You are on page 1of 19

SOIL ERODIBILITY ESTIMATION METHODS

1. Introduction

The intensification of soil erosion consequences in depletion of the top fertile soil
from agricultural land and the sedimentation in rivers and reservoirs. The rate of
erosion from the land surface depends mainly on the erosive power of the rainfall
event and the erodibility of the The susceptibility of surface soil to different
erosive agents (water and wind) is highly dependent on the physical
characteristics of the parent soil and the erosive power of the agents. The
strength of the raindrop splashes and depth of the surface runoff occurring from
precipitation determines the detachability of the individual soil aggregate and
bulk transport of the detached soil particles. The detachability of the soil
aggregate from the parent soil depends on the strength of how the individual soil
particles are bound together. The stronger the particles are bound together, the
less will be the susceptibility to erosion. The soil susceptibility to erosion is
expressed in terms of soil erodibility factor which can be defined as the rate of
soil loss per rainfall erosion index (MJ/mm)-1. Soil erodibility can be assessed by
any of the three established methods namely, the direct measurement on a
natural runoff plot, the rainfall simulation studies, and the predictive
relationships.
The direct measurement on a natural plot method and the rainfall simulation
methods need standardized field experimental plots. The method gives a reliable
erodibility factor, however it is costly and time consuming. The predictive
relationship approach is relatively the easier method to use, but the result is less
accurate as compared to the runoff plot and the rainfall simulation methods
(Römkens 1985).The predictive approaches are based on the soil physical,
chemical and mineralogical properties. Wischmeier et al. (1971) soil erodibility
nomograph is the most commonly used predictive method.
Different attempts were being made to establish the erodiblity factor
relationships with different soil properties. Oslon 1963, Ei_Swaify 1976, Young
1977, Williams 1984, Shiriza 1984, Sharpley 1990, Fryrear 1994, Chen 1995,
Zhang 2002 are among the common investigations conducted on the soil
erodibility estimation equations. The investigations suggested certain empirical
relations which can give soil erodibility value using certain data sets. However
adaptation of the research results of the investigations to other places still
remain a big challenge due to the area specific nature of empirical models or the
insufficiency of input data to make necessary adjustment for the specific
situations of the area under consideration.Likewise, very few investigations were
done so far for the specific situation of the soils in Ethiopia (Daba et al. 2002, J.S
Griffiths et al. 1989).
The limitation of the availability of the appropriate soil erodibility factor
estimation method is the main bottleneck for prediction of a reliable sediment
yield. Therefore there is a need to asses the existing soil erodibility estimation
methods with respect to data availability. Moreover, devising an alternative
approach for the erodibility estimation with a more simplified input parameter is
helpful to save money and time that could be expend on the intensive field data
collection. Hence, in this research the most commonly used soil erodibility
equation had been assessed, and suggested as a reference for the derivation of
the alternative soil erodibility factor estimation formula. The derived alternative
soil erodibility estimation method had been evaluated for the scope of it’s
applicability for the different soil characteristics.

2. Materials and methods

Data availability and reliability are the primary issue that should be considered
for the analysis of soil erodibility factor. The reliability on prediction of the
erodibility factor depends on the quality of the available input data. In this
research, the FAO/UNESCO-1998 world soil maps database and the soil map of
Upper Awash River basin in Ethiopia had been considered as source of available
soil data.
Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) had been
preparing and updating the world soil data base at different spatial scales. In
1990, a map of world soil resource was completed at a scale of 1:25,000,000
(FAO/EC/ISRIC, 2003).In 1998 the update version of the soil map was adopted as
world soil database. It was from the 1998 world soil data base that, the soil and
terrain map of the different parts of the content had been made available. The
Digital Soil and Terrain Database of North East Africa (SEA) that includes Ethiopia
was prepared separately and it has been available on purchase of the CD-ROM
containing all soil and terrain information of the area. The FAO soil map of the
Upper Awash basin is shown on figure 4.1.
Awash River basin in Ethiopia had been selected as a study area to analyze the
soil erodibility factor. Digital soil map of the area had been obtained from Federal
Ministry of Water Resources of Ethiopia. The study area has 10,540km2 with 80%
agriculture, 2.25% Urban, and the remaining 17.75% covered by different forests
and pasture land. The land slope varies from 0.7% to 16.5% with an undulating
topography at the far upstream part and uniform lowland in middle and
downstream parts. The area experiences heavy rainy seasons in months of July
and August with mean total annual rainfall of 1000mm. Different soil types exist
in the Upper Awash River basin. The major soil types of Awash is indicated on the
following figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Soil map of the Upper Awash River basin and sampling locations
The physical properties of the soils in Upper Awash River basin had been
extracted from FAO/UNESCO world soil database. The corresponding soil
properties for each soil type are indicated on table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Soil properties extracted from FAO/UNESCO soil database


S.No FAO Soil OC% %clay %silt %sand
1 Chromic Cambisols 1.44 38.0 22.0 40.0
2 Leptosols 0.97 25.0 16.0 59.0
3 Calcic Xerosols 0.64 22.0 30.0 49.0
4 Dystric Gleysols 2.92 59.0 22.0 19.0
5 Chromic Vertisols 0.69 61.0 14.0 25.0
6 Calcic Fluvisols 0.65 20.0 40.0 40.0
7 Dystric Nitisols 1.12 52.0 18.0 40.0
8 Eutric Cambisols 1.07 27.0 37.0 36.0
9 Eutric Nitisols 0.60 21.0 11.0 68.0
10 Eutric Vertisols 0.68 61.0 14.0 25.0
11 Haplic Xerosols 0.53 14.0 10.0 76.0
12 Chromic Luvisols 0.63 24.0 12.0 64.0
13 Mollic Andosols 3.95 29.0 40.0 31.0
14 Orthic Solonchaks 0.40 32.0 25.0 43.0
15 Orthic Luvisols 0.41 14.0 10.0 76.0

To verify the reliability of the FAO soil world data base characteristics, field data
on soil physical properties had been collected for major soils of the study area.
The major and dominant soils are five soil types and for each soil type sampling
had been done from 60cmx60cm pit with 100cm depth (figure 1.5).Five sampling
pits had been dug on the dominant soil types.

60cm

100cm 60cm

Figure 2.4 Soil sampling pit under excavation

The soil samples from each pit had been collected at two depth profiles, 0-30cm
and 30-100cm. The samples from each pit were analyzed in laboratory by
hydrometer method. The temperature correction, percent sand, percent silt and
percent clay computation had been done based on the Milford, 1997 laboratory
guideline procedures. The following are description of equations used for the
analysis of samples.
 Soil moisture correction

MCF =1 −[( AD − OD ) /AD ]


where : MCF = Moisture Correction Factor.... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........4. 1
AD = Air Dry weight
OD = Oven dry weight

 Determination of weight of dry soil


The weight of the dry soil is determined by multiplying the air dry weight
by the
moisture correction factor (MCF)
Weight of Dry Soil = Air drySoil * MCF....... .......... .......... .......... .......... .4.2

 Correcting hydrometer reading


To correct the hydrometer reading for the temperature, add 0.36 gram/liter for
every 1 degree Cent grade above 20 degree cent grade temperature; subtract
0.36gram/liter for every 1 degree C below 20 degrees cent grade temperature.
For temperature above 20 degree C
HR = measured reading(g/ l) + [(measured temperature − 20) * 0.36g/l) ].......... .... 4.3
where ,
HR is hydrometer reading

For the temperature below 20 degrees Cent grade

HR = measured reading(g/ l) − [(measured temperature − 20) * 0.36g/l)].......... .... 4.4


where ,
HR is hydrometer reading

 Determination of percent sand, silt and clay

Corrected 2 hour hydrometer reading * 100


% clay =
Oven dry weight of soil
Corrected 40 second hydrometer reading * 100
% silt plus clay = .......... .......... ........ 4.5
Oven dry weight of soil
% sand = 100 − % silt plus clay

Based on the laboratory analysis procedure and the application of the above
mentioned equations, the percent sand, silt and clay had been determined. The
computation result is shown on table 4.2 and figure 4.2.
Table 4.2 Hydrometer method of soil texture analysis data table

Sample ID PT1 Pt2 PT3 PT4 PT5


Weight of dry sample (g) 50 50 50 50 50
40-sec hydrometer reading
(g/1) 16 19 18 16 16
Temperature 14 13 16 24 15
Corrected 40-sec reading
(g/1) 18.16 21.52 19.44 14.56 17.8
2-hour hydrometer reading
(g/1) 9 11 11 10 12
Temperature 16 14 19 23 19
Corrected 2-hour reading
(g/1) 10.44 13.16 11.36 8.92 12.36
Percent clay 20.88 26.32 22.72 17.84 24.72
Percent silt 15.44 16.72 16.16 11.28 10.88
%Sand 63.68 56.96 61.12 70.88 64.4
Textural class name SCL SCL SCL SL SL
Haplic Vitric Chromic Dystric
Soil type Leptosols Xerosols Cambisol luvisols Nitosols
*** Remark:The temperature for sample analysis of PT4 is high because the laboratory
analysis was conducted in afternoon time when the water from the pipeline was hot.
SCL=Sandy clay loam
SL=Sandy loam
The analysis result from the field data and the FAO soil database characteristics
had been compared and the result is indicated on the following figure (figure 4.2)

70 60
60 Leptosols Haplic xerosols
50
fraction %
fraction %

50 FAO soil(texture SCL) 40 FAO soil(texture SCL)


40 cal soil(texture SCL) cal soil(texture SCL)
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
%Sand %Silt %Clay %Sand %Silt %Clay
soil texture
soil texture 80
80 Chromic luvisols
Vitric cambisols
60
fraction %

60 FAO soil(texture SL)


FAO soil(texture C)
40 cal soil(texture SL)
40 cal soil(texture SCL)
20
20
0
0
%Sand %Silt %Clay
%Sand %Silt %Clay
soil texture soil texture
70
60 Dystric Nitosols
fraction %

50
FAO soil(texture C)
40
cal soil(texture SL)
30
20
10
0
%Sand %Silt %Clay
soil texture

Figure 4.2 Comparison of the FAO/UNESCO soil properties with on field measured
From figure 4.2, it can be observed that for the most dominant soils
(Leptosols,Haplic Xerosols and Chromic Luvisols),the properties of the soils
extracted from FAO/UNESCO soil database is similar to the properties of the soils
analyzed from field data. The similarity and variation of the soil texture class had
been compared between the FAO/UNESCO soil properties and the on field
measured soil properties. The soil texture class was found to be sandy clay loam
(SCL) for Leptosols and Haplic Xerosols for both FAO soil characteristics and the
on field measured soil characteristics. Similarly, for the Chromic Luvisols, the soil
texture is sandy loam (SL) in both cases. Nevertheless, for Vitric cambisols and
Dystric Nitisols, there is significant variability in sand proportion which is the main
reason for the variability of the soil texture class as well. The significant variation
in sand proportion could be due to the location of the soil at low land area. In low
land areas, there is more chance of deposition and as a result the soil properties
remain variable from time to time. In such a situation, a representative sampling
should be made from a deeper depths and more sampling pits. In overall
conclusion on the reliability of the FAO/UNESCO soil properties, the available soil
characteristics data can be confidently applied, as it was proved during field data
collection and analysis.

2. Result and discussion

Review of existing soil erodibility estimation method


The attempt to establish equations for the determination of soil erodibility factor
started as early as the 1950’s.Since that time different empirical relations had
been established. Different investigators suggested different approaches for the
estimation of soil erodibility factor.
Wischmeier et al., 1971 developed the most widely used soil erodibility
nomograph (figure 3.1). The nomograph was developed from the 20 years field
data observed on 22.1m length, 1.83m width and 9% field plot in USA. For the
applicability of the nomograph, five soil parameters are required. The soil
parameters required to read the nomograph are the percent modified silt(0.002-
0.1m m),the percent modified sand(0.1-2mm),the percent organic carbon
matter(OM) and classes for structure(S) and permeability(P).An algebraic relation
was proposed to represent the nomograph for the cases where silt fraction
doesn’t exceed 70%.
1 - very fine granular
2 – Fine granular
3 – Coarse granular
4 – blocky,platey or
massive

6 - very slow
5 - slow
4 - slow to medium
3 - medium
2 - med to rapid
1 - rapid

Figure 3.1 Wischmeier et al. Soil erodibility estimation nomograph

0.00021M1.14 (12 − OM) + 3.25(C soilstr − 2) + 2.5(C perm − 3)


K USLE = .......... ......3.1
100
M = (msilt + mvfs )(100 − mc )
OM = 1.72 * OrgC

msilt =Percent silt content (0.002mm-0.05mm)


mvfs = Percent of fine sand(0.05mm-0.10mm)
mc = Percent of clay(less than 0.002mm)
OrgC = Percent Organic carbon content
Csoilstr = Soil structure Code used in soil classification
Cperm = Soil Permeability class

Shirazi and Boersma, 1984 developed an empirical equation based on a natural


plot and simulated rainfall data from global data. In the analysis, soils with less
than 10% of rock fragments were considered. The erodibility equation was
related to the mean geometric particle diameter.

  1  log(D + 1.675 2  
  
K = 7.5940.0017+ 0.0494exp− 
g

 2 0.6986   ...........................3.5

     
Dg (mm) = exp(0.01 ∑filnmi )

Where fi is the primary particle size fraction in percent and mi is the arithmetic
mean of the particle size limits of that size.
William’s 1984 proposed general erodibility equation using soil texture and
organic carbon content as an input variable.
K = fcsand .f cl−si .f org .f hisand .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......3.6
msilt
f csnad = (0.2 + 0.3 * exp( −0.0256 * ms (1 − )))
100
msilt
f cl −si = ( ) 0.3
mc + msilt
0.25orgC
f org = (1 −
Org + exp( 3.72 − 2.95.orgC )
ms
0.7(1 − )
f hisand = (1 − 100 )
ms ms
(1 − ) + exp( −5.51 + 22.9(1 − ))
100 100
Where
fcsand = Factor that gives low soil erodibility factor for soils with high coarse sand
contents.
fcl-si = Factor that gives low soil erodibility factor for soils with high clay to silt
ratio.
forg = Factor that reduces soil erodibility for soils with high organic carbonic
content.
fhisand = Factor that reduces erodibility for soils with high sand content.
Selection and application of the equations should be done wisely so that a
reasonable erodibility value can be predicted. There had been few researches
conducted to evaluate the applicability of the different erodibility equation under
different conditions. The K.L Zhang et al. 2008 and R.Wawer et al., 2005 had
evaluated the degree of applicability of the most popular equation with respect to
the on field measured erosion data. The investigation revealed that the
Wischmeier et al., the William’s et al. and the Shirazi et al. erodibility equations
over estimated the erodibility values. From the result, it was observed that the
three methods had shown different range of errors. The Zhang et al. revealed
Shirazi and Boarsma equation had shown least error and William’s equation had
shown intermediate error. The Wischmeier et al. equation had shown largest
error as compared to the two methods. Similarly, the investigation by R.Wawer
also indicated the better performance of the William’s method as compared to
the Wischmeier et al.erodibility estimation equation, although both method
overestimated the result.
The review of the two research result indicates the direct application of the
erodibility estimation methods provides an over estimated values which can
significantly influence the soil loss rate or the sediment out flow from a
watershed. The over estimation of the methods could probably due to the many
soil parameters incorporated in the equation. The more the parameters are
considered, the more the error duplicates during data collection and analysis.
Moreover, soil parameters like the organic carbon content is difficult to accurately
measure and as a result large error can be introduced in to the equations.
The most popular soil organic measurement is by the soil burning method. The
method assumes that the loss due to the burning is the organic carbon content.
In soils having significant clay composition, the result is expected to be too
erroneous. The burning method is a very approximate method which varies in
accuracy depending on the clay content of the soil (Eleanor et al., 2008). The
better performance of the shirazi and Boarsma equation which is independent of
the organic carbon content can justify this comment.
In Shirazi and Boarsma equation, the geometric grain size which is a function of
particle size fraction and particle size limit may be too sensitive to small
discrepancies as it was represented by an exponential function (equation 3.2.2).
The small discrepancies in the data on particle size fraction and particle size limit
can lead to large error term. To avoid such discrepancies a detailed investigation
on the particle size information is required which needs many representative soil
sample data and accurate laboratory analysis.
The William’s erodibility equation input requirements can be extracted from
FAO/UNESCO soil data base. In the absence of the on field measured soil
properties, the FAO data base parameters are the possible alternative sources of
obtaining the soil properties that are required in William’s equation. However, the
demand for the more soil input parameters remain major challenge for erodibility
estimation.Therefore, assessing the possibility of alternative approach to
minimize the number of input data set requirement and easily measurable soil
parameters is mandatory. The formulation of an alternative soil erodibility
estimation approach is described in the proceeding chapter.
An alternative soil erodibility estimation approach
The texture of a soil plays a fundamental role in susceptibility of soil to erosion.
The texture of soils can be expressed in terms of the percent sand, silt and clay
proportion. On the basis of the discussion made under section 3.4, the respective
soil erodibility(K) factors had been computed from the William’s
equation(equation 3.6) for the Upper Awash basin. The computed K values and
the major soil texture ratios are indicated on figure 4.3.The right hand side y-axis
describes the different soil texture fractions (silt/sand, silt/clay and silt/ (sand and
clay)) while the left hand side y-axis describes the soil erodibility factor value
computed from William’s equation (Kwl).The x-axis represents the different FAO
soil numbering as denoted on table 4.1.

