Modeling the Erosion Potential and Sedimentation rate of the Gorganroud Watershed

Najafi Vafa, Azam; Hosseini, Seiyed Mossa; Hosseinzadeh, Mohammad Mehdi; Jafarbeglou, Mansour

doi:10.61186/jeer.15.1.120

year 15, Issue 1 (Spring 2025) E.E.R. 2025, 15(1): 120-146 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.61186/jeer.15.1.120

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Najafi Vafa A, Hosseini S M, Hosseinzadeh M M, Jafarbeglou M. Modeling the Erosion Potential and Sedimentation rate of the Gorganroud Watershed. E.E.R. 2025; 15 (1) :120-146
URL: http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-860-en.html

Modeling the Erosion Potential and Sedimentation rate of the Gorganroud Watershed

Azam Najafi Vafa

, Seiyed Mossa Hosseini ^*

, Mohammad Mehdi Hosseinzadeh

, Mansour Jafarbeglou

Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. , smhosseini@ut.ac.ir

Abstract: (831 Views)

1-Introduction
The Erosion Potential Model (EPM) is a widely used tool for estimating soil erosion and sediment yield in watersheds. It integrates multiple factors such as geological, topographic, climatic, and land use characteristics to predict erosion intensity and sediment transport. The model considers not only sheet and rill erosion but also gully erosion, wind, and tillage impacts. EPM's advantages include simplicity, low data requirements, and compatibility with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for visualizing erosion-prone areas.Soil erosion in Iran, particularly in the Golestan River Basin, has been a growing concern due to population growth, land use changes, and poor water and soil management. The Golestan Basin has experienced severe erosion in several sub-basins, leading to increased sedimentation and damage to fertile soil. Previous studies have applied EPM in this region, estimating soil loss and sediment yield. This study aims to evaluate the application of EPM alongside three sediment delivery ratio (SDR) equations in the Golestan River Basin to provide more accurate erosion assessments.
2- Methodology
The study employed a comprehensive set of spatial and hydrometric data for modeling erosion and sedimentation in the Golestan River Basin. Data sources included meteorological, topographic, land use, geological, soil, geomorphological, and hydrometric information. Meteorological data, covering the period from 1981 to 2024, were sourced from the CHIRPS dataset. Topographic data, derived from a 30-meter spatial resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM), were used to assess the impact of slope and elevation on erosion. Land use maps, based on Sentinel-2 satellite images, tracked changes in vegetation and urban development from 2000 to 2022.
Geological maps, soil maps, and geomorphological data were used to assess factors like soil permeability, texture, and basin morphology. Hydrometric data from 11 stations provided sediment concentration data to validate the model's predictions. The study also applied regression analysis to identify the relationship between variables (e.g., area, perimeter, slope, precipitation) and sediment production.
All data were processed in GIS software, including ArcGIS, Global Mapper, and SAGA GIS, allowing for spatial analysis and the generation of erosion potential maps.
3-Results
The study revealed significant variations in sediment yield across the sub-basins of the Gorganroud watershed, depending on the selected erosion model. For example, the Gavrilovich model predicted higher sediment yields (e.g., 2.465 in the Onq Lghi sub-basin) compared to the Bois and Williams-Brent models, which yielded lower estimates (e.g., 0.15726 in Bois). The differences suggest that the Gavrilovich model is more suitable for regions with steep slopes and severe erosion, while the Bois and Williams-Brent models are more appropriate for flatter, less erosive areas.
Regression analysis identified several key factors influencing sediment production: area, perimeter, river length, slope, curve number, temperature, elevation difference, and rainfall. These variables, particularly slope and rainfall, were found to have a strong correlation with erosion intensity and sediment yield. Areas with steep slopes, high rainfall, and low soil permeability were identified as the most vulnerable to erosion.
4- Discussion & Conclusions
The results demonstrated that the EPM is an effective tool for estimating erosion and sediment yield in the Gorganroud watershed. Climatic factors, especially temperature and precipitation, played a significant role in erosion processes, with intense rainfall events leading to increased surface runoff and sediment transport. The topography of the watershed, particularly its steep gradients, also contributed to higher erosion rates. The average slope of the watershed was 21.39%, with some areas exceeding 40%, leading to significant sediment loss. Key factors like curve number (CN) and elevation differences were found to influence runoff intensity and soil permeability. Areas with high CN values and large elevation differences experienced greater erosion due to higher runoff and soil displacement. Human activities, including overgrazing and land conversion for agriculture, were identified as additional contributors to erosion. The modeling results revealed that most sub-basins experienced extreme erosion intensity (class V), while only a few showed severe erosion (class IV). The model demonstrated a high level of accuracy, with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.969 and a standard error of 0.022. Validation using hydrometric data and statistical methods like ROC and AUC confirmed the model's reliability in predicting erosion and sediment yield. In conclusion, the EPM model proved to be a valuable tool for identifying areas of high erosion risk and understanding the factors contributing to sediment production. However, the accuracy of the model is highly dependent on the quality of input data. In areas with insufficient data, model predictions may be less reliable. To mitigate erosion and improve sediment conditions in the watershed, the study recommends integrating EPM into land management strategies, such as vegetation restoration and sustainable water resource management. By considering the specific characteristics of each sub-basin and selecting the most appropriate erosion model, policymakers and land managers can better address soil erosion challenges and develop effective strategies for soil conservation in the Golestan River Basin.

Keywords: Erosion Potential Model, Gorganroud Watershed, Sediment Delivery Ratio, Performance Characteristic Curve

Full-Text [PDF 2879 kb] (112 Downloads)

Received: 2024/10/1 | Published: 2025/03/23

References

1. Ahmadi, Habibollah. (2007). Geomorphology of Land Use (Volume 1). Tehran University Press.

2. Aleksova, B., Lukić, T., Milevski, I., Spalević, V., & Marković, S. B. (2023). Modelling water erosion and mass movements (wet) by using GIS-based multi-hazard susceptibility assessment approaches: a case study-Kratovska Reka Catchment (North Macedonia). Atmosphere, 14(7), 1139. [DOI:10.3390/atmos14071139]

3. Alewell, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., & Panagos, P. (2019). Using the USLE: Chances, challenges and limitations of soil erosion modelling. International soil and water conservation research, 7(3), 203-225. [DOI:10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.05.004]

4. Amundson, R., Berhe, A. A., Hopmans, J. W., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., & Sparks, D. L. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science, 348(6235), 1261071. [DOI:10.1126/science.1261071]

5. Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 73-89. [DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x]

6. Bagherzadeh, A., & Daneshvar, M. R. M. (2010, April). Estimating and mapping sediment production at Kardeh watershed by using GIS. In 1st International Applied Geological Congress, Mashad, Iran.

7. Bazzoffi, P. (1985, March). Methods for net erosion measurement in watersheds as a tool for the validation of models in central Italy. In Workshop on soil erosion and hillslope hydrology with emphasis on higher magnitude events, Leuven.

8. Borrelli, P., Alewell, C., Alvarez, P., Anache, J. A. A., Baartman, J., Ballabio, C., ... & Panagos, P. (2021). Soil erosion modelling: A global review and statistical analysis. Science of the total environment, 780, 146494. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146494]

9. Borrelli, P., Ballabio, C., Yang, J. E., Robinson, D. A., & Panagos, P. (2022). GloSEM: High-resolution global estimates of present and future soil displacement in croplands by water erosion. Scientific Data, 9(1), 406. [DOI:10.1038/s41597-022-01489-x]

10. Borrelli, P., Panagos, P., Alewell, C., Ballabio, C., de Oliveira Fagundes, H., Haregeweyn, N., ... & Robinson, D. A. (2023). Policy implications of multiple concurrent soil erosion processes in European farmland. Nature Sustainability, 6(1), 103-112. [DOI:10.1038/s41893-022-00988-4]

11. Boyce, R. C. (1975). Sediment Routing with Sediment Delivery Ratios. Present and Prospective Technology for ARS/USDA.

