Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/envc

Modeling soil erosion using RUSLE and GIS at watershed level in the upper
beles, Ethiopia
Yadeta Saketa Kebede a, Nega Tamene Endalamaw a, Berhanu G. Sinshaw b,
Haimanot B. Atinkut c,d,∗
a
Department of Water Resources and Irrigation Engineering, Institute of Technology, Assosa university, 18, Assosa, Ethiopia
b
School of Civil and Water Resource Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Gondar, Gondar, 196, Ethiopia
c
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar 196, Ethiopia
d
College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, 430070 Wuhan, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Soil erosion by water often described as the most worst form of land degradation with serious environmental and
Erosivity socioeconomic ramification, which accelerated by human-induced activities and impacts agricultural produc-
GIS tivity, water resources sustainability, and ecological conservations. Despite, the significant amount of research
RUSLE
on the topic, location-specific soil erosion studies are still limited in Ethiopia, particularly in the study region.
Soil erodibility
Therefore, this study investigates the spatial pattern of soil erosion risk and map the annual soil loss rate in the
Soil erosion
Upper Beles Upper Beles watershed of the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model,
Nile Basin coupled with geographical information system (GIS), has been adopted for soil loss estimation. The respective
model factors were derived from rainfall, soil, land use/cover, and digital elevation model data. The raster layers
of rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, topographic, cover management, and conservation practices were processed
and multiplied together in the GIS platform. The order of magnitude of the estimated soil loss was within the
range of zero in bare areas and watercourses to well over 50 t ha−1 yr−1 in degraded slope and steep mountain
areas. The resulting average annual soil loss was founded to be 13.2 t ha-1 yr-1 , which exceeded the soil loss
tolerances of Ethiopia’s northern highlands. Based on soil erosion risk’s spatial distribution, 58.2% of the water-
shed has suffered soil loss less than 5 t ha−1 yr−1 . Result shows that high soil erosion prevails at steep slopes
and mountainous areas with no vegetation covers and extensively cultivated areas. The RUSLE and GIS-based
approach provides a reliable estimation of soil loss that helps identify the priority area for effective planning and
implementation of sustainable soil management practices to reduce soil erosion, particularly for the sustainability
of the Grand Ethiopian Renesance Dam (GERD) located at the downstream.

1. Introduction graded soils by poor farmers (Mengistu et al., 2015; Haregeweyn et al.,
2017).
Soil erosion is the most prominent form of land degradation, aris- What’s more, soil erosion diminishes soil quality and crop production
ing from synergy of natural phenomenon and anthropogenic activities due to its on-site impacts creating strain to sustainably use agricultural
(Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Ganasri and Ramesh, 2016; Rosas & Gutier- land (Hurni et al., 2008; Molla and Sisheber, 2017; Shiferaw, 2011).
rez., 2019; Teng et al., 2019). Soil erosion is a global issue, both of It also has long-lasting off-site impacts such as loss of agricultural soil,
which are on-site and the off-site consequences (Bogale et al., 2020). sedimentation causing flood risk, destruction of downstream structures,
It is a global series challenge that leads to a decline in ecosystem ser- and non-point sources of pollution causing eutrophication and turbidity
vices and functions (Pimental, 2006; Haregeweyn et al., 2015). Though (Lal, 2001; Hurni et al., 2008; Bewket and Teferi, 2009). Such soil ero-
the problem related to soil erosion was stated globally, the tropics sion consequences are more intensified by human-induced impacts such
and sub-tropic regions of the globe are under the most significant is- as extensive deforestation, overgrazing, agricultural intensification, and
sue Lal (2001). The risks of soil erosion to food security are espe- population growth (Amsalu et al., 2007; Shiferaw, 2011; Wolka et al.,
cially severe in developing countries of Africa and Asia Shiferaw (2011). 2015; Haregeweyn et al., 2017).
This is mainly due to high population pressure and inappropriate agri- In Ethiopia, soil erosion is the most prevalent problem with seri-
cultural practices combined with low adaptive capacity to restore de- ous environmental, and socioeconomic ramifications, especially in the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yadetas21@[Link] (Y.S. Kebede), berhanugeremew0@[Link] (B.G. Sinshaw), atinkuth20@[Link] (H.B. Atinkut).

[Link]
Received 20 November 2020; Received in revised form 8 December 2020; Accepted 8 December 2020
2667-0100/© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Beles watershed of Upper Blue Nile Basin. A massive amount of lands of Ethiopia. Geographically, it lies between 11° 05′00" N and 12°
productive soil is being lost annually, creating risk to the national 00′00" N and 36° 00′00" E and 37° 00′00" E (Fig. 1). The watershed
economy (Bewket and Teferi, 2009; Mekonnen et al., 2015). Sev- covers a total area of 3,539.6 km2 . The watershed’s terrains configura-
eral research studies indicate the severity of soil erosion at vari- tions are intricately composed of different land features as rugged and
ous spatial and temporal scales in Ethiopia (Amsalu et al., 2007; dissected plateaus with plains to undulating, steep mountains, and nu-
Bewket and Teferi, 2009; Erkossa et al., 2015; Haregeweyn et al., 2017; merous streams that worsen the risk of water convinced soil erosion
Shiferaw, 2011; Wolka et al., 2015). Several studies underlined that ero- mainly at the rainy seasons. The elevation of the watershed ranges from
sion caused land degradation is the major problem. In doing so, soil 965 to 2,722 m a.s.l. The slope of the watershed varies from flat to
productivity losses due to erosion could hinder efforts to achieve food very steep slope with three agroclimatic zones: Kola (hot), Woina-dega
security and improve livelihoods. Thus, reversing soil erosion impacts is (temperate), and Dega (cool). The maximum temperature ranged from
a high priority in the country to attain food security and environmental 21–35 °c, whereas the minimum temperature is from 7–20 °c, which
sustainability (Bewket and Teferi, 2009; Shiferaw, 2011). This can be occurs from July-August. The rainfall distribution is variable spatially
realized by understanding the magnitude of erosion and initiating effec- and temporally. The average annual rainfall ranges between 1,345.31
tive soil conservation strategies that need the imperative rigorous zonal, to 1,659.22 mm. The land use and soil data were obtained from the
national, and regional efforts. However, the absence of adequately de- Ethiopia Ministry of Water Resoures. The land use data indicated that
tailed information on the spatial pattern of soil erosion risks in Ethiopia culitivated land (moderately and dominately) accounts for 48.12% of
has posed a major challenge to national, regional, and zonal planning the area. Bushland is the second major landuse type in upper Beles wa-
towards reducing soil erosion. tershed (37.42%), while open woodland account for 6.53%. The east-
Accordingly, a better understanding of the spatial pattern of soil ero- ern highlands of the watershed are volcanic and precambrian basement
sion and the identification of most decay-prone areas is key to plan complex rocks, mainly basalts origin; while the lowlands are mainly cov-
and implement effective management strategies. This can be achieved ered by basement complex and metamorphic rocks, such as clastics, al-
by predicting soil erosion using different prediction models that have luvium, colluvium and marble deposits. The soil type found in the study
been efficiently developed. Several models exist to predict soil erosion area are nitosols, cambisols, fluvisols, luvisols, vertisols, leptosols and
rates by water ranging from the simple empirical model (e.g., RUSLE) acrisols. The watershed is one of the water’s endowed areas with sev-
to complex process-based models (e.g., European Soil Erosion Model eral perennial tributaries of Abate and Gilgel Beles rivers. Most notably,
[EUROSEM], Water Erosion Prediction Project [WEPP]) (Teng et al., downstream of this watershed, the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam
2018). Thus, the choice of a suitable model depends on the intended is being built. The watershed is home to diversified biodiversity. The
purpose and available data. One of the most widely used models for an- majority of its populations living in rural areas practicing subsistence
alyzing soil loss is the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). agriculture and mixed crop-livestock farming systems, threatening nat-
It is broadly applied due to fewer data requirements, readily available ural resources, especially soils.
data sets, and compatibility with GIS (Jiang et al., 2015; Yesuph and
Dagnew, 2019). 3. Methods and materials
Importantly, bourgening literature in Ethiopia are available based
on RUSLE models, and it has been tested by many scholars to estimate 3.1. Methods
soil erosion potentials (Amsalu et al., 2007; Bewket and Teferi, 2009;
Erkossa et al., 2015; Haregeweyn et al., 2017; Meshesha et al., 2012; The methodological framework applied to estimate soil erosion was
Mekonnen et al., 2015; Shiferaw, 2011; Wolka et al., 2015). Most of shown in Fig. 2. The effects of rainfall, soil, topographic, land use,
the works have been carried out in the highlands and plateau regions, and conservation practices were considered to estimate the soil erosion.
as these areas have been tackled with more soil erosion and extensively These factors are presented very well with the spatial type using the GIS
degraded. RUSLE model could be applied at small scales and large scales technique. For this particular study, ArcGIS 10.4.1 software was used
(Fenta et al., 2020). However, several scholars suggested small scale soil for data processing, storing, analysis, displaying, and viewing the re-
erosion studies are significant for combating soil erosion problems. Con- sult. Most of the factors were estimated using selected methodologies
sequently, the present study was performed in the upper Beles watershed or obtained from the published literature that has been developed for
at a small scale level. In this watershed, soil erosion and various other Ethiopian conditions. The model layers data file was built in a GIS en-
degradation processes enhance the sedimentation process; such stud- vironment and multiplied to get the erosion probability map. The as-
ies are occasional in the watershed. Besides the natural factors, human- sessment procedures for the different factors employed in the model are
induced activities, especially deforestation, intensified agricultural prac- described in the following sections.
tices, and inappropriate land management induced soil erosion in the
watershed. 3.2. Data type and sources
This study extends our knowledge of the causality of small-scale wa-
tershed soil erosion on mega downstream watersheds; for example, the Different digital and non-digital data set including rainfall, soil data,
Upper Beles watershed affetcs the Grand Ethiopian Renansance Dam Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
(GERD) located in the down stream. The resulting sedimentation seri- Global Digital Elevation Model (ASTER GDEM), and land use land cover
ously affects dams’ storage capacity such as GERD, which is under con- (LULC) data were collected from many sources, including field inspec-
struction, so threatening its sustainability. Thus, it is claimed that effec- tion (Table 1). Daily rainfall data for the period of 1992–2016 were
tive conservation planning and sustainable land management practices collected from nine metrological stations and used to derive the annual
at watershed level is critical to keep huge valuable project downstream, rainfall total. Land use land cover and soil data were collected from the
such as GERD. Therefore, this study’s objective was to estimate the soil Ethiopian Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). Also, the United States
loss rate in the upper Beles watershed by integrating GIS and RUSLE. Geological Survey (USGS) websites and literature review were used as
The course helps to understand soil erosion risk, its spatial pattern, and sources of data.
identify erosion-prone areas in the watershed.
3.3. Description of RUSLE model
2. Study site
Soil erosion of a watershed can be estimated through several models.
This study was conducted in the upper Beles watershed (Tributary In this regard, one of the most widely applied empirical models is RUSLE
of Blue Nile Basin), situated in the plateau of the north-western high- (Renard et al., 1997). This is due to fewer data requirements, the ready

2
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Fig. 1. Location of the upper Beles watershed

with its stream networks.

Table 1
Data type, sources, and description used in this study.

Type of data Source Description

ASTER DEM USGS ([Link] 30 m resolution

LULC Ethiopian MoWR LULC map of Upper Blue Nile River Basin Master Plan
Soil data Ethiopian MoWR Digital Soil map of Upper Blue Nile River Basin Master Plan
Rainfall data Ethiopian Metrological Agency Rainfall data for the period of 1992-2016 from nine stations
Land conservation practices Field observation, literature review, google earth image Existing conservation practices of the watershed

sliding, are not measured by the model (Renard et al., 1997; Teng et al.,
2018). The primary equation of the RUSLE model for predicting annual
soil loss (Renard et al., 1997) was given as follows:
A = R ∗ K ∗ LS ∗ C ∗ P (1)
Where, A is mean annual soil loss [t ha−1 yr−1 ],
R is rainfall erosivity
factor [MJ mm ha−1 hr−1 yr−1 ], K is soil erodibility factor [t hr. MJ−1
mm−1 ], LS is the slope length and slope steepness factor (dimensionless),
C is the cover management factor (dimensionless) and P is conservation
practice factor (dimensionless). Several studies indicate the applicability
of RUSLE coupled with GIS in different parts of Ethiopia to estimate soil
erosion potentials. Like other Ethiopian highlands, this model was used
to assess soil erosion rate in the upper Beles watershed.

3.3.1. R-factor estimation

The R-factor measures the kinetic energy of the rain, and it re-
quires measurements of rainfall intensity (Wischmeir and Smith, 1978;
Bewket and Teferi, 2009). However, long-term continuous rainfall in-
Fig. 2. Schematic outline of the methodological framework applied to asses soil
tensity data are not commonly available at many meteorological sta-
erosion.
tions, including the study area. Hence, empirical equations have been
developed to estimate R-factor values from readily available rain-
fall totals. This study used the readily available regression equation
availability of the required data sets, and the ability to integrates with Hurni (1985) to estimate R-factor costs from annual rainfall total (P,
GIS databases (Jiang et al., 2015; Yesuph and Dagnew, 2019). Using the mm).
RUSLE model, soil erosion can be estimated for river basins and individ-
𝑅 = −8.12 + (0.562 × P) (2)
ual farm fields. Soil erosion due to sheet and rill processes is estimated
by multiplications of contributing factors (Teng et al., 2018). However, Further, to reduce rainfall distribution variation and achieve a
the main forms of deterioration, such as gully development and land representative estimate of R-factor in the watershed, this study used

3
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Fig. 3. Data on soils (a), rain fall (b), landuse landcover (c) and slope (d) of the study area.

mean annual rainfall (Fig. 3b) derived from monthly rainfall data of Table 2
wide stations for the period 1992-2016 to derive the mean R-factor Soil types, color and K-values, and area coverage adapted from Bewket and
map. This approach of deriving mean R-factor value has been used Teferi (2009), Mengistu et al.(2015), Molla and Sisheber (2017), and
Haregeweyn et al. (2017).
in different parts of Ethiopia (Bewket and Teferi, 2009 in Chemoga
catchment; Meshesha et al., 2012 in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia; Soil unit name Soil color K-factor Area (%)
Mengistu et al., 2015 in Abay River Basin; Adugna and Cerda, 2015 in
Haplic Nitisols, Eutric Cambisols, Rhodic Red 0.25 26.6
Northeast Wollega; Ayalew, 2015 in Zingin watershed; Ayalew and Nitisols
Selassie, 2015 in Guang Watershed; Shiferaw, 2011 in Borena Woreda). Eutric Fluvisols, Eutric Vertisols Black 0.15 38.1
Haplic Acrisols, Eutric Leptosols Grey 0.35 11.7
Haplic Luvisols, Chromic Luvisols Yellow 0.3 23.5
Haplic Alisols Brown 0.2 0.1
3.3.2. K-factor estimation
K-factor expresses the inherent resistance of soil to particle detach-
ment and transport by rainfall. Scholars suggest different methods of
Molla and Sisheber, 2017; Haregeweyn et al., 2017). The soil types of
determining soil erodibility. The most commonly used way is to use soil
the study area were given in Table 2.
erodibility nomograph Wischmeier and Smith (1978). The nomograph
yields K-values as a function of the percentages of silt and very fine
sand and the permeability, structure, and organic matter content of 3.3.3. LS-factor estimation
the soil (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Renard et al., 1997). However, LS-factor describes the effects of slope length and slope steepness on
the resulting K-values are satisfactory only in situations resembling soil erosion. L and S’s values are relative and represent how erodible
those for which it was developed. Soil properties can influence the the particular slope length and steepness are close to the 22.1 m
likelihood and severity of erosion. Hence, the researcher usually inves- long and 9 % steep unit plot Wischmeier and Smith (1978). In the
tigates the relation between soil properties and erodibility to determine original USLE, slope steepness can be derived numerically from a digital
K-value. The lack of data on soil properties is a serious obstacle to soil elevation model, but slope length needs to be measured or estimated.
erosion modelling in sub-hid regions, including the study area. Hence, The heterogeneity and scale of topography and land use practices
the soil color-type approach suggested by Hurni (1985) for Ethiopia’s estimate slope length inadequate. A series of equations are available
condition was adopted to determine K-values for dominant found in to calculate combined LS-factor Wischmeier and Smith (1978). In this
the study area. The study area’s soil unit map was extracted from the study, the unit contributing area approach was used to calculate the
Abay Basin Authority database in which ten main soil units (Fig. 3a) distributed LS-factor over the terrain. The flow accumulation denoting
were identified and delineated in the shapefile of the study area. The the total contributing area of a given cell is calculated by summing
soil colors and their corresponding K-value was obtained from other the locations of all upslope cells draining into it. Flow accumulation
published literature (Bewket and Teferi, 2009; Mengistu et al., 2015; was derived from the ASTER GDEM dataset of 30 m resolution after

