See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260000115

Using universal soil loss equation and soil erodibility factor to assess soil erosion
in Tshesebe village, north east Botswana

Article in African Journal of Agricultural Research · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

24 1,670

2 authors:

Trust Manyiwa Oagile Dikinya

Botswana International University of Science and Technology University of Botswana
10 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 1,640 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Trust Manyiwa on 14 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol. 8(30), pp. 4170-4178, 8 August, 2013
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2013.7081
African Journal of Agricultural
ISSN 1991-637X ©2013 Academic Journals Research
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR

Full Length Research Paper

Using universal soil loss equation and soil erodibility

factor to assess soil erosion in Tshesebe village, north
east Botswana
Trust Manyiwa and Oagile Dikinya*
Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, Private Bag 00704, Gaborone, Botswana.
Accepted 1 July, 2013

Soil erodibility (K) factor in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), defines the resistance of soil to
detachment by rainfall impact and/or surface flow force. Whilst there are a number of factors of erosion,
this study aims to use erodibility factor and related length slope factor to assess soil erosional loss at
field scale. To quantify soil erodibility the following properties were measured; texture, organic matter
content and structural properties of the soil samples in eroded and non-eroded sites. Sub sampling was
conducted in both eroded and non-eroded site and a total of six samples were collected in each site. In
addition, slope length and slope angle were determined to evaluate the slope effect on the degree of
soil loss associated with the K-factor. The measured or estimated K-factor value compared with the
-1 -1 -1
USLE K-based nomograph. The average soil erodibility (K-factor) was 0.031 and (t ha h ha MJ mm )
for eroded and non-eroded area, respectively. The high K-factor value in eroded area (almost doubled)
was associated with low organic matter content (0.75%) compared to high organic matter in non-eroded
(1.18%) as well as the significant slope (3°) in eroded than non-eroded areas (1°). The results also show
that K-factor significantly (P<0.05) correlates with soil texture and organic matter due to their strong
binding effect on aggregate stability and water infiltration hence enhanced particles’ resistant to
detachment. Interestingly there was no significant difference in K- factor values between eroded and
non-eroded areas. Further, the K-factor based nomograph over-predicted the measured K-factor value
2
by 10 times in eroded and 19 times in non-eroded soil, with a strong correlation in eroded (r =0.77) than
2
in non-eroded (r =0.10).

Key words: Universal soil loss equation (USLE), soil erodibility, soil erosion, soil properties, eroded and non-
eroded areas.
..

INTRODUCTION

Soil erosion is a major soil degradation threat in most as an indicator of erosion (Parysow et al., 2003; Tejada
vulnerable ecological systems especially in the fragile and Gonzalez, 2006; Zhang et al., 2007) because of its
semi-arid environments like Botswana (where there is susceptibility to particulate detachment and transport by
less biomass to sustain soil structural integrity). It is a erosion agents such as wind and water. In practice, K
serious problem associated with land use (Morgan, represents an integrated average annual value of the
1996). Soil erodibility (K-factor) has been used recently total soil and soil profile reaction to a large number of

* Corresponding author. E-mail:dikinyao@mopipi.ub.bw.

