See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257793704

Geospatial assessment of soil erosion

vulnerability at watershed level in some
sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river
basin...

Article in Environmental Earth Sciences · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12665-013-2439-3

CITATIONS READS

26 169

3 authors:

Shuvabrata Chatterjee Akhouri Pramod Krishna

4 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra
64 PUBLICATIONS 287 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Anil Prakash Sharma

G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Techn…
198 PUBLICATIONS 411 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shuvabrata Chatterjee on 21 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Environ Earth Sci
DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2439-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulnerability at watershed
level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin,
Jharkhand, India
Shuvabrata Chatterjee • A. P. Krishna •
A. P. Sharma
Received: 12 January 2012 / Accepted: 21 March 2013
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Undulating landscapes of Chhotanagpur pla-
teau of the Indian state of Jharkhand suffer from soil ero-
sion vulnerability of varying degrees. An investigation was
undertaken in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha
River Basin falling within this state. An empirical equation
known as Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was uti-
lized for estimating the soil loss. Analysis of remote
sensing satellite data, digital elevation model (DEM) and
geographical information system (GIS)–based geospatial
approach together with USLE led to the soil erosion
assessment. Erosion vulnerability assessment was per-
formed by analyzing raster grids of topography acquired
from Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and
Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global DEM data.
LANDSAT TM and ETM? satellite data of March 2001
and March 2011 were used for inferring the land use–land
cover characteristics of the watershed for these years,
respectively. USLE equation was computed within the GIS
framework to derive annual soil erosion rates and also the
areas with varying degrees of erosion vulnerability. Ero-
sion vulnerability units thus identified covered five severity
classes of erosion ranging from very low (0–5 ton ha-1
yr-1) to very severe ([ 40 ton ha-1 yr-1). Results indi-
cated an overall increase of erosion in the year 2011 as
compared to the erosion computed for the year 2001.
Maximum soil erosion rate during the year 2001 was found
up to 40 ton ha-1 yr-1, whereas this went up to 49.80 ton
S. Chatterjee (&)  A. P. Sharma
CIFRI, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),
Kolkata, India
e-mail: shuva01@gmail.com
A. P. Krishna
Department of Remote Sensing, Birla Institute of Technology
(BIT), Mesra, Ranchi, India
ha-1 yr-1 for the year 2011. Factors for the increase in
overall erosion could be variation in rainfall, decrease in
vegetation or protective land covers and most important but
not limited to the increase in built-up or impervious areas
as well.
Keywords Watershed management  Soil erosion  USLE 
Remote sensing  LULC change  Subarnarekha River Basin
Introduction
Watersheds are considered the basic units of resources
and watershed management aims to rationalize the land
and water resource use for optimal production with least
adverse impacts to the natural resources (Sharma et al.
1998). Watershed management concept recognizes the
linkages between uplands, low lands, land use, geomor-
phology, slopes and soils (Mishra and Nagarajan 2010).
In India, soil and water conservation are key issues
behind demarcating the priority watersheds (Khan et al.
2001). A variety of landscapes exist with varying vul-
nerability to erosion in the large watersheds like
Subarnarekha within the Chhotanagpur plateau area of
Jharkhand state in India (Krishna and Hemrom 2008).
This river basin is highly dissected by the rivers and
streams of varying dimensions. Erosion is a natural geo-
morphic process that was active during the whole geo-
logical time and formed the earth’s surface (Bathrellos
and Skilodimou 2007). Soil is naturally removed by the
action of water or wind and such occurrences of soil
erosion have been taking place over the geological past.
Soil erosion is an important characteristic signifying the
natural physical processes, which is in effect within the
watersheds. This is a gradual process that occurs when the
123

impact of water detaches and removes soil particles,
causing the soil to deteriorate (Ni et al. 2004; cf. Shinde
et al. 2011). It has long-term effects on the quality of
cultivable soil and the agricultural productivity, quality of
water, transport of sediments, the changes in river channel
and impacts on flooding (Morgan 1995). Land use and
land cover (LULC) changes may also lead to significant
impacts on the hydrological cycle and water quality even
causing floods, droughts and changes in the river and
groundwater regimes. Land use/land cover studies and
application of tools and techniques in estimating the
change, and assessment of impacts on soil erosion have
evoked interests among many researchers. Rapid growth
of population has also brought about extensive LULC
changes in many Himalayan watersheds leading to
reduced ground water recharge, increased runoff and
thereby, increased soil erosion (Tiwari 2000). Potential
effects of LULC changes on soil erosion at different
spatio-temporal scales have been investigated in different
geographical locations of the world. These include studies
at the scales of small watersheds (Favis-Mortlock and
Boardman 1995; Pruski and Nearing 2002; Dunjo et al.
2004; Van Rompaey et al. 2005; Jordan et al. 2006;
Nearing et al. 2005; Cebecauer and Hofierka 2008) as
well as regional scales (Yang et al. 2003). LULC change
dynamics of the watersheds are significant for under-
standing the pressures on its resources (Krishna 1996a).
Increasing human population, deforestation, agricultural
cultivation and inability of farmers to adopt optimal soil
conservation measures within the catchments seem to
magnify the problem of erosion. Similarly, effects of
LULC have been studied at temporal scales of a few
years (Neil Munro et al. 2008; Siyuan et al. 2007) to a
number of decades (Martha et al. 2008; Szilassi et al.
2008; Piccarreta et al. 2006).
Soil erosion has been identified as one of the problems of
both rural and urban landscapes all over the world. Devel-
oping as well as developed countries face problems of soil
erosion of varying intensity and nature. In a country like
Nigeria, the problem of soil erosion is exacerbated by the
increased rainfall and flood events coupled with the
increasing rate of unplanned urbanization (Jeje 1988, 2005;
Ibitoye and Eludoyin 2010). In China, many land-related
problems have been identified, including agricultural land
loss, water pollution, soil erosion and an increase in the
magnitude and frequency of flooding in recent years (Yeh
and Li 1999). Over the past few decades, vital resources of
almost all the watersheds of Iran have been subjected to rapid
deterioration resulting from expanding anthropogenic
activities (Mahmoudi et al. 2010). The potential for surface
runoff and soil erosion is greatly affected by the land use
(Van Rompaey et al. 2002). Soil erosion caused by the
change in land use as well as rapid urbanization has
123
Environ Earth Sci
numerous detrimental on-site impacts on the arable land,
including the loss of topsoil and fertilizers, decreased crop
yield in the short term and decreased soil productivity in the
long term (Ward 2009). In the areas where climate, soil and
topography are similar, soil erosion rates are commonly
related to the land use/land cover (Del Mar et al. 1998).
Contribution of land use change to the soil erosion particu-
larly due to urbanization has been brought out in the study of
Kali basin of Lake Balaton, Hungary by Szilassi et al. (2008).
Similarly, the impact of land use change on the soil erosion
due to excessive urban runoff, artificial drainage and
increased flood volumes and peaks are also well reported
from different basins of the world (Fernandez 2009; Hammer
1972; Hollis and Luckett 1976; Neller 1988).There had been
increase in the runoff and soil erosion due to increase of
impervious cover owing to the population boom upon relo-
cation of Dell Computer Corporation headquarters to Round
Rock Texas in 1994 (Barnett and Franco 2004). In the
Muskegon River Watershed of Lake Michigan, the increase
in impervious surface led to the altered natural hydrologic
conditions. The outcome of the alteration was typically
reflected in the increases in the volume and rate of surface
runoff and the decreases in ground water recharge and base
flow (Carter 1961; Andersen 1970; Lazaro 1990; Moscrip
and Montgomery 1997). Such alterations eventually led to
larger and more frequent incidents of the local flooding
(Field et al. 1982; Hall 1984), reduced residential as well as
municipal water supplies and decreased base flow into
stream channels during dry weather (Harbor 1994).
Shape of landscape and surface roughness are key
properties for understanding the factors related to the
management of water and natural resources. These prop-
erties need to be observed, measured and evaluated quan-
titatively at large scales to understand the relationship of
hydrologic systems with natural and agricultural land-
scapes. It is difficult and time-consuming to measure sur-
face roughness at scales which are large enough for
understanding water movement on the landscape using
traditional techniques (Ritchie et al. 1997). Geospatial
techniques viz. remote sensing and GIS provide a quicker
and cost-effective analysis for relevant applications with
accuracy for planning (Jabbar 2003; Krishna 1996a, b;
Krishna and Rai 1996). A number of parametric models
have been developed to assess soil erosion vulnerability of
drainage basins. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is a
largely used empirical method for quantifying soil erosion
taking into account various contributing factors (Wis-
chmeier and Smith 1978). For watershed-based computa-
tion of soil erosion, remote sensing and GIS are widely
used, especially employing USLE method (Hemrom 2007;
Maria Soupios and Vallianatos 2009; Chen Tao et al. 2010;
Bez 2011). Qualitative and quantitative models provide
appropriate information about the spatial distribution of
Environ Earth Sci
erosion-risk areas in the watershed where suitable and
urgent measures and treatments will be required (Kefi et al.
2011). USLE predicts soil loss for a given site as a product
of six major erosion factors whose values at a particular
location can be expressed numerically and is suitable for
predicting long-term averages. Spatial patterns of soil
erosion play an important role in studying sources of ero-
sion, sinks as well as soil and water conservation (Shinde
et al. 2011). Prediction of soil loss is important for
assessing soil erosion hazard, determining suitable land use
and soil conservation measures for a catchment (Baskan
et al. 2010). Several studies have been conducted in India
(Narain et al. 1994; Ali and Sharda 2005; Sharda and Ali
2008) and the soil erosion severity ranges were established
based on the rankings of mean annual soil erosion rates.
Land degradation from water-induced soil erosion is
becoming a serious problem in the Jharkhand state of India,
and there is less information available on factors affecting
soil erosion in the study area. Therefore, this work has
attempted to establish the erosion vulnerability units
(EVUs) with a view to contribute to proper management
and planning of this watershed falling within upper
Subarnarekha River Basin.
Study area
Subarnarekha River sub-basin occupies an approximate
area of 12,811 km2 before draining into the neighboring
states of Orissa and West Bengal. Following the nomen-
clature of Central Ground Water Board, India, watershed
SRBH006, covering an approximate area of 300 km2, has
been investigated. Geographically, this watershed is situ-
ated within the latitudes 23°140 N to 23°250 N and longitudes
85°100 E to 85°270 E. One of the significant aspects of this
watershed is the location of Ranchi city within it, which is
capital of the Indian state of Jharkhand created in the year
2000. Therefore, this watershed may serve as an indicator
of increasing pressures on the resources in keeping pace
with the relatively rapid development activities after cre-
ation of this state. Significant portions of some revenue
blocks of Ranchi district are situated within the watershed
(Fig. 1). These are Kanke, Ratu, Namkum and a small
portion of Angara block representing a large variety of
natural and anthropogenic impact conditions contributing
to the erosion vulnerability.
Origin of the Subarnarekha River lies within this
watershed and many tributaries branch out to the north as
well as south directions from this eastwardly flowing river.
This basin experiences subtropical climate with well-dis-
tributed rainfall during southwest monsoon from June to
October months. Average annual rainfall varies between
1,100 and 1,400 mm with maximum rainfall experienced
during June to October months, with about 90 % of total
annual rainfall being received during the monsoon season.
Winter season is marked by dry and cold weather during
the months of November to February. Geologically, this
sub-basin has alluvial soils, boulder conglomerates, older
alluvium and laterites in the central portion; basic and
ultrabasic rocks in the southern part and the remaining
portion composed of Chhotanagpur granite–gneiss and
granophyres. Major landforms within this watershed are
buried pediments, detritus, pediplain, valley fills, denuda-
tional hills, structural ridges and laterite capping, etc. The
altitude of the watershed ranges between 590 and 760 m
above mean sea level (amsl) with northernmost portion
covered by ridges and hillocks of altitudes of 700 m amsl
or more.
Materials and methods
There are several classical empirical methods for estima-
tion of soil erosion vulnerability which includes USLE or
the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischmeier 1959).
USLE model in conjunction with remote sensing (RS) and
geographical information system (GIS) proves very useful
to estimate the soil erosion. This study utilized the above
geospatial tools together with digital remote sensing data
such as digital elevation model (DEM) and other earth
observation (EO) satellite data. Such combination of tools
and techniques are largely used worldwide by soil erosion
researches (Vrieling 2006, 2007). Detailed analyses of
factors of soil erosion related to topographic indices were
computed using Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission
and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global DEM
(GDEM) data with 30 m resolution produced by the Min-
istry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (METI) and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Creation of database through conventional
methods is usually time-consuming, tedious and complex
to handle. In this study, remote sensing data were utilized
to generate information essential for the analysis of USLE
factors. For this purpose, LANDSAT satellite data of
March 2001 and March 2011 were used, which were
obtained from the Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF) of
United State Geological Survey (USGS) (http://glcf.
umiacs.umd.edu/data/landsat/).
Out of the eight spectral bands of LANDSAT Enhanced
Thematic Mapper (ETM?), bands 1 (blue), 2 (green), 3
(red) and 4 (near infrared) were used. Bands 4, 3 and 2
were used for generating the standard false color composite
(FCC) images applying suitable color filters. On these
FCCs, vegetation appeared in shades of red, urban areas in
cyan to blue colors and color of soil varied from dark to
light brown. Such FCCs are widely being used for
123

Fig. 1 Map of the study area of the watershed in Upper Subarnarekha River Basin, Jharkhand state, India
vegetation studies, monitoring of various stages of crop
growth, soil and drainage patterns. Deep red hues in gen-
eral indicated broad leaf and/or healthier vegetation while
lighter shades of red signified grasslands or sparsely veg-
etated areas including those under crop lands with standing
crops. Whereas densely populated built-up urban areas
were observed in cyan to light blue colors. This TM band
combination usually gives results similar to the traditional
color infrared aerial photography (Lillesand and Kiefer
1999). LANDSAT ETM?/TM data for all the bands used
in this study had spatial resolution of 30 m. LANDSAT
ETM? satellite data for the study area of March 2001
(Fig. 2a) and March 2011 (Fig. 2b) were used. Image of
March 2011 obtained from GLCF suffered from scan line
corrector (SLC) failure leading to SLC-off mode data. Scan
line corrector (SLC) failure of ETM? sensor took place
onboard on May 31, 2003 causing the scanning pattern to
exhibit wedge-shaped scan-to-scan gaps. ETM? continued
to acquire data with the SLC powered off and acquiring the
images missing approximately 22 percent of the normal
scene area. Since locations of the scan gaps are different
123
Environ Earth Sci
for each SLC-off scene, the gap-filling process was possi-
ble to undertake which accounted for the scan gap inter-
actions. Based on extensive literature survey and the
methods thus gathered by the works of Storey et al. (2005),
Maxwell et al. (2007), Zhang et al. (2007) and Pringle et al.
(2009), etc., this ETM? image of March 2011was rectified
using suitable gap fill techniques (Fig. 2c).
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)–based
computations
Since this study aimed to understand an important hydro-
logical aspect of the watershed in terms of soil erosion
vulnerability, EVUs were computed across the entire
watershed. For this, USLE developed by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research
Service (Wischmeier and Smith 1978) was used (Eq. 1).
Although it is an empirical model, the combined use of
remote sensing, GIS and USLE techniques makes soil
erosion estimation and its spatial distribution feasible
Environ Earth Sci
Fig. 2 LANDSAT ETM? satellite image of a March 2001, b March 2011 (SLC-off), c March 2011 (after SLC-off correction)
within reasonable costs and better accuracy even for larger
areas (Millward and Mersey 1999; Lin et al. 2002; Wang
et al. 2003; Lu et al. 2004; Jasrotia and Singh 2006;
Krishna Bahadur 2009; Chou 2010). This method of soil
erosion assessment takes into account several factors such
as climatological (rainfall erosivity), pedological (soil
erodability), topographic (slope length and steepness) and
anthropogenic (cover management and supporting conser-
vation practices) approaches which are further supported
by the land cover data (Shinde et al. 2011).
Annual soil loss per unit area (A) was obtained using the
aforementioned USLE (Wischmeier and Smith 1978)
equation (Eq. 1):
A ¼ R  K  LS  C  P ð1Þ
where,
A is the mean annual soil loss (ton ha-1 yr-1),
R is the rainfall and runoff erosivity factor
(MJ ha-1 mm-1 yr-1),
K is the soil erodibility factor (ton MJ-1 mm-1),
LS is the topographic factor comprising slope length
factor (L) and slope steepness factor (S),
C is the cover management factor, and
P is the conservation support-practices factor
Rainfall and runoff erosivity factor (R)
R is the long-term annual average of the product of events
of rainfall kinetic energy in MJ ha-1. For the study area,
coordinate-based rainfall data were unavailable for multi-
ple points rather there was availability of data for certain
recording stations of representative locations of the
watershed. These locations were within the similar climatic
zone under Kanke block encompassing maximum area to
the extent of 55 % of the watershed. Its entire area falls
almost in a plateau region and there is not much variation
either in physiology or climate within its water divides. All
these recording stations had similar recorded rainfall data
123

range; therefore, data from one of the centrally located
station was considered to represent the most representative
rainfall record. Monthly rainfall data (Fig. 3a) of this sta-
tion within Kanke block were acquired and used for the
preparation of R factor raster grid for the years of 2001 and
2011.
Rainfall erosivity was calculated using the equation
(Eq. 2) developed by El-Swaify et al. (1983)
R ¼ 38:5 þ 0:35ðrÞ ð2Þ
where, r is the total annual rainfall in mm.
The available rainfall information was extrapolated
within the study area in terms of spatial distribution using
Arc GIS software. Based on extensive literature survey, the
methodology to calculate R factor was ascertained in con-
formity with the climatic conditions of the area. Eiumnoh
(2000) used the above equation to obtain acceptable R factor
for tropical and subtropical ecological zones. Using this
equation, appropriate results were also found by Merritt
(2002), Hartcher et al. (2005), Krishna Bahadur (2009) and
Pal et al. (2012). They tested and applied this equation for
subtropical climatic areas with almost similar rainfall pattern
as the watershed being investigated. Despite being empirical
in nature, this equation (Eq. 2) was considered suitable for
Fig. 3 a Monthly rainfall for
the years 2001 and 2011 in the
study area, b Subtropical
rainfall pattern (Source
http://www.climate-charts.com)
123
Environ Earth Sci
the calculation of R factor for this watershed as well.
Rainfall pattern of this study area, which falls within the
subtropical climatic zone, is shown in Fig. 3b. R factor
for the years 2001 and 2011 was calculated and found
to be 477.12 MJ ha-1 mm-1 yr-1 and 534.10 MJ ha-1
mm-1 yr-1, respectively.
Soil erodibility factor (K)
Soil erodibility (K) represents the susceptibility of soil or
surface material to erosion, transportability of the sediment
and the amount and rate of runoff given a particular rainfall
input, as measured under a standard condition. The stan-
dard condition is the unit plot of 22.2 m in length with a 9
percent gradient, maintained in continuous fallow and til-
led up and down the hill slope (Weesies 1998). Since the
soil found in this watershed is of Alfisol type, K factor was
calculated using the K factor Nomograph of Foster et al.
(1981). Soil map of the study area was prepared using data
from the available reports on soil survey of the Ranchi
district prepared by National Bureau of Soil Survey and
Land Use Planning (NBSS & LUP), Regional Centre,
Kolkata, and that from the Department of Soil Science &
Agricultural Chemistry, Birsa Agriculture University
Environ Earth Sci

(BAU), Ranchi, Jharkhand. Different soil classes were then estimated depends on the resolution of the DEM. Slope in
plotted on the Nomograph. The Nomograph has been upper Subarnarekha Basin was obtained from preprocessed
supported by the soil structure code table (Table 1, after sink–filled ASTER Global DEM. Analysis gave rise to the
Schwab et al. 1992) and Soil Permeability Code Table varying slope angles of this watershed ranging up to 84 %.
(Table 2, after Schwab et al. 1992). Parameters upon which Significant slope-related parameter considered is slope
the Nomograph was prepared are shown in Table 3 and the length (LS) factor, which combines the effects of slope
corresponding spatial details are shown in Fig. 4. length L and slope gradient S. Generally, as hill slope
length and/or hill slope gradient increase, soil loss increa-
Topographic factor (LS) ses. L*S factor was calculated using this equation in spatial
analyst of Raster calculator in Arc GIS software with the
Out of numerous topographic indices which can be help of modified formula in a raster form.
extracted from DEM, only severe erosion-related indices pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LS ¼ L=22ð0:065 þ 0:045  S þ 0:0065Þ  S2
were considered for analysis. These include slope, LS
factor, aspects, terrain relief, etc. Basically, the LS factor where L is the slope length (m), S is the slope steepness
can be estimated through field measurements or from a (radians).
DEM. With the incorporation of DEM into a GIS, the slope Pixel-wise LS factor map was created from the DEM by
gradient (S) and slope length (L) were determined accu- calculating a slope (grid radian). For better accuracy, the
rately and combined to form a single factor known as the same has been tried with ARC Macro Language (AML)
topographic factor LS. The precision with which it can be and the value which was calculated ranges from 0 to 22.
With a smooth average slope, sediment transport is reduced
Table 1 Soil structure code (after Schwab et al. 1992) on a warped or concave slope (due to localized sedimen-
tation), but increased on a convex slope due to the gradient
Code Structure Size (mm)
of the steepest portion (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The
1. Very fine granular \1 presence of concave slopes in a landscape indicates that
2. Fine granular 1–2 there must be trapping, siltation and colluvial deposit in the
3. Medium-to-coarse granular 2–10 valley. Therefore, factors such as aspect distribution, slope
4. Blocky, platy or massive [10 distribution and elevation frequency maps were derived
using ASTER GDEM for the study area (Fig. 5). These
aspects were observed with limited field checks indicating
Table 2 Soil permeability code (after Schwab et al. 1992) that the topographic factors such as slope, slope length and
Code Description Rate (mm/h) the derived LS had larger impacts on the soil erosion rather
than the convexity or concavity of the surface in the study
1. Rapid [130
area.
2. Moderate to rapid 60–130
3. Moderate 20–60
Cover management factor (C)
4. Slow to Moderate 5–20
5. Slow 1–5
Soil loss is very sensitive to vegetation cover along with
6. Very slow \1
slope steepness and length factor (Benkobi et al. 1994;

Table 3 Parameters used for the calculation of K factor

S. Soil class no. Soil type Silt ? very % of OM Structure Permeability K
no. (as in Fig. 4) fine sand sand code code Factor

1. 33 Fine, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Paleustalfs with Fine, 70 20 1.075 1 5 0.066

mixed, hyperthermic Typic Rhodustalfs
2. 34 Fine loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Paleustalfs & 65 30 1.307 1 4 0.062
With Fine loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic
Rhodustalfs
3. 36 Fine, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Paleustalfs & Fine 30 70 1.307 2 3 0.052
loamy, mixed hyperthermic Typic Rhodustalfs
4. 39 Fine, mixed, hyperthermic Rhodic Paleustalfs & Fine 25 50 1.307 2 2 0.068
loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Haplustepts
5. 40 Fine loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Haplustepts & 20 75 1.075 3 1 0.064
Fine loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Haplustalfs

123
 Environ Earth Sci

Fig. 4 Nomographs used for calculating K factor

123
Environ Earth Sci

Fig. 5 a Sink-filled ASTER

GDEM, b Aspect distribution
map, c Cumulative slope
distribution map, d Elevation
versus Slope map, e Elevation
frequency map

Fig. 6 Land use land cover map a year 2001 and b year 2011

123
 Environ Earth Sci

Table 4 Cover management factor (C) values for different LULC factor was assigned for different land use classes as shown
classes of the study area in Table 4.
S. No. LULC class C value
Conservation support-practices factor (P)
1. Built up 0.000
2. Agricultural land 0.400 Support-practices factor for this watershed was verified
3. Dense vegetation 0.004 with field-level investigations. In this area, less tillage
4. Sparse vegetation 0.030 practices were noticed along with few tea/coffee planta-
5. Barren land 1.000 tions in certain villages of southeastern portion of the
6. Water body 0.000 watershed within Namkum block. Therefore, these were
not taken into account due to their very less spatial extent.
Biesemans et al. 2000). Vegetation cover protects the soil Support-practices factor P represents the effects of those
by dissipating the raindrop energy before reaching soil practices that help prevent soil from eroding by reducing
surface. The value of C depends on vegetation type, stage the rate of water runoff. The values of P are calculated as
of growth and cover percentage (Gitas et al. 2009). Higher rates of soil loss caused by a specific support practice
values of C factor indicate no cover effect and soil loss divided by the soil loss caused by row farming up and
comparable to that from a tilled bare fallow, while lower down the slope. There are no support practices in place
C means a very strong cover effect resulting in no erosion within the study site at present. In the absence of support
(Erencin, 2000). In this study, land use/land cover map practice such as contour tillage, contour strip cropping and
derived from satellite images (Fig. 6) served as a guiding terraces, the common practice is to assign a value of 1 for
tool in the allocation of C factors for different land use the P factor. After calculating the estimated soil loss by
classes. The C factor values were the representative values USLE, the P factor values can be adjusted to forecast
for allocating the USLE land cover and management fac- various erosion prevention measures. A new approach was
tors corresponding to each crop/vegetation condition. Land also tested by assigning higher values for the impervious
use classes of the watershed were identified as (1) built-up areas, mostly covered by the built-up area land cover along
land (2) agricultural land (3) dense vegetation (4) sparse with major road networks. According to Goldman et al.
vegetation (5) barren land and (6) water bodies. Based on (1986), construction sites which are compacted and solid-
USDA-SCS (1972) and Rao (1981), the cover management ified never allow water to percolate below it, rather helped

Fig. 7 P factor Map for the years 2001 and 2011

123
Environ Earth Sci
it to flow with greater speed. Therefore, they assigned a
higher value of 1.3 for conservation practice factor over
smooth and impervious areas. Based on such consider-
ations, the built-up areas were clipped out and assigned
similar values as shown in Fig. 7.
For understanding the nature and extent of change in the
built-up area, data from band 7 of TM for the year 2001
and that of ETM? for the year 2011, respectively, were
analyzed using ERDAS Imagine software. This helped to
understand the overall change scenario over a period of
10 years. Change in the built-up area was observed, as an
increase in this category could be verified by the band
differencing and band ratioing process. Change detection
method was used to understand the differences in LULC,
mainly in urban areas. For this, an image difference map
was generated from band 7 and the ‘highlight change’ was
calculated. Calculation of highlight change file was done at
15 % which implies an increase of more than 15 % and a
decrease of more than 15 %. Model builder of ERDAS
Fig. 8 a Band-differenced image of Landsat TM band 7 of March 2001 and Landsat ETM? band 7 of March 2011, b Highlight change image
(±15 %), c Band differencing Model created in ERDAS Imagine, d Model-induced band-differenced map
Imagine was used to produce a different image by band
differencing. The difference was very explicit (Fig. 8) and
it could be used for the validation of LULC classification
too. Dark and bright shades reflect the decreased and
increased values with better precision. Water bodies were
also considered with high values due to the fact that there
was a difference, but these water bodies were ignored
ultimately.
Result and discussions
Annual soil erosion rate of the watershed was ascertained
for the years 2001 and 2011, respectively, with the help of
USLE together with the geospatial techniques. An exten-
sive increase in the built-up area has been observed for the
year 2011 when compared to that of 2001. Although
rainfall erosivity factor increased relatively between the
years 2001 and 2011, increase in the built-up area has also
123

Fig. 9 a Change in LULC for
the years 2001 and 2011,
b Change in area under different
soil types, built up and water
bodies
been a cause of concern with respect to soil erosion in the
watershed. This has resulted in an increase in the area of
land under impervious surfaces leading us to understand
that there would be less area prone to erosion. But actual
conditions can be understood in terms of increased scour-
ing of the soil largely due to the associated kinetic energy
of the rain drops leading to more erosion but over relatively
less area of pervious nature exposed in the year 2011.
Increased runoff due to increased impervious area may
have intensified the process further. Urban development
facilitates sedimentation and contaminant transport directly
(Cablk and Perlow 2006). This is particularly so in view of
the paved surfaces being impervious that does not allow
percolation into the underlying soil or substrate. As a
result, water accumulates and can move with greater
velocities over these impenetrable surfaces until it moves
onto an unpaved surface. Since impervious surfaces con-
centrate and accelerate the accumulation and flow of water,
the water’s force leaving the paved surfaces is capable of
eroding or moving surface soil from the unpaved surface
that would otherwise not erode to that extent. Contaminant
transport into water bodies occurs through the same
physical process but involves contaminants from various
sources that accumulate on paved surfaces. In fact, it has
been shown that impervious surfaces are a major contrib-
utor to watershed degradation and can be used as indicators
of watershed integrity (Arnold and Gibbons 1996).
Overlaying the land use land cover (LULC) maps of
the years 2001 and 2011 revealed that increase in the
areas under urban or built-up land were at the expense of
other types of land covers such as agriculture and
123
Environ Earth Sci
vegetation, etc. These maps were further overlaid onto the
soil map revealing the areal extent and spatial expansion
of built-up land cover within various soil categories. Area
under the built-up land cover increased from 17.9 % in
2001 to 37.14 % in 2011 (Fig. 9a). Barren land which
occupied an area of 5.05 % in 2001 increased to occupy
an area of 6.45 % in 2011. Share of agricultural land in
the total land use decreased from 42.07 % in 2001 to
36.17 % in 2011. Sparse vegetation too decreased from
15.14 % in 2001 to 7.13 % in 2011. Similarly, dense
vegetation decreased from 17.68 to 11.9 % and water
body from 2.16 to 1.21 %, respectively, over the years
2001 to 2011. Overall decrease in the spatial extent of
natural vegetation cover can be attributed to the relative
increase in barren and built-up land. Considering increa-
ses in the built-up as well as barren land, spatial changes
within various soil types were assessed. LULC maps of
2001 and 2011, respectively, were overlaid over the soil
map of NBSS & LUP. This helped in the assessment of
soil types and to account for changes in their spatial
extent particularly with reference to the increase in built-
up land implying conversion of greater areas into the
impervious surfaces. Figure 9b shows that the areas cov-
ered by silty clay loam changed from 180 km2 in 2001 to
140 km2 in 2011. Silty clay occupied an area of 3.09 km2
in 2001 and changed to occupy an area of 2.47 km2 in
2011. Gravelly clay loam decreased from 42 km2 in 2001
to 32 km2 in 2011. Gravelly sandy clay loam too
decreased from 7.99 km2 in 2001 to 6.23 km2 in 2011.
Similarly, sandy clay loam changed from 8.06 km2 in
2001 to 7.75 km2 in 2011. Extent of water bodies
Environ Earth Sci

Fig. 10 Pixel based EVUs for the year a 2001 and b 2011; Micro-watershed-based EVUs for the year, c 2001 and d 2011

Table 5 Erosion vulnerability units (EVUs) of the watershed

increase in the area under built-up category, which
Erosion Severity Range of Soil conservation
vulnerability class erosion priorities
increased considerably over the years 2001 to 2011.
units (EVUs) (tha-1 yr-1) According to Anonymous (1990), bare soil and vege-
tation such as grasses and shrubs are replaced by imper-
1 Very [40 Special soil and water
vious surfaces when agricultural and vegetative areas
severe conservation
measures required become urbanized. Thus, due to urbanization, impervious
2 Severe 20–40 High priority for soil area increases and can result in two types of changes in the
conservation watershed hydrology: (i) due to increased impervious area,
3 Moderate 10–20 Medium priority for rainfall does not percolate into the soil and (ii) as the
soil conservation resistance is reduced, peak flow increases and runoff
4 Low 5–10 Less priority for soil reaches the channels much faster. With an increase in the
conservation peak rate, flow velocity is faster and water levels are higher
5 Very low 0–5 Much less priority for in the streams (Anonymous, 1986). Human use of land in
soil conservation
the urban environment has increased both the magnitude
and frequency of floods (Stein 2005). Therefore, the change
decreased from 6.54 km2 in 2001 to 3.66 km2 in 2011. in built-up area was considered as a significant LULC
Overall decrease in the spatial extent of soil covers is change factor, in the intensification of overall soil erosion
largely believed to have taken place due to relative in the catchment.

123

Depending upon the range of erosion, five severity classes
were delineated and designated as the EVUs. Thus, the EVUs
identified were very low (\5 t ha-1 yr-1), low
(5–10 t ha-1 yr-1), moderate (10–20 t ha-1 yr-1), severe
(20–40 t ha-1 yr-1) and very severe ([40 t ha-1 yr-1).
Such EVUs based on the mean erosions for both the refer-
ence years were mapped and classified. This classification
took into consideration the severity and range of soil erosion
rate. The pixel-based values were used to calculate mean
annual soil loss in terms of EVUs for the years 2001 and 2011
(Fig. 10a, b). For better information on change in the spatial
extent and intensity of soil erosion, zonal statistics were used
to create comparative micro-watershed level soil erosion
maps (Fig. 10c, d). Central portion of some of the micro-
watersheds showed even decrease in soil erosion as com-
pared to 2001. The reason for this could be an increase in the
built-up area with less availability of barren land vulnerable
to usual erosion processes. EVUs were thus established for
this watershed along with their characteristic severity clas-
ses, range of erosion and the corresponding prioritization
toward soil conservation (Table 5). These results showed
that certain areas within the EVUs represented very low–to-
severe condition of soil erosion in 2001 and the same areas
showed signs of increasing erosion rate in the recent refer-
ence period of the year 2011. Due to this, there was an
increase in overall erosion surpassing the severe range over
to the very severe range with erosion vulnerability
of [40 t ha-1 yr-1.
Fig. 11 Change in soil erosion
status under different LULC
over the years 2001 and 2011
123
Environ Earth Sci
Change in the erosion potential and LULC transition
further revealed the cause–effect relationship between the
LULC change dynamics and the micro-watershed level
EVUs. Using hydrology tools of Arc GIS software and the
ASTER GDEM, micro-watersheds of this watershed were
extracted, which numbered approximately 500. These
micro-watersheds showed varying severity of erosions as
represented by the EVUs. Subsequent changes in soil
erosion potential of the watershed were thus inferred by
superimposition of the EVU and LULC change maps.
Results of changes in soil erosion status under different
LULC over the reference years are shown in Fig. 11.
During the year 2001, more than 70 % of the soil under
barren land underwent severe-to-moderate levels of ero-
sion. These areas mostly fell under EVU1 and EVU3,
respectively. During the year 2011, very severe soil erosion
had also set in corresponding to EVU1 under the barren
land category. This might have led to the increase in the
corresponding area under very severe-to-moderate erosion
ranging from EVU1 to EVU3 going up from 70 % in the
year 2001 to 75 % in the year 2011. Such pattern of
intensification of very severe erosion under EVU1 was also
observed for other LULC classes such as agricultural land,
built-up land and dense vegetation. Most notable change
occurred in the barren land category in which more than
20 % area was found to have come under EVU1 with very
severe soil erosion. Moderate soil erosion of EVU3 range
was observed to have more than doubled with the
Environ Earth Sci
intensification of severe and very severe soil erosions of
EVU2 and EVU3 categories, especially in case of dense
vegetation and agricultural land. Areas of land under
moderate-to-severe soil erosions of EVU3 and EVU2
ranges under all other LULC categories increased with the
intensification of very severe erosion of EVU1 range. Very
low-to-low soil erosions of EVU4 and EVU5 ranges
decreased under all the categories of LULC except that of
the built-up category. This reflected an increase in EVU3,
EVU4 and EVU5 corresponding to moderate, severe and
very severe erosion ranges, respectively. Thus, there are
requirements of much efficient management and soil con-
servation priorities, such as medium and high priority, and
special soil and water conservation measures, respectively,
for corresponding EVUs at micro-watershed levels.
Conclusions
Soil erosion as a water-induced phenomenon is a signifi-
cant problem being reported from various parts of the
world. There is less information available on the factors
responsible for soil erosion vulnerability, which necessi-
tates more area-specific studies. Geospatial tools and
techniques used in this study greatly aided the delineation
of erosion vulnerability of this watershed within Upper
Subarnarekha River Basin. Assessment of erosion with due
consideration of distinct severity classes depicted by EVUs
could be established. EVU categories established for this
watershed ranged over five severity classes, namely very
low (\5 t ha-1 yr-1), low (5–10 t ha-1 yr-1), moderate
(10–20 t ha-1 yr-1), severe (20–40 t ha-1 yr-1) and very
severe ([40 t ha-1 yr-1). Thus, EVUs derived were based
on the soil erosion values obtained across various land use
classes of the watershed. Such EVU categories may vary
from one micro-watershed to another, even within the basin
and such information generated using geospatial tech-
niques may be considered significant for watershed man-
agement and planning. Furthermore, such delineation of
EVUs should also hold good for contiguous watersheds of
the region with similar host terrain conditions. This
watershed is situated in the vicinity of Ranchi, the capital
city of the Indian state of Jharkhand, which is undergoing
rapid urbanization due to its relatively new status as a state
capital. Therefore, anthropogenic activities are the domi-
nating drivers of LULC changes. This pertains to the last
10 years, leading to changes in the soil erosion potential
both positive and negative as well as mixed behavior.
Based on the satellite data of the years 2001 and 2011,
increase in the areas under urban or built-up land were
observed at the expense of other types of productive land
covers such as agriculture and vegetation. Overall effects
of the LULC change over the period 2001–2011 seem to
have a negative impact on the watershed, which is reflected
by the shifting of EVUs under less soil erosion ranges to
the EVUs under higher soil erosion ranges. Even though
overall area of the watershed shows increase in impervious
area, but the increased rate of erosion was noticed due to a
variety of associated anthropogenic implications. Imper-
vious surfaces are likely to concentrate and accelerate
water accumulation and flow. An understanding of the
dynamics of erosion in a watershed like this certainly
requires the appreciation of the impervious or paved and
unpaved areas owing to the urbanization process. Even if
thoughts on urbanization aspects of the watersheds like this
are spared, EVUs established for this watershed may pro-
vide a good insight into the problem at micro-watershed
levels toward better watershed management and prioriti-
zation. Thus, the techniques adopted in this study have the
potential to be extended to other watersheds as well to
manage them sustainably with better planning and con-
servation approach.
Acknowledgments The first author is thankful to the CIFRI, Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Kolkata, and also to the
Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), Mesra for all the facilities made
available and availed for the work as a Research Scholar. Dr. S. K.
Sahu and Miss Manisha Bhor of CIFRI (ICAR), Kolkata, are
acknowledged for their time to time help. Satellite digital data
available from USGS Global Land Cover Facility and used in this
study is also duly acknowledged. Authors gratefully acknowledge the
anonymous reviewers for providing their critical comments to
improve the quality of this manuscript. Authors are also thankful to
Dr. Gunter Doerhoefer, Editor-in-Chief, of the journal toward
improvements in the manuscript.
References
Ali S, Sharda VN (2005) Evaluation of the universal soil loss equation
(USLE) in semi-arid and sub-humid climates of India. Appl Eng
Agric 21:217–225
Andersen DG (1970) Effects of urban development of floods in
Northern Virginia. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
2001-C. p 26
Anonymous (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical
Release 55. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conserva-
tion Engineering Division, USDA
Anonymous (1990) Impacts of changes in hydrology due to urban-
ization. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Watershed
Management Unit, Water Division—Region V, Chicago, IL
Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage—the
emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc
62(2):243–258
Barnett B, Franco B (2004) Impervious cover and erosion, A study of
the effects of the increase in impervious cover on soil loss and
erosion in Brushy Creek resulting from the opening of the Dell
headquarters and the subsequent population boom in Round
Rock, Texas, GRG 360-G
Baskan O, Hicrettin C, Suat A, Gunay E (2010) Conditional
simulation of USLE/RUSLE soil erodibility factor by geostatis-
tics in a mediterranean catchment, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci
60:1179–1187
123

Bathrellos G, Skilodimou H (2007) Using the analytic hierarchy
process to create an erosion risk map—a case study in Malaka-
siotiko stream, Trikala prefecture. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of Greece, vol XXXX, pp 1904–1915
Benkobi L, Trlica MJ, Smith JL (1994) Evaluation of a redefined
surface cover sub-factor for use in RUSLE. J Range Manag
47:74–78
Bez PK (2011) Watershed characterization for assessing erosional
behavior through geoinformatics. M.Tech. (Remote Sensing)
Thesis (unpubl.), Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), Mesra,
India
Biesemans J, Meirvenne MV, Gabriels D (2000) Extending the
RUSLE with the Monte Carlo error propagation technique to
predict long-term average on-site sediment accumulation. J Soil
Water Conserv 55:35–42
Cablk ME, Perlow LM (2006) A classification system for impervious
cover in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Project Number 2004NV57B,
Report of Nevada Water Resources Research Institute
Carter WR (1961) Magnitude and frequency of floods in suburban
areas.US Geological Survey Professional Paper 424-B: B9-11
Cebecauer T, Hofierka J (2008) The consequences of land-cover
changes on soil erosion distribution in Slovakia. Geomorphology
98:187–198
Chen T, Niu R-q, Li P-x, Zhang L-p, Du B (2010) Regional soil
erosion risk mapping using RUSLE, GIS, and remote sensing: a
case study in Miyun watershed, North China. Environ Earth Sci
(Online). doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0715-z
Chou WC (2010) Modeling watershed scale soil loss prediction and
sediment yield estimation. Water Resour Manage 24(10):2075–2090
Del Mar LT, Mitchel Aide T, Scatena FN (1998) The effect of land
use on soil erosion in the Guadiana watershed in Puerto Rico.
Carib J Sci 34:298–307
Dunjo G, Pardini G, Gispert M (2004) The role of land use–land cover
on runoff generation and sediment yield at a microplot scale, in a
small Mediterranean catchment. J Arid Environ 57:99–116
Eiumnoh A (2000) Integration of geographic information systems
(GIS) and satellite remote sensing (SRS) for watershed man-
agement. Technical Bulletin 150, Food and Fertilizer Technol-
ogy Center, Taiwan
El-Swaify SA, Arsyad S, Krishnarajah P (1983) Soil erosion by water.
In: The handbook on natural systems information for planners.
The MacMillan Co. Inc., New York, pp 99–161
Erencin Z (2000) C-factor mapping using remote sensing and GIS—a
case study of LOM Sak/Lom Kao, Thailand: [Dissertation].
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences
(ITC), Holland
Favis-Mortlock D, Boardman J (1995) Non-linear responses of soil
erosion to climate change: a modeling study on the UK South
Downs. Catena 25:365–387
Fernandez JM (2009) Measures against soil erosion in Spain. SCAPE,
Soil Conservation and Protection for Europe, pp 51–54
Field R, Masters H, Singer M (1982) Porous pavement: research,
development, and demonstration. J Transp Eng 108(3):244–258
Foster GR, McCool DK, Renard KG, Moldenhauer WC (1981)
Conversion of the universal soil loss equation to SI metric units.
J Soil Water Conserv 36(6):355–359
Gitas IZ, Douros K, Minakou1 C, Silleos GN, Karydas CG (2009)
Multi-temporal soil erosion risk assessment in N. Chalkidiki
using a modified USLE raster model. In: EARSEL e-proceedings
8-1/2009, pp 40–52
Goldman SJ, Jackson K, Bursztynsky TA (1986) Erosion and
sediment control handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hall MJ (1984) Urban hydrology. Elsevier Applied Science Publish-
ers, New York
Hammer TR (1972) Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization.
Water Resour Res 8:1530–1540
123
Environ Earth Sci
Harbor J (1994) A practical method for estimating the impact of land
use change on surface runoff, groundwater recharge and wetland
hydrology. J Am Plan Assoc 60:91–104
Hartcher MG, Post DA, Kinsey-Henderson AE (2005) Uncertainty in
modeling the sources and sinks of suspended sediment in the
Mae Chaem Catchment, Thailand. In: Proceedings of the 2005
international conference on simulation and modelling,
pp 418–425
Hemrom S (2007) Soil erosion assessment by USLE at watershed
level for impact of land use changes: a geoinformatics approach.
M.Tech. (Remote Sensing) Thesis (unpubl.), Birla Institute of
Technology (BIT), Mesra, India
Hollis GE, Luckett JK (1976) The response of natural river channels
to urbanization: two case studies from southeast England.
J Hydrol 30:351–363
Ibitoye M, Eludoyin A (2010) Land exposure and soil erosion in part
of humid region of Southwest Nigeria. FIG Congress, Sydney
Jabbar MT (2003) Application of GIS to estimate soil erosion using
RUSLE. Geo-spatial Inf Sci 6(1):34–37
Jasrotia AS, Singh R (2006) Modeling runoff and soil erosion in a
catchment area using GIS in Himalayan region, India. Environ
Geol 51:29–37
Jeje LK (1988) Soil erosion characteristics, processes and extent in
the lowland rainforest area of southwestern Nigeria. In: Sagua
VO, Enabor EE, Ofomata GEK, Ologe KO, Oyebande L (eds)
Ecological disaster in Nigeria: soil erosion. Federal Ministry of
Science and Technology, Lagos, pp 69–83
Jeje LK (2005) Urbanization and accelerated erosion: the case of
Effon-Alaaye in South western Nigeria. Seminar Paper. Depart-
ment of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Nigeria
Jordan G, van Rompaey A, Szilassi P, Csillag G, Mannaerts C,
Woldai T (2006) Historical land use changes and their impact on
sediment fluxes in the Balaton basin (Hungary). Agric Ecosyst
Environ 108:119–133
Kefi M, Yoshino K, Setiawan Y, Zayani K, Boufaroua M (2011)
Assessment of the effects of vegetation on soil erosion risk by
water: a case study of the Batta watershed in Tunisia. Environ
Earth Sci 64:707–719
Khan MA, Gupta VP, Moharana PC (2001) Watershed prioritization
using remote sensing and geographical information system: a
case study from Guhiya, India. J Arid Environ 49:465–475
Krishna AP (1996a) Land cover change dynamics of a Himalayan
watershed utilizing Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) data.
In: Proceedings of IEEE/GRSS International Geosciences and
Remote Sensing Symposium 1996 (IGARSS96), Nebraska,
USA, vol I, pp 221–223
Krishna AP (1996b) Remote sensing approach for watershed based
resources management priorities in the Sikkim Himalaya—a
case study. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 24(2):69–83
Krishna Bahadur KC (2009) Mapping soil erosion susceptibility using
remote sensing and GIS: a case of the Upper Nam Wa
Watershed, Nan Province, Thailand. Environ Geol 57:695–705
Krishna AP, Hemrom S (2008) Utilisation of Indian Remote Sensing
Satellite (IRS) data for assessment of soil erosion process of a
watershed in Chhotanagpur plateau region. In: 37th Committee
on Space Research (COSPAR) Scientific Assembly (July 13–20,
2008), Session on Space Data Utilization for Earth, Montreal,
Canada (abs.), p 1620. http://www.cospar-assembly.org/admin/
congress_overview.php?sessionid=1
Krishna AP, Rai LK (1996) GIS and remote sensing for natural
resources management at watershed level in the mountain
environment: a conceptual approach. Asian-Pacific Remote Sens
GIS J 9:93–99
Lazaro TR (1990) Urban hydrology, a multidisciplinary perspective.
Technomic Publishing Company, Lancaster
Environ Earth Sci
Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW (1999) Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation, 4th edn. Wiley. ISBN 9971-51-427-3
Lin CY, Lin WT, Chou WC (2002) Soil erosion prediction and
sediment yield estimation: the Taiwan experience. Soil Tillage
Res 68:143–152
Lu D, Li G, Valladares GS, Batistella M (2004) Mapping soil erosion
risk in Rondonia, Brazilian Amazonia using RUSLE, remote
sensing and GIS. Land Degrad Dev 15:499–512
Mahmoudi B, Bakhtiari F, Hamidifar M, Danehkar A (2010) Effects
of land use change and erosion on physical and chemical
properties of water (Karkhe Watershed). Int J Environ Res
4(2):217–228
Maria Soupios P, Vallianatos F (2009) Soil erosion prediction using
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a GIS
framework, Chania, Northwestern Crete, Greece. Environ Geol
57:483–497
Martha MB, Gerard G, van Anne D, Fabien Q, Dimitris C, Mark R
(2008) The response of soil erosion and sediment export to land-
use change in four areas of Europe: the importance of landscape
pattern. Geomorphology 98:213–226
Maxwell SK, Schmidt GL, Storey JC (2007) A multi-scale segmen-
tation approach to filling gaps in Landsat ETM? SLC-off
images. Int J Remote Sens 28(23):5339–5356
Merritt WS (2002) Biophysical considerations in integrated catch-
ment management: a modeling system for Northern Thailand.
Doctor in Philosophy Thesis, Australian National University
Millward AA, Mersey JE (1999) Adapting the RUSLE to model soil
erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena
38(2):109–129
Mishra S, Nagarajan R (2010) Morphometric analysis and prioriti-
zation of sub-watersheds using GIS and remote sensing
techniques: a case study of Odisha, India. Int J Geomat Geosci
1(3):501–510
Morgan RPC (1995) Soil erosion and conservation. Longman 198
Moscrip AL, Montgomery DR (1997) Urbanization flood, frequency
and salmon abundance in Puget Lowlan Streams. J Am Water
Resour Assoc 33(6):1289–1297
Narain P, Khybri ML, Tomar HPS, Sindhwal NS (1994) Estimation of
runoff, soil loss and USLE parameters for Doon Valley. Indian J
Soil Conserv 22:1–9
Nearing MA, Jetten V, Baffaut C, Cerdan O, Couturier A, Hernandez
M et al (2005) Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to
changes in precipitation and cover. Catena 61:131–154
Neil Munro R, Deckers J, Haile M, Grove AT, Poesen J, Nyssen J
(2008) Soil landscapes, land cover change and erosion features
of the Central Plateau region of Tigrai, Ethiopia: photo-
monitoring with an interval of 30 years. Catena 75:55–64
Neller RJ (1988) A comparison of channel erosion in small urban and
rural catchments, Armidale, New South Wales. Earth Surf
Process Landf 13:1–7
Ni SX, Ma GB, Wei YC, Jiang HF (2004) An indicator system for
assessing soil erosion in the Loess Plateau gully regions: a case
study in the Wangdonggou watershed of China. Pedosphere
14:37–44
Pal B, Samanta S, Pal DK (2012) Morphometric and hydrological
analysis and mapping for Watut watershed using remote sensing
and GIS techniques. Int J Adv Eng Technol. ISSN: 2231-1963
Piccarreta M, Capolongo D, Boenzi F, Bentivenga M (2006)
Implications of decadal changes in precipitation and land use
policy to soil erosion in Basilicata, Italy. Catena 65:138–151
Pringle MJ, Schmidt M, Muir JS (2009) Geostatistical interpolation of
SLC-off Landsat ETM? images. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote
Sens 64(6):654–664
Pruski FF, Nearing MA (2002) Runoff and soil loss responses to
changes in precipitation: a computer simulation study. J Soil
Water Conserv 57:7–16
Rao YP (1981) Evaluation of cropping management factor in
universal soil loss equation under natural rainfall condition of
Kharagpur, India. In: Proceedings of the Southeast Asian
Regional Symposium on Problems of Soil Erosion and Sedi-
mentation, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok,
pp 241–254
Ritchie JC, Seyfried MS (1997) Airborne laser altimeter applications
to water management. In: Baumgartner M, Schultz GA, Johnson
AI (eds), Remote sensing and geographic information systems
for design and operation of water resources systems, Interna-
tional Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication No. 242,
pp. 221–228
Schwab G, Fangmeier D, Elliot W, Frevert R (1992) Soil and water
conservation engineering, 4th edn. Wiley, New York. ISBN-10:
0471574902, ISBN-13: 9780471574903
Sharda VN, Ali S (2008) Evaluation of the universal soil loss equation
in semi-arid and sub-humid climates of India using stage
dependent C-factor. Indian J Agric Sci 78:422–427
Sharma E, Sundriyal RC, Rai SC, Krishna AP (1998) Watershed: a
functional unit of management for sustainable development. In:
Ambasht RS (ed) Modern trends in ecology and environment.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 171–185
Shinde V, Sharma A, Tiwari KN, Singh M (2011) Quantitative
determination of soil erosion and prioritization of micro-
watersheds using remote sensing and GIS. J Indian Soc Remote
Sens 39(2):181–192
Siyuan W, Jingshi L, Cunjian Y (2007) Temporal change in the
landscape erosion pattern in the Yellow River Basin, China. Int J
Geogr Inf Sci 21:1077–1092
Stein, ED (NB21F-05) (2005) Effect of increases in peak flows and
imperviousness on stream morphology of ephemeral streams in
Southern California. North American Benthological Society
Storey J, Scaramuzza P, Schmidt G, Barsi J (2005) Landsat 7 scan
line corrector-off gap filled product development. In: Proceed-
ings of Pecora 16 global priorities in land remote sensing, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, pp 23–27
Szilassi P, Jordan G, Rompaey A, Csillag G (2008) Impacts of
historical land use changes on erosion and agricultural soil
properties in the Kali Basin at Lake Balaton, Hungary. Catena
68:96–108
Tiwari PC (2000) Land use changes in the Himalaya and their impact
on the plains ecosystem: need for sustainable land use. Land Use
Policy 17:101–111
USDA-SCS (1972) ‘Hydrology’ in SCS national engineering hand-
book, section 4. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
Van Rompaey A, Govers G, Puttemans C (2002) Modeling land use
changes and their impact on soil erosion and sediment supply to
rivers. Earth Surf Process Landf 27(5):481–494
Van Rompaey A, Bazzoffi P, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (2005)
Modeling sediment yields in Italian catchments. Geomorphology
65:157–169
Vrieling A (2006) Satellite remote sensing for water erosion
assessment: a review. Catena 65:2–18
Vrieling A (2007) Mapping erosion from space. Doctoral Thesis,
Wageningen University. ISBN: 978-90-8504-587-8
Wang G, Gertner G, Fang S, Anderson AB (2003) Mapping multiple
variables for predicting soil loss by geostatistical methods with
TM images and a slope map. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens
69:889–898
Ward PJ (2009) Revised estimate of River Meuse suspended sediment
yield in the 20th century: decreasing rather than increasing. Neth
J Geosci 87:189–193
Weesies GA (1998) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to
conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss
123

Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook No. 703, Washington
DC, USA
Wischmeier WH (1959) A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil-
loss equation. Soil Sci Soc Am J Abstr 23(3):246–249
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion
losses—a guide to conservation planning. Handbook No. 537,
US Department of Agriculture, USA
Yang D, Kanae S, Oki T, Koike T, Musiake K (2003) Global potential
soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes.
Hydrol Process 17(2913):2928
Yeh AGO, Li X (1999) Economic development and agricultural land
loss in the Pearl River Delta, China. Habitat Int 23(3):373–390
Zhang C, Li W, Travis D (2007) Gaps-fill of SLC-off Landsat
ETM? satellite image using a geostatistical approach. Int J
Remote Sens 28(22):5103–5122
123
View publication stats
Environ Earth Sci
Websites
http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/landsat/. Accessed Jan 2011 & June
2011
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html. Accessed
Jan 2011 & Dec 2011
http://cgwb.gov.in/watershed/list-ws.html.Accessed Jan 2011
http://www.indianetzone.com/41/soil_erosion_india.htm. Accessed
March 2011
http://soilerosion.net/doc/what_is_erosion.html. Accessed March 2011
http://www.indianetzone.com/41/soil_conservation_india.htm. Accessed
August 2011