MEDACTION Cobres

MED/PR/0407/41
MEDACTION
____________________________________ POLICIES FOR LAND USE TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION _____________________________________
Deliverable 28 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE AGRI AND COBRES TARGET BASINS
______________________________________ Contract No EVK2-CT-2000-00085
James C. Bathurst and Isabella Bovolo University of Newcastle upon Tyne UK
July 2004
DETAILS OF THE CONTRACTOR Contractor: Responsible Scientist: Address: University of Newcastle upon Tyne Dr J C Bathurst Water Resource Systems Research Laboratory School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences University of Newcastle upon Tyne Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK +44 191 222 6333/6319 +44 191 222 6669 j.c.bathurst@newcastle.ac.uk
Telephone Fax: Email:
BACKGROUND
This report is a deliverable of Workpackage 3.1 (WP3.1 Development and application of Decision Support System to the Alentejo and Agri target areas). Concern about the consequences of desertification has prompted the European Commission (EC) to support through its Environment Programme a programme of investigation to identify, understand and mitigate the effects of the phenomenon in southern Europe. One aspect of the resulting research has been the development of models and Decision Support Systems (DSS), intended to integrate available knowledge and data and provide the strongest basis for making decisions on land management to mitigate desertification. WP3.1 was therefore aimed at the application of a simple DSS in two target areas, the Agri basin in Italy and the Cobres basin in Portugal. The workpackage was to advance beyond earlier work merely developing DSS to apply the DSS in direct liaison with local agencies to provide outputs suitable for practical application, e.g. related to land use and climate change impacts. There was to be particular emphasis on end-user participation by transferring the results to the public domain and by providing educational outputs which could be used to raise awareness of the desertification problem. The workpackage had two deliverables. Deliverable 27 was DSS output for specified land use, climate and policy scenarios in the two target areas. Deliverable 28 was the interpretation of this output to provide guidelines for sustainable land management in the target areas. This report describes the work involved in completing the deliverables.
WORKPACKAGE OBJECTIVES
The workpackage objectives were: (i) Refinement and modification of a previously developed Decision Support System (DSS) for application in the Agri and Cobres basins, including necessary data assembly. Application of the DSS to the Agri and Cobres basins to assess hydrological, soil erosion and crop yield responses for land management, crop subsidy and climate scenarios. Development of guidelines on, and contribution towards, policy formulation for sustainable land management in the Agri and Cobres basins, relevant to local end-users.
(ii)
(iii)
Before application, the DSS was to be validated using information from MEDACTION Module 2, which examines the impact of past policies on land use. In particular, if the past policy could be represented in the DSS as, for example, a subsidy change, the DSS could be validated against the recorded land use development. Once validated the DSS could be used to explore the impacts of future policies, within a context also of climate change. By this means the DSS could contribute to exploration of different options for policies which support sustainable
land use. Liaison with the local stakeholders would allow the scenarios and models to be attuned to their needs. 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHETRAN DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
The DSS which was used was a simplified version of the design described by Bathurst et al. (2003) and originally proposed for the Agri target basin. Simplification was necessary because the original project research associate left the University of Newcastle in April 2002 (an unforeseen event) and it was clear that, by the time a new research associate had been recruited and had become familiarised with the DSS, there would not be enough time to complete the programme of restoring and applying the original, more complex, DSS. Very considerable effort went into redesigning and recoding the DSS to suit, amongst other constraints, a new computer operating system at the University of Newcastle, and into setting up the DSS for both the Agri and Cobres basins. The DSS consists of a hydrological and sediment yield model SHETRAN to simulate fluxes and storages of water and sediment; a crop growth model EPIC to provide annual crop yield; and a farmer response model for selecting the crop type. In a feedback cycle, the hydrological model simulates soil moisture as a function of the crop type, the crop growth model simulates crop yield as a function of the soil moisture and the farmer response model selects next years crop type depending (in part) on which crop is returning the highest yield in the current year. The simulated change in crop cover then forms a feedback to improve the hydrological modelling. 4 DATA ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA
The simulation period for the Agri basin remained the same as used in the MEDALUS III project (i.e. 1985-88) (Bathurst et al., 2002). No additional data were therefore needed for SHETRAN. The crop economic data required for the farmer response model, originally collected in MEDALUS III (Bathurst et al., 2003), were updated in collaboration with Professor Giovanni Quaranta at the University of Basilicata. The Cobres basin had been modelled with SHETRAN in the MEDALUS I project for the periods 1977-79, 1980-82 and 1983-85. For the DSS application, though, it was decided to use a more recent period, in the 1990s, in part to include the extreme storm event of 5 November 1997. The required data were collected through a number of visits to Portugal and with the help of the Alentejo target area team (especially Professor Maria Roxo at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa and Mr Miguel Vieira). Time series data for the 1990s were obtained largely from the Instituto de Agua (INAG), Ministerio do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Territorio. Daily precipitation data are available for six sites (although only three extend beyond 1997), daily temperature is available at two sites and daily pan evaporation data are available for much of the period for the same two sites. Daily discharge data are available at three gauging stations up to the late 1990s. Data for the extreme November 1997 flood are also available for one of these gauging stations (Entradas). However, the daily flow records are not reliable. They appear to be reasonably complete for Entradas but are inconsistent with the rainfall record for the Albernoa station and are discontinuous for the Monte da Ponte outlet station. Turbidity data (relevant to suspended sediment discharge) are available for 2001-02 at the Monte da Ponte outlet. In addition,
available data from the Vale Formoso experimental agricultural station consist of daily rainfall for 1966-2001 and event sediment yield for 1990-99 for several land uses at the plot scale. Hourly rainfall data for the 1990s were required as the basis for converting the daily records (for which there is a good 1990s availability) to the hourly time series forming the SHETRAN input. Hourly data on paper chart were eventually obtained for the Vale Formoso experimental agricultural station but too late in the project to be digitized, analyzed and put to use. Therefore the disaggregation was based on statistics derived from the continuous breakpoint data from the late 1970s and early 1980s, for the Beja meteorological station (already available from the MEDALUS I project (Bathurst et al., 1996)). The assumption is that the rainfalls from the two periods have the same duration/intensity characteristics. A rainfall-duration curve was derived statistically. This was then used to distribute each days rainfall over the appropriate duration as a bell curve. The procedure was carried out for six raingauges. The crop economic data (standard sets of values for yields, prices and production costs) were obtained from Mr Peter Eden (Instituto para o Desenvolvimento Rural e Gesto Ambiental). Particular changes in land use from the period simulated in MEDALUS I have been the replacement of soft wheat by durum wheat and, in the Alentejo generally but not much in the Cobre basin, the plantation of stone pine and eucalyptus trees. The data required for running EPIC for both target areas were obtained from data records, from the literature and from the EPIC user guidelines. The data include temperature, daily solar radiation, soil properties, crop properties and biomass parameters. Provision of complete temperature records required infilling of some gaps, achieved through correlation between neighbouring meteorological stations. The EPIC user guidelines did not provide all the necessary information: some of the parameters were therefore adjusted in tests for each target area to ensure that the model produced physically plausible values of biomass, leaf area index, crop height, root depth and weight and other crop data.
VALIDATION OF SHETRAN BASIN MODELS
The simulation periods were 1/1/95 31/12/98 for the Cobres catchment (with 1994 as a settling down period to allow the effects of initial conditions to dissipate) and 1/1/85 31/12/88 for the Agri catchment (with August 1983 to 31/12/84 as the settling down period). Since the original validation of SHETRAN for the Agri catchment by Bathurst et al. (2002) there have been changes in both staff and computer systems at the University of Newcastle. However, a test showed that SHETRAN still closely reproduced the annual runoff of the original validation. Sediment yields were of the same order of magnitude as before but generally a little lower. SHETRAN was therefore still considered to be validated for the Agri catchment, albeit with a slightly different baseline condition.
For the Cobres basin, the input data consisted of hourly rainfall for six gauges and daily potential evaporation from the pan evaporation record at Vale de Camelos. Simulations for the 1977-85 period of the MEDALUS I project allowed the model parameters to be adjusted slightly from their original values in the light of more recent information on the catchment and the changes in the University of Newcastle computer systems. The vegetation parameter values were altered to reflect the different crops of the 1990s. Because of the general unreliability of the 1990s discharge data, validation was carried out indirectly. On the assumption that the Entradas data were sufficiently reliable a comparison was made between daily flow duration curves derived from the measured and simulated data for this station. The simulated curve initially overestimated the more extreme flows and the overland flow Strickler resistance coefficient was therefore reduced from 5 to 2 to improve the agreement. Annual simulated rainfall was also plotted against annual simulated runoff for the baseline conditions to show that the 1995-98 results followed the same trend as the 1977-85 results. On the basis of these comparisons, SHETRAN was considered to be validated for the Cobres catchment, at least at the scale of the annual water budget, and to provide a sufficient basis for comparing results from scenario runs. 6 DSS BASELINE RUNS
Full applications of the DSS were made to each target area to establish baseline runs. These were runs for the given simulation periods with the validated SHETRAN models and with the EPIC and farmer response models likewise parameterized for the observed conditions of the simulation periods. The baseline runs provide the basis for comparing the effects of the changes in catchment conditions introduced in the scenario runs. With the current version of the DSS, the runs do not include feedback on crop selection from the farmer response model to SHETRAN, i.e. crop cover is static. However, the output from the farmer response model still shows the predicted crop choice for each year. Baseline runs were completed for both target catchments. The stored results include the meteorological input data, hydrographs for the gauging stations, monthly and annual runoff, monthly and annual sediment yield and the predicted crop distribution for each year. To compensate for the lack of feedback on crop selection, each baseline run was repeated by replacing the original crop distribution with the final predicted distribution from the run. The results showed the hydrological outputs and the variation in the predicted crop distributions to be sensitive to the initial crop distribution, emphasizing the importance, therefore, of including feedback on crop selection in the DSS. A one-year test run showed that SHETRAN run on its own for the Agri catchment produced the same results as SHETRAN run within the DSS with the other models switched off. In other words, the code linking SHETRAN to the other models did not cause any spurious results. Validation of the DSSs ability to represent changes in land use arising from policy implementation was carried out using information from MEDACTION Module 2. The aim was to represent a past policy in the DSS (e.g. a subsidy change) and then test the ability of the DSS to reproduce the recorded land use development (e.g. a crop change). Validation was carried out using the time series data for the sequence of
years 1977-79, 1980-82 and 1983-85 for the Cobres basin and 1985-88 for the Agri basin. As a policy detrimental in desertification terms, a durum wheat subsidy was introduced, in line with the Durum Wheat Common Market Organization Regulators: the DSS duly simulated an expansion of the wheat growing area, as observed in practice. As a policy beneficial in desertification terms, a tree subsidy was introduced in line with the Agri-environmental Regulation and the DSS accordingly showed an expansion of tree cover. The results are presented in fuller detail in the report for Deliverable 26.
SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
Scenarios were generated for each target basin, for investigation with the DSS. These referred to land use or climatic conditions which could potentially develop or be implemented in the near to medium term (decades to century). The results from the corresponding DSS applications were the basis for developing guidelines for sustainable land management in the target areas. The scenarios were selected from discussions with the target area teams and from a review of relevant literature (e.g. Roxo et al., 1996; Bathurst et al., 1996; Roxo et al., 1998; Loureno et al., 1998; Mairota et al., 1998; Kosmas et al., 2002; Basso et al., 2002a,b). Discussions with the Alentejo team suggested two important scenarios. The first is the replacement of conventional ploughing and seeding with direct seed drilling. Introducing seeds plus fertilizer at the same time along narrow slits in the ground, leaving the intervening ground unbroken (and covered by residues) reduces runoff, erosion and evaporation. Also, while the initial investment in the seeding machinery is relatively large, the subsequent seeding costs are less than for the conventional approach, allowing greater farmer profit. On both environmental and economic grounds, therefore, direct drilling is attractive for minimizing land degradation. The second scenario is a minimum level of subsidy by 2020. The finally adopted scenarios were: agricultural technique (seed drill), land abandonment, partial afforestation, subsidy change and climate change. The land use changes were represented by changes to the relevant model data files. However, SHETRAN does not simulate agricultural technique directly. A sensitivity analysis was therefore carried out for the MEDALUS I 1977-79 (wet) and 1980-82 (dry) simulation periods for the Cobres basin to find out to which parameters the model results are most sensitive and thus to provide a basis for selecting parameters which can represent indirectly the changes in agricultural technique. Sensitivity graphs were produced to show percentage change in annual discharge, in maximum discharge and in the 90th percentile discharge of the flow duration curve for given percentage changes in the model parameters. (The simulated and observed flow duration curves are similar. The high-discharge end of the curve is used as little sensitivity is observed for the rest of the curve.) The most useful model parameters were found to be overland flow resistance (Strickler coefficient), soil porosity and the evaporation function (the ratio of actual to potential evapotranspiration varying as a function of soil moisture tension). The climate scenarios were compiled from data on the EC WRINCLE projects website (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/wrincle). This project has generated climate data on a
50-km resolution grid network across Europe, for both the recent past (1961-90) and for a projected future climate (derived using output from the HADCM3 climate model). Precipitation and potential evaporation data are presented as mean monthly values for the two cases: there is an inconsistency, though, in that the future rainfall is given for 2070-2099 while the potential evaporation is given for 2021-2050. The WRINCLE data were extracted for the grid square most relevant to each of the Agri and Cobres basins. The ratios of future to present rainfall and of future to present potential evaporation were calculated for each month and these ratios were then applied to the rainfall and potential evaporation records already obtained for the baseline simulation periods for each basin. This is a relatively unsophisticated way of generating future climate data but is expected to be sufficient for showing directions of change, even if the magnitudes are uncertain. 8 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM SCENARIO RUNS
Output on meteorological data, hydrographs for the river gauging stations, monthly and annual runoff and sediment yield and the predicted crop distribution for each year is displayed on the MEDACTION project website (currently via http://www.ncl.ac.uk/medaction), forming Deliverable 27. The results are presented for the baseline runs and the scenario runs, for both the Cobres and the Agri catchments. 9 RESULTS/INTERPRETATIONS
Interpretation of the baseline and scenario simulation results provides a basis for developing some simple guidelines on future land management in the target areas, thus forming Deliverable 28. However, in view of the uncertainty associated with a) the relatively unsophisticated scenario development and b) the model parameterization (a problem typical of physically based modelling systems (e.g. Beven, 1989; Bathurst et al., 2004), the results are appropriate more for showing direction of change and relative change rather than providing absolute magnitudes of discharge and sediment yield. In this sense the results are illustrative and may be used to educate planners about the potential consequences of different actions and about some of the factors which should be considered in future land management. Appendices A and B show the simulation results for the Cobres and Agri catchments respectively. Data on runoff and sediment yield are provided as tables of annual values normalized by catchment area (i.e in mm and t ha-1 yr-1 respectively) and as graphs showing mean monthly values for the simulation period, in mm and kg respectively. Sample hydrograph time series are given for the Cobres catchment for 1/10/95-30/9/96 and for the Agri catchment for 1/10/85-30/9/86. Within the Cobres catchment, output data are given for the main outlet at Monte da Ponte as well as for the Albernoa and Entradas gauging stations. Within the Agri catchment, data are given for the outlet at Gannano and for the subcatchment defined by the Pertusillo reservoir. The farmer choice of crop to be planted in the following year is shown for each year of the simulation (for the baseline and subsidy change runs only). For the Cobres baseline condition (1995-98), there is a considerable variation in annual rainfall (355-867 mm) and consequent runoff (62-399 mm), characteristic of the interannual variation in the Mediterranean region. Typically this is larger than the
