See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263297874

Identification of critical soil erosion prone

areas and annual average soil loss in an upland
agricultural watershed of Western Ghats, using
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and...
Article in Arabian Journal of Geosciences June 2014
DOI: 10.1007/s12517-014-1460-5

CITATIONS

READS

215

3 authors, including:
M. V. Ninu Krishnan

Vijith H.

Curtin University

Curtin University Sarawak

7 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

29 PUBLICATIONS 455 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Vijith H.

Retrieved on: 02 November 2016

Identification of critical soil erosion prone

areas and annual average soil loss in an
upland agricultural watershed of Western
Ghats, using analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) and RUSLE techniques
G.S.Pradeep, M.V.Ninu Krishnan &
H.Vijith

Arabian Journal of Geosciences

ISSN 1866-7511
Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1460-5

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Saudi
Society for Geosciences. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1460-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Identification of critical soil erosion prone areas and annual

average soil loss in an upland agricultural watershed of Western
Ghats, using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and RUSLE
techniques
G. S. Pradeep & M. V. Ninu Krishnan & H. Vijith

Received: 7 August 2013 / Accepted: 14 May 2014

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014

Abstract The present work integrates analytical hierarchy

process (AHP) with Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE) model to determine the critical soil erosion prone
areas along with the spatial pattern of annual average soil
erosion rates of an upland agricultural sub-watershed in the
Western Ghats of Kerala, India. The critical soil erosion prone
areas were identified by integrating geo-environmental variables such as land use/land cover, geomorphology, drainage
density, drainage frequency, lineament frequency, slope, and
relative relief after determining its relative contribution in
conditioning the terrain susceptible to soil erosion by AHP
technique, in a raster-based Geographic Information Systems
environment. The spatial pattern of average annual soil erosion rates was obtained by RUSLE model that consider five
factors, viz., rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodability (K), slope
length and steepness (LS), cover management (C) and conservation practice (P) factors. The soil erosion probability map
prepared by the AHP method was reclassified into soil erosion
severity map showing regions of different erosion probability.
Among this, the critical erosion zone occupies 4.23 % of the
total area followed by high erosion severity zone occupies
18.39 % of the study area. Nil and low zones together constitute 44.15 % of the total area. The assessed annual average soil
loss from the watershed shows an increased value of
4,227 t1 h1 year1 as the maximum loss. The crosscomparison of potential soil erosion severity map with annual
average soil loss in the area validates the finding of the study
by a high spatial correlation. More erosion proneness and
annual loss were observed in areas where the side slope
G. S. Pradeep : M. V. N. Krishnan : H. Vijith (*)
Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (HVRA) Cell, Kerala State
Disaster Management Authority, Institute of Land and Disaster
Management, P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala 695 038,
India
e-mail: vijithh@gmail.com

plateau, denudational slope, and valley fills comes with high

slope and relative relief. The intense terrain modification in
this area with improper soil conservation measures makes the
watershed more vulnerable to soil erosion.

Keywords AHP . RUSLE . Western Ghats .

Geomorphology . Geographic information system

Introduction
The influence of soil erosion on land degradation, water
quality, and agricultural production and environments has
long been identified as adverse problems for human sustainability (Sharda et al. 2013). Soil erosion and associated land
degradation are extreme in headwater regions of the river
catchments. River catchments are dynamic and vulnerable
systems that can change markedly when exposed to different
natural denudational process and anthropogenic impacts. Soil
erosion is the most serious environmental problem that
threatens the world today by reducing the acreage of agriculture and agriculture production through losing the topsoil and
nutrients from the soil (Hoyos 2005; Hlaing et al. 2008;
Arekhi et al. 2012; Prasannakumar et al. 2011a, b, 2012). In
India, the soil erosion is more severe in the Himalayan ranges,
northeastern states, and the Western Ghats, together constitute
45 % (130 Mha) of the total geographic area, which is affected
by serious soil erosion through ravines and gullies, shifting
cultivation, cultivated wastelands, sandy areas, deserts, and
water logging. Among this 93.68 Mha of land is influenced by
hydrologically controlled soil erosion (Narayan and Babu
1983; Anon 2008, 2009; Singh et al. 1992; Pandey et al.
2007).

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

The headwater regions of rivers originating from the Western

Ghats are experiencing severe terrain modification and associated climatic changes and ecological degradation, contributing
soil erosion and sedimentation. The areas selected for the present study are classified as highly prone to landslides (debris
flow), during the southwest and northeast monsoon period.
Large numbers of studies are reported on the landslides susceptibility of the region by a number of researchers and scientists
using different methodologies and approaches (Vijith and
Madhu 2007, 2008; Vijith et al. 2009), but studies related to
soil erosion are very rare. Some of the studies reported on the
other parts of the state particularly related to theme soil erosion
and are done for very small catchment/sub-watershed areas
(Misra et al. 1984; Prasannakumar et al. 2011a, b, 2012).
Reports on the low agricultural productivity, shifting pattern of
land use, abandoned agricultural practices, excessive surface
runoff, and heavy sediment delivery associated with intense
rainfall and the drying up of mountain streams necessitated the
need for the assessment of spatial vulnerability of soil erosion
and quantification of soil loss from the area. The assessment
spatial pattern of soil erosion potential of the area and the
average annual loss can be achieved through the application of
geospatial technologies by utilizing different spatial models and
methods. The various techniques and methods used for the soil
erosion spatial vulnerability assessment and quantification of
soil loss can be found in Lal (1994), Ni and Li (2003), Lee
(2004), Dabral et al. (2008), Rahman et al. (2009), Zhang et al.
(2009), Kim et al. 2012, Vijith et al. (2012), Alexakis et al.
(2013), Arar and Chenchouni (2013), Khosrokhani and Pradhan
(2013), Naqvi et al. (2013), and Rozos et al. (2013). The results
of the study will serve as the baseline data for developing
site/terrain specific agricultural practices, which will reduce the
severity of land degradation in the area.
The highlands of the Western Ghats of Kerala are highly
vulnerable to soil erosion and other mass wasting processes,
due to its highly undulating topography, high terrain gradient,
torrential rainfall, and increased runoff due to unscientific and
unethical terrain modification for various developmental and
agricultural purposes. In the present study, an attempt has been
made to assess the spatial vulnerability of soil erosion in an
upland agricultural catchment of river Meenachil using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and also to quantify the annual average soil loss through the application of remote sensing and geographical information system based implementation of RUSLE model. The techniques employed in the assessment and quantification of soil loss are detailed in
Methodology.

