Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Landscape Connectivity Special Issue Editorial
Next Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Determinants of Farmland Abandonment and Its Data Problems
Previous Article in Journal
Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Tourism Planning for a Rural Region: Extremadura Case Study (Spain)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can Land Consolidation Reduce the Soil Erosion of Agricultural Land in Hilly Areas? Evidence from Lishui District, Nanjing City
Article

Comparing Hydric Erosion Soil Loss Models in Rainy Mountainous and Dry Flat Regions in Portugal

1
Department of Geosciences, Environment and Land Planning, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
2
ICT–Institute of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
3
Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC TEC), Campus da Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Ilan Stavi and Manuel Pulido Fernádez
Land 2021, 10(6), 554; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060554
Received: 1 May 2021 / Revised: 17 May 2021 / Accepted: 21 May 2021 / Published: 25 May 2021
Soil erosion is a severe and complex issue in the agriculture area. The main objective of this study was to assess the soil loss in two regions, testing different methodologies and combining different factors of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) based on Geographical Information Systems (GIS). To provide the methodologies to other users, a GIS open-source application was developed. The RUSLE equation was applied with the variation of some factors that compose it, namely the slope length and slope steepness (LS) factor and practices factor (P), but also with the use of different sources of information. Eight different erosion models (M1 to M8) were applied to the two regions with different ecological conditions: Montalegre (rainy-mountainous) and Alentejo (dry-flat), both in Portugal, to compare them and to evaluate the soil loss for 3 potential erosion levels: 0–25, 25–50 and >50 ton/ha·year. Regarding the methodologies, in both regions the behavior is similar, indicating that the M5 and M6 methodologies can be more conservative than the others (M1, M2, M3, M4 and M8), which present very consistent values in all classes of soil loss and for both regions. All methodologies were implemented in a GIS application, which is free and available under QGIS software. View Full-Text
Keywords: GIS; RUSLE; soil erosion; open-source; hydric erosion GIS; RUSLE; soil erosion; open-source; hydric erosion
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Duarte, L.; Cunha, M.; Teodoro, A.C. Comparing Hydric Erosion Soil Loss Models in Rainy Mountainous and Dry Flat Regions in Portugal. Land 2021, 10, 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060554

AMA Style

Duarte L, Cunha M, Teodoro AC. Comparing Hydric Erosion Soil Loss Models in Rainy Mountainous and Dry Flat Regions in Portugal. Land. 2021; 10(6):554. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060554

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duarte, Lia, Mário Cunha, and Ana C. Teodoro 2021. "Comparing Hydric Erosion Soil Loss Models in Rainy Mountainous and Dry Flat Regions in Portugal" Land 10, no. 6: 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060554

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop