7 ron binger svi-goodwin_presentation
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•237 visualizações
72nd SWCS International Annual Conference July 30-August 2, 2017 Madison, WI
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Mais de Soil and Water Conservation Society
Mais de Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Último
Último (20)
7 ron binger svi-goodwin_presentation
- 1. Application of SVI to a Historically Eroded Landscape Goodwin Creek Watershed, Mississippi USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS Ron Bingner, Seth Dabney SWCS 2017
- 2. Goodwin Creek Watershed • Mixed-use watershed in the Southeastern Plains • Watershed Area: 21.3 km2 • Monitored since 1981 • 14 In-stream flumes • 32 Precipitation gages
- 4. SVI Inputs: Soil Properties Hydrologic Soil Group
- 6. SVI Results: Slope Category for Soil Leaching Potential
- 7. SVI vs. DEM Resolution
- 8. SVI Results: Soil Leaching Potential - 1m DEM
- 9. Summary • SVI has a very narrow range of slopes for runoff and leaching. • Especially with runoff, any area with slope > 6% falls in high category. • SVI is not as effective in watersheds with steep slopes.
Notas do Editor
- coarser DEM resolution resulted in greater fractions of the watershed in the lowest slope class, and smaller fractions in others. However, differences between all DEM resolutions were almost negligible in the slope category “0-2%” in case of runoff potential. In case of leaching potential, differences between the 1-m and 10-m DEM was almost negligible in the slope category “0-3%”.
- Soils of Goodwin Creek watershed are primarily in the hydrologic soil group “D”, which corresponds to soils with high runoff potential and low infiltration rate (fig. 2, Table 4). The next dominant soil category is group “C”, which corresponds to soils with moderately high runoff potential and low infiltration rate.
- With the use of a coarser DEM, there was an increase in the fraction of the watershed fractions in lower risk classes and a decrease in the higher risk classes. Differences were lesser between the 1-m and 10-m resolution than between the 10-m and 30-m resolutions
- Differences between all DEM resolutions were almost negligible in the slope category “0-2%” in case of runoff potential. In case of leaching potential, differences between the 1-m and 10-m DEM was almost negligible in the slope category “0-3%”
- In most cases, watershed is in the highest risk class because of the steep slopes. With the use of a coarser DEM, there was an increase in the fraction of the watershed fractions in lower risk classes and a decrease in the higher risk classes. Differences were lesser between the 1-m and 10-m resolution than between the 10-m and 30-m resolutions
- More than 50% of the total area of the watershed falls in Low risk class and 47% in Moderate risk class. DEM resolutions do not affect the fraction of watershed in risk classes for leaching, so we show SVI maps for the soil leaching component only for the finest resolution (1-m DEM)