Volume 5, Issue 13 (3-2017)                   DEEJ 2017, 5(13): 67-80 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mousavi S A, Ranjbar Fordoei A, Mousavi S H, Sadatinejad S J. Modeling of soil erodibility in the Khoor and Biabanak region, using remote sensing indices. DEEJ. 2017; 5 (13) :67-80
URL: http://deej.kashanu.ac.ir/article-1-465-en.html

Soil erosion by water and wind processes are carried out widely. So one of the best ways to estimate soil loss and land degradation is regional erodibility model. The aim of this research is codification regional erodibility model by statistical methods, the relation survey in Khoor and Biabanak between physical properties of soils and remote sensing indices. Sampling Method field was linear transect method and picked up 33 soil samples from depths of 0 to 50 cm. By transferring the samples to the laboratory, were calculated the elements of sand, clay, silt, organic matter and carbon, and then measurement erodibility values using the K-factor and SEI index. Then, was taken OLI sensor image accordance time sampling from USGS website. And were extracted the indices by enforcing functions the amount of Clay, NDVI, GOSAVI, SAVI, TSAVI, NDSI, SCI and GSAVI. Finally, were calculated using Pearson correlation between physical elements and soil erodibility with Remote sensing indices. At the end of for modeling SEI and K, through simple and multiple regression attempts to gauge the relationship between these parameters and selected best models from among with higher preference value. The results of modeling SEI represents the maximum linear correlation with the indices SAVI, NDVI and TSAVI respectively, with coefficient of 0.69, 0.66 and 0.63, and K factor linear correlation with the indices NDSI, SAVI and SCI, respectively, with a coefficient of determination 0.63 0.61 and 0.58 is at level 99%. Multiple regression analysis also showed a high correlation with group consensus SEI, K and Remote Sensing indices, respectively, with a coefficient of determination 0.517 and 0.564 and estimated error 0.0031144 and 0.0092369 at level 99%. Therefore, can estimate the amount of soil erodibility by remote sensing indices and univariate and multivariate statistical models. Which enables fast and precise estimation of SEI and K values in the Khoor and Biabanak region.

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Desert
Received: 2016/11/18 | Accepted: 2017/02/13 | Published: 2017/02/26

Abstract [PDF 152 KB]  (87 Download)
1. Azimzadeh, H.R., Ekhtesasi, M.R., Hatami, M., Akhavan Ghalibaf, M., 2002. Study of the effects the physical and chemical properties of soil erodibility index and Offering the model to predict the wind erosion in Yazd-Ardakan plain Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 9(1): 139-151
2. Ghorbani Vagheie, H., Bahrami, H.A. 2005. Spatial changes of USLE and RUSLE soil erodibility index using GIS case study: North East of Lorestan Province. Proceedings of the Third National Conference of Erosion & Sediment (In Persian). Tehran. Iran.
3. Hudson, N.W. 1981. Soil conservation. Bastford. 230 p.
4. Irvem, A., Topalolu. F., Uygur. V., 2007. Estimating spatial Distribution of Soil Loss over Seyhan River Basin in Turkey. Journal of Hydrology, (336): 30-37.
5. Klute, A., 1986. Methods of soil analysis part I. Physical and mineralogical methods. 2 nd Ed. Soil Science Society of America. 1188 p.
6. Nelson, D.W., Sommer, L.E., 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: A.L. Page (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. 2nd ed. ASA Monogr. Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, 9(2): 539- 579.
7. Prasannakumar, V., Vijith, H., Geetha, N., 2011. Estimation of soil erosion risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geosci. Front., 3: 209–215.
8. Rahman, M.R., Shi, Z.H., Chongf, C., 2009. Soil erosion hazard evaluation: an integrated use of remote sensing, GIS and statistical approaches with biophysical parameters towards management strategies. Ecol. Modell., (220): 1724–1734.
9. Reynolds J. F. 2008. Cutting through the confusion: Desertification, an old problem viewed through the lens of a new framework, the Dry Lands Development Paradigm (DDP). Dry lands, Deserts & Desertification Conference December 14-17. Sede Boque Campus.
10. Rodriguez, R.R., Arbelo, C.D., Guerra, J.A., Natario, M.J.S. and Armas, C.M. 2006. Organic carbon stocks and soil erodibility in Canary Islands Andosols. Catena, 66: 228-235.
11. Schwab, G.O., Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J, Frevert, R.K., 1993. Soil and water conservation engineering, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, USA.
12. Veihe, A. 2002. The Spatial Variability of Erodibility and its Relation to Soil Types: A Veihe, A Study from Northern Ghana. Geoderma, 106: 101-120
13. Wallace, A., Terry, R.E., 1998. Soil conditioners, soil quality and soil sustainability. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, Pp: 1 – 41.
14. Wang, G., Gertner, G.Z., Liu, X, Anderson A.B., 2001. Uncertainty Assessment of Soil Erodibility Factor for Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Catena. 46: 1-14.
15. Webb, N.P., McGowan, H.A., 2009, Approaches to modelling land erodibility by wind, Progress in Physical Geography, 33(5): 587-613
16. Wischmeier, W.H., Mannering, J.V., 1969. Relation of Soil Properties to its Erodibility, Soil Sci. Am. Proc. 33: 131-136.
17. Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion. Losses: a guide to conservation planning, Agriculture Handbook, Vol. 537. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, PP. 58.
18. Young, R., Mutchler, C., 1977. Edibility of some Minnesota soils. J. Soil Water Conserv, 32(3): 180–200.

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb