1. 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

2. 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 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

3. Case study – Menstrie catchment

4. 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

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

6. 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)

7. Inch 1 and Inch 2 sub-catchments
Objective function X1 X2 X3 X4
KGE value
Oct Nov 2017
KGE
6.39
1.38
50.76
1.94
0.71
Oct 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.

8. 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

9. Different cultivations

10. 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.

11. Thank you for your kind attention
Martina Egedusevic,
 This research was supported by: