Model analysis of check dam impacts on long-term sediment and water budgets in Southeast Arizona, USA

Norman, Laura M.; Niraula, Rewati

doi:10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.12.001

Cited by 40 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Water-harvesting techniques using rock detention structures were originally developed by native tribes (Fish and Fish 1984). Norman et al (2014Norman et al ( , 2015Norman et al ( , 2016 have documented increased surface water and vegetation health at riparian sites treated with these erosion control structures (ECSs) in southeastern Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. However, the impacts of watershed restoration techniques on downstream surface water and on groundwater aquifers are undocumented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a restored wetland using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

Wilson

Norman

2018

International Journal of Remote Sensing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Watershed restoration efforts seek to rejuvenate vegetation, biological diversity, and land productivity at Cienega San Bernardino, an important wetland in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. Rock detention and earthen berm structures were built on the Cienega San Bernardino over the course of four decades, beginning in 1984 and continuing to the present. Previous research findings show that restoration supports and even increases vegetation health despite ongoing drought conditions in this arid watershed. However, the extent of restoration impacts is still unknown despite qualitative observations of improvement in surrounding vegetation amount and vigor. We analyzed spatial and temporal trends in vegetation greenness and soil moisture by applying the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and normalized difference infrared index (NDII) to one dry summer season Landsat path/row from 1984 to 2016. The study area was divided into zones and spectral data for each zone was analyzed and compared with precipitation record using statistical measures including linear regression, Mann-Kendall test, and linear correlation. NDVI and NDII performed differently due to the presence of continued grazing and the effects of grazing on canopy cover; NDVI was better able to track changes in vegetation in areas without grazing while NDII was better at tracking changes in areas with continued grazing. Restoration impacts display higher greenness and vegetation water content levels, greater increases in greenness and water content through time, and a decoupling of vegetation greenness and water content from spring precipitation when compared to control sites in nearby tributary and upland areas. Our results confirm the potential of erosion control structures to affect areas up to 5 km downstream of restoration sites over time and to affect 1 km upstream of the sites.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a restored wetland using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

Wilson

Norman

2018

International Journal of Remote Sensing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous studies, SWAT ITs were used to model a constructed wetland placement effect on water quality (Wang et al 2008); wetlands' influence on flood mitigation, peak-flow reduction through wetland water retention, and increased evapotranspiration (Demissie and Khan 1993;Hattermann et al 2006;Babbar-Sebens et al 2013); and to simulate nutrient retention in natural and constructed wetlands (White and Bayley 2001;Vache et al 2002;Cooper 2009). SWAT ITs were also used to estimate sediment and nutrient retention in reservoirs (Mishra et al 2007;Bosch 2008;Liu et al 2014); to assess dam and check dam impact on local water, sediment, and nutrient yields (Mishra et al 2007;Ouyang et al 2011;Zhang et al 2011;Liu et al 2014;Norman and Niraula 2016); to model reservoir placement feasibility (Zhang et al 2012); to calculate reservoir water availability for municipal purposes (Brauer et al 2015); and to model and account for reservoir influence in SWAT modeling (Kirsch et al 2002;Bosch 2008;Wang and Xia 2010;Liu et al 2016;Vigiak et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of SWAT Impoundment Modeling Methods in Water and Sediment Simulations

Jalowska

Yuan

2018

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide studies show 80%–90% of all sediments eroded from watersheds is trapped within river networks such as reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands. To represent the impact of impoundments on sediment routing in watershed modeling, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) developers recommend to model reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands using impoundment tools (ITs). This study evaluates performance of SWAT ITs in the modeling of a small, agricultural watershed dominated by lakes and wetlands. The study demonstrates how to incorporate impoundments into the SWAT model, and discusses and evaluates involved parameters. The study then recommends an appropriate calibration sequence, i.e., landscape parameters calibration, followed by pond/wetlands calibration, then channel parameter calibrations, and lastly, reservoir parameter calibration. Results of this study demonstrate not following SWAT recommendation regarding modeling water land use as an impoundment depreciates SWAT performance, and may lead to misplaced calibration efforts and model over‐calibration. Further, the chosen method to model impoundments’ outflow significantly impacts sediment loads in the watershed, while streamflow simulation is not very sensitive. This study also allowed calculation of mass accumulation rates in modeled impoundments where the annual mass accumulation rate in wetlands (2.3 T/ha/yr) was 39% higher than mass accumulation rate in reservoirs (1.4 T/ha/yr).

show abstract

“…Porto et al () used the radionuclides of 137 Cs and 210 Pb ex as sediment tracers to investigate the sediment budget in a small forested catchment of southern Italy, the results confirmed that 137 Cs and 210 Pb ex measurements can provide a valuable tool for quantifying both erosion and sediment redistribution compared with the traditional monitoring techniques. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool model was also used to evaluate the effect of check dam on soil and water conservation at the catchment scale, modelling results indicated that approximately 630 Mg of sediment was estimated to be stored behind check dams over the 3–year simulation at the West Turkey Creek watershed in southeast USA (Norman & Niraula, ). Meanwhile, researches attempted to use the deposition record of check dam or reservoir and the monitoring data at the watershed outlet to validate sediment yield model, such as WATEM/SEDEM model (Alatorre et al , ) and Annualized Agricultural Non‐point Source model (Zema et al , ; Zema et al , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment Yield Deduction from Check–dams Deposition in the Weathered Sandstone Watershed on the North Loess Plateau, China

Wei

et al. 2016

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the basic unit of erosion and sediment yield, it was critical to determine the amount of soil erosion and sediment yield in the small watersheds for sustaining a reasonable water resource and sediment regulation system. In this study, we determined the sediment yield from the dams‐controlled watershed on the North Loess Plateau. Three check dams in the watershed were investigated by drilling ten‐hole sedimentation cores. The corresponding flood couplets were dated according to thickness of deposition layers, distribution of sediment particle size and historical erosive rainfall events. On the basis of the check dams capacity curve, the soil bulk density and the thickness of couplets, the deposit mass of check dams, and then the sediment yield of watershed at different temporal and spatial scale were deducted. In total of the 33, 60 and 55 couplets were corresponded to individual flood events in the dam MH1# from 1976 to 1984, the dam MH2# from 1985 to 2007, and the dam MH4# from 1981 to 2009, respectively. The specific sediment yield for flood events was 1,188.5–11,527.9 Mg km−2, 1,278.6–17,136.7 Mg km−2, and 3,395.9–33,698.5 Mg km−2, and the annual average sediment yield was 10,728.6 Mg (km2 · a)−1, 12,662.9 Mg (km2 · a)−1, and 16,753.3 Mg (km2 · a)−1 in dam MH1#, MH2# and MH4# controlled watershed, respectively. The sediment yields were inversely proportional to the dams – controlled areas. For the whole watershed, the annual average sediment yield was 14,011.1 Mg (km2 · a)−1 from 1976 to 2009. There were large amounts of sediments (42.3–50.5%) were intercepted gradually along the way from small watersheds to the river channel. And the minimum rainfall for sediment deposited in the dams was greater than 20 mm in this watershed. The results of this study suggested that the sediments retained behind check dams were helpful to quantifying the amount of erosion sediment yield and understanding the soil erosion evolution in the small and ungauged watersheds. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Model analysis of check dam impacts on long-term sediment and water budgets in Southeast Arizona, USA

Cited by 40 publications

References 53 publications

Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a restored wetland using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a restored wetland using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

Evaluation of SWAT Impoundment Modeling Methods in Water and Sediment Simulations

Sediment Yield Deduction from Check–dams Deposition in the Weathered Sandstone Watershed on the North Loess Plateau, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About