HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bonilla, C. A. Articles by Molling, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bonilla, C. A. Articles by Molling, C. C. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Bonilla, C. A. Articles by Molling, C. C. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Soil Erosion Soil Models

Water Erosion Estimation in Topographically Complex Landscapes: Model Description and First Verifications

^a Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile
^b Dep. of Soil Science, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1525 Observatory Dr. Madison, WI 53706
^c Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Rill and interrill partitioning and node distribution in a PALMS grid cell.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Change in the rill and interrill soil consolidation factor as a function of the accumulated amount of rainfall energy intensity (EI). The interrill factor responds to soil texture, so PALMS estimations are compared for three different soils.

View larger version (44K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Slope (S) profile used for the idealized field.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. A comparison of the sediment transport capacities calculated with PALMS and WEPP in an idealized field with a silt loam soil having 30 d since the last soil disturbance.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. A comparison of PALMS and WEPP detachment and deposition rates predicted in an idealized field with a silt loam soil having 30 d since the last soil disturbance. Positive values of soil loss indicate detachment and negative values indicate deposition.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of PALMS and WEPP predicted particle-size distribution in flow exiting an idealized field.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Measured vs. PALMS and WEPP predicted runoff for data taken from Table 2 of Gilley et al. (1990).

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Measured vs. PALMS and WEPP predicted soil loss for data taken from Table 2 of Gilley et al. (1990).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Measured vs. PALMS and WEPP predicted soil loss for data taken from Table 2 of Gilley et al. (1990) after runoff calibration.

View larger version (57K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Output from a PALMS model run simulating a 28.2-mm rainfall runoff event on a 3.7-ha field near Saukville, WI (grid cells shown are 5 by 5 m; topography is exaggerated 14x; north is to the left in the figure). (a) Net erosion for the entire runoff event. Darker shades are net erosion; lighter shades are net deposition. Values range from –4.28 kg cell–1 (deposition) to 0.25 kg cell–1 (erosion). The position of the runoff and sediment collector is shown with an asterisk. (b) Number of rills per cell formed by this runoff event.