Operational USLE-Based Modelling of Soil Erosion in Czech Republic, Austria, and Bavaria—Differences in Model Adaptation, Parametrization, and Data Availability

Abstract

In the European Union, soil erosion is identified as one of the main environmental threats, addressed with a variety of rules and regulations for soil and water conservation. The by far most often officially used tool to determine soil erosion is the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and its regional adaptions. The aim of this study is to use three different regional USLE-based approaches in three different test catchments in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Austria to determine differences in model results and compare these with the revised USLE-base European soil erosion map. The different regional model adaptations and implementation techniques result in substantial differences in test catchment specific mean erosion (up to 75% difference). Much more pronounced differences were modelled for individual fields. The comparison of the region-specific USLE approaches with the revised USLE-base European erosion map underlines the problems and limitations of harmonization procedures. The EU map limits the range of modelled erosion and overall shows a substantially lower mean erosion compared to all region-specific approaches. In general, the results indicate that even if many EU countries use USLE technology as basis for soil conservation planning, a truly consistent method does not exist, and more efforts are needed to homogenize the different methods without losing the USLE-specific knowledge developed in the different regions over the last decades.

The potential risk of combined effects of water and tillage erosion on the agricultural landscape in Czechia

“…This finding is in line with other authors criticising the approach of Panagos et al (2015), e.g. Boardman (2016a, 2016b), Auerswald (2016), andFiener et al (2020).…”

Model-based analysis of erosion-induced microplastic delivery from arable land to the stream network of a mesoscale catchment

“…A K factor map was provided by the LfL (derived from the soil properties given by the soil overview map of Bavaria at a scale of 1:25,000) based on the calculation in Schwertmann et al (1987. The LS2D factor was derived from the 5 m x 5 m DEM, following the approach of Desmet and Govers (1996. Assuming some soil conservation methods to be in place, e.g. partial contour ploughing, the P factor was set to 0.85 (Fiener et al, 2020). The tillage transport coefficient ktil depends on the tillage implement, tillage speed, tillage depths, bulk density, texture and soil moisture at time of tillage (Van Oost et al, 2006).…”

Comparison of long-term field-measured and RUSLE-based modelled soil loss in Switzerland

“…There are no guidelines for appropriate application of models such as USLE; each user applies a different model variation based on the available data. Fiener et al (2020) compared three different USLE applications and observed substantial differences in the modelled soil loss, with up to 75% difference in the results. Thus, there are also problems and limitations with harmonization and standardization procedures in the application of USLE.…”