See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/375769405

Soil erosion estimation and erosion risk area prioritization

Article in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · November 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-023-12136-2

CITATIONS READS

0 497

13 authors, including:

Yonas Gebreslasie Hagos Tesfa Gebrie Andualem

University of Dayton Debre Tabor University
11 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 773 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mesenbet Yibeltal Sebhat Zelalem K Bedaso

Bahir Dar University University of Dayton
48 PUBLICATIONS 983 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yonas Gebreslasie Hagos on 20 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-12136-2

RESEARCH

Soil erosion estimation and erosion risk area prioritization

using GIS‑based RUSLE model and identification
of conservation strategies in Jejebe watershed,
Southwestern Ethiopia
Yonas Gebreslasie Hagos · Tesfa Gebrie Andualem · Mesenbet Yibeltal Sebhat · Zelalem K. Bedaso ·
Fitsum Tilahun Teshome · Haimanote Kebede Bayabil · Endalkachew Abebe Kebede ·
Girum Getachew Demeke · Addisalem Bitew Mitiku · Workineh Tadesse Ayele · Dinkisa Nagash Alamayo ·
Ermias Alemu Demissie · Mequanent Abathun Mengie

Received: 4 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 November 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Abstract Erosion of soil refers to the process of mapped erosion risks to prioritize conservation meas-
detaching and transporting topsoil from the land surface ures. In this study, the Revised Universal Soil Loss
by natural forces such as water, wind, and other factors. Equation (RUSLE) model was used, which was adapted
As a result of this process, soil fertility is lost, water to Ethiopian conditions. To estimate soil loss with
bodies’ depth is reduced, water turbidity rises, and flood RUSLE, the rainfall erosivity (R) factor was generated
hazard problems, etc. Using a numerical model of ero- by interpolating rainfall data, the soil erodibility (K) fac-
sion rates and erosion risks in the Jejebe watershed of tor was derived from the soil map, the topography (LS)
the Baro Akobo basin in western Ethiopia, this study factor was determined from the digital elevation model

Y. G. Hagos · Z. K. Bedaso F. T. Teshome · H. K. Bayabil

Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering,
University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, Tropical Research and Education Center, IFAS, University
OH 45469‑2364, USA of Florida, Homestead, FL 33031, USA

Y. G. Hagos (*) · A. B. Mitiku · D. N. Alamayo · E. A. Kebede

E. A. Demissie · M. A. Mengie Guna Tana Integrated Field Research and Development
Ethiopian Construction Design and Supervision Works Center, Debre Tabor University, 272 Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
Corporation, 2561 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
e-mail: [email protected] E. A. Kebede
College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University
T. G. Andualem · W. T. Ayele of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources
Engineering, Debre Tabor University, 272 Debre Tabor, G. G. Demeke
Ethiopia Department of Geography, National Taiwan University,
Taipei 10617, Taiwan
T. G. Andualem
UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, G. G. Demeke
SA 5095, Australia Earth System Science, Taiwan International Graduate
Program (TIGP), Academia Sinica, Taipei 115, Taiwan
M. Y. Sebhat
Faculty of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir G. G. Demeke
Dar Institute of Technology, 73 Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Department of Natural Resources Management, Debre
Tabor University, 272 Debre Tabor, Ethiopia

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 2 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

(DEM), cover and management (C) factor derived from world’s ever-growing population, wise use and manage-
the land use/cover data, and conservation practices (P) ment of soil and water resources are more important
factor generated from digital elevation model (DEM) than ever (Blanco & Lal, 2008). Soil and water conser-
and land use/cover data were integrated with remote vation has several agronomic, environmental, and eco-
sensing data and the GIS 10.5 environment. The find- nomic benefits. The annual cost of on- and off-site ero-
ings indicated that the watershed annual soil loss var- sion has been estimated to be around US$ 400 billion
ies from nearly 0 on a gentle slope of forest lands to for replenishing lost nutrients, cleaning water reservoirs
265.8 t h­ a−1 ­year−1 in the very steep slope upper part and conveyances, and preventing erosion (Uri, 2000).
of the watershed, with a mean annual soil loss of 36.2 t For decades, Ethiopia has been struggling with the
­ha−1 ­year−1. The total annual soil loss in the watershed issue of water erosion (Hurni, 1988). A report from
is estimated to be around 919,886.5 tons per year. To Hurni estimated Ethiopia’s soil loss at 18 t ­ha−1 ­year−1
minimize the amount of soil erosion in the watershed (1985a). Land degradation in Ethiopia is caused by a
that had been most severely affected, we identified eight lack of an effective watershed management system and
conservation strategies that could be implemented. poor land use practices (Setegn et al., 2009), exten-
These strategies were based on the participatory water- sive deforestation as a result of fuel wood demand and
shed development (PWD) principles established by the grazing into steep land areas (Amsalu et al., 2007), and
Ethiopian government and the severity of the erosion inefficient management and use of natural resources,
in the watershed. The study’s findings showed that a all of which are major challenges affecting crop yield
GIS-based RUSLE soil erosion assessment model can (Tsegaye & Gebremichael, 2014).
provide a realistic prediction of the amount of soil loss Controlling such a threatening problem necessitates
that will occur in the watershed. This tool can also help an understanding of the rate and spatial variation of the
identify the priority areas for implementing effective problem. The first step in carrying out a conservation
erosion control measures. program must be an assessment of current erosion rates
(Hurni, 1985a). In this regard, quantitative assessment of
Keywords DEM · Erosion severity class · soil erosion is critical for determining the scope and mag-
Gambela · Soil loss · Soil erosion · Sub-watershed nitude of the problem as well as identifying more vul-
nerable sites. A variety of methods have been developed
for analyzing and quantifying soil erosion (Zhang et al.,
Introduction 2008; Kim et al., 2012). The Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP), Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator
Soil seems to be a nonrenewable natural resource on (EPIC), Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), Agri-
which humans rely to produce food, fuel, and fiber. cultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS), and Universal Soil
However, unless effective soil management is practiced, Loss Equation (USLE) are a few of the numerical mod-
soil sustainability for food, fuel, and fiber production els. Geospatial techniques have been used by scholars
could be drastically affected by many factors, such as to study soil erosion around the world. These methods
soil degradation. Soil erosion refers to the process by were typically combined with other models or standalone
which topsoil surfaces are detached, transported, and applications, such as remote sensing and GIS.
deposited from their original location to downstream In 1965, Wischmeier and Smith introduced the
areas due to natural forces such as water and wind. It has USLE to the field of geo-spatial analysis (Wischmeier
an adverse effect on the ecosystem. It reduces the soil & Smith, 1965). In 1997, Renard and colleagues
fertility, lowers the water reservoir’s capacity, increases updated it to become the Revised Universal Soil Loss
water turbidity, and increases the risk of flooding (Andu- Equation (RUSLE), which is commonly used in GIS.
alem et al., 2020). Water erosion affects nearly 80% of The use of the RUSLE model for analyzing sheet,
terrestrial land and has degraded 52% of total productive inter-rill, and rill erosion has been widely used in areas
land worldwide (Yousuf & Singh, 2019). where measured data are lacking (Renard et al., 1997;
Around ten million hectares of farmland globally Pham et al., 2018; Kidane et al., 2019; Weldu & Edo,
are wasted annually due to soil erosion. According to 2020; Teshome et al., 2022). Several studies have con-
Gachene et al. (2020), erosion is typically around 30 firmed the model’s validity (Ganasri & Ramesh, 2016;
tons per hectare annually. To meet the needs of the Hagos, 2020; Sinshaw et al., 2021).

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 3 of 22 1501

Based on rainfall patterns, topography, soil type, watershed lies between 8° 14′ 48″–8° 27′ 25″ north lati-
cropping system, and management practices, the tude and 34° 34′ 46″–34° 44′ 40″ east longitude. The
RUSLE model predicts the long-term average annual river begins at an elevation of 1585 m above mean sea
rate of erosion (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978; Ayalew level and has a gradient that varies from almost flat to
et al., 2020). It forecasts annual soil loss as a product extremely steep. The river steadily flows southwestward
of rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), topography until it meets the Boro River in the middle of Gamb-
(LS), cover and management (C), and support practice ela town, 430 meters above mean sea level. Based on
(P) (Mustefa et al., 2019; Hagos, 2020; Sinshaw et al., information from four weather stations, the study water-
2021; Mengie et al., 2022). Consequently, RUSLE inte- shed’s average annual rainfall ranges from 1095.8 mm
grated with GIS-based soil erosion models provides in Gambela to 1706.1 mm in Bure.
a valuable tool for assessing erosion and prioritizing Data on land use and land cover show that forests
possible land management measures (Bewket & Tef- cover 80.7% of the entire research area. Shrubland is
eri, 2009; Belayneh et al. 2019; Kebede et al., 2021; the second most common land use type in the Jejebe
Yeneneh et al., 2022). In this study, the RUSLE model watershed (17.9%), followed by urban areas (1.1%)
was utilized which is a powerful and widely used model and smaller portions of grass, crops, and water bod-
for predicting soil erosion rates. The main reasons of ies. Geologically, there are weathered/fractured rocks
using this model is its ability to predict soil erosion in the Precambrian Basement and young igneous
rates at different spatial and temporal scales, ability to intrusive rocks, usually granite, distributed over the
assess the effectiveness and guide on selection of con- watershed. Dystric Leptosol, Humic Nitisol, and Hap-
servation practices, etc. Due to that, this method is a lic Alisol soil types cover this study region, covering
powerful tool for guiding land management decisions 40.7%, 33.8%, and 25.5% of the entire study area,
and promoting sustainable land use practices. respectively.
The Jejebe watershed, which has a problem with soil
erosion, has not before been the subject of any studies. Data sources
After visiting some parts of the watershed, this study
was started with the goal of estimating and mapping For this study, various data such as digital elevation
the geographical distribution of soil erosion rates in the models (DEMs), soil types, rainfall data, and land use/
Jejebe watershed using the GIS-based RUSLE model cover types were collected from different sources. To
as well as identifying areas of high and low soil ero- delineate the watershed as well as generate slope and
sion. Additionally, this research helps to pinpoint areas slope length maps, a DEM with a resolution of 12.5 m
where erosion is a severe problem and directs the devel- was downloaded from the ASF Data Engine (https://​
opment of conservation strategies to reduce erosion. search.​asf.​alaska.​edu/). ESRI’s land cover database
Overall, the goal of this research on the GIS-based https://​livin​gatlas.​arcgis.​com/​landc​over/ was used to
RUSLE model erosion assessment is to give a thorough collect the LULC data for the Jejebe watershed for
understanding of soil erosion processes and to cre- the year 2020. For this investigation, 10-m resolu-
ate efficient solutions for erosion control in the Jejebe tion LULC data were employed. We obtained the
watershed. Filling such knowledge gaps will allow for rainfall data for the year of 1990 to 2020 from Ethio-
a more accurate evaluation of the soil erosion risk and pian Meteorological Agency for four weather stations
for the development of focused conservation strategies within and around the study area (Gambela, Baro
to protect soil and water resources. Bonga, Bure, and Rob Gebeya), as well as the soil
map from the Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy
(MoWE). Finally, all the factor maps are resampled to
Materials and methods 30-m resolution before generating the soil erosion rate
map using raster calculator tool in Arc map.
Description of the study area
Revised universal soil loss equation model
This study was conducted in the Jejebe River watershed
(Fig. 1), located in the southwest of Ethiopia, which GIS-based RUSLE analysis of annual soil loss was
covers a total area of 254.6 ­km2. Geographically, the performed in this study for estimating soil erosion

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 4 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 1  Jejebe watershed in Ethiopian river basins and the Baro Akobo River Basin

risk. The RUSSLE is typically utilized as an empiri- erodibility factor (t ­ha−1 ­MJ−1 ­mm−1), and R = rain-
cal model in areas where there is limited data (Bewket fall and runoff erosivity (MJ mm ­h−1 ­ha−1 ­year−1).
& Teferi, 2009). Numerous studies have shown the
effectiveness of the RUSSLE model (Hagos, 2020;
Sinshaw et al., 2021). The various factors that influ- Results and discussion
ence soil erosion, such a cover and management (C),
topography (LS), rainfall erosivity (R), conserva- Rainfall erosivity factor (R)
tion practices (P), and soil erodibility (K), were then
incorporated into a raster calculator in a GIS environ- The kinetic interaction of raindrops with soil sur-
ment for calculating annual soil erosion rates (Fig. 2). faces is an erosivity factor (R) (Wischmeier &
The RUSSLE model is an empirical equation sug- Smith, 1978; Hurni, 1985a). Varying intensity,
gested by Renard et al. (1997) and Wischmeier & quantity, and distribution of precipitation affect ero-
Smith (1978). sivity (Tesema, 2015; Wolka et al., 2015). Several
empirical equations are used in various countries
A = P × LS × C × K × R (1)
to calculate the R factor from rainfall. However, in
this study, Eq. 2 was used to compute the R factor,
where A = average annual soil loss (t h­ a−1 ­year−1), which Hurni (1985b) established for Ethiopia (Gel-
P = supporting conservation practice factors (dimen- agay & Minale, 2016; Gashaw et al., 2017).
sionless), LS = topographic factor (unit less), C =
R = 0.562 × P − 8.12 (2)
crop management factor (dimensionless), K = soil
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 5 of 22 1501

Fig. 2  The conceptual framework of soil loss analysis by RUSLE model

where P is the mean annual precipitation (mm) in the upper beles; Habtu & Jayappa, 2022 in the
and R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm h­ −1 megech-dirma watershed).
­ha−1 ­year−1). In the study area, long-term average annual rain-
The scattered point data of rainfall was interpolated fall amounts varied between 608.1 mm and 755 mm.
using GIS 10.5’s inverse distance weighting method. Based on the mean annual rainfall of the selected rain-
Then the R factor values for each grid cell were cal- fall stations, rainfall erosivity values ranged between
culated using GIS database raster calculators. In vari- 607.9 MJ mm ­h−1 ­ha−1 ­year−1 at lower parts of the
ous regions of Ethiopia, this method of calculating watershed and 739.7 MJ mm ­h−1 ­ha−1 ­year−1 around
the mean R factor value has been employed (Yared the upstream of the watershed (Fig. 3). The calculated
& Sisay, 2019 in the Wombeya watershed; Eniyew values indicate that rainfall erosivity increases with
et al., 2021 in the telkwonz watershed; Teshome et al., increasing mean annual rainfall. Thus, the study area is
2021 in the Guna-Tana landscape; Kebede et al., 2021 subjected to highly erosive rainfall in the northern part

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 6 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

of the study area and gradually decreases at the cen- during a storm (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978). The
tral and downstream parts of the study area (Fig. 3). degree to which the soil can be damaged during a
As we see in Table 1 and Fig. 3, there is a difference in storm depends on various factors such as the amount
the mean annual rainfall as well as the R factor values of runoff that can be expected, and how easy it is to
because all weather stations are out of the watershed. remove soil (Kayet et al., 2018). For determining the
K factor, soil’s physical and chemical characteristics
Soil erodibility factor (K) were taken into consideration because they have an
impact on erodibility potential (Tirkey et al., 2013).
The soil erodibility value measures how much the It is impossible to create soil erosion models on a
soil’s characteristics contribute to the loss of soil larger geographic scale due to a lack of accurate soil

Fig. 3  Mean annual rainfall and rainfall erosivity R factor of the Jejebe watershed

Table 1  Mean annual Stations Location MAR (mm) R factor (MJ mm

rainfall (MAR) and R factor ­h−1 ­ha−1 ­year−1)
values Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Elevation
(m a.s.l)

Baro Bonga 8.18 34.85 519 1187 659

Bure 8.28 35.10 1601 1706 951
Gambela 8.25 34.59 518 1096 608
RobGebeya 8.69 34.88 1791 1797 1002

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 7 of 22 1501

characteristics data. To compensate for the lack of out or the flowing water joining in to a distinct chan-
such data, Helldén (1987) and Hurni (1985a) pro- nel (Wischmeier & Smith 1978).
posed using soil color as a proxy for soil properties In the Arc-Hydro extension of the ArcGIS envi-
in Ethiopia. Several studies applied adapted soil erod- ronment, the depression was removed by filling the
ibility values based on the soil colors (Gelagay & 12.5-m cell resolution digital elevation model, and
Minale, 2016; Mustefa et al., 2019; Sinshaw et al., flow direction, the slope in percent, and flow accumu-
2021; Teshome et al., 2021; Teshome et al., 2022). lation were calculated using the DEM. Although vari-
The three distinct soil types in the research area ous algorithms have been developed, most of them
were identified from the obtained soil map. Within are site-specific, and LS factor values vary widely
the study watershed, erodibility values range from 0.2 across regions. This study generated LS factors using
t ­ha−1 ­MJ−1 ­mm−1 in Humic Nitisols to 0.35 t h­ a−1 Eq. 3 (Simms et al., 2003; Mitasova & Mitas, 1999).
­MJ−1 ­mm−1 in Dystric Leptosols (Table 2 and Fig. 4). Other researchers have used this approach in the past
High K factor values mean that the soil is dominated (Esa et al., 2018; Bekele et al., 2019; Kidane et al.,
by very-fine sand particles with silt particles, suggest- 2019; Bekele & Gemi, 2020; Kebede et al., 2021).
ing that it is severely erodible. Those with a lower K ( )n
value are less likely to erode and have poor perme- Cell Size m sin (slope)
( )
LS = Flow Accumulation × ×
22.13 0.0896
ability and antecedent moisture content. Accordingly,
(3)
Dystric Leptosols account for 40.5% of the total area
and are located in the most northern upstream part where LS is the slope length-steepness value, m
of the watershed with the highest K factor values of is an exponent that depends on slope steepness, and
0.35. On the other hand, Humic Nitisols account for n (1.2–1.3) are the slope length and steepness expo-
25.6% of the total area and have the lowest K fac- nents. The slope is expressed in meters and varies
tor values of 0.2, which are distributed in the central with the slope steepness. The width and length of the
to southern, and had small coverage in the northern grid cell are the cell sizes.
upstream part of the watershed. The LS factor calculates soil loss by combining
slope steepness and slope length. A higher LS factor
Slope length and slope steepness factors (LS) is associated with higher rates of water-induced soil
erosion, and vice versa is true (Mustefa et al., 2019;
The topographic feature is viewed as an essential Girmay et al., 2020; Sinshaw et al., 2021; Kifelew
component of the analysis of soil erosion because et al., 2022). The LS value of the watershed var-
gravity forces have a significant impact on the run- ies from 0 to 140.8 (Fig. 5). The mountainous areas
off of surface water (Moore & Wilson, 1992; Zhang of the watershed have the greatest LS factor values.
et al., 2013). The slope’s steepness and length (LS However, the LS factor values were smaller in the
factor) are the two factors that verify the soil loss per lower and central parts of the research area.
unit area (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978; Renard et al.,
2011). The slope length, which estimates how far the Cover management factor (C)
inter-rill process extends from the source, represents
component L. Steepness (S) also displays the steep- The crop management factor refers to the ratio of
ness of the inter-rill process. The deposition of eroded soil loss under a given crop towards the base soil,
soil only begins after the slope is sufficiently leveled and it demonstrates the effect of cropping and

Table 2  Soil types, Soil types Soil color K-value Area ­(km2 ) Area
color and K-values, and coverage
area coverage of Jejebe (%)
watershed based on Hurni
(1985a), Helldén (1987), Dystric Leptosols Gray 0.35 103 41
and SCRP (1996)
Haplic Alisols Red 0.25 65 26
Humic Nitisols Brown 0.20 87 34

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 8 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 4  Soil color and soil erodibility (K factor) map of Jejebe watershed

management practices on the soil loss rate (Wis- land, grassland, water body, bare land, and settlement
chmeier & Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997). Using areas are the land use categories in the Jejebe water-
the maps of land use, the crop management fac- shed (Fig. 6). The C factor values that were assigned
tor for the region was determined (Wischmeier & to the different LU classes were then matched to the
Smith, 1978). C factors in the watershed have val- appropriate categories in the study. Finally, the final
ues between 0 and 1. There is no cover if the C fac- C factor map were generated using the ArcGIS 10.5
tor value is 1, whereas there are many coverings environment.
if the C factor value is near 0. The reclassification
tools of the ArcGIS 10.5 environment were used to Conservation practice factor (P)
assign the different C-values to the diverse LULC
classes. Finally, the study area’s C factors raster The conservation practice (P) factor is used to
layer was created by assigning an adapted C-value measure the effectiveness of techniques related to
for every land use and land cover class from previ- farmland management in preventing water erosion.
ous studies (Table 3). The conservation practice (P) factor is the ratio of
To determine the C factor, as much current LU soil loss caused by one conservation practice to the
data as possible that shows the current condition of corresponding loss caused by up- and down-slope
the study area is required. As a result, the 2020 land cultivation (Borrelli et al., 2020). The P factor is
use and land cover classification map was used for like the C-values in that it ranges from 0 to 1, with
Jejebe watershed area. Cropland, forest land, shrub 0 indicating that conservation techniques are good

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 9 of 22 1501

Fig. 5  The L factor, S factor, and LS factor maps of the Jejebe watershed

Table 3  Land cover types and their distribution and C-values for the Jejebe watershed
Land use/cover type Area (%) C factor References

Forest 80.7 0.001 El Jazouli et al. (2017), Zerihun et al. (2018), Mengie et al. (2022)
Shrubland 17.9 0.014 Abate (2011), Sewnet & Sewnet (2016), Mengie et al. (2022)
Urban areas 1.1 0.09 Hagos (2020), Mengie et al. (2022)
Grassland 0.2 0.01 Hurni (1985a), Yihenew & Yihenew (2013), Bekele (2021),
Mengie et al. (2022)
Cropland 0.2 0.15 Girma & Gebre (2020), Mengie et al. (2022)

and 1 indicating that they do not provide adequate 2022). This method divides land into two categories
protection against water erosion (Olorunfemi et al., agricultural land and other land covers. Other land
2020; Sinshaw et al., 2021; Teshome et al., 2021). covers include forest land, shrub land, grassland, and
This study utilized the alternative method proposed urban areas. Other land covers were assigned a P
by Smith & Wischmeier (1978), which considers the value of 1 regardless of slope, while agricultural land
data on LULC and slope, for the P factor (Fig. 7). was divided into six slope classes and assigned a P
Previous studies have also utilized this (Abate, 2011; value concerning its slope gradient (Table 4).
Gelagay, 2016; Girmay et al., 2020; Mengie et al.,

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 10 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 6  LULC and C factor map

The entire land use/land cover of Jejebe watershed include very slight (0–5 t ­ha−1 ­year−1), slight (5–15
was classified in to Agricultural land where further t ­ha−1 ­year−1), moderate (15–30 t h­ a−1 ­year−1), severe
classified into six slope class and given P-values, (30–50 t ­ha−1 ­year−1), and very severe (> 50 t ­ha−1
and land uses classified under forest, shrub land, ­year−1). These have been adapted from the published
urban, grass land, and water body were classified as articles of multiple authors (Belayneh et al., 2019;
other land uses given the P-value of 1 (Table 4). The Negese et al., 2021; Yeneneh et al., 2022).
P-value of the Jejebe watershed is based on the slope According to the GIS-based RUSLE assess-
in percent and the LULC relationship. About 99.8% ment, the annual soil loss value ranges from 0 in
of the watershed had a P-value of 1, while the west- the flat landscape to 265.8 t h­ a−1 ­year−1 in the hilly
ern portion had a value of 0.1 to 0.19. landscape of the watershed’s central area and the
extended northern part of the watershed (Fig. 8). The
Soil loss rate assessment in the Jejebe watershed total annual soil loss from the entire watershed area
of 25,422.3 ha was about 919,886.5 tons. Regarding
The spatial analysis tool used by ArcGIS soft- the coverage of the risk of erosion, about 87.7% of
ware was utilized to analyze the RUSLE inputs and the watershed is characterized very slight soil erosion
determine the annual soil loss rate of the research rate, which is considered a slight risk area. As shown
area. The annual soil loss rates in the Jejebe water- in the graph, the remaining areas are classified as
shed were estimated to be between 0 and 265.8 tons slight risk areas (7.2%), moderate risk areas (2.6%),
per hectare annually (Fig. 8). Five levels of severity severe risk areas (1.4%), and very severely affected
were assigned to the expected soil loss rate. These areas (1.2%) of the watershed (Table 5).

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 11 of 22 1501

Fig. 7  The slope in percent, LULC, and P factor maps of the study area

Table 4  Conservation practices factor value (Wischmeier & ranges from 0.1 to 442.92 t ­ha−1 ­year−1. In another
Smith, 1978) related study, Gelagay (2016) found that the soil loss
LULC type Slope (%) P-value rate in the Koga watershed ranges from 0 to 265 t
­ha−1 ­year−1. Gashaw et al. (2017) discovered that the
Agricultural LU 0–5 0.1
soil loss rate in the Geleda watershed in the Blue Nile
5–10 0.12
river basin ranges from 0 to 237 t ­ha−1 ­year−1.
10–20 0.14
A loss of 36.2 tons per hectare yearly was observed
20–30 0.19
in the study watershed, which is comparable to the
30–50 0.25
loss of 30.4 tons per hectare yearly in the JabiTehi-
>50 0.33
nan watershed (Amsalu & Mengaw, 2014). Accord-
Other LU All 1
ing to Haregeweyn et al. (2017), soil loss averaged
27 tons per hectare yearly in the Upper Blue Nile
basin. On the other hand, in the Lake Tana subba-
When compared to previous studies on some Ethi- sin, it was around 37.9 tons per hectare yearly (Bala-
opian basins, the estimated soil loss rate and spatial bathina et al., 2020). A similar approach was utilized
patterns are generally reasonable. For example, Hurni by Mustefa et al. (2019) to assess the soil loss within
(1988) estimated that the soil loss rate in Ethiopia’s the Hanger River watershed at 32 tons per hec-
highlands ranges from 0 to 300 t ­ha−1 ­year−1. Accord- tare yearly. Likewise, the same method was used by
ing to Belayneh et al. (2019), the soil loss rate in Belayneh et al. (2019) to calculate the soil loss within
the Gumara watershed of the Blue Nile River basin the Gumara watershed with a yearly loss of 42.7 tons

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 12 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 8  Potential soil loss (t h­ a−1 ­year−1) and severity classes of Jejebe watershed

Table 5  Severity classes Severity class (t h­ a−1 ­year−1) Area (ha) Area (%) Total soil loss Priority level
sourced as of Belayneh (tons/year)
et al. (2019) and Yeneneh
et al. (2022), its coverage Very slight (<5) 22,284.9 87.7 211,757 V
of the area, loss of soil, and
Slight (5–15) 1819.5 7.2 158,968 IV
levels of priority
Moderate (15–30) 656.4 2.6 150,766 III
Severe (30–50) 344.4 1.4 149,177 II
Very severe (> 50) 317.1 1.2 249,219 I

per hectare yearly (Table 6). The study watersheds’ 42.7 tons per hectare yearly (Belayneh et al. 2019).
unique geographical features such as their rainfall It seems that the observed variation is primarily a
patterns and land cover contribute to their average result of the high topographic factor values in their
yearly soil loss. predicted LS values. In contrast, relatively small
The results of this study are somewhat lower than mean annual soil loss findings have been reported by
those of the Tashat Watershed, which had an estimate Ayalew (2015), 9.1 tons per hectare yearly for Zingin
of 64.2 tons per hectare yearly (Mengie et al. 2022), Watershed; Tiruneh & Ayalew (2016), 4.81 tons per
the Koga Watershed, which had an estimate of 47.0 hectare yearly for the Enfraz watershed; Bekele et al.
tons per hectare yearly (Gelagay & Minale 2016), (2019), 4.27 tons per hectare yearly for Karesa Water-
and the Gumara Watershed, which had an estimate of shed; Kifelew et al. (2022), 4.06 tons per hectare

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 13 of 22 1501

Table 6  Consistency Study area Mean yearly soil loss (t h­ a−1 References
of model estimate with ­year−1 )
previously published results
in different parts of Ethiopia Jejebe watershed 36.2 This study
Upper Blue Nile Basin 27.5 Haregeweyn et al. (2017)
JabiTehinan watershed 30.4 Amsalu & Mengaw (2014)
Hangar River watershed 32.1 Mustefa et al. (2019)
Northern catchment of Lake Tana 37.9 Balabathina et al. (2020)
Sub-basin
Gumara watershed 42.7 Belayneh et al. (2019)

yearly for Abrajit Watershed; and Bekele & Gemi tons for cropland, and 269,561.7 tons for forest land.
(2020), 2.2 tons per hectare yearly for Dijo watershed. The rate of soil loss was evaluated for every type
The estimated results of this study are lower of soil types in the study area. It showed that the
compared to that of the Koga (47.0 tons per hectare Dystric Leptosols had the fastest erosion rate com-
yearly) (Gelagay & Minale 2016), Tashat (64.2 tons pared to the other types of soil types (Fig. 9). The
per hectare yearly) (Mengie et al. 2022), for the Gilgel estimated yearly soil loss from 10,404.6-ha area of
Gibe-1 catchment which is (62.98 tons per hectare Dystric Leptosols is 763,579.7 tons. This soil is char-
yearly) (Gizaw & Degiefie 2018), and Gumara water- acterized by the shallow depth of less than 30 cm of
sheds (42.7 tons per hectare yearly) (Belayneh et al. sandy clay loam textured soil.
2019). In comparison to the Jejebe watershed, a num-
ber of investigators noted lesser annual soil loss. For Consistency and validation of the model estimate
instance, in the Zingin watershed, the mean annual
loss was 9.1 tons per hectare yearly (Ayalew, 2015). Model validation involves systematically comparing
In the Enfraz watershed, the figure was 4.81 tons model findings to independent actual ground condi-
per hectare yearly (Tiruneh & Ayalew, 2016). In the tions or recorded observations to assess qualitative
Karesa watershed, the data was 4.27 tons per hectare and quantitative consistency with reality (Hagos
yearly (Bekele et al., 2019). In the Abrajit watershed, et al., 2022). Researchers worldwide use many
the data was 4.06 tons per hectare yearly (Kifelew models to assess soil loss from an area of land by
et al., 2022). In the Dijo watershed, the figure was 2.2 water. Testing the output of the model is essential
tons per hectare yearly (Bekele & Gemi, 2020). to ensure that it accurately captures the observed or
In the steep (> 50%) areas of this watershed, soil actual ground conditions. The lack of data to com-
erosion is a significant problem. In the steep ter- pare the model estimates to real soil loss made it
rains, the projected average yearly soil loss rate was difficult for this investigation to validate the model
132.1 tons per hectare yearly, which is a significant estimations. However, the hydrological scientific
quantity of soil loss. A soil loss of this magnitude model validation method proposed by Biondi et al.
in the steep portions of the watershed would cause (2012) was used as an alternative in this study to
a lot of concern. On the other hand, a slope gradient check the validity and consistency of the model
of 3% in flat areas would bring about a soil loss of estimation by comparing it to previously published
around 1 ton per hectare yearly. The study area with results (Gashaw et al., 2017; Belayneh et al., 2019;
slopes over 50% covers an area of 2190.2 ha and is Mustefa et al., 2019; Mengie et al., 2022). The
predicted to lose over 289,343.1 tons of soil annu- results were compared to studies conducted in dif-
ally (Fig. 9). The erosion rates for different types of ferent parts of Ethiopia with estimated results by
LULC were also evaluated in the study area. Shrub Amsalu & Mengaw (2014); Gelagay & Minale
land had the highest mean erosion rate, followed by (2016); Haregeweyn et al. (2017); Belayneh et al.
urban, grassland, cropland, and forest land (Fig. 9). (2019); Mustefa et al. (2019); and Mengie et al.
The predicted annual soil loss from different types of (2022) (Table 6). Some variations in previously
land cover is 29,044.7 tons for urban, 606,715.9 tons reported results with this study estimates could be
for shrubland, 2790.7 tons for grasslands, 1496.1 attributed to site-specific variations in parameters.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 14 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 9  Soil loss in the Jejebe watershed according to slope, LULC, and soil types

Moreover, to validate the results of the RUSLE planning (Belayneh et al., 2019; Ayele et al., 2020;
model of erosion-prone areas in this study, the loca- Bekele & Gemi, 2020; Sinshaw et al., 2021). The
tions of degraded land due to erosion were col- various model parameters used in this study explain
lected during our field visit in the accessible down- the variations in the soil erosion rates in the differ-
stream parts of the watershed through Gambela town ent sub-watersheds within the Jejebe watershed. The
(Fig. 10). In ArcGIS 10.5 environment, the model’s mean rate of soil erosion in these areas was between
output was superimposed on eroded land spots. The 3.8 and 601.8 tons per hectare yearly (Table 7 and
anticipated outcome, which shows that all degraded Fig. 11).
land location locations located inside the watershed Soil loss was highest in the SW-9, SW-24, SW-12,
are within very and severely eroded areas, demon- SW-11, and SW-21 sub-watersheds. About 1.2% of
strates the validity of the erosion severity study utiliz- the area’s priority group is represented by these sub-
ing the RUSLE model employing GIS. watersheds. They are considered to have very severe
risks (>50 tons per hectare yearly). Conversely, the
Prioritization for soil conservation planning SW-3, SW-13, SW-17, and SW-15 are regarded as
having a very slight severity or priority class and
Due to limited resources, implementing compre- make up 87.7% of the land area (5t ­ ha−1 ­year−1)
hensive soil conservation strategies can be difficult. (Fig. 11). Different management scenarios were con-
This is why it is important to rank the intervention sidered when it came to prioritizing the watersheds to
zones in line with their severity and danger of ero- minimize soil loss. A specific sub-watershed may be
sion. To identify the most vulnerable sub-water- prioritized for a variety of reasons, but the intensity
sheds, the planning regions were prioritized based of soil loss is frequently used as the primary crite-
on their soil loss assessment (Gashaw et al., 2017). rion. As a result, it is better to give priority to more
Through RUSLE’s annual analysis of soil loss in vulnerable sub-watersheds for conservation planning.
the watershed, this was accomplished. Numerous Most of the top priority sub-watersheds are found in
studies utilized this approach to rank the vulner- the upper and small areas in the downstream parts
able of various watersheds in a region for long-term of the watershed, whereas fewer priority areas were

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 15 of 22 1501

Fig. 10  Some degraded areas and gullies on the downstream part of the watershed (Source: Dinkisa Dec-2022)

concentrated more on the lower to central parts of the conserve soil and water. After their effective use, the
watershed. results have shown that soil erosion has significantly
decreased. With the aim of the long-term protection
Proposed conservation measures of watershed’s soil and water resources, we carried
out a comprehensive study of various conservation
Soil and water conservation technologies are seen techniques. The strategy is based on community-
as part of a solution to increase the agricultural sec- based participatory watershed development policy of
tor’s resilience to climate change. The development the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
and adoption of improved technologies, the prudent (Lakew et al., 2005). When deciding on preventative
use of natural resources, and effective management measures, the slope is one of the crucial characteris-
practices are urgently required to protect soil and tics to take into account. Therefore, we propose eight
water from degradation. Soil and water conservation conservation techniques based on the erosion sever-
measures, such as biological (agro forestry and agri- ity and priority determined by the RUSLE method
cultural) and mechanical (terracing, bunding, trench- and further consider slope. The conservation tech-
ing, check dams, etc.), are essential for reducing run- niques include stone bunds, runoff diversion, level
off, soil erosion, and improving soil quality, water bunds, level Fanya Juu, bench terrace, stone-faced
quality, moisture conservation, and overall crop soil bunds, hillside terrace, and hillside terrace with
productivity sustainably. In various regions of the a trench (Figs. 12 and 13). Hence, certain locations
world, a variety of approaches have been utilized to with comparable slope characteristics have been

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 16 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Table 7  Sub watershed Sub watersheds Area (ha) Total soil loss (t/year) Mean soil loss Priority rank Severity class
prioritization according the (t ­ha−1 ­year−1)
severity class
SW–1 302.4 26,089.5 86.3 7 Very severe
SW–2 347.7 9210.2 26.5 14 Moderate
SW–3 599.2 2298.2 3.8 26 Very slight
SW–4 879.5 4504.9 5.1 22 Slight
SW–5 451.9 5160.7 11.4 18 Slight
SW–6 559.2 5859.8 10.5 19 Slight
SW–7 1613.2 25,635.9 15.9 16 Moderate
SW–8 728.5 10,616.0 14.6 17 Slight
SW–9 1667.6 1,003,644.6 601.8 1 Very severe
SW–10 1179.6 50,990.4 43.2 10 Severe
SW–11 490.7 59,427.3 121.1 4 Very severe
SW–12 1210.2 148,566.5 122.8 3 Very severe
SW–13 2080.0 9955.2 4.8 24 Very slight
SW–14 1026.0 6440.3 6.3 21 Slight
SW–15 1383.2 6396.9 4.6 25 Very slight
SW–16 2256.9 59,617.0 26.4 15 Moderate
SW–17 1260.1 6154.1 4.9 23 Very slight
SW–18 1387.4 12,697.2 9.2 20 Slight
SW–19 578.5 16,083.0 27.8 13 Moderate
SW–20 1949.4 91,655.0 47.0 9 Severe
SW–21 507.6 60,093.7 118.4 5 Very severe
SW–22 129.2 3781.1 29.3 12 Moderate
SW–23 637.6 24,465.9 38.4 11 Severe
SW–24 146.5 19,829.5 135.3 2 Very severe
SW–25 700.4 34,825.7 49.7 8 Severe
SW–26 1354.3 126,474.8 93.4 6 Very severe

found, and one or more conservation approaches Juu (FJ) approaches are advised. The two methods
have been suggested as a result (Lakew et al., 2005). help slow down runoff and prevent soil erosion. This
We recommend runoff diversion (RD) or stone helps in reducing the yield loss and improving the
bunds (SB), which will be implemented, based on soil health. The majority of the country’s semi-arid
the individual area soil characteristics (such as depth and dry regions, as well as places with medium rain-
and drainage class) and agro-ecological conditions fall and well-drained soils, are suitable for level soil
(Lakew et al., 2005). Runoff diversion is a type of bunds. Although Level Fanya Juu procedures work
channel that’s typically constructed across slopes to best on moist, well-drained soils with moderate rain-
transport the runoff to an outlet. It features a support- fall and weyna dega (wet) weather. It is also used in
ing bank or ridge. Furthermore, places with medium higher-elevation semi-arid regions, particularly in flat
rainfall and deep, well-drained soils, as well as semi- terrain with well-drained soil.
arid and dry regions of the nation, can benefit from A bench terrace is a conservation technique that
the stone bunding approach. Apart from those speci- can be used in areas with slopes of 12 to 58% (Lakew
fied for runoff diversion, it is strongly advised for ero- et al., 2005). Typically, terraces convert steep slopes
sion-prone locations with fewer than 15% of slopes into steps with nearly horizontal benches that reduce
over the whole watershed (Lakew et al., 2005). runoff velocity, minimize soil erosion, and increase
In locations with slopes above 3% and below crop yield. A stone-faced soil bund (SFSB) technique
15% gradient, level soil bunds (LB) and level Fanya is recommended for the parts of the watershed with

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 17 of 22 1501

Fig. 11  Map of sub-watersheds in the study area with their mean soil loss, and severity class

Fig. 12  Proposed conservation techniques configuration (source: Lakew et al., 2005; FAO conservation guide 13/3 watershed man-
agement and field manual, 1988)

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 18 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Fig. 13  Proposed conservation techniques based on slope of the parts of the watershed

slopes between 15 and 35%, except for bench ter- suitable for areas characterized by steep hillsides with
races. As an additional moisture conservation meas- high levels of stoniness and low infiltration capacity
ure, it can be combined with tie-ridging and compost (round stones are not suitable). Recovery of degraded
applications above bunds or benches (Lakew et al., steep slopes is likely, primarily through the closure
2005). of areas and plantations of multipurpose and fodder
For areas with a high slope gradient (>50%), trees. HTTs are water harvesting structures that can
such as in the upper portions of the study area, the increase the productivity of land closures and convert
use of both hillside terraces and hillside terraces with steep slopes into agro-forestry systems (Lakew et al.,
trenches is advised. The use of the hillside terrace 2005).
technique is ideal for areas with arid and semi-arid
conditions. It can also be utilized in areas with deep
well-drained soils and moderate rainfall. The use Conclusion
of the hillside terrace technique is commonly prac-
ticed in hill basins in Ethiopia to protect the fields The aim of this study was to analyze the soil loss
and containment plantations (Lakew et al., 2005). rates in the Jejebe watershed using a GIS-based
There is great potential to improve degraded slopes, environment and map the vulnerability of the water-
mainly through land closure and multi-purpose and shed to this type of loss. It also identified areas of
fodder tree plantations. Similarly, hillside terraces need for future soil conservation planning. Accord-
with trench technique are best suited to semi-arid ing to the study, the Jejebe watershed is experienc-
as well as arid areas of the country. This method is ing significant soil erosion due to the excessive

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 19 of 22 1501

amount of water. It is most affected by this issue in Data availability The data that support the findings of this
the hilly regions. The study estimated that the total study are available at the corresponding author upon reason-
able request.
soil loss in the watershed was about 919,886.5 tons
annually. The mean annual soil loss in the Jejebe Declarations
watershed was 36.2 tons per hectare. The study iden-
tified seven out of the 26 watersheds that are prone Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing inter-
ests.
to very severe erosion risk. These areas include the
SW-9, SW-24, SW-12, SW-11, SW-21, SW-26, and
SW-1. The mean annual soil loss rate in these areas
is between 86.3 and 601.8 t h­ a−1 and covering 1.2% References
of the total watershed area. The study identified four
sub-watersheds that are in the middle and upstream Abate, S. (2011). Estimating soil loss rates for soil conserva-
portions of the watershed. These areas include the tion planning in the Borena Woreda of South Wollo High-
SW-25, SW-20, SW-10, and SW-23. These areas lands, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Development in
Africa, 13(3), 87–106.
have mean soil loss rates of between 38.4 and 49.7 Amsalu, A., Stroosnijder, L., & de Graaf, J. (2007). Long-term
t ­ha−1 ­year−1. About 1.4% of the watershed is at risk dynamics in land resource use and the driving forces in
of experiencing severe soil loss. The areas of the the Beressa watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of
Environmental Management, 83(4), 448–459.
watershed that are prone to very severe and severe
Amsalu, T., & Mengaw, A. (2014). GIS based soil loss esti-
erosion are in the upstream and middle portions. mation using RUSLE model: The case of Jabi Tehinan
These areas should be prioritized in the implementa- Woreda, ANRS, Ethiopia. Natural Resources, 05(11),
tion of interventions due to their high soil loss rates. 616–626. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​nr.​2014.​511054
Andualem, T. G., Hagos, Y. G., Kefale, A., & Zelalem, B.
To minimize the soil loss, proper management of
(2020). Soil erosion-prone area identification using multi-
vegetation and the implementation of conservation criteria decision analysis in Ethiopian highlands. Mod-
practices are needed in the watershed. The study eling Earth Systems and Environment, 6(3), 1407–1418.
revealed that immediate action is needed to address https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​020-​00757-2
Ayalew, G. (2015). A Geographic Information System based
the soil loss rates in various areas of the water-
soil loss and sediment estimation in Zingin watershed for
shed. These include SW-9, SW-24, SW-12, SW-11, conservation planning, Highlands of Ethiopia. Interna-
SW-21, SW-26, SW-1, SW-25, SW-20, SW-10, and tional Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 3(1),
SW-23. Eight conservation techniques based on 28–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11648/j.​ijsts.​20150​301.​14
Ayalew, D. A., Deumlich, D., Šarapatka, B., & Doktor, D.
the slope gradient are recommended for the parts
(2020). Quantifying the sensitivity of NDVI-based C fac-
of the study watershed that are located on a steep tor estimation and potential soil erosion prediction using
slope. These techniques can help prevent runoff and Spaceborne Earth Observation Data. Remote Sensing,
improve soil infiltration. Some of these include the 12(7), 1136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs120​71136
Balabathina, V. N., Raju, R. P., Mulualem, W., & Tadele, G.
establishment of stone bunds, runoff diversion, level
(2020). Estimation of soil loss using remote sensing and
bunds, level fanya juu, bench terrace, stone-faced GIS-based universal soil loss equation in northern catch-
soil bunds, hillside terrace, and hillside terrace with ment of Lake Tana Sub-basin, Upper Blue Nile Basin,
a trench. Northwest Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research,
9(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40068-​020-​00203-3
Bekele, B., & Gemi, Y. (2020). Soil erosion risk and sedi-
Author contribution Conceptualization: Y.G.H., T.G.A.,
ment yield assessment with universal soil loss equation
M.Y.S., and F.T.T.; methodology: Y.G.H., T.G.A., M.Y.S., and
and GIS: in Dijo watershed, Rift valley Basin of Ethiopia.
F.T.T.; software: Y.G.H., T.G.A., F.T.T., and M.A.M.; valida-
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 7(1), 273–291.
tion: Y.G.H., T.G.A., M.Y.S., F.T.T., D.N.A., and M.A.M.;
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​020-​01017-z
formal analysis: Y.G.H., F.T.T., and T.G.A.; investigation:
Bekele, B., Muluneh, A., & Wondrade, N. (2019). Geographic
Y.G.H.; resources: Y.G.H., D.N.A., and T.G.A.; data cura-
Information System (GIS) based soil loss estimation using
tion: Y.G.H. and T.G.A.; writing—original draft preparation:
Universal Soil Loss Equation Model (USLE) for soil con-
Y.G.H.; writing—review and editing: T.G.A., M.Y.S., Z.K.B.,
servation planning in Karesa Watershed, Dawuro Zone,
F.T.T., H.K.B., G.G.D., E.A.K., E.A.D., A.B.M., W.T.A.,
South West Ethiopia. International Journal of Water
D.N.A., and M.A.M.; visualization: Y.G.H., T.G.A., M.Y.S.,
Resources and Environmental Engineering, 11(8), 143–
and F.T.T.; supervision: T.G.A., Z.K.B., F.T.T., and M.Y.S. All
158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​IJWRE​E2018.​0820..​143-​158
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
Bekele, M. (2021). Geographic information system (GIS)
manuscript.
based soil loss estimation using RUSLE model for soil

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 20 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

and water conservation planning in anka_shashara water- Gelagay, H. S., & Minale, A. S. (2016). Soil loss estimation
shed, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Hydrol- using GIS and remote sensing techniques: A case of
ogy, 5(1), 9–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15406/​ijh.​2021.​05.​ Koga watershed international soil and water conservation
00260 research Northwestern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv
Belayneh, M., Yirgu, T., & Tsegaye, D. (2019). Potential soil Res., 4(2), 126–136.
erosion estimation and area prioritization for better con- Gelagay, H. S. (2016). RUSLE and SDR model based sediment
servation planning in Gumara watershed using RUSLE yield assessment in a GIS and remote sensing environ-
and GIS techniques’. Environmental Systems Research, ment; A case study of Koga Watershed, Upper Blue Nile
8(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40068-​019-​0149-x Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Waste Water Treatment &
Bewket, W., & Teferi, E. (2009). Assessment of soil erosion Analysis, 7(2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​4172/​2157-​7587.​10002​
hazard and prioritization for treatment at the watershed 39
level: Case study in the Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile Girma, R., & Gebre, E. (2020). Spatial modeling of erosion
basin, Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development, 20(6), hotspots using GIS-RUSLE interface in Omo-Gibe river
609–622. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ldr.​944 basin, Southern Ethiopia: Implication for soil and water
Biondi, D., Freni, G., Iacobellis, V., Mascaro, G., & Montanari, conservation planning. Environmental Systems Research,
A. (2012). Validation of hydrological models: Concep- 9(1), 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40068-​020-​00180-7
tual basis, methodological approaches and a proposal for Girmay, G., Moges, A., & Muluneh, A. (2020). Estimation of
a code of practice. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, soil loss rate using the USLE model for Agewmariayam
Parts a/B/C, 42–44, 70–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pce.​ Watershed, northern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Secu-
2011.​07.​037 rity, 9(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40066-​020-​00262-w
Blanco, H. and Lal, R., Eds. (2008). Principles of soil conser- Gizaw T, Degifie T. (2018) Soil erosion modeling using GIS
vation and management; Springer: New York, NY, USA, based RUSEL model in Gilgel Gibe-1 Catchment, South
pp. 167-169 West Ethiopia. Int J Environ Sci Nat Res. 15(5) DOI:
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Yang, https://​doi.​org/​10.​19080/​IJESNR.​2018.​15.​555923
J. E., Alewell, C., et al. (2020). Land use and climate Habtu, W., & Jayappa, K. S. (2022). Assessment of soil erosion
change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015– extent using RUSLE model integrated with GIS and RS:
2070). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The case of Megech-Dirma watershed, Northwest Ethio-
117(36), 21994–22001. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​ pia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(5),
20014​0311 318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10661-​022-​09965-y
El Jazouli, A., Barakat, A., Ghafiri, A., El Moutaki, S., Ettaqy, Hagos, Y. (2020). Estimating landscape vulnerability to soil
A., & Khellouk, R. (2017). Soil erosion modeled with erosion by RUSLE model using GIS and remote sensing:
USLE, GIS, and remote sensing: a case study of Ikkour A case of Zariema watershed, Northern Ethiopia. https://​
watershed in Middle Atlas (Morocco). Geoscience Let- doi.​org/​10.​21203/​rs.3.​rs136​586/​v1
ters., 4(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40562-​017-​0091-6 Hagos, Y. G., Andualem, T. G., Yibeltal, M., & Mengie, M. A.
Eniyew, S., Teshome, M., Sisay, E., & Bezabih, T. (2021). Inte- (2022). Flood hazard assessment and mapping using GIS
grating RUSLE model with remote sensing and GIS for integrated with multi-criteria decision analysis in upper
evaluation soil erosion in telkwonz watershed, northwest- Awash River basin, Ethiopia. Appl. Water Sci, 12(7), 148.
ern Ethiopia. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13201-​022-​01674-8
Environment, 24, 100623. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rsase.​ Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Meshe-
2021.​100623 sha, D. T., Fenta, A. A., et al. (2017). Comprehensive
Esa, E., Assen, M., & Legass, A. (2018). Implications of land assessment of soil erosion risk for better land use planning
use/cover dynamics on soil erosion potential of agri- in river basins: Case study of the Upper Blue Nile River.
cultural watershed, northwestern highlands of Ethio- Science of the Total Environment, 574, 95–108. https://​
pia. Environ Syst Res, 7(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​ doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2016.​09.​019
s40068-​018-​0122-0 Helldén, U. (1987). An assessment of woody biomass, commu-
FAO, (1988). Watershed management field manual - Slope nity forests, land use and soil erosion in Ethiopia. Lund
treatment measures and practices. FAO technical paper University Press.
13/3, FAO, Roam. Hurni H (1985a). Soil Conservation Manual for Ethiopia. Min-
Gachene, C. K. K., Nyawade, S. O., & Karanja, N. N. (2020). istry of Agriculture: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Soil and water conservation: An overview. Encyclopedia Hurni H (1985b). Erosion-productivity-conservation systems
of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 810–823. in Ethiopia. In: Paper presented at the 4th international
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​95675-6_​91 conference on soil conservation, Maracay Venezuela, 3–9
Ganasri, B. P., & Ramesh, H. (2016). Assessment of soil ero- November. pp. 654–674.
sion by RUSLE model using remote sensing and GIS - A Hurni, H. (1988). Degradation and conservation of the
case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geoscience Frontiers, resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain Research
7(6), 953–961. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsf.​2015.​10.​007 and Development, 8, 123–130.
Gashaw, T., Tulu, T., & Argaw, M. (2017). Erosion risk Kayet, N., Pathak, K., Chakrabarty, A., & Sahoo, S. (2018).
assessment for prioritization of conservation measures Evaluation of soil loss estimation using the RUSLE model
in Geleda watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Environ- and SCS-CN method in hill slope mining areas. Interna-
mental Systems Research, 6(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​ tional Soil and Water Conservation Research, 6, 31–42.
s40068-​016-​0078-x https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2017.​11.​002

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501 Page 21 of 22 1501

Kebede, Y. S., Endalamaw, N. T., Sinshaw, B. G., & Atinkut, Sap basin: central Vietnam. International Soil and Water
H. B. (2021). Modeling soil erosion using RUSLE and Conservation Research, 6(2), 99–110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
GIS at watershed level in the upper beles, Ethiopia. Envi- 1016/j.​iswcr.​2018.​01.​001
ronmental Challenges, 2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envc.​ Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K, and
2020.​100009 Yoder, D.C., coordinators. (1997). Predicting soil ero-
Kifelew, M.S., Mesalie, R.A., Shumey, E.E. et al., (2022). sion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the
Identification of erosion hot spot area using GIS and gully Revised Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). US Dept. of Agri-
contribution for reservoir sedimentation in the case of culture, Agric. Handbook No. 703, 404 pp.
Abrajit reservoir, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Sus- Renard, K. G., Yoder, D. C., Lightle, D. T., & Dabney, S. M.
tainable Water Resources Management 8(4). 93. https://​ (2011). Univeral soil loss equation and revised universal
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40899-​022-​00680-7 soil loss equation. In R. P. C. Morgan & M. A. Nearing
Kidane, M., Bezie, A., Kesete, N., & Tolessa, T. (2019). The (Eds.), Handbook of erosion modelling (pp. 137–167).
impact of land use and land cover (LULC) dynamics on Wiley.
soil erosion and sediment yield in Ethiopia. Heliyon, Setegn SG, Yohannes F, Quraishi S, Chowdary VM, Mal BC
5(12). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​heliy​on.​2019.​e02981 (2009). Impact of land use/land cover transformations
Kim, S. M., Choi, Y., Suh, J., Oh, S., Park, H. D., & Yoon, S. on Alemaya Lake, Ethiopia. Journal of Indian Water
H. (2012). Estimation of soil erosion and sediment yield Resources Society 29(3)
from mine tailing dumps using GIS: A case study at the Sewnet, G., & Sewnet, A. (2016). Soil loss estimation using
Samgwang mine, Korea. Geosystem Engineering, 15(1), GIS and Remote sensing techniques: A case of Koga
2–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​12269​328.​2012.​674426 watershed, Northwestern Ethiopia. International Soil and
Lakew, D., Carucci, V., Asrat, W.-A., & Yitayew, A. (Eds.). Water Conservation Research, 4(2), 126–136. https://​doi.​
(2005). Community based participatory watershed devel- org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2016.​01.​002
opment: A guideline. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Simms AD, Woodrofe CD, Jones BG (2003). Application of
Development. RUSLE for erosion management in a costal catchment,
Mengie, M. A., Hagos, Y. G., Malede, D. A., & Andualem, T. Southern NSW. In: Proceedings of the international con-
G. (2022). Assessment of soil loss rate using GIS–RUSLE gress on modeling and simulation: integrative modeling
interface in Tashat Watershed, Northwestern Ethiopia. of biophysical, social and economic systems for resource
Journal of Sedimentary Environments, 7(3), 617–631. management solutions, Townsville, Australia, pp 678–683
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s43217-​022-​00112-8 Sinshaw, B. G., Belete, A. M., Mekeonen, B. M., Wubetu, T.
Mitasova, H., Mitas, L., (1999). Modeling soil detachment with G., Lakew, T., Dessie, W., Atinkut, H. B., Adugna, A.,
RUSLE 3d using GIS. University of Illinois at Urbana- Bilkew, T., Tefera, A. K., et al. (2021). Watershed-based
Champaign. http://​www.​gis.​uiuc.​edu:​2280/​modviz/​erosi​ soil erosion and sediment yield modeling in the Rib water-
on/​usle.​html shed of the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Energy
Moore, I. D., & Wilson, J. P. (1992). Length-slope factors for Nexus, 3(15). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​nexus.​2021.​100023
the revised universal soil loss equation: Simplified method Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP) (1996). Soil ero-
of estimation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, sion hazard assessment for land evaluation, Research
47(5), 423–428. report, SCRP, Addis Ababa
Mustefa, M., Fufa, F., & Takala, W. (2019). GIS estimation of Tesema, T.A., (2015). GIS-based time series assessment of soil
annual average soil loss rate from Hangar River watershed erosion risk using RUSLE model: (A case study of Che-
using RUSLE. Journal of Water and Climate Change, raqe Watershed, Bilate River Sub-Basin). Addis Ababa
11(2), 529–539. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​wcc.​2019.​181 University, http://​etd.​aau.​edu.​et/​handle/​12345​6789/​7420
Ayele, N. A., Naqvi, H. R., & Alemayehu, D. (2020). Rain- Teshome, A., Halefom, A., Teshome, M., et al. (2021). Soil
fall induced soil erosion assessment, prioritization and erosion modeling using GIS and revised universal soil
conservation treatment using RUSLE and SYI models in loss equation approach: a case study of Guna-Tana land-
highland watershed of Ethiopia. Geocarto International, scape, Northern Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Systems and
37(9), 2524–2540. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10106​049.​ Environment, 7(1), 125–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
2020.​18229​27 s40808-​020-​00864-0
Negese, A., Fekadu, E., & Getnet, H. (2021). Potential soil loss Teshome, D. S., Moisa, M. B., Gemeda, D. O., & You, S.
estimation and erosion-prone area prioritization using (2022). Effect of land use-land cover change on soil ero-
RUSLE, GIS, and remote sensing in Chereti Watershed, sion and sediment yield in Muger Su -Basin, Upper Blue
Northeastern Ethiopia. Air, Soil and Water Research, Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land, 11(12), 2173. https://​doi.​org/​
14(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​11786​22120​985814 10.​3390/​land1​11221​73
Olorunfemi, I. E., Komolafe, A. A., Fasinmirin, J. T., Olufayo, Tirkey, A., Pandey, A., & Nathawat, M. (2013). Use of satellite
A. A., & Akande, S. O. (2020). A GIs-based assessment of data, GIS and RUSLE for estimation of average annual
the potential soil erosion and flood hazard zones in Ekiti soil loss in Daltonganj Watershed of Jharkhand (India) of
State, Southwestern Nigeria using integrated RUSLE and Jharkhand (India). Journal of Remote Sensing Technology,
HAND models. CATENA, 194, 104725. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1(1), 20–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18005/​jrst0​101004
1016/j.​catena.​2020.​104725 Tiruneh, G., & Ayalew, M. (2016). Soil loss estimation using
Pham, T. G., Degener, J., & Kappas, M. (2018). Integrated geographic information system in enfraz watershed for
universal soil loss equation (USLE) and Geographical soil conservation planning in highlands of Ethiopia. Inter-
Information System (GIS) for soil erosion estimation in A national Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1501 Page 22 of 22 Environ Monit Assess (2023) 195:1501

Technology, 5(2), 21–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3329/​ijarit.​ Environmental Systems Research, 11(1). https://​doi.​org/​

v5i2.​26265 10.​1186/​s40068-​022-​00265-5
Tsegaye, G., & Gebremichael, A. (2014). Review on overall Yihenew, G., & Yihenew, B. (2013). Costs of nutrient losses in
status of soil and water conservation system and its con- priceless soils eroded from the highlands of Northwestern
straints in different agro ecology of Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(7). https://​
Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 4, 59–70. doi.​org/​10.​5539/​jas.​v5n7p​227
Uri, N. D. (2000). Agriculture and the environment—the Yousuf, A., & Singh, M. (Eds.). (2019). Watershed hydrology,
problem of soil erosion. Journal of Sustainable Agricul- management and modeling. Florida: CRC Press. https://​
ture., 16(4), 71–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​j064v​16n04_​ doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97804​29430​633
07 Zerihun, M., Mohammedyasin, M. S., Sewnet, D., Adem, A.
Wischmeier, W. H, and Smith, D. D. (1965). Predicting A., & Lakew, M. (2018). Assessment of soil erosion using
rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky RUSLE, GIS and remote sensing in NW Ethiopia. Geo-
Mountains:guide for selection of practices for soil and derma Regional, 12, 83–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
water conservation. geodrs.​2018.​01.​002
Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. (1978). Predicting rainfall Zhang, H., Yang, Q., Li, R., Liu, Q., Moore, D., He, P., Rit-
erosion losses. A guide to conservation planning. The sema, C. J., & Geissen, V. (2013). Extension of a GIS
USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 537, Maryland. procedure for calculating the RUSLE equation LS factor.
Weldu Woldemariam, G., & Edo Harka, A. (2020). Effect of Computers & Geosciences., 52, 177–188. https://​doi.​org/​
land use and land cover change on soil erosion in erer sub- 10.​1016/j.​cageo.​2012.​09.​027
basin, Northeast Wabi Shebelle Basin, Ethiopia. Land, Zhang, Y., Degroote, J., Wolter, C., & Sugumaran, R. (2008).
9(4), 111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​land9​040111 Integration of modified universal soil loss equation
Wolka, K., Tadesse, H., Garedew, E., & Yimer, F. (2015). (MUSLE) into a GIS framework to assess soil erosion
Soil erosion risk assessment in the Chaleleka wetland risk. Land Degradation & Development, 20(1), 84–91.
watershed, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ldr.​893
mental Systems Research., 4(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s40068-​015-​0030-5 Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
Yared, M., & Sisay, T. (2019). Assessment of soil erosion and to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
land use land cover change using RUSLE model, GIS affiliations.
and remote sensing: a case study of Wombeya watershed,
Awash basin, Ethiopia. International Journal of Current
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
Research, 11(07), 5730–5738. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24941/​
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
ijcr.​35603.​07.​2019
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
Yeneneh, N., Elias, E., & Feyisa, G. L. (2022). Quantify soil
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
erosion and sediment export in response to land use/cover
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
change in the Suha watershed, northwestern highlands
and applicable law.
of Ethiopia: implications for watershed management.

Vol:. (1234567890)
13

View publication stats