Runoff characteristics of different cultivations in Menstrie catchment, Scotland: From field observations to model development Martina Egedusevic, PhD student Dr Lindsay Beevers Dr Scott Arthur

Case study The Menstrie Burn catchment: sub-catchment of River Devon, tributary of the River Forth Menstrie burn flows through Menstrie village 3 tributaries 12 km2 Annual average rainfall 900-1000 mm per year Average flow rate of 7 m3/s August 2012 SEPA flood risk map 3 significant flood events in Menstrie catchment (August 2004, September 2009 and August 2012) August 2012

Case study – Menstrie catchment

Woodland creation in Menstrie catchment Due to topographical constraints and operational safety, five site cultivation/planting methods were employed: Shallow ploughing Excavator mounding Rotary mounding Hand mounding Screefing Total area of planting is 537 ha, (1284k trees) = 47% of Menstrie catchment

Monitoring process Overland flow from seven plots Surface flow in water bodies Rainfall and temperature

Modelling process GR4H model using 1 hour time step of precipitation, evapotranspiration, flow data and temperature The rainfall and temperature time series was calculated based on the data captured by the HWU rain gauge due to its proximity to the study sites. Evapotranspiration data was estimated for the study sites using Oudin’s formula (Oudin, et.al 2004) Evapotranspiration data was estimated for the study sites using Oudin’s formula (Oudin, et.al 2004)

Inch 1 and Inch 2 sub-catchments Objective function X1 X2 X3 X4 KGE value Oct 2016 Nov 2017 KGE 6.39 1.38 50.76 1.94 0.71 Oct 2017 Nov 2018 50.97 20.13 2.15 0.73 Inch 2 sub- catchment Objective function 1.28 1.25 23.29 3.82 0.69 22.24 0.92 12.25 5.47 0.57 According to the monitoring and modelling analysis of the flow responses in both sub- catchments there are observable changes in the hydrological responses and production store due to vegetation growth / soil type of monitored catchment area.

Different cultivations   Probe 1 Unplante d plot 2 Hand Screefing 3 Plough 4 5 6 Excavation mounding 7 Cultivation Hand screefing Plough ed ground Excavated ground Catchment area (m2) 695 2240 2500 2756 7480 1486  1560  Underlying geology 51% Brown soil 49% Immature Soil 100% Brown soil 26% Brown Soil 73% Peaty gleys 70% 30% Peat Slope of the channel (degrees) 35 45 15 17 21 13 Slope of the catchment area (degrees) 61 62 59 58 52 20 Explanation what has been monitored in Menstrie catchment

Different cultivations

Modelling conclusions for different cultivations There are observed changes for production store in each cultivation and unplanted control. Ploughed cultivation based in brown soil area shows increasing in production store and the unit hydrograph time based. This is unlike for plough cultivation plot based in peaty soil area. Excavation mounding experienced decreasing in production store and hand screefing experienced increasing in production store Water exchange coefficient slightly decrees for all cultivations and increasing for unplanted control Unplanted control experienced decreasing in production store I will explain here my output from table that is in next slide. Will be careful about it as Lindsay said at meeting So, for now, plough cultivation seems to have less water deliver (that means that water stays in catchment area) and this cultivation performing better that other s in term of production store that getting higher trough those two years and time base hydrograph. It doesn’t mean that other tecniques are not good enough. That means that we need more time to observed possible changes. Runoff related to cumulative rainfall saw a directly proportional relationship for all probes, so as precipitation increases, the runoff also increases. Probe 5 from ploughed planting shows it is least effected by rainfall as the flat trendline indicates. Whereas Probe 2 from handscreefing shows when cumulative rainfall is high, the runoff volume is also high due to its steel channel and catchment slopes. Seasonal analysis showed that Winter generated the most sediment followed by Spring producing the second most amount. Summer’s sediment yield was very low.

Thank you for your kind attention Martina Egedusevic, mve1@hw.ac.uk Twitter: @Marty_Ege  This research was supported by: