An improved RUSLE/SDR model for the evaluation of soil erosion

  • Somayeh EbrahimzadehEmail author
  • Mahdi Motagh
  • Vahid Mahboub
  • Farshad Mirdar Harijani
Original Article


The accurate assessment of soil erosion is key to assess environmental parameters, such as the reduction in soil fertility, the increase in flood risk, the loss of nutrients, and degradation of water quality. In this study, we developed a methodology using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) with the sediment delivery ratio (SDR) to estimate the annual amount of soil erosion and sediment yield in the Nozhian watershed (western Iran). The weighted total least-squares (WTLS) algorithm was applied to generate the rainfall–runoff erosivity surface using rainfall data and a digital elevation model (DEM) instead of traditional interpolation methods. The results demonstrated that the obtained sediment yield by the RUSLE/SDR model was approximately 802,000 tons per year. More than half of the watershed (61.6%) belonged to the high and severe erosion classes (20–100 t/ha year), and the mean soil erosion rate in the study area was 89.32 t/ha year. Several landslides extracted using a Google Earth map by expert interpretation were exactly consistent with areas that had high erosion rates based on the RUSLE results. This compatibility implies the compatibility between the results and reality. According to the statistical analysis, topographic features, especially slope steepness, had the greatest effect on the rate of soil erosion in the region. The results of our RUSLE/SDR analysis were also compared with the reported results from the Modify Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee (MPSIAC), Erosion Potential method (EPM), and Hydrophysical model. In situ data from the measured annual sediment yield during a 40-year interval from a hydrometric station were used for the accuracy analysis. The comparison indicated improvement in the accuracy of our approach by up to 65% in comparison to other reported results. These results can surely aid in the implementation of soil management and conservation practices to reduce soil erosion in the Nozhian watershed.


Soil erosion Sediment yield RUSLE Sediment delivery ratio (SDR) Nozhian watershed Remote sensing WTLS 



We would like to thank Dr. Sanaz from Leibniz University Hannover (LUH) for her valuable guidance and assistance in this research. In addition, we would like to thank Mr. Abdolreza Nooryazdan, the expert from the Watershed Management Department of Lorestan Province, for providing some of the data used in this work and his constructive comments.


  1. Amsalu T, Mengaw A (2014) GIS based soil loss estimation using rusle model: the case of jabi tehinan woreda, ANRS, Ethiopia. Nat Resour 5(11):616Google Scholar
  2. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part I. Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley DB, Huggins LF, Monke EJ (1980) ANSWERS: a model for watershed planning. Trans ASAE 23:938–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhandari KP, Aryal J, Darnsawasdi R (2015) A geospatial approach to assessing soil erosion in a watershed by integrating socio-economic determinants and the RUSLE model. Nat Hazards 75(1):321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bizuwerk A, Taddese G, Getahun Y (2008) Application of GIS for Modeling Soil Loss Rate in Awash Basin, Ethiopia, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)Google Scholar
  6. Cooper K (2011) Evaluation of the relationship between the RUSLE R-Factor and mean annual precipitation. Colo State 1:37Google Scholar
  7. Davari M, Bahrami HA, Ghoddoosi J, Tahmasbipoor N (2005) A comparison between MPSIAC, hydrophysical and EPM models in estimating erosion and sediment load using GIS, (Nozhian Watershed, A Case Study). Iran J Soil Water Sci 19(1):61–76Google Scholar
  8. De Rosa P, Cencetti C, Fredduzzi A (2016) A GRASS tool for the Sediment delivery ratio mapping. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2227v1Google Scholar
  9. Emadodin I, Narita D, Bork HR (2012) Soil degradation and agricultural sustainability: an overview from Iran. Environ Dev Sustain 14(5):611–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganasri BP, Ramesh H (2016) Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model using remote sensing and GIS—a case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geosci Front 7(6):953–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelagay HS (2016) RUSLE and SDR Model Based Sediment Yield Assessment in a GIS and Remote Sensing Environment; A Case Study of Koga Watershed, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Current Res 7(239):2Google Scholar
  12. Gołąb J, Urban K (2017) Potential erosion of the areas deforested for ski slopes-an example of mount Jaworzyna Krynicka. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów WiejskichGoogle Scholar
  13. Goovaerts P (1999) Using elevation to aid the geostatistical mapping of rainfall erosivity. Catena 34(3–4):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grauso S, Verrubbi V, Zini A, Peloso A, Crovato C, Sciortino M (2015) Soil Erosion Estimate in Southern Latium (Central Italy) Using RUSLE and Geostatistical TechniquesGoogle Scholar
  15. Hernando D, Romana MG (2015) Estimating the rainfall erosivity factor from monthly precipitation data in the Madrid Region (Spain). J Hydrol Hydromech 63(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen JR (2000) Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective‖. Prent ice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobin T, Sabu J, Thrivikramji KP (2018) Assessment of soil erosion in a monsoon-dominated mountain river basin in India using RUSLE-SDR and AHP. Hydrological Sciences Journal (just-accepted) Google Scholar
  18. Kamuju N (2016) Soil erosion and sediment yield analysis using prototype and enhanced SATEEC GIS System Models. Int J Adv Remote Sens GIS 1471Google Scholar
  19. Karaburun A (2010) Estimation of C factor for soil erosion modeling using NDVI in Buyukcekmece watershed. Ozean J Appl Sci 3(1):77–85Google Scholar
  20. Knisel WG (1980) CREAMS: a fieldscale model for chemical, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems. USDA, Science and Education Administration, Conservation Report No. 26, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Koloa C, Samanta S (2013) Development impact assessment along Merkham River through remote sensing and GIS technology. Int J Asian Acad Res Assoc 5(1):26–41Google Scholar
  22. Kouli M, Soupios P, Vallianatos F (2009) Soil erosion prediction using the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) in a GIS framework, Chania, Northwestern Crete, Greece. Environ Geol 57(3):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kushwaha NL, Yousuf A (2017) Soil erosion risk mapping of watersheds using RUSLE, remote sensing and GIS: A review. Res J Agric Sci 8(2):269–277Google Scholar
  24. Laflen JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991) WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46:34–38Google Scholar
  25. Ma L, Chi X, Zuo C (2012) Evaluation of interpolation models for rainfall erosivity on a large scale. In: IEEE, 2012 First International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics (Agro-Geoinformatics), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  26. Mahboub V (2012) On weighted total least-squares for geodetic transformations. J Geodesy 86(5):359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahboub V, Sharifi MA (2013a) On weighted total least-squares with linear and quadratic constraints. J Geodesy 87(3):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahboub V, Sharifi MA (2013b) Erratum to: On weighted total least squares with linear and quadratic constraints. J Geodesy 87:607–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahboub V, Ardalan AA, Ebrahimzadeh S (2015) Adjustment of non-typical errors-in-variables models. Acta Geod Geoph 50(2):207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maner SB (1962) Factors influencing sediment delivery ratios in the Blackland Prairie land resource area. US Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TexasGoogle Scholar
  31. Markose VJ, Jayappa KS (2016) Soil loss estimation and prioritization of sub-watersheds of Kali River basin. Karnataka, India, using RUSLE and GIS. Environ Monit Assess 188(4):225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan RPC, Quinton JN, Smith RE, Govers G, Poesen JWA, Auerswald K, Chisci G, Torri D, Styczen ME (1998) The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM): a dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments. Earth Surf Process Landf 23:527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mullingan M, Wainwright J (2004) Modelling and model building. In: Wainwright J, Mullingan M. Environmental modeling finding simplicity in complexity. Environmental Monitoring and Modeling Research Group Department of Geography. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., London pp 7–68Google Scholar
  34. Nearing MA, Yin SQ, Borrelli P, Polyakov VO (2017) Rainfall erosivity: An historical review. Catena 157:357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ochoa-Cueva P, Fries A, Montesinos P, Rodríguez-Díaz JA, Boll J (2015) Spatial estimation of soil erosion risk by land-cover change in the Andes of southern Ecuador. Land Degr Dev 26(6):565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ouyang D, Bartholic J (1997) Predicting sediment delivery ratio in Saginaw Bay watershed. In: Proceedings of the 22nd National Association of Environmental Professionals Conference, pp 659–671Google Scholar
  37. Poirier C, Poitevin C, Chaumillon E (2016) Comparison of estuarine sediment record with modelled rates of sediment supply from a western European catchment since 1500. CR Geosci 348(7):479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Geetha N, Shiny R (2011) Regional scale erosion assessment of a sub-tropical highland segment in the Western Ghats of Kerala, South India. Water Resour Manag 25(14):3715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qin W, Guo Q, Zuo C, Shan Z, Ma L, Sun G (2016) Spatial distribution and temporal trends of rainfall erosivity in mainland China for 1951–2010. Catena 147:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rawat KS, Mishra AK, Bhattacharyya R (2016) Soil erosion risk assessment and spatial mapping using LANDSAT-7 ETM+, RUSLE, and GIS—a case study. Arab J Geosci 9(4):288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renard KG (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE)Google Scholar
  42. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997) P)redicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Handbook #703. US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 703:404Google Scholar
  43. Renfro GW (1975) Use of erosion equations and sediment delivery ratios for predicting sediment yield. Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources, US Department of Agriculture Publication ARS-S-40:33–45Google Scholar
  44. Shoshany M, Goldshleger N, Chudnovsky A (2013) Monitoring of agricultural soil degradation by remote-sensing methods: a review. Int J Remote Sens 34(17):6152–6181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Subarna D, Purwanto MYJ, Murtilaksono K (2014) The relationship between monthly rainfall and Elevation in the Cisangkuy watershed Bandung Regency. Int J Latest Res Sci Technol 3(2):55–60Google Scholar
  46. Tamene L, Le QB (2015) Estimating soil erosion in sub-Saharan Africa based on landscape similarity mapping and using the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 102(1):17–31Google Scholar
  47. Tang Q, Xu Y, Bennett SJ, Li Y (2015) Assessment of soil erosion using RUSLE and GIS: a case study of the Yangou watershed in the Loess Plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci 73(4):1715–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tiwari AK, Risse LM, Nearing MA (2000) Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE. Trans ASAE 43(5):1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. USDA (1972) National Engineering Handbook. Soil Conservation Service. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Sect. 3Google Scholar
  50. USDA (2002) NRCS: State Oce of Michigan, Technical Guide to RUSLE Use in MichiganGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA SCS (1979) United States Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook, Sec. 4. HydrologyGoogle Scholar
  52. Van der Knijff JM, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (2000) Soil erosion risk assessment in Europe. EUR 19044 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p 34Google Scholar
  53. Vanoni VA (1975) Sediment deposition engineering. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practices p 54Google Scholar
  54. Vrieling A (2006) Satellite remote sensing for water erosion assessment: a review. Catena 65(1):2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses, a guide to conservation planning. USDA Handb. 537. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  56. Yan R, Zhang X, Yan S, Chen H (2018) Estimating soil erosion response to land use/cover change in a catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. International Soil and Water Conservation ResearchGoogle Scholar
  57. Yin SQ, Xie Y, Liu B, Nearing MA (2015) Rainfall erosivity estimation based on rainfall data collected over a range of temporal resolutions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19(10):4113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD (1989) AGNPS: a nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 44:168–173Google Scholar
  59. ZHU H, JIA S (2004) Uncertainty in the spatial interpolation of rainfall data [J]. Prog Geogr 2:004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Somayeh Ebrahimzadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mahdi Motagh
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vahid Mahboub
    • 4
  • Farshad Mirdar Harijani
    • 5
  1. 1.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Lahijan BranchIslamic Azad UniversityLahijanIran
  2. 2.Department of Geodesy, Section of Remote SensingGFZ German Research Center for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Photogrammetry and GeoinformationLeibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany
  4. 4.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Zanjan BranchIslamic Azad UniversityZanjanIran
  5. 5.Watershed and Soil Conservation OfficeForest, Range and Watershed Management of IranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations