Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Testing the Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model (EGEM) for two Mediterranean environments

Testing the Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model (EGEM) for two Mediterranean environments Few models can predict ephemeral gully erosion rates (e.g. CREAMS, EGEM). The Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model (EGEM) was specifically developed to predict soil loss by ephemeral gully erosion. Although EGEM claims to have a great potential in predicting soil losses by ephemeral gully erosion, it has never been thoroughly tested. The objective of this study was to evaluate the suitability of EGEM for predicting ephemeral gully erosion rates in Mediterranean environments. An EGEM‐input data set for 86 ephemeral gullies was collected: detailed measurements of 46 ephemeral gullies were made in intensively cultivated land in southeast Spain (Guadalentin study area) and another 40 ephemeral gullies were measured in both intensively cultivated land and abandoned land in southeast Portugal (Alentejo study area). Together with the assessment of all EGEM‐input parameters, the actual eroded volume for each ephemeral gully was also determined in the field. A very good relationship between predicted and measured ephemeral gully volumes was found (R2 = 0·88). But as ephemeral gully length is an EGEM input parameter, both predicted and measured ephemeral gully volumes have to be divided by this ephemeral gully length in order to test the predictive capability of EGEM. The resulting relationship between predicted and measured ephemeral gully cross‐sections is rather weak (R2 = 0·27). Therefore it can be concluded that EGEM is not capable of predicting ephemeral gully erosion for the given Mediterranean areas. A second conclusion is that ephemeral gully length is a key parameter in determining the ephemeral gully volume. Regression analysis shows that a very significant relation between ephemeral gully length and ephemeral gully volume exists (R2 = 0·91). Accurate prediction of ephemeral gully length is therefore crucial for assessing ephemeral gully erosion rates. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Earth Surface Processes and Landforms Wiley

Testing the Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model (EGEM) for two Mediterranean environments

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/testing-the-ephemeral-gully-erosion-model-egem-for-two-mediterranean-h7U8tJC0h7

References (26)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
0197-9337
eISSN
1096-9837
DOI
10.1002/1096-9837(200101)26:1<17::AID-ESP149>3.0.CO;2-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Few models can predict ephemeral gully erosion rates (e.g. CREAMS, EGEM). The Ephemeral Gully Erosion Model (EGEM) was specifically developed to predict soil loss by ephemeral gully erosion. Although EGEM claims to have a great potential in predicting soil losses by ephemeral gully erosion, it has never been thoroughly tested. The objective of this study was to evaluate the suitability of EGEM for predicting ephemeral gully erosion rates in Mediterranean environments. An EGEM‐input data set for 86 ephemeral gullies was collected: detailed measurements of 46 ephemeral gullies were made in intensively cultivated land in southeast Spain (Guadalentin study area) and another 40 ephemeral gullies were measured in both intensively cultivated land and abandoned land in southeast Portugal (Alentejo study area). Together with the assessment of all EGEM‐input parameters, the actual eroded volume for each ephemeral gully was also determined in the field. A very good relationship between predicted and measured ephemeral gully volumes was found (R2 = 0·88). But as ephemeral gully length is an EGEM input parameter, both predicted and measured ephemeral gully volumes have to be divided by this ephemeral gully length in order to test the predictive capability of EGEM. The resulting relationship between predicted and measured ephemeral gully cross‐sections is rather weak (R2 = 0·27). Therefore it can be concluded that EGEM is not capable of predicting ephemeral gully erosion for the given Mediterranean areas. A second conclusion is that ephemeral gully length is a key parameter in determining the ephemeral gully volume. Regression analysis shows that a very significant relation between ephemeral gully length and ephemeral gully volume exists (R2 = 0·91). Accurate prediction of ephemeral gully length is therefore crucial for assessing ephemeral gully erosion rates. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.