12. Brannigan, N., Mullan, D., Vandaele, K., Graham, C., McKinley, J., & Meneely, J. (2022). Modelling soil erosion by water under future climate change: Addressing methodological gaps. Catena, 216, 106403. [DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2022.106403]

13. Chen, W., Huang, Y. C., Lebar, K., & Bezak, N. (2023). A systematic review of the incorrect use of an empirical equation for the estimation of the rainfall erosivity around the globe. Earth-science reviews, 238, 104339. [DOI:10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104339]

14. Durán Zuazo, V. H., Martínez, J. F., Pleguezuelo, C. R., Martínez Raya, A., & Rodríguez, B. C. (2006). Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers in a mountainous area (SE Spain): implications for sustainable agriculture. Environmentalist, 26(4), 309-319. [DOI:10.1007/s10669-006-0160-4]

15. Durán Zuazo, V. H., Martínez, J. F., Pleguezuelo, C. R., Martínez Raya, A., & Rodríguez, B. C. (2006). Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers in a mountainous area (SE Spain): implications for sustainable agriculture. Environmentalist, 26(4), 309-319. [DOI:10.1007/s10669-006-0160-4]

16. Efthimiou, N., Lykoudi, 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. [DOI:10.30955/gnj.001847]

17. Elhag, M., & Bahrawi, J. A. (2014). Conservational use of remote sensing techniques for a novel rainwater harvesting in arid environment. Environmental earth sciences, 72, 4995-5005. [DOI:10.1007/s12665-014-3367-6]

18. Faghfouri, Z., Arman, N., Faraji, M., & Khorsandi, Z. (2017). Identifying the effective factors on sediment yield using statistical method, case study: Seyed Abad Basin. Watershed Engineering and Management, 9(2), 190-204.

19. Gavrilovi'c, S., 1972. Inˇzenjering o bujiˇcnim tokovima i eroziji. Belgrade: Republic water fund of the SR Serbia, Belgrade: Water management organization "Belgrade": Institute for erosion, melioration and water management of torrential streams at the Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade.

20. Gavrilovic, Z. (1988). Use of an Empirical Method(Erosion Potential Method) for Calculating Sediment Production and Transportation in Unstudied or Torrential Streams. In International Conference on River Regime. Hydraulics Research Limited, Wallingford, Oxon UK. 1988. p 411-422, 5 fig, 4 tab, 8 ref..

21. Gavrilovic, Z., Stefanovic, M., Milovanovic, I., Cotric, J., & Milojevic, M. (2008). Torrent classification-base of rational management of erosive regions. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science (Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 012039). IOP publishing. [DOI:10.1088/1755-1307/4/1/012039]

22. Ghanbarzadeh, H., Gholamrezaee, M., 2007. The Estimated of Potential Erosion and Sediment Using EPM Model in Arekamar Watershed in Fariman Using GIS, Geographic Sciences Quarterly, No. 7 & 8, PP. 187-206.

23. Hartemink, A. E., & Bockheim, J. G. (2013). Soil genesis and classification. Catena, 104, 251-256. [DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2012.12.001]

24. Jafari Ardakani, A., Bayat, R., Peyrovan, H. R., Jafari, M. S., & Charkhabi, A. H. (2009). Sediment yield and erosion rate of loess deposits of Golestan province in Iran. In 6th Iranian Conference of Engineering Geology and the Environment (Vol. 4, pp. 1161-1172).

25. Khodabakhshi, Zeinab, Arzani, Nasser, Abdollahi, Khodayar, & Davoodian, Alireza. (2010). Study of Erosion Susceptibility of Rock Units and Sediment Production Using the EPM Model and GIS in Part of the Zayandeh Rud Watershed - Haidari Watershed in the North of Shahrekord. Journal of Stratigraphy and Sedimentology, 26(2), 33-48.

26. Kostadinov, S., Dragićević, S., Stefanović, T., Novković, I., & Petrović, A. M. (2017). Torrential flood prevention in the Kolubara river basin. Journal of Mountain Science, 14(11), 2230-2245. [DOI:10.1007/s11629-017-4575-9]

27. Lense, G. H. E., Moreira, R. S., Parreiras, T. C., Santana, D. B., Bolelli, T. D. M., & Mincato, R. L. (2020). Water erosion modeling by the Erosion Potential Method and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: a comparative analysis. Revista Ambiente & Água, 15, e2501. [DOI:10.4136/ambi-agua.2501]

28. Let me know if you need further assistance!Ahmadi, H. 1386. Applied geomorphology (first volume). University of Tehran Publishing and Printing Institute. (in Persian)

29. Lu, H., Moran, C. J., & Prosser, I. P. (2006). Modelling sediment delivery ratio over the Murray Darling Basin. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21(9), 1297-1308. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.04.021]

30. Mahmmudi, F.A., 2004. Dynamic Geomorphology, 6th edition, Payame Noor University Press, Tehran, Iran.

31. Mansouri, Zahra & Kabousi, Kami. (2013). Erosion Intensity Zoning Using the EPM Model (Case Study: Golidagh Watershed, Golestan Province). First National Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources, Tehran. https://civilica.com/doc/258216

32. Mansouri, Zahra and Kabousi, Kami, (2013), Erosion intensity zoning using EPM model (case study: Glidagh watershed, Golestan province), the first national conference on sustainable agriculture and natural resources, Tehran, https://civilica.com/ doc/258216. (in Persian)

33. Mohammadi Ostadkalaei, Amin, Mosaadi, Abolfazl, & Heshamatpour, Ali. (2007). Determining the Most Suitable Method for Estimating Suspended Sediment in the Qazaqli Hydrometric Station of the Gorganrud River.

34. Mohammadi Ostadkalaye Amin, Mosaedi Abolfazl, & Hashmatpour Ali. (2007). Determining the most appropriate method for estimating suspended sediment in the Ghazagli hydrometric station of the Gorganrood River. (in Persian)

35. Montgomery, D. R. (2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268-13272. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.0611508104]

36. Moradi, S., Limaei, S. M., & Khanmohammadi, M. (2015). Calculation of sediment yield in the Zemkan River Basin of Iran using analytical methods and GIS concept. Agriculture & Forestry, 61(2), 157-171. [DOI:10.17707/AgricultForest.61.2.14]

37. Mosaadi, Mansour Najafi Haji Vareh, & Mehdi Jalali. (2009). Estimation of Sediment Output from the Gorganrud Watershed for Erosion Assessment. In the 5th National Conference on Watershed Sciences and Engineering of Iran (Sustainable Management of Natural Disasters).

38. Mosaedi, Mansour Najafi Hajivar, & Mehdi Jalali. (2009). Estimating the output sediment from the Gorgan River catchment area in order to determine the erosion rate. In the 5th National Conference on Watershed Science and Engineering of Iran (Sustainable Management of Natural Disasters). Sudden flows in spring (following heavy rainfall and melting snow) and low discharge in autumn and summer are identified. (in Persian)

39. Ong Majid, & Nahtani Mohammad. (2004). The relationship between geomorphological units and erosion and sediment production in the Kashidar watershed (Gorganrood). (in Persian)

40. Onogh, Majid, & Nahtani, Mohammad. (2004). The relationship between geomorphological units and erosion and sediment production in the Kashidar Watershed (Gorganrud).

41. Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Poesen, J., Lugato, E., Scarpa, S., Montanarella, L., & Borrelli, P. (2020). A soil erosion indicator for supporting agricultural, environmental and climate policies in the European :union:. Remote Sensing, 12(9), 1365. [DOI:10.3390/rs12091365]

42. Park, Y. S., Kim, J., Kim, N. W., Kim, S. J., Jeon, J. H., Engel, B. A., ... & Lim, K. J. (2010). Development of new R, C and SDR modules for the SATEEC GIS system. Computers & Geosciences, 36(6), 726-734. [DOI:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.11.005]

43. Pintar, J., Mikoš, M., & Verbovšek, V. (1986). Elementi okolju prilagojenega urejanja vodotokov: alternativa utesnjevanju živih naravnih procesov v toge objekte.

44. Ponjiger, T. M., Lukić, T., Wilby, R., Marković, S. B., Valjarević, A., Dragićević, S., ... & Morar, C. (2023). Evaluation of rainfall erosivity in the Western Balkans by mapping and clustering ERA5 reanalysis data.

45. Pourjavad, E., & Shirouyehzad, H. (2011). A MCDM approach for prioritizing production lines: a case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 221-229.‏ [DOI:10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p221]

46. Pourjavad, E., & Shirouyehzad, H. (2011). A MCDM approach for prioritizing production lines: a case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 221-229. [DOI:10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p221]

47. Rafahi, H., 2009. Water Erosion and Conservation, 5th Edition, University of Tehran Press, Tehran, Iran.

48. Recatalá, L., Añó, C., Verzandvoort, S., Ritsema, C., & Sánchez, J. (2011). Harmonization of risk assessment methods of soil erosion by water in the European :union:. Soil Erosion: Causes, Processes and Effects, 161-176.

49. Renard, K. G. (1995). Predicting Soil Erosion by Water; A Guide to Coservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook, 703, 367.

50. Renard, K. G. (1997). Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.

51. Safari, Mohammad, Noori, Mohammad, Karami, Mohammad, & Jalal, Mohammad. (2018). Examining the Impact of Land Cover and Land Use Changes on Soil Erosion Potential - A Case Study of the Qara Sou-Gorganrud Watershed. Scientific Journals System, 5(1), 83-96.

52. Safari, Nouri, Kerami, & Jalal. (2018). Investigating the impact of land cover and land use changes on soil erosion capability - a case study of Qarasu Basin, Gorganrood. Scientific Journal System, 5(1), 83-96(in Persian). [DOI:10.29252/jsaeh.5.1.83]

53. Sandu, I., Pescaru, V. I., Poiană, I., Geicu, A., Cândea, I., & Tâstea, D. (2008). Clima României (Climate of Romania). The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest.

54. Shahreza, Ali Saleh & Asghari, Ebrahim. (2009). Report on the Integration of Water Resources Studies of the Qara Sou-Gorganrud Watershed, Volume 3: Statistical Analysis, Data Interpretation, and Hydrology, Part 1: Meteorology, 293 pp.

55. Shahreza, Ali Saleh and Asghari, Ebrahim. (2008). The integrated report of studies of water resources in the Gharesu-Gorganrood watershed, volume three: analysis of statistics and information and water expression, part one: meteorology, 293 p. (in Persian)

56. Ts, M. I., & Gruev, G. (2002). Intensity of erosion in the catchment area of the river Rakovitsa. Forest Science, 1, 73-84.

57. USDA, 2019. Conservation practices have decreased soil erosion on cultivated cropland over time [WWW Document]. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gall ery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=94923.

58. Van der Knijff, J., Jones, R., & Montanarella, L. (2000). Soil erosion risk assessment in Europe: European Soil Bureau. European Commission Belgium.

59. Van Oost, K., Govers, G., & Desmet, P. (2000). Evaluating the effects of changes in landscape structure on soil erosion by water and tillage. Landscape ecology, 15, 577-589. [DOI:10.1023/A:1008198215674]

60. Veličković, N., Todosijević, M., & Šulić, D. (2022). Erosion Map Reliability Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and Erosion Potential Method (EPM): A Comparison of Mapping Methods, BELGRADE Peri-Urban Area, Serbia. Land, 11(7), 1096. [DOI:10.3390/land11071096]

61. Walling, D. E. (1983). The sediment delivery problem. Journal of hydrology, 65(1-3), 209-237. [DOI:10.1016/0022-1694(83)90217-2]

62. Williams, J. R., & Berndt, H. D. (1977). Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Transactions of the ASAE, 20(6), 1100-1104. [DOI:10.13031/2013.35710]

63. Wischmeier, W., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to conservation planning. Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to conservation planning. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

64. Yang, D., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Koike, T., & Musiake, K. (2003). Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological processes, 17(14), 2913-2928. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.1441]

65. Zema, D. A., Labate, A., Martino, D., & Zimbone, S. M. (2017). Comparing different infiltration methods of the HEC‐HMS model: the case study of the Mésima Torrent (Southern Italy). Land Degradation & Development, 28(1), 294-308. [DOI:10.1002/ldr.2591]

66. Zhang, H. Y., Shi, Z. H., Fang, N. F., & Guo, M. H. (2015). Linking watershed geomorphic characteristics to sediment yield: Evidence from the Loess Plateau of China. Geomorphology, 234, 19-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.014]