| Literature DB >> 25152911 |
M I Adham1, S M Shirazi2, F Othman1, S Rahman3, Z Yusop2, Z Ismail1.
Abstract
Runoff potentiality of a watershed was assessed based on identifying curve number (CN), soil conservation service (SCS), and functional data analysis (FDA) techniques. Daily discrete rainfall data were collected from weather stations in the study area and analyzed through lowess method for smoothing curve. As runoff data represents a periodic pattern in each watershed, Fourier series was introduced to fit the smooth curve of eight watersheds. Seven terms of Fourier series were introduced for the watersheds 5 and 8, while 8 terms of Fourier series were used for the rest of the watersheds for the best fit of data. Bootstrapping smooth curve analysis reveals that watersheds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are with monthly mean runoffs of 29, 24, 22, 23, 26, and 27 mm, respectively, and these watersheds would likely contribute to surface runoff in the study area. The purpose of this study was to transform runoff data into a smooth curve for representing the surface runoff pattern and mean runoff of each watershed through statistical method. This study provides information of runoff potentiality of each watershed and also provides input data for hydrological modeling.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25152911 PMCID: PMC4135133 DOI: 10.1155/2014/379763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Location map of the study area.
Figure 2Watersheds and drainage network at Alor Gajah and Jasin.
Different soil group classifications [44].
| Soil characteristics | Soil group |
|---|---|
| Deep sand, deep loess, and aggregated silt | Group A |
| Shallow loess and sandy loam | Group B |
| Clay loams, shallow sandy loam, soils low in organic content, and soils usually high in clay | Group C |
| Soils that swell significantly when wet, heavy plastic clay, and certain saline soils | Group D |
Figure 3Soil series map of watersheds.
Figure 4Hydrologic soil group map of the study area.
Hydrological soil group classification of Melaka.
| Soil mapping | Soil texture | Hydrologic soil |
|---|---|---|
| unit | group (HSG) | |
| Malacca | Clay |
|
| Kranji | Clay |
|
| Melaka Prang Association | Clay |
|
| Rengam | Sandy clay loam |
|
| Linau-Telok-Local Alluvium Complex | Sandy clay loam |
|
| Munchong-Melaka-Serdang Association | Clay |
|
| Melaka-Munchong-Tavy Association | Clay |
|
| Melaka-Munchong Association | Clay |
|
| Local Alluvium Complex | Loam to clay |
|
| Beriah | Clay |
|
| Rudua-Rusila | Silty loam |
|
| Serdang-Munchong | Sandy clay loam |
|
Figure 5Slope percentage map of the study area.
Figure 6Land use map of watersheds.
Weighted CN value, S , and monthly mean runoff for each watershed.
| Watershed | Weighted | Value of | Mean runoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN |
| (mm) | |
| 1 | 82 | 55.76 | 29 |
| 2 | 81 | 59.58 | 24 |
| 3 | 81 | 59.58 | 22 |
| 4 | 82 | 55.76 | 16 |
| 5 | 80 | 63.50 | 13 |
| 6 | 83 | 52.02 | 23 |
| 7 | 81 | 59.58 | 26 |
| 8 | 83 | 52.02 | 27 |
Figure 7Monthly runoff data with fitted smooth curve of eight watersheds.
Goodness of fit of fitted smooth curves for watersheds.
| Watershed | Terms of Fourier series | Goodness of fit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSE |
| Adjusted | RMSE | ||
| 1 | 8 | 5544 | 0.59 | 0.46 | 10.13 |
| 2 | 8 | 4629 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 9.26 |
| 3 | 8 | 5169 | 0.64 | 0.53 | 9.78 |
| 4 | 8 | 2924 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 7.23 |
| 5 | 7 | 1397 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 5.09 |
| 6 | 8 | 3386 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 7.92 |
| 7 | 8 | 5596 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 10.18 |
| 8 | 7 | 6366 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 10.66 |
Figure 8Smoothing and fitted curve with 95% prediction bound of eight watersheds.
Figure 9Mean runoff with 95% confidence interval of eight watersheds.
Monthly precipitation and runoff volume of each watershed.
| Watershed | Watershed | Watershed | Mostly land use pattern (%) | Precipitation | Total precipitation | Runoff volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| area (km2) | slope (%) | (m) | volume (Mm3) | (Mm3) | ||
| 1 | 178.47 | 0–8 | Forest land: 9% | 0.17 | 29.50 | 5.18 |
| Horticultural land: 13% | ||||||
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 54% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 2 | 153.43 | 2–11 | Horticultural land: 8% | 0.14 | 21.09 | 3.68 |
| Idle grass land: 8% | ||||||
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 68% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 3 | 306.07 | 0–40 | Forest land: 10% | 0.15 | 44.39 | 6.73 |
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 72% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 4 | 82.62 | 0–8 | Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 75% | 0.12 | 10.17 | 1.32 |
|
| ||||||
| 5 | 58.25 | 0–5 | Horticultural land: 8% | 0.12 | 7.17 | 0.76 |
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 72% | ||||||
| Urban, settlement, & nonagricultural area: 10% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 6 | 220.36 | 0–2 | Horticultural land: 9% | 0.13 | 29.00 | 5.07 |
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 74% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 7 | 210.12 | 2–55 | Forest land: 8% | 0.15 | 31.23 | 5.46 |
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 74% | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 8 | 136.70 | 2–55 | Forest land: 13% | 0.13 | 17.83 | 3.69 |
| Tree, palm, & permanent crops: 77% | ||||||
Figure 10Estimated rainfall runoff relationship of the study area.