Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

China University of Geosciences (Beijing)

Geoscience Frontiers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsf

Research Paper

Assessment of soil erosion in a tropical mountain river basin of the

southern Western Ghats, India using RUSLE and GIS
Jobin Thomas a, b, *, Sabu Joseph b, K.P. Thrivikramji c
a
EWRE, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695 581, Kerala, India
c
Center for Environment and Development, Thiruvananthapuram, 695 013, Kerala, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model coupled with transport limited sediment delivery
Received 27 October 2016 (TLSD) function was used to predict the longtime average annual soil loss, and to identify the critical
Received in revised form erosion-/deposition-prone areas in a tropical mountain river basin, viz., Muthirapuzha River Basin
7 May 2017
(MRB; area ¼ 271.75 km2), in the southern Western Ghats, India. Mean gross soil erosion in MRB is
Accepted 21 May 2017
Available online 27 June 2017
14.36 t ha1 yr1, whereas mean net soil erosion (i.e., gross erosionedeposition) is only 3.60 t ha1 yr1
Handling Editor: Sohini Ganguly (i.e., roughly 25% of the gross erosion). Majority of the basin area (w86%) experiences only slight erosion
(<5 t ha1 yr1), and nearly 3% of the area functions as depositional environment for the eroded sedi-
Keywords:
ments (e.g., the terraces of stream reaches, the gentle plains as well as the foot slopes of the plateau
Soil erosion scarps and the terrain with concordant summits). Although mean gross soil erosion rates in the natural
RUSLE vegetation belts are relatively higher, compared to agriculture, settlement/built-up areas and tea plan-
Transport limited sediment delivery tation, the sediment transport efficiency in agricultural areas and tea plantation is significantly high,
Muthirapuzha river basin reflecting the role of human activities on accelerated soil erosion. In MRB, on a mean basis, 0.42 t of soil
Western Ghats organic carbon (SOC) content is being eroded per hectare annually, and SOC loss from the 4th order sub-
Kerala basins shows considerable differences, mainly due to the spatial variability in the gross soil erosion rates
among the sub-basins. The quantitative results, on soil erosion and deposition, modelled using RUSLE
and TLSD, are expected to be beneficial while formulating comprehensive land management strategies
for reducing the extent of soil degradation in tropical mountain river basins.
Ó 2018, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction estimated to be 15e30 billion tones (Milliman and Syvitski, 1992;

Soil erosion is a natural process, where the extent and magni-
tude of soil loss are controlled by various environmental de-
terminants, such as climate, soil, topography and vegetation
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997; Mutua et al.,
2006; Butt et al., 2010). However, human interferences, via land
use modification, deforestation, agricultural practices and con-
struction activities can accelerate the rate of soil erosion. Globally,
total land area affected by water erosion is 1094 Mha, of which
751 Mha is seriously deteriorated (Lal, 2003), and the annual
sediment transport into the ocean by the world’s rivers was
* Corresponding author. EWRE, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail address: jobinenv@gmail.com (J. Thomas).
Peer-review under responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing).
Walling and Webb, 1996). In the Indian context, approximately
91% of the total geographic area falls under five erosion categories
with potential soil erosion rates varying from <5 to 40 t ha1 yr1,
and requires various kinds of soil conservation practices (Sharda
et al., 2013). Although geologic erosion - a slow and steady pro-
cess - is essential for soil formation, accelerated soil erosion should
be reduced to ward off the adverse effects on soil fertility, agri-
cultural productivity, water quality and reservoir capacity (Lal,
1998, 2001; Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2008). Soil erosion and depo-
sition have significant importance in balancing the atmospheric
carbon budget, and hence, the potential impacts of soil erosion/
deposition need to be considered in the global carbon dynamics
also (Lal, 2003; Liu et al., 2003; Berhe et al., 2007; Doetterl et al.,
2012; Imamoglu and Dengiz, 2017).
Wide range of soil erosion and sediment transport models,
which differ in terms of complexity, processes considered and data

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2017.05.011
1674-9871/Ó 2018, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
894 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
required for model calibration and model use, have been developed
to predict soil loss as well as sediment yield at varying scales (Lorup
and Styczen, 1996; Jetten et al., 1999, 2003; Lal, 2001; Merritt et al.,
2003; Jetten and Favis-Mortlock, 2006; Kinnell, 2010; Avwunu-
diogba and Hudson, 2014). Yet, the choice of the most suitable
model is subjected to numerous factors, such as the intended use,
the catchment characteristics, availability of the input data and so
on (Ranzi et al., 2012). Among the different models, USLE and RUSLE
earned exceptional global acceptance for the prediction of soil loss
at different spatial scales, due to their simple and robust model
structure as well as compatibility with GIS (e.g., Lal et al., 1997;
Millward and Mersey, 1999; Lu et al., 2004; Kouli et al., 2009;
Demirci and Karaburun, 2012; Naqvi et al., 2013; Mallick et al.,
2014; Galdino et al., 2016; Karamesouti et al., 2016).
The soil erosion process involves detachment of soil particles,
sediment transport (by the raindrop impact and the shearing
force of flowing water) and deposition (Meyer and Wischmeier,
1969; Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Foster, 1982). The quantity
and size of sediments transported increase with the velocity and
transport capacity (TC) of the overland flow, while a decrease in
TC (due to variation of rainfall, soil properties, slope and vege-
tation) results in the deposition of eroded sediments (Lal, 2001;
Jain and Das, 2010). In USLE as well as RUSLE, the computed
longtime average annual soil loss is an estimate of gross amount
of soil erosion occurring in the overland areas, and the models do
not account for the deposition of sediments under transport.
Hence, the concepts of TLSD and sediment delivery ratio (SDR)
have been used to model the process of sediment transport and
deposition and to calculate the sediment yield (Carson and
Kirkby, 1972; Walling, 1988; Desmet and Govers, 1995; Ferro
et al., 1998; Jain and Kothyari, 2000; Van Rompaey et al., 2005;
Verstraeten et al., 2007; Jain and Das, 2010). Within this paper,
the spatially distributed output generated by RUSLE model is the
gross soil erosion, whereas the net soil erosion is calculated by
subtracting the deposition rates (provided by the TLSD function)
from the gross erosion rates.
In the rugged, mountain tracts of the southern Western Ghats,
with a long history of cultivation and organized farming since 1832,
soil loss due to water erosion is a matter of grave concern. The
region is extremely vulnerable to various hillslope processes due to
the rugged and steeply sloping topography, heavy rainfall and
increased overland flow due to terrain modification for develop-
mental and agricultural needs (Pradeep et al., 2015). The highlands
of the southern Western Ghats are also loci of numerous dams and
reservoirs, which warrants greater attention in identifying the
sediment sources and sinks in the catchment area. The quantitative
assessment of soil loss on basin-scale can also be used for formu-
lating regional land management programmes for the conservation
of soil resources. Many researchers (e.g. Prasannakumar et al.,
2011a,b, 2012; Pradeep et al., 2015) estimated the gross soil
erosion rates in the regional context using USLE and RUSLE at
varying spatial scales. As a departure, this study computes the gross
as well as net soil erosion rates and deposition in a tropical
mountainous river basin of the southern Western Ghats using
RUSLE model and the TLSD function in ArcGIS.
2. Study area
Muthirapuzha River Basin (MRB; area ¼ 271.75 km2; Lat.
10 0105500 Ne101103100 Nand Long. 76 590 4500 Ee77140 5200 E), a
major sub-basin of the Periyar River (Kerala, India), was selected for
the study (Fig. 1). The drainage network of MRB dissects the
Munnar Plateau, which is the highest elevated surface in Kerala
(age: late Paleocene), and the drainage characteristics of MRB are
influenced by this extensive planation surface (Thomas et al., 2010,
2012). The basin elevation ranges from 740 to 2690 m above mean
sea level (amsl) (Fig. 1), which includes the Anai Mudi (2690 m
amsl), the tallest peak south of the Himalayas.
Being developed on the western slopes of the southern Western
Ghats, the basin experiences a tropical humid climate, characterized
by the monsoon with two distinct wet seasons, viz., the southwest
monsoon (JuneeSeptember) and the northeast monsoon (Octo-
bereDecember), which jointly contribute > 85% of the annual
rainfall budget. Mean annual rainfall of MRB was 3700 mm (be-
tween 1989 and 2009) with a mean maximum of 949 mm in July
and a mean minimum of 14 mm in January (Source: R&D Division,
Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Ltd. and United Planters Association
of Southern India). Mean annual temperature in MRB was 17  C
with minimum temperature during January (9  C) and maximum
during March (25  C). The Precipitation Concentration Index (PCI)
values (Oliver, 1980) of most of the meteorological stations in MRB
are in the range of 10 to 20, implying strong climatic seasonality,
which is solely controlled by the monsoon (Thomas et al., 2015).
However, the meteorological stations M6 and M7 (see Fig. 1) have
PCI values greater than 20, suggesting substantial monthly vari-
ability in the rainfall distribution. MRB has a modified hydrologic
regime, in that the stream flow is regulated by three dams and
reservoirs (at Kundala, Mattuppetti and RA Head Works).
Geologically, MRB is carved out in the Precambrian, high-grade
Southern Granulite Terrain of Peninsular India, and major rock
types of the basin are granitoids, hornblende-biotite-gneiss, calc-
granulite and minor patches of quartzite and crystalline limestone
(GSI, 1992). The host rocks are intruded by pegmatites, quartz,
syenite-carbonatite and aplitic veins. Rajesh and Pradeepkumar
(2015) reported patches of cordierite-bearing gneisses as well as
small patches of charnockite within the cordierite gneiss in a
10e15 km wide zone along the southeastern part of Munnar. Thin
layers of laterite (w15.0 cm) are developed in the high plateau
around Iravikulam, north of the Anai Mudi.
Structural and denudational hills are the dominant landforms in
the basin, whereas terrain with concordant summits (Kundale Talai
Mala at w2200 m amsl and Misappuli Mala at w2400 m amsl) and
local planation surface at Jhanda Mala (w2200 m amsl) charac-
terize the northeastern and eastern boundaries of the basin
(Thomas et al., 2012; Fig. 1). Escarpments are distributed along the
margins of the terrain with concordant summits and scarps of the
plateau. The valleys are deeply eroded, and the valley fills comprise
mainly of unconsolidated gravels, which are of recent origin. U-
shaped valleys with smooth transverse profiles and broad ridges
are also a characteristic of MRB (Thomas, 2012).
Major soil types of MRB are “forest soils”, developed on
granitic and gneissic rocks under the tropical forest cover. Major
soil series of MRB are the Anai Mudi, Pambadumpara and Ven-
mani series (Table 1; after SSO, 2007). MRB is a part of the ‘India
aquosa’ or ‘Malabar’ phytogeographical province, which is a high
species diversity ecoregion. The basin is covered by several nat-
ural vegetation types, including southern montane wet temperate
grassland, southern montane wet temperate forest (i.e., shola
forest), west coast tropical evergreen forest and southern sub-
tropical hill forest. Tea and Eucalyptus plantations cover approx-
imately 60% of the basin area (Fig. 2). Intensive and ubiquitous
vegetable cultivation and farming are practiced on the sediment
fills of the interfluves.
3. Methodology
3.1. RUSLE model description
In this study, RUSLE model was used to predict the longtime
average annual soil loss (due to sheet and rill erosion), and to
 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906 895

Figure 1. Location map of MRB, including the digital elevation model (DEM), stream network and fourth order sub-basins of the basin (Source: Survey of India topographic maps of
1:50,000 scale). Also marked the meteorological stations and soil sample locations.

Table 1
Soil characteristics of different soil series of MRB (after SSO, 2007).

Soil series Anai Mudi Pambadumpara Venmani

Order Ultisols Ultisols Inceptisols
Sub-order Humults Humults Ustepts
Great group Kandihumults Kandihumults Dystrustepts
Sub-group Typic Kandihumults Ustic Kandihumults Oxic Dystrustepts
Family clayey, mixed, isothermic Clayey, mixed, isohyperthermic Fine, mixed, isohyperthermic
Extent 9 150 e10 290 N; 76 560 e77 250 E 9 300 e10 260 N; 76 440 e77 250 E 9 270 e10 220 N; 76 480 e77 110 E
Pedogenesis Gneissic parent; on steep to very steep slopes; Gneissic parent; on steep to very steep slopes Gneissic parent; on moderate to steep slopes;
above 1200 m amsl and hill tops; between 600e1200 m amsl between 600e900 m amsl.
Colour Dark reddish brown to dark brown (A horizon); Dark reddish brown to dark brown (A horizon); Reddish brown to dark reddish brown
Dark reddish brown to reddish yellow Yellowish red to red (B horizon) (A horizon); Reddish brown to red (B horizon)
(B horizon)
Texture Silt loam to clay loam (A horizon); Silty clay Silty clay to clay (A horizon); Clay (B horizon) Loam to clay (A horizon); Gravelly sandy clay to
loam to clay (B horizon) gravelly clay (B horizon)
Soil thickness >150 cm >180 cm >150 cm
Drainage Well-drained Moderately well-drained Well-drained
Permeability Moderately rapid Moderate Moderately rapid
Productivity High Medium Medium
Erodibility Severe Severe Severe

identify the erosion-prone areas in MRB. As the data required
for RUSLE exist (or can be derived) in GIS-compatible formats,
the model inputs were integrated in ArcGIS following a grid-based
approach. This study considered grid cells representing only
overland areas, and those belong to channel areas were excluded
from the estimation soil erosion statistics. The concept of
channel initiation threshold was used for discriminating the grid
cells between overland and channel areas. In addition to the
stream channels, the reservoirs of MRB were also excluded from
the analysis.
896 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
Figure 2. Land use types of MRB. Note the dominance of Tea and Eucalyptus plantations (w60% of the basin area) in the basin.
In RUSLE, soil loss due to water erosion per unit area per year is
quantified by the following equation (Eq. (1); Wischmeier and
Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997):
A ¼ RK LSCP
where A is the computed spatial average soil loss and temporal
average soil loss, i.e., the gross soil erosion (in t ha1 yr1), R is the
rainfall-runoff erosivity factor (MJ mm ha1 h1 yr1), K is the soil
erodibility factor (t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1), LS is the slope-length
and slope-steepness factor (dimensionless), C is the cover man-
agement factor (dimensionless) and P is the support practice factor
(dimensionless). Various data from different sources, such as
monthly rainfall data from the meteorological stations in MRB, soil
data collected from the field, Survey of India (SoI) topographic
sheets (1:50,000 scale) and IRS-P6 LISS-III images, were aggregated
to generate the RUSLE model inputs in Eq. (1), and the methods
adopted to generate the input data are explained in the following
sections.
3.1.1. Rainfall-runoff erosivity (R) factor
Rainfall-runoff erosivity is defined as the intrinsic capacity of
the rain to cause soil erosion, and amount, intensity, terminal
velocity, drop size and drop size distribution of rain are the var-
iables affecting total erosivity of a rain (Blanco-Canqui and Lal,
2008). The R factor is defined as the long-term average of the
product of total rainfall energy (E) and the maximum 30 min
rainfall intensity (I30) for storm events. The numerical value of R
quantifies the effect of raindrop impact and reflects the amount
and rate of runoff associated with the rain (Wischmeier and
(1) Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997).
Computation of R factor for a given study area requires high-
resolution pluviograph data for at least 20 years (Renard et al.,
1997), and in the absence of sufficient data, several simplified
models were proposed to estimate the rainfall erosivity using
correlation between R factor and monthly and annual rainfall (e.g.,
Renard and Freimund, 1994; Lee and Heo, 2011). Since E and I30
data for the study area are not available, the R factor (MJ mm
ha1 h1 yr1) was calculated using the modified Fournier index
(F) developed by Arnoldus (1977, 1980), which is defined as Eq.
(2):
P12 2
i¼1 pi
F ¼ (2)
P
where pi is the monthly rainfall (in mm) and P is the annual rainfall
(in mm).
According to Arnoldus (1980), the F index is a good approxi-
mation of R to which it is linearly correlated, and various re-
searchers (e.g., Renard and Freimund, 1994; Kouli et al., 2009;
Demirci and Karaburun, 2012; Alexakis et al., 2013) used regres-
sion relationships for the estimation of local erosivity values.
 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
In order to account for the spatial variability of the R factor,
monthly rainfall data were collected from nine meteorological
stations in MRB (Fig. 1) in the period 1989e2009 (Source: R&D
Division, Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Ltd. and United Planters
Association of Southern India). Most of the meteorological stations
have continuous monthly data records, and mean R factor value for
each meteorological station was estimated as the mean value of the
different yearly R factor values. However, those years with gaps in
the monthly rainfall data were excluded from the computation of R
factor, resulting in uneven data lengths among the meteorological
stations. Using the estimates of R factor for the meteorological
stations in MRB, a spatially distributed map of R factor was gener-
ated by spatial interpolation techniques in ArcGIS.
3.1.2. Soil erodibility (K) factor
Soil erodibility is the inherent susceptibility of soils to erosion by
rain water and runoff, and is a function of texture, structure (e.g.,
macroporosity, aggregate properties), organic matter content, hy-
draulic properties and wettability of soil (Blanco-Canqui and Lal,
2008). Since K is related to the integrated effect of rainfall, runoff
and infiltration on soil loss, in RUSLE, it accounts for the influence of
soil properties on soil loss during storm events on upland areas. The
K factor reflects the rate of soil loss per unit rainfall erosivity as
measured on a unit plot of length 22.1 m and slope of 9% (Renard
et al., 1997). Although several methods are available to compute
the K factor, the most widely used method is the soil erodibility
nomograph. Since detailed soil properties of MRB are available, this
study also adopted the soil erodibility nomograph to calculate the K
factor (t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1), using an algebraic approximation
of the nomograph (Eq. (3); Wischmeier and Smith, 1978), where the
silt fraction does not exceed 70%.
2:8  105  ð12  OMÞ  M1:14 þ 4:3  101  ðs  2Þ þ 3:3  101  ðp  3Þ
K ¼
100
where OM is the percent organic matter, M is the product of the
primary particle size fractions [i.e., (% modified silt or the
0.002e0.1 mm size fraction)  (% silt þ % modified sand or the
0.1e2.0 mm)], s and p are the structure and permeability classes of
the soil.
Sixteen soil samples were collected (along with the geographic
coordinates; Fig. 1) to estimate the soil properties of MRB. The
sampling locations were chosen in such a way that the soil samples
represent the different physiographic, geomorphologic as well as
land use types of the basin. At each location, two replicates were
collected, and bulk of the sample was reduced to w1.0 kg by coning
and quartering. In the laboratory, the soil samples were sieved
through 2 mm mesh, and the soil properties were estimated using
standard procedures (Carter, 1993). After the computation of the K
factor of the soil samples in MRB, a continuous raster surface of K
was generated by spatial interpolation techniques in ArcGIS.
3.1.3. Slope-length and -steepness (LS) factor
The dimensionless LS (or topographic) factor implies the influ-
ence of topography on soil erosion as a product of slope length
factor (L) and slope steepness factor (S). Wischmeier and Smith
(1978) defined slope length as the horizontal distance from the
origin of overland flow to the point, where either (a) the slope
gradient decreases enough that deposition begins or (b) surface
runoff become concentrates to form a defined channel. Soil loss
increases more rapidly with slope steepness, compared to slope
897
length. The LS factor represents the ratio of soil loss on a given slope
length and steepness to soil loss from a slope that has a length of
22.1 m and steepness of 9%, where all other conditions are the same
(Renard et al., 1997). The LS factor is not an absolute value, instead is
referenced to unity at 22.1 m slope length and 9% steepness, and
hence provides significant information on susceptibility of the
terrain to soil erosion.
The LS factor was computed (after Wischmeier and Smith, 1978;
Renard et al., 1997) using the following equation (Eq. (4)):
 m
l  
LS ¼  65:41  sin2 q þ 4:56  sin q þ 0:065 (4)
22:1
where l is slope length in meter, q is angle of slope, and m is 0.5 if
the percent slope is 5.0 or more, 0.4 on slopes of 3.6 to 4.9%, 0.3 on
slopes of 1 to 3.5% and 0.2 on uniform gradients of less than 1%.
The LS factor was derived from the digital elevation model
(DEM), which was generated from the contours and the spot
heights of MRB (in the SoI topographic sheets of 1:50,000 scale)
using ‘Topo to Raster’ tool in the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS.
ArcHydro tools were used to create the seamless, hydrologically-
corrected DEM, which was then analyzed to discriminate be-
tween the overland and channel cells, using the concept of channel
initiation threshold. As different values of channel initiation
threshold would result in stream networks with different total
stream lengths, the threshold value in this study was determined
after Wang and Yin (1998), where the total length of streams
estimated from the topographic maps was taken as the reference,
and the threshold, which generates the total length of streams
same as the reference was considered as the threshold of the DEM.
Moreover, this approach was successfully applied in many water-
(3)
shed hydrologic studies (e.g., Jain and Kothyari, 2000; Jain and Das,
2010; Thomas and Prasannakumar, 2015).
3.1.4. Cover management (C) factor
The C factor reflects the effect of cropping and management
practices on erosion rates, and indicates how the soil loss potential
will be distributed in time under different land use/land covers and
during crop rotations, construction or other management activities
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997; Blanco-Canqui
and Lal, 2008). The C factor is the ratio of soil loss from land
cropped under specified conditions to the corresponding loss from
clean-tilled, continuous fallow (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). The
C factor in USLE is calculated from tables with data from field ex-
periments, while in RUSLE, the value is computed from different
sub-factors, viz., prior land use, canopy cover, surface cover, surface
roughness and soil moisture (Renard et al., 1997).
Various researchers used different spectral vegetation indices
(e.g., van der Knijff et al., 2000; Pan and Wen, 2014) as well as the
fraction images from spectral mixture analysis of remotely sensed
images (Lu et al., 2004) for computing the C factor. In the present
study, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) e an indi-
cator of vegetation vigour e was scaled to approximate the C factor
(Eq. (5); after van der Knijff et al., 2000).
 
NDVI
C ¼ exp  a  (5)
b  NDVI
898 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
where a and b are the parameters defining the shape of the NDVI-C
curve, and an a value of 2 and a b value of 1 provide reasonable
results (van der Knijff et al., 2000).
The NDVI of MRB was derived from the IRS-P6 LISS-III images
using the bands in Near Infrared and Red spectral regions. Since
NDVI is a function of climate, and MRB has a discernible climatic
seasonality, NDVI values of different timelines (except monsoon)
were derived, and the mean NDVI was used to solve Eq. (5).
3.1.5. Support practice (P) factor
The P factor indicates the significance of support practices,
which reduce soil loss by modifying the flow pattern, grade or di-
rection of surface runoff and by reducing the rate of runoff. The P
factor is defined as the ratio of soil loss with a specific support
practice to the corresponding loss with upslope and downslope
tillage (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Renard and Foster, 1983). In
this study, the P factor values were estimated by assessing the land
use/land cover types of MRB (derived from IRS-P6 LISS III images),
and the support practices in each land use/land cover by ground
truth verification. The overall P factor is computed as the product of
the P sub factors, which are typically used in combination (Renard
et al., 1997). In general, low P values imply the effectiveness of the
conservation practices reducing soil erosion.
An additional criterion was included in this study to make the
computation of soil loss more reliable. In MRB, nearly 1.5% of the
basin area falls under barren rock land use (e.g., rocky cliff/
escarpment and sheet rock), and such areas are practically
devoid of soil erosion as there is hardly any soil content to
be removed. Hence, the soil loss in such areas was assumed to
be zero.
In order to minimize geo-location errors and to improve the
horizontal accuracy, the input factors of RUSLE were co-registered
to a common reference. The analysis was carried out after projec-
ting all the data from Geographic Coordinate System (WGS84 da-
tum) to Universal Transverse Mercator (zone 43 N) with a grid cell
size of 30 m. After generation of all the input factors of RUSLE, the
quantitative output was computed on a pixel-by-pixel basis (using
raster calculator function) in ArcGIS.
3.2. Sediment transport
The detached soil particles from each of the overland grid cells
transport through defined paths towards the mouth of the river
basin, and the rate of sediment transport from each cell is a function
of the TC of the overland flow (Meyer and Wischmeier, 1969). Most
of the geomorphological models predicting sediment flux on hill-
slopes assume transport-limited overland flow. Then, sediment
transport flux (Qs; kg m1 unit time1) is predicted by Eq. (6) (after
Desmet and Govers, 1995):
Qs ¼ k  Lm  Sn (6)
where L is the upslope distance (in m), S is the local slope gradient
(in m m1), and k, m and n are constants. However, for three-
dimensional landscapes, the equation becomes Eq. (7) (Kirkby
and Chorley, 1967; Carson and Kirkby, 1972):
Qs ¼ k  Sn  Am
s (7)
where As is the upslope contributing area per unit of contour length
(m2 m1).
However, sediment transport of overland flow is not always
transport-limited. Hence, Desmet and Govers (1995) calculated Qs
as a proportion of the local erosion potential (Ep), where they used
two constants reflecting landscape characteristics that influence
sediment transport and runoff generation (e.g., rainfall intensity,
soil erodibility and vegetation) (Eqs. (8) and (9)):
Ep ¼ k1  Sn  Am
s (8)
TC ¼ k2  Ep (9)
where k1 and k2 are proportionality factors. Prosser and Rustomji
(2000) made a brief review on the constants m and n, and pro-
posed the median value (in experimental studies) of 1.4 for both the
constants. Again, Verstraeten et al. (2007) replaced the constants k1
and k2 with the R and K factors of the RUSLE as these factors
represent rainfall and soil characteristics. Accordingly, TC (in t
ha1 yr1) was computed as Eq. (10), assuming that areas having
higher rainfall erosivity will have higher runoff coefficient and
discharge, and hence higher TC.
TC ¼ KTC  R  K  A1:4
s S
1:4
(10)
where KTC is the transport capacity coefficient, and reflects the
vegetation component within TC. Since KTC implies the significance
of land use/land cover types of the area, spatial distribution of KTC
was derived from an exponential function of NDVI using Eq. (11)
(after Jain and Das, 2010).
 
NDVI
KTC ¼ b  exp (11)
1  NDVI
where b is a scaling factor, which can be determined through
calibration by minimizing error between observed and computed
sediment yield. Jain and Das (2010) recommended a calibrated
value of b equal to 1 (i.e., no scaling), which shows significant
agreement between observed and computed sediment yield.
Hence, we also used a b value of 1 for the estimation of spatially
distributed KTC in MRB.
3.3. Transport limited sediment delivery (TLSD)
Since sediment routing along the overland runoff paths con-
siders TC of each pixel, the sediment transport can be either under
a transport-limited or supply-limited system. Sediment outflow
from each cell depends on the soil erosion in the cell and the
transported sediment from the upstream cells. If TC of a cell is
greater than the sum of the soil erosion in the cell and the
contribution from the upstream cells, then the sum is assigned as
the sediment outflow from the cell. However, if TC is less than the
sum, then sediment outflow from the cell will be equal to the TC,
and the amount of sediment exceeding the TC gets deposited in
the cell (Meyer and Wischmeier, 1969; Tarboton, 2003;
Verstraeten et al., 2007; Jain and Das, 2010). The transport
limited accumulation function accumulates the sediment flux
subject to the rule that the transport out of any cell is the mini-
mum of the sum of the sediment inflow into the cell and the soil
erosion in the cell, and the TC of the cell (Eqs. (12) and (13);
Tarboton, 2003):
 X 
Tout ¼ min A þ Tin ; TC (12)
X
D ¼ Aþ Tin  Tout (13)
where A is the gross erosion in the cell, TC is the transport capacity
of the cell, Tin is the sediment inflow towards the cell, Tout is the
sediment outflow from the cell, and D is the deposition in the cell.
The model generates different maps of erosion, sediment
transport and sediment deposition rates, and distinction can be
 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
made between gross erosion, net erosion and sediment deposition
rates (Verstraeten et al., 2007). The output of the RUSLE model is
the spatial distribution of the gross soil erosion. From the gross
erosion and deposition, the net soil erosion was calculated by
subtracting the deposition rates for each cell from the gross erosion
rates for the corresponding cell. The cells with negative values on
the net erosion map are the areas where sediment deposition oc-
curs, and positive values correspond to the grid cells with net soil
erosion (Jain and Das, 2010). In this study, the TLSD function was
implemented using the Terrain Analysis using Digital Elevation
Models (TauDEM) toolbox in ArcGIS.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Factors affecting soil erosion in RUSLE model
The R factor of MRB varies between 337 and 1320 MJ
mm ha1 h1 yr1 (Fig. 3a), and shows clearly a zonation between
the eastern (i.e., low R) and western segments (i.e., high R). Further,
the R values of the present study are also comparable with the
estimated R factors of previous erosion studies from the region (e.g.,
Prasannakumar et al., 2012; Pradeep et al., 2015), suggesting the
suitability of the F index for approximation of local erosivity. The K
Figure 3. Spatially distributed RUSLE model inputs of MRB (a) R factor, (b) K factor, (c) LS factor and (d) C factor.
899
factor of MRB ranges from 0.024 to 0.074 t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1
(Fig. 3b). Texture of the soil samples varies from sandy loam to silt
loam, and K factor of the soils with silt loam texture is relatively
higher, compared to sandy loam texture, due to easy detachability of
soil particles.
The LS factor in MRB ranges from 0.07 to 58.59 (Fig. 3c), where
high values characterize steep slopes, such as the plateau scarps,
slopes of the terrain with concordant summits and escarpments.
Although the C factor can numerically vary from 0 for very well
protected soils to 1.5 for finely tilled, ridged surfaces
(Prasannakumar et al., 2011a), the range of C factor in MRB is be-
tween nearly zero and 1.12 (Fig. 3d). The areas with high C factor
values are reflective of either open scrub land use or rocky expo-
sure, where NDVI values are relatively low. The P factor values in
MRB ranges from 0.25 to 1.0 depending on the conservation mea-
sures reducing the overland flow as well as soil erosion. The P value
of 1 was assigned to forest and open scrub land use types as these
areas lack any types of support practices.
4.2. Estimation of gross and net soil erosion
The input variables of the RUSLE model were integrated in
ArcGIS to predict the longtime average annual soil loss in MRB
900 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906

(Fig. 4). Mean gross soil erosion in the basin is 14.36 t ha1 yr1, Table 2
which is comparable with the previous studies from the region Comparison of soil erosion rates with other studies from the southern Western
Ghats, Kerala, India.
(Table 2). Mean annual value of the spatially distributed TC across
MRB was also computed (Fig. 5), where steep headwater areas, Sl. Study Pma Elevation Gross soil Reference
slopes of the plateau and rocky cliffs as well as channels show No. area/region (mm) (amsl) erosion
(t ha1 yr1)
relatively higher TC. On the contrary, smaller values of TC are chiefly
1 Muthirapuzha 3700 740e2690 14.36 This study
linked with flat valleys and broad ridge crests. Based on the gross
River Basin
erosion and TC of MRB, accumulated sediment yield limited by TC 2 Munnar Forest 2790 40e2640 24.76 Prasannakumar
was derived. Fig. 6 is the sediment outflow map, and each pixel Divsion et al. (2011a)
value denotes the amount of sediment leaving the current cell to 3 Siruvani River 1061 360e2080 0.00e14.92 Prasannakumar
the next downstream cell. Due to lack of observed data on sediment Basin et al. (2011b)
4 Sub-basin of 3046 180e1820 0.00e17.73 Prasannakumar
yield in MRB, accuracy of the modelled sediment yield was not Pamba River et al. (2012)
assessed. However, Jain and Das (2010) reported fairly good 5 Sub-basin of 3000e3200 20e1180 200.15 Pradeep
agreement between the actual and predicted sediment yields while Meenachil River et al. (2015)
using the overland flow routing algorithm in their study. Pmaemean annual rainfall; amsleabove mean sea level.
The areas under sediment deposition were derived using Eq.
(13), and net soil erosion was computed by subtracting the depo-
sition rate for each grid cell from the gross erosion rate for the Based on the net soil erosion rates, it is possible to delineate the
corresponding grid cell. Fig. 7 depicts the net erosion/deposition in areas of sediment deposition and areas under varying intensities of
MRB, which is useful in identifying the areas vulnerable to soil erosion following the guidelines of Singh et al. (1992) for Indian
erosion and areas under sediment deposition. Accordingly, the conditions: slight (0.0e5.0 t ha1 yr1), moderate (5.1e
mean net soil erosion in MRB is 3.60 t ha1 yr1, which is only about 10.0 t ha1 yr1), high (10.1e20.0 t ha1 yr1), very high (20.1e
25% of the mean gross soil erosion. Wischmeier and Smith (1978) 40.0 t ha1 yr1), severe (40.1e80.0 t ha1 yr1) and very severe
also reported that only one-fourth of the amount of sediment (>80.0 t ha1 yr1). In MRB, majority of the area (w86%) experi-
moved by flowing water in the United States annually reaches ences only slight erosion (Fig. 7), while areas under moderate, high,
major streams. very high, severe and very severe erosion zones account for 4.64,

Figure 4. Spatial variation of gross soil erosion in MRB.

 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of TC in MRB.
3.14, 1.83, 0.86 and 0.50% of the total basin area respectively.
Roughly 3% of the area in MRB (i.e., w8.0 km2) experiences sedi-
ment deposition, and deposition occurs mostly along the stream
reaches and on gentle plains, where TC is comparatively low. In
addition, sediment deposition also takes place in the foot slopes of
the plateau scarps and the terrain with concordant summits
because of the sharp breaks in the slope of the terrain. The spatial
variability of the input variables (i.e., R, K, LS and C) of the RUSLE
model in different erosion classes is summarized in Table 3. Among
the factors, R and K do not show any significant variability among
the different erosion classes, whereas LS and C factors exhibit an
increasing trend with increasing rate of gross erosion. Despite the
overlap in the range of values in the input factors among various
erosion zones, it is inferred that topography and vegetation cover
have relatively higher importance in controlling soil erosion,
compared to rainfall and soil properties.
4.3. Implications of soil erosion
As MRB hosts a wide spectrum of vegetation, the gross and net
soil erosion rates under different land use/land cover types were
estimated by overlaying the land use/land cover map over the gross
and net erosion maps (Table 4). Among the dominant land use
types, mean gross erosion rates are relatively higher in open scrub,
forest and Eucalyptus plantation (51.51, 18.91 and 11.67 t ha1 yr1),
compared to agriculture, settlement/built-up areas and tea plan-
tation (Table 4). The net erosion rates are also high in open scrubs
901
(9.49 t ha1 yr1), followed by forest (6.12 t ha1 yr1), whereas the
lower values are predicted in settlement/built-up areas and tea
plantation (1.23 and 0.82 t ha1 yr1 respectively). Despite the fact
that the undisturbed natural vegetation cover provides better
protection to soil, the higher erosion rates can be partially attrib-
uted to the effect of topography as the LS factors of these land use
types are comparatively higher than the rest (Table 4). Moreover, in
the open scrub areas, the C factor is high (i.e., 0.116), which also
adds to the erosion rates. In addition, high amounts of rainfall over
the forest and open scrub landscapes (in the western and north-
western areas of MRB) might also have a minor role in the elevated
levels of soil loss. In order to understand the role of topography on
the gross soil erosion rates under different land use types, the
relationship between slope angle and gross soil erosion (on pixel-
by-pixel basis) was analyzed (Table 5). The results of the regres-
sion analysis suggest that, in any of the land use type, slope angle
has hardly any significant control over the gross soil erosion rates.
Even though forest and open scrub areas have relatively higher LS
factors, no significant linear relationships exist between slope angle
and soil loss in these land use types.
The ratio between net soil erosion and gross soil erosion (i.e., the
sediment transport efficiency) of different land use types varies
between 0.18 and 0.50 (Table 4). Although the gross and net soil
erosion rates under natural vegetation belts, such as open scrub and
forest, are relatively high, the sediment transport efficiency is
comparatively low (i.e., 0.18 and 0.32 respectively). The low sedi-
ment transport efficiency in natural forests might be due to the
902 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
Figure 6. Spatially distributed sediment outflow in MRB.
resistance imparted by the humus layer as well as the understory
vegetation, which enhances deposition of the eroded particles.
Similarly, in open scrub areas, the dense grass cover may also
restrict the sediment transport to certain extent. Although agri-
cultural areas and tea plantation experience relatively lower rates
of gross soil erosion, nearly 50% of the eroded soil is being trans-
ported (Table 4), which implies the role of human activities in
enhancing the rate of soil erosion. However, soil loss from the
agricultural landscapes and tea plantation can be controlled by
managing vegetation, plant residues and soil tillage along with
implementation of suitable soil conservation measures. Since P
factor implies support practices, implementation of a combination
of soil conservation measures can considerably reduce the soil
erosion risk in these agricultural landscapes.
In order to understand the variability of gross and net soil
erosion rates within MRB, mean gross and net soil erosion rates of
the 4th order sub-basins were estimated (Table 6). The sub-basins
show gross and net soil erosion rates ranging from 4.55 (SW2) to
39.15 t ha1 yr1 (SW10) and 1.43 (SW2) to 9.55 t ha1 yr1 (SW10)
respectively (Table 6). Even though SW2 has relatively lower gross
as well as net soil erosion rates, the sediment transport efficiency is
considerably high (i.e., 0.31), which is mainly due to the high TC of
overland flow. In general, formulation of sustainable basin man-
agement programmes considers only the quantitative soil loss for
prioritization of the basins, and the basins/sub-basins with rela-
tively higher rates of gross erosion will be given higher priority for
the implementation of soil conservation measures. However, the
results of this study suggest that the sediment transport efficiency
also needs to be considered (along with gross soil erosion rate) for
prioritization of the sub-basins because it provides valuable infor-
mation on the redistribution of eroded soil and sediment delivery
across the river basin.
In addition to the estimates of soil loss, SOC loss from MRB was
also calculated. As a result of the relatively low density (<1.8 mg
me3) and concentration on the soil surface, SOC is highly suscep-
tible to transport by runoff water or wind (Lal, 2003). Table 6 shows
the results of the analysis of SOC, where SOC in the sub-basins of
MRB varies from 1.72 (SW14) to 4.39% (SW1) with a mean of 2.03%.
In order to (semi-quantitatively) estimate the carbon transport
associated with soil erosion, the amount of SOC eroded (SOCerod)
due to soil erosion was computed using Eq. (14):
SOCerod ¼ SOC  gross erosion (14)
The results indicate that the SOCerod from the sub-basins of
MRB ranges from 0.17 (SW2) to 1.37 t ha1 yr1 (SW10; Table 6),
and mean SOCerod in MRB is 0.42 t ha1 yr1. Although SOCerod is a
linear function of SOC content as well as the gross soil erosion
rate, in this case, SOC content has hardly any significance in the
variability of SOCerod, but gross erosion rate shows a well defined
relationship (Fig. 8), which could be due to the remarkably larger
magnitude and variability of gross soil erosion rates, compared to
 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906 903

Figure 7. Extent of soil erosion (of varying intensities) and deposition areas in MRB.

Table 3
Areal extent of different erosion classes and descriptive statistics of the RUSLE model inputs.

Erosion class Gross erosion (t ha1 yr1) R (MJ mm ha1 h1 yr1) K (t ha h ha1 MJ1 mm1) LS C

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

Slight 5.0 614 337e1320 0.041 0.024e0.074 7.87 0.06e58.20 0.03 w0.0e1.08
Moderate 5.1e10.0 626 338e1320 0.043 0.024e0.074 11.75 0.29e44.93 0.06 0.003e0.95
High 10.1e20.0 615 338e1320 0.042 0.024e0.074 12.62 0.54e46.35 0.10 0.007e1.00
Very high 20.1e40.0 618 338e1320 0.041 0.025e0.072 13.72 1.02e46.81 0.15 0.012e1.12
Severe 40.1e80.0 631 339e1320 0.041 0.027e0.074 15.81 1.51e48.07 0.21 0.024e1.08
Very severe >80.0 710 348e1319 0.042 0.028e0.074 21.18 3.24e58.59 0.31 0.044e1.04

Table 4 Table 5
Soil erosion rates (on mean basis) with respect to dominant land use types in MRB. Relationship between slope angle and gross soil erosion rates under different land
use types in MRB.
Sl. Land use Area LS C Gross soil Net Sediment
No. (%) factor factor erosion soil erosion transport Sl. No. Land use Regression equation R2
1 1 1 1
(t ha yr ) (t ha yr ) efficiency 1 Agriculture y ¼ 0.593x4.612 0.228
1 Agriculture 4.48 8.13 0.064 5.50 2.76 0.50 2 Forest y ¼ 1.580x14.125 0.112
2 Forest 11.72 12.41 0.055 18.91 6.12 0.32 3 Eucalyptus y ¼ 0.677x5.325 0.137
3 Eucalyptus 18.74 10.30 0.048 11.67 4.06 0.35 4 Open scrub y ¼ 3.700x39.111 0.238
4 Open scrub 20.20 11.81 0.116 51.51 9.49 0.18 5 Settlement/Built-up y ¼ 0.616x2.064 0.302
5 Settlement/ 1.44 4.98 0.109 3.90 1.23 0.32 6 Tea y ¼ 0.235x1.676 0.099
Built-up
Dependent variable: gross soil erosion.
6 Tea 41.03 8.10 0.022 1.78 0.82 0.46

However, in MRB, the relationships between SOC losses and

the SOC content. Imamoglu and Dengiz (2017) observed that soil RUSLE model inputs were not investigated.
and topographic properties have significant controls on the According to Lal (2003), total SOC translocated by water
magnitude of SOC losses, compared to land use/land cover type. erosion at the global scale is 4.0e6.0 Pg C yr1 (i.e., w0.30e
904 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906

Table 6
Estimation of erosion of soil and SOC (on mean basis) in the 4th order sub-basins of MRB.

Sub-basin ID Area (ha) SOC (%) Gross erosion (t ha1 yr1) Net erosion (t ha1 yr1) Sediment transport efficiency SOCerod (t ha1 yr1)
SW1 1228 4.39 5.82 1.75 0.30 0.26
SW2 1168 3.65 4.55 1.43 0.31 0.17
SW3 629 3.09 8.83 2.58 0.29 0.27
SW4 1050 3.14 6.64 1.55 0.23 0.21
SW5 1772 3.44 12.90 3.13 0.24 0.44
SW6 1204 2.71 23.94 5.86 0.24 0.65
SW7 441 3.47 6.94 2.05 0.30 0.24
SW8 289 2.53 11.34 2.34 0.21 0.29
SW9 787 2.51 7.91 2.17 0.27 0.20
SW10 2307 3.51 39.15 9.55 0.24 1.37
SW11 463 3.38 18.77 3.25 0.17 0.63
SW12 1862 2.8 7.70 2.08 0.27 0.22
SW13 2209 2.33 10.46 2.31 0.22 0.24
SW14 598 1.72 19.76 5.47 0.28 0.34

Figure 8. Interrelationships of SOCerod with SOC content and gross soil erosion of the sub-basins of MRB.

0.40 t ha1 yr1), where 2.8e4.2 Pg C yr1 is redistributed over the
landscape, and 0.4e0.6 Pg C yr1 is transported into the ocean (by
assuming a delivery ratio of 10% and SOC content of 2e3%). Later,
Berhe et al. (2007) estimated the global erosion of carbon as
1.1e3.7 Pg C yr1 (w0.07e0.25 t ha1 yr1). However, Doetterl et al.
(2012) quantified the global carbon flux as 0.40 (0.20) Pg C y1
(i.e., w0.03 t ha1 yr1), which significantly lower than the esti-
mates of Lal (2003) as well as Berhe et al. (2007). In MRB, most of
the sub-basins have lower values of SOCerod, compared to the es-
timates of Lal (2003), but significantly higher values compared to
Doetterl et al. (2012), which is possibly the result of the differences
in the spatial scales of estimation.
The study shows that the spatially varying data on soil erosion
and sediment deposition have significant role in the prioritization
of the sub-basins and planning conservation measures. Hence, the
quantitative results, on soil erosion and associated carbon trans-
port, are expected to be beneficial while formulating comprehen-
sive land management strategies at basin scale.
5. Summary and conclusion
The study computed the longtime average annual soil loss from
a tropical mountainous river basin, viz., MRB, and identified critical
erosion-/deposition-prone areas using RUSLE model and TLSD
function in ArcGIS. Thematic layers representing different factors of
RUSLE (R, K, LS, C and P) were used to generate spatially distributed
gross soil erosion rates of the basin. The TLSD function was applied
for generating map of TC, which in turn was used (along with gross
soil erosion) to produce the sediment outflow as well as the net soil
erosion/deposition maps.
Mean gross soil erosion in MRB is 14.36 t ha1 yr1, whereas
mean net erosion is only 3.60 t ha1 yr1. Majority of the basin area
(w86%) of MRB experiences only slight erosion (<5 t ha1 yr1),
and nearly 3% of the area (i.e., along the stream reaches, on gently
sloping areas as well as in the foot slopes of the plateau scarps and
the terrain with concordant summits) traps most of the eroded
sediments. Soil erosion in MRB is a result of the combined effect of
 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
steep and rugged topography and vegetation characteristics along
with high quantum of annual rainfall. Mean gross erosion rates in
natural vegetation belts are relatively higher, compared to agri-
culture, settlement/built-up areas and tea plantation. However, the
sediment transport efficiency in agricultural landscapes and tea
plantation is relatively higher than the natural vegetation, which
implies the role of various human activities on accelerated soil
erosion. The present study illustrates the importance of the sedi-
ment transport efficiency, and recommends consideration of this
factor (along with gross soil erosion rates) for prioritization of the
sub-basins for sustainable basin management. The analysis of
erosion of SOC shows that mean SOCerod in MRB is 0.42 t ha1 yr1.
Thus, RULSE model, coupled with TLSD function, helps mapping
of vulnerable zones to soil erosion and deposition, which has
crucial significance in the formulation of comprehensive land
management strategies.
Acknowledgements
First author (JT) is indebted to (late) Dr. R. Satheesh (SES,
Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala) for his moral support and
mentoring during the early stages of the research career. JT is also
grateful to Prof. K.P. Sudheer and Mr. Vema Vamsi Krishna, IIT Madras
for their generous support and constructive discussions. Financial
support from Kerala State Council for Science, Technology, and
Environment (004/FSHP/05KSCSTE), Thiruvananthapuram and
permission and logistics for the field studies in the protected areas by
Kerala Forest Department are also delightedly acknowledged. Our
sincere gratitude is also due to the anonymous reviewers and the
editor for their critical and helpful comments.
References
Alexakis, D.D., Hadjimitsis, D.G., Agapiou, A., 2013. Integrated use of remote sensing,
GIS and precipitation data for the assessment of soil erosion rate in the
catchment area of “Yialias” in Cyprus. Atmospheric Research 131, 108e124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.02.013.
Arnoldus, H.M.J., 1977. Methodology used to determine the maximum potential
average annual soil loss due to sheet and rill erosion in Morocco. FAO Soils
Bulletin 34, 39e48.
Arnoldus, H.M.J., 1980. An approximation of the rainfall factor in the universal soil
loss equation. In: de Boodt, M., Gabriels, D. (Eds.), Assessment of Erosion. John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 127e132.
Avwunudiogba, A., Hudson, P.F., 2014. A review of soil erosion models with special
reference to the needs of humid tropical mountainous environments. European
Journal of Sustainable Development 3 (4), 299e310. http://dx.doi.org/10.14207/
ejsd.2014.v3n4p299.
Berhe, A.A., Harte, J., Harden, J.W., Torn, M.S., 2007. The significance of the erosion-
induced terrestrial carbon sink. Bioscience 57 (4), 337e346. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1641/B570408.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2008. Principles of Soil Conservation and Management.
Springer, Netherlands.
Butt, M.J., Waqas, A., Mahmood, R., CSHRG, 2010. The combined effect of vegetation
and soil erosion in the water resource management. Water Resources Man-
agement 24 (13), 3701e3714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9627-7.
Carson, M.A., Kirkby, M.J., 1972. Hillslope Form and Process. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Carter, M.R. (Ed.), 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of
Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Demirci, A., Karaburun, A., 2012. Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE in a GIS
framework: a case study in the Buyukcekmece Lake watershed, northwest
Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences 66 (3), 903e913. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-011-1300-9.
Desmet, P.J.J., Govers, G., 1995. GIS-based simulation of erosion and deposition
patterns in an agricultural landscape: a comparison of model results with soil
map information. Catena 25 (1e4), 389e401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0341-
8162(95)00019-O.
Doetterl, S., Van Oost, K., Six, J., 2012. Towards constraining the magnitude of global
agricultural sediment and soil organic carbon fluxes. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 37 (6), 642e655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.3198.
Ferro, V., Porto, P., Tusa, G., 1998. Testing a distributed approach for modelling
sediment delivery. Hydrological Sciences Journal 43 (3), 425e442. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626669809492136.
Foster, G.R., 1982. Modeling the erosion process. In: Hann, C.T., Johnson, H.D.,
Brakensiek, D.L. (Eds.), Hydrological Modeling of Small Watersheds. Chapter 8,
905
ASAE Monograph No. 5. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, pp. 297e380.
Galdino, S., Sano, E.E., Andrade, R.G., Grego, C.R., Nogueira, S.F., Bragantini, C.,
Flosi, A.H.G., 2016. Large-scale modeling of soil erosion with RUSLE for conser-
vationist planning of degraded cultivated Brazilian pastures. Land Degradation &
Development 27 (3), 773e784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2414.
GSI, 1992. District Resource Map, Idukki District, Kerala. Part-I. Geology and Min-
erals. Geological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Imamoglu, A., Dengiz, O., 2017. Determination of soil erosion risk using RUSLE
model and soil organic carbon loss in Alaca catchment (Central Black Sea re-
gion, Turkey). Rendiconti Lincei 28 (1), 11e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12210-016-0556-0.
Jain, M.K., Das, D., 2010. Estimation of sediment yield and areas of soil erosion and
deposition for watershed prioritization using GIS and remote sensing. Water
Resources Management 24 (10), 2091e2112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
009-9540-0.
Jain, M.K., Kothyari, U.C., 2000. Estimation of soil erosion and sediment yield using
GIS. Hydrological Sciences Journal 45 (5), 771e786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02626660009492376.
Jetten, V., de Roo, A., Favis-Mortlock, D., 1999. Evaluation of field-scale and
catchment-scale soil erosion models. Catena 37 (3e4), 521e541. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00037-5.
Jetten, V., Govers, G., Hessel, R., 2003. Erosion models: quality of spatial predictions.
Hydrological Processes 17 (5), 887e900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1168.
Jetten, V., Favis-Mortlock, D., 2006. Modelling soil erosion in Europe. In:
Boardman, J., Poesen, J. (Eds.), Soil Erosion in Europe. John Wiley & Sons, Chi-
chester, pp. 695e716.
Karamesouti, M., Petropoulos, G.P., Papanikolaou, I.D., Kairis, O., Kosmas, K., 2016.
Erosion rate predictions from PESERA and RUSLE at a Mediterranean site before
and after a wildfire: comparison & implications. Geoderma 261, 44e58. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.06.025.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 2010. Event soil loss, runoff and the Universal Soil Loss Equation
family of models: a review. Journal of Hydrology 385 (1e4), 384e397. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.024.
Kirkby, M.J., Chorley, R.J., 1967. Throughflow, overland flow and erosion. Interna-
tional Association of Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin 12 (3), 5e21. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626666709493533.
Kouli, M., Soupios, P., Vallianatos, F., 2009. Soil erosion prediction using the revised
universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) in a GIS framework, Chania, Northwestern
Crete, Greece. Environmental Geology 57 (3), 483e497. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00254-008-1318-9.
Lal, R., 1998. Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment
quality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 17 (4), 319e464. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/07352689891304249.
Lal, R., 2001. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development 12 (6),
519e539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.472.
Lal, R., 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International
29 (4), 437e450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00192-7.
Lal, R., Blum, W.H., Valentine, C., Stewart, B.A., 1997. Methods for Assessment of Soil
Degradation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lee, J.-H., Heo, J.-H., 2011. Evaluation of estimation methods for rainfall erosivity
based on annual precipitation in Korea. Journal of Hydrology 409 (1e2), 30e48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.031.
Liu, S., Bliss, N., Sundquist, E., Huntington, T.G., 2003. Modeling carbon dynamics in
vegetation and soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 17 (2), 1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GB002010.
Lorup, J.K., Styczen, M., 1996. Soil erosion modelling. In: Abbott, M.B., Refsgaard, J.C.
(Eds.), Distributed Hydrological Modeling. Water Science and Technology Li-
brary, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 93e120.
Lu, D., Li, G., Valladares, G.S., Batistella, M., 2004. Mapping soil erosion risk in
Rondonia, Brazilian Amazonia: using RUSLE, remote sensing and GIS. Land
Degradation & Development 15 (5), 499e512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.634.
Mallick, J., Alashker, Y., Mohammad, S.A.-D., Ahmed, M., Hasan, M.A., 2014. Risk
assessment of soil erosion in semi-arid mountainous watershed in Saudi Arabia
by RUSLE model coupled with remote sensing and GIS. Geocarto International
29 (8), 915e940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2013.868044.
Merritt, W.S., Letcher, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., 2003. A review of erosion and sediment
transport models. Environmental Modelling & Software 18 (8e9), 761e799.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00078-1.
Meyer, L.D., Wischmeier, W.H., 1969. Mathematical simulation of the process of soil
erosion by water. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers 12 (6), 754e758. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.38945.
Milliman, J.D., Syvitski, J.P.M., 1992. Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment
discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. The
Journal of Geology 100 (5), 525e544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/629606.
Millward, A.A., Mersey, J.E., 1999. Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion po-
tential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena 38 (2), 109e129. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00067-3.
Mutua, B.M., Klik, A., Loiskandl, W., 2006. Modelling soil erosion and sediment yield
at a catchment scale: the case of Masinga catchment, Kenya. Land Degradation
& Development 17 (5), 557e570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.753.
Naqvi, H.R., Mallick, J., Devi, L.M., Siddiqui, M.A., 2013. Multi-temporal annual soil
loss risk mapping employing revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) model
in Nun Nadi Watershed, Uttrakhand (India). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 6
(10), 4045e4056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0661-z.
906 J. Thomas et al. / Geoscience Frontiers 9 (2018) 893e906
Oliver, J.E., 1980. Monthly precipitation distribution: a comparative index. The
Professional Geographer 32 (3), 300e309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-
0124.1980.00300.x.
Pan, J., Wen, Y., 2014. Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE in Caijiamiao water-
shed, China. Natural Hazards 71 (3), 2187e2205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-013-1006-2.
Pradeep, G.S., Krishnan, M.V.N., Vijith, H., 2015. Identification of critical soil erosion
prone areas and annual average soil loss in an upland agricultural watershed of
Western Ghats, using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and RUSLE techniques.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8 (6), 3697e3711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12517-014-1460-5.
Prasannakumar, V., Vijith, H., Geetha, N., Shiny, R., 2011a. Regional scale erosion
assessment of a sub-tropical highland segment in the Western Ghats of Kerala,
South India. Water Resources Management 25 (14), 3715e3727. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9878-y.
Prasannakumar, V., Shiny, R., Geetha, N., Vijith, H., 2011b. Spatial prediction of soil
erosion risk by remote sensing, GIS and RUSLE approach: a case study of Sir-
uvani river watershed in Attapady valley, Kerala, India. Environmental Earth
Sciences 64 (4), 965e972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-0913-3.
Prasannakumar, V., Vijith, H., Abinod, S., Geetha, N., 2012. Estimation of soil erosion
risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geo-
science Frontiers 3 (2), 209e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.11.003.
Prosser, I.P., Rustomji, P., 2000. Sediment transport capacity relations for overland
flow. Progress in Physical Geography 24 (2), 179e193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
030913330002400202.
Rajesh, S., Pradeepkumar, A.P., 2015. Cordierite gneisses in Munnar granite,
southwestern India: implications for isothermal decompression history. In:
Pradeepkumar, A.P., Shaji, E. (Eds.), Shear Zones and Crustal Blocks of Southern
India. Proceedings of 2nd UGC-SAP-DRSII Seminar. University of Kerala, India,
p. 40.
Ranzi, R., Le, T.H., Rulli, M.C., 2012. A RUSLE approach to model suspended sediment
load in the Lo river (Vietnam): effects of reservoirs and land use changes. Journal
of Hydrology 422e423, 17e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.009.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., 1983. Soil conservation: principles of erosion by water. In:
Dregne, H.E., Willis, W.O. (Eds.), Dryland Agriculture. Agronomy Monograph 23.
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Sci-
ence Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 155e176.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting
Soil Erosion by Water: a Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook No. 703. USDA,
Washington DC.
Renard, K.G., Freimund, J.R., 1994. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the
R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of Hydrology 157 (1e4), 287e306. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)90110-4.
Sharda, V.N., Mandal, D., Ojasvi, P.R., 2013. Identification of soil erosion risk areas for
conservation planning in different states of India. Journal of Environmental
Biology 34, 219e226.
Singh, G., Babu, R., Narain, P., Bhushan, L.S., Abrol, I.P., 1992. Soil erosion rates in
India. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47 (1), 97e99.
SSO, 2007. Benchmark Soils of Kerala. Soil Survey Organization. Department of
Agriculture, Government of Kerala, Kerala.
Tarboton, D.G., 2003. Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models in Hydrology.
23rd ESRI International Users Conference, San Diego, California, July 7e11, 2003.
Thomas, J., 2012. Channel Characteristics of Two Upland River Basins of Contrasting
Climate: a Study from Kerala. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Kerala, Thir-
uvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Thomas, J., Prasannakumar, V., 2015. Comparison of basin morphometry derived
from topographic maps, ASTER and SRTM DEMs: an example from Kerala, India.
Geocarto International 30 (3), 346e364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10106049.2014.955063.
Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramaji, K.P., 2010. Morphometric aspects of a small
tropical mountain river system, the southern Western Ghats, India. Interna-
tional Journal of Digital Earth 3 (2), 135e156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17538940903464370.
Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramji, K.P., Abe, G., Kannan, N., 2012. Morphometrical
analysis of two tropical mountain river basins of contrasting environmental
settings, the southern Western Ghats, India. Environmental Earth Sciences 66
(8), 2353e2366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1457-2.
Thomas, J., Joseph, S., Thrivikramji, K.P., 2015. Discriminant analysis for character-
ization of hydrochemistry of two mountain river basins of contrasting climates
in the southern Western Ghats, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment 187 (6), 365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4589-0.
van der Knijff, J.M., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., 2000. Soil Erosion Risk Assess-
ment in Europe. EUR 19044 EN. European Soil Bureau, Joint Research Centre,
European Commission and Space Applications Institute.
Van Rompaey, A., Bazzoffi, P., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., 2005. Modeling sedi-
ment yields in Italian catchments. Geomorphology 65 (1e2), 157e169. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.08.006.
Verstraeten, G., Prosser, I.P., Fogarty, P., 2007. Predicting the spatial patterns of
hillslope sediment delivery to river channels in the Murrumbidgee catchment,
Australia. Journal of Hydrology 334 (3e4), 440e454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2006.10.025.
Walling, D.E., 1988. Erosion and sediment yield research: some recent perspectives.
Journal of Hydrology 100 (1e3), 113e141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(88)90183-7.
Walling, D.E., Webb, B.W., 1996. Erosion and sediment yield: a global overview. In:
Walling, D.E., Webb, B.W. (Eds.), Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and
Regional Perspectives (Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium, July 1996), IAHS
Publication No. 236, pp. 3e19.
Wang, X., Yin, Z.-Y., 1998. A comparison of drainage networks derived from digital
elevation models at two scales. Journal of Hydrology 210 (1e4), 221e241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00189-9.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: a Guide to
Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. USDA, Washington, DC.