See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51992600

Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk with RUSLE

and Geoinformation Technology in the
Northern Part of Shaanxi Province, China
Article in Journal of China University of Geosciences June 2004
Impact Factor: 0.7

CITATION

READS

33

1 author:
Ayad Mohammed Fadhil
Salahaddin University-Erbil, Iraqi Kurdis
20 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ayad Mohammed Fadhil

Retrieved on: 12 July 2016

Journalof ChinaUniversityof Geosciences,Vol.lS, Suppl,, p.37-Sg,

Printed in China

ISSN 1002- 0705

June2004

of Soil Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and

Geoinformation Technology for North

Assessment

Shaanxi Province, China

Ayad Mohammed Fadhil AFeuraishi

Faculty of Earth Resources , China (Jniversity of Geosciences , Wuhan

43007 4,

China

ABSTRACT' A soil erosion risk map was developed for Yulin, North Shaanxi province, China, using the re(RUSLE) and geoinformation technolog, i. e. remote sensing (RS) geo_
,
graphical information system (GIS) and global positioning system (GPS). Spatially modeling soil
erosion in
the GIS required generating representative raster layers based on secondary data for the following pararneters;
rainfall erosivity, slope length,/gradient, soil erodibility and conservation practices. Landsat TM imagery for
the year 1999 was utilized to produce land use/cover maps of the study area based on the maximum likelihood
classification method. These maps were then used to generate the conservation practice factor in the RUSLE.
vised universal soil loss equation

The analysis was performed using IDRISI32, a raster based GIS software, which is used to interactively calcurisk. Results showed that 2 202.7 km'? has very slight soil erosion, and

late soil loss and map erosion

I 004.4 km' has slight soil erosion. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of geoinformation technology
for generating soil risk maps.
KEY woRDs: soil erosion assessment, RUSLE, geoinformation technology, yulin, china.

INTRODUCTION
currently affected by desertification. Desertification
Desertification is one of the major environmental caused by water erosion accounts f.or 47 ,9 % , wind
issues around the world. It is estimated that about erosion for 43. 6 % and salinization for B. 5 %. Anone sixth of the worlds population and one quarter o{ other 4. 7 million hectares are potentially susceptible
the global terrestrial land are threatened by desertifi- to desertification.
cation (UNCED, 1994).
Soil erosion is a naturally occurring process on
China suffers many kinds of soil erosion and de- all land and it is a normal geologic process associated
sertification (Zhu et al. , 1999; Yang, 1994). It is a with the hydrologic cycle. The agents.of soil erosion
developing country with the largest population in the are water and wind, each contributing a significant
world over 1. 3 billion and it is also one of the coun- amount of soil loss each year (Strahler, 1971). Soil
tries affected most seriously by desertification. The erosion is one of the most serious environmental
affected area is about 3.317X106 km2, accounting for problems where it removes soils rich in nutrient's, in34.6 %, approximately one third of the nations land creases natural level of sedimentation in the river and
area with around 400 million _p-eople being under the causes flash flood at the construction area. Most of
threat of desertificatio;r. Desertification is widely dis- the soil erosion studies done by other researchers
tributed in arid, seariarid and dry subhumid areas of were based on the universal soil loss equation
the Northwest China, North China and the western (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 7978) as a method
part of Northeast China (CCICCD, 1gg6). Desertifi- to predict soil loss. The revised universal
soil loss
cation is a serious problem in China. It is estimated equation (RUSLE) is an upgrade of the universal
soil
that about 76. 6 X 106 ha or 8 % of the total area are loss equation (USLE), which takes into account
sev-

eral factors that include rainfall, soil erodibility,

Manuscript received October 'J,2, 2003,
Manuscript accepted March 5, 2004.

slope and land cover and erosion control practice for

soil erosion prediction. RUSLE is an easily and wide-

2'

Ayad Mohammed Fadhil Al-Quraishi

ly

used computer program that estimates rates of soil

erosion caused by rainfall and associated overland
flow.
Spatial information science and geoinformation
technology, including remote sensing (RS), geographic information system (GIS) and global positioning system (GPS) technology, have been widely applied to soil erosion monitoring and surveying since
the 1980s. (Al-Quraishi, 2003; Feng et al. , 1998;
Yang and Li, 1998). The use of new technology and
science developments such as geoinformation technology has made it possible to approach the study of soil
erosion. The potential use of RS provides a crude estimate of vegetation health and a means of computing
RUSLE-C factor. GIS is a powerful set of tools for
collecting, storing and retrievingr transforming, and
displaying spatial geographic data from the real world
for specific analysis and inquiry. GPS can provide
high accuracy groundtruth data for trainingsite regions.

The objective of this study is to predict soil erosion (water erosion) by application of the geoinformation technology and RUSLE model, and to assess
the soil erosion risk in the year of 19g9 in yulin,
North Shaanxi Province, China.
STUDY AREA

Yulin lies in the North Shaanxi province and is

comprised of 12 administrative counties. The total
land area is 43 000. 1 km2. The prefecture extends
between latitude 36' 57'N to 39" 34,N and longitude

Maowusu

(Musu) desert
Inner
Mongolia

i'

Shaanxi

Shanxi

Gansu

"."rg.-.

t.^
o
Hwbi '"'r.

lo8'E
Figure

l.

Ganquan (

0
".__j:50km

Location map of study area.

various approaches can be adopted. Soil erosion risk

can also be assessed using a modelbased approach.
The universal soil loss equation ( USLE ) ( Wischmeier and Smith, 1978) is the most frequently used
empirical erosion model worldwide. For example,

Jager (1994) used the empirical universal soil loss

equation (USLE) to assess soil erosion risk in Baden

Wiirttemberg, Germany.
More recently, the USLE has been replaced as
the tool for conservation planning by the RUSLE; it
I07" 28'E to 111" 15'E. Almost g0 % of its 3 million is an"upgrade" of the universal soil loss equation
inhabitants are engaged in agriculture. The area con- (USLE). RUSLE is a computerized model and it is
stitutes a fragile transition zone from semiarid to arid possible to evaluate conditions not possible with the
desertlike conditions. It lies in the southern edge of universal soil loss equation(USlE) (Renard et al. ,
Musu desert and belongs to the northeastern part of 7997).
the famous loess plateau. Using the Great Wall as a
RUSLE has the same formula as USLE, but has
line of demarcation, the northern part of Yulin is several improvements in determining factors. RUwindy and sandy grassland and the southern part is SLE can be used on crop lands, pasture lands, land
the loess hill area. The wind and water erosion, soil fills, mining sites, reclaimed site military training
degradation and desertification are very serious in this lands, parks, land deposal of waste, disturbed forest
lands, construction sites, and other areas where surregion, due to its fragile ecological environment.
The selected area is 3 379.3 kmz. It extends be- face overland flow occurs because rainfall is greater
tween latitude 37" 59' N to 38" 20' N and longitude than infiltration (refers to this research area). The
109'41'E to 110" 41'E. Figure 1 shows the location revised universal soil loss equation ( RUSLE ) was
used as a modeling instrument and a main reference
of the study area.
to estimate soil erosion risk in this research work.
There are five major factors considered: climate
METHODOLOGY
(rainfall)r
soile topography and/or relief, land cover
Assessing Soil Erosion Risk
For assessing soil erosion risk in the study area, (vegetation) and human impacts,/conservation prac-

Assessment o{ Soil Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and Geoinformation Technology

JJ

tice. The estimation of soil erosion by water using is conservation practice factor (unitless).
Application of the RUSLE in the northern part
RUSLE equation is defined as follows
of Shaanxi Province affords the following advantaA: K xRxLSxCxP
(t
ges: it is fairly simple to apply and it is compatible
where A is computed annual soil loss per unit area
. ha-t . a-'); K is dimensional soil erodibility {actor with RS and GIS. It is one of the least data deman( (t. ha ' . a-')/((MJ. ha ') . (mm. ha-'))); R ding erosion model that has been developed' and it
is dimensional rainfall-runoff erosivity factor ((MJ ' has been applied widely at different scales. It also reha-t) . (mm . ha-t )); LS is slope factors (unit- presents a standardized approach. The general flow
less) ; C is cropping management factor (unitless) ; P chart of RUSLE application is presented in Fig. 2.

map using RS md GPS

lmd covers md
mmgement C
factor

["tr";.'"*;l
Figure

2.

General flow chart of R USLE model using geoinformation technology.

Materials, Equipnents, Hardware and Software

The following materials and equipments were
used {or research implementation: topographic map
at scale I . 250 000 (hard and soft cop!) r DEM {or
the study area with resolution (30 m) to calculate
slope factors (LS), mosaic of two Landsat-S TM imagery datasets with bands of I to 7 (Pathz 727 ;
Rows: 33 and 34, {or the year 1999). Software for
image and data processing; ErMapper, Erdas, Idrisi32 GIS, ArclView and USLE2D. Hardware, PC
Pentium 4, Scanner and GPS receiver ( Garmin12xLC).
Determining RUSLE Factor Values

Derivation of the factors required by RUSLE is

well documented in the literature ( Renard et al. ,
1997; Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). However, the
recent advent of geoinformation technology has enabled more accurate estimations of some RUSLE factors, specifically those of slope length and steepness
(Nearing, 1997; Desmet and Govers, 1996). As-

signed RUSLE factor values are discussed below.

Rainfall-Runoff Erosivity Factor (R)

Table 1 shows R and P values of the study area
and its neighboring areas. The rainfall-runoff erosivity factor (R) refers to climate (rainfall) factor. The
agents for the erosion are raindrops and flowirlg water. Raindropr rain splash or splash erosion are the
process of erosion on barren soil surfaces. The rainfall erosivity, in addition to detaching primary particles, energy from rainfall on unprotected soil sur{ace
enhances erosion by, (t) breaking down aggregated
particles making the material easier to transport; (2)
promoting surface seals that reduce infiltration and
therefore increase runoff ; (3)moving particles down
slope or directly into rills by splash; (4) promoting
turbulence in runoff that increases transport capacity.
Rainfall data were collected from four meteorological stations in the region for the year of 1999.
The estimation of annual rainfall erosivity was done
using the regional ( statistical ) regression indices

Ayad Mohammed Fadhil Al-Quraishi

34

(modified Fournier equation). The rainfall database face and produce high rates of runoff. Values of K
was obtained from the Yulin Meteorological O{{ice {or these soils tend to be greater than 0' 4.
The soil erodibility factor was estimated using
that include the rainfall data for 1999. Rainfall eros(
ivity was determined by using Rrain formula (Ma et the following equations of Renard et al. 1997 ) '
which is
aL. , 2002).
T2
K:7.594 x [0. oo3 4+0. 040 5 x exp (-I/2
R,"" : 14.17 x >Q?/P))-752
(1)
i:1
log D,+1.659/0.710 l)'z)l
where P; is month i average rainfall (mm); P is anQ)
Dr:exp [0. of " sum (.f, - ln m,)1
(mm);
approxirepresents
R".'
nual average rainfall
where K is soil erodibility factor( t ' ha ' h ' ha-t '
mate annual average R rainfall erosivity factor value.
MJ-t 'mm-l); D, is mean geometric particle diameter (mm) ; -f, is primary particle size lraction (%) ;
Table L R and P values for study area and its
m, arithmetic mean of the particle size limits of that
neighboring areas
size (mm).
rainfall
annual rairr erosrvltv
Information on surface texture was derived from
meteorologivear
fall P/mm
cal stations
the 1 : 300 000 soil map of Yulin and from the soil
'
lactor X,""
report for Yulin (Wang and Yang, 1996). In order
93.855 76
289. L
1 999
Yulin
t'repreto estimate D* value for each texture class,
57.101 98
237 .3
1999
Hengshan
sentative" percentages of clay, silt and sand were es56.637 06
268. 3
199I
Mizhi
timated {or each class based on the class descriptions'
45.562 88
2t0.2
1999
Jingbian
The erodibility {actor (K factor) was estimated using
equation (1). Figure 3 shows the soil erodibility facTable 2 Categories of soil erosion in Yulin and
tor (RUSLE-K factor) for the study area, while Tatheir resPective areas
are^f percentagef ble 2 shows the values for the K factor values, soil
soil erosion loss/
No. legend
(t. km-z . a-r) km'z
types and its properties for the study area.
%
2 202.7L 65.184
<200
1 very slight
1 004.48 29.725
Slope Length and Slope Steepness Factors (LS)
200-2 540
2 slight
133.09 3. 938
The slope factors (LS) refer to topographic and/
2 500-5 000
3 medium
0.898
30.33
5 000-8 000
or relie{ factors. In the computation of the LS fac4 severe
7.89 0.233
8 000-15 000
tors, the topographic factors, L and S {actors are
5 very severe
0.022
0.73
000
6 extremely severe >15
usually considered together. The slope length factor
L computes the e{{ect of slope length on erosion and
(K)
the slope steepness factor S, and also computes the
Soil Erodibility Factor
The soil erodibility factor (K) refers to soil and effect of slope steepness on erosion.
To describe the influence of slope steepness, Liu
geologic parent material factor. Soil erodibility factor
K represents both susceptibility of soil to erosion and et al. (1994) researched steep slopes data from China. Based on synthesizing the results presented by
the rate of runoff.
Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates Liu et al. (1994) and Nearing (1997), a single con(permeable), higher levels of organic matter and im- tinuous function for S is Produced
proved soil structure have a greater resistance to ero1. 5 +
s
sion. Soils high in clay have low K values, because
(degree).
they are resistant to detachment. Coarse textured where d is the slope angle
Slope length is defined as the horizontal distance
soilsr such as sandy soils also have low K values, beflow to the point where
cause of low runoff even though these soils are easily from the origin of overland
to a point where
detachable. Medium textured soils, such as silty either the slope gradient decreases
focused into a
loam soils, have a moderate K values, because they deposition begins, or runoff becomes
(Renard
Wischmeier
1997;
et
al.
,
are moderately susceptible to detachment and they defined channel
produce moderate runoff. Soils having high silt con- and Smith, 1978).
To model upslope drainage area, the steepest detent are most erodible of all soils. They cause a de(single flow), multiple flow algocrease in infiltration and can also be caused for a for- scent algorithm
(Quinn
et al. , 1991) and the flux decomposimation of a soil crustr which tends to "seal" the sur- rithm

--

nT+L:r-t

Assessment of Soii Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and Geoinformation Technology

.'t

tion method have been proposed in the literature to USLE or RUSLE from a grid-based DEM and pro
caiculate the contributing area o{ each grid cell in a vides the user with a number of options with respect
grid-based DEM. Desmet and Govers (1996) tested to selecting both a hydrological {low routing algothe three algorithms in the program USLE2D. EXE, rithm and a slope length and steepness algorithm
which is designed to calculate the LS factor in the (Desmet and Govers, 2000).

tlili
ffio.tz
rqil

o.le

lggltll 0.21

Wlo.zr

wflfi
Figure

3.

Soit erodibility factor

(K factor)

values map

for study

area.

<799.61
830.88
862.16
893.43
924.71

955.98
987.25
1 018.53
1 049.80
1 081.08
1112.35

1143.63
1174.90

206.18
1237.45
1268.43
1 300.00

1"
Figure

Substituting the values for cell outlet and cell inlet

into the Foster and Wischmeier ( 1974) equation
solves the slope iength L component
AT.+]",,,

'oF

4. DEM map for study area.

The unit contributing area {or the slope length

vaiue was then substituted as the slope length within
the equation provided by Foster and Wischmeier
(I97 4), with each of the grid cells within the DEM
considered as a slope segment having uniform slope.

r_
l-i,
t -

Ar.+),"

(A;, r.o', A,, t-,^) (22.13)where L,, 1 is the slope length factor for the cell with
coordinates (i, j); 4,, iou, is the contributing area at

the outlet of the grid cell with coordinates ( i, j);

A;, ;,6 is the contributing area at the inlet of the grid
cell with coordinates (i, j) , andm is the slope length
exponent o{ the USLE-S factor (Desmet and Govers,
1996).

The LS factor was consequently determined by

multiplying the S and L factors in IDRISI to obtain

the map of topographic factors.
In order to estimate the impact of slope length
and slope steepness on the assessment of soil erosion
risk in Yulin area at the study area in particular, the
following procedures were adopted, digital elevation
model (DEM) map (resolution 30 m) of the study area was created (Fis. a) by digitizing the topographic
map of Yulin (scale 1 : 250 000). RUSLE-LS factor
values were extracted from the DEM file of the study
area by using USLE2D Ver. 4. 1 so{tware, Gover
1991 algorithm to estimate LS value for the study area.

CoverManagement Factor (C)

C is the cover-management factor. The C factor
is used to reflect the effect of cropping and manage-

ment practices on erosion rates. Cover management

Ayad Mohammed Fadhil Al-Quraishi

36

factor is the factor used most often to compare the agery mosaic subscenes were classi{ied using the surelative impacts of management options on conserva- pervised classification method by applying maximum
tion plans. The C factor indicates how the conserva- likelihood method. Ground-referenced data were cartion plan will affect the average annual soil loss and ried out to generate the land cover map for the study
by
how soil-loss potential will be distributed in time dur- area. At first, the regions of interest were defined
(which
previhad been
ing construction activities, crop rotations or other drawing the training regions
using GPS refieldwork
the
through
ously selected
management schemes,
Main effects of cover management are rainfall in- ceiver to fix the location, matching with the images'
There
terception and reduce velocity of runoff. Interception thus building up the interpretation symbols).
classes
most
the
reduces raindrop impact, maintains infiltration, re- were ten classes, which represented
of land cover classes in the study area. Those classes
duces sealing and crusting etc..
A Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) image mosa- were water bodies, croplandso foresto barren soils,
sand lands, sand
ic o{ Shaanxi Province o China was used to produce a bush and gr4SSl sparse vegetationr
vegetation.
land use/cover map. The procedures adopted in our dunes, urban area, and weak
(2)The classified land cover map was converted
research are shown as follows.
( 1 ) Image-to-vector registration of the remote to the C factor layer in RUSLE through reclassificaits corresponding C
sensing data with a RMS error of {1 pixel , 0.35 tion of each land cover type into
from RUSLE
estimated
were
using the model of polynomial function and nearest factor values, which
and Smith'
neighbor re-sampling in datum WGS84 and projection guide tables (Morgan, 1995; Wischmeier

UTM 49N.
The two Landsat TM multispectral satellite im-

1978).

gffi

l=la

II
I

very sligbt
slight
medium
severe
very severc

extremely sevqe

4N
I

Figure
Conservation Practice Factor (P)

5.

10km

Soil erosion risk map for study area.

no conservation practice, the maximum value for P

that is 1.0 is assigned to this research work area.

P is the conservation practice factor. The RUSLE-P factor reflects the impact of support practices
in the average annual erosion rate. It is the ratio of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
soil loss with contouring and/or strip cropping to Soil Loss (A) Assessment
A:RxKxCxLSxP
straight row farming up-and-down slope. With the
The estimat'ed annual soil loss values for year
between
other factors, the P factor differentiates
rainfall data,
cropland and rangeland or permanent pasture. As the 1999 is based on the values of monthly
factors (LS)
study of this research work to estimate soil erosion Landsat TM imagery for 1999, slope
type report of
using RUSLE modeling was applied in the area of and soil data from the soil map and soil
non-agriculture or on natural (geological) erosion, it Yulin.
was considered that there was no conservation pracArea
tice (P) in non-agricultural areas. Therefore, the Developing an Erosion Risk Map for Yulin
The layers o{ RUSLE model were created and
conservation practice factor (P) value ranges in 0.0
procedure'
and the highest value is assigned to areas with integrated within IDRISI32 by an overlay

-1.0

3l

Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and Geoinformation Technology

Table
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
77
18
19
27
22
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4I
42
43
+5
46
47
48
49
50

Soil texture classes and their properties for study area in Yulin, northern part of Shaanxi Province' China

soil type

1.0- silt 0. 05- clay( 0. 01 tr,(N )/ --(P) /

mr'l./%%%%
% 0.Ol mm/ %
oE /t
0. 040 0. 12
34. 48
40. 09
'1, to
0.020 0.07
4. 03
83. 58
25.47
0.028 0.09
J+- 3t
19.66
15.66
15.13
0. 019 0.07
69.27
27.72
0. 051 0. 11
20.9I
57.97
47.07
36. 48
0.09 0.15
16. 45
to (n
19.9l
50. 59
0.038 0. 16
26.99
40.79
17 .7 40
0.088 0. 14
trt 2t
21.3t
25.63
0. 043 0.08
54. 69
25.82
19.49
0.044 0.11
o o<
16.45
73. 60
0. 023 0.06
93. 93
7.27
4. 83
0. 006 0.04
90. 33
2.24
/. +J
0.016 0.05
1,0.72
11.38
0.034 0.06
77 .90
11.90
27.90
0.022 0.08
66.20
15. 27
17.03
0.027 0.07
67 .70
17.81
0.029 0.12
24.38
1,8. 12
0.036 0.12
49.03
32.85
43.77
25.59
0.032 0.14
31.24
29. 79
49.38
20. 83
0.043 0.14
0.060 0. 13
25.40
31.20
43. 40
49. 26
0.027 0.10
19.90
30. 84
eE (t
36. 90
0.038 0. 11
27.58
/
79.
20
0.044 0.28
76. 13
+. o
20
ta
19.63
0. 037 0. 11
41. 13
0.040 0. 13
21. 50
42.77
31. 49

Lt.60

sand

value

0.05

loam

0.280 413

loamy sand

o.r22 369 3

sandy clay loam

0.235 544 2

sandy loam

silty clay loam

0.168 849 5
0.2L7 020 4
0.332 396 6

silty clay loam

silt loam

0.326 223 2
o.252 656 7

sandy clay loam

0.241, 478 8

sandy loam

0.224 383

sandy loam

0.145 975

sand

0.088 637
0.099 376

sand

sandy loam

0.136 351

sandy clay loam

0.191 822

sandy loam

0.I77

292

sandy loam

0.210

7tt

loam

o.239 87r

sandy clay loam

42

loam

0.302 737
0.299 262

clay loam

0.281 238

clay

0.333 376

clay loam

0.32 235 83
0.155 544 8

loam

sandy loam
loam

o.267 087
0.249 916

loam

0.309 661

loam

sandy clay loam

0.232 475

46.70

25. 44

0. 040

53. 97

23.70

tt

73.24

0.047
0.049
0. 044
0.04
0. 015
0.034
0.023
0.042
0.031
0.103
0.006
0. 052
0.023
0.030
0.076
0.180
0.031

aa

sandy loam

0.136 114

79.15

7.61

sandy loam

0.173 988

68. 93

15.35

16.26

sandy loam

0.742 997

76. 93

9. 46

13.61

sandy loam

0.177 061

66. 39

18.79

74.82

sandy clay loam

0.231 083
o.239 77A

53. 60

25. 35

27.05

48. 98

33. 03

17.99

loam

0.253 540 9
0.250 186 I
sandy clay loam 0.225 965 5
0.267 128 6
loam
0.307 78
silt loam

L4.25

38. 32

1,7.43

loam

46. 00

35.50

18.50

LJ. IL

27.45

39. 05

+4.64

16.31

22.83

67.25

75.92

0.r24 208 8

79. 83

12.93

7.24

0.145 525 7
sandy clay loam 0.212 680 4
0.174 01,4 5
sandy loam
0.125 503 B
loamy sand

72.98

18.31

8.77

58. 93

20.54

20. 53

68. 88

13.

B7

17.25

5. 41

t2. r7

loam

loamy sand
sandy loam

ftr

za(K)

pH

rnrn/

tt

82.42

The quantitative output o{ predicted soil loss rates

for Yulin resulting {rom current data was then collapsed into six ordinal classes and displayed on the

map in

Fig.

w(OM)/
%

0. 10

2.7

8.5
8.7
8.5
8. 6
8.6
8. 5
8.4
7.8
8.2
8.2
8.4
8.8
8.7
8.2
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.6
8. 5
8. 5
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.2
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.7
8.6
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.9
9.8
8.0
9.7
8.7
8. 3
9.0
B.B

0.06

1.4

8.5

r.r7

0.10

1. 56

t.2

7.7
8.9

3.49

0.08

2.05
1. 86

2. L0
1. 00

2.0
2.25
1. 90

I.45
7.78
2.44
1. 56
2.

L\

1. 81
1. 83

1.76
1,.70

2.0
2.02
1.73
2.02
1.8

t.7
1. 95

0.11
0.05

1.62

0.08

1.9

0.05

L-I

0.07

2.2

0.10

2.3

0. 10

2.0

0.10
0.15

r.7

0.11

1.7

0.08
0.13
0.05

0. 65

0.37
0.+4
0.40
0.89
1.57
1.00
1. 68

0.72
0. 91
0. 35
0. 09

0.09
0.75
0.41
0. 41

0.45
0. 36

0.44
0.62
0.84
0. 31

0.52
0.76
0.65
0. 68

0.55
0. 78

0.46
0.77
0. 69
0. 81

0.59
0. 51
0. 65
0. 60

1.45
0.78

r.07
0. 34

0.51

0. 51

4.

Assuming the worst-case scenario, i. e.' having

bare land with no conservation measures applied,

Ayad Mohammed Fadhil Al-Quraishi

38

P values in the RUSLE were taken as 1.0. Using the

IDRISI function overlay, each thematic layer of the
RUSLE was overlaid over the respective map layers.
The map of erosion risk {or study area is presented in
Fig. 5, and their respective areas under each erosion
risk categories are given in Table 3.
The ease of spatial and attribute data handling
allowed for assessing numerous possible scenarios o{
future conservation practices. GIS can also display all
kind of information in both tabular and spatial formats. Use of GIS has allowed for a much broader
scale assessment (watershed or region level ) o but
still at a relatively detailed level.
CONCLUSIONS
An erosion risk map for the Yulin areao Shaanxi
Province was produced using RUSLE RS and GIS.

'
The overall results were 65. 754 %,

29. 725 %,
3,%8 %, 0.898 %, o,zsg % and,0.022 %, which
show the whole study area has very slight' slight'
moderate, Svfr very severe and extremely severe
soil erosion risk classes, respectively.
Major factors influencing soil erosion in Yulin
were the slope length (L) and slope steepness (S).
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of ote
sensing and GIS in generating essential quantitative
in{ormation on soil erosion. The outcome for this
type of studies represents a valuable resource for decision makers to guard against land acquisition in
high erosion risk areas or to issue conditional permits
with conservation measures to future development
projects in moderate erosion risk areas on the Yulin
area-northern part of Shaanxi Province.
This study developed a simple methodology to
determine watershed soil loss quantitatively and spatially using RUSLE in a GIS environment, and then
various soil conservation planning scenarios can be
evaluated through database manipulation. This procedure is a tool that can be used at different levels of
agricultural land planning. Land managers in the
northern part of Shaanxi Provinceo with available
software and data, can operate the tool locally. In
general, it is clear from the results of this study that
the RUSLE-GIS model provides a robust soil conservation-planning tool readily transferable and accessible to other land managers.
Geoinformation technology can serve as valuable
tools in assessing and monitoring the land degradation and soil erosion qualitatively and quantitatively
as well, which will help in developing appropriate

and timely conservation strategies.

It is clear from

the results of this study that RUSLE is a power{ul

model for the qualitative as well as quantitative assessment of soil erosion intensity {or the conservation
management.
REFERENCES CITED

Al-Quraishio A, M. F. , 2003. Soil Erosion Risk Prediction

with RS and GIS for the Northwestern Part o{ Hebei
Province, China. Pakistan J . ApPlied Sciences, 3(10) t
659-669
CCICCD, 1996. Country Report on Combating Deserti{ication'
The Proceedings of the Asia-Airica Forum on Combating
Deserti{ication, Beijing
Desmet, P,J, , Govers, G. , 1996. Comparison o{ Routing A1gorithms {or Digital Elevation Models and Their Implications for Predicting Ephemeral Gullies. InternationaL
J

ournal

311

of

Geogra4hic Information Systems

'

10 (

331

Govers, G. , 2OOO. USLE2D. EXE (Release

4. 1), User Documentation, Experimental Lab of Geomorphology, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven
Feng, J. , Zhang, X. , Li, R. 1998' Application of GPS in
'
Soil and Water Conservation. Bulletinof Soil and Water
Conservation, 18 ( 5 ) : 32 - 34 ( in Chinese with English

Desmet, P. J.

Abstract)

Foster, G. R. Wischmeier, W. H, , 7974. Evaluating Irregu'

lar Slopes for Soil Loss Prediction, Transactions of the
ASAE,17r 305-309

1994. Modeling Regional Soil Erosion Susceptibility

Using the Universal Soil Loss Equation and GIS. In:
Rickson, R,J., ed. n ConservationSoilResources. European Perspectives' 161-177, CAB International

Jager, S.

Liun

B. Y, , Nearing, M' A' ,

Rissen

L. M' ,

1994. Slope

Gradient Effects on Soil Loss for Steep Slopes. Trazs.

ASAE,37: 1835-1840
Ma, J. , Ma,

C.

F. , Xueo Y.

et al,

, 2002. Soil Erosion Mo-

nitoring in the Upper Yangtze River Basin of China Using

ETM Temporal Data. IEEEt2365-2367
Morgan, R. P. C. , 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman Scienti{ic and Technical, England. 298
Morgan, R. P. C. , 1988. Agriculture, Erosion Assessment and
Modeiine. No. 354. European Commission, Brussels
Nearing, M. A. , 1997. A Single, Continuous Function for
Slope Steepness In{luence on Soil Loss. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61 (3): 917-919
Quinn, P. F. , Beven, K. J. , Chevallier, P. r et al. r 1991' The
Prediction of Hillslope Flow Paths {or Distributed Hydrological Modeling Using Digital Terrain Models. HydroIogicaL Processes

'

(1), 59-79

Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A' ' et aL. r 7997'

Predicting Soil Loss by Water. A Guide to Conservation
Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE). Number Agricultural Handbook No. 703'
404. United States Department o{ Agriculture (USDA)

'

Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk Using RUSLE and Geoinformation Technology

Washington DC 20250

Strahler' A. 1971. The Earth Sciences. 2nd Edition. Harper

'
and Rowr New York
UNCED, 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought
and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. New York
Van Lynden' G. W. J. , Oldeman, L. R. , 1997. The Assessment of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation in
South and Southeast Asia. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC)

Wang, F.

, Yang,

D.

Wageningen

1996. Soils of Yulin. Shaanxi Printing

House. Shaanxi (in Chinese)

Wischmeier, W. H. , Smith, D. D.

1978. Predicting Rainfall

39

Erosion Losses, a Guide to Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537, US Department of Agricul-

ture, Washington D. C.
Yang, Q. 1994. The Classes and Regions of Soil Erosion in
'
China. Inr Soil Science Study in Modern Time. Agriculture Science and Technology Publishing House, Beijing

(in Chinese)
Yang' Q. Li' R,, 1998. Review of Quantitative Assessment
'
on Soil Erosion in China. Bulletin of Soil and Water
Conservation, 18 (5) ! 13- 18 (in Chinese in with English Abstract)
Zhu, X., Cheng, D., Yang, Q., 1999. 1 3 15 000 000-Soil
Erosion Map of China. In' Atlas of Physical Geography
of PRC. 2nd edition. Cartographic Publishing House,
Beijing. 200 (in Chinese)