Study area
The study area is delimited with the upland sub-watershed of
river Meenachil, namely, Kalathukadavu and Poonjar together

constitute an area of 218.44 km2, which extends between the

north latitude 935950 and east longitude 76407700
(Fig. 1). The study area represents part of the Western Ghats in
Kerala, which exhibit moderate to highly undulating and
rugged topography with a mean elevation of 1,200 m above
msl with a dominant northwesterly slope. Geologically, the
area falls in the Precambrian terrain, and the major rock types
found in the study area are dolerite dykes, pink/gray granite,
biotite gneiss, charnockite, and quartzite. Of this, charnockite
occupies the majority (94.41 %) of the area with lateritic over
burden. Geomorphologically, the sub-watershed is characterized by steep structural hills with side slope plateau,
denudational hills, residual mounds, and valley fills with thick
vegetation cover. The soil texture is gravelly clay followed by
gravelly clay loam, which is well drained with very slow
permeability. The area experiences good to high rainfall during the southwest monsoon (JuneAugust) and northeast
monsoon (OctoberDecember) seasons. The measured annual
average rainfall varies from 3,000 to 3,200 mm exhibits a wet
climatic condition with a mean minimum and maximum
temperature of 20 and 34 C, respectively. Land cover types
of the area vary from grassland in the upper portion of the hills
to rubber plantations, tea, and other crops. Mixed forest,
escarpments, and cleared areas were also identified in the area.
The flanks of the hills and both the structural hills and
denudational hills are undergoing rapid terrain modifications
and shifting cultivation, which makes the area more susceptible to soil erosion, landslides, and related environmental
degradations.

Methodology
Analytical hierarchy process
In order to identify and map critical areas of soil erosion, in the present study, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) technique was used to analyze the contribution of various thematic maps, which are prepared
from diverse data sources. Analytical hierarchy process
is a decision support system designed to seek optimum
decision making for a complex circumstances through
hierarchical structure, which is comprised of targets to
be attained, various criteria for decision making, and
alternatives to be selected (Saaty 1980, 1994; Saaty
and Vargas 2001). This is a semiqualitative method,
which involves a matrix based on pair-wise comparison
of the contribution of different factors. In AHP method,
factors are compared with each other to obtain the
relative preference of each factor and are expressed in
terms of numeric values. The elements of the matrix is
can be expressed as (Eq. 1)

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Fig. 1 Study area location map

a11 a12 ::a1n

a
a22
a2n
A 21
aij ::
an1 an2
ann

where
aij wi=wj

matrix. The matrix was prepared randomly so some degrees of

inconsistency may occur (Saaty 1980, 1990, 1994). Hence,
the consistency ratio, which is an index of inconsistency, is
given by Eq. 2.
CR

Weight for attribute i

Weight for attribute j

Once the pair-wise comparison is completed, the next step

is to calculate the weight of the matrix. There several methods
for finding out the weights. In the present study, eigenvector
method was used for deriving attribute weights, which are one
of the most popular methods of calculating preferences from
inconsistent matrices of pair-wise comparison (Saaty 1990).
The principal eigenvector of the matrix provide the weight
values of each factor and is computed by, summing up the
values in each column of the pair-wise comparison matrix,
and then, the values in each cell is divided by the summed
values of the same factor column. The mean values of each
row were the primary eigenvector of the pair-wise comparison

CI
RI

where CI is the consistency index, and RI is the consistency

index for a random square matrix of the same size. Consistency ratio (CR) should be lower than or equal to 0.1. The
commission and omission of a variable in the analysis will
depend on the value of CR. When the CR is >0.1, the variable
will be omitted and is <0.1, the variable will be incorporated in
the analysis. The CI can be calculated using the Eq. 3
CI

max n
n1

where max is the largest eigenvalue of A, and n is the order

of the square matrix. If A is perfectly consistent, then max will
be at a minimum and equal to n, producing a CI to zero. As

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

inconsistency increases, max increases, producing a large

value of CI.
The AHP-based techniques were used in the number of
studies in earth system sciences particularly in landslide susceptibility assessment, site suitability analysis, mineral mapping, and groundwater studies (Wu and Wang 2007; Youssef
et al. 2011; Pourghasemi et al. 2012; Chandio et al. 2013;
Kaliraj et al. 2013; Althuwaynee et al. 2014; Fattahi et al.
2014; Navarro et al. 2014; Pazand et al. 2014; Yang et al.
2014). In the present analysis, seven geo-environmental variables such as slope, relative relief, land use/land cover, land
form, drainage density, drainage frequency, and lineament
frequency were generated and integrated in the Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) platform for assessing the soil
erosion severity of the area. In order to evaluate the representative influence of each variable and feature classes, different
rating criteria were applied after assessing the influence of
each variables in conditioning the terrain susceptible to soil
erosion and were used in the further analysis.

RUSLE-based annual soil loss estimation

Soil erosion is one of the biggest geo-environmental problems
that cause a series of ecological issues, which threaten the
agricultural and hydrologic systems in the world. The methods
of quantifying soil loss from agricultural lands and hill slopes,
based on erosion plots, possess many limitations in terms of
cost, representativeness, and reliability of the resulting data.
Soil erosion models provide the ways of quantifying soil erosion rates from various landscapes. The Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE) is an empirical erosion model designed to predict long-time average annual soil loss by runoff
from a place of interest for any number of scenarios involving
cropping systems, management techniques, and erosion control
practices (Millward and Mersey 1999; Kouli et al. 2009;
Bonilla et al. 2010; Meusburger et al. 2010; Intarawichian
and Dasananda 2010; Park et al. 2011). The present study uses
the RUSLE model to predict annual soil loss in the upland
agricultural watershed in the Western Ghats because this model
gives the best results in predicting the erosion rates of ungauged
catchments, using the knowledge of catchment characteristics
and local hydro-climatic conditions.
RUSLE estimates annual average soil loss as the product of
a number of factors that have been measured for all climates,
soil types, topography, and kinds of land. These factors are
combined in a number of formulas, which return a single
number, the computed soil loss per unit area, equivalent to
erosion in tons per hectare per year (Renard et al. 1997). It can
be expressed as (Eq. 4)
A R  K  LS  C  P

where A is the computed spatial average soil loss over a period

selected for R, usually on yearly basis (t h1 year1), R is the
rainfallrunoff erosivity factor [MJ mm/(ha h year1)], K is the
soil erodibility factor [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)], L is the slope length
factor, S is the slope steepness factor, C is the cover and
management factor, and P is the conservation supportpractices factor. The LS, C, and P values are dimensionless.

Generation of critical soil erosion prone areas

and assessment of annual average soil loss
Soil erosion probability zones
To frame proper soil conservation methods and models, it is
also important to identify and delineate the soil erosion prone
zones, based on its severity and criticality. In the present study,
AHP-based methodology was adopted to identify and demark
the zones more susceptible to soil erosion. It is a multiple
criteria decision-making technique that allows subjective as
well as objective factors to be taken into account in the
decision-making process (Malczewski 1999; Pandey et al.
2007; Ahmed 2009; Vijith et al. 2012; Yasser et al. 2013).
Before integrating various thematic maps in GIS for the production of soil erosion probability zones, individual themes
and representative features contribution were assessed by
building a hierarchy of decision elements (factors) and then
making comparisons between possible pairs in a matrix to
give a weight for each element and also a consistency ratio.
The seven individual factors, viz., land use/land cover, geomorphology, drainage density, drainage frequency, lineament
frequency, slope, and relative relief (Fig. 2), were considered
in the present analysis, and the pair-wise comparison matrix,
ratings, and consistency ratio of the data layers and feature
classes are given in Table 1 and their characteristics are
discussed below.
The theme land use/land cover represents the present land
use practices in the area including both natural and man-made
features. In the present study, land use/land cover was demarcated from satellite image using the standard methods of
visual interpretation of remote sensing data and associated
field verification. Various land use/land cover classes delineated include bushes/shrubs, cleared area, grass land, crop
land, tea, and rubber (plantations), built-up land, escarpment,
and water body, and among these, rubber plantation occupies
most of the area. The weight determination process indicates
strong contribution of areas having bushes/shrubs followed by
cleared area and crop lands. Geomorphological mapping involves the identification and characterization of the fundamental units of the landscape. The underlying lithology, slope,
and the type of existing drainage pattern influence the genesis
and processes of different geomorphic units. Significant

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Fig. 2 Geo-environmental variables used for the preparation of soil erosion probability map: (a) land use/land cover, (b) geomorphology, (c) drainage
density, (d) drainage frequency, (e) Lineament frequency, (f) elevation, (g) slope, and (h) relative relief

geomorphic units are identified based on their image characteristics, including plateau, side slope plateau, structural hill,
escarpments, denudation slope, residual mounds, pediment,
valley fills, and water body. Among the features, the side slope
plateau, valley fill, and denudational slope show maximum
ratings in the AHP analysis.
Drainage density is used to measure stream spacing, and a
higher drainage density represents a relatively higher number

of streams per unit area and thus a rapid storm response. In

mountainous regions, drainage density provides an indirect
measure of groundwater conditions, which have an important
role to play in the landslides and other erosional activities.
Drainage density is described as the ratio of the sum of the
drainage lengths in the cell and the area of the corresponding
cell. A drainage density map is prepared after computing
density for each cell using GIS for 1 km2. The values obtained

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Fig. 2 (continued)

range from 211 to 4,343 m/km2, which is finally classified into

three classes of high, moderate, and low drainage densities.
The spatial representation of high and moderate drainage
density zones has more ratings in the AHP analysis, which
directly points towards greater erosion potentiality of the
representative zones. Drainage frequency, which represents
the number of drainages present in the unit area, is an indirect
measure of erosion potential of the area and the more number
represent rapid erosion zones of loose and unconsolidated
materials in the high mountainous regions. In the analysis,

the unit area was set to be 1 km2, and frequencies of the

drainages were rated. The resultant drainage frequency map
showed a frequency value ranging from 0 to 5, which was then
reclassified into low (2 nos./km2), moderate (24 nos./km2),
and high (>4 nos./km2). The rating value, which denotes the
role of individual feature class in making the terrain vulnerable to soil erosion, was maximum in the class representing a
high drainage frequency zones.
Fractures that cross-cut the crustal feature and rocks are
generally considered as lineaments and are inferred from the

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci
Table 1 Pair-wise comparison matrix, ratings, and consistency ratio of the feature classed and data layers
Factors
Land use/land cover

