Next Article in Journal
WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep
Next Article in Special Issue
Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediment by the Application of Non-Negative Factor Analysis: A Case Study of Dalian Bay
Previous Article in Journal
Access to Street Markets and Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables by Adolescents Living in São Paulo, Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph15030518
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Erosion and Sediment Transport Modelling in Shallow Waters: A Review on Approaches, Models and Applications

by
Mohammad Hajigholizadeh
1,*,
Assefa M. Melesse
2 and
Hector R. Fuentes
3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555 W Flagler Street, EC3781, Miami, FL 33174, USA
2
Department of Earth and Environment, Florida International University, AHC-5-390, 11200 SW 8th Street Miami, FL 33199, USA
3
Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555 W Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33174, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(3), 518; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030518
Submission received: 16 January 2018 / Revised: 26 February 2018 / Accepted: 10 March 2018 / Published: 14 March 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Non-Point Source Pollution and Environmental Assessment)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The erosion and sediment transport processes in shallow waters, which are discussed in this paper, begin when water droplets hit the soil surface. The transport mechanism caused by the consequent rainfall-runoff process determines the amount of generated sediment that can be transferred downslope. Many significant studies and models are performed to investigate these processes, which differ in terms of their effecting factors, approaches, inputs and outputs, model structure and the manner that these processes represent. This paper attempts to review the related literature concerning sediment transport modelling in shallow waters. A classification based on the representational processes of the soil erosion and sediment transport models (empirical, conceptual, physical and hybrid) is adopted, and the commonly-used models and their characteristics are listed. This review is expected to be of interest to researchers and soil and water conservation managers who are working on erosion and sediment transport phenomena in shallow waters. The paper format should be helpful for practitioners to identify and generally characterize the types of available models, their strengths and their basic scope of applicability.

1. Introduction

Soil erosion and its degradation of soil productivity and environment effects on the productivity of land and water quality (of rivers, estuaries and lakes) comprise one of the major concerns of watershed managers and decision makers. Temporal and spatial information of soil erosion processes is required to reflect the pattern of sediment transport during storm events. Erosion is a process of detachment and transport of soil materials by erosive agents from any part of the Earth’s surface [1]. Generally, natural erosion is divided into two main categories: water erosion and wind erosion. Water erosion occurs as different forms of splash, sheet and interrill erosion, rill erosion, gully erosion, river banks or channel erosion, tillage erosion and glacial erosion. Factors affecting water erosion are climate, topography, soil structure, vegetation and anthropogenic activities such as tillage systems and soil conservation measures [2]. Sheet and interrill erosion is considered one of the first steps of erosion in catchments, which is widely observed on bare or almost bare soils in agricultural lands, pasturage and open areas. In this type of erosion, the process begins by rain drops hitting the soil surface, and their effect of detaching the soil structure is an important factor in particulate matter transport. Generally, rainfall intensity and runoff rate are the major determinants of splash and sheet erosion [3]. Particularly in very shallow water, raindrops can provide temporary disturbances that cause static particles to move. Subsequently, the overland flow transports the sediment in a downslope direction. Three types of transportation are taking place in sheet erosion: raindrop splash, overland flow action and the combination of overland flow and rainfall impact [4]. However, the main cause of erosion on steep slopes or any area with sparse land cover is concentrated flow [5], and flow hydraulic parameters and transport capacities determine the concentrated flow erosion rates [6].
Due to the increasing use of computer applications and computing power in recent decades, the investigations of soil erosion and sediment transport through the development of computer models have been rapidly increased, developed and provided new possibilities. However, there are still many models that suffer from a range of problems, such as over-estimation due to the uncertainty of models and the unsuitability of assumptions and parameters in compliance with local conditions. Over-parameterization due to the deficiency of testing the model is also an issue. The key objective of this paper is to provide a source that addresses these processes with details for the researchers who are involved in studying the transport process of sediment by overland flow and shallow waters. This scope could be achieved by reviewing a number of existing models and studies in the mentioned field, the knowledge and concepts behind these models and the characteristics of the models including their inputs-outputs.
Many physics-based algorithms have been developed recently to describe the processes of detachment and sediment transport by shallow overland flow. These algorithms commonly have been inspired by the state sediment flux equation [7], the fundamental energy transport equation [8] and the steady state continuity equation for rill and interrill detachment and/or deposition [9]. Sediment transport capacity concepts and relationships, which initially were developed for channels and alluvial rivers, are adopted for use in shallow water flows, and different complexities are widely used in these algorithms. Indeed, most of the mathematical models of soil erosion in shallow waters are borrowed from the field of fluvial sediment transport [10]. There are significant differences between shallow overland flow and deeper channel flow [11]. However, knowledge of the shallow overland flow hydraulics and soil erosion mechanics have been increasing recently, but little research has been published explaining the physical mechanisms of particulate matter wash-off in shallow flow.
As mentioned, sediment transport capacity is a major concept to determine the rates of detachment and deposition in physically-based erosion and sediment transport models. In most of the physically-based models, the erosion process is divided into concentrated flow (rill) erosion and splash and sheet (inter-rill) erosion [7,12,13,14]. The transportability of sediment by overland flow depends on the sediment concentration. During severe rainfall events or high intensity rainfalls, sediment concentration is higher compared to lower rainfall intensity. This is due to the greater power of rainfall in triggering the detachment of soil particles. On the other hand, by increasing the flow depth, sediment concentration decreases and causes the transport capacity to be increased again. Hjulstrom [15] developed a graph to show the relationship between the size of sediments and the velocity required to erode (lift it), transport and deposit the soil particles (Figure 1).
Proffitt [16] expressed that the detachability or re-detachability, and thereby, the amounts of soil loss, is expected to decrease when the overland flow depth is increased. Many laboratory experiments have provided the necessary knowledge to establish better relationships between different hydraulic parameters and sediment transport capacity in shallow waters. This information is the initial component for any physically-based erosion and sediment transport models. For more complex problems involved in the concurrent processes of erosion and sediment transport in non-uniform flows on varying topography or other situations that provide unsteady flows, numerical solutions are required in these models. In situations with simpler scenarios and when assumptions are made, the model can be analytically solved.
Over the past few decades, remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) have been widely used to develop spatially-distributed models of watershed hydrological processes for automated extraction of watershed structure from digital elevation model (DEM), land use/land cover, soils, vegetation maps, etc. [17,18,19,20,21]. Much information such as canopy leaf area index, slope, aspect, contributing drainage area, soil texture or hydraulic conductivity assigned by soil series, and so on, can be automatically imported into the models using remote sensing and GIS techniques.
The structure of this paper is to review most of the available literature concerning sediment transport modelling in shallow waters and to make a classification based on the representational process of the model adopted, and the commonly-used models and their characteristics are listed. Model types are categorized in terms of how the processes of soil detachment, transport and deposition are represented by the model. It provides descriptions of a number of available models that are widely used in the market. The review is expected to be of interest to researchers, decision makers and water quality managers who are concerned with erosion and sediment transport phenomena in shallow waters. This paper will conclude with the major issues of the introduced erosion and sediment transport models, including discussions about the models’ complexity and accuracy, data availability and models’ uncertainties. This review is prepared to provide an overview of the wide range of issues related to the erosion and sediment transport processes in shallow waters. For a detailed analysis of these components, the reader is required to refer to the appropriate references throughout this text prior to modelling.

2. Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport Models

A wide range of soil erosion models has been developed in the past few decades, each differing in terms of complexity, accuracy, inputs and outputs, approaches and their spatial and temporal scales. Generally, based on the physical processes simulated by the model, approaches to generate the data and data dependence, different kinds of models can be categorized into four widely-used models including:
(1)
Empirical models,
(2)
Conceptual models,
(3)
Physically-based models,
(4)
Hybrid models.
The accuracy of soil erosion measurement depends on model type and the considered parameters. For example, Kinnell [22,23] pointed out that both conceptual and empirical models have some inadequacy in characterizing the soil loss in comparison to observed erosion values in bare soils. Models may also be described as hybrids between two or more of these classes. For example, the Identification of unit Hydrographs And Component flows from Rainfall, Evaporation and Streamflow-Water Quality (IHACRES-WQ) model [24] and European SEDiment NETwork (SEDNET) model [25] are hybrid metric-conceptual models. The structure of the models consists of a number of storages and is basically conceptual, while statistical identification procedures are used to determine the number and configuration of storages in each catchment [9].
Most of the studies are performed on bare soils and in some cases on tilled soils covered by grass or mulch. However, natural systems are more complex and represent many variations in terms of spatial and temporal scales, transport media and dimensions and the interactions between detached sediment and attached chemicals. Jakeman et al. [26] stated that environmental modeling is limited by natural complexity, spatial heterogeneity and the lack of available data. As an example, in forested areas, high variability in the spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation and soil properties may be seen. In such areas, different types of surface cover, runoff-generating mechanisms and various spatial and temporal patterns of hydraulic conductivity, infiltration capacity and surface erodibility are experienced [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. These factors can cause different values of sediment generation and deposition.
It should be noted that it is impossible to choose the ‘best’ model among those available, because each model has been developed for a particular purpose and is unable to solve the problem in every situation. A number of factors that should be considered in order to choose an appropriate model for a particular purpose include:
  • Dataset requirements of the model,
  • Fundamental assumptions of the model,
  • The accuracy and validity of the model,
  • Model capabilities and susceptibilities,
  • The components of the model,
  • User-friendliness of the model,
  • The objectives of the model,
  • The scales of the model outputs,
  • Hardware requirements of the model.

2.1. Empirical Models

Empirical models are a simulation of natural processes, mostly based on statistical observations, and rely on developed regression relationships. The computational processes of empirical models are simple, and their data requirements are less than those that are required for conceptual and physically-based models. In this way, it can be said that empirical models are the simplest approach to measure soil erosion and sediment transport when compared to the other three types of models. The difficulty with using empirical models is the inability to be accurately used outside of the geographical area where their relationships were derived. Empirical models also may utilize unrealistic assumptions about the physics of the catchment system and, therefore, ignore the heterogeneity of some catchment inputs such as rainfall and soil types. In addition, it should be noted that the inherent non-linear relations in the catchment system are ignored in empirical models [41].
Morgan [42] introduced three types of analyses for empirical models: (1) black-box analysis, where only the main inputs and outputs are studied; (2) grey-box analysis, where the system’s procedure is explained in more detail; and (3) white-box analysis, where the elements of the system are represented in detail. An advantage of empirical models is their ability to be employed in catchments with limited data, and also the lack of a requirement for complex inputs; thus, they can be considered preferable to more complex conceptual and physically-based models. Empirical models are valuable as a first step in identifying sources of sediment and nutrient generation. At regional scales, with the recognition of sediment residence time and delivery patterns, empirical methods can be applied uniformly to predict the sediment delivery [25]. In the empirical models, the parameter values can be obtained from local calibrations, although sometimes transferred from calibrations at experimental sites [9].
The first investigations resulted in the development of the following empirical models: Sediment Rating Curve [43], Musgrave Equation [44], Dendy–Bolton Method Flaxman Method [45,46], Sediment Delivery Ratio Method [47], Runoff-Sediment Yield Relation [48,49]. Table 1 represents the list of commonly-used empirical models with their characteristics and sources.

2.2. Conceptual Models

Conceptual models are basically a combination of empirical and physically-based models and are more applicable to answering general questions [63]. These models were developed on the basis of spatially-lumped forms of water and the sediment continuity equation [64]. The main focus of a conceptual model is to predict sediment yield, basically using the concept of the unit hydrograph. Conceptual models represent a catchment by its internal storage systems, which typically incorporate the inherent physical processes of runoff generation and sediment transport in their conceptual structure. These models usually unify general descriptions of catchment processes without specifying the process of interactions that would require very detailed catchment information [65]. These models therefore provide an indication of the quantitative and qualitative effects of land use changes within a watershed, without taking into consideration the data that are obtained from spatial and temporal input. The value of each parameter in conceptual models is obtained through calibration against observed data, such as stream discharge and sediment concentration measurements [66]. Therefore, due to this requirement, conceptual models tend to suffer from the identifiability problems of their parameter values [67]. Generally, simple conceptual models have fewer problems with model identification than more complex models. Thus, to minimize the problems with model identification, the number of parameters to be estimated through calibration can be reduced where applicable [41,68]. However, this simplification of models may affect the goodness of fit to calibration data.
The first investigations to derive conceptual models led to the development of the following models: Sediment Concentration Graph [69], Renard–Laursen Model [70], Unit Sediment Graph [71], Instantaneous Unit Sediment Graph [72], Sediment Routing Model [73], Discrete Dynamic Models [74], Muskingum Sediment Routing Model [75]. The list of commonly-used conceptual models and their characteristics and sources are summarized in Table 2.

3. Physically-Based Models

Physically-based models are generally based on the concept of the conservation of mass, momentum equations and energy as governing equations describing streamflow or overland flow, and conservation of mass equation for sediment [98,99]. Most of the developed physically-based soil erosion models that are being used worldwide to predict erosion and sediment yield are not 100% physically-based because mathematical expressions describing each individual process are developed based on the empirical/conceptual approaches and their assumptions and consideration [100]. Physically-based models, in particular, are often over-parametrized [41,101]. Basically, the parameters of physically-based models are independently measurable. However, due to the existence of a large number of complex parameters and the heterogeneity of critical characteristics, especially in catchments, calibration of these parameters with observed data is inevitable [41]. This procedure creates extra uncertainties in parameter values. In this situation, with the large number of parameter values (in some cases, hundreds) that are required to be measured through the mentioned process, the ability to identify the model parameters will become very difficult, and the non-uniqueness of ‘best fit’ solutions can be expected [63].
Generally, the governing equations in physically-based models are derived at a small scale and under very specific physical conditions. However, in many cases, these equations are regularly applied to a greater scale with different physical conditions. Continuous spatial and temporal data have been considered for use in these equations, although it is used most often in practice point source data taken to represent an entire grid cell in the catchment. This manner of scaling up is questionable [102], as these small-scale parameters that are assumed for application in small-scale models have the potential to lose their physical significance when they are applied to larger scales [103]. There is not enough theoretical justification to assume that equations can be used identically at the grid scales that represent the lumped aggregate of heterogeneous sub-grid processes [9]. The mathematical expressions in physically-based models, which are derived to describe individual processes, have many assumptions that may not be relevant in most of the natural conditions [104]. Beven [105] notes that by calibration-based model parameterization, physical distributed models are equal to any conceptual model.
The Erosion Kinematic Wave Models [106,107,108], Quasi-Steady State Erosion [109], ANSWERS (Areal Non-point Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation) [110], CREAMS (Chemical Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems) [111] and Continuum Mechanics Model [112] are among the first examples of researchers’ efforts to develop physically-based models. Table 3 represents the list of commonly-used physically-based models with their characteristics and sources.

Hybrid Models

Hybrid models are a mixture of dynamic and empirical soil erosion evaluation techniques. The structure of hybrid models is usually physical or conceptual at the core, while the configuration of the model in the spatial and temporal scales is based on statistical observations and relies on developed regression relationships. For example, in an empirical-conceptual hybrid model, the structure is conceptualized as a set of storages, and effective rainfalls are modelled at these scales to generate runoff values. In the empirical phase, the statistical identification procedure is applied to determine the metric component of the model, the storage number and configurations per catchment.
Hybrid models developed as soil erosion and sedimentation modelling systems can be used to predict the water erosion vulnerability, soil productivity reduction at hillslopes, catchments and farms and can also assess the optimal management strategies for agricultural or soil and water conservation practices. The list of commonly-used hybrid models and their characteristics and sources are summarized in Table 4.

