1Faculty of Environmental Department – Ho Chi Minh City University of Natural Resources and Environment; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
*Corresponding author: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Tel.: +84–908836115
Runoff reduction is the goal of soil and water conservation in agricultural watersheds. Through the runoff, many substances of soil such as sediment, nutrients have been eroded to end up in streams, rivers, and lakes. In decades, studies have revealed various mitigation, including structure and non–structure conservation ranging from field scale to watershed scale. However, the challenges for effectiveness improvement have increased in recent years within the impacts of anthropogenic activities such as land use land cover change and fluctuation in weather conditions. As a result, the runoff generation has been changing in both terms of quantitative and variable sources areas of runoff generation. From the understanding of runoff generation mechanisms, including infiltration excess and saturation excess, this study was conducted with the objective to propose an application of the Soil Topographic Index (STI) and the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS–CN) in identifying the areas with high runoff propensity. The method utilized GIS–based indices to indicate the high runoff potential areas. The ranking maps were evaluated by Wilcoxon rank sum test and Getis–Ord Gi* spatial statistics. Results demonstrated that there was a statistical significance of the greater STI in inundated cultivation than STI in cultivation areas. However, STI values were not statistically significant in pasture areas. Alternatively, the combination of STI and SCS–CN detected the statistical significance between calculated indices and inundated observed areas. In conclusion, the combination between STI and SCS–CN values is a potential method in redefining runoff generation hot spots.
Cite this paper
Anh, B.K.V. Soil topography index and SCS – curve number approach in identifying hot spots of runoff potential areas. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2022, 11, 43-56.
1. Walter, M.F.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Haith, D.A. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control by Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1979, 22(4), 0834–0840.
2. Schneiderman, E.M. et al. Incorporating variable source area hydrology into a curve–number–based watershed model. Hydrol. Process. 2007, 21, 25, 3420–3430. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6556.
3. Tomer, M.D.; Dosskey, M.G.; Burkart, M.R.; James, D.E.; Helmers, M.J.; Eisenhauer, D.E. Methods to prioritize placement of riparian buffers for improved water quality. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 75(1), 17–25. doi: 10.1007/s10457-008-9134-5.
4. Delgado, J.; Gantzer, C.; Sassenrath, G. Soil and water conservation A celebration of 75 years. 2020.
5. Agnew, L.J. et al. Identifying hydrologically sensitive areas: Bridging the gap between science and application. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78(1), 63–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.021.
6. Buchanan, B. et al. Estimating dominant runoff modes across the conterminous United States. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32(26), 3881–3890. doi: 10.1002/hyp.13296.
7. Easton, Z.M.; Fuka, D.R.; Walter, M.T.; Cowan, D.M.; Schneiderman, E.M.; Steenhuis, T.S. Re–conceptualizing the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model to predict runoff from variable source areas. J. Hydrol. 2008, 348(3–4), 279–291. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.10.008.
8. Lyon, S.W.; Walter, T.M.; Gerard–Marchant, P.; Steenhuis, T.S. Using a topographic index to distribute variable source area runoff predicted with the SCS curve–number equation. Hydrol. Process. 2004, 18(15), 2757–2771. doi: 10.1002/hyp.1494.
9. Todd Walter, M.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Mehta, V.K.; Thongs, D.; Zion, M.; Schneiderman, E. Refined conceptualization of TOPMODEL for shallow subsurface flows. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16(10), 2041–2046. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5030.
10. Walter, M.T.; Walter, M.F.; Brooks, E.S.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Boll, J.; Weiler, K. Hydrologically sensitive areas: Variable source area hydrology implications for water quality risk assessment. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55(3), 277–284.
11. Garen, D.C.; Moore, D.S. Curve Number (CN) hydrology in Water Quality Modeling. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 3224(03127), 377–388.
12. McClain, M.E. et al. Biogeochemical Hot Spots and Hot Moments at the Interface of Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Ecosystems 2003, 6(4), 301–312. doi: 10.1007/s10021-003-0161-9.
13. USDA Conservation Engineering Division and NRCS. Urban Hydrology for Small. Soil Conserv. No. Technical Release 55 (TR–55), 1986, pp. 164.
14. Zhan, X.; Huang, M.L. ArcCN–Runoff: An ArcGIS tool for generating curve number and runoff maps. Environ. Model. Softw. 2004, 19(10), 875–879. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.03.001.
15. Beven, K.J.; Kirkby, M.J. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 1979, 24(1), 43–69. doi: 10.1080/02626667909491834.
16. Dosskey, M.G.; Qiu, Z.; Helmers, M.J.; Eisenhauer, D.E. Improved indexes for targeting placement of buffers of Hortonian runoff. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 66(6), 362–372. doi:10.2489/jswc.66.6.362.
17. Buchanan, B.P. et al. Evaluating topographic wetness indices across central New York agricultural landscapes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18(8), 3279–3299. doi: 10.5194/hess-18-3279-2014.
18. Qiu, Z.; Lyon, S.W.; Creveling, E. Defining a Topographic Index Threshold to Delineate Hydrologically Sensitive Areas for Water Resources Planning and Management. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 3675–3688. doi:10.1007/s11269-020-02643-z.
19. Anselin, L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association–LISA. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27(2), 93–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x.
20. Getis, A.; Ord, J.K. The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geogr. Anal. 1992, 24(3), 189–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00261.x.
21. Ord, J.K.; Getis, A. Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an Application. Geogr. Anal. 1995, 27(4), 286–306. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00912.x.
22. Tobler, W. On the first law of geography: A reply. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94(2), 304–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402009.x.