remote sensing
Article
Estimating the CSLE Biological Conservation Measures’
B-Factor Using Google Earth’s Engine
Youfu Wu 1,2 , Haijing Shi 1,3,4, *
Citation: Wu, Y.; Shi, H.; Yang, X.
Estimating the CSLE Biological
Conservation Measures’ B-Factor
Using Google Earth’s Engine. Remote
Sens. 2024, 16, 847. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs16050847
Academic Editor: Gabriel Senay
Received: 25 November 2023
Revised: 20 February 2024
Accepted: 26 February 2024
Published: 28 February 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050847
and Xihua Yang 5,6
1 Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China;
wuyoufu@nwafu.edu.cn
2 Geothermal and Geological Party, Tibet Bureau of Geology and Mineral Exploration and Development,
Lhasa 850000, China
3 Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources,
Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China
4 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
5 New South Wales Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water,
Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia; xihua.yang@environment.nsw.gov.au
6 School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
* Correspondence: shihaijingcn@nwafu.edu.cn
Abstract: The biological conservation measures factor (B) in the Chinese Soil loss Equation (CSLE)
model is one of the main components in evaluating soil erosion, and the accurate calculation of the
B-factor at the regional scale is fundamental in predicting regional soil erosion and dynamic changes.
In this study, we developed an optimal computational procedure for estimating and mapping the
B-factor in the Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud computing environment using multiple data sources
through data suitability assessment and image fusion. Taking the Yanhe River Basin in the Loess
Plateau of China as an example, we evaluated the availability of daily precipitation data (CHIRPS,
ERA5, and PERSIANN-CDR data) against the data at national meteorological stations. We estimated
the B-factor from Sentinel-2 data and proposed a new method, namely the trend migration method,
to patch the missing values in Sentinel-2 data using three other remote sensing data (MOD09GA,
Landsat 7, and Landsat 8). We then calculated and mapped the B-factor in the Yanhe River Basin
based on rainfall erosivity, vegetation coverage, and land use types. The results show that the ERA5
precipitation dataset outperforms the CHIRPS and PERSIANN-CDR data in estimating rainfall and
rainfall erosivity, and it can be utilized as an alternative data source for meteorological stations
in soil erosion modeling. Compared to the harmonic analysis of time series (HANTS), the trend
migration method proposed in this study is more suitable for patching the missing parts of Sentinel-2
data. The restored high-resolution Sentinel-2 data fit nicely with the 10 m resolution land use data,
enhancing the B-factor calculation accuracy at local and region scales. The B-factor computation
procedure developed in this study is applicable to various river basin and regional scales for soil
erosion monitoring.
Keywords: B-factor; CSLE; Google Earth Engine; soil erosion; data patching
1. Introduction
Soil erosion is one of the most serious environmental issues in many parts of the world;
it not only causes soil degradation but also poses threats to agricultural production and
food security [1–3]. Dynamic monitoring of soil erosion based on remote sensing data and
GIS technology can provide important data support for assessing soil erosion conditions
and developing soil and water conservation measures [4]. So far, the most widely applied
and accepted empirical models are the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and its revised
version (RUSLE), which are used to predict soil erosion rates at regional and global scales,
including applications in China [5,6]. Based on the USLE, the Chinese Soil Loss Equation
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 2 of 17

(CSLE) was developed with the consideration of soil and water conservation measures,
which is simple in structure and has stronger applicability in China [7,8]. The USLE/RUSLE
uses two dimensionless factors (C and P) to represent the effects of vegetation cover
(C-factor) and erosion control management (P-factor) [9–11]. The CSLE model better
describes these anthropogenic components by using three factors (B, E, and T, or BET) to
represent the effects of biological control (B), engineering control (E) and tillage practices
(T) on soil erosion. Among them, the B-factor is the key component representing the effect
of vegetation cover (or land use) and biological conservation measures on soil erosion.
The B-factor refers to the ratio of the amount of soil loss on slopes covered with
vegetation to that on fallow land under the same conditions (including rainfall, soil, slope,
slope length, engineering measures, and tillage measures) [7,12]. The B-factor is influenced
by erosive rainfall during the growing season and the vegetation cover. Seasonal changes
in vegetation, vertical vegetation structure, and land cover all influence the value of the
B-factor to varying degrees, and obtaining the structured and time-series vegetation data is
difficult, making the accurate estimation of the B-factor a challenging task.
Same as the cover and management factor (C) in RUSLE, rainfall erosivity is used as a
weighting factor to subdivide the B-factor into a certain period (normally half-monthly).
Rainfall data are fundamental for B-factor computing, as rainfall significantly affects the
dynamic of the B-factor because rainfall varies in time and space, causing temporal insta-
bility and uneven spatial distribution [13,14]. Rainfall data are obtainable from ground
meteorological observation stations, but the spatial distribution of meteorological stations
is often uneven and sparse in remote areas, resulting in a substantial number of missing
values [15,16]. Grid-based high temporal and spatial resolution large-scale rainfall products
have been developed and employed for soil erosion model computation in recent years.
However, the usefulness of multiple grid rainfall products in soil erosion modeling remains
unknown; consequently, determining the quality and applicability of different rainfall
datasets in soil erosion modeling is crucial.
As an important indicator of surface vegetation conditions and regional ecosystems,
fractional vegetation cover (FVC) is important in estimating the B-factor [17]. Many studies
have been undertaken over the last few decades, monitoring and assessing FVC using remote
sensing satellites and low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technologies [18,19]. The
majority of remote sensing satellite data are derived from low-resolution satellite sensors such
as MODIS, which are typically used for large-scale vegetation cover estimation and have
poor accuracy. Although low-altitude UAVs have improved data accuracy to some extent,
their coverage is limited and cannot meet the requirements for large-scale vegetation cover
estimation. For B-factor estimation and monitoring, it is often necessary to integrate remote
sensing imaging at various scales to improve the resolution, but it remains a research challenge
due to issues such as data availability, compatibility, registration, calibration, and resolution,
as well as the trade-offs between spatial, spectral, and temporal information.
The Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a big data platform that aggregates nearly 40 years
of huge global remote sensing imagery data, and it has received significant attention
from academics recently [20]. The fundamental advantage of the GEE is its remarkable
computational power, which enables it to process and analyze data without downloading it,
considerably enhancing the efficiency of data processing and analysis. It offers a practical
method for conducting extensive regional research, therefore providing a reliable way for
the dynamic monitoring of regional B-factors [21].
In this study, we chose the Yanhe River Basin as the study area as it represents the
typical vegetation types and landforms of China’s Loess Plateau, one of the most severely
eroded areas in the world. We assessed the availability and suitability of three daily rainfall
datasets in estimating rainfall erosivity in the GEE cloud platform. We estimated the NDVI
and FVC from Sentinel-2 and the missing values were filled using other remote sensing
data. With these high-precision estimation of regional rainfall and vegetation cover, we
proposed and implemented a method for evaluating and mapping the B-factor in the
GEE cloud computing environment, in conjunction with land use types.
 Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 3 of 17

cover, we proposed and implemented a method for evaluating and mapping the B-fact
in the GEE cloud computing environment, in conjunction with land use types.
2. The Study Area
2. The Study Area
The study area is located in the Yanhe River Basin, in the northern part of Shaanxi
The studycoordinates
Province, with geographical area is located in thefrom
ranging Yanhe36River Basin,
◦ 23′ to in′ N
37◦ 17 theand
northern
108◦ 45part
′ to of Shaan
◦ ′ Province, with geographical coordinates ranging from 36°23′
110 28 E. This basin is a primary tributary of the middle reaches of the Yellow River, to 37°17′N and 108°45′
110°28′E. This basin is a primary tributary of the middle reaches of the Yellow River, spa
spanning from Huokou Town to Longmen District (Figure 1). The Yanhe River has a
ning from Huokou Town to Longmen District (Figure 1). The Yanhe River has a tot
total length of 286.9 km, covering a watershed area of 7687 km2 . This basin is within
length of 286.9 km, covering a watershed area of 7687 km2. This basin is within the con
the continental semi-arid monsoon climate zone and influenced by seasonal monsoons
nental semi-arid monsoon climate zone and influenced by seasonal monsoons througho
throughout the year. The annual average temperature is 8.8 ◦ C, with an average annual
the year. The annual average temperature is 8.8 °C, with an average annual rainfall of 52
rainfall of 520 mm,
mm,primarily
primarily concentrated
concentratedfrom
fromJune
JunetotoSeptember,
September,accounting
accounting for over 70%
for over 70%of the tot
of the total annual amount. The climate and temperature in the basin vary dramatically
annual amount. The climate and temperature in the basin vary dramatically from sout
from southeast to northwest.
east to northwest. The
The topography
topographyis is complex, characterized
complex, characterized byby numerous
numerous gullies and r
gullies and ravines, representing a typical Loess hilly and gully region on the Loess
vines, representing a typical Loess hilly and gully region on the Loess Plateau. Plateau.Vegetatio
Vegetation distribution
distributionin the areaarea
in the exhibits distinct
exhibits distinctzonality
zonality [22]. Thevegetation
[22]. The vegetationtypestypes change fro
change from forested
forested areas to forest–grassland areas and then to typical grassland areasareas
areas to forest–grassland areas and then to typical grassland from the sout
from the southeast
easttotothe
thenorthwest.
northwest.

Figurelocation
Figure 1. Geographical 1. Geographical location
of the Yanhe of the
River Yanhe River Basin.
Basin.

3. Materials and3.Methods
Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Sources 3.1. Data Sources
The rainfall remote
Thesensing
rainfall datasets (CHIRPS,
remote sensing ERA5,(CHIRPS,
datasets and PERSIANN-CDR), land use
ERA5, and PERSIANN-CDR), lan
data (WorldCover use10data
m, 2020), and surface
(WorldCover reflectance
10 m, remote
2020), and sensing
surface data (MOD09GA,
reflectance remote sensing da
Landsat 7, Landsat 8, and Sentinel-2)
(MOD09GA, were sourced
Landsat 7, Landsat from the GEE
8, and Sentinel-2) were cloud
sourcedplatform. The cloud pla
from the GEE
form.were
ground station data The ground station
obtained fromdata were obtained
China’s from China’s
national-level groundnational-level ground meteo
meteorological
ological station
station basic meteorological basic meteorological
element element
daily value dataset daily value
(V3.0). dataset
The vector (V3.0). The
boundary vector boun
data
ary Basin
for the Yanhe River data for theacquired
were Yanhe River
fromBasin were System
the Earth acquiredScience
from the Earth
Data System
Center Science Da
of the
Center (https://www.loess.geodata.cn
Loess Plateau Division of the Loess Plateau Division (h ps://www.loess.geodata.cn
(accessed on 24 September (accessed
2023)). on 24 Se
tember 2023)).
3.1.1. Rainfall Data
The rainfall datasets used in this study included CHIRPS, ERA5, and PERSIANN-CDR,
all of which are available on the GEE platform. CHIRPS is a global grid rainfall dataset with
a high resolution that combines 0.05◦ resolution satellite imagery with in situ site data to
create a gridded rainfall time series that records daily rainfall data from 1981 to the present.
PERSIANN-CDR is the precipitation estimation from remotely sensed information using
 3.1.1. Rainfall Data
The rainfall datasets used in this study included CHIRPS, ERA5, and PERSIANN-
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 CDR, all of which are available on the GEE platform. CHIRPS is a global grid rainfall da-4 of 17
taset with a high resolution that combines 0.05° resolution satellite imagery with in situ
site data to create a gridded rainfall time series that records daily rainfall data from 1981
to the present.
artificial neuralPERSIANN-CDR
networks, whichisisthe precipitation
developed usingestimation from remotely
the PERSIANN algorithmsensed in-
on GridSat-
formation using artificial neural networks, which is developed using the PERSIANN
B1 infrared satellite data, and provides daily rainfall estimates at a spatial resolution al- of
gorithm
◦ on GridSat-B1 infrared satellite data, and provides daily rainfall estimates
0.25 from 1983 to the near present [23]. The ERA5 data are the fifth generation of climate at a
spatial resolution of 0.25° from 1983 to the near present [23]. The ERA5 data
reanalysis datasets produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecastsare the fifth
generation and
(ECMWF), of climate reanalysis
they provide datasets produced
multi-parameter by the
hourly European
data Centreoffor
on the status theMedium-
atmosphere,
Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and they provide multi-parameter hourly data on
land surface, and oceans. The data accessibility of the three rainfall datasets listed above
the status of the atmosphere, land surface, and oceans. The data accessibility of the three
was evaluated using daily values of basic meteorological elements (V3.0) from national
rainfall datasets listed above was evaluated using daily values of basic meteorological el-
surface weather stations of China.
ements (V3.0) from national surface weather stations of China.
3.1.2. Land Use Data
3.1.2. Land Use Data
The land use data utilized in this study were the ESA WorldCover v100, a product of
The land use data utilized in this study were the ESA WorldCover v100, a product of
the European Space Agency (ESA) based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imaging data. This
the European Space Agency (ESA) based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imaging data. This
global land use cover product is part of ESA’s Fifth Earth Observation Envelope Programme
global land use cover product is part of ESA’s Fifth Earth Observation Envelope Pro-
(EOEP-5), with a resolution of 10 m. WorldCover products provide 11 land cover categories,
gramme (EOEP-5), with a resolution of 10 m. WorldCover products provide 11 land cover
and
categories, andhave
the data beenhave
the data independently validated
been independently to obtain
validated an overall
to obtain accuracy
an overall of 75%
accuracy
worldwide. The land use types in the Yanhe River Basin include forestland, shrubland,
of 75% worldwide. The land use types in the Yanhe River Basin include forestland, shrub-
grassland, cultivated
land, grassland, land, building
cultivated land, water
land, building body, body,
land, water wetland, and unused
wetland, land (Figure
and unused land 2),
and the proportion of each land use type is shown in Table 1.
(Figure 2), and the proportion of each land use type is shown in Table 1.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Land
Land use
usetypes
typesininYanhe
YanheRiver
RiverBasin.
Basin.

Table 1. The area and proportions of different land use types in Yanhe River Basin.

Land Use Types Area (km2 ) Proportions

Forestland 1151.02 14.98%
Shrubland 0.0166 0.00%
Grassland 5358.8 69.76%
Cultivated land 528.086 6.87%
Building land 101.481 1.32%
Unused land 535.108 6.97%
Water body 6.9805 0.09%
Wetland 0.0569 0.00%
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 5 of 17

3.1.3. Remote Sensing Data

The surface reflectance remote sensing data products used in this study included
MOD09GA, Landsat 7, Landsat 8, and Sentinel-2 (Table 2). MOD09GA is a surface spectral
reflectance product obtained by the Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS), which provides Bands 1–7, including 500 m surface reflectance values and 1 km
observation and geolocation statistics. Landsat 7 ETM+ (the enhanced thematic Mapper)
data consist of eight bands, bands 1–5 and 7 have a spatial resolution of 30 m, band 6 has
a spatial resolution of 60 m, and band 8 has a spatial resolution of 15 m. The Landsat 8
Operational Land Imager (OLI) data product consists of 9 bands with a spatial resolution
of 30 m, including a panchromatic band of 15 m. Sentinel-2 was launched on 7 March 2017
by the European Space Agency and it provides 13 operating bands ranging from visible to
short-wave infrared wavelengths.

Table 2. Summary of the remote sensing products used in this study.

Datasets Name Period (Day) Resolution (m) Period

MODIS MOD09GA 1 500 2000–2023
Landsat 7 LE07/C02/T1_L2 8 30 1999–2023
Landsat 8 LC08/C02/T1_L2 8 30 2013–2023
Sentinel 2 S2_SR HARMONIZED 5 10 2017–2023

3.2. Technological Procedure

The B-factor of the Yan River Basin was calculated in the GEE cloud computing
environment using Python coding. The specific processing steps were as follows:
(1) The applicability of three gridded daily precipitation datasets CHIRPS, ERA5, and
PERSIANN-CDR in the GEE for the Yan River Basin was assessed against the data
from national meteorological stations. The dataset that demonstrated the highest
suitability was chosen to calculate rainfall erosivity and its proportion.
(2) MOD09GA, Sentinel-2, Landsat 8, and Landsat imagery data were obtained and
preprocessed, and the missing areas in the Sentinel-2 data were then identified.
(3) The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) was computed separately for
each of these four datasets. The missing NDVI data in Sentinel-2 were patched using
NDVI calculated from MOD09GA, Landsat 8, and Landsat 7.
(4) The patched NDVI data were analyzed using the pixel binary method to determine
the average vegetation coverage (FVC) for 24 half-months over three years.
(5) Based on the average FVC of the 24 half-months, the B-factor was assessed by con-
sidering land use types and the proportion of rainfall erosivity factors during this
period (Figure 3).

3.3. Image Processing

MOD09GA, Sentinel-2, Landsat 8, and Landsat 7 data from 2019–2021 were used
to calculate the NDVI in this study. The total number of effective images for the four
products in the Yanhe River Basin was 1096, 749, 133, and 155, respectively, and the missing
data rates were 0%, 5%, 20%, and 27%, with a screening condition of less than 20% cloud
cover (Table 3). Since Sentinel-2 had the highest coverage and resolution in the entire
research region, it was chosen to compute the B-factor in the Yanhe River basin. Due to
the missing data in the 7th and 19th half- months, Sentinel-2 images were patched before
NDVI computing. The NDVI was calculated as follows:

NIR − RED
NDVI = (1)
NIR + RED
where NIR represents the near-infrared band and RED represents the red band of the
respective remote sensing images.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 6 of 18

Google Earth Engine

PERSIAN
ERA5 CHIRPS
N-CDR

Sentinel-2 Landsat8 Landsat7 MOD09GA ESA WorldCover

Data source
China
Meteorological
Station Data V3

Evaluation Comparison Sentinel-2

/NDVI

Trend transfer method

AAR AAER

Landsat8 Landsat7 MOD09GA

Data Processing MYAERD MANDER /NDVI /NDVI /NDVI

MARE WR

forestland shrubland
WRi(ERA5) NDVI FVC SLRi
grassland

Evaluating B

Figure
Figure 3. Flowchart 3. Flowchart
of the of the data
data processing processing
in GEE in GEE environment.
environment.

3.3. Image Processing

Table 3. The missing rate of the four remote sensing datasets in 24 half-months.
MOD09GA, Sentinel-2, Landsat 8, and Landsat 7 data from 2019–2021 were used to
MOD09GA calculate the NDVI in this study. Landsat
Sentinel-2 The total
8 number of effectiveLandsat
images7for the four prod-
ucts in the Yanhe River Basin was 1096, 749, 133, and 155, respectively, and the missing
Half-Month Number of Number of Number of Number of
Available
Missing data rates were
Available
0%, 5%, 20%,
Missing and 27%, with
Available
a screening Available
Missing condition of less than 20% cloud
Missing
Rate cover (Table Rate
3). Since Sentinel-2 had the Rate coverage and resolution Rate
highest in the entire re-
Images Images Images Images
search region, it was chosen to compute the B-factor in the Yanhe River basin. Due to the
1 45 0% 27 0% 6 10% 6 55%
2 48 0% missing
35 data in0%the 7th and 19th
5 half- months,
0% Sentinel-2 images
8 were patched
6% before
3 45 0% NDVI
31 computing.
0% The NDVI was 5 calculated41%
as follows: 9 3%
4 40 0% 18 0% 6 0% 3 46%
NIR − RED
5 45 0% 21 0% 7 NDVI = 9% 9 6% (1)
6 48 0% 32 0% 8 NIR + RED
0% 10 17%
7 45 0% 14
where 56%
NIR represents 3
the near-infrared band1% 2
and RED represents the red92%
band of the re-
8 45 0% 33 0% 8 0% 9 11%
9 45 0%
spective
35
remote sensing
0%
images.
8 0% 9 10%
10 48 0% 43 0% 6 0% 8 2%
11 45 0% 34 0% 8 45% 3 40%
12 45 0% 21 0% 2 81% 1 55%
13 45 0% 33 0% 6 16% 9 0%
14 48 0% 30 0% 2 30% 2 91%
15 45 0% 35 0% 5 6% 5 35%
16 48 0% 33 0% 6 0% 1 90%
17 45 0% 38 0% 6 63% 9 2%
18 45 0% 31 0% 6 3% 7 9%
19 45 0% 9 56% 0 100% 2 48%
20 48 0% 35 0% 2 1% 8 25%
21 45 0% 51 0% 7 62% 9 2%
22 45 0% 27 0% 5 1% 9 1%
23 45 0% 45 0% 6 0% 9 8%
24 48 0% 38 0% 10 0% 8 7%
Total 1096 0% 749 5% 133 20% 155 27%
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 7 of 17

In terms of spatial distribution and time series, Sentinel-2 data were highly consistent
with MOD09GA, Landsat 8, and Landsat 7 data. Therefore, MOD09GA, Landsat 8, and
Landsat 7 remote sensing images were used to patch the missing data in the Sentinel-2
imagery. Figure 4 demonstrates that the average NDVI variance among the four groups of
images had a highly consistent trend throughout the 24 half-monthly time series. It was
found that the correlation of each two groups of data in the time series was above 0.96.
Furthermore, the NDVI values for the four datasets from 2019 to 2021 were synthesized
by the maximum synthesis method, and the correlation of the four datasets was obtained
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
by using the Pearsons correlation function. The heatmap of Pearson correlation coefficient
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
matrix shows that the spatial relationships between Sentinel-2 imagery, Landsat 7, Landsat 8,
and MOD09GA data were fitted, with all correlation coefficients exceeding 0.5 (Figure 5).

Figure4.4.
Figure
Figure Theseasonal
4.The
The seasonalchanges
seasonal changes
changes of
of of NDVI
NDVI values
values
NDVI derived
derived
values fromfrom
derived MOD09GA,
MOD09GA,
from Sentinel-2,
Sentinel-2,
MOD09GA, Landsat
Landsat
Sentinel-2, 8, and8,
Landsat 8, and
and
Landsat
Landsat77image data.
imagedata.

Figure 5. Heatmap of Pearson correlation coefficient matrix.

