Improvement of the K-Factor of USLE and Soil Erosion Estimation in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Universal Soil Loss Equation
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Soil Erodibility Estimation
2.3.1. Soil Organic Matter Test
2.3.2. Soil Particle Size Test
2.3.3. Double Rings Infiltration Test
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Results of Permeability Tests and Soil Organic Matter Measurements
3.2. K-Factor Comparison
3.3. Soil Erosion Validation
- A = total amount of soil erosion (MT) calculated by USLE as shown in Equation (1)
- de = the equivalent depth of the soil erosion (mm)
- area = area of sub-watershed (ha)
- γ = unit weight of soil (MT m−3) assuming that γ = 1.5 MT m−3
4. Conclusions
- This study employed a series of field tests to measure changes in water infiltration by the double rings infiltration tests. The advantages of the double ring infiltration test are that this test avoids disturbing the soil and directly obtains the soil permeability parameters close to the actual situation. After validation of case areas, it is found that the improved K-factor decreases the error in accuracy between soil erosion equation estimates and the measurements by soil erosion pins. Thus, the improved K-factors updates the previous single value employed by the SWCB and can be implemented in any area of interest within the watershed.
- In view of the results of improved K-factor map in this study, this map provides an easy-to-use reference of soil erosion resistance and indicates zones of high soil erosion risk. It is worth noting that the K-factor of downstream with Shihmen reservoir watershed is greater than that of the middle and upper portions. This situation obviously reflects that land utilization is still developing by frequent human activities and soil-fixation plants can be employed for soil improvement to reduce soil loss and increase the productivity of agriculture in the watershed.
- The results show that the proposed method is feasible, which can help users to reduce the uncertainty of the choice of parameters when using USLE. Moreover, the key contribution is the procedure proposed by this study introduces a local test method for K-factor determination that can yield an improved K-factor map for countries like Taiwan. Additionally, this method can be employed for data scarce regions, such as small island developing states (SIDs) and less developed countries (LDCs), which have historically had limitations in their achievements on scientific research in K-factor analysis and USLE.
- This study effectively improves the data quality for the K-factor in Shihmen reservoir and is conducive to planning soil and water conservation requirements according to the local soil types in the given area. The procedure highlighted can provide a reference for improving the applicability of soil erosion estimation and the practical use of soil and water conservation
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers; Part of the Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.C.; Chou, H.T.; Chen, S.C.; Wu, C.H.; Lin, B.S. Characteristics of rainfall-induced landslides in Miocene formations: A case study of the Shenmu watershed, Central Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 2014, 169, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.W.; Chang, W.S.; Liu, S.H.; Tsai, T.T.; Lee, S.P.; Tsang, Y.C.; Shieh, C.L.; Tseng, C.M. Landslides triggered by the 7 August 2009 Typhoon Morakot in southern Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 2011, 123, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil and Water Conservation Bureau (SWCB). An Analysis on Historical Migration of Sediment Disaster in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed; SWCB: Nantou, Taiwan, 2011. (In Chinese)
- Hsiao, C.Y.; Lin, B.S.; Chen, C.K.; Chang, D.W. Application of airborne LiDAR technology in analyzing sediment-related disasters and effectiveness of conservation management in Shihmen Watershed. J. GeoEng. 2014, 9, 55–73. [Google Scholar]
- Ananda, J.; Herath, G. Soil erosion in developing countries: A socio-economic appraisal. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 68, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humberto, B.C.; Rattan, L. Water erosion. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 21–53. [Google Scholar]
- Strand, R.I.; Pemberton, E.L. Reservoir Sedimentation Technical Guidelines for Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 1982.
- Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Conservation; Agricultural Handbook No. 282; U.S. Department of Agricultural: Washington, DC, USA, 1965.
- Zhang, L.; O’Neill, A.L.; Lacey, S. Modelling approaches to the prediction of soil erosion in catchments. Environ. Softw. 1996, 11, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.S.; Thomas, K.; Chen, C.K.; Ho, H.C. Evaluation of Soil Erosion Risk for Watershed Management in Shenmu Watershed, Central Taiwan Using USLE Model Parameters, Central Taiwan. Paddy Water Environ. 2016, 14, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses; A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agricultural Handbook; No. 537; Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
- Wischmeier, W.H.; Johnson, C.B.; Cross, B.V. A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1971, 26, 189–193. [Google Scholar]
- Wann, S.S.; Hwang, J.I. Soil erosion on hillslopes of Taiwan. J. Chin. Soil Water Conserv. 1989, 20, 17–45. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.C.; Lo, K.F.; Lin, L.L. Handbook of Soil Loss Estimation; National Pingtung University of Science and Technology: Pingtung, Taiwan, 1996. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lin, L.L.; Chang, S.T. Study of soil erodibility factor estimation equations. J. Chin. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 39, 355–366. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kinnell, P.I.A. Event soil loss, runoff and the Universal Soil Loss Equation family of models: A review. J. Hydrol. 2010, 385, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil and Water Conservation Bureau (SWCB). Taiwan Soil and Water Conservation Manual; SWCB: Nantou, Taiwan, 2017. (In Chinese)
- Lin, B.S.; Chen, C.K.; Hsu, C.K.; Thomas, K.; Chen, W. Establishing the soil erodibility index using the application of double rings and Soil Physical-chemical properties Testing. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Remote Sensing 2018, Pyengchang, Korea, 9–11 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
- EI-Swaify, S.A.; Dangler, E.W. Erodibilities of selected tropical soils in relation to structural and hydrological parameters. In Soil Erosion: Prediction and Control; Soil Conservation Society of America: Ankeny, ID, USA, 1976; pp. 104–114. [Google Scholar]
- Panagos, P.; Meusburger, K.; Ballabio, C.; Borrelli, P.; Alewell, C. Soil erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 479–480, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Römkens, M.J.M.; Roth, C.B.; Nelson, D.W. Erodibility of selected clay subsoils in relation to physical and chemical Properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1977, 41, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torri, D.; Poesen, J.; Borselli, L. Predictability and uncertainty of the soil erodibility factor using a global dataset. CATENA 1997, 31, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Zheng, F.; Guan, Y. Improved USLE-K factor prediction: A case study on water erosion areas in China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, R.A.; Mutchler, C.K. Erodibility of some Minnesota soils. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1977, 32, 180–182. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic Matter. In Chemical and Microbiological Properties; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 539–577. [Google Scholar]
- Parr, J.R.; Bertrand, A.R. Water infiltration into soils. Adv. Agron. 1960, 12, 311–363. [Google Scholar]
- Horton, R.E. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1940, 5, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.H.; Li, D.H.; Chen, W.; Lin, B.S.; Seeboonruang, U.; Tsai, F. Soil erosion modeling and comparison using slope units and grid cells in Shihmen reservoir watershed in northern Taiwan. Water 2018, 10, 1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil and Water Conservation Bureau (SWCB). Establishment of Rainfall Kinetic Energy Evaluating Equation and Modification of Annual Rainfall EROSION index in Northern Taiwan; SWCB: Nantou, Taiwan, 2015. (In Chinese)
Structure Class (b) | Particle Size (mm) |
---|---|
1–very fine granular | <1.0 |
2–fine granular | 1.0–2.0 |
3–medium or coarse granular | 2.0–10.0 |
4–blocky, platy or massive | >10.0 |
Permeability Class (c) | mm h−1 |
---|---|
1 (very fast) | >125.0 |
2 (fast) | 62.5~125.0 |
3 (moderate) | 20.0~62.5 |
4 (moderate slow) | 5.0~20.0 |
5 (slow) | 1.25~5.0 |
6 (very slow) | <1.25 |
NO. | Soil Organic Matter Test | Soil Particle Size Testing | Double Rings Infiltration Test | K-Factor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organic Matter Content (%) | Soil Structure Class | Silt and Very Fine Content (%) | Sand Content (%) | Soil Permeability Class | fc | (t h MJ−1 mm−1) | ||
a | b | d | e | c | mm h−1 | |||
Piya creek | IA01 * | 0.7 | 2 | 7 | 53 | 4 (moderate slow) | 5.508 | 0.0064 |
IA02 # | 0.39 | 2 | 10 | 46 | 4 (moderate slow) | 5.976 | 0.0077 | |
Sule creek | IB01 * | 5.11 | 2 | 7 | 50 | 4 (moderate slow) | 14.472 | 0.0051 |
IB02 # | 0.81 | 3 | 4 | 45 | 3 (moderate) | 28.44 | 0.0056 | |
Karla creek | IC01 * | 7.32 | 3 | 7 | 25 | 2 (fast) | 96.12 | 0.0016 |
IC02 # | 1.35 | 3 | 12 | 44 | 1 (very fast) | 177.48 | 0.0026 | |
Shaluntsa creek | ID01 * | 4.99 | 2 | 6 | 62 | 3 (moderate) | 56.52 | 0.0018 |
ID02 # | 3.6 | 3 | 10 | 33 | 2 (fast) | 69.12 | 0.0033 | |
Taiping creek | IE01 * | 11.57 | 3 | 2 | 26 | 2 (fast) | 101.52 | 0.001 |
IE02 # | 10.6 | 3 | 5 | 34 | 2 (fast) | 123.84 | 0.0011 | |
Taiyao No.2 creek | IF01 * | 3.79 | 2 | 13 | 56 | 2 (fast) | 92.52 | 0.002 |
IF02 # | 0.81 | 3 | 12 | 45 | 1 (very fast) | 174.6 | 0.003 | |
Xiatienpu creek | IG01 * | 4.26 | 3 | 12 | 48 | 1 (very fast) | 178.2 | 0.0016 |
IG02 # | 0.93 | 3 | 12 | 45 | 1 (very fast) | 192.96 | 0.0029 | |
Xuanyuan creek | IH01 * | 11.73 | 3 | 7 | 39 | 2 (fast) | 140.76 | 0.001 |
IH02 # | 1.51 | 3 | 9 | 47 | 1 (very fast) | 154.08 | 0.0012 | |
Mount Bajiawan creek | II01 * | 1.05 | 2 | 10 | 43 | 3 (moderate) | 24.984 | 0.0039 |
II02 # | 0.5 | 3 | 8 | 46 | 2 (fast) | 84.6 | 0.0042 | |
Xinxin creek | IJ01 * | 5.88 | 2 | 10 | 46 | 3 (moderate) | 35.136 | 0.0023 |
IJ02 # | 4.45 | 3 | 10 | 40 | 2 (fast) | 91.8 | 0.0035 | |
Yenlao creek | IK01 * | 3.99 | 3 | 15 | 12 | 2 (fast) | 72.72 | 0.0031 |
IK02 # | 3.21 | 3 | 14 | 29 | 2 (fast) | 75.96 | 0.0046 | |
Gules creek | IL01 * | 5.38 | 2 | 10 | 65 | 3 (moderate) | 57.96 | 0.0035 |
IL02 # | 0.27 | 3 | 7 | 46 | 2 (fast) | 116.28 | 0.0037 |
Sub-Watershed | Erosion Pins (mm) | This Study | SWCB [18] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Improved K-Factor (t h MJ−1 mm−1) | Equivalent Soil Erosion Depth (de) (mm) | The Designated K-Factor (t h MJ−1 mm−1) | Equivalent Soil Erosion Depth (de) (mm) | ||
Piya creek | 4.15 | 0.006013 | 9.51 | 0.004 | 6.33 |
Sule creek | 5.78 | 0.004165 | 7.79 | 0.004 | 7.48 |
Karla creek | 6.71 | 0.002635 | 7.28 | 0.004 | 11.06 |
Shaluntsa creek | 3.97 | 0.002922 | 6.28 | 0.004 | 8.59 |
Taiping creek | 6.56 | 0.002600 | 4.55 | 0.004 | 6.99 |
Taiyao No.2 creek | 4.08 | 0.002492 | 7.81 | 0.004 | 12.54 |
Xiatienpu creek | 3.01 | 0.002568 | 4.26 | 0.004 | 6.63 |
Xuanyuan creek | 6.71 | 0.001889 | 4.53 | 0.004 | 9.60 |
Mount Bajiawan creek | 10.67 | 0.002744 | 8.72 | 0.004 | 12.71 |
Xinxin creek | 8.06 | 0.002998 | 8.29 | 0.004 | 11.06 |
Yenlao creek | 6.79 | 0.003605 | 8.22 | 0.004 | 9.12 |
Gules creek | 8.92 | 0.003383 | 4.99 | 0.004 | 5.90 |
Average | 6.28 | 0.003168 | 6.85 | 0.004 | 9.0 |
Error (%) | This Study | SWCB [18] |
---|---|---|
Min | 2.85 | 6.55 |
Mean | 40.16 | 62.17 |
Max | 129.16 | 207.35 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, B.-S.; Chen, C.-K.; Thomas, K.; Hsu, C.-K.; Ho, H.-C. Improvement of the K-Factor of USLE and Soil Erosion Estimation in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed. Sustainability 2019, 11, 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020355
Lin B-S, Chen C-K, Thomas K, Hsu C-K, Ho H-C. Improvement of the K-Factor of USLE and Soil Erosion Estimation in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed. Sustainability. 2019; 11(2):355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020355
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Bor-Shiun, Chun-Kai Chen, Kent Thomas, Chen-Kun Hsu, and Hsing-Chuan Ho. 2019. "Improvement of the K-Factor of USLE and Soil Erosion Estimation in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed" Sustainability 11, no. 2: 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020355
APA StyleLin, B. -S., Chen, C. -K., Thomas, K., Hsu, C. -K., & Ho, H. -C. (2019). Improvement of the K-Factor of USLE and Soil Erosion Estimation in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed. Sustainability, 11(2), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020355