Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

AGNPS-UM: applying the USLE-M within the agricultural non


point source pollution model
*
P.I.A. Kinnell
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

Received 27 January 1999; accepted 17 December 1999

Abstract

In the Agricultural Non Source Pollution model (AGNPS), grid-cell erosion is predicted for individual rainfall events using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) even though the USLE is not well suited for this purpose. A new modification of the USLE,
the USLE-M, is better suited to predicting event erosion and also provides a mechanism for accounting for the impact of upslope
runoff on erosion that is not available with the USLE. A software system that replaces the USLE by the USLE-M in AGNPS is
described and its impact illustrated by an example based on a 1-in-10 year event on a 2300 ha catchment near Nundle, New South
Wales, Australia.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rainfall erosion; Catchment scale modelling; Water quality

Software availability the offsite impact of landuse. This increasing recognition


Program title: AGNPS-UM (v1.02) of offsite impact has led, for example, to the develop-
Contact address: Dr. P.I.A. Kinnell, CRES, The Aus- ment of models for estimating onsite erosion and its offs-
tralian National University, Canberra, ACT ite impact on water quality. Such models are potentially
0200, Australia. Fax: +61 2 6249 0757. E-mail: valuable in terms of providing a capacity to identify high
pkinnell@cres.anu.edu.au risk areas associated with current and alternative landus-
Hardware requirements: IBM PC compatible, 16 MB es.
RAM Most models of rainfall erosion in catchments are
Software requirements: DOS or DOS window under extensions of models of hillslope erosion. The Universal
Windows 95/98 Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is one of the most widely
Program languages: C++, Fortran, Microsoft Quick- known hillslope erosion models. Originally developed in
basic the USA to predict long term average annual erosion
Availability and cost: contact the developer under a variety of crop management systems, it has been
widely used elsewhere. The USLE is an empirical model
developed from the analysis of more than 10 000 plot-
years of runoff and soil loss data from small plots scat-
tered through the eastern part of the USA (Wischmeier
1. Introduction and Smith 1965, 1978). Other more process based
hillslope models have been developed since then. The
For much of this century, the need for soil conser- USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)
vation has been seen in terms of the need to maintain (Laflen et al., 1991) has been responsible for developing
soil for sustainable production in agricultural systems. new technology in the USA. Eurosem (Morgan et al.,
In recent times, increasing recognition has been given to 1998) is an example of the European effort to develop
more process based models of rainfall erosion. However,
these more process based models have data and com-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-6-2494277; fax: +61-6-2490757. puter requirements that cause difficulties when efforts
E-mail address: pkinnell@cres.anu.edu.au (P.I.A. Kinnell). are made to apply them beyond the small catchment

1364-8152/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 4 - 8 1 5 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 2 - 5
332 P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

scale. Data and computer constraints mean that, for prac- in the USLE is replaced by a runoff rate factor because
tical purposes, the USLE will continue to provide the watershed characteristics such as drainage area, stream
basis for modelling rainfall erosion in catchments for slope, and watershed shape influence runoff rates and
some time to come. delivery ratios in a similar manner. As a consequence of
The USLE can be written as this, Williams proposed an equation that can be writ-
ten as
A⫽R K L S C P (1)
SYe⫽XeK L S CePe (5)
where A is the average annual soil loss (mass/area/year),
R is the erosivity index determined by where SYe is the event sediment yield,
Xe⫽a(Qe qp)0.56