Figure 5.
Figure Heatmap of
5. Heatmap of Pearson
Pearson correlation
correlation coefficient
coefficient matrix.
matrix.
There are several methods available for data patching, which can be broadly catego-
rized There
into two types.
are The methods
several first type isavailable
spatial interpolation,
fordata which iswhich
datapatching,
patching, useful for
canfilling
be small- cate-
broadly
There are several methods available for which can be broadly catego-
scale missing data,types.
but is The
ineffective for is
large-scale data gaps. The second type isfor
lin-
rized into two types. The first type is spatial interpolation, which is useful for filling filling
gorized into two first type spatial interpolation, which is useful small-
ear/non-linear interpolation
small-scale missing in the
data, but time series. for
is ineffective Linear interpolation
large-scale data methods,
gaps. Thesuch as the
second type is
scale missing data, but is ineffective for large-scale data gaps. The second type is lin-
best index slope extraction (BISE) method [19], use a sliding window approach to identify
ear/non-linear
and interpolation
replace missing values in ainseries.
the time series.determining
However, Linear interpolation
the optimalmethods, suchisas the
window size
challenging, and it has limited applicability in capturing the non-linear pa erns of to
best index slope extraction (BISE) method [19], use a sliding window approach identify
real-
world imagery. Non-linear interpolation methods, such as the Savi ky–Golay (S-G) fil-size is
and replace missing values in a series. However, determining the optimal window
challenging,
tering method, and it has limited
asymmetric Gaussianapplicability
(AG) model in capturing the non-linear
filtering method [24], andpa erns of real-
harmonic
world imagery.
analysis Non-linear
of time series (HANTS) interpolation
method [25],methods,
have more such as thecalculations
complex Savi ky–Golay (S-G) fil-
and often
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 8 of 17

linear/non-linear interpolation in the time series. Linear interpolation methods, such as

the best index slope extraction (BISE) method [19], use a sliding window approach to
identify and replace missing values in a series. However, determining the optimal window
size is challenging, and it has limited applicability in capturing the non-linear patterns of
real-world imagery. Non-linear interpolation methods, such as the Savitzky–Golay (S-G)
filtering method, asymmetric Gaussian (AG) model filtering method [24], and harmonic
analysis of time series (HANTS) method [25], have more complex calculations and often
suffer from overfitting, resulting in data value distortion. Based on these concerns, this
study proposed a trend migration method, a new approach for repairing missing data
based on the rate of change in remote sensing imagery over a time and the surrounding
raster values in the time series of the missing values. The HANTS approach, which is
commonly used for time series analysis, was also utilized for comparative analysis. The
formula of the trend migration is as follows:

Di D
2Si = Si−1 + Si+1 i (2)
Di−1 Di+1

where Si−1 is the value of the Sentinel-2 data in the ith half-month, Di represents the
corresponding values of an alternative dataset (i.e., MOD09GA, Landsat 8, or Landsat 7)
that is in high temporal consistency with Sentinel-2 data in the time series for the same
half-month.
The Sentinel-2 images after data patching were used to calculate the NDVI for each
half-month period from 2019 to 2021, resulting in a total of 24 half-months per year. Based
on NDVI data, the pixel-based binary model was applied to compute the vegetation cover,
and the average vegetation cover for the 24 half-month periods over a period of three years
was then derived. The formula for calculating FVC is as follows:

NDVI − NDVImin
FVC = (3)
NDVImax − NDVImin

where FVC is vegetation coverage (for grassland, shrubland, and forestland). NDVI is
the pixel value of the normalized difference vegetation index; NDVImin and NDVImax are
NDVI values of the pure vegetation cover pixel and the bare soil cover pixel, respectively.

3.4. Calculation of the B-Factor

The B-factor was calculated by combining vegetation cover (FVC) data with the 10 m
resolution land use types and the rainfall erosion factor proportions over one year in 24
half-monthly intervals [26]. Specific formulas were used to calculate the B-factor values
for shrublands, forestland, and grasslands, while the remaining land use classifications
were allocated B-factor values directly based on land use types (Table 4). The annual
average value of the B-factor was estimated based on the sum of soil loss ratio (SLRi ) for
each half-month (1–24) in a year and multiplied by the rainfall erosivity ratio of the same
half-month as a weighting factor [27]. The formula is as follows:

24
B = ∑ SLRi × WRi (4)
i=0

where WRi is the ratio of rainfall erosivity in the ith half-month to annual erosivity, with a
value range of 0–1; SLRi is the soil loss ratio of forestland, shrubland, and grassland in the
ith half-month, dimensionless, with a value range of 0–1.
For forestland, the SLRi is calculated as:

SLRi = 0.44468 × e(−3.20096×GD) − 0.04099 × eFVC− FVC×GD +0.025 (5)

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 9 of 17

Table 4. The B-factor value based on land use classes.

Land Use (Class I)
Cultivated land
Residential, industrial, and
mining lands
Land for transportation
Land for water area and water
conservancy facilities
Other land
Land Use (Class II) B-Factor Value Description
Soil and water conservation benefits
Paddy field 1
reflected by tillage measure factor
Soil and water conservation benefits
Irrigated land 1
reflected by tillage measure factor
Soil and water conservation benefits
Dry land 1
reflected by tillage measure factor
Urban residential lands 0.01 Equivalent to 80% of vegetation cover
Rural residential lands 0.025 Equivalent to 60% of vegetation cover
Independent industrial and
1 Equivalent to no vegetation cover
mining lands
Commercial service and
0.01 Equivalent to 80% of vegetation cover
public lands
Special land use 0.1
0.01 Equivalent to 80% of vegetation cover
Forced to 0, so that the amount of
0
erosion is equal to 0
Saline alkali soil 0 -
Sandy land 0 -
Swamp land 0 -
Bare rock 0 -
Bare soil 1 -
Glaciers and permanent
0 -
snow cover

For shrubland, the SLRi is calculated as:

1
SLRi = (6)
1.17647 + 0.86242 × 1.05905100× FVC
For grassland, the SLRi is calculated as:

1
SLRi = (7)
1.25 + 0.78845 × 1.05968100× FVC
where GD is the understory coverage of the tree forest, with a value range of 0–1, including
the understory coverage of all vegetation (shrubs, herbs, and litter) except for the tree
canopy layer, based on field investigation or expert experience. FVC is vegetation coverage
calculated as in Formula (3).

4. Results
4.1. Applicability of Different Rainfall Datasets in the Yanhe River Basin
Multiple rainfall indices for the Yanhe River Basin from 1986 to 2015 were generated
using three different daily rainfall datasets in the GEE platform (Table 5). The results
reveal that the multi-year mean erosive rainfall, daily erosive rainfall, and rainfall erosivity
estimated from ERA5 dataset are the closest to those from the meteorological stations. The
average annual erosive rainfall measured by meteorological stations was 283 mm, while the
ERA5, GHIRPS, and PERSIANN-CDR datasets measured 288 mm, 332 mm, and 128 mm,
respectively. The absolute errors between the three datasets and the meteorological stations
were 5.17 mm, 49.24 mm, and −154.82 mm, respectively. The average annual rainfall
erosivity calculated by meteorological station data was 1327 MJ mm hm−2 h−1 yr−1 ,
whereas the mean annual rainfall erosivity values of the ERA5, GHIRPS, and PERSIANN-
CDR datasets were 1327, 1876, and 502 MJ mm hm−2 h−1 yr−1 , respectively. The differences
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 10 of 17

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
between them and meteorological stations were −105.23, 549.1, and −825.18 MJ mm hm−2
h−1 yr−1 , respectively.
Table 5. Comparisons of rainfall parameters from the national meteorological stations and the three
Table 5. Comparisons of rainfall parameters from the national meteorological stations and the three
daily rainfall
Table datasets. of rainfall parameters from the national meteorological stations and the three
5. Comparisons
daily rainfall datasets.
daily rainfall datasets. Meteorological
Rainfall Parameters Meteorological ERA5 CHIRPS PERSIANN-CDR
Rainfall Parameters Station ERA5 CHIRPS PERSIANN-CDR
Rainfall Parameters Meteorological Station Station
ERA5 CHIRPS PERSIANN-CDR
Annual average rainfall (mm) 467 570 481 455
Annual average rainfall (mm) Annual average rainfall
467 (mm) 467
570 570 481
481 455 455
Average annual erosive rainfall
Average
Average annual erosive rainfall (mm) annual erosive rainfall 283 288 332 128
(mm) 283 288
283 288 332 332 128 128
Multi-year average erosive rainfall (mm)
Multi-year average erosive 22 rainfall 22 28 20
days (mm day−1 ) Multi-year average erosive rainfall 22 22 28 20
days (mm
Multi-year average number of days of days (mm day−1)day −1) 22 22 28 20
12 of days 13 12 6
erosive rainfall (day)Multi-year average number
Multi-year average number of days 12 13 12 6
of erosive rainfall (day)
Multi-year average rainfall erosivity 12 13 12 6
of erosive rainfall1327
(day) 1222 1876 502
(MJ·mm hm−2 h−1 yr−Multi-year
1)
average rainfall erosivity
Multi-year average−2rainfall erosivity 1327 1222 1876 502
(MJ·mm hm −2 h−1−1 yr−1−1) 1327 1222 1876 502
(MJ·mm hm h yr )
Figure 6 depicts the fluctuation trend of annual average rainfall erosivity estimated
Figure 6 depicts the fluctuation trend of annual average rainfall erosivity estimated
fromFigure
four independent
6 depicts the rainfall
fluctuation datasets.
trend ofThe annual
annual average
average rainfall
rainfall erosivity
erosivity of all four
estimated
from four independent rainfall datasets. The annual average rainfall erosivity of all four
from fourpeak
datasets independent rainfall
in 2013, with thedatasets. The annual
ERA5 dataset havingaverage rainfall
the closest erosivity
peak valueofandall variation
four
datasets peak in 2013, with the ERA5 dataset having the closest peak value and variation
datasets
trend peak in 2013, with the ERA5 dataset having the closest peak
to the meteorological station. The WR change trend of the three datasets and the value and variation
trend to the meteorological station. The WR change trend of the three datasets and the
trend to the meteorological
meteorological dataisstation.
stationdata The WR change
issubstantially
substantially trend of the three datasets andvariation
the
meteorological station thethe same,
same, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 7. variation
7. The The
meteorological
curves ofWRWRbybystation data is
meteorologicalsubstantially
station the same, as shown in Figure 7. The variation
curves of meteorological station data data
and theandERA5
the dataset
ERA5 dataset
create a create
bimodal a dis-
bimodal
curves of WR with
distribution, by meteorological
WR reaching station
peaks data
of and the
16.2% andERA5
16.0%,dataset create a bimodal
respectively, in the dis- and
13th
tribution, with WR reaching peaks of 16.2% and 16.0%, respectively, in the 13th and 16th
tribution,
16th with WR The
half-months. reaching peaks offrom
WR curves 16.2%theand 16.0%, and
CHIRPS respectively, in the 13th datasets
PERSIANN-CDR and 16th
half-months. The WR curves from the CHIRPS and PERSIANN-CDR datasets have a have
half-months.
aunipeak
unipeak The WR
distribution curves from the CHIRPS and PERSIANN-CDR datasets have a
distribution andandpeakpeak at 18.9%
at 18.9% and 18.1%,
and 18.1%, both inboth in the
the 15th 15th half-months.
half-months. The WR The
unipeak
WR distribution and peak at 18.9% and 18.1%, both in the 15th half-months.
station data. WR
The
trendtrend
in theinERA5
the ERA5
datasetdataset is thesimilar
is the most most similar to meteorological
to meteorological station data.
trend in the ERA5 dataset is the most similar to meteorological station data.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Annual
Annualaverage
averagerainfall erosivity
rainfall calculated
erosivity by different
calculated datasets
by different fromfrom
datasets 1986 1986
to 2015.
to 2015.
Figure 6. Annual average rainfall erosivity calculated by different datasets from 1986 to 2015.

Figure 7. WR (the ratio of half-month rainfall erosivity to average annual rainfall erosivity) calcu-
Figure 7. WR
WR (the
(the ratio
ratio of
of half-month
half-month rainfall erosivity to average annual rainfall erosivity) calcu-
Figure
lated by7.different datasets from 1986 to rainfall
2015. erosivity to average annual rainfall erosivity) calculated
lated
by by different
different datasets
datasets fromfrom19861986 to 2015.
to 2015.
 Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 11 of 17

4.2. The NDVI Calculated by Patched Sentinel-2 Images

4.2. The NDVI Calculated by Patched Sentinel-2 Images
The NDVI of the Yanhe River Basin was calculated for 24 half-months using the raw
The NDVI of the Yanhe River Basin was calculated for 24 half-months using the raw
Sentinel-2 images, the Sentinel-2 images with 20% filtered cloud cover, the Sentinel-2 im-
Sentinel-2 images, the Sentinel-2 images with 20% filtered cloud cover, the Sentinel-2 images
ages patched by the HANTS method, and the Sentinel-2 images patched by the trend mi-
patched by the HANTS method, and the Sentinel-2 images patched by the trend migration
gration method (Figure 8). Except for the missing data in the 7th and 19th half-month
method the
periods, (Figure
NDVI 8).variation
Except for the missing
curves generated data
fromin the 7th and 19th
the patched imageshalf-month
essentiallyperiods,
coin- the
NDVI variation curves generated from the patched images essentially
cide with the variation curves of the raw images and the images with 20% filtered cloud coincide with the
variation curves of the raw images and the images with 20% filtered cloud
cover, maximizing the retention of the original data. The NDVI values calculated from the cover, maximizing
the retention
Sentinel-2 of the
images original
patched data.
by the The NDVI
HANTS methodvalues calculated
and raw images frommightthe Sentinel-2
overfit images
and dis-
patched
tort by the
images, HANTS method
particularly in the 4thand
to raw images might
8th half-month overfitresulting
periods, and distort images,
in errors in particularly
time-
in the 4th toremote
series-based 8th half-month periods,
sensing studies, resulting
such in errors
as vegetation in time-series-based
phenology remote to
research. Compared sensing
studies,
the HANTSsuchmethod,
as vegetation phenology
the trend migrationresearch.
method Compared
proposedtointhe HANTS
this study ismethod, the trend
more con-
migration
sistent withmethod proposed
the original data, in
andthis study
more is more
reliable consistent
in patching thewith the original
missing data,
data in the and more
Senti-
reliable
nel-2 in patching the missing data in the Sentinel-2 images.
images.

NDVI
Figure8.8.NDVI
Figure calculated
calculated forfor
24 24 half-months
half-months using
using the raw
the raw Sentinel-2
Sentinel-2 images,
images, the Sentinel-2
the Sentinel-2 imagesimages
with
with 20%
20% filtered
filteredcloud
cloudcover,
cover,the
theSentinel-2
Sentinel-2images
imagespatched
patchedbybythe
theHANTS
HANTS method,
method, and thethe
and Senti-
Sentinel-2
nel-2
imagesimages
patchedpatched bytrend
by the the trend migration
migration method.
method.

The
Thetrend
trendmigration
migrationmethod
method was
wasemployed
employed to patch the missing
to patch NDVINDVI
the missing data from
data from
Sentinel-2 images in the Yanhe River Basin in the 7th and 19th half-months.
Sentinel-2 images in the Yanhe River Basin in the 7th and 19th half-months. TakingTaking the 7th
the 7th
half-month
half-month asas an
an example,
example, when
when using
using raw Sentinel-2 images,
raw Sentinel-2 images, there
there were
were visible
visible cloud
cloud cover
cover and localized
and localized anomalies
anomalies in theinNDVI
the NDVI images
images (Figure
(Figure 9a). 9a).
When When using
using the the Sentinel-
Sentinel-2 images
2 images with 20% filtered cloud cover, the missing rate of NDVI images reached 56%
with 20% filtered cloud cover, the missing rate of NDVI images reached 56% (Figure 9b). By
(Figure 9b). By using the trend migration method, the missing parts were patched by
using the trend migration method, the missing parts were patched by MOD09GA, Landsat 7,
MOD09GA, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 images in the 7th half-month, the calculated NDVI
and Landsat 8 images in the 7th half-month, the calculated NDVI image was more coordinated
image was more coordinated overall, and the average NDVI values in the Yanhe River
overall, and the average NDVI values in the Yanhe River Basin changed from 0.22 before
Basin changed from 0.22 before image patching to 0.23 after image patching (Figure 9c,d).
image patching to 0.23 after image patching (Figure 9c,d). Similarly, the average NDVI values
Similarly, the average NDVI values changed from 0.51 to 0.53 in the 19th half-month after
changed
image from 0.51
patching to 0.53
(Figure in the 19th half-month after image patching (Figure 9e,f).
9e,f).
Figure 10 displays the results of the NDVI calculated using Sentinel-2 images, MOD09GA
images, Landsat 7 images, and Landsat 8 images. It reveals that the NDVI calculated from the
patched Sentinel-2 data not only exhibited higher data integrity, but also possessed the finest
resolution (10 m) showing more details in vegetation patterns and distribution.
Remote
RemoteSens.
Sens.2024,
2024, 16,
16, x847
FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
12 of 17

Figure 9.
Figure NDVIgenerated
9. NDVI generated using
using (a)
(a) the
the raw
raw Sentinel-2
Sentinel-2 images
imagesin inthe
the7th
7thhalf-month,
half-month,(b) (b)the
theSentinel-2
Sentinel-
2images
imageswithwithclouds
cloudsfiltered
filteredininthe
the7th
7thhalf-month,
half-month, (c)
(c) the
the missing
missing parts patched by MOD09GA,
MOD09GA,
Landsat
Landsat 7, and Landsat
Landsat 88images
imagesininthe
the7th
7thhalf-month,
half-month,(d)(d)
thethe Sentinel-2
Sentinel-2 images
images after
after patching
patching in
in the
the
7th7th half-month,
half-month, (e) the
(e) the rawraw Sentinel-2
Sentinel-2 images
images in the
in the 19th19th half-month,
half-month, andand (f) Sentinel-2
(f) the the Sentinel-2 im-
images
ages
afterafter patching
patching in thein19th
the 19th half-month.
half-month.

4.3. Assessment
Figure 10 of Vegetation
displays theCover and of
results Biological Measures’
the NDVI B-Factor
calculated using Sentinel-2 images,
MOD09GA images, Landsat 7 images, and Landsat 8 images.
The patched Sentinel-2 images were used to produce the FVC It reveals that resolution
at a spatial the NDVI
calculated
of 10 m forfrom the
all 24 patched Sentinel-2
half-monthly periodsdata
of a not
yearonly exhibited
(Figure higher
11). The data value
average integrity, but
of FVC
also possessed
increases thethen
first and finest resolution
declines (10 m)
with time, showingtomore
according detailstrend.
the shifting in vegetation pa FVC
The average erns
wasdistribution.
and less than 0.1 before the 7th half-month (early spring), while it increased dramatically
after the 8th half-month (spring), and peaked at 0.8 in the 16th half-month (early August).
Following that, the mean value of FVC progressively decreased, eventually going below
0.1 at the 24th half-month (December).
 Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 13 of 17 14

Figure 10. Details Figure

of NDVI 10.calculated
Details of NDVI
in the calculated
Yanhe Riverin the Yanhe
Basin. (a) River Basin. (a)
The selected The selected
rectangular rectangular reg
region,
(b) the Google map (b)ofthe
theGoogle map
selected of the(c)
region, selected
NDVIregion, (c) NDVI
calculated from calculated
Sentinel-2,from Sentinel-2,
(d) NDVI (d) NDVI calcul
calculated
from MOD09GA, from MOD09GA,
(e) NDVI (e) NDVI
calculated calculated
from Landsat 7, from Landsat
and (f) NDVI7,calculated
and (f) NDVIfromcalculated
MODIS. The from MODIS.
colors in the (c–f) figures represent the size of NDVI value, and the areas with green color
colors in the (c–f) figures represent the size of NDVI value, and the areas with green color have larger
larger NDVI value.
NDVI value.
4.3. Assessment of Vegetation Cover and Biological Measures’ B-Factor
The SLR was calculated based on FVC, and WR was calculated based on ERA5 data
over a 24 half-monthly Theperiod
patchedonSentinel-2
the GEE images were
platform. used
We thento calculated
produce thethe
FVC at a spatial
B-factor of resolu
of 10 m for all 24 half-monthly periods of a year (Figure 11). The average value of F
the Yanhe River Basin based on Equation (4), combined with land use types. Figure 12
increases
depicts the spatial first and
distribution then
of the declines
B-factor in with time, River
the Yanhe according toin
Basin the shifting
2020. Excepttrend.
for The ave
FVC was less than 0.1 before the 7th half-month (early spring), while it increased dram
the agricultural land with a value of 1, high-value areas of the B-factor in the basin were
ically after the 8th half-month (spring), and peaked at 0.8 in the 16th half-month (e
concentrated along the river system due to human activities and the proximity of urban
August). Following that, the mean value of FVC progressively decreased, eventually
centers to water bodies, resulting in relatively low vegetation covering. Furthermore, in
ing below 0.1 at the 24th half-month (December).
addition to places near water bodies, some high-value B-factor areas could be found in
the northwest of the Yanhe River Basin, which was characterized by low-coverage grass-
land with weak development and sparse vegetation coverage, resulting in relatively high
B-factor values. Low-value B-factor habitats, on the other hand, were mostly found in the
forests and grasslands with high vegetation cover.
Remote Sens.
Remote Sens. 2024,16,
2024, 16,847
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
14 of 17

Figure 11. Mean 24 half-monthly FVC values from 2019 to 2021 in the Yanhe River Basin from Jan-
uary to December. Each subfigure represents the mean half month FVC.

The SLR was calculated based on FVC, and WR was calculated based on ERA5 data
over a 24 half-monthly period on the GEE platform. We then calculated the B-factor of the
Yanhe River Basin based on Equation (4), combined with land use types. Figure 12 depicts
the spatial distribution of the B-factor in the Yanhe River Basin in 2020. Except for the
agricultural land with a value of 1, high-value areas of the B-factor in the basin were con-
centrated along the river system due to human activities and the proximity of urban cen-
ters to water bodies, resulting in relatively low vegetation covering. Furthermore, in ad-
dition to places near water bodies, some high-value B-factor areas could be found in the
northwest of the Yanhe River Basin, which was characterized by low-coverage grassland
with weak development and sparse vegetation coverage, resulting in relatively high B-
Figure
Figure 11.
factor11. Mean 24
values.
Mean 24 half-monthly
Low-value FVCvalues
values
B-factor
half-monthly FVC from2019
habitats,
from 2019
ontoto
the2021ininthe
other
2021 the YanheRiver
hand,
Yanhe River
were Basin
mostly
Basin from
from January
found
Jan- in the
to December.
uary Each
to December.
forests subfigure represents
Each subfigure
and grasslands the
with represents mean half month
the meancover.
high vegetation FVC.
half month FVC.

The SLR was calculated based on FVC, and WR was calculated based on ERA5 data
over a 24 half-monthly period on the GEE platform. We then calculated the B-factor of the
Yanhe River Basin based on Equation (4), combined with land use types. Figure 12 depicts
the spatial distribution of the B-factor in the Yanhe River Basin in 2020. Except for the
agricultural land with a value of 1, high-value areas of the B-factor in the basin were con-
centrated along the river system due to human activities and the proximity of urban cen-
ters to water bodies, resulting in relatively low vegetation covering. Furthermore, in ad-
dition to places near water bodies, some high-value B-factor areas could be found in the
northwest of the Yanhe River Basin, which was characterized by low-coverage grassland
with weak development and sparse vegetation coverage, resulting in relatively high B-
factor values. Low-value B-factor habitats, on the other hand, were mostly found in the
forests and grasslands with high vegetation cover.

Figure12.
Figure 12.Spatial
Spatialdistribution
distributionofof B-factor
B-factor in in
thethe Yanhe
Yanhe River
River Basin.
Basin.

5. Discussion
5.1. Applicability of Different Rainfall Datasets in the Yanhe River Basin
When comparing the performance of the three datasets, PERSIANN-CDR exceeded
the other two in average annual rainfall, but fell shorts in terms of the other parameters. The
CHIRPS dataset overestimated values for average annual erosive rainfall, average erosive
rainfall days, and average rainfall erosion force calculation, and had poor consistency
with data from meteorological stations in terms of WR. Although the resolution of the
ERA5 dataset was not the highest, it demonstrated extremely high consistency with the
meteorological
Figure 12. Spatialstation dataofinB-factor
distribution terms of average
in the Yanheerosive rainfall, average erosive rainfall days,
River Basin.
average erosive rainfall duration, average rainfall erosion force, and WR trends. Therefore,
the ERA5 dataset was chosen and utilized as the alternative to meteorological station data
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 15 of 17

to calculate and map the B-factor in the CSLE model. In addition, ERA5 datasets are under
continuous development with improvements in accuracy and spatiotemporal resolutions.
Many applications require rainfall erosivity to be estimated on an event basis or in
near real time, such as post-fire erosion monitoring and sediment delivery at storm events.
Weather radar rainfall data have high spatial (1 km) and temporal (10 min) resolutions with
great potential for these near real time applications [12]. Our further study will explore
the weather radar data and the application in event-based rainfall erosivity and sediment
delivery estimation.

5.2. The NDVI and B-Factor Calculated Using Patched Sentinel-2 Images
Compared with the NDVI derived from MOD09GA images, Landsat 7 images, and
Landsat 8 images, the NDVI derived from Sentinel-2 images not only had the highest spatial
resolution but also the highest consistency. This demonstrates that Sentinel-2 images can
be successfully used to estimate the NDVI and, subsequently, the B-factor for vegetation
monitoring and erosion modeling.
The trend migration method was employed to patch the missing NDVI data from
Sentinel-2 images in the Yanhe River Basin in the 7th and 19th half-months. The results
imply that the method proposed in this study for patching Sentinel-2 images was simple,
reliable, and highly useful. The patched Sentinel-2 images were compatible with the 10 m
resolution land use data, which improved the accuracy of B-factor calculations from the
regional to the spot level.
Though the satellite-derived NDVI is commonly used to estimate FVC and the cover
and management factor (B-factor in CSLE or C-factor in RUSLE), it has several limita-
tions. First, the NDVI is a green vegetation (or PV) index, it does not reflect non-green
vegetation (or NPV); however, total vegetation cover (PV and NPV) is required in erosion
modeling. Second, remotely sensed vegetation cover is canopy cover, not the surface
cover or understory cover as required in erosion modeling. Though remote sensing has
been successfully applied to derive overstory FVC [28], it remains a research challenge
to extract understory FVC due to the complex environment within the forest ecosystem.
Further studies on FVC and the B-factor may consider the applications of light detection
and ranging (LiDAR) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to quantify both overstory and
understory vegetation cover.

5.3. Assessment of Vegetation Cover and Biological Measures’ B-Factor

The average B-factor value in the entire Yanhe River Basin in 2020 was 0.19, which was
slightly lower than the 0.22 average in the Loess hilly–gully region in 2017 and 0.38 in 2010,
calculated by Huang [29]. The Yanhe River Basin had relatively high overall vegetation
coverage, with increasing trends in woods and grasslands and a continuous decrease in the
cultivated land area, which had decreased by about 25% between 2010 and 2020 [30]. The
improvement of vegetation structure and changes in land use types have both contributed
to the overall declining trend of the B-factor. Compared to previous studies, our projected
average B-factor value in this study appears more consistent and appropriate.
The CSLE B-factor is compatible to the RUSLE C-factor, as both are defined and
calculated in essentially the same way. It is possible that the RUSLE C-factor could be
replaced by the CSLE B-factor or vice versa with some simple adjustments. With such
compatibility, the CSLE is potentially applicable worldwide, along with the widely used
USLE or RUSLE model.

6. Conclusions
The applicability of ERA5, CHIRPS, and PERSIANN-CDR daily rainfall data in the
Yanhe River Basin was evaluated using the precipitation data from national meteorological
stations for the period 1985 to 2015 in the GEE. The missing NDVI data in Sentinel-2
images were patched by incorporating MOD09GA, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 images. An
automated process was developed using Python codes for rainfall data assessment, image
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 16 of 17

patching and processing, as well as FVC, WR, and SLR calculation, thereby enabling the
assessment and mapping of the B-factor in the GEE cloud computing environment. We can
draw the following conclusions from this study:
(1) The ERA5 precipitation dataset exhibited strong agreement with meteorological sta-
tion data across various metrics including average erosive rainfall, average erosive
rainfall intensity, average rainfall erosivity, and WR over multiple years. It demon-
strated better suitability for the Yanhe River Basin compared to the CHIRPS and
PERSIANN-CDR datasets, making it a viable alternative for calculating rainfall ero-
sivity in the absence of meteorological station data.
(2) This study proposed a new and simple method, the trend migration method, for
patching missing Sentinel-2 data based on the rate of change of the image in time.
Sentinel-2 modified by the trend migration approach outperformed the HANTS
method in terms of data authenticity. The restored high-resolution Sentinel-2 data
fit nicely with the 10 m resolution land use data, enhancing the B-factor calculation
accuracy from the regional to the spot level.
(3) In the GEE environment, we developed a fully automated B-factor calculation proce-
dure, and the B-factor was assessed and mapped efficiently based on rainfall erosivity,
soil loss rate, vegetation covering, and land use types in the Yanhe River Basin. The
computation procedure is broadly applicable and can be extended to various river
basins as well as wider regional scales, which provides data and technical support for
regional soil erosion monitoring.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.S.; formal analysis, Y.W. and H.S.; funding acquisition,
H.S. and X.Y.; methodology, X.Y., Y.W. and H.S.; data curation, Y.W.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, Y.W. and H.S.; writing—review and editing, X.Y., H.S. and Y.W. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the CAS “light of West China” program (XAB2020YN04),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41501055), and the High-end Foreign Experts
Recruitment Plan of China (G2022172016L).
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: We appreciate the assistance of the Google Earth Engine platform and its
creators. We acknowledge the journal editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
criticisms and outstanding work on this research. We also acknowledge data support from “Loess
plateau science data center, National Earth System Science Data Sharing Infrastructure, National
Science & Technology Infrastructure of China (http://loess.geodata.cn)”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Leng, S.Y.; Feng, R.G.; Li, R. Key Research Issues of Soil Erosion and Conservation in China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 18, 1–6.
2. Shi, P.J.; Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, K.L.; Jin, Z. Soil Erosion Process and Model Studies. Resour. Sci. 1999, 21, 9–18.
3. Li, Z.; Zhu, B.; Li, P. Advancement in Study on Soil Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation. Acta Pedol. 2008, 45, 802–809.
4. Cai, Q.; Liu, J. Evolution of Soil Erosion Models in China. Prog. Geogr. 2003, 22, 242–250.
5. Fu, B.; Liu, Y.; Lü, Y.; He, C.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, B. Assessing the Soil Erosion Control Service of Ecosystems Change in the Loess
Plateau of China. Ecol. Complex. 2011, 8, 284–293. [CrossRef]
6. Lin, J.; Guan, Q.; Tian, J.; Wang, Q.; Tan, Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, N. Assessing Temporal Trends of Soil Erosion and Sediment
Redistribution in the Hexi Corridor Region Using the Integrated RUSLE-TLSD Model. CATENA 2020, 195, 104756. [CrossRef]
7. Liu, B.; Zhang, K.; Xie, Y. An Empirical Soil Loss Equation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organization
Conference, Beijing, China, 26 May 2002; pp. 26–31.
8. Shi, W.; Huang, M.; Barbour, S.L. Storm-Based CSLE That Incorporates the Estimated Runoff for Soil Loss Prediction on the
Chinese Loess Plateau. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 180, 137–147. [CrossRef]
9. Ayalew, D.A.; Deumlich, D.; Šarapatka, B.; Doktor, D. Quantifying the Sensitivity of NDVI-Based C Factor Estimation and
Potential Soil Erosion Prediction using Spaceborne Earth Observation Data. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1136. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 847 17 of 17

10. Biddoccu, M.; Guzman, G.; Capello, G.; Thielke, T.; Strauss, P.; Winter, S.; Zaller, J.G.; Nicolai, A.; Cluzeau, D.; Popescu, D.; et al.
Evaluation of soil erosion risk and identification of soil cover and management factor (C) for RUSLE in European vineyards with
different soil management. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2020, 8, 337–353. [CrossRef]
11. Pinson, A.O.; AuBuchon, J.S. A new method for calculating C factor when projecting future soil loss using the Revised Universal
soil loss equation (RUSLE) in semi-arid environments. CATENA 2023, 226, 107067. [CrossRef]
12. Yin, S.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, L.; Liu, B.; Xie, Y.; Wang, G.; Li, Y. Regional Soil Erosion Assessment Based on a Sample Survey and
Geostatistics. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 1695–1712. [CrossRef]
13. Xu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhao, Z. Confidence Analysis of NCEP/NCAR 50-Year Global Reanalyzed Data in Climate Change Research in
China. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2001, 12, 337–347. (In Chinese)
14. Zhao, T.; Ai, L.; Feng, J.M. An Intercomparison between NCEP Reanalysis and Observed Data over China. Clim. Environ. Res.
2004, 9, 278–294. (In Chinese)
15. Wang, Z.; Zhong, R.; Chen, J.; Huang, W. Evaluation of Drought Utility Assessment of TMPA Satellite-Remote-Sensing-Based
Precipitation Product in Mainland China. CSAE 2017, 33, 163–170. (In Chinese)
16. Cai, Y.; Jin, C.; Wang, A.; Guan, D.; Wu, J.; Yuan, F.; Xu, L. Comprehensive Precipitation Evaluation of TRMM 3B42 with Dense
Rain Gauge Networks in a Mid-Latitude Basin, Northeast, China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2016, 126, 659–671. [CrossRef]
17. Liu, H.; Zhang, M.; Lin, Z.; Xu, X. Spatial Heterogeneity of the Relationship between Vegetation Dynamics and Climate Change
and Their Driving Forces at Multiple Time Scales in Southwest China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 256–257, 10–21. [CrossRef]
18. Li, M.; Zhang, Y. Temporal and spatial variation characteristics and influencing factors of vegetation cover in the middle Yellow
River Basin. J. Guizhou Norm. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2023, 41, 10–20. (In Chinese)
19. Jiang, W.; Yuan, L.; Wang, W.; Cao, R.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, W. Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Vegetation Variation in the Yellow River
Basin. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 51, 117–126. [CrossRef]
20. Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-Scale Geospatial
Analysis for Everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, B. Remotely Sensed Big Data Era and Intelligent Information Extraction. Geomat. Inf. Sci. Wuhan Univ. 2018, 43, 1861–1871.
(In Chinese)
22. Wen, Z.; Jiao, F.; Jiao, J. Prediction and mapping of potential vegetation distribution in Yanhe River catchment in hilly area of
Loess Plateau. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 19, 1897–1904. (In Chinese)
23. Ashouri, H.; Hsu, K.; Sorooshian, S.; Braithwaite, D.; Knapp, K.; Cecil, L.; Nelson, B.; Prat, O.P. PERSIANN-CDR: Daily
Precipitation Climate Data Record from Multisatellite Observations for Hydrological and Climate Studies. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
2015, 96, 69–83. [CrossRef]
24. Roerink, G.J.; Menenti, M.; Verhoef, W. Reconstructing Cloudfree NDVI Composites Using Fourier Analysis of Time Series. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 2000, 21, 1911–1917. [CrossRef]
25. Zhou, J.; Jia, L.; Menenti, M. Reconstruction of Global MODIS NDVI Time Series: Performance of Harmonic ANalysis of Time
Series (HANTS). Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 163, 217–228. [CrossRef]
26. Liu, B.Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, Z.Y.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, W.B.; Fu, S.H.; Yin, S.Q.; Wei, X.; Zhang, K.L.; Wang, Z.Q.; et al. The assessment of soil
loss by water erosion in China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2020, 8, 430–439. [CrossRef]
27. Yang, X.; Zhu, Q.; Tulan, M.; McInnes-Clarke, S.; Sun, L.; Zhang, X.P. Near real-time monitoring of post-fire erosion after storm
events: A case study in Warrumbungle National Park, Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2018, 27, 413–422. [CrossRef]
28. Guerschman, J.P.; Hill, M.J.; Renzullo, L.J.; Barrett, D.J.; Marks, A.S.; Botha, E.J. Estimating fractional cover of photosynthetic
vegetation, non-photosynthetic vegetation and bare soil in the Australian tropical savanna region upscaling the EO-1 Hyperion
and MODIS sensors. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 928–945. [CrossRef]
29. Huang, C. Study on the Spatiotemporal Variation of Soil Erosion in the Loess Plateau over the Past 40 Years and Its Controlling
Factors. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest University, Kirkland, WA, USA, 2021. (In Chinese).
30. Yang, S.; Quan, Q.; Xu, J.; Zhang, F.; Liu, T. Water Conservation Function in the Process of Land Use Change in Yanhe River Basin.
Soil Water Conserv. Chin. 2022, 33–36. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.