Erosion potential method (EPM)

Global gross soil erosion rates according to the Erosion Potential Model (EPM) and its modified version (mEPM) and the estimated Z factor (Classification of soil erosion classes) according to the Copernicus Land Cover data source classification.
Resource Type: 
Datasets
Soil Threats Data
Registration is requested: 
Yes
Year: 
2024
Themes: 
Erosion by water
Erosion by water›Global Soil Erosion
Keywords: 
erosion potential

Title: Global Erosion potential method (EPM)

Description: Most of the modelling applications are using Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)-type models. In the activities of EU Soil Observatory working group on erosion, it is undelined that the soil erosion modelling community should also make a step towards intercomparison of global multi-models, gaining new insights from the advantages and disadvantages found in the compared models. Here, we evaluate the applicability of the Erosion Potential Model (EPM) and its modified version (mEPM) for the estimation of the gross and net erosion rates at a global scale. The sensitivity analysis shows that the model results have the highest variability due to the soil protection (land cover) coefficient followed by the soil erodibility parameter. The models’ evaluations indicate that that the EPM cannot be applied to cold regions while the mEPM overcomes this issue. The erosion rates based on the EPM were 1.5–2.5 times larger than the ones obtained from the mEPM. Increasing the number of catchment properties as inputs to the model may help in improving the performance of the tested EPM and mEPM. Moreover, a comparison of net soil losses by mEPM with long-term suspended sediment yield data for 116 catchments located around the globe indicates a median bias of less than 10%, although the bias for around 1/3 of catchments was above 100%. Furthermore, a direct comparison with other soil erosion models such as USLE-type models is not possible since the EPM and mEPM do take into consideration other processes such as soil slumps and gully erosion and not just sheet and rill erosion. Therefore, as expected, the gross erosion rates by the EPM and mEPM are higher compared to the USLE-type models. Hence, the mEPM, despite its limitations, could be regarded as an interesting approach for the describing erosion processes around the globe and should be further tested using small- and medium-sized catchments from various climate zones.
Spatial coverage: Global
Pixel size: 0.0083 degrees (800m)
Measurement Unit: Integer pixel values corresponding to soil losses as t ha-1 yr-1.
Projection: 4326 - WGS 84
Temporal coverage:  2010

Type of Dataset: GeoTiff.

Get the README file to better understand the data.

Reference: Bezak, N., Borrelli, P., Matjaž M., Auflič M., Panagos, P., 2024. Towards multi-model soil erosion modelling: An evaluation of the erosion potential method (EPM) for global soil erosion assessments. CATENA 234, 107596. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2023.107596

Subscribe to ESDAC Monthly newsletter

By sending these data, you declare that you have read & accept the notification below and that your personal data will be handled by the JRC only for statistical purposes (conform to privacy statement).

For any problem / question / comment on this dataset, please contact ec-esdac@ec.europa.eu

Notification:

  1. The data provided has been prepared for use by internal research activities in the Joint Research Centre (JRC) Ispra in collaboration with University of Ljubljana.
  2. The research was done within the activities of the EU Soil Observatory group on Soil Erosion.
  3. The data are the result of JRC research activities and are primarily made available for further research. The JRC does not accept any liability whatsoever for any error, missing data or omission in the data, or for any loss or damage arising from its use. The JRC agrees to provide the data free of charge but is not bound to justify the content and values contained in the databases.
  4. The permission to use the data specified above is granted on condition that, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are these data passed to third parties. They can be used for any purpose, including commercial gain.
  5. The user agrees to:
    • make proper reference to the source of the data when disseminating the results to which this agreement relates;
    • Participate in the verification of the data (e.g. by noting and reporting any errors or omissions discovered to the JRC).

 

Reference of source (Citations) :

Bezak, N., Borrelli, P., Matjaž M., Auflič M., Panagos, P., 2024. Towards multi-model soil erosion modelling: An evaluation of the erosion potential method (EPM) for global soil erosion assessments. CATENA 234, 107596. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2023.107596

When making reference to the ESDAC

  • Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Borrelli, P., Köninger, J., Ballabio, C., Orgiazzi, A., Lugato, E., Liakos, L., Hervas, J., Jones, A.  Montanarella, L. 2022. European Soil Data Centre 2.0: Soil data and knowledge in support of the EU policies. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(6), e13315. DOI: 10.1111/ejss.13315
  • Panagos P., Van Liedekerke M., Jones A., Montanarella L., “European Soil Data Centre: Response to European policy support and public data requirements”; (2012) Land Use Policy, 29 (2), pp. 329-338. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.003
  • European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu, European Commission, Joint Research Centre