, 2001 and Moran, 2010). The USLE’s land-cover factor (i.e. C-factor), whose unit-less values range from 0 to 1 depending on cover type, exerts the single strongest control on soil-erosion model variance ( Toy et al., 1999). Impervious surfaces and water bodies are easy to discount as sediment contributors in erosion models as soils remain unexposed, resulting in a cover-factor value of zero; the effects of bare soil

exposure on sediment yields lie on the other end of the spectrum and corresponding land covers are, given their high erosivity, affixed with a cover-factor of 1 ( Wischmeier and Smith, 1965 and Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). Vemurafenib nmr Erosion factors have also been developed for forested land covers; however, their published C-factors vary by three orders of magnitude ( Table 1). This is largely due to the influence of sub-factors relating to canopy cover and soil reconsolidation in producing varying

effects on soil loss within forested areas ( Dissmeyer and Foster, 1981). Chang et al. (1982) also observe a range from 0.00014 for undisturbed forest to 0.10 for cultivated plots as a function of decreased canopy, litter, and residual stand values. Published C-factors therefore provide metrics that are only at best suitable for application to PD0325901 particular regions or forest types for which vegetation effects on soil loss have been empirically evaluated ( Table 1). Specific controls of urban forest covers on sediment yields are not understood despite a prominence of urban forests in many regions. A study analyzing land cover in 58 US cities with population densities exceeding 386 people per km2 reports of city-wide urban forest covers as high as 55%, making this one of the most prominent urban land-cover types ( Nowak et al., 1996). Determining Methocarbamol unconstrained USLE model-input parameters, such as a C-factor for urban forest cover, requires knowledge of sediment yields as a calibration

tool. Accretion records in large reservoirs can provide insight into basin-scale trends ( Verstraeten et al., 2003 and de Vente et al., 2005), but fail to resolve local changes in erosion due to the tremendous buffering capacities of large watersheds, which increase with drainage-basin size ( Walling, 1983, de Vente et al., 2007 and Allen, 2008). Verstraeten and Poesen (2002) evaluate the possibilities of looking at the small end of the watershed-size spectrum by investigating sediment deposits in small ponds. They highlight the importance of these understudied watersheds in bridging the data gap between plot studies and investigations of sediment loads in large rivers. Sediment yields from small catchments are commonly evaluated using accretion records from reservoirs ( Verstraeten and Poesen, 2001 and Kouhpeima et al., 2010).