Towards multi-model soil erosion modelling: An evaluation of the erosion potential method (EPM) for global soil erosion assessments

• DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2023.107596
• Publication Date: 2023-10-14T04:38:28Z
• Authors: Nejc Bezak; Pasquale Borrelli; Matjaž Mikoš; Mateja Jemec Auflič; Panos Panagos
• Keywords: model evaluation; soil erosion; vrednotenje modela; erozija tal; global assessment; modified Erosion Potential Model; sediment yield; Erosion Potential Model; mEPM; EPM; globalna ocena; prilagojena Gavrilovićeva metoda; info:eu-repo/classification/udc/504.12:551.311.21; Gavrilovićeva metoda; dotok sedimentov

Soil erosion is expected to increase in the future due to climate change. Soil erosion models are useful tools that can be used by decision makers and other stakeholders to deal with soil erosion problems or the implementation of soil protection measures. Most of the modelling applications are using Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)-type models. In this study, we evaluate the applicability of the Erosion Potential Model (EPM) and its modified version (mEPM) for the estimation of the gross and net erosion rates at a global scale. The sensitivity analysis shows that the model results have the highest variability due to the soil protection (land cover) coefficient followed by the soil erodibility parameter. The models’ evaluations indicate that that the EPM cannot be applied to cold regions while the mEPM overcomes this issue. The erosion rates based on the EPM were 1.5–2.5 times larger than the ones obtained from the mEPM. Increasing the number of catchment properties as inputs to the model may help in improving the performance of the tested EPM and mEPM. Moreover, a comparison of net soil losses by mEPM with long-term suspended sediment yield data for 116 catchments located around the globe indicates a median bias of less than 10%, although the bias for around 1/3 of catchments was above 100%. Furthermore, a direct comparison with other soil erosion models such as USLE-type models is not possible since the EPM and mEPM do take into consideration other processes such as soil slumps and gully erosion and not just sheet and rill erosion. Therefore, as expected, the gross erosion rates by the EPM and mEPM are higher compared to the USLE-type models. Hence, the mEPM, despite its limitations, could be regarded as an interesting approach for the describing erosion processes around the globe and should be further tested using small- and medium-sized catchments from various climate zones.