Soil erosion estimation using RUSLE and

GIS techniques—a study of a plateau fringe

region of tropical environment

Avijit Mahala

Arabian Journal of Geosciences

ISSN 1866-7511
Volume 11
Number 13

Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:1-18

DOI 10.1007/s12517-018-3703-3

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Saudi
Society for Geosciences. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11:335
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3703-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Soil erosion estimation using RUSLE and GIS techniques—a study

of a plateau fringe region of tropical environment
Avijit Mahala 1

Received: 20 December 2017 / Accepted: 18 June 2018

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Abstract
This paper tries to understand the soil erosion characteristics in a tropical plateau fringe region by the use of Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Soil loss estimation is an important phenomenon to understand the land degradation. An integrated
method needs to be adopted in tropical plateau fringe region to estimate the soil loss. RUSLE has been adopted for the present
study. The river in the basin under consideration sees its origin from a plateau top region and flows through the plateau fringe
region of eastern Chotanagpur plateau, India. The present study area reflects undulated plateau fringe landform with gently
sloping dissected plateau topography. The different factors like, rainfall erosivity factor (R), soil erodibility factor (K), topo-
graphic factor (LS), crop and management factor (C), and support and practice factor (P) have been enumerated using field and
remote sensing data. Each factors result has also been verified with previous literature. All factors have been multiplied in GIS
environment to estimate soil loss. High-magnitude soil loss region (> 10 t ha−1 year−1) covers 4.88% of the total area and extends
up to the upper reaches of the watershed. Topographic and soil factors best represent this loss. Low-magnitude soil loss region (<
2.5 t ha−1 year−1) in the lower reaches of the watershed is a result of successful land management activity. Soil erosion is
dominated process of land degradation in the upper reaches of the watershed and estimation of soil loss is an important input
for land-use land-cover management. The study also inferred that RUSLE soil erosion model could be effectively used in tropical
plateau fringe environment.

Keywords Tropical plateau fringe . RUSLE . Soil loss estimation . Land degradation . Chotanagpur plateau . Plateau topography .
Land-use land-cover management

Introduction grazing, and overexploitation of timber resources, to state a few

of the causes, result in landfall vulnerable to agents of erosion
Water-induced soil erosion has been accepted to have the most (water, wind etc.). The loss of soil productivity using loss of soil
intensified effect in the process of land degradation. Soil erosion fertility, degradation of natural resources and biodiversity is de-
has ceased to remain a natural phenomenon exclusively lately; as fined as land degradation (Thiombiano and Tourino-Soto 2007).
it has been seen to be heavily human-induced in microregional Land degradation and soil degradation are more or less synony-
scale, depending upon the size and activities of the population mous. Land degradation causes poor crop production leads peo-
that resides in it. Since mid-twentieth century, farmers have had ple to poverty (Nkonya et al. 2015). Modern-day human civili-
to double their food output to feed the ever-growing population. sation has performed poorly in conserving the pristine natural
Man-land ratios of lower-middle income countries have also condition. Hence, the cumulative negative anthropogenic effect
been seen to have enlarged considerably since the recent growth on landscape has induced largescale land degradation.
spurt post decolonisation. In addition to those above, intensified Degradation encompasses deforestation (tropical and temperate)
deforestation, clearing and burning of grassland, rangeland and dryland desertification (Moussa et al. 2016). Almost 75% of
the dry land in the world faces the problem of severe desertifica-
tion (Gibbs and Salmon 2015). The areal coverage of land deg-
* Avijit Mahala
radation is extensive worldwide, covering approximately 23% of
[email protected]
the total earth terrestrial land. Land degradation has been seen to
1
Research Scholar, Centre for Study of Regional Development, increase by 5–10 million ha annually affecting 1.5 billion people
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India as a result of this (Fitzpatrick 2012).
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 2 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

The major noted factors or causes of land degradation in where annual rainfall exceeds 150 cm; regions of active influ-
tropical world are unsuitable land use and inappropriate land ence of Indian monsoon. N-E plateau areas (Meghalaya pla-
management practice, for example, cultivation on steep slopes teau), Western Ghat mountain areas, and large river basin
(Pulido and Bocco 2014). Other factors include clearing of areas (like Ganga, Sindh, and Godavari) serve as good exam-
vegetation cover, soil types, topography, pollution, drought ples exhibiting water erosion (ISRO 2007; ISRO 2016). The
and flood, unsuitable agriculture practice, urban expansion eastern Chotanagpur plateau located in the Eastern part of
or habitat alteration, agriculture expansion, and habitat de- India is geographically unique because of its tropical plateau
struction. The inappropriate land management with unsuitable fringe landscape characteristics. Largely it comes under the
land-use practice is the major cause of land degradation in Ganga river basin area. Eastern Chotanagpur plateau region
developing country. The other factors are overgrazing, agri- has been studied to be amongst one of the most vulnerable
cultural activities, overexploitation of vegetation, lowering of areas in India to large scale water-related soil erosion (NRSC
water table, water logging, soil fertility decline, salinisation, 2011). The soil cover of the area comprises mostly of water
etc. (McGregor 1989). Land-population-poverty is the causal eroded laterite. Granite gneiss geological formations, undulat-
nexus of land degradation. The different processes of land ing plateau morphology with occasional hills, less soil profile
degradation worldwide are vegetal degradation, water erosion, development causes soil degradation (Mahala 2017).
wind erosion, salinity/alkalinity, frost heaving, frost Presently, continuous agriculture expansion, high groundwa-
shattering, mass movement, deforestation, water logging, ter extraction and irrigation expansion aids soil erosion. The
manmade, etc. (ISRO 2007). Water erosion, wind erosion, soil area has extensively become prone to erosion due to defores-
degradation regarding physical, chemical, biological and nu- tation, continuous uncovering the land as well as poor man-
tritional are the major types of soil degradation. Waterlogging, agement practices. Degraded laterite scape is more vulnerable
groundwater fluctuation, salinisation and deforestation are the to erosion (Jha and Kapat 2009). Presence of laterite soil over
important major types of soil degradation in the tropical cli- undulating plateau and high slope river banks create favorable
mate regions of the world. Gully erosion is the major process conditions for erosion (Ghosh and Maji 2011). During heavy
of soil degradation in tropical environment (Pan and Wen monsoon rainfall, occasional rills and gullies are seen to de-
2014). The major process of soil degradation worldwide is velop in laterite areas (Shit and Maity, 2012b). High iron (Fe)
soil nutrients loss (Oldeman and Van Engelen 1993). The soil and aluminium (Al) content in surface laterite are seen to
erosion, salinisation, and alkalization, acidity, soil organic car- cause infertility. Leaching processes of SiO2 cause high po-
bon losses, nutrient imbalance, pollution/contamination by tentiality of erosion in such environment (Ghosh and Guchhait
toxic substances and soil sealing and capping are the major 2015). Continuous groundwater extraction causes water stress
processes of soil degradation in the tropical world (Lal et al. condition in soils of these areas (Mondal 2012). Recent cli-
1989). Wind erosion, water erosion and decline in soil nutri- matic variability pattern increases the vulnerability of land to
ent, organic matter, and structure are the common types of soil degradation (Chaudhary et al. 2012). Different studies have
degradation in these areas. In addition to this, coastal erosion, been conducted in the tropical plateau fringe areas or of
mass movement, salt-affected soil, reduced agricultural yield Chotanagpur plateau to understand the phenomena of water-
and desertification are also common expressions of soil deg- related soil erosion. Present literatures largely observe water
radation. Two billion ha out of the five billion ha of degraded erosion to be the major process of land degradation in the
land suffers from the soil degradation (Bready and Well 2005). Chotanagpur plateau area. Gully formation facilitated by wa-
The deterioration of physical and chemical properties of soil ter erosion is the prominent erosional feature in this area
leads to soil degradation. Erosion caused most (~ 85%) soil (Ghosh and Guchhait 2017). Severely degraded land covers
degradation processes. Out of two billion ha of degraded land, more than 10% of some districts in this region (Gupta et al.
56% is caused by water erosion (Bready and Well 2005). 1998). Kothyari et al. (2002) have used GIS-based method in
Vegetal degradation (36%), water erosion (27%) and wind their study, and have identified sediment source areas as well
erosion (22%) are the major processes of soil degradation in as predicted the total sediment discharge from a Chotanagpur
India (NRSC 2011). According to different sources, plateau catchment area. The study uses ILWIS-GIS packages
16.6 t ha−1 of soil falls prey to erosion annually in India, of for catchment discretisation and evaluating topographic char-
which rivers cause 29%. Soil erosion is a considerably impor- acteristics of catchment (Jain and Kothyari 2000). The catch-
tant process of soil degradation amongst the other processes of ment of Chotanagpur plateau has been found more vulnerable
degradation like soil structural or chemical degradation (Lal to soil erosion amongst other catchments of the study. Four
2001). Areas prone to vegetal degradation are present in al- types of typical Alfisols occupy the Chotanagpur area. They
most all morpho-climatic regions of India. Areas prone to develop in old alluvium underlain by granite-gneiss. The soils
wind erosion are present in western Thar Desert areas where found can be typified under sandy loam to loam with coarse
the speed and direction of wind are constant throughout the texture and good water drainage, which are found to be more
years. Areas prone to water erosion are noticeable in areas prone to water erosion. Broadly the soil comes under ‘Ultic
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 3 of 18 335

Paleustalfs’ and ‘Rhodic Paleustalfs’ (Sarkar et al. 2001). The organic matter and undulating landform. All the aforemen-
studies of Roy et al. (2008) found the loss of soil organic tioned characteristics assist in raising the rate of soil erosion
carbon and related deforestation to be the major factor respon- (Shit et al. 2015). Lower reaches of the basin have lesser
sible for soil erosion in plateau fringe Chotanagpur area. potentiality of soil erosion due to increased clay content in
Mining is also responsible for degradation of land in plateau soil along with smooth gradient landscape (Samanta et al.
areas (Sahu and Dash 2011). The study of Chakraborty and 2016).
Chatterjee (2008), have used MUSLE to get the amount of soil Different models can estimate soil erosion in a river basin
erosion and run off potentiality in a part of Chotanagpur pla- where soil detachment, transport, and deposition can be math-
teau. The study found alteration of land from forest area to ematically predicted. The Water Erosion Prediction Project
other land-use types to be the major factor responsible for soil (WEPP) used by USDA is based on mathematical simulation.
erosion. Many studies find specific characteristics of The processes leading to soil erosion is the fundamental mech-
Chotanagpur plateau responsible for high soil erosion like, anism of WEPP (Bready and Well 2005). It takes into account
multicyclic laterite cover, short period of heavy rainfall, thin rainfall, soil, topography, vegetation and management of a site
grass cover, low values of Constant of Channel Maintenance with the amount of soil to be lost. The Soil and Water
(CCE), etc. (Ghosh and Maji, 2011). The studies of Jha and Assessment Tool (SWAT) developed in the 1990s is a concep-
Kapat, 2009identified aberrant weather, crusting, drought, wa- tual and continuous time-based model. The different compo-
ter erosion, and NPK deficiency as the major responsible fac- nents comprise of weather, hydrology, erosion/sedimentation,
tors for soil degradation in Chotanagpur plateau fringe areas. plant growth, nutrients, pesticides, agricultural management,
Some studies attributed climate change and relative increase stream routing and pond/reservoir routing (Arnold and Fohrer
in precipitation to soil erosion in Chotanagpur plateau 2005). The Modified SWAT 2000 includes solar radiation,
(Chaudhary et al. 2012). Climate change and relative increase relative humidity, wind speed, potential evapotranspiration
in rainfall intensity is a popularly believed fact about the trop- (ET), bacteria transport routines and urban routines.
ical environment. Accelaration in soil detachment causes high Different studies have expressed its advantage for the flexibil-
rate of soil erosion in tropical plateau areas. Various studies ity and development it provides (Arnold and Fohrer 2005). Its
found gully head retreat to be the major erosional landform in suitability is enhanced in the mountain environment. The
lateritic Chotanagpur plateau areas (Shit and Maity, 2012a; Limburg Soil Erosion Model (LISEM) is a physical-based
Shit et al. 2013). Studies suggest soil erosion factor (K) and model which premises on raster geographical information sys-
slope length factor (LS) to be the most important variables tem. The incorporated processes are soil, overland flow, chan-
characterising upper basin soil erosion. Support-practice fac- nel flow, detachment by rainfall, through fall, detachment by
tor, on the other hand, is the most important variable for the overland flow and transport capacity of the flow. The main
lower basin areas of Chotanagpur plateau (Parveen and advantages of the model are its incorporation facilities, easy
Kumar 2012; Tirkey et al. 2013). Study conducted by applicability in large catchments, user-friendliness. by
Chatterjee et al. (2013) used USLE model to find out trends avoiding the conversion routines, and applicability on remote-
of soil erosion in the upper parts of Subarnarekha basin, a part ly sensed data (Roo and Wesseling 1996). Due to the unavail-
of Chotanagpur plateau. The study found increase in the rate ability of the specified data, this model has not been taken into
of erosion from 40 t ha−1 year−1 to 50 t ha−1 year−1 in a 10-year account for the current study area. The Chemical Runoff and
time gap period. Identifying factors for increase in soil erosion Erosion from Agriculture Management Systems (CREAMS)
vulnerability are deforestation and increase in built-up areas. evaluates the water quality of a basin. This method has how-
The study of Lenka et al. (2014) found Chotanagpur plateau ever been criticised for being incapable during storm and is
fringe area of West Bengal to be a major vulnerable soil ero- ideally not intended for basin scale studies, hence making the
sion area after examining the different factors of soil erosion. model less usable (Roo and Wesseling 1996). The European
The study conducted by Gulati and Rai (2014) have used Soil Erosion Model [EUROSEM] can be used for predicting
primary field survey to estimate the amount of soil loss as well soil erosion by water in small catchment (Morgan et al. 1998).
as its economic value. It found that on an average 590 kg of The Morgan, Morgan and Finny (MMF) can be used to pre-
macro-nutrients is lost during monsoon season per hectare dict soil erosion of a watershed in mountain environment.
area. The studies used RUSLE model to identify the major However, requirement of very specific data makes it unsuit-
factors responsible for soil erosion in plateau fringe environ- able for the present study. Modified Pacific Southwest Inter-
ment; revealing the fact that LS factor (landform and slope Agency Committee (PSIAC) however, includes the factors of
factor) is the major responsible factor behind soil erosion. surface geology, topography, climate, runoff, surface erosion,
Undulating plateau and slant areas provide potential energy ground cover, land use and gully erosion in their study
to runoff responsible for erosion (Biswas and Pani 2015). (Heshmati et al. 2012). Universal Soil Loss Equation
Plateau proper areas or upper basin areas of plateau fringe (USLE) is a widely used soil erosion prediction model
environment have characteristics like coarse soil texture, low throughout the tropical climatic areas of the world, where
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 4 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

rainfall-runoff erosivity is the prominent factor causing ero- (Adugna et al. 2015). Studies also found, RUSLE to be a
sion. The RUSLE is the modification of the USLE model useful model to predict soil erosion potentiality of different
formulated in the 1980s. Believed to estimate soil erosion land-use categories in Mediterranean Europe. Olive orchards
more accurately, the RUSLE model has been successfully and vineyard lands are most vulnerable to erosion in these
computerised. Rainfall erosivity factor (R), soil erodibility fac- climatic areas (Ferreira et al. 2015). RUSLE applied in tropi-
tor (K), slope factor (LS), cover and management factor (C) cal Mexico found slope (LS) and cover management (C) to be
and practice factor (P) have been multiplied in GIS environ- the factors most responsible for soil erosion (González-
ment to predict soil erosion potentiality through this model. Morales et al. 2017).This model satisfactorily fits in for use
Through the long-term breakpoint precipitation, the R factor in tropical environments while being easily computable
has been determined. K factor evaluates the inherent erodibil- (Millwarda and Merseyb 1999; Cunha et al. 2017).
ity of a given type of soil. Slope-length relationship has been Soil erosion forms major process of land degradation in
evaluated through LS factor. The C factor is important because eastern Chotanagpur plateau. The present study of soil erosion
it covers the condition of land use which can be managed to estimation has been taken up in a selected watershed of eastern
reduce soil erosion. The least reliable factor of RUSLE named Chotanagpur plateau. The RUSLE soil erosion model sug-
by P represents the surface conditions which affect flow hy- gests a distinct river basin as an aerial unit to estimate soil
draulics (Lane et al. 1992). The different individual factors of erosion (Zhang et al. 2016; Pan and Wen 2014). The
RUSLE dominate in different morpho-climatic settings. Kangsabati river basin forms a well-defined geomorphologi-
Different studies identified LS factor as the most dominant cal unit in the tropical plateau fringe environment of eastern
factor deriving soil erosion characteristics in tropical mountain Chotanagpur plateau, India. It flows through different geo-
environment. The model also provides an important soil con- morphological units including undulating plateau areas in
servation tool which is accessible and readily transferable in the upper reaches to the lateritic tracts in the middle-lower
similar environment (Kalambukattu and Kumar 2017; reaches. The soil in the upper reach is characterised by low
Millwarda and Merseyb, 1999). Study of Lu et al. (2004) used soil profile development, low organic matter content and high
RUSLE model to explore the importance of different factors silica content as well as undulating plateau topography.
in tropical Brazilian Amazonia. They found rainfall-runoff Agriculture practices are also limited to the lower part of the
erosivity (R) and support practice factor (P) were not in use basin. The region faces drought in the upper reaches of the
because of lack of ample human habitation due to basin where groundwater level is very deep. So, it is important
unfavourable climatic condition. The results indicate most to characterise the soil erosion factors as well as erosion po-
successional and mature forests are at a very low erosion risk tentiality in that semi-drought prone plateau proper areas. The
while pasture and cropland areas are the most vulnerable to middle and lower reaches of the basin,characterised by thick
erosion. The study also found RUSLE to be an important laterite cover with primary laterite developed in upslope areas
erosion measurement tool. The Revised Universal Soil Loss are prone to erosion. In addition to this, factors like recent
Equation (RUSLE) is a widely used model in basin scale deforestation and agricultural expansion attributed to increase
studies of tropical environment (Bhattarai and Dutta 2007; in population enhances soil erosion in the lower part of the
Bhandari et al. 2015). Different studies used RUSLE in plateau fringe. It is pertinent to evaluate these factors in that
Brazilian tropical environment found fruitful conclusions part of the plateau fringe. Agricultural practice is observed
(Beskow et al. 2009). Study of Pandey and Chowdary throughout the basin. Therefore it is important to estimate
(2007), found RUSLE to be an accurate model in estimating the soil erosion and factors behind it in different land-use
basin scale sediment yield from Karso watershed of practice zones. However, the evaluation of soil erosion char-
Hazaribagh (a part of tropical Chotanagpur plateau in India). acteristics in these types of tropical plateau fringe environment
Few studies modify RUSLE factors with the application of has not been conducted earlier. Estimation of soil erosion po-
AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) to estimate an accurate tentiality helps build suitable water harvesting structure which
amount of basin scale soil erosion (Rahman et al. 2009). provides water in dry season as well as reducing soil erosion.
Studies have conducted attempting to estimate soil erosion RUSLE also provides erosion control practice (P) and com-
in semiarid environment through the use of RUSLE model. putation of cover management (C) which otherwise deduces
But it suffers from overestimation or underestimation prob- the effect of vegetation. There is scanty information available
lems (Vaezi et al. 2010; Imani et al. 2014). High resolution to understand soil erosion factor and potentiality in such a
remotely sensed data (like, Quick Bird) successfully utilises fragile plateau fringe region of tropical environment. A de-
the RUSLE/USLE model to estimate erosion in temperate tailed study would give insights into how soil erosion has
environments (Meusburger et al. 2010). RUSLE model has created vulnerability, given the natural settings. The present
been successfully applied in tropical Africa where soil erosion study is an effort to understand the different factors leading to
is the primary degrading processes. Cropland areas of tropical soil erosion in tropical plateau fringe environment. In such
eastern Africa are characterised as sites of major soil erosion types of regions different physical and management settings
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 5 of 18 335

give rise to specific characteristics of land. Soil erosion poten- by Williams in 1978. The updated RUSLE model was devel-
tiality is thus the result of different factors acting upon it. The oped by Renard et al. in 1991 and updated from time to time
paper also attempts to map soil erosion risk in the basin. Also, (Jain and Kothyari 2000). The USLE model has been widely
to provide a tool for soil conservation strategies, it becomes used since the 1970s (Bready and Well 2005). The factors (R,
necessary to estimate soil erosion. In this regard, remote sens- K, LS, C, and P) are quantified in USLE model. To create an
ing and GIS enable manipulation to provide sufficient mea- erosion prediction tool the basic USLE model was updated
sures. Therefore, this work attempts to understand the differ- and computerised called RUSLE. The RUSLE soil erosion
ent factors of soil erosion in a tropical plateau fringe region. model uses the same factors of USLE with better defined
This study also strives to estimate the soil erosion potentiality and interrelationship, enabling it to calculate soil erosion esti-
and vulnerability in a tropical plateau fringe environment. mation more or less accurately (Bready and Well 2005).
RUSLE model has better flexibility in modelling of erosion
potentiality (Lu et al. 2004). The different model’s results have
Location and description of study area large variations due to the changes in the catchment scale and
input requirements. Though the RUSLE model has not shown
The selected basin for the present study namely BKangsabati the real picture of sediment yield, it can give an approximate
River^ (locally known as Kasai River) originates from the estimation of soil loss. The RUSLE model is widely used for
Ajodhya hills of Purulia district is a part of eastern its simplicity in respect of data availability (Jain and Kothyari
Chotanagpur plateau in India (Fig. 1). It flows through the 2000). With RUSLE model river sedimentation, valley-side
eastern Chotanagpur plateau in an eastward direction. Basin soil loss can also be accessed. RUSLE helps carry out estima-
falls under the Purulia, Bankura and Paschim Medinipur dis- tion of soil loss through long range of environmental settings
tricts of West Bengal state, India. The total area of Kangsabati (Beskow et al. 2009). RUSLE can be applied to individual
Basin falls entirely in the eastern Chotanagpur plateau. Out of field, basin and areal units (Pandey and Chowdary 2007).
22,472 km 2 area of Purulia, Bankura, and Paschim
Medinipore district, Kangsabati basin covers 6592 km2. The Generation of thematic maps for RUSLE model
immature soil profile (Less in organic matter), less vegetal
cover, weak soil profile development in the upper reaches of The RUSLE model has been used to predict soil loss of
the basin, especially in Purulia district, accounts for a bulk of Kangsabati river basin, located in a tropical plateau fringe
soil erosion which is eventually drained through the river region. Renard KG (1991) described this model with the fol-
(Dolui et al. 2014). Granite-gneiss geological formation, un- lowing equation;
dulating plateau upland, occasionally hilly terrain and sub-
humid climatic characteristics make the upper part of the basin A ¼ R  K  LS  C  P
area or the western part more prone to soil erosion. The middle
part of the basin is characterised by transitional plateau-plain where ‘A’ is average annual soil loss per unit of area
geological formations, lateritic soil cover in undulating slop- (t ha − 1 year − 1 ), ‘R’, rainfall-runoff erosive factor
ing surface (Sarkar et al. 2014). Recent agricultural expansion (MJ mm ha−1 h−1 year−1 and ‘K’ the soil erodibility factor
and related deforestation have hastened the process of soil (t ha MJ − 1 mm − 1 ). ‘LS’ is the topographic factor
erosion, high soil erosion with rill and gully formation (dimensionless) which includes slope length factor
(Ghosh 2015). Reduction of vegetal cover, transformation of (dimensionless) and slope steepness factor (dimensionless).
forest land to agricultural land, enhances the vulnerability of ‘C’ is the cover- management factor (dimensionless), and
soil to erode, which ultimately flows through Kangsabati ba- ‘P’ is the support practice factor. For different factors, Raster
sin. The plain topography characterises the lower reach of the Kriging (R, K, LS factors) and Raster Weightage (C, P factors)
Kangsabati basin. Agricultural expansion, deforestation and maps have been generated.
related groundwater exploitation pose major threat of soil ero-
sion (Mondal 2012). Rainfall erosivity factor

The driving forces for sheet and rill erosion are repre-
Database and methods sented by rainfall erosive factor or ‘R’ factor. It takes
into account the intensity and seasonal distribution of
The RUSLE models have been suggested for soil erosion rainfall. Intense rain with large drop size results in cu-
assessment since the second half of the nineteenth century. mulating of greater kinetic energy, thus permitting the
Such models include the Universal Soil Loss Equation detachment of soil particles. The high intense rainfall
(USLE) developed by Wischmeier and Smith in 1978 and caused high runoff leads to high sheet and rill erosion.
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) developed High magnitude of rain causes higher runoff; which
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 6 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

Fig. 1 Location map Kangsabati river basin

ultimately results in greater soil erosion. ‘R’ factor has Shit et al. 2015), while, many other studies have used
been estimated using the equation developed by Renard different ‘R’ factor equations (Rahman et al. 2009;
and Freimund in 1994. Different authors have used the Prasannakumar et al. 2012). The average monthly ero-
equation for plateau fringe regions (Beskow et al. 2009; sivity (Eli) equation has been computed as follows:

125:92  ðri2 =PÞb0:603 þ 111:173ðri2 =PÞb0:691 þ 68:73  ðri2 =PÞb0:841

Eli ¼ ð1Þ
3

where ‘Eli’ is the average monthly erosivity (MJ mm ha−1 h−1) the ‘Kriging raster’ of rainfall erosivity (R) has been generat-
for the month of i. ‘r’ is the average monthly rainfall for the ed. The spatial distribution of ‘R’ values has been extracted
month of i and ‘P’ is the mean annual precipitation (mm). through this raster.
The average monthly and annual rainfall data of Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD) for 1965 to 2010 has been Soil erodibility factor
used for rainfall erosivity calculation. Data of three stations
(Purulia, Bankura and Paschim Medinipore) of IMD have Soil erodibility factor (K) is the inherent vulnerability of
been used in the present study. These three stations are situated the soil to get eroded. The values of ‘K’ assigned to a
within Kangsabati basin, the present study area. The annual particular soil represent the amount of soil loss per unit
rainfall erosivity has been derived by summing up the month- of erosive energy. The two most significant soil charac-
ly erosivity values for each station (Table 1). Arc GIS (ver- teristics which control the erosivity of soil are infiltra-
sion10.1) has been used for locating the rainfall erosivity fac- tion capacity and soil structure (Bready and Well 2005).
tor values within Kangsabati basin. With these point location, Soil characterised by high infiltration causes low
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 7 of 18 335

Table 1 Mean annual rainfall-

runoff erosivity factor (R) of three Rainfall gauging station Latitude and Longitude R (MJ mm ha1 h1)
rainfall station of IMD in
Kangsabati river basin Purulia 23° 15′ 13″ N 86° 22′ 23″ E 8295.67
Bankura 22° 54′54″ N 86° 45′ 00″ E 8885.20
Paschim Medinipore 22° 26′ 07″ N 87° 10′ 42″ E 8417.60

overland flow, which leads to less erosion. Therefore assigned following different studies carried out in India
the ‘K’ values are notably lower. Soils having compact (Jain and Kothyari, 2000) (Pandey and Chowdary 2007;
structure are susceptible to erosion. RUSLE also takes Shit et al. 2015; Kothayari and Jain 1997; Tirkey et al.
into account soil organic matter and soil texture consid- 2013).
ering seasonality. The increasing base content tends to The whole of the Kangsabati basin has been divided into 72
high values of ‘K’, including a high content of silt and equal rectangles of 100 km2 each. Within each of the rectan-
very fine sand. The greater the organic matter, lesser is gles particular ‘K’ values have been assigned to a particular
the soil susceptibility to erosion. The soil erodibility type of soil. Kinging raster has been created aided with these
equation (K) is: ‘K’ values. The spatial distribution of soil erodibility factor
(K) has been extracted from this raster.

100 K ¼ 2:1M 1:1410−4ð12−aÞ þ 3:25ðb−2Þ

þ 2:5ðc−3Þ ð2Þ Topographic factor

where ‘M’ = particle size parameter, (percent silt + percent The topographic factor (LS) is considered in RUSLE model for
very fine sand) (100 − percent clay), ‘a’ = percent organic capturing the impact of topography on soil erosion (Ganasri and
matter, ‘b’ = soil structure code used in soil classification Ramesh 2015). The two important factors; topography-slope
and ‘c’ = soil permeability class. length (L) and slope steepness (S) are employed to generate the
The different values of ‘K’ have been derived for runoff which leads soil erosion (Beskow et al. 2009). The topo-
different soil types based on texture, structure, organic graphic (LS) factor represents the length and steepness charac-
matter, and permeability. For different soil classes dif- teristics of slope which affects soil erosion. It is expressed as a
ferent ‘K’ values were assigned in different studies by unitless ratio. The numerator constitutes soil loss from the area,
scholars (Beskow et al. 2009; Kothayari and Jain 1997; and a standard plot of 22-m length and 9% slope form the de-
Bhattarai and Dutta 2007). The soil erodibility factor nominator. The concentration of runoff is proportional to the
has been estimated using soil type data and field soil slope length (Bready and Well 2005).
test. The soil data for the present study have been de- ‘L’ factor values may be expressed as
rived with the help of district-level maps prepared by  
λ m
the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land-use L¼ ð3Þ
Planning (NBSS and LUP), ICAR, India and National 22:1
Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organisation (NATMO), where ‘L’ is the slope length factor, λ = contributing slope
Kolkata, India, respectively. The different ‘K’ values length (m.), ‘m’ is the variable slope length exponent that
for the different soil types of Purulia, Bankura, and varies based on slope steepness. The values of ‘m’ are consid-
Paschim Medinipore located in the Kangsabati basin ered at 0.3 for slope less than 3%, 0.4 for slope 4% and 0.5 for
have been assigned concerning distinct soil texture, slope greater than 5% (Pandey and Chowdary 2007).
structure, organic matter and permeability, respectively The slope steepness (S) is calculated from the equation
(Table 2). The corresponding ‘K’ values have been given by McCool in 1987 are

Table 2 K factor values of soil of

Kangsabati river basin Soil textural class K factor values Soil textural class K factor values

Fine sandy loam 0.72 Silt 0.75

Very fine sandy loam 0.92 Silt loam 0.94
Silty clay 0.51 Loamy sand 0.22
Silty clay loam 0.72 Sandy loam 0.54
Sandy clay loam 0.55 Ultisols 0.27
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 8 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

S ¼ 10:8sinθ þ 0:03 when slope is 9% ð4Þ Table 3 C factor values of different land-use categories of Kangsabati
river basin
S ¼ 16:8sinθ−0:05 when slope is ≥ 9% ð5Þ
Land-use categories C factor values
where ‘S’ = slope steepness factor (dimensionless).
For ‘LS’ calculation, the whole area of Kangsabati basin is Agriculture land unirrigated 0.28
divided into 75 grids of 100 km2 each in Arc GIS (version Agriculture land irrigated 0.28
10.1). Aster DEM data have been used for ‘LS’ calculation. Barren land/agriculture fallow 1.0
For each grid, the slope length (m) has been measured. Built-up area 0.002
Percentage value of slope has been derived from DEM data River and water body 0.0
for each grid in Arc GIS 10.1. Degree of slope (θ) has also Sandy area 0.0
been also measured for the same. Finally, the ‘L’ and ‘S’ Vegetation cover 0.004
values have been multiplied using raster calculator. The spa- Wet land 0.00
tially distributed topographic ‘LS’ values have been extracted
using the multiplied ‘LS’ raster.
chases this entire process. The different ‘C’ factor values
(Table 3) have been assigned through Arc GIS (10.1) and
Cover and management factor finally ‘C’ raster has been created.

The cover and management factor (C) or land cover and land- Support practice factor
use factor exerts great control over soil erosion. If other phys-
ical factors remain constant, it is only the ‘C’ factor which In some areas, rate of erosion is determined by the different
controls soil erosion of any region. Temporally speaking, it existing management practices like tillage practice, construc-
is this ‘C’ factor which is susceptible to frequent changes. In tion work, bush cover, residues management, management of
the absence of other perpetuating physical factors, the land vegetation cover etc. This support factor determines the values
will remain under dense forest cover, thus controlling soil of ‘P’ in the RUSLE model. The ‘P’ factor, in fact, is the ratio
erosion. Vis-a-vis, intensive agriculture itself plays an impor- of soil loss by a given support practice to the corresponding
tant contributing role in prolonged soil erosion; other physical loss if rows crops are planted up and down the slope (Pulido
factors remaining constant. As land-use and land-cover chang- and Bocco 2014). Contour tillage, strip cropping and terrace
es are more frequent, It is thus pertinent to assign values for systems are the different support practice factors.
different land-use land-cover types. Similar to the ‘C’ factor, ‘P’ factor also varies from ‘0’
The values above vary from ‘0’ to ‘1’ for different land-use (practices) to ‘1’ (no practices) (Table 4). Most studies have
land-cover (LULC) types depending upon different geographic assigned P values of ‘0.60’ (contour cropping) ‘0.30’ (strip
locations (‘0’ representing less vulnerability to ‘1’ representing cropping) on landscapes of 1–2% slope, 0.70 (contour
high vulnerability). Different scholars worldwide have made at- cropping), 0.35(strip cropping) for 13–16% slope and 0.90
tempts at assigning values to different LULC categories. The and 0.45 for 21–25% of slope, respectively (Bready and
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) national re- Well 2005). Pandey and Chowdary, 2007, in their study of
source conservation service has given values of ‘0.40’ to scrub- the Jharkhand basin, have assigned ‘P’ values of ‘0.28’ (pad-
land and ‘0.03’ to rotated crop field (Bready and Well 2005). dy field) and 1 (non-paddy field). Such arbitration is supported
Most studies have assigned values of ‘0.007’ to pasture and by the fact that Paddy is the dominantly grown crop in the
‘0.290’ for agricultural land (Beskow et al. 2009).
Prasannakumar et al. (2012) have given the value of ‘0’ for all Table 4 P factor values of different land-use categories of Kangsabati
types of water bodies and wetland. In the Indian scenario, how- river basin
ever, different authors have assigned values like, ‘0.28’ (agricul-
Land-use categories P factor values
tural land), ‘0.18’ (wasteland), ‘1’ (settlement/built-up area) and
‘0.006’ (vegetation) (Pandey and Chowdary 2007). Agriculture land unirrigated 0.28
For land-use and land-cover classification, multispectral Agriculture land irrigated 0.28
image of Landsat-8 (ETM, 2015) has been used. The optical Barren land/agriculture follow 1.00
satellite imagery used has a resolution equal to 23 m. ERDAS Built-up area 1.00
IMAGINE 2014 Software has been used for layer-stack and River and water body 1.00
mosaic functions. Agriculture land, built-up area, barren land, Sandy area 1.00
river and water body, sandy area and vegetation cover, respec- Vegetation cover 1.10
tively constituted the classes for land-use and land-cover clas- Wet land 1.00
sification in the AOI layer. An accuracy assessment then
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 9 of 18 335

Fig. 2 Rainfall erodibility (R)

factor map of Kangsabati river
basin

region under question. Jain et al. 2001 have assigned the river basin of the study area. Dissected hillocks, undulat-
highest ‘P’ value of 0.8 to open scrub, degraded Sal forest ing tropical plateau fringe topography characterised by
and the lowest value (0) to snow and river (Jain et al. 2001). vast open land, immature bare soil with low organic mat-
For the different support practice factors, the LULC ter content, high silica content, account for the character-
classification of Kangsabati basin has been carried out istics of a true plateau in the upper reach of Kangsabati
through the supervised classification method. The Area basin. The topographic factor (LS) is the dominant factor
of Interest (AOI) layer creation followed by accuracy for soil erosion in this part of the basin. The middle basin
assessment has been carried out by ‘ERDAS represents the characteristic dissected lateritic tract with
IMAGINE 2014’. The ‘P’ values have been assigned high rill and gully erosion and highly acidic soil accom-
for different classes by ‘Arc GIS 10.1’ software, finally panied with high leaching processes and low organic mat-
creating the ‘P’ raster. Soil erosion through RUSLE ter content. This plateau fringe region is characterised by
model has been generated by multiplying the five fac- high seasonal fluctuation of groundwater level and
tors (R, K, LS, C and P). Float function in the Raster human-induced land-use and land-cover changes. Soil
Calculator tool of ‘Arc GIS 10.1’ has been used in the erodibility factor (K), cover management factor (C) and
multiplication of the parametric raster datasets. support practice factor (P) are the major driving forces
behind soil erosion in this part of the basin. In the lower
section, river Kangshabati enters into plain lands where
Results and discussion large agricultural field (C) and intense pressure on land
have been identified as factors driving soil erosion.
Plateau fringe areas of tropical environment have unique
characteristics of soil loss. The present study attempts at
capturing these characteristics. Old Gondwana geological
formation, undulating plateau upland, occasional hills and Table 5 Area under different rainfall erosivity values (R) of Kangsabati
sloping river banks are the common morphological char- river basin
acteristics of plateau fringe landscape. Intense seasonal
Rainfall erosivity rate (MJ mm ha1 h1) Area (km2)
rainfall and alternating dry and wet conditions of the trop-
ical climate cause high soil erosion in lateritic upland 680–700 2841
areas of plateau fringes worldwide. Increasing population 700–720 404
pressure leads to uncovering of lands in these tropical 720–740 490
developing countries, increasing the soil erosion potenti- 740–760 1155
ality. The river Kangsabati or Kasai which originates from 760–960 1702
the eastern flanks of Chotanagpur plateau is the major
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 10 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

Fig. 3 Soil erodibility (K) factor

map of Kangsabati river basin

Spatial distribution of soil erosion factors in a tropical lower susceptibility to soil erosion. Middle reaches of the ba-
plateau fringe basin sin shows the medium values around (730 MJ mm ha−1 h−1).
The R values of middle and lower basin indicate typical humid
Spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity factor type climate. The upper portion, however, shows a semi-
humid-type climate. Large portion of the basin lies under the
The rainfall erosivity factor (R) provides the kinetic energy for region characterised by high rainfall erosivity rate (740–
detachment of soil from aggregate, which eventually flows 780 MJ mm ha−1 h−1).
down the river. Within rainfall erosivity rate (R) the intensity Around 30% of the basin area represents rainfall erosivity
and seasonality of rainfall have been taken into account. rate > 750 MJ mm ha−1 h−1 rendering the soil susceptible to
Short-spanned high intensity rainfall events result in high de- the risk of erosion (Table 5). Eastern part of the basin
tachment rate in soil. In tropical environments, high-intensity (Paschim Medinipore district) is categorised under tropical
rainfall occurs in monsoon season. Long spells of dry season humid type climate. Year-long high-intensity rainfall renders
and abrupt high frequency intense rainfall events induce high the soil prone to experience high rates of soil erosion in this
detachment rates of soil. Continuous alteration of dry and wet part of the basin. The middle basin is characterised by medium
period causes relative variations in moisture stress, affecting rainfall erosivity (720–750 MJ mm ha−1). Contrasted to the
the process of soil erosion in the present study area upper part, middle part of the basin shows lower rainfall ero-
environment. sivity. Large sections of basin area in the western part show
In Kangsabati basin, high ‘R’ values (780 MJ mm ha−1 h−1) the erosivity > 700 MJ mm ha−1 h−1, representing low rainfall
are seen in the lower reaches of the basin (Paschim erosive potentiality. This part of the basin is situated in Purulia
Medinipore), thus fostering high soil erosion susceptibility district which is a well rainfed district of India.
in the region (Fig. 2). Comparatively, lower values are shown
in upper reaches of the basin (690 MJ mm ha−1 h−1) provoking Spatial distribution of soil erodibility factor

Table 6 Area under The inherent characteristics of soil form an important param-
different soil erodibility Soil erodibility factor (K) Area (km2)
eter in controlling erosion. Pedosphere (soil cover of the earth)
(K) values of Kangsabati
river basin 0.06–0.08 1176 falls under the category of ‘transitional zone’ considering the
0.08–0.10 641 other spheres of the planet. This is so because soil is the result
0.10–0.13 1461 of interaction of various physical and biological factors over a
0.54–0.55 748 period. Soil characteristics experience variations frequently
0.55–0.56 1154 across space. The different physical (texture, structure) chem-
0.56–0.63 1410 ical (PH, CEC, BEC elementals), biological and mineralogical
characteristics of soil are known to control erosion and vice
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 11 of 18 335

Fig. 4 Elevation map of

Kangsabati river basin

versa. Different physical properties, like high silica content, clay (along river tracks). The characteristics of the soils (high
low clay content, poor soil structure, lower permeability and silt content and low organic matter) make the area vulnerable
high overland flow are the general characteristics of soil in to erosion. The upper section of the basin in Purulia district is
tropical plateau region. The four important parameters were largely covered by gravelly sand-sandy (high permeable),
taken into account in the RUSLE model according to the spe- sandy loam (less organic matter), sandy loam-sandy clay loam
cific soil characteristics of the study area. These are soil tex- (riverside soil), loam-silt clay loam (dissected patches).
ture, structure, organic matter and permeability. Less developed soil, high permeability, coarse struc-
In Kangsabati, basin high ‘K’ values (more prone to ero- ture, make soil in the upper reaches of the basin less
sion) are exhibited in the lower reaches of the basin (Fig. 3). vulnerable to soil erosion. Fine sandy loam covers the
Main soil types of the region are fine loamy-type ustifluvents, middle part of the basin to clay-loam (along river course),
loamy-type haplustalfs, fine loamy-type orchaqualfs and silt sandy-loam (far from river course) and coarse loamy

Fig. 5 The topographic factor

map (LS) of Kangsabati river
basin
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 12 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

Table 7 Area under Table 8 Area under different land-use categories (C factor) of
different topographic LS factor Area (km2) Kangsabati river basin
factor (LS) of Kangsabati
river basin 0.04–0.10 2125 Cover and management factor Total area (km2) C value
0.10–0.20 2138
Agriculture land 4078 0.28
0.20–0.30 813
Barren land 338 1.00
0.30–0.40 251
Built-up land 235 0.002
0.40–0.50 206
River and water body 90 0.000
0.50–5.0 1059
Sandy area 78 0.000
Vegetation cover 1224 0.004
types (dissected areas). The mature structure, moderate to Wet land 308 0.000
less organic matter content, high infiltrative capacity and
lower silica content makes the middle parts of Kangsabati
basin less vulnerable to soil erosion. Nearly 40% of basin practice, and unscientific way of land management makes
area exhibit high ‘K’ values (> 0.55) mostly distributed in the land vulnerable to various erosional agents. Laterite
the middle and lower portions of the basin which is prone soil covers large parts of Kangsabati basin. The soil ob-
to high erodibility (Table 6). Rapid urbanisation and ex- serves its genesis through the process of intense leaching
pansion of population have built up high pressure on the (eluviation of clay materials to the lower profile and con-
agricultural lands. Extensive irrigation and excessive use centration of Si and Fe in the upper profile of soil). Low
of fertiliser to enhance agricultural output has led to seri- organic matter content renders the soil vulnerable to soil
ous soil degradation. The strength and structure of soil are erosion. The intense gully and rill erosion has been seen
lost in this process. Different factors like deforestation, in the lateritic tracts of Kangsabati basin. Other factors
loss of organic matter content in soil, low mulch cover, like topography, slope and rainfall aid these erosion
large open field, high crop rotation frequency, high tillage processes.

Fig. 6 The cover and management factor (C) map of Kangsabati river basin
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 13 of 18 335

Fig. 7 Support practice factor (P)

map of Kangsabati river basin

Spatial distribution of topographic factor The topographic factor (LS) shows typical distribution pat-
tern in the basin (Fig. 5). The upper basin area shows high
The topographic or the regional undulation of an area defines ‘LS’ factor values (> 0.4) (Table 7). Presence of massive dis-
the potentiality of the soil cover to erode. The Erosional agent sected plateau and isolated hillock has to these high values.
(in this case water), upon interaction with gravity due to the Most of Purulia district falls under this category. Therefore,
presence of undulations, gets kinetic energy to perform its the high LS factor values indicate at prolonged soil erosion in
erosive process. The tropical plateau exhibits topographic this area. Moderate ‘LS’ factor values have been observed in
characteristics like gently sloping uplands, undulating upland, large tracts in the middle basin where transitional slopes are
dissected highland, pediments and medium slope, which en- the prominent causes of soil erosion. The lower part of the
hance soil erosion potentiality. basin shows the plain to near plain type slope characteristics
In Kangsabati river basin, the elevation ranges from 15 m at (< 0.2) indicating lower soil erosion. Out of 6592 km2 basin
the mouth, to 655 m near Ajodhya hills of Chotanagpur pla- area, < 20% observes ‘LS’ scores between 0.4 to 5 ‘LS’, indi-
teau (Fig. 4). The 200-m contour intersects the basin at the cating towards medium levels of soil loss. Soil near Ajodhya
middle. More than 60% of the basin area exhibits elevation hills with ‘LS’ score above 3.0 are prone to soil loss.
greater than 200 m. High absolute and relief values, dissected
plateau, small hillocks and undulating topography Spatial distribution of cover and management factor
characterises the upper portion of Kangsabati basin.
Contrastingly, undulating and isolated hillocks are replaced In the static physical condition, it is the cover and manage-
by lateritic caps in the middle reach of the basin. The range ment factor which exerts control on soil erosion. Cover and
in elevation is also noticeably lower than in the upper reach. management factor controls soil surface openness to physical
Vast plain land and lateritic tract characterise the lower part of processes of erosion. Population growth is mainly concentrat-
basin. The 100-m contour passes through this region. ed in the tropical developing countries. The uncovering of
lands via general conversion of forest land to pasture, agricul-
Table 9 Area under tural and built-up land is prominent in the tropical developing
different support practice P factor Area (km2)
world. Soil cover faces the brunt of intense erosion through all
factor (P) of Kangsabati
river basin 0.28 4087 of these uncovering processes.
1.00 2505 Eight types of soil cover and management classes have
been identified in Kangsabati river basin (Fig. 6). Lowest
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 14 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

Fig. 8 The soil loss map of

Kangsabati river basin

value has been assigned to water body which has no contri- exhibits barren land, prone to erosion. The various types of
bution to erosion by virtue of lacking any soil cover. Highest vegetation covering the basin (1224 km2 area) have been
value has been assigned to barren land which has the highest assigned a low value (0.002). High vegetation density in the
potentiality to get eroded (Table 8). The land-use land-cover upper reaches of the basin indicates amounts to lesser soil
(LULC) map of Kangsabati basin shows the dominance of erosion. The river along with other water bodies, wetlands,
agricultural land in the basin. Agricultural practice in the re- and sandy areas cover about 500 km2. This area has no con-
gion has amplified the soil erosion potentiality. Agricultural tribution to erosion. Therefore, ‘0’ value has been assigned to
land occupies 4000 km2 out of 7000 km2 area. The built-up this class.
land is evenly distributed in the basin. Built-up land effective-
ly decreases soil erosion but affects the inherent soil structure Spatial distribution of support practice factor
negatively. Built-up land covers 235 km2 area in the basin.
Barren land and agriculture fallow exhibit greater potentiality It is the ratio of soil loss in a given support practice to the corre-
to soil erosion due to human induced unfavourable soil char- sponding loss if row crops are planted in up and down of the
acteristics (lack of trees and plants to hold on to soil aggre- slope (Bready and Well 2005). Practice factor controls the ero-
gate). Therefore, highest value has been assigned (1.0) to this sion processes. Therefore, ‘P’ values range according to with
class of land use. The upper part of Kangsabati basin mostly practices adopted in different places. In tropical plateau areas

Fig. 9 The cumulative soil loss

areas of Kangsabati river basin
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 15 of 18 335

Table 10 Average rate of soil loss of the Kangsabati river basin The actual soil loss estimates in the basin range from 1 to
Erosion class Rate of soil loss Area (ha) % of total Area 200 t ha−1 year−1 (Figs. 8 and 9). From these soil loss values
(t ha1 year1) (t ha−1 year−1), the different soil loss area has been estimated
(slight < 2.5 t ha−1 year−1, moderate 2.6–5.0 t ha−1 year−1, high
Slight < 2.5 5421 82.23 5.0–10 t ha−1 year−1 and very high > 10 t ha−1 year−1) within
Moderate 2.6–5.0 681 10.33 the basin (Table 10). Lower reaches of the basin, characterised
High 5.1–10.0 169 02.56 by plateau fringe plain type topography, experiences lower
Very high > 10.0 321 04.88 levels of soil loss (Fig. 8) (Table 10). Tropical humid rainfall
characteristic to this part of the basin, adds up to high rainfall
erosivity factor (R). High percentage of clay and organic mat-
paddy is mostly cultivated crops. The paddy is extensively har- ter content in the soil manifests into lower soil erodibility (K).
vested in monsoon season only. Other season and rest of areas This region, characteristically low in elevation, is demarcated
have not experienced any significant conservation practice. by the 200-m contour. This topography ranging from near
In Kangsabati basin area, not any significant practice factor plain to plain with low slope contributes to binds the ‘LS’
(contour cropping, strip cropping) has been adopted by the value to less than 0.2. The area under agriculture field (irrigat-
peoples (Fig. 7). The traditional subsistence agriculture gives ed and unirrigated) (C value = 0.28), and forest area (C value =
some amount of support to soil from erosional vulnerability of 0.04) in the plateau fringe plain regions helps bind soil loss.
the basin. In upper reaches of the basin where earlier high The higher percentage of agricultural land to total land makes
topographic factor makes the region high vulnerable to ero- the support factor comparatively better (P value of agriculture
sion and adding to this no support practice makes the region land is 0.28). The soil is less vulnerable to erosion due to
prone to erosion (Table 9). By contrast to this, the lower por- absence of barren land and fewer undulating topographic char-
tion of the basin which have high intensity of cropping have acteristics in the plateau fringe plain region (Fig. 10).
improved support to less soil erosion. Contrastingly, the lower The middle reaches of the basin which is dominated by
part of the basin, which exhibits intensive agricultural activity tropical plateau fringe characteristics experience moderate soil
but, improved support practices, slows down soil erosion. loss (2.6–5.0 t ha−1 year−1) (Fig. 8) (Table 10). This part of the
basin is mostly distributed in the dissected areas of the
Bankura and Paschim Medinipore districts in Chotanagpur
Estimation of spatial distribution of soil erosion plateau. The characteristic tropical sub-humid rainfall makes
in a tropical plateau fringe basin the area moderately prone to soil erosion from rainfall erosiv-
ity factor (R). Laterite soil developed in the undulating plateau
The revised universal soil loss (RUSLE), based on empirical region with active leaching is prone to soil erosion by virtue of
factors, can estimate the soil erosion rate based on rainfall the soil erodibility factor (K). The plateau fringe undulating
pattern (intensity and seasonality), soil type, topography, crop elevated (200–300 m.) areas are classified to this class of soil
management and practice. Based on the aforementioned fac- erosion. The dissected plateau exhibit moderate ‘LS’ factor
tors, different raster has been created for each factor in GIS values ranging from 0.2–0.3. Agricultural fields (both
environment. Using float tool actual (R, K, LS) and potential Irrigated and unirrigated) cover a large area in the plateau
(R, K, LS, C, P), soil loss has been estimated for tropical plain region compared to the plateau fringe region. In this
plateau fringe Kangsabati basin. region the ‘P’ values are greater than 0.28. Deforestation

Fig. 10 Types of soil erosion. Rill

erosion in barren land, gully
erosion in Riverside of
Kangsabati river basin
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 16 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

and stripping the land of its soil cover makes the soil vulner- 5 t ha1 year1). The lower reaches of basin catalogued under
able to erosional agents. Conservation practices (P) are also humid plateau fringe plain conditions; represent characteris-
seen to be faltering because monsoonal paddy cultivation only tics like tropical humid climatic conditions and high rainfall
dominates the area. erosivity. High percentage of clay content and high organic
The upper reaches of the basin is the part of a proper trop- matter content decreases the soil erodibility. Topographically,
ical plateau. This region has experienced high soil loss rates this area is considered as plain land with sloping surface in
(> 5.1 t ha−1 year−1) (Fig. 8) (Table 10). The upper reaches of the plateau fringe. Extensive agriculture and some amount of
the basin shows semi-arid characteristics due to low rainfall support practice help lower soil erosion rates (< 2.5 t ha1 year1).
and remoteness from moisture source. Extensive dry spell Study finds high amount of soil loss all over the basin.
increases the soil moisture stress. Sudden rainfall in monsoon Amongst the different land-use types, croplands face major
after prolonged dry winter increases the prospect of rainfall risk of soil erosion. It can be concluded that upper reaches of
erosivity (R). The likelihood of deep soil profile development basin are prone to erosion due to topographic factor. The
in the tropical plateau proper environment is meagre along lower reaches face rapid land-use land cover change render-
with low water holding capacity, therefore ultimately increas- ing the soil prone to erosion.
ing the soil erodibility value (K) in the upper basin region. Tropical plateau fringe has definite characteristics of soil
These parts of tropical plateau proper have high relative relief erosion which is reflected from the present study. Moreover,
(300–500 m), greater length of slope, which ultimately in- most of the studies have been conducted in definite or homo-
creases the percentage value and steepness (θ) of slope. High geneous morpho-climatic regions. The present study, however
percentage of barren land is one of the causal factors of ele- tries to evaluate different soil erosion factors as well as erosion
vated rates of soil loss in this region. Aforementioned factors, vulnerability in a heterogeneous tropical plateau fringe region.
therefore, contribute to greater ‘LS’ values (> 0.3). Degraded The factors and vulnerability are different in different parts of
vegetation cover, limited agricultural land and presence of the plateau fringe. The topographic factors (like, undulation,
barren land in plateau proper environment give rise to de- slope) dominate soil erosion in the upper parts of plateau or
creased cover management practices (C). Vast stretches of plateau proper areas; whereas, cover management and support
land in the upper part of the river basin have not experienced practice factors are dominate the in middle-lower basin or
any support practice measures (P). Plateau proper type of plateau fringe region. The study evaluates these characteristics
environment does not support extensive agricultural practice. of soil erosion in tropical plateau fringe region.
Thus the absence of support practices (P) renders this region Geographic information system also proves to be a conve-
vulnerable to erosion. nient tool for estimation of soil loss, given the vast array of
digital resources present in the current age. The study used
GIS tool to quantify soil erosion potentiality. The results have
Conclusion been calibrated for different factors. Soil erosion factors have
been generated and integrated spatially to understand the soil
The purpose of the current study is to characterise soil erosion erosion characteristics.
in tropical plateau fringe areas. Empirical models like RUSLE A comprehensive watershed and development plan can be
need minimum resources in working out an estimate of soil undertaken following the findings of the study. The algorithms
erosion with readily available resources. RUSLE was devel- used in this study can be used in similar morpho-climatic and
oped in the USA first but it proves its applicability throughout agro-climatic areas of the world. Long-term predictability of
the different morpho-climatic areas. It is most widely known soil and nutrient loss can be estimated using the result.
and easily applicable. Land degradation through soil erosion is Estimation of vulnerability to erosion can entail intensive
a worldwide phenomenon. Soil erosion estimation in the pla- management or corrective measures.
teau fringe region is itself a challenging task. The study re- There are some questions which may spurt up on the reli-
veals that the upper reaches of the basin plateau proper is ability and validity of the input data for the present study. For
prone to high rates of erosion (> 5 t ha1 year1). Upper reach ‘K’ factor, the primary soil analysis result (soil texture, organic
is representative of true tropical plateau characteristics like matter) has been used. The soil structure and estimated per-
undulating upland, high relative relief and extensively sloping meability may result in d errors. The insight into micro region-
surface. The tropical plateau fringe characteristics dominate al topographic variations is inaccessible due to the utilisation
most of the middle course of the basin. Dissected plateau with of Aster DEM data with spatial resolution of 30 m. The land-
extensively sloping surface, lateritic caps over undulating up- use and land-cover classification are standardised through
lands and ruggedness are the general characteristics of the field check for this study. The small-scale regional support
middle part of the basin. Deforestation and uncovering of practice measures have been eliminated to count broad region-
lands cause degradation of land. Moderate rates soil erosion al practices. The present results should be useful in determin-
is experienced in the middle part of the basin (2.5– ing land-use strategies with careful consideration of certain
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335 Page 17 of 18 335

physical and human controls. Notwithstanding inherent short- Ghosh S, Guchhait SK (2017) Estimation of geomorphic threshold in
permanent gullies of lateritic terrain in Birbhum, West Bengal
comings, the estimation of soil loss of any area is indispens-
India. Curr Sci 113(3):478–485
able for management practices and future planning. Ghosh S, Maji T (2011) PedoGeomorphic analysis of soil loss in the
lateritic region of Rampurhat I block of Birbhum district, West
Bengal and Shikaripara block of Dumka district. Jharkhand.
International Journal of Environmental Sciences 1(7):1734–1751
Gibbs HK, Salmon JM (2015) Mapping the world’s degraded lands.
References Applied Geography 57:12–21
González-Morales BS, Mayer A, Ramírez-Marcial N (2017) Assessment
of soil erosion vulnerability in the heavily populated and ecological-
Adugna A, Abegaz A, Cerdà A (2015) Soil erosion assessment and con-
ly fragile communities in Motozintla De Mendoza, Chiapas,
trol in Northeast Wollega, Ethiopia. Solid Earth Discuss 7(4):3511–
Mexico. Solid Earth Discuss 1–24.
3540
Gulati A, Rai SC (2014) Cost estimation of soil erosion and nutrient loss
Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research
from a watershed of the Chotanagpur Plateau, India. Research
opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19:
Communications 107(4):670–674
563–572
Gupta SK, Ahmed M, Hussain M, Pandey AS, Singh P, Saini KM, Das
Beskow S, Mello CR, Norton LD, Curi N, Viola MR, Avanzi JC (2009) SN (1998) Inventory of degraded lands of Palamau District, Bihar—
Soil erosion prediction in the Grande River Basin Brazil using dis- a remote sensing approach. J Ind Soc Remote Sens 26(4):161–168
tributed. Catena 79(1):49–59 Heshmati M, Arifin A, Shamshuddin J, Majid NM (2012) Predicting N,
Bhandari KP, Aryal J, Darnsawasdi R (2015) A geospatial approach to P, K and organic carbon depletion in soils using MPSIAC model at
assessing soil erosion in a watershed by integrating socio-economic the Merek catchment, Iran. Geoderma 175–176:64–77
determinants and the RUSLE model. Nat Hazards 75(1):321–342 Imani R, Ghasemieh H, Mirzavand M (2014) Determining and mapping
Bhattarai R, Dutta D (2007) Estimation of Soil Erosion and Sediment soil erodibility factor (case study: Yamchi Watershed in Northwest
Yield Using GIS. Water Resource Management 21:1635–1647 of Iran). Open Journal of Soil Science 4:168–173
Biswas SS, Pani P (2015) Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE and Indian Space Research Organisation (2007) Desertification and land deg-
GIS techniques: a case study of Barakar River basin, Jharkhand, radation Atlas of India. Goverment of India, Space Application
India. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(42):1–13 Center. https://www.isro.gov.in/desertification-and-land-
Bready NC, Well RR (2005) The nature and properties of soil. Singapore, degradation-atlas-released
Pearson Prentice Hall Indian Space Research Organisation (2016) Desertification and land deg-
Chakrabarty A, Chatterjee S (2008) IRS-LISS-IV data for cadastral level radation Atlas of India. Goverment of India, Space Application
infrastructure mapping and land degradation study at PPSP Project Center. https://www.isro.gov.in/desertification-and-land-
Site-Ajodhya Hills, Purulia. Indian Journal of Geography and degradation-atlas-released
Environment 10:38–46 Jain MK, Kothyari UC (2000) Estimation of soil erosion and sediment
Chatterjee S, Krishna AP, Sharma AP (2013) Geospatial assessment of yield using GIS. Hydrological Sciences Journal 45(5):771–786
soil erosion vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the Jain SK, Kumar S, Varghese J (2001) Estimation of soil erosion for a
Upper Subarnarekha river basin, Jharkhand. India. Environ Earth Himalayan watershed using GIS technique. Water Resour Manag
Sci 71(1):357–374 15(1):41–54
Choudhary JS, Shukla G, Prabhakar CS, Maurya S, Das B, Kumar S Jha VC, Kapat S (2009) Degraded lateritic soilscape and land use in
(2012) Assessment of local perceptions of climate change and cop- Birbhum district, West Bengal, India. Sociedade & Natureza
ing strategies in Chotanagpur Plateau of Eastern India. J Prod Agric 21(2):141–158
3(1):8–15 Kalambukattu JG, Kumar S (2017) Modelling soil erosion risk in a moun-
tainous watershed of Mid-Himalaya by integrating RUSLE model
Cunha ER, Bacani VM, Panachuki E (2017) Modeling soil erosion using
RUSLE and GIS in a watershed occupied by rural settlement in the with GIS. Eurasian J Soil Sci 6(2):1–15
Kothayari UC, Jain SK (1997) Sediment yield estimation using GIS.
Brazilian Cerrado. Nat Hazards 85(2):851–868
Hydrological. Science 6:833–843
Dolui G, Chatterjee S, Das Chatterjee N (2014) The importance of non-
Kothyari UC, Jain MK, Raju KG (2002) Estimation of temporal variation
timber forest products in tribal livelihood: a case study of Santal
of sediment yield using GIS/estimation. Hydrological Sciences
community in Purulia District, West Bengal. Indian Journal of
Journal 47(5):693–706
Geography and Environment 13:110–120
Lal R (2001) Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degrad Dev 12(6):519–
Ferreira V, Panagopoulos T, Cakula A, Andrade R, Arvela A (2015) 539
Predicting soil erosion after land use changes for irrigated agricul- Lal R, Hall GF, Miller FP (1989) Soil degradation: I. Basic processes.
ture in a large reservoir of southern Portugal. Procedia 4:40–49 Land Degradation & Development 1(1):51–69
Fitzpatrick RW (2012) Land degradation processes. In: Mc Vicar TR, Li Lane LJ, Renard KG, Foster GR, Laften JM (1992) Development and
Rui WJ, Fitzpatrick RW, Liu C (eds) Regional water and soil assess- application of modern soil erosion prediction technology. Aust J Soil
ment for managing sustainable agriculture in china and australia. Res 30:893–912
ACIAR, Canbera, pp 119–129 Lenka NK, Mandal D, Sudhishri S (2014) Permissible soil loss limits for
Ganasri BP, Ramesh H (2015) Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE different physiographic regions of West Bengal. Research
model using remote sensing and GIS—a case study of Nethravathi Communications 107(4):665–670
Basin. Geosci Front 7(6):1–9 Lu D, Li G, Valladares GS, Batistella M (2004) Mapping soil erosion risk
Ghosh D (2015) Mapping and monitoring of the impact of gully erosion in Rondonia, Brazilian Amazonia: using RUSLE, remote sensing
in the district of Medinipur (West), West Bengal, India. International and GIS. Land Degrad Dev 15:499–512
Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and. Soc Sci 2(4):73–89 Mahala A (2017) Processes and status of land degradation in a plateau
Ghosh S, Guchhait SK (2015) Characterization and evolution of laterites fringe region of tropical environment. Environ Prog 4:663–682
in West Bengal: implication on the Geology of Northwest Bengal McGregor D (1989) Land degradation: problems and policies. Land
Basin. Transaction 37(1):93–119 Degrad Dev 1(1):71–72
 Author's personal copy
335 Page 18 of 18 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:335

