Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 17, No 3, 10951104 (2016)

Environmental protection and sustainable development

RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS USING GIS

TECHNIQUES IN THE BAHLUIET CATCHMENT IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
C. TODOSIa, M. NICULITAa*, B. BOCAb, D. BUCURc
Geography Department, Geography and Geology Faculty, Alexandru Ioan
Cuza University of Iasi, 20A Carol I Street, 700 505 Iasi, Romania
E-mail: mihai.niculita@uaic.ro
b
Prut-Barlad Water Administration, 10 Theodor Vascauteanu Street,
700 462 Iasi, Romania
c
Pedotechnics Department, Agriculture Faculty, Ion Ionescu de la Brad
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi, 3 Mihail
Sadoveanu Street, 700 490 Iasi, Romania
a

Abstract. Soil erosion is a matter of concern in the perspective of sustainable agricultural development, because of the degradation of soil productivity by the erosional processes. Beside soil degradation, soil erosion generates sediments which are introduced in the fluvial system and can fill the
reservoirs built for various purposes. Using GIS techniques we have estimated the sedimentation
of Podu Iloaiei reservoir, from Bahluiet catchment, Eastern Romania, for validating a sediment
budget, built in order to assess the state of soil erosion and its implications. The soil erosion was
modelled using RUSLE2 model and the sediment budget was constructed using WaTEM/SEDEM
model. We have modelled various scenarios of soil erosion mitigation measures, in order to assess
the impact both for soil erosion and reservoir management. At the current sediment yield of 2.1 t/
ha/y, the Podu Iloaiei reservoir will fill up in 21 years. Considering modelled possible multiples
scenarios of soil mitigation measures on pastures and agricultural lands we showed that this period
can be increased up to 43 years.
Keywords: reservoir sedimentation, GIS, soil erosion, sediment budget, sustainable agricultural
development.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

The sedimentation of reservoirs, no matter their construction scope (flood protection, hydropower, recreation, sediment control), is a natural process, its effects
on reservoirs and their environment being a management problem. At the same
time, reservoirs are perfect traps for sediments, giving the possibility to assess
the sediment production and storage in their catchment. Especially in areas where
*

For correspondence.

1095

lands are used mainly for agriculture, soil erosion is the main concern regarding
sustainable agriculture and reservoir management.
The classical methodology for studying the sedimentation of reservoirs is to
use repeated bathymetries1,2, while the classical methodology for soil erosion in
the world3, Europe4, Eastern Europe57 and Romania8 is to use RUSLE model9.
We present such an approach for Podu Iloaiei reservoir from Bahluiet catchment,
Eastern Romania (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Geographic position of the study area in Romania (upper left), Bahlui catchment (upper
right), the river network (lower left) and the reservoir surface for different water levels (lower right)

Bahluiet catchment has a surface of 54670 ha. The forested area covers 12.9%,
land use being predominant agricultural, with cultivated lands and pastures. Podu
Iloaiei reservoir was built in 1963, 3.4 km upstream from the confluence of Bahluiet,
with Bahlui river. The lake has a volume of 21.063 M m3, and a surface of 529.3
ha at the 65.45 m (above Black Sea level) level (the spillway level). This reported
volume and surface are flooded only during small periods. The normal retention
level is situated around 60 m, when the reservoir has a volume of around 2 M m3
and a surface of 170 ha, while during the yearly natural variations of the level go
up to 62 m, resulting a volume of around 6.5 M m3 and a surface of 208 ha (Fig. 1).
EXPERIMENTAL
The evaluation of the sedimented volumes was assessed using the DoD (DEM
of Difference) method (known also as Geomorphic Change Detection GCD)
(Ref.10). For the first time layer the 1:5 000 topographic situation before the dam
1096

building (1963) and the 1:5000 topographic maps from 1964 were used. The second time layer is a combination of LIDAR data and bathymetry acquired in 2012
for Prut-Barlad Water Administration. The 1964 layer and the 2012 bathymetry
were interpolated using a TIN algorithm implemented in SAGA GIS (Ref. 11) at
20 m resolution.
Using field GPS measurements of the monitoring landmarks, the two DEMs
were matched, the 1964 layer requiring a lowering with 0.5 m. Uncertainty
analysis was applied by altering the vertical and horizontal spatial position of the
two layers, the perfect match situation having only 5% difference in volume
compared with the 1 m shifting. Increasing the shifting to 2 m, increase too much
the volumes differences, showing that the two DEMs match both the real shape
of the surface, of course with a certain amount of errors and uncertainty, which
we consider acceptable.
Although the two used DEMs have good accuracy, the lower accuracy of the
1964 DEM, compared with the 2012 DEM, and also the degradation of the banks,
introduced negative values, for the subtraction between the DEMs (2012 DEM
minus the 1963 DEM Figs 2 and 3, appearing in Fig. 4 when the 2012 DEM is
lower than the 1963 DEM). These values were removed from the analysis.
For modelling the soil erosion we have used the RUSLE2 model implemented
in the WaTEM/SEDEM model1214. WaTEM/SEDEM 2006 implementation (https://
geo.kuleuven.be/geography/modelling/erosion/watemsedem2006/index.htm)
models soil erosion, sediment deposition through a transport capacity equation
and routes the sediment through the river network.

Fig. 2. Sediment depth distribution in Podu Iloaiei reservoir (19632012)

1097

Fig. 3. Longitudinal topographic profile through the Podu Iloaiei reservoir bathymetries

While the routing does not take into account the storage in floodplain (which
is not a characteristic situation for the study area), it takes into account the pond
retention, colluvium and parcel boundary retention, elements which are characteristic for the Bahluie catchment. RUSLE2 factors were estimated as follows:
rainfall-runoff factor was taken from Panagos et al.15 data and interpolated to fit
the resolution of the other data (20 m), K factor from Todosi and Niculita16 assessment, LS values were computed using WaTEM/SEDEM 2006 implementation
of Nearing17 on a high resolution DEM, resampled at 20 m, C factor values were
assigned after Doru and Niculi18 assessment and P factor values were assigned
according to the RUSLE2 methodology9 to support practice extracted from the
high resolution DEM and high resolution aerial images.

Fig. 4. Topographic cross-sections trough the Podu Iloaiei reservoir bathymetries

1098

For running the WaTEM/SEDEM model several parameters were calibrated

for to the study area: transport capacity (calculated for every pixel, is the maximum amount of sediment that can pass through one pixel, otherwise the inflow
quantity is deposited on that pixel; a low coefficient is given, being applied to all
the pixels, with the exception of pixels with crop factor exceeding a certain value,
for which a high coefficient is used) of 29 for the low coefficient, 146 for the high
coefficient (both low and high coefficients computed using the formula given by
WaTEM/SEDEM documentation12,13) at over 0.5 crop factor (includes the built
areas, rods and bare ground terrains), pond trap efficiency of 95% (computed
from gauging station sediment flow analysis and field evidences), parcel trap efficiency (the proportion of contribution to water transport of sediments) of 75%
for arable lands, 95% for forests and 75% for pastures and parcel connectivity
(the proportion of water transport which is stopped at the parcel border) of 75%
to cropland and to forest/pasture (parcel trap efficiency computed after the runoff
data of Bucur et al.19 and connectivity considered after field evidence). No tillage
erosion was considered.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The sedimentation rate and sediment yields (Table 1) for the period after 1996, up
to 2012 (for the last 12 years) are lower than the pre-1996 rates, but higher than
reported in the literature20. After 1979, because of the higher rates of sediment
production than initially modelled, soil mitigation works were performed in the
catchment (agricultural terraces, forest plantations).
These works are included in the P factor used in the RUSLE2 modelling, so the
obtained results reflect the sediment yields obtained for the 1996 to 2012 period.
Because of the water management of the reservoir, we have used the obtained
volume data only for the area which is flooded at the 62 m level. Over this level
water is kept only during important events (between 1990 and 2015 only four times
the maximum level was flooded), and in this area it was proposed the building of
the Cotargaci reservoir. We have used this approach to obtain values consistent
with those reported by earlier studies of the reservoir21,22. Fieldwork evidences,
aerial imagery from 1974 and1982 and water level analysis argue the presence of
the sedimentation characteristic for lakes for the area under the 62 m level, while
for the upper part of the reservoir sedimentation characteristic for floodplains.
Margineanu et al.23 has found that the Chernobyl event is seen in 137Cs rates at a
depth of 38 cm in the sediments from around the 62 m level, giving a rate of 3.2
cm/y. Although is hard to convert punctual rates of sedimentation expressed in cm
to sediment yields in t/ha, a simple calculus shows that the depth of the sediments
deposited starting from 1964 should be at least 156.8 (which is consistent with the
sediment depth values from Fig. 2).
1099

The mean value for the estimated interrill and rill erosion with RUSLE2 in
Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 7.81 t/ha/y. The estimates for different land use
types are consistent with Bucur et al.19 and Cerdan et al.24 values, considering the
difference in slope steepness and length. For maize and sunflower the mean erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 16.75 t/ha/y, compared with 8.398.93
t/ha/y (Bucur et al.19).
Table 1. Sediment volumes and yields for the Podu Iloaiei reservoir

Bathymetric Sediment
survey year volumes (m3)
1963

1975**
1 468 000
1979**
1 948 235
1996***
2 957 000
2012
4 232 802
19632012
4 232 802

Rate
(m3)

1 468 000
480 235
944 000
1 275 802
4 232 802

No of
years

12
4
8
16
49

Rate
(m3/y)

122 333
120 059
118 000
79 738
86 384

Rate
Sediment
(t/y)* yield (t/ha/y)

165 150
3.22
162 079
3.16
159 300
3.10
107 646
2.10
116 618
2.27

*Computed by using 1350 kg/m3 sediment density value, which was measured in the Podu Iloaiei
reservoir sediments; **sediment volumes reported by Giurma21; ***sediment volumes reported by
Savin22.

For cereals the mean erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 4.62 t/ha/y,
Bucur et al.19 reporting 1.62 t/ha/y. For perennial cultures the mean erosion in Podu
Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 0.13 t/ha/y, Bucur et al.19 measuring 0.251.91 t/ha/y.
For orchards the mean erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 11.90 t/ha/y,
the mean for Europe being 11.75 t/ha/y, while the mean for non-Mediterranean
countries in Europe is 20.6 t/ha/y (Cerdan et al.24). For vineyards the mean erosion
in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 14.05 t/ha/y, the mean for Europe being 12.22
t/ha/y, while the mean for non-Mediterranean countries in Europe is 23.64 t/ha/y
(Cerdan et al.24). For forests the mean erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment
is 0.036t/ha/y, the mean for Europe being 0.14 t/ha/y, while the mean for nonMediterranean countries in Europe is 0.003t/ha/y (Cerdan et al.24). For pastures with
good grass cover the mean erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 0.053 t/
ha/y, the mean for Europe being 0.3 t/ha/y, while the mean for non-Mediterranean
countries in Europe is 0.29 t/ha/y (Cerdan et al.24). For degraded pastures the mean
erosion in Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment is 15.53 t/ha/y, the mean for Europe
being 15.1 t/ha/y, while the mean for non-Mediterranean countries in Europe is
17.12 t/ha/y (Cerdan et al.24).
Sediment budgets although are indicative and contain errors are very useful
for the assessment of water-sediment fluxes25. The routing of the interrill and rill
erosion, using WaTEM/SEDEM model, showed that 78% of the produced sediments deposited along the hillslopes and 5.1% deposited in ponds along the channel
network. Only 16.9% reached the Podu Iloaiei reservoir. This quantity explain only
1100

57.1% (1.2 t/ha/y) of the sediments present in the reservoir. The other quantity
of 42.9% (0.9 t/ha/y) comes from the reservoir hillslopes and shores and from
other sources of sediments in the catchment. Sediment production from reservoir
hillslopes, byinterrill and rill erosion we estimate to be 1.62 t/ha/y (4.69 production
minus 3.07 deposition). Landslides and shore erosion mainly at the base of the right
hillslope also produce sediments which are entering directly in the reservoir, as can
be seen also in the topographic profiles from Fig. 4. Other sources of sediments
in the catchment are gully, bank and anthropic erosion and input from landslides
entering in the channel network. We can not assess the quantity of each source so
we estimate them by subtraction, assuming budget closure25. Assuming the current rate of sediment yield the Podu Iloaiei reservoir will be fully sedimented in
21 years (from 6.5 Mm3, 4.2 are already sedimented Fig. 5). For the increase
of this period we have simulated the interrill and rill sediment production in five
scenarios which imply different soil erosion mitigation measures at the parcel
level (Fig. 6). Scenario 1 assumes the amelioration of pastures by improving grass
stand and by reducing uncontrolled grazing (the same effects could be achieved
by forest plantations on the pastures). Scenario 2 assumes the tillage on contour
on all arable lands (Fig. 7). Scenario 3 assumes terraces on all arable lands. We
have also added the effects of scenario 1 and 2 and scenario 1 and 3 as possible
individual scenarios. With the most effective measure (Scenario 1 and 2 added)
the total sedimentation period grows to 43 years.

Fig. 5. Cumulative curve of the water volumes for the two bathymetric surveys

1101

Fig. 6. Boxplot of sediment budget components for the modelled scenarios

Fig. 7. Land use in the Podu Iloaiei reservoir catchment

CONCLUSIONS
In the context of sustainable agricultural development and considering the possible implications of climatic changes is important to study the relation between
1102

soil erosion, sediment production and sediment redistribution along the fluvial
system and in reservoirs.
The sediment yields from interril and rill erosion modelled with WaTEM/
SEDEM andRUSLE2 are consistent with the values measured in the Podu Iloaiei
reservoir using GIS techniques. The estimation of a sediment budget shows that
interrill and rill erosion play an important role in the sedimentation of Podu Iloaiei
reservoir, at the current sediment yields, the fill of the reservoir happening in 21
years. Soil mitigation measure on agricultural lands could increase this period up
to 43 years.
The present work is a starting point in developing a common subject of work
for geomorphologists, hydrotechnicians and agronomers for dealing with the
impact of erosion, climatic changes and sustainable agriculture on environmental
management of reservoirs.
Acknowledgements. Cristian Todosi was partially funded by POSDRU/187/1.5/S/155397. We are
grateful to Prut-Barlad Water Administration who provided us with the bathymetry and LIDAR data.
We have used the computational facilities given by the infrastructure provided through the POSCCEO 2.2.1, SMIS-CSNR 13984-901, No 257/28.09.2010 Project, CERNESIM (L4).

REFERENCES
1. C. H. YANG (Ed.): Erosion and Sedimentation Manual. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, USA, 2006.
2. M. GARCIA (Ed.): Sedimentation Engineering: Processes, Measurements, Modeling and Practice.
ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No 110. Reston, USA, 2008.
3. P. I. A. KINNELL: Event Soil Loss, Runoff and the Universal Soil Loess Equation Family of
Models: Review. J Hydrol, 385, 384 (2010).
4. P. PANAGOS, P. BORRELLI, J. POESEN, C. BALLABIO, E. LUGATO, K. MEUSBURGER,
L. MONTANARELLA, C. ALEWELL: The New Assessment of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in
Europe. Environ Sci Policy, 54, 438 (2015).
5. Y. KURUCU, U. ALTINBAS, H. UYSAL, M. BOLCA, M. T. ESETLILI, F. OZEN, G. YONTER,
N. OZDEN, G. YOLCU, H. KARAKURT, N. ALTUN: Creating Potential Erosion Risk Map
of the Karaburun Peninsula by GIS and Remote Sensing Technique. J Environ Prot Ecol, 12
(2), 488 (2011).
6. C. DOMUTA, M. SANDOR, Gh. CIOBANU, A. SAMUEL, C. CIOBANU, A. DOMUTA, C.
BORZA, Cr. DOMUTA, R. BREJEA, M. GATEA: Influence of the Crop System on Soil Erosion and on the Soil Physical Properties under the Romanian North-western Area Conditions. J
Environ Prot Ecol, 13 (2), 736 (2012).
7. L. DIMEN, T. BORSAN, C. D. BRATAN: Using GIS Technology for Soil Erosion Analysis. A
Case Study: the Hydrographical Basin of Buturoi Valley, Jidvei, the Alba County. J Environ
Prot Ecol, 14 (4), 1811 (2013).
8. M. MOTOC, P. STANESCU, I. TALOESCU: Actual Conceptions Regarding the Erosional
Phenomenon and Its Control. Agricultural Library, Bucharest, Romania, 1979.
9. K. G. RENARD, G. R. FOSTER, G. A. WEESIES, D. K. McCOOL, D. C. YODER: Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: a Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No 703, 1997.

1103

10. J. M. WHEATON, J. BRASINGTON, S. E. DARBY, D. A. SEAR: Accounting for Uncertainty

in DEMs from Repeat Topographic Surveys: Improved Sediment Budgets. Earth Surf Processes
Landforms, 35, 136 (2010).
11. O. CONRAD, B. BECHTEL, M. BOCK, H. DIETRICH, E. FISCHER, L. GERLITZ, J. WEHBERG, V. WHICHMANN, J. BOHNER: System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA)
v. 2.1.4. Geosci Model Dev, 8, 1991 (2015).
12. K. van OOST, G. GOVERS, P. J. J. DESMET: Evaluating the Effects of Landscape Structure
on Soil Erosion by Water and Tillage. Landscape Ecology, 15 (6), 579 (2000).
13. A. van ROMPAEY, G. VERSTRAETEN, K. van OOST, G. GOVERS, J. POESEN: Modelling
Mean Annual Sediment Yield Using a Distributed Approach. Earth Surf Processes Landforms,
26 (11), 1221 (2001).
14. G. VERSTRAETEN, K. van OOST, A. van ROMPAEY, J. POESEN, G. GOVERS: Evaluating
an Integrated Approach to Catchment Management to Reduce Soil Loss and Sediment Pollution
through Modelling. Soil Use Manage, 18, 386 (2002).
15. P. PANAGOS, C. BALLABIO, P. BORRELLI, K. MEUSBURGER, A. KLIK, S. ROUSSEVA,
M.PERCEC TADIC, S. MICHAELIDES, M. HRABALIKOVA, P. OLSEN, J. AALTO,
M.LAKATOS, A. RYMSZEWICZ, A. DUMITRESCU, S. BEGUERIA, C. ALEWELL: Rainfall
Erosivity in Europe. Sci Total Environ, 511, 801 (2015).
16. C. TODOSI, M. NICULITA: Assessing Soil Erodability Factor for RUSLE 2 in Bahluiet Catchment, Eastern Romania. Soil Forming Factors and Processes from the Temperate Zone, 14 (1),
(2015).
17. M. A. NEARING: A Single, Continuous Function for Slope Steepness Influence on Soil Loss.
Soil Sci Soc Am J, 61, 917 (1997).
18. S. DORU, M. NICULITA: Assessing Cover Management Factor for RUSLE2 in the Context of
the Romanian Land Use Data. Soil Forming Factors and Processes from the Temperate Zone,
14 (1), (2015).
19. D. BUCUR, G. JITAREANU, C. AILINCAI: Effects of Long-term Soil and Crop Management
on the Yield and on the Fertility of Eroded Soil. J Food Agric Environ, 9 (2), 207 (2011).
20. M. RADOANE, N. RADOANE: Dams, Sediment Sources and Reservoir Silting in Romania.
Geomorphology, 71 (12), 112 (2005).
21. I. GIURMA: Sedimentation Analysis for Some Reservoirs from Bahlui Catchment. Ph.D. Thesis,
Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania, 1980.
22. N. SAVIN: Research on the Influence of Progressive Sedimentation of Some Reservoirs on the
Functioning at High Discharges with Reference to Bahlui Catchment. Ph.D. Thesis, Gheorghe
Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania, 1998.
23. R. MARGINEANU, N. POPA, C. OLTEANU: 137Cs Use in Sedimentation Rate Assessment in
Gullies and Reservoirs in Romania. J Environ Prot Ecol, 8 (1), 197 (2007).
24. O. CERDAN, G. GOVERS, Y. le BISSONNAIS, K. van OOST, J. OPESEN, N. SABY, A.
GOBIN, A. VACCA, J. QUINTON, K. AUERSWALD, A. KLIK, F. J. P. M. KWAAD, D.
RACLOT, I. IONITA, J. REJMAN, S. ROUSSEVA, T. MUXART, M. J. ROXO, T. DOSTAL:
Rates and Spatial Variations of Soil Erosion in Europe: a Study Based on Erosion Plot Data.
Geomorphology, 122, 167 (2010).
25. A. J. PARSONS: How Useful Are Catchment Sediment Budgets? Progress in Physical Geography, 36 (1), 60 (2011).
Received 22 February 2016
Revised 29 May 2016

1104