Abstract
In Kinnell (2018), I proposed that the soil erodibility factor K_{UMM} used in the USLEMM model could be replaced by the product of the soil erodibility factor K_{UM} and a coefficient a1 that was given by the ratio of between K_{UMM} and K_{UM}. The theory was developed based on the wellknown practice that for USLE based models, the erodibility factor is calculated as the ratio between the total soil loss for a set of erosion producing events and the total value of the erosivity index associated with those events. In their comment, Pampalone et al. (2018) used data for K_{UMM} and K_{UM} values for 12 plots at Sparacia determined by regression analysis to calculate a1 using a different method to show that the exponential equation I proposed in Kinnell (2018) between the power of the erosivity term and the a1 was demonstrated to be site dependent. In this reply, the approach adopted by Pampalone et al. is challenged for not using the wellknown method for determining soil erodibilities in USLE based models and the consequences of power increasing with slope length while the runoff ratio decreases with slope length on the values of a1 is illustrated. At Sparacia, soil loss varies with K_{UM}, slope length, and slope gradient, and, in addition, in the context of the USLEMM, consideration has to be given to the fact that both b1 and the runoff ratio vary with slope length.
Original language  English 

Pages (fromto)  444447 
Number of pages  4 
Journal  Catena 
Volume  167 
DOIs 

Publication status  Published  1 Aug 2018 
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Reply to Comment on “determining soil erodibility for the USLEMM rainfall erosion model by P.I.A. Kinnell”. / Kinnell, P. I.A.
In: Catena, Vol. 167, 01.08.2018, p. 444447.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate
TY  JOUR
T1  Reply to Comment on “determining soil erodibility for the USLEMM rainfall erosion model by P.I.A. Kinnell”
AU  Kinnell, P. I.A.
PY  2018/8/1
Y1  2018/8/1
N2  In Kinnell (2018), I proposed that the soil erodibility factor KUMM used in the USLEMM model could be replaced by the product of the soil erodibility factor KUM and a coefficient a1 that was given by the ratio of between KUMM and KUM. The theory was developed based on the wellknown practice that for USLE based models, the erodibility factor is calculated as the ratio between the total soil loss for a set of erosion producing events and the total value of the erosivity index associated with those events. In their comment, Pampalone et al. (2018) used data for KUMM and KUM values for 12 plots at Sparacia determined by regression analysis to calculate a1 using a different method to show that the exponential equation I proposed in Kinnell (2018) between the power of the erosivity term and the a1 was demonstrated to be site dependent. In this reply, the approach adopted by Pampalone et al. is challenged for not using the wellknown method for determining soil erodibilities in USLE based models and the consequences of power increasing with slope length while the runoff ratio decreases with slope length on the values of a1 is illustrated. At Sparacia, soil loss varies with KUM, slope length, and slope gradient, and, in addition, in the context of the USLEMM, consideration has to be given to the fact that both b1 and the runoff ratio vary with slope length.
AB  In Kinnell (2018), I proposed that the soil erodibility factor KUMM used in the USLEMM model could be replaced by the product of the soil erodibility factor KUM and a coefficient a1 that was given by the ratio of between KUMM and KUM. The theory was developed based on the wellknown practice that for USLE based models, the erodibility factor is calculated as the ratio between the total soil loss for a set of erosion producing events and the total value of the erosivity index associated with those events. In their comment, Pampalone et al. (2018) used data for KUMM and KUM values for 12 plots at Sparacia determined by regression analysis to calculate a1 using a different method to show that the exponential equation I proposed in Kinnell (2018) between the power of the erosivity term and the a1 was demonstrated to be site dependent. In this reply, the approach adopted by Pampalone et al. is challenged for not using the wellknown method for determining soil erodibilities in USLE based models and the consequences of power increasing with slope length while the runoff ratio decreases with slope length on the values of a1 is illustrated. At Sparacia, soil loss varies with KUM, slope length, and slope gradient, and, in addition, in the context of the USLEMM, consideration has to be given to the fact that both b1 and the runoff ratio vary with slope length.
KW  Runoff plots
KW  Soil loss prediction
UR  http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046368303&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR  http://www.mendeley.com/research/replycommentdeterminingsoilerodibilityuslemmrainfallerosionmodelpiakinnell1
U2  10.1016/j.catena.2018.04.030
DO  10.1016/j.catena.2018.04.030
M3  Comment/debate
VL  167
SP  444
EP  447
JO  Catena
JF  Catena
SN  03418162
ER 