泥砂收支模式量化集水區中所有土砂運動行為，包含崩塌、侵蝕、移動、堆積，以及複雜的交互作用，以正確預估的收支平衡；過去多使用大量的資料或是以個別案例分析進行計算，但是得到的結果只限於討論的特定區域或條件。為了瞭解集水區土砂運動行為的整體面貌，以及不同情況下泥砂收支的行為，本研究使用概念模型描述泥砂收支行為，假設降雨為誘發崩塌以及河道輸砂的主要條件，特別是颱風降雨事件所造成的泥砂收支，並預估隨雨量大小之改變；本概念模式的主要啟動因子為降雨並利用定率性方式進行模型內部參數的討論以及序率性的測試進行影響因子的不確定性分析。
本研究利用高屏溪流域內三個子集水區：荖濃溪集水區、旗山溪集水區、隘寮溪集水區2001年至2010年的資料，進行泥砂收支分析，從崩塌、土壤沖蝕體積、河道輸砂的量化到遞移率的估算。結果顯示河道泥砂收支與事件降雨量相關性最高；莫拉克颱風的極端雨量造成高屏溪流域43億立方公尺土砂崩塌，對於高屏溪來說大量的土砂仍滯留在邊坡上，未進入河道；而事件雨量較小的辛樂克颱風對於集水區來說而有沖刷的效果。然本研究亦發現泥砂運動行為的方式仍受水文條件之不確定性影響，例如計算河道泥砂濃度的方式就可以依照河道輸砂特性(泥砂供給限制、泥砂傳輸限制)而分成月平均法、年率定曲線法以及事件率定曲線法，計算出來的值以月平均法最高、第二為事件平均法、最後為年平均法。此研究仍利用年率定曲線法進行計算，若未來欲計算河道輸砂量可利用三者平均。
比較高屏溪流域泥砂收支模式與概念模式，結果顯示高屏溪流域所算出的值多落在概念模式所算出的範圍內，初步可說明本研究之模式具有解釋高屏溪泥砂收支現象之能力，就趨勢影響可以適當呈現，但水文之不確定性仍佔有相當重要之影響，單一事件之變異性可能造成決定性之影響，而使得整體趨勢較不明顯。

The sediment budget is a common tool to quantify sediment balance in a watershed, including processes. Previous researches mainly applied data-driven or case studies in specific area. As a result, we always only obtain a limited scope or understanding for the sediment budget phenomena in a watershed. In this study, firstly I investigate the different sediment processes within a watershed and make effort to reasonably model them under the different conditions. By using the conceptual model built in this study, sediment supply and outflow can be simulated. This study treats rainfall as a major trigger in sediment budget. Easy to be understood, it dominates occurrences of landslides, transportation of sediment in rivers, and other major process of watershed sedimentation, especially for typhoon or extreme storm events. To discuss the model parameters, this study applies both deterministic and stochastic framework to analyze the watershed sedimentation. By this way, we can have a more comprehensive investigation in this topic.
This study applies the proposed model framework to real cases in Taiwan, inclduing three subbasins in the Kaoping river basin. These subbasins are Laonong river basin, Cishan river basin and Ailiao river basin. We found that the river sediment budget are significantly correlated with the event of rainfalls. For instance, the extreme rainfall event of Typhoon Morakot triggers landslides with mass of 4,300 million cubic meter in the Kaoping basin. But most of the sediment might still stay on the hillslope instead of moving to rivers. For a moderate event such as the Typhoon Sinlaku, the watershed actually could produce less sediment than it transport out. We suggest the general trend of sedimentation can be concluded, but various uncertainties in different process may strongly dominate the phenomena of sediment budget in a watershed.

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究流程與章節架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 泥砂收支 4
2.2 概念模式 6
2.3 崩塌 8
2.4 土壤沖蝕 12
2.5 遞移率 13
2.5.1 集水區遞移率 13
2.5.2 邊坡遞移率 15
2.6 河道輸砂 18
第三章 理論泥砂收支模式 20
3.1 模式建立 20
3.1.1 崩塌與雨量關係 21
3.1.2 土壤沖蝕與雨量關係 22
3.1.3 年雨量與事件雨量關係 23
3.1.4 降雨逕流關係 24
3.1.5 坡面遞移率 24
3.1.6 河道輸砂 26
3.1.7 小結 29
3.2 模式測試 30
3.2.1 單一事件基本設定 30
3.2.2 參數測試 34
3.2.3 多事件基本設定 36
3.2.4 事件數測試 36
3.3 單一事件參數測試結果 37
3.3.1 崩塌發生位置 37
3.3.2 沖蝕遞移率 38
3.3.3 崩塌-雨量關係 39
3.3.4 事件雨量比例 40
3.3.5 年輸砂量 42
3.3.6 雨量不確定性 43
3.3.7 小結 44
3.4 多事件測試結果 45
3.4.1 不同降雨特性 45
3.4.2 固定事件數改變 47
3.4.3 不固定事件數改變 49
3.5 綜合討論 51
3.5.1 坡面遞移率 51
3.5.2 崩塌體積-雨量關係 53
3.5.3 土壤沖蝕 54
3.5.4 年逕流量、年輸砂量 54
第四章 高屏溪流域泥砂收支模式 57
4.1 研究區域 57
4.1.1 荖濃溪流域 58
4.1.2 旗山溪流域 58
4.1.3 隘寮溪流域 59
4.1.4 降雨事件 61
4.1.5 流量、懸浮值資料蒐集 63
4.2 崩塌 66
4.3 土壤沖蝕 68
4.3.1 坡長因子 68
4.3.2 坡度因子 68
4.3.3 土壤沖蝕指數 69
4.3.4 降雨沖蝕指數 70
4.3.5 覆蓋及管理因子 70
4.3.6 水土保持因子 71
4.3.7 綜合討論 71
4.4 河川輸砂 71
第五章 結果與討論 75
5.1 崩塌體積估算 75
5.2 土壤沖蝕估算 77
5.3 遞移率計算 83
5.4 河道輸砂估算 85
5.5 泥砂收支 88
5.6 模式應用 98
5.6.1 河道輸砂特性轉換 98
5.6.2 未來的高屏溪流域 99
第六章 結論與建議 101
6.1 結論 101
6.2 建議 103
參考文獻 104

1.Bathurst, J., Burton, A., Ward, T. (1997). Debris flow run-out and landslide sediment delivery model tests. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(5), 410-419.
2.Blake, W., Wallbrink, P., Doerr, S., Shakesby, R., Humphreys, G. (2006). Magnetic enhancement in wildfire&;#8208;affected soil and its potential for sediment&;#8208;source ascription. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 31(2), 249-264.
3.Caine, N. (1980). The rainfall intensity: duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows. Geografiska Annaler. Series A. Physical Geography, 23-27.
4.Dadson, S. J., Hovius, N., Chen, H., Dade, W. B., Lin, J.-C., Hsu, M.-L., Lin, C.-W., Horng, M.-J., Chen, T.-C., Milliman, J. (2004). Earthquake-triggered increase in sediment delivery from an active mountain belt. Geology, 32(8), 733-736.
5.Dai, F., Lee, C. (2001). Frequency–volume relation and prediction of rainfall-induced landslides. Engineering geology, 59(3), 253-266.
6.Delmas, M., Pak, L.-T., Cerdan, O., Souchere, V., Le Bissonnais, Y., Couturier, A., Sorel, L. (2012). Erosion and sediment budget across scale: A case study in a catchment of the European loess belt. Journal of Hydrology, 420, 255-263.
7.Devoli, G., De Blasio, F. V., Elverhoi, A., Hoeg, K. (2009). Statistical analysis of landslide events in Central America and their run-out distance. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 27(1), 23-42.
8.Duan, N. (1983). Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(383), 605-610.
9.Ferguson, R. (1986). River loads underestimated by rating curves. Water Resources Research, 22(1), 74-76.
10.Ferro, V., Minacapilli, M. (1995). Sediment delivery processes at basin scale. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 40(6), 703-717.
11.Ferro, V., Porto, P. (2000). Sediment delivery distributed (SEDD) model. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5(4), 411-422.
12.Gabet, E. J., Burbank, D. W., Putkonen, J. K., Pratt-Sitaula, B. A., Ojha, T. (2004). Rainfall thresholds for landsliding in the Himalayas of Nepal. Geomorphology, 63(3), 131-143.
13.Girmay, G., Singh, B., Nyssen, J., Borrosen, T. (2009). Runoff and sediment-associated nutrient losses under different land uses in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Hydrology, 376(1), 70-80.
14.Guzzetti, F., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Rossi, M., Valigi, D. (2009). Landslide volumes and landslide mobilization rates in Umbria, central Italy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 279(3), 222-229.
15.Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., Stark, C. P. (2007). Rainfall thresholds for the initiation of landslides in central and southern Europe. Meteorology and atmospheric physics, 98(3-4), 239-267.
16.Hovius, N., Stark, C. P., Hao&;#8208;Tsu, C., Jiun&;#8208;Chuan, L. (2000). Supply and removal of sediment in a landslide&;#8208;dominated mountain belt: Central Range, Taiwan. The Journal of Geology, 108(1), 73-89.
17.Jakeman, A., Chen, T., Post, D., Hornberger, G., Littlewood, I., Whitehead, P. (1993). Assessing uncertainties in hydrological response to climate at large scale. IAHS PUBLICATION, 37-37.
18.Jen, C.-H., Lin, J.-C., Hsu, M.-L., Petley, D. N. (2006). Fluvial transportation and sedimentation of the Fu-shan small experimental catchments. Quaternary international, 147(1), 34-43.
19.Jordan, P. (2006). The use of sediment budget concepts to assess the impact on watersheds of forestry operations in the southern interior of British Columbia. Geomorphology, 79(1), 27-44.
20.Kao, S., Lee, T., Milliman, J. D. (2005). Calculating highly fluctuated suspended sediment fluxes from mountainous rivers in Taiwan. Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 16(3), 653.
21.Keefer, D. K., Wilson, R. C., Mark, R. K., Brabb, E. E., Brown, W. M., Ellen, S. D., Harp, E. L., Wieczorek, G. F., Alger, C. S., Zatkin, R. S. (1987). Real-time landslide warning during heavy rainfall. Science, 238(4829), 921-925.
22.Lopez-Tarazon, J., Batalla, R. J., Vericat, D., Francke, T. (2009). Suspended sediment transport in a highly erodible catchment: the River Isabena (Southern Pyrenees). Geomorphology, 109(3), 210-221.
23.Li, C., Ma, T., Zhu, X., Li, W. (2011). The power–law relationship between landslide occurrence and rainfall level. Geomorphology, 130(3), 221-229.
24.Lu, H., Moran, C. J., Prosser, I. P. (2006). Modelling sediment delivery ratio over the Murray Darling Basin. Environmental Modelling &; Software, 21(9), 1297-1308.
25.McCool, D., Brown, L., Foster, G., Mutchler, C., Meyer, L. (1987). Revised slope steepness factor for the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Transactions of the ASAE-American Society of Agricultural Engineers (USA).
26.Merritt, W. S., Letcher, R. A., Jakeman, A. J. (2003). A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environmental Modelling &; Software, 18(8), 761-799.
27.Nash, D. B. (1994). Effective Sediment-Transporting Discharge from Magnitude-Frequency Analysis. The Journal of Geology, 102(1), 79-95. doi: 10.2307/30065712
28.Nichols, M., Nearing, M., Polyakov, V., Stone, J. (2013). A sediment budget for a small semiarid watershed in southeastern Arizona, USA. Geomorphology, 180, 137-145.
29.Page, M., Trustrum, N., Dymond, J. (1994). Sediment budget to assess the geomorphic effect of a cyclonic storm, New Zealand. Geomorphology, 9(3), 169-188.
30.Pratt-Sitaula, B., Garde, M., Burbank, D. W., Oskin, M., Heimsath, A., Gabet, E. (2007). Bedload-to-suspended load ratio and rapid bedrock incision from Himalayan landslide-dam lake record. Quaternary Research, 68(1), 111-120.
31.Rajurkar, M., Kothyari, U., Chaube, U. (2004). Modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff relationship with artificial neural network. Journal of Hydrology, 285(1), 96-113.
32.Robinson, J. S., Sivapalan, M. (1997). Temporal scales and hydrological regimes: Implications for flood frequency scaling. Water Resources Research, 33(12), 2981-2999.
33.Sorooshian, S. (1991). Parameter estimation, model identification, and model validation: conceptual-type models Recent advances in the modeling of hydrologic systems (pp. 443-467): Springer.
34.Syvitski, J. P., Morehead, M. D., Bahr, D. B., Mulder, T. (2000). Estimating fluvial sediment transport: the rating parameters. Water Resources Research, 36(9), 2747-2760.
35.Varnes, D. J. (1978). Slope movement types and processes. Transportation Research Board Special Report(176).
36.Walling, D. (1983). The sediment delivery problem. Journal of Hydrology, 65(1), 209-237.
37.Walling, D., Collins, A. (2008). The catchment sediment budget as a management tool. Environmental Science &; Policy, 11(2), 136-143.
38.Wheater, H., Jakeman, A., Beven, K. (1993). Progress and directions in rainfall-runoff modelling.
39.Wischmeier, W. H., Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to conservation planning. Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to conservation planning.
40.Zhang, Q., Xu, C.-y., Becker, S., Jiang, T. (2006). Sediment and runoff changes in the Yangtze River basin during past 50 years. Journal of Hydrology, 331(3), 511-523.
41.林文賜, 林昭遠, 周文杰, 黃碧慧. (2006). 集水區坡面泥砂產量推估模式建立之研究. 明道學術論壇, 2(2)。
42.林建宏. (2010). 石門水庫集水區泥砂收支與遞移率之研究. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文。
43.林昭遠. (2004). 應用衛星影像探討集水區逕流係數空間分佈之研究. 行政院農業委員會研究計畫報告。
44.邱昱嘉. (2007). 放射性核種銫 137 在土壤重新分布率估算之研究. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文。
45.洪麗娟. (2009). 1996-2008 年臺灣降雨的特性分析. 國立中央大學大氣物理研究所碩士論文。
46.莊善傑. (2005). 大甲溪流域的山崩在颱風與地震事件中與地質環境之對應關係. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文。
47.陳毅青. (2012). 降雨誘發崩塌侵蝕之規模頻率及其控制因子. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文。
48.陳樹群, 吳俊毅, 吳岳霖, 王士豪. (2009). GIS 圖層及修正因子建置臺灣通用土壤流失公式 (TUSLE)-以石門水庫集水區為例. 中華水土保持學報, 40(2),。
49.陳樹群, 諸予涵, 吳俊鋐. (2012). 旗山溪集水區長期降雨特性改變與崩塌分佈關係. 中華水土保持學報, 43(4)。
50.馮美禎, 杜怡德, 林俐玲. (2006). 應用農業非點源污染模式探討集水區泥砂遞移率. 水土保持學報。
51.楊斯堯, 詹錢登, 黃文舜, 曾國訓. (2010). 運用時雨量資料推估降雨沖蝕指數. 中華水土保持學報, 41(3)。
52.經濟部水利署. (2001~2010). 水文年報.
53.蔡宗賢. (2012). 石門水庫集水區崩塌地產砂與後續沖刷之量化研究. 臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文。
54.盧昭堯, 蘇志強, 吳藝昀. (2005). 臺灣地區年等降雨沖蝕指數圖之修訂. 中華水土保持學報, 36(2)。