0.35 Kw l 2.00
silt/sand 1.80
0.30
silt/clay 1.60

Ratio of soil textures


0.25 silt/(clay+sand) 1.40

0.20 1.20
Kwl

1.00
0.15 0.80

0.10 0.60
0.40
0.05
0.20
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
FAO soil

Figure 4.3 William’s erodibility(KWL) result for Awash River Basin

To investigate the possibility of formulating alternative soil erodibility estimation


equation using the soil textures, partial correlation had been done with respect to
Kwl, percent silt to percent clay ratio, percent silt to percent sand ratio, percent
silt to total percent of sand and clay. For the correlation analysis, two cases were
considered; case for Awash River basin soil and the case for FOA/UNESCO world
soil data.

Table 4.3 Correlation coefficient(r) of soil erodibility factor with respect particle
size
Ratio of soil distribution Awash Basin data FAO/UNESCO soil data
%Silt to % clay 0.77 0.54
%silt to % sand 0.72 0.78
%silt to % sand and % 0.88 0.82
clay
Percent silt to total percent clay and percent sand ratio reflects highest
correlation as compared to the remaining elements for both the cases.
Nevertheless, the correlation for the remaining two elements are still significant
since r value is greater than 0.5. Sand dominated soils are less susceptible to
erodibility, because they have low runoff potential. Clay soils are similarly less
susceptible to erodibility due to their strong binding effect of individual
aggregates. Thus, it can be concluded that soil erodibilty is inversely proportional
to the percentage sand and percentage clay. In contrary, the presence of high silt
proportion in the soil increases the susceptibility of the soil to erosive agent.
Based on the correlation result of the different soils considered and the result
summarized on table 4.3, percent silt to total percent clay and percent sand ratio
had been considered for the formulation of the alternative soil erodibility
estimation method.
A non linear regression equation had been fitted to the data of the study area.
Percent silt to total percent sand and percent clay ratio had been considered as
explanatory variable. The model fitted to a non linear power function with a form
of;
b
 %silt 
ERFAC = a *   .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..4.7
%sand + %clay 
where ERFAC is proposed alternativ e soil erodibilit y factor
%sand is the percentage of sand proportion in the soil
%silt is the percentage of silt proportion in the soil
%clay is the percentage of clay proportion in the soil
a and b are factors obtained from regression coffecient s
as 0.318 and 0.2686 respective ly

Evaluation of the ERFAC equation on Awash Basin soil data


The derived ERFAC equation had been applied for computation of the soil
erodibility values for the different soils in the study area. The result of the
computation was plotted on figure 4.4 as shown below. The x-axis represents the
dominant soil types in the study area while the Y-axis is the value of the
erodibility factor calculated by William´s method and the newly proposed
equation. The secondary Y-axis indicates the absolute relative errors.
0.35
KWL 35.00
0.30
ERFAC
0.25 Error 25.00

0.20

Error %
15.00
K

0.15
5.00
0.10
-5.00
0.05

0.00 -15.00
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
FAO soil

Figure 4.4 Comparative analysis relative and relative errors for individual soil
types
The fitted model had been evaluated for its performance based on the statistical
indicators such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient(r), coefficient of determination
(R2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Percent bias (PBIAS), Relative mean square
error (RMSE) and individual absolute relative errors (RE). The following table
indicates the summary of the model performance evaluation indicators
Table 4.4 Statistical indicators of the newly proposed erodibility equation
Indicator description Indicator values
R 0.88
R2 0.75
NSE 0.68
PBIAS -0.14%
RMSE 0.0046
Individual relative errors -10% to 15%

Figure 4.5 Comparison of erodibility factor estimated by ERFAC and William´s


method
The statistical indicators described above shows a good model performance.
Nevertheless, the R2 and NSE are not as such significant, the relative errors
between the Kwl and the newly proposed equation (ERFAC) is very low. The
errors had been estimated to be less than 10% for most soils.
Beside the statistical indicators used for the empirical model evaluation, the
spatial pattern of the soil erodibility map by the both methods had been
analyzed. Soil erodibility map from the William´s equation and the newly
proposed ERFAC equation had been produced in GIS (figure 4.6).The erodibility
maps had been produced in such away that the total erodibility factor values
were divided in to four equal parts; low, medium, high and very high erodiblity
factors. The total range of the erodibility values are divided in to four equal parts
so that the first lower range can be assigned low, the second range can be
assigned medium. Similarly the third range is assigned high erodibility and fourth
and the maximum values of the range considered as very high erodibility
potential. Figure 4.6a shows soil erodibility factor obtained from Williams
equation (Kwl) and figure 4.6b shows erodibility map from the newly proposed
erodibility factor estimation method (ERFAC).In a similar way as the statistical
method shown above, the two maps are able to depict almost similar information
on the spatial variability of the soil erodibility. Areas occupied by the leptosols are
identical on both maps. The leptosols areas fall under high erodibility range.
However the areas identified as medium erodibility potential using Kwl method
fall under high erodibility potential in the case of the newly proposed method
(ERFAC).

Kwl
0.105 - 0.150(Low)
0.15 0- 0.195(Medium) ERFAC
0.195 - 0.239(High)
0.239 - 0.284(Very High) 50 0.102 - 0.135
(Low)
50 (Low) 0.135 - 0.169
0.169 - 0.203
0.203 - 0.236
95(Medium)
Kwl
0.105 - 0.150(Low)
0.15 0- 0.195(Medium)
(Medium)
39 (High) (High)
ERFAC
0.195 - 0.239(High) 0.102 - 0.135
0.239 - 0.284(Very High) 0.135 - 0.169
0.169 - 0.203
0.203 - 0.236

84(Very high) (Very high)

(a) (b)
Figure 4.6 Spatial pattern of soil erodibility distribution in Awash Basin

Evaluation of the ERFAC equation on FAO world soil data


The applicability of the new proposed soil erodibility factor estimation method
(ERFAC) had been evaluated on the world soil map database. During the
validation step, soils which were used to establish the ERFAC equation had been
excluded. The ERFAC equation was applied to calculate the soil erodibility factor
and compare the results with erodibility factor calculated using William’s
equation. A total of 104 different FAO/UNESCO soils had been considered for the
analysis. The result of the ERFAC and William’s equation had been compared
based on the computation results from the respective equations (Eqn 3.6) & (Eqn
4.7). The results are summarized in to three groups based on their relative errors
observed during the computation. Group 1 are soils which show absolute relative
error less than 10%, Group 2 are soils which show absolute relative error less
than 20%, and Group 3 are all soils considered except 1 soils whose absolute
relative error exceeded 60%. The grouping of the soil is represented as shown on
figure 4.7 and figure 4.8.The list of soils in each soil groups is attached on Annex
A.

Group 1
RE<10%

Group 2
RE<20%

Group 3
RE<60%

Figure 4.7 Chart indicating the pattern of grouping the different soil groups
The percentage of soils falling in group 1 comprises of 40% of the total soils
considered in the evaluation; while the percentage of soils in group 2 account for
80%.The remaining 20% of the soils show a relative errors between 20% to 60%
except for Gleyic podzols which its error is found to be 90%.The statistical
indicators (R2 and NSE) had been computed.
Table 4.5 Summary result of statistical indicators as compared to William’s
equation

Indicator Group 1 Group 2 Group 3


R2 0.90 0.71 0.73
NSE 0.92 0.64 0.57
0.350 KWL 30.0
ERFAC 25.0
0.300
Error 20.0
Erodibility factor

0.250
15.0

Error%
0.200 10.0

0.150 5.0
0.0
0.100
-5.0
0.050
-10.0
0.000 -15.0
GD W GE B N PF WE CL CK XL LO LK JT AP FH LF I I KK SM AF LP X NH L NE R WS LG LC HH RC D RE ZG BE SO YY S GK XH YK SG XY BV XK Y ZO Z DG JC

