Coupled Control of Land Use and Topography on Suspended Sediment Dynamics in an Agriculture- Forest Dominated Watershed, Hokkaido, Japan.

Similar documents
Introduction, HYDROGRAPHS

Water Budget III: Stream Flow P = Q + ET + G + ΔS

Water Budget III: Stream Flow P = Q + ET + G + ΔS

Water Budget III: Stream Flow P = Q + ET + G + ΔS

SNAMP water research. Topics covered

Water Budget III: Stream Flow P = Q + ET + G + ΔS

Stream Hydrology. Watershed 8/29/13. Area that contributes water to a point on a stream Scale is user-defined Other names: Catchment Drainage basin

Introduction. Keywords: Oil Palm, hydrology, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS. a * b*

Water Quality Preservation Effect of Riparian Forests in Watersheds with Dairy Farming Areas in Eastern Hokkaido

WASA Quiz Review. Chapter 2

Climate Change & Urbanization Have Changed River Flows in Ontario

Texas A & M University and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Hydrologic Modeling Inventory Model Description Form

Effect of forest management on water yields & other ecosystem services in Sierra Nevada forests UCB/UC Merced/UCANR project

M.L. Kavvas, Z. Q. Chen, M. Anderson, L. Liang, N. Ohara Hydrologic Research Laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Davis

Radar-based flood forecasting: Quantifying hydrologic prediction uncertainty

Chapter 1 Introduction

Working with the Water Balance

1. Stream Network. The most common approach to quantitatively describing stream networks was postulated by Strahler (1952).

CE 2031 WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING L T P C

Module 3. Lecture 4: Introduction to unit hydrograph

FISHER RIVER INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT CONTRIBUTION SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY REPORT

Lecture 9A: Drainage Basins

The Impact of Wetland Drainage on the Hydrology of a Northern Prairie Watershed

CONCENTRATION/DISCHARGE HYSTERESIS ANALYSIS OF STORM EVENTS AT THE PANOLA MOUNTAIN RESEARCH WATERSHED, GEORGIA, USA

Forests and Water in the Sierra Nevada. Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, UC Merced

Evaluating the Reduction Effect of Nonpoint Source Pollution Loads from Upland Crop Areas by Rice Straw Covering Using SWAT

M.L. Kavvas, Z. Q. Chen, M. Anderson, L. Liang, N. Ohara Hydrologic Research Laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Davis

The Impact of Climate Change on a Humid, Equatorial Catchment in Uganda.

Introduction to Hydrology, Part 2. Notes, Handouts

SOUTHEAST TEXAS CONTINUING EDUCATION

Vegetation Management and Water Yield: Silver Bullet or a Pipe Dream?

July, International SWAT Conference & Workshops

MODELING PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO THE CANNONSVILLE RESERVOIR USING SWAT

Flood forecasting model based on geographical information system

IJSER. within the watershed during a specific period. It is constructed

Construction. Analysis. Hydrographs

1 THE USGS MODULAR MODELING SYSTEM MODEL OF THE UPPER COSUMNES RIVER

Flood forecasting model based on geographical information system

Scale Effects in Large Scale Watershed Modeling

Sixth Semester B. E. (R)/ First Semester B. E. (PTDP) Civil Engineering Examination

Impacts of 2015 Drought on Streamflow in the Columbia River Basin

Analysis of Suspended Sediment Data from Upper Lee River, Nelson

Establishing Environmental Flows for California Streams. Eric Stein Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

Forecasting Hydrological Processes under Combined Climate and Land-Use/Cover Change Scenarios

Managing Forests for Snowpack Storage & Water Yield

MODULE 1 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS WORKSHEET 1. Precipitation

The Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental

Application of SWAT Model in land-use. change in the Nile River Basin: A Review

Hydrological And Water Quality Modeling For Alternative Scenarios In A Semi-arid Catchment

R. Srinivasan, J.H. Jacobs, J.W. Stuth, J. Angerer, R. Kaithio and N. Clarke

ICELANDIC RIVER / WASHOW BAY CREEK INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT CONTRIBUTION SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY REPORT

The Drainage Basin System

Hydrologic and Water Quality Monitoring on Turkey Creek Watershed, Francis Marion National Forest, SC

A comparative study of the methods for estimating streamflow at ungauged sites

Thanks to Bill Elliot, Research Leader U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Inside of forest (for example) Research Flow

Module 3. Lecture 6: Synthetic unit hydrograph

Study of Hydrology based on Climate Changes Simulation Using SWAT Model At Jatiluhur Reservoir Catchment Area

Hamid R. Solaymani. A.K.Gosain

Urbanization effects on the hydrology of the Atlanta area, Georgia (USA)

Lecture 15: Flood Mitigation and Forecast Modeling

Use of a distributed catchment model to assess hydrologic modifications in the Upper Ganges Basin

Soil and Water Conservation Research under Intensive Potato Production Systems in New Brunswick

Overview of the Surface Hydrology of Hawai i Watersheds. Ali Fares Associate Professor of Hydrology NREM-CTAHR

DEVELOPMENT OF A HYDRO-GEOMORPHIC MODEL FOR THE LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED

Proposed Project. Integrated Water Resources Management Using Remote Sensing Data in Upper Indus Basin

How Effective Are Sediment and Turbidity Reduction Projects in the Stony Clove Creek Watershed?

THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

Definitions 3/16/2010. GG22A: GEOSPHERE & HYDROSPHERE Hydrology

Impact Study of a check dam on Ground Water Recharge

The Islamic University of Gaza- Civil Engineering Department Sanitary Engineering- ECIV 4325 L5. Storm water Management

Water, forests and climate

Stream hydrographs. Stream hydrographs. Baseflow. Graphs of river stage or discharge at a single location as a function of time

Ag Drainage Design Protocols and Current Technology

Hydrologic engineering Hydraulic engineering Environmental engineering Ecosystems engineering Water resources engineering

Runoff Processes. Daene C. McKinney

Temporal Variability of Phosphorus Concentration in the stream to Squam Lake, New Hampshire during Storm Events

OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGING HABITAT AND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES FROM THE SIERRA NEVADA SENTINEL STREAM NETWORK DURING EXTENDED DROUGHT Dave

UPDATE OF ARC TP108 RUN-OFF CALCULATION GUIDELINE

Latest Information from DWR on Prop 84

What is runoff? Runoff. Runoff is often defined as the portion of rainfall, that runs over and under the soil surface toward the stream

Hydrological Modelling of Narmada basin in Central India using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY POST GRADUATE GOVT. COLLEGE FOR GIRLS.SECTOR-11 CHANDIGARH CLASS-B.A.II PAPER-A RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT: WORLD PATTERNS

Hypothetical Flood Computation for a Stream System

Water Resources Status in Danube River Basin. SWAT Conference_ Spain, Toledo June 2011

The Texas A&M University and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Hydrologic Modeling Inventory (HMI) Questionnaire

SECTION IV WATERSHED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Simulation of Basin Runoff due to Rainfall and Snowmelt

SECTION III: WATERSHED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Uncertainty in Hydrologic Modelling for PMF Estimation

Modelling the Hydrologic Effects of. in the San Jose Watershed

Rangeland Hydrology and Management

Hands-on Session. Adrian L. Vogl Stanford University

Application of the SWAT Model to the Hii River Basin, Shimane Prefecture, Japan

Simulation of basin runoff due to rainfall and snowmelt

Rainfall, Runoff and Peak Flows: Calibration of Hydrologic Design Methods for the Kansas City Area

Application of a Basin Scale Hydrological Model for Characterizing flow and Drought Trend

Assessing Real Time - Drainage Water Management

RAINFALL - RUNOFF MODELING IN AN EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED IN GREECE

Coupling of MODFLOW and WATFLOOD in hydrological modelling of a small watershed

Transcription:

SOIL'S ROLE IN RESTORING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES March 6-9, 201, Sacramento, CA Coupled Control of Land Use and Topography on Suspended Sediment Dynamics in an Agriculture- Forest Dominated Watershed, Hokkaido, Japan. C. Wang 1, R. Hatano 1 R. Jiang 2, K. Kuramochi 1, A. Hayakawa 3 1 Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan 2 College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, China 3 Akita Prefectural University, Akita, Japan

INTRODUCTION Suspended sediment (SS) transport from land to watercourse is an immense problem that has threatened soil and water conservation in the world (Alexandrov et al., 2003). Influence of land use and topography on SS dynamics and yields at different spatial and temporal scales have been reported (Bakker et al., 200, Casali et al., 2010 and Tang et al., 2011). Understanding the dynamics of SS transfer is essential in controlling soil erosion and in implementing appropriate mitigation practices (Heathwaite et al., 2005).

2 3 OBJECTIVES (1) Assess land use and topography influence on surface runoff and lateral flow response to precipitation. (2) Assess influence of land use and topography on SS yield. (3) Assess effects of land use, topography and hydrological processes on sediment dynamics in streams. Soil erosion SS dynamics Land use & Topography 1 Hydrology

MATERIAL & METHODS Study site Shibetsu River Watershed (SRW), Hokkaido, Japan

MATERIAL & METHODS Study site SRW DEM AW FW SRW FW AW Rain gauge Area ( km 2 ) 10. 71.3 675 SRW and two sub-basins FW and AW Land use Land Use Forest 1. 3.7 53.7 Pasture 0.2 15.1 0. Slope Urban 0.3 0.6.3 Slope 0-5 2.0 22. 5.9 >5 1.0 77.2 5.1

SSC MATERIAL & METHODS Sampling Stream water table (H) Stream discharge (Q) Calibrated H-Q equations Water samples Automatic sampler (high frequency for flood events) SS concentration (SSC) 0.7μm Glass Microfiber filters. Continuous SSC Q dynamics Wavelet during Transform flood (CWT) events To characterize the temporal variability Hysteretic loop: of rainfall and runoff events. Interval between the SSC and Q peaks. Wavelet Coherence (WTC) (1) Clockwise (C): SSC>Q To clarify relationship between rainfall (2) Anticlockwise (A): Q>SSC and runoffs. (3) -shaped (): Several peaks in SSC Matlab-software package (WTC-R15) C A Q

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Rainfall events 2003 3 Characteristics of rainfall events Snowmelt events 200 2 1 (April) 2006 1 (May) 2007 1 Rainfall events Total rainfall (mm) Maximum intensity (mm/h) 29-31 Jul 2003 7-10 Aug 2003 17 35 9-11 Sep 2003 31 9 30-31 Aug 200 2 7 7-9 Sep 200 27 6 22-2 July 2007 6 12 Characteristics of the rainfall events

AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) RESULTS & DISCUSSION Hydrograph of flood events Land use and topography influence on surface runoff and lateral flow response to precipitation? 0.30 AW FW 5 0.25 Response of surface runoff and lateral flow to rainfall in 0.20 3 AW was similar with FW.

AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) RESULTS & DISCUSSION 1.0 AW 2. 0. FW 2.3 0.6 0. 2.7 0.2 2.73 15 AW 10 5 0 Hydrograph of flood events FW 25 20 Response of surface runoff 15 10 and lateral flow to rainfall was faster in AW than FW. 5 0 0.5 0. 0.3 0.2 0.1 AW FW 10 6 2 0 0. 0.3 0.2 0.1 AW FW 3.0 2.5 Response of surface runoff and lateral flow to rainfall was more variable in AW than FW. 2.0 1.5

SRW streamflow (m 3 /s) AW streamflow (m 3 /s) FW streamflow (m 3 /s) Precipitation (mm) Precipitation (mm) Precipitation (mm) RESULTS & DISCUSSION Precipitation and streamflow Original time series of CWT and WTC 500 0 2.0 0 0 0 00 100 1.5 300 30 SRW Streamflow 100 AW Streamflow 100 Precipitation FW Streamflow 200 200 1.0 20 Precipitation Precipitation 200 200 300 100.5 10 300 300 0 00 0.0 03/1/1 0 03/12/23 0/12/13 05/12/ 06/11/25 07/11/ 0/11/6 00 00 03/1/1 03/1/1 03/12/23 03/12/23 0/12/13 0/12/13 05/12/ 05/12/ 06/11/25 06/11/25 07/11/ 07/11/ 0/11/6 0/11/6 Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) Wavelet Coherence (WTC)

Period (days) Period (days) RESULTS & DISCUSSION CWT: Variability of rainfall and streamflow 6 12 256 512 Rainfall 500 1000 1500 2000 6 2 1 1/2 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/6 SRWQ SRWQ 6 6 2 21 6 11/2 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 1/ 12 256 1/ 1/ 1/ 256 512 1/ 1/6 1/ 512 500 1000 1500 2000 1/6 runoff and lateral flow. 500 1000 1500 2000 AFWQ Time: 2003-200 6 Daily rainfall Low period spectrum represents high rainfall events. SRW daily streamflow Low period spectrum represents surface

Period (days) Period (days) RESULTS & DISCUSSION CWT: Variability of rainfall and streamflow FWQ 6 2 1 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 256 1/ 1/ 512 1/6 Response of surface runoff and lateral flow to 500 1000 1500 2000 rainfall was more variable in AW than FW. AWQ 6 2 1 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 256 1/ 1/ 512 1/6 500 1000 1500 2000 Time: 2003-200 FW daily streamflow AW daily streamflow

Period Period Time lag (days) RESULTS & DISCUSSION WTC: Time-lag between rainfall and Q 6 6 12 12 256 256 512 512 WTC: Rainfall-AWQ Rainfall-FWQ Rainfall-SRWQ 500 500 1000 1000 1500 1500 2000 2000 11 0.9 0. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0. 0. 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 3 2 1 0 FW AW SRW 0 5 10 15 20 25 Period (days) WTC: Time-lag between Q and rainfall (1) Time-lag in SRW (675 km 2 ) was similar with FW (71.3km 2 ), indicating catchment size was not the dominant factor controlling the time-lag. (2) Results of WTC showed that response of surface runoff and lateral flow to rainfall was faster in AW than FW.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Characteristics of snowmelt events Influence of land use on soil erosion? Mean and maximum SSC were higher in AW than FW, soil erosion was more serious in pasture land (plant cover). Snowmelt events 1-29 April 200 9-19 May 2006 AW FW SRW AW FW SRW Flood duration (h) 62 63 679 252 26 276 Total water yield (mm/h) 0.10 0.9 11.7 0.06 5.2 25.2 Q m (m 3 /s) 0.29 2.70 33.7 0.1 15.15 72.72 Q max (m 3 /s) 0.52.5 6.92 0.23 17.0 0.99 SSC m (mg/l) 1375 12 36 791 359 29 SSC max (mg/l) 1113 96 110 177 6 SS yield (kg/h/km 2 ) 13 19 6 9 275 11 Q m : mean discharge; Q max : maximum discharge SSC m : mean SSC; SSC max : maximum SSC

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Characteristics of snowmelt events Influence of land use on SS yield? May, snowmelt water recharge stream as groundwater, more water yield in FW resulted in more SS yield. Snowmelt events 1-29 April 200 9-19 May 2006 AW FW SRW AW FW SRW Flood duration (h) 62 63 679 252 26 276 Total water yield (mm/h) 0.10 0.9 11.7 0.06 5.2 25.2 Q m (m 3 /s) 0.29 2.70 33.7 0.1 15.15 72.72 Q max (m 3 /s) 0.52.5 6.92 0.23 17.0 0.99 SSC m (mg/l) 1375 12 36 791 359 29 SSC max (mg/l) 1113 96 110 177 6 SS yield (kg/h/km 2 ) 13 19 6 9 275 11 Q m : mean discharge; Q max : maximum discharge SSC m : mean SSC; SSC max : maximum SSC Flood events

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Characteristics of flood events Influence of land use on soil erosion? Mean and maximum SSC were higher in AW than FW due to the land cover, grazing or harvest. Flood events 29-31 Jul 2003-10 Aug 2003 9-11 Sep 2003 AW FW SRW AW FW SRW AW FW SRW Flood duration(h) 39 6 29 29 56 6 Total water yield (mm/h) 0.12 0.1 0.15 1.66 0.67 0.79 0.0 0.1 0.1 Q m (m 3 /s) 0.35 2.7 2.52.79 13.21 1.9 0.22 3.63 25.6 Q max (m 3 /s) 0. 2..3 11.73 22.09 370.9 0.2.2 SSC m (mg/l) 779 3 6 611 595 297 1972 13 193 SSC max (mg/l) 90 1 250 1193 6 11517 33 31 60 SS yield (kg/h/km 2 ) 9 5 7 10137 397 236 150 2 26

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Characteristics of flood events Flood events 30-31 Aug 200 7-9 Sep 200 22-2 July 2007 AW FW SRW AW FW SRW AW FW SRW Flood duration(h) 3 31 30 6 6 5 27 63 Total water yield (mm/h) 0.0 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.0 0.13 0.1 Q m (m 3 /s) 0.23 2.95 21.1 0.20 1.5.9 0.2 2.63 26.67 Q max (m 3 /s) 0. 7.2 31.29 0.37 2.75 2.1 0.33 3.29 61.70 SSC m (mg/l) 3391 215 79 1 15 21 111 19 0 SSC max (mg/l) 1793 37 25 5715 110 90 905 69 235 SS yield (kg/h/km 2 ) 270 319 9 57 1 2 9 3 11 SS yield in AW was higher than FW. August, 200, more water yield in FW resulted in more SS yield.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION SSC Q dynamics Hysteretic loops during flood events Flood events AW FW SRW : SSC peak before and after Q peak 29-31 Jul 2003 A C C: SSC peak before Q peak -10 Aug 2003 A C C A: SSC peak after Q peak 9-11 Sep 2003 A 30-31 Aug 200 C : Complex shaped hysteresis; 7-9 Sep 200 A C C C: Clockwise shaped hysteresis; 22-2 July 2007 C C A: Anti-clock wise shaped hysteresis (1) Earlier sediment supply from pasture land due to (a) Its faster response of streamflow to precipitation as the A or hysteresis happened in AW and FW, most flood results of measured hydrograph and WTC showed. events were characterized with C hysteresis at SRW. (b) Pasture land located nearer to SRW compared with forest. (2) Higher sediment concentration and SS yield from pasture land.

CONCLUSIONS (1) Response of surface runoff and lateral flow to rainfall was faster and more variable in AW than FW during flood events. (2) During snowmelt and flood events, soil erosion was more serious in agriculture land due to the plant cover and management practices (e.g., grazing, harvest). (3) Earlier sediment supply from agriculture land with higher sediment concentration resulted in C hysteresis at SRW, while A and hysteresis happened in AW and FW.

MATERIAL AND METHODS Sampling Daily stream water table (H) Daily stream discharge (Q) Calibrated H-Q equations. Water samples Automatic sampler. Concentrations of SS (SSC) 0.7μm Glass Microfiber filters. Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) To characterize the temporal variability of rainfall and runoff events. Wavelet Coherence (WTC) To clarify Relationship between rainfall and runoffs. Matlab-software package (WTC-R15)

MATERIAL AND METHODS SSC Sampling SSC Q dynamics during flood events Daily stream water table (H) Daily stream discharge (Q) Calibrated H-Q equations. Water samples Automatic sampler. Concentrations of SS (SSC) 0.7μm Glass Microfiber filters. Hysteretic loop: Interval between the SSC and Q peaks. (1) Clockwise (C): Q>SSC (2) Anticlockwise (A):SSC>Q (3) Figure (): Several peaks C A Q

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Characteristics of rainfall events Rainfall events Snowmelt events 2003 3 200 2 1 2006 1 2007 1 Antecedent precipitation index (API) APIx : where x=7 or 21 days before a rainfall event and API (mm) is the average precipitation on the xth day before the event. Flood events Total rainfall (mm) Maximum intensity (mm/h) API7 API21 29-31 Jul 2003 7 6.11 0.17-10 Aug 2003 17 35 1.29 2.76 9-11 Sep 2003 31 9 5.62 3.67 30-31 Aug 200 2 7 9.3 0.5 7-9 Sep 200 27 6 7.97.1 22-2 July 2007 6 12 3.57 2.52 Characteristics of the rainfall events

Period Period Period Period Period Time lag (days) RESULTS & DISCUSSION WTC: Time-lag between Q and rainfall FWQ 6 2 1 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 256 1/ 1/ 512 1/6 500 1000 1500 2000 AWQ 6 2 1 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 256 1/ 1/ 512 1/6 500 1000 1500 2000 SRWQ 6 2 1 6 1/2 1/ 12 1/ 256 1/ 1/ 512 1/6 500 1000 1500 2000 6 AFWQ Time-lag 6 2 1 1/2 1/ 6 12 256 512 3 2 1 0 FW AW SRW 0 5 10 15 20 25 Period (days) Results of WTC showed that response of surface runoff and lateral flow to rainfall was faster in AW than FW. Rainfall 500 1000 1500 2000 6 2 1 1/2 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/6

RESULTS & DISCUSSION Climatic conditions and streamflow Climatic conditions of SRW during the study period Rainfall (mm) Annual snow Maximum snowpack Annual Maximum daily fall (cm) depth (cm) 2003 1276 106 626 71 200 931 9 612 109 2006 133 65 65 2007 103 90 362 53 30-yr average 117 9 0 71