N (6)
(EI30)n where a is an empirical coefficient, Qe is runoff amount
n⫽1
R⫽ (2) and qp is the peak runoff rate obtained during the erosion
Y event, and K, L, S, Ce, Pe as defined for the USLE. This
where E is the total kinetic energy of a rainstorm, I30 is model has become known as the Modified Universal Soil
the maximum 30 min intensity, Y is the number of years Loss Equation (MUSLE). In a comparison on 11 3-acre
during which N rainfall events occurred, K is the soil (1.2 ha) watersheds where delivery ratios were con-
factor, L is the factor accounting for the influence of sidered to be 1.0, Williams observed that, with the Ce,
slope length, S is the factor accounting for the influence and Pe set to their average annual values (C, P), Eq. (5)
of slope gradient, C is the crop and crop management explained 82% of the variation while Eq. (3) explained
factor and P is the conservation protection factor. 47%. However, Foster et al. (1982) noted that a major
Although the USLE is not designed to predict event advantage of an erosivity index that includes runoff
erosion, the event version of it can be written as terms is the elimination of large overestimates of soil
loss when runoff is negligible and rainfall amounts and
Ae⫽ReKeL S CePe (3) rates are great. The advantage of the Williams index over
where Ae is the soil loss for an event, the USLE is probably more related to the failure of the
USLE to consider runoff explicitly as a factor in
Re⫽EI30 (4) determining Re than anything else.
and Ke, Ce, Pe are factors accounting for the soil, crop In MUSLE, Re in the USLE, the EI30 index, is
and crop management, and conservation protection con- replaced by a (Qe qp)0.56 while all the other parameters
ditions that exist at the time of the event. remain as defined for the USLE. In the EPIC model
Soil erosion results from soil being detached from the (originally the Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator
soil surface and the subsequent transport of the detached but now Environmental Policy Integrated Climate), a
soil away from the point of detachment. The sediment continuous simulation model developed by Williams et
delivered from land surface to a water course (river, al. (1984),
stream, gully) or impoundment (dam, lake) is dependent SYe⫽XeK L S CePeROKF (7)
on gross erosion and all the processes which affect deliv-
where ROKF is the coarse fragment factor as defined
ery from the point of detachment to the water course or
by Simanton et al. (1984), Xe is selected from one of
impoundment. By convention, units of mass per unit area
the following:
are used for amounts of soil erosion. For runoff and soil
loss plots such as those used to evaluate parameters in Xe⫽EI30 (8a)
the USLE, the product of erosion amount and area gives Xe⫽1.586(Qe qp) 0.56
DA 0.12
(8b)
the sediment yield in units of mass. Runoff and soil loss
plots are small watersheds or catchments. However, as Xe⫽0.65EI30⫹0.45(Qe qp) 0.33
(8c)
catchment size increases, areas of deposition within the where DA is drainage area expressed in ha, Qe is
catchment tend to reduce the sediment yield below that expressed in mm, qp in mm/h, EI30 in MJ.mm/ha.h and
predicted from erosion models like the USLE. Under SYe in t/ha (Williams and Arnold, 1997). Values of K,
these circumstances, a delivery ratio is used to convert L, S, Ce, Pe and ROKF are determined independently of
estimates of gross erosion to sediment yield (Williams the index used for Xe. However, in the USLE, K is, for
et al., 1971). The sediment delivery ratio is the ratio of example, calculated by


the sediment yield at a specific location in the watershed N
and the gross erosion upstream of that point. While a (Ae)n
sediment delivery ratio is considered necessary to deter- n⫽1
K⫽ (9)

mine sediment delivery from erosion estimated using the N
USLE in catchments, Williams (1975) contended that the (EI30)n
delivery ratio is not necessary if the rainfall energy factor n⫽1
P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341 333

when L = S = C = P =1.0. Thus it follows that, for EPIC, manner in which data are stored and retrieved in modern
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) facilitates the

N

(Ae)n adoption of this approach.


n⫽1
In AGNPS, slope lengths are restricted to a maximum
K⫽ (10)

N that does not exceed the length of the primary cell or
(Xe)n 1000 feet whichever is the least. This rule was developed
n⫽1 on the basis that: (a) as mentioned earlier, that primary
cells were separate hydrologic units, and (b) channels or
when L = S = C = P =1.0, so that the value of K should depositions zones which mark the end of slope with
vary depending which index is used in EPIC. Similarly, respect to the USLE occur within 1000 feet of the
Ce should also vary depending which index is selected. upslope boundary of a hillslope. No formal rules were
In all cases, L =1.0 when the slope length is 22.13 m, originally set for determining the slope lengths for the
S =1.0 for a 9% slope, C =1.0 for bare fallow, and P subcells. However, Desmet and Govers (1996) extended
=1.0 for cultivation up and down the slope as defined the method for determining the topographic effect of
for the USLE. irregular hillslopes developed by Foster and Wischmeier
(1974) to the determination of slope length for grid cells
1.1. AGNPS that are not independent hydrologic units. While apply-
ing this approach in AGNPS provides a formal mech-
MUSLE is directed towards the prediction of sediment anism to determining slope length in the subcells, ero-
yield considering a watershed or catchment as essentially sion in a subcell is dependent on the surface water flow
a single bulk entity. The K, L, S, C and P factors are that occurs in the subcell. That flow depends not only
calculated using weighting factors that are dependent on on the slope length but also on the hydraulic character-
the drainage area (Williams, 1975). This does not enable istics of the hillslope. The Desmet and Govers method
areas of high erosion risk within a catchment to be read- does not account for changes in, for example, variations
ily identified. One approach used to overcome this is to in runoff from upslope caused by variations in soil
use a grid-cell approach to modelling erosion in catch- hydraulic properties or conditions. In theory, this
ments. The Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution deficiency, and the problem of the USLE not being
(AGNPS) (Young et al., 1987) model is an example of suited to predicting event erosion, can be overcome by
this. In AGNPS, the catchment is divided into a number replacing the USLE by the USLE-M.
of square primary cells in which factors like soil, slope
gradient and land use are considered to be uniform. Ero- 1.2. The USLE-M
sion is determined by applying the USLE to each cell
and a sediment transport model applied to move the sedi- As noted earlier, the USLE is designed to predict the
ment from cell to cell giving due consideration to factors long term average annual erosion rather than event ero-
such as particle size and deposition. The primary cell can sion even though that long term average annual erosion
be divided into subcells to deal with nonhomogeniety if is dependent on erosion that results from a large number
necessary. The objective of this approach is to provide of individual events. It can be argued that the inability
a capacity to determine the spatial distribution of erosion of the USLE to accurately predict event erosion does not
risk and sediment sources in addition to the modelling particularly matter provided it can predict the impact of
of sediment yield and the impact of pollutants on water those events that have a major impact on the average
quality. However, while the outputs of AGNPS have annual erosion. In many cases, a few large events con-
great potential with respect to providing information to tribute most to that average annual value. Consequently,
aid in decision making processes related to land and since the EI30 index provides a reasonable capacity to
water management, the manner in which the model oper- predict the impact of large events on the average annual
ates leads to some concern about the validity of those erosion, it can be argued that there is no need to replace
outputs. Firstly, AGNPS is an event model but the USLE it with an index that considers runoff explicitly. How-
is not well suited to predicting erosion caused by indi- ever, with models like AGNPS, the objective is changed
vidual events. Secondly, with respect to erosion, AGNPS from predicting the long term average annual soil loss
treats each primary cell as a separate hydrologic unit but to event erosion and thus, a more event orientated erosiv-
this approach has serious shortcomings. Naturally occur- ity index is required. Kinnell (1995) recognised this and
ring hydrologic units are not usually of the same size or proposed that
square in shape. Consequently, rather than use the pri-


T
mary cell–subcell approach, it is more appropriate to use
small grid cells so that the number of cells allocated to Re⫽ (QEA)t (11)
t⫽1
a hydrologic unit depends only on the size of the
hydrologic unit and the size of the grid cells used. The where T is the number of time units in a rainfall event,
334 P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

and Q is the runoff and EA is the rainfall energy in each when L = S = PUM =1.0 and C ⫽1.0. A similar
time unit, could be used as an alternative to EI30 and expression is used to determine PUM. As with the USLE,
that the excess rainfall rate (Ix, the difference between CUM =1.0 for bare fallow, and PUM =1.0 for cultivation
the rainfall rate and the infiltration rate) could be used up and down the slope. Since variations in slope length
as a surrogate for Q. This approach assumes that short have, in theory, no appreciable impact on runoff, and
term variations in sediment concentration (c) are directly S values have been developed through observation that
related to EA. One difficulty associated with the use of variations in slope gradient have no significant impact on
Eq. (11) is that adequate knowledge of the short term runoff when L is held constant, arguably, the topographic
variations values of Q (or Ix) and EA during a rainfall factors used in the USLE or the Revised USLE (RUSLE)
event is often lacking. However, Kinnell (1997) noted (Renard et al., 1997) still apply to USLE-M.
that Fig. 1 provides a comparison of the abilities of the
USLE and USLE-M to account for soil loss from a bare
Ae⫽Qecbe (12)
fallow runoff and soil loss plot in the USA. The logarith-
where mic form of the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency statistic,

冘 冘
T N
qtct (log YO−log YC)2n
cbe⫽
t⫽1 n⫽1
(13) Z(log)⫽1⫺ (20)
Qe

N

(log YO−log Y ) 2
M n
and that cbe was dependent on the kinetic energy per unit n⫽1
quantity of rain (= E/Be where Be is event rainfall
amount) and a measure of the peak rainfall intensity where YO is the measured value, YC the computed value
since the peak rainfall intensity tends to produce the and YM the mean of the measured values, is shown as
highest sediment concentration and the highest runoff an indicator of model performance. This version of the
rate during a rainfall event. Kinnell observed that if I30 statistic is used here because it is influenced more by a
was assumed to provide an adequate measure of this model’s performance with respect to small to medium
intensity, erosion events than the normal version. Fig. 2 shows the
Z(log) values for the two models plotted against the
Re⫽QeI30E/Be (14) Gross Infiltration Ratios for runoff producing events
and since the runoff ratio (QR) is given by, (GIRrope) occurring on the plots at the 14 locations in the
USA and one in Australia. The GIRrope value for each
QR⫽Qe/Be (15) plot was calculated by


Eq. (14) can be written as N

Re⫽QREI30 (16) (Qe)n


GIRrope⫽1⫺
n⫽1
(21)

The resulting modified version of the USLE is referred N

to as USLE-M (Kinnell and Risse, 1998) and can, in its (Be)n


single event form, be written as n⫽1

Ae⫽RUMeKUMeL S CUMePUMe (17) for only those rainfall events that produced runoff over
the period of observation (usually 4 or more years). GIR-
where RUMe = QR EI30, and the subscript UM indicates
rope generally has a lower value than the usual Gross
a parameter with values that differ from the USLE. It Infiltration Ratio which is based on all rainfall events
follows from Eq. (10) that irrespective of whether they produced runoff or not. As

冘 can be seen from Fig. 2, USLE-M operates with an


N

(Ae)n efficiency of about 80% without varying significantly as


KUM⫽
n⫽1
(18) GIRrope varies. There is no gain in using USLE-M when

冘 the eroding surface is totally impermeable (GIRrope =0)


N

(QREI30)n but the efficiency of the USLE tends to fall as GIRrope


n⫽1
increases. Data for 3 plots at Gunnedah, NSW, Australia
when L = S = CUM = PUM =1.0. Similarly, are consistent with the results obtained in the USA (Fig.


N
2). The data presented in Fig. 2 indicate that the USLE
(Ae)n operates best when soils are impervious or close to
impervious and that, as a general rule, USLE-M will pre-
CUM⫽
n⫽1
(19)

N dict event soil loss better than the USLE if runoff can
KUM (QREI30)n be estimated adequately. This result is consistent with
n⫽1 the observation of Foster et al. (1982) that a major
P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341 335

Fig. 1. Relationships between event soil losses for plot 8 in experiment 1 at Arnot (Ithaca), NY and the EI30 and QREI30 indices. The lines
represent the relationships generated by: (A) the USLE; and (B) USLE-M. From Kinnell and Risse (1998).

advantage of an erosivity index that includes runoff divided into a number of segments which could be
terms with rainfall terms in a product is the reduction of assumed to have uniform slope gradient and soil proper-
large overestimates of soil loss when runoff is negligible ties. As a result of this, they developed an equation for
and rainfall amount and rates are great. Thus, for pre- calculating the L-factor for the ith segment:
dicting event erosion such as in AGNPS, USLE-M is, lm+1 −lm+1
Li⫽
i i−1
in theory, a better model to use than the USLE. (23)
(li−li−1)(22.13)m
1.2.1. The L factor when the USLE-M is applied to where li is the distance from the upslope boundary of
grid cells the field or hillslope to the lower boundary of the ith
As noted earlier, Desmet and Govers (1996) segment. Desmet and Govers (1996) extended Eq. (23)
developed a method of determining L in grid cells that to areas where square elements (grid cells) are assumed
are not separate hydrologic units. The L factor for a slope to have uniform slope gradient and soil properties. For
is given by the grid cell with co-ordinates i, j, Desmet and Govers
consider the L-factor to be described by
L⫽(l/22.13)m (22)
(Ai,j-in+D2)m+1−Am+1
Li,j⫽ m+2 m
i,j-in
where l is the length of the slope as measured along the (24)
horizontal projection and m varies with factors such as D xi,j(22.13)m
slope gradient (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965). Foster and where Ai,j-in is the area contributing to flow into the cell
Wischmeier (1974) considered that the slope could be with co-ordinates i, j, D is the length of the sides of the
336 P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

Fig. 2. The relationships between Z(log) for the USLE and USLE-M and the gross infiltration ratio for runoff producing events (GIRrope) for bare
fallow plots at the 14 USA locations and Gunnedah in Australia. Z(log) values for USLE-M are represented by triangles, those for the USLE by
circles. The relationship between Z(log) and GIRrope for USLE-M is indicated by the solid line, that for the USLE by the dashed line. From Kinnell
and Risse (1998).

grid cell, and xi,j is the width of the contour over which where QCe.i,j = Qe.i,j/Be and QCe.i,j-in = Qe.i,j-in/Be. It should
the flow is discharged. xi,j is dependent on flow direction be noted that QRe.i,j-cell is the ratio of the runoff volume
relative to grid cell orientation. from the cell divided by the volume of rain that falls on
The concept behind Eqs. (23) and (24) is that the ero- the area of the cell. Since runoff from upslope contrib-
sion in an element or grid cell can be determined by utes to the volume of runoff from the cell, QRe.i,j-cell can
subtracting the sediment discharged (erosion per unit take on values greater than 1.0. In contrast, QCe.i,j and
area multiplied by area) for the area upslope of the QCe.i,j-in normally have values that are less than 1.0.
element or grid cell from the sediment discharged for There are two extremes to consider with respect to
the area that includes the cell and dividing the result by Eq. (29). The first is when the whole of the eroding area
the area of the segment or cell. If this concept is applied is impervious. In this case, QCe.i,j = QCe.i,j-in =1 and
when the USLE-M is used, and if Qe.i,j is the runoff (in LUM.e.i,j equals Li,j as calculated by Eq. (24). The other
units of depth) passing across the lower boundary of the extreme is when no runoff enters the cell from upslope.
cell i, j and Qe.i,j-in is the runoff passing across the upper Under these circumstances,
boundary of the cell during an event, then
QCe.i,j(Ai,j-in+D2)m+1
Qe.i,j(Ai,j-in+D ) −Qe.i,j-inA
2 m+1 m+1 LUMe.i,j⫽ (30)
L⬘UM.e.i,j⫽
i,j-in
(25) QRe.i,j-cellDm+2xmi,j(22.13)
m

BeDm+2xm i,j(22.13)
m
while it follows from Eqs. (17) and (22) that
when
LUMe.i,j⫽(D/22.13)m (31)
Ae.i,j⫽EI30K L⬘
S CUMe.i,jPUMe.i,j
UMe.i,j UMe.i,j i,j (26)
However, the values of LUMe.i,j generated by these two
equations are not equal and the difference between them
Because the erosivity index for a cell when the USLE- increases as the number of cells in the upslope contribu-
M is used is given by the product of E, I30 and the runoff ting area increases. The discrepancy is eliminated by
ratio for the cell (QRe.i,j-cell), (Kinnell, in review)
Ae.i,j⫽[QRe.i,jEI30]KUMe.i,jLUMe.i,jSi,jCUMe.i,jPUMe.i,j (27) QCe.i,j(Ai,j-in+D2)m+1−QCe.i,j-inAm+1
LUMe.i,j⫽F
i,j-in
(32)
so that QRe.i,j-cellDm+2xm
i,j(22.13)
m

LUMe.i,j⫽L⬘UMe.i,j/QRe.i,j-cell (28) when


Thus (1−QCei,j-in)
F⫽QCe.i,j-in⫹ (33)
QCe.i,j(Ai,j-in+D2)m+1−QCe.i,j-inAm+1 (1+Ai,j-in/D2)m
LUMe.i,j⫽
i,j-in
(29)
QRe.i,j-cellDm+2xm
i,j (22.13)m
P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341 337

LUMe.i,j values determined by Eq. (32) are hydrodyn- network has not been otherwise mapped. User online
amic and vary between erosion events in contrast to the input is required to generate the attribute files for running
values of Li,j determined by Eq. (24) which do not TOPAZ and Program B. For TOPAZ, the location of the
change between events. A comparison of the use of the catchment outlet is a required input in addition to cell
USLE with Li,j values determined by Eq. (24) and the size. The initiation points for the channel network are
USLE-M with LUMe.i,j determined by Eq. (32) on the pre- determined from a critical source area (CSA). Attributes
diction of erosion in grid cells associated with a sub- associated with soils and land use such as Curve Num-
catchment in Queensland, Australia, is given in Kinnell ber, Ke, KUMe, Ce and CUMe are required for Program B.
(in review). AGNPS 5.00 uses traditional units for K (T.A.h/100.A-
ft.T.in, ton.acre.hour/100.acre-foot.ton.inch) and EI30
(ft.T.in/A.h). L, S, C, and P have no units. AGNPS v5.00
2. Applying the USLE-M within AGNPS is run on one of the AGNPS input files (the standard
AGNPS input) and the output used together with the
AGNPS software is public domain and readily avail- other AGNPS input file (the modified AGNPS input file
able from sources such as the Internet. Until recently, #1) to produce a second modified AGNPS input file that,
AGNPS used the USLE to predict cell erosion. A new when used with AGNPS v5.00, produces the AGNPS-
version (AGNPS98) that uses the Revised Universal Soil UM output file. The standard AGNPS output file pro-
Loss Equation (RUSLE) was released in 1998. The duced by the first use of AGNPS v5.00 provides the
software that has been developed to apply the USLE-M hydrologic data required to determine the runoff coef-
has been designed for use with AGNPS version 5.00 on ficients (QCe.i,j, QCe.i,j -in) and runoff ratios (QRe.i,j-cell)
a PC running under DOS or a DOS window under Win- required by the USLE-M. The software has a limit of
dows 95. 32 000 cells, this limit being the limit set by AGNPS
The primary data inputs are contained in 3 GIS Ascii v5.00.
files. (Fig. 3). The GIS files for elevation, soils and lan- As noted earlier, in AGNPS, a restriction of 1000 ft
duse can have the formats of either ARC/INFO or (305 m) is placed on slope length within a primary cell
GRASS Ascii input/output files. Many GIS programs on the grounds that deposition or channelization can be
can write these formats so that the software is largely expected to occur within this distance. However, in
GIS independent. A dedicated program (Program A) many catchments, slope lengths actually exceed this
uses these files and, in association with online input from length. The AGNPS-UM software does not place a
the user, produces files that are used by Program B to restriction on length of slope associated with a set of
generate two AGNPS input data files. A public domain contiguous grid cells but relies on overland flow path
program, TOPAZ, is used to generate the files containing lengths determined by the channel network produced by
cell slope gradients and flow directions required by Pro- either TOPAZ or directly by the user. Consequently, the
gram B. TOPAZ also produces a synthesised channel user needs to ensure that the channel network used is
network that can be used by Program B if a channel appropriate. TOPAZ provides a capacity to specify dif-

