Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract— RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) is widely used to predict average annual rate of soil
erosion. RUSLE parameters were assessed using Satellite Remote Sensing (RS) and GIS with a view to model soil
erosion in CHAMPABATI watershed in Assam state. Assessment of soil erosion is useful in planning and
conservation works in a watershed or basin. Modelling can provide a quantitative and consistent approach to
estimate soil erosion under a wide range of conditions. The parameters of RUSLE model were estimated using
remote sensing data and the erosion probability zones were deter-mined using GIS. The five major input
parameters used in the study are Rainfall Erosivity Factor (R), Slope Length and Steepness Factor (LS), Soil
Erodibility Factor (K), Cover and Management Factor (C) and Support Practice Factor (P). The R factor had been
determined from monthly TRMM rainfall data of study area. The soil survey data from www.fao.org was used to
develop the K factor and DEM of study area was used to generate topographic factor (LS). The value of P & C factor
was obtained from land use land cover map & LANDSAT image respectively. Estimating C factor in this study
involves the use of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), an indicator which shows vegetation cover,
using the regression equation in Spatial Analyst tool of GIS Software. After generation of input parameters,
analysis was performed for estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE model by spatial information analysis
approach. The quantitative soil loss (t/ha/year) ranges were estimated and classified the watershed into different
levels of soil erosion severity and also soil erosion index map was developed. The average annual soil losses of the
study Watershed were then grouped into different severity classes based on the criteria of soil erosion risk
classification suggested by FAO (2006). The estimated average annual soil loss for the study area is 5.8044 million
t. yr-1.
Keywords— RUSLE; GIS; CHAMPABATI; TRMM; FAO;
I. INTRODUCTION
Soil erosion is regarded as the major and most widespread form of soil degradation. The erosion of soil is a
naturally occurring process on all land over geological time.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –187
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
Soil erosion is a three phase phenomena consisting of the detachments of individual soil particles from the
soil mass and their transport by erosive agents, such as running water and wind. When sufficient energy is no
longer available with erosive agents to transport the particles then the third phase is called a „deposition
takes place. The potential for soil erosion varies from watershed to watershed depending on the configuration
of the watershed (topography, shape), the soil characteristics, the local climatic conditions and the land use
and management practices implemented on the watershed (Arora K. 2003 and Suresh R. 2000).
1.1 SOIL EROSION TYPES:
Types of erosion:
a. Sheet Erosion:
Sheet erosion is more or less is the removal of a uniform thin layer or „sheet of soil by flowing water from a
given width of sloping land. The amount of soil removed by this type of erosion is small, but as it flows
down the slope, it increases in size and develops into rill erosion. (Arora K. 2003 and Suresh R. 2000)
b. Rill and Gully Erosion:
With rill erosion the erosive effect of flowing water suddenly increases at a location where a confluence of
surface water occurs. Due to low infiltration rates and the occurrence of rainfall, the excess water collects very
slowly over the land surface and into the rill. As this gathering of water continues the depth of water together
with the velocity, kinetic energy, and the soil particle carrying capacity of the water increases. Then the rill
erosion develops into gully erosion. (Arora K. 2003 and Suresh R. 2000)
c. Stream Bank Erosion:
The removal of soil from the stream of the stream bank occurs due to either water flowing over the sides of the
stream from overland runoff or the water flowing in the stream and scouring the banks. Stream bank erosion is a
continuous process in perennial streams and is caused by the souring and undercutting of the soil below the
water surface caused by wave action during normal stream flow events.
d. River Erosion:
This type of erosion occurs particularly in rivers in which permanent water flow takes place, usually with varying
rate. River erosion is likely to be more effective in the water courses of smaller catchment area and those
having less favourable conditions for draining discharge.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –188
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
It flows to south east for 3 km and join Bhur River to its right in Centre ranikhata and then it flows as Champabati
River. After flowing for2km in south from centre Ranikhata a tributary is emerged and takes the name of
Demdema River and flows to west for 2km and again join Champabati. Then the Champabati flows for another
2km and takes Raampati River to its left. Then the river flows for 3km south and takes Morabhur River to its left.
In Saalbari Champabati divides into two parts after crossing 31(c) National Highway. The main part flows to
south east and the other past flows in the south west in Tarang River’s path. The main Champabati river slows
south and takes a zig zag path and after flowing for 5km it takes Sukti river in its left in Tirimari. From Tirimari
the river flow for 3km in south east and takes Shakati River in its left. From that the river flows for 1.5 km and
takes kakormari Dokong River in its left and flows another 1 km before it crossed railway line 2km from Basugaon
Railway station. Then the river flows for 10 km in south east direction in zigzag path and then follows a straight
path before reaching Tilakgaon. Here it takes Duramari river in its left.
Then near Bidyapur it takes Kujia River in its left. Then west to Lathuri Tila the river flows for 2.5 km and reach
Naaldoba. Here the river again divided itself into 2 parts. The main part flows south east and near bamuni Tila it
flows for 5km and takes Ghoga River to its left. Then eventually the two parts meet again and flows for another 1
km before crossing 31St National Highway. From here it flows for 3km and opposite to Jalikura it takes Tunia
River in its left. Then the river flows to south west. Then it flows for 3km and takes Garojhara in its right. Then it
flows for 2km and it reach Chapar town. From Chapar the river flows for 1km and joins Brahmaputra.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –189
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –190
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
Wischmeier and Smith (1958) derived the rainfall and runoff erosivity factor from research data from many
sources. The rainfall runoff erosivity factor (R) derived by Wischmeier appears to meet these requirements better
than any of the many other rainfall parameters. Wischmeier and Smith (1978) developed a relation for the
calculation of rainfall Erosivity factor (R) from monthly rainfall data.
R = 1.735 ……………….….…….(2)
Where,
R = Rainfall Erosivity Factor (MJ mm ha h-1 year-1)
Pi= Monthly Rainfall in mm
P = Annual Rainfall in mm
For interpolation, 24 station points (Figure 3) were selected inside and outside (near watershed) the watershed
boundary. The TRMM monthly precipitation data was extracted for 24 stations points by using spatial analyst tool
(extract multi values to points) in GIS and R factor was calculated for those stations. The extracted monthly TRMM
station point precipitation data were processed in MS Excel and calculated the R factor for the 24 stations points
by using the Wischmeier and Smith (1978) equation (2). After calculating average 20 years of rainfall for each
station point, the R factor was converted in to raster surface using IDW (Inverse Distance weighted) interpolation
methods in ArcGIS software to get a spatially distributed R factor map of the watershed area. The IDW
interpolation method was selected because rainfall erosivity sample points are weighted during interpolation
such that the influence of rainfall erosivity is most significant at the measured point and decreases as distance
increases away from the point. The IDW interpolation method is based on the assumption that the estimated value
of a point is influenced more by nearby known points than those farther away (Weber and Englund 1992, 1994).
The R factor value found in the range of 3911.74 to 9470.42 MJ mm ha-1 h-1y-1 for the study area. The spatial
distributions of Rainfall erosivity factor (R) is represented in Fig 4.
3.2 K FACTOR:
Soils vary in their susceptibility to erosion. The soil erodibility factor K is a measure of erodibility for a standard
condition. The soil erodibility factor K represents both susceptibility of soil to erosion and the amount and rate
of runoff, as measured under the standard unit plot of 22.1 m long with a slope of 9% percent (Renard et al.,
1997) condition. As such soil erodibility is best estimated by carrying out direct measurements on field plots
(Kinnell, 2010).
To estimate the soil erodibility factor (K) the following equation (3) is proposed by Romkens et al. (1997)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –191
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
………………. (3)
Where
……………………………….. 3(a)
Where
Geometric mean particle diameter
Primary particle size fraction in percent
Arithmetic mean of the particle size limits of that size
The study area soil map (Fig 5) is extracted from the DSMW map using ArcGIS. There are 4 soil groups found in
the study area namely Orthic Acrisols, Eutic Cambisols, Dystric Cambisols and Dystric Regosols. The percentage of
silt, clay, sand and organic matter for each soil group was calculated. Using equation (3) the erodibility factor K
found for each soil in the range of 0.095 to 0.331. To prepare K factor map, at different latitude and longitude
within the watershed, K values were assigned for each soil type. After that, interpolation of the calculated K
values is done by Kriging method for the whole watershed using ArcGIS (mathematical K value in excel file
converted to shape file by using GIS) software. The spatial distribution of soil erodibility factor (K) is represented
in Fig 6.
…………………………….. (4)
Where
= (Flow Accumulation× Cell Size)
m = Slope exponent
m is related to the ratio β of the rill to interill erosion:
………………… 4 (a)
Where,
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –192
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
………………………4(b)
θ = Slope angle in degrees.
The m ranges between 0 and 1, and approaches 0 when the ratio of rill to interill erosion is close to 0.
b. S FACTOR:
S is the slope steepness represents the effect of slope steepness on erosion. Soil loss increases more rapidly with
slope steepness than it does with slope length. It is the ratio of soil loss from the field gradient to that from a 9
percent slope under otherwise identical conditions. The relation of soil loss to gradient is influenced by density of
vegetative cover and soil particle size. McCool et al. (1987) proposed to calculate steepness factor
……………………… 5(a)
…..………………….. 5(b)
Where
S= Dimensionless steepness Factor
= Slope angle in degree
The LS factor value for study area varies from 0 to 14.755 which are represented in Fig 7.
3.4 C FACTOR:
The C-factor represents the effect of soil-disturbing activities, plants, crop sequence and productivity level, soil
cover and subsurface bio-mass on soil erosion .The C factor ranges from 0 in water bodies to slightly greater than
1 in barren lands. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), an indicator of the vegetation vigor and
health is used to generate the C-factor value for the study area
………………….. (6)
Red and NIR stand for the spectral reflectance measurements acquired in the red (visible) and near-infrared
regions, respectively. Van der knijff (1999), after performing a lot of experimentations came to a nonlinear
relationship between C and NDVI which seemed to be adequate.
…………………….. (7)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –193
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
α and β 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 α and β, respectively. To determine the C factor, the equation
(7) proposed by Van der Knijff et al was used in raster calculator in spatial analyst toolbar and the value found for
the C factor in the range of 0.6987 to 1.8596. The C factor map distribution shown in the Fig 8.
3.4 P FACTOR:
From all the six RUSLE input factors (Renard et al., 1997) , values for the support practice P-factor are
considered as the most uncertain (Haan et al.,1994;Morgan; Nearing,2011).The P-factor reflects the impact of
support practices on the average annual erosion rate. It is the ratio of soil loss with contouring and/or strip
cropping to that with straight row farming up-and-down slope. In other words, the P factor accounts for control
practices that reduce the erosion potential of runoff by their influence on drainage patterns, runoff
concentration, runoff velocity and hydraulic forces exerted by the runoff on the soil surface (Renard et al., 1991).
It is an expression of the overall effects of supporting conservation practices – such as contour farming,
strip cropping, terracing, and subsurface drainage – on soil loss at a particular site, as those practices principally
affect water erosion by modifying the flow pattern, grade, or direction of surface runoff and by reducing the
volume and rate of runoff (Renard et al., 1997). In present study, no relative information concerning such as strip
cropping, terracing and contour cultivation practices are available. Assuming that no preventive measures are
taken, the P factor was assigned a value equal to 1 throughout the watershed area.
[[
The total soil loss of the study watershed = Watershed Area X Mean Value
The average annual soil losses of the study Watershed were then grouped into different severity classes based on
the criteria of soil erosion risk classification suggested by FAO (2006). The details of severity classes and the
spatial distribution of the same in the study area are shown in Table 2 and Fig 10 respectively.
TABLE 2: SOIL LOSS SEVERITY CLASSES WITH LOSS RATE AND AREA COVERED
Severity Class Soil Loss ( t.ha-1.yr-1) Area (km2) Area (%)
Slight <30 1064.880 84.73
Moderate 30-80 24.7796 1.971
Severe 80-150 143.8669 11.44
Extremely Severe >150 23.16876 1.843
Fig 9: Spatially Distributed Soil Loss Map Fig 10: Soil Erosion Severity Class Map
IV. CONCLUSIONS
RUSLE is often used to estimate average annual soil loss from an area. RUSLE model in GIS environment is a
relatively simple soil erosion assessment method. ArcGIS 10.1 software was used to generate the spatial
distribution of the RUSLE factors. The four factor layers (R, K, LS, and C) were all converted into grids using a 30-
m data set of the CHAMPABATI watershed in the same reference system. Subsequently, these grids were
multiplied in the GIS as described by the RUSLE function. Thus, the annual soil loss was estimated on a pixel-by-
pixel basis, and the spatial distribution of the soil erosion in the studied CHAMPABATI was obtained. To adopt
the RUSLE, large sets of data starting from rainfall, soil, slope, crop, and land management are needed in detail. In
developing countries all the necessary data are often not available or require ample time, money, and effort to
prepare such data sets. RUSLE is a straightforward and empirically based model that has the ability to predict
long term average annual rate of soil erosion on slopes using data on rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, crop
system and management practices. Based on this analysis, the amount of soil loss in the CHAMPABATI varies 0 to
37941.6 t ha-1 yr-1. The average annual soil loss of the CHAMPABATI has been found out to be 46.18834 t/ ha/
yr. It also reveals that the potential soil loss is typically greater along the steeper slope and poor vegetation cover
area. The Range land and dense forest of the CHAMPABATI are shown to be the least vulnerable to soil erosion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –195
International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163
Issue 05, Volume 5 (May 2018) www.ijirae.com
1. Angima. S.D., Stott.D.E., O Neill.M.K., Ong. C.K. and Weesies. G.A. (2003), “Soil erosion prediction using
RUSLE for central Kenyan highland conditions.” Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 97,295-308, 2003.
2. Blaszczynski, J. (2001), “Regional Sheet and Rill Soil Erosion Prediction with the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE) - GIS Interface.”Resource Notes No.46.). “Estimate of sediment yield in a basin
without sediment data.”
3. Jain M.K., Mishra S.K. and Shah R.B., “Estimation of sediment yield and areas vulnerable to soil erosion and
depositionin a Himalayan watershed using GIS”, Current Science. 98(2, 25): 213-221, 2010.
4. Lee G.S. and Lee K.H. (2006) “Scaling effect for estimating soil loss in the RUSLE model using remotely sensed
geospatial data in Korea.” Hydro. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss
5. Lu. D., Li.G., Vallader s. G.S., and Batistella. M (2004) –“ Mapping soil erosion risk in Rondonia, Brazilian
Amazonia using RUSLE, remote sensing and GIS.” Land Degradation and Development, 15, 499-512, 2004.
6. Nasir A, Uchida K and Ashraf M (2006) –“ Estimation of soil erosion by RUSLE and GIS for small
Mountains watersheds in Pakistan .” Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.10(1).
7. P. P. Dabral & Neelakshi Baithuri & Ashish Pandey, “Soil Erosion Assessment in a Hilly Catchment of North
Eastern India Using USLE, GIS and Remote Sensing”, 2008.
8. Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Abinod S, Geetha N (2012) Estimation of soil erosion risk within a small
mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India using revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) and geo-
information technology. Geosci Front 3(2):209–215
9. Pitt. R. (2007). “Erosion Mechanics and the RUSLE”. In R. Pitt, Construction Site Erosion and Sediment
Controls, Planning, Design and Performance.
10. Renard.K., Foster. G., Weesies. G., McDool. D & Yoder. D. (1997). Erosion by water: A guide to Conservation
planning with the RUSLE model.” Agricultural Handbook 703, USDA-ARS.
11. Shin, G. The Analysis of Soil Erosion Analysis in Watershed Using Gis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Gang-Won National University, Chuncheon, Korea, 1999.
12. S. K. Jain, S. Kumar and J. Varghese, “Estimation of Soil Erosion for a Himalayan watershed using GIS
technique”, Water Resource Manage,vol. 15, pp. 41–54, 2001.
13. Kim, H.S. Soil Erosion Modeling Using Rusle and Gis on the Imha Watershed, South Korea; Colorado State
University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006
14. Van der Knijff, J.; Jones, R.; Montanarella, L. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Europe.
15. Van der Knijff, J.; Jones, R.; Montanarella, L. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Italy. Available online:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.2309&rep=rep1&type=pdf
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value – SJIF: Innospace, Morocco (2016): 3.916 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 |
ISRAJIF (2017): 4.011 | Indexcopernicus: (ICV 2016): 64.35
IJIRAE © 2014- 18, All Rights Reserved Page –196