Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of applying different DEM resolutions, DEM sources and flow tracing algorithms on LS factor and sediment yield estimation using USLE in Barajin river basin (BRB), Iran

  • Article
  • Published:
Paddy and Water Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate estimation of the spatial pattern of annual soil erosion and sediment yield is of paramount importance in watershed conservation measures, design of sedimentation dams, reduction of reservoir storage capacity, integrated watershed management, flood problems, and alteration of ecosystems’ locations. One of the most widely used empirical/ conceptual methods for estimating soil erosion and the sediment yield rate (SYR) is the universal soil loss equation (USLE) model. Topographic factor (LS) is one of the main inputs of RUSLE and can be calculated using digital elevation models (DEMs). This research studied the impacts of using different DEM resolutions (cell size ranges from 30 to 200 m), DEM sources (ALOS-30 m, ASTER-30 m, and SRTM-90 m), and various LS formulas on the USLE and estimated SYR at the Barajin river basin (BRB) outlet. Also, assessing the effect of distinct flow tracing algorithms (FTAs) on LS factor and RUSLE output is another purpose of this study. Findings show that using different LS equations without considering their limitations leads to a significant absolute relative error (ARE) in the estimation of SYR (ranging from 1.2 to 400%). Furthermore, Liu et al. (1994) and Moore and Burch (1986) equations, due to an ARE of lower than 10% in estimating SYR, are the best ones for high slope regions like BRB. Evaluating the effects of scale issues indicates that DEM resolution is more critical than DEM sources (or data resolution). Based on findings, the ARE of SYR estimation caused by DEM resolution varies between 1.5% and 58%, while for different DEM sources, it changes from 15.1% to 48.5%. Besides, ASTER-30 m and SRTM-90 m with the mean ARE value of 34.9 and 15.3%, respectively, are the worst and best DEM sources in BRB. Finally, investigating the impact of using different FTAs indicates that ignoring this issue can lead to significant errors ranging between 1.6 and 42.2%. Among all FTAs the MFD and Aspects are the best ones for applying in the USLE model. To summarize, in data-sparse regions or developing countries, the findings of this study can be considered as appropriate guidance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alkharabsheh MM, Alexandridis TK, Bilas G, Misopolinos N, Silleos N (2013) Four decades of progress in monitoring and modelling of processes in the soil-plant atmosphere system: Applications and challenges. Procedia Environ Sci 19:912–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angima SD, Stott DE, O’neill MK, Ong CK, Weesies GA, (2003) Soil erosion prediction using RUSLE for central Kenyan highland conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 97(1–3):295–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angulo-Martinez M, Begueria S (2009) Estimating rainfall erosivity from daily precipitation records: A comparison among methods using data from the Ebro Basin (NE Spain). J Hydrol 379(1–2):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asselman NEM (2000) Fitting and interpretation of sediment rating curves. J Hydrol 23(4):228–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athmania D, Achour H (2014) External validation of the ASTER GDEM2, GMTED2010 and CGIAR-CSI-SRTM v4.1 free access digital elevation models (DEMs) in Tunisia and Algeria. Remote sens 6:4600–4620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizian A, Brocca L (2020) Determining the best remotely sensed DEM for flood inundation mapping in data sparse regions. Int J Remote Sens 41(5):1884–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizian A, Shokoohi A (2015a) Effects of data resolution and stream delineation threshold area on the results of a kinematic wave based GIUH model. Water SA 41(1):61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizian A, Shokoohi A (2015b) Investigation of the effects of DEM creation methods on the performance of a semi distributed model: TOPMODEL. J Hydrol Eng 20(11):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizian A, Shokoohi AR (2014) DEM resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of geomorphologic-based rainfall runoff models. Turk J Eng Env Sci 38(1):64–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizian A (2019) The Effects of Topographic Map Scale and Costs of Land Surveying on Geometric Model and Flood Inundation Mapping. Water Resour Manag 33(4):1315–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley DB, Huggins LF, Monke EJ (1980) ANSWERS – a model for watershed planning. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 23:938–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhner J, Selige T (2006) spatial prediction of soil attributes using terrain analysis and climate regionalization. In: Boehner J, McCloy KR, Strobl J (eds) SAGA—analysis and Modelling Applications. Goettingen, Goettinger Geographische Abhandlungen, pp 13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt MJ, Waqas A, Mahmood CSHRGR (2010) The combined effect of vegetation and soil erosion in the water resource management. Water Resour Manage 24:3701–3714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantreul V, Bielders C, Calsamiglia A, Degré A (2017) How pixel size affects a sediment connectivity index in central Belgium. Earth Surf Proc Land 43(4):884–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet PJJ, Govers G (1996) A GIS Procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. J Soil Water Conserv 51:427–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas I (1981) Erosion risk assessment and land classification for soil conservation. In: Morgan RPC (ed) Soil conservation, problems and prospects. John Wiley, Chichester, pp 63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards K (1993) Soil Erosion and Conservation in Australia. In: Pimentel D (ed) World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr TG, Rosen PA, Caro E, Crippen R, Duren R, Hensley S, Kobrick M, Paller M, Rodriguez E, Roth L, Seal D, Schaffer S, Shimada J, Umland J, Werner M, Oskin M, Burbank D, Alsdorf D (2007) The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev Geophys 45(2)

  • Febles JM, Vega MB, Tolon A, Lastra X (2012) Assessment of soil erosion in Karst regions of Havana. Cuba Land Degrad Dev 23:465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez C, Wu JQ, McCool DK, Stockle CO (2003) Estimating water erosion and sediment yield with GIs RUSLE, and SEDD. J soil Water Conserv 58:128–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferro V, Porto P (2000) Sediment delivery distributed (SEDD) model. J Hydrol Eng 5(4):411–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher PF, Tate NJ (2006) Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models. Prog Phys Geogr 30(4):467–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster GR, Yoder DG, Weesies GA, McCool DK, McGregor KC, Bingner RL (2003) User’s guide: revised universal soil loss equation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Research Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandasasmita K (1987) Contribution to Geo Information System Operation for Prediction of Erosion Applied to a Large Catchment in South Sumatra. International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelagay HS, Minale AS (2016) Soil loss estimation using GIS and remote sensing techniques: A case of Koga watershed, northwestern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 4:126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianinetto M, Aiello M, Polinelli F, Frassy F, Rulli MC, Ravazzani G, Bocchiola D, Chiarelli DD, Soncini A, Vezzoli R (2019) D-RUSLE: a dynamic model to estimate potential soil erosion with satellite time series in the Italian Alps. Eur J Remote Sens 52(4):34–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt C, Filmer MS, Featherstone WE (2010) Comparison and validation of the recent freely available ASTER-GDEMver1, SRTM ver4.1 and GEODATE DEM-9S ver3 digital elevation models over Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 57:337–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Z, Peng J, Hou Y, Shan J (2017) Evaluation of recently released open global digital elevation models of Hubei. China. Remote Sens 9:262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang PC, Lee KT (2016) Distinctions of geomorphological properties caused by different flow-direction predictions from digital elevation models. Int J Geograph Inf Sci 30(2):168–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanchoul K, Altschul and Assassi, F. (2009) Estimating suspended sediment yield, sedimentation controls and impacts in the Mellah Catchment of Northern Algeria. Arab J Geosci 2:257–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knisel WG (1980) CREAMS: a field-scale model for chemicals, runoff and erosion from agricultural management systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture

  • Koohi S, Azizian A, (2019). Evaluation effect of different methods for estimating SDR index on sediment yield (Case study: Barajin catchment). In: The 11th international river engineering conference at Iran, January 2019.

  • Kumar S, Kushwaha SPS (2013) Modelling soil erosion risk based on RUSLE-3D using GIS in a Shivalik Sub-watershed. J Earth Syst Sci 122(2):389–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laflen JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991) A generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46:34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemma TM, Gessesse GD, Kassa AK, Edossa DC (2018) Effect of spatial scale on runoff coefficient: Evidence from the thiopian highlands. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6(4):289–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu BY, Zhang KL, Xie Y (2002) An empirical soil loss equation, process of 12th international soil conservation organization conference. Tsinghua Press, Beijing, pp 143–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu H, Moran CJ, Sivapalan M (2006) A theoretical exploration of catchment-scale sediment delivery. Water Resour Res 41:09415

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma X, He Y, Xu J, Noordwijk M, Lu X (2014) Spatial and temporal variation in rainfall erosivity in a Himalayan watershed. CATENA 121:248–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddock T (1975) Table 3.2 in Sediment Engineering In: Vanoni VA (ed.). ASCE, New York

  • Maheshwari S, Chavan S (2018) Assessment of impact of change in DEM resolution on sediment yield in Beas river basin. EGU General Assembly, India, p 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Maidment, D.R. (1991) GIS and Hydrological Modelling. In: Goodchild MF, Parks BO and Steyaert LT (ed) Proceedings of first international symposium/workshop on gis and environmental modelling. Bouldex, Colorado. Oxford University Press, New York. Sept 1991

  • McCool D, Foster G, Mutchler C, Meyer L (1989) Revised slope length factor for the universal soil loss equation. Trans ASAE 32:1571–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt WS, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ (2003) A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ Modell Softw 18(8–9):761–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondal A, Khare D, Kund, S (2016). Uncertainty analysis of soil erosion modeling using different resolution of open source DEMs. Geocarto International

  • Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986) Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:1294–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutua BM, Klik A, Loiskandl W (2006) Modelling soil erosion and sediment yield at a catchment scale: the case of Masinga catchment, Kenya. Land Degrad Dev 17:557–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasir N, Selvakumar R (2018) Influence of land use changes on spatial erosion pattern, a time series Analysis using RUSLE and GIS: the cases of Ambuliyar sub-basin. India Acta Geophysica 66:1121–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagos P, Borrelli P, Meusburger K, Alewell C, Lugato E, Montanarella L (2015) Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy 48:38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phinzi K, Ngetar NS (2019) the assessment of water-borne erosion at catchment level using GIS-based RUSLE and remote sensing: A review. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 7(1):27–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin C, Zhu AX, Pei T, Li B, Zhou C, Yang L (2007) An adaptive approach to selecting a flow-partition exponent for a multiple-flow-direction algorithm. Int J Geograph Inf Sci 21(4):443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawat KS, Mishra AK, Bhattacharyya R (2016) Soil erosion risk assessment and spatial mapping using LANDSAT-7 ETM+, RUSLE, and GIS—a case study. Arb J Geosci 9(4):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, et al (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). In: Agriculture handbook No. 703. USDA, Washington

  • Rodriquez JLG, Suarez MCG (2012) Methodology for estimating the topographic factor LS of RUSLE3D and USPED using GIS. Geomorphology 175–176:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell SH, William WD (2001) Landscape erosion and evolution modelling. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi SH, Dashtpagerdi MM, Rekabdarkoolai HM, Schoorl M (2019) Accuracy of sediment graph modeling from topography map scale and DEM mesh size. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 7(2):138–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherriff SC, Rowan JS, Melland AR, Jordan P, Fenton O, OhUallachain DO (2015) Investigating suspended sediment dynamics in contrasting agricultural catchments using ex situ turbidity-based suspended sediment monitoring. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:3349–3363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha P, Sulis M, Simmer C, Kollet S (2015) Impacts of grid resolution on surface energy fluxes simulated with an integrated surface-groundwater flow model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19(10):4317–4326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takaku J, Tadono T, Tsutsui K, (2014). Generation of high resolution global DSM from ALOS PRISM. In: The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, Xl(4):243–248.

  • Tang Q, Xu Y, Bennett SJ, Li Y (2015) Assessment of soil erosion using RUSLE and GIS: a case study of the Yangou watershed in the Loess Plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci 73:1715–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian YC, Zhou YM, Wu BF, Zhou WF (2009) Risk Assessment of Water Soil Erosion in Upper Basin of Miyun Reservoir. Environ Geol 57:937–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin K, Murthy MSR, Wahid SM, Matin MA (2016) Estimation of soil erosion dynamics in the koshi basin using GIS and remote sensing to assess priority areas for conservation

  • Van der Knijff J, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (1999) Soil erosion risk assessment in Italy. European Soil Bureau, European Commission

  • Vanoni VA (ed) (1975) Sedimentation engineering, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice No .54. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York

  • Vaze J, Teng J, Spencer G (2010) Impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on topographic indices. Environ Modell Softw 25(10):1086–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walling DE (1978) Assessing the accuracy of suspended sediment rating curves for a small basin. Water Resour Res 13:531–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning. In: Agriculture Handbook No. 537.USDA, Washington

  • Zhang H, Wei J, Yang Q et al (2017) An improved method for calculating slope length (λ) and the LS parameters of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation for large watersheds. Geoderma 308:36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JX, Wu JQ, Chang K, Elliot WJ, Dun S (2009) Effects of DEM source and resolution on WEPP hydrologic and erosion simulation: A case study of two forest watersheds in northern Idaho. Trans ASABE 52(2):447–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Engineering Dept, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran

    Asghar Azizian & Sakine Koohi

Authors
  1. Asghar Azizian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sakine Koohi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asghar Azizian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azizian, A., Koohi, S. The effects of applying different DEM resolutions, DEM sources and flow tracing algorithms on LS factor and sediment yield estimation using USLE in Barajin river basin (BRB), Iran. Paddy Water Environ 19, 453–468 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00847-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00847-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation