CHARACTERIZATION OF DESERTIFICATION STATUS BY

INTEGRATED USE OF SATELITE REMOTE SENSING AND GIS

A CASE STUDY OF EASTERN PART OF RAJASTHAN STATE

Submitted for the Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for the P. G. Diploma

in Remote Sensing and GIS Application in Agriculture and Soils.

BY

Miss Tuul Batbaldan

Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, Mongolia.

tuulaibb@yahoo.com
SUPERVISED BY
Dr .S. K. Saha, Agriculture and Soils Division, IIRS
sksaha@iirs.gov.in
RESOURCE PERSON
Dr .R. D. Garg, Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Division, IIRS
garg@iirs.gov.in

COURSE CONDUCTED AT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF REMOTE SENSING (IIRS)
National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Dehradun, INDIA

CENTE FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EDUCATION IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTEAP)
(Affiliated to the United Nations)
IIRS CAMPUS, DEHRADUN, INDIA

JUNE 2005
 CENTRE FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTEAP)
(Affiliated to the United Nations)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ms. Tuul Batbaldan has carried out Pilot Project study
entitled “CHARACTERIZATION OF DESERTIFICATION STATUS BY
INTEGRATED USE OF SATELITE REMOTE SENSING AND GIS -CASE
STUDY OF EASTERN PART OF RAJASTHAN STATE” for the fulfillment
of Post Graduate Course in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System
of CENTRE FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTE-AP). This work has been carried out at Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehra Dun.

Supervisor

Dr. S. K.Saha
Head, Agriculture & Soils Division
IIRS, Dehradun
Prof (Dr. Karl Harmsen) Dr. V. K.Dadhwal
Director, CSSTEAP Dean, IIRS

ii
 ABSTRACT

Desertification is land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas

resulting from the complex interaction of physical, meteorological, biological, socio-
economic and cultural factors. Desertification is one of the serious environmental-
problems faced by many countries in the world. It not only deteriorates the productivity of
the fragile ecosystems but also causes serious environmental and social problems. Satellite
Remote Sensing is a very effective tool for mapping and monitoring desertification over
large areas because of its unique capability of collecting data in multi-spectral, multi-
spatial resolutions, repetitive and synoptically.

The major objective of this pilot project is to map, assess and characterize
desertification status using satellite derived desertification indicators. The study area
consists of 21 districts of eastern part of Rajasthan State, India. Digital data of IRS-1D:
WiFS sensor belonging to Kharif (rainy) and Rabi (winter) crop seasons (October, 2004
and February, 2005) of normal rainfall year were used as major data source.

Desertification status map showing various degree of desertification induced ecosystem

degradation was generated by GIS aided integration of satellite derived cropping system
and land use, climatic water balance and soil desertification indicators characteristics viz.
texture, soil available moisture, salinity/ sodicity and erosion hazard.

Various MODIS biophysical parameters monthly data products (May, 2004 to April,
2005) viz. albedo, vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI), land surface temperature, LAI (Leaf
Area Index), NPP (Net Primary Productivity) etc. are also used for characterizing district
wise and desertification status zone wise bio-physical conditions for the current crop
seasons.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am happy to place on record, my gratitude, and sincere thanks to Prof.

Karl Harmsen, Director, CSSTEAP (Center for Space Science Technology and
Education for Asia-Pacific), for giving me opportunity to undergo Post Graduate
Diploma Course on Remote Sensing and GIS conducted by CSSTEAP, affiliated
to United Nations.
I also express my heartfelt thank to Dr .V. K. Dadhwal, Dean, IIRS (Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing) for providing necessary comfortable facilities and
encouragement.
I would like to express my deep sincere thanks to Dr.S.K.Saha, my project
guide, Head, Agriculture and Soil Division, IIRS, for his creative and valuable
comments, moral support, constant guidance in all the stages of this project work
and preparation of this report. I am grateful for Dr. Saha kindly supporting me to
do the postgraduate diploma course.
I am thankful to Dr. R. D. Garg, Scientist, Photogrammetry Division, IIRS
for providing technical help during field data collection and image processing of
satellite data as a resource person of the project.
It is also a pleasure to record my appreciation of the excellent support in my
study in IIRS by all IIRS teaching faculty members especially thanks to Dr. N. R.
Patel, Dr. Suresh Kumar, Dr. A.Velmurugan and faculty members of Agriculture
& Soils Division.
Lastly, I am thankful to my family members, especially my mommy and
dad who have always will be a constant source of support, joy, and motivation in
my life.
Thank you all.
Dehradun,India Miss Tuul Batbaldan.
Date: June 29.2005

iv
 CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iv
CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………….v
FIGURE LIST………………………………………………………………………….. .vii
TABLE LIST …………………………………………………………………………...viii
CHAPTER-I........................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1.1 Definitions and Impact of Desertification..................................................................1
1.2 Desertification Status in India....................................................................................4
1.3 Role of Remote Sensing and GIS in Desertification Study .......................................5
1.4 Objectives ..................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER-II ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................7
2.1 Indicators Used to Assess Desertification Risk .........................................................8
CHAPTER-III ................................................................................................................... 12
3.0 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................12
3.1 Location and Extent .................................................................................................12
3.2 Climate.....................................................................................................................12
3.3 Soils..........................................................................................................................14
3.4 Geology and Geomorphology..................................................................................15
3.5 Agriculture and Land Use........................................................................................15
3.6 Relief, Elevation, Slope and Drainage.....................................................................16
3.7 Socio-Economic Characteristics ..............................................................................18
CHAPTER-IV................................................................................................................... 19
4.0 DATA USED ...........................................................................................................19
4.1 Remote Sensing Data...............................................................................................19
4.2 Meteorological Data.................................................................................................19
4.3 Agricultural Data .....................................................................................................19
4.4 Collateral Data .........................................................................................................19
4.5 Softwares Used ........................................................................................................20
CHAPTER-V .................................................................................................................... 21
5.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Crop Inventory, Land use / Land cover and Cropping Pattern Mapping.................21
5.2 Desertification Status Mapping................................................................................21
5.3 Characterization of Desertification Status Using Satellite Derived Biophysical
Parameters......................................................................................................................24
5.4 MODIS Data Algorithm ..........................................................................................25
5.4.1 ALBEDO ..............................................................................................................25
5.4.2 LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE (LST)........................................................26
5.4.3 LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI).................................................................................27
5.4.3 NDVI and EVI ......................................................................................................27
CHAPTER-IV................................................................................................................... 30
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................30

v
 6.1 Crop and Land Use Inventory..................................................................................30
6.2 Cropping pattern ......................................................................................................34
6.3 Desertification Status Mapping................................................................................42
6.4 Characterization of present biophysical conditions of the study area......................48
CHAPTER-VII ................................................................................................................. 69
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................69
7.1 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................71
GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (1).................................................................... 72
GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (2).................................................................... 73
GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (3).................................................................... 74
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................... 78
Key for decoding different parameters ............................................................................. 85

vi
 FIGURE LIST
Fig. 3.1 Location map of study area ..................................................................................12
Fig.3.2 DEM and Terrain slope of study area....................................................................17
Fig. 5.1 Flow diagram of methodology of crop & land use inventory and cropping pattern
mapping......................................................................................................................22
Fig. 5.2: Schematic diagram showing methodology of desertification status mapping by
integrated use of Satellite data and GIS.....................................................................23
Fig. 5.3: Methodology for computation of district and desertification status zone wise area
weighted values of biophysical parameters. ..............................................................24
Fig. 6.1 FCC of study area (Kharif season) ......................................................................31
Fig. 6.2 Classified image showing crop and land use classes of Kharif season ...............31
Fig. 6.3 FCC of study area (Rabi) season ..........................................................................35
Fig. 6.4 Classified image showing crop and land use classes of Rabi season ...................35
Fig. 6.5. Cropping pattern map of study area ....................................................................39
Fig. 6.6: (a) Rainfall pattern of study area, (b) Water Surplus of study area.....................42
Fig. 6.7: Soil taxonomic association map of the study area...............................................43
Fig. 6.8 (a) Surface Texture ...............................................................................................44
Fig. 6.8 (b) Erosion class ...................................................................................................44
Fig. 6.8 (c) Salinity/Sodicity class .....................................................................................44
Fig. 6.8 (d) Soil moisture availability ................................................................................44
Fig. 6.9: Desertification status map of the study area........................................................45
Fig. 6.10. Monthly NDVI variation of the study area........................................................50
Fig. 6.11 District and desertification zone-wise average monthly NDVI and EVI
variations....................................................................................................................52
Fig. 6.12 Monthly EVI variations of the study area ..........................................................53
Fig. 6.13 Monthly Albedo variations of the study area .....................................................55
Fig. 6.14 District and Desertification zone-wise average monthly Albedo and LAI
variations....................................................................................................................57
Fig. 6.15 Monthly LAI variations of the study area ..........................................................58
Fig. 6.16 Monthly LST variations of the study area ..........................................................60
Fig. 6.17 District and Desertification zone-wise average monthly LST variations...........62
Fig.6.18 District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, Albedo correlation September 2004… 64
Fig.6.19 District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, Albedo correlation February 2005……...67

vii
 TABLE LIST

Table 1.1. Aridity zones defined by P/PE ratios (UNDP 1992a.b)......................................2

Table 3.1 Rainfall characteristics of the study area (District-wise mean monthly rainfall) ...13
Table 3.2 Air temperature of characteristics of the study area ……………………… 14
Table 6.1(a): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Kharif season (sq.km.) ...32
Table 6.1(b): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Kharif season (sq.km.)...33
Table 6.2(a): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Rabi season (sq.km.) ......36
Table 6.2(b): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Rabi season (sq.km.)......37
Table 6.3(a). Area statistics of Cropping Pattern (sq.km.) ................................................40
Table 6.3(b). Area statistics of Cropping Pattern (sq.km.) ................................................41
Table 6.4 Statistics of Desertification status mapping.......................................................47
Table 6.5 District - wise average monthly NDVI variations .............................................51
Table 6.6 Desertification zone-wise average monthly NDVI variations...........................51
Table 6.7 District - wise average monthly EVI variations.................................................54
Table 6.8 Desertification zone-wise average monthly EVI variations ..............................54
Table 6.9 District - wise average monthly Albedo variations ...........................................56
Table 6.10 Desertification zone-wise average monthly Albedo variations .......................56
Table 6.11 District - wise average monthly LAI variations...............................................59
Table 6.12 Desertification zone-wise average monthly LAI variations ...........................59
Table 6.13 District - wise average monthly LST variations ..............................................61
Table 6.14 Desertification zone-wise average monthly LST variations............................61

viii
CHAPTER-I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Desertification has long been recognized as a major environmental problem

affecting the living conditions of the people in the affected regions in many countries of
the world. In 1977, a United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) was
convened in Nairobi, Kenya to produce an effective, comprehensive and coordinated
program for addressing the problem of land degradation. The various assessments by
UNEP continued to point out that desertification results from complex interactions among
physical, chemical, biological, socio-economic, and political problems that were local,
national, and global in nature. In 1992, UNEP produced a World Atlas of Desertification
(UNEP 1992b). The studies indicated that over the preceding 25 years, the problem of
desertification and land degradation had continued to worsen. Many nations of the world
are facing the problem of rapidly growing populations and lack of food supply. In many
cases, the main reason for lack of food supply is land degradation and desertification.

1.1 Definitions and Impact of Desertification

Desertification can be defined as: Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry
sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variation and human
activities [United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, UNCCD (1994)]

Desertification is now a direct threat to over 250 million people around the world,
and an indirect threat to further 750 million people. Over the last twenty years,
desertification has become increasingly apparent in the dry sub-humid regions of the
world, where mean annual rainfall ranges from 750-1500mm, and where the majority of
the human inhabitants of the dry lands now live. “Dry land” refers to the arid (excluding
the polar and sub-polar regions), semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas in which the ratio of
annual precipitation to potential evapo-transpiration falls within the range from 0.05 to
0.65.
The arid areas cover 12.5 % of the earth’s land area, the semi-arid areas 17.5%
and dry sub humid areas cover a further 9.9%. These are the areas most vulnerable to
desertification and together they occupy nearly 40% of the total earth’s land area. The
hyper-arid areas cover 7.5% of the total land area, and very poorly vegetated and sparsely
populated due to desertification processes. The dry lands cover 5.2 billion hectares, or a
third of the land area of the globe (UNEP 1992a). Roughly one-firth of the worlds people
live in these dry lands. The exclusion of the hyper-arid regions of the world, such as the
Sahara, Atacama and Arabian deserts, which together occupy about 0.9 billion hectares
(UNEP 1992a).
French forester Aubrevelle employed the term desertification in 1949. Aubrevelle
used this term to describe the process of land degradation initiated by deforestation and
resulting in land being turned into desert. (Aubrevelle, 1949).
“Land degradation” means reduction or loss in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid
areas of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain fed cropland,
irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or
from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human
activities and habitation patterns such as:
(i) Soil erosion caused by wind and or water;
(ii) Deterioration of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil;
(iii) Long-term loss of natural vegetation.
Aridity of a region is categorized by the ratio of P = Mean Annual Precipitation to PE =
Mean Annual Potential Evapotranspiration, using modified Thornthwaite formula. As per
this, the aridity zones are classifieds (Table: 1.1).
Table 1.1. Aridity zones defined by P/PE ratios (UNDP 1992a.b)
Climate Zone P/PE ratio % of world covered
Hyper-arid <0.05 7.5
Arid 0.05-0.20 12.5
Semi-arid 0.21-0.50 17.5
Dry sub-humid 0.51-0.65 9.9
Humid >0.65 39.2
Cold >0.65 13.6

Desertification together with deforestation, accelerated soil erosion, salinization,

water pollution, and reduced species diversity are now environmental problems of global
concern, since their indirect effects have worldwide economic and political repercussions
while their direct effects adversely influence the health and well-being of an ever-
increasing world population.
Due to global climate changes and the over-exploitation of ecosystems by the

2
increased human economic activities, desertification is accelerated in many parts of the
world. It is not only deteriorates the productivity of the fragile ecosystems but also causes
serious environmental and social problems. The problems of combating desertification
are facing by many countries. Around 70% all agriculturally used dry lands are some
degree degraded, especially in terms of soils and plant cover. (UNEP, 1992a.b). The total
area concerned 3.6 billion hectare and over 100 countries are now suffering from the
adverse and economic impact of dry land degradation. (UNEP, 1992a & 1992b).
The extent and impact of desertification on the utilization of natural resources,
environmental deterioration, as well as the production of agriculture, forest, and animal
husbandry are now much more than before.
Manifestation of desertification include accelerated soil erosion by wind and
water, increasing salinisation of soils and near-surface groundwater supplies, a reduction
in species diversity and plant biomass, and reduction in the overall productivity of dry
land ecosystems, with an attendant improvement of the human communities dependent on
these ecosystems. A combination of climatic stress and dry land degradation can lead in
turn to extreme social disruption, migrations, and famine.
Combating desertification has become the top priority for governments around the
world, international organizations, and the United Nations. “Combating desertification”
includes activities, which are part of the integrated development of land in arid, semi-arid,
and dry sub-humid areas for sustainable development which are aimed at:
(i) Prevention and/or reduction of land degradation;
(ii) Rehabilitation of partly degraded land; and
(iii) Reclamation of desertified land.
Desertification produces a number of adverse conditions:
· Deterioration of the natural resources adversely affecting the socio-economic condition
in addition, livelihood support systems;
· Reduction of irrigation potential;
· Diminishing of the food security base of human beings and livestock;
· Scarcity of drinking water;
· Health and nutrition status of the population;
· Reduced availability of biomass for fuel;
· Loss of bio-diversity; and
· Impoverishment, indebtedness and distress sale of assets of production.

3
Principal processes of desertification are vegetative degradation, water erosion, wind
erosion, salinization and water logging, soil crusting and compaction.
For stopping/minimizing desertification process, need to consider the following important
factors:
-Climatic monitoring and forecasting
-Genetic diversity and its erosion
-Land occupation and use
-Drainage, salinization and alkalinization of soils
-Vegetation development
-Relationships between animal and plant resources
-Population dynamics
-Ways of managing natural resources-The impact of natural resource management
policies on these resources

1.2 Desertification Status in India

Desertification is not confined to the desert areas or to the arid region, but relates
to land degradation in about two-thirds of country’s geographical area falling within the
arid, semiarid, and dry sub-humid regions. Land degradation has a direct impact on land
and other natural resources which results in reduced agricultural productivity, loss of bio-
diversity and vegetative cover, decline in groundwater and availability of water in the
affected regions. All these lead to a decline in the quality of life, eventually affecting the
socio-economic status of the region.
In India about 107.43 m ha, or 32.75 percent of the total geographical area is affected by
various forms and degree of desertification. (UNCCD, National Report on
Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2000, Ministry
of Environment and Forests, Government of India). Particularly the arid, semi-arid, and
sub-humid regions, commonly called dry land, represent fragile ecosystems that are
susceptible to desertification. These regions are also susceptible to frequent droughts that
accelerate the process of desertification and exacerbate its impact. Aridity is severe in
western part of Rajasthan, which is an eastern extension of the much larger arid areas of
the Middle East.
The major causes of desertification in the country are:
(i) Unsustainable - Extensive and frequent cropping of agricultural areas.

4
Agricultural practices - Excessive use of fertilizers.
- Shifting cultivation without allowing adequate period of recovery.
(2) Unsustainable - Poor & Inefficient Irrigation Practices.
Water Management - Over abstraction of ground water, particularly in the coastal regions
resulting in saline intrusion into aquifers.
(3) Conversion of land - Prime forest into agricultural land for other uses - Agricultural
land for other uses.
-Encroachment of cities and towns into agricultural land.

1.3 Role of Remote Sensing and GIS in Desertification Study

Computers and satellites have brought development of two new technologies that
are especially valuable in combating desertification. One is Remote Sensing. Remote
Sensing is the only method of choice for monitoring desertification over large areas
because of its capability of collecting data frequently, synoptically and objectively over
such areas. Information derived from remote sensing data has been widely used in
modeling and prediction of desertification. It has also been used in supporting decision –
making for combating desertification. Satellite imagery holds great-unrealized promise in
inventorying environmental conditions, especially land degradation features. In the recent
years, there are two significant advances in the remote sensing infrastructure for
facilitating and enhancing the desertification research. The first one is the enhanced
remote sensing capabilities for producing a new suite of remote sensing data and products
important to the desertification research. The second one is the web-based data discovery
and access technology enabling desertification researchers to easily access vast amount of
remote sensing data from multiple sources. Many new satellite remote sensing systems
have been commissioned to monitor earth’s climate and environment.

Geographic Information System popularly abbreviated as GIS is defined as’ an

automated tool to capture, store, retrieve, manipulate, display and querying of both spatial
and non spatial data to generate various planning scenarios for decision making’

Assessment of desertification risk is the major contribution of GIS to combating

desertification. The advent of satellite imagery, coupled with the collection of spatial
data, has helped demonstrate the impact of desertification and provide the data needed for
improving the situation. GIS allows researchers to view and manage land cover, natural
vegetation, soil types, climate, topography, and socioeconomic data and to analyze it all

5
within one framework. GIS is proving a most effective tool for studying this complex
phenomenon. GIS technology is applied as essential tools to address important aspects of
environmental monitoring.

Several advanced satellite sensor systems e.g. Hyper spectral, Multi-angle sensors,
have recently been launched and show great promise in characterizing and monitoring
soil surface.

1.4 Objectives

• To assess and map spatial desertification status by GIS aided integration of

satellite derived desertification indicators, soils and climatic conditions

• To characterize present biophysical conditions of desertification induced degraded

zones using satellite derived temporal biophysical parameters.

6
CHAPTER-II

2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Desertification is a complex, evolutionary process resulting from several factors

with implications in all fields, including human behavior, and having a continuous effect
on all elements of the ecosystem. There are so many an interpretation of the concept of
desertification is that it is contextual. Although most desertification definitions include
both human and natural factors, researchers tend to emphasize one aspect more than the
order. This could be because each researcher brings his own expertise and looks for
evidence of expertise and looks for evidence of desertification-based of their experience
of knowledge. It could be also be that the differences in the physical, social, and cultural
attributes of each area studied contribute to a unique set of circumstances. Some
researchers has been done under the assumption that land degradation is caused by human
actions alone, entirely disregarding the climate factors and focusing only on the social,
economic and political factors (Andrew, 2002). Many authors have identified drought as a
contributing factor to desertification (Charney, 1975). Although there are many context
specific definitions of drought, it can generally be defined as deficient rainfall for the
needs of vegetation. Drought is seen as a relatively short-term cyclic phenomenon
whereas desertification occurs over a longer time scale. Other environmental conditions
such as topography, soil types, and vegetation cover also play a role in the susceptibility
of an area to desertification.
Some researchers and politicians view desertification as a social problem, where
people are the initiators and the subsequent victims. Under this point of view, the process
maybe exacerbated by prolonged drought and desertification but desertification is the
consequence of resource management failure resulting in excessive pressures on
ecosystem. Examples of human induced factors that exacerbate desertification include
deforestation, water resource diversion, agricultural practices, and overgrazing.
Desertification not only threats the ecosystem health and human living within the
region, but also affects areas far away from deserts. For example, dust storms from the
Gobi desert from Mongolia have caused significant air quality and traffic problems in
Beijing China even reached as far as the east coast of Northern America. One of the
significant features of desertification is the loss of surface vegetation. As result, soil
erosion caused by winds has become a prominent problem in desert and semi-desert
areas. Dust storm (weather phenomena that makes the horizontal visibility lower than 1

7
km, caused by dust particles elevated by strong winds.) not only erodes the topsoil of arid
and semi-arid regions, further deteriorating the environment there and far away.
Climate change and desertification are both global process that lead to
environmental change. Specially, climate change refers to global warming of the
atmosphere due to emissions of greenhouse gases. Various international organizations
and researchers studied interactions of desertification and climate.

2.1 Indicators Used to Assess Desertification Risk

The European Environmental agency (EEA) has considered that an indicator can
be defined as a parameter or value derived from parameters, which provides information
about phenomena. In this sense, indicators should not be confused with raw data from
which they are derived. Indicators are quantified information, which help to explain how
things are changing over time and space. Environmental indicators are playing an
increasingly important role in supporting development polices. Single indicator is
generally not sufficient, several indicators are would necessary, even if not many, but
organized into a precise set for characterizing desertification status. It is rather difficult to
identify “perfect” indicators describing desertification risk. It is preferable to work with a
set of indicators informing about different aspects and condition.
Environmental indicators can facilitate the assessment and monitoring of
desertification at regional and local level, as they provide synthetic information on status
and trends of environmental processes leading to desertification.
The indicators used for Desertification Monitoring and Assessment can be
categorized into four types.

a). Pressure Indicators characterize driving forces both natural and man-made, affecting
the status of natural resources and leading to desertification. Pressure indicators are used
to assess desertification trends and make an early warning for desertification. Natural
indicators describe natural factors, mainly climatic conditions, natural disasters, which
promote the occurrence and development of desertification. Non-natural indicators
describe the pressure on land leading to land degradation from human activities.
b). State indicators characterize the status of natural resource including land. The
physical and biological features pf desertified land ecosystem is the main factors to be
considered. Physical indicators describe the land characteristics, physical and chemical

8
properties of soil and hydrological features of the land ecosystem. Biological indicators
are used to describe biological characteristics of the land ecosystem.
c). Desertification impact indicators are used to evaluate the effects of desertification
on human beings and environment.
d). Implementation indicators are used to assess the action taken for combating
desertification and to assess its impact on natural resources and human beings. Such
impacts refer to improvements of socio-economic and natural conditions.
Satellite data are increasingly utilized to monitor the albedo of arid and semi-arid
lands, given the importance of albedo as an indicator of soil degradation and
desertification. (Hute 2004.) Soil colour, moisture, structure, all affects albedo and
structure less soils may increase albedo by 15-20% (Post et.al., 2000).
Saha and Pande (1995) used Landsat-TM optical bands data for computation of
regional surface albedo following the approach suggested by Goita and Royer (1992).
Ghosh and Tripathy (1994) investigated soil degradation due to desertification
processes in the arid and semi-arid regions of Gulbarga district in India using IRS and
Landsat MSS imagery (1984-1991). They analyzed multi-temporal albedo and NDVI
(Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) and generated albedo change images. They
found that albedo correlated well with factors such as reduced soil moisture conditions
and potential soil erosion.
S.O.Mohamed and A.Farshad et.al., (1994) described vulnerability to desert
conditions over northwestern Nigeria using remote sensing coupled with other ancillary
data (erosion, sealing, crusting, compaction, cover change, organic matter monitoring,
salinity and aridification) within a GIS environment. They show how assessment of land
degradation can be used to determine degrees of vulnerability of that land to desertic
conditions.
Eriksen (2003) considered the biophysical and social linkages between climate
change and desertification or dry land desertification. He suggests that underlying causes
of vulnerability to both climate change, and desertification include the political ecology
of resource control, urbanization, and economic globalization affecting domestic markets
and agricultural specialization.
Two leading scientists (Martin A J Williams and Robert C Balling Jr.), jointly
commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program (UNDP) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), have produced a referenced report on current
knowledge of the interactions of desertification and climate in the dry lands (excluding

9
hyper-arid regions) of the world. This report tells us how climate influences the
hydrologic cycle, vegetation, and soil, and how in turn these factors affected by human
actions lead to qualitative changes in soil and vegetation.
Semi-Arid ecosystems can show distinct vegetation alternative states. In many
regions, excessive biomass removal like wood harvesting, overgrazing has resulted in
depletion of vegetation biomass and soil erosion. These changes are very difficult to
reverse due to the positive feedbacks that stabilize the degraded situation. Holmgren
(2003) presented a restoration hypothesis suggesting climatic oscillations such as El Nino
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) could be used combination with controlled grazing to
restore degraded arid ecosystems.
Interactions between human societies and the environment, of which they are an
integral part, are complex and hard to unravel. Williams (1994) published paper about
relative influence of climatic variation and human activities when assessing the causes of
desertification.
Symeonakis and Drake (2002) did research on monitoring desertification and land
degradation over sub-Saharan Africa and developed a desertification monitoring system
that uses four indicators derived using continental-scale remotely data: vegetation cover
(NDVI), rain use efficiency (NDVI and Rainfall from Meteosat cold cloud duration data),
surface run-off [SCS (Soil Conservation Service) model] and soil erosion. Soil erosion,
one of the most indicative parameters of the desertification process was estimated using
model parameterized by overland flow, vegetation cover, the digital soil maps, and DEM.
Another important contributing factor to the desertification process is wind
erosion in many dry land environments and can be a major mechanism for soil
degradation. Brown and Nickling (2002) have been used multiple approaches to assess
and monitor the severity and extent of wind erosion including visual indicators, direct
measurement, remote sensing and modeling.
Kosmas et.al. (2003) analyzed using simple indicators related to the physical
environment such as soil depth, slope gradient, slope exposure, parent material, rock
fragment content, annual rainfall, aridity index, type of vegetation, plant cover percent
and land management characteristics such as tillage operations, tillage depth, controlled
grazing, period of exiting land use type, erosion control measures, etc., used for defining
desertification risk.
Soil erosion is one of the most important processes contributing to land
degradation over large areas of terrestrial Earth. Remote sensing data are often used for

10
direct identification of eroded areas on un vegetated soils. Direct spectral measures
indicative for soil erosion include changes in organic matter content, mineral
composition, albedo, roughness, and soil structure (Hute, 2004). Gully and rill erosion in
un vegetated / sparse vegetated landscape can be identified directly using remote sensing
data. Remote sensing can effectively provides temporal and spatial information that can
be coupled with soil erosion models, such as vegetation cover, soil moisture, land use,
digital elevation, and sediment transport.
Soil erosion prediction and assessment has been challenge to researchers since the
1930’s and several models have been developed. (Lal, 2001).
Salinization is another important process promoting desertification. In many
cases, the rapid development resulted in the over exploitation of the aquifer systems for a
variety of uses, such as agricultural, industrial and domestic. Irrigation using water with
high salt concentrations increased the salinity of soil, causing unproductive decertified
land. (Convention Project to Combat Desertification (CCD Project). Soil degradation
related to salinization and alkalization represents an increasing environmental hazard to
natural and agricultural ecosystems. Salinization involves the accumulation of salts
(chlorides, sulfates, carbonates) of sodium, magnesium, or calcium in root sons, as salts
move upwards in the soil and are left at the surface as water evaporates.
Salt-affected soils reveal presence of salts in two different ways in remotely
sensed data a.) directly on bare with efforescence and salt crust; b.) indirectly by affecting
condition/type of vegetation or soil moisture condition. Numerous remote sensing studies
have involved the mapping and monitoring of salt-affected soils with variety of satellite
data (Saha et.al., 1990; Metternicht and Zink, 2003; Hute, 2004). Dwivedi (1992) used
post-monsoon (October) and pre-monsoon (April/May) Landsat-TM data for delineating
various categories of sodic in parts of Gangetic alluvium plains or northern India. Verma
and Singh (1999) used temporal optical satellite data and GIS tool to monitor changes in
status of sodic land in part of Uttar Pradesh.
Csillag et.al. (1993) suggested that potential exists of spectral recognition of
salinity status with Hyperspectral remore sensing data.
The increased availability of remote sensing time series data in recent years makes
it possible to analyze desertification at regional, continental, and global scales. For
continental and global desertification studies, time series data from AVHRR and MODIS
are widely used, for the local or regional studies, times series data from Landsat TM and
other high-resolution data are used.

11
CHAPTER-III

3.0 STUDY AREA

3.1 Location and Extent

Rajasthan is the second largest state of India situated in the northwestern part of
the Indian Union. The study area is Part of Eastern Rajasthan State and falls in geographic
coordinates of Latitude 23° 03′N to 28° 13′N and Longitude 72° 14′ to 78° 16′ E (Fig.1).
The study area covers 21 districts of Eastern Rajasthan State.

3.2 Climate

The climate of study area is semiarid to sub humid in the east of Aravalli range,
characterized extreme in temperatures. The annual rainfall ranges between 550mm (in
Ajmer) to 1640mm (Mount AbuSirohi districts) (Table 3.1).

Fig. 3.1 Location map of study area

The month of March marks the beginning of summer and the temperature starts rising
progressively through April, May and June (Table 3.2). The temperature rise

12
Table 3.1 Rainfall characteristics of the study area (District-wise mean monthly rainfall)

No District Name/Month Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1 AJMER 0.51 0.56 0.44 0.30 1.07 4.99 16.20 16.35 7.30 1.01 0.28 0.41 49.42
2 ALWAR 1.25 1.09 0.92 0.57 1.26 4.90 17.99 12.77 10.37 1.29 0.24 0.33 52.98
3 BANSWARA 0.32 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.42 10.97 32.22 29.35 16.13 1.76 0.57 0.62 92.77
4 BHARATPUR 1.26 1.00 0.74 0.54 1.00 5.11 20.48 20.85 12.10 1.81 0.30 0.42 65.61
5 BHILWARA 0.51 0.22 0.36 0.28 0.68 5.93 25.67 25.30 9.56 0.62 0.19 0.59 69.91
6 BUNDI 0.54 0.34 0.32 0.25 0.72 6.76 28.10 27.35 10.62 0.78 0.21 0.09 76.08
7 CHITTAURGARH 0.60 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.55 8.55 29.49 30.91 12.50 0.99 0.63 0.58 85.41
8 DUNGARPUR 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.72 9.89 28.67 23.32 11.30 1.10 0.43 0.38 76.45
9 JAIPUR & DAUSA 1.12 0.90 0.59 0.36 0.99 5.13 18.21 18.07 8.50 0.99 0.19 0.10 55.15
10 JHALAWAR 1.05 0.54 0.35 0.33 0.92 10.09 33.45 30.01 15.17 1.35 1.29 0.57 95.12
12 KOTA & BARAN 1.01 0.54 0.34 0.31 0.84 8.34 31.96 28.59 13.48 1.46 0.84 0.57 88.28
13 PALI 0.35 0.47 0.21 0.20 1.09 4.16 14.48 18.24 7.09 0.65 0.15 0.13 47.22
14 SAWAI MADHOPUR 1.04 0.63 0.59 0.38 0.80 5.75 23.39 23.60 10.35 1.19 0.27 0.50 68.49
15 SIROHI 0.42 0.52 0.17 0.25 1.20 5.77 23.81 22.63 7.63 0.92 0.30 0.22 63.84
16 TONK 0.80 0.47 0.36 0.33 0.77 5.75 21.23 20.75 9.44 0.81 0.21 0.44 61.36
17 UDAIPUR & Rajsamand 0.80 0.32 0.29 0.17 0.92 6.80 22.89 20.49 10.79 1.00 0.45 0.20 65.12

during this period is almost uniform all over the state. The minimum daily temperatures
drops down at night around 26°C and daily maximum temperature reach in summer 40-
45°C. At Udaipur and Mount Abu, temperature, however is relatively lower and the mean
daily maximum temperature in summer reaches 38°C and 31.5°C respectively. Daily
minimum temperature for these two stations 25°C and 22°C, respectively. January is the
coldest month of the year (Table 3.2).
On the basis of climatic conditions and terrain characteristics, study area is
divided into 5 Agro-climatic zones :
Zone 1: Semi-Arid Eastern Plain (Ajmer, Jaipur, Dausa, Tonk districts)
Zone 2: Flood Prone Eastern Plains (Alwar, Bharatpur, Dhaulpur, Karauli districts)
Zone3: Sub-humid Southern Plains and Aravalli Hills (Udaipur, Rajsamand, Bhilwara,
Chittaurgarh, Sirohi districts)
Zone 4: Humid Southern Plains (Dungarpur and Banswara districts)
Zone 5: Humid South-Eastern Plains (Bundi, Sawai Madhopur, Kota, Baran, Jhalwar)

13
 Table 3.2: Air temperature characteristics of the study area (District-wise mean daily
maximum, minimum temperature (Centigrade)).

No District Name/Month January February March April May June

Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
1 AJMER 22.2 7.3 25.3 9.9 30.7 15.7 35.9 21.9 39.5 27.3 38.1 27.7
2 BHARATPUR 22.7 7.1 26.7 9.8 32.7 15.4 38.6 21.5 42.2 26.4 41.9 30.1
3 CHITTAURGARH 25.2 7.8 28.9 10.2 34.0 16.4 38.5 22.1 41.5 26.8 39.5 27.4
4 JAIPUR 22.0 8.3 25.4 10.7 30.9 15.5 36.5 21.0 40.6 25.8 39.2 27.3
5 JHALAWAR 25.1 9.4 28.4 11.4 33.9 16.4 38.6 22.0 42.0 27.3 39.1 27.5
6 KOTA 24.5 10.6 28.5 13.1 34.1 18.5 39.0 24.4 42.6 29.7 40.3 29.5
7 PALI 25.3 0.5 28.4 11.9 37.7 19.3 37.5 23.7 40.2 26.2 38.2 27.3
8 SIROHI 19.3 9.3 21.2 11.5 35.3 15.9 29.4 20.0 31.5 22.3 29.1 20.5
9 UDAIPUR 24.2 7.8 27.6 9.7 32.3 15.1 36.0 20.2 38.6 2.9 35.9 25.3
No District Name/Month July August September October November December
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
1 AJMER 33.3 25.6 30.9 24.3 32.1 23.7 32.9 17.8 28.9 10.9 24.4 7.7
2 BHARATPUR 35.0 27.1 33.1 25.8 33.3 24.1 33.3 18.5 29.5 11.6 24.4 7.4
3 CHITTAURGARH 33.4 24.0 31.1 29.2 32.1 23.0 33.1 17.9 30.2 11.9 26.7 8.3
4 JAIPUR 34.1 25.6 32.9 24.3 33.2 23.0 33.2 18.3 29.0 12.0 24.4 9.1
5 JHALAWAR 32.3 24.9 30.6 24.1 31.9 23.2 33.5 18.3 29.8 12.2 26.5 9.6
6 KOTA 33.3 26.4 31.7 25.4 33.1 24.7 34.5 21.0 30.8 14.8 26.7 11.3
7 PALI 32.9 25.5 31.3 24.8 31.7 23.9 33.5 21.0 30.7 14.6 24.4 10.9
8 SIROHI 24.3 19.3 22.5 18.3 24.0 18.4 26.6 17.4 24.1 13.5 21.2 11.2
9 UDAIPUR 30.7 23.9 29.3 22.9 30.9 22.1 32.0 18.9 29.1 11.0 26.5 8.3

3.3 Soils

Rajasthan, being geographically the second largest state in India, has

proportionately the greater soil recourse. When seen in detail landscape levels, the soils of
Rajasthan are complex, and highly variable, reflecting a variety of differing parent
materials, physiographic land features, range of distribution of rainfall, and its effects.
Soil characteristics of selected soil properties of the study area are presented in
Annexure-1. Dominant soil great groups found in the study area are - Chromusterts

14
Pellusterts, Haplustalfs, Chromusterts, Pellusterts, Haplustalfs, Ustifluvents,
Qartzipsamments, Torripsamments, Ustochrepts, and rock out crops.

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology

Rajasthan is endowed with a continuous geological sequence of rocks from the

oldest Archaean Metamorphites represented by Bhilwara Super-Group (more than 2500
million years old) to sub recent alluvium and wind blown sand. The south Eastern
extremity of the Rajasthan is occupied by a pile of basaltic flows of Deccan Traps of
Cretaceous age. The Deccan traps found in Southern and South Eastern Rajasthan and
extends over a vast area in southern Jhalawar and in the eastern parts of Chittaurgarh and
Banswara districts, are notable formations of Upper Cretaceous to Lower Eocene age
when large area of peninsular India was also covered with fissure eruptions of black lava.
Pleistocene sandy alluvium, blown sand, kankar (calcium nodules), carbonate beds are
found over a large area of Eastern Part of Rajasthan. The Great Boundary Fault, through
which the River Champal has carved its course, passes through southeastern parts of
Rajasthan. This fault is visible in Begun (Chittaurgarh district) and northern parts of Kota.
It reappears again in Sawai Madhopur and Dhaulpur districts. Besides this, several mega
lineaments also traverse in the state.
The geological sequence of the state is highly varied and compex, revealing the
co-existence of the most ancient rocks of Pre-Cambrian age and most recent alluvium as
wind blown sand. The Aravallis, one of the most ancient mountains in the world, have the
oldest granitic and gneissic rocks at their base, overlain by the rocks of the Aravalli Super
group, Delhi Super Group, the Vindhyan Super Group and younger rocks. These rocks
are highly metamorphosed at certain places and show rich occurrences of minerals of
great commercial importance.

3.5 Agriculture and Land Use

Rajasthan's economy is mainly agriculture-based. About 80 percent of the

population lives in rural areas and is dependent on farming. In the total gross cultivated
area over the study area, Bajra (pearl millet), jowar (sorghum), maize, guar, sesamum (oil
seeds), soybean and groundnut, pulses are grown in the Kharif (Rainy) season. Wheat,
barley, gram, mustard, are grown in the Rabi (Winter) season. Cotton and sugarcane are
the chief cash crops grown in the black soil some region. Cereal crops such as bajra,

15
wheat and mustard cover the largest cultivated area. Bajra (pearl millet) is the major crop
of Kharif in Eastern part of Rajasthan. This millet can be grown in sandy soil under rain
fed conditions. Jowar, known for its drought tolerance, is one of the important food and
fodder crops of Rajasthan. Jowar (sorghum) can be grown on loam to clay loam soils
without irrigation and hence has importance in dry land agriculture. Jowar can grown in
Rabi season too. One of important crop in Kharif season is Guar. This is fodder as well as
its gum, extracted from its seed, which has an industrial importance. This is rain fed crop
and depending on rainfall pattern. Other crop groundnut, pulses, sesamum can be grown
in kharif season over study area. Wheat, mustard and rapeseeds are rabi season crop.
Wheat is grown from December to February in Rabi (Winter season) loamy or loamy-
sandy soils which can retain moisture and are rich in nutrients. Mustard and rapeseeds
requires cool, dry weather and bright sunshine. These crops may be grown in rain fed
conditions but higher yields are obtained under irrigated conditions. These crops grow
well in sandy loam to loam.

3.6 Relief, Elevation, Slope and Drainage

Eastern Part of Rajasthan lay approximately below Aravalli hill ranges, which is
called eastern semi-arid regions. Here area is well drained by several integrated drainage
systems. Aravalli hills ranges are the most prominent hill features extending from Sirohi,
Udaipur and Dungarpur districts in the South-west to Jaipur and Alwar districts northeast.
They rise to their highest summit at Mount Abu (1722 m above MSL) in Sirohi district.
These ranges from a Lbyrinth of low hills in Udaipur, Dungarpur, and Banswara districts,
and stretch North Eastwards in the form of undulating low hills through parts of Ajmer ,
Tonk, Sawai Madhopur, Jaipur and Alwar disricts. Coverning most parts of Alwar ,
Bharatpur, Jaipur, Dhaulpur, Tonk, Sawai Madhopur, Bundi and Kota districts, the
eastern plains have rich alluvial soil drained by seasonal rivers.
The DEM (Digital Elevation Model) of the study area is derived from SRTM
(Shuttle RADAR Topographic Mission) elevation model on 90m spatial resolution. The
elevation of the study area varies from 100m to 1698m. The slope map is generated by
processing of elevation values in SRTM DEM. The slope of the area ranges from less
than 1% to more than 30%. The DEM and slope map of the study area is shown in Fig.
3.2 and 3.3 respectively

16
 N

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig.3.2 and Fig.3.3 DEM and Terrain slope of study area

17
3.7 Socio-Economic Characteristics

Most populous districts are Bhatpur, Jaipur, Alwar, Dhaulpur and Kota lie on the
eastern fringe of Rajasthan. The fertile plains of the east, drained by several ephemeral
rivers and streams, which have deposited fertile alluvial soil over the years, provide rich
arable soils to sustain the people. Coupled with this, are the climatic factors-the moderate
climate in the Eastern part, providing a comfortable zone of temperature, humidity and
precipitation, and accentuating better living conditions compare to western part of
Rajasthan. Regional disparities are markedly discernible amongst various districts of
Rajasthan; Jaipur and Dausa are the most thickly populated district with population of
335 persons/sq.km followed by Bharatpur and Alwar. In eastern part of Rajasthan there
has been preponderance of males over females.
In Rajasthan, urbanization is at a slow pace. Only about 23% of the total
population of the state lives in towns and cities. Jaipur, Kota and Ajmer districts have a
higher percentage of urban population. Other districts which have medium –sized urban
population are Bharatpur, Udaipur, Pali, Tonk, Bhilwara, Sirohi, Bundi, Dhaulpur,
Jhalawar, Chittaurgarh, Sawai Madhopur, and Alwar. Considerably low urban population
districts are Dungarpur, Banswara. Large proportion leaves in rural area. Agricultural
occupation forms the main stay of employment in the state.

18
CHAPTER-IV

4.0 DATA USED

The varieties of data used in this study are described below:

4.1 Remote Sensing Data

Digital satellite data: IRS-1D:

• Wide Field Sensor (WiFS) data with a spatial resolution of 188m, two spectral bands
in the visible and near infra-red regions, with a swath of 810 Km.
• Data acquisition: 17 October 2004 and 18 February 2005.
• Path/ Row: 96/56; 96/57

MODIS Data:
• Monthly composite Normalized Different Vegetation Index (NDVI) 1 km
• Monthly composite Enhanced Vegetation index (EVI) with spatial resolution 1km.
• Leaf Area Index (LAI) , 8 day composite
• BRDF/Albedo,16 day composite with spatial resolution 1km
• Land Surface Temperature 8 day composite with spatial resolution 1 km
•
4.2 Meteorological Data

• Rainfall data (past 25 years average monthly rainfall data),

• Air temperature (past 25 years average maximum and minimum monthly temperature)
• Climatic water balance – water surplus / water deficit
(Source: Recourse Atlas of Rajasthan. Department of Science and Technology
Government of Rajasthan. Jaipur, 1994).

4.3 Agricultural Data

Agricultural data of study area viz., cropping pattern, crop calendar, and crop phenology,
historical crop yield etc. were collected in this study during field ground truth collection.
4.4 Collateral Data

Topographical Maps: Survey of India (SoI) topographical maps Sheets No

54E, 45L, 45M, 54D, 45O, 54C, 45K, 54B, 45H, 45D, 45P, 45G, 54H, 54F, 54G, 54J,
45N, 45C, 54A, and 45J at 1: 250,000 scales.

19
 Soil Map: Soil map in 1: 250,000 scale prepared by National Bureau of Soil Survey
and Land Use Planning (NBSS & LUP), Govt. of India, was utilized in the present study.

4.5 Softwares Used

Digital image processing and GIS analysis were carried out by using following
softwares:
ƒ ERDAS IMAGINE 8.7
ƒ ILWIS 3.2 (Integrated Land and Water Information System)
ƒ ARCGIS 8.3
ƒ ARC VIEW 3.2a

20
CHAPTER-V

5.0 METHODOLOGY

5.1 Crop Inventory, Land use / Land cover and Cropping Pattern Mapping

The methodology adopted for crop and land use and cropping pattern inventories
is depicted in Fig. 5.1. Crop inventory and land use/land cover maps of Rabi and Kharif
crop season were derived from IRS WiFS satellite data. Ground truth was collected
through integrated use of same year IRS 1D WiFS hard copy image (1:250,000 scale),
Survey of India (SoI) toposheets and handheld Global positioning System (GPS).
Combination of satellite data acquired during Kharif (17 October 2005) and Rabi (18
February 2005) images were digitally classified to land use/land cover information
classes for Kharif and Rabi, respectively using MXL classifier. Agricultural land use
classes in Rabi season were refined with respect to land use information in Kharif season
and crop calendar of major crops cultivated in the region. Finally, digitally classified land
use /land cover maps of Kharif and Rabi seasons were logically integrated in GIS for
deriving cropping pattern / cropping system.

5.2 Desertification Status Mapping

Desertification status map of the study area showing spatial variation of varying
degree of ecosystem degradation was generated by GIS aided integration of land use /
land cover; cropping pattern, annual climatic water balance derived water surplus / deficit
maps and soil characteristics affecting desertification processes viz. surface soil texture,
soil erosion, salinity / sodicity and profile plant, available soil moisture content (Fig. 5.2).
Annual climatic soil moisture surplus / deficit map was prepared by computing monthly
Potential Evapotranspiration (PET); Actual Evapotranspiration (AET), rainfall and soil
moisture storage following Thornthwaite Climatic Water Balance approach (1948).
Monthly rainfall and air temperature data were used for this purpose. Soil characteristics
maps of four parameters affecting desertification processes were prepared by linking
digitized soil coverage and soil attribute table in GIS environment. Finally Desertification
Status Index (DSI) was computed in GIS environment using following relationship

21
 SATELLITE DATA IRS 1D WiFS SATELLITE DATA IRS 1D WiFS
Kharif image Rabi image
(18 Feb 2005) (17 Oct 2005)

Download MODIS image

of study area
EXTRACTION OF STUDY AREA IMAGES OF
KHARIF AND RABI

GCP IDENTIFICATION OF MAP TO IMAGE

Import to ERDAS
TRANSFORMATION MODEL

Image Rectification and transformation using

MODIS data
Image Re-projection

Mosaic images

Extraction of study area Subset study area

Image from MODIS data

Crop Inventory Digital classification Crop Inventory

Rabi of Rabi and Kharif images Kharif

GIS aided spatial integration

GENERATION OF CROPPING PATTERN MAP

Fig. 5.1 Flow diagram of methodology of crop & land use inventory and cropping
pattern mapping

DSI = CPLU + WS/WD + SE + SS + ST + SMC……………. (i)

22
 Where, CPLU – Cropping pattern and Land use; WS/WD – Climatic soil moisture
surplus / deficit; SE – Soil Erosion status; SS – Soil salinity / sodicity; ST – Surface soil
texture; and SMC – Profile plant available soil moisture content
Mapping classes in each parameter in the relationship (i) were assigned value 1 to
10 depending on degree of desertification risk involved (e.g. 1 – very low risk; 10 – very
high risk). The assign values ranges vary from parameter to parameter depending on
number of classes present in each parameter. Finally DSI was grouped into 5 classes such
as Very low; Low; Moderate; Moderately high; High; Very High,

TEMPORAL METEOROLOGICAL
SATELLITE DATA DATA DIGITIZED SOIL
OF KHARIF AND RABI RAINFALL, AIR MAP
DIGITAL TEMPERATURE AND AND SOIL
CLASSIFICATION AND SOIL MOISTURE
ATTRIBUTE TABLE
INTEGRATION STORAGE

Maps of soil parameters

LAND USE AND affecting desertification
CROPPING WATER SURPLUS/ processes such as soil
PATTERN MAPS DEFICIT MAP texture, salinity, erosion,
available soil moisture

Assigning numeric values Assigning numeric values Assigning numeric values

to Thematic classes based to Thematic classes based to Thematic classes based
on desertification risk on desertification risk on desertification risk

DESERTIFICATION
STATUS INDEX

DESERTIFICATION
STATUS MAP
Fig. 5.2: Schematic diagram showing methodology of desertification status mapping
by integrated use of Satellite data and GIS.

23
 5.3 Characterization of Desertification Status Using Satellite Derived Biophysical
Parameters

In this study various MODIS biophysical parameters derived from May, 2004 to
April, 2005 data products viz. albedo, vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI), land surface
temperature (LST), LAI (Leaf Area Index), NPP (Net Primary Productivity) etc. are used
for characterizing district wise and desertification status zone wise bio-physical
conditions for the current crop seasons. The methodology of this analysis is shown in

DOWNLOADING MODIS DATA

MAY 2004-APRIL 2005

LAI/FPAR LST Surface

BRDF/Albedo
8 day
NDVI/EV 8 day
16 day composite Reflectance
composite I composite 8 day composite
Monthly

IMPORT TO ERDAS

Layer Stack,
Max. Computation,
Image re-projection,
Extraction of study area,
Multiplying with scale factor

Monthly images of biophysical

Parameters of the study area

Digitized district map Desertification status

of the study area Zones map

Computation of district wise and

Desertification zones wise
Weighted average values of
bio-physical parameters

Fig. 5.3: Methodology for computation of district and desertification status zone
wise area weighted values of biophysical parameters.

24
5.4 MODIS Data Algorithm

MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) is a key instrument

on-board the Terra (EOS AM) and Aqua (EOS PM) satellites. MODIS has a viewing
swath width of 2,330 km and views the entire surface of the Earth every one to two days.
Its detectors measure 36 spectral bands between 0.405 and 14.385 µm, and it acquires
data at three spatial resolutions -- 250m, 500m, and 1,000m. There are 44 standard
MODIS data products that scientists are using to study global change.

5.4.1 ALBEDO

The amount of solar radiation (0.4 – 4.0µm) reflected by a surface is characterized

by its hemispherical albedo, which may be defined as the reflected radiative flux per unit
incident flux. Surface albedo is an important parameter used in global climatic models to
specify the amount of solar radiation absorbed at the surface. Moreover, variations in
surface albedo can serve as diagnostic of land surface changes and their impact on the
physical climatic system can be assessed when routinely monitored surface albedo is used
in climatic model. Albedo also has potential utility for land surface changes, climate
model, also monitoring crop growth, prediction of crop yield, and monitoring
desertification.

Due to its three-dimensional structure, the Earth's surface scatters radiation

anisotropically, especially at the shorter wavelengths that characterize solar irradiance.
The Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) specifies the behavior of
surface scattering as a function of illumination and view angles at a particular
wavelength. The albedo of a surface describes the ratio of radiant energy scattered
upward and away from the surface in all directions to the downwelling irradiance incident
upon the surface. The completely diffuse bihemispherical (or white-sky) albedo can be
derived through integration of the BRDF for the entire solar and viewing hemisphere,
while the direct beam directional hemispherical (or black-sky) albedo can be calculated
through integration of the BRDF for a particular illumination geometry. Actual albedos
under particular atmospheric and illumination conditions can be estimated as a function of
the diffuse skylight and a proportion between the black-sky and white-sky albedos.

25
 Every 16 days, the MODIS BRDF/Albedo Product algorithm relies on multidate,
atmospherically corrected, cloud-cleared data and a semiempirical kernel-driven
bidirectional reflectance model to determine a global set of parameters describing the
Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) of the land surface. These one-
kilometer gridded parameters are then used to determine directional hemispherical
reflectance ("black-sky albedo"), bihemispherical reflectance ("white-sky albedo"), and
nadir BRDF-adjusted reflectance (NBAR) for seven narrow spectral bands and (in the
case of albedo) three broad bands (MODIS channels 1-7) and three broad bands (0.3-
0.7µm, 0.7-5.0µm, and 0.3-5.0µm) at the mean solar zenith of local solar noon). Since the
parameters of the simple kernel-based BRDF model Ross Thick Li SparseR are also
provided, along with extensive quality information, the MODIS BRDF/Albedo Product
offers members of the global remote sensing and modeling community the additional
flexibility to derive reflectance and albedo measures particularly suited to their specific
applications.

5.4.2 LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE (LST)

It is the skin temperature of the land surface i.e. kinetic temperature of the soil
plus the canopy surface (or in the absence of vegetation, the temperature of the soil
surface). Surface temperature can be used for various agro-meteorological applications –
• Surface heat energy balance study
• Characterization of local climate in relation with topography and land use
• Mapping of low temperature for frost conditions (night-time) or winter cold episodes
(day/night)
MODIS Land Surface Temperature (LST) products provide per-pixel temperature
values. Temperatures are extracted in Kelvin with a view-angle dependent algorithm
applied to direct observations. The view angle information is included in each LST
product. The LST algorithms use MODIS data as input, including geolocation, radiance,
cloud masking, atmospheric temperature, water vapor, snow, and land cover. The
temperature products in turn are key inputs to many of the high-level MODIS products
and provide data for global temperature mapping and change observation. On land, soil
and canopy temperature are among the main determinants of the rate of growth of
vegetation and they govern seasonal start and termination of growth. Hydrologic
processes such as evapotranspiration and snow and ice melt are highly sensitive to surface

26
temperature fluctuation, which is also an important discriminating factor in classification
of land surface types.

5.4.3 LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI)

Leaf area index (LAI) is ratio of the total area of all leaves on a plant to the area of
ground covered by the plant and is viewed as an important variable of vegetation
function. The LAI measures the surface involved in radiation absorption and turbulent
transfers between vegetation and the atmosphere. The LAI is a controlling parameter for
air-surface exchange processes associated with the canopies. This variable is a key
variable for models of evapotranspiration and photosynthesis at the regional and global
levels. The LAI and surface optical properties such as soil and leaf reflectances are also
important variables in the study of radiation processes involving the surface albedo and
radiation budget. As the LAI shows high variability even within a vegetation type, it is
therefore difficult to prescribe a priori values for the different biomass.
MODIS LAI product is 1 km global data products updated once each 8-day period
throughout each calendar year. LAI defines an important structural property of a plant
canopy as the one sided leaf area per unit ground area. These products are derived from
the atmosphere corrected surface reflectance product, land cover product and ancillary
information on surface characteristics using a 3D radiative transfer model. LAI and FPAR
are biophysical variables which describe canopy structure and are related to functional
process rates of energy and mass exchange. Both LAI have been used extensively as
satellite derived parameters for calculation of surface photosynthesis, evapotranspiration,
and annual net primary production. These products are essential in calculating terrestrial
energy, carbon, water cycle processes, and biogeochemistry of vegetation.

5.4.3 NDVI and EVI

Several indices, which could be used, amongst the others, for desertification
monitoring, have been developed over the past few decades using remote sensing data.
They are calculated from the reflectance in different bands and may be obtained for each
pixel (the size of a pixel depends upon the resolution of a sensor). These indices have a
few advantages over conventional climate-data related indices, as they "cover" large areas
and may show how desertification process is progressing over the area.

27
 An improved, or enhanced vegetation index (EVI) gives complementary
information on the spatial and temporal variations of vegetation, while minimizing much
of the contamination problems present in the NDVI, such as those associated with canopy
background and residual aerosol influences. Whereas the NDVI is chlorophyll sensitive
and responds mostly to red band variations, the EVI is more NIR sensitive and responsive
to canopy structural variations, including leaf area index, canopy type, and canopy
architecture. NDVI and EVI are calculated as

NDVI = (λ NIR − λ RED ) /( λ NIR − λ RED )

Where is the reflectance in the near infra-red & red bands respectively.
NDVI ranges form -1 to 1. (Jordan, 1969; Deering, 1978;Tucker,1979).

