land degradation & development

Land Degrad. Develop. 15: 4963 (2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ldr.589
A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
MEASURES ON AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS
A. SARANGI,
1
* C. A. MADRAMOOTOO
2
AND C. COX
3
1
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, MS-1-019, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Montreal, H9X3V9, Canada
2
Brace Centre of Water Management and Department of Agricultural and Bio-systems Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
3
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Received 7 December 2002; Revised 23 July 2003; Accepted 3 September 2003
ABSTRACT
Integrated watershed management (IWM) is vital in achieving agricultural sustainability in terms of both production and
environmental protection. A decision support system (DSS) is useful in generating alternative decision scenarios for
management of natural resources, facilitating the implementation of IWM concepts in an interactive and holistic way. The
decision to implement an appropriate land use coupled with suitable soil and water conservation techniques not only enhances
watershed health but also prevents sediment losses. Besides reducing basin fertility, such losses decrease the storage capacity of
downstream reservoirs through silt deposition, which can, in turn, give rise to low biomass production and poorer ood control.
In order to facilitate IWM, an effort was made to develop, in the Visual Basic programming language, a soil and water
conservation DSS which considered both structural and cropping practices for arresting sediment loss. Input parameters to the
DSS for a given tract of land included: mean slope; sediment loss; soil type; and land capability class (LCC). Outputs included
decision criteria to choose among alternative structural measures and suggested cropping systems to serve as biological
measures to reduce soil loss and conserve water. Structural watershed management measures included a variety of soil and
water conservation structures widely adopted by farming communities throughout the world. The DSS is capable of providing
sediment control solutions not only for small watersheds but also for larger drainage basins, by dividing the basin into smaller
watersheds. The DSS was validated for a watershed on the Caribbean island of St Lucia and used to suggest measures for a 10

slope under specic soil type, sediment loss and LCC conditions. The measures proposed included bench terraces, graded
contour bunds, conservation ditches, concrete chute spillways, diversion dams and conservation cropping systems. The
measures actually adopted on-site were conservation ditches, graded contour bunds and conservation cropping systems, a close
parallel to the DSSs proposed measures. On slopes ranging from 555

, implementation of the suggested control measures

resulted in a 3437 per cent reduction in soil loss on the watershed. Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: decision support systems; integrated watershed management; conservation structures; Visual Basic programming language;
sediment yield; sustainability
INTRODUCTION
Soil and water are the two critical resources for agricultural production and thus there is an urgent and ongoing
need for research to devise ways to manage soil and water resources in a more sustainable manner (National
Research Council, 1991). Integrated watershed management (IWM) is a vital approach for sustainable develop-
ment as the watershed is the hydrogeological unit that harbours these natural resources. IWM can be dened as a
multidisciplinary, holistic way of protecting and managing a watersheds natural resources to enhance biomass
production in an eco-friendly manner. The watershed is viewed as a hydrogeological complex and dynamic
ecosystem in which natural and anthropogenic processes occur and interact, which gives rise to runoff at the
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
+
Correspondence to: A. Sarangi, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, MS-1-019, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Montreal,
H9X3V9, Canada.
E-mail: sarangi@macdonald.mcgill.ca
watershed outlet. Furthermore, the watershed also acts as a social, economic and political unit for planning and
management purposes. Hence, the watershed manager and policy makers must consider all technical, social,
economic, environmental, legal and institutional aspects of watershed planning processes.
Concern about widespread soil degradation and scarce, poorly managed water resources has led to the
implementation of watershed management investments throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America (Kerr and
Chung, 2001). Despite the growing importance of watershed projects as an approach to rural development and
natural resource management, until now there has been relatively little research on their impact (Kerr and Chung,
2001). In this context, development of a decision support system (DSS) to address specic issues of watershed
management assumes importance and holds the promise of making watershed management simpler and more
effective. DSSs show great promise in the strategic planning of soil conservation efforts and can aid in the selection
of appropriate soil conservation practices for agricultural watersheds (Montas and Madramootoo, 1992). The
ability to reach decisions regarding alternative land uses and structural measures for different soil types and land
capability classes is essential to IWM. Altogether an IWM system will: (1) control sediment outow to prevent
downstream ooding; (2) conserve water and soil fertility; (3) facilitate crop management and use land effectively;
(4) assist in soil and water resources planning and management; (5) reduce environmental and ecological
degradation; and (6) resolve issues related to stakeholder conicts. Sustainable land management is an issue that
has long been debated. However, using a DSS to integrate all the data and information into a meaningful and
effective toolbox for use by land managers is gaining wider acceptance (Bishr and Radwan, 1995; Beynon et al.,
2002). It is now generally accepted that sustainable land management must be approached with the watershed as
the basic management unit (Cox, 2002). In the planning phase, watershed management requires that a broad range
of data be integrated into a logical framework. Land-use practices and structures adopted by indigenous farming
communities around the world along with standard well-known practices can be included in a DSS. Moreover, for
decision makers and managers to conceptualize environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially
acceptable management options, a set of clearly dened input parameters must be dened.
A DSS supports technological and managerial decision-making by assisting in the organization of knowledge
about ill-structured, semi-structured or unstructured issues. When developing a DSS, the emphasis is on providing
decision-makers with a user-friendly tool to help them better evaluate and assess the watershed-scale impacts of
implementing conservation measures. The development of the DSS also seeks to enhance the accuracy and
usefulness of the decision-set provided to decision-makers. From the inception of DSSs, it has become clear that
they aid and assist decision makers but do not replace them (Kersten et al., 2000).
Datta (1995) developed a DSS for micro-watershed management, allowing investigation of water allocation and
agricultural production alternatives for the Bankura District, West Bengal, India. This menu-driven, user-
interactive, PC-based DSS, encoded C on a MS-DOS platform, used a water budget to arrive at decision
scenarios. Its input requirements were watershed, soil, water resources, crop and weather-related data. Pertiwi et al.
(1998) developed a soil conservation DSS for upland farm management, with special consideration given to
estimating potential annual soil loss and comparing it to a tolerable soil-loss criterion. Encoded in Visual Basic
(VB) on a Windows 95
TM
platform, the DSS required universal soil loss equation (USLE) parameters as input. It
suggested improved soil conservation farming practices, including the most suitable soil tillage machinery, when
soil loss exceeded a tolerable soil-loss criterion. However, application of the DSS was location specic as it was
preloaded with data only suited to Japanese conditions. Bishr and Radwan (1995) developed a DSS for watershed
management integrating a geographic information system (GIS) tool, object-oriented data modeling and a
knowledge-based system to assist decision-makers in selecting the best management practices (BMPs) for
controlling soil erosion and water quality. The DSS was a combination of conceptual models such as the
agricultural non-point source pollution (AGNPS) model, interpretive routines and expert judgment by specialists
in the eld of watershed management. The developed DSS for watershed management is very data intensive,
requiring a GIS tool to input watershed details, and a hydrologic model to predict soil loss and pollutant loads.
It appears that no existing watershed management DSSs offer watershed-scale structural and vegetative soil and
water conservation alternatives in response to inputs of land slope, soil type, measured sediment loss and land-
capability classication. An effort was made to collect, from published literature, research articles and Internet
50 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
sources, information on existing soil and water conservation structures and vegetative measures adopted on
different watershed slope ranges, land-capability classes and soil types. The information was synthesized and
linked with recorded sediment-loss data. A decision-ow logic, which sought to reduce soil loss and conserve
water, was conceptualized and presented as a DSS using Visual Basic (Version 60). When the DSS is run with a
given set of input parameters, the recommended conservation measures are displayed along with images of
locations where such conservation practices have been adopted, in a variety of watersheds and agro-ecological
regions. The user interacts with the DSS to gather information on structural and biological measures suitable for
the watershed and then the suggested measures are implemented on the watershed. The DSS presented in this
paper is a new approach supported by a logical interpretation of existing published reports of watershed-based
conservation measures with a quantication of their effectiveness. As such, this DSS is one of a kind in terms of its
contribution to watershed-management decision making. The established historical data used in the DSS ensures
its versatility and application to watersheds around the world. Minor modications of the recommended
conservation measures to t local and indigenous practice may be required for global adoption. Moreover, St
Lucia and the entire Caribbean region need this type of management tool, because of the extensive soil erosion of
the steep hillside lands and the urgent need for conservation measures (Cox, 1997; Schwab et al., 1993).
Additionally, the VB programming language makes the DSS exible enough to be interfaced with any GIS-based
soil and water resources conservation targeted watershed management support system.
Table I. USDA land capability and recommended land management practices (USDA, Pretall and Polius, 1981)
Land Most intensive suitable use
capability
class USDA Polius and Pretell (1981)
I Suitable for cultivation with almost no limitations. Level soils suitable for cultivation with almost
no limitations on use
Fertilizers should be applied to maintain nutrient status
II Suitable for cultivation with one limiting factor of low Level to nearly level soils suitable for cultivation
degree with some moderate limitations that reduce the
choice of plants and require moderate
conservation practices
III Suitable for cultivation with two limiting factors or Level to undulating soils suitable for cultivation
capability class of limitation with severe limitations that reduce the choice of
plants and/or require special conservation practices
IV Suitable for tree crops, improved pasture, and marginal Level to undulating soils suitable for cultivation with
for cultivation with three factors or degrees of very severe limitations that restrict the choice of
limitation plants and/or require very careful management
V Unsuitable for cultivation, but suitable for afforestation, Level soils without erosion hazard, not suitable for
tree crops, or grass with four factors or degrees of cultivation except in certain areas where rice can be
limitation grown. Suitable chiey for pasture
VI Unsuitable for cultivation. Suitable for poor forest Very undulating to hilly soils with severe limitations
that make them generally unsuited to seasonal crops
and restrict their use mainly to tree crops, pastures,
or woodland
VII Little or no agricultural use Very steeply sloping soils with severe limitations
that make them unsuited to cultivation and restrict
their use largely to woodland and wildlife
VIII Very steeply sloping soils, beach sands, or mangrove
areas, having severe limitations that preclude their
agricultural use and restrict them to recreation,
wildlife, water supply, or scenic use
In both classications, the major limiting factors identied included high erosion risk, impeded/excessive drainage, aridity, shallow soil depth,
stoniness, presence of hardpans and extreme slope steepness.
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 51
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
DATA COLLECTION FOR THE DSS
The data used for development of the DSS is mostly of secondary type and collected from the published texts and
articles on watershed management. The photographs presented in the DSS showing different soil and water
conservation measures and the information of the land uses are collected form different Internet web resources
1,2,3
.
The information of land capability classes (Stark et al., 1966; Pretall and Polius, 1981) and proposed land
treatment (Ahmed, 1989) information are extensively used in the DSS, which is presented in Tables I and II
respectively. The recommended conservation measures as shown in Table II are for the management of watersheds
in the Caribbean Island of St Lucia (Cox, 2002). The sources of further data used in developing the DSS are
enumerated under the following sub-headings.
Watershed Slope
At the watershed scale, land slope and roughness are of paramount importance in controlling the hydrological
process of movement and deposition of water-born soil (Cogo et al., 1984). Therefore, the relief and slope of the
land are the prime considerations for implementing structural and vegetative soil conservation measures on
watersheds. It was revealed that structures suggested for arresting sediment loss and conserving water differ little
for a variation in slope of 5 per cent (Srinivasan and Engel, 1991; Schwab et al., 1993). Therefore the DSS was
built on slope ranges of 1 to 2 per cent, 2 to 5 per cent, 5 to 10 per cent, 10 to 15 per cent, 15 to 20 per cent and slopes
greater than 20 per cent. For slope ranges of 12 per cent and 25 per cent the implementation of a combination of
soil and water conservation structures adopted in different regions (bunds, pipe inlet structures, tiled ditches,
contour drains, terraces and grassed waterways) was recommended. For a slope of 20 per cent or greater the
conservation measures are limited to vegetative barriers and afforestation techniques only, because it is difcult to
construct physical structures on such a slope and achieve structural stabilization (Cox, 1997; Hudson, 1995). The
DSS takes care of the slope of the watershed in two ways: (1) the mean slope calculated for the watershed as a
whole, representative of the entire watershed; and (2) the individual slopes of the hydrologic response units (HRUs)
within the watershed. Mean watershed slope is calculated using the expression as given in Equation 1. However, for
Table II. Soil stability classes and recommended land treatments proposed by Ahmad (1989)
Soil stability Slope class Capability Recommended conservation treatments
class (degree) class
Stable (A) 020 A1 Wide range of crops suitable; mulching; leguminous ground cover;
diversion ditches; dyked contour drains
2030 A2 Banana or tree crops along contour; grass barriers; contour drains;
step drains; grassed waterways
>30 A3 Tree crops or forest; no tillage; partial or selective land clearing
only; ground cover for tree crops; hillside ditches; grassed waterways
Less stable (B) 010 B1 Range of crops; conservation tillage; diversion ditches; grass barriers;
contour drains; grasses waterways; storm drains
1020 B2 Banana or tree crops; mini-basins; contour planting; dyked contour
drains; grass barriers; step drains; grassed waterways
>20 B3 Preferably tree crops or forest trees; bananas with great care; partial
clearing done manually; planting in mini-basins; no tillage; contour
drains; grassed waterways; step drains
Fragile (C) 05 C1 Food crops on contour; grass barriers; soil surface protection;
minimum tillage
510 C2 Diversion ditches; food crops on contour ridges; grass barriers; grassed
waterways; minimum tillage; surface protection; agro-forestry
>10 C3 No disturbance; re-afforestation; agro-forestry
52 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
a HRU, the individual slope of the watershed is the relief of the watershed divided by the maximum length of the
selected HRU. This representative slope of the HRU is used as the input value for running the DSS.
S
a
=
H
+
L
ca
(10A)
(1)
Where
S
a
is the average watershed slope in per cent
H is the maximum watershed relief in meters
L
ca
is the average length of the clearly identiable contours within the watershed in km.
A is the area of the watershed in km
2
.
Moreover, the unit of slope used in the DSS is per cent slope, and the expression for conversion of degree slope to
per cent slope is given in Equation 2
4
.
Percentage slope = ((([Slope in degrees[
+
314159 = 180)Tan)
+
100) (2)
where Tan is the trigonometric tangent.
Sediment Yield from Watersheds
Sediment yield is the quantity of detached soil particles owing out of the watershed and generally measured at the
stream outlet or calculated from the established soil loss empirical equations or conceptual hydrological models
(Hudson, 1995). Sediment outow is inuenced by a number of geomorphological processes. It may be
substantially less than the amount actually eroded in the basin due to successive erosion and deposition processes
within the watershed system. Sediment yield is typically expressed as the total sediment volume or mass delivered
to a specied location in the basin, divided by the effective drainage area above that location for a given period of
time. However, it is also necessary to estimate yield from a watershed from individual storm events of specied
frequency (e.g., 5-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year events). Individual event yields are reported as metric tons or cubic meters
per event. In some watersheds, single-event sediment yields often exceed average annual values by several orders
of magnitude (Cox, 1997). Moreover, the spatial and temporal variation in the biological and physical features of
the watershed causes the estimation of sediment yield an extremely difcult and imprecise task. Important
variables include soils and geology, relief, climate, vegetation, soil moisture, soil organic matter, biota,
precipitation, drainage density channel morphology, and human inuences. Dominant processes within a
watershed may be entirely different between physiographic or ecological regions, and may change with time.
The problem becomes even more complex when grain size distribution and sediment yield for particular events
must be estimated for input to sedimentation transport simulation models. There is no widely accepted procedure
for computing basin sediment yield and grain size distribution directly from watershed characteristics without
measured information (Cox, 2002).
The DSS is developed using the data of annual sediment loss generated from soil-loss equations or soil-loss
prediction conceptual models having units in tons ha
1
yr
1
or megagrams Mg ha
1
yr
1
. In the case of
watersheds having sediment load data of the out owing stream expressed in weight or volume of sediment per
unit volume of runoff water, the data is transformed to Mg ha
1
yr
1
using the contributory area of watershed and
the total runoff volume measured at the discharge point. For implementation of conservation measures, the
tolerable soil loss must be dened. It is the maximum soil erosion that will permit a high level of crop
productivity to be sustained economically and indenitely (Troeh et al., 1999). The tolerable soil-loss values
assigned by a group of American scientists during 1961 and 1962 ranged from 4 to 13 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, later it was
agreed to be 11 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and for fragile soils the rate 2 Mg ha
1
yr
1
is considered (Troeh et al., 1999). It is
recognized that any level of agricultural land utilization will invariably generate some amount of soil loss, hence
the concept tolerable soil loss makes sense. Keeping in view of this limit and the soil-loss information of the St
Lucia watershed (Cox, 1997), the tolerable soil loss limit is set to be 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
. This consideration is also
based on the concept that there will not be much variation in selection of soil and water conservation structures to
arrest sediment loss between 1 to 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, as for most of the soil types with land capability classes from I
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 53
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
to VII, the soil loss varies from 8 to 13 Mg ha
1
yr
1
(Hall et al., 1985). However, there may be a combination of
different types of conservation measures to arrest sediment loss within 1 to 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, which is suitably
dealt in the DSS by listing a number of vegetative and structural measures to arrest soil loss. It is also observed
from soil conservation publications that there is not much change in the type of conservation structures within a
soil loss of 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
(Pertiwi et al., 1998). Therefore, considering all this published information, the
incremental value of sediment load considered in DSS is 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, within which there is no abrupt change
in the suggestive conservation measures. Moreover, the DSS is exible enough to accommodate different sediment
load ranges starting from minimum of 2 Mg ha
1
yr
1
to maximum of 13 Mg ha
1
yr
1
as discussed above. Hence,
with an aim to extend the applicability of this DSS for at watersheds with low sediment-loss values, the sediment
range of 2 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and 5 Mg ha
1
yr
1
are also incorporated in the DSS. However, to account for the
different conservation measures within 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
in real situations, there should be different conservation
practices to avoid redundancy in prediction. Keeping in view of the St Lucia watershed and eastern Caribbean
locations, the sediment-loss ranges considered in the DSS are 0 to 10, 11 to 20, 21 to 30, and so on, up to
80 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and greater than 80 Mg ha
1
yr
1
. The incremental range of 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
is also selected to
minimize the number of looping statements in the algorithms. It was observed that an incremental range of less
than 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
did not provide any new control measures, but made the algorithm more complicated.
