Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Nexus
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

F
OO
Watershed-based soil erosion and sediment yield modeling in the Rib
watershed of the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia
a e ⁎ a * f a
Berhanu G. Sinshaw , , , Abreham M. Belete , , Belachew M. Mekonen , Tesgaye G. Wubetu ,
b b c d * a
Tegenu L. Anley , Wolelaw D. Alamneh , Haimanot B. Atinkut , , , Abay A. Gelaye ,

PR
g a, e, * c c
Tenaw Bilkew , Agumase K. Tefera , Abebe Birara Dessie , Habtamu M. Fenta ,
a h a a a
Agumas M. Beyene , Belay B. Bizuneh , Habtamu T. Alem , Daniel G. Eshete , Simir B. Atanaw ,
c i
Mekuanent A. Tebkew , Mengistie Mossie Birhanu
a School of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
b Department of Construction Engineering and Management, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
c College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
d College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Hubei Wuhan, 430070, P.R. China

D
e Faculty of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar 26, Ethiopia
f Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Fogera National Rice Research and Training Centre, Woreta 190, Ethiopia
g Ethiopian Construction Work Corporation, Addis Ababa 21952 , Ethiopia
h Department of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos 269, Ethiopia
TE
i College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Soil erosion is a major environmental problem that degrades topsoil and agricultural land productivity in moun-
EC

Ethiopia tainous areas such as Ethiopia. Soil erosion estimation is critical for the planning of erosion control plans in an
GIS agriculture-dependent economy. The current study used the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model
Environmental challenge
to evaluate the spatial distribution of annual soil loss and sediment yield in the Rib watershed. The main factors
Sediment yield modeling
affecting soil erosion and sediment yield include vegetation cover, topography, soil, and climate. Soil erosion and
Soil erosion
Upper Blue Nile Basin sediment yield maps should be produced with these elements in account to describe locations with high soil ero-
sion and sediment yield risks and to ensure improved erosion mitigation strategies in watersheds. The five input
parameters were rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length-steepness (LS), cover-management factor
RR

(C), and support practice (P). The RUSLE model, when combined with remote sensing technology, has the ability
to provide accurate and low-cost erosion and sediment yield risk maps in the Rib watershed. The estimated aver-
age annual soil loss was 25.53 t ha−1 yr−1. The soil loss rate was higher in the steeper and topographically dis-
sected part of the watershed. Sediment delivery ratio ranges between 0 and 0.82. The outcome undoubtedly aids
in the identification of priority locations for the adoption of sustainable land management and soil erosion miti-
gation conservation strategies.
CO

1. Introduction
Soil erosion is one of the most widespread and serious environmen-
tal issues in the world (Montanarella et al. 2016; Pennock, 2019). The
majority of efforts to comprehend and measure soil erosion by water
UN
have been on sheet and rill erosion (Renard et al., 1997; de Vente et al.,
2013). Soil erosion is accelerated as a result of insufficient and unsuit-
able land management [9, 21]. When compared to the rest of the world,
it is the most serious concern in the tropics and subtropics (Lal, 2001).
Erosion-related soil loss is a global problem that affects agricultural

Abbreviations: RUSLE, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation; R, Rainfall erosivity; K, Soil erodibility; LS, Slope length-steepness; C, cover-management factor; P,
support practice; SY, Sediment Yield; SDR, Sediment Delivery ratio
⁎ Berhanu G. Sinshaw (berhanugeremew0@gmail.com or berhanu.geremew@uog.edu.et)
* Abreham M. Belete (melakuabreham@gmail.com)
* Haimanot B.Atinkut (atinkuth20@gmail.com)
* Agumase K.Tefera (agumasekt2006@gmail.com)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2021.100023
2772-4271/© 2021
B.G. Sinshaw et al. Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

Table 1 socioeconomic activity, and inefficient farming systems [4]. According

K factor Value for different soil type. to the Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP), modeling indicates
Soil Type Soil color K Factor that around 1.5 billion tons of soil are eroded from the Ethiopian high-
lands each year [2].
Haplic Nitisols, Eutric Cambisols,Rhodic Nitisols Red 0.25 Accelerated soil erosion complicates sustainable agricultural land
Eutric Fluvisols,Eutric Vertisols Black 0.15
use by contributing to both on-site and off-site effects [22, 31]. The ero-
haplic acrisols, eutric leptosols gray 0.35
sion damage on the plot or farm where it happens is the on-site effect.

F
Haplic Luvisols, Chromic Luvisols Yellow 0.3
Haplic Alisols Brown 0.2 This effect is related to soil quality and agricultural soil loss caused by
surface runoff, which causes flood risk, as well as non-point pollution

OO
sources that cause eutrophication and turbidity [25, 30]. According to
Table 2
P-factor values suggested by [47].
(Ritchie et al., 2003), Approximately 80% of the world's agricultural
land is subjected to moderate to severe erosion. Soil erosion poses seri-
land-use type Slope (%) P-factor
ous threats to food security in Africa and Asia's developing economies.
Agricultural land 0–5 0.1 [36]. This is mostly due to strong population pressure, land scarcity, in-
5 – 10 0.12 effective agricultural practices, and subsistence smallholder poor farm-
10 – 20 0.14 ers' inadequate adaptive capacity to recover damaged soils and replace
20 – 30 0.19 depleted nutrients [18, 44]

PR
30 – 50 0.25
Water-induced soil erosion poses a serious danger to Ethiopia's
50 −100 0.33
economy [22, 7, 31, 43]. Because agriculture employs more than 85
Other land All 1
percent of the population, physical losses of topsoil and removal of
plant nutrients worsen food poverty. [7]. The problem is much more se-
production and natural resources (Ighodaro et al., 2013). Increased soil
vere in the highlands, where most of the country's human and livestock
erosion reduces the environment's ability to offer products and services
population live, and agriculture is intensive [40]. Ethiopia loses an esti-
to its recipients. Significant soil erosion and sediment yields have been
mated 1.9 to 7.8 billion tons of soil per year [3] . As a result, severe soil
generated in developing nations such as Ethiopia by rapid urbanization,
erosion causes more than 30,000 ha of crops in the country to be out of

D
increase of agricultural activities, deforestation, overgrazing, socioeco-
production each year. [15]. More than 2 million ha of Ethiopia's high-
nomic activity, and inefficient farming systems [4].
lands have been degraded beyond rehabilitation (FAO, 2005). This is
According to the Ethiopian highland reclamation study report, 27
reflected in lower crop yields, rendering highland farming untenable.
million hectares, or about half of the highland area, has been exten-
TE
As a result, estimating soil erosion is a top priority in the country in or-
sively eroded, 14 million ha has been seriously eroded, and more than 2
der to achieve food security and environmental sustainability [41, 42].
million ha has been degraded beyond reclamation [24]. Increased soil
The Rib watershed is also affected by soil erosion, primarily as a result
erosion reduces the ecosystem's ability to offer products and services to
of deforestation and intensive farming practices (Desta, 2014). Many
its recipients. Significant soil erosion and sediment yields have been
tiny rivers drained in the Rib watershed, which is normally located in
created in developing nations such as Ethiopia by fast population
the northern part of the Upper Blue Nile basin, adding silt to the main
EC

growth, increase of agricultural activities, deforestation, overgrazing,

Rib River at varying speeds and extents. Soil erosion causes sedimenta-
RR
CO
UN

Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.

2
B.G. Sinshaw et al.
D
Fig. 2. Management factors (Support practice factor map (P Factor, a) and Cover management factor (c factor, b).
TE
EC
RR
CO
Fig. 3. Potential erosion factors (Slope Length and Slope Steepness (LS) factors, Rainfall erosivity (R) Factor and soil erodibility (K).
tion issues that have a major impact on dam storage capacity, particu-
UN
larly the Rib dam and the GERD as a whole, jeopardizing its long-term
viability. Many researchers have found plot-level soil loss as a result of
water [6, 16, 13, 12]. However, in a complex context, this method does
not offer the spatial distribution of soil erosion [26].
A potential theoretical technique is now being applied to overcome
spatial complexity limits and advance watershed erosion modeling by
combining erosion equations with sediment connectivity utilizing high-
resolution spatial data. The water resources industry is very concerned
with the advancement of erosion models. Many long-term field experi-
ments and computers dating back to the 1970s and 1980s have con-
tributed to today's improved understanding of watershed hydrology
and hydrologic modeling. This improved computational understanding
3
Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023
F
OO
PR
is linked to developments in watershed and GIS (geographic informa-
tion system) hydrology in the second part of the 1990s and early 2000s
(Walling, 1983; Merritt et al., 2003; Mahoney, 2017). The emphasis on
social and cultural linkages in recent soil research has also increased, as
evidenced by the works of Mahoney et al. (2018) and Mahoney et al.
(2020.) Geomorphology-based and geostatistical research on sediment
connection is also becoming increasingly detailed recently. By under-
taking this research, we are making advances in soil connection theory.
There are three types of watershed-based soil erosion models in use:
empirical, conceptual, and physical-based (Hajigholizadeh et al., 2018;
Cai et al., 2019). Empirical models use statistics to connect variables
through regressions (Wainwright and Mulligan, 2002). Predictive mod-
els, such as the Universal Soil Loss Equation (ULE), involve computer
B.G. Sinshaw et al.
Fig. 4. Interpolation of p factor using geostatistical analysis.
D
TE
EC
RR
CO
Fig. 5. Annual soil loss rate map of the study area.
procedures and require little data (Renard et al., 1997). Furthermore,
the two fundamental models for predicting soil erosion often employ
physical and empirical methodologies (Merritt et al., 2003). Physically-
UN
based models are more theoretically transferable than empirical mod-
els, and thus are more likely to make correct predictions (Wainwright
and Mulligan, 2013). Furthermore, it is difficult to precisely quantify
the complicated parameters in physically-based models, preventing
predicted outcomes (ideal) observations from being attained; as a re-
sult, empirical models are still commonly used at the watershed and re-
gional sizes. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) [47] and the Re-
vised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Renard et al., 1997) are
the most widely used empirical models for assessing water erosion
worldwide. The slope length factor (L) in the USLE and RUSLE, on the
other hand, is debatable. Because of this ambiguity, the USLE and
4
Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023
F
OO
PR
RUSLE have been limited in their applicability at the watershed size
(Van Remortel et al., 2001).
Remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) have
enormous potential for quantitative and qualitative analysis and map-
ping of parameters influencing soil erosion and degraded areas. How-
ever, using GIS for soil erosion modeling necessitates additional fea-
tures such as various data sources, data scaling, and higher data inte-
gration and algorithm complexity. Satellite imageries can be used to as-
sess climate, land use/land cover, topography, and slope data, which
can then be combined with GIS for soil erosion, transport, and sedimen-
tation modeling. As a result, the purpose of this study was to assess the
annual soil loss rate of the Rib watershed and identify hotspot locations
using RUSLE for better management practice. Determine the mean an-
nual sediment delivery ratio (SDR) and the SDR for different hydrologi-
cal events, which will contribute to a better understanding of sediment
propagation mechanisms in the Upper Blue Nile and allow for the iden-
tification of places vulnerable to water erosion. The first section of this
work is an introduction, followed by a discussion of the study area,
methodologies, input data, analysis, model set-up, and calibration
model performance in section two. Section three presents and discusses
the findings, and the final section concludes. This project intends to
solve three research issues in particular: (1) What are the Rib water-
shed's hotspot areas? (2) How significant is each element in estimating
soil erosion? (3) Is it possible to foresee the process of sediment propa-
gation?
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site
The research was carried out in the Rib watershed, which extends
from the top of Mountain Guna to the eastern half of Lake Tana in
Ethiopia's northern highlands and serves as the primary source of the
Blue Nile. It is located in the Lake Tana basin, between
11°42ʹ34ʹ’–12°13ʹ45ʹ’N and 37°36ʹ6’’–38° 14ʹ20ʹ’E, and the watershed
has a total area of about 1316 km.Within the watershed, elevation
ranges from 1786 to 4109 m amsl. The watershed is the principal
source of water for Lake Tana, which contributes more than 90% of in-
put water along with Gumara, Megech, and Gilgel Abay (Setegn et al.,
2010). Rib river has been widely used for irrigation purposes in the
Amhara region's Fogera plain, where the Fogera plain in Fogera district
B.G. Sinshaw et al. Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

F
OO
PR
D
TE
EC
RR

Fig. 6. Slope of the river reach (SLP) (a), sediment delivery ratio (SDR) (b) and soil loss (SE) of Rib watershed vulnerability and prioritization(c).

Table 3
Consistency of model estimate with previously published results in the Upper
Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Study site Mean annual soil loss (t References
ha−1 year−1)
CO

Rib Watershed 25.52 This Study

Gumara 42.67 [8]
Anjeni 24.6 (Setegn et al.,
2010)
Chemoga 93 [10]
Dembecha 49 (Zerihun et
al.,2018)
UN

Koga 47 (Gelagay and

Minale,2016)
Upper Blue Nile Basin 27.5 [19]
Geleda 23.7 (Gashaw et
al.,2017)
Lake Tana,Megech . Gumera, 34,12.2,49.4,24.4,35.4 [48]
Rib,Gilegele Abay Respectively

Fig. 7. Rib watershed sub watersheds.

5
B.G. Sinshaw et al. Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

Table 4 (340 ≤ A ≤ 3500 mm), Where, P: Average Annual Rainfall (MJ mm

Rainfall erosivity risk classification. ha−1 h − 1 yr−1)
No Rainfall (mm) interval Susceptibility to erosion Area Percentage (%)
2.2.2. Soil erodibility (K) factor
1 791–1109 very low 34.83 It has a built-in resistance to particle dissociation and transport by
2 1109–1126 Low 28.66
rainwater [47]. Soil erodibility spans from 0 to 1 and is determined by
3 1268–1427 Moderate 19.49
the physical and biological qualities of the soil [10]. The lack of accu-

F
4 1427–1586 High 13.55
5 1586–2680 Very High 3.48 rate soil characteristics data is a significant impediment to greater geo-
Total 100 graphic scale soil erosion models. To address the lack of precise soil

OO
characteristics data, K-factor values for use in Ethiopia were recom-
Table 5 mended based on soil color data shown in Table (1) [10] . This is be-
Soil loss susceptibility classification in Rib watershed. cause soil color is thought to represent soil qualities. As a result, the soil
color-type-based determination of k value was adopted in this investi-
No soil loss (ton/ha/year) Susceptibility to erosion Area Percentage (%)
gation.
1 0–15 very low 97.84
2 15–30 Low 1.124 2.2.3. Slope length and slope steepness (LS) factors
3 30–50 Moderate 0.42 The combined LS-factor has the greatest influence on soil loss and

PR
4 50–100 High 0.336
describes the effect of topography on soil erosion. The gradient of the
5 >100 Very High 0.277
Total 100
local slope effects flow velocity and, as a result, the rate of erosion. The
slope length denotes the distance between the beginning and end of in-
ter-rill processes [46]. As stated in Eq. (3), the LS factor was determined
is recognized as the national rice research demonstration site and rice
using a set of equations.
granary, and is suited for agricultural and cattle husbandry.

(3)
2.2. Revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) model

RUSLE is the most extensively used method for calculating long-

term rates of inter-rill and rill erosion from fields subject to various
D S is the slope (%) calculated directly from the DEM, and x is the
value obtained by multiplying the flow accumulation by the cell value. .
The value of m varied from 0.2 to 0.5 depending on the slope being 0.5
TE
management strategies using the aid of Arc GIS software tool. The core
notion of RUSLE is that sediment content in runoff influences detach- for slopes exceeding 5%, 0.4 for slopes 3–5% and 0.3 for slopes 1–3%,
ment and deposition. The long-term average yearly rate of soil loss from and 0.2 for slopes <1.0% [34].
the field is determined by five primary parameters: rainfall erosivity
(R), soil erodibility (K), slope length and steepness (LS), cover manage- 2.2.4. Cover management factor (C factor)
ment (C), and support practice (P). Those input data were obtained The factor of cover management C represents the effect of crops and
other management measures on erosion rates. After terrain, vegetation
EC

through rigorous field observation from meteorological stations, pub-

lished soil maps, and satellite pictures. The RUSLE equation is ex- cover is the second most important element in decreasing soil erosion
pressed as equ (1) [37, 38] . risk [1]. Because of the lack of vegetation, root biomass, or other sur-
face covers to resist soil erosion, its value ranges from 0 (water bodies)
(1) to 1 (barren land). Rainfall is intercepted by the ground cover, which
enhances infiltration and reduces rainfall energy. The cover manage-
where A = average annual soil loss (t h − 1 yr−1), R = rainfall and ment factor (C) was calculated using the Normalized Difference Vegeta-
RR

runoff erosivity (MJ mm ha−1 h − 1 yr-1), K = soil erodibility factor,
LS = topographic factor, C = crop management factor, and P = sup-
porting conservation practice factors.
2.2.1. Rainfall-runoff erosivity factor (R)
Rainfall plays an important part in the process of soil erosion and
sedimentation, which ultimately contributes to water erosion, which in-
CO
tion Index (NDVI) (Eqn 4) according to the approach described by (De
Jong, 1994).
(4)
Where NDVI = near infrared (NIR)– R)/ near-infrared (NIR) + red
(R), NIR is near infrared band and R is read band

cludes splash, sheet, rill, and gully erosion caused by water flow. It
quantifies the erosivity of local annual average rainfall [20]. The de-
rivation of the R-factor necessitates the use of long-term data on rainfall
volumes and intensities. Because the rainfall intensity in the research
area could not be calculated due to the lack of a recording type rain
gage, well established empirical formulae based on total rainfall were
commonly used. The R factor calculated from the Tropical Rainfall
UN
2.2.5. Conservation practices (P) factor
The P-factor is the ratio of soil loss following the implementation of
a conservation practice to soil loss through straight-row farming run-
ning up and down a slope [29]. The P-factor accounts for control prac-
tices that reduce runoff's erosion potential by influencing drainage pat-
terns, runoff concentration/velocity, and hydraulic forces exerted by

Measuring Mission (TRMM) worldwide precipitation (http://
www.geog.ucsb.edu/bodo/TRMM/) product, which is a NASA-JAXA
collaborative satellite mission designed to measure tropical rainfall.
The phrase refers to both the mission and the satellite that was used to
collect data during the mission. The TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI)
meticulously measured the amount of microwave energy emitted by the
Earth and its atmosphere. TMI was able to measure the amount of water
vapor, cloud water, and rainfall intensity in the atmosphere. R factor
was computed using (Eqn 2)
the runoff on the soil surface [19]. The P-factor has a value between 0
and 1 [17]. A score close to zero suggests good conservation practice,
while a value close to one indicates bad conservation practice. P-factor
values given by Wischmeier and Smith [47] that consider only two cat-
egories of land use (agricultural and non-agricultural) and slopes were
employed in this investigation. Table (2) demonstrates that agricultural
areas were divided into six slope groups and assigned P-factor values,
whilst all non-agricultural lands were awarded a P-factor value of 1.

(2)

6
B.G. Sinshaw et al. Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

Table 6
Sub-watersheds, their total and mean annual soil loss and priority level. (5)
Soil Loss (ton/ha/year)
Where, SLP is a percent slope of the mainstream channel.
Sub Area (m2) Min Max Range Mean Std Sum Rank
Watersheds 2.2.7. Sediment yield (SY) estimation
It is the sediment load at the end of the slope length, at the outlet of

F
SW_27 19,087,623 0 2594.06 2594.06 9.96 137.5 3576.65 1
the terrace diversion channels, or in the sediment basins evaluated by
SW_20 15,206,296 0 1306.12 1306.12 7.17 78.97 2050.98 2
SW_18 39,398,130 0 185.21 185.21 4.22 13.63 3127.40 3 RUSLE. The sediment load is normalized for the drainage area and is
the net outcome of erosion and deposition activities within a basin. It is

OO
SW_29 131,273,931 0 1648.95 1648.95 3.69 44.94 9098.29 4
SW_1 42,109,742 0 256.65 256.65 3.37 13.39 2670.92 5 influenced by the same elements that influence erosion and sediment
SW_25 161,154,834 0 465.85 465.85 3.25 15.29 9836.81 6 delivery, such as local topography, soil properties, climate, vegetation
SW_11 97,618,039 0 155.91 155.91 2.87 11.09 5277.87 7 cover, catchment morphology, drainage network features, and land use
SW_8 73,426,204 0 292.76 292.76 2.87 15.92 3968.45 8
[14]
SW_26 30,625,267 0 244.76 244.76 2.37 15.67 1367.22 9
SW_4 47,692,473 0 181.45 181.45 2.35 10.74 2107.72 10
SW_21 55,986,816 0 304.86 304.86 2.30 11.80 2422.74 11 (4)
SW_2 46,097,407 0 406.43 406.43 2.00 14.90 1733.41 12

PR
SW_28 98,149,727 0 1000.86 1000.86 1.88 25.22 3469.79 13
SW_5 55,880,478 0 283.87 283.87 1.67 13.21 1752.63 14 Where n represents the total number of cells in the catchment, SE
SW_23 37,377,713 0 221.71 221.71 1.64 10.50 1150.69 15 represents the quantity of soil erosion, and SDR is Sediment Delivery ra-
SW_17 9,783,071 0 65.77 65.77 1.63 5.56 299.52 16
tio.
SW_22 49,340,708 0 222.01 222.01 1.58 8.56 1465.86 17
SW_14 49,021,695 0 115.18 115.18 1.21 6.57 1113.74 18
SW_19 65,450,874 0 143.08 143.08 1.13 7.88 1395.15 19 3. Results and discussions
SW_6 31,263,293 0 185.46 185.46 1.03 8.38 603.34 20
SW_24 90,546,579 0 116.84 116.84 0.88 5.08 1498.22 21 3.1. Consistency and validation

D
SW_9 106,709,915 0 63.78 63.78 0.78 3.54 1573.12 22
SW_7 16,376,011 0 18.55 18.55 0.56 1.90 174.01 23
SW_16 1,276,053 0 6.77 6.77 0.50 1.38 11.88 24
The validation of the RUSLE model was problematic due to a lack of
SW_10 41,312,209 0 19.06 19.06 0.18 1.21 143.51 25 available data; the analysis compares model projections of real soil loss
against actual soil loss. However, for this work, the hydrological scien-
TE
SW_13 7,177,797 0 2.20 2.20 0.03 0.24 4.25 26
SW_3 1,488,728 0 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.49 27 tific model validation approach was employed as an alternative to as-
SW_12 28,073,161 0 1.98 1.98 0.01 0.09 4.23 28 sess the validity and accuracy of the model estimate by comparing it to
SW_15 10,740,111 0 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.03 0.85 29
previously reported data [11, 33]. As detailed in Table, the outcome
was linked to research undertaken in neighboring regions, particularly
2.2.6. Sediment delivery ratio (SDR) in the Northwestern Highlands (3). In the sub-humid Rib watershed, the
It is a portion of gross erosion carried from a specific area over a cer-
EC

tain time period. It is a sediment transport efficiency metric that com-
pares the amount of sediment delivered from eroding sources to a
catchment outlet to the total amount of soil removed across the same
region above that point.
In a specific watershed, the value represents a catchment's inte-
grated capability for storing and conveying eroded soil. It adjusts for
RR
average annual soil loss was estimated to be 25.53 t ha-1 year-1. Our es-
timate corresponded to the data published by [33, 48] . A recent thor-
ough investigation in the upper Blue Nile basin by [19] reported a com-
parable finding ranging from 0 to 200 t ha-1 year-1 with an average soil
loss rate of 27.5 t ha-1 year-1. This study's findings are significantly
lower than the 93 t ha-1 year-1 reported by the Chemoga watershed
[10].

sediment deposition regions, which become increasingly essential as

catchment area increases, and so defines the relative importance of sed- 3.2. Management factors
iment sources and their delivery [27]. Many highly changeable physical
properties of a watershed, such as drainage area, slope, relief-length ra- 3.2.1. C-factor
tio, runoff rainfall factors, land use land cover, and sediment particle The C-factor denotes the impact of plants and other soil surface
size, accept it [32]. The quantity of floodplain sedimentation that oc- cover on soil erosion. A thematic layer of land use-land cover of a re-
curs, as well as the presence of hydrologically controlled places such as
CO

ponds, reservoirs, lakes, and wetlands, all contribute to a faster rate of
sediment delivery to the watershed mouth. The average stream channel
slope, given as a function of the main stream channel's% slope, is more
important than other metrics in predicting sediment delivery ratio. Sed-
iment Delivery Ratio can be expressed empirically as (Eqn 5) [23]:
UN
gion can be generated using remote sensing and GIS techniques. The
LULC data was categorised and identified eight land cover classes in the
current study. Using the data in Table, the corresponding C-factor value
was allocated to each land use pattern (2). As a result, the C-factor val-
ues for the research area range from 0 to 1. Predominantly forested land
received the highest C-factor value. Smaller C-factor values imply that

Table 7
Soil erosion along with slope classes of the watershed.
Area Estimated annual loss

Slope Class (%) % Mean ton year−1 Contribution to the MinimumSoil loss /ha/year Max Soil loss ton/year/ha
total soil loss (%)

0–10 63.8 1.31 23,896.56 38.47 0.0014 2594.05

10–20 23.85 2.65 18,043.36 29.05 0.0029 794.03
20–30 9.27 4.57 12,077.16 19.44 0.0051 406.43
30–40 2.62 9.53 7124.82 11.47 0.0107 1648.94
>40 0.46 7.47 978.48 1.58 0.0084 124.10

7
B.G. Sinshaw et al.
the site is less vegetated, making it more sensitive to soil erosion (See
Fig. 2).
3.2.2. P-factor
The P-factor, which ranges from 0 to 1, reflects the impact of certain
erosion management strategies on the associated erosion rate. The P-
factor values were determined by taking only two land uses (agricul-
tural and non-agricultural) and land slopes into account. As a result, the
agricultural lands were divided into six slope groups and P-values were
assigned, as shown in Table 2. A P-value of one was assigned to all non-
agricultural lands on any slope. As a result, Figure 2 shows that P-factor
value spans from 0.2 to 1. A P-factor of 0.2 is assigned to farmed land on
level or gently sloping terrain. Smaller values indicate less soil erosion
vulnerability and are seen at low slope gradients. As the slope values
grow, so do the P-factor values for cultivated land. P Factor values of
0.33 were established from cultivated land practiced on slope classes
greater than 50%.
3.3. Potential ersoion factors
3.3.1. R-factor
Many studies have shown that the rate of soil erosion in the basin is
more susceptible to rainfall. The R-factor is an important statistic for
calculating soil erosion loss from global TMI gridded precipitation. The
D
R-factor value ranges from 791 to 2680 MJmmha-1 yr-1, as shown in
Fig. (4). It implies that the highest erosivity occurs in the watershed's
northwestern corner and decreases toward Lake Tana's edge (Fig. 3).
The map of rainfall erosivity provides a spatial picture of rain's erosive
TE
energy. The greater the erosivity value, the greater the influence of
rainfall on eroding soil from the land surface in the watershed (see
Table 4) [39]
3.3.2. K-factor
It reflects the combined influence of soil parameters, indicating the
EC
general susceptibility of a specific soil type to erosion. To construct the
soil erodibility map, the K-factor was assigned to each soil type while
taking soil properties into account. The K-factor values were discovered
to range between 0 and 1, as seen in Fig (4). The highest K-factor value
indicates that the soil is dominated by very-fine sand with silt particles,
implying that the soil is more erodible. Lower k values are less prone to
RR
erosion and are associated with soils with poor permeability and an-
tecedent moisture content.
3.3.3. LS-factor
It depicts the impact of slope length and steepness on the erosion
process. The total LS-factor value for each segment was calculated by
taking the flow accumulation and slope in% as inputs, and the result
CO
ranges from 0 to 33. Because of the Fogera flood plain, the majority of
the research area (Fig. 4) has a lower LS-factor than the upper part of
the watershed. The greater the LS-factor, the greater the area's sensitiv-
ity to water-induced soil erosion.
3.4. Potential annual soil erosion
UN
Because of its simplicity and modest data requirements, the RUSLE
has been widely utilized throughout the world, including Ethiopia [5,
45]. The soil erosion map was created by interactively multiplying the
respective five RUSLE factor values in ArcGIS. The resulting erosion
map is depicted in Fig (5). According to the study, annual soil loss in the
studied region ranged from 0 to 2594-ton ha-1 yr-1. This suggests that
there is a greater geographic heterogeneity in soil loss in the studied
area. The difference in soil erodibility, rainfall erosivity, slope steep-
ness, land cover, and poor land management all contribute to the spa-
tial variation. The average annual soil loss for the entire research region
was calculated to be 25.53 -ton ha-1 year-1 based on the analyses.
8
Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023
Table (5) depicts the classification of probable soil loss (low, mod-
erate, high, and extremely high erosion) depending on erosion rate [5].
[5] The majority of the research region has a 0–15-ton ha-1year-1 ero-
sion rate reported in the lower half of the watershed. Very strong ero-
sion in the top half of the watershed, with erosion rates more than 0–15
tons ha-1year-1. Moderate erosion occurs in the study region, where an
agricultural site with a gentle slope exists. Despite the change in value,
F
this study follows the same trend as earlier research on several portions
of the Upper Blue Nile basin and other Ethiopian locations. For exam-
OO
ple, in the Ethiopian highlands, soil losses are quite substantial, with an
estimated average of 20-ton ha-1 yr-1 and measured levels of more
than 300 ton ha-1 yr-1 on individual plots (Hurni, 1985) The annual
soil loss rate for the Koga watershed was estimated using the RUSLE
model [31], and it ranged from 12 to 456 ton ha-1 yr-1. The mean an-
nual soil loss potential for the Guang watershed in the Blue Nile Basin
was determined by Ayalew and Selassie [5] to be 24.95ton ha-1 yr-1
for the entire watershed. Ayalew (2015) calculated an average yearly
PR
soil loss of 9.1 tons per acre per year for the entire Zingin watershed in
Ethiopia's highlands. [10] projected an average annual soil loss rate of
93ton ha-1 yr-1 for the entire Chemoga watershed using the RUSLE
modelAyalew and Selassie [5] calculated the mean annual soil loss po-
tential for the Guang watershed in the Blue Nile Basin to be 24.95ton
ha-1 yr-1 over the entire watershed. Ayalew (2015) calculated an aver-
age annual soil loss of 9.1ton ha-1 yr-1 for the entire Zingin watershed
in Ethiopia's highlands. Using the RUSLE model, [10] predicted an av-
erage annual soil loss rate of 93ton ha-1 yr-1 for the entire Chemoga
watershed. In contrast, (Mengistu et al., 2015) estimate that the aver-
age annual soil loss for the Abay basin is 16-ton ha-1 yr-1, with a maxi-
mum value of 1511-ton ha-1 yr-1. As a result, the projected soil loss
rate in the research area was typically reasonable when compared to
past study results (Table 3).
3.5. Sediment yield of the basin estimated over the major stream networks
The SDR of the watershed determines the sediment yield (Fig. 6) of
the river network. For this investigation, the sediment deliver ratio was
calculated using an empirical equation that took the channel's slope
into account, and the result ranged from 0 to 8.3. Sediment output in
the Rib watershed ranged from 0 to 16.7 ton/ha/year. A comparable in-
vestigation was conducted in the Blue Nile basin's central highlands in
Ethiopia [35]. According to their analysis, the sediment delivery ratio
of the Rib watershed ranges between 0 and 0.82.
Rib watershed was divided into 29 sub-watersheds, each with its
own vulnerability class (Fig. 7). The erosion severity class map of sub-
watersheds shows that practically the whole watershed requires various
sorts of conservation measures to be implemented. Conservation meth-
ods, however, may not be feasible or useful in all sub-watersheds. Prior-
focus areas for conservation planning required the identification of
risky sub-watersheds.
In this regard, prioritization was done using the annual soil loss esti-
mated for the watershed by RUSLE. Several studies successfully imple-
mented this method for sub-watershed prioritization. The highest esti-
mate was found to be at SW27 (9.96-ton ha−1 year−1) followed by SW20
(7.17-ton ha−1 year−1), and the lowest mean soil loss was generated
from SW12 and 15 described in Table. (6) . The result showed that there
was more significant variability of soil erosion not only on a pixel basis
but also among sub-watersheds (Table 6).
3.6. Soil erosion along with slope classes of the watershed
The slope angle and slope length are the two key elements influenc-
ing soil erosion rates in the research region. Soil erosion rates are sub-
stantially higher in locations with steep slope topography than in areas
with moderate slopes, as expected. From a slope perspective, the geo-
graphical distribution of soil loss rates increases linearly with increas-
B.G. Sinshaw et al.
ing slope gradient over the watershed (Table 7). Soil loss rates in the
watershed range from zero to more than 100 ton/ha/year. The study
found that slope has a substantial impact on soil erosion rates in areas
where the watershed's oversaturation is the source of silt. As a result,
minimizing slope length through various SWC structures should be a
primary goal. Local community opinions and evaluations, which are
consistent with the model's projected outputs, indicate that soil erosion
occurs largely on steep slopes throughout the watershed, implying the
necessity for comprehensive SWC interventions based on slope class.
It implies that the Rib watershed is more prone to soil erosion. Ac-
cording to the slope class analysis, slopes ranging from 0% to 10% con-
tributed 63.8 percent of the total watershed. The areal contribution of
soil loss was greater on steep slopes, indicating that more vulnerable
sub-watersheds with higher erosion rates should be prioritized for con-
servation planning. The majority of the top priority sub-watersheds are
located in the watershed's upper reaches. The downstream region, on
the other hand, should be given less emphasis [28].
Conclusion and implications
This research demonstrates that watershed modeling provides vi-
able soil-water resource management and development options. It was
carried out to determine the yearly soil loss rate, examine the geograph-
ical distribution of soil erosion, and identify erosion-prone locations for
conservation planning development. According to the soil erosion as-
D
sessment, erosion is a serious problem that impacts the majority of the
subbasin. According to the analysis, the average annual soil erosion loss
rate is predicted to be 25.53 ton ha−1 year−1. The study's findings em-
TE
phasize the necessity for soil conservation planning, which necessitates
a thorough and cost-effective strategy, particularly in the area's sensi-
tive areas. The most essential conservation component should be in-
creased vegetative cover on the land, and farmers (local peoples)
should participate in all conservation efforts. The following limitations
apply to the report's findings: The watershed's first gully erosion is ig-
EC
nored, 2) detailed land use land cover is ignored, and 3) future soil ero-
sion is not forecasted in various management scenarios. For improved
conservation planning, the most sensitive characteristics that con-
tribute to soil erosion (management factors) should be evaluated in var-
ious management situations. Furthermore, future research should look
into the influence of soil loss on crop productivity, farmers' perceptions
RR
of soil erosion for long-term soil sustainability, and water conservation
planning. The study's findings would help in empathizing a watershed's
erosion risk in relation to land uses, allowing the same to be extrapo-
lated to other watersheds with similar landforms, soil, and land uses.
Uncited links
CO
Fig. 1, Eq. (2), Eq. (4), Eq. (5), Table 3, Table 6
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this investigation are available
upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, Berhanu G.
Sinshaw.
UN
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the University of Gondar's Institute
of Technology Research and Community Service Directorate (Grant
9
Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023
Year: UoG 2019). The Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and En-
ergy, as well as the National Meteorology Agency, provided soil and cli-
matic data to the writers. We are grateful to the USGS for providing free
satellite imagery and DEM of the research area.
References
F
[1] T.K. ALEXANDRIDIS, A.M. SOTIROPOULOU, G. BILAS, N. KARAPETSAS, N.G.
SILLEOS, The effects of seasonality in estimating the C-factor of soil erosion studies,
Land Degrad. Dev. 26 (2015) 596–603.
OO
[2] T. AMARE, A.D. ZEGEYE, B. YITAFERU, T.S. STEENHUIS, H. HURNI, G. ZELEKE,
Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil and water conservation measures
in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands, Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 14 (2014)
192–199.
[3] A. AMDIHUN, E. GEBREMARIAM, L. REBELO, G. ZELEKE, Modeling soil erosion
dynamics in the Blue Nile (Abbay) basin: a landscape approach, Res. J. Environ.
Sci. 8 (2014) 243.
[4] J. ANANDA, G. HERATH, Soil erosion in developing countries: a socio-economic
appraisal, J. Environ. Manage. 68 (2003) 343–353.
[5] G. AYALEW, Y... SELASSIE, Soil loss estimation for soil conservation planning
PR
using geographic information system in Guang watershed, Blue Nile basin, J.
Environ. Earth Sci. 5 (2015) 126–134.
[6] B. BEKELE, Y. GEMI, Soil erosion risk and sediment yield assessment with
universal soil loss equation and GIS: in Dijo watershed, Rift valley Basin of
Ethiopia, Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2020) 1–19.
[7] E. BEKELE, S. TILAHUN, A. BEYENE, S. ASRES, B. GEREMEW, H. ATINKUT, Soil
water dynamics on irrigated garlic and pepper crops using Hydrus–1D model in the
lake Tana-basin, Northwestern Ethiopia, International Conference on Advances of
Science and Technology, Springer, 2019, pp. 193–209.
[8] M. BELAYNEH, T. YIRGU, D. TSEGAYE, Potential soil erosion estimation and
area prioritization for better conservation planning in Gumara watershed using
RUSLE and GIS techniques’, Environ. Syst. Res. 8 (2019) 20.
[9] P. BENAUD, K. ANDERSON, M. EVANS, L. FARROW, M. GLENDELL, M.R.
JAMES, T.A. QUINE, J.N. QUINTON, B. RAWLINS, R.J. RICKSON, National-scale
geodata describe widespread accelerated soil erosion, Geoderma 371 (2020)
114378.
[10] W. BEWKET, E. TEFERI, Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for
treatment at the watershed level: case study in the Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile
basin, Ethiopia, Land Degrad. Dev. 20 (2009) 609–622.
[11] D. BIONDI, G. FRENI, V. IACOBELLIS, G. MASCARO, A. MONTANARI,
Validation of hydrological models: conceptual basis, methodological approaches
and a proposal for a code of practice, Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 42 (2012)
70–76.
[12] C. BOIX-FAYOS, M. MARTÍNEZ-MENA, E. ARNAU-ROSALÉN, A. CALVO-CASES,
V. CASTILLO, J. ALBALADEJO, Measuring soil erosion by field plots:
understanding the sources of variation, Earth Sci. Rev. 78 (2006) 267–285.
[13] O. CERDAN, G. GOVERS, Y. LE BISSONNAIS, K. VAN OOST, J. POESEN, N.
SABY, A. GOBIN, A. VACCA, J. QUINTON, K. AUERSWALD, Rates and spatial
variations of soil erosion in Europe: a study based on erosion plot data,
Geomorphology 122 (2010) 167–177.
[14] K. EBABU, A. TSUNEKAWA, N. HAREGEWEYN, E. ADGO, D.T. MESHESHA, D.
AKLOG, T. MASUNAGA, M. TSUBO, D. SULTAN, A.A. FENTA, Analyzing the
variability of sediment yield: a case study from paired watersheds in the Upper Blue
Nile basin, Ethiopia, Geomorphology 303 (2018) 446–455.
[15] T. ERKOSSA, A. WUDNEH, B. DESALEGN, G. TAYE, Linking soil erosion to on-
site financial cost: lessons from watersheds in the Blue Nile basin, Solid Earth 6
(2015) 765.
[16] A.A. FENTA, A. TSUNEKAWA, N. HAREGEWEYN, M. TSUBO, H. YASUDA, T.
KAWAI, K. EBABU, M.L. BERIHUN, A.S. BELAY, D. SULTAN, Agroecology-based
soil erosion assessment for better conservation planning in Ethiopian river basins,
Environ. Res. 195 (2021) 110786.
[17] B. GANASRI, H. RAMESH, Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model using
remote sensing and GIS-A case study of Nethravathi Basin, Geosci. Front. 7 (2016)
953–961.
[18] T. GOMIERO, Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: reviewing a
complex challenge, Sustainability 8 (2016) 281.
[19] N. HAREGEWEYN, A. TSUNEKAWA, J. POESEN, M. TSUBO, D.T. MESHESHA,
A.A. FENTA, J. NYSSEN, E. ADGO, Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk
for better land use planning in river basins: case study of the Upper Blue Nile River,
Sci. Total Environ. 574 (2017) 95–108.
[20] M. JANEČEK, E. KUBÁTOVÁ, M. TIPPL, Revised determination of the rainfall-
runoff erosivity factor R for application of USLE in the Czech Republic, Soil Water
Res. 1 (2006) 65–71.
[21] C. JIANG, L. ZHAO, J. DAI, H. LIU, Z. LI, X. WANG, Z. YANG, H. ZHANG, M.
WEN, J. WANG, Examining the soil erosion responses to ecological restoration
programs and landscape drivers: a spatial econometric perspective, J. Arid Environ.
183 (2020) 104255.
[22] Y.S. KEBEDE, N.T. ENDALAMAW, B.S. GEREMEW, H.B. ATINKUT, Modeling soil
erosion using RUSLE and GIS at watershed level in the Upper Beles, Ethiopia,
Environ. Challenges (2020) 100009.
[23] G.K. KHADSE, R. VIJAY, P.K. LABHASETWAR, Prioritization of catchments
based on soil erosion using remote sensing and GIS, Environ. Monit. Assess. 187
(2015) 333.
[24] D. KIDANE, B. ALEMU, The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion
B.G. Sinshaw et al. Energy Nexus xxx (xxxx) 100023

and sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, Res. J. Agric. Environ.
Manag. 4 (2015) 55–68.
[25] T. LEDERMANN, K. HERWEG, H. LINIGER, F. SCHNEIDER, H. HURNI, V.
PRASUHN, Erosion damage mapping: assessing current soil erosion damage in
Switzerland, Adv. Geo-Ecol. 3 (2008) 263–283.
[26] D. LU, G. LI, G.S. VALLADARES, M. BATISTELLA, Mapping soil erosion risk in
Rondonia, Brazilian Amazonia: using RUSLE, remote sensing and GIS, Land
Degrad. Dev. 15 (2004) 499–512.
[27] H. LU, C.J. MORAN, I.P. PROSSER, M.R. RAUPACH, J. OLLEY, C. PETHERAM,
questions, answers, and the future, J. Soil Water Conserv. 49 (1994) 213–220.
[39] R. SECRETARIAT, An Introduction to the Convention on Wetlands (Previously
The Ramsar Convention Manual), Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland,
Switzerland, 2016.
[40] Y.G. SELASSIE, F. ANEMUT, S. ADDISU, The effects of land use types,
management practices and slope classes on selected soil physico-chemical
properties in Zikre watershed, North-Western Ethiopia, Environ. Syst. Res. 4 (2015)
3.
[41] A. SHIFERAW, Estimating soil loss rates for soil conservation planning in the

F
Report E to Project D10012 of Muray darling Basin Commission, 2003. Borena Woreda of South Wollo Highlands, Ethiopia, J. Sustain. Dev. Africa 13
[28] V.J. MARKOSE, K. JAYAPPA, Soil loss estimation and prioritization of sub- (2011) 87–106.
watersheds of Kali River basin, Karnataka, India, using RUSLE and GIS, Environ. [42] A. SHIFERAW, Estimating soil loss rates for soil conservation planning in Borena

Monit. Assess. 188 (2016) 225.
[29] D.T. MESHESHA, A. TSUNEKAWA, M. TSUBO, N. HAREGEWEYN, Dynamics and
hotspots of soil erosion and management scenarios of the Central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia, Int. J. Sediment Res. 27 (2012) 84–99.
[30] D.A. MHIRET, D.C. DAGNEW, T.T. ASSEFA, S.A. TILAHUN, B.F. ZAITCHIK, T.S.
STEENHUIS, Erosion hotspot identification in the sub-humid Ethiopian highlands,
Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 19 (2019) 146–154.
[31] T. MOLLA, B. SISHEBER, Estimating soil erosion risk and evaluating erosion
control measures for soil conservation planning at Koga watershed in the highlands
of Ethiopia, Solid Earth 8 (2017) 13–25.
OO
Woreda of South Wollo Highlands of Ethiopia: the case from the Legemara
Watershed, Ethiop. J. Bus. Econ. (The) 2 (2012) 1–34.
[43] B.G. SINSHAW, A.M. BELETE, A.K. TEFERA, A.B. DESSIE, B.B. BIZUNEH, H.T.
ALEM, S.B. ATANAW, D.G. ESHETE, T.G. WUBETU, H... ATINKUT, Prioritization of
potential soil erosion susceptibility region Using fuzzy Logic and Analytical
Hierarchy process, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia, Water-Energy Nexus 4 (2021)
10–24.
[44] B.G. SINSHAW, M.A. MOGES, S.A. TILAHUN, Z. DOKOU, S. MOGES, E.
ANAGNOSTOU, D.G. ESHETE, A.T. KINDIE, E. BEKELE, M. ASESE, Integration of
SWAT and remote sensing techniques to simulate soil moisture in data scarce

[32] B.M. MUTUA, A. KLIK, Estimating spatial sediment delivery ratio on a large rural
catchment, J. Spat. Hydrol. (2006) 6.
[33] Z. NIGUSSIE, A. TSUNEKAWA, N. HAREGEWEYN, E. ADGO, L. COCHRANE, A.
FLOQUET, S. ABELE, Applying Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development
framework to soil and water conservation activities in north-western Ethiopia,
Land Use Policy 71 (2018) 1–10.
[34] O.J. NWAGWU, Mapping the Susceptibility of Awka South Local Government
Area to Gully Erosion Using Geographic Information System, Federal University of
Technology, Owerri, 2019.
[35] D. PANDITHARATHNE, N. ABEYSINGHA, K. NIRMANEE, A. MALLAWATANTRI,
PR
micro-watersheds: a case of Awramba micro-watershed in the Upper Blue Nile
Basin, Ethiopia, International Conference on Advances of Science and Technology,
Springer, 2019, pp. 294–314.
[45] G. TIRUNEH, M. AYALEW, Soil loss estimation using geographic information
system in enfraz watershed for soil conservation planning in highlands of Ethiopia,
Int. J. Agric. Res., Innov. Technol. 5 (2015) 21–30.
[46] J. WILLIAMS, H. BERNDT, Sediment yield prediction based on watershed
hydrology, Trans. ASAE 20 (1977) 1100–1104.
[47] W.H. WISCHMEIER, D... SMITH, Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: a Guide to
Conservation Planning, Department of Agriculture, Science and Education

D
Application of revised universal soil loss equation (Rusle) model to assess soil Administration, 1978.
erosion in “kalu Ganga” River Basin in Sri Lanka, Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. (2019) [48] F.A. ZIMALE, M.A. MOGES, M.L. ALEMU, E.K. AYANA, S.S. DEMISSIE, S.A.
2019. TILAHUN, T... STEENHUIS, Budgeting suspended sediment fluxes in tropical
[36] D. PIMENTEL, M. BURGESS, Soil erosion threatens food production, Agriculture monsoonal watersheds with limited data: the Lake Tana basin, J. Hydrol.
3 (2013) 443–463. Hydromech. 66 (2018) 65–78.
TE
[37] K. RENARD, V. FERREIRA, RUSLE model description and database sensitivity, J.
Environ. Qual. 22 (1993) 458–466.
[38] K. RENARD, G. FOSTER, D. YODER, D. MCCOOL, RUSLE revisited: status,
EC
RR
CO
UN

10