δ NIR − δ RED
EVI = G *
δ NIR + C1 * δ RED − C 2 * δ BLUE + L

δ NIR -NIR Reflectance; C1 -Atmosphere Resistance Red Correction Coefficient;

δ RED -Red Reflectance; C 2 - Atmosphere Resistance Blue Correction Coefficient;

MODIS Vegetation Index product uses, as input, the 16 days MODIS Vegetation
δ BLUEand
Index
-Blue Reflectance; L-Canopy Background Brightness Correction Factor;
composited surface reflectance product. All available 16 days MODIS VI
products (a maximum of 3) that overlap the calendar month are used. A temporal
G-Gain factor;
averaging scheme is used to generate the monthly product. Each 16-day product is
weighted by the number of actual days that overlap the month being processed. Two
vegetation index (VI) algorithms are produced globally for land. One is the standard
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is referred to as the "continuity
index" to the existing NOAA-AVHRR derived NDVI. The other is an 'enhanced'
vegetation index with improved sensitivity into high biomass regions and improved
vegetation monitoring through a de-coupling of the canopy background signal and a
reduction in atmosphere influences. The two VIs compliment each other in global
vegetation studies and improve upon the extraction of canopy biophysical parameters.

The compositing method used is a simple temporal averaging scheme adjusted for
temporal overlap. The algorithm will produce the monthly surface reflectance first from

28
the sixteen-day composite surface reflectance (red, NIR, blue and MIR) in the MOD13A2
product, then derives the VI (NDVI/EVI) products. No sixteen-day VI data is used in this
product, only the surface reflectance. A worst-case scenario is used to generate the per-
pixel quality information. The gridded vegetation indices will include quality assurance
(QA) flags with statistical data that indicate the quality of the VI product and input data.
Due to their simplicity, ease of application, and widespread familiarity, vegetation indices
have a wide range of use within the user community. Some of the more common
applications may include global biogeochemical and hydrologic modeling, agricultural
monitoring and forecasting, land-use planning, land cover characterization, and land
cover change detection.

29
CHAPTER-IV

6.0 RESUTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Crop and Land Use Inventory

Crop and land use inventory of Kharif and Rabi crop seasons were prepared by
digital classification of temporal satellite data. The FCC and classified image of Kharif
season of the study area are presented in Fig. 6.1 and Fig. 6.2, respectively. 14 types of
crop and land use / land cover classes were identified by digital classification of WiFS
data. The classification accuracies obtained for dominant land cover classes are Bajra
(pearl millet) 85.4%; Other crops (soybean, guar etc.) 78.5%; Current Fallow Land
85.7%; Sandy / Sand Dunes 88.35%; Other wasteland (Undulating uplands, Gullied /
Ravinous & Hills (Barren /Rocky) 80%; Forest Dense 88.7%; Forest Open 93.1% and
Water Body / River 96.8%. The district wise areas under various land use / land cover
classes of Kharif crop season are presented in Table 6.1(a) and 6.1(b)

Bhilwara district has highest area (5496 sq. km and 14.6% of 37590.19 sq.km the
total area) under Bajra crop followed by Udaipur district. Baran and Jhalawar districts
have less area 15.59 sq.km. (0.04%) and 15.24 sq. km (0.04%) respectively, under Bajra.
Banswara district has highest area 517 sq.km. (27.5%) under other crops (soybean, guar
etc.). Bhilwara, Dausa, Sawai Madhopur districts have very less area 0.71 sq. km.; 0.78 sq
km. and 0.18 sq. km. Respectively, under other crops. Alwar, Bharatpur , Jaipur and Tonk
districts have large area 5182.1 sq.km., 4022.2 sq.km, 5019.1 sq.km and 4783.25 sq.km
respectively, under current fallow condition. Banswara, Chittaurgarh, Rajsamand, Shirohi
and Udaipur districts have relatively large area under dense forest. Ajmer, Dausa, Karauli
Tonk districts have very little or nil area under dense forest.

Alwar, Baran, Chittaurgarh, Jhalawar, Kota districts have relatively large area
under open forest. Udaipur (1555.24 sq.km), Chittorgarh (969.87 sq.km), Rajsamand
(599.19 sq.km), Bhilwara (499.27 sq.km) districts have large land under gullied/ravenous
land. Respectively Dhaulpur (0.07 sq.km) and Karauli (1.98 sq.km) district have very less
area under gullied land. Baran (1232.52 sq.km), Karauli (1079.87 sq.km) and Alwar
(928.03 sq.km) districts have large area under hills and barren/rocky area. Pali (671.15
sq.km) and Sirohi (334.99 sq.km) have area under the salt-affected land. Ajmer (1232.02
sq.km) and Rajsamand (1145.39 sq.km) districts

30
 Fig. 6.1 FCC of study area (Kharif season)

CLASSIFIED IMAGE OF KHARIF SEASON N

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig. 6.2 Classified image showing crop and land use classes of Kharif season

31
 Table 6.1(a): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Kharif season (sq.km.)

Gullied / Ravinous Land (%)

Gullied / Ravinous Land

Hills (Barren / Rocky)

Forest(Dense) (%)

Forest(Open) (%)
C. Fallow (%)

Forest(Dense)

Forest(Open)
C. Fallow
Bajra (%)
Bajra
District Name

No
1 AJMER 2528.83 6.73 1147.97 2.43 0.00 128.23 1.97 241.29 4.93 376.10
2 ALWAR 369.84 0.98 5182.14 10.98 28.81 0.99 1094.71 16.78 3.78 0.08 933.58
3 BANSWARA 1263.16 3.36 761.13 1.61 107.59 3.71 500.44 7.67 95.25 1.94 486.76
4 BARAN 15.59 0.04 2615.20 5.54 81.82 2.82 708.15 10.85 90.55 1.85 1228.20
5 BHARATPUR 232.35 0.62 4022.22 8.52 2.40 0.08 74.33 1.14 0.39 0.01 218.36
6 BHILWARA 5496.06 14.62 1367.22 2.90 0.78 0.03 397.51 6.09 497.25 10.15 315.98
7 BUNDI 1079.76 2.87 2273.46 4.82 25.52 0.88 164.17 2.52 108.12 2.21 246.70
8 CHITTAURGARH 2378.05 6.33 2480.34 5.25 457.10 15.76 1108.53 16.99 987.33 20.16 632.20
9 DAUSA 708.40 1.88 1628.97 3.45 0.00 73.02 1.12 8.98 0.18 214.22
10 DHAULPUR 776.37 2.07 1260.33 2.67 3.29 0.11 156.82 2.40 0.07 0.00 407.37
11 DUNGARPUR 2784.33 7.41 139.01 0.29 30.89 1.06 35.27 0.54 117.20 2.39 47.11
12 JAIPUR 3296.43 8.77 5019.09 10.63 15.34 0.53 224.36 3.44 55.81 1.14 643.08
13 JHALAWAR 15.24 0.04 3530.94 7.48 35.56 1.23 680.09 10.42 12.51 0.26 472.87
14 KARAULI 573.49 1.53 2136.08 4.52 0.00 113.42 1.74 2.72 0.06 1085.45
15 KOTA 352.21 0.94 3783.33 8.01 35.87 1.24 381.86 5.85 156.43 3.19 316.36
16 PALI 4326.21 11.51 883.53 1.87 113.98 3.93 23.01 0.35 95.08 1.94 316.72
17 RAJSAMAND 2457.96 6.54 72.10 0.15 311.49 10.74 59.55 0.91 592.19 12.09 678.60
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 361.39 0.96 3309.97 7.01 0.28 0.01 228.15 3.50 8.02 0.16 278.65
19 SIROHI 2784.79 7.41 231.53 0.49 146.75 5.06 42.09 0.65 152.33 3.11 144.66
20 TONK 651.14 1.73 4783.25 10.13 0.00 171.88 2.63 120.66 2.46 145.26
21 UDAIPUR 5138.59 13.67 580.88 1.23 1503.78 51.83 159.68 2.45 1552.63 31.70 676.24
Sum 37590 100 47209 100 2901 100 6525 100 4899 100 9864
32
 Table 6.1(b): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Kharif season (sq.km.)

Undulating Upland (Barren /

Undulating Upland (Barren /

Sandy / Sand Dunes (Barren)

Sandy / Sand Dunes (Barren)

Hills (Barren / Rocky) (%)

Water Body/ River (%)

Salt-affected Land (%)

Water Body/ River

Salt-affected Land
Other Crop (%)
Other Crop

Scrub) (%)
Scrub)
(%)
District Name

No
1 AJMER 3.81 0.00 185.77 12.40 1840.01 19.47 1232.02 12.76 46.51 3.08
2 ALWAR 9.46 2.58 0.14 0.00 1.98 0.02 61.32 0.64 5.12 0.34
3 BANSWARA 4.93 517.22 27.55 0.00 0.28 0.00 676.41 7.01 134.13 8.89
4 BARAN 12.45 4.21 0.22 0.00 39.51 0.42 328.81 3.41 29.72 1.97
5 BHARATPUR 2.21 0.71 0.04 0.00 1.17 0.01 102.21 1.06 3.78 0.25
6 BHILWARA 3.20 26.58 1.42 32.69 2.18 622.23 6.58 651.67 6.75 134.94 8.94
7 BUNDI 2.50 323.43 17.23 7.70 0.51 509.27 5.39 296.32 3.07 50.65 3.36
8 CHITTAURGARH 6.41 464.21 24.73 8.62 0.58 368.64 3.90 463.89 4.80 261.23 17.31
9 DAUSA 2.17 0.78 0.04 0.00 24.18 0.26 36.58 0.38 59.73 3.96
10 DHAULPUR 4.13 1.70 0.09 0.00 12.44 0.13 121.58 1.26 23.79 1.58
11 DUNGARPUR 0.48 95.36 5.08 0.25 0.02 9.75 0.10 113.49 1.18 39.73 2.63
12 JAIPUR 6.52 10.71 0.57 218.14 14.56 540.23 5.72 196.80 2.04 36.90 2.44
13 JHALAWAR 4.79 2.05 0.11 0.00 20.82 0.22 840.76 8.71 34.18 2.26
14 KARAULI 11.00 1.17 0.06 1.10 0.07 89.35 0.95 828.18 8.58 10.07 0.67
15 KOTA 3.21 149.26 7.95 0.81 0.05 319.55 3.38 521.43 5.40 17.07 1.13
16 PALI 3.21 18.34 0.98 671.15 44.80 4092.98 43.30 712.82 7.38 49.94 3.31
17 RAJSAMAND 6.88 43.51 2.32 23.19 1.55 107.09 1.13 1145.39 11.86 24.42 1.62
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 2.82 0.18 0.01 2.19 0.15 139.40 1.47 292.75 3.03 161.42 10.70
19 SIROHI 1.47 19.58 1.04 334.99 22.36 388.89 4.11 330.04 3.42 24.35 1.61
20 TONK 1.47 4.63 0.25 7.03 0.47 305.62 3.23 161.24 1.67 309.33 20.50
21 UDAIPUR 6.86 191.28 10.19 4.49 0.30 19.12 0.20 541.22 5.61 52.27 3.46
Sum 100 1877 100 1498 100 9453 100 9655 100 1509 100
33
 have highest undulating upland (barren scrub) area. Chittorgarh (36.58 sq.km) and
Alwar (61.32 sq.km) districts have very less undulating upland. Pali district has highest
sandy and sand dunes (barren) area 4092.98 sq.km. and 43.3% of 9452.51sq.km (the total
area), followed by Ajmer (1850.01 sq.km), Bhilwara (622.23 sq.km), Banswara (0.28
sq.km) and Alwar (1.98sq.km) which have very less sandy area.

The FCC and classified image of Rabi crop season are presented in Fig. 6.3 and Fig
6.4, respectively.16 number of land use / land cover classes were delineated by digital
classification of Rabi season data. The district wise areas under various land use / land
cover classes of Rabi crop season are presented in Table 6.2(a) and 6.2(b).

The classification accuracies of Rabi season obtained for dominant land cover
classes are Wheat 95%; Mustard 97%; Current Fallow Land 80%; Sandy / Sand Dunes
(Barren) 88.35%; Other wasteland (Undulating uplands, Gullied / Ravinous & Hills
(Barren /Rocky) 80%; Forest Dense 88.7%; Forest Open 93.1% and Water Body / River
94%. Alwar district has highest area under Wheat crop 2063.17 sq. km and 23.3% of
8836.02 sq.km the total area, followed by Jaipur district (1396.3sq.km). Rajsamand and
Sirohi districts have less area 10.6 sq.km and 20.04 sq.km respectively, under wheat,
respectively. Bharatpur district has highest area under mustard crops 3246.56 sq.km. and
13% of 24575.58sq.km the total area, followed by Alwar 2705.30sq.km, Kota-
2326.62sq.km, Jaipur-2176.52sq.km. Pali, Rajsamand, Sawai Madhopur, districts have
very less area under mustard crops 1.91 sq. km.; 5.23 sq km. and 6.57 sq. km,
respectively. Udaipur, Jaipur, Tonk, Chittorgarh districts have large area under current
fallow condition 4759.49 sq.km, 4667.21 sq.km, 528.43 sq.km, and 3157.50 sq. km.,
respectively. Pali district has highest sandy and sand dunes (barren) area 6533.44 and
34.3% of 19021.97sq.km the total area, followed by Ajmer (3165.3 sq.km), Bhilwara
(2226.28 sq.km), Alwar (2.23 sq.km) and Bharatpur (1.94sq.km).

6.2 Cropping pattern

Cropping pattern map was prepared by GIS aided integration of digitally
classified Kharif and Rabi crop inventories maps.. Digitally classified land use /land
cover maps of Kharif and Rabi seasons were logically integrated in GIS for deriving

34
 Fig. 6.3 FCC of study area (Rabi) season

CLASSIFIED IMAGE OF RABI SEASON

N

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig. 6.4 Classified image showing crop and land use classes of Rabi season

35
 Table 6.2(a): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Rabi season (sq.km.)

Gullied / Ravinous Land(%)

Gullied / Ravinous Land

Hills (Barren / Rocky)(%)

Hills (Barren / Rocky)
Forest (Dense)(%)

Forest(Open)(%)
Forest (Dense)
C. Fallow(%)

Forest(Open)
C. Fallow

Mustard
District Name

No
1 AJMER 2072.57 4.76 0.00 128.23 1.97 241.29 4.93 376.10 3.81 170.15
2 ALWAR 785.38 1.80 28.81 0.99 1094.71 16.78 3.78 0.08 933.58 9.46 2705.30
3 BANSWARA 1313.55 3.02 107.59 3.71 500.44 7.67 95.25 1.94 486.76 4.93 711.05
4 BARAN 1071.72 2.46 81.82 2.82 708.15 10.85 90.55 1.85 1228.20 12.45 1404.57
5 BHARATPUR 526.85 1.21 2.40 0.08 74.33 1.14 0.39 0.01 218.36 2.21 3246.56
6 BHILWARA 3946.97 9.06 0.78 0.03 397.51 6.09 497.25 10.15 315.98 3.20 841.40
7 BUNDI 1517.01 3.48 25.52 0.88 164.17 2.52 108.12 2.21 246.70 2.50 1434.44
8 CHITTAURGARH 3150.25 7.23 457.10 15.76 1108.53 16.99 987.33 20.16 632.20 6.41 1201.63
9 DAUSA 794.12 1.82 0.00 73.02 1.12 8.98 0.18 214.22 2.17 1292.21
10 DHAULPUR 838.29 1.92 3.29 0.11 156.82 2.40 0.07 0.00 407.37 4.13 887.38
11 DUNGARPUR 2279.09 5.23 30.89 1.06 35.27 0.54 117.20 2.39 47.11 0.48 170.85
12 JAIPUR 4645.32 10.66 15.34 0.53 224.36 3.44 55.81 1.14 643.08 6.52 2176.52
13 JHALAWAR 2384.92 5.47 35.56 1.23 680.09 10.42 12.51 0.26 472.87 4.79 1075.20
14 KARAULI 1012.14 2.32 0.00 113.42 1.74 2.72 0.06 1085.45 11.00 1465.30
15 KOTA 924.80 2.12 35.87 1.24 381.86 5.85 156.43 3.19 316.36 3.21 2326.62
16 PALI 2720.50 6.24 113.98 3.93 23.01 0.35 95.08 1.94 316.72 3.21 1.91
17 RAJSAMAND 1511.95 3.47 311.49 10.74 59.55 0.91 592.19 12.09 678.60 6.88 5.23
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 2021.86 4.64 0.28 0.01 228.15 3.50 8.02 0.16 278.65 2.82 1511.70
19 SIROHI 1785.57 4.10 146.75 5.06 42.09 0.65 152.33 3.11 144.66 1.47 6.57
20 TONK 3498.90 8.03 0.00 171.88 2.63 120.66 2.46 145.26 1.47 1640.07
21 UDAIPUR 4761.22 10.93 1503.78 51.83 159.68 2.45 1552.63 31.70 676.24 6.86 300.92
SUM 43563 100 2901 100 6525 100 4899 100 9864 100 24576
36
 Table 6.2(b): Area statistics of land use / land cover classes of Rabi season (sq.km.)

Undulating Upland (Barren /

Undulating Upland (Barren /

Sandy / Sand Dunes (Barren)

Water Body/ River(%)

Salt-affected Land(%)

Water Body/ River

Sandy / Sand Dunes
Salt-affected Land
Mustard(%)

(Barren)(%)

Wheat(%)
Scrub)(%)
Scrub)

Wheat
District Name

No
1 AJMER 0.69 192.41 11.91 3165.30 16.64 1232.02 12.76 45.63 2.99 103.03 1.17
2 ALWAR 11.01 0.00 2.23 0.01 61.32 0.64 5.58 0.37 2063.17 23.35
3 BANSWARA 2.89 0.32 0.02 53.30 0.28 676.41 7.01 134.17 8.80 463.53 5.25
4 BARAN 5.72 0.00 41.11 0.22 328.81 3.41 30.64 2.01 156.19 1.77
5 BHARATPUR 13.21 0.00 1.94 0.01 102.21 1.06 3.46 0.23 481.42 5.45
6 BHILWARA 3.42 38.63 2.39 2226.28 11.70 651.67 6.75 136.43 8.95 490.01 5.55
7 BUNDI 5.84 7.88 0.49 631.53 3.32 296.32 3.07 50.12 3.29 603.29 6.83
8 CHITTAURGARH 4.89 10.25 0.63 725.12 3.81 463.89 4.80 262.99 17.25 610.85 6.91
9 DAUSA 5.26 0.00 33.26 0.17 36.58 0.38 61.78 4.05 240.69 2.72
10 DHAULPUR 3.61 0.00 14.46 0.08 121.58 1.26 22.76 1.49 311.74 3.53
11 DUNGARPUR 0.70 1.31 0.08 497.50 2.62 113.49 1.18 39.41 2.59 80.27 0.91
12 JAIPUR 8.86 225.25 13.94 639.20 3.36 196.80 2.04 38.91 2.55 1396.30 15.80
13 JHALAWAR 4.38 0.00 22.09 0.12 840.76 8.71 34.85 2.29 86.17 0.98
14 KARAULI 5.96 1.13 0.07 104.02 0.55 828.18 8.58 10.18 0.67 218.49 2.47
15 KOTA 9.47 0.49 0.03 403.63 2.12 521.43 5.40 16.68 1.09 950.01 10.75
16 PALI 0.01 700.91 43.39 6533.44 34.35 712.82 7.38 49.76 3.26 35.63 0.40
17 RAJSAMAND 0.02 28.98 1.79 1146.98 6.03 1145.39 11.86 24.53 1.61 10.60 0.12
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 6.15 2.54 0.16 162.44 0.85 292.75 3.03 165.66 10.87 110.35 1.25
19 SIROHI 0.03 390.80 24.19 1557.47 8.19 330.04 3.42 23.68 1.55 20.04 0.23
20 TONK 6.67 7.39 0.46 388.75 2.04 161.24 1.67 315.27 20.68 210.62 2.38
21 UDAIPUR 1.22 7.10 0.44 671.92 3.53 541.22 5.61 51.85 3.40 193.62 2.19
SUM 100 1615 100 19022 100 9655 100 1524 100 8836 100

37
cropping pattern / cropping system. The cropping pattern and other land use / land cover
classes are presented in Fig. 6.5 and the area statistics are under various cropping pattern /
cropping system classes are presented in Table 6.3(a) and 6.3(b)
Jaipur district has highest area 868.93sq. km under double crop (bajra- wheat)
followed by Bhilwara district (266.14 sq.km). Jhalawar districts have less area 1.38
sq.km, respectively, under double crop (bajra-wheat). Jaipur district has highest area 517
sq.km. under double crop (bajra - mustard), followed by Dausa (387.19 sq.km) and
Banswara (230.69 sq.km) districts. Baran district have very less area 0.07 sq.km under
double crop (bajra-mustard)
In case of double crop (other crop-mustard) Banswara district has large area
243.48 sq.km followed by Chittorgarh 176.08 sq.km and Sawai Madhopur, Dausa
disrtricts have very less area under double crop (other crop-mustard).
Bundi district has highest area 265.19 sq.km under double crop (other crop-wheat)
followed by Banswara district (203.58 sq.km), Chittaurgarph (179.76 sq.km). Pali and
Bharatpur districts have very less area 0.04 and 0.39 sq.km under double crop (other
crop-wheat).
Jaipur district has very large area 3228.16 sq.km under long fallow land, followed
by Tonk district 3010.39 sq.km and Jhalawar district 2392.29 sq.km. Rajsamand district
has very less area 78.85 sq.km under lonf fallow land.
Sirohi district has large area 56.20 sq.km compare to other districts under salt
affected land-single crop (Bajra) and Bundi district has very less area 0.35 sq.km under
salt affected land-single crop (Bajra).
Pali district has highest area 2301.00 sq.km under sand dunes/sandy area-single
crop (Bajra), followed by Bhilwara (1457.94 sq.km) and Sirohi (1104.99 sq.km) districts.
Bharatpur and Alwar districts have very less area 0.74 sq.km and 0.88 sq.km under sand
dunes/sandy area -single crop (Bajra). Rajsamand district has highest area under
sandy/Sand dunes-single crop (other crop) and Jaipur district has less area 0.07 sq.km
under this class.
Alwar and Kota districts have large area 2644.83 and 2136.26 sq.km under single
crop (fallow-mustard) land. Pali (1.31 sq.km) and Rajsamand (1.77sq.km) districts have
very less area under single crop (fallow-mustard).
Alwar district has highest area 18885.00 sq.km under single crop (fallow-wheat)
and Dungarpur district has less area 7.32 sq.km under single crop (fallow-wheat).

38
 Udaipur district has highest area 4396.90 sq.km under single crop (bajra-fallow),
followed by Bhilwara district (3331.00 sq.km) and Dungarpur district (2112.76 sq.km),
Jhalwar district has very less area 13.01 sq.km under single crop (bajra-fallow).
Udaipur (139.75 sq.km) and Chittaurgarh (113.42 sq.km) have highest area under
single crop (other crop-fallow). Respectively Karauli, Ajmer and Alwar district shas very
less area 0.07 and 0.25 sq.km under single crop (other crop-fallow).

CROPPING PATTERN AND OTHER LAND COVER MAP

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig. 6.5. Cropping pattern map of study area

39
 Table 6.3(a). Area statistics of Cropping Pattern (sq.km.)

DC(Other Crop - Wheat) (%)

DC(Other Crop - Mustard)

DC(Other Crop - Mustard)

Salt Affected Land - single

Salt Affected Land - single

DC (Bajra - Mustard) (%)

DC(Other Crop - Wheat)

DC( Bajra - Wheat) (%)

DC (Bajra - Mustard)
DC( Bajra - Wheat)

Long Fallow (%)

crop (Bajra) (%)

Forest (Open)
Forest (Dense)

Long Fallow

crop (Bajra)
(%)
District Name

1 AJMER 49.27 2.24 15.30 0.51 0.00 0.00 128.23 1010.24 4.75 7.07 5.82
2 ALWAR 128.44 5.84 90.45 3.03 2.65 0.43 1.02 0.13 28.81 1094.71 591.06 2.78 0.00
3 BANSWARA 84.61 3.84 230.69 7.73 243.48 39.58 203.58 25.51 107.59 500.44 431.09 2.03 0.00
4 BARAN 0.00 0.07 0.00 4.42 0.72 1.24 0.16 81.82 708.15 1087.00 5.11 1.02 0.84
5 BHARATPUR 23.15 1.05 75.28 2.52 0.85 0.14 0.39 0.05 2.40 74.33 382.88 1.80 0.00
6 BHILWARA 266.14 12.09 176.76 5.92 11.24 1.83 10.11 1.27 0.78 397.51 654.85 3.08 5.69 4.69
7 BUNDI 153.75 6.99 219.91 7.37 40.04 6.51 265.19 33.23 25.52 164.17 950.82 4.47 0.35 0.29
8 CHITTAURGARH 109.64 4.98 67.68 2.27 176.08 28.63 179.76 22.53 457.10 1108.53 1274.82 5.99 1.38 1.14
9 DAUSA 64.93 2.95 387.16 12.97 0.25 0.04 0.14 0.02 73.02 590.99 2.78 0.00
10 DHAULPUR 132.65 6.03 163.82 5.49 1.48 0.24 0.57 0.07 3.29 156.82 360.23 1.69 0.00
11 DUNGARPUR 59.20 2.69 87.41 2.93 37.50 6.10 9.19 1.15 30.89 35.27 130.28 0.61 1.77 1.46
12 JAIPUR 868.93 39.48 991.05 33.19 5.44 0.88 0.78 0.10 15.34 224.36 3428.16 16.12 5.34 4.40
13 JHALAWAR 1.38 0.06 1.70 0.06 1.87 0.30 0.67 0.08 35.56 680.09 2392.29 11.25 0.00
14 KARAULI 19.93 0.91 188.56 6.32 0.64 0.10 0.81 0.10 113.42 695.75 3.27 0.00
15 KOTA 50.47 2.29 56.62 1.90 37.50 6.10 109.07 13.67 35.87 381.86 775.45 3.65 0.00
16 PALI 25.24 1.15 0.64 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.04 0.01 113.98 23.01 972.10 4.57 33.54 27.63
17 RAJSAMAND 7.35 0.33 0.60 0.02 3.15 0.51 0.11 0.01 311.49 59.55 78.85 0.37 6.89 5.67
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 14.39 0.65 92.42 3.10 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.28 228.15 1820.99 8.56 0.00
19 SIROHI 19.76 0.90 0.67 0.02 1.84 0.30 0.00 146.75 42.09 246.38 1.16 56.20 46.29
20 TONK 32.30 1.47 57.43 1.92 0.00 0.00 171.88 3010.39 14.16 0.04 0.03
21 UDAIPUR 89.67 4.07 81.61 2.73 46.37 7.54 15.30 1.92 1503.78 159.68 380.69 1.79 2.12 1.75
Sum 2201 100.01 2986 100.00 615 100.00 798 100.00 2901 6525 21265 100.00 121 100.00
40
 Table 6.3(b). Area statistics of Cropping Pattern (sq.km.)

SC (Other Crop - Fallow) (%)

Sandy/SDunes - single crop

Sandy/SDunes - single crop

Sandy/SDunes - single crop

Sandy/SDunes - single crop

SC ( Fallow - Mustard) (%)

SC (Other Crop - Fallow)

SC ( Fallow -Wheat) (%)

SC (Bajra - Fallow) (%)

SC ( Fallow - Mustard)

SC ( Fallow -Wheat)

SC (Bajra - Fallow)
(other crop) (%)

Other area (%)

(other crop)
(Bajra) (%)

Other area
(Bajra)
District Name

1 AJMER 1215.48 13.75 0.00 153.50 0.76 50.08 0.85 1134.86 4.97 0.25 0.05 3962.45 10.67
2 ALWAR 0.88 0.01 0.00 2644.83 13.01 1885.00 31.90 184.07 0.81 0.25 0.05 1031.69 2.78
3 BANSWARA 51.18 0.58 0.25 0.60 184.18 0.91 187.85 3.18 882.79 3.87 60.05 12.41 1374.59 3.70
4 BARAN 0.00 0.00 1357.03 6.68 170.61 2.89 16.19 0.07 0.53 0.11 1713.68 4.62
5 BHARATPUR 0.74 0.01 0.00 3150.78 15.50 457.85 7.75 149.58 0.65 0.28 0.06 339.41 0.91
6 BHILWARA 1457.94 16.49 1.31 3.13 609.68 3.00 206.97 3.50 3331.00 14.59 7.25 1.50 2405.68 6.48
7 BUNDI 104.23 1.18 1.45 3.46 1112.91 5.47 203.44 3.44 585.33 2.56 16.47 3.40 1241.52 3.34
8 CHITTAURGARH 310.60 3.51 5.97 14.26 897.56 4.42 310.11 5.25 1836.58 8.04 113.42 23.44 2760.91 7.44
9 DAUSA 8.91 0.10 0.00 845.53 4.16 190.93 3.23 232.32 1.02 0.35 0.07 360.33 0.97
10 DHAULPUR 2.79 0.03 0.00 724.38 3.56 178.49 3.02 471.63 2.07 0.00 567.61 1.53
11 DUNGARPUR 462.62 5.23 0.14 0.33 30.54 0.15 7.32 0.12 2112.76 9.25 50.72 10.48 356.78 0.96
12 JAIPUR 92.04 1.04 0.07 0.17 1090.61 5.37 522.38 8.84 1260.76 5.52 6.75 1.40 1744.88 4.70
13 JHALAWAR 1.10 0.01 0.00 1078.03 5.30 90.66 1.53 13.01 0.06 0.64 0.13 1348.02 3.63
14 KARAULI 12.23 0.14 0.00 1233.97 6.07 213.83 3.62 341.18 1.49 0.07 0.01 2020.64 5.44
15 KOTA 75.92 0.86 0.25 0.60 2136.26 10.51 841.15 14.23 174.00 0.76 9.30 1.92 1350.46 3.64
16 PALI 2301.00 26.02 1.31 3.13 1.31 0.01 8.02 0.14 1845.17 8.08 19.40 4.01 5958.82 16.05
17 RAJSAMAND 946.23 10.70 15.13 36.14 1.77 0.01 1.77 0.03 1550.22 6.79 35.49 7.33 2496.89 6.73
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 16.97 0.19 0.00 1377.74 6.78 111.02 1.88 227.86 1.00 0.49 0.10 891.98 2.40
19 SIROHI 1104.99 12.50 2.37 5.66 4.70 0.02 0.00 1604.41 7.03 18.13 3.75 1351.71 3.64
20 TONK 78.36 0.89 0.00 1536.33 7.56 185.06 3.13 486.76 2.13 4.28 0.88 1097.21 2.96
21 UDAIPUR 597.81 6.76 13.61 32.51 156.43 0.77 87.16 1.47 4396.90 19.25 139.75 28.88 2749.30 7.41
Sum 8842 100.00 42 100.00 20328 100.00 5910 100.00 22837 100.00 484 100.00 37125 100.00

41
6.3 Desertification Status Mapping

Desertification status map of the study was prepared by GIS aided integration
(spatial modeling) of cropping pattern and land use land cover; climatic water balance
component – water surplus / deficit and soil characteristics controlling desertification
processes such as surface soil texture, soil available moisture content, soil salinity & soil
erosion. The spatial variability of rainfall and climatic water balance component – water
surplus / deficit of the study area are presented in Fig. 6.6(a) and 6.6(b) respectively. The
average annual rainfall of the study varies from 300 to 900mm. Annual average water
surplus varies from < 10 to > 30 cm and large area has climatic soil water deficit and
prone to desertification. Based on amount of water surplus / deficit ratings were made
towards desertification proneness.

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

LEGEND

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig. 6.6: (a) Rainfall pattern of study area, (b) Water Surplus of study area

42
 Soil taxonomic association map of the study area is shown in Fig.6.7. Total 233-
soil mapping units are found in the study area and details of soil and terrain

characteristics are presented in Annexure I.

Fig. 6.7: Soil taxonomic association map of the study area.

The soil attributes characteristics selected for desertification status assessment is

shown in Fig. 6.8 (a) to (d). Three dominant surface soil textures viz. sandy, loamy and
clayey are observed in the study area (Fig 6.8 a). Large area 68.10 % is under loamy
surface soil texture and next dominant texture is sandy (16.58%). Sandy soil is highly
prone to wind erosion and has very high risk of desertification. The study area is
categorized into four-soil erosion classes viz. slight, moderate, high and very high (Fig.
6.8b). From the map it can be seen that large areas 47.13 % are under moderate to high
soil erosion problem. High soil erosion area accelerates desertification processes.
Appreciable areas have problem of moderate to strong soil salinity (Fig 6.8 c). Soil
salinity enhances desertification risk by affecting growth of crop / vegetation and destroy
vegetation cover. Map showing spatial variability of plant available soil moisture content
(Fig 6.8 d) was generated by qualitatively inferring soil moisture content based on profile
weighted soil texture. The study is grouped into 6 classes soil moisture availability.

43
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6.8 (a) Surface Texture

Fig. 6.8 (b) Erosion class
Fig. 6.8 (c) Salinity/Sodicity class
Fig. 6.8 (d) Soil moisture availability

44
 The desertification status map of the study area is presented in Fig.6.9 and area
statistics of various categories of degree of desertification are presented in Table.6.4.
high classes for desertification, followed by Jaipur (359.70ssq.km, 2423.89 sq.km,
3554.72 sq.km), Ajmer (186.26sq.km, 422.71 sq.km, 2771.29 sq.km), districts.

N
DESERTIFICATION STATUS MAP
Eastern part of Rajasthan state

Fig. 6.9: Desertification status map of the study area

In the study area it has been found that Pali district has highest area

1150.13sq.km, 2664.37sq.km, 3678.11 sq.km under very high, high, moderately

0 20 40 80 120 160
Kilometers

Fig.6.9 Desertification status map of study area.

Pali, Jaipur and Ajmer districts have more area under sparse vegetated area,
sandy/sand dune, salt affected lands and these districts also received less amount of
annual rainfall and more area under water deficit. In case of Pali district, this district lies
between the Aravali ranges and western arid region. This climatic zone receives annual
rainfall of 30-50 cms. Climatic condition is semi-arid mostly arid. Double crop (other
crop-wheat) is only 0.04 sq.km and 0.01 % the total area, highest area 2301.00 sq.km
(26.02%) under sand dunes/sandy area-single crop (Bajra), single crop (fallow-mustard)
area is only 1.31 sq.km (0.01%). Jaipur, Ajmer districts are lies semi-arid eastern plain
and receives annual rainfall of the region varies from 50-60 cms. Surface water resource
is scarce and so harnessing of ground water resource has been going on at an accelerated
pace. Natural vegetation of the mixed xerophytic and mesophytic type, but owing to
heavy felling of trees, the surface mantle has been robbed of its natural wealth. Jaipur

45
district has very large area 3228.16 sq.km (16.12%) under long fallow land. Tonk district
has highest area 3548.93 sq.km under moderately class for desertification, followed by
Jaipur 2472.70 sq.km and Ajmer 3495.10 sq.km under the moderate category,
respectively and Jhalawar district having less area 392.57 sq.km under moderately class.

Kota district has highest area 1837.00 sq.km under very less vulnerable for
desertification process, followed by Banswara and Jhalawar districts has 812.45 sq.km
and 781.49 sq.km under very less class. Alwar district has very less area 0.04 sq.km area
under very high class Chittaurgarh district has largest area 2971.37 sq.km under less
vulnerable for desertification, followed by Jhalawar (2892.87 sq.km),Udaipur (26.91.23
sq.km) Bhilwara (2419.65 sq.km)and Kota (2123.93 sq.km) districts. Chittorgaurgarh,
Udaipur, and Bhilwara districts lie in low Aravalli hills with the inter-mountain plateau,
deeply dissected by streams and rivers. Annual rainfall varies from 50-95 cms. The area is
rich natural vegetation. Chittorgaurgarh district (1108.53 sq.km) has large area under
open forest. Udaipur district has relatively large area under (1503.78 sq.km and 51.83%)
dense forest.

A Jhalwar and Kota districts lies humid southeastern plain with black soil of this
plateau is fertile and is cultivated of sugarcane, cotton and opium. A large number of
rivers drain this area. This area is rich for agricultural production. The annual rainfall
varies 60-85 cms and area has humid climate. The humidity always high compare to other
climatic zone and all these factors combined together promotes a profuse growth of
natural vegetation. The mountain slopes have an abundance of natural forests. Because of
these factors Chittaurgarh, Udaipur, Bhilwara, Jhalawar and Kota districts less
vulnerability for desertification process.

46
 Table 6.4 Statistics of Desertification status mapping

Rock-out, Built-Up Water

Moderately High(%)
Moderately High

Very High(%)
Moderate(%)
Very Less (%)

Very High
Moderate
Very Less

High(%)
Less(%)

body
High

Sum
Less
District Name
No

1 AJMER 431.20 1.63 3495.10 8.31 2771.29 11.88 422.71 5.77 186.26 10.58 420.17 7727
2 ALWAR 567.84 2.14 2788.68 6.63 861.72 3.69 68.32 0.93 0.04 0.00 3397.26 7684
3 BANSWARA 812.45 17.91 1488.97 5.62 1153.06 2.74 463.11 1.99 0.04 0.00 624.74 4542
4 BARAN 468.17 10.32 1463.56 5.52 770.61 1.83 436.57 1.87 17.42 0.24 1985.43 5142
5 BHARATPUR 0.00 577.77 2.18 3054.15 7.26 378.29 1.62 41.28 0.56 0.25 0.01 606.18 4658
6 BHILWARA 22.48 0.50 2419.65 9.13 4190.60 9.96 1421.54 6.09 200.75 2.74 7.10 0.40 1280.79 9543
7 BUNDI 112.71 2.49 1776.35 6.70 1381.67 3.28 534.90 2.29 364.01 4.97 10.21 0.58 905.25 5085
8 CHITTAURGARH 311.49 6.87 2971.37 11.21 2800.98 6.66 1504.56 6.45 102.07 1.39 0.00 1919.67 9610
9 DAUSA 46.30 0.17 1171.51 2.78 1093.68 4.69 191.92 2.62 11.88 0.68 239.57 2755
10 DHAULPUR 22.69 0.50 1200.64 4.53 1164.02 2.77 73.23 0.31 303.18 2764
11 DUNGARPUR 7.81 0.17 1424.65 5.38 1050.46 2.50 260.49 1.12 5.87 0.08 663.11 3412
12 JAIPUR 0.00 373.59 1.41 2472.70 5.88 3554.72 15.24 2423.89 33.08 359.70 20.44 1072.29 10257
13 JHALAWAR 781.49 17.23 2892.87 10.92 392.57 0.93 99.53 0.43 0.04 0.00 0.00 1478.52 5645
14 KARAULI 7.81 0.17 452.72 1.71 2691.45 6.40 1117.79 4.79 50.33 0.69 0.07 0.00 520.86 4841
15 KOTA 1837.00 40.51 2123.93 8.02 337.96 0.80 297.67 1.28 109.57 1.50 1.59 0.09 1326.46 6034
16 PALI 324.88 1.23 2653.52 6.31 3678.11 15.77 2664.37 36.37 1150.13 65.36 832.75 11304
17 RAJSAMAND 358.99 1.35 1433.55 3.41 1355.65 5.81 259.07 3.54 2108.23 5515
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 50.58 1.12 549.18 2.07 2047.58 4.87 1116.52 4.79 177.32 2.42 5.87 0.33 835.35 4782
19 SIROHI 78.78 1.74 813.90 3.07 1160.98 2.76 1033.28 4.43 113.70 1.55 20.46 1.16 1378.90 4600
20 TONK 0.00 1545.98 5.83 3548.93 8.44 852.64 3.66 86.49 1.18 6.19 0.35 619.81 6660
21 UDAIPUR 21.67 0.48 2691.23 10.16 2311.07 5.49 422.25 1.81 27.11 0.37 4946.85 10420
Sum 4535 26496 42071 23328 7326 1760 27465 132981

47
 6.4 Characterization of present biophysical conditions of the study area

Present biophysical condition of the study area was studied by using MODIS
derived biophysical parameters viz. NDVI, EVI, LAI, Albedo and LST. District and
desertification status zone wise weighted average monthly above-mentioned biophysical
parameters were computed for this purpose.
Monthly NDVI variation of the study area is presented in Fig. 6.10. District and
desertification status zone wise average monthly NDVI variations are presented in Table
6.5 and 6.6 are illustrated in Fig. 6.11, respectively. Monthly variation of EVI of the
district and desertification status zone of the study area are shown in Fig. 6.12
respectively and the district and desertification status zone wise average monthly EVI
values are presented in Table 6.7 and 6.8 The monthly albedo variation of the study area
is illustrated in Fig.6.13. The data pertaining district and desertification status zone wise
average albedo are presented in Fig.6.14, respectively and presented in Table.6.9 and
Table.6.10. Variation of monthly LAI of the study area is illustrated Fig.6.15. The district
and desertification status zone wise variation of monthly LAI are illustrated in Fig. 6.14,
respectively and data are presented in Table.6.11 and Table.6.12.
Fig.6.16 shows monthly variation of LST of the study area and district and desertification
status zone wise average values of LST are shown in Fig. 6.17, respectively and presented
in Table.6.13. and Table.6.14.
Among the districts Udaipur district has highest average values of NDVI, EVI and
LAI. Desertification status zone wise higher values of average Vegetation Indices (NDVI
& EVI) and LAI indicate very less vulnerability for desertification. Very high and high
degree of desertification classes showed lowest values of NDVI, EVI and LAI - because
of sparse vegetation bare landscapes and lack of soil moisture.
All the districts have highest values of albedo in May month. Because this is
period when crop cover is very less and soils also have less amount of moisture. Jaipur
district, which is located in the semi-arid eastern plain of study area, have highest albedo
value through out the year, followed by Dausa, and Ajmer districts. Banswara district,
which is situated in the humid southern plains, has lowest albedo value because of more
area under crop / forest vegetation cover.
Desertification status zone wise average albedo values indicate that very high and
high desertification status have higher values of albedo because of less vegetated area,
more areas under barren landscape and sandy /sand dunes. Very less and less degree of

48
desertification zones showed lower values of albedo because more areas are under
vegetation cover and less area under barren landscape.
Practically no differences in the trends of variation of monthly average values of
LST for the districts and desertification status zone wise were observed. May and
December months have highest and lowest values of LST, respectively.
The relations between among the biophysical parameters were also studied. For
this analysis biophysical parameters data belonging to September and February months
representing peak growth period of Kharif and Rabi season, respectively, were used. The
relationships between the biophysical parameters are presented in Fig.6.18 (for September
month) and Fig.6.19 (for Rabi month). The data in Fig.6.18 and Fig.6.19 indicate that
significant high positive linear relationships exist between NDVI, EVI and LAI. This is
because of the fact that increase in vegetation cover /density vegetation / LAI spectral
indices also increases. Significant inverse linear relationships exist between Abedo vs.
NDVI, Albedo vs. EVI and Albedo vs. LAI. Increase in vegetation cover/density Albedo
decreases and this is the reason for this inverse relationship. However Albedo showed
positive linear relationship with LST. This is because of the fact that less vegetation cover
increases both albedo and LST. Similar significant inverse relationships were also
observed between NDVI vs. LST; EVI vs. LST; and LAI vs. LST. This is because of the
fact that increase in NDVI, EVI and LAI causes lowering of LST due to more
evapotranspiration from vegetated surfaces.

49
Fig. 6.10. Monthly NDVI variation of the study area

50
 Table 6.5 District - wise average monthly NDVI variations

May
District Name/Month June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb March
1 AJMER -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 0.07 0.10 0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.04
2 ALWAR -0.08 -0.05 -0.04 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.17 0.09
3 BANSWARA -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 -0.03 0.25 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.04
4 BARAN -0.09 -0.07 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.01
5 BHARATPUR -0.10 -0.10 -0.08 0.05 0.06 -0.01 0.03 0.17 0.21 0.06
6 BHILWARA -0.10 -0.09 -0.05 0.11 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02
7 BUNDI -0.09 -0.08 -0.06 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.06
8 CHITTAURGARH -0.07 -0.02 -0.01 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.03
9 DAUSA -0.09 -0.08 -0.05 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.15 0.04
10 DHAULPUR -0.12 -0.12 -0.09 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.01
11 DUNGARPUR -0.07 -0.07 -0.11 -0.04 0.23 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.04 -0.01
12 JAIPUR -0.08 -0.07 -0.01 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.05
13 JHALAWAR -0.09 -0.05 0.00 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.01
14 KARAULI -0.10 -0.10 -0.09 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.01
15 KOTA -0.09 -0.07 -0.03 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.18 0.08
16 PALI -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.02 -0.02 -0.06
17 RAJSAMAND -0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.18 0.27 0.17 0.10 0.05 -0.02 -0.05
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR -0.09 -0.08 -0.09 -0.01 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.12 -0.01
19 SIROHI -0.02 -0.02 -0.05 0.08 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.01 -0.03
20 TONK -0.11 -0.11 -0.10 -0.01 0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.01
21 UDAIPUR 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.31 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.01

Table 6.6 Desertification zone-wise average monthly NDVI variations

Zone Name/Month May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb March
1 Very Less -0.07 -0.06 -0.04 0.10 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.10
2 Less -0.05 -0.04 -0.02 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.08
3 Moderate -0.06 -0.04 -0.01 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.06
4 Moderately High -0.06 -0.04 -0.01 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.05
5 High -0.11 -0.09 -0.05 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04 -0.03
6 Very High -0.12 -0.12 -0.10 0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.08

51
Fig. 6.11 District and desertification zone-wise average monthly NDVI and EVI variations

52
Fig. 6.12 Monthly EVI variations of the study area

53
 Table 6.7 District - wise average monthly EVI variations

District Name/Month May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb March
1 AJMER -0.16 -0.15 -0.12 0.04 -0.03 -0.10 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.12
2 ALWAR -0.15 -0.12 -0.08 0.06 0.00 -0.06 -0.06 0.01 0.04 -0.04
3 BANSWARA -0.14 -0.13 -0.05 0.07 0.05 -0.04 -0.09 -0.12 -0.04 -0.10
4 BARAN -0.16 -0.14 -0.07 0.05 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 0.01 0.01 -0.11
5 BHARATPUR -0.15 -0.15 -0.10 0.01 -0.04 -0.11 -0.09 0.03 0.06 -0.06
6 BHILWARA -0.16 -0.15 -0.07 0.08 -0.01 -0.09 -0.11 -0.08 -0.03 -0.09
7 BUNDI -0.15 -0.14 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.04 0.00 0.03 -0.06
8 CHITTAURGARH -0.16 -0.11 -0.02 0.10 0.04 -0.03 -0.07 -0.07 -0.03 -0.09
9 DAUSA -0.15 -0.14 -0.09 0.05 -0.01 -0.10 -0.09 -0.04 0.02 -0.08
10 DHAULPUR -0.17 -0.17 -0.12 0.00 -0.04 -0.09 -0.09 -0.02 0.00 -0.09
11 DUNGARPUR -0.14 -0.12 -0.06 0.06 0.06 -0.02 -0.07 -0.10 -0.08 -0.12
12 JAIPUR -0.15 -0.13 -0.06 0.06 -0.01 -0.09 -0.10 -0.08 0.00 -0.06
13 JHALAWAR -0.17 -0.14 -0.05 0.14 0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0.05 -0.03 -0.12
14 KARAULI -0.16 -0.16 -0.12 0.02 -0.02 -0.10 -0.08 -0.04 0.00 -0.09
15 KOTA -0.15 -0.13 -0.09 0.03 0.00 -0.06 -0.04 0.02 0.06 -0.05
16 PALI -0.14 -0.12 -0.06 0.06 0.01 -0.06 -0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.14
17 RAJSAMAND -0.14 -0.10 -0.01 0.14 0.07 -0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.12 -0.14
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.05 -0.06 -0.10 -0.06 0.01 0.00 -0.11
19 SIROHI -0.11 -0.08 -0.04 0.06 0.03 -0.03 -0.06 -0.07 -0.10 -0.13
20 TONK -0.15 -0.15 -0.12 -0.03 -0.08 -0.12 -0.09 -0.01 0.00 -0.09
21 UDAIPUR -0.10 -0.06 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.06 -0.10

Table 6.8 Desertification zone-wise average monthly EVI variations

Zone Name/Month May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb March
1 Very Less -0.1380 -0.1240 -0.0620 0.0680 0.0200 -0.0430 -0.0380 0.0250 0.0650 -0.0440
2 Less -0.1320 -0.1070 -0.0410 0.0680 0.0090 -0.0550 -0.0450 0.0110 0.0310 -0.0580
3 Moderate -0.1370 -0.1040 -0.0320 0.0610 -0.0080 -0.0580 -0.0580 -0.0070 0.0120 -0.0680
4 Moderately High -0.1370 -0.1110 -0.0400 0.0580 0.0000 -0.0550 -0.0680 -0.0220 0.0070 -0.0650
5 High -0.1660 -0.1510 -0.0890 0.0280 -0.0280 -0.0920 -0.1040 -0.0780 -0.0560 -0.1100
6 Very High -0.1670 -0.1610 -0.1290 -0.0030 -0.0490 -0.1230 -0.1360 -0.1250 -0.1220 -0.1500

54
Fig. 6.13 Monthly Albedo variations of the study area

55
 Table 6.9 District - wise average monthly Albedo variations

District Name/Month May Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March
1 AJMER 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22
2 ALWAR 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17
3 BANSWARA 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16
4 BARAN 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18
5 BHARATPUR 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19
6 BHILWARA 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21
7 BUNDI 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20
8 CHITTAURGARH 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16
9 DAUSA 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20
10 DHAULPUR 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19
11 DUNGARPUR 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.18
12 JAIPUR 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21
13 JHALAWAR 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.16
14 KARAULI 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20
15 KOTA 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.19
16 PALI 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21
17 RAJSAMAND 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
19 SIROHI 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.20
20 TONK 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20
21 UDAIPUR 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17

Table 6.10 Desertification zone-wise average monthly Albedo variations

7

Zone Name/Month May Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March
1 Very Less 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.18
2 Less 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18
3 Moderate 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17
4 Moderately High 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
5 High 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22
6 Very High 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23

56
Fig. 6.14 District and Desertification zone-wise average monthly Albedo and LAI variations

57
Fig. 6.15 Monthly LAI variations of the study area

58
 Table 6.11 District - wise average monthly LAI variations

May June July Aug

Disrict Name/Month Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
1 AJMER 0.500 0.460 0.470 2.568 1.145 0.756 0.550 0.750 0.850 0.850 0.763 0.400
2 ALWAR 0.650 0.692 0.950 2.948 2.307 2.097 1.976 1.936 2.500 1.362 0.894 0.333
3 BANSWARA 0.700 0.600 1.694 2.857 2.973 2.449 1.377 2.095 2.663 2.277 2.102 0.350
4 BARAN 0.438 0.642 1.941 2.948 2.800 2.496 1.797 1.723 2.011 1.196 1.685 0.333
5 BHARATPUR 0.489 0.642 0.540 2.662 1.354 1.055 0.938 2.548 2.548 2.105 0.894 0.438
6 BHILWARA 0.333 0.386 0.862 2.905 2.280 0.911 0.850 1.145 1.926 1.314 0.995 0.386
7 BUNDI 0.386 0.591 0.850 2.354 2.686 1.978 1.232 2.149 2.751 1.700 1.285 0.450
8 CHITTAURGARH 0.489 1.877 1.978 3.000 2.698 2.731 1.949 1.658 2.273 1.718 1.071 0.350
9 DAUSA 0.438 0.642 0.642 2.548 1.365 0.875 0.921 0.894 1.450 0.844 0.642 0.280
10 DHAULPUR 0.280 0.280 0.333 2.153 1.296 1.026 0.750 2.270 2.504 0.894 0.743 0.280
11 DUNGARPUR 0.540 0.793 0.757 2.698 2.605 2.245 1.246 0.750 1.095 1.271 0.657 0.300
12 JAIPUR 0.350 0.550 0.750 2.700 2.110 1.675 1.742 1.135 1.326 0.995 0.750 0.350
13 JHALAWAR 0.438 0.743 1.994 3.098 2.825 1.741 1.104 1.947 2.169 1.892 1.271 0.333
14 KARAULI 0.333 0.386 0.350 2.531 1.593 0.692 1.412 1.853 2.058 1.045 0.650 0.280
15 KOTA 0.438 0.642 1.338 2.655 2.626 2.045 1.676 2.046 2.921 2.022 1.853 0.500
16 PALI 0.500 1.381 1.300 2.855 2.811 2.529 1.665 1.204 0.912 0.844 0.540 0.350
17 RAJSAMAND 0.500 1.258 1.939 3.162 3.117 2.667 1.727 1.047 0.887 0.642 0.550 0.333
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 0.450 0.608 1.000 2.190 1.694 1.141 1.849 2.313 1.681 1.000 0.720 0.300
19 SIROHI 0.700 1.885 2.391 2.857 2.844 2.533 2.120 1.721 1.155 0.793 0.591 0.540
20 TONK 0.350 0.400 0.500 2.357 1.204 0.750 1.757 2.406 1.260 1.033 0.800 0.350
21 UDAIPUR 1.095 2.554 3.177 3.262 3.550 3.262 2.748 2.563 2.205 1.346 0.995 0.350

Table 6.12 Desertification zone-wise average monthly LAI variations

Zone Name/Month May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
1 Very Less 0.743 0.642 1.819 2.998 2.874 2.369 1.888 2.307 2.956 2.520 2.150 0.500
2 Less 0.850 1.150 2.021 3.000 3.077 2.809 2.414 2.642 2.905 2.220 1.826 0.400
3 Moderate 0.657 1.256 2.000 3.065 3.111 2.814 2.100 2.500 2.805 2.010 1.157 0.400
4 Moderately High 0.700 1.308 1.929 3.110 3.021 2.707 1.729 1.919 2.490 1.375 1.228 0.350
5 High 0.350 0.600 1.068 2.881 2.224 1.389 1.192 0.955 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.250
6 Very High 0.280 0.250 0.400 1.686 1.148 0.489 0.536 0.623 0.615 0.575 0.540 0.200

59
Fig. 6.16 Monthly LST variations of the study area

60
 Table 6.13 District - wise average monthly LST variations

District Name/Month May June Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb April
1 AJMER 44.2 44.4 37.4 34.9 33.0 29.5 30.8 42.8
2 ALWAR 43.3 39.3 37.3 34.2 29.9 24.6 26.3 41.2
3 BANSWARA 41.5 40.7 33.1 33.3 34.2 30.1 34.1 42.4
4 BARAN 48.3 44.6 36.5 33.9 31.1 27.4 31.4 42.9
5 BHARATPUR 43.3 44.9 37.9 35.0 30.1 24.6 28.6 42.0
6 BHILWARA 44.2 45.7 35.6 32.4 30.8 28.2 31.2 42.9
7 BUNDI 49.4 48.4 37.1 35.9 31.9 28.9 31.9 45.3
8 CHITTAURGARH 41.2 42.0 35.7 33.3 32.2 28.6 31.4 39.4
9 DAUSA 46.4 44.2 39.9 36.8 32.9 27.4 30.9 46.4
10 DHAULPUR 42.3 44.8 36.7 31.7 29.4 24.6 28.6 42.0
11 DUNGARPUR 40.9 40.1 31.4 31.9 30.9 28.5 31.7 41.3
12 JAIPUR 44.2 43.2 37.1 34.1 31.6 27.8 29.7 43.5
13 JHALAWAR 47.2 45.1 35.7 33.3 32.4 27.7 33.3 45.2
14 KARAULI 42.3 43.9 37.0 34.9 30.3 25.2 29.1 42.3
15 KOTA 47.7 45.1 36.9 33.9 30.5 27.4 30.6 42.7
16 PALI 42.2 43.9 37.1 33.9 33.6 30.8 33.9 43.9
17 RAJSAMAND 45.4 47.9 35.9 32.9 33.9 31.4 36.9 46.4
18 SAWAI MADHOPUR 44.5 44.9 38.4 34.2 29.6 24.2 30.4 42.9
19 SIROHI 41.7 42.2 35.7 32.2 32.2 28.2 34.4 43.2
20 TONK 45.4 44.9 39.9 36.4 32.0 27.0 31.4 42.4
21 UDAIPUR 43.8 43.6 34.1 31.4 30.8 28.3 32.0 42.2

Table 6.14 Desertification zone-wise average monthly LST variations

Zone Name/Month May June Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb April
1 Very Less 47.0 44.8 37.1 34.2 33.6 28.6 31.8 44.8
2 Less 45.5 42.4 36.4 34.6 33.1 28.8 31.6 42.6
3 Moderate 43.1 43.0 36.8 34.6 32.5 27.4 31.6 42.0
4 Moderately High 43.9 43.7 36.3 34.6 33.1 27.5 31.2 42.3
5 High 44.9 44.6 36.5 33.9 32.2 28.5 31.2 43.3
6 Very High 44.2 44.4 37.1 34.5 32.5 29.7 33.5 44.6

61
Fig. 6.17 District and Desertification zone-wise average monthly LST variations.

62
 Albedo and LST Correlation NDVI and LST Correlation
50 40
Temperature (°C) y = 70.07x + 24.272

Temperature (°C)
2
R = 0.4428
40 35

30 30 y = -19.742x + 39.578
2
R = 0.5808

20 25
0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Albedo NDVI

EVI and LST Correlation LAI and LST Correlation

40 40
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
35 35

30 y = -34.961x + 36.639 30 y = -1.7968x + 40.585

2 2
R = 0.5985 R = 0.4363
25 25
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
EVI LAI

Fig.6.18 (a) District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, and Albedo correlation September 2004.

64
 Albedo and LAI Correlation Albedo and NDVI Correlation

0.20 0.4
y = -2.8698x + 0.6564
0.3 R2 = 0.6343

NDVI
LAI

0.15 0.2

y = -0.0124x + 0.2028 0.1

R2 = 0.3391
0.10 0.0
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21
Albedo
Albedo

NDVI and EVI Correlation Albedo and EVI Correlation

0.10
y = -1.3966x + 0.248
0.05 R2 = 0.4864

EVI
EVI

0.00
y = 0.5612x - 0.0835
-0.05
R2 = 0.9586
-0.10 -0.1
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21
Albedo
NDVI

Fig.6.18 (b) District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, and Albedo correlation September 2004.

65
 NDVI and LAI Correlation EVI and LAI Correlation
4.00 4.00

3.00 3.00
LAI

LAI
2.00 2.00
y = 14.578x + 2.217
y = 8.4573x + 0.9564 2
2 R = 0.77
R = 0.7887
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
NDVI EVI

EVI and LST Correlation NDVI and LST Correlation

40.0 40.0
y = -32.316x + 30.635 y = -24.933x + 33.807
2 2
R = 0.5487 R = 0.4588
35.0 35.0
LST

LST

30.0 30.0

25.0 25.0
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 -0.02 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.23
EVI NDVI

Fig.6.18 (c) District-wise correlation of September 2004 NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI and Albedo ,
District-wise correlation of February 2005 NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI and ALbedo

66
 LAI and LST Correlation Albedo and LST Correlation
40.0
40.0 y = 85.164x + 13.448
y = -2.2255x + 34.254 2
R = 0.3818
2
R = 0.2367 35.0
35.0

LST
LST

30.0 30.0

25.0 25.0
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
LAI Albedo

NDVI and EVI Correlation NDVI and LAI Correlation

2.5
0.1 y = 4.6761x + 0.8198
2
R = 0.4909
0.1 2.0

0.0

LAI
EVI

1.5
-0.1
y = 0.8231x - 0.1032 1.0
-0.1 2
R = 0.9516
0.5
-0.2
-0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25
-0.05 0.05 NDVI 0.15 0.25 NDVI

Fig.6.19 (a) District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, and Albedo correlation February 2005.

67
 NDVI and Albedo Correlation EVI and LAI Correlation
2.5
0.3
y = -0.078x + 0.2011 y = 4.6026x + 1.3051
2
R = 0.1711 2.0 2
R = 0.3794
Albedo

LAI
0.2 1.5

1.0

0.2 0.5
-0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
NDVI EVI

EVI and Albedo Correlation

0.3

0.2
Albedo

0.2 y = -0.09x + 0.1952

2
R = 0.1318

0.1
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
EVI

Fig.6.19 (b) District-wise NDVI, EVI, LST, LAI, and Albedo correlation February 2005.

68
CHAPTER-VII

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Desertification is land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas

resulting from the complex interaction of physical, meteorological, biological, socio-
economic and cultural factors. Desertification is one of the serious environmental-
problems faced by many countries in the world. It not only deteriorates the productivity
of the fragile ecosystems but also causes serious environmental and social problems.
Satellite Remote Sensing is a very effective tool for mapping and monitoring
desertification over large areas because of its unique capability of collecting data in multi-
spectral, multi-spatial resolutions, repetitive and synoptically.

The major objectives of this pilot study are - to assess and map spatial
desertification status by GIS aided integration of satellite derived desertification
indicators, soils and climatic conditions; to characterize present biophysical conditions of
desertification induced degraded zones and districts, using satellite derived temporal
biophysical parameters.

The study area consists of 21 districts of eastern part of Rajasthan State, India. On
the basis of climatic conditions and terrain characteristics, study area is divided into 5
Agro-climatic zones - Zone 1: Semi-Arid Eastern Plain (Ajmer, Jaipur, Dausa, Tonk
districts); Zone 2: Flood Prone Eastern Plains (Alwar, Bharatpur, Dhaulpur, Karauli
districts); Zone3: Sub-humid Southern Plains and Aravalli Hills(Udaipur, Rajsamand,
Bhilwara, Chittaurgarh, Sirohi districts); Zone 4: Humid Southern Plains( Dungarpur and
Banswara districts); Zone 5: Humid South-Eastern Plains ( Bundi, Sawai Madhopur,
Kota, Baran, Jhalwar districts).

Digital data of IRS-1D: WiFS satellite sensor belonging to Kharif (rainy) and Rabi
(winter) crop seasons (October, 2004 and February, 2005) of normal rainfall year were
used as major data source. Various MODIS biophysical parameters monthly data products
(May, 2004 to April, 2005) viz. albedo, vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI), land surface
temperature (LST), LAI (Leaf Area Index etc. are also used for characterizing district

69
wise and desertification status zone wise bio-physical conditions for the current crop
seasons.

Crop and land use inventories of Kharif and Rabi crop seasons were prepared by
digital classification respective crop season digital IRS: WiFS data. Cropping pattern map
which is one of the vital inputs of desertification status assessment was prepared by GIS
aided logical integration of Kharif and Rabi seasons, crop and land use maps.
Desertification status map showing various degree of desertification induced ecosystem
degradation was generated by GIS aided integration of satellite derived cropping system
and land use, climatic water balance and soil desertification indicators characteristics viz.
texture, soil available moisture content, salinity/ sodicity and erosion hazard.

Rabi season dominant crops –wheat and mustard and Kharif season dominant
crops –Bajra and other crops (soybean, guar etc.) were identified and mapped by digital
classification of IRS: WiFS data. Very large areas under degraded lands such as
undulating upland (barren / scrub); sand / sand dunes, gullied / ravenous; hills (barren
/rocky) are also mapped by digital classification of WiFS data. Over all more than 85%
classification accuracies were achieved for digital crop and land / land cover mapping. 12
different types of cropping pattern were identified and mapped by GIS aided integration
of Kharif and Rabi seasons cop and land use inventories.
Desertification status map showing spatial distribution of six classes of various
degree of degradation viz. very less, less, moderate, moderately high, high and very high
was generated by GIS aided integration of cropping pattern. Land use, climatic water
balance component (water surplus / deficit) and soil properties information, controlling
desertification process. The percentage of areas under various classes of degree of
desertification status in the study area are –1.67 % very high; 6.94 % high; 22.11 %
moderately high; 6.94% moderate; 25.11 % less; and 4.30 % very less.
The monthly MODIS satellite derived biophysical data of the study area indicated
that very high-to-high desertification status zones have higher values of albedo and lower
values of NDVI, EVI and LAI. This is because of the fact that these areas are mostly
under barren landscape, sand / sand dunes; highly eroded and less vegetated. The reverse
trends have been observed for the very less to less desertification zones.
Significant positive linear relations have been observed between monthly district
wise average NDVI vs. LAI; EVI vs. LAI; Albedo vs. LST; and NDVI vs. EVI. Where as

70
inverse linear relations have observed for NDVI vs. Albedo; EVI vs. Albedo; LAI vs.
Albedo; NDVI vs. LST; EVI vs. LST; LAI vs. LST.

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

The study leads to following conclusions:

• IRS: WiFS digital data with moderately coarser spatial resolution (188m) can be
effectively used for regional crop and land use inventory following digital
supervised classification with acceptable classification accuracy;
• GIS tool is very helpful for generation of spatial cropping pattern inventory by
logical integration of satellite derived multi crop seasons (Kharif and Rabi) crop
and land use inventories;
• Desertification status map showing varying degree of soil and landscapes
degradation can effectively be prepared by following GIS based spatial modeling
approach, using variety of information like cropping pattern; land use / land cover;
climatic water balance component (water surplus / deficit); desertification
controlling soil properties – soil surface texture, water holding capacity, soil
salinity and erosion.
• Public web-domain available various temporal MODIS data products such as
Albedo, NDVI, EVI, LAI, and NPP etc are very useful for temporal
characterization of biophysical conditions of the desert prone areas. Long-term
trends of these biophysical parameters will also provide vital inputs of regional
desertification status mapping and assessment.

71
 GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (1)

Severe affected for desertification

Agricultural field (wheat harvesting)
(Sand dunes with scattered trees)

Severe affected for desertification (sand dunes with scattered trees)

Agricultural field Agricultural field with mustard

72
 GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (2)

Harvested mustard field Current fallow land

Sambar salt lake with salt affected area

Undulating up Lands with forest plantations

Sand Storm

73
 GROUND PHOTOS LU /LC CLASSES (3)

Sandy barren area Barren hills with scrubs Rock-out crops

Dry deciduous forest with undulating area Undulating up lands with barren sparse vegetation

Dry deciduous forest Agricultural field

74
 REFERENCES

A.Farshad and J.Farifteh, 1996, Evaluating land degradation for assessment of land
vulnerability to desert conditions in the Sokoto area, Nigeria, Land
Degradation and Development, vol.7, 205-215.

C.Kosmas, M.Tsara, N.Moustakes and Ch. Karavitis, 2003, Identification of

Indicators for Desertification. Annals of Arif Zone 393-416.

E. Symeoanakis, 2002,Monitoring desertification and land degradation over sub-

Saharan Africa, International Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol.25.No3, 573-
592.

ERDAS, 1997, Erdas Field Guide, 4th Edition (Atlanta, Georgia).

FAO/UNEP, 1983, Guidelines for the Control of Soil Desertification, FAO, Rome (Italy)

Ghosh, T.K and Tripathy, G.K., 1994, Investigations and monitoring of desertification,
Asian-Pacific Remote Sensing Journal, 7:36-40.

Goita, K and Royer, A. 1992, Land surface climatology and land cover change
monitoring sinse 1973 over a north-Sahelian zone using Landsat data, Geocarto
International, 2:15-28

Hute, A.2004, Remote Sensing of soils and soil processes, in book on “Remote Sensing
for narural resource management and environmental monitoring”
(Ed.S.L.Ustin), Manual of Remote Sensing, Vol.4, Pub.American
Soc.forPhotogrammetry and Remote Sensing, pp1-51.

Lal, R. 2001, Soil degradation by erosion, Land degradation and Development, 12: 519-
539.

Laura J.Brown and W.G Nickling, 2003, Desertification and Wind Erosion, Annals of
Arid Zone 42 (3&4): 347-370.

Lecture notes, 2005, RS and GIS Applications in Agriculture and Soil Science, IIRS
(NRSA),

Liping Di, 2003, Resent Progresses on Remote sensing Monitoring of Desertification,

Annals of Arid Zone 371-392.

M.Holmgren, 2003, Facing the Desertification Challenge in a Climatically Fluctuating

World, Annals of Arid Zone, 431-435.

Mariam Akhtar-Schuster, 2003, Causes of Desertification, Annals of Arid Zone, 417-430.

Martin, A.J. Williams and Robert C Balling Jr, 1996, Interactions of Desertification
and climate, World Meteorological Organization United Nations environmental
Programme.

Martin, D., and Saha, S. K., 1999., Land evaluation by integrated use of Remote sensing
and GIS for cropping pattern analysis, In : Trends in Geo-informatics

75
 Technology and Applications, Proceedings of Int. Conf. On Geo-informatics
for natural resource assessment, monitoring and management, organized by
IIRS, Dehradun and ITC, The Netherlands. 134-142.

Resource Atlas of Rajasthan, 1994, Department of Science and Technology

Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

S.K. Saha, Remote Sensing in Inventory and Assessment of Natural Resources Qualit,
IIRS.Dehradun, India.

S.K.Saha and L.M. Pande, 1995, Regional surface albedo and ET modeling using
combination of optical and thermal IR data, In book on “Advances in Tropical
Meteorology” (Ed.R.K. Dutta), Concept Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Siri H. Eriksen, 2003, Climate Change and Desertification: Biophysical Processes and
Livelihood Interactions in the Dry lands, Annals of Arid Zone 231-254.

Soils of Rajasthan for Optimizing Land Use. 1995, National Bureau of Soil Survey and
Land Use Planning (Indian Council of Agricultural Research).

UNEP, 1992, World Atlas of Desertification. London, Edward Arnold, 69p.

UNCCD, National Report on Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification, 2000, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

76
 Web sites:

MODIS main page

http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/
MODIS data products
http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/modis/dataproducts.asp
MODIS land Products
http://modis-land.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
http://www.fao.org
UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification)
http://www.unccd.int/
UN Environmental Programme (UNEP)
http://www.unep.org/
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.wmo.int/

77
 APPENDIX
Table1. Characteristics of dominant soil

SIZE CLASS
CALCAREO

STONINESS
SALINITYA
/ SODICITY
DRAINAGE

DEPTH (m)
PARTICLE

COMPACT
TEXTURE

US CLASS
SURFACE

SURFACE
EROSION
Percentage

WATER

LAYER
DEPTH

SLOPE
CLASS

CLASS

CLASS
SOIL

pH
SOIL TAXONOMY

(%)
No ID Sq.Km
1 95 2857.09 1.77 Ustic Torripsamments,Ustochreptic Camborthids s 6 S 2 4 5 4 c 2
2 102 310.46 0.19 Typic Calciorthids, Typic Camborthids l 3 S 3 5 4 4 b 2
3 103 195.71 0.12 Typic Torriorthents,Typic Camborthids l 3 K 0 6 5 4 c 3 3
4 105 4534.06 2.80 Typic Torripsamments, Typic Camborthids s 6 S 0 5 5 4 c 2 S2l
5 106 469.48 0.29 Typic Torriflivents, Typic Camborthids s 5 R 2 5 5 4 c 3 S2l
6 107 221.36 0.14 Typic Torripsamments, Typic Camborthids s 5 S 0 5 5 4 a 1 0
7 109 31.55 0.02 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Torriorthents
8 110 13.27 0.01 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Torriorthents
9 112 21.28 0.01 Typic Camborthids, Typic Calciorthids s 6 S 0 4 5 4 c 3
10 113 754.09 0.47 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids l 4 M 0 5 5 4 c 2
11 114 2059.81 1.27 Typic Torripsamments, Ustochreptic Camborthids l 3 M 2 5 5 4 b 2
12 115 1304.52 0.81 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids l 4 M 0 5 5 4 b 2
13 116 51.75 0.03 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids l 5 M 0 6 5 4 c 2
14 117 43.14 0.03 Typic Camborthids, Typic Paleorthids l 3 M 0 5 4 4 b 2
15 118 56.55 0.03 Typic Camborthids, Lithic Calciorthids s 6 M 2 5 5 4 b 2
16 119 27.47 0.02 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids s 6 M 0 6 5 4 b 2
17 120 929.04 0.57 Typic Camborthids, Typpic Camborthids l 6 M 0 5 5 4 c 3 S2l
18 122 1962.78 1.21 Typic Camborthids, Typpic Camborthids s 3 R 0 5 5 4 b 2
19 123 526.41 0.33 Typic Camborthids, Typpic Camborthids l 6 M 2 5 5 4 c 3
20 124 782.27 0.48 Typic Camborthids, Typic Torripsamments s 3 R 2 5 5 4 c 2
21 125 132.27 0.08 Typic Camborthids, Typpic Camborthids s 6 R 0 5 4 4 b 2
22 126 58.14 0.04 Typic Paleorthids, Typic Torriorthents s 2 S 3 5 4 4 b 2
23 127 611.41 0.38 Typic Calciorthids, Typic Torripsamments s 5 R 2 5 5 4 c 2
24 128 139.25 0.09 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids l 4 M 3 5 4 4 b 1
25 129 1401.61 0.87 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids l 3 M 0 5 5 4 a 1
26 130 1163.71 0.72 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids s 5 R 0 5 4 4 b 2
27 131 1206.14 0.75 Typic Torripsamments, Typic Camborthids s 6 S 0 6 5 4 b 2

78
28 132 77.56 0.05 Typic Camborthids, Typic Torripsamments s 6 M 0 5 5 4 b 2
29 133 1791.28 1.11 Typic Torripsamments, Typic Camborthids s 5 S 0 5 5 4 c 2
30 135 473.98 0.29 Typic Camborthids, Typic Paleorthids l 3 M 2 5 5 4 c 2
31 136 238.18 0.15 Typic Torriorthents, Rock-out crops l 3 K 0 5 5 4 b 2 3
32 137 169.07 0.10 Typic Torriorthents, Typic Camborthids l 3 K 2 5 5 4 c 3 3
33 138 18.56 0.01 Rock Outcrops, Typic Torripsamments
34 139 600.84 0.37 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Torriorthents
35 141 1035.88 0.64 Typic Camborthids, Typic Camborthids s 5 R 0 6 5 4 b 2
36 152 3142.37 1.94 Ustic Torripsamments, Ustochreptic Camborthids s 6 S 0 5 5 4 c 2
37 157 1367.32 0.85 Typic Torripsamments, Typic Torripsamments s 5 S 2 5 5 4 R c 2
38 167 238.21 0.15 Lithic-Calciorthids, Rock-outcrops l 1 L 2 5 5 4 R b 2
39 170 10402.50 6.44 Rock-outcrops, Lithic Ustorthents
40 171 316.83 0.20 Rock-outcrops, Typic Torriorthents
41 172 2817.53 1.74 Rock-outcrops, Typic Ustochrepts
42 173 205.25 0.13 Rock-outcrops, Lithic Ustorthents
43 174 1073.41 0.66 Rock-outcrops, Aridic Ustochrepts
44 175 97.91 0.06 Lithic Ustorthents,Rock-oucrops l 2 L 0 5 5 4 R c 2 2
45 176 877.61 0.54 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R f 3 3
46 177 198.73 0.12 Lithic Ustorthents, Ustic Torripsamments s 1 K 0 4 5 4 R g 3 3
47 179 62.96 0.04 Rock-out crops, Typic Ustorthents
48 180 15.17 0.01 Typic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 K 0 4 5 4 c 3 3
49 181 84.75 0.05 Rock-outcrops, Lithic Ustorthents
50 182 767.16 0.47 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustorthents l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R f 3
51 183 116.02 0.07 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 1 L 0 4 5 4 R d 3
52 184 40.38 0.02 Rock-outcrops, Typic Ustochrepts
53 185 1144.10 0.71 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 4 R 2 7 5 4 b 2
54 186 13.62 0.01 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 R 0 4 5 4 b 2
55 187 287.25 0.18 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 7 5 4 c 1
56 188 556.49 0.34 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 3 R 0 5 5 4 b 1
57 189 12.14 0.01 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustorthents s 5 S 0 5 5 4 c 3
58 190 1026.30 0.63 Typic Ustochrepts,Lithic Ustorthents l 3 R 0 4 5 4 c 3
59 191 592.49 0.37 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 3 R 2 5 5 4 b 2
60 192 138.79 0.09 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 7 5 4 c 4

79
61 193 824.14 0.51 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 3
62 194 200.33 0.12 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustorthents s 5 S 0 5 5 4 c 2
63 195 64.05 0.04 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 R 0 4 5 4 b 1
64 196 61.93 0.04 Typic Haplustafs, Typic Ustorthents l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 2
65 197 262.14 0.16 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 S 0 5 5 4 c 3
66 199 334.03 0.21 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 5 5 4 c 2
67 201 1131.07 0.70 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 5 5 4 c 2
68 202 959.00 0.59 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 7 4 4 b 2 Nl1
69 203 484.40 0.30 Typic Ustochepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 3 K 2 6 5 4 c 1 3
70 204 241.31 0.15 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 K 0 5 5 4 c 3 3
71 205 106.90 0.07 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 5 5 4 c 3 3
72 206 281.12 0.17 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 d 4 3
73 207 114.63 0.07 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 2 K 0 4 5 4 d 3 3
74 208 91.31 0.06 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustorthents l 1 K 0 4 5 4 c 3
75 209 104.84 0.06 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Haplustalfs l 1 M 0 4 5 4 c 3
76 211 210.55 0.13 Ustic Torripsamments, Aridic Ustochrepts s 6 R 0 4 5 4 c 2
77 212 897.78 0.56 Aridic Ustochrepts, Lithic Torriorthents l 3 R 0 4 5 4 b 2 2
78 214 1254.29 0.78 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 S 0 4 4 4 c 2
79 215 157.28 0.10 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 R 0 5 5 4 c 2
80 216 223.98 0.14 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 5 5 4 b 2 2
81 217 861.45 0.53 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochepts l 3 R 0 4 5 4 c 4
82 218 107.76 0.07 Typic Ustochepts, Rock-outcrops l 3 M 2 5 5 4 b 2 2
83 219 200.90 0.12 Lithic Ustochrepts, Rock-oucrops l 2 L 0 4 5 4 c 2
84 220 252.68 0.16 Typic Ustochrepts, Rock-outcrops l 5 R 0 5 5 4 c 3
85 221 145.79 0.09 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 5 5 4 c 2
86 222 61.47 0.04 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 R 0 4 5 4 b 2
87 223 1555.11 0.96 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 R 0 5 5 4 b 1
88 224 47.78 0.03 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 R 2 5 5 4 c 1 2
89 225 394.02 0.24 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 5 4 c 2
90 226 1234.63 0.76 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 2
91 227 42.61 0.03 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 6 5 4 b 2
92 228 430.53 0.27 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 S 2 4 5 4 c 2
93 229 2216.38 1.37 Typic Haplustafs, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 0 5 5 4 b 1

80
94 230 1019.00 0.63 Aridic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 M 0 4 5 4 b 1
95 231 749.36 0.46 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 6 5 4 b 1
96 232 320.24 0.20 Ustic Torripsamments, Aridic Ustochrepts l 6 S 0 4 5 4 b 3 S2l
97 234 286.18 0.18 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts s 5 R 0 5 5 4 b 2
98 235 382.66 0.24 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 R 0 5 5 4 c 2 2
99 236 2570.16 1.59 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Haplustalfs s 4 M 0 5 5 4 c 2
100 237 697.68 0.43 Aridic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 5 4 b 2
101 238 303.85 0.19 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 2 2
102 239 268.70 0.17 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 5 5 4 c 3 3
103 240 34.11 0.02 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Haplustalfs l 1 K 0 6 5 4 c 3
104 241 772.45 0.48 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustorthents l 4 M 0 4 5 4 c 2
105 242 108.44 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustorthents l 3 M 0 5 5 4 b 2
106 243 439.36 0.27 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 6 5 4 b 1 S2l/N2l
107 244 10161.96 6.29 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 6 5 4 c 2
108 245 2159.68 1.34 Vertic Ustochepts, Typic Chromusterts c 5 F 0 7 5 4 b 2 S2l/N1l
109 246 138.66 0.09 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 2 6 5 4 b 3
110 247 125.46 0.08 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 R 0 7 5 4 b 1
111 248 568.55 0.35 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 4 F 2 4 5 4 b 1
112 249 1015.77 0.63 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 2 4 5 4 b 1
113 250 800.98 0.50 Vertic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts c 5 F 0 7 5 4 c 1
114 251 141.26 0.09 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 0 5 4 4 b 1
115 252 229.89 0.14 Aridic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 4 5 4 c 1
116 253 5355.47 3.31 Typic Ustochrepts, Aridic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 c 1
117 254 135.58 0.08 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 5 5 4 b 2
118 255 92.42 0.06 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 2 5 5 4 c 1 S4l/N3l
119 256 811.32 0.50 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 b 1
120 257 806.03 0.50 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustorthents l 5 M 2 5 4 4 b 1
121 258 3491.09 2.16 Typic Ustochrepts, Vertic Ustochrepts l 4 M 0 5 5 4 c 1
122 259 81.60 0.05 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 4 4 4 b 1
123 260 1020.82 0.63 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 F 2 5 4 4 b 1 S2l
124 261 1038.59 0.64 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 F 2 6 5 4 b 1
125 262 85.29 0.05 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Chromusterts c 4 M 2 5 5 4 c 2
126 263 465.28 0.29 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 0 4 5 4 c 2
127 264 73.54 0.05 Aridic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts c 5 M 2 5 5 4 b 1

81
128 265 620.20 0.38 Typic Ustorthents, Typic zustochepts c 3 M 2 5 5 4 b 1 S4l/N1l
129 266 287.28 0.18 Typic Ustochepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 6 R 2 5 5 4 b 1
130 267 351.17 0.22 Typic Ustochrepts, Vertic Ustochrepts l 4 F 2 5 5 4 b 1
131 268 86.17 0.05 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 5 5 4 c 2
132 269 473.98 0.29 Vertic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 R 2 5 5 4 b 1 S2l
133 270 181.66 0.11 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 F 0 5 4 4 b 1
134 271 271.29 0.17 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 4 4 c 1
135 272 296.24 0.18 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 F 3 5 4 4 b 1
136 273 178.83 0.11 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 F 2 5 4 4 c 1
137 274 475.34 0.29 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 R 0 5 5 4 b 1
138 275 28.46 0.02 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 c 1
139 276 134.79 0.08 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 2 7 5 4 b 1 S2l/N4l
140 277 283.85 0.18 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 2 6 5 4 c 2
141 278 1984.81 1.23 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 0 5 5 4 c 2
142 279 8.45 0.01 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 c 2
143 280 269.51 0.17 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 4 5 4 b 2
144 281 49.70 0.03 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 6 M 2 5 5 4 b 2
145 282 452.04 0.28 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 S 2 7 5 4 c 2
146 283 1235.82 0.76 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 b 2
147 284 728.89 0.45 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 4 5 4 b 1
148 285 207.88 0.13 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 S 0 5 5 4 c 3
149 286 526.62 0.33 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 6 S 0 5 5 4 b 2
150 287 467.60 0.29 Typic Ustipsamments,Typic Ustochrepts s 5 S 2 4 5 4 c 3
151 288 1435.24 0.89 Typic Ustochrepts, Fluventic Ustochrepts l 6 M 2 5 5 4 c 4
152 289 309.98 0.19 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 5 4 c 1
153 290 272.16 0.17 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 0 4 5 4 b 2
154 291 329.49 0.20 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 4 4 b 2
155 292 327.21 0.20 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustifiuvents l 4 R 2 5 5 4 c 2
156 293 979.28 0.61 Lithic Ustorthents, Rock-outcrops l 1 K 0 4 5 4 d 4
157 294 911.71 0.56 Rock-outcrops, Lithic Ustorthents
158 296 118.07 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochepts s 1 K 0 4 5 4 f 3
159 297 443.41 0.27 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 4 R 2 5 5 4 c 2
160 298 186.00 0.12 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 b 2

82
161 299 15.56 0.01 Typic Haplustafs, Typic Ustipamments l 5 R 0 6 5 4 a 1
162 301 148.24 0.09 Typic Salorthids, Typic Salorthids s 6 R 0 5 2 4 b 2 S4e
163 302 4777.22 2.96 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 S 0 4 5 4 c 2
164 303 2788.90 1.73 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 S 0 5 5 4 c 2
165 304 413.03 0.26 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustochrepts s 5 S 0 5 5 4 c 2
166 305 111.67 0.07 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 S 0 4 5 4 b 2
167 307 128.96 0.08 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustipsamments s 6 S 0 4 5 4 c 2
168 308 109.88 0.07 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustifiuvents s 6 S 0 4 5 4 b 2
169 309 200.19 0.12 Lithic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 2 k 0 4 5 4 R c 3 3
170 310 302.38 0.19 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 m 0 6 5 4 b 2
171 311 109.10 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 5 r 0 7 5 4 b 2
172 312 369.85 0.23 Lithic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 m 2 5 5 4 c 3
173 313 200.20 0.12 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 5 m 0 5 5 4 c 2
174 314 126.89 0.08 Typic Ustipsamments, Typic Ustorthents s 5 s 2 4 5 4 c 2
175 315 108.37 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 r 2 6 5 4 c 2
176 316 146.96 0.09 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 1 k 0 6 5 4 c 3 3
177 317 173.87 0.11 Rock-out crops, Lithic Ustorthents
178 318 103.85 0.06 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 1 k 0 4 5 4 c 3 3
179 319 852.66 0.53 Lithic Ustochrepts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 3 k 0 5 5 4 d 3
180 320 1045.59 0.65 Rock-out crops, Lithic Ustochrepts
181 321 145.84 0.09 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 1 k 0 4 5 4 c 3 3
182 322 53.98 0.03 Typic Haplustalfs, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 m 0 4 5 4 c 2
183 323 270.03 0.17 Vertic Ustochrepts, Typic Chromusterts c 3 f 0 5 5 4 c 2
184 324 1476.01 0.91 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustorthents c 3 f 2 5 5 4 b 2
185 325 107.72 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Chromusterts c 3 f 0 5 5 4 b 2 2
186 326 280.83 0.17 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Ustochrepts c 5 f 0 4 5 4 b 2
187 327 513.48 0.32 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Chromusterts l 3 m 0 4 5 4 c 2
188 328 15.86 0.01 Typic Chromusterts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 4 f 0 5 5 4 a 2
189 329 168.46 0.10 Lithic Ustorthents, Vertic Ustochrepts c 1 C 0 4 5 4 R b 1 2
190 330 458.83 0.28 Vertic Ustochrepts, Typic Chromusterts c 4 f 2 5 5 4 b 2
191 331 944.83 0.58 Typic Chromusterts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 4 f 2 5 5 4 b 1
192 332 55.53 0.03 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Pellusterts c 5 f 2 5 5 4 b 1
193 333 875.79 0.54 Vertic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochrepts c 4 f 0 5 5 4 b 1
194 334 76.31 0.05 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Pellusterts c 5 f 2 5 5 4 b 2

83
195 335 449.35 0.28 Lithic Ustorthents, Rock-outcrops l 2 K 0 5 5 4 R e 3 3
196 336 102.64 0.06 Typic Pellusterts, Typic Chromusterts c 3 F 0 5 5 4 b 1
197 337 334.86 0.21 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R f 3 3
198 339 17.08 0.01 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Ustorthents
199 340 3904.05 2.42 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Ustochrepts
200 341 1036.34 0.64 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R f 3 3
201 342 89.86 0.06 Rock Outcrops, Lithic Ustochrepts
202 343 181.18 0.11 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R c 3 3
203 344 25.69 0.02 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 2 2
204 345 502.27 0.31 Lithic Ustorthents, Rock-outcrops l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R c 3 3
205 346 349.07 0.22 Typic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 4 5 4 R f 3 3
206 348 129.55 0.08 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 1 K 0 5 5 4 R c 3 3
207 349 18.60 0.01 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 3 M 0 4 5 4 c 2 2
208 350 767.58 0.47 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 5 4 b 1
209 351 1281.70 0.79 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Chromusterts c 5 F 0 5 5 4 c 1
210 352 2128.98 1.32 Typic Ustochrepts,Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 0 4 5 4 b 2
211 353 189.97 0.12 Vertic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts c 3 F 0 5 5 4 c 1
212 354 176.86 0.11 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 4 M 2 4 5 4 b 1 2
213 355 199.66 0.12 Lithic Ustorthents, Rock-outcrops l 5 M 2 4 5 4 b 2
214 356 240.33 0.15 Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Ustochrepts l 2 K 0 4 5 4 c 3
215 357 1460.72 0.90 Lithic Ustorthents Rock-outcrops l 1 K 0 4 5 4 c 3 3
216 358 61.17 0.04 Typic Ustochrepts, Vertic Ustochrepts l 3 M 2 5 5 4 b 2
217 359 136.24 0.08 Lithic Ustorthents, Lithic Ustorthents l 2 K 0 4 5 4 c 3 3
218 360 238.53 0.15 Lithic Ustorthents, Rock-outcrops l 2 L 0 5 5 4 c 2 2
219 361 461.72 0.29 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustipsamments l 6 R 0 6 5 4 b 2
220 362 326.99 0.20 Fluventic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 c 3
221 363 759.04 0.47 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 M 2 5 5 4 c 4 S4l
222 364 121.02 0.07 Typic Ustochrepts, Lithic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 5 4 c 4 3
223 365 598.08 0.37 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 5 M 2 5 4 4 d 1 3
224 366 383.71 0.24 Typic Chromusterts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 5 F 0 4 4 4 c 1
225 367 2658.01 1.64 Typic Ustochrepts, Typic Ustochrepts l 6 F 2 5 4 4 a 1
226 368 218.60 0.14 Typic Chromusterts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 5 F 2 5 4 4 b 1
227 369 49.15 0.03 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Chromusterts c 4 F 0 5 5 4 b 2 2

84
 228 370 1289.46 0.80 Typic Ustochrepts, Vertic Ustochrepts l 6 M 2 4 5 4 b 1
229 371 249.59 0.15 Typic Chromusterts, Entic Chromusterts c 5 F 0 6 4 4 b 1
230 372 2813.29 1.74 Typic Pellusterts, Typic Chromusterts c 5 F 2 4 5 4 b 1
231 373 147.61 0.09 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Pellusterts c 5 F 0 6 4 4 a 1
232 374 668.63 0.41 Typic Chromusterts, Typic Ustochrepts c 5 F 2 5 4 4 c 1
233 375 114.80 0.07 Typic Chromusterts, Vertic Ustochrepts c 3 F 0 5 4 4 c 2

Key for decoding different parameters

GWD Ground Water Depth
Surface texture Calcareousness Drainage class (m)
s-Sandy 0-Non calc (Nil) 0-Ext.poor 1-Shallow (<1)
l-Loamy 1-Slight (<5) 1-Very poor 2-Mod.shallow(1-2)
c-Clay 2-Moderate (5-15) 2-Poor 3-Mod.deep(2-5)
3-Strong (>15) 3-Imperfect 4-Dep(>5)
Surface stoniness 4-Mod.well
t1-Slight <15% 5-Well Compact layer
t2-Moderate 15-40% 6-Somewhat excessive R-Rock
t3-Strong >40% 7-Excessive

Soil depth Slope class Erosion class Salinity

0-Ext.shallow (<10cm)
1-Very shallow (10-25cm)
2-Shallow (25-50cm)
3-Mod.shallow (50-75 cm)
4-Mod.Deep (75-100cm)
5-Deep (>100cm)
a-Level to nearly level (0-1%) 1-Slight S1-Slight (2-4)
b-Very gently sloping (1-3%) 2-Moderate S2-Moderate (4-8)
c-Gently sloping (3-8%) 3-Severe S3-Mod.strong (8-15)
d-Mod.sloping (8-15%) 4-Very Severe S4-Strong (15-25)
e-Mod.steep sloping (15-30%) S5-Severe (25-50)
f-Steeply sloping (30-50%) S6-Very Severe (>50)
g-Very steeply sloping (>50%)

85
Particle size class Sodicity Soil reaction (pH)
G-Fragmental N1-Slight <5 (ESP) 1-Strongly acidic <4.5
Z-Sandy-skeletal N2-Moderate 5-15 2-Mod.acidic 4.5-5.5
K-Loamy-skeletal N3-Strong >15 3-Slightly acidic 5.5-6.5
P-Clayey-skeletal 4-Neutral 6.5-7.5
S-Sandy 5-Slightly alkaline 7.5-8.5
L-Loamy 6-Mod.alkaline 8.5-9.5
R-Coarse loamy 7-Strongly alkaline >9.5
M-Pine-loamy
T-Coarse-silty
Y-Fine-silty
C-Clayey
F-Fine
V-Very fine

86
 CHARACTERIZATION OF DESERTIFICATION STATUS
BY INTEGRATED USE OF SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING AND GIS:
- A CASE STUDY OF EASTERN PART OF RAJASTHAN STATE

Tuul Batbaldan
Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology of Mongolia.
Juulchiny gudamj-5, 210646, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
E-mail: tuulaibb@yahoo.com
Phone: 00976-11-330197
Mobile: 00976-99122876
MONGOLIA
Project Supervisor:
Dr. S.K.Saha, Agriculture & Soils Division,
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS), Dehradun
Resource Person:
Dr. R.D.Garg, Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing
Division IIRS, Dehradun, India
Abstract
Desertification is land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from
the complex interaction of physical, meteorological, biological, socio-economic and cultural factors.
Desertification is one of the serious environmental-problems faced by many countries in the world. It not
only deteriorates the productivity of the fragile ecosystems but also causes serious environmental and
social problems. Satellite Remote Sensing is a very effective tool for mapping and monitoring
desertification over large areas because of its unique capability of collecting data in multi-spectral, multi-
spatial resolutions, repetitive and synoptically.

The major objective of this pilot project is to map, assess and characterize desertification status
using satellite derived desertification indicators. The study area consists of 22 districts of eastern part of
Rajasthan State, India. Digital data of IRS-1D: WiFS sensor belonging to Kharif (rainy) and Rabi (winter)
crop seasons (October, 2004 and February, 2005) of normal rainfall year were used as major data source.
Desertification status map (see figure) showing various degree of desertification induced ecosystem
degradation was generated by GIS
DESERTIFICATION STATUS MAP N
Eastern part of Rajasthan state aided integration of satellite derived
cropping system and land use,
climatic water balance and soil
desertification indicators
characteristics viz. texture, soil
available moisture, salinity/ sodicity
and erosion hazard. Various MODIS
biophysical parameters monthly data
products (May, 2004 to April, 2005)
viz. albedo, vegetation indices
(NDVI, EVI), land surface
temperature, LAI (Leaf Area Index),
NPP (Net Primary Productivity) etc.
are also used for characterizing
district wise and desertification
0 20 40 80 120 160 status zone wise bio-physical
Kilometers
conditions for the current crop
seasons.

87