Meusburger K, Konz N, Schaub N, Alewell C (2010) Soil erosion with biophysical parameters towards management strategies. Ecol
modelled with USLE and PESERA using Quick Bird derived veg- Model 220:1724–1734
etation parameters in an alpine catchment. Int J Appl Earth Obs Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesles GA, Porter JP (1991) Revised universal
Geoinf 12(3):208–215 soil loss equation. J Soil Water Conserv 46(1):30–33
Millwarda AA, Merseyb JE (1999) Adapting the RUSLE to model soil Roo AP, Wesseling CG (1996) Lisem: a single-event physically based
erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena 38(2): hydrological and soil erosion model for drainage basins: theory,
109–129 input and output. Hydrol Process 10:1107–1117
Mondal S (2012) Remote sensing and GIS based ground water potential Roy PK, Samal NR, Roy PM, Mazumdar A (2008) Soil carbon and
mapping of Kangshabati irrigation command area, West Bengal. nutrient accumulation under forest plantations in Jharkhand State
Geography & Natural Disasters 1(1):1–8 of India. Clean – Soil. Air,Water 38(8):706–712
Morgan RP, Quinton JN, Smith RE, Govers G, Poesen JW, Auerswald K, Sahu DB, Dash E (2011) Land degradation due to mining in India and its
Styczen ME (1998) The European Soil Erosion Model mitigation measures. Second International Conference on
(EUROSEM): a dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport Environmental Science and Technology, Singapore, pp 1–5
from fields and small catchments. Earth Surf Process Landf 23:527– Samanta RK, Bhunia GS, Shit PK (2016) Spatial modelling of soil erosion
544 susceptibility mapping in lower basin of Subarnarekha river (India)
Moussa B, Nkonya E, Meyer S, Kato E, Johnson T, Hawkins J (2016) based on geospatial techniques. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(99):1–13
Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement in Niger. In: Sarkar D, Gangopadhyay SK, Velayutham M (2001) Soil toposequence
Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A, Von Braun J (eds) Economics of land relationship and classification in lower outlier of Chhotanagpur pla-
degradation and improvement—a global assessment for sustainable teau. Agropedology 11:29–36
development. Springer, Bonn, pp 499–539 Sarkar D, Mandal D, Halder A (2014) Soil maturity assessment along a
National Remote Sensing Center (2011) Wastelands Atlas of India. NRSC, toposequence in Chotanagpur Plateau, West Bengal using inorganic
ISRO, GOI: Hyderabad. http://dolr.nic.in/dolr/wasteland_atlas.asp soil phosphorus based weathering index, soil taxonomy and other
Nkonya E, Anderson W, Kato E, Koo J, Mirzabaev A, Brau JV, Meyer S chemical indices: A comparative study. Agropedology 24(1):82–94
(2015) Global Cost of Land Degradation. In: Nkonya E, Mirzabaev Shit PK, Maity R (2012a) Rill hydraulics—an experimental study on
A, Braun J (eds) Economics of land degradation and improve- gully basin in lateritic upland of Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal,
ment—a global assessment for sustainable development. Springer, India. Journal of Geography and Geology 4(4):1–11
Bonn, pp 117–165 Shit PK, Maity RK (2012b) Mechanism of gully-head retreat—A study at
Oldeman LR, Van Engelen VW (1993) A world soils and terrain digital Ganganir Danga, Paschim Medinipore, West Bengal. Ethiopian
database (SOTER)—an improved assessment of land resources. Journal of Environmental Studies and Management 5(4):332–342
Geoderma 60(1–4):309–325 Shit PK, Bhunia GS, Maity R (2013) Assessment of factors affecting
Pan J, Wen Y (2014) Estimation of soil erosion using RUSLE in ephemeral gully development in Badland Topography: a case study
Caijiamiao watershed. China Nat Hazards 71(3):2187–2205 at Garbheta Badland (Pashchim Medinipur, West Bengal, India). Int
Pandey A, Chowdary VM (2007) Identification of critical erosion prone J Geosci 4:461–470
areas in the small agricultural watershed using USLE. GIS and re- Shit PK, Nandi AS, Bhunia GS (2015) Soil erosion risk mapping using
mote sensing. Water Resource Management 21:729–746 RUSLE model on jhargram sub-division at West Bengal in India.
Parveen R, Kumar U (2012) Integrated approach of Universal Soil Loss Model Earth Syst Environ. 1(28):1–12
Equation (USLE) and geographical information system (GIS) for Thiombiano L, Tourino-Soto I (2007) Status and trends in land degrada-
soil loss risk assessment in upper South Koel Basin Jharkhand. J tion in Africa. In: Sivakumar MV, Ndiang’ui N (eds) Climate and
Geogr Inf Syst 4:588–596 Land Degradation. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–53
Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Abinod S, Geetha N (2012) Estimation of soil Tirkey AS, Pandey AC, Nathawat MS (2013) Use of satellite data, GIS
erosion risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, and RUSLE for estimation of average annual soil loss in Daltonganj
India, using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Watershed of Jharkhand (India). Journal of Remote Sensing
geo-information technology. Geosci Front 3(2):209–215 Technology 1(1):20–30
Pulido J, Bocco G (2014) Local perception of land degradation in devel- Vaezi AR, Bahrami HA, Sadeghi SH, Mahdian MH (2010) Spatial vari-
oping countries: a simplifi ed. analytical framework of driving ability of soil erodibility factor (K) of the USLE in North West of
forces, processes, indicators and coping strategies. Living Rev 8: Iran. J Agr Sci Tech. 12:241–252
4–21 Zhang L, Bai KZ, Wang MJ, Karthikeyan R (2016) Basin-scale spatial
Rahman M, Shi ZH, Chongfa C (2009) Soil erosion hazard evaluation— soil erosion variability: Pingshuo opencast mine site in Shanxi
an integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and statistical approaches Province. Loess Plateau of China Nat Hazards 80(2):1213–1230