4. Criteria for the Selection of a Proper Model for Study

Most of the soil erosion and sediment yield and transport models have their own capabilities and limitations based on their complexities, uncertainties, data availability and accuracy, objectives and spatial and temporal scales of study. There are still many difficulties in the understanding and description of event-based procedures that cause erosion, and this may lead to exaggeration of the erosion and sediment yield when combined with the insufficiency and inaccuracy in the interpretation of data. Due to the limitations and difficulties in fully understanding the complexity of natural systems, especially over large watersheds, empirical models are more widely used than physically-based models to solve specific problems in large-scale ecosystems. Furthermore, the large database required by physically-based models is not always easily accessible and available for all watersheds, especially in developing countries.
Many successes and failures derived from different widely-used models that are reported in the literature should be considered precisely by modelers and the agencies that support the models’ development to promote and enhance the usefulness of existing models. Simulated results should be validated and calibrated by comparing with the field-measured data. However, the limitations, capacities and capabilities of the model, sensitivities, uncertainties, assumptions, required inputs and expected results, license costs and other determined physiographic and climatic conditions of models must be studied and considered by users. Based on these criteria, to select a proper model to obtain the desired results, a user should first know what the simulation outputs of the model are. Furthermore, special attention should be given to the spatial (field, catchment, hillslope and regional) and temporal (continuous, event, daily, monthly, seasonal and annual) scales of the model, which are important factors in the selection of a proper tool for a specific study. It is highly recommended to use accredited and validated models that have been previously used to simulate erosion and sediment processes in similar physiographic and climatic conditions. In addition, accurate data are required to obtain reliable results from erosion and sediment prediction models.

5. Conclusions

Soil erosion caused by water as a natural phenomenon appears in different types and has direct and indirect effects on the environment and human life. It reduces the productivity of lands and decreases the useful storage volume of rivers and reservoirs and the service life of many hydraulic structures, like dams, by deposition of sediments. During the past few decades, a large number of soil erosion and sediment transport models has been developed, focusing on various characteristics and capacities. Based on their underlying concept, these models are categorized into four groups: (I) empirical models, (II) conceptual models, (III) physically-based models and (IV) hybrid models.
Among the empirical models, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model is widely described in the literature. Although it was mainly developed based on data from the United States, this model and its latter Revised (RUSLE) and Modified (MUSLE) versions are widely applied all around the world with a large number of subsequently developed models based on this model.
Hydrologic simulation Program, Fortran (HSPF), is considered as a conceptual model that is freely available. It is suitable for large watersheds comprised of both urban and rural areas. HSPF can address the sediment and nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) problems, nutrient and pesticide management, urbanization and ponds. It calculates the amounts of deposition or scour of cohesive sediment based on the bed shear stress. The critical shear stress required for the calculation of deposition and scouring is determined by the user, and deposition or scouring of cohesive bed sediments occurs whenever shear stress is less than or greater than the specified critical shear stress, respectively. The simplified Krone’s equation [156] is used in this model to measure the rate of deposition based on settling velocity, sediment concentration, shear stress and critical shear stress [157]. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model is another conceptual model that is continuously under development and largely used worldwide. SWAT is a regional-scale and continuous-time model, which operates on a daily time step at the basin scale. It can be used to predict both overland and in-stream sediment generation, transportation and deposition, as well as rainfall-runoff and sediment-associated transport of chemicals. Prediction of the long-term impacts of erosion in large basins, as well as the timing of agricultural practices within a year are other applications of this model that cause it to be used frequently. Physically-based models are developed on the basis of the physical description of the soil erosion and sediment transport processes. Working with these models is more complex than other models due to their highly detailed representations of the processes and the requirement of the preparation of extensive data. These issues have caused models such as Limburg Soil Erosion Model (LISEM) and Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) to be less frequently adopted [9] and has led to efforts to develop physically-based erosion and sediment transport models that are simplified and require less data.
However, physically-based models are more capable of operating either on a continuous basis or in an event-based mode, like MIKE-Systeme Hydrologique Europeen (SHE), CASCade 2-Dimentional SEDimentation (CASC2D-SED), Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WESP), SEM, SHE-SEDimentation (SHESED) and EUROpe WIthin Storm Erosion (EUROWISE). The Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI)’s MIKE-SHE is a physically-based watershed model, which also contains several Best Management Practices (BMPs) options, such as wetlands, nutrient and pesticide management. For river hydraulics purposes, MIKE-SHE can be used with MIKE-11. Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) is another model that is used for hydrology, water quality and nutrient analysis, pesticide transport and erosion and sediment yield for field-scale agricultural areas. In this model, the USLE computation methods are used and implemented to measure the rates of erosion and sediment yield. The Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model-2 (KINEROS-2) is the improved version of KINEROS, which is an event-based model suitable to analyze surface runoff and erosion rates over small natural and urban watersheds. KINEROS-2 can consider both concentrated flow (rill) erosion due to flowing water and splash and sheet (inter-rill) erosion resulting from raindrop energy, separately. This model also can prepare the input data and visualize the results is a GIS format. An important disadvantage of this model is its lack of considering the Evapotranspiration (ET) losses. Furthermore, true soil moisture redistribution for long rainfall intervals cannot be formulated in KINEROS-2.
GSSHA (Gridded Surface/Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis) is a 2D physically-based model, which simulates surface and groundwater hydrology. In previous versions of the model, the erosion and sediment component were semi-empirical; however, in recent versions, the sediment transport formulation is based on the USLE soil parameters. There are also different optional methods to simulate erosion and sediment transport, especially using a specific gravity different from sand. Other optional equations to calculate sediment transport include: Kilinc and Richardson [158], Englund Hanson [8] and Stream power [159]. GSSHA inputs can be driven by land use, soil, vegetation and other physiographic maps in GIS format, and it also links the model results with GIS.
DWSM, the Dynamic Watershed Simulation Model, is a storm event, distributed and physically-based model for simulations of surface and ground water flow, soil erosion and transport of sediment and chemicals (nonpoint-source pollutants) in a watershed during a single or a series of rainfall events. DWSM computes the rates of erosion based on the detachability of user-defined soil particles by raindrop impact and also erodibility of soil by flow characteristics. The sediment transport component and the process of scouring and deposition are computed based on the sediment transport capacity of flow using the approximate analytic solution of the temporally- and spatially-varying continuity equation. Drainage patterns and topographic features are considered to delineate the sub-watersheds.
Hybrid models, which apply both metric and physical processes of soil erosion and sedimentation modelling systems, can be used to predict the water erosion vulnerability and the soil productivity reduction at hillslopes, catchments and farms and are also used to assess the optimal management strategies for agricultural or soil and water conservation practices. IHACRES-WQ, SEDNET, THORNES and Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA), in terms of their characteristics and their outputs, can be mentioned as the strongest models among the hybrid models. The determination of an appropriate model depends on the questions and problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore, the spatial and temporal scales, suitability, accuracy and validity of a model in catchment conditions, model assumptions and data requirements should be considered by the user.

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Office of Research & Economic Development of Florida International University, Miami, USA, in support of postdoctoral work that was completed by Mohammad Hajigholizadeh at the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, under the mentoring of Professors Fuentes and Melesse. In this paper, eighty (80) soil erosion and sediment yield models, which are more widely-used among many other models, were reviewed. We appreciate all of the scientific society and researchers who have been working in this field. We also thank the reviewers and the journal officials for providing insightful comments.

