Zobrazit minimální záznam



dc.contributor.authorStředová H.
dc.contributor.authorKrása J.
dc.contributor.authorŠtěpánek P.
dc.contributor.authorNovotný I.
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-27T22:31:29Z
dc.date.available2019-03-27T22:31:29Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifierV3S-229034
dc.identifier.citationSTŘEDOVÁ, H., et al. Comparison of two methods of erosive rains determination. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy. 2014, 44(3), 253-269. ISSN 1335-2806.
dc.identifier.issn1335-2806 (print)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10467/81603
dc.description.abstractNumber of erosive rains, kinetic energy of erosive rains and factor of erosive efficiency of rains according the USLE methodology were assessed by two methods of erosive rains determination. The first method (VAR1) defined erosive rains by intensity higher than 0.4 mm.min-1; total higher than 12.5 mm and the second method (VAR2) by intensity higher than 6 mm.15min-1; total higher than 12.5 mm. Database contained one minute precipitation data from four automatic stationa in the Czech Republic for the period of 2000 – 2005. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a statistically highly significant difference in annual number of erosive rains by the use of both methods. The rains simultaneously complying with two following criterions (30 min intensity lower than 1.5 cm.hod-1 and sum of 40 mm) were not generally classified as erosive rains according to VAR2. Number of erosive rains determined by VAR2 most often reached 40 to 50% of VAR1 results. Two-way ANOVA proved highly significant differences between a kinetic energy values for the erosive rains determined by VAR1 a VAR2. According to VAR2 the rains with kinetic energy lower than 3 MJ.ha-1 are not considered as erosive rains generally. The results of kinetic energy of the erosive rains determined by VAR2 most often reached 60 to 70% of VAR1 results. Two-way ANOVA was not proved a statistical difference between annual values of R factor of erosive rains determined by both methods. According to VAR2 the rains with R factor lower than 5 are not included into annual R factor value in general. The results annual R factor values of erosive rains determined by VAR2 are about 25% lower then the results of VAR1. Correlation between number of erosive rains, kinetic energy of erosive rains and annual R factor value assessed by both methods showed a statistically significant relationship. Thus the convention formulas between results of both methods (VAR1 and VAR2) were derived by linear regression. As conclusion we caeng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherGeophysical institute SAS
dc.relation.ispartofContributions to Geophysics and Geodesy
dc.subjecterosioneng
dc.subjectkinetic energyeng
dc.subjectrain intensityeng
dc.subjectR factoreng
dc.titleComparison of two methods of erosive rains determinationeng
dc.typečlánek v časopisecze
dc.typejournal articleeng
dc.relation.projectidinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/Ministry of Agriculture/QJ/QJ1230056/CZ/The impact of the expected climate changes on soils of the Czech Republic and the evaluation of their productive functions/
dc.rights.accessopenAccess
dc.type.statusPeer-reviewed
dc.type.versionsubmittedVersion
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84926652797


Soubory tohoto záznamu


Tento záznam se objevuje v následujících kolekcích

Zobrazit minimální záznam