Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCiesiolka, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCoughlan, K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRose, Calvinen_US
dc.contributor.authorYu, Bofuen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-04T17:39:23Z
dc.date.available2017-04-04T17:39:23Z
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.date.modified2010-07-06T07:00:32Z
dc.identifier.issn00049573en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1071/SR99104en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/3080
dc.description.abstractMonthly runoff and soil loss simulated by WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project) were compared with field observations on a pineapple farm in south-east Queensland for a 3-year period. The soil at the site is sandy. Slope length and steepness are 36m and 5.5%, respectively. Three treatments, namely bare, farmers' conventional practice, and mulching of the furrows, were used. Infiltration and erodibility parameters were determined using WEPP-recommended equations and measurable soil properties. These parameters were also calibrated using the runoff and soil loss data for the bare plot only. Apart from the soil loss prediction for the mulching treatment, for which WEPP did not perform well, the average coefficient of efficiency in runoff and soil loss predictions was -0.02 using soil property-based parameter values and 0.66 using calibrated parameter values. The corresponding r 2 values are 0.57 and 0.81, respectively. On the whole, WEPP is able to reproduce the trend and variations in runoff and soil loss among different treatments for the site. Parameter values based on measurable soil properties would greatly under-estimate the runoff and soil loss for the site. Thus, use of WEPP outside its US database requires calibration with locally obtained data. It was also found that WEPP does not seem to model effectively the situation where there is considerable flow impediment with the furrows covered with mulch. We are unable to reject WEPP because the statistical performance indicators are reasonable for the site, and because the model is so complex that it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the source of discrepancy and articulate the model deficiency on physical grounds.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherCSIRO Publishingen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom537en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto554en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian Journal of Soil Researchen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume38en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode210000en_US
dc.titleA validation test of WEPP to predict runoff and soil loss from a pineapple farm on a sandy soil in subtropical Queensland, Australiaen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, Griffith School of Engineeringen_US
gro.date.issued2000
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record