Estimating erosion vulnerability within agricultural fields by downscaling the Daily Erosion Project (DEP): the OFEtool

Agriculture continues to be one of the most important sources of nonpoint source pollution to surface water bodies. Consequently, it is critical to identify and prioritize high‐contributing agricultural fields and sub‐field areas for reducing soil erosion and sediment delivery by implementing best management practices (BMPs). Current erosion risk assessment tools are either complex modelling approaches or rely on a simplified reality and generalized assumption. The Daily Erosion Project (DEP) is a daily estimator of precipitation, hillslope runoff, detachment and soil loss covering ~630 000 km2 across the Midwest United States. These estimations are reported daily and publicly at the hydrologic unit code 12 watershed resolution (approximately 100 km2). The main objective of this study was to develop a new tool (named Overland Flow Element tool [OFEtool]) that downscales the watershed scale of DEP to estimate average runoff and soil displacement within a field, helping to locate erosive hotspots at multiple scales. We also demonstrated the applicability of OFEtool in Bennet Creek‐Sugar Creek in East Central Iowa (the United States) and compared its results with other erosion vulnerability tools such as the Soil Vulnerability Index for Cultivated Cropland (SVI‐cc) and a GIS‐based Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). The same erosion risk classes and ranges (low, moderate, moderately high and high) were implemented for all indexes. The advantages of the OFEtool compared to the SVI‐cc and RUSLE models are related to the use of an event‐based modelling approach, such as DEP, with updated soil loss estimates based on temporal changes in climate inputs and land use and management. The OFEtool uses a 6‐year time frame and a more up‐to‐date field inputs, while RUSLE provides a long‐term average and SVI‐cc only considers soil and topographical factors for risk assessment. Results indicated that the spatial distribution of vulnerable fields (and parts of the fields) followed a similar trend as other tested indices. However, the risk level associated with each tool differed (SVI‐cc > RUSLE > OFEtool). These differences could arise from intrinsic disparities within the tools (inputs, timing, processes considered, assumptions). While currently limited to the DEP domain and relying on the DEP random sampling scheme, further research is warranted to validate the tool at other Midwest locations and ensure it captures the watershed's landscape variability (combinat