4
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Table 3
C-factors value for the different land cover types under consideration

Land use/cover type Area (%) C-factor Source

Dense woodland 1.74 0.05 Eweg and Van Lammeren (1996).

Moderately cultivated 27.95 0.15 Hurni (1985), Bewket and Teferi (2009)
Bush land 37.42 0.1 Mengistu et al. (2015)
Open woodland 6.53 0.06 Eweg and Van Lammeren (1996).
Dominantly cultivated 20.17 0.35 Meshesha et al. (2012)
Grassland 5.87 0.12 Ayalew (2015)
Rockland 0.31 0.05 Hurni (1985)
Urban areas 0.01 0.09 Ganasri and Ramesh (2016)

fill sink and flow direction operation using a watershed delineation Table 4
tool in the hydrological modeling extension of the ArcGIS Spatial P-factor values suggested by Wischmeier and Smith (1978)
Analyst toolsets. The techinques of calculating LS-factor was given by Land-use type Slope (percent) P-factor References
Moore and Burch (1986); Panagos et al., (2015) as:
Agricultural 0–5 0.1 Wischmeier and Smith (1978)
( ) ( )1.3 land 5–10 0.12 Bewket and Teferi (2009)
cell size 0.4 sin(𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒)
LS = 𝐹 𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑐 𝑐 𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 x 10–20 0.14 Ganasri and Ramesh, 2016)
22.13 0.0896 20–30 0.19
30–50 0.25
Flow accumulation is a raster-based total of the accumulated flow to 50–100 0.33
each cell, as determined by getting the weight for all sections that flow Another land All 1
into each downslope cell, and Cell size is the length of a cell side. The
slope of the study area which is used to calculate the LS-factor is given
in Fig. 3d. 3.4. Approach for validation of the results

For evaluating the consistency and the coherence of the model out-
3.3.4. C-factor estimation put, selective field observation was carried out. Due to a lack of the pre-
The C-factor specifies the effects of vegetation, management, and vious case studies specific to the study area, the model outputs’ validity
erosion control practices on soil loss (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; was compared with numerical data outputs of published comparable
Mengistu et al., 2015). Land cover change has the strongest influence earlier studies over the Abay River Basin. The best available land use,
on the C-factor, leading to a significant increase in the C-factor and an topographic, rainfall, and soil data for the input layers were intended to
increase in soil loss. The C-factor’s value varies from 1 in completely minimize errors associated with estimating soil erosion risks.
bare land to 0 in a water body or completely covered land surface
(Mengistu et al., 2015). Due to spatial and temporal variations, many 4. Results and discussion
studies used remote sensing data to classify land cover units to quantify
C-factor values with intensive ground truth Bewket and Teferi (2009). 4.1. Spatial distribution of soil erosion factors
For this study, C-factor values were derived from the land use map of the
Abay River Basin Master Plan study provided by the Ethiopian Ministry The spatial pattern of the soil erosion by water through the RUSLE
of Water Resources for the reference year of 2018. From this data, about model has been derived using the rainfall erosivity, soil types, slope,
eight major land use classes were identified. Fig. 3c shows the landuse and land use. The combination of high rainfall erosivity and relatively
of the study site. The corresponding C-factor value was assigned to each steep slope areas highly consequences to water erosion. Besides, several
land-use class based on available literature as indicated in Table 3. studies revealed that the soil erosion rate is more sensitive to rainfall.
From the R-factor map (Fig. 4a), the southeastern part of the water-
shed has an erosivity of 921.71 MJ mm ha−1 hr−1 yr−1 and tends to
3.3.5. P-factor estimation decrease toward the western region. The lowest R-value observed was
The P-factor indicates the ratio of soil loss after implementing con- 745.16 MJ mm ha−1 hr−1 yr−1 . The relative higher R-value is associated
servation practice to soil loss from straight-row cultivation running up with more rainfall power to erode the soil from the surface and thus high
and down a slope (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; Meshesha, 2012). Sup- vulnerability to erosion. In the K-factor map, the values were found to
porting conservation practices; such as contour farming, strip cropping, be ranging from 0.15 to 0.35 t hr MJ−1 mm−1 (Fig. 4d). The highest K-
and terracing principally affect water erosion by modifying the flow factor value soil is dominated by very fine sand with silt particle, thus
amount, pattern, grade, or direction of surface runoff, reducing the vol- highly susceptible to erosion. Likewise, the watershed’s central parts are
ume and rate of runoff (Renard et al., 1997). The P-factor value ranges covered by Eutric type soils with lower K value and hence less sensitive
from 0 to 1 Ganasri and Ramesh (2016); the value approaching 0 in- to erosion. The LS-factor map was shown in Fig. 4c, and the costs range
dicates good conservation practice, and the value approaching 1 indi- from 0 to 44.14. The lower value occurred in most of the watershed,
cates poor conservation practice. In the study area, the entire watershed characterized by a gentle slope, thus favoring low to moderate soil loss.
is not preserved with improved soil and water conservation measures. The high costs of LS coincided with high topography of the western and
The widely used traditional conservation practice is the drainage ditch, northeastern part of the watershed and greater potential susceptibility
which is meant to drain excess runoff from croplands during rainstorms of the area to soil erosion by water. C-factor permits a better understand-
safely. The land management practices in the watershed are poor, and ing of the land utilization aspects vital for developmental planning and
it is not reasonable to use the existing conservation practices for eval- represents the effect of plants and other soil surface cover on soil ero-
uating soil loss. Hence the watershed was classified as agricultural and sion. The C-factor map is shown in Fig. 4e; the value ranges from 0.05 to
other land use suggested by Wischmeier and Smith (1978) to determine 0.35. The largest C occurred at eastern and northeastern parts with no
P-factors. The agricultural lands were categorized into six slope classes, vegetation cover and occupied by cultivation, thus highly vulnerable to
and P-value was assigned to respective slope classes, while all other land soil erosion. The lower C value occurred in the central part of densely
use land cover was assigned a value of 1 as shown in Table 4. forested areas and is less susceptible to soil erosion. Grasslands cover

5
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of R-factor (a), P-

factor (b), LS-factor (c), K-factor (d) and C-
factor (e) in upper Beles watershed.

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of soil erosion in upper Beles water-

shed.

the places in the western region, bushes, and open woodland had mod- The watershed’s computed soil loss ranged from zero in plain areas
erate C values. Fig. 4b shows the P-factor values. It reflects the impact and watercourses to large over 50 t ha−1 yr−1 . In very degraded slop-
of specific erosion management practices on erosion rate. P-factor cost ing regions and at specific spots of steep slopes of the watershed, soil
depends on erosion control strategies implemented, but no significant loss rate ranged to 503.54 t ha−1 yr−1 . It shows a larger spatial vari-
engineering activities have yet taken except the drainage ditch observed ation of soil loss over the watershed, mainly caused by the difference
in cultivation lands. High P values were determined from cultivated land in soil, rainfall, slope, land cover, and improper land management.
practiced on slope classes greater than 50%, where the increased vul- The estimated mean annual gross soil loss from the entire watershed is
nerability of soil erosion is prominent. about a 4.67million ton, with a mean soil loss rate of 13.2 t ha−1 yr−1 .
As observed from the mean value, the largest soil loss rate exceeding
4.2. Estimation of potential annual soil loss 50 t ha−1 yr−1 accounts for only a small amount of the total soil loss,
and this huge rate comes from a small proportion of watershed areas
The possible soil erosion map was generated in the ArcGIS environ- (Table 5). The estimated annual soil loss rates of the watershed are
ment using Eq. 1, and the resulting erosion map was shown in Fig. 5. higher than the soil loss tolerance, ’the extent to which soil loss can be

6
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Table 5 scales, input data, lack of correspondence in the methods adopted, het-
Soil erosion severity classes by total land area and soil loss mass erogeneity of the studies’ environment (Hurni et al., 2008; Yesuph and
Soil losst/ha/yr. Severity class Area Mean annual soil loss Dagnew, 2019). However, it is imperative to note that all the infor-
3
mation pointed out the severity of soil erosion problems, especially in
(10 ) ha % (103 ) ton %
Ethiopia’s highlands. Consequently, the estimations and extrapolations
0-5 Very low 206.01 58.2 527.97 11.3 of the soil loss rates can give only an indication about an average order
5-15 Low 109.02 30.8 1382.99 29.6 of magnitude. This is because erosion is a process with great variation
15-30 Moderate 29.38 8.3 1200.77 25.7
30-50 High 9.49 2.68 738.22 15.8
both in time and space (Haregeweyn et al., 2015).
>50 Very high 0.07 0.02 822.32 17.6
Total 353.96 100 4672.27 100 4.5. Implications of predicted soil erosion risks for land management
Note: Soil loss and severity classification were made based on soil erosion liter-
ature on the Upper Blue Nile Basin (Haregeweyn et al., 2017) From the spatial pattern of the soil erosion risk map (Fig. 5), it is
evident that the entire watershed does not require the implementation
of conservation measures. Thus, the erosion risk map can help guide
tolerated,’ suggested by Hurni (1986) for Ethiopia’s northern highlands investments designed to protect soil loss and prioritize effective reme-
10 t ha−1 yr−1 . But various scholarly points indicate that several factors diation actions. Also, soil erosion risk assessment enabled identifying
mainly influence the level of tolerance, just like soil types and depth, hotspot erosion-prone areas where efforts and resources should be fo-
the rate of soil formation land use land cover, topography, and rainfall cused to avoid further erosion. High or hotspot erosion areas demand
characteristics. special priority for implementing soil erosion control measures, signif-
icantly reducing the watershed’s total sediment yield. Since land man-
agement practices vary depending on the area’s local condition, it is of
4.3. Spatial variation of soil erosion in the watershed
great interest for any relevant local agencies to construct soil erosion
risk maps for the target areas at different spatial levels. According to
The spatial pattern of soil erosion is illustrated in Fig. 5. The esti-
Bewket and Teferi (2009), resource consideration limits soil conserva-
mated mean annual gross soil loss is about 4.67 million tons. The wa-
tion measures to a few places. Besides, the expected costs and benefits
tershed has been classified into five erosion severity classes. The clas-
of the conservation measures guide where to allocate soil conservation
sification was made based on soil erosion literature on the Upper Blue
measures. The rates soil loss less than 5 t ha−1 yr−1 is 58.2% of the study
Nile Basin (Haregeweyn et al., 2017). Accordingly, areas categorized as
area (Table 5); this rate of soil loss is considered to be sustainable, given
having very low (below 5 t ha−1 yr−1 ) erosion severity class represent
it is less than the generally accepted soil loss tolerances (10 t ha−1 yr−1 )
58.2% of the watershed area coverage. Areas classified as having low
in north highlands of Ethiopia Hurni (1986).
(5–15 t ha−1 yr−1 ) and moderate (15–30 t ha−1 yr−1 ) erosion severity
The remaining 41.8% of the study area, which has soil loss rates
class accounted for 30.8% and 8.3% of the total area coverage. The wa-
above 5 t ha−1 yr−1, contributes to almost 88.7% of the total soil loss in
tershed parts classified as having high (30–50 t ha−1 yr−1 ) and very high
the area. Especially in areas where soil loss rates exceed 10 t ha−1 yr−1 ,
(above 50 t ha−1 yr−1 ) soil erosion severity class signify only 2.7% of the
soil erosion by water and its consequences represents a main environ-
total area coverage. Despite their relatively smaller coverage areas, high
mental problem. Therefore, soil conservation measures should be taken
and very high erosion severity classes accounted for 15.8% and 17.6%
in the watershed that suffers from moderate or elevated soil loss rates
of the total soil loss, respectively, whereas the much more widespread
(above 10 t ha−1 yr−1 ). Implementation of suitable soil conservation
very low erosion severity classes accounted for 11.3% of the total soil
practices varies based on available resources and local specific condi-
loss (Table 5). This implies that most of the total soil loss was generated
tions. Different kinds of literature indicate structural measures such as
from the small areas which experience moderate to high erosion rates.
stone bunds, soil trenches rehabilitation of degraded hills through af-
From this, we understood that soil loss areas are inversely related to the
forestation, and areas as enclosures that restrict human and animal inter-
amount of soil loss. This indicates that a high amount of soil loss is ob-
ference are very effective land management practices to control runoff
served in a few watershed areas and vice versa. The critically high soil
soil loss water erosion.
erosion rate is associated with the watershed hill marginal areas, mainly
attributed to a combination of a high rainfall erosivity, relatively steep
5. Conclusions
slopes, and sparse vegetation covers.
Despite its exploratory nature, this study offers some insight into in-
4.4. Comparison of soil loss estimates with other assessments vestigating soil erosion at small-scale watersheds. Soil erosion by water
is a serious problem in the upper Beles watershed of the Upper Blue Nile
We compared the model’s result with literature in different parts of Basin. Results indicate that soil erosion in the watershed is primarily in-
the Upper Blue Nile River Basin at a different spatial scale. In a sim- duced by human activities such as deforestation and land conservation
ilar study, Ayalew (2015) estimated a mean annual soil loss rate of negligence. This problem is inflated by the watershed’s natural condi-
9.1 t ha−1 yr−1 in the Zingin watershed in the highlands of Ethiopia. tions such as local climate, soil type, and uneven topographic nature.
Bewket and Teferi (2009) estimated an average soil loss of 93 t ha−1 yr−1 The estimated mean annual gross soil loss from the entire watershed is
for the Chemoga watershed. For the Legemara watershed in Borena about 4.67million tons, with a mean soil loss rate of 13.2 t ha−1 yr−1 .
woreda, Shiferaw (2011) estimated a mean soil loss of 30.88 t ha−1 yr−1 . The computed average yearly soil loss exceeded the soil loss tolerances
An estimated soil loss of about 27.5 t ha−1 yr−1 was assessed for the Up- of north highlands of Ethiopia suggested by Hurni (1986), which is about
per Blue Nile Basin by Haregeweyn et al. (2017). In Ethiopia, rift valley 10 t ha−1 yr−1 . The model outputs validity was compared with numeri-
Wolka et al. (2015) estimated average soil loss of 45 t ha−1 yr−1 us- cal data outputs of published comparable earlier studies over the Abay
ing the RUSLE model. Yesuph and Dagnew (2019) estimated a mean River Basin. Consequently, the estimated soil loss rate and the spatial
soil loss of 37 t ha−1 yr−1 in the Beshillo catchment of the Blue Nile distribution is generally reasonable. Variation in time and assessment
Basin. Compared to these studies, the estimated soil loss rate and the spa- scales, input data, lack of correspondence in the methods adopted and
tial distribution is generally reasonable. The finding reported by several heterogeneity of the studies’ environment leads to variation of soil loss
scholars underline that soil erosion endangers the soils in many parts estimates.
of Ethiopia, the quantitative soil loss estimation is still uncertain and The spatial distribution of soil erosion risk reflects that the watershed
unreliable. The likely reasons could be variation in time and assessment has tackled very low to severe soil loss. Most of the area (58.2%) has

7
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

suffered less than 5 t ha−1 yr−1 , and high soil erosion prevails at various References
locations at steep slopes and the mountainous regions with no vegeta-
tion covers and intensified agriculture. Land-use change in plateaus and Adugna, A., Cerda, A., 2015. Soil erosion assessment and control in Northeast Wollega,
Ethiopia. Solid Earth Discuss. 7, 3511–3540.
fringe areas of the watershed increase soil loss rate. It is tough to stop Amsalu, A., Stroosnijder, L., De. Graaf, J, 2007. Long-term dynamics in land resource use
the soil loss from the earth’s surface, but it could be reduced through and the driving forces in the Beressa watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. J. Environ.
land conservation practices. The soil erosion risk map offers a realistic Manage. 83, 448–459.
Ayalew, G., 2015. A Geographic information system based soil loss and sediment estima-
estimation of annual soil loss in the watershed and aid to guide invest- tion in Zingin watershed for conservation planning, highlands of Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci.
ments designed to protect soil loss and prioritize effective remediation Technol. Soc. 28–35.
actions. It also enabled identifying hotspot erosion-prone areas where Ayalew, G., Selassie, Y.G., 2015. Soil loss estimation for soil conservation planning using
geographic information system in Guang Watershed, Blue Nile Basin. J. Environ. Earth
efforts and resources should be focused to avoid further erosion. Iden- Sci. 5 (1), 126–134.
tifying such critical erosion-prone areas is thus the first step to enable Fenta, Ayele Almaw, Tsunekawa, Atsushi, Haregeweyn, Nigussie, Poesen, Jean,
soil conservation planning. Tsubo, Mitsuru, Borrelli, Pasquale, Panagos, Panos, Vanmaercke, Matthias,
Broeckx, Jente, Yasuda, Hiroshi, Kawai, Takayuki, Kurosaki, Yasunori, 2020. Land
In the study area lack of data is a big problem to assessment of soil
susceptibility to water and wind erosion risks in the East Africa region. Sci. Total
erosion. Because of spatial variability of the area and data availability Environ. 703.
the RUSLE inputs always carry uncertainties related to input data. The Bewket, W., Teferi, E., 2009. Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for treat-
study shows soil loss over the watershed and facilitate suitable land man- ment at the watershed level: case study in the Chemoga Watershed, Blue Nile Basin,
Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 20, 609–622.
agement. The study has given a fairly reliable estimation of the soil loss. Bhattacharya, R.K., Chatterjee, N.D., Das, K., 2020. Sub-basin prioritization for assessment
But it is important to note that the estimated soil loss rates may not be of soil erosion susceptibility in Kangsabati, a plateau basin: a comparison between
precise because of the well-known limitation of the model. For instance, MCDM and SWAT models. Sci. Total Environ. 734, 139474.
Bogale, A., Aynalem, D., Adem, A., Mekuria, W., Tilahun, S., 2020. Spatial and temporal
the basic equation implies that each factor is derived independently, variability of soil loss in gully erosion in upper Blue Nile basin. Ethiopia, Appl. Water
while in reality, there is obvious interdependency among the variables. Sci. 10, 106.
Additionally, the main problem in relation to the erosion risk models is Erkossa, T., Wudneh, A., Desalegn, B., Taye, G., 2015. Linking soil erosion to on-site fi-
nancial cost: lessons from watersheds in the Blue Nile basin. Solid Earth 6, 765–774.
the validation, because of scarcely available data for comparing the es- Eweg, HPA., Lammeren, R. (1996). The application of geographic information system
timates of the models with actual soil losses. Measured data of soil loss at the rehabilitation of degraded and degrading areas of Tigray, Ethiopia. Research
are unavailable in the specific study site. How ever, the model results report. Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.
Ganasri, B.P., Ramesh, H, 2016. Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model using remote
is within the values of soil loss reported in similar studies in highlands sensing and GIS - a case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geosci. Front. 7, 953–961.
of Ethiopia with almost similar environmental conditions. The result of Haregeweyn, N, Tsunekawa, A, Nyssen, J, Tsubo, M, Meshesha, DT, Schutt, B, Adgo, E,
the study and the method used are quite useful bearing in mind the Tegegne, F., 2015. Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review. Prog Phys
Geogr 39 (6), 750–774.
practical problems in estimating the RUSLE factor values in the eastern
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M, Meshesha, DT, Fenta, AA, Nyssen, J,
Africa due to lack of input data, which is the case in many developing Adego, E., 2017. Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk for better land use
countries. It is thus recommended that this preliminary study should be planning in river basins: a case study of the Upper Blue Nile River. Sci. Total Environ.
enhanced by long-term field obsevations to capture the real behavior of 574, 95–108.
Teng, Hongfen, Liang, Zongzheng, Chen, Songchao, Liu, Yong, Rossel, Raphael [Link],
soil erosion process at the watershed level. Chappell, Adrian, Yu, Wu, Shi, Zhou, 2018. Current and future soil erosion assess-
Generally speaking, the RUSLE and GIS-based approach applied in ments by water on the Tibetan Plateau based on RUSLE and CMIP5 climate models.
this study offer potentially useful approaches to identify those areas Sci. Total Environ. 635, 673–686.
Hurni, H. ( 1985). Soil Conservation Manual for Ethiopia, First Draft, Ministry of Agriculture,
likely to be the most susceptible to water induced soil erosion, and pri- Natural Resources Conservation and Development Department, Community Forests, and
oritize the areas for effective planning of sustainable land management Soil Conservation Development Department. Addis Ababa.
based on erosion severity classes. There is therefore, a definite need for Hurni, H., 1986. Guidelines for development agents on soil conservation in Ethiopia soil
conservation research project. Community Forests and Soil Conservation Develop-
investigating soil erosion at watershed level. Further, it provides valu- ment Department. Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa.
able information for policymakers, decision-makers, stakeholders, and Hurni, H., Herweg, K., Portner, B., Liniger, H., 2008. Soil erosion and conservation in
international organizations working in harmony to promote sustainable global agriculture. In: Braimoh, A.K., Vlek, P.L.G. (Eds.), Land Use and Soil Resources.
Springer, Netherlands, pp. 41–71.
watershed management strategies . Jiang, L, Yao, Z, Lui, Z, Wu, S, Wang, R, Wang, L, 2015. Estimation of soil erosion in some
sections of Lower Jinsha River based on RUSLE. Nat Hazards 76, 1831–1847.
Declaration of Competing Interests Lal, R., 2001. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degrad Dev 12, 519–539.
Mekonnen, M, Keesstra, SD, Baartman, JE, Ritsema, CJ, Melesse, AM., 2015. Evaluating
sediment storage dams: off-site structural sediment trapping measures in northwest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Ethiopia. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Mengistu, D., Bewket, W., Lal, R., 2015. Soil erosion hazard under the current and poten-
tial climate change induced loss of soil organic matter in the upper Blue Nile (Abay)
the work reported in this paper.
River Basin, Ethiopia. ReaearchGate 137–163.
Meshesha, D., Tsunekawa, A., Tsubo, M., 2012. Analysis of the dynamics and hotspots
CRediT authorship contribution statement of soil erosion and its management scenarios: the case of the Central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia. Int. J. Sediment Res. 27, 84–99.
Molla, T., Sisheber, B., 2017. Estimating soil erosion risk and evaluating erosion control
Yadeta Saketa Kebede: Project administration, Data curation, For- measures for soil conservation planning at Koga watershed in Ethiopia’s highlands.
mal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Solid Earth 8, 13–25.
Validation. Nega Tamene Endalamaw: Supervision. Berhanu G. Sin- Moore, I.D., Burch, G.J., 1986. Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the universal
soil loss equation. Soil Science [Link]. J. 50 (5), 1294–1298.
shaw: Project administration, Writing - original draft, Validation. Pimentel, D., 2006. Soil erosion: a food and environmental threat. Environ., Develop.,
Haimanot B. Atinkut: Project administration, Funding acquisition, Sustain. 8, 119–137.
Writing - review & editing, Validation. Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., 2015. A new European slope length and steepness
factor (LS-Factor) for modeling soil erosion by water. Geosciences 5 (2), 117–126.
Renard, KG, Foster, GR, Weesies, GA, McCool, DK, Yoder, DC., 1997. Predicting Soil Ero-
Acknowledgement sion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA Agriculture Research Service Handbook 703, USA,
pp. 1–384.
We authors want to express our heartfelt thanks to the National
Rosas, M.A., Gutierrez, R.R., 2019. Assessing soil erosion risk at national scale in develop-
Metrological Agency of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water, Irrigation and ing countries: the technical challenges, a proposed methodology, and a case history.
Electricity for providing the necessary data needed to this work. We Sci. Total Environ. doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.135474.
Shiferaw, A., 2011. Estimating soil loss rates for soil conservation planning in the Borena
are greatfult to the journal editor and two anonymous reviewers for
woreda of South Wollo highlands, Ethiopia. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 13 (3), 87–106.
their thoughtful and insightful comments in the earlier version of this
manuscript.

8
Y.S. Kebede, N.T. Endalamaw, B.G. Sinshaw et al. Environmental Challenges 2 (2021) 100009

Teng, M., Huang, C., Wang, P., Zeng, L., Zhou, Z., Xiao, W., Huang, Z., Liu, C., 2019. Wolka, K., Tadesse, H., Garedew, E., Yimer, F., 2015. Soil erosion risk assessment in the
Impacts of forest restoration on soil erosion in the Three Gorges Reservoir area, China. Chaleleka wetland watershed, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 4
Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134164. doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.134164. (5).
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. In: Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide Yesuph, Dagnew, 2019. Soil erosion mapping and severity analysis based on the RUSLE
to Conservation Planning, 537. USDA Agriculture Research Service Handbook, USA, model and local perception in the Beshillo Catchment of the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
pp. 1–58. Environ Syst Res 8 (17).