predicted future decrease in mean annual rainfall. For the Agri baseline condition (1985-88), annual rainfall steadily decreases from 1016 to 811 mm and runoff falls from 324 to 128 mm. In both catchments the main runoff period is autumn-winterspring; summer flows are low. The patterns at the main outlets are generally mirrored at the subcatchment level, albeit with different magnitudes. Abandoned land is represented by shrubs and bushes with reduced evapotranspiration rates. In both catchments there is a resulting increase in runoff at the monthly and annual scale and also in sediment yield. (In most cases, sediment yield varies in the same direction as simulated runoff.) The baseline hydrograph shape is maintained, with appropriate changes in peak and baseflow magnitudes. Direct drilling is represented by increased overland flow resistance, increased soil porosity and decreased evapotranspiration. In the Cobres catchment there is a moderate increase in runoff and a significant reduction in sediment yield. Hydrograph peaks are reduced and baseflow is increased. In the Agri catchment there is rather less impact, corresponding to the smaller proportion of the catchment planted with wheat compared with the Cobres catchment. Afforestation is limited to the higher half of each catchment and is characterized by trees with an increased evapotranspiration rate. The result is decreased runoff and sediment yield. The hydrograph shape is maintained, with appropriate changes in peak and baseflow magnitudes. The future climate is drier and warmer. Consequently runoff and sediment yield decrease. For the purposes of the simulation, the farmer model crop data were adjusted so that no one crop would be dominant under all conditions, thereby allowing the simulation to show changes. However, the model output is sensitive to the data, so the results discussed here should be considered as illustrative of model capability rather than the most likely scenarios for the target areas. Under baseline conditions, the preferred crop changes from year to year for the Cobres catchment, so that no one crop is consistently more profitable than another. For the Agri catchment, pasture and olives are preferred in certain parts of the catchment but there is no catchment dominant crop. Removal of the wheat subsidy has relatively little effect in the Cobres catchment and tends to increase the preference for pasture in the Agri catchment. To summarize the results: - Changes in monthly runoff and sediment yield are most noticeable in the autumnwinter-spring period. Particularly in the Cobres catchment, the summer flows are negligible in all cases. In the Agri catchment the differences remain significant through the summer (e.g. abandoned land gives a higher summer baseflow); - Change of land cover (abandoned land, afforestation) affects runoff total and hydrograph magnitude, through altered evapotranspiration; - Seed drilling can beneficially affect hydrograph shape and sediment yield (and is the only case where sediment yield changes in the opposite direction to runoff);
10
- Land use changes or seed drilling must be implemented over significant proportions of a catchment if they are to affect the response at the catchment scale; - The annual water balance is affected more by climate change than land use change in the Cobres catchment but the impacts of the two changes are more equal in the Agri catchment, e.g. afforestation of the higher half of the Agri has the same effect as climate change while abandoned land retains higher runoff relative to the baseline condition even for the future climate. However, seed drilling in the Cobres catchment does reduce sediment yield by an amount similar to that caused by climate change; - At least for the crop data used, certain crops may dominate farmer choice in particular parts of the catchment but there is no dominant choice of crop at the catchment scale, suggesting that a mixture of crops is sustainable. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Within the Mediterranean area, there is likely to be a trend towards a drier, warmer climate, with reduced winter rainfall and increased summer evaporation (although the trend may be masked by strong interannual variation). There should therefore be a move towards land uses which minimize water requirements and evaporation. The principal recommendations for land management are therefore : - Plant crops or cover which minimize evaporation: large-scale afforestation should therefore be avoided; - Introduce agricultural techniques like seed drilling which may reduce evaporation but, perhaps more importantly, reduce runoff peaks and increase baseflow, i.e. they reduce variability and increase reliability of river flow; - Subsidy levels can be manipulated so as to induce farmers to adopt crops and techniques which are environmentally sustainable and also (because of the subsidy) economically sustainable. On a purely educational front, land use planners should be aware that large-scale changes in crop type or land cover can significantly affect catchment runoff and sediment yield. 11 CONCLUSIONS
Validation of the DSS against the impacts of past policies (Deliverable 26) showed that the DSS can be used to explore the effects of subsidy changes on crop selection and land use pattern. It may therefore be a useful tool in the formulation of agricultural and land management policy. The development of guidelines for land management from the scenario runs similarly shows the relevance of the DSS to stakeholder interests. The DSS can be used to explore the effects of different land management strategies within overall policy constraints, for example to find a sustainable agricultural strategy sufficient to provide farmers with an acceptable quality of life.
11
An important aspect of the project was to have been the involvement of local stakeholders in the application of the DSS and the development of the guidelines for sustainable land management. Because of the tighter project timetable caused by the change in project research associate (Section 6.3.1), that involvement was not as extensive as originally intended. Nevertheless consultation with the target area focus groups (including a presentation of the Agri simulations to local stakeholders) ensured that the work was relevant to the needs of the stakeholders. As a result, the scenario simulations had local significance (e.g. direct seed drilling, removal of subsidies). In addition, the consultations were a contribution to the transfer of existing research and to the bridging of the communication gap between scientists, policy-makers, policyimplementers and end-users, as recommended by the International Conference on Mediterranean Desertification, held in Crete in 1996. Discussions in the Alentejo region of Portugal showed that there was general interest in sediment transport among relevant agencies and research groups, because of the prevalence of soil erosion and topical concern about sedimentation of the new Guardiana reservoir and the resulting reduced sediment supply to the Guardiana estuary. The cost of soil erosion was raised as a research issue, incorporating fertilizer use, clearing ditches, reservoir sedimentation and reduced biodiversity. Stakeholder interest in the Basilicata region of Italy concerned the allocation of water resources between different users, including interbasin transfers. 12 REFERENCES
Basso, F., Bove, E. and Del Prete, M. 2002a. General description of the Agri basin, southern Italy. In Mediterranean Desertification : A Mosaic of Processes and Responses, N.A. Geeson, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds), Wiley, Chichester, UK., 321-330. Basso, F., Pisante, M. and Basso, B. 2002b. The Agri valley sustainable agriculture in a dry environment: crop systems and management. In Mediterranean Desertification : A Mosaic of Processes and Responses, N.A. Geeson, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds), Wiley, Chichester, UK., 331-346. Bathurst, J.C., Kilsby, C. and White, S. 1996. Modelling the impacts of climate and land-use change on basin hydrology and soil erosion in Mediterranean Europe. In Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds.), Wiley, Chichester, UK, 355-387. Bathurst, J.C., Sheffield, J., Vicente, C., White, S.M. and Romano, N. 2002. Modelling large basin hydrology and sediment yield with sparse data : the Agri basin, southern Italy. In Mediterranean Desertification : A Mosaic of Processes and Responses, N.A. Geeson, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds), Wiley, Chichester, UK, 397-415. Bathurst, J.C., Sheffield, J., Leng, X., and Quaranta, G. 2003. Decision support system for desertification mitigation in the Agri basin, southern Italy. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 579-587.
12
Bathurst, J.C., Ewen, J., Parkin, G., OConnell, P.E., and Cooper, J.D. 2004. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts. 3. Blind validation for internal and outlet responses. Journal of Hydrology, 287, 74-94. Beven, K. 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology the case of physically-based models. Journal of Hydrology, 105, 157-172. Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N.G., Lpez-Bermdez, F. and Romero Daz, M.A. 2002. The effect of land use on soil erosion and land degradation under Mediterranean conditions. In Mediterranean Desertification : A Mosaic of Processes and Responses, N.A. Geeson, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds), Wiley, Chichester, UK, 57-70. Loureno, N., Correia, T.P., Jorge, M.do R. and Machado, C.R.1998. Farming strategies and land use changes in Southern Portugal: land abandonment or extensification of the traditional systems? Mediterrneo (Instituto Mediterrnico, Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Nos 12/13, 191-208. Mairota, P., Thornes, J.B. and Geeson, N. 1998. Atlas of Mediterranean Environments in Europe: The Desertification Context. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 205 pp. Roxo, M.J., Casimiro, P.C. and Brito, R.S.de.1996. Inner Lower Alentejo field site: cereal cropping, soil degradation and desertification. In Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use, C.J. Brandt and J.B. Thornes (eds.), Wiley, Chichester, UK, 111-135. Roxo, M.J., Mouro, J.M. and Casimiro, P.C. 1998. Polticas agrcolas, mundanas de uso do solo e degradaao dos recursos naturais Baixo Alentejo Interior. Mediterrneo (Instituto Mediterrnico, Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Nos 12/13, 167-189.
13
APPENDIX A
SIMULATION DATA FOR THE COBRES TARGET BASIN
14
ANNUAL DISCHARGE TOTALS COBRES Monte da Ponte area = 701 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average COBRES Albanoa area = 172 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average COBRES Entradas area = 51 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average (mm) PE (mm) Runoff (mm) 168 443 397 83 273 Current (mm) 157 407 334 61 240 Future (mm) 54 279 224 50 152 Current (mm) 187 460 361 66 269 Simulated Runoff Abandoned Future (mm) 72 291 240 55 165 Direct Drilling Current (mm) 163 423 371 65 256 Future (mm) 65 292 235 50 161 Afforestation Current (mm) 135 379 308 58 220 Future (mm) 45 253 193 46 134 (mm) PE (mm) Runoff (mm) 159 432 412 90 273 Current (mm) 167 440 401 88 274 Future (mm) 62 297 266 65 173 Current (mm) 198 504 435 111 312 Simulated Runoff Abandoned Future (mm) 84 314 285 75 189 Direct Drilling Current (mm) 172 454 441 96 291 Future (mm) 73 308 280 67 182 Afforestation Current (mm) 155 424 385 86 263 Future (mm) 57 282 248 62 162 (mm) 538.28 867.13 820.48 355.05 645.24 PE (mm) 1835 1536 1602 1593 1641 Runoff (mm) 146 399 343 62 238 Current (mm) 172 456 387 82 274 Future (mm) 79 286 243 63 168 Current (mm) 199 511 417 103 307 Simulated Runoff Abandoned Future (mm) 99 305 262 69 184 Direct Drilling Current (mm) 181 456 423 85 286 Future (mm) 86 297 262 64 177 Afforestation Current (mm) 155 429 367 77 257 Future (mm) 68 269 221 58 154
15
ANNUAL SEDIMENT YIELD COBRES Monte da Ponte area = 701 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average COBRES Albanoa area = 172 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average COBRES Entradas area = 51 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average (mm) PE (mm) Runoff (mm) Current (t/ha/yr) 0.08 0.19 0.32 0.03 0.15 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.07 Current (t/ha/yr) 0.09 0.20 0.33 0.03 0.16 Simulated Sediment Yield Abandoned Future (t/ha/yr) 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.02 0.08 Direct Drilling Current (t/ha/yr) 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.01 0.08 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.03 Afforestation Current (t/ha/yr) 0.07 0.17 0.28 0.02 0.14 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.05 (mm) PE (mm) Runoff (mm) Current (t/ha/yr) 0.17 0.35 0.69 0.09 0.33 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.06 0.19 0.27 0.06 0.15 Current (t/ha/yr) 0.20 0.41 0.73 0.12 0.36 Simulated Sediment Yield Abandoned Future (t/ha/yr) 0.08 0.21 0.33 0.06 0.17 Direct Drilling Current (t/ha/yr) 0.09 0.20 0.30 0.04 0.16 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.07 Afforestation Current (t/ha/yr) 0.16 0.34 0.66 0.09 0.31 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.05 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.13 (mm) 538.28 867.13 820.48 355.05 645.24 PE (mm) 1835 1536 1602 1593 1641 Runoff (mm) Current (t/ha/yr) 0.45 0.86 1.23 0.16 0.68 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.17 0.48 0.57 0.11 0.33 Current (t/ha/yr) 0.51 0.96 1.29 0.20 0.74 Simulated Sediment Yield Abandoned Future (t/ha/yr) 0.22 0.50 0.64 0.12 0.37 Direct Drilling Current (t/ha/yr) 0.25 0.49 0.64 0.07 0.36 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.08 0.28 0.27 0.05 0.17 Afforestation Current (t/ha/yr) 0.41 0.81 1.16 0.15 0.63 Future (t/ha/yr) 0.14 0.45 0.49 0.10 0.30
16
Cobres Monte da Ponte Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

90
90
Monte da Ponte
80 70 Average Monthly Discharge (mm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Monte da Ponte
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 80
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
90
Monte da Ponte
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation - Future Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Monte da Ponte
70
Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future
Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
17
Cobres Albenoa Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

90
90
Albanoa
Albanoa
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 80
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
90
Albanoa
Albanoa
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
18
Cobres Entradas Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

90
90
Entradas
Entradas
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 80
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
90
Entradas
Entradas
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
19
Cobres Monte da Ponte Simulated Average Sediment Yield

1.4E+07
1.4E+07 Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling
Monte da Ponte
1.2E+07 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)
Monte da Ponte
1.0E+07
1.0E+07
8.0E+06
8.0E+06
6.0E+06
6.0E+06
4.0E+06
4.0E+06
2.0E+06
2.0E+06
0.0E+00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0E+00 Jan 1.4E+07 Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation - Future Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1.4E+07
Monte da Ponte
Monte da Ponte
1.0E+07
1.0E+07
8.0E+06
8.0E+06
6.0E+06
6.0E+06
4.0E+06
4.0E+06
2.0E+06
2.0E+06
20
Cobres Albenoa Simulated Average Sediment Yield

2.0E+06 1.8E+06 1.6E+06 1.4E+06 1.2E+06 1.0E+06 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Albanoa
1.8E+06 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg) 1.6E+06 1.4E+06 1.2E+06 1.0E+06 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 Jan 2.0E+06
Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)
Albanoa
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2.0E+06 1.8E+06 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg) 1.6E+06 1.4E+06 1.2E+06 1.0E+06 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation - Future
Albanoa
1.8E+06 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg) 1.6E+06 1.4E+06 1.2E+06 1.0E+06 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 4.0E+05 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 Jan
Albanoa
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
21
Cobres Entradas Simulated Average Sediment Yield

3.0E+05
Entradas
Entradas
2.0E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
5.0E+04
0.0E+00 Jan 3.0E+05 Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation - Future Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3.0E+05
Entradas
Entradas
2.0E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
5.0E+04
22
Cobres Monte da Ponte Simulated Discharge for st 1 October 1985 to 1st October 1986
25
25
Simulated daily discharge - Monte da Ponte Oct 95 - Sep 96
Base Abandoned Afforestation Direct Drilling
Base Abandoned
20
20
Daily Discharge (mm)
15

16312 17312 18312 19312 20312 21312 22312 23312
15
10
10
0 15312
0 15312
16312
17312
18312
19312
20312
21312
22312
23312
Hours from 1-8-83
Hours from 1-8-83
25
25
Base Afforestation
Base Direct Drilling
20
20
15
Daily Discharge (mm) 16312 17312 18312 19312 20312 21312 22312 23312
15
10
10
0 15312
0 15312
16312
17312
18312
19312
20312
21312
22312
23312
Hours from 1-8-83
Hours from 1-8-83
23
Sediment Discharge (Kg) 0.E+00 Jan-94 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07 6.E+07 7.E+07
Sediment Discharge (Kg) 0.E+00 Jan-94 MP ALB ENT MP ALB ENT Mar-94 May-94 Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Jan-97 Mar-97 May-97 Jul-97 Sep-97 Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 1998 1998 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 1996 1995 1995 1994 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07 6.E+07 7.E+07
Mar-94 May-94 Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Jan-97 Mar-97 May-97
1994 1996
Base
Afforestation
1997
1997
Jul-97 Sep-97 Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98
Cobres Monthly Sediment Yield
24
Sediment Discharge (Kg) 0.E+00 Jan-94 Mar-94 May-94 Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Jan-97 Mar-97 May-97 Jul-97 Sep-97 Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07 6.E+07 7.E+07 Jan-94 0.E+00 Mar-94 May-94 1.E+07 2.E+07 Sediment Discharge (Kg) 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07 6.E+07 7.E+07
MP ALB ENT 1994 1995
MP ALB ENT 1994
Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96
1995
Abandoned
Direct Drilling
1996 1997 1998
1996
Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Jan-97 Mar-97 May-97 Jul-97 Sep-97 Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98
1997
1998
Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98
Baseline Landuse
Initial Land Use
Crop selection at the end of 1995
25
Subsidy Scenario
Initial Land Use
26
APPENDIX B
SIMULATION DATA FOR THE AGRI TARGET BASIN
27
ANNUAL DISCHARGE TOTALS AGRI Gannano area = 1532 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 Average (mm) 1016 832 853 811 878 PE (mm) 1363 1327 1348 1364 1351 Runoff (mm) Current (mm) 324 139 121 128 178 Future (mm) 302 112 91 94 150 Current (mm) 387 220 213 224 261 Simulated Runoff Abandoned Future (mm) 356 187 179 185 227 Direct Drilling Current (mm) 335 134 114 122 176 Future (mm) 305 114 95 98 153 Afforestation Current (mm) 299 112 93 96 150 Future (mm) 287 90 68 68 128
AGRI Pertusillo area = 585 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 Average (mm) 1257 1038 957 929 1045 PE (mm) 1348 1302 1332 1353 1334 Runoff (mm) 536 320 313 321 372 Current (mm) 727 537 354 302 480 Future (mm) 647 449 278 239 403 Current (mm) 858 663 488 441 612 Simulated Runoff Abandoned Future (mm) 749 584 404 377 528 Direct Drilling Current (mm) 761 523 342 294 480 Future (mm) 652 460 281 269 416 Afforestation Current (mm) 647 471 272 227 404 Future (mm) 628 396 205 163 348
ANNUAL SEDIMENT YIELD AGRI Gannano area = 1532 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 Average (mm) 1016 832 853 811 878 PE (mm) 1363 1327 1348 1364 1351 Runoff (mm) Current 14.8 7.2 6.1 6.6 8.7 Future 13.5 6.3 5.5 5.3 7.7 Current 16.6 9.6 8.8 9.7 11.2 Simulated Sediment Yield Abandoned Future 15.0 8.4 7.6 8.0 9.8 Direct Drilling Current 15.0 7.1 5.9 6.3 8.6 Future 13.6 6.4 5.2 5.4 7.7 Afforestation Current 13.6 6.3 5.1 5.3 7.6 Future 12.8 5.5 4.4 4.4 6.8
(t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr)
AGRI Pertusillo area = 585 km**2 Measured Base Rainfall Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 Average (mm) 1257 1038 957 929 1045 PE (mm) 1348 1302 1332 1353 1334 Runoff (mm) Current 9.8 4.6 3.3 2.8 5.1 Future 6.5 3.3 1.8 2.5 3.5 Current 12.0 5.4 4.4 3.9 6.4 Simulated Sediment Yield Abandoned Future 7.1 4.1 2.5 2.9 4.1 Direct Drilling Current 9.8 4.3 2.9 2.4 4.8 Future 6.5 3.3 1.7 2.2 3.4 Afforestation Current 7.9 3.7 1.9 1.6 3.7 Future 6.4 2.6 0.9 0.7 2.6
(t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr) (t/ha/yr)
28
Agri - Gannano Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

60 60
Gannano
50 Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Base Abandoned Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Gannano
50
Base Base - Future Abandoned Abandoned - Future
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 Jan 60 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gannano
Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Gannano
50
Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation - Future
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
29
Agri - Pertusillo Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

120 120
Pertusillo
Base Abandoned Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Pertusillo
100
Base Base - Future Abandoned Abandoned - Future
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Pertusillo
Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future Average Monthly Discharge (mm)
Pertusillo
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
30
Agri - Gannano Simulated Average Sediment Yield

4.E+08 4.E+08
Gannano
4.E+08 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)
3.E+08
Gannano
4.E+08
3.E+08
3.E+08
3.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
1.E+08
1.E+08
5.E+07
5.E+07
0.E+00 Jan 4.E+08 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.E+00 Jan 4.E+08 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gannano
4.E+08 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)
3.E+08
Gannano
4.E+08
3.E+08
3.E+08
3.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
2.E+08
1.E+08
1.E+08
5.E+07
5.E+07
0.E+00 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.E+00 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
31
Agri - Pertusillo Simulated Average Sediment Yield

9.E+07 9.E+07
Pertusillo
8.E+07 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg) 7.E+07 6.E+07 5.E+07 4.E+07 3.E+07 2.E+07 1.E+07 0.E+00 Jan 9.E+07 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep
Pertusillo
8.E+07 7.E+07 6.E+07 5.E+07 4.E+07 3.E+07 2.E+07 1.E+07 0.E+00
Oct
Nov
Dec 9.E+07
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Pertusillo
8.E+07 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg) 7.E+07 6.E+07 5.E+07 4.E+07 3.E+07 2.E+07 1.E+07 0.E+00 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep
Pertusillo
8.E+07 7.E+07 6.E+07 5.E+07 4.E+07 3.E+07 2.E+07 1.E+07 0.E+00
Base Base - Future Afforestation Afforestation
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
32
Agri - Pertusillo Simulated Discharge for 1st October 1985 to 1st October 1986
20 20
Simulated hourly discharge into the Pertusillo reservoir

18

18 Base Abandoned 16
16
14
14
Discharge (mm)
10
Discharge (mm) 20008 21008 22008 23008 24008 25008 26008 27008
12
12
10
0 19008 Run 6.1 20
0 19008 Run 6.1 20
20008
21008
22008
23008
24008
25008
26008
27008
Hours from 1-8-83
Hours from 1-8-83

18 Base Afforestation 16 16 18

Base Direct Drilling
14
14
Discharge (mm)
10
Discharge (mm) 20008 21008 22008 23008 24008 25008 26008 27008
12
12
10
0 19008 Run 6.1
0 19008 Run 6.1
20008
21008
22008
23008
24008
25008
26008
27008
Hours from 1-8-83
Hours from 1-8-83
33
Sediment Discharge kg 0.E+00 1.E+08 2.E+08 3.E+08 4.E+08 5.E+08 6.E+08
Sediment Discharge kg 0.00E+00 1.00E+08 2.00E+08 3.00E+08 4.00E+08 5.00E+08 6.00E+08
Jan-85
Jan-85 Gan Pert Mar-85 May-85 Jul-85
Gan Pert
Mar-85
1985
May-85 Jul-85 Sep-85
1985
Sep-85
Nov-85
Nov-85
Jan-86
Jan-86 1986 Mar-86
1986
Mar-86 May-86
May-86
Jul-86
Jul-86 Sep-86 Nov-86 1987 1987
Sep-86 Nov-86 Jan-87
Base
Afforestation
Jan-87 Mar-87 May-87 Jul-87 Sep-87 Nov-87 Jan-88 Mar-88 May-88 Jul-88
Mar-87 May-87 Jul-87 Sep-87
1988
1988
Nov-87 Jan-88 Mar-88 May-88 Jul-88 Sep-88 Nov-88
1989
1989
Sep-88 Nov-88
Agri Monthly Sediment Yield
34
Sediment Discharge kg 0.E+00 Jan-85 Mar-85 May-85 Jul-85 Sep-85 Nov-85 Jan-86 Mar-86 May-86 Jul-86 Sep-86 Nov-86 Jan-87 Mar-87 May-87 Jul-87 Sep-87 Nov-87 Jan-88 Mar-88 May-88 Jul-88 Sep-88 Nov-88 1.E+08 2.E+08 3.E+08 4.E+08 5.E+08 6.E+08 Jan-85 0.E+00 Mar-85 1.E+08 2.E+08 Sediment Discharge kg 3.E+08 4.E+08 5.E+08 6.E+08
Gan Pert 1985 1986
Gan Pert
1985
May-85 Jul-85 Sep-85 Nov-85 Jan-86
1986
Mar-86 May-86 Jul-86 Sep-86 Nov-86
Abandoned
Direct Drilling
1987 1988 1989
1987
Jan-87 Mar-87 May-87 Jul-87 Sep-87 Nov-87 Jan-88 Mar-88 May-88 Jul-88 Sep-88 Nov-88
1988 1989
Baseline Land Use
Initial land use
Crop selection at the end of 1987 35
Subsidy Scenario
Initial land use
Crop selection at the end of 1987 36
37

MEDACTION Cobres

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MEDACTION Cobres

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MED/PR/0407/41

______________________________________ Contract No EVK2-CT-2000-00085

James C. Bathurst and Isabella Bovolo University of Newcastle upon Tyne UK

Telephone Fax: Email:

VALIDATION OF SHETRAN BASIN MODELS

SIMULATION DATA FOR THE COBRES TARGET BASIN

Cobres Monte da Ponte Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Cobres Albenoa Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Cobres Entradas Simulated Average Monthly Discharge

Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Average Monthly Discharge (mm)

Cobres Monte da Ponte Simulated Average Sediment Yield

1.4E+07 Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling

1.2E+07 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

1.2E+07 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Cobres Albenoa Simulated Average Sediment Yield

2.0E+06 Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling

Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Cobres Entradas Simulated Average Sediment Yield

3.0E+05 Base Abandonded Afforestation Direct Drilling

2.5E+05 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)

Base Base - Future Abandonded Abandoned - Future

2.5E+05 Average Monthly Sediment Yield (Kg)

Base Base - Future Direct Drilling Direct Drilling - Future

Simulated daily discharge - Monte da Ponte Oct 95 - Sep 96

Base Abandoned Afforestation Direct Drilling

Simulated daily discharge - Monte da Ponte Oct 95 - Sep 96

Daily Discharge (mm)

Daily Discharge (mm)

Hours from 1-8-83

Hours from 1-8-83

Simulated daily discharge - Monte da Ponte Oct 95 - Sep 96

Simulated daily discharge - Monte da Ponte Oct 95 - Sep 96

Base Direct Drilling

Daily Discharge (mm)

Hours from 1-8-83

Hours from 1-8-83

Jul-97 Sep-97 Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98

Cobres Monthly Sediment Yield

MP ALB ENT 1994 1995

MP ALB ENT 1994

Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98

Initial Land Use

Crop selection at the end of 1995

Crop selection at the end of 1997

Crop selection at the end of 1994

Crop selection at the end of 1996

Crop selection at the end of 1998

Initial Land Use