Belayneh 

et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0149-x

RESEARCH Open Access

Potential soil erosion estimation and area

prioritization for better conservation planning
in Gumara watershed using RUSLE and GIS
techniques’
Mengie Belayneh1*  , Teshome Yirgu2 and Dereje Tsegaye3

Abstract 
Background:  Water induced soil erosion has been continued to threaten the land resources in sub humid north-
western highlands of Ethiopia. Soil and water conservation measures have been implemented without site-specific
scientifically quantified soil erosion data and priority bases. In this regard, quantitative analysis of soil erosion and its
spatial variation plays a decisive role for better evidence and priority based implementation. Thus, this study aimed
to estimate potential soil loss, identify hotspot areas, and prioritize for conservation measures in Gumara watershed
using RUSLE, GIS and remote sensing techniques’.
Result:  The study result showed that soil loss due to water erosion was found to be a critical problem in the water-
shed. It ranges from nearly zero in gentle slope of forest lands to 442.92 t ha−1 year−1 on very steep slope cultivated
lands. A total of 9.683456 million t of gross surface soil has been lost annually, with an average soil erosion rate of
42.67 t ha−1 year−1. Of which 62.1% was generated from cultivated land. The model result indicated a high spatial
variability of soil erosion within the watershed. High intensity of soil erosion has been principally attributed to slope
and land use/covers. The study further estimated that about 63.1% of the total soil loss was generated from only
29.3% of the area delineated as very severe soil erosion severity class. Soil erosion rate for 71.7% of the watershed area
was beyond the maximum tolerable soil erosion limit estimated for Ethiopian highlands (> 18 t ha−1 year−1). The sub-
watershed severity class map revealed that 3814 ha of the sub-watershed area was evaluated as very severe level of
soil erosion severity class.
Conclusion:  Soil erosion in the watershed has been a threatening problem for agricultural production to day, its
sustainability and to be worsening in the future unless remedial measures were taken, mainly due to human interven-
tion. Therefore, Gumara watershed needs immediate intervention for better conservation planning by considering
identified priority classes and hotspot areas.
Keywords:  Potential soil loss, Erosion severity class, Erosion hotspots, Sub-watershed prioritization, RUSLE, Gumara
watershed

*Correspondence: [email protected]
1
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Mettu University,
Box 318, Mettu, Ethiopia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 2 of 17

Background In Ethiopia, the highlands1 account for 43% of the area

Soil erosion caused by water is the loss of top fertile sur- and 95% of the cultivated land and considered to have
face soil as a result of erosive rainfall and consequent high soil fertility potential in the country (Desalegn et al.
runoff (Ganasri and Ramesh 2016). It is considered to 2018). This high potential area has been densely popu-
be the most risky form of soil degradation (Alexandridis lated (Haregeweyn et  al. 2017; Nyssen et  al. 2009), and
et  al. 2015). Soil erosion is a worldwide environmental the problem of soil erosion is worst due to intensive agri-
problem that affects the productivity of all natural eco- cultural practices, slope steepness (Nyssen et  al. 2004)
systems and agriculture, which threaten the lives of most and high rainfall erosivity (Fazzini et  al. 2015).The rain
smallholder farmers (Haregeweyn et  al. 2012; Keno and feed agricultural areas of Ethiopian highlands are esti-
Suryabhagavan 2014; Gessesse et al. 2015). mated to lose 940,893,165 t of net soil annually (Hurni
It can be facilitated by different natural and anthropo- et  al. 2015b) and two-third of the country’s population
genic factors (Alexandridis et al. 2015). The fast growing is affected (Hurni et  al. 2015a). Due to this, 50% of the
population and associated consequences further exacer- highlands are significantly eroded and causes a land pro-
bated the problem and exerts negative influence on soil ductivity loss by a rate of 2.2% per year (Greenland and
resources. Population growth in conjunction with other Nabhan 2001). As a result serious environmental deg-
processes is leading to much more rapid deterioration radation has been occurred and the livelihood of many
of natural resources in developing nations (Repetto and households critically affected (Sultan et al. 2017).
Holmes 1983). Since, the main causes of soil erosion such Currently, the highest soil erosion rate is being
as land cover degradation (Adimassu et al. 2014; Ganasri observed in the western part of the country (Hurni et al.
and Ramesh 2016), steep slope cultivation (Hurni et  al. 2015b). As a typical northwestern Ethiopian highland,
2015a; Nyssen et  al. 2004), agricultural intensification Gumara watershed is among area with highest rainfall
(Adimassu et al. 2014; Nyssen et al. 2004) has high rela- erosivity (Fazzini et  al. 2015) and severely affected by
tion with population pressure and is the main cause for soil erosion. It has been identified as severe soil erosion
soil erosion (Haregeweyn et al. 2017; Nyssen et al. 2008). risk (Haregeweyn et al. 2017) and high mean runoff area
As a result, the problem is more serious in areas related (Haregeweyn et  al. 2015). The soil resources has been
with agricultural intensification, land degradation and degraded and consequently affected the productivity of
other man’s activities on earth (Ganasri and Ramesh the land. Currently the area is characterized by high soil
2016). acidity, recurrent landslide (Gedif et  al. 2016) and high
Soil erosion led to a considerable economic costs and environmental degradation. Nevertheless, the problem of
painful environmental impacts through soil nutrient soil erosion in the watershed is still not addressed. Soil
losses (Shiferaw et  al. 2009), water quality decline and and water conservation has been practiced in the water-
effects on agricultural activities (Pimentel et al. 1995). It shed for about two decades; however, its implementation
affect the seedlings through rill formation in the short- has been led without site-specific scientifically estimated
term and led to reduction of soil depth, water-holding soil erosion data and priority bases.
capacity and soil fertility in the long-term, which, in Several researches have been done so far in estimating
turn, leads to limited vegetation growth and reduction soil erosion in the Ethiopia highlands (e.g. Gelagay and
of crop production (Hurni et  al. 2010). Soil erosion and Minale 2016; Gashaw et al. 2017; Haregeweyn et al. 2017;
associated nutrient losses contributed significantly to Miheretu and Yimer 2018; Woldemariam et al. 2018; Zer-
low agricultural productivity in many parts of develop- ihun et  al. 2018). However, the problem of soil erosion
ing countries (Shiferaw et al. 2009). Its economic effect is has been prevalent and even increasing (Environment
more serious in underdeveloped nations, which are eco- for Development (EfD) 2010) and it could be worsen in
nomically poor and low level in technology and unable to the future (Niang et  al. 2014), especially on Ethiopian
easily control as well as replenish soil nutrients (Tamene highlands, in which the livelihoods of the population is
and Vlek 2008). merely dependent on agriculture and the natural envi-
Soil erosion is main environmental and economic ronment. In addition, soil erosion can be influenced by
problem in Ethiopia (Fazzini et  al. 2015). The problem local climate, topography, population, soil susceptibility,
is more severe in the country related with steep topog- agricultural practices and agro-ecology (Tebebu et  al.
raphy, overgrazing and long cultivation history with out- 2010). This indicates that the problem of soil erosion is
dated technology (Nyssen et al. 2004). It is considered to
be the main treat to the national economy (Fazzini et al.
2015; Hurni 1993), national food supply (Mekuriaw et al.
1 
2018) and sustainability of agricultural production in the Highland: is equivalent to “Ethiopian highlands” in this study context and
defined as an area of elevation extending from about 1000 m above sea level
country (Hurni et al. 2010; Molla and Sisheber 2017). up to the highest peak of 4533 m in Ethiopia (Hurni et al. 2010).
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 3 of 17

Fig. 1  Location map of Gumara watershed

still an important issue to be tackled trough scholarly In this regard, the objectives of the study was (1) to
site-specific researches and valuable recommendations. estimate potential average annual soil loss (t ha−1 year−1)
Controlling such threatening problem requires under- in the watershed (2) to assess the spatial variability of
standing the rate of soil loss and its spatial variation. The soil erosion rate (3) to prioritize hotspot areas and sub-
assessment of the current erosion rates must be the first watersheds for conservation measures in the sub-humid
step in caring out a conservation programme (Hurni Gumara watershed, northwestern highland of Ethiopia.
1985). In this regard, quantitative assessment of soil ero-
sion is a key to infer the extent and magnitude of the Materials and methods
problem and identification of more vulnerable sites. Dif- Study area
ferent model based methods has been developed for soil Gumara watershed (Fig.  1) is located in Dega Damot
erosion spatial assessment and quantification (Kim et al. district,2 Amhara National Regional State, Northwest-
2012; Zhang et  al. 2009). The revised universal soil loss ern Ethiopia. It is among the head quarter streams
equation (RUSLE) (Renard et  al. 1997) with its integra- of Upper Blue Nile Basin. It lies within 10°50′15″ to
tion to geographic information system (GIS) is among 11°0′40″N and 37°30′40″ to 37°41′22″E, covers an area
widely applied empirical models for assessment of sheet, of 204.4 km2. Gumara watershed is part of the northern
inter-rill and rill erosion. GIS based soil erosion models highland. It is dominated by the Oligo-miocene volcanic
are important means for erosion assessment and prior- trap basalt rock underlying by early tertiary volcanoes
itization to initiate possible land management measures and part of the late Paleozoic to early tertiary sediment
(Bewket and Teferi 2009; Silva et  al. 2012; Khadse et  al. as well as Cenozoic volcanic and sedimentary rock for-
2015; Ganasri and Ramesh 2016; Markose and Jayappa mations (Abbate et  al. 2015). The watershed is part of
2016). Therefore, this study used RUSLE model in which
most of the parameters were calibrated in Ethiopian
highland conditions (Hurni 1985), and applicable with
2 
the limited available data. District: locally referred and roughly equivalent to “woreda”, is the next
lower level of administration in the current Ethiopian administration system.
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 4 of 17

Table 1  The types, sources and quality of RUSLE input data used in this study
Data type Data source Data quality

Landsat 8 satellite image Downloaded from USGS (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov) 30*30 m

ASTER GDEM Downloaded from USGS (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov) 1 arc–second
Soil map Collected from ministry of water, irrigation and energy of Ethiopia 1:250,000
Rainfall data Collected from national meteorology agency of Ethiopia 20 years monthly data
Topo-sheet map Collected from Ethiopian geospatial information agency 1:50,000
GPS points Field data collected using GARMIN VISTA HCx GPS –

the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia, characterized practices into consideration. The RUSLE soil loss estima-
by diverse topographic conditions. The elevation ranges tion model equation is given below (Eq. 1):
from 1864 to 3235 m above sea level.
The digital soil map of the watershed collected from A = R ∗ K ∗ LS ∗ C ∗ P (1)
Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy indicated that, where A is estimated annual soil loss (t ­ha−1 ­year−1), R is
the soil of the watershed is characterized by haplic luvi- rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm ­ha−1 ­h−1 ­year−1), K is soil
sols, haplic nitisols and haplic alisoils (Table  3). Haplic erodability factor (t ­ha−1 ­MJ−1 ­mm−1), L is slope length
alisols is the dominant soil type in the watershed, cover- and S is slope steepness factor (dimensionless), C is land
ing an area of 90.67  km2 (43.76%). The study watershed use/cover factor (dimensionless) and P is conservation
received 2078.1 mm mean annual rainfall in a unimodal support practice factor (dimensionless).
pattern. The mean annual temperature in the area is The input data for aforementioned five major erosion
16.6 °C, where 71% of the watershed has highland tropical determining factors were collected from different pri-
climate. Land use/covers in the watershed are dominated mary and secondary sources. The types, sources, collec-
by cultivated land (58.09%) (Table 5; Fig. 3a). Subsistence tion methods and quality of RUSLE input data has been
agriculture, in the form of mixed crop and livestock sys- presented in Table 1.
tem is the main source of livelihood for nearly 90% of the
households in the watershed. The population density of RUSLE parameters estimation
the watershed was 158, 184 and 216 in 1994, 2007 (Cen- Rainfall erosivity factor (R) estimation
tral Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) 1994, 2007) and Rainfall erosivity represents the erosive force of specific
2017 (estimated by Dega Damot District Administration rainfall (Prasannakumar et  al. 2012) or the energy of
office in 2017) respectively. rainfall as the driving force behind soil erosion. R-fac-
tor can be explained by the interaction between rainfall
Method of soil loss estimation (The RUSLE Model) kinetic energy and with the soil surface (Wischmeier and
Potential soil loss3 estimation was carried out using Smith 1978). Rainfall erosivity is a multifaceted process
widely used and evaluated soil erosion model, which in which the amount, intensity, energy, duration, pattern,
was first developed as USLE (Wischmeier and Smith size of raindrop of rainfall and associated runoff exerts
1978) and modified into RUSLE (Renard et  al. 1997). It influence (Farhan and Nawaiseh 2015). In RUSLE model
was also adapted and most of the variables calibrated by rainfall erosivity parameter estimation was based on the
Hurni (1985) in the Ethiopian highland condition. RUSLE multiplication of total storm energy by 30  min rainfall
was selected for our study by considering its advantages intensity; expressed as R = EI30 (Renard et al. 1997). How-
of simplicity, compatibility, applicability in limited data ever, it is difficult to apply this equation directly in data
conditions and its adoption in Ethiopian highland con- poor areas like Ethiopia. Instead it was modified in the
ditions. In data scarce areas for validation of models, it real situations of Ethiopia by Hurni (1985) to be applica-
is suggested to be cost effective soil erosion estimation ble using easily available mean annual rainfall data. Thus,
method for effective conservation planning (Haile and our study employed Hurni (1985) empirical equation;
Fetene 2012; Prasannakumar et  al. 2012). The RUSLE expressed as (Eq. 2):
model quantifies soil erosion by taking climate, soil prop- R = −8.12 + (0.562 ∗ P) (2)
erty, topographic, cover management, and conservation where R is rainfall erosivity (MJ  mm ­ha−1  h−1  years−1)
and P is mean annual rainfall (mm).
In this regard, 20  years (1997–2016) monthly rainfall
3 
Potential soil loss: refers to the amount of predicted or estimated (not meas- data of four surrounding (with in 16  km buffer zone of
ured/not actual) soil loss through water induced soil erosion.
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 5 of 17

Table 
2 Mean annual rainfall and  R-value (computed and Fetene 2012). Some of the most important soil prop-
from 20 years monthly data) erties that affect soil erodibility are soil texture, drainage
Soil type Latitude Longitude Elevation Mean R_factor condition, soil depth, structure and organic matter con-
(m a.s.l) annual value tent (Prasannakumar et  al. 2012). Different methods of
rainfall soil erodibility estimations were suggested and this study
Dengay 37.55 10.72 2800 2091.08 1167.07 used soil type and color method adapted in Ethiopian
Ber case (Hurni 1985).
Feres Bet 37.61 10.85 3000 2078.1 1159.77 The soil map of Abay river basin was collected from
Genet 37.43 10.82 1931 1961.7 1094.36 Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, prepared for
Abo the purpose of developing Abay basin master plan by the
Motta 37.89 11.07 2417 1260.85 700.48 then Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR 1998). It was
developed in 1:250,000 scale as a multipurpose digital
map following food and agricultural organization (FAO)
soil classification standard. The soil map of the water-
the watershed) rainfall stations (Dengay Ber, Feres Bet,
shed was extracted from Abay Basin soil map and three
Genet Abo and Motta) were collected from Ethiopian
types of soil (Fig.  2b) have been identified. Further, 24
National Meteorology Agency (Table  2). Some missed
soil samples were taken and its color was identified using
rainfall data were found in the collected data but it was
Munsell color chart for validation of the color of the soil
filled using arithmetic average and normal ratio meth-
in the map. The K-value for each soil type was assigned
ods. Since, the normal average rainfall of Feres Bet, Den-
depending on the type of soil and its color as suggested
gay Ber and Genet Abo stations are within 10% of normal
(Hurni 1985) (Table  3). The vector map was converted
annual rainfall in each station arithmetic average method
into 30 × 30  m raster map using its K-value in ArcGIS
were used (Radi et  al. 2015). Whereas, normal ratio
10.3 conversion tools.
method was applied for Motta rainfall station due to the
The erodibility value of soils in the watershed varies
fact that the normal average annual rainfall was greater
from .2 t h­ a−1 ­MJ−1 ­mm−1 in haplic luvisols to .25 t h­ a−1
than 10% of other surrounding stations (Radi et al. 2015). −1 −1
­MJ ­mm in haplic nitosols and haplic alisols (Table 3;
The mean monthly data was averaged per year and
Fig. 2c).
rainfall station to find 20  years yearly rainfall data. The
average of yearly rainfall data was computed for 20 years
to find the long term mean annual rainfall for each Slope steepness and length factor (LS) estimation
rainfall station. The erosivity value of each station -was LS factor is a combined factor which affect the velocity
computed using Eq.  2 and a point map developed using and volume of runoff (Prasannakumar et  al. 2012). The
erosivity value of stations. Inverse distance weighted steepness and length of slope affects the rate of water
(IDW) interpolation method was used to generate erosiv- induced soil erosion considerably (Gashaw et  al. 2017),
ity map for the watershed surface area using ArcGIS 10.3 through greater accumulation of runoff (Wischmeier
(Fig.  2a). IDW gives the most representative interpola- and Smith 1978). It can increase the erosivity of runoff
tion result for annual rainfall with a minimum of errors through increased velocity of runoff water. As a result
(Keblouti et  al. 2012). Then, 30 × 30  m cell size rainfall the water travels in a higher speed in steeper slopes and
erosivity factor raster map was created. consequently increases its shear stress on the surface
The R-factor map revealed that the erosivity of rainfall and transportation of greater sediment (Wischmeier and
in the watershed ranged from 1013.45 to 1157.77 MJ mm Smith 1978; Haile and Fetene 2012). The determination
­ha−1 ­h−1 with a mean value of 1120.46 MJ mm h ­ a−1 ­h−1 of LS value was initially proposed through direct meas-
(Fig. 2a). urements of slope (Renard et al. 1997), but not applicable
for watershed level studies.
In this study L and S values were calculated using
Soil erodibility factor (K) estimation Eqs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Renard et al. 2011). For the estimation
The soil erodibility value refers to the influence of soil of LS-value, one arc-second pixel size (30.73 × 30.73  m)
properties on soil loss during storm events on highland ASTER global digital elevation model (GDEM) version 2
areas (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). It is the sensitivity was downloaded from United States Geological Survey
of the soil to erosion, easy removal of the silt, and the (USGS) website (http://earth​explo​rer.usgs.gov). It was
amount of runoff assumed in an individual rainfall con- geometrically corrected and extracted based on the study
tribution (Kayet et  al. 2018). Is the K-factor implies the watershed shape file using. Following this necessary anal-
properties of the soil and vulnerability of soil particles ysis/inputs for LS-value estimation/such as slope analy-
to be detached and transported by rainfall-runoff (Haile sis, filling sinks, flow direction and flow accumulation
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 6 of 17

Fig. 2  Map of Gumara watershed showing a R-factor, b soil types, c K-factor, d slope length value, e slope steepness value and f LS-factor value
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 7 of 17

Table 3  Soil type, color and erodibility value of Gumara watershed

Soil type Soil color Area (%) K-value
(Hurni
1985)

Haplic Luvisols Brown (Gashaw et al. 2017; Moges and Bhat 2017 35.04 .2
Haplic nitisols Red (Gelagay and Minale 2016) 21.21 .25
Haplic Alisols Red (Gelagay and Minale 2016; Moges and Bhat 2017) 43.76 .25

were performed. After the estimation of L and S-values in March 2017 downloaded from USGS website (http://
using equations expressed; the LS-value was computed earth​explo​rer.usgs.gov). March has been selected due to
by multiplying the value of L and S in pixel-by-pixel basis the fact that the C-value varies seasonally depending on
using raster calculator of ArcGIS 10.3 (Fig. 2d–f ). vegetation cover variation per seasons and March is the
According to FAO/UNISCO (2006) slope classifica- optimum month for single image estimation (Alexan-
tion system 74.4% of the watershed area was classified dridis et al. 2015). Prior to classification image rectifica-
as moderately steep to very steep land (Table  4). The tion, layer stacking, image enhancement and extraction
LS-value rages from 0.03 in low flow concentration level have been made as image pre-processing. 1:50, 000 topo-
slope land to 62.45 in very steep slope areas (Fig. 2f ). sheet map was used for rectification of the satellite image.
Six main LUC types were identified based on the
(3) researchers’ knowledge of the area and reconnaissance
  survey (Table  5; Fig.  3a). LUC classes were forest land
m = β (1 + β) (4) (area covered by dense and tall trees both natural and
plantations), shrub land (land covered by short trees,
  shrubs, and scattered trees), cultivated land (a land
β = (sin θ/0.0896) 3.0(sin θ)0.8 + 0.56 (5) covered by annual and perennial crops, fallow lands),
grass land (an area covered by grasses), bare land (stony
where L is slope length factor, is the horizontal projec- or rocky areas and soil exposed without any cover) and
tion (m) or (flow accumulation × cell size), m is vari- built-up area (urban areas, schools and health centers
able slope length exponent, β is computed for conditions and rural homesteads). Due to two basic reasons; dif-
when the soils is moderately susceptible to both rill ferent crop land uses has been classified as cultivated
and inter-rill erosion and sin θ is slope angle in degree land uses in our LUC classification. Firstly, crop rota-
(GDEM generated slope in degree × 0.01745). tion in yearly and seasonal basis is a common practice,
S = 10.8 ∗ sin θ + 0.03 δ ≤ 9% so crop land use in this year may not represent the next
(6) year. Secondly, it is difficult to detect different crop land
S = 16.8 ∗ sin θ − 0.5 δ ≥ 9%
uses from 30 m resolution image. It is a procedure used
where S is slope steepness factor, sin θ is slope angle and most commonly in Ethiopia (Bewket and Teferi 2009;
δ is slope gradient in percent.

Cover management factor (C) estimation Table 4  Slope classes (modified from  FAO 2006) and  area
It indicates how the cover of the land, crops land uses and coverage in Gumara watershed
crop management systems determines soil loss instead of
Slope class Area (ha) Area ratio (%)
losses from bare fallow areas (Haregeweyn et  al. 2017).
It is the effect of vegetation canopy and ground cover in Description Slope (%)
reduction of soil erosion (Renard et al. 1997). Land use/
Level slope < 1 31.07 .15
cover classification map and normalized difference veg-
Very gentle sloping 1–2 83.85 .41
etation index (NDVI) are most commonly used methods
Gently sloping 2–5 621.3 3.04
for C-value estimation. We selected land use/cover clas-
Sloping 5–10 1935 9.48
sification map approach, since it gives comparatively pre-
Strongly sloping 10–15 2583 12.6
cise C-value than normalized difference vegetation index
Moderately steep 15–30 6995 34.3
(NDVI) (Lin et al. 2017).
Steep 30–45 4152 20.3
Land use/cover map of the watershed was classified
Very steep >45 4037 19.8
using 30*30  m cloud free landsat 8 satellite image taken
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 8 of 17

Table 5  Land use/cover, area coverage and published C-values

LUC type Area (ha) Area (%) C-value Source

Forest land 854.46 4.18 .001 Hurni (1985); Zerihun et al. (2018)
Shrub land 4476.87 21.9 .014 Hurni (1985); Gessesse et al. (2015); Moges and Bhat (2017)
Cultivated land (Ethio- 11,873.43 58.1 .25 Hurni (1985); Haile and Fetene (2012)
pian tef )
Grass land 1326.24 6.49 .05 Hurni (1985); Haile and Fetene (2012)
Built-up area 578.97 2.83 .05 Moges and Bhat (2017)
Bare land 1327.5 6.5 .05 Moges and Bhat (2017); Haile and Fetene (2012)

Fig. 3  Map showing a land use/cover, b C-factor, c slope in percent, d P-factor for Gumara watershed

Gelagay and Minale 2016; Haregeweyn et  al. 2017; truth data) (50 reference points per LUC type) collected
Setegn et al. 2010; Zerihun et al. 2018). from the field using global positioning system (GPS) as
The image was classified using supervised classification recommended by Congalton and Green (2009). The accu-
in maximum likelihood algorithm procedure. The classi- racy assessment was done using 150 (30 per LUC type)
fication was performed using 350 reference data (ground reference data from the field using GPS. Ground control
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 9 of 17

points were collected using stratified random sampling Table 6 Conservation practices factor value (Wischmeier
method, which is appropriate method for reference data and Smith 1978)
(Congalton and Green 2009) and accuracy assessment Land use type Slope (%) P-value
(Van Genderen and Lock 1977). Error (confusion) matrix
and kapa coefficient were used to evaluate the overall Agricultural land use 0–5 .1
classification accuracy of the classified image and the Agricultural land use 5–10 .12
agreement between classified image and the reference Agricultural land use 10–20 .14
data respectively. Kappa coefficient is appropriate to use Agricultural land use 20–30 .19
for accuracy assessment if stratified random sampling Agricultural land use 30–50 .25
method has been used for collection of training points Agricultural land use 50–100 .33
used for accuracy assessment (Senseman et  al. 1995). Non agricultural land use 0–100 1.00
Thus, the overall classification accuracy was 90.56%,
implies accurate classification (Congalton and Green
2009) and kappa coefficient result indicates (.89) showed
Therefore, the land use/cover map classified for C-fac-
a good agreement between the classified image and ref-
tor estimation and slope map developed from GDEM
erence data (Landis and Koch 1977). The image analysis
were used for P-factor estimation (see details in C-factor
was performed using ERDAS IMAGIN 2014 software.
for LUC classification). Both maps were converted into
The classified land use/cover raster map was converted
vector file to make them union or to find an attribute
to vector format to assign the suggested C-values for each
having both slope and LUC values. Using union analysis
land use/cover types using ArcGIS10.3 software. C-val-
in ArcGIS 10.3; the slope and LUC map of the watershed
ues suggested by Hurni (1985) for forest land, shrub land,
was combined and values were assigned accordingly.
cultivated land and grassland and Moges and Bhat (2017)
Then, it was converted to 30 × 30 m raster map using the
for bare land and built-up area were used (Table 5). The
assigned P-value (Fig.  3d). The estimated conservation
soil map in a vector form with C-values was converted
practice factor values ranges from .1 in cultivated land
to 30*30 m raster map to make it compatible with other
with a slope < 5 to 1 in other land use/covers except agri-
parameters for cell-by-cell multiplication. The cover
cultural land uses (Table 6; Fig. 3d).
management factor value ranges from .001 in forest cov-
Finally, all the parameter layers were resampled to
ers to .25 in cultivated lands.
30 × 30  m cell size raster map and projected with UTM
Zone 37N, WGS 1984 datum. The five RUSLE factors
Conservation practice factor (P) estimation were multiplied in raster calculator of ArcGIS10.3 in a
It refers to the effects of land conservation practices in cell-by-cell basis to estimate the potential annual average
minimizing the quantity and rate of rainfall-runoff and soil loss and its spatial variability in the watershed. Sub-
soil erosion Wischmeier and Smith (1978). Conserva- watershed vulnerability map was also generated from the
tion practice factor signifies the ratio of soil erosion from soil loss map by using sub-watersheds delineated. The
a land treated with a specific conservation measure to schematic presentation of the soil erosion analysis has
its equivalent soil loss from up and down slope tillage been presented (Fig. 4).
(Markose and Jayappa 2016). P value can be determined Besides, simple descriptive statistics such as percent-
by the type of conservation measure implemented. age, maximum, minimum mean and standard deviation
In the study area terracing is a typically implemented were used to present the model estimated result in a
conservation method, but it was difficult to estimate the meaningful manner. It was used to summarize and pre-
P-value from it due to absence of data. Indeed, terrace sent the overall mean soil loss in the watershed, the mean
structures were constructed through mass-community and percentage of soil loss under erosion severity classes,
mobilization and we identified in our on-site observation, slope categories, land uses/cover and soil types using soil
most of them are poor design due to lack of assistance, loss map of the model estimate in ArcGIS 10.3 environ-
irregularities in implementation and fully or partially ment, spatial analyst tools, zonal statistics extension.
demolished due to low level of maintenance. This study
employed an alternative method using a combination of
slope and land use/covers for estimation of the P-value Results and discussion
as proposed by Wischmeier and Smith (1978) (Table  6). Consistency and validation of the model estimate
The method was also used by other similar studies (Gela- Validation of the model estimates was challenging in this
gay and Minale 2016; Haregeweyn et al. 2017; Moges and study, due to poorly available data to weigh against the
Bhat 2017). model estimates with the actual soil loss. However, as an
option hydrological scientific model validation method
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 10 of 17

Satellite ASTER Rainfall Soil

Image GDEM Data Data

Training
Slope Slope Fill Interpolation Soil
Points
(%) (degree) (IDW) Classes
LULC
Map Flow
Slope direction
Accuracy reclassify
assessment

Published Published Flow Published

C-values P-values accumulation K-values

Cover management Conservation Topography Erosivity Erodibility

C- factor P-factor LS-factor R-factor K-factor

Streams
A = R*K*LS*C*P
Pour points

Sub-watersheds

Sub-watershed severity and

prioritization

Fig. 4  Methodological flow of soil loss estimation using RUSLE model and watershed prioritization

proposed by Biondi et al. (2012) was used for this study for Lake Koga watershed, Upper Blue Nile Basin. Amsalu
to cheek the validity and consistency of the model esti- and Mengaw (2014) reported a relatively comparable
mation by comparing it with that of previously published estimate for Jabi Tehinan District (30.6 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1). A
results (Haregeweyn et al. 2017; Zerihun et al. 2018). The recent comprehensive study by Haregeweyn et al. (2017)
result was compared against studies conducted in the in the upper Blue Nile basin also found a comparable
nearby areas mainly Northwestern highlands with both result ranging from zero to 200 t ­ha−1 ­year−1 with an
observed (Setegn et  al. 2010; Subhatu et  al. 2017) and average soil loss rate of 27.5 t ­ha−1 ­year−1.
estimated results (Bewket and Teferi 2009; Gelagay and The result in this study is somehow lower than the
Minale 2016; Haregeweyn et al. 2017; Zerihun et al. 2018) estimates for Chemoga watershed with 93 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1
(Table 7). Some variations on previously reported results
with this study estimates could be related to their respec-
tive site-specific variations in parameters. Table 7 Consistency of  model estimate with  previously
published results in  the  Upper Blue Nile Basin,
Potential soil loss in the Gumara watershed Northwestern highland
A quantitative expression of soil erosion is a fundamental Study site Mean annual soil References
phase for any watershed management (Prasannakumar ­ a−1 ­year−1)
loss (t h
et al. 2012; Khadse et al. 2015). This study tried to quan-
Gumara watershed 42.67 This study
tify and map soil erosion in Gumara watershed (Fig. 5a).
Anjeni watershed 24.6 Setegn et al. (2010)
The average annual soil loss in sub-humid Gumara water-
Chemoga watershed 93 Bewket and Teferi (2009)
shed was estimated to be 42.67 t ­ha−1 ­year−1. A total of
Dembecha district 49 Zerihun et al. (2018)
9.683456 million t of soil has been lost annually. Our esti-
Koga watershed 47 Gelagay and Minale (2016)
mate was consistent with the results reported by Subhatu
Upper Blue Nile Basin 27.5 Haregeweyn et al. (2017)
et al. (2017) for terraced Anjeni watershed (31–37 t ­ha−1
Geleda watershed 23.7 Gashaw et al. (2017)
­year−1) and Molla and Sisheber (2017) (42 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1)
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 11 of 17

On the contrary relatively lower soil loss results were

reported by Gashaw et  al. (2017) 23.7 t ­ha−1 ­year−1 for
Geleda watershed and Miheretu and Yimer (2018) 24.3
t ­ha−1 ­year−1 for Gelana sub-watershed. This could be
attributed to highland mountainous and steep slope con-
ditions to gather with relatively higher rainfall in Gumara
watershed.
In the Ethiopian highland case erosion rate ranging
between 2 and 18 ha−1 ­year−1 is believed to be tolerable
(Hurni 1985). In this case the soil erosion rate for 71.71%
of the watershed area was beyond the maximum tolera-
ble limit (> 18 t h­ a−1 ­year−1) with 56 t h
­ a−1 ­year−1 average
rate of soil loss. The mean annual soil loss (42.67 t h ­ a−1
−1
­year ) was greater than fourfold of the mean soil erosion
tolerance (10 t ­ha−1 ­year−1). Since it is predominantly an
agricultural watershed, characterized by dense human
and animal population, and population density has
strong relationship with soil erosion risk (Haregeweyn
et  al. 2017), it is speculated that soil erosion problem is
more likely to be challenging in the future. As a result, it
needs immediate better and priority based conservation
intervention to rehabilitate affected areas and sustaining
the land resource.

Soil loss spatial variation and its relation with slope, LUC

and soil types in the Watershed
Potential annual soil loss ranges from 0.01 to 442.92
t ­ha−1 ­year−1 (Fig.  5b), with an average soil loss rate of
42.67 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1 and standard deviation of 41.32 t h­ a−1
−1
­year . The range of soil loss has been much smaller than
Fig. 5  Soil erosion map of Gumara watershed a potential soil loss (t
the estimates for Koga watershed 0–716 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1
­ha−1 ­year−1), soil loss spatial variation and hotspot areas, b severity (Molla and Sisheber 2017) and Rib watershed 0–807 t
classes ­ha−1 ­year−1 (Moges and Bhat 2017) in the northwestern
Ethiopian highlands. The erosion risk map was devel-
oped depending on the severity classes adopted from
Haregeweyn et al. (2017). The map revealed 26.4%, 20.9%
(Bewket and Teferi 2009), Dembecha district 49 t h ­ a−1
−1 and 29.3% of the watershed area was experienced moder-
­year (Zerihun et  al. 2018), Koga watersheds with 47
ate, severe and very severe soil erosion rate respectively
t ­ha−1 ­year−1 (Gelagay and Minale 2016) and 68 t h
­ a−1
−1 (Table  8). Their respective average soil loss was 22.5,
­year Rib watershed (Moges and Bhat 2017). The vari-
38.7 and 92 t ­ha−1 ­year−1, which is very high as com-
ation observed might be mainly due to high topographic
pared to soil erosion tolerance in Ethiopia. Of the total,
factor values observed in their estimated LS-values.

Table 8  Severity classes adopted from Haregeweyn et al. (2017), its area coverage, soil loss and priority levels
Area (hectare) Soil loss (t ­ha−1 ­year−1) Priority level
−1 −1
Severity class (t ­ha ­year ) Area (ha) Area (%) Mean soil loss (t Total soil loss (t/ Soil loss ratio
­ha−1 ­year−1) year−1) (%)

Very slight (< 5) 1789.02 8.76 2.9 56,988.14 .59 V

Slight (5–15) 2987.73 14.6 9.84 326,517.6 3.37 IV
Moderate (15–30) 5396.22 26.4 22.5 1,351,680 14 III
Severe (30–50) 4271.31 20.9 38.7 1,836,689 19 II
Very severe (> 50) 5981.31 29.3 92 6,111,582 63.1 I
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 12 of 17

Soil Loss (%)

Soil loss (%) Soil loss (%)
Mean Soil Loss (t ha-1 yr-1)
Mean Soil Loss (t ha-1 yr-1) Mean Soil Loss (t ha-1 yr-1)
Area (%)
Area (%) Area (%)
80 70 70
70 60
60
60 50

Soil Loss (%)

Soil loss (%)

50

Soil Loss (%)

50
40 40
40
30 30 30

20 20 20
10 10
10
0
0 0
Moderatly Steep
Gentle Sloping
V. Gentle Sloping

Strongly Sloping
Level Slope

Steep Slope
V. Steep Slope
Sloping

Haplic Alisols

Haplic Nitisols

Haplic Luvisols
Slope Class LUC Types Soil Types
Fig. 6  Soil loss with respect to slope, land use/cover and soil types in Gumara watershed

9.299951 million t (96.4%) of soil has been lost each year constituting 40.1% spatial share of the watershed area
from these classes and most of them are the cultivated (Fig. 6). Our estimates were in agreement with previous
land. Such occasions threatens the agricultural sector, studies such as Gashaw et al. (2017), Kayet et al. (2018),
which is the main means of livelihood for more than 90% Markose and Jayappa (2016) and Woldemariam et  al.
of the watershed community. Areas classified as severe (2018). Similarly, Ferreira and Panagopoulos (2014)
and very sever classes representing 50.19% of the water- observed high relationship of greater soil erosion with
shed (Table 8) is the priori-focus area and basically need steepest gradient and low land cover in Alequa reser-
immediate attention for better conservation measures. voir watershed, Portugal.
Our estimates was in agreement with the finding of High soil erosion and hotspot areas were dominantly
Haregeweyn et  al. (2017) in the Upper Blue Nile basin, observed in the mid-portions of the watershed followed
reported nearly similar result that 77.3% of the basin by the upper portion while the lower part is experi-
area experienced moderate to very severe erosion. Our enced relatively low erosion rates. Similarities result
estimates of soil loss contradicted with a study result for was reported by Bewket and Teferi (2009) for Chemoga
Geleda watershed reported that 78.75% of the watershed watershed, Ethiopia. Our result was inconsistent with
area classifies under low level of soil erosion (Gashaw the study results Markose and Jayappa (2016) reported
et al. 2017). Large proportion of the area in Geleda water- excessive soil erosion in the downstream part of Kali
shed may be attributed to the low steepness of area, River basin, India. Such disparities may arise depending
which is indicated by the low slope steepness value (.07 on existence of undulating surface in the watershed por-
to 2.46). tions, as confirmed by estimates for Gumara watershed
The estimated result confirmed the existence of and Kali River basin. This also implies a strong associa-
greater soil erosion spatial variability in the water- tion of soil erosion with topography.
shed. This is basically attributed to the characteristics The cultivated land show signs of very severe soil ero-
of the area in terms of slope and land use/covers. The sion hot spot areas. It accounts 62.06% of the total soil
majority (61.6%) of soil loss in the watershed is com- loss in the watershed with a mean erosion rate of 45.68
ing from steep and very steep slope lands (16.5°–65.5°) t ­ha−1 ­year−1. Whereas forest land covers were less
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 13 of 17

vulnerable and generates 14.09 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1 average rate

of soil erosion (Fig. 6). Higher soil loss in the agricultural
land uses could probably be caused by continuous culti-
vation of steep slope areas without proper land manage-
ment systems. In Gumara watershed, 36.7% and 13.5%
of the cultivated land has been under strongly sloping
and moderate to very steep slope gradient respectively
according to FAO slope classification system. It assured
a report by Hurni et  al. 2015a stated the cultivation of
very steep terrain is a prime threatening factor for soil
resources than anything else in Ethiopia. Similarly a
study result by Ganasri and Ramesh (2016) in Nethra-
vathi Basin, reported high soil erosion rate in agricultural
land. Our finding was not in agreement with the study
result by Markose and Jayappa (2016) for Kali river basin,
reported less soil erosion agricultural areas than forest
land. Our study clearly indicated that forest and shrub
land has estimated to have low level of mean soil loss rate
whereas barren land and cultivated lands constitutes the
highest (Fig. 6).
Following its high erodibility and its existence in the
steepest gradient of the watershed, haplic alisols are more
vulnerable with a mean soil loss of 45.95 t ­ha−1 ­year−1
(Fig.  6). In contrast, with similar erodibility value haplic
nitisols has the lowest mean soil loss (35.8 t ­ha−1 ­year−1),
mainly because most of its area is dominated by rela-
tively lower slope steepness. This indicates that the effect
of topography was significant in predicting the soil loss
effect of soil types.

Sub‑watershed vulnerability and prioritization Fig. 7  Map of sub-watersheds in Gumara watershed showing a

Gumara watershed was classified in to 46 sub-watersheds ­ a−1 ­year−1), b severity class
average soil loss (t h
and their vulnerability classes were identified (Fig. 7). The
erosion severity class map of sub-watersheds revealed
nearly the entire watershed needs the implementation annually (Table  9; Fig.  7a). Highest estimate was found
of different types of conservation measures. However, to be at SW21 (61.41 t ­ha−1 ­year−1) followed by SW46
implementation of conservation measures in all sub- (60.65 t ­ha−1 ­year−1) and the lowest mean soil loss was
watersheds may not be possible and effective. Identifica- generated from SW4 (23.63 t h ­ a−1 ­year−1). The result
tion of more risky sub-watersheds was basic for selection showed that there was greater variability of soil erosion
of prior-focus areas for conservation planning (Gashaw not only in pixel basis but also among sub-watersheds.
et al. 2017; Silva et al. 2012; Woldemariam et al. 2018). In The sub-watershed vulnerability class map revealed
this regard, prioritization was done using the annual soil four, thirty-one and eleven sub-watersheds were iden-
loss estimated for the watershed by RUSLE. Several stud- tified as very severe, severe and moderate level of vul-
ies successfully implemented this method for sub-water- nerability respectively (Table  9; Fig.  7b). The minimum
shed prioritization (Bewket and Teferi 2009; Kayet et al. average soil loss of sub-watersheds was 23.63 t h ­a−1
−1
2018; Khadse et  al. 2015; Markose and Jayappa 2016; ­year , which is beyond the maximum tolerable limit.
Silva et al. 2012). It indicates that Gumara watershed is found to be more
In this case the variation among sub-watersheds is con- vulnerable for soil erosion. However, sub-watersheds
sidered to be the attributed by individual model parame- identified as very severe and severe erosion classes con-
ter characteristics and their interaction. As per the model stitute 69.81 and 23.7% of soil loss in the watershed. As
estimates sub-watersheds experienced a potential aver- a result, it is better to give priority for more vulnerable
age soil erosion rate ranging from 23.63 to 61.41 t h ­ a−1 sub-watersheds for conservation planning. Most of the
top priority sub-watersheds are found in the mid stream
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 14 of 17

Table 9  Sub-watersheds, their total and mean annual soil loss and priority level
SW_ID Area (ha) MSL (t TSL (t/year−1) SLR (%) Priority level SW _ID Area (ha) MSL (t TSL (t/year−1) SLR (%) Priority level
­ha−1 ­ha−1
­year−1) ­year−1)

1 250.64 34.42 97,685.06 1.01 Severe 24 321.66 48.07 171,163.7 1.77 Severe
2 354.78 40.74 160,578.5 1.66 Severe 25 298.35 38.05 126,140.3 1.3 Severe
3 394.19 24.75 109,135.2 1.13 Moderate 26 510.3 54.47 307,227.3 3.17 Very severe
4 372.78 23.63 96,891.3 1 Moderate 27 623.07 51.54 356,765.6 3.68 Very severe
5 228.95 57.94 153,423 1.58 Very severe 28 263.25 45.42 132,841 1.37 Severe
6 430.83 35.16 167,367.8 1.73 Severe 29 365.31 47.44 192,560.9 1.99 Severe
7 187.65 49.69 103,411.1 1.07 Severe 30 581.39 41.6 268,142 2.77 Severe
8 963.81 48.33 513,573 5.3 Severe 31 391.59 32.04 139,415 1.44 Severe
9 333.54 43.35 159,538.2 1.65 Severe 32 661.41 42.53 312,437.2 3.23 Severe
10 667.7 40.62 305,215.6 3.15 Severe 33 446.3 46.14 231,780.1 2.39 Severe
11 408.5 40 184,252.8 1.9 Severe 34 484.2 26.11 138,681.4 1.43 Moderate
12 411.39 47.29 216,140.3 2.23 Severe 35 414.44 27.7 128,536.9 1.33 Moderate
13 994.5 44.08 487,076.4 5.03 Severe 36 584.37 39.61 257,172.4 2.66 Severe
14 343.8 37.23 141,367.4 1.46 Severe 37 290.34 35.06 113,093.3 1.17 Severe
15 610.47 37.32 253,168.9 2.61 Severe 38 344.43 47.31 181,036.8 1.87 Severe
16 281.7 58.6 183,432.4 1.89 Very severe 39 246.24 42.29 115,565.7 1.19 Severe
17 199.62 36.75 80,657.29 .83 Severe 40 596.34 50.62 335,420.9 3.46 Very severe
18 455.76 51.54 260,993.8 2.7 Very severe 41 487.52 28.45 154,786.6 1.6 Moderate
19 182.43 44.41 89,314.3 .92 Severe 42 607.76 37.22 253,889.6 2.62 Severe
20 903.06 44.89 449,013.4 4.64 Severe 43 551.34 48.35 296,222.4 3.06 Severe
21 326.97 61.41 223,112.7 2.3 Very severe 44 343.44 46.74 178,343.2 1.84 Severe
22 685.98 35.23 267,772.3 2.77 Severe 45 232.38 45.01 114,544.9 1.18 Severe
23 648.9 53.16 383,295.1 3.96 Very severe 46 135.45 60.65 91,273.74 .94 Very severe
MSL, mean soil loss; TSL, total soil loss; SLR, soil loss ratio; SW_ID, sub-Watershed identification number (SW1, SW2, SW3, … SW46)

part of the watershed, where as less priority areas were attention is needed for conservation measures espe-
concentrated more on the downstream part unlike the cially in steep continuously cultivated mid-portion of the
findings of Markose and Jayappa (2016). watershed. The sub-watershed vulnerability map showed
that most of the watershed area was endangered with
Conclusion and policy implications soil erosion, in which 3814  ha (9 sub-watersheds) were
Estimation of soil erosion is required to make conserva- categorized under the first priority levels of soil erosion.
tion planning evidence (priority) based to be more effec- Such sub-watersheds need immediate attention for better
tive with the available limited resources. The RUSLE watershed management depending on priority classes.
potential soil loss estimation model gives a good impli- As a result, well planned and evidence based watershed
cation of soil erosion intensity and variability in Gumara management interventions are very essential to rehabili-
watershed. The watershed experienced a serious prob- tate degraded areas and minimize future soil erosion in
lem related to water induced soil erosion. An estimated the watershed.
9.683456 million t of top fertile soil has been lost from An integrated approach of RUSLE, GIS and remote
the watershed annually with an average soil erosion rate sensing found to be important tool for soil mapping and
of 42.67 t h­ a−1 ­year−1. Estimated areas of 82.08% were quantification of soil erosion, its spatial variation and
evaluated to be experienced severe and very severe soil prioritization of sub-watersheds especially in data poor
erosion rate in the watershed. This is far beyond the soil areas. This is vital for giving first hand information that
erosion rate tolerable limit. may assist planning for conservation measures. Land
The cultivation of steep slope areas has been identi- resource related sectors: especially local governmental
fied as prior causes for occurrence of severe soil erosion and non governmental institutions and land management
and hotspot areas. Thus, cultivated land was found to be expertise may use this information for better conserva-
the most vulnerable, which is a pillar of livelihoods for tion measures implementation in the watershed.
most of the watershed population. As a result immediate
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 15 of 17

Abbreviations Biondi D, Freni G, Iacobellis V, Mascaro G, Montanari A (2012) Validation of

GDEM: global digital elevation model; GPS: global positioning system; ha: hydrological models: conceptual basis, methodological approaches
hectare; LUC: land use/cover; RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation; GIS: and a proposal for a code of practice. Phys Chem Earth 42–44:70–76.
geographic information system; RS: remote sensing; SW: sub-watershed; t: ton; https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.037
USGS: United States Geological Survey. Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) (1994) Statistical abstract of
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa
Acknowledgements Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) (2007) Statistical abstract of
The study was financed by Arba Minch University and gratefully acknowl- Ethiopia. Addis Ababa
edged. Authors would like to acknowledge the Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Congalton RG, Green K (2009) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed
Irrigation and Energy and National Meteorology agency for providing soil data. Principles and practices, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC,
data and climate data respectively. USGS is also gratefully acknowledged to London
allow free download of satellite imageries and GDEM of the study area. Finally, Desalegn A, Gessesse AT, Tesfay F (2018) Developing GIS-based soil erosion
we have highly benefited from three anonymous reviewers and gratefully map using RUSLE of Andit Tid Watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia.
acknowledged. J Sci Res Rep 19(1):1–13. https​://doi.org/10.9734/JSRR/2018/40841​
Environment for Development (EfD) (2010) Green accounting puts price on
Authors’ contributions Ethiopian soil erosion and deforestation
MB has made considerable contributions in designing the study, data acquisi- FAO (2006) Guide for soil description, 4th edn. FAO, Rome
tion, data collection, analysis, and interpretation; TY and DT have made signifi- Farhan Y, Nawaiseh S (2015) Spatial assessment of soil erosion risk using
cant contribution in designing and analysis of data in the study and editing, RUSLE and GIS techniques. Environ Earth Sci 74(6):4649–4669. https​://
commenting and suggesting ideas in the manuscript preparation process. All doi.org/10.1007/s1266​5-015-4430-7
authors read and approved the final manuscript. Fazzini M, Bisci C, Billi P (2015) The climate of Ethiopia. In: Billi P (ed) Land-
scapes and Landforms of Ethiopia. World geomorphologic landscapes.
Funding Springer, Dordrecht
The first author acknowledges Arba Minch University for financial support for Ferreira V, Panagopoulos T (2014) Seasonality of soil erosion under Mediter-
this study. ranean conditions at the Alqueva Dam Watershed. Environ Manage
54:67–83. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0026​7-014-0281-3
Availability of data and materials Ganasri BP, Ramesh H (2016) Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from using remote sensing and GIS—a case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geo-
the corresponding author on reasonable request. sci Front 7(6):953–961. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2015.10.007
Gashaw T, Tulu T, Argaw M (2017) Erosion risk assessment for prioritiza-
Ethics approval and consent to participate tion of conservation measures in Geleda watershed, Blue Nile basin,
Not applicable. Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 6(1):1–14. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s4006​
8-016-0078-x
Consent for publication Gedif B, Wondmagegn W, Ayalew T, Gelaw L (2016) Analysis of the existing
All authors agreed and approved the manuscript for publication in Environ- early warning systems: the case of Amhara national regional state. Int J
mental Systems Research. Adv Sci Res 1(9):24–28
Gelagay HS, Minale AS (2016) Soil loss estimation using GIS and Remote sens-
Competing interests ing techniques: a case of Koga watershed, Northwestern Ethiopia. Int Soil
The authors declare that they have no computing interests. Water Conserv Res 4:126–136. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2016.01.002
Gessesse B, Bewket W, Bräuning A (2015) Model-based characterization and
Author details monitoring of runoff and soil erosion in response to land use/land cover
1
 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Mettu University, changes in the Modjo watershed, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev. 26:711–
Box 318, Mettu, Ethiopia. 2 Department of Geography and Environmental 724. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2276
Studies, Arba Minch University, P.O.Box 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. 3 Department Greenland DJ, Nabhan (2001) Soil fertility management in support of food
of Plant Science, Arba Minch University, P.O.Box 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. security in sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nation, Rome
Received: 28 January 2019 Accepted: 28 May 2019 Haile GW, Fetene M (2012) Assessment of soil erosion hazard in Kilie catch-
ment, East Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 23:293–306. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/ldr.1082
Haregeweyn N, Berhe A, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT (2012) Inte-
grated watershed management as an effective approach to curb land
References degradation: a case study of Enabered watershed, northern Ethiopia.
Abbate E, Bruni P, Sagri M (2015) Geology of Ethiopia: a review and geomor- Environ Manage 50(6):1219–1233. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0026​
phological perspectives. In: Billi P (ed) Landscapes and landforms of 7-012-9952-0
Ethiopia. World geomorphologic landscapes. Springer, Berlin, p 389. https​ Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha D, Adgo E, Poesen J,
://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8026-1_2 Schutt B (2015) Analyzing the hydrologic effects of region-wide land
Adimassu Z, Mekonnen K, Yirga C, Kessler A (2014) Effect of soil bunds on and water development interventions: a case study of Upper Blue Nile
run-off, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central Highlands of basin. Reg Environ Change 16(4):951–966. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1011​
Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 25(6):554–564. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ 3-015-0813-2
ldr.2182 Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Poesen J, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT, Fenta AA,
Alexandridis TK, Sotiropoulou AM, Bilas G, Karapetsas N, Silleos NG (2015) The Nyssen J, Adgo E (2017) Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk
effects of seasonality in estimating the C-factor of soil Erosion studies. for better land use planning in river basins: case study of Upper Blue
Land Degrad Dev 26:596–603. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2223 Nile River. Sci Total Environ 574:95–108. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
Amsalu T, Mengaw A (2014) GIS based soil loss estimation using RUSLE tenv.2016.09.019
model: the case of Jabi Tenan Woreda, ANRS. Ethiopia. Nat Resourc Hurni H (1985) Erosion-productivity-conservation systems in Ethiopia. In: Paper
5:616–626. https​://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2014.51105​4 presented at the 4th international conference on soil conservation, 3–9
Bewket W, Teferi E (2009) Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritiza- Nov. 1985, Maracacy, Venezuela
tion for treatment at the watershed level: case study in the Chemoga Hurni H (1993) Land degradation, famine and resources scenarios in Ethiopia.
watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Devlop. 20:609–622. In: Pimental D (ed) World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge
https​://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.944 University Press, Cambridge
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 16 of 17

Hurni H, Abate S, Bantider A, Debele B, Ludi E, Portner B, Yitaferu B, Zeleke Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United King-
G (2010) Land degradation and sustainable land management in the dom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press
Highlands of Ethiopia. In: Hurni H, Wiesmann U (eds) With an interna- Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, Deckers J, Haile M, Lang A (2004) Human
tional group of coeditors: global change and sustainable development: impact on the environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands—a
a synthesis of regional experiences from research partnerships, vol 5. state of the art. Earth Sci Rev 64:273–320. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0012​
Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research -8252(03)00078​-3
(NCCR) NorthSouth, University of Bern, Bern, pp 187–207 Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, Haile M, Deckers J (2008) Dynamics of
Hurni H, Berhanu D, Gete Z (2015a) Saving Ethiopia’s soils. In: Ehrensperger soil erosion rates and controlling factors in the Northern Ethiopian
A, Ott C, Wiesmann U (eds) Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Highlands—towards a sediment budget. Earth Surf Process Landforms
Programme: highlights from 15 years of joint action for sustainable 33:695–711. https​://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1569
development. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Nyssen J, Poesen J, Deckers J (2009) Land degradation and soil and water
Bern with Bern Open Publishing, Bern, pp 27–30. https​://doi.org/10.7892/ conservation in tropical highlands. Soil Tillage Res 103:197–202. https​://
boris​.72023​ doi.org/10.1016/j.still​.2008.08.002
Hurni K, Zeleke G, Kassie M, Tegegne B, Kassawmar T, Teferi E, Moges A, Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S,
TadesseD, Ahmed M, Degu Y, Kebebew Z (2015b) Soil degradation Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic
and sustainable land management in the rainfed agricultural areas of costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–2112.
Ethiopia: an assessment of the economic implications. Report for the https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.267.5201.1117
economics of land degradation initiative Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Abinod S, Geetha N (2012) Estimation of soil ero-
Kayet N, Pathak K, Chakrabarty A, Sahoo S (2018) Evaluation of soil loss estima- sion risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India,
tion using the RUSLE model and SCS-CN method in hill slope mining using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and geo-information
areas. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6:31–42. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​ technology. Geosci Front 3(2):209–215. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
.2017.11.002 gsf.2011.11.003
Keblouti M, Ouerdachi L, Boutaghane H (2012) Spatial interpolation of Radi NF, Zakaria R, Azman MA (2015) Estimation of missing rainfall data using
annual precipitation in Annaba-Algeria—comparison and evaluation of spatial interpolation and imputation methods. AIP Conf Proc 1643(1):42–
methods. Energy Procedia 18:468–475. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypr​ 48. https​://doi.org/10.1063/1.49074​23
o.2012.05.058 Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesics GA, McCool DK, Yorder DC (1997) Predicting
Keno B, Suryabhagavan KV (2014) Multi-temporal remote sensing of landscape soil erosion by water: A Guide to conservation planning with the revised
dynamics and pattern change in Dire district, Southern Ethiopia. J Earth universal loss equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agric
Sci Clim Change 5(9):226. https​://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.10002​26 Handbook, No. 703, p 404
Khadse GK, Vijay R, Labhasetwar PK (2015) Prioritization of catchments based Renard KG, Yoder DC, Lightle DT, Dabney SM (2011) Universal soil loss equa-
on soil erosion using remote sensing and GIS. Environ Monit Assess tion and revised universal soil loss equation. In: Morgan RPC, Nearing MA
187:333. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​1-015-4545-z (eds) Handbook of erosion modelling, 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Kim SM, Choi Y, Suh J, Oh S, Park HD, Yoon SH (2012) Estimation of soil erosion New York
and sediment yield from mine tailing dumps using GIS: a case study Repetto R, Holmes T (1983) The role of population in resource depletion in
at the Samgwang mine, Korea. Geosyst Eng 15(1):2–9. https​://doi. developing countries. Popul Develop Rev 9(4):609–632
org/10.1080/12269​328.2012.67442​6 Senseman GM, Bagley CF, Tweddale SA (1995) Accuracy assessment of the
Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categori- discrete classification of remotely-sensed digital data for land cover map-
cal data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174 ping. Construction engineering research lab (army) champaign IL
Lin D, Gao Y, Wu Y, Shi P, Yang H, Wang J (2017) A conversion method to Setegn SG, Dargahi B, Srinivasan R, Melesse AM (2010) Modeling of sediment
determine the regional vegetation cover factor from standard plots yield from Anjeni gauged watershed, Ethiopia using SWAT model. J
based on large sample theory and TM images: a case study in the eastern Am Water Resour Assoc (JAWRA) 46(3):514–526. https​://doi.org/10.111
farming-pasture ecotone of northern China. Remote Sens 9:1035. https​:// 1/j.1752-1688.2010.00431​.x
doi.org/10.3390/rs910​1035 Shiferaw B, Okello J, Reddy VR (2009) Challenges of adoption and adaptation
Markose VJ, Jayappa KS (2016) Soil loss estimation and prioritization of of land and water management options in smallholder agriculture: syn-
sub-watersheds of Kali River basin, Karnataka, India, using RUSLE and thesis of lessons and experiences. In: Wani SP, Rockstron J, Oweis TY (eds)
GIS. Environ Monit Assess 188:225. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​ Rain feed agriculture: unlocking the potential. CAB International, London
1-016-5218-2 Silva RM, Montenegro SMGL, Santos CAG (2012) Integration of GIS and remote
Mekuriaw A, Heinimann A, Zeleke G, Hurni H (2018) Factors influencing sensing for estimation of soil loss and prioritization of critical sub-catch-
the adoption of physical soil and water conservation practices in the ments: a case study of Tapacura catchment. Nat Hazards 62:953–970.
Ethiopian highlands. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6:23–30. https​://doi. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1106​9-012-0128-2
org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2017.12.006 Subhatu A, Lemann T, Hurni K, Portner B, Kassawmar T, Zeleke G, Hurni H
Miheretu BA, Yimer AA (2018) Estimating soil loss for sustainable land manage- (2017) Deposition of eroded soil on terraced croplands in Minchet catch-
ment planning at the Gelana sub-watershed, Northern Highlands of ment, Ethiopian Highlands. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:212–220. https​://
Ethiopia. Int J River Basin Manag 16(1):41–50 doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2017.05.008
Ministry of Water Resources of Ethiopia (MoWR) (1998) Abbay river basin Sultan D, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, Adgo E, Tsubo M, Meshesha TD,
integrated development master plan, main report. Ministry of Water MasunagaT Aklog D, Ebabu K (2017) Analyzing the runoff response to soil
Resources, Addis Ababa and water conservation measures in a tropical humid Ethiopian highland.
Moges DM, Bhat HG (2017) Integration of geospatial technologies with RUSLE Phys Geogr 38(5):423–447. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02723​646.2017.13028​
for analysis of land use/cover change impact on soil erosion: case study 69
in Rib watershed, north-western highland Ethiopia. Environ Earth Sci Tamene L, Vlek PLG (2008) Soil erosion studies in northern Ethiopia. In:
76:765. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1266​5-017-7109-4 Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG (eds) Land use and soil resources. Springer, Berlin
Molla T, Sisheber B (2017) Estimating soil erosion risk and evaluating erosion Tebebu TY, Abiy AZ, Zegeye AD, Dahlke HE, Easton ZM, Tilahun SA, Collick AS,
control measures for soil conservation planning at Koga watershed in Kidanu S, Moges S, Dadgar F, Steenhuis TS (2010) Surface and sub-surface
the highlands of Ethiopia. Solid Earth 8:13–25. https​://doi.org/10.5194/ flow effect on permanent gully formation and upland erosion near
se-8-13-2017 Lake Tana in the northern highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA, Essel A, Lennard C, Padgham J, Urquhart P 14:2207–2217. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2207-2010
(2014) Africa. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach Van Genderen JL, Lock BF (1977) Testing land-use map accuracy. Photogram
KJ, Bilir TE, Chatterjee KL, Ebi YO, Estrada RC, Genova B, Girma ES, Kissel Eng Rem Sens 43(9):1135–1137
AN, Levy S, MacCracken PR, Mastrandrea White LL (eds.): Climate change Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide
2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. to conservation planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Handbook, No. 537
Belayneh et al. Environ Syst Res (2019) 8:20 Page 17 of 17

Woldemariam GW, Iguala AD, Tekalign S, Reddy RU (2018) Spatial modeling of Publisher’s Note
soil erosion risk and its implication for conservation planning: the case of Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
the Gobele Watershed, East Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. Land 7:25. https​:// lished maps and institutional affiliations.
doi.org/10.3390/land7​01002​5
Zerihun M, Mohammedyasin MS, Sewnet D, Adem AA, Lakew M (2018) Assess-
ment of soil erosion using RUSLE, GIS and remote sensing in NW Ethiopia.
Geoderma Reg 12:83–90. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodr​s.2018.01.002
Zhang Y, Degroote J, Wolter C, Sugumaran R (2009) Integration of modified
universal soil loss Eq. (MUSLE) into a GIS frame work to assess soil erosion
risk. Land Degrad Dev 20:84–91. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.893