loading page

Deriving and testing parameter values for a parsimonious soil erosion model
  • +7
  • Thomas Brunner,
  • Thomas Weninger,
  • Elmar Schmaltz,
  • Josef Krasa,
  • Jakub Stasek,
  • Laura Zavattaro,
  • Istvan Sisak,
  • Tomáš Dostál,
  • Andreas Klik,
  • Peter Strauss
Thomas Brunner
Federal Agency for Water Management

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Thomas Weninger
Federal Agency for Water Management
Author Profile
Elmar Schmaltz
Federal Agency for Water Management
Author Profile
Josef Krasa
Czech Technical University in Prague
Author Profile
Jakub Stasek
Czech Technical University in Prague
Author Profile
Laura Zavattaro
Università degli Studi di Torino
Author Profile
Istvan Sisak
University of Szeged
Author Profile
Tomáš Dostál
Czech Technical University in Prague
Author Profile
Andreas Klik
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Author Profile
Peter Strauss
Federal Agency for Water Management
Author Profile


Every application of soil erosion models brings the need of proper parametrization, i.e., finding physically or conceptually plausible parameter values that allow a model to reproduce measured values. No universal approach for model parametrization, calibration and validation exists, as it depends on the model, spatial and temporal resolution and the nature of the datasets used. We explored some existing options for parametrization, calibration and validation for erosion modelling exemplary with a specific dataset and modelling approach. A modified version of the Morgan-Morgan-Finney (MMF) model was selected, representing a balanced position between physically-based and empirical modelling approaches. The resulting calculator for soil erosion (CASE) model works in a spatially distributed way on the timescale of individual rainfall events. A dataset of 142 high-intensity rainfall experiments in Central Europe (AT, HU, IT, CZ), covering various slopes, soil types and experimental designs was used for calibration and validation with a modified Monte-Carlo approach. Subsequently, model parameter values were compared to parameter values obtained by alternative methods (measurements, pedotransfer functions, literature data). The model reproduced runoff and soil loss of the dataset in the validation setting with R 2 adj of 0.89 and 0.76, respectively. Satisfactory agreement for the water phase was found, with calibrated saturated hydraulic conductivity (k sat) values falling within the interquartile range of k sat predicted with 14 different PTFs, or being within one order of magnitude. The chosen approach also well reflected specific experimental setups contained in the dataset dealing with the effects of consecutive rainfall and different soil water conditions. For the sediment phase of the tested model agreement between calibrated cohesion, literature values and field measurements were only partially in line. For future applications of similar model applications or datasets, the obtained parameter combinations as well as the explored methods for deriving them may provide guidance.
24 Dec 2022Submitted to Hydrological Processes
24 Dec 2022Submission Checks Completed
24 Dec 2022Assigned to Editor
26 Dec 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
24 Jan 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
23 Feb 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Mar 2023Editorial Decision: Revise Major
19 Apr 20231st Revision Received
24 Apr 2023Assigned to Editor
24 Apr 2023Submission Checks Completed
24 Apr 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
28 May 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
21 Jun 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
29 Jun 2023Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
23 Jul 20232nd Revision Received
23 Jul 2023Submission Checks Completed
23 Jul 2023Assigned to Editor
23 Jul 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
23 Jul 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Aug 2023Editorial Decision: Accept