Moreover, in some watersheds the soil loss is more than the extreme value of 80 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, but the conservation
practices remain almost identical to practices within sediment loss of 60 to 80 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and there is no
dramatic change in sediment-control measures, barring some combination of conservation measures.
Soil Type and Land Capability Classes (LCC) of the Watershed
The soil types considered in the DSS are stable, less stable and fragile, and they are denoted as soil types A,
B and C, respectively. These soil types are related to a given slope range, and the land capability subclasses are
associated with each major class (Table II). Details of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) land
capability classes (LCC) and soil stability types along with the conservation practices are presented in Tables I and
II. Soil types are used in conjunction with the LCC to suggest appropriate soil-management practices and the
structural measures for soil conservation in regions where the soil-type-based land classications are more
prevalent than the USDA classication and vice versa. Consideration of both LCC and land classication on soil
stability through soil types A, B and C incorporates exibility in the developed DSS.
Structural (Mechanical or Physical) Conservation Measures
A number of structural measures to prevent erosion by controlling the movement of water over the soil surface, and
specic to given land conditions and slope, are available for implementation on watersheds. Such measures are
generally employed in conjunction with agronomic measures (Morgan, 1986). The DSS lists contour bunds (also
known as contour furrows or desert-strip farming), semi-circular hoops (to catch and retain runoff water), strip
cropping, tied ridging (for water management), grass strips, permeable barriers, terraces (bench, diversion and
retention terraces), grassed waterways, contour farming (agricultural operations done along land contours),
stabilization structures (chute spillways, drop structures, pipe-inlet structures, rock-lled dams, brush-wood check
dams, woven-wire mesh dams and other indigenous structures to prevent sediment outow) and geotextiles
(several types of netting and woven materials from natural bers) (Morgan, 1986; Pimentel et al., 1993; Hudson,
1995). Woven geotextile mesh lled with soil after it is laid on the ground becomes more effective and can reduce
erosion by up to 20 per cent compared to unprotected land (Morgan, 1986). Afforestation is proposed as a
vegetative mechanical method to prevent erosion on steep slopes.
Vegetative or Biological Control Measures
Vegetation is preferred over structural measures since concrete, masonry, wood or any other building materials
are subjected to decay and liable to be undermined or bypassed. They thus become less effective with the passage
of time. Vegetation, on the other hand, can thrive and improve over the years. The vegetation prevents soil erosion
by reducing the velocity of runoff and providing physical protection from soil scouring (Schwab et al., 1993;
54 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
Hudson, 1995). Different afforestation and vegetation measures are incorporated in the DSS. They are proposed
by the DSS based upon the LCCs, slope ranges, and sediment loss. Crop, animal and land husbandry can be seen
as elements of biological conservation measures. The techniques proposed by the DSS include: farming
on grades; strip cropping (useful on gentle slopes); crop rotations; shifting cultivation; mixed cropping and
inter-planting; deep tillage; ripping or subsoiling (breaking the hard pan and enhancing porosity); conservation
tillage (surface mulching, minimum tillage, trash farming and strip tillage, etc.); reduced tillage (no-till, direct
tillage, small strip tillage and rotary tillage, etc.); agroforestry (plantation crop combinations); silvipastoral
practices; alley cropping (growing food crops between hedges) and combinations of rip-rap and vegetation across
and along the slope. However, for soil-conservation recommendations based on slope and LCCs, a combination
of vegetative measures works better than a single measure (Hudson, 1995; Hurni et al., 1996; Troeh et al., 1999).
Therefore, the DSS suggested a combined list of methods applicable for the given slope and land type, with the
nal implementation of the conservation measures proposed dependant upon the suitability of the techniques at
the regional level.
Images from all over the world, of structural and vegetative controls adopted for watershed-scale soil con-
servation projects, are shown by the DSS. These images were collected from the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service photo gallery,
5
FAO web site
6
and textbooks on soil and water conservation (Schwab et al.,
1993; Hudson, 1995).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
The DSS is an integrated assembly of models, data, interpretive routines and other relevant information that
efciently processes input data, runs the models, and displays the results in an easy-to-interpret format (George
et al., 2002). The DSS is intended for use by watershed managers, government policy planners and those advising
farmers on the selection of watershed-wide sediment-control measures. It is a computer-based information system
designed to support decision makers interactively in making decisions about relatively unstructured problems. The
DSS developed does not contain any mathematical model per se, but consists of a decision rule relating the
secondary or historical data and interpretive routines using the published research articles on watershed
management. The DSS generates structural and biological soil and water conservation measures to be adopted
on watersheds. It is developed in the form of a computer program using the interactive controls and algorithms of
Visual Basic 60 programming language. The nested If . . . Then . . . Else construct is extensively used as an
interpretive algorithm for the generation of alternative decisions using the input information. The DSS runs on a
platform of Windows 95
TM
, or above, is user-friendly and is best viewed at a screen resolution of 1024 by 768
pixels. The Graphic User Interface (GUI) of the DSS is a combination of pop-up windows, pull-down menus and
button controls and is mouse driven. The model uses the set of conservation measures adopted for a given slope
and soil type as discussed under the vegetative and structural control measures section. After collecting the
necessary input information from the user, the DSS will suggest possible structural and vegetative measures, along
with land tillage and management options to be implemented to prevent the sediment losses reported by the user.
The DSS does not predict any sediment loss, but provides suggestive control measures to reduce the present level
of sediment loss, as measured at the outlet of the watershed.
The ow chart of the DSS showing different forms and major ow controls of the main decision frame is shown
