Salta al contenuto principale
Passa alla visualizzazione normale.

COSTANZA DI STEFANO

Comparing theoretically supported rainfall‐runoff erosivity factors at the Sparacia (South Italy) experimental site

  • Autori: Bagarello, V.; DI STEFANO, C.; Ferro, V.; Pampalone, V.
  • Anno di pubblicazione: 2018
  • Tipologia: Articolo in rivista (Articolo in rivista)
  • OA Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10447/270425

Abstract

Interpreting rainfall‐runoff erosivity by a process‐oriented scheme allows to conjugate the physical approach to soil loss estimate with the empirical one. Including the effect of runoff in the model permits to distinguish between detachment and transport in the soil erosion process. In this paper, at first, a general definition of the rainfall‐runoff erosivity factor REFe including the power of both event runoff coefficient QR and event rainfall erosivity index EI30 of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is proposed. The REFe factor is applicable to all USLE‐based models (USLE, Modified USLE [USLE‐M] and Modified USLE‐M [USLE‐MM]) and it allows to distinguish between purely empirical models (e.g., Modified USLE‐M [USLE‐MM]) and those supported by applying theoretical dimensional analysis and self‐similarity to Wischmeier and Smith scheme. This last model category includes USLE, USLE‐M, and a new model, named USLE‐M based (USLE‐MB), that uses a rainfall‐runoff erosivity factor in which a power of runoff coefficient multiplies EI30. Using the database of Sparacia experimental site, the USLE‐MB is parameterized and a comparison with soil loss data is carried out. The developed analysis shows that USLE‐MB (characterized by a Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency Index NSEI equal to 0.73 and a root mean square error RMSE = 11.7 Mg ha−1) has very similar soil loss estimate performances as compared with the USLE‐M (NSEI = 0.72 and RMSE = 12.0 Mg ha−1). However, the USLE‐MB yields a maximum discrepancy factor between predicted and measured soil loss values (176) that is much lower than that of USLE‐M (291). In conclusion, the USLE‐MB should be preferred in the context of theoretically supported USLE type models.