg. 6: 24–40.
Akiner, M.E. and A. Akkoyunlu. 2012. Modeling and forecasting river flow rate from the Melen
Watershed, Turkey. J. Hydrol. 456-457: 121–129.
Arnold, J.G., R. Srinivasan, R.S. Muttiah and J.R. William. 1998. Large area hydrological modeling
and assessment: Part I: Model Development. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 34: 73–89.
Bhatt, V.K., A.K. Tiwari and D.R. Sena. 2016. Application of SWAT model for simulation of runoff in
micro watersheds of lower Himalayan region of India. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 44: 133–140.
Cao, W., B.W. Bowden and T. Davie. 2006. Multi-variable and multisite calibration and validation
of SWAT in a large mountainous watershed with high spatial variability. Hydrol. Process.
20: 1057–1073.
Gamvroudis, C., N.P. Nikolaidis, O. Tzoraki, V. Papadoulakis and N. Karalemas. 2015. Water and
sediment transport modeling of a large temporary river basin in Greece. Sci. Total Environ.
508: 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.005.
Gassman, P., A.M. Sadhegi and R. Srinivasan. 2014. Applications of the SWAT model-special section:
overview and insights. J. Environ. Qual. 43: 1–8. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2013.11.0466.
Gyamfi, C., J.M. Ndambuki and R.W. Salim. 2016. Application of SWAT Model to the Olifants Basin:
Calibration, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis. J. Water Resour. Prot. 8: 397–410. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2016.83033.
Hallouz, F., M. Meddi, G. Mahe, S. Alirahmani and A. Keddar. 2018. Modeling of discharge and
sediment transport through the SWAT model in the basin of Harraza (Northwest of Algeria).
Water Sci. 32: 79–88.
Keshta, N., A. Elshorbagy and S. Carey 2009. A generic system dynamics model for simulating and
evaluating the hydrological performance of reconstructed watersheds. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. 13: 865–881.
Kushwaha, A. and M. Jain. 2013. Hydrological simulation in a forest dominated watershed in
Himalayan Region using SWAT Model. Water Res. Manage. 27: 3005–3023.
Nash, J.E. and J.V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. J. Hydrol.
10: 282–290.
Santhi, C., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Williams, W.A. Dugas and L. Hauck. 2001. Validation of the SWAT
model on a large River basin with point and nonpoint sources. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 37:
1169–1188.
Schuol, J. and K.C. Abbaspour. 2007. Using monthly weather statistics to generate daily data in a
SWAT model application to West Africa. Ecol. Model. 201: 301–311.
USDA-SCS. 1972. National Engineering Handbook Section 4, Hydrology. USDA-SCS, Washington,
DC, USA.
Chapter 9
Watershed Management
in the 21st Century
Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi
therefore an approach that can be applicable for the resources management of the
watershed (Kaim et al. 2018).
Identify
stakeholders
Identify
Reflect interestes and
and adjust objectives
Inventory
Implement and assess
the plan watershed
Develop
a plan
De
o
olo
hip
no
ve
Ec
my
ds
lop
Education
ar
Evaluation
me
ew
n
St
Community Capacity
Equity
Water-Energy-Food nexus
To adaptively manage the watersheds, other new approaches such as the
Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus can also be adopted, since the objective of
watershed management can be achieved by the application of interdisciplinary
and professional approaches through establishing a dynamic and optimal balance
in supply and demand resources and consumption. The WEF nexus has been
initially introduced in the world as an adaptive management approach to reduce
the vulnerability to climate change and human impact in terms of the security
158 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Conservation Development
Fig. 3. Main principles of low impact development measures for storm water management
(After Vermont Green Infrastructure Initiative 2018).
challenges of water, energy, and food (Endo et al. 2015, Rasul and Sharma 2016).
The WEF nexus focuses on the interdependency of water, energy, and food
security to be explicitly identified in the decision making process (Mohtar et al.
2015). By definition, the nexus consists of basic concepts for the dynamics of
the water, energy and food inter-relationship (Smajgl et al. 2016) water or food
security. Current frameworks are partial as they largely represent a water-centric
perspective. Our hypothesis is that a dynamic nexus framework that attempts to
equally weight sectoral objectives provides a new paradigm for diagnosis and
investigation. Dynamic refers here to explicitly understanding or a diagnosis of
an important discussion in agricultural land use in watersheds, presents several
challenges within the WEF nexus at the local and global scales (Gulati and Pahuja
2015). While considering other important chapters of the watershed system such
as soil there is a need to allow the comprehensive management of the watershed
in an adaptive manner (Lal et al. 2017).
Actually, to consider the nexus approach with a sufficient concentration on
the soil is essential as the foundation of the future of mankind. It is therefore a
long way ahead in the future to provide meaningful concepts of the WEF nexus
at the watershed scale. It is due to the complexities in the dynamic components
of the watershed system. In light of the evidence, most of the literature on WEF
and its various editions exist in Central, South, Southeast and East at 38%; and
North America (USA, Mexico and Canada) with another 31%. It clearly verifies
that more necessary efforts need to be made in other regions with a further focus
in the developing countries where such approaches are needed to harmonize the
inter-relationship amongst the important chapters of soil, water, energy and food.
Watershed Management in the 21st Century 159
Conclusion
There are many conflicting issues dealing with watershed ecosystems in the 21st
century none of which can be simply ignored. The necessity of considering the
ecosystem balance on one side and the growing demands of communities as the
main driving forces on the system on another side make it somehow difficult
to achieve sustainable development. Adopting appropriate approaches such as
adaptive management, co-best management practices and optimal scenarios may
therefore be as practical approaches in the current century. These approaches
hopefully guarantee the cautious utilization of the available resources in a way
to restore natural potentials and conserve them for future generations. However,
continuous monitoring of the watershed systems to evaluate the outcome behaviors
and accordingly adapt our attitudes in the proper direction is essentially needed.
Obviously, more attention and considerations along with insight investigations
are required in developing countries where the degradation of various resources
is drastically accelerated.
Acknowledgment
The valuable efforts of Miss. A. Katebi Kord and Mr. E. Sharifi Moghaddam for
reproducing some figures as well as final reading of Dr. Z. Hazbavi are greatly
appreciated.
References
Adhami, M., S.H. Sadeghi and M. Sheikhmohammady. 2018. Making competent land use policy using
a co-management framework. Land Use Policy 72: 171–180.
Ahiablame, L.R. and R. Shakya. 2016. Modeling flood reduction effects of low impact development
at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manag. 171: 81–91.
Watershed Management in the 21st Century 161
Allan, C., A. Curtis, G. Stankeyand B. Shindler. 2008. Adaptive management and watersheds: a social
science perspective. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 44: 166–174.
Bartarya, S.K. 1991. Watershed Management Strategies in Central Himalaya: The Gaula River Basin,
Kumaun, India, Land Use Policy 8: 177–184.
Bryson, J.M., K.S. Quick, C.S. Slotterback and B.C. Crosby. 2013. Designing public participation
processes. Public Adm. Rev. 73: 23–34.
California Department of Conservation. 2015. Watershed Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/
dlrp/wp/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed June 9, 2018.
Chanya, A., B. Prachaak and T.K. Ngang. 2014. Conflict management on use of watershed resources.
ProcediaSoc. Behav. Sci. 136: 481–485.
Endo, A., K. Burnett, P.M. Orencio, T. Kumazawa, C.A. Wada, A. Ishii and M. Taniguchi. 2015.
Methods of the water-energy-food nexus. Water. 7: 5806–5830.
Flint, R.W. 2006. Water resources sustainable management: Thinking like a watershed. Ann. Arid
Zone 45: 399–423.
Gulati, M. and S. Pahuja. 2015. Direct delivery of power subsidy to manage energy–ground water–
agriculture nexus. Aquat. Procedia 5: 22–30.
Guo, X.Y., X.L. Liu and L.G. Wang. 2016. Land use optimization in order to improve ecosystem
service: A case of Lanzhou City. Acta Ecol. 36: 7992–8001.
Hazbavi, Z. and S.H.R. Sadeghi. 2017. Watershed health characterization using reliability-resilience-
vulnerability conceptual framework based on hydrological responses. Land Degrad. Dev. 28:
1528–1537.
Hazbavi, Z., J.E.M. Baartman, J.P. Nunes, S.D. Keesstra and S.H.R. Sadeghi. 2018a. Changeability
of reliability, resilience and vulnerability indicators with respect to drought patterns. Ecol.
Indic. 87: 196–208.
Hazbavi, Z., S.D. Keesstra, J.P. Nunes, J.E.M. Baartman, M. Gholamalifard and S.H.R. Sadeghi.
2018b. Health comparative comprehensive assessment of watersheds with different climates.
Ecol. Indic. 93: 781–790.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment, Last access in May 19, 2018.
https://www.eeeee.net/watershed.htm, Last access in June 2, 2018.
Hu, H., T. Sayama, X. Zhang, K. Tanaka, K. Takara and H. Yang. 2017. Evaluation of low impact
development approach for mitigating flood inundation at a watershed scale in China. J.
Environ. Manage. 193: 430–438
Kaim, A., A.F. Cord and M. Volk. 2018. A review of multi-criteria optimization techniques for
agricultural land use allocation, Environ. Model. Softw. 105: 79–93.
Lal, R., R.H. Mohtar, A.T. Assi, R. Ray, H. Baybil and M. Jahn. 2017. Soil as a basic nexus Tool: soils
at the center of the food–energy–water nexus. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 4: 117–129.
Leys, A.J. and J.K. Vanclay. 2011. Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for
adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy 28: 574–584.
Li, X. and X. Ma. 2017. An uncertain programming model for land use structure optimization to
promote effectiveness of land use planning. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 27: 974–988.
Liu, Y., W. Tang, J. He, Y. Liu, T. Ai and D. Liu. 2015. A land-use spatial optimization model based on
genetic optimization and game theory. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 49: 1–14.
Liu, Y., B.A. Engel, D.C. Flanagan, M.W. Gitau, S.K. McMillan, I. Chaubey and S. Singh. 2018.
Modeling framework for representing long-term effectiveness of best management
practices in addressing hydrology and water quality problems: Framework development and
demonstration using a Bayesian method. J. Hydrol. 560: 530–545.
Loperfido, J.V., G.B. Noe, S.T. Jarnagin and D.M. Hogan. 2014. Effects of distributed and centralized
stormwater best management practices and land cover on urban stream hydrology at the
catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 519: 2584–2595.
Ma, X. and X. Zhao. 2015. Land use allocation based on a multi-objective artificial immune
optimization model: An application in Anlu county, China. Sustainability 7: 15632–15651.
Mohtar, R.H., A.T. Assi and B.T. Daher. 2015. Bridging the water and food gap: The role of the water-
energy-food nexus. Unu-Flores 5: 1–31.
162 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Pastori, M., A. Udías, F. Bouraoui, A. Aloe and G. Bidoglio. 2015. Multi-objective optimization for
improved agricultural water and nitrogen management in selected regions of Africa. Int.
Series Operat. Res. Manage. Sci. 224: 241–258.
Pastori, M., A. Udías, F. Bouraoui and G. Bidoglio. 2017. Multi-objective approach to evaluate the
economic and environmental impacts of alternative water and nutrient management strategies
in Africa. J. Environ. Inform. 29: 16–28.
Paule-Mercado, M.C.A., I. Salim, B.Y. Lee, S. Memon, R.U. Sajjad, C. Sukhbaatar and C.H. Lee.
2018. Monitoring and quantification of stormwater runoff from mixed land use and land cover
catchment in response to land development. Ecol. Indic. 93: 1112–1125.
Porzecanski, I., L.V. Saunders and M.T. Brown. 2012. Adaptive management fitness of watersheds.
Ecol. Soc. 17: 29–43.
Raadgever, G.T., E. Mostert, N. Kranz, E. Interwies and J.G. Timmerman. 2008. Assessing
management regimes in transboundary river basins: do they support adaptive management?
Ecol. Soc 13: Article 14.
Rasul, G. and B. Sharma. 2016. The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for
adaptation to climate change. Clim. Policy. 16: 682–702.
Raum, S. 2018. Reasons for Adoption and Advocacy of the Ecosystem Services Concept in UK
Forestry. Ecol. Econ. 143: 47–54.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., D.A. Najafi and M. Vafakhah. 2004. Study on land use variation on soil erosion (Case
study: Lenjan-e-Olya in Isfahan Province). Proceedings National Conference on Watershed
Management and Water and Soil Resources, Kerman, Iran, 115–123.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., K. Jalili and D. Nikkami. 2009. Land use optimization in watershed scale. Land Use
Policy. 26: 186–193.
Sadoddin, A., M. Ownegh, A. N. Nejad and S.H.R. Sadeghi. 2016. Development of a National Mega
Research Project on the integrated watershed management for Iran. Environ. Resour. Res.
4: 231–238.
Sidle, R.C. 2000. Watershed Challenges for the 21st Century: A Global Perspective for Mountainous
Terrain USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS–P–13.
Smajgl, A., J. Ward and L. Pluschke. 2016. The water-food-energy nexus-realizing a new paradigm.
J. Hydrol. 533: 533–540.
Strauch, M., J.E.F.W. Lima, M. Volk, C. Lorz and F. Makeschin. 2013. The impact of Best Management
Practices on simulated streamflow and sediment load in a Central Brazilian catchment. J.
Environ. Manage. 127 (Suppl.): S24–S36.
Tajbakhsh, S.M., H. Memarian and A. Kheyrkhah. 2018. A GIS-based integrative approach for land
use optimization in a semi-arid watershed. Glob. J. of Environ. Sci. Manage. 4: 31–46.
Thomas, A. 2017. A context-based procedure for assessing participatory schemes in environmental
planning. Ecol. Econ. 132: 113–123.
Ucler, N., G.O. Engin, H.G. Köçken and M.S. Öncel. 2015. Game theory and fuzzy programming
approaches for bi-objective optimization of reservoir watershed management: a case study in
Namazgah reservoir. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22: 6546–6558.
Vermont Green Infrastructure Initiative. 2018. Low impact development (LID) fact sheet, LID
overview.http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/erp/docs/sw_gi_1.0_LID_series.
pdf,Last access in July 7, 2018.
Wang, G., S. Mang, H. Cai, S. Liu, Z. Zhang, L. Wang and J.L. Innes. 2016. Integrated watershed
management: evolution, development and emerging trends. J. For. Res. 27: 967–994.
World Bank. 2008. Global Economic Prospects 2008: Technology Diffusion in the Developing World.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wu, H. 2018. Watershed prioritization in the upper Han River basin for soil and water conservation
in the South-to-North Water Transfer Project (middle route) of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 25: 2231–2238.
Xu, T., B.A. Engel, X. Shi, L. Leng, H. Jia, S.L. Yu and Y. Liu. 2018. Marginal-cost-based greedy
strategy (MCGS): Fast and reliable optimization of low impact development (LID) layout.
Sci. Total Environ. 640-641: 570–580.
Chapter 10
Bio-industrial Watershed
Management
Sanjay Arora
Introduction
Soil, aqua and flora are the most fundamental natural assets for sustainable
development and management (Aher et al. 2014), and hence should be handled
and managed efficiently, collectively and simultaneously (Aher et al. 2014).
Managing the natural resources through a sustainable approach is a coherent
phenomenon in its natural region (Aher et al. 2012). In this context, the natural
regions are invented to be in terms of the flow of water, which influences almost
all fields of the environment, where the regions are diversified as basin, catchment,
sub-catchment, macro-watershed (50,000 ha), sub-watershed (10,000–50,000 ha),
milli-watershed (1,000–10,000 ha), micro watershed (100–1,000 ha), and mini
watershed (1–100 ha) (Nair 2009, Aher et al. 2014). Planning and management
of natural resources at the micro-level of the watershed where there is a high
spatio-temporal variability in the geo-physical and socio-economic variables;
particularly in the fragile arid and semi-arid tropics, is the crucial need of the hour
(Aher et al. 2012). The real challenge on water resources planning at a micro-level
is to assess the quantum of water demand and its availability.
Poverty mostly resides in the rain fed agriculture areas. Rain fed agriculture
is mostly practiced in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid regions where rainfall is
ICAR–Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Lucknow (U.P.), 226002,
India.
Email: aroraicar@gmail.com
164 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Resource Products
Water Irrigation, Municipal or Industrial, Recreation
Timber Lumber, Pulp, Wood, Fuel wood, Recreation
Forage Livestock, Wildlife, Recreation
Wildlife Consumption, Recreation
Minerals Depends on the Type of Mineral
Socio-Economic Development
The watershed development programme in agricultural and forest catchment’s
aims in soil and water conservation result in several ecological benefits viz.
reduction in soil loss, development of vegetative cover, fodder production,
increase in crop yields, wasteland development, etc. This in turn results in the
economic development of resource poor rural communities in the region, as
indicated through increased availability of fuel, fodder and commercial grass,
employment generation and economic analysis.
which can lift people from poverty to prosperity. People in and around the
watershed are convinced for linkages between watershed conservation status
and downstream hydrological benefits and the users to pay for the existing
services, examples like the watershed protection, bio-prospecting and ecotourism
(Tognetti et al. 2005). Regenerating watersheds in a holistic manner (watershed
development) helps in revitalizing the ecosystem, the base of food sources and
addressing biodiversity and sustainability concerns. There is plenty of potential
for clean hydroelectricity, especially in hilly tracts and thanks to the Tehri Dam
and other mini-hydroelectric projects. Even tiny projects can be installed on the
old abandoned watermill sites and the new sites as well. Almost all the hill states
of India are abound in the potential for cash crops like saffron, flowers, off season
vegetables, vegetable seeds, mushrooms, honey, silk, wools (including the fine
Angora rabbit wool), bamboo and other bio-products on which rural industries
can be based. The need is there for holistic development on the watershed basis.
If only agricultural production is pursued there will be the serious consequences
of erosion and biodiversity disappearance affecting the future generations.
In Morocco, the Sebou watershed is one of the most populated geographical
zones and this watershed is equipped in various industries. Two hundred units
are installed in the watershed and are mainly represented by oil factories, sugar
factories, tanneries, paper factory, textile units, etc., using conserved water
and providing livelihoods (Jaghror et al. 2013). In the Ethiopian watershed,
industries gave impetus to improved watershed management adopting, different
soil and water conservation practices, and rehabilitation of watershed through
afforestation, community woodlots development and construction of micro and
small-scale irrigation projects (Hoben 1995, Gebremedhin et al. 2003).
Agriculture alone is not paying, much less so in the hilly watersheds. There
is an urgent need for agriculture plus industry to add value to the produce of
plants and animals. In the words of Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, we have to integrate
Ecology, Economics, Employment and Equity.
Extension
Agricultural Extension should contain a wing on Bio-industrial watersheds. The
Extension agencies should convey knowledge of various assistance schemes for
the rural bio-industries. There should also be the link between rural entrepreneurs
and the sources of processing technologies like the CSIR.
Marketing
Marketing is crucial for the success of the Bio-indstrial Watershed Movement.
Existing marketing structure may, therefore, be reviewed to make it more effective
in bringing the bulk of the profits of processing to the primary growers.
Conclusions
Soil and water conservation practices are essential components of watershed
development programme. If properly implemented through farmers’ participatory
approach, the soil and water conservation practices in agricultural catchments,
shall enable the farmers to optimize their crop yields and also rehabilitate the
erosion prone degraded lands. To make agriculture a profit giving venture in rain
fed and hilly areas, on which young men would build their livelihood willingly,
a processing industry; would have to be added to agriculture on the pattern of
the Bio-industrial Watershed Management. The approach of watershed with
agricultural and rural development activities should be converged into the bio-
industrial watershed for synergy effect. Watershed Programmes of India will yield
the desired results only when they are converted into Bio-industrial Watershed
Programmes.
Prof. M.S. Swaminathan says: “I hope this concept (Bio-industrial
Watershed Management) will get incorporated into the design of
watersheds. Various International and National Conferences have
endorsed late Prof. Bali’s concept. I hope soon every watershed in our
country will become a Bio-industrial watershed, in order to ensure work
and income security to rural families”
(Bali 2005)
References
Aher, P., A. Jagarlapudi and S. Gorantiwar. 2014. Quantification of morphometric characterization and
prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India: A remote sensing and
GIS approach. J. Hydrol. 511. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.028.
Aher, P.D., J. Adinarayana and S.D. Gorantiwar. 2012. Use of morphological characteristics for
multicriteria evaluation through fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for prioritization of
watersheds. pp. 12–13639. In: 21st Century Watershed Technology: Improving Water Quality
and the environment. Conference Proceedings, Bari, Italy. doi:10.13031/2013.41405.
Arora, S. and M.S. Hadda. 2003. Soil moisture conservation and nutrient management practices in
maize-wheat cropping system in rainfed North-western tract of India. Indian J. Dryland Agric.
Res. Develop. 18: 70–74.
174 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Arora, S. 2006. Preliminary assessment of soil and water conservation status in drought prone foothill
region of north-west India. J. World Assoc Soil Water Conserv. J1-5: 55–63.
Arora, Sanjay, V. Sharma, A. Kohli and V.K. Jalali. 2006. Soil and water conservation for sustaining
productivity in foothills of lower shivaliks. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, India
5: 77–82.
Bali, J.S. 2005. Bioindustrial Watershed Management, Concept and Strategies, SCSI, New Delhi,
p. 97.
Brooks, K.N., P.F. Folliott, H.M. Gregersen and L.F. Bano. 1997. Hydrology and the Management of
Watershed. Second Edition, Iowa State University, Ames.
Cosgrove, W.J. and D.P. Loucks. 2015. Water management: Current and future challenges and research
directions, Water Resour. Res. 51: 4823–4839, doi:10.1002/2014WR016869.
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, J. and G. Tesfay. 2003. Community natural resource management:
The case of woodlots in Northern Ethiopia. Environment and Development Economics
8: 129–148.
Hoben, A. 1995. Paradigms and politics: The cultural construction of environmental policy in Ethiopia.
World Development 23: 1007–1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00019-9.
Hufschmidt, M.M. 1991. A conceptual framework for watershed management. pp. 17–31. In:
Easter, K.W., J.A. Dixon and M.M. Hufschmidt (eds.). Watershed Resource Management:
Studies for Asia and the Pacific. Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA, East-West Center.
Jaghror, H., K. Houri, E.H. Saad, I. Saad, L. Zidane, A. Douira and M. Fadli. 2013. Physicochemical
typology of the water in the watershed of Sebou river (Morocco). Environ. Sci. An Indian J.
8: 362–372.
Lal, R. 2000. Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem. CRC Press, Florida, USA.
Mahnot, S.C. and P.K. Singh. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation. Inter-cooperation Coordination
Office. Jaipur. p. 90.
Mani, N.D. 2005. Watershed Management, Principles, Parameters and Programmes, Dominate
Publishers and Distributers, New Delhi, pp. 3–35.
McGhghy, B. 2012. The Community Managed Bio-Industrial Watershed in Karasanur. Borlaug-Ruan
International Intern., MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Chennai, pp. 1–21.
Nair, A.S.K. 2009. A new scientific management approach to water related natural disasters. pp. 143–
154. In: Proceedings of Kerala environment congress, Thiruvanthapuram.
Samra, J.S. 2002. Participatory watershed management in India. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 50: 345–351.
Shinde, S.D. 2014. Environmental Issues & Remedies in Watershed Development Programmes in
Khatav Tahsil (Satara District).
Singh, R.V. 2000. Watershed planning and management.Yash Publishing House, Bikaner, Rajasthan,
India.
Swaminathan, M.S. 2010. Safeguarding National Food Security in an Era of Climate Change. pp. 6–9.
In: Agriculture Yearbook 2010, Agriculture Today, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
Tognetti, S.S., B. Aylward and G.F. Mendoza. 2005. Markets for Watershed Services. In: Anderson, M.
(ed.). Encyclopaedia of Hydrological Sciences. John Wiley and Sons, UK.
Venkateswarlu, B. and C.A. RamaRao. 2010. Rainfed Agriculture: challenges of Climate Change.
pp. 43–46. In: Agriculture Yearbook 2010, Agriculture Today, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
Wani, S.P. and K.K. Garg. 2009. Watershed management concept and principles. In: Best-bet Options
for Integrated Watershed Management Proceedings of the Comprehensive Assessment of
Watershed Programs in India, 25–27 July 2007, ICRISAT Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Chapter 11
Land Evaluation: A General
Perspective
K Karthikeyan,1,* Nirmal Kumar,1 Abrar Yousuf,2
Balkrishna S Bhople,2 Pushpanjali 3 and RK Naitam1
Introduction
Land Evaluation is the process of estimating the potential of the land for its best
alternative use (Dent and Young 1981) or as the prediction of land performance
when the land is used for specified purposes (Beek et al. 1997, Rossiter and Van
Wambeke 1997, Herrick et al. 2016). It is the progression processes of evaluating
assessing the performance of land when it is exploited for specific rationales
purpose (FAO 1976). Land evaluation is therefore for implementing land use
planning for both individual land users or collectively by groups of land users
(Huizing et al. 1995, Herrick et al. 2016). ‘Land’ is a collective entity which
takes into consideration of ‘soil’, ‘topography’, ‘climate’, and ‘political density’.
Therefore, it is an undoubtedly integrated geographical concept (physical and
human geography). ‘Reasonably stable’ characteristics include variable but non-
cyclic attributes that can be presented on temporal scale, in particular, the weather
(Rossiter 2001). Land resource surveys and land use planning is linked with each
1
ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur 440033, India.
2
Regional Research Station Punjab Agricultural University, Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar, 144521,
India.
3
ICAR-Central Research Institute on Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, Telangana 500059.
* Corresponding author: mailtokarthik77@gmail.com
176 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Land
The FAO (1995) defined Land as:
A delineable area of the earth’s terrestrial surface, encompassing all attributes
of the biosphere immediately above or below this surface, including those of the
near surface climate, the soil and terrain forms, the surface hydrology (including
shallow lakes, rivers, marshes, and swamps) near-surface sedimentary layers and
the associated groundwater reserve, the plant and animal populations, patterns
of anthropogenic arrangement and substantial results of anthropogenic activities
(water storage or drainage structures, infrastructure, constructions, etc.).
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 177
Land Evaluation
Soil Science Society of America defines land evaluation as: “It is the process of
appraisal of land performance when the land is exploited for specific reasons.” It
involves the implementation and elucidation of surveys and studies of landforms,
soils, climate, vegetation, etc., in order to recognize and evaluate promising
classes of land use in appropriation to the objectives of the evaluation. To be of
significance in planning, the variety of land uses considered should be limited to
those relevant within the physical, economic and social framework of the region
considered, and the comparisons should incorporate economic considerations.
degradation hazards (such as soil erosion and soil salinization) have all facilitated
quantitative simulation of specific land use processes and opened the avenues
for yield prediction. The advancement of information technology in the last
two decades has enabled researchers to make rapid advancement in the analysis
of interactions between land resources and land use and in quantitative land
evaluation based on quantitative modeling of land use systems (Beek et al. 1997).
However, evaluating land evaluation and land use systems analysis in
the broader context of land use planning, revealed a potential gap between
technology-oriented land resource specialists, concerned with the present and
future performance of the land resources, and human-oriented (social) scientists,
concerned with the land users and their well-being (Beek et al. 1997).
Categories in LCC
LCC has three components—LCC Class, LCC Subclass, and LCC units—each of
which is represented by a figure or symbol (Supriya et al. 2018).
Figure: 2 The outline of LCC classes for limitations and versatility (Kingbiel and Montgomery, 1961)
Figure 1 Components of the LCC
Fig. 2. The outline of LCC classes for limitations and versatility (Kingbiel and Montgomery 1961).
Figure: 2 The outline of LCC classes for limitations and versatility (Kingbiel and Montgomery, 1961)
Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas possess limitations that prevent commercial
plant production and that limit their use to recreational purposes, wildlife
habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes.
LCC subclass
Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class. They are designated by
adding a small letter to the class numeral (for example, 2e), when abbreviated
forms include ‘e (main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant
cover is maintained), w (water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or
cultivation), s (shallow, droughty, or stony soils), or c (extreme climatic factors,
either very cold or very dry)’ (Girmay et al. 2018).
In Class 1 there are no subclasses due to the fact that the soils of this class
possess few limitations. Class 5 contains only the subclasses represented by w, s,
or c because the soils in Class 5 are subject to little or no erosion (Girmay et al.
2018). They have other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, rangeland,
forestland, wildlife habitat, or recreation (Sonter and Lawrie 2007).
LCC units
Capability units are soil groups within a subclass. The soils in a capability unit are
enough alike to be suited to the same crops and pasture plants, to require similar
management, and to have similar productivity (Girmay et al. 2018). Capability
units are generally designated by adding an Arabic figure to the subclass symbol,
for example, 2e–4 and 3e–6.
182 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Grade 4—20 to 39
Grade 5—10 to 19
Grade 6—less than 10
Grade 1: These soils are appropriate to intensively cultivated crops that are well
adapted to climate of the region.
Grade 2: These soils are good agricultural soils, although they are not as
desirable as compared to Grade 1 because of a less permeable subsoil,
deep cemented layers (e.g., duripans), a gravelly or moderately fine
textured surface layer, moderate or strong slopes, restricted drainage,
low available water capacity, lower soil fertility, or a slight or moderate
hazard of flooding.
Grade 3: These soils are only fairly well suited for agriculture because of
moderate soil depth; moderate to steep slopes, restricted permeability
in the subsoil; a clayey, sandy, or gravelly surface layer; somewhat
restricted drainage; acidity; low fertility; or a hazard of flooding.
Grade 4: These soils are poorly suited for agriculture. They are not as desirable
as compared Grade 3 because of certain limitations (shallower depth;
steeper slopes; poorer drainage; a less permeable subsoil; a gravelly,
sandy, or clayey surface layer; channeled or hummocky micro-relief;
acidity).
Grade 5: These soils are very poorly suited for agriculture and are seldom put
to use. They are more commonly used as pastures, rangelands, or
woodlands.
Grade 6: These soils and miscellaneous areas are not suitable for agricultural
activities because of very severe or extreme limitations. They are
appropriate for limited use as rangelands, protective habitats, woodlands,
or watersheds.
Six land capability classes characterize the capability of the land unit for the
production of the three groups exacting, moderately exacting and less exacting
crops. For each group, a reference crop was used to study the relation between the
capability index and yield.
