The research on effective methods for assessing areas susceptible to gully erosion has environmental, agricultural and economic benefits to society. This study aimed to identify the areas with high susceptibility to gully erosion using two statistical methods and compare the performances. Remote sensing and field data along with two statistical methods, information value (InfVal) and logistic regression, were applied in the analysis. Gullies, boundary demarcation and regulating erosion processes were surveyed and mapped in a GIS environment. Gully sites were split into training and validation set for modelling and validating susceptibility results. The geo-environmental variables selected, according to study area, were land use/land cover, slope steepness, slope aspect, elevation range, length-slope factor, topographical wetness and position index, stream power index, geology, soil type, rainfall erosivity index and altitude. Weights for each class of each variable were computed through InfVal method and probabilities of occurrence of 1,000,000 random locations were extracted to run the logistic regression operation. A weighted linear combination approach and an inverse distance weighted approach were applied for the InfVal and logistic regression methods, respectively, to generate the gully proneness maps. Both results were classified into five susceptibility classes and they depict 18.44% (Infval) and 12.67% (logistic regression) area of the catchment as high to very highly susceptible to gully erosion. Correlation analysis between the results revealed a coefficient value of 0.8379. For InfVal model, the success and prediction rate is 78% and 75% whereas for the logistic regression model, it is 73% and 72.9% accordingly.
Gully erosion Information value Logistic regression Susceptibility mapping Success and prediction rate curve.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to express cordial thanks to our respected teachers of Department of Geography, University of Gour Banga, who have always been mentally, economically and infrastructurally supported ourselves. Authors would also like to thanks the inhabitants of this basin because they have helped a lot during our field visit. At last, authors would like to acknowledge all of the agencies and individuals specially, Survey of India (SOI), Geological Survey of India (GSI) and USGS for obtaining the maps and data required for the study.
Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Env 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson PM, Massari R (1998) Generalized linear modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Appennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains Central Japan. Geomorphology 65:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BouKheir R, Wilson J, Deng Y (2007) Use of terrain variables for mapping gully erosion susceptibility in Lebanon. Earth Surf Proc Land 32:1770–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttafuoco G, Conforti M, Aucelli PPC, Robustelli G, Scarciglia F (2012) Assessing spatial uncertainty in mapping soil erodibility factor using geostatistical stochastic simulation. Environ Earth Science 66:1111–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhury MK, Nayak T (2003) Estimation of soil erosion in Sagar lake catchment of central India. In: Proceedings of the international conference on water and environment, Dec 15–18, 2003, Bhopal, India, pp 387–392Google Scholar
Chung CF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahal RK, Hasegawa S, Bhandary NP, Poudel PP, Nonomura A, Yatabe R (2012) A replication of landslide hazard mapping at catchment scale. Geo Nat Hazards Risk 3:161–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai FC, Lee CF, Li J, Xu ZW (2001) Assessment of landslide susceptibility on the natural terrain of Lantau Island, Hong Kong. Environ Geol 40:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das B, Paul A, Bordoloi R, Tripathi OP, Pandey PK (2018) Soil erosion risk assessment of hilly terrain through integrated approach of RUSLE and geospatial technology: a case study of Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh. Model Earth Syst Environ 4(1):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutta D, Das S, Kundu A, Taj A (2015) Soil erosion risk assessment in Sanjal watershed, Jharkhand (India) using geo-informatics, RUSLE model and TRMM data. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(4):37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine W (2005) Gully erosion. In: Lehr J, Keeley J (eds) Water encyclopaedia: surface and agricultural water. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp 183–188Google Scholar
Kakembo V, Xanga WW, Rowntree K (2009) Topographic thresholds in gully development on the hillslopes of communal areas in Ngqushwa Local Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Geomorphology 110:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986) Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the universal soil loss equation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:1294–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR (1991) Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagarajan R, Roy A, Vinod Kumar R, Mukherjee A, Khire MV (2000) Landslide hazard susceptibility mapping based on terrain and climatic factors for tropical monsoon regions. Bull Eng Geol Env 58:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nearing MA, Foster GR, Lane LJ, Finkner SC (1989) A process-based soil erosion model for USDA water erosion prediction project technology. Trans ASAE 32:1587–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onori F, De Bonis P, Grauso S (2006) Soil erosion prediction at the basin scale using the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) in a catchment of Sicily (southern Italy). Environ Geol 50:1129 1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesen J, Nachtergale J, Vertstraeten G, Valentin C (2003) Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena 50:91–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulice I, Cappadonia C, Conoscenti CSFRG, De Rose R, Rotigliano E, Agnesi V (2012) Geomorphological, chemical and physical study of “calanchi” landforms in NW Sicily (Southern Italy). Geomorphology 153–154:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautela P, Lakhera RC (2000) Landslide risk analysis between Giri and Ton Rivers in Himalaya (India). Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remondo J, Gonzalez A, Teran J, Cendrero A, Fabbri A, Chung C (2003) Validation of landslide susceptibility maps; examples and applications from a case study in Northern Spain. Nat Hazards 30:437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roshan G, Negahban S (2015) Modeling of the effects of climate change on rainy and gully erosion potential of Kor-chamriz watershed in Fars province. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(3):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shit PK, Paira R, Bhunia G, Maiti R (2015) Modeling of potential gully erosion hazard using geo-spatial technology at Garbheta block, West Bengal in India. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(1–2):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzen ML, Doyuran V (2004) Data driven bivariate landslide susceptibility assessment using geographical information systems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment Turkey. Eng Geol 71:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin KJ, Yan TZ (1988) Statistical prediction model for slope instability of metamorphosed rocks. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on landslides, Lausanne, Switzerland, vol 2, pp 1269–1272Google Scholar