FAO soil code


Figure 4.8a Comparison of Williams equation and new proposed equation based soil erodibility factors for soils of group 1

0.400
KWL 55.00
0.350 ERFAC
Error 45.00

0.300
35.00
Erodibilityfactor

0.250
25.00

Error%
0.200
15.00

0.150
5.00

0.100 -5.00

0.050 -15.00

0.000 -25.00

FAO soil code


Figure 4.8b Comparison of Williams equation and new proposed equation based soil erodibility factors for soils group 2
0.600
KWL
50.0
ERFAC
0.500 Error
30.0

0.400 10.0
Erodibility factor

Error%
-10.0
0.300

-30.0
0.200
-50.0

0.100
-70.0

0.000 -90.0

FAO soil code


Figure 4.8c Comparison of Williams equation and new proposed equation based soil erodibility factors for all FAO soils
3. Conclusions and recommendations
The literature review of the soil erobility estimation equation assessment
revealed that the existing and popular erodibility factor estimation equations
over predicts the erobility factor as compared to on field observed erodibility
values. Neverthless,the erodibility factor predicted by Shirazi et al.1984, equation
is shows less relative errors as compared to Wischmeier eta al. equation and
Williams equation. The William’ equation had shown intermediate relative errors.
The input soil data required by the Shirazi et al. equation is the main draw back
for its applicability on data limited areas like Upper Awash basin in Ethiopia. In
contrary, the availability of the FAO/UNESCO-1998 soil data base is advantageous
as it contains soil physical properties required by the William’s equation. Hence,
the William’s equation is more preferable for its applicability on data limited
areas.
The over estimation of the erodibility factor by the Wischmeier et al.equation and
William’s equation could probably due to the many soil parameters incorporated
in the equation. The more the parameters are considered, the more the error
duplicates during data collection and analysis. Moreover, soil parameters like the
organic carbon content is difficult to accurately measure and as a result large
error can be introduced in to the equations. The most popular soil organic
measurement is by the soil burning method. The method assumes that the loss
due to the burning is the organic carbon content. In soils having significant clay
composition, the result is expected to be too erroneous. The burning method is a
very approximate method which varies in accuracy depending on the clay
content of the soil (Eleanor et al., 2008). The better the performance of the
shirazi and Boarsma equation which is independent of the organic carbon content
can justify this comment.
The Pearson’s correlation analysis had shown that the soil erobility factor is more
correlated with the percent silt to percent sand and percent clay ratio. This
indicates that soil erodibility is directly proportional to the percent silt and
inversely proportional to percent clay and percent sand. Higher clay content
indicates the strong binding property of the soil particles to resist easy
detachability. Sand dominant soils have a higher soil infiltration rate which
results less runoff potential to erode the soil particles.
The derived erodibility equation (ERFAC) had been evaluated for its applicability
on different soil characteristics. On the evaluation of its applicability, three soil
groups had been identified based on their absolute relative errors.40% of the
world soil types had shown absolute relative errors of less than 10%.Majority of
the soils in the group are characterized by less clay content with less than 30%
clay fraction. The textural classes of such soils range from silt loam to sand
textures. For the second group of soil which account for about 80% of the total
soil considered in the evaluation, the absolute relative errors between the
William’s erodibility estimation method and the ERFAC equation had been
computed to be less than 20%.Such soils extend to soils with clay proportion of
20% to 40% which increased the textural range from slit clay to sandy soil
textures. The third soil group had shown absolute relative errors of less than
60%.The analysis and evaluation of the applicability of the ERFAC equation
confirms that a reasonable and an acceptable soil erodibility factor can be
predicted by the equation.
The ERFAC equation performed well for soils with less clay contents having soil
texture from silty clay to sandy soils. For 80% of the world soil, the RE between
the William’s equation and the ERFAC equation had been estimated to be less
than 20%.The advantage of the ERFAC equation is that less soil parameters are
required as compared to the existing equations. Moreover, the input parameters
can be easily obtained in laboratory through dry and wet sieve analysis
techniques. The free availability of the FAO/UNESCO world soil database
characteristics is another advantage to apply the equation for preliminary
analysis of soil erosion.
Therefore, ERFAC is an alternative soil erodibility prediction equation that
simplifies the cost and time to be invested to collect huge data sets from field
works. Additionally there is less error propagation from the input data sets,
because it is based on few and easily measurable soil characteristics.

You might also like