Author Contributions

Mohammad Hajigholizadeh conceptualized the idea, conducted the literature review, and led the writing of this paper. The first draft was written by Mohammad Hajigholizadeh and then sent to Hector R. Fuentes and Assefa M. Melesse for their input on the structure, comments and edits. Mohammad Hajigholizadeh and Assefa M. Melesse compiled all the edits and produced the final paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Committee, A.T. Sediment sources and sediment yields. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Hydraul. Div. J. 1970, 7337, 1283–1329. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kuznetsov, M.S.; Gendugov, V.M.; Khalilov, M.S.; Ivanuta, A.A. An equation of soil detachment by flow. Soil Tillage Res. 1998, 46, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wei, H.; Nearing, M.A.; Stone, J.J.; Guertin, D.P.; Spaeth, K.E.; Pierson, F.B.; Nichols, M.H.; Moffet, C.A. A New Splash and Sheet Erosion Equation for Rangelands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1386–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moss, A.J.; Walker, P.H.; Hutka, J. Raindrop-stimulated transportation in shallow water flows: An experimental study. Sediment. Geol. 1979, 22, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pierson, F.B.; Moffet, C.A.; Williams, C.J.; Hardegree, S.P.; Clark, P.E. Prescribed-fire effects on rill and interrill runoff and erosion in a mountainous sagebrush landscape. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2009, 34, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Knapen, A.; Poesen, J.; Govers, G.; Gyssels, G.; Nachtergaele, J. Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2007, 80, 75–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hairsine, P.B.; Rose, C.W. Modeling water erosion due to overland flow using physical principles: 1. Sheet flow. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Engelund, F.; Hansen, E. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams; TU Delf: Delf, The Netherlands, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  9. Merritt, W.S.; Letcher, R.A.; Jakeman, A.J. A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ. Model. Softw. 2003, 18, 761–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guy, B.T.; Dickenson, W.T.; Sohrabi, T.M.; Rudra, R.P. Development of an empirical model for calculating sediment-transport capacity in shallow overland flows: Model calibration. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 103, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jayawardena, A.W.; Bhuiyan, R.R. Evaluation of an interrill soil erosion model using laboratory catchment data. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al-Hamdan, O.Z.; Pierson, F.B.; Nearing, M.A.; Stone, J.J.; Williams, C.J.; Moffet, C.A.; Kormos, P.R.; Boll, J.; Weltz, M.A. Characteristics of concentrated flow hydraulics for rangeland ecosystems: Implications for hydrologic modeling. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2012, 37, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Flanagan, D.C.; Nearing, M.A. USDA—Water Erosion Prediction Project Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Documentation; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
  14. Foster, G.R. Modeling the erosion process. In Hydrol. Model. Small Watersheds; American Society of Agricultural Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 1982; pp. 97–380. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hjulstrom, F. Studies of the Morphological Activity of Rivers as Illustrated by the River Fyris. Ph.D. Thesis, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, Sweden, 1935. [Google Scholar]
  16. Proffitt, A.P.B.; Rose, C.W.; Hairsine, P.B. Rainfall Detachment and Deposition: Experiments with Low Slopes and Significant Water Depths. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991, 55, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Brakenridge, G.R.; Kettner, A.J.; Beck, H.E.; de Groeve, T.; Schellekens, J. River gauging at global scale using optical and passive microwave remote sensing. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 6404–6418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Recanatesi, F.; Petroselli, A.; Ripa, M.; Leone, A.L.-J. Assessment of stormwater runoff management practices and BMPs under soil sealing: A study case in a peri-urban watershed of the metropolitan area of Rome (Italy). J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 201, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Burns, I.S.; Scott, S.; Levick, L.; Hernandez, M.; Goodrich, D.C.; Miller, S.N.; Semmens, D.J.; Kepner, W.G. Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA)-A GIS-Based Hydrologic Modeling Tool. 2004. Available online: http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/agwa/ (accessed on 14 March 2018).
  20. Mitasova, H.; Hofierka, J.; Zlocha, M.; Iverson, L.R. Modelling topographic potential for erosion and deposition using GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1996, 10, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bolognesi, M.; Farina, G.; Alvisi, S.; Franchini, M.; Pellegrinelli, A.; Russo, P. Measurement of surface velocity in open channels using a lightweight remotely piloted aircraft system. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017, 8, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kinnell, P.I.A. Simulations demonstrating interaction between coarse and fine sediment loads in rain-impacted flow. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2006, 31, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kinnell, P.I.A. Raindrop-impact-induced erosion processes and prediction: A review. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19, 2815–2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jakeman, A.J.; Littlewood, I.G.; Whitehead, P.G. Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments. J. Hydrol. 1990, 117, 275–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prosser, I.P.; Young, B.; Rustomji, P.; Hughes, A.; Moran, C. A model of river sediment budgets as an element of river health assessment. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM’2001), Canberra, Australia, 10–13 December 2001; pp. 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jakeman, A.J.; Green, T.R.; Beavis, S.G.; Zhang, L.; Dietrich, C.R.; Crapper, P.F. Modelling upland and instream erosion, sediment and phosphorus transport in a large catchment. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Appelboom, T.W.; Chescheir, G.M.; Skaggs, R.W.; Hesterberg, D.L. Management practices for sediment reduction from forest roads in the coastal plains. Trans. ASAE 2002, 45, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Atwell, B.H.; MacDonald, R.B.; Bartolucci, L.A. Thermal Mapping of Streams from Airborne Radiometric Scanning; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bonell, M. Progress in the understanding of runoff generation dynamics in forests. J. Hydrol. 1993, 150, 217–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bonell, M.; Gilmour, D.A. The development of overland flow in a tropical rainforest catchment. J. Hydrol. 1978, 39, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. Water in Environmental Planning; Macmillan: London, UK, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang, J.; Lacey, S.T.; Ryan, P.J. Impact of Forest Harvesting on the Hydraulic Properties of Surface Soil. Soil Sci. 1996, 161, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Incerti, M.; Clinnick, P.F.; Willatt, S.T. Changes in the physical properties of a forest soil following logging. Aust. For. Res. 1987, 17, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnson, M.G.; Beschta, R.L. Logging, infiltration capacity, and surface erodibility in western Oregon. J. For. 1980, 78, 334–337. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ketcheson, G.L.; Megahan, W.F.; King, J.G. “R1–R4” and “BOISED” sediment prediction model tests using forest roads in granitics. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1999, 35, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lisle, T.E. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water Resour. Res. 1989, 25, 1303–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ziegler, A.D.; Sutherland, R.A.; Giambelluca, T.W. Interstorm surface preparation and sediment detachment by vehicle traffic on unpaved mountain roads. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2001, 26, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Coe, D.B.R. Sediment Production and Delivery from Forest Roads in the Sierra Nevada, California; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. MacDonald, L.H.; Coe, D.; Litschert, S. Assessing Cumulative Watershed Effects in the Central Sierra Nevada: Hillslope Measurements and Catchment-Scale Modeling; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
  40. Stafford, A.K. Sediment Production and Delivery from Hillslopes and Forest Roads in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California. Master’s Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wheater, H.S.; Jakeman, A.J.; Beven, K.J. Progress and Directions in Rainfall-Runoff Modelling; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  42. Morgan, M. The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. Campbell, F.B.; Bauder, H.A. A rating-curve method for determining silt-discharge of streams. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1940, 21, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Musgrave, G.W. The quantitative evaluation of factors in water erosion, a first approximation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1947, 2, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dendy, F.E.; Bolton, G.C. Sediment yield-runoff-drainage area relationships in the United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1976, 31, 264–266. [Google Scholar]
  46. Flaxman, E.M. Predicting Sediment Yield in Western-United-States. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1974, 100, 693–695. [Google Scholar]
  47. Renfro, G.W. Use of erosion equations and sediment delivery ratios for predicting sediment yield. In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1975; pp. 33–45. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rendon-Herrero, O. Estimation of washload produced on certain small watersheds. J. Hydraul. Div. 1974, 100, 835–848. [Google Scholar]
  49. Singh, V.P.; Baniukiwicz, A.; Chen, V.J. An Instantaneous Unit Sediment Graph Study for Small Upland Watersheds. In Applied Modeling in Catchment Hydrology; Water Resources Publications: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 534–554. [Google Scholar]
  50. PSIAC Report—“Factors Affecting Sediment Yield and Measures for the Reduction of Erosion and Sediment Yield”. Available online: http://allaboutwatersheds.org/library/PSIAC%20report.pdf/view (accessed on 31 October 1968).
  51. Williams, J.R.; Berndt, H.D. Sediment Yield Prediction Based on Watershed Hydrology. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1977, 20, 1100–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses—A guide to conservation planning. In Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning; Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; pp. 537–539. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stocking, M. A Working Model for the Estimation of Soil Loss Suitable for Underdeveloped Areas; School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  54. Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A.; Porter, J.P. RUSLE: Revised universal soil loss equation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1991, 46, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  55. Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Yoder, D.C.; McCool, D.K. RUSLE revisited: Status, questions, answers, and the future. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1994, 49, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nearing, M.A.; Simanton, J.R.; Norton, L.D.; Bulygin, S.J.; Stone, J. Soil erosion by surface water flow on a stony, semiarid hillslope. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1999, 24, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ferro, V.; Porto, P. Sediment Delivery Distributed (SEDD) Model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2000, 5, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Takken, I.; Jetten, V.; Govers, G.; Nachtergaele, J.; Steegen, A. The effect of tillage-induced roughness on runoff and erosion patterns. Geomorphology 2001, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meyer, C.R.; Flanagan, D.C.; Fu, H.L.; Lown, J.B.; Wagner, L.E.; Gu, Y.W. MOSES, a common graphical user interface for multiple erosion models. In Proceedings of the ASA Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA, 21 April 1997. [Google Scholar]
  60. Meyer, C.R.; Wagner, L.E.; Yoder, D.C.; Flanagan, D.C. The modular soil erosion system (MOSES). In Soil Erosion; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2001; p. 358. [Google Scholar]
  61. Copeland, C. Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMLDs) of Pollutants; Congressional Research Service CRS: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
  62. Syvitski, J.P.M.; Milliman, J.D. Geology, Geography, and Humans Battle for Dominance over the Delivery of Fluvial Sediment to the Coastal Ocean. J. Geol. 2007, 115, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Beck, M.B. Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23, 1393–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lal, R. Soil Erosion Research Methods; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sorooshian, S. Parameter estimation, model identification, and model validation: Conceptual-type models. In Recent Advances in the Modeling of Hydrologic Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 443–467. [Google Scholar]
  66. Abbott, M.B.; Bathurst, J.C.; Cunge, J.A.; O’Connell, P.E.; Rasmussen, J. An introduction to the European Hydrological System—Systeme Hydrologique Europeen ‘SHE’ 1: History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modelling system. J. Hydrol. 1986, 87, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jakeman, A.J.; Hornberger, G.M. How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model? Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 2637–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kleissen, F.M.; Beck, M.B.; Wheater, H.S. The identifiability of conceptual hydrochemical models. Water Resour. Res. 1990, 26, 2979–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Johnson, J. Distribution graphs of suspended-matter concentration. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1943, 108, 941–956. [Google Scholar]
  70. Renard, K.G.; Laursen, E.M. Dynamic behavior model of ephemeral stream. J. Hydraul. Div. 1975, 101, 511–528. [Google Scholar]
  71. Rendon-Herrero, O. Unit sediment graph. Water Resour. Res. 1978, 14, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Williams, J.R. A sediment graph model based on an instantaneous unit sediment graph. Water Resour. Res. 1978, 14, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Williams, J.R.; Hann, R. Optimal Operation of Large Agricultural Watersheds with Water Quality Constraints; Technical Report; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sharma, T.C.; Dickinson, W.T. Discrete dynamic model of watershed sediment yield. J. Hydraul. Div. 1979, 105, 555–571. [Google Scholar]
  75. Singh, V.P.; Quiroga, C.A. A dam-breach erosion model: I. Formulation. Water Resour. Manag. 1987, 1, 177–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Beven, K.J.; Kirkby, M.J. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 1979, 24, 43–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Johanson, R.C.; Davis, H.H. Users Manual for Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF); Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1980; Volume 80.
  78. Williams, J.R.; Jones, C.A.; Dyke, P.T. The EPIC model and its application. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Minimum Data Sets for Agrotechnology Transfer, Patancheru, India, 21–26 March 1984; pp. 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  79. Young, R.A.; Onstad, C.A.; Bosch, D.D.; Anderson, W.P. AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1989, 44, 168–173. [Google Scholar]
  80. Arnold, J.G.; Allen, P.M.; Bernhardt, G. A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J. Hydrol. 1993, 142, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Arnold, J.G.; Soil, G. SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool); Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, USDA, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
  82. USEPA. SWRRBWQ: Window’s Interface User’s Guide; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
  83. Schulze, R.E. Hydrology and Agrohydrology: A Text to Accompany the ACRU 3.00 Agrohydrological Modelling System; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South African, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  84. McCown, R.L.; Hammer, G.L.; Hargreaves, J.N.G.; Holzworth, D.P.; Freebairn, D.M. APSIM: A novel software system for model development, model testing and simulation in agricultural systems research. Agric. Syst. 1996, 50, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Krysanova, V.; Müller-Wohlfeil, D.-I.; Becker, A. Development and test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water quality model for mesoscale watersheds. Ecol. Model. 1998, 106, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Simons, M.; Podger, G.; Cooke, R. IQQM—A hydrologic modelling tool for water resource and salinity management. Environ. Softw. 1996, 11, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Favis-Mortlock, D.T. An evolutionary approach to the simulation of rill initiation and development. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Geocomputation, Leeds, UK, 17–19 September 1996; Volume 1, pp. 248–281. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kirkby, M.L.; McMahon, M.J. MEDRUSH and the Catsop basin—The lessons learned. CATENA 1999, 37, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Viney, N.; Sivapalan, M. A conceptual model of sediment transport: Application to the Avon River Basin in Western Australia. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 727–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kinnell, P. AGNPS-UM: Applying the USLE-M within the agricultural non point source pollution model. Environ. Model. Softw. 2000, 15, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vertessy, R.; Watson, F.; Rahman, J. New software to aid water quality management in the catchments and waterways of the south-east Queensland region. In Proceedings of the Third Australian Stream Management Conference: The Value of Healthy Streams, Brisbane, Australia, 27–29 August 2001. [Google Scholar]
  92. Cerdan, O.; Souchère, V.; Lecomte, V.; Couturier, A. Incorporating soil surface crusting processes in an expert-based runoff model: Sealing and Transfer by Runoff and Erosion related to Agricultural Management. CATENA 2002, 46, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Le Bissonnais, Y.; Montier, C.; Jamagne, M.; Daroussin, J.; King, D. Mapping erosion risk for cultivated soil in France. CATENA 2002, 46, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Coulthard, T.J.; Macklin, M.G.; Kirkby, M.J. A cellular model of Holocene upland river basin and alluvial fan evolution. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2002, 27, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Luo, Q. A distributed surface flow model for watersheds with large water bodies and channel loops. J. Hydrol. 2007, 337, 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Futter, M.N.; Butterfield, D.; Cosby, B.J.; Dillon, P.J.; Wade, A.J.; Whitehead, P.G. Modeling the mechanisms that control in-stream dissolved organic carbon dynamics in upland and forested catchments. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Davison, P.S.; Withers, P.J.A.; Lord, E.I.; Betson, M.J.; Strömqvist, J. PSYCHIC—A process-based model of phosphorus and sediment mobilisation and delivery within agricultural catchments. Part 1: Model description and parameterisation. J. Hydrol. 2008, 350, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bennett, J.P. Concepts of mathematical modeling of sediment yield. Water Resour. Res. 1974, 10, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kandel, D.D.; Western, A.W.; Grayson, R.B.; Turral, H.N. Process parameterization and temporal scaling in surface runoff and erosion modelling. Hydrol. Process. 2004, 18, 1423–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pandey, A.; Himanshu, S.; Mishra, S.; Catena, V.S. Physically based soil erosion and sediment yield models revisited. CATENA 2016, 147, 595–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Beven, K. Changing ideas in hydrology—The case of physically-based models. J. Hydrol. 1989, 105, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lane, L.J.; Nichols, M.H.; Paige, G.B. Modeling erosion on hillslopes: Concepts, theory and data. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Newcastle, UK, 25–27 November 1995; Binning, P., Bridg, H., Williams, B., Eds.; 1995; Volume 1, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  103. Seyfried, M.S.; Wilcox, B.P. Scale and the nature of spatial variability: Field examples having implications for hydrologic modeling. Water Resour. Res. 1995, 31, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dunin, F. Prediction in catchment hydrology. In Proceedings of the National Symposium on Hydrology, Canberra, Australia, 28–31 July 1975. [Google Scholar]
  105. Beven, K. Spatially distributed modeling: Conceptual approach to runoff prediction. In Recent Advances in the Modeling of Hydrologic Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 373–387. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hjelmfelt, A.T., Jr.; Piest, R.P.; Saxton, K.E. Mathematical modeling of erosion on upland areas. In Fundam. Tools to Be Used Environ. Probl. Proceedings Outil. Fondam. Util Pour Resoudre les Probl. D’environnement Comptes-Rendus; International Association for Hydraulic Research: Congress São Paulo, Brazil, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  107. Lane, L.J.; Shirley, E.D. Mathematical Simulation of Erosion of Upland Area. Unpubl. Manuscr. Rev. Publ. 1978; unpublished manuscript in review for publication. [Google Scholar]
  108. Singh, V.P.; Regl, R.R. Analytical solutions of kinematic equations for erosion on a plane I. Rainfall of indefinite duration. Adv. Water Resour. 1983, 6, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Foster, G.R.; Meyer, L.D.; Onstad, C.A. An erosion equation derived from basic erosion principles. Trans. ASAE 1977, 20, 678–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Beasley, D.B.; Huggins, L.F.; Monke, E.J. ANSWERS: A Model for Watershed Planning. Trans. ASAE 1980, 23, 938–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Knisel, W. CREAMS: A Field-Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1980; p. 640.
  112. Prasad, S.N.; Singh, V.P. Hydrodynamic Model of Sediment Transport in Rill Flows. In Recent Developments in the Explanation and Prediction of Erosion and Sediment Yield; Walling, D.E., Ed.; International Association of Hydrological Sciences: Wallingford, CT, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  113. Williams, J.R. Spnm, a Model for Predicting Sediment, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen Yields from Agricultural Basins. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1980, 16, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. O’Loughlin, E.M. Prediction of Surface Saturation Zones in Natural Catchments by Topographic Analysis. Water Resour. Res. 1986, 22, 794–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Abbott, M.B.; Bathurst, J.C.; Cunge, J.A.; O’connell, P.E.; Rasmussen, J. An introduction to the European Hydrological System—Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, ‘SHE’, 2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modelling system. J. Hydrol. 1986, 87, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lopez-Garcia, M.J.; Caselles, V. Use of Thematic Mapper data to assess water quality in Albufera Lagoon of Valencia (Spain). In Advances in Digital Image Processing; Remote Sensing Society: Nottingham, UK, 1987; pp. 510–519. [Google Scholar]
  117. Storm, B.; Jorgensen, G.H. Simulation of water flow and soil erosion processes with a distributed physically-based modelling system. In Forest Hydrology and Watershed Management; Swanson, R.H., Bernier, P.Y., Woodard, P.D., Eds.; International Association of Hydrological Sciences: Wallingford, CT, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  118. Wicks, J.M. Physically-Based Mathematical Modelling of Catchment Sediment Yield; Newcastle University: Newcastle, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  119. Riggins, R.E.; Ward, T.J.; Hodge, W. Volume II: Program documentation. In ARMSED, a Runoff and Sediment Yield Model for Army Training Land Watershed Management; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  120. Borah, D.K.D.K. Runoff Simulation Model for Small Watersheds. Trans. ASAE 1989, 32, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Woolhiser, D.; Smith, R.-E.; Goodrich, D.-C. KINEROS, a Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model: Documentation and User Manual; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; p. 130.
  122. Laflen, J.M.; Lane, L.J.; Foster, G.R. WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction technology. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1991, 46, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  123. Littleboy, M.; Silburn, D.M.; Freebairn, D.M.; Woodruff, D.R.; Hammer, G.L.; Leslie, J.K. Impact of soil erosion on production in cropping systems. I. Development and validation of a simulation model. Soil Res. 1992, 30, 757–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Smith, R.E. Volume 1, documentation. Research report. In OPUS: An Integrated Simulation Model for Transport of Nonpoint-Source Pollutants at the Field Scale; Western Utilization Research and Development Div.: Albany, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  125. Knisel, W.G.; Davis, F.M. GLEAMS Version 3.0 User Manual; Report SEWRL-WGK/FMD-050199; USDA-ARS-SEWRL: Tifton, GA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  126. Schramm, M. Ein Erosionsmodell Mit Zeitlich und Raumlich Veranderlicher Rillengeometrie; Mitteilungen No. 190 Inst. f. Wasserbau u. Kulturtechnik; Universität Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe, Germany, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  127. Kirkby, M.J.; Cox, N.J. A climatic index for soil erosion potential (CSEP) including seasonal and vegetation factors. CATENA 1995, 25, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Von Werner, M. GIS-Orientierte Methoden der Digitalen Reliefanalyse zur Modellierung von Bodenerosion in kleinen Einzugsgebieten. Ph.D. Thesis, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  129. De Roo, A.P.J.; Wesseling, C.G.; Ritsema, C.J. Lisem: A Single-Event Physically Based Hydrological and Soil Erosion Model for Drainage Basins. I: Theory, Input and Output. Hydrol. Process. 1996, 10, 1107–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bathurst, J.C.; Kilsby, C.; White, S.; Brandt, C.J.; Thornes, J.B. Modelling the Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Change on Basin Hydrology and Soil Erosion in Mediterranean Europe. In Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1996; pp. 355–387. [Google Scholar]
  131. Rose, C.W.; Coughlan, K.J.; Ciesiolka, C.A.A.; Fentie, B. Program GUEST (Griffith University Erosion System Template). In A New Soil Conservation Methodology and Application to Cropping Systems in Tropical Steeplands; ACIAR Technical Report; Coughlan, K.J., Rose, C.W., Eds.; ACIAR: Canberra, Australia, 1997; pp. 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  132. Mitas, L.; Mitasova, H. Distributed soil erosion simulation for effective erosion prevention. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Morgan, R.P.C.; Quinton, J.N.; Smith, R.E.; Govers, G.; Poesen, J.W.A.; Chisci, G.; Torri, D. The EUROSEM Model. In Modelling Soil Erosion by Water; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
  134. Torri, D.; Morgan, R.P.C. Modelling within-storm soil erosion dynamics. Presented at European Climate Science Conference, Vienna, Austria, 19–23 October 1998. [Google Scholar]
  135. Hanley, N.; Faichney, R.; Munro, A.; Shortle, J.S. Economic and environmental modelling for pollution control in an estuary. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 52, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Woodward, D.E. Method to predict cropland ephemeral gully erosion. CATENA 1999, 37, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. De Jong, S.M.; Paracchini, M.L.; Bertolo, F.; Folving, S.; Megier, J.; de Roo, A.P.J. Regional assessment of soil erosion using the distributed model SEMMED and remotely sensed data. CATENA 1999, 37, 291–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Johnson, B.E.; Julien, P.Y.; Molnar, D.K.; Watson, C.C. The Two-Dimensional Upland EROSION Model CASC2D-SED1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2000, 36, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Van Oost, K.; Govers, G.; Desmet, P. Evaluating the effects of changes in landscape structure on soil erosion by water and tillage. Landsc. Ecol. 2000, 15, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kirkby, M.J.; le Bissonais, Y.; Coulthard, T.J.; Daroussin, J.; McMahon, M.D. The development of land quality indicators for soil degradation by water erosion. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 81, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Tucker, G.E.; Lancaster, S.; Gasparini, N.; Bras, R. The Channel-Hillslope Integrated Landscape Development Model (CHILD). In Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 349–388. [Google Scholar]
  142. Torri, D.; Borselli, L.; Poesen, J.; Nachtergaele, J.; Morgan, R.; Quinton, J.; Albaladejo, J.; Castillo, V.; Mena, M.; Sardo, V.; et al. Modelling within storm soil erosion dynamics (MWISED). ESSC Newslett. 2002, 1, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  143. Goodrich, D.C.; Unkrich, C.L.; Smith, R.E.; Woolhiser, D.A. KINEROS2—A distributed kinematic runoff and erosion model. In Proceedings of the Hydrologic Modeling for the 21st Century, Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 28 July–1 August 2002. [Google Scholar]
  144. Downer, C.W.; Ogden, F.L. GSSHA: Model to Simulate Diverse Stream Flow Producing Processes. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2004, 9, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Borah, D.; Bera, M.; Shaw, S.; Keefer, L. Dynamic Modeling and Monitoring of Water, Sediment, Nutrients, and Pesticides in Agricultural Watersheds during Storm Events. Available online: ideals.illinois.edu (accessed on 2 February 2017).
  146. Gordon, L. REGEM: The Revised Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model. In Proceedings of the Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (8th FISC), Reno, NV, USA, 2–6 April 2006. [Google Scholar]
  147. White, E.D.; Easton, Z.M.; Fuka, D.R.; Collick, A.S.; Adgo, E.; McCartney, M.; Awulachew, S.B.; Selassie, Y.G.; Steenhuis, T.S. Development and application of a physically based landscape water balance in the SWAT model. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Morgan, R.P.C.; Morgan, D.D.V.; Finney, H.J. A predictive model for the assessment of soil erosion risk. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1984, 30, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Thornes, J.B. The ecology of erosion. Geography 1985, 70, 222–235. [Google Scholar]
  150. XP-SOFTWARE. XP-AQUALM—Technical Descriptio; XP Software: Canberra Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  151. Jakeman, A.J.; Post, D.A.; Schreider, S.Y.; Ye, W. Modelling Environmental Systems: Partitioning the Water Balance at Different Catchment Scales; Comput. Mech. Inc.: Billerica, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  152. Jakeman, A.J.; Post, D.A.; Beck, M.B. From data and theory to environmental model: The case of rainfall runoff. Environmetrics 1994, 5, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. National Land and Water Resources Audit. Australian Agriculture Assessment 2001; NLWRA: Canberra, Australia, 2001.
  154. Barnes, J.; Pelletier, J. Erosion Mapping of the Bolivian Central Andes Using the Stream Power Law and a Digital Elevation Model; Short www communication, Department of GeoSciences, University of Arizona: Tuscon, AZ, USA, 2001; Volume 85721.
  155. MIKE BASIN. A Versatile Decision Support Tool for Integrated Water Resources Management Planning [R/OL]; The Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI): Hørsholm, Denmark, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  156. Krone, R. Flume Studies of the Transport of Sediment in Estuarial Shoaling Processes; Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory and Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  157. Kalin, L.; Hantush, M.M. Assessment of Two Physically-Based Watershed Models Based on Their Performances of Simulating Water and Sediment Movement. Available online: http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov (accessed on 15 February 2017).
  158. Kilinc, M.; Richardson, E.V. Mechanics of Soil Erosion from Overland Flow Generated by Simulated Rainfall. Available online: dspace.library.colostate.edu (accessed on 15 February 2017).
  159. Bagnold, R.A. An Approach to the Sediment Transport Problem from General Physics; U.S. Geological Survey: Riston, VA, USA, 1966; p. 42.
Ijerph 15 00518 g001 550
Figure 1. The Hjulstrom diagram. Source: Wikipedia.
Figure 1. The Hjulstrom diagram. Source: Wikipedia.
Ijerph 15 00518 g001
Table
Table 1. Empirical soil erosion models.
Table 1. Empirical soil erosion models.
ModelNameSpatial ScaleTemporal ScaleData DemandOutputOverland SedimentIn-Stream SedimentGully ErosionRainfall-RunoffSediment-Associated ChemicalsSource
Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *
PSIACPacific Southwest Interagency Committee MethodCatchment, FieldAnnual High sediment yieldNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYesNo[50]
MUSLEModified Universal Soil Loss EquationHillslope Annual HighErosionYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo[51]
USLEUniversal Soil Loss Equation HillslopeAnnualHighErosionYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo[52]
SLEMSASoil Loss Estimation Model for Southern AfricaCatchment Annual High Soil loss, sheet erosionYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo[53]
RUSLERevised Universal Soil Loss EquationHillslope Annual HighErosionYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo[54,55]
EPMErosion Potential MethodCatchment, FieldAnnual High Erosion, sediment yieldYesNoNoNoNoNoYesYesNo[56]
SEDDSediment Delivery DistributedHillslope, Catchment Annual, EventHigh Erosion, sediment yieldYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNo[57]
TCRPTillage-Controlled Runoff Pattern model FieldAbstractLowGully formation, runoffNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYesNo[58]
MOSESModular Soil Erosion System projectHillslopeAnnualHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNo[59,60]
TMDLTotal Maximum Daily LoadCatchment Annual LowSedimentNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYes[61]
BQARTNot FoundGlobal/RegionalAnnualHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo[62]
Note: Gen. * = Generation; Trans. * = Transportation; Dep. * = Deposition.
Table
Table 2. Conceptual soil erosion models.
Table 2. Conceptual soil erosion models.
ModelNameSpatial ScaleTemporal ScaleData DemandOutputOverland SedimentIn-Stream SedimentGully ErosionRainfall-RunoffSediment-Associated ChemicalsSource
Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *
TOPMODEL TOPMODEL HillslopeDailyMedium Sediment yield, runoffNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYes[76]
HSPFHydrologic simulation Program, FortranCatchment DailyHighSediment load, runoff, flow rate, nutrient YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes[77]
EPIC Erosion-Productivity Impact Calculator FieldDailyHighSediment load, nutrientYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYes[78]
AGNPS Agricultural Non-Point Source pollution model Catchment DailyHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rate, pollutantsYesNoNoYesYesYesYesYesYes[79]
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool RegionalDailyMedium Erosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rate, nutrientYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[80,81]
SWRRB Simulator for Water Resources in Rural BasinsCatchment DailyHighsediment, streamflow, nutrient and pesticide yieldsYesNoNoYesYesYesNoYesYes[82]
ACRUAgricultural Catchment Research Unit Catchment DailyLowErosion, sediment yield, runoff, flow rateYesNoNoYesNoNoYesYesYes[83]
APSIM Agricultural Production SimulatorFieldDailyHighErosion, nutrientYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[84]
SWIM Soil and Water Integrated Model RegionalDailyMedium Sediment load, runoff, nutrientYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYes[85]
IQQM Integrated Water Quality and Quantity Model Regional DailyMedium Sediment load, suspended sediments, pollutants transport, salt fluxesYesNoNoYesNoNoNoYesYes[86]
RillGrow 1 and 2 RillGrow 1 and 2 Plot Abstract HighRill formationYesYesYesNoNoNoYesNoNo[87]
MEDRUSH MEdalus Desertification Response Unit SHeCatchment Hourly Highsediment transport, net erosion, runoff, soil moisture profiles YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes[88]
LASCAM Large Scale Catchment Model Catchment DailyHighSediment load, runoff, salt fluxesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo[89]
AGNPS-UM Agricultural Non-Point Source pollution model, modified Catchment DailyHighSuspended sediments, runoff, nutrientYesNoNoYesYesYesYesYesYes[90]
EMSS Environmental Monitoring Support System Catchment DailyLowSediment load, runoff, nutrientNoNoNoYesYesYesYesYesYes[91]
SEDNETEuropean SEDiment NETworkCatchmentSteady-StateModerateSuspended sediment, sediment distribution, overland flowYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYes[25]
STREAM Sealing, Transfer, Runoff, Erosion, Agricultural Modification model Catchment EventHighErosion, sediment generation and transportYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo[92]
SERAE Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Europe model Regional AnnualMedium ErosionYesNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYes[93]
CAESAR Cellular Automaton Evolutionary Slope and River modelCatchment-RegionalAnnualHighErosion, sediment transportYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo[94]
WILSIM Web-based Interactive Landform Simulation ModelHillslopeAbstract HighErosion, sediment transportYesNoNoYesNoNoNoNoNo[95]
INCA-C Integrated Catchments Model for CarbonCatchment DailyDailySuspended sediments, runoff, Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[96]
PSYCHIC Phosphorus and Sediment Yield Characterization in CatchmentsCatchment DailyHighSediment load, nutrientYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[97]
Note: Gen. * = Generation; Trans. * = Transportation; Dep. * = Deposition.
Table
Table 3. Physically-based soil erosion models.
Table 3. Physically-based soil erosion models.
ModelNameSpatial ScaleTemporal ScaleData DemandOutputOverland SedimentIn-Stream SedimentGully ErosionRainfall-RunoffSediment-Associated ChemicalsSource
Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *Gen. * Trans. *Dep. *
ANSWERS Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response SimulationSmall CatchmentEventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rate, nutrientsYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[110]
CREAMSChemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems Field/
Plot		MonthlyHighErosion, depositionYesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesYes[111]
SPNMSediment–Phosphorus–Nitrogen ModelHillslope/
Catchment 		EventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, nutrientsNoNoNoYesYesYesNoYesYes[113]
TOPOGThe Terrain Analysis Hydrologic ModelHillslope/
Catchment 		DailyHighErosion hazard, water logging, solute transportYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[114]
MIKE-SHESysteme Hydrologique Europeen (French acronym for “European Hydrologic System”)Hillslope/
Catchment 		EventHighErosion and sediment yieldYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo[66,115]
WESP Watershed Erosion Prediction Project Small CatchmentEventMediumErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo[116]
SEM Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport ModelCatchment EventHighErosion, sediment yieldYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo[117]
SHESEDSHE- SEDimentationHillslope/
Catchment 		EventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[118]
ARMSEDArmy Multiple Watershed Storm Water and Sediment Runoff Small CatchmentEventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[119]
RUNOFF No acronymSmall CatchmentEventLowErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rateYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[120]
KINEROS Kinematic Runoff and Erosion ModelHillslope/
Small Catchment		EventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rateYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo[121]
WEPP Watershed Erosion Prediction ProjectHillslope/
Catchment 		DailyHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo[122]
PERFECTProductivity, Erosion and Runoff, Functions to Evaluate Conservation TechniquesFieldDailyHighErosion, runoff, crop yieldNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesYes[123]
OPUSNo acronymField/
Small Catchment		DailyHighErosion, suspended sediments, runoff, nutrientYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[124]
GLEAMSGroundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems FieldDailyHighErosion, sediment yieldYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesYes[125]
PEPPProcess-oriented Erosion Prediction ProgramHillslope/
small catchment 		EventHighErosion, deposition and sediment and phosphorous transportYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[126]
CSEPClimatic Index for Soil Erosion PotentialRegional/
Hillslope		Monthly/
Event		HighSediment yield, runoffYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo[127]
EROSION-3DEROSION-3D Field/
small catchment 		EventHighSediments dynamicsYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYes[128]
HEMHillslope Erosion ModelHillslopeEventHighErosion, sediment yield, sediment concentration, runoffYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[102]
LISEMLimburg Soil Erosion ModelSmall catchmentEventHighSediment yield, runoffYesNoNoYesYesYesNoYesYes[129]
SHETRANEuropean Distributed Basin Flow and Transport Modelling SystemPlot/
catchment 		EventHighSediment yield, erosion/
deposition, pollutants transport		YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[130]
GUESTGriffiths University Erosion System Template PlotSteady StateHighSuspended sediment, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[131]
SIMWESIMulation of Water ErosionCatchment EventHighErosion, sediment transport and deposition, gully formationYesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesNo[132]
EUROSEMEuropean Soil Erosion ModelCatchment EventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo[133]
EUROWISEEUROpe WIthin Storm ErosionCatchmentEventMediumErosion, sediment yield, runoff, gully formationYesNoNoYesYesYesYesYesNo[134]
MIKE-11Mike (named partially after the author Michael, Mike Abbott)CatchmentDailyHighSediment yield, runoffNoNoNoYesYesYesNoYesYes[135]
EGEMEphemeral Gully Erosion ModelFieldEventMediumGully formationNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNoNo[136]
SEMMEDSoil Erosion Model for Mediterranean AreasRegionalAnnualMediumErosion, deposition and sediment transportYesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesNo[137]
CASC2D-SEDCASCade 2-Dimentional SEDimentationCatchmentEventHighSediment yield, erosion/
deposition		YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo[138]
WATEMWater and Tillage Erosion ModelFieldAbstractLowErosion, deposition and sediment transportYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo[139]
PESERAPan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment modelRegionalAnnualMediumErosion, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[140]
CHILDChannel-Hillslope Integrated Landscape DevelopmentHillslope/
catchment		EventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, gully formationNoNoNoYesYesYesYesYesNo[141]
MWISEDModelling Within-Storm Sediment Dynamics FieldEventHighErosion, sediment yield, gully formationNoYesNoYesYesYesYesNoNo[142]
KINEROS2Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model-2CatchmentEventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rateYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[143]
GSSHAGridded Surface/
Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis		CatchmentEventMediumOverland erosion, sediment transport, detachment, raindrop impact, and depositionYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo[144]
DWSMDynamic Watershed Simulation ModelHillslope/
catchment		EventHigherosion, sediment yield, surface and underground runoff, flood agrochemical transportYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYes[145]
REGEMRevised Ephemeral Gully Erosion ModelCatchmentEventHighErosion, sediment yield, runoff, gully formationYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes[146]
SWAT-WBSoil and Water Assessment Tool-Water BalanceRegionalDailyMediumErosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rate, nutrientYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYes[147]
Note: Gen. * = Generation; Trans. * = Transportation; Dep. * = Deposition.
Table
Table 4. Hybrid soil erosion models.
Table 4. Hybrid soil erosion models.
ModelNameSpatial ScaleTemporal ScaleData DemandOutputOverland SedimentIn-Stream SedimentGully ErosionRainfall-RunoffSediment-Associated ChemicalsSource
Gen. *Trans. *Dep. *Gen. * Trans. *Dep. *
MMMFModified Morgan, Morgan and FinneyHillslopeAnnual High Erosion, sediment yield and distribution, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesNo[148]
THORNESThornes modelHillslope/Catchment EventMedium Erosion, runoffYesYesYesNoNoNoNoYesNo[149]
AQUALMNetworked Storm Water Quality ModelSmall Catchments Daily Medium Suspended sediments, runoff and pollutant transportNoNoNoYesYesNoNoYesYes[150]
USPED Unit Stream Power-based Erosion DepositionHillslopeAnnual/EventMedium ErosionYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo[20]
IHACRES-WQIdentification of unit Hydrographs and Component flows from Rainfall, Evaporation and Streamflow-Water QualityCatchmentDailyLowErosion, sediment yield, runoff, nutrientsnononoYesYesYesYesYesYes[24,151,152]
SEDNETSediment river network modelRegional/CatchmentAnnualHigh Sediment load and distribution, suspended sediments, runoff, nutrientsYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo[153]
SPLStream Power Law ModelCatchmentAnnual Medium Riverine erosion YesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo[154]
SEAGISErosion Assessment Tool of MIKE BASIN & MILWCatchmentAnnual High Erosion, sediment yieldYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo[155]
AGWAAutomated Geospatial Watershed AssessmentCatchmentDaily/MonthlyHigh Erosion, sediment yield, runoff, peak rate, nutrientsYesNoNoYesNoNoNoYesYes[19]
Note: Gen. * = Generation; Trans. * = Transportation; Dep. * = Deposition.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hajigholizadeh, M.; Melesse, A.M.; Fuentes, H.R. Erosion and Sediment Transport Modelling in Shallow Waters: A Review on Approaches, Models and Applications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030518

AMA Style

Hajigholizadeh M, Melesse AM, Fuentes HR. Erosion and Sediment Transport Modelling in Shallow Waters: A Review on Approaches, Models and Applications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(3):518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030518

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hajigholizadeh, Mohammad, Assefa M. Melesse, and Hector R. Fuentes. 2018. "Erosion and Sediment Transport Modelling in Shallow Waters: A Review on Approaches, Models and Applications" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 3: 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030518

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop