Model. Earth Syst. Environ.

(2016) 2:51
DOI 10.1007/s40808-016-0105-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Estimation of soil loss using RUSLE model for Sebou watershed

(Morocco)
Khalid chadli1

Received: 27 February 2016 / Accepted: 8 March 2016 / Published online: 19 March 2016
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Abstract In the current study, the revised universal presence or absence of conservation measures. The direct
equation of soil losses (RUSLE) is implemented, to assess consequence of soil erosion is the declining productivity
the risk of water erosion in the Sebou watershed (Mor- due to the loss of nutrients, physical deterioration, decrease
occo). The calculation of erosion requires a huge amount of of soil thickness, and in extreme cases, total loss of soils.
information and data from various sources available in Hence the importance to estimate the potential of this
different formats and scales. Therefore a geographic erosion to implement preventive measures against such
information system (ArcGIS 10.2) was used, which losses (Morgan 1997). These results will be used for ter-
allowed ease and considerable time savings in the organi- ritorial planning.
zation and processing of spatial data showing the effects of
each factor affecting soil erosion. This erosion is influenced
by topography, rainfall, soil properties, the conditions of Study area
crop management, and finally conservation practices. The
average annual soil loss was calculated by multiplying The Sebou watershed, located north west of Morocco
these five factors. The results show that 78.83 % of the between parallels 33° and 35° north latitude and 4°150 and
study area has a low risk of erosion, 17.36 % medium risk, 6°350 west longitude, covers nearly 40,000 km2. It is
3.04 % high risk and 0.77 % a very high risk. bounded to the north by the southern front of the Rif
mountain chain, the south by the Middle Atlas mountains,
Keywords Erosion  RUSLE  Risk  Basin  Sebou  GIS to the east by the corridor Fez-Taza, and West to Atlantic
Ocean (Fig. 1).

Introduction
Materials and methods
Soil erosion by water runoff, whose origin is in the action
of water on an area deprived of vegetation cover, is perhaps There are various methods that consider soil erosion in
the most important process of degradation, because it is watersheds, these methods vary from simple to more
irreversible and generally of great magnitude (Honorato complex and differ in their need for data input and their
et al. 2001). ability to predict erosion.
There are several factors that increase water erosion The universal soil loss equation (USLE) proposed by
which are: rainfall, soil type, slope, vegetation type and Wischmeier and Smith in (1978) was the most widely used
model in predicting the loss of soil. It is described by the
following Eq. 1:
& Khalid chadli
Chadl_khalid@hotmail.com A¼RKLSCP ð1Þ

1
Department of geography, Faculty of Letters and Human
where A is the estimated average soil loss in ton/ha/year,
Sciences, B.P. 11202 Zitoune Meknès, Morocco R is the erosivity of rainfall in mj mm/ha h year, K is the

123
51 Page 2 of 10 Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51

Fig. 1 The study area (AHBS 2011)

soil erodibility factor in ton ha h/ha mj mm, LS is the – The ability to adjust the LS factor for variable shape
topographic factor integrating slope length and steepness slopes; and new conservation practices values (P) for
(LS) dimensionless, C is the cover-management factor, crops in alternating strips, use of grasslands and
dimensionless, and P is the support practice factor, underground drainage.
dimensionless.
After further research, the USLE was improved, which
led to the development of the revised universal equation of
R factor
soil losses (RUSLE) which has the same equation as USLE
but with several improvements to verify the factors. The
R is the rainfall and runoff factor by geographic location.
manual of agriculture No. 703 (Renard et al. 1997) pub-
The greater the intensity and duration of the rain storm, the
lished by the United States department of agriculture
higher the erosion potential (Stone and Hilborn 2012).
(USDA), describes this equation in detail. Its advances
The R factor is the index presented by Wischmeier and
include:
Smith (1978), and is defined as the product of the kinetic
– Introduction of new algorithms for calculation, energy of a storm and its maximum intensity during a
– New erosivity values of rainfall-runoff (R), 30 min interval (Eq. 2)
– Development of a soil susceptibility term erosion EI30 ¼ ðEcÞ  ðI30Þ ð2Þ
periodically variable and alternative estimation meth-
ods when the monogram is not applicable. where EI30 is the erositivity index for an event in mj.mm/
– A new method to calculate the cover-management ha/h, Ec is the total kinetic energy of rain in mj/h, and I30
factor (C), using the sub-factors that include prior land is the maximum intensity of rain in 30 min in mm/h.
use, crops, soil cover (including rock fragments on the Because of the limitations of the data (rain intensity and
surface) and roughness ground. rain gauges registers), the Eq. 3 generated by Cortés (1991)
– New forms of estimating factors slope length and was selected and expressed as follows:
steepness (LS) which consider the erosion percentages Y ¼ 2:8959X þ 0:002983X 2 ð3Þ
grooves and inter-grooves.

123
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51 Page 3 of 10 51

where Y represents the annual index of rainfall erosivity in K, but structure, organic matter and permeability also
mj mm/ha h year, and X is the annual average precipitation contribute (Stone and Hilborn 2012).
in mm. In our study we used the harmonized world soil database
The annual rainfall data for the period 1973 to 2013 were (HWSD) version 1.2 (FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC
collected from the hydraulic agency basin of Sebou (AHBS). 2009). The HWSD is composed of a raster image file and a
R factor map (Fig. 2) indicates that the values range linked attribute database. The raster database consists of
between 1527 and 7963 mj mm/ha h year. 21,600 rows and 43,200 columns, of which 221 million
grid cells cover the globe’s land territory.
K factor Each grid cell in the database is linked to commonly
used soil parameters, namely, organic carbon, pH, water
K is the soil erodibility factor; it is the average soil loss in storage capacity, soil depth, cation exchange capacity of
tons/hectare for a particular soil in cultivated, continuous the soil and the clay fraction, total exchangeable nutrients,
fallow with an arbitrarily selected slope length of 22.13 m lime and gypsum contents, sodium exchange percentage,
and slope steepness of 9 %. K is a measure of the sus- salinity, textural class, and granulometry. HWSD allows
ceptibility of soil particles to detachment and transport by soil compositions to be displayed or queried in terms of
rainfall and runoff. Texture is the principal factor affecting user-selected soil parameters.

Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of R factor

123
51 Page 4 of 10 Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51

The HWSD Viewer allows soil association compositions The calculation of this factor is made as follows
to be displayed or queried in terms of user-selected soil according to Wiliams’ (1995) Eqs. 4–8:
parameters, and it provides a geographical tool to query Kusle ¼ fcsand  fclsi  forgc  fhisand ð4Þ
and visualize the database. For modeling, the HWSD and  
its geographical layer can directly be read or imported by fcsand ¼ 0:2 þ 0:3  exp0:256msð1msilt=100Þ ð5Þ
common GIS and Remote Sensing software.
fclsi ¼ ðmsilt=ðmc þ msiltÞÞ0:3 ð6Þ
Table 1 k usle Values
Dominant soil k  
forgc ¼ 1  0:25  orgc þ exp3:722:95  orgc ð7Þ
Leptosols 0.17 !
0:7  1ms
Luvisols 0.15 fhisand ¼ 1 1ms
100
þ exp5:51þ22:9ð1ms=100Þ ð8Þ
Calcisols 0.17 100
Planosols 0.17
where Kusle is the erodibility factor, Ms is the % sand, Msilt
Kastanozems 0.16 is the % silt, Mc is the % clay, and Orgc is the % organic
Vertisols 0.14 matter.

Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of k factor

123
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51 Page 5 of 10 51

The values of the K factor (Table 1; Fig. 3) were mul- DEM data required several pretreatments. Initially, filling
tiplied by 0.1317 to be processed in the International the sinks of the digital terrain model was performed to
System of Units (ISU). Ton Ha hr h/ha mj mm. remove slight imperfections in the data. Several steps,
using spatial analysis functions in raster mode, have sub-
LS factor sequently been completed. The first step is the creation of
a raster of flow direction from each cell to its neighboring
LS is the slope length-gradient factor. The LS factor rep- cell of lower altitude. This determination of the direction
resents a ratio of soil loss under given conditions to that at of the theoretical river system flows then calculates a
a site with the ‘‘standard’’ slope steepness of 9 % and slope raster layer of accumulated flow to each cell. The second
length of 22.13 m. The steeper and longer the slope, the step is to calculate the slope in degrees for each cell. The
higher the risk for erosion (Stone and Hilborn 2012). Eqs. (9–13) (Velásquez 2013) used to calculate in ArcGIS
We used a digital elevation model (DEM) with 30 m 10 are:
resolution obtained from the Advanced Spaceborne Ther- sinðslope  0:01745Þ=0:0896
mal Emission and Reflection Radiometer Global Digital F ¼ ð9Þ
3  power ðsinðslope  0:01745Þ; 0:8Þ þ 0:56
Elevation Model (ASTER GDEM Validation Team 2009).
The calculation and spatialization factors L and S based on M ¼ ‘‘F’’=ð1 þ ‘‘F’’Þ ð10Þ

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of LS factor

123
51 Page 6 of 10 Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51

power ððflowaccumulation þ 900Þ; ðM þ 1ÞÞ  power ðflowaccumulation; ðM þ 1ÞÞ

L¼ ð11Þ
power ð30; ðM þ 2ÞÞ  powerð22:13; MÞ
!
Tanðslope  0:01745Þ \ 0:09; ð10:8  Sinðslope  0:01745Þ þ 0:03Þ;
S ¼ Con ð12Þ
ð16:8  Sinðslope  0:01745Þ  0:5Þ

LS ¼ ‘‘L’’  ‘‘S’’: ð13Þ P factor

The results of LS factor (Fig. 4) show that most of the
basin presents values ranging from 0.03 to 8.4. P is the support practice factor. It reflects the effects of
practices that will reduce the amount and rate of the water
C factor runoff and thus reduce the amount of erosion. The P factor
represents the ratio of soil loss by a support practice to that
C is the crop/vegetation and management factor. It is used of straight-row farming up and down the slope. The most
to determine the relative effectiveness of soil and crop commonly used supporting cropland practices are cross-
management systems in terms of preventing soil loss. The slope cultivation, contour farming and strip cropping
C factor is a ratio comparing the soil loss from land under a (Stone and Hilborn 2012).
specific crop and management system to the corresponding The factor P (Table 3; Fig. 6) was prepared in the same
loss from continuously fallow and tilled land (Stone and way as the factor C from the GLOBCOVER map and
Hilborn 2012). tables established in USA and Canada.
We used the land cover map Globcover 2009 World with
300 m resolution and 22 types of classes (Bontemps et al. 2011).
The values of the C factor (Table 2; Fig. 5) were Results and discussion
obtained for each type of land use from the tables published
in the manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia The raster map of A factor is obtained after the multipli-
USA (Georgia Soil Water and Conservation Commission cation of the five factors (R, K, LS, C, P). The map of the
2000), and USLE Fact Sheet, Ontario Ministry of Agri- resulting soil erosion was reclassified into 4 classes (Fig. 7)
culture Food and Rural Affairs, Canada. according to the classification proposed by the Food and

Table 2 C factor values

Land use class C

Rainfed croplands 0.07

Mosaic cropland (50–70 %)/vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (20–50 %) 0.07
Mosaic vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (50–70 %)/cropland (20–50 %) 0.1
Closed ([40 %) broadleaved deciduous forest ([5 m) 0.001
Closed ([40 %) needleleaved evergreen forest ([5 m) 0.001
Closed to open ([15 %) mixed broadleaved and needleleaved forest ([5 m) 0.001
Mosaic forest or shrubland (50–70 %)/grassland (20–50 %) 0.1
Mosaic grassland (50–70 %)/forest or shrubland (20–50 %) 0.1
Closed to open ([15 %) (broadleaved or needleleaved, evergreen or deciduous) 0.001
shrubland (\5 m)
Sparse (\15 %) vegetation 0
Artificial surfaces and associated areas (Urban areas [50 %) 0
Bare areas 0
Water bodies 0