 Manyiwa and Dikinya 4171

erosion and hydrological processes (Bonilla and soil characteristics influencing soil erodibility are
Johnson, 2012). The K factor is one of the key infiltration capacity and structural stability (Millward and
parameters required for soil erosion prediction across the Mersey, 1999). These are largely influenced by soil
world (Zhang et al., 2007). Therefore assessment of texture, organic matter and soil plasticity. High infiltration
erosional soil losses is the basis for effective capacity means that less water will be available for runoff
conservation planning and management of the vulnerable and the surface is less likely to be ponded and more
ecosystems. There exist several models to predict the susceptible to splashing. In particular, soils which are
extent of water induced erosion (Brady and Weil, 2002, highly permeable have high infiltration capacities (e.g.
2008) such as WEPP (La°en et al., 1991), EUROSEM sandy soils)and are more prone to water erosion since
(Morgan et al., 1992), and GUEST (Ciesiolka et al., 1995; the soil easily allows water to penetrate and therefore
Rose et al., 1997). EUROSEM and GUEST models have easily washed away (Zachar, 1982). On the other hand,
been developed to describe and quantify soil erosion stable aggregates resist the beating action of rain and
processes and are particularly suitable for adaptation thereby save soil even though runoff may occur. The
across arrange of scales in the landscape.The model factors that determine aggregate stability include bulk
deals with: the interception of rainfall by the plant cover; density, Atterberg limits as well as texture and organic
the volume and kinetic energy of the rainfall reaching the matter content of soils (Toy et al., 2002).
ground surface as direct through fall and leaf drainage; Moreover, soils with larger sand and silt proportions are
the volume of stremflow; the volume of surface more vulnerable to water erosion due to lack of stability of
depression storage; the detachment of soil particles by soil particles (Toy et al., 2002). Similarly, soils with
raindrop impact and by runoff; sediment deposition; and relatively low organic matter content are very vulnerable
the transport capacity of the runoff (Morgan et al., 1992). to water erosion (Brady and Weil, 2002) since organic
On the other hand, WEPP is an American model based matter increases the stability of soil. A 36% decrease in
on a continuous simulation approach in which changing K-factor value was observed in organic matter amended
soil moisture conditions are modelled from daily soil in respect to the control (Tejada and Gonzalez,
calculations of the soil water balance. In this way, the 2006). Furthermore, the susceptibility of soil to water
conditions at the start of each rainstorm are predicted. erosion also depends on slope length (Toy et al., 2002)
The problems with continuous simulation models are that and is most prevalent in sloping areas (Angima et al.,
they require a large amount of input data on changing 2003). Liu et al. (2000), in their studies on ‘slope length
climatic and land use conditions over a year. These effect on soil loss for steep slopes’ also reported the
continuous simulation models are highly sensitive to the greater sensitive of slope effect to soil loss due to
modelling of evapotranspiration and dynamic properties differences in rainfall. Whilst there are a number of
of the soils and they yield predictions for a large number factors of erosion, this study does not intend to cover all
of events that produce only small amounts of runoff and the factors of soil erosion. Rather it focuses on the
soil loss (Morgan et al., 1992). erodibility or (K) factor and related factors of slope length
However, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) has (LS) factor in assessing soil erosion in typical tropical soil
been useful in predicting the average rate of soil loss due in fragile semi-arid environment Botswana. Thus the
to water erosion from agricultural lands (Wischmeier and objective of the study was to use or apply erodibility K-
Smith, 1978). In the early 1990s the basic USLE was factor as an indicator of erosion to assess erosion in
updated and computerized to create an erosion Tshesebe village, north east Botswana. The village used
prediction tool called the Revised Universal Soil Loss as a case study is an agricultural area and was observed
Equation (RUSLE) (Renard et al., 1997). The to be vulnerable to erosional losses as evidenced by gully
USLE/RUSLE soil loss prediction is dependent upon soil formations in the area.
properties including texture, organic matter content and
structure of the soil. The RUSLE uses the same basic
MATERIALS AND METHODS
factors of the USLE although some are modified and
better defined. The predicted soil loss A is estimated Description of study area
using the following equation: A= RKLSCP, where;
R=rainfall erosivity; K= soil erodibility; L= slope length; S The study area is located in Tshesebe village(20°45'0" N and
27°34'0" E, with an elevation of about 1170 m) in the North East
= slope gradient or steepness; C= cover and
District of Botswana (Figure 1). The area receives about 506 mm of
management and P= erosion control practices. rainfall, with the highest rainfall in December and January and
Amongst the USLE factors,soil erodibility (K) factor is receives nil rainfall on June and July. Generally the daily maximum
applicable to most tropical soils (El-Swaify and Dangler, temperatures range between 27.3 and 35°C, while the mean
1976; Roose, 1977; Angima et al., 2003) and was found to temperatures range between 6.1 and19.7°C (Radcliffe,et al 1990).
strongly correlate with soil loss (Tejada and Gonzalez, The village lies in the ecological zone known as hardveld,
2006). The erodibility (K) factor reflects the ease with which characterized by predominance of tree Savanna and acacia scrub.
The vegetation is thick along Ntsheriver and streams found in the
the soil is detached by splash during rainfall and/or by area. Mophane trees (colospermummophane) and
surface flow especially on sloping areas (Angima et al., terminaliasericiaare also very common in the area. The soils are
2003). The two most significant and closely related predominantly imperfectly drained Luvisols and Arenosols
4172 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 1. The study area.

(Anon, 1991). The geological parent material is gneiss (Radcliffe et hence it’s textural class. This is because for most agricultural
al., 1990). Soil erosion is prevalent as evidenced by gully purposes, the Bouyoucos method is sufficiently precise (Hanks and
formations in the area. Ashcroft, 1970).

Sampling and soil morphological properties measurements Bulk density and porosity

Soil samples were collected from eroded and non-eroded surface The core method was used to determine the soil bulk density and
soils that is, from sampling points; A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 and F1 and porosity. A cylindrical tube (5 cm long, 5 cm diameter) was driven
A2, B2, C2, D2, E2 and F2 from eroded area and non-eroded area into the soil to collect the samples. The bulk density and porosity of
(control sites), respectively. Sampling depth was 0 to 15 cm and 15 soil samples were estimated according to Rowell (1994).
to 30 cm and the samples were mixed to form a composite sample.
Samples from the eroded sites were collected on a line parallel to
the slope direction. Samples were then passed on a 2 mm sieve for Atterberg limits determination
laboratory analysis. Soil morphological properties including soil
structure type, class and permeability class were also collected Atterberg limits were measured using standard American Society
based on FAO (2006), (Table 1). for Testing and Materials (ASTM) devices (Faniran and Areola,
1978). Atterberg limits refers to the water content of fine grained
soils at different states of consistency and are based on plastic limit
The K-factor parameter determinations (PL) and liquid limit (LL) and more importantly on plasticity index
(PI). The plastic limit is the water content (in %), at which soil can
Selected physical properties related to texture and structure of soils no longer be deformed by rolling into 3.2 mm diameter without
were measured including particle size analysis, soil bulk density, crumbling. While liquid limit is water content at which a soil changes
plastic limit and liquid limit and soil organic matter to quantify soil from plastic to liquid behavior. The plasticity index is a measure of
erodibility factor. plasticity or the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit (that is, PI = LL-PL). The Casagrande Method was used to
determine attaerberg limits (McBride, 1993).
Particle size analysis

Soil texture was determined using the Hydrometer or the Soil organic matter
Bouyoucos method for mechanical analysis or particle size analysis
by measuring the proportion of different sized particles in a soil and Soil organic matter was determined using the Walkley-Black
 Manyiwa and Dikinya 4173

Table 1. Surface soil structure, slope angle and length for both eroded and non-eroded
areas.

Parrameter Eroded Non-eroded

*Soil structure Granular Crumb
*Soil structure class 1 1
*Permeability Class 2 = moderate to rapid 3 = moderate
Slope length (m) 20 m 9m
Slope angle (°) 3° 1°
*Defined according to (FAO, 2006).

Method (Tiessen and Moir, 1993). 2002) and hence more erosional loses. This is because
slope leads to materials being transported by mass
Statistically analysis
movement, while in the non-eroded areas the slope is
relatively flat and less material is transported hence less
Statistically data analysis was done using methodology by Wheater erosional losses as manifested by low K-factor values
-1 -1 -1
and Cook (2003) for the t-test (paired and unpaired) and to check if [0.031 (t ha h ha MJ mm )].
there is any significant difference between eroded and non-eroded Similarly, Table 2 shows that organic matter content is
areas at significance level of P<0.05 (or 95% confidence limit). The higher for non-eroded areas (1.18%) than eroded
t-test was computed according to the following equation:
(0.75%) and it is in agreement with Charman and Murphy
(1991) who stated that when organic matter is high, the
t= soil will be less susceptible to erosion because of the
binding effect of organic matter and therefore less
…. (1) vulnerability to particle detachment. The high organic
matter in non-eroded area is high probably because of
𝑆12 𝑆22 undisturbed litter as evidenced by presence of
Where, 𝑆𝑥1 − 𝑥2 = + vegetation. This litter leads to the formation of humus
Where,
𝑛1 𝑛2 and
and 𝑥= mean of samples, n =
which contributes to more organic matter in the non-
sample size and S = variance. eroded area (Brady and Weil, 2002).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Soil bulk density and porosity

Parameterization of erodibility factor Generally bulk density was higher in non-eroded than
eroded sites because of surface structural loss (Figure
Soil particle size distribution, organic matter, 2a) whereas the porosity (which is indirectly
structure and slope effects proportionally to bulk density) was lower in non-eroded
than eroded sites (Figure 2b). For instance, the average
3
Particle size analysis and respective soil textural class bulk density is 1.52 and 1.25 g/cm for non-eroded and
are presented in Table 2. Generally, the results show that eroded area, respectively. The average porosity is 28 and
sand content is generally high in all samples (Table 2). 44% for non-eroded and eroded areas, respectively. This
Soil textural class for soils in the eroded area is mainly is because as particles are eroded soil material becomes
sandy (at least 68%) characterized by weak structure and loose, therefore reducing the bulk density and increasing
granular type (Table 1). The weak structure (granular) as soil porosity (Abu-Hamdeh and Al-jalil, 1999). The higher
evidenced by the relatively low organic matter (0.75% for density is also attributed to high clay content (binding
eroded and 1.18% for non-eroded areas, Table 2) makes effect) in the non-eroded soil thus making it less
the soil susceptible to erosion in eroded areas. This was vulnerable to erosion.
supported by Ball (1990) who reported an increase of
erosion with decreasing organic matter. On the other
hand, soil samples in the non-eroded area have more Plastic limit, liquid limit and plastic index
clay (27%) and are less susceptible to erosion. Similarly,
the slope lengths and slope angles of the eroded area Plastic limit is the moisture content that defines where the
are high (20 m and 3°, respectively) as compared to soil changes from a semi solid to a plastic (flexible) state
those in non-eroded area (9 m and 1°). Slope length and while the liquid limit is the moisture content that defines
slope angle contribute to the erodibility of soil as slope where soil changes from a plastic to viscous fluid state
leads to colluvial deposited materials (Brady and Weil, (Reddy, 1999). Plastic limit of the soil samples ranged 2.7
4174 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Particle size distribution for eroded and non-eroded areas.

Eroded area
Organic matter
Sampling point % clay % silt % sand Textural class
%OM %OC
A1 15 4 77 Sandy loam 0.50 0.29
B1 16 3 81 Sandy loam 0.74 0.43
C1 30 5 65 Sandy clay loam 0.58 0.34
D1 32 5 65 Sandy clay loam 0.52 0.30
E1 28 5 68 Sandy clay loam 0.80 0.46
F1 27 5 64 Sandy clay loam 1.35 0.78
Mean (𝑥 ) 25 5 77 Xxxxxxx 0.75 0.43
Non-eroded area
Organic matter
Sampling point % clay % silt % sand Textural class
%OM %OC
A2 36 4 60 Sandy clay loam 0.80 0.46
B2 19 8 73 Sandy loam 1.49 0.86
C2 16 4 80 Sandy clay loam 1.13 0.65
D2 23 9 68 Sandy clay 1.10 0.64
E2 32 3 64 Sandy clay loam 1.40 0.81
F2 36 5 60 Sandy clay loam 1.21 0.70
Mean (𝑥 ) 27 6 68 Xxxxxxxxx 1.18 0.69
Where OM and OC is Organic matter and Organic carbon respectively.

Eroded Non-eroded (a) Eroded Non-eroded (b)

1.8 60
Bulk density Porosity
1.6
50
Bulk density (g/cm3)

1.4
1.2 40
Porosity (%)

1.0
0.8 30
0.6 20
0.4
0.2 10
0.0 0
A B C D E F A B C D E F
Sampling sites Sampling sites

Figure 2. Soil bulk density (a) and porosity (b) for eroded and non-eroded sites.

to 6.8% in eroded and 3.1 to 6.8% in non-eroded. In angle also contribute to the erodibility of the soil. The
general this reflects high structural stable soil material or results also indicate that non-eroded areas have low
high resistance to detachment in non-eroded sites and plastic limit but they are not easily eroded due to a flat
hence less vulnerability. In most cases % plastic limit and area and some vegetation cover thus preventing erosion
liquid limit are high in eroded than non-eroded areas and even though its plastic limit is low. Similarly the average
similar observation were reported by Nandi and Luffman plasticity index was 16.3 and 14.4%, respectively for
(2012). The plastic index is high in eroded areas with an eroded and non-eroded areas and this has an influence
average of 16.3% (Figure 3) probably due the sandy on soil erodibility. For instance, soils with low plastic limit
nature of the soil (Table 2). This is in contrast withReddy have high organic matter Ball (1990) thus explaining
(1999) who reported thatwhen the plastic index of a soil is large erodibility in eroded area (with relatively high low
high it will not be easily eroded. Other factors like slope organic matter). Soils with high content of clay particles
 Manyiwa and Dikinya 4175

Eroded Non-eroded (a) Eroded Non-eroded (b)

8.0 35
Plastic limit Liquid limit
7.0 30

Liquid limit (%WC)

Plastic limit (%WC)

6.0 25
5.0
20
4.0
15
3.0
2.0 10
1.0 5
0.0 0
A B C D E F A B C D E F
Sampling sites Sampling sites

Figure 3. The plastic limit (a) and liquid limit (b) for both eroded and non-eroded areas.

normally have high liquid limit and plastic limit because of

the binding potential of clay particles with instant
retardation of detachment. While sand particles are easily (2)
merged together (because of no binding) hence they
easily come together and lead to low plastic and liquid Where; SAN, SIL and CLA are %sand, %silt and %clay
limit. fractions, respectively, and C is the soil %organic carbon
Table 3 shows that the eroded and non-eroded areas content (%) and SN1=(1-SAN/100).
differ significantly in soil porosity, soil organic matter, Based on the computations from Equation 2, the K-
-1 -
plasticity limit, soil porosity, percentage sand, percentage factor value ranged from 0.013 to 0.055 (t ha h ha MJ
1 -1 -1 -1 -
clay and slope angle and slope length. This is attributed mm ) for eroded and 0.012 to 0.026 (t ha h ha MJ mm
1
to that as soil is eroded top soil is washed away which is ) for non-eroded soils. The results generally shows that
rich in humus and organic matter thus leading to a the eroded areas have average higher K- factor values
-1 -1 -1
significant difference in soil organic matter between [0.031 (t ha h ha MJ mm )] while non-eroded areas
-1 -1 -1
eroded and non-eroded areas. Erosion also washes have lower K- factor values [0.018 (t ha h ha MJ mm )].
away finer soil particles leaving sand particles in the According to Wawer et al. (2005), soils high in clay
eroded area compared to non-eroded area with less sand content have low K- factor values because they are
particles. Soil porosity differed due to difference in resistant to detachment because of the binding effect of
particle size distribution and therefore soil porosity clay. This is evidenced by the high clay content for non-
influences plastic limit. eroded (28.2%). Similarly, non-eroded soils are less
affected by erosion due to high organic matter (1.2%)
while eroded areas have relatively low organic matter
Quantifying and estimating soil erodibility factor content (0.75%). This organic matter binds the soil
particles together and creates forces between particles
Direct measurement of erodibility (K) factor requires long- and thus creating stability (Brady and Weil, 2008)(Figure 3).
term data and time consuming, there exists few Although the difference in the K-factor between eroded
techniques developed to estimate the K factorvalues from and non-eroded areas is not statistically significant, it is
readily available data on soil properties (Römkens et al., still worth to note that the two areas differ significantly in
1997; Zhang et al., 2008). Several monographs have soil porosity, soil organic matter, plasticity limit, soil
been also developed to quantitatively estimate soil porosity, percentage sand, percentage clay and slope
erosion based on soil properties at field or farm scale angle and slope length (Table 4).
(Wischmeier et al., 1971; Wischmeier and Smith, 1978; The higher K- factor values for eroded areas indicate
Vaezi et al., 2011). To quantify the effects of the that the soils are more prone or susceptible to erosion
parameteric erodibility factors on erosion, the following (Wawer et al., 2005), probably because of high %sand in
equation was used (Williams et al., 1984): eroded areas (67.6%). The high sand content contributes
 4176 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 3. Significant difference of parameterized erodibility (K) factor properties for eroded and non-eroded areas at P>0.05.

Significant
Property Eroded (𝑥 ), Variance Non-eroded Variance Computed t-
difference
(𝑥 ), (n=6)
2 2
(n=6) (S1 ) (S2 ) value
(t-test)
Bulk density 1.25 0.16 1.52 0.03 1.79 Not significant
Porosity 43.30 5.71 28.20 1.22 2.51 Significant
Plastic limit 7.17 4.32 4.57 5.25 3.13 Significant
Liquid limit 23.50 6.84 18.80 5.23 0.44 Not significant
Plasticity index 16.33 5.57 14.43 6.99 2.09 Not significant
%Organic matter 0.75 0.32 1.18 0.25 2.68 Significant
% Sand 67.60 10.14 66.40 8.12 4.58 Significant
% Silt 5.30 2.25 5.45 2.30 0.14 Not significant
% Clay 26.90 8.49 28.20 8.95 3.75 Significant
o
Slope angle and slope 1
9°and 20 m 12.02 5.66 14.57 Significant
length 9m

Table 4. Significant difference of K-values for eroded and non-eroded areas at P>0.05.

Values Eroded Non-eroded t-value Significant difference (t-test

(𝑥 ), (n=6 0.031 0.018
1.91 Not significant
2
Variance (S1 ) 0.015 0.005

to less binding of aggregates hence easily eroded. of soil detachment and transport by raindrop impact and
Similarly the low clay content (27%) resulted in increased surface flow (Renard et al., 1997). Consequently K-factor
K- factor value of eroded soils since clay particles hold is best obtained from direct measurements on natural
soil particles together and make them resistant to plots (Kinnell, 2010). However, this is an infeasible task
detachment (Zhang et al., 2007). On the other hand the on national or continental scale. To overcome this
high K- factor value in eroded soils was primarily due to problem measured K-factor values have been related to
low organic matter content (0.75%) because organic soil properties. The most widely used relationship is the
matter has the capacity to bind soil particles together soil-erodibility nomograph of Wischmeier and Smith
(Brady and Weil, 2008). Other than relatively low clay and (1978) (Table 5).
organic matter in non-eroded areas, the high K- factor
value is a result of granular soil structure since it is
generally more stable than and crumb structure (Daum, Conclusion
1996).
To evaluate the effectiveness of USLE-K model,
The results have shown that erodibility factor K
comparison between the measured (Williams et al., 1984)
significantly correlates with slope length, organic matter
erodibility data with the (Wischmeier et al., 1971)
and %clay fractions as well as with structural properties
nomograph data was done. The nomograph (which
including plastic limit, plastic index, bulk density and soil
relates K to soil properties) was developed by
porosity. Generally the erodibility K-factor values were
Wischmeier et al. (1971) with the following equation form:
high in eroded than non-eroded areas. The average K-
-1 -
4 1.14 factor value in eroded area was 0.031 (t ha h ha MJ
100K = 2.1 × 10 × (2 - OM) × M + 3.25 × (St-2) + 2.5 1 -1
mm ) with a range of 0.013 to 0.055 t h (t ha h ha MJ
-1 -

× (Pt - 3) (3) 1 -1
mm ). Similarly the average K-value in non-eroded area
-1
was 0.018 t h (MJmm) with a range of 0.012 to 0.026 (t
-1 -1 -1
Where, OM = Organic matter content (%), M = Silt plus ha h ha MJ mm ). Soils in the eroded areas with limited
fine sand content (%), St = Soil structure code (very fine organic matter and subsequently high erodibility values
granular = 1, fine granular = 2, coarse granular = 3, hence large proportionately erosional losses. Interestingly
blocky, platy or massive = 4), Pt= Permeability class there was no significant difference in K- factor values
(rapid = 1, moderate to rapid = 2, moderate = 3, slow to between eroded and non-eroded areas at P<0.05.
moderate = 4, slow = 5, very slow = 6 ). Further, the K-based nomograph over-predicted the
The equation was chosen because the K-factor is a measured K-factorvalue by 10 times in eroded and 19
lumped parameter that represents an integrated average times in non-eroded soil, with a stronger correlation in
2 2
annual value of the soil profile reaction to the processes eroded (r =0.77 ) than in non-eroded (r =0.10).
 Manyiwa and Dikinya 4177

Table 5. The comparison of nomograph-based estimates of erodibility factor (Knom) and measured erodibility
factor (Kmeas) for eroded and non-eroded.

Eroded Non-eroded
Sampling point
Kmeas KNom KNom/KMeas Kmeas KNom KNom/KMeas
A 0.027 0.30 11.1 0.017 0.30 17.6
B 0.013 0.24 18.5 0.019 0.41 21.6
C 0.021 0.31 14.8 0.026 0.30 11.5
D 0.043 0.31 7.2 0.012 0.45 37.5
E 0.055 0.45 8.2 0.013 0.27 20.8
F 0.026 0.31 11.9 0.020 0.31 15.5
Mean 0.031 0.32 10.3 0.018 0.34 19.1
Kmeas – computed from the Williams 1984 equation and KNom – nomogaph (Wischmeier et al., 1971).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Kinnell PIA (2010). Event soil loss, runoff and the Universal Soil Loss
Equation family of models: a review. J. Hydrol. 385:384e397.
This work was funded by the Department of Tertiary La°en JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991). WEPP: A new generation of
Education Financing under the Ministry of Education erosion prediction technology. J. Soil Water Conser. 46(34):8.
Skills and Development, Botswana. The first author McBride RA (1993). Soil consistency limits. In: M.R Carter (ed) “Soil
Sampling Methods of Analysis,” Lewis Publishers, Boca Ratan, FR:
acknowledges Prof. O. Areola for his invaluable and pp. 519-529.
useful guidance of the research project which forms part Millward AA, Mersey JE (1999). Adapting the RUSLE to model soil
of this manuscript. The Department of Environmental erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena
Science also provided facilities to enable laboratory 38(2):109-129.
Morgan RPC, Quenton JN, Rickson RJ (1992). EUROSEM:
analysis.
Documentation Manual.' (Silsoe College: Silsoe, UK).
Morgan RPC (1996). Soil erosion and conservation. Addison-Wesley
Boston MA.
REFERENCES Nandi A, Luffman E (2012). Erosion Related Changes to
Physicochemical Properties of Ultisols Distributed on
Abu-Hamdeh N, Al-jalil HF (1999). Hydraulically powered soil core Calcareous Sedimentary Rocks. J. Sustain. Develop. 5:8.
sampler and its application to soil density and porosity estimation. Parysow P, Wang G, Gertner G, Anderson A (2003). Spatial uncertainly
Soil. Tillage Res. 52:(1-2):113-120. analysis for mapping soil erodibility on joint sequential simulation.
Angima SD, Stott DE, O’Neill MK, Ong MK, Weesies GA (2003). Catena 53:65–78.
Soilerosion prediction using RUSLE for central Kenyan highland Radcliffe DJ, Venema JH, De Wit PV (1990). Soils of North Eastern
conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 97(1-3):295-308. Botswana. Government of Botswana.
Anon A (1991). Soil Map of the Republic of Botswana.Soil Mapping and Reddy K (1999). Engineering Properties of Soils Based on Laboratory.
Advisory Services.FAO/UNDP/Botswana Government, Gaborone. UIC.
Ball A (1990). Soil Properties and Their Uses.John Wiley and Sons. Renard KG, Foster GA, Weesies GA, McCool DK (1997). Predicting
London. Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the
Bonilla CA, Johnson OI (2012). Soil erodibility mapping and its Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).'Agriculture
correlation with soil properties in Central Chile. Geoderma: 189–190, Handbook No: 703: USDA: Washington, DC.)
116–123. Römkens MJM, Young RA, Poesen JWA, McCool DK, El-Swaify SA,
Brady CN, Weil RR (2008). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 14th Bradford JM (1997). Soil erodibility factor (K), in: Renard, K.G.,
Edition, Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (Compilers),
Brady CN, Weil RR (2002). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 13th Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning
Edition, Prentice Hall: New Jersey. With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agric. HB
Ciesiolka CAA, Coughlan KJ, Rose CW, Escalante MC, Hashim GM, No. 703, USDA, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 65–99.
Paningbatan EP, Sombatpanit S (1995). Methodology for a multi- Roose EJ (1977). Application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation of
country study of soil erosion Manage. Soil Technol. 8:179-92. Wischmeier and Smith in West Africa. In: Greenland, J., Lal, R.
Charman PE, Murphy BW (1991). Soils Their Properties and (Eds.). Conservation and Soil Management in the Humid Tropics.
Management. Oxford University Press: New York. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 177–187.
Daum DR (1996). Soil compaction and conservation tillage. Rose CW, Coughlan KJ, Ciesiolka CAA, Fentie B (1997). Program
Conservation Tillage Series 3: U.S. Department of Agriculture: GUEST. (Grifth University Erosion System Template).In `A New Soil
Agricultural Research Service. Conservation Methodology and Application to Cropping Systems in
El-Swaify SA, Dangler EW (1976). Erodibilities of selected tropical soils Tropical Steeplands'. (Eds K. J. Coughlan and C. W. Rose.) ACIAR
in relation to structural and hydrologic parameters. In: Foster, G.R. Technical Report.
(Ed.), SoilErosion Prediction and Control. Soil and Water Rowell DL (1994). Soil Science: Methods and Applications, Longman
Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA, USA, pp. 105–114. Scientific and technical, England.
Faniran AO, Areola O (1978). Essentials of Soil Study (With Special Tejada M, Gonzalez JL (2006). The relationships between erodibility
Reference to Tropical Areas) London: Heinemann. Appendix: and erosion in a soil treated with two organic amendments. Soil.
Laboratory Techniques of Soil Analysis, pp. 237-266. Tillage. Res. 91:186–198.
FAO (2006). Guidelines of soils description, 4th ed. Rome. United Tiessen HJ, Moir O (1993). Total and organic carbon. In: Soil Sampling
Nations. and Methods of Analysis, M.E. Carter, Ed. Lewis Publishers, Ann
Hanks RJ, Ashcroft GL (1970).Physical properties of soil, Logan, Utah. Arbor, MI. pp. 187-211.
4178 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Toy JT, George RF, Kenneth GR (2002). Soil Erosion.John Wiley & Wischmeier WH, Johnson CB, Cross BV (1971).A soil
Sons Inc. New York. erodibilitynomograph for farmland and construction sites. Soil Water
Vaezi AR, Bahrami HA, Sadeghi SHR, Mahdian MHS (2011). Conser. 26:189–193.
Developing a nomograph for estimating erodibility factor of Zachar D (1982). Soil Erosion. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New
Calcareous soils in north west of Iran. Int. J. Geol. 4(5):93–100. Jersey.
Wawer R, Nowocieñ E, Podolski B (2005). Real Calculated K-USLE Zhang KL, Shu AP, Xu XL, Young QK, Yu B (2008). Soil erodibility and
Erodibiliity Factor for Selected Polish Soils. Polish J. Environ. Stud. its estimation for agricultural soils in China. J. Arid Environ.11:1-10
14(5):655-658. Zhang ZG, Fan BE, Bai WJ, Jiao JY (2007). Soil anti-erodibility of plant
Williams JR, Jones CA, Dyke PT (1984). A Modeling Approach to communities on the removal lands in hilly-gully region of the Loess
Determining the Relationship between erosion and productivity. Plateau. Science Soil Water Conser. 5:7-13.
Transactions of the ASAE 27(1):129-144.
Wheater CP, Cook PA (2003).Using Statistics to Understand the
Environment. Routledge: New York.
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978). `Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses:
A Guide to Conservation Planning.'Agriculture Handbook No. 537.
(USDA: Washington, DC.).

View publication stats