Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414 – 423

www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Modeling the USLE K-factor for calcareous soils

in northwestern Iran
A.R. Vaezi a , S.H.R. Sadeghi b,⁎, H.A. Bahrami a , M.H. Mahdian c
a
Department of Soil Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-336, Iran
b
Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor 46417-76489, Iran
c
Institute of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management, Tehran, 13445-1136, Iran
Received 11 March 2007; received in revised form 25 August 2007; accepted 30 August 2007
Available online 9 September 2007

Abstract

Soil erodibility defines the resistance of soil to detachment by rainfall impact and/or surface flow force. In the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE), the soil erodibility (K) is estimated using the texture, organic matter content, permeability and structure of a
soil. The USLE was originally developed for non-calcareous soils in the USA. However, in calcareous soils, calcium is an
important factor affecting soil structure and hence may influence soil erodibility. The application of the USLE to calcareous soils
therefore requires a reassessment of K. The present study evaluates K and identifies factors affecting K for calcareous soils in
Hashtrood City, northwestern Iran. The soils contain 13% lime and 1% organic matter, and are mainly utilized for wheat dry
farming. A square agriculture area of 900 km2 was selected and then divided into 36 grids of 5 × 5 km. The erosion unit plots at
three replicates with 1.2 m spacing were installed in each grid. K was measured based on soil loss and the rainfall erosivity index
from March 2005 to March 2006. The rate of soil loss resulting from 23 natural rainfall events during the study period was
measured at the unit plot scale. Various soil properties including the contents of sand, silt, silt + very fine sand, clay, gravel, organic
matter, lime, and potassium as well as aggregate stability and permeability were measured in the vicinity of each plot. The results
show that K significantly correlates with the contents of sand, silt, silt + very fine sand, organic matter, and lime as well as water-
aggregate stability and permeability. The application of principal component analysis (PCA) also indicates that the contents of clay
and lime as well as permeability strongly control K. The contents of clay and lime, which have not been well considered in USLE
studies, significantly decrease K due to their strong effects on aggregate stability and water infiltration into soil. K can be estimated
using a linear regression equation based on the contents of sand, clay and lime.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: USLE; Erodibility factor; Calcareous soil; Erosion modelling; Iran

1. Introduction development (Jianping, 1999). About 85k of global

Soil erosion is one of the most important envi-
ronmental problems in the world, causing great eco-
nomical losses every year and threatening sustainable
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shrsadeghi@yahoo.com (S.H.R. Sadeghi).
0169-555X/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.08.017
land degradation is associated with soil erosion, most
of which occurred after World War II, causing a 17%
reduction in crop productivity (Oldeman et al., 1990;
Biot and Lu, 1995; Bruce et al., 1995) and environ-
mental damage. For this reason, prevention of soil
erosion is of paramount importance in the management
and conservation of natural resources (Morgan, 1995;
 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423
Sadeghi et al., 2007). Predicting soil erosion and proper
evaluation of the main erosional factors in an area of
interest therefore provide the first step in choosing
proper strategies for soil erosion control.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE; Wischmeier
and Smith, 1978) and its revised versions are widely used
to predict soil loss and to plan soil conservation works
(Renard et al., 1991; Sadeghi et al., 2004). The USLE is a
statistically-based water erosion model related to six
erosional factors (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978):
A¼RKLSCP ð1Þ
where A is the mean annual soil loss, R is the rainfall
erosivity factor, K is the soil erodibility factor, L is the
slope length factor, S is the slope steepness factor, C is the
crop management factor and P is the erosion control
practice factor.
Soil erodibility is conceived of as the ease with which
soil is detached by splash during rainfall and/or surface
flow (Renard et al., 1997). It is generally considered as
an inherent soil property with a constant value. This
factor reflects the fact that different soils erode at dif-
ferent rates when the other factors that affect erosion are
the same (Kirkby and Morgan, 1980). In the USLE, the
concept of soil erodibility was introduced as the K fac-
tor, which was defined as the mean rate of soil loss from
a unit (standard) plot divided by the rainfall erosivity
index:
A 2003), and particle size distribution (Ghaderi and
K¼ ð2Þ
R Ghoddosi, 2005; Ghorbani and Bahrami, 2005).
The unit plot is 22.1 m long and 1.83 m wide with a
uniform slope of 9% in continuous clean-tilled fallow
with tillage performed in the upslope/downslope
direction. In metric units, A is in t ha− 1 per year and R
is in MJ mm (ha h)− 1 per year, and therefore K is in t h
(MJ mm)− 1.
To estimate K from measurable soil properties, a soil
erodibility nomograph was developed in the early 1970s
(Wischmeier et al., 1971). Main factors considered in
the soil erodibility calculation in the USLE include soil
particle compositions (percentages of sand, silt, very
fine sand + silt, and clay), percentage of organic matter,
the soil structure code and the soil permeability class
(Wischmeier and Mannering, 1969; Wischmeier et al.,
1971; Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). In recent years,
many authors have used K as an indicator for soil ero-
sion (Barthès et al., 1999; Parysow et al., 2003), because
it is a measure of soil susceptibility to erosion. The
particle detachment and subsequent transport are in-
415
fluenced by soil properties, such as particle size dis-
tribution, structural stability, organic matter content,
soil chemistry, clay mineralogy and water transmission
characteristics (Lal, 1994). Many studies indicated that
different soil properties affect soil erodibility, and
influential soil properties are texture and structure
(Troeh et al., 1980), infiltration rates and permeability
(Kirkby and Morgan, 1980; Santos et al., 2003; Yu et al.,
2006; Zhang et al., 2007), aggregation and its stability
(Duiker et al., 2001; Barthès and Roose, 2002; Zhang
et al., 2007), organic matter content (Rodríguez et al.,
2006), and type of organic matter (Tejada and Gonzalez,
2006). The effectiveness of some of these factors can be
greatly influenced by soil lime content, although stud-
ies on this topic have been very limited. Some reports
showed that polyvalent cations (especially Ca2+) sig-
nificantly control flocculation of colloids and resistance
to erosion (Orts et al., 2000; Charman and Murphy,
2000; Duiker et al., 2001).
A limited number of soil erosion studies have been
conducted in Iran where water erosion-related processes
cause land degradation in many parts (Mahdian, 2005).
Our review of research on soil erosion in Iran showed
that investigation on effects of soil properties on erod-
ibility and applicability assessment of the USLE began
in early 1996 (Karimzadeh and Hajabbasi, 1996). The
subsequent studies showed the significant relationship
of erodibility with various factors such as land use and
soil management (Bahrami et al., 2005) soil texture
and organic matter content (Ghasemi and Mohammadi,
From our review of the literature, it is also evident
that although many soil erosion studies have been con-
ducted throughout the globe, almost no study has per-
formed soil erodibility assessment for calcareous soils
mainly found in arid and semi-arid regions. In cal-
careous soils, calcium is an important factor determining
aggregate stability and consequently infiltration rates
that can significantly affect soil erodibility. Therefore,
the application of Wischmeier et al.'s (1971) nomograph
to calcareous soils in arid and semi-arid regions may
lead to inaccurate assessment of K (Refahi, 1996),
which limits the application of the USLE and its revised
versions to calcareous soils. Accordingly, the present
study examines data from field erosion plots with cal-
careous soils under natural rainfall events in northwest-
ern Iran to: (i) determine the value of K; (ii) recognize
soil physicochemical properties that affect K; and
(iii) develop a model for estimating K based on easily
measurable physicochemical properties of calcareous
soils.
416 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423

2. Study area and methods
2.1. Study area
The study area is located in Hashtrood City, in a
southern part of East Azarbyjan Province, northwestern
Iran (Fig. 1). It encompasses an area of 900 km2 between
37°18′49′'E–37°35′0′'E, and 46°46′5′'N–47°6′5′'N,
and was divided into 36 grids of 5 × 5 km squares
(Fig. 1). The climate is semi-arid with a mean annual
temperature of 13 °C and an average annual precipitation
of 322 mm. Soils are generally deep to moderately deep
with clayey texture, ∼10% CaCO3 and 1% organic
matter. They are moderately permeable and usually used
for wheat dry farming (Hakimi, 1986). Slope in the study
site is 5–15%.
2.2. Plot installation and equipping
In order to measure K, the unit plots (Wischmeier and
Smith, 1978) were installed in agricultural lands with
uniform slopes of 9%, at three replicates with 1.2 m
spacing for each 5 × 5 km grid square (Fig. 2). To avoid
the effects of crop cover on soil erodibility, plots were
installed on fallows (Hussein et al., 2007) and were
maintained in a bare condition during the study period
using herbicide treatment (Rejman et al., 1998). The study
plots were ploughed in the slope direction in March 2005.

Fig. 1. Geographical location (above) and general view (below) of the study site.
 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423 417

Fig. 2. Experimental set up of the measurement system.

The plots were besieged using earthen berms with a height
of 30 cm to control surface water movement from inside to
outside the area, and vice versa. Runoff collecting systems
with gutters, pipes and 70-liter tanks were installed at the
lower part of each plot. A plastic cover was placed on
the ridge of the lower part of the plot and was driven into
the soil with a depth of ∼10 cm to transport runoff into the
collection system (Rejman et al., 1998).
2.3. Soil property measurements
Soil samples were taken randomly from three points in
each plot from 0–30 cm depth, and then mixed together.
The mixed samples were air-dried and sieved through a
2 mm sieve. The samples were then analyzed in the
laboratory for evaluating physicochemical properties. The
particle size distribution including sand (0.05–2 mm),
very fine sand (0.1–0.05 mm), silt (0.002–0.05 mm) and
clay (b 0.002 mm) was determined by applying the
hydrometer method, based on displacement of a hydrom-
eter as a result of change in relative density. The organic
matter content was analyzed with the Walkly–Black
method (Nelson and Sommer, 1982). The lime content
as the total neutralizing value (TNV) was determined
based on the neutralizing rate of carbonates with acetic
acid buffered at pH5 (Goh et al., 1993). The available
418 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423

potassium content was also determined with the ammo-
nium acetate extraction method (Knudsen et al., 1982).
The aggregate stability was determined using the wet-
sieving method based on mean weight diameter (MWD),
as proposed by Angers and Mehuys (1993). Water-stable
aggregates were determined by placing 100 g aggregates
with diameter N8 mm on the top of the sieve set, and
moved in water for 1 minute. Soil permeability for each
study plot was determined based on the final infiltration
rate by measuring the one-dimensional water flow into the
soil per unit time using double-ring infiltrometers
(Scholten, 1997) at four to six replications in the field.
The infiltration measurements were carried out at the end
of the dry season (July 2005) in order to minimize the
influence of antecedent moisture on infiltration rates, as
described by Turner and Summer (1978).
2.5. Soil loss measurement
The entire runoff volume including eroded sedi-
ment was measured on storm basis using the col-
lection tanks. The collected runoff from each plot was
then mixed thoroughly and a sample was taken for
determining sediment concentration by the weigh (Guy,
1975). The per-storm and annual soil losses were then
obtained.
2.6. Determination of soil erodibility factor
The soil erodibility factor (K) was determined based
on annual soil loss per the unit annual rainfall erosivity
index. The K value for each grid was obtained as the
mean of the measured K values in the three plots.

2.4. Rainfall property measurements 2.7. Development of an estimation model

Rainfall was measured at five locations in the
experimental site (Fig. 1). Four standard rainfall gauges
located in the grids 2, 10, 27 and 30 were used to
manually measure rain depth after each event. Homo-
geneity of rainfall amounts in the four gauges was
evaluated for 23 storm events using the ANOVA
parametric test. An automatic rain gauge belonging to
the Irrigation Office of Hashtrood, located in grid 17,
was also used to determine rainfall intensities. Kinetic
energy was then computed using the following equation
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978):
E ¼ 210:3 þ 87log10 I
where E is the kinetic energy per unit area in unit of rain
height (J m2 cm− 1) and I is the rainfall intensity (cm h− 1).
The kinetic energy resulted from each storm event was
then obtained by multiplying E by rain depth (cm). The
rainfall erosivity index (EI30) for each event was then
computed by multiplying E by I30 (maximum 30-minute
rainfall intensity in cm h− 1). The annual rainfall erosivity
index or R (MJ mm ha− 1 h− 1) was obtained by summing
up EI30 for all storm events during the study year.
Soil predictor variables were tested for normality
using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test before model
development. An attempt was then made to develop
an empirical model for evaluating calcareous soil
erodibility in the study area with the help of principal
component analysis (PCA) and multivariate regression
models. The PCA mathematically transformed several
correlated variables (soil properties) into fewer uncor-
related variables (Jollife, 1986). Multivariable analysis
was also carried out to quantitatively elucidate the
erodibility-determining factors. The stepwise multiple
regression was performed using the scores of the
ð3Þ extracted principal components and the soil properties.
The statistical software SPSS13 was used for facilitating
the entire analyses.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Soil properties
The physicochemical properties of the sampled soils
are reported in Table 1. The results of soil analyses
showed that they had low organic matter content and

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of physicochemical properties of studied soils
Descriptive statistics SA(%) VFS(%) SI(%) CC(%) GR(%) PO(mg kg− 1) OM(%) TNV(%) MWD(mm) PE(cm h− 1)
Mean 36.7 16.8 31.6 32.0 9.9 314.7 1.08 12.7 1.13 3.5
Minimum 24.8 8.9 20.2 20.8 5.3 237.4 0.70 4.15 0.27 1.4
Maximum 48.3 24.8 44.8 42.2 14.8 390.5 2.09 23.7 1.91 5.8
Standard deviation 6.7 3.8 7.1 5.7 2.4 25.4 0.25 5.2 0.44 1.2
SA: sand; VFS: very fine sand; SI: silt; CC: clay; GR: gravel; PO: potassium; OM: organic matter; TNV: total neutralizing value; MWD: water-
aggregate stability; PE: permeability.
 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423 419

Table 2 with a mean of 2.8 mm h− 1 and a mean duration time of

Characteristics of 23 storm events during the study period (April 3.9 h. The maximum and minimum rainfall occurred
2005–March 2006)
during May (105 mm) and July (0.1 mm), respectively.
No. Date Duration Depth 30-minute Mean EI30 Some 60 rainfall events occurred during the study period,
(h) (mm) intensity runoff (MJ mm
(mm h− 1) (lit. per ha− 1 hr− 1)
and 23 events generated runoff and therefore caused soil
plot) loss at the plots. The insignificant difference in rainfall
amounts on a storm basis among the rain gauges was
1 2 April 1.15 2.55 3.0 2.15 1.18
2 3 April 1.36 3.65 3.2 4.31 1.88 confirmed using ANOVA (p b 0.198), allowing the
3 12 April 3.40 13.70 15.2 32.49 36.64 transformation of data from the rain gauges to the entire
4 13 April 1.00 2.70 3.0 4.18 1.30 study area. The detailed characteristics of the 23 events
5 16 April 1.30 4.80 4.8 9.36 3.98 have been summarized in Table 2. The mean amount of
6 17 April 1.10 3.70 5.4 7.33 3.38
rainfall which yielded sediment in grids 2, 10, 17 and 30
7 26 April 6.98 17.85 7.6 25.08 21.55
8 27 April 0.70 2.80 5.4 12.69 2.66 were 7.22, 6.59, 6.98 and 6.84 mm, respectively. The
9 3 May 1.50 8.35 8.4 16.66 13.20 annual rainfall erosivity index (R) was also obtained as
10 4 May 0.71 2.00 3.8 3.43 1.24 448.7 MJ mm (ha h)− 1 based on data from grid 17.
11 7 May 0.73 2.50 4.8 9.46 2.04
12 9 May 1.15 4.20 5.0 12.23 3.62
3.3. Soil properties–K factor relationships
13 14 May 1.18 11.90 21.8 39.72 54.63
14 15 May 0.90 12.40 22.8 49.38 62.88
15 16 May 1.60 8.10 25.0 28.24 37.37 Annual values of soil loss in the study plots (Fig. 1)
16 19 May 2.10 12.50 13.0 22.53 30.99 varied from 0.364 to 3.289 t ha− 1 with a mean of 1.869 t
17 20 May 1.30 10.40 12.2 28.99 25.61 ha− 1 and a standard deviation of 0.793 t ha− 1 (Table 3).
Mean K varied from 0.0008 to 0.0073 t h MJ− 1 mm− 1,
18 31 May 0.50 3.50 7.0 14.76 4.82
19 2 June 0.77 1.90 3.6 2.48 1.08
20 28 September 1.38 15.30 22.4 36.99 73.40 with an average and a standard deviation of 0.0043 t
21 4 February 0.65 4.00 6.8 23.59 5.22 h MJ− 1 mm− 1 and 0.0018 t h MJ− 1 mm− 1, respectively. A
22 9 February 0.58 2.40 4.6 8.91 1.95 T-test indicated that the mean K is significantly ( p b 0.001)
23 9 March 4.00 9.30 4.4 24.20 6.35 lower than that estimated using the USLE monogram
(0.0359 t h MJ− 1 mm− 1) by a factor of 8.35. The
high potassium content. The soils were limey with a low correlation between the measured K and K estimated from
aggregate stability and a moderate permeability. The soil the monogram is also low (R2 = 0.16, p = 0.014, n = 36).
textures were mainly clay loam and loam. The entire soil The relationship between the measured K and soil
sample collection can be grouped as Inceptisols. properties was initially evaluated using a correlation
matrix (Table 4). K significantly correlates with the content
3.2. Rainfall characteristics of sand ( p b 0.01, n = 36), silt ( p b 0.001), silt + very fine
sand (p b 0.01), organic matter ( p b 0.01), and lime
The annual precipitation in the study site was 447 mm ( p b 0.01), as well as water-aggregate stability ( p b 0.05)
and the rainfall intensity varied from 0.1 to 13.8 mm h− 1 and permeability ( p b 0.001). K positively correlates with

Table 3
Mean soil loss and soil erodibility of the unit plots located in each grid
Grid no. Soil erodibility Soil loss Grid no. Soil erodibility Soil loss Grid no. Soil erodibility Soil loss
(t h MJ− 1 mm− 1) (t ha− 1year− 1) (t h MJ− 1 mm− 1) (t ha− 1year− 1) (t h MJ− 1 mm− 1) (t ha− 1year− 1)
1 0.0066 2.968 13 0.0073 3.289 25 0.0070 3.148
2 0.0064 2.887 14 0.0051 2.282 26 0.0029 1.292
3 0.0065 2.926 15 0.0042 1.902 27 0.0021 0.958
4 0.0036 1.633 16 0.0008 0.364 28 0.0066 2.964
5 0.0057 2.563 17 0.0024 1.067 29 0.0044 1.955
6 0.0013 0.578 18 0.0049 2.203 30 0.0054 2.427
7 0.0013 0.600 19 0.0061 2.728 31 0.0034 1.544
8 0.0028 1.270 20 0.0033 1.482 32 0.0017 0.768
9 0.0043 1.931 21 0.0024 1.060 33 0.0042 1.905
10 0.0056 2.513 22 0.0029 1.279 34 0.0036 1.619
11 0.0050 2.264 23 0.0050 2.253 35 0.0045 2.021
12 0.0021 0.921 24 0.0041 1.839 36 0.0042 1.880
420 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423

Table 4
Correlation matrix of soil properties and soil erodibility (K) at the 108 plots in the 36 grids
Variable SA SI SI + VFS CC GR PO OM TNV MWD PE K
SA 1
SI − 0.670⁎⁎⁎ 1
SI + VFS − 0.234 0.853⁎⁎⁎ 1
CC − 0.379⁎ −0.400⁎⁎ − 0.733⁎⁎⁎ 1
GR 0.018 0.024 0.000 − 0.058 1
PO − 0.078 −0.177 − 0.221 0.309⁎ 0.093 1
OM 0.061 −0.228 − 0.323⁎ 0.208 0.165 0.059 1
TNV − 0.269 0.174 0.046 0.028 − 0.030 − 0.092 0.046 1
MWD − 0.457⁎⁎ −0.123 − 0.419⁎⁎ 0.705⁎⁎⁎ − 0.091 0.217 0.293⁎ 0.481⁎⁎ 1
PE 0.569⁎⁎⁎ −0.553⁎⁎⁎ − 0.392⁎⁎ − 0.069 0.091 0.080 0.541⁎⁎⁎ 0.295⁎ 0.134 1
K − 0.470⁎⁎ 0.613⁎⁎⁎ 0.514⁎⁎ − 0.133 − 0.157 − 0.125 − 0.478⁎⁎ − 0.410⁎⁎ − 0.350⁎ − 0.882⁎⁎⁎ 1
SA: sand; SI: silt; VFS: very fine sand; CC: clay; GR: gravel; PO: potassium; OM: organic matter; TNV: total neutralizing value; MWD: water-
aggregate stability; PE: permeability; K: erodibility factor of the USLE, ⁎⁎⁎. Correlation significant at p b 0.001, ⁎⁎. Correlation significant at
p b 0.01, ⁎. Correlation significant at p b 0.05.

silt and silt + very fine sand, but negatively with the water- (2006). The negative influence of lime content on K
aggregate stability (MWD). This result accords with accords with Castro and Logan (1991),Orts et al. (2000),
Charman and Murphy (2000), who found that surface Charman and Murphy (2000), and Duiker et al. (2001) who
aggregates can reduce erodibility because their stable mass found that Ca2+ affects flocculation and aggregate stability,
increases resistance to raindrop detachment. The water- and hence decreases erodibility.
aggregate stability was also significantly correlated with To develop an empirical model for estimating K for
the content of sand ( p b 0.01), clay ( p b 0.001), organic calcareous soils, soil properties were categorized into four
matter ( p b 0.05) and lime ( p b 0.01). In contrast, sand main groups using PCA (Table 5). A soil property with the
decrease the water-aggregate stability, which agrees with highest explanation coefficient in each component (i.e.
Veihe (2002). The role of the clay and organic matter as a clay, lime and gravel content and permeability) was then
binding agent in improving the aggregation of soil colloids selected as a representative factor affecting K. The
was also reported by Skidmore and Layton (1992) and relationship between K and the selected main soil properties
Bartoli et al. (1992). was established using multiple regression, whose details
The negative correlation between K and soil permeabil- are shown in Table 6. The results indicate that the
ity accords with Yu et al. (2006). Table 4 also indicated that combination of the four properties significantly affects K
soil permeability significantly correlates with the content of (R2 = 0.85, pb 0.001, n= 36). The decreasing effect of clay
sand ( pb 0.001), silt ( p b 0.001), silt+ very fine sand
( pb 0.001), organic matter ( p b 0.001) and lime ( p b 0.05).
In contrast to sand, organic matter and lime, an increase in
silt content decreases soil permeability. The effects of sand Table 5
and organic matter to increase infiltration and decrease K Principle components related to soil properties
have been reported by Santos et al. (2003), Evrendliek et al. Variable Component
(2004),Tejada and Gonzalez (2006), and Rodríguez et al. 1 2 3 4
(2006). In fact organic matter significantly influences the
SA 0.837 -0.365 -0.337 -0.047
form and stability of soil structure and correspondingly the SI − 0.828 − 0.365 0.197 0.130
soil infiltration rate (Scholten, 1997; Zhang et al., 2007). CC 0.005 0.925 0.103 − 0.113
The effect of aggregate stability and permeability on K also OM 0.400 0.236 0.358 0.455
accords with Barthès and Roose, (2002),Gupta (2002) and TNV − 0.051 − 0.052 0.889 − 0.037
GR − 0.032 − 0.034 − 0.085 0.899
Hoyos (2005). The contents of fine sand and silt positively
PO 0.047 0.607 − 0.251 0.256
correlate with K because of their high susceptibility to soil MWD − 0.037 0.715 0.616 − 0.069
detachment and transport (Wischmeier and Mannering, PE 0.849 − 0.054 0.379 0.210
1969; Duiker et al., 2001). The negative correlation SA: sand; SI: silt; CC: clay; OM: organic matter; TNV: total neutralizing
between clay content and K agrees with Dimoyiannis value; GR: gravel; PO: potassium; MWD: water-aggregate stability; PE:
et al. (1998),Zhang et al. (2004) and Rodríguez et al. permeability.
 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423 421

Table 6 Table 8
Regression coefficients, standard error and significance levels of the Regression coefficients, standard error and significant levels of
multiple regression between calcareous soil erodibility and four main relationship between the erodibility and the three easily-measurable
soil properties at the 36 grids (n = 36) soil properties (n = 36)
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Significance Model Unstandardized Standardized T Significance
coefficients coefficients level ( p) coefficients coefficients level (p)
B Std. Beta B Std. Beta
error error
Constant 0.01197 0.00099 12.073 b0.001 Constant 0.01852 0.00195 9.472 b0.001
CC − 5.9 × 10− 5 0.00002 − 0.192 − 2.716 0.011 SA − 0.00021 0.00003 − 0.794 − 7.008 b0.001
TNV − 5.4 × 10− 5 0.00002 − 0.160 − 2.170 0.038 CC − 0.00013 0.00003 − 0.415 − 3.817 0.001
PE − 0.00127 0.00011 − 0.840 − 11.375 b0.001 TNV − 0.00021 0.00004 − 0.611 − 5.844 b0.001
GR − 7.3 × 10− 5 0.00005 − 0.097 − 1.376 0.179
SA: sand; CC: clay; TNV: total neutralizing value.
CC: clay; TNV: total neutralizing value; PR: permeability; GR: gravel.

content, lime content and permeability was significant at explanation variance, respectively. It is also revealed
levels of b 0.05, 0.05 and 0.001, respectively. The effect of that K could also be estimated from sand, clay and lime
gravel content on K is not significant indicating that its contents (Table 8; p b 0.001, R2 = 0.68):
influence on the final determination coefficient (R2) is very
low and it could be omitted from the analysis. The revised K ¼ 0:0185  2:1  105 SA  1:3  105 CC ð5Þ
relationship with the other three soil properties was then 2:1  105 PE: R2 ¼ 0:68
developed (Table 7), which confirms that the combination
of the three properties significantly affect K (R2 = 0.84, where SA is sand content in %.
p b 0.001, n= 36). Based on the results shown in Table 7,
the following relationship was developed: 4. Conclusions

K ¼ 0:0123  5:7  105 CC  5:2  105 TNV ð4Þ A study was conducted in Hashtrood City, Iran, to
0:00129PE; R2 ¼ 0:84 evaluate and model calcareous soil erodibility (K). The
study took place in standard erosion plots and the results
where CC is clay content in %, TNV is total neutralizing were used to develop a new and easily applicable
value in %, PE is permeability in cm h− 1, and K is in t h prediction model of K. The contents of sand, silt, organic
(MJ mm)− 1. matter, and lime as well as water-aggregate stability and
Tables 6 and 7 show that soil permeability is the most permeability significantly affect K, although they have
important factor for estimating K in the studied not directly been taken into account by traditional soil
calcareous soils. The correlation matrix (Table 4) erodibility estimation methods. Aggregate stability and
suggests that even if soil permeability is difficult to soil permeability, which were strongly influenced by the
measure, it may be estimated using the content of sand, soil texture, as well as organic matter content and lime
silt or organic matter with 56.9%, 55.3% and 54.1% content considerably control K. Soil permeability is
particularly important because of its major role in
generating runoff. In the study area, soil permeability
Table 7
Regression coefficients, standard error and significance levels of the
markedly increases with the contents of sand, organic
multiple regression between calcareous soil erodibility and three main matter, and limes. Aggregate stability also increases
soil properties at the 36 grids (n = 36) significantly with organic matter and lime contents.
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Significance Consequently, organic matter and lime contents are two
coefficients coefficients level (p) major factors affecting K. In calcareous soils, the effect of
B Std. Beta lime is highly important, although it has not been
error considered in the USLE nomograph. Indeed, measured
Constant 0.0123 0.00085 13.267 b0.001 K values are significantly lower than those estimated
CC −5.7 × 10− 5 0.00002 − 0.187 − 2.616 0.013 from the USLE monogram, and their correlation coeffi-
TNV −5.2 × 10− 5 0.00003 − 0.154 − 2.066 0.047 cient is low. Statistically acceptable and easily applicable
PE −0.00129 0.00011 − 0.850 − 11.374 b0.001 models were established between K and the selected main
CC: clay; TNV: total neutralizing value; PE: permeability. soil properties based on principle component analysis and
422 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423
multiple regression techniques. Further studies on others
calcareous soils in arid and semi-arid regions is needed to
develop more accurate models for estimating K.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Institute of Agriculture Research and the
University of Zanjan for analyzing physical and chemical
soil properties. We also acknowledge Hassan Fayyazi for
providing rainfall data from the automatic rain gauge
belonging to the Irrigation Office of Hashtrood. We are
indebted to Reza Akhond for his help in statistical
analysis, Majid Vaezi for providing transportation
services during field surveys, and local farmers for
supplying farming land for establishing the erosion plots.
References
Angers, D.A., Mehuys, G.R., 1993. Aggregate stability to water. In:
Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis.
Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
pp. 651–657.
Bahrami, H.A., Pornalkh, T., Tahmasebipoor, N., 2005. Study of soil
erodibility in different land uses from Chamanjir watershed.
Proceedings of the Third National Conference of Erosion &
Sediment, Tehran, pp. 505–510 (in Persian).
Barthès, B., Roose, E., 2002. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil
susceptibility to runoff and erosion; validation at several levels.
Catena 47, 133–149.
Barthès, B., Albrecht, A., Asseline, L., De Noni, G., Roose, E., 1999.
Relationships between soil erodibility and topsoil aggregate
stability or carbon content in a cultivated Mediterranean highland
(Aveyron, France). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 30, 1929–1938.
Bartoli, F., Burtin, G., Guérif, J., 1992. Influence of organic carbon on
aggregation in Oxisols rich in gibbsite or in goethite: II. Clay
dispersion, aggregate strength and water stability. Geoderma 54,
259–274.
Biot, K., Lu, X.X., 1995. Loss of yield caused by soil erosion on sandy
soils in the UK. Soil Use Manage. 11, 157–162.
Bruce, R.R., Langdale, G.W., East, L.J., Miller, W.P., 1995. Surface
soil degradation and soil productivity restoration and maintenance.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 654–660.
Castro, C.F., Logan, T.J., 1991. Limming effects on the stability and
erodibility of some Brazilian oxisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55,
1407–1413.
Charman, P.E.V., Murphy, B.W., 2000. Soils (their properties and
management), 2nd ed. Land and Water Conservation. New South
Wales, Oxford, pp. 206–212.
Dimoyiannis, D.G., Tsadials, C.D., Valmis, S., 1998. Factors affecting
aggregate instability of Greek agriculture soils. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 29, 1239–1251.
Duiker, S.W., Flanagan, D.C., Lal, R., 2001. Erodibility and
infiltration characteristics of five major soils of southwest Spain.
Catena 45, 103–121.
Evrendliek, F., Celik, I., Kilic, S., 2004. Changes in soil organic carbon
and other physical soil properties along adjacent Mediterranean
forests, grassland and cropland ecosystems. J. Arid Environ. 59,
743–752.
Ghaderi, N., Ghoddosi, J., 2005. Study of soil erodibility in lands units
from Telvarchai watershed. Proceedings of the Third National Con-
ference of Erosion & Sediment, Tehran, pp. 367–372 (in Persian).
Ghasemi, A., Mohammadi, J., 2003. Study of spatial variation of soil
erodibility, a case study in Cheghakhor watershed in Chaharmahal-
e-Bakhtiyari Province. Proceedings of the Eighth Soil Science
Congress of Iran, Rasht, pp. 864–865 (in Persian).
Ghorbani, H., Bahrami, H.A., 2005. Assessment of soil erodibility by
weight method in USLE and RUSLE using GIS in northeast
Lorestan Province. Proceedings of the Third National Conference
of Erosion & Sediment, Tehran, pp. 658–660 (in Persian).
Goh, T.B., Arnaud, R.J.St., Mermut, A.R., 1993. Aggregate stability to
water. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Soil Sampling and Methods of
Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, pp. 177–180.
Gupta, O.P., 2002. Water in Relation to Soils and Plants: with Special
Reference to Agriculture. Agrobios, Delhi. 164 p.
Guy, H.P., 1975. An overview of non-point water pollution from the
urban-suburban arena. In: Ashton, P.M., Underwood, R.C. (Eds.),
Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution: Proceedings of a
Southeastern Regional Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University, Virginia May 1 and 2, 1975,
pp. 45–66.
Hakimi, A., 1986. The briefly study of soil science in Hashtrood. Soil
and Water Research Institute, Agriculture Ministry, Iran. Res. Rep.
767, 2–15 (in Persian).
Hoyos, N., 2005. Spatial modeling of soil erosion potential in a
tropical watershed of the Colombian Andes. Catena 63, 85–108.
Hussein, M.H., Kariem, T.H., Othman, A.K., 2007. Predicting soil
erodibility in northern Iraq natural runoff data. Soil Tillage Res. 94,
220–228.
Jianping, Z., 1999. Soil erosion in Guizhou Province of China: a case
study in Bijie Prefecture. Soil Use Manage. 15, 68–70.
Jollife, I., 1986. Principal Component Analysis. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Karimzadeh, H., Hajabbasi, l., 1996. Effect of land use kind on
erodibility of Lordegan soils. Proceedings of the Fifth Soil Science
Congress of Iran, Karaj, pp. 201–202 (in Persian).
Kirkby, M.J., Morgan, R.P., 1980. Soil Erosion. John Wiley & Sons,
New York. 312 p.
Knudsen, D., Peterson, G.A., Pratt, P.F., 1982. Lithium, sodium and
potassium. In: Page, A.L.(Ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Chemical
and Microbiological Properties. ASA Monograph, vol. 9(2), Amer.
Soc. Agron. Madison, vol. 9(2) pp. 225-246.
Lal, R., 1994. Soil Erosion Research Methods, 3rd ed. Soil and Water
Conservation Society (Aukeny). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach.
Mahdian, M.H., 2005. Study of land degradation in Iran. Proceedings
of the Third National Conference of Erosion & Sediment. Tehran,
pp. 226–231 (in Persian).
Morgan, R.P.C., 1995. Soil erosion and conservation. Longman,
London, pp. 23–37.
Nelson, D.W., Sommer, L.E., 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and
organic matter. In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis:
Chemical and Microbiological Properties. ASA Monograph, 9 (2).
Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, pp. 539–579.
Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A., Sombroek, W.G., 1990. World
map of the status of human-induced soil degradation. An
Explanatory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation
GLASOD. Work. Pap. 90/07. ISRIC, Wageningen.
Orts, J.W., Sojka, R.E., Glenn, G.M., 2000. Biopolymer additives to
reduce erosion-induced soil losses during irrigation. Ind. Crops
Prod., 11, pp. 19–26.
 A.R. Vaezi et al. / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 414–423
Parysow, P., Wang, G., Gertner, G., Anderson, A., 2003. Spatial
uncertainly analysis for mapping soil erodibility on joint sequential
simulation. Catena 53, 65–78.
Refahi, H.G., 1996. Soil erosion by water and conservation. Tehran
University Publication, pp. 141–147 (in Persian).
Rejman, J., Turski, R., Paluszek, J., 1998. Spatial and temporal
variability in erodibility of loess soil. Soil Tillage Res. 46, 61–68.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., 1991. RUSLE: revised
universal soil loss equation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 46, 30–33.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C.,
1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation
planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Handbook, vol. 703. 404 pp.
Rodríguez, R.R., Arbelo, C.D., Guerra, J.A., Natario, M.J.S., Armas,
C.M., 2006. Organic carbon stocks and soil erodibility in Canary
Islands Andosols. Catena 66, 228–235.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Singh, J.K., Das, G., 2004. Efficiency of annual soil
erosion models for storm-wise sediment prediction: a case study.
Int. Agric. Eng. J. 13, 1–14.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Ggaderi Vangah, B., Safaeeian, N.A., 2007.
Comparsion between effects of open grazing and manual harvest-
ing of cultivated summer rangelands of northern Iran on infiltration,
runoff and sediment yield. Land Degradation & Development
(DOI/10,1002:ldr.799).
Santos, F.L., Reis, J.L., Martins, O.C., Castanheira, N.L., Serralheiro,
R.P., 2003. Comparative assessment of infiltration, runoff and
erosion of sprinkler irrigated soils. Biosystems Eng. 86, 355–364.
Scholten, T., 1997. Hydrology and erodibility of the soils and saprolite
cover of the Swaziland Middleveld. Soil Technol. 11, 247–262.
423
Skidmore, E.L., Layton, J.B., 1992. Dry-soil aggregation stability as
influenced by selected soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56,
557–561.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., 2006. The relationships between erodibility
and erosion in a soil trated with two organic amendments. Soil Tillage
Res. 91, 186–198.
Troeh, F.R., Hobbs, J.A., Donahue, R.L., 1980. Soil and water
conservation for productivity and environmental protection.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, pp. 156–159.
Turner, D.P., Summer, M., 1978. The influence of initial soil water
content on field measured infiltration rates. Water S.A. 4, 18–24.
Veihe, A., 2002. The spatial variability of erodibility and its relation to
soil types: a study from northern Ghana. Geoderma 106, 101–120.
Wischmeier, W.H., Mannering, J.V., 1969. Relation of soil properties
to its erodibility. Soil Sci. Am. Proc. 33, 121–137.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses:
a guide to conservation planning. Agriculture Handbook, vol. 537.
US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, pp. 13–27.
Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B., Cross, B.V., 1971. A soil erodibility
nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 26, 189–193.
Yu, D.-S., Shi, X.-Z., Weindorf, D.C., 2006. Relationship between
permeability and erodibility of cultivated Acrisols and Cambisols
in subtropical China. Pedosphere 16, 304–311.
Zhang, K., Li, S., Peng, W., Yu, B., 2004. Erodibility of agricultural
soils and loess plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 76, 157–165.
Zhang, G.S., Chan, K.Y., Oates, H., Heenan, D.P., Huang, G.B., 2007.
Relationship between soil structure and runoff/soil loss after
24 years of conservation tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 92, 122–128.