| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,168 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,197 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 50,943,778 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,948,928 |
ارزیابی کارآیی مدل تجربی توان فرسایش در 63 زیرآبخیز برگزیدهی ایران | ||
| پژوهش های آبخیزداری | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 34، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 133، دی 1400، صفحه 34-52 اصل مقاله (1.95 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/wmrj.2021.353257.1383 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعید نبی پی لشکریان* 1؛ محمود عرب خدری2؛ صمد شادفر2 | ||
| 1کارشناس پژوهشکده حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار پژوهشکده حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| فرسایش تشدیدشدهی خاک و تولید رسوب زیاد از دشواریهای مهم در بسیاری از منطقههای ایران است. شناسایی فراگیر منطقههای بحرانی برای کاهش دادن اثر بد آن با کنشهای حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، ضرورت دارد. با توجه به نبود ایستگاه اندازه گیری در خروجی آبخیزهای کوچک، مدلهای تجربی ابزار مناسبی برای برآورد کردن فرسایش خاک و رسوبدهی است. یکی از روشهای متداول در ایران مدل توان فرسایش است. هدف اصلی این تحقیق تطبیقدادن شرایط نرمافزار با طبیعت و جمعبندی نتیجهی بهدستآمده در منطقههای برگزیدهی کشور است. 63 آبخیز در نُه استان که پژوهش رسوبدهی در آن انجام شده بود برای مقایسه با مقدار برآوردشده انتخاب شد. برای محاسبهی رسوبدهی آبخیزها، لایههای اطلاعاتی لازم برای مدل توان فرسایش بررسی، و امتیاز داده شد. مقایسهی نتیجهها نشان داد که در بیشتر زیرآبخیزها برآوردهای مدل (0/19 تا 9/71 تن بر کیلومتر مربع در سال) کمتر از مقدار رسوب اندازهگیری شدهی آبگیرها (0/44 تا 459/64 تن بر کیلومتر مربع در سال) است. واسنجی مدل با اصلاح ضریبهای جدولهای مدل توان فرسایش در قالب دو حالت ممکن کل آبخیزها و پس از تقسیم به سه منطقهی جغرافیایی انجام شد، که سبب بهبود فراوان برآوردها شد. ضریب کارآیی نش-ساتکلیف برای همهی آبخیزها 0/66، و برای منطقههای مرکزی، زاگرس، و شمال شرقی بهترتیب 0/68، 0/5 و 0/89 بهدست آمد. به همین دلیل توصیه می شود که مدل توان فرسایش اولیه بهکار برده نشود، و از مدل با ضریب اصلاح شده بهره بردهشود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| بند کوتاه؛ رسوبدهی؛ فرسایش خاک؛ مدل توان فرسایش؛ واسنجی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An Assessment of the Empirical Erosion Potential Model in 63 Selected Watersheds in Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saeed Nabipay- Lashkarian1؛ Mahmood Arabkhedri2؛ Samad Shadfar2 | ||
| 1Research Scientist, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute (SCWMRI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute (SCWMRI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Accelerated soil erosion and high sediment production are important issues in many parts of Iran. The identification of high erosion risk regions is necessary for the planning of soil and water conservation measures in order to reduce erosion damages. Empirical models are required for estimating soil erosion and sediment yield in the absence of gauged small watersheds. The Erosion Potential Method (EPM), originally developed in Croatia, is a popular erosion estimating model in Iran; however, its efficiency across the country has not been thoroughly assessed. Therefore, a calibration study was carried out by comparison between the model the estimated and measured sediment yields through sediment survey for 63 reservoirs at the outlet of small catchments in the Semnan, Markazi, Isfahan, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari, West Azarbaijan, Lorestan, Fars, Golestan, and the Khorasan Razavi Provinces. All required maps and information of the study basins for estimating the EPM sediment yield were produced via field survey as well as data analysis. Comparison of the results showed that in most cases, the model estimates (0.19 to 9.71 tons per square kilometer per year) are lower than the measured sediment yields at the reservoir inlets (0.44 to 459.64 tons per square kilometer per year). Thus, we calibrated the EPM by modifying its original tables and evaluated the results using the Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient in two scenarios, a, all basins, and b, after dividing into three geographical zones, which significantly improved the estimates. The Nash ‐ Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient for scenario a was 0.66, and 0.68, 0.50 and 0.89 for the Central, Zagros, and Northeast zones, for scenario b respectively. Based on the results, it is strongly recommended to use the modified EPM instead of the original model. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Calibration, EPM model, sediment yield, small dam, soil erosion | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Agharazi H, Nabipay Lashkarian S. 2017. Evaluation of EPM empirical model results through Sediment survey of small dams in Markazi Province. First National Conference on Soil Conservation and Watershed Management. 8-10 February. 7 p. (In Persian). Ahmadi M, Minaei M, Ebrahimi O, Nikseshesht M. 2020. Evaluation of WEPP and EPM for improved predictions of soil erosion in mountainous watersheds: A case study of Kangir River basin, Iran. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 6 (4): 2303–2315. Amiri K. 2010. Estimate of erosion and sedimentation in semi-arid basin using empirical models of erosion potential within a geographic information system. Air, Soil and Water Research. doi. org/10.1177/ASWR.S3427. 2010: 3 (1): 37–44. Arabkhedri M, Nikkami D, Nabipay Lashkarian S, Shadfar S. 2017. Calibration of empirical models for sediment yield estimation using sediment survey of small reservoirs in Iran. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. Final Report of Research Plan. 186 p. (In Persian). Bayat R, Refahi H, Darwish Sefat A.A, Sarmadian F. 2001. Evaluation of the efficiency of EPM and MPSIAC models in estimating sediment of Taleghan watershed using GIS. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 32 (9): 203–217. (In Persian). Beyer Portner N. 1998. Erosion des basins versant alpins scusses par ruissellement de surface. PhD Thesis. Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques-LCH. Laussanne. Switzerland. 1815 p. Boardman J. 2006. Soil erosion science: reflections on the limitations of current approaches. Catena. 68: (2/3). 73–86. Borooshkeh E, Arabkhedri M. 2015. Evaluation of MPSIAC and EPM empirical models in Western Azerbaijan Province based on sediment surveying behind small dams. Watershed Engineering and Management. 7(3): 265–273. (In Persian). de Vente J, Poesen J, Bazzoffi P, van Rompaey A, Verstraeten, G. 2006. Predicting catchment sediment yield in Mediterranean environments: the importance of sediment sources and connectivity in Italian drainage basins. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 31 (8): 1017–1034. Dragicevic N, Karleusa B, Ozanic N. 2018. Modification of erosion potential method using climateand land cover parameters. Jornal of Natural Hazards and Risks. 9 (1): 1085–1105. Efthimiou N, Likoudi E, Panagoulia D, Karavitis C. 2016. Assessment of soil susceptibility to erosion using the EPM and RUSLE models: the case of Venetikos river catchment. Global NEST Journal. 18 (1): 164–179. Elhag M, Kojchevska T, Boteva S. 2019. EPM for soil loss estimation in different geomorphologic conditions and data conversion by using GIS. World Multidisiplinary Earth Sciences Symposium. 3–7 september. 2019. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/221/1/012079. Volume 221. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental science. pp. 1–12. Esmali Ouri A, Kateb F. 2020. Investigation of soil erosion potential with the involvement of land features measures (Case study: Sharif-Beiglou, Ardabil province). Hydrogeomorphology. 6 (24): 145–164. (In Persian). Feiznia S. 1995. Resistance of rocks to erosion in different climates of Iran. Iranian Journal of Natural Resources. No. 47: 95–116. (In Persian). Gavrilovic Z. 1988. The use of an empirical method (Erosion Potential Method) for calculating sediment production and transportation in unstudied or torrential streams, International Conference on River Regime.Hydraulics Research Limited. Wallingford. Oxon UK. 1988. pp. 411–422. Ghahari GR, Shadfar S, Hosseini-Marandi H. 2021. Evaluation of the EPM model using sediment survey of small reservoirs. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management. 12 (4): 1133–1145. (In Persian). Ghobadi Y, Pirasteh S, Pradhan B, Ahmad Helmi NB, Shafri ZBM, Sayyah GA, Kabiri K. 2011. Determine of correlation coefficient between EPM and Generation of erosion maps by GIS Techniqes in baghmalek Watershed. Khuzestan. Iran. 5th Symposium on Advance in Science. 8 (1): 525–537. Globevink L, Holjevic D, Petkovesk G, Rubinic J. 2003. Applicability of the Gavrilovic method in erosion calculation using spatial data manipulation techniques. In: De Boer D, Froehlich W, Mizuyama T, Pietroniro A. (Eds.). Erosion prediction in Ungauged Basin: Integrating methods and Techniques. IAHS Publication. 279: 224–233. Hakimkhani S. 2002. Investigation of methods of using MPSIAC in studies and theses. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. 120 p. (In Persian). Hadley RF, Walling DE. 1984. Erosion and sediment yield: some methods of measurement and modeling. Cambridge University press. 218 p. Hashemi AA, Arabkhedri M. 2008. Evaluation of MPSIAC and EPM models using sedimentation survey within some small dam reservoirs in Semnan Province. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Institute. Final Report of Research Plan. 93 p. (In Persian). Jafari Ardakani A, Bayat R, Nabipay Lashkarian S, Arabkhedri M, Peyrowan HR, Shariat-Jafari M, Ghermezcheshmeh B. 2016. Investigating of performance EPM model in central Iran basins. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. Final Report of Research Plan. 186 p. (In Persian). Kavian A, Asgarian R, Nateghi S, Safari A. 2014. Performance evaluation models FSM, PSIAC and EPM in estimating sediment yield pasture lands. Journal of geographic space. 4 (48): 57–79. (In Persian). Lense GHE, Moreira RS, Parreiras TC, Santana DB, Bolelli TM, Mincato RL. 2020. Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis, Rev. Ambient. Taubaté. Versión On-line ISSN 1980-993X. doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua. 2501. 15 (4): 1–11. Massoudian SA, Kaviani MR. 2008. Iranian climate. Isfahan University. 182 P. (In Persian). Mesbah SH. 1995. Investigation of erosion and sedimentation of Bardkol watershed using EPM and cesium. M.S. of Thesis in Watershed Management. Department of natural resources. University of Tehran. 158 p. (In Persian). Nabipay Lashkarian S, Payrovan HR, Arabkhedri M. 2016. A review of studies conducted by the experimental EPM model. 7th Iranian Conference on Engineering Geology and Environment. Shahroud University of Technology. February 2016. 9 p. (In Persian). Nabipay Lashkarian S, Arabkhedri M, Shadfar S. 2018. Evaluation of EPM model results in sediment estimation of small basins. Third National Conference on Soil Conservation and Watershed Management. 24-25 May. 3: 12 p. (In Persian). Nabipay Lashkarian S, Arabkhedri M, Shadfar S Jafari Ardakani A. 2017a. Calibration of EPM empirical model using sediment survey of small reservoirs in the central of basins of Iran. Research Final Report. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. 147 p. (In Persian). Nabipay Lashkarian S, Arabkhedri M, Shadfar S, Jafari Ardakani A, Ahmadi S. 2017b. Calibration of EPM empirical model using sediment survey of small reservoirs in the northeast of Iran. Research Final Report. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. 107 p. (In Persian). Najafi-nejad A. 1994. Evaluation of the efficiency of EPM experimental model in estimating erosion and sedimentation of Latian dam watershed. Master Thesis. Faculty of Natural Resources. University of Tehran. 145 p. (In Persian). Nash JE, Sutcliffe JE. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part 1 – A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology. 10 (3) 282–290. Nason GP. 1995. Wavelet shrinkage using cross-validation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. B. 58 (2): 463–479. Rajabi AM, Yavari A, Soloki HR. 2019. Application of EPM model in soil erosion evaluation (Case study, Shazand watershed-Saveh Dam). Iranian Journal of Geology. 13 (50): 89–98. Rangzan K, Zarasvandi A, Haydari A. 2008. Comparison of two models of MPSIAC and EPM in estimating erosion and sediment of Pegah Sorkh Gotvand Khouzestan Basin using GIS and RS techniques. Journal of Geographical Studies. 40 (64):123–136. (In Persian). Sadoogh SH, Hosseinzadeh MM, Azadi F. 2015. Erosion zoning in Kahman watershed using three models EPM, BLM and Fargas. Journal of Hydrogeomorphology. 1(2): 137–154. (In Persian). Shadfar S, Arabkhedri M, Nabipay Lashkarian S. 2017. Calibration of EPM empirical model using sediment survey of small reservoirs in the northwest of Iran. Research Final Report. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute. 110 p. (In Persian). Tangestani MH. 2006. Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi-arid environment: Afzar Catchment, Fars Province, Iran. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences. 27 (5): 585–597. Thommas MB, Voinvoch GV. 1995. Landslide in Ohio. The division of geological survey geofacts series. 4p. Tosic R, Lovric N, Dragicevic S. 2019. Assessment of the impact of depopulation on soil erosion: Case study-Repulica Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences. August 2019. 14 (2): 505–518. Toy TJ, Foster GR, Renard KG. 2002. Soil Erosion, Processes, Prediction, Measurement and Control. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 338 p. Zhang XC, Nearing MA, Risse LM, McGregor KC. 1996. Evaluation of runoff and soil loss predictions using natural runoff plot data. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 39 (3): 855–863. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 983 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 908 |
||