Debris flows analysis through quantitative evaluation of soil depth distribution under limited data

IF 5.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Catena Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2024.108379
{"title":"Debris flows analysis through quantitative evaluation of soil depth distribution under limited data","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.catena.2024.108379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Soil depth is essential in studying natural disasters such as landslides and debris flow hazards. Despite the importance of soil depth in the mechanism of erosion-entrainment during the debris flow process, research on soil-depth data for analyzing debris flows is limited. Therefore, this study focused on the Gallam-ri area with a watershed of 0.9 km<sup>2</sup> to evaluate the soil depth mapping under limited data and significance of these maps for debris flow simulations. Based on the knocking pole test data, two-dimensional distribution soil depth maps were constructed using the S and Z models, the Kriging method, and a method that applies some values uniformly as the soil depth (U model). The accuracy of soil depth mapping methods was quantitatively evaluated using R<sup>2</sup> and root mean squared error analysis. Since soil depth demonstrated independent patterns with land-surface data, soil depth maps using S and Z models have structural limitations showing R<sup>2</sup> of 0.0003 and 0.002, respectively. The debris flows were analyzed through numerical model Deb2D, and the soil depth most significantly influenced the erosion volume and the damaged area. Analyses using S and U models showed 94 % and 98 % high similarity to the simulation results through the Kriging method, respectively. However, considering overall analyses, the S model was analyzed to be the most stable in constructing soil depth maps and simulating debris flows for ungauged basins.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9801,"journal":{"name":"Catena","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catena","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816224005769","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil depth is essential in studying natural disasters such as landslides and debris flow hazards. Despite the importance of soil depth in the mechanism of erosion-entrainment during the debris flow process, research on soil-depth data for analyzing debris flows is limited. Therefore, this study focused on the Gallam-ri area with a watershed of 0.9 km2 to evaluate the soil depth mapping under limited data and significance of these maps for debris flow simulations. Based on the knocking pole test data, two-dimensional distribution soil depth maps were constructed using the S and Z models, the Kriging method, and a method that applies some values uniformly as the soil depth (U model). The accuracy of soil depth mapping methods was quantitatively evaluated using R2 and root mean squared error analysis. Since soil depth demonstrated independent patterns with land-surface data, soil depth maps using S and Z models have structural limitations showing R2 of 0.0003 and 0.002, respectively. The debris flows were analyzed through numerical model Deb2D, and the soil depth most significantly influenced the erosion volume and the damaged area. Analyses using S and U models showed 94 % and 98 % high similarity to the simulation results through the Kriging method, respectively. However, considering overall analyses, the S model was analyzed to be the most stable in constructing soil depth maps and simulating debris flows for ungauged basins.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在数据有限的情况下,通过定量评估土壤深度分布进行泥石流分析
土壤深度对于研究山体滑坡和泥石流灾害等自然灾害至关重要。尽管土壤深度在泥石流过程中的侵蚀-诱导机制中非常重要,但用于分析泥石流的土壤深度数据研究却非常有限。因此,本研究以流域面积为 0.9 平方公里的 Gallam-ri 地区为重点,评估了在有限数据条件下的土壤深度制图以及这些制图对泥石流模拟的意义。根据敲杆试验数据,使用 S 和 Z 模型、克里金法以及将某些值均匀用作土层深度的方法(U 模型)构建了二维分布土层深度图。利用 R2 和均方根误差分析对土壤深度绘图方法的准确性进行了定量评估。由于土壤深度与地表数据显示出独立的模式,使用 S 和 Z 模型绘制的土壤深度图具有结构上的局限性,R2 分别为 0.0003 和 0.002。通过数值模型 Deb2D 对泥石流进行分析,土壤深度对侵蚀量和破坏面积的影响最大。利用 S 和 U 模型进行的分析显示,通过克里格法,模拟结果的相似度分别为 94% 和 98%。然而,从整体分析来看,S 模型在构建土壤深度图和模拟无测站流域泥石流方面最为稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Catena
Catena 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
9.70%
发文量
816
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Catena publishes papers describing original field and laboratory investigations and reviews on geoecology and landscape evolution with emphasis on interdisciplinary aspects of soil science, hydrology and geomorphology. It aims to disseminate new knowledge and foster better understanding of the physical environment, of evolutionary sequences that have resulted in past and current landscapes, and of the natural processes that are likely to determine the fate of our terrestrial environment. Papers within any one of the above topics are welcome provided they are of sufficiently wide interest and relevance.
期刊最新文献
Uncovering nitrogen accumulation in a large mixed land-use catchment: Implications for national-scale budget studies and environmental management Cascading effects of human activities and ENSO on the water quality of Poyang Lake in China Divergent response of upper layer soil organic and inorganic carbon to biotic and abiotic factors in afforestation by aerial seeding in desert, China Integrating calibrated PTFs and modified OpenKarHydro framework to map the responses of ecohydrological processes to climate change across the Loess Plateau The impact of sampling depths on quantification of soil organic carbon stock in mangrove environments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1