Comparison of RUSLE and MMF Soil Loss Models and Evaluation of Catchment Scale Best Management Practices for a Mountainous Watershed in India

Susanta Das, Proloy Deb, Pradip Kumar Bora and Prafull Katre
Additional contact information
Susanta Das: Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141004, India
Proloy Deb: Centre for Complex Hydrosystems Research, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Pradip Kumar Bora: College of Post Graduate Studies, Central Agricultural University, Umiam, Meghalaya 793103, India
Prafull Katre: Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Swami Vivekanand College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492012, India

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 13, issue 1, 1-22

Abstract: Soil erosion from arable lands removes the top fertile soil layer (comprised of humus/organic matter) and therefore requires fertilizer application which affects the overall sustainability. Hence, determination of soil erosion from arable lands is crucial to planning conservation measures. A modeling approach is a suitable alternative to estimate soil loss in ungauged catchments. Soil erosion primarily depends on soil texture, structure, infiltration, topography, land uses, and other erosive forces like water and wind. By analyzing these parameters, coupled with geospatial tools, models can estimate storm wise and annual average soil losses. In this study, a hilly watershed called Nongpoh was considered with the objective of prioritizing critical erosion hazard areas within the micro-catchment based on average annual soil loss and land use and land cover and making appropriate management plans for the prioritized areas. Two soil erosion models namely Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Modified Morgan–Morgan–Finney (MMF) models were used to estimate soil loss with the input parameters extracted from satellite information and automatic weather stations. The RUSLE and MMF models showed similar results in estimating soil loss, except the MMF model estimated 7.74% less soil loss than the RUSLE model from the watershed. The results also indicated that the study area is under severe erosion class, whereas agricultural land, open forest area, and scrubland were prioritized most erosion prone areas within the watershed. Based on prioritization, best management plans were developed at catchment scale for reducing soil loss. These findings and the methodology employed can be widely used in mountainous to hilly watersheds around the world for identifying best management practices (BMP).

Keywords: soil erosion; LULC; RUSLE; MMF; prioritization and management plan (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/232/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/232/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:232-:d:469774

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().