Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 209
At a glance
Powered by AI
The document discusses concepts related to watershed hydrology, management, and modeling. It covers topics such as soil erosion, runoff estimation, and the use of remote sensing and GIS tools in watershed management.

Some concepts discussed include precipitation, runoff, soil erosion, sedimentation, infiltration, and watershed hydrologic systems.

Techniques mentioned include terracing, strip cropping, minimum tillage, rainwater harvesting structures, and integrated watershed management approaches.

Watershed Hydrology,

Management and Modeling


Editors
Abrar Yousuf
Manmohanjit Singh
Punjab Agricultural University
Regional Research Station
Ballowal Saunkhri, SBS Nagar
Punjab, India

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

© 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC


CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20190802

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-36564-3 (Hardback)


This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the
validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the
copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to
publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let
us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

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.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data


Names: Yousuf, Abrar, 1989- editor. | Singh, Manmohanjit, 1971- editor.
Title: Watershed hydrology, management and modeling / editors: Abrar
Yousuf, Manmohanjit Singh.
Description: Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, [2020] |
Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The book will
provide the comprehensive insight of the watersheds and modeling of the
hydrological processes in the watersheds. This book will cover the
detailed concepts of watershed hydrology and watershed management. The
basic concepts of soil erosion and its types, measurement and estimation
of runoff and soil loss from the small and large watersheds will be
discussed. Recent advances in the watershed management like application
of remote sensing and GIS and hydrological models will be included in
the book. The insight to the various important hydrological models will
also be given in the book. The book will be a guide for professional and
competitive examinations to Under Graduate students of Agriculture and
Agricultural Engineering and Master students of Soil Science/ Soil and
Water Engineering/Agricultural Physics/ Hydrology/Watershed
Management”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019032196 | ISBN 9781138365643 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: Watershed hydrology. | Watershed management. | Soil
erosion.
Classification: LCC GB980 .W368 2020 | DDC 551.48--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019032196

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at


http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Preface

The concept of a watershed as a hydrologic unit advanced in the early twentieth


century has been widely adopted as the management unit. Watersheds are
hydrologic units that are considered efficient and appropriate for the assessment
of available resources and subsequent planning and implementation of various
development programmes. Most development programmes have worked along
political and administrative units. Districts, blocks and villages formed the unit
for planning and implementation of development programmes by the Government
as well as Non-Government agencies. However, the environment does not
recognize these boundaries therefore; any environment regeneration programme
has to take into account environmental boundaries for effective success. The best
environmental unit for planning is the watershed.
There is a need to understand physical process of erosion in relation of
topography, land use and management to come up 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 used/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. The integrated outcome of the hydrological models along
with remote sensing and GIS can be helpful to the decision makers to evaluate the
best management practices and design the necessary soil and water conservation
structures to reduce the soil erosion.
The present book has been divided into 11 chapters. The book covers both
the basic and applied parts in relation to watershed hydrology. The basics of soil
erosion, measurement of soil erosion, runoff and rainwater harvesting and basic
information about watershed hydrology and management is given, in order to
understand the basic processes in relation to watershed management. The applied
iv  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

1. Watershed Hydrology and Management 1


Anil Bhardwaj
Introduction 1
Hydrologic Cycle 1
Hydrology and Watershed 3
Scales in Hydrology 4
Hydrology of Small vs. Large Watersheds 5
Watershed as Hydrologic System 6
Global vs. Watershed Hydrologic System 6
Watershed Hydrologic Processes 7
Watershed Hydrologic Budget 11
Watershed Hydrology and Health 13
Managing Watershed Hydrology 13
References 17

2. Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting 18


Junaid N Khan, Rohitashw Kumar and Abrar Yousuf
Introduction 18
Runoff 19
Factors Affecting Runoff 20
Estimation of Runoff 23
Direct Measurement of Runoff 27
Stage Level Recorder 29
Current Meter 31
Rain Water Harvesting Techniques 31
Rainwater Harvesting in Farm Ponds 32
Design of Farm Ponds 32
References 36
vi  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

3. Basics of Soil Erosion 38


Manmohanjit Singh and Kerstin Hartsch
Introduction 38
On-site Effects 39
Off-site Effects 40
Types of Soil Erosion 41
Factors Affecting Water Erosion 45
Stages of Soil Erosion 53
References 61

4. Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water 62


Manmohanjit Singh and SS Kukal
Introduction 62
Soil Erosion Hazard Assessment 62
Measurement of Soil Erosion 66
Laboratory Measurements of Soil Loss 73
Rainfall Simulation 74
Rill Erosion Measurement 75
Gully Erosion Measurement 75
References 75

5. Measures to Control Soil Erosion 77


Abrar Yousuf, Jonas Lenz and Eajaz Ahmad Dar
Introduction 77
Soil Conservation Strategies 78
Agronomic Measures to Control Soil Erosion 80
Mechanical Measures to Control Soil Erosion 85
Soil Stabilizers/Additives/Conditioners 94
References 95

6. Gully Erosion and its Control 98


Mahesh Chand Singh
Introduction 98
Stages of Gully Development 99
Classification of Gully 100
Causes of Gully Formation 103
Adverse Impacts of Gully Erosion 103
Gully Control Measures 104
References 113
Contents  vii

7. Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application 115


Jürgen Schmidt and Michael von Werner
Introduction 115
Empirical Models 116
Physically Based Simulation Models 119
Application of the EROSION 3D Model 138
References 140

8. SWAT Model and its Application 142


VK Bhatt and AK Tiwari
Introduction 142
Erosion Models for Estimating Soil Erosion 143
SWAT Model 143
Evaluation of SWAT Model in Lower Himalayas 145
References 151

9. Watershed Management in the 21st Century 152


Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi
Why Watershed Management? 152
Optimizing Land Use Utilization 154
Monitoring based Watershed Management 155
Adaptive Watershed Management 156
References 160

10. Bio-industrial Watershed Management 163


Sanjay Arora
Introduction 163
Watershed Development and Management Approach 164
Principles of Watershed Management 165
Multiple Use Concept in Watershed Management 165
Integrated Watershed Management Approach 166
Bio-Industrial Watershed Management Approach 168
Bio-Industrial Watershed Opportunities in Hilly Region 169
Contract Farming and Bio-Industrial Watershed Management 170
Way Forward for Bio-Industrial Watersheds 171
References 173
viii  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

11. Land Evaluation: A General Perspective 175


K Karthikeyan, Nirmal Kumar, Abrar Yousuf, Balkrishna S Bhople,
Pushpanjali and RK Naitam
Introduction 175
Land 176
Land Evaluation 177
Land Use Planning 177
Role of land Evaluation in Land Use Planning 178
Objectives of Land Evaluation 178
Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development 178
Qualitative to Quantitative Land Evaluation 178
Land Capability Classification 179
Land Irrigability Classification 182
Land Capability Index 184
Land Suitability Classification 185
Future Perspectives 193
References 193

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

of the earth is known as the hydrologic cycle. There is an endless circulation of


water on the earth, linking oceans, land surface and atmosphere. The hydrologic
cycle as shown in Fig. 1, describes the processes by which water moves around
the globe. It begins with the evaporation of water from the ocean which then
forms moist air masses. As moist air is lifted, it cools and water vapours condense
to form clouds. Moisture is transported in the atmosphere by air currents towards
land surfaces around the globe until it returns as precipitation over the earth
surface. While falling over the earth a part of precipitation is intercepted by
the vegetation and man-made structures. The water that eventually reaches the
ground, a part of it may evaporate back into the atmosphere or it may infiltrate
into the soil and percolate to become groundwater. Groundwater either seeps its
way into the rivers, streams, and oceans, or is released back into the atmosphere
through evaporation and transpiration. The balance amount of water that remains
on the earth’s surface is runoff, which flows and empties into lakes, rivers and
streams and is carried back to the oceans, where the cycle starts again (Pidwirny
2006). Hence, the major components of the hydrologic cycle are: Precipitation—
rain, snow, hail, sleet, dew, drizzle, fog, etc.; Evaporation and transpiration;
Interception, depression storage, infiltration, percolation and seepage; Surface
runoff, sub-surface runoff or interflow and groundwater or base flow; and water
storage over and below the land surface including water stored in the soil profile.
From a global perspective, the hydrologic cycle can be considered to be
comprised of four major systems as can be seen in Fig. 1., the Hydrosphere is
the source of water, the Atmosphere is the deliverer of water, and the Lithosphere
and the Biosphere are the users of water. The hydrologic cycle is indeed a natural
machine run by solar energy and the gravitational forces with water as the material
process. There is no gain or loss of water in the cycle. That means the total amount
of water on the planet and its atmosphere remains same, but is continuously

Fig. 1.  Hydrologic cycle (Source: Gregory et al. 2012).


Watershed Hydrology and Management  3

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.

Hydrology and Watershed


The science which deals with water and its movement in the hydrologic cycle
is known as hydrology. That means it deals with occurrence, circulation and
distribution of water from the earth and earth’s atmosphere. It is concerned with
the water falling as precipitation on land surface, water in the streams, lakes and
reservoirs, soil and rocks below the earth’s surface. From an application point
of view hydrology deals with occurrence, movement, distribution, circulation,
storage, use, development and management of water. Traditionally, hydrology
is divided into two main branches: surface water hydrology, and groundwater
hydrology. Surface water hydrology deals mainly with water on the earth’s surface,
whereas groundwater hydrology deals with the water below the earth’s surface.
However, groundwater may appear as surface water or vice versa. Hydrology,
which treats all phases of earth’s water, is a subject of great importance for the
inhabitants of the earth and their environment. Hydrologic knowledge helps us to
solve water-related problems: the problems of quantity, quality and availability
within a hydrologic unit known as a watershed.
A watershed is defined as the area above a certain point which drains water
through that particular point, i.e., outlet. In other words, it is an area of land
which drains or sheds all of the incoming excess precipitation at the same place,
toward the same body of water or the same low elevation area resulting from its
topography. This means that a watershed’s boundary is defined by its topographic
high points. The precipitation that falls within the boundary of a watershed would
flow as excess precipitation towards its outlet, i.e., point of lowest elevation.
Depending on the location of the outlet, the watershed area would be different. A
watershed is fairly simple to identify in hilly areas because its boundaries are well
defined by ridges. However, in flatlands such as the alluvial plains, identifying
topographic high points may be quite challenging because the highest and lowest
elevations may have a difference of only a few centimeters. At all points on the
earth’s surface, even where there is no evidence of surface runoff flow, a watershed
does exist. This is because a difference in elevations exists everywhere, and when
rainfall occurs, even if it is infrequent, the topographical features of the watershed
will determine where runoff water will accumulate and flow. Also, all the drainage
lines are located on low points on the land where surface runoff accumulates
and flow. The size of a watershed depends on the location of the outlet and it is
largest when the streams or river of that watershed discharges directly into an
4  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Hydrology of Small vs. Large Watersheds


The hydrology of small watersheds is different from that of the large watersheds.
Small watersheds, may also be called micro-watersheds, depending upon their
size, and are nested within larger watersheds. In small watersheds the headwater
or upland area used to be small individually, but in large watersheds, the
headwater areas used to be more. Also, well defined channels used to be less in
number in small watersheds; therefore overland flow is more predominant. In
large watersheds, channel systems used to be well defined, and extensive in its
areal extent, hence their channel flow domination. The land use/land cover and
rainfall intensity significantly affects runoff generation and runoff flow in small
watersheds as compared to large watersheds.
6  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Watershed as Hydrologic System


The watershed is a fundamental concept in hydrology and is the basis for
understanding the hydrologic processes and for the planning and management
of water resources. Storage and movement of water at a watershed scale is
complicated due to the coupled processes which act over multiple spatial and
temporal scales (Yu and Duffy 2018). Hydrologic processes within a watershed
are extremely complex and are difficult to understand completely. However in an
absence of perfect knowledge, these processes may be studied by means of the
systems concept (Chow et al. 1998). Considering the watershed as a hydrologic
system that can be defined as a structure or volume in space, surrounded by a
boundary, that accepts water and other inputs, operates on them internally, and
produces them as output. Here precipitation is the input, distributed in space over
the watershed area; stream flow in the form of runoff concentrated at the outlet
of the watershed is the output. Evaporation, transpiration and sub-surface flow
could also be considered as outputs, but these are small compared to runoff or the
stream flow during a storm. The structure of the system consists of the drainage
lines over the watershed land surface or flow paths through the soil below the land
surface and includes the tributary streams which merge to form stream flow at the
watershed outlet. The schematic representation of systems operation is shown in
Fig. 2. That means the watershed receives precipitation as input, operates upon it
through the processes of interception, infiltration, percolation, overland flow, and
channel flow, etc., and depending upon the soil, slope, and land-use/land-cover,
antecedent moisture and other watershed characteristics generate output in the
the form
form of runoff
of runoff as stream
as stream flow going
flow going out ofout
theofwatershed
the watershed through
through its outlet.
its outlet.

Watershed
Input (Precipitation) as Output (Runoff)
Operator

Fig.2. 2:Watershed
Fig. Watershed as a hydrologic
as a hydrologic system. system

Global vs. Watershed Hydrologic System


Water is being continuously moved between the atmosphere, the earth land
surface and the oceans. This is known as the global hydrological cycle or global
hydrologic system. This system is a closed system as there is no input or output,
i.e., no water comes into or leaves the planet. On the other hand the watershed
hydrologic system is an open system as it has a range of inputs and outputs as well
as storages, transfers and flows. Inputs include precipitation including rain, snow,
sleet and hail, groundwater flow from adjoining watersheds, and solar energy for
evaporation. Outputs move water out of the watershed and include evaporation
and transpiration from vegetation, runoff into the sea and percolation of water
to underlying rock strata and into underground storages. Storages include rivers,
Watershed Hydrology and Management  7

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.

Watershed Hydrologic Processes


An understanding of the various hydrologic processes within a watershed is
essential to keep the watershed in good health through the effective management
of rainwater/runoff, soil water and soil erosion. When we consider and study
the occurrence, movement, circulation and distribution of water, i.e., hydrologic
cycle and its component processes within the boundaries of a watershed, it is
called watershed hydrology. The term describes how water moves and is stored
within a watershed, what are the various water inputs into the watershed and water
outputs from the watershed. Understanding how water is used and cycled through
a watershed provides the foundation for understanding and describing how
land and water interact within that watershed. The major component processes
to be studied under watershed hydrology are precipitation, evapotranspiration,
infiltration, and runoff and stream flow.

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.

Surface runoff or overland flow


Surface runoff is the rainwater that travels over the land surface in the watershed
towards the stream channel after satisfying all the precipitation losses. It is
generated either when rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the
soils or where the soil is already saturated from below. Runoff generated in first
case is called infiltration excess runoff or Hortonian overland flow, and that in
second case it is called saturation excess runoff or saturation overland flow.
Hortonian overland flow is an important runoff mechanism in arid and semiarid
regions, where rainfalls tend to be intensive and infiltration rates low or in urban
areas having impervious surfaces. Saturation excess runoff mechanism of surface
runoff generation occurs primarily on the lower slopes of the watershed and along
valleys adjacent to stream channels. Subsurface runoff, also called interflow
represents that portion of infiltrated rainfall that moves laterally through the upper
soil layers until it reaches the stream channel. Interflow moves below the ground
surface but above the water table. The movement of interflow or subsurface runoff
is much slower than surface runoff. The proportion of total runoff that moves as
subsurface runoff depends on the spatial and temporal characteristics of rainfall
and physical characteristics of the watershed. Generally, mechanized agricultural
lands and forest lands or land having thin soil layer overlying more impermeable
soil layers tend to promote more interflow. In sloping situations, particularly if
there is a reduction in permeability with depth, lateral flow develops in both the
litter layer and the upper soil zone. Water then flows laterally down the slope as
interflow, meeting and becoming part of stream flow. Base flow is different from
interflow in the sense that it responds much more slowly to rainfall and does
not fluctuate rapidly. It represents the drainage of water to the stream from deep
groundwater.
Infiltration water percolates below the root zone and recharges the
groundwater that provides water for stream flow through contributions known
as base flow. Base flow is the portion of stream flow that is not attributed to the
current precipitation; it may be rainfall or snowmelt inputs and is the only portion
of stream flow that is present during precipitation-free periods. Base flow occurs
at the existing intersection between the water table and the bed of stream channels.
On the other hand storm flow is the component of stream flow that results directly
from current precipitation events. Surface runoff and interflow constitute storm
Watershed Hydrology and Management  11

flow in a watershed. In forest watersheds, in the beginning of a precipitation event


only small portions of the watershed area actively contribute to storm flow. But
contributing areas continuously expand non-uniformly throughout the event.
Most of the areas that contribute directly to storm flow tend to be adjoining to
the stream channels where soils already have higher antecedent soil moisture
contents, and areas with shallow soils that become saturated rapidly and therefore
can release water for stream flow quickly. In agricultural watersheds, stream
flow generation occurs quite differently. Due to tillage operations in agricultural
systems a till layer that is more compacted than the overlying soil often forms
just below the depth of the tilling implement (15–20 cm) below the land surface.
This till layer retards the downward movement of infiltrating water and diverts it
laterally at this shallow depth. Consequently, precipitation water moves laterally
as subsurface flow at a relatively rapid rate and becomes a part of stream flow
quickly. In urban watersheds, there is much less opportunity for precipitation to
infiltrate into the soil because of large impervious concrete surfaces. As urban
runoff flows through drains directly to streams and rivers, stream flow increases
spontaneously (Pamela et al. 2015).

Watershed Hydrologic Budget


The hydrologic cycle can be understood quantitatively, in the form of a hydrologic
budget. Watershed hydrologic budget is in fact a mathematical statement of the
components of the hydrologic cycle within a watershed, estimated by considering
the input or inflow of water to the watershed, output or outflow of water from
the watershed, and the total change in the amount of water in storage within the
watershed, over a specified period of time. It is represented by the following
equation:

P–R–ET = ∆(Ss + SGW) (1)

Where, P is precipitation, R is stream flow passing through the watershed outlet, ET


is evapotranspiration, Δ(SS + SGW) is the change in soil moisture plus groundwater
storage within the watershed. Both volume as well as depth units can be used to
measure the variables in the above equation. Negative terms (R & ET) on the
left hand side of the Eq. (1) indicate outflow of water from the watershed and
positive terms indicate inflow of water into the watershed. The term on the right
hand side can either be positive or negative, depending upon increase or decrease
in the net total moisture storage in the soil profile and groundwater reservoir of
the watershed during the periods of interest. Stream flow will occur only if inputs
of water to the watershed exceed all of the other outputs or uses of water in the
watershed. If other water demands or outputs exceed total inputs, stream flow
will not be there. Runoff water which is going as stream flow is required to be
managed to a minimum within the watershed through conservation treatments to
maintain watershed hydrologic health.
12  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

For application of hydrologic budget equation on a watershed, the variables


of the equation are required to be determined. Precipitation is measured by rain
or snow gauges; runoff by various devices such as weirs, flumes, current meters
and depth gauges; infiltration by infiltrometers, or estimated through rainfall
simulators or precipitation–runoff data; evapotranspiration is estimated by using
evaporation pans, energy budgets, heat and mass transfer methods or empirical
relationship based on climatic factors. Soil moisture can be measured by using
neutron probes, sensors or gravimetric methods. Groundwater storage and flow is
exceedingly difficult to estimate since knowledge of the geology of the watershed
is essential. The evaluation of the storage terms depends on the time period over
which the water balance is computed. On an annual basis, the change in water
content of the root zone is likely to be small in relation to the total water balance
and can be neglected. Over a shorter period, the change in the soil water storage
can be significant and must be considered. When applied carefully, the hydrologic
budget equation can yield good estimates of the magnitudes of required hydrologic
variable.
Considering that hydrology is not an exact science, reasonable well-
founded assumptions are required to solve practical problems in the field. The
hydrologic budget equation when applied to large watersheds, the assumption
that groundwater inflow and outflow across the boundary of the watershed is zero
is quite valid as generally groundwater divide follows surface divide. Also when
considering a large time span such as an year, the term Δ(SS + SGW), i.e., the
change in soil moisture plus groundwater storage within the watershed becomes
approximately zero. Hence the hydrologic budget equation becomes:

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:

P–R–IN = ∆Ss (3)

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

This means that for an individual storm, the precipitation in excess of


abstraction in the watershed would go as runoff or stream flow.
Watershed Hydrology and Management  13

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.

Watershed Hydrology and Health


Watershed hydrology is driven by climatic processes; watershed characteristics
such as topography, vegetation and geology; and human activities related to
water and land use. Aquatic ecosystems are dependent on surface and ground
water availability and supply. Rainwater that infiltrates into the soil recharges the
aquifers and then becomes the source of water to springs, wetlands, streams, and
lakes. These hydrologic regimes create habitat and are important to aquatic life.
But the amount of water supply will vary depending on precipitation, evaporation
and ground and surface water hydrology. Natural disturbance processes are
critical to establishing healthy hydrologic regimes, i.e., flow in rivers, water
supply to lakes and groundwater systems. Health of a watershed is indicated by
its landscape conditions—configuration of natural land and vegetative cover;
habitat conditions—flowing (streams and rivers) and standing (lakes, ponds,
and wetlands) waters; hydrology—surface and groundwater; geomorphology—
watershed characteristics; water quality—chemical and physical constituents;
biological conditions—the presence, numbers and condition of aquatic organisms
and communities in an aquatic ecosystem; and attributes of vulnerability—natural
processes and anthropogenic influences (population and climate). All these
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. This shows that health of
watershed is mainly dependent on its hydrology. Watershed health, including the
natural environment, hydrology, water quality, and aquatic ecology, was assessed
for the Han River basin (34,148 km²) in South Korea using the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Ahn and Kim 2017).

Managing Watershed Hydrology


In watershed management projects, a hydrologist may be more interested in the
amount of runoff or excess rainfall generated and its management within the
watershed boundaries in order to keep the watershed in good health. A large
watershed can be subdivided into a more detailed hierarchy of micro-watersheds
14  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

Similarly, Gebreegziabher et al. (2009) provided evidence of a positive effect of


contour bunds on water utilization and soil conservation. 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 losses of soil nutrients and organic carbon.
Water harvesting structures (WHS) may be small earthen dams (height <
15 m) or concrete/stone dams, constructed across a seasonal stream on a narrow
gorge or farm ponds, constructed at the farm level to collect and store rainwater.
These WHSs not only store runoff water for providing supplemental or life-saving
irrigation for managing frequent droughts in the rain-fed watersheds but also
recharge ground water, control floods and siltation in the downstream reservoirs/
areas, conserve soil, act as source of water for wild animals and vegetation around
the water harvesting structure, help in reclamation of gullied land downstream of
the structure, act as a pond for fish culture, meet the water needs of the nearby
inhabitants and their cattle etc. The site of the WHS is selected at such a place
that ensured enough of an catchment area on its upstream side to provide the
required volume of runoff, enough storage capacity for the runoff, provision
for an emergence spillway to pass the excess runoff safely, and the command
area to irrigate, as near to the site as possible (Sur et al. 1999). The cost of these
structures varies depending upon their location. Studies conducted in rain fed hilly
watersheds, indicates increase in cropping intensity from 170% to 200%; rabi crop
yields doubled, increase in number of milch cattle by 45%, and increase in daily
milk production by 103%, in addition to the reclamation of downstream area,
income from fish culture and rise in water table (0.2 to 2 m) due to groundwater
recharge, after the construction of WHS (Sur et al. 2001, Samra 2000).
Vegetation as gully control measure provides the cheapest way to control
runoff and soil erosion, when the gully gradient is low. In situations where it
becomes difficult to establish vegetation on the gully bed, because of a significant
runoff flow, temporary structures are constructed to function until the vegetation
becomes well established. Temporary structures are made up of locally available
materials such as brush wood, woven wire, planks or loose rocks, etc., and are
cheap and easy to construct. If the runoff is large and ultimate control by vegetation
is not feasible, permanent structures have to be constructed. These are built of
masonry, reinforced concrete or earth utilizing concrete or steel pipe spillways.
However, these structures are costly and require careful engineering studies and
adequate planning and design before their construction. In a study conducted
on hilly rangeland watersheds, temporary structures along with vegetation and
fencing of the micro-watershed reduced runoff by 31%, sediment concentration
by 55% and sediment yield by 71% (Bhardwaj 2002). The immense pressure of
population on the forests in recent years has resulted in deforestation causing the
denudation of watershed land in many regions of the world. Enclosure against
biotic interference (cattle grazing, tree felling, etc.), restores vegetative cover
in these watersheds and controls generation of excess runoff. Studies indicate
16  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

Rainwater harvesting, in its broadest sense, is a technology used for


collecting and storing rainwater for human use from rooftops, land surfaces
or rock catchments using simple techniques such as jars and pots as well as
engineered techniques. Rainwater harvesting has been practiced for more than
4000 years, owing to the temporal and spatial variability of rainfall. It is an
important water source in many areas with a significant rainfall but lacking in any
kind of conventional, centralized supply system. It is also a good option in areas
where good quality fresh surface water or groundwater is lacking. The application
of appropriate rainwater harvesting technology is important for the utilization of
rainwater as a water resource.

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.

Factors Affecting Runoff


The following are factors which affect the runoff:

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.

Direction of prevailing wind


The direction of wind also affects the runoff. If the direction of the prevailing
wind is in the direction of slope, it will result in higher peak runoff in a shorter
period of time.

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.

Time of concentration: Is defined as time (in minutes) taken by runoff from


the remotest point of the catchment to reach to the outlet. A number of empirical
equations have been developed to estimate the time of concentration. Kirpich
(1940) developed the following equation to estimate the time of concentration:

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

SCS curve number method


SCS Curve Number method was developed by United States Soil Conservation
Services (US SCS 1972). This method gives the depth of runoff (Q) generated
by the rainfall event (P). This method is based on the potential retention capacity
(S) of the watershed. According to this method, runoff is calculated using the
following equation:

( 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)

Inglis and De Souza formula


Inglis and De Souza (1929) established a relationship between the annual rainfall
(P) and annual runoff (R) based on data from 53 runoff gauging stations. The
relationship is given as follows:
For mountain ranges:
R = 0.85P – 30.5
For plateaus or plains in between 2 mountain ranges

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

Qp is the peak flow rate (m3/s)


Cd is the Ryves’s constant, value ranges from 6 to 30
A is the watershed area (km2)

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

Direct Measurement of Runoff


Crest-stage gauges
The crest gauge is designed to measure peak discharge in a channel reach during
a flood event (Murthy 2013). A crest gauge consists of an ordinary staff gauge
of sufficient width, to fit into a 2-inch galvanized pipe. This galvanized pipe is
fitted with threaded pipe caps on either end. The holes of approximate diameter
0.25 inch are drilled in the galvanized pipe. The pipe is the installed vertically in
the channel such that the bottom of the pipe is at the datum or bed of the stream.
The staff gauge is inserted at the top of the pipe along with about a capful of
ground cork and the top ventilated pipe cap is replaced. When the water flows in
the channel, water enters through the lower holes and rises in the pipe and carries
the ground cork with it. At the highest stage, the cork adheres to the wetter staff.
As the water recedes, a visual record of the highest stage is indicated by the cork
adhering to the staff. The operator only needs to remove the stall, read the high
stage and wipe the staff clean for additional use (http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in).

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).

Flow measurement by weirs


A weir is a barrier across a river designed to alter the flow characteristics. In most
cases, weirs take the form of a barrier, smaller than most conventional dams,
across a river that causes water to pool behind the structure and allows water to
flow over the top. Weirs are commonly used to alter the flow regime of the river,
prevent flooding, measure discharge and help render a river navigable (Arora
1980). Weirs are structures consisting of an obstruction across the open channel
with a specially shaped opening or notch. The weir results in increase in the water
level, or head, which is measured upstream of the structure. The flow rate over a
weir is a function of the head on the weir.
The relation of flow rate over the weir to the head is used to figure out the
discharge. The procedure for measurement of runoff though a weir is as follows:
1. Measure the size of weir, accurately.
2. Insert the weir into the hydraulic bench and fit it tightly.
28  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

Sharp crested weirs


Sharp Crested weirs have the sharp-edged crest which allows runoff to flow
through it. These have a sharp upstream edge to allow the water to flow freely
over it without touching the front of the blade. Sharp crested weirs are of three
types depending on their shapes.
Rectangular weirs: The rectangular weirs are most commonly used to measure
the runoff from the small watersheds. Flow through a rectangular weir can be
expressed as

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

Broad crested weir


Unlike sharp crested weirs, broad crested weirs have the broad crest. The
discharge through this type of weir depends upon the shape of the weir and the
crest. They are usually calibrated in the field by current meter measurements or in
the laboratory by some model tests.

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.

Stage Level Recorder


A stage recorder is a device for producing a graphical, digital, or punched tape
record of the temporal variation in water surface elevation. The instrument
consists of a gauge height component and a time component. A float, manometer,
or pressure transducer provides the gauge height component. The time element
is controlled by a clock or digital timer driven by electricity, spring, or a weight.
For some hydrogeologic studies, frequent and uninterrupted water-
level measurements may be needed to identify the unique properties of the
groundwater flow system. In studies in which a more complete picture of water-
level fluctuations is needed, automatic float-activated water-level recorders can be
installed. Float-activated recorders sense changes in water level by the movement
of a weight-balanced float that is lowered into the well. The stage level recorder
for measurement of runoff is shown in Fig. 1.
30  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Rain Water Harvesting Techniques


Following are traditional techniques are used for augmentation of water resources.
1. Small Ponds
2. Dammed Ponds
3. Cemented/Stone
4. Construction of “Bauwris”

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

Rainwater Harvesting in Farm Ponds


Rainwater harvesting in farm ponds is used for water harvesting/storage structure
in arable land. Farm ponds are of different types:
1. Embankment type
2. Dug out type
An embankment type pond is built across the stream in areas of gentle to
moderately slope (Das 2002). Dug out type ponds are constructed by excavating
the soil, in relatively level areas. For the harvesting of rainwater, farm ponds play
a crucial role in the Himalayan region, and harvested rainwater is used the main
source of water for irrigation, as well as for drinking, in horticulture, and agro-
forestry. The solution to the water scarcity problem in the Himalayan region lies
to a great extent in the rejuvenation of farm ponds. The farm pond needs scientific
assessment of storage capacity and related hydro-geomorphic characteristics.
In addition, earthen farm ponds as well as poly lined farm pond of different
capacities are most suitable and viable for hilly areas. The construction cost of
poly lined farm ponds are nearly @0.50 paise/litre storage for the drinking water
and maybe used as well in the lean season for life saving irrigation in vegetable
and fruit crops.

Design of Farm Ponds


The following parameters are considered for the design of a farm pond:
1. Site selection
2. Capacity of pond
3. Design of embankment
4. Design of mechanical spillway
5. Design of emergency spillway
6. Provision for seepage control

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

Design of mechanical spillway


The purpose of the mechanical spillway is to dispose of the excess water in a
controlled manner. The kind of spillway to be provided depends on the catchment
area of the pond. Vegetative spillways are provided for ponds having a catchment
area of less than 4 ha. Mechanical spillways are provided for catchment of more
than 12 ha. Generally, drop spillway and drop inlet spillway are provided as a
mechanical spillway in the embankment type ponds. A drop spillway handles a
larger discharge than drop inlet spillway. The drop inlet spillway is constructed as
a simple pipe outlet having a control valve to regulate the flow of water.

Design of emergency spillway


The emergency spillway is provided to prevent the overtopping of the pond due
to unexpected inflow into the pond. It is provided at one end of the embankment
such that its bottom elevation is set at a maximum expected water level in the
pond. The recommended side slope of the emergency spillway is 2:1.

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).

Design of dug out type farm pond


The following different steps are used for design of LDPE farm pond
1. Calculate the runoff volume (V1) from catchment area (A).
V1 = A ´ d
where
d is runoff depth, i.e., some % of rainfall.
2. Calculate design runoff volume (V), i.e., some % of total runoff volume (V1).
3. Side slope (z:1) of farm pond: The side slope of the pond depends on the type
of soil, e.g., for red soil, recommended side slope is 1.5:1 and for black soil,
it is 2:1.
4. Depth (d) of the farm pond can be assumed according to farm pond capacity,
it should not more than 3 m.
5. The bottom width (b) of the pond can be calculated using the formula,

3V − d 3 Z 2
=b − dz
3d
Runoff and Rainwater Harvesting  35

6. Similarly, top width (T) is calculated using the formula,


T = b + 2dz
7. Capacity of the farm pond can be determined by trapezoidal rule or Simpson’s
rule.
Trapezoidal formula
d
V= [(A1 + AL) + 2(A2 + A3 + A4 + …)]
2
Simpson’s formula,

d
V = [(A1 + AL) + 2(A3 +A5 + A7 +…) +4(A2 + A4 + A6 + …)]
3
where
A₁, A₂, A3, …, AL are areas of first, second, third, and so on last contours
d is vertical interval of contours.
8. Volume of excavation for the pond is calculated by prismoidal formula
( A + 4B + C )
=V ×D
6
where
A is the area of excavation at the ground surface.
B is the area of excavation at the midway depth of pond.
C is the area of excavation at the bottom of pond.

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

Inglis, C.C. 1929. Technical Paper No. 30, PWD, Bombay.


Khosla, A.N. 1960. Silting of Reservoirs, CBIP, New Delhi.
Kirpich, Z.P. 1940. Time of concentration of small watershed. Civil Engg. 10: 362.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.10.001.
Mu, W., F. Yu., C. Li., Y. Xie, J. Tian, J. Liu and N. Zhao. 2015. Effects of rainfall intensity and slope
gradient on runoff and soil moisture content on different growing stages of spring maize.
Water. 7: 2990–3008. doi:10.3390/w7062990.
Murthy, V.V.N and M.K. Jha. 2013. Land and Water Management Engineering. Kalyani Publishers,
New Delhi.
Naharuddin, Rukmi, R. Wulandari and A.K. Palaloang. 2018. Surface runoff and erosion from
agroforestry land use types. The J. Animal. Plant. Sci. 28: 875–882.
Ogden, F.L., N.J. Pradhan, C.W. Downer and J.A. Zahner. 2011. Relative importance of
impervious area, drainage density, width function, and subsurface storm drainage on
flood runoff from an urbanized catchment. Water Resour. Res. 47: W12503. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2011WR010550.
Parsons, A.J. and P.M. Stone. 2006. Effects of intra-storm variations in rainfall intensity on interrill
runoff and erosion. Catena. 67: 68–78. DOI 10.1016/j.catena.2006.03.002.
Ramser, C.E. 1972. Runoff from small agricultural areas. Journal of Agricultural Research 34: 797–
823.
Satheeshkumar, S., S. Venkateswaran and R. Kannan. 2017. Rainfall–runoff estimation using SCS–
CN and GIS approach in the Pappiredipatti watershed of the Vaniyar sub basin, South India.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 3: 24. DOI: 10.1007/s40808-017-0301-4.
Soulis, K.X. 2018. Estimation of SCS curve number variation following forest fires. Hydrol. Sci. J. 63:
1332–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1501482.
Subramanya, K. 1993. Engineering Hydrology, Tata Mc Graw Hill Co. Ltd. New Delhi.
US Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Hydrology: National Engineering Handbook, Section 4,
Washington DC.
Xiao, B., W. Hai., F. Jun., H. Peng and D. Hou. 2011. Application of the SCS-CN model to runoff
estimation in a small watershed with high spatial heterogeneity. Pedosphere 21: 738–749.
Chapter 3
Basics of Soil Erosion
Manmohanjit Singh1,* and Kerstin Hartsch2

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

Types of Soil Erosion


Soil Erosion can be classified on various bases:

I. Based on rate of soil erosion


a. Geological erosion
Erosion always takes place naturally. The surface of the earth is constantly
changing with mountains rising, valleys being cut deeper and wider, the coastline
receding at one place and advancing at another. The physical pattern on the
surface of earth is the result of these processes over centuries. Erosion is must for
the formation of alluvial soils and sedimentary rocks. In other words when the rate
of soil erosion does not exceed soil formation, we call it ‘geological erosion’ or
normal erosion or natural erosion.

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.

II. Based on agents of soil erosion


The main agents that loosen and break down soil particles are water and wind.
Other agents like temperature and biological agents are working mostly towards
geological 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.

III. Based on the stages of soil erosion


Water erosion is a two-part process involving the detachment and transport of
soil particles. The water erosion process consists of discrete stages from raindrop
impact to the formation of gully erosion or mass movement. Each stage has its own
processes and characteristics. Controlling or preventing water erosion requires an
understanding of each step in the erosion process.

a. Splash erosion (Raindrop impact)


Splash erosion or raindrop impact represents the first stage in the erosion
process. Raindrops behave as little bombs when falling on exposed or bare soil,
displacing soil particles and destroying soil structure. Studies have shown that
splashed particles may rise as high as 0.6 metres above the ground and move up to
1.5 metres horizontally. Splash erosion results in the formation of surface crusts,
which reduce infiltration resulting in the start of runoff.
Basics of Soil Erosion  43

b. Sheet erosion (Inter-rill erosion)


Sheet erosion is defined as the uniform removal of soil in thin layers from sloping
land. The top fertile soil layer is washed away from the arable lands. It can be a
very effective erosive process because it can cover large areas of sloping land and
go unnoticed for quite some time. Sheet erosion can be recognized by either soil
deposition at the bottom of a slope or by the presence of light coloured subsoil
appearing on the surface. It typically results in the loss of surface soil particles,
which contains the bulk of the available nutrients and organic matter. It can also
be recognized from the muddy colour of runoff water. Sheet erosion rarely flows
for more than a few metres before concentrating into rills, so a better approach is
to describe this phase as ‘inter-rill’ erosion, meaning both the movement by rain
splash and transport of raindrop-detached soil by thin-flow surface flow whose
erosion capacity is increased by raindrop impact turbulence.

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.

e. Stream bank erosion


Stream bank erosion occurs when streams begin cutting deeper and wider channels
as a consequence of increased peak flow or the removal of local protecting
vegetation. It results in increase in stream sediment and suspended material. The
rivers change their courses due to this type of erosion.
44  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

f. Mass movements and land sliding


This type of erosion is in response to the force of gravity accompanied by removal
of forests, and construction of hill roads during intense rains. Different forms of
mass movements include slumping, soil creep, rotational slip, rock fall, rockslide
and mudslide, etc. A landslide is defined as an outward and downward movement
of the slope forming material, composed of natural rocks, soil, artificial fills,
etc. The fundamental causes of landslides are the topography of the region and
geological structure, the kinds of rocks and their physical characteristics. The
immediate cause of a slide may be an earthquake or a heavy rainfall.

IV. Specialized forms of water erosion


a. Pedestal erosion
When an easily erodible 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 because there is little or no undercutting
at the base of the pedestal. This type of erosion develops slowly over several
years and is often found on bare patches of grazing land. It helps in deducing
approximately what depth of soil loss has been eroded by studying the height of
the pedestals.

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

before surface manifestations are evident. Tunnel erosion is particularly difficult


and expensive to control and is not always successful. Jakiel and Poesen (2018)
reported the significance and research needs of sub-surface erosion by soil piping.

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.

Factors Affecting Water Erosion


The ecological parameters that influence the effects of the agents (water, wind,
etc.) of soil erosion are the factors of soil erosion. The most active factor of soil
erosion is humans who can either accelerate soil erosion by misusing land or
can curtail it by adopting proper soil and crop management practices. The major
variables affecting soil erosion are climate, soil, vegetation and topography. Of
these, vegetation and, to some extent, soil and topography may be controlled.
46  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

detachment. The contributions of raindrop impact to hillslope soil erosion were


78.3% to 95.2%.
Regardless of the relative extents of the various phases of the erosion process,
it may be stated that rain intensity is the most important factor governing soil
erosion by water. The general rule is that the more permeable the soil, the smaller
is the erosive effect of rain, and vice-versa. On comparatively impermeable soils,
soil wash occurs provided that the total amount of rainfall is large, even if not of
high intensity.
The erosive effect of rain also increases during a succession of downpours. It
has been shown that the first rain builds up the soil moisture content, disaggregates
the soil clumps by impact or by dissolution, diminishes soil permeability, and
to some extent models the mono-relief and the micro-relief. Thus erosion losses
increase in successive downpours, although the intensity and amount of rainfall
may decrease.

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).

Relief and slope steepness


Topographic features that influence erosion are degree of slope, shape and length
of the slope, and size and shape of the watershed. Erosion would normally be
expected to increase with increase in slope steepness and slope length as a result
of respective increase in velocity and volume of surface runoff. On longer slopes,
an increased accumulation of overland flow tends to increase rill erosion. Concave
slopes, with lower slopes at the foot of the hill, are less erosive than convex
slopes. The relief of the terrain is of fundamental importance in determining
levels of water erosion. Included among the factor of relief are: slope inclination
and length, slope form, modeling of the relief, slope aspect, and affecting erosion
indirectly-elevation above sea level.
As the slope becomes steeper, the runoff coefficient increases, the kinetic
energy and carrying capacity of surface flow become greater, soil stability and
slope stability decreases, splashing erosion increases, and the possibility of
soil displacement in a downhill direction during ploughing is greater. Thus the
likelihood of soil erosion increases with the growing steepness of the slope.

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

of evapotranspiration, the degree of salt concentration, and other processes all


increase. The aspect affects desiccated soil mainly.

Elevation above the sea level and geographical location


Both these factors have an indirect effect on erosion by their influence on physical
conditions. With increasing elevation and at higher geographical latitudes, the
temperature generally decreases and the amount of precipitation increases.
However, the intensity of precipitation increases with elevation and decreases
at higher latitudes. The combined influence of temperature, precipitation, wind,
potential energy of the relief, and surface structure affect the erosive activity of
both precipitation and wind. These, together with other geomorphic factors create
a varied pattern of destruction phenomena.

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

incrustation are important factors in the reduction of erosion. Mulching practices


have been globally found to be effective in controlling soil erosion (Prosdocimi
et al. 2016).

Soil moisture content


Increase in moisture content of a soil decreases its shear strength and bring about
changes in its behaviour. At low moisture contents the soil behaves as a solid and
fractures under stress but with increasing moisture content it becomes plastic and
yields to flow without fracture. The point of change in behaviour is termed the
plastic limit. With further wetting, the soil will reach its liquid limit and start to
flow under its own weight. The instantaneous soil moisture content plays a vital
role during successive rainstorms or during downpours, which occur, in the dry
season. It has been generally established that the higher the soil moisture, the
lower the resistance of the soil to erosion, these properties being associated both
with infiltration and with the resistance of oil aggregates.

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

Rainfall erosivity indices


The most suitable expression of the erosivity of rainfall is an index based on the
kinetic energy of the rain. Thus the erosivity of a rainstorm is a function of its
intensity and duration, and of the mass, diameter and velocity of the raindrops.
To compute erosivity requires an analysis of the drop-size distributions of rain. It
has been shown that drop-size characteristics vary with the intensity of rain; for
example, the median drop diameter (D50) increases with rain intensity. However,
in tropical countries it has been shown that this relationship holds only for rain
intensities up to 100 mm h–1. At greater intensities, D50 decreases with increasing
intensity, presumably because greater turbulence makes larger drop sizes unstable.
To compute the kinetic energy of a storm, a trace of the rainfall from an
automatically recording rain gauge is analyzed and the storm divided into small
52  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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:

K.E. = 11.87 + 8.73 log10I

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

Stages of Soil Erosion


Rain splash erosion
Falling raindrops are the major agents responsible for initiating soil erosion, i.e.,
causing soil detachment and displacement from its original position, although
the impact of raindrops of shallow streams may not splash soil; it does increase
turbulence, providing a greater sediment carrying capacity. Inter-rill erosion
occurs on an area where all detachment is due to the forces of raindrop impact and
transport is primarily by overland flow. Tremendous quantities of soil are splashed
into the air, most particles more than once. The amount of soil splashed into the
air as indicated by the splash losses from small elevated pans, was found to be 50
to 90 times greater than the runoff losses. On base soil it is estimated that as much
as 200 Mgha–1 is splashed into the air by heavy rains. Single drop studies have
examined the shapes of raindrops, forces of raindrop impact and reaction of soil
to the impact forces.
Splash erosion is affected by raindrop mass, size distribution, shape, velocity
and direction. Drop shape affects the amount of soil splash. By changing the
height of fall from 0.57 to 0.62 to 6.67 m, the amount of splash loss changed from
0.78 to 0.28 to 0.88 g per drop. The drop shape at 0.57 and 0.67 m fall height was
oblate.
The action of raindrops on soil particles is most easily understood by
considering the momentum of a single raindrop falling on a sloping surface. The
down slope component of this momentum is transferred in full to the soil surface
but only a small proportion of the component normal to the surface is transferred,
the remainder being reflected. The transfer of momentum to the soil particles has
two effects. First, it provides a consolidating force, compacts the soil; second,
it produces a disruptive force as the water rapidly disperses from and returns to
the point of impact in laterally flowing jets. Raindrops due to friction with soil
surfaces are broken up into finer droplets which have local velocities double than
that of the original raindrops and are sufficient to impart a velocity to some of
the soil particles, launching them into the air. Thus raindrops are both agents of
consolidation and dispersion.
The consolidation effect is best seen in the formation of a surface crust, usually
only a few mm thick, which results from the clogging of the pores by compaction.
This is associated with the dispersal of five particles, from soil aggregates or clods
which are translocated to infill the pores. The most important effect of a surface
crust is to reduce infiltration capacity and thereby promote greater surface runoff.
Crustability decreases with increasing contents of clay and organic matter since
these provide greater strength to the soil. The detailed information on soil crusting
has been shared elsewhere in the book.
54  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Soil Splash is influenced by many factors including antecedent soil properties,


landform, rainfall characteristics, properties of overland flow and vegetation
cover (Table 2). When raindrops hit dry soil aggregate, the energy of the raindrop
is transmitted to the soil aggregate. The aggregate gets wet, its soil moisture
potential increases, its strength decreases and its particles are detached; later on
the entrapped air can virtually explode, breaking the aggregate and spattering soil
particles into the air. The heat of wetting or the energy released when soil water
potential changes from one energy state to another, plays a significant role in the
detachment of relatively dry soil. Fast release of heat of wetting causes more soil
detachment and splash.
Minimal energy is needed for soils with a geometric mean particle size of
0.125 mm and the soils with geometric mean particle size between 0.063 and
0.250 mm are the most vulnerable to detachment. Coarser soils are resistant to
detachment because of the weight of the large particles. Finer soils are resistant
because the raindrop energy has to overcome the adhesive or chemical bonding
forces that link the minerals comprising the clay particles. Overall, silt looms,
loams, fine sands and sandy loams are the most detachable. Selective removal of
particles by rain splash can cause variations in soil texture down slope. Splash
erosion was observed to be higher in sandy loam than in silt loam as measured
under both the drop size spectra of 2.5 and 3.5 mm (Kukal and Sarkar 2011).
The raindrop size spectra of 3.5 mm could easily breakdown even the strongest
aggregates of silt loam, resulting in higher splash erosion (343.5 g m–2) than under
2.5 mm drop size (114.2 g m–2). Surface compaction increased average splash
loss (40.5%) under drop size spectrum of 3.5 mm. The average splash erosion
decreased by 50% with bigger aggregates at soil surface (1–2 mm) from that
with smaller aggregates (0.5–1 mm). With further increase in aggregate size from
1–2 mm to 2–4 mm, the splash erosion decreased by 20.5%.
Soil splash is related to rainfall amount and intensity. For a given amount of
rainfall, high intensity rain produces more splash than rain at low intensity. Many
site-specific empirical regression equations relating soil splash to rainfall intensity
have been developed. Soil splash depends on the kinetic energy of the impacting
raindrop, and hence on its size. The size of the soil particle displaced depends on

Table 2.  Factors affecting soil splash.

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 ).

Ucrit = 0.9 + 0.3Ts

The shear strength or erosion power of water is increased by sediment


concentration. For an equal volume, sediments have 2.65 timer more energy than
water and thus highly abrasive. Yao et al. (2008) and Jiang et al. (2018) found
that slope was relatively more important than rainfall intensity in determining the
location of rill initiation. Soil critical shear stress determined in this study ranged
from 1.33 to 2.63 Pa, with an average of 1.94 Pa. Soil critical shear stress was
inversely related to slopes and was not influenced by rainfall intensity.
Rill Erosion is a function of the hydraulic shear Ƭ of the water flowing in the
rill and two soil properties the rill erodibility Kr and the critical shear Ƭc, the shear
below which soil detachment is negligible. Detachment rate Dr is the erosion rate
occurring beneath the submerged area of the rill.

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

deepening of the channel and undermining of the headwall, leading to collapse


and retreat of the scrap upslope. Sediment is also produced further down the gully
by stream bank erosion. This occurs partly by the scouring action of the running
water and the sediment it contains, and partly by the slumping of banks following
saturation during flow.
Widening of the gully sides may occur by slumping and man movement
especially on the outside curve of meanders. Scouring of the toe slope can lead to
mass failure of the side of the gully under gravity. This soil is then washed away
by subsequent flow. Gullies are also formed by piping from subsurface runoff.
Tunnelling is an important mechanism for headword and lateral gully expansion
in dispersible soils. Cracks develop into tunnels when water flows through them
and they soon collapse causing rapid progression of the gully head.
Gully depth is often limited by the depth to the underlying rock which means
that gullies are normally less than 2 m deep. However on deep alluvial and
colluvial soils, gullies may reach depths of 10 to 15 m. The rate of gully erosion
depends primarily on the run off producing characteristic of the watershed, the
drainage area, soil characteristics, the alignment, size and shape of the gully and
the slope of the channel. Gullies pass through successive cycles of erosion and
deposition. It is not uncommon for the head of a gully to be extremely active
while the lower section of the gully is stabilizing.
Gully development may be triggered by
• Cultivation or grazing of soils susceptible to gully erosion.
• Increased run off from land use changes such as deforestation in catchments
or construction of new residential areas.
• Run off concentration caused by furrows, contour banks water ways, dam
by-washes, fences, tracks or roads.
• Improper design, construction or maintenance of waterways in cropping areas.
• Poor vegetative cover, e.g., from overgrazing, fire or salinity problem.
• Low flows or seepage flows over a longer period
• Diversion of a drainage line to an area of high risk to erosion.

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

content of rocks owing to precipitation, seepage of water through cracks in clayey


layers, ground water level fluctuations, frost and changer in earth’s temperature,
rock weathering and changes in vegetation cover, etc. have a profound effect
on changing the cohesive properties of soil and equilibrium of ground forces.
Earthquake and very heavy cloudbursts and presence of rocks with preferential
fracture planes can trigger mass movements. Human beings can cause more such
mass movements by altering the external geometry of a slope (by terracing, cutting
into it to build roads or houses, overloading it with landfills, altering natural flows,
etc.).
The stability of the soil mass on a hill slope in respect of mass movement
can be assessed by a safety factor (F), defined as the ratio between the total shear
strength (σ) of the soil material along a given surface and the amount of stress (Ƭ)
developed along the surface. Thus
σ
F=
T
The slope is stable if F >1 and failure occur if F< 1.
The many forms of soil mass movement can be broadly divided into two
categories, i.e., slow movements and rapid sliding.

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.

Mechanical or dry erosion: It is caused by cropping techniques. There is steady


downward movement of earth pushed by tillage implements. The process
eventually scours the hill tops and clog slope bottoms.

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.

Soil Erosion Hazard Assessment


The aim of soil erosion hazard assessment is to identify those areas of land where
the maximum sustained productivity from a given land use is threatened by

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 rainfall data


Erosivity data can be used as an indicator of regional variation in erosion potential.
The mean annual erosivity values can be used to classify areas according to
erosion risk. Temporal variation in erosion risk can be assessed using mean
monthly erosivity values. Maps of erosivity using the rainfall erosion index R
have been produced for the USA (Wischmeier and Smith 1978) and other parts
of the world (Panagos et al. 2014). In many countries insufficient rainfall records
from autographic gauges are available to calculate erosivity nationwide. In such
cases more widely available rainfall parameters, which significantly correlate
with erosivity and from which erosivity values might be predicted using a best-fit
regression equation, can be used. But care should be there not to extrapolate these
results to other locations.
Rainfall intensity data may not be available at many locations. Another
parameter to overcome it is to use rainfall aggressiveness. The most commonly
used index of rainfall aggressiveness, which is significantly correlated with
sediment yields in rivers (Fournier 1960), is the ratio of p2/P, where p is the
highest mean monthly precipitation and P is the mean annual precipitation. Its
high value denotes a strongly seasonal climatic regime. Morgan (1976) used data
from 680 rainfall stations and found a low but significant correlation between p2/P
and drainage texture. As drainage texture represents gully density so p2/P may
be regarded as an indicator of the risk of gully erosion. In contrast, mean annual
erosivity values reflect the risk of erosion by rain splash, overland flow and rills.
By superimposing the maps of p2/P and erosivity, a complete picture of erosion
risk was obtained by Morgan (1976). With the Fourier index the contribution of
rainfall in the rest of the year other than the month in which highest rainfall is
there, is not taken into consideration.
64  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Land capability classification


The objective of land capability classification is to divide an area of land into
units with similar kinds and degrees of limitation. Various types of land capability
classifications are available in different countries or geographical areas giving
importance to local factors. All these land capability classifications have been
developed from that given by United States Natural Research Conservation
Service. The basic unit is the capability unit. This consists of a group of soil types
of sufficiently similar conditions of profile form, scope and degree of erosion to
make them suitable for similar crops and warranted the use of similar conservation
measures.
The capability units are combined into sub-class according to the nature of
the limiting factor and these, in turn, are grouped into classes based on the degree
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water  65

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.

Land system classification


In land system classification landform (especially slopes), soils and the plant
community is taken into consideration. This system represents the dynamic-
erosion response units that reflect both the extent of erosion at any given time and
its evolution over time. The land is classified into real unit termed land systems,
which are made up of smaller units called land facets. Land system analysis is
used to compile information on the physical environment for the purpose of
resource evaluation.

Soil erosion survey


Soil erosion surveys are carried out using data from aerial photographs or satellite
imageries. These surveys are helpful as they provide important information about
the erosion status at a given time, change in erosion status with time and explain
interrelationships between erosion features and the factors affecting them. Static
surveys consist of mapping, often from aerial photographs, the sheet wash and the
rills and gullies occurring in an area. Simple indices such as gully density are used
to assess erosion hazard. Sequential surveys are done by comparing the results
of static surveys conducted at two or more dates from the same area. In dynamic
survey the factors affecting erosion for example soil type, land use, erosivity, etc.,
are also taken into consideration.
Soil survey maps give information on the distribution and type of erosion,
erosivity, runoff, slope steepness, slope curvature, relief, soil type and land use,
etc. Each component of the geomorphologic map can be digitized and stored as a
separate layer in a geographic information system. Each layer can then be updated
as changes occur and can be used in erosion prediction models, etc.
Satellite imageries are very useful as these provide repetitive exposures at
cheaper rates as compared to aerial photographs although ground resolution of
66  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

10 to 30 m may be coarse enough to provide details of all the earth features.


These can provide data on areas of bare soil to accuracies more than 25% when
compared to field data (Verbyla and Richardson 1996). Satellite imagery can
provide percentage vegetative cover by using Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI) (Mathieu et al. 1997). The remote sensing data will be used in
future to predict the risks of erosion so that appropriate protection measures can
be implemented (Panos et al. 2015).

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 of Soil Erosion


Measurement of soil erosion is important for various objects such as monitoring
soil erosion from a given area for policy makers, toinstallation of conservation
measures and for research purposes, towards understanding the various processes
of erosion.
Measurement of soil erosion can be done at macro-scale, meso-scale and at
micro-scale both under field and laboratory conditions.

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

Measurement from rivers


Measurement of soil erosion from river basins can be done by computing runoff
from the water level, velocity, and discharge over time from a river. Velocity
of channel flow can be measured using current meters, floats, dyes or traces,
etc. Measurements should be done from a regular and stable stream bed area.
Structures such as weirs, flumes, etc., are also constructed sometimes to control a
cross sectional area. The concentration of sediments in this runoff can be measured
by sampling suspended sediments and from the bed load transport. Indirect
measurement of sediment load can be done using turbidity meters, neutron or
gamma probes, etc. As concentration of suspended and bed load sediments vary
with discharge, so calibration curves relating sediment load to discharge can be
formulated. The accuracy of this method is highly dependent on the frequency of
sampling.

Measurement from reservoirs


Erosion rates over a delineated watershed can be calculated if the major stream
draining it passes through a well-defined reservoir. The sediments accumulated in
a reservoir over the known period are converted to the erosion rate over the entire
watershed. More rapid reservoir surveys can be made using an echo-sounder to
obtain depth readings, an electro-distance measuring theodolite or laser theodolite
to fix the position of the sounding, and a digital elevation model (DEM) to produce
the contour map.

Estimation from regression models


Various empirical models have been developed to relate sediment yield to the
characteristics of rainfall, runoff and watershed. The amount of sediment delivered
at the watershed outlet is only a fraction of the gross erosion that occurs within
the watershed. The ratio of sediment delivered at the watershed outlet to gross
erosion within the watershed is called the delivery ratio. The sediment delivery
ratio, which depends on number of geomorphologic and environmental factors,
ranges from 5% for large watersheds of about 1000 Km2 to about 70% for small
plots of about 0.2 ha. The regression models developed to estimate soil erosion
from watershed are location specific and cannot be extrapolated.

Estimation from soil surveys


Soil surveys have long been used to quantitatively estimate erosion hazard over
large areas. Various indicators such as the percentage of bare grass, canopy density
and density of ground cover have been used to rate soil erosion. Many regional
68  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Field measurement with tracers


Measuring the dilution of mobile substances, which can be entrained by water if
added to soil over time, enables volumetric rates of surface erosion or deposition to
be calculated. An enormous variety of substances have been tried which includes
soluble dyes and radionuclides with greater success than others.
72  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Measurement from stream discharge


It is an indirect method of measuring soil erosion by collecting suspended
sediment and/or bed load with a sampler. By recording the stream flow, sediment
concentrations may be converted to volumes eroded from upstream catchment.

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.

Measurement from field plots


To study the factors affecting erosion, bounded plots are employed at permanent
research or experimental stations. These plots are installed with specific
dimensions and both runoff and soil losses are monitored. Standard USLE plots
(22 m long and 1.8 m wide with 9% slope) are most widely used. These plots are
large enough to represent the combined process of rill and inter-rill erosion. From
small plots a sediment sub-sample is taken manually from the collected runoff or
part of the runoff and then the sediment yield is calculated based on total runoff
volume. An automatic sediment sampler can be installed to extract samples of the
runoff at regular intervals during the storm and the time at which each sample is
taken can be recorded. Although the bounded runoff plot gives probably the most
reliable data on soil loss per unit area, there are several sources of error involved
with its use. There may be overflow during extreme events, the tanks floating out
of saturated ground, runoff entering the top of the plots, the tops in the collecting
tanks being left open, damage from termites, silting of the collecting trough and
pipes leading to tanks, etc.

Measurements from small plots


The size of runoff plots used depends on the objectives of study. The plot size is
often less than 5 m2 if the objective is to compare simple treatments, e.g., effect of
residue mulch on water runoff and soil loss. Plots of about 1–2 m2 size will allow
investigations into infiltration and effects of rain splash. For relative erodibility
of soil and for comparison of ground covers, etc., plots must be at least 10 m
long for studies of rill erosion. Small plot experiments should have objectives
complementary to field plot experimentation or application. Small plots are also
used to develop or verify basic operating equations that govern the physical
processes of soil erosion for modeling purposes.
Measurement of Soil Erosion by Water  73

Laboratory Measurements of Soil Loss


The relative magnitude and trends in same processes at micro-scale can be
evaluated under controlled conditions in laboratory. In laboratory studies there
are problems of scale in the scale of the experiment, influence of boundary effects
and the extent to which field conditions are simulated.
Splash by raindrop effect and determination of soil erodibility have been
extensively studied under laboratory conditions. Edge effects are greatest with
small plots. For splash measurement under laboratory conditions, a border area
is necessary to ensure that as much splash that will enter the plot, leaves the plot.
Small laboratory plots must have a bottom to hold the soil. An open bottom made
of screens overlain by cloth often is used to allow free passage of soil water
although this condition does not resemble true field conditions. Under laboratory
conditions disturbed soil samples are used. Soil only from the plow layer in the
field is taken, air-dried and sieved through a large screen and packed in the plot
container in layers. This disturbance of soil may not give true picture of field
conditions.

Use of Gerlach troughs


Gerlach (1966) used simple metal gutters, 0.5 m long and 0.1 m broad, closed at
the sides and fitted with a movable lid. A collecting bottle is attached with outlet
pipe from the base of the gutter. Two or three gutters are placed side by side across
the slope and groups of gutters are installed at different slope lengths in such a way
that there is a clear run to each gutter from the slope crest. Soil loss is calculated
from the sediments collected in each gutter. The sediments are assumed to be
uniformly contributed by the land area and accuracy of measurements depends on
the number of gutters used.
Soil erosion from micro watersheds can be measured to study the effect
of various treatments like contouring, strip cropping and gully treatment, etc.,
because these studies are not feasible in small plots. In contrast to the plots used
to study isolated parts of the erosion process, small watersheds allow for the study
of the entire process.

Splash erosion measurements


Splash erosion has been measured in the field by means of splashboards or small
funnels or bottles. These are inserted in the soil to protrude 1–2 mm above the
ground surface, thereby eliminating the entry of overland flow, and the material
splashed into them is collected and weighed. An field splash cup is also used
where a block of soil is isolated by enclosing it in a central cylinder and the
material splashed out is collected in a surrounding catching tray. Because the
74  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Rill Erosion Measurement


Series of transects, 20–100 m long, across the slope and positioned one above
the other is used to assess soil loss from rill erosion. The cross-sectional area of
rills is determined along two successive transects. The average of the two areas
multiplied by the distance between the transects, gives the volume of the material
removed. Weight of soil loss is calculated from the volume of soil and bulk
density. This soil loss is from the area between two transects. There is difficulty in
measuring temporal changes in cross-sectional areas of rills as the reference level
is also changed so it underestimates rill erosion by 10–30%. Chen et al. (2016)
used a volume replacement method to estimate rill erosion. Zhang et al. (2019)
used a soil erosion prediction model for rill erosion measurements.

Gully Erosion Measurement


The technique used to study rill erosion can be used for small gullies also. For
large gullies, sequential surveys using aerial photography are more suitable. Rates
of gully erosion are calculated from the differences in elevation between DEM’s
at different dates (Betts et al. 2003, Baily et al. 2003). More recent surveys of
gullies use large scale (1:10000) aerial photography to construct high-resolution
digital elevation models (DEMs) (Nicholas et al. 2017).

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

Gerlach, T. 1966. Wspolczesbyrozwaystokow w dorzeczugorzecz’sgornezoGrajcarka (BeskidWysok-


KarpatyZachodnie). PraceGeograf. IG PAN 52.
Horvath, C., R. Kinga and O. Rosian. 2016. Assessing rainfall erosivity from monthly precipitation
data. AerulsiApa. Componente ale Mediului; Cluj-Napoca: 109–116.
Levin, M.J., R. Dobos, S. Peaslee, D.W. Smith and C. Seybold. 2017. Soil capability for the USA now
and into the future. In: Field, D.J., C.L.S. Morgan and A.B. McBratney (eds.). Global Soil
Security. Progress in Soil Science. Springer, Cham.
Lionel, M., C. Bernard, A. Lee, Y. Zhi, E. Fulajtar, G. Dercon, M. Zaman, A. Toloza and L. Heng.
2018. Promoting the use of isotopic techniques to combat soil erosion: An overview of the
key role played by the SWMCN Sub programme of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division over the
last 20 years. 29: 3077–3091.
Mathieu, R., C. King and Y. LeBissonnais. 1997. Contribution of multi-temporal SPOT data to the
mapping of a soil erosion index. The case of the loamy plateaux of Northern France. Soil
Tech. 10: 99–110.
Mhaske, S.N., K. Pathak and A. Basak. 2019. A comprehensive design of rainfall simulator for the
assessment of soil erosion in the laboratory. Catena. 172: 408–420.
Morgan, R.P.C. 1976. The role of climate in the denudation system: a case study from peninsular
Malaysia. Malay. Nat. J. 28: 94–106.
Nicholas, R., G. John, D. Armston, J. Muir and I. Stiller. 2017. Monitoring gully change: A comparison
of airborne and terrestrial laser scanning using a case study from Aratula, Queensland.
Geomorphology 282: 195–208.
Panagos, P., K. Meusburger, C. Ballabio, P. Borrelli and C. Alewell. 2014. Soil erodibility in Europe:
A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Science of Total Environment 479-480: 189–200.
Panos, P., P. Borrelli, K. Meusburger, C. Alewell, E. Lugato and L. Montanarella. 2015. Estimating
the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy 48: 38–50.
Scholten, T., C. Geibler, J. Goc, P. Kuhn and C. Wiegand. 2011. A new splash cup to measure the
kinetic energy of rainfall. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174: 596–601.
Shrivastava, R.K. and G. Das. 1998. A review of rainfall simulators for soil erosion research studies.
Indian J. Soil Conserv. 26: 26–80.
Soil Survey of England and Wales. 1983. Soil map of England and Wales. 1: 250000 map sheets.
Stocking, M.A. and H.A. Elwell. 1973. Soil erosion hazard in Rhodesia. Rhodesian Agric. J. 70:
93–101.
Theochoropoulos, S.R., H. Floron, D.E. Walling, H. Kalantzakos, M. Christon, P. Tountos and
T. Nikolaou. 2003. Soil erosion and deposition rates in a cultivated catchment area in central
Greece, estimated using the 137Cs technique. Soil Till. Res. 69: 153–162.
Verbyla, D.L. and C.A. Richardson. 1996. Remote sensing clear cut areas within a forest watershed:
comparing SPOT, HRV Panchromatic, SPOT HRV multispectral, and Landsat Thematic
Mapper data. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51: 423–427.
Walling, D.E., Q. He and P.G. Appleby. 2002. Conversion models for use in soil erosion, soil
redistribution and sedimentation investigations. pp. 111–164. In: F. Zapata (ed.). Handbook
for the Assessment of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Using Environmental Radio Nuclides.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses. USDA Agricultural
Research Service Handbook 537.
Yin, S., Z. Zhengyuan, W. Li, L. Baoyuan, X. Yun, W. Guannan and L. Yishan. 2018. Regional soil
erosion assessment based on a sample survey and geostatistics. Statistics Publications: 133. 
Zhang, P., W. Yao, G. Liu and P. Xiao. 2019. Experimental study on soil erosion prediction model of
loess slope based on rill morphology. Catena. 173: 424–432.
Zhang, X., Y. Zhang, A. Wen and M. Feng. 2003. Assessment of soil losses on cultivated land by using
the 137Cs technique in the upper Yangtze River basin of China. Soil and Till. Res. 69: 99–106.
Chapter 5
Measures to Control
Soil Erosion
Abrar Yousuf,1,* Jonas Lenz2 and Eajaz Ahmad Dar 3

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).

Soil Conservation Strategies


Cultivated lands
The ground cover on agricultural lands can be of different types, e.g., varying in
height, density, and canopy structure, organic or inorganic. When a forest or other
land use is converted to agricultural land use, the forest or grass cover is removed.
This change in land use is generally associated with increased soil erosion. When
this land use change is on steep slopes, soil erosion may be very high. When
the practices like cultivation up and down the hill, inadequate use of fertilizers
and manures, use of heavy machinery are used, it results in a steep rise in soil
Measures to Control Soil Erosion  79

erosion. Management of soil erosion, which includes application of agronomic


and soil management principles, can be efficiently done by supportive mechanical
methods of erosion control.
Conservation strategies are aimed at establishing and maintaining good
ground cover. A complete cover within 50 cm of the soil surface is extremely
effective in minimizing raindrop impact. The effectiveness of the cover however,
decreases with increasing height above the ground surface. The tree canopy
10 to 20 m above the ground surface loses its effectiveness because the coalescing
drops falling from the canopy are generally big, attain terminal velocity and have
high impact energy.
Crops grown in rows, tall tree crops and low growing crops with large leaves
afford least protection of the soil. A good crop cover is essential at the time of
year when high intensity rainstorms are expected. Quick growing crops may be
viewed as soil-conserving crops. Unfortunately, the crops, which prevent erosion
problems, are normally high value crops or are food crops. The challenge is to
develop soil conservation strategies that will allow all these crops to be grown
productively in a short period to meet the immediate need of the farmers and
sustainability in the long term, and also so as not to deplete the soil resources for
future generations.
Soil conservation measures must be both technically sound and socially and
economically acceptable to the farmers. It is recognized that strategies for soil
conservation must rely on improving traditional systems, instead of imposing
entirely new techniques from outside (Roose 1992).

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.

Agronomic Measures to Control Soil Erosion


The agronomical measures include growing vegetation on the land with fewer
slopes to cover them and to control the erosion from such lands. Plant cover protects
the soil against erosion by reducing water runoff (Rey 2003, Puigdefabregas
2005, Durán et al. 2006) and by increasing water infiltration into the soil matrix
(Wainwright et al. 2002). Plants shelter and fix the soil with their roots (de Baets
et al. 2007) and reduce the energy of raindrops with their canopy (Bochet et al.
1998). Also, vegetation can act as a physical barrier, altering the sediment flow
at the soil surface (Martínez et al. 2006). The principle behind the agronomic
measures is that the vegetation covers the soil surface and protects it from the
erosive nature of rainfall and hence reduces the splash erosion. The vegetation on
the soil increases the porosity and helps in increasing the infiltration rate of the
soil and thereby reducing the surface runoff. This results in a decrease in the rill
and inter-rill erosion. It also reduces the runoff velocity which results in lesser
detachment of the soil particles and hence lesser soil erosion. The agronomic
measures are also helpful in reducing the wind erosion as they act as a buffer
against the abrasive nature of the winds. Agronomic measures include contour
Measures to Control Soil Erosion  81

cultivation, strip cropping, tillage practices and soil management practices.


Edward and Simon (2003) noted that conservation, minimum tillage, mulches and
cover crops prevent runoff initiation by intercepting raindrops in a handbook of
processes and modeling in the soil-plant system. Dimelu et al. (2013) studied the
soil erosion conservation practices in Enugu, and his results showed that the soil
conservation techniques used as adaptive measures were crop rotation, mulching,
liming, contour bonds and terracing.

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.

Field strip cropping


Field strip cropping includes growing the different crops in uniform strip widths
across the normal field slope irrespective of the field’s contours. This method of
strip cropping is practiced on regular slopes and with the high rates of infiltration.

Contour strip cropping


Contour strip cropping includes growing different crop strips along the contours
at the direction perpendicular to the normal slope of land. The alternate strips of
the crops include erosion permitting and erosion resisting crops. The width of
the strips depends on number of factors such as the topography of the area, soil
characteristics, rainfall characteristics, etc. The crops may be rotated after some
time in order to maintain the proper soil health. This type of strip cropping is
practiced across the slope in order to flow and retard the flow of the runoff over
the land surface.

Buffer strip cropping


The buffer strip cropping system is practiced on lands which are facing severe
erosion and do not fit into a regular rotation. In this system, permanent strip of
grasses or legumes or a mixture of both is laid in strips to protect the soil from
erosion. The width of the strips may or may not be uniform.

Wind strip cropping


Wind strip cropping includes laying the crop strips at a direction perpendicular to
the direction of the prevailing winds irrespective of the direction of land slope.
The purpose of this cropping system is to control the wind erosion rather than the
water erosion.
Wind strip cropping is the production of the regular farm crops in long,
relatively narrow, straight, parallel strips placed crosswise of the prevailing winds
without regard to the contour of the land. Wind strip cropping is more effective in
retarding wind erosion than contour strip cropping, but usually has little value in
conserving water (Kell and Brown 1937).
Strip cropping combined with contour cultivation has been proved to be very
economical and effective and one of the most practical and simplest means of
conserving soil and water on cultivated land. Contour strip cropping divides the
Measures to Control Soil Erosion  83

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.

Types of mulching materials


Mulching material can be classified in two broad groups:

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

Minimum tillage: Minimum tillage reduces the tillage operations to a minimum


for seed bed preparation. In minimum tillage, tillage and the sowing operation are
combined in one operation. This type of tillage creates a coarse soil surface and
fine lumps of soil between rows and hence increasing the infiltration capacity of
the soil. This method reduces the runoff and soil erosion from the fields.

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.

Mechanical Measures to Control Soil Erosion


Mechanical/engineering measures are an important component of soil and water
conservation. They are used to control soil erosion where the agronomic measures
are not successful in controlling the soil erosion. They are mostly used on high
sloped lands where the velocity of the runoff water is very high. Mechanical
measures for erosion control require a proper design based on the rainfall
characteristics, soil characteristics, topography of the area and land use. While
planning, mechanical measures, the following approaches are followed:
86  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

a. To increase the infiltration opportunity time, so as to increase the infiltration


of runoff into the soil.
b. To reduce the slope length into series of small drops, so as to prevent the
runoff from attaining the erosive or threshold velocity.
c. To protect the soil from getting eroded due to the runoff water.

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.

Design specifications for bunding


1. Spacing of bund
The spacing between the two consecutive bunds should be such that it breaks
the slope length to such an extent that runoff water does not attain the erosive
velocity. It primarily depends on rainfall characteristics, slope and soil type. The
spacing between the bunds is expressed as vertical interval.
Ramser developed a relation to calculate the vertical interval between the
two bunds for sub humid areas having highly permeable soils. According to this
relation,
s 
VI 0.3  + 2 
=
3 
where,
VI is vertical interval (m) and S is slope (percent)
30s
For high rainfall regions, VI = + 60
3
30s
For low rainfall regions, VI = + 60
2
where VI is vertical interval (cm) and S is slope (percent)
Cox developed a relation to calculate the vertical interval by taking into
account the effect of infiltration and rainfall amount. According to Cox’s relation,
VI = 0.3 (XS + Y)
88  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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)

Table 1.  Values of rainfall factor (X).

Rainfall Annual rainfall (mm) X


Scanty 640 0.8
Moderate 640–900 0.6
Heavy > 900 1.0
Source: Suresh 2016

Table 2.  Values of Y based on infiltration rate and crop cover.

Infiltration rate Crop cover during erosive period of rain Y


Below average Low cover 1.0
Average or above Good cover 2.0
One of the above factors favorable 1.5
and other unfavorable
Source: Suresh 2016

2. Depth of ponding water


The depth of water ponding behind the bund is calculated using the formula:

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.

4. Length of contour bund


The length of a contour bund depends on the horizontal interval of the bund. It is
calculated using the following relation:
100000
L=
HI
VI
Using HI = s ´ 100 in above relation, we get
s
L = 100 ´
VI

5. Area lost due to contour bunding


Area lost due to bunding is given as:
AL = Length of bund (L) × Bottom width of bund (B)
100000
AL = ×B
HI
Or
s
AL = 100 ´ ×B
VI
The above equation gives the area lost due to the main bunds in the field. In
addition to this, area is also lost due to the side bunds and lateral bunds which is
taken as 30 percent of area lost due to main bunds. Therefore, total area lost in
bunding is given as:
s
AL = 1.3 × 100 × ×B
VI
90  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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:

Top width + Bottom width


A= × Height of bund
2

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.

Types of bench terraces


The bench terraces are of three types:
1. Level bench terraces
2. Bench terraces sloping inwards
3. Bench terraces sloping outwards

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

Design specifications of bench terraces


The bench terraces are designed based on the rainfall characteristics, soil type,
soil depth and slope of the area. Following are the design specifications of the
bench terraces:

1. Type of bench terrace


The type of bench terrace to be constructed depends on the rainfall characteristics
and soil depth of the area.

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

c. When the batter slope is ½:1

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.

5. Terrace cross section


The four parameters which are taken into account to design the terrace cross
section are:
a. Batter slope
b. Dimension of the shoulder
c. Inward slope of bench terrace and size of drainage channel
d. Outward slope in case of terraces sloping outwards
a. Batter slope: The batter slope is provided to impart stability to the fill
material. The batter slope depends primarily on the soil material used
for filling. The range of batter slope varies with the soil type. Flatter (or
milder) the batter slope, larger is the area lost in terracing. The vertical cuts
are used in very stable soils and when the depth of the cut is not more than
1m. Batter slope of 0.5:1 is used in loose and unstable soils.
b. Dimension of shoulder bund: The shoulder of larger cross section is
necessarily used in terraces sloping outwards and table top terraces in
order to retain the runoff water within the terrace. In the case of inward
sloping terraces, the size of the shoulder bund should be nominal. The
shoulder bund also provides stability to the terraces.
c. Inward and outward slope: The inward and outward slope of the bench
terraces depends on the type of soil and average rainfall of the area. The
inward slope may vary between 2 to 10%, whereas the outward slope
varies between 2 to 8%. The size of the drainage channel is calculated on
the basis of runoff rate to be disposed from the terrace area. The proper
grade in the range of 0.5 to 1.0% is provided in the drainage channel.
94  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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:

Puerto Rico Terrace


Puerto Rico Terraces (PRT) are constructed using dry stones by excavating the soil
a little during every ploughing and gradually developing the bench by pushing the
soil downhill against a mechanical or vegetative barrier. These terraces are very
effective in rain fed areas to increase the crop productivity. They are suitable in
those areas where stones are easily available.

Stone wall terrace


Stone wall terraces are constructed where the stones are available in abundance.
They are constructed across the small gullies to impound water and cause
sedimentation in the upstream. They are also constructed in hilly areas in order to
create the additional land for cultivation by cutting the hill slopes and concentrate
the eroded soil of the adjoining lands at appropriate places (Singh 2000).

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

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.


Email msrawat@pau.edu
Gully Erosion and its Control  99

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).

Stages of Gully Development


There are four stages of gully development:
Stage–1: Formation stage
This is the initial stage of gully formation which usually proceeds gradually. In
this stage, channel erosion and the deepening of the gully bed takes place.
Stage–2: Development stage
In this stage of gully development, the gully depth and width gets inflated due to
runoff received from the up-stream part of the gully head.
Stage–3: Healing stage
In this stage, vegetation starts growing in the channel and no considerable erosion
occurs from the gully section.
Stage–4: Stabilization stage
In this stage, the gully becomes fully stabilized and the gully development stops
unless the healing process is disturbed. The channel and gully walls achieve a
stable gradient and slope respectively with the growth of vegetation cover in
abundance on soil surface.
100  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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

Based on gully depth and drainage area


Small gully
A gully having depth of less than 1 m and drainage area less than 2 ha is termed
as a small gully. A small gully can be easily crossed by farm implements and
smoothened by ploughing or any other land development operations. It can also
be stabilized through vegetation.

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.

Based on depth, width and slope of the gully


In this type of classification, gully formation is categorized into four groups viz.
G–1, G–2, G–3 and G–4. This classification is based on the depth, width and slope
of the gully (Table 1).
Table 1.  Gully types based on depth, width and slope.

Parameter Gully type


G–1 G–2 G–3 G–4
Depth (m) ≤ 1.0 1.0–3.0 3.0–9.0 > 9.0
Width (m) < 18.0 < 18.0 18.0 > 18.0
Side slope (%) < 6.0 < 6.0 6.0–12.0 > 12.0
Gully Erosion and its Control  101

Based on shape of gully cross-section


• U-Shaped
• V-Shaped
• Trapezoidal

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

Trapezoidal shaped gullies


• Such gullies are formed where the bottom of the gully is made of more resistant
material than the surface soil. The further development or advancement of
such gullies is not possible.
102  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Based on state of the gully


• Active gullies
• Inactive gullies

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.

Based on continuity of gully


• Continuous gully
• Discontinuous gully

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.

Factors responsible for acceleration of gully erosion


• Improper land use, such as compacted roads without a proper drainage system
(de Freitas Sampaio et al. 2016)
• Expansion in rural and urban development
• Diverting the runoff water towards more erodible and fragile soil
• Removal of resistant soil and exposing of the susceptible one
Gully Erosion and its Control  103

Causes of Gully Formation


Gully formation is caused by both natural and anthropogenic interventions.

Natural or physical factors


• Precipitation (monthly rainfall distribution), rainfall intensity, runoff and
rapid snowmelts
• Increased runoff triggered by low levels of vegetation cover and/or poor
infiltration rate of soils
• Flooding
• Soil properties–soil texture
• Topography-shape of catchment, size of catchment, and length and gradient
of the slope
• Poor vegetative cover due to overgrazing, fires or salinity problems
• Length and gradient of slope

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

Adverse Impacts of Gully Erosion


• Reduction in available land for agriculture (Zgłobicki et al. 2015)
• Decrease in crop yields (Zgłobicki et al. 2015)
• Land productivity reduces significantly due to loss of sediment from the
valley (Zgłobicki et al. 2015, Zgłobicki et al. 2015)
• Increased flooding and sediment generation negatively affect the farms,
fences, roads, railways, bridges and culverts
• A continuous change in local groundwater levels and the vegetation near the
gully
• Negative impact on building, farmlands and other properties as well as
human and animal life (Danladi and Ray 2014, Ezeigwe 2015, Angela and
Ezeomedo 2018)
• Augmented turbidity and nutrient loads in ponds, streams, rivers, dams and
running water
104  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

• Ecological problems including damage to aquatic habitation


• The access to affected land becomes very difficult
• Destruction of underground utilities such as phone cables, power and other
pipes
• Higher possibility of creek erosion within downstream waterways as a result
of increased sediment flow
• Issues of water quality within the downstream dams and waterways in relation
to released sediments containing nutrients and metals
• Possible discharge of salts from soil and runoff acidic in nature into receiving
waters
• Entry of sediments into waterways and water supplies
• Problem of sedimentation within the downstream waterways
• The reintegration of downstream water bodies through de-silting may involve
huge costs
• Loss of storage capacity of reservoirs
• Recreational impacts
• Adverse influence on other water resources

Gully Control Measures


The gully control includes the following:
• Regulation and reduction of run-off rates through improvements in the gully
catchments
• Diversion of surface runoff above the gully area
• Gully stabilization through structural measures and the accompanying
re-vegetation

Gully Control by Vegetation


Vegetative cover protects the gully against scouring by reducing the flow velocity
of water through an increase in hydraulic resistance of the channel section.
Vegetation is considered as the foremost, long-term defence for controlling gully
erosion. However, structures might be required to stabilise a gully and prevent
from further erosion. Structures are either temporary or permanent. Concrete,
masonry, wood or other materials can be used for building the permanent structures.
Permanent structures require technical skills for their design and construction.
Gully control by structures:
Following two types of structures are used for controlling gully erosion.
• Temporary structures
• Permanent structures
Gully Erosion and its Control  105

Temporary structures are used to encourage the vegetative growth on the


upstream portion of the gully by collecting a sufficient quantity of soil. Secondly,
to check the status of gully erosion untill plentiful vegetation is established at the
critical points of the gully. The various structures (temporary and permanent) used
for gully control are listed in Table 2.
Table 2.  Examples of temporary and permanent gully control structures.

Temporary structure Permanent structure


Brushwood dam Spillway
i. Single row brushwood dam − Drop inlet spillway
ii. Double row brushwood dam − Chute spillway
− Straight drop spillway or Drop spillway or
Drop structure
Loose rock dams and rock filled dams Concrete dam
Log check dam Masonry check dam
Woven wire check dam Gabions check dam
Netting dam
Staggered trenches or bunds
Terraces
Grassed waterways

A few commonly used temporary and permanent structures of gully control


are discussed below:

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.

Woven wire dams


They are used in gullies having a moderate slope with a small drainage
area for control of erosion through the establishment of vegetation. For
building a woven wire dam, a row of posts at about 1.2 m intervals and
60–90 cm deep is set along the curve of the proposed dam. A heavy gauge woven
wire is placed against the post with the lower part set in a trench of 15–20 cm deep
projecting 25–30 cm above the ground surface along the spillway interval. Rock,
sod or brush can be placed at a length of 1.2 m approximately to form the apron.
Straw, fine brush or similar materials would be positioned against the wire on the
upstream side to the height of spillway crest for sealing the structure.
106  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Brush wood dams


They are the least stable among all types of check dams and best suited for
gullies having a smaller drainage area. Brushwood dams are of two types viz.
single post row brushwood check dams and double post row brushwood check
dams. The double post row brushwood check dams are used for handling
high runoff. The central part of the dam is kept lower than at the ends. The
bottom and sides of the gully are covered with straw or similar fine mulch in
a thin layer for about 3–4.5 m along the site of the structure. Brushes are
packed closely above the mulch at about one half of the dam height. Several
rows of stakes are driven crosswise in the gully having a spacing of 60 cm and
30–60 cm from row to row and stake to stake respectively. For fastening the
stakes in a row, heavy galvanized wire is used. Large stones can also be placed on
the top of bushes to keep it compressed and in close contact with the gully bottom.

Loose rock dam


These are the most suitable for gullies having a small to medium drainage area.
Loose rock dams and rock filled dams are used in an area where rocks or stones of
good quality in the appropriate sizes (e.g., flat stones) are available. For building
a loose rock dam, a trench is made across the gully to a depth of 30 cm in which
the stones are then laid in rows to a desired height. The centre of the structure is
kept lower compared to the sides to form a spillway.

Design criteria for temporary structures


• The overall height of the temporary check dam should be limited to 75 cm
with an effective height of 30 cm. A minimum freeboard of 15 cm is essential.
• Their lifespan should be 3 to 8 years thereby having been designed for a
rainfall return period of 10 years.
• Check dams tentatively should be placed in such a manner that the crest
elevation of one will be same as the bottom elevation of the nearby dam
upstream. The check dam of a lesser height with a higher slope will need
more recurrent check dams down the stream.
• An apron should be provided to prevent the scouring due to the flow passing
over the check dams. For this purpose, rip-rap is provided at the length of
1 to 1.5 m downstream of the check dams.

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

Drop inlet spillway


This structure consists of a conduit connected with a suitable inlet and outlet.
The inlet is built with a drop to guide the water flow from inlet to conduit
(e.g., hood type). The outlet generally consists of a chute or a propped pipe with a
suitable size to allow an adequate flow to the downstream channel. This structure
is recommended in the G-4 type of gullies where depth is more than 9 m and has
a steep slope. The functions of different components of drop structure are listed
in Table 3.
The uses of different permanent spillway structures are listed in
Table 4, whereas, the advantages and limitations are listed in Table 5. The
different methods for computing the maximum discharge through a gully are
listed in Table 6.
108  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Table 3.  Functions of different components of a drop structure.

Sr. No. Component Function


1 Head wall − Easy conveyance of water
− Acts as a front wall against flow of runoff in the drop spillway
2 Head wall − To check the flow of water from the sides of the structure
extension − To provide structural strength against sliding of the structure
3 Side walls − To prevent splashing of water flow over the gully banks
− To confine the water flow within the apron
4 Wing walls − To prevent the flow backward into the space left between gully wall
and side wall of the structure
5 Apron − To dissipate the maximum kinetic energy of falling water by
creating hydraulic jump
− To reduction the velocity of outgoing water
6 Longitudinal sills − For making the apron stable
7 End sill − For blocking the water going directly into the channel below
8 Cut-off walls − For offering structural strength of the structure against sliding

Table 4.  Uses of different spillway structures.

Drop inlet spillway


1 As a principal spillway in debris basins
2 As a principal spillway in reservoirs or farm ponds for letting out the harvested water
3 As a water inlet channel in drainage or irrigation structures
4 As a culvert in forest roads
5 For controlling the flood
6 For safe disposal of water harvested water in conjunction with check dams
7 Stabilization of gully grade
Chute spillway
1 For conservation of water and collection of sediments
2 To control the advancement in gully head
3 To safely convey the runoff from upstream areas into the gully without erosion
4 To control gradient of artificial or natural channels
Straight Drop Spillway or drop structure
1 As an outlet in the tile drainage system
2 For controlling erosion in order to protect the building, roads, etc.
3 For stabilization of the grade in the lower reaches of the outlets and waterways
4 It can be used in the water distribution system for controlling irrigation
5 For letting out the water from reservoirs
6 For controlling the tail water at the outlet section of the conduit
7 For release of irrigation water into the field
Gully Erosion and its Control  109

Table 5.  Advantages and limitation of different spillway structures.

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.

Rubble masonry dam


In gullies, where the runoff of rates is very high and vegetation cannot be
established, these dams can be used. Their construction is recommended where
stones or rocks are easily available in adjoining areas. They are constructed with
110  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Table 6.  Computation of maximum discharge of gully catchment.

Name of method Formula Description


Rational formula CIA − Q max
=Maximum discharge of the gully
Qmax = catchment gully catchment at the
3.6
proposed check dam point (m3/s)
This formula gives best results
for torrents with catchment areas − C=Runoff coefficient, varies from 0.20 to
> 300 ha 0.50 depending on type of land use and
topography
− I=Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
− Rainfall intensity is computed based on
one hour maximum rainfall intensity with
a frequency of 5 to 10 years
− A = Catchment area of the gully above
the proposed check dam (km2)
Kresnik formulas c×32×A − Q =Maximum discharge of the gully
(main) Qmax = 1
max
catchment gully catchment at the
0.5+A 2 proposed check dam point (m3/s)
− c=Coefficient, varies from 0.6 to 2.0
Kresnik formulas 1 depending on land use type
(simple) Qmax= 25 × A 2
− A=Gully catchment area above the
This formula gives more suitable proposed check dam (km2)
results for gullies having
catchment areas < 20 ha
General run-off Qmax =Aw×V − Qmax=Maximum discharge of the gully
formula catchment gully catchment at the
1.486 2 1
proposed check dam point (m3/s)
V= ×R 3 ×S 2
n − Aw=Wetted or cross-sectional area of
R=Aw/Pw main gully bed (m2)
For computing R, the cross- − V=Manning’s flow velocity (m/s)
sectional area of the − n=Roughness coefficient
gully should be measured at
− R=Hydraulic radius (m)
highest flood water level
− S=Slope or gradient o£ the gully channel
(%)
− Aw =Wetted area (m2)
− Pw=Wetted perimeter (m)
Spillway formula ∗
3 − Qmax=Maximum discharge of the gully
Qmax = C LD 2
catchment gully catchment at the
For check dams, loose rock and proposed check dam point (m3/s)
boulder log, C*=3.0 − C *=Coefficient
For cement masonry check dams − L=Spillway length (m)
and gabion, C*=1.8 − CLD=Spillway depth (m)

a minimum thickness of walls as 30 cm keeping the downstream slope of the dam


at least 1:2 below the spillway. The thickness of the base is kept greater than or
equal to 3/4th of the height of the dam. The minimum thickness of cut off walls,
side walls and the apron should be about 30 cm. The thickness of the main wall
from the crest of the spillway to the top of the dam should be greater than or equal
to 35 cm. Up-stream side of the dam should be maintained at an angle of about
Gully Erosion and its Control  111

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.

Design requirements of permanent gully control structures


Gully control structures are installed across active gullies to stabilize them by
controlling erosion. These structures are mainly designed for the safe disposal of
surplus runoff generated from the watershed by considering the following points.
• Keeping the hydrologic design in mind, there should be a provision for the
safe discharge of the runoff
• Keeping structural design in mind, there should be enough strength of the
structure to endure the pressure exerted by the runoff water
• Keeping hydraulic design in mind, the structure should be protected from
erosion due to the runoff passing over it.

Different methods or models used in the past to study gully


erosion

• Aerial photographs and traditional photogrammetry (Gomez-Gutierrez et al.


2018)
• Global Navigation Satellite Systems (Gomez-Gutierrez et al. 2018)
• Pin networks
• Light Detection and Ranging sensors (Gomez-Gutierrez et al. 2018)
• Topographic profilers (Gomez-Gutierrez et al. 2018)
• Total stations
• Terrestrial Laser Scanners
• Terrestrial Structure from Motion (SfM)
• Ground manual measuring method (Vandaele and Poesen 1995, Casali et al.
2006)
• Field marks (Ionita 2006)
• Aerial photos and digital elevation model (Martınez-Casasnovas 2003)
• RTK-GPS measurement (Wu and Cheng 2005)
112  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

• Conventional gully delineation


• Gully morphology

Recent techniques involving remote sensing and GIS


• 3D photo-reconstruction technique
• Ground based LiDAR
• Laser profilometer
• Total station survey
Remote sensing has become a widely used technology for studying gully erosion
due the multiple advantages offered by it (Wang et al. 2014). The advantages
offered include the following:
• Wide detection range
• Fast acquisition of information
• Short period
• Less restrictions by ground conditions
• Rich electromagnetic wave information

Factors to be considered for controlling gully erosion



The cause of action to be taken for controlling gully erosion

The effect if no action is taken for controlling the gully erosion

Catchment size

Type of soil

Identification of the most actively eroding gully components such as gully
head, floor, sides and height
• Potential for diversion of run-off flowing into the gully to a safe area

Other factors to be considered while fixing gully erosion


• Check whether the erosion is active by looking at the gully head, walls and
floor
• Check water source
• Improve groundcover
• Review land management
• Install earthworks

Suggestions for controlling the gully formation


• Gully control by constructing dams to cut down the velocity of water flow
and escalation of sedimentation
Gully Erosion and its Control  113

• Land use correction based on natural ability and limitations in relation to


geomorphologic and physiographic features of soil of a particular area
(Arabameri et al. 2018).
• Curtailing the tree clearing
• Restoration of vegetation easy-going with the natural conditions of the area
(Brooks et al. 2016, Arabameri et al. 2018)
• Adoption of appropriate cultivation methods
• Improved land use
• Appropriate drainage system for urban and rural areas (de Freitas Sampaio et
al. 2016)
• Ensuring that the drainage from buildings, roads and stock routes is not
concentrated into gullies
• Diversion of runoff from the erodible soil to safe area
• Fencing of areas susceptible to erosion
• Maintaining contour banks and waterways
• Adoption of conservation practices to prevent and mitigate the problem of
gully erosion in rural areas
• In extreme cases, planting vegetation, fencing, diversion banks and
engineering structures may be required to control gully erosion.
• To make the farmers aware of the region through environmental officials
(Arabameri et al. 2018) about the followings:
º The type of cultivation
º Principles of appropriate cultivation
º Avoidance of overgrazing and demolition of natural vegetation
Maintaining a good vegetative cover on the ground may serve as the best
alternative in preventing gully erosion. Thus, maintaining a minimum 70%
ground cover, a stubble cover of 30% on cultivated areas and stabilizing the points
of sharp slopes and gully head may help to minimise the gully erosion to a great
extent.

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)

These factors are characterized by:


• R-factor: the erosive effect of precipitation and surface runoff
• K-factor: the erodibility of the soil under standardized conditions
(plot length = 22.6 m, inclination = 9%, fallow land)
• LS-factor: the change in soil loss under standard conditions differing slope
length and inclination
• C-factor: the erosion-reducing influence of different crops and processing
methods in comparison with fallow land
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  117

• P-factor: the erosion-reducing effect of protective measures, e.g., contour


ploughing, grass strips, etc.
The weighting of the factors in Eq. 1 is determined in the definition of
the factors themselves. The most important information contained in USLE is
therefore the definition of the factors or the nomograms from which the factor
values are derived (Dettling 1989).
The determination equations of the individual factors, initially defined in
American units, were transferred into metric units for applications outside the
USA. The following explanations refer to the latter.
The rain factor R is derived from the kinetic energy of the individual
precipitation and its intensity. Information on surface runoff or infiltration rate is
not included in the calculation.
The R-factor is determined in several steps. To estimate the kinetic energy
Ekin (in Joule/m²), the individual precipitation is first divided into any number of
(n) subsections (i) with approximately constant intensity (Ii) and the amount of
precipitation (Ni) belonging to each subsection is determined. The kinetic energy
of the entire rain then results from the combination of these variables, according
to Eq. 2 (Dikau 1986):

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:

EI30 = Ekin . I30 (3)

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

A = aggregate size class


D = permeability class.
Equation 4 is not fully transferable to Central European soil conditions;
among other things it only applies to soils with silt and fine sand contents below
70%. Therefore, equation 4 is not applicable for the widespread loess soils with
low sand content and clay contents of 10% to 25% which are at risk of erosion in
Central Europe (Schramm 1994).
The LS-factor describes the change of soil loss with slope length and slope
inclination deviating from the standard slope. The influence of the slope shape on
the material removal can be taken into account indirectly via weighting factors.
There are two different equations for the determination of the LS-factor, but
according to Schwertmann et al. (1990) they yield almost identical results:
LS = (l/22)m . (65,41 . sin2α + 4, 56 . sin α . 0,065) (5)
or
LSLS 22) mm⋅ .ss/9
= /(l/22)
= (l / 9 ⋅. ( s / 9) (6)
where l = erosive slope length in m, α = slope angle in degrees and s = slope angle
in %. The exponent m contained in both equations depends on the slope angle
(Table 1).
The erosive slope length l is defined as “the length between the place on
the slope where on average the surface runoff begins and the place where the
deposition of soil material begins on the lower slope” (Schwertmann et al. 1990).
Therefore, in Eqs. 5 and 6, the total length of the slope is not included, but only
that part which is directly subject to erosion on average of the events.
The C-factor takes into account the erosion-reducing effect of soil cover by
cultivated plants or harvest residues. The calculation of the C-factor requires that
the soil loss occurring with a certain crop and cultivation technique is known as a
relative value to the soil loss occurring with fallow land.
The relative soil loss (RSL) is usually a time-dependent variable, as the degree
of cover and the soil condition vary during the vegetation period. The RSL values
should therefore be differentiated by cultivation period and weighted according to
the seasonal distribution of the R-factor. The addition of the weighted RSL values
of a year results in the C-factor.

Table 1.  Value of m for different slopes.

Slope angle (%) m


≤ 0.5 0.15
0.6–1.0 0.20
1.1–3.4 0.30
3.5–4.9 0.40
≥ 5.0 0.50
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  119

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.

Physically Based Simulation Models


Due to the inadequacies of purely empirical approaches, more process-oriented,
physically based erosion models have been developed. In contrast to empirical
models, they are based on physically defined model parameters and are therefore
transferable, at least in terms of approach. However, even by means of a physically
based model, the real processes can only be reproduced in a very simplified way.
This also limits the applicability of these models and results in certain systematic
errors.
Irrespective of these limitations, more process-oriented, physically based
model approaches promise not only easier transferability but above all improved
prediction accuracy and higher spatial and temporal resolution. Particularly in
120  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Name Developer Spatial reference Temporal reference


CREAMS Knisel 1980 Slope (structured) Individual event
ANSWERS Beasley and Huggins 1981 Catchment area Individual event
(structured)
OPUS Smith 1988 Slope (unstructured) Individual event
WEPP Lane and Nearing 1989 Slope (structured), Individual event
Catchment area Long term simulation
version in work
EUROSEM/ Morgan 1992/ Slope (structured), Individual event
KINEROS Woolhiser et al. 1990 Catchment area
EROSION 2D/3D Schmidt 1991 Slope (structured), Individual event (linkable
Catchment area to sequences)
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  121

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

The dimensionless transport coefficient Ps contained in equation 10 is defined as:

 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

is deposited within the segment. The area-related deposition rate Du is calculated


according to:
vs
Du = ε ⋅ ⋅ (T c − G ) (16)
q
Here ε is a dimensionless, empirically derived coefficient, vs the sinking
velocity of the particles, q the flow rate, Tc the transport capacity and G the input
into the segment of upper current.
Due to the consideration of the sinking velocity in Eq. 16, CREAMS allows
a fractional differentiation of the sedimented particles in the case of deposition.
This distinction is of great importance for assessing possible “off-site” damages,
as the fine soil particles are generally much more contaminated than the coarser
ones. As soon as deposition occurs in one of the segments, CREAMS recalculates
the grain size distribution of the transported sediment. This takes into account that
when the transport capacity is exceeded, the coarser particles preferably settle,
while the finer particles accumulate in the sediment. However, CREAMS cannot
describe the selective detachment of soil particles. An enrichment of the finer
fractions can therefore only occur after particles have already sedimented.
The advantages of the CREAMS model lie primarily in the possibility of
differentiating erosion events in terms of time and location and in the fraction-
dependent consideration of deposition. In addition, CREAMS provides information
on the discharge of particle-bound pollutants and nutrients. However, restrictions
result from the use of elements of USLE (see above). Another critical factor is the
use of the Yalin equation to describe the transport capacity. The experimental data
that led to this equation were obtained under fluidized bed conditions of equal
grain sediments. It is doubtful whether the Yalin equation can be transferred to
the specific conditions of mass transport of inhomogeneous source substrates by
essentially sheet-like flows (Schramm 1994). As can be shown in the experiment,
the hydraulic properties of runoffs at shallow flow depths are influenced to a
much greater extent by precipitation than is the case at greater water depths (Yoon
and Wenzel 1971). This effect is not included in the Yalin equation (Guy and
Dickinson 1990).
A similar approach to the CREAMS model to describe erosion is used in
WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project). WEPP (Foster and Lane 1987, Lane
and Nearing 1989, Flanagan 1990) is currently still in the test or development
phase. Unlike CREAMS, this model no longer uses USLE elements.
The WEPP model allows both an estimation of erosion related to individual
single events and a prognosis over a longer period (several years). The behaviour
of the relevant parameters for erosion (plant cover, erosion resistance, soil
moisture, etc.), is continuously mapped here, including the time periods between
the erosion-effective individual events. The initial and boundary conditions must
therefore only be entered once at the beginning of the simulation. The model then
calculates the seasonal changes in the relevant values itself. The climate parameters
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  125

precipitation, temperature and radiation can also be generated automatically via a


specific component of the model.
The hydrological submodel of WEPP describes the relationship between
precipitation and runoff (just like CREAMS) on the basis of a modified Green
and Ampt approach. The excess precipitation is divided into sheet and rill flow,
so that, similar to CREAMS, a distinction can be made between rill and inter-rill
erosion.
The detachment of the soil particles by rill flow is expressed by:

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

Deposition occurs when the sediment quantity G = (Df + Di )x (x = slope


length) exceeds the transport capacity Tc of the rill flow. This case is described by:

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

Infiltration/ Erosion model


Overland flow model (Momentum flux approach)
(Green & Ampt approach)

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

water content Θ0 [N m/kg], t = time [s], ρf = fluid density [kg/m3], Θs = saturated


water content [m3/m3], Θ0 = initial water content [m3/m3].
Hence xf1 (Eq. 26) can be inserted into equation 22 and xf2 (Eq. 27) into
Eq. 23:
∆Ψg (28)
i1 = = ks ⋅ g
g ⋅t
ρ f ⋅ (Θ s − Θ 0 )

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:

ks = 4 ⋅10 −3 (1,3 ⋅10 −3 / ρ b )1,3⋅b ⋅ exp(0,069 ⋅ T − 0,037 ⋅ U ) (31)

with

b = (10 −3 ⋅ D) −0,5 + 0,2 ⋅ δ p (Campbell 1985)

where ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity [(kg s)/m3], ρb = bulk density [kg/m3],


T = clay content [kg/kg], U = silt content [kg/kg], b = parameter [–], D = mean
diameter of soil particles [m], δp = standard derivation of the mean diameter of
soil particles [–].
1
 Θs − Θr  1  n
 Θ0 − Θr  ⋅ α n 
 
Ψm0 =  (Van Genuchten 1980) (32)
100 ⋅ ρ b

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

Since the theoretical concept of infiltration presupposes a rigid soil matrix,


time-variable structural processes such as soil compaction, slaking and crusting
of macropores due to shrinking and biological activities have to be considered
by an empirical factor, called skinfactor. This factor allows calibrating the
saturated hydraulic conductivity ks according to equation (31) on the basis of
experimentally measured data (Michael 2000). Values of skinfactor < 1 reduce
infiltration rate, in order to take into account the effects of soil slaking and
crusting as well as anthropogenic compaction. Values of skinfactor > 1 cause a
positive correction of infiltration rate, e.g., for the consideration of an increased
infiltration in macropores due to soil shrinking, biological activity or tillage
impact. If skinfactor = 1 infiltration rate is obviously not affected by either slaking
and sealing or macropores.
Heavy rainstorms are mostly short-term phenomena. Consequently, the
wetting front only penetrates a few decimeters deep into the soil, so that only the
properties of the uppermost soil layer have to be considered in the simulation.
However, in the case of long-term rainstorms, the modeling approach should also
consider deeper soil layers in their influence on infiltration. To do so, EROSION
3D provides a parameterization interface and appropriate modeling routines.
In order to calculate infiltration, the smallest hydraulic conductivity within the
transport zone is used, while the matrix potential driving the infiltration flow is
always taken directly in front of the wetting front.
In addition EROSION 3D has further model approaches that take into account
the influence of trapped air and water repellency. These factors can significantly
reduce infiltration at very low initial soil moisture levels. Frozen soil has a similar
impact on infiltration, which can also be considered in the EROSION 3D model
(Weigert and Schmidt 2005).

Detachment and transport sub-models


The theoretical concept of the detachment sub-model is based on the assumption
that the erosive impact of overland flow and rainfall droplets is proportional
to momentum fluxes exerted by the flow and the falling droplets respectively
(Schmidt 1991 and 1992), defined in general form by:

m ⋅ v  kg ⋅ m kg ⋅ m 
ϕ= ; = 2 = N (33)
t  s⋅s s 
where m/t = mass rate of surface runoff respectively rainfall, v = runoff velocity
respectively fall velocity of droplets. As Fig. 3 shows, momentum fluxes shall be
regarded as vectors.
Assuming macroscopic perspective erosion occurs if the sum of all mobilizing
forces acting on the soil particles (given by the momentum fluxes of surface runoff
ϕq and raindrops ϕr) is greater than the sum of those forces that prevent particles
from being detached and transported. In all other cases, no particles are eroded
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  131

Fig. 3.  Detachment—momentum flux approach.

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:

qs = (1,75 E − 1,75) ⋅ 10 −4 (35)

where qs = sediment discharge of detached particles. Figure 4 shows the regression


curve and the experimental data on which the curve is based. Because of the
theoretical postulate that sediment cannot be eroded when E ≤ 1 the regression
curve muss intersect the x-axis at E = 1.
The momentum flux exerted by raindrops is defined as (15):
ϕr = rα ⋅ ρ r ⋅ vr ⋅ A ⋅ sin α ⋅ (1 − C L ) (36)
where ϕr = momentum flux exerted by raindrops [N], rα= r cosα = effective rainfall
intensity [m/s] related to the slope surface, ρr= fluid density of rainwater [kg/m³],
vr= mean fall velocity of raindrops, A = area of the slope segment [m2], α=slope
angle and CL= ground cover. The effective rainfall intensity rα is introduced to
Eq. 24 because by default rainfall intensity data refer to a horizontal plane. To
calculate runoff generation and soil detachment these intensity data have to be
transferred to inclined surfaces.
132  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Fig. 4.  Measured sediment discharge qs vs. erosion coefficient E.

The fall velocity of raindrops contained in Eq. 36 is very difficult to measure


under field conditions. Available data show that the size and hence the velocity of
the droplets increase with rainfall intensity (Laws 1941, Laws and Parsons 1943).
By making use of these data, we obtain the following empirical equation (Eq. 37),
which provides a simple method of estimating the mean fall velocity of raindrops
on the basis of rainfall intensity data.

vr = 4,5 ⋅ r 0,12 (37)


where vr = mean fall velocity of raindrops [m/s], r = rainfall intensity [mm]
In analogy to Eq. 36 the momentum flux exerted by overland flow is
determined by:

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

Fig. 5.  Transport-momentum flux approach.

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:

ϕ q ,vert . ≥ ϕ p ,crit . (42)

where ϕq,vert. = vertical momentum flux component of surface runoff [N].ϕp,crit. =


momentum flux of suspended particles [N].
Transport capacity has been reached, when the vertical momentum flux
component of the flow equals the critical momentum flux of the suspended particles.
134  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

The concentration of particles at transport capacity can be expressed as:



1 ϕq + ϕr
c max = (43)
κ ρ p .⋅ A ⋅ v p 2
where cmax = concentration of particles at transport capacity [m³/m³], κ (≈1000) =
empirical factor, φq = momentum flux exerted by flow [N], φr = momentum flux
exerted by raindrops [N], ρp = particle density [kg/m³], A = area of slope segment
[m²], vp = settling velocity of soil particles [m/s].
Transport capacity is then determined according to:

qs ,max = cmax ⋅ ρ p ⋅ q (44)


where qs,max = sediment discharge at transport capacity [kg/(m s)],
cmax = concentration of particles at transport capacity [m³/m³], ρp = particle density
[kg/m³], q = volume rate of flow [m3/(m s)].
According to Eq. 44, it is possible to calculate the transport capacity for
any particle size class separately. The transport capacities derived in this way
specify the maximum mass rate of particles that can be transported within this
size class under the given flow conditions (assuming that transport is not limited
by detachment). In order to determine the actual mass rate and the particle size
distribution of the transported sediment, the following assumptions are made:
(a) The particle size distribution of the detached sediment is the same as in the
original soil. (b) Detachment occurs only if there is excess transport capacity.
This means that the particle size distribution of the transported sediment
corresponds to that of the initial soil, as long as the mass rate of the detached
particles does not exceed the transport capacity in any of the particle classes
considered. If that is not the case, the mass rate of the particles and hence the size
distribution of the transported sediment is controlled by transport capacity.
In order to calculate the rate of erosion or deposition for each of the individual
slope segments the following simple equation is used:

 q − qs ,out 
γ =  s ,in  (45)
 ∆x 
where γ = is the rate of erosion (γ < 0) or deposition (γ > 0) per unit area, qs,in = the
sediment discharge into the segment from the segment above, qs,out = the sediment
discharge out of the segment and Δx = the length of the slope segment.

Overland flow and sediment routing


Since the model operates on a grid-cell basis EROSION 3D allows generating
drainage paths by which water and sediment can be routed from the top to the
bottom of the respective catchment. According to this, the following procedure
is used (Von Werner 1995, Seidel and Schmidt 2009): In the first step slope angle
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  135

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.

Fig. 6.  Change of film thickness during formation of surface runoff.

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

Fig. 7.  Comparison of observed and predicted runoff hydrograph.

Input and output parameters


The model’s input and output parameters are summarized in Table 3. The input
parameters can be assigned to three main groups: relief parameters, surface
respective soil parameters and precipitation parameters. The input maps are
shown in Fig. 8.
The values of all input parameters are assumed to be spatially uniform below
the scale of grid resolution which may vary between 0.1 m and 30 m. The effects
of different types of land use and agricultural management practices on erosion are
accounted for by varying the values for erosional resistance, hydraulic roughness
and percentage soil cover. All spatially distributed data—relief, surface, soil and
land use data—are imported from a Geographical Information System data base
(e.g., ArcGIS), but direct data access is still possible within the model without
using any external software.
Most of the input variables are commonly accessible except the following
model-specific parameters: skin factor, surface roughness and resistance to
erosion. In principle, these parameters have to be determined by simulated rainfall
experiments. However, there is a comprehensive data base obtainable which can
be used in combination with the additional software tool DPROC (Schindewolf
and Schmidt 2010) to identify EROSION 3D model inputs almost automatically
from generally available European Community datasets on soil, land use and soil
management.
The model produces raster-based quantitative estimates of excess rainfall,
runoff, soil loss/deposition and the sediment delivery (mass rate) into the surface
water system. The model outputs, e.g., the predicted spatial distribution of erosion
and deposition, can be displayed and plotted as colored maps (Fig. 9) or stored
in ASCII-files for further processing. The model results have been extensively
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  137

Table 3.  EROSION 3D input and output parameter.

Input parameters Output parameters


Relief parameters: Related to the cross-section of a selected grid
- Digital elevation data element (e.g., the element at the catchment
outlet):
Surface and soil parameters: - Runoff (volume rate)
- Texture - Sediment discharge (mass rate)
- Bulk density - Grain size distribution of the transported
- Organic matter content sediment
- Initial soil moisture Related to the catchment of a selected grid
- Hydraulic roughness (Manning’s n) element:
- Resistance to erosion - Erosion/Deposition
(crit. momentum flux) - Net Erosion
- Canopy cover
- Skin factor
Precipitation parameters:
- Rainfall intensity
- Duration and date

Digital elevation model Soil texture map

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.

validated. For the application of EROSION 3D there are extensive experiences,


especially in Europe, but there are also some for Africa (e.g., Gebreselassie 2012)
and Asia.

Application of the EROSION 3D Model


EROSION 3D model has been applied in different parts of the world to test its
applicability under different hydrological conditions. The EROSION-3D model
was applied by Schmidt et al. (1999) in CATSOP catchment of Netherlands from
a period of 1987–1993. The computation results in a raster map showed the spatial
pattern of predicted erosion and deposition within the catchment. The model
results were compared with observed sediment data measured at the catchment
outlet. The comparison showed that simulated soil loss was generally too high
which can be due to weak input data. It implied that the input data required for the
simulation of soil erosion should be of good quality.
Schob et al. (2006) used the EROSION-3D model in the Saxonian loess
belt in Germany for erosion prediction. The EROSION-3D model performed
well while predicting the sediment yield from the study watersheds and acted as
decision support system to locate the main areas of soil loss and deposition.
Mengistu et al. (2012) applied the two physically based models, EROSION
3D and WEPP for predicting the watershed scale sediment and runoff. Watershed
Soil Erosion by Water-Model Concepts and Application  139

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

Erosion Models for Estimating Soil Erosion


Erosion models are used to predict soil erosion. Soil erosion modeling is able
to consider many of the complex interactions that influence rates of erosion by
simulating erosion processes in the watershed. Various parametric models such
as empirical (statistical/metric), conceptual (semi-empirical) and physical process
based (deterministic) models are available to compute soil loss. In general, these
models are categorized depending on the physical processes simulated by the
model, the model algorithms describing these processes and the data dependence
of the model. Empirical models are generally the simplest of all three model types.
They are statistical in nature and based primarily on the analysis of observations
and seek to characterize response from these data. The data requirements for such
models are usually less as compared to conceptual and physical based models.
Conceptual models play an intermediary role between empirical and physics-
based models. Physical process-based models take into account the combination of
the individual components that affect erosion, including the complex interactions
between various factors and their spatial and temporal variabilities. These models
are comparatively over-parameterized.
There have been several hydrological models developed to estimate runoff
and soil loss from a watershed. USLE, RUSLE, EPIC, ANSWERS, DREAMS,
CORINE, ICONA, MIKE SHE, Erosion-3D, AGNPS, CREAMS, SWAT and
WEPP are few among the models. One of the major problems in testing these
models is the generation of input data, that too spatially. The conventional methods
proved to be too costly and time consuming for generating this input data. With
the advent of remote sensing technology, deriving the spatial information on
input parameters has become more handy and cost-effective. Besides with the
powerful spatial processing capabilities of the Geographic Information System
(GIS) and its compatibility with remote sensing data, the soil erosion modeling
approaches have become more comprehensive and robust. Satellite data can
be used for studying erosional features, such as gullies, rainfall interception by
vegetation and vegetation cover factor. DEM (Digital Elevation Model), one of
the vital inputs required for soil erosion modeling can be created by analysis of
stereoscopic optical and microwave (SAR) remote sensing data. The integrated
use of remote sensing and GIS could help to assess quantitative soil loss at various
scales and also to identify areas that are at potential risk of soil erosion. This
chapter presents the application of different hydrological models, remote sensing
and GIS in estimating runoff and soil loss from the Shivalik foothills.

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.

Evaluation of SWAT Model in Lower Himalayas


Study area
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was applied to the forest micro-
watershed of the lower Himalayan region. This watershed is named as Choe
gauging watershed and has an area of 21 ha. The watershed is located at an
altitude of 34.74ºN and longitude of 76.86ºE. It is located at an elevation of
350 m. Land use of watershed comprises deciduous forest, range forest and water.
Nine years (1973–81) monthly data was taken up to model the hydrological
output. The model was calibrated for the period 1973–1978 using the parameters
based on sensitivity analysis and validated for the period 1979–1981. Loamy sand
is the dominant soil type in the area. Meteorological station is located near the
watershed.

Materials and methods


The Arc View-SWAT interface (AVSWAT-X version 2005) was used to delineate
the watershed boundary and the burning option to derive drainage pattern of the
watershed. The multiple Hydrological Response Unit (HRU) option available
in AVSWAT-X interface was used with the objective to represent each field as
a separate HRU. SWAT is a physically based hydrologic model which requires
physically based data. Obtaining physical based data for hydrological modeling
is often difficult, even in developed countries where data of high quality are
generally collected and analyzed. In this study input data was collected from
various sources. Meteorological input data include daily precipitation, maximum
and minimum air temperature, wind speed and relative humidity.

Digital Elevation Model


The DEM data was derived from TINS created from contours of the spot elevations
surveyed for the whole watersheds. The drainage Networks traced using the GPS
146  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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 1.  Morphological characteristics of Choe gauging micro-watersheds.

Watershed Parameters Values


Area, ha 21
Length width ratio 1.33
Length of main drain, m 1080
Average slope, % 10
Relief, m 81
Time of concentration, min 11.43

Fig. 1.  DEM and sub-basins delineated for Choe watershed.


SWAT Model and its Application  147

Land use data


The predominant land use and land of the micro watershed are range brush and
forest respectively and the details were derived using the Google earth high
resolution imageries and GPS reconnaissance in the watersheds. The classification
schemes were adopted using the threshold visual color separation techniques
identical to color signatures of the land use codified using the GPS data of the
geo rectified Google earth images (jpeg images) captured from the GE interface.
The classification was carried out using ERDAS imagine corrected to merge the
unclassified cells into the nearest neighborhood cells. The classified land use map
details are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.  Location and land use details of micro-watershed.

Micro-watershed Latitude-N Longitude-E Elevation, Land use SWAT %


m code area
Choe gauging, 34.74 76.86 350 • Water WATR 1.94
near Chandigarh
• Mixed forest FRST 27.48

• Range brush RNGB 70.58

After simulation process sensitivity analysis was performed involving the


parameters, deep aquifer percolation (rchrg_dp), minimum depth of water in
soil for base flow to occur (GWQ_MIN), initial SCS-CN for AMC-II (CN2),
available water capacity of soil layer (SOL_AWC), etc., manually and by auto-
calibration using SWAT CUP software version 3.1.3. Curve number and base flow
parameter (Alpha_BF and Alpha_BNK) were found most sensitive parameter
for the study watershed. Ranges of parameters used for modeling are shown in
Table 3. Calibration and validation were performed for the period 1973–78 and
1979–81 respectively.
SWAT-CUP 2009 version was used to calibrate the model using Sequential
uncertainty fitting (SUFI ver2). SUFI-2 is one of five different modules (SUFI2,
ParaSol, GLUE, MCMC and PSO) that are linked with SWAT in the package
called SWAT Calibration Uncertainty Programs (SWAT-CUP). Its main function
is to calibrate SWAT and perform validation, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
for a watershed model created by SWAT.
Various SWAT parameters for estimation discharge were estimated using the
SUFI-2 program (Abbaspour et al. 2007). Uncertainty is defined as discrepancy
between observed and simulated variables in SUFI-2 where it is counted by
variation between them. SUFI-2 combines calibration and uncertainty analysis
to find parameter uncertainties while calculating smallest possible prediction
uncertainty band. Hence, these parameters uncertainty reflect all sources of
uncertainty, i.e., conceptual model, forcing inputs (e.g., temperature) and the
parameters themselves. In SUFI-2, uncertainty of input parameters is depicted
148  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Table 3.  Range of parameter values used for modeling of Choe gauging watershed.

Sr. Parameter Description Fitted Min. Max. Location


No. code value value value
1 SOL_K Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 0.8957 0.64 0.95 *.sol
(mm/hr)
2 ALPHA_BNK Baseflow alpha factor for bank 0.2707 0.17 0.30 *.rte
storage
3 SOL_BD Soil Bulk density 0.4187 0.34 0.43 *.sol
4 ESCO Soil Evaporation Compesation 0.0412 .03 0.06 *.bsn
Factor
5 SLSUBBSN Average slope length of basin 0.2550 0.18 0.30 *.hru
6 CN2 SCS Runoff Curve Number 0.4025 0.37 0.47 *.mgt
7 REVAPMIN Threshold depth of water in the 1.6575 1.50 2.20 *.gw
shallow aquifer for”revap” to occur
8 RCHRG_DP Deep Aquifer Percolation Factor 0.6087 0.54 0.65 *.gw
9 CH_K2 Effective hydraulic conductivity of 193.725 150.0 203.0 *.rte
main channel
10 GW_DELAY Ground Water Delay (days) 63.025 61.0 70.0 *.gw
11 GWQMN Theshold depth of water in the 2128.75 1980.0 2150.0 *.gw
shallow aquifer for flow to occur
(mm)
12 GW_REVAP Ground Water “Revap” Coefficient 2.545 2.50 3.10 *.gw

as a uniform distribution, while model output uncertainty is quantified at the


95% prediction of uncertainty (95PPU). The cumulative distribution of an output
variable is obtained through Latin hypercube sampling.
SUFI-2 starts by assuming a large parameter uncertainty within a physically
meaningful range, so that the measured data fall initially within 95PPU, then
narrows this uncertainty in steps while monitoring the P_factor and R_factor.
The P_factor is the percentage of data bracketed by 95% prediction uncertainty
(95PPU) and R_factor is the ratio of average thickness of the 95PPU band to
the standard deviation of the corresponding measured variable. A p-factor of
1 and R-factor of zero is a simulation that exactly corresponded to measured
data. In each iteration, previous parameter ranges are updated by calculating
the sensitivity matrix and the equivalent of a Hessian matrix, followed by the
calculation matrix. Parameters are then updated in such a way that new ranges
are always smaller than previous ranges and are centred on the best simulation
(Abbaspor et al. 2007). These two measured factors can be used as statistical
analysis instead of the usual equations such as coefficient of determination (R2),
Nash-Sutcliffe (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970) which only compares two signals. Other
statistical analyses in this study are the coefficient of determination R2 multiplied
by the coefficient of the regression line and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
SWAT Model and its Application  149

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

mean of observed rainfall series and n is length of data.

Results and discussion


Month wise simulation was carried out for both watersheds for different periods.
Calibration and validation of the SWAT model output with observed values
are shown for the watershed in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. For Choe gauging watershed,
monthly observed data of the monsoon season from 1973 to 1977 was taken for
calibration and three years data from 1978 to 1981 was taken for validation of
model. Calibrated and validated SWAT model outputs were found to be reasonably

Fig. 2.  Simulated and observed runoff for Calibration period.


150  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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).

Table 4.  Performance evaluation of model for calibration and validation.

Performance measure Calibration Validation


Nash and Sutcliffe Efficiency, % 80.2 73.2
RMSE 5.8 12.3
R2 0.81 0.83

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

Model performance evaluation statistics for simulating monthly runoff for


Choe gauging watershed, both for calibration and validation periods showed that
simulated runoff matched well with the observed data. The study has shown that
the SWAT model can produce reliable estimate of monthly runoff even for micro
watersheds. Thus, SWAT is a good modeling tool for analysis of hydrological
processes and water resource planning.

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

Why Watershed Management?


Increasing land degradation in the world with degradation moving at a quicker
speed in the developing countries has become a serious problem threatening
soil and water resources (Bartarya 1991, Sidle 2000, Sadeghi et al. 2004).
During the last few decades, natural resources worldwide have faced some
serious degradation problems such as soil erosion, sedimentation, wind erosion,
water scarcity and pollution, groundwater overexploitation, land use changes,
overgrazing in the rangelands, soil salinity, forest fire, flooding and wetlands
loss (Bartarya 1991, Sidle 2000). Finding scientifically appropriate, practically
feasible, environmentally friendly, technically sound, economically efficient,
developmentally sustainable and socially acceptable solutions are therefore vital
for the successful and persistent management of diminishing resources.
“A watershed is a complex and dynamic bio-physical system which is
identified as planning and management unit. Hence, considering all technical,
socio-economical, physical, ecological and organizational dimensions is essential
for proper planning and management processes. Due to complex interactions
among different aspects of the watershed, application of an integrated management
approach is inevitable to coordinate study aspects” (California Department

Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Member of


Agrohydrology Group, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor 4641776489, Mazandaran Province, and
President of Watershed Management Society of Iran, Iran.
Email: sadeghi@modares.ac.ir
Watershed Management in the 21st Century  153

of Conservation 2015). A watershed is also a hydrological and biophysical


response unit, and a holistic ecosystem in terms of the materials, energy, and
information present. The watershed not only is a useful unit for physical
analyses, it can also be a suitable socioeconomic-political unit for management
planning and implementation. In essence, a watershed is a basic organizing unit
to manage resources. Watershed management is faced with complex problems
that are characterized by uncertainty and change. Watershed management is
an ever-evolving practice involving the management of land, water, biota, and
other resources in a defined area for ecological, social, and economic purposes
(Wang et al. 2016). It studies the relevant characteristics of a watershed aimed
at the sustainable distribution of its resources and the process of creating and
implementing plans, programs, and projects to sustain and enhance watershed
functions affecting the plant, animal, and human communities within the
watershed boundary (California Department of Conservation 2015).
In 2015, some 17 Sustainable Development Goals (www.un.org) were
designated to be achieved as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
none of which can be adopted without an integrated and adaptive watershed
management. This can be planned in different zones of the watersheds namely
headwaters (upstream), transfer zone (midstream) and depositional zone
(downstream) as an occurrence that changes the pattern of all that follows, moving
the flow of events toward a different outcome and simply called the “watershed
event” (California Department of Conservation 2015). This is in the same
vein as the United Nations; which has committed to focus on water for a
decade (2018–2028) to advance sustainable development of water (www.
un.org). Integrated and systematic management of the watershed is one of the
vital approaches to develop sustainably (Sadoddin et al. 2016, Raum 2018).
It leads to the effective utilization of natural resources, alleviates poverty,
improves sustainable livelihoods, and increases collaboration among the various
stakeholders particularly in undeveloped countries.
To sustainably utilize available resources and meet the fulfillment of human
needs as well as restore the ecosystem balance to mitigate poverty, conserve the
Earth and ascertain prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development
agenda in 21st century, new breath of air has to be blown into existing programs
and projects at the watershed scale. Otherwise, all accessible and even available
resources will have thoroughly perished resulting in an irreversible situation,
including tragic famine and cannibalism at the end. This problem is far more
serious in developing countries where higher demands exist on one side and low
technology and technical knowledge are available (World Bank 2008) on the other
side. To address these issues, some important and developing strategies have been
discussed for the integrated management of the watershed through incorporating
various techniques and using indigenous knowledge.
154  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

In summary, integrated watershed management is the process of creating and


implementing plans, programs, and projects to sustain and enhance watershed
functions that provide the goods, services, and values desired by the community
affected by the conditions within a watershed boundary. The management is
integrated and complex, including components inside (e.g., upstream, midstream,
downstream) and outside the watershed, affecting both man-made and natural
factors. There is a general belief that the future watershed management will
need to account for the management of limited resources for ever-increasing
demand and greed of the humans by employing technological advancements and
holistic, cross-disciplinary approaches (Wang et al. 2016). It certainly ensures for
watersheds continue to efficiently and successfully perform essential ecosystem
services and serve their ecological and socio-economic services.

Optimizing Land Use Utilization


Considering conflicts upon very limited resources among different sectors with an
ever-increasing demand at the watershed scale is necessary in the 21st century for
satisfying the inhabitant’s demand (Pastori et al. 2017, Tajbakhsh et al. 2018, Wu
2018). Otherwise, more transient benefits reach a particular sector resulting in the
diminishing of other particles of the ecosystem and ultimately making it vulnerable
to introducing driving forces. It virtually leads to degradation of the watershed and
the consequent lower productivity, and further subsequent overexploitation of the
resources to compensate insufficient production. Optimization as an act, process,
or methodology of the decision making process as fully, perfect, functional and
efficient as possible is therefore needed for effectively managing the valuable
watershed assets and improving the ecosystem services (Guo et al. 2016, Li and
Ma 2017).
Despite the plethora of literature existing on the optimization field of different
resources management (Sadeghi et al. 2009, Liu et al. 2015, Ma and Zhao 2015,
Pastori et al. 2015, Tajbakhsh et al. 2018, Wu 2018), frequent application of this
applied mathematical approach in the management of the watershed as a necessary
approach for resources management in the developing world is still lacking.
However, the application of linear programming as a basic method for many
other optimization programs has been reported for the optimization of watershed
management using associated software. A specific study on the optimization of
land use allocation to orchard, range, irrigated and dry farming land uses has
been reported by Sadeghi et al. (2009) using linear programming to minimize soil
erosion and to maximize the economic return within the Birmvand Watershed
in Kermanshah Province, Iran. Solving the multi-objectives linear optimization
problem developed for the study watershed; revealed that the amount of soil
erosion and benefit could respectively reduce and increase by 7.9% and 18.6%,
in the case of implementing optimal allocation of the land use in the study. It is
Watershed Management in the 21st Century  155

therefore an approach that can be applicable for the resources management of the
watershed (Kaim et al. 2018).

Monitoring based Watershed Management


Understanding hydrologic behaviors and assessing the influence of land use and
land cover change in the hydrologic response of different watersheds is important
for watershed researchers and management in the 21st century (Paule-Mercado
et al. 2018). Assessment of watershed behavior is intended to provide a better
understanding and awareness of hydrologic behaviors of the watershed system.
So that monitoring the health of watersheds is a critical precursor to the adaptive
resources management on a watershed basis (Hazbavi et al. 2018a and b).
Hence, continuous monitoring of the watersheds behavior in response to various
anthropogenic and natural driving triggers helps adopt an integrated and adaptive
management strategy in different scales (Hazbavi and Sadeghi 2017, Hazbavi et
al. 2018a and b). Monitoring of the watershed health is hence considered to be
one of the main stages of adaptive management and the main components of the
watershed management plan as shown in Fig. 1.
Developing better methods for analyzing and assessing cumulative watershed
effects is considered to be the other challenges in the 21st century (Sidle 2000).
That is why; ascription of anthropogenic and natural effects on watershed
degradation is also needed.

Identify
stakeholders

Identify
Reflect interestes and
and adjust objectives

Inventory
Implement and assess
the plan watershed

Develop
a plan

Fig. 1.  Components of watershed adaptive management plan (After www.conservation.ca.gov).


156  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Adaptive Watershed Management


Concepts and definition
Despite existence of the concept of watershed management for millennia (Wang
et al. 2016), the management of watershed resources has not been successfully
achieved. Such that almost half of the countries in the world have low to very low
access to fresh water; owing in part to population growth resulting in increasing
constraints on the land, water, and other natural resources availability. Therefore,
the scarcity of fresh water supply, contamination of agricultural land, and polluted
streams are affecting millions of lives (Wang et al. 2016). It clearly verifies the
necessity of a new definition for watershed management to comprehensively
and suitably satisfy man’s ever-increasing demands, and appropriately and
sustainably conserve the environment. Such a definition will certainly be fulfilled
using a system’s approach to sustainable development as proposed by Flint in
2015 (www.eeeee.net/watershed.htm). Therefore there should be a heartfelt belief
that the current policies affecting civilization today and the Earth for generations
yet to come. There should be another belief that we cannot independently alter
or modify one element of a natural system without expecting changes elsewhere.
We therefore need to think like a watershed because acting sustainably requires
concurrent multi-dimensional thinking in such way to cover both the temporal
and spatial for various sectors concerning the economy, society and environment.
Accordingly an adaptive watershed management is a decision-making process
which effectively integrates both short and long-term economic, environmental
and social concerns (Flint 2006). Adaptive watershed management is cored on
Five E’s including Ecology, Economy, Equity, Education and Evaluation as
shown in Fig. 2; leading and encouraging the development of interdisciplinary
Ec
gy

De

o
olo

hip

no
ve
Ec

my
ds

lop

Education
ar

Evaluation
me
ew

n
St

Community Capacity

Equity

Fig. 2.  Five E’ Unlimited in watershed management (After www.eeeee.net/watershed.htm).


Watershed Management in the 21st Century  157

adaptive, and integrally-informed understanding of social-ecological systems at


the watershed level. The knowledge is then transferred to various stakeholders to
facilitate collaboration among the different stakeholders and stewards.
Adaptive management can be amalgamated with integrated and comprehensive
management helping to cope with the uncertainties dealing with the management
of complicated and dynamic systems of the watershed. Basically, adaptive
management gives several suggestions for handling of the governing complexity
on the watershed system. It is achieved by learning from the watershed outcomes
while doing and working with the system. It ultimately leads to a proper adoption
of managerial approaches and adjustment of future strategies accordingly. In
order to get access to a successful adaptive management, an insight goal based
monitoring and consequent evaluations are needed. Forthcoming strategies for
the adaptive management of the watershed need to be persistently improved by
learning from the pre-implemented policies. Self-evaluation to identify mistakes,
flexibility in decisions, appropriate regulations to rectify mistakes, time dedication
and financial investments in reducing the biases from the main goals are therefore
a necessary need for the adaptive watershed management (Allan et al. 2008,
Raadgever et al. 2008, Porzecanski et al. 2012).

Low impact development


Low impact development practices as a cost effective practice of land development
approach strives to mimic the pre-development conditions of a watershed
(Ahiablame and Shakya 2016, Xu et al. 2018) and can be used to mitigate risks
in watersheds, adaptively. The low impact development strategy has attracted
growing attention as an important, efficient and more reliable method for the
management of urban watersheds with a focus on flood mitigation (Ahiablame
and Shakya 2016, Hu et al. 2017, Xu et al. 2018). The findings verified effective
roles of low impact development practices for flood inundation mitigation at the
watershed scale. Basically, the low impact development approach for storm water
control is shaped based on the eight main elements represented in Fig. 3.

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

Storm Water Disconnection Minimize Soil Compaction

Reduce Impervious Surfaces Principles of Law Impact Minimize Total Disturbance


Development

Protect Sensitive Areas Protect Natural Water Flows

Protect Riparian Buffers

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

Best co-management of the watershed


Conservation of available and accessible resources and making a balance amongst
the ecosystem components is essential to target the goals of the developmental
plan. Hence, it is designed in order to recognize that the natural resources are
the mutual assets of the society. If such an approach is governed, all different
categories of people can receive mutual benefits and have co-responsibility for its
use and management. Towards this, empowerment and deliberated participation,
capability strengthening as well as awareness and encouragement are important
for decision making on watershed management. It eventually leads to a balanced
conservation and use, short term and long term benefits for the stakeholders.
Establishing a government sector, non-government organization, local community
and academia network is also supposed to be an actual social driving force
(Chanya et al. 2014).
Best management practices (BMPs) are famous and effective approaches
applied to ameliorate hydrological and fluvial behaviors of the watersheds
(Strauch et al. 2013, Loperfido et al. 2014). Despite the long-term performance
of the BMPs, they can help improve the decision support systems for creating
competent strategies for watershed management projects (Liu et al. 2018) in
sustainable and adaptive manner. BMPs widely remain an important solution
at the local and regional-scale to mitigate water quantity and quality issues.
Such that, the BMPs tries to handle issues in a very soft manner with the least
intervention in the natural system. In particular, the watershed-wide application
of the distributed BMPs improved hydrological behavior of the system. Integrated
planning of storm water management system, protected riparian buffers and
forest land cover with suburban development in the distributed-BMP watershed
which enabled multi-purpose use of land, that provided an aesthetic value and
green-space, community gathering points, and wildlife habitat in addition to an
individual hydrologic storm water treatment (Loperfido et al. 2014).
Different features of a watershed include soil and water utilization and
conservation, water rights, and the overall planning and utilization of watersheds.
Many stakeholders viz. landowners, land use organizations, foresters, ranchers,
environmentalists, governmental agencies, and communities all play an integral
part in watershed management. Once all stockholders and individuals think
like a watershed and become aware of the benefits of proper thinking, they are
often hands-on in the different stages of watershed management programs. They
then favorably contribute in the planning, decision-making, implementation,
restoration, maintenance, monitoring and even evaluation processes. It will
eventually help reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the essential actions
to fulfill environmental aims, improve economic and social situations of the
stockholders and ultimately lead to sustainable life and development (Flint 2006).
A new cooperative watershed management methodology is designed for
developing equitable and efficient BMPs with the participation of all main
stakeholders. The approach intended to control watershed outputs and to improve
160  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

the socio-economic status of the watershed, considering villagers, legislation


and executive stakeholders with conflicting interests (Adhami et al. 2018).
Toward this goal, a powerful compromising like game theory can be used for
analyzing strategies amongst the various demands in order to achieve cooperative
decision-making in the sub-watershed and Best Co-Management Practices
BCMPs prioritization. The collaborative management is a vast ranged-effort to
participate in information collecting, decision-making and an accomplishment
of projects (Bryson et al. 2013) and helps decision-makers resolve complex
society-environment dilemmas (Leys and Vanclay 2011) at the watershed scale.
A collaborative watershed management is a process, which includes relevant
stakeholders to watershed resources in decision-making to achieve ecosystem-
oriented goals, such as water quality improvement, soil conservation and pollution
control (Ucler et al. 2015, Thomas 2017).

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

meagre in quantity, unpredictable in distribution and is also characterized by


high inter-year variability (Venkateswarlu and RamaRao 2010). Farming systems
depend upon pulses, coarse cereals, oilseeds, cotton, pearl millet, sorghum and
other low moisture requirement crops. Climate change with expected rise of
2–4°C in the next hundred years will bring a still greater challenge for the rain fed
agriculturists. Intensities and frequencies of events such as droughts and floods
will increase.

Watershed Development and Management Approach


During the ancient period, village boundaries were decided upon on the watershed
basis by the expert farmers in the villages. Such boundaries were socially acceptable
to all the members of the system. Such age-old village boundaries are fixed at the
common point of the drainage system in between the two villages. Watershed
based planning of resource management has generated a wide appreciation in
India, particularly for assured dividends. The concept of maintaining an ecological
balance embedded in the watershed programme has also started getting attention
in different sections of the society.
As the entire process of agricultural development depends on the status of
water resources, the watershed with its distinct hydrological boundary is considered
ideal for taking on a developmental programme. Planning and designing soil and
water conservation structures such as bunds, waterways, overflow hydraulic
structures, water harvesting tanks, etc., are carried out considering the expected
rate and amount of runoff and flood volumes. This helps in reducing soil and
nutrient loss, top fertile soil removal, improved in situ soil moisture and ultimately
to improve crop productivity. Watershed development is fundamentally focused
on conservation, regeneration and the judicious use of all the resources; both
natural (land, water, plants, animals) as well as human components within the
watershed area (Shinde 2014). Watershed management seeks to bring about the
best possible balance in the environment between natural resources and man/
animals (Mani 2005). Since it is the man who is chiefly responsible for the
degradation of the environment thus regeneration and conservation can only be
possible by promoting, awakening and ensuring the participation of the people
who inhabit the watershed vicinities. Watershed management is defined as the
integrated use, regulation and development of the water and land resources of a
watershed in order to accomplish the sustainable use of land, aqua and flora. The
emphasis is on soil and water conservation on the watershed basis. Integrated
watershed management involves working on the natural and human resources in
a watershed in accordance with the social, political, economic and institutional
factors that operate within the watershed (Hufschmidt 1991).
Bio-industrial Watershed Management  165

Principles of Watershed Management


The main principles of watershed management under Mahnot and Singh 1993,
are:
i) Utilizing the land according to its capability.
ii) Maintaining adequate vegetative cover on the soil for controlling soil erosion,
mainly during the rainy season.
iii) Conserving the maximum possible rainwater at the place where it falls, on
arable land by contour farming.
iv) Draining out the excess water with a safe velocity to avoid soil erosion and
storing it in ponds for future use.
v) Preventing erosion in gullies and increasing ground water recharge by putting
in nullah bunds and gully plugs at suitable intervals.

Multiple Use Concept in Watershed Management


A multiple use perspective is required to achieve sustained and integrated
watershed management, particularly in those areas, where a large rural population
depends upon a variety of resources produced in upland watersheds. It may be
noted that much of the intensive farming, grazing, and timber harvesting that
take places in most of the areas is leading to watershed degradation, loss of bio-
diversity and adverse downstream impacts.
Watershed inhabitants in many areas practice multiple use, which involves
the production of goods that they require such as food, fiber, fuel and fodder. Most
of the development activities are closely associated to the development and use
of water resources. Thus, multiple use is being practiced on various watersheds,
but whether multiple use is being properly managed for upland and downstream
inhabitants is a matter of concern.
The main aim of multiple use management is to manage a natural resource
mixture for the most beneficial combination at both present and future uses. It is
not necessary that every watershed is managed for all possible natural resource
products simultaneously. Instead, most of the watersheds are utilized for various
natural resource products depending on levels of supplies and demand. Multiple
uses can be accomplished by one or more of the following options (Brooks et al.
1997):
i) Concurrent and continuous use of several natural resource products obtainable
on a particular watershed requiring the production of several goods and
services from the same area.
ii) Alternating or rotating the use of various natural resource products on a
watershed.
iii) Geographic separation of uses or use combinations, so that multiple use is
accomplished across a mosaic of land management units on a watershed,
with any use to which it is most suited.
166  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

It is important that effective multiple use management should accommodate


to the extent possible the full spectrum of today’s requirements while providing
for tomorrow’s needs.

Types of multiple use management


There are two types of multiple use management viz. resource oriented and area
oriented. Resource oriented multiple use management represents the alternative
uses of one or more natural resources. For instance, timber can be managed for
lumber, fuel wood and pulp. Such management depends upon the knowledge of
interrelationships-showing how the management of one natural resource affects
other uses of the same resources or how one use of a natural resource affects other
uses of the same resource. Resource oriented multiple use management needs
thorough the understanding of the production capacities of natural resources.
Area oriented multiple use management represents the production of a mix
of products and amenities from a particular area. It is important that area-oriented
multiple use should consider the physical, biological, economic and social factors
related to resource product development in a given area. Area oriented multiple
use gets the information required to describe resource potentials from resource
oriented multiple uses and then relates this to the dynamics of local, regional and
national demands. Brooks et al. (1997) show multiple resources from the land
area that results in several products (Table 1). It may be noted that area oriented
multiple use management is not necessarily intended to replace other forms of
land management but to complement them.
Table 1.  Multiple resources from land area resulting several products.

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

Integrated Watershed Management Approach


Integrated watershed management approach focuses on the assimilation of
various technologies within the natural boundaries of a drainage area for optimum
development of land, water, and vegetation to meet the fundamental needs of people
and animals in a sustainable manner (Wani and Garg 2009). It orients to enhance
the standard of living of the common people (Wani and Garg 2009) by increasing
his earning capacity by offering all facilities required for optimum production
(Singh 2000). In order to accomplish various objectives of integrated watershed
management, various strategies are worked out simultaneously like land and water
Bio-industrial Watershed Management  167

conservation practices, water harvesting in ponds and recharging of groundwater


for increasing water resources potential and stress on crop diversification, use of
an improved variety of seeds, integrated nutrient management and integrated pest
management practices, etc. (Wani and Garg 2009).

Soil and Rainwater Management Practices


Soil and water conservation measures are aimed at management of rainwater,
soil and vegetation resources in a manner that perceptible changes with regard to
water resources development take place in the watershed so as to increase land
productivity on a sustainable basis (Arora 2006). Not only should the surface
water storage increase as a result of soil water conservation interventions, but
increased ground water recharge should take place. Some of the effective and
feasible soil and water conservation practices either indigenously followed
or adopted through technological interventions in watershed programmes by
the farmers of the Shivalik foothills in north-western Himalayas includes field
bunding, pre-monsoon ploughing, terracing, contour trenching, earthing-up in
maize, straw and soil mulching and tillage management (Arora et al. 2006, Arora
and Hadda 2003).

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.

Productivity and income generation


Watershed management programmes will not be self-sustainable, if improvement
in productivity and generation of additional income does not commensurate with
investment. Increased biomass and fodder production resulting from integrated
management of watershed helps to change the composition of livestock to more
economical animals and reduced seasonal migration of herds due to assured
fodder supply during the year. The harvested rainwater in small storage tanks/
structures/farm ponds can be effectively utilized for supplemental irrigation
during lean periods to boost crop production. Water harvesting structures proved
to be economically viable, environmentally sound and socially acceptable (Samra
2002).
168  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Bio-Industrial Watershed Management Approach


The term bio-industrial connotes two meanings. Firstly, bio highlights the
human-centered development that the project promotes. Through agricultural
inputs and social interventions, the watershed community remains at the center
of the program. As their on-farm efficiency and profitability increases, their
social standing is expected to do the same. Secondly, the word industrial points
toward the enhancement of livelihoods and the development of a more diversified
economy in the village. Beyond the promotion of on-farm livelihoods, need
to garner off-farm and non-farm livelihoods for the sake of enhancing income
security (McGhghy 2012).
Bio-industrial Watershed Management is watershed management plus
processing industries for value addition of agricultural products before marketing
them. This is the way to make the presently profitless farming in India, to be
profitable (Bali 2005). Special bio-industrial zones need to be marked and
infrastructure developed. First, soil and water conservation measures have to
be applied. After that, the small watershed unit must be provided with assured
agricultural knowledge and inputs availability. Bio-processing industries, owned
preferably by the farmers, have to be developed. Natural resources are then
developed by developing land, water and vegetation.
A financial system of loans and subsidies must support each bio-industrial
watershed. The tenants’ rights have to be secured. Bio-industrial Extension
personnel must be available to do the running about for each bio-industrial
watershed. Farming is supported financially by all enlightened governments.
Farm prices are kept low to reduce poverty. But this works unfairly for the
farmers. That is why most governments subsidize farming to the tune of 30 or
40 per cent. In France, subsidies touch 80 per cent. Subsidized farming keeps
food prices low and helps eradicate poverty. There are three major components of
the bio-industrial watershed management, i.e., resource conservation, sustainable
biomass production and processing of produce.

Resource conservation in bio-industrial watershed


Soil and water conservation, within bio-industrial watersheds, is vital for rain fed
agriculture. Every drop of rain has to be conserved. Soils are poor and shallow.
Land is sloping and water runs off quickly. Land is to be protected with contour
bunds which will level the land over time. Water harvesting has to be developed.
The ephemeral streams around provide an opportunity for farm ponds which can
give life-saving water. It is here that the watershed management would meet its
toughest challenge. It is here that the need is the greatest, that small quantities
of produce must be processed and converted into high value nutritive products
which will bring good money to the farmers who must be a partner in the
processing industry. Watershed programmes act as pivot to agricultural growth
and development in rain fed areas.
Bio-industrial Watershed Management  169

Sustainable production of biomass in bio-industrial watersheds


Bio-industrial Watershed Management would be meaningful when marketable
produce is available from different crops in quantity and quality. If what is
produced is all consumed, there would hardly be any scope for processing and
marketing for extra money in the pocket of the poor growers (Bali 2005). Present
crop yields are low while the potential is high. This is a boon in a way. We shall
have scope to expand the yield and cater to the food needs of the future high
population. Those countries which have already achieved the peak productivity
would not have such potential. But the crop yields must improve quickly.
China has only two-thirds of the area under agriculture compared to India,
but her food production is double of India’s. Wheat and rice constitute about
three-fourth of the food grain production in the country, but the productivity of
both these crops is lower than other countries and also below the world average.
Other countries have two to three times the yields achieved in India. There is
tremendous scope of increase of productivity and total food production in our
country. The need is for water harvesting and management, including rainwater
management, and further intensification of application of science, technology and
inputs. All said and done, population control is a major area of attention. India
cannot afford to multiply indefinitely. There is a school of thought which says
health and education facilities are the best contraceptive. But there is a place for
direct intervention also. India’s programmes are on the right path. Only the speed
needs to be enhanced so that poverty is reduced within a stated time frame.
Rural poverty comes in the way of the effective adoption of agricultural
technologies available from research. The only way seems to be adoption of the
Bio-industrial model of rural development in which processing is an essential step
and which is bound to increase incomes and eradicate rural poverty.

Processing, value addition, storage and marketing


The foregoing efforts in the increase of productivity and market surpluses will
make it possible to introduce processing of the watershed produce as an essential
component of the watershed development and management programme. Strategies
are needed for value addition to the products by supporting approaches such as
structural mechanism, non-structural mechanisms and institutional approach
(Cosgrove and Loucks 2015). Bio-industrial Watershed Management would be
the ideal vehicle to take industries to agriculture and the rural people.

Bio-Industrial Watershed Opportunities in Hilly Region


There are many plus points to the mountains. Good climate and attractions for the
tourists, an appropriate niche for horticulture of a great variety, rich biodiversity,
medicinal and aromatic plants, animals well-adapted to the terrain, cooperative
people, and a haven for future organic farming and food processing industries
170  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Contract Farming and Bio-Industrial Watershed


Management
Contract farming comes close to the bio-industrial watershed model, if the whole
watershed is taken for resource conservation, development and raw material
production with distinct objectives: (a) ensuring regular supply of raw materials
(b) avoiding incidences of distress sale (c) promoting cultivation of process able
varieties of farm produce (d) preventing wastage of surplus farm produce and
increasing its shelf life through processing, and (e) commercializing agriculture
through contract farming.
Bio-industrial Watershed Management  171

Way Forward for Bio-Industrial Watersheds


There is a need to take certain initiatives in the watershed programmes in the near
future to make Bio-industrial watershed a reality (Bali 2005).

Strengthening processing and value addition


Bio-industrial Watershed Management has the potential of ushering in a Bio-
industrial Revolution in the Rural Areas, eradicating poverty. Processing
components may, therefore, be added to all the current watershed programmes
and the existing guidelines may be suitably amended to enable the change.

Department of bio-industrial watershed management


Existing Watershed Organizations in the States may be re-organized in order to
establish a strong Department of Bio-industrial Watershed Management, to make
Bio-industrial Rural Revolution a reality.

Bio-industrial watershed management coordination council


Bio-industrial Watershed Management would require close coordination between
the Ministries of Rural Development, Agriculture and Food Processing Industries.
A Bio-industrial Watershed Management Council may, therefore, be set up
bringing all the concerned Ministries together.

Bio-industrial watershed research and training institute


Bio-industrial Watershed Model with its union with a number of departments and
organizations and with a multiplicity of disciplines, needs a separate Bio-industrial
Watershed Management Research Institute. In the meantime, existing research
establishments should take up definite studies of the Bio-industrial Watershed
Problems of different regions and different socio-economic conditions. However
efficient the organization which is built up for demonstration and propagandas be,
unless that organization is based on the solid foundation provided by research, it
will merely be a house built on sand. It is hence important that we pay attention to
strengthening the research and development infrastructure essential for sustainable
food security in an era of climate change (Swaminathan 2010). Food security
and environmental degradation are two of the main challenges facing humanity
in the twenty-first century (Lal 2000). Protecting and strengthening watershed
ecosystems is one of the main strategies.
172  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

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.

Processing vital for perishable produce of watershed villages


At present hardly 2% of fruits and vegetables are processed. In order to save the
profitable horticultural produce, and increase rural incomes, this proportion must
be brought up to 25% within 5 years.

Credit and Insurance


The agriculture and industry combination in the Bio-industrial watersheds
need access to easy credit and also crop insurance. Farmers suffer for want of
extensive insurance coverage, and commit suicide when caught in the debt trap.
Special credit facilities will have to be set up to promote the system. Present
facilities are neither adequate nor easily accessible to the rural people. Credit and
insurance cover for the crop and stored produce is essential for the success of the
Bio-industrial Watershed Management Movement.

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.

Monitoring and evaluation


Monitoring of physical parameters is not enough. We must monitor whether
poverty in the rural areas has been alleviated if not eradicated. Evaluation should
similarly ascertain the improvement in the real incomes of the villagers, specially
the deprived sections of the society.

Encouraging self help groups and NGOs


A rural individual is weak in economic power. Grouping under various systems
is necessary. Whether it is the Cooperative, Corporate Body, Self Help Group or
any other institution depends upon the local conditions and choice of the people.
Genuine NGOs can play an important role in pushing forward the Bio-industrial
Management Movement.
Bio-industrial Watershed Management  173

Reaching the unreached


The whole purpose of bringing industry to join with agriculture is to help the poor,
deprived and the unreached sections of the society. Unless the profits of industrial
processing of bio-produce are derived by the upstream growers also, poverty
shall persist. The role of Government and the NGOs should be as facilitators to
bring genuine Bio-industrial benefits to the rural people to bring about a Rural
Bio-industrial Revolution, comparable to the Industrial Revolution of the
Nineteenth Century, which never reached India.

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

other through land evaluation (Deckers et al. 2004). Therefore, conducting a


land evaluation incorporates assimilate various factors including soil properties,
the ways in which different soils respond to different agricultural techniques,
climatic variables, topography, geology, geomorphology, social and practical
considerations (Peder 1986, Stomph et al. 1994, Várallyay 2011 and Herrick et al.
2016). It involves the execution and elucidation of basic surveys of climate, soils,
vegetation and other aspects of land in terms of the requirements of alternative
forms of land use (Verheye 2002 and Herrick et al. 2016). In order to evaluate
varied land classes, the physical, economics and social background of the area
must be considered (FAO 1976, Herrick et al. 2016).
The consequences of a land evaluation are based on the prediction of the
potential use of land for several authentic or proposed land-use systems vis-à-vis
depending on predictions of how each land part would perform, if it were used
according to each of these systems (Rossiter and Van Wambeke 1997, Baniya
2008, Herrick et al. 2016). The outcomes of land evaluation, therefore, serve as a
guide for organized land use decisions. The results from land evaluation serves as
a foundation for decision making, by decision makers who have an influence on
land use in a given region (Rossiter 2001, Ritung et al. 2007, Herrick et al. 2016).
The FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO 1976) provides regulation
for land suitability assessment in developing countries where data insufficiency
often constrains modeling (Stomph et al. 1994). Numerous indoctrination methods
are meant to match the consequences of land evaluation with the accessible
means of governments, land users and other stakeholders, to attain optimal land
use (Herrick et al. 2016). Two chief approaches can be distinguished: parametric
systems based on a numerical correlation between crop performance and key land
attributes (De la Rosa and Van Diepen 2002, Herrick et al. 2016), and categoric
systems which classify the land into units with different use potentials according
to the number and extent of physical limitations to crop growth (De la Rosa and
Van Diepen 2002, Herrick et al. 2016). The novel trends in land evaluation are
discussed below, including the increased use of crop simulation models (Van
Lanen et al. 1992) as a tool for a more quantified appraisal (Herrick et al. 2016).

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

This definition encompasses at least eight functions of land that go beyond


the production of food (Landon 1984):
• It is the foundation of a variety of life sustaining support, through the
production of food, fodder, fiber, fuel, timber and other biotic materials
for human use, either directly or indirectly through allied services (such as
animal husbandry including aquaculture, inland and coastal fisheries);
• Land is the pedestal of terrestrial bio-diversity by providing habitats and gene
reserves for flora, fauna and microbes, above and underneath ground;
• Greenhouse gases are linked with land which acts as its source and sink and
is a predominant factor of the global energy balance (albedo, absorption and
transformation of radiated energy of the sun);
• The storage, flow and maintenance of the quality of surface and groundwater
resources are regulated by land. Land helps to retain, filter, buffer and
transform hazardous compounds;
• Land is a storehouse of raw materials and minerals;
• Land retains, filters, buffers and transforms hazardous compounds;
• Land provides the space for anthropogenic arrangements, industrial estates
and social activities (such as sports and recreation), and connective space
for transport of people, inputs and produce, and for the movement of flora
(through dispersal) and fauna between natural ecosystems;
• Land preserves the facts of the cultural history of mankind, and is a source of
information on past climatic conditions and past land uses.

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.

Land Use Planning


Land use planning (LUP) is a comprehensive progression based on the discourse
amongst all stakeholders intended for cooperation and decision-making for a
sustainable form of land use in rural and urban areas as well as commencing and
supervising its implementation (Xiang and Clarke 2003, Herrick et al. 2016).
178  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Role of Land Evaluation in Land Use Planning


Land evaluation is the most significant part of the land use planning. The function
of land use planning is to direct decisions on land use in such a manner that the
environmental resources are put to its most beneficial use, whilst conserving those
resources for the future generations (Qian et al. 2018).

Objectives of Land Evaluation


The indispensable information about land resources that is obligatory for land use
planning, progress and organization of these decisions before stakeholders (such
as planners, user, farmer, government officials and politicians) is to recognize:
• Present land utilization?
• Is the up-gradation of management scenarios in the present land use are
possible?
• What alternative uses of land is possible, acceptable and promising?
• Which of these uses are sustainable?
• What are the undesirable effects of all land uses are possible?
• What are essential inputs to diminish adverse effects?
• What are the benefits by each type of land use?
The final result is a number of clear recommendations, alternatives, and the
appropriate type of land use together with their consequences.

Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development


Land use planning is anticipated to make a major contribution to the
comprehension sustainable development in a comprehensive manner (Runhaar
et al. 2009). It can facilitate the allocation of land to the use(s) that provide the
greatest sustainable benefits (Agenda 21 par.10.5) with a focus on the fact that
development remains within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. The
continuing worldwide mismanagement of soils, inadequate land use policies and
ineffective implementation of soil management and conservation strategies, raises
questions about how the communication of natural resources information to land
use planners and decision makers can be enhanced and how this knowledge can
be put to good use.

Qualitative to Quantitative Land Evaluation


Land evaluation process is mostly of qualitative, and based on expert opinion.
The experts are typically soil surveyors and agronomists who interpret their field
data and make them understandable to planners, engineers, extension officers and
farmers. More recently, intensive studies of specific soil-related constraints, in
particular soil fertility, available water, available oxygen, soil workability and
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective  179

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).

Qualitative Methods (Dengiz and Usul 2018)


1. Land capability classification (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961, Dengiz
and Usul 2018, Girmay et al. 2018)
2. Land irrigability classification (Sys 1985, Dengiz and Usul 2018)

Quantitative Methods (Hack-ten Broeke et al. 2019)


1. Soil Index Rating (Storie 1978)
2. Land Capability Index
3. Actual and Potential Productivity (Requier et al. 1970)
4. Land suitability Classification (FAO 1979, Sys 1985, 1991)
5. Multivariate Regression Yield Model
6. Capability Index for Irrigation (Sys et al. 1991)

Land Capability Classification


Land capability classification is a qualitative scheme (Girmay et al. 2018) that
was devised by the US Department of Agriculture, in the 1930s, as part of an
erosion control program (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961, Girmay et al. 2018).
Land capability implies the potential of the land to sustain a number of predefined
land uses in a built-in descending sequence of desirability: arable crops, pasture,
woodland, recreation/wildlife. If the capability of land decreases, the land
becomes suitable for fewer of the main land uses. Land capability is evaluated
by comparing the distinctiveness of a land mapping unit with the critical limits
set for each capability class. To obtain limits for the capability classes, expert
knowledge was correlated with land characteristics. Sub-classes specify the kinds
of limitation, whereas, capability units aggregate management recommendations
according to technology and productivity levels of farming.
Land capability classification is predominantly helpful in the setting up
of large farms and it augments land use planning, e.g., balances the need for
180  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

agricultural land against urban development or forest land alongside agriculture


or pasture development. In doing so, the land capability classification has made an
important contribution to the development of land use planning and management
(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).

Fig. 1.  Components of the LCC.


Figure 1 Components of the LCC

Land Capability Class


Land capability classes (Gizachew and Ndao 2008), the broadest groups, are
designated by numbers 1 to 8:
Class 1 soils possess slight limitations that limit their use.
Class 2 soils possess moderate limitations that limit the choice of plants or that
need moderate conservation practices.
Class 3 soils possess severe limitations that limit the choice of plants or that
require special conservation practices, or both.
Class 4 soils possess very severe limitations that limit the choice of plants or that
require very careful management, or both.
Class 5 soils that are subjected to slight or no erosion but have other limitations,
impractical to eliminate, that limit their use chiefly to pasture, rangeland,
forestland or wildlife habitat.
Class 6 soils possess severe limitations that make them usually inappropriate
for cultivation and that limit their use primarily to pasture, rangeland,
forestland or wildlife habitat.
Class 7 soils possess very severe limitations that make them inappropriate for
cultivation and that limit their use chiefly to grazing, forestland, or
wildlife habitat.

Figure: 2 The outline of LCC classes for limitations and versatility (Kingbiel and Montgomery, 1961)
Figure 1 Components of the LCC

Land Evaluation: A General Perspective  181

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

Land Irrigability Classification


The appropriateness of land for irrigation depends on physical factors such as
quality and quantity of irrigation water vis-a-vis socio-economic factors such as
land development costs, provision of drainage facilities, and the production costs
of individual crops (McMartin 1950).
Class 1: Lands that possess few constraints of soils, topography or drainage for
sustained use under irrigation.
Class 2: Lands that possess moderate constraints of soil, topography or drainage
for sustained use under irrigation.
Class 3: Lands that possess severe constraints of soil, topography or drainage for
sustained use under irrigation.
Class 4: Lands that are subsidiary for sustained use under irrigation because of
very severe constraints of either soil topography or drainage.
Class 5: Lands that are provisionally classed as not suitable for sustained use
under irrigation.
Class 6: Lands that are not appropriate for sustained use under irrigation.

Soil index rating


Soil Index rating is a method of  rating the soil  based on certain  pedological
characteristics that administer the lands potential utilisation and productivity
capacity (Storie 1978).
Four common factors are used in determining the index rating:
• Permeability, available water capacity, and depth of the soil
• Texture of the surface soil
• Dominant slope of the soil body
• Other conditions more readily subject to management or modification by the
land user (for example, flooding, salinity, alkalinity, fertility, acidity, erosion,
micro-relief, etc.)
For some soils, more than one of these X conditions is used in determining the
rating.
SIR = A × B × C × Z
Where the factors are decimal equivalents of percentage ratings.
A = general characteristics of soil profile
B = texture of the surface soil
C = slope of the land, and
Z = other factors (reaction of surface soil, fertility, erosion)
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective  183

On comparing various methods for the land suitability evaluation of wheat


in the Northeast of Iran including simple limitation, number and severity of
limits and parametric methods (Storie and Square root methods), it was found
that the climatic characteristics of the region were suitable for wheat plantation
on the all methods (Ashraf et al. 2010). Likewise, land suitability evaluation for
tea in sloping lands of Guilan province in Iran was determined by using simple
limitation method, the limitation method regarding number and intensity and the
parametric methods including the Square root and the Storie methods for land
suitability evaluation (Foshtomi et al. 2011). Results of the first and second
methods showed similar marginally suitability classes (S3). According to these
methods, the most important limiting factors were climate, topography and
physical soil characteristics. Moreover, the results of the Storie method showed
unsuitable conditions for tea cultivation (N2), except for one land unit, which had
non-suitable but correctable conditions (N1).
Ashraf et al. (2010) carried out land suitability evaluation for the growth
of wheat in the Northeast of Iran and they compared various methods including
simple limitation, number and severity of limits and parametric methods (Storie
and Square root methods), and found that the climatic characteristics of the region
were suitable for wheat plantation on the all methods. Foshtomi et al. (2011)
determined land suitability evaluation for tea in the sloping lands of the Guilan
province in Iran. They used the simple limitation method, the limitation method
regarding number and intensity and the parametric methods including the Square
root and the Storie methods for their land suitability evaluation.
A rating of 100 percent expresses the most favorable, or ideal, conditions for
general crop production (Storie 1978). Lower percentage ratings are allocated for
fewer favorable conditions or characteristics. Factor ratings (in percentages) are
chosen from tables prepared from field data and production. Certain properties
are allocated a series of values to allow for variations in the properties to plant
growth, development and production. Certain properties assign a range of values
to allow variations in the properties that affect the suitability of the soil for general
agricultural purposes (Storie 1978).
If a map unit consists primarily of 1 named soil series (a consociation), the
index rating for the named soil component equals the index rating for the map unit
(Storie 1978). If a map unit consists of more than 1 named factor (a complex),
ratings are allocated to each named factor (soil series or miscellaneous area, such
as “Rock outcrop”). Inclusions of other soils or minor components not named in
the map unit name, are not used in the calculations (Storie 1978).
Map units are assigned grades according to their suitability for general
intensive agriculture as shown by their Storie index ratings (Storie 1978). As per
Storie (1978), the 6 grades and their range in index ratings are:
Grade 1—80 to 100
Grade 2—60 to 79
Grade 3—40 to 59
184  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.

Land Capability Index


The land capability is estimated by calculating a capability index or soil index,
being the product of ratings attributed to the 6 soil characteristics:
V W X Y Z
Cs = U ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
100 100 100 100 100
where,
Cs is the capability or soil index
U, V, W, X, Y and Z are ratings for profile development, soil texture, soil depth,
colour/drainage characteristics, pH/base saturation and development of the A soil
horizon, respectively.
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective  185

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.

Land capability index for irrigation


The various land characteristics that influence the soil suitability for irrigation are
rated and a capability index for irrigation (Ci) (Albaji et al. 2014, Bagherzadeh
and Paymard 2015) is calculated according to the formula:
U V W X Y Z
Ci = T ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´
100 100 100 100 100 100
where
Ci is the capability index for irrigation
T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are the rating of soil texture, soil depth, calcium carbonate
status, gypsum status, salinity/alkalinity status, drainage characteristics and slope.
The classes II to V can have the following subclasses with regard to the
nature of the limiting factors:
s—constraints due to physical soil properties (T, U, V, W)
n—constraints due to salinity/alkalinity (X)
w—wetness constraints (Y)
t—topographic constraints (Z)

Land Suitability Classification


In contrast to the land capability classification systems that assess the potential
of the land for general land uses, the FAO panel for land evaluation suggested a
suitability classification of the land C for a specific, well described, land utilization
type (Dengiz and Usul 2018).
Land suitability is the fitness of a given piece of land for a well specified land
use (Dengiz and Usul 2018, Girmay et al. 2018). It is an expression of how well a
land unit matches the requirements of the land utilization type.
It consists of 4 chief stages (Girmay et al. 2018):
1. Determination of the land use requirements and the corresponding land
attributes
2. Characterization or quantification of the land attributes
3. Comparison of the land use with the land, and
4. Determination of the real and potential land suitability class
186  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Classifying land suitability


The overall performance of the land when exploited for specific purposes is usually
expressed in terms of suitability or productivity (Dengiz and Usul 2018). The
FAO proposes a land suitability classification presented in different categories:
orders, classes, subclasses and units (Girmay et al. 2018).

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).

Table 1.  Guidelines to define the suitability classes (Sys 1983).

Suitability class Impact on


productivity required inputs
S1 high > 80% -
S2 moderate 40 – 80% practical + viable
S3 marginal 20–40% practical + restricted viability
N1 not actually, nut < 20% major land improvements
potentially suitable
N2 actually & potentially < 20% not practical nor viable
unsuitable

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

Table 2.  Symbolization of land suitability subclasses.

Subclass symbol Interpretation


C Climatic constraints
T Topographic constraints
W Wetness constraints (drainage, flooding)
S Physical soil constraints (influencing the soil/water relationship and
management)
F Soil fertility constraints not readily to be corrected
N Salinity and/or alkalinity constraints
Source: (Ziadat 2007, AbdelRahman et al. 2016)

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).

Square root method


In this method, a quantitative scaling is assigned to each characteristic of the
lands. If a specification is quite good for the intended crop, the maximum rate
of 100 is assigned to it. If the same specification meets some limitations, a lesser
rate is assigned to it. The square root method can be used to acquire the land and
climate index as

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

measure. Due to the nature of linear relationship in the parameters, regression


models may not provide accurate predictions in some complex situations such
as non-linear data and extreme values data. As regression models need to fulfill
the regression assumptions and multiple co-linearity between independent and
dependent variables (Molazem et al. 2002, Zaefizadah et al. 2011).

Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)


MCDA provides an ample collection of techniques and procedures for frame
working decision problems, and designing, evaluating and prioritizing alternative
decisions. Problems that are multi-dimensional in nature can be tackled with this
approach very efficiently. MCDA is used to combine qualitative and quantitative
criteria and to specify the degree and nature of the relationships between those
criteria in order to support spatial decision making. The main purpose of the
MCDA techniques is to investigate a number of alternatives in the light of multiple
criteria and conflicting objectives (Voogd 1983). In order to carry out that, it is
necessary to generate compromise alternatives and a ranking of alternatives
according to their degree of attractiveness (Janssen and Rietved 1990).
Out of the many approaches with the MCDA spirit, the additive weighting and
related procedures are the most popular (Eastman et al. 1995, Silva and Blanco
2003, Ayalew et al. 2005, Maddahi et al. 2016, Kihoro et al. 2017, Karthikeyan et
al. 2018). In this additive weighting method, the decision maker assigns weights
of ‘relative importance’ to each criterion for arriving an overall site suitability
ranking by multiplying the weighted scaled value corresponding to each criterion
and summing the weighted products for all considered criteria.

Weighted Linear Combination (WLC)


The WLC is a simple additive weighting based on the concept of a weighted
average (Eastman 2006). WLC is the most frequently used technique, for studying
spatial multi attribute decision making. This is mainly based on the concept of
weighted average. In this method, the decision maker directly assigns weights of
‘relative importance’ to each attribute map layer. A total score is then obtained for
each alternative by multiplying the importance weight assigned for each attribute
by the scaled value given to the alternative on that attribute, and summing the
products over all attributes. When the overall scores are computed for each
alternative, the alternative with maximum overall score is selected as the best
alternative. Overall suitability is calculated from the sum of the weighted data
layers representing factors in the model:
S = ∑ wi xi X ∏ c j
where, S—is the composite suitability score, xi—is factor scores, wi—is weights
assigned to each factor, cj—constraints (Boolean factor), Σ—sum of weighted
factors and ∏—product of constraints (1—suitable, 0—unsuitable).
190  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)


AHP helps avoiding a direct assignment of weights to the identified criteria
or scores to the alternatives and checks the chance of biasness. AHP typically
follows a three step procedure. Firstly, a multi-level hierarchical structure of
objectives, criteria, and alternatives is made. Secondly, a matrix is developed
by using pairwise comparisons between the identified criteria. The comparison
matrix will be a square matrix Am x m, where m is the number of criteria (m)
considered for decision. Each entry ajk of the matrix A represents the importance
of the jth criterion relative to the kth criterion. The entries ajk and akj satisfy the
following constraint:
ajk∙ akj =1.
Importance of one criterion over another one in the pair is identified
qualitatively between 1 and 9 based on the AHP preference scale (Table 3).
The scale 1 indicates the equal importance, while 9 indicates that one factor is
absolutely more important than other. The reciprocals of 1 to 9 (1/1 and 1/9) show
that one is less important than other. The intensity of importance between two
criteria in the matrix is filled based on experts’ experience. Once the matrix A is
built, it is possible to derive the weights by identifying the normalized principal
eigenvector of the matrix (Saaty 1980, 2001, Ramanathan 2001).
The components of the eigenvector w sum to unity. Thus, a vector of weights
is obtained, which reflects the relative importance of the various criteria from the
matrix of paired comparisons.
The third step is to check the consistency of the judgment matrix. In AHP, an
index of consistency, known as the consistency ratio (CR), is used to indicate the
probability that the matrix judgment was randomly generated and is not biased
(Saaty 1987).
CR = CI/RI
Table 3.  Preference Scale (Source: Saaty 2008).

AHP Scale of Importance for Numeric Rating Reciprocal


comparison pair
Extremely Importance 9 1/9
Very strong to extremely 8 1/8
Very strong importance 7 1/7
Strongly to very strong 6 1/6
Strong Importance 5 1/5
Moderately to strong 4 1/4
Moderate importance 3 1/3
Equally to Moderately 2 1/2
Equal importance 1 1
Land Evaluation: A General Perspective  191

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.

Fuzzy set theory


Zadeh (1965) for the first time defined fuzzy set theory in order to quantitative
defining and determination of some classes that are expressed vaguely such as
very important and so on. With this model in land evaluation, mainly bell shape
functions, such as sigmoid, Cauchy and kandel functions were used. It’s a known
fact that many elements of land properties have uncertainties. Uncertainty is
inherent in decision making process, which involves data and model uncertainty.
These may be from measurement errors, due to inherent variability, to instability,
to conceptual ambiguity or to simple ignorance of important factors. Fuzzy sets
theory is a mathematical method used to characterize and propagate uncertainty
and imprecision in data and functional relationships. The fuzzy sets methodology
application in land evaluation is based on the assumption that the changes in
soil properties and suitability classes of land units are not crisp but gradually
changing within space. Fuzzy sets are especially useful when insufficient data
exist to characterize uncertainty using standard statistical measure like mean,
standard deviation and distribution type (Kurtener et al. 2004). The use of fuzzy
technique is helpful for land suitability evaluation, especially in applications in
which subtle differences in soil quality are of major interest (Braimoh et al. 2004)
and suggested that the use of krigging exploits spatial variability maps and in
estimating uncertainties associated with predicted land suitability indices.
192  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)


Neural networks are a computational method of data analysis that are an extension
of traditional statistical methods such as regressions (White 1999), and function
approximation (Hertz et al. 1991). ANN forms an “internal weight” representation
of the data as to minimize an error criterion (usually least squares) without too
much a priori judgment about the functional form for the data (McCleland et al.
1986). Once an ANN has been frame worked it can be trained on the existing
sample data to make predictions for unknown cases. Once trained, the network is
used to predict on input data. If there are many more hidden units than the data
available, the network may not be able to generalize (extrapolate), and learning
of the network may be hindered by the noise and measurement error in the data.
This provides a means of automating classification of very large datasets. Since
GIS systems are data intensive in the spatial domain, and different types of
datasets could be used to make decisions and judgments, neural networks may
find a useful role in capturing expertise, and in interpolating and extrapolating
knowledge as an aid to decision making. Although the use of ANN requires
some heuristic knowledge on the working, structure, training and interpretation
of an ANN, the level of knowledge needed to successfully apply ANN is often
much lower than would be the case for many other statistical methods. The basic
element of an ANN consists of a number of inputs. ANN consists of a number
of smaller processing elements (PEs), or nodes, joined together. PEs are usually
organized into neuron layers: an input layer where that holds the response of the
network to a given input, and one or more layers in between called hidden layers.
PEs in these different layers is either partially or fully inter connected. These
connections are associated with a corresponding weight, which is adjusted based
on the strength of the connection. In the MLP algorithm, the propagation of data
through the network begins with an input pattern stimulus at the input layer, the
data then flow through and are operated by the network until an output stimulus
is yielded at the output layer. Each PE or node receives the output layer. Each PE
or node receives the weighted outputs (WjiXi) from the PEs in the previous layer,
which are summed to produce the node input (Netj). The node input is then passed
through a non-linear sigmoid function (f (Netj)) to generate the node output (Yj),
which is passed to the weighted input paths of many other nodes.

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:

Y j = f (net j ) = 1 /(1 + exp(−(net j + b))))

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

21st Century 152–155, 160 Comprehensive Management 157, 158


conceptual models 143
A conservation tillage 84
continuous gully 102
accelerated erosion 38, 41, 58 contour cultivation 81, 82
active gully 102, 111 contract farming 170
adaptive management 155, 157, 160 control measures 104
Adaptive Watershed Management 153, 156, CREAMS 116, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126
157 creek erosion 104
additives 94 creep 38, 44, 60
agricultural productivity 39 crest gauge 27
agronomic measures 78–80, 85 cultivated land 78, 82
ANSWERS 143 current meter 29, 31
application 142–145, 150 curve number 24, 25, 36, 144, 146–148, 150
Arc-View SWAT 145
area management 166 D
artificial neural networks 192
assessment 62–66, 68 Decision-making 156, 159, 160
AVSWAT-X 145 deforestation 38–40, 59
delineation 146
B DEM 143–146
deposition 116, 118–122, 124, 126, 127, 134,
base flow 2, 4, 10, 19, 20 136–139
batter slope 92, 93 depression storage 2, 8, 12
Best Co-Management Practices 160 design 32–34, 36, 85, 87, 92, 93, 103, 104,
Best Management Practice 142, 159, 160 106, 111
bio-industrial watershed management 163, 168, detachment 120, 122–127, 130, 131, 134
169–173 deterministic models 143
biophysical response unit 153 discharge 101, 104, 107, 109–111
bio-processing 168 discontinuous gully 102
bottle tops 69 drainage density 20, 23
brushwood dam 105, 106 drop inlet 105, 107–109
bunding 86, 87, 89, 90 drop structure 105–109
dry erosion 60
C Dynamic System 157
Caesium 68 E
calibration 145, 147, 149–151
cell 134 ecology 156
chute spillway 105, 107–109 economic impact 39
climate 40, 41, 45, 46, 49 economics 16
climatic factors 20 economy 156
coefficient of determination 148 Ecosystem-Oriented Goal 160
Collaboration 153, 157 education 156
Co-Management 159, 160 empirical model 116, 119, 143
198  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

EPIC 143 industries 168–172


equity 156 infiltration 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 117, 122, 126–130
erodibility 116, 123, 125 inorganic mulch 83
EROSION 2D 120, 121 inter rill 43, 53, 55, 57, 58
EROSION 3D 126, 127, 130, 134–139, 143 inter-rill erosion 122, 125
erosion control 14, 79, 80, 85, 179 interflow 19
erosion pins 69, 70 Integrated Watershed Management Approach
erosivity 117, 122, 123 164–166
evaluation 156, 157, 159
evapotranspiration 7–9, 11, 12 L
laboratory measurements 73
F Land 175–180, 182–188, 191, 193
FAO 175, 176, 179, 185, 186 land capability classification 64, 65, 179, 180,
farm ponds 32, 36, 167, 168 185
farming system 164 land capability index 179, 184, 185
field plots 72 land evaluation 175–179, 185, 187, 188, 191,
193
Five E 156 land irrigability classification 179, 182
flash floods 40 land management 165, 166
flumes 29, 36 land sliding 44
forest lands 80 land suitability classification 179, 185, 186
land use 20, 22, 23, 25, 142, 144–147, 152,
G 155, 158, 159
gabion 110, 111 land use planning 175, 177–180
geologic erosion 41, 45 land utilization 154
Gerlach troughs 73 large gully 100
GIS 112, 143, 146 laser profilometer 112
global hydrologic system 6 LiDAR 112
grid 134–137, 139 livelihoods 168, 170
gully 42–44, 58, 59, 61 Low Impact Development 157, 158
gully classification 100
gully control measure 15 M
Gully erosion 98, 99, 102–105, 111–113
gully formation 99, 100, 103, 112 macro-scale 66, 68
gully morphology 112 measurement 62, 66–69, 71–73, 75
gully stages 99 mechanical measures 85
medium gully 100
meso-scale 66, 68
H
micro-scale 66, 72, 73
holistic development 170 micro watershed 144–147, 150, 151
hydraulic 104, 108, 110, 111 minimum tillage 81, 84
hydraulic roughness 136, 137 momentum flux 126, 127, 130–134, 137
hydrologic 111 monitoring 155, 157, 159, 160
hydrologic cycle 1–4, 7, 11 multiple regressions 188
hydrologic models 145 multiple use concept 165
Hydrologic Response 155
hydrologic response unit 144, 145 N
hydrologic variable 5, 12 Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency 150
hydrological models 142–144 natural resources 163, 164, 166, 168
hydrological processes 6, 7, 16
Hydrology 1, 3–7, 12–14, 16, 143, 150, 176 O
I off site effects 40
on site effects 39, 40
impact development 157, 158 optimization 154
impacts 103, 104 organic mulch 83
in situ soil moisture 164 overland flow 126, 127, 130–132, 134
inactive gully 102
Index  199

P soil conservation strategies 78, 79


Soil degradation 77, 78, 84
paint collars 69 Soil erosion 7, 14, 15, 22, 36, 38–42, 45–48,
pasture lands 79
50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 62–69, 71–75,
performance evaluation 150, 151
permanent structures 104–106 77–86, 90, 91, 95, 99, 115, 116, 119–121,
physically based models 120, 138 139, 143, 152, 154, 165, 179, 193
physiographic factors 21 soil erosion survey 64, 65
precipitation 2–4, 6–13, 16 soil index rating 179, 182
profile meters 69, 70 soil loss 142–144
Puerto Rico terrace 94 soil stabilizers 94
soil type 20, 22
R spatial scale 4, 5
splash 42–44, 47, 52–55
rain water harvesting 31 spurs 14, 16
rainfall duration 21 staff gauge 27
rainfall erosivity 50, 51 stage level recorder/water level recorder 29,
rainfall intensity 20–23, 63, 74 30, 36
rainfall simulation 74 statistical analysis 148
rainwater harvesting 32 stone wall terrace 94
rainwater management 167, 169 storage capacity 104
range lands 79 stream bank 43, 59
rational method 23 strip cropping 81–83
reconnaissance method 68 structural 104, 108, 109, 111
rectangular 28 sub surface runoff 19, 20
regression models 67 SUFI-2 147, 148
relief 47–49 surface flow 6, 7, 11
remote sensing 112 surface roughness 132, 135, 136, 139
reservoirs 67 surface runoff 19–21, 25, 30, 36, 144, 146, 150
resistance to erosion 131, 136, 137, 139 Sustainable development 163, 178
resource conservation 168, 170 Sustainable Livelihood 153
resource oriented management 166 SWAT 142–147, 149–151
rill 43, 48, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58 SWAT-CUP 147
rill erosion 122, 125 SWAT model 142–146, 149–151
RMSE 148–150 systems concept 6
rock fill dam 105, 106
runoff 2–16, 18–31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45–53, T
56, 59, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 80–
temporal scale 5, 6
87, 89, 91, 93–95, 98, 99, 101–104, 106, temporary structures 104–106
108–111, 113, 116–118, 120, 122, 123, terracing 81, 90, 93,
125, 126, 130–133, 135–139, 142–146, tillage 78, 81, 84, 85
148–150, 151, 164 time of concentration 23, 24
runoff estimation 25 tracers 68, 71
runoff measurement 29 transport 116, 120–128, 130, 132–134, 137
runoff velocity 80, 81 transport capacity 121–126, 133, 134
RUSLE 143 trapezoidal 29, 31, 33, 35
triangular 28
S
U
sediment discharge 131, 132, 134, 137
sediment routing 134 U shaped gully 101
sedimentation 40 USDA 144, 146
sheet 43, 47, 56 USLE 116, 117, 119, 122, 124, 143
skin factor 136, 137, 139
slope 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59–61 V
small gully 100
socio-economic development 167 V shaped gully 101
soil 38–60 validation 145, 147, 149–151
soil conservation 40, 49 vegetation 79, 80, 98–100, 103–105, 109, 113
volumetric measurements 70
200  Watershed Hydrology, Management and Modeling

W watershed hydrologic system 6–8, 16


Watershed management 13, 152–157, 159, 160,
water balance 8, 12, 144 163–173
Water-Energy-Food Nexus 157 watershed parameters 146
water harvesting structures 15 WEF Nexus 158
watershed 1, 3–16, 19–26, 48, 59, 65, 67, weirs 27–29, 36
85, 87, 98, 99, 111, 135, 138, 142–160, WEPP 120, 124–126, 138, 143
163–173, 181 world-energy-food nexus (see WEF)
watershed development 164, 167, 169, 170, 173
watershed health 1, 13, 16, 155

You might also like