Volume 7, Issue 3 (2019)
ECOPERSIA 2019, 7(3): 161-168 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Chatrsimab Z, Ghavimi Panah M, Vafaeinejad A, Hazbavi Z, Boloori S. Prioritizing of the Sub-Watersheds using the Soil Loss Cost Approach (A Case Study; Selj-Anbar Watershed, Iran). ECOPERSIA 2019; 7 (3) :161-168
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-29820-en.html
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-29820-en.html
1- Geographic Information Systems & Remote Sensing Department, Natural Resources & Environment Faculty, Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tehran, Iran , z_simab@yahoo.com
2- Watershed Management Sciences & Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources, Sari, Iran
3- Structural & Geotechnical Engineering Department, Civil, Water & Environmental Engineering Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
4- Watershed Management Engineering Department, Natural Resources Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5- Geographic Information Systems & Remote Sensing Department, Natural Resources & Environment Faculty, Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tehran, Iran
2- Watershed Management Sciences & Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources, Sari, Iran
3- Structural & Geotechnical Engineering Department, Civil, Water & Environmental Engineering Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
4- Watershed Management Engineering Department, Natural Resources Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5- Geographic Information Systems & Remote Sensing Department, Natural Resources & Environment Faculty, Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University , Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (6019 Views)
Aims: The present study has used results of the application of Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in integrated with the economic cost of soil loss to prioritize sub-watersheds of Selj-Anbar Watershed in Mazandaran Province, northern of Iran.
Materials and Methods: Overlay of five input layers of RUSLE model, viz., rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length and steepness (LS), cover and management (C) and support and conservations practices (P) factors has been done in Geographical Information system (GIS) platform for the study watershed. Then, the soil loss and sedimentation cost have assessed using soil nutrient depletion analysis. In this method, monetary value to the depleted nutrients based on the cost of purchasing an equivalent amount of used chemical fertilizer in the watershed was assigned.
Findings: The average soil loss and sediment rates of 4.92 and 1.98 t ha-1, respectively was obtained for the study watershed. In addition, the direct and indirect costs caused by soil loss during the five-year period in the Selj-Anbar Watershed were obtained 4.32×105 and 6.40×105 US$ which was totally equal to 10.98×105 US$. The highest (5.59×104 US$) and lowest (1.16×104 US$) annual cost of soil loss was estimated in the sub-watersheds S1-1-1 and S1-1-2, respectively.
Conclusion: Spatial distribution of soil loss and erosion cost could provide a basis for comprehensive and sustainable watershed management. The sub-watersheds with high soil erosion and cost rates deserve superior priority for implementation of conservation activities.
Materials and Methods: Overlay of five input layers of RUSLE model, viz., rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length and steepness (LS), cover and management (C) and support and conservations practices (P) factors has been done in Geographical Information system (GIS) platform for the study watershed. Then, the soil loss and sedimentation cost have assessed using soil nutrient depletion analysis. In this method, monetary value to the depleted nutrients based on the cost of purchasing an equivalent amount of used chemical fertilizer in the watershed was assigned.
Findings: The average soil loss and sediment rates of 4.92 and 1.98 t ha-1, respectively was obtained for the study watershed. In addition, the direct and indirect costs caused by soil loss during the five-year period in the Selj-Anbar Watershed were obtained 4.32×105 and 6.40×105 US$ which was totally equal to 10.98×105 US$. The highest (5.59×104 US$) and lowest (1.16×104 US$) annual cost of soil loss was estimated in the sub-watersheds S1-1-1 and S1-1-2, respectively.
Conclusion: Spatial distribution of soil loss and erosion cost could provide a basis for comprehensive and sustainable watershed management. The sub-watersheds with high soil erosion and cost rates deserve superior priority for implementation of conservation activities.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Watershed Management
Received: 2019/01/26 | Accepted: 2019/05/20 | Published: 2019/07/21
Received: 2019/01/26 | Accepted: 2019/05/20 | Published: 2019/07/21
References
1. Moore ID, Wilson JP. Length-slope factors for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation: Simplified method of estimation. J Soil and Water Conserv. 1992;47(5):423-8. [Link]
2. Woldemariam GW, Iguala AD, Tekalign S, Reddy RU. Spatial modeling of soil erosion risk and its implication for conservation planning: The case of the Gobele Watershed, East Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. Land. 2018;7(1):1-25. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/land7010025]
3. Sadeghi SHR, Hazbavi Z, Gholamalifard M. Interactive impacts of climatic, hydrologic and anthropogenic activities on watershed health. Sci Total Environ. 2019;648:880-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.004]
4. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, et al. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science. 1995;267(5201):1117-23 [Link] [DOI:10.1126/science.267.5201.1117]
5. Spalević V, Behzadfar A, Silva Tavares A, Moteva M, Tanaskovik V. Soil loss estimation of S7-2 Catchment of the Shirindareh Watershed, Iran using the river basin model. Agrofor. 2016;1(1):113-20. [Link] [DOI:10.7251/AGRENG1601113S]
6. Saha A, Ghosh P, Mitra B. GIS based soil erosion estimation using RUSLE model: A case study of Upper Kangsabati, Watershed, West Bengal, India. Int J Environ Sci Nat Res. 2018;13(5):001-008. [Link]
7. Telles TS, Falci Dechen SC, Antonio de Souza LG, Guimarães MdeF. Valuation and assessment of soil erosion costs. Scientia Agricola. 2013;70(3):209-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1590/S0103-90162013000300010]
8. Hazbavi Z, Sadeghi SHR, Younesi H. Analysis and assessing effectability of runoff components from different levels of polyacrylamide. Water Soil Resour Conserv J. 2012;2(2):1-13. [Persian] [Link]
9. Nikolic G, Spalević V, Curovic M, Khaledi Darvishan A, Skataric G, Pajic M, Kavian A, Tanaskovik V. Variability of soil erosion intensity due to vegetation cover changes: Case study of Orahovacka Rijeka, Montenegro. Not Bot Horti Agrobotan. 2019;47(1):237-48. [Link] [DOI:10.15835/nbha47111310]
10. Vittala SS, Govindaiah S, Gowda HH. Prioritization of sub-watersheds for sustainable development and management of natural resources: An integrated approach using remote sensing, GIS and socio-economic data. Current Sci. 2008;95(3):345-54. [Link]
11. Bewket W, Teferi E, Assessment of soil erosion hazard and prioritization for treatment at the watershed level: Case study in the Chemoga Watershed, Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev. 2009;20(6):609-22. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/ldr.944]
12. Adhami M, Sadeghi SHR. Sub-watershed prioritization based on sediment yield using game theory. J Hydrol. 2016;541:977-87. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.008]
13. Hembram TK, Saha S. Prioritization of sub-watersheds for soil erosion based on morphometric attributes using fuzzy AHP and compound factor in Jainti River basin, Jharkhand, Eastern India. Environ Dev Sustain. 2018 Sep:1-28. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10668-018-0247-3]
14. Lakkad A, Nayak D, Patel G, Shrivastava PK. Micro-watersheds prioritization for effective soil conservation planning of sub-watershed. Res Environ Life Sci. 2017;10(3):275-9. [Link]
15. Zingg AW. Degree and length of land slope as it affects soil loss in runoff. Agric Eng. 1940;21(2):59-64. [Link]
16. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains: Guide for selection of practices for soil and water conservation. Washington DC: Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Dept of Agriculture in cooperation with Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station; 1965. [Link]
17. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall erosion Losses: A guide to conservation planning. Washington: Science and Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agricultur; 1978. [Link]
18. Renard KG. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service;1997. p. 703. [Link]
19. Arekhi S, Niazi Y. Investigating application of GIS and RS to estimate soil erosion and sediment yield using RUSLE (Case study: Upper part of Ilam Dam Watershed, Iran). J Water Soil Conserv Res. 2010;17(2):1-27. [Persian] [Link]
20. Mohammadi S, Karimzadeh H, Alizadeh M. Spatial estimation of soil erosion in Iran using RUSLE model. EcoHydrol. 2018;5(2):551-69. [Persian] [Link]
21. Millward AA, Mersey JE. Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena. 1999;38(2):109-29. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00067-3]
22. Renard KG, Freimund JR. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. J Hydrol. 1994;157:287-306. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0022-1694(94)90110-4]
23. Bagarello V, Ferro V. Analysis of soil loss data from plots of differing length for the Sparacia experimental area, Sicily, Italy. J Biosyst Engin. 2010;105(3):411-22. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.12.015]
24. Bandara JSA, Chisholm A, Ekanayake A, Jayasuriya S. Environmental cost of soil erosion in Sri Lanka: Tax/subsidy policy options. Environ Model Soft. 2001;116(6):497-508. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00019-6]
25. Agheli Kohneshahri LA, Sadeghi H. Estimation of economic impact of Iranian soil erosion.. 2005;5(15):87-100. [Persian] [Link]
26. Rastgar Sh, Barani H, Darijani A, Sheikh V, Ghorbani J, Ghorbani M. Economic cost of soil nutrients loss from summer rangelands of Nour-rud watershed in North of Iran. Ecopersia. 2015;3(2):945-58. [Link]
27. Kefi M, Yoshino K, City T. Evaluation of the economic effects of soil erosion risk on agricultural productivity using remote sensing: case of watershed in Tunisia. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science, Volume XXXVIII, Part 8, Kyoto Japan; 2010. [Link]
28. Toubal AK, Achite M, Ouillon S, Dehni A. Soil erodibility mapping using the RUSLE model to prioritize erosion control in the Wadi Sahouat basin, North-West of Algeria. Environ Monit Assess. 2018;190: 210. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10661-018-6580-z]
29. Chatrsimab Z, Mirdar Harijani F, Aghighi M, Barati F. Evaluation of the risk of water erosion of the Selj-Anbar Watershed using the CORINE Model. Proceedings of 3rd National Conference on Soil Conservation and Watershed Management, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Karaj, Faculty of Natural Resources of University of Tehran. Tehran: Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran; 2018. p. 11. [Link]
30. Natural Resources Office of Mazandaran Province, Noshahr. Detailed Report on Pedology and Land Capacity in Selj-Anbar Watershed [Internet]. Noshar: Natural Resources Office of Mazandaran Province; 2015. p. 126. [Link]
31. Hoyos N. Spatial modelling of soil erosion potential in a tropical watershed of the Colombian ANDES. Catena. 2005;63(1):85-108. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2005.05.012]
32. Foster GR, Mc Cool DK, Renard KG, Moldenhauer WC. Conversion of the universal soil loss equation to SI metric units. Soil Water Consev. 1981;36(2):356-9. [Link]
33. Kinnel PIA. Event soil loss, runoff and the universal soil loss equation family of models: A review. J Hydrol. 2010;385(1-4):384-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.024]
34. Lin CY. A study on the width and placement of vegetated buffer strips in a mudstone-distributed watershed. J China Soil water conserv. 1997;29(3):250-266 [Chinese] [Link]
35. Deore SJ. Prioritization of micro-watersheds of Upper Bhama Basin on the basis of soil erosion risk using remote sensing and GIS technology [Dissertation]. Pune: University of Pune; 2005. p. 147. [Link]
36. Vanoni VA. Sedimentation engineering/ prepared by the ASCE Task Committee for the Preparation of the Manual on Sedimentation of the Sedimentation Committee of the Hydraulics Division. 2nd edition. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers; 1975. p. 54. [Link]
37. Alizadeh A. Principles of applied hydrology. Emam Reza University of Mashhad; 2007. p. 807. [Persian] [Link]
38. Pimentel D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ Dev Sustain. 2006;8(1):119-37. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8]
39. de Graaff J. The price of soil erosion: An economic evaluation of soil conservation and watershed development [Dissertation]. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University; 1996. p. 316. [Link]
40. Zhang X, Wu B, Ling F, Zeng Y, Yan N, Yuan C. Identification of priority areas for controlling soil erosion. Catena. 2010;83(1):76-86. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2010.06.012]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |