4.5 Article

Adaptation of RUSLE in the eastern part of the Mediterranean region

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 829-841

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-0296-7

关键词

RUSLE; Mediterranean; soil loss; model efficiency; model calibration; Nash-Stucliffe efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Empirically based models are used worldwide to estimate soil erosion. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) is one such model that has been intensively tested and validated under conditions in the United States. RUSLE estimates average soil loss as a function of five main factors: rainfall erosivity ( R), soil erodibility ( K), crop management ( C), support practice ( P), and topographic (LS) factors. This study investigated the application of RUSLE to Mediterranean conditions. The validation and calibration of RUSLE in the study area utilized field plots' soil erosion measurements. The results found the RUSLE soil loss estimation to be three times the actual soil loss (7.8 and 2.6 Mg/ha, for RUSLE and actual measured soil loss, respectively). The difference between the RUSLE factors and the measured factors were responsible for the differences between the soil loss estimation by RUSLE and the measured soil loss. Specifically, the RUSLE K-factor showed three times the magnitude of the measured K-factor, the RUSLE C-factor underestimated the measured C-factor, and the RUSLE P-factor overestimated the measured P-factor by three times. Adjusting the RUSLE factors according to the measured ones increased the model's predictability, whereas the adjusted-RUSLE soil loss estimation underestimated the measured soil loss by 14%. The adjustment of RUSLE, according to the prevailing conditions of the study area, increased the model efficiency three times (0.26 and 0.86 before and after adjustment of the mode, l respectively). For more accurate and reliable validation of the RUSLE under the Mediterranean conditions, it is advisable to conduct long-term soil loss experimentation and measurements.

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

4.5
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