Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
The intensification of soil erosion consequences in depletion of the top fertile soil
from agricultural land and the sedimentation in rivers and reservoirs. The rate of
erosion from the land surface depends mainly on the erosive power of the rainfall
event and the erodibility of the The susceptibility of surface soil to different
erosive agents (water and wind) is highly dependent on the physical
characteristics of the parent soil and the erosive power of the agents. The
strength of the raindrop splashes and depth of the surface runoff occurring from
precipitation determines the detachability of the individual soil aggregate and
bulk transport of the detached soil particles. The detachability of the soil
aggregate from the parent soil depends on the strength of how the individual soil
particles are bound together. The stronger the particles are bound together, the
less will be the susceptibility to erosion. The soil susceptibility to erosion is
expressed in terms of soil erodibility factor which can be defined as the rate of
soil loss per rainfall erosion index (MJ/mm)-1. Soil erodibility can be assessed by
any of the three established methods namely, the direct measurement on a
natural runoff plot, the rainfall simulation studies, and the predictive
relationships.
The direct measurement on a natural plot method and the rainfall simulation
methods need standardized field experimental plots. The method gives a reliable
erodibility factor, however it is costly and time consuming. The predictive
relationship approach is relatively the easier method to use, but the result is less
accurate as compared to the runoff plot and the rainfall simulation methods
(Römkens 1985).The predictive approaches are based on the soil physical,
chemical and mineralogical properties. Wischmeier et al. (1971) soil erodibility
nomograph is the most commonly used predictive method.
Different attempts were being made to establish the erodiblity factor
relationships with different soil properties. Oslon 1963, Ei_Swaify 1976, Young
1977, Williams 1984, Shiriza 1984, Sharpley 1990, Fryrear 1994, Chen 1995,
Zhang 2002 are among the common investigations conducted on the soil
erodibility estimation equations. The investigations suggested certain empirical
relations which can give soil erodibility value using certain data sets. However
adaptation of the research results of the investigations to other places still
remain a big challenge due to the area specific nature of empirical models or the
insufficiency of input data to make necessary adjustment for the specific
situations of the area under consideration.Likewise, very few investigations were
done so far for the specific situation of the soils in Ethiopia (Daba et al. 2002, J.S
Griffiths et al. 1989).
The limitation of the availability of the appropriate soil erodibility factor
estimation method is the main bottleneck for prediction of a reliable sediment
yield. Therefore there is a need to asses the existing soil erodibility estimation
methods with respect to data availability. Moreover, devising an alternative
approach for the erodibility estimation with a more simplified input parameter is
helpful to save money and time that could be expend on the intensive field data
collection. Hence, in this research the most commonly used soil erodibility
equation had been assessed, and suggested as a reference for the derivation of
the alternative soil erodibility factor estimation formula. The derived alternative
soil erodibility estimation method had been evaluated for the scope of it’s
applicability for the different soil characteristics.
Data availability and reliability are the primary issue that should be considered
for the analysis of soil erodibility factor. The reliability on prediction of the
erodibility factor depends on the quality of the available input data. In this
research, the FAO/UNESCO-1998 world soil maps database and the soil map of
Upper Awash River basin in Ethiopia had been considered as source of available
soil data.
Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) had been
preparing and updating the world soil data base at different spatial scales. In
1990, a map of world soil resource was completed at a scale of 1:25,000,000
(FAO/EC/ISRIC, 2003).In 1998 the update version of the soil map was adopted as
world soil database. It was from the 1998 world soil data base that, the soil and
terrain map of the different parts of the content had been made available. The
Digital Soil and Terrain Database of North East Africa (SEA) that includes Ethiopia
was prepared separately and it has been available on purchase of the CD-ROM
containing all soil and terrain information of the area. The FAO soil map of the
Upper Awash basin is shown on figure 4.1.
Awash River basin in Ethiopia had been selected as a study area to analyze the
soil erodibility factor. Digital soil map of the area had been obtained from Federal
Ministry of Water Resources of Ethiopia. The study area has 10,540km2 with 80%
agriculture, 2.25% Urban, and the remaining 17.75% covered by different forests
and pasture land. The land slope varies from 0.7% to 16.5% with an undulating
topography at the far upstream part and uniform lowland in middle and
downstream parts. The area experiences heavy rainy seasons in months of July
and August with mean total annual rainfall of 1000mm. Different soil types exist
in the Upper Awash River basin. The major soil types of Awash is indicated on the
following figure 4.1
Figure 4.1 Soil map of the Upper Awash River basin and sampling locations
The physical properties of the soils in Upper Awash River basin had been
extracted from FAO/UNESCO world soil database. The corresponding soil
properties for each soil type are indicated on table 4.1.
To verify the reliability of the FAO soil world data base characteristics, field data
on soil physical properties had been collected for major soils of the study area.
The major and dominant soils are five soil types and for each soil type sampling
had been done from 60cmx60cm pit with 100cm depth (figure 1.5).Five sampling
pits had been dug on the dominant soil types.
60cm
100cm 60cm
The soil samples from each pit had been collected at two depth profiles, 0-30cm
and 30-100cm. The samples from each pit were analyzed in laboratory by
hydrometer method. The temperature correction, percent sand, percent silt and
percent clay computation had been done based on the Milford, 1997 laboratory
guideline procedures. The following are description of equations used for the
analysis of samples.
Soil moisture correction
Based on the laboratory analysis procedure and the application of the above
mentioned equations, the percent sand, silt and clay had been determined. The
computation result is shown on table 4.2 and figure 4.2.
Table 4.2 Hydrometer method of soil texture analysis data table
70 60
60 Leptosols Haplic xerosols
50
fraction %
fraction %
50
FAO soil(texture C)
40
cal soil(texture SL)
30
20
10
0
%Sand %Silt %Clay
soil texture
Figure 4.2 Comparison of the FAO/UNESCO soil properties with on field measured
From figure 4.2, it can be observed that for the most dominant soils
(Leptosols,Haplic Xerosols and Chromic Luvisols),the properties of the soils
extracted from FAO/UNESCO soil database is similar to the properties of the soils
analyzed from field data. The similarity and variation of the soil texture class had
been compared between the FAO/UNESCO soil properties and the on field
measured soil properties. The soil texture class was found to be sandy clay loam
(SCL) for Leptosols and Haplic Xerosols for both FAO soil characteristics and the
on field measured soil characteristics. Similarly, for the Chromic Luvisols, the soil
texture is sandy loam (SL) in both cases. Nevertheless, for Vitric cambisols and
Dystric Nitisols, there is significant variability in sand proportion which is the main
reason for the variability of the soil texture class as well. The significant variation
in sand proportion could be due to the location of the soil at low land area. In low
land areas, there is more chance of deposition and as a result the soil properties
remain variable from time to time. In such a situation, a representative sampling
should be made from a deeper depths and more sampling pits. In overall
conclusion on the reliability of the FAO/UNESCO soil properties, the available soil
characteristics data can be confidently applied, as it was proved during field data
collection and analysis.
6 - very slow
5 - slow
4 - slow to medium
3 - medium
2 - med to rapid
1 - rapid
1 log(D + 1.675 2
K = 7.5940.0017+ 0.0494exp−
g
2 0.6986 ...........................3.5
Dg (mm) = exp(0.01 ∑filnmi )
Where fi is the primary particle size fraction in percent and mi is the arithmetic
mean of the particle size limits of that size.
William’s 1984 proposed general erodibility equation using soil texture and
organic carbon content as an input variable.
K = fcsand .f cl−si .f org .f hisand .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......3.6
msilt
f csnad = (0.2 + 0.3 * exp( −0.0256 * ms (1 − )))
100
msilt
f cl −si = ( ) 0.3
mc + msilt
0.25orgC
f org = (1 −
Org + exp( 3.72 − 2.95.orgC )
ms
0.7(1 − )
f hisand = (1 − 100 )
ms ms
(1 − ) + exp( −5.51 + 22.9(1 − ))
100 100
Where
fcsand = Factor that gives low soil erodibility factor for soils with high coarse sand
contents.
fcl-si = Factor that gives low soil erodibility factor for soils with high clay to silt
ratio.
forg = Factor that reduces soil erodibility for soils with high organic carbonic
content.
fhisand = Factor that reduces erodibility for soils with high sand content.
