10.08.2015 Views

Wind Erosion in Western Queensland Australia

Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One

Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter 3 – Modell<strong>in</strong>g Land Erodibility ReviewWEPS uses a series of empirical relationships to compute changes <strong>in</strong> soil erodibility with<strong>in</strong>the soil sub-model. The soil sub-model accounts for surface crust<strong>in</strong>g through a l<strong>in</strong>earrelationship with cumulative precipitation. It then computes the amount of loose erodiblematerial on the crust as a function of soil textural properties, organic matter, carbonatecontent (after Zobeck and Popham, 1992). As for surface crust<strong>in</strong>g, the loose erodible fractionof soil can be adjusted with<strong>in</strong> the model by accommodat<strong>in</strong>g precipitation effects (Hagen,1991). Additional soil properties that affect soil erodibility such as dry aggregate sizedistribution and stability are also derived with<strong>in</strong> the soil sub-model. Like RWEQ, WEPS hasa relatively small spatial application, with the model simulation region be<strong>in</strong>g conf<strong>in</strong>ed to as<strong>in</strong>gle field, or a few adjacent fields. The model accommodates land surface heterogeneity bydivid<strong>in</strong>g non-homogeneous regions <strong>in</strong>to smaller homogeneous sub-regions, and runn<strong>in</strong>gsimulations for each (Hagen, 1991).WEPS has been applied to simulate field conditions (crop residue roughness effects) andw<strong>in</strong>d erosion on cultivated fields <strong>in</strong> North America and Europe (Van Donk and Skidmore,2003; Funk et al., 2004; Hagen, 2004). Hagen (2004) compared WEPS predictions tomeasured data from 46 w<strong>in</strong>d erosion events across North America. Across the sites, WEPStended to under-predict soil loss, but reproduced the field data reasonably well (r 2 = 0.71). Ina similar comparison, Funk et al. (2004) found a better match between WEPS predictions andfield measured erosion rates (r 2 = 0.91) for a series of erosion events <strong>in</strong> Germany. Coen et al.(2004) used WEPS to map w<strong>in</strong>d erosion risk of soils <strong>in</strong> Alberta, Canada. However, the modelwas run at a coarse (field scale) resolution, and did not provide <strong>in</strong>formation on high spatialand temporal resolution changes <strong>in</strong> soil erodibility.3.2.4 Texas <strong>Erosion</strong> Analysis Model (TEAM)The Texas <strong>Erosion</strong> Analysis Model (TEAM) was developed to have a low dependence onfield-measured <strong>in</strong>puts and empirical relationships as used <strong>in</strong> WEQ, RWEQ and WEPS.TEAM simulates the detachment, maximum transport rate and emission of dust particles(S<strong>in</strong>gh et al., 1999). Like WEPS, the model erosion scheme operates on the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple thatentra<strong>in</strong>ment occurs when u * exceeds u *t . The schemes used to compute land surfaceconditions draw upon external studies of the effects of land surface processes on u *t . LikeWEPS, TEAM computes both a static threshold friction velocity required for the <strong>in</strong>itiation ofentra<strong>in</strong>ment, and a dynamic threshold for susta<strong>in</strong>ed sediment transport.77

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!