Suitability orders
The FAO distinguishes two suitability orders: S (suitable) and N (unsuitable).
Suitable land is land on which the sustained use for the defined purpose in the
defined manner is expected to yield benefits that will justify the proposed inputs
without unacceptable risk to land resources on the site or in its adjacent areas
(Girmay et al. 2018).
Unsuitable land is land having characteristics which appear to preclude its
sustained use for the defined purpose in the defined manner or which would create
production, upkeep and/or conservation problems requiring a level of inputs
unacceptable at the time of the interpretation (Girmay et al. 2018).
As such, land may be classified as unsuitable for a given use for a number of
reasons:
• Proposed use is technically impossible,
• Use would cause severe environmental degradation, or
• The value of the expected benefits does not justify the expected costs of the
required inputs.
The order should always be quoted in the classification symbol even when
only 1 order of the land is represented in the study area.
Suitability classes
The framework at its origin permits complete freedom in determining the number
of classes within each order. However, it has been recommended to use only 3
classes within order S and 2 classes within order N.
The class is indicated by an Arabic number in the sequence of decreasing
suitability within the order and therefore reflects degrees of suitability within the
orders:
S1 = suitable
S2 = moderately suitable
S3 = marginally suitable
N1 = actually unsuitable, potentially suitable
N2 = actually and potentially unsuitable
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 187
Although no consistent criteria are given for defining the classes, the
boundaries between the suitability classes S1, S2, and S3 are generally defined by
the relation between the necessary efforts and the accomplished output. As such,
they change with a changing socio-economic perspective (Ziadat 2007, Girmay
et al. 2018).
Distinction between suitability classes N1 and N2 of the unsuitable order is
mainly based on the recognition of serious physical limitations that can or cannot
be improved by major improvements such as terracing or drainage (AbdelRahman
et al. 2016, Girmay et al. 2018). Table 1 gives an outline of the guidelines that can
be followed when defining the suitability classes for each of the land properties
in land evaluations for agriculture (Ziadat 2007). The yield percentages dividing
the suitability classes vary according to economic conditions. As such a yield
reduction to 40% of the optimum might be acceptable to a subsistence farmer
but not to a competitive commercial endeavor (Ziadat 2007, AbdelRahman et al.
2016, Girmay et al. 2018).
Suitability subclasses
In land evaluation reports and maps, a lower-case letter with mnemonic
significance follows the suitability class symbol reflecting the kinds of limitations
or the main kinds of improvement measures required (Ziadat 2007, Girmay et al
2018).
In order to keep the number of subclasses to a minimum, it is advised to
report only the most dominant constraint or constraints (if two constraints are
evenly severe). The lower-case letters are used to symbolize these constraints
(Ziadat 2007) and have been summarized in Table 2.
188 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Suitability units
This grouping is employed to identify land units possessing minor variations in
management requirements. This helps to specify the relative significance of land
improvement works. It is suggested to specify the land suitability units by Arabic
numerals enclosed in brackets (Ziadat 2007, Dengiz and Usul 2018).
Before a land suitability class can be given to the land units, crop-specific
land use requirements need to be defined and compared with the available land
characteristics (Ziadat 2007).
A B
I = Rmin × ×
100 100
where,
I = Land and Climate Index
A, B, ... = remaining ratings land characteristics
Rmin is the minimum rank.
Multiple regressions
The multiple regression model is often referred as a ‘black box’ model. Lack of
data is the main limiting factor for its applicability in land evaluation as the targeted
variables, which are going to be predicted and are by definition very difficult to
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 189
Table 4. Random inconsistency indices (RI) for N = 10 (Source: Saaty 2008).
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.46 1.49
where RI is the average of the resulting consistency index depending on the order
of the matrix given by Saaty (1980) (Table 4) and CI is the consistency index and
can be expressed as
CI = (λmax−m)/(m−1)
where λmax is the largest or principal eigenvalue of the matrix and can be easily
calculated from the matrix as the average of the elements of the vector whose
jth element is the ratio of the jth element of the vector A.w to the corresponding
element of the vector w. m is the order of the matrix.
When the matrix has a complete consistency, CI = 0. The bigger CI means,
worse consistency the matrix had (Saaty 1980, 1987). When CR was less than
0.10, the matrix had a reasonable consistency. Otherwise the matrix should be
changed. The calculated results of weight would be accepted when the consistency
ratio was satisfactory (Saaty 1980). In this AHP we can avoid all kind of biasness
and identify the variability effectively.
Net j = ∑W ji X i
where, Wji represent the weights between node I and node j, and Xi is the output
from node i. the output from a given node j is then calculated from:
The coefficient b called bias and W weights are estimated to minimize the
deviations between the targets and the estimates.
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 193
Neural networks do not require data sets to be perfect, because they are
inherently built for error minimization. Fischer and Gopal (1994) and Yeh and Li
(2003) found that ANNs perform better than conventional models because they
are better suited to adjust to uncertainties in spatial data.
Future Perspectives
In order to be pertinent to the potentialities and constraints of each land
unit, these hanging land uses and management practices must be based on
land evaluation results, in order to estimate its suitability and vulnerability.
Future viewpoints reveal that agro-ecological land evaluation is the correct
way to respond to the what, why, and how of moving towards sustainable
rural development. Therefore it is pertinent to incorporate novel means of
technological interventions (e.g., satellite images, digital elevation models),
extracting maximum value from data (e.g., Internet-accessible databases and
sophisticated modeling techniques), and mounting the accessibility of the end
products (e.g., low-cost spatial viewers). As land use is a dynamic discourse
and land evaluation is interested in detecting the changes, a future challenge
will be to improve the efficiency of the maintenance and updating of the land
use data sets. Furthermore, this will allow them to identify the representative
areas (whether high-potential or critical problem areas), for more detailed
inventories on medium- or large-scale maps. The procedures will also respond
with the integration of geo-referenced databases, evaluation models, and results
presentation, generating maps of land use options or alternatives, through land
use and management decision support systems. One more current trend is the
transformation of land evaluation which results into legislative instruments, e.g.,
for good agricultural practices or environmental legislation. It is imperative to
accept that future changes of land use and management is possible by switching
over to sustainable land use systems; reducing the present rates of land degradation
(such as soil erosion, salinization, acidification, eutrophication, nutrient loss,
soil and water contamination, bio-diversification loss); managing land-based
greenhouse emissions and ascertaining carbon scrubbers for long term storage;
providing an explicit basis for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural production, and establishing the size of potential carbon sinks under
various policy scenarios.
References
AbdelRahman, M., A.E. Natarajan and R. Hegde. 2016. Assessment of land suitability and capability
by integrating remote sensing and GIS for agriculture in Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka,
India. Egypt. J. Remote Sensing Space Sci. 19: 125–141.
Albaji, M., M. Golabi, S.B. Nasab and M. Jahanshahi. 2014. Land suitability evaluation for surface,
sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 69. 10.1080/0035919X.2014.892038.
Ashraf, S., R. Munokyan, B. Normohammadan and A. Babaei. 2010. Qualitative Land suitability
evaluation for growth of wheat in Northeast of Iran. Research Jour. of Biol. Sci. 5: 548–552.
194 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Ayalew, L., H. Yamagishi, H. Marui and T. Kanno. 2005 Landslide in Sado Island of Japan: Part
II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparison of results from two methods and
verifications. EngGeol. 81: 432–445.
Bagherzadeh, A. and P. Paymard. 2015. Assessment of land capability for different irrigation systems
by parametric and fuzzy approaches in the Mashhad Plain, northeast Iran. Soil Water Res.
10: 90–98.
Baniya, N. 2008. Land suitability evaluation using GIS for vegetable crops in Kathmandu Valley/
Nepal, der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 259 pp.
Beek, K.J., A. De Bie and P. Driessen. 1997. Land evaluation for sustainable land management. ITC,
Enschede, The Netherlands.
Braimoh, A.K., P.L.G. Vlek and A. Stein. 2004. Land evaluation for maize based on fuzzy set and
interpolation. J. Environ. Manage. 33: 226–238.
Van Diepen, C.A., G.J. Reinds and G.H.J. Koning. 1992. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative
physical land evaluations, using an assessment of the potential for sugar-beet growth in the
European Community. Soil Use Manage. 8: 80–89.
De la Rosa, D. and C.A. Van Diepen. 2002. Qualitative and Quantitative Land Evaluation in 1.5. Land
Use and Land Cover, in Encyclopedia of Life Support System (EOLSSUNESCO), Eolss
Publishers, Oxford, UK.
Deckers, J., O. Spaargaren and S. Dondeyne. 2004. Soil survey as a basis for land evaluation. In:
W.H. Verheye (ed.). Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences Encyclopedia of Life Support
systems. Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Dengiz, O. and M. Usul. 2018. Multi-criteria approach with linear combination technique and
analytical hierarchy process in land evaluation studies. Eurasian J. S. Sci. 7: 20–29. DOI:
10.18393/ejss.328531.
Eastman, J.R., W. Jin, P.A.K. Kyem and J. Toledano. 1995. Raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-
objective decisions. Photogram. Eng. Rem. Sen. 61: 539–547.
Eastman, J.R. 2006. Idrisi Andes Guide to GIS and Image Processing, Clark Labs, Clark University,
950 Main Street. Worcester. MA, USA.
F.A.O. 1976. Framework for Land Evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin No 32, Food and Agriculture
Organizations of the United Nations-Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1979. Soil survey investigations for irri- gation. Soils Bull. 42. Rome.
FAO. 1995. Forest resources assessment 1990. Global Synthesis. FAO, Rome.
Fischer, M.M. and S. Gopal. 1994. Artificial neural networks: a new approach to modeling interregional
telecommunication flows. J. Regional Sci. 34: 503–527.
Foshtomi, M., M. Norouzin, M. Rezaei, M. Akef and A. Akbarzadeh. 2011. Qualitative and Economic
land suitability evaluation for Tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in sloping area of Guilan. Iran. J.
Biol. Environ. Sci. 5: 135–146.
Ghazanchaii, R. and A. Fariabi. 2014. Evaluation of qualitative, quantitative and economical land
suitability for major crops in dezful region. Int. J. Soil Sci. 9: 120–132.
Girmay, G., W. Sebnie and Y. Reda. 2018. Land capability classification and suitability
assessment for selected crops in Gateno watershed, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 4:
1 DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2018.1532863.
Gizachew, A.A. and M. Ndao. 2008. Land evaluation in the Enderta District-Tigray-Ethiopia. 28th
Course Professional Master, Geomatics and Natural Resources Evaluation, 5 November
2007–27 June 2008. IAO, Florence, Italy. [Google Scholar].
Hack-tenBroeke, M.J.D., H.M. Mulder, R.P. Bartholomeus, J.C. van Dam, G. Holshof, I.E. Hoving,
D.J.J. Walvoort, M. Heinen, J.G. Kroes, P.J.T. van Bakel, I. Supit, A.J.W. de Wit and
R. Ruijtenberg. 2019. Quantitative land evaluation implemented in Dutch water management.
Geoderma. 338: 536–545.
Herrick, J.E., O. Arnalds, B.T. Bestelmeyer, S. Brignezu, G. Han, M.V. Johnson, Y. Lu, L. Montanarella,
W. Pengue and G. Toth. 2016. Summary for policymakers: Unlocking the sustainable potential
of land resources. Evaluation systems, strategies and tools. United Nations Environment
Programs (UNEP). Job Number: DRI/2002/PA. 27 pp.
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 195
Hertz, J.A., A.S. Krogh and A. Palmer. 1991. Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Redwood City, CA.
Huizing, H., A. Farshad and C. Debie. 1995. Land evaluation. ITC lecture notes. ITC, Enschede, The
Netherlands.
Janssen, R. and P. Rietveld. 1990. Multicriteria analysis and geographical information systems: an
application to agricultural land use in the Netherlands. pp. 129–139. In: Scholten, H.J. and
J.C.H. Stillwell (eds.). Geographical Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning.
Karthikeyan, K., D. Vasu, P. Tiwary, A.M. Cunliffe, P. Chandran, M. Sankar and S.K. Singh. 2018.
Comparison of methods for evaluating the suitability of Vertisols for Gossypiumhirsutum (Bt
cotton) in two contrasting agro-ecological regions, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science.
DOI:10.1080/03650340.2018.1542131.
