Climate models project increased extreme precipitation for the coming decades, which may lead to higher soil erosion in many locations worldwide. Different soil erosion model concepts are used to assess the impact of climate change on soil erosion at large spatial scales, including models forced by precipitation and by runoff. However, there is little knowledge of the implications of soil erosion model conceptualization on projected soil erosion rates under climate change. Here, we assess the impact of climate change with the three most widely used soil erosion model concepts: a model forced by precipitation (RUSLE); a model forced by runoff (MUSLE); and a model forced by precipitation and runoff (MMF). We applied the models to two contrasting Mediterranean catchments (south-east Spain), where climate change is projected to decrease the annual precipitation sum and increase extreme precipitation, based on the RCP8.5 climate change scenario. Depending on the model, soil erosion is projected to decrease (RUSLE) or increase (MUSLE and MMF) in the study area. Although it is difficult to validate future model projections, the differences between the model projections are, inherently, a result of their model conceptualization: a decrease in soil loss due to a decrease in the annual precipitation sum (RUSLE); and an increase in soil loss due to an increase in extreme precipitation and, consequently, increased runoff (MUSLE). An intermediate result is obtained with MMF, in which a projected decrease in detachment by raindrop impact is counteracted by a projected increase in detachment by runoff. We conclude that in climate change impact assessments it is important to select a soil erosion model that is forced by both precipitation and runoff, which under climate change may have a contrasting effect on soil erosion.
AmanambuAC, et al. (2019) Spatio-temporal variation in rainfall–runoff erosivity due to climate change in the Lower Niger Basin, West Africa. CATENA172: 324–334.
2.
Angulo-MartínezM, et al. (2016) Use of disdrometer data to evaluate the relationship of rainfall kinetic energy and intensity (KE-I). Science of the Total Environment568: 83–94.
3.
ArnoldJG, et al. (2012) SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Asabe55(4): 1491–1508.
4.
ArnoldusHMJ (1977) Methodology used to determine the maximum potential average annual soil loss due to sheet and rill erosion in Morocco. FAO Soils Bulletin34: 39–48.
5.
BeasleyLF, et al. (1980) ANSWERS: A model for watershed planning. Transactions of the ASAE23(4): 0938–0944.
6.
BegueríaS, et al. (2018) Computation of rainfall erosivity from daily precipitation amounts. Science of the Total Environment637–638: 359–373.
7.
BhuyanSJ, et al. (2002) Soil loss predictions with three erosion simulation models. Environmental Modelling & Software17(2): 135–144.
8.
BlöschlG, et al. (2019) Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH): A community perspective. Hydrological Sciences Journal64(10): 1141–1158.
9.
BorrelliP, et al. (2017) An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications8(1): 2013.
10.
BrownLCFosterGR (1987) Storm erosivity using idealized intensity distributions. Transactions of the ASAE30(2): 0379–0386.
11.
BussiG, et al. (2014) Distributed sediment yield modelling: Importance of initial sediment conditions. Environmental Modelling & Software58: 58–70.
12.
CenteriC, et al. (2009) Comparison of EUROSEM, WEPP, and MEDRUSH model calculations with measured runoff and soil-loss data from rainfall simulations in Hungary. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science172(6): 789–797.
13.
CerdanO, et al. (2002) Incorporating soil surface crusting processes in an expert-based runoff model: Sealing and transfer by runoff and erosion related to agricultural management. CATENA46(2–3): 189–205.
14.
ChandramohanT, et al. (2015) Evaluation of three soil erosion models for small watersheds. Aquatic Procedia4: 1227–1234.
15.
ChowVT (1959) Open-channel Hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
CorreaSW, et al.Soil erosion risk associated with climate change at Mantaro River basin, Peruvian Andes. CATENA147: 110–124.
17.
CoulthardTJVan De WielMJ (2007) Quantifying fluvial non linearity and finding self organized criticality? Insights from simulations of river basin evolution. Geomorphology91(3–4): 216–235.
18.
CrokeJNetheryM (2006) Modelling runoff and soil erosion in logged forests: Scope and application of some existing models. CATENA67(1): 35–49.
19.
DesmetPJJGoversG (1996) A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation51(5): 427–433.
20.
EekhoutJPCVenteJ (2019) The implications of bias correction methods and climate model ensembles on soil erosion projections under climate change. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms44(5): 1137–1147.
21.
EekhoutJPC, et al. (2018a) Why increased extreme precipitation under climate change negatively affects water security. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences22(11): 5935–5946.
22.
EekhoutJPC, et al. (2018b) Assessing the large-scale impacts of environmental change using a coupled hydrology and soil erosion model. Earth Surface Dynamics6(3): 687–703.
23.
EwenJ, et al. (2000) SHETRAN: Distributed river basin flow and transport modeling system. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering5(3): 250–258.
24.
FarrTG, et al. (2007) The shuttle radar topography mission. Reviews of Geophysics45(2): RG2004.
25.
GavrilovićS (1972) Engineering on torrential streams and erosion. Izgradnja (Special Issue): 1–292.
26.
GuptaSKumarS (2017) Simulating climate change impact on soil erosion using RUSLE model: A case study in a watershed of mid-Himalayan landscape. Journal of Earth System Science126(3): 43.
27.
HenglT, et al. (2017) SoilGrids250 m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLOS ONE12(2): e0169748.
28.
HerreraS, et al. (2016) Update of the Spain02 gridded observational dataset for EURO-CORDEX evaluation: Assessing the effect of the interpolation methodology. International Journal of Climatology36(2): 900–908.
29.
HouskaT, et al. (2015) SPOTting model parameters using a ready-made python package. PLOS ONE10(12): 1–22.
30.
JacobD, et al. (2014) EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research. Regional Environmental Change14(2): 563–578.
31.
JettenV, et al. (2003) Erosion models: Quality of spatial predictions. Hydrological Processes17(5): 887–900.
32.
KerbyW (1959) Time of concentration for overland flow. Civil Engineering29(3): 174.
33.
KirkbyMJ (1988) Hillslope runoff processes and models. Journal of Hydrology100(1–3): 315–339.
34.
KirkbyMJAbrahartRMcMahonM, et al. (1998) MEDALUS soil erosion models for global change. Geomorphology24(1): 35–49.
35.
KirkbyMJIrvineBJJonesRJA, et al. (2008) The PESERA coarse scale erosion model for Europe. I. – Model rationale and implementation. European Journal of Soil Science59(6): 1293–1306.
36.
KirpichZP (1940) Time of concentration of small agricultural watersheds. Civil Engineering10(6): 362.
37.
LadsonAR, et al. (2013) A standard approach to baseflow separation using the Lyne and Hollick Filter. Australasian Journal of Water Resources17(1): 25–34.
38.
LazarAN, et al. (2010) An assessment of the fine sediment dynamics in an upland river system: INCA-Sed modifications and implications for fisheries. Science of the Total Environment408(12): 2555–2566.
39.
LiuY, et al. (2019) Vulnerability assessment of the global water erosion tendency: Vegetation greening can partly offset increasing rainfall stress. Land Degradation & Development30(9): 1061–1069.
40.
McCoolDKBrownLCFosterGRMutchlerCKMeyerLD (1987) Revised Slope Steepness Factor for the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Transactions of the ASAE30(5): 1387–1396.
41.
MaetensW, et al. (2012) Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean: A meta-analysis of plot data. Progress in Physical Geography36(5): 599–653.
42.
MahmoodabadiMSajjadiSA (2016) Effects of rain intensity, slope gradient and particle size distribution on the relative contributions of splash and wash loads to rain-induced erosion. Geomorphology253(1): 159–167.
43.
MainaJ, et al. (2013) Human deforestation outweighs future climate change impacts of sedimentation on coral reefs. Nature Communications4(May): 1–7.
Martínez-MurilloJ, et al. (2013) Soil erosion and hydrology of the western Mediterranean badlands throughout rainfall simulation experiments: A review. CATENA106: 101–112.
46.
MondalA, et al. (2016) Impact assessment of climate change on future soil erosion and SOC loss. Natural Hazards82(3): 1515–1539.
MorganRPCDuzantJH (2008) Modified MMF (Morgan–Morgan–Finney) model for evaluating effects of crops and vegetation cover on soil erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms33(1): 90–106.
49.
MorganRPC, et al. (1998) The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM): A dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms23(6): 527–544.
50.
NashJESutcliffeJV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology10(3): 282–290.
51.
NearingMADeer-AscoughLLaflenJM (1990) Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP hillslope profile erosion model. Transactions of the ASAE33(3): 0839–0849.
52.
NearingMAFosterGRLaneLJ, et al. (1989) A process-based soil erosion model for USDA water erosion prediction project technology. Transactions of the ASAE32(5): 1587–1593.
53.
NearingMAPruskiFFO’NealMR (2004) Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation59(1): 43–50.
54.
NearingMAWeiHStoneJJ, et al. (2011) A rangeland hydrology and erosion model. Transactions of the ASABE54(3): 901–908.
55.
NunesJP, et al. (2005) Evaluating the MEFIDIS model for runoff and soil erosion prediction during rainfall events. CATENA61(2–3): 210–228.
56.
PanagosPBallabioCMeusburgerK, et al. (2017) Towards estimates of future rainfall erosivity in Europe based on REDES and WorldClim datasets. Journal of Hydrology548: 251–262.
57.
PanagosPBorrelliPPoesenJ, et al. (2015) The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy54: 438–447.
58.
PhomchaP, et al. (2011) Predicting sediment discharge in an agricultural watershed: A case study of the Lam Sonthi watershed. Science Asia37(1): 43–50.
59.
PoesenJW, et al. (1998) Variation of rock fragment cover and size along semiarid hillslopes: A case study from southeast Spain. Geomorphology23(2–4): 323–335.
60.
RenardKGFreimundJR (1994) Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of Hydrology157(1–4): 287–306.
61.
RenardKG, et al. (1997) Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook No. 703. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Available at:www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/64080530/RUSLE/AH_703.pdf(accessed 13 August 2019).
62.
SaxtonKERawlsWJ (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Science Society of America Journal70(5): 1569–1578.
63.
Serrano-NotivoliR, et al. (2017) SPREAD: A high-resolution daily gridded precipitation dataset for Spain – an extreme events frequency and intensity overview. Earth System Science Data9(2): 721–738.
64.
ShenZY, et al. (2009) A comparison of WEPP and SWAT for modeling soil erosion of the Zhangjiachong Watershed in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Agricultural Water Management96(10): 1435–1442.
65.
ShresthaB, et al. (2013) Impact of climate change on sediment yield in the Mekong River basin: A case study of the Nam Ou basin, Lao PDR. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences17(1): 1–20.
66.
SivapalanM (2018) From engineering hydrology to earth system science: Milestones in the transformation of hydrologic science. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences22(3): 1665–1693.
67.
StolpeNB (2005) A comparison of the RUSLE, EPIC and WEPP erosion models as calibrated to climate and soil of south-central Chile. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B: Soil and Plant Science55(1): 2–8.
68.
SunY, et al. (2007) How often will it rain?Journal of Climate20(19): 4801–4818.
69.
SwitanekBM, et al. (2017) Scaled distribution mapping: A bias correction method that preserves raw climate model projected changes. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences21(6): 2649–2666.
70.
TengH, et al. (2018) Current and future assessments of soil erosion by water on the Tibetan Plateau based on RUSLE and CMIP5 climate models. Science of the Total Environment635: 673–686.
71.
TerinkW, et al. (2015) SPHY v2.0: Spatial processes in hydrology. Geoscientific Model Development8(7): 2009–2034.
72.
TiwariAK, et al. (2000) Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE. Transactions of the ASAE43(5): 1129–1135.
73.
TollnerEW, et al. (1976) Suspended sediment filtration capacity of simulated vegetation. Transactions of the ASAE19(4): 0678–0682.
74.
WilliamsJR (1995) The EPIC model. In: SinghVP (ed.) Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Highlands Ranch, CO: Water Resources Publications, 909–1000.
75.
WischmeierWHSmithDD (1958) Rainfall energy and its relationship to soil loss. Transactions, American Geophysical Union39(2): 285–291.
76.
WischmeierWSmithD (1978) Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses. Agricultural Handbook No. 537. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Available at:https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT79706928/PDF(accessed 13 August 2019).
77.
WischmeierWH, et al. (1971) A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation26(5): 189–193.
78.
ZareM, et al. (2016) Simulation of soil erosion under the influence of climate change scenarios. Environmental Earth Sciences75(21): 1405.
79.
ZiadatFMTaimehAY (2013) Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degradation & Development24(6): 582–590.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
