This article was downloaded by: [Sri Venkateshwara University] On: 03 May 2013, At: 22:47 Publisher: Taylor

& Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Soil loss estimation through MUSLE using Kirpich and Williams times of concentration using RS and GIS techniques: a case study
Arun M. Kamath , V.M. Varun , G.S. Dwarakish , B. Kavyashree & H.R. Shwetha
a b c a a b c c

Undergraduate Students, Department of Civil Engineering Associate Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics

Graduate Students, Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India Published online: 13 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Arun M. Kamath , V.M. Varun , G.S. Dwarakish , B. Kavyashree & H.R. Shwetha (2012): Soil loss estimation through MUSLE using Kirpich and Williams times of concentration using RS and GIS techniques: a case study, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 18:1, 1-10 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2011.646390

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering Vol. 18, No. 1, March 2012, 110

Soil loss estimation through MUSLE using Kirpich and Williams times of concentration using RS and GIS techniques: a case study
Arun M. Kamatha*, V.M. Varuna, G.S. Dwarakishb, B. Kavyashreec and H.R. Shwethac
a

Undergraduate Students, Department of Civil Engineering; bAssociate Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics; cGraduate Students, Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India (Received 29 July 2010; final version received 18 April 2011) Water is one of the most vital requirements for sustenance of life. Water, along with soil, is the most essential natural resource for economic and social development. A study of soil and water dynamics at a watershed level can facilitate a scientific approach toward their conservation and management. The present study is an attempt to apply the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) along with the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method for runoff estimation and comparison of soil loss estimates for the catchments of Baindur Hole and Yedamavina Hole in the Udupi District of Karnataka State, India, obtained by times of concentration calculated by the Kirpich equation and the Williams equation. The base map and thematic maps were prepared using Indian Remote Sensing satellite 1C (IRS-1C) LISS-III (Linear Imaging Self-Scanning Sensor) image for land use/land cover and from Survey of India topo sheet in a GIS environment for overlaying and extraction of results. The time of concentration estimated by the Kirpich formula is lower in all cases; hence, the corresponding soil loss is 1.4 times higher than that determined with Williams formula. Catchments 23 and 17 with a lower drainage length show comparatively higher values of soil loss in case of the Williams equation, which can be attributed to the greater importance of drainage length in the equation. Keywords: MUSLE; RS and GIS; watershed; Kirpich; Williams; time of concentration

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

1. Introduction In India, the ever-increasing population is mainly responsible for the increase in demand for waterfor domestic, agricultural and industrial usage. Since the quantum of rainfall and surface water availability has remained almost the same, if not reduced, the increased demand for water has resulted in over-exploitation of groundwater, decreasing water table levels and deterioration of water quality. This calls for an alternate, sustainable and decentralized approach to develop river basins at the micro-watershed level, so as to reduce runoff and improve groundwater recharge and quality (Ramakrishnan et al. 2009). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service Curve Number [SCS-CN] method is one of the most widely used methods for estimating floods on small- to mediumsized ungauged drainage basins. The original SCS-CN method was designed to predict direct runoff, as an infiltrationexcess overland flow model. It assumes that only one process is responsible for producing striation flow over the entire watershed area and supports Hortons overland flow mechanism to compute surface runoff. The SCS-CN method has undergone several modifications since its inception. Advances in computer environments, numerical analysis, remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) tools have led to drastic improvements in hydrological modeling, especially the SCS-CN technique (Geetha et al. 2008). Runoff is estimated using the SCS-CN method by incorporating land use/land cover (LU/LC) details derived from RS data and analyzing them in a GIS environment (Jasrotia et al. 2002; Ravikumar 2001). RS and GIS techniques were earlier incorporated while developing a rainfall-runoff model for the Bebas river basin in Madhya Pradesh, India, by Nayak and Jaiswal (2003). Sensitivity analysis for the LC parameter in SCS-CN method was carried out using GIS by Nagaraj and Yaragal (2008). Another integrated study was performed by Liu and Li (2008) for the estimation of runoff from a small watershed in the Loess Plateau of China, who found the precision of the model to be more than 75%. Land use (LU) is defined as the area of land used by human beings and land cover (LC) is the natural cover over the surface of the earth. Information about LU/LC is essential for planning any developmental activities and for monitoring and management of natural resources such as water, forest, and soil. LC pattern, with regard to both space and time variations, is a function of societal characteristics and qualifies as one of the major consequences of human intervention on any landscape (Joshi and Gairola 2004). In recent years, RS has proven to be a very effective tool in collecting information on the inventory of water, soil and LU/LC (Dwarakish and Anisha 1999; Dwarakish and Asha Jyothi 2003; Kamath et al., 2010; Varun et al. 2009).
*Corresponding author. Email: arun.kamath.m@gmail.com
ISSN 09715010 print/ISSN 21643040 online 2012 Indian Society for Hydraulics http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2011.646390 http://www.tandfonline.com

A.M. Kamath et al.

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Figure 1. Location map of the study area. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

In the present study, LU/LC information was obtained through digital image processing of RS data and incorporating the data in SCS-CN to obtain the value of runoff. This value was in turn used in the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE), by calculating time of concentration using two different formulae, namely, the Kirpich and Williams equations, and the results were compared.

2. Study area The present hydrological study has been carried out for a suburban catchment area of rivers Baindur Hole and Yedamavina Hole in Udupi District of Karnataka State, India (Figure 1). The study area lies between longitudes 74 350 E and 74 500 E and latitudes 13 450 N and 13 550 N, having an area of 194.44 km2, and has been subdivided into 23 micro-watersheds (Murthy 1995). It is covered in Survey of India (SoI) topo sheets 48 K/9 and 48 K/13. The area is bordered by Western Ghats in the East and Arabian Sea in the West. The area receives heavy rainfall of about 3940 mm, with 93% of it due to the southwest monsoon between June and September. Geographically, the northeastern part of the study area forms a part of the Western Ghats, with a highest elevation of 920 m, characterised by high relief and steep sloping hill ranges and thick evergreen forests, and the western part is nearly level. Laterite soil and coastal alluvium are the two major soil types in the area. The central and eastern part of the study area has lateritic soil composition. The major agricultural crops in the study area include paddy, groundnut, and sugarcane. Among the agricultural plantations, coconut trees form the dominant LC feature, with small patches of areca nut and rubber plantation. Cashew is the predominant forest plantation (Anisha 1997).

3. Data used The present research was carried out using both conventional data and remotely sensed data in addition to ground truth data collected during field visits; the details of the data products are given in Table 1.

4. Methodology Base map and several thematic maps were prepared while executing the present work using SoI topo sheets and remotely sensed data, the detailed description of which are given in the following sections.

4.1. Base map A base map was prepared using SoI topo sheets, by extracting major rivers, road networks, important ground control points, contour and latitude and longitude details of the study area. This map was used to generate thematic maps.

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

Table 1. Data products used.
Satellite/sensor path/row IRS-1C/LISS-III 97/63

Type of data Topographic maps Remote sensing data Soil map Ground truth data

Source Survey of India NRSC, Hyderabad NBSS&LUP Field visits with GPS

Scale 1:50,000 1:250,000

Date 1972 23 January 1997 1972 08 January 2010 20 April 2010 1997

Purpose To prepare base map To prepare the LU/LC map To obtain soil series and parameters To improve accuracy of LU/LC maps and collect soil samples To estimate runoff

Rainfall data

IMD, Pune

Note: NRSC, National Remote Sensing Center; IRS-1C, Indian Remote Sensing satellite 1C; LISS, Linear Imaging Self-Scanning Sensor; LU/LC, land use/land cover; NBSS, National Bureau of Soil Survey; IMD, India Meteorological Department.

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Figure 2. Micro-watershed map. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

4.2. Micro-watershed boundary map Micro-watershed boundary map was prepared using the SoI topo sheet. Watersheds were identified and the boundaries were digitized using ArcGIS. Delineation of micro-watersheds was carried out by drawing boundary lines passing centrally between the stream segments and along the topographical ridges. The area of each micro-watershed was restricted to between 3 and 20 km2 (Murthy 1995), and a total of 23 micro-watersheds were delineated. Figure 2 shows the demarcation and percentage area of each micro-watershed.

4.3. LU/LC map Information about LU/LC is essential for obtaining the weighted CN value for the micro-watersheds and the cover parameter C in MUSLE. LU/LC maps were prepared for the year 1997 using satellite data obtained from the National Remote Sensing Center (NRSC), Hyderabad, India. The base map was digitized and geo-referenced. Image-to-map registration was carried out and the output of this process was used for LU/LC classification. After selecting the training sites and checking the statistics, a signature file was created on the basis of the information obtained about the distribution of LU/LC features in the image through an initial field reconnaissance and unsupervised classification. The thumb rule given by Chou et al. (2005), that minimum 50 pixels per training set and 10 samples per class should be chosen, was adopted. Results of unsupervised classification and facts collected from field visits were incorporated during selection of training sites for supervised classification. Other preliminary information was also taken from the visual interpretation work completed for the same area by Anisha (1997). After this step, supervised classification was carried out using the maximum likelihood classification (MLC) module available in ERDAS Imagine 9.0, a digital image processing software. A total of 14 classes in level II were identified and the final LU/LC map produced is shown in Figure 3. Also, the areal extent of each LU/LC features with the accuracy and kappa statistics are calculated. Fuzzy convolution procedure using a 5 5 window with equal importance to all layers (bands) was applied on the classified

A.M. Kamath et al.

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Figure 3. Land use/land cover map for the study area [1997, IRS 1C, LISS- III]. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

Figure 4. Soil map of the study area (Source: NBSS & LUP). [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

image to reduce the salt-and-pepper effect in the map. Further, raster to vector conversion was rendered so as to use the LU/LC map in a GIS environment. 4.4. Soil map Because field visits and lengthy, tiresome processes are involved in the preparation of soil map, it was adopted from the available repository of soil maps prepared by the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP 1988) and eight soil series were identified in the study area. Their distribution and percentage area are shown in Figure 4. 4.5. Slope map The slope map, shown in Figure 5, was prepared using Wentworths method of average slope determination. A grid size of 0.5 km 0.5 km (to scale) was chosen. The average slope within a grid is given by the following formula. tan  N CI , 636:55

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Figure 5. Slope map of the study area. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

where  N CI average slope in degrees for each grid, average number of contour crossing per kilometre of the perimeter of the grid, and contour interval (20 m).

Seven categories of slope given in All India Soil and Land Use Survey (AIS and LUS, 1990), standardized for the Integrated Mission for Sustainable Development,) were adopted.

4.6. SCS-CN method The Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method (SCS 1972), an event-based, lumped rainfall-runoff model combines the water balance equation and two fundamental hypotheses that can be expressed respectively as P Ia F Q, Q F , P Ia S Ia  S, where P Ia F Q S  total precipitation (mm), initial abstraction (mm), infiltration after time to ponding (mm), direct runoff (mm), potential maximum retention (mm), and initial abstraction co-efficient. 1 2 3

In the original version of the SCS-CN method,  0.2 (a standard value). However,  0.05 has also been advocated for field use (Hawkins 1980), which can also vary from 0 to 1 (Mishra et al. 2004). Combination of Equations (1) and (2) leads to the most popular form of the SCS-CN method: Q P Ia 2 P Ia S Q 0 P 5 Ia : P ! Ia 4

By combining Equations (3) and (4), with  0.2, the SCS-CN parameter S for the present study is calculated at the micro-watershed level by using the formula:   100 1 , 5 S 254 CNw

A.M. Kamath et al.

Table 2. Soil series of the study area and their hydrologic soil group. Soil series 85 99 103 116 117 118 119 120 Hydrologic soil group D C C B C C C B

Description of the soil series Deep, well-drained, clayey soils with medium AWC in foothill slopes with severe erosion. Moderately shallow, well-drained clayey soils with low AWC in foothill slopes with moderate erosion. Very deep, well-drained, gravelly clay soils with low AWC on steeply sloping high hill ranges. Deep, imperfectly drained, sandy over loamy soils of valleys, with shallow water table. Very deep, well-drained, sandy over loamy soils of valleys, with shallow water table. Very deep, well-drained, gravelly clay soils with surface crusting and compaction on undulating uplands with moderate erosion. Moderately shallow, somewhat excessively drained, gravelly clay soils with hard ironstone on coastal plateau summits, with moderate erosion. Very deep, well-drained, gravelly clay soils with low AWC on laterite mounds with slight erosion.

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Note: AWC, antecedent water content.

where CNw is the weighted CN and is given by CNw where CNi PAi A

CNi Ai P , A

CN of the particular soil and land use type on the overlay map, area with curve number CNi, and total area of the micro-watershed.

The median CN value represents the AMC II condition and depending on the 5d precipitation amount, it is converted to AMC I or AMC III using National Engineering Handbook Section 4 (NEH-4) tables (SCS 1972). This approach is applicable for both gauged and ungauged catchments, and CN values derived from NEH-4 tables depends on watershed characteristics such as soil type, LU/LC, slope, hydrological condition and antecedent soil moisture condition (AMC). The SCS-CN is a function of the ability of soils to allow infiltration of water with respect to LU/LC and AMC. According to U.S. SCS, soils are divided into four hydrological soil groups, namely, A, B, C and D, with respect to the rate of runoff potential and final infiltration rate. In the present study, while determining the CN, the hydrological soil classification was adopted and the eight soil series available in the study area were grouped into one of the four soil groups as furnished in Table 2.

4.7. MUSLE model The MUSLE model is used for calculation of soil loss in the area for the year 1997. The equation used was A 11:8 Q Qp 0:56 K LS C P, where A Q Qp K L S C annual soil loss expressed in area units selected for K; runoff volume for the storm event in cubic millimetres (mm3); peak discharge in cubic metres per second (m3 s1); soil erodibility factor, rate of soil loss per unit R for a given soil under continuous fallow with up and downhill cultivation on a slope of length 22.1 m; slope length factor, ratio of soil loss from the field slope length relative to that from a slope of length 22.1 m; slope steepness factor, which is the ratio of soil loss from the field steepness relative to that from a 9% slope; cover and management factor, ratio of soil loss from an area with a given cover and management relative to that from an identical area with continuous fallow; and 7

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering P

supporting conservation practice factor, ratio of soil loss from a field with a conservation support practice such as contour bunding.

The peak discharge (Qp) was calculated through the equation Qp where A Q D tc basin size in square kilometres (km2), depth of runoff in millimetres (mm), duration of storm in hours, assumed as 24 hours, and concentration time in hours calculated through standard formulae. 0:208 A Q , 0:5 D 0:6 tc 8

The duration of the storm was assumed as 24 hours because of insignificant time interval between storms in a day in this region in the monsoon. Time of concentration was calculated with two well-known equations, the Kirpich equation and the Williams equation. Kirpich equation:

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

tc 3:97 L0:77 S0:385 : Williams equation: tc 14:6 A0:1 S0:2 L: where A S L basin size in square kilometres (km2), average channel slope in metre per metre (m/m), and length of channel from divide to outlet in kilometres (km).

10

The values corresponding to each of these equations was used and the respective soil loss was calculated and the results were compared.

5. Results and discussion The study was carried out by analysis of both conventional and RS data, and the results and discussion with regard to the work are presented in the following sections.

5.1. LU/LC distribution Supervised classification of the satellite image of year 1997 was carried out and the spatial distribution of 14 LU/LC features was calculated and is presented along with the corresponding CN value for different hydrological soil types in Table 3. It can be inferred from this result that the major portion of the catchment is covered by evergreen/semi-evergreen forest in the northeastern part of the catchment, which has highly elevated, steep terrain. The major LC is scrubland with mixed plantation in the slopes of the hills, mainly in the central region of the catchment with moderate slope, and land with or without scrubs in the lowlands with gentle slope in the western and central part of the catchment. It is also noted that features with high SCS-CN values like cropland, fallow land, and built-up are mostly in the coastal plains in the western part of the catchment.

5.2. Curve numbers for the SCS-CN method The SCS-CN method was used and weighted CN was calculated based on the overlaid map obtained for 23 microwatersheds in the catchment and presented in Table 4. This CN was used for 148 days of 24-hour duration individual storms in the year 1997 (14 pre-monsoon, 110 monsoon and 24 post-monsoon storms) and discharge values were calculated. Micro-watersheds 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 show a higher CN value in comparison to other micro-watersheds. It is observed that in these micro-watersheds, the soil series 85 falling under group D and soil series 118 (group C) are found to cover large areas. These soils are heavily prone to erosion. Soil series 118 (group C) covers micro-watershed 2 almost completely, giving it a high CN. The micro-watersheds 21 and 23 have the lowest CN values. These regions have,

A.M. Kamath et al.

Table 3. Spatial distribution of LU/LC features in the catchment and corresponding CN values. CN for hydrological soil group % 7.24 4.70 4.21 7.62 27.39 1.86 11.58 0.61 10.19 3.01 0.50 0.98 0.46 19.68 A 81 62 71 45 25 45 25 25 36 46 20 97 97 25 B 88 71 80 53 55 66 55 55 60 66 40 97 97 55 C 91 78 85 67 70 77 70 70 73 77 58 97 97 70 D 93 81 88 72 77 83 77 77 79 83 61 97 97 77

LU/LC features Level I Built-up land (7.24%) Agricultural land (16.53%) Forest (41.44%) Level II Built-up land Cropland Fallow land Plantation Evergreen/semievergreen forest Degraded forest Forest plantation Mangrove Land with or without scrub Barren/rocky/sheetrock area Coastal sand River/Stream Lagoon/backwater 6.1 Scrubland with mixed plantation 194.44 88.50 0.8640 km2 14.07 9.13 8.18 14.81 53.26 3.61 22.51 1.18 19.82 5.85 0.97 1.91 0.89 38.26

Area

Wasteland (13.7%)

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Water bodies (1.44%) Others (19.68%) Total area (km2) Accuracy (%) Kappa statistic

Note: LU/LC land use/land cover; CN, curve number.

Table 4. Micro-watershed-wise CN values and soil loss. MUSLE Time of Time of MUSLE MUSLE Williams/ concentration, Weighted Drainage concentration tc Kirpich, Williams, MUSLE Kirpich CN length, km (Kirpich), min t/km2 tc (Williams), min t/km2 69.28 70.02 67.83 68.25 69.98 69.44 67.76 62.11 67.41 73.18 72.59 75.32 74.94 71.49 63.2 65.91 65.16 62.77 64.57 68.47 61.22 67.48 61.53 67.82 43.02 13.4 21.65 22.74 37.9 23.24 18.04 14.88 17.94 25.38 17.3 28.08 16.04 26.52 28.16 15.38 9.18 13.9 10.27 22.92 39.75 14.59 9.33 21.29 339.86 135.28 196.54 76.23 155.26 489.7 86.27 75.63 215.07 91.39 69.79 118.45 66.79 130.62 316.84 194.88 95.54 285.74 106.23 260.78 546.52 149.72 124.07 188.14 1668.51 604.24 283.36 22013.9 5642.17 304.41 17960.4 12567.3 458.51 37324 22572.1 13173 14991.2 2283.52 172.22 66.11 158.57 106.05 827.15 426.7 167.44 1233.73 725.87 6770.89 1045.2 355.28 569.93 366.38 688.93 905.24 335.8 283.11 545.48 425.98 299.78 516.34 284.56 506.66 827.14 480.65 251.59 557.71 288.93 655.55 1484.64 381.38 249.31 535.03 1030.08 461.42 196.71 15489.7 3485.78 223.18 13150.9 9537.27 329.58 25500.2 16726.2 8701.47 11228.7 1540.52 115.32 48.73 127.43 80.74 648.75 298.78 101.99 936.5 605.31 4807.19 0.62 0.76 0.69 0.7 0.62 0.73 0.73 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.74 0.66 0.74 0.67 0.67 0.73 0.8 0.76 0.78 0.7 0.6 0.75 0.83 0.72

MWS No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

K 0.0223 0.0142 0.0177 0.0192 0.0195 0.0188 0.0173 0.0188 0.0145 0.0199 0.0178 0.0228 0.0195 0.0158 0.017 0.0161 0.0155 0.0171 0.0164 0.0147 0.0193 0.0197 0.0175

LS 0.82 0.84 0.84 64.18 20.7 0.22 25.45 17.02 0.56 45.61 40.1 19.84 30.52 15.21 0.35 0.33 0.83 0.22 0.81 0.63 0.25 0.74 0.57

C 0.3 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.29 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.17 0.24 0.22 0.07

P 0.87 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.84 0.79 0.78 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.89 0.83 0.81 0.83 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.92 0.91

Average 0.0179 12.46 0.13 0.81

Note: MWS, micro-watershed; K, soil erodibility factor; L, slope length factor; S, slope steepness factor; C, cover and management factor; P, supporting conservation practice factor; CN, curve number; MUSLE, Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation.

ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

40000
MUSLE Kirpich MUSLE Williams

35000 Soil loss (t/km2) 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIcrowatershed number

Figure 6. Micro-watershed-wise comparison of soil loss. [To view a colour version of this figure, see the online version of this Journal.]

dominantly, soil series 116 and 120 (group B) in them, which are less susceptible to erosion. Other micro-watersheds show moderate CN values and have a more or less equal distribution of group B and C soil series

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

5.3. Comparison of estimated soil loss through MUSLE One of the most important parameters in MUSLE is the peak discharge Qp, which depends on the time of concentration. Times of concentration for all the micro-watersheds were calculated using the Kirpich formula and the Williams formula. The results obtained using time of concentration using the two formulae were then compared. The value of soil loss obtained through the MUSLE model using these times of concentration are presented in Table 4. A graphical representation of micro-watershed-wise soil loss comparison is presented in Figure 6. Soil loss obtained through the Williams equation shows an average ratio of 0.72 with those obtained through the Kirpich equation. Micro-watershed 23 shows high ratio of 0.83. The micro-watershed 17 has a ratio of 0.80.

6. Conclusions RS and GIS are effective in integrated studies involving series of overlay analysis. The LU/LC features play a major role in the estimation of runoff using the SCS-CN method. LU/LC, soil series, drainage length, and time of concentration are some of the key factors in soil loss estimation using the MUSLE. More than 40% of the study area is covered with forests, followed by land classes designated as others (19.68%) and agricultural land (16.53%) under level I classification. However, level II classification details are necessary for assigning the CN values for the various hydrological soil types. Evergreen/semi-evergreen forest, forest plantation, mangroves, coastal sand, and scrubland with mixed plantations have smaller values of CN across the soil groups and hence runoff and soil erosion will be less in the regions with these land use features. Fallow land and land with or without scrub have higher values of CN, making them conducive to higher runoff and thus susceptible to higher soil erosion. The accuracy of the supervised classification (level II) is 88.50% and the kappa statistic is 0.8640. Soil loss values estimated through MUSLE using the Kirpich formula of time of concentration are higher than those obtained with the Williams equation. It is seen through the comparison of the soil loss values that the difference in results obtained is larger when the drainage lengths are longer and the results are closer for micro-watersheds with shorter drainage lengths. In the case of micro-watershed 23, with a high ratio of 0.83, the drainage length is just 9.3 km, which is smaller than the drainage length of 43 km in micro-watershed 1, which gives the smallest ratio of 0.62. It is clear from the table that the time of concentration estimated using the Williams formula is much higher than that estimated using the Kirpich formula for a higher value of drainage length. This is due to a linear relationship between drainage length and time of concentration in the Williams formula. Further investigation has to be carried out to determine the suitability of either equation for the analysis of soil loss in this region after determining the limit on the validity of the equations in accordance to the drainage length.

References
All India Soil and Landuse Survey (AISLUS). (1990). National Watershed Atlas, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. Anisha, M. (1997). Soil conservation and watershed management using remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study. M.Tech. dissertation submitted to KREC (NITK) Surathkal, Mangalore University, Karnataka, India.

10

A.M. Kamath et al.

Downloaded by [Sri Venkateshwara University] at 22:47 03 May 2013

Chou, T.Y., Lei, T.C., Wan, S., and Yang, L.S. (2005). Spatial knowledge databases as applied to the detection of changes in urban land use. Int. J. Remote Sensing, 26(14), 30473068. Dwarakish, G.S., and Anisha, M. (1999). Prioritization of micro watersheds by remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study. Proc. Natl. Semin. on Watershed Management for Sustainable Development, Tirupathi, India, March 1999. Dwarakish, G.S., and Asha Jyothi, K. (2003). Preparation of land use/land cover map as an input to universal soil loss equation through remote sensing and GIS. Proc. Natl. Semin. on Coastal Dynamics and Role of Geoinformatics with Special Reference to Indian Peninsula, Mangalore, Karnataka, India, 2003, 38. Geetha, K., Mishra, S.K., Eldho, T.I., Rastogi, A.K., and Pandey, R.P. (2008). SCS-CN based continuous simulation model for hydrologic forecasting. J. Water Res. Manag., 22, 165190. Hawkins, R.H. (1980). Infiltration and curve numbers: some pragmatic and theoretic relationships. Proc. Symp. on Watershed Management 1980, Boise, Idaho, II, ASCE, 925937. Jasrotia, A.S., Dhiman, S.D., and Aggarwal, S.P. (2002). Rainfall-runoff and soil erosion modeling using remote sensing and GIS techniques a case study of Tons watershed. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 30(3), 167180. Joshi, P.K. and Gairola, S. (2004). Land cover dynamics in Garhwal Himalayas sub watershed. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 32(2), 199208. Kamath, A., Varun, V.M., Dwarakish, G.S., and Yadupathy Putty, R. (2010). Variable source area watershed model for Konganahole catchment area in Western Ghats. Proc. Natl. Conf. on Sustainable Water Resources Management (SWaRM 2010), NITK-Surathkal, 79 January 2010, 5761. Liu, X. and Li, J. (2008). Application of SCS model in estimation of runoff from small watershed in Loess Plateau of China. J. China Geogr. Sci., 8(3), 235241. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., and Singh, V.P. (2004). Evaluation of the SCS-CN based model incorporating antecedent moisture. J. Water Res. Manage., 18, 567589. Murthy, J.V.S. (1995). Watershed management in India, Wiley Eastern, New Age International, New Delhi, 2324. Nagaraj, M.K. and Yaragal, S.C. (2008). Sensitivity of land cover parameter in runoff estimation using GIS. ISH J. Hydr. Eng., 14(1), 4151. [NBSS&LUP] National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (1988). The soils of Kolar District for land use planning. Soils Bull., 20. Nayak, T.R. and Jaiswal, R.K. (2003). Rainfall-runoff modeling using satellite data and GIS for Bebas River in Madhya Pradesh. J. Inst. Eng. India, 84, 4750. Ramakrishnan, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., and Kusuma, K.N. (2009). SCS-CN and GIS based approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali watershed, Mahi river basin, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci., 118(4), 355368. Ravikumar, A.S. (2001). Water balance components from field studies using RS and GIS. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangalore. [SCS] Soil Conservation Service (1972). SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4 (NEH-4), Hydrology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Varun, V.M., Kamath, A.M., Dwarakish, G.S., Jagadeesha, P.B., and Natesan, U. (2009). Land use land cover change detection using digital image processing. Proc. 24th Indian Engineering Congress, NITK, Surathkal, Mangalore, India, 1013 December 2009, 15.