Best Paper 1 PDF

Water Resour Manage (2008) 22:83102
DOI 10.1007/s11269-006-9145-9
RUSLE2 Model Application for Soil Erosion Assessment

Using Remote Sensing and GIS
Jasmin Ismail & S. Ravichandran
Received: 18 February 2006 / Accepted: 22 December 2006 /

Published online: 16 February 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract The study is focused on the estimation of rate of soil erosion, using Revised
Universal Soil Loss Eq. 2 (RUSLE2), in the Veppanapalli subwatershed of Krishnagiri
catchment located in Tamil Nadu, India. The soil erosion is estimated for each of the
hillslope units in the study area. The factors considered are intensity of rainfall, type of soil,
land use classification and the existing soil conservation practices. Detailed analysis of soil
samples were done to assess the texture, structure, permeability and organic matter content
of the soil samples of each hillslope unit. The required data for the other parameters were
estimated by carrying out intense field investigations and by the analysis of the satellite
imagery of 5.6 m resolution. A data base was created with all the subfactor values for the
hillslope units. Incorporation of remote sensing technique and Geographic Information
System (GIS) made the spatial analysis of the study more reliable and accurate. The annual
average soil erosion rate is estimated as 25 t/ha/year, which is on a higher range. This
indicates the immediate need for the adoption of proper conservation strategies in this area
to control the eutrophication in the Krishnagiri reservoir and to prevent further watershed
degradation.
Key words erosion . RUSLE2 model . remote sensing . GIS analysis
1 Introduction
Soil is the precious gift of nature to the mankind. Ironically, soil is the most neglected
commodity on the earth. Shifting cultivation on the hillslopes, non-adoption of soil
conservation techniques and overexploitation of land for crop production due to population
stress lead to enormous soil erosion. Erosion removes organic matter from the soil and
contributes to the breakdown of soil structure that will in turn affect soil fertility and the
crop yields. Land degradation from water-induced soil erosion is a serious problem in India
and thus it forms an important social and economic problem.
J. Ismail (*) : S. Ravichandran

Centre for Water Resources, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai, India
e-mail: jasmin_i@rediffmail.com
84 J. Ismail, S. Ravichandran
Soil erosion causes siltation of reservoirs, which ultimately reduces the life of the project
and affects generation of hydroelectric power. It also affects the flora and fauna of the earth.
Soil conservation is the process by which the loss of soil is checked, reducing the velocity
of runoff through erosion control measures for maximum sustained crop production and for
protection of human life. The study and estimation of soil erosion is essential for assessing
the health and function of watersheds and eutrophication of their water bodies. As a result,
it is fundamentally important to have tools able to predict the entity of soil erosion and to
evaluate the risk of sediment transport.
A pilot study conducted in the Krishnagiri reservoir catchment showed that the
catchment suffers serious erosion problems which result in eutrophication of the reservoir
that further affects the quality of water. Accurate estimation of sediment yield in the
catchment is thus an important concern for which the study was done. The aim of the
present study is to assess quantitatively the soil erosion using RUSLE2 model with the help
of remote sensing and GIS in a subwatershed in the catchment of Krishnagiri reservoir.
According to Merritt et al. (2003), soil erosion is a three-stage process: detachment,
transport and deposition. The effect of erosion on crop productivity is explained by Harvey
et al. (1998). The slope of the land, soil composition, and extend of vegetative cover
influence the rate of erosion, while the soil depth, presence of soil biota, water holding
capacity and nutrients level influence the soils productive capacity. The mountainous
regions, such as the Himalayas in Southeast Asia and the Andes in South America, suffer
some of the worlds highest erosion rates.
The factors that influence the rate of soil erosion include rainfall, runoff, slope, land
cover and the presence or absence of conservation strategies. It is useful to make an
estimate of how fast the soil is being eroded, before implementing any conservation
strategies. Thus methods of predicting the soil loss under a wide range of conditions are
required. The three categories of model classification are: empirical models, conceptual
models and physically based model as suggested by Merritt et al. (2003).
Erosion models are necessary tools to predict excessive soil loss and to help in the
implementation of an erosion control strategy. As part of literature review, a wide range of
soil erosion models is studied which includes USLE and its revised forms, GIS based USLE
(Murimi and Prasad 1998), WEPP (Amore et al. 2004), AGNPS (Haregeweyn and
Yohannes 2003), LISEM (De Roo and Jetten 1999) and Cs137 (Ionita and Margineanu
2000). The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was developed by Weischmeier and
Smith (1978), is the most widely used erosion prediction method. Revised USLE (RUSLE)
replaced it in 1991, which was supposed to be replaced by the Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP) in 1995. RUSLE is still widely used, as WEPP is difficult to use for most
users.
Soil erosion patterns in watersheds are patchy, heterogeneous and therefore it is difficult
to assess. Predictive models can overcome this problem. Lufafa et al. (2003) conducted a
study to evaluate different methods of USLE input parameter derivation and to predict soil
loss within a microcatchment of the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB). The highest soil loss was
predicted for annual cropland followed by rangeland and then by forest and papyrus
swamp. Dinesan and James (2002) modeled the soil erosion within the Rampatna watershed
in Kolar region for different management scenarios. The successful integration of USLE
with GIS is used to develop a spatial decision support system to estimate soil erosion under
different conservation practices and to facilitate soil conservation planning within a
mountainous watershed located in the semiarid region. The work done by Angima et al.
(2003) highlights the severity of erosion in tropical highlands of east Africa. In Africa,
about 5 mg/ha of productive topsoil is lost to lakes and oceans each year. Soil erosion by
RUSLE2 model application for soil erosion assessment using remote sensing and GIS 85
water is thus a serious global problem. This study was conducted by Angima at Kianjuki
catchment in central Kenya to predict annual soil loss using the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE1) and to determine erosion hazard in the area and target locations
for appropriate initiation of conservation measures.
Merritt et al. (2003) reviewed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), which is a
physically based erosion prediction model. WEPP is intended to replace the USLE family and
expands the capabilities of prediction in a variety of landscapes and settings. WEPP is of
limited applicability to large-scale catchments because of its greater data requirements, model
complexity and accumulation of errors. Schumacher et al. (1999) evaluated the changes in
soil profile due to water erosion over a 50-year period using the WEPP hillslope model.
Coogle et al. (2003) developed a Hillslope Erosion Model (HEP) to describe erosion and
sediment yield based on mathematical relationships among sediment yield, runoff, hillslope
characteristics and a relative soil erodibility value. The HEM was tested in the hillslopes of
India, New Zealand and Australia. Foster et al. (2002) obtained RUSLE2 by combining the
best of empirically based and process-based erosion prediction technologies. It is a well-
validated erosion prediction technology. Modern theory on erosion processes of
detachment, transport and deposition of soil particles by raindrop impact and surface
runoff was used to derive RUSLE2. It takes into account the deposition along the hillslopes.
It has improved computational procedures and provides more useful output for conservation
planning. RUSLE2 estimates soil loss, sediment yield and sediment characteristics from rill
and interill erosion caused by rainfall and overland flow.
2 Study Area
The Krishnagiri reservoir was constructed across the river Ponnaiyar, near Periyamuthur
village, about 10 km from Krishnagiri town, in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu state in
India. Dharmapuri district is in the northwestern part of Tamil Nadu, bordering Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh states. The location of study area is shown in Fig. 1. The total capacity
of Krishnagiri reservoir is 66.10 mm3, which irrigates a total ayacut of 3642 ha. The
tributaries of river Ponnaiyar are Chinnar, Sulagiri Chinnar, Markanda Nadhi, Nachikup-
pam and Veppanapalli Nadhi.
The Veppanapalli subwatershed, which drains the Veppanapalli Nadhi, is chosen as the
study area. The Veppanapalli subwatershed lies between 12 38 57 N 12 46 27 N
latitudes and 78 10 57 E 78 18 27 E longitudes. It covers an area of about
117.2 km2. The general slope of the terrain is towards south. The contours range from 560
to 1,064 m above mean sea level. The Veppanapalli subwatershed is benefited both by the
southwest monsoon and northeast monsoon. But most of the rainfall is received during the
northeast monsoon season, from September to December. The annual rainfall ranges from a
minimum of 480 mm to a maximum of 1784 mm. The major crops cultivated in the area are
paddy, bajra, ragi, maize, coconut, mango, lemon, chilly, eucalyptus, mulberry, guava,
brinjal and horticulture crops like jasmine, marigold etc. During the month of May most of
the lands are kept fallow. The land preparations are done two weeks prior to the onset of
monsoon.
The terrain in general is found to have cultivated plains and valleys interspersed with
sharply raising boulder hills. Many of the hills are spectacularly large and are often devoid of
tree growth. The study area includes cultivated lands, fallow lands, open shrubs, boulders,
stony wastes, water body, settlement and reserved forests. The mountains are very steep in
this part of the watershed. Like the variability in the land cover, the soils are also highly
R Fig. 1 Map showing the location of Veppanapalli Subwatershed in Krishnagiri district of Tamil Nadu, India
varying. The topsoil ranges from 2 to 7 m in depth. Red soil, black soil, grey soil, coarse soils
etc. are found. White crustations on the soils are seen in some part. Vannapatti series is the
most common soil series found in the study area. It is yellowish red to red, loamy sand and
externally well drained. The organic matter, nutrient and salt content are very low.
3 Model Description
RUSLE2 is a hydrological model, which is the second generation of RUSLE1 and uses a
set of equations to compute erosion. It can be used on areas where mineral soil is exposed
to raindrop impact and surface overland flow produced by rainfall intensity exceeding
infiltration rate, commonly referred to as Hortonian overland flow. The strength of the
USLE is its empiricism, which is also its weakness. The USLE cannot be applied to the
situations where empirical data are not available for a specified field condition to derive
appropriate factor values. A subfactor method that estimates values for the cover
management factor C allows RUSLE1 to be applied to any land use. Process based
equations were also added to estimate the values for the support practice factor P, which is
not possible with the USLE. The hybrid approach of starting with an empirical structure,
then adding process based equations where empirical data were not adequate, greatly
increases the power of RUSLE1 over the USLE.
RUSLE2 significantly expands on this hybrid approach by combining the best of
empirically based and process-based prediction technologies. RUSLE2 is likely a better
erosion prediction technology that builds on the success of USLE and RUSLE1. RUSLE2
uses a set of mathematical equations to compute erosion. The erosion estimates are based
on site specific condition which allows erosion control practices to be tailored to each
specific site. The four major factors that affect erosion are climate, inherent soil properties
including soil erodibility, topography and land use.
RUSLE2 computes annual soil loss as
ARKLSCP 1
where
A average annual soil loss (t/(ha/year))
R erosivity factor ((MJ mm)/(ha h))
K soil erodibility factor ((t/ha)/(MJ mm))
L slope length factor
S slope steepness factor
C cover management factor
P supporting practices factor
3.1 Climate
Rainfall drives interill and rill erosion. The most important characteristics of rainfall are
rainfall intensity and rainfall amount. The average annual erosivity factor, R, is an index of
erosivity at a location. Average annual erosivity is computed as the sum of the erosivity
(EI30), which is the product of the total energy and the maximum 30-min intensity of
individual storms. Maximum 30-min intensity is the average intensity for the continuous
30 min with the maximum rainfall.
The average annual erosivity is computed as
X
R Rm =M 2
Where Rm erosivity for an individual storm

M number of storms
Erosivity for an individual storm is calculated as
Rm EI30 3
where E total storm energy (MJ/ha)

I30 maximum 30-min intensity of individual storm (mm/h)
The total energy of a storm is computed by
E eV 4
Where e unit energy (MJ/(ha mm))

V rainfall amount (mm)
The unit energy is computed from
e 0:291 0:72 exp 0:082i 5
where i rainfall intensity (mm/h)
3.2 Soil
Soils vary in their susceptibility to erosion. Some soils are naturally more erodible than
other soils. Knowledge of basic soil properties such as texture provides an indication of
erodibility, which is an important RUSLE2 variable. The soil erodibility factor K is a
measure of erodibility for a standard condition. The standard condition is the unit plot,
which is an erosion plot 22.1 m long, on a 9% slope, maintained in continuous fallow, tilled
up and down hill periodically to control weeds and break crusts that are formed on the soil
surface.
The equation for soil erodibility factor is

K kt ko ks kp 100 6
where K soil erodibility factor (t/ha)/(MJ mm)

kt soil texture subfactor
ko soil organic matter subfactor
ks soil structure subfactor
kp soil profile permeability subfactor
The soil texture subfactor equation is given by

Ktb 2:1Psl Pvfs 100 Pcl 1:14 10000 7
.
Kt68 2:168100 Pcl 1:14 1000 8
Kt Ktb for Psl Pvfs 68% 9
h i
Kt Ktb 0:67Ktb Kt68 0:82 for Psl Pvfs > 68% 10
where Psl percentage of silt

Pvfs percentage of very fine sand
Pcl percentage of clay
Ktb base soil texture subfactor
Kt68 soil texture subfactor corresponding to 68%

Pvfs 0:74 0:62Psd =100Psd 11
where Psd percentage of sand

The soil organic matter subfactor is given by
Ko 12 Om 12
where Om percentage of inherent soil organic matter

The soil structure subfactor is given by
Ks 3:25Ss 2 13
where Ss soil structure class

1 very fine granular, 2 fine granular, 3 medium or coarse granular and 4 blocky,
platy or massive
The soil profile permeability subfactor is given by
Kp 2:5Pr 3 14
where Pr soil profile permeability rating

1 rapid , 2 moderate rapid, 3 moderate, 4 slow to moderate, 5 slow and 6 very
slow
3.3 Topography
The slope length component and slope steepness component constitute the topography part
of the model.
The slope length factor is given by
L m 1x=lu m 15
where L slope length factor
x Distance from the origin of over land flow path (m)
lu length of unit plot (22.17 m)
M slope length exponent which is given by

m 16
1
in which

kr Cpr exp br fge sin =0:896
17
ki Cpi exp 0:025fge 3sin 0:8 0:56
kr
ki rill to interill soil erodibility ratio
Cpr
Cpi rill to interill prior land use soil erodibility ratio
exp br fge
rill erosion surface cover effect to interill erosion surface cover effect ratio
exp 0:025 fge
sin =0:896 slope effect for rill erosion to slope effect for interill erosion
3sin 0:8 0:56
kr
Psd =1001 exp 0:05Psd 2:7Psl =1002:5 1 exp 0:05Psl
ki
18
0:35Pcl =1001 exp 0:05Pcl
Cpr
0:45 1:55Sc Sb 2 19
Cpi
Sc soil consolidation subfactor

Sb soil biomass subfactor
br coefficient for conformance of ground cover that describes the relative effectiveness of
the ground cover for reducing erosion. The value ranges from 0.050.06.
fge effective ground cover
fge fgn 0:4 0:6d
where =(br0.05)/0.01
The slope steepness factor is given by
S 10:8 sin 0:03 Sp < 9% 20
S 1608 sin 0:5 Sp 9% 21

where tan1 Sp 100 22
Sp steepness of the overland flow path (%)
3.4 Land Use
Erosion occurs when the soil is left bare and exposed to raindrop impact and surface runoff.
However, vegetative cover greatly reduces surface runoff. Among the four factors, land use
is the most important because it has the greatest effect and it is the one factor that can most
easily be changed to control soil loss and sediment yield. RUSLE2 is powerful because it is
land use independent. A subfactor method used to compute values for the cover
management factor C gives the land use independence. Land use and management affect
one or more of the subfactors.
Cover management factor C is given as
C Cc gc Sr Sb rh Sc Sm 23
where Cc canopy subfactor

gc ground cover subfactor
Sr soil surface roughness subfactor
Sb soil biomass subfactor
rh ridge height subfactor
Sc soil consolidation subfactor
Sm antecedent soil moisture subfactor, which is 1
The canopy cover subfactor is estimated as
Cc 1 fec exp 0:1hf 24

fec fc 1 fgn 25
hf hb as ag ht hb 26
Where
ag coefficient related to height within the canopy where vegetative surface area is
concentrated, used to compute effective fall height
as coefficient that is a function of canopy shape used to compute effective fall
height
fc canopy cover
fec effective canopy cover
fgn net ground cover, portion of soil surface covered
hb height to bottom of canopy cover (inches)
hf effective fall height
ht height to top of canopy cover (inches)
Fgn 100-bare ground
The ground cover subfactor is calculated as
h i
gc exp bfgn 0:24=Ra 0:08 27
where
b Coefficient (percent-1) that is a function of ground cover type and the ratio of
rill to interill erosion
Ra initial roughness value
The soil roughness subfactor is given by
Sr 0:66Ra 0:24 28
The soil biomass subfactor is given by

Sb 0:951 exp 0:0026 Brt 0:0006 Brs Sc0:5 Sb 0:9035 29

Sb exp 1:9785 0:0026 Brt 0:006 Brs Sc0:5 Sb > 0:9035 30
where Brt buried root mass density (gms/cm3)

Brs buried residue mass density (gms/cm3)
The ridge height subfactor is given by

rh6 0:9 1 0:0582H 1:84 for H 3 inches 31
rh6 2:1361 exp 0:484H 0:336 for H > 3 inches 32
rh rh6 for Sp < 6% 33

rh 1 rh6 1 exp ah Sp 0:05989 for Sp 6% 34
where ah 16:02 0:927H for H 10 inches

ah 6:75 for H > 10 inches
H ridge height (inches)

ah coefficient used to compute ridge height subfactor values
The soil consolidation subfactor is given by
n h io
Sc 0:45 exp 3:314 0:1804 td =tc 1:439 35
tc 20 ; Pa <10
tc 26.50.65+0.5; 10Pa 30
tc 7 ; 30<Pa
where Pa Average precipitation (mm)
tc time to soil consolidation (days)
td time since the last mechanical soil disturbance (days)
The conservation practices factor P is given by
P aSm Sc 4 Pbm Sc < Sm 36
P aSc Sm 1:5 Pbm Sm Sc Sbe 37
P1 Sbe < Sc 38
where
Pb 1 at Sc 0

a 1 Pbm Sm4 Pb Pm at Sc Sm
Pb 1 at Sc Sbe
Pbm 0:05 0:95 exp 0:5512he if he > 8; he 8 inches
Sm 41 exp 0:1903he 4 if he > 8; he 8 inches

Sbe sin tan1 9 53:09he =8=100 if he > 8; he 8 inches
Sm land steepness
Sc scaled land steepness (sine of the slope angle)
a coefficient used to compute values for base contouring subfactor values
Sbe steepness that the contouring subfactor reaches 1
he effective ridge height (maximum value is 8 inches)
Pb base contouring subfactor
Pm minimum base contouring subfactor
4 Data Collection and Methodology
A vast data collection of both primary and secondary has been carried out. Soil survey by
free sampling method has been done at each hillslope unit. Representative canopy for each
hillslope has been selected. Measurements regarding the height to the top of canopy and
height to the bottom of canopy from the ground surface have been made. Ground truth
verification for the remote sensing data has been done in the study area. The secondary data
collected includes Rainfall data for the year 2003 from Subdivisional Office, Krishnagiri
dam, Tamil Nadu. The toposheets 57L1, 57L2, 57L5 and 57L6 of 1:50000 scale of the
study area were obtained from Survey of India, Chennai and Bangalore. And satellite
imagery, which is a merged product of IRS 1D PAN and LISS III of 21st May 2003, having
a resolution of 5.6 m, of scale 1: 25000 is obtained from National Remote Sensing Agency,
Hyderabad, India.
Digitization of the topographic maps The four topographic maps 57L1, 57L2, 57L5 and
57L6 of 1:50000 scale that covered the whole subwatershed were scanned and the images
were then imported into the MapInfo environment. Latitude and longitude values for each
topographic map were given for georeferencing and were mosaiced to form a single base
map of the study area. The subwatershed boundary was delineated and digitized. The
drainage patterns, contour lines, roads, towns etc. were identified and digitized to create
different thematic layers. Based on the order of the streams and terrain characteristics the
whole area is subdivided into small hillslope units. The number of hillslope units chosen is
48 and is shown in Fig. 2. These are the basic units considered for the study for the
application of RUSLE2.
Soil sampling A free sampling method is adopted for soil survey and soil samples for each
of the hillslope units were collected. The physical soil analysis was done through sieve
analysis and hydrometer analysis was done for finding out the percentage of sand, silt and
clay in each sample. The buried root mass density and buried residue mass density was
Fig. 2 Study area map showing

the drainage pattern and hillslope
units
found out for each soil sample. The percentage of organic carbon content of soil samples
was also determined.
Creation of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) The contour lines of different elevation and
some spot heights available from topographic sheets of the area were digitized to make
vector layers of line and point features respectively and were used as input to the MapInfo.
With the Vertical Mapper utility, the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the study area is
created.
Land use/land cover map generation Land use/land cover map of the study area is derived
from the satellite imagery. The imagery analysis requires ground truth information that
needs to be collected, for which an intense 3 days field visit has been carried out. The visual
data interpretation technique has been used for generating the land use/land cover map.
5 Application of RUSLE2 to Veppanapalli subwatershed
The estimation of rate of soil erosion has been conducted in the Veppanapalli sub watershed
of Krishnagiri catchment using RUSLE2. Soil erosion depends upon rainfall intensity, type
of soil, slope length, slope steepness, land use/land cover and soil conservation practices.
All these parameters are having spatial distribution and hence satellite remote sensing and
Geographic Information System (GIS) have wide application in erosion estimation. The
results are summarized as follows.
5.1 Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R)
There is only one rainfall recording station for the Veppanapalli subwatershed. The rainfall
data were collected for the year 2003 and R value is estimated using Eq. 2.
Fig. 3 Soil erodibility factor (K)

map
Fig. 4 Slope length factor (L)

map
5.2 Soil Erodibility Factor (K)
The detailed analysis of soil samples was done to assess the texture, structure permeability
and organic matter content and to calculate the K values using Eq. 6.The K map is shown in
Fig. 3. The result shows that soil erodibility plays an important role in bringing the erosion
load.
5.3 Slope Length Factor (L)
L factor is determined based on the length of hillslope units. The slope length values are
found out using Eq. 15. The slope length map is prepared based on those values and is
shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 Digital elevation model of

the study area
Fig. 6 Slope steepness factor (S)

map
5.4 Slope Steepness Factor (S)
The slope map is derived from the DEM, shown in Fig. 5, from which the percentage slope
steepness values are determined for each hillslope unit. The slope steepness varies from 1 to
62%. The steepness values are above 30% for most of the hillslope units. Using Eqs. 20 and
21 the slope steepness factor values are calculated and the corresponding map is prepared
and is shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 Land use/land cover map

of the study area
Table 1 The areal extent of

different land use pattern existing Type of land use Area (km2) Percentage area
in the watershed
Settlement 0.98 0.84
Water body 0.27 0.23
Barren land 21.36 18.23
Fallow land 2.32 1.98
Agricultural land 30.87 26.33
Forest 61.50 51.62
5.5 Cover Management Factor (C)
The canopy subfactor depends on vegetative cover, which dissipates the energy of
raindrops before reaching the ground surface. From the land use/land cover map shown in
Fig. 7, the area was classified into six land use patterns namely agricultural land, settlement,
water body, fallow land, barren land and forest area. The details regarding agricultural
practices were obtained by discussion with the farmers of the watershed. Figure 7 shows the
major part of the watershed (52%) in forest area followed by agricultural land. Table 1
shows the current land use and their area in the watershed. The canopy cover subfactor,
ground cover subfactor, soil roughness subfactor, soil biomass subfactor, soil ridge height
subfactor and soil consolidation subfactor were calculated using Eqs. 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30,
33 and 34, 35 respectively. The antecedent moisture subfactor is taken as 1 as given by
Foster et al. (2002). From the land use/land cover map and the observations made in the
field, the input values are chosen for the equations for each hillslope unit to get the cover
management factor (C) value. The cover management factor map is prepared based on these
values and is shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8 Cover management factor

(C) map
Fig. 9 Conservation practices

factor (P) map
5.6 Conservation Practices Subfactor (P)
Conservation practices factor is important to be known to incorporate the erosion control

management practices. P factor map shown in Fig. 9 was prepared based on values
calculated using Eqs. 36, 37 and 38.
6 Results and Discussion
The annual average erosivity is obtained as 81.6 (MJ mm)/(ha h) for the Veppanapalli
subwatershed during the year 2003. The erodibility value ranges from 0.16 (t/ha)/(MJ mm)
to 0.24 (t/ha)/(MJ mm). The soil erodibility map shows the variability of soil characteristics
Fig. 10 Annual soil erosion (A)

map of the Veppanapalli
subwatershed
Table 2 Soil erosion categories

based on annual soil loss from the Soil loss (t/ha/year) Classification
watershed
010 Low
1020 Moderate
2030 High
Above 30 Severe
within a small region. It is found that the uplands in the northern part of the watershed were
highly erodible, owing to the loose soil type and the steep terrain available there. Due to
this, even a small intensity rain can bring considerable quantity of sediment from the
hillslopes. In the study area, the agricultural fields are comparatively less eroded as they lie
mostly in flat plains. Low K factor values are seen on the western part of the watershed
which is also flat terrain and built up areas which are interspersed with agricultural lands.
The L values ranges from 0.70 to 1.
From the study, it is seen that the slope steepness plays a very important role in sediment
load generation in the Veppanapalli subwatershed. The slope steepness factor values are
very high in the uplands. Since the subwatershed is hilly except for a small portion, the soil
erosion rate is very high. The steeper slopes are seen in the eastern part which is reserved
forest area. The C values range from 0.1 to 0.9. The map shows that the canopy values are
very high in the forest area. The agricultural cover near the Veppanapalli town may also
contribute much to the erosion. The effect of canopy on erosion rate thus appears
irrespective of terrain conditions. From the conservation practices factor (P) map, it is seen
that the P factor values are higher in the steep mountains and in the agricultural areas. In the
study area, no erosion control practice is specifically adopted. Thus, there is need for
conservation measures to be adopted in the study area to reduce the P values, which will
subsequently reduce the erosion rate.
From the study of estimation of amount of soil erosion in the Veppanapalli subwatershed
in the Krishnagiri catchment, using RUSLE2, the annual average soil loss is estimated to be
25 t/ha/year. The combined effect of all the factors contribute to the soil erosion, which has
got a high spatial variation owing to the different factors and the soil erosion map is shown
in Fig. 10. The soil erosion ranges are given in Table 2. The severe erosion zones are seen
concentrated in the northern part of the basin (>39 t/ha/year) and eastern part of the basin
(>29 t/ha/year). These zones fall under the forest areas and are having higher slope values.
Though these areas are forests with varying degree of tree cover, the erosion is high in these
areas compared to other parts. The southern part of the watershed indicated medium range
of soil loss (>22 t/ha/year) while the western parts, mostly built up land with agricultural
fields, indicated lowest erosion class (<10 t/ha/year).
Fig. 11 Soil erosion classes in

Veppanapalli subwatershed 0 to 10
17%
10 to 20
42% 14% 20 to 30
>30
27%
The results suggest that independent of land use/land cover in the watershed, the slope
and soil erodibility are important factors controlling erosion in the Veppanapalli watershed.
The various range of soil erosion in the study area are shown in Fig. 11 and the total spatial
annual soil loss in the watershed is estimated as 25 t/ha/h, which is the higher range
comparatively. Studies done earlier in the upper Ponnaiyar watershed on the rates of erosion
by Karunakaran (2003) have also identified Veppanapalli as one of the most erodible part of
the watershed.
Another important aspect in this study is the near absence of erosion control structures or
soil conservation practices being undertaken. Very limited number of check dams was
constructed even if the slope is very large. Information collected from the government
agencies as well as field observations conducted indicate that no serious measures are being
taken at present. This may be one of the reasons for the higher erosion rates noticed in the
Veppanapalli watershed. So as to control the soil erosion by water, the raindrop impact has to
be reduced and the soil resistance has to be increased. The ground cover has to be increased to
reduce the effect of water drops falling from height. The soil resistance can be increased by
improving the soil structure by suitable amendments. The slope can be reduced by
constructing check dams. The check dams can be constructed out of the locally available
materials like brushes, rocks, wooden slabs etc. Installation of a number of check dams in
series is the recommended practice, which will reduce the erosion rate considerably.
Thus, in general, it is clear from the results of the study that Revised Universal Soil Loss
Eq. 2 is a powerful model for the qualitative as well as quantitative assessment of soil
erosion rate for the conservation management. Multispectral remote sensing data have
provided valuable and very important factors like C and P for the study. GIS has given a
very useful environment to undertake the task of data compilation and analysis within a
short period at very high resolution. The satellite data of high resolution can be used for
accurate estimation and it updated the toposheet data that helped in creating the detailed
land use/land cover pattern.
Acknowledgements We are grateful for the support and help from Dr. George R. Foster, Scientist, United
States Department of Agriculture, for providing us with the recently developed scientific documentation of
RUSLE2 model. We are immensely thankful to The Director, Data Centre, National Remote Sensing Agency,
Hyderabad for providing the remote sensing data and Dr. K. Karunakaran, Director, Centre for Water
Resources, College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai for providing the infrastructure to complete
the work.
References
Amore E, Carlo M, Nearing, MA Santoro,VC (2004) Scale effect of USLE and WEPP application for soil
erosion computation from three Sicilian basins. J Hydrol 293:100114
Angima SD, Stott DE, ONeill MK (2003) Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE for central Kenyan highland
conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 97:295308
Coogle AL, Lane LJ, Basher L (2003) Testing the hillslope erosion model for application in India, New
Zealand and Australia. Environ Model Softw 18:825830
De Roo APJ, Jetten VG (1999) Calibrating and validating the LISEM model for two data sets from
Netherland and South Africa. Catena 37:477493
Dinesan VP, James EJ (2002) GIS based spatial decision support system for managing soil erosion a case
study, water and waste water; perspectives of developing countries, Rama Devi and Naved Ahsan
Proceedings of the International Conference, WAPDEC, Dec. 1113. Anamaya Publishers, New Delhi,
India, pp 175182
Foster GR, Yoder DC, Weesies GA, McCool DK, McGregor KC, Binger RL (2002) RUSLE2 Users Guide.
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington, pp 176
Haregeweyn N, Yohannes F (2003) testing and evaluation of agricultural non-point source pollution model
(AGNPS) on Augucho catchment, Western Hararghe, Ethiopia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99:201212
Harvey C, Pimentel D, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurtz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, saffuri
R, Blair R (1998) Land use, erosion and water resources. In: Biswass, AK (ed) Water resources
environmental planning, management and development. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India, pp 3137
Ionita I, Margineanu RM (2000) Application of Cs137 for measuring soil erosion and deposition rate in
Romania. Acta Geologia Hispania 35:311319
Karunakaran K (2003) Pilot study on nutrient transport, Eutrophication and environmental impacts in
Krishnagiri reservoir. Centre for Water Resources, Anna University, pp 152
Lufafa A, Tenywa MM, Isabirye M, Majaliwa MJG, Womer PL (2003) Prediction of soil erosion in a Lake
Victoria basin catchment using a GIS-based Universal Soil Loss model. Agric Syt 76:883894
Merritt WS, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ (2003) A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ
Model Softw 18:761799
Murimi SK, Prasad H (1998) Modelling potential soil erosion in Lake Nakuru Drainage Basin.
Ecohydrology. Subramanian V and Ramanathan AL, pp 403414
Schumacher TE, Lindstrom MJ, Schumacher JA, Lemme GD (1999) Modelling spatial variation in
productivity due to tillage and water erosion. Soil Tillage Res 51:331339
Weischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses a guide to conservation planning,
United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 537

Best Paper 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Paper 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Resour Manage (2008) 22:83102

RUSLE2 Model Application for Soil Erosion Assessment

Jasmin Ismail & S. Ravichandran

Received: 18 February 2006 / Accepted: 22 December 2006 /

Key words erosion . RUSLE2 model . remote sensing . GIS analysis

J. Ismail (*) : S. Ravichandran

Where Rm erosivity for an individual storm

where E total storm energy (MJ/ha)

Where e unit energy (MJ/(ha mm))

where i rainfall intensity (mm/h)

where K soil erodibility factor (t/ha)/(MJ mm)

The soil texture subfactor equation is given by

Kt Ktb for Psl Pvfs 68% 9

where Psl percentage of silt

where Psd percentage of sand

where Om percentage of inherent soil organic matter

where Ss soil structure class

where Pr soil profile permeability rating

Sc soil consolidation subfactor

fge fgn 0:4 0:6d

The slope steepness factor is given by

S 10:8 sin 0:03 Sp < 9% 20

S 1608 sin 0:5 Sp 9% 21

Sp steepness of the overland flow path (%)

3.4 Land Use

where Cc canopy subfactor

Cc 1 fec exp 0:1hf 24

where Brt buried root mass density (gms/cm3)

rh6 2:1361 exp 0:484H 0:336 for H > 3 inches 32

rh rh6 for Sp < 6% 33

where ah 16:02 0:927H for H 10 inches

H ridge height (inches)

P aSm Sc 4 Pbm Sc < Sm 36

P aSc Sm 1:5 Pbm Sm Sc Sbe 37

Pbm 0:05 0:95 exp 0:5512he if he > 8; he 8 inches

Sm 41 exp 0:1903he 4 if he > 8; he 8 inches

4 Data Collection and Methodology

Fig. 2 Study area map showing

5 Application of RUSLE2 to Veppanapalli subwatershed

5.1 Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R)

Fig. 3 Soil erodibility factor (K)

Fig. 4 Slope length factor (L)

5.2 Soil Erodibility Factor (K)

5.3 Slope Length Factor (L)

Fig. 5 Digital elevation model of

Fig. 6 Slope steepness factor (S)

5.4 Slope Steepness Factor (S)

Fig. 7 Land use/land cover map

Table 1 The areal extent of

5.5 Cover Management Factor (C)

Fig. 8 Cover management factor

Fig. 9 Conservation practices

5.6 Conservation Practices Subfactor (P)

Conservation practices factor is important to be known to incorporate the erosion control

6 Results and Discussion

Fig. 10 Annual soil erosion (A)

Table 2 Soil erosion categories

Fig. 11 Soil erosion classes in

You might also like