123
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51 Page 7 of 10 51

Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of C factor

Table 3 P factor values

Land use class P

Rainfed croplands 0.5

Mosaic cropland (50–70 %)/vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (20–50 %) 0.5
Mosaic vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (50–70 %)/cropland (20–50 %) 1
Closed ([40 %) broadleaved deciduous forest ([5 m) 1
Closed ([40 %) needleleaved evergreen forest ([5 m) 1
Closed to open ([15 %) mixed broadleaved and needleleaved forest ([5 m) 1
Mosaic forest or shrubland (50–70 %)/grassland (20–50 %) 1
Mosaic grassland (50–70 %)/forest or shrubland (20–50 %) 1
Closed to open ([15 %) (broadleaved or needleleaved, evergreen or deciduous) shrubland (\5 m) 1
Sparse (\15 %) vegetation 1
Artificial surfaces and associated areas (Urban areas [50 %) 1
Bare areas 1
Water bodies 1

123
51 Page 8 of 10 Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51

Fig. 6 Spatial distribution of P factor

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in intervention will focus only on the LS, C, and P factors,
(1979) (Table 4). as the K and R factors cannot be changed (Stone and
The results show that 78.83 % of the study area has a Hilborn 2012).
low risk of erosion, 17.36 % medium risk, 3.04 % high risk
– For the LS factor, the management of terraces will
and 0.77 % a very high risk.
reduce the length of the slope and consequently the soil
loss,
– For the C factor, the choice of the types of cultivation
Conclusion
and tillage methods will lead to reduction of erosion.
– For the P factor, conservation practices, such as culture
The present study allowed us to quantify and map
against the slope, should be used to ensure that
potential erosion throughout the Sebou watershed. Con-
sediments are deposited close to their source.
cerning management strategies to reduce soil loss,

123
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51 Page 9 of 10 51

Fig. 7 Spatial distribution of erosion risk categories

Table 4 Classification of erosion risk Bontemps S, Defourny P, Bogaert EV, Arino O, Kalogirou V, Perez
JR (2011) GLOBCOVER. Product s Description and Validation
Erosion rate in ton/hectare/year Risk Report
Cortés THG (1991) Caracterización de la erosividad de la lluvia en
\10 Low México utilizando métodos multivariados. Tesis M. C. Colegio
10–50 Medium de postgraduados, Montecillos, México
50–200 High FAO, UNEP and UNESCO (1979) A provisional methodology for
soil degradation assessment, Rome
[200 Very high FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC (2009) Harmonized world soil
database (version 1.1). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxen-
burg, Austria
Georgia Soil Water and Conservation Commission (2000) Manuel for
Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia
References Honorato R, Barrales L, Pena I, Barrera F (2001) Evaluacion del
modelo USLE en la estimacion de la erosion en seis localidades
AHBS (2011) Plan Directeur d’Aménagement Intégré des Ressources entre la IV y IX Region de Chile
en Eaux du Bassin hydraulique de Sebou. Note de synthèse Morgan R (1997) Erosión y conservación de suelo. Madrid, España,
ASTER GDEM Validation Team (2009) ASTER Global DEM Ediciones Mundi-Prensa
Validation Summary Report. METI/ERSDAC, NASA/ Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC
LPDAAC, USGS/EROS (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water—a guide to

123
51 Page 10 of 10 Model. Earth Syst. Environ. (2016) 2:51

conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Velásquez S (2013) Manual spatial analyst: erosión de suelos
Equation (RUSLE). United States Department of Agriculture, utilizando la (RUSLE). Turrialba, Costa Rica
Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) Handbook No. Williams JR (1995) Chapter 25. The EPIC Model. In: Computer
703. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications.
DC Highlands Ranch. pp 909–1000
Stone RP, Hilborn D (2012) Universal soil loss equation (USLE) Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion
factsheet. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, losses—a guide for conservation planning. U.S. Department of
Ontario Agriculture, Agriculture. Handbook 537

123