Eco. Env. & Cons. 25 (3) : 2019; pp.

(1062-1071)
Copyright@ EM International
ISSN 0971–765X

Characteristics of sediment flow and soil loss of the

volcanic Landscape watershed with Agroforestry
Landuse
L.O. Hadini1*, J. Sartohadi2, M.A. Setiawan1 and D. Mardiatno1

1
Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Agriculture, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

(Received 17 January, 2019; accepted 22 March, 2019)

ABSTRACT
The upper watershed of the volcanic landscape in Indonesia commonly has very thick soil depth and land
use of agroforestry. Landuse and geophysical characteristics influence the characteristics of sediment flow
and soil loss. Very view studies focus on sediment flow and soil loss of agroforestry in the upper watershed
of volcanic landscapes. In this study, quantitative investigations were carried out to examine the sediment
rate, soil loss rate, material type of sediment and the relationship of one into another. Outlet of the gully
was selected to measure the flow discharge and sediment sampling for each rainfall event. The results
showed that the sediment rate (Qs) could be predicted based on discharge (Q) and water level (h) with the
following rating curves, Q = 0.8809(h-0.0019)1.2454 and Qs = 0.0274Q1,8623. The soil loss value at catchment
area was 0.836 ton/ha/year and 0.207 tons/ha/year of which was in the form of suspension and bed load.
The contribution of suspension and bed load in the total sediment was 91% and 9% respectively.

Key words: Agroforestry, Discharge, Sediment, Soil loss, Volcano, Watershed

Introduction scapes experience a continuous process of soil ero-

With more than 400 volcanoes, 127 of which are
classified as active volcanoes (Badan Geologi Indo-
nesia, 2011), Indonesia has a volcanic landscapes
with a typical utilization patternin accordance to its
landscape arrangement ranging from cone, upper
slope to foot slope (Sartohadi and Pratiwi, 2014).
The middle part of a slope and foot slope is nor-
mally used for productive activities such as
agroforestry (Nandini and Narendra, 2010) and ag-
ricultural land (Bachri, et al., 2017).
The volcanic landscapes of thick soil commonly
experiencing sediment flow and soil loss are sensi-
tive to land use. This is added by the tropical cli-
mates with high rainfall making volcanic land-
sion, sediment flow and soil loss in the watershed
area (Ma’wa et al., 2009; Suripin, 2002; Merritt et al.,
2003). Sediment flow and soil loss can benefit the
downstream area because it can increase soil fertil-
ity and form new arable land. However, sediment
flow can also be an adverse soil loss, since it reduces
water quality and triggers siltation (Panagos et al.,
2015; Wulandari et al., 2014). Thus, it is necessary to
keep sediment flow and soil loss in the upstream
part of the volcanic watershed at a tolerable level for
sustainable use of the watershed area.
All this time, there have been various methods of
predicting soil loss, including forms of equations of
USLE (Vadari et al., 1995; Silburn and Connolly,
1995; Sihite, 2001; Amore et al., 2004; Mc Dowell et

Corresponding author’s email: hadini74@gmail.com

HADINI ET AL
al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2011), GUEST (Misra and
Rose, 1996; Rose et al., 1998), GEOWEPP (Maalim et
al., 2013), and WATEM/SEDEM (Oost et al., 2000;
Rompaey et al., 2001; Verstraeten et al., 2005). How-
ever, the application of each prediction method has
its own advantages and disadvantages as seen from
various aspects, including the broad scope of the
study scale, data input, energy, cost and time
(Merrit et al., 2003; Maalim et al., 2013).
Overcoming the limitations of the prediction
method can be done by way of optimizing the appli-
cation of certain prediction methods by increasing
the level of detail on a small area coverage scale us-
ing the key area method. One of the appropriate
prediction methods for the application of key area
methods is to integrate the concept of Sediment
Transport Ratio (NPS) or Sediment Delivery Ratio
(SDR) (Asdak, 2002; Ayuningtyas, 2012; Maalim et
al., 2013; Forster and Wunderlich, 2009; Vente et al.,
2008; Haregeweyn et al., 2008; Lazzari et al., 2015;
Ma’wa et al., 2009; Delmas et al., 2009; Borrelli et al.,
2014). The key area method is applied by selecting a
small area of a wide coverage of the watershed so
that the homogeneity of the geophysical watershed
parameters and land use is explained in detail and
for real. In the key area method, the geophysical
parameters of the watershed and land use that influ-
ence the phenomenon of sediment flow, the pro-
cesses of land erosion and channel erosion in the
watershed area are more easily observed so as to
improve the quality of predictions.
The concept of SDR allows estimation of the total
erosion rate in the watershed area which becomes
soil loss by observing sediment flow in the outlet
channel. Sediment flow dynamics and analysis of
sediment content can be described through dis-
charge hydrograph analysis that occurs in the outlet
channel. Discharge hydrograph analysis can pro-
vide a description of the relationship between flow
discharge and sediment discharge. Meanwhile, the
analysis of the sediment grain content provides
clues about the sources of erosion and sediment
flow types that pass through the outlet channel,
both in the form of suspension sediment (suspended
sediment) and basic load sediment (bedload sedi-
ment).
Geophysical conditions of watersheds and the
response of sediment flow are related to the depth
of the soil profile. The depth of soil profile in each
watershed is typical with different soil thicknesses
(Dariah et al., 2003). The properties of soil thickness
1063
and other soil properties include texture (Morgan,
2005; Rusdi, et al., 2013), soil structure (Renard et al.,
1977), organic matter, soil properties, soil fertility
and soil permeability have erodibilityof typical soil
that affects the flow of sediment and soil loss that
occurs.
Previous research has reported characteristics of
sediment flow in various types of typical soils
(Utomo, et al., 2012; Suwarno, 1998; Wulandari et al.,
2014. However, they have not addressed the charac-
teristics of physical watershed landscape with ho-
mogeneous land use as key area watershed.There
have been studies on a wide watershed area cover-
age with land use patterns varying along with other
geophysical conditions involving many assump-
tions or generalizations. Studies based on many as-
sumptions of uniformity have a large potential of
bias failing to capture the real conditions in the field.
This study was conducted with a key area ap-
proach and a wide coverage of small watershed ar-
eas with conditions of land use and homogeneous
geophysical conditions. The key area method can
present the condition of the physical characteristics
of the watershed in more detail and more uniformly
so as to produce a studynearly capturing the real
conditions in the field. The key area method pro-
duces an appropriate study for the sake of general-
izing watershed conditions with the same character-
istics. This study is in the form of a study of sedi-
ment flow in the volcanic watershed, including the
problem: the pattern of the relationship between the
flow of sediment and TMA; the rate of sediment dis-
charge and loss of land; and the type of sediment
material source during the flow.
Research method
This study uses the key area method of Bompon
Watershed, Volcanic Watershed in the border area
of Magelang Regency, Purworejo Regency, and
Wonosobo Regency, Central Java, located between
9163200 mU - 916400 mU and 396300 mT - 397800
mT with elevation altitudes ranging from 377 m up
to 539 m above sea level (Wardhana, 2016). The Cli-
mate of the Bompon watershed is characterized by
uneven rainfall conditions, which are influenced by
geomorphological conditions. As seen from the data
of September 2015 to August 2016 rainfall, it is ap-
parent that the average annual rainfall in the
Bompon watershed reached 2,214.5 mm.
Geomorphologically, the Bompon watershed is
located on the slope of the Sumbing Volcano, char-
1064
acterized by bumpy to hilly slopes. Bompon water-
shed is infiltrated by volcanic intrusion which re-
sults in bedrock undergoing intensive alteration
processes. The existence of an intensive alteration
process which is assisted by weathering produces
super thick soil layers reaching more than 10 meters
with high clay material content (Candraningrum,
2013).
Vegetation cover in Bompon watershed consists
of agroforestry land vegetation with some tree spe-
cies such as durian, coconut, waru, mahogany,
sengon, sonokeling, melinjo, duku, kokosan, jack-
fruit, teak, bamboo, banana, salak, turmeric, ginger,
and cardamom. In the lower layer of vegetation
stands, there are plants that attach to the soil surface
in the form of grass and galingale. Multi-storey veg-
etation stand with various heights in very tight dis-
tance and wide canopy spans between 1 m - 12 m,
thus forming a multilayer canopy structure.
This study was supported by a field survey for
soil measurements, slope morphology, and land
cover characteristics. Measurement of suspension
flow was carried out at the outlet of a gully, a natu-
ral plot of cathment gully that forms a watershed.
Measurement of sediment flow in the form of sus-
pension sediments and basic loads was carried out
Fig. 1. Watershed Location Key Areas of Research in the Bompon Watershed
Eco. Env. & Cons. 25 (3) : 2019
in each event of rain for ± 1 year. The measurement
of suspension resulted in 302 pairs of data supencies
to build models and 122 pairs of data for verifica-
tion. To measure rain conditions and water level
(TMA) suspension flow during measurements, the
researcher used automatic rain recorder (ARR) and
automatic water level recorder (AWLR).
Data are presented using tables and graphs to
explain the relationship between the phenomenon
of rain and sediment flow. Sediment flow analysis
was formed based on TMA data and suspension
flow. Suspension data were analyzed by screening
method, obtained by weight value and suspension
concentration. Suspension concentration was used
to calculate the suspension discharge at the flow
rate of each TMA. Suspension discharge was de-
rived from multiplication between suspension con-
centration and flow discharge (Strand, 1982) in
Ma’wa et al., 2009); Wulandari et al., 2014). The value
of flow discharge was resulted from the observation
of TMA in the wide threshold type SPAS outlet
(Broad Crester Weir) with the calculation of the
Weir discharge equation (Herschy, 2009).
Flowrate at water level and sediment concentra-
tion at certain times is correlated with suspension
sediment discharge. This relationship is made as a
HADINI ET AL
sediment discharge curve which is a regression line
between sediment discharge and flow discharge
(Wulandari et al., 2014). Observation data of TMA
and flow rate data are processed into flow
hydrograph to get information about flow discharge
in each event of rain. Flow and TMA flow data dur-
ing observation are used to form a TMA (h) relation-
ship graph with flow discharge (Q) to render a
Stage Discharge Rating Curve equation.
Flowrate data on various TMAs are used to de-
termine sediment discharge. Discharge flow and
sediment discharge during measurement are used
to form a sediment discharge rating curve. In mak-
ing a graph of suspension sediment discharge
curve, the flow discharge (Q) is located on the X axis
while the suspension sediment discharge (Qs) is lo-
cated on the Y axis. After ploting data for instanta-
neous flow-discharge sediment discharge, the re-
searcher then analyzed them to show the average
sediment discharge of each suspension in each
event of rain. To calculate the sediment discharge
curve equation of the suspension in the form of a
statistical relationship between flow discharge and
sediment discharge, the researcher made use of
Microsoft Excel 2010 application program using cor-
relation and regression analysis (Santoso, 2007). The
sedimentation erosion process produces erosion
and sediment values as an indicator of the level of
watershed degradation determined through the re-
lationship of SDR with the Asdak (2002) equation.
Meanwhile, the SDR value determined by the wa-
tershed area as a catchment area is obtained using
the Bouce (1975) formula in Wulandari et al. (2014).
Results and Discussion
The relationship between water level, flow rate
and suspension discharge
The curvilinear curve flow model which explains
the relationship between flow discharge (Q) and
water level (h) forms the equation Q = 0.8809 (h-
0.0019)1,2454. This flow discharge curve model is de-
rived from 325 pairs of flow rate and water level.
The coefficient of determination (R²) of this equation
is 0.93, indicating that variations in flow rate can be
explained by changes in TMA by 93%. Meanwhile,
about 7% changes in flow rates are explained by
other factors.
Statistical test results with t test resulted inthit
value of = 1.9262. Calculation of ttab with excel appli-
cation ttab = tinv (0.05; (325-1)) resulted inttab = 1.9673.
1065
The t hit value <t tab, indicates that there is no real
difference between direct measurement discharge in
the field and the discharge resulted from flow curve
analysis. This study pinpoints that the model of
flow discharge curve in volcanic watershed land-
scapes with agroforestry land use can be used to
calculate the flow discharge at various altitudes of
the TMA flow.
Measurements using observation data led to an
average flow rate of 0.0419 m3/sec. However, the
calculation using a flow rate curve model resulted
in the average flow rate of 0.0344 m3 /sec. The dif-
ference between the value of the observation flow
and the flow discharge model of the flow rate curve
is 0.0074 m3/sec, leading to the percentage error (de-
viation) of 18%. Referring to Widasmara&Hadi
(2016) the value of the deviation allowed in the for-
mation of the flow discharge model is 10% -20%. It
can be reported that the flow discharge model from
this study may be used for predicting flow dis-
charge in the volcanic watershed landscape area.
A large deviation value (> 10%) in this study is
attributed to changes in the distribution of data in
the model formation. Changes in the distribution of
data are very likely to occur due to changes in the
high value of zero flow during the measurement
period. Field observations revealed that a change in
the height of the zero flow can occur by the accumu-
lation of sediment deposits in the upstream part of
the outlet (SPAS) thus affecting the morphology of
the grooves in the upstream part of the SPAS. The
accumulation of sediment in the upstream part of
the SPAS building was observed in the form of sand
and dust and changed the morphology of the
grooves during the rain event. The buildup of sedi-
ment deposits disrupts the control of the grooves to
form a control section that was centralized (section
control). In a centralized control section, the down-
stream channel flow was centralized because the
basic morphological form of the channel narrowed
(Soewarno, 1991). Errors triggering deviations was
also resulted from the calculation process using an
average value at the daily flow rate which did not
represent the value of the flow discharge at peak
conditions. It was reported in Walling (1977) and
Suripin (2000) that the use of flow rating curve from
the average daily discharge data series will generate
an error of 50 percent or more. Thus, the deviation
value in the flow discharge in this study is in a bet-
ter condition thanthat using rating curve as reported
by the previous study.
1066
The suspension sediment discharge (Qs) and
flow discharge (Q) in the study area generate the
equation of Qs = 0,0274Q1,8623. In Figure 2, the coeffi-
cient of determination (R²) in the model is 0.76. This
indicates that the variation in the value of suspen-
sion discharge in the study area can be explained by
a flow rate factor of 76%. Meanwhile, 24% of varia-
tion in suspension discharge values is explained by
other factors.
The results of the t test on the suspension dis-
charge curve model produced thit = 0.2257. Calcula-
tion of excel application of ttab = tinv (0.05; 302-1) ob-
tained 1.9679. thit< ttab value means that there is no
significant difference between suspension discharge
on field measurements and discharge on the sus-
pension curve model. Curve model of suspension
discharge met the calculation of suspension dis-
charge at various flowing water levels in volcanic
watersheds. The error analysis rate in this model
was in the range of 24%. Some factors that contrib-
uted to the errors of analysis in this study were
sourced from, 1) sediment sampling techniques car-
ried out using conventional tools leading to more
biased results due to the possibility of suspension
parts that were not measured by the tool when sam-
pling, and 2) time discretization for sampling which
might still be lacking, especially in rainy conditions
(high intensity) with changes in the height of the
flow that took place quickly. Thus, it is necessary to
correct the weaknesses of this analysis by improv-
ing the two sources of error. In addition, to correc-
tion of irregularities can also be done by checking
the quality of the data, especially with regard to
Fig. 2. Suspension discharge curve model (Qs) in the Watershed of Key Areas of Agroforestry
Eco. Env. & Cons. 25 (3) : 2019
data homogeneity requirements and the existence of
data outliers (Wulandari et al., 2014).
Calculation of flow rate and suspension sediment
discharge
Suspension discharge is derived from the flow rate
for each TMA AWLR record during the daily,
monthly and annual periods. Daily suspension dis-
charge is the average suspension discharge for a
day. Daily suspension discharges collected in a
month resulted in an average monthly suspension
discharge. With the suspension discharge on a
monthly basis, the state of the monthly suspension
varies for a year. Table 1, presents the average value
of monthly suspension discharge for a year result-
ing in 0.03 g / sec or 1.05 tons / year with an aver-
age flow rate reaching 19.07 l / sec. The highest sus-
pension flow rate occurred in December 2017 at 0.11
g / sec or 3.49 tons / yr. The highest value of sus-
pension discharge occured when monthly rainfall
produced the highest flow rate of 50.11 liters / sec-
ond. Meanwhile, the lowest suspension discharge
occurred in August 2017 at 0.00001 g / sec or 0.0004
tons / yr which occurred when rainfall resulted in
the lowest flow discharge of 0.32 liters / second.
Thus, rainfall factors play a key role in controlling
the state of flow, and determine the flow of sedi-
ment (suspension) and soil loss in the agroforestry
volcanic watershed.
Overall, it is conclusive that there are differences
in the values of suspension discharge at each rain-
fall event with different rain characteristics that pro-
duce different flow discharges. Calculations using
HADINI ET AL 1067

Table 1. Average value of flow discharge (Q) and suspension discharge (Qs) basedon the AWLR data in the Research
area
Month Flow discharge Q Suspension Suspension Cathcment Qs/A
(l/sec) Discharge Qs Discharge Area A(ha) (ton/ha/year)
(g/sec) Qs (ton/year)
1 2 3 4=3*31.536 5 6
Feb-17 13.34 0.01277 0.4026 5.42 0.0743
Mar-17 14.95 0.01347 0.4247 5.42 0.0784
Apr-17 16.79 0.01552 0.4893 5.42 0.0903
Mei-17 24.97 0.06751 2.1291 5.42 0.3928
Jun-17 21.79 0.02740 0.8642 5.42 0.1594
Jul-17 2.80 0.00064 0.0201 5.42 0.0037
Aug-17 0.32 0.00001 0.0004 5.42 0.0001
Sep-17 1.58 0.00031 0.0098 5.42 0.0018
Oct-17 7.59 0.00761 0.2400 5.42 0.0443
Nov-17 23.39 0.03203 1.0100 5.42 0.1863
Dec-17 50.11 0.11079 3.4939 5.42 0.6446
Jan-18 30.58 0.07286 2.2977 5.42 0.4239
Feb-18 39.76 0.07202 2.2713 5.42 0.4191
Average 19.07 0.03 1.05 5.42 0.1938
Max 50.11 0.11 3.49 5.42 0.6446
Min 0.32 0.00001 0.0004 5.42 0.0001
Sourced: Processed field data, 2018
the suspension flow discharge curve model lead to Calculation of sediment discharge and soil loss
different suspension discharge and different flow
Sediment discharge which turns into soil loss in the
discharge.
form of sediment load is an accumulation of all
The small suspension discharge reflects the re-
types of sediment entering the outlet channel, in the
lated condition of the suspension sediment in the
form of suspended-sediment and bed load. Sedi-
field. Field observations revealed that SPAS still
ment loads are calculated based on the weight of
flowed for several days after the rain with a rela-
suspended sediment loads and bed load based on
tively small suspension. Watershed was able to
the data measurement in the field. Table 2 shows
store and drain water in the study area for up to one
the average value of sediment load in the form of
week with clear water conditions. This flow was
suspension sediment 259,451.6 gr, basic sediment
recorded on the AWLR with clear water with a
(bed load) 21,510.08 g and sediment load 280,961.64
small suspension so as to reduce suspension sedi-
g.
ment during a certain period. Annual distribution of
The percentage of suspended sediment load in
suspension sediments in the study area occurred
the study area varied from 49-100% with an average
with 2 peak conditions, namely in May and Decem-
of 91%. Meanwhile, the percentage of basic sedi-
ber. In these months, it was fairly common to have
ment to sediment load varied between 0% -51%
rainfalls with high intensity resulting in higher av-
with an average of 9%. This study produced a basic
erage flow rates.
sediment composition of sediment load with an av-
erage of 9%. All this time, basic sediments were re-
ported to be estimated using Borland and Maddock
(1951) in (Turowski et al., 2010) tables based on the
concentration and gradation of grain size of suspen-
sion sediments in the form of clay, dust, and sand
with basic sediment provisions estimated at 20% of
the size of suspension loads (Soewarno, 1991).
In this study the ratio between basic sediments to
Fig. 3. Monthly state of flow discharge (Q) and suspen- suspension sediments (21,510.08 / 259,451.6) re-
sion flow (Qs) discharge in the study area sulted in 0.0829 or at 8%. Using the percentage
1068 Eco. Env. & Cons. 25 (3) : 2019

value of the basic sediment on suspension

98.79
99.36
99.77
98.26

99.78
90.74

93.80

48.95
99.67

86.90

97.27
76.89
%Ws
13
Percentage
Sediment
sediment at the value of the average sus-

100
49
91
pension discharge for a year in Table 1, it
was revealed that the average sediment

1.21
1.64
0.23
1.74

0.22
9.26

6.20

51.05
0.33

2.73
13.10

23.11
%Wb
12
flow rate was of 8% x 1.05 = 0.085 tons / yr.

0
9
51
Thus, the sediment load discharge in the
study area is 1,115 tons / year.
Total Weight

Comparison between sediment yield in

45,401.03
22,699.14
936.74
11,079.35
803.73

146,828.22

345,003.77
392,876.25
313,928.53

628,029.71
1,388,238.90
75,714.36

1,388,238.90
3,371,539.71

803.73
280,961.64
11=4+10
W (gr)

the channel and erosion in the land is de-

Sediment weight

fined as SDR (Asdak, 2002; Ayuningtyas,

2012; Maalim et al., 2013; Forster and
Wunderlich, 2009; Vente et al., 2008;
Haregeweyn et al., 2008; Lazzari et al., 2015;
Soil Weight

22,221.80
22,424.99

265,283.29
1,350,388.42
146,498.22
356,480.76
272,788.74

589,090.61
930.74
11,054.35
789.73
75,467.13

789.73
Ma’wa et al., 2009; Delmas et al., 2009;
Table 2. Recap of Sediment Results and Weight of Sediments Land Loss in every event of rain in the Research Area

10=8*9
W (gr)

3113418.8

1350388.4
259451.6
Borrelli et al., 2014). The relationship be-
tween the characteristics of the catchment
area (DTA) and SDR according to Bouce
(Minutes)
Length of

(1975) fulfills equation (3). The watershed

122.0
100.8
124.0

110.2
145.0

145.0
84.0
49.6
83.7
77.0
43.0
95.0
95.0

1129.3

43.0
Rain

area is the key area of 5.42 ha. Thus, the

9

equation (3) produces an SDR value of

0.2472. The value of soil loss is based on
sediment discharge per unit area (1,115
52.6356
20.0134

7.4685
58.9419
36.6652

89.0942
268.8945
4.8539
8.6744
0.3608
1.9394
0.1385

0.1385
(gr/sec)
8=5*6

tons / year) / (5.42 ha) resulted in 0.207

Qsh

268.9
549.7
45.8

tons / ha / yr. In equation (2) the total ero-

sion value in the catchment area resulted in
Description: V=((Qs/(24*60))*t ; W=(Qs*60)*t; A=5,42 ha; g/sec=31,536 ton/thn

0.836 tons / ha / yr.

Sediment Suspension

709,417.63

709,417.63
275,771.59
166,249.50
293,411.81
319,997.54

393,027.05

35,730.23
43,242.02

2,496,067.91
130,968.17
29,769.45
56,311.39
42,171.53

208,005.66

29,769.45

This research indicates that large flow

V (L)
7

discharges affect sediment flow and soil

loss erosion processes. Flowratemay have
an impact on sediment, depending on the
Q(l/sec)

sensitivity of soil erosion (Arsyad, 2006).

54.72
22.71
48.51
43.01

59.44

12.01
9.36
15.05

141.26

141.26
11.54
9.88
7.40

36.24
434.89

7.40

Cook (1936) in Arsyad (2006) names the

6

sensitivity of soil erosion as Soil Erodibility.

Soil erodibility is a complex attribute that
depends on the rate of soil infiltration and
0.9620
0.8812
1.2150
0.8525

1.4989
1.9035

0.6219
0.5762

0.5186
0.0313
0.1963
0.0187
C(gr/l)

1.90

the capacity of the soil to resist detachment

0.77
9.28

0.02
5

by rain and transport by surface runoff.

The erodibility value of the soil is strongly
influenced by the state of soil structure
Bed Load
Wb (gr)

79,720.48
25.00
14.00

37,850.48

79,720.48
330.00

23,179.23
36,395.50
41,139.79

38,939.10
247.23

274.15

258,120.95
21,510.08
6.00

6.00

(Renard et al., 1977), organic matter, tex-

Source: Processed Field Data, 2017
3

ture, and soil permeability (Renard et al.,

1977). Fine sand and dust are soil particles
that affect soil sensitivity to erosion (Mor-
28 February 2017
18 February 2017
20 February 2017
21 February 2017
25 February 2017

gan, 2005; Rusdi, et al., 2013). Dust is the

01 March 2017
02 March 2017

26 March 2017
25 March 2017

most easily eroded soil fraction, because in

18 April 2017
6 April 2017
5 April 2017
Rain event

addition to having a relatively smooth size,

Maximum
Minimum
Average

the dust fraction also lacks the ability to

Total

form bonds. Besides, it has no adhesive

material for having no charge, makingit
2

easily destroyed by rain energy (Dariah et

No

10
11
12

al., 2004).
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HADINI ET AL
Bompon volcano watershed have a super thick
soil characterized by the texture of silty-clay and
clay with the percentage fraction of the constituent
soil particles, respectively sand between 7-24%, dust
11-58%, and clay between 29-74 %. Its soil perme-
ability is in the slow category with an average of
0.4492 cm / hour. Since its soil texture conditions
are dominated by clay fractions, it has a super thick
volcanic watershed with agroforestry land use
which is not easily eroded. The total sediment yield
in the study area in this study was 0.207 tons / ha /
year. Meanwhile, total erosion in the catchment area
was 0.836 tons / ha / year which was classified as
the Very Light erosion rate (Departemen
Kehutanan, 1986).
This study shows that there is a difference in
sediment discharge in each different rainfall event.
The difference in the value of sediment discharge
occurs with the difference in flow discharge which
is controlled by the intensity and duration of the
rain. The results of the consistency test with t test
showed a strong and positive relationship between
sediment discharge (suspension) and flow rate. The
strong relationship between suspension and flow
sediments reveals that the watershed erosion pro-
cess is more intensive in triggering sediment and
soil loss than the erosion process of the bottom
grooves and basic loads (Leopold and Maddock,
1953). Rainfall factors and geophysical conditions
greatly influence the flow discharge that controls
the erosion process in triggering sediment flow and
soil loss in the study area. Sediment flow is con-
trolled by the dynamics of rain characteristics in the
form of thick rain, rain intensity and rainfall dura-
tion. Initially, the dynamics of rainfall trigger the
breakdown of soil aggregates that initiate splash
erosion and sheet erosion. Along with the increasing
dynamics of rain characteristics (rainfall intensity
and duration of rain) the surface flow accumulate
with an increasingly large flow discharge that trig-
gers soil erosion, initiates groove erosion, trench
erosion and sediment transport to the outlet chan-
nel.
Verification of Suspension Curve Model
Verification of the suspension curve model is car-
ried out to guarantee the consistency and suitability
of the suspension sediment discharge model. Veri-
fication of the suspension discharge model is carried
out through the collection of suspension and TMA
samples at the same SPAS location at different times
1069
during the period of January-March 2018.
The t test for verification of the suspension dis-
charge model was carried out in various rain condi-
tions, covering all conditions of rain both the low-
moderate rainfall and extreme rain. The test results
show that the consistent model of the suspension
discharge curve only occurs in the Low-Moderate
rain condition. In the Low-Moderate rainy state, the
results of tStat1.148 are smaller than t tabel 1.668 which
indicates a consistent curve equation and can be
used in the Low-Moderate rainfall TMA variation
data. T test for all rain and extreme rain conditions
highlights that the curve model cannot apply. The
values in the second t test of these conditions are
respectively tStat = 5.217 greater than t tabel = 1.979 and
tStat = 6.225 greater than t tabel = 2.004.
Conclusion
This research resulted in the relationship pattern of
suspension sediment flow forming a curved regres-
sion of flow discharge Q=0,8809(h-0,0019)1,2454 and
suspension discharge curve Qs = 0,0274Q1,8623. The
average rate of soil loss that occurred consisted of
total sediment yield of 0.207 tons / ha / yr, with an
erosion value of the catchment area of 0.836 tons /
ha / yr. Soil loss sediment is resulted from sus-
pended sediments and basic sediments contributing
to 91% and 9%, respectively. The percentage of sus-
pended sediment to make the source of soil loss in
the study area more dominant comes mostly from
the land erosion processes in the catchment area
than from the erosion process of the grooves and the
basic load in the channel.
Acknowledgement
We would like to exert gratitude to the parties who
have helped uswith the research implementation
and paper preparation, especially the Education
Fund Management Institute (LPDP) for funding our
Doctorate. We are indebted to the Laboratory Staffs
and Soil Laboratory technicians for their assistance
during laboratory analysis activities.Also, we would
like to thank the Transbulent Team who helpedus
with field activities and information support regard-
ing the research area in the Bompon watershed.
References
Amore, E., Modica, C., Nearing, M.A. and Santoro, V. 2004.
1070
Scale Effect in USLE and WEPP Application for Soil
Erosion Computation from Three Sicilian Basins.
Journal of Hydrology. 293 : 100-114.
Arsyad, S. 2006. Konservasi Tanah dan Air. Bandung: IPB
Press.
Asdak, C. 2002. Hidrologi dan Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran
Sungai. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Asriningrum, W., Noviar, H. and Suwarsono, 2004.
Pengembangan Metode Zonasi Daerah Bahaya
Letusan Gunungapi Studi Kasus Gunung Merapi.
Jurnal Penginderaan Jauh and Pengolahan Data Citra
Digital. 1(1) : 66–75.
Bachri, S., Utaya, S., Nurdiansyah, F.D., Nurjanah, A.E.,
Tyas, LWN., Purnama, D.S., Adillah, A.A. 2017.
Analisis dan Optimalisasi Potensi Lahan Pertanian
sebagai Kajian Dampak Positif Erupsi Gunungapi
Kelud 2014. Majalah Geografi Indonesia. 1790.
Ayuningtyas, D.W. 2012. Analisis Pengaruh Curah Hujan
Terhadap Sedimentasi di Daerah Aliran Sungai
(DAS) Citarum Hulu dengan Metode RUSLE2.
Publikasi Program Studi Meteorologi, FITK ITB, pp.1–
11.
Badan Geologi Indonesia. 2011. Data Dasar GunungApi In-
donesia, Edisi ke-2, Kementrian Energidan Sumber
Daya Mineral, Bandung.
Borrelli, P., Marker, M., Panagos, P. and Schütt, B. 2014.
Modeling Soil Erosion and River Sediment Yield for
an Intermountain Drainage Basin of the Central
Apennines, Italy. Catena. 114. Elsevier B.V.: 45–58.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2013.10.007.
Candraningrum, Z.R. 2013. Pengaruh Ketebalan Material
Tanah dan Kemiringan Lereng terhadap Potensi
Longsor pada Setiap Satuan Bentuklahan di Sub
DAS Kodil, Jawa Tengah. Skripsi. Yogyakarta: Uni-
versitas Gadjah Mada.
Dariah, A., Subagyo, H., Tafakresnanto and Marwanto, S.
2003. Kepekaan tanah terhadap erosi. Jurnal Akta
Agrosia. 8 : 2.
Departemen Kehutanan, Direktorat Jenderal Reboisasi dan
Rehabilitasi Lahan, 1998. Pedoman Penyusunan
Rencana Teknik Lapang Rehabilitasi Lahan dan
Konservasi Tanah Daerah Aliran Sungai. Jakarta:
Dephut.
Delmas, M., Cerdan, O., Mouchel, J.M. and Garcin, M.
2009. A method for developing a large-scale sedi-
ment yield index for European river basins. Journal
of Soils and Sediments. 9 (6) : 613–626.
Forster, H. and Wunderlich, J. 2009. Holocene sediment
budgets for upland catchments: The problem of
soilscape model and data availability. Catena. 77 (2):
143–149. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0341816208001434. [Accessed Sep-
tember 16, 2015].
Haregeweyn, N, Poesen, J., Nyssen, J., Govers, G.,
Verstraeten, G., de Vente, J., Deckers, J., Moeyersons,
J. and Haile, M. 2008. Sediment Yield Variability in
Eco. Env. & Cons. 25 (3) : 2019
Northern Ethiopia: A Quantitative Analysis of Its
Controlling Factors. Catena. 75 (1) : 65–76.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2008.04.011.
Haregeweyn N, Poesen J, Govers G, Verstraeten G, de
Vente J, Nyssen J, Deckers S, Moeyersons J. 2011.
Evaluation and adaptation of a spatially-distributed ero-
sion and sediment yield model in Northern Ethiopia.
Land Degrad Dev (in press).
Herschy, R.W. 2009. Streamflow Measurement Third edit. T.
and Francis, ed., 2 Park Square, Milton Park,
Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
Lazzari, M., Gioia, D., Piccarreta, M., Danese, M., Lanorte,
A. 2015. Sediment yield and erosion rate estimation
in the mountain catchments of the Camastra artifi-
cial reservoir (Southern Italy): A comparison be-
tween different empirical methods. Catena. 127 : 323–
339. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.catena.2014.11.021.
Leopold, L.B. and Maddoc, T. 1953. The Hydraulic
Geomtry of Stream Channels and Some Physi-
ographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional
Paper. 252 : 57.
Maalim, F.K., Melesse, A.M., Belmont, P. and Karen, B.
Gran, 2013. Modeling the impact of land use changes
on runoff and sediment yield in the le sueur water-
shed, minnesota using GeoWEPP. Catena. 107.
Ma’wa, J., Andawayanti, U. and Juwono, P.T. 2009. Studi
Pendugaan Sisa Usia Guna Waduk Sengguruh
Dengan Pendekatan Erosi Dan Sedimentasi. http:/
/pengairan.ub.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/
02/Studi-Pendugaan-Sisa-Usia-Guna-Waduk-
Sengguruh-dengan-Pendekatan-Erosi-dan-
Sedimentasi-Jannatul-Mawa-105060407111022.pdf.
Mc Dowell, R.W. and Srinivasan, M.S. 2009. Identifying
Critical Source Areas for Water Quality: 2. Validat-
ing The Approach For Phosphorus And Sediment
Losses In Grazed Headwater Catchments. Journal of
Hydrology. 379 : 68–80.
Merritt, W.S., Lecther, R.A. and Jakeman, AJ. 2003. A Re-
view of Erosion and Sediment Transport Model.
Environment Model Software. 18 : 761-799.
Misra, R.K. and Rose, C.W. 1996. Application and sensi-
tivity analysis of process-based erosion model
GUEST. European Journal of Soil Science. 47 : 593–604.
Morgan, R.P.C. 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation: Third
Edition. USA; Blackwell.
Nandini, R. and Narendra, B.H. 2012. Karakteristik Lahan
Kritis Bekas Letusan Gunung Batur di Kabupaten
Bangli, Bali. Penelitian Hutan and Konservasi Alam.
9(3) : 199–211.
Oost, V.K., Govers, G. and Phillipe, D. 2000. Evaluating the
Effects of Changes In Landscape Structure on Soil
Erosion By Water And Tillage. Landscape Ecology. 15:
577–589.
Panagos, P, Borrelli, P, Poesen, J, Ballabio, Lugato, E.,
Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L., Allewl, C. 2015.
HADINI ET AL
The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in
Europe. Environmental Science & Policy. 54 : 438–447.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Wesies, G.A., Mc Cool, D.K. and
Yoder, D.C. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A
Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE). Washington DC: US Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Rose, C.W., Coughlan, K.J. and Fentie, B. 1998. Griffith
University Erosion System Template (GUEST). In:
Boardman, J. and Favis-Mortlock, D.T. (eds), Mod-
elling Soil Erosion by Water, Springer-Verlag NATO-
ASI Global Change Series, Heidelberg.
Rusdi, Alibasyah, M. R. and Abubakar, K. 2013. Evaluasi
Degradasi Lahan Diakibatkan Erosi Pada Areal
Pertanian Di Kecamatan Lembah Seulawah
Kabupaten Aceh Besar. Jurnal Konservasi Sumber
Daya Lahan. Pascasarjana Universitas Syiah Kuala.
1 (1) : 24–39.
Santoso, S. 2007. Mengolah Data Statistik Secara Profesional.
Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo.
Sartohadi, J. And Pratiwi, E.S. 2014. Bunga Rampai
Penelitian: Pengelolan Bencana Kegunungapian Kelud
pada Periode Krisis Erupsi 2014. Yogyakarta: Pustaka
Pelajar.
Sharma, A., Tiwari, K.N. and Bhadoria, P.B.S. 2011. Effect
of land use land cover change on soil erosion poten-
tial in an agricultural watershed. Environ Monit As-
sess. 173 : 789–801.
Sihite, J. 2001. Evaluasi Dampak Erosi Tanah Model
Pendekatan Ekonomi Lingkungan dalam
Perlindungan DAS: Kasus Sub-DAS Besai DAS
Tulang Bawang Lampung. Disertasi. Program
Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Silburn, D.M. and Connolly, R.D. 1995. Distributed param-
eter hydrology model (ANSWERS) applied to a
range of catchment scales using rainfall simulator
data. I: infiltration modelling and parameter mea-
surement. J. Hydrol. 172 : 87–104.
Soewarno, 1991. Hidrologi Pengukuran dan Pengukuran
Daerah Aliran Sungai. Bandung: Nova.
Suripin, 2000. Evaluasi Penggunaan Teknik Debit-
Lengkung Sedimen dalam Memprediksi Sedimen
Layang. Jurnal dan Pengembangan Keairan, No. 1
tahun 7 Juli 2000, hal. 35-43.
Suripin, 2002. Pelestarian Sumber Daya Tanah dan Air. Andi
Offset. Yogyakarta.
Suwarno, 1998. Penelitian Pendahuluan Angkutan
1071
Sedimen Melayang di Sub-DAS Citarik Hulu.
Majalah Geografi Indonesia. 1 (2) : 11-26.
Turowski, J.M., Rickenmann, D. and Dadson, S.J. 2010. The
partitioning of the total sediment load of a river into
suspended load and bed load: A review of empiri-
cal data. Sedimentology. 57(4) : 1126–1146. http://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2009.01140.x.
Utomo, Marcellinus M. B., Suryatmojo, H. and Soedjoko,
S.A. 2014. Kajian Pengaruh Karakteristik Hujan
Terhadap Volume Aliran Dan Berat Suspensi Di
Kawasan Karst. Widyariset. 15 (3) Desember 2012:
527–534.
Vadari, T., Subagyono, K. and Sutrisno, N. 1995. Model
Prediksi Erosi: Prinsip, Keunggulan, Dan Keterbatasan.
31–71.
Van Rompaey, A.J.J., Verstraeten, G., Van Oost, K., Govers,
D. and Poesen, J. 2001. Modelling Mean Annual
Sediment Yield Using a Distributed Approach. Earth
Surf, Process, and Landforms. 26 : 1221–1236.
Vente, J. De, Poesen, J. and Verstraeten, G. 2008. Spatially
distributed modelling of soil erosion and sediment
yield at regional scales in Spain. 60 : 393–415. http:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.05.002.
Verstraeten, G., Prosser, I. P. and Fogarty, P. 2007. Predict-
ing the spatial patterns of hillslope sediment deliv-
ery to river channels in the Murrumbidgee catch-
ment. Australia. Journal of Hydrology. 334 (3-4) : 440–
454. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.10.025.
Walling, D.E. 1977. Assessing the accuracy of suspended
sediment rating curves for a small basin. Wat. Resour.
Res. 13, 531-538.
Wardhana, M.G.K. 2016. Efektivitas Teknik Konservasidalam
Pengendalian Erosisebagai Upaya Pengelolaan DAS
dengan Pendekatan Geomorfologi (Kasus DAS Bompon
Kabupaten Magelang Provinsi Jawa Tengah). Thesis.
Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Widasmara, M.Y. and Hadi,M.P. 2016. Pemodelan debit
aliran DAS
Bomponmenggunakanmetoderasionalmodifikasi.
Jurnal Bumi Indonesia. 5 (3) : 1–13.
Wu, T.H., Hall, J.A. and Bonta, J.V. 1993. Evaluation of
Runoff and Erosion Models. ASCE Journal Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering. 119 : 364- 381.
Wulandari, D.A., Suripin and Syafrudin, 2014. Evaluasi
Penggunaan Lengkung Laju Debit-Sedimen (Sedi-
ment-Discharge Rating Curve) Untuk Memprediksi
Sedimen Layang. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/4670/DYA.