Accuracy of methods for field assessment of rill and ephemeral gully erosion

Abstract

To properly assess soil erosion in agricultural areas, it is necessary to determine precisely the volume of ephemeral gullies and rills in the field by using direct measurement procedures. However, little information is available on the accuracy of the different methods used. The main purpose of this paper is to provide information for a suitable assessment of rill and ephemeral gully erosion with such direct measurement methods. To achieve this objective: a) the measurement errors associated to three methods used for field assessment of channel cross sectional areas are explored; b) the influence of the number of cross sections used per unit channel length on the assessment accuracy, is analysed and; c) the effect of the channel size and shape on measurement errors is examined. The three methods considered to determine the cross sectional areas were: micro-topographic profile meter (1); detailed measurement of section characteristic lengths with a tape (2); measurement of cross section width and depth with a tape (3). Five reaches of different ephemeral gully types 14.0 or 30.0 m long and a set of six 20.4 to 29.4 m long rill reaches were selected. On each gully reach, the cross sectional areas were measured using the three above mentioned methods, with a separation (s) between cross sections of 1 m. For rills, the cross sectional areas were measured with methods 1 and 3, with s= 2 m. Then, the corresponding total erosion volumes were computed. The volume calculated with method 1 with s= 1 m for gullies and s= 2 m for rills was taken as the reference method. For each channel, and for each one of the possible combinations of s and measurement method (m), the relative measurement error and the absolute value of the relative measurement error (Ersm and |Ersm| ), defined with respect to the reference one, was calculated. |Ersm| much higher than 10% were obtained very easily, even for small s values and for apparently quasi prismatic channels. Channel size and shape had a great influence on measurement errors. In fact, the selection of the more suitable method for a certain gully shape and size seemed to be much more important than s, at least when s< 10 m. Method 1 always provided the most precise measurements, and its results were the less dependent on s. However, s must be <5 m to guarantee an error smaller than 10%. Method 2 is not recommended, because it is difficult, time consuming and can lead to large errors. Method 3 seems to be enough for small, wide and shallow gullies, and for small rills, but only if s is shorter than 5 m. Results obtained after the analysis of rill measurement errors were similar to those of gullies. The analysis of Ersm and |Ersm| when calculating channel volumes using a unique representative cross section highlighted the importance of correctly selecting the adequate cross section. Due to the high error values that this method can entail, it is not considered as advisable whenever accurate erosion measurements are pursued.