Kihoro, J., N.J. Bosco and H. Murage. 2017. Suitability analysis for rice growing sites using a
multicriteria evaluation and GIS approach in great Mwea region, Kenya. Springer Plus 2013
2:265.doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-265.
Klingebiel, A.A. and P.H. Montgomery. 1961. Land capability classification. Handbook No. 210 Soil
conservation service, USDA.
Kurtener, D., S.E. Krueger and I. Dubitskaia. 2004. Quality estimation of data collection. pp. 9101–
9109. In: UDMS, UDMS press. Giorggia-Venice.
Landon, J.R. 1984. Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land
evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. New York: Longman. xiv, 450 pp. S599.9.T76 B72
1984.
Maddahi, Z., A. Jalalian, M.K. Zarkesh and N. Honarjo. 2016. Land suitability analysis for rice
cultivation usingagis-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach: Central Part of
Amol District, Iran. Soil & Water Res. doi: 10.17221/1/2016-SWR.
McCleland, J.L., D.E. Rumelhart and the PDP Research Group. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing:
Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
McMartin, W. 1950. The economics of land classification for irrigation. J. Farm Econ. 32: 553–570.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1233181.
Molazem, D., M. Valizadeh and M. Zaefizadeh. 2002. North West of gentic diversity of wheat. J. Agri.
Sci. 20: 353–431.
Peder, A., R.G. Margaret, S. Herald and B. Wang. 1986. A Decision-Making Tool in the Developing
Countries, Nowegian Computing Center, Box 335, Blindern, N-0314 Oslo 3, Norway.
Qian, L., Y. Yang, J. Xiaoqian and G. Yuntao. 2018. Multifactor-based environmental risk assessment
for sustainable land-use planning in Shenzhen, China. Sci. Total Environ. 657: 1051–1063.
Ramanathan, R. 2001. A Note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact
assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63: 27–35.
Riquier, J., D.L. Bramao and J.P. Comet. 1970. A new system of appraisal in terms of actual and
potential productivity. FAO Soil Resources, Development and Conservation Services, Land
and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Ritung, S., W., F. Agus and H. Hidayat. 2007. Land Suitability Evaluation with a Case Map of Aceh
Barat District, Indonesian Soil Research Institute and World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Rossiter. D.G. and A.R. Wambake. 1997. Automated Land Evaluation System ALES Version 4.65
User’s Manual. Cornell University, Department of Soil, Crop and Atmospheric Sciences
SCAS Teaching Series No. T 93–26, Ithaca, NY 1997.
Rossiter, D.G. 2001. Land Evaluation Processes Draft Copy. Cornell University College of Agriculture
and Life Science, Department of Soil, Crop and Atmospheric Sciences.
Runhaar, H., P.P.J. Driessen and L. Soer. 2009. Sustainable Urban Development and the Challenge of
Policy Integration: An Assessment of Planning Tools for Integrating Spatial and Environmental
Planning in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(3):
417–431. https://doi.org/10.1068/b34052.
Saaty, T.L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. ServSci. 1: 83–98.
Sayed, A.S.A. 2006. Pedological studies on soils of Esh-Milahah depression, Red sea region, Egypt.
M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, 1–190 pp.
196 Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling
Silva, A.C. and J.L. Blanco. 2003. Delineation of suitable areas for crops using a multi criteria
evaluation approach and land use/cover mapping: a case study in Central Mexico. Agricultural
Systems 77: 117–136.
Sonter R.O. and J.W. Lawrie. 2007. Soils and rural land capability. In: Charman, P.E.V. and
B.W. Murphy (eds.). Soils: Their Properties nd Management. 3rd edition. Oxford University
Press, Melbourne.
Stomph, T.J., L.O. Fresco and H. Keulen. 1994. Land use system evaluation: Concepts and
methodology. Agric. Syst. 44: 243–255.
Storie, R.E. 1978. Storie Index Soil Rating. Division of Agricultural Science, University of
California. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/3203.pdf.
Supriya, K., P. Kavitha, M.V.S. Naidu and M.S. Reddy. 2018. Land capability classification of
Mahanandi mandal, Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh. J. Pharmacog. Phytochem. 7:
3429–3433.
Sys, C. 1985. Land evaluation. AlgemeenBestuurvandeOntwikkelingss, Ghent, Belgium: International
Training Centre for Post-Graduate Soil Scientists. State University of Ghent.
Sys, C., E. Van Ranst and J. Debaveye, 1991. Land evaluation. Part l. Principles in land evaluation and
crop production calculations. International Training Centre for Post-graduate Soil Scientists,
University Ghent, 265 pp.
Sys, C., E.V. Ranst and J. Debaveye. 1991. Land Evaluation. Part II. Methods in land evaluation.
Agricultural Publications. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Brussels,
273p.
Van Lanen, H.A.J., M.J.D. Hack-ten Broeke, J. Bouma and W.J.M. De Groot. 1992. A mixed
qualitative/quantitative physical land evaluation methodology. Geoderma 55: 37–54.
Várallyay, G. 2011. Challenge of Sustainable Development to a Modern Land Evaluation System,
Land quality and land use information in the European Union. Keszthely, Hungary, JRC
61094.
Verheye, W. 2002. Land Evaluation Systems Other than the FAO System. Encyclopedia of life support
systems. Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Vink, A.P.A. 1975. Land use in advancing agriculture. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 392 p.
Voogd, H. 1983. Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning: Pion, London: 74 p.
White, H. 1999. Learning in Artificial Neural Networks: A statistical Perspective. Neural Computation.
\B1\P, 425–464. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Xiang, W.N. and K.C. Clarke. 2003. The Use of Scenarios in Land-Use Planning. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 885–909. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2945.
Yeh, A.G.O. and X. Li. 2003. Simulation of development alternatives using neural networks, cellular
automata, and GIS for urban planning. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 69: 1043–1052.
Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Infor. and Control. 8: 338–353.
Zaefizadah, M., M. Khayatnezhad and R. Gholamin. 2011. Comparison of multiple linear regressions
(MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN) in predicting the yield using its components in the
hulless barley. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and Environ. Sci. 10: 60–64.
Ziadat, F.M. 2007. Land suitability classification using different sources of information: Soil maps and
predicted soil attributes in Jordan. Geoderma. 140: 73–80.
Index