Identification of erosion-prone areas in connection with ranges of peak ground acceleration using fuzzy logic and entropy Shannon models in the Talar Drainage Basin, Mazandaran province
Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Ph.D in Geomorphology, Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.
2
Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.
10.22034/gmpj.2024.465763.1509
Abstract
Introduction
Soil erosion is a natural geomorphic process. An increasing number of studies show that changes in the rate of erosion and sediment yield in watershed are often strongly correlated with seismicity. Peak ground acceleration is equal to the maximum acceleration of the ground that occurred during the shaking of the earthquake in a place. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between soil erosion and seismic activities and erosion control factors, how high erosion zones are related to the Peak ground acceleration and other factors, and to compare the efficiency of two fuzzy logic and entropy models in erosion zoning.
Methodology
Talar drainage basin is located on both sides of Qaimshahr-Tehran axis. In terms of geographic coordinates, it is located between ˚52 '35 "22 to˚53 '23 "34 east longitude and ˚35 '44 "23 to ˚36 '19 "1 north latitude. For this purpose, important indices such as erosivity, erodibility, slope-length, cover management have been calculated in the RUSLE equation. Then, the zoning map of the peak ground acceleration has been used as the erosion control factor using the seismic hazard analysis method obtained in the study (Ashtari et al., 2023).
Fuzzy logic and entropy
For the purpose of zoning, all the layers produced in the previous step were placed as base layers in fuzzy logic and entropy models. Linear function was used to quantify all layers in fuzzy logic. In order to combine the layers, the fuzzy gamma operator was used. In the entropy model, based on the map of erosion levels from specialized studies of the Talar drainage basin, the number of sample sites in each of the erosion zones is as follows: The areas of surface erosion are (16), lateral stream erosion (10), groove erosion (9), gully erosion (8), rock and rock mass erosion (6) and badland erosion (1). The steps of the entropy method are as follows: forming the decision matrix, Ej function and determining the value of entropy, calculating the degree of deviation of criteria dj, determining the weight of each criterion Wij, regional erosion risk model Hi.
Results and Discussion
Rainfall erosivity factor: This factor expresses the kinetic energy of rain when the drops hit the soil particles, and in other words, it is the intensity of precipitation and erosion resulting from the impact of rain drops on the ground during rainfall. The highest and lowest amount of this factor is respectively in the northern side of the sub-basin 3 with (369-457-8) and in the southern side of the sub-basin 1 with (13.9-102).
Erodibility factor: It is in accordance with the average sensitivity factor of formations to erosion of sub-basin 1 (6.09), sub-basin 2 (6.39), sub-basin 3 (7.6). Due to the extent and variety of geological formations, there is a high potential for erosion in all 3 sub-basins.
length - slope: which is also known as the topography factor, is a function of the height in the basin. The lowest amount of this factor is in the areas of valleys and river streams (>6) and the highest amount corresponds to slopes and heights (>23).
cover management: Vegetation factor represents the amount of vegetation waste in different uses. The lower the amount of c, the more vegetation in the area. The highest coefficient c (0.5-0.6) is in sub-basin 1, which indicates the decrease of vegetation and the potential for erosion, and the lowest c (0.2-0.3) in sub-basin 3, which indicates the richness of land uses from forest vegetation.
Peak ground acceleration factor: The highest amount of ground acceleration is near the active faults in the region. Due to the structure of the faults, which have an east-west trend, in all 3 sub-basins there are areas of maximum ground acceleration during each event. The highest areas of ground acceleration levels (0.5-0.6) are sub-basin 1 and the lowest are sub-basin 3, which is due to the structure of active faults such as Firuzukuh fault, IRQ112 and IRQ357.
Erosion zoning by fuzzy logic method
The highest area is in the very low class (839 km2 and 39.9 %) and the lowest area is in the low class (162.9 km2 and 7.7 %). The largest expansion of the mentioned areas is located in sub-basin 1. The distribution of high and very high-risk areas especially in sub-basin 2 and the low coverage of these areas in sub-basin 1 do not match with the relative contribution of high sediment production in sub-basin 1 based on studies.
Erosion zonation map by entropy method
The results of the entropy model showed that the erodibility factor was 20.62%, the peak ground acceleration factor was 20.20%, the cover management was 20%, the erosivity factor was 19.60%, and the slope-length factor was 19.58% in the occurrence of erosion in the region. The area of very high risk with 13.5% of the area of the basin includes erosional facies containing surface, groove, gully and lateral stream. In general, it can be said that the highest erosion risk zones are not related to the highest weighting of the layers, but the placement of a set of factors influencing the occurrence of erosion, which shows the highest amount of erosion.
Conclusion
The peak ground acceleration has a direct impact on the control of sediment yield and erosion processes. The placement of a small part of the IRQ112 fault has caused the extent of ground acceleration levels (0.5-0.6) to be less in sub-basin 3 and more in sub-basin 1 due to the placement of 3 faults, Firuzukuh, IRQ112 and IRQ357. The placement of erodible formations in the ranges of peak ground acceleration has caused the process of sediment production and erosion to accelerate. The coordination of the erosion occurrence zones with the ground acceleration levels is due to the regionality of the entropy model in contrast to the fuzzy model.
Soil erosion is a natural geomorphic process. An increasing number of studies show that changes in the rate of erosion and sediment yield in watershed are often strongly correlated with seismicity. Peak ground acceleration is equal to the maximum acceleration of the ground that occurred during the shaking of the earthquake in a place. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between soil erosion and seismic activities and erosion control factors, how high erosion zones are related to the Peak ground acceleration and other factors, and to compare the efficiency of two fuzzy logic and entropy models in erosion zoning.
Methodology
Talar drainage basin is located on both sides of Qaimshahr-Tehran axis. In terms of geographic coordinates, it is located between ˚52 '35 "22 to˚53 '23 "34 east longitude and ˚35 '44 "23 to ˚36 '19 "1 north latitude. For this purpose, important indices such as erosivity, erodibility, slope-length, cover management have been calculated in the RUSLE equation. Then, the zoning map of the peak ground acceleration has been used as the erosion control factor using the seismic hazard analysis method obtained in the study (Ashtari et al., 2023).
Fuzzy logic and entropy
For the purpose of zoning, all the layers produced in the previous step were placed as base layers in fuzzy logic and entropy models. Linear function was used to quantify all layers in fuzzy logic. In order to combine the layers, the fuzzy gamma operator was used. In the entropy model, based on the map of erosion levels from specialized studies of the Talar drainage basin, the number of sample sites in each of the erosion zones is as follows: The areas of surface erosion are (16), lateral stream erosion (10), groove erosion (9), gully erosion (8), rock and rock mass erosion (6) and badland erosion (1). The steps of the entropy method are as follows: forming the decision matrix, Ej function and determining the value of entropy, calculating the degree of deviation of criteria dj, determining the weight of each criterion Wij, regional erosion risk model Hi.
Results and Discussion
Rainfall erosivity factor: This factor expresses the kinetic energy of rain when the drops hit the soil particles, and in other words, it is the intensity of precipitation and erosion resulting from the impact of rain drops on the ground during rainfall. The highest and lowest amount of this factor is respectively in the northern side of the sub-basin 3 with (369-457-8) and in the southern side of the sub-basin 1 with (13.9-102).
Erodibility factor: It is in accordance with the average sensitivity factor of formations to erosion of sub-basin 1 (6.09), sub-basin 2 (6.39), sub-basin 3 (7.6). Due to the extent and variety of geological formations, there is a high potential for erosion in all 3 sub-basins.
length - slope: which is also known as the topography factor, is a function of the height in the basin. The lowest amount of this factor is in the areas of valleys and river streams (>6) and the highest amount corresponds to slopes and heights (>23).
cover management: Vegetation factor represents the amount of vegetation waste in different uses. The lower the amount of c, the more vegetation in the area. The highest coefficient c (0.5-0.6) is in sub-basin 1, which indicates the decrease of vegetation and the potential for erosion, and the lowest c (0.2-0.3) in sub-basin 3, which indicates the richness of land uses from forest vegetation.
Peak ground acceleration factor: The highest amount of ground acceleration is near the active faults in the region. Due to the structure of the faults, which have an east-west trend, in all 3 sub-basins there are areas of maximum ground acceleration during each event. The highest areas of ground acceleration levels (0.5-0.6) are sub-basin 1 and the lowest are sub-basin 3, which is due to the structure of active faults such as Firuzukuh fault, IRQ112 and IRQ357.
Erosion zoning by fuzzy logic method
The highest area is in the very low class (839 km2 and 39.9 %) and the lowest area is in the low class (162.9 km2 and 7.7 %). The largest expansion of the mentioned areas is located in sub-basin 1. The distribution of high and very high-risk areas especially in sub-basin 2 and the low coverage of these areas in sub-basin 1 do not match with the relative contribution of high sediment production in sub-basin 1 based on studies.
Erosion zonation map by entropy method
The results of the entropy model showed that the erodibility factor was 20.62%, the peak ground acceleration factor was 20.20%, the cover management was 20%, the erosivity factor was 19.60%, and the slope-length factor was 19.58% in the occurrence of erosion in the region. The area of very high risk with 13.5% of the area of the basin includes erosional facies containing surface, groove, gully and lateral stream. In general, it can be said that the highest erosion risk zones are not related to the highest weighting of the layers, but the placement of a set of factors influencing the occurrence of erosion, which shows the highest amount of erosion.
Conclusion
The peak ground acceleration has a direct impact on the control of sediment yield and erosion processes. The placement of a small part of the IRQ112 fault has caused the extent of ground acceleration levels (0.5-0.6) to be less in sub-basin 3 and more in sub-basin 1 due to the placement of 3 faults, Firuzukuh, IRQ112 and IRQ357. The placement of erodible formations in the ranges of peak ground acceleration has caused the process of sediment production and erosion to accelerate. The coordination of the erosion occurrence zones with the ground acceleration levels is due to the regionality of the entropy model in contrast to the fuzzy model.
Keywords
اشتری، ن. نصرتی، ک. امی، س.، 1402. تعیین سهم واحدهای سنگشناسی و محدودههای بیشینه شتاب زمین در تولید رسوب با استفاده از روش منشایابی رسوب (حوضه آبخیز تالار استان مازندران)، پژوهشهای ژئومورفولوژی کمی، دوره 12، شماره 3، صص 141-120.
اصغر پور، م .ج.، 1389. تصمیمگیری چند معیاره. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران ،تهران. صص. 400-1.
امینی فسخودی، ع.، 1384. کاربرد استنتاج منطق فازی در مطالعات برنامهریزی و توسعه منطقهای. مجله دانش و توسعه، شماره 17، صص. 61-39.
جوکار سرهنگی، ع و دهقان چاچکامی، م. ر.، 1401. ارزیابی کارایی مدل های RUSLE و ICONA در پهنهبندی فرسایش خاک حوضه بلده، استان مازندران، دوره 11، شماره 34، صص.178-159.
خاجی، ن.، 1398. مبانی زلزلهشناسی و تحلیل خطر زلزله، انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، صص. 295-1.
رفاهی، ح ق. فرسایش آبی و کنترل آن، 1396، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
سازمان جنگلها، مراتع و آبخیزداری کشور.، 1380. مطالعات جامع حوضه آبخیز تالار، دفتر مطالعات و ارزیابی آبخیزها، وزات جهاد کشاورزی، شرکت خدمات مهندسی جهاد کشاورزی.
عابدینی، م و پاسبان، ا . ح، 1403. تجزیه و تحلیل و پهنهبندی میزان فرسایش خاک و ارتباط آن با شاخصهای هیدروژئومورفیک و پوششگیاهی، مطالعه موردی: حوزه آبریز خیاوچای، مشکین شهر، نشریه هیدروژیومورفولوژی، دوره 11، شماره 38، صص. 59-40.
فیض نیا ، س. خواجه، م ، غیومیان، ج.، 1384. بررسی اثر عوامل فیزیکی ، شیمیایی و آب و هوایی در تولید رسوب ناشی از فرسایش سطحی خاکهای لسی ( مطالعه موردی در ساتان گلستان )، فصلنامه پژوهش و سازندگی، دوره 17، شماره 66، صص. 23-14.
متکان، ع.ع، شکیبا، ع.ر، پور علی، س.ح و نظم فر، ح.، 1387. مکانیابی مناطق مناسب جهت دفن پسماند با استفاده از GIS (ناحیه مورد مطالعه : شهر تبریز)، فصلنامه علوم محیطی، دوره 6، شماره 2، صص 132-121.
محمدخان، ش. پیرانی، پ. ریاهی، س، گراوند، ف.، 1398. ارزیابی کارایی مدل آنتروپی در پهنهبندی میزان فرسایش با رویکرد ژئومورفولوژیکی. مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبخیز کند در بالادست سد لتیان، مجله آمایش جغرافیایی فضا، سال نهم، شماره 34، صص. 98-85.
مقصودی، م. محمدخان، ش. پیرانی، پ. ریاهی، س،گراوند، ف.، 1397. بررسی عوامل موثر بر مخاطره زمینلغزشهای بالادست سد لتیان با استفاده از روشهای ارزیابی آنتروپی و فازی، جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی، شماره 28، صص. 17-1.
مقیمی، ا. و نگهبان، س.، 1391. بررسی فرسایش در حوضهی آبخیز رودخانهی شورفدامی (استان فارس) با استفاده از مدل آنتروپی، پژوهشهای جغرافیای طبیعی، سال 44، شمارهی 3 (پیاپی 81)، صص. 16-1.
نگهبان، س. و حیدری، ا.، 1394. بررسی ویژگیهای نو زمینساخت، فرسایش و رسوب در حوضه آبخیز کر چمریز – با استفاده از شاخصهای کمی، فصلنامه جغرافیای طبیعی، دوره 8، شماره 29، صص. 106-91.
نور، ح و عربخدری، م.، 1402. برآورد فرسایش خاک و نسبت تحویل رسوب با استفاده از مدل RUSLE در پایگاه تحقیقات حفاظت خاک سنگانه، نشریه مدلسازی و مدیریت آب و خاک، دوره 3، شماره 1، صص. 53-42.
یمانی، م. و اسکندری نژاد، ف.، 1389. تاثیر عوامل ژئومورفولوژیک بر رسوبزایی حوضه قزقنچای (زیر حوضه حبله رود در بالا دست سد نم رود)، مجله پژوهشهای دانش زمین، شماره 1، صص. 17-1.
یمانی، م. و طاهری، م .ر.، 1387. ارتباط ویژگی لندفرمها و تولید رسوب در حوضه آبریز کهاب زنجانرود. فصلنامه زمین شناسی ایران, دوره 2، شماره 7، صص. 11-3.
یمانی ، م. عمونیا ، ح و خیری زاده اروق، م.، 1391. ارزیابی فرسایشپذیری سازندها از طریق مورفوسکوپی رسوبات معرف رودخانه ای (مطالعه موردی: حوزه آبریز سجادرود)، فصلنامه پژوهشهای فرسایش محیطی، سال دوم، شماره 3، صص. 18-29.
Abrahamson, N., Atkinson, G., Boore, D., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., Chiou, B., Idriss, I.M., Silva, W., Youngs, R., 2008. Comparisons of the NGA Ground-Motion Relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1), 45-66.
Akkar, S., Bommer, J.J., 2010. Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East. Seismological Research Letters 81(2), 195-206.
Ashtari, N., Nosrati, K., Ommi, Salma. and Collins, Adrian L., 2023. Investigating the effect of seismicity on spatial sediment sources and loads using the fingerprinting approach. Catena, 227(2), 107091, 1-14.
Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1991. Geographic Information System for Geoscientists: Modeling with GIS, Pergamon, Ontario, PP. 291-300.
Bouchon, M. 1973. EFFECT OF TOPOGRAPHY ON SURFACE MOTION. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 615-632.
Cornell, C.A., 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58(5), 1583-1606.
Dadson, S.J., Hovius, N., Chen, H., Dade, W.B., Lin, J.C., Hsu, M.L., Lin, C.W., Horng, M.J., Chen, T.C., Milliman, J. and Stark, C.P., 2004. Earthquake-triggered increase in sediment delivery from an active mountain belt. Geology, 32(8), pp.733-736.
Dahal, A., Castro-Cruz, D.A., Tanyaş, H., Fadel, I., Mai, P.M., van der Meijde, M., van Westen, C., Huser, R. and Lombardo, L., 2023. From ground motion simulations to landslide occurrence prediction. Geomorphology, 441, p.108898.
Di Filippo, G., Biondi, G., Casablanca, O., & Cascone, E. 2024. Seismic site response analyses of ideal medium-stiff soil deposits. Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication, 10(58), 2175-2180.
Dong, L., Fu, S., Liu, B. and Yin, B., 2023. Comparison and quantitative assessment of two regional soil erosion survey approaches. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 11(4), pp.660-668.
Douglas, J., 2003. Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-Science Reviews, 61(1-2), 43-104.
Ghasemi, H., Zare, M., Fukushima, Y., Koketsu, K., 2009a. An empirical spectral ground-motion model for Iran. Journal of Seismology 13(4), 499-515.
Ghasemi, H., Zare, M., Fukushima, Y., Sinaeian, F., 2009b. Applying empirical methods in site classification, using response spectral ratio (H/V): A case study on Iranian strong motion network (ISMN). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29(1), 121-132.
Golosov, V., & Tsyplenkov, A. 2021. Factors controlling contemporary suspended sediment yield in the Caucasus region. Water, 13(22), 3173.
Hecht, H. and Oguchi, T., 2017. Global evaluation of erosion rates in relation to tectonics. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 4, pp.1-9.
Koons, P.O., Upton, P., Barker, A.D., 2012. The influence of mechanical properties on the link between tectonic and topographic evolution. Geomorphology 137(1), 168-180.
Lal, R., 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment international, 29(4), 437-450.
Lin, H.Y., Kao, J.J., Li, K.C. and Hwang, H.Y., 1996, December. Fuzzy GIS assisted landfill siting analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. pp.14-17.
Lucà, F., Buttafuoco, G., & Terranova, O. 2018. GIS and Soil. In Comprehensive geographic information systems (Vol. 3, pp. 37-50). Elsevier Inc..
Minella, J.P., Clarke, R.T., Merten, G.H., Walling, D.E., 2008. Sediment source fingerprinting: testing hypotheses about contributions from potential sediment sources, Sediment Dynamics in Changing Environments-2008 Symposium of the International Commission on Continental Erosion, ICCE, pp. 31-37.
Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1991. Geographic Information System for Geoscientists: Modeling with GIS, Pergamon, Ontario, PP. 291-300
Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Luyten, E., Veyret‐Picot, M., Deckers, J., ... & Govers, G., 2002. Impact of road building on gully erosion risk: a case study from the northern Ethiopian highlands. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms: The Journal of the British Geomorphological Research Group, 27(12), 1267-1283.
Panagos, P. et al., 2015. Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land use policy, 48, 38-50.
Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., ... & Blair, R., 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science, 267(5201), 1117-1123.
Poesen, J., 2018. Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: Research needs. Earth surface processes and landforms, 43(1), 64-84.
Portenga, E.W., Bierman, P.R., 2011. Understanding Earth's eroding surface with 10 Be.
Renard, K.G., Yoder, D.C., Lightle, D.T. and Dabney, S.M., 2011. Univeral soil loss equation and revised universal soil loss equation. Handbook of erosion modelling, pp.137-167.
Renard, K.G., Freimund, J.R., 1994. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of hydrology, 157, 287-306.
Renison, D., Hensen, I., Suarez, R., Cingolani, A.M., Marcora, P. and Giorgis, M.A., 2010. Soil conservation in Polylepis mountain forests of Central Argentina: is livestock reducing our natural capital?. Austral Ecology, 35(4), pp.435-443.
Shannon, C. E., 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (3): 379–423.
Soghrat, M.R., Khaji, N., Zafarani, H., 2012. Simulation of strong ground motion in northern Iran using the specific barrier model. Geophysical Journal International 188(2), 645-679.
Vanmaercke, M., Kettner, A.J., Eeckhaut, M.V.D., Poesen, J., Mamaliga, A., Verstraeten, G., Rãdoane, M., Obreja, F., Upton, P., Syvitski, J.P.M., Govers, G., 2014. Moderate seismic activity affects contemporary sediment yields. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 38(2), 145-172.
Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width and surface displacements, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, 974-1002.
Wu, H., Cui, S., Pei, X., Huang, R., He, L., & Guo, J. 2022. Earthquake-induced landslide erosion coupled to tectonics and river incision, and effects of ground motion on coupled patterns. Catena, 216, 106334.
Xi, C., Tanyas, H., Lombardo, L., He, K., Hu, X., & Jibson, R. W. 2024. Estimating weakening on hillslopes caused by strong earthquakes. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 81.
Yang, S., Han, X., Lei, Q., Yu, S., & Liu, C. 2021. Study on the seismic effect of the interbedded soil layer in the yinchuan alluvial plain. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021(1), 1519750.
