A non‐equilibrium sediment transport model for rill erosion

Liu, Q. Q.; Chen, L.; Li, J. C.; Singh, Vijay P.

doi:10.1002/hyp.6288

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This finding indicates that rainfall pattern strongly affects rill development and sediment concentration. The experimental results also indicated that the rill development was random; thus, under a given rainfall intensity, the degree of rill development can differ significantly (Liu, Chen, Li, & Singh, 2007;Yan et al, 2008). Table II shows that rills had been formed for CR events at all four cross sections for the runoff velocity measurements, and for IR events, rills did not form at the uppermost cross section.…”

Section: Effect Of Rainfall On Runoff and Sediment Concentration Of Rmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laboratory Studies on the Influence of Rainfall Pattern on Rill Erosion and Its Runoff and Sediment Characteristics

Sun

Gong

et al. 2017

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rill is a major type of erosion on upland slopes. Continuous rainfall is commonly used in laboratory studies on rill erosion despite the fact the rainfall was often discontinuous in the field; this is particularly true in the Chinese Loess Plateau. This study compares rill erosion under continuous and intermittent rainfalls by using laboratory experiments. The experiments include two rainfall‐intensity treatments (90 and 120 mm h−1) and two rainfall‐pattern treatments (continuous and intermittent). The results indicate that rill formation had a significant effect on runoff and sediment concentration. For continuous and intermittent rainfall at the rainfall intensity of 90 mm h−1, the mean sediment concentrations were 1·91 and 1·73 times after rill initiation than those before rill initiation, respectively, and the rill erosion accounted for 75·5% and 77·7% of runoff duration, respectively. For continuous and intermittent rainfall at the rainfall intensity of 120 mm h−1, the mean sediment concentrations after rill initiation were 1·38 and 1·32 times that those before rill initiation, respectively, and the rill erosion represented 88·7% and 78·8% of the total runoff duration, respectively. We observed sediment sorting under all treatments; however, the low rainfall intensity boosted but the high rainfall intensity lowered the clay fraction; in contrast, the sorting remained roughly the same between the rainfall‐pattern treatments. The runoff velocity also affected the sediment sorting. Our empirical results indicated the important significance of the rainfall intermittence in predicting rill erosion. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effect Of Rainfall On Runoff and Sediment Concentration Of Rmentioning

confidence: 89%

Laboratory Studies on the Influence of Rainfall Pattern on Rill Erosion and Its Runoff and Sediment Characteristics

Sun

Gong

et al. 2017

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that we focused only on the flow depth in rills longer than 0.5 m after rill development because the uncertainty in the measurement of rill flow velocity may have been enhanced in shorter rills. After rill initiation, a rill will capture most of the runoff, ranging from 80% to 95% (Jayawardena & Bhuiyan, ; Liu et al, ; Proffitt & Rose, ; Tayfur & Kavvas, ). Given the characteristic parameters for the erosion model on steep slopes (Lei et al, ; Meng, ), we assumed that 85% of the runoff would enter the rill and used this value as Q when calculating the flow depth in rills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raindrop Size and Flow Depth Control Sediment Sorting in Shallow Flows on Steep Slopes

Wang

Fang

Yue

et al. 2018

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Raindrop size and flow depth interactions determine the energy available for erosion processes.A detailed laboratory study was conducted to investigate the influence of raindrop size on sediment sorting in shallow flows on steep slopes. Raindrops with sizes of 1.34, 2.45, and 4.04 mm were applied to three inflows (0.65, 1, and 2 L/min) with the same rainfall intensity (90 mm/hr). The De Brouckere mean diameter (D[4,3]) was enhanced with increases in the ratio between flow depth and raindrop size (h/d; p < 0.05), indicating that more raindrop energy dissipated in deeper flows. Moreover, a greater proportion of energy was dissipated from small raindrops than from large ones with an increasing flow depth. Particles >0.5 mm were slightly enriched by rolling under 1.34-mm raindrop impact, whereas enrichment did not occur under 2.45-and 4.04-mm raindrop impact, probably because the latter induced more severe aggregate disintegration, resulting in fewer coarse particles. The mean sediment concentrations under inflows of 0.65, 1, and 2 L/min were 101.65, 89.32, and 79.02 g/L, respectively. Shallow flows on steep slopes effectively carried detached particles; moreover, coarse particles could roll along the slopes, which was inconsistent with their behavior on gentle slopes. This study highlights the need to understand the influence of the interaction between raindrop size and flow depth on erosion processes associated with sediment size selectivity for better erosion modeling and water quality prediction.

show abstract

“…However, the deterministic treatment of a and b may not be justifiable in other landscapes where agricultural activities are intense and erosion processes are highly episodic [Gellis and Walling, 2011;Mukundan et al, 2012]. In these landscapes, erosion and sediment transport processes can be highly variable due to the complex interactions of water, soil/sediment, and crop rotations, leading to a highly variable a and b [Tayfur and Kavvas, 1998;Govers et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2007;Gim enez et al, 2004;Papanicolaou et al, 2015]. Also, instream sources in these landscapes cannot be neglected as they have been found to contribute significantly to material at the outlet with implications to the roles of a and b and their variability in an unmixing analysis [Wilson et al, 2012].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An enhanced Bayesian fingerprinting framework for studying sediment source dynamics in intensively managed landscapes

Abban

Papanicolaou

Cowles

et al. 2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An enhanced revision of the Fox and Papanicolaou (hereafter referred to as “F‐P”) (2008a) Bayesian, Markov Chain Monte Carlo fingerprinting framework for estimating sediment source contributions and their associated uncertainties is presented. The F‐P framework included two key deterministic parameters, α and β, that, respectively, reflected the spatial origin attributes of sources and the time history of eroded material delivered to and collected at the watershed outlet. However, the deterministic treatment of α and β is limited to cases with well‐defined spatial partitioning of sources, high sediment delivery, and relatively short travel times with little variability in transport within the watershed. For event‐based studies in intensively managed landscapes, this may be inadequate since landscape heterogeneity results in variabilities in source contributions, their pathways, delivery times, and storage within the watershed. Thus, probabilistic treatments of α and β are implemented in the enhanced framework to account for these variabilities. To evaluate the effects of the treatments of α and β on source partitioning, both frameworks are applied to the South Amana Subwatershed (SASW) in the U.S. midwest. The enhanced framework is found to estimate mean source contributions that are in good agreement with estimates from other studies in SASW. The enhanced framework is also able to produce expected trends in uncertainty during the study period, unlike the F‐P framework, which does not perform as expected. Overall, the enhanced framework is found to be less sensitive to changes in α and β than the F‐P framework, and, therefore, is more robust and desirable from a management standpoint.

show abstract

A non‐equilibrium sediment transport model for rill erosion

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Laboratory Studies on the Influence of Rainfall Pattern on Rill Erosion and Its Runoff and Sediment Characteristics

Laboratory Studies on the Influence of Rainfall Pattern on Rill Erosion and Its Runoff and Sediment Characteristics

Raindrop Size and Flow Depth Control Sediment Sorting in Shallow Flows on Steep Slopes

An enhanced Bayesian fingerprinting framework for studying sediment source dynamics in intensively managed landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About