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

net/publication/259693361

NDVI time series for monitoring RUSLE cover management factor in a tropical
watershed

Article  in  International Journal of Remote Sensing · January 2014

DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2013.871081

CITATIONS READS

55 1,188

5 authors, including:

Daniel Carvalho Mauro Antonio Homem Antunes

Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro
146 PUBLICATIONS   1,462 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paulo Tarso Sanches Oliveira

Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul
135 PUBLICATIONS   1,485 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mapeamento Digital de Solos por Regressão Logística Múltipla em Ambiente de Mar de Morros Pinheiral, RJ View project

AGU Fall Meeting 2019: Advancing hydrologic process understanding across scales using new datasets and methods (H018) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulo Tarso Sanches Oliveira on 08 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso
Oliveira]
On: 06 January 2014, At: 09:16
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Remote

Sensing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20

NDVI time series for monitoring RUSLE

cover management factor in a tropical
watershed
a b b c
V.L. Durigon , D.F. Carvalho , M.A.H. Antunes , P.T.S. Oliveira &
d
M.M. Fernandes
a
CTUR, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ
23890–000, Brazil
b
IT/Engineering Department, Federal Rural University of Rio de
Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ 23890–000, Brazil
c
Department of Hydraulics and Sanitary Engineering, University of
São Paulo, São Carlos, SP 13560–970, Brazil
d
Campus Professora Cinobelina Elvas, Federal University of Piauí,
Bom Jesus, PI 64900–000, Brazil
Published online: 02 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: V.L. Durigon, D.F. Carvalho, M.A.H. Antunes, P.T.S. Oliveira & M.M. Fernandes
(2014) NDVI time series for monitoring RUSLE cover management factor in a tropical watershed,
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 35:2, 441-453

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.871081

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014
 International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 2, 441–453, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.871081

NDVI time series for monitoring RUSLE cover management factor in

Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

a tropical watershed
V.L. Durigona, D.F. Carvalhob, M.A.H. Antunesb*, P.T.S. Oliveirac, and M.M. Fernandesd
a
CTUR, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ 23890–000, Brazil;
b
IT/Engineering Department, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ
23890–000, Brazil; cDepartment of Hydraulics and Sanitary Engineering, University of São Paulo,
São Carlos, SP 13560–970, Brazil; dCampus Professora Cinobelina Elvas, Federal University of
Piauí, Bom Jesus, PI 64900–000, Brazil
(Received 7 October 2012; accepted 26 October 2013)

Land cover, an important factor for monitoring changes in land use and erosion risk,
has been widely monitored and evaluated by vegetation indices. However, a study that
associates normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) time series to climate
parameters to determine soil cover has yet to be conducted in the Atlantic Rainforest
of Brazil, where anthropogenic activities have been carried out for centuries. The
objective of this paper is to evaluate soil cover in a Brazilian Atlantic rainforest
watershed using NDVI time series from Thematic Mapper (TM) Landsat 5 imagery
from 1986 to 2009, and to introduce a new method for calculating the cover manage-
ment factor (C-factor) of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model.
Twenty-two TM Landsat 5 images were corrected for atmospheric effects using the 6S
model, georeferenced using control points collected in the field and imported to a GIS
database. Contour lines and elevation points were extracted from a 1:50,000-scale
topographic map and used to construct a digital elevation model that defined watershed
boundaries. NDVI and RUSLE C-factor values derived from this model were calcu-
lated within watershed limits with 1 km buffers. Rainfall data from a local weather
station were used to verify NDVI and C-factor patterns in response to seasonal rainfall
variations. Our proposed method produced realistic values for RUSLE C-factor using
rescaled NDVIs, which highly correlated with other methods, and were applicable to
tropical areas exhibiting high rainfall intensity. C-factor values were used to classify
soil cover into different classes, which varied throughout the time-series period, and
indicated that values attributed to each land cover cannot be fixed. Depending on
seasonal rainfall distribution, low precipitation rates in the rainy season significantly
affect the C-factor in the following year. In conclusion, NDVI time series obtained
from satellite images, such as from Landsat 5, are useful for estimating the cover
management factor and monitoring watershed erosion. These estimates may replace
table values developed for specific land covers, thereby avoiding the cumbersome field
measurements of these factors. The method proposed is recommended for estimating
the RUSLE C-factor in tropical areas with high rainfall intensity.

1. Introduction
Given population growth worldwide, it has become increasingly necessary to develop plans
for land use and soil cover in urban and rural areas, at city, state, and country level (Morgan
2005). Land use refers to human activities developed for a specific purpose, whereas land
cover refers to elements on the surface of the soil (e.g. forests, fields, crops, rocks, and desert).

*Corresponding author. Email: mauroantunes@ufrrj.br

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 442 V.L. Durigon et al.

Despite the differences, these terms are commonly interchanged (Martinez and Mollicone
2012). Land cover is associated with features of the landscape, and because it can be easily
visualized, is assessed without direct contact with the soil surface; determination of land use
however requires in loco samplings and detailed imagery (Joshi, Yadav, and Sinha 2011).
Studies on land use and land cover involve issues related to communities occupying
the area, such as social and economic aspects (Singh, Singh, and Srivastava 2005;
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

Martinez and Mollicone 2012). Land cover is affected by cyclic events including drought,
burning, volcanic activities, and flooding, whereas anthropogenic activities such as crop-
ping, livestock husbandry, urbanization, and agriculture determine land use over a given
period of time (Ustin et al. 1999).
According to Jain and Das (2009), maps of land cover, classes, and use, in addition to
relief and hydrography maps, are important tools in developing conservation and erosion
control strategies, thereby preventing catastrophes and environmental disturbance.
Vegetation serves as a protective layer, a buffer structure between the soil and the atmo-
sphere; the aerial parts of the plants, such as stems and leaves, absorb energy from rain
drops, and wind, while underground structures such as root systems promote mechanical
resistance of soil to erosion (Zhou et al. 2008). In a study on two different soil types in
southwest Nigeria, Adekalu, Okunade, and Osunbitan (2006) concluded that soil coverage
consisting of leaf litter compensates for reduced infiltration due to soil compacting, and is
efficient in preventing runoff and soil loss.
The cover-management factor (C-factor) of both the Universal Soil Loss Equation, USLE
(Wischmeier and Smith 1978), and the revised version, RUSLE (Renard et al. 1997), express
the protective effect of soil cover against the erosive action of rainfall. It represents the
relationship between soil loss in an area with specific vegetation cover and management
and an area with tilled soil, permanently bare during the cropping period. C-factor mapping by
remote sensing can provide essential information for improving the spatial modelling of soil
erosion (Meusburger, Bänninger, and Alewell 2010). These tools are becoming increasingly
important for collecting surface data that support soil cover planning. Remote sensing has a
number of advantages over conventional data collection methods, including low cost, rapid
and precise data analysis, and less instrumentation than in situ surveying. Moreover, remote
sensing data can be integrated with a geographical information system to assess changes in
land use (Weng 2002; Wu et al. 2006; Oñate-Valdivieso and Sendra 2010), monitor soil
degradation (El Baroudy 2011), and predict soil erosion (Peng et al. 2008).
The growth and vigour of vegetation cover can be evaluated by vegetation indices (VIs)
obtained from radiometric measurements. VIs are produced by mathematical operations
primarily involving the red (R) and near-infrared (NIR) regions of the electromagnetic
spectrum (Tucker 1979). According to Im et al. (2012), temporal and spatial VI variations
are highly correlated with biophysical data such as leaf area index (LAI), biomass (Tucker
1979), soil cover percentage, and photosynthetic activity in the canopy (Asrar et al. 1984;
Myneni and Williams 1994). VIs were developed to emphasize vegetation spectral features
in relation to the background of soil and litter on the soil surface (Myneni et al. 1995).
Atmospheric conditions and soil cover in particular exert a considerable effect on VI
(Myneni and Williams 1994). Areas with sparse vegetation have a higher incidence of
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in the soil, whereas soil covered by dense vegetation
receives lower EMR because the canopy intercepts radiation (Colwell 1974). According to
Zhongming et al. (2010), vegetation cover is an important parameter for evaluating the
relationship between vegetation and soil erosion. However, erosion intensity is not
determined by vegetation cover alone. Other variables such as canopy structure, that is
spatial distribution and leaf and branch density, play an important role in this process.
 International Journal of Remote Sensing 443

Ichii et al. (2002) evaluated climate parameters and their correlation with the global
interannual normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). They showed that tempera-
ture exerts a significant effect on biosphere activity in areas of moderate to high latitudes
in the Northern Hemisphere due to a wide interannual variation in temperature, whereas
this effect is limited in semi-arid regions, mainly due to low rainfall levels. According to
Wang, Rich, and Price (2003), rainfall has a direct influence on NDVI and therefore on
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

vegetation production. The relationship between precipitation and NDVI is strong and
predictable when analysed at the appropriate spatial scale. Santos and Negri (1997) found
no correlation between rainfall and NDVI in the Amazon rainforest, but showed an
exponential relationship between these variables in semi-arid Northeast Brazil. Yun-
Hao, Xiao-Bing, and Feng (2001) report that several factors cause changes in NDVIs
and land cover, including climate, hydrology, relief, and land use.
The original Atlantic forest formation was distributed throughout 17 Brazilian states
and in parts of Paraguay and Argentina, but only approximately 11.7% of this vegetation
is currently found in Brazil, mainly in the coastal area, occupying 15,719,337 ha (Ribeiro
et al. 2009). It is one of the most important tropical forests in the world and contains one
of the richest biodiversities on the planet (Gardner et al. 2010).
Although the Atlantic Forest is an important area, there is a scarcity of studies using
remote sensing to analyse vegetation response to several factors such as climate, soil,
relief, and in particular, rainfall. This information is essential because most of the
biodiversity in the area is dependent on vegetation and climatic conditions. Therefore,
NDVI is a valuable tool for studying and carrying out environmental analysis of this
biome, particularly concerning its vulnerability to water erosion and the role of vegetation
cover in protecting against surface soil loss.
In the present study, changes in soil cover were evaluated in the Palmares-Ribeirão do
Saco watershed, an Atlantic Forest area in the municipalities of Paty do Alferes and
Miguel Pereira. Temporal NDVI series from Thematic Mapper (TM) Landsat 5 imagery
were used to analyse data from 1986 to 2009. A new method was developed to obtain the
C-factor and compared with the conventional procedure.

2. Materials and methods

The Palmares-Ribeirão do Saco watershed (Figure 1) is part of the Paraíba do Sul
watershed, which includes parts of the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, and Rio de
Janeiro. According to Machado et al. (2008), this region is one of the most affected by water
erosion in Brazil, with 20% of the area (more than 1 million ha) considered highly or very
highly vulnerable to erosion. It is located between the coordinates 22° 30′ 33″ S/22° 22′ 53″ S
and 43° 30′ 15″ W/43° 20′ 50″ W and has a predominantly rugged relief. Climate is Cw
(Köppen’s Climate Classification; Peel, Finlayson, and McMahon 2007), with temperature
ranging from 12°C to 30°C and rainfall from 1100 to 1700 mm. This watershed was selected
because of its spatially diverse vegetation cover, soil diversity, and slope classes.
TM Landsat 5 imagery was used to study the area, and 24 year temporal analyses of
images from 1986 to 2009 were performed. A 1:50,000 scale topographic map from the
Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE) was used in this study. Contour
lines and elevation points in vector form were used to construct a digital elevation model
(DEM), which was used to demarcate the watershed. Analytical procedures were per-
formed using ArcGIS 9.3 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). The watershed DEM showed that
altitude ranged from 570 to 1210 m, and that 40% of the watershed area was above the
average altitude of 780 m (Figure 2).
 444 V.L. Durigon et al.

W E

S
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

BRAZIL

PALMARES-RIBEIRÃO DO SACO WATERSHED

Figure 1. Geographic localization of the Palmares-Ribeirão do Saco watershed in the municipa-

lities of Paty do Alferes and Miguel Pereira, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil.

6550000 6600000 6650000

ALTITUDE in meters
570–610 890–930
610–650 930–970
650–690 970–1010
690–730 1010–1050
000
7520000

730–770 1050–1090
7520

770–810 1090–1130
810–850 1130–1170
850–890 1170–1210

W E
7515000

000
7515

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
km

6550000 660000 6650000

Figure 2. Digital elevation model of the study area (m).

 International Journal of Remote Sensing 445

The 23 images used in the study were obtained from the National Institute for Space
Research (INPE). These were acquired by Landsat 5 TM sensor, path 217/row 076. Image
bands were converted into 8 bit raw data format using SPRING 4.3.2 (INPE, São José dos
Campos, SP, Brazil) (Câmara et al. 1996). Atmospheric effects were corrected using the
6S model (Vermote et al. 1997), whose output consists of 8 bit images with ready-to-
georeference surface reflectance values. Georeferencing was based on ground control
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

points of known coordinates and soil cover was identified in loco by collecting points
and defining the type of soil cover. The longitude/latitude (43° 24′ 20.63″ W/22° 26′ 38.79″
S) of the watershed centre, as well as average altitude (780 m), were used for atmospheric
correction of the bands. Tropical atmosphere continental aerosol models were also consid-
ered. Horizontal visibility values (in km) were adopted as a function of the atmospheric
conditions of each image.
After atmospheric correction, the images were georeferenced using UTM Projection
and SIRGAS2000 as horizontal datum with the ‘register’ tool of SPRING 5.0.4 software
(INPE, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil). Each image band was then trimmed with a
1.0 km buffer across the watershed boundary.
NDVI (Equation (1)) (Tucker 1979) was calculated using band 3 (red) and 4 (near-
infrared) values:

ρNIR  ρRed
NDVI ¼ ; (1)
ρNIR þ ρRed

where ρNIR is surface spectral reflectance in the near-infrared band and ρRed surface
spectral reflectance in the infrared band. NDVI assumes values from –1 to +1, with the
highest values attributed to areas with greater vegetation cover.
We used NDVI images and two methods to determine the soil cover management
factor. The first was proposed by Van der Knijff, Jones, and Montanarella (2000), and the
second consisted of rescaling NDVIs to fit the RUSLE C-factor. In the method proposed
by Van der Knijff, Jones, and Montanarella (1999) (CVK), the C-factor is calculated by:

 
αðβNDVI
NDVI
Þ
;
CVK ¼ e (2)

where α and β parameters determine the shape of the curve that associates NDVI with the
C-factor. According to Van der Knijff, Jones, and Montanarella (2000), for European
climate conditions, values 2 and 1 are the best representatives of equation parameters α
and β, respectively. However, under tropical climate conditions, with more intense rain-
fall, the C-factor tends to be higher than that calculated by the Van der Knijff, Jones, and
Montanarella (2000) method for the same vegetation cover. Therefore, a new method for
calculating the RUSLE C-factor based on NDVI rescaling was proposed in the present
study. For areas with higher vegetation cover, NDVIs tend towards +1 and C-factors are
close to 0. The NDVI values of the images were thus transformed (Equation (3)),
producing new images with the new factor, denominated rescaled C-factor (Cr):

 
NDVI þ 1
Cr ¼ ; (3)
2
 446 V.L. Durigon et al.

After this procedure, the profile of mean cover management factor values determined for
the 23 images was compared to determine the relationship between the two methods (CVK
and Cr). This was achieved using Pearson’s correlation (Eckert 2012), whose coefficient
(r) (Equation (4)) represents the linear relationship between two quantitative variables,
ranging from –1 to +1:
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

C x;y
r¼ ; (4)
Sx Sy

where Cxy is the covariance or pooled variance of variables X and Y; Sx is the standard
deviation of variable X; and Sy is the standard variation of variable Y.
According to Cr values, the rescaled images were reorganized into 10 land cover
classes, from 0.0–0.1 to 0.9–1.0 (0 corresponding to denser vegetation and 1 to more
scarce vegetation), and the coverage area of each class was determined. Watershed areas
of a same class were then compared in a chronological image sequence. The first image,
from 28 January 1986, was taken as reference. This analysis was performed for the first
four classes (0–0.1, 0.1–0.2, 0.2–0.3, 0.3–0.4), since they were the most representative in
the watershed.
To evaluate rainfall effects on the variation of vegetation cover, a complementary
analysis was carried out for Cr class 0–0.1, in which image differences in cover values
were correlated to rainfall rate in the 6 month period before image acquisition.

3. Results and discussion

Mean C-factor values and NDVIs for each image are shown in Figure 3. Mean NDVIs
were positive, ranging from 0.543 (8 February 2007) to 0.885 (20 May 1986). Mean Cr
and CVK values ranged from 0.084 to 0.228 and 0.003 to 0.065, respectively. Despite the

1.0
0.9 NDVI Cr CVK
Vegetation index or C-factor

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
28 January 1986
20 May 1986
24 Febuary 1990
3 June 1991
24 June 1991
18 January 1994
10 May 1994
29 July 1994
11 April 1995
16 June 1996
8 July 1998
24 May 1999
27 July 1999
26 May 2000
27 April 2001
29 May 2001
1 August 2001
22 July 2003
31 December 2004
11 March 2007
15 June 2007
2 August 2007
4 June 2009

Date

Figure 3. Mean NDVI and C-factor values of the images analysed.

 International Journal of Remote Sensing 447

differences between C-factor values obtained by the two methods, they were positively
correlated, as indicated by Pearson’s correlation coefficient (0.924).
According to the spatial variability of soil coverage in the watershed under study, the
method using rescaled NDVI to obtain Cr was the most adequate. It was more sensitive
than CVK in detecting areas with high and low vegetation coverage density. Furthermore,
values 2 and 1, used to represent parameters α and β, respectively, of the equation
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

proposed by Van der Knijff, Jones, and Montanarella (2000), were obtained for conditions
that are not representative of the study area.
The results obtained for NDVI and C-factor values (Cr and CVK) in images from 20
May 1986 and 2 February 2007 are shown in Figure 4. Substantial differences in coverage
indices can be observed since these images exhibit the greatest NDVI variations through-
out the study period.

NDVI Values NDVI Values

–1 – –0.8 0–0.2 –1 – –0.8 0–0.2
–0.8 – –0.6 0.2–0.4 –0.8 – –0.6 0.2–0.4
–0.6 – –0.4 0.4–0.6 –0.6 – –0.4 0.4–0.6
–0.4 – –0.2 0.6–0.8 –0.4 – –0.2 0.6–0.8
–0.2–0 0.8–1 –0.2–0 0.8–1

1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4
km km

(a)
C Factor Values C Factor Values
0–0.1 0.5–0.6
0.1–0.2 0.6–0.7 0–0.1 0.5–0.6
0.2–0.3 0.7–0.8 0.1–0.2 0.6–0.7
0.3–0.4 0.8–0.9 0.2–0.3 0.7–0.8
0.4–0.5 0.9–1 0.3–0.4 0.8–0.9
0.4–0.5 0.9–1

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
km km

(b)
C Factor Values C Factor Values
0–0.1 0.5–0.6
0–0.1 0.5–0.6 0.1–0.2 0.6–0.7
0.1–0.2 0.6–0.7 0.2–0.3 0.7–0.8
0.2–0.3 0.7–0.8 0.3–0.4 0.8–0.9
0.3–0.4 0.8–0.9 0.4–0.5 0.9–1
0.4–0.5 0.9–1

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
km
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
km

(c)
20 May 1986 2 August 2007

Figure 4. NDVI (a), Cr (b), and CVK (c) obtained from images from 20 May 1986 and 2 August
2007.
 448 V.L. Durigon et al.

Table 1. Mean (+sd) Cr and CVK-factor values calculated from NDVI images with the highest
variations, obtained on 20 May 1986 and 2 August 2007.

Rescaled (Cr) Van der Knijff et al. (1999) (CVK)

Date Mean SD Mean SD

Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

20 May 1986 0.084 0.065 0.003 0.016

2 August 2007 0.228 0.107 0.065 0.079

The highest mean values and standard deviations for Cr and CVK were obtained on 2
August 2007, while the lowest values were obtained on 10 May 1994 (Table 1). Since
both Cr and CVK derive from NDVI, the images displayed a similar pattern.
Table 2 shows the values found for each class and image using the NDVI rescaling
method to obtain Cr values. Since classes with values closer to ‘0’ have a higher coverage
density, 42.4% of the watershed area had a mean coverage index ranging from 0 to 0.1
over the years, and more than 99% of the area had a Cr value between 0 and 0.4. These
results demonstrate that soil cover with natural vegetation and permanent crops predomi-
nate in the watershed, with a small area occupied by buildings and/or bare soil.
Using the image from 28 January 1986 as reference, variations in the areas included in
the first four classes (0 to 0.4), from 1986 to 2009, are shown in Figure 5. Positive
variations, corresponding to an area increase within a specific class, are compared with the
reference image, and vice versa. As observed in Figure 5(a) (class 0–0.1), a large number
of images show smaller areas compared to the reference, indicating a decrease in soil
coverage. Area reductions reached 3937 ha on 11 March 2007 and 3956 ha on 2 August
2007. However, some images exhibited an increase in coverage density, such as those
obtained on 20 May 1986 (790 ha), 10 May 1994 (964 ha), and 11 April 1995 (784 ha).
The variation pattern in areas of the 0.1–0.2 class (Figure 5(b)) is similar to that of the
0–0.1 class, but with more images and lower amplitude of area variation. For the 0.1–0.2
class, only images obtained on 18 January 1994, 1 August 2001, and 4 June 2009
exhibited larger areas than those of the reference image, while images from 11 April
1995, 11 March 2007, and 2 August 2007 showed an area reduction of over 1000 ha.
Variations were generally positive for the other classes, corresponding to area increases
from 1849 ha (15 June 2007, Figure 5(c)) to 2500 ha (2 August 2007, Figure 5(d)). Most
images showing positive area variations had decreased areas in 0–0.1 (Figure 5(a)) and
0.1–0.2 (Figure 5(b)) classes compared with the reference image. This effect was observed
in images from 8 July 1998, 24 May 1999, 27 July 1999, 22 July 2003, 31 December 2004,
11 March 2007, 15 June 2007, and 2 August 2007.
Figure 6 exhibits the 0.0–0.1 class area in the images and the 6 month total rainfall
obtained prior to image acquisition. Except for images from 24 June 1993, 22 July 2003,
11 March 2007, and 15 June 2007, variations in precipitation are associated with varia-
tions in land cover. The pattern observed in these four images is not explained by rainfall
variations before image acquisition. The precipitation rate in 1993 and 2003 was very
high in January, decreasing drastically until image acquisition. Similar conditions pre-
ceded the image from 11 March 2007 and were combined with scarce rainfall in 2006, the
lowest between 1986 and 2009.
Variation in the soil cover management factor of the watershed with the rainfall
observed in this study was also reported by Ichii et al. (2002). The authors analysed the
correlations between global interannual NDVI variations and climate parameters and
 Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

Table 2. Coverage area (ha) for each class determined by the NDVI rescaling method to obtain Cr-factor values.

Area (ha) for the different classes of cover management factor (Cr-factor)

Image Date 0–0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.4 0.4–0.5 0.5–0.6 0.6–0.7 0.7–0.8 0.8–0.9 0.9–1.0

28 January 1986 4252.68 3345.03 842.22 129.69 12.69 1.62 0.63 0.27 0.27 0.09
20 May 1986 5043.06 2776.41 600.39 134.19 27.90 1.44 1.08 0.45 0.18 0.09
24 February 1990 3347.37 3127.41 1458.09 575.37 75.51 0.72 0.09 0.18 0.45 0.00
3 June 1991 4654.26 2866.77 844.56 205.56 9.09 2.52 1.89 0.18 0.09 0.27
24 June 1993 4248.89 3162.96 1057.14 110.97 3.78 0.90 0.27 0.28 0.00 0.00
18 January 1994 3958.83 3541.32 941.22 134.46 8.46 0.54 0.09 0.18 0.09 0.00
10 May 1994 5216.76 2752.56 530.64 78.84 5.31 0.72 0.27 0.09 0.00 0.00
29 July 1994 4161.69 3066.21 1194.75 147.60 8.73 1.98 3.15 0.72 0.27 0.09
11 April 1995 5036.67 2338.65 828.36 333.99 46.44 0.45 0.18 0.36 0.09 0.00
16 June 1996 4602.06 2580.84 1147.14 185.40 22.77 23.67 12.15 10.17 0.63 0.36
8 July 1998 3627.90 3255.21 1496.07 197.37 6.03 1.35 0.99 0.18 0.09 0.00
24 May 1999 3861.36 3008.70 1500.48 202.32 8.10 1.89 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.18
27 July 1999 2790.81 2918.34 2362.14 498.87 9.36 2.88 1.44 0.09 0.81 0.45
26 May 2000 4377.51 3019.86 995.58 177.39 8.37 2.97 2.25 0.45 0.63 0.18
27 April 2001 4766.22 2813.31 834.30 160.65 7.65 1.44 0.72 0.09 0.45 0.36
29 May 2001 4762.53 2864.25 817.38 127.98 7.29 2.88 1.08 0.54 0.81 0.45
1 August 2001 3000.78 3546.27 1728.90 290.70 15.12 1.35 0.81 0.18 0.00 0.00
International Journal of Remote Sensing

22 July 2003 2306.70 3117.78 2423.16 673.83 59.76 1.62 0.54 0.99 0.36 0.45
31 December 2004 2247.48 2479.14 2686.77 1110.51 57.42 1.80 1.08 0.54 0.18 0.27
11 March 2007 1106.82 2212.02 2473.83 2614.50 174.06 1.71 1.17 0.54 0.36 0.18
15 June 2007 2234.79 2477.52 2691.62 1119.06 57.24 1.8 1.08 0.54 0.18 0.27
2 August 2007 1087.38 2214.54 2471.93 2629.98 176.31 1.71 1.17 0.54 0.360 0.18
4 June 2009 3019.77 3536.64 1719.09 292.05 15.30 1.35 0.81 0.18 0.00 0.00
Average 3639.67 2913.99 1462.86 527.45 35.77 2.58 1.47 0.81 0.30 0.17
Average (%) 42.40 33.95 17.04 6.14 0.42 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
449
 Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

450

Area variation (ha) Area variation (ha) Area variation (ha) Area variation (ha)

–2000
–1000
–2000
–1000

–2000
–1000
–5000
–4000
–3000
–5000
–4000

–5000
–4000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
–3000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000

–3000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000

–5000
–4000
–3000
–2000
–1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
20 May 1986
24 February 1990
3 June 1991
24 June 1993
18 January 1994
10 May 1994
29 July 1994
11 April 1995
16 June 1996

0–0.1 (a), 0.1–0.2 (b), 0.2–0.3 (c), and 0.3–0.4 (d).

8 July 1998

Date
24 May 1999
27 July 1999
26 May 2000

(c)

(d)
(b)
(a)
V.L. Durigon et al.

27 April 2001
29 May 2001
1 August 2001
22 July 2003
31 December 2004
11 March 2007
15 June 2007
2 August 2007
4 June 2009

Figure 5. Area variation in images from 1986 to 2009 considering the main land cover classes:
 International Journal of Remote Sensing 451

3000 1000

2400 800

1800 600

6–Month Total Rainfall (mm)

1200 400
Area variation (ha)
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

600 200

0 0

–600 –200

–1200 –400

–1800 –600

–2400 % cov. (0.0–0.1) Rainfall –800

–3000 –1000
20 May 1986
24 Febuary 1990
3 June 1991
24 June 1991
18 January 1994
10 May 1994
29 July 1994
11 April 1995
16 June 1996
8 July 1998
24 May 1999
27 July 1999
26 May 2000
27 April 2001
29 May 2001
1 August 2001
22 July 2003
31 December 2004
11 March 2007
15 June 2007
2 August 2007
4 June 2009
Date

Figure 6. Variation in coverage area of the 0.0–0.1 land cover class, considering cumulated rainfall
in the 6 month period preceding image acquisition.

concluded that NDVI is better correlated with temperature in the Northern Hemisphere,
but in tropical regions, NDVI is better correlated with rainfall. In a study conducted in
Kansas, USA, Wang, Rich, and Price (2003) found a strong relationship between pre-
cipitation and NDVI, especially in the months of May and June and for annual crops and
pastures. They found that NDVI values were greater after more than 50 mm of rainfall
over a 2 week period. According to these authors, this pattern was not obtained for forest
areas.

4. Conclusions
In the present study, NDVI estimated from TM Landsat 5 imagery was successfully used
to determine the soil cover management factor (C-factor) of RUSLE in a watershed of the
Atlantic Forest biome. The method using rescaled NDVI was more accurate in calculating
the C-factor than that proposed by Van der Knijff, Jones, and Montanarella (2000).
Although the values obtained by the two methods are strongly correlated, the use of
rescaled NDVI allows a direct association between erosion risk and the C-factor.
The results of this study indicate that low precipitation in a given year significantly
affects soil cover in the following year. Regular rainfall distribution, at satisfactory levels,
is more important for adequate vegetation development than intense rainfall concentrated
over a few months, and scarce precipitation in others.
The method used in the present study was very useful in analysing erosion risk by
estimating C-factor values from remote sensing images. It can also be applied for
monitoring erosion risk in agricultural areas and natural vegetation. This is of great
 452 V.L. Durigon et al.

importance, especially for tropical forest regions, where high rainfall associated with
human activity can promote soil loss, with consequent environmental degradation and
quality loss.
Determining the C-factor in a field survey is time consuming, and these surveys
should be repeated frequently given that vegetation cover is dynamic. Therefore, because
remote sensing combined with GIS can integrate variations in soil cover, it is efficient and
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

accurate for determining space and time dynamics of the RUSLE cover management
factor in large areas. Furthermore, the method we proposed for calculating the soil cover
management factor by NDVI rescaling was more suitable for tropical conditions, char-
acterized by high rainfall intensity, than models developed for other climatic conditions.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank the National Institute for Space Research for providing the image data to carry out
this research.

References
Adekalu, K. O., D. A. Okunade, and J. A. Osunbitan. 2006. “Compaction and Mulching Effects on
Soil Loss and Runoff from Two Southwestern Nigeria Agricultural Soils.” Geoderma 137:
226–230.
Asrar, G., M. Fuchs, E. T. Kanemasu, and J. L. Hatfield. 1984. “Estimating Absorbed
Photosynthetic Radiation and Leaf Area Index from Spectral Reflectance in Wheat.”
Agronomy Journal 76: 300–306.
Câmara, G., R. C. M. Souza, U. M. Freitas, and J. Garrido. 1996. “SPRING: Integrating Remote
Sensing and GIS by Object-Oriented Data Modelling.” Computers and Graphics 20: 395–403.
Colwell, J. E. 1974. “Vegetation Canopy Reflectance.” Remote Sensing of Environment 3: 175–183.
Eckert, S. 2012. “Improved Forest Biomass and Carbon Estimations Using Texture Measures from
WorldView-2 Satellite Data.” Remote Sensing 4: 810–829.
El Baroudy, A. A. 2011. “Monitoring Land Degradation Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques
in an Area of the Middle Nile Delta, Egypt.” Catena 87: 201–208.
Gardner, T. A., J. Barlow, N. S. Sodhi, and C. A. Peres. 2010. “A Multi-Region Assessment of
Tropical Forest Biodiversity in a Human-Modified World.” Biological Conservation 143: 2293–
2300.
Ichii, K., A. Kawabata, and Y. Yamaguchi. 2002. “Global Correlation Analysis for NDVI and
Climatic Variables and NDVI Trends: 1982–1990.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 23:
3873–3878.
Im, J., J. R. Jensen, R. R. Jensen, J. Gladden, J. Waugh, and M. Serrato. 2012. “Vegetation Cover
Analysis of Hazardous Waste Sites in Utah and Arizona Using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing.”
Remote Sensing 4: 327–353.
Jain, M. K., and D. Das. 2009. “Estimation of Sediment Yield and Areas of Soil Erosion and
Deposition for Watershed Prioritization Using GIS and Remote Sensing.” Water Resources
Management 24: 2091–2112.
Joshi, P. K., K. Yadav, and V. X. P. Sinha. 2011. “Assessing Impact of Forest Landscape Dynamics
on Migratory Corridors: A Case Study of Two Protected Areas in Himalayan Foothills.”
Biodiversity Conservation 20: 3393–3411.
Machado, R. L., D. F. Carvalho, J. R. Costa, D. H. Oliveira Neto, and M. F. Pinto. 2008. “Análise da
erosividade das chuvas associada aos padrões de precipitação pluvial na região de Ribeirão das
Lajes (RJ).” [In Portuguese with abstract in English.] Revista Brasileira Ciência Do Solo 32:
2115–2125.
Martinez, S., and D. Mollicone. 2012. “From Land Cover to Land Use: A Methodology to Assess
Land Use from Remote Sensing Data.” Remote Sensing 4: 1024–1045.
Meusburger, K., D. Bänninger, and C. Alewell. 2010. “Estimating Vegetation Parameter for Soil
Erosion Assessment in an Alpine Catchment by Means Of QuickBird Imagery.” International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 12: 201–207.
 International Journal of Remote Sensing 453

Morgan, R. P. C. 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation. National Soil: Malden-MA-USA. 3rd ed.
Oxford: Resources Institute, Granfield University, Blackwell.
Myneni, R. B., S. Maggion, J. Iaquinta, J. L. Privette, N. Gobron, B. Pinty, D. S. Kimes, M. M.
Verstraete, and D. L. Williams. 1995. “Optical Remote Sensing of Vegetation: Modeling,
Caveats, and Algorithms.” Remote Sensing of Environment 51: 169–188.
Myneni, R. B., and D. L. Williams. 1994. “On the Relationship Between FAPAR and NDVI.”
Remote Sensing of Environment 49: 200–211.
Downloaded by [DigiTop - USDA's Digital Desktop Library], [Paulo Tarso Oliveira] at 09:16 06 January 2014

Oñate-Valdivieso, F., and J. B. Sendra. 2010. “Application of GIS and Remote Sensing Techniques
in Generation of Land Use Scenarios for Hydrological Modeling.” Journal of Hydrology 395:
256–263.
Peel, M. C., B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon. 2007. “Updated World Map of the Köppen-
Geiger Climate Classification.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633–1644.
Peng, W., J. Zhou, Z. He, and C.-J. Yang. 2008. “Integrated Use of Remote Sensing and GIS for
Predicting Soil Erosion Process.” In XXI ISPRS Congress, Volume XXXVII (Part 4), 1647–
1651, July 3–11. Beijing: ISPRS Archives.
Renard, K. G., G. R. Foster, G. A. Weesies, D. K. Mccool, and D. C. Yoder. 1997. Predicting Soil
Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 703.
Ribeiro, M. C., J. P. Metzger, A. C. Martensen, F. J. Ponzoni, and M. M. Hirota. 2009. “The
Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How Much Is Left, and How Is the Remaining Forest Distributed?
Implications for Conservation.” Biological Conservation 142: 1141–1153.
Santos, P., and A. J. Negri. 1997. “A Comparison of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
and Rainfall for the Amazon and Northeastern Brazil.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 36:
958–965.
Singh, S., P. Singh, and G. Srivastava. 2005. “Vegetation Cover Type Mapping in Mouling National
Park in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalayas – An Integrated Geospatial Approach.” Journal
of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 33: 4547–4563.
Tucker, C. J. 1979. “Red and Photographic Infrared Linear Combinations for Monitoring
Vegetation.” Remote Sensing Environment 8: 127–150.
Ustin, S. L., M. O. Smith, S. Jacquemoud, M. Verstraete, and Y. Govaerts. 1999. “Geobotany:
Vegetation Mapping for Earth Sciences.” In Remote Sensing for the Earth Sciences, edited by A.
N. Rencz, 251–307. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Van der Knijff, J. M., R. J. A. Jones, and L. Montanarella. 1999. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in
Italy. Ispra: European Commission Directorate General JRC, Joint Research Centre Space
Applications Institute European Soil Bureau.
Van der Knijff, J. M., R. J. A. Jones, and L. Montanarella. 2000. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in
Europe. Ispra: European Soil Bureau. Joint Research Centre. EUR 19044 EN.
Vermote, E. F., D. Tanré, J. L. Deuzé, M. Herman, and J. J. Morcrete. 1997. “Second Simulation of
the Satellite Signal in the Solar Spectrum, 6s: An Overview.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing 35: 675–686.
Wang, J., P. M. Rich, and K. P. Price. 2003. “Temporal Responses of NDVI to Precipitation and
Temperature in the Central Great Plains, USA.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 24:
2345–2364.
Weng, Q. 2002. “Land Use Change Analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China Using Satellite Remote
Sensing, GIS and Stochastic Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Management 64: 273–284.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses – A Guide for
Conservation Planning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Handbook 537.
Wu, Q., H. Li, R. Wang, J. Paulussen, Y. He, M. Wang, B. Wang, and Z. Wang. 2006. “Monitoring
and Predicting Land Use Change in Beijing Using Remote Sensing and GIS.” Landscape and
Urban Planning 78: 322–333.
Yun-Hao, C., L. Xiao-Bing, and X. Feng. 2001. “NDVI Changes in China Between 1989 and 1999
Using Change Vector Analysis Based on Time Series Data.” Journal of Geographical Sciences
11: 383–392.
Zhongming, W., B. G. Lees, J. Feng, L. Wanning, and S. Haijing. 2010. “Stratified Vegetation Cover
Index: A New Way to Assess Vegetation Impact on Soil Erosion.” Catena 83: 87–93.
Zhou, P., O. Luukkanen, T. Tokola, and J. Nieminen. 2008. “Effect of Vegetation Cover on Soil
Erosion in a Mountainous Watershed.” Catena 75: 319–325.

View publication stats