Fig. 3. Schematic of the software system for replacing the USLE by the USLE-M in AGNPS v5.00.
338 P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

ferent CSA values for different parts of the catchment soils were 0.40 T.A.h/100.A-ft.T for soil 1, 0.60
if required. With respect to deposition, that is an issue T.A.h/100.A-ft.T for soil 2 and 0.47 T.A.h/100.A-ft.T
dealt with by the sediment transport model in AGNPS for soil 3. These values are associated with GIRrope
when it is applied to the grid cells. values of 0.75 (soil 1) and 0.63 (soils 2 and 3). Soil 1
An example illustrating the impact of using the USLE- is the same type of soil as that associated with the bare
M to model cell erosion within AGNPS is presented here fallow plots at Gunnedah used in the USLE — USLE-
using a 1-in-10 year 6 hour storm on the 2300 ha Back M comparison shown in Fig. 2.
Creek Catchment near Nundle, New South Wales, Aus- Fig. 5 provides a comparison between the erosion pre-
tralia. The outlet of the catchment is at the north east dicted for the 1-in-10 year 6 hour event by AGNPS
corner of the catchment. Slope gradients in excess of v5.00 with the USLE and L predicted using the Desmet
30% occur quite frequently in the southern part (Fig. 4). and Govers method (AGNPS-DG) and with the USLE-
The channel network shown in Fig. 4 was produced by M and L predicted using Eq. (32) (AGNPS-UM) when
TOPAZ using a CSA value of 15 ha. The network erosion in the 100 m by 100 m (1 ha) cells is considered
matched the channel network observed in ariel photo- in units of t/ha (metric ton per hectare) rather than T/A
graphs reasonably well but not sufficiently well for the (ton per acre) as is customarily used in the US
example to be considered anything more than a demon- (conversion: 2.242 t/ha =1 T/A). The 1-in-10 year 6 hour
stration. event produces 2.8 inch rain and an EI30 value of 62
The catchment contains 3 different soils (Fig. 4). A ft.T.in/A.h. The runoff coefficients associated with the
clay soil with a USLE K value of 0.30 T.A.h/100.A-
event varied from 0.09 to 0.28 while QRe.i,j-cell ranged
ft.T.in (soil 1) dominates the southern half of the catch-
from 0.09 to 4.02 in the cells with overland flow when
ment. A clay soil with a USLE K value of 0.38
the critical source area for channel initiation was 15 ha
T.A.h/100.A-ft.T (soil 2) dominates the northern half
and overland flow path lengths of up to about 600 m
while an alluvial soil (soil 3) with a USLE K value of
occur. LUMe.i,j ranged from 0.14 to 5.79. In comparison,
0.30 T.A.h/100.A-ft.T is found near the main drainage
channel in this northern area. The catchment is predomi- L factor values for the USLE determined by the Desmet
nantly grazing land with a small area cropped with wheat and Govers method ranged from 1.42 to 16.41. The aver-
in the north eastern part of the catchment. The 1-in-10 age cell erosion predicted by the USLE-M was 10.3 t/ha
year 6 hour storm is considered to occur in late July compared with 31.2 t/h for the USLE with L determined
when C for the wheat crop is 0.15 and the pasture had by the Desmet and Govers method. The sediment yield
been grazed to provide a cover of about 40% and a C at the outlet of the catchment predicted when the USLE-
value of 0.10. The CUM values for the pasture and wheat M was used was 1965 t as compared with 6173 t pre-
areas were 0.20 and 0.28 respectively. The soil was con- dicted using the USLE and the Desmet and Govers
sidered to be fairly dry at the onset of the event and, as method for predicting slope length. Obviously, had the
a result, 64 was used for the Curve Numbers (CN) for catchment been wetter at the onset of the event, then a
soils 1 (southern half) and 3 (alluvial) under pasture. CN higher proportion of the cells would have higher erosion
=72 and CN =74 were used for soil 2 under pasture and amounts predicted by the USLE-M leading to a higher
wheat respectively. The KUM values allocated to these sediment yield.

Fig. 4. Slope gradients (%), K (US units) and C values, and the channel network in the Back Creek catchment, near Nundle, New South Wales,
Australia. Grid cells are 100 m by 100 m (1 ha).
P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341 339

Fig. 5. Cell erosion predicted by the USLE with L determined by the Desmet and Govers method (AGNPS-L via D and G) and the USLE-M
(AGNPS-UM) for a 1-in-10 event under the conditions given in the text. Grid cells are 100 m by 100 m (1 ha).

3. Discussion employed in modelling the erosion in the Back Creek


catchment because overland flow path lengths were
Software is available linking AGNPS with the GIS determined specifically from the digital elevation data.
GRASS (Mitchell et al., 1993; He et al., 1993) and It should be noted that the slope length restriction used
ARC/INFO (Tim and Jolly, 1994). Although this in AGNPS is only a rule of thumb and actual overland
software will produce small grid cells, the rules used to flow path lengths depend on topography, soil, climate
determine the slope lengths associated with these cells and activities of man. However, the dominant role of
are usually designed for determining slope lengths for rainfall energy in driving the erosion process tends to
primary cells rather than subcells. As a result, for small diminish as slope length increases and this is not taken
grid cells produced by these software packages, Li,j into account when either the USLE or the USLE-M is
values will usually be determined using applied to predicting grid-cell erosion. One could argue
Li,j⫽(D/22.13)m (34) that to account for this change in dominance, the QREI30
index could be combined with, for example, the
(Qeqp)0.33 index in a similar way as with the EI30 index
If applied to the Back Creek Catchment and used with in Eq. (8c) but with the coefficients that vary with, for
the USLE, Eq. (34) produces Li,j values ranging from example, slope length, in place of the values of 0.65
1.35 (slopes ⬍1%) to 2.22 (slopes ⬎5%) and erosion and 0.45 used in that equation. However, as noted in the
rates (Fig. 6) that are, on average, about twice that pre- discussion on EPIC, this would present problems with
dicted using the USLE-M. The contrast in erosion rate
respect to the values of other parameter involved in the
varies with soil type in the catchment. Erosion predicted
model. Two separate erosion models, one driven by a
with the USLE-M is less than that predicted with the
rainfall energy dominated index, the other by a flow
USLE using Eq. (34) in all cells in the southern half of
energy dominated index, linked together in a manner so
the catchment and at least half of the cells in the northern
that the dominance of one changes in favour of the other
half (Fig. 6). In respect to sediment delivery at the outlet
of the catchment, the USLE using Eq. (34) results in a as, for example, slope length increases could be a viable
sediment yield of 4022 t, about twice that obtained using alternative if the flow energy based model is properly
the USLE-M. Obviously, the choice of model and parameterised. One major difficulty with this is that a
method of determining slope length has a major impact flow energy dominated model cannot be parameterised
on the result but, irrespective of which approach is using data from USLE runoff and soil loss plots because
chosen, quantitative catchment scale data are scarce so these plots are in a rainfall energy dominated environ-
that usually the validity of the predicted result has to be ment, and soil loss data from flow energy dominated
judged on the appropriateness of theory used in the overland flow systems are rarely obtained. Conse-
model. The USLE-M approach is based on more appro- quently, despite its limitations, the USLE-M approach to
priate theory than was used when AGNPS was orig- modelling within catchment erosion should provide an
inally developed. improvement over the approach that has been adopted
As noted earlier, no restriction on slope length was in the development of AGNPS up to this time.
340 P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341

Fig. 6. Cell erosion predicted by the USLE with slope length restricted to the size of cell and the ratio of cell erosion predicted by the USLE-
M (AGNPS-UM) to cell erosion predicted by the USLE with slope length restricted to the size of cell (AGNPS- cell L) for the 1-in-10 year event.
Grids cell are 100m by 100m (1 ha).

4. Summary and conclusion rainfall-runoff erosivity factors for individual storms. Trans. ASAE
25, 124–129.
Foster, G.R., Wischmeier, W.H., 1974. Evaluating irregular slopes for
AGNPS is a grid-cell based model whose purpose is soil loss prediction. Trans. ASAE 17, 305–309.
to predict the spatial variation of rainfall erosion in He, C., Riggs, J.F., Kang, Y.T., 1993. Integration of geographic infor-
catchments and the impact of that erosion on water qual- mation systems and computer model to evaluate agricultural runoff
ity. It uses the USLE together with a sediment transport on water quality. Water Resources Bulletin 29, 891–900.
model to achieve this purpose. Unfortunately, the USLE Kinnell, P.I.A., 1995. The IxEA index: An index with the capacity to
give more direct consideration of hydrology in the USLE modelling
is not designed to predict event erosion well and the pro- environment. J. Soil Water Cons. 50, 507–512.
cedures available to determine the slope length factor for Kinnell, P.I.A., 1997. Runoff ratio as a factor in the empirical model-
a cell does not enable the impact of variations in upslope ling of soil erosion by individual rainstorms. Aust. J. Soil Res. 35,
runoff on cell erosion to be determined adequately. In 1–13.
theory, a new modification of the USLE called the Kinnell, P.I.A., Risse, L.M., 1998. USLE-M: Empirical modelling rain-
fall erosion through runoff and sediment concentration. Soil Sci.
USLE-M (Kinnell and Risse, 1998) provides a mech- Soc. Amer. J. 62, 1667–1672.
anism for overcoming these problems. A software sys- Kinnell, P. I. A. (in review). Slope-length factor for applying the
tem has been developed that replaces the USLE by USLE-M to erosion in grid cells. Soil & Tillage Research.
USLE-M in AGNPS v5.00. In theory, this software pro- Laflen, J.M., Lane, L.J., Foster, G.R., 1991. WEPP: A new generation
vides an improved modelling system for within catch- of erosion prediction technology. J. Soil and Water Cons. 46,
34–38.
ment erosion and the impact of that erosion on water Mitchell, J.K., Engel, B.A., Srinivasan, R., Wang, S.S.Y., 1993. Vali-
quality. dation of AGNPS for small watershedsusing integrated
AGNPS/GIS system. Water Resources Bulletin 29, 833–842.
Morgan, R.P.C., Quinton, J.N., Smith, R.E., Govers, G., Posen, J.W.A.,
Acknowledgements Auerswald, K., Chisci, G., Torri, D., Styczen, M.E., 1998. The Eur-
opean soil erosion model (EUROSEM): A dynamic approach for
predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments.
The author wishes to acknowledge R. Beecham, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23, 527–544.
Department of Land and Water Conservation, New Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.A., Yoder,
South Wales, Australia for the GIS data used in this D.C., 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conser-
paper. vation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE). In: Agric. Handb. 703. US Government Print Office,
Washington, DC.
Simanton, J.R., Rawizt, E., Shirley, E.D., 1984. Effects of rock frag-
References ments on erosion of semi-arid rangeland soils. In: Erosion and
Productivity of Soils Containing Rock Fragments. Soil Sci. Soc.
Desmet, P.J.J., Govers, G., 1996. A GIS procedure for automatically Amer, Madison, WI, 65–67.
calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex land- Tim, U.S., Jolly, R., 1994. Evaluating agricultural non-point source
scape units. J. Soil and Water Cons. 51, 427–433. pollution using integrated geographic information system and
Foster, G.R., Lombardi, F., Moldenhauer, W.C., 1982. Evaluation of hydrologic/water quality model. J. Envirion. Qual. 23, 25–35.
P.I.A. Kinnell / Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 331–341 341

Williams, J.R., 1975. Sediment-yield prediction with universal equ- Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1965. Predicting rainfall erosion
ation using runoff energy factor. In: Present and Prospective Tech- losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. In: Agric.
nology for Predicting Sediment Yield and Sources. ARS.S-40 US Handb. 282. US Government Print Office, Washington, DC.
Gov. Print Office, Washington, DC pp. 244–252. Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion
Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G., 1997. A system of erosion-sediment yield losses — A guide to conservation planning. In: Agric. Handb. 537.
models. Soil Technology 11, 43–55. US Government Print Office, Washington, DC.
Williams, J.R., Hiler, E.A., Baird, R.W., 1971. Predicting sediment Young, R.A., Onstad, C.A., Bosch, D.D., Anderson, W.P., 1987.
yields from small watersheds. Trans. ASAE 14, 1157–1162. AGNPS, Agricultural-Non-Point-Source Pollution model; A large
Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., Dyke, P.T., 1984. The EPIC model and watershed analysis tool. In: Conservation Research Report 35.
its application. In: Proc Intl. Symp. on Minmum Data Sets for USDA-ARS, Washington, DC.
Agrotechnology Transfer, March 21–26, 1983. ICRISAT Center,
India.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen