The Daily Erosion Project aims to help farmers, land managers, and the public better understand soil erosion by providing daily estimates of runoff and erosion across agricultural areas using technology. The project combines data from precipitation radar, elevation maps, soil surveys, and land use to model erosion at fine scales. Initial results show the model can estimate erosion rates across Iowa watersheds and fields. The project team seeks to validate and improve the model to provide more detailed information on a mobile app to help identify erosion risks and mitigation recommendations.

1. The Daily Erosion Project
dailyerosion.org
Dennis Flanagan, Jim Frankenberger, Brian Gelder, Daryl Herzmann, David
James, Witold Krajewski, John Laflen, Jean Opsomer, Rick Cruse, Mark Tomer,
Tim Sklenar, Claudette Sandoval‐Green, Mario Perez‐Bidegain
Iowa State University, ARS‐USDA, University of Iowa, Colorado State University,
Universidad de la República Uruguay

2. The Problem
• Growing population
• Increasing food demand
• Increasing climate instability
• Resource degradation

3. Using Technology to Bridge Gaps
• Grokking erosion
– What’s average about it?
– T?
• “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the
conversation”

4. dailyerosion.org
• Our mission:
To help farmers, land managers, and the public
better understand magnitude of runoff and soil
erosion through daily estimation of these
processes on agricultural areas across large
areas and delivery of the estimates via the web
• Our goal
Increase recognition of soil erosion impacts
‐ food production
‐ public cost

5. What’s the point?

6. NEXRAD
MRMS Precip
1km
LiDAR
Elevation
3m
gSSURGO
Soils
10m
Field‐scale
Land‐use &
Management

7. Iowa, HUC8s & HUC12s

8. HUC12s, Sub‐catchments &
Flowpaths

10. What it looks like on the landscape

11. 6.4 Mg/ha
(2.8 T/A)
19.8 Mg/ha
(8.8 T/A)
8.0 Mg/ha
(3.6 T/A)
23.8 Mg/ha
(10.6 T/A)

12. 10.7 Mg/ha
(4.8 T/A)
3.9 Mg/ha
(1.6 T/A)
12.0 Mg/ha
(5.4 T/A)
17.9 Mg/ha
(8.0 T/A)

13. 12.8 Mg/ha/yr
(5.7 T/A)
~1mm/yr
NRI = 5.8 T/A

14. NRI vs. DEP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Erosion (ton ac‐1yr‐1)
NRI vs. DEP Sheet and Rill Estimates
NRI DEP
*
* DEP Mean

15. Test Drive

17. Next steps: Near Term
• Extend flowpaths
– Start at watershed boundaries
– End at higher flow concentration
• Validation
– Inputs

18. Next steps: Longer Term
• Adding P loss
– INRC grant
• Downscaling to field size
– Shane Wulf, Miller Creek WQI
• Adding in gully erosion
– Thanos Papanicolaou, UT Knoxville

19. Next steps: Perfect World
• Georeferenced app with user delineated field
boundaries, practice inputs, ‘what‐if’
scenarios and augmented reality to show
areas of risk or citing recommendations
• Daily Erosion GO!

20. Acknowledgments
• DEP team
– Rick Cruse, Brian Gelder, Daryl Herzmann, David James,
Claudette Sandoval‐Green, Mario Perez‐Bidegain
• Iowa Nutrient Research Center
• Iowa State University Agronomy Department Endowment
• USDA‐NIFA Climate & Corn‐based Cropping Systems CAP
• USDA Agricultural Research Service
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Iowa Department of Transportation
• Iowa Institute for Hydraulic Research
• Minnesota DNR
• US Department of Housing and Urban Development

21. Discussion!
dailyerosion.org