VTechWorks staff will be away for the Thanksgiving holiday beginning at noon on Wednesday, November 27, through Friday, November 29. We will resume normal operations on Monday, December 2. Thank you for your patience.
 

Comparing Sediment Trap Data With Erosion Models for Evaluation of Forest Haul Road Stream Crossing Approaches

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLang, A. J.en
dc.contributor.authorAust, W. Michaelen
dc.contributor.authorBolding, M. Chaden
dc.contributor.authorMcGuire, Kevin J.en
dc.contributor.authorSchilling, Erik B.en
dc.contributor.departmentForest Resources and Environmental Conservationen
dc.contributor.departmentVirginia Water Resources Research Centeren
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-15T19:38:28Zen
dc.date.available2019-07-15T19:38:28Zen
dc.date.issued2017-01-01en
dc.date.updated2019-07-15T19:38:26Zen
dc.description.abstractSoil erosion and sediment delivery models have been developed to estimate the inherent complexities of soil erosion, but most models are not specifically modified for forest operation applications. Three erosion models, the Universal Soil Loss Equation for forestry (USLE-Forest), Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2), and Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), were compared to one year of trapped sediment data for 37 forest haul road stream crossings. We assessed model performance from five variations of the three erosion models: USLE-Roadway, USLE-Soil Survey, RUSLE2, WEPP-Default, and WEPP-Modified. Each road approach was categorized into one of four levels of erosion (very low, low, moderate, and high) based on trapped erosion rate data and erosion rates reported in recent peerreviewed literature. Model performance metrics included: (1) summary statistics and nonparametric analysis, (2) linear relationships, (3) percent agreement within erosion categories and tolerable error ranges, and (4) contingency table metrics. Sediment trap data varied from negligible (<0.1) to hundreds of Mg ha-1 year-1. The soil erosion models evaluated could estimate erosion within 5 Mg ha-1year-1 for most approaches having erosion rates less than 11.2 Mg ha-1 year-1, while models estimates varied widely for approaches that eroded at rates above 11.2 Mg ha-1year-1. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analyses revealed that only WEPP-Modified estimates were not significantly different from trapped sediment data (p ≥ 0.107). While WEPP-Modified ranked best for most model performance metrics, the time, effort, modeling expertise, and uncertainty associated with model results may discourage the use of WEPP as a forest management tool. WEPP is better suited for researchers and government agencies that have the capability to measure extensive parameter data. Additional sensitivity analysis is needed to expand default parameters for forest roads within the WEPP and USLE models.en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.extentPages 393-408en
dc.format.extent16 page(s)en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.13031/trans.11859en
dc.identifier.eissn2151-0040en
dc.identifier.issn2151-0032en
dc.identifier.issue2en
dc.identifier.orcidBolding, Michael [0000-0002-6212-7133]en
dc.identifier.orcidAust, Wallace [0000-0002-7053-3465]en
dc.identifier.orcidMcGuire, Kevin J. [0000-0001-5751-3956]en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/91457en
dc.identifier.volume60en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Agricultural & Biological Engineersen
dc.relation.urihttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000400680100015&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=930d57c9ac61a043676db62af60056c1en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectAgricultural Engineeringen
dc.subjectAgricultureen
dc.subjectBest management practicesen
dc.subjectErosionen
dc.subjectHaul roadsen
dc.subjectSoil erosion modelsen
dc.subjectStream crossing approachesen
dc.subjectPREDICTION PROJECT MODELen
dc.subjectWATER-QUALITYen
dc.subjectSOIL-EROSIONen
dc.subjectMANAGEMENT-PRACTICESen
dc.subjectVIRGINIA PIEDMONTen
dc.subjectWEPP MODELen
dc.subjectRUNOFFen
dc.subjectVALIDATIONen
dc.subjectIMPACTen
dc.subjectRUSLEen
dc.titleComparing Sediment Trap Data With Erosion Models for Evaluation of Forest Haul Road Stream Crossing Approachesen
dc.title.serialTransactions of the ASABEen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Natural Resources & Environmenten
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Techen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/All T&R Facultyen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Natural Resources & Environment/Forest Resources and Environmental Conservationen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Natural Resources & Environment/CNRE T&R Facultyen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Natural Resources & Environment/Water Resources Research Centeren
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Natural Resources & Environment/Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation/FREC WRRC facultyen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/University Research Institutes/Fralin Life Sciences/Chloe Lahondereen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/University Research Institutes/Fralin Life Sciencesen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/University Research Institutesen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Lang et al_ASABE17.pdf
Size:
1.51 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

All Faculty Deposits
Scholarly Works, Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation
Scholarly Works, Virginia Water Resources Research Center