Selection and application of the equations should be done wisely so that a
reasonable erodibility value can be predicted. There had been few researches
conducted to evaluate the applicability of the different erodibility equation under
different conditions. The K.L Zhang et al. 2008 and R.Wawer et al., 2005 had
evaluated the degree of applicability of the most popular equation with respect to
the on field measured erosion data. The investigation revealed that the
Wischmeier et al., the William’s et al. and the Shirazi et al. erodibility equations
over estimated the erodibility values. From the result, it was observed that the
three methods had shown different range of errors. The Zhang et al. revealed
Shirazi and Boarsma equation had shown least error and William’s equation had
shown intermediate error. The Wischmeier et al. equation had shown largest
error as compared to the two methods. Similarly, the investigation by R.Wawer
also indicated the better performance of the William’s method as compared to
the Wischmeier et al.erodibility estimation equation, although both method
overestimated the result.
The review of the two research result indicates the direct application of the
erodibility estimation methods provides an over estimated values which can
significantly influence the soil loss rate or the sediment out flow from a
watershed. The over estimation of the methods could probably due to the many
soil parameters incorporated in the equation. The more the parameters are
considered, the more the error duplicates during data collection and analysis.
Moreover, soil parameters like the organic carbon content is difficult to accurately
measure and as a result large error can be introduced in to the equations.
The most popular soil organic measurement is by the soil burning method. The
method assumes that the loss due to the burning is the organic carbon content.
In soils having significant clay composition, the result is expected to be too
erroneous. The burning method is a very approximate method which varies in
accuracy depending on the clay content of the soil (Eleanor et al., 2008). The
better performance of the shirazi and Boarsma equation which is independent of
the organic carbon content can justify this comment.
In Shirazi and Boarsma equation, the geometric grain size which is a function of
particle size fraction and particle size limit may be too sensitive to small
discrepancies as it was represented by an exponential function (equation 3.2.2).
The small discrepancies in the data on particle size fraction and particle size limit
can lead to large error term. To avoid such discrepancies a detailed investigation
on the particle size information is required which needs many representative soil
sample data and accurate laboratory analysis.
The William’s erodibility equation input requirements can be extracted from
FAO/UNESCO soil data base. In the absence of the on field measured soil
properties, the FAO data base parameters are the possible alternative sources of
obtaining the soil properties that are required in William’s equation. However, the
demand for the more soil input parameters remain major challenge for erodibility
estimation.Therefore, assessing the possibility of alternative approach to
minimize the number of input data set requirement and easily measurable soil
parameters is mandatory. The formulation of an alternative soil erodibility
estimation approach is described in the proceeding chapter.
An alternative soil erodibility estimation approach
The texture of a soil plays a fundamental role in susceptibility of soil to erosion.
The texture of soils can be expressed in terms of the percent sand, silt and clay
proportion. On the basis of the discussion made under section 3.4, the respective
soil erodibility(K) factors had been computed from the William’s
equation(equation 3.6) for the Upper Awash basin. The computed K values and
the major soil texture ratios are indicated on figure 4.3.The right hand side y-axis
describes the different soil texture fractions (silt/sand, silt/clay and silt/ (sand and
clay)) while the left hand side y-axis describes the soil erodibility factor value
computed from William’s equation (Kwl).The x-axis represents the different FAO
soil numbering as denoted on table 4.1.
0.35 Kw l 2.00
silt/sand 1.80
0.30
silt/clay 1.60
0.20 1.20
Kwl
1.00
0.15 0.80
0.10 0.60
0.40
0.05
0.20
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
FAO soil
Table 4.3 Correlation coefficient(r) of soil erodibility factor with respect particle
size
Ratio of soil distribution Awash Basin data FAO/UNESCO soil data
%Silt to % clay 0.77 0.54
%silt to % sand 0.72 0.78
%silt to % sand and % 0.88 0.82
clay
Percent silt to total percent clay and percent sand ratio reflects highest
correlation as compared to the remaining elements for both the cases.
Nevertheless, the correlation for the remaining two elements are still significant
since r value is greater than 0.5. Sand dominated soils are less susceptible to
erodibility, because they have low runoff potential. Clay soils are similarly less
susceptible to erodibility due to their strong binding effect of individual
aggregates. Thus, it can be concluded that soil erodibilty is inversely proportional
to the percentage sand and percentage clay. In contrary, the presence of high silt
proportion in the soil increases the susceptibility of the soil to erosive agent.
Based on the correlation result of the different soils considered and the result
summarized on table 4.3, percent silt to total percent clay and percent sand ratio
had been considered for the formulation of the alternative soil erodibility
estimation method.
A non linear regression equation had been fitted to the data of the study area.
Percent silt to total percent sand and percent clay ratio had been considered as
explanatory variable. The model fitted to a non linear power function with a form
of;
b
%silt
ERFAC = a * .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..4.7
%sand + %clay
where ERFAC is proposed alternativ e soil erodibilit y factor
%sand is the percentage of sand proportion in the soil
%silt is the percentage of silt proportion in the soil
%clay is the percentage of clay proportion in the soil
a and b are factors obtained from regression coffecient s
as 0.318 and 0.2686 respective ly
0.20
Error %
15.00
K
0.15
5.00
0.10
-5.00
0.05
0.00 -15.00
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
FAO soil
Figure 4.4 Comparative analysis relative and relative errors for individual soil
types
The fitted model had been evaluated for its performance based on the statistical
indicators such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient(r), coefficient of determination
(R2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Percent bias (PBIAS), Relative mean square
error (RMSE) and individual absolute relative errors (RE). The following table
indicates the summary of the model performance evaluation indicators
Table 4.4 Statistical indicators of the newly proposed erodibility equation
Indicator description Indicator values
R 0.88
R2 0.75
NSE 0.68
PBIAS -0.14%
RMSE 0.0046
Individual relative errors -10% to 15%
Kwl
0.105 - 0.150(Low)
0.15 0- 0.195(Medium) ERFAC
0.195 - 0.239(High)
0.239 - 0.284(Very High) 50 0.102 - 0.135
(Low)
50 (Low) 0.135 - 0.169
0.169 - 0.203
0.203 - 0.236
95(Medium)
Kwl
0.105 - 0.150(Low)
0.15 0- 0.195(Medium)
(Medium)
39 (High) (High)
ERFAC
0.195 - 0.239(High) 0.102 - 0.135
0.239 - 0.284(Very High) 0.135 - 0.169
0.169 - 0.203
0.203 - 0.236
(a) (b)
Figure 4.6 Spatial pattern of soil erodibility distribution in Awash Basin
Group 1
RE<10%
Group 2
RE<20%
Group 3
RE<60%
Figure 4.7 Chart indicating the pattern of grouping the different soil groups
The percentage of soils falling in group 1 comprises of 40% of the total soils
considered in the evaluation; while the percentage of soils in group 2 account for
80%.The remaining 20% of the soils show a relative errors between 20% to 60%
except for Gleyic podzols which its error is found to be 90%.The statistical
indicators (R2 and NSE) had been computed.
Table 4.5 Summary result of statistical indicators as compared to William’s
equation
0.250
15.0
Error%
0.200 10.0
0.150 5.0
0.0
0.100
-5.0
0.050
-10.0
0.000 -15.0
GD W GE B N PF WE CL CK XL LO LK JT AP FH LF I I KK SM AF LP X NH L NE R WS LG LC HH RC D RE ZG BE SO YY S GK XH YK SG XY BV XK Y ZO Z DG JC
0.400
KWL 55.00
0.350 ERFAC
Error 45.00
0.300
35.00
Erodibilityfactor
0.250
25.00
Error%
0.200
15.00
0.150
5.00
0.100 -5.00
0.050 -15.00
0.000 -25.00
0.400 10.0
Erodibility factor
Error%
-10.0
0.300
-30.0
0.200
-50.0
0.100
-70.0
0.000 -90.0