Abstract
Soil erosion is a challenging worldwide environmental issue since it entails many environmental problems such as fertility loss and water pollution. Prioritization of watershed prone to soil erosion is cornerstone in any effective and sustainable management program of natural resources. Morphometry is a powerful tool that has been extensively used for this purpose. This study presents a combination and integration of two different soil erosion prioritization methods that were applied to Yarmouk River Basin (YRB). The methods of morphometric analysis and the Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) analysis were compared for erosion prioritization. The YRB was divided into 44 sub-watersheds. Twenty-one morphometric parameters were extracted and ranked based on their values and relationships to calculate the compound factor (Cf), which was used to prioritize sub-watersheds in terms of sensitivity to soil erosion. It was found that YRB is a fifth-order drainage system, with a dendritic drainage pattern and elongated shape. Morphometric analysis resulted in categorizing about 41% of the YRB in the high and very high soil erosion susceptibility zones while the LULC analysis LULC revealed that 88.6% of the basin was classified as having high-very high susceptibility to soil erosion. The sub-watersheds 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, and 40 were found the most vulnerable to soil erosion based on both methods of analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abuzied S, Yuan M, Ibrahim S, Kaiser M, Saleem T (2016) Geospatial risk assessment of flash floods in Nuweiba area, Egypt. J Arid Environ 133:54–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.06.004
Aher PD, Adinarayana J, Gorantiwar SD (2014) Quantification of morphometric characterization and prioritization for management planning in semi-arid tropics of India: a remote sensing and GIS approach. J Hydrol 511:850–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.028
Ameri AA, Pourghasemi HR, Cerda A (2018) Erodibility prioritization of sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters analysis and its mapping: a comparison among TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW, and CF multi-criteria decision making models. Sci Total Environ 613–614:1385–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.210
Awawdeh M, Bani Domi M (2009) Prediction of the soil erosion in the jordanian part of the yarmouk river basin using a gis-based revised universal soil loss equation. Abhath Al- Yarmouk Humanit Soc Sci Ser 25(2):443–452
Awawdeh MM, Jaradat RA (2010) Evaluation of aquifers vulnerability to contamination in the Yarmouk River basin, Jordan, based on DRASTIC method. Arab J Geosci 3(3):273–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-009-0074-9
Bates BC, Campbell EP (2001) A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Scheme for parameter estimation and inference in conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resour Res 37(4):937–947. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900363
Bhatt S, Ahmed SA (2014) Morphometric analysis to determine floods in the Upper Krishna basin using Cartosat DEM. Geocarto Int 29(8):878–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2013.868042
Bisht S, Chaudhry S, Sharma S, Soni S (2018) Assessment of flash flood vulnerability zonation through Geospatial technique in high altitude Himalayan watershed, Himachal Pradesh India. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 12:35–47
Bisht DS, Mohite AR, Jena PP, Khatun A, Chatterjee C, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R, Sahoo B (2020) Impact of climate change on streamflow regime of a large Indian river basin using a novel monthly hybrid bias correction technique and a conceptual modeling framework. J Hydrol 590:125448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125448
Biswas S, Sudhakar S, Desai VR (1999) Prioritisation of subwatersheds based on morphometric analysis of drainage basin: a remote sensing and GIS approach. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 27(3):155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991569
Carlston CW (1963) Drainage density and streamflow. U.S. geological survey professional paper
Chatterjee S, Krishna AP, Sharma AP (2014) Geospatial assessment of soil erosion vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river basin, Jharkhand, India. Environ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2439-3
Chorley R (1969) Introduction to fluvial processes. Methuen & Co Ltd., Bungay, UK
Chow VT (1964) Handbook of applied hydrology: a compendium of water-resources technology. McGraw-Hill, New York
Clark J (1966) Morphometry from maps. In: Dury GH (ed) Essays in geomorphology. Heinemann, London, pp 235–274
Farhan Y, Anaba O (2016) A remote sensing and GIS approach for prioritization of Wadi Shueib mini-watersheds (Central Jordan) based on morphometric and soil erosion susceptibility analysis. J Geogr Inf Syst 08:1–19. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2016.81001
Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manage 10(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867358
Gouri Sankar Bhunia SG (2013) Morphometric analysis of Kangshabati-Darkeswar interfluves area in West Bengal, India using ASTER DEM and GIS techniques. J Geol Geosci 02(04). https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000133
Horton R (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage density: hydrophysical approach to quantitative geomorphology. Geol Soc Am Bull 56:275–370
Javed A, Khanday M, Ahmad R (2009) Prioritization of sub-watersheds based on morphometric and land use analysis using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37:261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-009-0016-8
Jawarneh RN, Biradar CM (2017) Decadal national land cover database for Jordan at 30 m resolution. Arab J Geosci 10(22):483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3266-8
Kabite G, Gessesse B (2018) Hydro-geomorphological characterization of Dhidhessa River Basin, Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6(2):175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.02.003
Kanth TA (2012) Morphometric analysis and prioritization of watersheds for soil and water resource management in Wular catchment using geo-spatial tools. Int J Geol 2:12
Kelson KI, Wells SG (1989) Geologic influences on fluvial hydrology and bedload transport in small mountainous watersheds, Northern New Mexico, U.S.A. Earth Surf Process Landforms 14(8):671–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290140803
Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304(5677):1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
Macka Z (2001) Determination of texture of topography from large scale contour maps. Geogr Vestn 73(2):53–62
Magesh NS, Chandrasekar N (2014) GIS model-based morphometric evaluation of Tamiraparani subbasin, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India. Arab J Geosci 7(1):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0742-z
Makhlouf I, Abu-Azzam H, Al-Hiayri A (1996) Surface and subsurface lithostratigraphic relationships of the Cretaceous Ajlun Group in Jordan. Natural Resources Authority, Subsurface Geology Division, Bulletin 8
Malik MI, Bhat MS, Kuchay NA (2011) Watershed based drainage morphometric analysis of Lidder catchment in Kashmir Valley using geographical information system. Recent Res Sci Technol. https://updatepublishing.com/journal/index.php/rrst/article/view/672
Melton M (1957) An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties and geomorphology. Department of Geology, Columbia University, Technical Report, 11, Project NR 389-042.Office of Navy Research, New York
Meraj G, Yousuf AR, Romshoo SA (2013) Impacts of the geo-environmental setting on the flood vulnerability at watershed scale in the Jhelum basin. M.Phil. dissertation, University of Kashmir, India. http://dspaces.uok.edu.in/jspui//handle/1/1362
Mesa LM (2006) Morphometric analysis of a subtropical Andean basin (Tucumán, Argentina). Environ Geol 50(8):1235–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0297-y
Miller V (1953) A quantitative geomorphic study of drainage basin characteristics in the Clinch Mountain Area, Virginia and Tennessee. Project NR 389 402, Technical Report 3, Columbia University, Department of Geology, ONR, New York
Moglen GE, Eltahir EAB, Bras RL (1998) On the sensitivity of drainage density to climate change. Water Resour Res 34(4):855–862. https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR02709
Moh’d B (2000) The geology of Irbid and Ash Shuna Ash Shamaliyya (Waqqas). Map sheet No. 3154-II and 3154-III. Natural Resources Authority, Geological Mapping Division, Bulletin 46
Nooka Ratnam K, Srivastava YK, Venkateswara Rao V, Amminedu E, Murthy KSR (2005) Check dam positioning by prioritization of micro-watersheds using SYI model and morphometric analysis—remote sensing and GIS perspective. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02989988
Obeidat MM (1993) Petrographical, mineralogical, geochemical investigations of Wadi Sir carbonates, North Jordan. Unpubl. M.sc. thesis, Yarmouk University, Jordan
Oguchi T (1997) Drainage density and relative relief in humid steep mountains with frequent slope failure. Earth Surf Process Landforms 22(2):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199702)22:2%3c107::AID-ESP680%3e3.0.CO;2-U
Okumura M, Araujo AGM (2014) Long-term cultural stability in hunter–gatherers: a case study using traditional and geometric morphometric analysis of lithic stemmed bifacial points from Southern Brazil. J Archaeol Sci 45:59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.02.009
Ozdemir H, Bird D (2009) Evaluation of morphometric parameters of drainage networks derived from topographic maps and DEM in point of floods. Environ Geol 56(7):1405–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1235-y
Pandey A, Mathur A, Mishra S, Mal B (2009) Soil erosion modeling of a Himalayan watershed using RS and GIS. Environ Earth Sci 59:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0038-0
Parker D (1970) The hydrogeology of the Mesozoic-Cenozoic aquifers of the western highlands and plateau of east Jordan. Investigation of the sandstone aquifers of east Jordan, Technical Report No. 2: UNDP/FAO Project 212
Patel DP, Dholakia MB, Naresh N, Srivastava PK (2012) Water harvesting structure positioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 40(2):299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0147-6
Pimentel D (2006) Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. Environ Dev Sustain 8(1):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8
Pisal PA, Yadav AS, Chavan AB (2013) Morphometric analysis of Bhogavati River Basin, Kolhapur district, Maharashtra, India, p 8
Rothwell JJ, Robinson SG, Evans MG, Yang J, Allott TEH (2005) Heavy metal release by peat erosion in the Peak district, southern Pennines, UK. Hydrol Process 19(15):2973–2989. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5811
Rudraiah M, Govindaiah S, Vittala SS (2008) Morphometry using remote sensing and GIS techniques in the sub-basins of Kagna river basin, Gulburga district, Karnataka, India. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 36(4):Article 4
Schumm S (1956) Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geol Soc Am Bull 67:597–646
Sebastian M, Jayaraman V, Chandrasekhar MG (1995) Space technology applications for sustainable development of watersheds. Technical report. Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore
Shivhare N, Rahul AK, Omar PJ, Chauhan MS, Gaur S, Dikshit PKS, Dwivedi SB (2018) Identification of critical soil erosion prone areas and prioritization of micro-watersheds using geoinformatics techniques. Ecol Eng 121:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.09.004
Singh S, Singh MC (1997) Morphometric analysis of Kanhar River Basin. Nat Geograp J India 43:31–43
Singer MJ, Warkentin BP (1996) Soils in an environmental context: an American perspective. CATENA 27(3):179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(96)00016-1
Singh O, Sarangi A, Sharma MC (2008) Hypsometric integral estimation methods and its relevance on erosion status of north-western lesser Himalayan watersheds. Water Resour Manag 22(11):1545–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9242-z
Singh SK, Jain SK, Bárdossy A (2014) Training of artificial neural networks using information-rich data. Hydrology 1(1):40–62. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology1010040
Soni S (2017) Assessment of morphometric characteristics of Chakrar watershed in Madhya Pradesh India using geospatial technique. Appl Water Sci 7(5):2089–2102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0395-2
Strahler AN (1952) Dynamic basis of geomorphology. GSA Bull 63(9):923–938. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1952)63[923:DBOG]2.0.CO;2
Strahler A (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans, Am Geophys Union 38:913–920
Strahler A (1964) Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow V (ed) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 439–476
Sun W, Shao Q, Liu J (2013) Soil erosion and its response to the changes of precipitation and vegetation cover on the Loess Plateau. J Geogr Sci 23(6):1091–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-013-1065-z
Yang D, Kanae S, Oki T, Koike T, Musiake K (2003) Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrol Process 17(14):2913–2928. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1441
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Methodology Adopted for Computation of Morphometric Parameters
Par. No. | Morphometric parameter | Formula/definition | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic | 1. | Basin area (A) | Plan area of the watershed (km2) | Horton (1945) |
2. | Basin perimeter (P) | Perimeter of the watershed (km) | Horton (1945) | |
3. | Basin length (Lb) | Length of the basin (km) | Horton (1945) | |
4. | Stream order (U) | Hierarchical rank | ||
5. | Total number of streams (Nu) | Total no. of streams of all orders | Strahler (1957) | |
6. | Stream length (Lu) | Length of the stream (km) | Horton (1945) | |
7. | Mean stream length (Lsm) | Lsm = Lu/Nu (km) where Lu = total stream length of all orders Nu = total no. of stream segments of order “u” | Horton (1945) | |
8. | Stream length ratio (RL) | RL = Lu/Lu − 1, where Lu − 1 = the total stream length of its next lower order | Horton (1945) | |
Linear | 9. | Bifurcation ratio (Rb) | Rb = Nu/Nu + 1, where Nu + 1 = no. of segments of the next higher order | Schumm (1956) |
10. | Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) | Rbm = average of the bifurcation ratio of all orders | Strahler (1957) | |
11. | Drainage density (Dd) | Dd = Lu/A, where Lu = total stream length of all orders (km) A = area of the watershed (km2) | Horton (1945) | |
12. | Length of overland flow (Lo) | Lo = 1/(2 * Dd), where Dd = drainage density | Horton (1945) | |
13. | Drainage texture (Dt) | Dt = Nu/P, where Nu = total no. of stream segments of order “u” P = perimeter of the watershed (km) | Horton (1945) | |
14. | Stream frequency (Fs) | Fs = Nu/A, where Nu = total no. of streams of all orders A = area of the basin (km2) | Horton (1945) | |
Shape | 15. | Elongation ratio (Re) | Re = 1.128 * (A0.5)/Lb, where A = area of the basin (km2) Lb = basin length (km) | Schumm (1956) |
16. | Circularity ratio (Rc) | Rc = 4 × π × A/P2, where π = 3.14 A = area of the basin (km2) P = perimeter (km) | Miller (1953) | |
17. | Shape factor (Bs) | Bs = Lb2/A, where Lb = basin length (km) A = area of the basin (km2) | Nooka Ratnam et al. (2005) | |
18. | Compactness coefficient (Cc) | Cc = 0.2812 * P/A0.5, where P = perimeter of the basin (km) A = area of the basin (km2) | Horton (1945) | |
Relief | 19. | Basin relief (H) | H = h − h1, where h = maximum height (m) h1 = minimum height (m) | Horton (1945) |
20. | Relief ratio (Rr) | Rr = H/Lb, where H = total relief (km) Lb = basin length (km) | Schumm (1956) | |
21. | Relative relief ratio (Rv) | H/P, where H = total relief (km) P = perimeter of the basin (km) | Melton (1957) | |
22. | Basin slope (Sw) | H/Lb * 60, where H = total relief (km) Lb = basin length (km) | Farhan and Anaba (2016) | |
23. | Ruggedness number (Rn) | Rn = Dd * H, where H = basin relief (km) Dd = drainage density | Schumm (1956) | |
Hypsometric | 24. | Hypsometric integral (HI) | HI = (Emean − Emin)/(Emax − Emin), where Emean = the weighted mean elevation Emax = maximum elevation Emin = minimum elevation | Strahler (1952) |
Appendix 2: Morphometric Parameters of YRB
Par. No. | Morphometric parameter | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basic | 1. | Basin area (A) (km2) | 1393.22 | |||||
2. | Basin perimeter (P) (km) | 247.70 | ||||||
3. | Basin length (Lb) (km) | 76.94 | ||||||
4. | Stream order (U) | 5 | I | II | III | IV | V | |
5. | Total number of streams (Nu) | 2109 | 1092 | 519 | 307 | 85 | 106 | |
6. | Stream length (Lu) (km) | 1854 | 890 | 493 | 315 | 78 | 79 | |
7. | Mean stream length (Lsm) (km) | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 1.03 | 0.91 | 0.74 | |
8. | Stream length ratio (RL) | II/I | III/II | IV/III | V/IV | |||
0.55 | 0.64 | 0.25 | 1.02 | |||||
Linear | 9. | Bifurcation ratio (Rb) | I/II | II/III | III/IV | IV/V | ||
2.10 | 1.69 | 3.61 | 0.80 | |||||
10. | Mean bifurcation ratio (Rbm) | 2.052 | ||||||
11. | Drainage density (Dd) (km/km2) | 1.331 | ||||||
12. | Length of overland flow (Lo) (km) | 0.376 | ||||||
13. | Drainage texture (Dt) | 8.514 | ||||||
14. | Stream frequency (Fs) | 1.514 | ||||||
Shape | 15. | Elongation ratio (Re) | 0.547 | |||||
16. | Circularity ratio (Rc) | 0.285 | ||||||
17. | Shape factor (Bs) | 4.249 | ||||||
18. | Compactness coefficient (Cc) | 1.866 | ||||||
Relief | 19. | Basin relief (H) (m) | 1400 | |||||
20. | Relief ratio (Rr) | 18.195 | ||||||
21. | Relative relief ratio (Rv) | 0.006 | ||||||
22. | Basin slope (Sw) | 1.092 | ||||||
23. | Ruggedness number (Rn) | 1.863 | ||||||
Hypsometric | 24. | Hypsometric integral (HI) | 0.5858 | |||||
Appendix 3: The Morphometric Parameters of Sub-watersheds in YRB
SW | A | P | Lb | U | Nu | Lu | Lsm | Rbm | Dd | Lo | Dt | Fs | Re | Rc | Bs | Cc | H | Rr | Sw | Rn | Rv | HI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 23.77 | 23.45 | 9.27 | 3 | 38 | 27.13 | 0.71 | 4.14 | 1.14 | 0.44 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 0.59 | 0.54 | 3.61 | 1.35 | 645 | 0.070 | 4.18 | 0.74 | 0.57 | 0.028 |
2 | 14.58 | 23.22 | 8.76 | 2 | 14 | 17.02 | 1.22 | 1.33 | 1.17 | 0.43 | 0.60 | 0.96 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 5.26 | 1.71 | 636 | 0.073 | 4.36 | 0.74 | 0.61 | 0.027 |
3 | 25.25 | 31.44 | 9.93 | 3 | 44 | 29.10 | 0.66 | 1.70 | 1.15 | 0.43 | 1.40 | 1.74 | 0.57 | 0.32 | 3.90 | 1.76 | 620 | 0.062 | 3.75 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 0.020 |
4 | 6.85 | 13.04 | 3.83 | 2 | 9 | 7.89 | 0.88 | 2.00 | 1.15 | 0.43 | 0.69 | 1.31 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 2.14 | 1.40 | 504 | 0.132 | 7.90 | 0.58 | 0.68 | 0.039 |
5 | 9.47 | 17.30 | 5.55 | 2 | 11 | 6.23 | 0.57 | 2.67 | 0.66 | 0.76 | 0.64 | 1.16 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 3.25 | 1.58 | 452.2 | 0.082 | 4.89 | 0.30 | 0.58 | 0.026 |
6 | 5.31 | 14.87 | 5.06 | 2 | 5 | 5.3 | 1.07 | 1.50 | 1.01 | 0.50 | 0.34 | 0.94 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 4.82 | 1.81 | 401 | 0.079 | 4.75 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 0.027 |
7 | 7.72 | 15.93 | 5.31 | 3 | 19 | 7.75 | 0.41 | 1.83 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.19 | 2.46 | 0.59 | 0.38 | 3.65 | 1.61 | 391 | 0.074 | 4.42 | 0.39 | 0.67 | 0.025 |
8 | 17.86 | 27.53 | 9.21 | 3 | 25 | 19.10 | 0.76 | 1.63 | 1.07 | 0.47 | 0.91 | 1.40 | 0.52 | 0.30 | 4.75 | 1.83 | 378 | 0.041 | 2.46 | 0.40 | 0.63 | 0.014 |
9 | 17.16 | 18.96 | 5.74 | 3 | 24 | 22.51 | 0.94 | 1.68 | 1.31 | 0.38 | 1.27 | 1.40 | 0.81 | 0.60 | 1.92 | 1.29 | 336 | 0.058 | 3.51 | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.018 |
10 | 20.80 | 31.44 | 10.08 | 3 | 28 | 21.18 | 0.76 | 4.10 | 1.02 | 0.49 | 0.89 | 1.35 | 0.51 | 0.26 | 4.88 | 1.94 | 587 | 0.058 | 3.49 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.019 |
11 | 6.96 | 16.32 | 4.57 | 2 | 9 | 5.84 | 0.65 | 2.00 | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 1.29 | 0.65 | 0.33 | 3.00 | 1.74 | 484 | 0.106 | 6.35 | 0.41 | 0.68 | 0.030 |
12 | 19.94 | 32.47 | 11.34 | 3 | 23 | 22.05 | 0.96 | 1.83 | 1.11 | 0.45 | 0.71 | 1.15 | 0.44 | 0.24 | 6.44 | 2.05 | 544 | 0.048 | 2.88 | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.017 |
13 | 12.37 | 18.66 | 5.16 | 2 | 15 | 13.02 | 0.87 | 1.14 | 1.05 | 0.48 | 0.80 | 1.21 | 0.77 | 0.45 | 2.15 | 1.49 | 397 | 0.077 | 4.62 | 0.42 | 0.64 | 0.021 |
14 | 6.00 | 12.85 | 4.02 | 2 | 10 | 5.27 | 0.53 | 1.50 | 0.88 | 0.57 | 0.78 | 1.67 | 0.69 | 0.46 | 2.70 | 1.47 | 349 | 0.087 | 5.20 | 0.31 | 0.82 | 0.027 |
15 | 6.92 | 16.24 | 5.22 | 2 | 8 | 4.98 | 0.62 | 3.00 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 1.16 | 0.57 | 0.33 | 3.94 | 1.74 | 313 | 0.060 | 3.60 | 0.23 | 0.83 | 0.019 |
16 | 19.68 | 31.47 | 10.18 | 3 | 29 | 22.12 | 0.76 | 1.63 | 1.12 | 0.45 | 0.92 | 1.47 | 0.49 | 0.25 | 5.27 | 2.00 | 414 | 0.041 | 2.44 | 0.47 | 0.73 | 0.013 |
17 | 30.10 | 27.47 | 8.56 | 3 | 46 | 37.55 | 0.82 | 11.07 | 1.25 | 0.40 | 1.68 | 1.53 | 0.72 | 0.50 | 2.43 | 1.41 | 308 | 0.036 | 2.16 | 0.38 | 0.68 | 0.011 |
18 | 14.81 | 22.17 | 5.85 | 3 | 21 | 16.35 | 0.78 | 1.60 | 1.10 | 0.45 | 0.95 | 1.42 | 0.74 | 0.38 | 2.31 | 1.62 | 326 | 0.056 | 3.35 | 0.36 | 0.66 | 0.015 |
19 | 21.19 | 32.25 | 7.83 | 3 | 25 | 22.44 | 0.90 | 2.94 | 1.06 | 0.47 | 0.78 | 1.18 | 0.66 | 0.26 | 2.90 | 1.97 | 227 | 0.029 | 1.74 | 0.24 | 0.77 | 0.007 |
20 | 45.00 | 38.35 | 10.74 | 4 | 69 | 54.06 | 0.78 | 5.43 | 1.20 | 0.42 | 1.80 | 1.53 | 0.70 | 0.38 | 2.57 | 1.61 | 292 | 0.027 | 1.63 | 0.35 | 0.72 | 0.008 |
21 | 9.66 | 17.98 | 5.30 | 2 | 12 | 10.43 | 0.87 | 1.40 | 1.08 | 0.46 | 0.67 | 1.24 | 0.66 | 0.38 | 2.90 | 1.63 | 94 | 0.018 | 1.07 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.005 |
22 | 57.84 | 48.78 | 15.05 | 3 | 82 | 71.60 | 0.87 | 1.75 | 1.24 | 0.40 | 1.68 | 1.42 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 3.92 | 1.80 | 122 | 0.008 | 0.49 | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.003 |
23 | 23.17 | 30.62 | 9.31 | 3 | 27 | 26.14 | 0.97 | 6.18 | 1.13 | 0.44 | 0.88 | 1.17 | 0.58 | 0.31 | 3.74 | 1.79 | 124 | 0.013 | 0.80 | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.004 |
24 | 14.09 | 21.97 | 6.40 | 3 | 31 | 19.31 | 0.62 | 1.67 | 1.37 | 0.37 | 1.41 | 2.20 | 0.66 | 0.37 | 2.90 | 1.65 | 136 | 0.021 | 1.28 | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.006 |
25 | 35.27 | 36.20 | 12.86 | 3 | 40 | 42.65 | 1.07 | 1.64 | 1.21 | 0.41 | 1.11 | 1.13 | 0.52 | 0.34 | 4.69 | 1.71 | 393 | 0.031 | 1.83 | 0.48 | 0.31 | 0.011 |
26 | 19.45 | 27.60 | 9.85 | 3 | 24 | 24.25 | 1.01 | 1.80 | 1.25 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 1.23 | 0.51 | 0.32 | 4.99 | 1.76 | 364 | 0.037 | 2.22 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.013 |
27 | 37.68 | 44.33 | 15.76 | 4 | 57 | 52.16 | 0.92 | 4.07 | 1.38 | 0.36 | 1.29 | 1.51 | 0.44 | 0.24 | 6.60 | 2.03 | 546 | 0.035 | 2.08 | 0.76 | 0.29 | 0.012 |
28 | 55.25 | 44.14 | 14.92 | 3 | 79 | 71.25 | 0.90 | 1.69 | 1.29 | 0.39 | 1.79 | 1.43 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 4.03 | 1.67 | 547 | 0.037 | 2.20 | 0.71 | 0.35 | 0.012 |
29 | 11.65 | 27.60 | 9.88 | 3 | 17 | 14.46 | 0.85 | 4.14 | 1.24 | 0.40 | 0.62 | 1.46 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 8.39 | 2.27 | 220 | 0.022 | 1.34 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 0.008 |
30 | 46.93 | 41.53 | 14.21 | 4 | 51 | 67.90 | 1.33 | 4.46 | 1.45 | 0.35 | 1.23 | 1.09 | 0.54 | 0.34 | 4.30 | 1.71 | 539 | 0.038 | 2.28 | 0.78 | 0.41 | 0.013 |
31 | 35.49 | 29.94 | 9.65 | 3 | 42 | 42.90 | 1.02 | 1.67 | 1.21 | 0.41 | 1.40 | 1.18 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 2.62 | 1.41 | 343 | 0.036 | 2.13 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 0.011 |
32 | 23.82 | 23.41 | 8.08 | 3 | 32 | 29.34 | 0.92 | 2.15 | 1.23 | 0.41 | 1.37 | 1.34 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 2.74 | 1.35 | 337 | 0.042 | 2.50 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.014 |
33 | 69.01 | 48.87 | 16.34 | 4 | 104 | 95.13 | 0.92 | 2.08 | 1.38 | 0.36 | 2.13 | 1.51 | 0.57 | 0.36 | 3.87 | 1.65 | 438 | 0.027 | 1.61 | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.009 |
34 | 65.23 | 50.96 | 15.92 | 3 | 84 | 91.49 | 1.09 | 1.79 | 1.40 | 0.36 | 1.65 | 1.29 | 0.57 | 0.32 | 3.89 | 1.77 | 280 | 0.018 | 1.06 | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.005 |
35 | 62.31 | 41.28 | 12.64 | 4 | 106 | 100.32 | 0.95 | 2.27 | 1.61 | 0.31 | 2.57 | 1.70 | 0.71 | 0.46 | 2.56 | 1.47 | 367 | 0.029 | 1.74 | 0.59 | 0.34 | 0.009 |
36 | 63.59 | 40.75 | 14.13 | 4 | 118 | 100.05 | 0.85 | 2.24 | 1.57 | 0.32 | 2.90 | 1.86 | 0.64 | 0.48 | 3.14 | 1.44 | 238 | 0.017 | 1.01 | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.006 |
37 | 49.50 | 49.73 | 15.81 | 3 | 75 | 63.25 | 0.84 | 1.25 | 1.28 | 0.39 | 1.518 | 1.52 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 5.05 | 1.99 | 191 | 0.012 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.42 | 0.004 |
38 | 33.84 | 33.93 | 11.50 | 3 | 49 | 43.69 | 0.89 | 1.86 | 1.29 | 0.39 | 1.44 | 1.45 | 0.57 | 0.37 | 3.91 | 1.64 | 168 | 0.015 | 0.88 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.005 |
39 | 73.59 | 52.61 | 15.61 | 4 | 110 | 101.09 | 0.92 | 4.61 | 1.37 | 0.36 | 2.09 | 1.50 | 0.62 | 0.33 | 3.31 | 1.72 | 182 | 0.012 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.003 |
40 | 65.08 | 44.11 | 12.11 | 4 | 103 | 89.38 | 0.87 | 5.98 | 1.37 | 0.36 | 2.34 | 1.58 | 0.75 | 0.42 | 2.26 | 1.54 | 208 | 0.017 | 1.03 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.005 |
41 | 74.34 | 50.12 | 15.72 | 3 | 122 | 93.22 | 0.76 | 1.65 | 1.25 | 0.40 | 2.43 | 1.64 | 0.62 | 0.37 | 3.33 | 1.64 | 247 | 0.016 | 0.94 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.005 |
42 | 26.45 | 27.69 | 8.31 | 3 | 47 | 34.19 | 0.73 | 1.67 | 1.29 | 0.39 | 1.70 | 1.78 | 0.70 | 0.43 | 2.61 | 1.51 | 90 | 0.011 | 0.65 | 0.12 | 0.28 | 0.003 |
43 | 52.30 | 46.68 | 13.24 | 3 | 75 | 71.62 | 0.96 | 1.76 | 1.37 | 0.37 | 1.61 | 1.43 | 0.62 | 0.30 | 3.35 | 1.82 | 106 | 0.008 | 0.48 | 0.15 | 0.52 | 0.002 |
44 | 55.94 | 41.47 | 13.49 | 3 | 80 | 71.39 | 0.89 | 1.82 | 1.28 | 0.39 | 1.93 | 1.43 | 0.63 | 0.41 | 3.25 | 1.56 | 122 | 0.009 | 0.54 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 0.003 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Al-Hantouli, F., Awawdeh, M., Obeidat, M. (2023). Soil Erosion Prioritization of Yarmouk River Basin, Jordan Using Multiple Approaches in a GIS Environment. In: Sherif, M., Singh, V.P., Sefelnasr, A., Abrar, M. (eds) Water Resources Management and Sustainability. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 121. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24506-0_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24506-0_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24505-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24506-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)