4.4 Article

The application of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2, to evaluate the impacts of alternative climate change scenarios on runoff and sediment yield

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
卷 67, 期 5, 页码 343-353

出版社

SOIL WATER CONSERVATION SOC
DOI: 10.2489/jswc.67.5.343

关键词

ephemeral gully erosion; deposition; geographic information system; light detection and ranging (LiDAR); soil erosion; vegetative barrier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation,Version 2 (RUSLE2), provides robust estimates of average annual sheet and rill erosion for one-dimensional hillslope representations. Extensive databases describing climate, soils, and management options have been developed and are widely used in the United States for conservation planning. Recent RUSLE2 enhancements allow estimation of erosion and runoff from a representative sequence of runoff events that are suitable for linkage with an ephemeral gully model.This paper reviews the sensitivity of RUSLE2 erosion estimates to possible climate change scenarios, demonstrates its ability to evaluate alternative management adaptations, and compares predictions with observations of runoff and sediment yield from a 6.6 ha (16 ac) research watershed located near, Treynor, Iowa.When applied to a representative hillslope profile with conventional tillage corn (Zea mays L.), increasing monthly temperature by 0.8 degrees C (1.5 degrees F) and rainfall depth, rainfall erosivity density, and 10-year, 24-hour rainfall depth each by 10% cumulatively increased sheet and rill erosion by 47% and increased runoff by 33%, assuming there was no change in corn yield. If the climate changes decreased corn yield by 10%, the overall effect was to increase soil loss for conservation planning by 63%.These results demonstrate that modest and expected changes in climate will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion, and improved conservation management will be an important part of successful adaptation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据