1
1
9
2
8
3
2
1
1
1

2
1/9
1
2/9
8/9
3/9
2/9
1/9
1/9
1/9

3
1/2
9/2
1
4
3/2
1
1/2
1/2
1/2

4
1/8
9/8
2/8
1
3/8
2/8
1/8
1/8
1/8

5
1/3
3
2/3
8/3
1
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3

6
1/2
9/2
1
4
3/2
1
1/2
1/2
1/2

7
1
9
2
8
3
2
1
1
1

8
1
9
2
8
3
2
1
1
1

9
1
9
2
8
3
2
1
1
1

Ratings
0.0357
0.3214
0.0714
0.2857
0.1071
0.0714
0.0357
0.0357
0.0357

Plateau
Sideslope plateau
Structural hill
Escarpments
Denudational slope

1
9
4
1
7

1/9
1
4/9
1/9
7/9

1/4
9/4
1
1/4
7/4

1
9
4
1
7

1/7
9/7
4/7
1/7
1

1/8
9/8
4/8
1/8
7/8

1/2
9/2
2
1/2
7/2

1
9
4
1
7

1
9
4
1
7

0.0294
0.2647
0.1176
0.0294
0.2059

Valley fill
rm
Pediments
River
Consistency ratio: 0.0014

8
2
1
1

8/9
2/9
1/9
1/9

2
2/4
1/4
1/4

8
2
1
1

8/7
2/7
1/7
1/7

1
2/8
1/8
1/8

4
1
1/2
1/2

8
2
1
1

8
2
1
1

0.2353
0.0588
0.0294
0.0294

1,000 m/km2 (1,500)

1
5
9

1/5
1
9/5

1/9
5/9
1

0.0667
0.3333
0.6000

2
24
>4
Consistency ratio: 0.0005

1
6
9

1/6
1
9/6

1/9
6/9
1

0.0625
0.3750
0.5625

Low
Medium
High

1
5/2
7/2

2/5
1
7/5

2/7
5/7
1

0.1429
0.3571
0.5000

05
510
1025
2535
>35
Consistency ratio: 0.00014

1
3
5
7
9

1/3
1
5/3
7/3
3

1/5
3/5
1
7/5
9/5

1/7
3/7
5/7
1
9/7

200 m/km2

1
4
7
9

1/4
1
7/4
9/4

1/7
4/7
1
9/7

1/9
4/9
7/9
1

Bushes and shrubs

Cleared area
Grass land
Crop land
Rubber
Tea
Built-up-land
Escarpment
Waterbody
Consistency ratio: 0.0015
Geomorphology

Drainage density
2

1,0002,000 m/km (3,000)

>2,000 m/km2 (>3,000
Consistency ratio: 0.0021
Drainage frequency

Lineament frequency

Consistency ratio: 0.0077

Slope
1/9
3/9
5/9
7/9
1

0.0400
0.1200
0.2000
0.2800
0.3600

Relative relief
201400 m/km2
401600 m/km2
>600 m/km2

0.0476
0.1905
0.3333
0.4286

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci
Table 1 (continued)
Factors
Consistency ratio: 0.0039
Data layers
Land use/land cover

8/5

8/3

8/6

8/9

8/7

0.2051

Geomorphology
Drainage density
Drainage frequency
Lineament frequency
Slope
Relative relief
Consistency ratio: 0.0014

5/8
3/8
6/8
1/8
9/8
7/8

1
3/5
6/5
1/5
9/5
7/5

5/3
1
2
1/3
3
7/3

5/6
3/6
1
1.6
9/6
7/6

5
3
6
1
9
7

5/9
3/9
6/9
1/9
1
7/9

5/7
3/7
6/7
1/7
9/7
1

0.1282
0.0769
0.1538
0.0256
0.2308
0.1795

satellite images. These lineaments certain time makes the

terrain more susceptible to different geological and
denudational processes. In the present study, lineaments extracted from visual interpretation of georeferenced IRS P6
LISS 3, 23.5 m satellite imagery. These inferred lineaments
were used for the preparation of the lineament frequency map,
which enables the analyst to demarcate highly fractured areas.
The classified lineament frequency was analyzed to derive the
ratings of each class, and it was found that the high frequency
class showed the maximum rating value of 0.50.
Stability and degradation proneness of a terrain can be
directly abstracted by assessing the general slope of the area.
Slope identifies the steepest downhill angle for a location on a
surface with respect to a horizontal. Slopes affect the velocity
of both surface and subsurface flow and hence soil water
content, soil formation, erosion potential, and a large number
of important geomorphic processes. Digital elevation model
(DEM) derived using the digitized contour information from
the topographical map was used for the preparation of a slope
map. The slope of the terrain varies from 0 to 65, which are
further classified into five classes like 05 (gentle), 510
(moderate), 1025 (high), 2535 (very high), and >35
(steep) for the present analysis. Areas, which come under the
steep slope class, show a high rating of 0.36 followed by the
very high slope class. Relative relief of an area represents the
change in elevation in a unit area. The higher the difference,
the more are the chances of losing the stability angle. Thus, in

two slopes having identical geo-mechanical and geometrical

parameters, except for height, the higher slope will be more
susceptible to erosion and other degradation processes. The
relative relief map was generated from the elevation map
using the neighborhood range function showing a value ranging between 20 and 826 m/km2 and reclassified into four
classes, i.e., <200 m/km2, 201400 m/km2, 401 600 m/
km2, and >600 m/km2, with relative rating values varying
from 0.0476 to 0.4286.
Spatial integration of thematic data sets and production of
soil erosion probability zones were started by assigning the
calculated ratings to each feature class and features. Before
integrating in raster calculator, the CR of each factor was
closely studied to determine its candidature in the production
of final soil erosion probability map. As suggested by Saaty
(1977), the CR cutoff was fixed at 0.1, in which none of the
factors considered in the present analysis were close to the
above value. Using the map algebra given (Eq. 5), the final
soil erosion probability map (SEPM) was produced using a
weighted linear sum procedure in GIS.
SEPMrt Land use=land cover  0:2051rt geomorphology
 0:1282rt drainage density  0:0769
rt drainage frequency  0:1538rt lineament frequency
 0:0256rt slope  0:2308rt relative relief
 0:1795rt ratingsrelative weights
5

Table 2 Monthly rainfall data with annual average R factor (MJ mm ha1 h1 year1)
Year January February March April

May

June

July

August September October November December Annual Annual

rainfall average R

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

443.20
696.60
252.20
194.60
377.50

667.10
552.10
820.80
357.10
500.40

832.70
564.00
1,072.30
859.50
684.80

309.90
326.60
394.80
618.50
404

129
0.30
0
0
2.20

6.00
0.00
20.20
85.50
1.20

137.60
149.40
32.30
395.90
276.70

325.80
377.20
460.40
215.50
137.80

760.20
417.00
632.60
467.40
402.80

437.20
411.00
561.70
455.50
323.50

193.10
491.10
369.90
156.80
311.50

62.00
0
13.20
19.00
187.10

4,303.8
3,985.3
4,630.4
3,825.3
3,609.5

661.90
494.23
928.19
606.24
400.85

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Annual average soil loss

The five parameters, which define the average annual soil loss
in an area, were derived from various data sources for attributing into the RUSLE equation. The details of the parameters
derived are considered below.
Rainfall erosivity (R)
The rainfall erosivity (R) factor has the lead role in estimating
annual average soil erosion, which quantifies the mixed effect
of rainfall action and runoff on the soil erosion (Wischmeier
and Smith 1978). The R factor is the most difficult one to
calculate compared to other five parameters in RUSLE because of the non-availability of continuous monitoring of
rainfall for a period of time. In the present analysis, R factor
is calculated from rainfall data of 5 years (20052009)
collected from the Indian Meteorological Department for a
single rain gauge station in the central part of the study area,
using the simplified formula developed by Wischmeier and
Smith (1978) and modified by Arnoldus (1980):
R

X12
i1

Piz
1:735  101:5log10 P 0:08188

where R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm ha1 h1 year1),

Pi is the monthly rainfall (mm), and P is the annual rainfall
(mm). In the present study, the R factor value of the entire study
area is considered as uniform, due to similar terrain characteristics and non-availability of adjoining rain gauges. The rainfall
erosivity factor (R) for the years 20052009 was found to be in
the range of 400.85928.19 MJ mm ha1 h1 year1, respectively. The highest value (928.19 MJ mm ha1 h1 year1) of R
factor was observed in the year 2007 and the lowest value
(400.85 MJ mm ha1 h1 year1) was observed in the year
2009. The average R factor was observed to be
618.28 MJ mm ha1 h1 year1 and was used for further
calculation.
Soil erodability factor (K)
The soil erodability (K) factor indicates the susceptibility of
soils to erosion and is directly controlled by soil and geological
characteristics, such as parent material, texture, structure, organic matter content, porosity, etc. (Wischmeier 1971). Soil
texture map prepared by the soil survey organization, Kerala,
was used for the preparation of K factor map after performing
the ground truth verification. Major soil textural classes found
in the area are sandy clay loam, gravelly loam, gravelly sandy
clay, and gravelly sandy clay loam. The corresponding K
values for the soil types were identified from the soil
erodability nomograph (USDA 1978) by considering the
particle size, organic matter content, and permeability

class. The estimated K values for the textural groups vary from
0.14 (gravelly sandy clay), 0.20 (gravelly clay loam), 0.27
(sandy clay loam), and 0.37 (gravelly sandy clay loam).
Central points for each class of soil type were generated in
GIS, and each K values were added to these points in order to
make a continuous surface using the inverse distance weighted
interpolation method for generating spatial distributed K factor
map (Fig. 3a). The spatial map of K factor showed a maximum
value of 0.36 t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1with a mean and standard
deviation values of 0.20 and 0.030 t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1,
respectively.
Slope length and steepness factor (LS)
The slope length and steepness factor, in the RUSLE equation,
account the topographic controls over soil erosion, which
affect the yield and transportation of the sediments. The LS
factor is the combination of slope length (L) and steepness (S)
in which the former controls the sediment detachment and
generation and the latter controls the movement of these
sediment in response to heavy rainfall and related runoff.
Numerous methods have been proposed to improve the calculation of the topographic factor LS, but in this study, LS was
derived from the DEM using the equation (Eq. 7) put forward
by Moore and Burch (1986a, b). For the generation of the
factor using this equation, geographical information system is
used.
LS flow accumulation  cell size=22 : 130:4
 sinslope=0:08961:3

where LS is the combined slope length and slope steepness

factor, flow accumulation denotes the accumulated upslope
contributing area for a given cell, cell size is the size of grid
cell (for this study 20 m), and sin slope is the sin of slope angle
in degrees. The LS factor derived is presented (Fig. 3b), and
the value ranges from 0 to 81, with mean and standard deviation of 19.39 and 16.58, respectively. The spatial distribution
map shows the concentration of high LS values in elevated
areas, which shows sudden changes in slope and elevation.
Cover management factor (C)
This factor describes the effects of crops and management
practices on soil loss rates. It is therefore widely used for
conservation practices assessment. The C factor is the condition
of land on the basis of vegetation strength. It evaluates the effect
of rainfall and runoff over the canopy and ground cover over
the soil erosion (Prasannakumar et al. 2012). High C factor
values indicate more vulnerability to soil erosion, as they are
considered to be unprotected barren land. In the present study,
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)-based

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of RUSLE parameters: (a) K factor, (b) LS factor, (c) C factor, and (d) P factor

assessment of C factor was carried out by the Eq. 8. This

equation is effectively used by many researchers for finding
out the spatial distribution of C factor (Kouli et al. 2009;
Prasannakumar et al. 2012). The spatial distribution of crop
management (C) factor is given in Fig. 3c.


NDVI
C exp
NDVI


8

where and are unit less parameters that determine

the shape of the curve relating to NDVI and the C
factor. Van der Knijff et al. (2000) found that this
scaling approach gave better results than assuming a
linear relationship, and the values of 2 and 1 were
selected for the parameters and , respectively. In
the present analysis, the C factor ranges between 0.001
and 0.576, with a mean and standard deviation of 0.108
and 0.082, respectively.

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Conservation practice factor (P)

The P factor accounts for the effect of soil loss due to specific
support practices and the contour tillage effect (Wischmeier and
Smith 1978; Renard et al. 1997; Dabral et al. 2008). In the
present study, the P factor map was derived from the land use/
land cover and support factors (Fig. 3d). The values of P factor
ranges from 0 to 1, in which the highest value is assigned to areas
with no conservation practices (cleared areas and grasslands),
and minimum values correspond to built-up land and plantation
area with contour cropping. In the study area, most of the rubber
plantations and crop lands are converted as terraced by making
contour bunds. These reduce the rapid flow of water by checking
the velocity and allowing settling down the sediments. Hence,
these areas are comparatively safer zone compared to other areas,
which do not have any protection measures.
All the RUSLE parameters derived were multiplied using a
geographical information system to produce the spatial distribution map of annual average soil loss in the area, and the
results are detailed in the following sections.

Results and discussion

Analyses were performed with the aim of identifying and
delineating the potential soil erosion prone zones and annual

average soil erosion rate in the area, which underwent rapid

terrain modification through shifting cultivation and developmental activities. Both the analyses were performed in the
spatial analyst extension of ArcGIS software, utilizing the
techniques of AHP and RUSLE. Vulnerable areas of soil
erosion in the highland sub-watershed were derived by integrating seven geo-environmental variables, viz., land use/land
cover, geomorphology, drainage density, drainage frequency,
lineament frequency, slope, and relative relief, after statistically assessing its role in making the terrain vulnerable to soil
erosion using the AHP method.
The analysis begins with assessing the individual themes
ratings by manually assigning the import values and processing
the AHP. Among the factors, the variable slope shows a maximum rating of 0.2308 followed by land use/land cover
(0.2051), relative relief (0.1795), drainage frequency (0.1538),
and geomorphology (0.1282) with consistency ratio of 0.0014.
The least values are shown by drainage density (0.0769) and
lineament frequency (0.0256). The slope abruptly changes
from place to place, making the terrain more vulnerable for soil
erosion, combined with land use practices and terrain characters
of the area. Contributions of feature classes in conditioning the
terrain for soil erosion were also rated in the same manner. On
land use/land cover, the class cleared area shows maximum
value (0.3214), followed by crop land (0.2857) and rubber
plantations (0.1071). In this, most of the area is occupied by

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of (a) potential soil erosion index and (b) soil erosion severity classes illustrating the soil erosion risk conditions

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Fig. 5 Predicted annual soil loss (t h1 year1)

rubber plantations, and during the replanting period, the area is

more exposed to rain fall and associated soil erosion. The
contribution of geomorphology in making the area susceptible
to soil erosion is by side slope plateau (0.2447) followed by
valley fill (0.2353) and denudational slope (0.2059). High
drainage density (0.60) and frequency (0.5625) zones together
with high lineament frequency (0.50) zones, which come in the
slope class>35 (0.36), make the area more susceptible to soil
erosion. The relative relief, which indicates sudden elevation
changes in a short distance, also increases the tendency to
detach and flow the soil down the slope. Integrated potential
soil erosion index maps show the probability value ranges from
0.047 (low) to 0.379 (high), indicating spatial pattern of probability of soil erosion in the area (Fig. 4a). This map was
reclassified on the basis of soil erosion probability index values

using the defined interval into five classes, viz., nil, low, moderate, high, and critical, which represent the area distribution of
soil erosion severity classes (Fig. 4b).
Table 3 Area distributions of soil erosion severity classes with average
annual soil erosion rate in each zone
Soil erosion
severity classes

Area (km2)

Area (%)

Annual average soil erosion

rate (t1 h1 year1)

Nil
Low
Moderate
High
Critical

54.68
41.77
72.58
40.18
9.23

25.03
19.12
33.23
18.39
4.23

03
310
1075
75150
>150

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci

Spatial prediction of annual average soil erosion rate in the

highland agricultural watershed was estimated by the RUSLE
method, by multiplying the five parameters (R, K, LS, C, and
P), which determine and control the rate and amount of soil
erosion. The predicted annual average soil erosion rate ranges
from 0 to 4227 t h1year1, with mean and standard deviation
of 200.15 and 318.36 t h1year1, respectively (Fig. 5). The
cross-validation of the results of potential soil erosion prone
zone and annual average soil loss in the area was carried out in
the ArcGIS platform for better understanding of overall soil
erosion spatial vulnerability. In order to achieve this, AHPbased potential soil erosion maps were classified into different
classes, and then crossed with an annual average rate of soil
erosion map in the area. This cross-matching of different
spatial domains enables the identification of maximum soil
erosion rate in the distinctive soil erosion severity class.
Details of each erosion severity class and annual average soil
erosion rate in each class were given in Table 3. The classified
soil erosion severity map shows that 25.03 % of the total area
comes under nil soil erosion potential with tolerable rate of
soil erosion <3 t h1 year1. The critical soil erosion severity
zone occupies <5 % of the total area, but losing more than
150 t h1year1. Other erosion potential categories, like low,
moderate, and high, occupy 19.12, 33.23, and 18.39 % of the
total area with average annual soil loss of <15.75 and
<150 t h1 year1, respectively. The erosion severity classes
were rated depending upon the range of annual average soil
erosion rate. The finding of the present analysis enhances the
applicability of produced erosion severity and rate map for
framing better management strategies. Moreover, the crosscomparison of the results also indicates the role of geoenvironmental variable in conditioning the terrain vulnerable
to soil erosion.

Conclusion
The study area constitutes a typical upland agricultural watershed in the Western Ghats of Kerala, India, undergoing rapid
degradation due to anthropogenic and natural causes. In the
present study, an attempt has been made to determine the
critical soil erosion prone areas along with the spatial pattern
of annual average soil loss, using AHP and RUSLE methods.
The study has also demonstrated the usefulness of remote
sensing and geographical information system and its versatility in accommodating AHP and RUSLE methods for modeling and evaluating the geo-environmental status of the area.
Among the seven determinant variables used for the assessment of critical soil erosion prone areas, variables such as
slope, land use/land cover, and relative relief along with
geomorphology of the area make the terrain more susceptible
to soil erosion. Areas with varying and unscientific agricultural practices on the elevated high steep slopes, which comes

in the side slope plateau and denudational slopes, together

makes the area more vulnerable to soil erosion and associated
environmental degradation. The classified soil erosion severity zone map shows the critical and high soil erosion severity
classes were concentrated on the side slope plateau and
denudational slope, which together occupy 22.62 % of the
total area. The assessed annual average soil loss of the area
had shown a wide range of value varying from 0
4227 t h1 year1. The spatial distribution of high annual soil
loss seen in the high altitude and sloping regions, precisely in
the side slope plateau, denudational slope, and valley fills in
those regions. The success rate of the produced soil erosion
severity map and soil erosion rate map was validated with
cross-comparison of the results. The variables that are considered to be conditioning the terrain susceptible to soil erosion
were also identified through the cross comparison technique.
This, along with the cross-comparison of the soil erosion
maps, helps the user community to frame proper terrain management and soil conservation strategies specific to the area.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the Head, Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (HVRA) Cell, Kerala State Disaster
Management Authority, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management for providing the constant inspiration and support. The authors are
thankful to the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and
suggestions.

References
Ahmed P (2009) Impact of change in forest cover on soil status in Kahmil
Watershed, J&K, using Geo-spatial tools. e-J Earth Sci India 2(3):
187195
Alexakis DD, Hadjimitsis DG, Agapiou A (2013) Integrated use of
remote sensing, GIS and precipitation data for the assessment of
soil erosion rate in the catchment area of Yialias in Cyprus. Atmos
Res Perspect Precipitation Sci I 131:108124
Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Park HJ, Lee JH (2014) A novel ensemble
bivariate statistical evidential belief function with knowledge-based
analytical hierarchy process and multivariate statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 114:2136
Anon (2008) Annual report (200708): Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of
India
Anon (2009) State of environment report. Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Govt. of India
Arar A, Chenchouni H (2013) A simple geomatics-based approach for
assessing water erosion hazard at montane areas. Arab J Geosci 7(1):
112
Arekhi S, Niazi Y, Kalteh AM (2012) Soil erosion and sediment yield
modeling using RS and GIS techniques: a case study, Iran. Arab J
Geosci 5(1):285296
Arnoldus HMJ (1980) An approximation of rainfall factor in the universal
soil loss equation. In: De Boodt M, Gabriels D (eds) Assessment of
erosion. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 127132
Bonilla CA, Reyes JL, Magri A (2010) Water erosion prediction using the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a GIS framework, central Chile. Chil J Agric Res 70(1):159169
Chandio IA, Matori ANB, WanYusof KB, Talpur MAH, Balogun AL,
Lawal DU (2013) GIS-based analytic hierarchy process as a

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci
multicriteria decision analysis instrument: a review. Arab J Geosci
6(8):30593066
Dabral PP, Baithuri N, Pandey A (2008) Soil erosion assessment in a hilly
catchment of north eastern India using USLE, GIS and remote
sensing. Water Resour Manag 22:17831798
Fattahi H, Farsangi MAE, Shojaee S, Mansouri H (2014) Selection of a
suitable method for the assessment of excavation damage zone using
fuzzy AHP in Aba Saleh Almahdi tunnel, Iran. Arab J Geosci. doi:
10.1007/s12517-014-1280-7
Hlaing KT, Haruyama S, Aye MM (2008) Using GIS-based distributed
soil loss modeling and morphometric analysis to prioritize water
shed for soil conservation in Bago river basin of Lower Myanmar.
Front Earth Sci China 2(4):465478
Hoyos N (2005) Spatial modeling of soil erosion potential in a tropical
watershed of the Colombian Andes. Catena 63(1):85108
Intarawichian N, Dasananda S (2010) Analytical hierarchy process for
landslide susceptibility mapping in lower Mae Chaem watershed,
northern Thailand. Suranaree J Sci Technol 17(3):277292
Kaliraj S, Chandrasekar N, Magesh NS (2013) Identification of potential
groundwater recharge zones in Vaigai upper basin, Tamil Nadu,
using GIS-based analytical hierarchical process (AHP) technique.
Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-013-0849-x
Khosrokhani M, Pradhan B (2013) Spatio-temporal assessment of soil
erosion at Kuala Lumpur metropolitan city using remote sensing
data and GIS. Geomatics Nat Haz Risk. doi:10.1080/19475705.
2013.794164
Kim S-M, Choi Y, Suh J, Oh S, Park H-D, Yoon S-H (2012) Estimation of
soil erosion and sediment yield from mine tailing dumps using GIS:
a case study at the Samgwang mine, Korea. Geosyst Eng 15(1):29
Kouli M, Soupios P, Vallianatos F (2009) Soil erosion prediction using the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a GIS framework,
Chania, Northwestern Crete, Greece. Environ Geol 57:83497
Lal R (1994) Soil erosion research method, 2nd edn. Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Ankeny, 352. pp
Lee S (2004) Soil erosion assessment and its verification using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation and geographic information system:
a case study at Boun, Korea. Environ Geol 45:457465
Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis, 1st edn.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 392 pp
Meusburger K, Konz N, Schaub M, Alewell C (2010) Soil erosion
modelled with USLE and PESERA using QuickBird derived vegetation parameters in an alpine catchment. Int J Appl Earth Obs
Geoinfo 12(3):208215
Millward AA, Mersey JE (1999) Adapting the RUSLE to model soil
erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena 38(2):
109129
Misra N, Satyanarayana T, Mukherjee RK (1984) Effect of top elements
on the sediment production rate from sub-watershed in Upper
Damodar Valley. J Agric Eng 21(3):6570
Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986a) Physical basis of the length slope factor in the
Universal Soil Loss Equation. Soil Sci Soc Am 50(5):12941298
Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986b) Modeling erosion and deposition.
Topographic effects. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 29(6):16241630
Naqvi HR, Mallick J, Devi LM, Siddiqui MA (2013) Multi-temporal
annual soil loss risk mapping employing Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE) model in Nun Nadi Watershed, Uttrakhand
(India). Arab J Geosci 6(10):40454056
Narayan VVD, Babu R (1983) Estimation of soil erosion in India. J Irrig
Drain Eng 109(4):419434
Navarro EM, Martnez-Prez S, Sastre-Merln A, Bienes-Allas R (2014)
Catchment erosion and sediment delivery in a limno-reservoir basin
using a simple methodology. Water Resour Manag. doi:10.1007/
s11269-014-0601-7
Ni JR, Li YK (2003) Approach to soil erosion assessment in terms of
land-use structure changes. J Soil Water Conserv 58(3):158169

Pandey A, Chowdary VM, Mal BC (2007) Identification of critical

erosion prone areas in the small agricultural watershed using
USLE, GIS and remote sensing. Water Res Manag 21:729746
Park S, Oh S, Jeon S, Jung H, Choi C (2011) Soil erosion risk in Korean
watersheds, assessed using the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation. J Hydrol 399(34):263273
Pazand K, Hezarkhani A, Ghanbari Y (2014) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process and GIS for predictive Cu porphyry potential mapping: a
case study in AharArasbaran Zone (NW, Iran). Arab J Geosci 7(1):
241251
Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012) Application of fuzzy
logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards 63(2):965996
Prasannakumar V, Shiny R, Geetha N, Vijith H (2011a) Spatial prediction
of soil erosion risk by remote sensing, GIS and RUSLE approach: a
case study of Siruvani River watershed in Attapady Valley, Kerala,
India. Environ Earth Sci 64:965972
Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Geetha N, Shiny R (2011b) Regional scale
erosion assessment of a sub-tropical highland segment in the Western
Ghats of Kerala, South India. Water Res Manag 25(14):37153727
Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Abinod S, Geetha N (2012) Estimation of soil
erosion risk in a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India,
using RUSLE and geoinformation technology. Geosci Front 3(2):
209215
Rahman MJ, Shi ZH, Chongfa C (2009) Soil erosion hazard evaluation
an integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and statistical approaches
with biophysical parameters towards management strategies. Ecol
Model 220(1314):17241734
Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997)
Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning
with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Agricultural
Handbook, Vol 703 US Department of Agriculture, Washington, pp
1251
Rozos D, Skilodimou HD, Loupasakis C, Bathrellos GD (2013)
Application of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation model on
landslide prevention. An example from N. Euboea (Evia) Island,
Greece. Environ Earth Sci 70(7):32553266
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.
J Math Psychol 15:5768
Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New
York, p 350
Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting,
resource allocation, 1st edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 502 pp
Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory
with analytic hierarchy process, 1st edn. RWS Publications,
Pittsburgh, 527 pp
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts, and applications
of the analytic hierarchy process, 1st edn. Kluwer Academic,
Boston, 333 pp
Sharda VN, Mandal D, Ojasvi PR (2013) Identification of soil erosion
risk areas for conservation planning in different states of India. J
Environ Biol 34:219226
Singh G, Babu R, Narain P, Bhusan LS, Abrol IP (1992) Soil erosion rates
in India. J Soil Water Conserv 47(1):9799
USDA (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses. Aguide to conservation
planning, Washington DC
Van der Knijff JM, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (2000) Soil erosion risk
assessment in Europe. EUR 19044 EN. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 34 pp
Vijith H, Madhu G (2007) Application of GIS and frequency ratio model
in mapping the potential surface failure sites in the Poonjar subwatershed of Meenachil river in Western Ghats of Kerala. J Indian
Soc Remote Sens 35(3):261271
Vijith H, Madhu G (2008) Estimating potential landslide sites of
an upland sub- watershed in Western Ghats of Kerala (India)

Author's personal copy

Arab J Geosci
through frequency ratio and GIS. Environ Geol 55:1397
1405
Vijith H, Rejith PG, Madhu G (2009) Using Infoval method and GIS
techniques for the spatial modelling of landslide susceptibility in the
upper catchment of River Meenachil in Kerala. J Indian Soc Remote
Sens 37:111
Vijith H, Suma M, Rekha VB, Shiju C, Rejith PG (2012) An assessment
of soil erosion probability and erosion rate in a tropical mountainous
watershed using remote sensing and GIS. Arab J Geosci 5(4):797
805
Wischmeier WH (1971) A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and
construction sites. J Soil Water Conserv 26:189193
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion lossesa
guide to conservation planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. US
Department of Agriculture Science and Education Administration,
Washington, DC, USA,. 163 pp

Wu Q, Wang M (2007) A framework for risk assessment on soil erosion

by water using an integrated and systematic approach. J Hydrol
337(12):1121
Yang Q, Xie Y, Li W, Jiang Z, Li H, Qin X (2014) Assessing soil erosion
risk in karst area using fuzzy modeling and method of the analytical
hierarchy process. Environ Earth Sci 71(1):287292
Yasser M, Jahangir K, Mohmmad A (2013) Earth dam site selection using
the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study in the west of
Iran. Arab J Geosci 6(9):34173426
Youssef MA, Pradhan B, Tarabees E (2011) Integrated evaluation of
urban development suitability based on remote sensing and GIS
techniques: contribution from the analytic hierarchy process. Arab
J Geosci 4:463473
Zhang Y, Degroote J, Wolter C, Sugumaran R (2009) Integration of
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) into a GIS framework to assess soil erosion risk. Land Degrad Dev 20:8491