Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 63

Runoff Estimation, and Surface Erosion and Control

Ali Fares, PhD NREM 662, Watershed Hydrology

THE SOIL WATER EROSION PROCESS

DETACHMENT
Detachment Sediment Load Sediment Transport

DEPOSITION
Sediment Load Deposition

Soil

Soil

EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY

LOSS OF OM, CLAY, AND NUTRIENTS REDUCES PRODUCTIVITY DAMAGE TO PLANTS FORMATION OF RILLS AND GULLIES AFFECTS MANAGEMENT SEDIMENTATION IN WATERWAYS, DIVERSIONS, TERRACES, DITCHES DELIVERY OF NUTRIENTS TO SURFACE WATER

Quantifying Soil Erosion

Standard USLE plot:

22.1m (72.6 ft) long 9% slope 4m (13.12 ft) wide.

USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation

Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses. USDA Agriculture Handbook 537, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Empirical model:

Analysis of observations Seeks to characterize response from these data.

Based on:

Rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop system and management practices.

Predicts:

Long term average annual rate of erosion

Subroutine in models such as:

SWRRB (Williams, 1975), EPIC (Williams et al., 1980), ANSWERS (Beasly et al., 1980), AGNPS (Young et al., 1989)

The equation:

A = R x K x LS x C x P

A = average annual soil loss (tons/acre year) R = rainfall and runoff erosivity index K = soil erodibility factor L = slope length factor S = slope steepness factor C= crop/management factor P = conservation or support practice factor

R (rainfall and runoff erosivity index)

Erosion index (EI) for a given storm:

Product of the kinetic energy of the falling raindrops and its maximum 30 minute intensity.

R factor = EI over a year / 100

A =R x K x LS x C x P

Average annual values of the rainfall erosion index (R).

K (soil erodibility)

Susceptibility of a given soil to erosion by rainfall and runoff. Depend on:

Texture, structure, organic matter content, and permeability.

A =R x K x LS x C x P

Soil-erodibility nomograph.

LS (slope length-gradient)

Ratio of soil loss under given conditions to that at a site with the "standard" slope and slope length. A =R x K x LS x C x P

Topographic LS factor

C (crop/management)

Ratio of soil loss from land use under specified conditions to that from continuously fallow and tilled land.
Crop Grain Corn Silage Corn, Beans & Canola Cereals (Spring & Winter) Seasonal Horticultural Crops Fruit Trees Hay and Pasture
Tillage Fall Plow Spring Plow Mulch Tillage Ridge Tillage Zone Tillage No-Till

Factor 0.40 0.50 0.35 0.50 0.10 0.02


Factor 1.00 0.90 0.60 0.35 0.25 0.25

A =R x K x LS x C x P

P (conservation practices)

Ratio of soil loss by a support practice to that of straight-row farming up and down the slope.
Support Practice Up & Down Slope Cross Slope P Factor 1.00 0.75

Contour farming
Strip cropping, cross slope Strip cropping, contour
A =R x K x LS x C x P

0.50
0.37 0.25

RUSLE: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

USDA Agriculture Handbook 703 (Renard et. al. 1997) USLE factor values: updated, expanded, improved.

Expanded isoerodents Ponded water on the soil Freeze-thaw cycle and soil moisture Complex slopes Conservation tillage and crop rotation

Software

WHAT IS RUSLE 2

GREAT GRANDSON OF USLE MODEL TO PREDICT SOIL LOSS


WHERE OVERLAND FLOW OCCURS COMPUTES ANNUAL SHEET/RILL EROSION COMPUTES PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION AND RUNOFF

CROPLAND, FOREST, LANDFILLS, CONSTRUCTION SITES, SURFACE MINES WINDOWS PULL DOWN MENUS

WHO AND WHAT OF RUSLE 2


USDA-ARS, USDA-NRCS, VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES ON-GOING PROCESS OVER 70 YEARS THOUSANDS OF RESEARCH DATA SET UP WITH VARYING LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY COMPUTER REQUIREMENTS

WINDOWS 98 INTERNET EXPLORER BROWSER 64 MB RAM HTTP://BIOENGR.AG.UTK.EDU/RUSLE2/

DOWNLOAD

APPLICABILITY OF RUSLE 2

ESTIMATES INTER-RILL AND RILL EROSION ESTIMATES SEDIMENT YIELD FROM OVERLAND FLOW AND TERRACE CHANNELS DOES NOT ESTIMATE EPHEMERAL OR PERMANENT GULLIES, MASS WASTING, OR STREAM CHANNEL EROSION BEST SUITED TO CROPLAND, BUT IS USEFUL FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES, LANDFILLS, RECLAMATION PROJECTS, AND DISTURBED FOREST LAND

APPLICABILITY OF RUSLE 2 (cont.)

BEST WHERE RAINFALL IS REGULAR AND EXCEEDS 20/YR. MEDIUM-FINE TEXTURED SOILS SLOPES 3-20% AND LESS THAN 600 FT. BEST AT CALCULATING AVERAGE ANNUAL SOIL LOSS, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SINGLE STORM EVENTS

RUSLE 2 FACTORS A = R x K x LS x C x P

CLIMATE (R) AND SOIL (K) FACTORS ARE SET FOR A GIVEN FIELD SLOPE GRADE (S) AND LENGTH (L) CAN BE ADJUSTED WITH DIFFICULTY MOST FLEXIBILITY WITH COVER MGT. (C) AND SUPPORTING PRACTICES (P)

EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES


Structures: diversions, terraces, waterways

Reduce slope length Slow runoff velocity

Divert excess water safely


Avoid runoff over barnyard, feedlots, etc.

CONTOUR TERRACES
Grant Co.

EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES


Management practices

Cover crops Crop residue management

30% residue reduces erosion 50-60%


Slope < 8% and 300 long Alternating sod strip for steep land

Contour tillage

Contour strip cropping and buffers

Controlling Water contaminants at the Source, Kaiaka-Waialua Watershed

Kaiaka and Waialua bays, are water quality limited segments due to high levels of total P, NO-3, chlorophyll a, and turbidity exceeding the maximum allowable levels (HI-DOH). Sediment loads from agricultural lands and effluent discharged from household cesspools are two of the major sources of pollution. Sediment losses are generated from cropped and fallow zones as a result of an intensive agricultural system that includes a crop/fallow cropping combination.

Objectives

The goal of this project is to implement and demonstrate erosion control practices to help manage erosion throughout KaiakaWaialua watershed, thereby reducing sediment and potential pollutant loads (P, N) into the surface water resources, and consequently improving water quality of the coastal area.

Materials and Methods


Field in a commercial farm, Ewa Silty clay soil, a mean Ksat = 3.5 cm d-1 (Candler 15 m d-1) Three cover crops (Sunn hemp, Sudex & Oats) were replicated 3 times in a RCB design. Suction cups were installed in each plot to collect soil solution Surface runoff was collect from each plot following rainfall. Soil water contents (10,20,30 & 50cm) from each treatment

Materials and Methods

Soil physical properties were determined: Ksat, BD & soil water release curve Soil samples were collected before, in the middle and at the end of the trial. Total dissolved and total suspend solids (TDS, TSS) were determined (EPAs 160.1, 160.2 methods) NO3, NH4 and P were determined by UH-ADSC

Materials and Methods

Subsurface Water Quality Analysis

Collected soil solution samples were analyzed at the University of Hawaii (ADSC) for:

Ammonium Nitrate Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Results

Runoff water quality Subsurface water quality

Rain Intensity (mm/hr)


25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average Rainfall Intensity 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Series1)

2/25 2/28 3/2 3/5 3/8 3/11 3/14 3/17 3/20 3/23 3/26 3/29 4/1 4/4 4/7 4/10 4/13 4/16 4/19 4/22 4/25 4/28 5/1 5/4 5/7 5/10 5/13 5/16

292 mm occurred in 11 hr, 2/27 at a rate of 24 mm hr-1


300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Rainfall (mm)

March 3

May 18
April 27 March 31 03-16 March 22 March 25 April 7 April 18

April 22

2/25 2/28 3/2 3/5 3/8 3/11 3/14 3/17 3/20 3/23 3/26 3/29 4/1 4/4 4/7 4/10 4/13 4/16 4/19 4/22 4/25 4/28 5/1 5/4 5/7 5/10 5/13 5/16

ANOVA Runoff Results


---------------March---------------Variable TSS TDS 3
NS NS

--------------April----------7
NS NS

May 18

16
NS NS

22

25

31

18

22

27

*
NS

**
NS

*
NS

*
NS

* **

*
NS

**
NS

Nitrate
Ammonium TN Phosphorous

*
NS

NS
NS NS NS

NS
NS NS NS

*
NS

* ** **
NS

NS

**
NS

NS

**
NS

NS

**
NS

** **
NS

**
NS

** **
NS

NS **

** ** **

NS **

*, ** denotes a significant or highly significant difference was detected between treatment means, respectively.

Surface Runoff Collection


Oats

Sunn hemp

Fallow

Sudex

Runoff water Quality

TSS, 70% there was statistically significant treatment effect Nitrate, 50% there was statistically significant treatment effect Ammonium, 40% there was statistically significant treatment effect TN, 60% there was statistically significant treatment effect

Removal Efficiencies

Calculation for Removal Efficiencies (RE): RE = [1- (Cover Crop (g) / Fallow (g))]x100 A positive RE means that there was a reduction in pollutant levels in comparison to the fallow A negative RE means that there was an increase in pollutant levels in comparison to the fallow treatment

Removal Efficiencies for TSS


Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG Rainfall (mm) 406 21 Sudex 73 Sunn Hemp 77 Oats 86 72 58 42 19 57 70 80 17 84 93 97 8 51 70 79 24 81 72 80 9 86 90 91 5 60 95 96 17 52 87 90 105 94 91 83 74 77 85

Removal Efficiencies for Total Dissolved Solids

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG Rainfall (mm) 406 Sudex Sunn Hemp Oats 4 -9 11 21 18 24 -19 19 18 55 39 17 27 34 -1 8 6 6 24 9 5 -98 -83 17 34 -4 -58 105 -295 -35.1 -96 -29.1 -150 -73.5

-27 -38 -68 -150

-43 -55 -270 -189

Total Dissolved Solids May 18 1.2


A A A

TDS (g)

0.8 0.4 0.0

Treatment 1 = sudex, 2 = sunn hemp, 3 = oats, 4 = fallow Total Suspended Solids May 18 20
A

TSS (g)

15 10 5
B B B

Treatment 1 = sudex, 2 = sunn hemp, 3 = oats, 4 = fallow

Removal Efficiencies for Total Nitrogen

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 Rainfall (mm) 406 21 19 17 8 24 9 5 17 105 Sudex -7 -4 -7 0 44 46 72 -9 -58 51 Sunn Hemp -53 -53 -52 -196 -8 -38 19 -17 -102 34 Oats
43 -69 -68 18 57 70 60 61 12 31

AVG

13 -47 22

Means of Nitrate for April 18

Nitrate (10E-4 g)

3.2 2.4
A A A

1.6 0.8 0.0 1

Treatment 1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow

Means of Ammonium for April 18

Ammonium (10E-3 g)

8 6 4
B AB B

2 0 1 2 3 4

Treatment 1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow

Removal Efficiencies for Ammonium

Date 3/3 3/16 3/22 3/25 3/31 4/7 4/18 4/22 4/27 5/18 AVG
Rainfall (mm) 406 Sudex Sunn Hemp Oats 2.4 21 -5 19 -25 17 -15 8 45 24 -132 36 65 9 67 35 61 5 -46 17 -68 105 57 32 39 -12 -53 23

-43 -65 49 -53

-83 -242 -13 -75 30 73

-43 -145 53 -12

Soil Solution Samples ANOVA Variable Nitrate 3/22 ** 3/25 * 3/31 ** 4/7 NS

Ammonium
TN Phosphorous

NS
** NS

NS
* NS

NS
** NS

NS
NS NS

* denotes a significant difference was detected ** denotes a highly significant difference was detected

Means of Ammonium for March 25

Ammonium (10E-3 g)

5 4 3 2 1 0 1
AB

Treatment 1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow

Means of Nitrate for April 7

Nitrate (10E-2 g)

2.4 1.6
B

A AB

0.8 0.0

Treatment 1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow

Means of Total Nitrogen for March 25 6

TN (10E-3 g)

4 2 0
B B B

Treatment 1 = Sudex, 2 = Sunn Hemp, 3 = Oats, 4 = Fallow

Summary & Conclusions

The presence of cover crops reduced the nitrate and total nitrogen levels in the soil solution compared to the fallow treatment regardless of the sampling date. 95 to 97% of the total nitrogen collected was nitrate. The sunn hemp treatment had the second highest nitrate and total nitrogen levels after the fallow treatment.

Statistical Analyses Results

There were statistically significant effects of the cover crops on:

Nitrate and total nitrogen for all reported sampling dates: March 21, 25, 31 & April 7

However, cover crops effect was not statically significant for:

Ammonium and Total Phosphorus

CONTOUR STRIP CROPPING


Crawford CO

Terracing & Contour Farming

References

Millward, A. A., and Mersey, J. E.,(1999) Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed, Catena, 38(2), 109-129. DeRoo A.P.J. (1998) Modelling runoff and sediment transport in catchments using GIS. Hydrological Processes 12(6),905-922.

http://www.bsyse.wsu.e du/cropsyst/manual/sim ulation/soil/erosion.htm

WOLKOWSKI, D.Soil Science Dept. UW-Madison.