in Figure 1. The highest range of sediment loss considered in the DSS (80 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and higher) is observed to
be possible for highly unstable soil type C and for land capability classes VII or VIII (Cox, 2002). The sediment
loss is then decreased by a step of 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and linked with different soil types, land capability classes and
slope values to suggest a given type of land use (e.g. afforestation, tree crops, horticultural crops, intensive
agriculture, etc.). A similar concept is also adopted for sediment-loss-rate ranges of 5 Mg ha
1
yr
1
and
2 Mg ha
1
yr
1
.
The DSS consists of four Visual Basic (VB) forms (GUI windows) named as welcome frame, denition of
terms used frame, the main DSS frame and picture of conservation measures frame. All the VB forms are
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 55
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
Figure 1. Flow chart of the DSS displaying the major ow-control architecture.
56 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
linked in a VB 60 environment. This programme is compiled and presented as an executable le named
WSDSS.EXE (WaterShed Decision Support System). The source code is available on the attached CD-ROM in
Microsoft Word format (sourcecode.doc). The screen dumps of the main DSS frame and picture of conservation
structures frame are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
OPERATING THE DSS
The DSS consists of four different forms (window frames) linked sequentially and presented in the executable
le WSDSS.EXE le. The welcome screen presents a few photographs of watershed management with
different themes. The denitions of terms form displays the basic denitions of the terms used in the DSS. The
main DSS frame form consists of both the input and output boxes, allowing the user to input the information of
the study watershed and the suggested conservation measures are displayed as output of the DSS in the decision
boxes for structural and vegetative measures. From the standpoint of application of conservation measures, it is
established that the higher LCCs such as VIII, VII, VI and V do not support much vegetation, are steeper, and
exhibit higher sediments losses than at lands. However, high sediment outow is also observed from less steep
lands having LCCs of I, II, III and IV. For such cases, the DSS also takes into account the sediment outow rate
in suggesting land-use changes. For example, with a 2 per cent slope, sediment loss of 54 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, soil
Figure 2. Main DSS frame with a sample data and displayed decisions.
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 57
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
group A and LCC II, clicking on the suggested-land-use button, the message Thesediment lossisexcessive
for flat lands, if so, agricultural cropwith croprotationand detention structures arerecommended appears on
the text box of DSS. Again pressing the structural-measures button the message Pipe spillways, water har-
vestingstructures, earthenridgesandbunds, semi-circular hoops, contour furrows, multi-slot divisors, diver-
sion structures, graded bunds and narrowgrassed waterways appear on the decision text box (Figure 3).
The Main DSS frame window also displays a slope conversion calculator (Figure 3), which converts slope in
degrees to percentage, as the DSS slope input is in percentage. When the user inputs the slope in degrees and
clicks the convert button, the slope in percentage in displayed in the text box. The DSS main frame also displays
a pictures of conservation measure button. Clicking the pictures of conservation measures command button
opens a new window frame with two scroll-down combo image boxes listing the name of different conservation
measures and picture frames to display the images of measures selected by the user. However, the frame does not
contain the pictures of all the conservation measures, which can be obtained by running the DSS for different
parameter values. It does contain 50 pictures of the conservation measures adopted in different countries. For
example, an image of the DSS frame showing a concrete chute spillway as a structural measure and a Canadian
sugar maple woodland as a vegetative measure is shown in Figure 4. The user can move to the main DSS frame
by clicking on the back button and try other input information of the watershed. The user can move to the
denition frame to have a basic understanding of the terms used in the DSS. The DSS is developed with the aim
of storing the available information useful for IWM and retrieving the same when instructed by the user. This
would include input parameters of soil type, slope, LCC and measured sediment loss. In cases where the
Figure 3. The DSS window frame displaying the picture of conservation measures.
58 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
Figure 4. Location map of St Lucia watershed (Cox, 1997).
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 59
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
sediment loss is low (less than 10 Mg ha
1
yr
1
) and slope is very high (greater than 50 per cent) and LCC is I or
II, the suggested land use test box displays Thedataenteredmaynot berealistic,Lowsloperangeswithhigher
sediment loss or vice versa and also high slope and high sediment lossvalues at LCCI, II, III and IV with better
soil typeandviceversa. This statement makes sense in relation to plausible land-capability class, slope range,
sediment yield and soil-type combinations. This message handles extreme conditions, which are not realistic for
most of the real eld situations. It is well established that the LCCs I, II and III are productive classes, with mild
slope, ideal for growing crops and yielding less sediment load if runoff passes over such lands. In special cases,
there may be sediment loss but not very high, i.e. in the range of 5060 Mg ha
1
yr
1
. The DSS incorporates
established information on structural and vegetative measures adopted in different agroclimatic regions, so a
conventional validation of the DSS is unnecessary. However, the ow logic or decision rules applied for
suggestive measure needs to be tested on different watershed slopes and conservation measures in order to make
the DSS more versatile and capable of displaying alternative decisions on extreme soil loss, different slope and
soil-type combinations. Thus, to further investigate the validity of measures proposed by the DSS, it was
validated using information from a watershed in St Lucia.
Application of the DSS to the Eastern Caribbean Region
The developed DSS was validated for a watershed in St Lucia, located in the Windward Islands of the Caribbean.
The vegetative and structural conservation measures implemented in the Marquis watershed of St Lucia are
considered in the present study (Figure 4). This is a hilly watershed with 32 per cent of the watershed area having a
slope between 0

10

(0 to 176 per cent), 25 per cent of the land area having a slope between 10

20

(176 to
364 per cent), 30 per cent of the land surface having slopes between 20

30

(364 per cent to 577 per cent) and

rest of the land area (13 per cent) having a slope greater than 30

(577 per cent) (Cox, 1997; Pretall and Polius,

1981). Over the entire island, annual mean rainfall ranges from 1500 to 3800 mm, mean daytime temperature from
2632

C, and the mean relative humidity is 75 per cent. The soil loss estimated for this watershed ranged from 10
to 100 Mg ha
1
yr
1
in the lower parts of the watershed to over 1000 Mg ha
1
yr
1
in the steep upper reaches,
under mixed intensive farming (Cox, 1997). The average soil loss across the watershed was estimated to be
309 Mg ha
1
yr
1
. The soil loss was reduced to 157 Mg ha
1
yr
1
by implementation of the conservation practices
and land-vegetation-cover measures. The recommended practices were in line with the measures suggested by the
DSS. As an example, using the land information of the watershed, such as slopes greater than 30

, soil type less

stable or B and LCC V, sediment loss of 309 Mg ha
1
yr
1
, clicking the command button for structural measures
yielded Afforestation, detention ditches along contour, short length flumes, isolated or staggered terraces on
steep slopes and the suggestive vegetative measures was Afforestation, silvi-pasture, woodland and recrea-
tional planning. The screen dump of the main frame of the DSS is presented in Figure 5. It is observed from
the land use of the watershed that for high slope ranges, the conservation practices adopted are agroforestry and
forestry (Cox, 1997), and these are in close agreement with the predictions of the DSS. The other measures
proposed were also implemented in the region and resulted in less sediment outow in subsequent years. For input
data of 10

slope, LCC II, sediment loss of 100 Mg ha

1
yr
1
and soil type A (stable soil), the measures suggested
were Bench terraces, graded contour bunds, conservation ditches, concrete chute spillways, diversion dams,
stone wall contours as structural measures and Agriculture with contour bunds and terraces along with tree
crops as vegetative measures (Figure 6). The present land use of the Marquis watershed for slope of 10

and
given soil types are Intensive agriculture (Cox, 1997). This is also in close agreement with the DSS-suggested
measures for the lower slope region of the watershed and its specic soil-capability classes. As the DSS proposes,
for a given range of slope, soil types, LCCs and sediment losses, all possible structural and vegetative measures
collected over a wide range of agroecological regions, not all measures suggested by the DSS (Figures 5 and 6)
could be implemented in the St Lucia watershed. Implementing the suggested measures for slope ranges from 5
55

of Marquis subwatershed resulted in reductions in soil loss of 34 per cent to 37 per cent, respectively (Table
III). However, the DSS can also be tested for watersheds at different locations to ensure its versatility. The VB
programming code can easily be modied to accommodate further information on structural and conservation
measures.
60 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS
The prime objective of this work has been to develop a DSS on watershed conservation measures incorporating the
established information on implementation of structural and vegetative control measures based on slope, soil type,
LCC and sediment-loss data. Conceptual decision ow logic was formulated to link these information through the
VB programming language. The DSS was developed with graphic user interface (GUI) capability. This provides
the user with an interactive environment to enter input information of slope, soil type, LCC and sediment loss, and
then to obtain structural and vegetative control measures in response to those input values. These suggested
measures displayed in decision boxes vary according to the input values as per the decision-ow logic used in DSS
development. The user selects the soil and water conservation measures to be implemented in the watershed.
Moreover, the availability of pictures of different conservation measures in a separate user form, but linked with
the main DSS window transmits a sense of visual familiarity to the user on different conservation measures
adopted at diversied watershed locations. Validation of the DSS for the St Lucia watershed revealed that the
measures suggested for different slope, soil type and LCC combinations were in close accord with the measures
actually implemented in the watershed. These implemented conservation measures reduced soil loss for the study
watersheds.
The DSS is exible to further modication in terms of inclusion of additional data and pictorials on conservation
measures. This is possible due to the VB programming language, which is easily amenable to subsequent
modications. The incorporation of more data will expand the decision-making ability of the DSS for application
to watersheds under different agroecological regions. The DSS will be useful not only for watershed managers and
researchers but also for course instructors to disseminate watershed-management concepts in the classroom.
Figure 5. The main DSS frame displaying the suggested measures of St Lucia watershed.
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 61
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
The developed DSS can be linked to conceptual and empirical sediment prediction models. Moreover, using the
built-in macro language of GIS software, this DSS can be linked with any GIS as an interface to generate
conservation measures for both watersheds and farmers elds. The DSS is exible in its linkage to other
hydrological models as a decision-making tool for prediction of soil and water conservation measures and it is
unique in terms of generating decisions with minimum input information for a watershed.
Figure 6. The main DSS frame displaying the suggested measures of St Lucia watershed.
Table III. Comparison of soil loss rates with and without conservation practices for Marquis sub watershed of St. Lucia
(Revised Universal Soil Loss Formulae (RUSLE) is used for estimation of soil loss rate) (Cox, 1997)
Slope range Range of sediment loss rates without Range of sediment loss rates with suggested Reduction of soil
(degrees) conservation practices (t ha
1
yr
1
) conservation practices (t ha
1
yr
1
) loss in (%)
05 5364121 4842724 9703390
510 41217706 27244964 33903558
1015 770611291 49647204 35583620
1520 1129114876 72049444 36203652
2025 1487618461 944411684 36523671
2530 1846122046 1168413924 36713684
3035 2204625631 1392416164 36843694
3540 2563129216 1616418404 3694 3701
4045 2921632801 1840420644 37013706
4550 3280136386 2064422884 37063711
5055 3638639971 2288425124 37113714
55 39971 25124 3714
62 A. SARANGI ET AL.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)
references
Ahmed N. 1989. A Treatment Oriented Land Classication for St Lucia. Technical Report. Dept. of Soil Science, University of West Indies, St
Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies; 2063.
Beynon M, Rasmequan S, Russ S. 2002. A new paradigm for computer-based decision support. Decision Support Systems 33: 127142.
Bishr YA, Radwan MM. 1995. Preliminary design of a decision support system for watershed management. ITC Journal 1: 2328.
Cogo NP, Moldenhauer WC, Foster GR. 1984. Soil loss reduction from conservation tillage practices. Soil Science Society of America Journal
48: 368373.
Cox CA. 1997. Watershed master planning for St Lucia using geographic information system, MSc Thesis, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada; 1418 & 5396.
Cox CA. 2002. Geographic information systems-based hydrology modelling applications in support of watershed management planning for St
Lucia. PhD Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; 2345 & 123150.
Datta S. 1995. A Decision Support System (DSS) for micro-watershed management in India. Journal of Operational Research Society 46: 592
603.
George BA, Reddy BRS, Raghuwanshi NS, Wallender WW. 2002. Decision support system for estimating reference evapotranspiration.
Journal Irrigation Drainage Engineering Division 128(1): 110.
Hall GF, Logan TJ, Young KK. 1985. Criteria for determining tolerable erosion rates. In Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity, Follett RF, Stewart
BA (eds). ASA, CSSA, SSSA Inc., Publishers Madison: Wisconsin, USA; 173188.
Hudson N. 1995. Soil Conservation, 3rd edn. Batsford: London, 391 pp.
Hurni H, Cook MG, Sombatpanit S. 1996. Soil conservation extensionAworld perspective. In Soil Conservation Extension from Concepts to
Adoption. Sombatpanit S, Zobisch MA, Sanders DW, Cook MG (eds). Science Publishers: Eneld, USA; 318.
Kerr J, Chung K. 2001. Evaluating watershed management projects. Water Policy 3: 537554.
Kersten GE, Mikolajuk Z, Yeh AG. 2000. Decision Support System for Sustainable Development. A Resource Book on Methods and
Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, Massachusetts, USA; 2951.
Montas H, Madramootoo CA. 1992. A decision support system (DSS) for soil conservation planning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
7(1): 187202.
Morgan RPC. 1986. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman Scientic and Technical Group Ltd: Hongkong; 111210.
National Research Council. 1991. Towards Sustainability: Soil and Water Research Priorities for Developing Countries. National Academy
Press: Washington, DC; 2223.
Pertiwi S, Konaka T, Koike M. 1998. Decision support system for management of upland farming with special consideration on soil
conservation. In Proceeding of First Conference on Agricultural Information Technology in Asia and Oceania24th to 26th January. The
Asian Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture: Wakayama-City, Japan; 7378.
Pimentel D, Allen J, Beers A, Guinand L, Hawkins A, Linder R, McLaughlin P, Meer B, Musonda D, Perdue D, Poisson S, Salazar R, Siebert S,
Stoner K. 1993. Soil erosion and agricultural productivity. In World Soil Erosion and Conservation, Pimentel D (ed.). Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK; 277292.
Pretall O, Polius J. 1981. Land resources in St Lucia: land capability classication and crop allocation. In St Lucia Development Atlas,
Department of Regional Development, Organization of American States, Washington DC, USA, 29 pp.
Schwab GO, Fangmeier DD, Elliot WJ, Fervert RK. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, 4th edn. Wiley: New York, USA; 117 &
91242.
Srinivasan R, Engel BA. 1991. Effect of slope prediction methods on slope and erosion estimates. Applied Engineering and Agriculture 7(6):
779783.
Stark J, Lajoie P, Green AJ. 1966. Soil and Land Use Surveys, No. 20, St Lucia, University of West Indies: St Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies;
2045.
Troeh FR, Hobbs JA, Donahue RL. 1999. Soil and Water Conservation Productivity and Environmental Protection, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall: NJ,
USA; 115125.
internet references
1. Sediment Production and Yield http://www.glc.org/projects/sediment/causes.html
2. Sediment and erosion resources http://www.earthit.com/services/erosion.html
3. A research article in GIS development http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/nrm/water/watershed/
watws0003pf.htm
4. Conversion of degree and percentage slopes (slope formulae) http://www.cae.wisc.edu/ ~cee655/nal/
nalformula.html
5. The picture of Conservation Structures http://www.photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/Index.asp
6. Pictures of soil and water conservation practices http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0321E/t0321e-10.htm#
P1119_78691
DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 63
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 15: 4963 (2004)